The trick in any type of thing aimed at attracting people, from radio shows to music, is to that specific connection. There have been a lot of conservative AM talk shows that have failed. But there are a few hits. Just because those are hits doesn't mean the formula will always work, or that any liberal talk will fail. Same thing with this women's network. It was a very broad brush, assuming all women think alike. They don't, so building a network just around women isn't specific enough.
-
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
The trick in any type of thing aimed at attracting people, from radio shows to music, is to that specific connection. There have been a lot of conservative AM talk shows that have failed. But there are a few hits. Just because those are hits doesn't mean the formula will always work, or that any liberal talk will fail. Same thing with this women's network. It was a very broad brush, assuming all women think alike. They don't, so building a network just around women isn't specific enough.
I always thought that there could be a commercial version of NPR. They could create breaks that would be for commercial stations and have non commercial content within that same break for the Non Comms. Maybe all stations break away and the Non Comms do some fund raising?
Goat Rodeo Cowboy
Star Participant
I have wondered if NPR will eventually become so recognized for what it does that commercial broadcasting will try to duplicate the content, beat them at their own game.
If I am understanding your "what if" correctly.... WHY would NPR want to make their content available to commercial outlets? Would the terms of their Federal funding permit that? Would the major charitable foundations that underwrite public radio and public TV stand for that?
Would the NPR talent stand for that? Do some of them have something kin to a "martyr complex" where they pour out their best work and skills because if is "for a good cause" and they would walk away feeling dirty and guilty if their work was also made available to the commercial stations?
I don't know that any of my "straw men" have any validity.... but I do believe the whole big picture of public broadcasting finance has become quite complex.
The format works well for NPR and affiliated stations because they are non-commercial, limited to Enhanced Underwriting of program blocks. I don't think the same sort of longer-form news pieces popular with NPR stations, would play bracketed by traditional :30 and :60 spot breaks. Listeners wouldn't stick around long enough, that's why current commercial news operations are more headline-news oriented. That, and there simply aren't enough break opportunities in a typical hour to support a true commercial operation with more in-depth news reporting..
I would contend the average listener thinks of enhanced underwriting as a commercial, albeit a toned down version. Years ago there was a study shown that listeners showed loyalty to the enhanced underwriter because they were sponsoring a format they could get nowhere else. The Paul Harvey listener and Public Radio listener perceived the Paul Harvey commercial as identical to the enhanced underwriting. A friend at an ad agency shared that and I never got to see the study. Thus, I have no idea how extensive it was. I think the commercial content would have to match the format but that the issue is not the difference in the non-comparative and competitive phrasing. Length of the breaks would likely be a factor. I doubt 6 minute breaks every 30 minutes is a good idea. Joe Blow Car Dealer screaming out his specials would be a turn off too. This is where my opinion differs from the one above.
As for commercial operation with an NPR style, it could possibly work but I think it would be such an extensive investment for a commercial broadcasters many investors would not be on board because of the upstart costs and the time it would take to recoup the investment. Simply put, there are easier options taking less time to reach black ink.
As for the mindset of the journalist, I think that exists. Certainly journalists see their work/talent as much like an artist. There are those artists that create for the sake of creating, refusing to compromise or alter in order to succeed financially and others that hone their creativity to create art the public at large will want. Integrity is not lost on either type.
As for commercial time, enough breaks, etc., all of this is worked out in formatics. The current NPR feed would not work for a commercial station but the NPR style format could be altered to make this work. TV does it. TV tells a story in half hour and hour increments successfully with commercial breaks. I think the best shot would be to have low key commercial messages and a limited commercial load (and there lies the problem with cost per point dictating), maybe selling lots more 'branding' if you can pull it off.
As for commercial operation with an NPR style, it could possibly work but I think it would be such an extensive investment for a commercial broadcasters many investors would not be on board because of the upstart costs and the time it would take to recoup the investment. Simply put, there are easier options taking less time to reach black ink.
As for the mindset of the journalist, I think that exists. Certainly journalists see their work/talent as much like an artist. There are those artists that create for the sake of creating, refusing to compromise or alter in order to succeed financially and others that hone their creativity to create art the public at large will want. Integrity is not lost on either type.
As for commercial time, enough breaks, etc., all of this is worked out in formatics. The current NPR feed would not work for a commercial station but the NPR style format could be altered to make this work. TV does it. TV tells a story in half hour and hour increments successfully with commercial breaks. I think the best shot would be to have low key commercial messages and a limited commercial load (and there lies the problem with cost per point dictating), maybe selling lots more 'branding' if you can pull it off.
Progressive talk has generally failed on AM for three reasons. It's done a little better on FM, but securing carriage on an FM station, especially in a large or major market (which usually would mean buying an FM at a cost which may exceed $10 million) is generally beyond the reach of anyone trying to get such a venture going.
