• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

The conservative talk radio farm team

In some ways it is a bit ludicrous for us to try and formulate a plan for the future of Conservative Talk Radio.... but that can be said about a lot of business lines and art forms. (We are dealing with BOTH.)

First I would suggest that we may be on the cusp of a new era in which radio changes radically. Radio is always changing to stay current with technology, with business cycles, with political cycles, with popullation changes and culture changes. But like other business, there has been an inertia in the industry. Like a rocket hurtling through space it had a direction and it took a lot of outside changes to shift the direction of radio change. We may be at a point where we will look back in just a few years and say: "Boy, I didn't see THOSE changes coming!"

Politics is always changing... sometimes slowly.... once in awhile politics has one of those radical changes in course. The Conservative movement is "riding high" right now. Most Conservatives feel like the movement is riding on a solid foundation. But what if the foundation of the political direction collapses.... then what happens to Conservative Talk Radio? It won't matter if radio has groomed a farm team or not. It won't matter if radio managers are 'forward looking' or not. (I am not trying to suggest that Liberalism as we know it today may be on the verge of overpowering Conservatism as we know it today. Maybe a whole new class/direction of political thinking will be poured out of the blast-furnaces of political thinking.

There was a feature on NPR today that I was half-way listening to. This was the anniversary of a convention back in the 1800s of a meeting to discuss the place of women in society and someone was so bold as to suggest that maybe even women should be allowed to VOTE! Most women at the meeting were shocked. It took 75 years for that idea to take hold. Only one of the women who signed the documents at that first meeting was alive to see the opportunity to vote 75 years later.

Now think your way through social/political changes and challenges of the last 20 to 30 years. The kinds of movements that used to take 75 to 100 years to happen... can now come about in 10 to 15 years!

Enough with all the talk and verbiage already. My point is: To talk about a "conservative talk radio farm team" is probably much to narrow and small for serious discussion. Will talk of any kind, any flavor, be a part of radio 5 to 7 years from now?
 
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
Will talk of any kind, any flavor, be a part of radio 5 to 7 years from now?

Yes. Probably an even bigger part. What kind of talk is the question. People are turning from music radio because they can consume music elsewhere. They can't consume live talk content on an iPod. It might not be 5-7 years, but in 10-20 years, talk will be a very large part of the FM dial.
 
ProducerGuy said:
People are turning from music radio because they can consume music elsewhere. They can't consume live talk content on an iPod.

2007 called my landline last hour. They wished to inform you that streaming audio has been available on iPods since their time.
 
Savage's son and wife are principals in the Rockstar energy beverage (Savage might have money there as well, but Rockstar says he has nothing to do with it.) That is a multi-million dollar business even if they have a small percentage. So Savage might be the first to retire since he probably is wealthier than Hannity and Limbaugh.
 
ProducerGuy said:
What kind of talk is the question. People are turning from music radio because they can consume music elsewhere. They can't consume live talk content on an iPod.

You have put a parameter on the definition of Talk Radio. You have specified "live" as an essential ingredient.

If ONLY live talk is available, then that is when and how people HAD to listen, past tense. And their choice was to listen to whatever the station(s) in their area chose to put on the air... the one they could best sell.

There is a lot of Talk Rado.... make that Talk Content that works just as well as a podcast... maybe better. A person sitting at the workstation drafting the building plans for a new hospital building can stop the podcast playback while taking a phone call, or stopping work to talk with his/her supervisor.

There is a lot of Talk Content that works very well as a podcast. Terri Gross on NPR. Bob Edwards who does a weekend bit on NPR which is listening to a recording even if you are in car and listening LIVE at the time it is being broadcast "live".

Let's assume for a moment that by some kind of quality-measurement Rush is THE BEST TALKER in all of radio. But maybe my personal taste prefers someone who does talk on a local or regional basis out West somewhere. The person I prefer turns out to be 3rd or 4th best in the category but suits my taste. But no local station where I live chooses to carry the broadcast of World's 4th best talker. So, each night I put my iPod in the cradle, push the right buttons, and the latest podcast of 4th best talker in the world is loaded on my machine when I wake up and go off to work the next day. I can now listen to "jTalk Radio" as a Podcast and I am not available to tune in Rush, or your program, or Mike Huckabee, or whatever is on my local radio station.

My point is: The podcast can do the same thing to Talk Radio.... that it does to Music Radio.
 
Regular people in the real world don't much care if something is "live." "Live" is an "inside radio" thing. Many stations air recorded talk shows on delay and few people notice or care.

Rusty tower broadcasters are in the same sort of denial other industries passed through before total obsolescence:

  • Ice companies tried to combat refrigerators with "cold alone is not enough"
  • Railroads tried to fight air travel with "getting there is half the fun"
  • Terrestrial radio resorts to "live and local."

Whatever psychological mechanism makes people tea party or religious conservatives also probably makes them late adopters - or non-adopters. The angry geezers and biddies who listen to right-wing talk are also the kind of people who will resist new technology.

The real problem is nobody (except NJ 101.5) has come up with a style of political talk that appeals to people in the money demos. Conservative talk is destined to be one of those formats that dies with its target audience - top 40, big band, standards, oldies, full service, MOR, conservative talk - RIP.
 
Fred: Are you trying to suggest that I should break down and get an automatic transmission in my next car..... finally? ;D
 
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
Fred: Are you trying to suggest that I should break down and get an automatic transmission in my next car..... finally? ;D

I'd consider A/C more of a necessity.
 
There is a lot of Talk Content that works very well as a podcast. Terri Gross on NPR. Bob Edwards who does a weekend bit on NPR which is listening to a recording even if you are in car and listening LIVE at the time it is being broadcast "live".

NPR sounds canned even when it's live! Even when it's "live" I'm not sure if it's actually real-time or pre-recorded, polished, and aired in segments a few minutes later. That's how it sounds to me.

I'd submit that talk radio listeners aren't as dumb as you think. From what I understand Rush's "Dittoheads" hang on every word -- in real time. If he was out of sync with breaking events they'd know it.

Podcasts also require more effort than most people are willing to expend. The paradigm shift away from "rusty towers broadcasting" (good term!) will occur when streaming finally becomes ubiquitous and, when that happens, it will be swift.

The future of talk might look more like going to a list of talk content on a phone, tablet or dedicated device and picking a program to stream. Say it's Rush. It will be live from 12-3 ET, then repeated (looped) for the next 21 hours until noon the next day. Mike Gallagher already has such an arrangement -- maybe Rush does too behind his paid firewall. A dedicated device could contain a timer allowing the user to "program" a "personal 24/7 virtual talk station" with daily and weekend schedules of live or looped content selected from the available streams.

I believe the content could be supported by some combination of advertising and subscriptions but a subscription would need to be for a basket of content, not separate subscriptions to individual shows as is the case today.
 
wadio said:
There is a lot of Talk Content that works very well as a podcast. Terri Gross on NPR. Bob Edwards who does a weekend bit on NPR which is listening to a recording even if you are in car and listening LIVE at the time it is being broadcast "live".

NPR sounds canned even when it's live! Even when it's "live" I'm not sure if it's actually real-time or pre-recorded, polished, and aired in segments a few minutes later. That's how it sounds to me.

I'd submit that talk radio listeners aren't as dumb as you think. From what I understand Rush's "Dittoheads" hang on every word -- in real time. If he was out of sync with breaking events they'd know it.

Podcasts also require more effort than most people are willing to expend. The paradigm shift away from "rusty towers broadcasting" (good term!) will occur when streaming finally becomes ubiquitous and, when that happens, it will be swift.

The future of talk might look more like going to a list of talk content on a phone, tablet or dedicated device and picking a program to stream. Say it's Rush. It will be live from 12-3 ET, then repeated (looped) for the next 21 hours until noon the next day. Mike Gallagher already has such an arrangement -- maybe Rush does too behind his paid firewall. A dedicated device could contain a timer allowing the user to "program" a "personal 24/7 virtual talk station" with daily and weekend schedules of live or looped content selected from the available streams.

I believe the content could be supported by some combination of advertising and subscriptions but a subscription would need to be for a basket of content, not separate subscriptions to individual shows as is the case today.

Don't forget, Rush sells podcasts and on-demand streaming and true ditto-heads pay to "hang on" every word. A program recorded hours earlier is (barring exceptional circumstances) in sync with current events. Same is true for many other hosts. People, if they think it about it, may be aware a program is live or recorded but mostly they don't care. More likely, people do care about the convenience of on-demand (or time-shifting) - the ability to listen when you want and to stop and start a program when you want. Radio broadcasters seem oblivious to this but DVR/Tivo use is taking over TV.

NPR's news magazines air live 5-7am Eastern and 4-6pm. Later feeds are recorded but can be updated. Many interviews are recorded and edited for broadcast and all pieces are recorded, as well.

Bob Edwards' weekend show is distributed by PRI, not NPR.
 
People, if they think it about it, may be aware a program is live or recorded but mostly they don't care.

Well, your thinking seems to be right in sync with management -- "we can do whatever we want and the audience won't notice." Maybe that's because they don't care about the programming and assume that their listeners don't care either. They don't think the listeners will notice or care about the infomercials and pay-for-plays in between actual programming, or the up and down audio levels on their streams, or time-shifted content, or repetitious psa's on their streams.

Generally when an industry decides things are "good enough" it's only a matter of time before they have to scramble to get back on track, and often by then it's too late.
 
wadio said:
People, if they think it about it, may be aware a program is live or recorded but mostly they don't care.

Well, your thinking seems to be right in sync with management -- "we can do whatever we want and the audience won't notice." Maybe that's because they don't care about the programming and assume that their listeners don't care either. They don't think the listeners will notice or care about the infomercials and pay-for-plays in between actual programming, or the up and down audio levels on their streams, or time-shifted content, or repetitious psa's on their streams.

Generally when an industry decides things are "good enough" it's only a matter of time before they have to scramble to get back on track, and often by then it's too late.

All those are things that do matter to the listeners' experience. Question is does a talk show being live or recorded a few hours earlier matter? A recorded and edited interview or stand-up may be better than live to listeners. Up to the late 40s, the major radio networks did not allow recorded programs. Variety shows, sitcoms, dramas, game shows and the rest had to be live (and then repeated live for the West Coast). Then ABC (at the time, struggling) agreed to let Bing Crosby tape his shows and the networks quickly realized taping and editing could result in a better show and the audience didn't care about live. Today, local news is filled with people doing live shots where nothing is happening just so they can say "live" - and still, nobody cares.
 
I think it matters if the show is topical and timely. And of course since talk shows are designed typically elicit some type resopnse which generally translates into desire to respond, whether it be amen or you're nuts, a live is a must. Nothing worse than listening to Rush and Hannity do stale shows on the weekend.
 
Anyone think Jerry Doyle can make the leap to the top echelon? He's more informed on many issues than the reactionaries like Rush and Sean, he knows Wall Street because of his 10 years with a hedge fund, and unlike most on the right, he is not pop culture clueless outside of country music because he worked in Hollywood. I'd really like to see him on some bigger stations.
 
Me too. Jerry Doyle is a great listen for all the reasons you mention. He can be edgy and provocative but never seems to lose sight of the fact that his job is to entertain. He's also advertiser friendly with a good instinct for knowing where "the line" is located and not crossing it. He'd be a refreshing Rush alternative.
 
I had never heard of Jerry Doyle until this discussion.

Seems like an interesting fellow. I'll try to catch a stream of his show sometime. He requires a membership to listen to archives on his site.

I'd love to see Bruce Williams get a talk show again. Even if it were only weekly, it would be great to have him on the airwaves.
 
FredLeonard said:
  • Ice companies tried to combat refrigerators with "cold alone is not enough"
  • Railroads tried to fight air travel with "getting there is half the fun"
  • Terrestrial radio resorts to "live and local."

Those of us in the music radio business know that the focus hasn't been on "live and local" for several years now. It's about content, content, content! Most job listings include some phrase about jocks being a "content generator." Can you create facebook and twitter posts compelling enough to drive click-thrus to your website? Can you integrate your on-air product with social media? Compelling content is king, it doesn't matter if it was created at 11am and aired at 4pm.
 
umfan said:
I'd love to see Bruce Williams get a talk show again. Even if it were only weekly, it would be great to have him on the airwaves.

A little over a year ago, he had ads on All Access for a producer, but nothing came out of it. It was a blind box item and I responded to it, then all of a sudden nothing came from it. Every once in a while he does a podcast still, but it's just not the same. I think he's enjoying his retirement.
 
He was doing the podcast thing daily, but shut it down in March.

He's said he'll return to the air if he can just be a host. The ad you saw was likely for the operation he decided to shut down.

I hope he's enjoying retirement, but it still would be nice to have him on the radio again, if he wanted to do it.
 
I listened to one of his podcasts earlier this year. I enjoyed Bruce Williams back in his heyday (I used to listen on WMCA in NYC before he went syndicated) but sadly he's lost much of his energy and isn't really in tune with today's fast paced Internet world.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom