-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why does conservative talk work in most markets ?
- Thread starter radiobum
- Start date
Oldbones said:I've never heard Hartmann, but I consider Schultz to be just a left-wing version of Hannity, and equally unlistenable.
Hartmann is a fairly low-key guy. Pleasant and more informed than most members of the Windbag-American Community of either political stripe, but can get boring quickly. He's one of the few who doesn't make an a** of himself, but I put him one or two notches above the insomnia-curing hosts at NPR as far as excitement goes.
Oldbones said:radiobum said:I agree that Rush etc get talking points from RNC. I do not agree that Hartmann and Schultz get theirs from DNC-they are progressives -not liberals.
OK, I'll bite. What's the difference between the two? I've always considered "progressive" to simply be a PC term for liberal.
I am not convinced that there is a nationwide, standardized firm definition for the two terms. For many people, the two terms are FULLY interchangeable. Other people have very firm differences embedded in their mind and their philosophy and they become annoyed that we do not know the difference.
Here is my personal observation, worth exactly whatever you paid to receive it. People in various geographies and various social conditions drape themselves with one term or the other depending on how the two words will be received in their community, or in their social contact pattern.
Examples: Minnesota and Wisconsin had active political movements a century ago using the term "Progressive" and we all, nationwide, enjoy or endure certain policy today because of that movement. Calling yourself a progressive in that geography can be a matter of pride. Here in the deep south the power structure has been whip-sawed around beginning in the lead-up to the Civil War. (The War of Northern Aggression, if you please.) The populist mode here is to be anything but what ever political movement gets the blame or credit for the political and economic woes that have wage war on this part of the world. Here you don't want to be either a liberal or a progressive.... even if you are one. Both have become dirty words.
(This message composed while sitting at home in the second most Republican/Conservative county in America.
If tomorrow someone handed me the opportunity to operate and program a radio station in Atlanta to serve the liberal/progressive citizens who do live in the area.... what words would I use to describe the programming content and direction?
A simplistic explanation perhaps but I figure liberals basically look at the world as -democrats good-republicans bad. A progressive knows they both suck and are both tied into the military-industrial complex, do the bidding of big donors (perhaps I'm being reduntant here) and a progressive want to change the basic structure of society.
A liberal is submissive to conservatives, Beltway dynamics, and conservative framing. A progressive isn't.
Alan Colmes is a liberal. Bill Press is a liberal. Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, and just about anyone else doing "liberal" talk radio is a progressive.
Alan Colmes is a liberal. Bill Press is a liberal. Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, and just about anyone else doing "liberal" talk radio is a progressive.
B
Bob1370
Guest
Surprised no one has raised this question before...but DOES conservative talk work in most markets, or at least work as well in generating prime demos and the money they bring to stations the prime demos like?
Case in point...WABC may finish well up in the top 10 in 12+ numbers every month, but it's done on the basis of an old-skewing audience that posts those high AQH shares whith a relatively low number of cume listeners, who listen to the station for hours on end. That's not the kind of audience profile advertisers want, which is why it finishes well down the money list with billing below stations like WLTW, WCBS-FM, WFAN-AM, WINS or WCBS-AM, and bills lower even than its lower-rated stablemate WPLJ (lower share but lots of 25-54 women).
In market after market, the high quarter hours these stations and shows rack up skew far older, and result from a smaller cume racking up abnormally high TSL. Not a good combo for good revenue, and so these stations tend to have a relatively low "power ratio." If radio is a business that's supposed to make money, than can we really say conservative talk is getting the job done?
Case in point...WABC may finish well up in the top 10 in 12+ numbers every month, but it's done on the basis of an old-skewing audience that posts those high AQH shares whith a relatively low number of cume listeners, who listen to the station for hours on end. That's not the kind of audience profile advertisers want, which is why it finishes well down the money list with billing below stations like WLTW, WCBS-FM, WFAN-AM, WINS or WCBS-AM, and bills lower even than its lower-rated stablemate WPLJ (lower share but lots of 25-54 women).
In market after market, the high quarter hours these stations and shows rack up skew far older, and result from a smaller cume racking up abnormally high TSL. Not a good combo for good revenue, and so these stations tend to have a relatively low "power ratio." If radio is a business that's supposed to make money, than can we really say conservative talk is getting the job done?
This may be an issue and discussion of perceptions more than a discussion of facts. But most of us don't have access to the facts, so we don't know, and don't have the ammunition to make this a true discussion and debate.
