Know your listener/market
 

Pay me enough money (millions of dollars every year,(the money up front
and in my bank first) and I will advertise anything.Within reason,of
course.
cuhulin

Know your listener/market
 

I am the ''expert'' radio dude here.I KNOW what I used to could get on
my old radios many years ago.It is getting to more and more,I get less
and less.Shove iboc up your where the Sun doesn't shine and take them
crooked fed govt B...ards with you too.
cuhulin

Know your listener/market
 

My carreer is Life and Living and Loving GOD and Jesus.Only one carreer
here.
cuhulin

Know your listener/market
 

I dont believe in ratings at all,,, except when bush's ratings (and all
politicians) are at an all time LOW.

I wonder why that divorced woman in Petal,Mississippi hasen't said
anything to me lately?
cuhulin

Know your listener/market
 

Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

Eric...you seem to be missing the essential point. The advertisers
don't GET the metrics based on a model, the advertisers CREATE the
model, they create the metrics. They create the tool. Not the stations.
Not the consultants. The stations do what they do to make money with
the advertiser's tool.


Oh, I hear what you're saying -- I just don't believe my ears.

An advertiser wants to sell product -- nothing more. He doesn't care
about the media used to do that. He hires someone to do that work for
him, and this is where your so-called "radio expert" like Eduardo
comes in.

Advertisers didn't create Arbitron -- so called "marketing experts"
did.

Fine. Radio *stations* didn't create the model, but the radio
*industry* -- which includes these so-called experts -- did.

Actually, no, it didn't advertising agencies and research bureaus did.

That's why the numbers are SOLD to Radio. In fact, the all the
limitatins on how the numbers are gathered, accessed and used, are
placed on Radio. Advertising agencies have access to the data through a
variety of sources.

Radio didn't create the model. The Radio Industry didn't create the
model. Advertisers and the companies that serve them did.

And Advertisers define the model, and how it's used, according to
their needs.

You said it yourself....advertisers may call the shots, but they do
not have the best interests of Radio at heart. You were exactly correct.
If the model were created by or for RADIO, it would benefit RADIO. It
doesn't. It benefits ONLY advertisers.




If Ace Hardware wants to buy time on the local station, the manager of
Ace doesn't go look up Arbitron figures -- he (rightfully) calls a
specialist -- an agency that deals with radio in the (wrongful)
expectation that they'll know what they are talking about.




Actually, if Ace Hardware wants to buy time on a local station, they
get the numbers from their in-house agency at the regional or national
level. The strategy is devised, the budget is created, and the buy is
defined: which stations, which dayparts, how many spots, what they're
going to pay for them, and how they rotate. THEN, they call the
stations and tell the stations how the buy is going to be placed, and
how the money is going to be allocated, and what value added they expect
for free in return for considering them on the buy.

The station is actually, when you look at the whole picture, only
laterally involved.

It's the advertisers who create the demand, the terms, the
specifications, and the meaningfulness of the numbers.

And if you think that agencies have a warm fuzzy relationship with
Radio, guess again. Agencies have a Hate-Hate relationship with Radio
stations, and treat radio people with the kind of contempt generally
reserved for herpes ridden ex-lawyers working at used car lots.

Know your listener/market
 

"David Eduardo" wrote:


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
"David Eduardo" wrote:


I found the station so lacking in memorability I could not "click" on the
call letters alone.

It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that they never used
their call letters for anything other than the required station ID?

When you posted the on air name, I did remember it as
being atrocious and well worth changing to WMJI, which has a multi decade
history of being a fine, personality, fun radio station.

M-105 was always in a tight race with WMMS for listeners.

So, suddenly, when it is convenient, you believe in ratings.


I suspect that 25 years ago, they more closely reflected reality.


Who cares? It was a losing station. It had to change format, it lost so bad.
Radio is flexible that way... a format that does not work can be change,
literally, in hours.

I know a thing about format changes. But it wasn't a losing station.
It was successful, which is why it was *bought* and *changed* so it
wouldn't compete with WMMS.

WMMS was quite successful too, but only in promoting Peter's "3 foot
King Kong" myth. They overcompressed; everything above 8kHz was
noise. But they were THE HOME OF THE BUZZARD and had cool giveaways.

Those things do impress a 15 year old kid who hasn't got the best
hearing. I knew some of those kids back them -- but they grew up.

And WWWM's low-key approach to music would have -- and did, for some
of them -- appeal to 'em. When they changed ownership, those people
didn't go to WMMS -- they held their nose and went to WGCL/WNCX.

Or, they listened to *me* on the college station.


I am starting to understand you. You are an elitist, believing your taste is
sooooo good it should be emulated by others, while the taste of the masses
is inherently evil. You despise things, not because they are bad, but
because you don't like them and think anyone who does is wrong.

Oooh oooohh! Can I be a fascist, too, or is that exclusively
Pricket's domain?


WMJI is Cleveland's great radio station, and has been for some time. You are
simply unable to accept that it is doing what a lot of people want.

A lot of people want background noise. WMJI supplies that. I do want
content, and WMJI is devoid of that.


To you, success (WMMS, WMJI) are bad. Failure is to be put on a pedestal,
such as WWWM. You are like don Quixote... except that you joust with great
radio stations instead of windmills.

You finally got one thing right: I am a sucker for a lost cause. But
the lost cause in this case is the radio industry. Perhaps in the
future you'll get your due -- your name will be remembered in the
phrase "Eduardo Engineering" -- the process of running a station into
the ground.


I got you pegged. You want things your way, even if you are the only one in
the country who wants it that way.


Again I ask: What does Peter see in you that deserves the slightest
bit of respect? Or is he an elitist, too???

The only thing you got pegged is your own ego-meter.

--
Eric F. Richards

"Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product."
-Ferenc Mantfeld

Know your listener/market
 

Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

Eric F. Richards wrote:
"David Eduardo" wrote:

Maybe they _wanted_ to continue to work for the company. If they didn't,
they could have resigned and been hired elsewhere. There are no slaves in US
radio.

Of course. Because everyone knows how easy it is to start a new
career in mid-life.

Idiot.

Actually, I highly recommend it.

I did it. So have most of my colleagues.


...because life as a DJ/"on air talent" had become miserable, right?


Actually, no.


Care to rephrase that?

You have quite a bit of writing on usenet about leaving CBS and
Chicago radio, about boards designed by you and personal equipmentleft
behind that you don't even want to go back to retrieve.

So, please explain Peter: What, exactly, drove you out of radio,
consistent with your past writings?



Being on air wasn't my primary responsibility. In fact, I had
voluntarily hung up my headphones a few years before I left the company.

What drove me out what Radio had become. As I have explained, both
here an elsewhere, I had grown embarrassed by what Radio had become. I
could no longer endorse what I could not support. I had been a quite
vocal opponent to Telecom '96, and had some pretty intense discussions
with manglement about why I would not sign and send in the form letter
distributed through the company to my Congressmen. I refused to endorse
a product that was carrying such a big part of the station's budget,
that it actually got a spot in the station's booth at public events. And
there were other things involving some high level persons that good
taste suggests I not reveal publicly (and as you've probably figured
out, good taste is NOT my strong suit...so that should give you some
ideas of how distasteful these matters are). So rather than live a
double life, I left Radio to be what it has chosen to be, left the
station to be what it has chosen to be and went off to do other things.
Many other things.

It had nothing to do with being miserable. I enjoyed my life in
Radio. Even the abusive program directors and sales ducks didn't
diminish my eagerness to get up in the morning and face the day. But as
time went on, there was less of my life and more Radio than there should
have been for balance. If work exists to fund one's life, then
surrendering one's life to fit in more work is lunacy. But even that
could have been tolerable if it weren't for the internal conflicts.
Having to face myself everyday as a member of a class that I couldn't
endorse.

One day the warning light went on. And I laid down my key and walked
away.

I"ve entertained opportunities since. Some at stations I've enjoyed
listening to in small doses. Actually had a great offer from another
company in town.

I'm just not interested enough to devote what it would take.

It has nothing to do with being miserable. Hell, if I'd been
miserable, it wouldn't have taken so long.

Know your listener/market
 

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

"Michael Lawson" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...

There is no such facility. Never has been. When out of market
talent
is used
to voice track specific shifts, the only thing sent to the
station
are the
voice "clips" which are sent over a WAN from one digital
workstation
to
another. The clips are played, along with music, local
commercials,
and
whatever else the local station does, in each market.

Sounds to me like you described the scenario
perfectly. It's all run remotely, only minimal
staff is needed at the site to keep things running.

No, the stations are run locally. they play thier own locally
researched
music lists, their own commercials done by thier own local traffic
director,
and are usually live in most dayparts, using voice tracking to do
non-critical dayparts, like overnghts and weekends. One shift may be
done by
a fulltimer in one bigger market, and another by someoen in a
totally
different market. There is no central place wehre formats are
assembled
(except for satellite delivered formats, which run in very small
markets
mostly)

The local station is significantly staffed in every case, with a
manager,
engineering, sales management, traffic, jocks for most shifts
accounting,
promotion and street team, office staff, lots of sellers, etc. Al
most all
commercial production in smaller markets is done locally (in LA, for
4
formats, we have 150 employees... in McAllen, for 2 fomrats, we have
over
40.

However, the net product is remarkably the same
coast to coast, which is part of the problem.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...irs_sound.html

Here's a story on their recent move to a newer
studio around town:

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...iz1aclear.html

With 40 studios, one would assume they have lots of live and local
shows,
and lots of local production and imaging to do. This article
dis-prooves
your point. Because Cincy is a large market, they can have each of
thier
talents do voice tracking for another station or two, and send them
out of
that facility. Howeve, to do 4 stations in LA, we have 18 studios
and
production bays, and are building more. we do not do any voice
tracking at
all.

Actually, there are very few live and local shows.
WLW has them, as does 1360 Homer, but outside
of the morning shows (and Jerry Springer on the
Air America outlet), not much is done other than
standard DJ clips.

More stations were voice traced in the 70's than today, as a
percentage of
total stations... we just called it by a different name then.

They had to sell it when Jacor and Clear merged, as it put them
over
the
maximum locl market cap. This happened in about 20 markets, in
fact.

No, it was before then, back when you were
allowed to only own one FM and one AM
station in a market.

So, what is the difference. If two companies combien, and are over
the
limits, they have to sell the excess. That is normal.

Of course, they sold it after
they converted the format to country, so they
wouldn't have any competition.

What prevented the owner from flipping back? Or another station
form
changing? There are no restrictions on format changes in the USA:

The new owners changed it back 3 years later
when the country format wasn't selling. Jacor
tried to buy it then, but was rebuffed. Jacor
then signed a deal to program a small third station
with that station's owners, and programmed
a similar format two the first two stations. The
attrition between the three competing stations
caused the owners of the station that Jacor wanted
gone to change formats and sell the station. Then,
the third station changed format to keep from
drawing listeners from their big rock station.

So? That is competition. Normal. I did the same sort of thing in the
60's
when I would pick up an extra station and use it as a competive tool
to
protect my other stations. There is nothing new about this. It is
like Time
Magazien seeing there was a market for gossip news and not wanting
anyone
else to take the major share, thus launching People.

Normal, yes, but if you were a listener of the losing
station, it was not fun to see your station
blown apart with the only alternative being a
station 50 miles away in another market. Or listen
to WRNO in certain parts of the day via shortwave.

Yeah, I know. Tough potatoes. But if listeners had
as much clout as the arbitron ratings imply, you'd
think that homogeneity wouldn't be the order of
the day.

And they took
the best DJs, too.

Maybe they _wanted_ to continue to work for the company. If they
didn't,
they could have resigned and been hired elsewhere. There are no
slaves in US
radio.

Tsk tsk. There are no slaves anywhere, last
I checked. I presume that like anywhere else
there's a merger, there is a "Black Monday"
when heads roll and some few people are
allowed to keep their job if they join the
new company.

I have been through 3 mergers at one company over the last 12 years.
There
were ZERO firings at the closing. In fact, in each case, the stated
reason
for the merger was to gain access to our people, talent and
experience...
and revenue generating abilities The ones that occasionally get
fired are
the top, top management which is sometimes duplicated. But that is
not that
common either.

Having been in three myself, I've seen the company
doing the buying stating that they want the people,
but then they lay off half of the development staff.
Or, in the most recent case, relocate the jobs to India
and Slovakia, and lay off most of the development
staff.

In a merger, the old company IS hte new company. The two unite; that
is what
"merger" means. Generally, there are no extra people. If both
companies had
stations in the same market, only duplicated positions are sometimes
eliminated, but usually the work load can not be reduced.

Maybe that's the case in radio, but not in a lot of
other cases. I know of a company that I used to
work for who'd use a merger as an excuse
to dump a lot of low performers on the street.

Otherwise, the new owners
might decide to "go in a different direction"
and can the lot of them. Having survived
several Black Mondays myself, you're just
relieved to have a job.

I have never seen a merger or major acquisition in radio where there
was a
wholesale dismissal of people on closing. In fact, most of what is
paid for
a radio staiton is for the intellectual property and billing, and
only about
5% is for plant and facilities. Only when a very bad station is
bought to
totally reformat it would there be a house cleaning, but to have it
happen
at multiple staitons is nearly unheard of. These turnarounds are
exceptions,
where the buyer is only interested in the frequency, not the
billing. An
example would be HBC's LMA/purchase of KSCA in LA, in 1997. The AAA
format
could barely get a 1 share, and the station had been a losing dog
for
decades. It was sold, and went Spanish. All the air staff was let
go, as
well as promotions and copy and such, but that was because the
station was
doing so badly. In most cases, staitons are bought for thier ongoing
value.

I've seen it happen several times in the Cincy area,
the most recent one being the switch of 1530 from
50's-60's easy listening to 50's-60's pop. (It's now
an Air America outlet, with all of those DJ's now
gone, too.) Most of the easy listening DJ's left or
were canned, and a bunch of DJ's who happened
to be available when 103.5 went from 50's-60's pop
to 70's pop joined the station.

Another scenario is when a station decides to go
to a talk format like Air America or the standard
conservative fare of Rush, Hannity and Co. The
DJ's aren't needed, so sayonara to the DJs.

--Mike L.

Know your listener/market
 

"Michael Lawson" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message

The local station is significantly staffed in every case, with a
manager,
engineering, sales management, traffic, jocks for most shifts
accounting,
promotion and street team, office staff, lots of sellers, etc. Al
most all
commercial production in smaller markets is done locally (in LA, for
4
formats, we have 150 employees... in McAllen, for 2 fomrats, we have
over
40.

However, the net product is remarkably the same
coast to coast, which is part of the problem.

So? The hits in America are cosat to coast hits, in most cases. Local
differences are more due to the competitive arrray than any fundamental
difference between regions and zones, so the big AC hits are the same, the
big urban hits are the same, the big CHR and country hits are the same.
Sure, each market has differing ethnicities and lifestyle groups, but the
songs played on a staiton in a specific format are going to be very similar
all over. This goes back decades and decades and decades.
all.

Actually, there are very few live and local shows.
WLW has them, as does 1360 Homer, but outside
of the morning shows (and Jerry Springer on the
Air America outlet), not much is done other than
standard DJ clips.

The "DJ clips" in Cincy are live in most cases. they are just not very long,
and are what the format requires. They are not coming from San Antonioo or
someplace else. they are live in the market. Don't you understand taht,
outside of mornings, FM music listeners do not want talk, they want music?
This is why off-prime shifts can be pre-prepared with voicetraced jocks in
smaller markets.


So? That is competition. Normal. I did the same sort of thing in the
60's
when I would pick up an extra station and use it as a competive tool
to
protect my other stations. There is nothing new about this. It is
like Time
Magazien seeing there was a market for gossip news and not wanting
anyone
else to take the major share, thus launching People.

Normal, yes, but if you were a listener of the losing
station, it was not fun to see your station
blown apart with the only alternative being a
station 50 miles away in another market. Or listen
to WRNO in certain parts of the day via shortwave.

When stations are "blown apart" it means that they were not successful. It
means they were losing money. From the mid-50's through the mid-90's, fully
half of all US radio stations did not make money, you know. Technology and
consolidation have mitigated this situation to some extent, but there are
many bad facilities and many overly-radioed markets where money will not be
made.

Yeah, I know. Tough potatoes. But if listeners had
as much clout as the arbitron ratings imply, you'd
think that homogeneity wouldn't be the order of
the day.

If a station tanks in Arbitron, and stays tanked, it changes format.

Having been in three myself, I've seen the company
doing the buying stating that they want the people,
but then they lay off half of the development staff.
Or, in the most recent case, relocate the jobs to India
and Slovakia, and lay off most of the development
staff.

That is not usual in radio, as it is hard to get those Hungarians and Sikhs
to sepak American English over the WAN to record the voice tracks. Most
radio staff is sales, which is necessarily live and local.

In a merger, the old company IS hte new company. The two unite; that
is what
"merger" means. Generally, there are no extra people. If both
companies had
stations in the same market, only duplicated positions are sometimes
eliminated, but usually the work load can not be reduced.

Maybe that's the case in radio, but not in a lot of
other cases. I know of a company that I used to
work for who'd use a merger as an excuse
to dump a lot of low performers on the street.

We are talking about radio. What you describe is far less prevalent in radio
as radio staitons can not centralize.

I've seen it happen several times in the Cincy area,
the most recent one being the switch of 1530 from
50's-60's easy listening to 50's-60's pop. (It's now
an Air America outlet, with all of those DJ's now
gone, too.) Most of the easy listening DJ's left or
were canned, and a bunch of DJ's who happened
to be available when 103.5 went from 50's-60's pop
to 70's pop joined the station.

This is normal when formats shift. But the formats shift due to the
inability of the existing one to get good ratings. This has been the case
since Top 40 was invented in August of 1952... jocks who get bad ratings get
fired. Stations that get bad ratings change format. In the end, the total
employment does not change much... but the individuals change as the formats
change. All of us in radio knew this when we started in radio. It is, like
all entertainment businesses, inherently volitile. How many TV shows get
cancelled in thier first season? the folks working on them go on to other
shows, or wait tables in Studio City or Burbank.

Another scenario is when a station decides to go
to a talk format like Air America or the standard
conservative fare of Rush, Hannity and Co. The
DJ's aren't needed, so sayonara to the DJs.

It may surprise you to know that DJs are a small percentage of station
staff. there are always more sellers than jocks, and more office staff than
jocks. And many of the behind the scenes jobs continue irrespective of the
format. There is nothing inherently bad about this... it is just part of
being in an entertainment-related business. In TV, the technicians,
accountants, managers best boys, gaffers, Foley operators and such don't get
fired. They just go on to the production company's next project. It is the
talent that moves around... just like radio.

Know your listener/market
 

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
"David Eduardo" wrote:

So, suddenly, when it is convenient, you believe in ratings.

I suspect that 25 years ago, they more closely reflected reality.

Actually, they did not. They were far less sophisticated, and undermeasured
ethnic group members and many lifestyle groups. Since then, Arbitron has
developed DST, where they use special techniques to insure proportional
participation of Blacks and Hispanics and get adequate young adult male
participation. the current product is vastly better than it was even 10
years ago.

Who cares? It was a losing station. It had to change format, it lost so
bad.
Radio is flexible that way... a format that does not work can be change,
literally, in hours.

I know a thing about format changes. But it wasn't a losing station.
It was successful, which is why it was *bought* and *changed* so it
wouldn't compete with WMMS.

WMMS was owned by Malrite. Malrite did not buy WWWM and change it. It was
changed to stop the money losses and to try to make money, which they did
acheve; WMJI has long been the highest billing Cleveland staiton.

WMMS was quite successful too, but only in promoting Peter's "3 foot
King Kong" myth. They overcompressed; everything above 8kHz was
noise. But they were THE HOME OF THE BUZZARD and had cool giveaways.

And it was the #1 station in the 1985-1982 period where WWWM existed. It
never came close to giving WMMS a run for the money, whcih is why it lost
money and changed.

Or, they listened to *me* on the college station.

Now I see. Another free-form radio proponant. Yawn.
WMJI is Cleveland's great radio station, and has been for some time. You
are
simply unable to accept that it is doing what a lot of people want.

A lot of people want background noise. WMJI supplies that. I do want
content, and WMJI is devoid of that.

They have a magnificnent morning show. And the rest of the day, their
listeners want music and they get it.


To you, success (WMMS, WMJI) are bad. Failure is to be put on a pedestal,
such as WWWM. You are like don Quixote... except that you joust with
great
radio stations instead of windmills.

You finally got one thing right: I am a sucker for a lost cause. But
the lost cause in this case is the radio industry. Perhaps in the
future you'll get your due -- your name will be remembered in the
phrase "Eduardo Engineering" -- the process of running a station into
the ground.

I have not done it yet. And I am currently having the biggest run of "Worst
to First" experiences I have ever had... 12 major markets, in fact. That is
because I listen to listeners, and help build stations that appeal to them
and, thus, appeal to advertisers who want to reach those listeners. It is
that simple.

Know your listener/market
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

What drove me out what Radio had become. As I have explained, both here
an elsewhere, I had grown embarrassed by what Radio had become. I could no
longer endorse what I could not support. I had been a quite vocal opponent
to Telecom '96, and had some pretty intense discussions with manglement
about why I would not sign and send in the form letter distributed through
the company to my Congressmen. I refused to endorse a product that was
carrying such a big part of the station's budget, that it actually got a
spot in the station's booth at public events. And there were other things
involving some high level persons that good taste suggests I not reveal
publicly (and as you've probably figured out, good taste is NOT my strong
suit...so that should give you some ideas of how distasteful these matters
are). So rather than live a double life, I left Radio to be what it has
chosen to be, left the station to be what it has chosen to be and went off
to do other things. Many other things.

I think you may have missed what many companies became by not staying in
radio.

I would not like to be at CBS, Clear or a couple of the huge companies. But
I love being at one of the smallest of the Top 10 radio companies.

The ability for radio to be big, after 96, allowed radio access to capital
markets. It allowed companies to be big enough to get good benefits.
Clusters allow internal promotion without moving. And there are fewer of the
scary "mom and pop" managers and owners who drove me to leave US radio in
'63.

I have "owner" mentality as I have been an owner and a pretty autonomous
manager for other companies. I find I can be "agent of change" as our CFO
called me without fearing being fired. I can suggest dramatic projects, such
as changing the format of nearly a quarter of our stations in a 90 day
period, and get listened to and even have the project approved.

I am having a lot of fun right now, in radio.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
What drove me out what Radio had become. As I have explained, both here
an elsewhere, I had grown embarrassed by what Radio had become. I could no
longer endorse what I could not support. I had been a quite vocal opponent
to Telecom '96, and had some pretty intense discussions with manglement
about why I would not sign and send in the form letter distributed through
the company to my Congressmen. I refused to endorse a product that was
carrying such a big part of the station's budget, that it actually got a
spot in the station's booth at public events. And there were other things
involving some high level persons that good taste suggests I not reveal
publicly (and as you've probably figured out, good taste is NOT my strong
suit...so that should give you some ideas of how distasteful these matters
are). So rather than live a double life, I left Radio to be what it has
chosen to be, left the station to be what it has chosen to be and went off
to do other things. Many other things.

I think you may have missed what many companies became by not staying in
radio.



You may be right. And I've thought about that in the last couple of
years. I do know that I had way more fun in smaller companies than I
did in the larger. But then with the larger companies absorbing the
smaller ones, how far can I really get from the CBS's and the CCU's?


Hell, when I came back to Chicago, I was working for a smaller
company. In 11 1/2 years, I worked for 4 different companies. My desk
was in the same spot the whole time.



I would not like to be at CBS, Clear or a couple of the huge companies. But
I love being at one of the smallest of the Top 10 radio companies.


Dan Mason, when I started at Cook Inlet, said to me that getting to
the top was fun. BEING there is not as much fun as you think, so enjoy
the climb, because that's the most fun you'll ever have. I like much
smaller companies. And if I ever did get back into it, it would be for
a smaller shop with big aspirations.

Was it Leader in an editorial in R & R about 15 years ago, or was it
the AOR editor...anyway, he said that his dream gig would be working a
weekend shift at the #2 station in LA. That would be sheer Heaven in Radio.

I gotta agree with him. Well, maybe not LA....but Chicago....




The ability for radio to be big, after 96, allowed radio access to capital
markets. It allowed companies to be big enough to get good benefits.
Clusters allow internal promotion without moving. And there are fewer of the
scary "mom and pop" managers and owners who drove me to leave US radio in
'63.


Oh, I know the benefits, the economics. But as you and I have bashed
each other in the face about over the years, I find the homogenization
boring. I like the smaller local outlets, with locally generated
playlists that don't follow the national trends point for point. I like
surprises when I listen to the radio. But then I also like new
experiences in other things, too. When I travel for business, I don't
care for Holiday Inn's or Airline travel. I take my motorcycle through
the back roads, or down the Great River Road. And stay in some mom and
pop motels. Some of which can be pretty...um...exciting...Even at the
destination, I take an off the beaten path room. Take my meeting, record
my audio, and ride back an entirely different route.

I like lumps in my gravy, too.

And along the way, I get to hear some small, privately owned, often
GOD AWFUL radio stations, that are, if nothing else, amusing. But
they're always representative of their home town. And I like that. I
don't go the back way to find the same experiences I get at home in
Chicago.

And, from time to time, I experience some real treats. There was a
station in Central Illinois...had a signal that reached across Missouri
and into Arkansas, that played nothing but bluegrass. It was wonderful.
Picked it up north of Decatur, and rode it all the way to Searcy, Ark.


I don't hear that kind of thing since 96. So, I burn up an iPod,
instead.




I have "owner" mentality as I have been an owner and a pretty autonomous
manager for other companies. I find I can be "agent of change" as our CFO
called me without fearing being fired. I can suggest dramatic projects, such
as changing the format of nearly a quarter of our stations in a 90 day
period, and get listened to and even have the project approved.

I am having a lot of fun right now, in radio.


I have no doubt. And I find it heartening to know that it can still
be done.

Who knows....maybe........

Know your listener/market
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

Dan Mason, when I started at Cook Inlet, said to me that getting to the
top was fun. BEING there is not as much fun as you think, so enjoy the
climb, because that's the most fun you'll ever have. I like much smaller
companies. And if I ever did get back into it, it would be for a smaller
shop with big aspirations.

I never met dan, but always heard good things about him. that statement
confirms them.

I have always liked building new stations, or creating "new" formats. That
is why I tend to move around. I build, from ground up, over a dozen in
Ecuador, and dozens more since them. It is staying at the top once you get
there that is toughest, but it requires a different personality than mine...
which is why I now like to work in teams of two or three in programming so
that we have builders, craftsmen and strategists all together so stations
stafy fresh and fun, but are always trying new things within the confines
of the format.

I do not think companies where the PDs never talk to the CEO or COO can
create this type of culture... which makes me think that a limit of maybe 80
to 100 stations would be the limit for a company to create really good radio
on a local level.

Was it Leader in an editorial in R & R about 15 years ago, or was it the
AOR editor...anyway, he said that his dream gig would be working a weekend
shift at the #2 station in LA. That would be sheer Heaven in Radio.

Maybe, because I am at the #1 and #2 stations in LA, that does not have
appeal! (tounge inserted in cheek here). I can see what he meant, though. e
on a good station, in a shift that has less pressure but makes you feel part
of that same sucess... would be pretty neat.

I gotta agree with him. Well, maybe not LA....but Chicago....

I can still remember hanging around the door of WLS to get a jock card
signed by all the talent... from Holman and Roberts to Biondi... I still
have it. Chicago had fun radio. Our traffic person in LA did traffic years
ago for Spuer CFL, and has lots of fun stories. That was a classic Top 40
battle, and I owuld have enjoyed being closer to it.

Oh, I know the benefits, the economics. But as you and I have bashed
each other in the face about over the years, I find the homogenization
boring. I like the smaller local outlets, with locally generated playlists
that don't follow the national trends point for point.

We are 70 stations, and every playlist is based on 100% local market
research. None are the same, except for our newest project which is an Adult
Hits network, out of LA, that is very personality based. In its case, we
dound the same songs research the same way in every one of the 12 markets...
so no reason to reinvent the wheel. the determining factor was, "were these
songs you liked as you grew up?" and ther eis 100% consensus. So there is
no single answer for local vs. national, and in this case, we have some
incredible talent no single station could afford and we bring it to places
like McAllen and Albuquerque! We even have an in house travel coordinator,
as all the talent goes to the different markets all the time, originating
from the local station and doing appearances.

I am having a lot of fun right now, in radio.


I have no doubt. And I find it heartening to know that it can still be
done.

Just stay away from the bigger players and it is still a hoot. Of course,
many other companies still exist.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

Dan Mason, when I started at Cook Inlet, said to me that getting to the
top was fun. BEING there is not as much fun as you think, so enjoy the
climb, because that's the most fun you'll ever have. I like much smaller
companies. And if I ever did get back into it, it would be for a smaller
shop with big aspirations.

I never met dan, but always heard good things about him. that statement
confirms them.

I have always liked building new stations, or creating "new" formats. That
is why I tend to move around. I build, from ground up, over a dozen in
Ecuador, and dozens more since them. It is staying at the top once you get
there that is toughest, but it requires a different personality than mine...
which is why I now like to work in teams of two or three in programming so
that we have builders, craftsmen and strategists all together so stations
stafy fresh and fun, but are always trying new things within the confines
of the format.

I do not think companies where the PDs never talk to the CEO or COO can
create this type of culture... which makes me think that a limit of maybe 80
to 100 stations would be the limit for a company to create really good radio
on a local level.

Was it Leader in an editorial in R & R about 15 years ago, or was it the
AOR editor...anyway, he said that his dream gig would be working a weekend
shift at the #2 station in LA. That would be sheer Heaven in Radio.

Maybe, because I am at the #1 and #2 stations in LA, that does not have
appeal! (tounge inserted in cheek here). I can see what he meant, though. e
on a good station, in a shift that has less pressure but makes you feel part
of that same sucess... would be pretty neat.

I gotta agree with him. Well, maybe not LA....but Chicago....

I can still remember hanging around the door of WLS to get a jock card
signed by all the talent... from Holman and Roberts to Biondi... I still
have it. Chicago had fun radio. Our traffic person in LA did traffic years
ago for Spuer CFL, and has lots of fun stories. That was a classic Top 40
battle, and I owuld have enjoyed being closer to it.

Oh, I know the benefits, the economics. But as you and I have bashed
each other in the face about over the years, I find the homogenization
boring. I like the smaller local outlets, with locally generated playlists
that don't follow the national trends point for point.

We are 70 stations, and every playlist is based on 100% local market
research. None are the same, except for our newest project which is an Adult
Hits network, out of LA, that is very personality based. In its case, we
dound the same songs research the same way in every one of the 12 markets...
so no reason to reinvent the wheel. the determining factor was, "were these
songs you liked as you grew up?" and ther eis 100% consensus. So there is
no single answer for local vs. national, and in this case, we have some
incredible talent no single station could afford and we bring it to places
like McAllen and Albuquerque! We even have an in house travel coordinator,
as all the talent goes to the different markets all the time, originating
from the local station and doing appearances.

I am having a lot of fun right now, in radio.


I have no doubt. And I find it heartening to know that it can still be
done.

Just stay away from the bigger players and it is still a hoot. Of course,
many other companies still exist.

How many of your stations were involved in getting the illegals out to march?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Know your listener/market
 

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

How many of your stations were involved in getting the illegals out to
march?


Our KSCA in LA originated the idea on its morning show. This was after the
100 thousand plus turnout for the one we organized at WOJO in Chicago.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

How many of your stations were involved in getting the illegals out to
march?


Our KSCA in LA originated the idea on its morning show. This was after the
100 thousand plus turnout for the one we organized at WOJO in Chicago.

Yeah, I thought so.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

End Mexico's exportation of poverty. Stop illegal immigration NOW.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Dan Mason, when I started at Cook Inlet, said to me that getting to the
top was fun. BEING there is not as much fun as you think, so enjoy the
climb, because that's the most fun you'll ever have. I like much smaller
companies. And if I ever did get back into it, it would be for a smaller
shop with big aspirations.

I never met dan, but always heard good things about him. that statement
confirms them.

I have always liked building new stations, or creating "new" formats. That
is why I tend to move around. I build, from ground up, over a dozen in
Ecuador, and dozens more since them. It is staying at the top once you get
there that is toughest, but it requires a different personality than mine...
which is why I now like to work in teams of two or three in programming so
that we have builders, craftsmen and strategists all together so stations
stafy fresh and fun, but are always trying new things within the confines
of the format.

I do not think companies where the PDs never talk to the CEO or COO can
create this type of culture... which makes me think that a limit of maybe 80
to 100 stations would be the limit for a company to create really good radio
on a local level.


That's an interesting number. Karmazin said something similar in
a staff breakfast when we were learning to do things the "Infinity way."

That got my attention.



Was it Leader in an editorial in R & R about 15 years ago, or was it the
AOR editor...anyway, he said that his dream gig would be working a weekend
shift at the #2 station in LA. That would be sheer Heaven in Radio.

Maybe, because I am at the #1 and #2 stations in LA, that does not have
appeal! (tounge inserted in cheek here). I can see what he meant, though. e
on a good station, in a shift that has less pressure but makes you feel part
of that same sucess... would be pretty neat.


I gotta agree with him. Well, maybe not LA....but Chicago....

I can still remember hanging around the door of WLS to get a jock card
signed by all the talent... from Holman and Roberts to Biondi... I still
have it. Chicago had fun radio. Our traffic person in LA did traffic years
ago for Spuer CFL, and has lots of fun stories. That was a classic Top 40
battle, and I owuld have enjoyed being closer to it.



It was compelling listening, to be sure. I remember riding in the
back seat of my cousin Barry's Impala driving around River Forest....one
hand on the wheel one hand on the radio, arguing with his friend about
whether Frijid Pink was heavy enough.

Those were some scary rides.



Oh, I know the benefits, the economics. But as you and I have bashed
each other in the face about over the years, I find the homogenization
boring. I like the smaller local outlets, with locally generated playlists
that don't follow the national trends point for point.

We are 70 stations, and every playlist is based on 100% local market
research. None are the same, except for our newest project which is an Adult
Hits network, out of LA, that is very personality based. In its case, we
dound the same songs research the same way in every one of the 12 markets...
so no reason to reinvent the wheel. the determining factor was, "were these
songs you liked as you grew up?" and ther eis 100% consensus. So there is
no single answer for local vs. national, and in this case, we have some
incredible talent no single station could afford and we bring it to places
like McAllen and Albuquerque! We even have an in house travel coordinator,
as all the talent goes to the different markets all the time, originating
from the local station and doing appearances.


Well, at least you have some local presence. Too often that's not
even on the radar. And the station sounds kind of generic, and detached.
Q102 in Iowa City sounded like that. Automated and automated well, but
still detached. Dry almost.



I am having a lot of fun right now, in radio.

I have no doubt. And I find it heartening to know that it can still be
done.

Just stay away from the bigger players and it is still a hoot. Of course,
many other companies still exist.



Thanks for the advice. I'm still having my own fun, today. And
Radio is largely, at least for me, lost it's place at the center of my
media wheel. As I said, I don't even listen that much anymore. But it's
good to know that there was some evolution after Telecom 96.

Radio adapts.

Know your listener/market
 

Toronto-Man Blows Device,Himself Up at Tom Horton's Coffee Shop.
www.homelandsecurityus.com

Was that on any radio listener/market news?
cuhulin

Know your listener/market
 

"Michael Lawson" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message

The "DJ clips" in Cincy are live in most cases. they are just not
very long,
and are what the format requires. They are not coming from San
Antonioo or
someplace else. they are live in the market. Don't you understand
taht,
outside of mornings, FM music listeners do not want talk, they want
music?
This is why off-prime shifts can be pre-prepared with voicetraced
jocks in
smaller markets.

I'd argue that except for the talk and news
stations, most people don't want talk in the
mornings, either.

Actually, this has been "tested" over and over. At some point, every
programmer is tempted to "take the opposite path" in mornings by doing a
totally music bassed format. After we try it once, we do not make the same
mistake twice. Depending on the format, a degree of talk is required. An AC
might require just news and traffic in brief (what we call "service
elements") while a CHR requires a team show with a lot of goofiness between
the songs.

There are literally no cases where "shutting up and playing the songs" works
better in mornings. Generally, that approadch works far worse. And my
evidence of this is looking at hundreds and hundreds of staitions over the
last 30 years.

I stopped listening to
commercial radio in the mornings when the
signal to noise ratio plummeted to where
if I was lucky, I'd get a song once every
15 minutes. If that.

You are the exception. Or the staiton you liked may hve overdone its attempt
to be entertaining. Or both.

For example, the #1 show in the morning in LA, the US' largest media market,
has, at best, one song an hour. The rest of the day it is music based.

When stations are "blown apart" it means that they were not
successful. It
means they were losing money. From the mid-50's through the
mid-90's, fully
half of all US radio stations did not make money, you know.
Technology and
consolidation have mitigated this situation to some extent, but
there are
many bad facilities and many overly-radioed markets where money will
not be
made.

