Rush Limbaugh Ratings Dropping Like a Rock

[Jerry]

He had several eruptions like this, he still does podcasts, but you have to pay and I hear they suck.

You don't have to pay if you torrent.

 

[Jerry]

Why are you talking to a banned member?

"Banned member" is a misnomer. You can't ban people, only disable accounts. Just because an account is disabled doesn't mean a person can't make another. Sure they might get caught, but they might not. One reason to quote them is just to say something on-topic. The OP of one my regular necros is banned. Another reason to quote them is just to irk them if they see their old account being quoted, knowing that they can't say what they want to say in response because part of making a sock is changing your style.

 

[Zyphlin]

You convently didn't include the part of my post where I explained why I couldn't get current ratings, that's dishonest. The fact that he is the #1 talker doesn't mean he isn't going down. The other conservative talkers get moved to the same crappy station.

Actually, less dishonest and more a mistake. I didn't read the start of your post that closely when I saw you were uselessly just reposting your year and a half old data as some kind of argument. So I will admit, that was my error.

So if we can't get his absolute ratings, all we can go off of is industry rankings...which still has him as the #1 most listened to talker in the nation. THAT is actual factual evidence that his listenership is not "flaming out". All you have is speculative annecdotals based on your amateur opinion; one that is inherently biased in attempting to save yourself from having to admit that your claim a year ago was off based and your claim recently doubling down on it was also off base.

Ratings are not in any way, shape, or form the singular indicator of why a station flip may occur. As you routinely allude to, the potential that certain advertisers don't want to be on his show could have an impact...one that has zero to do with ratings. It's possible that a format flip for some stations may have been occurring. It could be that there's an FM band carrying his show that reaches much of the same range of audience and thus they were looking for a product to differentiate themselves. It could mean that a local station felt a less rated talker that wouldn't cost the same amount of rights fees as Limbaugh would be a better option. It could mean that they've decided that a locally focused show as opposed to a national one would be more appropriate (For example, this has happened with the 5:00 to 6:00 PM hour on the WashDC AM conservative talker).

To suggest that some stations moving away from Limbaugh automatically equals his ratings are significantly dropping is ridiculous and is the kind of blinder wearing style of logic used only by someone desperate to scrap together any semblance of an argument for a failed point.

The reality is that Limbaugh is no where near "flaming out". At best/worst, he's definitely down from the absolute heights he was once at...but to describe that as "flaming out" is akin to suggesting that the Sears Tower "dwarfs" the Empire State Building. It's a misuse of language that false represents the relative scale that's being discussed.

 

[Zyphlin]

For example, lets look at the much hullablaooed about Boston flip. While I haven't been able to find show specific info, I have been able to find station specific.

In the June of 2015, the last full month while Rush was still on the station, WRKO 680 had a rating of 2.9

In July, they then fell to 2.8

In August, they fell to 2.4

Then in September they dropped yet again, to 2.1

If they made the switch from Limbaugh because of "ratings", they apparently made an amazingly bad business move. Now if they made the switch from Limbaugh because the broadcasting fee and required amount of advertising time they had to allot to his advertisers was simply too expensive compared to what they'd get out of a lower rated, but cheaper, show....then it was a good business move, but not one motivated by poor ratings, nor a sign of the show "flaming out".

(Numbers source)

 

[jmotivator]

The audio was out there, he just would go insane, and it was the off air stuff during the breaks that was just crazy. Lots of screaming, swearing, etc. He thought he could be an actor, got a bit part in a TV series that tanked, and just kept getting angrier and angrier and burning bridges. He hated his fans, and they responded.

You can find details on how to download here: Phil Hendrie Show Fans ? View topic - Phil "leaving" radio, going online only

His show only really worked when he was fooling some call in that his guest was a real person. In the online version he doesn't take calls and tries to do an ensemble show with a cast of characters that just doesn't work.

He's just one of those guys who is as troubled as he is talented.

 

[Zyphlin]

Now lets look at Indy for fun as well. They flipped over starting in July as well. Now unlike Boston, I haven't been able to find June's data, but the trend is still apparent:

July rating - 5.5
August rating - 4.7
September rating - 4.9
October rating - 3.7

Ratings difference since not renewing with Rush? About a 30% drop.

Now is this all due to the switch from Rush? Of course not. New programming in general takes some time, as does "rebranding" which is what both of these stations did (again, another factor in not renewing with Limbaugh beyond simply a claim that it's due to "ratings"). However, it's indisputable that they've taken a ratings hit since moving away from his show, which indicates that if the primary reason they moved away from his show was ratings then they had some pretty horrible business people running those radio stations.

 

[US Conservative]

For example, lets look at the much hullablaooed about Boston flip. While I haven't been able to find show specific info, I have been able to find station specific.

In the June of 2015, the last full month while Rush was still on the station, WRKO 680 had a rating of 2.9

In July, they then fell to 2.8

In August, they fell to 2.4

Then in September they dropped yet again, to 2.1

If they made the switch from Limbaugh because of "ratings", they apparently made an amazingly bad business move. Now if they made the switch from Limbaugh because the broadcasting fee and required amount of advertising time they had to allot to his advertisers was simply too expensive compared to what they'd get out of a lower rated, but cheaper, show....then it was a good business move, but not one motivated by poor ratings, nor a sign of the show "flaming out".

(Numbers source)

A similar thing happened with KFI in so cal. When Rush left, it had a massive drop in ratings.
Readers give their reasonings for KFI ratings drop: commercials, Rush Limbaugh and more

 

[pbrauer]

Actually, less dishonest and more a mistake. I didn't read the start of your post that closely when I saw you were uselessly just reposting your year and a half old data as some kind of argument. So I will admit, that was my error.

So if we can't get his absolute ratings, all we can go off of is industry rankings...which still has him as the #1 most listened to talker in the nation. THAT is actual factual evidence that his listenership is not "flaming out". All you have is speculative annecdotals based on your amateur opinion; one that is inherently biased in attempting to save yourself from having to admit that your claim a year ago was off based and your claim recently doubling down on it was also off base.

Ratings are not in any way, shape, or form the singular indicator of why a station flip may occur. As you routinely allude to, the potential that certain advertisers don't want to be on his show could have an impact...one that has zero to do with ratings. It's possible that a format flip for some stations may have been occurring. It could be that there's an FM band carrying his show that reaches much of the same range of audience and thus they were looking for a product to differentiate themselves. It could mean that a local station felt a less rated talker that wouldn't cost the same amount of rights fees as Limbaugh would be a better option. It could mean that they've decided that a locally focused show as opposed to a national one would be more appropriate (For example, this has happened with the 5:00 to 6:00 PM hour on the WashDC AM conservative talker).

To suggest that some stations moving away from Limbaugh automatically equals his ratings are significantly dropping is ridiculous and is the kind of blinder wearing style of logic used only by someone desperate to scrap together any semblance of an argument for a failed point.

The reality is that Limbaugh is no where near "flaming out". At best/worst, he's definitely down from the absolute heights he was once at...but to describe that as "flaming out" is akin to suggesting that the Sears Tower "dwarfs" the Empire State Building. It's a misuse of language that false represents the relative scale that's being discussed.

You have to be kidding, ratings are everything in the broacasting business. Without the ratings advertisers will not advertise or pay as much. Rush will remsain at the top because the other talkers are on the aame station. IOW, Rush is draging them down. Rush has been removed from his flagship stations in Boston, New York and Los Angeles stations.

 

[Zyphlin]

You have to be kidding, ratings are everything in the broacasting business. Without the ratings advertisers will not advertise or pay as much. Rush will remsain at the top because the other talkers are on the aame station. IOW, Rush is draging them down. Rush has been removed from his flagship stations in Boston, New York and Los Angeles stations.

No, they're not. Do you know why? Because of something you just indicated....advertising. And more specifically, money.

