Folks in our business love listening to “What Is” and “What Was” when it comes to jock airchecks and radio station composites. Checking out others is also a great way to learn or stay on top of your game.

It’s historical in nature, but just plain fun, send your airchecks and or an aircheck in your collection that you would like to share. As a matter of fact I have an old WLS and WCFL will soon be posted. Also, I moderated a panel of morning people back in the early 90′s that I will eventually edit into excerpts for my web site. Trust me, it is literally a whose who of talent.

E-mail your MP3′s to thecoach@radiocoach.biz, include the name of the station of where you are or were and provide a web or blog address if you have one. I will let you know just prior to your work posting.

If you would like to visit the Aircheck page of my website, the link is located at the top of this page.

Jocks Share Your Airchecks is a post from: Radio Talent Coach Sam Weaver

Taxes Lurk Behind Supreme Court Health Care Test Case

Press Release
(Reuters) – While Supreme Court watchers focus on the controversial insurance requirement in President Barack Obama’s healthcare law, lesser known is that the court’s ruling next month will also decide the fate of billions of dollars in new taxes.

The 2010 law includes a 3.8-percent boost in taxes on investment income and a 0.9-percent increase in the Medicare payroll tax, both hitting people who earn more than $200,000 a year.

Set to take effect in 2013, the two increases have been called into question by the court case, which also has clouded the outlook for new provisions already in effect, such as a small business tax credit and a tax on tanning salons.

Whatever the ruling, it will be fodder for both political parties as they campaign in the final months before the Democrat Obama faces voters against likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney on November 6.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in March on the lawsuit that contends Congress and Obama went too far in requiring Americans to hold health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty – the core of the overhaul known as the “individual mandate.”

Its ruling is expected before the end of June.

“Most people aren’t aware of the tax provisions,” said Paul Sracic, political science professor at Youngstown State University in Ohio. “If the court decides against the individual mandate, the electoral consequences may hinge on the question of whether the entire law must fall.”

The healthcare law aims to expand coverage to 32 million more people by 2019, to more than halve the number of uninsured Americans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it will cost $1.1 trillion over a decade.

That additional coverage will be financed largely through new taxes and fees needed to make up the difference between insurance fees and the rapid rise in healthcare costs.

Democrats are poised to criticize the conservative-leaning high court if it dismantles the law but leaves the taxes in place.

Republicans will swoop in on any decision that preserves tax increases on the wealthy. Some say they are worried that even if the mandate is struck down, major taxes will remain.

Christopher Condeluci, a Republican former tax counsel to the Senate Finance Committee, said the court could strike down the mandate only and leave the taxes in place for Congress to sort out.

Condeluci said he could envision a situation where the court effectively said: “Congress, you made this mess, you clean it up.”

POSSIBILITIES ‘ALMOST LIMITLESS’

Expected to issue its ruling in late June, the court could strike down the entire healthcare law, uphold the entire law, knock down only the mandate, or strike the mandate along with select other provisions.

“The range of possibilities is almost limitless,” said Alan Viard, a tax economist at the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute.

A key issue from a tax perspective is whether the individual mandate is “severable.” That is: can it be detached from the rest of the law, including the tax elements, or are the pieces so intertwined that the entire law should be scrapped?

A business group and 26 U.S. states that brought the lawsuit say that if the court strikes down the mandate, the rest of the law would be “hollowed out” and untenable. Liberals lean the other way, saying parts of the law could work without the mandate.

Beyond meeting the costs of the healthcare law, the CBO estimated the new taxes would also reduce the federal budget deficit over 2012-2021 by about $210 billion, though that number is disputed by some who object to its basis.

HYBRID APPROACH?

In ruling on the lawsuit, the Supreme Court could take a hybrid approach to the tax issues. It might distinguish between provisions closely linked to the individual mandate and those that are not, lawyers and other experts said.

“That is where the uncertainty comes into play,” said Garrett Fenton, a healthcare tax lawyer at the law firm Miller & Chevalier. “Which provisions are they going to invalidate? The employer penalty? Tax credits for small business?”

That could mean that the tax provisions of the law most likely to survive a court ruling against the mandate would be those least related to healthcare. Examples of this might include the tax on investment income that kicks in next year.

Voters are sour on the individual mandate in some opinion polls, but other provisions in the overhaul are popular, such as a requirement that insurers provide coverage for young adults on parents’ plans and a ban on insurer discrimination based on pre-existing medical conditions.

“It is much harder to predict how the American people will view the tax breaks, particularly those for small businesses, that will also be struck down if the entire law is ruled unconstitutional,” Sracic said.

The wealthiest Americans would bear the heaviest burden of the law’s new taxes. The richest 1 percent, with average incomes of about $1.5 million, would pay an average $21,000 more in annual taxes under the law’s new investment and wage taxes, according to the centrist Tax Policy Center.

If the entire law or part of it is overturned, there is precedent for refunds, according to experts.

For tax breaks already in place, such as the small business tax credits, asking for retroactive payment may be politically unpopular, so Congress might step in and waive taxes owed, Viard said.

(Reporting By Kim Dixon; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Howard Goller; Desking by Vicki Allen)

Radio and Politics is a post from: Radio Talent Coach Sam Weaver

Most in radio have an opinion about PPM and how it affects programming. It is merely a way of measuring the listening audience with methodology geared to an obedient panelist. These individuals are rewarded and can potentially serve up to two years. Ironically, not long ago, radio researchers frowned on creating professional listening panels. Research is never the problem; it’s the interpretation, implementation, and overreaction to research that is often the problem. It can be very destructive in the wrong hands.

24 Hour Cycle
PPM is to radio what cable news and social media has been to the 24-hour news cycle—instant information. Dr. Martin Luther King’s famous utterance, “The urgency of now”, is what Media Monitor and weeklies provide—rapid feedback.

Fact
Research has been a mainstay for contemporary music programmers dating back to Jack McCoy; things like callout, auditorium testing, and perceptual. PPM has created nothing more than a quicker way to access vital information. The notion PPM has created a new way of programming is amusing. In fact, it has reiterated the original mainstays of music radio. Regardless of the method of measurement, the importance of playing the right music and announcers entertaining in a concise manner has always resulted in good radio. The term “too much talk” has been a constant theme with researched consumers. When analyzed, it’s really the jock talking about nothing, too many commercials and recorded interruptions, and an overall presentation in need of tweaking. Announcing department store “Blue Light” specials every twenty minutes is less talk, but it is not good radio.

Nothing to Fear
PPM is not the boogieman, it’s just new audience measurement with its own language, re-defined success, and on-going sample readjustments. The answer to “Now” has successful roots in the past. This is a business of copycats. It will only take one power broker to allow some programmer to concentrate solely on training jocks how to entertain again. This ability will carry over to satellite, Internet radio, and all future technology. Listeners are not robots, they like to be entertained. Shut up and play the music is lazy—instruction requires work. The best analogy is when a song uses actual musical instruments compared to keyboard synthesizers.

Where Do Person to Person Workers Come From?
Never say never. Originally Arbitron insisted the person to person methodology applied in Houston, would never be used anywhere else. However, pressures of cell phone-only households and the need to increase the quality of PPM panels persuaded our rating buddies to have a change of heart. Now the $64,000 question is, how does Arbitron recruit people in the field to conduct door-to-door, or rather, person-to-person canvassing? Do they contract companies in each city (another assumption), and “faces” to match the majority of those living in neighborhoods they are canvassing, to maximize cooperation?

How reliable are the people they use? Remember Acorn? For answers, all I had to do was look to Ed Cohen, Vice President-Research Policy and Communication for Arbitron.

Who recruits and trains field workers?

Ed Cohen: “First of all, anyone doing in-person recruiting for Arbitron is an Arbitron employee. We do not use contractors. The people that do the work are trained by Arbitron. In fact, if you go on the Arbitron corporate website right now, you’ll find a few openings for those positions under ‘careers’ and by looking at the position description, you’ll get a good idea of the kind of people we have and are recruiting. Needless to say, using our own employees gives us a much greater degree of control over their work.”

How do you deal with the HDBA (High Density Black Area) and HDHA (High Density Hispanic Area) in terms of increasing potential cooperation person-to-person with the majorities living in a neighborhood?

Ed Cohen: “The best answer I can give you is that our folks are very good at what they do. Admittedly, knocking on doors to get households to participate in the PPM is not easy, but their efforts are in line with our original projections and in some cases, ahead of what we expected. It’s a matter of good hiring and good training.”

Radio is theater of the mind—draw your own conclusions.

PPM Misconceptions and Reality is a post from: Radio Talent Coach Sam Weaver

I am giving away 6 months of free coaching (25 sessions) to an air talent. This contest is open to beginners and industry veterans; terrestrial radio, Internet radio, and podcasters.

To enter the contest, e-mail your name and phone number to thecoach@radiocoach.biz.

The winner will be announced on Thursday June 28, 2012. You can enter as much as you want, but only once a day.

Win Free Coaching is a post from: Radio Talent Coach Sam Weaver

Today, commercial radio is a corporate body with purpose and intentional activities. They include: buying, selling, promising, and endorsing, as well as justifying its existence and attempting to influence legislation. Like other industries that have experienced changes due to government deregulation, we often find that broadcast management objectives differ greatly from those of the workers.

In its current state, corporate radio does not appear to rely enough on the expertise of programming. Instead, some policies and regulatory situations have been created contrary to the creative process. In layman’s terms, the men and women in management are putting the cart (the end result) before the horse (the process to achieve the end result).

Radio attempts to provide a product that sales can market to advertisers, while programmers are told to get the most listeners they can in their specific target demo. But the programming department is at the mercy of corporate leaders who, at times, have little or no experience in the creative process. (Among the few exceptions are CBS Radio President and Chief Executive Dan Mason, Clear Channel CEO Bob Pittman, and the recently resigned Radio Division President of Radio One, Barry Mayo.)

Consumers (listeners) end up with a watered down product because there is no balance between the sales and programming departments. Dictates from corporate seem to be solely monetarily motivated with minimum thought towards creative excellence.

We have become a society of consensus and polling, where many are afraid to push the boundaries of traditional radio. The few innovative ideas and concepts seem to be for creating podcasts, online radio, and all things digital. Mega-corporations are playing it safe with radio. It reminds me of a football team trying to not lose (with its defense) instead of playing to win (with the offense). Apparently, the priorities are to stay on the air, spend as little as possible, and provide a space for advertisers. There is a direct correlation between this minimal thought process and the lack of quality programming on the airwaves.

To understand why this is, we have to look back at the time when all things in radio as we knew it changed. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first significant change in FCC law in more than 60 years. The new law sought to open competition in the communications market. Not surprisingly, the law was looked upon favorably by media corporations. It led to a wave of mergers that resulted in decreased competition. Instead of many groups providing media services, these mergers brought the number of participants down to only a handful of radio companies. This has also resulted in fewer announcers, lower wages, and less creativity on air.

And now, the industry wants even more deregulation. The NAB has filed comments with the FCC that call for even more relaxed rules. According to the NAB, “The existing local radio ownership rules are not necessary to promote the commission’s goals of competition, diversity or localism.” The fact that NAB is lobbying for this pretty much speaks to the influence of mega media corporations.

Recently Mt. Wilson Broadcast owner Saul Levine sent a protest letter to the NAB threatening to cancel his membership. He also indicated the NAB suggestion came without surveying its members. If the FCC follows through on the NAB request, it will help to drive out even more independent owners and further advance the decline of quality radio. Is this what the industry really wants? I don’t think so.

