WABC dropping "Coast to Coast AM" for infomercials

[RoscoeBrowning]

Mr. Boyce,

I think Kyle has extended the invitation, but if he hasn't, you are more than welcome to join us on our program if you would like your opportunity to set the record straight. Since we had John Rook on, it's only fair to offer you equal time. Please contact us if you're interested. Thanks.

 

[Phil Boyce]

D to the J asks:

With that said, would you be willing to confirm if that four-hour block of infos on Saturday mornings makes WABC more money than a Jets game on Sunday afternoon? I am not sure if WABC gets any advertising revenues out of the carriage of Jets games, though it is my understanding that the games are on WABC due to the limited signal of WEPN.

I can't reveal the rights fee for a Jets game, but you are correct about why WABC is desired to carry those games. But to answer your question, yes that four hour block of infomercials makes more money for WABC than a Jets game.

Also, could you be able to confirm if one Seton Hall basketball or one Army college football broadcast makes more money for WABC than one infomercial.

If you mean one 30 minute infomercial, yes. Either one of those teams pays more money to WABC for their 2-3 hour broadcast than we get in one infomericial of 30 minutes. And to be honest, the reason we air these teams is because of the money, not because of the ratings they will bring.

pb

 

[RoscoeBrowning]

The Radio Racket interview with John Rook is scheduled be to repeated at the following times (Eastern) both Saturday and Sunday:

8am, 12pm, 4pm, 8pm, 12am.

Those times are incorrect. The show ran an extra hour, so it's on a five hour loop.

The interview with John Rook can be heard at the following times:

Sunday 9pm, Monday 2am, 7am, 12pm, etc.

The interview with Jackson Armstrong can be heard:

Sunday 7pm (right now!), Monday 12am, 5am, 10am, etc.

 

[oaktree]

Phil -

I do thank you for your time and your comments, as well as your availability -- when talking "business."

I hope that the technical issues are resolved, in fact, because on Friday -- the Imus issues were not and your name has been mentioned several times on air about "fixing things." I'll listen tomorrow for what I would think will be a perfect show.

I had forgotten to mention that you carry, by delay, Laura Ingraham from TRN. A talent, to be sure ... but 16 hours late is old news.

Finally, as one who knew him, I have to ask, "Would Rick Sklar do this?"

I see you are now under attack on the San Fran. board regarding Bernie Ward, now, so, let's allow this dog to die in peace.

Get the stock up, please. Baby needs new shoes...

Regards and, again, thanks for your time.

 

[Phil Boyce]

Finally, as one who knew him, I have to ask, "Would Rick Sklar do this?"

By doing this I assume you mean come to a message board, refute obvious lies about my station...and my company, and play wack a mole with a few losers using fake names who want to play pile on just because it fits their agenda (that WABC and Citadel are bad).

Rick Sklar did not live in the internet era, where blogs and message boards can pollute public opinion. You earlier said I had offended "some who merely want to touch your ring or otherwise kiss your a** because you are the great Phil Boyce." That is not what it looked like to me. I wacked posters here who wanted to distort the truth, perpetuate a lie, and embarrass WABC with something that was a complete fabrication. How can I possibly worry about offending people who are attacking my station using fake names? They are not real people, they are screen names. They can't be offended. Nobody knows who they are.

By the way, for those of you who did come to the defense of WABC, a sincere thanks.

I don't know what Rick Sklar would have done, nor does anybody else. I have no regrets for attempting to correct the record and defend my station and my company.

pb

 

[pdwips]

I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would condemn a PD from coming here and defending his station. The only reason NOT to would be the fact that it usually results in such an unending stream of nonsense (as witnessed here) propogated by the usual suspects as to make it a no-win situation. If he's willing to suffer those slings and arrows, I can't call Mr. Boyce's posting anything less than courageous.

Much as some here would like to side-track the discussion, he's kept to the issue: A blatant falsehood begat a lie which was posted here with a misleading headline. Left unchallenged, these are the kinds of things that become, in the public eye, "truth." Why would Mr. Boyce not refute it?

Just my two cents, and I'm expecting change...

 

[pdwips]

BY the way, The daily News' David Hinckley has this in his "Radio Dial" column this (12/24) morning:

"...WABC REPORTEDLY is adding a few infomercials, which are good earners, in the Saturday-to-Sunday overnight shift.."

Caps are mine.

I hope this isn't an outgrowth of the Rook falsehood...

 

[Boss Radio]

Hey Phil, if the information is incorrect, why not make a post that says, "I can assure you that information is not correct" and move on? Why prolong the thread and get involved in insulting people?

You've embarrassed yourself with the approach you've taken.

 

[Phil Boyce]

Boss Radio thinks:

You've embarrassed yourself with the approach you've taken.

Sorry I just do not embarrass that easily. Thanks for the support from PDwips. And yes, I do believe that the item from Hinkley is a direct result of the rumor Rook started.

And Boss...I used to do as you suggested. But when I gave a short one sentence response the morons here would ignore me and just go on. I have found that the only effective technique in stifling this kind of crap is to take them on and play smack down. Maybe not your cup of tea. I agree that you need a strong stomach to read some of this, but I happen to have one.

I have never had a problem with anybody giving negative opinions about what I do, my station, or my company. I ignore those posts. I have a problem with people who lie and make things up. I can't ignore that because it can easily become seen as truth and get picked up in the mainstream press (as you see already happened here).

pb

 

[Phil Boyce]

One more thing from Boss:

Why prolong the thread and get involved in insulting people?

I prolonged the thread because people came here and actually defended the guy who made all this stuff up and started this nasty rumor. I did not insult "people." I insulted screen names. If they want to use a fake name, that's fine, but they say things because of their anonymity they would never say to my face. So how can I insult them? They are not real.

One person here claims he actually knows me and has spoken to me at several conventions and said I was a nice guy. Then he comes here using a fake name, defends the guy who started this rumor, and tries to insult me because I accepted infomercials....all using his fake name. There is a certain level of hypocrisy there that nauseates me. Keep in mind this entire thread (including the headline) was an attempt to embarrass WABC and my company with a complete fabrication.

pb

 

[bub]

D to the J asks:

With that said, would you be willing to confirm if that four-hour block of infos on Saturday mornings makes WABC more money than a Jets game on Sunday afternoon?

... yes that four hour block of infomercials makes more money for WABC than a Jets game.

Also, could you be able to confirm if one Seton Hall basketball or one Army college football broadcast makes more money for WABC than one infomercial.

If you mean one 30 minute infomercial, yes. Either one of those teams pays more money to WABC for their 2-3 hour broadcast than we get in one infomericial of 30 minutes. And to be honest, the reason we air these teams is because of the money, not because of the ratings they will bring.

Thanks for answering my question. I understand sports is more of a "business" to many involved, and with that in mind, it is good to have somewhat of an idea of how many infos are equivalent to a Jets game.

Especially when the Jets are 3-12.

 

[Jnavin]

Rick Sklar would have had just 17 infomercials in a tight 75 minute rotation with news at :55, first, fast, five minutes sooner.

 

[DToTheJ]

D to the J asks:

With that said, would you be willing to confirm if that four-hour block of infos on Saturday mornings makes WABC more money than a Jets game on Sunday afternoon?

... yes that four hour block of infomercials makes more money for WABC than a Jets game.

Also, could you be able to confirm if one Seton Hall basketball or one Army college football broadcast makes more money for WABC than one infomercial.

If you mean one 30 minute infomercial, yes. Either one of those teams pays more money to WABC for their 2-3 hour broadcast than we get in one infomericial of 30 minutes. And to be honest, the reason we air these teams is because of the money, not because of the ratings they will bring.

Thanks for answering my question. I understand sports is more of a "business" to many involved, and with that in mind, it is good to have somewhat of an idea of how many infos are equivalent to a Jets game.

 

[bub]

Rick Sklar would have had just 17 infomercials in a tight 75 minute rotation with news at :55, first, fast, five minutes sooner.

We've got you covered...Around the World or around the block!
Now, back to the Calvacade of Kaopectate.

 

[Jnavin]

Rick Sklar had the big signal on the clear channel, but WMCA was the better sounding radio station in 1963 and 1964. If the power and frequency had been an even match-up, I'm not sure Sklar would have lasted at WABC.

 

[Kyle D]

I did not insult "people." I insulted screen names.

That's not entirely true Mr. Boyce. You took a shot at our show by saying we only have 5 listeners.

For the type of show that we do, how could we ignore this story? It's not very often that a PD posts on these forums (using his real name anyway) anymore, let alone the PD of WABC! I did what any Exec. Producer would have done. I tried to contact the people involved in the discusssion. I sent an e-mail less than an hour before showtime to Mr. Rook, who happened to be on-line at the time and available Friday night. So, we had him on to get his side.

I sent a request to you on Saturday morning to come on next week's show and give your side of the story and you have not responded. This issue is hardly the only thing we'd like to talk to you about.

I think you've done the right thing coming here to post on this issue, and I admire you for it. I agree with much of what you've said about the anonymous attacks, but you too have thrown insults around and it's not very becoming. I'm just surprised that you would drop to that level.

Hope to talk to you on this Friday Night's show.

 

[oaktree]

Question:

Mr. Boyce programs a handful of news/talk stations, mostly in a consulting role in his position as VP of News/Talk Programming for ABC/Citadel.

If news/talk radio has for decades been based on "anonymity" of it's callers/listeners ... as a freedom to assure privacy, but to promote free and wide-ranging interchange between guests, host and callers ... why in the world would Phil think it important that people on this and any other message board use their real names to post? Who's business is it? And why would it matter who's who?

Secondly, it's a "freedom of choice" issue. No one is stopping Phil Boyce, or anyone, from using their "real names," stage names, handles, fake names, aliases or "anonymous" on these boards ... for good reason. And what would it do to prevent me or anyone, as they do (and we know who you are,) by posting a "fake" name like "DanMason" or "DanIngram" or whomever?

Phil, what handbook of talk radio do you follow for a station with a sinking 3 share anyway? How come you don't make your listeners identify themselves? I realize that most of your programming is bought and paid for syndication, but what's your problem?

Which poses another question, maybe to be started on another thread so we can end this silliness ... why do you allow "screeners" to pick only certain calls in the first place? I know why ... and it makes some sense, certainly, but the anonymity of people is the key to talk radio ... and message boards.

Maybe if you just "listened" to those who you want to "listen" to you on air or off ... you wouldn't be losing market share as the heritage talk station in the market.

You have radio stations to tend to.

 

[oaktree]

We've got to stop encouraging the New York media this way on a slow news day ...

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...2-24_don_imus_is_off_the_airfor_vacation.html

Well, now the words out. "Colon blow makes news this hour ... on the hour ... a service of ABC News."

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

Rick Sklar had the big signal on the clear channel, but WMCA was the better sounding radio station in 1963 and 1964. If the power and frequency had been an even match-up, I'm not sure Sklar would have lasted at WABC.

Each was a great radio station in its own right, but I concur. Had WMCA been on something like 660 with 50kW clear... oh what a brawl that might have been and the course of radio history in NY might be completely different.

Of course, if "ifs and buts was candy and nuts, it'd be Christmas every day."

 

[Phil Boyce]

I didn't mean to insult anybody by saying that the internet interview had only 5 listeners. I was trying to make my point: If this little internet interview is where Rook came clean about his fabrication, nobody was really going to know it. He should have come here and done it in writing where this discussion was going on.

Oaktree wonders:

why in the world would Phil think it important that people on this and any other message board use their real names to post? Who's business is it? And why would it matter who's who?

Because you claim to be a radio professional, but you refuse to reveal where YOU work so I can do the same thing to you that you are attempting to do to me. You are a coward.

My problem is with the radio professionals that come to this message board using a fake name, attacking WABC and me personally when I use my real name. This is unfair, because I am a big target. Oaktree, you have spent a lot of time making fun of WABC here when I have no opportunity to listen to your station and return the favor. This is called back stabbing. You know me and who I am.....but I can't possibly know who you are, or what your true motivation is. The truth is, you have met me personally and found me to be a nice guy. I promise you, you did not say to my face the things you have been saying on this board. And you won't. To me, that is cowardly. But don't run away crying that I have insulted you, because Oaktree is not a real person, remember? I can't insult a screen name.

I work in this profession. I have NEVER come to this message board or ANY OTHER and attacked any other radio station or programmer. Anomymously or otherwise. It would be completely unprofessional to do so. What I have attempted to do here is to defend my radio station against liars with a hidden agenda who delight in embarassing WABC or my company due to their own hidden (or not so hidden) agenda. If you want to criticize the programming of WABC go ahead. But let's have a fair fight. Grow a pair and ID yourself. I am happy to take on that challenge.

You won't do that, and we both know why.

pb