Not Good For AAR...Chicago Sun-Times

[KharmaTrain]

Here's the story in today's Chicago Sun-Times about the Air America situation here from one of the best media reporters in the nation:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/feder/cst-fin-feder301.html

In a nutshell, it discusses the mismanagement problems with the network that led to the plug being pulled in the Chicago and the recent management shake-up. From sources, it appears there won't be an AAR affiliate in this area anytime soon and several other stations that were ready to come onboard are now having second thoughts.

No commentary from this end, at this point. A lot of the mistakes most folks here wouldn't understand...lots of financial games that were being played. It's sad since there was a genuine outpouring of initial support from many broadcasters to this network that either went ignored or slighted.

The reason for the post is for folks to be prepared. The chances of this network's survival at this very point is bleak, unless they just specialize in the New York station and virtually start from scratch (also some fresh money may be needed very soon, too). So, my friends, be prepared that if the network goes down, the tirades that will follow on the hate radio outlets....proof again that "Liberal Radio" isn't in demand. It's a shame, since there definitely is the market, lots of great hosts, just not a place where both can get together.

Cheers.

[bkcc]

1. seriously not cool.

[ThatPoetGuy]

2. I never thought liberal radio would be able to make it.

Let's face it, the reason Rush and the rest are so popular is that most Republicans are either a) unemployed, b) so wealthy they don't need to work and can sit around all day listening to the radio, or c) assembly line workers too ill-educated to realize their overlords hate their guts.

Liberals have jobs. We can't sit around all day shouting "Ditto!" into the radio.

[KharmaTrain]

5. There's Lots Of Reasons

One day, if people are interested, we could have an honest discussion as to the problems "Liberal Radio" has faced and what's led to the the power hate radio has today...and how it works.

Radio isn't brain surgery, but it's not for the novice either. Arguably, there's been a highly successful "liberal" network in place for years...it's NPR, a network that isn't rated like the Clear Channels & Viacoms.

Saying hate radio listeners are as you state above is painting using the same brush we hate being turned on us. Look at how many people sit around cubicles all day with nothing better to listen to...or post on here or other websites.

Generally I go 180 degrees on this statement, but in this case it applies to AAR...it wasn't the message that's the problem, it was the messengers.

[zbdent]

24. Rush didn't "just get on the radio and suddenly have millions of

listeners".

In his early days, he kept getting real close to being fired due to horrendous ratings.

He pulled the "the liberals are trying to shut me down, write to the station to tell them not to cave in" so many times it was pathetic.

Eventually, apparently, the hundreds of letters (many of them in identical handwriting) finally swayed the owners/managers into thinking that he really was doing fine.

And then, he got to stay in the Lincoln bedroom under Bush 41, and got to attend Clarence Thomas's wedding, and the rest is history . . .

[wyldwolf]

3. They need a different approach...

They have their flagship station - WLIB - fine.

Now, instead of just leasing airtime on stations for their entire line-up, they should also concentrate on syndicating each individual show.

Some stations might rather air Rhodes or Frankin or Garafolo than the whole line-up.


After all, Alan Colmes ( a liberal talk show at least by industry standards) just added their 60th station affiliate so, at least by industry standards, left radio shows can be successfully syndicated.

By the way, how many stations is Shultz on?

[PROGRESSIVE1]

4. Ed Schultz is nationally syndacated. He has the best chance for...

success.

Yes, I know that he is not part of AAR.

[wyldwolf]

6. see, another example...

...that a nationally syndicated left show can work.

I don't think AirAm's approach was wrong but I do think that having only one approach hurt them. (If indeed AirAm isn't actively trying to syndicate individual shows.)

[PROGRESSIVE1]

7. Randi Rhodes has a syndication deal too. If all the others....

fail then Randi's and Ed's people need to work together very aggressivly to get deals everywhere possible.

They are the strongest hosts around and have the best business model.

[KharmaTrain]

8. If It Were That Simple

First, WLIB is the flagship, but they don't own the station...they renters from Inner Urban broadcasting...paying month to month for both the facilities and the airtime (and probably for some office space as well). Purchasing that station outright would probably cost in the vacinity of $25 to 30 million...just for that station.

