Whoopi Goldberg's syndicated morning show "Wake Up With Whoopi" has been dropped from Clear Channel's WKTU/New York. I guess star-power isn't enough to make it in the #1 radio market (just ask David Lee Roth).

New York Daily News reports that a memo was circulated around the KTU staff late Tuesday saying the station would no longer be carrying the show as of yesterday morning.

Whoopi's show launched in late July 2006, and while it's still in syndication (her site lists 9 affiliates), "Wake Up With Whoopi" is now gone from its flagship station in the leading radio market.

This brings back the roaring debate about Celebrity-ism versus Radio Talent. It's not much of a debate actually, since this is proof positive that it actually takes a lot of talent and effort to be a successful on-air host - especially when it comes to terrestrial radio.

Tom Taylor of Radio-Info is quick to point this out in his recent newsletter:

"Politicians, entertainers, TV stars, businesspeople, professionals – they’ve all thought 'Hey, I can do what Rush Limbaugh does, or Howard Stern, or Sean Hannity, or…' And mostly, they’ve been wrong."

That's not to say that famous-folk can't possibly be good on-air hosts, there's a few that have made it, but to build an audience in talk radio takes a lot of time. And the ever fickle terrestrial radio industry is constantly in seek of "hits." There's no time to experiment, take a gamble, and try something new (maybe that's why regular radio sounds the same since the '90s?).

So why is that celebrities have seemingly found a home on satellite radio?

Martha Stewart, Oprah, Eminem, Snoop Dogg, Barbara Walters, Bob Dylan, Richard Simmons, Dale Earnhardt Jr, Tony Stewart, Cal Ripken Jr., Tiki Barber... the list goes on and on. Celebrities span the entire channel lineup on both XM and Sirius.

And while I'm not one to say definitively whether these celebrities are good at hosting shows (some of abysmal in my opinion), they do seem to hold a higher success rate than on terrestrial radio. The difference being, I think, that on satellite radio: it's not all about the ratings, it's all about the subscribers.

Celebrities on satellite radio are like mannequin displays at a store. Or those big posters of half-naked people frolicking with each other at Abercrombie. There's no chance in hell you'd actually wear what you see, but it gets the target demographic through the door.

That's the function on the celebrity. They create a level of familiarity with the product. "Oh, I like 50 Cent! I guess I'll get Sirius." "I'm a diehard Bob Dylan fan, so I'll sign up with XM."

And once you're through that door, you experience the rest of the service. You fall in love with a show that you otherwise wouldn't have listened to. Take Ron & Fez for example, by far one of the best kept secrets on XM. Incredibly funny, snarky, smart and entertaining all at once. But you have to give the show a chance to set in with the audience.

Another example is "Whatever with Alexis & Jennifer," which by the traditional formula should be a complete trainwreck. Still, for having absolutely no radio training whatsoever, these two deliver a surprisingly high quality and entertaining show. They have the drive and put in the effort, which is apparent on the air. But again, there needs to be a chance for people to experience that.

So bringing to back to Whoopi. Her show is (was?) personable and funny and worked hard at it, but for Clear Channel, it just didn't bring the "hit" that they needed. That's money on the table for them. Ad dollars that are disappearing as she (and the industry) struggles to gain traction in an increasingly fragmented audience.

The moral of the story: Whoopi, maybe you should've gone to satellite radio. Instead of failing to become a "hit" you could have become one of those secrets that people fall in love with.

A devote audience is better than none at all.

[via FMQB]

Yesterday, the Thanksgiving Day post lightly touched upon what the Washington Post uncovered recently: that many of the "comments" submitted to the fcc against the Sirius-XM merger were simply generated through a dubious pop-up ad campaign.

This issue goes far beyond the use of form letters. I'm no lawyer, but this appears to border on all out fraud.

Form letters can be a "useful" tool for large groups to assemble their thoughts en masse. I don't necessarily like them (I would much prefer the public submit in their own words), but at least the submitter is voicing their opinion and is aware of it.

But what the NAB has done here is not at all a case of "form letters."

The Washington Post discovered that out of the 60 people they contacted - many of the phones were actually disconnected, or went unanswered. Out of the 10 people they were actually able to talk to (which - in itself - is a ridiculous rate of failure), only 1 person - ONE PERSON - even remembered filling out something remotely related to satellite radio (and not even being merger related).

So how did those comments get submitted to the FCC?

According to the Washington Post article, the NAB bought pop-up ads on websites like CarMax.com, Staples.com and PriceGrabber.com in August and September. The ad ran the headline, "The XM Radio/Sirius Merger will create higher prices. Stop the Monopoly!" - and users could click either, "Yes, I'd like to help stop the monopoly" or "No, thank you."

Those who clicked "yes" were asked to type in their contact information and later received a confirmation e-mail "detailing their action and providing a copy of the letter to be sent to the FCC," according an NAB spokesperson. Respondents were given the "opportunity to opt out of the process" and cancel submission of their letter.

If I'm reading that correctly... it means that any inaction to the email was considered confirmation. So if these emails were sent to the Spam folder, or were inadvertently deleted, the submission was still considered confirmed.

And there's another question...

So far only a little over 5,000 computer generated emails have hit the FCC and, as the article points out, many with the names and addresses of people who said they never filed any comments regarding the merger. But the NAB states in the article that 8,500 comments were "inspired" by this campaign.

That means some 3,500 more "comments" with dubious provenance are waiting to appear. Where are they? When will they show up? Why have they been withheld?

I don't care if you're pro- or anti-merger. If you have an opinion on the merger - whatever it may be - you should have submitted your comments to the FCC. That is your right as a citizen, and it's the whole purpose as to why the FCC has a public comment submission process.

These phony letters corrupt this entire process and are in sharp contrast to the thousands of Americans who took time to write genuine, thoughtful letters to the FCC.

The fact that the NAB - which advocates on behalf of over 8,300 radio and television stations and networks, and has an annual NAB Radio Show which reportedly is attended by over 110,000 industry professionals - simply cannot garner enough genuine public support for their agenda is telling. Very very telling.

But just because the public isn't agreeing with a lobbyist's position doesn't mean they should resort to these tactics. It is the public who should decide how to voice their opinion, not a special interest group.

A Call To Action:

The more I think about this, the more angry I get. Again, we're not talking about form letters (which, sadly, is a standard lobbying practice) - I'm talking about people participating as part of a legal process without knowing they are. In the Washington Post article, it was pointed out that a poll of 350 congressional staffers conducted by the Congressional Management Institute in 2005 indicated that half of them did not believe that form-letter messages were sent with the knowledge or approval of constituents.

How long has this been going on? How many other comments from "the public" aren't genuine? How exactly are all these comments being extracted, especially considering WaPo's astonishing rate of failure in contacting submitters? Are these in fact even real people?

We need to ask Congress and the FCC for an inquiry. There needs to be some accountability here.

Regardless of whether you support or oppose the merger, we need to know the extent of these practices. How exactly were these comments were "inspired" by the NAB? If you feel the same way as I do, then please voice your opinion and contact Congress/FCC to demand an inquiry.

There's several ways to do this (like, contacting the FCC directly or check out the EFF's guidelines for contacting Congress). XM and Sirius also have handy-dandy pages that submit your comment to the FCC and copy your state's representatives (here's XM's version, or Sirius' version - they both do the same thing).

However you do it, just remember this issue is not about the merger itself, rather an inquiry into these deceitful and dubious tactics. Those of us who's actually spent the time to submit a unique and thoughtful comment shouldn't be undermined by a pop-up ad.

Earlier today an anonymous reader sent me the following email from David Rehr sent out to NAB members. It's interesting to read only because it shows how the NAB seems to now have a heightened sense of importance when it comes to the battle over performance royalties.

When it comes to picking and choosing battles, it baffled me that the NAB focused so much on the XM-Sirius merger (or satellite radio in general over the past 13 years), when there's just far more pressing issues for them to devote resources towards. This email illustrates that perfectly...

Read the email after the jump....

MusicFIRST has proposed a flat performance royalty rate for small terrestrial radio stations, non-commercial stations, and college stations, according to Radio Ink.

The radio trade publication obtained a document supposedly being circulated on Capitol Hill by musicFIRST. According to the document, small commercial AM/FM stations would pay a flat royalty rate of $5,000 per year, while non-commercial stations and college stations would pay $1,000 a year.

Formed by SoundExchange to lobby for performance royalties, musicFIRST has been fighting to change terrestrial radio's 80-year old exemption from having to pay royalties to performance artists. Meanwhile, Internet Radio and Satellite Radio have been paying performance royalties to these artists all along.

Reportedly the proposal states that stations that "make only incidental uses of music" (i.e., Talk radio) would not pay at all for music. Stations that use some music but are not primarily music formats would be offered a "per program license option so that they pay only for the music they use."

Religious services that are broadcast on radio would be completely exempt.

MusicFIRST spokesman Tod Donhauser told Radio Ink, "We are advocating for a long-overdue performance royalty that would be fair to both performers and broadcasters, therefore we are recommending an accommodation be made for small broadcasters, college stations, nonprofits, and religious programming."

"AM and FM radio should compensate artists for their hard work, talent, and dedication, and not least of all, for the content that drives their listeners and advertising revenue," he concluded.

[Radio Ink]

The National Association of Broadcasters and musicFIRST continue to battle over performance fees for terrestrial radio broadcasts. In the latest volley, musicFIRST has sent a "gift" to NAB president David Rehr.

See, the NAB has been consistently calling the performance right a "tax" - a designation that has been called into question by even lawmakers.

So musicFIRST sent the Rehr a copy of the American Heritage College Dictionary, “to help the NAB more accurately understand the meaning of a tax.”

Even Senator John Sununu (R-NH), at the Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the Future of Radio, asked NAB Radio Board member W. Russell Withers why he referred to performance fees as a "tax" when the word implies that the government would be collecting the money.

Perhaps the dictionary will help answer that.

"A performance right is not a tax," said Martha Reeves, a founding member of musicFIRST. "It is fair compensation for artists and musicians who, through their voices, their inspiration, and their hearts and souls, bring music to life on the radio. It is compensation earned by artists and musicians that is long overdue."

"It seems that the NAB will do anything to avoid paying artists," added John Simson, Executive Director of SoundExchange and also a member of musicFIRST. "They tried calling royalties a 'tax' years ago when they moved heaven and earth to avoid paying songwriters, but they lost that one."

NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton fired back by completely avoiding the issue and instead said that the recording industry is trying to "bail out a failing business model."

"It is undeniable that free airplay of music on America's hometown radio stations generates millions of dollars in annual revenue for both artists and the foreign-owned record labels," Wharton added.

Undeniable? Tell that to Bruce Springsteen, who's album "Magic" debuted at No. 1 on the U.S. Billboard 200 chart and sold about 335,000 copies in its first week - despite very little radio airplay. According to Fox News, Springsteen's album was snubbed by radio giant and NAB member Clear Channel, which reportedly sent out an edict to its classic rock stations not to play tracks from "Magic."

Undeniable indeed. Maybe we need to send another dictionary to Mr. Wharton.

[FMQB]

Citadel Broadcasting Corp. has confirmed one of the worst kept secrets in radio: Imus is returning to the air.

On December 3rd, Don Imus will make his triumphant return to the airwaves on New York's WABC-AM, only nine months after being booted for the "nappy headed hos" comment that got him fired.

Imus will return with longtime newsman Charles McCord, and other members of his morning team. It's still unknown whether Bernard McGuirk, the producer who was fired along with Imus, will return though.

The prospect of Imus' return, which has been rumored about for months now, had outraged groups like the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Organization for Women - who said the return of Imus is nearly as insulting as the comments that originally drove him off the air.

[AP]