- BIG NEWS:
- MSNBC
- |
- CNN
- |
- Today Show
- |
- Newspapers
- |
Limbaugh's Dirty Little Secret of Radio "Success"
Read More:
Ksfo, Limbaugh, Radio, Rush Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh Radio Show, Talk Radio, Talkers Magazine,
Media News
Ever wonder why Rush "Boss" Limbaugh's syndicated radio show is all over the place like the proverbial cheap suit?
If you do much driving in rural areas -- e.g. between cities -- "Boss" Limbaugh's bloviations are often the only thing you can pick up on a car radio. Hey, that's what CD players are for.
Did Rush accrue hundreds of local radio affiliates across the country because his political views are mainstream? That's obviously not it. OK, so why IS his show so "popular?" Why do hundreds of stations around the country carry his show, the most widely syndicated talkfest in the country?
Glad you asked.
The real story is not generally well-known. The only reason I know is through my covering the business of radio for years for several major daily newspapers and also, for industry trade magazines like Radio World.
It's because -- ready for this? -- Rush's show was, and presumably still is, given away for free to many local radio stations.
This shocker is because of a little-known practice in broadcast syndication called a "barter deal." (Barter deals were briefly mentioned in Michael Wolff's first-rate recent piece on Rush in Vanity Fair).
Here's how a barter deal works: To launch the show, Limbaugh's syndicator, Premiere Radio Networks -- the same folks who syndicate wingnut du jour Glen Beck -- gave Limbaugh's three hours away -- that's right, no cash -- to local radio stations, mostly in medium and smaller markets, back in the early 1990's.
So, a local talk station got Rush's show for zilch. In exchange, Premiere took for itself much of the local station's available advertising time (roughly 15 minutes an hour) and packed the show with national ads it had already pre-sold.
Think Gold Bond Medicated Powder.
It's a very sweet deal for local radio station owners, explained Bill Exline a respected radio broker (he helped people buy and sell local stations). "Not only does the local station get three hours of free programming," Exline explained, "but that's one less local talk-show host on staff they need. It makes small- and medium-market radio properties more profitable and attractive by cutting down staff expenses."
Shocking, isn't it, that Limbaugh would allow jobs to be cut to advance his dubious career? Not to mention helping to make small radio stations far less local?
Major-market right-wing talk stations, like San Francisco's KSFO-AM ("Reichstag Radio") have to pay actual money, of course, to carry Boss Limbaugh's daily proclamation-a-thon. (Note: KSFO, which I referred to as "Sieg Heil on Your Dial" in my column when it first switched to righty talk, is the same station that gave hatemonger Michael Savage his first radio megaphone).
Radio sources say that small- and medium-market stations still get Limbaugh's show for free, or pay only a token amount of cash for it. I asked Michael Harrison, editor of radio-syndicator-friendly Talkers magazine about this, and he claimed he didn't know how many Limbaugh affiliates still barter. .
So, when you hear Rush bellowing as you're passing through Birdseed Junction, Beanblossom, or Pyrite, just remember: The radio station's getting what it paid for. Or, more accurately, DIDN'T pay for.
Around the Web:
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
QdIgfSfXvUXavrGrH8ILyvksIABUef%2F1gohlFmHEzvEYIipssjUxn9u%2F4DFPqwuNYGmw%2F4OE6%2B5TPdfBg%2BMtgw%3D%3D
xHafh4kz67REkCYsrzsc66ml7YtyhfitPb6PWqLvpjuLNWBz6tvT2eEAvnwdI4eLYf%2F8HSkfgPARp0wewzW0DQ%3D%3D
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 2
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Bill: Good piece. For anyone who's really paying attention, Vince the Sham-Wow guy has more credibility than Rush. Just goes to show, Barnum really was correct.
It all makes sense now. When going on and on against the fairness doctrine, his Bloatedness kept using the analogy that the reason there wasn't more mainstream progressive radio shows was that stations couldn't make money off of them like they could with his show. Another way of putting it instead of 'hey, we're so popular that's why everybody airs are show.' it should be 'You can't beat free labor.'.