You have an interesting observation about major markets where data drives the market, and data is available. I think the argument is not that conservative talk radio beats out all other forms of programming, but that in the arena of TALK RADIO, it appears conservative talk works in market after market after market. Right or wrong, after the free-fall of Air America, the perception is that liberal or even middle of the road talk has NO TRACTION in the market place. They do not work in market after market.
Here is the observation that really is beyond the realm of facts and logic. It appears that in small markets and rural markets, station after station is casting aside whatever they have done in the past and running a permanent connection from the satellite receiver to the transmitter and filling the day with conservative talk. That cuts costs since there is no longer any need to hire bodies that can walk and chew gum at the same time to program those hours. I make the assumption it does not take as much talent to program an automation machine to do the clock for satellite breaks as it does to program an automation machine doing a mixture of music and localized content for a small market.
The sales people in the small market just go tell their clients and prospects: Look how many big city stations are being very successful running conservative talk... it's the hottest thing going... you need to get on the schedule before it fills up. How many small town merchants have any idea which big city stations a billing the big bugs, and how many are way down in billings but also way down in programming costs.
So it becomes a self perpetuating perception that "conservative talk works in most markets".... and we don't know if that a house made of bricks, or a house made of straw. But it is a house made of perception.
You have an interesting observation about major markets where data drives the market, and data is available. I think the argument is not that conservative talk radio beats out all other forms of programming, but that in the arena of TALK RADIO, it appears conservative talk works in market after market after market. Right or wrong, after the free-fall of Air America, the perception is that liberal or even middle of the road talk has NO TRACTION in the market place. They do not work in market after market.
Here is the observation that really is beyond the realm of facts and logic. It appears that in small markets and rural markets, station after station is casting aside whatever they have done in the past and running a permanent connection from the satellite receiver to the transmitter and filling the day with conservative talk. That cuts costs since there is no longer any need to hire bodies that can walk and chew gum at the same time to program those hours. I make the assumption it does not take as much talent to program an automation machine to do the clock for satellite breaks as it does to program an automation machine doing a mixture of music and localized content for a small market.
The sales people in the small market just go tell their clients and prospects: Look how many big city stations are being very successful running conservative talk... it's the hottest thing going... you need to get on the schedule before it fills up. How many small town merchants have any idea which big city stations a billing the big bugs, and how many are way down in billings but also way down in programming costs.
So it becomes a self perpetuating perception that "conservative talk works in most markets".... and we don't know if that a house made of bricks, or a house made of straw. But it is a house made of perception.
Call me crazy but I think Conservative Talk works because the format is based more on the common moral values of the conservative listener, no so much as it is the political content. From my observation, most conservatives share common values where as those who do not term themselves as conservatives tend to run a wider spectrum of moral values making it more difficult to 'rally the listeners' than conservative talk. In short, I see conservative talk taking almost all of the conservative pie but liberal talk taking a couple of the larger slices in a pie.
I should point out that companies like Air America were doomed from day one. Aside from that appears to be poor management and shaky financing, who would choose to anchor such a format utilizing comediens. Are you going to take a comedy format seriously if the anchors are Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage?
Conservative talk works in the small markets because rural areas tend to be more conservative/traditional moral values. Put the station on the bird, tell the music licensing groups you'll pay bumber music fees and no more, and send your sales people out to sell cheap spots to fill all the avails. Then laugh on the way to the bank or wallow in the cash, your option. It is certainly easier than constantly tending to updates on your music library and paying a morning jock. So, in measuring success, we must consider the ease of operating such a format. There are only so many choices on the dial so you will get listeners.
It really does amount to the profit potential more than number of listeners, even in larger markets. More important than the amount of income you bring in is the profit you turn. I talked to a person who was hot on an underradioed market of 80,000 who told me he had greater cash flow off of his stations there than he did in his top 10 market stations even though the billing in this town was chump change compared to the big market stations.
I should point out that companies like Air America were doomed from day one. Aside from that appears to be poor management and shaky financing, who would choose to anchor such a format utilizing comediens. Are you going to take a comedy format seriously if the anchors are Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage?
Conservative talk works in the small markets because rural areas tend to be more conservative/traditional moral values. Put the station on the bird, tell the music licensing groups you'll pay bumber music fees and no more, and send your sales people out to sell cheap spots to fill all the avails. Then laugh on the way to the bank or wallow in the cash, your option. It is certainly easier than constantly tending to updates on your music library and paying a morning jock. So, in measuring success, we must consider the ease of operating such a format. There are only so many choices on the dial so you will get listeners.
It really does amount to the profit potential more than number of listeners, even in larger markets. More important than the amount of income you bring in is the profit you turn. I talked to a person who was hot on an underradioed market of 80,000 who told me he had greater cash flow off of his stations there than he did in his top 10 market stations even though the billing in this town was chump change compared to the big market stations.
bturner said:Conservative talk works in the small markets because rural areas tend to be more conservative/traditional moral values.
