Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking abou

[bigtalkradiofan]

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

Given that I started this topic back in Nov 2007, I'd be interested to know...

Now that we can go back and look at ratings for winter 2007 and spring and summer 2008.

How have the ratings been for the local N/T station in your area this political season? The ratings usually go up in an election year. Did the local N/T station in your area see this ratings bump this year?

NOTE - Please keep responses to dealing with talk radio - this is not a thread for political discussion, take that elsewhere.


http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,86597.0.html

Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking about "issues."

As my username demonstrates, I love listening to talk radio ...

But I'm already absolutely sick and tired of listening to "candidate bashing" this election season - I want to hear about "issues" that I care about again.

At this point, I'll listen to anything about an issue I even have a moderate amount of interest in - so long as I don't have to listen to any more "candidate bashing."

Lately, when I hear a radio talk show host begin to utter the name one of the major political candidates to begin a rant (e.g. Hillary/Obama or Bush/Giuliani/Romney) - I immediately change the channel - I just can't bear to listen to another radio segment, more or less another year, of bashing/ranting about Hillary/Obama or Bush/Giuliani/Romney.

We get it - you don't like them, and don't want us to vote for them - now move on to the next topic - move on to issues that we care about - PLEASE!!!!!!!!

But given that the 2008 election season started as soon as the 2006 mid-term elections were completed - and with nearly a year before the 2008 elections - talk radio has turned into 2 years of nothing but "candidate bashing" - which is awfully boring.

There is a time and a place for "candidate bashing" on talk radio - in the summer/fall prior to an election. But I've already reached my "saturation point" for this political season, and there is still a year till the election.

N/T radio stations and talk show hosts need to get back to "issues" that listeners care about - and guard against following the easy, but ridiculously boring, path of "candidate-bashing."

Sorry, but saying that talk radio needs to stop concentrating on topics that draw ratings for something else is like telling music stations to stop using playlists of songs that test well with target markets. Topics are to talk radio what songs are to music format radio. When you find that certain topics draw more listeners than others, you stick with the topics that work.

Talk radio doesn't appeal to everyone. Changing the topics on talk radio stations isn't going to convince music fans to switch from their favorite music stations to talk stations. But it might chase the talk radio audiences away or to a different talk station.

Biz Listener,

You entirely missed my point.

Instead you just reiterated the problem - for why I started this thread in the first place.

Every political election season we see more and more "candidate bashing" on talk radio (but also in the media more generally).

Currently in talk radio, there is an assumption that more "candidate-bashing" leads to more ratings.

If this assumption weren't true, we would see less "candidate-bashing" each political season.

I started this thread to question that assumption - because as a die-hard talk radio listen, I listen to talk radio every day - to me "candidate-bashing" has gotten to the point that the talk format has gotten awfully predictable, stale and boring.

Therefore, after our discussion at the end of 2007, I was interested to learn if the N/T format stations were actually seeing "higher than anticipated" ratings (higher than the normal political season bump) - like some on here were predicting last year.

Or, if like others on here were predicting, the talk radio format was getting a little predictable and stale and thus the ratings weren't much of a bump vs. the bump seen in past political years.

 

[Biz Listener]

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

You entirely missed my point.

Instead you just reiterated the problem - for why I started this thread in the first place.

Every political election season we see more and more "candidate bashing" on talk radio (but also in the media more generally).

Currently in talk radio, there is an assumption that more "candidate-bashing" leads to more ratings.

If this assumption weren't true, we would see less "candidate-bashing" each political season.

I started this thread to question that assumption - because as a die-hard talk radio listen, I listen to talk radio every day - to me "candidate-bashing" has gotten to the point that the talk format has gotten awfully predictable, stale and boring.

Therefore, after our discussion at the end of 2007, I was interested to learn if the N/T format stations were actually seeing "higher than anticipated" ratings (higher than the normal political season bump) - like some on here were predicting last year.

Or, if like others on here were predicting, the talk radio format was getting a little predictable and stale and thus the ratings weren't much of a bump vs. the bump seen in past political years.

