barry liss on 
Kathy Tepsa on 
clhughes on Look, I am no fan of local radio, or radio of any kind. My experience with it has been rough, and the music and talk put forth by radio stations does not fit my tastes of world view. But, today something AMAZING caught my eye.
My friend Tom works for a local venue here in Wausau. He does the booking. He asked me to listen to Rock 94.7 to hear a band called Wayland do an interview for a show. Wayland will be playing his venue in the immediate future. I had never heard of the band, and he thought this would be a good idea.
So I did, and I was shocked at the final minute of the interview, and it brought me back to a theme that I often think about — Scarcity v. Abundance.
So this band is coming through town, and they are playing a show. In support of the appearance the band appears on the radio to promote the show and the record. That is what is supposed to happen.
But, the end of the interview (go to the 9 minute mark here), — listen to the words of both the on air host and the band. Instead of plugging the show, the hosts essentially shame the venue because it did not pay for advertising on the station. So, the show remains secret. I find this shocking.
In this economy, with all of the talk of getting along and making all the boats rise, to hear a local business overtly punish another business is shocking. And that is what this was. Sure, maybe there is a policy that they do not plug events not paid for or sponsored by the station, or something. And of course they have a right to make some money. But, what did this actually accomplish?
What would it have cost to tell the people where the show was at? The radio station is being a public service, it is supporting local business, and it is driving local people to a local venue that has music. How is this sort of action not just simply an attack on people who do not advertise?
How did this help the band that the radio station clearly agreed to promote either because it is their business to promote new records, or because someone paid them?
WAIT A MOMENT…so, if the radio station refused to plug a show that is at a venue because it did not pay, then what sort of show does it promote? Just stuff that it receives payment for?
Did they get paid to promote Wayland? Is that why they got spins on the radio?
I do not understand this economic principle of scarcity. How some businesses simply refuse to help other businesses out of some artificial sense that it will hurt their bottom line is beyond me. If you look at the downtown businesses right now, especially the bars, these places seem to have their ducks in a row. Someone like Tyler from Malarkey’s Pub is a giant advocate for everything downtown…he seems to know that his money is increased by a general increase in traffic to all downtown businesses.
I truly am disappointed that a local radio station has chosen to punish and shame a local music venue. I think this is both a bad thing on a human level and on a business level. I wonder if they will lose advertising for this.
[Editors Note: Terry Stevens has edited out the offensive and unprofessional remarks. Thereby removing them from public view, as if they never happened. He also offered a nonapology apology.]
Embarrassing…underhanded…bush league…petty. I could use plenty of other words to describe the station (not sure I can blame the DJ, but the owner?). How exactly does this help Wayland?? They’re on the radio promoting a show, but yet the location of the show is a secret? Great job 94.7, you’re really supporting that local scene. And I’d wager that The Kruse never advertises on that station now?!
Don’t you blame the person that said it? I mean I am pretty sure that the owner of Midwest Communications has no idea what is said during some band in person.
Furthermore, how come the band did not stand up for the venue…and instead took part in the shaming. Shaming someplace that is paying them several hundred dollars to play a wednesday night.
I am sure the owners of the venue love the support of local radio, and the band playing.
I guess I have a completely different take on this.
Other local events that are announced on air probably paid for that air time. How fair would it be to those businesses that paid for the publicity to watch by as a venue who didn’t pay anything get some promotion?
The tones in the voices did not make it sound to me like a “shaming”. And, even though the exact venue wasn’t announced, they did clearly state where the venue information could be found. So, calling the venue a secret is really not an accurate statement.
If you are going to host a concert, it makes sense to pay to advertise that concert. When advertising that concert, it makes sense to do so in methods where those exposed to the advertising are the ones who are likely to attend.
Is it possible that based on the size of the venue and the size of the venue’s following + the size of the bands following that they had no need to pay for radio air time as well?
Basically, why the venue chose not to advertise on 94.7 is their business. That is their decision to make based on their policy.
Why the radio station chose to not announce the venue and then joke (not shame, but joke about) the venue not advertising is their business. That is their decision to make based on their policy. No harm – no foul.
Any place you can see my corporate logo, you can bet there was consideration given, either money or in-kind services.
I do not fault the venue for trying to make a buck by saving money on advertising it didn’t feel it needed. But, I also do not fault the radio station for trying to make a buck by attempting to use peer pressure to get a new advertiser.
If a business wants to be nice and offer free services to other businesses, that’s fine. But last time I checked in a free enterprise system, there was no entitlement to free stuff.
I agree with John. The radio station, indeed all local media, exist primarily to make a profit. It’s a business decision to not offer free advertising. I can’t see where anyone is being “shamed” or “punished”. You pay to get the advertising. You don’t pay, you don’t get it. And if do pay for promotion on the radio station and some other venue gets free advertising, how do you feel about that? Would you expect a company that sells outdoor advertising (billboard space) to advertise this band for free? I doubt it. The station is being asked to give its product away for free – should a restaurant be criticized if it does not provide free food for the band? I doubt it. Or a gas station to fill up their tank for free? And on and on. All boats don’t rise if one is asked to give away what it sells so that another can profit from it.
Dino, you seem aghast that a radio station would only promote shows that pay. Why? Isn’t that what radio stations do? They charge money to promote products. That’s how they survive. and make a profit.
There is a blending of what is newsworthy and what is promotion all over the media – and it serves the news reporting function not well. It isn’t exactly newsworthy that a band you have never heard of is playing a gig in Wausau. So, what is the purpose of interviewing them if there isn’t going to be any promotion? Simply filling up air time? Perhaps, but it’s hard to see where the news element is attached. There doesn’t seem to be a public good in telling people that a band they never heard of is playing in town. The radio station doesn’t exist to promote the band or the venue for free. Or the “local scene” for that matter.
There are a lot of places vying for your entertainment dollar on a Wednesday night. If I sell advertising space I’m not going to give away my product to one of them, especially if I’m trying to sell space to these other places at the same time. Because, if I am a business that pays for promotional time on your station and you give away promotional space to my competition, I would look at that as shameful behavior on your part.
Bll Veeck once said, when talking about promoting minor league baseball, that you should never give tickets away. Do anything else to get people to the ball park except giving tickets away. And why? Because once you give tickets away it’s very hard to get the customers to buy them anymore. They’ll just expect more free ones in the future. That same simple rule applies to radio advertising as well.
So John I think your comment if fine, but lacks the context of listening to what was said.
Terry Stevens was overtly confrontational in his tone in describing the venue.
What would the purpose be of having a band on to promote their album, their tour, their whatever…and not be allowed to mention their local show? Matthew, the appearance might be considered the news event.
The tone that the local radio station took with a local business in both failing to support, and publicly shaming them is what I am opposed to.
Terry Stevens claims on facebook that the band was not charged anything. So this advertising is free and completely acceptable.
What is not acceptable is the mention of where the people getting free advertising by the station are doing what they are doing?
So we can talk about a show lets say at the Grand Theatre, but if the Grand Theatre does not buy advertising we cannot tell people where the show is?
How is this universally enforced? Or is it left at the discretion of the on air host?
I think this is an example of going in the wrong direction. Instead of taking 5 seconds and saying where the band they just gave free advertising is playing, which would help a local business and cost the station nothing, they chose to do what they did.
This is the wrong direction.
The original edit of this interview had me saying something incredibly unprofessional. I humbly apologize to anyone who was offended, especially the Kruse In. I’ve very sorry for my action.
I see Terry chimed in…
But to Dino’s comment.. there is a distinct difference between an act at the Grand and an Act at a for-profit venue. Media outlets tend to treat non-profits differently from for-profits.
On the other hand, there are media outlets that list all venues regardless of profit/non-profit status in order to get the word out. The City Pages comes to mind.
I disagree giving a plug to a non-paid for-profit sponsor “would cost nothing”. As Matthew points out, it jeopordizes the relationship you have with those that pay for the same exposure.
Okay… it could have been said “the band is playing in Wausau, check out their facebook page for where and when” and leave it at that. Maybe going beyond that to explain the why was unprofessional… I don’t know… I am no longer in radio and when I was, it was not what anyone would call “real radio” and I am sure that I was the poster-child for unprofessional.
I listened to it again… I don’t see the big deal. But then again my two cents is only worth that…. two cents.
You do not hear anything because Terry edited out the offensive piece.
If, as Terry said on facebook, this was journalism, then it is BAD JOURNALISM. If you had heard what he cut out, you would see it is more than bad journalism.
In fact it is just what I said it was. Shaming. Intimidation.
So, if it is journalism he did an interview with a band in town to appear someplace…and never told anyone where it was.
If it was promotion, then it was even worse.
But, since Terry and his station edited out what he said, to cover their tracks…no one will ever know.
I listened to it 3-4 times after I posted my original comment. Not sure what time he did the edit, but it was there when I listened.
It sounded like a and interviewer and an interviewee messing around. As I said in my first comment, I think the term “shaming” was pretty strong based on the tone of the comments. I also think “secret” was pretty strong of a word for the location of the venue since they did say where the information could be found.
So… now people are not allowed to edit? Is every post you do on hear your first draft? Is everything interview I see on TV not somehow edited?
As a blogger, I learned long ago what happens when you hit the “SUBMIT” button if it is not ready to go.. or there may be items that were not completely well thought out.
The fact is, s#@% happens. You say things that don’t come out right, or are not perceived right. Things you can’t control on a live interview, but things you can certainly control in post.
It was an interview of a band scheduled to play in Wausau. It was no more… it was no less… I am simply not seeing the big deal.
There are so many things that all of us can do to make the greater Wausau area a better place. We all pick our battles. If this is your battle to make Wausau better… more power to you…
Yes there are lots of things we can do to make Wausau a better place. A local radio station shaming a venue who is trying to bring music to the people is not one of them.
Oh come on…the edit took place AFTER we ran this. After people object to what was said.
Lets be clear, the difference between the prior edit, and the post calling on it edit is MASSIVE.
With the edit in place, to hide what took place on live radio, the radio station (Rock 94.7) is covering up the actions of Terry Stevens. It furthers the confusion by adding an apology.
So, Terry is apologizing for something that no longer exists, so people are not allowed to hear what he said.
He covered it up.
I shall from now on refer to Terry Stevens as Nixon.
If what Nixon did was not wrong, then why has he apologized, why did Nixon choose to cover it up?
If what Nixon did was not wrong, why didn’t he just ignore me?
“why didn’t he just ignore me”
Dino Dino Dino… you know better than anyone you are not easily ignored… LOL
This is what happened…and he should have ignored me.
1. He said what he said on the air.
2. He defended it on facebook
3. He wrote a nonapology apology
4. He apologized on facebook to the whole world, but not anyone.
5. At some point he edited out what he said, thereby making it not offensive.
6. He made an apology to the venue FINALLY.
I say the cover up of what he said and did while on the air at Rock 94.7 is worse than what he said. What he said he could simply apologize for.
But, he did not do that. He covered it up.
is there a difference between fixing a mistake and covering one up.
as someone who has done just that with things I have written, changed what I wrote when I realized what I wrote mis-spoke… I want to know did I correct my error – or was that correction a cover up and I should have left the original statement there for the world to see?
I think proper etiquette would be the CROSS OUT. That way people can see what is crossed out.
Now, this blog post and the stuff on facebook simply looks like the ramblings of a crazy person. The link in the blog post shows nothing.
He could erase his apology, and none of this would have ever occured. To his credit, Nixon is leaving up the apology, but he is apologizing at this point for something that never happened.
I think Rock 94.7 reveals itself to be a classless endeavor every moment.
Leave the thing that you are apologizing for up, at least there is some context, and people can decide if it was really all that bad.
But take it down, and Nixon is just doing a cover up.
ah yes… that is the difference between your blog and mine.
Your blog “looks” like the ramblings of a crazy person.
Mine simply are such ramblings.
The focus has switched. I originally said that the business has a right to protect its way to make money. I’ll stand by that. Now the focus seem to have shifted the the actions of Terry Stevens, whom I assume to be the disk jockey. As I mentioned earlier I fail to see any reason to interview an unknown (or mostly unknown) band without some element of promotion. It seems to me that there is an implied assumption that the gig will be promoted. Why else would a band agree to do it? I didn’t listen to the interview but I have no doubt that Dino described it accurately. I also have no problem accepting Dino’s description of the actions of Terry Stevens.
I fully agree that the purpose of a band appearing in a media event is for self-promotion. (But there is a real distinction between a unknown band appearing at a local venue and a nationally known at appearing at the Grand. It is news when Glen Campbell, for example, appears at the Grand. But it isn’t newsworthy when a band that people have never hear of appears at a local bar.)
My point was that a merchant has no obligation to give something away simply to promote another merchant. And the radio station is a merchant, nothing more and nothing less. Same for the bar. But, at the same time, that right doesn’t extend to excusing boorish behavior by the merchant’s employee. It’s two distnct issues.
I admitted my wrongdoing, apologized to the venue and removed the audio so as not to “rub salt in the wound”. There’s no point in apologizing for what I did if I’m going to let the audio continue to fester on the internet.
That would be like you calling my mother a whore, apologizing for calling my mother a whore, yet leaving your website, http://www.TerrysMotherIsAWhore.com up and running.
I altered the text of my apology because I realized you were right and that I should have been more specific.
At no point did I deny what I did. In fact, I’ve spent quite a bit of time today admitting what I did and apologizing for it.