What a warm and fuzzy picture you have painted!
What is the humor line about life in the small town? "People read our hometown paper to see who got caught. They already know who is doing what."
When passing through, I enjoy sitting over in the corner of where the locals in a small town gather to drink coffee and solve the problems of the world. I live visiting a church and sitting over in the corner of a Sunday School class and listening to the discussion time.
The average American, small town dweller or big city dweller, cannot sit down and write an intelligent essay explaining what is conservative and what is liberal. We prove every day in these forums that WE don't have an intellectual grasp of what is conservative and what is liberal.
But this canard that conservatives have moral values and liberals don't have moral values should win the P. T. Barnum Trophy for best effort at "Trying to Fool All the People All the Time."
I'm still looking for good explanations why Conservative Talk is more prolific than is Liberal Talk on the radio. If we can figure that out, we might be able to figure out a lot of other things about how radio can work at it's best.
I'm not saying liberals do not have morals but that the opinions vary. For example, I know liberals who are against abortion or some that are believers in more government control than others who class themselves as liberal. I suppose I did a poor job of explaining the that I feel conservatives have, in general, a much narrower set of values than any group of liberals. I tend to see most conservatives fitting into a smaller box than the 'so called' liberals. This does not imply liberals do not have moral values just that the boundaries are wider on the liberal than the conservative. Would you agree most conservatives seem to be Christians subscribing to Biblical principals in theory? The liberal might be a devout Christian or agnostic. Same goes for the conservative but what I think may be more accurate is liberals tend not to want to fit in a box where conservatives would find comfort in their box.
Might I add that the biggest complaint I hear from liberals is the conservative is too narrow minded. Would that not indicate a conservative would tend to conform more to a certain ideal? If so, would that indicate the liberal does not? Would not a more narrow set of ideals be easier to hone in pon as far as attracting listeners versus a wider definition?
I'd tend to agree with bturner that conservatives do have a narrower "inside the box" set of beliefs that do not allow for variations. I had some very frustrating conversations with tea party folks during this last election, both on the phone and on blogs. They do remind me of Rush, Hannity, and Beck. You either agree to everything they say or you're a liberal. So if you believe Social Security is a good thing, you're an evil liberal. If you agree that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother (which by the way is less than 1 % of all abortions as the 99+ % of abortions are for birth control), you'll be labeled a liberal. If you like anything that Obama has done at any point in his life, you'll be classified as a liberal. If you like FDR at all, you'll be classified as an evil socialistic liberal. If you don't think that someone like Christine O'Donnell ( I'm not a witch) or Sarah Palin are geniuses and are perfect for running our nation's government then you'll be called an evil liberal socialist, if you believe that it's better to pay down the debt of the nation on the backs of the poor and middle class while giving all the breaks to the wealthiest 2% then you're an evil liberal who's trying to destroy our nation, etc, and on and on it goes.
Conservatives do not like moderates. They believe, as Rush quite often says, that moderates are lazy, who are too stupid to pick a side. I disagree with that statement. It takes far more thinking about the issues and choosing to not be a liberal or a conservative totally, as a moderate agrees with some liberal ideas and some conservative ideas, possibly finding the best of both worlds. Liberals can accept that and welcome those types of folks, whereas Conservatives chase that sort of person away.
I said all this to back what bturner is saying as to why conservative talk works better than lib talk as a general rule other than possibly NPR which pulls similar ratings in many PPM markets as conservative talk. The liberal audience is made up of a far greater spectrum of people, some extreme libs, some just libs, and others moderates who lean lib on some issues and conservative on others.
Note what's happening in the GOP as the moderate wing of that party is disappearing as the far more conservative less willing to compromise tea party conservatives are taking over the GOP thus pushing the moderates to become either Independents or Moderate Democrats as moderates are no longer welcomed in the GOP. That's how conservative talk works also. So it has its loyal audience and that works. Libs do have NPR and find that to be the place where they can have intelligent talk without the bombast that conservatives seem to enjoy with Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck.
So I'd have to agree with bturner that conservatives do fit into a mold or box far easier than moderates or liberals so it is easier to program a radio talk show that will pull them in and keep them listening.
Let's face it, and give the "devil" his due. I may not agree with much that Rush has to say, but he is a talented radio personality who created a variation on the old radio talk show format that extended the life of AM radio for over 20 years as he created an entire industry for conservative broadcasters. Without Rush, Fox News may not have happened. I'm not saying that's a good thing for the nation politically, but Limbaugh can claim credit for creating a whole new radio/TV industry that created a bunch of new jobs that weren't there prior to him speaking in to his "golden" EIB microphone. He and many other right wingers are a whole lot more wealthy today, because of his big mouth, than if he'd stayed a Top 40 jock. Like him or not, that's quite a legacy, definitely a better legacy than Clinton has.
Conservatives do not like moderates. They believe, as Rush quite often says, that moderates are lazy, who are too stupid to pick a side. I disagree with that statement. It takes far more thinking about the issues and choosing to not be a liberal or a conservative totally, as a moderate agrees with some liberal ideas and some conservative ideas, possibly finding the best of both worlds. Liberals can accept that and welcome those types of folks, whereas Conservatives chase that sort of person away.
I said all this to back what bturner is saying as to why conservative talk works better than lib talk as a general rule other than possibly NPR which pulls similar ratings in many PPM markets as conservative talk. The liberal audience is made up of a far greater spectrum of people, some extreme libs, some just libs, and others moderates who lean lib on some issues and conservative on others.
Note what's happening in the GOP as the moderate wing of that party is disappearing as the far more conservative less willing to compromise tea party conservatives are taking over the GOP thus pushing the moderates to become either Independents or Moderate Democrats as moderates are no longer welcomed in the GOP. That's how conservative talk works also. So it has its loyal audience and that works. Libs do have NPR and find that to be the place where they can have intelligent talk without the bombast that conservatives seem to enjoy with Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck.
So I'd have to agree with bturner that conservatives do fit into a mold or box far easier than moderates or liberals so it is easier to program a radio talk show that will pull them in and keep them listening.
Let's face it, and give the "devil" his due. I may not agree with much that Rush has to say, but he is a talented radio personality who created a variation on the old radio talk show format that extended the life of AM radio for over 20 years as he created an entire industry for conservative broadcasters. Without Rush, Fox News may not have happened. I'm not saying that's a good thing for the nation politically, but Limbaugh can claim credit for creating a whole new radio/TV industry that created a bunch of new jobs that weren't there prior to him speaking in to his "golden" EIB microphone. He and many other right wingers are a whole lot more wealthy today, because of his big mouth, than if he'd stayed a Top 40 jock. Like him or not, that's quite a legacy, definitely a better legacy than Clinton has.
Silkie said:More simply put, "conservative" talk radio is just ordinary, everyday American talk radio.
We venturing toward the edge where the Managing Board Editor may swoop in and banish us to TIO - and I apologize for my part in moving us that way.
However. We cannot discuss with intelligence what works and does not work in radio programming if we cannot agree on definitions of the words we use, and definitions of what we observe. Maybe the MBE will cut us a little bit of slack while we work our way through this.
How long has it been since we had a presidential election where the vote was 60/40 or maybe 66/34 or something like that. Today we expect to see presidential elections where the vote in 51/49 or may 52/48. 54/46 would be proclaimed by the talking heads as a LANDSLIDE.
Thus, Silkie, since roughly 50% of the American people demonstrate at the ballot box every four years they are not ordinary, everyday Americans if what we hear on Conservative Talk Radio is the yardstick for what is typically American.
Not all liberals agree with each other. Not all conservatives agree with each other. And the "talking points" seem to change from one election cycle to the next. But there is one constant in talk radio. I did conservative talk radio 40 years ago. I was not smart enough to see what was coming in the future when I walked away and did not pursue another gig in the field of talk.
Here is my observation, as weak and flimsy as it may be. Here is what makes talk radio work: "We know what is right! We have the answers that will work. Everybody must get on board and do what is right. And if we get everybody to do what is right, mankind will live happily ever after. And anyone who disagrees with us is wrong, wrong, wrong."
I don't care if you are selling a political point of view or a religious point of view, there are people out there who do not want to hear: On the one hand we could.... On the other hand we could.... (insert actions/beliefs of you own choosing.)
You can be on the electronic soapbox selling the values of American Conservative Politics, or the values of right wing Christianity, or the values of Catholicism, or the values of being a Mormon, or the values of being a Hindu, or the values of being Muslim. Assure people YOU are right, assure people WE are right, and assure people that if we can convince everyone to do and believe what WE do, civilization is assured to be a winner.
I simply suggest the conservative talk radio is working because it is uniformly expressing a "take no prisoners" mindset. The "plaltform" today is different than ten years ago, different than 20 years ago, different than 40 years ago. What has not changed is: "We are right, and in this battle we will take no prisoners. We compromise with nobody."
It's a winning message. It is also the message of King George back in the 1700s and you can see where that got him.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.