Analysis: The Revenge of WNEW-FM?

[softmachine]

I think some of your points are valid, but radio has not been replaced by technology - it is merely sharing more time with it (and less time with radio, but as of the latest study MORE are listening). Just as TV took away some of radio's time.

The industry knows there is a listener spectrum, of which some people may vary from day-to-day. One extreme is all hands-on iPod feeder and music researcher, and the other is a person who wants to have someone program something for them and think feeding an iPod and spending hours researching bands is annoying. All of us vary in this spectrum day-to-day.

The hoopla about iPods "replacing" radio is a blanket statement and not really accurate.

As far as a relaunched WNEW, it works in Chicago to much success. WXRT is not number one, but it has something few stations have - a diehard listener base. Just like the old WNEW had before it started falling off a cliff.

A few things:

1) Define 'much success'. With numbers.

2) When you make statements pro or con about a certain subject (i.e.: iPods Vs. radio) please quantify and qualify. Give us the numbers and of what.

3) What study?

4) Please bear in mind that time people dedicate to one device, they cannot dedicate to another. I'm talking strictly about listening here.

5) What are the listening habits-as well as you can clearly statistically state without violating the rules-of both iPods and radio? How many people use an iPod as a primary source of music? How many people use radio as a primary source of information? Vice versa? And so forth.

6) Time is finite for most people.

7) The radio station with a die-hard following on the east coast is WFMU.

'iPod' will serve as a generic term for any portable player that fits in the pocket easily.

Oh, and if you've mentioned these stats and facts before in this thread-if they are important and true-they bear repeating. Constantly.

You have the gumption of Steve Dunne in Singles. Don't forget the coffee.

Thanks.

 

[softmachine]

(perception lags reality)

...as does programming...which is one of the things that made radio dead to begin with.

 

[softmachine]

Radio still works because it is SO DAMN EASY and it is FREE. It's always there and requires no effort. It requires ZERO effort. Even TV requires some effort because you can't bring it everywhere. Satellite has flopped (4% of market in 10 years, operating in red) and broadband still lacks the functionality, locality, leverage, and professionalism of local radio.

Even some major market outlets lack professionalism.

As far as 'broadband' (read: WiMax) is concerned, look up 'Qualcomm' and 'Channel 55.'

Radio will be great again, and there are diamonds in the rough (107.1 The Peak in Westchester County, NY, G Rock 106.3 in Jersey, KFOG, and even WCBS-FM) which will enlighten the business to rebuild once again.

These are what they will be: Slight gains to make up insurmountable losses.

HD sucks now but just like FM (invented in the 40s, took off in the 70s) will only become real when the FCC increases power this year and radios only COME in HD (therefore making every new radio HD and ending the IBOC debate). And the HD stations will eventually get better, just as when FM started as automated reel-to-reel stations. And, just like then, no one listened to FM until the right content was put on it.

Um, wait. FM started mostly as SIMULCASTS of AMs, considered WORTHLESS. They put a bunch of hippies on FM, which-while garnering some listeners-permutated from Free Form to CORPORATE ALBUM ROCK (your 'living rock' if you will) because it drew better numbers. Now, you're in a condition where people want INDIVIDUAL FREE FORM, because the stations play the same old shite over most of the dial. So we've come full circle: Radio has cost-effective computer-run-ersatz NAB hub tape-and dishes. No live, no local. No need. the exception is perhaps news stations.

IBOC was a bad idea to begin with. It's confounding to most, and annoying to the rest. And see below.

I agree HD will destroy analog FM...but unless the FCC gives radio some other space now forfeited by the digital TV move there is no choice, except perhaps a gradual increase.

This has been discussed for years. Now, what you wanna do when you have lotsa real estate in a down market, is magically make more of it, diluting the price.

You might ask why IBOC is IBOC, and not OBOC (Other band, other Channels)

I know, for example, that I can no longer get 92.5 WXTU from Philadelphia anymore because of HD sideband interference from 92.3 WXRK in New York.

Tail? Meet mouth.

 

[softmachine]

After reading this thread and taking that into consideration today, I realized that even if they brought back the old call sign from the Florida station now using it, and amassed the old DJs on 102.7, it just wouldn't be the same.

Hi Walter,

That's all well and good, but the catch with WNEW is not its callsign, nor the DJs. Nor is the modern-day WCBS-FM much like the old WCBS-FM.

It's not callsigns.

It's not DJs.

It's not even specific music, really.

It's a valuable BRAND, even if that value is $1 or $1 million, that CBS could use as a springboard to launch a AAA.

NO OTHER station in New York, outside of WPLJ, can claim that. WNEW was the last great progressive rock station in New York.

The programmers at WCBS-FM knew the same thing. WCBS-FM is vastly different than what it was the first time around (only one DJ to bridge back to the old one, newer music, different specialty programming) but the brand had CACHET rather than just starting from scratch with NO BRAND and NO IDENTITY, and therefore no BUZZ in the media.

Anyone saying that a modernized WNEW would not get media attention just isn't looking at the attention they got when they went off.

And, just for the record, WXRK was throwing around the old WNEW slogan "Where Rock Lives" while doing a production piece on their programming features like "two-fers" at 2 and Led Lunch and whatnot just this afternoon.

That slogan is CLASSIC and EFFECTIVE, another great part of what the new WNEW could become.

Sounds like Mark is back in the building already.

Cachet? All that and a Philatelist, too. Wow.

The imprimatur sold out long ago.

Let's revive Metromedia while we're at it.

I grew up with WNEW. As an older-perhaps wiser-and more cynical consumer, I know I don't care, and I won't buy it. I like music. Radio-for the most part-has short-changed me, and insulted my intelligence. I can let it go-most commercial side stuff anyway. I have found better stuff in the Goodwill than what's on the radio. Led Zep? When Page will tour with any lead singer, it's well past the sell-by date. And I don't care.

Bring me that 5,000 + playlist and I will chukle. I'd rather listen to an Edison tube.

 

[softmachine]

FM (invented in the 40s, took off in the 70s)

Actually, that 30-year stretch included a frequency change, a war, and political niggling. FM really didn't have a chance until the early 60s. With nothing in the way, IBOC's arc up should be much shorter, doncha think? No signs of catching.

The 50s had HiFi sets and FM/FM Stereo adapters. Audiophiles liked FM. No one who I would call an audiophile (you need 'geek niche') thinks this item is any good. And your audience-to-be is poorly-encoded MP3 consumers. So where would you place IBOC aside from a DARSSAT radio (which the IBOC people tried to do but failed)?

 

[Jacko]

The return of WCBS-FM did well partly because it wasn't gone for that long. Maybe 2 years? WNEW, especially as a rock format, has been gone for 10 years, and while a handful of those listeners scattered themselves to WRXP, K-Rock, WFUV, and the suburban rimshots like WDHA or WBAB, most of WNEW's listeners found a new "brand" in WAXQ/Q104.3. And while Q104.3's playlist might be kind of tight, it's still, IMHO, one of the better classic rock stations that I've listened to and would be very hard for another station to beat, even if it was a well-executed reincarnation of 102.7 WNEW. Plus, a number of former WNEW jocks found their way to Q104.3, further driving home the idea to listeners that Q104.3 is the station for former WNEW listeners to listen to. Clearly, this is one of very few examples of Clear Channel actually knowing what it was doing.

Barring any format changes at Q104.3 or WRXP, CBS radio has only two frequencies to play with, 92.3 and 102.7. The majority of listeners who grew up with WNEW are now listening to Q104.3 and are satisfied overall. So instead of reincarnating WNEW, let's shape and develop the K-Rock brand. Let's give K-Rock more of a focus, make it sound more modern without making it sound unfocused. Let's actually introduce new bands/artists, especially NYC-area talent, on K-Rock instead of having people find out through satellite or Pandora. Let's not just create some homogenized format that you can already hear on two or three other stations. Let's get people actually interested in what's on the radio again, rather than just be satisfied by playing only the best-tested songs over and over, just to stay afloat.

Jacko

 

[wrsurocks]

I think some of your points are valid, but radio has not been replaced by technology - it is merely sharing more time with it (and less time with radio, but as of the latest study MORE are listening). Just as TV took away some of radio's time.

The industry knows there is a listener spectrum, of which some people may vary from day-to-day. One extreme is all hands-on iPod feeder and music researcher, and the other is a person who wants to have someone program something for them and think feeding an iPod and spending hours researching bands is annoying. All of us vary in this spectrum day-to-day.

The hoopla about iPods "replacing" radio is a blanket statement and not really accurate.

As far as a relaunched WNEW, it works in Chicago to much success. WXRT is not number one, but it has something few stations have - a diehard listener base. Just like the old WNEW had before it started falling off a cliff.

A few things:

1) Define 'much success'. With numbers.

2) When you make statements pro or con about a certain subject (i.e.: iPods Vs. radio) please quantify and qualify. Give us the numbers and of what.

3) What study?

4) Please bear in mind that time people dedicate to one device, they cannot dedicate to another. I'm talking strictly about listening here.

5) What are the listening habits-as well as you can clearly statistically state without violating the rules-of both iPods and radio? How many people use an iPod as a primary source of music? How many people use radio as a primary source of information? Vice versa? And so forth.

6) Time is finite for most people.

7) The radio station with a die-hard following on the east coast is WFMU.

'iPod' will serve as a generic term for any portable player that fits in the pocket easily.

Oh, and if you've mentioned these stats and facts before in this thread-if they are important and true-they bear repeating. Constantly.

You have the gumption of Steve Dunne in Singles. Don't forget the coffee.

Thanks.

For someone who likes to act unprofessional AND pretend they know everything about radio, you certainly don't read a lot about it. Here is the Arbitron study that was released mere weeks ago:

http://www.radioink.com/HeadlineEntry.asp?hid=144363&pt=todaysnews

"Arbitron Reports On a Million More Sets of Ears"

And, as I said, more PEOPLE are listening, while TSL is down.

And if you are a radio professional, that's depressing that you don't know what basic reports are coming out on the industry.

The rest of your argument has been thoroughly addressed in my other posts.

Have a pleasant holiday.

 

[wrsurocks]

FM (invented in the 40s, took off in the 70s)

Actually, that 30-year stretch included a frequency change, a war, and political niggling. FM really didn't have a chance until the early 60s. With nothing in the way, IBOC's arc up should be much shorter, doncha think? No signs of catching.

The 50s had HiFi sets and FM/FM Stereo adapters. Audiophiles liked FM. No one who I would call an audiophile (you need 'geek niche') thinks this item is any good. And your audience-to-be is poorly-encoded MP3 consumers. So where would you place IBOC aside from a DARSSAT radio (which the IBOC people tried to do but failed)?

Again, when radios just come as AM/FM HD PERIOD, that is when it will take off. No one comes into Best Buy looking for an FM radio. They just buy a radio. A combination of lower prices and more comparable HD power will help it launch standard with all radios. Unlike FM's development, however, HD stations are in the same band as existing stations and those who go out and buy tomorrow's "just a radio" that happens to be packaged with HD standard won't ignore those extra stations they are scanning through any more than they would ignore any new format to launch on analog FM.

 

[wrsurocks]

After reading this thread and taking that into consideration today, I realized that even if they brought back the old call sign from the Florida station now using it, and amassed the old DJs on 102.7, it just wouldn't be the same.

Hi Walter,

That's all well and good, but the catch with WNEW is not its callsign, nor the DJs. Nor is the modern-day WCBS-FM much like the old WCBS-FM.

It's not callsigns.

It's not DJs.

It's not even specific music, really.

It's a valuable BRAND, even if that value is $1 or $1 million, that CBS could use as a springboard to launch a AAA.

NO OTHER station in New York, outside of WPLJ, can claim that. WNEW was the last great progressive rock station in New York.

The programmers at WCBS-FM knew the same thing. WCBS-FM is vastly different than what it was the first time around (only one DJ to bridge back to the old one, newer music, different specialty programming) but the brand had CACHET rather than just starting from scratch with NO BRAND and NO IDENTITY, and therefore no BUZZ in the media.

Anyone saying that a modernized WNEW would not get media attention just isn't looking at the attention they got when they went off.

And, just for the record, WXRK was throwing around the old WNEW slogan "Where Rock Lives" while doing a production piece on their programming features like "two-fers" at 2 and Led Lunch and whatnot just this afternoon.

That slogan is CLASSIC and EFFECTIVE, another great part of what the new WNEW could become.

Sounds like Mark is back in the building already.

Cachet? All that and a Philatelist, too. Wow.

The imprimatur sold out long ago.

Let's revive Metromedia while we're at it.

I grew up with WNEW. As an older-perhaps wiser-and more cynical consumer, I know I don't care, and I won't buy it. I like music. Radio-for the most part-has short-changed me, and insulted my intelligence. I can let it go-most commercial side stuff anyway. I have found better stuff in the Goodwill than what's on the radio. Led Zep? When Page will tour with any lead singer, it's well past the sell-by date. And I don't care.

Bring me that 5,000 + playlist and I will chukle. I'd rather listen to an Edison tube.

Well, I would have to agree with you that radio as a whole has devolved into variations of department store MUSAK. However, outside of the NY market, such as my much-quoted XRT, there are stations that are similar to what WNEW did at its peak and have been on the air for years with a loyal audience.

If there is a station to do that, it will be WNEW.

 

[softmachine]

I think some of your points are valid, but radio has not been replaced by technology - it is merely sharing more time with it (and less time with radio, but as of the latest study MORE are listening). Just as TV took away some of radio's time.

The industry knows there is a listener spectrum, of which some people may vary from day-to-day. One extreme is all hands-on iPod feeder and music researcher, and the other is a person who wants to have someone program something for them and think feeding an iPod and spending hours researching bands is annoying. All of us vary in this spectrum day-to-day.

The hoopla about iPods "replacing" radio is a blanket statement and not really accurate.

As far as a relaunched WNEW, it works in Chicago to much success. WXRT is not number one, but it has something few stations have - a diehard listener base. Just like the old WNEW had before it started falling off a cliff.

A few things:

1) Define 'much success'. With numbers.

2) When you make statements pro or con about a certain subject (i.e.: iPods Vs. radio) please quantify and qualify. Give us the numbers and of what.

3) What study?

4) Please bear in mind that time people dedicate to one device, they cannot dedicate to another. I'm talking strictly about listening here.

5) What are the listening habits-as well as you can clearly statistically state without violating the rules-of both iPods and radio? How many people use an iPod as a primary source of music? How many people use radio as a primary source of information? Vice versa? And so forth.

6) Time is finite for most people.

7) The radio station with a die-hard following on the east coast is WFMU.

'iPod' will serve as a generic term for any portable player that fits in the pocket easily.

Oh, and if you've mentioned these stats and facts before in this thread-if they are important and true-they bear repeating. Constantly.

You have the gumption of Steve Dunne in Singles. Don't forget the coffee.

Thanks.

For someone who likes to act unprofessional AND pretend they know everything about radio, you certainly don't read a lot about it. Here is the Arbitron study that was released mere weeks ago:

http://www.radioink.com/HeadlineEntry.asp?hid=144363&pt=todaysnews

"Arbitron Reports On a Million More Sets of Ears"

And, as I said, more PEOPLE are listening, while TSL is down.

And if you are a radio professional, that's depressing that you don't know what basic reports are coming out on the industry.

The rest of your argument has been thoroughly addressed in my other posts.

Have a pleasant holiday.

I'm sorry, but I didn't start this thread. You did.

I know what I know, and I don't pretend, K?

To me, it's depressing that bug-eyed enthusiasm isn't tempered by common sense; i.e.: you can't necessarily extrapolate apples onto oranges. Have you extended your studies beyond the Comm cognate? How about business?

When you supply one side of a two sided comparison (iPods Vs. Radio) it begs questions. 'Time' is mentioned as something to bear in mind when comparing both devices. The picture is incomplete.

The article you cite only covers a small segment of the audience, listening to network programming:

"They report that more than 184 million persons 12+ heard one or more network radio commercials each week."

Would you mind telling the rest of the class what this translates into in terms of longevity and dollars?

This is a year-to-year count, right? What was it 10 years ago, or even five? Two?

Professionalism is also knowing the business you're in.

If more people are listening overall, HOW MANY? WHAT are they listening to? WHEN does TSL matter, and when is it less critical?

I would like to know what is unprofessional about challenging someone's assertions. You may have laid out your argument, but you did in a rather inchoate fashion.

If you feel you have address these things before, feel free to cut and paste your best response. Clarify if necessary.

And there's this:

The industry knows there is a listener spectrum, of which some people may vary from day-to-day. One extreme is all hands-on iPod feeder and music researcher, and the other is a person who wants to have someone program something for them and think feeding an iPod and spending hours researching bands is annoying. All of us vary in this spectrum day-to-day.

"Habits do change over long periods time. Day-to-day habits are at a near (meaning not 100%) constant. A musicologist/Ipodder is at one end of the scale, a music-as-wallpaper person is at the other. Somewhere inside of each edge is a combination of the two extremes-in varying degrees-into which most of the people fall most of the time."

Much clearer, yes? Plus I avoided the use of 'spectrum', which has another use in the broadcasting lexicon.
it wasn't really inaccurate per se, but the redundancy and the misplaced nomenclature bugged the crap out of me.

iPods also transmit language in the form of speech in addition to music.

Good day.

 

[softmachine]

FM (invented in the 40s, took off in the 70s)

Actually, that 30-year stretch included a frequency change, a war, and political niggling. FM really didn't have a chance until the early 60s. With nothing in the way, IBOC's arc up should be much shorter, doncha think? No signs of catching.

The 50s had HiFi sets and FM/FM Stereo adapters. Audiophiles liked FM. No one who I would call an audiophile (you need 'geek niche') thinks this item is any good. And your audience-to-be is poorly-encoded MP3 consumers. So where would you place IBOC aside from a DARSSAT radio (which the IBOC people tried to do but failed)?

Again, when radios just come as AM/FM HD PERIOD, that is when it will take off. No one comes into Best Buy looking for an FM radio. They just buy a radio. A combination of lower prices and more comparable HD power will help it launch standard with all radios. Unlike FM's development, however, HD stations are in the same band as existing stations and those who go out and buy tomorrow's "just a radio" that happens to be packaged with HD standard won't ignore those extra stations they are scanning through any more than they would ignore any new format to launch on analog FM.

With the HD sideband modulation increase, it will interfere more with existing non-HD radios (which work fine) causing people to abandon radio in outlying areas even more-perhaps to internet streams. OTA listenership drops, radio sales follow that arc. I haven't heard of HD being standard in new cars-few, if at all. So there's the air in that balloon. IBOC is a bad idea, a bad mode of transmitting a digital signal. The main idea of IBOC was to preserve the licenses (and hopefully the audience) of current holders. A new band would-guess what? open up the hopper for new players, which the owning consortium didn't want. The transmission system-like the programming-suffers under this greed. Even an FM sideband system would've been better. But they wanted it ALL.

If Ibiquity stays around as long as radio does, it may have a change of grabbing on. But, unlike FM, the quality is worse, it doesn't work consistently, and is programmed with crap and news. I like the FM IBOC simulcasts of AM. They should've stuck with that angle to begin with.

We have digital radio-it's called Satellite. IBOC is an ugly bastard conception that does mostly nothing for the consumer. It's not needed, really.

 

[wrsurocks]

I agree with you 100% that IBOC is not that great-but its the best we can do with the FCC telling the radio biz that they cannot go European-style and start a whole new digital band. And even that is having mixed success.

Personally, I think they should make the existing bands wider and increase the guard bands between stations so IBOC doesn't cause such interference.

 

[wrsurocks]

I think some of your points are valid, but radio has not been replaced by technology - it is merely sharing more time with it (and less time with radio, but as of the latest study MORE are listening). Just as TV took away some of radio's time.

The industry knows there is a listener spectrum, of which some people may vary from day-to-day. One extreme is all hands-on iPod feeder and music researcher, and the other is a person who wants to have someone program something for them and think feeding an iPod and spending hours researching bands is annoying. All of us vary in this spectrum day-to-day.

The hoopla about iPods "replacing" radio is a blanket statement and not really accurate.

As far as a relaunched WNEW, it works in Chicago to much success. WXRT is not number one, but it has something few stations have - a diehard listener base. Just like the old WNEW had before it started falling off a cliff.

A few things:

1) Define 'much success'. With numbers.

2) When you make statements pro or con about a certain subject (i.e.: iPods Vs. radio) please quantify and qualify. Give us the numbers and of what.

3) What study?

4) Please bear in mind that time people dedicate to one device, they cannot dedicate to another. I'm talking strictly about listening here.

5) What are the listening habits-as well as you can clearly statistically state without violating the rules-of both iPods and radio? How many people use an iPod as a primary source of music? How many people use radio as a primary source of information? Vice versa? And so forth.

6) Time is finite for most people.

7) The radio station with a die-hard following on the east coast is WFMU.

'iPod' will serve as a generic term for any portable player that fits in the pocket easily.

Oh, and if you've mentioned these stats and facts before in this thread-if they are important and true-they bear repeating. Constantly.

You have the gumption of Steve Dunne in Singles. Don't forget the coffee.

Thanks.

For someone who likes to act unprofessional AND pretend they know everything about radio, you certainly don't read a lot about it. Here is the Arbitron study that was released mere weeks ago:

http://www.radioink.com/HeadlineEntry.asp?hid=144363&pt=todaysnews

"Arbitron Reports On a Million More Sets of Ears"

And, as I said, more PEOPLE are listening, while TSL is down.

And if you are a radio professional, that's depressing that you don't know what basic reports are coming out on the industry.

The rest of your argument has been thoroughly addressed in my other posts.

Have a pleasant holiday.

I'm sorry, but I didn't start this thread. You did.

I know what I know, and I don't pretend, K?

To me, it's depressing that bug-eyed enthusiasm isn't tempered by common sense; i.e.: you can't necessarily extrapolate apples onto oranges. Have you extended your studies beyond the Comm cognate? How about business?

When you supply one side of a two sided comparison (iPods Vs. Radio) it begs questions. 'Time' is mentioned as something to bear in mind when comparing both devices. The picture is incomplete.

The article you cite only covers a small segment of the audience, listening to network programming:

"They report that more than 184 million persons 12+ heard one or more network radio commercials each week."

Would you mind telling the rest of the class what this translates into in terms of longevity and dollars?

This is a year-to-year count, right? What was it 10 years ago, or even five? Two?

Professionalism is also knowing the business you're in.

If more people are listening overall, HOW MANY? WHAT are they listening to? WHEN does TSL matter, and when is it less critical?

I would like to know what is unprofessional about challenging someone's assertions. You may have laid out your argument, but you did in a rather inchoate fashion.

If you feel you have address these things before, feel free to cut and paste your best response. Clarify if necessary.

And there's this:

The industry knows there is a listener spectrum, of which some people may vary from day-to-day. One extreme is all hands-on iPod feeder and music researcher, and the other is a person who wants to have someone program something for them and think feeding an iPod and spending hours researching bands is annoying. All of us vary in this spectrum day-to-day.

"Habits do change over long periods time. Day-to-day habits are at a near (meaning not 100%) constant. A musicologist/Ipodder is at one end of the scale, a music-as-wallpaper person is at the other. Somewhere inside of each edge is a combination of the two extremes-in varying degrees-into which most of the people fall most of the time."

Much clearer, yes? Plus I avoided the use of 'spectrum', which has another use in the broadcasting lexicon.
it wasn't really inaccurate per se, but the redundancy and the misplaced nomenclature bugged the crap out of me.

iPods also transmit language in the form of speech in addition to music.

Good day.

Yes, for the record my areas of study include business, writing, and communication. I have worked as a weekend/fill-in radio host at commercial NJ rock stations, interned in the corporate offices of one of the big two radio companies, and serve as general manager of a large college radio station that has a long rock heritage that produced some of the very people that ran WNEW (Mark Chernoff). Dave Herman's son also works at our station.

I called you out on your snotty language, whereas I do not like to bring that to the table. This is not about agreeing with me or disagreeing with me, it's just about being disrespectful and not using language you wouldn't use respectfully to someone's face.

That is the downfall of boards such as this when one is attempting to gain feedback on a thought.

 

[softmachine]

Yes, for the record my areas of study include business, writing, and communication. I have worked as a weekend/fill-in radio host at commercial NJ rock stations, interned in the corporate offices of one of the big two radio companies, and serve as general manager of a large college radio station that has a long rock heritage that produced some of the very people that ran WNEW (Mark Chernoff). Dave Herman's son also works at our station.

I called you out on your snotty language, whereas I do not like to bring that to the table. This is not about agreeing with me or disagreeing with me, it's just about being disrespectful and not using language you wouldn't use respectfully to someone's face.

That is the downfall of boards such as this when one is attempting to gain feedback on a thought.

I would use the same language to your face.

I am interested to know what you consider 'snotty'. Brusque? Perhaps. Should everyone be kinder and gentler? And vis a vis respect: What sea change has occurred at WRSU-driven or supervised by you-that I should apply the requisite respect? You are holding the reigns that many have held before. The question is: What are your immediate predecessors doing right now? The GM from 5 years ago? 10? That's more of a barometer. Dust off those old trophies all you like...

While you understand the legacy of WRSU. I think the shoulders you stand on with a good deal of hopefulness (read: entitlement) will not allow the same advance that a Chernoff ('Rock Lives!') was able to garner in his time. There are few places for even management types these days. What do you hope to be doing in 5 years? That is the greater question-not why is someone tinkling on my idea.


I think straight ad-hominem attacks diminish the dialogue. Hard questions and 'abrasive' candor do not. I feel I have supplied the latter.

 

[wrsurocks]

Again, this is not about disagreement or agreement. This is simply about being respectful. I'm surprised to know you would talk like that to someone you did not know. Only you know the reasons for that sentiment.

This is not about me, or anything to do with the things I do. I am flattered you care about how I am doing, and I must say I am very satisfied with the quantifiable opportunities I have created for myself. My predecessors are doing just fine as well; management at our station is very much in our control as opposed to peer stations and thus many have come away with a lot of skills that are needed in today's competitive landscape.

Regardless, we shall all see how the New York radio environment pans out in the next few months. The question I originally posed is entirely realistic in the current environment, considering how CBS is making moves these days and who is making them.

What you believe radio is in the current day is entirely plausible, though it is not the definite state of the business. We shall see how it evolves in the next 3-5 years.