Is talk radio for men?
It's obvious that, at the moment, it mostly is. The trade Talkers Magazine claims in its (always somewhat suspect) Talk Radio Research Project that males listening to talk radio outnumber females 54% to 46%. Others have reported an even larger spread.
Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher opined in Slate a few years go that the gap on the radio isn't between liberal and conservative, it's between men and women. Liberal talk might make it if execs could figure out how to attract women, who tend to be more liberal. Older, conservative men listen to AM talk, he says, younger, liberal men listen to FM shock talk like Howard Stern or Tom Leykis. "Dr. Laura and a handful of other advice yakkers pick up some middle-aged women," Fisher writes, "and NPR skims off the high-end demographic. But the vast majority of American women still use the radio for music and a bit of news. Put your money into cultivating new forms of talk for women, and you're far more likely to hit pay dirt than with this cockeyed liberal [talk radio] notion."
Bill Virgin in his "Radio Beat" column in the Post Intelligencer, reported last week that a new Seattle company not only agrees with Fisher, but has put some dough and energy into bridging that gap.
GreenStone Media, the creation of some veteran radio folks and high profile women, has a lined up some shows it hopes peddle to program directors around the country to create a "mass appeal format for FM radio- expressly for women, by women," in the 25-54 demographic.
It's the creation of president and chief executive Susan Ness, a former Federal Communications Commission member; and Edie Hilliard, a former Jones Radio executive.
According to the Washington Business Journal, investors include Billie Jean King, Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, Rosie O'Donnell; Marta Kauffman, the creator of "Friends"; Jamie McCourt, president of the Los Angeles Dodgers; and Wallis Annenberg, vice president of the Annenberg Foundation.
Virgin writes:
It's not that women haven't made it nationally as talk hosts. Relationship consultants Laura Schlessinger and Joy Browne, political commentators including Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes and Laura Ingraham, sports-talker Nanci "the Fabulous Sports Babe" Donnellan and technology-show host Kim Komando come to mind.
But what GreenStone believes is lacking, and the niche it hopes to fill, is a single source of 24-hour programming with a perspective provided by female hosts and aimed at female listeners.
LaMarca says the idea is to move talk radio back to what it was before politics swamped the format, to more general-interest discussions. Those interests, for women listeners, range from relationships to entertainment to personal finances to current events. Women "want to talk about news, but not from a political point of view," he says. The television equivalents would be "Oprah" or "The View," although as LaMarca says with those programs "you can't really talk back" to the hosts, as listeners can with talk radio.
Music, they're saying, has lost its "uniqueness on the air" after the "advent of satellite radio, the iPod and streaming."
So far GreenStone's programming lineup (the shows will be produced in New York and Los Angeles) includes a morning show hosted by comics Maureen Langan, Cory Kahaney and Nelsie Spencer. The midmorning show will be hosted by Lisa Birnbach, a writer perhaps best known for "The Official Preppy Handbook." Comedian Mo Gaffney heads "The Mo & Friends Radio Show" in the afternoons. GreenStone hopes to add a fourth show by midyear.
We don't know if this will work, but it certainly has the potential of not only winning women back to talk, but perhaps plumping up talk radio in general which has been flaccid for a year or so.
We're all old white guys around BlatherWatch, so as long as we can get our ears on a radio format swamped with politics, we certainly don't mind women getting what they want, which is something we famously have never been able to determine.
I'm not quite sure what to think about this. As a middle-aged woman, I'm sure I'd enjoy this format at least part of the time. I remember when KIRO had a host, Jennifer James, that dealt with relationship matters (this was in the early 80's) and would certainly like to see at least some of this type of programming.
But I also kind of resent the implication that women aren't interested in politics or in what is going on in the world. Almost like the bad old days, when voting and politics were for men only, and women weren't supposed to worry their pretty little heads about such stuff. Yuck.
There are many women interested in these things. But we probably don't want to listen to talk about politics 24/7, especially since a lot of it is just talk, with no one actually doing anything. Some of it can be repetitive, with people calling in saying the same things and talk show hosts responding the same way. Most women have very busy lives and don't have time for a lot of blather going nowhere.
But certainly we want to know what's going on in the world, and, maybe, what we can do in our lives to affect what's going on, even in a small way.
This new station sounds like it'll have a variety of types of shows, so hopefully they'll include at least one host with a political slant of some kind.
