Why isn't there more Talk Radio in NEPA?

[The Watcher]

Since you all seem to know the medium inside and out I have a question for you. Why isn't there more Talk Radio in NEPA?

We have multiple stations broadcasting in the same format. WILK seems successful enough at what they do but they're the only game in town. So, why aren't there any competing stations?

And no, I don't want to start another station so please don't let that enter your minds! It's an honest question with no hidden agenda.

Thanks!

Jack

 

[ceaser]

Why isn't there an all news station mabye newswatch 16 on the radio doing an all news format about northeastern and central pa? Why is wilk on several frequencies?Waste,waste,waste.

 

[masterg]

Since you all seem to know the medium inside and out I have a question for you. Why isn't there more Talk Radio in NEPA?

Well, "Jack," I'd say it's like most all else in life, it's about money. Talk-radio costs money, if you're going to do a respectable job of it. Let's leave politics out of the equation completely; no matter what a talker's leanings are, if you want a good one, you'll have to pay at least a decent amount of money. And you'll need to pay that amount to 3-4-5 or more people, and you need board ops and possibly producers, then you an add the salaries of news people. It is far cheaper to run music and voicetrack than to do talk.

The only alternative is if you get really lucky and find someone who happens to have an interest in doing it part-time only. Perhaps they're financially comfortable, maybe they have another job that makes them a living.

I can think of several former radio and TV people in this market who'd be sensational as talkers, but neither WILK, nor any newcomer should there be one, could afford them. Lynn had Paul Stueber, former WNEP/WBRE/WYOU News Director, as a guest a month or so ago. Paul would be terrific doing talk. He's got the pipes, the brains, and a resume that is probably the best what has ever passed through this market. Could they afford him? Would they be willing to make the attempt? (Apologies to Mr. Stueber for honking his horn, if he takes offense.)

While I can't swear to it, it's my understanding that WILK's talkers are "four and out the door," meaning they do their shift(whatever length) and they are gone. Put another way, they ain't working an eight-hour day.

If WILK on FM proves a winner, I'm guessing you'll see other groups wade into the waters of talk.

 

[The Watcher]

I heard Stuber and some of the other guests Lynn had on. Stuber sounded like he had brains and no agenda. I could vote for him as a host. As for "four and out the door" with the exception of Corbett, to whom the "new" seems not yet to have worn off, I'd agree and it shows to the detriment of their programs. Lynn's preparation in particular seems poor. All he does is pick something to bash and then fall into his routine.

What generally costs more, syndicated programs like Hanitty or live stuff? WILK dumped two syndicated shows to hire Corbett. What's the trade-off?

 

[masterg]

Stuber(sic) sounded like he had brains and no agenda.

That would be Mr. Stueber. He truly has no agenda.

Given Hannity's popularity(is he still hot?), I'd have to say he was costing them a bundle. Salaries at WILK are an unknown to me, and really are a personal matter. That aside, given the airshift-only nature of the job, I'd guess no one is getting wealthy there. I'd say if the ratings stay where they were, dumping Hannity put money in WILK's pocket.

 

[The Watcher]

Thanks for the reply.

I'm a "knowledge junkie". I know a little about a lot and everyting about nothing. ;D Anything that increases my vast store of useless knowledge is appreciated! (Sorry for leaving out the "e" in Stueber BTW! Too early in the AM and not enough coffee!))

I don't care who makes what but the relative valuation is interesting. I'd have thought that it's be far more expensive to have a live host than a syndicated program.

Just shows ya what I don't know!

 

[masterg]

A lot of syndicated programming is bartered, meaning the local station gets the programming for free, but has to carry whatever advertising is within that programming. Generally speaking, the syndicator leaves availabilities in which the locals can insert their own spots.

(Anyone here recall when Pepper-Tanner/William B. Tanner jingle packs were free? You'd get 'em for free, but end up running Dairy Queen and Wrigley gum spots forever.)

A live host could become very expensive. If he or she became wildly popular, and clearly responsible for high numbers, because higher numbers mean higher ad rates and more time sold.

Let's say Corbett doubles WILK's afternoon numbers. Hypothetically he could then negotiate a salary commensurate with those numbers.

Much of this is hypothetical, because this market has a history of ignoring the popularity of certain personalities and refusing to negotiate with them fittingly.

 

[ThomasCarten]

Four and out the door does not mean there is no prep for these people. You don't need to sit around the station and read newspapers to prep your next day's show. You do have to contact people to follow up on what you see and hear, which can be done (sometimes must be done) out of the building.

Yeah, the four & door can induce laziness, but it doesn't necessarily follow. I did talk briefly and none of my prep was at the station.

 

[masterg]

Well put, Tom. Once upon a time, I'd read five newspapers daily; two local, one Philly, one NYC, and the "must read" USA Today. Call USA Today whatever you will, if you want to be topical and timely, you gotta read it.

That being said, I wasn't even doing talk at the time, but rather jocking a drive shift. Still, it was long my belief that you needed to stay on top of things in as broad a scope as you could. However, local is local is local. And people want local more than anything else. So, what's going on up your block is as important, perhaps more so, than what's happening in Washington.

FWIW, I tried doing a lot of show-prep for a time(other than reading papers), but found that it made me behave like someone else rather than me, and that is an immediate disconnect from your audience. Not that I've had a stellar career, but me being me always seemed to be what people liked.

 

[The Watcher]

I certainly can understand that approach especially if you're doing talk. You sure don't have to be in the studio to prepare and if you're an astute observer of humanity you can pull a show out of your butt I'm sure, but lack of preparation shows, at least IMO, when one tends to repeatedly fall back into a formula day in and day out.

For example when I first heard Rush back in the early nineties I thought he was great. After a year or so it got to be same-old same-old and now I seldom listen. In his defense he does prepare well, or his staff does anyway, but it's the same song on a different day with little acknowledgment that there's another view and it gets tiresome fast! Besides, now that he's rich he mainly discusses subjects that put a protective shield on his assets. : I gotta admit that even tho he's too didactic he's pretty much civilized when it comes to dealing with callers and I wish that some of the locals would take a clue from that at least!

At this point most of my media, indeed even my pleasure watching / listening, comes from Sat TV and Sat Radio. Lots to choose from when the formulas and local stuff gets boring. I don't much listen to music. never did. I grew up in the days of Dan Ingram and Cousin Brucie. Had enough of that then. Comedy, talk, history channel, science channel, that kind of stuff is what I enjoy, but since my background is science and my hobby is history I suppose that's to be expected. Give me a Steven Hawking special on relativity or quantum mechanics and I'm in heaven! ;D

Jack

P.S. I can't spell tho. never could past sixth grade!

 

[MACK184]

Shows like Rush, Hannity, Dr. Laura and such require cash, and LOTS OF IT, as well as bartered spots. In many markets it is acutally cheaper to run a "local" than it is to have a national syndicated show. Of course if you're willing to put on second and third string talkers like the tripe that's on the USA Radio Net or some of the regional syndicators you can get them for barter, but if you put them up against Rush or Hannity, then they'll lose hands down. If someone [with an equal signal] was to put Hannity on against Corbett, Corbett would lose. It's just the way that it works.

 

[The Watcher]

Shows like Rush, Hannity, Dr. Laura and such require cash, and LOTS OF IT, as well as bartered spots. In many markets it is acutally cheaper to run a "local" than it is to have a national syndicated show. Of course if you're willing to put on second and third string talkers like the tripe that's on the USA Radio Net or some of the regional syndicators you can get them for barter, but if you put them up against Rush or Hannity, then they'll lose hands down. If someone [with an equal signal] was to put Hannity on against Corbett, Corbett would lose. It's just the way that it works.

Mack -

Thanks for the info! My knowledge base is growing by leaps and bounds!

Another question if I may. If Hannity trumps Corbett and there is only one talk station in the area but lots of music stations with arguably the same stuff why doesn't someone do it? Does it cost LOTS of money and wouldn't you make it back in ads if you won the "book"?

Thanks again!

Jack

 

[masterg]

I'd take the guess that Hannity wasn't making them a ton of money. Revenue versus cost must have been way out of whack. Popular? No doubt about it, though Hannity is also very polarizing. The last I heard Hannity(it has to be year now), it was the same thing over and over again; "We've got to stop Hillary." His message seemed to be that, regardless of what Americans in the main wanted, "we" have a higher calling to prevent it from ever happening. (FWIW, I happen to believe Clinton will be the next president. That thought is independent of whether I like her or not.)

Whatever your politics, if you keep championing a losing cause you might be considered noble and loyal, but your popularity is going to slide precipitously. Not that it matters, a guy like Hannity has made millions upon millions already. Can you imagine what Limbaugh has made? I'd speculate that rough waters lie ahead for far-right talkers. It just might be a good time to be at WILK.

The natives are restless across the land, Americans are not happy. Taking that displeasure out on the party resident in The White House is the way America works.

 

[lfcsuuite100]

From an older USA today article:
Rush signed a $250 million contract in 2001 that runs through 2009. He also received a $35 million signing bonus.
Poor Rush, I guess he is doing okay. I'm not sure if I would be able to squeak out a living on a little over 30 million a year, but I would like to try.... ;D

 

[The Watcher]

Lots of good points there masterg.

I think it's gonna be a horse race for sure and I think Hillary will be in it for sure. I'm hoping for a Giuliani to be the Republican nominee. Everyone has their warts but he seems able to handle complex social and economic issues. To the best of my knowledge Hillary still hasn't actually "run" anything governmental, except maybe Bill. ;D

Oh and here's a "family question I'd like to pose Hillary along the same lines as that just asked of Rudy about his kids - "If you're elected president and catch Bill playing slap and tickle with another intern will you still be able to concentrate on issues of foreign and domestic policy well enough to run the country?"

Now that I think of it maybe Kevin needs to have this bounced off him. I wonder what his reply would be?

Oh and as far as polarizing goes, that seems to be the name of the game these past several years and IMO we're suffering for it as a nation and as a people but our so-called leaders on both sides of the coin don't care as long as it serves their purposes - kinda like it does Kevin and WILK you might say?

OK I'm a cynic - so sue me!

Jack

 

[masterg]

I have no idea how Kevin would address the fidelity issues, but I'd love to hear him take a swipe at it. My take on it is that a good many men of greatness all possess the same character flaw of having a weakness for women. It does not excuse it, it only explains it. What Bill Clinton did was despicable. He got the crap kicked out of him by the media, and deserved it all.

My Clinton speculation is based on what I see as solid fact...

Fact...President Bush's approval rating is dreadful. Americans are beyond unhappy with myriad things in this country. Voters are looking for someone's head, and it's going to be a Republican head. History may go easier on Mr. Bush, but the present has him as one of our worst presidents.

Fact...Despite not being able to keep his pants on, Bill Clinton was and still is enormously popular. I say enough Americans would love to see him back in The White House(Would he be First Gentleman?)that it will have a huge impact on the vote.

That Limbaugh money is staggering. I knew the guy was making serious money, but that's huge. Hey, if he wasn't earning it, they wouldn't be paying it. No corporation, whether it be radio or TV, ever made contract concessions that it couldn't easily afford. 285 million dollars? He likely generates at least twice that in revenue.

 

[The Watcher]

I agree with both your "Facts" masterg. I think that Hil-Billy II makes a formidable team.

Hmmm - ya know - there is no law that prevents Bill from running for Veep - - -

I was only postulating the infidelity question because Kevin made such a big deal of the Rudy one. I'd like to hear him dismiss this tho.

BTW speaking of getting the crap kicked out of one, I have a new friend on my BLOG, Joe Leonardi. : ;D

Jack