I've heard some talk that lay-offs and some schedule changes are in store for WHAM in the coming months. Given some recent changes at other CC stations I can see it happening. I suspect that WHAM might start carrying Rush live 12-3 and possibly air Lonsberry or some other host 3-6. Anyone know the story here?
-
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
WHAM rumblings
- Thread starter dustintv
- Start date
I've often wondered why WHAM radio does not simulcast WHAM TV's 5 & 6pm newscasts? After all WHAM's radio news department has been cut to the bare bones after the firing of Bill Lowe a few years ago.
As for layoffs, I would not be surprised, considering the economy, if more people lose their jobs. The question is what departments will get hit? On-air; new; sales; front office? Maybe some people from each departments.
As for layoffs, I would not be surprised, considering the economy, if more people lose their jobs. The question is what departments will get hit? On-air; new; sales; front office? Maybe some people from each departments.
If WHAM is in difficulties, here’s some sincerely-intended advice from a listener that might help.
I’m not holding my breath but maybe you will consider some semblance of balance by accommodating someone like Thom Hartmann or Ed Schultz in your schedule.
You probably believe that all-conservative talk is the way for talk radio to make the most money. Maybe you should question this conventional wisdom and revise your business plan.
You lost me totally as a listener because I don’t like being constantly harangued and insulted wall-to-wall. I suspect you have alienated close to half of your potential audience, and I don’t think that’s a luxury you can afford.
Respect me as a potential listener and I will consider reprogramming my preset buttons. Probably I’ll start tuning in again to your well-done drive time news, which currently I cannot bring myself to support. And you may even save a job or two.
I’m not holding my breath but maybe you will consider some semblance of balance by accommodating someone like Thom Hartmann or Ed Schultz in your schedule.
You probably believe that all-conservative talk is the way for talk radio to make the most money. Maybe you should question this conventional wisdom and revise your business plan.
You lost me totally as a listener because I don’t like being constantly harangued and insulted wall-to-wall. I suspect you have alienated close to half of your potential audience, and I don’t think that’s a luxury you can afford.
Respect me as a potential listener and I will consider reprogramming my preset buttons. Probably I’ll start tuning in again to your well-done drive time news, which currently I cannot bring myself to support. And you may even save a job or two.
Not likely that WHAM is in trouble aside from maybe being a little top heavy in upper end demographics like so many stations of their ilk.
Any cutbacks at WHAM are, more than likely, cuts to save the corporate "butt" like the cuts being made in so many of the markets controlled by Clear Channel, Citadel and Cumulus. These companies are all in danger of crumbling from their massive debt loads.
Might we see The WHAM Morning News with Chet OR Beth instead of Chet AND Beth? Or someone pulling double duty and doing two shows? As we've seen across the county anything could happen!
(By the way, anyone remember years ago, many years ago, when Jack Slattery was heard doing morning and afternoons drives on WHAM?)
And to listener-in, in the meantime - don't hold your breath waiting for WHAM to add Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann (?) or any other Lib-talker - it just ain't gonna happen!
Any cutbacks at WHAM are, more than likely, cuts to save the corporate "butt" like the cuts being made in so many of the markets controlled by Clear Channel, Citadel and Cumulus. These companies are all in danger of crumbling from their massive debt loads.
Might we see The WHAM Morning News with Chet OR Beth instead of Chet AND Beth? Or someone pulling double duty and doing two shows? As we've seen across the county anything could happen!
(By the way, anyone remember years ago, many years ago, when Jack Slattery was heard doing morning and afternoons drives on WHAM?)
And to listener-in, in the meantime - don't hold your breath waiting for WHAM to add Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann (?) or any other Lib-talker - it just ain't gonna happen!
WHAM is never going to carry any programming that isn't right of Attila the Hun.
Can you imagine Ned Flander's show being followed by some program that used to be broadcast on Air America?
WHAM must be doing something right (no pun intended) because the station maintains its high ratings and makes money.
As for layoffs, again I wouldn't be surprised if some people were let go. But I don't see the breakup of Chet and Beth unless one of them leaves on their own. Then again Tony and Dee were quite popular and it's been a few years since Dee Alexander joined the group "what ever happened too?"
Can you imagine Ned Flander's show being followed by some program that used to be broadcast on Air America?
WHAM must be doing something right (no pun intended) because the station maintains its high ratings and makes money.
As for layoffs, again I wouldn't be surprised if some people were let go. But I don't see the breakup of Chet and Beth unless one of them leaves on their own. Then again Tony and Dee were quite popular and it's been a few years since Dee Alexander joined the group "what ever happened too?"
B
Bob1370
Guest
"WHAM must be doing something right (no pun intended) because the station maintains its high ratings and makes money. "
Trouble is, at the current rate of demographic shift, and the station's current inability to replenish listeners who are aging out or dying off with younger 25-54 replacement listeners (a problem they share with most right wing talkers), sometime between 2015 and 2020 the average age of a WHAM listener will be 'deceased'.
Advertisers don't like to try to reach that demo...
Trouble is, at the current rate of demographic shift, and the station's current inability to replenish listeners who are aging out or dying off with younger 25-54 replacement listeners (a problem they share with most right wing talkers), sometime between 2015 and 2020 the average age of a WHAM listener will be 'deceased'.
Advertisers don't like to try to reach that demo...
Bob1370 said:
Public radio is not immune to that same shift. Nationally, the median age for news/talk on public radio has increased from 47 to 52 in the last decade. Jazz radio is at 55 and classical is at what seems to be an unsustainable 65.
As far as WHAM balancing with some left-of-center talkers, it seems like a losing proposition for them. While that might bring in some listeners who prefer Schultz or Hartmann, it will alienate existing listeners who would find themselves "constantly harangued and insulted wall-to-wall" from the opposite side of the political spectrum. (And if you deny that the talk on the left is any less vitriolic toward its foes, you're not being honest.)
Ed Trefzger said:
By definition, if there's any balance it isn't wall-to-wall. And while I agree that there's some vitriol from the left, the two that I mentioned at least make an attempt to hear what the other side has to say. As I write, Ed Schultz has just finished a respectful (on both sides) interview with Republican Rep. Issa, hardly a noted liberal.
No center, let alone left-of-center, talker has had the benefit of a 50kW signal in this market since WHAM booted Allan Harris off its airwaves despite his popularity with listeners, so I think you are prejudging the effect of bringing some balance to its mix, i.e., you accept the conventional wisdom which as you know is as wrong as often as it is correct. I don't see why conservative listeners would be any more alienated than I would be if I heard some representation and respect on its airwaves. WHAM's performance unlikely to improve if it sticks with its present formula, except from any improvement in the general economy. If it throws the dice and tries something different, it might just outstrip the economy.
WHAM is as likely to add a liberal host as your favorite late '70s rock station was to add a few disco favorites. Not going to happen.
Why upset your core audience by airing something that's bound to alienate them? You can argue about balance all you want, but airing Rush Limbaugh followed by Ed Schultz is like segueing from Black Sabbath back into Donna Summer.
Why upset your core audience by airing something that's bound to alienate them? You can argue about balance all you want, but airing Rush Limbaugh followed by Ed Schultz is like segueing from Black Sabbath back into Donna Summer.
B
Bob1370
Guest
"...airing Rush Limbaugh followed by Ed Schultz is like segueing from Black Sabbath back into Donna Summer.?
Actually, putting hosts of drastically different views back to back to back in a lefty/righty rotation was precisely the formula that KABC in Los Angeles used between 1960 and 1996, when Disney took it over and turned it into a station full of Limbaugh clones, firing its most popular host of the time (Stephanie Miller) and replacing her with a succession of right wingers trying and failing to compete with Rush, who was locked into a competitor.
Between 1960 and 1996 KABC owned the 25-49 audience in Market #2, and from the mid-70s to the mid-90s it was the #1 billing station in the United States, outbilling even the top-rated station in New York City. A mix of hosts of different views, united by only wit and energy, was the most successful talk station in American radio history. Only when new owners messed with the old formula and went for political uniformity (on the theory that it was what would sell) did the station go into decline.
The moral of the story? A debate among hosts can energize a station all the way to the top, hitting the sweet spot in the demos, and stuffing the cash box. Maybe every big signal talker should give it a try; as a formula, a strong lefty-righty starting rotation has been a proven winner not only in baseball but in broadcasting.
Actually, putting hosts of drastically different views back to back to back in a lefty/righty rotation was precisely the formula that KABC in Los Angeles used between 1960 and 1996, when Disney took it over and turned it into a station full of Limbaugh clones, firing its most popular host of the time (Stephanie Miller) and replacing her with a succession of right wingers trying and failing to compete with Rush, who was locked into a competitor.
Between 1960 and 1996 KABC owned the 25-49 audience in Market #2, and from the mid-70s to the mid-90s it was the #1 billing station in the United States, outbilling even the top-rated station in New York City. A mix of hosts of different views, united by only wit and energy, was the most successful talk station in American radio history. Only when new owners messed with the old formula and went for political uniformity (on the theory that it was what would sell) did the station go into decline.
The moral of the story? A debate among hosts can energize a station all the way to the top, hitting the sweet spot in the demos, and stuffing the cash box. Maybe every big signal talker should give it a try; as a formula, a strong lefty-righty starting rotation has been a proven winner not only in baseball but in broadcasting.
I'm not a fan of talk radio format "purity." That said, the game is played differently today than it was 10 years ago, let alone twenty years ago. John Mainelli had a successful run programming WABC with a variety of talk show hosts that offered divergent opinions. Lynn Samuels could be heard only a few hours after Bob Grant. Phil Boyce, on the other hand, was a firm believer in format consistency and charted a course of conservative talkers on WABC. WBEN is programmed along these lines. The only exception was centrist-libertarian Ron Dobson (who I hired in '95 for middays at WGR.) Dobson had a fairly successful full time slot doing nights at WBEN before budget cuts forced him to a part time fill-in role, which he does remarkably well. Some people don't appreciate how difficult it is for a fill-in talk show host to come in from the cold and fill in for the established full time talk host, especially if the fill-in offers different opinions.
Although it runs contrary to my personal opinion, commercial talk stations that offer format consistency perform better in the ratings. Very likely, PPM will reinforce the need for format consistency. As we know, Buffalo remains a diary market and WBEN leads the pack while progressive-liberal WWKB, seemingly on life support, hangs around a one share.
Personally, I prefer to listen to NPR and appreciate the luxury of having 88.7 WBFO and WNED-AM 970.
Although it runs contrary to my personal opinion, commercial talk stations that offer format consistency perform better in the ratings. Very likely, PPM will reinforce the need for format consistency. As we know, Buffalo remains a diary market and WBEN leads the pack while progressive-liberal WWKB, seemingly on life support, hangs around a one share.
Personally, I prefer to listen to NPR and appreciate the luxury of having 88.7 WBFO and WNED-AM 970.
B
Bob1370
Guest
"Although it runs contrary to my personal opinion, commercial talk stations that offer format consistency perform better in the ratings. Very likely, PPM will reinforce the need for format consistency. As we know, Buffalo remains a diary market and WBEN leads the pack while progressive-liberal WWKB, seemingly on life support, hangs around a one share."
KB's problems have more to do with a combination of zero marketing, lack of local and regional content and poor program selection than any inherent weakness in non-conservative programming.
WABC today would love to enjoy the same success and the same broad demo appeal as John Mainelli's WABC. Since he left, it's never come close. That should tell us consistency in intelligence, energy and wit is a lot more important than consistent political message. A lot of ex-WABC listeners went over to WNYC--enough to account for all of their 12+ and 25-54 decline since Mainelli left. In Washington, WMAL. once number one overall in the market less than a decade ago, has collapsed as a hard-right outlet and given format dominance in the big DC market away to nonpartisan noncomm WAMU. In Boston, conservative talkers WRKO and WTKK-FM are both losing to noncomm, nonpartisan WBUR. Maybe the hard right formula doesn't work so well after all, especially if it gets a truly effective challenger...
KB's problems have more to do with a combination of zero marketing, lack of local and regional content and poor program selection than any inherent weakness in non-conservative programming.
WABC today would love to enjoy the same success and the same broad demo appeal as John Mainelli's WABC. Since he left, it's never come close. That should tell us consistency in intelligence, energy and wit is a lot more important than consistent political message. A lot of ex-WABC listeners went over to WNYC--enough to account for all of their 12+ and 25-54 decline since Mainelli left. In Washington, WMAL. once number one overall in the market less than a decade ago, has collapsed as a hard-right outlet and given format dominance in the big DC market away to nonpartisan noncomm WAMU. In Boston, conservative talkers WRKO and WTKK-FM are both losing to noncomm, nonpartisan WBUR. Maybe the hard right formula doesn't work so well after all, especially if it gets a truly effective challenger...
Problem is conservative listeners want consistency. Put a liberal on after Rush the entire audience goes away with the first "conservatives are all hateful bigoted uneducated inbred morons" the audience will go away and you have to attract a completely different audience who will go away when the next conservative host comes on.
gr8oldies said:
And your evidence is.......?
