PAUL HARVEY.......GOOD DAY.

[BogusBoy]

Maybe nobody cares, 'cause there's not a peep about it on the net. My theory: Paul Harvey is never coming back. Especially after the heartbreaking death of Angel. An announcement to that effect would be devistating to the affiliate count. You could never be certain who would drop the show like a rock, before becoming a solid contracted flagship of whomever the replacement host is. On the other hand, stringing the audience and affiliates out with the promise of his eventual return is a very Citadel thing to do.

Thoughts? Insights?

 

[cm454]

Given that Paul recently turned 145 years old, I would imagine that Citadel is likely just trying to buy themselves more time (and buys). Of course, so much of what Paul does/did is delivery, so attempting to *replace* him is ridiculous.

It's simply the end of the franchise.

 

[DanStrassberg]

Given that Paul recently turned 145 years old, I would imagine that Citadel is likely just trying to buy themselves more time (and buys). Of course, so much of what Paul does/did is delivery, so attempting to *replace* him is ridiculous.

It's simply the end of the franchise.

The delivery absolutely CAN be copied! Remember the late Garner "Ted" Armstrong, whose programs--sponsored, I believe, by the Worldwide Church of God--were heard in the late evenings in the '50s on more than a handful of 50-kW AMs that, together, covered the 48 contiguous states and a lot of Canada? Garner Ted had the knack of sounding even more like Paul Harvey than did Paul Harvey himself (voice AND delivery). And he drew a very large audience that pulled in huge amounts of money for the Church. There may be nobody out there who can do as good a Paul Harvey imitation as Garner Ted could, but someone half as good would be plenty good enough!

 

[Holland Cooke]

"Who can it be now?"

"Most-acceptable" segue would be to Paul Harvey, Jr.
Listeners and advertisers would likely digest that transition easiest.
Junior sure can do the act.
When he keynoted Al Peterson's conference in Scottsdale the vocal resemblance was uncanny.
He already writes "The Rest of The Story."
Jr. is a renaissance guy, who writes plays and does other creative stuff; and seems not-to-want his dad's schedule.

Fill-in Ron Chapman seems-to-be-trying-to CHANNEL Harvey.
Gifted guy who has everything PH Jr. has, except the name.

Network suits like "names," because they can pitch 'em to advertisers.
But, respectfully, the Fred Thompson attempt didn't click.
He sounded older than Harvey!

My personal favorite Paul Harvey fill-in: UBER-talented Gil Gross.

HC
www.HollandCooke.com

 

[WTUX]

I became a Gil Gross fan when he was doing an evening talk show on the CBS network back in the early 90's. Good issue/idea talk without the strong political point of view. That show did not last too many years and he went to WWDB-FM in Philadelphia as co-anchor of their ill-fated morning news block.

I only hear him now on short news bits on KYW. It would be good to hear him again with a regular network show/feature. He would make a good Paul Harvey replacement.

 

[cm454]

Wow. You guys really don't get it. I am especially surprised at Holland Cooke on this one.

Paul Harvey is a one-of-a-kind and has been around for far too long. He WILL NOT be replaced in the minds of his audience. Gil Gross and Paul Harvey Jr. sound NOTHING like Paul Sr. and I actually find it to be OFFENSIVE when these guys come on and try to do a Paul Sr. impression! Don't kid yourself, that IS the way the audience percevies these fill-ins: they TOLERATE them.

The mere fact that Paul Jr. writes the "rest of the story" is meaningless. It is about Paul Sr. and Paul Sr.'s delivery, PERIOD. Immitations will sound hollow and insultingly stupid. Anyone other than Paul Sr. reading that materail is an entirely different product---one without any history or place in anyone's heart or memory. Good luck with that.

I'm sure you'll try and innumerate dozens of *identical* situations where someone was successfully replaced. Uh huh. Don't bother. Sometimes radio people are WAAAAAAY TOO CLOSE to the situation to see(hear) clearly. This is one of those moments.

You can try to rationalize your premise all you want. The franchise retires with Paul Sr. You'll see the affiliates drop like flies.

 

[radio dx]

I guess were lucky we have Gil Gross weekdays on KGO radio in the afternoons from 2-4 pm in the San Francisco bay area.

 

[greenie]

Some small market station pay a small monthly fee for Harvey ($150 or so), imagine how they are feeling?! :-\

 

[jmobooku]

Let Paul "die" on-air...that is. He is part of "yesterday." He had his day...and is time to hang up his argyle socks. I always had a problem with people who laughed at their own jokes or thought that what they said deserved a "laugh"....again on their part. Goodbye Paul! I had to endure 15 minutes of your 1920's humor for 10 years...and won't miss you. But I wish you the best in your FINAL years!

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

One earlier comment brought up the name of Garner Ted Armstrong.... My ear never made the connection of GTA and PH sounding that much alike... but Armstrong did have a recognizable, unique delivery. When the father/son team had their falling out, re-creating another personal with the charm, the following of GTA became a problem.

Segue from that to any major church pulpit in the country today occupied by a bigger than life pastor/personality who stays put for 20 years or longer. We weren't replacing a 20 year tenure in my case, but I just served on a committee that had to go and find a replacement for a very talented and unique pastor. Did we go looking for a clone? Did we we go looking for someone who did NOT have any of the few annoying traits of the incumbent? We spent three months or more asking ourselves these kinds of question before we even invited applications and recommendations.

What has that part of the broadcast industry that is connected to the Paul Harvey "machine done to set audience expectations for the future? What has been done assure there would be a market for a Harvey replacement by nurturing comparable broadcasts by other one-of-a-kind commentators so the audience could begin to realize this is not just about Paul Harvey.... this IS A GENRE of broadcast that you like.

As others had posted here, it may be a DEAD genre of broadcast.

 

[b344077]

Garner Ted Armstrong and "The World Tomorrow". He still had to tape the pay envelope on the back of each tape. No tickee no washee.

I wonder if Rush must do that.

 

[YEKIMI]

I believe Paul has died and they are working feverishly to clone and and force grow his replacement.

 

[tothedj]

I work for a "Paul Harvey" affiliate and have been enjoying Ron Chapman(who
is also a "Radio Consultant") doing his program, and if it turns out that Mr.
Harvey does not return and decides to retire, i think he should come back for
one final broadcast, which i know will get a lot of media attention.

 

[BlueHen]

Fill-in Ron Chapman seems-to-be-trying-to CHANNEL Harvey.

I noticed that, too. I also think Doug Limerick did a nice job.

I just served on a committee that had to go and find a replacement for a very talented and unique pastor. Did we go looking for a clone? Did we we go looking for someone who did NOT have any of the few annoying traits of the incumbent? We spent three months or more asking ourselves these kinds of question before we even invited applications and recommendations.

What was the result?

 

[jh]

What has that part of the broadcast industry that is connected to the Paul Harvey "machine done to set audience expectations for the future? What has been done assure there would be a market for a Harvey replacement by nurturing comparable broadcasts by other one-of-a-kind commentators so the audience could begin to realize this is not just about Paul Harvey.... this IS A GENRE of broadcast that you like.

As others had posted here, it may be a DEAD genre of broadcast.

A few years ago, Mort Crim was syndicating a 5-minute "news and comment" morning program somewhat in the same vein as Paul Harvey. I don't know if it's still around or not.

Once Paul says his final "good day" I expect ABC will have some type of 5-minute commentary program in the morning, and maybe 5-minutes at noon (I think it's unlikely the 15-minute will continue) but they won't be able to duplicate the style. I wouldn't be surprised if some other networks (CBS, CNN, Fox) might also attempt some type of morning commentary.

But nothing will be as successful as Paul Harvey, and ABC will see a drop in affiliates. Our company has said any of their stations with Paul Harvey will switch to Fox when he's gone. And I think they've pretty much dropped non-Paul Harvey ABC affiliations.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I just served on a committee that had to go and find a replacement for a very talented and unique pastor. Did we go looking for a clone? Did we we go looking for someone who did NOT have any of the few annoying traits of the incumbent? We spent three months or more asking ourselves these kinds of question before we even invited applications and recommendations.

What was the result?

It took us 13 months. (We beat the average search time a bit.) We plowed through 110 applicants and referrals. Three from Europe.

The primary topic is who/what does it take to replace Paul Harvey. Our previous pulpiteer was male, the new one is male. The previous earned his doctorate about a year before leaving. The new one earned his doctorate about the same time. The previous was 40, 41 years old, the new one is 42. Each has a charming wife. Neither is a shouter.

That's all that matches. I have had people come to me and say: "Oh, Thank you. It is great that you found someone who is different than what we had." Then someone else will say: "Oh, Thank you. He is so much like the one we used to have... I love him already." Whatever. So the question is: How long will it be before someone says to me... This guy is not so hot after all! One year? ten years? twenty years?

I assume there are Paul Harvey fans who are in love with Paul Harvey and a replacement must be the nearest thing to a clone that can be produced. I assume there are listeners who like the idea of a 15-minute commentary and news format who will accept a wide range of possible replacements.

Going back to the preacher thing: It is accepted in the church world that if you follow behind someone who was in place 35 years or longer, chances are you won't last long in the job. It is almost impossible to be good enough to soothe the disappointment felt by the loyal followers. But exceptions do occur. I am taking no wagers on the future of the Paul Harvey "Franchise".

 

[Bob_Hudson]

I started my radio career at a station that ran Paul Harvey - 30 years later I retired from radio and 10 years after that Paul Harvey was STILL on the air! The guy is 89, so if he does not come back it's understandable.

I worked in one market where the station that had Paul Harvey got 55 percent of the audience when they ran Harvey's show at noon.

I recall the chaos Harvey caused when he criticized then President Richard Nixon.

A 1998 American Journalism Review profile of Harvey included the stereotyped characterization "Dismissed decades ago as a clichéd relic of Richard Nixon's Silent Majority..." but as the New York Times noted in a 1988 profile of Harvey "In the late 1960's (it was actually 1970), he came out against the war in Vietnam with a broadcast that began, ''Mr. President, I love you, but you're wrong.'' The broadcast brought him 25,000 letters the first day."

Man, my GM had a fit and we had to write and produce something to counter that for all of our audience and advertisers who thought Harvey's mind had been possessed by the Commie bedwetters. All I remember is that our rebuttal began with, "Mr. Harvey, we love you, but you're wrong."

 

[congsec51]

Wow. You guys really don't get it. I am especially surprised at Holland Cooke on this one.

Paul Harvey is a one-of-a-kind and has been around for far too long. He WILL NOT be replaced in the minds of his audience. Gil Gross and Paul Harvey Jr. sound NOTHING like Paul Sr. and I actually find it to be OFFENSIVE when these guys come on and try to do a Paul Sr. impression! Don't kid yourself, that IS the way the audience percevies these fill-ins: they TOLERATE them.

The mere fact that Paul Jr. writes the "rest of the story" is meaningless. It is about Paul Sr. and Paul Sr.'s delivery, PERIOD. Immitations will sound hollow and insultingly stupid. Anyone other than Paul Sr. reading that materail is an entirely different product---one without any history or place in anyone's heart or memory. Good luck with that.

I'm sure you'll try and innumerate dozens of *identical* situations where someone was successfully replaced. Uh huh. Don't bother. Sometimes radio people are WAAAAAAY TOO CLOSE to the situation to see(hear) clearly. This is one of those moments.

You can try to rationalize your premise all you want. The franchise retires with Paul Sr. You'll see the affiliates drop like flies.

This is spot on. NONE of the fills for Harvey can even come close. He is a unique act. It would be like trying to make another Pirates of the Carribean movie with someone other than Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow.

It ain't gonna work. Shows over.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Yes, but there will be movies. There will be pirate movies. There will be movies that are bigger than Pirates of the Caribbean.

I used to work for a man who had a standard answer for employees who felt important enough to threaten to leave if they did not get what they were wanting... demanding. "Put your fist in a bucket of water. Yank it out quickly and see how long the hole remains in the water."

There will probably be a hole in the water when Paul Harvey removes his fist. It won't fill in very fast because radio has not made room for other commentators of news. His genre is not welcome. He was allowed to stay because he sold too many tickets to run him off the stage.

Some might say "the bigger movie" is Limbaugh. Harvey did 15 minutes a day... Limbaugh does 3 hours. But they are not the same genre. Harvey saw himself as "your news boy" (as in delivering the newspaper). I am having trouble coming up with a metaphor for Limbaugh....... "Your daily enema"?

 

[del_griffith]

I don't see Limbaugh as "your daily enema". However, I seldom listen any more. For two reasons. One is I'm busier that I used to be working. His tent revival preacher cadence gets on my nerves if I'm trying to concentrate. (I noticed that one day as I entered our office building and could hear someone playing a radio. The sound was coming from the workout room in the basement. It sounded like someone was listening to a tape or radio program of an old time gospel preacher. I could hear the cadence, the emphasis on certain words and the crescendo as the speaker talked on, but couldn't make out the voice other than it deep or the words that were being spoken. So I went to see who was listening to such a program. When I opened the door to the workout room, I noticed it was one of our sales guys listening to Rush.)

Second, he's still talking about the same stuff he's talked about for 20 years basically. So I understand his point of view and the rant that goes with it. For me, it's no longer must listen to radio. And this is from a guy who used to go to great lengths to listen to his show before he was cleared in my market.

But for many stations, yes, when Rush or Paul Harvey remove their fist from the bucket of water, it will be a long time before the water returns and fills the hole. These are unique guys who simply will be very difficult if not impossible to replace. Sean is plug and play. Laura Ingram is plug and play, Savage is plug and play. Limbaugh and Harvey are two guys who are unique and not simply talk radio commodities.