Media Curmudgeon

« November 2003 | Main | January 2004 »

December 29, 2003

Sunday, December 28, 2003. End

Sunday, December 28, 2003. End of the Year Laugh
I was going to try to write a year-end summary of significant events of 2003, but I read Dave Barry's review in the December 23rd Washington Post Magazine titled "Between Iraq and a Hard Place: 2003 reasons to be grateful it's almost December 31.". Do yourself a favor and read it via the link I provided and have a great laugh! Happy holdiays to all.

Posted by Charles Warner at 12:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack | Print |

December 23, 2003

Charlie's Dec 22nd post is

Charlie's Dec 22nd post is absolutely correct. These advertisements failed. They drew attention to themselves and not the product or service they were selling.

Our reaction needs to be "What a great product" rather than "What a great ad."

Posted by Charles Warner at 07:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack | Print |

Sunday, December 21, 2003. CommercialsI

Sunday, December 21, 2003. Commercials
I don't watch much television--the major league baseball playoffs and World Series, a few regular season NFL football games, the NFL playoffs, the Super Bowl, some breaking news stories on CNN, an occasional Masterpiece Theater (with my wife), and a few HBO specials such as the magnificent "Angels in America." Therefore, I don't keep up to date on the latest commercials. But even with my limited viewing to broadcast television, I see a lot more commercials than I want to. But the commercials that I despise the most and that enrage me to the point of riot are the ones before movies.

Movies in New York are now $10 for adults and $6.50 for seniors (me) and kids (seven of my eight gradnchildren). Ticket prices are outrageous enough withot being subjected to a half-dozen full-screen commercials. These unwanted, unpaid-for intrusions are even more intrusive, obnoxious, and revolting on a big screen. The most obnoxious is one for Dodge Trucks that shows two men at urinals in a bathroom talking about "size." I have made a solem vow never to buy any product that subjects me to its commercial message in a movie theater where I have paid for a ticket. I have also vowed to spill popcorn and soda on the floor in protest. I'd throw chewing gum on the floor in subversive protest, too, if I could stand chewing gum. My goal is to make it more expensive to clean up than a theater makes on the hateful commercials.

In the few broadcast television commercials I have seen, I have noticed several trends: 1) technology exhibitionism, 2) creative narcissism, and 3) strategic stupidity.

About half the car and truck commercials fall into the first category and second categories. As far as technology exhibitionism goes, those commercials emphasize technological gimmicks and things instead of people, and they don't make much of an impact, except on an advertiser's pocketbook. The worst and most obnoxious of all the car and truck commercials this year were by Dodge Ram trucks. Never buy one; it would serve them right.

Commercials that communicate creative narssicism are those such as the Honda "Cog" commercial--brilliantly creative and fun to watch--but did it implant the brand name or any product benefits in the head of the audience? I don't think so. Another example of creative narssicism were the Chrysler Pacifica ads by the Arnell Group with Celine Dion. Did the spots sell any benefits or cars? I don't think so. The Germans bought Chrysler (which includes Dodge) and installed cost and production controls, but it looks like they forgot to control their ad agencies and while they weren't looking Toyota took over third place in car sales.

An example of all three trends was the AOL commerical that ran in the World Series--the one that looked like an action movie (it was directed by Ridley Scott's son, I think). It was technology exhibitionism, creative narcissistic, and strategicaly stupid--a tripe threat. It was outrageously expensive and tried to make the little, yellow, square-legged AOL runner into a brand incon. The message was that AOL's new 9.0 was fast. Really? You mean I should switch from paying $23.90 a month to $9.95 (or $14.95, whatever it is) for super fast broadband and, therefore, take away all of AOL's subscription-fee profit margin (now around $1.8 billion). That's really stupid.

I saw some other AOL spots with Jerry Stiller and Snop Dogg (the porn rapper) and can't think of two more irreleant people for an AOL commerical. I got a little tired of seeing the old AOL commercials that made the point the AOL was "so easy to use, no wonder we're number one," but it got the right message across (social proof) and positioned all other ISPs as hard to use; it also sold the wide variety of content, features, and benefits of AOL. Very smart.

If you're interested in the best and worst commercials of 2003, look at the current issue of Advertising Age, it's a great issue of the best and worst of 2003, including Bob Garfield's picks of ads he loved and ads he hated. I think Garfield is the best crictic of commericals in the business because he writes well, knows what he's talking about, and makes no bones about the fact that his opinions reflect his personal taste. I like that disclaimer, because I always know where he's coming from, and he's not purposely trying to diss people just to be mean or gain power, like media critic Michael Wolff often does.

Speaking of Wolff, it will be interesting to see if he keeps his job under the new owner of New York magazine. Wolff's maneuver of trying to put together a group to buy New York in order to save his job may well backfire on him.

Posted by Charles Warner at 12:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack | Print |

December 19, 2003

Friday, December 19, 2003. Why

Friday, December 19, 2003. Why They're Called Talk Shows.
A person I admire greatly sent me an e-mail that read: "love yr blog -- I have bookmarked it for future ref. I loved what you said about Angels in America -- also the interchange between Leonard Lopate (one of the smartest interviewers on radio) and Coffin. You should do a muse-thing about radio, maybe -- how it gets to us with this amazing intimacy...." The e-mail was not only gratifying, but also corrected my misspelling of Lopate's name (which I have corrected on the blog).

Well, hardly the one not to take a challenge, I did start thinking about Leonard Lopate's interview program on WNYC radio. First, information about the program from www.wnyc.org: "Host Leonard Lopate lets you in on the best conversations with writers, actors, ex-presidents, dancers, scientists, comedians, historians, grammarians, curators, filmmakers, and do-it-yourself experts. Airs weekdays at 12PM on 93.9 FM and AM 820 and Tuesdays through Saturdays at 1AM on AM 820."

I also want to give a plug to Brian Lehrer's program on WNYC. Here's that information from WNYC's Web site: "Real talk on the issues from New York to the world. Brian Lehrer hosts, with newsmakers and phone calls. Airs weekdays at 10AM on 93.9 FM and AM 820 and Tuesdays through Saturdays at 1AM on AM 820."

Lehrer's talk program is almost as good as Lopate's, but I think that's because of my particular interest in Lopate's topics and guests. Lehrer is very bright and asks good questions, but, again, I prefer Lopate's style and questions just a little bit more...which leads me to the point of this discussion.

Lehrer and Lopate's programs come under the general rubric of "radio talk shows." But this programming genre also includes Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Bob Grant, Matt Drudge, Sean Hannity, Mike and the Mad Dog, and Michael Kay (the last two are sports talk shows, but I won't bother to promote them or any of the others by mentioning where they can be heard.) The notion that the programs of all but Lehrer and Lopate are called talk shows, sounds like newspeak to me. You remember newspeak, from Orwell's 1984.

Newspeak, was the language created by the ruling party in 1984. It "is amazingly detailed and seems feasible. It is based on the English language, and its vocabulary grows smaller instead of larger every year. An appendix, included in the book, enumerates some of the terminology and syntax of the language, and explains how the language is designed to control the thoughts of those who utilize it." (Quoted from the 1984 book Web site.) Newspeak called things by their direct opposite, for example, the Security Police, would be a lawless gang of murderers. The origin of the term talk show was a program to which the audience could call in and talk, spout off on what was bothering them.

If that was the original intent of talk shows, then the current genre of programs of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Bob Grant, Matt Drudge, Sean Hannity, Mike and the Mad Dog, and Michael Kay are newspeak, the direct opposite where the audience listens to the hosts, who do all the talking. Some shows pretend to take calls--as few as possible and only those that are highly screened. The calls that get on the air are of three types: 1) Wildly sycophantic ("I Love your show...), 2) Fawningly agreeing with the host's view ("You're so right..."), and 3) stupidly disagreeing ("I don't agree..."). The callers that ge to talk the longest are the first two, those that disagree are rudely hung up on (after crude, usually screaming, interruptions) and then followed by a tirade about how stupid the caller was.

Of course, the hosts are all safe in a secure studio so they can't get slapped around for their rudeness, crudeness, and stupidness. I remember seeing some research years ago when I was in radio (a Vice President of CBS Radio Spot Sales, a sales representative division, in 1970). CBS owned several talk stations and Radio Spot Sales represented several more. The research indicated that one of the reasons that people listened to talk radio is so that they could make themselves feel good by saying, "That caller was so stupid. I'm much smarter than that." Imagine listening to dumb people on the radio so you can feel smarter.

This probably explains how the trend for stupid radio talk shows and, then, stupid television talk shows started and why they grew like wildfire. The concept spread to other television programming, even to prime time. I guess the thinking goes likes this, "Put on something really vapid, stupid, and disgusting and people will watch it and say, 'I'd never do (say) anything like that--those people are so stupid.'"

Rush Limbaugh has talked his way into become a multi-millionaire by having the most popular talk show in the history of radio. But Rush doesn't take calls from the audience, he just talks about what he wants to talk about. I suppose that is why it's called a talk show. He talks, and talks, and talks. He never listens to anyone, to logic, to the facts, or to the truth. He just talks. Perhaps the reason Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Grant are so popular is because they are conservative, and, based on the research I mentioned above, perhaps the audience is saying to themselves, "Wow, that guy is so stupid. I'd never saying anything so stupid, simplistic, and hateful myself." And they'd be right.

These programs are called talk shows because the hosts, not the audience or guests talk. If that is the case, then Lehrer and Lopate's programs should be called listening shows because the hosts are superb listeners. I'm sure you've heard the old saw about, "God gave us a message about how he wanted us to behave. He gave us one mouth and two ears." Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Grant, and the others must of thought God said "deers" instead of "ears" when he was passing things out and said they didn't want any.

Lopate's got a great set of ears. He's a brilliant listener. How can you be a "brilliant listener?", you might ask. "By asking brilliant questions and then shutting up," is the answer. The keys to a great listening show are great questions. Asking great, smart, incisive questions is hard. It takes a lot of work. When I listen to Lopate, I'm continually astonished at the depth and brilliance of his questions. He has clearly done his homework. He has become an expert on and in the subjects (people and issues) his guests talk about. I think he might even be better than Terry Gross, who is also a brilliant interviewer on "Fresh Air" on NPR and WNYC: "Fresh Air features daily reports and reviews from critics and commentators on music, books, movies, and other cultural phenomena that invade the national psyche. Airs weekdays at 3PM on 93.9 FM and again at 7PM on AM 820."

THe best way to get smart and feel smart is by listening to smart people like Lehrer, Lopate, and Gross, not only to get smart about a lot of cool stuff and neat people, but also about how to listen and ask questions. Being a good listener and asking good questions is a vital skill in business, sales, journalism, and in life (practicing it on your spouse really pays dividends). I think the converse of this is that you can learn close to nothing from listening to the other kind of talk shows--you are smarter than those guys.

If I were crass, I would mention that there is an excellent chapter in Media Selling on listening. But I'm neither crass nor opportunistic. But I do urge to listen to the best conversations on the radio, that wonderful, warm, human, intimate, portable medium: Lehrer, Lopate, and Gross, and about that I'm not kidding.

Posted by Charles Warner at 11:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack | Print |

December 18, 2003

Thursday, December 18, 2003. Corporate

Thursday, December 18, 2003. Corporate Budgets
I was listening to Leonard Lopate on WNYC yesterday when he was interviewing William Sloane Coffin, the ex- Yale Chaplin and long-time anti-war protester. Coffin's speech was slightly slurred because of a recent stroke, but the clarity of his mind came through like a laser beam.

Coffin made one comment that was an "Ah Ha!" moment for me. He was answering several Lopate questions about the war with Iraq, and during a discussion about the $89 billion budget Congress finally approved for occupying and rebuilding Iraq, Coffin said, "Every budget is a moral statement."

"My God, he's right," I said to myself, and listened intently as Coffin said that every decision that is made in a corporate or governmental budget communicates what those in power think is important: high executive salaries, money to charity, money to the arts, money to stockholders, or money for public and community service.

I teach a graduate course titled Media Management and Leadership online for graduate students at the University of Missouri School of Journalism and at The New School University in New York, and I teach a course for the Journalism School titled The Economics and Finance of the Media. In both courses we talk about the importance of corporate responsibility to the communities companies serve. In the Economics and Finance course, the students' last project is to create a business plan, which, of course, includes a budget. I'm teaching the course this coming semester and I'm going to make sure to include Coffin's concept that every budget is a moral statement in the instructions for the project. I want students to be aware that they are making moral judgments--statements about what is important, what their priorities are--when they do their budgets.

I wish I had a mechanism to teach this to media companies. Maybe we'd have less outrageous salaries to CEOs, more public service, and more committment to their communities and to the arts.

Posted by Charles Warner at 04:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack | Print |

December 16, 2003

Tuesday, December 16, 2003. What

Tuesday, December 16, 2003. What is Television?
When people (commonly referred to as "they"), including myself, say, "Television is so dreadful; there's nothing good on." What exactly are they talking about? Are they talking about television in general--broadcast network television, local television, cable television? Unfortunately, television has become a term that represents something so complex that people have simplified it, as they usually do with complex things, by stereotyping it. And, as we all know, stereotyping usually means negative stereotyping, which is not only an oversimplification but also just plain wrong.

So, when I say, "Television is do dreadful; there's nothing good on," I should qualify it by saying, "there are too many vapid, dumb-and-dumber programs on broadcast network television, such as "The Simple Life," that debase the human condition. We've retrogressed to a point in broadcast network television where programmers are, in a sense, throwing Christians to the lions to please the crowd and get ratings."

On the other hand, HBO's two-part airing of Tony Kushner's "Angels in America" was one of the finest, most uplifting, most artistically satisfying, and most brilliant achievements in the history of television--as good, if not better, than anything Broadway or Holllywood has ever produced.

Another joy about watching "Angels..." was that the superb dramtic flow, magnificent acting, and pace of the program were uninterrupted by commercials for trucks and toilet paper, or for anything. We TiVoed it (a new verb?) so we could watch it over and over again. If the one million homes that have TiVo did the same thing, then viewing to broadcast television will suffer, which will motivate the networks to develop crasser and crasser programs--to start throwing naked Christians to the lions--and increasing the commercial loads, which will shoo viewers to cable in general and HBO specifically faster than ever.

How is it that cable can produce both "WWF Wrestling and "Angels in America?" Is "Angels in America" a defining moment for television? Part I got high ratings, and I'm sure the ratings of Part II of "Angles..." will be even higher. Will this mean that high-quality, intellectually stimulating, and complex drama will now be the next hot trend in television and replace degrading trash like "WWF Wrestling?" I doubt it. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if HBO didn't attempt to create more high-quality programs like "Angels..." Let's hope so. I'd love to see HBO do Shakespeare's "Henry IV," with Kevin Klein as Falstaff, now playing at Lincoln Center, for example.

However, I am concerned about HBO's showing of "Angels..." in that it could lead to the further ghettoization of broadcast television. If HBO gets better and better by showing brilliant programming like "Angels...," then the only people who watch broadcast networks will be those who cannot afford cable and HBO, thus increasing the cultural divide that already exists. And I'm rustrated, because I don't know what the answer is. The free, over-the-air broadcast networks aren't going to start showing culturally uplifting programming any time soon. Maybe HBO could distribute free DVDs of "Angels..." to high schools (for seniors to watch) with an Instructor's Manual that could be used to stimulate discussions about the ideas in "Angels..." There were enough ideas in one scene of "Angels..." to stimulate a one-week discussion, and more ideas than in an entire season of "The Simple Life."

I guess what I'd like you to think about is, "What can we do to improve broadcast television?" If the answer is, "Nothing," then I'll continure to be frustrated and concerned. It's extremely frustrating to know that the public's airways (we own the electormagnetic specturm that local television stations use free to send us network programming) are being used to send us stupid, overcommercialized crap that is enriching large, conglomerate owners and is making us culturally poorer. And, as those of you who know me know that I don't deal with frustration well. So if you have any ideas, please, please let me know.

And if you didn't see "Angels in America," watch it when it's replayed on HBO or drop by the house and we'll pop some popcorn and watch it together; I can't to see it again...and again.

Posted by Charles Warner at 06:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack | Print |

December 12, 2003

Friday, December 12, 2003.

Friday, December 12, 2003. Bluffing
I heard Brian Cashman, the Yankees general manager, do an interview on the radio yesterday about failing to sign Andy Pettite to a new contract. When Cashman was asked whether he or George Steinbrener was negotiating with Gary Sheffield, Cashman said that Steinbrenner was. When he was asked who was negotiating with Vladimir Guerrero, Cashman said he was.

So, yesterday's blog was wrong about Steinbrenner negotiating with Guerrero. However, if George cannot negotiate and close a deal with Sheffield, then the pressure will be on Cashman to make a deal with Guerrero.

I'm writing this correction because I want to try to maintain my credibility and create a perception that my blogs are accurate--primarily so I can get away with some exaggerations from time to time. However, I won't exaggerate in a regular pattern, like every fourth blog, then readers (who are, of course, very smart) would figure out the pattern. I intend to use a mixed exaggeration strategy--to exaggerate on a random basis so you'll never know when I'm doing it.

This strategy is based on game theory, as first articulated by John von Neumann and later refined by John Nash (of "A Beautiful Mind" fame), and probably best articulated in David Sklansky's classic, brilliant book, Hold 'Em Poker. The question Sklansky answers about when to bluff in poker (in my case, exaggerating or being carelessly inaccurate with facts) is to bluff on a random basis based on the pot odds. In Chapter 12, "Negotiating and Closing," of Media Selling I discuss using a mixed strategy when bluffing in negotiating.

The chapter says that if you never bluff when you negotiate, the other side will know that and take advantage of you. On the other hand, if you bluff too often or in a recognizable pattern, the other side will recognize the pattern and take advantage of you. The only way to gain a competitive advantage is to bluff on a random basis.

And I'm not bluffing when I recommend buying and reading Media Selling. If you'll buy a copy and send it to me, I'll autograph it for you. Send me an e-mail at charleshwarner@mail.com and I'll send you my address.

Posted by Charles Warner at 10:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack | Print |

December 11, 2003

Thursday, December 11, 2003. ScratchOne

Thursday, December 11, 2003. Scratch
One of the benefits of living in New York is that you run into fascinating, brilliant people all the time. My wife, Julia Bradford, and I were walking around the reservoir in Central Park the other day and ran into a good friend of Julia's (they went to The Madeira School together), Amanda Vaill. Amanda is one of those fascinating, brilliant people. She's a successful free-lance writer and author who is currently writing a biography of Jerome Robbins. We exchanged the usual greetings and asked the obligatory, "how are your kids?" Amanda's response was jaw dropping; she said, "They're great. I'm constantly amazed about how much I learn from my kids," and this from one of the smartest people I've ever met. I was impressed with her wisdom, humility, and openmindedness.

When my son, Chas, who is 23, came to visit over Thanksgiving, he played the DVD "Scratch" for his two younger brothers, also visiting, and insisted that I watch it. Reluctantly and dutifully, I viewed with my three younger sons, ages 13, 21, and 23, the DVD "Scratch," which is about Hip Hop DJs who scratch records. Well, it's actually about a lot more. "Scratch" is a documentary that was selected at the Sundance Film Festival and that examines not only the DJs who scratch records, but also the Hip Hop culture. While I watched it in fascination, I remembered the words of Amada Vail and I was amazed about how much I learned from my kids.

I learned what a break was--break as in break dancing. A break in a record occurs when the singer and melody stops and all that you hear is the background of the rhythm section (drums, bass, guitars)--the basic pulsing foundation. I learned what the four elements of Hip Hop culture are: Graffiti, break dancing, MCs (masters of ceremonies, or the rappers), and DJs (they provide the back-up sound, beat, and music). I learned how the art of scratching records came about in the 1984 Grammy Awards concert that featured Herbie Hancock and Grand Master DXT who played the hit "Rockit." Grand Master DXT was seen on TV scratching a record to create a new sound. By 2000 scratching had become a major art form with its own World Series--the 200 Scratchathon.

I learned that the great scratchers, Hip Hop DJs such as Mixmaster Mike and DJ Qbert, are geniuses of the art. They have incredible physical and musical skills. I learned that all of the DJs are not black. Mixmaster Mike is Hispanic, Qbert is Fillipino, and the duo of DJ Faust and Shortee are a white male and female team from Atlanta.

As I watched the interviews in "Scratch," I saw posters of Bruce Lee. I asked Chas, "Why Bruce Lee?" "Because he was the master of bodily control and usable strength." Chas went on to explain Bruce Lee's philosophy (as expounded in several books he wrote) of building strength in parts of your body that connects you with the outer world. Big, bulging muscles that look good are worthless, becasue they do nothing, they are for show, not for blow. Chas is a very good rock climber and he said that, for example, Bruce Lee's books taught him how to stengthen his forearms, wrists, and hands so that he could grab crevices in rocks or walls.

A practical example of the usefulness of his Bruce-Lee-inspired strength exercises occurred when Julia and I visited him in Northampton in October. We went shopping for apples and cider in the farmers' market and came back to his apartment house, but he forgot his keys. He said, "No problem," and quickly and easily scaled the wall and went in the second-floor window. I think he forgets his keys on purpose just to practice his climbing. Chas's other hobby is break dancing. He practices regularly and has entered several contests at U Mass and at Amherst--yes, staid, old Amherst.

And Chas is no thug or dummy; he's a brilliant (1540 SATs) young man who is studying to take is MCATs (exams for medical school), but he appreciates the physical, athletic, musical, and artistic energy, discipline, and excitement of the Hip Hop culture, and he taught me to appreciate them, too. I learned a lot from "Scratch" and from my kids. I'll bet you can, too, if you'll watch and listen carefully.

Posted by Charles Warner at 04:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack | Print |

Comments from J. William

Comments from J. William Grimes (ex-CEO of ESPN, Univision, MultiMedia, and Zentih Media).
Charlie, good thoughts about radio. Radio revenue is declining primarily because listenership to radio stations is declining. Arbitron is now reporting for the 2nd year in a row----8 books----of audience declines in top markets. Also, radio has maximized its CPMs and is now (rightly) losing share to other media. WCBS AM , for example, now running 40 30's per hour and listerners are finding new alternatives. Profit margins, hoever, are higher than ever, so "decline in programming quality" should not occur, despite your worry.

Radio stations do sound alike everywhere, even the same format on the same frequencies in many markets. I totally share your worry of lack of innovation in programming. As a conservative, I neverthless favor a reregulation of the medium with much smaller station ownership caps.

Bill Grimes

Posted by Charles Warner at 11:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack | Print |

Thursday, December 11, 2003. I'm

Thursday, December 11, 2003. I'm Worried About Radio
Robert Coen, the usually bullish predictor of American and Global advertising spending, was bullish again this week when he announced at the 31st annual UBS Media Week Conference that the ad recession was over and that ad spending would grow 6.9 percent next year in the US. That was very good news for most media. Coen's category of national television (which includes networks, local stations, national and local cable, and TV syndication) will rise by 11 percent, he predicts, national radio will rise by less than half that, 7 percent, and national magazines will go up 5 percent.

On the same page of the continuation of the front-page story in the "Business Day" section of The Times that reported on Coen annual predictions, a small item under "Miscellany" indicated that in October of this year radio revenue had declined by 1 percent over last year. This item indicates to me that Coen's estimates for a 7 percent growth for national radio next year might be optimistic, and I'm worried. This worry is increased by the fact that the 7 percent estimate is based, in part, on the boost that radio will get from political spending in a presidential election year.

As an ex-radio guy who still has a love-hate relationship with the sound medium, I'm worried that if ad revenue in commercial radio doesn't grow as expected, the quality of commercial radio programming will decline--and it doesn't have far to go to reach the the proverbial depths of whale droppings. What happens when advertising revenue declines is that radio station owners put more profit pressure on station managers and programmers. With increased profit pressure, invariably comes increased commercial loads and increased pandering to the lowest common denominator--bad taste and bad music. Radio personalities get nastier, more conservative, and dirtier and the music does the same. Also, in terms of music, as ad revenue declines, stations start asking so-called independent record promoters to pay stations to play records. This sleazy practice, in turn, means that the records played on a station are not the result of popularity but of who pays. Less familiar and less popular music leads to lower ratings as people listen more and more to their iPods (now Apple's biggest selling product) and their own mix on CDs of downloaded songs.

I'm also worried about the sameness of radio stations across the country, the result of conglomeration and radio formats being dictated from corporate headquarters. Radio is a great medium; it is a warm, friendly musical traveling companion and information source. But commercial radio is in trouble. The dullness and sameness of music formats, the hysterical ranting of conservative idiots, and all-news stations totally devoid of substance and analysis are driving listeners to NPR stations, the Internet for news and music, and to satellite radio (XM and Sirius) where they can get multiple formats and fewer, and even no, commercials.

On the advertising front, radio stations are being hammered by local cable, which has now has much more inventory to sell at prices that are often half (on a cost-per-thousand or cost-per-point basis) of local radio. What advertiser wouldn't want pictures for less money? So I'm worried about radio's economic future.

Isn't this all so Darwinian--the survival of the fittest, of those species that can best adapt to the changing ecology and environment. I'm worried that radio isn't innovating, isn't adapting fast enough. And I say this sadly as I switch from Radio@AOL (Big Band and Swing) to Jazz 91 (Bay Area) that I have in my Favorites on my browser.

Posted by Charles Warner at 12:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack | Print |

December 10, 2003

Wednesday, December 10, 2003.

Wednesday, December 10, 2003. A Foolish Client
There's a saying that, "Any lawyer that represents himself has a fool for a client." The New York Times reported today that Yankee's owner George Steinbrenner was "in complete control of personnel moves, even club officials have idea what will happen from day to day." It appears that George is also doing the negotiating with players.

Star Atlanta Braves slugger and right fielder Gary Sheffield has been dealing with Steinbrenner, but two days ago backed off the original deal he had agreed to and is asking for more money. Sheffield is no dummy. He realized that by taking contol over personnel moves and negotiating for players the Yankees need, that the ego-driven, narcissistic Steinbrenner had put himself in a terrible position. If he lost a deal for a key player, George would have no one to yell at and blame for the mistake; he'd have to take responsibility for the failure himself. Steinbrenner is a man who hates losing and despises failure, and, now that the Red Sox have outbid him for Curt Schilling, he's obsessed about improving the Yankees and not failing. So, Steinbrenner is now, in a sense, representing himself, and, thus, has a fool for a client.

Sheffield probably realized how foolish Steinbrenner is to negotiate for himself and that, because of Steinbrenner's unshakable, narcissistic belief in his own genius as a judge of talent and as a negotiator, he cannot admit failure, so he will overpay outrageously to avoid looking bad or losing.

Steinbrenner is also negotiating with David Wells, and will undoubtedly overpay him, and with Vladimir Guerrero, the hard-hitting Montreal right fielder. The Times reported that Guerrero was now asking for a huge contract. It appears he's no dummy either and knows what Sheffield knows about dealing with Steinbrenner.

It's certainly no random coincidence that on the same day that The Times announced that Sheffield's and Guerrero's salary demands had gone up, that the Yankee's projected payroll for next year was appoaching $200 million (compared to $185 million this year) and that the Yankee's were raising ticket prices for next year.

Let's see now, the sequence goes something like this: 1) Stenbrenner takes over player salary negotiations, 2) prospective players ask for a lot more money, and 3) Yankees announce that ticket prices will rise.

What is the lesson here for managers? Don't hire yourself as your own negotiator. Hire good, professional negotiators. Tell them the parameters of the deal you want--your walkaway terms and price--and give them the authority and responsibility for getting the deal done. And whatever you do, don't step in when the going gets tough or the stakes escalate because you'll wind up investing your ego and paying too much like Steinbrenner does, and you may not be able to get someone else to pay for your stupid mistakes like he gets Yankee fans to pay for his.

This blog is also a not-too subtle pitch for reading Chapter 12, "Negotiating and Closing," in Media Selling, that you can buy now at www.mediaselling.us. Buy the book and read the negotiating chapter and avoid making stupid negotiating mistakes. Plus, the book costs less now than one good seat at Yankee Stadium will cost next year.

Posted by Charles Warner at 11:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack | Print |