"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...
There are very few good, competitive AM signals in the US that are not
already utilized in a good manner and quite profitable. In fact, most
markets have only a couple of full market AM signals (DC has none, for
example) and these are uniformly committed to a profitable format.

What is left is the mid to lower tier of staitons, many of which are more
profitable in ethnic or religious programming than they could be, given
the
signal-to-ratings expectations as a competitive talker.

AA doesn't appear to fit in, and its revenue producing and
prior accounts payable history also speak for themselves.

They had one bad two-month period at start up. they changed management and
got a more solid backer than the guys from Guam. They are on a firm
foundation now.

Let's take Limbaugh, for example, when he started 17 years ago. He had 58
outlets to begin with in an uncharted sea of AM stations with an unproven
format - and daytime at that. AA still has fewer outlets than Limbaugh
started with. When you consider the added alternative distractions that
didn't exist 17 years ago, he's still doing very well.

And it's also not all due to Limbaugh. When he's away, the ratings for that
program still hold up for his replacement hosts. While he was away for some
time due to his problem(s), the listeners were still there, I've heard.
Maybe you have the ratings for those weeks. If so, make mention of them.

A sidebar - Does it really matter who's at the helm for the particular AA
shows for a particular time slot? Would it matter if the ex-mayor of Cincy
did Franken's show or vice versa, for example?

However, the real question is how well would AA do in the solid red areas of
the nation that do not have an occasional oasis of blue, such as the
Research Triangle in North Carolina or Austin TX? The conservative programs
draw well in the traditionally blue areas that are also good radio markets.
Why doesn't AA have an actual edge in their "own" backyards?