I believe that radio is resilient. It can overcome its own missteps. The major radio corporations are shining examples of capitalism. They have survived the recession, adjusted to Wall Street changes, and realigned their businesses model. But where is the creative juggernaut to help traditional radio propel itself forward? Everything appears more investor oriented than listener driven. This needs to change.

Realistically, how much input do local programmers have anymore? The corporation is the king which dictates such decisions as the widespread use of syndicated programming and voice-tracking on stations. In many instances, the stations impacted already had saleable ratings. And if the changes result in worse ratings, the only savings has been in salary, with no chance of an increase in revenue.

National programming minds need to get rid of the “one answer fits all mentality”; some problems and solutions are local and some are universal. There is a definite disconnect between mega corporation radio and quality programming; the cookie cutter broadcast approach is only good to keep costs down. It’s not going to help radio remain relevant to listeners in the future.

The corporate “push-down” has also impacted morale at stations. How often have you heard people say, “Radio isn’t fun anymore.” Radio used to be an amazing career—the kind you would do even if you didn’t get paid. The announcers would hang out because the atmosphere had more of a campus feel. These types of settings were perfect for jocks to express ideas that wound up on the air and, more importantly, put money on the books. There was a bond among co-workers, resulting in a passionate feeling about their workplace.

Currently you have to look to technology and social media industries to find that nurturing environment radio once had. Some examples include: Apple, which has flex work hours; Microsoft, which provides free alternative therapies such as reflexology, massage, etc; and Google, which offers employees free breakfast, lunch, dinner, on site massages, on site fitness centers, flexible hours, as well as napping areas. These companies are creative factories where innovation translates into profit and where workers are treated as resources, not widgets.

So what can we do in radio to bring back the creativity and fun once again? Companies (even those with stations in various cities and formats) could regularly hold brainstorming sessions locally and nationally. In either case, all the jocks in a cluster should be included without any other departments involved. Appoint one PD or jock to facilitate. These sessions could be held once a month with the focus on fun and sharing ideas. These kinds of brainstorming sessions should be different and separate than jock meetings, which tend to turn into dictates, complaining, and what not to do.

I love radio, and therefore, I am still hopeful that radio corporations will push for new ways to include creative input. These companies are not the evil empire, it’s just that along the way, a lot of what made radio work has been pushed aside. It should also be noted there are some companies making tremendous strides with social media, digital expansion and new technologies. However, for music stations, it’s still about the music and the jocks making the listening journey entertaining for the consumer.

What Happened to the Quality of Radio? is a post from: Radio Talent Coach Sam Weaver

In case you missed the announcement, the new Public File Rule only affects Television, however the FCC Commission will look at radio separately and consider the same modernization for the storage of public files on-line. By the way, the whole argument concerning exposure of political rates is amusing, as part of the public files they have always been available in filing cabinets. By going paperless and on the net, the public might actually read the information. However, realistically, most of what is on file is so mundane, I doubt if most people will ever actually eyeball the quarterly documents.

Press Release

The Federal Communications Commission’s vote Friday to gradually require all broadcasters to place their political advertising files online disappointed supporters and opponents alike.

The FCC, operating with only three members while awaiting confirmation of Republican nominee Ajit Pai and Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel, voted 2-1 to require the online filings, beginning with stations in the top 50 U.S. markets that are affiliated with NBC, ABS, CBS or Fox.

Democratic Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and Chairman Julius Genachowski voted to adopt the order, while Republican commissioner Robert McDowell dissented, arguing that requiring the files to be placed online is too burdensome.

The online database the rule will create is likely to reveal how much candidates pay for the spots that dominate TV networks in election years, and could shed more light on what groups are paying for political advertising.

While many supporters of the ad rule applauded the action as long overdue, a number of activists decried the two-year exemption that the FCC gave to stations that are independent of any major network or outside the top 50 markets.

“Those missing markets include some key presidential battleground states, as well as states and districts with close congressional campaigns,” said Lisa Rosenberg, a government affairs consultant with the Sunlight Foundation. “Moreover, by limiting the coverage to ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox, the ruling omits coverage for political advertising on Spanish-language television that could be especially important this year.”

Nonetheless, Rosenberg said, the FCC’s vote was a step in the right direction.

“The rule making today from the FCC makes considerable progress on disclosure,” Rosenberg said. “But in order to have full disclosure on political ad spending, we need not just all media markets covered, but action from Congress to plug the disclosure holes created after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.”

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), which had fiercely opposed the rule before the vote, said the FCC unfairly singled out the television industry for disclosure.

“By forcing broadcasters to be the only medium to disclose on the Internet our political advertising rates, the FCC jeopardizes the competitive standing of stations that provide local news, entertainment, sports and life-saving weather information free of charge to tens of millions of Americans daily,” said Dennis Wharton, NAB’s vice president of communications.

NAB “respectfully disagrees with today’s FCC decision and we’re disappointed that the commission rejected compromise proposals proffered by broadcasters that would have brought greater transparency to political ad buying,” Wharton said.

But Free Press, one of many groups that had pushed for years to have the disclosure rule approved, said the vote was a “win for transparency, open access to information and the public.”

“We’re pleased that the FCC has ignored the overheated rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims of the broadcast lobby in this proceeding,” said Corie Wright, a senior policy counsel at Free Press. “These modest measures will place minimal, if any, burden on broadcasters but will offer great public benefits.”

New FCC Public File Rule is a post from: Radio Talent Coach Sam Weaver

Political Fanfare: Obamacare and the Supreme Court

Foreword:

Putting a different perspective to a solution is always fun, without intending to sound like a Monday Morning Quarterback, I truly believe President Obama knew his overhaul of the healthcare system would eventually go this  route.  It is kind of like writing, you have to start, but along the way re-writing becomes the essential to the end result. The President gambled  either part or all of the Affordable Healthcare Act would be tossed out, in both scenarios he wins; the Supreme Court modifies the plan or it is completely struck down and winds up back in Congress for adjustment. In a presidential election year it puts House Republicans and a hand full of Democrats in an uncomfortable position.   The majority of consumers have no problem with health care for all, but the current plan before the court  needs serious modifications, including some sort of public option. What you are about to read is a wonderful article written by Robert Reich and appeared in the San Fransisco Chronicle.

© 2012 Robert Reich

Robert Reich, former U.S. secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at UC Berkeley and the author of “Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future.”

If the Supreme Court decides that the individual mandate requiring everyone to buy health insurance is an unconstitutional extension of federal authority, the law starts unraveling. But with a bit of political jujitsu, President Obama could turn that defeat into a victory for a single-payer health care system – Medicare for all. Here’s how:

The dilemma at the heart of the new law is that it continues to depend on private health insurers, who have to make a profit or at least pay all their costs, including marketing and advertising. Yet the only way private insurers can afford to cover everyone with pre-existing health problems, as the new law requires, is to have every American buy health insurance – including young and healthier people who are unlikely to rack up large health care expenses.

This dilemma is the product of political compromise. The administration couldn’t get the votes for a single-payer system such as Medicare for all. Not a single Republican would even agree to a bill giving Americans the option of buying into it.

But don’t expect the Supreme Court to address this dilemma. It lies buried under an avalanche of constitutional epistemology.

Those who are defending the law in court say the federal government has authority to compel Americans to buy health insurance under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives Washington the power to regulate interstate commerce. They argue that our sprawling health insurance system surely extends beyond an individual state.

Those who are opposing the law say a requirement that individuals contract with private insurance companies isn’t regulation of interstate commerce. It’s coercion of individuals.

Unhappily for Obama and the Democrats, most Americans don’t seem to like the individual mandate very much, anyway. Many on the political right believe it is a threat to individual liberty. Many on the left object to being required to buy something from a private company.

The president and the Democrats could have avoided this dilemma in the first place if they’d insisted on Medicare for all, or at least a public option. After all, Social Security and Medicare require every working American to “buy” them. The purchase happens automatically in the form of a deduction from everyone’s paychecks. But because Social Security and Medicare are government programs financed by payroll taxes, they don’t feel like mandatory purchases.

Americans don’t mind mandates in the form of payroll taxes for Social Security or Medicare. In fact, both programs are so popular that even conservative Republicans were heard to shout “Don’t take away my Medicare!” at rallies opposed to the new health care law.

There’s no question payroll taxes are constitutional, because there’s no doubt that the federal government can tax people in order to finance particular public benefits. But requiring citizens to buy something from a private company is different, because private companies aren’t directly accountable to the public. They’re accountable to their owners, and their purpose is to maximize profits. What if they monopolize the market and charge humongous premiums? Some already seem to be doing this.

Even if they’re organized as not-for-profits, there’s still a problem of public accountability. What’s to prevent top executives from being paid small fortunes? Apparently that’s already happening.

Moreover, compared with private insurance, Medicare is a great deal. Its administrative costs are only around 3 percent, while the administrative costs of private insurers eat up 30 to 40 percent of premiums. Medicare’s costs are even below the 5 to 10 percent administrative costs borne by large companies that self-insure, and less than the 11 percent costs of private plans under Medicare Advantage, the private-insurance option under Medicare.

So why not Medicare for all?

Because Republicans have mastered the art of political jujitsu. Their strategy has been to demonize government and try to privatize everything that might otherwise be a public program financed by tax dollars (see Paul Ryan’s plan for turning Medicare into vouchers). Then they go to court and argue that any mandatory purchase is unconstitutional because it exceeds the government’s authority.

Obama and the Democrats should do the reverse. If the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate in the new health law, private insurers will swarm Capitol Hill demanding that the law be amended to remove the requirement that they cover people with pre-existing conditions.

If this happens, Obama and the Democrats should say they’re willing to remove that requirement – but only if Medicare is available to all, financed by payroll taxes.

Do this, and the public will be behind them, as will the Supreme Court.

Radio, Podcasting, Online Radio, Internet Radio is a post from: Radio Talent Coach Sam Weaver

Several clients have been nervous about upcoming job interviews, therefore I held numerous mock interviews with each of them. Various interview keys were covered; try not to anticipate answers during an interview, listen and keep answers short, don’t ramble, never say anything negative about previous employers, try to relax, and have pen and paper handy if it’s a phone interview. I have listed ten possible questions that could come up during an interview, for a complete list of potential questions; 1 888 680 7234 , E-Mail thecoach@radiocoach.biz.

Advance preparation is crucial; here are some of questions that could up during your next interview:

1. Tell me something about yourself, where are you from?

2. How did you get into radio?

3. What production editing software have you worked with?

4. Why do you want this job?

5. What do you like least about the radio industry?

6. What do you think are your greatest strengths?

7. What do you think are your weaknesses?

8. What motivates you?

9. Would you describe yourself as lucky or unlucky, and why?

10. Tell me about the best job you’ve ever had?

Employment or Un-Employment: Interviewing Can Make a Difference is a post from: Radio Talent Coach Sam Weaver

Start the new year in the right direction, contact me for a $50 air-check tuneup special. Fine tune your skills, eliminate minor flaws, brush up interview techniques, and get rid of verbal crutches. Your are a pro, but sometimes we all need a fresh set of independent ears. It is a matter of personal growth.

Jobs: On Air Performance Tune up is a post from: Radio Talent Coach Sam Weaver

And The Winner Is? is a post from: Radio Talent Coach Sam Weaver