Rush moving to 106.9 WKDN

[MDefl]

Rush's demographics are what the rest of the industry desires.  I don't even like the guy and I know that much.  That is how he survives.  Money talks, the rest walks.

[TimeIsTight]

Rush's demographics are what the rest of the industry desires

Not really, demographics refers age group, and the demographics for the current AM style political talk radio, including Rush's show, is older than what the biggest advertisers want.  They want younger listeners, particularly women, who buy a lot of goods and services.

Rush also doesn't usually bring the biggest radio audience in local markets, where music or news services come out on top, like here in Philly.

What Rush brings is a large enough following of mostly older demos, who are very loyal to him and spend a lot of time listening.

In terms of the number of radio listeners in a particular market, his audience sometimes is a small fraction.  In Philly, it is no more than 263,000 people a week out of a total of 4.5-million potential listeners.  By comparison, WBEB-FM has 1.7-million different music listeners a week, and on average, they are younger than Rush's audience.

[LLL]

Which means, you don't need to buy a lot of spots on Rush affiliates to reach your audience.   That's actually good for advertisers.  They can spread their buys over other stations.

Rush still reaches a desirable audience to some advertisers.  McDonald's.  Ford pickup trucks.  Home Depot.  Monster truck tour.  They're all advertisers who would like to buy on his show but can't for obvious reasons.  Kind of sad.

(well Monster Trucks still buy on Rush)

[TimeIsTight]

McDonald's.  Ford pickup trucks.  Home Depot.  Monster truck tour.  They're all advertisers who would like to buy on his show but can't for obvious reasons.

If they would really "like to buy" spots on Rush's show they would.  It's a free market, and the only reason these big advertisers have stopped buying ads on the show, is they don't want to pay to have their good corporate and product names associated with programs many of their customers find "offensive."

The big advertisers have plenty of other ways and choices to reach target customers without taking a risk of being seen supporting programming that creates a negative image of them and their products.  These folks just made very common sense business decisions that "it ain't worth the potential headaches." 

As far as it being "good" for advertisers that Rush's audience represents a small loyal slice of the market, no doubt in most cases all concerned would be happier with a larger cume, and higher ratings.  Big advertisers could get volume discounts and reach more potential customers on one station.  The only kinds of advertisers who may really like the "efficiency" of Rush's audience represent products like prostate treatments.  Political talk is popular with men of that certain age, and there is no point wasting advertising dollars on stations with lots of women or younger men listening.

[LLL]

Wrong.

We don't have a free market.  There's a price to pay for advertising on Rush and Beck.  If we had a free market, companies would not give in to terrorists like signon.org, Color of Change, and Media Matters.

If not for these radical militants Rush and Beck would have national advertisers. 

I actually buy Barbasol and will continue to do so because they sponsor Salem.

[badjef]

Wrong.

We don't have a free market.  There's a price to pay for advertising on Rush and Beck.  If we had a free market, companies would not give in to terrorists like signon.org, Color of Change, and Media Matters.

If not for these radical militants Rush and Beck would have national advertisers. 

I actually buy Barbasol and will continue to do so because they sponsor Salem.

As much as I would like to say I use a "Rush" sponsored product, I use what works and I like regardless of the politics. If the product is worth it, I don't care.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

[TimeIsTight]

We don't have a free market.  There's a price to pay for advertising on Rush and Beck.  If we had a free market, companies would not give in to terrorists like signon.org, Color of Change, and Media Matters.

You're giving these organizations far too much credit.  Rush would be the first to argue that there are plenty of advertisers for his show, who aren't intimidated, in the least, by a relatively small number of names on a petition.

The fact that these other companies step forward and plunk their money down and advertise on Rush shows that nobody really needs to be intimidated, if they don't want to.

What really happened to Rush is that he proved himself to be dangerous to their good corporate and product names.  They don't want to be put in a position where somebody, they can't control, can damage the public perception of their corporate images.  Rush made a mistake, and insisted on making it worse for a couple of days, and then apologized, which indicated that he was wrong from the get-go.  These big advertisers want to be associated with responsible broadcasters who exhibit good character, add to their corporate image, and help bring in business.  The last thing they need is to be associated with a loose cannon who could blow up in their face causing them expensive PR problems, and future revenue.

It is a "free market" and the fact that advertisers are free to place their ads where they want proves that it is.  You might say some are "corporate cowards" who have retreated in fear, but others would say they are just "smart business people" who are highly focused on their own bottom line, and don't want to get involved in petty, imaginary, and often delusional political battles where they don't want to be seen as taking sides.  There are many other places to advertise that don't have those same silly dangers to their corporate image, and bottom line, so why take the risk when they really don't have to?

[LLL]

We don't have a free market.  There's a price to pay for advertising on Rush and Beck.  If we had a free market, companies would not give in to terrorists like signon.org, Color of Change, and Media Matters.

You're giving these organizations far too much credit.  Rush would be the first to argue that there are plenty of advertisers for his show, who aren't intimidated, in the least, by a relatively small number of names on a petition.

The fact that these other companies step forward and plunk their money down and advertise on Rush shows that nobody really needs to be intimidated, if they don't want to.

What really happened to Rush is that he proved himself to be dangerous to their good corporate and product names.  They don't want to be put in a position where somebody, they can't control, can damage the public perception of their corporate images.  Rush made a mistake, and insisted on making it worse for a couple of days, and then apologized, which indicated that he was wrong from the get-go.  These big advertisers want to be associated with responsible broadcasters who exhibit good character, add to their corporate image, and help bring in business.  The last thing they need is to be associated with a loose cannon who could blow up in their face causing them expensive PR problems, and future revenue.

It is a "free market" and the fact that advertisers are free to place their ads where they want proves that it is.  You might say some are "corporate cowards" who have retreated in fear, but others would say they are just "smart business people" who are highly focused on their own bottom line, and don't want to get involved in petty, imaginary, and often delusional political battles where they don't want to be seen as taking sides.  There are many other places to advertise that don't have those same silly dangers to their corporate image, and bottom line, so why take the risk when they really don't have to?

It's funny how Rush is avoided by national advertisers yet Al Sharpton is someone who attracts them.  That's what this country has come to.  1984.  Thought police.

[TimeIsTight]

It's funny how Rush is avoided by national advertisers yet Al Sharpton is someone who attracts them.  That's what this country has come to.  1984.  Thought police.

Al Sharpton's radio show is, so far, way under the radar.  The way big corporations buy national radio advertising, the corporate suits probably aren't aware that their spots are running on his show.  If he screws up, big time, the way Rush did, they will instruct their agencies to pull spots from Sharpton's show too. 

Sharpton's "flagship" station in New York, WWRL, has one-tenth the weekly audience of Rush's flagship, WABC.  Sharpton has probably spoken before bigger crowds in person than WWRL has weekly listeners. 

You're seeing this as some kind of "political" or "racial" bias toward Rush.  It isn't. Part of the problem with listening to too much "political" radio is you start to see the entire world through a black/white political lens.  The national advertisers only want to sell more of their products, they don't want to take sides and make enemies in political fights.  It isn't "thought police" its just free market capitalist business.  It's about making the most money, not promoting a particular political agenda.

[amfmsw]

Jeff, you're just a wee bit off in your timeline of WCAU 1210.  Many of us were never comfortable with it as a NEWS station!  It was one of (if not thee) nation's 1st talk station dating back to the early 60's marketed as WCAU 121.  (One To One talk)  There were stringent FCC regulations of tapping into AT&T and Bell Telephone lines, and they worked around it by technically 'not' being connected directly by having the outside call lines wired through isolation transformers.  The callers heard a 400 cycle beep every 15 seconds to let them know they were on the air or being recorded.  The beep was eliminated through a notch filter, and all was fed through a "B-Cart" tape delay.  I remember the 121 billboards on the Walt Whitman Bridge and full page ads in The Evening Bulletin.  They did clear almost every CBS Radio Network feature and News as well.  They didn't go News head to head against KYW until the early 70's.