The hate networks succede since they're just one arm of a larger animal. Cheap Channel makes millions on it's "Kiss" and "Hot" stations, hundreds of non-talk stations, television properties, concert venues and ad agencies (how convenient)...setting up and syndicating talk shows are a a slam dunk. Most of the talk stations are dead AM channels that are hooked up to the satellite...one station of five or eight the company will own in a specific market. Call it a loss leader.

This is one template for success...the other is setting up a more realistic model of putting out a successful show vs. a network. Focus on 3 solid hours a day than 12 or 24...then get solid sponsors and do the real shoe leather that is required in setting up a solid network.

Well, someday, maybe someone will get it right.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

9. See my prior post. Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz are the....

ones to do this. They have proven their ability to be succesful. Al Franken is to wishy-washy (Paul Begala II). Al needs to stop giving compliments to right wingers. No right wing talk-show host ever gave a compliment to a liberal. We need to bash the Right Wingers.

[KharmaTrain]

10. This Is Strictly Business...Not Bashing

In the scheme of radio, neither Rhodes nor Schultz is successful...if anything Randi is used as an example of why Liberal talk doesn't work. She's had to battle being on lower-powered stations that didn't draw big numbers and that's always been used against her. Schultz is a newcomer and from South Dakota...not quite the media capital of the world...the place you have to be to woo the advertisers and agencies who pay the freight.

Personally, listening to all anti-Repugnican radio would be as boring as hate radio...and the anti-thesis of what many of us stand for...open dialogue and free flow of thoughts and ideas. I may hate what Ann Coulter has to say, but I want to hear it rather than put on blinders. As the saying goes...hold your friends near, hold your enemies nearer...take the time to know them since they won't do the same about you (and we're seeing that with this regime).

Franken isn't as bad as I thought he'd be, but not "compelling"...the entertainer he is in the written form (far and away his real medium), but he's not a radio communicator and it shows...and his co-host is more newsperson (Robin Quivers type) than a radio personality, too...thus a lot of the awkwardness I've heard on the show...neither really complement each other no matter how hard they try. Radio chemistry takes a long time to develop and then only under the right conditions. Unfortunately AAR doesn't have the time.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Before we can talk about whose a good personality and who belongs on a talk network, you have to create the solid infrastructure that ensures the networks financial viability and success...that very, very hard with an un-proven product with relatively unproven comodities.

[NuttyFluffers]

11. They should be buying out stations directly.

i expected a station lockout from 'the powers that be' because they are so controversial to the halls of power. obviously there's a market for people. but there's no desire in the part of major station owners.

the best way to circumvent their power is to buy out stations directly. no more silly, fancy pants elitist marketing and pleading others will sell you time. 'the powers that be' are, and always will be, corrupt. the only way to stop that is to play their game and own capital yourself. it's the capitalistic way.

ps: where the hell is my SF Bay Area AAR!!!! talk about a market! argh!

[KharmaTrain]

12. And With Whose Bankroll?

Part of the game the large corporations play by owning so many stations is to jack up the license values for stations that are for sale. This way the Clear Channels protect their investments by artificially propping up the value of their holdings that prop up their stock prices and making it almost prohibitive for smaller companies to compete.

It'd be nice if AAR could afford to buy stations, but right now it's too expensive and foolish. AM radio is a dying medium and the price you pay for the property today is like buying a used car, it drops the moment you drive off the lot. Right now buying AM signals that cover entire metros 24 hours a day are scarce...and in a major market will cost at least $15 to $20 million per station. Want FM? Double that. To cover a large portion of the populated country (East Coast, Midwest, West), you'll still need at least 20 stations...all needing not only to be found and bought (lawyers and brokers fees galore), but then maintained. This means transmitter sites...many that are aging and in some swamp...along with the technical people just to make sure things stay on the air. And we're not even talking about starting up local sales, news and marketing departments.

Yes, I'm a big capitalist. But also a realist. AAR started in the right direction looking to build through broker and to buy time in major markets. Had they been able to do this in at least 7 of the majors when they launched...and maintain each station for a minimum of 6 months, it could enable them to start adding more stations that see this is a stable business venture, not some political or vanity project.

Unfortunately, Bill Clinton helped open the door to the current mess by letting the a large media feeding frenzy happen. At first it was medium sized companies buying small moms and pops and then turned into Clear Channels eating up large size competitors. Each step property values were inflated so everyone made money. Now it retards the growth of alternative broadcast mediums (satellite & internet), locks up hundreds of broadcast licenses and dominates popular culture. Oh well.

I have no idea of the financial structuring of AAR, but the mis-steps that resulted in losing Chicago and L.A. must be quickly overcome with new affiliates, just to keep it from losing even further.

[NuttyFluffers]

13. AAR has been stated

during Al Franken's show, if memory serves me correctly, just the day after this storm reared that AAR was started with enough *emergency capital* to withstand being on the air with their 7 starter stations for 2 years without ads. that is an absolutely enormous amount of capital. they have the money. that is the realistic bit.

sure, we can hem and haw whether they should buy AM or FM station, and which city, but the fact that they have *that much* spare income is astounding. to not outright buy a few stations in pivotal areas is unwise. buying stations in big cities is *always* a good idea, just like real estate. no matter what happens people will *always* need a place to live, just like content providers will always need a station to distribute content. renting = bad, ownership = good. only rent if you can't afford ownership. easy math, especially in a capitalistic society. if AM looks too bad, snag an FM, simple. and if the endeavor ends up failing, oh well they have *real assets* to liquidate. there is *no* bad point to this tactic. and they *have* the money. the answer of what to do next is obvious, let's see if they do it.

[KharmaTrain]

14. Did You Buy The First Place You Lived?

What AAR has said and what's happened aren't always jiving. We'll see how solid the financing is over the next couple weeks. If you were launching a new venture, would you tell prospective listeners, investors, stations and advertisers you were just scraping enough money to get things going? Of course not. So please consider the source when you cite that. As the military analysts would say "the scene on the ground is another story".

I'll share the experiences of several networks that attempted to do as what you're saying. One is the former Radio Unica...a company that thought the Hispanic radio market was paved with gold...and bought stations for top dollar. They were heavily financed as well and three years later the network is bankrupt. I could mention Radio Aahs (the old kids network), too. They got caught up in the expenses of both running the stations and meeting the payments on the notes (rarely does a company buy a station outright...just like buying a house)...again these are heavy expenses.

Also, it's very easy for you or I to spend someone elses money. Or to talk about it. It's another to have to actually write the checks. Take it from one whose seen it way too many times, those who talk big pockets tend not to return calls quickly when you really ask for the money...and are almost impossible to find if you need an emergency fix. Also, it doesn't take much or long for second-guessing and infighting to happen...who spends the money on what and where and who decides. One can assume from the replacement of the top heads of the network last week there had to be some problem in that department.

The goal here is to set up a viable, open alternative to the hate radio that currently exists...and to open a dialogue as to how this goal can be reasonably achieved.

It makes business sense to "rent" to conserve your start-up resources for marketing and programming. Thus, in a previous post, I mentioned a solid 3 hour show is a far more realistic goal than a full-blown network. This is how Rush started and here's how you get inside the beast to get some control over it.

No matter what, AAR lives in a phantom world...one many radio programs and stations live in. It relies on broad interpretations of ratings (since real ones are low or non-existant) and has to float image and goals to create interest. Please don't confuse what is needed for them to market from what they need to do to survive.

[Democat]

16. What is your feeling on sponsorship issues?

Do they have any paid advertising at this point, and, if not, why not?

Are companies afraid to advertise for political/public relations reasons or simply because AAR can't deliver the listenership needed to get the interest of media buyers?

[KharmaTrain]

17. I'm Lisening Closely

I heard a couple agency flights...Comedy Central during the first week but didn't hear any in my listens during their last days here in Chicago. I have heard others...sorry, the mind can't recall specific names, but they sounded like legitimate ad buys...a good thing.

