After being very sick for weeks, and having a bad voice as a result, it was good to hear him back on the show and seemingly healthy. He ended up doing a show for about four and a half hours.
The biggest announcement he had is that he's ending his self-titled show this year. He didn't provide an exact date, but he said the show would not exist in 2019.
From what he said, it sounds like there are multiple reasons for this.
His company is a small company. While Leykis has an excellent technical crew, there is still much work he's been doing himself, including customer service on subscriptions, promotion, answering correspondence, getting sponsors, planning events, etc. In order to prevent the business from operating at a loss, he's had to promote subscriptions, plan and host listener events, and other things to bring in revenue. He spent a lot of show time the last quarter of calendar year 2017 saying that if the show didn't have 1,900 subscribers by the end of the year, it was going to end on January 2, 2018, and discussing that with callers. He admitted part of the reason for the business revenues being too low was the loss of a major sponsor.
As he confirmed with his struggling voice in January 2, the threshold was reached. But then, after being on vacation for a couple of weeks already, he was off for another month due to illness. Fortunately, he had years worth of great material to replay while he couldn't do live shows.
Along with being silent, he was also in Facebook jail for an ridiculous amount of time for a ridiculous reason, which made it very difficult for him to interact with his listeners, and it was discouraging about the future since his no-holds-barred content isn't likely to fit with Facebook going forward in a "me too" culture.
Leykis was well aware that some listeners and regular callers were expressing disappointment and doubt about his absence, some even accusing him of "taking the money and running" or some similar tactic. Leykis is very proud in saying "my word is my bond" and if he says he's going to do something, he will. He said he'd be back in 2018. And so he is.
Even if someone wasn't questioning his intentions, it has to be tough to have people talking about your health as if you're about to die. That also has to have bothered Leykis. However, there is probably more truth to the health speculation than Leykis will admit. Even if he's fully recovered from what was a very bad double attack of the flu, he's on the downhill side of middle-age. While he's been eating better, he's made no secret of being overweight and trying to avoid visiting doctors. That's a bad combination. Throw in, perhaps, too much drinking and recreational pot smoking, and he has to be feeling his own mortality when he gets hit hard by a flu.
There's only so much time we have in life. And as Leykis made clear yet again, he's rich and doesn't need to work. While he's loved doing a call-in audio talk show, and he's one of the best hosts ever, he probably wants to spend more time enjoying the money he's earned, rather than sitting in a studio begging for subscribers and dealing with snarky people who are supposedly fans. I sincerely hope he doesn't have a diagnosis he's holding back from his audience. I wish him a long and healthy life.
I had wondered what was going to happen when all of the year-long subscriptions entered into in November and December 2017 expired, because unless there were hundreds of new subscribers coming on board in 2018, he'd be ending the year in the red again and with less time to tell people they need to subscribe. But now that question has been answered. This year is it. No more year-long subscriptions. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the existing subscribers and if there will be a bump up on monthly subscriptions.
In addition to ending the show later this year, Leykis made several more announcements, including:
- No more begging for subscriptions. If the number of subscribers falls too low, that will be when the show's run will end.
- No more begging for phone calls. He'll end the show for the day rather than playing the "intermission" music. He also used to announce the show wouldn't start until enough people were listening.
- Friday is usually not going to have a live show, since it consistently gets significantly fewer listeners.
- Thursday will be "wide open phones" since Friday won't. There was no word either way if this means that the 5pm Leykis 101 class is over, which seems unthinkable.
- Monday will be "Money Monday" the whole show, not just at 5pm. It's very popular. So popular, in fact, that others have copied it.
- No more Gustavo the last Wednesday of the month, which I think was the best announcement.
I expected the book to be heavily promoted on his show, but even if he no longer has his show, he'll probably get a lot of promotional interviews - if the book is ever published.
Leykis claimed he didn't want to stop the show until he got sick and saw some of the reaction to his being sick rather than making new shows. That's entirely believable. But I do wonder if it is possible that, when he said he needed 1,900 subscribers last year or the show's run would end, at least part of him was hoping for something like 1,895 subscribers so that the business deficit would be closed but he would be free to retire and still be true to his word. Instead, he reached 1,900 and in order to be true to his word, he had to continue the show into 2018. After all, nobody could stop him from keeping his word since he owns the show and puts it out through the Internet. But falling just short of 1,900 - that would have been simple, tidy, and going out on a high note. In hearing him talk negatively about what callers and listeners would doing while he was sick, and feeling upset that he has to constantly promote subscriptions and the need to call in, I realized a critic of his might say that he seems to expect listeners to show him the kind of loyalty and affection he teaches them NOT to have about most of their personal and professional relationships.
I see his points, though, and he has every right to end the show. It's his show. He owns it. He's under no obligation to keep it going. He's under no obligation to spend money to keep it going.
Speaking of money, he told a caller he'd need $500,000 to extend the show, but he's not going to put in the effort to raise it. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that his fans will either raise donations or get enough subscribers to sign up to make it worth him continuing the show. I just don't think it is likely. He really put a lot of effort in to get up to 1,900 subscribers.
It sounds like he plans to keep his show archives online for subscribers as long as the subscriptions cover the cost of keeping the archives online for download.
With the changes to the show, I won't have to skip the last Wednesday of the month anymore, but I'll be freed up from listening on Mondays and Fridays.
I hope he's fully recovered and that he's in good health. There's nothing else like his show, and as I've written before, you;d be hard-pressed to find a better host or interviewer. Maybe he'll add an occasional new hour or two to his archives after the show ends as a daily appointment? We'll see.
UPDATE: In talking with his callers, Leykis is making it sound like the reluctance of more listeners and callers to subscribe, as well as some of their speculations and assertions while he was sick, influenced him to make this the last year of the show.
ANOTHER UPDATE
I believe that Tom hastily fired Adam Sacks last year over a disagreement with the political views Adam had supporting Trump. As a result, Tom lost a major financial sponsor of the show. Tom should not have made such a hasty decision to end the Sacks relationship without ensuring beforehand that the loss of Adam’s revenue could somehow be replaced. This is just one of many instances where he has had a knee-jerk reaction to somebody who supports Trump, and now it has cost him dearly. I’m not a Trump fan myself, but I would like to think that I would have more business acumen when making a decision regarding an advertiser I was at odds with. Instead, Tom laid the loss of revenue onto the listeners. I don’t think that was right and appropriate. Like I said, he should have secured another similar advertiser first before severing ties with Sacks.
ReplyDeleteI listen intermittently to Leykis but was never motivated to subscribe. Although he can be entertaining and some of his insights are on target, too much of what he preaches lacks integrity. I don't think it is any great mystery as to why he is ending his venture. I believe it has become apparent to him that he has pretty much maxed out his listener support. If he is going to continue the venture, it will require donating his time an energy gratis. Bottom line is that somewhat less than 2000 people are willing to pay to listen to him and keep him talking. The rest of his audience, though large enough, are indifferent a to whether he stays or goes. That reality has become abundantly clear.
ReplyDeleteI have written to him several times to suggest that if he broadened his topics so as to have a wider appeal, he would likely be more successful. My comments fall on deaf ears. He is a talented enough man and he can be quite entertaining. If he would give the mysogyny a rest for a while and consider some more substantive topics, he could very well broaden his support base. His show is basically "The same ole, same ole" stuff, day in and day out. After a while, it all grows old, fast enough. There is just so much negativity and suggestions which lack integrity which one can tolerate. The fact is that he could easily be very successful if he were willing to appeal to a wider listener base. Instead, he prefers to cater to a very narrow sector in terms of his demographics. These folks, it seems, are simply not willing to shell out in sufficient numbers to pay his fare. Sadly, it is his choice to grind the same axe, ad nauseum, and it is not an especially wise choice for someone as intelligent and entertaining as he is. There are so many other topics he could cover - and cover with his unique flair - if he wanted more paying listeners. Also, a little more lip service to the notion of integrity in dealing with others would go a long way toward enhancing his credibility.
One thing I would dispute is the notion that his show has proven that his form of internet radio can be profitable. I would strongly disagree with that statement, as it applies to Leykis. He claims he turned a profit. His internet radio show is only "profitable" because he does not pay the host i.e. he works gratis. Using his model, the host of any such show which someone might wish to underwrite would have to be paid. In that case Leykis - or someone like him - would need one hell of a lot more listeners than 2000 or so to "turn a profit." He did not even come close to being profitable. Paying a prospective host even $100,000 plus benefits - which is absolutely rock bottom peanuts in this arena - would require an additional 1000 subscribers over the 1900 he has now.......and that is just to break even. Moreover, where would anyone even find a host to work for so little compensation. These folks work for one heck of a lot more than that. Leykis, himself, used to earn an 8 figure income. Hosts of successful radio shows make big bucks; it takes a great deal of talent to pull something like this off.
My own feelings on Leykis is that he is an enormously talented man who wastes his abilities catering to a very small sector of society, most of whom are not willing to shell out for what he is selling. If he channeled his talents in more positive directions, particularly ones which speak to more integrity than that which he currently espouses, he could be far more successful. Personally, I am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
I quit listening because I was tired of the political B.S. if I wanted to listen to a radio show about politics I would listen to FOX, CNN, NPR etc.
ReplyDeleteHe flat out is getting too old. Age has caught up to him and talking trash about Trump didn’t help his cause.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if its age so much as health. I think his health issues at the turn of the year really drove home to him that life is short.
DeleteI also think there's a little bit of ego at work here. He's upset that subscriptions haven't been such that he doesn't need to issue warnings that they are not high enough. He seems to have a dedicated and enthusiastic fan base of many times more than the people who are actually willing to shell out a relatively small amount for a subscription, and that understandably bothers him.
And yes, the Trump thing hasn't helped. It appears to me that he dumped or lost one of his biggest and most involve sponsors over Trump. His rejection of the MGTOW community over the fact that some of them like Trump is a problem. I also think it hasn't been good for his subscriptions in this highly polarized climate. There HAVE to be hundreds of potential subscribers who have said, "Nope... not going to do it because he bashes Trump too much."
It's not like he has to say Trump is OK. He could simple avoid talking about Trump. He could let the Be Funny contributors bash Trump for him. So much of what he talks about can interest people regardless of their political affiliations or partisanship. Of course he has every right to bash Trump. But there are consequences, as we've seen. It's really a shame. He could even have done a separate show, like an hour a week, or whatever, whether live or podcast, about politics. That way, people could still enjoy his other content and they could check in on the political show if they wanted to.
Hate to see Tom go, he is unique and his pet subject: Getting men laid is actually pretty fun, while it can get repetitious, he somehow keeps you listening. I'm not sure why Tom's podcast isn't generating more money for him, the key thing seems to be attracting corporate sponsors which he hasn't been able to do, his primary audience, young males is a desirable demographic so one has to wonder why he can't get deep pocket sponsors to advertise on his show. One could blame the PC climate due to the #MeToo movement but he was struggling to attract sponsors even before that all gained steam. I suspect his 3 yr. layoff was very damaging, he lost his audience and hasn't been able to recapture it, likely due to lack of mainstream media exposure, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the people that listened to him back in the day don't even know he's broadcasting his show online. It just goes to show that mainstream exposure is still an important component for building a mass audience for an internet broadcast. You can blame his anti Trump bias, and I do think that could alienate some viewers, his PC views are often a bit jarring with his other beliefs, but to be dependent on one advertiser is precarious and means his show has always been on shaky ground. It shouldn't be tipped over due to the loss of one advertiser, especially over one aspect of his political beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI do wonder if there aren't some alternatives, I recall him claiming he had offers to do his show on regular radio but the money they offered was so little he felt it was an insult. Maybe he's right but it would still be better than he's doing with his podcast. I also wonder if he couldn't market an edited (profanity edited out) version of his show that radio stations could broadcast. Even if they ran it at 2 AM in the morning people would still listen and seek out his internet broadcast, might be a way of promoting his show and generating a little more revenue. Just a thought, maybe there's reason that wouldn't work I don't know about but it would be unfortunate to lose Tom, I think a lot of young men have gotten themselves on the right path in life due to his advice.
Great points. Thanks for adding your thoughts.
DeleteI see his "more tail for less money" to be part of his overall message: retain control over your own life. Don't spend a lot of time and money chasing women, don't live with women. Be smart with your money. Don't be dependent on on an employer to the point that you can't afford to lose your job and look for a new one. Always look for better employment, even if that is being your own boss.
He tried various ways of getting word out that he was back, but online. He's been active on Twitter, on Facebook (although has faced a lot of trouble with the Facebook censors), he's tried buying some ads (including on billboards). He had a email list built up from his days on terrestrial radio. He's done a few fill-in simulcasts on terrestrial radio.
I realized something a while back and he recently confirmed it on the show: his target audience doesn't make phone calls, so they don't call into the show. People that age text, often emojis or also with pictures, through one program or another. They don't call each other, so why would they call a talk show?
There was also something to be said for someone scanning the dial looking for something to listen to, or having the radio tuned to the station because they'd listened to the morning show, and hearing Leykis. Even if they were outraged, if they listened, that counted for advertising, and if they called to argue, even better!
While his show is generally better in this online format, it has missed out on that, hours set aside for haters, and Flash Friday.
I wouldn't be surprised if he does resurface somewhere, especially since he has a book coming out. But I can also see him happily enjoying a real retirement. I guess we'll just have to see.
I say that Leykis "rules" are bull__ as it applies to himself. I totally agree with him that many women are exploitative and gold diggers but I doubt he has much success in following his own rules. First of all, he does not spend money on them and makes it clear. OK that eliminates the gold diggers once they accept that reality. Next he says that he has no interest in engaging them in any meaningful conversation or interactions. OK so that eliminates anyone who is not a gold-digger but might actually like him for his personality i.e. who he is. They are not going to buy such a scenario. Finally, he says he is not at all interested in whether they are fulfilled with the sexual activity in which he and the woman will engage. OK so if he finds a woman with a mindset that she is only interested in "hooking up" (as is he) even that group of women will not be interested in him. By his own admission, he is not interested in whether or not the experience is satisfactory for his partners.
ReplyDeleteSo then, who is left.......nobody. No one is well served by his approach - not gold diggers, not women who like him for who he is and not women who only want to hook up for one night stands. Worse, he says that he only interacts with 10s or near 10s. Under the circumstances, why would anybody bother with him - what is he offering anyone - not looks, not money, not personality, not even sexual satisfaction for a "hook up."
It all translate to a crock of _____. The likelihood that he is practicing what he preaches is zilch. The odds are that he is breaking any number of his own rules. My guess is that he breaks the rules as they apply to his own interactions with women - either that or be bats zero i.e. there are NO women at all in his life. Precisely what is he offering anyone that they should bother to associate with him even given that the person might like his personality. He is unwilling (so he says) to hold any conversation with them. Again, its all BS - he talks a good game and likely practices none of it.
I think he's telling the truth.
DeleteGranted, his target audience is young men, who would like to be "active" multiple time per week. He's not young. He spends a lot of time at his somewhat isolated ranch. He's battled health problems. So my guess is he's "active" less frequently these days, but he's explained this on the show going back to when it was on radio. He's rich and famous (enough). You don't have to actually SPEND the money on the women. You just have to let them THINK you will. He also said he has little interest in carrying on with the same woman beyond a few months. So, by the time they figure out he's not going to bother spending a lot of time or effort trying to get them off (if they're the type who needs a lot of time and effort) and they lose interest in him, he's already gotten what he wanted.
In my wayward youth, I personally had some success with using SOME of his tactics. Specifically:
1) I decided not to get into an exclusive relationship again (unless I was already almost certain I would marry that woman).
2) I took charge. Rather than trying to discern what the women wanted, I did what I wanted.
3) I stopped caring what the women were doing when they weren't with me.
4) I didn't tell the women much of what I was up to when I wasn't with them, but I didn't downplay the fact I was spending with other women.
5) I preventing them from getting clingy but keeping them at a distance.
6) I kept any expenses on them minimal.
There are probably other things I'm forgetting. It worked VERY well. There were a few women in particular that the less available and more distant I seemed to be, the more they threw themselves at me.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteYou make excellent points (as usual) but I am not certain the bullets you have just outlined address the issues I bring up, as it pertains to Leykis. First of all, he is rich, I will grant you that BUT he is not particularly "famous." The vast majority of persons will have never heard of him. He makes it very clear that he will not spend money on women. Unless they are exceedingly naive, such should be readily apparent to them from the get go. More significantly, he claims he does not engage them in any significant conversation so such behavior would eliminate the vast majority of woman who might actually be interested in him for reasons other than money i.e. they might like his personality.
Nowhere in your list of bullets do you say that you did not engage with women you dated on a conversational level. Finally, no where do you indicate in this list of six bullets that you were oblivious i.e. completely disinterested in whether then derived any satisfaction from sexual encounters encounters with you. By contrast, he does make such statements. You are comparing apples and oranges. As for your philosophy and practices which you just outline, they all make sense. Moreover, I personally know many men who practice just such philosophy. It is not unique to Leykis. Instead, it is very common, in fact.
