The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

28 February 2006

Air America, Gary Krantz, Bill O'Reilly, Radio Equalizer

RETURN FIRE

A Week Later, Air America's Peculiar Response




Skirting the real issues almost entirely, a peculiar round of Air America Radio return fire was sent our way last night. Every bit as lethal as Dick Cheney's birdshot, it had us remembering to duck.

What took so long?

Instead of refuting our report that an $8 million corporate bailout from the George Soros-backed Democracy Alliance was on the way, the letter sent by Air America honcho Gary Krantz to Air America affiliates attacked Bill O'Reilly.

Since Karl Rove is the real culprit, please don't accuse the Radio Equalizer of adding the spelling errors seen below:








February 27, 2006

To: Air America Affiliates and Friends

From: Gary Krantz

Re: Recent allegations by Radio Equalizer and Bill O’Reilly

Last week on Bill O’Reilly’s cable TV show, there were allegations that were misleading regarding the state of Air America’s Business. It is not often that we respond to these things, but in this case we feel we need to set the record straight---

Mr. Reilly has been bad mouthing Air America and saying it is failing for two years.

It was not true before and it is not true now.

In interpreting the story, one should consider the source:

Air America's ratings went up substantially in the Fall 2005 book and it its affiliate base has grown from 36 affiliations in January of 05 to over 90 affiliations across the country, including internationally on the Voice of America

In the recent Fall 2005 Arbitron Survey for New York, Air America/WLIB Programming is outperforming Mr. O’Reilly in both the 12+ and A 25-54 Demo:










WLIB 2p - 4p
Hr 3 – Franken/ Hr 1 – Randi Rhodes (first box)



vs. Bill O'Reilly WOR AM (second box)



*Source: Arbitron NY Fall 2005

Financially, Air America is significantly stronger than ever. As of today, our have booked and pending business for 2006 represents 83% of the entire revenue generated in 2005. We are also up to date on all of our financial obligations. Most importantly, we have a dedicated board and investors who support our business.

There is no substance whatsoever to Mr. O'Reilly's absurd claims of “gloom and doom”.

We look forward to continuing, or beginning a successful relationship, as the Progressive Talk Format and Air America Radio grow together. Watch this space for more innovative programming from Air America.

Thanks for the support, and if you want the facts, you can call me directly at 212-817-8120

Gary Krantz
President
Air America Radio
641 Sixth Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, NY
10011

Check out our brand new website and Premium Services at

www.AirAmericaRadio.com



Not wasting any time, entertainment industry trade publication All Access filed this report:


Air America Response To Funding Reports: We're "Stronger Than Ever"


AIR AMERICA RADIO has responded to last week's reports by the RADIO EQUALIZER blog, featured on BILL O'REILLY's FOX NEWS CHANNEL show, that the network is receiving up to $8 million in financing from the DEMOCRACY ALLIANCE to keep it on the air, with the network's President GARY KRANTZ issuing a statement asserting that "financially, AIR AMERICA is significantly stronger than ever. As of today, our have booked and pending business for 2006 represents 83% of the entire revenue generated in 2005. We are also up to date on all of our financial obligations. Most importantly, we have a dedicated board and investors who support our business."

KRANTZ also takes shots at O'REILLY for "bad mouthing AIR AMERICA and saying it is failing for two years. It was not true before and it is not true now," adding that AL FRANKEN and RANDI RHODES beat O'REILLY in the NEW YORK ratings for adults 12+ and 25-54.

The statement does not include any specifics regarding revenue figures and does not specifically address the RADIO EQUALIZER report about DEMOCRACY ALLIANCE funding but says "there is no substance whatsoever to Mr. O'REILLY's absurd claims of 'gloom and doom.'"


What's wrong with Air America's letter? Beyond simply not addressing specifics, as the All Access report notes, quite a lot.

Let's pick some of it apart. Almost none of it addresses our reporting, keep in mind:


"Mr. Reilly has been bad mouthing Air America and saying it is failing for two years."



Until six months ago, when Michelle Malkin and yours truly came forward with information about Air America's Gloria Wise scandal, where $875,000 in taxpayer funds were diverted from a community center to the company, we're not aware of O'Reilly saying much of anything about Air America.

In fact, you could rightfully accuse him of avoiding the topic until then, if that's a crime.


"Air America's ratings went up substantially in the Fall 2005 book and it its affiliate base has grown from 36 affiliations in January of 05 to over 90 affiliations across the country, including internationally on the Voice of America"



With losses in many cities, there was very little upward movement anywhere in the Fall Arbitron ratings. As for stations, it's game-playing: Air America counts every outlet that carries even one of its shows as an "affiliate". Very few run all of them.


"In the recent Fall 2005 Arbitron Survey for New York, Air America/WLIB Programming is outperforming Mr. O’Reilly in both the 12+ and A 25-54 Demo"



Perhaps, but your own figures show O'Reilly has more overall listeners, by more than 57,000.


"Financially, Air America is significantly stronger than ever. As of today, our have booked and pending business for 2006 represents 83% of the entire revenue generated in 2005. We are also up to date on all of our financial obligations. Most importantly, we have a dedicated board and investors who support our business."


How do we know? You don't provide any dollar figures. And sure, you do have dedicated people like Rob Glaser, George Soros, Rob Reiner and others ready to bail you out of trouble.

That was the very point of O'Reilly's segment.

Welcome Anchoress readers!


Thanks for your continued and vital Radio Equalizer support, via Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately order!

Money Pit, Frankenpersian, Janeane's Magic Kingdom: Pete at IHillary for the Radio Equalizer

20 Comments:

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Justin, at 28 February, 2006 06:58  

  • Until six months ago... we're not aware of O'Reilly saying much of anything about Air America.
    Then you haven't been paying attention, nor did you spend a few minutes doing research on Lexus-Nexus:

    JULY 2005:
    O'REILLY: "Time now for "The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day."
    The New York City ratings are in for the "Radio Factor" heard on WOR. And we are up 44 percent in a key demographic, year-to-year, thanks to all of you who listen to us. And by the way, our pal Stuart Smalley on Air America tanked badly in New York City, down 42 percent in the key demo, which is a catastrophe in the nation's largest market. Because this is a no gloating zone, we will comment no further, except to say it is never ridiculous when the good guys win."
    August 2005: "Not everybody is as fair as we are. Enter The New York Times. The last couple of years, that newspaper has run more than 20 largely positive articles on the radio network Air America, which routinely smears people with whom they disagree...."
    JUNE 2004:
    O'REILLY: FACTOR "follow-up" segment tonight, as you know, because the liberal media has been covering it to death, the radio network Air America leftist outfit is on the air, at least it was when we went to air this evening. But there are reports the air's getting pretty darn thin..." (whole segment is devoted to AAR)

    Need I point out more Brian, because there are plenty more examples? Please correct your post, which was so clearly incorrect.

    By Blogger Justin, at 28 February, 2006 07:00  

  • With losses in many cities, there was very little upward movement anywhere in the Fall Arbitron ratings.

    Yet another lie Baloney won't acknowledge. Here is a list a markets where AAR went up in ratings from Summer05 to Fall05.
    Albuquerque, NM
    Atlanta, GA
    Austin, TX
    Chicago, IL
    Columbus, OH
    Detroit, MI
    Eugene, OR
    Oxnard-Ventura, CA
    Madison, WI
    Miami, FL
    New York, NY
    Nassau-Suffolk, NY
    Stamford-Norwalk, CT
    Danbury, CT
    Quad Cities, IA-IL
    Reno, NV
    Sacramento, CA
    San Diego, CA
    San Jose, CA
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Seattle, WA
    Spokane, WA
    Washington, DC

    And here is a list of markets which debuted in Fall05, thereby adding to AAR listener total:
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Chattanooga, TN
    Rockford, IL
    Duluth, MN
    Huntington, WV
    Stockton, CA
    Chico, CA
    Santa Cruz - Monterey, CA


    I guess increased in all those cities = very little upward movement, right Brian?

    Also note the shameful and pathetic hypocrisy - he asks from specific figures from AAR about their finaces, yet doesn't give any himself about their ratings. Really, brian, in regards to your claim that there was very little upward movement anywhere in the Fall Arbitron ratings - How do we know? You don't provide any ratings figures.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 28 February, 2006 10:37  

  • Where's that BizzyBlog guy? He was pretty sensible. May be he can inject some reality into Baloney.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 28 February, 2006 10:38  

  • It's funny how AA is always touting their supposed demographics among younger listeners. Most people I've met under the age of 30 have little to no clue about what's going on in the political world. They might be able to name candidates in major elections, but beyond that have no knowledge whatsoever.

    Besides, I've found that very few radio listeners in that demographic are loyal to any radio station at all. They tend to favor music stations and just surf around the dial constantly. As far as I'm concerned, that demographic is as meaningless as any numbers AA tries to boast about. They're a failed outfit looking to their sugar daddies to bail them out every time and throw a fit whenever they're exposed for what they truly are.

    By Blogger Dr. T, at 28 February, 2006 12:31  

  • FLASH: BRIAN STILL HASN'T CORRECTED HIS DELIBERATELY MISLEADING RUSH LIMBAUGH STORY

    Brian's Lies Watch - Day 8, Post 8

    It's been 8 posts and 8 days now since Brian lied in his story about the media attachment to Rush Limbaugh's latest/greatest Lie!

    New readers, old reader-liars - do you really want to line up and agree with a liar?

    Check for yourself (those of you who DON'T wish to ignore the truth) - the post at issue: "Flash: Rush Errs" on this site.

    Don't trust this man, or his "reporting"

    By Blogger TJ, at 28 February, 2006 12:56  

  • when aar first started to do their begging for money from their listeners, Danny GOldberg as I recall said that "we pay our bills anyway we can"

    No Kidding...

    By Blogger FYIFYI, at 28 February, 2006 13:32  

  • wow, that money picture is one, giant, "WTF, mate?"

    By Blogger TJ, at 28 February, 2006 16:24  

  • i just have to say that the graphics you use on here look like they were created in an elementary school using Microsoft Paint, and they have no relevance at all to what you are talking about. wtf does janeane garafolo have to do with mickey mouse? i missed that part of your story.

    By Blogger liberal outlaw, at 28 February, 2006 17:31  

  • More AAR ratings. Compared to Winter 2005 book, AAR affiliates up in Boston, New York, Chicago, LA, San Diego.

    Also is now showing up in Detriot books

    By Blogger Justin, at 28 February, 2006 17:34  

  • To TJ and anyone new to the forum:

    There was no "lie" by Brian. TJ has been debunked several times over already.

    Obviously, Brian's publicizing of AAR's troubles is having an effect on its (small) fan base.

    By Blogger frankenlies, at 28 February, 2006 22:19  

  • In response to Justin's 'debunking' of the writers statement [Until six months ago... we're not aware of O'Reilly saying much of anything about Air America.]:

    Two of the three examples you provided were from within the past SIX MONTHS. And the third? Well, that would fall under "much of anything".

    Is this what a "few-minutes doing research" gets you?

    You gotta love this site when people come here day in and day out to nitpick silly little details like this (and apparently get it wrong). RE must be doing something right and I guess you have demonstrated that Air America is a role model for business and competitive capitalism.

    Seriously, this is the glaring incorrection that has upset you?

    By Blogger OttO, at 01 March, 2006 01:20  

  • "How do we know? You don't provide any dollar figures. And sure, you do have dedicated people like Rob Glaser, George Soros, Rob Reiner and others ready to bail you out of trouble."

    What makes you think you have the right to know the books of a privately held company? How do you know that the DA group isn't just interested n making a smart investment in a fast growing company?

    The point is, you're talking out your butt with no facts. Typical for a tin foil sombrero conspiracy loon. What a moonbat!

    By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 01 March, 2006 04:46  

  • OttO,

    I gave three examples, and ALL THREE were more than 6 months old. One was from 2004. The others were from July and August 2005 (early August, just to be clear). There also were plenty more going back.

    you may think it's picky, but brian is the one who made o'reilly's interest/disinterest in AAR an issue, not me. I'm simply asking him to correct his erroneous statement (which he has not done, predictably).

    By Blogger Justin, at 01 March, 2006 10:43  

  • Justin, justin,

    You're nitpicking and it's not damaging RE, it's making you look desperate for an edge. Two of your examples were practically six months ago and regardless, you only provided three examples total. Not an impressive effort by someone who is so determined to discredit this site. How many examples did your Lexus-Nexus search turn up and why didn't you present that number to further 'discredit' this site?

    Maloney didn't say that O'Reilly NEVER spoke of AA. He implied not often, especially until recently (I watch the Factor, Bill only brings up AA once in a great while and usually on the fly). If he had said 'last summer' instead of six months ago, would you feel better?

    If I had said "When did you get out of the hospital?" and you said "a couple of days ago" I wouldn't accuse you of being wrong if it was THREE days ago instead of two. "When did that movie come out?" "Two months ago". "No, it was seven weeks ago!"

    Maloney, it seems, wasn't laying out a time-table, he was just speaking casually.

    I think you're obsessed.

    By Blogger OttO, at 01 March, 2006 14:58  

  • When AAR when on the air, Franken claimed that he would be able to take half the ratings from conservative talk radio "since half the public votes Democratic" or something similar. It's been said before and should be said again - based on almost two years of ratings there is simply no way that any rational person could claim that AAR has been anything other than a dismal failure. It just hasn't lived up to what had been expected - not even close -and rather than trying to convince people that a skunk is really a cat AAR should take a hard look at its programming, and find out why, despite enormous publicity, people aren't listening. For example, given the high hopes for this network, could anyone have imagined that a full two years after startup, in New York City, AAR is only one fifth of a ratings point above what the ratings were when the stations was playing Caribbean music?

    So...where are the listeners? The difficulty is that "progressive" plays to such a small audience, even in New York City, where WBAI has been broadcasting progressive radio since the late 1950's. But that's not the point - you can argue on and on about AAR's ratings but what is unarguable is that AAR's ratings simply don't compare to conservative talk radio (and here I'm not talking just about O'Reilly, who does radio as a sideline) it's not even close. With all the free publicity you have to ask why?

    I've heard these reasons, probably many more: (1) there are already a zillion outlets for leftist pro-Democratic points of view in broadcasting, starting with the major networks and running right on down to NPR and Pacifica. (2) As I mention above, the political base for "progressive" radio is and always have been relatively tiny - WBAI has been offering progressive radio for years and years with a relatively stable - and small - number of listeners. There simply isn't that much interest (3) Many Democrats are in the black and hispanic communities, which have radio stations that have serve their particular communities (in fact, AAR in NYC is on a station that had catered to the black/caribbean community) and simply don't listen to AAR.

    Accordingly, the focus shouldn't be on WHETHER AAR has been successful, but why its ratings simply don't compare to conservative talk radio. And not just O'Reilly - its undeniable that AAR has just not been able to compete against the so-called heavyweights of conservative talk radio, even in San Francisco and New York City, in the bluest of blue states. If AAR is such a success, why isn't it blowing conservative talk radio out of the water in at least these two markets? It can't be because its too new - the avalance of publicity that preceded AAR's entry should have diminished or even eliminated the need for time to become established. Look at what, say, Howard Stern was able to do when he entered new markets - heck look at what Hannity was able to do when he got started.

    So what we are left with is a mystery - where are the listeners?

    On a related topic, despite poor ratings, you will probably NEVER see AAR go away - it would be way too embarrassing to Democrats. And there must still be some hope among Democrats that AAR will pull itself up and become the means of talking to the base that conservative talk radio has become for Republicans. (very unlikely) In a sense Republicans should not be entirely displeased about this money pit, as it squanders dollars that might be more effectively used elsewhere.

    As for those who try to defend AAR by claiming that it has been a ratings success, Democrats really have no choice - its far better than admitting that people simply aren't interested in what Democrats have to say. In my mind that's another example of the propensity of those on the the left to simply..well...lie when it suits them.

    By Blogger B.Samuel Davis, at 03 March, 2006 15:54  

  • Mr. Kite said ...

    Yet another lie Baloney won't acknowledge. Here is a list a markets where AAR went up in ratings from Summer05 to Fall05.
    Albuquerque, NM
    Atlanta, GA
    Austin, TX
    Chicago, IL
    Columbus, OH
    Detroit, MI
    Eugene, OR
    Oxnard-Ventura, CA
    Madison, WI
    Miami, FL
    New York, NY
    Nassau-Suffolk, NY
    Stamford-Norwalk, CT
    Danbury, CT
    Quad Cities, IA-IL
    Reno, NV
    Sacramento, CA
    San Diego, CA
    San Jose, CA
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Seattle, WA
    Spokane, WA
    Washington, DC

    Really, brian, in regards to your claim that there was very little upward movement anywhere in the Fall Arbitron ratings - How do we know? You don't provide any ratings figures.


    Careful what you ask for, Mr. Kite.

    I took the liberty of examining those ratings figures that you said you wanted to read -- and frankly, they hardly bolster your case. That is, if your case involves trying to claim that things are going well on Planet AAR.

    Anyway, let’s start by noting that your vague claim -- that "AAR went up in ratings" -- doesn’t specify which figures you're using as the basis for your contention, I can only conclude that you’re referring to the most often quoted (and most easily available) numbers – Arbitron’s 12-plus ratings. If not, tell us your source and your numbers.

    But let's go with the Arbitron 12+ ratings. Here's what a few minutes, a computer and an Internet connection can get you. All you have to do is go to www.radioandrecords.com, click on the Ratings tab and choose the market of your choice.

    Or don't -- I've already checked every one of the markets where Air America supposedly increased its ratings. (Quick disclaimer: I zipped through these lists fairly rapidly, and there were dozens of numbers to crunch, so if anybody finds a typo, feel free to point it out and I’ll gladly stand corrected.)

    So, without further ado, let’s see how those Air America stations on your list REALLY did between Summer 2005 and Fall 2005. Fasten your seatbelt.:

    Albuquerque: KABQ – Up from 1.8 to 2.0. In 19th place in its market. But down from the Spring 2005 rating of 2.2.

    Atlanta: WWAA – Up from 0.0 to 0.4. Tied for 32nd place (dead last) among stations reported in its market.

    Austin: KOKE – Up from 0.7 to 0.8. Tied for 21st place. But down from the Spring 2005 rating of 1.1.

    Chicago, WCPT – Up from 0.7 to 0.8. But DOWN from 0.8 to 0.7 in Winter 2006 Phase 1. Tied for 32nd place.

    Columbus, Ohio: WTPG – Up from 0.9 to 1.1. Tied for 21st place. But the Winter 2005 rating was 1.5.

    Detroit: WDTW – Up from 0.5 to 0.7. In 27th place.

    Eugene, KOPT – Up from 0.9 to 2.4. In 11th place.

    Oxnard-Ventura, KTLK – Up from 0.0 in Spring 2005 to 0.5 in Fall 2005 (NOT Summer 2005 to Fall 2005 as you stated, unless you have information I don't). Tied for 36th place.

    Madison, WXXM-FM – Up from 2.3 to 3.8. But DOWN from 4.4 in Winter 2005. In 7th place.

    Miami, WINZ – Up from 1.5 to 1.9. But DOWN from 2.0 in Spring 2005. In 21st place.

    New York: WLIB – Up from 1.2 to 1.4. In 24th place.

    Nassau-Suffolk, WLIB – Up from 0.8 to 0.9, but back DOWN to 0.8 in Winter 2006 Phase 1. And way down from 1.4 in Winter 2005. Tied for 30th place.

    Stamford-Norwalk, WLIB – Up from 0.0 to 1.1, but from Spring 2005 to Fall 2005 (NOT Summer 2005 to Fall 2005 as you stated). Tied for 23rd place.

    Danbury, WLIB – Up from 0.0 to 0.4, but from Spring 2005 to Fall 2005 (NOT Summer 2005 to Fall 2005 as you stated). Tied for 25th place.

    Quad Cities, WKBF – Up from 0.5 to 2.6, but from Spring 2005 to Fall 2005, NOT Summer 2005 to Fall 2005 as stated. In 9th place.

    Reno, KJFK – Up from 1.2 to 1.7, but from Spring 2005 to Fall 2005, NOT Summer 2005 to Fall 2005 as stated. In 20th place.

    Sacramento: KCTC – Contrary to your report, DOWN from 2.2 to 1.9. And WAY DOWN from the 3.1 in Winter 2005. In 17th place.

    San Diego, KLSD – Up from 1.8 to 3.1 between Summer 2005 and Fall 2005 … but DOWN from 3.1 in Fall 2005 to 2.5 in Winter 2006 Phase 1! Now in 15th place.

    San Jose, KQKE – Up from 1.2 to 1.4. In 26th place.

    San Luis Obispo – Up from 1.3 in Spring 2005 to 2.1 in Fall 2005, NOT Summer 2005 to Fall 2005 as stated. WAY DOWN from 3.4 in Fall 2004. In 16th place.

    Santa Barbara – Up from 2.1 in Spring 2005 to 3.7 in Fall 2005 (NOT Summer 2005 to Fall 2005 as you stated). Tied for 8th place.

    Seattle, KPTK – Up from 2.0 to 2.3. In 19th place.

    Spokane – Up from 1.0 to 2.0. But DOWN from 2.1 in Spring 2004. In 18th place.

    Washington, D.C. – Up from 0.0 to 0.5. But DOWN to 0.4 in Winter 2006 Phase 1. Tied for 30th (last) place.

    So what does this all boil down to? Sure, a handful of Air America stations achieved gains worthy of mention. But a great many achieved (1) a negligible gain that barely affects an already dismal rating; (2) a gain that became a loss in the very next ratings book, Winter 2006 Phase 1; (3) a rating that, despite resulting from a gain, is still lower than its rating of two or three books earlier; (4) a gain that appears dramatic, but occurred in a smaller market, where ratings tend to fluctuate more wildly; or (5) a loss.

    Of course, your post also contains a rather obvious omission: the Air America stations whose ratings have DECLINED since Summer 2005. Let’s consider them, along with more of those numbers you asked for:

    Portland, KPOJ – 4.4 in Summer 2005, 4.1 in Fall 2005.

    Cincinnati, WCKY – 1.3 in Summer 2005, 1.3 in Fall 2005, 0.9 in Winter 2006 Phase 1.

    Pittsburgh, WPTT – 1.5 in Summer 2005, 0.7 in Fall 2005, 0.7 in Winter 2006 Phase 1.

    Minneapolis, KTNF – 1.2 in Summer 2005, 1.1 in Fall 2005, 1.1 in Winter 2006 Phase 1.

    Anchorage, KUDO – 1.4 in Spring 2005, 0.7 in Fall 2005.

    Providence, WHJJ – 2.2 in Summer 2005, 1.9 in Fall 2005.

    Rochester, N.Y., WROC – 1.4 in Summer 2005, 0.8 in Fall 2005.

    Memphis, WWTQ – 0.5 in Summer 2005, 0.5 in Fall 2005. Down from 1.7 in Fall 2004, 1.3 in Winter 2005, and 0.8 in Spring 2005.

    Santa Fe, KTRC – 1.1 in Summer 2005, 1.0 in Fall 2005.

    New Orleans, WSMB – 1.4 in Spring 2005, 1.3 in Summer 2005 Part 1.

    Denver, KKZN – 1.9 in Summer 2005, 1.8 in Fall 2005, 1.4 in Winter 2006 Phase 1.

    Dallas, KXEB – Apparently not enough ratings to make the list (under 0.3).

    San Antonio, KTXX – Apparently not enough ratings to make the list (under 0.3).

    And now you know…the rest of the story.

    Incidentally, Mr. Kite, you seem to be fond of applying the word “lie” to any misstatement by Rush Limbaugh, etc., even if apparently unintentional. Yet you just claimed the ratings of Sacramento’s Air America station’s increased when in fact they decreased.

    Unless you have better numbers than the ones I saw – and if so, by all means produce them – you’re every bit as inaccurate about Sacramento as Limbaugh was about the supposedly black legislator. Which makes you every bit as much a “liar” as you claim he was.

    Or perhaps you both simply made an error. What a concept.

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 03 March, 2006 17:54  

  • What? No response in three days from the esteemed Mr. Kite? Or any of his comrades, for that matter.

    I'll take that deafening silence as a concession. Unless, of course, someone wants to challenge me on my numbers. That includes you, Mr. Kite.

    Otherwise, all I can say is ... NEXT!

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 06 March, 2006 22:25  

  • Incidentally, Mr. Kite, you seem to be fond of applying the word “lie” to any misstatement by Rush Limbaugh, etc., even if apparently unintentional. Yet you just claimed the ratings of Sacramento’s Air America station’s increased when in fact they decreased.
    lol, I knew that would confuse some people. The reason is quite simple really: they changed stations in Sacramento. They used to be on KSAC, which got a 1.7 in Summer05. Then they went to KCTC, which got 1.9 in Fall05.

    For the record, yes I was using the numbers from radioandrecords.

    And yes, you're right about some of them not being from Summer05. In my haste to make that list, I forgot that not all station are reported every quarter. I should have said something like "from the most recent ratings (for each market) to Fall05," since all stations get reported on in Fall.

    (1) a negligible gain that barely affects an already dismal rating;
    a gain is a gain. No one ever said AAR ratings were gonna skyrocket every quarter.

    (2) a gain that became a loss in the very next ratings book, Winter 2006 Phase 1;
    True but irrelevent. I was responding to Brian's lie, and he was talking about Fall05, not Winter 2006 Phase 1. "there was very little upward movement anywhere in the Fall Arbitron ratings"

    (3) a rating that, despite resulting from a gain, is still lower than its rating of two or three books earlier;
    Once again, irrelevent. We are talking about the most recent ratings, and whether or not they went up in Fall05. And every single market that I listed went up in Fall05. Some went up from Spring05 while others went up from Summer05. Nevertheless, they all went up.

    (4) a gain that appears dramatic, but occurred in a smaller market, where ratings tend to fluctuate more wildly;
    smaller markets? I thought you conservatives loved red states? Are you all of a sudden only in favor of larger, democrat-voting markets? All kidding aside, a gain is still a gain.

    (5) a loss.
    Uh, yea. I never said they all went up.


    Also, in some of the markets, AAR was not on the air at certain time. For example:
    Memphis, WWTQ – 0.5 in Summer 2005, 0.5 in Fall 2005. Down from 1.7 in Fall 2004, 1.3 in Winter 2005, and 0.8 in Spring 2005.
    AAR wasn't on in Memphis in Fall04 or Winter05.

    New Orleans, WSMB – 1.4 in Spring 2005, 1.3 in Summer 2005 Part 1.
    Not on in either of those quarters. Still don't have a rating from there because of what happened.

