Interesting...

Here's the link, my commentary to follow:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-drobny/going-forward-with-libera_b_31793.h tml

I find it very interesting they talk about the management issues at AAR. Having watched "Left of the Dial", it's understandable. Clearly they are going to do things differently this time around. Maybe copy the Jones model instead of trying to own entire stations to build a network? Maybe something new altogether?

Wonder who the talent is going to be? Maybe they will get Marc Marin again! Loved that guy. As Harv pointed out, he was funny, but the show was lame. A second swing at the ball might yield better results!

Discuss? (Or not...)

This was on All Access a couple of days ago. So far it looks like they have a "one station netowrk" with one fulltime show, Mike Malloy, and one weekend show, John Zogby.

I've never listened to Malloy, but I have looked at his website. If his show is anything like his website then he is a wacked out conspiracy nut. I have no idea about Zogby.

I kind of wonder if the Drobnys learned anything from the AAR experience.

This is really interesting! Phoenix especially seems an odd place to launch a 2nd liberal talk station. It's not exactly the most liberal city on earth.

Malloy is not as nutty as his website might make him sound. While he most defintely dabbles a little too much in the looney "Conspiracy Theory Left," he is at other times dead-on right and articulate in critiquing the Bush administration. My biggest problem with Malloy is his anger. Sometimes it's funny to hear him rant, other times not.

I think Marc Maron had his shot with Morning Sedition. His LA local evening show tried to re-create it and apparently didn't fly. Sometimes you can't re-create what you had and just have to move on, although I did enjoy Morning Sedition very much.

Andrew

The beginning of another failure.

Most of the conservative voices in radio got their start back when the medium had a degree of predicability to it. Since the 1996 Telecomm. Act the radio environment has been like shifting sand, and it is a lot more difficult to establish new ideas, such as progressive radio. I think that conservatives have established themselves on radio, while progressives have been much more successful on the Internet. When progressives use the conservative radio model, it just comes across sounding weird. Malloy I think fits this description of extremist radio. It's worked for Savage, but I don't think it'll work for Malloy (the respective audiences respond differently). But if this new network thinks this is the way to go, they should give it a shot.

I'm also not convinced that the AAR way of doing things is a failure, it just started off on a terrible financial footing. I think what will be interesting to see is if any existing networks or syndicators that are currently more right-wing or "center" (whatever that is) decide that pursuing the progressive listener is worthwhile. A lot of this has to do with the political direction the mass of listeners moves to. As long as Limbaugh, Lars, Hannity and Savage "speak" to the average listener, anything a progressive radio network does is going to be an uphill battle.

(sorry for the stream of consciousness post. Hope it is decipherable)

(evokes a quiet chuckle)

Deane, I gotta give credit where credit is due. You are, if anything, consistant.

Do you have any support at all for the idea that left leaning talk is not viable on the radio in general, or is this a statement about this particular group of people in general?

>>>"Do you have any support at all for the idea that left leaning talk is not viable on the radio in general, or is this a statement about this particular group of people in general?"

How about the Air America bankruptcy? Is that enough evidence for you? I know, let's blame it on mismanagement, not the message. Whatever.

Can you clarify that?

Are you saying the bankruptcy is clear evidence that left leaning talk is not viable, or that it speaks toward this particular group of people?

"The beginning of another failure."

I'm sure Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have both heard that critique before too. Lucky for them, they didn't listen.

Hear is a question:
Lets say that progressive talk network(s) don't pan out on a national basis, but, for some reason, it continues to work locally on 620. Would CC continue with prgrssive on 620 in that situation? Would they do a format that only "works" in one market? or does that violate CC's "economy of scale" business model?

Starting a business is hard work. Most aren't successful. Left, right or center, my hat's off to anyone who tries it. People who think entrepreneurially are one of the things that makes America great. They also create jobs for the rest of us.

Labor costs are lower in Phoenix than in some other major markets, and Arizona is much more business-friendly than some other places (i.e., Oregon). There's a solid communications infrastructure; and, besides, it's a DRY heat.

>>>"Are you saying the bankruptcy is clear evidence that left leaning talk is not viable,"

I might suggest it's certainly a clue that left leaning talk will not succeed.

Deane, you are wrong - left-leaning talk will indeed succeed. I said the same thing as you when AAR started, but I was wrong. The fact that AAR itself may not survive is irrelevant (and yes, their business mismanagement and approach is a big reason for their financial woes). They have paved the way for a successful progressive talk format, whether you like it or not (obviously you don't like it). Before AAR, Clear Channel did not have much interest in Progressive Talk; now they have something like 50-60 stations and AAR itself is on about 100 stations. Those stations aren't going to go back to oldies if AAR goes away - they'll just get other shows.

