Drop in right-wing talk radio ratings

I think that what most folks are missing is the phenomenon of the rising popularity of the Tea Party movement.

Many of those in that movement find traditional conservative radio talk shows far too liberal for their view of the world..

 

It's not really a question of "conservative" or "too liberal." The Tea Party movement actually shows that the left-right frame we've been using for a few decades doesn't really fit everyone.

 

As someone who listens to right-wing talk radio (yes, I admit it) ... have listened to Limbaugh off and on since he came on the air when I was a young teen ... the genre is getting to the point of saturation.

When Limbaugh came on the air, he was practically the only well-done syndicated political talk program, and he had HUGE ratings (and, let's be honest, beliefs or not, he was incredible at doing radio. My dad -- who's very, very left of center -- listened to him all the time when I was growing up). There were a few others -- Michael Reagan, G. Gordon Liddy -- but they were commentators. Rush was a radio guy discussing politics, who was very good at working with callers and thinking on his feet. Back then, his show was hilarious (it's still good, but it's obviously not as fresh as it was in 1988, and he spends too much time complaining about "the media" and not focusing on the politicians).

However, Rush spawned a generation of talk radio people, to the point where there's saturation. In my market -- fairly conservative Indianapolis -- he's on the major news/talk station, but there are *two* other stations that have non-stop 24/7 right-wing talk radio (one counterprograms him with Dave Ramsey, knowing the conservative audience won't be there). However, most of those shows are bad (sorry, Laura Ingraham doesn't do it for me), kooky (I'm a fiscal libertarian and Michael Savage makes me look like FDR) or shrill and repetitive (Hannity, Mark Levin ... actually, I kinda enjoy Levin). Glenn Beck's radio show is tremendous (he's much better-suited to radio than TV), and Dennis Miller seems to be not as well produced and not always easy to listen to, but it's not as political and pretty funny at times.

It's hit a saturation point, where there's constantly something to listen to, and so it's always there. Therefore, no show is a real go-to anymore when I know I can turn the radio on at anytime and get commentary that you might agree with on the news of the day. 20 years ago, you had Rush, and that was it, so you planned your lunch break around it.

The other thing that has caused a drop in the ratings is the saturation from TV. Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly and Fox News' parade of conservative commentators on TV pulls listeners away from radio and diffuses the audience. I grew up with Rush and talk radio, so that's still my go-to (and I don't have cable TV, so I don't get FNC). My sub-35 conservative friends who aren't radio junkies don't talk about what they heard on Rush, but they will tell me what they saw on Beck (Hannity, not so much ... he's too shrill and repetitive for just about all of us). Again, 20 years ago, the 30-minute Rush Limbaugh syndicated TV show was a novelty. It was about 15 years ahead of its time. Blogs are also the go-to for younger readers, who haven't grown up consuming radio like my generation and older did.

Political commentary certainly has a home -- and for conservatives, that home will remain on talk radio, but with complementary sources from conservative blogs and FNC shows (and, for a few conservative intellectuals, magazines like National Review, which is where I consume most of my political analysis). For liberals, that will probably coalesce more in MSNBC and sites like Slate, Kos and HuffPo (and for the intellectuals, The Nation), as lefty talk radio has never really taken off ratings-wise, but lefty commentary has more than held its own on TV and online.

 

Dennis Miller is funnier now than he used to be. Less of an asshole.

 

I always thought Dennis Miller was great on Saturday Night Live and really not bad on Monday Night Football. But I think being around football folks warped his view of things. Instead of showing the compassion he used to show (check out his "Rants" series of books), he developed a "might makes right" mentality.

Old Miller (paraphrasing): If we can't throw a life preserver to some of the people we're tossing overboard, then we truly deserve to hit an iceberg.

New Miller (paraphrasing): Hey, why NOT torture everybody to get what we want?

 

Not heard that at all in his show, but we all hear what we want to, I suppose.

 

Sucking up to corporate, steel-pole-up-the-ass dickwads. That'll suck the life out of genuine humor.

That'll continue to suck the life out of the country.

Imagine a country in which the majority of the population actually liked and respected Daniel Snyder.

I'd rather not.

 

Is it possible that some of the total decline in radio listenership can be attributed to the same factors that have attached to the market declines of the TV networks and newspapers – the rise of the Internets? If you're listening to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck on your computer or IPad, thus timeshifting for your own convenience, then you're not showing up in the classic ratings models, right?

 

That's exactly what I read in his books (Old Miller) and saw on his old cable show (New Miller).

 

As someone who works in radio, I can tell you that one of the factors not considered in this article is the unwillingness of the larger markets to put talk on FM stations. New York, Chicago and LA all have AM news/talk stations but not FM. Any sports or news talk station lives off the 25-54 demographic. Younger listeners do not listen to AM. As the 55 year-olds move out of the 25-54 demo, the 23 year-olds are not moving in.

Music formats are becoming less and less viable. That is forcing many of the markets ranked outside of the Top 10 to put news or sports talk on the FM signals. It will be interesting to see what will happen in a Top 3 market when someone finally pulls the trigger on a talk FM.

As far as how sports talk stations make it, they are able to deliver the 25-54 men to advertisers, the money spenders. Most sports stations are not major players in the ratings (thankfully, mine is an exception) but a large portion of that audience spends money.

 

I've always been told that while men 25-54 are the biggest earners, spending is more driven by women of the same age. In other words, men may make more money (which, of course, is unfair because chances are the women are working too) but women tend to decide more on day-to-day household spending involving kids, etc. So that makes it harder to sell advertising geared to men less likely to spend their own money.

I would imagine different markets might be different. If you are in a city that is a magnet for young professionals -- a Seattle, for example -- where men stay single well into their 30s, then men may indeed spend more and advertisers may want to target them more. If you live in a "family" city where Bubba typically marries his high school sweetheart at 21, divorces her at 28, remarries at 29 and gets wife three by 40, well, now there are 3 women and a slew of kids/step kids who influence how he spends his money.

 

There is some truth to that. However, men buy beer, buy cars, buy soft drinks, eat at restaurants, buy gifts for wives, etc... I would say that any sports station would be have these top five advertising categories: 1. Beer 2. Cars 3. Jewelry 4. Financial institutions/mortgage 5. Cable/Satellite. That doesn't even account for the dude that tells you where to place your bets. That is the easiest money sports radio stations make. If you don't hear that list of advertisers on a sports station, they will soon be playing Spanish music.

Also, if you look at the general Arbitron ratings of a sports station, most are a non-player. They are always very high in the revenue rankings because of the demographic.