If the message designed to create profit from fear could compete with liberal messages (do what's right, be kind to everyone, think of someone other than yourself, etc.) then they'd have no problem with the fairness doctrine.
Until then, the game will need to remain rigged; there are still yachts to be bought and taxes to avoid.
Limbaugh still has yet to produce documentation of his "ratings." Requests for documentation are turned away sighting "proprietary informatio
You do know Radio Ratings are established by Arbitron, an independent agency. While they don't make show data available with out paying for it. they do show station rankings. Rush's stations score in the top 5 or so across the board. If no one listens to him the stations ratings would drop and they would drop him. If Rush did not make the numbers he claims he could not charge what he wants for his Ad time. If he did not get the listeners no one would pay him $400 million.
Absolutely right. At the end of the day, political ideology aside, radio in the USA is a business. If a particular program doesn't make money then it won't last long. Witness the financial problems of Air America.
You obviously didn't read the one small part of Bill Mann's post: Rural areas.
Rural radio was once filled with DJs making next to minimum wage as a training ground to move up to larger markets. That's all gone now as satellite fed programming has taken over, that includes Rush. It's just that Rush caught on early to the whole idea of satellite-fed syndicated, barter-based, programming. By being first in line, he's now first in success.
Hate to tell the Coasts this, but in my Red State, Rush is hot and has been hot for years. Many stations that used to play music with live DJs now play Rush and fellow travelers simply because they work cheaper than DJs.
Rush HAS INDEED killed jobs in rural America and opportunities for young people to enter the business. Just don't blame him alone. Blame small, rural station owners who sought a cheap form of programming and parlayed it because people here, who go to church and think the government is out to go them, believe what Rush says.
You and others act as though there's nothing you can do from a free market perspective to compete with Rush, and that's just plain wrong. Sure, his business model or that of his organization may have made decisions that favored them, but there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion. Instead of complaining how Rush or Sean Hannity (who I can't stand) have X number of stations, or stations that chose to save money somehow by taking his show on, others are free to compete with him. The liberal community have 99% of Hollywood, George Soros, big media corporations, etc, so those that like left wing political philosopy have plenty of ways to compete. And remember, companies are in business to make money, so if small radio stations take on a free show to save money that's their perogative.
And I don't believe for a minute that if the public in an area hated a particular radio show that it wouldn't get changed to something the public wanted.
Plus, now with the internet, blogs, news sites, opinion sites, there are tons of ways to compete against Rush, Hannity, and any other right wing radio show you can think of. Just ignore their radio shows, listen to CDs, buy some books on tape, heck there are tons of better things to listen to than talk radio anyways.
So wait a minute, you're making a big deal about Rush's show when all they did was something that's extremely common for radio shows?
If Rush's show isn't listened to then it won't be a success, simple as that. People can decide what they want to listen to, and what they don't want to listen to. Many posting here act as though they have some sort of "right" to have radio stations they want on the air.
Who cares? Listen to something else if you don't like Rush, or NPR, or whatever else there is. Who cares if his show is artificially propped up by billionaires or god knows what else? If people with money want to have him on the air they have a right to spend their money on what they want, but I'll guarantee you that at a certain price people will stop paying for his show to be on the air, advertisers will stop advertising on his show, etc.
Rush may have bragging rights by saying he's on X number of stations, and that obviously bothers some of you, but so what? Let him brag, and go listen to something you want to listen to.
I care, for one. I just took a driving trip from Denver to South Padre and did a lot of channel surfing. I was looking for progressive talk and found none except in the larger cities. Yet, in the middle of the scarcely populated Texas panhandle, I could have my choice of 3-4 right wing shows. I have never believed that this is market-driven. The progressives do not have a "sugar daddy" like Premiere Radio willing to bank a new show or market until it starts to show a profit. Like most corprations, progressive shows need to show a profit in the first quarter.
Well, rascalcat, I can agree with you on things not being market driven, at least not entirely. Unfortunately the free market hasn't been alive in this country for a long time. And I'm talking about the TRUE free market, not this semi-capitalism we have going on now, where companies pay lobbyists tons of money to make laws and regulations that makes it harder for competition to get into the marketplace, gives consumers less choice, and drives up prices further than what they'd be in a truly free market.
But since we don't have a free market in this country unfortunately we have to deal with issues like this and work between the lines.
If the government would get the heck out of the way of the free market, and quit meddling in the market, then things would be much better for all.
Yeah, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that if somebody doesn't like the show or disagrees with the host the offended party has a "right" to have them taken off the air. What's worse is when they go to the "hateful" or "fear mongering" card when it doesn't apply just because they aren't in agreement with what was said. We can't cherry pick what is protected under the 1st amendment.
It's no secret now. Now explain his, ah, "success."
"Expain his success"
There are a lot of grown-up "Childrens left behind" from the last 25 years of GOP control of government.
What a tangled web they have woven.. Boo..Rush.
http://pit
What the liberals don't understand and might never understand is that millions of Americans like being told what to think. The liberal messages of "think for yourself" and "question authority" don't work at all with those people. Rush works because he tells them what to think and they love it. These folks absolutely hate having to think for themselves.
true...
I agree - quite a few years ago a friend told me that I was assuming that Rush was an idiot - but that he had some good ideas and I should check him out myself. I did. I listened one week, as he excoriated inner city black women for draining the pockets of his kind of folks, by having babies to get the extra welfare. I then listened a week later as he said that efforts to give away free long acting contraceptives to women on welfare was disgusting eugenics meant to reduce the black population - his real problem being the popularity and progressive ideas of the african-american mayor who had suggested it. I told my friend that the only idea I could discern in the radio program was the manipulation of a shallow non-thinking following to increase the asset levels of Mr. Limbaugh. And you know what - she stopped listening too when I pointed out that he had no problem advocating opposing ideas in order to rile up his listeners.
I could substitute what you say about right wingers with left wingers. As a matter of fact, I don't think hardly any Americans like to do any research and really debate topics at all. Everyone is extremely set in their ways. For example, if you dare to do any research that goes against the global warming propaganda then you're shouted down or called names.
Of if you dare to question religious believers about their holy books you're branded as "evil" or something.
From my experience people aren't really interested in finding out the "truth" about things, they're more interested in proving their side of an argument, and everyone seems to be this way, and I think that's sad.
The goal of everything should be to find the truth, not to support a specific special interest or political philosophy. But people don't have time for that, they don't want anything to go against what they think is "right", and anyone that opposes their beliefs is an immediate threat.
That's sad, but that's the world we live in.
Howard Stern used to announce this about Rush all the time, but it sure worked for Limbaugh. I think there are some even more insidious points missed here about Limbaugh (and Clearchannel's) spread across small towns....i
http://www
This article is a bit silly. Yes, Limbaugh's show is ridiculous, but it gets attention and obviously entertains a fair number of people. Bartering is a standard business models for shows that are trying to expand their syndication. If you want someone to take you, you offer your show for free. But what good is having a free show that nobody listens to? Nobody would hear the sponsors' ads and you'd lose advertisement revenue. Any show can barter itself. But only a successful show that gets ratings can barter itself successfully. A show still has to get a following in order for a local station to consider using up air time for you (even if your show is free). The point is, this article's thought process is a bit simple-minded. Anybody can follow this same business model. It's actually a pretty shrewd model. The blogger got it right in calling Limbaugh's show "bloviating," but it's bloviating that attracts an audience in a way that not many shows can, no matter how much free bartering they want to offer. Sometimes the free marketplace's winners exposes the fact that all people really want is cheap entertainment rather than thoughtful conversation and analysis. That may offend people, but they should learn to deal with it instead of trying to rationalize it with this sort of false "Limbaugh cheated the system" kind of logic that this blogger seems to be using.
To justrumors: Rush is a member of AFTRA -- the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists -- as I was at one time and as about 80,000 other TV and radio people are. As in other industries, there are very few union shops left. There are far more union shops in TV than in radio, and most of the radio union shops are in major markets -- NY, LA, Chicago, Philly, etc. Yes, Rush does pay union dues, but my guess is he has some sort of flat rate w/AFTRA. I think the maximum yearly dues for a six-figure talent at *one* station is currently about $4,000-a-year. Considering that Rush makes $35-million-a-year, and he's on several major market stations, I'm sure his agent worked out a rather sizeable, yearly deal with AFTRA. Just my best guess at the situation.
Simply stated, just like all radio shows (except NPR), the market decides who gets on. When ratings are high, advertising revenues grow, when ratings are low (like with Air America), advertising revenues fall. So while NPR is begging for more millions from the taxpayer to stay on the air, Rush is being paid millions. Your guess as to who is getting listeners.
Wrong, you don't get the picture at all. The billionaires support Rush, so he will be there as long as he can do good for them. He has suckered the disenfranchised in America, but they are gradually wising up to the problem with the repubs and billionaires running the country.
Last I checked, most of the billionaires around are Democrats. I doubt they're supporting Rush. However, you're right about them running the country.
Can you give the names of some of the billionaires (don't say Rupert Murdoch).
I listen to NPR and I know many others who do as well. I even donate regularly to the local affiliate KCRW. I guess it has something to do with valuing content that seeks to include opinions, observations, and commentary from people of all walks of life. Or perhaps it has something to do with listening to people with different ideologies hold discussions without having to resort to petty bickering and empty rhetoric. This may sound strange to you, but personalities on NPR actually acknowledge when their counterparts make sound, reasoned arguments. I do understand (but not quite respect) that there are many who prefer to be spoon fed a single point of view laced with propoganda - and I'm not singling out conservative personalities.
Conservatives like Rushbo, continue to confuse tyranny with losing . . . the Rethuglicans LOST, now deal with it!
SD619 explains it perfectly. As a 25-year radio vet, I've seen dozens and dozens of talk shows offered on a barter basis -- that's the way it's always done! Eventhough many shows are offered on a barter basis, they're still *huge* money-makers for stations that sell the local ad time that's built into each hour. Think of it this way -- If LeBron James told you that he would play for your NBA team for no salary -- but with the understanding that he could sell and keep the revenue from ad space in your arena and you program book, and hawk his own merchandise-- would you do it? Of course you would! And you'd still make scads of money on the TV rights, concessions, parking, etc. What this also shows is that there's so little liberal talk radio that's any good, syndicators can't even give it away for free! From a programming point of view, most of it just s*cks.
... this is not what keeps him in the money... I would like to know if his contract is a benefit of Radio/TV Talent union in any way? Did his agent (I presume he may have one) invoke ANY union bylaws in negotiation? This couldn't possibly be protected information. If he benefits, I'm curious as to his current stand on organized labor? Just asking...
It should be noted that liberal talk shows that get higher ratings still get canned if the corporations who sponsor them don't like their positions. Just look at the numbers for Stephanie Miller in some of her former spots. People don't always count as more important than corporations.
I guess that Air America should have used this model, either that or it did use the model and still did not make it work for them. We had Air America in Memphis but it went under and is now a sports channel. The problem I had with Air America was that it was easier to listen to Rush's propaganda then it was to listen to Air America's propaganda.
Yes, unfortunately many here are not understanding that much of it is simply driven by demographics. Your average rural American simply does not want to hear about tolerance, science, peaceful conflict resolution, fiscal responsibility, or personal liberty. Your average rural American feels best about themselves when they're driving down open farm land, littering cigarette butts, plastic testicles hanging from the trailer hitch, and listening to commentary about how the South never should have surrendered. Liberal content will never be profitable in those demographics so we just have to deal with it, encourage them and help in any way possible with their secession, and move on.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
