• 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

Air America Radio goes begging

> > But as I told Jim, below, in those cases the money doesn't
>
> > go to the operation of the station or its management. It
> > goes to the hosts themselves, or whatever entity operates
> > the website.
>
> It would be wrong to assume that FNC does not realize a
> portion of fees paid to O'Reilly for his premium membership.
> There's no reason FNC would let him do it with no return to
> themselves.

It may go to FNC. I don't know for sure. But there is a BIG difference between advertising a separate (premium) website dedicated to a single host, and advertising what is essentially a pledge drive for a commercial radio operation to fund its operations:

"...we've got to reach into every community in this country. We know we can’t achieve this next stage of growth without significant help from you, our loyal listeners."

From the website:

"I want to help Air America Radio get on the air in every community in the nation."

That sure sounds like "give us money so we can fund our operations".

More below.

> > As far as I know, this is the first major, national case
> of
> > a commercial radio operator actively petitioning its
> > listeners, on air, for money to either keep the station
> > afloat or to fund the company and its business ventures
> > itself.
>
> It's not to keep the company or stations afloat. I'm sure
> it is warchest building to expand the network.

Ummm, that is keeping the company and stations afloat. Expanding the business is the surest way to keep your existing business afloat, active, continuing. It is to expand operations--and, by extension, run those operations and the current operations.

> There's no
> difference between asking listeners for individual
> contributions and having another network seek venture
> capital funding from rich fatcats or stock ownership.

Sure there is. Venture capitalists need a reason to invest their good hard-earned (or hard-invested) money. They want assurances that the business will be profitable and that it will be worth their while to invest in it.

I don't know if AAR tried this and failed. I refuse to conjecture on that point.

But there is a damn big difference between going in front of a group of seasoned businessmen, financial planners, and fiscal consulants with well crafted business plans and a promised stake in the future of the company--and going on a website or via email to have your political heartstrings tugged with impending doom if AAR doesn't get some handouts from listeners, and giving them a cheap t-shirt (made in China, perhaps?) in return.

> It's
> really not an important issue, except in the minds of those
> who want to claim it's some grand evidence of AAR "failing."

And those who like to laugh at idiotic radio stunts.

HA-HA!
 
> > > Sounds to me like a lot of non-traditional revenue
> schemes
> >
> > > throughout radio. I'm thinking of "premium" memberships
> at
> >
> > > the websites of various conservative radio talk hosts.
> >
> > That's a false analogy. Conservative talk show hosts'
> > websites are entirely separate media from broadcast radio.
>
> > And they never advertise the fee on-air.
> >
> > No conservative talk show host has ever said, on-air, "if
> > you don't send money, we won't be here".
> >
> > Air America IS advertising--begging--for money on air. On
> a
> > commercial station, no less. I wonder what the local
> > affiliates have to say about that?
> >
> > > So nice try at singling out Air America for some
> bashing.
> >
> > THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES DOING IT! Of course they'll be
> > singled out.
> >
> > > Now, get back to the Sean Hannity show--if you hurry,
> you
> > > can still hear virutally all of today's show.
> >
> > Never listened to him--but I'm sure he's glad you do.
> >
>
> Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly pimp their premiums quite
> often on their shows.

I never said they didn't. I said that Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al., don't claim the money funds the show they're listening to.
 
> > > > Sounds to me like a lot of non-traditional revenue
> > schemes
> > >
> > > > throughout radio. I'm thinking of "premium"
> memberships
> > at
> > >
> > > > the websites of various conservative radio talk hosts.
>
> > >
> > > That's a false analogy. Conservative talk show hosts'
> > > websites are entirely separate media from broadcast
> radio.
> >
> > > And they never advertise the fee on-air.
> > >
> > > No conservative talk show host has ever said, on-air,
> "if
> > > you don't send money, we won't be here".
> > >
> > > Air America IS advertising--begging--for money on air.
> On
> > a
> > > commercial station, no less. I wonder what the local
> > > affiliates have to say about that?
> > >
> > > > So nice try at singling out Air America for some
> > bashing.
> > >
> > > THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES DOING IT! Of course they'll be
> > > singled out.
> > >
> > > > Now, get back to the Sean Hannity show--if you hurry,
> > you
> > > > can still hear virutally all of today's show.
> > >
> > > Never listened to him--but I'm sure he's glad you do.
> > >
> >
> > Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly pimp their premiums quite
> > often on their shows.
>
> I never said they didn't. I said that Rush, Hannity,
> O'Reilly, et al., don't claim the money funds the show
> they're listening to.
>

