INK TANK

Is RAB Hurting Our Image By Reinforcing Tired Old Radio?

 A message from Eric Rhoads, Radio Ink 
 
There is value in corporate history and perspective that can prevent mistakes from being repeated. I've never worked for the Radio Advertising Bureau, but I've been writing about radio since Miles David was the RAB's president. Then there were Bill Stakelin, Warren Potash, Gary Fries, and now Jeff Haley. I've applauded some efforts and criticized others. I don't have an insider's corporate history, but I do have an excellent memory. 
 
Unfortunately, the RAB does not seem to have learned from its mistakes in the past. 
 
The Radio-Mercury Awards were designed to do the following: 
 
1. Make creative people take radio seriously by offering the LARGEST cash industry awards program in advertising: $250,000 total. 
 
2. Because media selection often starts with the creative department, the idea of the award was to stimulate creative people to want to do radio (even if the only reason was to win a hundred grand). 
 
3. We also wanted to take away the perception that radio is a second-class citizen. So we held the awards for several hundred advertising VIPs, made it a black-tie event, elegant and well appointed and held at the Waldorf, with elegant sets, tables, gifts for attendees and entertainment. It was an impressive (and expensive) event that placed radio in a great light. 
 
Because I believe radio is in show business, I was often critical of the RAB, suggesting that "old balding radio men in suits" should not be the presenters, since most in attendance were "hip young creative types." Gary Fries listened and started bringing in young radio talent to do the awards, which was smart. 
 
My friend Roy Williams always tells me, "Eric, people don't remember you for the biggest thing you do, they remember you for the smallest thing you do." 
I'm wondering what impression radio left at the Radio-Mercury Awards last night?
 
In fairness, I was not present and am operating on hearsay from someone I trust who attended and told me this: 
 
"The ceremony was disappointing. The event, held at scenic Pier 61 at Chelsea's Piers, was poorly organized and rife with technical difficulties -- not good for a radio showcase. Usually, there are about 20 winners in various categories and almost 1,000 attendees representing all facets of the broadcast and advertising businesses. There were, perhaps, about 200 people there, and only five awards. Speeches were also tired and extolled the virtues of good production and innovation, with not a single mention about how radio is a good medium for selling and marketing products.  If innovation was important, how could they give the top showcases to 'Real Men' and Motel 6?" 
 
This is disappointing to hear. I know times are tough, and I'm sure raising the money to do the event and the prizes is impossible. But how does this make radio look? 
 
But wait, there's more.... 
 
A top award went to an ad in Bud Light's "Real Men of Genius" campaign, and the ultimate winning commercial went to The Richards Group, for an ad it created for Motel 6. 
 
Can you say deja vu? 
 
This is great radio. But it's old news. 
 
If the awards are designed to invigorate radio creative, why are we rewarding radio creative that has won before? Motel 6 has been the highlighted example of great radio since 1986, and it seems like the lights were out on the Motel 6 spots a long time ago. "Real Men of Genius" has also been a brilliant campaign for Budweiser, but it's been on the air for the last three or four years and they announced the end of the campaign last year. I believe the Richards Group owned the first Mercury Awards for Motel 6, and I think they have won on a couple of other occasions. "Real Men of Genius" has also won before. 
 
Perhaps we should institute a rule that a previous winning campaign cannot win a second time? 
 
Forgive me for being blunt.... 
 
The best image-makers and brand-builders in the world are in the American advertising industry. If radio wants to build its image in their eyes and engage young creative departments and chief marketing officers and get them energized about radio (the mission), we're not going to do it without glitz, without show biz, and with Motel 6 and Bud Light campaigns that have won before. Though I do not wish to diminish these great advertisers, and I am grateful that they are spending money on radio, if we continue to let our Radio-Mercury Awards repeat old news, we might as will kill the event, because it's hurting our image. 
 
If the RAB's purpose is controlling and promoting radio's image with advertisers, this event, preceded by the news that there was no local radio good enough to win, is not building confidence that we're doing things right.
 

Sign up for Free Daily Radio Headlines at http://www.radioink.com

The RAB Should Know Better

The annual RAB Mercury-Awards will be presented Wednesday, and no award will be presented in the Station-Produced category. According to the RAB, the judges said the station submissions were subpar, and not of high enough quality for awards. There will be no awards in the PSA, Political, or Student-Produced categories, either.

I smell a rat.

Though I trust Jeff Haley and the RAB, I have to admit that my first thought was that not presenting these awards will save money. Times are tough at RAB, and I wonder if the participating groups who always come up with the money said, "Cut it back this year, Jeff." Of course, in this case I wonder if they said it after the awards were launched. Or the judges may be thinking, "Why stroke local radio anyway? The awards were really designed to get creative juices going at the agency creative level so they would understand what could be done with radio."

But I still smell a rat.

To say there is no local advertising good enough to receive an award raises two giant problems:

1) If you hold the Olympics, the best athlete wins. Period. There is nothing in the rules that says that athlete has to beat the record of previous winners. If an award was promoted and people entered, the award should be presented. Even though the official rules say the judges are free to decide not to present an award in any category, that is not how anyone understands a competition like this or how they expect it to work when they pay their -- non-refundable -- entry fee.

2) If the RAB is designed to promote radio, who in their right mind would EVER make a public statement that there were no local radio spots good enough to win an award? Translation: Don't count on local radio to produce good spots. This is a PR nightmare for radio. I can see this plastered all over Advertising Age: "Radio Industry Can't Find a Good Spot at Any Local Radio Station."

Let's assume that the RAB was willing to award this money and the judges really did say there were no spots good enough to win.

That probably is the case. And that would signal two different giant problems:

1) The awards were not promoted well. My guess is that this is a big part of the problem. As I travel the country, I hear loads of very high-quality local spots. The RAB recently laid off its longtime PR person, and perhaps the new staff simply did not have the "corporate history" to understand what is necessary to promote these awards and get enough entries from local stations. Of course, it's also possible radio has its head down and simply cannot focus on entering contests at the moment, nor are they willing to spend a few bucks on an entry fee.

2) Radio production quality has suffered. This is a very real possibility with cutbacks across the industry. And, frankly, the industry has often seemed not to value the importance of high-quality local creative. I recently bought ads and asked for a two-voice spot, one female. I was told, "It's not possible. We cannot provide you with a female voice on the spots." This was a major-market, top-tier radio station.

No matter what the problem, this is an embarrassment to radio. I hold RAB and its CEO in high regard. But something like this should not happen.

Is The RAB The Next To Fall?

A message from Radio Ink's Eric Rhoads

With last week's loss of Radio & Records magazine, the entire industry may be a little skittish when they see any signal of perceived weakness. Last week we reported that the RAB is launching $210 personal memberships in an effort to raise revenues. Yesterday, the RAB laid off industry icons Mike Mahone and George Hyde, along with nine other staff members. I naturally find myself asking, "Is RAB the next industry icon to fall?"

I can't help thinking about the health of the RAB in this environment and wondering if the radio industry will continue to support it when faced with a difficult financial decision. From my perspective, the RAB serves many masters, because the needs of its wide base of membership range from small-market to large-market to radio networks. Everyone relies on RAB for something different. For some it's training, for others, data and support services, and for the industry as a whole, it's the promotion of radio. But I have to wonder if that is all about to change.

Do The Big Guns Need RAB Anymore?

Though I have no statistics at hand, my guess is that the "big groups" make up a significant portion of the annual RAB budget. Big groups have a different mission for RAB than small, independent broadcasters. Most big groups are pushing RAB to "promote national business" and "get more advertisers using radio." Let's call that role national promotion, which has been important to companies that are heavily reliant on national advertising.

Big groups tend to have their own training organizations, so we have to be curious about whether there is value in RAB training for them. But Clear Channel recently closed Clear Channel University, headed by Kim Cutchall. This either means Clear Channel people are so well trained they no longer need it (not likely), that the company cannot spend money on training at the moment, or that they'll increase their reliance on the RAB to fill that void. My guess is it was about cost-cutting.

So if a lot of the bigger groups don't rely on RAB for training, then their big need is for national promotion. But, again, in the case of Clear Channel, which owns Katz and Premiere Radio Networks, and which just hired some big-league media executives to promote radio nationally and internationally, we have to assume they feel they have national promotion under control.

So will Clear Channel continue to write an annual check to the RAB? At this moment, when no amount of national promotion is likely to convince non-spending companies to spend money on advertising anywhere, I have to wonder: Does national promotion play a significant role, during this brief moment of economic crisis? Will RAB be a redlined expense item for bigger groups?

That leaves the smaller markets and independent stations, which seem to rely heavily on the RAB for training and support services. If the bigger groups don't use the training and don't wish to invest in national promotion, the writing may be on the wall that RAB should become a smaller, narrower organization with the sole purpose of offering training and support services. That, of course, would alter the RAB's operating budget substantially (though training and support are probably its biggest expenses.)

Stuck In the Mud?

I've had my issues with the RAB over past years for being a little behind the curve, but I actually think Jeff Haley is doing a great job and plays an important role at RAB, which is to transition radio into a digital media world so it can stay relevant. But do RAB members want to go there? Do they believe in this vision? Is Jeff too far ahead of the curve for radio?

Though radio should buy his vision, and though it is CRITICAL to our future, I wonder if he is getting the genuine support he should have. One has to believe he is having to continually sell old-school broadcasters on the value of becoming a digital media industry, and is probably frustrated by the lack of understanding by many.

The only issue I believe hurts Jeff is that he, like former NAB president and CEO David Rehr, is not from radio. This may hurt him when he tries to rally the troops to get behind him because he is not "one of us." At the same time, his perspective is probably better because he's not stuck in the mud of our past.

Is RAB Relevant Anymore?

Though I do not speak with any inside authority or information, I cannot believe that everything is fine at the RAB. Like any prudent operator, Jeff probably cut a million dollars out of his annual operating budget with the terminations yesterday. That's not fun, but it's good business. His revenues have to be off.

Though the RAB conference was one of the best and most relevant in recent years, it could not have been more than a break-even attendance. One has to assume cancellations are coming in as stations faced with renewals try to preserve cash. So should we let the RAB fade away? Should it pick a single-focused mission of national promotion or training, but not both? As my father told me during the last big recession, "It doesn't really matter if you become a shadow of your previous self, the most important thing is to stay in business. You can always add services back when things improve." That is how I feel about RAB.

I feel that RAB remains a critical focal point for the radio industry, and I believe its loss would not only hurt radio on many levels, it would hurt the perception of radio. Imagine the headlines: "Radio industry is in such sad shape it allows its industry promotion agency to die."

Radio's Beating Heart

No, we must not let the RAB die. Though Jeff may have to pare it back to a fraction of its previous self, though he may have to shed most of the services and may have to cut rates dramatically to keep members, we must keep it alive. There is tremendous value in the collective brain trust of its board, which benefits radio. There is benefit in the ability to provide leadership to the industry. And radio faces tremendous PR challenges and we still need a promotion arm.

The RAB is, in my opinion, the beating heart of radio, and we as an industry must support it and keep it alive in some form. It can always return to its past glory and more services at a later date.

Is it Time for a Merger?

Recently, at some industry event, I cornered a couple of executives and suggested that perhaps it's time to merge RAB and NAB. Clearly the organizations have differing missions, but in a broader sense, their missions are the same: Keep radio healthy. (Though NAB has to keep TV healthy too.) Though I would prefer to have them as separate organizations, I wonder if it's time for them to merge? They can gain tremendous efficiencies in duplicated backroom and support services, plus savings in real estate.

RAB already does the radio agenda for the spring NAB show and there is discussion about rolling the RAB conference into the fall NAB Radio Show (especially now that R&R is no longer part of the show). Plus, the NAB needs a leader. Why not Jeff Haley? Or if that doesn't fly, why not let RAB either be a division of NAB, or, at least, subcontract services from NAB and have Haley operate the RAB while NAB operates the engine behind it? Sure, there are politics, TV interests, etc., that may keep them apart, but it makes logical sense. Stations could pay slightly increased NAB dues but eliminate RAB dues and save money. And the industry wins because we keep RAB alive and healthy.

Every expense is examined under a microscope today. Sometimes it's difficult to quantify the value received from organizations like RAB, yet there is tremendous immeasurable value, and we as an industry should not let RAB become a casualty of this economy. It plays a necessary role for radio, and we should do anything in our power to keep it relevant and alive.

Eric Rhoads

For free daily radio industry headlines sign up at www.radioink.com

Dancing On The Grave Of Radio & Records?

R&R Founder Bob Wilson

Today the industry learned that Radio & Records magazine will no longer publish as of Friday. People have been calling me, saying things like, "Eric, you must be gloating that you outlived R&R." But, in fact, I'm sad about it.

I saw my first copy of R&R when we launched Y100-Miami/Fort Lauderdale in August of 1973, and it was the dream radio trade publication. Before R&R, all we had was BROADCASTING magazine, which was paying more attention to television than radio, and the Gavin Report. But R&R reflected the life of radio, with its pictures, its columns, and its buzz. Bob Wilson, the founder, became an icon in radio because he was REFLECTING radio, which was the key to R&R's success. And R&R has been a part of our lives for 36 years.

I never looked at R&R as a competitor because their primary focus was on the programming side of the industry and mine at Radio Ink has always been management. So we were always friendly, and Bob Wilson, Dwight Case, and Erica Farber always took the high road. It was more cooperation than competition -- I even put R&R publisher Erica Farber on the cover of our magazine because she deserved to be there for her industry leadership, and we just honored her with our MIW Legend Award.

Bloggers will probably say that R&R was old media (a newspaper), which is what killed it, and I'm sure that played a role because it probably didn't respond rapidly enough to the digital threat of All Access, the first online site for the programming side of the business. The idea of perishable news that has to be printed and mailed in a digital world is simply antiquated. (It is the reason you have never seen news in Radio Ink. We have always focused on "how to" educational management content that is evergreen. We do our news online, not in print.) But the primary reason R&R died is because its new owners followed the path so many large conglomerates take. Good people were cut to make balance sheets look better, employees who once thought R&R was the greatest place in the world to work were now working at a place that wasn't much fun, and top management were probably not allowed to do what they do best. R&R lost its passion and enthusiasm and became the "bastard child" of Billboard.

Once a powerful publication with more than 100 employees, R&R was reduced to about 40 people after Nielsen Business Media took it over, and it's sad to see 40 good people lose their jobs. R&R always bred good people, and I've hired several of them over the years.

The R&R casualty is also a result of the state of the industry. Advertisers like the record labels have reduced spending, as have the companies that sell products and services, because of reduced radio industry spending.

I've never been one to dance on anyone's grave, and you won't find me doing it now. Instead I'd like to honor the good women and men who made R&R an institution for over three decades. As the sun sets on R&R, each of us in radio should let them know they've made a significant difference in the lives of everyone in this industry. We salute you.
Eric Rhoads
Radio Ink