Internet Chat Transcript:
REAL dangerous thinking: “Listeners tune-in to hear
compelling hosts.”
HC
post:
For years, we’ve heard and read various Talk Radio
industry figures theorize: “Listeners tune-in to hear compelling hosts.”
How incredibly self-centered of us.
We’re THAT interesting?
People are out there
hanging-on-our-every-word?
And how convenient!
We-talk-you-listen radio makes money.
NOT.
Not anymore.
As
As George Costanza put it:
“Do the opposite!”
As we heard loud and clear November 4, people
want-in-on the conversation, and they’ve had-it-up-to-here with
business-as-usual.
Voters didn’t just reject Republicans and
favor Democrats.
Voters rejected THE CONVERSATION ABOUT
Democrats vs. Republicans.
Pull back and take the wide angle shot.
Consumer Reports and movie critics are out, blogs
are in.
Rather than being-talked-at, people want to
talk-with each other.
Do U txt?
Do you notice that — while people are
spending more time using smartphones — they’re
spending less time using radio?
Turn what-they-do-on-smartphones
INTO radio.
Make callers the show.
As talent, your value is topic and technique.
Conceive, conduct, and barely-control the
conversation.
Don’t dominate it.
Set the table, provocatively; then keep
welcoming people in.
Participant
comment:
Most call-in shows suffer from (a) opinionated
rants from people who don't get out much and tend to believe everything they
hear on hate radio or, (b) are so ignorant in the use of the English language
their meaning is lost as it travels beyond their teeth. A third problem
is that hosts frequently shut down a conversation should the caller be of a
different opinion than the host or as a result of too little time allotted to
the call. And never mind when hosts berate or constantly interrupt the
caller (or just hang up).
Bottom line: talk shows will get my attention when a literate host has
something to say and is given enough time in which to say it, whether I agree
or not. Shows/stations with people-on-the-street callers are turned off
immediately (this includes music stations/shows where callers are frequent).
Participant
comment:
I think there needs to be some sort of
balance between the two. If any of you have Sirius or XM, a good example
is Pete Dominick's show on POTUS, Sirius 110 and XM 130. He has an
opinion, but he lets every caller talk and they have an open civilized
discussion. He can go off on a monologue, but he doesn't shut down
opposing viewpoints. I think it's what talk radio should be.
Participant
comment:
I hear these types of callers
1)
Lunatics: From either side of the aisle. Host
will either kill quickly or play with them ala cat and mouse.
2) Seminar Callers: Versed on one topic, but don't think outside
the box.
3) Those who call to hear their voice: Need I go further.
4) Those who call from the opposite perspective that allows the host to
make their point: Ususally a good host
will use them to their advantage. A good shouting match or get off my
phone type call.
5) Those who call from the opposite perspective who
have a compelling on air presence and know what they are talking about:
These folks are usually dispatched fairly quickly. And that's sad. Because
those calls can be both compelling radio and educational.
6) Some 95 year old person who just had the oatmeal wiped from their chin
and someone allowed them access to a phone.
Participant
comment:
I have never in my life tuned in to hear the
callers.
Callers are a tool to be used by an entertaining persoanlity.
If you need callers to make your show, you're in the wrong business.
What talkradio
needs MORE of, is hosts who are passionate, very
opinionated, entertaining AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, not party-agenda-driven
parrots.
There are hosts who have liberal opinions on some subjects and conservative
opinions on others---all depends on the subject. That is how most people think
anyway (vs. the ideologues typically heard). These type hosts are what the
format needs
most to break this stifling mold that discourages most,
especially younger demos, from ever even sampling the format.
Talkradio's reputation preceeds it.
That is not a good thing if you're interested in not just growth, but even
maintaining the status quo.
HC
reply:
The game changed.
Accelerated actually.
It was already changing, measurably.
As-if the listener's attention spans wasn't
already short-enough 6 months ago, when Coleman Research (http://www.colemaninsights.com/ppmrush.htm)
walked R&R Talk Radio Seminar attendees through that "PPM DNA of Rush
Limbaugh" study data which demonstrated how his tune-in hits-the-floor
just-MINUTES-into the opening blah blah blah.
Fast-forward to present day: Radio's #1
competitor --
that-little-voice-in-the-listener's-head-that's-thinking-about-something-else
-- is now hollering through a bullhorn, pondering SURVIVAL.
Meanwhile, Sean Hannity's show just opened
with screaming Rev. Jeremiah Wright sound.
Recommended technique: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wZMUbwOrZU
Participant
comment:
Callers ARE NOT king. Entertaining hosts are.
Good ones do all sorts of things to engage and entertain listeners. Taking
calls is just one of them.
The format has been trending toward hosts who are less interesting, but more
ideological and monothematic. It's depressing and uninteresting.
While many programmers gladly embrace this niche, it is poisoning the pool
of potential listeners.
Participant
comment:
Since about 3 weeks prior to the election, I
stopped watching Fox (which I once liked) and nbc
(about 6 months ago). CNN and CBS have not been on my radar for over a year, They
were/are ALL schills for O. Larry King and his questions
are a better comedy show than Colbert.
