🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <higgy-05E4CC.09493523102012@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
John Higdon  <higgy@kome.com> wrote:
>I figured it would be KGO that tripped over the "no area code necessary" 
>situation. Two minutes ago, I heard one of the Armstrong spots with that 
>phrase left in. It would be absolutely no problem to snip that phrase 
>out of the spot, and make the change imperceptible to the listener, 
>while keeping the run time of the entire spot the same.


I know from personal experience that stations cannot edit commercials
unless authorized to do so by the client. Now, given the long advance
notice of the 408 overlay, someone at KGO should have contacted Armstrong
weeks ago to prepare for this. Perhaps they did and the company hasn't
responded yet; we don't know. Or maybe everyone at KGO has spaced out
about the change. The bottom line is that unless you have some inside
info you didn't mention above, none of us outside of KGO and Armstrong
have the necessary background information yet to determine that this 
was indeed KGO's failure.


Patty

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:40:44 EDT, John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:

>I know there is someone on the staff that could accomplish that. But 
>first, someone in the sales or programming department would have to wake 
>up from his or her coma and get it handled. 

What about getting permission/acquiescence from the sponsor to alter
the copy?

Details, details.....
---
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

In article <higgy-05E4CC.09493523102012@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au> John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> writes:
>I figured it would be KGO that tripped over the "no area code necessary" 
>situation. Two minutes ago, I heard one of the Armstrong spots with that 
>phrase left in. It would be absolutely no problem to snip that phrase 
>out of the spot, and make the change imperceptible to the listener, 
>while keeping the run time of the entire spot the same.

  I have noted advertisements for special offers that ended on
the current day being run *after closing time* for the store.
There being no way that a listener could take up the offer unless
they had access to a working time machine.

  I doubt that the stations are really concerned about the details
of the content of the advertisements, as long as the payment for
the airtime is good.

	Alan

"Alan"  wrote in message news:k679h7$dru$1@usenet.stanford.edu...
>  I have noted advertisements for special offers that ended on
>the current day being run *after closing time* for the store.
>There being no way that a listener could take up the offer unless
>they had access to a working time machine.

>  I doubt that the stations are really concerned about the details
>of the content of the advertisements, as long as the payment for
>the airtime is good.

This happens a lot.  The client (usually an advertising agency) supplies the 
commercial itself and places a "run of schedule" order to run it, say, 100 
times.  That means the spot can run any time within certain parameters, in 
this hypothetical case 6 AM-12 midnight, for each day of the order.  The 
order goes into the station's computer with an expiration date on the last 
day of the contract.  On that day the store closes at 6 PM, but one or two 
spots will run between 6 PM and midnight.  That's the way the agency ordered 
it.  ("Run of schedule" spots are cheaper than those which must run at 
specific times or in specific shows).

In many cases the order is generated by computer, scheduled by computer, and 
run by computer.   Even if there's live air talent in the studio, the spot 
is going to run as scheduled.   If the spot is on the log, it's going to be 
played.

Of course not all advertising is bought and sold in this manner, but enough 
of it is that mistakes are inevitable.

Mark Howell 

In article <5086f5f5$0$71233$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
 Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:

> The bottom line is that unless you have some inside
> info you didn't mention above, none of us outside of KGO and Armstrong
> have the necessary background information yet to determine that this 
> was indeed KGO's failure.

I could pick up the phone anytime, day or night, and find out. Rather 
than do that, however, I'm trying to play the game as a member of the 
listening public. I know when that happens at my stations (a spot played 
with errors or at the wrong time or with contextually defective copy), 
all hell breaks loose and the correction is made on the spot, day or 
night, by someone with authority to do so.

I suppose that a station as big as KGO doesn't have to sweat the details.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 775 253 3838

"Phil Kane" <Phil.Kane@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote

> What about getting permission/acquiescence from the sponsor to alter
> the copy?

Most stations don't bother because they figure the client knows what they 
want to run.  Pursuing these errors (and there are actually quite a lot of 
them) just takes too much time.

In article <k68f5g$tr0$1@dont-email.me>,
 "David Kaye" <sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Phil Kane" <Phil.Kane@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote
> 
> > What about getting permission/acquiescence from the sponsor to alter
> > the copy?
> 
> Most stations don't bother because they figure the client knows what they 
> want to run.  Pursuing these errors (and there are actually quite a lot of 
> them) just takes too much time.

There was a time when stations did care about the clients' advertising 
and made sure the clients were satisfied with the effort the station was 
making. That being in the past is a good example of what is happening to 
commercial radio and why.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 775 253 3838