The Gap Between Number One and Number Two

[smedge2006]

Most top 100 markets (it would seem) have more than one "political" or "conservative-leaning" news talk station. But more often than not, if both are AM, there is usually a wide gap between the number one and number two stations in the format. That trend has seemed to increase in the past 15 years. (Yes, there was talk radio before 1990.)

It isn't always a matter of who has Rush. In Atlanta and Orlando, the non-Rush talker runs way out in front of the Rush talker. Sometimes there is a gap in signal strength. Sometimes that's a factor, sometimes not.

I can almost count the number of top markets with mutually competitive AM band talkers on one hand: Chicago? San Diego? Portland OR?

If you agree with my contention that the gaps between #1 and #2 have been growing over the past 15 years, why do you think that is? Is a secondary talker in most markets "screwed"?

 

[buster2]

Most top 100 markets (it would seem) have more than one "political" or "conservative-leaning" news talk station. But more often than not, if both are AM, there is usually a wide gap between the number one and number two stations in the format. That trend has seemed to increase in the past 15 years. (Yes, there was talk radio before 1990.)

It isn't always a matter of who has Rush. In Atlanta and Orlando, the non-Rush talker runs way out in front of the Rush talker. Sometimes there is a gap in signal strength. Sometimes that's a factor, sometimes not.

I can almost count the number of top markets with mutually competitive AM band talkers on one hand: Chicago? San Diego? Portland OR?

If you agree with my contention that the gaps between #1 and #2 have been growing over the past 15 years, why do you think that is? Is a secondary talker in most markets "screwed"?


I don't think a secondary talker is screwed, necessarily, as long as they make money. In the Twin Cities, KSTP AM has never had the ratings of WCCO, but they do have some strong shows and probably bill pretty well. They recently lost Rush to an FM talker, but I would suspect KSTP will do o.k. Are they competitive ratings-wise? Not really. The billing's the thing and that's where they probably do well.

In Phoenix, KFYI is the dominant talker, but it took them almost ten years after signing on in 1985 to really make headway in the ratings. They're number one 12+ right now and have been the top talker for a few years. KTAR was dominant for a very long time and recently hit bottom. They are likely to rebound well now that they have new owners (Bonneville) and have committed to talk on FM. Even at their lowest ebb, KTAR was still competitive, and according to the latest 12+ Trends (worth what you pay for, but...) KTAR and KFYI are separated by a little more than a point. KTAR is the "heritage" talker and more moderate in its point of view. KFYI is the conservative talker and carries Hannity and Rush.

 

[fred flintstone]

Yes, often the secondary talker is screwed. I think your observation, as a rule, is very valid.

In many lines of business there is one dominant brand. Often, after that brand became number one, its dominance grew over time until it owned the category. The same can happen in talk radio (and other formats).

In radio, as in other fields, the rich do get richer. Various factors can be at work.

A secondary talker may not necessarily be screwed as long as they make money. They just are not likely to make much money. Not all ratings points are created equal. Top talkers often yield more revenue per ratings point. Ad agency media buyers often buy only the top station in a given format in a given market. So secondary talkers operate a thinner margins. They may cut or eliminate local news, local programs and local personalities. Often secondary talkers are completely or mostly syndicated. Usually they get the second string syndicated hosts. And they generally skimp on promotion. But a secondary talker (even a tertiary talker or turnkey talker) can keep costs minimal and still show black ink - without much in the way of ratings.

For all the syndicated talk product out there, most syndicated shows are not that good. Most are not big audience draws (or advertiser draws). And only one of them is original (the rest are pale copies - as copies almost always are). There is not enough strong product to go around and secondary talkers get left-overs.

Good local programming trumps syndicated shows - even Rush. Many of the strongest talkers are all or mostly local. And a strong local morning show is the biggest factor in setting overall ratings and drawing sales revenue. Here again, you need a strongly performing station - making money - to be able to afford to put on a top morning show with strong talent in order to be able to be a strongly performing station and make money. Chicken and egg. A weak or syndicated morning show means a second-rate station overall.

Listener loyalty is a big factor. Top Performing talk stations have more listeners, who listen more often and listen longer. They also have a greater proportion of listeners in the money demos.

Often you will see a bigger difference in P1 numbers between dominant and secondary talkers than you see in overall ratings. This means more of the top station's listeners are loyal-regular-frequent listeners. Many of the same people may "visit" the secondary station but they "live" at the dominant station. Good P1 scores boost overall ratings numbers and sales figures.

Inertia is a big factor. AM radio can keep an audience; it's very difficult to build one. Many of the dominant talkers are heritage blow-torches that have been dominant in their markets since the 20s. Anybody seriously challenging a dominant talker has to be willing to spend money - and not show a profit - for several years. Few broadcasters are willing to risk mounting serious challenges (and they can still show a profit by operating a secondary talker cheaply).

And the market for political talk (and for terrestrial radio) is declining. With a smaller market, the stronger competitor tends to get more than his share.