That said, AM liberal talk was hobbled in four ways:
Liberals/Progressives find great importance in demonstrating that their lifestyle (and thus their agenda) is the most modern, up-to-date, and formed from reason. They consider "Liberal" to be pejorative and prefer the term "Progressive", they make sure their phone is the latest and most svelte iPhone, wear the latest fashion, and wouldn't be caught dead with a CRT television in their house. Listening to an AM station would fly in the face of that post-modern image.
More liberals/progressives (as compared to conservatives) tend to work during the day in an office environment, likely in a metal structure, in the presence of computers and other appliances that produce RFI. They could not listen to an AM station at work if they wanted to. More conservatives (especially "Tea Party"-leaning) work from small business or from home (especially those who have their own small businesses), where AM reception is better.
Liberals/progressives are more likely to receive opinion from non-broadcast sources, being more likely to read traditional print newspapers and magazines, and selectively surf internet sites and audio podcasts for opinion.
Liberal/progressive talk radio came late to the parade. Conservative talkers had already established their foothold on the 50kW clears and mid-market Class III-A regionals who had abandoned their full-service adult formats. Liberal/progressive talk usually wound up on AMs with real coverage issues. My sister was an interesting case-in-point. An unabashed progressive, she was talking to me about what she thought was a "conspiracy" to keep people from listening to progressive talk. She pointed out (correctly) that WDTW 1310 (now defunct) was riddled with interference at her St. Clair Shores home after sunset, while conservatives were still loud and clear on WJR. I had a hard time getting her to believe my explanation of how not all AMs were equal, skywave interference at night, clear channels as opposed to "junior" regional stations, and directional arrays, but she did eventually take my word.
As for NPR. I would agree they are slightly left-of-center, more in some ways than in others, representing the well-to-do liberals/progressives more than the old-fashioned "rank and file" liberals, but I still listen to NPR (usually via WUOM). I consider NPR a good service, at least mentioning the issues, in and outside this country, that other media outlets ignore. Like any journalism, I take everything I hear with a grain of salt, and, if I'm really interested in a story, I'll seek out dissenting opinions.
That said, AM liberal talk was hobbled in four ways:
Liberals/Progressives find great importance in demonstrating that their lifestyle (and thus their agenda) is the most modern, up-to-date, and formed from reason. They consider "Liberal" to be pejorative and prefer the term "Progressive", they make sure their phone is the latest and most svelte iPhone, wear the latest fashion, and wouldn't be caught dead with a CRT television in their house. Listening to an AM station would fly in the face of that post-modern image.
More liberals/progressives (as compared to conservatives) tend to work during the day in an office environment, likely in a metal structure, in the presence of computers and other appliances that produce RFI. They could not listen to an AM station at work if they wanted to. More conservatives (especially "Tea Party"-leaning) work from small business or from home (especially those who have their own small businesses), where AM reception is better.
Liberals/progressives are more likely to receive opinion from non-broadcast sources, being more likely to read traditional print newspapers and magazines, and selectively surf internet sites and audio podcasts for opinion.
Liberal/progressive talk radio came late to the parade. Conservative talkers had already established their foothold on the 50kW clears and mid-market Class III-A regionals who had abandoned their full-service adult formats. Liberal/progressive talk usually wound up on AMs with real coverage issues. My sister was an interesting case-in-point. An unabashed progressive, she was talking to me about what she thought was a "conspiracy" to keep people from listening to progressive talk. She pointed out (correctly) that WDTW 1310 (now defunct) was riddled with interference at her St. Clair Shores home after sunset, while conservatives were still loud and clear on WJR. I had a hard time getting her to believe my explanation of how not all AMs were equal, skywave interference at night, clear channels as opposed to "junior" regional stations, and directional arrays, but she did eventually take my word.
As for NPR. I would agree they are slightly left-of-center, more in some ways than in others, representing the well-to-do liberals/progressives more than the old-fashioned "rank and file" liberals, but I still listen to NPR (usually via WUOM). I consider NPR a good service, at least mentioning the issues, in and outside this country, that other media outlets ignore. Like any journalism, I take everything I hear with a grain of salt, and, if I'm really interested in a story, I'll seek out dissenting opinions.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy
Star Participant
These two paragraphs seem to be a bit of creative writing that may be a bit detached from reality. You do demonstrate a great imagination.
Is it possible that deciding whether liberal or progressive as a preferred terminology is more related to the culture of your geography... as in community traditions in language usage. Work in daytime metal buildings? Liberals don't work at night? Liberals don't deliver pizzas? Liberals don't deliver the mail? Liberals don't work as hair stylists? Liberals don't work as in-home care-givers for the elderly?
Liberals are more likely to know the difference between a CRT and a flat-screen than are conservatives?
Where can I read your documentation?
I purposely used "liberals/progressives" since, if I had used only "liberals", half of the readers would assume I were a conservative, and if I had used only "progressives", half of the readers would have assumed i were a liberal. I consider myself to be neither.
I did not say that progressives were more (or less) likely to know the difference between a CRT and a flat panel, I said they were less likely to own a CRT set (true, I don't have any actual concrete statistics to back this up, it is what I have observed, however).
As for "daytime metal buildings"?? Buildings that magically turn from steel to wood when the sun sets? (LOL). you misread badly. I said in metal structures during the daytime. Office workers (other than high management) are more likely to be liberal than conservative. Yes, there are liberals delivering mail and pizzas, and certainly liberals doing home care for the elderly (probably very likely to be liberal as government money is pivotal to funding their work). Yes, there are conservatives doing all these things, and liberals mining coal and driving big SUVs, but I still stand by my statement that more liberals than conservatives are working in buildings with poor AM reception.
I did not say that progressives were more (or less) likely to know the difference between a CRT and a flat panel, I said they were less likely to own a CRT set (true, I don't have any actual concrete statistics to back this up, it is what I have observed, however).
As for "daytime metal buildings"?? Buildings that magically turn from steel to wood when the sun sets? (LOL). you misread badly. I said in metal structures during the daytime. Office workers (other than high management) are more likely to be liberal than conservative. Yes, there are liberals delivering mail and pizzas, and certainly liberals doing home care for the elderly (probably very likely to be liberal as government money is pivotal to funding their work). Yes, there are conservatives doing all these things, and liberals mining coal and driving big SUVs, but I still stand by my statement that more liberals than conservatives are working in buildings with poor AM reception.
Last edited:
I have always contended that conservative talk shows centered on subjects/points that were views commonly held by the audience they were trying to reach. Keep in mind these are jocks that keep their jobs by maintaining audience. It's no different than music radio. You play the right songs and if your presentation is right you succeed. When Air America came on it seemed focused on politics versus the shared values and how that related to politics.
Subject matters were based on a set of common values versus any other reasoning. Conservatives tend to have a more unified set of common values and the values tend to influence their politics. The Progressive or Liberal Talk host has the challenge of finding a more elusive common ground over a wide range of viewpoints. While the same is true for the Conservative, the core values seem to be more common across the board. My point is Conservative Talk subject matters are rooted in common values and its response to politics rather than being politics alone. There are so many levels to Progressive/Liberal thinking that it is simply more difficult to find those common threads that may be partly why Progressive/Liberal Talk has had a difficult time. Certainly Conservative Talk had a rough road in the beginning. Once could ponder if Clinton was not in the White House when Conservative Talk gained momentum if the format would have survived, especially if Clinton had not won a second term.
Certainly some blame may be the business structure of Air America and that it was a network while Conservative Talk stations cherry picked shows free from network requirements and clearance restrictions.
Subject matters were based on a set of common values versus any other reasoning. Conservatives tend to have a more unified set of common values and the values tend to influence their politics. The Progressive or Liberal Talk host has the challenge of finding a more elusive common ground over a wide range of viewpoints. While the same is true for the Conservative, the core values seem to be more common across the board. My point is Conservative Talk subject matters are rooted in common values and its response to politics rather than being politics alone. There are so many levels to Progressive/Liberal thinking that it is simply more difficult to find those common threads that may be partly why Progressive/Liberal Talk has had a difficult time. Certainly Conservative Talk had a rough road in the beginning. Once could ponder if Clinton was not in the White House when Conservative Talk gained momentum if the format would have survived, especially if Clinton had not won a second term.
Certainly some blame may be the business structure of Air America and that it was a network while Conservative Talk stations cherry picked shows free from network requirements and clearance restrictions.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy
Star Participant
As we say in the South..... "Well bless your little heart."
Heaven knows that I publish my share of suppositions, guesses, and shabby observations from time to time so I have some sympathy for your efforts to find a way to express yourself.
Now, let's talk about home care for the elderly. You see, I regularly write checks to pay for an in-home care-giver. You gotta be smash-mouth poor before there is any government money to pay for your in-home health care. There is some government money (a pitifully small amount) available to pay for care for those in poverty. But if you will look up the companies that provide the bulk of the home health care in much of the country, you will find that at their rates, you have people writing some pretty hefty checks to pay for these workers. Now here is my "guess" after observing a series of these folks who have paraded through my house. At least here in the South, they are likely to be "churchy folks"... you know, the kind of people who go to the same kind of churches that Rick Santorum or Rick Perry or Bobby Jindal or Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin go to. These people have chosen to do this kind of work often times because it is their "mission" in life. If you think they are liberals.... I've got this bridge that connects Savannah to South Carolina that I can let you have at a very attractive price today. (They ain't progressives either.
)I am just amazed at the amount of so-called facts we all pitch back in forth in these wars over Talk Radio that have all the integrity of a moth eaten umbrella. (I underlined it because some days I get a lasso thrown around my neck by some deputy of the Truth Sheriff.
How was there no other choice? The stations dropped the music element because the news and information elements were what drove listening and the music just detracted from the product. It was felt that without the music, people who might listen otherwise, would tune in for the other elements. On second thought, maybe refocusing on the news, information and personality aspects is the way to go.
Typically, in the 60s, the full service AM was the only station in town. They had to be all things to all people. As more stations were added, and FM became more popular in the 70s, you had more format specialization, and full service AMs focused more on news and information.
My point is taking those same 1kw AM stations and returning it to full service AM won't bring back listeners, because they have more options for the same content.
At my first paid radio job, we were the only English language radio station in town. We were after everyone. This was 1978.
We operated 6am to 10pm. We were country with a 30 minute news block plus news updates every 30 minutes 6 to 9 in the morning. Then automated 50s and 60s oldies until noon. At noon was a 45 minute news/information block. At 12:45 we played a side of a beautiful music album as I pinned up the automation for the oldies (per the GM to help listeners digest lunch before an afternoon of work). We were back for a 30 minute news block at 5:30. After 6, with hourly news, we went Top 40 and at 9:45 before signing off, it was a 15 minute news summary.
That didn't last long. After 3 months we went Top 40 with Tanner jingles, picked up a State News Network for hourly news and kept the morning and noon news blocks.
After about a year, we got a call about the ratings for our county. We bought. We had a 43 share. No, it wasn't our programming expertise or talent that earned that as much as us being the only game in town in English. Yes we were called 'the Mickey Mouse' station when I got there and quickly became a respected institution in that town, so we made some wise decisions but as a young guy in his first radio job I know it was much less about what I brought to the table. But man was it fun.
We operated 6am to 10pm. We were country with a 30 minute news block plus news updates every 30 minutes 6 to 9 in the morning. Then automated 50s and 60s oldies until noon. At noon was a 45 minute news/information block. At 12:45 we played a side of a beautiful music album as I pinned up the automation for the oldies (per the GM to help listeners digest lunch before an afternoon of work). We were back for a 30 minute news block at 5:30. After 6, with hourly news, we went Top 40 and at 9:45 before signing off, it was a 15 minute news summary.
That didn't last long. After 3 months we went Top 40 with Tanner jingles, picked up a State News Network for hourly news and kept the morning and noon news blocks.
After about a year, we got a call about the ratings for our county. We bought. We had a 43 share. No, it wasn't our programming expertise or talent that earned that as much as us being the only game in town in English. Yes we were called 'the Mickey Mouse' station when I got there and quickly became a respected institution in that town, so we made some wise decisions but as a young guy in his first radio job I know it was much less about what I brought to the table. But man was it fun.
vchimpanzee
Walk of Fame Participant
I lean liberal but am open to conservative views in some cases. My phone has a cord and while it does have buttons, it looks cuting-edge for the 60s. I have a second phone, also corded, but te buttons light up. All my TVs are CRTs. I
listen to AM radio because that's where my music is in most cases.
Yeah, right, and they go around in flying Jetsons cars when they're not zooming around with rocket packs strapped to their butts.
Just about every single point you made was so far from the truth, it's laughable.
Liberal talk failed because the target audience was already listening to a commercial free (and much higher quality) alternative.
Nope. Liberal talk failed for the same reason conservative talk is failing in markets where it's primarily syndicated.
The 60s isn't when Full Service/AC dropped the music. It was more like the 90s. There were plenty of ACs on FM before that and the FS/AC stations were still top rated. By the way, I noticed you said "1KW AM station". My concern was what would happen to the BIG AM stations if Conservative Talk ultimately fails. These are the stations that drive the AM band. Without them, I hate to think what would happen to it!
It depends on the market. At one time, WCBS was a FS station featuring Arthur Godfrey. It went all news in 1967.
The future won't be like the past. It takes a long time to create a habit. So even if a station invested the millions it would take to do local news and entertainment, there's no reason to believe it would deliver the size of audience it takes to sustain it.
My expectation is that AM will become a home for religious, ethnic, and brokered programming.
Having said all that, I see there's another thread on small market AM. I'm not in a small market, I've never been in a small market, so I have no experience to say what it would take to do small market full service. I just know it would be very costly and would be an uphill battle in a large or major market.
Last edited:
- Status