You're making assumptions. Specifically, you're assuming that the ONLY conservatives who would listen to radio are the raving right-wing kind that cannot stand to hear an alternative viewpoint. And that if you had the alternating liberal/conservative programming, you wouldn't attract more moderate listeners.
Admittedly, I think you're right that you can't have alternating programming comprised of hosts spouting the extremes viewpoints of left and right. You'd have to tone the whole rhetoric down quite a bit. In other words, you'd have to be NPR. Oops. ;D
Going off on a tangent, I do wonder how much of extreme-political-viewpoint media has caused the seeming partisan divide in this country, or how much it's merely a reflection of it. One might argue that it was both, but I think it slipped into something different...a massive echo chamber, specifically...when the people being voted into power were also reflecting the "partisan divide".
Coming back on-topic, I can tell you that when we had World Cafe immediately following Democracy Now in the mornings, the tune-in/tune-out at 10am was incredible. One entire audience simply disappeared, and an equally large completely different audience tuned in. So I guess even in NPR, having wildly different programming is probably not good.
WSYR in Syracuse ran Ed Shultz for a while in the early evening. It didn't work with their otherwise right wing format. Syracuse is in desperate need of a progressive talker. Still the other stations run with 3rd rate right wingers or sports and can't figure out why no one listens and they don't do any billing. WSYR just just owns the talk market until some one gets a clue.
NPR is different from other talk radio. What you hear is straightforward news reporting, some commentary usually pairing people like David Brooks and EJ Dionne, shows like Diane Rehm who balances her guest panels with different points of view, usually within the same show but certainly over a number of shows, or Fresh Air, which also gives a fair hearing to different points of view. That’s good, valuable and indispensable programming. What NPR the network (as opposed to a handful of member stations) certainly does not do is advocacy programming where hosts can consistently air their views at length. There is an audience for both formats, often even between the same pair of ears.
I second that. As an FDR liberal I consider myself neither extreme nor closed minded, and have no problem listening and even learning from the other side. I do have a problem with being insulted (and I also have a problem when liberal hosts do the insulting). It isn’t credible that the conservative talk audience consists only of rabid right-wingers; there must be plenty of people along much of the political spectrum who listen for various reasons, not the least being that they have no place else to go if they want clear, interference-free talk radio. Common sense sometimes turns out to be nonsense when it's put to the test. There's no evidence, only unfounded assertions, that if WHAM made room in its schedule for Hartmann or Schultz, it would lose more conservative listeners than it gained moderates and liberals. If WHAM is serious about increasing its audience, it hardly makes sense for it to make only minor tweaks to its existing formula; it will be ignoring a significant new audience.
aaronread said:
I second that. As an FDR liberal I consider myself neither extreme nor closed minded, and have no problem listening and even learning from the other side. I do have a problem with being insulted (and I also have a problem when liberal hosts do the insulting). It isn’t credible that the conservative talk audience consists only of rabid right-wingers; there must be plenty of people along much of the political spectrum who listen for various reasons, not the least being that they have no place else to go if they want clear, interference-free talk radio. Common sense sometimes turns out to be nonsense when it's put to the test. There's no evidence, only unfounded assertions, that if WHAM made room in its schedule for Hartmann or Schultz, it would lose more conservative listeners than it gained moderates and liberals. If WHAM is serious about increasing its audience, it hardly makes sense for it to make only minor tweaks to its existing formula; it will be ignoring a significant new audience.
I think that what's different between then and now is back then KABC was marketed as "intelligent talk" and they delivered, in that there was no name-calling or diatribe between hosts of differing viewpoints. MSNBC and Fox had not been invented yet, so there wasn't much screaming. People of differing viewpoints could listen to the other side's thoughtful presentation, boring as that might be compared to now. Today we don't care as much about thinking as we do validation of our personal viewpoint, and perhaps not minding if personal name-calling occurs. It's about emotion now.
The point is that with today's presentations a Rush Limbaugh listener is not likely to stick around for Mike Malloy (for example) to attack Limbaugh, or an Al Franken listener won't tolerate staying to hear Michael Savage berate Franken. The presentations are far too emotional now, and they all need to go to their own rooms (or stand in their own corners) where ne'r the twain shall meet.
The point is that with today's presentations a Rush Limbaugh listener is not likely to stick around for Mike Malloy (for example) to attack Limbaugh, or an Al Franken listener won't tolerate staying to hear Michael Savage berate Franken. The presentations are far too emotional now, and they all need to go to their own rooms (or stand in their own corners) where ne'r the twain shall meet.
- Status