    Santa Fe, KTRC – 1.1 in [Spring] 2005, 1.0 in Fall 2005.They weren't on KTRC in Spring05.

    Pittsburgh, WPTT – 1.5 in Summer 2005, 0.7 in Fall 2005, 0.7 in Winter 2006 Phase 1.
    WPTT doesn't even have anyone from AAR. They're being kinda tricky by listing Thom Hartmann. They only have a syndication deal with him and he was on in Pitt before that deal. So really, AAR and WPTT have no realation. Admitedly, they only list WPTT to increase their stations total.

    Dallas, KXEB – Apparently not enough ratings to make the list (under 0.3).
    San Antonio, KTXX – Apparently not enough ratings to make the list (under 0.3).

    I'll have to take your word for that since I don't bother with either of those markets. They're tiny stations and miles and miles away from the city they're supposed to be from.


    I hope that clears up everything. Are you ready to admit that Brian is full of shit? You know a statement like "there was very little upward movement anywhere in the Fall Arbitron ratings" is a blatant lie. This must be opbvious to you at this point. Or are you still going to follow Baloney and his bullshit?

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 07 March, 2006 11:06  

  • To Mr. Kite:

    First of all, I'm going to shock you right off the bat. I'm going to give you kudos for bringing some game to the table. I was beginning to think it was all one-liners and cheap shots from your side of the aisle, but you've transcended that in this post.

    And with that dose of chivalry, I'll launch right into my own comments.


    they changed stations in Sacramento. They used to be on KSAC, which got a 1.7 in Summer05. Then they went to KCTC, which got 1.9 in Fall05.

    If that's what accounts for it, I'll accept that explanation. That said, I still think it's more important to note that KCTC had 3.1 before switching to AAR, regardless of its previous format. But more about that in a minute.

    * * * * *

    (1) a negligible gain that barely affects an already dismal rating;

    a gain is a gain.No one ever said AAR ratings were gonna skyrocket every quarter.

    True, but going from, say, 0.4 to 0.5 is nothing to brag about. In fact, it's pretty much nothing, period.

    And my point is that some of Air America's most ardent defenders make statements such as "WXYZ achieved a whopping TWO HUNDRED PERCENT audience gain, while Rush Limbaugh's station, WXXX, LOST TEN PERCENT OF ITS LISTENERS."

    Yeah, but that would be true if WXYZ increased from 10 to 30 listeners, while WXXX had 10,000 listeners in Spring and still had 9,000 of them in Summer. So overall ratings do matter, and percentages can be deceiving.

    * * * * *

    (2) a gain that became a loss in the very next ratings book, Winter 2006 Phase 1;

    True but irrelevent. I was responding to Brian's lie, and he was talking about Fall05, not Winter 2006 Phase 1. "there was very little upward movement anywhere in the Fall Arbitron ratings"

    I'll answer that one in two parts:

    1. I'm more interested in Air America's overall trends, including the most recent ratings (Winter 2006 Phase 1), than in whether Brian chose his words carefully. In other words, I get that it's your issue, but I'm not Brian's defender, and it's not mine.

    2. But since we're on the subject ... I'm not sure that finding 23 Air America stations with ratings increases really disproves Brian's statement. Seriously, it's a matter of defining "very little upward movement."

    Yes, a few AAR stations did achieve noteworthy gains, but if the majority of them increased no more than, say, from 33rd place to 31st, or from 0.6 to 0.8, does that really constitute "significant upward movement" in the radio industry? Well, I don't know ...

    * * * * *

    (3) a rating that, despite resulting from a gain, is still lower than its rating of two or three books earlier;

    Once again, irrelevent. We are talking about the most recent ratings, and whether or not they went up in Fall05. And every single market that I listed went up in Fall05. Some went up from Spring05 while others went up from Summer05. Nevertheless, they all went up.

    I think we're back to the part about what you're interested in versus what I'm interested in. You're trying to prove Maloney wrong in a particular instance.

    I'm focused on the fact that even if an AAR station is up a notch or two between Summer and Fall, the fact that it's down from the previous Winter or Spring puts the gain in perspective.

    Kind of like saying, "Hey, Manager Jones, in the past three months I improved my batting average from .210 to .230," then having the manager reply, "So what are you bragging about? Last year you were hitting .300."

    What I'm saying is, if Air America intends to succeed, it can't keep taking one step forward and two steps back.

    * * * * *

    (4) a gain that appears dramatic, but occurred in a smaller market, where ratings tend to fluctuate more wildly;

    smaller markets? I thought you conservatives loved red states? Are you all of a sudden only in favor of larger, democrat-voting markets? All kidding aside, a gain is still a gain.

    Now now ... red states aren't necessarily states with tiny populations -- just those whose populations, large or small, tend to pull the R levers more often than the D levers.

    But seriously ... again, I'm just talking perspective here. In some smaller markets, it's not unusual to see a dramatic gain, then a dramatic loss, then a dramatic gain again.

    Which is great when you're on the upside, but it shouldn't make you open your window and stand on the ledge of your building if you're on the downside. (And I realize this really isn't an issue you're into.)


    * * * * *

    (5) a loss.
    Uh, yea. I never said they all went up.

    Right, but I've gotta use the P word again: perspective. If, for instance, 23 AAR stations' ratings go up, but 46 stations' ratings go down, then it's a bit disingenuous for AAR to say, "Hey, 23 of our stations INCREASED THEIR AUDIENCES ... woohoo!"

    * * * * *

    Also, in some of the markets, AAR was not on the air at certain time. For example:
    Memphis, WWTQ – 0.5 in Summer 2005, 0.5 in Fall 2005. Down from 1.7 in Fall 2004, 1.3 in Winter 2005, and 0.8 in Spring 2005.
    AAR wasn't on in Memphis in Fall04 or Winter05.

    But see, that still makes my case for me. If you're a radio station owner who decided to try AAR, it can't make you happy to discover that the lib network is drawing considerably fewer listeners than, say, the live Baptist Church services you used to broadcast. Or, as was the case for a long time with WLIB, the Caribbean format that preceded AAR.

    * * * * *

    Santa Fe, KTRC – 1.1 in [Spring] 2005, 1.0 in Fall 2005.
    They weren't on KTRC in Spring05.

    See preceding comment.

    * * * * *

    WPTT doesn't even have anyone from AAR. They're being kinda tricky by listing Thom Hartmann. They only have a syndication deal with him and he was on in Pitt before that deal. So really, AAR and WPTT have no realation. Admitedly, they only list WPTT to increase their stations total.

    Hmmm, that's interesting. Well, I only know what I see on the AAR Web site, which claims to have a Pittsburgh affiliate.

    * * * * *

    Dallas, KXEB – Apparently not enough ratings to make the list (under 0.3).
    San Antonio, KTXX – Apparently not enough ratings to make the list (under 0.3).

    I'll have to take your word for that since I don't bother with either of those markets. They're tiny stations and miles and miles away from the city they're supposed to be from.

    You're right, and I think we've discovered something here: AAR is claiming a presence in a few large cities that it barely has representation in -- such as San Antonio, Dallas and the aforementioned Pittsburgh.

    Frankly, I think AAR would do better to just be honest about the fact that, for instance, its affiliate is located in some tiny Texas community NEAR Dallas. Otherwise, it looks as if nobody in Dallas bothers to tune in, when it may be that they simply can't hear the station. (Of course, if AAR programming were that desirable, you can bet one of the large Dallas FM stations would sign on in a heartbeat, so that says something in and of itself.)


    * * * * *

    I hope that clears up everything. Are you ready to admit that Brian is full of shit? You know a statement like "there was very little upward movement anywhere in the Fall Arbitron ratings" is a blatant lie. This must be opbvious to you at this point. Or are you still going to follow Baloney and his bullshit?

    Actually, neither. As I said, I'm not Maloney's defender. He's a big boy who can stand up for himself when it comes to defending his choice of words, and it's not up to me to be his press secretary.

    But again, I think it comes down to the question of what "very little upward movement is." To AAR's credit, I'd call it significant when KLSD in San Diego goes from 1.8 to 3.1 between Summer 2005 and Fall 2005 (even if the ratings slipped back to 2.5 in Winter). But I wouldn't call it significant when WLIB increases from 0.8 to 0.9 in Nassau-Suffolk.

    So how many of the stations on your list recorded significant gains AND had ratings worth discussing? Well, I'd include Eugene, Madison, Quad Cities, Santa Barbara, Stamford-Norwalk, Spokane and San Luis Obispo -- but that's only 7 of the 23 on the original list. Plus, I don't claim to be an expert in the radio industry. So maybe 1.2 to 1.4 is also something to brag about, even if you're still in 26th place.

    Plus, how much do the AAR stations with negative ratings affect the entire assessment? See, we're back to the definition of "very little upward movement," which wasn't my statement in the first place.

    Anyway, that's my take. As I said, I'm more focused on Air America's overall success or lack thereof, not whether Brian was totally wrong, totally accurate or somewhere in between. But thanks for a thought-provoking response.

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 08 March, 2006 09:42  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger