Why does conservative talk work in most markets ?

[radiobum]

I've been trying to figure this out for a long time. My theory is that it allows people who have no expertise on a given subject to call in and be on the radio and talk to a host who is likely not much smarter and shares their simplistic view of the world.

 

[quadraphonic]

After "a long time," that's all you came up with?

 

[radiobum]

that's the condensed version.

 

[quadraphonic]

It worked for top40 in the 50s. I guess that's what most formats shoot for: the masses, "not much smarter" and "simplistic" as you may picture them being.

 

[MattParker]

Maybe because progressives prefer to read.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Maybe because progressives prefer to read.

And liberals listen to Top 40 and CHR.

 

[johnbasalla]

Some would say it's because all of the other types of media outlets are heavily influenced by or controlled by liberals and leftists.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

And liberals listen to Top 40 and CHR.

As well as listen to NPR and watch the 100 left leaning TV channels. Conservative audiences have conservative talk radio and Fox News and not much else. Less fragmented audience = higher ratings.

Of course I'm assuming this is a serious discussion instead of trolling for an argument, but I could be wrong.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Seriously, I think it's because conservatives like to hear their opinions confirmed

Everyone likes to hear their opinions confirmed. It's human nature. There are plenty of conservative people who don't like talk radio, and listen to music radio as well. It really is a market fragmentation issue. If radio were the only place to hear liberal views, liberal radio would do better.

 

[MattParker]

If this board and this thread (remember I said "if") represents the perspective of people in radio, it's no surprise talk radio tilts to the right. Radio, as represented here, is filled with conservatives with a simplistic view of issues and an I'm-right-you're-wrong mindset. I'd be surprised if any radio stations have coffee machines because so many radio people appear to be tea drinkers.

If you doubt this, look at how radio people consistently argue against their own self-interest and oppose broadcast unions - all the while complaining about how management shafts people who work in radio.

 

[gr8oldies]

First of all this idea that if I'm not a liberal I'm "voting against my self interest" is ridiculous. If you tax my employer out of business it's not in my best interest. Has anyone seriously proposed a broadcasting union other than AFTRA? How many jock jobs has AFTRA saved?

 

[Talk_Dude]

Seriously, I think it's because conservatives like to hear their opinions confirmed or validated while liberals prefer to listen to music programming and to leave the political stuff to the politicians. I think it has to do with the nature of how one views the universe affecting what one wants to listen to.

If you believe that it's up to individuals to take care of themselves, then you'd like to hear someone tell you that you are correct. That means you listen to conservative talk radio.

On the other hand, if you believe that the government should take care of everyone through government programs, once you've elected liberal Democrats into office, the tendency is to sit back and let someone else worry about things. That's what you elected the government for, to take care of things so you could listen to entertaining music.

I agree, it's about how you view the individual v. collective line of thought. Conservatives like to do things themselves, and for everyone else to do that, and what they can't do, for instance, have a radio show and hobnob with likeminded conservatives, they like to listen to other people who are doing those things. It's their way of "being involved in the process."
Liberals are happier thinking of things collectively, so they are more apt to "let government do its thing" no matter what government is up to. The only group liberal voters trust more than themselves individually is government collectively.
Both sides like to be around likeminded people, of their "ilk." Given that, it's also gets into the fragmentation issue, because like DonC said, liberals have plenty of places to go to for commiseration and likeminded thought, conservatives only have a few.

There's also the fact that on-line forum posts don't lend themselves to deep, subtle, nuanced arguments. It is the nature of this sort of forum to have to reduce very complex issues to a little nub. There's also the fact that the radio industry relies on dealing with audience segments in mass quantities and attempts to secure listeners by the shovelful, not one-by-one.

When you consider that a single ratings point means 1% of the market, broad generalities might have many, many exceptions, but they're close enough for radio marketing, and they're about as precise as one can get in forums like this.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

One reason liberals don't listen to commercial lib talk as much as conservatives listen to conserv talk is libs have NPR. NPR presents some great programming that is interesting, without all the hyperbolt that conservs like in their talk programming (think Rush/Hannity/Beck). In Philly, the NPR news/info/talk station (WHYY-FM) gets slighter better ratings (12+ PPM) than the conservative talker WPHT. I can't speak for other markets, but NPR stations seem to flourish and do quite well. People like what they hear so much that they are willing to pony up some of their own money to hear NPR's programming. How many Rush/Hannity/Beck listeners would donate money to the station so they could hear the Big 3 every day? So the NPR audience, which probably is more lib oriented than conserv, is loyal and are willing to support their NPR station. So there isn't a big need for commerical lib talk.

Yet, our local news/talker WDEL does air a popular local (live and local) lib talker Al Messitti who has pretty good ratings, but that might just be a local thing here in Wilmington (Wilmington and New Castle County are Blue areas). WDEL does offer a conserv talker in the afternoon opposite Rush/Hannity on the cross town rivial WILM. I believe Rush/Hannity do get better ratings than the local conserv talker. Why settle for a local copycat when you can hear the original.

 

[bturner]

I'm loving this discussion. Being in radio, please allow me to take a sharp curve.

I think conservative talk radio makes it because the listener feels like they know the host. They feel they must listen because they will miss something. I'm saying the Rush, Sean, Michael, etc., listeners listen for the same reasons people tuned to Howard Stern. They enjoy the show and feel like they know the host.

If you really listen to conservative talk from a programming perspective, they strive for a common set of values that tend to be more moral versus politically based. And the 'hype' everyone gets so upset about is the dog and pony show to fire up the ratings and time spent listening. To quote an old term (pre PPM) they do great quarter hour maintenance.

Yes, I'm saying content is not as critical to the success as the emotional bond formed by the listener to the host.

That's my 2 cents...You want fries with that?

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Mike, there are still a limited number of markets where liberal talk can be heard as a format. Most of these stations have been around since 2004 when Air America debuted. Air America bombed, but the format hasn't fizzled. Otherwise, it would be hard to explain why Dial Global, whose satellite radio format empire has seen major growth, would have more liberal talkers than conservatives in its roster (Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller and Bill Press vs. Neal Boortz and Michael Smerconish).

And Mr. Turner, it goes both ways. Big Eddie espouses the value of American workers and American-made products, among other things, whereas Stephanie Miller espouses the value of a good fart joke.

 

[quadraphonic]

Mike, there are still a limited number of markets where liberal talk can be heard as a format. Most of these stations have been around since 2004 when Air America debuted. Air America bombed, but the format hasn't fizzled.

It's "a limited number of stations." [insert sounds of fizzling]

Otherwise, it would be hard to explain why Dial Global, whose satellite radio format empire has seen major growth, would have more liberal talkers than conservatives in its roster (Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller and Bill Press vs. Neal Boortz and Michael Smerconish).

Probably has something to do with labor costs. Liberal talkers are on fewer stations, ergo they get paid less, so you can have more of them. Fewer conservative talkers are on way more stations, so they make more money. Liberals make enough money to be happy, conservatives make enough money to be happy. This idea also applies: If you have $10 to spend, you can get a couple of nice angelfish, or you can get 250 minnows.

When it comes to total number of hosts, it's not so much quantity as it is quality [as viewed by the listening public].

 

[MattParker]

One reason liberals don't listen to commercial lib talk as much as conservatives listen to conserv talk is libs have NPR. NPR presents some great programming that is interesting, without all the hyperbolt that conservs like in their talk programming (think Rush/Hannity/Beck). In Philly, the NPR news/info/talk station (WHYY-FM) gets slighter better ratings (12+ PPM) than the conservative talker WPHT. I can't speak for other markets, but NPR stations seem to flourish and do quite well. People like what they hear so much that they are willing to pony up some of their own money to hear NPR's programming. How many Rush/Hannity/Beck listeners would donate money to the station so they could hear the Big 3 every day? So the NPR audience, which probably is more lib oriented than conserv, is loyal and are willing to support their NPR station. So there isn't a big need for commerical lib talk.

Several surveys show the percentage of NPR listeners who identify themselves as conservative or liberal is about equal. Human nature being what it is, liberals see a conservative bias and conservatives see a liberal bias. Liberals often claim NPR presents a right-leaning viewpoint to please their corporate sponsors (from which they get most of their money - far more than comes from the government or even listeners). Some liberal listeners also claim NPR tried (at least during the last administration) to placate a conservative dominated CPB. Keep in mind that only about eight per cent of public radio listeners EVER donate.

Ironically, the other occupants of the non-commercial FM (88-92 MHz) band - religious broadcasters - get far higher rates of listener donations than public radio, as do commercial religious stations. The preachers that buy time on these stations, and the companies that operate them, such as Salem, tend to mix preaching with a healthy dose of right-wing political opinion. So, yes, conservatives do contribute. And Rush/Hannity/Beck may not ask for outright donations but they do get listeners to buy the newsletters, access to their web cam feeds and on-demand audio, and other "supplementary" products and services.

Fact is most liberal and most conservatives don't listen to talk radio, especially in the younger demos. I know radio people hate to admit that. All political talk hosts, left or right, preach only to their respective choirs.

And conservatalk is on more stations in more markets than progressive talk because broadcast owners and managers are themselves conservatives and their friends are conservatives. Despite all the evidence showing a lot of liberals out there, in their own personal worlds everybody is conservative and conservatism, like religion in a church community, is not seriously questioned. The lack of progressive talk in most markets reflects the predispositions of the people in charge of radio (despite their claims that it's just about money).

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

And conservatalk is on more stations in more markets than progressive talk because broadcast owners and managers are themselves conservatives and their friends are conservatives. Despite all the evidence showing a lot of liberals out there, in their own personal worlds everybody is conservative and conservatism, like religion in a church community, is not seriously questioned. The lack of progressive talk in most markets reflects the predispositions of the people in charge of radio (despite their claims that it's just about money).

The title of the thread is "Why does conservative talk work in most markets?" Your explanation that "broadcast owners and managers are themselves conservatives" if true might explain why more conservative radio is on, but I don't that that logic explains why it works. (makes money?)

I highlighted in bold one sentence in the quote above. If that sentence is true, then that might explain why conservative radio "works". (has audience, makes money)

You say there is "evidence" there are liberals out there but then you tell us that the evidence is not true.

Let's assume that I am going tomorrow to sign the deal and buy a radio station in a modest sized city. Tell me again why I would or would not implement Conservative Talk programming.

 

[bturner]

You guys are aware that most station owners and managers could care less what the format of the station is they're operating. They are running it as a business and only want the station to break even or throw off some profit. In fact, many owners don't even like their own station personally. One boss really wanted his station to be classical and jazz but ran the music format he detested most: country. Another boss hated rock but we were top 40 days and Album Rock at night. Sure, there are a few who do just what they want, but those are mostly exceptions. Even the station I manage is far from the choice I'd like and my owners would prefer. We opt for the format we personally wouldn't do because it works, pays the bills and throws off a bit of profit here and there.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Mike, there are still a limited number of markets where liberal talk can be heard as a format. Most of these stations have been around since 2004 when Air America debuted. Air America bombed, but the format hasn't fizzled.

It's "a limited number of stations." [insert sounds of fizzling]

Otherwise, it would be hard to explain why Dial Global, whose satellite radio format empire has seen major growth, would have more liberal talkers than conservatives in its roster (Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller and Bill Press vs. Neal Boortz and Michael Smerconish).

Probably has something to do with labor costs. Liberal talkers are on fewer stations, ergo they get paid less, so you can have more of them. Fewer conservative talkers are on way more stations, so they make more money. Liberals make enough money to be happy, conservatives make enough money to be happy. This idea also applies: If you have $10 to spend, you can get a couple of nice angelfish, or you can get 250 minnows.

When it comes to total number of hosts, it's not so much quantity as it is quality [as viewed by the listening public].

Except the vast majority of conservative hosts don't make anywhere near those who have audiences of a million plus. And there are liberals such as Schultz, Miller and Hartmann whose audiences are in seven figures.