On the contrary. I got your point. You want to hear more talk shows talk about what you want to hear. I'm telling you that the people running talk radio are broadcasting the content that pulls them the best ratings. As I said, talk radio isn't that much different from music format radio. While a few major music fans (like me) get bored with hearing the same old high-test-scoring songs repeated over and over again, the great unwashed wants to be able to turn on their favorite music station for a 15 minute ride to the store or to work and hear some hit music.

Likewise, though a few intense listening fans might want to variety and difference in what talk show hosts talk about, most talk show listeners want to turn on their favote talk station when they get in their car and hear 15 or 20 minutes of how their candidate of choice os great and why the other guy is going to lose.

Until the PPM numbers start rolling in, it will be very difficult to compare ratings for when the host praises the candidate his audience favors versus ratings for when the hosts blasts the other candidate. And, the truth is that depending on who is running, there may be more grist for interesting talk against the other guy based on the latest news developments. If the opposition candidate commits some major blunder, then that's going to be the topic du jour. If the candidate being supported picks an interesting running mate, then postitive things about the running mate will be the topic du jour.

Remember, it's called news/talk because it is talk about what is in the news. So what happens in the news has a large impact on what gets talked about.

So, there you are. There's two good reasons why talk hosts talk about what they talk about, instead of what you would rather hear.

 

[bigtalkradiofan]

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

On the contrary. I got your point.

Nope, you just keep repeating what the problem is - we already know that. See below.

You want to hear more talk shows talk about what you want to hear.

So, there you are. There's two good reasons why talk hosts talk about what they talk about, instead of what you would rather hear.

Nope, it has nothing to do with "what I want to hear."

It has everything to do with that which pulls in ratings.

I'm questioning whether the increased "candidate-bashing" is getting the increased ratings bump that N/T PD expect it to get during this political season.

Re-read my prior post to you:

Therefore, after our discussion at the end of 2007, I was interested to learn if the N/T format stations were actually seeing "higher than anticipated" ratings (higher than the normal political season bump) - like some on here were predicting last year.

Or, if like others on here were predicting, the talk radio format was getting a little predictable and stale and thus the ratings weren't much of a bump vs. the bump seen in past political years.

I'm telling you that the people running talk radio are broadcasting the content that pulls them the best ratings.

This is why I created this thread - to question this assumption - so you just keep re-stating what the problem is:

I agree - that people running talk radio want content that pulls them the best ratings.

But I am questioning - whether increased "candidate-bashing" was leading to higher than-usual-political season ratings.

As I said, talk radio isn't that much different from music format radio. While a few major music fans (like me) get bored with hearing the same old high-test-scoring songs repeated over and over again, the great unwashed wants to be able to turn on their favorite music station for a 15 minute ride to the store or to work and hear some hit music.

Likewise, though a few intense listening fans might want to variety and difference in what talk show hosts talk about, most talk show listeners want to turn on their favote talk station when they get in their car and hear 15 or 20 minutes of how their candidate of choice os great and why the other guy is going to lose.

I disagree, I think there is a big difference between:

* Re-playing a 3 minute hit song 8-9 times a day on a music station.

vs.

* 3 hours of non-stop one N/T topic - Obama bad, McCain good (or McCain bad, Obama good for libtalk stations) everyday since early 2007. Followed by another 3 hours of the same shtick (rinse and repeat), following by another 3 hours of the same shtick (rinse and repeat).

As I noted in a prior post (just do a find-and-replace "Obama" for "Hillary" below):

But don't you think 9 straight hours a day of "I Hate Hillary" gets stale and unentertaining afterwhile, for even the most die-hard talk radio fan?

"I Hate Hillary" for 9 Straight Hours A Day X 5 Days A Week X For 2 Years (Nov 2006 - Nov 2008) = a recipe for boring and unenteraining radio.

I think someone can be a dedicated talk radio fan - and get how the radio industry works - and yet grow tired of "I Hate Hillary" for 9 straight hours every day.

