Is WRKO Already Abandoning Bernie?

[bjohns]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/05/19/wrko_clarifies_mcguirk_bid/

Hey, Jason! What happened to:

"This is show business -- it's about personality and it's about entertainment and there's no question in my mind, Bernard has an incredible personality. He's entertaining, very witty."

That's what you said a few days ago. But today it's:

"There is no job offer, just a chance to be a guest host, period," said George Regan, spokesman for Entercom Communications, parent company of WRKO. "They're looking at (Bernard McGuirk) as a potential cohost, but they're looking at a lot of people."

Could it be that the people who run WRKO are so dumb they didn't realize how much backlash they would get putting Imus's sidekick on the air? Don't they read the newspapers? Haven't they seen the shock jocks dropping like flies around the country? WRKO managed to take a very bad radio show and turn it into even worse publicity. That takes talent.

This should be a big opportunity for WTKK, but instead they've somehow found the one morning show in America that is ever worse than Finneran! At least WRKO can say they didn't know how Finneran would do in the ratings when they hired him. WTKK has years of ratings experience with Barnicle, all of it bad.

What are the odds that the two worst morning talk shows in America would both be in the same town?

 

[raccoonradio]

Spin control--oh this isn't a tryout after all just a guest appearances. Some sponsors
complained.

 

[lovetalk1]

why isn't this brilliant?

They bring a guy in for a tryout and get front page stories and days of follow-up. Everyone tunes in and gives Finneran a new listen, and in a week Bernard is gone and forgotten.

 

[Casablanca]

What do you expect coming from the mouth of George Regan. What color is his hair this week? He defines the word Sleaze!

 

[TowerBuzz]

I would have to agree Regan is about as "Sleazy" as it gets, even for a PR person. It also speaks volumes about Entercom Boston that they are still using that guy to represent their point of view to the world when he is far from sympathetic or even a very effective communicator. The point being they did sell him out pretty fast in terms of clarifying his being on air just as a "guest spot", like that makes it any less offensive to those who might find his presence offensive?. Spin doctors essentially get paid to try to split hairs a lot of the time, good one George, top notch wordsmithing!.

:

 

[Varulven]

Whether he is hired or is just a "guest host" they are still lowering the bar.

What do THE RED SOX have to say about all this? They are strangely silent.

 

[TowerBuzz]

Whether he is hired or is just a "guest host" they are still lowering the bar.

What do THE RED SOX have to say about all this? They are strangely silent.

I agree Joe I don't think it is the worst thing they could have done but it does speak volumes about their desire for attention/press be it good or bad. As for the Red Sox being strangely silent, they dont really have much say in what else goes on on the station so I would not expect a howling outcry from them even if their front office is aware of Bernie's "appearance on the station.

You said in an earlier post that RKO does not need Bernie as a stunt or whatever because they have the red sox etc. Remember Baseball is mostly a summer sport unless it's spring training that does not factor into the season, or unless they go to October and again it's the red sox so you can't usually plan on their season extending into that far into the fall... . Point being that the red sox upping the ratings during the summer does not do much for the most important books rko faces for the summer is not really one of them for ANY station.

 

[Varulven]

WBOS is perhaps the best example of a station with very poor ratings billing big. WBCN, to no one's surprise, still bills big despite WBOS/WFNX style ratings.

The Red Sox revenues will be much higher, in my opinion, than what the Patriots bring to BCN, just by virtue of there being more games - almost 200 vs. less than 20 if you count the playoffs in both sports. If you MAKE the playoffs in both sports. Where the ante gets upped.

The Red Sox certainly have a say in what is said on the station that has their broadcasts.

Do you think The Red Sox would want to be associated with the Finneran/O.J. Simpson show? Of course not.
There must be a moral turpitude clause in their somewhere. Which makes having Mike Savage on the station all the more chilling and suspect. Savage is probably the worst. At least Opie & Anthony are juveniles so when they make their comments we know they are looking for attention. True could be said of Savage, but he is far more intelligent and thus, far more irresponsible when he makes a hateful comment to push the hot button.

Here's a quote for you:

"The only people free from Censorship are those who can afford it" Joe Vig, 3:26 PM 5/20/07

 

[TSBench]

What do THE RED SOX have to say about all this? They are strangely silent.

Why is it 'strange' that the Red Sox are silent concerning a situation which has nothing to do with them? The are a baseball team, not the keepers of the public decorum.

WBOS is perhaps the best example of a station with very poor ratings billing big. WBCN, to no one's surprise, still bills big despite WBOS/WFNX style ratings

WBOS is a demo sell, rather than a straight number sell. You pay more for attractive demos.

18 mil looks like a lot, unless you're used to looking at numbers in the upper 20s. Stern going away cost WBCN about 1/3 of their billing, and there doesn't appear to be any way to get that back, regardless of what they do. The power of Stern to generate cash is pretty tough to overstate. Since financial performance is judged on baseline revenue, rather than starting with dollar one, CBS has to be real unhappy with WBCN, with who's billing they are probably less than impressed.

The Red Sox revenues will be much higher, in my opinion, than what the Patriots bring to BCN, just by virtue of there being more games - almost 200 vs. less than 20 if you count the playoffs in both sports. If you MAKE the playoffs in both sports. Where the ante gets upped.

You used to be a homicide detective, perchance? Red Sox revenue has always been higher than Pats revenue, which is why Sox rights, even when they were losing, are a lot more attractive than Patriots' rights, even when they are winning. Baseball is also a more radio friendly game than football, in fact, baseball almost seems to have been invented for radio.

The Red Sox certainly have a say in what is said on the station that has their broadcasts.

Why? The extent of the Red Sox contract covers play by play, promotion, and sales, not non-Red Sox related programming. The Sox aren't doing Entercom a favor, Entercom is writing them very large checks.

Do you think The Red Sox would want to be associated with the Finneran/O.J. Simpson show? Of course not.

I don't think that WRKO would want to be associated with the Finneran/O.J. Simpson program either, so what is the point here? That being snide and risque is the same as cutting peoples throats? If that was the case, Stern would be doing AMD at Sing Sing rather than on Sirius.

There must be a moral turpitude clause in their somewhere.

Why? Moral turpitude clauses are a feature of personal services contracts, not carriage agreements. It would be impossible to apply to an entire station, and really impossible to apply to an entire network. The Red Sox have right of final approval of the play-by-play team, but that's pretty standard in the industry (nobody wants someone openly hostile to the team screwing up their marketing efforts) and I'm sure there are morals clauses in the contracts of Orsillo, Remy, Castig, Geffner, and O'Brien, but that's about as far as it goes

Which makes having Mike Savage on the station all the more chilling and suspect.

More chilling and suspect of what? I think Savage is the biggest jerk on the radio, but as long as stations think he's commercially viable, I don't have a problem with him being on the air. There are probably a lot of folks in the Sox front office that don't like Savage, but since they have no say on who's on the radio outside of the games, they don't have to take a position one way or the other, so why should they get publicly involved ?

Savage is probably the worst. At least Opie & Anthony are juveniles so when they make their comments we know they are looking for attention. True could be said of Savage, but he is far more intelligent and thus, far more irresponsible when he makes a hateful comment to push the hot button.

Now this is an interesting theory. You can judge the offensiveness quotient of a radio program by reading the minds of the commentators? Ok. Rather than a censor, what we really need is the radio equivalent of an official scorer who is also a psychic. Maybe we can come up with a new regulation which states that so long as you start off each show with the statement "I'm only kidding" that you're automatically exempt from the slander laws.

Here's a quote for you:

"The only people free from Censorship are those who can afford it" Joe Vig, 3:26 PM 5/20/07

Never heard it, but it probably came from somebody real famous.

Here's another...freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses.

Regards,
Anonymous

 

[NHRadio]

Why? That's like Paul Harvey or Rush having a say about other programming on their affiliates. The Sox have no ownership interest in RKO,right?

The Red Sox certainly have a say in what is said on the station that has their broadcasts.


"The only people free from Censorship are those who can afford it" Joe Vig, 3:26 PM 5/20/07
[/quote]

Got to admit, I like that quote-regardless of who said it.