Ingraham switching some affiliates after today

If you get Tom Taylor's radio-info.com column you know that Laura Ingraham is losing some stations
today (and hopefully picking others up in their stead) as Salem Comm. stations are dropping her after
the "lockout" (according to her) that happened a little while back. Among these are KRLA Los Angeles
(KGIL 1260 and XESURF 540 San Diego picking her up) and I would presume stations in Philly (WNTP),
Chicago (WIND?), Denver (KNUS), Detroit (WDTK), Cleveland (WHK) etc
She has told listeners this over the air and suggests checking her website.

Yep, I can confirm that today is her last day on WIND Chicago. Supposedly it's due to a continuation of the contractual issues between her syndication and Salem Communications.

Not sure who would pick her up in the Windy City. Perhaps a rimshot? There are very few places in the city for her show to go. Same is true of Philly - once she's off of WNTP (again, probably after today).

So, this could end up being quite devastating for her radio show. Too bad really, her show is actually pretty good...but too many people have to hunt hard to find it. Luckily she still has WABC and that gig on Fox News.

Is Salem trying to do to Laura/TRN what they did to Dave Ramsey a few years ago? IE: To clear, pony up the $$?

I know there are a lot of PD's from those markets that Laura is losing her Salem clears reading this board. Before you take the Mark Masters bait, look VERY CLOSELY at her numbers at her Salem stations before adding the show. What may seem like a slam dunk could be a costly mistake. Do your homework.

It is a fact that Laura Ingraham has been the backbone for the Salem stations. If another station picks up Ingraham in a market, the Salem station will be destroyed. I cannot believe that Salem is doing this. With their stock prices already as low as they are watch them drop lower as their radio division falls into nothingness.

Slant said:

I know there are a lot of PD's from those markets that Laura is losing her Salem clears reading this board. Before you take the Mark Masters bait, look VERY CLOSELY at her numbers at her Salem stations before adding the show. What may seem like a slam dunk could be a costly mistake. Do your homework.

Click to expand...

Well then the PDs would realize the good that Laura Ingraham has done. Without Ingraham, Salem radio stations are nothing. Sure, Dennis Miller and Savage will keep some of them alive, but most others do not have a chance. What will be interesting is to see some third-tier stations Ingraham has ended up on gain in ratings. Think WCFO in Atlanta. Even with virtually no night signal, adding Ingraham, who already beats Glenn Beck on WGST, could put them on the map where they were nothing beforehand.

I expect that Laura may end up on Citadel stations in some markets also. These may include WMAL in DC and WLS in Chicago. Her show has a large internet raido audience due to it being hard to find in several markets, so putting her on already rpoven conservative stations may yield HUGE results.

Laura Ingraham only offers the same material as the other conservative talkers, but with a nasaly female voice instead. I guess it is comforting that it's not just angry white men who spew that propaganda.

She's 2nd tier at best.

cm454 said:

Laura Ingraham only offers the same material as the other conservative talkers, but with a nasaly female voice instead. I guess it is comforting that it's not just angry white men who spew that propaganda.

She's 2nd tier at best.

Click to expand...

So? A 2nd tier talent who attracts listeners is better than someone who doesn't attract listeners, isn't it? It's the third millennium. The days when a radio station could air one program for one audience at one time of the day and a different program for a different part of the audience at another time of the day were back in the second millennium. News/talk political alignments are like music format genres. Only teeny-tiny niche format music stations try to play one music style for a few hours and then switch styles for a few more hours. It's the same with news/talk.

Once station management decides that a music station is going to play country, then it plays country 24/7. Likewise, when smart station management decides that their news/talk station is going conservative, then it goes conservative 24/7. Maybe a station will drop something untypical in during the slot right after PM drive, but that's almost always something totally out of left field, like sports talk.

Stephanie Miller has a nasally voice that spews leftist propaganda, so at least we're even...

raccoonradio said:

Stephanie Miller has a nasally voice that spews leftist propaganda, so at least we're even...

Click to expand...

I thought she was the one with the squeaky voice, not the nasally voice. Which is the one with the really squeaky voice?

The short-sightedness of radio execs never ceases to amaze.

The fact is, there are hosts, reflective of the majority of Americans, who have views that vary. Do you really know that many people (if any) who have such absolutely partisan views across the board on every subject?

The MAJORITY of potential listeners have liberal to moderate to conservative views. It just depends on the issue.

There are hosts who do reflect that rational way of thinking. Is there no place for them, just because they don't cater to the minority, namely the all-conservative or all-liberal, closed-minded, same drumbeat all day long crowd? And no, the FM talk attempts were NOT really issue-driven talkradio, as much as they were T&A radio for the dumbest among us.

Enough with the specious music format parallels. This IS NOT about playing classic rock on a country station, this is about mass appeal conversation that caters to the majority of this country. If there were far less legitimate FM signals in a market, and as a result, the country music format's listeners were completely catered to, before long, the impression would be given that music listeners only like country music.
WRONG. The stage was set due to a confluence of events creating this false image of who listens and why.

Quick history lesson: Rush Limbaugh took off in the early 90's. Talk programmers, like music programmers, immediately followed the trend, hiring not only conservative hosts by the hundreds, but ones who literally SOUNDED like Limbaugh. A rather uncreative bunch they are. What else is new?

This went on throughout the 90's. And since there are not that many truly viable AM signals in any given market--certainly fewer heritage signals, the monopoly was systematically built. Talk radio, whether by design or by default, became a haven for the conservatives who had a custom-made propaganda machine built in their honor.

Anyone who thinks most people wouldn't enjoy hosts who individually have a wide variety of opinions, ranging from liberal to conservative, needs to get out more and TALK to real people, not those sitting in Conservative Stadium---I mean talkradio.

Unfortunately, the rep of talkradio is such that most normal people won't even give it a chance now, especially younger demos.

No matter what anyone says, this does not bode well for the future of this format, most notably with the increasing competition from developing audio alternatives.

The train is about to leave the station, and as usual, radio is busy taking a dump.

cm454 said:

Enough with the specious music format parallels. This IS NOT about playing classic rock on a country station, this is about mass appeal conversation that caters to the majority of this country.

Click to expand...

The problem is that the majority of this country don't want to listen to spoken word programming on the radio. Period. It doesn't matter what is being talked about. The majority audience wants to turn on their radios to hear music.
I don't have a very high opinion of the suits who run the radio industry, but I do know that there are enough of them out there that if there was even a small chance that one of them could beat his competitors with some other sort of spoken word programming besides conservative news/talk, it would have been tried by now.

To the vast majority of people in the United States, terrestrial broadcast radio is good for one main purpose -- free background music. (More accurately, background Muzak.) Yeah, it's also good for free coverage of some sporting events. And maybe traffic reports. But that's about it. A small minority of listeners enjoy spoken word programming. There are two options for that. Commercial news/talk, which is almost totally conservative, is one. Public radio, which includes NPR, PRI, and all the other non-commercial broadcasters and which is mostly liberal, is the other.

If there was enough of a commercial market for the kind of talk you describe, then public radio's ratings would be a lot higher, and commercial stations would be emulating public radio. If there was truly a bigger market for shows like Fresh Aire, then the commercial syndicators would have either hired Terry Gross or come up with someone like her.

Frankly, the short-sightedness of radio enthusiasts never ceases to amaze me.

Biz Listener said:

Frankly, the short-sightedness of radio enthusiasts never ceases to amaze me.

Click to expand...

The lazy compartmentalizing never ceases to amaze me.

So, NPR is what talk would/should sound like if it's not all-conservative all the time?

BS.

NPR is so unbelievably BORING in the way they present themselves. There is no fire or passion in the way things are discusssed---whatever the subject matter.

It seems that so many haven't the foggiest friggin' idea what this talk animal is and could be.

