The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

22 January 2005

Don't Believe the Hype About Liberal Talk Radio

(I've moved this toward the top so readers can comment)

Liberal Talk Radio's Recent PR Hype is Not to be Believed
By Brian Maloney


Rarely has more attention been devoted to a broadcasting-related topic than to the latest attempt at making liberal talk radio work. But how is it really faring?

Where a number of national left-wing programs had failed one after another over the years, 2004 saw a concerted effort, backed by partisan funding, to make the Air America Network fly. Other radio syndication companies have since stepped into the mix with their own offerings.

Some pretty bold claims are being made at the moment: Jones Radio's Ed Schultz, of Fargo, North Dakota, says his show grew faster than Rush Limbaugh's did in his first year of national syndication, for example. Wild proclamations about ratings growth at some stations have also generated headlines in recent months.

Corporate giant Clear Channel Radio has been converting small, also-ran radio stations around the country to a new liberal format featuring a varying blend of Air America and leftist programs originating from other radio networks.

In some cities such as San Diego and Portland, Oregon, initial indications are that the format might be drawing an audience. San Diego's KLSD-AM (no typo there) moved into 16th place in the latest Arbitron radio ratings survey, down slightly from the previous reporting period but up somewhat from the station's old format.

Air America has a noisy band of activist fans who flood radio industry Internet chat boards with impassioned defenses of every hiccup the firm faces. Being familiar with some of these people, I can tell you they are the same ones who spent the last decade complaining about "Rush-clone wanna-be blowhards" and the general state of conservative-dominated talk radio. You don't hear the same gripes from them about Al Franken and the others on the fledgling liberal network no matter what they say on the air.

There's a clear difference between what led to the success of conservative talk radio programs such as Rush Limbaugh's and what this crop of liberal hopefuls are doing.

Limbaugh and other successful hosts on the right were road-tested in individual cities first, and only after the demand was there, were they syndicated to a waiting national audience. They didn't create supply until there was demand.

When in later years, conservative programs were placed into national status without the host having the on-air seasoning and proven ability to draw an audience at the local level, the result has almost always been eventual failure.

In Air America's case, the cart has been placed before the horse. "Hosts" without a minute of talk radio experience were placed on their network based mostly on marquee value rather than demonstrated talent. Then the hope was to see radio operators pick up the programming for their various stations. "Building on spec" is a risky way to do business.

So what about these claims of huge ratings growth at individual liberal stations? The problem is that many of the stations that converted to the "progressive" format were so tiny, they often didn't show up in Arbitron radio ratings results.

If it previously had a miniscule 0.1 share (percentage) of the radio listening audience age 12 and over and with Air America have a 1.0 share, sure, you can honestly tout your 1000% ratings increase. But it causes laughter in the radio industry.

And Ed Schultz's claims of growing faster than Rush Limbaugh are hilarious for this reason: Rush Limbaugh was tacking on one major-market powerhouse after another in his early syndication days, while Schultz's additions have been little flyswatter operations, many in remote locations. To make a comparison based on just a numerical count of affiliates is disingenuous at best.

Two important pieces of data have come about in January that shed a tremendous amount of light on Air America's real performance: one, in key Fall 2004 Arbitron ratings figures recently released, their flagship station WLIB-AM in New York City saw flat ratings results compared to the station's previous Caribbean format.

Perhaps more significant, but overlooked by the press so far, is what has happened in Providence, Rhode Island.

There, Clear Channel's WHJJ-AM did something few others have dared to try so far: dump a reasonably successful conservative lineup for this liberal one.

The results for WHJJ have been truly disastrous so far, a huge ratings decline from a 3.5 share of the 12 and older audience to a 2.6, for 12th place overall. That's fairly considered a crisis, especially when it hits during the Fall Arbitron Ratings Survey, key for determining future advertising rates.

Its primarily-conservative competition in Providence, Citadel's WPRO-AM, home to Rush Limbaugh, saw a surge during the survey period from a 4.4 to a 5.1 audience share, good for sixth place in the metro area. While WHJJ chased listeners away with liberal offerings, WPRO got an opportunity to grab thousands of new fans overnight in head-to-head competition.

What's next for liberal radio? This week, several new stations signed on with the format, and a station in TV trashmeister Jerry Springer's hometown of Cincinnati debuted his new leftist radio program, said to be an upcoming addition to "progressive" syndicated talk radio.

More risky "building on spec" or a radio format with staying power? My money's on the former. But one thing liberal radio has in its favor is a decent number of politically sympathetic radio company executives and station programmers who've been trapped in positions for years running shows they personally hate.

Emotions can cloud good judgment in such situations and the result may be the addition of more Air America stations even when the results so far are less than stellar.





6 Comments:

  • The template for most liberals, in whatever medium, is, as the song goes:
    "The answer my friend, is blowin' in the wind.
    The answer is blowin' in the wind."
    (Or just picture something, anything, flappin' around in whatever direction the wind is blowing.)

    By Blogger The Rebecca, at 19 January, 2005 13:11  

  • Thanks for the comment, Rebecca.

    By the way, this is an early, rough draft version of an essay I'm working on at the moment. A substantially revised piece is on the way.

    By Blogger Brian Maloney, at 21 January, 2005 18:26  

  • Thorough research and excellent coverage of the subject matter.

    By Blogger The Rebecca, at 22 January, 2005 09:55  

  • My friends and family members in Detroit are despondent over the Clear Channel affiliate's [WXDX - 1310AM] decision to move away from a quasi-conservative talk format to become *Detroit Progressive Talk* and change their call letters to WDTW. This MUST be a subsidized format change as work and family-oriented Detroiters won't listen to such drivel. And the *victims* who might listen to such liberal whining spend their welfare stipend on either booze, junk food, lottery tickets or in the inner city's pathetic casinos. Given this new bitter victim demographic, who would sponsor such junk radio?

    Conservatives should unite in expressing their extreme disappointment on the listener line 248-489-1787 where they would like comment on THE NEW 1310 WDTW! Keep in mind, Michigan almost delivered 17 Electoral Votes to Bush, but the constant drone in the press about higher-than-average unemployment figures soured the weak-minded union types that feel they have right to stack crankshafts for $50,000+ per year. It never occurs to them that the health care field in Michigan is filling thousands of job openings with English-as-a-second-language types because native Detroit union types refruse to develop new skills. Michigan's Canadian-born female Governor blames President Bush for Michigan's inability to recognize the sea change in employment trends and wooing the unions with rhetoric about protecting the state's buggy whip industries. Michigan should be courting technology and services that can't be outsourced by retraining its labor base. After all, wouldn't a day helping people as a nurse be more rewarding than stacking crankshafts?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 22 January, 2005 12:06  

  • Thanks, I've been hearing a lot about the Detroit situation in the last few days. I agree, where's the target audience? Where's the market research?

    By Blogger Brian Maloney, at 22 January, 2005 12:21  

  • Brian: Check my latest column about Air America, O'Reilly and Savage at www.chronwatch.com (although there are link problems today) or my website (www.topthecharts.net).

    It appears that Clear Channel s giving AA a full opportunity in major markets so if they fail, there will be no conservative scapegoats to blame.


    Ira

    By Blogger top the charts, at 22 January, 2005 14:54  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger