Wall St Journal radio network gone at end of year

[Ravens]

Then again, I never could see why stations pay for the Accuweather "brand" and having some guy in State College, PA read a local forecast you can get from NOAA for free. If you want a different voice, all you had to do was call the nearest weather station and they'll read it to you over the phone - also for free.

I think the Accu-Weather brand isn't worth what it used to be. Probably why less and less stations are using it. People think of the Weather Channel when they think of weather now. Their decline has more to do with their brand and less to do with some talk show host that has nothing to do with them.

 

[TheBigA]

The more we sit around and point fingers at Rush, the less we look at ourselves and try to improve what we ourselves do.

Improving what we don't won't change the perception that exists in the minds of these advertisers. Then again, pointing fingers won't change what happened.

But once again, I have no reason to believe the ad ban had anything to with the closing of WSJ Radio. Two unrelated things. The bigger factor is the continuing loss of listeners for AM radio, which is the primary outlet for these kinds of services. I suspect that some of these consultants quoted in this thread are in denial about the fact that AM is in free fall.

 

[FredLeonard]

I suppose it balances out. Twenty years ago, conventional wisdom in the biz was giving Rush credit for saving AM radio. Now he gets the blame for killing it.

The Fluke thing blew over long ago. Maybe the industry should ask why those (relatively few) advertisers who made a point of boycotting Rush didn't quietly drift back.

 

[Ravens]

I suspect that some of these consultants quoted in this thread are in denial about the fact that AM is in free fall.

I think you hit the nail on the head. These are the guys that think 4 hours of "what's your favorite local pizza joint" radio and doing nothing but take calls is the solution.

 

[FredLeonard]

I think you hit the nail on the head. These are the guys that think 4 hours of "what's your favorite local pizza joint" radio and doing nothing but take calls is the solution.

That sort of thing actually works better than non-stop Rush-rants.

 

[Ravens]

That sort of thing actually works better than non-stop Rush-rants.

Aside from NJ 101.5, where?

 

[FredLeonard]

Aside from NJ 101.5, where?

There.

Since radio is controlled by right-wing vulture capitalists and Babbitts from the sales department any form other than shilling for the RNC and pandering to the tea types has not been given a chance. Some mystery station around Disney World to the contrary not withstanding.

 

[Ravens]

There.

Since radio is controlled by right-wing vulture capitalists and Babbitts from the sales department any form other than shilling for the RNC and pandering to the tea types has not been given a chance. Some mystery station around Disney World to the contrary not withstanding.

So it's a big conspiracy and not the fact that it's impossible to do 20 hours of fluff junk a week and keep people interested?

 

[TheBigA]

Maybe the industry should ask why those (relatively few) advertisers who made a point of boycotting Rush didn't quietly drift back.

First of all, it's not "relatively few." It's pretty much every advertiser who uses an agency. Second of all, what has changed that they should "drift back?"

There.

Since radio is controlled by right-wing vulture capitalists and Babbitts from the sales department any form other than shilling for the RNC and pandering to the tea types has not been given a chance.

I don't know about anyone else, but in all the years I've done this, I've never been given programming instructions from either the investors or the sales people. All either of them care about is results. That's the only agenda anyone cares about.

The fact is that other forms of talk HAVE been given numerous chances. Wall Street Journal Radio is just one example. Can you think of a single business-formatted station in the Top 10 in any market?

Or wonder why even as right-wing talk circles the bowl, some many managers and owners (like Bain Capital) insist on sticking with a format on life-support.

Let's bring this back to the topic of this thread: Wall Street Journal Radio. It's owned by Rupert Murdoch. He owns Fox News and the Fox Business Channel. If anyone can make money with right wing talk, it's Rupert. And he's shutting this radio network down. Why? Because there are better ways to make money with business talk than OTA radio. This isn't about right wing talk or right wing owners. It's about making money. That's why companies are still dancing with right wing talk. Those who aren't are switching to sports talk. And guess what? It's working!

 

[FredLeonard]

So it's a big conspiracy and not the fact that it's impossible to do 20 hours of fluff junk a week and keep people interested?

Funny that the same people who keep ranting about "liberal bias" in the media can't admit the possibility of right-wing bias. Or admit the possibility that some people had a vested interest in the failure of progressive talk and of NJ 101.5 lifestyle talk. Or wonder why even as right-wing talk circles the bowl, some many managers and owners (like Bain Capital) insist on sticking with a format on life-support.

 

[Avid Listener]

Funny that the same people who keep ranting about "liberal bias" in the media can't admit the possibility of right-wing bias. Or admit the possibility that some people had a vested interest in the failure of progressive talk and of NJ 101.5 lifestyle talk. Or wonder why even as right-wing talk circles the bowl, some many managers and owners (like Bain Capital) insist on sticking with a format on life-support.

Liberal talk radio is not supported for one simple reason. There aren't enough liberals who want to listen to political talk from a liberal perspective to make a large enough segment to get ratings. I'll wager that the suits who use the excuse "the research shows" for everything would point out that research shows that people who tend to support liberal political causes would rather listen to music than talk on the radio to the degree that the exceptions aren't enough people to make a viabl market segment. Sure, there are a few liberals who would like to listen to liberal talk, but they are too few.

 

[Ravens]

First of all, it's not "relatively few." It's pretty much every advertiser who uses an agency.

That's funny. I don't hear any PSAs during the national shows. I'd like to see proof. I saw a couple "do not run" orders right after Sandra Fluke. They came in one time, and never again. Two years ago.

 

[Ravens]

Liberal talk radio is not supported for one simple reason. There aren't enough liberals who want to listen to political talk from a liberal perspective to make a large enough segment to get ratings. I'll wager that the suits who use the excuse "the research shows" for everything would point out that research shows that people who tend to support liberal political causes would rather listen to music than talk on the radio to the degree that the exceptions aren't enough people to make a viabl market segment. Sure, there are a few liberals who would like to listen to liberal talk, but they are too few.

Liberals do listen to talk radio. Public radio, NPR, whatever you want to call it. That's what they listen to. Liberal commercial shows have a big disadvantage to commercial free content that's (quite honestly) of much better quality. Why would a liberal person listen to Ed Schultz yelling like a madman when they can listen to something on NPR?

 

[TheBigA]

That's funny. I don't hear any PSAs during the national shows. I'd like to see proof. I saw a couple "do not run" orders right after Sandra Fluke. They came in one time, and never again. Two years ago.

They never replaced agency spots with PSAs. They replaced them with more host reads and 1-800 spots. From what I've seen, at least for Rush, he's made up for lost agency money with other stuff. But it's had an effect in other places. Let me know if you're hearing McDonalds or Home Depot in Rush.

The "do not runs" have not stopped. Also if your station runs any syndication, they ALL come with instructions for "do not run in Rush Limbaugh or any controversial programming." Those are the exact words I see every day.

Liberals do listen to talk radio. Public radio, NPR, whatever you want to call it. That's what they listen to.

As we've discussed here many times, NPR doesn't have any talk shows. They have daily news magazines. And the politics of the listeners are pretty evenly split.

 

[Avid Listener]

Liberals do listen to talk radio. Public radio, NPR, whatever you want to call it. That's what they listen to. Liberal commercial shows have a big disadvantage to commercial free content that's (quite honestly) of much better quality. Why would a liberal person listen to Ed Schultz yelling like a madman when they can listen to something on NPR?

I'm sorry, but even though liberals do listen to the liberal slanted spoken word programming that dominates public radio, especially Morning Edition and All Things Considered, those are not, technically speaking, "talk radio", at least not as that phrase is understood to describe a particular type of spoken word format. "Liberal talk radio" describes attempts to emulate the format of conservative shows like those of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and many others from a left-wing perspective. There was an attempt to create a liberal talk radio network, Air America, that failed.

As for why a liberal would prefer NPR over Ed Schultz, who knows? I never listened to his show. It held no interest for me at all.

The main issue isn't whether or not liberals listen to talk radio, or NPR's left-leaning spoken word programming. The issue is whether or not there are enough liberals who want to listen to talk radio to constitute a market segment big enough to be profitable for commercial radio stations to pursue. Sure, you can say, "Liberals do listen to talk radio" and no one can really contradict you. You didn't mention any quantity of listeners, so as long as there is even a small handful of liberal talk radio fans, your topic sentence is correct. But without quantifying how many of them are out there, your fact is meaningless.

 

[davideduardo]

Liberal talk radio is not supported for one simple reason. There aren't enough liberals who want to listen to political talk from a liberal perspective to make a large enough segment to get ratings.

It's the other way around: until there are a number of truly entertaining progressive viewpoint talk shows, liberals will not listen.

If you look at voter registration, there are more "liberals" than "conservatives" which would seem to be a large area of opportunity. However, as the Air America experiment proved, there was lots of opinion but little entertainment.

Or, borrowing an over-used expression, "if you build it, they will come".

 

[davideduardo]

I'll wager that the suits who use the excuse "the research shows" for everything would point out that research shows that people who tend to support liberal political causes would rather listen to music than talk on the radio to the degree that the exceptions aren't enough people to make a viabl market segment. Sure, there are a few liberals who would like to listen to liberal talk, but they are too few.

I've never seen such research. And I've been using or conducting research for about 50 years.

You are just speculating to fit you own beliefs or agenda.

 

[TheBigA]

Or, borrowing an over-used expression, "if you build it, they will come".

You're still dealing with the AM platform, and the potential audience for that, regardless of the entertainment value or political perspective, is limited.

There have been discussions over the years of bringing The Daily Show or something like that to radio, and the cost simply exceeds the potential revenue.

 

[Avid Listener]

It's the other way around: until there are a number of truly entertaining progressive viewpoint talk shows, liberals will not listen.

If you look at voter registration, there are more "liberals" than "conservatives" which would seem to be a large area of opportunity. However, as the Air America experiment proved, there was lots of opinion but little entertainment.

Or, borrowing an over-used expression, "if you build it, they will come".

Wrong. One of the reasons so many people vote for liberal candidates and support the liberal agenda is that one needs to refrain from all thinking. To be a liberal means to replace thinking with feeling. That's why people who vote liberal choose to listen to entertainment, like music format radio, rather than having listen to spoken word programming that requires thinking.

They did build it. It was called Air America. It bombed.

I've never seen such research. And I've been using or conducting research for about 50 years.

Did you ever look for it?

 

[TheBigA]

Wrong. One of the reasons so many people vote for liberal candidates and support the liberal agenda is that one needs to refrain from all thinking. To be a liberal means to replace thinking with feeling.

Funny, every day around this time your medication wears off. Or all the alcohol has kicked in.