I've worked with syndication and network programming in the past and you have to listen carefully to tell whose ad in what and where and what is an ad and what isn't. For example, XM commercials are in exchange for being on that system and I've heard XM commercials on the webcast (again, part of the agreement).

It's not easy to start up a brand new program, yet alone a network. Having Franken and all the initial media coverage helped, but this is something ad people get pushed at them all the time. It always goes to the bottom line of "numbers" and "track record". It's easier to get an affiliate when you say you have 300 other stations carrying a show than saying you're affiliate number 10. The same goes for advertisers who are going to want to know who is going to hear their commercials. With no ratings, that's impossible to do...the best you can do is project and pray you meet those numbers.

And, yes, Controversial programs always are a very difficult sell. This is especially the case locally. And local advertisers are more fickle since the expense is felt more and they want the most in return. Sadly, liberals are not on the favorite list of some of radio's largest institutional advertisers: banks, car dealers and large retailers. Plus, having Katz, one of radio's largest agencies controlled by Clear Channel doesn't help either.

I'm hoping enough money was set aside...operating capital...to keep the New York station/operation going for at least 6 months come hell or high water. If they're able to do that...and yes, that means not making a penny and having to deal with a lot of long hours and unexpected "surprises"...but as they say "no pain, no gain". For some of us, that is the real challenge.

One last thing...right now is not the best time to launch any media venture. We're still in a major recession...especially in the advertising world. With people spending less, companies are more selective on where they're advertising and almost all of that is now gobbled up by the Infinitys, Clear Channels and other large companies. If this network survives, it's on the strengths of its true beliefs. I honestly wish this happens, it would be truely inspirational.

[Democat]

18. Thanks for the reply and a couple more questions

If they are leasing time on local stations (rather than just having the shows picked up by an existing station), then who is responsible for selling the local ads? Does Air America have an agency representing them or do they have local reps in each market, or how is this all working out?

I agree with you that without the business part succeeding, there is no hope for the network - hopefully they have a real plan.

Are there examples of other networks that have launched in the same way as AAR and succeeded? Someone like Limbaugh was more of a single show than a full network, right? A right wing station like KFI in Los Angeles has a mix of shows - they aren't a single network at the core.

Thanks again for the insight. :)

[KharmaTrain]

19. Thanks For The Dialogue

I've attempted to open a dialogue here on this topic without the emotion and bias that we tend to give to those we want to succede. So many here have had such high hopes/expectations about AAR and they either have or could soon be let down. I'm just trying to examine what happened, so it can be avoided by others in the future and maybe share a little insight into why it happened.

In a broker arrangement, it's the person buying the airtime, just like a time-share, that can go out and sell the airtime and this is how AAR is supposed to cover their bills. Well, they get a majority of the hour. The local station generally gets several minutes (top of the hour, bottom of the hour), and if there's a third party distributor (like a Westwood One), they can also take some "inventory" or commercial time.

From what I could tell AAR has its own Sales Department, and had set up a Sales office here in Chicago (they had hired a local "Station Manager", who I saw interviewed on the local PBS station (I tried to call and email her, she never returned my calls) to find out the structure of the operation. From what I could see, there wasn't much done in this market and now that it's off the air for the forseeable future, I can't see much marketing going on here. I'm not sure about New York, maybe someone inside AAR (and I'm sure they're reading this string) can pop on and enlighten us.

Now, there are three terms here to play with...each verydistinct. There's syndicating a program (one show), a network (several shows...as a Program Provider...ala Westwood One) and a full-blown network that owns and operates its own stations. Rush started as a single program through a new Program Provider with a handful of affiliates and worked hard over the next two years to cover all the major markets of the country (50 stations will do it)...the rest are just filler. From there, the success of that show led to bringing on others that led to the Premier talk network that distributes a lot of the Right wing hate radio shows.

Many stations can "cherry pick" which shows they take, but generally have to clear certain programs to get the ones they want. For example, to clear a Rush in Roastbeef, Indiana, your station may also have to air Dr. Laura or Coast To Coast...kinda like television where to get Wheel Of Fortune, most stations also have to take Jeopardy. It's a goofy business.

As far as business models, DU doesn't have enough server space to jump into that topic right now. :chuckle:

Thanks for your thoughts and reply.

Cheers!

[NuttyFluffers]

22. Yes, very true - it is always hard to start big

i understand what you are saying and i agree with its logic.

but are they lying, that is a fair question. but considering they are paying @ 1/2 to 1 million for rent each month for each station, and are now expanding with 15 minor stations in the following month (hence they must have some serious money behind this, even if the smaller markets are 3/4 to 1/2 million rent per month).

i understand your reservations, but either they have the gutsiest business model on limited resources and are running on good will and credit just about now, *or* they actually have a huge pile of capital behind this. i'm willing to state that they aren't that foolheardy, they seem to be acting as they have lots of capital behind them. though, again, i understand your concerns.

now, as you and i both know, chicago and los angeles are the 3rd and 2nd largest cities in america. they, as you and that article mentioned, are pretty important for the health of this endeavor. so... if you have 2 major markets of major importance, and are actively being worked over by business machinations and bad faith actors and you actually have the money, though it dips into your emergency fund, what would you do? would you consider this an emergency? i would.

i'm not asking them to buy a station in each market they have and will get instead of their content marketing. i'm asking them to realize that they've been pushed to the wall and get up and realize this is an emergency; go out and circumvent this manipulative nonsense in the 2nd and 3rd largest cities and just buy out 2 stations.

[KharmaTrain]

25. Are You Saying Spend Your Way Out Of Trouble?

Pound wise & penny foolish? We don't know the financing structure of AAR, and there has to be some kind of hang-up in this area. Two points.

First, when the network first was starting up, they said they were buying stations...specifically the L.A. & Chicago ones, which were up for sale at the time (actually in bankruptcy). Instead those stations were taken over by Multi-Cultural broadcasting, the company that ended up with them in court.

That leads to part two...almost every brokerage agreement, especially a first one, requires the broker to put up the first month or two or three in cash. Obviously, if it appears the broker has solid financing, you will defer some of that money, but I'm certain, Liu (who has been in the brokered business, and I hear a real asshole, for a long time) wanted his money and couldn't care less about anything else. No money, no show.

What made this L.A. and Chicago fiascos still hazy is that they never did return in L.A. and only were permitted another two weeks in Chicago...neither station made it past the first month. If the time had been paid for, I can't see a judge letting Multi-Cultural toss them any sooner. It'd be like you paying a month's rent and the landlord kicking you out two weeks into that month.

My bets the brokered time isn't as expensive as you estimate. Even with your numbers, remember, when you own you assume lots of other expenses...property, utilities, engineering, legal and a slew of debts and notes from the purchase. This drains a lot of money you can put into hiring two or three good stations relations people, a high-powered Ad exec and focus on selling Franken and Rhodes; right now all they've got to sell.

Yes, it's vital to be in major markets, but it's also where you are in those markets. Advertisers know KABC or KFI or WABC or WOR or WLS or WGN...they don't know WNTD or WLIB. Name recognition takes time to build, and many successful shows that start small spend as much on station relations and "buying" up in markets as they do in anything else.

Finally, I know you didn't post this, but I saw it in the string, about the marketability of a Franken, Rhodes or Schultz. Honestly, there's not much there there. This is more because talk is a local format, not a national one. Yes, I know the Rush's & the Hannitys, but their the exception, not the rule...and all their major stations have locally produced news and morning and afternoon shows that draw the audience to Rush and visa versa. AAR had no local programming that would attract the soccer mom who likes the local weather and chit-chat or the Joe Six-Pack who stumbled across on his way from one sports station to another.

Again, Hate Radio is an industry and world unto itself now. A Liberal network can only succeede by developing along side, not in direct competition...we just don't have the guns to do it. But we do have the talents, dedication, truths and the creativity!

Cheers.

On Edit: If you want a good model of how a station is run and leans liberal, check out both KGO in San Francisco and KOMO in Seattle...both excellent operations. Maybe others know of liberal/moderate talk stations in other markets, I'd like to hear about them.

[NuttyFluffers]

26. I know what you mean, yet...

still i don't find the information adding up in your way. business machinations and double dipping is very bad, but not unheard of. the guy, Liu, was not accepting payment for what they contractually agreed to. he sold air time to both AAR and spanish programming. and then he demanded that AAR pay 1/2 a million more to keep the contract, and if they didn't ante up they would be pulled from their chicago station. essentially a shakedown.

the breach of contract would definitely be against Liu in court, and it was. he had an injunction that led to finishing the month of april (they paid for the month of march before as well, if you didn't know). but since the contract was breached and taken into court the rest of the contract doesn't have to be finished. essentially using your landlord analogy:

they rent for 1,500 a month (spares us some zeros) in 2 apartments in different cities. then landlord in LA rents out to other guy for the same month of april. you have stuff in both apts. you handed in your check, but the landlord says now the rent is 2,000 per apt. this breaks contract. you get mad and say don't you dare do that. he says you'll deal with it or i'll lock you out or your chicago apt. you say no, i'll take you to court if you do. he says tough, throws your stuff and your dog (poor lone chicago employee) out in the street, and has other guy move into other apt and start using your rented utilities. you go to court, contract is ruled to be fulfilled through the end of the month in chicago, and since there's a *breach of contract* you aren't required to fulfill the rest of the contract with the one who breached. you (cohen) decide, hell yeah, screw that guy, no more contract with him. then now you are going to court (still) to determine how LA apt. is ruled (complications with poor other guy, makes things messy) and thinking about compensatory damages (which you won't tell everyone about, due to building your legal case).

it isn't as easy as "oops your wrong, better fulfill your contract!" and everyone goes about their merry way. breach of contract has serious ramifications and gives a chance for the plaintiff to end the relationship. just because they choose to not continue the contract (and they publicly stated that their relationship with Liu is now and forever over on air) doesn't mean they are broke, the sky is falling, and it's all over they better start begging to hawk their goods to any bidder.

i know your concern is real, but be careful about the obvious conclusions spoonfed from the media. reading and listening to multiple sources you start to get a better shape of what's going on. and noticing the absolute glee with which the media and its editorial pundits choose to spin this story should be more than a hint that the "pat" answer isn't so "pat."

and given this mess, and the now ended relationship with a shady businessman, they need to find something more reliable. they *are* in negotiations finding a new station to pick up their goods in these markets. but you and i both know business is filled with a good ol' boy network and ruthless lockouts of power, especially media in america. why petition to the charitability of others and risk the same issues when you *can afford* to just buy out stations in critical markets.

heck, i've just started hearing some *huge* players advertising on AAR, so the money is coming in (Shell, Toyota, etc). now they could go sparingly and rent from critical markets, but since they've been so burned and there's some suspicious machinations fomenting i'd just circumvent the whole mess and own the station directly. sure it'll cost more money (with utilities, employees, etc...), but they'll have something far more valuable: reliability. when time is money, and there's no other business like the media where this is true, why waste time with variables in critical markets? i'd take the hit and shoot for reliability in those markets. so they would have to make a name for themselves, so what. their programming will have to make a name for themselves in that market anyway - few talk AM/FM radio stations in a given city anyway. and nothing disrupts their programming content than bouncing all over the place from station to station (just like the best way to kill a new TV show is to bounce its time slot all over the week). so if it's the content you want to focus on (be it rented or owned station) it needs to have a reliable display. and if you had to choose between rented (and the largess of the owners) and your own station, what would you choose? i would trust myself more and therefore buy my own station in such critical markets.

[KharmaTrain]

27. Thanks For Some Valuable Info...

I'm not judging in the least and am glad to hear what your posting. I was aware of the contract conflict, but this was portrayed as a matter between Liu and Unica and totally removed from AAR.

From what you describe, this is another double-billing game, and I would doubt one bit Liu used AAR to shake down another prospective time buyer and visa versa. That side has never been presented here, or in several of the forum (All Access, Radio-Info)...websites that have been following this situation closely.

The problem is there are "stories" out there and just like how this regime works, it's the lie that travels miles while the truth rarely ever arrives. This also doesn't address the issues of supposedly AAR saying, initially, they had the option to buy those stations. Also, if AAR was the victim here, wouldn't they be entitled to some restitution? Consider the damage done to the company caused by this action, if it was me, I'd be going for major damages and licenses.

On to the issue of owning vs. "renting". If you were talking about setting up a music operation or using it as a long-term invesment, of course, buying is the only way to go. And then, I would imagine, you'd take your time and find the best facilities you can. This isn't the model we're working with here.

Content is what AAR is developing...also a structure, a relationship and going through all the pains any new business venture will go through. That's why I sure hope they have a large wad of cash standing by, you always need it. Also, to assume that it's gonna be months, maybe years until the dollar you send out the door today comes back. Since content is what you need to build your empire around and make it fundamentally strong, that's where all the resources should go. First in creating that content, then making it stable and promoting it.

If AAR is successful, it won't be in the form we see it starting. It will have to grow considerably and onto bigger stations. That's the real Mt. Everest here. Such station, thanks to Clear Channel are precious and few. Fortunately, I think there's a waiting, willing ally in Infinity (they already have a talk FM network...the one that carries Stern in place) but it's too early for them to take the gamble (both financially and politically)...another reason AAR needs to keep going and enhance the product.

There are other alternatives here besides ownership as well. Remember, one thing AAR does own is the intellectual property. They can take it and market it and air it wherever they want. If the shows do well on KPOJ in Portlant, Cheap Channel may take a chance and throw it on in Des Moines...again, staying alive and financially viable is the key for that to happen.

Right now the stations for AAR's pickings are dogs. Those L.A. and Chicago signals were nothing to write home about, and imagine having to pay the $15 to $30 million Liu did for those signals. Even better, AM is a dying medium...the property values have been heading downward for the past 20 years and almost straight down in the past 5...this is like buying property on the wrong side of the tracks.

AAR can play free agent and should...again I go back to saying you didn't own your first place you lived (at least most of us didn't)...and why be weighted down with a "mortgage" and maintaining a house when that money is better spent right now just building up the product. And the product does need work. I think we can all agree on that.

As far as the ads you're hearing, if you're listening on XM or the Internet feed, you're hearing XM placed ads...large flights sold on all the networks or various "clusters"...part of AAR's affiliation agreement with XM.

I just installed Replay Radio here. It's an Internet Radio "Tivo" (hope I didn't violate copyright) I can record shows and listen to them whenever possible (it's hard listening to Franken with others running in and out of an office all day, best heard in a car or late night), thus I'm still tuned in and supportive.

Radio is going through a lot of changes...right now the game is to survive and be ready when the next technical wave rolls through, which is starting to happen.

Cheers!

[Eric J in MN]

15. how many people listen to it on the web? (nt)

nt

[KharmaTrain]

20. That's Hard To Say

I know the network streams through both Windows and Realaudio and through seperate portals...and not sure how many streams those accomodate. Also several stations have their own portals as well that we see people listening to...if these are seperate streams or just re-directs to the other streams aren't clear either. I'm sure someone at AAR could probably give you an estimate.

Right now the number of web listeners don't phase the "media types". Soon it will as more of the large companies are moving into it (part of settling the royalties issue) and more Wi Fi stuff becomes popular.

The great thing about internet streaming is you know whose listening...the bad thing about internet streaming is others know whose listening, too.

Cheers!

[RebelOne]

28. I do, since I can't get it on the radio in my area.

[madrchsod]

21. aar has 2 stations in the entire

middle of the country,enough said.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

23. I listened to Franken this morning.

He was welcoming 2 new affiliates; Sacramento, CA & Alaska. I was hoping things were going well. I also catch some of Shultz' & he's added a couple of affiliates in the last month,