Why LibTalk is floundering and ConTalk is moving to FM

[RBRadioWaves]

I'm not sure if a topic was started on this or not, but I have a general reason why Liberal Talk is not doing nearly as well as Conservative Talk radio.

Advertisers are more likely to look at commercialized stations. However, many ad departments think that liberals have SiriusXM radio and drive Prii. They think they are modern enough to not listen to ads, and therefore, not buy as many products referred to them on the radio. Meanwhile, ad departments think that the ideal of conservatives is that they do not want to spend their money on frivolous items. Therefore, they are less willing to buy XM, yet may buy, say, home insurance plans or new cars advertised on the radio.

Granted, both of them have a few things in common..... extremists screaming that the other is wrong, and the target demographics being high.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

That is an interesting theory. Got any facts to back it up? What are the demographics of the liberal audience? What are the demographics of the conservative audience?

If you explained WHY ConTalk is moving to FM... I missed it. From the chatter on these boards I had assumed that it was because the demographics of the conservative audience on AM was not very attractive and the move to FM was designed to improve the demographics.

When you mention demographics, are you talking about age? about income level? or some other attribute?

 

[wadio]

Meanwhile, ad departments think that the ideal of conservatives is that they do not want to spend their money on frivolous items.

Well, that blows your theory right there! It means conservatives won't buy anything advertised on the radio!

 

[recto101]

LibTalk depends on local donors like I know Pacifica O&O's like KPFA and KPFK run their station that way.

 

[w9wi]

I'm not sure if a topic was started on this or not, but I have a general reason why Liberal Talk is not doing nearly as well as Conservative Talk radio.

Advertisers are more likely to look at commercialized stations. However, many ad departments think that liberals have SiriusXM radio and drive Prii. They think they are modern enough to not listen to ads, and therefore, not buy as many products referred to them on the radio. Meanwhile, ad departments think that the ideal of conservatives is that they do not want to spend their money on frivolous items. Therefore, they are less willing to buy XM, yet may buy, say, home insurance plans or new cars advertised on the radio.

Granted, both of them have a few things in common..... extremists screaming that the other is wrong, and the target demographics being high.

Interesting theory, haven't heard that one before.

My belief (and I really don't have anything to back it up either) is that there are a number of issues with liberal talk radio:

- Poor signals. In most markets, liberal talk has been on stations with less-than-full-market signals. *Most* formats fail on these stations. Successful conservative talk stations are usually on the best AM signal in the market, or a full-market FM.
- Inadequate promotion. In general, radio (and for that matter, TV) do this poorly -- if you don't already listen to the station, you don't know about it. Liberal listeners aren't scanning the AM dial every day -- they aren't going to find your new liberal talk station at random. You have to tell them about it.
- Operating a liberal talk station by simply inverting a conservative station -- by following the rules for conservative talk but flipping all the political viewpoints. Liberals don't think that way. They are less confrontational (as a whole, you can find individual exceptions) and less likely to enjoy listening to an angry host "dissing" the other side.
- Liberals have been taught to not expect to hear their viewpoints on radio. If, every time you tuned across the AM dial, all you heard was foreign-language programming and preachers, would you bother to continue tuning AM? Probably not... and if some day, a new station popped up on 1180 playing all your favorite music, you'd never find it. (this ties in to the "inadequate promotion" thing) Liberals are used to talk radio berating their values. They don't expect to find people talking about their values on radio, and they don't look for it.

 

[jas2525]

Here we go again.

Every so often a thread like this comes up, and typically it's started and populated by people who are ignorant of the technical landscape of the industry and/or the history of the format.

When so-called "libtalk" started, it was not only run by ideologues, but it was relegated to second and third tier stations on the AM band, while the stations that morphed into all-Rush all-the-time, were on the grand blowtorches and/or heritage talkers in the market. Good luck trying to get an ideologically based format off the ground to begin with...then factor in inferior sticks or frequencies that the population has long since abandoned.

By the way, many of the stations that have been dominant in their markets (and became wall-to-wall conservative), still get plenty of listeners by default who aren't far right wingers. This is for a couple of reasons: It's the heritage station that people are used to punching up--especially given other service elements like weather, traffic & news. Also, in many cases, it's the only signal or only listenable signal carrying a spoken word format.

I'm so tired of the overly simplistic "Gee, must be that only conservatism works" BS. For what it's worth, any radio station that has an ideological litmus test is a bore.

The move to FM is just an extention of what alreadye xists: Companies have had success with their AM conservative format, so they're putting it on FM. Not hard to understand. Will it get them that many more listeners? Depends on the given market.

 

[jas2525]

...and by the way:

When Limbaugh was taken off the heritage talker in Boston two years ago, Clear Channel made him the cornerstone of their new "Rush Radio" station in town---a 50kw signal no less. It was conservatives all day long with Rush as the star.

And it failed miserably. Was that because it was conservative, or because it was on a station people were unaccustomed to checking out?

Many of the so-called libatlk stations were in the same situation---although most didn't even have as good a signal as the Rush station did.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

LibTalk depends on local donors like I know Pacifica O&O's like KPFA and KPFK run their station that way.

That may be what has been tried and what is working where you live or something.

Talk Radio in it's current Conservative mode seems to be a form of conservatism that is kin to, representative of main-stream Republican thinking. Through the years there have been some conservative radio shows that scooped up some left-ofter time on religious stations. This version of conservtive talk tended not to be very main stream.

I don't have Pacifica available where I am but I get the idea that it features a more specialized version of liberalism that is not necessarily close kin to the liberalism of say the Democratic Party main stream. I think the question that is pondered by this thread is: Why can't the more mainstream liberalism work in commercial radio in a way that mirrors mainstream conservative radio?

On TV MSNBC evening would be an example of mainstream liberalism.

 

[borderblaster]

Nobody started with a grand plan to start a conservative talk network. Rush Limbaugh caught on and the rest followed. Some owners had the idea that if they couldn't get Limbaugh they'd get someone who said the things Limbaugh said, and those hosts usually failed. Air America first started as an ideological network and it was staffed with TV people. At one time there was a large staff of writers which had been unheard of for talk radio previously or since. Other groups tried looking for "the liberal Rush" and found Ed Schultz in North Dakota.

This ground has been covered before. I believe it;s a combination of liberals getting their viewpoints validated in comedy, movies and music (if you're a Republican candidate looking for a campaign theme song your choices are the Charlie Daniels Band and Ted Nugent), many Democratic voters not being political junkie enough to seek out a talk station, and liberals who want spoken word programming preferring the dulcet tones heard on NPR (no, that doesn't mean NPR is liberal talk).

 

[raccoonradio]

>>Rush Limbaugh caught on and the rest followed

The start of the late Andrew Breitbart's book, Righteous Indignation, talked about how the Right had
"AM radio" on its side (forgetting I guess that even at the time of its writing, there were more than a few FM talk stations). He described being what he thought was a liberal at first but he eventually discovered he was really a conservative...at one point he found he didn't like 90s grunge rock
as much as he did 80s new wave, so he turned to the AM dial instead and started listening to the likes of Stern and Jim Rome. Then his father in law Orson Bean suggested he try Rush. Breitbart
thought, why would I like a "Nazi" like that?, but he did, and soon became a Rush and talk radio
addict, and he found he was drifting to the right some would say. Later he talked about working with Drudge, Arianna Huffington (helped to start her site--she did used to be a bit to the right
originally), and so on but talked about how conservative talk radio was a response to the
"Democrat Media Complex".

It's true that more than a few talk hosts tried to be like Rush but failed. As for AAR one thought they had was to have left of center comedians and media figures (Janeane Garofolo, Al Franken)

Schultz was originally on the right wasn't he? He could have been seen as a populist talk host,
someone to appeal to middle America but on the left side. Yes liberals may have found
NPR more appealing, or many shows like Democracy Now etc. Or...they may have found they
liked conservative hosts even if they didn't agree with them. Sometimes they'll call in
(like "Josh from Vermont", "Steve From Montreal", and "Bill from E. Hartford" on the Howie
Carr show) and the hosts tear down their arguments, make fun of them, etc.

As for WXKS in the Boston area it doesn't seem to get the ratings but it must help Clear
Channel/Premiere in clearing ads, etc. They have 2 daily local hosts (in the days 1200 was
liberal they had none but then again the signal was worse then) they can afford to pay,
plus Rush, Sean, Levin etc. Somehow CC/P is either making a small amount of money or
at least breaking even with this, as opposed to "La Nueva Rumba" which they had during
the years in between the libtalk and now. They wanted a station that would clear not only
Rush, Coast to Coast, and Bill Cunningham (which WRKO all ran) but also Beck (WRKO had him
but only on weekends), Hannity, etc. The ratings aren't stellar but as it is,WRKO has been sliding
down for awhile now and it will be interesting if Howie jumps to 1200 or 96.9...

 

[raccoonradio]

>>If you explained WHY ConTalk is moving to FM... I missed it. From the chatter on these boards I had assumed that it was because the demographics of the conservative audience on AM was not very attractive and the move to FM was designed to improve the demographics.

Many reasons:
--AM signals, prone to static, power-downs or pattern switches

--(Improve the demo, as you mention) AM radio, what's that? AM is the dial where they have religious stuff and ethnic, right? Oh yeah
and some talk shows my dad or granddad listen to. FM is where many younger people and people
in the starting years of middle age, reside. mp3 players have FM only (in many cases).
When Boston conservative host Jay Severin moved to 1200 (due to controversial remarks he
made on 96.9) the news spread that he was back on the air and someone on facebook asked,
"1200, so that's, like, on AM, right?" Yes folks there IS another broadcast band. It's called AM
and I guess they run Lawrence Welk or something

--People listening at work, etc. who have trouble picking up AM. Dealing with sports talk,
in Aug of 2009 CBS started Sports Hub 98.5 in Boston, going after WEEI 850. WEEI: Sox and
Celtics. WBZ-FM: Pats and Bruins. For the first time WEEI had a powerful competitor, and it was on FM. Entercom/WEEI did have advanced notice of several weeks and could have scooped
them by simulcasting WEEI on WMKK 93.7 (see, WE are the first FM sports talk in Boston).
WMKK did make money with variety hits, though. 98.5 starts and soon overtakes WEEI in
the ratings. By Sept of last year, Entercom finally realized they had to do something so they
started a simulcast of WEEI on 93.7. People liked the move--I can hear the ballgame at work!
It doesn't fade at night! Before you knew it, the 850 freq wasn't even mentioned (other than
being part of their phone number and text number). Whether or not this will work remains to be seen, but they HAD to do this (and sacrifice a music format) to stay competitive. No static,
no static, no static at all...F...M!

And lo and behold many talk stations have been simulcasting on, or moving to, FM. Talk
in Providence, Albany, Worcester. Sports talk in Hartford.

And so on.

Getting back to WXKS:
>>And it failed miserably.

CC ran "Boston's Progressive Talk" for a couple years, from Oct 2004 till Dec 2006. "Rush Radio 1200" (now Talk 1200) started in March of 2010. No doubt it will survive through the elections
this fall, and perhaps beyond. If, after the elections, CC decides to pull the plug then fine,
back to Rumba or something, but they want to clear their shows and run the ads. The ratings
have been roughly the same as prog talk or maybe slightly better but they do seem to be sticking to conserv. talk, at least for now, including 2 local hosts. Failure? If it were a failure people
right now would be hearing Spanish language on 1200 again. They're sticking with it, for now. (Or maybe they can bring Jeff Santos of 1510 aboard and we would soon be hearing Stephanie Miller, Schultz, etc on 1200 instead of, or together with, 1510. Who knows.)

(Santos btw was a Sunday only host on 1200 when it was prog talk, often running opposite
Pats football etc. Not daily but Sun only.)

 

[kd8hho]

On TV MSNBC evening would be an example of mainstream liberalism.

and look at MSNBC crappy ratings.

fact is the majority of America has conservative values

 

[radiobum]

Doesn't MSNBC beat CNN-at least at night?

No the majority of America does not think like Limbaugh, Hannity etc. Not even the majority of Republicans. If they did wouldn't Rick Santorum be leading the field far and away.

I've always believed a lot of liberals like the PACE of NPR and no obnoxious commercials- and being liberals, not progressives, some of them mistakenly think it's liberal radio

On TV MSNBC evening would be an example of mainstream liberalism.
[/quote]

and look at MSNBC crappy ratings.

fact is the majority of America has conservative values


[/quote]

 

[KTN Corp]

The FCC could shut down the AM band tomorrow and the Democrat's problems would go away. I don't see talk moving to FM because music radio draws more revenue and a wider audience than a niche format like (conservative) talk. The AM transition will happen in a few years and FM will be the only radio band left; AM is going the way of analog TV.

 

[jas2525]

On TV MSNBC evening would be an example of mainstream liberalism.

and look at MSNBC crappy ratings.

fact is the majority of America has conservative values

People who think like this usually did very badly in mathematics in school.

The only reason FOX has the ratings it does (vs. so-called MSM) is because the non-Fox audience is fragmented over MANY different news outlets/networks.

If you add together the non-wingnut audience and compare it with Fox's wingnut audience, Fox gets trounced BADLY.

And most self-proclaimed "conservatives" aren't even as conservative as you would think. People love to preach one thing, but in reality, if you reeeeally talk to some of these people, they're not as conservative as they try and pretend. It's a lot harder to live up to the level of moral superiority that they project than most of them are able to---which is why many of them can't live up to it.

Of course EGO is the real common thread. The whole "I'm better than you, and my ideology is better than yours" lends itself to some VERY difficult issues involving terribly inflexible and unreasonable people. Tea Party, anyone?

 

[KTN Corp]

The only reason FOX has the ratings it does (vs. so-called MSM) is because the non-Fox audience is fragmented over MANY different news outlets/networks.

Liberals are very aware of bias and want to hear different points-of-view from different angles. They listen to All Things Consdiered, listen to Democracy Now! on the Pacifica station, and then tune back to the NPR/APM/PRI station to hear Marketplace. If they are at home, they flip through ABC, CBS, NBC evening newscasts and then watch The News Hour on PBS.

 

[ropertex]

And most self-proclaimed "conservatives" aren't even as conservative as you would think. People love to preach one thing, but in reality, if you reeeeally talk to some of these people, they're not as conservative as they try and pretend. It's a lot harder to live up to the level of moral superiority that they project than most of them are able to---which is why many of them can't live up to it.

Remember how Limbaugh advocated that druggies be locked up forever until he was caught and charged with in excess of ten felony counts of Oxycontin possession, and the actions of the ACLU kept him out of prison by arguing that his privacy was violated when Florida seized his medical records without warrants.

 

[markwooldridge]

Back to the original topic: why LibTalk is not working so well... IIRC Air America had the same problem that Mr. Limbaugh has right now - major advertisers advising stations not to air their commercials during particular shows. No major advertisers meant Air America had to fight for advertising dollars.

Oh, and that they had second-rate signals, and poor promotion, and some issues of having personalities not used to doing radio starting out as headliners. That of course doesn't help.

Oh as for Fox News Channel beating out the other news-talk TV channels a couple of things that go for it: a) there's always a controversial discussion or shouting match going on in primetime, b) Fox News Channel negotiated good carriage deals that means in some areas your choice on the "normal basic" cable package is Fox News Channel or CNN, and c) Fox News Channel delivers a consistent political message. If there's any actual real NEWS going on, CNN is usually the go-to channel, as most people perceive it to be the least biased station politically out of the big 3.

Fortunately most people can tell the difference between Fox News Channel and their local Fox station... IMO WGHP (Fox 8) is a far classier and better news outfit than Fox News Channel, even if WGHP is a Fox affiliate.

 

[raccoonradio]

>>the non-Fox audience is fragmented over MANY different news outlets/networks.

Very true--picture a pie chart, maybe half of it are the left leaning networks. The rest is
Fox. They do well but they are the only real home of "the other side" of opinion. And of
course people would love to shut it, or conservative talk radio, down...despite "I disagree
with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it"

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

And of course people would love to shut it, or conservative talk radio, down...despite "I disagree
with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it"

No, we don't want it shut down. We just want it to function in a logical, civil and intelligent manner.

Yes, we will defend to the death your right to say it, but we will not die to support your habit of telling lies.

Yes, we will defend to the death your right to say it, but we will not die to support your habit of marginalizing groups of people you have decided are illegitimate.

Yes, we will defend to the death your right to say it, but we will not die to support the so-called "Party of family values" as they profane our cherished values... which also address the family. And the church. And the Constitution.

Radio (and TV) are about conversation as we see it. Conversation is the exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions and ideas.

Conservative radio (and TV) are about: You open up your brain and we will shovel it full... and no, we don't give a damn about what you think. And if you tell us what you think, we will make fun of it. We will maybe call you a slut. Maybe even a prostitute.