Jay Mitchell's Radio Rants

Stop the Lies!

2011-05-10T04:41:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago in the newsletter I was raked over the coals for mentioning that Mike Huckabee said, wrongly, that Barack Obama grew up in Kenya, and for a swipe at Sarah Palin, arguably undeserved. The following email came in around that time, but was buried in my spam filter. I have no desire to reopen the debate in the newsletter, but I think the email, and my response, deserve an outlet. And this is it.

The Letter

I read your explanation of the Huckabee dust-up in this week’s newsletter and I think that many of the readers of your publication feel that you do have a political position that you have eluded [sic] to many times in your past newsletters.

The comments about Palin were not the first time that many of us “dumb hick conservatives” have sensed a certain leaning towards the Left by you. Maybe you aren’t aware of it, but many of your past editorial comments have made sly references to the fact that you think guys like Rush or Hannity are bad for radio. I personally don’t care what part of the political spectrum you reside in, but for hundreds of small stations like mine who serve very rural and VERY conservative parts of the country, we are rather tired of being branded as unsophisticated or backwards for believing in some of the principals of conservative politics like a smaller government and not spending more money than you make.

We discussed this point once before when you wrote negatively of the state of today’s talk radio and I stated that if it weren’t for guys like Rush, we would have been off the air years ago. And with our demise would have disappeared local weather every hour, local news every hour, live coverage of the local sports teams and the only information outlet that is focused on just our small community.

I graduated magna cum laude with a degree in Journalism from the Henry W. Grady School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Georgia - one of the most prestigious journalism programs in the country. I’m not some country bumpkin with a transmitter and a tower in the collard patch out back. If that is the kind of broadcaster you think of when you picture the guys who air Rush, Hannity, Boortz, Levin, Beck, etc. on their stations, then you are sorely mistaken.

There is a real fight for ideology in the U.S. right now not unlike the Civil War. The two Americas are very polarized. And because of this, we have to have public discourse that is sometimes not very pretty. But I would rather us shout at each other instead of shoot at each other.

Jeff Lovett
President /General Manager
WGRA Radio

My Reply

Jeff,

Your email got buried ... I just found it tonight ... and wanted to let you know I didn't deliberately not publish it.

You make some good points about perceptions vs. "reality" (whatever that is). I have never, would never, and don't think it's right to, think of anyone as a "dumb hick conservative." I've heard that reference before, and I think it's a label that some people think is being applied to them, more than people actually apply it. (At least I'd like to think so.)

Unfortunately, as you point out, we live in an era of extreme intolerance ... and it greatly annoys me when the Ed Schultzes and Bill Mahers and Keith Olbermans talk about conservatives like it's a dirty word, in tones dripping with disdain ... just as it annoys me when the Limbaughs, Hannitys and O'Reillys refer to liberals the same way.

By the way, who came up with those terms, "conservative" and "liberal"? They are inherently prejudicial to begin with.

Hey, I owned radio stations in small markets, so I know first-hand how people in those communities think and feel - how I think and feel. But there's a big difference between the world we live in and the world occupied by the aforementioned radio/TV people, plus the Boehners, Pelosis, etc.: We could never get away with telling lies to our neighbors. When we see each other every day - at Rotary or Kiwanis, the Chamber meeting, the Friday-night games - we would be called out, if not outright ostracized, for the kind of shameless, obvious whoppers that our national talkers and political leaders feed us every single day.

I have www.factcheck.org, www.politifact.com and www.snopes.com bookmarked on my computer and whenever a politician says something I wonder about, I check it out. (FactCheck, for one, is from the Annenberg Foundation, and nobody would ever accuse them of being liberal!)

Okay, so I don't take anything at face value. Does that make me a liberal? I hope not! Especially since everybody lies.

By the way, my stations did not carry Rush, not because of his politics but because (a) he cost a lot of money and (b) businesses shied away from advertising on his show because he was too controversial - including those who agreed with him. We did, however, carry nearly every other conservative host ... and I can't think of one liberal.

Sorry to take up so much of your time, probably beating a dead horse. Whether "conservative" or "liberal," if everybody would listen for the lies and half-truths instead of maintaining that "all conservatives are always right and all liberals are always wrong," or vice-versa, we could have meaningful, respectful discussions that could really move our country forward.

Best wishes,

Jay

The Gift that Keeps on Giving

2010-08-05T03:00:00.001-07:00

A few days ago I received a nice gift from my friends Stuart Sharpe and Shayna Sharpe at Regional Reps: a coffee mug.

Now before you conclude that devoting a blog post to somebody giving me a promotional mug is a waste of precious Internet resources, let me explain. (By the way, it is predicted that the Internet will be swallowed by the sun in a mere 2 million years. Consider yourself warned.)

TOXIC SLUDGE CONTAINER

First, the mug was sent via U.S. mail in a box with no packing material whatsoever, and yet it arrived unscathed. I have sent indestructible lead weights via U.S. mail, with bubble-wrap, peanuts and boxes within boxes, and they still managed to break in transit.

Second, the mug could not have been more timely: my old “I Heart Tony Hayward” mug inexplicably developed a leak about three and a half months ago.

Ignorance of History

2010-06-10T01:39:00.000-07:00

Surrounding the death of the founder of our newsletter, we have spent a couple of weeks drenched in nostalgia and apparent longing for the good old days, I would imagine that our younger readers are a bit confused. What good old days?

Even someone who entered our industry in the year of our founding, say at the age of 23, would be 50 today—hardly a younger reader.

Working the other way, a 30-year-old radio person with ten years under his or her belt signed up in the year 2000. By then, the seismic shifts caused by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 were pretty much behind us. That radio person’s world has always consisted of mega-groups, market managers and regional DOSs. The concept of “seven and seven” is as foreign to him or her as, well, Foreigner.

But really, why is it important that anyone remember “Inner Sanctum”? Or “Make Believe Ballroom”? Or any of the great radio personalities down through the ages—whether Arthur Godfrey, Jean Shepherd, George Michael, Dan Ingram or—and he’d hate me for including him in this list—Rick Dees? (A certain consultant wrote a great piece listing all the accessories any old jock can relate to, like Ampex 350s, carts and 77DXs. . .but he’s notoriously protective of his work, so it will never appear in these pages.)

What about Newton Minnow? Reid Hundt? Miles David? Eddie Fritts? (Or David Rehr, for that matter?) Gary Fries?—and he will hate me for including him.

One of my favorite quotes—and I’m a huge quotes guy—is from early-Twentieth Century Spanish philosopher George Santanyana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

So, whippersnappers of the radio world, why should we take seriously Santanyana and something he wrote 107 years ago? Why is any of this important?

In truth, most of it isn’t. Most radio ramblings can be chalked up to the fact that each of us has a time of life that is most comfortable to recall. (Ask any Oldies programmer.) Each of these eras is the best for those who cherish them, but one isn’t inherently, historically better than another.

I think there are two aspects of history—radio’s, America’s, the world’s—that we disregard at our peril.

First are the lessons that, if well learned, will keep us from making the same mistakes again. As one who has weathered more than one downturn in his career, I feel for the first-timers who assumed the boom would last forever. Learning a little history might have helped them to cope better.

Second are the people who have displayed inventiveness, integrity, intelligence and leadership in their lives and careers. If more of us studied those people and followed their lead, our business would be a better place.

Fourth Estate Fire Sale

2010-06-10T01:27:00.000-07:00

Back around the time our newsletter began, I consulted a station whose owner would gleefully frame and hang on his office walls the last editions of failed newspapers. He had maybe four or five of them.

We all thought it was great fun to find weakness in a strong industry, in a formidable competitor.

If that owner were around today, his walls would be, well, wall to wall with framed failures. And it is no longer great fun.

I for one feel that our society would suffer a great loss were printed media to become extinct. I get a lot of information online, but that medium doesn’t offer the quality or depth of a New York Times or a Wall Street Journal. Yet.

Actually, I’m more of a weekly kind of guy. I keep up to date by listening to the radio and checking my Google Reader, but for perspective, I turn to Time. But in the wake of the Newsweek situation—they are for sale, but who’s going to buy?—I fear for the future of the genre. Those Times are getting pretty thin, after all, reflective of a precipitous drop in circulation.

As much as I lament the inevitable, I have no printable words for the recent FTC idea-floating exercise designed to rob the strong and subsidize the weak—or should I say, rob the just getting by and further subsidize, since periodicals have long enjoyed a more-than-generous postal rate. (All I can say is, this idea is comparable to something else that floats.)

It’s one thing for our federal friends to exercise their power over electronic media to achieve their selfish and/or ill-intentioned ends—the cigarette ad ban and campaign finance reform come to mind—but now they want to add insult to injury by taking our money and giving it to a competing medium?

Why not? Since the beginning of time—well, 1926—we’ve been the low-hanging piñata for our governmental masters. I can only hope that this floater is so manifestly wacko that for once it’ll be flushed without further ado.

Closure

2010-06-03T01:38:00.000-07:00

It’s not often that we have a feeling of closure when a close friend dies, but I must confess to that feeling among the many that rushed in when I learned of Bob Doll’s passing. It turns out that just last week I had the opportunity to thank Bob for the many ways he enriched my life, all of which sprang from his giving me the opportunity to publish this newsletter.

Read what I said

Our inbox is brimming with notes about Bob, offering sympathy and remembrances. Many people tell basically the same story of their first encounter with Bob: when asked where they’re from, and mentioning the name of some tiny town that barely rates a dot on the map, Bob responds with a complete rundown of the stations in and near that town, replete with ownership history—and, more often than not, at least one colorful personal anecdote.

Bob and I were close, but we only spoke maybe a couple of times a month. As I reflect on our loss, the lyrics of a James Taylor song come to mind:

I’ve seen fire and I’ve seen rain
I’ve seen sunny days that I thought would never end
I’ve seen lonely times when I could not find a friend
But I always thought that I’d see you again

I’m not qualified to comment on Bob’s current whereabouts or whether he’s aware of the outpouring that his passing has prompted. But I can conjecture that if he were in fact a witness to the proceedings, he would wonder aloud, probably with a mild profanity, just what the fuss is all about.

Polar Extremes

2010-05-27T01:34:00.000-07:00

As a parallel entrepreneur—which term I may as well claim to have invented (patent pending)—I’ve always pursued things that interested me. As a second-generation broadcaster, radio, of course, is—well, I was going to say my #1 interest, but in the unlikely event my first and only wife stumbles across this essay, I’d better say #2. After that love, manifested in our newsletter, my two biggest passions represent where we’ve been, and where we’re going.

In the Where We’ve Been Department, there is my card-and-gift business (www.getcardsfree.com), which uses the quaint delivery system known as the U.S. Postal Service. How innovative is that?

As antediluvian as it seems, sending a heartfelt thank-you or greeting card is today unique and memorable, simply because so few people do it. (Just ask the red-ink-drenched U.S. Postal Service how few.) Virtually every sales consultant talks about sending cards and notes to commemorate sales calls and contract anniversaries, not to mention more prosaic events like birthdays and holidays, to set yourself apart. I salute those who take the time to put ink to paper and keep a storehouse of stamps. For the rest of us, there’s an online-based system that automates the process from composition to fulfillment, for about a quarter of the cost.

My other love—the Where We’re Going part—is my web-development business (www.radioinsites.com), in which we spend whatever time we’re not actually building sites to stay current with emerging technologies, so we’ll be ready to roll them out when our small and medium markets actually adopt them. It requires a combination of art and science to know just when to introduce a feature. (I wish there were an app for that.)

Here’s a useful takeaway for you: Right now everybody is talking about texting, Twittering and Facebooking, but nobody is talking about mobile web sites. As important as social-networking may be—and don’t believe the huge numbers in some recently-published research, by the way—it presumes an underlying ability to drive people to your website on the same platform they’re using for the other stuff. You’ve just reached them on their cell phones, and now you expect them to stop what they’re doing and find a computer for the payoff? I don’t think so. We need to stop playing radio’s favorite game, Buy the Hype, and instead play a game we can win—Listen to My Market.

All this Internet stuff is enough to make my head explode. I think I’ll take a break and send a card or two. Even though I’ll do it online, the basic process hasn’t changed in 200 years. . .and I don’t need any research to tell me how many people in my market have mailing addresses.

RAB Resurgent

2010-05-27T01:30:00.000-07:00

With the RAB’s announcement about its expanded, enhanced online presence, there is evidence that, to paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of the demise of their services department have been greatly exaggerated.

There is so much emphasis on all things digital today that we sometimes lose sight of the fact that 90-95% of our revenues still come from good old radio sales. And radio salespeople still need the basic tools to present our medium and our stations in the best light.

While the days of 800-232-2121 may be numbered (my estimation, not the RAB’s position), the days of RAB.com lie ahead.

No, Thank YOU

2010-05-27T01:28:00.000-07:00

At the end of this week’s E.O.M. column in the Small Market Radio Newsletter, Bob Doll thanks me for allowing him access to these pages. We all know that the reality is just the opposite: we owe Bob a great debt for the wisdom he shares with us periodically in this periodical.

I use Bob as a litmus test to determine whether a person is a real radio person, or a phony poser. Not that this business has any of those. (Again, I’m kidding.) Real radio people look past Bob’s facade of a slightly befuddled, long-winded older gentleman and see the real guy—a steel-trap-minded walking Wikipedia of radio facts and lore.

I was first introduced to Bob at some convention somewhere—I’m sure Bob remembers exactly—by another of radio’s true originals, Mr. Drop Turkeys from a Plane himself, the one, the only Steve Bellinger. I may not remember where or when, but I remember vividly Mr. B’s words of introduction: “If you’re smart, you’ll listen to every word this man says.” Perhaps because any relationship would look easy compared to the one I had with Steve, I heeded his words about Bob, and I’ve never regretted it.

Are We There Yet?

2010-05-20T01:06:00.001-07:00

Last week in our newsletter we ran an article from Time magazine extolling the virtues of Internet radio and, along the way, sounding the death knell for local radio.

It is an article of true faith with me that radio is infinitely resilient. While I do not know what our responses will be to future assaults, our history is rife with examples of clever responses to past threats. Whether movies, television, 8-track tapes, CB radio, 3D movies, Walkmans, iPods, home entertainment systems, cable radio, and now the Internet, radio has proved time and time again its ability to reinvent itself.

There are those who bemoan our rather paltry share of total advertising revenue—always hovering in the 6-7% range, more or less. I agree that given the power of our medium to produce results, that number should be much higher. On the other hand, in the face of the ongoing, accelerating fragmentation of media, maintaining a relatively stable market share is no mean feat.

Besides, what does a percentage of total advertising revenues really do for us, anyway? The wonderful thing about small market radio is that the macro metrics are meaningless. We get up every day and go out and sell radio advertising and serve our customers. It’s really a very simple process.

“But wait,” you may argue, “I have a publicly-traded company and the health of our industry matters very much to our lenders, thank you very much.”

I’m not so sure. From what I’m hearing, the people who are still—or once again—loaning us money have a much better, albeit hard-won, understanding of how our business works.

As I said up front, the solutions to our current challenges are as yet out of sight; but without doubt the challenges will be met—probably with another radical rethinking of our business model, it must be said, during which not all will survive—and radio will continue to hold its own.

Oh, and one more thing: for the first time in the history of our medium, we have the opportunity to become what threatens us. Yes, the Internet is more pervasive and fundamental … but it is also a level playing field that veritably invites our participation. Individually and collectively, we ignore that invitation at our peril.

Waiting for the Future

2010-05-20T01:03:00.001-07:00

I can’t wait for my vacation this year. The missus and I will use our jet-packs to hop over to the airport, where our personal helicopter will whisk us to the space center, where we’ll board the Southwest shuttle (weightless peanuts!) to the Moon. (The Dark Side Hilton has an incredible fly/stay deal right now on travelpriceobitz.com.)

Oh, wait. No can do … even though these are all things that were to have been commonplace by now, according to predictions made 15 or 20 years ago.

Well, never mind. I’ll spend my vacation listening to my voice-activated Internet radio in my car, and my Internet TV all over the house.

Oh, wait. Those prognostications, made five or ten years ago, have yet to occur as well.

It seems that we’re always five years away, but it takes us 15-20 years to get there—assuming the idea was a good and practical one in the first place. (Jet packs? Personal choppers? Not so much.)

So, in the tradition of deferred predictive gratification, allow me to look ahead …

Radio and television stations will abandon their over-the-air signals by 2050. All television will be received via cable or the Internet; radio, mostly the Internet.
Satellite radio, seeing itself as a content provider rather than a delivery medium, will morph into another set of Internet-delivered, advertiser-supported channels, with no more chance of succeeding than you or I have.
HD Radio, which has no content in and of itself, will become irrelevant.

If you’ve gone to the trouble and expense to install HD, don’t despair. When the vinyl (well, glass, originally) record was invented, nobody foresaw the CD. In fact, our modern age is probably the first in which we know beyond doubt that every advance will very soon become outmoded. (Have you bought a computer lately?) Most of the time, we even have a pretty good idea of what will outmode it.

So, HD operators—and indeed all of us, who are surrounded by technology with soon-to-expire freshness dates—be of good cheer: the future always takes longer to get here than we think it will.

A Letter to the Speaker

2010-04-22T01:04:00.000-07:00

Dear Ms. Pelosi,

I note with no little chagrin that the perpetual pander-fest that is Congress has once again spoken through you when you—you choir-preacher you—told the RIAA that “the rights of performers are not forgotten.”

Your confusion is understandable. Many people brighter and more knowledgeable than you, even, believe “the rights of performers” and “the concerns of the record industry” are one and the same.

I DID WHAT?

True, there are many performers—overwhelmingly the successful ones, the fortunate albeit forgetful few who have been able to redeem their souls from the company store—who side with their foreign-owned masters in advocating the Performance Rights Act. But any performer, however successful, who is truly concerned for the music industry as opposed to the record industry, will tell you what a colossally bad idea it is to penalize the one medium above all others that sells records and builds careers.

Madam Speaker, may I refer you to a list of quotes—published in the 3/25/10 issue of The Small Market Radio Newsletter—from dozens of performers who have consistently, publically stood by radio and who are eternally grateful to our medium. A recurring theme in those quotes is, “I owe my career to radio.” (Have your people contact my people and we’ll give them access to our back issues online.)

That said, Nancy—may I call you Nancy? I respect your office and your service, but I don’t call any of my other employees by their last names—you have every right to your opinion, however politically calculated. Of course, if you and your brethren truly represented your constituents, you might think twice about backing an outfit that sued hapless mothers and children for hundreds of thousands of dollars—each!—for what they packed on their iPods.

But please recognize that you are in the minority—even within your own party. Healthy majorities in both the House and Senate have cosponsored the Radio Freedom Act, which prohibits the imposition of a tax for performance on local radio. Yes, it’s a non-binding resolution, but how can a legislator cosponsor our measure and then vote Yes on its polar opposite?

Oh, wait, this is Congress we’re taking about here—members of which have selective memories, to put it benignly. (I vaguely recall that one of your colleagues, the senior senator from Arizona, ran for high office as a “maverick.” But either he suffered a senior senator moment or my memory is playing tricks, because John—he works for me, too—recently denied that he’d ever said he was a maverick. Rewriting history would be a lot easier, wouldn’t it?, if we had an Orwellian Ministry of Truth. Come to think of it, maybe we do.)

But I digress. The real purpose of this epistle is to remind you—you universal health care champion you—that there is nothing healthy about the Performance Rights Act. In fact, it could be downright toxic to the very performers whose rights you’ve vowed to uphold.

No, that’s not a threat. Unlike other industries you’ve tried to reign in recently, radio is too busy serving our communities to cook up vengeful, retaliatory strategies to prove the law of unintended consequences. But there is a reality of which you—you limousine-riding, perk-enjoying you—are unaware: in the world of non-deficit spending, if a new cost is imposed, another cost must be cut. And fiscally-conservative operators—yes, Nancy, they do exist, albeit far from the Beltway—will act on the realization that we can neutralize a tax on playing music simply by not playing music.

Are you ready for Rush 2.0?

If nothing else will, that should scare you straight.

The Missing Discourse

2010-04-03T05:29:00.001-07:00

As I was pondering my reaction to a sales piece by Jim (Taz) Taszarek in this week’s newsletter—wherein he posits that rate integrity is a Bad Thing and rate flexibility is a Good Thing—I recalled the many conversations I’ve had over the years with our industry leaders about things like rate integrity, finding new salespeople, selling against cable—you know, all the stuff that preoccupies us and probably always will.

Then I got to thinking, what would such a conversation with Gordon Smith be like? With Jeff Haley?

Putting aside for a moment the unlikely scenario that any of us would be kicking back with Mr. Smith or Mr. Haley and BS-ing about radio, if such a conversation were to occur, I suspect there would be a lot of blank stares coming back our way.

And suddenly I felt very lonely.

Up or Down

2010-04-03T03:37:00.000-07:00

It seems like we’ve been at this performance tax legislation business for about 100 years. I am probably the most politically naive person on the planet, but I can’t help but wondering whether we shouldn’t just vote on the darn thing already.

As I write this, late at night, past deadline, much too late to call my friend Dennis Wharton at the NAB for a reality check, I’m guessing that bringing the matter to a vote right now might not be in our best interests—even though our own Radio Freedom Act has such strong support.

And that’s what I don’t understand: How can a legislator who has signed on to our (admittedly non-binding) resolution turn around and vote for the very measure that our resolution opposes?

Talk about naive. . .

Bust a Rate

2010-04-03T02:55:00.000-07:00

I suspect that Taz’s point of view on the subject of rate integrity—he’s not a fan, urging flexibility—will touch a nerve in many small market and local-direct broadcasters, as it has in me.

We all live in small communities; regardless of the population of our trading area, there is a handful of people with whom we deal—and they all talk to each other. If in my local market I were to adopt the freewheeling approach advocated by Taz in his column, I don’t know if I would go out of business, but my standing in the community would certainly go down the drain.

Sure, there were times when I would accept a lowball rate from an ad agency or large regional advertiser, and I’m not proud of the fact that I did so knowing it was unlikely that word would get back to my local florist or banker.

I’ve always operated on the philosophy that if one day all our rates and all our deals with individual advertisers appeared in the local paper, I could justify each and every one of them based on frequency, class of service, and so on.

So, I have to wonder whether observing rate integrity in our local markets is a product of hubris or practicality?

Remind me to ask Gordon or Jeff the next time we’re kicking back.

A Good Idea Gone Bad?

2010-03-11T05:14:00.000-08:00

While rooting around the Internet the other day, I flashed on the Small Market Radio Operators Caucus and wondered whether they had never put up their new website, the prospect of which was announced with a great flourish a couple of years ago.

Well, no joy. The new web address, www.smallmarketradio.org, displays a “coming soon” page, it has for the past two years. The old website, www.smallmarket.org, hasn’t been updated for that same amount of time. I haven’t checked in with Ron Davis, the last chairman I knew of, but judging from the lack of activity, I infer that the organization is all but dead.

Should we lament this loss? That depends on whether you think that small market radio is adequately represented in the halls of power. Small market operators do prowl those halls, but as one who has done some prowling himself—well, lurking, anyway—I can tell you that it is easy to lose touch with those who sent you there in the first place.

I know that our small market leaders have our best interests at heart, but it is all too easy to get caught up in the art of compromise … all too easy to mistake the game for the objective. That’s where a grassroots organization like the SMOC comes in. Our leaders have to be reminded of what’s important to us. It’s not that they don’t know; but it’s up to us to keep our hot topics top of mind. An organization like the SMOC—if it’s viable—can represent us in number to our leaders.

The irony here is, the organization that represents us to our leaders needs leadership. But more importantly, the organization needs the active participation of large number of small market broadcasters. And this, sadly, the SMOC has never had. Personally, I think that there is a huge number of issues for which we need strong representation. It is so easy for us at our stations, focusing on making our business work from day to day, to disregard the larger forces that impact our livelihoods. It’s a little late for new year’s resolutions, but I urge you nonetheless to resolve to invest a sliver of your time to think about some of these larger issues—and to do something about it.

Maybe the death or dormancy of SMOC is not a bad thing ... if it forces us communicate our feelings about radio’s flashpoint issues directly to the small market broadcasters who can make a difference; herewith, good folks with whom to start:

RAB Board

Bud Walters, The Cromwell Group
John Dille, Federated Media
Rolland Johnson, Three Eagles Communications
Gunther Meisse, WVNO/WROM
Steve Newberry, Commonwealth Broadcasting.

NAB Board

Howard Anderson, KHWY
Ron Davis, Butte Broadcasting
Randy Gravely, Tri State Communications
Jerry Hanszen, Hanszen Broadcasting
David Hoxeng, WYCT
Julie Koehn, Lenawee Broadcasting
Steve Newberry;
Susan Patrick, Legend Communications
Mary Quass, NRG Media
Dana Withers, Dana Communications

If you don’t know anyone on this list, or if you know a number of people on this list, start by contacting Steve Newberry at (270) 659-2002 or snewberry@commonwealthbroadcasting.com. Not only is he on both boards, but he’s the chair of the NAB Joint Board; when it comes to clout, you can’t get much cloutier.

Much has been made of the “one voice for radio” initiative, where the industry speaks as one. I submit that it’s equally important that there be one voice for small market radio. Let ours be heard!

Talking Points

2010-03-04T05:21:00.000-08:00

It’s gratifying to hear a member of Congress uttering talking points that aren’t utter nonsense for a change. We especially appreciate the words of Rep. John Dingell in defense of local broadcasting against the Evil Axis, a.k.a. the RIAA, in the copyright fight. Indeed, we could not have said it better ourselves. That’s probably because we have said it ourselves—word for word.

A well-organized political party—you know who you are—has proved the value of staying 100% on message, using the same words and phrases over and over to drive a point home. Thanks to the leadership of the NAB, broadcasters are benefitting from that same unanimity of expression. The most pertinent example is our constant, consistent use of the term “performance tax.” It’s accurate, and it efficiently re-frames the issue. Ditto the reference to “the foreign-owned record companies.” (The only thing that would be more heinous would be if they were all based in France.)

Radio people, especially, are hard-wired to understand these concepts: everyone who’s been in our business for longer than a week knows that on-air repetition of the same concepts, words and phrases—like the station calls and slogan, for example—is extremely powerful.

Attempts to harness the wonderful diversity in our industry generally meet with less than stellar success—you know who you are, too—but in some cases it’s critical that we speak with one voice. We may not win every battle, but we’ll win more than our share.

The Web Dilemma

2010-03-04T03:19:00.000-08:00

From my discussions with small market broadcasters, I’m getting that opinion is divided about 50-50 on the importance of your website to your overall operation. Some see the Internet as a big part of their—and radio’s—future, while others see it as a wasteful distraction.

Since folks on both sides of the issue are reporting that their web revenues account for maybe 5-7% of total revenues, this is a case of seeing the glass half empty or half full—or should I say, 95% empty or 5% full?

I certainly believe the Internet represents significant potential to our industry, and my web-development business aims to help broadcasters realize that potential. But I stop short of predicting that our online activities are our salvation.

I also disagree with those who, in their missionary zeal, declare that their websites can succeed on their own, untethered to their radio stations. Sure, the big guys from Amazon to Zappos exist in a worldwide environment where no other medium can meet their reach needs, but that’s not the case in our local markets. Google processes over a billion search requests a day, so even with click-through rates averaging 0.5% of page views, that means the search behemoth generates five million click-throughs every day.

Local market websites, on the other hand, generate daily page views in the hundreds. The most successful small market sites we’ve seen, in a month with lots of bad weather and a big murder trial, will attain 100,000 views. Applying the interactive-industry-average, total click-throughs, for all advertisers, amount to 500. In a more normal month, cut that number in half.

As with radio ratings, misuse and misunderstanding of web metrics abound. Time after time, we’ve seen panic at renewal time, when it’s evident that the laws of Internet advertising are immutable, and the expected spectacular results never materialized.

While Internet revenues should be tracked separately, in any local market you need to use your radio stations to drive traffic and boost click-throughs by selling the benefits of doing so.

One thing is clear: a website is not a radio station. On your station, you have the capability of managing hundreds of clients and ads. On your website, you have neither the technology nor the real estate to sustain a similar strategy. On most radio stations, growth comes mainly from selling more ads. On your website, visual cacophony can quickly take over—and drive traffic away.

Is the Internet our future? Yes and no. If you use your website to extend the interactive communication you already enjoy with your listeners, and to provide a richer experience for your advertisers and their customers, your online slice of the pie will grow. If you expect your Internet tail to start wagging the radio dog, you’ll probably be disappointed.

The Leveling Effect

2010-02-25T05:35:00.000-08:00

Broadcasters in markets of every size are beginning to see that things are turning around for them. Many broadcasters, looking back a few months, have concluded that this was as bad as it ever has been in their careers.

Amid all this and doom and gloom, I can think of one positive thing that the recession has done for our industry. It has leveled our business, to the extent that large market operators and small market operators are focused on the same thing for the first time in a long time: building local direct business.

Whenever I talk to a small or medium market broadcaster, there is an underlying sense of confidence and control over their environment. Those broadcasters know that the key their success and growth lies in their hands. They can go out every day and sell more ads.

Sure, in bad times it’s more difficult to do, and we’ve all certainly experienced the frustration of falling behind. But it is nothing compared to the frustration experienced by the large market broadcaster who has built a successful career on taking orders from time buyers. When national business went in the tank, those same large market broadcasters literally didn’t know what to do. They turned in desperation to their local advertisers and discovered, as most of our readers have always known, that presenting the benefits of radio to real, live business owners is productive, rewarding and—dare I say it?—fun.

In fairness, I should point out that there are a great many excellent broadcasters in large markets. I should also point out that most them came from small markets.

The Worst Remedy Ever

2010-02-25T04:36:00.000-08:00

We are (hopefully) emerging from a long dry spell. Broadcasters have had to make many difficult decisions to maintain equilibrium during these times, but one move stands out as being a really bad idea, the consequences of which will be felt for some time to come.

I’m talking about the tendency of operators to slash their sales training costs during bad times. While this may result in relief in the short run, the long-term consequences are disastrous. Without proper training and support, what salespeople you have left are ill-equipped to take advantage of the turnaround.

We’ve all had to be very creative to preserve any sort of bottom line at all, but let’s learn this lesson well: Doing anything to the detriment of the revenue center of your radio station is a bad idea.

Not a Bad Idea After All

2010-02-25T03:41:00.000-08:00

Stacey Woelfel, Chairman, Radio Television Digital News Association—woelfels@missouri.edu—stumbled upon my earlier posting that we small market operators need to work together to ensure we are represented, and have a seat at the table, at all influential industry groups:

I’m all for your idea of getting together a small [market] radio representative to run for the [RTDNA] board. If you’re able to make it work, let me know and I’ll let him/her know how to get involved.

Thanks to Stacey for his encouraging note. The door is open; let’s walk through it.

The Tangled Web

2010-02-25T01:43:00.000-08:00

Something that is been occupying a lot of my time recently is relaunching our web development business. We sort of got into the business by accident about a year and a half ago, but we tapped into a very real need and desire on the part of small market broadcasters everywhere to have a high-quality website at a small-market-affordable rate.

While we are proud of the work that we’ve done for clients thus far, we had seen the need to move up a notch to reflect what’s going on in the interactive world. Accordingly, we are rebranding our business as RadioInSites.com, and we are putting together what we humbly consider to be the Absolute Ultimate Radio-Specific Content Management System. It’s a lofty objective, but as the only web developer with solid small market management and ownership experience, we think we can pull it off. Stay tuned.

Strength in Numbers

2010-02-19T01:21:00.001-08:00

We always look for small- and medium-market representation in our industry organizations; unless it's there, those organizations can be blind to the concerns and workings of what is arguably the most vital part of our industry.

For example, we note that the regional directors of the Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA) include no small market radio news directors, and just one medium market ND.

Granted, the RTNDA isn’t exactly a must-belong for most of us, but it would be productive for us to have a presence. Wacky thought: What if a bunch of stations in a region or an affinity group (like the Presidents Club or the Idea Bank) get together and buy a membership for a broadcaster willing to take on the responsibility?

Here’s one for you: the Interactive Advertising Bureau. Yes, membership is pricey, but to paraphrase, many wallets make light work. And who doesn’t agree we should have a seat at that table?

Small market radio complains that its voice is not heard in many quarters. Well, let’s get organized, pick our targets, and step up.

The Never-Ending Story

2010-02-19T01:19:00.001-08:00

I’ve been talking to a lot of broadcasters lately about the state of radio sales training. The resources are there, from the excellent RAB programs to a bunch of solid, basics-based independent consultants (many of whom are contributors to this publication). But in the current environment, we’ve cut back everywhere, including in places maybe we shouldn’t—which, in my opinion, includes sales training.

But even in the best of times, it’s easy to be discouraged in that area. No matter what we do, no matter how much training, support and money we throw at our salespeople, our turnover rates are astronomical. Who wants to throw money down that black hole?

The RAB, recognizing the problem, has had a policy where if a salesperson you’ve run through one of their programs leaves you within a certain amount of time, you can send another one free. That’s a great benefit, but there’s still a time/money investment at stake.

I recently asked former RAB Chief Gary Fries, the biggest proponent of street-level sales training ever, whether in his 15 years at the helm of that organization he ever felt, on the one hand, that the battle was being won. . .or, on the other hand, discouraged that it wasn’t. His response could only have come from someone with roots in small market radio: No, the tide hasn’t turned. . .and no, he never got discouraged. “You just get up every day and do your best,” he told me.

And isn’t that what we do anyway?

The lesson is this: no matter the leakage—which can be mitigated by better hiring practices, which can be learned—we’re much better off investing in good sales training, in good times and, especially, bad.

Multitasking

2010-02-19T01:17:00.001-08:00

I think we need to acknowledge that despite all the drama Arbitron is enduring in the PPM arena, it is not preventing them from making constant improvements in the diary methodology. I know Bill Rose and Ed Cohen well, and they and their team are absolutely, unequivocally committed to giving better service to Arbitron’s diary clients.

Now, if we broadcasters could just learn how to use the information properly. . .

Good for Radio. Bad for America?

2010-01-30T02:28:00.001-08:00

Like many, I was stunned by the Supreme Court’s gratuitous decision to remove limitations on corporate advocacy spending during political campaigns.

Broadcast interests and analysts are busy counting the money; certainly, the battered broadcast industry can use every scrap of good news, and I for one would not for a moment suggest that anyone stand on principle—not that we could, legally, anyway. But we need to see beyond self interest in all cases, or we become part of the problem.

In that spirit, I am of the opinion that this is an improper, impractical extension of the legal notion that a corporation is a person, with all the attendant rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

What’s significant here is the amount of money that major corporations can bring to bear on political causes they favor or oppose. This is good news for broadcasters—especially TV broadcasters, to whom most political dollars flow anyway. But it’s extremely bad news for those among us who cling to the notion that ideas deserve more than sound-bite treatment. . .that an examination of facts and motivations should inform our votes more than hot-button, often illogical—if not downright false—rhetoric.

We’ve come a long way from the high-minded reasoning put forth to justify the Lowest Unit Charge rule of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971: In order to qualify, as we all know, the candidate must appear in the ad—the implicit argument at the time being that the candidate would use that opportunity to express ideas and positions. Well, we all know how well that has worked out.

But this week’s court ruling offers no such alleged benefit to the populace, however specious. It is a straightforward opinion that corporate interests are under fire and deserve the opportunity to fight back. It neatly side-steps the commonly-held view that modern corporations usually operate solely in their own interest, with little or no social conscience.

Politics has become all about the money. Nowadays more media attention is paid to how much a candidate has raised than to where the candidate stands on the issues. Our system of government has quietly morphed from a democracy (well, technically a representative democracy or a republic—Google it) to an oligarchy—defined by Wikipedia as “a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royal, wealth, intellectual, family, military, or religious hegemony.”

Viewed in that light, all the Supremes did this week was take one more step away from rule of the people. In the midst of perhaps the biggest political mess of my lifetime, it might not be the worst thing that’s happened to the American people lately. But it sure doesn’t help.

RIP: Jim Quello

2010-01-30T01:30:00.000-08:00

I did not know Mr. Quello but I know many who knew him well. They, and our entire industry, were influenced by this fair-minded, common-sensible gentleman.

He always struck me as a dedicated broadcaster, but one who always tried to focus on the greater good.

I can’t help but wonder what his take would have been on this week’s Supreme Court decision.

RIP: Air America

2010-01-30T00:32:00.000-08:00

The troubled progressive talk network finally gave up the ghost this week, and a memorial service might well be held for a fair and balanced radio dial.

In the wake of November’s general election, liberal talk radio was eagerly anticipating the turning of the tide. The same people who propelled the election of Barack Obama and a decisive Democrat Congressional majority would, the reasoning went, tune in massively to hear fellow travelers match rants with the right.

As it turns out, progressive talk, like progressive everything else, went AWOL.

Regardless of what has or hasn’t happened in national politics, it’s clear to me that progressive talk radio will forever be a sliver format, sustainable only in the certain large cities and college communities, and a struggle even there.

Maybe it’s because that audience is well served by public radio. (Not just a few radio operators offer a nightly prayer that Arbitron will never list non-coms in its surveys, because they would change the game forever.)

Maybe it’s because as its problems compounded, its talent lineup became more and more insubstantial; founding personalities Al Franken and Janeane Garofolo, along with the likes of Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes and Rachel Maddow, found other things to do and/or places to do them.

Maybe it’s because that end of the political spectrum comprises people who can’t agree on anything, thus making the worst kind of radio—not to mention political—constituency. (More than once recently I’ve been reminded of Will Rogers’s quip, “I’m not a member of any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.”)

Whatever. Air America is out of business because it didn’t get the votes. The people have spoken. Rush Limbaugh lives to rant another day. Ron Reagan? Not so much.

RIP: RAB MLC

2010-01-30T00:01:00.000-08:00

Legendary WABC programmer Rick Sklar once summed up his programming philosophy by saying, “You can’t get hurt by what you don’t play.” (Fun fact: at one point his entire current playlist was 14 records, which he masked by assigning higher numbers to some songs—“number 18,” “number 27,” etc.)

But I digress. Mr. Sklar seemed to imply that, in general, you don’t miss what you don’t have. But after twenty-some-odd years of looking forward to the RAB’s first-quarter gathering, I have to admit that I miss it.

It’s mildly depressing to visit the RAB website and not see the trademark ballsy tagline-de-l’année. . .to be able to reach RAB staffers relatively easily, because they’re not scurrying around prepping for their show. . .not to be swapping Amfac elevator stories with other MLC veterans.

Ah, but memory plays tricks as well. What began as the anti-convention—limited registration, training-driven, no hoopla, all business—evolved (some would say “devolved”) into another numbers-driven, pack-the-seats, squeeze-the-exhibitors, book-the-noms-du-jour event. (They did it well, but still. . .)

When Fall rolls around, I still feel a little back-to-school tug after all these years. And this year, I’m feeling a little unrequited RAB love. Let’s see if the beefed-up RAB presence at the NAB shows assuages it.

Broadcasting's Loss

2010-01-23T02:43:00.000-08:00

I first met Paul Hemmer some 25 years ago when I consulted WDBQ and he was its market-dominant morning guy. I’ve been surprised by the caliber of small market talent many times, but Paul was and is a standout. Over the years Paul had chances to go to The Show—which in that part of the country means Chicago—but always opted for the rich, balanced life only small market America can offer.

In addition to his amazing radio career, Paul is blessed with a wonderful wife and two great kids. He’s a world-class musician: a cassette of big-band music by his band—featuring his son, Steve, who also pulls an airshift on KGRR—is among my prized possessions, and he has had at least two of his original musicals performed on local stages.

Above all, Paul and his wife, Jan, have given back to their community in too many ways to enumerate or describe.

Our industry will be diminished by Paul’s departure, but I wish him all the best in his next chapter. No one deserves it more.

Customer Service is Alive

2010-01-22T02:40:00.000-08:00

Recently I experienced an example of superior customer service and was told of another. We do so much complaining about bad service, it’s important to recognize the opposite when it occurs. And, as usual, these stories provide valuable lessons we can apply to our own business.

LOOK FOR WAYS TO SERVE. My friend Steve was in an Apple store recently doing some window shopping. He had his iTouch with him, and the earbuds/mic cable set that came with it. In the course of his discussion with one of the geniuses in the store—isn’t that what they’re called?—he mentioned that his mic had stopped working.

Without another word, the genius pulled out a brand new set and swapped it for the defective one. No receipt. No interrogation.

The move was totally unexpected and blew Steve away. Sure, the thing retails for $35, but Apple’s got maybe a buck fifty in it, so if you think about it, it’s a total no-brainer. But how many companies would not only do it, but empower (or, better still, encourage) a local store clerk—excuse me, I mean “genius”—to make the call?

SIX MAGIC WORDS. I’ve been a Verizon customer for years. Love the network. Love the service. Hate the phones. But no phone has pegged the suckometer like the Samsung Omnia.

The phone is so bad that between my wife and me, we’ve replaced it eight times in less than a year.

So I called Verizon and told them I didn’t want to play the replacement game any more, and their stock solutions—a different phone but with lots of contractual strings attached—didn’t work for me.

Then the rep used the six magic words: “What do you want to do?”

The question so took me by surprise that I didn’t have an answer. . .but I promised to call them with one after the weekend.

When I called Monday, I was connected to a guy who listened to my answer and made it happen—and then some. The upshot: my wife and I are getting the phones we want—the Motorola Droid, if you must know—as an even exchange, and we still have the option of upgrading on schedule in August.

I am not happy about this. I am positively giddy.

My friend Warren Lottsberg has a saying: “Today it’s not enough just to satisfy your customers. You have to surprise and delight them.”

What I wanted from Verizon was less generous than what they gave me—I was prepared to pay a discounted price for the phones—hence my giddiness.

The lesson: Listen to the customer and figure out how to trump his/her desired outcome. You’ll have that customer for life.

And with any luck, he’ll tell his story to thousands of readers in his newsletter.

Corporate Culture

2010-01-15T02:50:00.000-08:00

With the crap-storm surrounding Arbitron these days—the PPM smack down and the prevaricating CEO have provided a two-course media meal—my faith in the company has never been more pronounced.

Sure, Arbitron is a good friend of my newsletter, but if I didn’t believe what I just said, I would say nothing at all.

While others see a weakened, vulnerable behemoth, I see a company that is growing stronger.

Huh?

It’s all about the core values. I never had the—whatever—of getting to know Mr. Skarzynski, but I can say without qualification that everyone I know at Arbitron is sincere and honest to a fault. I could not have said that, say, ten or twenty years ago, and I don’t know who gets the credit for the sea change, but my impression is that the people at Arbitron today are decent and real.

In such an environment, the character flaws attributed to Mr. Skarzynski cannot thrive. Whether an interim leader or a more permanent occupant of the office, it is up to Mr. Kerr—who comes from Meredith, another good company—to restore Arbitron’s good name—which, given the company’s traditional flashpoint role, is destined never to be that good anyway.

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe the good guys can win. I know that smart, honest ones can.

PS: In my experience, the same good qualities are alive and well at Nielsen and Eastlan. Let the games begin.

The New Emergency Reality

2010-01-15T02:48:00.000-08:00

It began, arguably, with the events in China some 18 months ago, where millions of Chinese were joined by citizens of the world in using Twitter and other so-called social media to circumvent that country’s suppression of communication. Now, these new media are vying for hegemony where radio has always dominated: emergency situations.

Once again we lifelong radio people are being given a choice in how we regard our medium: are we a technology or are we a content provider?

If there were ever a clear signal, Haiti is it. In fact, one article we used as a source for our special report on Page 5 did not even mention radio at all in its recounting; it cited the roles of “TV and social networking sites” in helping the Haiti relief effort.

Aside from yet another possible PR nightmare—our rear-guard defensive position has always been our unique ability to render service in emergency situations—we need to embrace any and every technology and platform that not only will increase our power exponentially, but will, more fundamentally, keep us in the game.

Good Times with Don Vito

2009-11-05T01:02:00.001-08:00

For Halloween a radio forum website – the terrific Radio Sales Cafe -asked its members to recount their scariest sales experiences. That, plus a promo for The Sopranos I saw that evening, reminded me of the following:

For me the scariest experiences involved working with, er, connected businesses in a certain suburban market. (If you've seen any of the Godfather movies, you know what - and where - I mean.)

By the way, in that market, you either worked with such businesses or - do I haveta paintcha pitchure?

There was this one night club, a dinky little dive, that for some inexplicable reason booked all the top talent of the day. (Their tour schedule would be like, Las Vegas ... New York ...dinky dive ... Miami ...)

The owner was a guy we'll call Vinny (not his real name; he had a kid that made Sonny Corleone look like an alter boy, and I don't want any trouble). Anyway, Vinnie was a great guy. Always wanted to give me a little extra sump'n sump'n for my superior service (like I'm going to give him anything but). Like a car. ("Don't worry about those holes; they'll buff right out.")

But then, I guess because he was such a great guy, all his vendors always gave him a little extra sump'n sump'n, too.

Then there was Sal (same, deal, except he had a daughter ...). Sal was away a lot on "vacation." Upstate. Anyway, I spent many an entertaining hour at his estate, where he threw the Best. Parties. Ever. The entertainment, inexplicably, was the same crowd that played the aforementioned dinky dive.

Later I found out Sal was the tutti-frutti-di-tutti-capi. (Or something like that; I don't have my copy of The Godfather handy.)

Good times then. Scary now.

A Perfect Cultural Storm

2009-10-04T04:39:00.001-07:00

Okay, I admit it: I am absolutely fascinated with the fascination over a worldwide cultural phenomenon called Dancing With the Stars. Until my friend Lou Vito told me his kid was going to be on the show, it barely registered on my pop-culture-o-meter. Big mistake. Any show that can smoke another worldwide phenomenon, House, with twice the ratings, had better darn well be on my—and all of our—radar.

And now I am kind of hooked—not only by the trials of everybody’s second-favorite-with-a-bullet snowboarder, but the sheer down-market genius of the thing. The concept is solid; the production values are amazing; the hosts are better than you’d think the show deserves, but they fit perfectly; and the whole thing takes on a larger-than-life aspect that is truly compelling.

When I was consulting KIIS-FM, the first thing I told them was, “You are in L frigging A. Own it.” In other words, people expect the output of the entertainment capital of the world to be awesome. (Are you listening, Mr. Leno?) DWTS delivers in spades.

I just hope Louie doesn’t get on American Idol. I have to draw the line somewhere.

This article first appeared in the Small Market Radio Newsletter, of which your faithful blogger is editor and publisher. He is also its circulation manager, and as such encourages you to subscribe thereto.

Is the Sinking Ship Half Empty or Half Full?

2009-10-04T04:33:00.001-07:00

The mood in the halls of last week’s radio gathering was decidedly mixed. There is a frightful amount of fear in the ranks of those who focus on the myriad new threats to our business. Sure, the argument goes, in the past we’ve faced down a flurry of new-at-the-time media—think television, CB radio, 8-track tapes, CDs—but not all at once. Today it’s a veritable blizzard of new technologies and applications that can pop up literally overnight. . .and melt away just as quickly.

On the other hand, those whose mood rings glow violet-green (Google it) fall into one of two camps: those who don’t see the light of the train bearing down on our industry, and those who intend to catch a ride.

I’ll bet you didn’t jot down on your wish list, “I want to be in the radio business because I love getting my butt kicked by a bunch of competing media in a giant technology-driven Whac-A-Mole game.” Easier would be nice, but what are you going to do?

No, seriously, what are you going to do?

Many of our best and brightest have left the business—all too often the business left them, actually. Some are taking their skills and experience to other businesses, or at least are hedging their bets by spreading those qualities around.

At the NAB Radio Show, a certain kind of schism surfaced that we haven’t seen in some years, between those who get it and those who don’t. And, as so often is the case, the dividing line runs down the middle of the hallway between sales and programming.

In recent years, sales and management people have been able to keep up, at least superficially, by using product jargon more or less correctly—whether they understand what they’re saying. But with the onslaught of new threats and opportunities that programmers are first to understand and embrace, the other side of the hall is lagging behind.

Exhibit A: The difference between the programming and group heads sessions at the Radio Show. Let’s just say that how to navigate the current landscape has not fully trickled up.

Cut to small market broadcasters, who, as usual, were under-represented at The Show. . .but who have an understanding of the climate that is both clearer and fuzzier than their larger-market counterparts.

Huh?

While small market folks may be less wired into the trends being followed by large market folks, they know their own markets better. As such, they peer, like Max Headroom, 15 minutes into the future. We cannot afford to fall behind what our listeners and advertisers are doing and thinking; but it’s just as dangerous to get ahead of them.

For example, in some small markets it’s important that a radio station stream at least its local programming; in others, not so much. Ditto cellphone-ready websites, texting, Tweeting, and so on. And the operators of those stations by and large know what they need to know, and make it their business to know it.

So, as usual, a radio operator’s industry outlook is directly related to his or her field of vision. Those of us who manage our businesses with our checkbooks. . .know the spouses and families of our customers (and, for that matter, many of our listeners). . .are working for the betterment of the communities our stations serve. . .and have a strong streak of self-determinism. . .simply cannot be overcome by that onrushing train.

All hail small market radio!

Acts, Not Words

2009-09-25T04:24:00.000-07:00

In a paragon of timing, the NAB Executive Search Committee announced its pick for our new President/CEO just in time for the Fall Radio Show. The committee is to be congratulated for its low-key, no-drama, few-leaks process. . .whether the congratulations extend to its choice is an open question right now, a few short days after the announcement.

In the past I have added my voice to those of other industry leaders in calling for installing an actual broadcaster at the NAB helm, but I’m the first to admit it’s not that simple. (Not to mention the potential havoc wrought by the selection of a TV guy, perish the thought.) While it would be refreshing to feel actual understanding of our daily lives in the voice and words of our lobbyist-in-chief, as opposed to scripted platitudes, the true value of the person and the position is his persuasive advocacy of our industry with the powers that hold our well-being in their clammy little hands.

Mr. Smith has a past, and being in the public eye for much of his career, that well-documented past includes some not-so-broadcaster-friendly views and actions. Credit our man for his adult, no-nonsense handling of that inconvenient truth: “Now, my politics are the interests of the National Association of Broadcasters, which translates into serving radio and television broadcasters and the American people.” I for one have no problem with Smith’s seismic shifts, as long as he can spin a credible tale that explains them. (Free advice: Use a variant of the time-honored “feel-felt-found” sales technique—“I understand how you feel [about this issue]; I felt the same way myself. But then I found. . .”)

We don’t yet know Mr. Smith’s mind and heart, but we do know those of the broadcasters who chose him. I trust them. I trust their choice. Welcome, Gordon Smith, to the most interesting neighborhood in which you’ll ever live.

Dumbing Down

2009-09-25T03:25:00.000-07:00

Throughout my career as a consultant, I have sat in meetings where management tried to wrest control of creativity from talent by using research to prove that, to coin a phrase, less is more.

Heretofore my favorite device for sucking the creative juices out of a radio show has been the little dials you distribute to a bunch of people in a room; as they listen to a recording of a show—usually a morning show—they are instructed to turn the dial up when they like what they hear, down when they don’t. The aggregate results are displayed as a line graph that snakes its way across a video screen while the recording plays, so you can tell precisely at what points the audience loses interest in the proceedings.

Some of the most awkward moments of my career have ensued when we’ve plopped talent in front of the screen, expecting a teachable moment to occur.

Now, as described in Bob Doll’s article on Page 9, the PPM data performs the same function on a grander scale. As Bob notes with a fair amount of understatement, the application of the PPM data is “a source of friction between management and talent.”

The problem with these applications is, we are using trailing data to inform the future. In other words, we expect an analysis of a spontaneous event—a live radio show—to result in better spontaneous events in the future.

Well, it doesn’t work that way. The analysis of spontaneity results in less spontaneity.

Radio is criticized for its blandness—for its lack of spontaneity—because it has been replaced by research-driven predictability. And it’s only getting worse, because each round of analysis destroys that much more spontaneity (a.k.a. creativity).

The cure, counterintuitive though it may be, is to take a deep breath and encourage risk-taking.

We like to vilify Mel Karmazin these days for abandoning his local radio roots, but let’s remember that he built his success by picking talent, cultivating it and giving it room to grow. You may not like his picks—Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony among them—but you cannot deny that his was a talent-based business model. It made for unpredictable radio that, whether you liked it, was far from bland.

Now look at your own stations. In and around the satellite and syndicated fare, you probably employ at least one live, local personality. And that personality probably drives you nuts with his or her—usually it’s a his—peculiar peccadilloes. And you probably long for research—whether using little dials or PPM data—to put him in his place.

Be careful what you wish for. Chances are, your station is a beacon light of creativity, thanks to your hard-to-handle friend—at least compared to the Station Everybody at Work Can Agree On Because It Plays 200 Easy Favorites Over and Over that Suck the Same for Everybody.

Congratulations. You are part of the solution.

The Telephone Game

2009-08-27T04:48:00.000-07:00

Perhaps you played it as a kid: Arrange a bunch of people in a circle. One person whispers a brief story to the person next to him. That person whispers the story to the other person next to him. . .and so on, around the circle. The story whispered back to its originator is usually unrecognizable.

Thanks to irresponsible media and the ease with which data can be passed along via the Internet, we are experiencing the ill effects of the biggest telephone game ever played. And it is killing us.

Why this topic? Why now? It was prompted by an email from a reader:

My father just called me to let me know our new [FCC] Diversity Chief was on the Glenn Beck Show tonight. He feels the U.S. should model our radio after Venezuela and that the government should tax stations 100% of gross revenues and if they can't pay it, they would have to forfeit your license. He didn't think there should be private ownership of radio stations. I thought you might want to look into that for our next issue.

Tax stations 100% of their gross revenues? Look into it, indeed!

It turns out that Dad was not entirely accurate in his recollection. A segment of Beck’s show was about new FCC Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd; Lloyd did not appear. The discussion was between Beck and Media Research Center Director of Communications Seton Motley.

Beck started the discussion by paraphrasing Lloyd’s position—based not on recent statements while in his current job but passages from his 2006 book, Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America.

While Beck, in setting up the segment, said that Lloyd would have each station pay 100% of its gross—kicking off a lengthy diatribe—Motley later set the record straight(er) by saying, “That’s not exactly right. That’s an estimated total of what the operating costs are, for somebody like Premiere Broadcasting, who syndicates several large talk show hosts. That’s just an extrapolation of the fine we’ve been discussing, which is dollar for dollar for the annual operating costs.” Huh?

I’m not saying we don’t have concerns with the whole idea of a “diversity chief” within an already-misguided Commission. But with all respect to our reader—a good friend of this publication—and his dad, the email in question is a great example of a malady afflicting our land today.

It started with the estimable Mr. Beck, who didn’t have his facts straight. . .exacerbated by Dad, and doubtless many others, who heard the wrong information wrong and innocently passed it along. This is the telephone game writ large and at its most dangerous. (Our reader, in a follow-up email, noted that his dad is 81, so he can be excused. . .but I guarantee you that similar distortions have been spread by others far younger.)

Admittedly I am in extremis, having made some good-sized gaffes in this all-too-public arena. But how else to explain the ability of, say, the RIAA to perpetrate believable but baseless blather in the performance tax battle? Or the groups who would have us believe that the Portable People Meter is a racist tool?

But we who represent the Fifth Estate should be in extremis, too. Just as we take pains to ensure accurate reporting on the air, we must do so in everything else we do and say as well.

Truth is not-so-slowly being replaced by what Stephen Colbert calls “truthiness”: things that seem true but are not. We have the power to counter truthiness. Let’s use it.

Objects in Mirror Are Closer than They Appear

2009-08-13T02:58:00.000-07:00

Not-So-Confidential Memo to Arbitron:

I know you guys are busy beating back the geniuses who are perpetrating the anti-PPM fraud, while at the same time making much-needed advances in diary methodology. I know you have a lot to focus on in the road ahead, but it’s a good idea to glance in the rear view mirror from time to time.

See that cloud of dust in the distance? See how it’s closer than the last time you checked? Guess who’s coming to the party? Guess who’s winning the PR battle, not having to worry about the PPM cacophony overwhelming their message? Yes, it’s They Who Must Not Be Named.

There are some who would like nothing better than to see our resident ratings giant brought to its knees. There a many who welcome formidable competition, and there is much to be said for that argument: better data, faster delivery, lower cost.

But the other side of the issue has merit, too: especially now, do we need confusing, conflicting radio performance data?

AIG and Bernie Madoff aside, I believe in a free market, and I believe competition is a good thing.

And the need for affordable universal health care aside, I believe in survival of the fittest.

That’s why this gentle wake-up call to the denizens of Columbia, MD: Beware that dust-cloud approaching quickly from behind. Not only might it just overtake you, but it might also, er, cloud radio’s story at just the wrong time.

Where Are Radio’s Cheerleaders?

2009-08-13T01:55:00.000-07:00

Southwest Airlines was a different company when Herb ran it.

Wal-Mart was a different company when Sam ran it.

Radio was a different business* when radio people ran it.

With incredible respect to the broadcasters in boardrooms and on selection committees, we have lost focus and direction. . .because we have lost the clear, omnipresent leadership of yore.

When Herb ran Southwest, you would see him everywhere—taking tickets, handing out boarding cards, serving coffee.

When Sam ran Wal-Mart, you would see his plane at the local airport and the man himself leading associate rallies and saying to customers (who mostly thought he was just other retiree greeter), “How may I help you?”

When radio people helmed our industry* associations, they gave us a very personal, public, omnipresent face. They may not have served popcorn at remotes, but they were in touch with the community in ways that inspired, informed—and exemplified.

Yes, Southwest, Wal-Mart and radio are different businesses today, and all the king’s Herbs, Sams, Eddies and Garys can’t have stopped the trends of time.

Nor am I advocating a return to those golden days of yesteryear. We have to face the realities of today and tomorrow, and we need leaders who are of today and tomorrow.

But those leaders will serve us best if they are also of our industry. As individual operators, we need a big dose of what we’re lacking right now: visibility, inspiration, cheerleading. That’s the leadership we need. I hope we deserve it.

*A word about wording: I am sensitive to those who want to call radio something other than an “industry” or a “business.” “Craft” falls short and “profession” has a limited application. When we settle on a better word, I’ll use it.

Too Big to Fail

2009-08-13T00:00:00.000-07:00

I note with interest that members of the minority broadcast industry are calling for emergency federal assistance.

Why not? I’m sure we’ve got a few billion kicking around that we can throw at the problem.

What’s that, you say? Your business is hurting too? Well, let’s see what we have for an unorganized bunch of independent business people with zero political clout. Um, we’ll have to get back to you on that.

Remember what I said about believing in a free market? Assuming for a moment that such a thing could actually exist, the logical extension is that in that environment, businesses are free to succeed—and they are free to fail.

Minority broadcasters have a bunch of burdens that the rest of us don’t, and I’m in favor of a helping hand. I agree with Inner City’s Pierre Sutton that “Black and Hispanic must not be allowed to go extinct.” But I feel less charitable toward anyone who leverages political clout to misinform and overstate.

I certainly don’t want to see obviated the too-short history of minority advancement in radio. But I want to see fairness and honesty in the process.

My Friend George

2009-08-06T05:06:00.000-07:00

George Taylor Morris died over the weekend. You may know George as the longtime host of Deep Tracks on XM. . .or the morning guy in Boston and New York. . .or the host of the syndicated Reelin’ in the Years.

I met George when he came to work at WBLI on Long Island, an experiment in youthful self-indulgence that, thanks in large part to George’s prodigious talent, ruled the ratings from a tiny town near the East End of the island. He and I became fast friends, but we both moved on and lost touch, although I, for one, followed his career with interest and just a little brotherly pride.

I found out about his diagnosis about six months ago from a mutual friend. I hadn’t talked to him in many years, but I called him, we reconnected, and the years fell away. Subsequently he visited many friends around the country—a farewell tour, as it turns out—and we spent a wonderful day together.

Even though George had not been central in my life for some time, his passing leaves a big hole. I thought of the line in James Taylor’s “Fire and Rain”: “. . .but I always thought I’d see you again.”

Typical GTM: When he showed up on our doorstep, I told him (truthfully) that he looked great. He gave me a big smile, that trademark cock of the head, and said, “Of course.”

Only George could pull that off.

Why the PPM Mess is Important to Us All

2009-07-23T05:09:00.000-07:00

With Arbitron’s Portable People Meter coming under more and more politically-driven fire, it’s tempting for diary-market folk to think this is a good thing for the diary methodology.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Before all these unwarranted, unfounded attacks on the PPM methodology, there were myriad discussions among small and medium market operators about the impact of the new technology on diary markets: Would the PPM cripple the credibility of the diary?

The consensus was, Not really. Sophisticated advertisers and buyers will use the tools available to them. Main street advertisers will be guided by their trusted media partners—that would be you—to use survey tools better to understand their market qualitatively, not to compare radio stations quantitatively and arbitrarily.

Unfortunately, all the negative attention on the PPM affects the stature of the Arbitron brand and the credibility of everything they do. It hinders our ability to help our clients be better informed advertisers.

It also gives rise to alternatives; Nielsen comes to mind, and Eastlan, and several lesser players. Competition is not a bad thing, but competitors should build their market share on legitimate advantages, not the unwarranted perceived weakness of their counterparts.

Is It Just Me?

2009-07-02T05:15:00.000-07:00

I watch with mounting amazement (and more than a little trepidation) as more and more politically-motivated, ignorant people and groups latch onto specious, baseless arguments that because the PPM methodology delivers results that are less kind to certain societal segments, the methodology must perforce be wrong.

My heart goes out to those so affected, but Arbitron’s PPM initiative has been perhaps the most scrutinized, researched and cross-checked methodology in the history of statistics. Is it perfect? Of course not. The results of any sample-based research is subject to statistical error. (Statisticians don’t like the term “error,” preferring the more glass-half-full “significance.” Whatever.) But it’s demonstrably closer to reality than what it supplants. And no broadcaster or statistician with whom I’ve talked disagrees.

We are going through very strange times. Truth is irrelevant. We, as a society, shrug off the most outrageous misstatements of fact. Our BS meter has pegged so much that it’s now broken. It would appear that Orwell’s 1984 has finally arrived, a mere 25 years late.

Good News, Long Overdue

2009-07-02T04:24:00.000-07:00

The NAB and small market broadcasters deserve to congratulate themselves on a job well done on the “AM on FM” issue—and not just because of the issue itself.

Listen carefully to the pronouncements of our frenemies and you’ll hear evidence that our message is getting through: free, over-the-air broadcasters are committed to service.

Listen to FCC Commissioner McDowell, commenting on the translator issue, talking about “an opportunity to strengthen the contributions that [AM stations] make in furthering our long-standing public policy goals of localism, competition, and diversity in broadcasting.”

While the ability to fortify our AMs with FM is a great advance, I hope that what is taking hold among our regulatory masters is the mind-set that what we offer to our listeners and communities is worth protecting at all costs.

The Politics of Radio

2009-05-21T04:59:00.000-07:00

Remember the good days when we could operate our radio businesses (successfully, hopefully), send our dues to the NAB, RAB and our state associations, and call it a day?

Those were also the days when our towns boasted more than one menswear shop and a few boutiques for the ladies. . .when we had several good car dealer clients. . .the DMV wasn’t the anchor store at the local strip mall. . .and your AM/FM combo was the only radio service in the market.

Well, fugaddaboutit. These days, in addition to retailers being as hard to find in our markets as a five-dollar haircut, we have to deal with the fact that everything we do as an industry is politicized. Congressional committees are convened to discuss what music we play, what words we utter (profanity is one thing, but political opinions are really under fire), and now, the ability of a public company to exercise its best efforts to survey our industry.

More on the Arbitron insanity in another post. In the meantime, when did radio become so dangerous to require such vigilance from so many people?

Was it the spawn of the lucky-13-year-old Telecommunications Act? Was it the increasingly prevalent conviction—fed first by reality television and call-in radio; then, haltingly and ultimately unsuccessfully by LPTV and LPFM; and now by YouTube and Twitter—that everyone, in fact, deserves to be a star?

Of course, all of this stems from the conceit that the airwaves are public property—a notion disputed hotly, if mutely, by some of our finest legal minds. And while we may celebrate the demise of local newspapers across the land, their decline clears the way for more heat on us.

The newspapers have always presented a problem to the powers that be. Just a we bear the burden of one conceit, so the print industry has benefitted from one of their own, rooted in the Constitution, called freedom of the press. (Why that one only peripherally applies to us, I leave to the aforesaid legal minds to address.) In their heyday, newspapers were royal thorns in the side of the ruling elite, and nothing could be done—overtly, legally, anyway—about it.

The government couldn’t prohibit newspapers from advertising a legal product, but they could force broadcasting to cease cigarette advertising. Ditto spirits. Ditto obscenity. Ditto free speech itself.

We live in contentious times, where no holds are barred and the loudest voices control opinion. Opinions expressed on broadcast media can be, and are being, manipulated in the name of public ownership of the airwaves. And who represents the public? Our good-hearted but industry-ignorant legislators, spurred on by a highly vocal minority.

As Bette Davis said in All About Eve (according to Google, anyway), “Fasten your seatbelts; it’s going to be a bumpy ride.”

The Arbitron Insanity

2009-05-21T04:02:00.000-07:00

Okay, everybody in radio has some issue with Arbitron. But really, does anyone really buy the political firestorm about the Portable People Meter?

Yes, the change in methodology has caused a seismic shift in reported listening patterns. Perhaps some groups have lost ground as a result. Perhaps those groups will lose revenue as a result.

Get over it.

What about the plight of poor Caucasian broadcasters in Los Angeles when Arbitron modified heir diary methodology and overnight the top five stations were Hispanic? Who raised a political voice in protest then?

I am a staunch civil rights advocate, but I think the prevailing MO of attacking and inflating every situation in the name of civil rights is madness. Are we so afraid of being branded as politically incorrect that we refrain from speaking out against minority leaders who use their bully pulpit to distort situations and, well, bully the opposition into politically-correct submission?

Back to Arbitron: the PPM is an advancement, but no survey can ever be accurate. (If you want accurate, you want a census. And look how well they turn out.) The PPM is arguably more accurate than the diary; but because it reflects a different reality, it should be suppressed?

What country are we living in, again?

The Unfortunate Mr. Rehr

2009-05-21T03:08:00.000-07:00

It looks like history is repeating itself: TV guy crosses swords with NAB leader, compels resignation. Whether it’s Lombardo v. Fritts or Sanders v. Rehr, the result is the same: leader gets curbed for all the wrong reasons.

I like David Rehr and I think he’s a bright, earnest, driven lobbying professional. Whether that is the ideal profile for the NAB job is open to debate, but I don’t think the job itself is: no one in that position can stem the tide of power-hungry political ill will toward our industry.

I believe our NAB should be operating on four levels:

Working feverishly the corridors of power to marshal support for our causes
Mitigating and deflecting the forces arrayed against us
Publicly reflecting absolute confidence that our brand of reason shall prevail
Privately helping its members confront and cope with likely outcomes

While the NAB is generally effective on the first three levels, it can be more so on the fourth.

I wish David well on his career path, and I hope his successor is given the opportunity to succeed where possible—and artfully deal with defeat where necessary.

An Open Letter to the NAB Search Committee

2009-05-07T04:27:00.000-07:00

Anyone who has spent any time in small market radio knows this scenario all too well: we hire a talented, capable employee, and it’s only a matter of time before said employee is wooed away to a better gig.

Over time, most of us have learned that the best, most stable, longest-lasting employees are people who (a) love radio and (b) have another good reason besides the job to live and work in the market.

When the selection of David Rehr as CEO of the RAB was announced, I was not alone in expressing my reservations about the choice. There was no doubt in my mind that Mr. Rehr was—and is—a very bright, committed guy who knows a lot about the lobbying industry. My reservations had nothing to do with his skills; but he failed the two tests I always ran on people I considered hiring:

1. Are you passionate about what you do?
2. Do you have a reason, other than the job, for working here?

Define “here” as “in broadcasting” and you have pretty good criteria for hiring our next NAB CEO.

Another experience I had in my small town that may be pertinent: We had a Chamber executive director who wasn’t the brightest bulb on the tree, and who wasn’t the most dynamic guy on the planet. But he was a lifelong local whose passion for the community was so strong, so heartfelt, that he did a lot of good for us all. After he retired, the Chamber hired a chamber professional. He did a good job, but it was by the numbers. Two years later, he was off to a bigger town.

We in radio know—as do our brethren in TV—the value of consistency and longevity. Our morning guy may not be the best in the business, but he’s a decades-long listening habit. (Ditto that venerable TV anchor.) Say what you will about Eddie Fritts, but for over 20 years he conveyed passion and conviction that can only be the product of true belief.

I’m not saying we should recruit another Eddie Fritts; the world, and the industry, has changed. But there are some excellent candidates in the ranks of broadcasting, and they should be taken seriously. What about lobbying experience? you ask. Any involved broadcaster has way more lobbying experience than, say, the average beer distributor; we enjoy unique symbiotic relationships with our elected representatives that no one else can touch.

We can agree, I think, that our next NAB chief should have these qualities:

•    Passion for broadcasting
•    Relations with key DC players
•    Lobbying skills—a.k.a. product knowledge and salesmanship
•    Mental commitment to the long haul

When looking for Eddie’s successor, there was a strong feeling among certain NAB Board members that we needed to look outside our industry for a professional lobbyist. We hired a professional lobbyist. And now we have to look for someone else. I hope this time that coming from broadcasting will not be a black mark against the candidate.

The Fight Must Go On

2009-05-07T03:31:00.000-07:00

In talking with a reader of our newsletter shortly after the NAB news broke, he expressed concern that this might disrupt the many ongoing battles we wage, most importantly the war on the performance tax.

From my perspective, there is little cause for concern. For one thing, the NAB staffers who wage these fights day after day will keep doing so, and they’re very good at it. But no less important, a big part of those fights is waged by the local broadcasters who have unique access to the Washington deal-makers. . .and no one is more committed to winning the fights than we are.

Ratings: Value or “Tribute”?

2009-05-07T02:33:00.000-07:00

Bill O’Shaughnessy is one of the finest broadcasters to grace our industry, having established a small-market-radio version of the Algonquin Round Table in tony Westchester County, NY—not to mention having the heaviest Rolodex in the business.

But I respectfully disagree with his characterization of broadcast ratings as “tribute.”

Ratings are like chainsaws: in the right hands, they are valuable tools. . .but in the wrong hands, they can hurt you. The Arbitron County Studies are out, and from all the chatter I see from clients and readers, ratings misuse continues to abound.

Ratings, especially in small markets, should not be used to aggrandize your station.

First, despite the introduced and proposed advances in accuracy, the potential for bounce is simply too great to ignore. If you brag about your ratings, you are giving the ratings a disproportional role in your sales/service arsenal. You paint yourself into a corner should you experience a ratings downturn—which, over time, you surely will.

Second, improper presentation of ratings information violates Rule One of sales, which says it’s always about the customer, not us.

This is a big topic and I can’t really do it justice as the last Last Word, but here are a couple of ways to use ratings safely and effectively:

First, downplay them when you do well. “Sure,” you can say, “we’re proud of the fact that our community seems to like what we do, but that’s not as important as how we can help you get more business.” Not only do you refocus attention where it belongs, but you protect yourself from the ratings downturn by putting the numbers in perspective.

Second, make use of whatever qualitative data are available to you to help your advertiser’s marketing objectives. That transforms the ratings from station-focused bragging to client-focused service. And that’s what we do.

Conflict of Opportunity

2009-04-09T04:55:00.000-07:00

Small market radio has always lived hand to mouth, and our current economic “opportunities” have not improved the situation. Even when a small-market broadcaster achieves some scale, with some to many stations in his or her group, the practical, manage-by-checkbook mentality never quite goes away.

But small market radio is inhabited nowadays by a different breed as well—actually, two different breeds. One is the large- or medium-market operators who invested their investor money in a bunch of small stations, thinking they were just smaller versions of their kind of radio. Some have adapted; some have not. The other breed is the small-market-at-heart operators who rapidly got to be big group operators—often losing heart in the process.

I don’t believe any of the breeds so described are more or less capable of success in the small-market sand-box, but each breed responds differently—whether due to mindset or circumstance—to the challenges and opportunities before us.

But wait—there’s a fourth breed afoot as well. Take, for example, our friend Peter Smythe. Peter is a big-market guy with big-market stations in his group, but he’s a small-market guy at heart. (In other words, we small market folks would say he’s a real broadcaster; his words and actions are those of someone who knows what local radio is all about.)

But where the Peter Smythes and his well-funded brethren differ from most of us today is, well, that well-funded part. And nowhere is that more evident than in his essay about the importance of webcasting to radio.

The wonderful, magnanimous streaming-fees concession made recently—over which not a few in our industry are back-slapping and congratulating themselves—changes absolutely nothing. It’s a joke. No, it’s an insult—that some people in our industry are so out of touch with small market radio to think this is a victory. (To be fair, many of our small-market leaders are still on the case, viewing the latest episode as progress but by no means a win.)

I think the rest of the industry has gotten the small-market memo about HD: pass. As important as it might be from an industry public-relations perspective, it is the last thing small market operators want to spend money on—even when they have it.

But webcasting is a different story. I applaud those who are paying the proverbial two dollars to stream their broadcasts on the Internet, even if selectively. (Interestingly, as we note in this issue’s lead story, a small station on Long Island has been streaming 24/7 for years; such was the passion and commitment of its late owner.)

Fifteen years ago, as XM was launching “Rock” and “Roll” to fearsome fanfare, some of us were saying that satellite radio was at best a transitional technology; today, even the hobbled merged remnants of that business realize their future is on the web. (But really, why pay them when you can get anything you want online for free?)

In the early days of what is now known as HD—a decade or more before the first receiver was sold (in Cedar Rapids, IA, I note with some perverse home-boy pride)—I asked my buddy, the director of engineering at Gannett, who was part of the ad-hoc consortium that eventually birthed the technology, “Is this anything, really?” (That was not the first time I was reminded that you never ask an engineer if his/her latest bright, shiny object has real-world relevance.)

So, the scoreboard reads thus:

Feeble attempts to supplant the hegemony of the Internet: 0
The Internet: 2

Paul Harvey Wannabe?

All of which is my wordy way of saying. . .

The Internet is vitally important to us.
We should do everything we can to put lots of our audio online.
We should plan to put all our audio online as soon as we can—and then some.
We should raise our disproportionately-loud small-market voice to ensure that the industry powers that be understand the streaming-fee battle is far from over.

Or, in the slightly less-wordy words of Chancellor Churchill, “Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never.”

Come to think of it, Sir Winston would have made a heckuva small-market broadcaster.

Political Wrong-Headedness

2009-02-12T00:25:00.000-08:00

As I’ve said before, I’m apolitical. I think that all political factions have valid points of view—but they also have a big stash of stupid pills. Right now, it seems, at least when it comes to issues important to our industry, the majority party is popping those pills like candy corn at Halloween.

Take this Fairness Doctrine thing. Debbie Stabenow says that there is an imbalance in the points of view expressed on the air and, by gum, it’s up to the government to right this grievous wrong.

Let me get this straight. Our economy is a shambles; people are losing their jobs, their homes, their hope. But our elected officials somehow find the time to indulge their petty retributive feelings to make sure there is an equal number of idiots on the air from the far left and the far right.

Here’s a novel idea: let the market decide. Personally I think there is a resurgence in the offing for progressive talk. Just the fact that the very smart people at Dial Global are snapping up marquee liberal talkers is a good bellwether. But if not, that’s the way it works: popular programming survives, the rest doesn’t.

While they’re at it, our too-much-time-on-their-hands legislators should redress another disgraceful disparity: the lack of Westerns on network television. There ought to be a doctrine ...

The Perils of Irrelevant Media

2009-02-12T00:22:00.000-08:00

This week we had two reminders of why certain media are doomed ... and why others are fated to survive all challenges.

Both the venerable Muzak and the embattled Sirius-XM are facing Chapter 11 bankruptcy. At first glance the two have little in common; one is the very definition of “old media,” 75 years old, limping along; the other burst on the scene purporting to be a game-changer, full of sound and fury.

But on closer examination, Muzak and Sirius-XM are but two sides of the same coin. Neither is providing meaningful service to its consumers. Neither deserves to survive.

When I was a kid I sold Muzak for a while, and at the time the story was somewhat compelling: the music was scientifically designed to have a specific effect—energizing for a factory, soothing for a dentist’s office. But at its core, it’s just repackaged music.

Although Sirius-XM has myriad talk channels, most are music. And with certain high-profile exceptions—the over-exposed Howard Stern and Oprah Winfrey, for example—the wobbly satellite radio outfit offers nothing the media consumer can’t get elsewhere for free.

And then there’s radio. As we and others have said many times, our medium does pretty well, considering how badly we screw it up ... and right now we’re really excelling at that. But there is just enough genuinely relevant content—mostly in smaller markets, I have to say—to stave off the grim media reaper.

As long as we specialize in content that our communities find relevant and of service, we can survive. Actually, if we’re truly committed to our communities, we can do much better than survive.

Air America and the Fairness Doctrine

2009-02-05T06:53:00.000-08:00

You have to hand it to Air America. Now on its third or fourth owner, the scrappy little liberal network has refused to die, in spite of being at odds with prevailing political thought since its inception.

Now, with the tide turning, it’s possible that Air America will fall victim to the more supportive climate. Instead of being buffeted by conservative talk radio, which now has problems of its own, the network is being dismantled by the defection of its stars to weightier distributors, most notably Dial Global (see story, Page 2).

It’s a familiar story: a pioneer creates and popularizes a franchise, only to see that franchise coopted by one or more more powerful competitors. I certainly don’t think ill of the coopters. . .but Air America deserves a little appreciation its pioneering.

I for one welcome a more balanced radio dial—if you can call extreme points of view from both the far left and the far right “balanced”—if for no other reason than it renders the Fairness Doctrine irrelevant.

Rush Judgment

2009-02-05T06:25:00.000-08:00

In my newsletter a couple of weeks ago I wrote the following:

Recently on his radio program Rush Limbaugh blasted members of his own party who are sniffing the winds of change in Washington and are willing to engage in constructive dialog with the new administration. Rather than helping Mr. Obama, Rush said, Republicans should do everything they can to bring him down: “I hope he fails.”

What an appalling statement. If I had any vestigial respect left for Limbaugh’s talent or the positive attention he once brought to radio, this pretty much eradicated it. Not long ago, his divisive railings were in tune with the times; but times have changed. Unfortunately, Limbaugh has not changed with them. Americans have resoundingly rejected the antagonistic values Mr. Limbaugh espouses; in the context of today, he has been revealed as an anachronism, a bombastic blowhard, aptly described by Shakespeare’s line, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

If you are a Limbaugh affiliate, beware: before long his ditto-head audience will comprise only the 22% of the population who said, to the end, that the previous administration was doing a heck of a job. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.

You'd think I waved a commie flag or something, judging from the response. Herewith, a sampler:

NO PASSES. After your comments about Rush Limbaugh, I can only assume that you have also joined the millions of liberal Americans who believe that Obama has surpassed Jesus as the savior of the world. I don’t believe that and neither does Rush. And because McCain got nearly 50% of the popular vote last November, I believe that there are a LOT more than 22 million people who don’t believe that either.

I agree that we should support our new president and support his efforts to improve the lives of Americans. But, when he supports values and policies that I do not believe are truly in the best interest of America (gay marriage, increased government in our lives, government-paid abortion, nationalized health care, a smaller military), I think that we should speak out and point out that these are not the values or desires of the MAJORITY of Americans.

Nobody gave Bush a pass. Nobody gave Clinton a pass. And nobody should give Obama a pass. I agree that Rush can be a blustering blowhard at times, and occasionally I hear him on my station and wish he would just shut up already. But even if he is a little over the top at times, I still believe that what he is saying resonates with my audience and will continue to do so even more in the next few months when the shine wears off and Americans are disappointed to find out that Obama is not going to be able to save the world after all.

—Jeff Lovett, WGRA, Cairo, GA

STATING THE OBVIOUS. Congratulations for stating the obvious about Rush Limbaugh. Extend my subscription for ten years to help replace the feckless who will cancel in protest. The missing ingredient in our civic discourse in America today is civility. Regardless of your partisan affiliations, it is more essential than ever to restore civility to civic discourse.

Good work.

—Roger Utnehmer, DoorCountyDailyNews.com, Sturgeon Bay, WI

HE SAVED AM RADIO. I look forward each week to receiving SMRN. You are a tireless advocate for a medium I live, breathe and sleep. However, I was appalled to read your vicious attack in the 1/22/09 newsletter on Rush Limbaugh, a man who has done more for small market radio than anyone alive today.

Prior to reading your partisan cheap shot on Rush, I have never paid much attention to your politics, preferring to tap your insight and sources advocating for small market radio. But your blistering attack was out of context (as most attacks on Rush are) and unfair. Allow me to quote him directly from a recent interview with Sean Hannity:

“Now, if he (Pres. Barack Obama) turns out to be a Reagan, if he adds Reagan to his recipe of FDR and Lincoln—and if he does cut some taxes—if he does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yes, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan. But if he’s going to do FDR—if he’s going to do The New New Deal all over, which we will call here The Raw Deal—why would I want him to succeed? Look, he’s my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. It matters not at all. If he is going to implement a far-left agenda. . .

Look, I think it’s already decided: $2 trillion in stimulus? The growth of government? I think the intent here is to create as many dependant Americans as possible looking to government for their hope and salvation. If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it’s over, Sean. We’re never going to roll that back. That’s the end of America as we have known it, because that’s then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided. Why would I want that to succeed? I don’t believe in that.

I know that’s not how this country is going to be great in the future; it’s not what made this country great. So I shamelessly say, “No! I want him to fail.” If his agenda is a far-left collectivism—some people say socialism—as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?”

I’m sure you understand how someone with Rush’s firmly-held conservative beliefs, shared by millions of Americans, is not going to toss aside his principles and walk lockstep with someone who wishes to take the country in a completely different direction. And given Rush’s record ratings, 20 years of broadcast excellence and a recently-signed $400-million contract, your morbid wish for his demise is not going to happen.

Please leave the partisan attacks on Rush to the mainstream media and stick to commonsense reporting on small market radio. Or at least balance your attack with a companion piece in the next issue answering the question: Does President Obama want Rush to fail? Since Obama attacked Rush in one of his very first acts as president, I think we know the answer. What would that mean for small market radio?

Lastly, I also have a suggestion that might better serve your readers: Undertake a research project by identifying the revenue and value of most AM sticks in the mid-80’s. Then compare that to the mid-90’s and since. AM radio was DOA when Rush Limbaugh arrived on the scene. The man singlehandedly saved the AM radio band. He should be celebrated by your publication daily.

—Scott Hennen, Great Plains Integrated Marketing/SMAHH Communications, Fargo, ND

HE’S LOST IT. A nice piece on Limbaugh.

I used to admire the guy as a radio pro, a true showman who understood what it took to hold onto an audience (granted, a niche audience, but a large niche). Now, yeah, I think he’s lost it.

At least he’s forgotten what made him successful, tapping into unexpressed feelings of millions of people.

I wonder if his gazillion-dollar contract is looking so good to his syndicator now.

—Jay Douglas, Los Angeles, CA

HERD MENTALITY. As an owner and manager of a real small market station, I rarely have the time or motivation to respond to the trite nonsense that passes as journalism and intelligent commentary in this day and age of herd mentality. However, your final thought in the January 22 newsletter was truly over the top for me.

To the specific: Your four-word quote from Mr. Limbaugh was your evidence that he is just a mean obstructionist to “constructive dialog.” Even the most superficial research would have revealed that Mr. Limbaugh had just listed a number of Mr. Obama’s positions and goals that represent a destruction of the free-market capitalist system (socialism) and the negative effects that result for small business and all Americans. It is in these endeavors, “I hope he fails.” That is the context in which the final phrase was made. You simply took the last four words from the CNN/MSNBC sound bite and came to your own conclusion as to the intent and, thereby, surrounded yourself with the dust of the herd. Was this simply from laziness or the chance to reinforce an existing bias?

Your other comments further reveal that you obviously avoid listening to his program, which is certainly your right. However, passing yourself off as an expert on his content and style is a bit disingenuous to say the least.

Clint Eastwood famously observed that “a man has to know his limitations.” I would suggest you stick to the broadcasting business and leave the political analysis to others. I’m paying for the broadcasting news. I can get the expert analysis from the vapid bubble brains on cable who probably really think there are 57 states in this country.

The breeze from bombastic blowhards wafts from many directions. Better to be a bombastic blowhard than an ignorant bombastic blowhard driven by the herd. I find it best to stay upwind of both.

—Jay B. Cessna, Cessna Communications, Inc.

MY TURN (AGAIN). First, a bit of housekeeping. Scott correctly pointed out that the quote came from an appearance on Sean Hannity’s Fox News TV show. Scott’s transcript is essentially accurate; to get it from the fox’s mouth, read and watch here.

I was interested but not surprised to find that most of the responses assumed that I was taking a political stance; in fact, my comments were intended to be about radio. I hate politics as usual. I have voted Republican, Libertarian, Democrat, Natural Law; my guy is always the one who lies to me the least. And I listen to Rush’s show often.

Thanks, Scott, for complimenting me as a “tireless advocate for radio.” I try to be, as do we all. It’s true that Rush, more than anyone else, reinvented AM radio. I just don’t want him to undo all the good he’s done for our medium by becoming irrelevant and out of step.

I have been kind of hoping that we were entering an era of more respectful discourse, but recent events have dashed those hopes. Given the resumption of politics as usual, not to mention Rush becoming Topic A on both sides of the aisle, I only hope the attention will be beneficial to our medium. Time will tell.

THE LAST GASP. I received one more letter, from Adam Wright, WSNW, Seneca, SC about my opinion that Rush has to be careful not to turn into a marginalized wacko; let this be the end of it:

I have been reading The Small Market Radio Newsletter on and off for several years. What most don’t seem to understand is Rush is an entertainer, not a news source. The same goes for Hannity, Ingraham and Boortz. It just amazes me the number of people who listen who actually consider their comments news. If these were actual news sources, we would have little or no use for the traditional news we get at the top of the hour from ABC and CBS.

As far as your comments go, I have no problem with you sharing your thoughts, political or otherwise, in this publication from time to time. Keep up the good work.

Spreading the News

2009-02-05T06:20:00.000-08:00

I was struck by the sound reasoning of Paul McDonnold in his recent commentary in the Christian Science Monitor: “While things in the economy truly are bad, this is not simply about reporting the truth; it’s about representing that truth in the most responsible way. A media that is too much in love with stories that bleed is capable of making the recession worse than it has to be.”

We need to take these words to heart and remember that we have a great deal of influence over the thinking of the business people in our markets.

That influence comes in two forms: first, as a powerful news medium, our choice of stories and wording contributes to a climate of hope or despair (which is McDonnold’s point).

But equally important is the more subtle effect of the hundreds of personal interactions between our sales people and our clients that take place every week. As the saying goes, a sale is always made; either we buy into the clients’ fears or they buy into our optimism.

But for our people to make the “sale” of hope—which often will lead to the sale of radio advertising—we need to be absolutely positive in our thought, speech and action. . .and be vigilant against negativity among our people.

Which leads us right back to the whole cutback thing: part of the art of prudent pruning is preserving the spirit of our people.

Think Small

2009-02-05T06:18:00.000-08:00

I don’t know about you, but I’m not getting any bailout money. I’m also not ordering any private jets, hosting any Super Bowl parties or redecorating my office to the tune of $50,000. I’m also not cutting my workforce by 10%.

The responses to current economic conditions dramatically spotlight the difference between most big companies and most small operators. But, as we see from our Costco article on Page 8, a sense of responsibility for employees, vendors and our communities is not at odds with being a large company. As Costco CEO Jim Sinegal exemplifies, if you’re successful, you can better resist the pressure of Wall Street and/or your investors; if you are not successful, the money guys are completely in control.

If a big radio company is not successful, it’s rarely a case of gross incompetence. Usually it’s a case of a flawed business plan—not understanding the consequences of being national in a local industry. No matter the reason, weakness puts the capitalists firmly in the driver’s seat.