I can't wait to see what they'll come up with. Hopefully it'll be available for online streaming if a station here doesn't pick it up.
Posted by: Norah | March 22, 2006 at 02:08 AM
I had on frank this morning from KIRO its been nice. late night with fast, fact , Frank ! the talk show host that lets you talk ! thanks Frank!
Posted by: Brian Lacey wa. | March 22, 2006 at 03:08 AM
Agree Norah for the most part. I think attracting women in general is a very complex challenge.
Women are much busier in the main than men. At least, that has been my experience.
Also, I find that I have a much harder time listening to women's voices overall. The Young Turks is an example: I listened last Saturday and if they don't lose that shrill, hysterical-sounding, sarcastic and superficial Jill, I'm gone. Some women do have it down: Stephanie Miller, Flanders (good voice but not crazy about her show), Rhodes (again good voice, but not crazy about her show), Jennifer James (one of the best!), and others . . . but not many.
I am interested in the Dean Adell kind of nutrition program; and, love hearing talk about exercise - the physical/medical insider stuff on fitness; a little bit in problem/relational talk; politics; authors/book talk; nothing else comes to mind. I'm tired of the old Hollywood/celebrity thing. And I sure don't want a gossipy show! As much as I love politics, I don't like the "To The Contrary" on PBS Friday nights. I started out liking it, but it got old fast. (No, I don't want Washington Week in Review or any of the other pundit shows either- got tired of all of them! - too "inside the beltway" for me.)
There is a magazine out there trying to appeal to woimen called Seattle Woman and they are having some difficulty narrowing down what women want and attracting an interested readership as well. So much of what women listen to and read is defined by their priorities: children being the main one (all the publications aimed at kids seem to attract moms) so a show about child rearing might do well. But, one just aimed at "women" in general? I don't know about that.
Finally, as a teacher of a pretty prosperous group of parents, it is still the moms I see the most even when they, too, have full-time jobs.
Posted by: joanie for PugetSound | March 22, 2006 at 07:28 AM
Just read the Marc Fisher article and I've never thought of it that way. Kind of mind opening . . . I do remember from 2004 that Bush attracted a lot of Christian moms and that was one - just one - of the differences.
I was also thinking about my own circle of friends and how much we don't talk politics when we are together. It is always revisiting the past, talking family, what's going on with people we know, garage sales/collectibles/interests like those . . . Never anything serious or argumentative. Women are natural compromisers and negotiators!
Radio may never capture "women" but I hope that doesn't mean we aren't informed. Afterall, in 2004 women made the difference in Washington State for Kerry.
Posted by: joanie | March 22, 2006 at 08:18 AM
There's only so much you can say about politics before it becomes boring. Most of the men's talk shows keep making the same points over and over--women don't have time for that. But we do keep up with what's going on in the world.
Whatever they come up with isn't going to attract all women. For instance, kids--not all women have kids, and some have grown kids. But if they include things on childrearing it's probably going to interest a large majority of women.
Posted by: Norah | March 22, 2006 at 08:41 AM
An all-women-all-the-time network?
Ick.
I agree with Joanie and Norah...why does someone think that women want to listen to something other than what is available for men? All we need is the radio equivilent of TV's Lifetime Network and its " women in peril" theme. Oh I know, we could call it the Estrogen Network with perky little 20 something hostesses who talk about clothes and their husbands leaving the toilet seat up, and how to get little Bobby to eat his vegetables.
Ick Ick Ick
I posted a few months back about how the Today Show used to do the hard news the first hour while the Man of the House was preparing to go to work and the little woman was too busy attending to kids and breakfast to watch. After Man went to work and the little woman had time to sit down, the Today Show shifted to the cooking segments, movies, etc. because that was more what she was interested in.
Sigh...Im not a radical women's libber by a long shot, but it just seems that is was all for nothing...we seem not to have progressed very much.
Posted by: sparky | March 22, 2006 at 09:06 AM
Norah,Sparky: What will attract more women to radio? Or are we attending to other things?
Posted by: joanie | March 22, 2006 at 09:32 AM
So where is Jennifer James anyway?
Posted by: David Tatelman | March 22, 2006 at 09:44 AM
Don't use the SateliteSisters as a model for a format--BOOORING!
Posted by: chris | March 22, 2006 at 10:13 AM
RonandDon.com RIP 2006
I did it! I forced them to shut that juvenile site down.
Now, my mission is to get them off the air. This isn't Kindergarten. Let's have smart intellectual talk.
