• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

ABC/Cumulus

Shoot From Hip said:
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."
Click to expand...

Ah, the voice of cynicism. Just because something happens, doesn't make it right.

As I recall, the practice of forcing theaters to take stinkers in order to schedule blockbusters was what led to the government forcing the studios to divest their theater chains. (Newly spun-off Paramount Theaters turned around and bought ABC and now you know the rest of the story.)

Product placements is one of those "how dumb do they think we are practices." Maybe the government should require that placements be clearly labeled on screen (in non compressed, full-frame credits). Good suggestion.
 
Julius Leonard Marx said:
Shoot From Hip said:
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."
Click to expand...

Ah, the voice of cynicism. Just because something happens, doesn't make it right.

As I recall, the practice of forcing theaters to take stinkers in order to schedule blockbusters was what led to the government forcing the studios to divest their theater chains. (Newly spun-off Paramount Theaters turned around and bought ABC and now you know the rest of the story.)

Product placements is one of those "how dumb do they think we are practices." Maybe the government should require that placements be clearly labeled on screen (in non compressed, full-frame credits). Good suggestion.
Click to expand...

The issue in these cases is whether or not someone cares, IIUC. If a local station where upset enough about a cram-down they could report the issue to the FCC, FTC or their own corporate lawyer. If a consumer group or the state thinks something untoward is happening they may be able to get some court time. I am reasonably sure there is enough to at least get a hearing- especially as there are special rules for broadcasters that may not apply to ballparks and theatre chains. If the so-called syndicator is behaving like a network then they have to work under different rules. I am not saying that ABC won't win the case. I shot over the bow might create some adverse press to keep these sorts of things from spinning out of control....
 
I'm sure Mr. Cooke or Mr. Boyce knows the answer to this...

didn't stations airing Rush also have to take Dr. Dean Edell? Is that still the case?

Rather than discussing "cram-downs" how about looking at the Hannity/Levin shows as separate entities? How many stations are taking Mark Levin without the benefit of Sean Hannity's lead-in, and how is Levin doing on those stations? Against any local hosts? Against syndicated shows, such as Savage?

How many markets have the two shows on competing stations (i.e. Hannity on station A and Levin on station B)? Is that something the syndicator (Mr. Boyce) wishes to change? Are syndicators looking to have all one product (their product) on one station in town, rather than spread around?
 
RE "didn't stations airing Rush also have to take Dr. Dean Edell?"

That goes back a while.
'Not sure if it's still the case.
But it got Dr. Edell on a lot of stations.
 
Radiomania said:
I'm sure Mr. Cooke or Mr. Boyce knows the answer to this...

didn't stations airing Rush also have to take Dr. Dean Edell? Is that still the case?

Rather than discussing "cram-downs" how about looking at the Hannity/Levin shows as separate entities? How many stations are taking Mark Levin without the benefit of Sean Hannity's lead-in, and how is Levin doing on those stations? Against any local hosts? Against syndicated shows, such as Savage?

How many markets have the two shows on competing stations (i.e. Hannity on station A and Levin on station B)? Is that something the syndicator (Mr. Boyce) wishes to change? Are syndicators looking to have all one product (their product) on one station in town, rather than spread around?
Click to expand...

We all know what they want. They want clearances. Period. If station A is carrying Hannity and station B is not and B wants Hannity so they offer to clear Levin in exchange for poaching Hannity, And I think we can look at my old PC station as an example, station (WFLA-FM) showed interest in Hannity and Levin, WYOO was given the option of keeping Hannity by clearing Levin. They did. They now have Levin and Hannity. Is that a "cram down?" I don't think so, they (ABC radio) like all of us sought to maximize there reach and grow there product. They don't care what station it's on, they just wanted it cleared and they got it.
 
