Norm Pattiz

In an irony that seems all too typical for radio, Norm Pattiz, the radio icon who founded Westwood One over 30 years ago, finally decides to retire once the company is in the hands of the Gores group. He wants to start a consultancy ...and who is his first client? Why, Westwood One, of course. Now, however, Pattiz gets to be more hands-on in the actual creation and development of programming. Here, he describes his new challenges, as well as offer his seasoned insight to the overall business.

No sooner did you retire as Chairman of Westwood One to start your own consultancy, then Westwood One hires you to be its consultant. Was this planned in advance, or did it just happen?

It just happened. When I told the folks at Gores that I would be retiring, they wanted to know how I could continue to be involved. I said, "I'd be happy to remain involved." I was planning on setting up a consulting company anyway, for any projects to do on my own. They said, "This is what we want you to do: We want to be your first client. We want you to play an active role in the Office of the Chairman, which we will create, so you can work with Rod Sherwood and new Chairman Mark Stone, who oversees the operations of all Gores companies." So, the fact of the matter is, I'm much more active now than the past few years.

Were you surprised at this turn of events?

I've been around here for a long time, going back over 30 years to when I founded the company. When Gores came in and took control of the company, I was Chairman. I was certainly in the office all the time and my opinions were sought out, but I wasn't playing nearly as active of a role as I am now as Chairman Emeritus -- which basically means I used to be Chairman -- and as a consultant.

Will you still take outside clients now?

I might; there are some people who indicated some interest in working with me when I announced that I was leaving, but I have no grand plans. I already do a number of things outside of Westwood One and the radio business that are important to me - and I'll continue in those endeavors. I now have more time to devote to Regent Labs at Los Alamos, New Mexico and Lawrence Livermore, CA. I have a pretty wide variety of interests.

Are these the golden days of syndication and network radio, or have the plethora of product reached a point of overkill?

I sort of thought the platinum age for network radio and syndication was really in the '80s. It may not seem like it because there's so much product out there today, but there was a ton of product then -- coming from companies that had different names. Companies like RKO Radio Network, which became United Stations; and then Unistar; and then part of Westwood One. NBC had three full-service radio networks -- NBC News, a Talk network and The Source.

ABC Networks, of course, had the demo-targeted network. Ed McLaughlin created the concept of demo-targeted radio networks; we came along and tried to put a significant amount of entertainment offerings into the syndicated marketplace. We started out pretty much as a rock and roll company before we acquired the Mutual Broadcasting System and NBC. Back in the '80s, there were also a lot of independent companies, such as DIR, King Biscuit Flower Hour and MJI ... there was lots of competition even then.

The difference between then and now is the ownership of the stations; it's not as diverse today, where there are 400-pound gorillas that can make or break you. Back then, nobody could own more than five AMs and five FMs. Then it was seven AMs and FMs, then 12, then 20. Now it's virtually unlimited.

What does that mean? Before, if one station in a group didn't do business with you, everyone else could. Today, it's much more difficult to control affiliates. You have to make nice with more people who have the ability to open doors... or close them.

It must be tough to get your product into a Clear Channel station, when CC-owned Premiere obviously has its foot in the door.

Being owned by Clear Channel is a tremendous plus for Premiere, but that doesn't mean Clear Channel doesn't do business with other companies. We still do a lot of business with Clear Channel. Of course our long-term relationship is very helpful, but ultimately if a program is really worth having, people will want that program. It's just harder to leverage a variety of programming as syndicators in today's marketplace.

How difficult is it to find and groom new network/syndicated personalities?

That's a yes and no question. We've done a pretty good job so far ... Dennis Miller, Billy Bush ... now Doug Urbanski and Robert Wuhl, with lots more to come. If you have a personality that one of the major groups thinks is compelling they'll put it on all their stations. So in that light it can be lot easier. Our approach to affiliate relations is to do it station by station because you don't want to become too dependent on the top brass at groups that own a whole lot of stations. If you go to each station individually and the PD likes what you're doing, he'll give your show a try. So while you may not get the whole group at once, you can get started at one or two stations at first, which gives you the chance to build it on more stations in the chain.

It was probably easier when nobody could own so many stations, because everybody was competing against everybody else within the same format. Today, far more often than not, a typical cluster of a radio groups seem to "own" or at least dominate their respective formats. You don't have as many radio wars as you had in the past.

Sounds like you're a fan of direct-format rivalries...

I hate the fact that you don't have the kind of radio wars we had before the radio groups got so big. It was a great thing -- great for listeners, great for the stations, great for producers of talent. There was a lot of natural-born excitement that came out of the crazy things stations had to do to stand out.

What kind of crazy things did you do with Westwood One product back in the day?

Hey, we were the network of the Dr. Demento Show ... and there was nothing crazier than that. We loved to do things like create major concert events, or fantasy concert events if you will. Over the years, we recorded so many live performances by great artists that we were able to "create" live music events around things like a solar eclipse... an entire Rock radio festival based on a solar eclipse! We had just bought Mutual Broadcasting, so we used Mutual News to report on the eclipse as it took place in different cities around the world. We had a band perform during the eclipse when it was happening in Buenos Aries, then when it hit Central America, then U.S., then Canada - all while we're playing some of greatest rock and roll music of all time.

Going back to developing new network personalities, how did you come up with going after Robert Wuhl? What does he possess that made you believe he can be a successful syndicated host?

Robert Wuhl will be a fabulous radio talent. This all started two years ago, when I was sitting next to his agent at a Lakers game. I was big fan of the Arliss show on HBO. I thought, Westwood One carries a lot of play-by-play with the NFL and NCAA ... we're all over the place, yet we don't have a Sports Talk show. So why don't we do a Sports Talk show unlike any other Sports Talk show. Robert Wuhl is the perfect fit; he's a very funny stand-up comedian, a terrific writer and a sports junkie. He wanted to do it, so we dragged him into the studio, sat him down and rolled tape for hours -- he was terrific. And audiences are going to love him when the show launches this January. He guest-hosted for Dennis Miller and did a great job. If he can do as well as Dennis Miller, we'll all be happy. And o,h by the way, Miller told me I was crazy if I didn't sign him and that's not just because his brother represents him.

Having a gift of gab is obviously paramount for a non-radio personality to succeed in syndication, but David Lee Roth proved even that's no guarantee of success. How can you tell whether their talents can transfer into a studio?

Listen, if we signed the second coming of Jesus Christ, it's still a 50-50 proposition on network radio. There are no guarantees, but I've been doing this a while. We've started a lot of shows and seen others start a lot of shows ... ones that worked and ones that didn't. After a while, you get an instinct for these things. Now I feel very comfortable that Wuhl is going to be successful. I'm also confident that The Doug Urbanski Show will be successful, but to be honest, if I knew exactly how to make hits, that's all we'd make.

There's always an element of risk. Today, the big companies that own most of the major networks have been successful by managing risk. However, managing risk can often take its toll on the creative side of business.

How can it take a toll?

I wanted to do Robert Wuhl two years ago, but we were only been able to do it when I got to a position where I could green-light programs. When the folks at Gores said they wanted me to stay, I told them on what basis I'd stick around. If they could be comfortable with me getting more involved in creating original programming and taking more risks as a producer, then I'm their guy. They gave me that power, which is why in a short period of time, we're launching two new programs and looking to launch more.

How do you choose and approach potential syndicated talent?

We're talking to people all the time -- at every Lakers game, where a lot of the deals get done in radio, TV and motion pictures. All of the agents and managers are sitting courtside. When you watch a Lakers game on TV and see the actual stars sitting courtside, that's who they got the tickets from. I've been sitting there for 25 years. Everybody in this town knows everyone else, so I'm always getting suggestions and thoughts on who might be right for such a gig.

In the business environment that has existed over the last few years, however, it's been pretty hard to launch something with the kind of fanfare that a program needs to be successful. Now, at least in our shop, we want to play to win -- instead of playing not to lose -- which is a big difference.

How do you interpret the success of syndicated conservative political talk?

It's easier to attract an audience that you can classify as conservative because most conservatives feel pretty much same way about a small variety of subjects. Liberals, on the other hand, are all over the board. The Democratic Party includes such wide variety of thought and opinion that it sometimes difficult to muster enough support or large enough audience for a piece of that overall pie.

So you don't think liberal listeners are more apt to use other media and not radio?

I think plenty of liberals listen to the radio; they just may not listen to Talk radio, because Talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. By and large, they don't hear their opinions except in fairly derogative terms.

Although there are a handful of reasonably successful liberal talk hosts in syndication, what do you make of the lack of success of Air America?

In order start something on a national basis, you've got deliver a national audience and have radio stations in every major market. Air America didn't have stations in every major market; it was doomed from the start. But listen, NPR has a very large listening audience and that pretty much satisfies the appetite of most liberals listening to Talk or News radio.

Am I wrong for getting the impression that broadcasting rights to sports teams aren't the hot property they used to be? Even the Lakers changed stations last year.

I can speak with more authority on the national scene, where I can tell you that interest in national sports among radio stations and advertisers is huge. When you talk about local franchises, you're talking about lot of different things. The Lakers moved from KLAC to KSPN because it got a better deal at 710 ... but the Lakers are the gold standard. If you have teams in certain areas where the team isn't filling seats in the arena and not drawing as many people, then the rights to the games aren't in as much demand. Add to that the fact that the majority of NBA teams are losing money and a potential lockout is looming next year, and you can see why game rights are a riskier proposition

So the business environment for leagues, such as the NFL, NCAA conferences and such is still healthy?

I can look at it from both sides - of offering those rights and going up against those that had those rights. When we owned Mutual Broadcasting years ago, we didn't have the NFL package. NBC had it, so we used to go to teams directly to do selected games every weekend. A lot of small companies continue to do that, but the value of owning the rights -- especially with advertisers -- is still huge. In the end, the value of the rights is as valuable as your ability to sell inventory.

You have to expect that it'll continue to be a competitive marketplace. Westwood One has been the NFL rights holder for many years. I know there are others who'd love to get those rights, but I expect Westwood One to continue to hold them.

How does the Net and digital monetization fit into Westwood One's business strategy?

God, I've been listening to presentations from our Net people over the years, talking about what it's going to be. You can't argue with the amount of revenue that's now going into the online world. It is there and we have to innovate ways to tap into it. We are doing more online business now than ever before and are working with our affiliates to enhance their online opportunities, as well as our own, so we can both benefit from it.

The core of our business is primarily producing audio programs. The method of doing it keeps changing, but clearly radio is still the dominant form of distribution for audio programming. Everyone who thought radio was going to disappear has been proven wrong and will continue to be; radio is not going to disappear. It was a $20 billion business that due to the economy and competition from other media, is now in the high teens, but that's still a lot of money.

Now if we use complementary media to make up for the revenue lost to alternative media, then business would start grow again at a more robust rate than it is now. Radio is growing, but we're currently growing in comparison to a couple of really lousy years. The idea is to find a way to get back to where we were ... and grow more quickly.

So bottom line, are you bullish that Westwood One -- and traditional radio in general - can return to more robust profits and regain more prominence in the media landscape?

I'm a natural-born optimist. When things aren't going right, I don't blame the market or competition. I look at our own operations and think about what we're doing wrong, what we are doing right and what adjustments we should be making. I can't control the economy or the future of technology, but there are two things I know: 1) If you have salespeople who aren't getting the job done, get new salespeople. And 2) if your programs aren't appealing as they once were, fix them or find new programs. Those are controllable and fixable; that's what I choose to focus on ... and I'll let God take care of the rest.