March 20, 2008 10:43 am : Comments 001
Some people are movie buffs, while others are into the theater. Me? I’m a big radio fan.
When I was 12, my uncle Specs Howard (then the top-ranked morning man at WKYC in Cleveland) used to take me to work with him whenever I came to visit. I was in awe of him and his job, and soon dreamed of being a DJ myself at CKLW, a Detroit radio station well known to anyone living east of the Mississippi who came of age in the late 60s and owned a transistor radio. In those days, radio was fun and was dominated by zany and distinctly local personalities such as Cousin Brucie (New York), Larry Lujack (Chicago), Dick Purton (Detroit), “The Real” Don Steele (Los Angeles), and Brian Skinner (Toronto).
Regretfully, radio took a really bad turn some 20 years ago. The FCC relaxed restrictions on the number of radio stations that media companies could own in individual cities. That sparked a massive wave of consolidation and the advent of generic radio formats that plague the industry today. No matter where you live, chances are there is a “Lite” radio station on your FM dial that drones on just like the one we have here in New York.
It is no secret that radio has been suffering a decline in listeners over the last 20 years or so. Everything but the real culprit – vapid programming – has been blamed, from the advent of MTV and VH1 to personal cassette players, CD players, MP3 players, iPods, and even alternative personal entertainment devices like home-based video games. Personally, I point the accusatory finger at the bland, cookie-cutter approach to programming.
Thankfully, there remains one station that still harks back to the glory days of radio. It’s K-Earth 101 (ok, technically KRTH, 101.1 FM), a Los Angeles radio station that sounds as unique and vibrant today as it did 35 years ago when it debuted as Southern California’s “oldies” station.
Even if you’ve never left the East Coast, chances are strong that you’ve heard some of the stentorian voices that have crackled through the airwaves from that station over the years as many of them enjoyed nationally syndicated shows or did commercial voiceover work on the side. In addition to Mr. Steele, they included Charlie Van Dyke, whose God-sounding voice is quite fitting since he left full-time radio to become an ordained minister (and who also lived my dream of being the morning man at CKLW), Robert W. Morgan (“a good Morgan to you”), and Charlie Tuna. Sadly, Messrs. Steele and Morgan have since passed on to that great DJ booth in the sky, but Mr. Van Dyke still does K-Earth’s station identification spots and Mr. Tuna, who has a Star on the Walk of Fame, recently rejoined the station and sounds as great as ever.
I’ve been listening to K-Earth online for a while now. Some of the station’s personalities seem like family. I often fantasize about living in southern California and listening to an LA radio station allows me to live there vicariously. Admittedly, it can be frustrating to hear about their 70 degree temperatures as you bundle up to head out into NYC’s freezing cold, but then again, there is something to be said about listening to news of interminable freeway tie-ups knowing you won’t have to experience them.
One of my favorite personalities is Gary Bryan, a former bass player in a Seattle rock band who subsequently morphed into one of America’s top DJs. In addition to being quite funny with a Count Dracula-like laugh, Mr. Bryan strikes me as a modern-day Ward Cleaver: he frequently talks about his wife and three daughters, and judging by his comments, he’s quite the family man. Mr. Bryan also isn’t afraid to take on controversial issues – for weeks he waged a campaign lobbying for The Monkees to be inducted in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Mr. Bryan’s sidekick is entertainment reporter Lisa Stanley, an effusive and quite likeable woman who sometimes comes across as the stereotypical bleach-bottle blonde. Whether it’s an act or not I don’t know, but either way, Mr. Bryan has great fun at her expense. Once, during a discussion about the incoming Santa Ana winds, Mr. Bryan suggested to Ms. Stanley that she stick her head out the window so she could get a refill. That’s the type of all-in-good-fun banter that goes on during their morning show.
Also accompanying Mr. Bryan is a seemingly soft-spoken producer named Samantha Stander, newscaster Bob Malik (who has a classic 60s news voice), and someone generally referred to as “Timmy the Cabana Boy”, who I assume is the show’s engineer. The ensemble works well together and they seem to genuinely like each other.
Although all the K-Earth announcers are quite talented and all have very distinctive personalities, my other favorites include “Shotgun” Tom Kelly, Dave Randall – unquestionably the hardest working all-night guy in the history of radio– and Christina Kelley, one of the top female personalities working in radio today.
Although oldies formats are fast disappearing round the country, KRTH does surprisingly well in the local ratings. According to K-Earth’s program director Jhani Kaye, the station ranks number four in the highly coveted 25-54 demographic, which underscores there is still a strong market for personality-driven radio.
So thank you Gary, Lisa, Bob, Charlie, Tom, Christina, and all your colleagues at K-Earth. In a world that sometimes moves too quick, is sometimes too impersonal, and is sometimes just too downright mean, it’s comforting to know there are still a few folks left in radio who are fun, civil, and a delight to listen to.
Share This Post
March 14, 2008 9:53 am : Comments 001
Talk about ironies.
Eli Lilly announced yesterday that it has acquired the exclusive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize Transition Therapeutics’ gastrin-based diabetes therapies, which reportedly improve glycemic control in studies. One of these therapies is in early Phase II testing.
The acquisition should be good news for patients who take Eli Lilly’s Zyprexa drug, whose potential side effects apparently include obesity and diabetes. The drugmaker is currently being sued by about 10 states for not properly informing patients of these risks.
That said, Lilly getting the rights to the diabetes treatment seems akin to Philip Morris acquiring the worldwide rights to the cure for lung cancer. You know what they say about covering your bases…
Speaking of Zyprexa lawsuits, if you are interested in some impressive and insightful commentary on one of Lilly’s most recent PR gaffes — issuing one of the more dubious news releases I’ve ever seen — I highly recommend you check out this website.
Share This Post
March 6, 2008 1:20 pm : Comments 001
Eli Lilly and its Zyprexa legal woes have hit the road. The Indianapolis-based company and its lawyers are in Alaska, defending against charges of improper marketing of its aforementioned blockbuster schizophrenia drug.
The State of Alaska has filed suit against Eli Lilly, contending that the drugmaker inappropriately downplayed Zyprexa’s health risks and should now be held responsible for the medical expenses of in-state Medicaid patients who contracted diabetes or other ailments after taking the drug. Many will be keenly watching this trial. Eight other states have filed similar suits and as many as 30 others are reportedly considering doing so. Opening statements were made yesterday.
This blog marks the third or fourth time I’ve written on the topic. I’m beginning to think that few outside Eli Lilly are as engrossed in the details as me and The New York Times, which has also written extensively about it. The newsworthiness of this major legal battle explains the Times‘ ongoing interest; my own stems from the broader crisis communications lessons to be learned from Eli Lilly’s handling of this matter.
While the Times did an admirable job of covering the trial’s opening arguments and setting the legal stage, I must question its reporting in that same article about Eli Lilly being investigated for “off-label” marketing of this drug – a serious no-no in the pharma world. While the reference to those charges was unquestionably relevant, the Times neglected to inform readers that the State of Alaska’s lawsuit had also alleged off-label marketing tactics, but that the presiding judge had already thrown out the claim. While I don’t know whether the dismissal was due to a lack of corroborating evidence or perhaps simply a technical glitch – the Times should have at least given the full story.
As an aside, I can’t help but note the irony of Alaska prosecutor Scott Allen reportedly characterizing Eli Lilly’s alleged conduct as being “reprehensible”. That is the same word that senior federal district Judge Jack B. Weinstein used to characterize the information-gathering tactics of Alex Berenson, the Times reporter who has been following this story for the paper.
Up until today, I had been largely mistrustful of the Times‘ Zyprexa reporting because of the alleged ethical shortcuts the newspaper had taken in obtaining the story. I refused, naively, to accept that Zyprexa, an FDA-approved pharmaceutical, could be as horrific a drug as the Times portrayed it to be. I figured that that Lilly’s communications team was simply doing a very poor job at damage control, woefully mismanaging the escalating PR crisis. The anecdotal evidence that Lilly’s outside attorneys are also actively engaged in Lilly’s media relations efforts only reaffirmed my belief.
But I admit my stance has changed now that I’ve read the initial comments made during the opening statement made by Nina Gussack of the Philadelphia-based law firm Pepper Hamilton, which represents Eli Lilly. In a nutshell, she defended the company by saying that Zyprexa’s benefits outweigh the risks and noted that Alaska’s Medicaid program continues to pay for Zyprexa.
While this cost-vs.-benefit approach is hardly a novel one, it just doesn’t sit well. I understand, of course, that there are inherent health risks with virtually any drug and that, despite the threat of possible side effects, informed patients often decide to take that gamble each and every day, starting new drug regiments to cure what ails them. I also understand that there are times when doctors have to make that decision for them, such as in emergency rooms, where the patient’s life is at risk and giving consent is not possible.
What I find morally repugnant, however, is the thought of doctors prescribing drugs that potentially cause life-threatening illnesses to patients who are unable to give their informed consent when other, less risky drug therapies are available. Is schizophrenia the more pressing health concern than diabetes or vice versa? Who gets to make that call? What about the myriad health complications that are shown to be associated with obesity in general? How do we factor them in to the prescribe-or-not-prescribe decision process?
After reading about yesterday’s Eli Lilly assertions, it is now clear to me why the company has hid behind its attorneys rather than aggressively, publicly address the allegations repeatedly raised by the Times. The “benefits outweigh the costs” rationale is a rather weak one to flog in the face of a mounting public backlash. Then again, the public comments they did make – that the Times had repeatedly taken evidence “out of context” – is hardly reassuring to investors, patients, doctors, and everyone else for that matter. As I’ve noted before, the “out of context” defense is rarely a credible one.
While I don’t think that the ends justify the means with respect to how the Times obtained some of its information for its ongoing Zyprexa coverage, I do admit that I’m grateful that much of it has come to light. Something tells me that Eli Lilly and the prescribing doctors who fell for its sales reps’ spiel are much less so.
Share This Post
March 3, 2008 7:35 am : Comments 001
Microsoft’s proposed $45 billion bid for Yahoo has received some well-deserved critical coverage. It’s pretty much accepted as a given that most big mergers don’t work out, particularly when they involve technology companies (AOL and Time Warner, H-P and Compaq immediately come to mind).
Most of the media analysis on the proposed deal to date has focused on the sizeable challenge of melding Microsoft’s lumbering culture with Yahoo’s more freewheeling ways. But Forbes‘ Victoria Barret raises another potential problem in the February 25th issue that could be far more ominous: a free software product out of Germany called Adblock Plus.
Microsoft covets Yahoo! because of its success selling display advertising. But with Adblock, a product created for users of the ever-popular Firefox browser, intrusive banner ads and annoying videos disappear, replaced with simple white space instead. According to Forbes, three million already have downloaded use Adblock Plus [including me] and every three months another million join us.
Microsoft has antagonized a lot of customers over the years with problem-riddled products that were prematurely brought to market. So the company could be at risk if all those disgruntled customers suddenly came to realize they could even the score by simply downloading some software that badly undermined the rationale for the deal.
It could be like one of those flash mob incidents except, instead of coming together at the rug department at Macy’s to accomplish their task, the masses would descend upon the Adblock servers to get the job done. You know what they say about paybacks.
Share This Post