Yes, but if a station is losing money by the bigger
station using a third party as a shill to drive the
competition out or by lowering advertising costs
to the point where the other station can't compete
smacks of Walmart-ism and the sort of things that
Standard Oil used to do. Legal? Probably. Ethical?
No.

I was not speaking of a third party. Pre-consolidation and after it, it has
been illegal for a broadcaster to have any relationship with stations they
do not own or legally lease (LMA).. Such "transfer of positive control"
whithout FCC permission would result in loss of license. Nobody is going to
do that.

However, if you refer to a group of commonly owned stations using one of
them to flank or counter a competitor, this is no different than one car
company coming out with a convertible because the competitive company has
done the same thing, and giving better price or more accessories to swing
buyers. This is no different than a supermarket selling milk at a loss (very
common) to get people in the store, knowing they will buy other things, too.

Using assets to one's own advantage is hardly lacking in ethics.

If a station tanks in Arbitron, and stays tanked, it changes format.

Unless the owner can afford the losses, or decides
to move toward a public radio or community radio
oriented format.

Very few owners can take losses on radio staitons. They run out of money,
and sell. Or they change format.

There are very few cases of commercial stations becomming non-commercial,
and these tend to be cases where large, well financed public broadcasters
buy commercial stations to improve reach, not where an existing commercial
broadcaster has gone non-commercial. In fact, I can not think of one cae of
that having happened.

The beauty of a WAIF is that the
members run the station; everyone who contributes
money to the station has to sign up to do some
work at the station.

WAIF is a non-commercial station, on the non-commercial part of the band. It
can not be commercial, ever, without buying a station form 92.1 upwards and
moving.

Non-commercial stations, which have a different income and financial model,
depend on contriutions and grants. Commercial stations depend on
advertising. In this context, it is neither fair nor relevaant to compare
them.

They also can participate in
the staff meetings, too, and can have their own
radio show if they get a slot open. It might not
work for the big broadcasters, but the big broadcasters
aren't exactly playing shows like the "Rockin' Surfin'
Show"or the "German Tunes of the Queen City",
either.

With good reason.

That is not usual in radio, as it is hard to get those Hungarians
and Sikhs
to sepak American English over the WAN to record the voice tracks.
Most
radio staff is sales, which is necessarily live and local.

You'd be surprised at what language coaching can
do.

I have been working with one talent for nearly 12 years to get him to drop a
regional accent. It is not easy. One thing is for an actor to learn an
accent for a script... but radio hosts and jocks improvise, and get
emotional. The real accent comes through.

We are talking about radio. What you describe is far less prevalent
in radio
as radio staitons can not centralize.

They centralize as much as they can.

Any company, whatever the business, will centralize what it can for
efficiency. Usually, this is stuff like accouts payable, etc. A local radio
station has to have local sales, management, traffic, production,
engineering, collections, etc. Programming may or may not be local (the
original model of radio is non-local, remember) depending on where the best
programming comes from.

Outside of the largest markets, almost all radio sales is local. That
requires local staff and management. There is no way to sell the local Ford
dealer by phone.

This is normal when formats shift. But the formats shift due to the
inability of the existing one to get good ratings. This has been the
case
since Top 40 was invented in August of 1952... jocks who get bad
ratings get
fired. Stations that get bad ratings change format. In the end, the
total
employment does not change much... but the individuals change as the
formats
change. All of us in radio knew this when we started in radio. It
is, like
all entertainment businesses, inherently volitile. How many TV shows
get
cancelled in thier first season? the folks working on them go on to
other
shows, or wait tables in Studio City or Burbank.

It is more volatile than ever before; there is no
patience with letting series develop. There are
many famous examples of shows that were
given a bit of patience and the station was
rewarded with a hit down the line.

TV shows are not developed by stations.

TV shows are developed, mostly, by production houses. They are sold to
networks, which run them. If the ratings do not produce revenues, they are
cancelled. Because audience measurement is instantaneous, the responses are
faster than they were 40 years. ago. All of this is "dictated" by
advertisers, not by the individual stations involved.

The less
patience shown with media by the bosses,
the less likely it will be to build audiences with
anything other than the instant hit.

Part of the reason for lower patience is the change in TV. In the 60's,
there were 3 networks and essentially no independent competitin outside of a
few indies in the top few markets. Now, every market has hundreds of
channels via cable. The networks are a small part of this, compared with the
past. So they have to create hits instantly or lose to cable alternatives.
The increase in options is paid for with a decrease in risk taking.

I also don't think that it's an accident that when
this volatility began to increase, the prevalance
of the Morning jock yapping began to increase
as well.

There is no relationship between TV and radio jock talking. Radio is not
measured by the same standard or method as TV. Advertisers do not compare
the media, and buy them separately. Radio's content is determined by what
goes on in each local market: the competitve array, the availble dollars
based on market revenue, coverage, etc. TV has nothing to do with it.

The DJ is the face of radio to the listener, not the
ad man or the station manager or the best boy.

Listeners, on the average... and I mean 99% of them... look at a station as
a utility. They like it or do not. It has the right mix of music and jocks,
or talks about the right subjects, or it does not. Jocks are not the face of
the station, unless you refer to morning high profile talent or talk hosts.
Otherwise, the talent is the "glue" that makes the station all come together
for the target listeners. But, in music radio, it is the songs that make or
break the station.