R
raydofan
Guest
Phil Boyce said:
What does a .1 represent in terms of people (or diaries)?
-
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
- Thread starter raccoonradio
- Start date
What does a .1 represent in terms of people (or diaries)?
Sincere kudos to Rick Jensen and the gang at WDEL for going with "live 'n' local"...
...and I don't believe for one minute that's really Phil Boyce...
...and I don't believe for one minute that's really Phil Boyce...
BELIEVE IT!
IT REALLY IS Phil Boyce, who has been very generous with his time here, despite all the anonymous sniping that thanks him for contributing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUzRDwErYWM
HC
www.HollandCooke.com
IT REALLY IS Phil Boyce, who has been very generous with his time here, despite all the anonymous sniping that thanks him for contributing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUzRDwErYWM
HC
www.HollandCooke.com
W
WTUX
Guest
When a basball team has a 10-game lead and then drops into a tie, that is not good news! At first WDEL scored big with "live and local". Now people are discovering Rush and Hannity are on WILM. The WILM local news, weather and traffic breaks during the network shows are improving. During most of the Spring Book, they clearly did not have their act together.
WDEL has lost the momentum. WILM is now playing a better game. WDEL needs to do some serious tweaking, remove the annoying parts of the line-up (like Jerry) and work to rebuild a lead before WILM takes over. If the ratings indicate WDEL lost half of their audience, that is bad even if they are only .1 ratings point behind.
WDEL has lost the momentum. WILM is now playing a better game. WDEL needs to do some serious tweaking, remove the annoying parts of the line-up (like Jerry) and work to rebuild a lead before WILM takes over. If the ratings indicate WDEL lost half of their audience, that is bad even if they are only .1 ratings point behind.
Thanks, Holland. Don't take this the wrong way, but I just find it weird that a guy with Phil Boyce's responsibilities would have the time to banter on message boards... ;D
R
raydofan
Guest
...or have the inclination to...jimwalsh2001 said:
So very happy to hear a station dumping sundication for local. A nice twist in events. Kudos to everyone over at WDEL. Well done and continued success!
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
Wow!!!
Fifteen pages of detailed discussion over two stations in the #75 market fighting over a tenth of a ratings point in a market with a population of 590,000 people over the age of 12.
That's 590 people being fought over.
The statistical margin of error in sampling that audience would be more than 590 people!!!
And people accuse me of making mountains out of molehills.
Kudos to everyone over at WDEL. Well done and continued success!
Amen to that!!! They're #10 in a tiny market. And only in second place within their format category, by 590 people!. Maybe if they hired local people who had lots and lots of friends, relatives and in-laws, they could scrounge up another 600 people and leapfrog their way to #6!!!
Of course, they do run Laura Ingraham from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and Jerry Doyle from 10:00PM to Midnight, and Coast-to-Coast on the graveyard shift, so they aren't exactly 100% live and local, are they? And weekends have their share of plug-and-play syndication as well.
Not that running some live and some syndication is a bad thing. It just seems a little wrong to go overboard in praising a station for being live-and-local when they're only partially live and local. Likewise congratulating success that consists of being barely a medium sized duck in a rather small puddle. That's nothing to be ashamed of, but hardly something to brag about, either.
Fifteen pages of detailed discussion over two stations in the #75 market fighting over a tenth of a ratings point in a market with a population of 590,000 people over the age of 12.
That's 590 people being fought over.
The statistical margin of error in sampling that audience would be more than 590 people!!!
And people accuse me of making mountains out of molehills.
Kudos to everyone over at WDEL. Well done and continued success!
Amen to that!!! They're #10 in a tiny market. And only in second place within their format category, by 590 people!. Maybe if they hired local people who had lots and lots of friends, relatives and in-laws, they could scrounge up another 600 people and leapfrog their way to #6!!!
Of course, they do run Laura Ingraham from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and Jerry Doyle from 10:00PM to Midnight, and Coast-to-Coast on the graveyard shift, so they aren't exactly 100% live and local, are they? And weekends have their share of plug-and-play syndication as well.
Not that running some live and some syndication is a bad thing. It just seems a little wrong to go overboard in praising a station for being live-and-local when they're only partially live and local. Likewise congratulating success that consists of being barely a medium sized duck in a rather small puddle. That's nothing to be ashamed of, but hardly something to brag about, either.
R
raydofan
Guest
Radio_Realist said:
Finally, an answer! Now, was that so hard?
Wow!!!
Fifteen pages of detailed discussion over two stations in the #75 market fighting over a tenth of a ratings point in a market with a population of 590,000 people over the age of 12.