Why not spend only Hour 1 fixated on "I Hate Hillary", and instead spend Hours 2 & 3 talking about conservative issues: e.g. taxes, immigration, God, guns, life/social/moral issues, whatever, etc.

I never thought I'd see the day - where I couldn't wait for Rush or Sean to go back to bashing the Democrats party (the usual whipping boy) - because I'm sick and tired of hearing them spend 9 straight hours every day repeating the same chorus line of "I Hate Hillary."

Remember, it's called news/talk because it is talk about what is in the news. So what happens in the news has a large impact on what gets talked about.

No need for the reminder - I've worked in N/T for the past decade.

So I'm quite aware of the "saturation point" that this election season has already reached - hence the reason I created this thread.

People are already being bombarded with tons of political news from:
* TV - CNN1, CNN2, MSNBC, Fox News, PBS, local news
* Internet - blogs, message boards and chat rooms
* Cell phones
* Radio news breaks and morning shows
* Newspapers

As I noted in my previous post:

I also agree that the 2008 election has more people following closely than ever before.

But it is because everyone is following the race so closely - that the daily "candidate bashing" has gotten stale and boring - and fails to be entertaining anymore - and here's why:

One or two incidents occur on the campaign trail each day - here's how it unfolds on talk radio ...

Here's what it sounds like to conservative talk radio listeners:
* Local Morning show - Usually mentions the incidents, and spends time bashing Hillary/Obama
* Rush = Rinse and repeat - 3 hours of bashing Hillary/Obama
* Sean = Rinse and repeat - 3 hours of bashing Hillary/Obama
* Local Afternoon show - Last Rinse - Completes the bashing Hillary/Obama

And for the counterpoint example, here's what it sounds like to liberal talk radio listeners:
* Local Morning show - Usually mentions the incidents, and spends time bashing Bush/Giuliani/Romney
* Stephanie Miller - Rinse and repeat - 3 hours of bashing Bush/Giuliani/Romney
* Ed Schultz - Rinse and repeat - 3 hours of bashing Bush/Giuliani/Romney
* Randi Rhodes - Rinse and repeat - 3 hours of bashing Bush/Giuliani/Romney
* Local Evening show - Last Rinse - Completes the bashing Bush/Giuliani/Romney

Not to mention: the local/national TV news, newspapers, internet, etc all covering the exact same one or two incidents from the campaign trail each day.

As people drive in to work - they hear it initially. As they eat lunch at their desk - they hear it repeated. By the time they drive home, it is all getting repeated yet again for the 3rd time.

And this happens every business day since the 2006 elections ended in Nov 2006 - so talk radio listeners reach a "saturation point" where its the exact same thing - day in and day out, all day long - the same political candidates - the same critiques - and the only thing new, is one or two incidents that are being replayed everywhere in the media all day long.

BizListener we will have to "agree to disagree" at this point - until the N/T ratings come in - and compare the size of the political season bump to the bump seen in past seasons.

Here's what I think would draw better ratings than increased candidate-bashing:

I would tell the talk show hosts:
* We get it - you don't like them (opposing candidates), and you don't want us to vote for them.
* Since we listen to your show, we are in the choir too - so you don't need to sell us, we are already sold.
* Spend a few minutes on bashing the opposing candidate, do your diligent duty
* But then move on to other topics that we (your audience) care about.
* I don't want to turn back and hear the same thing (candidate bashing) repeated in Hours 2 and 3.
* Rather spend Hours 2 & 3 talking about issues that I (the audience) care deeply about.

Maybe only spend Hour 1 bashing Hillary/Obama or Bush/Giuliani/Romney.

Then move on and spend Hours 2 & 3 talking about issues conservatives care about (or substitute liberal for LibTalk) - talk about the issues: taxes, immigration, God, guns, life/social/moral issues - whatever - just please move beyond the "candidate bashing" and talk about the issues that your audience cares about - PLEASE!!!!

