« Al Franken: The Truth (With Jokes) | Main | Morning Sedition to go way of Edsel? »

October 25, 2005

There is no "campaign against Air America"

Eric Alterman - who stayed at the St. Regis Resort in Aspen earlier this year - now offers us a wee slice of paranoia in "The Campaign Against Air America". First, he offers excerpts from attempts to get the truth about the network's financial position and ratings. However, those stretch back several months. It's not like there's a constant, concerted effort, this site and others are just trying to get the truth.

Then, he weaves a reply from his "friend" Danny Goldberg - also the CEO of AAR - into his narrative. However, Goldberg's reply is quite similar to the open letter that he posted at AAR's site and at the HuffPost. He even goes into the long-discredited meme that Air America Radio's Associates program is similar to the premium offerings from Limbaugh et al.

Finally, we get to some new spin from their CEO:
On a nationwide basis the most recent Arbitron ratings Spring 2005 book showed that our affiliates reach over three million people per week, each of whom listens for an average of several hours a week. This is more than triple the amount of people who were listening when measured one year earlier in the Spring, 2004 book.

According to the most recent Arbitron Report, Summer 2005 Metro:

* Mon-Sun 6a12m, AQH, Share and Cume have all increased for both Persons 12+ and Adults 25-54.
* For Adults 25-54, WLIB's target audience, AQH is up 29%, Share increased 40% (from 1.0 to 1.4) and Cume increased 9%; for Persons 12+, AQH is up 6%, Share is up 20% and Cume is up 11%.
* WLIB ranks #2 in A25-54 TSL MSu6a12m (10h30m per week) among NY Talk stations, a 20% increase since the Spring 2005 book.

Now compare them to O'Reilly on WOR, also Arbitron Summer 2005:

* The ratings for the Bill O'Reilly radio show in New York were worse in the demo of A25-54 than those on Air America that he described as "catastrophic." [OPCEN 12 49]
* In the key 25-54 demographic which talk radio offers to advertisers, the Summer 2005 Arbitron ratings showed that Monday-Friday from 2-4 PM when O'Reilly is on WOR-AM and which at Air America's 1190 WLIB-AM contains the last hour of "The Al Franken Show" and the first hour of "The Randi Rhodes Show," [OP SQUAWKING BIRD GO AUTH 5] that O'Reilly had a 0.6 share and Air America a 1.8 share. O'Reilly had a cumulative audience of 45,800 and Air America had a cumulative audience of 95,700. [OPERATIVES 832 10922]
I know and you know that there's got to be something wrong with that. Perhaps someone will point it out in comments.

I also object to the idea that there's some coordinated campaign. No one is working together, but we are all trying to get the truth.



Posted in Meta at October 25, 2005 04:26 PM

Comments

"there's got to be something wrong with that"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You just can't do it. You just can't bring yourself to admit that may be, just may be, liberal radio is succeeding. This can't be right. It just can't be!

"O'Reilly had a 0.6 share and Air America a 1.8 share. O'Reilly had a cumulative audience of 45,800 and Air America had a cumulative audience of 95,700."

Awesome. Doubling him in cume and tripling him in share. Just awesome.

Posted by: Alex at October 25, 2005 05:26 PM

One of the worst conservative talk show guys is pulling 1/3 the share of an entire liberal radio network *and* has half the amount of total listeners of an entire 24 hour network? Not bad for O'Reilly who's 3 hour show stacks up that well against an entire network!!

Posted by: Randi Sucks at October 25, 2005 06:14 PM

Uh, it's not O'Reilly v. an entire network, moron. And he does a 2-hour show. It's 2 hours of O'Reilly vs. 1 hour of Franken and 1 hour of Rhodes. And the Franken/Rhodes hours are beating the O'Reilly hours with twice as many viewers and triple the share.

Posted by: Alex at October 25, 2005 07:14 PM

Let me just once against let out a big laugh, this time at Randi Sucks: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. He seriously doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Posted by: Alex at October 25, 2005 07:22 PM

Hmmm, Goldberg uses a 3rd rate right talker (O'Reilly) against Franken/Rhodes in ONE market covering TWO hours of the day and that somehow proves AAR is suceeding?!?

