• 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

Lessons learned from Letterman's liason(s)

H

Holland Cooke

Having a company policy in-place is the obvious take-away.

What else can radio glean from David Letterman’s situation?

1. Managing Bad News 101: Get-out-in-front-of the story, as Dave did, fessing-up on his show before his accused blackmailer's attorney could get their-side-of-the-story out.

Tips for handling unfavorable news about your station:

• Act quickly.
The sooner you confront a negative story, the sooner it will be over.
Responding as quickly to negative stories as you do to positive ones enhances your credibility.

• Be honest.
Hiding embarrassing information or lying will do more damage than damage control.
Never stonewall.

• Tell your side of the story.
Use specifics, and detail what corrective action "HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN."
You'll sound responsible and in-control.

• Respond in kind.
If the issue is emotional, don't sound like a cold, unemotional Mr. Spock.
"I HAVE A TEENAGE DAUGHTER MYSELF, AND I KNOW HOW MUCH OUR HOST'S COMMENTS MUST HAVE HURT."

2. There is no “bad publicity.”
After Letterman’s on-air disclosure, his audience jumped 19%.
He had more viewers than some of NBC’s prime time programming.
Equally contrite and comical, he didn’t disappoint.

3. One reason PPM numbers are different than diary numbers: As Letterman’s ratings were soaring, 29% of Americans responding to a Rasmussen poll said they would be less likely to watch his show because of his behavior. Diary numbers are reported listening, what diary- keepers admit having-listened-to. PPM numbers are actual listening.

HC
www.HollandCooke.com
 
Gotta differ with your second point there HC. There is definitely bad publicity.

First, I suspect Letterman's uptick in viewers post-admission were due to natural curiosity. Considering that the majority of his normal viewers are women, and most of the curiosity-seekers would also be women, that is a natural result. Unless more steamy stuff comes out of this story I would expect his numbers to drop back where they were very soon. And, just a personal aside....don't you think Letterman looks like the Grinch? He must have assets which are not displayed on his show.

Secondly, there are still jokes being made about Rob Lowe, Mel Gibson, Lindsay Lohan and Nick Nolte et al. Most of these people have no A-list life any longer due to alcohol consumption and the activities that invariably spring from that lifestyle. Cheating on wives seems to be more popular with the political set these days and has resulted in expulsion from their respective houses (personal and government). You can argue that getting your name in the papers is never a bad thing but there are plenty of people who found out otherwise.
 
Agree that subsequent sordid details would tattoo Letterman...AND keep goosing his ratings.

Many Americans' thumbnail of President Clinton is Monica-related still.

These are NOT good days for already-floundering Conan.
 
Holland Cooke said:
Having a company policy in-place is the obvious take-away.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, there WAS a company policy in place, and according to a company spokesperson, it was not violated.

Also, from what I've read from one of the girls who has come forward, her "relationship" consisted of a few phone calls and a trip to the movies.

I'm starting to think this will turn into some he-said she-said, with no actual proof of anything except the diary and the testimony of a love-sick girl.
 
TheBigA said:
From what I've read, there WAS a company policy in place, and according to a company spokesperson, it was not violated.
Click to expand...

This sounds suspiciously like lawyer-speak.

In virtually every major corporation I've ever worked in, and there were a bunch, the fundamental legal perspective is protection against a subordinate being manipulated by his/her boss (or anyone in the corporate hierarchy having power over said employee).

My guess is that C(BS)' policy does contain this protection and Letterman was in violation of it provided he coerced the subordinate or otherwise profited from the relationship (in other than the obvious ways) or rewarded the subordinate. If it was totally consensual and nothing came out of the relationship it might be difficult for anyone to prove damage and in that respect the policy could be seen as not having been violated.
 
landtuna said:
My guess is that C(BS)' policy does contain this protection and Letterman was in violation of it
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that technically Letterman doesn't work for CBS, but his own company, Worldwide Pants. It's very possible that their policy is not the same as CBS.

"'We have a written policy in our employee manual that covers harassment,' the spokesman said in a statement. 'It is circulated to every employee every year. Dave is not in violation of our policy and no one has ever raised a complaint against him.'"
 
Frankly it was TMI. Put it on Twitter if you want everyone to know that you get around the secretarial pool or other female staffers. The rest of us don't really care. There is enough of that garbage going around in radio and television. Besides it was supposedly all about blackmail. Beyond that I would venture a guess that a lot of households up there are having a bit of a problem now that ol' Dave told the husbands of the women on public television - or at the very least created a great deal of distrust in people's homes, along with disgust among other men who had all the same women. But who else was going to get a cut of that blackmail money? Hmmmm?

Discretion is the better part of valor. Anybody know what that is anymore? Ah, but it's all about Dave.
 
While I respect that Holland is working on a company policy thing, none of what happened had anything to do with us. As for getting out in front of it before the accused had a chance to get his side of the story out, we will eventually find out all of it now. There is a whole lot more than Dave diddled, some guy tried to blackmail him, end of story except it goes to court, he's toast no more to know about. Wanna really look like you're being honest, now that you told the whole country who didn't care? Now that he ran his mouth, let's have all of the story - both sides.

What, was he trying to show that as an entertainer this is how politicians should handle it? That's good - especially for everyone who will try to make a great big mess out of it, and there will always be somebody right around the next corner who keeps it from getting so convoluted that nobody can make heads or tails of it. The guy is a home wrecker - his and how many others? The other side of the story is going to eventually out.
 
Silkie said:
The other side of the story is going to eventually out.
Click to expand...

CORRECT...and, as a consequence, this'll be, to Letterman, what Hugh Grant's "Tonight Show" appearance was to Jay Leno, the never-look-back ratings turning point.
 
landtuna said:
Secondly, there are still jokes being made about Rob Lowe, Mel Gibson, Lindsay Lohan and Nick Nolte et al. Most of these people have no A-list life any longer due to alcohol consumption and the activities that invariably spring from that lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Except maybe for the work-in-progress that is Lohan, I'd dispute that--Nolte's more a Keith Richards will-withstand-anything type, Lowe's actually had a quite productive post-brat-pack/sex-scandal second wind, and it's hard to tell whether it's more alcohol or other issues (esp. socio/religious/political) that have tarnished Gibson's rep...
 
adma said:
Except maybe for the work-in-progress that is Lohan, I'd dispute that--Nolte's more a Keith Richards will-withstand-anything type, Lowe's actually had a quite productive post-brat-pack/sex-scandal second wind, and it's hard to tell whether it's more alcohol or other issues (esp. socio/religious/political) that have tarnished Gibson's rep...
Click to expand...

It was intended to be an illustration only but specifically:

Lohan's "career" will apparently be relegated to 'B' teen-sploitation movies for a very limited time.
Nolte is never heard of except in Leno's joke monologue as the drunk poster child.
Lowe has found a second wind as a cast member of an obscure TV soaper.
Gibson.....granted, he has several demons but, well, have you heard anything of him lately?
 
Holland Cooke said:
Having a company policy in-place is the obvious take-away.

3. One reason PPM numbers are different than diary numbers: As Letterman’s ratings were soaring, 29% of Americans responding to a Rasmussen poll said they would be less likely to watch his show because of his behavior. Diary numbers are reported listening, what diary- keepers admit having-listened-to. PPM numbers are actual listening.
Click to expand...

I'm not clear what this comment has to do with David Letterman's situation. First of all, PPM is not used for rating network TV programming. Nielsen uses a form of set top boxes large, and diary in smaller/medium markets. Did you switch to a radio discussion in the Letterman TV comments? I'm confused..

Chances are Dave sincerely regrets the indiscretions that led up to this incident, especially when he has to face his wife every evening. That being said, its pure speculation on our parts as to what actually happened of which only Dave knows. As someone pointed out here, Worldwide Pants is the production company that produces The Late Show, to which Dave is the boss. If indeed Letterman crossed the legal line, chances are pretty good that complaints of harassment would have been filed back when the indiscretions occurred, but none of that happened. What did happen is some dirt bag tried to extort money from a celebrity, plain and simple. For right or wrong, Dave decided to come out in the public with this arguably personal situation, rather than be shaken-down by some loser, tried in the court of tabloids.
 
RE "not clear what this comment has to do with David Letterman's situation"

Clarification:

TVradioguru said:
Holland Cooke said:
One reason PPM numbers are different than diary numbers:[/b] As Letterman’s ratings were soaring, 29% of Americans responding to a Rasmussen poll said they would be less likely to watch his show because of his behavior. Diary numbers are reported listening, what diary- keepers admit having-listened-to. PPM numbers are actual listening.
Click to expand...
First of all, PPM is not used for rating network TV programming. Nielsen uses a form of set top boxes large, and diary in smaller/medium markets. Did you switch to a radio discussion in the Letterman TV comments? I'm confused.
Click to expand...

Actually PPM will measure TV, and all sorts of other non-radio media...any encoded audio, i.e., "ATTENTION K-MART SHOPPERS." They're now working on using-it-to-measure panelists' exposure to outdoor (somehow...possibly billboards will emit R.F.I.D.).

But that's tangential to the point I was making, about the difference between what-someone-will-say-about his/her media consumption behavior, and what-they-actually-do. In Letterman's case, recent polls of disapprovers-saying-they'll-not-watch-any-more comes as his ratings soar. Meanwhile, results from 15 PPM markets demonstrate how diarykeepers had been "voting" for favorite stations,' often rounding-up recalled listening, and not-reporting other listening. They're the "invisible cume" we always suspected was there.
 
"Chances are Dave sincerely regrets the indiscretions that led up to this incident, especially when he has to face his wife every evening. "

Chances are he's trying to explain the women who were placed up as decoys while his wife suspected something was going on all the while. I can hear it. "I swear, honey, she hits on me nonstop. I never once responded to her advances. She's crazy, honey.".
 
This is much to do about ... well, what "Entertainment Tonight"and "The Insider" keep making of it. It's a travesty. So "The View, "The Early Show," "Today," "Larry King Live," CNN, MSNBC, et al did they obligatory "must see" news as "ET" and "TI" keep, desperately, to keep the embers lit. And the flame has been doused - until Halderman gets his day in court - or his attorney comes up with something credibly (or incredibly,) "worthwhile news."

Dave did the best thing and did it very well and the "drive-by media" is not happy. They wanted more "24 hour news cycle" "revelations" that aren't there, at least for now.

It's gotten beyond "water cooler" talk. It's now, "Gee, what can we do to make Mary & Lara at least appear to be "more manic" over a non-story that's long over.
 
RE "This is much to do about..."

Please at least MAKE ROOM FOR the possibility that people are more intrigued by this latest demonstration of our species' antics than The Democrats Bad Republicans Good Show that we-talk-you-listen Talk Radio has beat to death.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom