Hook FM says goodbye!

[neutralobserver]

Considering CC is a rather (understatement) successful company....

Why not take a look...? (Click here.)

The red line is the Dow Jones Industrial Average over the past seven years; the blue line is Clear Channel. Any neutral observer will note a difference in performance -- "success," if you will -- of approximately 72 percentage points!

Clear Channel has moved dozens of towers, cut thousands of jobs and other expenses, supposedly made better and more extensive use of their better talent, and beefed up and better-trained its sales force, but it has still underperformed the market by 70+ percentage points and its own industry by 20+ percentage points.

You know what's really strange about this? I'm usually criticized for defending Clear Channel too much! Thanks for seemingly putting me in the other camp!

My problem with EMF is. They go on air and BEG for money, even getting specific with certain towns, specific stations or translators, and make threats that they will turn them off if they don't receive more donations.

Threats? They make appeals and state the circumstances. Again, it might be advantageous to actually understand the business model.

What business model is that? "Generate incremental revenue with each additional lie told?" Yes, they make appeals, but they do not honestly state "the circumstances."

"Yes" or "no" -- given revenue exceeding (even strangely rapidly growing) expenses by $40,000,000 over the last four years, ongoing and rapid growth by acquisition, and not a single case in any market or town in who knows how long, is there really any reason that a station would be lost due to a financial issue?

 

[radioelizabeth]

I leave it at this. Days after you addressed me in person, you were gone from CHRSN.

Explain? Hmmm, trying to figure out what part of this is not sinking in.

I'm not exactly sure what your implication is...but rest assurred...my not being at CHRSN was very good news for me, all the way around. I'll not say anything negative about this company. Different companies do things different ways. And I don't think anyone was suprised that it was not a fit from the start.

Christian company A builds stations from scratch, in most cases bringing Christian radio to a market for the first time. In most cases they have local live morning shows. Sometimes afternoons too!

This is one model.

Christian company EMF buys existing local stations and replaces them with canned California, repetitive formats, and begs for more money several times a year, so they can go by more local stations and replace them.

which is a different model.


Clear Channel has moved dozens and dozens of radio stations from small towns serving their markets, to larger markets to build their clusters.

Which is another model

Clear Channel has put thousands of people out of work in the radio business.

and hundreds of thousands in work as well.

How is this a success?? Wake up!

Wake up? Are you kidding me? You aren't a fan of CC or EMF. Ok...so don't work for either. But to call them a failure is simply not the case.

 

[lash]

Then name for us a failure in your opinion? Or is your day always filled with sunshine.

I could post many radio companies large and small that I'm fans of. Just not a fan of the two that I mentioned.

 

[radioelizabeth]

Considering CC is a rather (understatement) successful company....

Why not take a look...? (Click here.)

The red line is the Dow Jones Industrial Average over the past seven years; the blue line is Clear Channel. Any neutral observer will note a difference in performance -- "success," if you will -- of approximately 72 percentage points!

Clear Channel has moved dozens of towers, cut thousands of jobs and other expenses, supposedly made better and more extensive use of their better talent, and beefed up and better-trained its sales force, but it has still underperformed the market by 70+ percentage points and its own industry by 20+ percentage points.

You know what's really strange about this? I'm usually criticized for defending Clear Channel too much! Thanks for seemingly putting me in the other camp!

You've shown them underperforming...not failing. I said they are successful and to suggest they are failures is not accurate. I addressed that every company has areas of improvement. Consider their overall ability and all areas associated. I think you, being neutral would have to say that they have been a success as a company.
Look at R&D...air talent, ratings in select markets, and overall dominance in others. I have never stated they have been the best. I have stated they are successful.

My problem with EMF is. They go on air and BEG for money, even getting specific with certain towns, specific stations or translators, and make threats that they will turn them off if they don't receive more donations.

Threats? They make appeals and state the circumstances. Again, it might be advantageous to actually understand the business model.

What business model is that? "Generate incremental revenue with each additional lie told?" Yes, they make appeals, but they do not honestly state "the circumstances."

"Yes" or "no" -- given revenue exceeding (even strangely rapidly growing) expenses by $40,000,000 over the last four years, ongoing and rapid growth by acquisition, and not a single case in any market or town in who knows how long, is there really any reason that a station would be lost due to a financial issue?

Yes. Depending on what the money is bookmarked for. Yes. You want full disclosure on the air during the on air campaign? Any listener can access what they need prior to donating. Anyone. At anytime. It's called being a steward individually.

 

[radioelizabeth]

Then name for us a failure in your opinion? Or is your day always filled with sunshine.

I'd say that your attitude has made my desire to communicate with you on this full of apprehension.

I'd love to have a professional dialogue...let me know when you are willing.

 

[lash]

Sorry that I don't find you professional. At least not my experience with you. Several people apologized to me from your previous company after the way you handled a simple question from me in person. You obviously don't even remember doing it.

However I am willing to try and communicate here. So I'll ask nicely. If Clear Channel is a success to you, than name a company past or present that you feel is a failure in the radio business.

You've shown many ways to calculate a successful company. Now list a failure, and the reasons why?...please!

And I'm going to go on record here and say HOOK FM was a much better sounding and programmed radio station then K-Love or Air One has ever been.

 

[lash]

Here are details of an study concerning consulation, prepared by an music organization.

"•The top four radio station owners have almost half of the listeners and the top ten owners have almost two-thirds of listeners.

•The “localness” of radio ownership -- ownership by individuals living in the community -- has declined between 1975 and 2005 by almost one-third.

•Just fifteen formats make up three-quarters of all commercial programming. Moreover, radio formats with different names can overlap up to 80% in terms of the songs played on them.

•Almost exclusively, smaller station groups provide niche musical formats like classical, jazz, Americana, bluegrass, new rock and folk, where they exist.

•Across 155 markets, radio listenership has declined over the past fourteen years, a 22% drop since its peak in 1989. The consolidation allowed by the Telecom Act has failed to reverse this trend."

 

[radioelizabeth]

Sorry that I don't find you professional. At least not my experience with you. Several people apologized to me from your previous company after the way you handled a simple question from me in person. You obviously don't even remember doing it.

I don't even know who you are, let alone the incident you are speaking of. Regarding CHRSN offering an apology on my behalf... that is a little absurd to try to address in light of this fact. I won't speak for CHRSN. But I assure you, no one ever needs to apology for me. I'm very capable of handing those out myself if necessary.

But it's probably a good suggestion that if you have an issue with me, you discuss it with me. I'm not imaging a board is the best place to do that. Your continued implications are a clear indication that for some reason you have held onto this grievous for close to two years. Now, I know I am a strong personality and that I've never been mistaken for timid...but I would not imagine that holding a grudge for this many months is healthy for anyone. Feel free to write to me if you like. My website has contact information available.

I'll let it slide that you just stated I was unprofessional. Because I simply know it is not the case. And I'm pretty sure I can say, even with my own perspective, that I've been more professional in this exchange today.

However I am willing to try and communicate here. So I'll ask nicely. If Clear Channel is a success to you, than name a company past or present that you feel is a failure in the radio business.

You've shown many ways to calculate a successful company. Now list a failure, and the reasons why?...please!

You are now making demands of me. I'm not sure why you want me to start listing failures? What on earth for? Why would anyone cite failures like this?

I can suggest some different ideas if you like... there are failures in ratings, revenues, not hanging onto good talent, not employing quality talent. Failures in providing a good work environment. Failures in reaching fundraising goals. Failures in effectively targeting. Failures in holding clients, gaining clients. Failures mostly in not sustaining listeners. That is the greatest failure in radio. Lack of listenership.

What companies or stations have failed in that way? Or any of these ways...I'm sure many have through the years.

Currently, radio as a whole is failing at attracting a younger demographic, which will become their target demographic soon. This is something radio is currently addressing as well...so we certainly cannot say radio has failed in this area yet.

That enough?


And I'm going to go on record here and say HOOK FM was a much better sounding and programmed radio station then K-Love or Air One has ever been.

And I don't think you needed to go on the record so to speak. I think your position was clear already. You aren't a fan of EMF. I'm wondering what your gender is? Your age? Because if you aren't the target of either of those stations, you may not think they sounded better. Or maybe you mean production value? Or maybe music selection? I'm not sure what you are using to qualify your position on it?

I've never stated Hook was not a good station.

But I also will say that KLOVE and AIR1 are not bad stations. And their programming has worked. EMF is a leader in this industry for a reason. That takes nothing away from any other station.

 

[radioelizabeth]

Here are details of an study concerning consulation, prepared by an music organization.

"•The top four radio station owners have almost half of the listeners and the top ten owners have almost two-thirds of listeners.

•The “localness” of radio ownership -- ownership by individuals living in the community -- has declined between 1975 and 2005 by almost one-third.

•Just fifteen formats make up three-quarters of all commercial programming. Moreover, radio formats with different names can overlap up to 80% in terms of the songs played on them.

•Almost exclusively, smaller station groups provide niche musical formats like classical, jazz, Americana, bluegrass, new rock and folk, where they exist.

