Connect with us

Barrett Blogs

Product + Knowledge + Passion = Revenue

Published

on

In the radio business, there’s this constant struggle between what matters more – generating revenue, or delivering great programming. Clearly you need both to make a difference, but not all brands experience success in both areas.

Given my background in programming, I’m sure you’re going to be stunned to learn that I lean first towards providing quality programming. However, I’m not one of those people who turns a blind eye to sales, or minimizes the importance of being profitable. Anyone who’s occupied a conference room with me knows that I’m going to defend the integrity of the programming at all costs, but if I reject an idea, I’m likely to counter with “but here’s what I will consider”.

We can play the chicken or the egg game, but in life, listeners have a choice of whether or not to invest their time in a brand. They didn’t turn on your radio station, listen to your podcast, or watch your personality’s video, because they were looking for an advertiser message.

The client didn’t place their ad budget on your radio station because they were concerned with helping your company turn a profit. They did it because you have something of value to offer – access to people!

With that access comes the opportunity to place effective messaging in front of an audience by aligning the advertiser with things that the user considers cool (talent, features, play by play, etc.). But how are you supposed to take advantage of the power you yield, if you don’t fully grasp the vision of the product, and the reasons why it connects?

I’ve been fortunate to work with some great Market Managers during my career. Since entering into business for myself last August, I’ve had the pleasure of meeting many more who truly understand the secret sauce of their radio stations. You can’t measure a brand’s success solely by ratings numbers, and you can’t make investments by only looking at expenses vs. revenue earned. If that were the case, this format wouldn’t have more than seven hundred stations operating in it.

One area today which is drawing larger industry concern is the product knowledge, and interest level, among market managers, and sales leaders. Some of that’s brought on by individual decisions, but most of it is the result of structure, pressure, and inexperience.

Selling sports isn’t easy. You have to use the emotion of a local team, the persona of an on-air talent, and the passion of the audience to create deeper interest. Ratings help, but for most sports radio brands, they’re not going to be the reason that local and national clients spend larger dollars on your station. If numbers are part of the decision making process, music stations will get more respect, because they perform better in the 6+ and Persons 25-54 demos, an area that only a handful of sports talkers do.

If you want to strike a chord with a buyer or client, you need evidence to make them look beyond the ratings sheet, especially if you have a competitor in your market.

Have you ever walked into a meeting with audio clips of your brand and your competitor, and let the client hear why it makes sense to invest more in your brand? If you want to draw an emotional response from the client or buyer, watch their reaction when they hear the way their business is presented. Few advertisers enjoy hearing their commercial run on your competitor’s station during an eight minute commercial break, let alone as the final unit.

You can point out the mistakes on your competitor, but when you do so, you better have your own house in order. The last thing you want to do is highlight how the brand you compete against treats a client, and then have the same issues occurring on your own radio station. If you can show a clear difference of the programming, and how a sponsorship works better on one brand than the other, they’ll give deeper thought to doing more business with you.

Here’s another idea. Have you ever taken a look on social media at the reaction of your audience when your on-air talent says something bold, or the station announces something big? The passion is off the charts, and the response can be overwhelming. I used to conduct quarterly Twitter chats when I programmed 95.7 The Game in San Francisco, and there was never a shortage of activity.

When you can take that emotion, and large sample-size, and put it visually in front of people, the evidence stands out. It tells them that people care, and gives them incentive to want to tap into your audience. It’s even more magnified if a radio station carries a team’s games, or has a weekly call-in arrangement with a popular local athlete.

For example, I negotiated a deal with Buster Posey, and Matt Cain of the San Francisco Giants years ago. Their call-in segments didn’t exactly set the content bar on fire, and their ratings were slightly higher than a few other quarter hours on the station. But, if you called a local advertiser in the Bay Area, and told them you were aligned with Posey and Cain during the Giants championship run, do you think there might have been interest? Of course there was.

When the two players met four contest winners prior to an A’s-Giants rivalry series, those listeners became fans of the radio station for life. If clients receive similar treatment, and are introduced to people that they view as heroes, and see as being a part of something that matters to them personally, they pony up to be connected to it.

Understanding what goes into selling sports radio is more important than ever, and the reality is that many markets feature staffs that have grown up in radio, and are trained on selling spots and dots. They don’t necessarily share an enthusiasm for the programming, and they look at digital and social media sales the way kids today view common core.

To be fair, it’s really difficult to sell all of these things, and be extraordinary at it. It’s even harder when stations have lean sales teams with big revenue expectations.

If sports is a local/direct sell, and your sports station is operating in a top 20 market with three or four sellers, and a group of other reps who are focused on selling other formats but lack an emotional attachment to the brand, you’re going to miss the mark. I don’t believe that every salesperson has to love sports to sell it, but, if they don’t know and love the radio station, the on-air talent, the way the brand connects with the audience, or understand why it’s special, good luck being profitable.

It’s also necessary to have a solid grasp on the assets you have at your disposal. Some programmers prefer to put it on a grid, some lack attention to detail which can make it tough for a seller to navigate thru, and others do neither because they’ll put anything on the air that sales asks of them (even if it weakens the brand) just to gain a client’s business.

In each scenario, success is possible, but I believe you help your own case by making it easier for everyone to follow. Here’s an example of how to lay things out for your sellers. It’s an edited version of an old features booklet I created in 2011 in San Francisco.

In it you’ll find the details of how each feature works, what day/time they occur, and what each sponsorship requirement is. This is helpful to sales teams who are trying to create Powerpoint presentations to place in front of potential clients, and it’s a great way for them to be reminded of how the brand operates, without having to constantly bang on the programmer’s door to get their questions answered.

The original booklet I created had other elements in it, including Raiders play by play, weekly call-ins during football, baseball, and basketball season, digital media opportunities, and something I refer to as “Beachfront Property”. Those assets are the biggest on the radio station. Everything from owning the name of the studio, to sponsoring the phone or text line, to being the featured sponsor of the station’s largest events and promotions.

If you’re charged with managing a sales team, and they have all of those assets to sell, in addition to commercials, web banners, Facebook mentions, and lord knows what else, is it realistic to expect them all to be monetized? I’ll help you answer this one, the answer is no.

Chances are, most of the sales team won’t remember half of the assets on the station because they’re under the gun already trying to sell out commercial inventory. If a station runs twelve to sixteen minutes of commercials each hour, and there are thirteen prime-time hours (M-F 6a-7p), and eighteen weekday hours (M-F 6a-Mid), that means they need to sell between 150-300 spots per day. That’s assuming they’re all :60 seconds in length, which they won’t be.

When you factor in :30 second spots, which are the usual length of most radio commercials, plus :10s and :15s, now that inventory number jumps even higher. And I haven’t even talked about digital, mobile, and social assets, promotions, local and national play by play, big station events, or advertiser demands to create specific opportunities.

The reality is that the radio station’s assets will likely never be fully monetized, and reducing them probably makes more sense. But, the second you tell a sales team that an opportunity is no longer available, all hell breaks loose.

Equally important is for the programming team to understand that just because a feature isn’t sold, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it. If it is sold, that also doesn’t mean you deserve an increase in pay. In many cases, the sponsor is given the feature sponsorship as a bonus, to close a bigger inventory deal on the radio station.

This all brings me back to my point about the lack of understanding and interest in sales leaders towards the product, its assets, and the unique qualities that make a radio station great. You can’t take advantage of opportunities if you don’t know how they work. If your focus is on making sure your sellers hit their revenue numbers, and move every unit of commercial inventory, that’s understandable. However, there’s likely going to be less focus placed on product integration, digital/social/mobile assets, and training people which means at some point you’re going to come up short somewhere.

We realize the business world is shifting to the digital space. Just last week ESPN went on offense to try and slow down providers like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon. Why? Because they see their power reducing, and they know the money is heading in that direction.

Have you seen how Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Apple are performing? Google has grown 17% year to year in Q1, raking in over twenty billion dollars. Twitter is up 36% year to year while generating nearly six hundred million dollars. Facebook has climbed 52% year to year, while turning in more than five billion in the first quarter. Apple has grown by 2% year to year, en route to generating over seventy five billion dollars in the first quarter.

There’s a specific reason why I listed those companies. Three have been in existence for less than twenty years, and one experienced modest success in the 1980’s before falling on hard times. Its resurgence has taken place during the last two decades! Google entered the digital world in 1998, Facebook was born in 2004, and Twitter arrived in 2006. Apple was launched in 1976, but most view 1997-2016 as the time when it’s truly become one of the world’s most dominant companies.

How on earth is it possible that these companies which have enjoyed massive success for only two decades, could overtake the entire radio, print, and television industry for advertising revenue? The media business we grew up in has over a half of a century to put itself in position to be untouchable, yet here we are in 2016, and we’re all using these three platforms to help promote and grow our own businesses. Some would even say that without them we’d be in trouble at reaching our audiences.

Am I not the only one scratching my head, and wondering how that could be possible? Not only did they start their own companies, but they created an entire new media space too. We’ve had access to a megaphone, and a relationship with the auto industry which has given us great accessibility to people, but still couldn’t figure out how to grow revenue the way each of these groups have.

Here’s another scary fact that addresses one of radio’s bigger issues – each of those businesses have been built by someone who bled product first. That’s not always the case in radio.

Before Mark Zuckerberg started worrying about stock prices, and quarterly earnings reports, he was a programmer. He cared first about creating a product that mattered to people, before learning how to become a successful businessman. Here he stands now at 31 years old, listed as one of the top 100 wealthiest people on the planet. He figured out how to give a speech, excite investors, and cut deals with business leaders, but not before understanding every aspect of what made Facebook important.

Apple, was founded by Steve Jobs, who was an inventor with a large focus on product development. Before he spent his energies trying to sell a room full of people on the power of the iPhone, iPad, iPod, and iTunes, he concentrated on making great products that he thought people would use. Once he had a great product to offer, he learned how to market it, sell it, and become the face of the company.

At Twitter, Jack Dorsey led a group of four in bringing the social media network to life. He was a programmer, with a passion for innovation, and that enthusiasm for creating technology has earned him world wide praise. He sits currently in the CEO position, and is tasked with growing the business moving forward. Who better to explain why Twitter matters, and how it can be used to grow a business than the guy who helped create it?

For Google, Sergey Brin, and Larry Page were computer scientists who met at Stanford, and spent all their time in dorm rooms tearing thru computer equipment, and testing out different concepts in order to create the world’s most powerful search engine. By investing their time in developing an idea that they felt could change the world, they did, and in the process became two of the top 20 richest people in the United States.

Teaching someone how to create powerpoints, discuss ROI, lead a meeting, and operate a budget isn’t difficult. But, knowing a brand, creating a vision, selling its value, and producing the right strategy will take you further. Certain leadership skills can be taught, but if your laptop crashes, and it’s just you and the advertiser face to face, can you look them in the eye and make them believe in what you have to offer?

Natural born leaders are built to perform in front of anyone. They can sell their beliefs to any audience because it’s part of who they are. They live and breath their products, and don’t need a phony story, or fancy powerpoint presentation to convince people to invest with them.

I can’t explain why radio programmers don’t warrant deeper consideration to run companies or clusters. If you have the answer, please let me know. Dan Mason had a strong background in programming, and did very well operating CBS Radio. Bruce Gilbert had a great track record when he joined ESPN Radio, and his results at the network speak for themselves. I’m sure there are others out there who can make the same difference.

The point of this isn’t to lessen sales leaders, or suggest that programmers should run the world. It’s to explain the importance of connecting with your products, and understanding why they matter. We can’t operate in a silo, and expect one-trick ponies to be dynamic across multiple platforms. It’s just not realistic.

Today, we expect air talent to be skilled at hosting a radio show, writing a blog, interacting on social media, creating video, and being an advocate for advertisers, so it’s only fair that our revenue generators be proficient at maximizing on-air, online, and on-social sales. Before they can be successful in any of those areas though, they’ve got to familiarize themselves with the assets on their brands, and know why each is special to the audience.

Facebook, Google, Apple, and Twitter took over the media world, and changed the revenue game in less than twenty years. Others will do the same during the next two decades. If we want to avoid becoming the new age dinosaur, we’ve got to excel at creating unique and powerful content that connects with an audience, distributing it across multiple platforms, and having well rounded business leaders who understand how to maximize the assets. Without it, we might as well borrow ESPN’s ad campaign against streaming providers and pray that it works.

Barrett Blogs

Takeaways From The NAB Show and Six Days in Las Vegas

“I’m certainly not afraid to be critical but my enthusiasm for the NAB Show was elevated this year.”

Published

on

Six days on the road can sometimes be exhausting. Six days in Las Vegas, and it’s guaranteed. That was my world last week, as I along with more than fifty thousand people headed to sin city to take in the 2022 NAB Show.

The event didn’t draw as many as it had in the past, but after two years of inactivity due to the pandemic, it was good to be back. Judging from some of the vendors I talked to, the sessions I attended, and the feedback I received from folks I met with, though far from perfect, it was a solid return for an important event. Seeing people interact, celebrate others, and talk about ways to improve the business was a positive reminder of the world being closer to the normal of 2019 than the normal of 2020-2021. The only negative from the week, the consistent failure of Uber to appear in the right place at the right time. But that had zero to do with the NAB.

It feels like whenever I attend industry conferences, there are two different type of reviews that follow. Some writers attend the show and see the glass half full. Others see the glass half empty. I’m certainly not afraid to be critical but my enthusiasm was elevated this year. Maybe it was because BSM was a media partner or maybe it was due to the show not happening for years and just being happy to be among friends, peers, and clients and operate like normal. Either way, my glass was definitely half full.

For those who see events this way, it’s likely they’ll remember the numerous opportunities they had to create and reestablish relationships. They’ll also recall the access to different speakers, sessions, products, and the excellent research shared with those in attendance. The great work done by the BFOA to recognize industry difference makers during their Wednesday breakfast was another positive experience, as was the Sunday night industry gathering at The Mayfair Supper Club.

Included in the conference were sessions with a number of industry leaders. Radio CEO’s took the stage to point out the industry’s wins and growth, credit their employees, and call out audio competitors, big tech, and advertisers for not spending more with the industry. When David Field, Bob Pittman, Ginny Morris and Caroline Beasley speak, people listen. Though their companies operate differently, hearing them share their views on the state of the business is important. I always learn something new when they address the room.

But though a lot of ground gets covered during these interviews, there are a few issues that don’t get talked about enough. For instance, ineffective measurement remains a big problem for the radio business. Things like this shouldn’t happen, but they do. NBC and WarnerMedia took bold steps to address problems with TV measurement. Does radio have the courage to take a similar risk? That’s an area I’d like to see addressed more by higher ups.

I can’t help but wonder how much money we lose from this issue. Companies spend millions for a ratings service that delivers subpar results, and the accountability that follows is often maddening. Given the data we have access to digitally, it’s stunning that radio’s report card for over the air listening is determined by outdated technology. And if we’re going to tell folks that wearables are the missing ingredient for addressing this problem, don’t be shocked if the press that follows is largely negative. The industry and its advertising partners deserve better. So too do the reps at Nielsen who have to absorb the hits, and make the most of a tough situation.

Speaking of advertising, this is another one of those critical areas that deserves another point of view. Case in point, I talked to a few ad agency professionals at the show. Similar to what I’ve heard before, they’re tired of hearing radio leaders blame them for the industry’s present position. This has been a hot button topic with executives for years. I often wonder, do we help or hurt ourselves by publicly calling out advertisers and ad agencies? How would you feel if you ran an agency which spent millions on the industry and were told ‘you don’t do enough’? I’m a champion of radio/audio, and am bullish on spoken word’s ability to deliver results for clients, but having attended these shows for nearly seven years, it might be time for a new approach and message. Or maybe it’s time to put one of our CEO’s with one of theirs and have a bigger discussion. Just a thought.

Of the sessions that I attended, I thought Erica Farber’s ‘What Business Are You In?’ was excellent. I especially liked Taja Graham’s presentation on ‘Sharing Your Truth’. I also appreciated Eric Bischoff’s tips on ways to monetize podcasts, and am curious to see how Amazon’s AMP develops moving forward. My favorite session at the show though was “A GPS Session For Your Station’s Car Radio Strategy” led by Fred Jacobs. The insight shared by Joe D’Angelo of Xperi and Steve Newberry & Suzy Schultz of Quu was outstanding. Keeping the car companies on our side is vital to our survival, and how we position ourselves on the dashboard can’t be ignored. Other tech companies and audio operators take it seriously. We must too.

Sessions aside, it was great to check out the VSiN and Blue Wire studios, connect with a bunch of CEO’s, GM’s and Market Manager’s, and visit with Kevin Jones, Joe Fortenbaugh, Jeremiah Crowe, Jon Goulet, Bill Adee, Q Myers, Mike Golic Jr. and Stormy Buonantony. The NFL’s setup for the Draft, and the light show presented at the Bellagio was without a doubt spectacular, plus Stephanie had a chance to say hello to Raiders owner Mark Davis who was inside the back room of a Westgate restaurant where we were having a business lunch meeting. The personal tour we received at the Wynn showed off some of the best suites I’ve seen in Las Vegas, and I was finally able to witness Circa’s Stadium Swim in person, and meet owner Derek Stevens (heck of a suit game). What an outstanding hotel and casino.

Altogether, it was a productive trip. As someone who knows all about building and executing a conference, I appreciate the work that goes into pulling it off. This event is massive, and I have no idea how the NAB makes it happen so flawlessly. This was the first time my head of sales, Stephanie Eads, got to attend the show. She loved it. Our only negative, going back and forth between convention halls can get exhausting. Wisely, Stephanie and Guaranty Media CEO Flynn Foster took advantage of the underground Tesla ride to move from the North hall to the West hall. I wasn’t as bright. If that’s the worst part of the experience though, that’s pretty solid. I look forward to returning in 2023, and attending the NAB’s NYC show this fall.

Additional:

You’ve likely seen posts from BSM/BNM on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn promoting a number of open positions. I’m adding crew to help us pump out more content, and that means we need more editors, news writers, features reporter’s and columnists. If you’re currently involved or previously worked in the industry and love to write about it, send a resume and few writing samples by email to JBarrett@sportsradiopd.com.

With that said, I’m excited to announce the addition of Ryan Brown as a weekly columnist for BSM. Ryan is part of ‘The Next Round’ in Birmingham, Alabama, which previously broadcast on WJOX as JOX Roundtable. The show left the terrestrial world in June 2021 to operate as its own entity. Ryan’s knowledge and opinions should provide a boost to the site, and I’m looking forward to featuring his columns every Tuesday. Keep an eye out for it tomorrow, and if you want to check out the guest piece he previously wrote for us, click here.

Demetri Ravanos and I have talked to a lot of people over the past month. More additions will be revealed soon. As always, thanks for the continued support of BSM and BNM.

Continue Reading

Barrett Blogs

Six New Contributors Join Barrett Media

“These latest additions will make our product better. Now the challenge is finding others to help us continue growing.”

Published

on

Building a brand starts with a vision. Once that vision is defined, you identify the people who fit what you’re creating, lay out the game plan, and turn them loose to execute. If the product you’re creating is original, fills a gap in the marketplace, and the work turned in by your team is consistently excellent and promoted in the right locations, more times than not you’ll build an audience.

As you grow, the focus turns to studying what your audience wants, needs, and expects from your brand. Certain things you expect to be big turn out small, and the things you saw limited upside in create opportunities you never saw coming. It’s critical to be open minded and ready to pivot while also examining where and when people consume your product, which pieces of content do and don’t matter, and then use that information to direct your team to give folks more of what they value and less of what they don’t. Team members should want that feedback too. It tells them what is and isn’t worth spending their time on.

As I lay all of that out it may sound like I’m talking about a radio station or television operation. These are the things programmers do frequently to make sure the talent, shows, and brand is satisfying the expectations of an audience. But what I’m actually referring to is the brand you’ve made a choice to click on to read this column, Barrett Media.

I’ve mentioned many times on this website how I started this operation by myself, and didn’t expect to have a team of writers involved in it. I was focused on consulting sports stations, sharing my programming views on this website, and as I cranked out content consistently, I discovered others loved the business like I did and had a desire to share their insights too. Rather than sticking to my original plan, I pivoted and increased our content offerings. In return, the audience grew, clients grew, and it’s led this brand to grow beyond my expectations. Now we cover sports AND news media, we run an annual conference, feature a membership program, create podcasts, deliver a daily 8@8 and three times per week BNM Rundown newsletter, and work with various brands and companies across the broadcasting industry. I’m extremely fortunate to be in this position and don’t take it for granted.

But with growth comes change. We’ve been blessed to have a lot of talented people contribute to this site over the years, and as they produce quality work, and others across the industry recognize it, they earn interest for their services. That then leads to some having to sign off for bigger opportunities. I see that as a great positive for the brand. Would it be nice to have more consistency and keep a crew together for years? Of course. I know it’d make Demetri’s life a lot easier. If we’re losing people for the right reasons though, and they’re landing opportunities that help them advance their careers, I’m going to be happy for their success, and trust that we’ll find others to keep us moving forward. The success of our team helps make what we do more attractive to others because it shows that if you do good consistent work here, you can put yourself in a position to attract attention.

Over the past two months, I have challenged Demetri Ravanos to invest more time talking to people about writing for us. Expanding our Barrett News Media roster is a priority. So too is adding quality people to help us improve Barrett Sports Media. BSM has had just under seven years to earn trust with readers. BNM has had less than two. We’ve put out ads on our website and newsletters, social posts, an ad on Indeed, and we’ve reached out directly to people who we’ve felt may be able to add something interesting to our brand. Most of my time is spent listening to stations and talking with clients, but my eyes are always roaming looking for content, and my mind is always thinking about what we can create next to make an impact.

I don’t judge our brand’s success based on clicks, shares, breaking news before other outlets or showing up in the top three listings on Google. I care more effort accuracy, timeliness, passion, consistency, storytelling, insight, and being fair and non-agenda driven. We’ve found our niche being able to tell stories about broadcasting professionals, relaying news, and offering expert knowledge to serve those involved in the broadcasting industry. If we continue to excel doing those things consistently, I’m confident our audience will reward us by reading and sharing more of our content. It’s why we never stop recruiting to keep things fresh.

Having said that, I am excited today to reveal six new additions to the Barrett Media staff. Peter Schwartz is a name and voice many in New York sports radio circles are familiar with. Peter has spent three decades working with various outlets and I’m thrilled to have him writing weekly feature stories for us. Brady Farkas is a talented host and former programmer who now works for WDEV in Burlington, VT. Karl Schoening is a play by play broadcaster who has worked in San Antonio sports radio and has had the added benefit of learning the industry from his talented father Bill who calls Spurs games. Each of them will produce bi-weekly feature stories for the brand. Jason Ence is in Louisville and has written about sports betting for Twin Spires while also working for ESPN 680. He’ll be writing sports betting content for us on a weekly basis. Jasper Jones will help us by adding news stories on Friday’s. He’s presently in Philadelphia learning the business working for Audacy. Last but not least, veteran author, Brewers writer, and former radio professional Jim Cryns comes on board to help us with features on news media professionals.

These six additions make us stronger, and I’m excited to have them join the team to help us add more quality content to the website. That said, we’re not done yet. Demetri and I are still talking with others and I expect to make a few more additions in the weeks ahead. As I said earlier, we want to improve the news media side of our operation and continue adding people to help us make a bigger dent in the sports media space. Broadcast companies invest in us to help them, and I believe it’s important to invest back.

If you’ve programmed, hosted a top rated show, worked in measurement, led a cluster as a GM, sold advertising, represented talent or have worked in digital and feel you have knowledge to share, reach out. I can’t promise we’ll have room but we’re always willing to listen. I’m not worried about whether or not you’ve written for professional publications. Passion, experience and unique insights matter much more than a resume or journalism degree.

I appreciate everyone who takes time to read our content, like and share it on social, and all involved with this brand who help bring it to life each day. The latest additions of Schwartz, Farkas, Schoening, Ence, Jones and Cryns will make our product better. Now the challenge is finding others to help us continue growing.

Continue Reading

Barrett Blogs

Programming In Fear Is a Recipe For Failure

“The best programmers go to work focused on making an impact and thinking about what could go right not what could go wrong.”

Published

on

If you haven’t read Demetri Ravanos’ column this week, which included feedback from five programmers on whether or not they’d hire sports radio’s equivalent of Deshaun Watson, you should. It’s interesting, enlightening and sparked my interest to write a follow up column.

When it comes to decision making in the media industry subjectivity is at the center of everything. It’s not as simple as the NFL where wins and losses are often decided by talent and coaching. Instead, our business is judged by a small amount of meters and their activity using our products as determined by Nielsen, and personal relationships formed with advertisers and media industry professionals. All three of these areas may be less than perfect in determining if something is going to work or not, but it’s the way it is.

Let’s start with something I think most of us can agree on – listeners spend time with brands and individuals that cut through the noise. Most will also agree that advertisers value that too. If a talent can attract an audience and convert them into customers on a consistent basis, a company will employ them. Advertisers will ask to be included in their program too. If issues with a host’s track record or character exist it may turn off a few sponsors, but when there’s money to be made, the bottom line usually wins.

It’s similar in some ways to the NFL, which is why players like Deshaun Watson, Tyreek Hill, Antonio Brown, Michael Vick, Aldon Smith, Kareem Hunt, Joe Mixon and others are given second, and in some instances third and fourth chances to play. In a league where wins and talent impact the bottom line, executives care more about success than their morale standing. I know some folks would prefer that to be different but competition and business success drives many to look past certain situations.

In every business, there are people who are dirt bags. You may not want to associate with them or see them receive second or third chances, but if they can help a team win, make the franchise money, and excite a fanbase by helping to deliver a championship, owners are going to turn a blind eye to outside issues. They’ll even pay these players insane amounts of money despite their problems. Just look at the recent deals inked by Watson and Hill.

I know radio and television isn’t exactly the NFL, but as I read Demetri’s column I couldn’t help but think about the dilemma radio programmers face; to hire the best talent and run the risk of dealing with increased attention by inviting baggage into the building or play it safe and hire people with less problems even if their talent level is lower.

We work in the media industry. The job is to deliver audience, and ad revenue. If someone possesses the ability to help you do that, you owe it to your bosses to look into it. If you are going to pass up hiring someone with special talent because you value character more, I applaud you. It’s commendable and speaks volumes about who you are. But producing high ratings and revenue isn’t determined by who’s a better person. If your competitor loses to you in the morale department but wins consistently in those two areas, you may one day be calling me for advice on saving your job or finding the next one.

Audiences care far less about an individual’s behavior or the negative PR you have to absorb. They simply listen and/or watch people they find interesting and entertaining. Did the Chiefs and Bucs sell less tickets after adding Hill, Mixon or Brown? The answer is no. Fans wanted to see their teams win, and as long as those players helped them do that, far less cared about whether or not those guys were good or bad people. I’m sure Browns fans will do the same with Watson if he delivers a title for the city of Cleveland.

This issue is red meat for many in the media because it makes for great discussion, and generates a lot of reaction. However, as nice as it’d be to have good people in every enviable position, this is a business, and what matters most is the final result in generating audience and advertising. Sometimes that means adding people who bring baggage through the door.

Advertisers aren’t much different than fans either. They may voice concerns or reject being connected to someone initially who comes with negative attention, but if people start to listen or watch, they’re going to want to be involved eventually because it presents an opportunity to improve their bottom line. It’s why you don’t see a surge of advertising partners abandon NFL teams after they sign or draft a player with a troubled past. If it’s good for business, exceptions will be made.

Some may not like hearing this, but a brand manager is paid to improve their brand’s business not to manage the media’s morality department. I’d much rather work with good people who provide little drama. It makes work more enjoyable. But this is the entertainment business. Some high profile stars have ego’s, issues, ridiculous demands, and they create a lot of bullshit. Some are worth it, some aren’t. If they can help attract big dollars and a large audience, it’s an executive’s job to find a way to employ them and manage them.

I’m not suggesting that we should hire everyone with a prior track record of problems. I’m also not advocating not to do background checks, ask questions, double check with references, and feel as comfortable as possible with who you’re adding. It’s important to analyze the risks vs. the rewards when hiring someone who may cause some initial blowback. Not everyone is worth a second or third chance. More times than not, the HR department is going to prefer you add people with minimal risk who make the hiring process easier. But if a special talent is available and they come with baggage, you can’t be afraid to make a move that can grow your brand’s performance and bottom line.

For example, you may dislike some of the prior incidents that Howard Stern, Joe Rogan, Craig Carton, Dave Portnoy, and Ryen Russillo were involved in, but they’ve all shown a consistent ability to deliver an audience, revenue, and relevance. I used those 5 personalities as examples because Demetri specifically used Deshaun Watson, a QB who is widely recognized as a Top 5 QB in the NFL as the example. He’s seen as a game changer on the field just as these personalities are recognized as stars behind the microphone. If a programmer had a chance to hire one of those talents and bypassed them because they were worried about the ‘noise’ they’d have to deal with, I hope and pray their competition takes a pass too. If not, they’d be paying for it for a long time.

That said, I would not put my career on the line for a talent who has twenty two counts of sexual misconduct hanging over their head. I’d tell them to handle their legal situation first and then wait and see how the situation plays out. You can tell me how special a talent is, and I’ll tell you I’m all for second chances and I’m not afraid to put my job on the line to hire someone exceptionally gifted, but I’m also not stupid. Most corporate companies are going to want no part of that association and neither are advertisers. It’d be a bad bet.

But in Watson’s case, he was cleared of the criminal charges. That was decided in a court of law. Are we supposed to never hire him even though he was found innocent? This world is littered with examples of people who are talented, have been accused of wrongdoing, have prevailed legally, and have gone on to make the most of second opportunities. Yet social media is often seen as an approval ground where ‘noise’ matters more than facts.

Human beings are flawed and do stupid things sometimes. It doesn’t make them bad people or not worthy of being hired again. We also have a legal system for a reason. If one is accused of a crime, they have their day in the court, and a judge and jury decides if they are guilty or innocent. For some reason, whenever a high profile individual is linked to a situation, we have a tendency to react quickly, often declaring them guilty and permanently damaged. But that’s not right, and it often blows up in our face.

How did that work out with the Duke lacrosse case? Or when Rafael Palmeiro waved his finger at congress and said he never took steroids? Instant reactions were the Duke lacrosse team needed to be put away for life, and the media needed to leave Palmeiro alone. We later learned, both reactions were wrong. The same thing just happened again with Watson. In the court of public opinion, he’s guilty. In a court of law, he’s not. There’s something very wrong with that picture.

The minute you hire a person connected to controversy you have to know people are going to bring it up, and media outlets are going to draw attention to it. So what? If people listen/watch, and clients spend, deal with it. From the movie industry to politics to the world or sports and the media business, there are many examples of highly skilled people with imperfect records that were worth betting on. You have to have thick skin and be able to absorb negativity if you’re going to hire and manage people. You’re responsible for serving the audience, advertising community, and growing a business, not being the most liked inside your office or on social media.

Secondly, speaking of social media, I think we place way too much value on what listeners say on Twitter and/or Facebook. The majority of your audience isn’t living on Twitter. If they’re not happy with your product, they’ll change the dial or avoid pressing the button to stream your content. There is a lot of good that comes from social media, but when you make decisions for a brand that could raise a few eyebrows, your best move is to tune it out. Let people say what they want. If you’ve done your homework and added an individual who’s capable of making an impact, trust your gut that it’ll be proven right over time.

Third, when you’re talking to someone who has gone through a situation that can potentially create headaches for the brand you represent, remember that they’re going to act remorseful and tell you what you want to hear. They’re hoping to land a high profile job and recover from a setback. Talking to others who’ve been around them and have history with them is part of the process, and hearing them out is too. After you’ve gathered your facts and weighed the pros and cons, it ultimately comes down to whether or not you trust them, believe in them, and have the courage to handle the heat that will soon hit you when you enter the kitchen.

You can avoid all of that and hire someone safer. Sometimes that works. But in a business where talent ultimately wins, others eventually find ways to improve. If the brands you compete with have the guts to take the risk that you didn’t, you may pay for it later. Which is why you can’t dismiss star talent with blemishes on their resumes. It’d be great if we could all go through life, do the right thing, and never have to answer questions for controversial decisions, but that’s not realistic.

I’ve shared this story before, back when I was in San Francisco in 2013, I hired Damon Bruce. He had previously generated heat for comments about not wanting women in his sandbox. It was a bad take, one he endured a lot of negative attention for, and despite apologizing and serving a suspension, nothing seemed to satisfy the masses. When we started talking, I entered those conversations knowing if I brought him on board I’d have to deal with the noise. I got to know him, talked to others, and reviewed the facts. One thing that stuck with me, he had never been in serious trouble and he had spent a decade working for the same employer. More times than not, you don’t work somewhere for that long if people don’t value you and enjoy working with you.

Damon would be the first to admit that back then he could be a pain in the ass, and he came to the table with public attention that made him harder to hire. I chose to believe in his talent, trust my eyes and ears, and focus on how he could help us improve our business. There were emails, tweets, and voicemail complaints I had to deal with but typing this now nine years later, after Damon just signed a three year extension to remain in afternoons at 95.7 The Game, I know the right call was made. He had to own his mistake, learn from it, and I had to have the courage to give him a shot and support him. In the end, everyone benefitted.

One story I haven’t shared, took place in 2006. I had just been hired to program Sports Talk 950 in Philadelphia, which has since become 97.5 The Fanatic. Our roster was bare, our lineup had national shows occupying the majority of the weekday schedule, and we needed more top level local talent to get to the next level. As I reviewed local and external options, I put Mike Missanelli and John Kincade high on my list. Ironically, they now both host drive time shows on The Fanatic.

Well, as we were preparing to reach out and talk to people, Missanelli got fired by WIP for ‘violating company policy’. It was alleged that he got into a physical altercation with a part time producer. I wasn’t there so I didn’t know all the facts, but the noise from that situation affected our process. When I raised the idea of meeting with him it was quickly dismissed. I knew he was ready for the next step, would have a chip on his shoulder to beat his former employer, and had a ton of local relationships which could be good for business. I was willing to meet and learn more, and if during that process we felt it made sense to bring him on board, I’d have handled the heat that came from it.

It never even started though. Others worried about the ‘noise’ and decided to pass up the opportunity to add a difference maker to the lineup. The brand struggled to gain traction for the next few years, and when Matt Nahigian arrived in town, he wisely went and hired Missanelli. Almost instantly, the success and perception of the brand changed. Now, The Fanatic consistently competes against WIP, and Missanelli has helped deliver a lot of wins in afternoons over the past 13-14 years.

Each person who makes a decision to hire someone has a lot to consider. If a radio talent is seen in a negative light because of prior history with other professionals or because they delivered an insensitive rant that’s much different than being found guilty of twenty two counts of sexual misconduct. Having said that, I worry that some managers ignore the facts (Watson was found not guilty) and will add a solid talent with less negative attention than a more talented person with extra baggage. As a programmer, would you have had the guts to hire Craig Carton after he served time? Would you have the stomach to handle the heat if Dave Portnoy worked for you and the Business Insider story cast a dark cloud over your brand? Would you stand by Joe Rogan when others attack him for comments made in the past or as artists pull their music because of not agreeing with his views?

I’m not sure if I’m right, wrong, smart or stupid, but I know this, if I believed in them enough to hire them knowing that the noise would increase the second they entered the office, then I’d do my best to have their back. I’d also not think twice about my future or whether or not my corporate boss had a bullseye on my back. I think the best programmers go to work focused on making an impact and thinking about what could go right not what could go wrong. If you program in fear and play it safe to avoid the noise, you run the risk of hearing silence. And sometimes that peace and quiet comes when you’re sitting at home rather than dealing with headaches inside of the office.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 Barrett Media.