The Future Of Commercial Talk Radio

[benson86]

Just listening to WBEN, I don't see where they have lost billing. The station seems pretty well sold to me. Obviously, clients come and clients go, but as long as they are replaced by others, billing stays the same. Unless rates have dropped...

 

[cee]

Just listening to WBEN, I don't see where they have lost billing. The station seems pretty well sold to me. Obviously, clients come and clients go, but as long as they are replaced by others, billing stays the same. Unless rates have dropped...

Posted on: November 12, 2012, 01:16:54 PM

Insert Quote
Is billing down at WBEN? If not considerably down, I don't foresee change

Good points also. It only makes senses that the corporations that own these AM talkers will just keep running the same programming till sometime in the future when they are no longer profitable.

 

[TheBigA]

It only makes senses that the corporations that own these AM talkers will just keep running the same programming till sometime in the future when they are no longer profitable.

The fact is that there is no better alternative in terms of profitability than what they're already doing.

 

[SirRoxalot]

And you've given no concrete examples of how riding the status quo will end up in anything other than a downward spiral into irrelevance.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" - Albert Einstein

If Apple followed your advice, they still be making Apple 2E computers for an ever-shrinking audience. Or monochrome Macs.

At least Darryl Parks recognizes that doing nothing will yield ever-worsening results. He advocates change. Perhaps that's why he's the talk format guru for Clear Channel. He's demonstrably sane.

 

[TheBigA]

And you've given no concrete examples of how riding the status quo will end up in anything other than a downward spiral into irrelevance.

Huh? If you go back to the start of this thread, that's exactly what I say. I'll say it again, since you have ADD. Ratings for New Talk is on the decline. It will continue to decline. Softening their approach won't reverse that trend.

And as for Darryl Parks, I read where WLW was talking about secession today. I guess they didn't read his commentary.

 

[SirRoxalot]

And you've given no concrete examples of how riding the status quo will end up in anything other than a downward spiral into irrelevance.

Huh? If you go back to the start of this thread, that's exactly what I say. I'll say it again, since you have ADD. Ratings for New Talk is on the decline. It will continue to decline. Softening their approach won't reverse that trend.

Sheesh. Your lack of reading comprehension is incomprehensible. I AGREED with you. Commercial News/Talk is in decline. I'm not the one with ADD.

Where we differ is in what programmers should do about it. You say either nothing, or go even more extreme.

Well, let me point out a significant segment of news/talk whose ratings are growing, and yet they've ignored your advice. They're not nearly as polorizing as commercial news/talk, and have certainly not gone more extreme. Yes, I'm talking about NPR.

Commercial broadcasters continually complain about "unfair competition" from NPR. They want subsidies yanked. Why? Because news/talk that is demonstrably more fair and better balanced is cutting into their ratings. NPR is getting away from niche formats like jazz and classical, and daring to compete with commercial stations. No, it's not head-on, and there are plenty of inept public radio programmers out there who can't seem to read a rating book (or a balance sheet), but NPR talk programming has made inroads.

Maybe, just maybe, they're onto something, in their own inept way. Maybe people would like fact-based discussions, with more than one point of view presented, in the hope of actually finding mutually acceptable solutions instead of incessant carping about "the other guys". Maybe WLW would be talking about what cuts should be made, and how the tax code should be reformed in order to avoid the "fiscal cliff". Yes, it would be harder for the hosts because they'd actually have to do some studying instead of spouting ill-formed talking points. It sure would be refreshing for listeners. It might even get a few more of them to tune in.

Radio is the only medium I know where you're a success if you manage to turn off 90% or more of the listeners. And TheBigA wants to go even more extreme, and turn off a few more percent. Well, what the heck, why not? Speed up the rush to oblivion!

 

[TheBigA]

Where we differ is in what programmers should do about it. You say either nothing, or go even more extreme.

No, I NEVER said talk radio should go "more extreme." You must be confusing me with someone else. And I never said programmers should do nothing. I think that's what they'll do because (1) What they have now has a large, but slowly declining audience, and (2) There are no successful examples of an alternative.

If you apply for a job at a radio station, they will ask you for two things: A resume that shows where you've worked, hopefully with your ratings record, and a demo of what you do. That's how they decide what to do. All I've asked for in this thread are examples of where moderating or modifying hosts has led to improved ratings. That's it. If someone went to WBEN with a plan, and they chose to stick with what they've got, then you have reason to complain. But there is no plan, there are no specifics, and it's hard to make a decision where dollars are involved without any facts or specifics. Am I asking for too much?

 

[TheBigA]

Well, let me point out a significant segment of news/talk whose ratings are growing, and yet they've ignored your advice. They're not nearly as polorizing as commercial news/talk, and have certainly not gone more extreme. Yes, I'm talking about NPR.

OK, great. WBEN was once a #1 rated radio station in Buffalo. Was WBFO or WNED ever in the Top 5? Lately? I rest my case.

If this is about improving ratings, show me examples of moderate hosts getting better numbers than extreme hosts. Otherwise, this is just a discussion about personal taste, not professional radio.

 

[Bob1370]

"If this is about improving ratings, show me examples of moderate hosts getting better numbers than extreme hosts. Otherwise, this is just a discussion about personal taste, not professional radio."

WAMU is often #1 in Washington PPMs. KQED is now consistently the top talker in San Francisco. WBUR is a strong #2 among spoken word stations in Boston, giving WBZ (itself a moderate, news-intensive talker) a real run for its money in Boston. Those are three examples, not of ijust individual hosts, but whole stations beating the extreme alternatives in their markets.

 

[TheBigA]

Those are three examples, not of ijust individual hosts, but whole stations beating the extreme alternatives in their markets.

As you well know, those three stations are the exeption rather than the norm, in the NPR system. Most of the shows that are on those stations are also on WBFO, and not doing as well.

The real question, since you brought it up, is how does your show do up against Rush in Rochester? Care to answer?

 

[SirRoxalot]

Where we differ is in what programmers should do about it. You say either nothing, or go even more extreme.

No, I NEVER said talk radio should go "more extreme." You must be confusing me with someone else. And I never said programmers should do nothing. I think that's what they'll do because (1) What they have now has a large, but slowly declining audience, and (2) There are no successful examples of an alternative.

You can't even keep track of your own narrative. Let me refer you to this post:

http://radiodiscussions.com/smf/index.php?topic=222822.msg2007141#msg2007141

I'll save you a little time. Here's your quote:

Common sense doesn't pay the bills. I want proof. You can't name one. I can bring up Jim Bohannon. He is an articulate host who presents a fair show, and it's not as successful as George Noory. Take a look around at all of the less extreme hosts, and they're all lower rated than the extreme hosts. The farther off the wall, the better the numbers. Even in a declining format. That's the real world.

Sure sounds to me like you said that talk should go more extreme in order to be successful.

You call WAMU, KQED, and WBUR exceptions. I call them exceptionally well-programmed public radio stations. You asked for proof that less polarizing talk might be successful, yet when it's offered, you refuse to acknowledge it. You just can't admit that you might be wrong, can you?

I've already stated that WBFO is not a well-programmed public radio station, particularly under the aegis of WNYPB. Even so, some of their programs, like Morning Edition, have increased their ratings. Rush ain't gettin' the numbers he once was, even though he has virtually no commercial news/talk competition in WNY.

But, carry on blindly, like a good corporate lackey. Maybe Darryl Parks will have an impact over time. Maybe not. Time will tell.

 

[TheBigA]

Sure sounds to me like you said that talk should go more extreme in order to be successful.

When the weatherman predicts snow in Buffalo, does that also mean he's saying it's a good thing? Is he advocating more snow just because it's in his forecast? I'm simply stating facts. Noory is beating Bohannon. Limbaugh is beating Bob Smith, although he won't say so. In stating facts, I'm not taking sides. I'm simply stating facts. If you want to argue my facts, go ahead. But don't put words in my mouth.

You asked for proof that less polarizing talk might be successful, yet when it's offered, you refuse to acknowledge it. You just can't admit that you might be wrong, can you?

Since you like to bring up quotes from earlier in this thread, let me remind you of something YOU said a few days ago:

I don't give a rat's patootie about what other markets do, particularly major markets. Buffalo ain't NYC, LA, Atlanta, SF, or Chicago.

But now that someone brings up something you like, you change your tune. Now, San Francisco is OK with you. I agree that it ain't Buffalo. I've been in both places, and I know.

It doesn't matter who programs WBFO or how it's programmed. Most of the shows are exactly the same as the other NPR stations. So the same person in NPR headquarters is programming all of them. What matters is the audience. THEY prefer the news presentation from NPR in those other markets. They don't in Buffalo. Rush is doing well in Buffalo, and he barely gets a share in San Francisco. You can't blame the local programmer for that. It's the same show in both markets.

 

[SirRoxalot]

I don't care what NY, LA, SF, or any other market does. YOU are the one that wanted "proof" that more moderate talk would be successful. That proof was delivered, and you called the stations delivering that success "the exeption rather than the norm". Perhaps they're just ahead of the curve.

It doesn't matter who programs WBFO or how it's programmed. Most of the shows are exactly the same as the other NPR stations. So the same person in NPR headquarters is programming all of them. What matters is the audience. THEY prefer the news presentation from NPR in those other markets. They don't in Buffalo. Rush is doing well in Buffalo, and he barely gets a share in San Francisco. You can't blame the local programmer for that. It's the same show in both markets.

Oh, so programming doesn't matter? The time slots for shows don't matter? The sequencing of shows doesn't matter? The local inserts within those shows don't matter? Promotion doesn't matter? Signal doesn't matter? Processing doesn't matter? Local history doesn't matter?

Apparently, the only thing that "matters" is your opinion. And it's becoming more apparent that the only one your opinion matters to is you.

 

[TheBigA]

Apparently, the only thing that "matters" is your opinion.

It's a discussion board, isn't it?

 

[TheBigA]

Wow..the two of you agree. I'm sure WBEN will notice and immediately force their hosts to moderate their presentations, and they'll once again return to #1 in Buffalo. Let me know when that happens.

 

[SirRoxalot]

WBEN management isn't likely to notice, or follow even good advice. Greg Ried is one of the those management people who already knows everything. The only good ideas are the ones he thought of. He doesn't pay attention to his own programming people, so why would he pay attention to Darryl Parks, or a bunch of dopes on a message board. In fact, he sounds a lot like one of those dopes on said message board.