•Across 155 markets, radio listenership has declined over the past fourteen years, a 22% drop since its peak in 1989. The consolidation allowed by the Telecom Act has failed to reverse this trend."

I already addressed the decline in listenership cited last by you.

Regarding the other points.

We already know you aren't a fan of consolidation.

But you have failed to show that consolidation alone and lack of locally owned programming is why listenership declines. And I don't think you can show that. I think this correlation you draw with your bullet points is an attempt at another implication not necessarily supported by facts.

Correlation is not causation as a friend of mine likes to say. I think it is fitting here (as well as the other implications you drew on this board today).

There are numerous factors to consider.

 

[lash]

Elizabeth, best of luck to you. I will leave it at that. Your are certainly welcome to your opinion. You've shown no real facts in your argument, while I have tried.

It is my hope that the FCC not only stops CC growth, but with a Democratic Senate and Congress overturns the rulemaking.

We'll see where we are at in 5 years. I hope to never see you complain here, that you lost your job due to consolidation. I hope that radio is still alive. I will do my part to save dark and distressed AM's and FM's wherever I can, returning them to their past glory.

As outspoken as you are on many subjects, I guess I expected a more independent side of you. No need to email on my grudge. You've shown that you wouldn't apologize anyway.

I think I'll discuss our little debate with Faron now. I hope that PK is feeling better now, and can return to the board.

 

[radioelizabeth]

Elizabeth, best of luck to you. I will leave it at that. Your are certainly welcome to your opinion. You've shown no real facts in your argument, while I have tried.

What facts have you shown to support your statements? You have not addressed that your statements are unsupported. You show no causition at all between consolidation and listenership decline. Regarding "my argument"...because I refuse to do as you request and I did not list specific examples and names of companies that fail at certain aspects you say I show no facts?wow.

It is my hope that the FCC not only stops CC growth, but with a Democratic Senate and Congress overturns the rulemaking.

understood

We'll see where we are at in 5 years. I hope to never see you complain here, that you lost your job due to consolidation.

You will never see me complain on a board that I lost a job due to consolidation. Because I am in broadcasting, and in broadcasting, we know that it is everchanging. We adapt, or we don't. Besides, I don't complain about employers or past employers on boards. That is just silly. Every company has their own way of doing things. I am a firm believer that you make your own way...you join teams you want to be a part of, and you leave teams you don't. It's all about an individuals choice in their own careers. And anyone who chooses radio, should understand the field they enter into.


I hope that radio is still alive. I will do my part to save dark and distressed AM's and FM's wherever I can, returning them to their past glory.

As outspoken as you are on many subjects, I guess I expected a more independent side of you.

I'm not exactly sure again what your implication is. I'm very comfortable with every statement I've made.


No need to email on my grudge. You've shown that you wouldn't apologize anyway.

Let me try to understand this...you come on a board under a username and fail to identify yourself. Yet you make these suggestive implications without support. And when I suggest you discuss this grievous you have held for so long, you refuse to and say it is because I have shown you I won't apologize? Ok. That makes no sense. I feel like I've just had my house littered with toilet paper. Honestly...if you have something to say...say it. Other than that...you are really not accomplishing anymore than attempting to discredit me personally, for no reason but a grudge?


I think I'll discuss our little debate with Faron now.

Ah...gossip. Nice.

Guess you didn't "leave it at that" after all?

 

[GaryTheThompson]

This argument

I've gotta say that the only person in this debate with any proof of credibility is the one using their real name.

I don't know the details involved behind the scenes or who's right on any given point.

But I will say that it's pretty cheap and cowardly to hurl accusations and character assasinations at anyone publicly (or privately....gossip) when you hide behind the shroud of anonymity.

Liz and I haven't always agreed on everything. In fact, right off the top of my head I can think of two different areas in which we disagree. But I have always respected her for showing her face in public when she voices an opinion.

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re: This argument

I've gotta say that the only person in this debate with any proof of credibility is the one using their real name.

I don't know the details involved behind the scenes or who's right on any given point.

But I will say that it's pretty cheap and cowardly to hurl accusations at anyone publicly (or privately....gossip) when you hide behind the shroud of anonymity.

Liz and I haven't always agreed on everything. In fact, right off the top of my head I can think of two different areas in which we disagree. But I have always respected her for showing her face in public when she voices an opinion.

Well, you know Gary...we would agree if you would just admit that Breyers with the bean is the best.

Someday...

 

[GaryTheThompson]

Re: This argument

I've gotta say that the only person in this debate with any proof of credibility is the one using their real name.

I don't know the details involved behind the scenes or who's right on any given point.

But I will say that it's pretty cheap and cowardly to hurl accusations at anyone publicly (or privately....gossip) when you hide behind the shroud of anonymity.

Liz and I haven't always agreed on everything. In fact, right off the top of my head I can think of two different areas in which we disagree. But I have always respected her for showing her face in public when she voices an opinion.

Well, you know Gary...we would agree if you would just admit that Breyers with the bean is the best.

Someday...

The only thing that belong with beans are burrito's and Coffee.

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re: This argument

I've gotta say that the only person in this debate with any proof of credibility is the one using their real name.

I don't know the details involved behind the scenes or who's right on any given point.

But I will say that it's pretty cheap and cowardly to hurl accusations at anyone publicly (or privately....gossip) when you hide behind the shroud of anonymity.

Liz and I haven't always agreed on everything. In fact, right off the top of my head I can think of two different areas in which we disagree. But I have always respected her for showing her face in public when she voices an opinion.

Well, you know Gary...we would agree if you would just admit that Breyers with the bean is the best.

Someday...

The only thing that belong with beans are burrito's and Coffee.

no...see...you're wrong!

 

[lash]

Pardon me, but I am using my real last name.

Best to you in the future, and with your career. I apologize for upsetting you.

 

[radioelizabeth]

Pardon me, but I am using my real last name.

Best to you in the future, and with your career. I apologize for upsetting you.

You didn't upset me. You just made a lot of implications that aren't supported at all.

I have absolutely no recollection of any altercation with you that would have led to the conclusions you draw on this board tonight.

You implied that after we met, it was then I was no longer with CHRSN. That is a bold correlation that simply has no correlation whatsoever. Trust me, none.

You also suggested that CHRSN needed to apologize to you on my behalf. Again...I am capable of making any apologies necessary.

You then proceeded to say you would be discussing this dialogue with another party...not sure why that information was necessary.

Now we can certainly disagree in our thoughts on EMF, CHRSN, and CC among others...and that happens in broadcasting all the time.

But your remarks against my character were personal. And while I readily admit I am bold and direct...I make no apologies for misunderstandings about my personality. We all have different personalities...different things that drive us. Some personalities rush to conflict, others shy away from it. Some personalities are bold and outspoken and others are more diplomatic. Some personalities are simply never going to be compatible...others are a chemistry beyond belief.

But I assure you...that I am a woman of God. And thus, I am fully aware that in all things I am to be excellent. And I know that while some may prefer I was less direct and a little more gentle...others are inspired by the passion to say what I think when I think it. I tame my tongue on many occassions...as evidenced tonight. And I make amends and live at peace in all ways I can.

The mark of a professional is one who can lay aside personal inclinations in order to dialogue and achieve mutual benefit. That I am willing to do.

I have absolutely nothing to say negative about you or your approach to programming, but that it is a different approach. My approach to programming may not be yours. And that is fine. I am more than comfortable with my approach, as I have learned from some of the best, and continue to.

I appreciate your sentiments and am excited about my future in this industry. I've been very successful in this market and I credit that success with knowledge of the target, the format, the team I am a part of, and the passion I have for radio. I credit South Central for taking advantage of my flexibility and positioning me on their station in a prime day part. I feel confident I have proven myself capable of achieving the goals set out for me. And so, yes, I make many statements that are directly on par with my ratings success. And the encouragement I have received not only from my colleagues and peers, but my mentors and industry leaders as well.

But I do feel you implications about my character and this industry on this board tonight were a stretch...a reach...and in some cases, a leap that no olympic athlete would attempt.

While you have a case for your passion to do local radio...we can discuss consolidation without making the other parties position so personal.

Now, I am more than willing to address your grievance privately. I am available at anytime to do that. And I suggest it be done...because we are bound to interact on this board again...and if we, as two believers in Christ, cannot at least come to a decision to be civil and professional in that interaction...then the discussions will remain defeated.

You obviously may disagree and choose not to. But to suggest I am unwilling and to continue to make these implications is not beneficial...and as of this post...unwarranted.

Thanks.

Elizabeth

 

[lash]

You are a great talent, with a great voice. If I thought I could afford you, you surely would be VTing at our property.

I will apologize again for bringing any thing that you took as a personal attack. You and I have clashed in person once, and now a little here. I will pass on writing an email, because I believe we would continue to clash.

I do invite you to attend the FCC town meeting in Nashville on Monday at 1 pm. Its at the Massey Center at Belmont University. You might change your opinion, after you see and hear from a small minority of the 3 million people who wrote the FCC concerning this issue that we have debated.

Keep up the good work!