Hey Goldie: How is Franken doing against Limbaugh nationwide? How is Rhodes doing against Hannity nationwide? You keep using local numbers to justify your existence and we'll keep thinking of you as "not ready for prime time".

Posted by: SaveFarris at October 26, 2005 05:58 AM

I think Goldberg was mostly responding to O'Reilly attacks on AAR. Isn't it funny? He keeps making fun of them, yet they beat him in the most important market. I'm sure they beat him in more. Goldberg just used NY as an example because its the most important one.

Posted by: Alex at October 26, 2005 06:16 AM

Isn't it funny? Franken keeps making fun of Rush and Hannity, yet they beat him in the most important market. I'm sure they beat him in more.

Posted by: SaveFarris at October 26, 2005 12:23 PM

Uh, he doesn't make fun of their ratings. Whereas O'Reilly does make fun of AAR's ratings. Which IS funny because in some markets (including the most important one) he's behind them.

Posted by: Alex at October 26, 2005 12:48 PM

The mere fact that this discussion is taking place at all is indicative of the failure of Air America. For the network to be successful, it needs to perform much better than what is unarguably (by any rational person or objective standard) a dismal showing thus far. At the point, the company has to allege that it is successful, as what is probably happening is that the network is soliciting funding from new or existing investors, who might or might not be investing on the basis of political orientation. Nevertheless, the network simply must allege that its operation is successful in order to corral more funding/advertising - what's the alternative, that it admits its been a failure? But, it is doubtful at this point that the revenue sought by Air America is coming from advertisers, the ratings just don't support much income. More likely, it's all about contributors, the classic liberal funding mechanism, because government subsidies are not available. As for the ratings, a comparison with O'Reilly is clearly unfair, a better comparison would be to Limbaugh, and you need to look at the network as a whole. And there simply isn't any way to convincingly argue that AAR has been successful - the ratings have been shockingly low almost everywhere, despite a VERY few bright spots. And good news has been rare for AAR - what happened to the claim that Springer would be successful? Or that AAR's success would be premised on the fact that half the electorate voted against the President? It is very unlikely that AAR ever expected to be doing this poorly at this point, and the rationalizing has been getting thinner and thinner. Look, had this been a conservative startup, the company would have been the laughingstock of the industry, but the mainstream media applies a very different standard to the left.

Posted by: B. Samuel Davis at October 26, 2005 01:51 PM

Oh my god. You just said very little despite all those words. The most important thing is that you have no clue as to Air America's finances. You don't know how much money their getting from investors, nor how much from advertisers. This might take a while, but I'll go through it piece-by-piece.

"The mere fact that this discussion is taking place at all is indicative of the failure of Air America."

How so? You guys are saying that it's doing bad; I'm saying that it's doing okay and improving. They doin't have to be doing 4.0 in every market to be succesful.


"For the network to be successful, it needs to perform much better than what is unarguably (by any rational person or objective standard) a dismal showing thus far."

Unarguably? The fact that we're arguing about it proves you wrong, genius. "rational person or objective standard"? Meaning how you see it?


"At the point, the company has to allege that it is successful, as what is probably happening is that the network is soliciting funding from new or existing investors, who might or might not be investing on the basis of political orientation. Nevertheless, the network simply must allege that its operation is successful in order to corral more funding/advertising - what's the alternative, that it admits its been a failure? But, it is doubtful at this point that the revenue sought by Air America is coming from advertisers, the ratings just don't support much income. More likely, it's all about contributors, the classic liberal funding mechanism, because government subsidies are not available."

I can't comment on this and niether can you. As I said earlier, you don't know AA finances. You just don't. Oh, and "government subsidies"? Gotta love them talking points.


"As for the ratings, a comparison with O'Reilly is clearly unfair, a better comparison would be to Limbaugh, and you need to look at the network as a whole."

How is an O'Reilly comparison clearly unfair? How is Rush any different? The only fair comparison, I think, is comparing AAR to itself, and looking if it's increasing or decreasing in ratings (because O'Reilly and Limbaugh have been around for a while, especially Limbaugh). To that affect, 15 stations have gone up from Spring to Summer while only 11 have gone down. An obvious increase.


"And there simply isn't any way to convincingly argue that AAR has been successful - the ratings have been shockingly low almost everywhere, despite a VERY few bright spots."

Some stations are doing poorly because they've only being around for 2-3 quarters. The fact is that AAR station ratings increased from Winter05 to Spring05 and then from Spring05 to Summer05. If they can keep that up, they'll be fine.


"And good news has been rare for AAR - what happened to the claim that Springer would be successful?"

Are you an arbitron subscriber? Cause I'm not. I can't tell if he specifically has been successful. I guess you can.


"Or that AAR's success would be premised on the fact that half the electorate voted against the President?"

That question assumes that its a fact that AAR is unsuccessful. I disagree so I can't answer it.


"It is very unlikely that AAR ever expected to be doing this poorly at this point, and the rationalizing has been getting thinner and thinner."

Different people had different expectations. If you thought they were going to be successful at this point and now you think they aren't, may be you shouldn't be making predictions.


"Look, had this been a conservative startup, the company would have been the laughingstock of the industry, but the mainstream media applies a very different standard to the left."

More talking points. And what does the media's response even have to do with Air America's success?

Posted by: Alex at October 26, 2005 04:11 PM

The mere fact that this discussion is taking place at all is indicative of the failure of Air America. For the network to be successful, it needs to perform much better than what is unarguably (by any rational person or objective standard)

Posted by: B. Samuel Davis at October 26, 2005 01:51 PM

The key word is "rational." The loony left is anything but.

The claims made by AAR's CEO is a classic example of how to play with stats. AAR's last ratings book was the worst to date. This book is slightly better, but AAR sees fit to brag about the increase.

It's akin to buying a stock at 100, having it go down to 20, and then rise to 25. The recent 25% increase doesn't tell the whole story, which is one of failure.


Posted by: SYNA at October 26, 2005 05:45 PM

AAR's supporters probably have their eyes permanently fixed on markets like Portland OR, where they are getting strong ratings. (Yuck. Every bong-gurgling anarchist in Portland must be tuning in.) But here is the main point: Portland is NOT New York. Or Los Angeles. Or Chicago. And on and on...If they don't score in the big markets, forget it.

Posted by: Scott at October 26, 2005 06:35 PM

SYNA: "AAR's last ratings book was the worst to date." Wanna explain that? From Winter05 to Spring05, 17 stations went up while only 10 went down. That's an improvement, my friend.

If they can continue that, more increases than decreases, they'll become fully successful. And I see no reason why they can't continue that.


Scott: New York, LA, and Chichago all went up in the current book. :-)

Posted by: Alex at October 26, 2005 06:49 PM

First: the idea of "collusion" against Air Idiot is ridiculous. I've been whacking them since Day One, and have taken shots at Malkin and Brian what's-his-face for ignoring folks like Bore and myself.
Next: If RecordCo.Boy Goldberg (who knows jack about radio) wants to do honest comparisons in NYC, he puts it one-on-one: Franken v. Limbaugh; Rhodes v. Hannity. Those two shows and time slots run directly head to head. O'Reilly is a piker who's scrabbling to hold his own. He ain't really in the game, and if you break WOR's numbers down isn't that big a deal to his station's overall cume.

Posted by: TC@LeatherPenguin at October 29, 2005 10:36 AM

KCTC-You had the best music in town and you sold use listers out for junk music. Greed goes that to greedie type people. To bad. Well the best of luck to use listerns who enjoyed KCTC in the past. I can't say that to wimps that aloud the change..... Jack

Posted by: Jack Myers at October 30, 2005 09:56 PM

These BushBots cant stand the idea of a opposing voice. The truth hurts, we know, thats why it's so much fun!

Posted by: Jeremy at November 3, 2005 04:04 PM


Monitoring Air America Radio [TM] so you don't have to.








Main

Syndicate this site (RSS 1.0 feed) · Atom feed · RSS 2.0 feed · RSS 0.91 feed

Subscribe with Bloglines
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My MSN

Search
Categories

Also Rans · Blog · ChuckD · Ed Schultz · Janeane Garofalo · Meta · Mike Malloy · Prevarications · Jerry Springer · Randi Rhodes · Sheldon Drobny · Reviews · Satire · Al Franken ·

On The Air longer than AAR

All Posts(links to each post by title)

Recent Entries
Powered by
Movable Type 3.15