Re: NYTimes article on John R. Gambling

[mwaters@mail.wesleyan.edu (Martin J. Waters)]

>Dan Strassberg wrote:
>I think the possibilities for Gambling come down to WABC
>(yeah, right), WEVD, WBBR, and WNSW. I don't know Bill
>Mazur's age and whether he is a WEVD employee or if he
>leases and resells the time. If he's an employee and is
>ready to pack it in, Gambling would be a natural
>replacement--assuming that WEVD could come to terms with
>him. If Mazur leases the time, I guess that all Gambling
>would have to do is make WEVD a better offer.

        Presuming WABC would pass on Gambling because of the old-demo
issue, WEVD would seem to me to be the next place, IMO. I don't think
Bloomberg has the imagination or whatever to do something different than
robot-news. That whole operation is a one-note business-news samba.
Obviously, they don't care about making money on that station -- just
listen to it or check the book. I can't see Gambling moving so far down the
food chain as WNSW. Joey Reynolds made a big point of saying that Mr.
Gambling is wealthy, won't starve, etc., just about saying he does not need
to work.

        This might be WEVD's best chance to try to be a player instead of
leasing time to quack-medicine shysters and getting micro-ratings. Maybe it
could move Mazur to midday or afternoon drive and get a few more bona fide
programs to go with what it has now.

>As for WOR's frankness in discussing the reason for
>Gambling's departure, I'd call it either dumb or
>disingenuous. If the plan is to hang onto the existing
>audience and try to use it as a base to build on, the
>statement was dumb because it antagonizes the
>listenership--not just to what was Gambling's program
>but to the whole lineup.

        This may be where Buckley's nose is getting a little long. IMO,
they probably don't really care about the audience they have now. That's
the whole point in letting him go, isn't it? I have no idea what the demos
are for the Dolans or Grant or Rivers or Reynolds  vs. Gambling, but I
wonder how secure any of them are. The five of them, their ages must add up
to at least 300. Of course, one difference with all of them is the
syndication, which the station didn't get with Gambling.
>
>On the other hand, the statement might have been a
>disingenuous attempt to badmouth Gambling to prevent
>some other station from picking him up and attempting to
>compete with WOR. If so, why would another station care
>what WOR said?

        Right. The other stations know what the guy does on the air, and
what type of person he is, and they have the same rating books to look at.
And, if you think Joey Reynolds is basically honest on the air, you'd
believe WOR wouldn't do that.