Boston This Morning

[ascottofan]

The eulogies for WRKO's new morning show are premature. As a fan of Scotto's who works for "the competition", here are my thoughts after listening to most of the show today on my day off -

**The new show format is obviously about providing a true alternative to WBZ's repetitive newswheel. WBZ has a high cume but very low TSL. "Benchmark" elements like traffic and weather every 10 minutes take away WBZ's biggest draws. (Deb Lawler and Gary LaPierre are not WBZ's big audience draws. As James Carville would say, it's the information, stupid.) Just as importantly, WRKO is still offering what WBZ cannot: more in-depth interviews with more guests, a smart and entertaining personality who is free of the "journalist" and "news anchor" labels, and local callers. WRKO took away 80% of the listener benefits of tuning in to WBZ in the morning and offered other benefits WBZ doesn't.

**Did Scotto sound out of his element today? Of course! He was in a brand new element. Any show takes a little while to settle in and find its groove. Scotto's first show with Peter Blute two years ago was just as measured on the air as the show today today - more so in fact. It's unrealistic to expect him to sound as comfortable on his first day at this as LaPeeAir does when he's executing the same old rote formula he's been ISDNing forever. (By the way, best wishes for health and a speedy recovery to Gary.)

**From listening to Scotto it is clear he is a talented and shrewd radio personality who can make the best of even the worst circumstances (see: The Blute & Scotto Show). But the circumstances of this new show are rather promising for him and WRKO. When Scotto hits his stride again AND if Entercom spends a few sheckels to promote WRKO to the vast majority of diary holders who have never even heard of the station, this show could be a true contender in the mornings. If WRKO loses half of The Blute & Scotto Show audience and gains even 10% of WBZ's audience with this move, it's a big win for WRKO and a serious concern for WBZ.

Break a leg, Scotto.

 

[Stenopad]

I have to agree that Scotto is the best utility man WRKO has. In fact, he is the only utility man WRKO has. But he can't do it alone. I expected Entercom to break with some print ads on this new format, but then they are el cheapo.
Funny, that radio executive are the worst one's at taking the advice they give to everyone that you have to advertise and spend money to make money. They don't want those rules to apply to them. So, if this Boston Morning finally breaks it will be because of Scott Allen Miller. Still, think if they could have simulcasted with Fox 25 for even part of the morning it would have given them a real edge with Fox cameras in the RKO studios and Fox cameras at their Beacon Hill remote studio.

As you said to Scotto: ' break a leg'.

> The eulogies for WRKO's new morning show are premature. As a
> fan of Scotto's who works for "the competition", here are my
> thoughts after listening to most of the show today on my day
> off -
>
> **The new show format is obviously about providing a true
> alternative to WBZ's repetitive newswheel. WBZ has a high
> cume but very low TSL. "Benchmark" elements like traffic and
> weather every 10 minutes take away WBZ's biggest draws. (Deb
> Lawler and Gary LaPierre are not WBZ's big audience draws.
> As James Carville would say, it's the information, stupid.)
> Just as importantly, WRKO is still offering what WBZ cannot:
> more in-depth interviews with more guests, a smart and
> entertaining personality who is free of the "journalist" and
> "news anchor" labels, and local callers. WRKO took away 80%
> of the listener benefits of tuning in to WBZ in the morning
> and offered other benefits WBZ doesn't.
>
> **Did Scotto sound out of his element today? Of course! He
> was in a brand new element. Any show takes a little while to
> settle in and find its groove. Scotto's first show with
> Peter Blute two years ago was just as measured on the air as
> the show today today - more so in fact. It's unrealistic to
> expect him to sound as comfortable on his first day at this
> as LaPeeAir does when he's executing the same old rote
> formula he's been ISDNing forever. (By the way, best wishes
> for health and a speedy recovery to Gary.)
>
> **From listening to Scotto it is clear he is a talented and
> shrewd radio personality who can make the best of even the
> worst circumstances (see: The Blute & Scotto Show). But the
> circumstances of this new show are rather promising for him
> and WRKO. When Scotto hits his stride again AND if Entercom
> spends a few sheckels to promote WRKO to the vast majority
> of diary holders who have never even heard of the station,
> this show could be a true contender in the mornings. If WRKO
> loses half of The Blute & Scotto Show audience and gains
> even 10% of WBZ's audience with this move, it's a big win
> for WRKO and a serious concern for WBZ.
>
> Break a leg, Scotto.
>

 

[morescrapple]

am seeing a pattern here, everytime Entercom starts to kill off another talker, there are impassioned defenses of the changes from people who sound like insiders...


> The eulogies for WRKO's new morning show are premature. As a
> fan of Scotto's who works for "the competition", here are my
> thoughts after listening to most of the show today on my day
> off -
>
> **The new show format is obviously about providing a true
> alternative to WBZ's repetitive newswheel. WBZ has a high
> cume but very low TSL. "Benchmark" elements like traffic and
> weather every 10 minutes take away WBZ's biggest draws. (Deb
> Lawler and Gary LaPierre are not WBZ's big audience draws.
> As James Carville would say, it's the information, stupid.)
> Just as importantly, WRKO is still offering what WBZ cannot:
> more in-depth interviews with more guests, a smart and
> entertaining personality who is free of the "journalist" and
> "news anchor" labels, and local callers. WRKO took away 80%
> of the listener benefits of tuning in to WBZ in the morning
> and offered other benefits WBZ doesn't.
>

WBZ has a dying format, no reason to copy it. WRKO's a TALK station, no resources to take on WBZ's news and, no point either. Just because Whittemore is a news guy, now WRKO is a news station? just plain stupid


> **Did Scotto sound out of his element today? Of course! He
> was in a brand new element. Any show takes a little while to
> settle in and find its groove. Scotto's first show with
> Peter Blute two years ago was just as measured on the air as
> the show today today - more so in fact. It's unrealistic to
> expect him to sound as comfortable on his first day at this
> as LaPeeAir does when he's executing the same old rote
> formula he's been ISDNing forever. (By the way, best wishes
> for health and a speedy recovery to Gary.)
>

Scott's a talk show host, will ALWAYS be out of his element in a news setting.

