Peter Smyth

Of all the CEOs who reflect the power of positive thinking, none are more bullish than Greater Media Pres./CEO Peter Smyth. Joining the company in 1986 as GM of WMJX/Boston, Smyth was promoted VP/GM the following year and kept working his was up the corporate ladder until he became Pres./COO in 2000, Pres./CEO in 2002 and Chairman of the Board in October of 2008.

While he may be on top of the corporate ladder, Smyth retains a strong belief in localism -- and he's not afraid to speak out about it, either ... or anything else for that matter. He offers his insight on the pressing issues of the day in his "From The Corner Office" column on the Greater Media website. Here, Peter Smyth tackles several issues at once.

Obviously, 2009 has been a tough year. How long do you feel the slump will last?

We think we've hit bottom. The worst month was January. In the 4th quarter, we saw the credit market coming to a screeching halt and consumers panicking. It has been one of the most severe economic calamities since God knows when. February was better. We're seeing the pacing pick up, and we've seen some bouncing on the bottom, alternating good weeks with softness.

Most major retailers should look at this as a great opportunity to grow market share. The companies that come up with the great ideas will do well -- as long as we continue to change. The definition of our business is to be helpful, and as much as we hate economic chaos, it can be good for the positive restructuring of our business.

We expect to see a better 4th quarter. Long term, we hope to see 3-5% growth in the business again.

What's the key to a turnaround -- the economy rebounding overall, radio placing more emphasis in online revenue? HD growth? Other factors?

We have to break down the silos of radio, TV and interactive. We're all marketing platforms that compete in a battle of ideas. We're not in a cost-per-point business anymore; we're in the idea business. What I have seen in our company is a testimony to the men and women who work here. And the greater ideas we go into the market with, the greater our revenue share.

We talk to our advertisers about how we can touch their customers at all different points of the day, which enables us to drive traffic there. We measure our success by selling our advertisers' products. We don't want to hear about getting the first sale; we want to encourage the repeat sale.

We can't rely on the traditional ways to sell advertising when the national business is contracting 25%. So how do we grow the business? Through innovation and education. We're selling marketing platforms; we're selling an interactive component, as well as a texting component. It comes down to what the customers need. All the objectives are different. We have educated men and women marketing radio stations today; it's a whole different environment; we're not just selling spots anymore.

Our greater days are ahead of us. Our business will grow. Historically as the economy starts to move up, spending in media will rise, too.

Who thought satellite radio would be judged as the greatest debacle in the decade? People recognize over-the-air radio is a free medium that works; it's a better way to do business and move forward. Retailers want to grow market share; we should encourage them and show them how.

Will the future of radio's revenue renaissance be found online? How will its presence impact the way Greater Media and its terrestrial stations do business?

Listening to radio station content on cell phones and listening on PCs increases our distribution. We're already reaching 94% of the existing distribution channels. Why not grow further and get on more! We're getting 20-25,000 downloads on iPhones each week. We can't take technology, lock it in a drawer and not let it happen. Let's embrace technology. Instead of working for technology, let's make technology work for us. iTunes music stores are a great business for us in selling music. Applications are pushing out our impact by receiving back from the consumer.

Our limitations are in our minds. Radio should do a better job telling that story. Katie Couric reaches 5.23 mil households. Greater Media gets 20 million; WLTW gets 6 million in a week. In Boston, one out of every 3 adults listen to Magic on a weekly basis and it's free. We don't talk about that enough -- the reach of radio stations in markets. People look for hope in communities ... and radio provides the perfect opportunity to offer companionship ... and it's always been that way. We were the original Facebook

What's your opinion of HD Radio? Considering how much staff downsizing there has been in radio, how can stations even afford to hire the programmers to take the time and energy to develop unique, compelling content on HD?

HD offers a lot of great potential. In Detroit we have RIF2; it's a very successful station to young artists all local artists and music. It invites college students to come in, like we did with FM radio back in the day. It lets young people get involved in our business and get exposure. We have a Gaelic channel in Boston. There are also reading and gay/lesbian channels. We don't own or operate them, but they're all very innovative and important.

HD affords the listeners the opportunity to find more variety and audio content. I see HD becoming something very important. But it is true: We can't cut our way to prosperity; eventually we've got to grow the top line with all this innovation, find new ways to market stations and break down traditional silos. That's the only way to grow it -- look at each platform as a marketing company, the find out how to address customers, listeners and the community needs. If we make prudent investments in HD, we'll be winners in the whole thing.

Some observers claim that one or more radio group won't survive the current economic situation intact. Greater Media didn't jump into the buying frenzy back in the day-which now seems like a very wise move. Did you sense the inherent danger of such consolidation in the event of an economic downturn?

It's not that we sensed a great danger, although it's true that we don't have that kind of debt load. I'm not here to judge capital structures of other company, but I believe that after you get over 25 radio stations, you can lose something. I'm personally involved in all our stations. It's not that every day, I go over all the stations' strategies and economies, especially to the extent of those involved in all of those stations and markets have to be, but it's important for me to run a company that size optimizes education and teaching. And I do believe that once get over a certain size, you lose a certain control over the stations.

I never ask someone to do something I haven't done. I started as retail salesperson, so it's very important to sit with our retail sales manager, talk to the accountants and redefine what we do. We need resources to invest first in people. Our GMs' greatest asset is the men and women who are here. From young kids answering the phones to the regional sales managers ... without them all, we have nothing. I look at myself as a protector of their rights; I have a responsibility to them and their families.

Many radio groups are programming a lot more syndicated airshifts/voicetracking. What's your take on that? How can radio emphasize localism when so many dayparts are syndicated or tracked?

I believe in localism. Regardless of the size of our company, I operate them as a local operator. Tip O'Neil once said that all politics is local. Well, so is radio, and the more grounded we are with the community, the better we do. That community involvement builds our strength and our brands -and it builds a loyalty that's good for the company.

We use some syndication, but as little as possible. We still believe radio stations should be live and local because we want to stay dominant in the markets. Preston and Steve have a great morning show; they're dominant in Philly. We want to make sure they protect that franchise and super-serve Philly, which they do it exceedingly well.

I will take a local show over a national show every time. I worked at WOR in the '80s as a sales manager, and our primary competitor was WABC. Our GM wanted us to be one thing only -- NY's Talk station. We were local and did exceeding well, so we still have to invest in local programming.

I'm not against those who syndicate. That's their choice and if they think it's a great way to make a living ... Godspeed. I don't measure my success at what our stations do vs. other radio stations. I focus on no one but us and the needs of the marketplace and listener.

PPM seems to have shaken up how radio formats its stations (ie: CBS' Now/AMP Top 40 format) How has PPM measurement changed the way Greater Media formats and programs stations?

Anytime a new tech is introduced, there's going to be changes. In this case, the PPM is the methodology antithesis of the diary-the latter which is all in memory. In the diary, we were in the history business. The PPM catches what people are actually hearing, which allows us to focus on tune-ins ... how many tune-ins and how long a listening time we can get in a quarter-hour. As we go through the technology, there will always be creative arguments on it, but electronic measurement is necessary. It's what clients are clamoring for.... real-life accountability. If there are some problems with the structure, I'm sure we can work out the bugs.

I would like see them develop a model on cost-per-reach. We need to figure out how to do that. Once we can accurately ascertain the reach of PPM, we can understand how to get compensated for reach because that is powerful. We haven't done an efficient job of doing that yet.

That's very important: Moving to a new digital economic system which is great but doing commerce is great, but we can measure it to standards set back in the '50s. We cannot use a new tool and expect to use CPP to measurement; it's not favorable. I'm a big proponent of developing new metrics. We also have to figure out how to accommodate website streams and how roll in those unique visitors. The traffic to our sites is incredible.

Unfortunately, in this economy, it's hard to allocate when the resources needed to do that are scarce. But we still have to make the investment to get the results we need to achieve.

What's your opinion of what Arbitron is doing with PPM and what Nielsen is proposing in electronic measurement for major markets? Can two different electronic radio measuring systems survive ...and can you afford to pay for both, like some parties do with BDS and Mediabase?

We'll pay for the best service. I think competition is good. Having numerous companies can be good for the marketplace; it can make the price more affordable and it makes their products better. We just have to make sure the data is consistently reliable.

Although I have met with the Nielsen people, it wasn't not in a formal setting. I don't think there's anything wrong with coming up with their own electronic measurement. Competition is good for you; it makes you better and I welcome them in.

Should a performance royalty bill ever become law, how would Greater Media react?

Performance taxes are ridiculous to begin with. I believe that the record companies realize they have a failed biz model, so they want to generate new money on the backs on radio companies. Radio has done more for Sheryl Crow than she can shake a stick at, but then she goes out [and testifies] against us? Since we're all fro sharing now, why don't we get a piece of their touring money? Why can't we get a piece of merchandising? Why can't we get piece of their publishing rights? We have given them free promotion up to now, but if they want to charge us a performance tax, maybe we'll we charge you to play your record. How stupid is this?

Radio and records have had a fabulous relationship for 40 years, because of the labels mistaken belief that they could continue selling CDs for $18 each - when their customers are paying 99 cents per song - they want to tax us. Instead of pulling in Steve Jobs to work it out, they want to tax us ... and most that money is going overseas anyway. It's such hypocrisy

People who wrote this legislation don't understand the repercussions. One of which could be at stations, when they are asked by the label to play their new artist's record ... if it takes up three minutes of air time, that'll cost the label $3,000. This will only push more and more music off the radio -- and generate more non-music syndication.

Thanks to the efforts of the NAB and a united effort by many radio groups, I'm confident that the proposed legislation is DOA - as of now. But we will continue to be vigilant against any such effort moving forward.

One person suggested to All Access that radio pay a lump sum to performers for airplay, but eth performer is responsible for paying the publishing to the writers of their songs, not radio.

Great idea! Take the money we're paying to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, and send it to the artists and labels-and have them compensate the songwriters they use! It sounds like a perfect solution to us.

How important is it for the radio groups to band together for its common interests in the current economic environment vs. the interest in attracting the largest audience?

The radio groups have really good relations. Over the past couple of years, we've come closer together for HD and other initiatives, such as the performance royalty work. We well together; there's a mutual respect, and I'm very close friends with Bruce Reese, David Field, Farid Suleman, John Hogan and Dan Mason. We compete hard on streets and are there to win, but still have a respect for each other. I only wish good things for all of them; a high tide lifts all boats.

When you compete hard on the streets, and for instance, you find out that a rival is not as local as you are, or doesn't play local music and isn't as attuned to the streets, do you still want your stations to market themselves by comparing your strong local qualities to their "out-of-town" presence?

Anytime you go in marketplace, be it Boston or Philly, and say negative things about another station, you're saying negative things about yourself. I don't believe in going negative, saying "so-and-so does this and that." People used to do that when Howard Stern was around, and that was ridiculous. That was when stupid was in session. It makes radio overall look bad to the listener; it makes us out to be a bunch of morons.

I've read what's being happening elsewhere. If that's what Clear Channel wants to do, fine. They might be right and I might be totally wrong, but the marketplace will make that decision. I'm not going to win by bad-mouthing them. That's plain wrong, I believe in selling ourselves as the premier supplier of entertainment; it's all about what I'm doing. I only have a certain amount of time with clients and listeners, to talk up what I do - and I make sure the men and women in our company understand that.