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

[Phil Boyce]

Barooosk is the reason I don't post here much. He refuses to listen to me. I may be wrong about a lot of things, but I do know a little bit about this format. Assuming his questions were sincere and not just rhetorical, let me attempt to ...once gain...set him straight. Remember, this is the same guy who earlier in this same thread lectured me that you can't look at monthly ratings, they are quarterly.

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?

Sorry for my typo Rudy, I was on the train when I wrote that. In order to WIN the ratings war in news/talk radio, I don't have to reach EVERYBODY. This is an easy thing to overlook by people like Baroooosk who think talkradio has to represent what everybody wants to hear. If I get a 5 share in NYC I am in hero country. That means 95% of the radios turned on are not listening to me. All I have to do is super-serve that 5 share to win. And trust me on this, the polarizing effect of a Rudy vs. Hillary race would be monstrous for that 5 share...those listeners who really are most likely to turn my station on and listen longer.

Also, the way WABC wins is by taking a smaller cume, and expanding it with massive TSL. I do that by getting all my hosts firing on all cylinders and driving listeners from one show to the next. It becomes a feeding frenzy and listeners can't turn it off. Give me a topic like Hillary vs. Rudy, and that perfect storm will be created. Give me three great hosts, who all are different...but pounding the same major topic, for 8 hours a day, and I get that perfect storm that raises the TSL. That is what happened in the recent Spring rating period. Check this out...the average talkradio listeners in America listens for 7:45 a week. The WABC average listener in the spring book listened for 11 hours a 42 minutes a week. I took my cume and mazimized it, giving me a higher share, allowing me to beat WINS and become the #1 AM in New York City. That is what I am talking about.

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.

OK Baroosk, I want you to listen and pay attention to me this time. I never said my hosts do not talk politics, of course they do. I said I never tell them to do so. I tell them to talk about what matters to people, and do it with fire and passion. It just so happens that Hannity is having another great book all over the country. As you point out he DOES talk politics. So obviously somebody cares. Listen up Einstein, this is not rocket science. Hannity is doing these topics because listeners want to talk about it. I just never provide the talking points. If I have a host that I have to tell what to talk about, or what to care about...I have the wrong host.

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.


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

Again, you are not looking at this like a radio programmer. You are looking at this like an outside observer. I am pulling the curtain back and trying to give you a peek inside at how things really work inside one big talkradio station. Why are the cable news channels investing so much in this campaign? Because they live and die by ratings just like we do. They see the perfect storm coming...just like I do. This only proves my point. As for fatigue over the debates, I get that. The debates are boring. But my hosts are NOT boring and they will find more stories and more angles than you can shake a stick at. Remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Talkradio made that story. Remember the Dan Rather forged document scandal? Talkradio made that story. There will be countless more coming down the pike that will make this coming presidential election fascinating, entertaining, informative, and a ratings monster. It is true that the blogs had a lot do do with it also, but the blogs worked in tandem with talkradio. We have something the blogs do NOT have...living breathing, bigger than life hosts who become stars on their own right, and my listeners want to hear what they have to say.

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.

When you are the most listened to format in American radio, how can you be anything but flat? You can't keep growing. What should we do now, expect to have 20 or 30% of the audience listening? That will never happen. The format overall is solid and healthy. The fact is...it is not in decline....while some music stations are seeing losses due to all that competition. ABC Launched the Mark Levin show in February of 2006, and in a year and a half we hit 130 affiliates. It is the fastest growing talkradio show in America today. But it will reach a point when it stops growing. Hannity is at 520 stations. We can't really expect much growth after that. Arbtiron only rates the top 300 markets, so we are maxxed out.

There will always be individual shows that come and go. Keep your eye on the big three: Rush, Sean, and Levin. Nothing wrong with those other shows you listed, but you know MOST syndicated shows fail. I can give you a list a page long of shows that have been launched in the last 10 years that failed. SO what....the audience has remained amazingly consistent over that period of time to talkradio in general. I see that as a good thing.

Baroosk...class over. Hope you learned something this time.

pb

 

[Radio_Realist]

Keep your eye on the big three: Rush, Sean, and Levin.

There is one void in syndicated talk, and that's mornings. I know, conventional wisdom is that you have to have a local morning show. But I think that given half a chance, Jim Quinn's morning show could become almost as big as the mid-day, afternoon, and evening syndicated talkers.