I don't need an "interpreter" of the news, I need a fair reporter.
I'm insulted by how (especially on my favorite am station WGN) the news people
and the hosts treated McCain like a leper. When I e-mailed the GM about that,
he pretended as though he didn't notice that. He told me about how "unbiased"
the NEWS is. BALONEY!
I have recently been using the internet and C-SPAN.
I enjoy hearing "the opinion of the people" their accents,
and their (often) illogical views each day. Washington Journal is great.
That list of "problem callers" is also what makes listening
INTERESTING - NOT some blowhard of an
over-egoed
host who is PAID to have a "passionate" opinion (who just looked it
up on Google)on everything. THERE is the BORE!
I would RATHER hear the callers.
Participant
comment:
I too think the days of the Cult of the
All-knowing Host are numbered.
If you didn't listen to talk radio pre-Rush, or if you lived in a crummy town
that didn't get talk radio before Rush and the Satellites hit, you didn't hear
many of the great local hosts who were compelling, controversial and played off
phone calls. The beautiful thing was, in the days before producers screened
with the goal of "making the host look good" rather than making the
station compelling, sometimes the caller won one. Which kept listener
interest, like waiting for a car crash in NASCAR.
Even the shows with a milquetoast host had some interesting content, perhaps
because callers felt less intimidated and rushed. I was listening back recently
to a clip of a talk show from 1984 -- featuring a host who never expressed an
opinion about anything -- and I was surprised at how intelligent and thoughtful
the callers were. But of course there was no demonization
of half the country going on, so of course it would fall flat, according to
conventional wisdom today.
Sure there are the regulars and the cranks who can be played like a
violin. But there are others who don't call because of the atmosphere, or don't
get on because they're weeded out by screening as "too smart for the
room", who could make great contributions of content if welcomed. And the
best news is,
it's all FREE content! Something else to consider in these times -- a host
whose sole contribution to the program consists of "what do you
think" may not be compelling enough to draw on his own -- but he'll
probably come a lot cheaper than a "personality" -- perhaps even
cheaper than the highest tier of syndicated shows that operate on cash plus
barter.
Participant
comment:
N/T listeners are tired of the same old tired
talking points.
Listeners still tune in to hear what
entertainers and opinion-leaders have to say on a topic.
I don't believe “Listeners tune-in to
hear compelling callers.”
When it is called the "Callers to
the Rush Limbaugh" show or the "Callers to the Sean Hannity/Dave Ramsey/Dr. Laura/Colin Cowherd/Jim Rome"
show - then I'll believe HC.
HC
reply:
You don't need to believe me if it's not
comfortable to. Just make a note on your
calendar: May 26, 2009, six months from now.
Let's all reconvene here and see how
"The I-I-I Me-Me-Me I-Talk-You-Listen-Democrats-Bad-Republicans-Good
Show" is doing then. We can also
check some stock prices.
Meantime, you can marginalize
what-I-am-merely-reporting-here as "assertions," rather than data. But you do so at-the-risk-of
counting-peanuts-instead-of-elephants.
NOT an opinion: November 4, while Republican Radio ranted,
the Democrat with the best Facebook page won.
The notion others cling-to here that people
will FIRST stop-what-they're-doing-so-we-can-tell-them-how-WE-feel...THEN
interact-with-each-other-about-it is as antique as it is arrogant. Radio sure DOES feel threatened by the
societal shift from cram-downs-from The Authorities to the new tech-enabled
democracy.
But maybe you missed the story
week-before-last about Google. Google is
now 7-10 days AHEAD OF The Centers for Disease Control at spotting flu
outbreaks, based on Search.
Participant
comment:
It is without question incumbent upon ANY
host, to BE the main attraction. The callers are a tool to use to entertain the
audience, but you damn well better be able to do at least as good a job holding
that audience if the phones are slow that day.
You want a star hosting that show, fielding calls, pontificating about
God-knows-what.
HC
reply:
"Without
question?"
I've got to return calls to a couple GMs
who've had-it-up-to-here with weekend re-runs, morning drive features, rate
increases, and other cram-downs from a couple national hosts
whose-names-you-can-probably-guess.
And I invite you to be
just-a-TAD-more-curious about this callers-are-merely-ornaments-to-The Host
comfort zone too much of talk radio crouches in.
BEST moment of talk radio I heard
week-before-last when Big Three Automakers went to
"HERE'S WHAT I WISH WE HEARD FROM ONE OF
THOSE SUITS: 'THOSE OTHER TWO GUYS FLEW
Participant
comment:
I'm all for making calls more prominent in
talk radio, but they have to be interesting [however that would work out in
each instance, probably differently for each 'character'] enough to warrant
it....
Participant
comment:
This reliance on calls and “playing” to the
phones flies in the face of not only common sense, but also what some of our
most successful and insightful talk programmers have espoused. And I’m not talking about the Rush-clone
specialists.
HC reply:
Y'all-who're-dissing the power of
User-Generated-Content: NOTE WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT HERE.
YOU YOURSELF are making my point,
simply by being here.
Your "host" [me]:
a.) chose a topic likely-to-be-of-interest-to this audience,
b.) scripted his open,
c.) stated his unambiguous position on it, then...
d.) prolonged
the conversation by interacting with...(ready?)...CALLERS [you-who-posted,
agreeing/disagreeing], while...
e.) non-callers
[non-posters] listened [read].
What a concept.
You are the show here, not the
host.
All I did was set-the-table.
NOTHING
PERSONAL. This is an industry-wide myopia. Yesterday or today, one of the trades was
quoting some dang consultant's surmise about WHICH-station-that-went-all-Christmas-too-early
wins. Has our industry become THIS
limited and self-centered, and out-of-synch with "real people?"
Here's the math:
Time-spent-doing-things with smartphones
is
up, up, up.
+
Radio Time Spent Listening is eroding. Has been for years, even with cume UP
slightly.
=
Turn-the-smartphones
INTO RADIO PROGRAMMING.
Participant
comment:
HC
reply:
As any host who suffers my coaching on an ongoing
basis will tell you, I don't know ANYONE who's using the phone enough.
Callers aren't the issue.
Lack of 'em is
a symptom.
Asking callers for expertise is a losing game.
Asking them for feelings can be lively talk
radio.
00-05 (the newscast) is about facts. Hear
what we have to say.
05-00 (inviting callers to weigh-in on
the-topic-at-hand, often something reported 00-05) is about feelings. Let's
hear what you have to say.
Participant
comment:
Callers aren’t the answer. Just what I want to listen to, another guy
who doesn’t know much telling the guy on the air what little he knows.
HC
reply:
Callers aren't the issue, they're the
symptom.
The issue is attention-numbing
business-as-usual.
Which, in Talk Radio, is I-talk-you-listen blah blah blah.
WHILE, in-every-way-they-can, people are
choosing interactivity, elsewhere.
When programming degenerates into
same-old-same-old, Time Spent Listening wanders.
Thus my
suggestion that -- because radio TSL is down, while smartphone use is
up/up/up -- we should put more smartphones on the
air.
But, as I acknowledged earlier, questioning
the "compelling hosts" crutch is threatening.
So, to
pull-back-and-take-an-even-wider-angle-shot, here's an example that might be
easier to view objectively. It's a local
TV news business-as-usual cliche:
the-night-before-Thanksgiving.
All 4 local stations will be dutifully set up
at the airport. And, if they haven't
downsized the news department too much yet, the Amtrak station. It's already in the Assignments daybook for
the-Wednesday-night-before-Thanksgiving-NEXT-year. They'll all be there.
Last year, I flew home the TUESDAY before
Thanksgiving. The airport was a
MADHOUSE. And not a TV crew in
sight. Because this particular
news was "scheduled" for the next night.
Imagine if ONE-of-the-four local
stations WAS there Tuesday night. Suppose it's the Fox affiliate.
And, at-the-top-of the 10 O'Clock
News, they went live to the airport.
When that shot came on the monitor in the other 3 newsrooms, those other
3 newsrooms would've been stunned. And
that 10 O'Clock
show would've looked-different-than -- and seemed a-step-ahead-of -- the other
3 shows.
Participant
comment:
A good quality newscast always wins the time
slot.
HC
reply:
We'd like to think so, but not always.
Bring this up with a TV GM, and you'll get
the speec
h about value-of-the-network's-10PM ET-hour-as-lead-in for the late news.
And I'll defer to any Noo Yawkers
here who can correct any-of-the-following-details I may be remembering
incorrectly: When CapCities bought ABC (1988?), WABC-TV's
news staff was cut from 150 to 75, but the early show ratings didn't
flinch...because they still had Oprah.
Am I remembering that right?
Participant
comment:
...what Holland Cooke is suggesting is
already on the air, every weekday afternoon at 2pm (eastern) on NPR. The show is called Talk of the Nation. They have excellent guests, with a host who
has done his homework studing the issue and
intelligent callers who call in to ask questions or offer opinions to the
guests.
HC
reply:
Increasingly, Public Radio IS AN ISSUE.
Admittedly anecdotal, but NOT atypical:
Last night at dinner, I met someone whom I'd
profile as direct retail advertisers' DREAM demographic.
I asked her to "name your car radio
buttons" [what stations have you pre-set?]
As listeners do, she answered NUMBERS (not
call letters, as people-who-work-in-radio would do).
The first three were below FM92.
More "statistical:" I expect to get
an-earful-more on this next week at Arbitron's annual Consultant Fly-In
conference. Last year there, PPM data
demonstrated what's-been-suggested here, listeners weary of commercial radio's
same-old-same-old, lack-of-local-content, and schlock, are, increasingly
shifting TSL to Public Radio.
Your take on this topic?
Click to leave a “Comment” on the homepage at www.HollandCooke.com