Let me clarify even further:

A.) National Politics - I enjoy listening to talk radio discussing national politics (e.g. Rush & Sean) when it talks about:
* More than just bashing individual politicians, and
* Ventures into political issues (e.g. taxes, immigration, God, guns, life/social/moral issues, whatever, etc), or
* Talks about political philosophy, or
* The prospects of a piece of legislation making it through the legislative process, etc
* In general, I'm fine with national politics, as long as it isn't fixated on bashing one or two politicians all the live long day.

B.) 2008 Elections - I can benefit from a "short" update each day on the election horse-race, but after about 20 minutes - I'm looking for a different topic to keep my attention. I also realize that as the primaries start occurring there will be more to report on this front.

C.) 2008 Candidate Bashing - This is what I can't stand anymore:

3 Hours A Day X 5 Days A Week X For 2 Years (Nov 2006 - Nov 2008) of:

* Conservatives - Hillary/Obama bad; Bush/Giuliani/Romney good.

* Liberals - Bush/Giuliani/Romney bad; Hillary/Obama good.

Nothing is more boring and unentertaining - than hour after hour of - Hillary this or Bush that (Hour 1)...Hillary this or Bush that (Hour 2)...Hillary this or Bush that (Hour 3)...on and on and on ...

At some point a listener says, got the point - now please move on - to an issue that I care deeply about!

So I'm not anti-national politics, or even anti-2008 election coverage - but I am anti-"nothing but candidate bashing" talk radio for 2 years.

As an avid talk radio listener, if I've already reached my "saturation point" with "candidate bashing" (and I'm not the only one) - I can't imagine what another 11 months of talk radio that does nothing but "candidate bash" will be like - maybe I will take one poster's suggestion and start listening to more music.

 

[Biz Listener]

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

Here's what I think would draw better ratings than increased candidate-bashing:

Well, go buy yourself a radio station and put that on the air, and see what happens.

 

[bigtalkradiofan]

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

Here's what I think would draw better ratings than increased candidate-bashing:

Well, go buy yourself a radio station and put that on the air, and see what happens.

Will do.

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking abou

Would that mean in the two weeks with back to back conventions, you would limit the coverage of the conventions? Maybe have some of the hosts who broadcast from them stay home? What about the news of the Republican VP and the fallout? Not to mention that congress isn't in session.

 

[bigtalkradiofan]

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

Would that mean in the two weeks with back to back conventions, you would limit the coverage of the conventions? Maybe have some of the hosts who broadcast from them stay home? What about the news of the Republican VP and the fallout? Not to mention that congress isn't in session.

gr8oldies,

No. I expect candidate-bashing in an election year, especially in the months leading up to an election.

I started this thread back in Nov 2007. I was interested in the N/T station ratings from back in 2007 and early 2008 - back when the general election was more than a year or so away.

Since the 2008 election started immediately after the Nov 2006 elections ended - all of 2007 was spent candidate-bashing and yet the general election was more than a year away.

Essentially, my hypothesis is that "one topic" talk radio (Obama/Hillary bad, McCain/Bush good - or vice versus) is only good for ratings in an election year.

Anything longer and it quickly turns into awfully boring and stale radio and people tune out.

In a sort of "yeah okay we get it...you've talked about it every day for the past year...let's talk about something else for a change...please anything: God, guns, immigration, or any other issue us listeners care about...do your first half hour bashing the other candidate - and then move on to something else..."

3 hours a day X 5 days a week X 52 weeks a year of "one topic" radio X 2 years (Nov 2006 - Nov 2008) = does not lead to more ratings and more listeners.

 

[Biz Listener]

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

In a sort of "yeah okay we get it...you've talked about it every day for the past year...let's talk about something else for a change...please anything: God, guns, immigration, or any other issue us listeners care about...do your first half hour bashing the other candidate - and then move on to something else..."

3 hours a day X 5 days a week X 52 weeks a year of "one topic" radio X 2 years (Nov 2006 - Nov 2008) = does not lead to more ratings and more listeners.

Actually, considering that most people only listen to the radio for brief periods of time, and seldom longer than a half an hour at a stretch, good ratings come from giving people what they want to hear most whenever they tune in. When you realize that you have a mostly brand new batch of people every half hour or so, there's no point in tailoring your content (whether it's "hit" news topics or "hit" songs) to the relatively small portion of the audience who actually listens to several radio programs in a row. The gluttons for punishment who listen to news/talk continuously from breakfast to dinner aren't a big enough audience segment to worry about. Besides, even though they'll whine about not enough variety, they're hooked and will listen to whatever is on.

You need to realize that though you are a bigtalkradiofan, most people aren't. Even the ones who have the radio turned on to a talk show all day long usually have it on as background noise, and drift in and out of paying attention to it.

 

[bigtalkradiofan]

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

In a sort of "yeah okay we get it...you've talked about it every day for the past year...let's talk about something else for a change...please anything: God, guns, immigration, or any other issue us listeners care about...do your first half hour bashing the other candidate - and then move on to something else..."

3 hours a day X 5 days a week X 52 weeks a year of "one topic" radio X 2 years (Nov 2006 - Nov 2008) = does not lead to more ratings and more listeners.

Actually, considering that most people only listen to the radio for brief periods of time, and seldom longer than a half an hour at a stretch, good ratings come from giving people what they want to hear most whenever they tune in. When you realize that you have a mostly brand new batch of people every half hour or so, there's no point in tailoring your content (whether it's "hit" news topics or "hit" songs) to the relatively small portion of the audience who actually listens to several radio programs in a row. The gluttons for punishment who listen to news/talk continuously from breakfast to dinner aren't a big enough audience segment to worry about. Besides, even though they'll whine about not enough variety, they're hooked and will listen to whatever is on.

You need to realize that though you are a bigtalkradiofan, most people aren't. Even the ones who have the radio turned on to a talk show all day long usually have it on as background noise, and drift in and out of paying attention to it.

Repeating the same one topic every 15 minutes - that's a good strategy - if you have an all-news station - and your audience turns over every 15 minutes.

Otherwise, that is not as good of a strategy for TALK - where the idea is to entertain and keep the audience around for longer than 15 minutes.

ESPN's hosts usually start the first hour on a topic - and then return to the same topic in the third hour for the new listeners - this doesn't bother me - since they spent the second hour discussing other topics - instead of "one topic" all the live-long day, every day for two years.

Like I wrote above, I've worked in N/T for the past decade - so I'm more than well-aware of how the radio industry works - and I completely understand audience churn.

 

[Biz Listener]

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

Repeating the same one topic every 15 minutes - that's a good strategy - if you have an all-news station - and your audience turns over every 15 minutes.

Otherwise, that is not as good of a strategy for TALK - where the idea is to entertain and keep the audience around for longer than 15 minutes.

So basically you agree with me, and are simply quibbling over details. You agree that repeating is OK, you simply differ about timing. That's hardly worth debating.

Like I wrote above, I've worked in N/T for the past decade - so I'm more than well-aware of how the radio industry works - and I completely understand audience churn.

And I have made no claims of having or not having any experience, and expect my opinions to be accepted or rejected purely on face value -- not on my credentials or lack thereof. That's why I have no problem maintaining my anonymity. On the other hand, anyone who expects for people to accept their opinions because of their credentials forfeits the security blanket of anonymity.

If you want to remain anonymous, as I do, great. Do so. This forum is set up to facilitate that. It's one of the better things about this forum. But, if you chose to remain anonymous, then your experience is totally unknown, and therefore totally meaningless. No one can have it both ways. If you are actually Mr. Snerdly, then say so and your claim of having worked in N/T will have meaning. Or remain anonymous, which is also a perfectly understandable and unchallengeable position to take. But if you continue that choice, don't expect anyone to care about or to be impressed by how many years you claim to have worked in N/T.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking abou