Interesting and energetic hosts talking about a wide range of subject matter, while having any one individual host's opinions ranging from left to middle to right, not only reflects the kind of conversation MOST people have in the course of a day, but would be welcomed relief from the left/right drones who not only talk about just one subject, but take the same side on every aspect of it.

For a format thought of as having some of the brighter listeners, I'm starting to think they're more brain-dead than the numb-nuts calling to win concert tix!

cm454 said:

So, NPR is what talk would/should sound like if it's not all-conservative all the time?

Click to expand...

No, NPR (and PRI and the other public networks) are what the people who run commercial radio can look to in order to see if any alternate versions of spoken word program show any signs of traction.

cm454 said:

NPR is so unbelievably BORING in the way they present themselves. There is no fire or passion in the way things are discusssed---whatever the subject matter.

It seems that so many haven't the foggiest friggin' idea what this talk animal is and could be.

Interesting and energetic hosts talking about a wide range of subject matter, while having any one individual host's opinions ranging from left to middle to right, not only reflects the kind of conversation MOST people have in the course of a day, but would be welcomed relief from the left/right drones who not only talk about just one subject, but take the same side on every aspect of it.

Click to expand...

The thing is, it's really hard to find people who are passionate about the middle. And I don't know about the people who you know, but I've observed that most peoples' interest in conversation consists of talking, not listening. Not enough people want to listen to a civilized conversation about middle-of-the-road, plain vanilla subjects. Maybe you would welcome that, but it's hard to build a business around one or two customers.

Biz Listener said:

No, NPR (and PRI and the other public networks) are what the people who run commercial radio can look to in order to see if any alternate versions of spoken word program show any signs of traction.

Click to expand...

That IS the probelm, they ARE NOT good examples of what SHOULD be done as an alternative to all-conservative, all the time.

Biz Listener said:

The thing is, it's really hard to find people who are passionate about the middle. And I don't know about the people who you know, but I've observed that most peoples' interest in conversation consists of talking, not listening. Not enough people want to listen to a civilized conversation about middle-of-the-road, plain vanilla subjects. Maybe you would welcome that, but it's hard to build a business around one or two customers.

Click to expand...

You miss the point again and again and again.

It is not about being in the MIDDLE.

The balance of all-liberal and all-conservative IS NOT neutrality, it is a passionately opinionated host who does not adhere to one party agenda.

Comprende?

What Biz Listener reflects is a fundamental lack of unerstanding, such as that commonly held by radio execs and many talk programmers themselves.

Not a small problem to overcome.

Conservative talk has become entrenched over the last 18 years specifically. Understanding how that happened is CRUCIAL to understand why this sad niche isn't the only option. People are looking back and revising history OR they are ignorant of the history and are Monday morning quarterbacking inaccurately just to bolster these ridiculous claims that only conservatives will listen to talk.

I wish people would bother to educate themselves.

"I don't have a very high opinion of the suits who run the radio industry, but I do know that there are enough of them out there that if there was even a small chance that one of them could beat his competitors with some other sort of spoken word programming besides conservative news/talk, it would have been tried by now. "

Oh really? Well I guess you're technically correct. It only took "the suits" 15 years to try a progressive talk station (KPOJ) in what had been an all-conservative talk market in Portland, Oregon. It quickly aced three conservative competitors, including one that is co-owned, and is now the only talk station in Portland in the Top 10, 25-54, ARB, AQH. And my apologies in advance, Biz, for injecting some facts and data into the discussion. I realize that you have a well-documented bias against such things.

talkjim said:

"I don't have a very high opinion of the suits who run the radio industry, but I do know that there are enough of them out there that if there was even a small chance that one of them could beat his competitors with some other sort of spoken word programming besides conservative news/talk, it would have been tried by now. "

Oh really? Well I guess you're technically correct. It only took "the suits" 15 years to try a progressive talk station (KPOJ) in what had been an all-conservative talk market in Portland, Oregon. It quickly aced three conservative competitors, including one that is co-owned, and is now the only talk station in Portland in the Top 10, 25-54, ARB, AQH. And my apologies in advance, Biz, for injecting some facts and data into the discussion. I realize that you have a well-documented bias against such things.

Click to expand...

First, we're talking about liberal talk radio, not some mythical format called "progressive" talk radio. Second, there will always be a handful of markets here and there where formats that don't work anywhere else will work that someone will drag out as "proof" that these obacrure formats will work all across America, from coast-to-coast, from Canada to Mexico. And, we can be sure that the someone dragging isolated examples out will be talkjim.

"First, we're talking about liberal talk radio, not some mythical format called "progressive" talk radio."

Biz, look around the business and you'll find that it is nearly universally marketed as "progressive talk radio". No one says "liberal" talk radio. I'm sure it hurts that the nation's programmers didn't call you for an OK on this before the decision was made, but some probably did some research, did some perceptuals, and gathered some data--the kind of activity that you never have any time or patience for. Get over it.

However, in my judgement, it's most strategic not to market it with any label--why unncessarily put any format into a box that tends to keep it from being inclusive? I'm not a big fan of the shows on KFI in Los Angeles, but I'll be the first to acknowledge that they are hugely successful--and they don't call it "Southern California's conservative talk"--even though it certainly is. CC's WINZ in Miami has had some success with recorded liners that simply say "think for yourself". No mention of progressive talk.

"We can be sure that the someone dragging isolated examples out will be talkjim."

It's only "isolated" when it's an example that blows your theories and gets your boxers in a bunch, Biz.

talkjim said:

"First, we're talking about liberal talk radio, not some mythical format called "progressive" talk radio."

Biz, look around the business and you'll find that it is nearly universally marketed as "progressive talk radio". No one says "liberal" talk radio. I'm sure it hurts that the nation's programmers didn't call you for an OK on this before the decision was made, but some probably did some research, did some perceptuals, and gathered some data--the kind of activity that you never have any time or patience for. Get over it.

Click to expand...

You have one thing right. Liberal talk radio is being marketed, as in "pushed on the market like snake oil" under the deceptive coined moniket "progressive". Nad I have no doubt that there was research done that says that calling liberal talk radio what it really is would result in terrible ratings, so some suit decided to try to fool the public by calling it "progressive". But renaming bovine excrement "organic fertilized" doesn't make it stink any less.

talkjim said:

However, in my judgement, it's most strategic not to market it with any label--why unncessarily put any format into a box that tends to keep it from being inclusive? I'm not a big fan of the shows on KFI in Los Angeles, but I'll be the first to acknowledge that they are hugely successful--and they don't call it "Southern California's conservative talk"--even though it certainly is. CC's WINZ in Miami has had some success with recorded liners that simply say "think for yourself". No mention of progressive talk.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about brand names here. I'm talking about the generic real term for what something really is. "Variety hits" is a format. "Bob" is a brand name variety hits format. If some suit wants to give his liberal talk programming a new brand name, like Progressive® News/Talk, more power to him. But in a general industry discussion of formats, no matter what the brand name might be, it's still liberal news/talk.

It appears, as of now, the only choices for those in Philly to hear Laura's show, per her web site, would be to tune in to either WABC 770 NYC to catch the show live, or WDEL 1150 Wilmington DE M-F 7pm-10pm and Sunday 8pm-10pm.

Unfortunately for Ingraham, her show airs live opposite of Glenn Beck on Philly's WPHT so it is unlikely WPHT will drop Beck for Ingraham. Salem's WNTP was the only other radio option within the city of brotherly love.

I am sorry that laura will be pushing aside Glenn Beck here on KGIL in Los Angeles. I like Laura when she is on Fox news and she is more listenable than O'Reilly but I much preferred Glenn Beck in the mornings. BOOO HISS!!

Yes I have expressed my views to KGIL management.