Mr. Mean Genes Fights Furlough Unemployment Claims

By Jerry Del Colliano

I didn't want to believe it, but apparently Cumulus has taken their brand of mean management to another level.

You may remember those furloughs that Cumulus forced upon all but their sales people earlier in the year?

Well, turns out these folks were really not forced furloughs at all.

At least that's what we are being told is the argument Cumulus is using to defend against numerous unemployment claims made by employees for the one week they were told not to come to work.

Apparently they are forced furloughs when Cumulus issues the order and "voluntary" when Cumulus tries to get the one-week unemployment compensation denied.

In other words, if Cumulus prevails -- and so far I have no indication of a single case where they have prevailed -- the "furloughed" employee would have to return their unemployment compensation already received (usually in the $180-220 per week range).

Apparently the geniuses at Cumulus Mean Management Central never thought their employees would miss the week's pay -- maybe that's because Lew Tricky Dickey, Other Brother John, Captain Jon Pinch and "Gallows" Gary Pizzati haven't seen an unemployment line lately.

They should.

But apparently they have been insulated against the things mortal humans must endure like being out of work at the hands of Mr. Mean Genes -- the Dickey media dynasty.

The furlough idea -- which in all fairness has been picked up by other "stoopid" radio groups to save a nickel -- could actually cost Cumulus money in increased taxes going forward.

No wonder Cumulus Mean Management Central is busy running employment ads for positions so many of its currently employed employees hold -- they just won't play nice.

Seems like this is at least a moral victory for the indentured servants of radio's worst radio group in America.

A rumor spread like wildfire after the one-week mandatory furlough was meted out. Some employees including brave market managers filed for unemployment compensation in various markets. At least one state has sided with the employees, I am told.

As Chubby Checker once sang, "how low can you go".

Mr. Mean Genes has apparently missed the boat. They act as if this is all about punishing employees who will not subject themselves to any further dehumanization but meanwhile no one is seemingly watching the bigger picture.

Cumulus is being gutted.

I'm told by some Cumulus people that precious meeting time is devoted to what I have been writing in this space in recent months about Cumulus' misguided management tactics. I thought they blocked Inside Music Media from their employees email so how could they be reading any of this?

Since Cumulus is apparently discussing my stuff anyway, why don't you discuss this on this week's Skype Gripes:

Let me give you a cheat sheet:

1. Why are you fighting unemployment claims as "involuntary" when you forced your employees to take a week off? (I'll be on a plane to LA in the morning but I'd be happy to ask you these questions directly if you like. I'm looking forward to seeing Lew at the NAB, as well -- after all -- bullshit doesn't fly in Philly).

2. Tell us the truth about recent employee deaths due to high pressure management tactics. Just heard that Gene Michaels, Cumulus employee in Lake Charles, LA died about three months ago. He was PD of KKGB. Was it natural causes because now I know of three Cumulus deaths recently -- an unusually high number. Coincidence? Are there more? Even the other groups aren't losing people like this. What will you do to improve working conditions from now on in the interest of employee health? Seriously, don't blame this on me too. I wouldn't be running Cumulus as a national company but rather, as local stations competing to meet their goals. So come on -- answer.

3. Explain how Cumulus beat even Clear Channel as the worst radio group among over 1,000 voters on our Worst Radio Group poll. Come up with a better reason than the vote was on my site. Did I fix it somehow? Or is it real? Address the real issue -- mean management.

4. Why are you publicly advertising for management replacements where employees are already in place? Are they not good enough or do you disrespect them so much as to torture them with the prospect of losing their jobs while you recruit? Look at it another way. What if investment banks to whom you are close to defaulting on your loans, recruited for your replacement right in front of you? Think it would worry you, Lew? Maybe, make you nervous? Maybe put in a call to dad?

5. While we're on the topic, what's your big obsession with hiring non-radio people when you are firing so many damn good ones? Think these new ones will actually obey you better? Radio experience is something prized except at your company. Explain, please.

6. Why are you forcing some of the employees that you have to sign one-year non-competes in return for, well, virtually nothing -- two to four weeks of severance? Not legal in California and shouldn't be elsewhere. Why shouldn't your employees be calling their Congressman on this?

Oh, well ... I've lost my Skype connection.

Answer these questions or ignore them but I'm simply telling you what your employees are complaining about.

Just in case these issues do not come up in the Cumulus conference call Kumbaya, then I'll take it it up with him in person when we get to Philly. You know, the place where they boo Santa Claus (don't worry you are safe -- you're no Santa Claus).

There's too much happy talk out there and not truth about how these companies hurt their people, their listeners and their industry.

Keep blaming the messenger if you must, but I'm going to say -- it is time to stand in solidarity with the fine and talented people who work at Cumulus, Clear Channel, Citadel and other bottom feeding groups that are prematurely driving a good business into the ground.

Speak up.

When what has been described in this piece today is representative of one of radio's biggest consolidators, what more will it take?

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: Your subscription will not become “active” until you open an email from Feedburner immediately sent to your email inbox or spam filter.

Thanks for forwarding my pieces to your friends and linking to your websites and boards.

Jerry is planning a 1-day media seminar like no other

• Location: Scottsdale, AZ.
• Likely time: winter.
• Jerry will teach an interactive program that includes a new and traditional media forecast, reinventing terrestrial radio, podcasting, webcasting, social networking, mobile content and how to effectively predict generational media.
• If you are interested in putting your name on the "notification" list, click "email the author" below or email: jdelcolliano@earthlink.net.

Radio's "Believe It Or Not"

The big three bumbling consolidators are screwing up radio even more these days what with high anxiety management, totally irrelevant priorities, potentially illegal recruitment tactics and contradictory policies.

Yes, certified "stoopid" ways to get in your talented employees' way while they are trying to save your bacon.

Incredible stories of death, destruction and self-immolation by or at the hands of the three most dangerous companies owning radio stations -- Clear Channel, Citadel and Cumulus.

And, a programming note -- Cumulus has far surpassed Clear Channel as "Radio's Worst Group" -- virtually impossible before Lew "Tricky" Dickey started competing with Clear Channel to be "worser" than them. See the up-to-the-second voting results from readers like you, here.

Now, let's play Radio's "Believe It Or Not" ...

• Apparent pressure has cause the death of two Cumulus employees

You may remember that a Cumulus business manager died a few months ago in what a reader apparently thought was workplace stress.

Again, most recently Kevin McDonald, account executive at the Cumulus Pensacola, Florida cluster -- 38 years old -- died after he reportedly was fired. Of course, workers predictably say that he was pressured -- their opinion. Nonetheless, some wonder whether the intensity of the Cumulus management approach could be a factor. Here's McDonald's death notice.

My opinion is that Cumulus has tightened the screws over the past year in an attempt to get its many employees to do what a handful of Atlanta executives think is best. There is a great deal of pressure on people. Employees do not have a lot of options -- other than to quit. Some are leaving, however. Most can't afford to be without work in a recession.

It's one thing to poke fun at Cumulus. But far more serious when employees are dying or losing their good health under the Dickey regime.

• Grand Rapid's concert venue sues Clear Channel

That's a swticheroo.

Isn't it usually the Evil Empire that does the suing?

Anyway, the city of Ionia dragged Clear Channel's B-93 country station into court to be reimbursed for $40,703 in extra expenses related to flooding during a recent music festival.

You may remember, there was some confusion over whether B-93 adequately warned 60,000 or more concert goers about one little thing -- that flash floods in the Grand River could leave their cars inaccessible and buried in mud.

That's what happened.

The National Weather Service knew it, but apparently Clear Channel's weather source didn't.

At first Clear Channel indicated it would pick up the tab for towing the 1,400 cars out of the mud and then came to its senses and decided to screw them out of the money instead. Meanwhile, station executives and talent who really care about their listeners and the popular annual event were hamstrung by Hogan's Heroes.

Don't believe it?

Read this account, but wait -- you won't believe the next item.

• No money to tow 1,400 stranded concert cars, but $989,250 to keep a corporate lawyer from leaving Clear Channel

That's right, as incredible as it may seem -- Clear Channel agreed on July 20th to pay almost one million dollars to EVP/Chief Legal office Andy Levin to -- and this is a quote -- "induce" Mr. Levin to remain in these positions through January 8, 2010. He also keeps his eligibility for a bonus under the company's regular incentive plan.

Hey, this guy makes more money by leaving than staying.

I wonder why Clear Channel is so hot to keep him?

They don't make Polaroids anymore, do they?

Levin has magnanimously and unselfishly decided to make a great personal sacrifice and stay on for another 90 days with no additional compensation (other than the million, that is) and then will be available through May 31, 2011 at a rate of $200 an hour for hours in excess of five hours per week -- you read that right -- in excess of five hours a week. He's also agreed to employee non-solicitation covenants until May 31, 2011.

You can't make this stuff up.

This is reality in the unreal world of radio consolidation.

He's got to have pictures!

Those poor suckers called radio listeners/concert goers in Grand Rapids, let them eat mud.

• All Cumulus managers may not attend the Philly NAB, except ...

One of my Repeater Reporters sent me a memo purported to be from Jon Pinch -- dated February 23 of this year reminding Cumulus workers how much their hard work is appreciated and sorry they can't go to the NAB Radio Show in Philly this September.

Okay, I made up the appreciation for hard work part. Here's the real zinger from Pinch to his market managers:

"It should go without saying that given the present economic conditions, no one should be attending the RAB or NAB this year. This means regardless of whether they recruited you as a “speaker” or other participant, your focus is required on improving your market revenue".

First of all, if it should go without saying, why is this guy then saying it?

Maybe what Captain Pinch is saying is, "you shouldn't go without me saying it".

Second of all, why is CEO Lew Tricky Dickey pulling a slight of hand move to appear on a panel in Philadelphia while his managers are toiling back at their sweat shops?

Does the fact that Dickey is defying Captain Pinch mean that Dickey can't focus on improving Cumulus market revenue?

Just asking.

• Citadel violating EEO laws by asking for applicant's pictures

Remember that cockamamie contest Citadel is having in Providence to find salespeople? I think the phrase they used was that they were "teaming up to give away the ultimate prize to one lucky Southern New Englander… a job in radio!"

They're kidding, I hope.

Do these poor suckers know who they are auditioning to work for?

The problem with the “Can You Sell” contest was that it solicited pictures of the applicants -- not kosher in the world of equal opportunity. But hey, who is watching anyway?

Here were the rules as they explained them:

"On Thursday, August 6th from 9am-4pm we’ll host an open job interview at Aqua at The Providence Marriott for the Account Executive position. Interested applicants are encouraged to come down throughout the day with their resume and selling spirit to “wow” us!

From this group, we’ll pick twelve semi-finalist’s who will compete in a series of four weekly tasks to determine who will be the next account executive at Citadel Broadcasting! The tasks will be based around the fast paced work environment in radio and feature things like writing and producing a commercial for Newport Creamery.

Listeners will get to keep up with the contestants through blogs and webisodes online at www.hot1063.com and www.92profm.com. A popular vote online by the listeners will give feedback to a panel of executives from Citadel and Newport Creamery".

Maybe Citadel thinks this is Survivor?

Well, they missed the deadline for finding their new sales superstars.

Citadel calls itself an equal opportunity employer.

As one of my alert readers points out:

"In the contest promo is: 'don't forget to include a photo and/or video to get your foot in the door.'

Jerry, I haven't done hiring in a few years but all the places I hired for, plus my own companies, would never have stood for requiring pictures with an application.

Am I so out of touch that screening under EEO but here are some comments I found to be related:

1) 'In the USA it is NOT a good idea to include a photo or video or picture because Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations put the employer (not the candidate) between a rock and a hard place when photos, videos, or pictures of the applicant are included with or on a resume.'

2) The Texas Workforce Commission said hiring decisions cannot be based in any way upon race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age or disability. 'Requiring a photo would likely be considered a clear example of discriminatory hiring practices, according to our attorneys,' a TWC representative wrote."

Oh, one more thing -- isn't Citadel one of the consolidators that fired a heap of sales people in the past year? I think the term they used at the time was "layoffs".

Then, why do they need to do a silly, possibly illegal contest to find salespeople when they could recall good ones who were doing the job for them and were fired to save money?

Guess that firing salespeople to make money thing isn't working out too well, right Punchin' Judy Ellis?

I call it Ethics Cleansing -- fire people under the guise of tough economic times and then come back and rehire cheaper, less experienced employees months later.

I know radio groups are bankrupt financially but are they also bankrupt of good ideas? I mean there is a recession and Citadel is playing "Sales Survivor" with stations while they are five months away from breaching their loan covenants.

Believe it or not, these things are really happening in the radio business. Radio was never a joke like it is now. And the solid business execs have been replaced by jokers.

A talented diverse group of people always kept it relevant and made the industry so profitable that even Wall Street eventually came a calling.

About ten years ago or so, I hired Peter Drucker, the management genius, to address one of my Inside Radio Management Conferences.

Drucker, who has been right about almost every business issue he has addressed, said flat out that very few consolidations had ever worked in American history.

And the few that did work have seven things in common but one of them was that when they spent hundreds of millions or billions to buy companies, they really wanted to buy its management and then support them because only these managers could come up with the innovations that could guarantee future growth.

By contrast, radio consolidation saw the opposite happen.

Management, sales and talent were systematically fired over the 13 years since consolidation began -- and I note that it had nothing to do with their most recent excuse -- the recession.

Creativity and innovation rarely comes from the top down but in radio's case, the innovators were fired and retired. You probably know a lot of good radio execs who were expendable once this group of management trainees got their hands on these companies.

That leaves you with the likes of John Slogan Hogan, Dickey Doo and Fagreed Suleman.

And that explains the almost unbelievable screw ups you've just read about.

When the Three Blind Mice are at work, see how they run the radio industry into the ground.

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: Your subscription will not become “active” until you open an email from Feedburner immediately sent to your email inbox or spam filter.

Thanks for forwarding my pieces to your friends and linking to your websites and boards.

Jerry is planning a 1-day media seminar.

• Location: Scottsdale, AZ.
• Likely time: winter.
• Jerry will teach an interactive program that includes a new and traditional media forecast, reinventing terrestrial radio, podcasting, webcasting, social networking, mobile content and how to effectively predict generational media.
• If you are interested in putting your name on the "notification" list, click "email the author" below or email: jdelcolliano@earthlink.net.

Stadium Jazz!?

I just watched an amazing video on YouTube -- it features the Count Basie Orchestra, taken from a concert at Randall's Island in 1938. The film footage is silent but a soundtrack has been added featuring the Basie orchestra from that period.

The footage itself is amazing, you can see Lester Young playing a solo wearing sunglasses, the band obviously really swinging, and the audience literally dancing in the aisles! When you watch this film you realize what a popular dance music jazz was at that time. And what an affect the music had on the young audience - people are cheering, dancing on the steps, in the aisles, on the seats etc. in fact you could transpose this footage into the present day and see similar reactions from young audiences at stadium rock concerts. There's a kind of collective euphoria formed from a combination of the music and the energy created by large numbers of people reacting to the same stimulus in an enclosed space. It's something you would never see at a jazz performance now -- the music has changed, the audience has changed, the place of the music in society has radically changed.

Have a look at this amazing footage to see what I mean. You can see it here.

Radio Needs Video

Video streaming has been growing in popularity especially in the last six months.

There is a new research study out from Ipsos MediaCT's MOTION that is picking up on a trend that radio people should consider and understand.

Americans with access to the Internet are now streaming more TV shows and movies than at any previous time in history -- 26% streaming a full-length TV show and 14% a movie within the last 30 days alone (an increase of double that of September, 2008).

This is a red light for the television and motion picture industries, but it is also a warning to radio -- a medium depending exclusively on the aural experience.

It will not surprise you that the 18-24 age group is leading the way into the video future. And you know who follows them.

That's right, everyone else.

In the past month, 30% 0f 18-24's represented in the Ipsos study streamed a full-length movie and 51% a full-length TV show -- dramatically more than last year.

This is more than two times the levels measured in September 2008. Not surprisingly, young adults 18 to 24 years of age have been the most ardent supporters of this medium.

Perhaps you remember when I spoke of my students preferring to watch TV on their laptops when the rest of us were obsessing about HD and big screens. At the time my college aged daughter and her roommate would rather watch DVDs than live TV as long as it was on their laptops. In fact at my daughter's apartment, her TV is not even working. And she could care less.
Perhaps you've witnessed similar behavioral changes among your friends and relatives.

She gets MLB package to watch her Atlanta Braves (how did I have a daughter who is not a Phillies fan?).

Hulu, the replacement for TV for the next generation, is a popular means of watching ad-supported video programming. Young users by and large ignore or put up with the ads and in return they get to watch their favorite network TV shows.

Sooner or later advertisers will figure this out. A blatant ad on YouTube actually gets better results.

This commercial has over 700,000 views and you can see why it literally leaves viewers hungry for more:



This hits at the heart of the problem.

Radio, TV and newspapers want to print content and run advertising within it to support and pay for that content.

The new world media order suggests that a "commercial" such as the one above may get better results just by being a commercial -- a sexy commercial, but nonetheless a commercial residing on a social networking site such as YouTube.

You don't need listeners or viewers paying attention to commercials to have a growth industry -- duh, look at radio and TV.

Try to even remember a single Super Bowl ad one week later.

The paid subscription model will not work right now for streaming video so advertising supported video sites are the interim choice for an obviously increasing number of people.

Many students tell me they just check email or their phones text messages while the pre-roll commercials are on. They're willing to put up with them even if they don't pay attention.

The Ipsos research now confirms what I related to you earlier:

"...even among digital video users, 64% would rather watch hour-long dramas and half-hour comedies live on their TV than rent or purchase them, or watch them on their PC or portable device".

The average American watches 15 hours a week so the TV will not be turned off for a long time in the future, but it is safe to say that its monopoly on longer form video content is probably over.

I started by saying radio needs video.

And I don't mean pointing a camera at Don Imus and calling that TV suitable for the Internet.

In fact, back to the days when Arthur Godfrey did a simulcast radio and TV show the question wasn't whether it was possible, it was why?

Today, there is clearly a place for audio even if that audio is not terrestrial radio.

To my way of thinking, the new radio is podcasting because it cooperates with the inevitable -- that is, short attention spans.

The new talk radio is podcasting. But if talkers think they're going to do their radio shows for an iPod and not make substantive content and formatic changes, they will not transfer to new media successfully.

Two-way talk was a feature of radio decades ago. Two-way talk is no longer necessary for generations younger than 60 (the talk radio audience). Younger people increasingly communicate through social networking not phone calls. Even here at Inside Music Media, readers comment by going to Facebook. I don't even have to link to Facebook. They just go -- intuitively.

"Talk radio" will be talk podcasting -- 45 minutes or less, and they will need compelling content because here's the challenge with podcasting -- forming a daily habit.

I'm a new media advisor and I don't listen to most podcasts every day. My clients, Dave & Geri, have figured out a way to get their loyal and growing audience to visit them as frequently as they did in their cars during morning drive. It can be done.

And, I don't think Dave & Geri would mind me sharing this tidbit with you.

Downloads for their new age "morning" podcast peak in the morning, but nighttime downloads almost equal morning downloads.

The morning show is now in essence -- on demand -- and their fans download the content at these two times in great numbers.

But even podcasting will need video.

Radio stations can operate as an aural medium until the last listener dies or turns the radio off or in the alternative, they could build content for new media using the talent they already employ.

In the end, there is a new realization and the faster we embrace it the more successful we will be in the new world of media.

A generation is now coming of age that is used to being -- and demands to be -- in control of their content.

They want it on-demand -- not necessarily in the hands of the "broadcaster" or content provider.

When they want to read something, they expect to click and see text.

When they want to hear something, they expect to touch and get audio.

When they want to see something, we have trained them to click and get video.

If "radio" (whatever that becomes in the future) can't do all three of these things, it has no future in the digital world.

The name "radio" may be part of the problem because everyone knows that it means listening, not seeing and not reading.

I say, dispense with the names -- deploy the talented people, managers, marketing and sales execs already in place (or recently laid off) and reinvent the radio industry to include video, text as well as audio.

The tablet mobile entertainment device from Apple is coming.

That means a great delivery system to give the next generation access to all these things with the consumer remaining firmly in control.

The first step is to see and understand the forces at work both technological and sociological that are causing the change.

The choice for radio is to adapt or die.

I don't care how many buyers there are waiting on the sidelines to scoop up consolidator's debt-ridden stations, it is not a solution that passes the generational media test.

Ironically, the choice to survive is not just in the hands of consumers but squarely under the purview of radio execs.

Can they get it in time?

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: Your subscription will not become “active” until you open an email from Feedburner immediately sent to your email inbox or spam filter.

Thanks for forwarding my pieces to your friends and linking to your websites and boards.

Jerry is planning a 1-day media seminar.

• Location: Scottsdale, AZ.
  
• Likely time: winter.
• Jerry will teach an interactive program that includes a new and traditional media forecast, reinventing terrestrial radio, podcasting, webcasting, social networking, mobile content and how to effectively predict generational media.
• If you are interested in putting your name on the "notification" list, click "email the author" below or email: jdelcolliano@earthlink.net.
  

The Best Radio Group

Years ago when I was publishing Inside Radio, I received a phone call from one of my advertisers who said they were going to go out of business.

The economy was good.

The advertiser was very solid -- certainly as far as how they paid my invoices.

But, they still had the majority of a $60,00o signed contract to fulfill.

To my delight and surprise, the advertiser said "we'll keep paying your bills until we have paid for the contract in full". They just didn't want me to run any ads since they decided to close down their syndication division.

That client -- the one that could have just said, "too bad, you're out of luck" was Bonneville.

Corporate had decided to close the beautiful music division and leave the field as more youthful formats were taking hold.

I mention this because the company that over 700 of you have voted as "The Best Radio Group" is Bonneville -- getting 21% of over 150 votes. You can see all the up-to-the-second results of both the "Best" and "Worst" radio groups by clicking here.

Cox, CBS Radio, Saga and Greater Media also received 8% or more of the vote. By contrast Clear Channel, Cumulus and Citadel polled 4% or under.

Why Bonneville?

Well, they are not a big group of stations and you could argue they got out the vote. If so, then why did the much larger Clear Channel only manage 3%?

No ... it's not about stuffing the ballot box.

And you could argue that Bonneville has the best radio stations across the country.

No ... many of the other poor performing groups in this poll also have excellent stations and that was not enough to win the day for them.

As it turned out the continuous, real time voting for "Best" and "Worst" radio group was a referendum on competence of management and effective skills in handling employees.

Many readers believe that the "Best" radio group is the one that treats people well and the "Worst" is Cumulus -- and you know the stories of how they treat their people.

A better way to look at it in the waning days of radio consolidation is -- what group would you like to work for if you had the chance?

That's what this seems to be all about.

I've been asked, which groups would I like to work for and I usually include most of the ones that polled well with my readers.

Bonneville is a 29 station well-run privately-owned company that believes in radio. (Does that mean less is more, John Slogan Hogan? Hogan can't seem to run the largest group of radio stations with every benefit that comes with size).

It's a traditional company with an outstanding CEO in Bruce Reese.

This man is no Lew Tricky Dickey. Not an empty suit like a few of the other group CEOs. He's smart and stable.

Look, Bonneville is not perfect and I'm not saying it is.

They do some of the things the "Worst" groups do like using voice tracking.

But they don't lay people off in bad times.

How many radio groups can say that these days?

In fact, recently when the recession forced economic cutbacks at Bonneville the higher paid employees saw their salaries cut. For everyone else, fewer holidays, less vacation and reduced benefits like gym memberships.

That's it.

I know a lot of Clear Channel casualties that would have taken that deal any day of the week.

Bonneville CEO Bruce Reese was quoted at the time in the trade press as saying, “Our corporate management team and market managers have looked at this very carefully and thoughtfully. We believe these adjustments are reasonable and necessary to maintain the health of our company and its valued employees."

Yet some wonder shouldn't the people at the better performing Bonneville stations such as WTOP in Washington be rewarded instead of punished for hitting their goals?

That execs at V100 in LA -- one of the most recent $137 million Bonneville acquisitions -- should be making less while top performers make more. V100 is reportedly poor in billing after 16 months in their music format.

But Bonneville management has decided that the richer stations in effect should subsidize the poorer performers at least for now and my readers apparently agree. Bonneville gets only 4 negative votes in the "Worst" category out of approximately 1,100 votes cast so far.

In the days when companies were restricted by law to owning seven AM, seven FM and seven TV stations, there were still lousy operators.

Weirdos! I worked for some and you may have as well.

Still when you did something stupid or they did (like let you go), there were always a lot of other stations in the same market (or nearby markets) so that your career could continue and your family did not have to be uprooted just to stay in the business.

Even Clear Channel when it was just a gleam in the eye of Lowry Mays was small and harmless. It used to be called "Cheap Channel" but never "The Evil Empire" back then. In fact, Lowry Mays was the last guy I thought could ride in and steal an industry. But he did.

So in the 13 years since mega consolidation, a 29 station group is considered the best. In fact, all of the top finishers are rather small and Saga is a small market group that really isn't that large, either.

Perhaps it is no accident.

Small means better.

Since the voting started I have received lots of email from Connoisseur employees (and management) asking why they were omitted from the voting. No particular reason other than to cut off my large BIA generated voting list somewhere. Yet Connoisseur employees expressed a lot of pride in working for their company -- at least that's what they told me.

Could we then project the qualities of the ideal radio group?

We could certainly try.

1. Small (50 stations or less, let's say).

2. Compassionate management that values people and tries not to fire people.

3. Stability of management (i.e., is this a company that radio people would like to work for?).

Being the best seems to have little to do with the grandiose plans of companies and families that went on to dominate the radio business (The Dickeys, The Mays).

Little to do with "our eyes are bigger than our ability to pay the debt that it took to build our group" companies like Citadel.

In reality, the government had it wrong when it enabled consolidation.

Deregulation created this fire -- to borrow some imagery from Billy Joel's song.

Near monopoly not only was not an advantage, it turned into the industry's downfall.

For every big group assembled around the Dickey Dos, Fagreed Sulemans and Slogan Hogans, the industry and listeners wound up getting short-changed while their companies, principals and investment banks profited.

I think of the clown image that consolidators have when companies like Citadel hold a "Survivor" type audition online for salespeople at their Providence cluster after they fired tons of their own good sellers. That's no way to recruit salespeople.

That's what consolidation has become -- a circus.

Or you can see what stability in management and sales gets you.

What treating people right (or at least trying) means to your business -- and you have Bonneville.

The screw ups running most of today's radio groups never give us a shortage of things to talk about here. Today, it's nice to see that so many of you have recognized an elite handful of radio groups as worthy of the honor "Best" operators in radio.

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: Your subscription will not become “active” until you open an email from Feedburner immediately sent to your email inbox or spam filter.

Thanks for forwarding my pieces to your friends and linking to your websites and boards.

The Media Crisis of 2009

Terry Teachout wrote an excellent article recently in The Wall Street Journal about lessons the media industry can learn from the last big technological and sociological revolution when television replaced radio.

In The New-Media Crisis of 1949 the author accurately framed the debate over what to do with the Internet, mobile space and social networking. Just as important, by inference he was giving us a view of what not to do.

My purpose in bringing this up is to add some additional content to the issue specifically targeting radio, music and new media.

Ironically, networks played a role in the previous technological revolution.

The early, popular radio shows were networked across the country and by 1949 -- at the advent of commercial television -- there were 85 million radios tuned in to hear these national programs.

By contrast, today, Repeater Radio and voice tracking exist not to offer one-of-a-kind talent to a nation but to offer one-of-a-kind cost savings to consolidators.

There were only 1.3 million TV sets in use -- mostly on the East Coast -- by 1949.

Unlike today -- when the Internet, cell phone, social networking and file sharing became available for exactly the opposite reason -- it was free and more readily available.

Some of my USC students felt that even though the Internet is everywhere, the devices upon which to access it were not available to all socioeconomic groups. So there was a parallel -- televisions cost about half of what a new car would run you 60 years ago -- and a laptop isn't cheap today.

It was, as Teachout points out, that the rise of network TV due to the laying of coaxial cable between a number of major cities made the new medium available if not affordable.

Radio stars were big back in the day -- so big that many didn't want to cross over to television. Some did -- successfully. Some did not. Careers, thus, were prolonged or eliminated by a radio star's ability to make the transition to radio's new competitor.

Today, we see radio groups embracing the Internet only in a cursory way -- repurposing radio shows, streaming terrestrial formats online and inserting different and less expensive commercials.

That's not much of a business plan for the future when there is no future in it.

Talent is mired in terrestrial radio unable or unwilling to see podcasting as the new radio, the Internet as simply a delivery system and not a format category and social networking the "coaxial cable" of the future -- is not the product, not the content -- only a component.

Fred Allen, one of the biggest radio stars that never made it in TV insisted that radio was still better because the listener "had to use his imagination" (quoting WSJ).

Oops.

Doesn't this kind of remind you of what is happening in the radio business right now in 2009?

The "for us or against us" attitude that permeates radio (i.e., you're either a radio person or not). By radio person that would be someone who works in a terrestrial station and takes a lot of crap from management that doesn't see the future. Dare to say that radio is over -- and you'll be lynched (figuratively speaking).

In the Journal article, three "lessons" were offered that I would like to comment on:

Lesson #1

"Network TV lost vast amounts of money in its early years. It was only because the existing radio networks were willing to subsidize TV that it survived—leaving CBS and NBC at the top of the heap in the '50s and '60s, just as they had been in the '30s and '40s. The old media of today have a similar chance to prosper tomorrow if they can survive the heavy financial losses that they're incurring while they develop workable new-media business models".

Aah!

Can you see the difference already?

Radio groups today are not willing to subsidize their future competitor that is the Internet/mobile space. In fact, radio groups stubbornly refuse to invest anything in the burgeoning new technology.

Most large and small radio groups have no Internet strategy, limited understanding, no funds budgeted to the media that will likely surpass radio for good this time.

Unlike the early days of television where radio interests were developing radio with pictures, radio now is a minor player at best in the future of webcasting, mobile content and social networking.

Lesson # 2

"Established radio performers such as Benny and Hope, who embraced TV on its own visually oriented terms, flourished well into the '60s. Everyone else—including Fred Allen—vanished into the dumpster of entertainment history. The same fate awaits contemporary old-media figures unwilling to grapple with the challenge of the new media, no matter how popular they may be today".

That's right -- radio's biggest names today will vanish like the dinosaurs into ancient history.

As I like to point out, the ones who will invest and innovate in new media -- particularly podcasting -- may go on and count themselves as the few and the fortunate to transcend a dying medium into a growing industry.

History repeats itself.

There is a reason why the old saw still rings true.

And why does history repeat itself?

Because we never seem to be willing to learn our lessons from it -- so, any radio talent looking to end his or her career need simply to stay where they are in a medium that is about to be replaced by a new one in which radio has little interest.

Lesson #3

"Americans of all ages embraced TV unhesitatingly. They felt no loyalty to network radio, the medium that had entertained and informed them for a quarter-century. When something came along that they deemed superior, they switched off their radios without a second thought. That's the biggest lesson taught by the new-media crisis of 1949. Nostalgia, like guilt, is a rope that wears thin".

Radio people need to read and reread that last paragraph.

An entire new generation of 80 million are in the process of departing for new media leaving terrestrial radio with no growth potential and no real way to survive ten years from today. That is a fact.

Even older available listeners have taken to Facebook, downloading songs to iPods, embracing Twitter, watching YouTube -- to mention a few -- all at the expense of their radio listening time.

The monopoly radio had in cars for years has come to an end -- the car radio is now called the entertainment center.

Satellite radio was to become the next radio and all it managed to do was be a costly part of this entertainment center not a stark contrast to its competitor -- terrestrial radio.

Radio listeners have embraced new media and continue to gobble it up at a record pace. Still, radio groups exist as though they have no competition and everything is still beautiful.

The lessons are many but they are happening in real time and cannot be ignored.

There is a reason why radio operators in the 1940's supported and subsidized its eventual replacement -- television.

It's because these leaders then saw a vision of the future and wanted to be part of it.

By contrast, today's radio consolidators refuse to acknowledge let alone subsidize what may very well be their technological and sociological replacement -- the Internet and mobile space for exactly the opposite reason.

They can't see the vision and don't want to be part of what it considers the enemy -- not the future.

This Wall Street Journal piece is excellent if you have the time to read it -- click here.

I hope this discussion has resonated with you as it has with me and I encourage you to share it with your media friends.

The richness of radio is its talented managers, salespeople and on-air performers. They are being forced to take their futures to new media without any industry leadership.

That did not happen in 1949.

But it must happen in 2009 if they are to find a place in the digital future.

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: Your subscription will not become “active” until you open an email from Feedburner immediately sent to your email inbox or spam filter.

Thanks for forwarding my pieces to your friends and linking to your websites and boards.

Land of the Free? Ha!

It’s extremely galling to have the instrument that you use to make a living smashed by some oafish cretin in an airport. It’s doubly galling when it’s smashed as part of a ham-fisted and totally unnecessary “search” perpetrated in the name of public safety.

I’ve just returned today from teaching in Berklee College of music in Boston for a week. My acoustic bass guitar is far too large to fit into any overhead compartments in an airplane cabin, so I have a custom-built case made for it which allows it to safely travel in the hold. I check the bass in as baggage, and only once since I got the case in 1999, have I ever had any damage to the instrument. On arrival at Logan Airport yesterday I locked my instrument case as usual and checked it in without mishap — but when it came out the other end in Dublin, I was horrified to see the case was only being held together by tape. A quick examination of the case found that all the locks had been smashed deliberately — a note from ‘Transportation Security Administration’ at Logan confirmed this. I just had the case serviced two weeks ago to make sure that it stays in top condition for the protecting job that it has to do on virtually a weekly basis, and now here it was two weeks later with every lock literally smashed. But worse was to come — on opening the case I found that huge crack had appeared on the front of the bass, obviously caused by the mindless gorilla who was forcing open the case. On consultation with my Luthier it seems that this is going to cost approximately €500 to fix. And then of course I’ll still have to have the bass case repaired.



I travel all over the world with this instrument and case — in the past eight months alone I’ve been in Belgium, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brazil, Switzerland, and the UK. In all of this time and through all of these airports, the case has passed unscathed, locked, and with no attempt to smash it open made by any guardians of “security”. It’s a very simple procedure to ascertain what’s in the case and any x-ray of the case reveals the instrument clearly inside — I’ve seen it myself several times. Why it was felt necessary to smash open the case like this in such a brutal and violent manner is beyond me. To stick a note in the case telling me that the TSA “sincerely regrets” having smashed the locks, but reminding me nevertheless that they are not liable for any damage (the last part was underlined in pen by the moron who smashed both case and instrument), is typical of the ‘take it or leave it’ attitude of the American security personnel at airports in the United States.

While I can appreciate the need for security at airports and God knows I’m glad of it, spending so much time as I do in airports, this over-the-top, using a sledgehammer to crack a nut attitude, is a typical hangover from the Bush regime who behaved like this in macrocosm in their dealings with the world, as well as the microcosm of their treatment of my bass. Travelling musicians know it’s getting more and more difficult to travel by air with your instruments these days. But it’s even more difficult in the US where apparently it’s not permitted to even give your instrument the protection of locking the case to prevent the instrument from falling out. To do so is to invite the thuggish attentions of some troglodyte servants of a faceless security regime which can pretty much do what it likes. The scrappy piece of paper thrown into my case was the sum total of responsibility that was deemed necessary by the TSA after they’ve smashed both bass and case. There was no number or contact details for me to make any protest of any kind. “Take it or leave it”. Land of the Free? Ha!

Will Disney Repossess ABC from Citadel?

Citadel is on the brink of bankruptcy.

It could happen within the next six months if CEO Farid "Fagreed" Suleman cannot win another stay of execution with anxious lenders.

That raises the question of what happens to Citadel stations if the company winds up in the hands of a bankruptcy court -- specifically, what's the fate of its most valuable component -- ABC?

Citadel paid sucker money to Walt Disney Company to the tune of about a billion dollars for ABC and the ABC Radio networks several years ago in what was a highly touted but little understood maneuver called a Reverse Morris Trust, (RMT).

It was all a little bit too cute but what RMT turned out to be was a legal tax dodge -- a very complex legal tax dodge, at that.

Now, with the wolf at the door, buyers and speculators are wondering whether Disney gets its properties back once Citadel goes belly up because of the Reverse Morris Trust.

Morris Trust expert Roger Wilkens helps me shed some light on the possibility:

1. In the event of a Citadel bankruptcy filing, Disney will not automatically get its stations back.

2. Citadel is now a wholly separate entity from Disney so that if Citadel were to file for, say, Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, its creditors would become the owners of its stock and existing shareholders would almost certainly emerge with nothing. Ouch.

3. But if the bankruptcy arrangement was a "liquidation", the assets of Citadel would be sold and the sales proceeds would be distributed to the creditors in partial (and I mean partial) satisfaction of its debts. The remainder of its debts would become worthless. The shareholders would receive nothing for their stock.

4. If Disney had an interest in buying back the assets, it could bid with everyone else -- not a likely scenario as Disney sold ABC at precisely the right time to exit the radio industry with a huge profit. The future of radio is in grave doubt with the 80 million strong next generation moving on to new media while bumbling radio consolidators are stripping their stations down as outlets for Repeater Radio.

5. Therefore, the only way Disney could regain the stations/networks it sold to Citadel is in the unlikely event of a water landing (as they say in aviation) or, to be more precise -- should Disney want the stations and if Citadel chooses to sell them back to Disney.

So there you have it.

For all of you hoping that Disney will restore the once mighty ABC stations to pre-Citadel luster, sorry about that.

And for those of you hoping all those "white knights" like Larry Wilson will wind up buying Citadel stations, be careful what you wish for.

Citadel is distressed merchandise.

They've run that company into the ground.

That, too.

Citadel is distressed because it is on life support and should it enter bankruptcy, Fagreed will be in no position to bargain with bidders.

Plus, billing is expected to continue to tumble and even should it pick up a bit (from the average 20% losses most groups are posting quarterly), no Citadel station can get anywhere near full value on the open market during bankruptcy.

Multiples will be four times cash flow or less.

It will be possible for "radio people" -- the ones who still love this business to ride to the rescue and pick up these properties for pennies on the dollar.

But the real problem is -- what can new management do in an industry that has been pillaged by the likes of consolidators such as Citadel, Cumulus and Clear Channel?

Lose money, for one.

They'd have to do the very thing the three "C"s are doing now -- cut back, automate programming, install Repeater Radio, inflict economies of scale and probably lower ad rates.

That isn't a growth business.

A lot of good intentioned people are going to take a haircut after Citadel shareholders do. And they should know better. However, we radio folks are emotional. Many of us have been pained to watch the residue of consolidation on a once thriving industry. We know in our heart of hearts that we can turn it around and restore radio to profitability again if only we could get the chance.

Well, the chance is coming but the likelihood of making these stations (acquired at low, low bankruptcy sales prices) a growth business again are slim to none.

And "Slim" is vacationing while consolidators are voice tracking his show.

The reality is that buying radio stations even at bargain basement prices in an industry that has no upside other than an aging, older audience is tantamount to a future bankruptcy.

Radio has no Internet strategy.

No mobile strategy.

Never understood social networking other than asking listeners to text them during contests.

Fails to observe that attention spans, critical to the success of "broadcasting", are shrinking.

Blind to the realization that an entire new generation is coming of age and they are the program directors -- masters of their mobile devices. They stop, start, time-delay and delete their programming content on the go.

The radio industry could have made the transition, but got greedy (along with their Wall Street partners) and it all blew up in their faces when the recession came, the audience got older, the Internet and mobile spaces were ignored and consolidators took on more debt than they could repay.

Sure, radio stations throw off lots of free cash flow. And yes, if you buy bankrupt stations at low prices you'll probably be able to service the debt for a few more years.

Sorry to say, that soon won't be enough.

The world has moved on at precisely the time that the radio stations most of us have coveted all our lives are becoming available and if operators buy them now, they will wind up in Citadel's shoes eventually.

It's only a matter of time.

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: Your subscription will not become “active” until you open an email from Feedburner immediately sent to your email inbox or spam filter.

Thanks for forwarding my pieces to your friends and linking to your websites and boards.

Jazz Composition 3 - The Soloist Conundrum continued

Since the last time I wrote on the subject, there’ve been some very interesting developments from my point of view — two in particular. One was the response I got from the great Jim McNeely whom I mentioned in the last post about this subject, and the other was my involvement in writing some film music which I also mentioned in earlier posts.

In relation to Jim’s response to my last blog on the problems of integrating soloists with extended compositional forms in jazz, he made some very good points — as one would expect from someone with his experience. If you’re interested at all in this subject, I would recommend that you read his response in full — you can see it here

But I want to extract one paragraph in particular from this response, as I think it’s particularly germane to the subject, and of particular interest to me as a composer. When talking about having shorter solos in jazz compositions, Jim says this:

There's plenty of early precedent for this kind of thinking in jazz; but as the bebop model took over (play a head, blow, play the head again), then the Coltrane extension of same (play the head, b---l---o---w, b---l---o---w, b---l---o---w, play the head), we were faced with soloists applying that aesthetic to soloing in long-form jazz compositions. This is not to demean what he did; one of my 5 "desert island" records will always be "A Love Supreme". But I've always appreciated countless recordings from the swing era where a guy had 8 bars to make sense and then get out of the way. The solo was part of the overall texture of the piece. Maybe Rex Stewart wouldn't have articulated it that way, but that's the way he played it. Those guys were on to something!

I think Jim puts his finger on the crux of the problem here for the writer of extended or more involved compositions in jazz in the early 21st century. As the music evolved, the solos became longer and longer and the soloist became the most important member of the band — at least for the time during which they were soloing. In earlier incarnations of jazz composition, certainly up as far as the bebop era and probably somewhat beyond that, the nature of the recording technology demanded that the pieces in themselves, and by extension the solos, be shorter and more to the point. The time constraints of recordings in the pre-LP era demanded that everything be done and dusted within three minutes or so. This would include all of the compositional material as well as the statements of the soloists. In such an environment the soloists were forced to really concentrate their minds so as to make the most effective contribution to the piece that they could in the time allowed. The composer also had to take this into account and to give the soloist the most effective slot that he or she could in order to make the most cohesive piece possible under the circumstances.

I don’t think it’s necessarily true to say that the soloists of earlier eras played shorter solos simply because of time constraints on recordings. If one listens to live recordings from the 40s of the bebop pioneers, recordings done by enthusiasts using technology that may have been primitive but didn’t have the time constraints of studio recordings — you can hear that’s even in the live situation the soloists were not necessarily attracted to extended solos, but limited their contributions to what would be considered quite short solos by the standards that pertained after the mid-1950s, and certainly after the early 1960s in the post-Coltrane era. So it would seem that the long solo was not just a question of chronological limitation, but also one of aesthetic taste as far as the musicians of that era were concerned.

The problems I mentioned in my earlier post of finding a way to logically integrate solos into increasingly complex compositions, in such a way that they don’t sound like they have been put in there simply for the sake of allowing the soloists to play, was not something that the earlier composers had to contend with, since the soloists of that era were not as verbose as their descendents were to become. Like Jim, I’m not using this comparison between the soloing habits of the two different eras as any statement to beat anybody with — I myself am a product of the era of the longer solo and nobody admires Coltrane, the great progenitor of long solos, more than I do. I’m just making the observation that the difficulties of accommodating long solos into long and sometimes complex compositions is one that is made particularly difficult by the length of the solos of the typical contemporary jazz musician.

I mentioned earlier that there were two developments in my thinking on the problems of integrating long solos into complex compositional forms — one was Jim’s response, and the other was my recent involvement with writing film music

In my recent composition of 11 pieces written to accompany 11 short sections of a silent film, I was forced to write the music so that it would fit the time frame exactly, of the different sections of the film. In such a situation I was forced to give the soloists very specific instructions on the length of their solos. Since the film couldn’t be stretched to accommodate any spur of the moment inspiration on the part of the soloists, it was necessary to be dictatorial about the length of the solos. The results were very interesting for me. On the one hand the compositions really felt like compositions — pieces written to accompany specific visual images, with a lot of written material that wouldn’t vary from performance to performance. On the other hand, since I was able to write for musicians whom I knew very well, I was able to incorporate improvised solos that both enhanced the compositions, yet gave each composition a specific identity depending on who the soloist was and how they approached the piece. Without these solos the pieces would not have been as effective, and the improvisations were an integral part of the overall pieces. So although the written material formed the bulk of the compositions, it would also be true to say that these were undeniably jazz compositions since the solos formed such an integral part of each piece. Indeed to have left out the solos would have changed and impoverished the pieces irrevocably.

So, I unintentionally had an opportunity to do an experiment in the area of writing quite involved pieces with shorter solos - and I must say I really like the results. Although the soloists were circumscribed in what they could do in way they would not normally be in most of their working situations, it seems to me that the enforced paucity of their contributions pointed up even more what great players they were, and made their solos even more enjoyable. This possibly comes under the heading of “a little of what you fancy does you good”, or possibly even “absence makes the heart grow fonder”! Having said that I enjoyed these shorter solos, I should point out that these “shorter solos” did not consist of little 8 bar segments, but usually at least a whole chorus of the form and sometimes longer, depending on the situation. But they were undoubtedly shorter solos than usually would be the case with these players playing the music they usually play, and indeed the music I usually write. And will doubtlessly write again — but in this instance I was definitely shown an alternative to the problematic model where the length of the composition was matched by the length of the solos.

The musicians themselves didn’t seem to chafe much under the enforced tyranny of the composer - or at least if they did they didn’t tell me! I can imagine a scenario where if we were playing this music or similar music night after night that the musicians may feel a little bit underused and possibly frustrated at the lack of ability to fully spread their wings as soloists. But since a) this concert was a one-off, (as are so many these days!), and since b) I don’t plan to create a situation in which every piece of music I write will follow this shorter solos dictum, I don’t think this new-found circumscription of the soloists will create too many problems within the band.

I should also mention that in this film music project the pieces themselves were not incredibly long — nothing over four minutes in fact. This helps to balance the overall composition in the sense that though the solos were short, the compositions were also shorter than they would normally be in this genre. This circumscription of the composition allowed the solos to have more meaning within the overall piece, rather than giving the sensation that the piece was to all intents and purposes a classical piece, with improvised decoration.



But this film music experiment has definitely whetted my appetite for more of the same — not necessarily more film music, but more music in this vein in which the soloists will be given specified lengths for their improvisations. I’m now mentally planning writing a suite of music for small group that will be written in the same vein — solos more integrated into the overall fabric of the composition rather than the soloists being given free reign to decide the length of their solos. I’ve been listening again to the late great George Russell’s masterpiece ’Jazz Workshop’ which I mentioned in the previous post relating to this topic, and, as I said in that post, I see this recording as being a model for what can be done in the integration of improvised solos into involved composition.

In a sense I think of this way of writing actually makes the use of solos even more interesting — at least from the composer’s point of view. In the sense that rather than incorporating a solo because one feels that a particular player needs to be given a chance to demonstrate their skills, the composer can find many different ways of using a solo statement to complement a particular written passage or piece. And to use solos in this way forces one to think of more varied and creative ways of using the solos. Instead of mostly using open ended solos with cued backgrounds, the composer can utilize the solo statements in many different and more varied ways — as decoration to a melody, as something to introduce a piece, as something to end the piece, as something that arises out of the ensemble, submerges back into it only to rise, phoenix-like, later on etc. etc.. There are so many variables to this and so many different ways to use the improviser within the written context — it’s something that will really stretch the imagination of the composer and hopefully increase the enjoyment of the listener, some of whom are undoubtedly jaded by the lack of an editorial instinct in some players!

So, short yet involved compositions and shorter yet relevant solos — Brave New World!

P. S. I will be interviewing Jim McNeely about composition for this blog soon — should be fascinating.

Dear Dickey Do, Fagreed and Slogan Hogan

Remember what we used to do when a radio station started losing its audience?

That's right -- The New 92.

The same old thing packaged like we've fixed everything listeners came to dislike about the station.

I think of this sometimes when I think of Cumulus CEO Lew "Don't Call Me Tricky" Dickey, Citadel CEO Farid "Fagreed" Suleman and Clear Channel Radio President John "Slogan" Hogan.

These three blind mice haven't come up with one good idea in 13 years!

I dare you, name one.

See.

None of them is dumb -- in fact, they all well educated and bright. True, they may have sold their souls and their birthright in this industry but dumb -- they are not.

However, their policies are misguided by all measures -- nothing has worked -- except the huge compensation they have drained from their corporate coffers in over a decade.

Their stock was declining before the recession. Their stations were threadbare in advance of their massive layoffs and their cash flow was taken for granted as never ending even before their debt load was unmanageable.

So, I'd like to offer some constructive criticism so that arguably the three most important people to the future of radio, will put their thinking caps on and change their ways.

Look, I know they won't, but this exercise is about what could have been if they would.

Let's start with Dickey Do...

1. Read a good book on human relations.

2. Fire your brothers or ask them to fire you -- something isn't right about the chemistry in your company. And while you're at it, there are a couple of guys who are sucking up big time and acting like asses to your employees. Fire them and be a hero to the people who really matter -- your employees.

3. Pull those spy-in-the-sky cameras out of your station conference rooms and have a party where you encourage your salespeople to stomp all over them until they are broken into pieces. Catharsis is needed.

4. Let your local sales managers lead the team. Give each station manager one year to make the numbers you need and they agree to -- if they don't, then you can let them go. If they do, then you can reward them with more money and another year. Promise them you'll stay out of their stations.

5. Make each station local -- don't force national programming down their throats. They can get you more than adequate local jocks for not a lot of money and win more audience.

6. Don't raise rates until you do something that matters for your clients. Stop talking about going after "elephants" -- Cumulus is the big elephant in the room and that's part of the problem.

7. Stop making life so stressful for your employees. They are human. They may not have your lineage and guarantee of perpetual employment but they are good people.

8. Fight your demons and give your employees a good reputation to live up to not one to live down.

On to Fagreed Suleman...

1. Judy Ellis can be toxic -- many of your employees don't like her. She may be qualified but they think she is too harsh and not caring. Get her aside and have a talk with her. Hard nose tactics may work in the short run but don't last for the long term. She was a pretty good exec in her prior days according to some industry people -- how about backing her off the bare knuckle tactics? Times are tough enough and so help your employees help you.

2. Don't like that suggestion? Promote one of your ABC managers to Judy's job.

3. Work for $1 a year like a lot of other CEOs during hard times. That $1 is worth more than one single share of your stock -- if you need another reason. You've had $10 million years, $17 million years and benefits like crazy. Don't be a pig.

4. Your ABC stations have enough good talent in it alone to bail you out of your mess. Try to keep out of running their business. You bought it for $1 billion so show some respect and let the people who made it worth that much do their thing. Citadel is not a good business model for ABC. Better yet, adopt the former ABC business model for Citadel and you'll turn it around.

5. National programming will kill off whatever you can't by micromanaging your stations. Let the local managers come up with local programming. It's not that expensive. And it will be more popular. Keep Don Imus on in New York if you like, but what are you thinking -- he's not that popular. Oh, I get it -- you're thinking like a bean counter. You're already paying Imus' salary so why not get your money's worth and spread out the costs of his salary.

Now, John Slogan Hogan...

1. It's okay not to be Randy Michaels. Randy was a bigger than life figure who in many ways knew what he was doing. Maybe he was a bully but he was a smart bully. You are also a bully and not that -- well, you know.

2. Raising rates after 13 years of consolidation when it was your company that has helped keep radio ad rates low during good times calls for an apology.

3. Everything doesn't have to be a slogan. "Less Is More" was -- face it -- an abortion. How about something that is a statement of good intention that is not a slogan like "Thank you Clear Channel employees for being so professional". It may not rhyme but it has a pleasant ring to it.

4. Stop with the national Repeater Radio, already. You know it won't work. Let local managers hire local people. They can do it within a budget if you stick to the budget. Nothing against Ryan Seacrest but really! As the largest radio group the more you embrace network and syndicated programming or voice tracking, the more you personally lead the radio industry into oblivion.

5. You've got so much talent at Clear Channel -- ask and you shall receive help.

6. No more firings, please. When you fire people, Fagreed and Dickey Do imitate you.

One of my readers, a radio professional, sent me the perfect ending for this piece.

It's about negative reinforcement -- the type all three of these gentlemen apparently practice.

It works in the short term -- as it does for coaches who clamp down on their teams. But it fails in the long run which is why so many of these tough coaches eventually get fired.

Here is his advice as he applied it to one of the three serial employee abusers, Cumulus -- but it applies to the others:

"In one study, a rat is put into a cage and the bottom of the cage is electrified.

The rat will run and jump around looking for an escape. He's very motivated to run and jump...but if the electric shock continues the rat realizes that there is no behavior it can engage in to end the shock.

Eventually in these studies you see the rat just hunker down or lie down in surrender. They just give up because ANYTHING they do is futile.

Therefore, Cumulus management get as mean as they want, but they'll never achieve long term motivation and performance at Cumulus. The opposite, "positive reinforcement" far outperforms "negative reinforcement".

Now as impressive as the results of that study are, here's what impresses me.

It was articulated by a radio professional, not a CEO proving once again that the people who actually know and can run radio should be, well -- running it. Or at the very least, the executives who rose to the top, should be listening to their people for guidance.

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: Your subscription will not become “active” until you open an email from Feedburner immediately sent to your email inbox or spam filter.

Thanks for forwarding my pieces to your friends and linking to your websites and boards.

Brainstorm with Jerry.
In-person, face-to-face. About your entrepreneurial ideas. Turning around traditional media. New streams of revenue for radio stations, new media companies, podcasting, webcasting, mobile. Helping to unlock the potential of your team -- 480-998-9898, jdelcolliano@earthlink.net or click on "Email Author" below.

Radio's New Obsession with Cume

By Jerry Del Colliano

For decades, radio stations relentlessly pursued quarter hour listening dominance.

We sold advertisers and agencies on the importance of buying commercials in a setting where listeners listened longer.

That was, until now.

Until Arbitron's Portable People Meter came along and changed everything. Or should I say, the radio industry changed everything based on its understanding or misunderstanding of this new technology.

Some context is needed.

I'm sure old timers (that's is anyone who was hired one year ago or longer) remember that we swept across the quarter hours with music to -- all together now -- try to win an extra five minutes of listening in the subsequent quarter hour. Under the diary system, that's all it took to get credit for two quarter hours.

Sweepers, jingle-assisted segues -- always content and not commercials on the quarter hour.

In the minds of program directors, this helped boost quarter hour listening.

Of course, it didn't. As playing tricks with listeners in the hope that a diary keeper could be influenced to report longer listening was a figment of our imagination.

The radio industry has a great imagination especially when it comes to ratings.

In reality, the only way to influence the diary reliably and effectively was to make your radio station their favorite radio station because under the diary recall system, respondents would tend to recall listening just before they had to return paper diaries to Arbitron.

If CBS-FM is your favorite station and you kept an Arbitron diary -- unless you were a super geek -- you'd recall your listening not by how many times the station played music across the quarter hours but by how long you thought you listened to your favorite station -- or other stations.

This little detail is forgotten in today's PPM world because in radio, we are all experts (including me, as you can see) in our own minds.

The problem is we're at it again.

The People Meter is picking up a disturbing trend --shorter listening spans.

However, less listening is offset by more listeners because the meter can actually record radio listening that isn't really happening as long as respondents are in earshot of an encoded signal while their portable device is in their possession.

So, now market by People Meter market, you see that the switch pitch is on with advertisers. That troubles advertisers who pay to have their messages heard and don't think that shorter time spent listening is good for them. It's also not good for stations when it comes to maintaining their ad rates.

Our present "industry think" is that if you play music all the time and minimize the talk -- the old "more music theory" -- that PPM listening will also increase. And, it apparently does.

What stations cannot do is get radio listeners to listen longer thus the switch to a new benchmark -- cume-type figures.

Anyway ... how would radio expect to get listeners to listen longer?

Most financially pressed group owners have cutback on-air personalities, bargained off their beloved 50-minute music sweeps for unlistenable stop sets of commercials. No contests. No excitement. No real reason to say -- that station is my favorite.

Again, look at one of the last of its breed -- WCBS-FM and you see that they dominate PPM cume for two reasons:

1. They are a companion station.

2. Their listeners can say CBS-FM is their favorite station.

By companion station I mean, a station they like to have on because it is good company.

And most important -- and what should be the real goal of any successful radio station -- is to make it the one that their listeners can actually say is their favorite station. That's what I did right here.

A New York radio station is one of my favorite stations and I live in Scottsdale, Arizona.

It's not even about the music. I've heard it all and played a lot of it while I was working at stations. It really isn't.

And choose your own favorite station and take the test.

As I would say, let's brainstorm about this. Find out how to make your station a listener favorite. Don't rely on old PD wisdom or Arbitron fly-ins.

Of course, we won't do this. We know everything when it comes to manipulating audience ratings.

That's why commercial free days are popping up even as we piss off more advertisers by delivering shorter time spent listening.

Never mind -- average quarter hour didn't matter anyway, we will now have to argue.

Cume is radio's new obsession -- and a fatal one in my view.

And we get cume by being on everywhere and by shutting up and playing music. Here's an interesting article in the Denver Post on the new world of PPM and shorter listening spans.

CBS is doing "commercial free Mondays" on many of its stations as a ploy to get increased listeners. It will probably work. And CBS is selling the commercial free days to advertisers and focusing on new ways to monetize the time without specifically running spots.

But other groups are doing the same thing and screwing it up.

One of my Repeater Reporters checks in with this embarrassing situation:

"An Entercom station here in Indianapolis, classic hits WNTR is doing "Commercial Free Mornings" with no spots between 9 and noon every day.

Oh, what they don't tell you is they're loading up long 10-unit breaks in the other hours.

Oh, and another thing: There's no jock on during these hours, either. Just a weird pre-recorded back-announce voice, which identifies some (not all) of the songs. And it gets many of them wrong! Sounds terrible.

They're also doing the "Now we're LIVE" thing. "It's Saturday Night Live! That's right, tonight we are LIVE from our studio!" Wow. So now we know you're not live the rest of the week!"

Another reader identifies what radio is doing with PPM right now as over-steering:

"PPM causes 'over steering' If you've ever had your car hydroplane or skid on ice the tendency is to yank the wheel in the other direction, and all you do is over steer...PPM results overnight to paranoid programmers is a BAD idea. It's killing any spontaneity that Radio has left."

One of my mentors, Marlin Taylor, who first hired me at Jerry Lee's FM station in Philadelphia as always put his finger on the problem:

"When I conceived the idea of commercial-free blocks back at WRFM in NY in 1969 ... we never, never spoke of not airing commercials, after all they were our lifeblood.

We called them "Total Music Hours ... where, in the next 60 minutes, you'll hear 59 minutes of music!"

So, let's take a positive look at this situation and see if we can shed some light:

1. "Commercial free" days are not bad in and of themselves if they are portrayed using language that does not make commercials as seeming to be bad. But encourage personality and keeping company with listeners not just blah music sweeps.

2. Make the commercials you run better -- and encourage testing of spots to help advertisers be more effective in their campaigns.

3. The only way to win at the ratings game -- and this includes PPM technology -- is to make it your goal to have listeners articulate that your station is their favorite station and to do this you'll need personality and companionship.

4. Radio is mortgaging its future by cutting personality time for more music alone just because it seems to build PPM cume.

5. Cume is nice. But time spent listening is the benchmark radio sold to advertisers for decades and now more than ever, time spent listening is what advertisers crave. Trying to switch pitch them at this late date will fail.

Oh, and dump those long stop sets.

If you don't have the guts to do it during the week, try one unit breaks out on the weekend and see how good they sound and how long music sweeps in an age of short attention span is simply our arrogance that we know what listeners want.

What listeners want is -- a station that is listenable and eight unit stop sets are not listenable. And 50-minute music sweeps are, well -- unremarkable.

Steve Eberhart's history of KLIF in Dallas and the radio pioneer Gordon McLendon sums it up today as it did decades ago:

"Time and again -without exception -successful broadcast operators have proved that in order to survive and prosper financially, any radio station must provide a programming service of utility to a meaningful segment of the potential listening audience. Neither sales nor general administration nor engineering comes first. Programming does. The station failing to provide some service of unique programming utility to one or another reasonably large demographic element of the population is doomed.

The programming-ahead-of-sales philosophy was really Gordon's broadcasting credo. 'You can have the greatest sales staff and signal in the world and it doesn't mean a thing if you don't have something great to put on the air,' he would say. If he kept his eye on the programming, Gordon assumed, station advertising sales would take care of itself. And, of course, he was usually right."

Dickey Do, Fagreed and Slogan Hogan -- are you listening?

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: Your subscription will not become “active” until you open an email from Feedburner immediately sent to your email inbox or spam filter.

Thanks for forwarding my pieces to your friends and linking to your websites and boards.

Zap! Right here is where you want to put your message -- 130,000 sets of eyeballs -- all growth industry readers just read this. Chat with Barry O'Brien about introductory ad packages -- (508)-224-4262 or barry@barryobrien.com.