ABC/Cumulus

[Phil Boyce]

Julius says:

In that situation in Delaware that has been mentioned, as I recall the incumbent Hannity station was willing to take Levin on delay. Hannity was yanked and the new station is running Levin delayed anyway. That's strange.

Nope...got your factoid wrong here Julius. WDEL wanted no part of Mark Levin. WILM wanted both. So we offered both to WDEL. They passed knowing we would take both shows across the street. WDEL decided to go live and local, and many on this board praised them. Hey, me included. If you can find better local hosts than Hannity and Mark, go for it. They got what they wanted...and we got what we wanted.

case closed. And this is not a cram down. This is a business opportunity. We are in the business of getting Mark and Sean cleared on as many stations as possible.

pb

 

[Julius Leonard Marx]

Julius says:

In that situation in Delaware that has been mentioned, as I recall the incumbent Hannity station was willing to take Levin on delay. Hannity was yanked and the new station is running Levin delayed anyway. That's strange.

Nope...got your factoid wrong here Julius. WDEL wanted no part of Mark Levin. WILM wanted both. So we offered both to WDEL. They passed knowing we would take both shows across the street. WDEL decided to go live and local, and many on this board praised them. Hey, me included. If you can find better local hosts than Hannity and Mark, go for it. They got what they wanted...and we got what we wanted.

case closed. And this is not a cram down. This is a business opportunity. We are in the business of getting Mark and Sean cleared on as many stations as possible.

pb

Thanks for the correction. What you say makes it sound like they had already made up their minds about going live and local and would have done so sooner or later if any case.

WABC is live and local in only one day-part weekdays now. Any chance you would go more live-local? (Look at WOR; they produce and syndicate shows they either don't carry or delay).

 

[B.B. Lean]

I'm not naming PD's or stations, because it's not my business - it's theirs. If they want to come on the board and talk about their specific situation, that's their decision, not mine.

You didn't answer my question, though. Was the station ALREADY planning on canceling Sean Hannity, or did you force their hand, so to speak, when they didn't want to take Mark?

 

[B.B. Lean]

And by the way, name-calling is really beneath you, or should be at least. You don't have to worry about me, you're a big time WABC award winning programmer, and I'm just a guy trying to make a living in a much, much smaller market. It's PD's like me who have to deal with the big syndication companies, because we don't have a lot of money to hire local talent, nor do we have a lot of leverage... so we end up getting bullied around quite a bit.

I'm not trying to win anything here, just giving my opinion, so relax. While you may not technically consider pulling Hannity from a station because they won't clear Levin and another station would a 'cram-down' - trust me, many PD's feel differently.

Oh yeah - the other question... would the one station have taken Levin had they not been able to get Hannity?

 

[Julius Leonard Marx]

And by the way, name-calling is really beneath you, or should be at least. You don't have to worry about me, you're a big time WABC award winning programmer, and I'm just a guy trying to make a living in a much, much smaller market. It's PD's like me who have to deal with the big syndication companies, because we don't have a lot of money to hire local talent, nor do we have a lot of leverage... so we end up getting bullied around quite a bit.

I'm not trying to win anything here, just giving my opinion, so relax. While you may not technically consider pulling Hannity from a station because they won't clear Levin and another station would a 'cram-down' - trust me, many PD's feel differently.

Oh yeah - the other question... would the one station have taken Levin had they not been able to get Hannity?

That reminds me:

Ironically, the legislation (Chain Broadcasting Act of 1940) which forced the establishment of ABC, also contained provisions barring a network from using one program to impel a station to take another program.

 

[Phil Boyce]

BB Leans says:

And by the way, name-calling is really beneath you, or should be at least. You don't have to worry about me, you're a big time WABC award winning programmer, and I'm just a guy trying to make a living in a much, much smaller market. It's PD's like me who have to deal with the big syndication companies, because we don't have a lot of money to hire local talent, nor do we have a lot of leverage... so we end up getting bullied around quite a bit.

I'm not trying to win anything here, just giving my opinion, so relax. While you may not technically consider pulling Hannity from a station because they won't clear Levin and another station would a 'cram-down' - trust me, many PD's feel differently.

Oh yeah - the other question... would the one station have taken Levin had they not been able to get Hannity?

I have this unique job. I am a program director and a syndicator. Not many can say that. It is for that reason that I take this accusation personally. I don't bully stations and PD's and I don't allow our syndication team to do that either. I am a PD and I treat stations the way I would want to be treated. I know how PD's feel...I have been one for 17 years.

