Host Catching Heat For Cancer Comments

12-18-14

Here's another on-air situation that keeps a manager up at night wondring how bad the bad publicity will get. Philadelphia talker Chris Stigall is getting some national publicity but for all the wrong reasons. The WPHT morning show host is being called out (see the New York Post HERE) for saying something about a Philadelphia Phillies fan who has cancer. Julie Kramer was bombarded with love and affection from Phillies second baseman Chase Utley on The Ellen Show; the 23-year-old Kramer is battling a rare tissue cancer. Utley invited Kramer to as many Phillies games as she wanted to attend. That's when Stigall stepped in it.
According to The New York Post, Stigall said, "You know Chase Utley's not going to be around to take the cancer patient to the games. It's a nice invite, but he won't even be there. Plus, it's probably terminal what that woman has. You think she's going to live through an entire season?"

According to Philly.com, Stigall offered an "awkward" apology a day after his original comments. "I know my heart and intent was something very different than my words, but that doesn't matter. It is my prayer that Mrs. Kramer was successful in her battle," Stigall said. "And my thoughtless attempt at a joke about our show conveyed a sentiment that came off as much different. And for that, I am sincerely sorry."

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

Is Beck in Trouble Over Bombing Comments?

8-13-14

The Boston Business Journal reports that Glenn Beck's attorney's requested that a federal judge dismiss a lawsuit alleging he incorrectly identified Abdulrahman Alharbi as the money source behind the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013. Beck says he's protected by the First Ammedment. Alharbi was seen on video near the bombing site which caught the attention of  investigators. He was later cleared of any wrongdoing. After the bombings, Beck called Alharbi a "bad, bad" person and identified the student as the moneyman behind the attacks. Alharbi filed a libel suit against Beck this spring.

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

More Comments on Indecency Filed

6-21-13

Broadcasters are getting their comments on file with the FCC as the Commission prepares to consider possible changes to indecency law. Yesterday, the NAB submitted documents asking the commission to redefine the ancient rules on the books. Today, two more filings include overhauling the rules completely, prompt processing and chilled speech. Greater Media, Journal, Lincoln, Beasley, Entercom and Galaxy join together in a filing HERE. Emmis and Radio One join others in a filing HERE

View the original article here

Your Comments on the Recent Pandora Numbers

7-12-2012

We had quite a few questions from readers this week after posting the numbers Pandora sent out regarding overall radio listening in the United States. Not to mention we are always skeptical when research and "numbers" are just thrown out in a press release. So we asked the folks at Pandora how they came to the conclusion that they now own the ears of nearly 6% of total U.S. radio listeners.

Here is what they told us about how they came to that conclusion. "We arrive at the calculation using data from Triton Digital, Arbitron and the U.S. Census. The estimated total hours includes satellite radio." The answer wasn't as specific as we would have liked, not did it detail any formula used to come to the 6% conclusion. The 5.98% number from the Pandora press release amounts to an increase from 3.37% Pandora said it had one year earlier.

(7/13/2012 4:16:13 AM)
Re "they now own the ears.." Good luck on THAT.

Ask anyone in radio. NO one "owns" any listener ear.

We work hard to earn it every day, and the attitude that because in their own survey they went from a 3 to a 6 has nothing to do with whether they are getting that same 6 today or tomorrow, even if the stats are reliable, based on standard replicable survey methodology.

(7/12/2012 2:31:27 PM)
"The 5.98% number from the Pandora press release amounts to an increase from 3.37% Pandora said it had one year earlier." Who cares! I don't know about PPM. I know about Arbitron's methodology, PPDV, and the disclaimer at the back of the book. I've studied it, been certified on it, lectured about it and taught it at a well-respected university.
One set of "numbers" is as good as another. Arbitron calls them estimates.
The broadcasters call them facts.
Pandora is doing the same thing.

(7/12/2012 1:17:28 PM)
Pandora is a big bubble that will eventually burst. But I'm sure there will be another Tim Westergren wannabe right behind them to give the radio-haters-in-radio another reason to bite the hand that feeds them.
(7/12/2012 11:44:02 AM)
If Pandora wants anyone to believe its 'numbers', let it release the information it is paying royalties on.

Pandora has those numbers available, because they gave had to report them and guarantee their accuracy, let them release those, then lets see how it compares to radio.

(7/12/2012 11:26:49 AM)
When I tried my hand at sales years ago, my sales manager said "If you take a client to lunch and they ask you to see numbers, grab a napkin and write some down. It's just as meaningful." More recently, an old sales guy told me "When you get the books, it's easy to make your station look number one somewhere. You just have to know how to work the numbers." I trust Pandora numbers just about the same amount...

Add a Comment | View All Comments Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

The NAB Files Comments In Favor of Deregulation

4-17-2012

Ownership was a big topic buzzing around the halls at the Las Vegas Convention Center on Tuesday, and right on cue, the NAB has filed comments with the FCC asking the commission to further deregulate the industry. The NAB says the marketplace is so much more competitive than it was in 1996, and that's a strong argument to loosen things up. By law, the FCC must revisit the law and part of the process is to take comments from the public. The NAB has taken the position that the caps should be lifted and cross-ownership restrictions should be abolished. Here are the highlights from the NAB filing.

"Retention of the current local ownership caps cannot be justified under section 202(h). Local radio stations are competing against a multitude of audio platforms for audiences and advertising revenues, and this competition is only increasing. Because competition in the local audio marketplace is robust and the existing restrictions do not serve the Commission's competition, localisom, or diversity goals, the rules must be repealed or modified. The record contains no evidence that justifies retention of the local ownership rules in their current form or otherwise. Given the growth of Internet-based platforms, podcasting, satellite radio, and various mobile audio devices, it is illogical and arbitrary to consider only radio broadcast stations in defining the relevant market, particularly because radio broadcasters compete with these alternatives for audience share and advertising revenue in local markets."

And, on owning radio and newspapers in the same market, the NAB also asks for deregulation. "The record clearly demonstrates that newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership restrictions are no longer necessary in the public interest as a result of competition and should be repealed. Decades of evidence submitted in this and prior proceedings demonstrate that increased cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast outlets supports the FCC's localism and other public interest goals. The NAB goes on to say that the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule is not necessary to promote competition."

(4/18/2012 11:06:17 AM)
The best thing for a free Capitalist society is a totally free market where morality and fairness is in the heart of the investors and communities that benifit of suffer the consequences of foul play and selfish behavior.
(4/18/2012 9:48:50 AM)
Give translators permanent status,many owners are are now paying a premium for translators which sometimes represents a sizable investment. Also,eliminate the stupid requirement for an AM station to restrict its simulcast FM translator 60 db contour within the AM 2mV contour. Interference to other license facilities should be the only consideration. The current rule does not allow for maximum utilization of the spectrum.
(4/18/2012 9:31:02 AM)
((The public does not want it, yet greed won out in 1996 and just look at the damage done in market after market.))

there are at least five whole people (here) who mostly refer to themselves in the third person that believe EVERYONE doesn't want it. they (you) must be part of the borg.

(4/18/2012 8:09:52 AM)
I wasn't aware there were any regulations left to deregulate in broadcasting? Here is something the FCC can do to create done radio jobs: require large local clusters to be staffed 24/7! If you have 4,5,6 or more stations under one roof you can afford to have one body in the building at all times. God forbid a radio station have someone on duty after 5pm.
(4/18/2012 8:08:05 AM)
It's kinda like when Wal-Mart tries to come to town. Most (rational) people know the consequences, (that it puts Mom and Pop LOCAL businesses out of business), and they scream in droves to their elected officials "NO WAY...WE DON'T WANT ANOTHE WAILING WAL OF MART." Yet some elected bureaucrat driven by greed for two-cents more (net) in sales tax revenue goes against the local citizens and plops down anothe Wal-Mart. And such is the case for further deregulation of the public airwaves. The public does not want it, yet greed won out in 1996 and just look at the damage done in market after market. Bean-Counters replacing broadcasters with little to no regard for the "Public Interest." Voice-tracking into Market A from Market B, this driving up the unemployment rates across America. Do the people in YOUR home-town really want to go down this misguided, dead-end road once again? It certainly wasn't in the best interest of ADVERTISERS, LISTENERS,or the EMPLOYEES at radio stations across America in 1996. Hey Ed, Hey Eric, how about some true reporting on the carnage over the past 15-years since deregulation?

Add a Comment | View All Comments Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

The NAB Files Comments In Favor of Deregulation

4-17-2012

Ownership was a big topic buzzing around the halls at the Las Vegas Convention Center on Tuesday, and right on cue, the NAB has filed comments with the FCC asking the commission to further deregulate the industry. The NAB says the marketplace is so much more competitive than it was in 1996, and that's a strong argument to loosen things up. By law, the FCC must revisit the law and part of the process is to take comments from the public. The NAB has taken the position that the caps should be lifted and cross-ownership restrictions should be abolished. Here are the highlights from the NAB filing.

"Retention of the current local ownership caps cannot be justified under section 202(h). Local radio stations are competing against a multitude of audio platforms for audiences and advertising revenues, and this competition is only increasing. Because competition in the local audio marketplace is robust and the existing restrictions do not serve the Commission's competition, localisom, or diversity goals, the rules must be repealed or modified. The record contains no evidence that justifies retention of the local ownership rules in their current form or otherwise. Given the growth of Internet-based platforms, podcasting, satellite radio, and various mobile audio devices, it is illogical and arbitrary to consider only radio broadcast stations in defining the relevant market, particularly because radio broadcasters compete with these alternatives for audience share and advertising revenue in local markets."

And, on owning radio and newspapers in the same market, the NAB also asks for deregulation. "The record clearly demonstrates that newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership restrictions are no longer necessary in the public interest as a result of competition and should be repealed. Decades of evidence submitted in this and prior proceedings demonstrate that increased cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast outlets supports the FCC's localism and other public interest goals. The NAB goes on to say that the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule is not necessary to promote competition."

(4/18/2012 11:06:17 AM)
The best thing for a free Capitalist society is a totally free market where morality and fairness is in the heart of the investors and communities that benifit of suffer the consequences of foul play and selfish behavior.
(4/18/2012 9:48:50 AM)
Give translators permanent status,many owners are are now paying a premium for translators which sometimes represents a sizable investment. Also,eliminate the stupid requirement for an AM station to restrict its simulcast FM translator 60 db contour within the AM 2mV contour. Interference to other license facilities should be the only consideration. The current rule does not allow for maximum utilization of the spectrum.
(4/18/2012 9:31:02 AM)
((The public does not want it, yet greed won out in 1996 and just look at the damage done in market after market.))

there are at least five whole people (here) who mostly refer to themselves in the third person that believe EVERYONE doesn't want it. they (you) must be part of the borg.

(4/18/2012 8:09:52 AM)
I wasn't aware there were any regulations left to deregulate in broadcasting? Here is something the FCC can do to create done radio jobs: require large local clusters to be staffed 24/7! If you have 4,5,6 or more stations under one roof you can afford to have one body in the building at all times. God forbid a radio station have someone on duty after 5pm.
(4/18/2012 8:08:05 AM)
It's kinda like when Wal-Mart tries to come to town. Most (rational) people know the consequences, (that it puts Mom and Pop LOCAL businesses out of business), and they scream in droves to their elected officials "NO WAY...WE DON'T WANT ANOTHE WAILING WAL OF MART." Yet some elected bureaucrat driven by greed for two-cents more (net) in sales tax revenue goes against the local citizens and plops down anothe Wal-Mart. And such is the case for further deregulation of the public airwaves. The public does not want it, yet greed won out in 1996 and just look at the damage done in market after market. Bean-Counters replacing broadcasters with little to no regard for the "Public Interest." Voice-tracking into Market A from Market B, this driving up the unemployment rates across America. Do the people in YOUR home-town really want to go down this misguided, dead-end road once again? It certainly wasn't in the best interest of ADVERTISERS, LISTENERS,or the EMPLOYEES at radio stations across America in 1996. Hey Ed, Hey Eric, how about some true reporting on the carnage over the past 15-years since deregulation?

Add a Comment | View All Comments Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

John and Ken Comments Lead to City Council Resolution

3-26-2012

Leave it to a City Council in the state of California to pass a resolution aimed at eliminating free speech. Late last week the Los Angeles City Council, in a 13-2 vote, approved the resolution that calls on local TV and radio stations to limit racist and sexist comments in their airwaves. The politicians decided it was time to act after KFI's John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou called the late Whitney Houston a "crack ho." The duo were swiftly suspended by Clear Channel and ordered to go to sensitivity training.
The resolution is in no way enforceable. The council wanted to tell the community that these types of controversial comments is ?intolerable? and can potentially lead to ?an environment where negative comments can go unchecked and corporate guidelines and policies are no longer being enforced?. The motion urges ?the management of radio and television stations in Los Angeles to do everything in their power to ensure that their on-air hosts do not use and promote racist and sexist slurs over public airwaves in the City of Los Angeles?.

Read more about this story in SALON

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

Your Comments on Monday's Bill Koenigsberg Story

1-30-2012

Bill Koenigsberg is the President, CEO and Founder of Horizon Media, one of the largest independent media agencies in the world. With offices in New York, Los Angeles, San Diego and Amsterdam Horizon has 650 employees and annual billings of $3 billion. Koenigsberg is also Chairman of the 4As Media Committee and has played a vital role in getting advertising agencies to adopt policies to abolish the No Urban/No Hispanic dictates the media industry has been dealing with for so many years. Advertising Age Magazine just named Koenigsberg Advertising Executive of the Year and this past Friday we spoke to Koenigsberg to get his take on radio.

For so many years, despite all the radio friendly stats Arbitron throws out stating the number of radios per household, the percentage of people who listen to radio and consumers listen through long stopsets none of those statistics have helped radio increase (as an industry) its revenue share with advertisers. For what seems like decades, radio has only been able to muster up about 7% of an advertiser's budget. So we asked Koenigsberg what it was going to take for radio to increase that number. Not surprisingly, his answer had nothing to do with the typical radio research which, to an advertiser, really means nothing.

"I think multiple things. One is, and I have been very vocal about this, proving cause and effect, return on investment...is the golden goose, the holy grail. Radio needs to do a better job of proving attribution, if I spend a dollar in radio, my return is "X" vs. a dollar somewhere else. That's one. Two, and I think that Bob Pittman is trying very hard to reinvent radio at Clear Channel. I think radio has become a bit static and needs to reinvent itself. Now, how it reinvents itself, I'm not quite sure. Radio has got to become more of an engagement vehicle. Engagement is critical for advertisers today. A lot of people listen to radio in the background and it's not intrusive, and it's not engaging. It is more passive. How do you make radio more engaging? So, I think return of investment proof and engagement proof is critical. If you can prove that, they will be buying radio all day long."

(1/30/2012 8:41:48 PM)
Although Steve inquires: "What am I missing?", the answer is still "Not much - if anything."
However, the more difficult generalization about radio listeners is their inability to RECALL the content of ads.
There is an explanation-of-sorts offered in a recent Radio Ink article: http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=2342813&spid=41252
Meanwhile, Steve's other comments about closing those loops, I believe, also have significant credibility.
Fact is: demonstrating efficacy of our services is something that is definitely on the "Honey Do"-list.
(1/30/2012 3:59:36 PM)
I don't see radio's 'trackability' as a huge challenge to overcome? Maybe I'm not clear on what the expectations are with tracking, but with things like SMS, unique URL's, data base opt-ins, QR Codes, and the like, we should be able to close that loop and move forward delivering what marketers are looking for - more trackable campaigns. What am I missing?
(1/30/2012 12:13:36 PM)
Nice to see some smart guys coming out of the woodwork.
Still, I wonder about how many executives would continue rearing up with the demand to "Stop telling me how to run my business!"
(This would be the same business, by the way, that has been around longer than any other electronic media and still can't pick up more than 7% of the available revenues.)
Gosh-a-rooties! How can that be...? This is definitely stuff that makes me go, "Hmmmm".
(1/30/2012 11:27:43 AM)
No need to reinvent the wheel. Everything that you need to know about radio success is available by studying what was successful in the past.

Here's a bit of my radio philosophy that you can either take or leave, as you wish.

First, times change, but people don't. We may think that we do, but we really don't.

What's old or very old is new to someone that hasn't seen it before. So, feel free to steal ideas from your predecessors. They don't, won't, or can't care if you do.

And lastly, programming is King. If your listeners don't care for what you're broadcasting, find something they do like and care about. It may take quite a lot of your time digging for real golden content, but it will pay off in a big way.

(1/30/2012 11:19:39 AM)
Yes, radio needs to re-invent itself; it also needs to re-inVEST in itself.

The trend, since deregulation, has been away from live and local talent, and outside of CC's Prophet system (which, in and of itself is a bit dated), the automation platforms have been rather stale, themselves.

A club DJ can do what today's contemporary radio stations SHOULD be doing - mixing mp4s (videos) streaming on their website and potentially a local cable channel (for another revenue source) heard on their FM.

Add a Comment | View All Comments Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

Read Your Comments About CBS/Merlin Fight

I understand why CBS is defending their intellectual property. However I have no idea why they would be the least bit concerned about WEMP in New York.

I applauded Merlin for investing money in trying to do something different on FM, but I am quite amazed at what they came up with.

I have some questions about WEMP New York’s only FM News Station

1)Why is the processing set as if the station is a hit music station?

2)Why is there so much over the top imaging? All the bells, whistles, pops and zings. The station sounds like it is broadcasting live from the casino floor at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas.

3)Why do the anchor teams anchor as if they are hosting the morning show on an AC music station? Many deliver the news with a music radio smile on their faces

4)Why are many of the anchor’s former music radio DJs? Were there no news people available?

5)Why don’t the anchors identify who they are? The station is made up of a bunch of random voices. The station sounds like the Public Address System at a department store. People do connect with news anchors when they know who they are.

6)Why the choice in news stories? Many are just fluff. Often the station is way out of sync with what the top stories are.

7)Why does your morning weather man call himself the “Weather Geek”? It sounds stupid.

8)Why do you think “Ten Minutes of Non Stop News” is going to make people tell their friends about the station?

9)Why is the mission to be the top News Station with women? Don’t you want to try and be New York’s News Leader?

Just wondering
Bob

View the original article here

KNBR-AM Host Tony Bruno in Hot Water After Comments

KNBR-AM sports talker Tony Bruno is taking some flack after posting a tweet that was removed less than a minute later. Bruno referred to San Francisco Giants reliever Ramon Ramirez as an "illegal alien." And, he also called Giants manager Bruce Bochy a "coward." Benches cleared after Ramirez hit Philadelphia's Shane Victorino in the back when the Giants were losing 9-2, causing Bruno to send out his short-lived tweet. However, nothing is short-lived on the Internet as Bruno's tweet was quickly multiplied as fans retweeted before he had a chance to delete.

Bruno deleted his tweet and apologized for his "stupid and insensitive" post." He also went on his Facebook page to walk back his comments even more. "My stupid and insensitive twitter post was up less than one minute before I realized it was caustic," Bruno said. "It was removed immediately and I typed a quick apology on twitter and here. Since I was doing my live radio show, I apologized more emphatically on the air, and the podcast is available on my website (tonybrunoshow.com, hour 3) for those who choose to actually get some facts to go along with the hearsay or bloggers who spread falsehoods about my apology not being 'sincere.'"

Ramirez is from the Dominican Republic. He has declined to discuss the brawl but said Sunday he is in the U.S. legally and wouldn't be able to work in the major leagues otherwise.

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

Christian Broadcasters Snap Back at NAB LPFM Comments

June 28, 2011

Yesterday we told you how the NAB was sticking up for niche-formatted stations in its comments to the FCC about LPFM stations. Today we hear from the Christian Broadcasting community. They are none too happy with the NAB comments that an LPFM station could hurt a niche-formatted commercial stations revenue. John Broomall from the CCB writes, "No LPFM operator or advocate, including CCB, believes that LPFM has had (or will have significant impact on commercial broadcasters.  If this premise is correct, the FCC has an impossible task ? proving a negative.)"

Broomall says if a commercial station fails don't blame us. "Nearly 100% of the revenues generated by commercial stations is from advertising.  This is the only useful metric to consider. Evaluating the impact of a 100-watt LPFM that cannot legally air commercials having a five-mile radius coverage against a 100,000 watt commercial station with a 50-mile reach is like comparing mice to elephants. Elephants may be afraid of mice but 100K stations cannot blame LPFMs on any of their economic problems."

"Everyone wants to ?be successful?. Hopefully broadcasters want to ?serve the public interest? and have a positive impact or influence on their listeners. No one brags that they are failures in any way, including financially.  However, neither the IRS nor the FCC expects or wants non-profit organizations to hurt businesses economically.  Based on the purpose and design of LPFM, this low power non-profit service was not intended to have ?significant impact? on any business, including commercial full-service broadcasters. It is impossible to predict the future.  Prognosticators disagree as to whether history is a ?straight line? or if it repeats itself.   Individuals who are ?successful? at economic predictions don?t work for the FCC ? they are independently wealthy and called ?billionaires?!

Broomall founded CCB in early 2000 at the beginning of LPFM.  CCB has filed hundreds of LPFM filings with the FCC from routine Form 318?s to complex and highly disputed MX pleadings, all with a high level of success.  The Broomalls have a website and an Internet discussion group devoted to LPFM and have conducted workshops and seminars. 

View the original article here