How long do you give a show to work on a news/talk station? It’s a real dilemma for many stations after the passing of Rush Limbaugh.
If you work for Cox, iHeart, or Cumulus, your new show is part of your corporate package. What happens if you or your employers picked wrong? What now, if you can’t get out of a show that is not working for your market?
Whether it is news/talk or sports talk, the entire lineup on your station is like several morning shows. A music station just has one morning show. The rest is just the music of the format. If you want to kill a music station, keep changing morning shows. It takes time for the audience to build a relationship with the host or team.
If it is a new local show on your news/talk station, it takes time for the host to connect with the audience, even if they have been in the market for years. Changing the lineup should be carefully executed with a long-term commitment to the new show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton, Dan Bongino, Erick Erickson, Dennis Prager, Markley, Van Camp, and Robbins, Todd Starnes, and The Dana Show were offered for that time slot. Most of these shows did not have the strong ratings record that is often used as a guide to success. It was a crap shoot.
If you were not owned by a company supporting a particular show, you had to make a guess. So, three hours on your station has changed, and for many stations, Limbaugh was the highest-rated show. Obviously, every radio station manager was worried about the choice.
At my station, we went with Clay & Buck. It was not because of any inside information. We felt that both hosts had long-term runs in syndication. It was a shotgun marriage, but I felt that it would be difficult to compare the Clay and Buck show to Rush Limbaugh.
It was going to be different. I personally did not want listeners to compare the choice to Rush Limbaugh. We also realized that we would not know whether or not this would work for two years. Patience was key. Two years. Two long years. Well, two years in, and Clay and Buck have blown up with Rush Limbaugh-style numbers. The boys are number one in the men 35-64 demographic. The show appears to be working. I am not criticizing the other shows. This was the right move for my station.
We live in a win-now world. Sometimes foresight and patience are considered old school.
Changing shows can be just a terrible idea. A while back, I was in a building where the General Manager was frustrated with a morning show. It was on an Adult Contemporary station that was winning the workday against the other AC. The morning show was narrowly losing to the Morning Show at the Heritage AC Station across town. So, the General Manager entered the Program Director role and hired a dynamic woman with a history in another format to replace the station’s show.
Well, it was a huge failure. The change butchered the ratings on the station and damaged the actual Program Director’s position with the company. The new morning show didn’t fit the brand of the station. You must find the right fit.
Some shows sound perfect coming out of your station’s speaker. Years ago, I added a show that was doing well nationally. This show was on top stations, getting buzz, and I thought it would be perfect for the market that I was in at the time. I soon realized though that show was not going to work the first time that I heard it come out of the speaker. It didn’t feel like my former station. I kept with the show for two years and then moved on. I couldn’t change out of the show immediately, because it would be too disruptive to the station. I took ownership that the show didn’t work in that market.
I have noticed that some stations are already swapping out of their choice to replace Limbaugh. I am obviously not in their seat, but I would give your replacement more time. Patience is a virtue in these situations. If it’s not popping by the end of this year, it may be the time. Sometimes shows don’t work. The show may just be what it is. That is another quandary. If the new show is not underperforming the station, you may be fine. Just because Clay and Buck are crushing it for me, doesn’t mean that it will work for you.
If you are thinking about changing, call Program Directors who are carrying the show you are considering. PDs are inherently glass-half-full people unless they know lightning in a bottle has been captured.
Realize that your station is different now. No Rush Limbaugh means change. Have you updated your station’s overall sound? Are you using the same station imaging voice?
Your station may need a fresh new coat of paint and perhaps a new attitude. Dress up the imaging with updated promo beds for the shows. I usually will scour my imaging service for a bed that feels like my station. Every station that I have programmed has its own personality. Find that and make sure that everything around the station sounds fresh.
I would not swap out your Limbaugh replacement if the ratings are consistent with the rest of the station. If it is underperforming the lead-in and the show following, I think you probably need to move onto something new.
Peter Thiele is a weekly news/talk radio columnist for Barrett Media, and an experienced news/talk radio programmer. He recently served as program director for WHO/KXNO in Des Moines, IA. Prior to that role he held programming positions in New York City, San Francisco, Little Rock, Greenville, Hunstville, and Joplin. Peter has also worked as a host, account executive and producer in Minneapolis, and San Antonio. He can be found on Twitter at @PeterThiele.
A great thought-starter, Peter!
“If you were not owned by a company supporting a particular show, you had to make a guess.”
Of course, that would be the ideal situation for a PD in any given market. However, I might add that it would also need to be an “educated guess.”
That said, there really a number of factors to consider, even if you are not owned by a company that has “chosen” your solution for you.
In a situation where one owner controls the (talk) format options in a market, you have the latitude to program each of your stations for a desired outcome for their roles within the cluster.
In highly competitive markets, especially where multiple ownership groups are in the game, where good local shows are a listener choice and where PPM is employed, programmers unfortunately may not have the privilege of a captive audience or the advantage of time to wait for lesser impact players.
In the case of Clay & Buck, the old saying may apply. “You don’t want to replace the legend. You want to replace the person(s) who replaced the legend.”
If you look back at what’s now ancient history, look no further than the realization that Paul Harvey could not be replaced, Johnny Carson couldn’t be replaced, and Howard Stern couldn’t be replaced on terrestrial radio.
Rush Limbaugh was bigger-than-life, and while they do work in some markets, Clay & Buck had the unenviable task of stepping into the chair of that bigger-than-life phenomenon.
While certainly wise and an obviously good move to pay homage to Rush, at some point they need to carve their own path – and it needs to stand out on its own and do so with great impact.
Clay & Buck aren’t necessarily dynamic nor impact players. They are not particularly revolutionary in terms of thoughts, surprises, nor commentary. They are certainly predictable in terms of their positions, as well. They are competent executors. While the can work the topics, they aren’t memorable orators, humorists, nor storytellers.
Rush Limbaugh, was all of those things.
However, before thinking that they aren’t good, and can’t do a good show, make no mistake about what I’m saying.
They can.
However, their show needs to be designed and more structured in some ways so that content can be showcased differently. It needs to showcase the content – and them for what they’re best at; and manage the areas where they’re not.
Stronger benchmarks, more use of production, and voices, perhaps someone with some creative prowess to make the show more entertaining with some elements and features can help, as well. From what I know coming a generation removed from watching Ed Sullivan, he was not exactly a “Rush Limbaugh” either, but his show was. It was bigger-than-life.
Rush Limbaugh was big enough to BE the show. The content and forward momentum to direct listeners to what’s coming next and why they can’t miss it, is what’s missing. Rush Limbaugh was so big, he didn’t need to do it all that “radio stuff” quite as much, simply because he was bigger-than-life.
It doesn’t sound like Clay & Buck get very much coaching, and after the strategy of paying homage to Rush Limbaugh faded, as it should by now, what emerged on the other side is an opportunity to create something different to get out from under the shadow of what can’t be duplicated.
Clay & Buck are very solid “studio musicians.” They play the correct notes.
That being said, in what ways can they be made to be true “impact players?” How can their personalities become distinctive and different from each other? What are their characters? What are their roles? For what are each of them “famous?” by that, I mean, if you were asked, could you say that either one of them is particularly funny, smart, quirky, compelling, etc.? Outside of their predictable point of view, does either one of them have a particularly memorable or different way of looking at things? If you missed their show, have you actually really missed anything? Are there memorable benchmarks or special elements that make the difference?
The point to all of this is they inherited an audience of more than 15 million listeners. They have about 9 million listeners, while their two main competitors are pretty close on their heels with 6 – 8 million listeners, without their having the benefit of rabid and loyal audience that was left for them to inherit.
In the interest of keeping radio strong, the hope is that Clay & Buck will be able to step out from under the shadow of Rush Limbaugh, and become their own unique and remarkable selves. However, they and the show have to be more in order to do that.
They also need to be in a position to not rely on elements of Rush Limbaugh, who isn’t there to endorse them.
Even into the world of minutia, when people heard the stinger going into the spots, or the end of the show, Rush Limbaugh, use that very same stinger to artfully hammer home a point.
Clay & Buck Just use that signature stinger because there’s a break in the clock they have to take. Even their using it actually calls attention to the difference between Rush’s dynamic personality, and the show as it is today.
The other thing that makes the show more of a challenge, is that Clay & Buck refer to the listener in the collective form. Rush Limbaugh was perhaps one of the only people that could get away with referring to his audience as “all of you,” “many of you,” “some of you,” “everyone,” “everybody,” etc. Rush Limbaugh was almost a cult-like figure. He had a true legion. Clay & Buck aren’t of that ilk. Plus, these guys are talking to each other instead of the listener at many times.
Radio is a one-on-one and very personal medium for those who listen.
If Clay & Buck and those involved could create initiatives and truly activate an audience to do things and take action, versus just a passive listening experience, they could chart a NEW and unique course!
I guess that’s a long way of saying there are many factors at play here, and while “your results may vary,” there is opportunity to grow in a more urgent and impactful way, particularly in situations where the show’s success is of critical consequence – and other talk programming choices from competitors are breathing down your neck.
Thanks for a great take, Peter, and the opportunity to add some thoughts, as well.
You’re working for great broadcasters at Zimmer. Have always respected them!