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

[DaleGriffin]

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?

Is every person working in Philly from Philly? Is it not possible to immerse yourself in the local issues and scene and be a local talker? A fresh eye could bring new perspective, if there were people worth being on the air, as opposed to an outsider, wouldn't they be on the air?

Being from the town your broadcasting in does not make you better. Local issues make you a local talker, period.

 

[Don62]

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?

That's your opinion. I found the town interesting. Not any more boring than smaller cities like Pittsburgh or Cincy.

Compared to the town, the city's radio was rather bland, except for WVLT-FM.

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?

Interesting logic at work here.

So a news reader comes in from another city and anchors a major 10 p.m. newscast.
Everyone on the set is from another market, like many are.

So that TV station isn't doing local news?

Oh, right. They - like the nonsense you spout about local hosts - have nothing to talk about.
So they're not local either.

Get a grip. It's radio realism, not ignorism.

 

[Don62]

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.

Well-stated. That's basically what you hear day in and day out from the windbag.

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!

Also well-stated. Broadcasting is more than just being a satellite station of some big city station.
I think broadcasters are too lazy these days. They want things handed to them, much like news reporters ripping and reading or relying on news releases.
They don't want to do real work to generate listeners and engage audiences.

20-40 years ago: Larry King? Tom Snyder? Larry Elder? Alan Berg? Bruce Morrow? Jim Bohannon?
Who?
You don't count. You can't start in this business because all our shows have to come from satellite.
We're too cheap and short-sighted to do it any other way.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Is every person working in Philly from Philly?

No, but then no one much cares if the kid putting cheese on your slivered steak sandwich is "local" or not, as long as the sandwich tastes like it's supposed to. No one cares if the bimbo folding jeans at The Gap is local or not. But when people make a whopping big freakin' deal over "local" in reference to radio talk show hosts, then I think they should not be hypocrites and should go local all the way. If you're going to whine and kvetch every time you post in any thread about how important it is for radio talk show hosts to be local, then you should go all the way and advocate REALLY local hosts, hosts who have lived in the market long enough to know the place intimately before ever once cracking a microphone on a "local" talk show.

Is it not possible to immerse yourself in the local issues and scene and be a local talker?

Sure. As long as you do the immersion in advance, before you actually go on the air. Otherwise, you're no different from some syndicated host whose program is piped in from out of town.

Let's cut to the chase on this issue. I like the idea of high quality talk shows. I think high quality talk shows are defined as those that draw good numbers of people in demographics that are attractive to advertisers.

There are those who whine and kvetch that there aren't enough local hosts. They whine and moan about companies using plug-and-play syndicated hosts instead of local hosts. Fine.

I'm simply pointing out that dragging someone from another market into your local studios isn't any more "local" than plugging in a satellite feed. If you want to advocate local hosts, fine. Advocate local hosts. But don't pretend to be advocating some sort of improvement to the broadcast landscape by playing musical chairs with out-of-market hired guns. Bringing in out-of-market talent isn't being local. There's no difference in terms of being "local" or not between hiring an out-of-town talk host or subscribing to an out-of-town syndicated program. I have no problem with a PD making a decision to put the best show he can on the air. If he decides syndication, fine. If he decides to bring in a non-local host, fine. If he finds and hires a good local host who is truly local, fine. Just don't bring in some outside ringer and then pat yourself on the back for having a "local" host. If you bring in an outside ringer, and you have to brag about it, brag honestly. Brag that you brought the best outsider in, not that you're putting someone local on the air.

I'm not saying that out-of-town hired guns are bad people. I'm not saying that they can't pull ratings. But those who are whining and kvetching about the lack of local talk hosts aren't really and truly advocating local hosts because they think local is better. If they were really and truly concerned that local radio was local, then they'd be agreeing with me about hiring local people for those local jobs.

Since they aren't really and truly concerned about local radio truly being local, then there must be some other reason why they advocate more talk hosts getting paychecks for doing shows on only one station. And I'd bet a small sum of money that reason is that they want to land one of those jobs. That's what it's really all about. They want to see more local stations hire more people so that there are more chances for them to get a job as a radio talk host.

