Heavy Lifting

[il_es_douche]

Days before taking over Stern's old show, old Diamond Dave said that having a radio show "isn't heavy lifting." Corrolla, Rover and others didn't preceed their awful radio shows with retarded statements like that. Perhaps THAT'S why Dave is the brunt of post-Stern criticism.

[Nickdfresh]

Yet his ratings are higher than Corolla's, and Stern has really not brought that many of his fans over to satellite...

One statement really justifies Roth being portrayed as the scapegoat and whipping boy of the CBS asslickers??

[il_es_douche]

One statement does NOT justify the CBS reaction (they're asswipes, agreed) but it does explain why he's getting the attention. Dave deserves more time, but he has also made it easy for the suits at times with the amateur comments he's made. I've heard at least two interviews in which he's essentailly admitted that (his honesty is one of his better qualities).

By the way, Stern has brought 30% of his audience over to a PAY service. I'd say that's a fucking success for three months.

[TAKIN WHISKEY]

Stern, sex sex sex. How about we talk about Dave getting blown from 5 chicks at one time. Then he did lines off their ass then he filmed them dress like a nurse then he went on stage!!! Maybe it would sell but to him it's not a fantasy, it's just a part of his past and to him it might not be that stimulating to talk about.

[FORD]

Originally posted by il_es_douche


By the way, Stern has brought 30% of his audience over to a PAY service. I'd say that's a fucking success for three months.

I'm not so sure about that. Granted, Howard's going to have a hardcore audience. He's been in the business over 20 years, so of course he's going to take some audience with him. That would be the case if he had moved to the radio station across the street, or to a paid subscription such as Sirius. It's not like Sirius (or XM for that matter) are a bank breaking cost for most of us, and you get a lot of other great channels with either network.

But some of Stern's audience were listening just because Howard was "there". Their local station carried him, so they listened and preferred him to whatever else was on in the morning in their area. I could have listened to Stern, but his show was too NYC-centric for me to care about at 6:00 in the morning.

CBS did a lot to break up their potential audience pool by replacing Howard with several different shows, rather than one. I would listen to David Lee Roth if he was on in my market, but I don't care to listen to Adam Carolla. Ironically enough, Carolla's not even on the local CBS affiliate here, he's on an Entercom station. But not the same Entercom station that carried Stern, oddly enough. Which also accounts for some loss in audience continuity.

CBS deliberately shot down their audience potential by doing all this, and they're assholes if they want to blame declining numbers on Dave - or on Corolla or the others, for that matter.

Howard Stern didn't build his audience in 3 months. Nor did Mush Limpdick or anyone else considered successful in radio. CBS needs to back the fuck off and let all of these new guys create their own fucking shows and grow an audience, for at least a full year if not longer.

[il_es_douche]

You're making some good points, Ford. My only point about Stern is that he isn't failing and I think that's because the format he's switched to and the history he brings with him has created a fair set of circumstances for him (and, yes, I think because he's good). Roth is not everything I'd hope in a host, but he's also been gyped: he should be given a year, I would think, before CBS comes down on him in any substantial way. My question is: if CBS fired Roth and stole his money AND he were willing to give this thing another shot what could HE do differently in order to capture an audience?