Ed Schultz Blasts Phil Boyce and Poor Management at WABC

[Phil Boyce]

CM454 writes: 

WABC was a terrific station when you could hear the likes of Bob Grant AND Lynn Samuels.

It was a terrific station,  and nother against Lynn.  but in those days Bob was getting a 2 share,  and Lynn was getting a 2 share.  Lynn was not a great fit for this station,  and she is much better suited on the liberal channel in sirius where she is now. 

Today,  I have Mark Levin on in those hours,  and he is getting double what Lynn used to get.  The reason I pair like minded shows together,  is that I don't have to jump start the audience when a show starts.  My listeners then give me more TSL...in the Spring book 11 hours and 42 minutes for the average listener.  That is one of the highest in the country. 

[Phil Boyce]

ABQ Tom writes:   

Well ... maybe true for national audience figures counting all the smaller CONSERVATIVE markets ... but Hannity is LOSING or going neck and neck with Big Ed in key BIG CITY LIBERAL markets like Albuquerque, Denver, Miami, and Seattle ... 

You keep saying this,  so I decided to check it.  This may have been true in one fluky book a long time ago.   It is not true today,  certainly not in the Spring of 2007 when the latest figures were released.  These are the markets where Big Ed does best in the country.  Even so...he could not beat Hannity.  I added up Sean's shares,  25-54 and found Sean's total for these 4 markets is a 10.4 share.   Big Ed totals a 6.8 share.  It is respectable,  but not close to beating Sean. 

pb 

[Dale Jackson]

Don't you believe a great station is one whose personalities are attractive and entertaining BEYOND their political leanings? Don't you think it's acceptable to have a conservative back to back with a non-conservative if they are interesting enough? Why must talk radio be programmed these days based on political slant? Isn't that limiting the potential audience.

WABC was a terrific station when you could hear the likes of Bob Grant AND Lynn Samuels. The common thread? Interesting individualists--unlike what you hear on stations around the country filled with Rush clones.

 

Yeah and that Country station should play a few rap songs and a few disco tracks. Seriously, why limit the audience....  Get a clue people.

[KJCB]

What CM is missing it that, like Phil said, you want to boost TSL, and you do that by keeping a similar ideology, where the talents are entertaining.  Yes, entertainment is key, I've said that time and again here, but no one wants to listen in this thread.  However, you must be entertaining to even qualify - if you're entertaining but people's blood boils listening to you, they might keep you on longer than a non-entertaining guy who makes their blood boil, but in today's day and age, with something for everyone, people are more finicky.  Sure, a conservative may turn to a libtalk station once in awhile if he knows he can find entertainment there.  But if you're WABC, why chance a big tune-out after a show like Hannity?  While his listenership's politics may be scattered, Hannity is very conservative, so why jarr people by going from Hannity to Rachel Maddow (who's also not entertaining).  If people want to jarr themselves, they'll adjust their dial to 1600... if they can get it.

[cm454]

Yeah and that Country station should play a few rap songs and a few disco tracks. Seriously, why limit the audience....  Get a clue people.

There it is!  I was waiting to see who would be the first to throw out that facile music station analogy.

What you do not seem able to grasp is that the common thread between great personalities is the ability to entertain and be interesting BEYOND a political opinion. Talkradio is being defined now more than ever before by POLITICS....and that IS a mistake.

A more appropriate music station analogy would be if a country station only played one artist's music vs. a selection of artists who are playing a wide variety of songs. The defining point in this case is NOT the style of music, but instead the quality of the music being played.

Yes, all of the listeners wanting to hear that station are looking for COUNTRY MUSIC, just as anyone listening to a talk staion is wanting to hear TALK. Country listeners, for the most part, are willing to listen to different styles of country music. Assuming talk listeners only want to hear one style of talk is short sighted.

If simply hearing other people's ideas is as shocking and unsettling as hearing a rap song on a country station, then we've got a problem, Houston.

[KJCB]

If simply hearing other people's ideas is as shocking and unsettling as hearing a rap song on a country station, then we've got a problem, Houston.

So, it was about entertainment, now it's about "hearing other people's ideas".  If you were all about entertainment, "ideas" wouldn't matter.  Your true stripes have been revealed.

[Dale Jackson]

The fallacy here is that it is "Talk Radio" it is not... it is "conservative talk radio" and it works. That is why it is successful as a format. Once "liberal talk radio" can point out a few real successes (dollars) others will do it. The said part is you can clearly see the difference between those who program radio and those that want to.

[Sean Gilbow]

ABQ Tom writes:   

Well ... maybe true for national audience figures counting all the smaller CONSERVATIVE markets ... but Hannity is LOSING or going neck and neck with Big Ed in key BIG CITY LIBERAL markets like Albuquerque, Denver, Miami, and Seattle ... 

You keep saying this,  so I decided to check it.  This may have been true in one fluky book a long time ago.   It is not true today,  certainly not in the Spring of 2007 when the latest figures were released.  These are the markets where Big Ed does best in the country.  Even so...he could not beat Hannity.  I added up Sean's shares,  25-54 and found Sean's total for these 4 markets is a 10.4 share.   Big Ed totals a 6.8 share.  It is respectable,  but not close to beating Sean. 

pb 

Audience share only takes in part of the picture.

Listenership per station paints a whole different picture.

Because the number of affiliates for Hannity is not readily available on his own website, we will use the conservative estimate of 500 supplied by Wikipedia.  We will also be conservative by saying Ed Schultz has 80 affiliates, based on information from his website.

If we take Hannity's 12.5 million listeners and divide them by 500 stations, that's average listenership per station of 25,000.

However, take Big Eddie's 3.25 million listeners and divide them by 80 stations, and you get an average listenership per station of 40,625.

Hannity may have more than triple the number of listeners compared with Big Eddie, but Schultz is getting in excess of 60 percent more listeners per station.  Not bad considering many of Big Eddie's stations have lousy signals.

But wait.  There's more...

Let's put in the mix Stephanie Miller, who considers Hannity "Satanic stud meat."  (I'm inclined to agree.)

Divide the 1.5 million listeners for Stephanie cited by Talkers magazine by the 47 stations listed on her website and you get a listenership per station of 31,915...over 20 percent more listeners per station than Hannity.

There is no doubt Rush and Sean rule the roost as far as total listenership.  But if an advertiser (and I've been one) had the choice of paying top dollar for talent that generates a lower listenership per station and a lower (perhaps much lower) price for a host generating more listeners per station on generally dinky signals...and the local station's listenership for the show reflects national averages...it only makes sense for the advertiser to stretch his/her ad dollars by placing spots with the likes of Big Eddie and Steph.

[EDIT-inflammatory]

[KJCB]

Sean

I believe the 500 number for Hannity (it's a bit higher now) refers to all affiliates since inception.  So, for example, KSTP/Minneapolis (old) and KTLK/Minneapolis (new) count as two affiliates.  Two signed affiliate agreements.

Hannity has consistently been #1 12+ in a number of good-sized markets.  Besides, the 25,000 number is deceptive... if he had 25,000 cume in the smallest rated Arbitron market (291, IIRC), he'd have a 50 share for the entire week, and a much higher share in his daypart.  Since he's on in markets that aren't even rated, the stations where he may cume 1,000 or less a week make up for the major and large markets where it's in the six figures.

[smedge2006]

The fallacy here is that it is "Talk Radio" it is not... it is "conservative talk radio" and it works. That is why it is successful as a format. Once "liberal talk radio" can point out a few real successes (dollars) others will do it. The said part is you can clearly see the difference between those who program radio and those that want to.

This analysis leaves out a lot... station owners invested a LOT of money in news-talk in major and medium markets in the 1980s... building or rebuilding full-service newsrooms... hiring local hosts and promotions people. It took time for the ratings to translate into revenue... and there was a lot of red ink along the way.
Stations in smaller markets that just plugged in the satellite for Rush, Sean and whatever are just minor presences in their own markets -- listeners just as often tune in to the big market station miles away that carries Rush because it has a bigger "image."

Today there's no tolerance for red ink, nor even for a profit that isn't ginormous (KLSD in San Diego, it is said, was not profitable ENOUGH.) If station owners were willing to put liberal talkers with big news images (you guys are the ones who say NPR is their competition, after all) things would be different. Instead these station owners (many of which also own conservative talkers) define liberal as the "niche" and put few if any resources into it, as compared with the "Big Talkers" like WLW which have been nurtured over the years. Liberal talk is SUPPOSED to stay in its niche and not take away listeners from the conservative talkers. Then the suits declare it isn't profitable (ENOUGH) and kick it to the corner.