Women don't lsten to talk radio because there are no women hosts. The hosts now spew out the same crap hour after hour.
Posted by: The Anti KIRO | March 22, 2006 at 10:25 AM
oh the satellite sisters is EXACTLY what I mean by Ick Radio.
Joanie..the things that interest me are the same things that interest men, I guess, in that I want to know what is going on in the world without some "female spin" done to it. I just think it is insulting. If I want to know about clothes, makeup, bedroom tips, etc. I can go buy a Cosmo.
This whole thing reminds me of those PINK, smaller sized yard tools that I assume are targeted toward wimmin because we are delicate little things who need a lightweight Pink Shovel to dig our ladylike hole in the ground.
I want the media types to just give me information, not pander to me :-)
Posted by: sparky | March 22, 2006 at 11:55 AM
I disagree that women dont listen to talk radio...where do you get that information???
They may be less likely to call in to a host but that doesnt mean we aren't listening?
I LOVE to listen to politics !
Posted by: sparky | March 22, 2006 at 11:58 AM
First off, I don't see why a 54/46 split is indicative of a problem. How does 46% female listenership make talk radio a man's world?
Do we really think that in a perfectly free society, that women and men would behave exactly alike?
Like wage disparity, this is a classic example of mistaking aggregate disparities in the free choices of individual men and women for inequity. I also question the business case for creating niche markets to address perceived social inequities. After all, to the degree that women want programming targeted at women, wouldn't radio programmers profit by providing it? (And, as the article's author notes, we already have these niche shows, albeit presumably created to make money, not save the world from patriarchy.)
In aggregate (sparky notwithstanding), women are more focused on the domestic sphere and men on the outside sphere. Having to do with the disparate costs of child-bearing between men and women during our evolution, as well as the role of prestige (in men) vs. fertility (in women) in mate attraction. That's why (generally speaking) men dive into the pointless pissing contest of argument radio, while women go "meh."
As a fan of both diversity and individual liberty, I find those who have made it their life's mission to enforce absolute uniformity of behavior between men and women to be profoundly creepy.
Posted by: Anonymous because who cares? | March 22, 2006 at 02:24 PM
Sparks, I agree with the Ick factor...I am a Sigh... radical women's libber by a very short shot, and, yes, it just seems that is was all for nothing...we seem not to have progressed very much. Without burning bras here, the idea that women's interests are so markedly different than men's, is, well, sexist. Maybe the age range factors into the market's dilemma...those of us under 25 or over 54 (c'mon, raise your hands) are, most likely not engrossed with the raising of kidlets, and our true female passions are flowering and being watered by men's passions. Jennifer James is doiung seminars and lecturing, BTW...
Posted by: Fremont | March 22, 2006 at 02:26 PM
Fremont says:
Without burning bras here, the idea that women's interests are so markedly different than men's, is, well, sexist.
Nobody contends that women's interests are utterly different than men's, just somewhat different. With all vast political and legal gains women have made in the U.S. in the past century, a 54/46 split in a dubious radio listenership poll makes you conclude that it was "all for nothing"??? What planet do you live on?
"Yeah, we got legal equality, voting enfranchisement and comprehensive anti-discrimination statutes, but only 46% of talk radio listeners are women!! We might as well be living in a fundamentalist rape camp!"
Posted by: Anonymous because who cares? | March 22, 2006 at 02:34 PM
Anon, thanks for emphasizing the rather small difference in numbers. I had missed that this morning and agree that perhaps this is much ado about nothing.
On another thread, Michael asked what KIRO should do to increase its numbers. I suggested niche programming. I still think the days of waking up and listening to Frosty Fowler and KING (that's what my mom and dad did) are gone. It was light news, chatty, always positive and companionable 60's radio.
Again, women are busy. I do know that of my parents, at least a third are in the age range from 35 to 49 and I teach first grade! Maybe they like politics and may they don't. Maybe we are just all different. I like this blog because my friends don't really like to talk politics. I don't know why.
I sure thought the breakdown of what men listen to was interesting. I had never thought about Leykis and liberals. I used to really like Leykis and listened routinely until it became all about sex all the time! That got to be a turn-off for me. I listened when Leykis first started in Seattle. I've always been an AM radio listener. But, I know that is not true of many of my friends. So, who knows. I guess we are just all different!
Posted by: joanie | March 22, 2006 at 05:37 PM
Anonymous said : That's why (generally speaking) men dive into the pointless pissing contest of argument radio, while women go "meh."
On that we agree 1000% which is why I have not jumped in on the Lou is shit/ Lou is God argument. I'm really hoping that soon you boys will start pissing on each other over something else...
Posted by: sparky | March 22, 2006 at 05:42 PM
Fremont, you expressed that far more eloquently than I...Im not in the over 54 bracket just yet but we ARE in a group that is ignored by the marketing community. That is fine with me, actually.
I used to listen to Jennifer James a lot and I liked how she forced people to examine their motives behind their actions. I didnt agree with everything she said, but she did make points that have stayed with me to this day.
Posted by: sparky | March 22, 2006 at 05:51 PM
Silly people...
Girls just want to have fun!
Talk radio isn't fun.
Posted by: cindy lauper | March 22, 2006 at 06:15 PM
sparky said:
"On that we agree 1000%[...]"
It's nice to see some agreement for a change. :) Be aware, though, that the concept you are agreeing with (biological differences explaining social disparity) is a pretty devastating critique of modern feminism. If you agree with this critique when it serves you (women aren't argumentative jerks like men) then, in order to be principled, you must agree when it doesn't serve you (gender wage disparity is not a problem).
Don't get me wrong, I believe women should have all the rights of men, and the law should be as gender-blind as possible. But it doesn't follow that we need to pursue radical social reforms every time a gender statistic doesn't come out a straight 50/50.
"I'm really hoping that soon you boys will start pissing on each other over something else..."
You are one kinky chick...
Posted by: Anonymous because who cares? | March 22, 2006 at 06:48 PM
Kinky, yes. Inconsistant, no. Perhaps I am not expressing myself clearly. The past 6 months for me has been such that I have had my priorities reorganized and so as much as I enjoy this blog, I really dont give a rat's ass who listens to what! :-) That doesn't make for very exciting blogging on my part, I guess. ( oops, excuse me B'Mike, I am the responder, you are the blogger!) I am happy with my choices and I just dont feel compelled anymore to try to win people over to my side. But I really enjoy ( usually ) watching those of you who do, which is why I keep coming back.
Posted by: sparky | March 22, 2006 at 07:04 PM
Oh and my " its been all for nothing" comment, which Fremont understood, is more of an observation of a number of things in our culture these days that seem to be cemented into the psyche, regardless of how hard our foresisters and foremothers worked. A pink shovel is just a symptom of a larger problem.
ok so maybe I am more of a libber than I thought..lol...
Posted by: sparky | March 22, 2006 at 07:14 PM
>>>In aggregate (sparky notwithstanding), women are more focused on the domestic sphere and men on the outside sphere.
I don't think you can generalize like that! There are many women who are very interested in the outside sphere, and many men who could care less about politics or what's really going on in the world.
Just because fewer women care to listen to (mostly) a bunch of men blathering on and arguing about politics, doesn't mean that women don't care about politics. I think women choose to show it in a different way. What exactly is accomplished by calling a radio host and arguing with him (and I do mean him, since they're mostly men). It's mainly for entertainment, like watching TV or listening to your iPod.
The people who are making a difference are probably out doing something to make a difference and not listening to talk shows as much. These probably include many women.
That said, if women are more concerned with domestic issues, it might be because (some) men are less concerned with them and someone has to pick up the slack. If you're working a full time job and raising kids besides, I would imagine you wouldn't have much time to listen to talk radio, and certainly no time to call and wait endlessly to get on the air. (I don't have kids so I can't say for sure.)
As a woman, I personally like listening to political talk on talk radio occasionally, but would like to hear more women hosts. I also wish there were more liberal hosts, but that's just me.
As far as people caring about what's going on in the outside world, it would be interesting to know what percentage of men vote, as compared to what percentage of women. Voter turnout has been very low in some elections. Also what percentage of men vs. women are involved somehow in the political process, even in a small way such as volunteering time to a political group for a few hours a month or something.
What about men who watch sports constantly? It may seem like involvement in thte outside world, but it's really just escapism. (Not that I don't watch sports myself! I'm just saying...if someone is going to say women generally don't care about the outside world, then it seems they could also look at what percentage of men are really involved or knowledgeable about it as well. Whether or not they listen to talk radio....
It seems like politics is just another version of sports to some men. Talk radio is entertainment, not indication of who cares more about the outside world!