Dale makes a very valid point. There's this assumption that if someone posts an accusation, it requires a denial and a defense. It's just possible that the Hannity/Levin example Dale cites above isn't something that needs to be apologized for, it's simply a smart business decision. It happens in every industry...be it exclusive pouring rights in a stadium in exchange for buying "x" amount of signage, or getting sponsorship of a ride at Universal Studios in exchange for financial consideration in promoting a movie. I realize that I'm going to generate tons of hate mail for saying this, but as a longtime programmer who's also had to be responsible to corporate for P&L, my belief is that trying to re-create the radio model of the 1980s is simply a nice exercise in keeping one's memory sharp. It make work for people sitting on the sidelines or riding-it-out while wishing for the "good old days," but won't fly for people whose jobs are on the line (and in much fewer numbers) in an era of declining revenues and greater competition from non-radio sources (none of which existed back in those "good old days").
 
Dale and Shot from the Hip. You both said it better than I could have. I am speechless....which is a good thing since I have been battling a stalker on another thread and did not need another fight over here. LOL.

thanks.

pb
 
Phil Boyce said:
Dale and Shot from the Hip. You both said it better than I could have. I am speechless(emphasis added)....which is a good thing since I have been battling a stalker on another thread and did not need another fight over here. LOL.
Click to expand...

Am I correct to assume I've just been put down by Mr. Boyce? What did I say? I thought my questions were serious -- I didn't do any slamming of anyone. I didn't participate in all this name-calling and fighting on the various boards. Perhaps my questions are too elementary, but I think they're valid, especially this one:

... how about looking at the Hannity/Levin shows as separate entities? How many stations are taking Mark Levin without the benefit of Sean Hannity's lead-in, and how is Levin doing on those stations? Against any local hosts? Against syndicated shows, such as Savage?

Is Mark Levin on any station that is not carrying Sean Hannity? Or is he only on stations that have Hannity as well? It seems valid. I understand about clearance, etc. I'm asking if Levin is marketed alone, and if he is on stations in markets where Hannity is on a different station.
 
Radiomania...I was not trying to put you down at all. When I said I was speechless it was because I could not think of a thing to say to add to what those two posters had said.

But since you asked again, and deserve an answer, let me try:

... how about looking at the Hannity/Levin shows as separate entities? How many stations are taking Mark Levin without the benefit of Sean Hannity's lead-in, and how is Levin doing on those stations? Against any local hosts? Against syndicated shows, such as Savage?
Click to expand...

We do look at the shows as seperate entities. While I supervise both...the also both have their own affiliate relations team and they can work their own deals. But we do try to work together, and when one show can help get the other cleared, that is not a bad thing.

I am not prepared to answer all those specific questions you asked here on a public message board since this is a highly competitive business and those questions are proprietary. I will say we have a lot of stations that just take Mark without having Hannity as a lead in, and Mark generally does very well. But I would not care to start giving exact numbers, or stations due to competitive reasons.


Is Mark Levin on any station that is not carrying Sean Hannity? Or is he only on stations that have Hannity as well? It seems valid. I understand about clearance, etc. I'm asking if Levin is marketed alone, and if he is on stations in markets where Hannity is on a different station.
Click to expand...

Yes he is. Can't tell you which ones.

pb
 
Thank you. It's interesting to know and I understand about proprietary information.

I was just looking at your previous posts about conservative talk radio vs. liberal, and the requests by some to have a "mixed" formatted-station. I believe it's true that people tune in to hear what they want to hear -- not to be educated or hear a lesson from a different ideology.

That's why I was curious about the Hannity/Levin situation.

Is it working the same for stations that have delayed shows after Hannity? Meaning, if someone is running Hannity live and then puts on a pre-recorded (that day) Neal Boortz, does Boortz do better than if he follows a local host? And -- does the audience drop off because he's not live? And does Hannity do well if he's time delayed? Do any stations play his show opposite his TV show?

In reviewing my post, I guess I'm asking questions that PDs in specific markets would have to answer. So, more generally speaking -- is live best all the time or do the time-delayed shows do well, even if they're not live? Wouldn't people want to be able to call-in?
 
Go sit in the corner and behave...

Radiomania said:
is live best all the time or do the time-delayed shows do well, even if they're not live? Wouldn't people want to be able to call-in?
Click to expand...

What's so sad is that, often, STATIONS DON'T SEEM TO CARE.

Post-consolidation, it's not atypical for the GM-of-4/5/6-or-more under-one-roof to:
1. come from:
a.) Sales, not Programming,
b.) at a music, not a Talk, station; and
2. be too-young-to-have-grown-up-listening-to AM radio.

He/she doesn't understand the untapped potential -- "the headroom" -- of that AM station. So he/she commits a disproportionate percent of expense budget resources and management think-time to music FMs already measurably losing ground to new media...and which could, VERY suddenly, implode, if music Performance Right Fees fly.

Meanwhile, the non-music AM which can be SO-much-more Sales-friendly, and whose mission could be even-more-habitually-useful, "throughout your busy day," to the biggest, wealthiest, segment of the USA population, a generation that grew-up thinking radio was cool...THAT station...is told to "go sit in the corner and behave." The OPPOSITE of what the most successful News/Talk stations do. It's a box in a room, segueing from syndicated show to syndicated show.

Whether listeners derive the value of being-able-to-call-in, in real-time, TO A CALL-IN SHOW, is not a concern.

Which is why ANY diligence by stations that DO "get it" is easy to R.O.I., with the competition mailing-it-in.

HC
www.HollandCooke.com
 
Radiomania said:
is live best all the time or do the time-delayed shows do well, even if they're not live? Wouldn't people want to be able to call-in?
Click to expand...

Short answer: depends on the talent...you could put a nobody on live opposite a taped Rush and still get your butt kicked.

Long answer: your question presumes that radio occurs in a vacuum and in the most generic of forms. It doesn't take in to account any of the realities that programmers face every single day: what's my station's mission, what's the competition doing, what programs are available to me (and are they compatible with the other dayparts), is my station owned by a company that also owns a syndicator (or does the syndicator I want to work with own a competitor), do I have a heritage position to protect, am I carrying play-play-by, what's my budget, is my market large enough to sustain multiple stations in a format, is the economy where I live moving up or down, if I make a change is there money to promote/market it, and on and on.

A lot of the posts here are really "what if" instead of "what is"...the real world more often than not is more "what is" than "what if."
 
Re: Go sit in the corner and behave...

Holland Cooke said:
What's so sad is that, often, STATIONS DON'T SEEM TO CARE.

Post-consolidation, it's not atypical for the GM-of-4/5/6-or-more under-one-roof to:
1. come from:
a.) Sales, not Programming,
b.) at a music, not a Talk, station; and
2. be too-young-to-have-grown-up-listening-to AM radio.

He/she doesn't understand the untapped potential -- "the headroom" -- of that AM station. So he/she commits a disproportionate percent of expense budget resources and management think-time to music FMs already measurably losing ground to new media...and which could, VERY suddenly, implode, if music Performance Right Fees fly.

Meanwhile, the non-music AM which can be SO-much-more Sales-friendly, and whose mission could be even-more-habitually-useful, "throughout your busy day," to the biggest, wealthiest, segment of the USA population, a generation that grew-up thinking radio was cool...THAT station...is told to "go sit in the corner and behave." The OPPOSITE of what the most successful News/Talk stations do. It's a box in a room, segueing from syndicated show to syndicated show.

Whether listeners derive the value of being-able-to-call-in, in real-time, TO A CALL-IN SHOW, is not a concern.

Which is why ANY diligence by stations that DO "get it" is easy to R.O.I., with the competition mailing-it-in.

HC
www.HollandCooke.com
Click to expand...

Hear, hear. Just curious, Holland...Do see things getting any better in '08... :-\
 
Lookin' for jobs in all the wrong places...?

Holland Cooke said:
Not before they get worse first.
Radio hasn't bottomed-out yet.

Thus the value of BOTHERING.
ANY effort is now all-the-more-conspicuous.
Diligence rocks.

HC
Click to expand...

The first part of your statement implies that things will eventually get better. I sure hope so.

I love the last line, though my own personal experience of the last decade (for what that's worth), has been that in terms of job security for personalities, being the cheapest thing available trumps everything (maybe I'm looking in the wrong places)...???
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom