With many radio companies either changing their name or moving more toward using the word audio, Saga CEO Ed Christian says that’s a betrayal of the industry. “It amazes me how strong radio companies have decided to change their name from radio.”
During his Thursday earnings call Christian said Saga is sticking with radio because, “We’re recognized in the communities we serve.” Christian says moving away from radio makes no sense.
Christian says other companies tell him that he has to get with it. He says, “Changing your name doesn’t change what you do in your community. I don’t get it. We are radio. We’re not going to change our name.”
Ed Christian is right … and David Field blew it.
All of the former Entercom stations now include “… at Audacy.com” in their top-of-the-hour IDs (and sometimes elsewhere in the hour). A friend of mine who knows I am in the radio business said when she tried to go to the website, she landed instead at a travel-related site called City Experiences. It seems that the similar-sounding “odyssey.com” auto-directs to cityexperiences.com and my friend (and obviously, radio listener) was completely unaware of the unique trademarkable spelling that Audacy chose.
Simply put, Field apparently forgot that radio is an aural medium and listeners cannot see how he spelled their new corporate name. I bet no one ever made that same mistake with Saga.
Not bad! There’s an old adage that says “dance with who brung ya” and even with that spelling it still makes sense. After all is said and done, it STILL is … R A D I O.
OK Boomer
You are 100% correct Ed. It reminds me of what Dean Sorenson told me about 20 years ago at the NAB convention in New Orleans, WE JUST DO RADIO! AMEN AND AMEN! Why would the number one reach media try and be something else! Keep up the good work Ed!
“Saga Communications”. Ed, when they ask you what you do for a living, do you say “communications”?
Agree wholeheartedly. You dance with the one that brung ya.
Radio is what we do, and what our listeners want. Trying to ‘re-invent’ a solid and heritage brand like radio by describing your product as ‘audio’ or ‘media’ is risky and many times never works. Also, the rush toward selling pure digital advertising in many ways is counter-productive. You take reps of the street, and away from their strength (radio), to learn how to sell a product (digital) that competitors can sell for less, and the broadcast companies always have to partner with an outside digital provider who usually takes half of the gross sales, then when adding in the 15-20% commission on a sale, leaves a net to the station owner of 30-35%.
I’ve never understood the reasoning behind that.