L.A. Times vs. Radio

[ricoontheradio]

Agencies want more and more accountability, right down to posting...

Is posting becoming more relevant/used? I know TV has used it for years, but just recently (last few years) started hearing more about it in radio.

 

[Bob_Hudson]

Dave you have such a sensitive hot button - but it's fun - and ever so easy - to push. I don't know what you are referring to with "no you didn't" but it sounds like more of the condescending BS you throw out in your continuing effort to make radio sound like a much more noble and well-run business than it ever has been.

Yes, radio was and in some cases still is a lot of fun, and a few people made piles of money, but let's face it, it has had more than its fair share of snakeoil salesmen in the front office and sales cubicles (and a whole lot of hippy dippy DJ's in the studio) and the sad thing is that WKRP probably captures more of the reality of the business than do all of the reams of statistics you love to trot out. What the LA Times did is no worse than what legion of sales people from all media have done in going into businesses (most of whom have no agencies) and overwhelmed them with slices of confusing numbers from audience surveys, readership reports and all other manner of alleged facts carefully skewed to make even the stinkers smell good. People pay ARBITRON big bucks because it has been the only game in town for radio and it provides so many pages of numbers that anyone with half a brain can pull out something to make them look good (I should have saved some of the really neat colorful charts I've produced for sales departments desperately seeking numbers - statistical manipulation is fun and something that did come in handy too in my years in poliitics). Some 30+ years ago when I was just starting out in radio I read the book "Down the Tube, or making television commercials is such a dog-eat-dog business it's no wonder they're called spots" and that title neatly summed up a lot of what I observed going into the selling of advertising, even after some dubious practices in making TV ads, at least, had been cleaned up.

A "broadcaster", by the way, is someone who has never actually "broadcast."

Many who did broadcast and who had the necessary skills moved into programming and sales and management; many who didn't simply liked what they were doing, but still others had no other abilities.

I spent many years in high-level politics and got to meet the heads of broadcasters associations and many other such business groups that mainly existed to do luncheons and give each other awards.

No they don't and no you didn't. Associations exist primarily to protect and promote the interests of stations. Take the FAB's two-time achievement of killing an ad sales tax in Florida as an example.... or the NYMRAD Radio Fair in NY which promotes radio to some of the world's largest agencies... or the radio fair right here in LA! The idea of associations is basically to promote the use of radio and to insure that local, state and national legislation that afffects broadcasters is reviewd and commented on and even lobbied against.

They were - and are - mostly run by congenial babes (or former babes) who function as social directors. Of course, if you surround them with a large sampling of GM's and salespeople they do often look positively brilliant

That's a demeaning, sexist remark. Using the term "babe" in a professional context tags you as a rube and a guttersnipe.

Dave Eddie: what would the folks who've ruined this business do without you as their stats-loaded defender?

The larger markets are dependent on transactional business, for which a metric is required. Otherwise, why would stations pay about $400 million a year to Arbitron for ratings unless they could be used to create sales? Agencies want more and more accountability, right down to posting... we can not live in your fantasy world today.