97 Rock REALLY steps in it

[SirRoxalot]

Huh? My "solution" to what exactly? What question is it that you suggest I should "answer?"

You're the one who said "I think, however, that the station/owners did not react wisely." and "IMO, they exposed their overall organization to be of poor management, poor ethics, and poor values. Frankly, I've heard a fair number of folks literally chuckle and shake their head about how the incident was handled."

So, how would you have handled the situation? Go ahead, confer with your "fair number of folks" on how you should handle a very public incident with very public people.

 

[four4rock]

I continue to believe this was nothing more than a personnel matter. As such, a simple reference to it being such and (possibly) expressing disappointment and/or confidence in the station/owner policies... followed by a 'we'll have no further comment' closing would have been far superior to the accelerant tossed on the spark. I'd also view supporting one's employees (paticularly long termers) as valuable. No, that doesn't mean you have to be in lockstep with every action/statement. But tossing one to the curb reveals a ton about corporate culture. Seems to me this was not an option available to appease the "threatening" customer(s) ready to abandon ship... maybe saying something about their ethics/values, too.

As I have heard nothing whatsoever (not even a nit) about the station's "phones lighting up" immediately after the incident, I am speculating that such a situation did not occur. It apparently took third parties - so-to-speak - to raise the thing. That speaks volumes to me.

As to the customer retention aspect, any firm (other than a government contractor) that allows a focused concentration of risk to occur is, almost by definition poorly managed. That should have been addressed earlier. My advice - don't do that! However, since that was the hand available, it's a good time to purge that concentration, and move toward balanced diversification of one's customer base. Sometimes it's better to part ways with a professional exit strategy. Yes, I know, it's a hard pill to swallow.

Again, IMO, this thing - the incident - was handled abysmally.

 

[TheBigA]

They chose to view the incident comments in a sealed box and act without consideration of anything outside the box. Worse, IMO, they exposed their overall organization to be of poor management, poor ethics, and poor values.

It sounds to me that you're judging the process without actually knowing anything about it, other than what you read here and other discussion areas. You say they viewed the incident "in a sealed box." We know that's not true. This story made national news. Halle Berry commented on it. The advertisers have spoken. Community leaders have spoken. Who else should should they have heard from? You want to put this to a city-wide vote? Like reality TV where people vote the morning show off the island?

You say "the overall organization to be of poor management, poor ethics, and poor values." Really? Based on what? The comments of one poorly advised person? What do you know of the management's rules or ethics? What about the ethics or values of the morning show? That's the real issue here. What kind of person discusses other people in this way?

I read here all the time how DJs should be given lots of freedom. That it's "bad management" for DJs to be forced to read liner cards or prepared bits. So here's what happen when DJs don't have that forced structure. It's not as though Lederman or anyone else didn't know the rules, or didn't know consequences. They knew and did it anyway. There was no "sealed box." The only poor ethics or values were the specific people involved.

As I have heard nothing whatsoever (not even a nit) about the station's "phones lighting up" immediately after the incident, I am speculating that such a situation did not occur.

Who cares? Who cares if the stations phones lit up or not? Does ANY of that make what they said acceptable? Once again, you want this to be dealt with like reality TV. That's not what this is. This is real life.

 

[tbolt909]

I think, however, that the station/owners did not react wisely. They chose to view the incident comments in a sealed box and act without consideration of anything outside the box. Worse, IMO, they exposed their overall organization to be of poor management, poor ethics, and poor values. Frankly, I've heard a fair number of folks literally chuckle and shake their head about how the incident was handled (disclaimer: none of whom are directly associated with any of the organizations). Publicly "announcing" (or even acknowledging) that so-n-so has been fired for involvement in the incident? Really? Absurd. Absolutely absurd.

What did you want them to do? Should they have ignored the incident? The terminations would have become public knowledge even without a company statement. The incident went National, so Cumulus could not hide it.

People are divided as always. Many of the listeners felt the hosts did nothing wrong. Many other people found the comments juvenile and deeply offensive. You can't please everyone. Radio hosts can be fired for many reasons. This time it was self inflicted. It sounds like you expected Cumulus to do nothing at all...

 

[four4rock]

What did you want them to do? Should they have ignored the incident? The terminations would have become public knowledge even without a company statement. The incident went National, so Cumulus could not hide it.

People are divided as always. Many of the listeners felt the hosts did nothing wrong. Many other people found the comments juvenile and deeply offensive. You can't please everyone. Radio hosts can be fired for many reasons. This time it was self inflicted. It sounds like you expected Cumulus to do nothing at all...

"It sounds like you expected Cumulus to do nothing at all..." What!?!?!?! Nowhere did I say, suggest, or imply that. And, without question, I do not think that. I take "issue" (in some respects) with how... HOW... the station/owner reacted. Make no mistake, a firm must react to an incident such as this... no matter whether the offense taken is legitimate, contrived, or some combination of the two. How.... HOW... they react - in its entirety - is the telltale sign of the firm's character. I happen to be of the opinion that they blew it. And, again, I have not indicated I "...expected Cumulus to do nothing at all..."

Another comment... I'm not so convinced that the stations/owners reaction (good or bad) was as much about what crossed their air, as it was about a customer choice to jump ship.

 

[tbolt909]

Another comment... I'm so convinced that the stations/owners reaction (good or bad) was as much about what crossed their air, as it was about a customer choice to jump ship.

I guess you mean advertisers pulling their business forced them to act. Sure, that's a big part of it. We don't how every Cumulus employee feels. It's possible that 20 years ago, they get away with making those comments. That still doesn't make it acceptable...

 

[four4rock]

I guess you mean advertisers pulling their business forced them to act. Sure, that's a big part of it. We don't how every Cumulus employee feels. It's possible that 20 years ago, they get away with making those comments. That still doesn't make it acceptable...

To be clear, I'm saying that were it not for a customer choice to discontinue a business relationship (of which, I understand, RPCI was first on that scene) can anyone really say - with any supportable certainty - the disassociation of employees would have occurred? I have not seen/heard (officially or unofficially) any compelling evidence that suggests station/owner action was in place prior to RPCI's decision to separate... unless, one puts heavy stock in after-the-fact public relations press releases (LOL).

As I've said, I think both the station/owner and RCPI/West Herr* all showed an unattractive facet of their respective corporate culture/character through this (ongoing) matter. It is truly a case study that I find fascinating.

*=These are the only two of which I am aware by name.

 

[TheBigA]

I have not seen/heard (officially or unofficially) any compelling evidence that suggests station/owner action was in place prior to RPCI's decision to separate... unless, one puts heavy stock in after-the-fact public relations press releases (LOL).

Of course you haven't seen anything. This is a private personnel matter. That's how it's supposed to be handled.

A radio station is more than a signal. It's a workplace, where there are more office staff than people on the air. Most radio companies have put their employees through "workplace harassment training" and they also have stated harassment policies for dealing with employees who say things in the workplace that can be viewed as harassment. This falls into that category.

 

[four4rock]

My apologies. I thought that station/owner making public announcement of firing someone was not keeping it "private". Silly of me, maybe.

The dancing about, and by, the station/owner of handling this is - as I stated - fascinating.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
— ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

 

[TheBigA]

My apologies. I thought that station/owner making public announcement of firing someone was not keeping it "private". Silly of me, maybe.

They didn't go into any detail about it, did they? It's been very common for radio groups to announce that air talent involved in a controversial situation have been fired. Beyond that they don't comment. If you just tune in to the station and they're not there any more, they've been fired. There's no "dancing about." They were direct in terms of what they have said, and all of that is covered under the law. You're upset because they haven't told you about their process. It's none of your business.

 

[SirRoxalot]

4, you still haven't said how you'd have handled it. Let's hear what you would have done.

You say that the station reacted to advertisers pulling out. Just how fast do you think personnel decisions are made these days? Have you been to an HR office in this century, jumped through the hoops required to check contract, check with corporate, and get a decision approved while a situation evolves into a nation incident?

This ain't no mom & pop shop. Let's hear what you think they should have done.

 

[four4rock]

4, you still haven't said how you'd have handled it. Let's hear what you would have done.

You say that the station reacted to advertisers pulling out. Just how fast do you think personnel decisions are made these days? Have you been to an HR office in this century, jumped through the hoops required to check contract, check with corporate, and get a decision approved while a situation evolves into a nation incident?

This ain't no mom & pop shop. Let's hear what you think they should have done.

I've already commented on that (i.e. my thoughts on how to handle the matter)... um, twice, BTW. I really/sincerely find this fascinating.