Talk radio has it's loyal audiences. The top shows are politically driven (Rush, Hannity, Beck, Savage, Air America, Bill Press, many NPR talk of the Nation broadcasts). Just as cable TV political talk has its audience. Some folks are political junkies, just as others are news junkies, weather junkies, etc. Topical talk can be more interesting depending on the topic (some NPR shows do topical talk like: Fresh Air, Car Talk on weekends, Talk of the Nation minus the political junkie segment, and Philadelphia's WHYY-FM show "Radio Times"). Many newstalk stations have topical shows on the weekend, usually dealing with cars, gardens, home fix it, money advice, consumer items, computer issues (Kim Kommando), etc. Also, sports talk is a different non-political format. Westwood One's "Jim Bohannan Show" sometimes is topic, sometimes political. When I get burned out on political talk during the weekdays, I'll tune in to my local sports talk station WWTX and listen to Fox Sports Radio for a while, or the local show at 3pm or music, or audio books. My guess is non-political type talk shows don't get the same high ratings that shows like Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc get. If a show discussing the difference between a maragold and a petuna pulled in a larger audience during the work weekday, then you'd be hearing a garden show during the weekdays possibly even on Westwood One, or Premiere, but those shows are more suited to a laid back weekend time they seem to work best on the weekend. NPR does air "You Bet Your Garden" on Saturday's along with Car Talk.

However, it would be interesting to see, after the election, if one of the radio network/syndicators would launch a talk show during the weekday that dealt with topical topics with a non-political host.

 

[Biz Listener]

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking abou

In Pittsburgh, KDKA had Mike Pnitek on for a long, long time doing a talk show that mixed local politics with "lifestyle" talk, including interviews. He was fired.

Then, CBS launched "The Man Station" on FM featuring semi-political and lifestyle talk in a much more whimsical format that included skits and comedy. It tanked big time.

I wouldn't hold my breath expecting new syndicated shows like you describe until there are some local shows like that with a good track record. If such shows ever get syndicated, it'll be shows that started out locally on one station that succeeded.

 

[bigtalkradiofan]

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

Repeating the same one topic every 15 minutes - that's a good strategy - if you have an all-news station - and your audience turns over every 15 minutes.

Otherwise, that is not as good of a strategy for TALK - where the idea is to entertain and keep the audience around for longer than 15 minutes.

So basically you agree with me, and are simply quibbling over details. You agree that repeating is OK, you simply differ about timing. That's hardly worth debating.

No, we disagree on fundamentals.

I think "one topic" radio quickly becomes unlistenable, stale and boring.

I've written repeatedly, bash for the first 20 minutes (in an election year), do your due diligence - but then after 20 minutes move on to other topics listeners are interested in (including other political topics, such as): God, guns, immigration, whatever. Anything other than the awfully stale and boring "good X, bad Y" every day 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, for 2 years.

There's a big difference between talking about one topic at the TOH for 20 minutes in the first hour, and re-visiting it for another 20 minutes in the third hour for the new listeners.

vs.

One topic X 3 hours X 5 days a week X 52 weeks a year X 2 years.

Like I wrote above, I've worked in N/T for the past decade - so I'm more than well-aware of how the radio industry works - and I completely understand audience churn.

And I have made no claims of having or not having any experience, and expect my opinions to be accepted or rejected purely on face value -- not on my credentials or lack thereof. That's why I have no problem maintaining my anonymity. On the other hand, anyone who expects for people to accept their opinions because of their credentials forfeits the security blanket of anonymity.

If you want to remain anonymous, as I do, great. Do so. This forum is set up to facilitate that. It's one of the better things about this forum. But, if you chose to remain anonymous, then your experience is totally unknown, and therefore totally meaningless. No one can have it both ways. If you are actually Mr. Snerdly, then say so and your claim of having worked in N/T will have meaning. Or remain anonymous, which is also a perfectly understandable and unchallengeable position to take. But if you continue that choice, don't expect anyone to care about or to be impressed by how many years you claim to have worked in N/T

Blah, blah, blah...in your last few posts you spent a lot of time explaining basic N/T topics...and I was letting you know that there is no need for the explanation - because I've spent a lot of time in the field...so I wasn't using it to justify anything...it was to save you time and effort explaining something that I'm already more than well aware of - so we could move the discussion along.

Therefore, I was trying to save you time and effort...nothing more, nothing less...