Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Schnabl" wrote in message ... "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. Limbaugh started out on one station, KFBK in Sacramento. At that point, he developed and went into business with his then-partner to form EIB and do barter syndication. This was not new, with both talk and barter going back to Bill Ballance (early 70's out of KGBS-LA) and Joe Pyne at KABC and others. Daytime, of course, has been radio's prime time since the early 50's. Trying to do Limbaugh at night would have been a challenge! 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 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. 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? Probably. Talk radio is about talent and entertainment, not content. 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. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Schnabl" wrote in message ... "David" wrote in message ... On Wed, 4 May 2005 17:49:55 -0400, "Gary Schnabl" wrote: The power brokers in many markets in the radio biz apparnetly don't care to jump onto AA, even though there are abundant facilities available for the right formatting fit. AA doesn't appear to fit in, and its revenue producing and prior accounts payable history also speak for themselves. Near half the Air America affiliates are owned by Clear Channel. Nobody brokers more power than they do. The financial worth of the super conglomerates is not what was once imagined, and many stations are now on the chopping block at Viacom. Viacom decided it was not worth the effort to be in markets outside the top 20. this is because about 40% of all radio revenue is in the first 20 markets, so the big money is made there. It takes as much time to supervise a station in Palm springs as one in LA. But the payoff is about 30 or 40 times higher in LA: It costs CC next to nothing to provide AA's programming, and a little of something is better than a lot of nothing. AA provides AA's programming. Clear Channel puts it on stations. It costs money to run them... the LA affiliate must cost $100 thousand a month or more to run. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Schnabl wrote:
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? Springer did prostitutes, not other people's shows. -- Former professional electron wrangler. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
DE & GS,
AA's biggest foe for a slice of the "Talk Radio" Pie is not Rush Limbaugh, it is 1200+ 'local' NPR Stations and their "Soft Message" {Enlightened} Liberal Programming. NPR has a Long Term Listenership {Generational} that goes back for many more years then Rush Limbaugh has been on the Air with his "Stick". |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
"RHF" wrote in message ups.com... DE & GS, AA's biggest foe for a slice of the "Talk Radio" Pie is not Rush Limbaugh, it is 1200+ 'local' NPR Stations and their "Soft Message" {Enlightened} Liberal Programming. NPR has a Long Term Listenership {Generational} that goes back for many more years then Rush Limbaugh has been on the Air with his "Stick". . and that's my opinion ~ RHF Who knows? Maybe AA will take a page from NPR's book and start begging for money... |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Schnabl" wrote in message ... "RHF" wrote in message ups.com... DE & GS, AA's biggest foe for a slice of the "Talk Radio" Pie is not Rush Limbaugh, it is 1200+ 'local' NPR Stations and their "Soft Message" {Enlightened} Liberal Programming. NPR has a Long Term Listenership {Generational} that goes back for many more years then Rush Limbaugh has been on the Air with his "Stick". . and that's my opinion ~ RHF Who knows? Maybe AA will take a page from NPR's book and start begging for money... Why? By most reports, they are profitable already. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
GS & DE,
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
"David Eduardo" wrote in message om... Who knows? Maybe AA will take a page from NPR's book and start begging for money... Why? By most reports, they are profitable already. Relax, David. It's a joke! Don't you just love fund drives? |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Gary Schnabl wrote: "David Eduardo" wrote in message m... 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. The red/blue thing is a fiction. The "most red" states" (UT and NV I think) voted 1/3 for Kerry. Given that a popular radio show gets a couple percent of the population to listen the pool is plenty big enough for all flavors of opinion, even is a "red" state. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
City moving into 700 Mhz range | Scanner | |||
Mid to late 1940's New York City Radio | Broadcasting | |||
Mid to late 1940's New York City Radio | Broadcasting | |||
Geller Media | Broadcasting | |||
Boosting Scanner Recption for New York City Subway Frequencies | Scanner |