> **From listening to Scotto it is clear he is a talented and
> shrewd radio personality who can make the best of even the
> worst circumstances (see: The Blute & Scotto Show). But the
> circumstances of this new show are rather promising for him
> and WRKO. When Scotto hits his stride again AND if Entercom
> spends a few sheckels to promote WRKO to the vast majority
> of diary holders who have never even heard of the station,
> this show could be a true contender in the mornings. If WRKO
> loses half of The Blute & Scotto Show audience and gains
> even 10% of WBZ's audience with this move, it's a big win
> for WRKO and a serious concern for WBZ.
>
> Break a leg, Scotto.
>

You think Entercom will spend money on promotion? you must be new in The Building.

 

[Stenopad]

I for one am not an insider but the problem is Entercom not Scott Allen Miller.
Wishing him success is just the decent thing to do regardless of his employer.


> am seeing a pattern here, everytime Entercom starts to kill
> off another talker, there are impassioned defenses of the
> changes from people who sound like insiders...
>
>
> > The eulogies for WRKO's new morning show are premature. As
> a
> > fan of Scotto's who works for "the competition", here are
> my
> > thoughts after listening to most of the show today on my
> day
> > off -
> >
> > **The new show format is obviously about providing a true
> > alternative to WBZ's repetitive newswheel. WBZ has a high
> > cume but very low TSL. "Benchmark" elements like traffic
> and
> > weather every 10 minutes take away WBZ's biggest draws.
> (Deb
> > Lawler and Gary LaPierre are not WBZ's big audience draws.
>
> > As James Carville would say, it's the information,
> stupid.)
> > Just as importantly, WRKO is still offering what WBZ
> cannot:
> > more in-depth interviews with more guests, a smart and
> > entertaining personality who is free of the "journalist"
> and
> > "news anchor" labels, and local callers. WRKO took away
> 80%
> > of the listener benefits of tuning in to WBZ in the
> morning
> > and offered other benefits WBZ doesn't.
> >
>
> WBZ has a dying format, no reason to copy it. WRKO's a TALK
> station, no resources to take on WBZ's news and, no point
> either. Just because Whittemore is a news guy, now WRKO is a
> news station? just plain stupid
>
>
> > **Did Scotto sound out of his element today? Of course! He
>
> > was in a brand new element. Any show takes a little while
> to
> > settle in and find its groove. Scotto's first show with
> > Peter Blute two years ago was just as measured on the air
> as
> > the show today today - more so in fact. It's unrealistic
> to
> > expect him to sound as comfortable on his first day at
> this
> > as LaPeeAir does when he's executing the same old rote
> > formula he's been ISDNing forever. (By the way, best
> wishes
> > for health and a speedy recovery to Gary.)
> >
>
> Scott's a talk show host, will ALWAYS be out of his element
> in a news setting.
>
> > **From listening to Scotto it is clear he is a talented
> and
> > shrewd radio personality who can make the best of even the
>
> > worst circumstances (see: The Blute & Scotto Show). But
> the
> > circumstances of this new show are rather promising for
> him
> > and WRKO. When Scotto hits his stride again AND if
> Entercom
> > spends a few sheckels to promote WRKO to the vast majority
>
> > of diary holders who have never even heard of the station,
>
> > this show could be a true contender in the mornings. If
> WRKO
> > loses half of The Blute & Scotto Show audience and gains
> > even 10% of WBZ's audience with this move, it's a big win
> > for WRKO and a serious concern for WBZ.
> >
> > Break a leg, Scotto.
> >
>
> You think Entercom will spend money on promotion? you must
> be new in The Building.
>

 

[morescrapple]

> I for one am not an insider but the problem is Entercom not
> Scott Allen Miller.
> Wishing him success is just the decent thing to do
> regardless of his employer.
>

don't misunderstand, on the same page here.

>
> > am seeing a pattern here, everytime Entercom starts to
> kill
> > off another talker, there are impassioned defenses of the
> > changes from people who sound like insiders...
> >
> >
> > > The eulogies for WRKO's new morning show are premature.
> As
> > a
> > > fan of Scotto's who works for "the competition", here
> are
> > my
> > > thoughts after listening to most of the show today on my
>
> > day
> > > off -
> > >
> > > **The new show format is obviously about providing a
> true
> > > alternative to WBZ's repetitive newswheel. WBZ has a
> high
> > > cume but very low TSL. "Benchmark" elements like traffic
>
> > and
> > > weather every 10 minutes take away WBZ's biggest draws.
> > (Deb
> > > Lawler and Gary LaPierre are not WBZ's big audience
> draws.
> >
> > > As James Carville would say, it's the information,
> > stupid.)
> > > Just as importantly, WRKO is still offering what WBZ
> > cannot:
> > > more in-depth interviews with more guests, a smart and
> > > entertaining personality who is free of the "journalist"
>
> > and
> > > "news anchor" labels, and local callers. WRKO took away
> > 80%
> > > of the listener benefits of tuning in to WBZ in the
> > morning
> > > and offered other benefits WBZ doesn't.
> > >
> >
> > WBZ has a dying format, no reason to copy it. WRKO's a
> TALK
> > station, no resources to take on WBZ's news and, no point
> > either. Just because Whittemore is a news guy, now WRKO is
> a
> > news station? just plain stupid
> >
> >
> > > **Did Scotto sound out of his element today? Of course!
> He
> >
> > > was in a brand new element. Any show takes a little
> while
> > to
> > > settle in and find its groove. Scotto's first show with
> > > Peter Blute two years ago was just as measured on the
> air
> > as
> > > the show today today - more so in fact. It's unrealistic
>
> > to
> > > expect him to sound as comfortable on his first day at
> > this
> > > as LaPeeAir does when he's executing the same old rote
> > > formula he's been ISDNing forever. (By the way, best
> > wishes
> > > for health and a speedy recovery to Gary.)
> > >
> >
> > Scott's a talk show host, will ALWAYS be out of his
> element
> > in a news setting.
> >
> > > **From listening to Scotto it is clear he is a talented
> > and
> > > shrewd radio personality who can make the best of even
> the
> >
> > > worst circumstances (see: The Blute & Scotto Show). But
> > the
> > > circumstances of this new show are rather promising for
> > him
> > > and WRKO. When Scotto hits his stride again AND if
> > Entercom
> > > spends a few sheckels to promote WRKO to the vast
> majority
> >
> > > of diary holders who have never even heard of the
> station,
> >
> > > this show could be a true contender in the mornings. If
> > WRKO
> > > loses half of The Blute & Scotto Show audience and gains
>
> > > even 10% of WBZ's audience with this move, it's a big
> win
> > > for WRKO and a serious concern for WBZ.
> > >
> > > Break a leg, Scotto.
> > >
> >
> > You think Entercom will spend money on promotion? you must
>
> > be new in The Building.
> >
>

 

[neanderpol]

Entercom?

> I for one am not an insider but the problem is Entercom not
> Scott Allen Miller.
> Wishing him success is just the decent thing to do
> regardless of his employer.

I'm not going to defend my employers right now. I'd just like to ask you:

What's wrong with Entercom?

You took a shot at Mr. Miller's (and my) employer, and I'd love to hear what your perception of our company is.

I've been here 5+ years, so I know its "flaws". But, I'm interested in what you think is wrong.

Humor me...Please.

 

[spilot113]

Re: Entercom?

> What's wrong with Entercom?
>
> I'd
> love to hear what your perception of our company is.
> I've been here 5+ years, so I know its "flaws". But, I'm
> interested in what you think is wrong.
> Humor me...Please.

Well, you didn't point the question at me, but here's what comes to mind when someone mentions Entercom.

Well, for one they killed what was at one time one of the better talk stations in the country.

Second, they are short-sighted.

Three, they don't believe in advertising.

Four, they knee-jerk reacted and flipped the established "Star 93-7" into the non-established "Jack, Mike, Joe, Dick" format. (And made it one of the few Jack formatted stations in the country to go DOWN in the ratings.

Five, they have never been able to resurrect WAAF to it's former glory. (Even with WBCN dead in the water.)

Six, they DON'T have the best executives and minds money can buy....they cheap out on that too.

Now, since you WORK there.......why don't you share with us what you think are the flaws....?

 

[Stenopad]

Re: Entercom v General Tire and Rubber Company

As bad as General Tire and Rubber Company was and the O'Neill family who ran it they managed to put WRKO on the map as THE talk station in the 80's. Unfortunately, their corporate corruption forced them to sell off the stations the FCC didn't take away from them first. [Historical factum: General Tire gave bribes to Nixon administration officials and to various Asian countries such as Japan to sell their tires in the Orient.{I know, Orient isn't PC anymore} The FCC found out and started to remove their broadcast licenses.] Still, one wonders if their corporate corruption hadn't been caught whether the O'Neill family would still be in the broadcast business and still own WRKO, Channel 7 et al. As a late RKO GM once said, "The General has more money than God" and they were willing to spend it on talent and advertising which Entercom will not do.

You have to think of it as total hypocracy for a broadcast facility to go around selling air time and tell potential advertisers that advertising is necessary to survive and then refuse to spend a dime on any advertising themselves.

All in all, this has nothing to do with Scott Allen Miller who I think will succeed in the business with or without Entercom.



> > What's wrong with Entercom?
> >
> > I'd
> > love to hear what your perception of our company is.
> > I've been here 5+ years, so I know its "flaws". But, I'm
> > interested in what you think is wrong.
> > Humor me...Please.
>
> Well, you didn't point the question at me, but here's what
> comes to mind when someone mentions Entercom.
>
> Well, for one they killed what was at one time one of the
> better talk stations in the country.
>
> Second, they are short-sighted.
>
> Three, they don't believe in advertising.
>
> Four, they knee-jerk reacted and flipped the established
> "Star 93-7" into the non-established "Jack, Mike, Joe, Dick"
> format. (And made it one of the few Jack formatted stations
> in the country to go DOWN in the ratings.
>
> Five, they have never been able to resurrect WAAF to it's
> former glory. (Even with WBCN dead in the water.)
>
> Six, they DON'T have the best executives and minds money can
> buy....they cheap out on that too.
>
> Now, since you WORK there.......why don't you share with us
> what you think are the flaws....?
>

 

[pantages]

Could someone explain "conventional" morning radio wisdom to me?

Not being a radio insider, as I was listening to the changes to RKO this morning I wondered what the reasoning is behind the short segment format with continuous weather and traffic. Studies indicate drive time to work is increasing for the average driver. What is the purpose of these rushed segments? I always felt with the old B&S format the conversation and talk were more an interruption to the ads and breaks than vice versa. How many times can you talk about a pending snowstorm and a backup on 93? Weather is ubiquitous on any TV station nowadays and traffic doesn't change that much after an initial backup. And does anybody really change their route after the traffic report? Seems to me you are normally stuck in it by then or others have already slowed down the alternate route.

If they really wanted to "change" radio at RKO as we were told by the constant promotion over the past week, why didn't they go with more of what makes talk radio what it is, rather than an MTV-like "news" program?

 

[morescrapple]

Re: Entercom?

> > What's wrong with Entercom?
> >
> > I'd
> > love to hear what your perception of our company is.
> > I've been here 5+ years, so I know its "flaws". But, I'm
> > interested in what you think is wrong.
> > Humor me...Please.
>

I'll bite too, Entercom's national news&talk performance couldn't be worse. Sorry to see WRKO now join the list.

> Well, you didn't point the question at me, but here's what
> comes to mind when someone mentions Entercom.
>
> Well, for one they killed what was at one time one of the
> better talk stations in the country.
>
> Second, they are short-sighted.
>
> Three, they don't believe in advertising.
>
> Four, they knee-jerk reacted and flipped the established
> "Star 93-7" into the non-established "Jack, Mike, Joe, Dick"
> format. (And made it one of the few Jack formatted stations
> in the country to go DOWN in the ratings.
>
> Five, they have never been able to resurrect WAAF to it's
> former glory. (Even with WBCN dead in the water.)
>
> Six, they DON'T have the best executives and minds money can
> buy....they cheap out on that too.
>
> Now, since you WORK there.......why don't you share with us
> what you think are the flaws....?
>

 

[Infidel]

Ripoff of BZ morning

> What is the purpose of these rushed segments?

It sounds an awful lot like the WBZ morning program. WRKO makes fun of them in their promo spots ("some other stations recycle their news every ten minutes"), but WRKO is now doing "traffic one the ones" when WBZ haas been doing that for years as "traffic on the threes." It works, because if you're listening to another station, you know exactly when to tune in for the incorrect, delayed traffic report. I get the impression that "Boston This Morning" is trying to cover all angles but they are spreading themselves too thin. And what happened to Grant Mollllll-a-son doing the traffic? Is he restricted to afternoons now?

 

[neanderpol]

Re: Entercom?

Yeah...I'll try to respond best I can to what you've written. With as much candor as I can and still remain employed.

> Well, for one they killed what was at one time one of the
> better talk stations in the country.

Could it possibly be that the talk medium evolved to a different level? And that perhaps Boston, being as traditional as it is, and as resistent to change as we are, chose to ride out that change in hopes that the pendulum would swing back? It's happened before. I don't know that WRKO is so much dead as suddenly it's no longer unopposed. Remember, sports radio, and the entire "talk" format wasn't what it is today when WRKO was on top. Anyone can be dominant when they're the only show in town.

> Second, they are short-sighted.

How so? Please give an example.

> Three, they don't believe in advertising.

Spending what they have on the Mike TV campaign, and adding another $25k on top of that, kind of contradicts that statement. Plus, how many "K" cards do you see in Fenway every season? I think they spend their money where they see most necessary.

> Four, they knee-jerk reacted and flipped the established
> "Star 93-7" into the non-established "Jack, Mike, Joe, Dick"
> format. (And made it one of the few Jack formatted stations
> in the country to go DOWN in the ratings.

I think Entercom did run first into the format hole. But, if not Entercom, Greater Media, or Infinity. Someone was going to do it. So, Entercom went first. Now, you're never going to get me to advocate any format that eliminates talent. And my thoughts on "jukebox radio" are certainly contradictory to what Entercom would like them to be. But, that's probably why I'm not programming huh?

I'll let the programmers figure out how to make it work. The company was right to be first. That shows at least they're paying attention.

> Five, they have never been able to resurrect WAAF to it's
> former glory. (Even with WBCN dead in the water.)

Entercom conducted a national search for the best programmer in rock radio. And when all was said, and done, re-hiring Ron Valeri, who's the architect of WAAF's "former glory" is the move. We've all consumed the Kool-aid, and bought the blue Nikes. Let's have a war....

> Six, they DON'T have the best executives and minds money can
> buy....they cheap out on that too.

Really? I can only speak for the Rock format because that's where my experience has been. But let's take a look at some of the minds Entercom has...Dave Richards (KISW), Curtiss Johnson (KRXQ), Ron Valeri (WAAF), Phil Manning (KNDD).

Those guys are among the best at what they do.

I cannot speak of the executive level except to say that my dealings with upper management have been nothing but positive. To the point of friendly disagreement with David Field. The fact that the owner of Entercom even knows who I am makes me willing to step up whenever there's any question as to how the company is perceived.

> Now, since you WORK there.......why don't you share with us
> what you think are the flaws....?

I think it'd be nice to have more marketing. But I think everyone would say that about their station. But again. That's not what I was hired for. My only concern is to do the best I can for WAAF from 3-7P M-F. Everything else is out of my control, and it's not really my place to say how the company chooses to spend it's dollars. I think it's incumbent upon the air talent to market themselves as well. Work a little for that bonus $$$. Spend a little of your own money to raise your profile. That's not letting the company off the hook. But, it's not like we have to buy tools. I think good air talent markets themselves...and as a result the audience is more aware...and perhaps likely to tune in.

As far as other "flaws"...over the years I've worked for Entercom, I've sometimes seen the "favorite child" syndrome. One station gets all the love while others are expected to cruise along. But, that's not exclusive to Entercom. Can anyone show me a company that doesn't ride it's top horse?

Overall, I have worked for other corporate owners, and I've been with this one for over 5 years. The company has treated me well. They've been up front with what I need to concern myself with, and open to any communication with regard to concerns I have. I don't think one could ask any more of an employer.

Are we perfect? Far from it. But, I'm also free to try to find a better deal if I can...and guess what? There isn't one out there.

Was it Rick dees who said; "If they ain't bitchin'..they ain't listenin'"?

This board spends an inordinate amount of time, and bandwidth discussing the procedures of Entercom properties. So, for a company that's allegedly not that good...a whole lot of you seem to be listening to our properties.

And that's the job...to keep you listening.

 

[rockabyebaby]

Re: Could someone explain "conventional" morning radio wisdom to me?

This is my second day listening to the "new" format of Boston this morning, to be honest, I am not liking it,,,,the traffic every ten minutes on the "ones" is very very distracting plus throw in a few ads and the weather, leaves very very little time for conversation and very little time for listeners to call in, couple that with the time it takes for the traffic, ads and weather and you've completely lost track of the subject at hand,,,,I agree with your observations, everything seems to be rushed, what's up with that? I enjoyed the old Scotto, I'm not liking this new version, no time for anything but traffic, ads and weather,,,,,rush rush rush! Scotto seems out of his element, wonder how long he can keep up the pace.

 

[spilot113]

Re: Entercom?

> > Well, for one they killed what was at one time one of the
> > better talk stations in the country.
>
> Could it possibly be that the talk medium evolved to a
> different level?

Evolved into a 2 share?

> And that perhaps Boston, being as
> traditional as it is, and as resistent to change as we are,

Well, if Massachusetts was so resistant to change, WTKK would not be the sucess they are today, right?

> > Second, they are short-sighted.
>
> How so? Please give an example.

Eagle 93.7, Star 93-7, Mike-FM, etc., etc.

> > Three, they don't believe in advertising.
>
> Spending what they have on the Mike TV campaign, and adding
> another $25k on top of that, kind of contradicts that
> statement.

Mike seems to be the only one that gets any TV spots.

None for WRKO, WEEI, WAAF.

I'm not sure what the 25k is for.

> Plus, how many "K" cards do you see in Fenway
> every season? I think they spend their money where they see
> most necessary.

OK, they spent a few thousand dollars on printing. Nice (and cheap).

> > Four, they knee-jerk reacted and flipped the established
> > "Star 93-7" into the non-established "Jack, Mike, Joe,
> Dick"
> > format. (And made it one of the few Jack formatted
> stations
> > in the country to go DOWN in the ratings.
>
> I think Entercom did run first into the format hole.

Point made.

> I'll let the programmers figure out how to make it work. The
> company was right to be first. That shows at least they're
> paying attention.

Were they right? I'd like to see their billing before and after the decision was made.

> > Five, they have never been able to resurrect WAAF to it's
> > former glory. (Even with WBCN dead in the water.)
>
> Entercom conducted a national search for the best programmer
> in rock radio. And when all was said, and done, re-hiring
> Ron Valeri, who's the architect of WAAF's "former glory" is
> the move.

So much for the argument that they are "moving forward" and "evolving" with formats as you said above with WRKO. Out of desparation they reached backwards. BTW....Why did they let him go in the first place?

> > Six, they DON'T have the best executives and minds money
> can
> > buy....they cheap out on that too.
>
> Really? I can only speak for the Rock format because that's
> where my experience has been. But let's take a look at some
> of the minds Entercom has...Dave Richards (KISW), Curtiss
> Johnson (KRXQ), Ron Valeri (WAAF), Phil Manning (KNDD).

I'm talking about GM's and VP's.

> Those guys are among the best at what they do.

And time will tell if Valeri can re-do the Magic.

As far as Richards, Johnson and Manning.....if they are talented, they are talented on their own, and not due to Entercom's corperate leadership.

 

[morescrapple]

Re: Could someone explain "conventional" morning radio wisdom to me?

> This is my second day listening to the "new" format of
> Boston this morning, to be honest, I am not liking it,,,,the
> traffic every ten minutes on the "ones" is very very
> distracting plus throw in a few ads and the weather, leaves
> very very little time for conversation and very little time
> for listeners to call in, couple that with the time it takes
> for the traffic, ads and weather and you've completely lost
> track of the subject at hand,,,,I agree with your
> observations, everything seems to be rushed, what's up with
> that? I enjoyed the old Scotto, I'm not liking this new
> version, no time for anything but traffic, ads and
> weather,,,,,rush rush rush! Scotto seems out of his
> element, wonder how long he can keep up the pace.
>
exactly why this is the format Clear channel moved away from some time ago.

 

[neanderpol]

Re: Entercom?

> > > Well, for one they killed what was at one time one of
> the
> > > better talk stations in the country.
> >
> > Could it possibly be that the talk medium evolved to a
> > different level?
>
> Evolved into a 2 share?

No. You conveniently left out the rest of the paragraph because it doesn't suit your argument.

Talk radio has more outlets in Boston than it did when RKO was the only show in town. Of course there's going to be attrition. But, again It doesn't suit your argument, so you choose to ignore that fact.

> > And that perhaps Boston, being as
> > traditional as it is, and as resistent to change as we
> are,
>
> Well, if Massachusetts was so resistant to change, WTKK
> would not be the sucess they are today, right?

I've beaten Severin Men 18-49. So, he's not untouchable. Howie's beaten me. And EEI's hammered us all. So how truly successful is TKK? Your agenda's showing.

> > > Second, they are short-sighted.
> >
> > How so? Please give an example.
>
> Eagle 93.7, Star 93-7, Mike-FM, etc., etc.

Hm..Eagle was consistently beaten by 'ZLX, Star was losing to Mix more often than not.

So, you damn a company for changing a format that's losing money rather than continuing to let the flood gates flow wide open?

Glad I don't work for you.

> > > Three, they don't believe in advertising.
> >
> > Spending what they have on the Mike TV campaign, and
> adding
> > another $25k on top of that, kind of contradicts that
> > statement.
>
> Mike seems to be the only one that gets any TV spots.
>
> None for WRKO, WEEI, WAAF.

So, you want people to see ads for a radio station while they're watching TV. I personally think TV spots are overrated. But. This does fit your complaint.

WRKO has print ads, and has had billboards. WEEI has print ads, and has an amazing broadcast studio on Lansdowne. I contend that Entercom spends. Do they spend wisely? Usually yes.

> I'm not sure what the 25k is for.

Contesting. You know getting people to listen by promising them money. It's called "word-of-mouth", or perhaps "viral" works for you?

> > Plus, how many "K" cards do you see in Fenway
> > every season? I think they spend their money where they
> see
> > most necessary.
>
> OK, they spent a few thousand dollars on printing. Nice
> (and cheap).

You forgot effective. It's not how much you spend. It's how you spend it. Do me a favor...next time you hit a sub shop, feel free to pay $40 for that spuckie. I know it's only $6.99 and you get the same spuckie for that price, but you should spend 6 times the amount for the same sub. That's your argument. And it sounds silly.

> > > Four, they knee-jerk reacted and flipped the established
>
> > > "Star 93-7" into the non-established "Jack, Mike, Joe,
> > Dick"
> > > format. (And made it one of the few Jack formatted
> > stations
> > > in the country to go DOWN in the ratings.
> >
> > I think Entercom did run first into the format hole.
>
> Point made.

And you expect it to be a ratings monster in one book. Do you have any idea how Arbitron works? Do you have any idea how long it takes to achieve 100% market awareness? You just want to bang Entercom's nuts around. I get it. But, you're not really doing an efficient job. You haven't defended your position on anything. No examples. Just taking the contrary position, and thinking that because you say so, it must be truth.

> Were they right? I'd like to see their billing before and
> after the decision was made.

Well. I'm betting that after cutting the salaries they did, they're doing fine. Again, it's none of your, or my business what they spend, or make. You want to slag them. That's fine. But, have some facts. You don't, and it negates your argument.

> > > Five, they have never been able to resurrect WAAF to
> it's
> > > former glory. (Even with WBCN dead in the water.)
> >
> > Entercom conducted a national search for the best
> programmer
> > in rock radio. And when all was said, and done, re-hiring
> > Ron Valeri, who's the architect of WAAF's "former glory"
> is
> > the move.
>
> So much for the argument that they are "moving forward" and
> "evolving" with formats as you said above with WRKO. Out of
> desparation they reached backwards. BTW....Why did they let
> him go in the first place?

I never said they were evolving, or moving forward with regards to WRKO. Which just points out that your comprehension of this discussion is limited at best.

Entercom never let Ron Valeri go. In 1994 (?) he was offered the chance to sign on an Active Rock station in New York City. Usually, the sign of an ineffective programmer don't you think? So, if you're not programming to be the best in market #1, what are you programming for? He actually returned to New England for family reasons, and worked for Entercom again as a marketing director until being offered the chance to partner with Paul Geary to form a management company. Managing Godsmack, Fuel, Cold, and quite a few other successful acts. That company was, or might be still in the process of being bought out by a huge management company based on the West coast. It worked out great for WAAF to be able to get Ron back, and we're stoked he came back to finish the job.

As usual, if you did any real research you would know these things before slamming the business practices of a radio station. But, you didn't. You just want to speak badly about a company whose business practices you know less than nothing about.

> > > Six, they DON'T have the best executives and minds money
>
> > can
> > > buy....they cheap out on that too.
> >
> > Really? I can only speak for the Rock format because
> that's
> > where my experience has been. But let's take a look at
> some
> > of the minds Entercom has...Dave Richards (KISW), Curtiss
> > Johnson (KRXQ), Ron Valeri (WAAF), Phil Manning (KNDD).
>
> I'm talking about GM's and VP's.

Hmmmm. If the GMs and VPs are so untalented, why does Entercom post such nice profit? Why are the shareholders happy? Why is it a good stock buy?

You have your agenda. It's pretty weak.
>
> > Those guys are among the best at what they do.
>
> And time will tell if Valeri can re-do the Magic.

You've already proven yourself impatient.

> As far as Richards, Johnson and Manning.....if they are
> talented, they are talented on their own, and not due to
> Entercom's corperate leadership.

Really? So, Entercom gets no praise for recognizing talent, providing them with the resources, and making their stations ratings/revenue successes by putting those people in charge of their properties?

I've made my point. Negated yours. And, I fart in your general direction.

=)
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by neanderpol on 10/12/05 02:47 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[WLYNWAZNgm]

the explanation you asked for...

Ratings for radio are often measured in quarter-hour listeners, especially during commuting/drive time. The rationale is that you will turn over your audience every 15 minutes. This type of format insures that each piece of the program is heard at least once in that 15 minute time frame. Just give me the facts I need to know for today - while I am on my way to work. Example - will it rain in Boston TODAY? I want to know if I should take my umbrella with me - I really don't care if there is a low pressure system over Montana...

Long form programs are better to gain listeners only after they are at work, or at home, and have the time to stick around to see how the hour plays out. Is the program background (ex.- elevator music) or foreground (heated talk show)? Is there a different perceived audience who will tune in at a different time of day?
Throw in a sophisticated audience with a short attention span, and you start to understand the format...

 

[spilot113]

Re: Entercom?

> > > Could it possibly be that the talk medium evolved to a
> > > different level?
> >
> > Evolved into a 2 share?
>
> Talk radio has more outlets in Boston than it did when RKO
> was the only show in town. Of course there's going to be
> attrition. But, again It doesn't suit your argument, so you
> choose to ignore that fact.

Maybe cuz it's not true?

At that time, Boston had WRKO....but WHDH as well...and WBZ was doing more talk....so your argument is faulty (Not to mention 590AM, WITS & 1060AM was talk.)

Most of those competitors which are there anymore...so again, your argument is faulty.

> > Well, if Massachusetts was so resistant to change, WTKK
> > would not be the sucess they are today, right?
>
> I've beaten Severin Men 18-49. So, he's not untouchable.
> Howie's beaten me. And EEI's hammered us all. So how truly
> successful is TKK? Your agenda's showing.

My only "agenda" is that Entercom is a cruddy company.

No one said anything about untouchable. Again, you ignore the point because you have no answer.

You were trying to point out how Bostonians habits are hard to change.

I point out that they HAVE changed....because WTKK (most notably Severin) went from a 0 share...to being a top station.

Secondly, who cares about 18-49?

> > > > Second, they are short-sighted.
> > >
> > > How so? Please give an example.
> >
> > Eagle 93.7, Star 93-7, Mike-FM, etc., etc.
>
> Hm..Eagle was consistently beaten by 'ZLX, Star was losing
> to Mix more often than not.

And Mike is losing to all of them.

While those incarnations may have "lost" to ZLX, Mix, and whatever....considering it is an "out of town" signal.....they have shown little patience for those formats...and were quick to jump on the "next big thing".

Again, short-sighted.

> So, you damn a company for changing a format that's losing
> money rather than continuing to let the flood gates flow
> wide open?

I'd damn a company (and executives) for making a decision to lose even MORE money.

> > > > Three, they don't believe in advertising.
> > >
> > > Spending what they have on the Mike TV campaign, and
> > adding
> > > another $25k on top of that, kind of contradicts that
> > > statement.
> >
> > Mike seems to be the only one that gets any TV spots.
> >
> > None for WRKO, WEEI, WAAF.
>
> So, you want people to see ads for a radio station while
> they're watching TV. I personally think TV spots are
> overrated. But. This does fit your complaint.

If you can't see the correlation between TV ads and the more sucessful stations, you need to look again.

> WRKO has print ads, and has had billboards.

Cheap.

> WEEI has print
> ads.

Cheap.

> and has an amazing broadcast studio on Lansdowne.

Thats a capital expenditure....not promotional dollars.

> > I'm not sure what the 25k is for.
>
> Contesting. You know getting people to listen by promising
> them money. It's called "word-of-mouth", or perhaps "viral"
> works for you?

Whatever.. 25k is about 25 days worth of an ad budget.

> You forgot effective.

Yes, 'EEI's sucess is from all those "K-cards"...and nothing to do with the World Series and the SuperBowl.

> It's not how much you spend. It's how
> you spend it.

Case in point...all those "Leeza" spots that didn't do anything for them.

> Do me a favor...next time you hit a sub shop,
> feel free to pay $40 for that spuckie. I know it's only
> $6.99 and you get the same spuckie for that price, but you
> should spend 6 times the amount for the same sub. That's
> your argument. And it sounds silly.

Thats' not *my* argument. I don't overspend for anything.

(It's a stupid analogy.)

> > Point made.
>
> And you expect it to be a ratings monster in one book.

Well, I think the Entercom executives expecfted it to be going in the "sucess" direction....that is, UP! Not down.

Most of the Jack formatted stations have gone UP in the ratings.

Entercom's bad decision (and poor execution) is proven, as it is one of the few Jack formatted station that went DOWN.

They jumped the gun, made a knee-jerk decsiion without any research to back it up.

> Do
> you have any idea how Arbitron works?

More than you could imagine.

> Do you have any idea
> how long it takes to achieve 100% market awareness?

Especially with badly formatted stations!

> You just
> want to bang Entercom's nuts around. I get it. But, you're
> not really doing an efficient job.

I have nothing against Entercom, except the observation that they are a opretty poor broadcaster...for the reasons I've stated above.

> You haven't defended your
> position on anything. No examples.

The examples are all above. Short sighted, cheap, no promotional dolars....a revolving door of talent and programming.

It appears you are too close to the "inside" to see whats in front of you.

I'm glad they are treating you well...but that doesn't erase their bad business decisions.

BTW..Add to that list the fact that they were dumb enough to buy two bad "out of town" FM signals.

> Well. I'm betting that after cutting the salaries they did,
> they're doing fine. Again, it's none of your, or my business
> what they spend, or make. You want to slag them. That's
> fine. But, have some facts. You don't, and it negates your
> argument.

The facts and observations are above. Are you blind?

> > So much for the argument that they are "moving forward"
> and
> > "evolving" with formats as you said above with WRKO. Out
> of
> > desparation they reached backwards. BTW....Why did they
> let
> > him go in the first place?
>
> I never said they were evolving, or moving forward with
> regards to WRKO. Which just points out that your
> comprehension of this discussion is limited at best.

Well, now your down to just insulting me...without anything to backup your arguments. You lose.

> Entercom never let Ron Valeri go. In 1994 (?) he was offered
> the chance to sign on an Active Rock station in New York
> City.

Didn't he leave to work for a record label/promo group?

Second, if they money was there at Entercom Boston, he wouldn't have left.

Again...Cheap.

> Usually, the sign of an ineffective programmer don't
> you think? So, if you're not programming....

Blah, blah, blah....I'm not gonna diss Valeri, he's a good guy.

I diss Entercom, for losing a good programmer....with short-sighted descions.

> As usual, if you did any real research you would know these
> things before slamming the business practices of a radio
> station.

You have not pointed out any new facts.

> But, you didn't. You just want to speak badly about
> a company whose business practices you know less than
> nothing about.

I know they suck.

> > I'm talking about GM's and VP's.
>
> Hmmmm. If the GMs and VPs are so untalented, why does
> Entercom post such nice profit? Why are the shareholders
> happy? Why is it a good stock buy?

Cuz they are cheap....and tight with a penny...that doesn't make them good broadcasters. (Just look at Clear Channel.)

> You have your agenda. It's pretty weak.

Again, no agenda. Just observations.

I would say that you, as an employee...have an agenda.

> > As far as Richards, Johnson and Manning.....if they are
> > talented, they are talented on their own, and not due to
> > Entercom's corperate leadership.
>
> Really? So, Entercom gets no praise for recognizing talent,
> providing them with the resources, and making their stations
> ratings/revenue successes by putting those people in charge
> of their properties?

Well, since they can't do the same at WRKO, WAAF and Mike-FM.....then no, they don't get the credit.

The credit belongs to the talented programmer.

> I've made my point. Negated yours. And, I fart in your
> general direction.

Wow, such intelligence!

Your "negating" is just wishful thinking and bias.

Sorry, you lose.

 

[lazerlight]

Re: Entercom?

> > > > Could it possibly be that the talk medium evolved to a
>
> > > > different level?
> > >
> > > Evolved into a 2 share?
> >
> > Talk radio has more outlets in Boston than it did when RKO
>
> > was the only show in town. Of course there's going to be
> > attrition. But, again It doesn't suit your argument, so
> you
> > choose to ignore that fact.
>
> Maybe cuz it's not true?
>
> At that time, Boston had WRKO....but WHDH as well...and WBZ
> was doing more talk....so your argument is faulty (Not to
> mention 590AM, WITS & 1060AM was talk.)
>
> Most of those competitors which are there anymore...so
> again, your argument is faulty.
>
> > > Well, if Massachusetts was so resistant to change, WTKK
> > > would not be the sucess they are today, right?
> >
> > I've beaten Severin Men 18-49. So, he's not untouchable.
> > Howie's beaten me. And EEI's hammered us all. So how truly
>
> > successful is TKK? Your agenda's showing.
>
> My only "agenda" is that Entercom is a cruddy company.
>
> No one said anything about untouchable. Again, you ignore
> the point because you have no answer.
>
> You were trying to point out how Bostonians habits are hard
> to change.
>
> I point out that they HAVE changed....because WTKK (most
> notably Severin) went from a 0 share...to being a top
> station.
>
> Secondly, who cares about 18-49?
>
> > > > > Second, they are short-sighted.
> > > >
> > > > How so? Please give an example.
> > >
> > > Eagle 93.7, Star 93-7, Mike-FM, etc., etc.
> >
> > Hm..Eagle was consistently beaten by 'ZLX, Star was losing
>
> > to Mix more often than not.
>
> And Mike is losing to all of them.
>
> While those incarnations may have "lost" to ZLX, Mix, and
> whatever....considering it is an "out of town"
> signal.....they have shown little patience for those
> formats...and were quick to jump on the "next big thing".
>
> Again, short-sighted.
>
> > So, you damn a company for changing a format that's losing
>
> > money rather than continuing to let the flood gates flow
> > wide open?
>
> I'd damn a company (and executives) for making a decision to
> lose even MORE money.
>
> > > > > Three, they don't believe in advertising.
> > > >
> > > > Spending what they have on the Mike TV campaign, and
> > > adding
> > > > another $25k on top of that, kind of contradicts that
> > > > statement.
> > >
> > > Mike seems to be the only one that gets any TV spots.
> > >
> > > None for WRKO, WEEI, WAAF.
> >
> > So, you want people to see ads for a radio station while
> > they're watching TV. I personally think TV spots are
> > overrated. But. This does fit your complaint.
>
> If you can't see the correlation between TV ads and the more
> sucessful stations, you need to look again.
>
> > WRKO has print ads, and has had billboards.
>
> Cheap.
>
> > WEEI has print
> > ads.
>
> Cheap.
>
> > and has an amazing broadcast studio on Lansdowne.
>
> Thats a capital expenditure....not promotional dollars.
>
> > > I'm not sure what the 25k is for.
> >
> > Contesting. You know getting people to listen by promising
>
> > them money. It's called "word-of-mouth", or perhaps
> "viral"
> > works for you?
>
> Whatever.. 25k is about 25 days worth of an ad budget.
>
> > You forgot effective.
>
> Yes, 'EEI's sucess is from all those "K-cards"...and nothing
> to do with the World Series and the SuperBowl.
>
> > It's not how much you spend. It's how
> > you spend it.
>
> Case in point...all those "Leeza" spots that didn't do
> anything for them.
>
> > Do me a favor...next time you hit a sub shop,
> > feel free to pay $40 for that spuckie. I know it's only
> > $6.99 and you get the same spuckie for that price, but you
>
> > should spend 6 times the amount for the same sub. That's
> > your argument. And it sounds silly.
>
> Thats' not *my* argument. I don't overspend for anything.
>
> (It's a stupid analogy.)
>
> > > Point made.
> >
> > And you expect it to be a ratings monster in one book.
>
> Well, I think the Entercom executives expecfted it to be
> going in the "sucess" direction....that is, UP! Not down.
>
> Most of the Jack formatted stations have gone UP in the
> ratings.
>
> Entercom's bad decision (and poor execution) is proven, as
> it is one of the few Jack formatted station that went DOWN.
>
> They jumped the gun, made a knee-jerk decsiion without any
> research to back it up.
>
> > Do
> > you have any idea how Arbitron works?
>
> More than you could imagine.
>
> > Do you have any idea
> > how long it takes to achieve 100% market awareness?
>
> Especially with badly formatted stations!
>
> > You just
> > want to bang Entercom's nuts around. I get it. But, you're
>
> > not really doing an efficient job.
>
> I have nothing against Entercom, except the observation that
> they are a opretty poor broadcaster...for the reasons I've
> stated above.
>
> > You haven't defended your
> > position on anything. No examples.
>
> The examples are all above. Short sighted, cheap, no
> promotional dolars....a revolving door of talent and
> programming.
>
> It appears you are too close to the "inside" to see whats in
> front of you.
>
> I'm glad they are treating you well...but that doesn't erase
> their bad business decisions.
>
> BTW..Add to that list the fact that they were dumb enough to
> buy two bad "out of town" FM signals.
>
> > Well. I'm betting that after cutting the salaries they
> did,
> > they're doing fine. Again, it's none of your, or my
> business
> > what they spend, or make. You want to slag them. That's
> > fine. But, have some facts. You don't, and it negates your
>
> > argument.
>
> The facts and observations are above. Are you blind?
>
> > > So much for the argument that they are "moving forward"
> > and
> > > "evolving" with formats as you said above with WRKO.
> Out
> > of
> > > desparation they reached backwards. BTW....Why did they
>
> > let
> > > him go in the first place?
> >
> > I never said they were evolving, or moving forward with
> > regards to WRKO. Which just points out that your
> > comprehension of this discussion is limited at best.
>
> Well, now your down to just insulting me...without anything
> to backup your arguments. You lose.
>
> > Entercom never let Ron Valeri go. In 1994 (?) he was
> offered
> > the chance to sign on an Active Rock station in New York
> > City.
>
> Didn't he leave to work for a record label/promo group?
>
> Second, if they money was there at Entercom Boston, he
> wouldn't have left.
>
> Again...Cheap.
>
> > Usually, the sign of an ineffective programmer don't
> > you think? So, if you're not programming....
>
> Blah, blah, blah....I'm not gonna diss Valeri, he's a good
> guy.
>
> I diss Entercom, for losing a good programmer....with
> short-sighted descions.
>
> > As usual, if you did any real research you would know
> these
> > things before slamming the business practices of a radio
> > station.
>
> You have not pointed out any new facts.
>
> > But, you didn't. You just want to speak badly about
> > a company whose business practices you know less than
> > nothing about.
>
> I know they suck.
>
> > > I'm talking about GM's and VP's.
> >
> > Hmmmm. If the GMs and VPs are so untalented, why does
> > Entercom post such nice profit? Why are the shareholders
> > happy? Why is it a good stock buy?
>
> Cuz they are cheap....and tight with a penny...that doesn't
> make them good broadcasters. (Just look at Clear Channel.)
>
> > You have your agenda. It's pretty weak.
>
> Again, no agenda. Just observations.
>
> I would say that you, as an employee...have an agenda.
>
> > > As far as Richards, Johnson and Manning.....if they are
> > > talented, they are talented on their own, and not due to
>
> > > Entercom's corperate leadership.
> >
> > Really? So, Entercom gets no praise for recognizing
> talent,
> > providing them with the resources, and making their
> stations
> > ratings/revenue successes by putting those people in
> charge
> > of their properties?
>
> Well, since they can't do the same at WRKO, WAAF and
> Mike-FM.....then no, they don't get the credit.
>
> The credit belongs to the talented programmer.
>
> > I've made my point. Negated yours. And, I fart in your
> > general direction.
>
> Wow, such intelligence!
>
> Your "negating" is just wishful thinking and bias.
>
> Sorry, you lose.

No sorry to you, YOU LOSE.
>

 

[neanderpol]

Re: Entercom? *DELETED*

Post deleted by neanderpol