Limbaugh's Dirty Little Secret of Radio "Success"

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.

Comments

[ketchupandfries]

Rush's biggest "talent" is his ability to spew lies and hatred endlessly and without a touch of conscience. His self-aggrandizing blather benefits only one person --him!

[MrJM]

Vince McMahon used syndication to do the same thing to kill off regional professional wrestling and make himself a billionaire. But at least rasslin' reflects mainstream American values.

-- MrJM

[Mr Mabujo]

OK, but that still doesn't explain his numbers, nor does it explain why say, liberal air radio hosts are as popular, or at least have as many ratings. You could say that radio is right and that it needs to be balanced and the Fairness Doctrine reinstated, but doesn't televised news not need this too? Televised news, with the exception of Fox, is basically leaning left, but the difference is that Fox news does not claim to be politically balanced but CNN and NBC insist in claiming that they are not politically biased. The last election made the political bias of television painfully obvious. The most common argument I hear for Rush's (and other talk radio hosts with his political view) numbers is that he is basically the only voice on radio, but that doesn't and shouldn't keep people from changing the station or turning the radio off. I think people, whether they agree or not, like listening to him because his first job is entertaining, not informing. I'm probably wrong, but I say that people who can justify hating him have to listen to him in the first place, and, listen to him to say that he's wrong and laugh or get angry but ultimately though, they still adds to his ratings.

[BadPlasmid]

"...with the exception of Fox, is basically leaning left, but the difference is that Fox news does not claim to be politically balanced..­."

uh, is their motto not "Fair and Balanced"?

[Aimleft]

Thanks, my eyes were bulging outta my head when I read that ("Fox News Does not claim to be politically balanced."­) As far as I know, they are the ONLY "news" source that makes that claim. And then blatantly go against their own motto.

[mkie]

Yes, because it is straight propaganda channel, and believe me, I know what I am toking about, I spend my first 20 years in communist satellite country -> the masters of propaganda.

Unfortunately average American is absolutely not aware that many media is not honest what they providing. 20 second news bite can't give you any honest information.
The only hope is if the media cartel that right now exist in US, and all over the world will be split to small independent entities, then we can expect more honest reporting. But that just a hope.

If I like to see something relay interesting, I look for Free Speech TV and Link TV.
When Israel attack Gaza, I was so disgusted with the coverage by American commercial media that start looking for any media out side of US for real news.
The reporters seat on the border, and been breath about how humanitarian IDF action, when hundreds of civilians had been killed in the same time, using American weapons.

As for Limbaugh..­.he could be perfect aparatchik­... opportunist with zero education, talk a lot about non sens and spreading lies as it is convenient for the cause.

[BrickSykes]

You are A1 CORRECT!! Thanks

Brick

[bdaved]

I've always wondered about that leftward-lean of the televised news. I can't quite tilt my head to make it out.

[rshrink]

Limbaugh lost much of his influence clearly as he pushed for repubs in this last election just as he had pushed for Bush and guess what? No success. Many of the previously duped have caught on that voting for the billionaire party is not working out.

[LCDTV]

i remember one summer driving through the state of Indiana by it rural roads and every single am station i could receive had rush on the air. it was sad because i wanted to hear local radio shows and there was no variety over the air. i always wonder how any of these stations could generate any revenue since they played the same show at the same time. so now i know, free programming and less DJs to pay a salary.

[laSerenissima2003]

Well that makes sense - why would you pay good money to buy that trash? I guess all these stations haven't got the money to buy real programs for their stations, so they fill up time with hot air - a.k.a., Limbaugh.

[trailingbegonia]

Well, you know what they say, you get what you pay for.

[Austrian School]

Umm....no. The reason Rush is everywhere on the radio is that he is the most entertaining talk show host on radio. Howard Stern was everywhere too, until he left for Sirius.

It's all about the talent. Just like in every other profession.

[marxmarv]

Heh, Rush's show is a 15-hour-per-week disinfomercial. You'll shake your head and say "wow" every time you hear it!

[TheOtherAlan]

marxmarv, you answered the question, and it has nothing to do with free shows for the local stations. Whether you love him (ugh) or hate him, you shake your head and say "wow". That's entertainment for you. Sorry to say it, but that's it.

[thirdpartyguy]

Bravo Bill Mann, Bravo. You did it! You finally caught the little devil, up to his old tricks. Finally, Rush Limbaugh will fall based on your article alone! Uh oh, what? This is a very common business model for radio? And...and no one forced the radio stations to play RL? They only did it because it benefitted them? Well, darn, there goes that brilliant, fantastic, and incredible piece of "investigative journalism" right down the drain. :( Really blew the lid off of that one, huh?

[Pennsanic]

I didn't know it was a very common business model for radio. Lighten up, dude.

[daffey]

It really doesn’t matter what typical deals were reached to get Rush on the air. That it might have seemed a bit under the table is no different than the legend that Brian Epstein bought up copies of Love Me Do. Even if he did it, that doesn’t mean the Beatles are therefore of no value. How Rush first got his foot in the door is irrelevant next to the fact that some 20 years later, he still dominates the genre. Not to mention that he became a self-sustaining phenomenon within years of his ascendancy. The reason is simple to understand: he started in the late 80s and early 90s, in the heyday of the infamous Day Time Talk Shows; all were liberal, all mocked conservatives, Republicans, traditional religious values, and all over the place. Rush was the singular voice that used the same ‘in your face’ approach as the Talk Shows, but did so from a decidedly conservative viewpoint. Open a snow cone stand in the Sahara, you’ll get business. The reasons for the poor performance of more liberal talk shows is the opposite: open a snow cone stand in Antarctica, and don’t expect to last long. If you want liberal go to school, college, watch - most - TV, listen to most modern music, go to most movies. It’s the ocean in which we swim, and many - even those who disagree with Limbaugh - nonetheless see him as an island in the homogeneously liberal ocean in which

[Dugwood]

In a country that where conservatives and the GOP insists is "center right" - your opinion finds no basis for validity. Perhaps it's your perspective that is so far right - that everyone else is a liberal?

[daffey]

Or perhaps your perspective is so far left that you turn on TV, watch the MSM, or turn on the radio and hear center right to right perspectives. It is, of course, all relative. In the 90s, I remember reading that some fundamentalist group in Scotland had labeled Jerry Falwell a liberal threat. I figured at that point, all bets were off. But you can't deny that when it comes to, say, gay rights or abortion rights, the bulk of the media and educational universe operates under the assumption that these are givens (I have yet to see a modern TV show that doesn't), and one can't miss the typically poor portrayal of Republicans and folks with traditional viewpoints in many dramatic endeavors (going as far back as the 80s when I was but a liberal agnostic, I couldn't help but notice those Right Wingers got it in the neck much of the time). So while if you are far, far, far to the Left, you may not see it - if you look at issue by issue, it's tough to see otherwise.

[SD619]

I am not a Limbaugh fan, but as someone who makes his living in radio, I have to say that the premise behind this article is quite misleading. Almost all syndicated radio shows operate on a business model that involves bartering. So if you've listened to anything from Ryan Seacrest's weekend countdown show, a syndicated sports personality or even nationally syndicated religious programming, you've heard a show that was put on using this system. A radio station CHOOSES a program that they think will attract local listeners and local advertisers. Instead of paying for the show outright they give away some ad inventory for the syndicated show to profit from. IF the show does not gain popularity in that market, the local station makes no revenue and stops airing the show. So, although I'm not a ditto head, there is nothing shady about his business model.

[karinova]

I'm surprised so many people are totally missing the point being made here.
Yes, it's not unusual for a radio show to be given away like this.

But the point is that all other things being comparable, a free thing will ALWAYS be more popular than a for-pay thing. Duh. Which is why most people don't crow incessantly about the "popularity" of their free giveaways.
Also, because of the nature of the bartering, there are whole swathes of the country (outside of cities, mostly) where he's just about all that's available. Being first in your class of ONE isn't exactly brag-worthy.

[SD619]

It is you who is missing the point. There is nothing "free" about syndicated radio programming. Rush and the hundreds of other syndicated shows like him use similar models based on value for value business arrangements.

Nobody is getting anything for free. The radio station gives up a portion of it's limited ad space. If they were to sell ads in those spaces they would make more profit. They trade the extra profit to the syndicated program who then makes their own profit by filling those spaces in those spots. In exchange for letting the syndicated program cut into their profits, they expect the program to generate ratings so they can sell to local advertising and make a profit. So the radio station gives up ad money in order to get the programming and the program gives up a conventional payment but profits through their own advertisers.

Ad to your assertion that he's "all that's available", it's patently untrue. There are hundreds of syndicated programs, right wing, left wing, lifestyle shows, advice shows, syndicated music shows, etc. Stations pick the ones that drive ratings, because that's how they make their money.

There are hundreds of reasons to dislike Rush, and I agree with most of them. But this "barter conspiracy theory" is simply ridiculous. "Barter for programming" goes back to Kacey Casem and Wolfman Jack!

[captainindustry]

Well, I can't figure out why he is popular. I have tried to listen to him on occasion, and usualy can stand no more than 15 or 20 minutes. Who has time to listen to the radio in the daytime? Truckdrivers i guess.

[brandalucia]

Millions of Rush listeners like myself own our businesses and listen anytime it suits us. I am a designer and have the radio on for 8 hours a day in my studio. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Rush's great success in radio is easy to understand: people want to listen to him and they do. That liberal radio shows are a bust is also easy to understand.

[robertny49]

Unfortunotely you're right, this goes to Presidents Obama's appeal for a better edutated country.

[Montgriz]

I make it a practice to avoid shops where the radio is blaring talk radio, the tv is on a news stations, and the owners appear to be making a political statement. I am not alone. Whether your are right or left or nothing, it is offensive to be bombarded by politics and bombastic insults day in and day out...it creates a very dysfunctional society. Whatever happend to light music or nothing at all?

[BrickSykes]

I'm guessing that you're in the 55-65 year-old range, right? That's what Michael Wolff's article discloses in Vanity Fair. What this says is that he (Limbaugh) is inciting this aged group of hot-heads to their twilight madness, and that is about all. Youth DO NOT listen to him, but rather hold him in great disdain...­just survey any college campus (but NOT Christian/Bible colleges).

The Limbaughs and Hannitys and Glenn Becks are here but ON THE WAY OUT, just like you and your ilk. Enjoy it while you can...

Brick

[fairness4all]

I don't spend any money or time in any place of business that plays Limbaugh OR the FOX Noise channel.

[markj757]

I just have to say, I don't have a problem with Rush because he is a creature of capitalism and that's a very good thing. Steele was right, he is an entertainer. His job is to keep his people listening within certain bounds of decency. My problem is that he is the defacto leader of the Republican party whether they want to admit or not, and since he has so much influence on the party, it diminishes the value of our public discourse with the 2nd most powerful political party in this country. I strongly disagree with mostly everything he says, and sometimes his rants have a racist or sexist edge that I think crosses the line, but I understand as Veteran that I was willing to lay down my life to defend his right to say those things, and make good money doing it. Our fight should be not with Rush, but to break the Republican party from the self destructive grip of far right wing commentators, because a good oppositioin party, is better for this country than no opposition party at all.

[rshrink]

I hope you will read what I wrote about the fairness doctrine. In actuality, what is going on with Rush flies in the face of democracy. Reagan, having subverted the fairness doctrine, now allows people with the most money to control the dispensing of "informati­on." Rush is a huge millionaire who bought up his whole block in Miami. His house was 30 million dollars, so what do you think the whole block would cost? And what billionaires are making sure that he is on 24/7 across this nation, drowning out other voices who are more intelligent and expert, simply because the other voices are not funded like Rush? Rush and his backers are the subversion of democracy, not an example of it.

[daffey]

People saying what they want because they worked to get to where they are flies in the face of Democracy? Wow. That's new. Please don't tell George Soros and Ted Turner, it would break their hearts.

[brandalucia]

Just because liberal talk radio has been a huge BUST, you trash those that are extremely successful. You libs already have all the major networks, the news magazines, all of public tv and radio, nearly every newsppaper in the country...­let us keep our conservative talk radio. But you liberals can never be fair can you? It's your way or nothing. So American..­.

Well, you'll never get conservative talk radio...NE­VER

[ld]

Hope you read this far, because I want to make another point. The REAL dirty secret is "Who is paying Rush?" Parade Magazine list Limbaugh's income at $37 Million. No one can make that much off a bartered daytime radio show. So who is putting up the money?

[rshrink]

Good question and the answer is billionaires. I would suspect the same ones who are behind this stupid tea bag campaign.

[daffey]

Or perhaps there's more to it than just a 'bartered' daytime radio show. A show with almost 20 million listeners. Sponsors. Contracts. I imagine that, given how rich Howard Stern was with a portion of the audience, it isn't hard to imagine Rush at 37 million (according to one year on Forbes, Stern popped about a 31 million salary - all without benefit of a vast conspiracy making it happen).

[gaelfire]

The Heritage Foundation?

[miltshook]

The information in this article hasn't been true for years. It is true that ABC Radio, who used to own Limbaugh's program, used to give it away free to stations as barter. But these days, the number one reason Limbaugh is on so many stations is because Premiere Radio Networks, which owns his program is owned by Clear Channel. Citadel, one of other largest owners of commercial stations in the country, owns Sean Hannity's show, and they have a deal with Premiere, whereby they carry Limbaugh, and Premiere distributes Hannity. In other words, Clear Channel and Citadel own a large portion of Limbaugh's stations.

They probably do barter on some smaller stations, to fill in gaps in coverage, but the fact is, Clear Channel and Citadel own many, if not most, of the affiliates.

The real story here is that the company that sells the program also owns many of the affiliates, as well as much of the potential competitive stations, and thereby lock any possible competition out of many markets.

Milt Shook
http://www.pleasecutthecrap.com