That's 590 people being fought over.
The statistical margin of error in sampling that audience would be more than 590 people!!!
And people accuse me of making mountains out of molehills.
Actually Mr. RR you missed it once again. It was/is 15 pages of insightful discussion (well almost) on everything from networks strong arming local stations (if true) to some very intersting thoughts from 2 of the best and brightest in programming and consulting.
That makes up for some of the truely mindless drivel I've read recently.
Thank you gentlemen.
Fifteen pages of detailed discussion over two stations in the #75 market fighting over a tenth of a ratings point in a market with a population of 590,000 people over the age of 12.
That's 590 people being fought over.
The statistical margin of error in sampling that audience would be more than 590 people!!!
And people accuse me of making mountains out of molehills.
Actually Mr. RR you missed it once again. It was/is 15 pages of insightful discussion (well almost) on everything from networks strong arming local stations (if true) to some very intersting thoughts from 2 of the best and brightest in programming and consulting.
That makes up for some of the truely mindless drivel I've read recently.
Thank you gentlemen.
C
callofthewild
Guest
Hacknity is so boring, he says the same thing over and over again, his views are boilerplate. Much of his show is saying what's coming up on his radio and TV show, "Newt will be coming up, then tonight will talk with Ann Coulter, Your a Great American, here is Marty, blah blah blah blah."
He did do a good job nailing that Ohio Senator on the immigration issue however.
But a local host can do national and local material...and plug local businesses.
He did do a good job nailing that Ohio Senator on the immigration issue however.
But a local host can do national and local material...and plug local businesses.
Thank you! That is the best answer I've heard yet "Call". Boy...there are a lot of bitter people on this board. The point is that a station finally took initiative and did what was the right thing to do and that is put a local program on instead of a synidicated one. Whether it be for an audience of 500 or 500,000, it doesn't matter. What matters is that WDEL is giving their community what they need and that's local discussion about LOCAL issues as well as national ones. C'mon people...see the good they did!
D
DaleGriffin
Guest
Everyone on this board who is radio knows that the job is to get ears. One station gambled that a local voice could get more ears than Sean Hannity and it has been one book so it is to hard to tell at this point (to early), but the writing does seem to be on the wall.
Is it a gamble I would take? No, I would of cleared Levin.
There are two very incorrect assumptions floating around on this board.
1. ABC is a monster and forcing stations to clear programming. It just isn't true, they are selling products and using a strong one to push a weaker one (keep in mind this is weak in comparison to Hannity)
2. WDEL didn't drop Hannity to go local, they lost him.
I realize that reality is the perception you attempt to create.. just ask Holland Cooke how to consult stations with Rush and how to consult stations without him.
Speaking of Holland Cooke and Phil Boyce, you guys trash them for posting here but they are two of the few who actually identify themselves before chiming in, so I say kudos to them.
Is it a gamble I would take? No, I would of cleared Levin.
There are two very incorrect assumptions floating around on this board.
1. ABC is a monster and forcing stations to clear programming. It just isn't true, they are selling products and using a strong one to push a weaker one (keep in mind this is weak in comparison to Hannity)
2. WDEL didn't drop Hannity to go local, they lost him.
I realize that reality is the perception you attempt to create.. just ask Holland Cooke how to consult stations with Rush and how to consult stations without him.
Speaking of Holland Cooke and Phil Boyce, you guys trash them for posting here but they are two of the few who actually identify themselves before chiming in, so I say kudos to them.
"Hacknity is so boring, he says the same thing over and over again, his views are boilerplate. Much of his show is saying what's coming up on his radio and TV show, 'Newt will be coming up, then tonight will talk with Ann Coulter, Your a Great American, here is Marty, blah blah blah blah.'"
At least Hannity has some star quality and knows how to interview. What can you say for the other ninety-some percent of the squawkers on the air who talk up the exact same topics, hold the exact same "opinions," interview the exact same talking heads...with even less entertainment value than the aforementioned.
And while I'm on a roll here (I must get that Zoloft refilled tomorrow), I wonder if Phil Boyce (if that really is you, sir) would follow up on some recent comments regarding the "bright" future of talk radio - because from my perspective, as someone who is not one of the conservaclones described above, it looks pretty damned bleak...
At least Hannity has some star quality and knows how to interview. What can you say for the other ninety-some percent of the squawkers on the air who talk up the exact same topics, hold the exact same "opinions," interview the exact same talking heads...with even less entertainment value than the aforementioned.
And while I'm on a roll here (I must get that Zoloft refilled tomorrow), I wonder if Phil Boyce (if that really is you, sir) would follow up on some recent comments regarding the "bright" future of talk radio - because from my perspective, as someone who is not one of the conservaclones described above, it looks pretty damned bleak...
D
DaleGriffin
Guest
jimwalsh2001 said:
Jim, by your comments, you are obviously not the target, so I would imagine you saw it as bleak when Rush was first busting on the scene, let's get the politics out of this discussion and talk radio.
Jimwalsh2001 says
Let's lose the doom-n-gloom. No need for that. The future for traditional news/talk radio is bright. We are coming back into a news cycle that I liken to the perfect storm. If Hillary faces Rudhy in 08 I want a front row seat for that battle and hosts like Rush, Sean, and Levin will provide it. People are too quick to jump off the political band wagon in this format and proclaim that politics is dead, therefore talkradio is dead. I never tell hosts to talk politics. I want hosts who talk about things people care about and right now they care about this race.
The ABC news/Washington post poll of last february shows it. 65% of americans were following this race, over a year and a half before the election. That is the highest figure ever for this poll...more than 2004. If you forgot, 2004 was a high water mark for a lot of news/talk stations that capitalized on that race. This one is lining up even bigger.
I am not sure what is causing this gloomy attitude. If I were a music programmer with all they face today, I too would be depressed. They are fighting off everything from ipods to computers for music. But those of us in talk have a format to oureselves. You can't out ipod me. You can't really duplicate what I do...and content is king.
WABC, the station I program directly just had one of our best books in years...#1 on the AM band, #5 overall. Rush, Sean, and Mark all had great books. Mark is now #1 12+, men 25-54, and men 18+. Mark beat both all-sports stations, both all-news stations, the Yankees, the Mets...and all the rock stations. Most of the other stations I oversee are also have great books.
I think this is a great time to be in this format. Buckle your seat belts....this is gonna be good. And you are right I do not have time to post here. I did not start this thread...I merely tried to correct it. You did not see me posting much since then, did you? And Dale, thanks for your insight. I could not have sid it better myself.
Let's lose the doom-n-gloom. No need for that. The future for traditional news/talk radio is bright. We are coming back into a news cycle that I liken to the perfect storm. If Hillary faces Rudhy in 08 I want a front row seat for that battle and hosts like Rush, Sean, and Levin will provide it. People are too quick to jump off the political band wagon in this format and proclaim that politics is dead, therefore talkradio is dead. I never tell hosts to talk politics. I want hosts who talk about things people care about and right now they care about this race.
The ABC news/Washington post poll of last february shows it. 65% of americans were following this race, over a year and a half before the election. That is the highest figure ever for this poll...more than 2004. If you forgot, 2004 was a high water mark for a lot of news/talk stations that capitalized on that race. This one is lining up even bigger.
I am not sure what is causing this gloomy attitude. If I were a music programmer with all they face today, I too would be depressed. They are fighting off everything from ipods to computers for music. But those of us in talk have a format to oureselves. You can't out ipod me. You can't really duplicate what I do...and content is king.
WABC, the station I program directly just had one of our best books in years...#1 on the AM band, #5 overall. Rush, Sean, and Mark all had great books. Mark is now #1 12+, men 25-54, and men 18+. Mark beat both all-sports stations, both all-news stations, the Yankees, the Mets...and all the rock stations. Most of the other stations I oversee are also have great books.
I think this is a great time to be in this format. Buckle your seat belts....this is gonna be good. And you are right I do not have time to post here. I did not start this thread...I merely tried to correct it. You did not see me posting much since then, did you? And Dale, thanks for your insight. I could not have sid it better myself.
But Father Time can move the people who care about what you do out of salable demos. There is a firewall (about age 40 give or take) below which people will not listen to AM. There is also a political difference -- just as the Alex P. Keaton generation rebelled against its liberal older siblings and parents by embracing Ronald Reagan, much of the generation behind them is blanching at the GOP. They may be "waiting on the world to change" with a passivity not unlike a flower trying to withstand a blast of hot air, but once it changes, WABC and its clones may well become as dated as the Top 40 stations most of them were before the 1980's. Your competition is not IPods -- it's blogs and other media that have the bottom-up characteristics that talk radio possessed before it became a top-down, pundit-driven (instead of caller-driven) medium.
Phil Boyce said:
Why is is Hillary vs. Rudhy a perfect storm? Because it's a scorned wife vs. a philander? And why would everybody want to listen to just to Rush, Sean, and Levin (of all people) about this race. Are you suggesting that they won't have skin in the game?
If you never tell hosts to talk politics, they must not be listening to you. Hannity is clearly the most partisan (left and right) host on the air. When I turn on his show, I see how long it is before he makes a political point. It is usually within 18 to 24 seconds.
That's because the cable nets have invested so much in this campaign. Never in this country's history has a Presidential campaign started so early. In 2004 the Dems didn't get into it until last quarter of 2003. We are already starting to see voter fatigue and low ratings for the recent debates
Yes, music programming has problems, but so does political talk. In the past ten years, talk radio ratings have been flat. Despite the launch of new shows by Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly, and 75 lib talk stations, talk radio ratings have not grown even 1/10th of point in the past ten years. The only formats that have grown are Spanish, Urban, Sports, and Christian.
"...let's get the politics out of this discussion and talk radio."
Let's knock down the straw man: politics has nothing to do with this - the fact is, I am so conservative on some issues, I make Rush look like a New Dealer. I don't have a problem with right-wing politics. I do have a problem with hosts (and most emphatically I am NOT including Messrs. Limbaugh and Hannity) who fall back on parroting conservative talking points as a substitute for solid prep and entertainment value (well, maybe Hannity).
And yes gentlemen, the prospects for the host who doesn't do the national-level by-the-book conservative-populist political schtick is downright gloomy - I'm speaking as a host who has spent eight of the last ten years working outside the business, and not by choice. In the three years since I lost my last radio job, I've had a grand total of four "nibbles" - none of which panned out.
Recently I had one well-known PD (not present company) tell me I was not employable in "conservative talk radio." Fair enough: what about a position for a host at a station that has no interest in one's specific political bent but does lifestyle/general interest while superserving the local market? I know of exactly two viable stations West of the Mississippi that fit that description, and neither of them have had an opening in three years.
Maybe I'm just not very good. You're welcome to listen to the aircheck on my podcast page. If you think I suck, well, you're entitled to your opinion. But the fact is, I hear mediocre hosts on the air every day, some of them in syndication. What are they doing that I'm not - besides using World Net Daily as a substitute for showprep. Again, I don't have a problem with political radio; I have a problem with hosts who suck - especially when they're rewarded for said suckage.
So spare me you finger-wagging about being doomy-and-gloomy, because from my perspective, that's just what it is. The format is in serious trouble. When someone tells you your house is on fire, you don't respond by killing the messenger...
Let's knock down the straw man: politics has nothing to do with this - the fact is, I am so conservative on some issues, I make Rush look like a New Dealer. I don't have a problem with right-wing politics. I do have a problem with hosts (and most emphatically I am NOT including Messrs. Limbaugh and Hannity) who fall back on parroting conservative talking points as a substitute for solid prep and entertainment value (well, maybe Hannity).
And yes gentlemen, the prospects for the host who doesn't do the national-level by-the-book conservative-populist political schtick is downright gloomy - I'm speaking as a host who has spent eight of the last ten years working outside the business, and not by choice. In the three years since I lost my last radio job, I've had a grand total of four "nibbles" - none of which panned out.
Recently I had one well-known PD (not present company) tell me I was not employable in "conservative talk radio." Fair enough: what about a position for a host at a station that has no interest in one's specific political bent but does lifestyle/general interest while superserving the local market? I know of exactly two viable stations West of the Mississippi that fit that description, and neither of them have had an opening in three years.
Maybe I'm just not very good. You're welcome to listen to the aircheck on my podcast page. If you think I suck, well, you're entitled to your opinion. But the fact is, I hear mediocre hosts on the air every day, some of them in syndication. What are they doing that I'm not - besides using World Net Daily as a substitute for showprep. Again, I don't have a problem with political radio; I have a problem with hosts who suck - especially when they're rewarded for said suckage.
So spare me you finger-wagging about being doomy-and-gloomy, because from my perspective, that's just what it is. The format is in serious trouble. When someone tells you your house is on fire, you don't respond by killing the messenger...
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
Why is is Hillary vs. Rudhy a perfect storm?
Because they tend to polarize people. Both of them can be accurately described as "Love 'em or hate 'em". There's little in-between. In terms of attracting an audience, any confrontation between two entities that the audiences feel passionately about will draw many more spectators than a confrontation between two entities that most in the audience don't care much about one way or another.
Because they tend to polarize people. Both of them can be accurately described as "Love 'em or hate 'em". There's little in-between. In terms of attracting an audience, any confrontation between two entities that the audiences feel passionately about will draw many more spectators than a confrontation between two entities that most in the audience don't care much about one way or another.
- Status