There's nothing wrong with that. I haven't attacked or insulted anyone by suggesting that they want more job opportunities created so they have a better chance of getting a job. But if that's someone's ulterior motive, don't you think such people could simply be honest and admit that's what they're really after?

Broadcasting is more than just being a satellite station of some big city station.

Oh? Try telling that to all the television stations in the nation. Where is it written that broadcasting doesn't consist of using a network of transmitters to carry programs across the entire nation? You're probably too young to remember first-hand when most radio was nothing but carrying programs produced by NBC-Red, NBC-Blue, CBS, or Mutual. I'm too young to remember them first hand, but I know they existed. Radio hasn't been truly local since the very earliest days of broadcasting in the 1920's. It's now 2007. Things are as they are. Get used to it.

 

[Phil Boyce]

I know I said I had to stop responding to these completely moronic comments. But I am fearful that somebody will look at this sentence from baroosk and actually think that maybe it makes sense. Here it is:

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%.

Not only do I think it is OK, I think it is terrific. The Newstalk format has been able to maintain and hold that leading 14% share of all radio listening for 8 years while many other formats have declined. It is simply remarkable what NewsTalk has done. And you seem to have a particular skill at misinterpreting data. You mix up the 14% total audience share for Newstalk, with the percentage of GAINS for the other formats. Sports is only around 2 or 3% of total listening. You seem to think that having 2-3% of total listening is great...and better than having the leading format in America...Newstalks 14%.

I don't believe you ever did work in the broadcasting business...but if you did, I completely understand why you stated that in the past tense. News/Talk is a format on radio, and can't be compared to a sitcom. But since you used sitcoms for a comparison, let me state the obvious. There are LOTS of examples of sitcoms that had successful long 10-12 year runs...and did NOT continue to grow. But they did have high ratings for years. If a sitcom is #1...(as the Newstalk format is) it would not have to continue to grow to stay on the air. As long as it maintained that #1 status, the network execs would be happy.

If you really hate the NewsTalk format as it seems, and you really think it is all over for this format, as you claim....why are you still here on the newstalk format on this message board debating these issues? Go ahead...leave. You think it is all over anyway, so get out and stop annoying those of us who still do this and GET PAID to do this.

You have been proven wrong repeatedly here, by me and by others. No...you have been proven MORE than wrong. You have been proven to be completely devoid of any semblance of logic or reason. Radio is a collection of formats. It is completely possible that many formats can do well simultaneously. But when I state the absolute FACT that there is a finite number of shares available (100) you ridicule me as if I am stating something that would get me fired. We are talking about 100 shares on the radio. No more....no less. That means if NewsTalk has a 14 share...and that is the highest of any format...and it is a mature format that has been around for 20 years or more...chances are it is not going to keep growing. Individual shows can grow...but the format is at the top of it's game ...growth wise.

The fact that News/Talk has maintained that 14% share for 8 straight years is nothing short of miraculous. It is not an indication of declining interest. To the contrary, it is an indication of amazing stability. Music formats are suffering from erosion from ipods, computers...satellites, and more. News/Talk radio just keeps on maintain it's #1 rank for years on end. Anybody who does not see that needs to be sent to a rubber room somewhere and start analyzing the number of squares in the floor tiles...not attemping to ridicule NewsTalk as a format, and claim it is failing. Please...spare me this agony....and allow me some peace by letting this silly argument fade into distant memory. It is painful to me to see you humiliate yourself this way.

 

[Don62]

Edited to show was responding to another post...

Since they aren't really and truly concerned about local radio truly being local, then there must be some other reason why they advocate more talk hosts getting paychecks for doing shows on only one station. And I'd bet a small sum of money that reason is that they want to land one of those jobs. That's what it's really all about. They want to see more local stations hire more people so that there are more chances for them to get a job as a radio talk host.

You're just not smart enough to tell the difference between a local show and a national show.
Maybe that's all you listen to, crummy satellite crap. Wasting city-grade signals with such junk?

Who cares if the host is from some other city. Is every ballplayer from the home town of the NFL team?

You never answered my statement about TV news. An anchor comes in from another city.
We're supposed to think the show isn't local news?

I know viewers would certainly be upset if all they ran was network feeds! Local stations are supposed to run local news, not canned material.

Even non-radio people understand this.

Years ago I had a cousin (who is a Dr.) tell me, "Gee, the local station must not want dee-jays. All it runs is syndicated oldies shows on weekends." He wasn't in broadcasting. I actually liked those shows because they provided something most radio stations then weren't doing: oldies.

Now political conservative talk is everywhere. And that's all you hear.

A city such as Philly - what - the 5th or 6th largest U.S. city - can't afford to air one local radio talk show?

-

No, I'm not an aspiring broadcaster, though I used to work in radio and TV a long time ago.

Just a listener who knows good radio when he hears it.

Relying entirely on blowhards ([EDIT]) like Limbo and Slanthead doesn't make for great broadcasting.


[EDIT-vulgar]

 

[Phil Boyce]

Don 62....I tried to ignore you, but I can't. You said some things that just do not make sense:

A city such as Philly - what - the 5th or 6th largest U.S. city - can't afford to air one local radio talk show?

-

WPHT has a great local host in the morning...Michael Smerconish....and a great host at night in Dom Giordano. Any great talk station should have local talent...but a mix of syndicated and local seems to work best. You want to have the big time hosts like Rush and Hannity surrounded by some local hosts who can make sure the station talks about local issues that may not make it on the national platform. You also should add a good mix of local news, sports, traffic, and weather, especially in morning drive. WPHT seems to do that.

No, I'm not an aspiring broadcaster, though I used to work in radio and TV a long time ago.

Just a listener who knows good radio when he hears it.

Relying entirely on blowhards ([EDIT]) like Limbo and Slanthead doesn't make for great broadcasting.

A radio station puts syndicated hosts on the air because they can get better ratings than the local shows they replace. Rush and Sean have the two highest rated shows on the radio. Listeners flock to these shows. You can call them names if you dislike them...that's fine. But they win for their stations...and that is why they both survive the test of time.

pb

 

[Don62]

Don 62....I tried to ignore you, but I can't. You said some things that just do not make sense:

PHIL,
I was responding to the previous poster, not your post. Edited to reflect that. I think our postings hit the same time.

Regarding WPHT, I didn't listen every night the week I was there. All I heard was Beck, Limbo and Hannity crap, and ballgames at night. I wasn't aware of the station having nighttime programming.

The market was so boring in talk radio that I listend to WOR and Savage more often. At least he isn't a spokesman for a particular party.

a mix of syndicated and local seems to work best.

I agree entirely with you. You make a lot of good points here.

What I disagree with is media giant Clear Channel gutting their stations of any local talk content and going entirely with syndicated fare after morning drive.

Look at WIOD in Miami and WFLA in Tampa.

The former was a legendary station.

Nothing local besides morning. Even a stale Hannity in the evening.

Surely, major cities such as those can afford at least one local issue-driven call-in show unique to the region?

(I know Schnitt is produced in Tampa but it isn't a local show.)

 

[Phil Boyce]

Don...don't get me wrong. I think Philly is the largest market in the country to have only one legitimate talk station. I think it is a matter of time before they get another one, and it could be on FM. I am sure WPHT would not like me saying this, but having a competitor will make them better. It gives a station something to fight for and against. It makes you examine your areas of weakness more closely, and stops you from taking your audience for granted (not that WPHT does that).

pb

 

[jimwalsh2001]

WPHT has one serious problem in that the sales department calls the shots.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Who cares if the host is from some other city. Is every ballplayer from the home town of the NFL team?

If it's a radio talk show, then an intimate knowledge of the local area is a prime requirement for being able to do the job. An intimate knowledge of the local area is not a prime requirement for being able to play football

You never answered my statement about TV news. An anchor comes in from another city.
We're supposed to think the show isn't local news?

Talk show host and news anchorman are two different jobs. An anchor doesn't need to know anything about the city he's reporting on. He needs to be able to read a teleprompter without stuttering and to keep his hair neatly combed. An anchor has a staff of professionals writing his copy and doing the actual reporting. A talk show host needs to be able to recall local information from his own memory.

 

[justareporter]

Talk show host and news anchorman are two different jobs. An anchor doesn't need to know anything about the city he's reporting on. He needs to be able to read a teleprompter without stuttering and to keep his hair neatly combed. An anchor has a staff of professionals writing his copy and doing the actual reporting. A talk show host needs to be able to recall local information from his own memory.

Wow!

You've obviously NEVER worked in a TV news department. Depending on market size writers, editors and producers may write anchor copy but it is always the responsibility to insure the material is clear, correct, concise and question anything he/she believes is factually incorrect.

Good anchors imerse themselves in the state/city/town they just moved into.

I'd stick with what you know...this isn't it.

 

[Radio_Realist]

You've obviously NEVER worked in a TV news department.

Actually, my first job in the media was working in a television news room. I met some of the best and brightest most knowledgeable people working in broadcast journalism, and I also met a handsome man with great hair and a good voice who read the teleprompter.

Regardless, the key point is that being a television news anchor and being a radio talk show host are two different jobs with two different skill set requirements. Do you deny that?

 

[Don62]

Regardless, the key point is that being a television news anchor and being a radio talk show host are two different jobs with two different skill set requirements. Do you deny that?

So what. Different media. Different jobs.

Talk radio is a more personal media with closer interaction with the audience. That's why fouling a station's schedule with entirely syndicated shows makes the station sound dull. No personal interaction.


Radio today is no way like it was during the early 50s with Mutual Broadcasting and network dramas.

If some TV anchor started mispronouncing city names, "Bow-ee" Texas (near Dallas) instead of the correct "Boo-ee" (as a radio host often did), you would certainly hear from the station's viewers.

Of course, anchors and reporters - who are mostly out-of-towners - have to understand and pick up on local ways.

So your justification that a person sitting in front of a mike (isn't that what those syndicated hacks do? ) in a local market isn't important or useful [size=10pt][size=10pt]falls flat[/size][/size] - just like many of your other arguments.

I'll never forget the [size=10pt][size=10pt]whopper[/size][/size] you told - "Local hosts have nothing to talk about."

Again, you don't listen to a lot of local talk radio nor watch much TV news.


BTW- Larry Elder, perhaps the most listened to radio talk host in LA - he's just a hack right?

After all, his syndicated show flopped.

Weren't you the sage who said any local host who can't get a syndicated gig is a loser?

 

[Don62]

To show you some words of wisdom from one of the experts who thinks syndicated shows are automatically superior to better and more interesting (and more connecting with listeners) local shows...

[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt]Not at all. On news/talk stations, people talk about things that are in the news. On sports/talk stations, they talk about sports. Sports/talk stations don't have to carry play-by-play accounts of games. Why should a news/talk station have to have local staff to report local news?

The simple truth is that there are almost no reporters covering local news on any radio stations in any market. Any reporter who is any good is simply too expensive.
[/size][/size][/size]

[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt]

What's the big deal about "local"? How many interesting topics are there in any city to fill two or three hours of news/talk?

Right. Local hosts have nothing to talk about.

Tell us another whopper, Radio Expert.

And newspaper columnists can't talk about anything interesting as well?

What contempt you have for people working in the media.

 

[Don62]

WPHT has a great local host in the morning...Michael Smerconish....and a great host at night in Dom Giordano.
[size=10pt][size=10pt]Any great talk station should have local talent...but a mix of syndicated and local seems to work best. You want to have the big time hosts like Rush and Hannity surrounded by some local hosts who can make sure the station talks about local issues that may not make it on the national platform. You also should add a good mix of local news, sports, traffic, and weather, especially in morning drive. WPHT seems to do that. [/size][/size]

Phil, I agree completely. I also like Michael Smerconish. One hell of a talent.
I was slammed by the idiot expert here for pointing out that the No. 1 talker in Kansas CIty isn't entirely syndicated. It has a mix.
My post ...
http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,72765.20.html
[size=10pt][size=10pt]

[size=10pt][size=10pt]One station I'm familiar with - one not owned by Crap Ch. - KMBZ, Kansas City, the market's top NT, has this schedule:

5-9 a.m. local morning news
9-11 Darla Jaye (local conservative host)
11-2 Rush
2-4 O'Reilly
4-7 Shannin & Parks (local, conservative)
7- Boortz or something

I can't see why at least one local show can't be wrapped around syndication, such as Rush or Hannity.
KMBZ news radio is tops in its market, whilst its distant competitor, 710-KCMO, has zero local shows. Just a morning guy. Rest is filled by Hannity, Laura Ingram, Dave Ramsey, Savage.
That station - KCMO - is consistently at the bottom. Of course, it's news is rip and read, while KMBZ has a dedicated news staff.

I never said all syndication is bad. Overnight shows such as Coast To Coast AM and others like Limbaugh's help fill holes and generate listeners. A good combo of local and syndicated seems to work well.

I just see lazy or mediocre PDs or corporate dictates that say they won't invest in programming.

It seems corporate owners are too cheap. It's not like WFLA or WIOD or KRMG-Tulsa have major competitors.
Those stations are the market NT leaders while their competition is way behind. It's not like the stations couldn't afford to run some local shows. This isn't some tiny market that couldn't afford to hire local announcers.

It's ironic that while we have more talk radio stations than ever, the industry can't seem able to run anything local on some major heritage NT stations.

Looks like the facts don't matter to Mr. Expert around here. KMBZ is Numero Uno, the top of the heap. It is not entirely syndicated. This flows with what Phil recommends.

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,72765.60.html
[size=10pt][size=10pt]

[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt]One example of one market in a nation the size of the United States proves nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

[/size][/size]

 

[Slant]

A friend of mine in the market said that CBS is not too happy with Hannity's numbers in afternoons at WPHT. Wouldn't it make sense to tape delay Sean to 7PM and run a local show, maybe even Giordano in afternoons and let Hannity share time with the Phillies? I guess ABC would make WPHT air all of the Hannity spots (even the ones on the nights Sean is pre-empted) if they wanted to go that route? I think Sean is very talented but t would make sense for WPHT to book end the drive times at least with local talent. OR, move Smerconish back to afternoon's where his ratings were stronger.

 

[Phil Boyce]

Slant says:

A friend of mine in the market said that CBS is not too happy with Hannity's numbers in afternoons at WPHT.

I am not aware of that, but what they may be doing is comparing Hannity's post 2004 ratings with his high water marks in 2004. Sean and Rush both had huge years in 2004. There was a natural drop off. But we are now seeing the same perfect storm lining up as we approach the 2008 presidential election. Anybody worrying about Hannity's numbers now would have to ignore history. There is more interest now (and much earlier) than ever before in a presidential race.

Also I have been very pleased with Hannity's early six months numbers in Philly in the new PPM methodology. Hannity is doing really well for WPHT now, so if there ever was any concern before, I would be shocked if it still exists.

pb

 

[Radio_Realist]

[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt]

What's the big deal about "local"? How many interesting topics are there in any city to fill two or three hours of news/talk?

Right. Local hosts have nothing to talk about.

You sir, have posted a lie. In your quote of my words, I asked how many interesting topics are there in a city to fill two or three hours of news/talk. You are the one who twisted my assertion that there is a lack of interesting local topics to fill several hours of programming per day into the lie that I said that local hosts have nothing to talk about. Twisting my words in that manner is dishonest. It is decietful. It is a lie. And the fact that your own words that I quoted are a lie is proof that you are a liar.

I wonder if the moderators here will take into consideration that my calling you a liar is based on posted proof that you lied, and that my statement is not a personal attack, it is merely an accurate observation.

What contempt you have for people working in the media.

No, it is not people working in the media that I have contempt for. I reserve contempt for those who twist the words of other people.

 

[justareporter]

Dear Mr. RR

Lighten up. Calling people liars is hardly becomming and I'd argue not condusive to any discussion about anything.

If you want to do that go be a talk show host.

Ha!