In the example that I gave, WILM wanted a package deal. They wanted Hannity and Levin together. You can say they "stole Hannity" and maybe they did. But they didn't do it without the other station having a chance to keep Hannity if they would take Levin. As for the first station planning to get rid of Hannity anyway, I was never sure about that. They were a difficult station to deal with, and had threatened to cancel Hannity because a station liner was not turned around fast enough. We probably would not have even considered taking Hannity across town if not for that threat. We ended up getting Levin cleared as well, so we did our job.

You can certainly give your opinion all you want...about your individual station. But when you start making allegations that "many pd's you talk to" are afraid of a Hannity or Levin cram down, I am going to step in and correct you. I just don't believe it...and the only station we have talked about was the one I named. You were not willing or able to name a single one. If you can't name even one station to prove your point then you can't keep claiming it's true.

pb

 

[B.B. Lean]

And as I've said, you don't have to believe me, and you can dismiss my admittedly anecdotal experiences all day long. That's fine. I know what people have told me, and I know what I've had to deal with from other companies - I've not had this experience with your operation, but I have been subject to some pretty bullying tactics from other companies.

I feel confident in saying that there are stations out there that have lost Hannity to the competition because of the competitions willingness to clear Levin, while the original affiliate didn't want the program. If you don't consider that cramming down, then it's really just a matter of semantics. But I would venture to guess that the original station probably felt otherwise.

At any rate, seems like we're arguing semantics at this point, so it's rather pointless. You've basically answered my question with this statement:

You can say they "stole Hannity" and maybe they did. But they didn't do it without the other station having a chance to keep Hannity if they would take Levin.

Emphasis added.

 

[B.B. Lean]

Ironically, the legislation (Chain Broadcasting Act of 1940) which forced the establishment of ABC, also contained provisions barring a network from using one program to impel a station to take another program.

That explains why nobody is honest about this very common tactic.

And please, let me repeat - I do not have any real objection to companies using leverage. I just get annoyed at the breathless denials everyone spews when it's suggested that it happens... all the time...

 

[Holland Cooke]

Ladies, ladies, PLEASE. Let's just all calm down here...

<< Holland...how about WON? The stock is hovering around 2 bucks a share >>

As a long-suffering Westwood shareholder, I'm less enthused about that that I am about Citadel.

I've made money on Citadel for a-little-over-a-month-lately, hopping-in-and-out.
With discount broker commissions so low, you don't even need a point on a stock that cheap.

 

[Slant]

even if they are cramming...WHO CARES? dont take the product if you don't like the company. And who knows...Maybe at some point Hannity will be with a different network..a network where he can make RUSH money....which he certainly isnt now...That boy needs to get himself a rev share deal!

 

[Phil Boyce]

BB Lean...I admit we are now beating a dead horse, and it is a discussion that has run it's course. I just wanted to go back your original statement which you knew I had to respond to:

Phil, you're a great guy and a great programmer, and I got all the respect in the world for ya, but I gotta take issue with the 'cram-down' comment. Not saying you're responsible, but Levin has been 'crammed-down' to MANY stations through the Hannity affiliation. I've talked to a good number of program directors who say they HAD to take Levin or they were afraid they'd lose Hannity to the competition. Is that not cramming down?

When you make that statement that I placed in bold for emphasis, you have to know I am not going to let that stand without challenging you to prove it. You now seem to be admitting you have no direct knowledge to back up that claim (in bold) and your knowledge is based on what other companies do. You also now use the word leverage, which is different than cram down.

I have not denied we have used leverage to help us clear Levin. It makes perfect sense to do so and it is a good business decision. When I talk to PD's about why the combo of Rush to Sean to Levin is so effective, I do so with personal experience. I run all three back to back to back in NYC, and in the Spring book Mark was #1 in Men 25-54 in his daypart. The accusation (the one above in bold) is insulting to Mark and the affiliate team that works so hard to clear him. We just hit our 150th affiliate, WJNO in West Palm Beach. We worked on that affiliation for a year and a half and finally got it. So I hope you understand why I could not let a comment like that stand on this message board without refuting it.

Mark has now been syndicated for over a year and a half and I believe we have only lost 4 stations out of 150. If we were cramming a bad show down the throats of PD's the number would be much higher because ultimately Mark has to score in the ratings to keep his position. The fact that he has kept his position on 97% of his stations is one of the best retention stats in syndicated radio.

I'll let you have the last word.

pb

 

[Julius Leonard Marx]

PB:

I think you're right that this is not getting closer to resolution.

Cramming may be in the eye of the beholder. The people who call on PDs are in sales. Sales people push; it's their nature. They may not think they are pushing, just being good salesmen. Last time I got a car, I though they tried to cram undercoating. I'm not sure what they thought they were doing.

"Cram" may have been a poor choice for word to start with.

 

[Holland Cooke]

NO. "Cram" is a GREAT word.

"Cram" may have been a poor choice for word to start with.

"Vertical integration" is a politer word, but "cram" isn't unfair.

This is not about Phil, Levin, or ABC.

And, as-I'm-sure-you-will-understand, I WON'T name-names, but here's an unsolicited comment a Clear Channel GM I know Emailed me:

“Clear Channel has become the anti-radio company. In the beginning they truly were an entrepreneurial company and the managers ran the markets. Fast forward to today and it's a corporate cram down of everything from spot loads and personnel decisions degrading the product. And they wonder why ratings are slipping in two-thirds of the rated markets they own.”

"Cram-down" are his words, not mine.

And if you think 2007 wasn't pretty, strap-in for 2008.
(http://members.aol.com/cookeh/December1-1.pdf)

Happy "Holidaze..."
HC
www.HollandCooke.com

 

[robbbc]

even if they are cramming...WHO CARES? dont take the product if you don't like the company. And who knows...Maybe at some point Hannity will be with a different network..a network where he can make RUSH money....which he certainly isnt now...That boy needs to get himself a rev share deal!

I care. It is anticompetitive. Each program should stand on its own merits. Perhaps the reason somebody doesn't want to call a spade a spade in this thread is because they are afraid of antitrust laws.

 

[Julius Leonard Marx]

I've seen nothing that leads me to believe ABC did anything remotely illegal. Right or wrong is a personal moral issue and beyond reasonable discussion. However, any time a network or syndicator pulls a show from one station and gives it to another there is a good chance there will be some ill will. Because another station offered to clear a second show. Because another station offered to pay more money. Because another station had a better signal or a larger audience. Because the owner of the other station owned a lot more stations. Somebody is likely to be POed.

I recall a local station owner in Madison, WI who is still smarting because he took Ed Schultz early on, helped the show build up a following, only to have the show given to a competitor (owned by Clear Channel). This station owner went local-live and the last I heard was still vowing not to do business with Jones Radio or any syndicator.

The station in Delaware had already had a bad experience with Premiere Radio yanking Rush out from under them, so they might have had reason to be "difficult" with a syndicator.

Radio is an industry not known for taking the long view, or for rewarding past loyalty. But pulling a show, whatever the justification, does not seem to be a way to make friends. A satisfied customer tells an average of five people; a dissatisfied customer tells an average of 20. In radio, maybe you can add a zero or two to those figures. Maybe affiliation reps need to take the good will factor more into account.

 

[Holland Cooke]

"I've seen nothing that leads me to believe ABC did anything remotely illegal"

I may be wrong, but I THINK the applicable statute is "Hart-Rodino?"
But let's leave interpreting-that to people-who've-passed-a-Bar-exam.

TV analogy: Just TRY to get Oprah without King World shall-we-say "leveraging" a few other shows onto your station...

 

[Julius Leonard Marx]

Re: "I've seen nothing that leads me to believe ABC did anything remotely illega

I may be wrong, but I THINK the applicable statute is "Hart-Rodino?"
But let's leave interpreting-that to people-who've-passed-a-Bar-exam.

TV analogy: Just TRY to get Oprah without King World shall-we-say "leveraging" a few other shows onto your station...

I don't it think applies here. That act says the government must be notified of mergers, acquisitions or tender offers above a certain dollar amount and the feds have 30 days to see if they constitute an anti-trust violation before the deals can go through.

 

[Holland Cooke]

I stand corrected...but there's SOME-such applicable law...

But don't quote me!
I got my law degree from Harvard School of Watch Repair (Tick-Tock Tech).

 

[Julius Leonard Marx]

Re: I stand corrected...but there's SOME-such applicable law...

But don't quote me!
I got my law degree from Harvard School of Watch Repair (Tick-Tock Tech).

I got my doctorate in animal husbandry from Sam Houston Institute of Technology, home of the Fighting Bulls.

 

[Shoot From Hip]

even if they are cramming...WHO CARES? dont take the product if you don't like the company. And who knows...Maybe at some point Hannity will be with a different network..a network where he can make RUSH money....which he certainly isnt now...That boy needs to get himself a rev share deal!

I care. It is anticompetitive. Each program should stand on its own merits. Perhaps the reason somebody doesn't want to call a spade a spade in this thread is because they are afraid of antitrust laws.

Open your eyes to the real world. It happens in every industry. Arena operators build packages for Coke or Pepsi that include signage, program ads, and...yes...exclusive pouring rights. You can't get one without the others. And...oh yeah...so does Taco Bell. And so does your local theater chain. Leverage is a part of business, and just because you don't care for it, that doesn't make it a federal violation. Next thing, you'll be asking for equal time in product placement on "30 Rock."