As Mr. Sinegal puts it, “People in that business are trying to make money between now and next Thursday.”

Every day, too many good radio people are broomed in the name of fiscal responsibility. I’ve run radio stations and other businesses, and I can find lots of other ways to cut back before I hit the payroll. (This assumes that I have a reasonable staff level to begin with.) I might still have to hit the payroll, but by making tough calls elsewhere first, I can minimize the human toll.

Putting aside for a moment the consequences to those who are put out of work, the practice could seriously damage our business when we need it least. Formula music radio cannot compete with new media, but compelling personalities can. (That includes you, Mr. Limbaugh.)

And to those who are cutting successful sellers because they make “too much money”: You are just crazy.

Let’s do all we can, at every level, to preserve the strength of our business. I urge our leading radio companies to halt the bloodshed, reset your priorities and put people first.

The Cutting Edge

2009-01-29T06:24:00.000-08:00

Cutting costs is always difficult; the trick is to do so without cutting the soul out of our business. Since our people are the soul of our business, small-market owner-operators do everything they can to avoid outright staff reductions. After paring everything else to the bone and it’s not quite enough, some readers tell us they have cut part-time staff; others say they have implemented pay freezes or cuts. But most of the readers with whom I speak view cutting full-time staff as an absolute last resort.

Operators who live with their people and their communities know firsthand the negative consequences of staff cuts. Those operators know their own people well, and in some cases have formed close friendships with them. They are embedded in their communities, and they see firsthand the intricate interconnection among the station, its staff, the advertisers and the community. They realize that a staff cut ripples negatively throughout the community. Sometime it’s necessary, to be sure; after all, most of our operations today employ far fewer programmers, for example, than 10 or 15 years go.

On the other hand, larger and publicly-traded companies approach cost cutting in a very different way. It’s about the numbers, and since payroll accounts for the largest percentage of most companies’ budgets, that’s one of the first places such companies look to achieve drastic and immediate—and shareholder-pleasing—cost reductions.

The business climate in which we find ourselves has become so singularly focused on shareholder value that we have lost balance. We have a generation of executives who will do anything and everything to maximize shareholder value; those executives are praised for getting results, with no thought to the means used to achieve those results.

This is a shortsighted approach to business. But it is difficult—impossible, really—to change it without a fundamental shift in the thinking of everyone concerned—corporate executives, their boards of directors and the shareholders themselves.

We seem to be entering an era in which balance is valued once again. The days of black-and-white thinking seem to be over. My hope is that eventually the heads of large corporations will be able to acknowledge theirs hearts—and their souls.

Another One Bites the Dust

2008-10-13T08:08:00.001-07:00

From today's Tom Taylor email:

Spike O’Dell wasn’t kidding about his intention to leave the plum job of waking up Chicago, on Tribune’s WGN (720). For the first time, he confirmed to listeners last Friday morning that he’ll be leaving the second week of December. He said – rightly – that his decision not to renew his deal was the “worst-kept secret” in town, but the 55-year-old really truly is walking away from a big salary and big ratings. He wants to retire while he’s still “young enough and healthy enough” to enjoy the next stage of his life, and he’s financially able to do it. His departure ends an eight-year tenure as the morning host at ’GN, but an overall 21 years there.

When Sharon and I first motored from Hartford, CT to our new home in Fairfield, IA, naturally I was listening to the radio for every turn of the tires - that was long enough ago to hear real, live, local radio and rich regional differences from village to town, with its concomitant variations in quality, most of it, er, charming - I came upon "KICK 104" in Davenport, IA, and a guy who jumped off the dial. He was folksy but professional, chatting comfortably about last night's charity dinner where he was a celebrity waiter, and with listeners about the highlights of their lives. And what a voice! "Holy shit," I exclaimed (inwardly, so as not to alarm the Mrs.); "what's this guy doing in Davenport, IA?"

It turns out what he was doing in Davenport, IA was owning part of the station he worked for; that's how they could afford to keep him. But soon he was headed to the bright tower lights of WGN anyway, and it was obvious he was heir apparent to the venerable Wally Phillips. (No keys exist on the keyboard that accurately render Mr. Phillips's own pronunciation of his name, BTW - suffice it to say that his success was all the more remarkable, having a pronounced Brokawish speech impediment, a name with four "L"s and call letters beginning with "W." Oh, and before WGN he was at a Chicago station that threw another "L" at him for good measure).

Anyway, the prophesy was fulfilled: Mr. O’Dell entertained Chicago for two decades ... and now he is leaving us. He has had an enviable career, as much for what he didn't do:

He didn't get downsized on any of the industry's myriad Black Fridays.
He didn't get fined by the FCC.
He didn't get arrested.
He didn't start rumors he wouldn't renew any of his contracts, thus stirring up the infamous Industry Buzz and starting a bidding war.
He didn't syndicate his show, thus losing the essential local quality that made him so great.

Instead, Mr. O’Dell did what good broadcasters do: he got up (very early) every morning and did good (make that great) radio.

I wish him well in his next stage, but I mourn our loss.

And thanks, Spike, for proving to this big-city-radio kid - for the first time but certainly not the last - that good, and sometimes great, radio happens in smaller markets, too.

Saving the Web, One Site at a Time

2008-08-10T23:29:00.001-07:00

I've been doing websites for my own businesses and clients for years, mostly as a diversion. But lately more such projects have been coming my way, and I've discovered my Inner Geek. I enjoy it immensely, and I'm getting good response from my clients: they're saying I give them exactly what they want, on time, for a good price.

So, I'm getting serious about website development, and I want to tell the world (or most of it):

If you know anyone who is looking for help with a new or existing site, please let them know about me.
If you are considering your own site, whether personal or business, please think of me.
If the topic comes up in conversation, please put in a good word.
If you hear the word "website" uttered, even several miles away - or even think you do - rush over and tell them about me.
Forward this post to everyone in your address book and have them do the same. (I calculate that if we all do this, everyone in the world, except maybe in China, will see it in about eight days.)

You (and everyone else in the world, except maybe in China) can see my approach, work and references at www.site-for-sore-eyes.com; I would love your feedback. (When you tell others about the site, just say "put hyphens between all the words." Without the hyphens, you're buying eyeglasses.)

I'm doing all sorts of projects, but being a lifelong radio guy, radio station sites are the most fun. (It turns out that a consultant who also does websites can be downright dangerous.)

For the time being - at least until the world (except maybe China) beats a path to my door and I become a total prima donna - I can be quite flexible and reasonable ... and nobody leaves unhappy.

Thanks so much for helping me launch this thing. And become a total prima donna. Except maybe in China.

Radical Thought

2008-07-24T01:26:00.001-07:00

Sometimes it works out this way: as I cobble together our weekly newsletter, the same topic ends up being addressed from different angles in different articles. (Around our office, we call that the “accidental topic of the week.”)

That’s exactly what happened this week, as two broadcasting luminaries took issue with two separate topics that define broadcast free speech—and free speech in general—in America.

I have posted them here as guest blogs:

The Unfairness Doctrine by Bill O'Shaughnessy
Are the Airwaves Really Public? by Erwin Krasnow

I read with great interest Erwin Krasnow’s article, because I have long advanced his argument; I have scoured the Radio Act of 1927 and subsequent legislation, and I have never been able to find any mention of the fact that the airwaves belong to the public. Now we have validation from a prominent communications attorney, complete with lawyerly citations to back up his argument.

And then there’s our good friend Bill O’Shaughnessy, who rails against the Fairness Doctrine, arguing that this, too, is a suppression of our Constitutional right to free speech.

Both gentlemen make the same compelling argument—I’m paraphrasing here—that our government has hijacked our rights, not just as business operators, but as citizens of this land.

The governmental environment in which we operate presents far too many immediate threats for us to engage in frivolous philosophical discourse. But what Erwin and Bill are saying is far too important for us to ignore.

I am enough of a realist to realize that sudden change is impractical, to say the least. But I do urge the leaders in our industry, as they wend their way through the halls of power, winning and losing skirmishes along the way, never to lose sight of the free-speech freedoms Constitutionally guaranteed to all Americans—and to find a way to reclaim them in the long run.

Virtually all the leaders in our industry to whom I’ve talked are resigned to a tightening regulatory environment, regardless of which party takes the White House in November. But both candidates are preaching change. I can think of no better way to demonstrate the sincerity of that sermon than to make right a great wrong that has plagued our industry—and the public—for far too long.

Memo to Messrs. Rehr, Haley, Newberry et. al.: As we stay on message, speaking in One Voice for Radio, let’s make restoration of free speech a central part of the message.

Guest Blog: The Unfairness Doctrine

2008-07-24T01:16:00.001-07:00

By William O’Shaughnessy

An influential communications blog recently called for the re-imposition of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, suggesting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might favor the effort. “It will not surprise us if the Fairness Doctrine returns and we wouldn’t get all that upset about it. Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants it back on the books. It could be good for broadcasting.”

I’m absolutely opposed to this and just to make myself clear, we’ll refer to it henceforth as the Unfairness Doctrine.

The misnamed doctrine was struck down on August 4, 1987 by an enlightened FCC of its day. And although the darn thing sometimes resembles Lazarus in the Bible in that it keeps jumping up again and again, I hope we won’t associate ourselves with any recurring assault on the First Amendment rights of broadcasters, no matter how agreeable and deceptively named.

It’s very simple and very fundamental: The Federal Communications Commission and the Congress should not be allowed to dictate our agenda or shape our priorities. Our opposition to any Unfairness Doctrine is based, in every season, on the bedrock, fundamental wisdom of the Founders: “Congress shall make no law. . .” You know the rest.

The bloggers may have Nancy Pelosi on their side. I’m afraid I only have James Madison.

In our best moments we are electronic journalists at the People’s business. And clearly, it (any doctrine by government fiat or decree) would be an impermissible intrusion into the editorial process and an inhibitor rather than promoter of controversial expression. It would unquestionably inhibit the presentation of controversy. So much for “balance.”

I don’t think we want to be among those who would intensify the chill an Unfairness Doctrine would induce. We either believe in the principle that broadcasting is entitled to the full freedom of the press that the First Amendment guarantees. . .or we do not.

Governor Mario Cuomo instructs us:

“You can’t get at bad taste and destructive communication through regulation. That’s just substituting one evil for another. The ceding of authority, on a basic principle, has to come back to haunt us.”

The great Cuomo (whom the Boston Globe calls “the preeminent philosopher-statesman of the American nation”) is saying that maybe this generation of broadcasters, buffeted by new technology and competition (and consolidation), can survive by what I’ve called our “obsequious acquiescence” and by pulling our punches on free speech and content issues like an Unfairness Doctrine, but our kids won’t—the people we leave our businesses to.

BARGAINING CHIP. I’m afraid broadcasters are not united in pushing for our long-overdue independence from content regulation. In every season, it seems, structural, so-called “pocketbook” issues take precedence among the speculators and investors, and even some broadcasters—those “market managers” who operate out of airport lounges with their PalmPilots and Blackberries, beholden to corporate masters a whole continent away. They’ll beat their breasts about ownership caps, newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership, multicast-must carry, dual-carriage, retransmission consent, a la carte pricing, fin-sin rules, performance taxes, the DTV spectrum and those white spaces in the DTV band, low power FM, satellite radio, SOARS repeaters, copyright royalties, main studio location, competition from telcos and iPods, etc.

But the broadcasting establishment and the NAB Board, sadly, have always viewed the First Amendment as a stepchild among our priorities and even, occasionally, as a bargaining chip.

So before anyone attempts to bestow their imprimatur, it would be wise to give this some thought lest a lot of owners, people who make profits in this business (again, read: profession), will sell freedom for fees or accommodation on structural, competitive issues. They will make deals with Speaker Pelosi and Congress. They will accept regulation we shouldn’t be accepting—all in exchange for an opportunity to make more money, thus adding their weight to a destructive principle.

And what’s more (and worse), they will flee from any controversial or meaningful programming and throw Radio back to its “jukebox era.”

That is the real danger. And I don’t think you want to encourage that.

UNITED EFFORT. Why not instead use our resources and energy to revive our own flagging spirits and lack of attention to these fundamental issues? All elements of today’s modern media would be better served by a united effort by broadcasters, podcasters, bloggers, Internet entrepreneurs, cable operators et. al.—all those now firmly fixed, and those just entering, the Information Age—to develop a consolidated, joint resolve against government intrusion into content and free expression.

Fairness? Balance? No matter how comforting it would be for the Congress and the Commission to wrap themselves around “fairness,” a concept not explicitly or penumbrally protected by the Constitution as free speech and free press expressly are, I am confident the Supreme Court will one day be compelled to concentrate on the clear, certain, elegant, unvarnished language in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights should we ever again be confronted by the siren song of “fairness” by government fiat, decree or doctrine.

No one disputes what has been called the “coarsening” of our culture. And yet the quest for “fairness” and “balance,” while understandable, and even commendable, is every much a fool’s errand as the crusade to install “decency” on the nation’s airwaves. And perhaps even more dangerous.

Bill O’Shaughnessy is president & CEO of Whitney Radio and editorial director of WVOX, New Rochelle, NY. He can be reached via cindy@wvox.com.

Guest Blog: Are the Airwaves Really Public?

2008-07-22T00:19:00.001-07:00

By Erwin Krasnow

Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, as well as citizen group advocates, frequently proclaim that the airwaves belong to the people. Indeed, the concept of “public airwaves” is the foundation for the return to heavy-handed regulation proposed by Chairman Kevin Martin and his colleagues in the localism proceeding.

In April the FCC released a revised edition of a manual entitled “The Public and Broadcasting: How to Get the Most Service from Your Local Station,” which broadcast stations are required to provide to any member of the public who requests a copy. The manual asserts, without any citation to legal authority, that station licensees are trustees of the public’s airwaves.

The concept of public ownership of the airwaves is repeated over and over, without a close examination as to whether the notion has any legal basis or makes any sense. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, repetition does not transform a lie into the truth.

If you review the record, it is clear that Congress never intended the public to control the airwaves. Here, for example, is Sen. Clarence Dill, one of the coauthors of the Radio Act of 1927, on the subject of ownership of the airwaves: “The government does not own the frequencies, as we call them, or the use of the frequencies. It only possesses the right to regulate the apparatus. We might declare that we own all the channels, but we do not.”

Or take the late Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. He debunked the argument that the government can control broadcasters because their channels use air space by comparing broadcasters to people who speak in public parks—like the airwaves, also in the public domain. “Yet people who speak there do not come under government censorship,” he said.

Even the Congressional Research Service, which conducted a study of the problems raised by proposals to assess fees from broadcasters for use of the spectrum, concluded that “the notion that the public or the government owns the airwaves is without precedent. We find no case that so holds. Furthermore, when enacting the Radio Act of 1927, the Congress specifically deleted a House-passed declaration of ownership.”

But if these arguments are not persuasive, think of the utter impossibility of anyone owning the airwaves. The radio frequency spectrum cannot be seen, touched, or heard. Like sunlight and the wind, it has existed since the beginning of time—long before any person was around to claim it as their own. The spectrum—actually pulses of energy at different frequencies—cannot be contained, or divided, or held in any way. So how can anyone own or control it? The very idea is preposterous.

How, then, has the government been able to regulate broadcasting? Actually, the FCC’s paternalistic control of radio and television slipped in the back door as an unwanted byproduct of a regulation that is, in fact, necessary for orderly use of the electro-magnetic spectrum. (Yes, even those of us who advocate a hands-off approach to FCC regulation of broadcasters agree there is a place for some government supervision.) Without the FCC’s rules on who can use what part of the spectrum, chaos would reign—signals would crash into each other, and clear communications could be impossible.

The late Harvard Law School Professor Louis Jaffe hit the nail squarely when he said, “The popular cliché that the broadcaster is using the public’s airwaves is a vague, indeterminate concept. I think we would have heard little of it had not the existing technology required regulation of broadcasting to avoid interference. For, in one way or another, we all use air and space. To speak of owning such resources is a solecism.”

Originally created to be the traffic cop of the airwaves, the FCC has taken on the role of a morals and vice squad. In the process, the electronic media, one of the most important voices in our society today, have been deprived of a basic constitutional right to freedom of speech.

None of this denies that the spectrum does have a special character, or that broadcasters have a special responsibility to use it in a way that is beneficial to society. In any event, the public still has recourse to stop a broadcaster who is doing a poor job. For one thing, there’s that dial. Every time you change the channel, you are, in effect, voting for or against a station’s programming. The public can also file petitions to deny a broadcaster’s license at the FCC.

But the public does not own the airwaves. The spectrum is there, whether it is used or not. Only when it is enhanced by broadcasters, who fill the airwaves with information and entertainment, does it have any value at all to the public. With their talent, technical knowledge and financial resources, broadcasters have increased the value of the spectrum for everyone. And without a signal, supplied by your local broadcast station, the airwaves would be so much empty space.

Erwin G. Krasnow is a partner with Garvey Schubert Barer, Washington, DC and former general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters. This article first appeared in, and is printed with permission of, Broadcasting & Cable, copyright 2008.

What Did You Expect?

2008-06-25T07:23:00.000-07:00

I feel bad for Don Imus. The poor guy isn't doing anything new, really. Given the shifting standards in our global community, what's the difference between 1972's "1200 Hamburgers to Go" and 2007's "Nappy-Headed Hos"?

It's noteworthy that the former routine is on the same-titled album reissued in 1997 with an EXPLICIT LYRICS sticker. Early-Seventies radio bits get a sticker? (I haven't listened to my copy in a while, but now I'm curious.)

Our paths have crossed a few times over the years, Don's and mine, and I really don't think he's a racist. But he's of a generation that has struggled with cascading seismic shifts in political correctness: what was okay when he was a kid ... what was okay in earlier adulthood ... and what's okay today. (Hint: as a kid, he probably heard adults tell - and himself told - racist jokes openly; as an adult, he probably told racist jokes to well-vetted white friends; today, he might tell a racist joke to a select few - if at all - and they would all have two first names and bad teeth.)

Ah, but there is that whole radio thing. Listening to the 2008 version of Imus in the Morning, you hear a guy who is struggling to remain relevant ... to see, with 68-year-old eyes, the boundaries of political correctness ... and to know just how far outside those boundaries he can safely stray to keep both his shock-jock cred and his job.

Overall, I think he does pretty well. He sure sounds more relevant than his contemporaries up the dial on the Oldies stations - legendary jocks we all revere but wish somebody would tell them to hang up their headsets already.

Yes, the "nappy-headed hos" incident (hereinafter known as Incident One) was regrettable, to say the least - as Imus himself acknowledged. But this "Pacman" thing? Puh-leeeeese. Even if you're totally not a fan (are you listening, Rev. Al?), you have to acknowledge that the remark was ambiguous. Given the eggshells he must tread since Incident One, and what I truly believe is Mr. I.'s outlook these days, his explanation is eminently plausible.

Which brings us to Rev. Al and his kind.

"Aha!" would say Rev. Al. "We know what you mean by 'our kind,' and that makes you, Mr. Radio Ranter, a racist."

But the good rev. would wrong. Again. By "his kind" I mean those who leverage societal sensitivities for their own political agendas, to the potential detriment of society itself.

I mean, who is this guy? Okay, I know who this guy is ... check out Wikipedia for a sense of how, just maybe, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle - oh, never mind.

Why Consolidation Fails

2008-06-21T17:19:00.001-07:00

I have decided to break up my little exercise in self-flagellation into its original parts, reviving Jay Mitchell's Radio Rants in the process.

Although the folks in radio are as wacky as they come, they come to a radio blog to get radio stuff, not other wacky stuff. And the 1.5 demented individuals - a long-suffering friend and the village idiot - who patronize my feeble attempts at humor have no clue what to do with the radio stuff.

So henceforth all the radio stuff is back here, where it belongs ... and all the other stuff is at Jay Mitchell's Blog, where it can't do much harm, hopefully.

Even if you enjoy both aspects of my schizophrenia, this way you can subscribe to both blogs and visit the one that fits your mood of the moment.

The failure of this micro-experiment in consolidation says a lot about what's wrong with consolidation in general: trying to cobble together disparate elements into a productive whole doesn't always work. It would be like trying to run hundreds of radio stations in markets of all sizes and types and expecting success ... oh, never mind.

Small Market Revenue Measurement NOW

2008-06-21T15:53:00.001-07:00

I have long advocated the measurement of small market revenue performance with the same rigor and credibility as the RAB-Miller, Kaplan revenue reports from larger markets. I have not been alone in this, but these days, with the sad news coming from larger markets - which news is, for lack of anything better, applied to smaller markets as well - the small-market-revenue movement is picking up steam.

A number of factions - including measurement companies like Miller, Kaplan and BIA; industry associations like the NAB and the RAB; public-spirited industry vendors and broadcasters in all size markets - are working together to make this happen.

It now looks like the prime mover will be the RAB. I’m told that Board Chairman Peter Smyth has appointed Entercom Regional Vice President and RAB Board Vice Chair Weezie Kramer to head a committee to study the issue, ensuring that smaller markets are represented in proper proportion. I spoke with President/CEO Jeff Haley last week, and he assured me that the RAB is very focused on and committed to this, and that some form of all-encompassing measurement should be in place for 2009, if not sooner. He told me, "I believe it's our industry right to count every ad dollar received. Anything less sells us short."

This is good news indeed. CL King analyst Jim Boyle estimates that small market radio revenues account for about 20% of the radio total. Right now that total is around $21 billion, says the RAB ... but I think that number will be larger when small market radio is fully counted. That’s $4-5 billion of radio revenues that we need to count!

My concern in all this is the definition of small market radio. In speaking with various people in the industry, definitions include “markets 26+,” “markets 75+” and “markets 100+.” These definitions, in my opinion, are off the mark, and they aren’t useful in the present context. A more realistic definition is “markets 150+,” which pretty much takes up where the Miller, Kaplan study now leaves off.

Everybody seems to understand that unrated markets must be included, but even in that realm, we must be inclusive. The most cost-efficient way to survey these markets is, as at least one company is proposing, to identify key small-market groups and capture one number from each, representing all their markets. But that approach would omit smaller groups and independent operators, who - if our newsletter subscriber list is any indication - are the backbone of small market radio.

I will continue to work with our industry leaders on this, and I will continue to keep you informed. For your part, I and a bunch of other people need your support and commitment to participate!

Look Ma, No Data!

2008-05-16T15:55:00.000-07:00

Being a radio guy, I was interested in this article from today's issue of Tom Taylor's excellent daily radio e-rag:

Who’s really #1 in Seattle? That would be public radio's KUOW.

This is a fascinating exercise in almost any Arbitron-rated market – unearthing the 12+ shares for the popular non-com stations and plugging them into the Arbitron-released rankings alongside the commercial stations. In the case of Seattle, the Post-Intelligencer’s Bill Virgin did that and discovers that the University of Washington-owned KUOW (94.9) would handily beat out CHR KUBE (93.3) as the #1 station in the Winter book.

You get similar results in other markets that have a high percentage of college graduates (and often, colleges). In Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, WUNC (91.5) regularly appears at or near the top of the heap in the Research Triangle. Ditto for KQED in San Francisco. And don’t even ask about Ann Arbor.

This parallels my own in-depth survey, undertaken at great cost - namely, I had to put two hours of my life on hold - conducted yesterday when I received a visit from Justin the Cable Guy. (If you must know, my digital cable box showed NO DATA after 4 PM every day - a total bitch if you want to see who's on "Ellen" - and the PPV screens took longer to load than it takes NetFlix to arrive in the mail.)

Anyway, Justin - probably not his real name - hey, do you remember the name of your cable guy? - noticed the KIIS-FM bus card in my office and struck up a conversation about radio ... how's Rick Dees doing? (Hanging by a thread at MOVIN, thanks for asking) ... what about Ellen K, the total babe? (A very nice lady, probably thanks to her Iowa roots) ...

NOT JUSTIN, BUT PRETTY CLOSE

I should mention that Justin could have been from Central Casting - part Larry the Other Cable Guy, a dash of Jim Carrey - burley, goateed, probably stops off for a Frosty One with the other Cable Guys after work.

So after asking his polite questions about KIIS-FM - about the answers to which he could care less, judging from the fact that he kept asking the same questions - he told me he listened mainly to NPR.

That would have taken the wind out of the sails of lesser radio mortals, but it just so happens that I went to school with, roomed with, and got the first radio job for Robert Siegel, so I could continue to impress and amaze Justin. The Cable Guy. (Boy, that's depressing.)

Justin went on to tell me that he had satellite for a while because of Howard Stern (right with you there, buddy - my wife used to do massage therapy on Howard's mother, and Howard beat my ass in Hartford; it would have been more embarrassing all the way around if those situations had been reversed) ... but he only listened in the car and doesn't commute that much these days.

So there you have it: an empirical validation (n=1) of the findings of that fly-by-night outfit, Arbitron. Hey, I just did what most of us consultants do anyway - dress up personal, anecdotal experience as "research" to sell our points of view. Only this time, the sample came to me.

Bias? What Bias?

2008-05-11T15:56:00.000-07:00

A couple of weeks ago I learned something about how people get their news ... what it says about journalism in general ... and what we can learn from it.

I was talking to a friend of mine in the Midwest - let's call him "Bill" - who was telling me about attending a recent forum at the University of Iowa featuring Karl Rove. "I was close enough to see his beady, evil eyes," said Bill. (Call me psychic, but from his subtle verbal cues I was able to discern that Bill may not be Mr. Rove's biggest fan.)

Bill went on to describe the proceeding, telling me that Mr. Rove's responses to the moderator's questions were, variously, outrageous, evasive and outright lies - which prompted the audience to erupt in what you could call a loud and colorful "No Confidence" vote. (Remember, this was a firsthand account.)

Being a fellow traveler when it comes to Mr. Rove, I wanted to see his shameful display for myself, so I went to YouTube and searched for "karl rove university of iowa."

I watched the beginning of the forum, courtesy of something called The Iowa Independent ... and found a significant difference between the actual event and Bill's version. The forum began innocently enough, and Mr. Rove had barely said a word when members of the audience started shouting invectives like "murderer!", "traitor!" and my all-time favorite, "[unintelligible]."

Loathe as I am to give Mr. Rove credit, I have to admit that he was graceful under fire. In fact, the crowd's boorish behavior had me feeling sorry for the guy.

This incident reminds me of several things that we in radio have to remember:

People remember what they want to remember.

When we report news, not only do we want our stories to be accurate and unbiased when they're heard by the firsthand listener, but we want them to survive retelling. You may think that's (a) beyond our control, (b) not our problem and/or (c) impossible to influence, but it's none of the above. After all, the last thing you want is for somebody to spin some scattered version of a story and attribute it to you! Keep your stories clear, straightforward and simple and you'll make a difference.

Commentary is fine as long as it's labeled as such. Sometimes it's not as obvious as we think it is. Our choice of words, phrases and emphases can convey bias. We have to be aware of what we're writing or saying to keep bias where it belongs.

We have a big enough problem with real and perceived bias abounding - from Clear Channel to Rush Limbaugh to Air America. But at least your listeners can trust you.

Can't We Just All Get Along?

2008-05-03T15:59:00.000-07:00

I followed with interest the story about a patent-infringement judgment against Clear Channel. The story, as reported in Radio Ink:

Federal Jury Finds Clear Channel Infringed Patent

LUFKIN, TX -- April 24, 2008: A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has found that Clear Channel Communications infringed on Grantley Patent Holdings' patent for an integrated inventory-management system for multiple radio stations and has awarded Grantley $66 million. The jury also found that the infringement was willful, which gives the judge the option to triple the award.

Grantley filed the case in November 2006, alleging that Clear Channel's Viero inventory-management system infringed on several patents related to Grantley's sister company Maxagrid International's system.

"We are very pleased that the jury understood the complex issues in the case and found that Clear Channel had infringed Grantley's patents," said Ronald Schuts of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, one of the attorneys who represented Grantley Patent Holdings.

I know the people involved, and this is what happens when a company is so big and diverse that Doing What's Right is often supplanted by Doing What's Good for the Company.

Call me an idealist, but there is no reason the two cannot be synonymous. All it takes is two qualities:

The ability to take the long view
A reasonable ethical framework

I like Google's mission statement: "Don't be evil." Whether they live up to it is debatable - I'm a fan - but the statement is kind of like the game of checkers: simple on the surface, but maddeningly complex beneath.

With its hegemony throughout the world, Google has to navigate some treacherous waters; it's hard to be big and not evil.

Ditto Clear Channel. Whether a company that controls so much of our industry - check out their web site and prepare to be astounded at how many ancillary businesses they own - is good for our industry is debatable ... but they are a lot better for our industry when they act a little less like the 1200-station gorilla and more like a good citizen, with all our interests at heart.

The New Language of Radio

2008-02-07T15:00:00.000-08:00

First Clear Channel, then Emmis et.al., slashed jobs to appease stockholders, who usually have jobs (or don't need them). This week CBS, um, released a bunch of good radio people. Here's the way CBS described it:

With these actions, we continue to build on our strategy of deploying our assets to best grow our ratings and monetize the results ...

CBS Radio also ... considerably strengthened our digital assets in order to distribute our content on all available emerging platforms.

Yeah, that's the way I talk, too ... all "deploy" and "monetize" and "aggregate" and "assets." The problem with this business today is that the people who write stuff like that wouldn't know a mic or a playlist if it bit them on the ass.

There are some exceptions - big companies that know they're in the radio business, treat their people well, and know they have a responsibility to those who got them big in the first place. Greater Media comes to mind, and Federated, and ... hmmm, I seem to have run out.

I guess it's easier to shit-can people if you think of them as "assets." Except if you shit-can them, they're "liabilities," aren't they?

Even program directors are talking that way nowadays, in the spirit of joining them in lieu of licking them.

But really, which gets you more excited, doing great radio or monetizing assets?

Am I Blog Enough?

2008-01-20T15:02:00.000-08:00

I just learned another great thing about the blogosphere ... people look out for one another.

A couple of days ago I got an e-mail from my blogobuddie Dan Kelley, who wrote, "Haven’t seen a new post on the blog. I’m hoping that you’re really busy - and that’s a good thing. Us bloggers need to take care of each other."

Well, Dan, yes, I've been really busy - and it is a good thing. My idea of starting a talent development service has met with thunderous response. I've done two newsletters, a teleseminar and lots of aircheck sessions ... but more important, I've made a bunch of new friends who are dedicated to radio in a way that people not in the business (like our families) - and, alas, many who are in the business - cannot fathom.

I also do a weekly newsletter, so I'm pumping out about 5,000 words a week in my day job. But that's no excuse. I have no plans to abandon this blog. At the same time, I have no plans to let this blog devolve into passages like "You won't believe what my dog said today" and polemics about the Administration, global warming and the RIAA.

Thanks, Dan, for taking care of me. I'll return the favor, or pass it on, one day soon.

Radio Can Get It Right Online

2007-12-24T15:03:00.000-08:00

I've stumbled across something that could be a bigger danger to radio's expansion into the Internet realm than all the streaming fees the government can throw at us: it's exemplified by a web site called Compete.com.

Compete.com purports to report traffic statistics for any web site you specify. The problem is, their web stats are estimates, derived from the browsing habits of those Compete.com members who volunteer to download a monitoring application. And any time you derive data from a subset of your universe, the data will be inaccurate to some degree.

I was introduced to Compete.com by a potential advertiser to my newsletter, who showed me a Compare.com analysis of my web site ... where the numbers were about a tenth of the actual, bot-free numbers reported by my hosting company and ad-serving company ... and where they ignored completely our companion directory site, on which our clients' banner ads also appear.

Thanks to Compete.com, potential advertisers can get data on your radio station's web site without the expense of subscribing to a reputable paid service (like Arbitron Online Radio Services) or the bother of contacting you directly. Potential advertisers probably think the data are accurate enough. This hurts them, because they make buying decisions based on bad data; and it hurts you big-time - especially since even the busiest local radio sites have traffic that pales in comparison with national and worldwide sites.

Just for fun I went to Compete.com and plugged in the web sites from some top-rated New York stations. In most cases, Compete.com issued this warning: "We have little data for wxxx.com, so these are rough estimates." In other words, even a high-traffic major-market radio site has a small audience in Internet terms.

Myriad other services, including radio's own Arbitron, measure Internet traffic by means of statistics. But why, when exact usage data are available from the every web site's hosting company, do we use inherently-inaccurate estimates?

There are two concerns with the "exact" usage data:

It can easily be inflated by the use of automated "bots" to hit a web site again and again.

Web site representatives - whether inadvertently or on purpose - often misrepresent the data, confusing "hits," "page views, "visitors" and so on.

So credible data have to be free of the former, and have to be presented consistently to avoid the latter.

I have some suggestions to bring credibility and reliability to radio web site statistics:

Establish a web site that has statistics for every radio station in the U.S.
Derive the statistics from a formula including the stations' own verified server-generated numbers, combined with estimates from a reputable survey company (like Arbitron).
Present all stations' statistics in a consistent format.
Include definitions of all parameters presented ("hits," "page views," etc.).

This web site - www.radiowebstats.com is available, by the way - could be overseen by the Radio Advertising Bureau (RAB) with the support of major broadcast groups, similar to the structure of the Radio Ad Lab and the Radio-Mercury Awards.

At first, the task of developing such a site seems daunting, but once the protocols are established it should be manageable. Further, I submit that such a site, if not absolutely necessary, is vital to make online radio easy to evaluate and to buy.

Over-the-air radio is notoriously difficult to buy, primarily because there is no such coordinated industry-wide effort. We have the opportunity to do it right on the web ... and if it works, maybe we'll be motivated to replicate that success back here on Earth.

The Pendulum Must Swing

2007-12-16T15:05:00.000-08:00

As a result of my little talent coaching deal, I've been talking to lots of jocks and others who appreciate good radio talent. Something that recurs in most of these conversations is how pathetic the pay for announcers is these days.

A good friend, a longtime PD/morning guy, wrote me,

My own son has reached the point of total job frustration and is looking at other career options. He loves our home town, and he really doesn't want to move to another market, but it's his only hope for any decent money in the future. So he's preparing to take a civil service exam and hopefully get a job with the Post Office. Average starting pay with USPS is $20 an hour plus significant benefits.

Did you know that the average postal worker makes $57,000 a year? How many jocks - pardon me, air personalities - do you know making that kind of money?

Several years ago, when I suggested, at a corporate meeting, that we give the announcers raises, the CEO said, "Announcing is a poor career choice. If they don't like it, they should quit."

After years of depressed salaries for the talented folks who keep this business rolling, it's time to start paying them what they're worth. I noted in a previous posting that many smaller operations cannot afford to pay more, and I respect that - because I've been there. (A responsible solution, I think, is to use technology to have a smaller staff so you can pay each one more - but that comes with its own set of consequences, for sure.)

I'm sorry, but when big publicly-traded companies decimate air staffs and pay less and less to the survivors when they're profitable anyway, something is severely out of whack. I understand the dynamics of return on investment, but at some point investors - in any company, in any industry - have to develop a conscience. They have to balance their greed with an awareness of the price being paid down the line.

The Procrustean Problem

2007-12-12T20:33:00.000-08:00

I was talking to a major-market jock today and he told me about when he worked for a top-rated, legendary station in its format ... then it was sold to a megagroup. The management team swept in and announced that henceforth the station would be programmed exactly like all the other [format] stations in the group. The result: a great radio station became an average one.

The same thing happened to me - different market, different format, same story. Great became average.

A long time ago I was VP/Programming for a six-station group (in six different markets - remember them?) that prized individuality. Each station was unique, because each station fit its own market. Each station was great, in its own way, and each station dominated its market.

In an earlier post I referred to the legendary Procrustean bed, where everyone was forced to be the same size. We've got to stop applying this thinking in our medium! It's time we untethered our stations!

Any day now, some creative soul with some under-performing stations will do just that. Some such stations won't make it, but I'll wager some will write the story of the return of great radio.

Fellow Travelers

2007-12-10T20:36:00.000-08:00

Last night I sent out the first edition of my newsletter for jocks, Radio Voices. As whenever you do something new, I had some apprehensions about how air talent - different experience levels, different markets, different formats, different ages - would receive it.

I'm happy to say that none of the responses was negative, and I seem to have struck a chord with jocks new and old alike.

One very experienced, very good fellow, from an Eastern large market, is interested in my talent-development services because he's finding PDs nowadays are too busy, too distracted and too overloaded to give him guidance and feedback - not to mention "too unqualified."

Another jock, an up-and-comer in his third or fourth job, doing mornings at a small Midwestern station, e-mailed that he picked up a useful tip or two, and that he'd forwarded the thing to a bunch of his friends.

Actually, I did get one negative-ish response, from a manager, who responded to a comment about there being plenty of sales consultants while radio's future lies in better talent: "What I think the world needs even more than air people is salespeople. We are always looking for sales reps." Having managed stations, I agree about always looking for sales reps ... and really good ones are rare ... but so much of the industry is focused on finding, training and keeping sales people, I think we need to balance the scales a bit.

I was corresponding with my friend Tom Taylor, a veteran radio journalist who does a daily e-mail called Taylor on Radio-Info (http://www.radio-info.com/newsletter/register.php), and gave this apologia for what I'm doing:

We who love radio see that the most unfortunate effect of today's consolidated industry is fewer opportunities for jocks to grow; there is simply no farm-team system any more. But the only way we can remain a vital medium and stop - maybe even reverse - listener erosion is for our air talent to be the best ever. The only way I can see to bridge the gap is to help talent get better - not by "teaching" them not to say "outside" when they give the weather, but guiding them in the intangibles of one-to-one communication and connection.

And that's what it's all about.

Perfection or Connection?

2007-12-07T20:38:00.000-08:00

I was perusing another talent coach's web site recently; it was chock full of the kind of advice programmers have been giving jocks ever since the first radio consultant told Marconi to tighten it up.

I certainly don't mean to snipe, although that has been a proud radio tradition ever since the second consultant attacked the first consultant for not having a format for Marconi to follow. But we have to stop distilling radio magic down to a set of dictates.

My first taste of this was when the first researchers - who gave Marconi the first safe music list - started giving their medium-market morning shows a bunch of sure-fire ways to win, based on a statistical analysis of large-market morning shows: "Seventy-one percent [or whatever] of winning shows have a male-female team" ... "62% do these bits" ... and so on.

At the time, we all sat around the table, nodding sagely - and this was before PowerPoint, even - but in retrospect it is laughable. The morning show, or any personality, who wins does so because they engage the listener. Sure, there are other factors, but winning starts with the connection.

We've all heard really mediocre talent executing everything perfectly ... but, God bless 'em, they still suck. And they will continue to suck, no matter how much material or how many rules are thrown at them.

The only way they won't suck - maybe, given that some people just shouldn't be in radio - is if somebody works with them on a much deeper, much more fundamental level ... helping them find elements of their personality that listeners will find attractive, and helping them establish that vital connection.

And that goes waaaaaaaay beyond rules and bits.

The Fragility of Reputation

2007-12-03T20:39:00.000-08:00

Back when I was just a baby consultant, a station manager called and wanted to buy my safe list of music for her format. I explained that I didn't just sell a list; I needed to work with the manager and PD to fine-tune the music for that market. She said, "Fine, but we're in a pinch, so send me the list and we'll follow up with you."

And, God help me, I did.

And that's the last time I talked to her, despite my many attempts to follow up.

Fast forward about five years. I was helping a client hire a new PD and this guy walked in, dressed like a slob, dripping with attitude. His answers to our interview questions were flippant or monosyllabic.

Finally, the manager told him, "I'm getting a strong feeling you don't want this job."

He said, "You're right. I'm just here because I want to meet the guy who f--ked up my station."

Yup, he was the PD of that earlier station. After we'd talked a while and he understood the situation better, he told me that one day his manager walked into his office, dropped my list on his desk, and said, "This is the music our consultant told us to play."

I learned a lot from that experience. I shredded my safe lists and have never since allowed myself to be in the middle of a situation like that.

That I know of.

Celebrating Success

2007-11-29T20:42:00.000-08:00

My dear friend Paul Hemmer is a hero of mine. He has spent his entire career in one market. He spent 30 years at the first station he ever worked for; then he bought his own stations, where he programs and continues his 47-years-and-counting on the air.

Over the years, Paul has had many offers to move up - to Des Moines, Kansas City or Chicago, the Midwesterner's Holy Grail - but he has stayed put. Not only has he been waking up Dubuque, Iowa for 40 years, but he has a great family life - wonderful wife and two wonderful kids who are making their parents proud. He and his wife are active and prominent in the community as well.

Paul once confessed to me that he sometimes wonders about what Robert Frost called "the road not taken," as anyone would. But to me, Paul represents the best kind of success - not just in his beloved field, but in every aspect of life. And, funny thing, Paul's balanced life makes him a far better jock.

Why I Suck as a Consultant

2007-11-29T20:40:00.000-08:00

In last week's Time, there was a commentary by Michael Kinsley about Mitt Romney's penchant for outside consultants, and how he'd use them if elected president. Kinsley has this to say about consultants:

What exactly do management consultants do? I asked this of a McKinsey [& Co.] recruiter many years ago. He said, "We provide expertise." I said, "But you're thinking of hiring me, and I have no expertise." He said, "We'll train you." Nothing about that interview dissuaded me from the view that consultants spend at least as much energy and brainpower selling themselves to clients as they spend doing whatever the client pays them to do.

In the beginning, at about the turn of the last century, what management consultants offered was much clearer. It was called Taylorism, after its inventor, Frederick Winslow Taylor. Taylor called it scientific management, and it involved slicing up industrial processes into bite-size tasks and then doing detailed time-and-motion studies to determine the most efficient way to perform them.

All that's left of Taylorism among management consultants today is a pretense to scientific precision in whatever it is that consultants do, which generally involves parachuting into some situation, being smarter than everybody else, coming up with a solution--or at least a PowerPoint presentation--and then leaping onto their horses and galloping away. Who was that masked man? At their best, consultants see a situation with fresh eyes and bring some useful analytical tools. At their worst, they are a prestige play verging on a protection racket. Hey, Mr. CEO: Every other big company has hired McKinsey. What's your problem?

With all respect to other legitimate radio consultants, it is easy to fall into the consultant-as-god mindset; after all, entire radio stations schedule their lives around us, and nothing is as heady as a room full of people listening to you with full and rapt attention.

Here's why I suck:

When they are, I clearly label my pronouncements as opinion, not research-backed gospel.
I admit when I'm wrong.
I don't think, say or imply that I know more about the station or the market than the client.
I do not come with a set of stone tablets (which are a bitch to get through airport security anyway). The best solutions usually come about as a result of collaboration.

Hey, we're all good radio guys, and you could be consulting for me ... but there is real value in having another good radio guy - one who knows what's going on in lots of different markets - take a look from the outside. That, to me, is what good consulting is.

And that should be enough.

Madonna or Joni?

2007-11-26T20:43:00.000-08:00

Madonna Ciccone and Joni Mitchell: two very different artists who exemplify two very different - but equally exemplary - definitions of success.

Ms. Ciccone has remained on top because of her ability to reinvent herself over and over, to stay in sync with popular taste.

Ms. Mitchell, on the other hand, is an inner-directed artist who follows her own muse; every so often her music will enjoy transitory resonance with the public, but she has no interest in deliberately pursuing it.

I have deep respect for both Joni and Madonna. Each has chosen a different path, and there's room for both.

In radio, we each face the same choice: doing whatever it takes to move up, or doing your own thing and enjoying where it takes you.

Either one is fine, as long as it leads to some form of fulfillment. There's nothing more tragic than someone who regrets the path he or she has chosen.

To be happy in your work, you need to do what feels right; as Shakespeare wrote, "Be true to yourself ..." True satisfaction comes from embracing the consequences of your chosen path.

NOW I Get It

2007-11-25T20:45:00.000-08:00

I have a confession: For quite some time I have dismissed blogging as (a) an old concept re-hipped; (b) more ego-trips we don't need; and (c) hardly worth the trouble.

That was before I had a blog, of course. Now that I do, I understand better the dimensions of this thing, and in how many ways it facilitates communication.

I am especially delighted about blogging's ability to reconnect with longtime friends and acquaintances - in interesting new ways - and to make new friends easily and quickly.

I have reconnected, for example, with Dave Martin, one of the good guys and a true radio genius. We all owe Dave a big debt for his contributions to our medium. What I didn't know about Dave, reflected in his blog, is his eclectic intellect. Scary.

And I am connecting with new friends all the time - like Dan Kelley, a knowledgeable and fanatical Classic Rock expert; and Greg Cavanaugh, whose blog is called "Triple-A-Tunes."

Here's the fun part: as a result of Dan and Greg both finding my blog, they are now gratefully aware of each other's existence and shared passions.

So I officially recant my previous position on blogging. By the way, I also had trouble envisioning why anyone would ever need faxes, overnight delivery, e-mail or the Internet. Until I used them.

Maybe I should just shut up and adopt earlier.

Full Circle

2007-11-24T20:47:00.000-08:00

I'm gratified that my tiny voice in the blogging wilderness is beginning to be heard, and that a lot of radio folks are advocating a resurgence of good, live talent.

I began radio life as a fan of the great radio stations all over the country: KHJ, KFWB, KRLA, KYA, KSFO, KDWB, WCFL, WLS, WABC, WMCA, WINS, WFIL, WIBG, and on and on. As Greg Cavanaugh wrote in response to one of my other posts, "The greatness of live talent is the essential 'glue' between the station and the listener."

I started professionally as a jock in the Midwest and Northwest, but I was frustrated by the lack of control I had over my shows ... so I became a PD. Talk about lack of control!

So, by the grace of one of the great men in radio, Marty Beck, I became the GM of a new station on Long Island, WBLI. I was 23 at the time and knew less than squat, but with the help of Marty, Jim Champlin and my friend, mentor and colleague Herb Usenheimer, we prevailed.

Anyway, as my career continued to pull me into the business side, I always maintained a fascination with - and awe of - talent. As consultant, I got to work with talent at the top of their game - Dees, Kraddick, Joyner, et. al. - and never lost the awe.

Even as I maintained an active consulting practice, I ventured into ownership - we built a teensy radio group in Southeast Iowa - and having sold the last of those stations earlier this year - I am returning to my first love, helping air talent. (Check out KillerJock.com for details.)

I firmly believe that a better supply of better air personalities will save radio. We have enough good managers, sales managers, office people and engineers; but programming talent is what makes radio radio.

One Size Doesn't Fit All

2007-11-24T20:46:00.000-08:00

One of the reasons we don't have more good jocks is that PDs tend to treat all their jocks the same - regardless of experience, skills and capabilities.

Greek mythology tells of the Procrustean bed, in which shorter subjects were stretched and taller ones were, er, shortened so everyone fit exactly the same. Some radio stations are latter-day Procrustean beds, insisting on absolute conformity from all their jocks.

The problem is, the best a programmer can ever hope for is the best work from the weakest jock ... leaving the better jocks frustrated and wasted.

Some programmers do this because it seems easier than constantly explaining to the lesser jocks why the greater ones have more freedom. And it is easier, because the alternative is actually giving each jock individual attention to bring out his or her best.

Sorry, but that is - or should be - a big part of the job. If radio is to be great again, we must invest in our talent. They will only be as good as we help them to be.

Safety Last

2007-11-20T20:49:00.000-08:00

Recently I rhapsodized about great Top 40 radio in Philadelphia ("Hy Five"), and how we need to know our radio history to avoid the same pitfalls - and not to lose the greatness.

That reminded me of when Gerry DeFrancesco and I launched KISS-FM (KHKS) in Dallas. When Gerry asked me to do a format search for the station, I told him, "The market doesn't have a format hole ... it has an attitude hole." Everybody was playing it safe and behaving themselves; but nobody - especially the listener - was having any fun.

So we decided that CHR gave us the best platform for fun, exciting radio. We made the decision not to over-format the station - liners were strictly optional, and the jocks would be called upon to think (scary!).

Another station in the market had just flipped out of the format, so there were a bunch of jocks on the loose ... but unfortunately they were format jocks, more accustomed to reading liners and following a tight clock than they were to entertaining the listener. Even more unfortunate was the fact that we couldn't find any station in the country that would serve as an example of what we had in mind.

So we rounded up all those jocks and took them over to my room at the Embassy Suites and subjected them to hours and hours of Top 40 airchecks from the heydays of stations like WFIL, WABC, WCFL, KHJ, KYA ... jocks like Dr. Don Rose, Dan Ingram, John "Records" Landecker, Big Ron O'Brien and God knows who else. We cautioned the jocks to ignore the dated hokiness and appreciate the energy and connection these guys brought to the party.

It took them a while, but those jocks began to get it. As a result, "The New 106.1 KISS-FM" shook up the market from Day One ... the Dallas "attitude hole" was once and forever filled ... and the station became the contemporary benchmark for fun, entertaining radio everywhere.

Not only that, but when world leaders heard the station, they agreed to halt nuclear proliferation, eliminate poverty and restore dignity to every human being on the planet.

Yes, we were that good.

Joe Be Joe

2007-11-19T20:50:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine in L.A. found this unattributed story while cleaning out some files. Enjoy.

It happened to Joe, an air personality in his mid 30's: he was in an auto accident and died. St. Peter greeted Joe at the Heavenly Gate and said he had two choices of residence areas: Professional or General. Right away, Joe said Professional.

St. Peter explained that admission to Professional would depend on how good Joe was at what he did. Was he really a professional?

"Oh, yes," said Joe. "I sounded just like Rick Dees of KIIS in Los Angeles. I even used the same model microphone; I tried to be like him in every way when I read or recorded spots, and did air shtick," said Joe.

"And did you sound just like him?" asked St. Peter.

"Not perfectly, but pretty darn close; even my boss said so."

"Entry to Professional level denied," said St. Peter.

Disappointed by the rejection, Joe blurted, "Hey, we can't all be Rick Dees!"

And St. Peter said, "You don't understand. You're not being turned away because you weren't a perfect clone of Rick Dees. You're being turned away because you weren't Joe."

Talent Can Bring Radio Back

2007-11-18T20:54:00.000-08:00

This is not a great time for radio. (This is also not an original thought. So sue me.) But there's hope.

First, some real radio people are coming back into the business. They are hiring other real radio people to manage their stations, who are hiring real radio people to program their stations, who are - and this is where it gets really good - hiring real radio people for on-air.

I'm not saying that we're going to enter an era of unbridled creative expression ... 10-in-a-row is not going away any time soon ... but I think jocks will be appreciated as they have not been for a long time. I think we'll be given more freedom to do good radio.

But the freedom comes at a price. Jocks have to be ready for this freedom and not misuse it. If we take it too far, we'll be back reading liners verbatim quicker than you can say "less talk."

Are you ready?

Tracks of My Fears

2007-11-18T20:53:00.000-08:00

Last week our friends at Clear Channel dumped a couple of jocks at my alma mater, KISS-FM (KHKS) in Dallas - including the midday guy.

Lessee ... last time I looked, Dallas was the #5 market in the U.S., and KISS-FM was the top contemporary station. Their morning guy, Kidd Kraddick, just dominates his time slot.

And now the show that follows Kidd's will be tracked? By some guy (a unisex term, BTW) in Atlanta - if they're lucky - who's wiped out from doing his or her local show, some production, a personal appearance, a van hit and God knows what else?

In what universe does this make sense?

Of course, the people who made this decision are so far up the food chain that they don't listen to the radio - they read financials. I'm sure this genius idea works well on paper.

Too bad it sucks for the station and its listeners.

How come we used to be able to do great live, local radio and make the numbers? How come we can't now?

Hy Five

2007-11-18T20:52:00.000-08:00

The news of Hy Lit's death got me thinking about the great radio going on in Philadelphia in Hy's heyday and later. I first became aware of Philly radio in the late Sixties, after Mr. Lit, Jerry Blavett ("The Geator with the Heater," whatever that meant), Joe Niagra and other legends of the Fifties and early Sixties ... but just in time to experience one of the greatest Top 40 stations ever, Jay Cook's WFIL.

I was a baby deejay and wanna-be PD back then, and there has never been a better role model than WFIL. The jocks were the best: Dr. Don Rose, J. J. Jeffrey, Dick Heatherton, Jim Nettleton, Jim O'Brien, George Michael (yes, that George Michael) and Jay Cook himself. The boardwork was amazing: everything was voice to voice, so even commercials were mashed up, beds on top of beds so the voices would hit each other. (It's hard to describe; check out www.philaradio.com to hear it for yourself.)

I think what made WFIL so transcendent was the show-biz of it all. Jay's appreciation of jocks and their talent gave the air staff the freedom to do great radio; mix in the format elements and the pacing and you had a radio station that grabbed you by the balls.

Later I had the honor of working with Jay Cook at Gannett. (I also worked with his son, John, who is a very talented PD in his own right; I know Jay was proud of him.) That wonderful soul did so much for radio and air talent; we all him a lot.

There has been so much greatness in this business - great talent, great radio stations - and we need to recapture it for radio to recover from its current doldrums. George Santayana famously said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." For us, the saying should be, "We need to remember the past so we can repeat it."