I have one question: "Why"?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Consultants
- Thread starter skycaptain
- Start date
> I have one question: "Why"?
Because two brains are better than one.
Because two brains are better than one.
> I have one question: "Why"?
Same reason you get a second opinion or consult a specialist for a health concern or issue.
>
Same reason you get a second opinion or consult a specialist for a health concern or issue.
>
J
jack
Guest
"Why"
Ooooo! I know...hey, my buzzer didn't work. What is a 1992 song by Annie Lennox? What did I win?
CJ
Ooooo! I know...hey, my buzzer didn't work. What is a 1992 song by Annie Lennox? What did I win?
CJ
O
OldiesCat
Guest
Oh, c'mon now, gentlemen- didn't you know it's better to stick your head in the sand and pretend you have ALL the answers? Who needs more informed perspectives? That might result in a station posting (gulp) a profit! If we actually make money, it can't be fun or great radio.
Geez.
>
> Because two brains are better than one.
>
Geez.
>
> Because two brains are better than one.
>
> Oh, c'mon now, gentlemen- didn't you know it's better to
> stick your head in the sand and pretend you have ALL the
> answers? Who needs more informed perspectives? That might
> result in a station posting (gulp) a profit! If we actually
> make money, it can't be fun or great radio.
>
> Geez.
>
>
> >
> > Because two brains are better than one.
> >
>
I think the original question was more directed at why the enormous amount of power a consultant tends to have in programming decisions, and in some cases the question may be why not a consultant instead of a PD.
If I am correct in that assumption....here's the answer
1. Today's PD's fall into two broad categories with few exeptions:
A: Callout and Tuesday add monkeys.
B: Folk who program what they like without regard for what actually works.
As a result, consultants were designed to "in theory" temper the insanity of either case.
Unfortunately, some consultants fall too much into the A category....perhaps he has one of those.
> stick your head in the sand and pretend you have ALL the
> answers? Who needs more informed perspectives? That might
> result in a station posting (gulp) a profit! If we actually
> make money, it can't be fun or great radio.
>
> Geez.
>
>
> >
> > Because two brains are better than one.
> >
>
I think the original question was more directed at why the enormous amount of power a consultant tends to have in programming decisions, and in some cases the question may be why not a consultant instead of a PD.
If I am correct in that assumption....here's the answer
1. Today's PD's fall into two broad categories with few exeptions:
A: Callout and Tuesday add monkeys.
B: Folk who program what they like without regard for what actually works.
As a result, consultants were designed to "in theory" temper the insanity of either case.
Unfortunately, some consultants fall too much into the A category....perhaps he has one of those.
O
OldiesCat
Guest
You're not far off on your description of two kinds of PDs but to call them "today's PDs", I'm not sure if you mean the newest generation of Programmers or all people in Programming today. It certainly applies to some of the former and fewer of the latter.
I also think the popular belief about how much power a Consultant wields is more myth and most offen applies to PDs who do NOT have the saavy and experience needed.
I've found that too often it's easy to blame "the consultant" when the GM and PD are ultimately responsible for their station's performance. And, when it doesn't go well, they pass the buck off and blame "the consultant". There are even more instances where a caring, informed and experienced consultant's view is dismissed because "they're not local", the station tanks and they end up blaming "the consultant" anyway. That always ends up being sold down the ranks so the GM and/or PD doesn't have to own up to the fact THEY are who screwed up.
>
> I think the original question was more directed at why the
> enormous amount of power a consultant tends to have in
> programming decisions, and in some cases the question may be
> why not a consultant instead of a PD.
>
> If I am correct in that assumption....here's the answer
>
> 1. Today's PD's fall into two broad categories with few
> exeptions:
> A: Callout and Tuesday add monkeys.
> B: Folk who program what they like without regard for
> what actually works.
>
> As a result, consultants were designed to "in theory" temper
> the insanity of either case.
>
> Unfortunately, some consultants fall too much into the A
> category....perhaps he has one of those.
>
I also think the popular belief about how much power a Consultant wields is more myth and most offen applies to PDs who do NOT have the saavy and experience needed.