I assume Rush's premium fees go toward feeding his drug habit, which in turn adds to the entertainment value of his show (if you want to call it that). Therefore, the money does indirectly does fund his show.<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>
 
You forgot something... *DELETED*

Post deleted by cabradio
 
> AAR really does need to decide if they want to be a
> profitable business or win the next election. "Reaching into
> every community" doesn't mean that "every community" will
> listen to them or advertise with them. Not to mention that
> there won't be any real erosion of conservative talk shows
> from people "seeing the light" and switching to liberal
> talk. That seems to be the hope..that if they get on the air
> and bash Bush 24/7 that those darned Republiocans will get
> the message. I wouldn't hold my breath.
>

(SMDH @ another goofy post reducing AAR programming to "24/7 Bush-bashing", as if talk radio never engaged "Clinton-bashing" during the 1990's) <P ID="signature">______________
"Not fixing [New Orleans'] levees before Katrina struck will now cost us untold billions. Not resolving the nation's issues of race and class has and will cost us so much more."
--Wynton Marsalis
</P>
 
> > I never said they didn't. I said that Rush, Hannity,
> > O'Reilly, et al., don't claim the money funds the show
> > they're listening to.
> >
>
> I assume Rush's premium fees go toward feeding his drug
> habit, which in turn adds to the entertainment value of his
> show (if you want to call it that). Therefore, the money
> does indirectly does fund his show.

Nice. We went through this thread without a blatant ad hominem attack, and now you spoiled it.

I guess we can't have a sensible debate here on the issues, can we?
 
> > I see bias in your point of view because you hold Air
> > America (and Christian stations for that matter) to a
> > different standard. Media at all levels and
> > sectors-commercial and public-are devising ways to
> generate
> > new revenue. You can buy CNN and Fox "gear" at their
> > websites. Air America is just the latest to come to the
> > party. To my way of thinking, there is more intrinsic
> value
> > in an Air America T-shirt, than any content available to
> > "premium" members of Bill O'Reilly's website.
>
> I do not hold them to a different standard. As to revenue,
> why doesn't Air America just sell the bumper stickers like
> Fox sells shirts? Fact is, Fox's crap is a rip-off as it
> is... imagine AAR selling THREE BUMPERSTICKERS for $50!!
> Face it, the motivation to send in $50 is to help AAR, not
> to get three ugly stickers. At least with Fox, you know
> you're wasting your money on a worthless product rather than
> contributing to something beyond your control.

I'm glad I've at least convinced you that Fox and AAR are engaged in exactly the same process. Now you are reduced to quibbling about "motivation". Having done some public radio fund-raising, I can assure you that motivations differ tremendously, depending on who's forking over the money. Some who support public radio simply want to do it, and whatever "gift" or "premuim" they receive is nothing more than a second thought. Others give the money only to get the gift.

In this case, AAR is simply more honest--they admit they are profiting. I think you would agree that Fox isn't donating the proceeds from its "crap" (your word, not mine) to charity.
>
 
> > > I never said they didn't. I said that Rush, Hannity,
> > > O'Reilly, et al., don't claim the money funds the show
> > > they're listening to.
> > >
> >
> > I assume Rush's premium fees go toward feeding his drug
> > habit, which in turn adds to the entertainment value of
> his
> > show (if you want to call it that). Therefore, the money
> > does indirectly does fund his show.
>
> Nice. We went through this thread without a blatant ad
> hominem attack, and now you spoiled it.
>
> I guess we can't have a sensible debate here on the issues,
> can we?
>

Some people just have no sense of humor.<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>
 
> Fans of AAR probably are enraged at posts like this.

Not at all. It's merely this week's "stunning new revelation" about AAR mainly pushed by right wing bloggers who are sitting in the Spec-u-plex dishonestly wondering "what does it all mean."

AAR fans don't care. Those who don't like AAR are the ones dwelling on it.
 
> It may go to FNC. I don't know for sure. But there is a
> BIG difference between advertising a separate (premium)
> website dedicated to a single host, and advertising what is
> essentially a pledge drive for a commercial radio operation
> to fund its operations:

Yes, but AAR is a network by design, not a single syndicated program. I'd liken this more to the religious radio networks raising money as a network.

> Ummm, that is keeping the company and stations afloat.
> Expanding the business is the surest way to keep your
> existing business afloat, active, continuing. It is to
> expand operations--and, by extension, run those operations
> and the current operations.

Yes, but the assumption some are making is that this is some last ditch ploy to raise money just to stay on the air. If they are doing quite nicely now and want to create a warchest to expand their network, who cares?

> But there is a damn big difference between going in front of
> a group of seasoned businessmen, financial planners, and
> fiscal consulants with well crafted business plans and a
> promised stake in the future of the company--and going on a
> website or via email to have your political heartstrings
> tugged with impending doom if AAR doesn't get some handouts
> from listeners, and giving them a cheap t-shirt (made in
> China, perhaps?) in return.

The difference is that they appeal to listeners, others appeal to venture capitalists. Neither is superior to the other.
 
More From All Access

All Access Reports:
<blockquote>AAR's move is not unprecedented, however: besides religious broadcasters who routinely ask for donations on commercially-licensed stations, TED TURNER famously asked for viewers of WRET-TV/CHARLOTTE to send in donations to keep the station on the air, saving the station, which he later sold and is now NBC affiliate WCNC-TV.</blockquote>

What scam this thing is! Who are Piquant's stockholders anyway? The rich liberal activists I keep hearing about? They are the ones who stand to profit from this, just like Ted Turner did. He had a struggling TV station. Got the viewers to pull it out of the hole. Sold it. Made a huge profit. Built an empire. What did any of his donors get from this rich guy? What will AAR's donors get besides the shaft as the rich activists get richer if AAR ever turns around?

If this were anyone else but Air America Radio, liberals on this board would be (and should be) screaming bloody murder. But so many seem to have a blind spot for AAR. (Of course, that still puts them ahead of too many on the other side who seem to have no ethical standards at all.)
 
Re: More From All Access

> All Access Reports:
> AAR's move is not unprecedented, however: besides religious
> broadcasters who routinely ask for donations on
> commercially-licensed stations, TED TURNER famously asked
> for viewers of WRET-TV/CHARLOTTE to send in donations to
> keep the station on the air, saving the station, which he
> later sold and is now NBC affiliate WCNC-TV.
>
> What scam this thing is! Who are Piquant's stockholders
> anyway? The rich liberal activists I keep hearing about?
> They are the ones who stand to profit from this, just like
> Ted Turner did. He had a struggling TV station. Got the
> viewers to pull it out of the hole. Sold it. Made a huge
> profit. Built an empire. What did any of his donors get
> from this rich guy? What will AAR's donors get besides the
> shaft as the rich activists get richer if AAR ever turns
> around?
>
> If this were anyone else but Air America Radio, liberals on
> this board would be (and should be) screaming bloody murder.
> But so many seem to have a blind spot for AAR. (Of course,
> that still puts them ahead of too many on the other side who
> seem to have no ethical standards at all.)
>

Okay, tell us how you really feel.<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>
 
AAR's Fundraising

> Let it be said, however, that conservatives have actually
> been creative with how to make money. A premium website is
> nothing different than an advertiser pitching Geico, ABC, or
> the See Clearly Method. What AAR is doing is uncreative and
> simply a hand out.

And to note: You don't see Jones Radio or the owners of its liberal talk programs (P1/Ed Schultz, WYD/Stephanie Miller, etc.) doing this.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>
 
Re: More From All Access

> If this were anyone else but Air America Radio, liberals on
> this board would be (and should be) screaming bloody murder.
> But so many seem to have a blind spot for AAR. (Of course,
> that still puts them ahead of too many on the other side who
> seem to have no ethical standards at all.)

See, there it is. We keep seeing these posts from people who "innocently" ask questions or "report" news and have the attitude of "just asking... I really don't care either way." Only after a few days of discussion, we find out the truth - the poster DOES care and it's yet another Attack AAR thread in a cute fluffy bunny suit.

I am a progressive and I still don't care and I wouldn't be screaming "bloody murder" if it were anyone else. Religious radio raises money from donations, conservative shows pitch premium insider clubs and gear, and public broadcasting has pledge drives. Of these, only the last really irritates me, but not enough to scream "bloody murder."

The "blind spot" here is really your frustration at those of us who just won't take the shark bait, despite your post candy about conservatives having no ethical standards at all. I don't believe that either.

We won't be nibbling. Move along, nothing to see here. :)
 
Re: More From All Access

>
>
> See, there it is. We keep seeing these posts from people
> who "innocently" ask questions or "report" news and have the
> attitude of "just asking... I really don't care either way."
> Only after a few days of discussion, we find out the truth
> - the poster DOES care and it's yet another Attack AAR
> thread in a cute fluffy bunny suit.
>

you have no business questioning the motives of others. Your A.A.R. attack posts are endless on anyone with opinions different from yours.



> I am a progressive and I still don't care and I wouldn't be
> screaming "bloody murder" if it were anyone else. Religious
> radio raises money from donations, conservative shows pitch
> premium insider clubs and gear, and public broadcasting has
> pledge drives. Of these, only the last really irritates me,
> but not enough to scream "bloody murder."
>

>
 
Re: More From All Access

> > All Access Reports:
> > AAR's move is not unprecedented, however: besides
> religious
> > broadcasters who routinely ask for donations on
> > commercially-licensed stations, TED TURNER famously asked
> > for viewers of WRET-TV/CHARLOTTE to send in donations to
> > keep the station on the air, saving the station, which he
> > later sold and is now NBC affiliate WCNC-TV.
> >
> > What scam this thing is! Who are Piquant's stockholders
> > anyway? The rich liberal activists I keep hearing about?
>
> > They are the ones who stand to profit from this, just like
>
> > Ted Turner did. He had a struggling TV station. Got the
> > viewers to pull it out of the hole. Sold it. Made a huge
>
> > profit. Built an empire. What did any of his donors get
> > from this rich guy? What will AAR's donors get besides
> the
> > shaft as the rich activists get richer if AAR ever turns
> > around?
> >
> > If this were anyone else but Air America Radio, liberals
> on
> > this board would be (and should be) screaming bloody
> murder.
> > But so many seem to have a blind spot for AAR. (Of
> course,
> > that still puts them ahead of too many on the other side
> who
> > seem to have no ethical standards at all.)
> >
>
> Okay, tell us how you really feel.
>

You gotta admit, it is pretty lame of AAR to start an outright donation program... and it does take the air out of anyone's arguments that the network is succesfull...
 
Re: More From All Access

> you have no business questioning the motives of others. Your
> A.A.R. attack posts are endless on anyone with opinions
> different from yours.

I don't have a problem with people who have a different "opinion" about AAR. Those people are fully entitled to their views and I rarely comment on those. I -do- have a problem with people who hide opinion behind faked, hyped, or twisted "news reports" or innocent-sounding "questions" which are really just not-so-subtle attacks, often taken word for word from other sites which have spent their entire day working on "taking down" the opposition.

You will see me fact check every last one of them every time. That's not an "attack" on the individual - it's a hard look at what that person is saying. The days of people making stuff up as they go along and just posting it as fact, or twisting factual news accounts into hyped "investigations" which are more comment than fact, without any response are over.

If people want to put their own reputation on the line by simply regurgitating reports that are debunked by anyone with 10 minutes and access to Google, they should not be surprised if someone calls them on it.

Message: Do your own research and fact checking - don't blindly trust everything you see online regardless of who is saying it.
 
Facts

My questions were rhetorical. You did not say exactly what "facts" you are challenging?

The fact of the solicitation for donations? I received their email. The same thing is posted on their website.

Fact: Piquant LLC is a for profit corporation and has investors. According to the solicitation, donors are asked to give the corporation money. Not a loan. Not an equity investment. No offer to re-pay the money if AAR becomes profitable.

IMHO: Liberalism should not be based on wealthy people exploiting middle class people. But I suppose anybody who will spend $50 for three bumper stickers with no deduction deserves what they get. My public radio mugs and T-shirts are starting to look pretty good right now (even if the station manager gets almost half ad million a year, the building sits on prime real estate and is a techno-geek fantasyland inside). (Fact Check: Forbes published a list of public broadcasting managers with the largest salaries. I've been there. I've seen all the flashing lights, bells and whistles.)






> I don't have a problem with people who have a different
> "opinion" about AAR. Those people are fully entitled to
> their views and I rarely comment on those. I -do- have a
> problem with people who hide opinion behind faked, hyped, or
> twisted "news reports" or innocent-sounding "questions"
> which are really just not-so-subtle attacks, often taken
> word for word from other sites which have spent their entire
> day working on "taking down" the opposition.
>
> You will see me fact check every last one of them every
> time. That's not an "attack" on the individual - it's a
> hard look at what that person is saying. The days of people
> making stuff up as they go along and just posting it as
> fact, or twisting factual news accounts into hyped
> "investigations" which are more comment than fact, without
> any response are over.
>
> If people want to put their own reputation on the line by
> simply regurgitating reports that are debunked by anyone
> with 10 minutes and access to Google, they should not be
> surprised if someone calls them on it.
>
> Message: Do your own research and fact checking - don't
> blindly trust everything you see online regardless of who is
> saying it.
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom