If accused of that motivation with respect to the War on Terror, the Democratic Party could not be convicted based on the evidence. To the contrary, the Democratic Party has acted exactly in line with what the Islamofacists would want and lobby for. Who knows, turn over enough rocks at the ACLU and at the DNC and maybe they have been lobbying the Dems.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/13/air-america-bankruptcy
Quote, from the page you linked:
UPDATE: Air America responds.
If Air America had filed for bankruptcy every time someone rumored it to be doing so, we would have ceased to exist long ago; it may be frustrating to some that this hasn’t happened. No decision has been taken to make any filing of any kind, we are not sure of the source of these rumors and frankly can not respond to every rumor in the marketplace.
Yea, they certainly appear financially sound. No reason for doubt here...
please explain why they can't get enough listeners for a single set of syndicated shows. Limbaugh gets a $250M contract, these guys have to pay stations to air their stuff. So where is this LIBERAL majority I keep hearing about???
So called "liberals" are not listeners. Their jaws are flapping so fast, sniping and complaining, spouting their "wisdom", that they don't need ears. As a result a libbie radio program is doomed to failure, normal people won't listen to that trash for long.
Ok, the left hasn't been very sucessful on RADIO, but they have been in other mediums ie: books & film...
BTW, the ONLY person on radio worth listening to, Howard Stern, got a $500 million contract...
For sponsoring, liberals don't need the vocabulary builders and won't buy swampland vacation houses that support Rush Limbaugh's show. Meanwhile, for support, most of us are broke waiting for something to "trickle down" to us from our conservative corporate bosses, leaving, you know, a trickle of a trickle for donations to Air America and other causes.
However, it's not like we aren't interested and we don't listen, nor is it that the message isn't important.
Companies pay for audience, not message. Pretty simple concept.
BTW, if you are so broke, why are you on a website where the averge rate is 250/hr. Shouldn't you be posting on crackwhore.com??
whose star attration is Al Franken and his political beliefs?
I had a goofball co-worke who swore by Franken and his "thoughts" [such as they were] and actively tried to sway me to his/their side. I pointed out that I would no more take political advice from Franken than I would from Jackie Mason.
Happily, he stopped talking to me some afterward.
However, the same is true with Rush Limbaugh, and that was a winning strategy. Limbaugh was a washed up radio jock with a job history full of failures. Conservatives (the EIB people) plucked him out of nowhere, put money into his show till it gained an audience of ditto-heads.
Air America tried to copy this strategy too closely with Franken (the counter-Limbaugh), who at least was known as a comedian, he had name recognition and a couple best-selling books. It failed.
It was a mistake to try to copy so closely the EIB formula, especially with a guy who wasn't as desperate to succeed as Limbaugh. They also lacked the capital input of wealthy sources till the network might gain an audience. I've already mentioned the added difficulty of gaining sponsorship from those who could afford it. They need to approach George Soros, and I take it he was too shrewd to think it would succeed with it's formula.
Also, despite the fact that liberals resent the low tactics of conservatives such as Limbaugh and love to snipe back, they can't take this seriously as a motivation. As the Democratic party shows, they need more of a coherent program of their own.
It might also be that the liberal message on anything is not suited to radio in that it does not bear up beyond an emotional quip best featured on a bumper sticker. The fact that people are not listening to liberal radio is more about the lack of gravitas in the message than anything else.
It's not like conservative radio exudes that. You use of that word is so out of place that I think you must have used it in error.
Yes, other people including me have noticed how little coherence the liberal program has now. The democratic party is "guided" by a bunch of hindmosts.
Yet, any radio, and discussion on the left is good in just developing a program. Right now, the main concern among the left is to stop the disasters.
If accused of that motivation with respect to the War on Terror, the Democratic Party could not be convicted based on the evidence. To the contrary, the Democratic Party has acted exactly in line with what the Islamofacists would want and lobby for. Who knows, turn over enough rocks at the ACLU and at the DNC and maybe they have been lobbying the Dems.
You mean that the administration has been listening in on international calls, but can't trace them to the ACLU or the DNC? How crafty! Looks like democrats aren't as dumb as you think.
This has to be the stupidest, most manipulative innuendo I've read recently. How is it that a Republican Congress finds its own majority members under investigation, but can't guide an investigation into the Democrats or the ACLU?
As for Dem and ACLU policies favoring terrorists, it seems that the democrats and ACLU have been saying and doing the same things since long before the War on Terror. Can you really cite any change in behavior?
It's totally rational and in Americans' self interest that the ACLU is doing what it is. You just don't know it yet, because you or one of your friends hasn't disappeared into a secret prison yet. You think these policies are going to be restricted to the war on terror? "No man, no problem" is too easy a political weapon, and we are all vulnerable to it.
-- Modified on 9/22/2006 8:29:12 AM
All else being equal, or even unequal, corporations will throw their support behind the party that "brings home the bacon." That would be fixing regulations, giving them tax breaks, bailouts, contracts and other corporate welfare.
Now, if I could figure that out, you know that there are leaders in corporations who can as well. They will weigh the dollars they expect to gain by keeping the conservatives in power against dollars they expect to gain from advertising to liberals. It's not unethical for a corporation. There's no crime. Ask yourself why they wouldn't?
There is a bit of truth in what you say, however. They would have attracted somewhat more sponsorship with a larger audience-- the problem is would they ever have the chance to build that audience.
I'd give them my donation, but I've given a lot of donations. Right now I'm tapped out.
I've answered the personal side of this with a PM.
follow the money. That is true for whatever party you are talking about. Air America has been on the air long enough and in enough major markets to get audience share if they could.
Yes they give money, but that is to political parties. Limbaugh got his money for his audience size, not his politics.
Will email you regarding the other part...
believe that's how commercial radio economics works, do you?
...but why gerrymander your thinking like that?
Corporate economics most definitely works that way. You think they don't attempt to create a coherent plan to advance their interests? It's the smart thing to do. Any study of corporate behavior shows this is exactly what they do. As for whether they would let this effect their advertising strategy-- as they say, just follow the money.
the discussion to marketing principles in broadcast media, specifically radio.
Do you think that marketing and sales works identically in all forms, media and products?
Do you think really that corporations are so high minded that they even HAVE interests that they try to "advance", over the desire to make a profit?
You tend to "overthink" issues. Radio economics is much simpler than you suggest.
To your second sentence, no it doesn't. I know more about media programming than you think. It's heavily in my family. Frankly, I can't see how your question has much relevance.
High minded interests for corporations? I've already explained why the strategy I've laid out would be profitable overall. I know also that within the general instructions the higher-ups give them, marketing and advertising departments must show that they are enhancing profits. If they don't, however, the field is full of disposable mediocrities.
Radio economics may be simple, but overall corporate strategies are not. There's a very thin line that separates corporations from conspiracies.
this is not how it works.
how it works is,
"who attracts ears with wallets attached"
I know, I helped run an $10m ad budget for 8 yrs.
BTW, you should feel somewhat aquitted, this reality is agnostic as to "value of message"...
food for thought
I see now I was unclear. I didn't make the distinction between backers/investors and commercial sponsors. Comparing it to Limbaugh, somebody backed him till his show became successful. I need to ask: who put money behind him? It wasn't like he was a proven name; if anything he was a lackey and a true believer who would deliver the right message with relish. Who is he referring to with EIB? He also had a lot to gain and nothing to lose. Of course he'll deliver the right message even if he looks personally foolish; he's well paid.
Did anyone else notice that even when Rush Limbaugh had a purportedly huge audience that he really didn't have many big sponsors? I mean, they were basically start-ups: like Snapple, like Ruth's Christ. There were a surprising amount of PSM's, ads for nude clubs, low-level hawkings like vocabulary builders. If his show wasn't publically supported, somebody was supporting it.
For commercial sponsors I agree with you, it goes without saying they wouldn't put money into anything that wouldn't be profitable. I contend that this leans toward favoring conservatives of all stripes. In other words, "ears with wallets," unlike just ears, the latter describing liberals for the most part. (I guess the hobby could be characterized as "cocks with wallets?" lol)
All things being equal, though, or perhaps a little unequal, corporations would be motivated now to put money behind a more conservative message.
-- Modified on 9/16/2006 6:47:49 PM
EIB does not exist! It is an on air contrivance.
His original backer was Ed McLaughlin, former head of ABC radio. According to McLaughlin he was looking for someone to launch a daytime, possibly nationwide talk show, which had never been done before. He went into partnership with Limbaugh after hearing him in Sacramento. Limbaugh was on just WABC New York for awhile before going national. Their entry method into national radio was unique. He was backed as you say, by providing the show free to the initial 56 stations in August, 1988, which is when I started listening. OK, so they were capitalized for awhile, but it was Limbaugh’s talent and even more so, his success that put him on 200 stations within 2 years.
Ads for nude clubs, low-level hawkings like vocabulary builders? I don’t remember any of that. Snapple yes. Remember that not all of the advertising time is or was controlled by the national network, Local stations sold many ad slots. I’m sure that’s what you (or someone) heard or reported.
I don’t think that Snapple and Ruth’s Chris (not Christ) were start-ups at the time, but I’m sure that Rush helped them sky-rocket (especially Snapple).
To suggest that they went into it with some larger plan or goal to “convert” the country or some other huge spirit, I think somehow overrates their visionary capabilities. It was an entrepreneurial enterprise that succeeded for them, nothing more.
I had heard Ed McLaughlin's name before associated with Limbaugh.
No, I don't think this was just a business venture. However, I think it was calculated as one similtaneously to its political impact. I suspect that McLaughlin especially considered the national success and reach of conservative talk shows on KMOX in St. Louis. He knew there was a niche-- politically and commercially.
"Ruth's Christ" I swear that was Limbaugh's pronounciation of it. Difficult to tell over AM, but I should have caught that mistake with Google.
Snapple skyrocketing-- Quaker quickly bought it and it underperformed expectations.
The thing that allowed a 56 station start up for Limbaugh was chain ownership of the media. I don't know who owned the stations, but ClearChannel and Murdoch have since shown themselves to be very conservative.
That McLaughlin listened to Rush in Sacramento and then hired him. I take it he liked what he heard because Rush delivered the right message; I swear McLaughlin couldn't have liked him for his voice, smooth delivery, on air professionalism or resume. He was about as slick and qualified as Ed Sullivan (I gives away my age-- does anybody remember him?)
EIB I believe is really an inside joke about something that was really happening in the background. It wasn't otherwise funny enough and it has been (was?) carried on too long to be anything but that.
-- Modified on 9/17/2006 10:21:51 AM
the first time he listened, sitting in his hotel. Then, the second time , while driving Rush took on a whole new aura, disipating the "hum drum" of driving.
I don't think he "hired" Rush per se. It was described more as a partnership. Rush's contribution was probably working essentially free for awhile.
I'm proud to say I once worked for the porgrma director who fired Rush in Sacramento. BTW, I would have thought you right wing Republicans would have a better understanding of how businesses and bankruptcy works. You're talking like a chapter 11 filing means a business will disapper. It simply gives the business an opportunity to reorganize its finances and debts and move forward. Air Aermica was drawing some decent ratings and in New York Franken was consistently beating Bill O'Reilly. MY biggest problem with Air America is that is that regardless of the viewpoint, it's not a very good radio product. The production is very poor and time it sounds like a college station the they cut off interviews and abruptly go in and out of commercials. Chapter 11 might be good for them to get things in order, line up some new financing and hire some experienced professional talk radio producers and technical people.
He's told them all the same things.
Were you working there when Rush was fired?