Theoretically, ratings = money. However, that is not an absolute formula. Some shows cost money to simply have the rights to broadcast them, which means that a show that costs less but still has lower ratings and generates lower amounts of advertising revenue may STILL be more financially viable in a single isolated market. Additionally, some advertisers have taken a stand on an issue completely unrelated to ratings. This is something you yourself point out when it suits your purposes, but seemingly ignore at other times. Advertisers who have begun to boycott Limbaugh's show because of the Fluke issue or others aren't doing so because his ratings are poor, nor would they likely flock back if his ratings were big...their belief is that the overall damage to their brand by being associated to him isn't worth the exposure. Again, not a direct correlation to ratings. Furthermore, shows like Limbaugh actually eat into the advertising base that you have, as to broadcast his show you have to allocate [x] amount of time to HIS sponsors and commercials rather than your own, where as going with a lower rated local show where you can control 100% of the advertising and get 100% of the advertising dollars may again prove to be more beneficial.

Attempting to describe it as singularly ratings based is frankly absurd, and some of your own posts in this thread and elsewhere even back that notion up.

As to Boston, go look up above. His former flagship has actually been doing worse since their "rebranding" where they moved away from Rush and most other nationally syndicated talkers and have instead switched to a local format.

 

[pbrauer]

A similar thing happened with KFI in so cal. When Rush left, it had a massive drop in ratings.
Readers give their reasonings for KFI ratings drop: commercials, Rush Limbaugh and more

That's not what that article said;

So, if KFI’s programming has not changed, the hosts have not changed, the world for the most part has not changed, what accounts for the decline? KFI has been in the top three far too long and was the overall No. 1 station in town until recently.​

 

[Zyphlin]

Looking at that link and going by Pbrauers apparent standards, it looks like KFI is "flaming out".

 

[US Conservative]

That's not what that article said;

So, if KFI’s programming has not changed, the hosts have not changed, the world for the most part has not changed, what accounts for the decline? KFI has been in the top three far too long and was the overall No. 1 station in town until recently.​

"OK, hard times is too harsh. It’s not like KFI has gone down the toilet. They are still in 13th place overall with a 2.8 percent share of the audience of listeners aged 6 and over in the September ratings released last week. But this represents a 33 percent drop since March’s recent peak of 4.2. What is most odd: with few exceptions, every daypart — meaning every show — is down, and down about the same amount no matter what demographic is studied.

"
Pete, odd how you left the next sentence out. Seeking to change context is what you do. A 33% drop is massive in the radio business. KFI was the number one talk show station in southern california-a large market. And it was reduced to lower ratings than Pasadena city college radio.

KFI used to be known for its controversial hosts, but they have replaced it with homogenous crap and their ratings have suffered. Rush is one of those reasons for the decline.

 

[pbrauer]

No, they're not. Do you know why? Because of something you just indicated....advertising. And more specifically, money.

Theoretically, ratings = money. However, that is not an absolute formula. Some shows cost money to simply have the rights to broadcast them, which means that a show that costs less but still has lower ratings and generates lower amounts of advertising revenue may STILL be more financially viable in a single isolated market. Additionally, some advertisers have taken a stand on an issue completely unrelated to ratings. This is something you yourself point out when it suits your purposes, but seemingly ignore at other times. Advertisers who have begun to boycott Limbaugh's show because of the Fluke issue or others aren't doing so because his ratings are poor, nor would they likely flock back if his ratings were big...their belief is that the overall damage to their brand by being associated to him isn't worth the exposure. Again, not a direct correlation to ratings. Furthermore, shows like Limbaugh actually eat into the advertising base that you have, as to broadcast his show you have to allocate [x] amount of time to HIS sponsors and commercials rather than your own, where as going with a lower rated local show where you can control 100% of the advertising and get 100% of the advertising dollars may again prove to be more beneficial.

Attempting to describe it as singularly ratings based is frankly absurd, and some of your own posts in this thread and elsewhere even back that notion up.

As to Boston, go look up above. His former flagship has actually been doing worse since their "rebranding" where they moved away from Rush and most other nationally syndicated talkers and have instead switched to a local format.

