• 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

What's Wrong with Air America?

K

Keith_Lake

Guest
Never mind Howard Stern for the moment. Can we talk about Air America?

Any discussion of the Air America network on message boards such as this one immediately devolves into a political bitch-fest. The facts of the matter are: Rush Limbaugh was there first, in most markets he's on the bigger stations, and they ain't giving him up. Regardless of whether you're on the political left or right, them's the facts. Bigger stations = bigger bucks. It's all about the money. Never mind his hearing loss or alleged drug problems or accusations of hypocrisy. It's all about the money. If Rush was losing money for his affiliates, he'd be gone. In this market the only AM station that shows up at all in the ratings is the one that carries his show.

Air America messed up at the get-go by demanding their affiliate stations take the entire lineup or not at all. Plus there was some questionable money at the beginning which made them appear as damaged goods to stations which might have been considering an affiliation. No station manager in his/her right mind wanted to commit to something which could have been gone the next week. Many of them are also nervous about affiliating with programming that not that many years ago would have been called treasonous.

Add to the aforementioned the fact that most of Air America's programming is just plain boring. I checked out Al Franken's show because I wanted to see if his Saturday Night Live humor could translate to political talk. It didn't. I can't listen to it in the car because it makes me sleepy. Randi Rhodes is a cutie until she opens her mouth, when she becomes a bitter harpy who I find uncomfortable to listen to. Same for Janine Garafolo (sp?). Ranting about Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush gets old every day even when it's true.

Sometimes I think Air America's programming is totally aimed at people who haven't gotten over the parental-rebellion phase of their lives.

Bush-bashing around the clock gets mighty boring, even if it's true. Rush is only on for three hours a day, not counting overnight replays in some markets. As long as Rush keeping bringing in the bushel basketloads of money and AA doesn't, the situation will remain as it is, regardless of how much hot air either side blows at each other.

That's my two cents worth, do with it what you will.

KL

<a href="http://home.nc.rr.com/gttyson/lastradio.html">The Last Radio Station<a>
 
I have heard very little AA programming as of yet. Not available in my (former) market, Tucson, although sometimes you can hear the Phoenix affiliate there.

I was personally disgusted by the behavior of the AA executives and "talent" shortly after AA launched, when they publicly dissed Arthur Liu online and on the air. I don't care what your political leanings are, that kind of acting out is absolutely stupid when you're trying to get a business venture off the ground. That impression is going to stay with me for a long time.

The little bit of AA I've heard was about as interesting as test tones. IMO, the left still hasn't figured out that emotional rhetoric and leader-bashing rarely translate into compelling radio, unless you have a talent like Limbaugh.
 
> Never mind Howard Stern for the moment. Can we talk about
> Air America?
>
> Any discussion of the Air America network on message boards
> such as this one immediately devolves into a political
> bitch-fest. The facts of the matter are: Rush Limbaugh was
> there first, in most markets he's on the bigger stations,
> and they ain't giving him up. Regardless of whether you're
> on the political left or right, them's the facts. Bigger
> stations = bigger bucks. It's all about the money. Never
> mind his hearing loss or alleged drug problems or
> accusations of hypocrisy. It's all about the money. If
> Rush was losing money for his affiliates, he'd be gone. In
> this market the only AM station that shows up at all in the
> ratings is the one that carries his show.
>
> Air America messed up at the get-go by demanding their
> affiliate stations take the entire lineup or not at all.
> Plus there was some questionable money at the beginning
> which made them appear as damaged goods to stations which
> might have been considering an affiliation. No station
> manager in his/her right mind wanted to commit to something
> which could have been gone the next week. Many of them are
> also nervous about affiliating with programming that not
> that many years ago would have been called treasonous.
>
> Add to the aforementioned the fact that most of Air
> America's programming is just plain boring. I checked out
> Al Franken's show because I wanted to see if his Saturday
> Night Live humor could translate to political talk. It
> didn't. I can't listen to it in the car because it makes me
> sleepy. Randi Rhodes is a cutie until she opens her mouth,
> when she becomes a bitter harpy who I find uncomfortable to
> listen to. Same for Janine Garafolo (sp?). Ranting about
> Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush
> gets old every day even when it's true.
>
> Sometimes I think Air America's programming is
> totally aimed at people who haven't gotten over the
> parental-rebellion phase of their lives.
>
> Bush-bashing around the clock gets mighty boring, even if
> it's true. Rush is only on for three hours a day, not
> counting overnight replays in some markets. As long as Rush
> keeping bringing in the bushel basketloads of money and AA
> doesn't, the situation will remain as it is, regardless of
> how much hot air either side blows at each other.
>
> That's my two cents worth, do with it what you will.
>
> KL
>
> The Last Radio Station
>

The only show on AAR that's worth listening to is Jerry Springer's "Springer On The Radio" IMO.<P ID="signature">______________

</P>
 
I'd say that they failed to deliver what they promised from the political, entertainment, and business standpoints.

On the political end, they're bringing a weak game to the table. Serious in-depth discussion of the issues is rare on AAR's weekday shows and like most liberal commentators and activists of this era, seem to have their hands tied and aren't willing to go as far in making their point as their conservative counterparts were in the Clinton era. Their preaching is too bland for the choir and not convincing enough to make converts.

Concerning entertainment, they have a bunch of extremely talented hosts who have somehow become less talented in the course of their AAR careers. If they're being told to keep up the one-note Bush-bashing at the expense of everything else, that policy should be tossed out the window. Even Rush and Hannity will do the occasional segment that isn't overtly political. Also, it is possible that AAR spent so much on name talent that they forgot to budget for quality writers and researchers to back them up.


From the business side, they tried to set the world on fire right out of the gate, and that was basically impossible. Those early mistakes and problems hurt the brand identity, maybe not with the listener, but definitely with station owners.
 
> I have heard very little AA programming as of yet. Not
> available in my (former) market, Tucson, although sometimes
> you can hear the Phoenix affiliate there.

Listen while you can...

Although that Jolt isn't exactly lighting things up, is it? Word is they're getting Liddy and Hill come January... that'll save 'em.
 
>>What's Wrong with Air America?

Getting a 0.5 in liberal Boston. Pretty much being purged from liberal
Providence. Not doing much better than the previous format in liberal
New York City. Scandals, snoozefest programming...

Rush stoned is more entertaining than Franken sober. (Talent on loan from
Oxy Contin!)Never read Franken's "Lies"
book--how many chapters are devoted to Clinton? Or to himself? (see
frankenlies.com)

> Add to the aforementioned the fact that most of Air
> America's programming is just plain boring.

Well, THAT is what's wrong... though S. Miller is OK. No wait,
she's from Jones.

I can't listen to it in the car because it makes me
> sleepy.

Can they find someone with a bit more of an exciting voice? A liberal
Hannity?

Randi Rhodes is a cutie until she opens her mouth,
> when she becomes a bitter harpy who I find uncomfortable to
> listen to.

Two threats on the President's life but oh she was just kidding. Trying to
remember Rush doing same to Clinton. Nope.
 
> >>What's Wrong with Air America?
>
> Getting a 0.5 in liberal Boston. Pretty much being purged
> from liberal
> Providence. Not doing much better than the previous format
> in liberal
> New York City. Scandals, snoozefest programming...
>
Doing great in Chicago. Especially considering the station is a rimshot daytimer.<P ID="signature">______________

</P>
 
One factual error was in your previous post. Air America does not require a station to take its entire lineup. It actually only requires you to take at least two of its programs. However, when it doesn't have even two quality programs, it might as well require the whole lineup.

That brings up my next point. Air America's problem is programming plain and simple. Good talk works. Bad talk doesn't. Viewpoint is irrelevant (NPR's Morning Edition and All Things Considered, both shows with liberal viewpoints, have more listeners than every conservative talk program except Rush Limbaugh). Al Franken had an excellent first few shows but quickly became the same joke over and over again. Way too predictable. Randi Rhodes is really the only host who's a true talk host. Her show I would still say is the best on the lineup, though, as you mention, she seems to have gotten more bitter since she got to Air America. Personally, of the liberal hosts, Ed Schultz is my favorite, and he's not Air America. Poor signals are definitely a problem for Air America, but they're an effect, not a cause. In other words, when you don't have good programming to offer, you're not going to get on very good sticks.
 
>> Air America messed up at the get-go by demanding their
>> affiliate stations take the entire lineup or not at all.

> One factual error was in your previous post. Air America
> does not require a station to take its entire lineup. It
> actually only requires you to take at least two of its
> programs. However, when it doesn't have even two quality
> programs, it might as well require the whole lineup.
>

Not a factual error. They originally ("at the get-go") did offer the entire only on a take-it-or-leave-it, all-or-nothing basis.

One factual error in your post: There are a few stations which take only one program from AAR (not counting those taking only Thom Hartmann). Bottom line: Beggars can't be choosers.

I wouldn't say viewpoint is irrelevant. People tend to listen to political talk they agree with. But - agree or disagree - people won't listen to bad radio for long.

The basic problem with AAR is incompetent management guided by ideology and clueless about radio. They tried to get on as many stations as possible and as a result ended up on mostly marginal stations with little chance of building an audience. And they have ended up positioned as a low-cost turn-key format for marginal stations for weak AM stations looking to flip from formats they can't sell in markets in which there is already a second conservative talk station and a syndicated sports talk station. They made themselves the non-brokered format of last resort.

Poor sticks are only part of the problem. Salem has ideological talk on better sticks and they similarly dismal numbers.
 
>
> Concerning entertainment, they have a bunch of extremely
> talented hosts who have somehow become less talented in the
> course of their AAR careers.

No, their hosts were never talented. Belushi, Akroyd, Gilda and Murray were talented. Franken was never ready for The Not Ready For Prime Time Players. You have the Queen of Kvetching from a medium market in Florida. A lesbian activist whose only radio experience is a small market in Western Mass. The king of daytime trash talk and former mayor in a town with a weak mayor city government (and that's an outside show).

>
>
> From the business side, they tried to set the world on fire
> right out of the gate, and that was basically impossible.
> Those early mistakes and problems hurt the brand identity,
> maybe not with the listener, but definitely with station
> owners.
>

These were political hacks incapable of thinking past the next election.

What hurt the brand identity with listeners is BAD RADIO.
It does not help that political talk (left or right) may be on the way out as a format. Overall numbers are slipping and the demos are too old for advertisers. Stations (and hosts who want to survive) are becoming less ideological, more focused on lifestyle topics - sort of a kinder, gentler Howard format.
 
> >
> > Concerning entertainment, they have a bunch of extremely
> > talented hosts who have somehow become less talented in
> the
> > course of their AAR careers.
>
> No, their hosts were never talented. Belushi, Akroyd, Gilda
> and Murray were talented. Franken was never ready for The
> Not Ready For Prime Time Players.

Well, Janeane Garofalo was actually on SNL for a season and a half, even though her work on the Ben Stiller Show was more notable.

> What hurt the brand identity with listeners is BAD RADIO.
> It does not help that political talk (left or right) may be
> on the way out as a format. Overall numbers are slipping
> and the demos are too old for advertisers. Stations (and
> hosts who want to survive) are becoming less ideological,
> more focused on lifestyle topics - sort of a kinder, gentler
> Howard format.
>

Precisely. AAR could very easily reorient itself in that direction with the talent they have, but they're sticking to a one-dimensional purely political approach. Even Salem, to which AAR is often (somewhat wrongly) compared, carries non-political health infomercials that someone might listen to and lets their hosts discuss non-political topics.
 
> Not a factual error. They originally ("at the get-go") did
> offer the entire only on a take-it-or-leave-it,
> all-or-nothing basis.
> One factual error in your post: There are a few stations
> which take only one program from AAR (not counting those
> taking only Thom Hartmann). Bottom line: Beggars can't be
> choosers.

Then, I stand corrected. What they told a friend of mine when he tried to pick up Franken for his station was that he had to pick up at least two programs from Air America before he could carry Franken. He wanted to pick up the program shortly after the network launched and inquired again earlier this year and got told the same thing. I also know most stations that had Air America when it started and weren't operated by Air America didn't carry Morning Sedition. So, I wouldn't say they had an all or nothing policy, though they did try to operate their own stations, which would carry the full Air America lineup, before seeking other stations to carry the lineup. If they are now allowing stations to pick and choose individual programs, I'd say Air America is taking a step in the right direction.

> I wouldn't say viewpoint is irrelevant. People tend to
> listen to political talk they agree with. But - agree or
> disagree - people won't listen to bad radio for long.

I would. A pretty sizeable portion of Limbaugh's audience actually disagrees with him, and there's an even larger portion of people who agree with him but don't listen to his show. It's the entertainment value and nothing else. There are plenty of people who love to hate shows and/or their hosts. However, we definitely agree that bad radio doesn't work.

> Poor sticks are only part of the problem. Salem has
> ideological talk on better sticks and they similarly dismal
> numbers.

Definitely true. I think it goes back to the fact that good talk works and bad talk doesn't.
 
> Doing great in Chicago. Especially considering the station
> is a rimshot daytimer.

I was close to replying with this exact statement as a counter-example to raccoonradio until I read Jeremy's post.

Air America should truly be proud of WCPT. Check out the signal on radio-locator; it's not great even before you add that the station is only a daytimer. In addition, the signal misses many liberal hotspots in the southern areas of Chicagoland, which providing a powerful daytime signal to the rather conservative North Shore.

The fact that this station is pulling ratings that are higher than the "Nine FM" trimulcast, reaching dangerously close to rimshot Urban AC WSRB, and only half a share away from the city-signals of WJMK and (nearly city-signal) WPPN, is a testament to the potential success of Air America, even despite the Chicago affiliate having no website, little to no publicity, and no nighttime signal.

And of course, to Raccoon: If WKOXKS is only pulling what you believe to be a low rating, where is Salem's WTTT, which I believe follows your political views?
 
But I still have to laugh when I think how poorly they're doing in
left-leaning Boston.
Just like Spinal Tap: "Well, the Boston gig got cancelled, but don't
worry...it's not a big college town.. ." :)

> Doing great in Chicago. Especially considering the station
> is a rimshot daytimer.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
raccoonradio5ap.gif
</P>
 
> But I still have to laugh when I think how poorly they're
> doing in
> left-leaning Boston.
> Just like Spinal Tap: "Well, the Boston gig got cancelled,
> but don't
> worry...it's not a big college town.. ." :)

Keep in mind that Air America has substantial competition in the liberal talk arena from established NPR stations in Boston. Estimates I've heard say that approximately 20% of the Boston audience never tunes above 92.1. It goes back to what I was saying earlier. Good talk works. Bad talk doesn't. You're not going to knock off established stations by putting on a sub-par product.
 
> Keep in mind that Air America has substantial competition in
> the liberal talk arena from established NPR stations in
> Boston. Estimates I've heard say that approximately 20% of
> the Boston audience never tunes above 92.1. It goes back to
> what I was saying earlier. Good talk works. Bad talk
> doesn't. You're not going to knock off established stations
> by putting on a sub-par product.

Good point. This could also explain the success of AAR in Chicago, where WBEZ 91.5 is pulling less than half of the listeners of WBUR 90.9 in Boston.
 
> > >
> > > Concerning entertainment, they have a bunch of extremely
>
> > > talented hosts who have somehow become less talented in
> > the
> > > course of their AAR careers.
> >
> > No, their hosts were never talented. Belushi, Akroyd,
> Gilda
> > and Murray were talented. Franken was never ready for The
>
> > Not Ready For Prime Time Players.
>
> Well, Janeane Garofalo was actually on SNL for a season and
> a half, even though her work on the Ben Stiller Show was
> more notable.
>

And what a splash (NOT!!) she made...UGH. I saw Franken in concert a number of years ago. He flat out as NOT funny. Not even groans. People started to look at each other wondering when the huor was going to start.

> > What hurt the brand identity with listeners is BAD RADIO.
> > It does not help that political talk (left or right) may
> be
> > on the way out as a format. Overall numbers are slipping
> > and the demos are too old for advertisers. Stations (and
> > hosts who want to survive) are becoming less ideological,
> > more focused on lifestyle topics - sort of a kinder,
> gentler
> > Howard format.
> >
>
> Precisely. AAR could very easily reorient itself in that
> direction with the talent they have, but they're sticking to
> a one-dimensional purely political approach. Even Salem, to
> which AAR is often (somewhat wrongly) compared, carries
> non-political health infomercials that someone might listen
> to and lets their hosts discuss non-political topics.
>

I think you have something here.... AAR gets to be the same old Bush lied crap. How about something new and fresh??? Salem is (IMHO) a very narrow "format" Not just conservative, but Christian conserative. Yet they seem to be doing OK with their numbers and even better in their business model. They are making money! (this IS a business after all!)
 
> I think you have something here.... AAR gets to be the same
> old Bush lied crap. How about something new and fresh???
> Salem is (IMHO) a very narrow "format" Not just
> conservative, but Christian conserative. Yet they seem to
> be doing OK with their numbers and even better in their
> business model. They are making money! (this IS a business
> after all!)

What numbers are you referring to? Because in 12+, Air America affiliates are beating Salem affiliates in (at least) Phoenix, Chicago, Miami, and Boston; and in the latter two, Salem affiliates don't even show up.
 
> > I think you have something here.... AAR gets to be the
> same
> > old Bush lied crap. How about something new and fresh???
> > Salem is (IMHO) a very narrow "format" Not just
> > conservative, but Christian conserative. Yet they seem to
>
> > be doing OK with their numbers and even better in their
> > business model. They are making money! (this IS a
> business
> > after all!)
>
> What numbers are you referring to? Because in 12+, Air
> America affiliates are beating Salem affiliates in (at
> least) Phoenix, Chicago, Miami, and Boston; and in the
> latter two, Salem affiliates don't even show up.
>


I wasnt even comparing Salem to AAR. I dont know why you were. By OK, I mean...just OK, not great numbers. In other words they SHOW UP on the ratings in most markets ;-). Something I didnt think they would do with such a tight "format".

The bottom line is that Salem seems to be making money. They have a business model and are working it rather nicely.
 
> I wasnt even comparing Salem to AAR. I dont know why you
> were. By OK, I mean...just OK, not great numbers. In other
> words they SHOW UP on the ratings in most markets ;-).
> Something I didnt think they would do with such a tight
> "format".
>
> The bottom line is that Salem seems to be making money.
> They have a business model and are working it rather nicely.

I find it hard to characterize the fractions of a share point Salem draws in most of its markets as success, given that they've had a several years' edge on Air America in many of those cities. The brokered model had been breaking down
as the network shows get more and more air time. KRLA used to broker weekday prime spots. Now those blocks are unavailable. This means the secular talkers have to make more and more of their budget from spot sales. And with Salem's anemic numbers, it can't be easy to be a Salem salesperson.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom