Talk Radio Scoreboard for Large Markets: August 2014

[TheBigA]

Until then, they are just as corrupt as the fund-raisers running local public radio.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean they're corrupt.

I feel nothing positive towards the snobs who run public radio or public television.

And I'm sure the thought of that keeps them awake nights.

 

[Ravens]

Talk radio has been "dying" since I was a teenager and I'm in my 40s. Every station trying to copy NJ 101.5 isn't the answer. I can't think of a single station that has tried that format and done well with it.

The reality is that despite bad ratings, most of these old stodgy talk stations still bill fairly well and make money for their owners. That's why they remain. All of the complaints in the world from people who dislike the format because they don't agree with the hosts isn't going to change that fact anytime soon.

 

[Avid Listener]

The only time I watch my local PBS station is when they have their pledge breaks on. It's the only time you can watch doo wop specials, shows that feature artists who sing standards and other specialty programming. The only time they run these shows is during their fund raising period. You never see them during their regular programming.

You do have a good point. It says something about their regular programming that they only way that they can successfully beg for money is by showing totally different programming. I admit that I first discovered both Celtic Woman and Celtic Thunder on PBS pledge nights. On the other hand, they also seem to put various and sundry self-help gurus on during pledge breaks, including such luminaries as "Dr." Wayne Dyer (not an MD, not a shrink, he has a doctorate in "counseling"). These are the folks who can't usually afford multi-hour infomercials, but PBS puts them on screen as the darlings of the pledge drive set.

 

[TheBigA]

You do have a good point. It says something about their regular programming that they only way that they can successfully beg for money is by showing totally different programming.

Or perhaps it says something about their audience. They make corporate money from the regular programming, and increase memberships using the special programming.

 

[Gregg.]

Fundraisers are necessary for Public Radio, so I don't feel put off by them. After all, you listen with no commercials the rest of the year. And when a show gets a large share of fundraising dollars, I'm sure that helps keep it on the schedule. That is a fair way to help programmers decide what to offer on their NPR station.

But that's the reason I don't include NPR stations as part of the Talk Radio Scoreboard. Their bottom line is fundraising, not ratings. For instance, WNYC New York is not rated that high compared with KQED San Francisco or WAMU Washington. But they bring in incredible amounts of money. I assume they're the biggest revenue NPR station by far.

BTW I think it's perfectly acceptable to call a non-commercial station that runs many NPR programs, All Things Considered, Morning Edition, NPR News on the hour, etc. an "NPR Station." Plenty of CBS stations are not owned by CBS. Plenty of CW stations only run two hours of CW programs each day.

And it's not a right wing conspiracy for me to restrict my list to commercial station. I lean left. I used to listen to WWRL New York much more than WOR and WABC combined, tuning in Thom Hartmann, Alan Colmes, Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz, etc. Unfortunately WWRL, like many Progressive Talk stations, switched formats recently. My all-time favorite AM station was KGO San Francisco in the 90s and early 2000s, when it was all live, all local and mostly liberal. It's because I used to enjoy Talk Radio when it was local and unpredictable that I hope the format finds its way to that former quality programming.

 

[FredLeonard]

Gregg: I get where you're coming from but I'd question some of your assumptions. Are fund-raisers necessary? Public radio stations keep saying they are. For some reason, stations seem addicted to them. Maybe they were necessary early on. But today a far bigger piece of public stations' revenue comes from spots - I mean "underwriting announcements." Pledges are gravy; and many of the major stations (like WNYC or KQED) are more profitable - I mean have greater "surpluses" - than many/most of their "commercial" competitors.

And businesses that buy time - I mean "support public radio" do this based on ratings. Public radio ratings are now included in the published toplines for PPM markets (and they are available for smaller markets at rrconline.org). They've long been in the Arbitron "books." Public radio sales - I mean "development" people use them in presentation to clients, I mean "corporate donors." So, ratings are important to public radio.

For commercial stations, there is nowhere near a perfect correlation between ratings and revenue. Stations can do poorly in ratings and still get good revenue for various reasons. Or good ratings and poor revenue.

Bottom line: Commercial or non-commercial, if it's talk and on the radio, it's talk radio. And commercial full service and news/talk stations once sounded a lot more like public radio does now, with serious news and intelligent talk. All listeners hear is content. All commercial and non-commercial stations compete in the same pool of listeners for audiences.

One day, public radio will wake up and realize pledge drives just drive away listeners and don't bring in enough money to justify that.

 

[wadio]

Amazing!!

All the heated, opinionated dialog in this thread and nobody seems to notice that WABC isn't an extreme right wing conservative talk station anymore!

Imus isn't a conservative ... Geraldo isn't ... Curtis & Kuby is well balanced ... Savage talks more about food and his dog than he used to ... "The Ride Home" is mostly news (not opinion) ... yes, Levin is an ultra right-wing cliché ... Batchelor is hard to peg ... and Noory is an equal opportunity conspiracy theorist.

If we on this board don't get it, how long will it take the public to get it? Many years, I suspect.

 

[umfan]

I don't think the public really cares about the makeup of a station. A listener likes certain programs. WABC has fallen in the last year while WOR has risen. Why a discussion of ratings for a month for a format needs to degenerate into this every month is beyond me. This isn't direct one bit at you, wadio, your observation was spot on, I'm only lamenting that there should be more constructive discussion on the numbers Gregg compiles each month.

 

[FredLeonard]

I don't think the public really cares about the makeup of a station. A listener likes certain programs. WABC has fallen in the last year while WOR has risen. Why a discussion of ratings for a month for a format needs to degenerate into this every month is beyond me. This isn't direct one bit at you, wadio, your observation was spot on, I'm only lamenting that there should be more constructive discussion on the numbers Gregg compiles each month.

Problem is, the topline numbers - the ones that get published - are meaningless. And useless. That's why Nielsen gives them away. This has been pointed out here - repeatedly. The real information is not made public, neither is the information BiA/Kelsey gathers on revenue. About the only thing that is about as useless and meaningless is the Dow Jones Industrial Average,

_______

Imus is over the hill - way over. He's doing get off my lawn talk. Nobody takes Geraldo seriously. He does trash talk. Maybe WABC is not as "extreme" - in tone at least, if not substance - but it's still right-wing. And it's not going to appeal to people who weren't already in "the choir."

 

[Ravens]

Problem is, the topline numbers - the ones that get published - are meaningless. And useless. That's why Nielsen gives them away. This has been pointed out here - repeatedly. The real information is not made public, neither is the information BiA/Kelsey gathers on revenue. About the only thing that is about as useless and meaningless is the Dow Jones Industrial Average,

In the end, ratings don't matter anyway if the station is billing well. Ratings are just a sales tool.

 

[FredLeonard]

In the end, ratings don't matter anyway if the station is billing well. Ratings are just a sales tool.

Absolutely. Sometimes, I'm almost tempted to find a library that has the BIA/Kelsey book. But given who is advertising on WABC, WOR and right-wing talk in general, I doubt the money is rolling in like it used to. Here is the 2013 "scoreboard" of top billing radio stations...

WTOP News DC $63.5M
KIIS CHR LA $61.6M
WHTZ CHR New York $51.0M
WCBS News New York $50.5M
WLTW Lite AC New York $45.5M
WINS News New York $45.0M
KBIG Hot AC LA $44.5M
WFAN Sports Talk New York $43.0M
KROQ Alternative New York $42.8M
WBBM News Chicago $42.0M


Talk station KFI Los Angeles did make the list as late as 2012 but no more.

Except for WTOP, now owned by Hubbard, all the top billing stations are either Clear Channel or CBS. Apparently, there's not much cume in Cumulus.

 

[Ravens]

But given who is advertising on WABC, WOR and right-wing talk in general, I doubt the money is rolling in like it used to.

You could say that about a lot of things.

 

[FredLeonard]

You could say that about a lot of things.

You could say anything about anything. Doesn't mean it means anything.

All news can make money, even though it also skews old but it gets a better class of people advertisers want to reach. Sports talk skews young and male, and advertisers want to reach them, too. Otherwise a music format with broad appeal can do well.

Right-wing talk (about the only kind available almost anywhere outside New Jersey) gets old, downscale listeners. Major advertisers don't need the controversy headaches and have to come to avoid it, leaving talk radio to the bottom feeders. Right-wing talk stays alive because (1) right-wing suits like it and (2) what else you gonna do with AM station any more?

 

[wadio]

Fred, please stop this "right-wing" stuff. With the exception of Mark Levin, there's nobody on WABC who beats the right-wing drum non-stop anymore.

You're referencing an ideology (right-wing; conservative; Republican) when you're actually talking about style. Please let's not confuse the two!

 

[FredLeonard]

I'll admit the style is toned down. Then again, Salem is also "kinder, gentler" but the ideology still veers right. Dr. Weiner may have toned down his act some and may talk about food more, but he still is very much on the right. Curtis and Kuby - like Hannity and Colmes was - is still a point-counter point beat up the liberal verbal wrestling match. Geraldo is a media ho and adopts whatever style and whatever viewpoints are wanted and needed at the moment. Plus he works for Fox. So does the I-man for that matter. Even if they aren't preaching to right, like Levin, they clearly are consistent with and acceptable to Ailes, Dickey and Bain (which bankrolled Cumulus).

 

[TheBigA]

Even if they aren't preaching to right, like Levin, they clearly are consistent with and acceptable to Ailes, Dickey and Bain (which bankrolled Cumulus).

Bain was an investor in Cumulus Media Partners in 2006 when Lew Dickey's private company bought Susquehanna Broadcasting. However, they were bought out when CMP was merged into Cumulus Broadcasting and went public. FCC ownership rules would prevent a company like Bain from owning shares in both Cumulus and Clear Channel. Crestview and Blackstone are the main investors in Cumulus. TTBOMK, there is no friendship or relationship between Dickey and Ailes. Fox News Radio is syndicated by Premiere.