"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...
AA still has fewer outlets than Limbaugh
started with.

You can not have fewer than 1. EIB started with zero, and built out of
that.

When Limbaugh went national, he started with 58 stations, and WTDY in south
central WI where I lived was one of them. So I listened the first day and
was surprised how popular he instantly became in the People's Republic of
Madison.


When you consider the added alternative distractions that
didn't exist 17 years ago, he's still doing very well.

He is very entertaining. So is Paul Harvey, and he is still the most
listened toperson on rado.

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.

Ratings are not done by week or month. They are quarterly.

I'm sure that some ratings were done in order to ascertain if any listener
erosion occurred during the fairly long time that Rush was away. Ratings
don't always have to come from Arbitron.

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?

First, it is too new. Second, it is on mostly horrible signals. In places
like Portland (where it is on Oregon's best signal) it does great.

It sounds like you're making excuses why AA isn't doing as well as hoped.
Besides, The left coast is strongly blue, relatively. Conservative talk does
well nearly everywhere, even in strongly blue country. Otherwise they
wouldn't command all those hundreds of outlets. Delayed rebroadcasts of Art
Bell and Noury probably outdo AA.