Why are there still consultants floating around?

[GregBrady]

Haven't we learned from past mistakes that consultants are a joke? With the economy the way it is, why would there be consultants floating around in any small market station? For the exception of the GM or OM wanting to keep a buddy employed, it makes no sense!

 

[landtuna]

It makes some sense if the station owner is not in the broadcasting business and wants a "hands off" investment (although 'investment' today probably means tax shelter).

Myself, I'd rather hire on a veteran of the biz, assuming they are/were successful in somewhat the direction I wanted to take my property, instead of a hired gun that doesn't have any personal investment in my station aside from his consulting payment (and perhaps his reputation).

 

[JimmyJames]

I find it amusing that some stations are paying for a consultant when they obviously don't need one. I know of one in a three station market, extremely rural, and they pay a consultant every month to do their music nonetheless. And it's not even that well done, in fact, they would do better just following the charts of their own format.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

There are two words, two titles, two descriptions that seem to really stir up the feathers of broadcast people these days. (1) Bean Counter (2) Consultant

Some of these "hombres" have broad authority and discretion to make changes, call the shots. They may be drawing very healthy payments.

Some of these people are simply day-laborers giving the manager and/or the owner some "cover". Blame unpopular actions on the consultant. That makes the conversations with the unhappy employees and community leaders much shorter and maybe just a little bit sweeter.

Many of the complaints I read in these boards are critical of station operators for not using good business technique, not moving into the 21st century like other businesses. If you will look around you the rest of the world is using a lot of consultants.

Maybe the Music Consultant is a dud with bad choices who is over-paid. Then again the music consultant could be someone the manager worked with a number of years ago and the manager likes the music on another station. What would you charge me to make my music always match what you are doing on the other station? For all we know it could be a minimal fee, and since the consultant had to get copies of all the music for the other station, copies are also provided to the station you are talking about.

If we are not flies-on-the-wall or insiders, we don't really know what is going on, do we.

One could make the argument that rather than being the end of consultants, tough financial times might be best served by slimming down the staff more than you would like, and then renting consultants now and then to fill in the weak areas. Isn't that what the the rest of the business world does?

 

[oaktree]

Many consultants ... okay ... "some" consultants really do earn their keep. One of the best known around in New England spends a good amount of time here on R-I, in fact, is very knowledgeable, extremely competitive, well versed ... and successful in consulting some decent talk or news/talk stations.

I speak of Holland Cooke who has certainly "been there - done that" when it comes to guiding his client stations. He is well liked and very well respected, as are a good number of others around the country.

And, yes, there are those who don't live up to promises, collect decent "fees" and end up pounding the bricks after a bad book or two.

But not all consultants are what some here feel are gigantic wastes of time. Some here think, and possibly could be "better" than a consultant. But, then, there are those who have "unrealistic expectations" and are more jealous of the fact that a consultant has run of the station and actually lays out the plan that may be in opposition of what an Ops Mgr, PD, MD or talent feel. Sometimes, there is a huge clash of egos ... because the consultant is "an outsider" and those inside the station "know best."

Many would be wrong.

A consultant often works with sales and promotion as well ... and, yes, often has the ability to "walk away" after an in-market visit or when the computer gets turned off for the day, the airchecks monitored, the markets scanned and tomorrow's job organized.

Some station insiders don't actually have the time to be both consultant and "talent." That's one reason why a consultant is often brought it ... because his /her job is "singular" in an effort to plan the work and to work the plan.

Some talent just hates consultants because .... well, they think they can do the job better and they are often afraid that it's the consultant who will wield the heavy hand if the talent doesn't prove to be as good as the consultant expects ... and reports that back to the GM or owner. Ego's are tough in radio ... no matter the market or size.

An owner or GM may not have come up through the "programming" ranks. In fact, most of them have not. Most management's goal is, and rightfully so, to make enough money to pay that great talent, pay the consultant, other management, internal staff and inspire a sales team to bring in the bucks.

Without that, you can't hire and pay people ... so, a owner brings in an outsider to, at times, "do the dirty work" while the manager works on sales and other relevant needs of the property. Radio is not all about programming, as much as we'd like to think it is.

Without a strong programming plan, hopefully tied together with a staff of good talent and a consultant who can eat and sleep the plan, to make sure it works .... while the other side of the building is bringing in wheel barrows full of money (but maybe not in this economy,) you have no job at that given station. The consultant is also the one who gets to make an impartial look at just what makes a market tick ... and that's valuable to an owner, manager, Ops. Mgr, PD or anyone else who cares to participate.

And, yes ... consultants are brought in to "hand-hold" management's hands. Manager or owner/managers, don't profess to be the brightest bulbs in the programming office. They don't know audience make up. Many don't even know how to read a rating book.

So, a consultant is an "objective" liasion between the staf and upper management. Hand holders ... because the staff over their in programming can't be objective about the job. They have to be subjective ... because that's THEIR job. And manager''s or owner don't want to go through the machinations of inside staff who wants the "big guy" just to spend money. So, he/she brings in "counsel" to help smooth the division between sales and programming, management and staff.

It's that simple.

Now, think about it ... while some complain because it's the "consultant" who has made it bad for radio people ... honestly, if you were that good, and someone came to you and said, "I want you to consult me on nine stations I own in six states ... and here's the price I'll pay you ..." wouldn't you really consider it?

Or would you say, "No way, Jose ... I'm a mid-day programming whiz kid here in Podunk and I don't need to consult anybody, because I don't want the hassle of that staff hating me as much as I hate the consultant I work with ."

Think about it. You'd be out the building so fast to "make your mark" and call the shots as anyone.

That's what consultants "are" ... out to call the shots, be the hired gun, get paid well and to have the inner ear of the management you only wish you had the chance with in the same role.

And you know it.

Some talent just can't work with consultants ... and bad things happen to good people. Consultants have to earn their keep, just as talent does to keep their job, too.

But I don't think we should bury all the woes on how badly performing a station is solely on consultants. Not all of them are great by any stretch of the imagination ... but they work with what they have, they import what they need by direction of an owner/manager and their neck is on the line to produce.

That way, management doesn't have to get into the whys and wherefores with mid-level staff that has no vested interest in a property, other than to do a good job and make some money. By hiring a consultant, management avoids that "interaction" that he/she may not have time, money or inclination to do ... or want to do.

They leave that up to those weasly consultants.

There have been a great number of them that I'd had the opportunity to deal with. Only one that I didn't like and I quit on him.

But the rest ... well, I learned a lot from. Bill Drake was one. Jerry Del Colliano was another. Paul Drew. Mike Joseph. Mike McVay, Steve Warren, Todd Wallace, John Lund, John Bayliss, Dan Vallie, Lee Abrams, Kent Burkhart and the list goes on. And there were others in large, medium and small markets who I got to know over the last 30 years that I learned to trust, respect and admire....and, at times, be fearful, as well. Consultants helped us win in a lot of competitive situations a lot of times. Those who worked with the consultant(s) usually won and won big. Those who fought the consultant (as I did once) got what was coming ... and usually that was being fired.

Being a winner and gaining what little credit you got from the consultant when a long way ... more than getting "canned" because it was the consultant's job to make it happen. That's what he got paid for.

Most did great jobs for our stations and were great people to deal with ... and who really knew their stuff on many levels that were different than any we'd been familiar with at the time.

Consultants are a lot like lawyers. They don't care (nor get paid for) the emotion of a given project. They get paid to win the case ... the project. And, usually, they have the track record to unify a group of talent in a team effort to pull it off ... and then report back the results to the person writing the checks.

I wish, looking back, that Holland Cooke had been a consultant for several of the stations I had worked for. Maybe the going wouldn't have been as tough and I'd have learned something more than what I thought knew.

Maybe sometime you'll have the chance to thank a consultant for making you a better radio person. You never know ... stranger things have happened in this business.

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

Thanks, Oaktree, for your well-reasoned post.

I speak of Holland Cooke who has certainly "been there - done that" when it comes to guiding his client stations. He is well liked and very well respected, as are a good number of others around the country.

He's a rare bird, then. Unfortunately, there are a couple on these boards who merely reinforce the negative stereotype for everyone else.

