• 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

How badly does john and ken on kfi destroy john n jillian on kabc in the ratings?

hotpatrick2004

hotpatrick2004

Star Participant
I bet pretty bad. I like john phillips. I can stand jillian baberie and she is far to liberal to be paired up with him and on that station.

Thoughts...
 
There's not supposed to be a litmus test for who's "too liberal" to be on a talk station. In fact, it's probably a more interesting show because there is a counterpoint to the thoughts of her co host. Talk radio used to have room for a variety of local hosts with a variety of ideologies. If the purpose is to stimulate debate and discussion or entertain, why wouldn't they put a more liberal host on with him?

I've never understood why people insist that a talk station should only broadcast conservative hosts or opinions, and jettison hosts that aren't sufficiently "conservative" enough, which is a relative opinion of a handful of listeners.
 
Andy Travis said:
There's not supposed to be a litmus test for who's "too liberal" to be on a talk station. In fact, it's probably a more interesting show because there is a counterpoint to the thoughts of her co host. Talk radio used to have room for a variety of local hosts with a variety of ideologies. If the purpose is to stimulate debate and discussion or entertain, why wouldn't they put a more liberal host on with him?

I've never understood why people insist that a talk station should only broadcast conservative hosts or opinions, and jettison hosts that aren't sufficiently "conservative" enough, which is a relative opinion of a handful of listeners.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's one of the reasons I stopped listening to Talk Radio. That, and I didn't feel like getting angry every day...the news is bad enough. KGO radio was great in the 80s and 90s, with a good selection of liberals, moderate, and conservative hosts.
 
radiofan said:
Looks like Kabc has low ratings overall
Click to expand...

Overall, KFI beats KABC in 12+ by about 350% and the same ratio applies in 3-7 PM.
 
Makes you wonder how kabc stays on the air with numbers like that. Heritage certainly doesnt help them. John and ken are so much better then john and jillian.

However in 00/01 kabc did have a show with both points of view i enjoyed. Alred/ Taylor. Gloria alred mark taylor.
 
If I was PD at KABC I would hire John Ziegler for the pm drive time. I would love to hear him go head to head with his J&K nemesis.
 
TeaPartyDude said:
If I was PD at KABC I would hire John Ziegler for the pm drive time. I would love to hear him go head to head with his J&K nemesis.
Click to expand...

It does not matter who you hire and when they are on the air. KABC's signal is totally inadequate to cover Los Angeles today. Most of the area they cover well is highly ethnic, where talk radio tends to severely under-index.
 
DavidEduardo said:


It does not matter who you hire and when they are on the air. KABC's signal is totally inadequate to cover Los Angeles today. Most of the area they cover well is highly ethnic, where talk radio tends to severely under-index.
Click to expand...

David,

At one time KABC's signal, while never being as good as KFI's or KLAC's, was still pretty much usable throughout almost all of LA and Orange Counties with the Inland Empire having marginal coverage. Now it is hard to find an area outside of LA City limits (and not even all of that if you consider the valley) or the OC coasts where they have a usable signal. What happened? Actually, I think know what happened - interference from increasing use of electronic devices - but couldn't station management have done something about it? I know they have to protect other stations in Texas and Washington, but still it seems like something could have, if not should have been done to save the signal from the huge degradation it has had. It really is sad to see the demise of what was once a great (ok, good) station.
 
ChannelFlipper said:
David,

At one time KABC's signal, while never being as good as KFI's or KLAC's, was still pretty much usable throughout almost all of LA and Orange Counties with the Inland Empire having marginal coverage. Now it is hard to find an area outside of LA City limits (and not even all of that if you consider the valley) or the OC coasts where they have a usable signal. What happened? Actually, I think know what happened - interference from increasing use of electronic devices - but couldn't station management have done something about it? I know they have to protect other stations in Texas and Washington, but still it seems like something could have, if not should have been done to save the signal from the huge degradation it has had. It really is sad to see the demise of what was once a great (ok, good) station.
Click to expand...

The issue here with the 790 signal is both the increased interference level from man-made sources and the migration of the target audience towards the periphery of the market. Irvine and the lower OC, Santa Clarita, Lancaster/Palmdale (as an LA suburb) and the West Valley were not nearly as important back in the 70's as they are today.

There is nothing much that KABC can do with the signal. To keep the existing coverage, they upped the daytime power a tiny bit when they moved to the KWKW towers. But they have protections in the daytime that include Bakersfield and TJ on 800 and Mexicali on 790.

At night, any power increase would have to protect stations in Vegas, Tucson and Clovis as well as WA, MT, TX on 790 under the new rules, and they'd likely have to protect Mexico on 800 as well as Reno on 780 to some extent.

So the station is simply too small to compete in the market... and it is AM anyway.
 
DavidEduardo said:


The issue here with the 790 signal is both the increased interference level from man-made sources and the migration of the target audience towards the periphery of the market. Irvine and the lower OC, Santa Clarita, Lancaster/Palmdale (as an LA suburb) and the West Valley were not nearly as important back in the 70's as they are today.

There is nothing much that KABC can do with the signal. To keep the existing coverage, they upped the daytime power a tiny bit when they moved to the KWKW towers. But they have protections in the daytime that include Bakersfield and TJ on 800 and Mexicali on 790.

At night, any power increase would have to protect stations in Vegas, Tucson and Clovis as well as WA, MT, TX on 790 under the new rules, and they'd likely have to protect Mexico on 800 as well as Reno on 780 to some extent.

So the station is simply too small to compete in the market... and it is AM anyway.
Click to expand...

Serious question: now that they've sold off the most valuable asset (its real estate), why keep it?

There has to be a tipping point where groups will cash out of AMs that no longer cover the market while there's still some value to be had.
 
johndavis said:
Serious question: now that they've sold off the most valuable asset (its real estate), why keep it?

There has to be a tipping point where groups will cash out of AMs that no longer cover the market while there's still some value to be had.
Click to expand...

Good question. Some companies have those stations on the books at greater value than they would sell for, so they avoid a large adjustment. Other companies have syndication divisions and they need the stations for clearance of product (Premiere and Westwood). Others just don't want to give an asset to a competitor.

Back when IBOC / HD was about to launch, many owners kept AM stations because "they were going to be viable again with digital". How'd that work out?
 
DavidEduardo said:


Good question. Some companies have those stations on the books at greater value than they would sell for, so they avoid a large adjustment.
Click to expand...

Then somebody in the accounting department is not doing their job and their external auditors are letting them get away with it. Those are most likely permanently impaired assets that should be written down to fair value.
 
ChannelFlipper said:
Then somebody in the accounting department is not doing their job and their external auditors are letting them get away with it. Those are most likely permanently impaired assets that should be written down to fair value.
Click to expand...

Most public corporations have taken impairment charges, but the value as an ongoing business is not always the value for resale. So the impairments are based on a variety of factors other than resale value.
 
DavidEduardo said:


Back when IBOC / HD was about to launch, many owners kept AM stations because "they were going to be viable again with digital". How'd that work out?
Click to expand...

Almost as well as AM Stereo!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom