David Katz and John McConnell

One area of the radio business that's in high demand is syndication, yet it's also one of the most competitive, what with the Premieres of the world often going up against a growing number of "nationalized" air personalities. Into the fray comes morning star Elvis Duran, who is certainly no stranger to being heard in multiple markets. He formed the Elvis Duran Group with CEO David Katz to maximize his own opportunities in all forms of media; now he has just launched a division solely dedicated to radio syndication. And the man they're partnering with, John McConnell, boasts considerable experience in syndication, specifically with ABC Radio Networks. In this exclusive interview, Katz and McConnell discuss how they plan to hit the ground running in a hyper-competitive environment.

How did Elvis Duran Group start and what made you decide to go into radio syndication?

DK: I was an agent at Buchwald and Assoc., where I ran the TV and Radio Broadcast department for 15 years. I left in June 2007 to start up this company with Elvis Duran, who was a longtime client at Buchwald. He basically made me an offer I couldn't refuse, so in 2008 we formed the Elvis Duran Group.

I've known John for my entire agency career, and once he became available, I started chatting about him with Elvis, so we figured out a way to get him involved.

JM: Up until 18 months ago, I was SVP/Programming at ABC Radio Networks, where I was in charge of all of its syndication. At various times I have been responsible for ABC News, ESPN and all of its Talk, Music, Sports and News programs. I'd been with ABC for 20 years up. The last year-and-a-half, I've run a consultancy, which included Elvis Duran. I am also actively involved in a social media start-up. I'm a Founder and Sr. Executive; you'll be hearing a lot about it shortly.

The purpose of the new division, partnering with Elvis and David, is to primarily focus on radio syndication and digital distribution by identifying new talent and programs, several of which we already have in development, and actively working them through syndication

With the plethora of syndicated personalities, especially in Talk, on top of the slew of national DJs a la Clear Channel's Premium Choice, are you concerned about an already crowded field of syndicated talent, which could make it difficult for your projects to get a decent foothold to prove themselves?

DK: As far as I'm concerned, there's always room for good talent, be it in radio, TV or film. If you've got quality talent and an entertaining product, at some point you'll be able find a place for it. That's what we believe and are counting on.

JM: I couldn't agree more. Radio stations and syndicated networks have had a wonderful relationship for many years. Far before any of us were born, there was the premise that syndicated networks are often in the position to develop talent and distribution; where as a local station might not have the time, resources and energy to do that. I agree with David in that it's always about talent, in that there's always someone new with new ideas in programming.

Every market is crowded. Digital TV is extremely crowded, but every year the networks have a slew of new programs to launch. This is a continuing process and as far our timing goes, radio stations may not necessarily be in the market for syndicated personalities now, but that is changing. They haven't been able spend the resources necessary to develop new talent or product. Neither have some networks, too, which provide us the opportunity to offer quality product.

Do certain formats offer more opportunities for syndicated talent? It seems that Top 40 and Talk are quite populated with syndicated talent as it is.

JM: Clearly, Talk, Sports, Top 40 and Urban have had the most success when you're talking about seven-days-a-week programming. But there are opportunities in all formats for quality entertainment, as long as you do it in a forum that radio stations can use and desire. I do think Rock and Country syndication is wide open.

DK: We brought John on board because of his knowledge and wherewithal to guide our vision. We're looking at talent in every medium possible, but when it comes to radio, one thing I learned during my agency years was that somewhere, somehow along the line, radio abandoned the farm system it had. Now it's almost like reality TV, where they'll throw the loser off "Survivor" on the air to get their "15 minutes" of success out of that. We have enough contacts to try and highlight true personalities. Hopefully, we'll find someone we like and then we'll nurture them to success.

Syndication, especially in nights and overnights, has been blamed for radio's perceived lack of up-and-coming talent, since there are few if any dayparts left for green talent to cut their teeth. With that in mind, how do you find quality air personalities - do you find those who are already on the air but overlooked, or do you go outside of radio?

JM: Radio had its time in the chute over the last several years, then the recession hit and a lot of prospective talent was cut as a "needless" expense. Now, thanks to the benefit of a growing economy and advertising budget, things are starting to turn again. That's not to say finding and developing new talent is any less difficult. And it's not to say that things will be same as it was, because we've all learned to do business differently, so going forward I can see stations and networks reinvesting in what drives them - namely, quality talent, be it local or partnered with syndicators like us. If you develop a really good program that can be documented by the ratings, in better economies it will always produce revenue.

A model like ours is particularly well-positioned to go forward, in that there's not a lot of infrastructure, so we can capitalize on a good idea for a show and get it to the market fairly quickly. We have a pretty good track record of identifying people who are not currently into syndication and bringing them to the air. Where they come from depends on the talent; every individual is different, and each individual station has its own unique situation.

I do know this: Radio has produced more spectacular talent (outside of TV) than the other mediums. Matt Drudge and Perez Hilton have been the only "digital stars" who have come through that space. We feel there are a number of other potential stars in that space right now, and we're wide open. Of course, we're going to want to hear from people who look to us as an opportunity to be syndicated - and we're getting interest from all areas.

With the talent you already have and are about to syndicate, will you pitch them first to small markets just to get them on the air, or will you hit the major markets first to make the biggest splash?

JM: Our standard is major-market clearance. When you have major-market clearance, you get to run pretty deep on the distribution side.

The PPM seems to have had considerable impact even on syndicated talent. It's been said that Delilah had to revamp her show to reclaim the ratings she lost when PPM hit. Has the PPM impacted how you're developing new on-air talent?

DK: I personally would never take that into account. I equate PPM back to early days of Nielsen, when they put the meter in people's houses. It initially gave TV networks an excuse to pull a quick trigger on shows that didn't start fast. However, most programmers who have been involved in the radio business for a while understand that most of the time, people need a chance to succeed (or fail). The star personalities on radio today didn't have much, if any, success in the first 12-18 months. It took a while. What scares me is if the PPM point of view changes radio into even more of an immediate-gratification business, where they decide to get rid of a talent who can eventually develop into a star. We're not going to let PPM dictate who we think could be an excellent talent in any medium.

JM: I have a slightly different take. It is true that PPM is, in some situations, causing people to pull the trigger prematurely on really good ideas, but as we've also learned that it is the game now ... and you have to use it to your advantage.

Some formats and features are doing better in this methodology than others. I'm out of News/Talk format originally and believe me; I've seen some great stations take it in the shorts literally because of how this research works. So we've got to keep the PPM element in mind.

Even so, the best talents on the air today are not successful because everything they do has been researched to death. It was because someone thought they were great irrespective of the ratings.

You also have to consider the fact that great local ratings doesn't automatically translate into success in syndication. I know of several #1-rated talents in local markets who have not done well in syndication ... and there are people who have not been even in the top 15 in certain markets who've since achieved unprecedented success in syndication. When it comes down to it, you have to work with the people that you think are great.

While you'll give your talent the time to develop into stars, how can you ensure that the stations that syndicate them will give them the time to catch on in their respective markets?

DK: Speaking as a former agent, I don't think we have any power to do that whatsoever. We have to go in there with an appropriate talent and make them take the show on the merits of the personality. I know when I made my deals as an agent, I would fight as hard as I could for a minimum 18-month deal only because I felt that was reasonable amount of time to gauge whether talent succeeds or fails. We don't have any power to ensure that today, nor would I ever force a talent on a station for a minute longer than it wants the show. I do want them to basically fall in love with product first, which gives them an incentive to grow it on-air.

There's an ongoing debate between those in radio who call for an aggressive investment in a web presence ... and executives who don't see the ROI potential that warrants such an investment of time and money. Where do you stand on this issue?

D.K: I think it's hugely important, not just for the station but for any radio personality. ElvisDuran.com is basically a character in his show; it is that important to his success of his daily radio show, considering all the info, the interviews and other content we place on there. Social outlets such as Twitter and Facebook are all incorporated into the website -- and all serve as virtual characters we bring to the show, which can only enhance and sustain our success. A strong web presence is terribly important regardless of it being local or national. Those who fail to utilize it do so at their own peril

JM: It's pretty clear that we have all figured out that for a web presence to be a success (and to make substantial amount of money), you have to provide a product that consumers choose to experience. The best example is ESPN and how they have taken the position that they virtually own sports in the digital space -- and have made a dramatic effort to fill their websites with programming and content that is separate from what it is on their radio stations.

If we continue to use radio websites just as a marketing tool, simply as a place to run extra spots and dump extra promotions, then we get what we deserve. We use our websites to generate new content and product, using ideas that are separate and distinct from the radio station; that's where value is. One good example of this was when KIIS/Los Angeles hired some cast members of the TV show "Heroes" to do a unique show for the website. It was a great move; that kind of stuff has to happen more often; otherwise we're just blowing wind.

Have you established goals in terms of how many of your air personalities get their shows on a certain number of stations by the end of 2010 or 2011?

JM: We're nimble and flexible in that sense. The world has turned that way. Look at the upfront buying season. Networks used to use it to determine a majority of their upcoming year's programming. Now it's an extremely small percentage. We haven't set any particular goals for end of this year. We're fortunate to be self-funded, which enables us to work on several projects simultaneously, with the key being getting each totally ready before they're brought to the market. If any one of those shows finds success, we'll be quite pleased with how we did in the first year.

DK: As a lifelong salesman and agent, I always had to work with guidelines and budgets. My philosophy now is to keep it more broad and vague than I've previously done. We don't have a five-year plan and our mission statement much like the Zucker Bros' mission statement when they were making movies like "Airplane." They didn't make them to make money; they made them to make people laugh.

We want to create a product that brings people to the forefront - people who turn us on and excite us. By working for ourselves, we're not under any pressure to have anything done by tomorrow or even this year. We'll bring products out when we know they're ready.