 

[kaufcom]

First of all Phil, why do you have to be so freakin condescending?

Phil said.

...Barooosk is the reason I don't post here much.

...This is an easy thing to overlook by people like Baroooosk who think talkradio has to represent what everybody wants to hear.

...OK Baroosk, I want you to listen and pay attention to me this time.

... Listen up Einstein, this is not rocket science.

...Again, you are not looking at this like a radio programmer. You are looking at this like an outside observer.

Remember, this is the same guy who earlier in this same thread lectured me that you can't look at monthly ratings, they are quarterly.

I went back over the thread I couldn't find the alleged comment. In any case, what does this have to do with your current post?

Give me a topic like Hillary vs. Rudy, and that perfect storm will be created. Give me three great hosts, who all are different...but pounding the same major topic, for 8 hours a day, and I get that perfect storm that raises the TSL. That is what happened in the recent Spring rating period. Check this out...the average talkradio listeners in America listens for 7:45 a week. The WABC average listener in the spring book listened for 11 hours a 42 minutes a week. I took my cume and mazimized it, giving me a higher share, allowing me to beat WINS and become the #1 AM in New York City. That is what I am talking about.

Thanks for sharing this. Hillary vs. Rudy is clearly working in New York (their home state), but what about in other parts of country? And what happens if one of both of them crash and burn before the primaries are over?

I never said my hosts do not talk politics ...I said I never tell them to do so. I tell them to talk about what matters to people, and do it with fire and passion...If I have a host that I have to tell what to talk about, or what to care about...I have the wrong host.

So if you were managing a strip bar. You could say, I never tell the girls to take it all off. However, when they do take it all off, and the customers are happy, you would somehow feel vindicated.

Remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Talkradio made that story. Remember the Dan Rather forged document scandal? Talkradio made that story. There will be countless more coming down the pike that will make this coming presidential election fascinating, entertaining, informative, and a ratings monster. It is true that the blogs had a lot do do with it also, but the blogs worked in tandem with talkradio.

If I recall these stories went right from the blogs to cable and broadcast news. I don't think talk radio made a major contribution to either story. However, talk radio did have a big role in killing the immigration bill. That's why Senator Trent Lott (R-Al) said “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”

When you are the most listened to format in American radio, how can you be anything but flat? You can't keep growing. The fact is...it is not in decline....while some music stations are seeing losses due to all that competition. ABC Launched the Mark Levin show in February of 2006, and in a year and a half we hit 130 affiliates. It is the fastest growing talkradio show in America today. But it will reach a point when it stops growing. Hannity is at 520 stations. We can't really expect much growth after that. Arbtiron only rates the top 300 markets, so we are maxxed out.

So let me understand. Eight years ago News/talk had 14.3 share of radio listenership. Today, in spite of Levin's fantastic launch and Hannity's 520 stations it has only grown to 14.4. Why is talk "maxxed out" when Sports radio grew from 2.1 to 3.2, (52%) Spanish from 6.7 to 11.2, (67%) Religious from 2.1 to 2.9 (38%) and Urban from 8.2 to 10.1 (23%) Could it be that our listeners are just dying on us?

Once again, Phil thanks for sharing your great numbers in New York with us.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Hillary vs. Rudy is clearly working in New York (their home state), but what about in other parts of country?

Hilary Clinton inspires extreme reactions all over the country. She is generally regarded as either Saint Joan re-incarnated or the Wicked Witch of the West. No matter who gets the GOP nod, she will inspire passionate (meaning highly rated) news/talk.

I don't see Rudi getting the nomination, but whoever the GOP nominates will probably inspire the same dramatic polarization. The 2008 election will not be as boring as the 1988 election, by a long shot. And boring is the enemy of news/talk radio.

If I recall these stories went right from the blogs to cable and broadcast news.

You recall incorrectly. Blogs aren't nrealy as important to the rest of the world as they are to bloggers.

Why is talk "maxxed out" when Sports radio grew from 2.1 to 3.2,

Sports radio started later.

Spanish from 6.7 to 11.2

Spanish-speaking illegal aliens

Religious from 2.1 to 2.9

God works in mysterious ways

Urban from 8.2 to 10.1

Weak competition from the suburbs.

 

[Phil Boyce]

radio Realist, thanks for explaining it better than I could to our friend Baroosk.

Baroosk, let me apologize if I was a jerk. I do not know you personally, but the reason I seem to be condesending is that you fail to deal with facts. You make these wild assumptions about how radio works, and when somebody who actually IS in the business tries to explain it to you, you stick your foot in your mouth with silly challenges. Let's deal with this one....and again assume you are serious about not understanding this:

So let me understand. Eight years ago News/talk had 14.3 share of radio listenership. Today, in spite of Levin's fantastic launch and Hannity's 520 stations it has only grown to 14.4.

OK let's think logically for a moment about your first few sentences here. You seem to think that Mark Levin's fantastic launch will result in the overall share of talk listening in America going up. HUH? You think that Mark is somehow going to attract NON talk radio listeners to the format. He may do that, but the truth is MOST of his listeners are coming from other talkradio shows and stations. As I tried to explain to you, we are dealing with a limited number of people that want to listen to this format. It happens to be the most listened to format in America, but there is no reason to believe it can continue to grow when it has already reached the top of the format heap. There comes a place where you can't keep growing. Otherwise, why would Rush Limbaugh not have a 50 share?

Then he asks:

Why is talk "maxxed out" when Sports radio grew from 2.1 to 3.2, (52%) Spanish from 6.7 to 11.2, (67%) Religious from 2.1 to 2.9 (38%) and Urban from 8.2 to 10.1 (23%) Could it be that our listeners are just dying on us?

As radio realist says, the growth in sports came later. It was largely due to the introduction of the ESPN Radio Network. It allowed AM sticks with little else available a chance to put a sports format on the air for little cost. It saw some nice gains...but you will probably not continue to see that kind of growth because....like talk...there is a limited number of people that want to listen to all sports. Spanish grew because in major markets years ago, the spanish speaking audience was underserved. As that popluation has grown, so has the need for more stations to serve that market. But you you really think that growth is also going to continue? Religious stations grew largely due to the success of the Salem broadcasting company. Urban also began serving an unserved market.

When you deal in percentages like this please understand there is a finite number of shares. It is 100. With about 50 different kinds of formats on the air, and everybody filling a niche, it would be impossible for ANY of those formats to see annual yearly growth for every year of their existence. If you want to see growth, look at things like revenue. That is infinite. But the number of shares in each market is finite. Sooner or later, every format will reach the saturation point and stop growing.

Hope this helps.

pb

 

[justareporter]

I have never been a disc jockey...not enough talent I suspect. But I have known more than a few and one in particular told me of how he spent a day with the PD at his new station going over format, breaks, stop set lenghts and a myriad of other things....

and then stopped ...looked at him and said, "and remember also to more often than not shut up and play the "blanking" music."

Is it possible that all the talk about "talk" is just a bit too much. Is there an arguement to be made to just hire professionals and let them "talk" and ask good questions.

Tom Snyder seemed to do pretty well being curious and asking good questions.

Thoughts?

 

[raydofan]

I never said my hosts do not talk politics, of course they do. I said I never tell them to do so. I tell them to talk about what matters to people, and do it with fire and passion. It just so happens that Hannity is having another great book all over the country. As you point out he DOES talk politics. So obviously somebody cares. Listen up Einstein, this is not rocket science. Hannity is doing these topics because listeners want to talk about it. I just never provide the talking points. If I have a host that I have to tell what to talk about, or what to care about...I have the wrong host.
pb

Speaking of Einstein...and words..

Phil, can you get Sean to stop using phrases containing the word 'intellectual' (i.e. intellectual honesty)? After all, I just saw him on T.V. a while back getting his clock cleaned by someone who has the right to use that phrase.


Thanks.

 

[livingfruitvirus]

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)

ABC's not a monster in the way you put it, but I strongly disagree with their programming practices. Their affiliates have helped their network grow and build their advertising revenue, and yet they ask them to further compromise other parts of their station to keep their current situation intact. So in many cases some local guy loses a job so a syndicated show can put another dishonest pin in their map. If I was a syndicated host, I would feel a bit awkward if most of my affiliate stations didn't really want me on their air. It's not just ABC either. Premiere Radio is even guiltier of this.

Keep your eye on the big three: Rush, Sean, and Levin.

There is one void in syndicated talk, and that's mornings. I know, conventional wisdom is that you have to have a local morning show. But I think that given half a chance, Jim Quinn's morning show could become almost as big as the mid-day, afternoon, and evening syndicated talkers.

Jim Quinn's show is about as entertaining as a foot ulcer. I don't see anything special or unique about his show that warrants it being syndicated at all. Except for those awful "heads up" themes that made me want to reconfigure my antenna so I can't pick up the frequency anymore. I guess it helps him fill time by playing a song.

Could it be that our listeners are just dying on us?

Wouldn't shock me. I certainly don't know any young people who listen to talk radio actively.

 

[kaufcom]

Phil said

Baroosk, let me apologize if I was a jerk.

This doesn't sound like Phil

Then Phil goes on to say

but the reason I seem to be condesending is that you fail to deal with facts. You make these wild assumptions about how radio works, and when somebody who actually IS in the business tries to explain it to you, you stick your foot in your mouth with silly challenges.

Okay, now that's the Phil that I know

As I tried to explain to you, we are dealing with a limited number of people that want to listen to this format. It happens to be the most listened to format in America, but there is no reason to believe it can continue to grow when it has already reached the top of the format heap. There comes a place where you can't keep growing. Otherwise, why would Rush Limbaugh not have a 50 share?

That's exactly my point, there is no growth in talk radio. Just more syndicated hosts sharing a fixed number of listeners. (Actually if Rush just maintained his share from ten years ago talk radio's overall share would be up. But Rush is down 40% over this time.)

As radio realist says, the growth in sports came later. It was largely due to the introduction of the ESPN Radio Network. It allowed AM sticks with little else available a chance to put a sports format on the air for little cost. It saw some nice gains...but you will probably not continue to see that kind of growth because....like talk...there is a limited number of people that want to listen to all sports. Spanish grew because in major markets years ago, the spanish speaking audience was underserved. As that popluation has grown, so has the need for more stations to serve that market. But you you really think that growth is also going to continue? Religious stations grew largely due to the success of the Salem broadcasting company. Urban also began serving an unserved market.

Once again we're in agreement. Sports, Spanish, Religion and Urban grew because they attracted more listeners. Why can't talk do that?

If you want to see growth, look at things like revenue. That is infinite. But the number of shares in each market is finite. Sooner or later, every format will reach the saturation point and stop growing.

Revenue is infinite. Tell your sales department that. In the last ten years radio revenues have grown by less than 3% a year. That's less than the annual inflation rate. Of course, share is relative number, but as I've shown you some format shares do go up

 

[ajhenderson]

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)

ABC's not a monster in the way you put it, but I strongly disagree with their programming practices. Their affiliates have helped their network grow and build their advertising revenue, and yet they ask them to further compromise other parts of their station to keep their current situation intact. So in many cases some local guy loses a job so a syndicated show can put another dishonest pin in their map. If I was a syndicated host, I would feel a bit awkward if most of my affiliate stations didn't really want me on their air. It's not just ABC either. Premiere Radio is even guiltier of this.

Keep your eye on the big three: Rush, Sean, and Levin.

There is one void in syndicated talk, and that's mornings. I know, conventional wisdom is that you have to have a local morning show. But I think that given half a chance, Jim Quinn's morning show could become almost as big as the mid-day, afternoon, and evening syndicated talkers.

Jim Quinn's show is about as entertaining as a foot ulcer. I don't see anything special or unique about his show that warrants it being syndicated at all. Except for those awful "heads up" themes that made me want to reconfigure my antenna so I can't pick up the frequency anymore. I guess it helps him fill time by playing a song.

Premiere isn't that bad AFAIK... please explain. TRN is the absolute worst... please explain how else Rusty Humphries of all people gets on 230 stations. Jerry Doyle?! Tammy Bruce?!?! I've heard talent in Sarasota that's more compelling (and not so shrieky).

As to Jim Quinn, you're right; the only reason he has any stations (AFAIK, all but 1 are CC stations) is to justify moving over to PGB in Pittsburgh. CC used its behemoth power to put him on their throwaway midwestern (and now, everywhere) talkers to save money and negotiate with his eho.

 

[smedge2006]

I've heard talent in Sarasota that's more compelling (and not so shrieky).

There's talent in Sarasota? I thought everybody in that market doing talk has been pay for play for the last 15-20 years, ever since the old WQSA croaked.

 

[Phil Boyce]

[EDIT-offtopic and inflammatory content]

living virus then adds more silliness to this board:

ABC's not a monster in the way you put it, but I strongly disagree with their programming practices. Their affiliates have helped their network grow and build their advertising revenue, and yet they ask them to further compromise other parts of their station to keep their current situation intact. So in many cases some local guy loses a job so a syndicated show can put another dishonest pin in their map. If I was a syndicated host, I would feel a bit awkward if most of my affiliate stations didn't really want me on their air.

Huh???? Did you bother to go back and read these threads? do you have a CLUE? what you are talking about? There is not ONE...I repeat not ONE station that airs Mark Levin that does not want Mark Levin. There are no evil tactics. We are not forcing stations to take programming they do not want. We are not compromising other parts of any body's line up. If those local hosts are good they will survive. Mark and Sean were both local hosts. It is not my fault of they became so good that hundreds of other stations wanted to carry them also. There is no way for ABC to strong arm stations to take shows they do not want.

But thanks for playing here.

 

[kaufcom]

[EDIT]


I had to endure your condescending Radio 101 bs about the difference between relative indexes like ratings and shares versus so-called ""limitless measurements like ad sales. You seem to think that it's okay that poltical talk radio is stuck at a 14% share of the radio audience while other fomats like Spanish, Sports, Urban, and Religious have grown by 23% to 67%. My background is in TV ratings. I'll tell you something. With an attitude like yours, you should be glad that work for ABC Radio rather than ABC Television. You would be out of a job if you claimed that ABC sitcoms have a finite audience reach and that they can't grow anymore.

Keep trying to convince people that stations really want Mark Levin. That whiny voiced windbag is part of the reason that political talk radio will stay stuck at 14%.

[EDIT-quoting from edited off topic and inflammatory content]

 

[DaleGriffin]

[EDIT-quoting off topic and inflammatory content]

ABC's not a monster in the way you put it, but I strongly disagree with their programming practices. Their affiliates have helped their network grow and build their advertising revenue, and yet they ask them to further compromise other parts of their station to keep their current situation intact. So in many cases some local guy loses a job so a syndicated show can put another dishonest pin in their map. If I was a syndicated host, I would feel a bit awkward if most of my affiliate stations didn't really want me on their air.

That post was made yesterday by livingfruitvirus.

Then he continues his tirade with this:

Huh???? Did you bother to go back and read these threads? do you have a CLUE? what you are talking about?

Look, Phil...I don't mind interacting with you on this board but please don't attack me by inserting someone else's post.

I had to endure your condescending Radio 101 bs about the difference between relative indexes like ratings and shares versus so-called ""limitless measurements like ad sales. You seem to think that it's okay that poltical talk radio is stuck at a 14% share of the radio audience while other fomats like Spanish, Sports, Urban, and Religious have grown by 23% to 67%. My background is in TV ratings. I'll tell you something. With an attitude like yours, you should be glad that work for ABC Radio rather than ABC Television. You would be out of a job if you claimed that ABC sitcoms have a finite audience reach and that they can't grow anymore.

Keep trying to convince people that stations really want Mark Levin. That whiny voiced windbag is part of the reason that political talk radio will stay stuck at 14%.

Hmmm let me see. Using generic figures:

Format A gets a 1 share
and Format B has a 10 share

Now if format A goes to a 2 share that would be a 100% increase
and format B talk goes to an 11 share that would be a 10% increase

If you are a programmer the 11 share is the more impressive number than the 2 share

In you are baroosk and using increasingly delusional and flawed logic you shout how great a 100% increase is better than a 10% increase.

The programmer is right and baroosk you are wrong.

It is much easier to grow a perentage from a small base number, however that does not make it successful. If my station gets a two share I get fired, if my station gets a ten share I get a new job.

 

[kaufcom]

Hmmm let me see. Using generic figures:

Format A gets a 1 share
and Format B has a 10 share

Now if format A goes to a 2 share that would be a 100% increase
and format B talk goes to an 11 share that would be a 10% increase

If you are a programmer the 11 share is the more impressive number than the 2 share
In you are baroosk and using increasingly delusional and flawed logic you shout how great a 100% increase is better than a 10% increase.

Not necessarily. While it is true the 100% gain from a 1 to a 2 share represents the same number of new listeners as the 10% gain from a 10 to an 11 share, how can you say that the latter it is "more impressive"? I would say that move from 1 to 2 is more impressive than the move from from 10 to 11.

You are not "delusional" -- just wrong.

The programmer is right and baroosk you are wrong.

Now if the programmer you are referring to is Phil, I beg to differ with you. First of all talk radio has not increased its share by 10% -- it has remained flat for eight years. i.e. in 1999 it was at 14% and today it is at 14%. So your hypothetical is wrong.

 

[DaleGriffin]

Hmmm let me see. Using generic figures:

Format A gets a 1 share
and Format B has a 10 share

Now if format A goes to a 2 share that would be a 100% increase
and format B talk goes to an 11 share that would be a 10% increase

If you are a programmer the 11 share is the more impressive number than the 2 share
In you are baroosk and using increasingly delusional and flawed logic you shout how great a 100% increase is better than a 10% increase.

Not necessarily. While it is true the 100% gain from a 1 to a 2 share represents the same number of new listeners as the 10% gain from a 10 to an 11 share, how can you say that the latter it is "more impressive"? I would say that move from 1 to 2 is more impressive than the move from from 10 to 11.

You are not "delusional" -- just wrong.

The programmer is right and baroosk you are wrong.

Now if the programmer you are referring to is Phil, I beg to differ with you. First of all talk radio has not increased its share by 10% -- it has remained flat for eight years. i.e. in 1999 it was at 14% and today it is at 14%. So your hypothetical is wrong.

Baroosk do you even care what people type or are you just being difficult? I never said which % was better I sad what number was more impressive the 11 share or the 2.

I was not talking about talk radio I was talking about format A and B and numbers. Either way 11 is better than 2.

The difference be in the publics desire for conservative talk over liberal talk is why some markets have multiple conservative talk stations and zero liberal ones. If you want it so bad, as YOU do, go buy some time. Stop waiting for someone to give it to you.

 

[Slant]

Phil Boyce is King! Long live Phil Boyce!!! Hey Phil, why does WPHT in Philadelphia have no cume and very little TSL? Whats wrong with that station? They have a decent lineup...Smerconish, Beck, Rush, Hannity....I would love to know why in a city where there is no traditional talk competition, they are not trending with the top rated talk stations in other major markets.

Thank you!

 

[Don62]

Phil Boyce is King! Long live Phil Boyce!!! Hey Phil, why does WPHT in Philadelphia have no cume and very little TSL? Whats wrong with that station? They have a decent lineup...Smerconish, Beck, Rush, Hannity....I would love to know why in a city where there is no traditional talk competition, they are not trending with the top rated talk stations in other major markets.

Thank you!

That's a good question.
I was in that very city this week.

What a boring talk radio town.

I could only find WPHT and the all-news KYW. Would be nice if KYW ran local hosts doing talk outside of drive to take-on PHT. PHT sounds pretty lame, being a schill for right-wing radio. Nice job bonehead PD.

 

[Radio_Realist]

What a boring talk radio town.

It's a boring town, period. Why should the talk radio landscape be any different from the rest of that market?

Would be nice if KYW ran local hosts doing talk outside of drive to take-on PHT.

Only if those local hosts were actually any good. And, odds are if those theoretical local hosts could be located and recruited to work in Philly, they'd leave as soon as they could land a syndication deal and move elsewhere.

Of course, we've had the conversation before about you're definition of pseudo-local versus my definition of bona-fide local. I've still erad nothing to convince me that bringing in a ringer from out of town to sit behind a mic that's located near the transmission tower is any different from bringing in a ringer from out of town who sits behind a mic located in another city.

If it isn't a local person doing the local show, then it's not really a local show, is it?

 

[DaleGriffin]

The number 12+ at least is well within the respectable realm of where talkers are nationwide and it is sharing audience with one of the few all news stations left. How is this an underperformer? We are also talking about 12+ and not about the money demo or revenue. Every programmer worth anything knows 12+ is meaningless, which is why most people here are putting weight on it.