I'm curious, too, what is the in-industry reputation of the ownership firm? I mean, within every industry, some firms are revered, some are despised... doesn't matter the industry... grocery stores, car dealerships, hospitals, trucking companies, CPA's, restaurants... every industry breeds thoughts on their counterparts.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm curious, too, what is the in-industry reputation of the ownership firm?

Do you know how to use a search engine? Look it up. It doesn't matter what their reputation is. This is covered under human resources law. All public companies must follow the law. Here's one law you might not know:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines harassment as unwelcome verbal or physical behavior that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), gender/gender identity, nationality, age (40 or older), physical or mental disability, or genetic information.

Comparing women's racial appearance to toast would be unwelcome verbal behavior. This is explained in the company's employee manual.

 

[tbolt909]

My apologies. I thought that station/owner making public announcement of firing someone was not keeping it "private". Silly of me, maybe.

The dancing about, and by, the station/owner of handling this is - as I stated - fascinating.

An On Air Radio host is much more public than a behind the scenes clerical position. The Morning Show represents the company and station. If the comments had happened in the hallway (off air), then you would have gotten your "private" resolution. Do you get the difference?

Let's say one of the hosts was arrested for Murder. Cumulus would have to address that issue (even if happened off air). It would be hard to keep it "private"...

 

[Sonny Intervals]

Who will host the AM show?

 

[DN14224]

And Hager's former job is now posted:

Cumulus. Classic Rock. PD. Buffalo.

• Cumulus Media's legendary Buffalo Classic Rocker WGRF (97 Rock) is conducting a nationwide search for its next PD. But first, a few routine questions: 1) Can you respect the history of great music but not live in the past? 2) Does your talent shine between songs? 3) Can you translate the...

ramp247.com

 

[DN14224]

Now Danny weighs in - and defends the morning team:

Alan Pergament: Neaverth defends fired 97 Rock employees, laments how careful DJs have to be today

“Let the punishment fit the crime. Suspension. OK. But to destroy the careers and lives of these people doesn’t merit the firings," Danny Neaverth said.

buffalonews.com

 

[TheBigA]

Now Danny weighs in - and defends the morning team:

Neaverth doesn't understand the crime. This isn't cancel culture, this is employee harassment, and its a human resources issue. Attacking people for the color of their skin is NOT entertaining. Neaverth is coming at this as a boomer who simply doesn't understand. It's not funny. It wasn't funny 40 years ago, and its not funny now.

The other thing he got wrong is that their careers are over. Their careers are over if they don't attempt to correct their behavior, if they don't reach out to the black community, and try to understand why what they did was hurtful to others. Imus was able to get rehired after getting fired from CBS. He was able to extend his career for another ten or so years until he retired.

 

[Mikey Radio]

Neaverth is coming at this as a boomer who simply doesn't understand. It's not funny. It wasn't funny 40 years ago, and its not funny now.

Unfortunately I see this surprisingly often. In early 2020, I was in a bar among a mixed crowd mostly in their 20s and early 30s on trivia night. The DJ/host was older and some of the questions he was asking may have been somewhat acceptable a decade ago, and would probably pass muster at a frat party, but in a room full of younger generation, 1/2 being young women, his 'trivia' questions were distasteful at best. Some of them described sexual acts, for instance, and the "answers" were slang terms from the Urban Dictionary. He thought he was entertaining and funny, but I didn't hear anyone laughing and after a while, patrons tuned him out. He was obviously out of touch with what's acceptable today.

A few weeks ago I read an interview with an older actor who was asked about the "me too" movement. While he wasn't necessarily dismissive, he did say many older actors were caught off guard by it, and they feel the need to tiptoe around actions and comments that were the standard and "normal" back in their day. He may be right in theory, but actors, on-air personalities and similar from that generation must understand and embrace the fact that times and attitudes have changed, rather than be dismissive or even confrontational about it - Especially if they want to continue working and not risk have their names in the headlines for the wrong reason.

 

[TheBigA]

Especially if they want to continue working and not risk have their names in the headlines for the wrong reason.

The big radio companies are very clear about this. They don't want to get sued. So they tell all staff in advance what the policy is, and what the consequences will be. Neaverth is also wrong that the company may have used this incident to save money. There are other ways to save money without the negative publicity and loss of sponsors that this incident caused.