I've found that too often it's easy to blame "the consultant" when the GM and PD are ultimately responsible for their station's performance. And, when it doesn't go well, they pass the buck off and blame "the consultant". There are even more instances where a caring, informed and experienced consultant's view is dismissed because "they're not local", the station tanks and they end up blaming "the consultant" anyway. That always ends up being sold down the ranks so the GM and/or PD doesn't have to own up to the fact THEY are who screwed up.
>
> I think the original question was more directed at why the
> enormous amount of power a consultant tends to have in
> programming decisions, and in some cases the question may be
> why not a consultant instead of a PD.
>
> If I am correct in that assumption....here's the answer
>
> 1. Today's PD's fall into two broad categories with few
> exeptions:
> A: Callout and Tuesday add monkeys.
> B: Folk who program what they like without regard for
> what actually works.
>
> As a result, consultants were designed to "in theory" temper
> the insanity of either case.
>
> Unfortunately, some consultants fall too much into the A
> category....perhaps he has one of those.
>
I do mean the newest generation. Many "old school" PD's, and a few "new school" ones, have learned to weave a tapestry of research, creativity, and gut feelings. (as a result of being in touch with the listener in a very literal sense) I would never suggest that the statement was an absolute, but I am finding that many programmers have become too reliant upon the research, and too beholding to the record pimps. You are absoulutely correct in that the consultant has become butt cover for poor decisions in many cases. The notion that a consultant is not local, therefore the information is not viable is a big mistake for GM's and PD's. That notion oversimplifies, and underestimates the value of the information. If the consultant gives you the basic fabric, it is up to the Programmers to make the suit fit the customer. The consultant can be a valuable tool, but you have to know when to use it....and when to leave it in the box, That, my friend, requires the saavy and experience you talked about. I just think those requisite skills are becoming more rare by the minute.
> You're not far off on your description of two kinds of PDs
> but to call them "today's PDs", I'm not sure if you mean the
> newest generation of Programmers or all people in
> Programming today. It certainly applies to some of the
> former and fewer of the latter.
>
> I also think the popular belief about how much power a
> Consultant wields is more myth and most offen applies to PDs
> who do NOT have the saavy and experience needed.
>
> I've found that too often it's easy to blame "the
> consultant" when the GM and PD are ultimately responsible
> for their station's performance. And, when it doesn't go
> well, they pass the buck off and blame "the consultant".
> There are even more instances where a caring, informed and
> experienced consultant's view is dismissed because "they're
> not local", the station tanks and they end up blaming "the
> consultant" anyway. That always ends up being sold down the
> ranks so the GM and/or PD doesn't have to own up to the fact
> THEY are who screwed up.
> >
> > I think the original question was more directed at why the
>
> > enormous amount of power a consultant tends to have in
> > programming decisions, and in some cases the question may
> be
> > why not a consultant instead of a PD.
> >
> > If I am correct in that assumption....here's the answer
> >
> > 1. Today's PD's fall into two broad categories with few
> > exeptions:
> > A: Callout and Tuesday add monkeys.
> > B: Folk who program what they like without regard for
> > what actually works.
> >
> > As a result, consultants were designed to "in theory"
> temper
> > the insanity of either case.
> >
> > Unfortunately, some consultants fall too much into the A
> > category....perhaps he has one of those.
> >
>
> You're not far off on your description of two kinds of PDs
> but to call them "today's PDs", I'm not sure if you mean the
> newest generation of Programmers or all people in
> Programming today. It certainly applies to some of the
> former and fewer of the latter.
>
> I also think the popular belief about how much power a
> Consultant wields is more myth and most offen applies to PDs
> who do NOT have the saavy and experience needed.
>
> I've found that too often it's easy to blame "the
> consultant" when the GM and PD are ultimately responsible
> for their station's performance. And, when it doesn't go
> well, they pass the buck off and blame "the consultant".
> There are even more instances where a caring, informed and
> experienced consultant's view is dismissed because "they're
> not local", the station tanks and they end up blaming "the
> consultant" anyway. That always ends up being sold down the
> ranks so the GM and/or PD doesn't have to own up to the fact
> THEY are who screwed up.
> >
> > I think the original question was more directed at why the
>
> > enormous amount of power a consultant tends to have in
> > programming decisions, and in some cases the question may
> be
> > why not a consultant instead of a PD.
> >
> > If I am correct in that assumption....here's the answer
> >
> > 1. Today's PD's fall into two broad categories with few
> > exeptions:
> > A: Callout and Tuesday add monkeys.
> > B: Folk who program what they like without regard for
> > what actually works.
> >
> > As a result, consultants were designed to "in theory"
> temper
> > the insanity of either case.
> >
> > Unfortunately, some consultants fall too much into the A
> > category....perhaps he has one of those.
> >
>
> I have one question: "Why"?
>
I think the answer is multi-facted. If you're asking for justification for bringing in a consultant (and I'm not one, by the way), (s)he can help you find "holes" in your programming or develop a strategy to improve your current programming from an objective perspective. (S)he may also have resources for research that you/your station does not have, thereby providing you with more tools with which you can carve up the audience for more specific targeting practices.
Additionally, a consultant who is very familiar with a new format (say "JACK," for instance)can help you in a transition to that format, giving you proven examples of promotion, advertising, positioning, and even staff changes, if needed.
If you're asking why have consultants at all, I think the two answers above help in that discussion, as well. But, a consultant can also help you in ongoing evaluation. Too many times, we get so involved in a job or project that we tend to lose our objective view of the situation. A consultant gives you the oppportunity to hear that objective voice. (S)he also helps you see things "on the horizon" before it gets to you, because (s)he is dealing with other stations who are facing the same situations.
Finally, a disclaimer. Any station. ANY STATION, who depends SOLELY on the advice of a consultant over the leadership of a LOCAL Program Director deserves every bit of failure that comes their way. If management/ownership places more creedence in the voice of the consultant, they should save a ton of money and get rid of the PD staff position. Then they can start saving even more money by letting the consultant handle the music scheduling,too... and then (s)he can eventually bring in their staff of favorite voice tracking talent, because that station will eventually become part of the marching herds of non-local programming that clutters the airwaves in just about EVERY market in the US.
I hope that answers your question.
>
I think the answer is multi-facted. If you're asking for justification for bringing in a consultant (and I'm not one, by the way), (s)he can help you find "holes" in your programming or develop a strategy to improve your current programming from an objective perspective. (S)he may also have resources for research that you/your station does not have, thereby providing you with more tools with which you can carve up the audience for more specific targeting practices.
Additionally, a consultant who is very familiar with a new format (say "JACK," for instance)can help you in a transition to that format, giving you proven examples of promotion, advertising, positioning, and even staff changes, if needed.
If you're asking why have consultants at all, I think the two answers above help in that discussion, as well. But, a consultant can also help you in ongoing evaluation. Too many times, we get so involved in a job or project that we tend to lose our objective view of the situation. A consultant gives you the oppportunity to hear that objective voice. (S)he also helps you see things "on the horizon" before it gets to you, because (s)he is dealing with other stations who are facing the same situations.
Finally, a disclaimer. Any station. ANY STATION, who depends SOLELY on the advice of a consultant over the leadership of a LOCAL Program Director deserves every bit of failure that comes their way. If management/ownership places more creedence in the voice of the consultant, they should save a ton of money and get rid of the PD staff position. Then they can start saving even more money by letting the consultant handle the music scheduling,too... and then (s)he can eventually bring in their staff of favorite voice tracking talent, because that station will eventually become part of the marching herds of non-local programming that clutters the airwaves in just about EVERY market in the US.
I hope that answers your question.
O
OldiesCat
Guest
yes,
well put.
> Finally, a disclaimer. Any station. ANY STATION, who depends
> SOLELY on the advice of a consultant over the leadership of
> a LOCAL Program Director deserves every bit of failure that
> comes their way. If management/ownership places more
> creedence in the voice of the consultant, they should save a
> ton of money and get rid of the PD staff position. Then they
> can start saving even more money by letting the consultant
> handle the music scheduling,too... and then (s)he can
> eventually bring in their staff of favorite voice tracking
> talent, because that station will eventually become part of
> the marching herds of non-local programming that clutters
> the airwaves in just about EVERY market in the US.
well put.
> Finally, a disclaimer. Any station. ANY STATION, who depends
> SOLELY on the advice of a consultant over the leadership of
> a LOCAL Program Director deserves every bit of failure that
> comes their way. If management/ownership places more
> creedence in the voice of the consultant, they should save a
> ton of money and get rid of the PD staff position. Then they
> can start saving even more money by letting the consultant
> handle the music scheduling,too... and then (s)he can
> eventually bring in their staff of favorite voice tracking
> talent, because that station will eventually become part of
> the marching herds of non-local programming that clutters
> the airwaves in just about EVERY market in the US.
Re: yes,
Thank you, I hope you agreed with the rest of the post too. Or at least enough of it
> well put.
>
>
> > Finally, a disclaimer. Any station. ANY STATION, who
> depends
> > SOLELY on the advice of a consultant over the leadership
> of
> > a LOCAL Program Director deserves every bit of failure
> that
> > comes their way. If management/ownership places more
> > creedence in the voice of the consultant, they should save
> a
> > ton of money and get rid of the PD staff position. Then
> they
> > can start saving even more money by letting the consultant
>
> > handle the music scheduling,too... and then (s)he can
> > eventually bring in their staff of favorite voice tracking
>
> > talent, because that station will eventually become part
> of
> > the marching herds of non-local programming that clutters
> > the airwaves in just about EVERY market in the US.
>
Thank you, I hope you agreed with the rest of the post too. Or at least enough of it
> well put.
>
>
> > Finally, a disclaimer. Any station. ANY STATION, who
> depends
> > SOLELY on the advice of a consultant over the leadership
> of
> > a LOCAL Program Director deserves every bit of failure
> that
> > comes their way. If management/ownership places more
> > creedence in the voice of the consultant, they should save
> a
> > ton of money and get rid of the PD staff position. Then
> they
> > can start saving even more money by letting the consultant
>
> > handle the music scheduling,too... and then (s)he can
> > eventually bring in their staff of favorite voice tracking
>
> > talent, because that station will eventually become part
> of
> > the marching herds of non-local programming that clutters
> > the airwaves in just about EVERY market in the US.
>
U
Uncle Buck
Guest
AMEN I WORK AT THAT STATION....THE ONE WITH NO PD AND A GM WHO LET'S THE CONSULTANT RUN EVERYTHING.
YOU ARE 100% CORRECT.
YOU ARE 100% CORRECT.
R
radiofriend1
Guest
then stop bitching and get another gig
M
Musicradio
Guest
"ANY STATION, who depends SOLELY on the advice of a consultant over the leadership of a LOCAL Program Director deserves every bit of failure that comes their way."
So true. What's that old saying that really ticks them off? Oh yeah --
"Consultants are PDs who can't find a job".
Laugh as you will -- sometime's it's true.
So true. What's that old saying that really ticks them off? Oh yeah --
"Consultants are PDs who can't find a job".
Laugh as you will -- sometime's it's true.
L
LassoG
Guest
I'm not completely anti consultant...having said that Jim Ladd said it best years ago...
"A consultant is someone a GM can hire without having listening to somebody who actually likes the S%$t his station plays."
"A consultant is someone a GM can hire without having listening to somebody who actually likes the S%$t his station plays."
R
radiofriend1
Guest
XTalker said:
if a pd isn't totally qualified to program his station--to the point he needs a consultant-- then he's not qualified or objective enuff to HIRE the consultant
I don't think anyone ever suggested the consultant was hired because the PD wasn't qualified to program the station. Purpose of the consultant is to give the PD someone to turn to for ideas and opinions of ideas. Most GMs are so sales oriented, and few have programming experience (particularly in today's atmosphere), they are not good sounding boards.
If a station hires a consultant to make all the decisions, then you are right - they don't need the PD. It's kinda like the difference between being a Chef and a cook! Cooks follow recipies provided by others. Chefs create the recipies!
If a station hires a consultant to make all the decisions, then you are right - they don't need the PD. It's kinda like the difference between being a Chef and a cook! Cooks follow recipies provided by others. Chefs create the recipies!
- Status