"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.

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........

"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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

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

Was that on any radio listener/market news?
cuhulin

"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.