"David" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 May 2005 13:22:34 -0500, "MnMikew"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
The story is almost a year old:
Sun Jul 18th, 2004 at 22:51:39 PDT

Here are the CURRENT ratings:
http://www.radioandrecords.com/rrratings

Not as pretty a picture is it?????

Why do you think he posted it? The NEW ratings would have screwed up his
agenda.

The link was in a contemporary article. It was an accident. As
usual, you missed the big picture while getting hung-up like a tweeker
on something insignificant.

The big picture is AA is failing. You're the one with the hang-up.

"MnMikew" wrote in message
...

"David" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 May 2005 13:22:34 -0500, "MnMikew"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
The story is almost a year old:
Sun Jul 18th, 2004 at 22:51:39 PDT

Here are the CURRENT ratings:
http://www.radioandrecords.com/rrratings

Not as pretty a picture is it?????

Why do you think he posted it? The NEW ratings would have screwed up his
agenda.

The link was in a contemporary article. It was an accident. As
usual, you missed the big picture while getting hung-up like a tweeker
on something insignificant.

The big picture is AA is failing. You're the one with the hang-up.

It is not failing. It is very viable, but it is not the major factor in most
US markets that conservative talk is, mostly due tot he fact that in very
few markets is the programming on a competitive technical facility.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
m...
The big picture is AA is failing. You're the one with the hang-up.

It is not failing. It is very viable, but it is not the major factor in
most
US markets that conservative talk is, mostly due tot he fact that in very
few markets is the programming on a competitive technical facility.

Viable means capable (or possibility) of surviving, but not guaranteed to
thrive.

In the cab business, as with many others: "Money talks and BS walks." 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.

"Gary Schnabl" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
m...
The big picture is AA is failing. You're the one with the hang-up.

It is not failing. It is very viable, but it is not the major factor in
most
US markets that conservative talk is, mostly due tot he fact that in very
few markets is the programming on a competitive technical facility.

Viable means capable (or possibility) of surviving, but not guaranteed to
thrive.

And AA is very viable. They already are at the affiliate mark that will
sustain them, albeit not with astounding, windfall profits.

In the cab business, as with many others: "Money talks and BS walks." 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.

Actually, there are very few facilities available for such a format. The
need is for a good signal, ownership which is not format-specific and
underperformance of the good signal. In other words, a strong AM that is not
owned by a company that, for example, only does Spanish, and a facility that
is not profitable now.

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.

"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?

"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.

"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.

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

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.

"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. It
costs CC next to nothing to provide AA's programming, and a little of
something is better than a lot of nothing.