The fact that WRKO is not doing very well maybe because it's a consevative talk station. Anyway could you please tell me why they pull Rush on one of the worse stations in Boston which was a Spanish speaking station before Rush. His station in LA is similar they changed the call letters to KEIB and still the station is awful both in reach and ratings.

 

[US Conservative]

The fact that WRKO is not doing very well maybe because it's a consevative talk station. Anyway could you please tell me why they pull Rush on one of the worse stations in Boston which was a Spanish speaking station before Rush. His station in LA is similar they changed the call letters to KEIB and still the station is awful both in reach and ratings.

Across the US conservative talk show stations lead the market. This must infuriate you.

 

[pbrauer]

Looking at that link and going by Pbrauers apparent standards, it looks like KFI is "flaming out".

Rush is not on KFI anymore, his LA station is KEIB. Which is rated near the bottom at #37

 

[pbrauer]

Across the US conservative talk show stations lead the market. This must infuriate you.

I couldn't care less.

 

[Zyphlin]

Rush is not on KFI anymore

Yes I know, and as the article pointed out...since Rush has left, KFI's ratings has been going down. While that all can't be attributed to Rush, it can't be discounted either. Which indicates that it's essentially now a third station that either:

1) didn't make the decision because of ratings or;
2) did make the decision because of ratings, and were just really stupid as their new direction is doing worse ratings wise.

 

[Zyphlin]

The fact that WRKO is not doing very well maybe because it's a consevative talk station.

Except they were a conservative talk station BEFORE they got rid of Limbaugh, and their numbers weren't dropping at a similar rate. So this logic doesn't work.

It's funny. You claim you can't find any ratings data to back up your worthless double down on your previous bogus claim. Then when I actually show you some factual ratings information of the stations directly after they stopped airing Limbaugh, showing that they actually started doing WORSE in the ratings after that point, and you just hand wave it away.

You made an idiotic claim, rightfully got called on it, and now are desperately flailing to try and make your point with inconsistent arguments and fallacious logic.

 

[roughdraft274]

Rush Limbaugh is really hurting in the ratings category, the following graphic says it all. The golden microphone is flaming out.

There's no shortage of gullible redneck moron's. Limbaugh will be just fine. He might not be quite the same powerhouse, but any liberal talking head would give their left nut to have his impact on politics. But sad for them, liberals aren't typically as gullible.

 

[pbrauer]

Except they were a conservative talk station BEFORE they got rid of Limbaugh, and their numbers weren't dropping at a similar rate. So this logic doesn't work.

It's funny. You claim you can't find any ratings data to back up your worthless double down on your previous bogus claim. Then when I actually show you some factual ratings information of the stations directly after they stopped airing Limbaugh, showing that they actually started doing WORSE in the ratings after that point, and you just hand wave it away.

You made an idiotic claim, rightfully got called on it, and now are desperately flailing to try and make your point with inconsistent arguments and fallacious logic.

You found a way to get the ratings? What are the current ratings for station KEIB? Better yet, you could give me the link so I could look them up myself.

 

[pbrauer]

For example, lets look at the much hullablaooed about Boston flip. While I haven't been able to find show specific info, I have been able to find station specific.

In the June of 2015, the last full month while Rush was still on the station, WRKO 680 had a rating of 2.9

In July, they then fell to 2.8

In August, they fell to 2.4

Then in September they dropped yet again, to 2.1

If they made the switch from Limbaugh because of "ratings", they apparently made an amazingly bad business move. Now if they made the switch from Limbaugh because the broadcasting fee and required amount of advertising time they had to allot to his advertisers was simply too expensive compared to what they'd get out of a lower rated, but cheaper, show....then it was a good business move, but not one motivated by poor ratings, nor a sign of the show "flaming out".

(Numbers source)

I missed your link, however at the bottom of the list is WROX with a rating of .4.

 

[US Conservative]

There's no shortage of gullible redneck moron's. Limbaugh will be just fine. He might not be quite the same powerhouse, but any liberal talking head would give their left nut to have his impact on politics. But sad for them, liberals aren't typically as gullible.

Liberals aren't gullible, which is why they like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. :lamo

 

[rocket88]

Liberals aren't gullible, which is why they like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. :lamo

The non-gullible conservatives support a toupee. Which is, of course, way better. :lamo

 

[pbrauer]

:mrgreen:

For example, lets look at the much hullablaooed about Boston flip. While I haven't been able to find show specific info, I have been able to find station specific.

In the June of 2015, the last full month while Rush was still on the station, WRKO 680 had a rating of 2.9

In July, they then fell to 2.8

In August, they fell to 2.4

Then in September they dropped yet again, to 2.1

If they made the switch from Limbaugh because of "ratings", they apparently made an amazingly bad business move. Now if they made the switch from Limbaugh because the broadcasting fee and required amount of advertising time they had to allot to his advertisers was simply too expensive compared to what they'd get out of a lower rated, but cheaper, show....then it was a good business move, but not one motivated by poor ratings, nor a sign of the show "flaming out".

(Numbers source)

They didn't take Rush off WRKO because of a fee, they took him off because Entercom owned the station and they put their guy, Mike huckabee, on. They moved Rush to their own station WKOX which is very weak. The signal strength for WRKO is 50KW while it is 5KW for WKOX. Also WRKO is positioned much better on the AM dial. Stations higher on the AM dial are attenuated much more. WRCO is 680 on the dial while WKOX is 1430. Premiere radio networks. Didn't put him on one of their better stations.

 

[Zyphlin]

I missed your link, however at the bottom of the list is WROX with a rating of .4.

Indeed it is. And if you were suggesting his ratings were down in those specific cities after the station flip, I'd say you're absolutely correct. What I was illustrating, and what you're purposefully being obtuse to, is that contrary to your claim that falling ratings last year was spelling his doom and that's why they dumped him it would seem logical that the reason he was dumped had nothing to do with ratings. Why? Because Ratings became even WORSE for each of the stations you mentioned AFTER they got rid of Limbaugh. This suggests either that those stations are run by an incompetent person that believed getting rid of Limbaugh would help their ratings and were clearly wrong...OR...that the decision to move on from Rush had to do with things OTHER than ratings (cost to rebroadcast the show, issues with advertisers, rebranding, a desire for more local radio, etc).

Also, I don't know where in the world you're getting your information but it's horribly incorrect. As I said, WRKO began a change towards a more local focused format. When they removed Limbaugh they revamped their programming to be more local focused. They started a morning show, "The Boston.com Morning Show", focused around local issues. Similarly, during Limbaugh's former time slot it is not Mike Huckabee as you suggest, but rather Jeff Kuhner. Again, a local radio host doing a local, not national, show.

Additionally, as it relates to his "flame out", this is not the first time Limbaugh has gone to a weaker station in Boston. Long before Sandra Fluke was even known on a national scene, Limbaugh was moved to a different station in Boston for two years as WRKO tried a different format and Premier sought to try a purely syndicated conservative talker on a weaker station to see if it'd be viable. After two years, Limbaugh moved back to WRKO. Limbaugh's change in one market to a weaker station didn't signal a "flame out" then, and it's not indicating one now...especially in the more modern era when there are a multitude of other avenues to tune into the show.

So since you seem to be having a very hard time understanding my point, let me spell it out for you:

1. There has been no indication that Limbaugh is anything but still the #1 rated radio talk show in America on a national level and you've shown nothing to discount that.
2. That describing a show remaining as the #1 rated talk show a year and a half after you declared it "Flaming out" is like suggesting the Sears Tower "dwarfs" the Empire State Building.
3. That in the few isolated incidents where Limbaugh's broadcast rights were not reupped and he was moved to a lower power station with less access to listeners, there is no clear indication what so ever that the decision was done because of poor ratings.

The declaration that he was flaming out is simply and utterly false. The show is continuing with significant success. If the Patriots lose one game, they are not "flaming out" this year. If Apple has a down quarter, they are not "flaming out". Moving off of some high powered affiliates, which wouldn't be the first time it's happened as noted above, is not some proof that your claim from a year ago...that based on his ratings the show is "flaming out"...is in any way correct.