Andrew

Ok, so what about the business model aspect of things.

Seems to me Jones is doing just fine with the Ed Schultz show. They don't try to own entire stations. They prefer proggy stations air the show, but do not require it.

In their case, the financials and risk both are much better in terms of viability.

Does that not suggest the audience is there to be tapped, but the approach needs more consideration instead of the whole idea of lefty talk being not viable?

Wonder if this new network will give KPOJ an opportunity to return Malloy back to the KPOJ schedule, either at live at 6 PM (replacing Sam Seder), or delayed at 9 PM (replacing a delayed Thom Hartmann national show).

I think Seder has a bigger following than Malloy did. Although it would be nice to have another live show on KPOJ, I'd favor keeping Seder on. Somehow, Malloy's show doesn't seem to work being on so early in the evening. It feels like more of a "late night" show.

But yes, you're right, KPOJ would have the option of bringing Malloy back.

Andrew

KPOJ would have the option of bringing Elvis back.

Sadly, I think Elvis is locked into his Burger King gig so won't be able to make it back to host a radio show, sorry!

Anyway, if you owned a radio station, why would you want to dump the first money-making format your station (620) has had in a decade in favor of a money loser like another oldies station?

Andrew

Is 620 making money? I've heard that the revenues don't match the numbers.

By Deane_johnson on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 1:30 pm:
The beginning of another failure.


Agreed. Those libs will probably get tons of money from George Soros. Like AAR they will probably steal money from kids, remember that?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Andrew2 on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 4:20 pm:
Sadly, I think Elvis is locked into his Burger King gig so won't be able to make it back to host a radio show, sorry!


Gee I wonder if Burger King will fund the new network?

I can't imagine that 620 is bringing in less revenue as progressive talk compared to when it was oldies. Nobody seems to like to talk about the revenue each station brings in, but I remember that when I worked at Clear Channel, we knew what each station was bringing in each month.

DJ said>>>
How about the Air America bankruptcy? Is that enough evidence for you? I know, let's blame it on mismanagement, not the message. Whatever.

And FAUXNews was a winner out of the box??? NOPE!

Fox "News" ownership had, well, slightly deeper pockets to start with too.

I don't recall Fox News filing for bankruptcy after two years. And I don't think they were ever into O'Reilly or Brit Hume for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Nor did they steal almost a million dollars from a stuggling charity. On and on, ad infinitum.

Sorry Trixter, bad example.

If AAR was backed by Rupert Murdoch, they probably wouldn't have filed for BK.

If Rupert Murdoch thought AAR had a good busines plan he probably would have invested.

From Deane Johnson:

How about the Air America bankruptcy? Is that enough evidence for you? I know, let's blame it on mismanagement, not the message. Whatever.


So how come Ed Schultz is doing so well?????????

AAR isn't right wing, so it's doubtful Murdoch would invest regardless.

I mean, it's not the message, it's how well you bitch.

Really Pete?

You ever hear of the Fox Network...not the Fox News Channel...I'm talking about the netowrk with those champions of conservatism such as The Simpsons and King of the Hill. A Rupert Murdoch financed network I believe, or has someone been lying to me.

Fox Network is not a political based network. Apples to oranges my friend...

For Murdoch, It doesn't matter if it's right wing, left wing, or whatnot.

He happens to be in league with Al Gore, considers him a good friend. How come he didn't invest in Al Gore's cable channel? Simply, because the business model did not fit his requirements for investment. Then why did Rupert put up Fox News? Simple. To create competition for CNN and cater to a new group who were crying out for different opinion on TV.

To put it plain, Fox News was created to exploit a niche market which just wasn't having any of what the networks were giving. And he has succeeded.

That's the reason why Rupert wouldn't get behind Air America. It's business model sucked Pete nuts.

BUT.....
RR and Ed Schultz got their voices out there just like LimBLAH did in the beginning.... It ONLY takes one voice to start a revolution.
AAR was a BAD business model from day 1 and it will probably fail in the end but I will listen to Ed anyday! That's what counts....

Air America's big problem out of the blocks was an unrealistic time frame. They wanted to have an impact on the 2004 presidential election, and didn't have time to grow the network the old-fashioned way - by proving the viability of their format and hosts at the local level first.

If they'd started at a local station in a top-5 market, and waited until they could demonstrate decent Arbitron numbers, they'd have been able to attract affiliates on the standard barter model. In any of the top-20 radio markets, there are decent AM signals looking for a turn-key format that Otto can run.
Starting out by buying time in markets like New York will put you behind the 8-ball fast. Once you're buying the time in some markets, operators in other markets expect to be paid, too.