• 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

WDEL says no to ABC Radio demand and drops Hannity for local talk/news

raccoonradio

raccoonradio

Some have said that stations run syndie talk to save money, and local talk gets lost in the equation. One DE station has fought against this trend...(please keep this thread here if possible since I wonder if
other stations may follow suit. Though, with the current way stations are being run, WDEL may be
the exception not the rule)

http://www.wdel.com/features/hannityout.mp3

In Wilmington, DE, WDEL had run Hannity but (as you'll hear on that link)
they were told by ABC that to remain a Hannity affiliate, they had to pick up 2 additional hours of ABC programming. WDEL told them hell, no, and they
have dropped Sean in favor of local talk and news.
 
Some have said that stations run syndie talk to save money, and local talk gets lost in the equation.

Others have said that stations make the decision on syndication versus local based on weighing all the factors, including costs versus billings, and then make the decision that makes the most sense for their particular situation.

I'm inclined to agree with the others.
 
Yes. Interesting, though, that WDEL put it in terms of "a gun being figuratively held to our heads to
pick up more ABC programming, or lose Hannity". The ad revenue factor--if they feel local talk/news
can bring in the bucks--is probably part of it, too, but it doesn't make ABC look good if they're
putting in demands like that. Add two more hours of us or lose Sean! And this in a market where
there are other stations around that have him on already...so prob. no big loss to Wilmington (as I
said, can still find it on 680 or 1210)
 
As an aside, 680 in Baltimore is still dragging well behind 1090, despite having Rush AND Hannity now...

I suspect WDEL will be around long after WCBM and WPHT have turned in their licenses and converted their antenna farms into strip malls...
 
An interesting parallel in Wilmington

It has as much to do with ideology as it does with local control.

WDEL picked up Rush Limbaugh in the late 90's after he was dropped by crosstown WILM-1450. According to U.S. News & World Report, WILM said Limbaugh was becoming too predictable and advertisers were unwilling to run their spots in his show. This was in Clinton time.

Now that Clear Channel owns WILM that station has taken back Limbaugh -- who is syndicated by a Clear Channel subsidiary.

ABC was trying to force WDEL to carry Mark Levin in addition to Sean Hannity. After all ABC has a corporate policy of syndicating only right-wing demagogues. WDEL just said no and told ABC to DIAF.
 
Good point on ideology, Johnny. I don't think ABC self-restricts themselves, and I certainly wouldn't make that assumption just from the thought that they currently air only conservative hosts.

My pondering on this brought a question to the forefront that hasn't been asked here yet: how much does this have to do with the Citadel buyout? If anything, what does this say about the financial ability of Citadel to keep the network afloat?
 
It is about local control AND ideology

Reread the earlier thread: ABC was trying to force WDEL to carry Mark Levin as well as Sean Hannity. A local station [per FCC code] cannot be forced to carry a specific network program. That ties in with local control.

Mark Levin has right-wing views. Sean Hannity has right-wing views. ABC has a long history of right-wing conduct -- a subject that's beyond the scope of this thread. Such conduct goes back to before the merger with Capital Cities in the 80's.

FWIW this has nothing to do with Citadel Communications or its buying into ABC Radio.
 
But who said it had anything to do with Levin? WDEL's station manager said in the clip, simply, that ABC wanted them to air two additional hours of network programming. He never specified which show. For all we know, ABC didn't either.
 
RE "But who said it had anything to do with Levin?"

ABC said it.
And not just in Wilmington.

WPRO/Providence got the same ultimatum and took the same stand WDEL did. Now, Hannity's on Clear Channel's crosstown WHJJ, which -- you guessed it -- fired a local host.

Other stations I work with have gotten the same hear-ye-hear-ye from ABC.

In both of these cases:

a.) Hannity ended up on a lesser station so his network could stick another pin in Levin's map; and

b.) Hannity will compete with LOCAL programming on the station his network yanked-him-from; WHILE...

c.) Arbitron diarykeepers will likely continue to report Hannity's OLD station, out of habit, at least short-term.

Stay tuned...

WDEL's consultant,
HC
www.HollandCooke.com
 
Holland, I enjoy your concise analysis and it's right on point. But ABCRN doesn't really care if Hannity loses a few thousand listeners here or there if it builds Levin, who is unlistenable and belongs as a local on WABC, a 100-station affil sheet. It's working pretty well, since most affils are willing to shove Levin on just before midnight, since they probably weren't running anything much better anyway.

Would you agree, though, Holland, that syndicators like TRN and ABCRN who specialize in clearing shows using method at least offer independent operators a chance to compete with CC, Cumulus, etc. from a syndicated programming perspective?

To the guy who said it wasn't Levin, his show is two hours (vs. other 3-hr shows they would also want fully cleared) and is the only show ABC cares about now. Mark Davis got thrown under the bus in short order and doesn't have a chance at 10 top 100 affils. Who else is left? Larry Elder?
 
I didn't say it wasn't Levin, I just pointed out that no one publicly had mentioned him. I realize Levin's the flavor of the month and that his show just so happens to be that magic two hours long. I just wondered if it would be possible to put two hours of, say, a weekend show on instead. Would that satisfy ABC? As Holland says, no, but since no one on this board had pointed out any official ABC mandate that it be Levin until Holland did, I (and I'm sure many others here) wouldn't have known for sure.

I still don't see why this would mean it has nothing to do with Citadel. It would seem to me that it may have everything to do with the merger. If you were looking to buy ABC, wouldn't you want to do everything possible to make sure that your investment was going to be solid? Forcing Hannity affiliates to carry Levin would ensure that your network isn't seen by advertisers as just a one-trick pony. And I know the next question; the answer is yes, if you follow that line of logic, it would be a smart business move even if the merger weren't taking place. But there's this nagging voice in my head that points me toward the merger as the cause of this maneuver.
 
Josh C. said:
I didn't say it wasn't Levin, I just pointed out that no one publicly had mentioned him. I realize Levin's the flavor of the month and that his show just so happens to be that magic two hours long. I just wondered if it would be possible to put two hours of, say, a weekend show on instead. Would that satisfy ABC? As Holland says, no, but since no one on this board had pointed out any official ABC mandate that it be Levin until Holland did, I (and I'm sure many others here) wouldn't have known for sure.

I still don't see why this would mean it has nothing to do with Citadel. It would seem to me that it may have everything to do with the merger. If you were looking to buy ABC, wouldn't you want to do everything possible to make sure that your investment was going to be solid? Forcing Hannity affiliates to carry Levin would ensure that your network isn't seen by advertisers as just a one-trick pony. And I know the next question; the answer is yes, if you follow that line of logic, it would be a smart business move even if the merger weren't taking place. But there's this nagging voice in my head that points me toward the merger as the cause of this maneuver.
Click to expand...

A weekend show really doesn't satisfy anyone because, well, it's a weekend show. Most of them aren't a huge deal, and there's obviously a limited amount of inventory involved. You may or may be right about Citadel, but force feeding mediocre or outright bad shows to affiliates who clear your good shows is hardly new. See: "How Rusty Humphries got on more than 2 stations". It would also be fair to say under that argument that ABC figured they might step up such efforts a year or so ago, when Levin became a player (and quickly landed on Hannity affilis in San Diego, Bakersfield, and all the ABC O&Os for the same reason), in order to attract better sale conditions. However, as far as the news/talk genre goes, most networks are one or two-trick ponies. Premiere with Rush and to a lesser extent Glenn Beck, ABC with Hannity, TRN with Savage and to a lesser extent Ingraham, and WW1 with... um... Lars Larson?
 
KJBB said:
Would you agree, though, Holland, that syndicators like TRN and ABCRN who specialize in clearing shows using this method at least offer independent operators a chance to compete with CC, Cumulus, etc. from a syndicated programming perspective?
Click to expand...

In a perfect world, yes. But with big owners carving up the map like Eastern Europe post-WW2, the reality is that syndicators NEED big companies' big-market sticks. So The Bigs have leverage in their quest to squish mom-and-pop.

Josh C. said:
I still don't see why this would mean it has nothing to do with Citadel.
Click to expand...

I agree.
This has (almost) everything-to-do with Citadel.
New owners are always a question mark.
The-operation-being-acquired always wants to be standing tall when the new suits march in...
 
I wonder if ABC tried to force the WDRC AM Radio Network here in Connecticut to pick up other ABC programming. They too dumped Hannity in favor of local programming too. (6 months ago or so). However no one new was hired. They took the guy that does sports on the local morning show (and fills in for the host at times) and gave him a 3 hour show. His show is horrible. It sounds like the same crap they have on the morning show. So what happened to Hannity? He ended up on Infinty's News/Talk Power House WTIC 1080 albeit on a tape delay. Other ABC shows WTIC was clearing? Bob Brinker Saturdays 4PM-7PM and Sundays 4PM-5PM (they used to carry him until 6 on Sundays) and The Satellite Sisters Sundays 7PM-10PM.
 
Hannity was a wedge to begin with....since he is linked at the hip with Bush politics...and Bush is in the 20's as far as polls on key issues....it has to impact hannity.....after the Xmas egg nog wears off ..Hannity will start to slip slowly (unless we get another terror attack)

KFI in LA and KGO in SF do well with their local talk
 
KFI in LA and KGO in SF do well with their local talk

Is that because their local talk is local, or because their local talk is good?

Few people seem to realize that listeners usually don't care all that much about whether the voice on the radio originates from a microphone located in their city or one located way far away. The majority of listeners only care if the content of the programs are interesting. An interesting show will beat a less interesting show every time they go head to head, regardless of where the person doing the talking parks his butt.
 
I have heard from several very credible sources that WABC PD Phil Boyce has a personal financial stake in both the Sean Hannity program and the Mark Levin show.

I've also heard from credible sources that Boyce is behind Levin's expansion to several major markets, including San Francisco and Washington, DC. By "behind," I mean that he strong-armed Levin into the line-up. (Similar to what was described as the pressure to WDEL and WPRO.)

Isn't this some sort of conflict of interest? If Boyce has a personal financial interest in these shows and is pushing them as an ABC/Disney employee (VP) -- then he's personally benefiting from corporate programming.

Anyone else have any info/insight?
 
It's not a conflict of interest; they both want to make money. And no doubt Boyce benefits from Levin's expansion, just as any programmer would, and just as an affiliate rep gets ratings bonuses for their clears.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom