Twitter Subscriptions About to Be Tested
Some major names are about to give it a go, and if it works for them, perhaps, it will work someday for you and for me.
Make money. It’s something Elon Musk needs to do on Twitter in order to make his $44 billion purchase not look like one of the epic boondoggles in modern business history.
The $8 dollar blue checkmark doesn’t seem to be working all that well. Not too many people are paying for it, and now, we cannot tell the real from the bot. As for ads, they’re annoying and way more frequent, and oh, if I see one more sponsored thread for ChatGPT hacks, I might cry.
So, that brings us to the subscription model.
Earlier in the spring, Musk touted its potential, and now, we are about to find out whether it’s a viable revenue option on both sides of the ledger. That’s because some major names are about to give it a go, and if it works for them, perhaps, it will work someday for you and for me.
For the company, the premise is quite simple.
Right now, people make more money elsewhere, whether it be YouTube or Instagram, and from the Twitter corporate perspective, If you make money on Twitter, Musk likely will, too. You see, when people are successful in earning legitimate profits on the platform, then one can assume that more people will try, and thus, a positive feedback loop will be created.
That’s the concept, especially considering Twitter eventually will take a small cut of the revenue – but not at the outset.
At first blush, it does seem a bit farfetched to expect positive results on a social media service with a defined history of being a for-free culture. The likes of Tucker Carlson and Tomi Lahren will soon test that, and we may find out that it’s not such a long shot after all, especially for national personalities with millions of followers.
Start with the most recent piece of news that OutKick pundit Lahren has started a subscription just to see certain tweets and replies. She has 2.4 million followers and is now charging a buck for the “extras”.
Twitter doesn’t take any cut up front, but according to Musk, a company like Apple gets about 30 percent if you access through the app store, and if it’s web-based, the content producer keeps roughly 92%. Musk indicated that after a year, Twitter will exact a small fee per subscription.
For the sake of argument, for now, we will just give a gross number for our hypotheticals.
If Lahren only pulled in 5% of her following as subscribers, that would be $120,000 a month.
For her, that’s more than a million a year and would not dilute any of her television earnings.
Not a bad number.
Right now, there are more than 3,500 accounts with more followers than Lahren, so plenty of folks have the potential to make plenty of money.
Of course, we don’t have any data from her in terms of how many have subscribed, but there are two things to point to when trying to analyze the possibility of success here.
For one, online reaction has been muted to negative. For every tweet championing her move to a subscription model (none that I saw), there have been multiple negative comments, ranging from frustration … to laughter.
However, the other piece of information is a hard data point. According to Social Blade analytics, Lahren continues to add followers on a daily basis, and on most days, it’s more than a thousand. It should also be pointed out that she is averaging less than before she moved to a subscription model last week — and well off the 6,000 plus she added on May 11.
Lon Seidman, a content creator mainly on YouTube with some 300,000 subscribers, follows content-producer monetization closely. He’s also a frequent contributor to my morning radio show on WTIC 1080 in Connecticut.
He actually thinks Musk may be onto something.
“I think he deserves credit for finding a way for the platform to benefit creators along with the company,” he told me. “This feature popped up after he took over.”
As for Lahren, he said: “I think she’s smart to do it. This concept is nothing new. Twitch and YouTube have had some form of viewer subscription/tip jar for some time. People earn a good living doing it.”
Then there’s Tucker.
He recently announced that when he comes back, it may well be exclusively on Twitter. Assume he uses the site’s subscription model and charges viewers two dollars a month (it would probably be more). It actually sounds inexpensive if he does, say, 15 shows a month – less than a nickel and dime a show.
With 7.6 million followers, if just 10 percent sign up, we are talking about $1.5 million a month, and with minimal overhead.
Before factoring in the cut for Apple or other providers, we’re talking about a gross revenue number of about $18 million a year if you, ahem, subscribe to this logic.
In terms of what he made at Fox, estimates range wildly from $8 million to $35 million. Forbes says $20 million, and that’s sort of right in the middle so let’s go with that.
So basically, Carlson would make almost the same money doing a Twitter-exclusive show.
“Do I think he can match what Fox paid him? Probably not,” says Seidman. “But if you look at others who went independent like Glenn Beck, there was a lot of upstream effort to get a website set up, hire staff to write for it, push links out, etc…
“On Twitter, you have an audience that can be monetized with very little friction – if that audience feels the content is worth paying for.”
There’s the big “If”, and we should soon get an answer.
If it works, then people will work harder to gain followers — something that does not happen as much as it did in the early days because like all the other social media platforms with working revenue models, the bigger the reach, the more money to be made.
Brian Shactman is a weekly columnist for Barrett News Radio. In addition to writing for BNM, Brian can be heard weekday mornings in Hartford, CT on 1080 WTIC hosting the popular morning program ‘Brian & Company’. During his career, Brian has worked for ESPN, CNBC, MSNBC, and local TV channels in Connecticut and Massachusetts. You can find him on Twitter @bshactman.
Nick Kayal Moved From Sports to News, And is Seeing Results at 1210 WPHT
“We hit the ground running from day one, and our audience has grown month-by-month against different demos and platforms.”
During the pandemic, Nick Kayal, a former sports talk show host, fearlessly pivoted his career to news/talk. This bold move resulted in numerous changes, including his current role as the highly regarded host of 1210 WPHT’s Kayal and Company show in Philadelphia.
With his vibrant and impassioned approach to news/talk, he’s spearheading the evolution of radio to cater to the next generation’s needs.
1210 WPHT stands out for its dedication to connecting with audiences through a variety of platforms. Greg Stocker, the station’s brand manager and a popular personality on Kayal and Company, has led this effort. The station has become a favorite among listeners of all ages, thanks to its focus on live and local programming from 6:00 AM-7:00 PM. As a result, 1210 WPHT has established itself as a significant player in the Philadelphia radio market.
In a recent interview with Barrett News Media, Kayal shared essential perspectives on the advantages of AM radio and the powerful influence of talk radio on Philadelphia’s story. Kayal highlighted 1210 WPHT’s success in captivating audiences with exciting content and attracting diverse listeners.
Ryan Hedrick: Many listeners know you from your background in sports radio. What prompted your transition from sports to news/talk, and how has your experience been? Have there been any challenges or rewarding aspects in making this switch?
Nick Kayal: I was a political science major in college as a freshman back in 2002, so I’ve always had an interest in politics. Then, I got away from that and changed majors to criminal justice and pre-law. I started getting really into politics right around 2015 as [Donald] Trump announced that he was going to run for president, and a lot of my political views always seem to gradually slide from moderate Democrat, to moderate Republican or conservative Republican.
Many things during the pandemic opened my eyes, from the lack of freedom to the control of the government trying to restrict its citizens, and the imposed mask mandates. Equally important is the whole cancel culture movement. The woke aspect of society and people constantly being offended, trying to shut you down because they disagree. Much of that also drove me because I’m a big believer in the First Amendment and free speech, and I don’t believe in silencing opposing viewpoints.
RH: Did you encounter any difficulties or positive experiences when making this change?
NK: It has been gratifying because many great, talented individuals have surrounded me. The feedback has been mostly positive, and all of that has been rewarding. We hit the ground running from day one, and our audience has grown month-by-month against different demos and platforms.
The only challenge, initially, was once I got the job having to stay quiet about it for a few months and then make it public and expecting some pushback from a bunch of liberals that were going to be mad because I was doing so-called conservative talk. Other than a few people I have a good relationship with unfollowing me on Twitter because they didn’t want to see my political views, there haven’t been any challenges. I was put into a situation to succeed.
RH: WPHT has a long history in Philadelphia. What makes the station unique, and how do you strive to connect with the local audience?
NK: What makes WPHT unique right now is that this is the first time in the station’s history that we’ve been live and local 6:00 AM-7:00 PM. We have four different amazing shows. We don’t have four shows that all sound identical and are formatted the same. The hosts are not trying to be Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
In the morning, we do a modern-day news show for news talk. If you’ve ever watched (Fox News’) The Five, that’s what we do. We hit on the big stories; we have personalities; we talk about pop culture; it’s that kind of variety.
Dawn [Stensland] does her show; she’s also my news anchor and a TV legend in Philadelphia. She does more of what’s breaking and developing. Dom [Giordano] is on from noon-3:00 PM and really gets into the crime issues. Rich [Zeoli] does his thing in the afternoon almost like what he did in the morning, minus the supporting cast he once had, and of course, he’s a star in the industry.
As far as connecting with the locals in Philadelphia, it’s no secret. If you are a fraud, the audience will know it. I have a blueprint, and it’s called COPE. It stands for content, opinion, personality, and entertainment. If you check off those four each day, the results should come.
RH: As a morning host, what are the critical elements of a successful morning show? How do you keep the content engaging and relevant for your listeners?
NK: When you are doing mornings, you must be entertaining. How you define entertaining is up to each host. The last thing I want to do is do a 20-minute dissertation on the debt ceiling; my job is to wake my audience up, not to put them back to sleep. I don’t do anything long-winded.
In my opening segment, after we set the show-up and chit-chat, I do a piece at 6:10 called the “Big Take”. It’s five to seven minutes long, and that’s kind of my opening monologue. I used audio and video. After that, we hit on a couple of stories, and I get Dawn [Stensland] and Greg [Stocker] ‘s opinions on it, and whatever organically develops from that is how I keep the show moving.
We have a show sheet, but we are not beholden to it. It comes down to creating a game plan and letting your radio instincts take over.
RH: What role does talk radio play in shaping public opinion and fostering community dialogue?
NK: I’ve always been torn on shaping the narrative. I go into a show with my opinion each day. I try not to watch other people’s shows too much or listen to others because I don’t want those opinions to corrupt my views. Regarding shaping narratives, I’m not sitting there telling you what to think. You can agree or disagree.
Still, one thing I promised I would never do is to be an apologist for the Republican party or conservatives in general or MAGA Republicans. My job is not to improve your feelings but to get ratings, and I take the approach of getting ratings and eff the feelings.
RH: Can you share any memorable experiences or interviews you’ve had as a morning host? Is there a particular moment that stands out to you in your career?
NK: We have not gone heavy on interviews because we have a three-mic show between Dawn, me, and Greg. I can not give one specific interview.
Indeed, in sports, there were prominent people that I spoke with. When I was in the South, I talked to Nick Saban. Things may be different in 2023-24 if we may have somebody like [Ron] DeSantis on the show or [Donald] Trump, Tim Scott, or whoever that will be.
But so far, we have steered clear of interviews. To this date, the one thing that I am most proud of is the money we raised for the Travis Manion Foundation. Every year we do an annual radiothon, and this year we set a record in the mornings when we raised $92,000 in four hours.
RH: How do you see the future of talk radio and morning shows evolving in an era of rapidly changing media consumption habits? What strategies are you implementing to adapt to these changes?
NK: The way we view it, we are no longer a talk radio station. We are an audio and video content distribution platform or network of platforms. People listen to us when they want or when they have the time. They might be listening 45 minutes behind on a delay on the app or just catching up. They might go to the website and download the podcasts. Or they may go to YouTube and watch all four hours live on our channel.
We’ve had people tweeting us pictures of their smart TV’s where they’ve had YouTube up, and they’re watching us in their living room on their 65-inch flat screen, and it looks like we are doing a TV show. We are a variety platform now.
RH: What are some key advantages of AM radio over other mediums, and how can stations effectively communicate these advantages to listeners and advertisers?
NK: As crucial as ratings are, you will only last long with the advertisers and the revenue. It’s a matter of selling people on the value of AM and, indeed, to the automakers. AM radio is still how people get weather alerts, travel advisories, etc. There’s a human safety element. AM radio reaches over 40 million Americans weekly, well over 10 percent of the country. We still get a massive amount of people.
The biggest challenge is attracting the Gen-Z listener. I wonder if you can. That’s another audience we can tap into. There will always be that demand for talk radio because you know you can never replace live and local personalities. News/talk is expensive to operate when you’re live and local, but the value remains.
RH: Lastly, are there any exciting upcoming projects or initiatives you’re working on that you’d like to share with your listeners and readers?
NK: More than anything, our brand, WPHT, is where free speech lives. We encourage dialogue, discourse, and discussions, and, indeed, debate. We have some people in our audience who are not conservatives. We have people that disagree with us. The great thing about WPHT is that we offer well-rounded conversations and various shows.
We have some other things in the works that our Brand Manager, Greg Stocker, has been pushing for, and hopefully, in the weeks and months, we can get some of this rolled out. A lot of people say the station has never sounded better. Greg Stocker has only been in his position as Brand Manager for over a year, and he’s taken the station to new heights.
Within our doors and walls at Audacy in Philadelphia, there are very happy with how things are going at the station.
Ryan Hedrick serves as the Assistant Program Director and Co-Host of the Morning News Express at WFMD. Prior to WFMD, he hosted an afternoon program at News Talk 103.7 FM in Chambersburg, PA. He has worked at Sirius XM in Washington D.C., WBEN in Buffalo, NY, and for stations in Baltimore, MD. He has also worked at WIBW-AM in Topeka KS, earning the Kansas Association of Broadcasters (KAB) award for Major Market enterprise reporting in 2016. To connect with Ryan, find him on Twitter @SureToCover.
AM Radio Still Has Challenges Despite Ford’s Reversal
An AM tuner in every car is good, but a new law won’t fix the underlying problems.
Ever since Ford’s announcement that they would cease including AM radio in most of their vehicles (commercial vehicles excepted) starting in 2024, it’s become de rigueur to comment and come to the defense of amplitude modulation.
While Tesla, Polestar, and a few BMWs don’t have AM radios, when a large mainstream OEM like Ford made that announcement, the radio industry stood up and took notice. Even though Ford has now rescinded that decision, it’s not that anyone in the radio industry wasn’t aware that AM was in decline.
The initial Ford bombshell was enough to sound the alarms and fight for the survival of AM radio even as the industry has tacitly given up on the band. A telling statistic is that in 1990, there were approximately 1,850 FM translators on the air. By 2021, that number had increased to 8,521. That’s strong evidence it’s a popular move to rebroadcast your AM station on an FM translator, even if the translator can’t exceed 250 watts of ERP.
Nonetheless, the initial Ford news prompted several lawmakers to introduce a bill (The AM in Every Vehicle Act) that would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue a rule mandating AM radio in every vehicle sold in the United States. This being a research column, I’ll offer some background on how you can evaluate AM listening today.
If you’ve read my first few columns, you know that as an old guy, I enjoy history. Reading about The AM in Every Vehicle Act, I immediately thought of the All Channel Receiver Act of 1962, which required that the FCC mandate UHF receivers in all new televisions sold in the US.
In the early days of TV, while channels 2-83 were originally assigned for television broadcasting, most sets could receive only VHF (analog channels 2-13). Unless you were in an all-UHF market (there were a handful such as Youngstown and Peoria), there wasn’t much incentive to buy a set with UHF or to get a UHF converter.
From a personal standpoint, I had to borrow a neighbor’s 9-inch GE portable TV that had UHF to see Our World, the first multinational live program, in June 1967. The US participant was National Educational Television, the forerunner of PBS, and Rochester’s “educational” station (WXXI) was on channel 21. Why borrow a set? My family’s console Zenith didn’t have UHF and The Beatles were part of the show, performing “All You Need is Love” for the first time. I couldn’t miss that.
Even with a federal law, UHF stations took decades to catch up with VHF channels. I presented a paper at an academic conference in 1986 entitled “The UHF Affiliate in the ‘80s: More Travels Down Parity Road” using regression analysis to show that, based on Nielsen data, UHF still lagged many years after the Act was implemented.
Pierre Bouvard, one of the best people in the business, recently put out a piece claiming 82 million people cume AM in a month. Like just about everyone else in the business, I love Pierre, but at least one-quarter hour in a four-week period doesn’t mean much and that number is subject to certain caveats regarding Nielsen edit rules as I’ll explain.
During my time at the NAB in the late ‘80s, I put together a similar piece using RADAR, the Nielsen national radio network service. If memory serves, AM had a weekly P12+ national cume of around 90 million people. At that time, there was a lot of talk about the death of AM, but it had a weekly circulation that was bigger than US newspapers. Rush Limbaugh had just started his meteoric rise and with him, the rise of news/talk on AM. Streaming didn’t exist and translators couldn’t be used to rebroadcast an AM outlet. Now, we have a (likely inflated) figure that’s smaller, using a four-week instead of a one-week estimate.
It’s 2023 and while there are still some great AM stations out there, many outlets are programmed for religious audiences or people who primarily speak other languages, and usage of AM is low.
As a researcher who’s been looking at ratings for 40+ years, I’d place a small bet that if you were to run the persons 25-54 combined AM share in Nielsen for Monday-Friday 6 AM-7 PM in the 48 PPM markets, most markets would have trouble getting much past a 10-15 share, in other words, FM and other encoded listening would have the rest.
And I’d place another bet that the market-level AM cume ratings for that demo/daypart combination would generally be in single digits. The same numbers for the diary markets would likely be a little higher and P55+ would look better, but keep in mind that FM translators cannot originate more than 30 seconds an hour of “programming” which means any listening to an AM station that simulcasts on an FM translator will be credited by Nielsen to the AM parent, in other words, inflating the AM listening percentage.
If the station is total line only, streamed listening is included as well. You can run this in PPM Analysis Tool or Tapscan. RADAR allows you to look at national AM listening alone and the cume will be an impressive number of persons, but again, Nielsen edit rules will push some FM and online listening into the AM column, so a deflator is warranted.
Like many of you, I grew up on AM. In Rochester, the big top 40 station was WBBF (950 AM) which later on had competition from WAXC (1460 AM) with The Greaseman at night and a young Tom Birch. Nighttime listening to clear channel AMs on “the skip” was fun with music stations like WABC, WLS, WCFL, CKLW, and others.
I’d wake up in the middle of the night and spend a couple of quarter hours with Larry Glick on WBZ who was incredibly entertaining. That was the 1960s and early 1970s, but will requiring AM in cars in the mid-2020s mean much of anything when smartphone penetration is nearly 87 percent (per Statista) and almost any radio station or song a listener wants is available in excellent fidelity on demand?
Further, a frightening number of people don’t own a radio in their homes. If you subscribe to Nielsen in a PPM metro, look at the latest quarterly panel characteristics report. Nielsen reports the number of radios in the household by demo. If you’ve never seen that particular statistic, you’ll want to have a stiff drink available before you look at your market or your company’s markets. Living in Kentucky, state law requires me to suggest bourbon.
The obvious question is “Are we trying to close the barn door after the horse has escaped?” Sticking with the equine theme (another Kentucky requirement), we can lead the horse (listeners) to water (AM), but we can’t make them drink (listen).
An AM tuner in every car is good, but a new law won’t fix the underlying problems.
Let’s meet again next week.
One of the radio industry’s most respected researchers, Dr. Ed Cohen writes a weekly column for Barrett News Media. His career experiences include serving as VP of Ratings and Research at Cumulus Media, occupying the role of VP of Measurement Innovation at Nielsen Audio, and its predecessor Arbitron. While with Arbitron, Cohen spent five years as the company’s President of Research Policy and Communication, and eight years as VP of Domestic Radio Research. He has also held the title of Vice President of Research for iHeartMedia/Clear Channel, and held research positions for the National Association of Broadcasters and Birch/Scarborough Research.
Be advised that Dr. Ed had a Twitter handle listed as a way to reach him but unfortunately, that’s an old account that was set up during his time at Arbitron many years ago and he has no way to access it. He’d enjoy hearing your thoughts though so please feel free to reach him at firstname.lastname@example.org.
How Howard Stern Cashed In On Objectionable Content
Everybody wanted to know exactly what Stern had said to incur FCC fines. We couldn’t rebroadcast those bits and didn’t want to discuss them.
Since Florida Governor Ron DeSantis threw his hat in the ring for the Republican nomination, the mainstream media has discovered there is a human worse than Donald Trump, which is saying something considering that Trump has been called or compared to Hitler in The New York Times, The Washington Post, by CNN’s Dana Bash, on MSNBC by Rachel Maddow, by Democrats including Reps. James Clyburn (D-SC) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), on The View, Saturday Night Live, by a former head of the Anti-Defamation League, former Mexican President Vicente Fox, and many others, including Howard Stern.
The left and their partners in the mainstream media have a long list of grievances against DeSantis, none more disingenuous than the claim that he is banning books.
In reality, Florida has given parents control of their children’s education by allowing them a say regarding age-inappropriate materials in public school libraries.
Several organizations keep track of books that are being challenged and “banned.” Topping every organization’s list is “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe. The book’s Amazon description includes: “bonding with friends over erotic gay fanfiction.” The author is also an illustrator and illustrated the book. Although I have not read it, I understand the illustrations are sexually explicit.
The book gets challenged and pulled from public school libraries for graphic sexual content. The left maintains conservatives want to ban the book because of an anti-LGTBQ+ crusade. The objections wouldn’t be different if the depictions were of heterosexual sex. It isn’t age-appropriate and therefore shouldn’t be in a school library.
I wondered if I could find “Gender Queer” at a big-name brick-and-mortar bookstore throughout Florida. I checked more than a dozen Barnes & Noble bookstores. Many had the hardcover and paperback in stock and ready for pick up in two business hours or less.
There are no banned books in Florida. Adults can buy any title they want and read it where they choose.
Some restrictions on content (such as keeping sexually explicit content out of public school libraries) are legitimate. Other objections might come from outside the community impacted by the decision or by small minorities or religious groups. Radio people understand these situations.
It reminds me of a tale of three wise men named Howard Stern, Mel Karmazin (Infinity Broadcasting President), and Don Buchwald (Stern’s agent).
In November 1986, three months after we began simulcasting The Howard Stern Show on WYSP, Philadelphia (where I was program director), the FCC started investigating three indecency complaints.
Two of them were from Reverend Donald Wildmon of Tupelo, Mississippi. Wildmon was the director of the “National Federation for Decency.” The third was from Mary Keeley, the mother of a 15-year-old girl. “Morality in Media,” an organization similar to Wildmon’s, instructed her on how to file an FCC complaint.
The FCC gave WYSP’s parent company, Infinity, 30 days to respond. Karmazin answered with a vigorous defense in December 1986. He “urged the Commission to conclude its inquiry without further action.”
In April 1987, the FCC rejected Infinity’s defense and concluded that Stern had aired indecent material, even though he did not utter any of the famous “Seven Dirty Words” previously understood to comprise the standard. Because he dwelled on sexual or excretory matters, not just fleeting references, the FCC found the material “patently offensive.” The FCC was also concerned because “there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience.”
Because the Commission clarified its standards, it limited its action to warning Infinity and other broadcast licensees that future cases would be actionable by fines or license penalties.
The FCC’s ruling confused broadcasters. What could you say and what couldn’t you say on the radio? What made something indecent?
Steve Lerman was the principal regulatory counsel to Infinity. I had several meetings with Lerman and can only imagine how many sessions the Stern crew had with him trying to understand where the FCC had drawn the line.
Steve is a great guy, and the smartest lawyer I’ve ever met, but his personality has never been described as dynamic. If you’ve seen “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” you know what he sounds like. Recall the scene with Bueller’s teacher, played by Ben Stein: “Bueller, Bueller, Bueller? Anyone?” That’s Steve Lerman.
Lerman told us to imagine him reading a transcript of what Stern said before the Supreme Court as they sat in their robes stone-faced. “That should give you a pretty good idea of whether it’s indecent,” he taught us.
In 1988, Stern added his third station, WJFK, Washington. Otherwise, life seemed to go on as normal. Then came the annual Christmas Party Show in 1988, resulting in more complaints to the FCC.
In the Fall of 1989, the FCC asked Infinity to explain the complaints about the Christmas Party show. The FCC rejected Infinity’s argument that the material was no more offensive than daytime television programs and, therefore, not indecent. The Commission slapped each of the three stations with a $2,000 fine and Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL), which could result in license forfeiture.
That day was the first time I was asked to appear on Nightline. Of course, I didn’t accept. The program director at WYSP didn’t speak for Howard Stern or Infinity on FCC matters. Nightline showed press conference footage from earlier that day. I recall seeing Stern visibly shaken.
Infinity (later CBS Radio) fought legal battles over indecency with the FCC for several years.
In the meantime, the three wise men displayed their brilliance.
Everybody wanted to know exactly what Stern had said to incur FCC fines. We couldn’t rebroadcast those bits and didn’t want to discuss them. The combination of Howard, Mel, and Don recognized people were curious, and nothing is more desirable than something banned. That was the genesis of “Crucified by the FCC.”
“Crucified by the FCC” was a box set released in CD or cassette formats, plus a 12-page booklet about the show’s history and battles with the FCC. It was released in early 1991 and included material from the Christmas Party show that brought the FCC fines.
Sold directly through an 800 number and promoted heavily by the stations during Stern’s show and throughout the day. Howard did promotional appearances, including this appearance with David Letterman:
No sales records were released, but we were told it sold several hundred thousand copies.
Prohibiting books from school libraries today may present an opportunity for a financial bonanza for authors and artists.
My friend Joe thinks it could be the DeSantis literary program. Ban Romeo and Juliet due to underage sex, and teens will flock to Shakespeare.
If I were selling books today, I would borrow from the three wise men.
If I had a brick-and-mortar bookstore, I would cordon off an area like video stores did for adult movie titles. I’d make a sign that read “BANNED BOOKS” or “Banned by the Governor.” Online I’d make a “Banned Books” button prominent.
Since nobody is really banning books in America, I’d use the lessons three wise men taught me about controversy and use the objections to some titles to sell books that otherwise few people would be interested in reading.
Andy Bloom is president of Andy Bloom Communications. He specializes in media training and political communications. He has programmed legendary stations including WIP, WPHT and WYSP/Philadelphia, KLSX, Los Angeles and WCCO Minneapolis. He was Vice President Programming for Emmis International, Greater Media Inc. and Coleman Research. Andy also served as communications director for Rep. Michael R. Turner, R-Ohio. He can be reached by email at email@example.com or you can follow him on Twitter @AndyBloomCom.