Ralph Barbieri's Comments at SFGate

[TheBigA]

But what we have now is a situation where the first wave of guys who filled all those chairs when radio started dumping drama and comedy and network feeds and needed six or seven guys to play records 24/7 are within 5 years of 70 either direction. We've never been here before.

Well....the first of the great DJs was Martin Block, who hosted the Make Believe Ballroom. He retired at age 57, and died at age 64. A lot of DJs didn't get to retirement age because the job seemed to induce so many bad habits. Wolfman Jack died when he was 57. Alan Freed died at age 43. The Big Daddy, Tom Donohue died at age 47. Thom O'Hair died at age 58.

The great Don McNeil transcended the radio drama period and continued his Breakfast Club on ABC until Rick Sklar finally stuck a fork in it in 1968. He retired at age 61, and was considered an old guy at the time. Even Arthur Godfrey quit in 1972 at age 69. He already had been diagnosed with cancer and emphysema.

 

[DavidKaye]

Did I say that? No. Retirement isn't death. I think if you do a serious study of radio on air staff in the 1970s, you'll find very few people over 65. People can't understand why radio is so different from what they remember growing up, and this is part of the reason.

Uh, if you were listening to Top 40 and rock stations, sure, that was the case. But if you were listening to MOR and full-service stations, there were older people working as DJs.

 

[TheBigA]

Uh, if you were listening to Top 40 and rock stations, sure, that was the case. But if you were listening to MOR and full-service stations, there were older people working as DJs.

Older, yes. Over 65, probably not too many. But if you can give me a list, I'll be glad to defer.

 

[DJBigOne]

For some reason, people in radio feel they are entitled to a job for life. There is no such entitlement.

No one is "entitled" to a job. However, a station...like any other employer...must have a reason for termination. Even an "at will" employer cannot fire you without cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

It is more common for radio talent to be under contract. Remember when KLSX, in L.A., was flipped? The contracts of Adam Carolla, Tom Leykis, and others were paid for years. Tom was under contract until recently.

I applaud Ralph for getting representation. Whether or not the station fired him with or without cause will be determined in the legal process.

 

[DavidKaye]

Older, yes. Over 65, probably not too many. But if you can give me a list, I'll be glad to defer.

In that era, Walt Jamond, Jimmy Lyons, Dave Niles, Bud Heide, John K Chapel (news on KABL until he was what, 80 years old?). Those are the folks who come to mind off the top of my head. Most worked at KPO/KNBC/KNBR, KROW/KABL, or KRE. As I understand it, a KYA board op had the nickname "Captain Challenge" because he was very old and the rock DJs had to cue him to start the record a few seconds in advance so that he'd start it on time.

How old was Ken Ackerman? He was working at KQW (KCBS) in 1945, so he must have had a number of years on him by the 1970s.

 

[DJBigOne]

Back in the day, it was called retirement. This idea of working til you die is not the way radio used to be. Back in the 70s, radio was for young people. The DJs were in their 20s and 30s. Now it's all grey hairs. No wonder kids don't listen. So now people want to work until they die, and if they can't, they sue their employer.<<

What we should really do is fire all radio employees that have one grey hair. While your at it, you should fire every radio employee that's bald. See how rediculous this sounds? :

Someone in their 20's has virtually no life experience. I hear good radio, almost every day, from talent in their 60's. Yes, some should retire. Imus comes to mind. Mandatory retirement is rediculous, as long as you're able to do your job.

Today, I went up in a bucket truck, and rewired a 120VAC circuit to a power supply. Many snot knosed kids (yes, I call 20-something's kids) probably couldn't do what I did. Does that mean they should retire? No. They should be doing entry level jobs expected of one who just entered the job market. Unfortunately, my experience with your generation is the majority don't want to work. They want to bring home the money I make, with no effort to gain the knowledge this grey haired, bald, middle-aged man has. THIS is the entitlement generation. Mommy and Daddy handed this generation everything, without making them work for it.

You really have a lot of animosity there BigA. I prescribe A LOT of hard, hard work to help you realize the value of a full day's work.

 

[TheBigA]

You really have a lot of animosity there BigA.

But I'm not saying what you think I'm saying. No where am I suggesting we fire all the grey hairs. You are the one who is on the defensive here.

Unfortunately, my experience with your generation is the majority don't want to work.

Since when do you know how old I am? I think an apology is in order.

 

[DavidKaye]

They want to bring home the money I make, with no effort to gain the knowledge this grey haired, bald, middle-aged man has. THIS is the entitlement generation. Mommy and Daddy handed this generation everything, without making them work for it.

You really have a lot of animosity there BigA. I prescribe A LOT of hard, hard work to help you realize the value of a full day's work.

You also seem to have a lot of animosity. To brand an entire generation or two as the "entitlement generation" just shows that you don't personally know a lot of people in those age groups. Most of the people I associate with are in their 20s and 30s, not because I'm ageist, but because it happens that I share a lot of interests with them and not with people of my generation who for the most part have settled down in some suburb, raised kids, and their idea of doing something is cutting the front lawn or going shopping.

Well, I can tell you that there are a *lot* of younger people who indeed work (and work hard) for a living and don't expect everything to be handed to them. They suffer even worse in the employment area than we did. We could find jobs fairly easily just by walking into stores or radio stations or what have you.

It's not like that today. I know many software developers (the equivalent of yesterday's DJs) who have lost jobs and have had to scramble to get new ones -- and this is in software, one of the few remaining industries where people can earn a living wage. One friend who worked on embedded systems at Agilent hasn't had a tech job in over a year. He works at a coffeehouse at the moment. Every job he applies for has not dozens, but HUNDREDS of applicants.

I've known many people who came out here from other cities because the employment situation is even worse where they came from. The internet advertising model has ruined newspapers, radio, TV, magazines, and every other advertising-dependent business there is. I know a former reporter for KMOX in St Louis who came out here, couldn't get a radio or TV job, and today is a sign painter. He's under 30, and even when he was at KMOX his pay wasn't all that great, either.

 

[michael hagerty]

For some reason, people in radio feel they are entitled to a job for life. There is no such entitlement.

No one is "entitled" to a job. However, a station...like any other employer...must have a reason for termination. Even an "at will" employer cannot fire you without cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

You need to read that again. "No cause at all" is included in at-will.

 

[JEREMIAH]

A famous lawyer I know says age discriminaton is one very tough thing to prove, but I wish him luck.

Jerry Gordon Jack B. show Salem Radio Network

 

[calguy]

They want to bring home the money I make, with no effort to gain the knowledge this grey haired, bald, middle-aged man has. THIS is the entitlement generation. Mommy and Daddy handed this generation everything, without making them work for it.

You really have a lot of animosity there BigA. I prescribe A LOT of hard, hard work to help you realize the value of a full day's work.

You also seem to have a lot of animosity. To brand an entire generation or two as the "entitlement generation" just shows that you don't personally know a lot of people in those age groups. Most of the people I associate with are in their 20s and 30s, not because I'm ageist, but because it happens that I share a lot of interests with them and not with people of my generation who for the most part have settled down in some suburb, raised kids, and their idea of doing something is cutting the front lawn or going shopping.

Well, I can tell you that there are a *lot* of younger people who indeed work (and work hard) for a living and don't expect everything to be handed to them. They suffer even worse in the employment area than we did. We could find jobs fairly easily just by walking into stores or radio stations or what have you.

It's not like that today. I know many software developers (the equivalent of yesterday's DJs) who have lost jobs and have had to scramble to get new ones -- and this is in software, one of the few remaining industries where people can earn a living wage. One friend who worked on embedded systems at Agilent hasn't had a tech job in over a year. He works at a coffeehouse at the moment. Every job he applies for has not dozens, but HUNDREDS of applicants.

I've known many people who came out here from other cities because the employment situation is even worse where they came from. The internet advertising model has ruined newspapers, radio, TV, magazines, and every other advertising-dependent business there is. I know a former reporter for KMOX in St Louis who came out here, couldn't get a radio or TV job, and today is a sign painter. He's under 30, and even when he was at KMOX his pay wasn't all that great, either.

David if you read the entire thread, and quite a few others you'll see a pattern that BigA has of bashing older people. Steven Roy is just reacting to that, as I have for the last several days. BigA has some good points about revenue (although beating that one to death too) but he definitely looks to have it out for anyone not in their 20's. He seems to want anyone older to retire, get a job out of radio or fade away to some classical station on Mars. To most, that would seem to indicate that Mr "A" is a younger chap. I'm guessing not that young. I made my point several times and stupid me, vowed to leave this particular thread alone. But it keeps pulling me back in. Both you and Steve make great points. You can't label an entire generation based on a small sample size. However I started seeing the trend of younger people not wanting to start at the bottom 20 years ago. A large amount of younger people want to start in the largest markets and make top dollar out of high school. Many didn't want college or any preliminary training. Do they all act that way? No, like anything else there are good, bad and a lot of in between, just like older people. I have a son who works his butt off and while he'd like to make better money, he knows that the best way to get it is to work hard, show your talents and keep your nose clean. Any kind of wrongful termination is tough to prove, but it does happen. Most companies that discriminate hide behind some other reason to get it done, but we all know it's mainly to save money. Before anyone demands an apology, take a look at what's been written and see what's been raising hackles. Good luck all.

 

[davideduardo]

...if you read the entire thread, and quite a few others you'll see a pattern that BigA has of bashing older people. Steven Roy is just reacting to that, as I have for the last several days.

I've been a consistent reader of BigA's posts for several years. We don't agree on every point, and have different perspectives on some issues we do agree on, so I am not a blind follower of all things "A."

However, I never got the impression that he was biased against older people. Perhaps he is prejudiced against old, stale ideas and you may be confusing the two.

 

[calguy]

...if you read the entire thread, and quite a few others you'll see a pattern that BigA has of bashing older people. Steven Roy is just reacting to that, as I have for the last several days.

I've been a consistent reader of BigA's posts for several years. We don't agree on every point, and have different perspectives on some issues we do agree on, so I am not a blind follower of all things "A."

However, I never got the impression that he was biased against older people. Perhaps he is prejudiced against old, stale ideas and you may be confusing the two.

Well David, this is from his posts earlier in the thread.

Back in the day, it was called retirement. This idea of working til you die is not the way radio used to be. Back in the 70s, radio was for young people. The DJs were in their 20s and 30s. Now it's all grey hairs. No wonder kids don't listen. So now people want to work until they die, and if they can't, they sue their employer. As I said, it's the entitlement generation. They can't afford to retire? Who's fault is that? Retirement was once not only encouraged, but required. If you do a serious study of radio on air staff in the 1970s, you'll find very few people over 65. People can't understand why radio is so different from what they remember growing up, and this is part of the reason.

I'm not saying that he doesn't know a lot about the business, but he's looking at it through some weird glasses. We all know that not every format was staffed by 20 somethings. Mainly the rockers, but as I asked in response, was KSFO staffed that way? No of course not. The same was true for many formats like News, Beautiful Music and MOR.As I said in an earlier post, people are living longer and making less so they need to work, and who cares how old someone is as long as they're sounding good (not like their 100) and getting the job done at a high level. Why be forced to retire if you don't have to. There comes a time when you can't get hired, then it's time to move on. I'm nowhere near retirement age, but if I had the financial security I would in a New York instant.

I may disagree with you at times, but I still respect you for your knowledge and experience. I'm having a tough time with his views though as they seem discriminatory and I'm not the only one who does...

 

[TheBigA]

You're confusing bias with the truth. What I'm saying may sound politically incorrect or dicriminatory, but that's not the issue. Is it true? Was anything I said in the blue highlighted paragraph incorrect? I gave a list of radio people who worked in the 70s, and all either died or retired before age 65. That would not happen today. I simply asked if anyone has examples of radio on air people who continued to work beyond what was then the retirement age of 65. If that sounds harsh to you, so be it. But if it's a fact, what's wrong? Show me a list of on-air people from the 1970s with their ages. Prove to me that radio staffing then was as old as it is today.

 

[calguy]

Confusing bias for the truth? I can only attest to what I’ve seen with my own eyes. I have no employment records and staffing lists, though the list of talent you already mentioned lends credence to my contention that not everyone was between the ages of 19 & 29. So I can’t give you what you want because you already did it for me. Radio wasn’t just one or two formats and a guy working at KMPC, KNBR or KSFO was usually not a twenty something. MOR, News/Talk and most formats that weren’t rock based were more than likely to be in their 30’s, 40’s or beyond. I can’t tell you why a person might leave radio behind other than the fact that you had to move around a lot and many people tend to put down roots and decide not to play the game anymore. You’re really stuck on the mandatory retirement age rule of yours, but that was then and this is now. I know of no mandatory retirement age at any company I’ve worked for. If there was, I never heard of it. Radio has always been brutal and cutthroat and that hasn’t changed. But the days of it only being for the young as you seem to think are history as well. Like I said before, people are living longer today. They have better medicine, better health & lifestyle and in this economy, many cannot afford to retire. So you see a lot of older people working over a console. As I mentioned earlier to David, I vowed to stop posting on this thread, and while you might read something else into it, I’m done because I can only make my point so many times. You can have the last word if you want, it doesn’t change anything in my mind….

 

[LKellerIII]

Not taking anybody's side here, but I'll note that in the 70s, most of the Bay Area's MOR jocks (Carter B. Smith, Frank Dill, Jim Lange) were in their mid 30s to early 40s - not exactly old men.

Even the notoriously unreliable Don Sherwood was in his early 40s when he flamed-out at KSFO. During his last unsucessful stint at the station in 1975, he was 50, and in declining health.

 

[michael hagerty]

Show me a list of on-air people from the 1970s with their ages. Prove to me that radio staffing then was as old as it is today.

Once again, BigA, that list is nearly impossible to produce, but for a different reason: Because to have been over 65 in the 1970s, you would have had to have been born between 1904 and 1913. And most guys of that generation didn't change careers in their mid-40s to suddenly become DJs when radio stations started playing records and needing six or seven jocks to fill slots in the 1950s. Exception: Dick Whittinghill of KMPC, Los Angeles (born 1913, but forced out in 1979 at age 66...though he did come back two years later at a competitor, KPRZ, and work until age 71...he would have continued, but a format change ended his run).

Those jobs, starting in the middle 1950s, went to guys who were largely born in the mid-1930s (Casey Kasem 1932, Dr. Don Rose 1934, Humble Harve 1935, Gary Owens and Robert W. Morgan 1936, The Real Don Steele 1937). They were 20-somethings then and just in their 40s in the 1970s.

Now we're seeing the youngest of the big-time Top 40 era jocks approaching or hitting what you call "retirement age" (an outdated concept as longevity increases). Charlie Tuna turns 68 today. You wanna call him and tell him he's three years past his sell-by date? Bobby Ocean will be 67 this year. Charlie Van Dyke 65. All talented guys who entertain a lot of people. As long as they can do the job, I have no problem with them being on the air...especially since no one seems to have groomed people capable of doing their jobs as well as they can.

 

[TheBigA]

Once again, BigA, that list is nearly impossible to produce, but for a different reason: Because to have been over 65 in the 1970s, you would have had to have been born between 1904 and 1913.

In my previous post, I gave examples of people who were born in 1903 and were still in radio in the 1960s, but they retired at that age. That's the point. As I said, radio was not a lifetime career unless, like Tom Donohue, you died at age 47. The other change that happened in the 70s was the influx of female DJs, which didn't really exist during the first half of the radio age. Working women and working past 65 are just two sociological changes that have taken place in the last 40 years. But the consistent criticism I hear about radio is how old it sounds, and how young people don't listen. And my point is there's a correlation between the age of the people on the air, and the audience they attract. People want to hear relatable voices, and white men over 65 don't relate to young black or Hispanic women. That's simply a fact, and with the population shifting away from white men, radio NEEDS to adapt to the changing audience. I'm sorry if that offends, but it's simply a sociological fact.

One of the requirements of being in radio is to appeal to a target demo. You move out of that demo, and don't keep up with the lifestyle changes of the demo, then you no longer meet that job requirement. So while your talent may be as good or better than it was 30 years ago, your audience has aged out of the sales demo. That makes your show harder to sell to advertisers, who pay your salary. What do you suggest owners do?

 

[DJBigOne]

>>people are living longer today. They have better medicine, better health & lifestyle and in this economy, many cannot afford to retire. So you see a lot of older people working over a console. As I mentioned earlier to David, I vowed to stop posting on this thread, and while you might read something else into it, I’m done because I can only make my point so many times. You can have the last word if you want, it doesn’t change anything in my mind….

Exactly! Speaking for myself, at 45 I'm in much better shape than in my 20's. I have more energy than ever. Wow! You mean if I exercise daily, and eat smaller portions, I won't weigh nearly 300 pounds?

People are living longer, and healthier. All you have to do is watch MadMen. I can remember when it was O.K. to smoke inside the office. Nasty! The boss also bought us a pitcher of beer at lunch. Those were the days. 8)

Why wouldn't it be the same in radio? Live well, and you should be able to work into your 70's. Sure, you probably won't be climbing towers, but you can click on the mic. If your voice sounds well, and you do a high energy daypart, then go for it.

Disclaimer: I will not apologize to those who do not get my sarcasm. :

 

[michael hagerty]

Once again, BigA, that list is nearly impossible to produce, but for a different reason: Because to have been over 65 in the 1970s, you would have had to have been born between 1904 and 1913.

In my previous post, I gave examples of people who were born in 1903 and were still in radio in the 1960s, but they retired at that age. That's the point. As I said, radio was not a lifetime career unless, like Tom Donohue, you died at age 47. The other change that happened in the 70s was the influx of female DJs, which didn't really exist during the first half of the radio age. Working women and working past 65 are just two sociological changes that have taken place in the last 40 years. But the consistent criticism I hear about radio is how old it sounds, and how young people don't listen. And my point is there's a correlation between the age of the people on the air, and the audience they attract. People want to hear relatable voices, and white men over 65 don't relate to young black or Hispanic women. That's simply a fact, and with the population shifting away from white men, radio NEEDS to adapt to the changing audience. I'm sorry if that offends, but it's simply a sociological fact.

One of the requirements of being in radio is to appeal to a target demo. You move out of that demo, and don't keep up with the lifestyle changes of the demo, then you no longer meet that job requirement. So while your talent may be as good or better than it was 30 years ago, your audience has aged out of the sales demo. That makes your show harder to sell to advertisers, who pay your salary. What do you suggest owners do?

Well, we're all over the map here. Tom Donahue and Wolfman Jack are irrelevant, because they never got to their 60s. We don't know what their career choices would have been as they aged and whether they'd have held audience to the point that station owners considered them valuable past 65.

Martin Block, Arthur Godfrey and Don McNeil were holdovers from old network radio and didn't so much retire as get forced out because they didn't roll with the changes.

Now, as to how old radio sounds and how young people don't listen, there are formats young people aren't going to listen to to begin with. Oldies is one of them. Sportstalk on AM is probably another.
I doubt there's much appeal to KQED and KCBS for a young listener even if you put 24 year olds in every on-air position.

KMEL would appeal to a younger audience, and from the looks of their website, they have an age-appropriate jock staff. Ditto 99.7 Now, Wild 94.9,.....

So just where are all these dinsoaurs chasing the younger listeners away?