John wouldn't have known.

Also, ops are usually instructed not to juggle spots around. Sometimes placement is sold at a premium. If a show's syndicated, you could mess up network cue points...same if you're adding or substituting spots on your stream.

An op moving a political spot to a less heard part of the ad break could look political itself.

Also, maybe the client would like how it played out - they got an instant rebuttal. I don't know, you don't know, and the op doesn't know.

The professional thing is for an op to leave commercial islands alone unless instructed otherwise.

Absolutely not.

It's a station that talks politics and runs political advertising. Such instances are clearly predictable. If a spot's going to be moved, it needs to be directed by management and a matter of policy.

There are many implications to moving a spot that simply didn't exist in the past.

The idea that the placement is "bad" is a matter of opinion, not fact. The Liberals got the last word. The audience heard the spot when they're less likely to have punched to 680/1010 because of commericals and while they were actively thinking about the election. (I'm not advocating that argument, just pointing out that there is one)

Oakley is most definitely not looking at the log, and spots that sound "live" very often aren't.

Last edited by RadioAaron (April 25, 2025 7:22 pm)

paterson1 wrote:

Sorry Aaron, totally disagree.  It suggests to the listener that the station and host don't know what the left and right hand are doing.  The show sounds disorganized, and this could have been easily corrected.

That's fine. You're still wrong though.

It's settled then!
No more political ads on shows of a political nature.
Only Spence Jewelers and dog nose window wipers.
😁

Easily Amused wrote:

It's settled then!
No more political ads on shows of a political nature.
Only Spence Jewelers and dog nose window wipers.
😁

Brilliant!  And Spence is a long time advertiser, in it for the long run.  Not like political parties who flood the airwaves for a few weeks, only to leave for 3 or 4 years!

They don't need excuses for not doing something that's not their job.

RadioAaron wrote:

They don't need excuses for not doing something that's not their job.

On a live radio show if the producer/op or even the host can't make the call for a minor change like this, indicates to me that they either aren't really doing their job...  Or, if they aren't given the authority to do this would indicate why this station and company are in the dumpster.   A little too much micromanaging maybe?  Live radio requires changes on the fly occasionally, and moving a commercial within a cluster to prevent an awkward and unecessary confusing situation is radio 101 and basic common sense.   

The situation on Oakley's show didn't make the client (Liberals) look bad.  It did make the host and AM 640 look like they were not coordinated with what they were putting on air.

The political ad, right after the hosts rant on that very party and leader, is unprofessional and indicates sloppy programming.  Even if Oakley had spoken about something else for a few minutes after his slamming the Liberals and leader would have been much better.  The other solution would be to make the Liberals #3 in the cluster rather than right out of the hosts editorial. 

Bottom line is either the op or producer or host should have seen this happening and done something to correct this easily solved and awkward difficulty.

This thread title also brings up another consideration that has interested me.  When you have a particularly virulent rhetoric spouting host, what would possess an advertiser to take on that host as a spokesperson?  I long ago abandoned local and national talk radio, but found it interesting that there are plenty of WNY businesses willing to have some really unbalanced clowns as the voices of their business.

Another great mystery to me was that in the WNY market, Entercom was quite willing for a while to program both left leaning and right leaning talk radio.  Some of the crap spewed by both sides on the issues was nothing more than irresponsible hate, yet in the middle there's sanctimonious Entercom, filling its pockets with advertising dollars.

Given 640's pretty low ratings, I doubt if anybody's mind is going to be influenced by his constant lunchbucket right wing piffle.
Same with Agar on 1010.
But at least neither Oakley nor Agar are anywhere near the lunacy of American right wing hosts, the late Limbaugh, Alex Jones etc.