WBZ- News Tease?

[Tilden]

Budweiser and Bufferin radio commercial time salesmen: Used as a diagnostic short hand.
Radio time salesmen often...too often move into GM and programming positions.
As a result of their sales background ( Clients who make Budweiser and Bufferin as an example) they care less about the programming product they finally deliver and more about the number of " spots " they can sell in a 1/4 hour.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio time salesmen often...too often move into GM and programming positions.

Radio is a business. People who work in radio like to get paid. Sales people can meet payroll. Nothing wrong with that.

But Budweiser and Bufferin don't really advertise on the radio any more.

As I said, if the business of radio offends you, there's always WGBH and WBUR. They broadcast on this new thing they call FM.

In answer to your question, I'm not in "time sales." Thanks for asking.

 

[davideduardo]

Budweiser and Bufferin radio commercial time salesmen: Used as a diagnostic short hand.

I have no idea what "diagnostic short hand" means.

Radio time salesmen often...too often move into GM and programming positions.

Radio sellers or sales people (that "time salesman" term went out about a half-century ago, including the sexist "-man" in the name) don't move into programming positions in the real world. Sellers move to sales management, and sales managers are in the best position to move into general management.

Jocks and PDs are known to move into sales, as that's where the money is.

As a result of their sales background ( Clients who make Budweiser and Bufferin as an example) they care less about the programming product they finally deliver and more about the number of " spots " they can sell in a 1/4 hour.

Sellers don't sell "in a quarter hour". They sell schedules, maybe packages.

And if Bufferin used radio at all, it was likely back in the 50's and 60's and via an agency, so the station would not have called on the "client" as the station's rep firm would have been the ones dealing with the agency. Budweiser generally bought via the local independent distributors, and that was a negotiation for the GM and the GSM as the agreements were very complex.

 

[Tilden]

"Budweiser and Bufferin" is a Metaphor for what is wrong with commercial radio. Newspapers learned long ago to put up a wall of separation between their sales department and its editorial department.

Personal experience of a sales manager for the FM side of a local AM station coming to my office and demanding that Jerry Williams stop talking about a proposed expansion of a bottle bill because he handled the FM's BUDWEISER account.

The sales manager was told by Budweiser that they would cancel the FM's sales campaign for Budweiser if Williams ...on the AM side continued to campaign for the bottle bill. Fortunately, Jerry Williams told the FM Sales Manager where he could stuff the Budweiser bottles.

The expansion of the Bottle Bill passed and Budweiser learned to live with it. Again, when advertisers try to control and censor programming and succeed commercial radio loses any credibility it might still have.

Frankly, this example is just the other side of PAYOLA. An advertiser will pay you NOT to talk about an issue.

 

[TheBigA]

"Budweiser and Bufferin" is a Metaphor for what is wrong with commercial radio. Newspapers learned long ago to put up a wall of separation between their sales department and its editorial department.

You've obviously never worked in the newspaper business. The same battle takes place in newspapers, and stories are killed for similar reasons IF they can't be justified. That's how it works. Except the sales manager runs to the Publisher, not the program director. You can see it in action in the new movie "The Post." Ultimately Katherine Graham takes the side of editorial. But there were a lot of financial pressures at work. It was not an easy decision. Sometimes it's coming from advertisers. Sometimes it's coming from the government who has the power to cancel your broadcast licenses. Everybody wants to be able to censor content. Meanwhile, do you really think newspapers have a good business model?

The other side of your example can be seen with Rush Limbaugh. Six years ago he decided to call a female Georgetown University student a slut. That led to an advertising boycott from all national companies. The boycott is still in place six years later, and it affects not only Rush's show, but ALL of talk radio. What kind of ads do you hear on talk radio? Ads for quality products or ads for snake oil and colon cleansers? So how was that good for talk radio?

In your case, the talk show host may have won the battle in the short run. But when was the last time you heard an ad for Budweiser on the radio? A lot of advertisers have decided to stop advertising on radio and other broadcast media. How is that good for radio? The money has to come from somewhere. Today, newspapers are struggling financially to stay in business. Why? Because everyone wants what they want for free. Nobody wants to pay for good journalism. They view it as their right. How dare they put up paywalls and force me to buy a subscription! But personal subscriptions can replace demanding advertisers who insist you change your programming to suit their campaign. I've worked in commercial and non-commercial broadcasting. I've seen the difference between getting money from companies and users. Unfortunately, even public radio is suffering because THE PEOPLE want their radio for free. Only 7% of public radio listeners actually become members. Where does the rest of the money come from? Corporate support. How is that different from advertising? Some broadcasters refuse to take corporate support. It's tough to do.

Sure, taking money from advertisers compromises integrity. No fooling. So what's the alternative? The users have to pay. That's how HBO works. No advertising, but people pay a subscription fee. If you don't pay, you don't get the channel. How would you like radio to work that way? Would people pay to hear the news without advertising? I'm sure some would. Would it be enough to cover the cost? Probably not. Then what do you do? This debate goes on every day. It's not an easy decision because, once again, we all want to get paid.

 

[Tilden]

It is a question of Ethics or lack thereof. Clearly, ethics do not exist in the now "Offal Office" with the Moral Leper in Chief. So, why should anyone expect more from commercial radio. as to the use of the word ' man ' in 'salesman'. It is a generic and should be sexless description of one who sells... man or worman.

 

[TheBigA]

It is a question of Ethics or lack thereof.

No, it's a question of money, or lack thereof. Do you want money or don't you? When you take money out of the equation, ethics is easy. Until you have to pay the bills.

 

[davideduardo]

It is a question of Ethics or lack thereof. Clearly, ethics do not exist in the now "Offal Office" with the Moral Leper in Chief. So, why should anyone expect more from commercial radio. as to the use of the word ' man ' in 'salesman'. It is a generic and should be sexless description of one who sells... man or worman.

Actually, we call the folks in the sales department "sellers". No -man or -woman. It's time to move on in your terminology and your mangled metaphors, too.

The way radio is sold has just about zero to do with whomever is sitting in the White House or any other Cabinet or Department head position in the government. Radio sales is based on qualification of audience sizes to establish pricing models that are delivery-focused. That's the way transactional sales have been done for longer than when I sold my first ad buy to Cike back in 1962.

There is no moral question, and no immorality as well. The advertiser pays on delivery. The station delivering 1,000 gets paid twice as much as the one delivering 500. And the station delivering 2,000 gets paid proportionally more. And now a computer can talk to my computer, settle on a rate and make the buy with no seller involved. New technology, old process of paying in proportion to audience size and characteristics.

No moral issue. Move on, nothing to see.

 

[Wimmmex]

It is a question of Ethics or lack thereof. Clearly, ethics do not exist in the now "Offal Office" with the Moral Leper in Chief.

What does this have to do with broadcasting?

 

[TheBigA]

There is no moral question, and no immorality as well.

Then again, if there is, there is recourse. If someone feels the commercial system is corrupt or immoral, there are lots of options. Public radio or satellite radio. No one is forcing anyone to listen to WBZ. It's not like that's the only option.

But there has been a view in this thread that one can threaten radio stations and say "If you don't give me what I want the way I want it, I'm changing the station," and that threat will force the station to change what it does. We've seen it several time. Too many teases? Click. Annoying commercials? Click. That kind of threat carries a certain amount of control & censorship, and challenges the autonomy of a radio station to present its information in an objective or credible way. What makes that threat moral, and the threat of an advertiser immoral? Everyone has a point of view, and an agenda.

 

[gr8oldies]

We have Donald Trump in the White House because people won't pay for journalism. Trump was very good for the clickbait media, which focused on an empty tarmac where Trump was supplosed to land hours later, while one or more of the other Republican candidates was holding a rally. That same media that Trump calls "fake news" everyday, propelled him to the Republican nomination.
We know the 2016 election was supposed to have been a mere formality. It was Hillary's turn, dammit, and she wasn't going to be denied. The script was written, there would be token Republican opposition (probably Jeb) and we would have Clinton II as the Historic First Woman President™ who would not be able to be criticized. Stories damaging to Trump were spiked. You can't tell me NBC didn't know about the Billy Bush tape until days before the general election. No one would have watched the Hillary vs. Jeb debate, but with Trump, there was record viewership. Had Hillary won, we would not be hearing a thing about Russians, Fake News, and Mark Zuckerberg would not have to be making statements about "fixing Facebook".
It works the same on non-comm music stations. People were up in arms when Northern Kentucky University sold their stations, ending a format that had a small but loyal following. This follwing wasn't enough to write big checks, however.

 

[TheBigA]

Paying for journalism is what this discussion is about. For many years, journalism has been funded by advertising. Obviously that model is ending. At one time, it cost money to start a newspaper or radio station. Not any more. Reputable journalistic institutions are competing against online news sources.

If advertising is immoral, where will the money come from to fund investigative reporting and serious journalism? There was a book written on this subject a few years ago called "The Death & Life of American Journalism" written by Robert W. McChesney. There are online excerpts and interviews with the authors about this book. Of course the bad news is one can read the thesis of the book without actually buying it, and that's part of the problem.

 

[frankberry]

This thread has turned totally political. thread closed.

 

[davideduardo]

Then again, if there is, there is recourse. If someone feels the commercial system is corrupt or immoral, there are lots of options. Public radio or satellite radio. No one is forcing anyone to listen to WBZ. It's not like that's the only option. .

However, in my position I was referring to the "Buffering and Budweiser" statement. For the most part, and save the raare case of double billing or outright fraud, there is nothing inherently immoral in the process of buying and selling advertising.