But not all consultants are what some here feel are gigantic wastes of time. Some here think, and possibly could be "better" than a consultant. But, then, there are those who have "unrealistic expectations" and are more jealous of the fact that a consultant has run of the station and actually lays out the plan that may be in opposition of what an Ops Mgr, PD, MD or talent feel. Sometimes, there is a huge clash of egos ... because the consultant is "an outsider" and those inside the station "know best."
Many would be wrong.
A consultant often works with sales and promotion as well ... and, yes, often has the ability to "walk away" after an in-market visit or when the computer gets turned off for the day, the airchecks monitored, the markets scanned and tomorrow's job organized.

Worse than that. I worked in a small market that employed a consultant who would take everybody out to lunch, write $2.00 on the waitress' tip line, and then write $10.00 in that space on the slip he took back to the station. After a few visits, we had to stop taking him to our favorite restaurants when he came into town. Unethical behavior goes deep to the roots. I came away with the impression that those guys don't give a rat's *ss about the markets they visit or protecting the company's resources; they don't live with the aftermath of poor decisions. They simply blame the failures on some other factor, and someone else loses their job.

Some station insiders don't actually have the time to be both consultant and "talent." That's one reason why a consultant is often brought it ... because his /her job is "singular" in an effort to plan the work and to work the plan.

Service Quality. Internal Customers. Less Is More. Superserve. Synergy. I can think of a zillion slogans, catchphrases, and buzzwords these guys have tried to sell us over the years. Every new fad that's come down the pike, they're convinced that it's the magical golden ticket that will make radio fun and profitable for those still playing the game. The funny thing is, what I'm reading on these boards is a complete 180 from the words some of these same guys were saying 10 years ago. They're equally convinced of their rightness either way, and if their advice fails, again, blame goes elsewhere.

Some talent just hates consultants because .... well, they think they can do the job better and they are often afraid that it's the consultant who will wield the heavy hand if the talent doesn't prove to be as good as the consultant expects ... and reports that back to the GM or owner. Ego's are tough in radio ... no matter the market or size.

I once lived through a consultant who swore that because "And I Ran" by A Flock Of Seagulls tested well in an auditorium, in a city known for its southern rock, the song belonged on the heavy rock station. We got clobbered by angry listeners who thought we were changing the format---and many who called to gripe at us whenever we played it. Consultants can be wrong. The PD should have stood up, but fear of the consultant kept him from doing so.

An owner or GM may not have come up through the "programming" ranks. In fact, most of them have not. Most management's goal is, and rightfully so, to make enough money to pay that great talent, pay the consultant, other management, internal staff and inspire a sales team to bring in the bucks.
Without that, you can't hire and pay people ... so, a owner brings in an outsider to, at times, "do the dirty work" while the manager works on sales and other relevant needs of the property. Radio is not all about programming, as much as we'd like to think it is.

We are in the days where station staff are cut to the ground. In some cases, and only three or four people remain in each building to do the work that was previously split between many, many more staff members. Sales forces are being slashed to the bone. Once you've got your radio chain's satellite lineup in place and a board operator on hand to make sure the spots run on time and the EAS doesn't drop, isn't the consultant's job essentially done?

Without a strong programming plan, hopefully tied together with a staff of good talent and a consultant who can eat and sleep the plan, to make sure it works .... while the other side of the building is bringing in wheel barrows full of money (but maybe not in this economy,) you have no job at that given station. The consultant is also the one who gets to make an impartial look at just what makes a market tick ... and that's valuable to an owner, manager, Ops. Mgr, PD or anyone else who cares to participate.

I think they're all running scared. There's no guarantee of employment for Ops. Mgrs and PDs right now. They'll hallelujah anybody who can save their behinds; if a consultant has the power that you've given him credit for, then he certainly has the power to axe anyone who disagrees with his theories. It seems to me that a consultant will naturally recommend the elimination of every other salary except for the position of consultant. I find it difficult, in this economy, to view consultants in the same altruistic light that you do.

And, yes ... consultants are brought in to "hand-hold" management's hands. Manager or owner/managers, don't profess to be the brightest bulbs in the programming office. They don't know audience make up. Many don't even know how to read a rating book.
So, a consultant is an "objective" liasion between the staf and upper management. Hand holders ... because the staff over their in programming can't be objective about the job. They have to be subjective ... because that's THEIR job. And manager''s or owner don't want to go through the machinations of inside staff who wants the "big guy" just to spend money. So, he/she brings in "counsel" to help smooth the division between sales and programming, management and staff.

We never learn from our fairy tales. In every heraldic tale ever written, there has only been one decent King's Wizard. For every Merlin, there are thousands of Wormwoods. Programmers are hired, presumably, for their programming skill set. There are many who feel that undermining the programmer by hiring a consultant to override their decisions is a large part of the process that has alienated so many talented programmers from the field.

I was once hired by a station manager at the advice of his consultant. While I loved the job, I suffered through some very real hazing from the day I set foot in the building, because the program director believed, and rightfully so, that the hiring of his staff was his responsibility. He quit the morning I reported for work. He was popular and good for the station, and the rest of the staff resented me. Eventually, the new program director, another consultancy hire, came in, fired everybody, and got blown out, himself---all within a three-month span of time. When the station went back to automatic and flipped a few weeks following that, nobody missed it. The consultant remained on staff until the stations were sold at the beginning of the Big Three Expansion.

Again, your mileage may vary. These are my experiences; I suppose I'd feel differently if I ran into more Merlins and fewer Wormwoods.

Now, think about it ... while some complain because it's the "consultant" who has made it bad for radio people ... honestly, if you were that good, and someone came to you and said, "I want you to consult me on nine stations I own in six states ... and here's the price I'll pay you ..." wouldn't you really consider it? Or would you say, "No way, Jose ... I'm a mid-day programming whiz kid here in Podunk and I don't need to consult anybody, because I don't want the hassle of that staff hating me as much as I hate the consultant I work with ." Think about it. You'd be out the building so fast to "make your mark" and call the shots as anyone. That's what consultants "are" ... out to call the shots, be the hired gun, get paid well and to have the inner ear of the management you only wish you had the chance with in the same role. And you know it.

Sure, I understand that. And I know, entertainment is subjective. However, there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason. Is there a School of Consulting that guarantees quality (Quality Service!) or any standard for success? If your consultant's mission is to cut staff budgets, they'll approach your station from that angle. If you're going up against someone else in the market, perhaps a consultant with a proven track record can be a voice in those decisions, but it's folly to lay the entire thing at their feet. Too many managers and companies rely too heavily upon what should only be one part of the equation. Their personal preferences may be good ones---I can think of a couple of guys in oldies radio who really knew their stuff---but you can parade a conga-line of consultants through your station and each one will give a different piece of what they consider to be bulletproof advice. "More smile!" says one. "Nobody smiles anymore!" says another. "Vamp it up!" sings the next one. "Be real," says the fourth. Keep up, keep up. Service Quality is so last year. This year, it's Less Is More and Tough Love. Next year, watch how we Streamline everybody out of the building except ourselves.

Some talent just can't work with consultants ... and bad things happen to good people. Consultants have to earn their keep, just as talent does to keep their job, too.

The difference, perhaps, is that talent should always be seeking ways to improve. I find myself driving along alone, practicing saying words I see on signs and wondering why I bother to worry about how I would ennunciate it. Some consultants will love it, some will hate it. Actually, I can thank a consultant in oldies for teaching us how to establish forward motion by waiting two beats in when walking up a ramp, but that knowledge is only good at a station where the consultant believes the jocks should talk over the music.
I don't believe that many consultants are still looking for ways to improve the product. Perhaps there are a handful, like the good people you've mentioned. I'm a huge fan of Mr. Del Colliano's column, because I believe he can afford an integrity that is missing from most of the consultants' posts I'm reading on these boards. It's a rare cat who stands against the conga-line of yes-men and points out the fact that the emperor is wearing no clothes.

But I don't think we should bury all the woes on how badly performing a station is solely on consultants. Not all of them are great by any stretch of the imagination ... but they work with what they have, they import what they need by direction of an owner/manager and their neck is on the line to produce.

I think it's irresponsible to let these guys take all the credit when things are going well, but duck out of the blame when things go wrong. Again, when a ship hits an iceberg, we blame those standing on the bridge.

(Whoo, this has to be a two-parter. Sorry for the length, but your post deserves the respect of discussion, and you brought up some great points. To be continued...)

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

That way, management doesn't have to get into the whys and wherefores with mid-level staff that has no vested interest in a property, other than to do a good job and make some money. By hiring a consultant, management avoids that "interaction" that he/she may not have time, money or inclination to do ... or want to do.

I can think of no worse situation I've ever worked in than those in which the manager was "too busy" to interact with staff. From program directors who fail to schedule aircheck meetings but never miss a round of golf on Wednesdays, to general managers who take off for days at a time and meet with only their senior sales managers, to owners who visit the station once per year, if that. I've been at stations where we got to know the quarterly compliance officer better than the PD. I don't believe that any limited-spectrum medium which gets so large that it can't afford to be on-hand for its daily operations really has any business trying to entertain, inform, or communicate.

They leave that up to those weasly consultants. There have been a great number of them that I'd had the opportunity to deal with. Only one that I didn't like and I quit on him. But the rest ... well, I learned a lot from. Bill Drake was one. Jerry Del Colliano was another. Paul Drew. Mike Joseph. Mike McVay, Steve Warren, Todd Wallace, John Lund, John Bayliss, Dan Vallie, Lee Abrams, Kent Burkhart and the list goes on. And there were others in large, medium and small markets who I got to know over the last 30 years that I learned to trust, respect and admire....and, at times, be fearful, as well. Consultants helped us win in a lot of competitive situations a lot of times. Those who worked with the consultant(s) usually won and won big. Those who fought the consultant (as I did once) got what was coming ... and usually that was being fired. Being a winner and gaining what little credit you got from the consultant when a long way ... more than getting "canned" because it was the consultant's job to make it happen. That's what he got paid for.

Gaining what little credit you got from the consultant...exactly. You've mentioned some good names, although I can't agree with everyone on your list. I'd add a couple that you might not know, like I said, from the oldies format. I'd subtract a couple, as well. However, if we're going to agree that these guys are all-powerful, then we have to look at each individual piece of advice from this point forward with a much more jaundiced eye; which ones are speaking with integrity now, when the recession is hard and the layoffs just keep coming? Which ones are on these boards, blaming iPods and satellite radio or disgruntled radio jocks or political figures or even the listeners for their woes? Why are we NOT hearing consultants take on some share of the blame voluntarily? Perhaps they're not all as objective or honest as the few you've mentioned.

Most did great jobs for our stations and were great people to deal with ... and who really knew their stuff on many levels that were different than any we'd been familiar with at the time. Consultants are a lot like lawyers. They don't care (nor get paid for) the emotion of a given project. They get paid to win the case ... the project. And, usually, they have the track record to unify a group of talent in a team effort to pull it off ... and then report back the results to the person writing the checks.

Again, I'd feel a lot better if there were some kind of standard of quality for advice, as we expect from lawyers who must pass the bar. Too often, I believe that managers remain loyal to a consultant and overlook bad advice because it comes from a good friend, a former GM, or because there has been an escalation of financial commitment and they must follow through on their expenditures for the consultant's fee or risk looking like they've wasted money by hiring a bad one. I'm not saying that's been your experience, Oaktree, in the least. But you must acknowledge that, with as many stories as there are people in radio, many people have had this experience.

I wish, looking back, that Holland Cooke had been a consultant for several of the stations I had worked for. Maybe the going wouldn't have been as tough and I'd have learned something more than what I thought knew. Maybe sometime you'll have the chance to thank a consultant for making you a better radio person. You never know ... stranger things have happened in this business.

Glad there are some Merlins still around.

I've really enjoyed responding to your post, Oaktree. I hope you view my response in the friendly spirit of an exchange of ideas. I'm not flaming your post at all, and I respect your opinion in this matter very much. I wish I could share a more positive viewpoint, but my experiences haven't been as cool as yours. I think we can all agree that we love radio, anyway. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[oaktree]

I not only thoroughly enjoyed your posts, Aunti, but I admit ... I learned a hell of a lot from what you've written. One of the things I've told consultants in the past is that they get paid to "listen" as well as to "implement" . Quite a few did ... and quite a few "didn't."

I apologize and empathize with the things you've said that are critical of consultants ... and there are those that deserve to be.

You hit the ball out of the park and, hopefully, with objective thought, opinion and comment -- these posts opened up a few minds on both sides of the studio.

Again, your well-thought opinions and exeriences are what we all should have to endure, at least once. They picture is often not pretty.

Thank you for your insight and your often painful objectivity. If consultants were only paid to listen insted of leaving $2 "I don't give a damn ... where am I tips."

Thanks for your time and best wishes to you. I hope we'll expound on things radio in the future.

 

[mleach]

I find it amusing that some stations are paying for a consultant when they obviously don't need one. I know of one in a three station market, extremely rural, and they pay a consultant every month to do their music nonetheless. And it's not even that well done, in fact, they would do better just following the charts of their own format.

I know what you mean !!!!!

For a few years I worked at this small market 50,000 watt FM country music station. Despite being the number one station in the market for 20+ years and a PD & GM who was with the station for almost as long, dyamite promotions ( some of those contests are still remembered today ) and the fact that our sales staff had little to no trouble at all selling the product...the station STILL spent THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of dollars every year on a consultant ( and that person would change year after year ). Why? Having a product so successful for so long would one think it would be obvious management knew what they were doing and not have to depend on someone else.

I can see having a consultant for radio stations say in the top 100, maybe 150 markets but the ones smaller than that, many of times I question that logic.
Like that small 1000 watt AM country station I remember in Virginia. Very popular stations. yes it was a bit hokey ( lost dogs, school lunch menus, obits, the morning hymm, etc...). However one day they hired this consultant who felt the station "..should sound like it is located in a major metro area". Of course all that small town stuff was thrown out plus One "idea" of his was to call the local country sheriffs department "metro police". Yes that makes sense..ah NO !!! Anyway it came as no surprise to anyone a lot of their listeners walked away and it took some time for them to come back.

 

[Stewy]

Those that can, do
Those that can't, teach.
Those that can't teach, consult.

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

I've met very few good consultants; one as a result of this thread.

How many consultants, given a situation like that which was described by mleach, will back off and say, "No, you guys don't need my advice, you're billing and rating well, your promotions rock and your sales department is doing fine on its own"? They won't do it. They'll keep trying out new strategies (like "metro police" in a small town) in order to justify being on the payroll. Any success, they claim for their own. Any failure, they lay blame at the station level.

There are thousands of stories from thousands of radio people about bad consultants. Some of those guys are right here, conspicuously avoiding this thread with the hopes that it will die off quietly so they can maintain the illusion of being the great and powerful Oz instead of just owning up to being the man behind the curtain.

One of the best PDs I ever had (who has moved on to syndication of his morning show since we worked together) once gave me some valuable advice: Just because someone's been a consultant for a long time doesn't mean he is any good at programming stations. It just means he's good at convincing someone to keep him employed.

(This was during the time of the petty embezzler---a well-known "name"--- who would steal from our station by padding his expense reports, like the waitstaff tips I mentioned earlier. $8 isn't a huge theft, but when you combine it with hotel padding, meal padding, travel padding, and entertainment padding, and then multiply it by as many stations in the chain...stealing a buck here and a dime there adds up.)


Often, those with dismal track records will promote their longevity prominently in their credentials. Like any advertising, the consumer is best served by finding out what the commercial doesn't tell you.

Convincing someone to keep a consultant on the payroll is very different skill set than, say, making good programming decisions which positively affect the listeners, the station, or the community of license.

Like I said, I've met one good consultant as a result of this thread. I've met some pretty bad ones in other threads. I think it's pretty easy to spot the difference. Hopefully, in the future, station owners and managers who are currently reading the boards will learn to spot the difference for themselves. If they're waiting around for a consultant to miraculously, objectively tell them a consultant isn't needed, they're in for a long wait.

P.S...Oaktree, thanks for the email! I'm grinning from ear to ear.

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

I wanted to revisit this and add that I found a great article from a couple of years ago. Sounds like the author's experiences were much like mine and those of many others:

http://www.walkerpub.com/radio_consultants.html#anchor5187099

His solutions are extreme, but his sentiment is worthy.