Sorry to rant, but I get a little tired of the argument that women don't care about what's going on in the world.
Posted by: Norah | March 23, 2006 at 09:29 AM
Norah, google CNN 2004 election and you'll get a breakdown of men/women voting and one state by state as well. You can find out how many men vs. women voted and lots of other interesting comparisons as well. You can find out nationally and state by state. Interesting to compare WA state to national profile.
I don't think anyone believes women don't care what is going on in the world but they do practice their politics and perhaps get their information in different ways - just as you said.
Posted by: joanie | March 23, 2006 at 09:42 AM
Norah said:
"I get a little tired of the argument that women don't care about what's going on in the world."
First of all, nobody said that women don't care about what's going on in the world. I said that, in general, women are more focused in the domestic sphere than men, and for perfectly legitimate reasons. You may be tired of hearing it, and you may know people that don't fit the generalization, but neither is relevant. A survey of thousands of years of human history across all cultures supports my position.
You conjecture that women only focus on the domestic because men won't pick up the slack. When are women going to quit blaming men for the consequences of their free choices? Part of freedom is taking responsibility for what you do with it.
The simple fact is, at this point in history and in this country, if women want to have kids, they can, and if they want to have careers, they can. They can do anything they want--but they can't do everything they want, because one choice carries opportunity cost for another. If you want to focus on raising kids, it will cost you in your career. If you want to be CEO of HP like Carly Fiorina, it may have an impact on your home life. But these are your choices to make, and it is not syptomatic of male oppression that there are not 60 hours in a day for women to do all the empowering activities that the feminist movement has told them is their entitlement.
I'm an old-school feminist. I think that women absolutely should have all the opportunities of men. But this also means they should have the responsibilities of men, first among which is to be personally accountable when they fail, rather than pointing the finger at someone else.
Posted by: Anonymous because who cares? | March 23, 2006 at 11:27 AM
Say what you will, but Shiers is not that bad. His topics are dry at times, but believe he is generally good to the callers allows a dialogue between him and the caller and doesn't allow boring monologues - which is good. Politically, he is an evil conservative, who therefore must not be that intelligent... Styble - 2 minutes of him is enough, he needs to take Ritalin.
Posted by: KS | March 23, 2006 at 12:13 PM
Norah, with some creative dial hopping you can hear a lot of women on the air, depending on your tastes in radio...
I start the morning at 5 am with Rachel Maddow, then listen to Stephanie milller...my radio doesnt work inside school so I have to wait until I am driving home to get Randi Rhodes on KPOJ ( I have a GREAT car radio), then I can listen to Amy Goodman on the TV at home before catching the end of Randi Rhodes until 7 ish when I can stream Janeane Garafalo on AirAmerica on my computer. On the weekends there is Laura Flanders and depending on what station you get, Mother Jones.
So....if you are persistant and if you like what AA has to offer, and I realize not everyone does, you can just about have all women all the time. Personally, I never miss Tom Hartmann when I am home because he has gender neutral topics and lots of women call him on his show.
Posted by: sparky | March 23, 2006 at 12:43 PM
I think you have to have a certain personality type to have concern for politics when you aren't specificly being asked to choose one in an election, and I don't believe most woman or even men are of that personality type, but even fewer woman.
You have to have a personality type such that you feel empowered and in control simply by being aware of something even if you have no direct influence over it. You suck up information even if you have no intention of using it. Most people don't think this way, and they pay more attention to matters which they have direct influence over.
Posted by: Andrew | March 23, 2006 at 12:54 PM
"...Shiers is not that bad."
Yes he is.
Posted by: Dana | March 23, 2006 at 01:14 PM
"...Shiers is not that bad."
Yes he is."
That's your opinion. Do you have any concrete examples or just opinions ?
Posted by: KS | March 23, 2006 at 02:43 PM
I'm sure that my rightwing Blatherwatch "rat pack", who run after me squeaking and nipping at my heels after my every post believe I'm a dreaded "lib" but I'm actually an independent. That's why I'm not surprised that The Sheriff soundly defeated Dave Ross. The guy's got the kind of fuzzyheaded "Seattle" thinking that really gets annoying at times. For instance today he defended illegal immigrants by saying he wanted them to all hold a three day work strike in the state, and if there was no effect on the economy ok then go after them . If there was we all should shutup. Come on Dave. Only an Air America simpleton would be impressed by that fallacious, "straw man" argument. If greedy , unethical employers have been allowed to transform large sections of our U.S. economic sectors (i.e. 14% of the construction work force)into havens for illegal immigrant workers, then of course there would be disruption if you pulled those workers out all at once. That doesn't mean what they are doing is legal or right, or that mOST of those jobs wouldn't be filled by legal workers if laws were enforced and attractive non-depressed wages were offered. Come on Dave.
Posted by: Tommy008 | March 23, 2006 at 03:41 PM
"Do you have any concrete examples or just opinions?"
Yes -- listening to him.
Posted by: Dana | March 23, 2006 at 05:38 PM
"Yes -- listening to him." Just an opinion.
I say the same thing about Air America.
Posted by: KS | March 23, 2006 at 08:09 PM
KS: I have lots of examples . . .
putting people in "time out" is condescending
calling poeple buddy when they are not his buddies . . .
his constant "now, now . . . "
Thinking he's an expert on everything:ex: on one show about the WASL, he constantly repeated that assessments, tests, etc. are routinely called "instruments" by teachers. We haven't used that word for at least twenty years! (it may still hang around but is hardly current jargon) . . .
Ex. 2: several times I've heard him try to impress with his legal opinion because "my dad was a judge" and on one show he had a lawyer who was actually a friend of his but who had the temerity to tell him that well, he "wasn't quite right . . . "
Also, it seemed to me that every time he read a book, it became his gospel. It was as if he would read one book and become an expert on the subject of the book. Can't remember specifics here but do remember talking back to my radio several times when he did this. One book and he's an expert!
Sorry, wish I could remember more . . . I finally had enough and quit listening. He was just too smug and condescending for me. A little like the contradictory "Anon because who cares" but seems to spend of lot of time and effort doing just that! (LOL)
Obviously, somebody likes him because he is still on the radio! But, he's not my cup of tea.
Airs of superiority and acts of condescension are a turn-off for me.
Posted by: joanie | March 23, 2006 at 08:13 PM
Your examples are examples, but most are seemingly petty. Does this have anything to do about his political views being different from yours ? One thing is that they usually stimulate thought. I don't agree with some of his politics, like his take on Iraq. He does the "now" "now" it sounds like tongue in cheek, but alot of times the callers sound stupid and boring, so he is in the position to be the moderator. That is why I like the commmentators on KOMO because they have no callers, but they are informative. Yeah, I notice an air of condescending ex-schoolteacher at times, but overall better than the Ron&Don-drek, NYVinnie and Styble and on a par with the 9-12 weekday slot.
Posted by: KS | March 24, 2006 at 08:35 AM
KS, different strokes for different folks. You asked for examples of why I do not like the man. The reality is that petty or not, they caused me to turn him off.
Posted by: joanie | March 24, 2006 at 09:48 AM
I originally asked Dana who didn't come up with anything. Case closed.
Posted by: KS | March 24, 2006 at 09:56 AM
Joanie... In the future, kindly make sure you get KS's permission to have an opinion.
Posted by: sparky | March 24, 2006 at 10:03 AM
I think the same applies to me too--I can't have an opinion without first clearing it through KS. :-)
Posted by: Dana | March 24, 2006 at 10:23 AM
Likewise, guess I need permission from all of you to have an opinion, because it may be different from yours. The point is that to recognize that there is a difference between fact and opinion.
Posted by: KS | March 24, 2006 at 10:42 AM
Good read. You've been linked and there is some commentary here:
http://www.talkradiodaily.com/c/news/talk_radio_how_long_will__6q.cfm
Posted by: ian | March 24, 2006 at 11:30 AM
Recently Modavox (Voice America) joined forces with Greenstone. They tell me that they are grooming potential hosts for Greenstone, which interests me alot for my own show (in Portland - see link).
BUT they also say they need 6800. bucks from me for the initial 13 weeks of broadcasting (and then take it from there, with no promisies).
My question is - does this feel right to you? I have already produced my show for five years and feel I have a full package. I would love my show to go to Voice America or Greenstone, but is this a common practice to get a foot in the door?
Posted by: eva | March 09, 2007 at 11:28 AM
eva, email Michael directly and ask him what he thinks. Maybe he could find out for you. Try it. Posting on this thread, your question might get lost.
Posted by: joanie | March 09, 2007 at 05:13 PM
Thanks Joanie! I appreciate the advice!
Posted by: eva lake | March 09, 2007 at 05:25 PM