Doubling the cost of radio to subsidize liberal talk

[willcail]

Thats sounded like localism to me, having local people to do talk radio thats a bad ideal according to the righties. To them local host is the exact same thing as their favorite boogyman known as the Fairness Doctrine. The reason why CC is doing so poorly is the lack of local talkers and DJ's. The reason people are tuning out that majority of the syndicated talkers are predictable. Please a short form commentary isn't news of any kind.

[TheBigA]

The reason why CC is doing so poorly is the lack of local talkers and DJ's.

Huh?  Maybe you can be more specific.

In most markets, CC runs less syndicated talk than their competition.  And CC usually has at least two stations in the Top 5 of the markets where they're located.

I wouldn't say CC is doing any poorer than anyone else in radio right now.

[gr8oldies]

WLW=Local 24/7 except for a couple of shows that they syndicate (an overnight show and two weekend shows). Most markets have at least one local shift on their news/talker (even Akron and Lima). No, stations aren't doing badly because there isn't some guy sitting in a chair in the same town. You may think Local=always good and syndicated=always bad, but not the case. You think anyone in Providence RI cares that Oprah is based in Chicago?

Yes, Mark Lloyd is a far left nut case.

[smedge2006]

You think anyone in Providence RI cares that Oprah is based in Chicago?

The "television is syndicated/network so radio should be too" argument is getting a little tired. These days, the average network-affiliated TV station, with a two to four hour local morning show, an hour of news at noon, and two hours of news adjacent to prime time, has as much or more local content on a given weekday than most "local" talk radio stations -- especially the ones that run Doug Stephan in the morning and stay on the bird 24/7.

[TheBigA]

The "television is syndicated/network so radio should be too" argument is getting a little tired.

So the way to deal with facts is to say they're tired?  Address the issue. 

If the goal of programming is attracting an audience, and the audience clearly doesn't care where the show originates, then it shouldn't be an issue.  And localism isn't an issue in radio when you're dealing with a show people want to hear.  THAT is the problem, not where it originates.  People throw the localism thing around as an excuse to cover up their lack of imagination when it comes to creating compelling programming.  They think, "Oh we'll make it local," and that will cover up the fact that the show sucks.  That doesn't cut it, and there are lots of radio stations that are live & local that get 1 shares.

[smedge2006]

So the way to deal with facts is to say they're tired?  Address the issue. 

The argument that TV is syndicated, therefore radio should be, is tired and dated when local net-affiliated TV stations are doing MORE local content than talk radio stations in most comparable markets.

The station that gets a one share doing talk is usually the second-tier or third-tier station with third-tier syndication (usually gorged-out on TRN or Westwood product) and  little or no local non-brokered programming.

[TheBigA]

The argument that TV is syndicated, therefore radio should be, is tired and dated when local net-affiliated TV stations are doing MORE local content than talk radio stations in most comparable markets.
 

You're comparing net-affiliated stations, which are often the richest and most profitable stations in town, with talk radio, which is often on AM.  Talk about apples and oranges.  It's apples and prunes!  Come on!  Let's be fair.  They're doing more because they can afford it. 

But numerous trade publications have pointed out that even net O&Os in New York City are starting to cut back on staff and live origination because of the current economy.

[willcail]

If you want to listen to predectable talk radio then that's your business. If WLW dip below a seven share then CC will be looking to cut costs.

[vchimpanzee]

Getting back to the original title, the whole problem with radio these days is too many operators trying to cheap it out. Something that would cause them to double the amount of money (and double the amount of hiring) they put into the product is a good thing. Since when is it good to keep local people sidelined for The Best of Limbaugh, The Best of Hannity, the Best of Rusty Humphries (?), the Best of Blanquita Cullum, and the Best of Infomercials?

But they'd need double the advertising revenue.

And Mr. Hackabee wasn't talking about what you are. He said the extra money would go for subsidizing the other stations (even if he didn't use the word, that's what he meant). It would be like a tax. And a lot of stations can't afford something like that.

[Bill Wolfenbarger]

Private broadcasters must rely on ADVERTISING revenues to pay their bills.  In our rural market, the revenues are tapped out, expenses have been pared to the bone, and any additional expenses would need to be directly offset by staff reductions.  Government bureaucrats have no understanding of the costs and risks of running a business.

I've visited a number of NPR affiliates over the past 20 years; they ALL have much nicer, newer equipment than I could ever afford.