Of necessity, a man cannot be particularly concerned with what a woman is doing when she is not with him or else he would need to initiate an exclusive relationship with her. If he does not want said exclusive relationship - either with her or perhaps also not with anyone else - he must, of necessity, accept the fact that she also will see others or, at least, that she has the freedom to do so. She may or she may not actually act on that freedom for one or another reason. That being said, a man can't reasonably expect to have multiple women wherein each of them is faithful only to you. More commonly, when a man finds the "right one" i.e. someone he is interested in above all others, he might agree to exclusivity. That or the woman is valuable enough to him - for whatever reason - that he goes through the pretext of monogamy. Men, however, are not for the most part monogamous by nature - at best they practice serial monogamy.
As for the rest of your assessment re Leykis, largely I agree with you. You have good insights and analytical skills. He is at a stage in his life where I doubt he is doing much "dating." He is not in esp good health, and his obesity in combination with his age and the extent to which he smokes pot would likely impact his sexual abilities, in any event. I DO believe him when he says he is happy with the status quo in his life. It makes sense.
"Nowhere in your list of bullets do you say that you did not engage with women you dated on a conversational level. Finally, no where do you indicate in this list of six bullets that you were oblivious i.e. completely disinterested in whether then derived any satisfaction from sexual encounters encounters with you."
DeleteYou are exactly right. Conversation was one of my strong points. And I enjoyed satisfying the women I was with. Both were traits I used to my advantage. Although, I did somewhat use the tactic Leykis touts of saying little that could turn her off, even if saying it would be truthful.
Leykis' system makes sense for someone with his worldview. I do not share the same worldview, and I didn't in my wayward youth. But listening to him did help me to avoid the trap of getting into long-term, exclusive relationships that were not going to work out longer-term. At the time, I'd figured I wanted to marry and have kids, and it wouldn't have worked with any of the three women I had as long term girlfriends. So then I questioned if I really did want to get married and have children, because I had picked those women.
I came to decide I'd only get into another exclusive relationship, and marry, if I found the right woman to be my wife. I mistakenly thought I did.
Between my girlfriends and finding my wife, there were women with whom I purposely avoided getting emotionally serious, largely through using some of the tactics Leykis talked about.
Ken, For sure, some of what Leykis posts makes sense and not just for men - it makes sense for anyone. My issues with him - and the reason I do not support his broadcasts - lie largely with the fact that he promotes a lack of integrity and ethics in dealing with others.
ReplyDeleteHis "brand" is likely just that - content which earned him a living and a very good one at that - at least in the past. His last salary was $400,000 - not exactly chump change. The extent to which he actually practices what he preaches is debatable. Some of it is frankly not workable and requires a considerable leap of faith to believe it so.
He gives excellent financial advise and, again, not just to men. His advise applies to anyone. It is far too basic for me because my net worth is over 7 figures but I got there using much of the practices he advises.
One thing which shocked me about him is that, contrary to what he says, he is NOT interested in articulate debate from those who disagree with him. One time I sent him a private email with suggestions as to how he might attract more listeners. He chose to publish my photo (which he must have researched and found) on his website and invite others to verbally assault me. I guess the thought I would melt and fold. Instead, I started to logically debate both him and the viewers who he anticipated would rip me apart. When he saw that I was holding my own and bringing up logical and valid points, he cut off my ability to respond to posts i.e. shut me down. Fact is that he does NOT want to debate anyone who can spar with him on an equal intellectual level. I was shocked. It became clear to me that if he suspects a person can hold their own with a perspective at odds with his own, he will not take them on in a debate.
Not only was I shocked but I lost all respect for him, after that. My intentions toward him were good, in the first place. Fact is that he will not debate someone who can calmly and logically dispute his points - he runs and shuts them off. That is the mark of a coward.I would never have believed it were I not to have first hand knowledge that such is true.
Tom had a good thing with 101..but as a person is pretty damaged. Getting listeners to gang up on you (and callers in the past) shows his very low self esteem. He isn't as well versed in finance as he thinks he is (he knows the basics and actually gave out some bad advice).
DeleteI have listened to Tom since 2000. He is an entertainer through and through , but above that he was a great talk show host.
ReplyDeleteIts a real simple dilemma he faces. Call it what you want, a retirement, a reaction to his recent sickness, it is nothing but "going out of business".
There is not enough revenue to maintain the costs and generate a profit worth his effort. Simple.
I really believe pre-Aug of 2016 he was unstoppable. But it was from my perspective harder to tune-in for the following reasons :
1) Advertising was uninteresting and over-repeating. At the very least, he could have made an effort to change the advertising message. There are advertisements I can recite word for word, pause for pause.
2) Lack of focus on his listeners. Money Monday, Adam Sacks, 101 & WOP was great. The hard to listen to amateur "Make me laugh" was stupid. We were considering advertising with him and just couldn't get past that aspect of his program.
3) Subscription based business model. This is a hard to pull off and he over-estimated the loyalty of listeners. Most listeners are young guys, and from their calls, in low income brackets, who listen to him for advice. These are not people with large expendable incomes and while they respect him, they are just not prone to subscribing when they weigh the value vs their return. When you live in Michigan, Florida, or Toronto and are 23 years old, why pay a subscription to listen to a free show? and the "benefits" of a subscription - being cheap event tickets - will never be applicable to you because you live in a complete different city ?
4) AND THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT and THE NAIL IN HIS BUSINESS COFFIN - as he vested into the 2016 Election, he became abusive with callers who opposed a view. Sitting on the other side of the "radio", I couldn't believe he would dismiss listeners (AKA Clients). There were instances he would hang-up or put them in such a position over the elections that they could never call back or probably tune into his show. He forgot the backbone to his business was "call ins" & his demeanour was unwelcoming to a discussion. My point is validated as there were day’s no-one was calling in. He even said it himself that he knew how many people were listening and no-one was calling in.
TRUMP is an obsession with him and he would go on ranting how he hated him. OK, we got it, but how much can someone keep listening? Became repetitive. A co-worker is die hard Trump hater stopped listening as it became more of a political show then for what it was originally. A great listening experience with a point of view on relationships brought forth by Tom and his Callers.
There was also a sense of betrayal to his listeners for after decades of talking down the importance of women in power & labeling them “human toilets” (his own words) – he was siding with Hilary.
There is also the FACT that he subscribes to Trumps perspective of “grab them by the p__sy”. I’m not talking about the violent connotation of this, but Trump pretty much stated a line right out of Toms show when he claimed that Women love men with money and power – enabling him to “Grab them by the P__sy”.
Trump also mocked a disabled person pre his election. Again this aligns with Tom’s comments and reference to disabled people as “Crips” (his own words).
So, imagine the confusion of his listeners when you factor all this in.
In the end, Tom was a great entertainer & talk show host. In today’s business & entertainment environment, that’s just not enough. You have to be astute to your listeners interests and he just hasn’t shown that (from my perspective) in a couple of years. He made a much better talk-show host then he did a businessman.
I agree with most of what you wrote.
DeleteI think he would have been better off doing a separate political show, maybe once a month or weekly or whatever. So much of the rest of the show appealed to people regardless of their politics, and then to take the stances and tones he did about Trump was bound to turn off a lot of potential subscribers and callers. It reminds of how he tried “Ask the Atheist” and it didn’t work. I mean, what’s left after he says, repeatedly, something like “I don’t know and neither do you."? It might have been worthwhile for him to get a decent Christian apologist or at least a Theist philosopher to debate him on the show, but then he’d have to deal with someone who can actually argue, rather then someone who says “I believe it, and that’s enough.” or “It’s just a matter of faith.”
I don’t know for sure what caused him and Adam Sacks to part ways, but if I had to guess it would be Trump, and Leykis making it more of an issue than Sacks. From what Tom himself has admitted, losing Sacks as an advertiser was a significant blow.
I don’t care for “Be Funny” at all, because I listen to talk shows for information and insight; to get differing perspectives and learn from the experiences of others. “Be Funny” is pure entertainment, if you like that sort of thing, and it is often “funny” for “inside” jokes, which more casual listeners are not going to get. And yet Leykis says “Be Funny” is the most popular segment of his show. Go figure.
You are exactly right about his target audience and their habits. That demographic is making fewer and fewer phone calls in general. They’re content to listen to the show and tweet about it. And pay for the show? They don’t even pay for their porn. Yeah, they (or their parents) pay for cable and/or Internet, but they look at that like a utility, like paying for water. They consider it a household expense.
As I’ve said before, I think Leykis is very talented and his insights into media, especially radio, are something I find fascinating. His personal experiences with women and what he advises now are all compelling audio. I think he could have kept this show going for more years if he done a couple of things differently. I don’t think it is a good idea to ridicule your listeners and potential sponsors, or lecture your listeners about calling or subscribing. But he knows what he wants and he’s the guy with the experience, and he apparently would rather not do the show at all than to have done those things differently.
i see we are aligned on many of these. too bad that he didnt pick up on it
DeleteThe last couple of days I've seen tweets from him blaming Trump for things he really should know are can't be blamed on Trump. I mean, they are things that have always happened. He's just trying to rile up someone to get into an argument or block them.
DeleteNow that he's going to end the live show in a week and start doing a paid subscription-only podcast that will likely be shorter and will cost much less to produce, it will be interesting to see what happens.
Now that people "must" pay to hear him, he may get more subscribers. But he's likely to lose a bunch, too, because if their credit card changes and they lose their subscription, it isn't like they can listen to the live stream and be reminded/convinced by his lecturing that they should renew. But with lower production costs, he won't need as many subscribers.
Ken, I think the bottom line is that Tom does not want to work for less than xyz and he has come to the realization that his current business model is simply not going to produce that revenue. He is used to working for a huge six figure salary (he says it is 7 figures but such is likely puffing on his part)and he simply does not want to work for less. On some level, I don't blame him. He has invested wisely and, now, he does not need to work. I can relate to that concept; it applies to me, as well.
DeleteLeykis cannot generate the revenue he wants and he is somewhat bitter or, at very least, disappointed, on that count. Such is life. His past salary was earned in a different era and under a different business model where sponsors paid huge sums of money to radio stations which, in turn, could pay large salaries to talk hosts and DJs. His experiment to recreate those same dynamics via a privately-owned venture failed and so be it - nothing ventured, nothing gained. He tried and it did not work. I am surprised it still works for Howard Stern but apparently it does. Stern causes Sirius subscriptions to be much higher than they would be without him. For that reason, I dropped my Sirius subscription. It is too high for its value to me.
Leykis has deluded himself into thinking his venture was profitable for six years - it was not. If he was in the black it was only because he took zero salary for himself and his efforts, instead, living on his investments. I believe he simply grew tired of working for nothing and then begging people to purchase his product. I am surprised, in fact, that it took him 6 years to get fed up with that dynamic.
My biggest beef with Leykis has to do with ethics and hypocrisy. He bitches and complains about people treating him unethically i.e. "free-loading" his content yet he constantly advocates unethical treatment of others via his "teachings." He advocates deception and duplicity in dealing with others esp (but not exclusively) with women. He speaks to strategies to decrease person's self esteem and also strategies lure them into engaging in acts which they will "regret for the rest of their lives." In short, he widely espouses a philosophy which treats others in an unethical manner yet he, then, complains when those same dynamics are used on him. Hypocrisy at its finest. As some would say: "what goes around, comes around."
Do I enjoy listening to Leylis - absolutely so. Will I become a subscriber so as to continue to do so. Absolutely not. His content is simply not worth (to me anyway) the asking price to purchase it. I purchase content in the form of a monthly subscription to O'Reilly, The Great Courses, PBS Passport, Accuweather Premium, NYT and Audible. I have monthly subscriptions to all of these services because I consider the content I get to be worth the price I pay. What would I pay for Leykis podcasts - perhaps $3.00 (tops $4.00 but that would be pushing it, for me) per month and only if I could access the entire library ad lib. If he charges any more than that for his content, it would simply not be worth the money for me, anyway. I shell out much more for my other online subscriptions but Leykis content is simply not worth his asking price, from my perspective.
BTW, Ken, you were right about Leykis being sarcastic in his comments concerning Gary and Dino purchasing real estate in Malibu and Belaire, respectively. I was totally off the mark in taking him literally. Your assessment was better than mine. Good pick up on your part.
Thanks as always for your analysis.
DeleteWith Stern, Sirius paid him a pile of money and isn't he working something like 3 days per week, on the weeks he does work? I don't have Sirius, so I have no idea if he's plugging any personal business on the air, like archives for sale and such, which is another reason to stick around.
Tommy is a big Hypocrite (Pun intended). The guy is a splitting image of Trump and bashes him..Hmm maybe he is a self loathing person. Tom talks about illegals like it is something we should do without borders...remember Tommy freak out over the dog on his property? Trump won the election and killed Tom's show. Baahaaaa! Love it!
Deleteunknown makes some excellent and cogent points. I personally tune out when he gets on the "I hate Trump" soapbox and likely I am not alone. Adam Sacks was great; it was a mistake to let him go. I had contacted him several times with suggestions as to how he could make his programming appeal to a wider audience without changing his basic message. He rather rudely advised me that my suggestions were not worth considering because I was not a part of his targeted demographics. As unknown has aptly pointed out, his "targeted demographics" audience members are not overly inclined to shell out while programming suggestions put forth from those who do not fit his preconceived notion of "targeted listeners" are not worth considering.
ReplyDeleteThe heyday of the old style business model which paid him a salary of $400,000 per year has come and gone. He is not capable of generating revenues with his current business model and so be it. At least, he had the good sense to invest his monies when he was, in fact, a high wage earner so that he is free from the need to work for pay today. His business venture may have failed but he won't be hurting financially.
He can get rather short with someone giving him advice. Along the same line, if someone hasn't read the exact same material he has, he brushes them off as completely uniformed.
DeleteWoe to the person who suggests he publish any video or have live video. So many other audio show people have, so whenever a caller suggests he do the same, they are baffled by his dismissal.
Ken, I think the bottom line is that he is quite angry that after 6 years or so, there is scarcely enough listeners who are willing to pay for his content so as to break even. I do believe he anticipated that there would be many more. In part, it may be due to issues which "unknown" outlined above. I also think that the problem for him is, in part, that many find him entertaining but his content is unappealing from an ethics perspective for many. It is one thing to listen and be entertained and quite another to actually shell out and support his programming which is to, de facto, support his (arguably unethical) views.
DeleteIn support of this position is the fact that Leykis recently announced that Gary just bought 10 acres in Malibu and Dino just bought a home in Bellaire. Both of these places are enormously expensive and likely an income sufficient to purchase such real estate must be coming from revenues generated by their show ie The Gary and Dino show. Leykis can't possibly be paying both Gary and Dino a salary sufficient to enable a purchase of 10 acres in Malibu. So, then, it stands to reason that the Gary and Dino show must be generating substantive income - such is in direct contrast to the Tom Leykis show which goes begging to meet a minimum of 1900 listeners.
Both Gary and Dino are, like Tom, enormously entertaining but they don't esp advocate nor promote anything which would be at odds with someone's ethics. Such an issue does not even surface on listening to content put forth by Gary and Dino but it certainly does so with respect to content on the Tom Leyis show. Tom promotes much of what many would find at odds with their own values
I'm pretty sure that comment about Gary and Dino was sarcasm. I heard it when he said it (I only heard it once, so if he's repeated it I don't know.
DeleteLikely, he said it once where you and I heard the same content as you did. I did not get the impression that he made the remarks in the context of sarcasm. It seemed fairly straight forward to me. In support of the notion that he was NOT being sarcastic, sometime later - I believe a few days later - there was a comment about the irony of Dino picking out granite countertops. If Leykis was making a sarcastic remark about Gary's financial success, it would serve to put Gary in a very unfavorable light. I just don't think he would do such a thing in front of countless number of listeners. He is fond of Gary and appreciative of his services. I just don't see him ridiculing Gary in public. Gary would not tolerate that kind of abuse. Also, Gary does not strike me as someone who would stay in a dead-end job. I could even see Dino (who I like) doing so but certainly not Gary. He is far too smart for that. Far more likely, Gary gets a decent salary from producing Leykis' show and then, on top of such, he is pulling in money from his Gary and Dino show.
DeleteBottom line, Leykis is used to pulling down $400,000 and he is a hard worker who loves his work. He does not love it so much, however, so as to work for peanuts..........nor should he. He is unwilling to change his formatting so as to have a wider appeal and speak to a wider demographics. That being the case, his only other option is to abandon this particular project. Leykis is not lazy so likely he will come up with something else he wants (and likes) to do. His former financial success as a "shock jock" simply did not translate well for him in the context of a small business which he owns and operates. What works well in one venue did not convert into a profitable venture when moved into another venue.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete