CBS's Dan Mason's big message to the broadcasting industry....

[Buckethead]

As posted in the news section of this web site, CBS Head Honcho Dan Mason is circulating his big message to the broadcast industry.
What's his big message about?
How to sell more advertising? How to get better ratings? How to create brand loyalty with your audience?
No, no, and nope!

His big message is about "How do we help the music industry sell more records"!!!!!!!

Are you kidding me Dan? Tell me you have more things on your mind than passing down directives about how to help the RECORD INDUSTRY SELL MORE RECORDS.

Good god Dan. Did he ask how the record industry could help the broadcasters sell more ads? Make more money? Get better ratings?
NO! That's because the record weasle would rat f*** you in two seconds flat if he thought it would help him personally or professionally. In other words, he doesnt give a flying fork about you or helping the broadcast industry make more money.

Dan, for god's sake why dont you worry about figuring out how braodcasters can survive with minimal local talent and programming, with slashed staffs and budgets. Why don't you tell him to put out some decent music for a change and maybe we can both benefit.

Dan, please tell me you care more about the thousands of jobs that have been slashed from companies such as yours than you do about helping to sell more records.

How soon will it be before we see Dan on the board of this label?

Dan,
Why don't you figure out how to create revenue and listeners when your company and others have gutted the very soul out of the product you are selling?


There.
How's that for telling you how I feel about it?

 

[TheBigA]

I don't think we read the same article. Nowhere in there do I read that he wants to help the music industry to the exclusion of the other important issues you mentioned affecting broadcasting. Those other issues are equally important. He was simply addressing a conversation he had with someone in the music industry.

As you may know, the music industry is currently waging an all out war against radio for a performance royalty. They have used the Grammy Awards to bring public attention to this issue. They have brought dozens of musicians, including Bono of U2, to the halls of Congress to lobby for this royalty. A new royalty could sap as much as 10% of radio revenues a year. Groups like MusicFirst and the Future of Music Coalition have complained about things like lack of local talent and local music. They feel radio's budget cutbacks have hurt music sales, and decreased the value of free radio airplay.

What Dan Mason is asking for is for on air talent to identify the music it plays. That alone could help justify the use of live local talent. If the use of on-air personalities can save broadcasters from the Performance Royalty, it will be worth the expense.

 

[Buckethead]

He has implemented an across the board policy within CBS to better identify the music. This based on the question "I asked this exec what’s the one thing the radio industry could do to help sell more music".

Plain and simple. In his own words he mulled it over for a week, and then decided (most likely with KW) that CBS would identify songs more.

Not because it would help HIS business. But because it would help the RECORD business.

What I wish we had seen from Dan is "I asked this record guy. ' whats the one thing we can do to help grow our audience, create revenue and bring back some of those thousands of jobs we slashed"

But no, his question was "I asked this exec what’s the one thing the radio industry could do to help sell more music."

Though, to the point of justifying local talent, I wish Dan Mason was as concerned about the future of his own industry when CBS was gutting the heart out of the product. The soul and blood. The content creators.
Now you say, maybe it'll save some jobs , this roundabout effort to kiss the ass of the record industry that now has one hand greasing palms while the other hand is trying to pick pockets.

 

[TheBigA]

But no, his question was "I asked this exec what’s the one thing the radio industry could do to help sell more music."

Can't you understand the relationship between the two?

The music industry is an advertiser. They buy spots in addition to the free airplay. So helping them sell records is no different than asking the car dealer what we can do to help them sell more cars. I don't understand your problem. This is a simple thing that goes to back to a campaign over 30 years ago called "Play It, Say It."

His memo, by the way, flies in the face of the current view that giving information about music is bad for PPM.

 

[Buckethead]

The music industry spends very little on radio ad buys. It's negligible.

Though I do see the motive of trying to head off the expense of the royalties.
That fits into a pattern I can understand.

A few years ago it was "We need to cut expenses to keep the stock price from dropping, therefore we are slashing 22% of our workforce. Let's start with the highest earning talent".

Now its, "we need to avoid the hit our stock will take if we are made to pay this royalty, therefore all of our talent must "sell" the music more, even if its bad for ratings.

You can see by the first example that programming concerns are not driving this decision. Either is a desire to service the audience or even really the desire to help sell records.

It IS a concern though when the bean counters come down from high to implement programming decisions.
I'm sure Kevin W is not receiving this directive well.

Btw- Do you think the auto industry ever says to the petrolium industry "Tell us how we can help you sell more gas"?

 

[TheBigA]

You can see by the first example that programming concerns are not driving this decision.

Only if your premise is correct. Which it isn't. At a company like CBS, radio is a small factor in the stock price of the company.

Dan Mason is a programmer first. Programming drives his decisions. If you read his entire memo, you'll see the driving force is to inspire passion for the product: "I welcome and appreciate your feedback on ways we can bring new energy and passion to the way we present our content. We shouldn’t just play the music, we should showcase the music. Love of the product is contagious." That isn't a bean counter talking. That is a programmer.

Btw- Do you think the auto industry ever says to the petrolium industry "Tell us how we can help you sell more gas"?

You're joking, right? Of course they do. Most of the cars they make are pigs, and they've been extremely slow to build cars using alternate sources of power.

 

[Buckethead]

When an across the board programming decision is handed down by what essentially is the sales department,
you know they don't have the welfare of the listener in mind.

Nor does the gutting of the talent from the company speak to the idea that quality of programming is of any concern either.

Ps- The Auto industry gets the biggest profit margin from bigger vehicles. That's what drives their decision.

 

[TheBigA]

When an across the board programming decision is handed down by what essentially is the sales department,
you know they don't have the welfare of the listener in mind.

You obviously don't know what (or who) you're talking about. Ask anyone, even radio's biggest critics, about Dan Mason and they'll say nothing but good things.

Of all the companies, CBS has done the most to retain live and local talent.

Try and learn something about the company before you open your uneducated mouth.

 

[Buckethead]

Now you are going to resort to personal insults? You obviously know, or are the man.

I'm not making a personal judgement about the man. It's just business, right?

You can ask the 22% of the workforce that was slashed how they feel. It's all subjective.

I'll have to say I agree with your original premise that the decision was most likely based on trying to please the record industry in order to avoid that royalty tax.

I'd have to say that somebody as successful as Kevin Weatherly probably has a better barometer for what works on the air and should be left to his particular brand of genius.
I dont suppose Dan Mason would welcome sales objectives from Kevin.

And your statement about the record industry being a big advertiser tells me that you don't have a huge amount of education on the subject.
Nothing personal.

AND I have worked for the company.

You?

 

[TheBigA]

Now you are going to resort to personal insults? You obviously know, or are the man.

Saying you don't know what you're talking about on this subject isn't a personal insult. It's the truth.

You can ask the 22% of the workforce that was slashed how they feel. It's all subjective.

CBS Radio has not cut 22% of its work force.

You obviously have issues with the radio industry. That's no reason to attack Dan Mason.

And your statement about the record industry being a big advertiser tells me that you don't have a huge amount of education on the subject.

I never said they were a “big advertiser.” They buy advertising and they’re a content provider. Typically, about 3/4s of the content of a radio station is music. I’d say that’s a significant content partner, wouldn’t you?

AND I have worked for the company.

Obviously not in any proximity to Dan Mason.

 

[Buckethead]

I'm sure he's a fine fellow and a good man. I dont intend to attack him persoanally.

I just hope after he's done taking steps to help sell more records he will look into
trying to help the RADIO business.

CBS, like every other broadcaster cut a significant percentage of their staff.
Those jobs never came back. That should take priority.
If this decision causes CBS to hire more jocks, that's great.
I do think the passion is whats lacking.

Nope, never worked with him. My judgement is based on the statement he issued.
Mostly, I take issue with the motive of making such a gesture to help sell more records.

I happen to agree with the other fluffy part about passion for the music etc. But not for the sake of the record industry.

I do find it amusing that one department at the label is busy installing flatscreens at radio stations while another department is trying to demand payment.

 

[TheBigA]

I just hope after he's done taking steps to help sell more records he will look into
trying to help the RADIO business.

If creating a good example helps the radio business, then he has.

 

[Shoot From Hip]

Buckethead-- expand your thinking for just a moment. Radio is a content business. The recording industry provides content. If that content goes away, who gets hurt? Radio. Music labels don't spend what they used to in developing artists, in advertising new albums, etc. It's in radio's best interest to have a healthy recording industry. Dan is a collaborative person; it would be naive to think he didn't consult Kevin and other programmers (who were with him last week in LA when they met with the recording industry) as well as his Ad Sales and other key managers.

 

[Buckethead]

It's not Radio's job to help sell records. There will always be good music. However now bands don't need the major labels as a middleman.
Records problem is much MUCH bigger than whether radio ID the songs.

If the songs are a steaming pile of auto-tune crap then no amount of ID'ing is going to help sell them.
Records needs to look back at what succeeded. TALENT. Good songs, great singers/performers.
Try signing some of them instead of all this pre-packaged garbage. Then maybe an ID will help.


Ill agree with the earlier poster that this is more than likely about appeasing the recording industry
in their attempt to add an additional royalty fee for radio.
There are 2 reasons the labels are moving to do this. 1) They are desperate because the internet has wiped them out. (Not Radio's Fault. The recording industry stubbornly refused to acknowledge digital media and now they are paying the price)

2) Heritage formats don't help sell music and so the labels are looking for a way to get paid for something they werent getting paid for before.
Prior to this only the publishers / writers were getting royalties.

Labels put a huge amount of money into "encouraging" radio stations to play records for free because they know that airplay is how they sell records. This of course is only referring to new records. In the PPM world we see that other than the top 40 new records most formats are playing heritage (old) records. ID'ing "I heard it through the Grapevine" isn't going to help sell records, but signing a new Marvin Gay will!

Bottom line, CBS is taking an early stab at appeasing the labels by telling them what they want to hear.
I doubt we will notice much change in the way radio is presented. Part of the problem being that radio has taken the live and local out of the equation across the country. Nor will we notice a change in the quality of artists being pushed by the majors.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

I think this has a lot to do with the performance tax debate. It becomes a key example of how radio helps sell records, and that can be used to defend why radio shouldn't pay more royalties on the music it plays. At least that's how I see it.

Great move by Dan to take the music exec's suggestion and use it to strengthen radio's position on this. Especially since it costs nothing.

 

[LKellerIII]

But no, his question was "I asked this exec what’s the one thing the radio industry could do to help sell more music."

Can't you understand the relationship between the two?

The music industry is an advertiser. They buy spots in addition to the free airplay. So helping them sell records is no different than asking the car dealer what we can do to help them sell more cars. I don't understand your problem. This is a simple thing that goes to back to a campaign over 30 years ago called "Play It, Say It."

His memo, by the way, flies in the face of the current view that giving information about music is bad for PPM.

I'm only a radio listener - but as far back as the 70s, I was frustrated by many stations' failure to announce song titles and artists. I'd hear a song I liked by an artist I didn't recognize, but wouldn't be able to figure it out. That made it hard in the record store. Most of us are a little too inhibited to go up to the clerk and sing a few bars.

I recall a PD in the Bay Area (K-101, I think) saying years ago that he actually ordered his jocks not to give title/artist info because he wasn't in the record-selling business, and he didn't want to waste the airtime. I was acutally a bit offended by this. If the vast majority of your programming day is devoted to music, it seems to me that you should pay some attention to it. And this has nothing to do with "live-and- local" - a voice-tracked DJ can still give you this information. How much time does it take to back announce the song-title and artist? 3 seconds, maybe...it's hard to see how it would be bad for PPM.

Of course, in an era in which radio is becoming more and more irrelevant - it's no longer a problem. Most stations put this info on their websites, and failing that, you can usually get the info by Googling a few of the lyrics.

BTW - in the Bay Area at least, CBS stations tend to have more live-and-local talent - especially compared to Clear Channel stations, that are now almost entirely voice-tracked outside of morning drive.

 

[TheBigA]

I doubt we will notice much change in the way radio is presented. Part of the problem being that radio has taken the live and local out of the equation across the country. Nor will we notice a change in the quality of artists being pushed by the majors.

The point though is that this was not a "message to the broadcasting industry," as the subject line here says. This was an internal memo from the head of CBS radio to his staff. From what I've heard, his staff reacted positively to the memo. As others have pointed out, CBS Radio is still mostly live & local. Whether any other companies follow the CBS lead is up to them. Probably won't happen.

 

[Buckethead]

Big A. Regardless of the reason, I think we agree that ID'ing songs and having live DJ's that are passionate about the music is a good thing.
Now we need the record industry to give us music to be passionate about.

 

[RadioStarOne]

I have got to agree with Buckethead about one point he made among others. He mentioned all this AutoTune music being sold to our children by the record label's. I have never heard the term mentioned anywhere on the boards I follow, but the term jumped right off the page at me when I read it. My son is thirteen and doesn't listen to much radio but one thing he mentions to me all the time is how he can't stand all this auto tune music being shown on the TV shows he watches. Interesting Indeed that Buckethead should talk about it. Heaven help these artist's if they ever had to sing in a real concert hall without all this autotune technology!

 

[davideduardo]

A few years ago it was "We need to cut expenses to keep the stock price from dropping, therefore we are slashing 22% of our workforce. Let's start with the highest earning talent".

Let's see now. Radio billing is off, still, nearly 40% over the 2005-2007 peak years. It would be logical that all non-fixed expenses would be cut in a similar manner.

Here's an example: 2010's billing for San Diego is equal to the inflation adjusted (CSI based, not GDP based) inflation billing for 1988... 22 years ago. For every dollar billed in 2006, they bill about $0.60 cents today... so those marvelous "we're up 3%" statements really mean that they have recovered about a percent and a half of the former billing level. At that rate, it will take a Jeffersonian generation to get back to the 2006 level... and of course, that is way below average inflation still.

In any case, the particular dead horse I am beating on today is the fact that staff levels can't come back to prior levels and pay can't come back, either. Add in the noxious effect that the PPM has on idle talk and we can see a bit of the future.

Now its, "we need to avoid the hit our stock will take if we are made to pay this royalty, therefore all of our talent must "sell" the music more, even if its bad for ratings.

It's a rational business decision to make peace with those at war with us. War leads to Pyrrhic victories and radio can not afford another of those. Yet you speak as if it were evil for a company to look for the best way out of hard situations. The alternative, should a performers royalty be established, is to cut some more operating expenses.

You can see by the first example that programming concerns are not driving this decision. Either is a desire to service the audience or even really the desire to help sell records.

It's a desire to build bridges and avoid potentially radio-killing legislation.

[/quote]It IS a concern though when the bean counters come down from high to implement programming decisions. I'm sure Kevin W is not receiving this directive well.[/quote]

I'll bet he was part of the decision.

Note that the entire internal memo mentions "current" music. The record companies don't need some Don Henley song to be announced. They need currents... using the listener frame of reference of the last 12 to 24 months as being current... to be announced. And most of us would see no problem with that. In fact, I've found that announcing even 40-year-old image artists and songs benefits the station by associating it with the biggest artists and tunes.

What those of us who have actually talked with many many listeners about song IDs have found is that everyone wants radio to do it. But each person wants to hear the info on songs they don't know, and not the rest. And different people know different songs... so good info for one person is boring to another.