A Radical Proposal on Ticket Tech

Okay, I think we've established that Ticket tech is truly bad. Or, at the very best, not appropriate for The Ticket.

And many thanks to the Anon, obviously either a Ticket, Cumulus, or radio insider who's picked up the news somewhere, for his authoritative disquisition on the OpX system.

What I can't figure out is -- why?  I suppose it's a word that Mike uses -- "leverage."  The audience is the biggest and best, it won't stop listening, Cumulus makes enough money with it, so why improve (1) signal, (2) remotes, (3) in-studio tech, (4) Internet stream?   Small expenditure, big revenue.  Leverage.  What's not to like, as a CTO?

Now, let us confess (of course):  We can hear the station.  It broadcasts.  We like it.  The negligent IT and tech administration doesn't render it unlistenable most of the time.

But the persistent failure to fix problems that have existed for years is not only disrespectful to the listeners, it's degrading to the amazing talent that has assembled there and remained over the years (for which the CTO, let us further confess, deserves some unknowably small amount of credit).

Which leads me to a question that I was going to address back before I gleaned that Mike had signed his contract without the benefit of the conclusion of my highly speculative series awhile back on Mike's new deal:

What does the CTO care about?  Well, I would think they would care about keeping their talent, even if they don't care about giving them appropriate tools and a grown-up signal. 

[ALERT:  WILD-EYED ADVICE TO FOLLOW.]  

Which is why, if I were a host in demand in the market, as each one of them must surely be, and my noncompete weren't too long, and I really, really cared about the IT and tech  .  .  .

.  .  .  I'd start holding out. 

No -- no, first thing I would do is call a meeting of my fellow hosts, or at least those maddest about the situation.  Oh, this is much better: 

I'd see who was interested in taking the Ticket act, en masse, to another station.  Don't sign the damned contracts, or -- no, this is even better -- make any noncompete contingent on a new signal, appropriate in-studio tech, and a couple of new mobile remote suites, fixing the Internet stream.  That way, if things didn't improve, an entire showgram whose hosts (and essential Y-monks) had signed such a contract could quit and move instantly if promises along these lines were not kept by a date certain.  Producers -- doubt they even have a non-compete, George and Craig and Gordon could take Fernando and Jeremy right along with them, and adios Cumulus.  Cumulus wouldn't go for it?  Well, that's nut-cutting time, isn't it?  You either stay and live with the crap, or you go to a competitor.  Or retire.  Or go to another market that the noncompete doesn't reach.  The more showgrams signed on, the greater terror they could inflict on the CTO.

This assumes, of course, that there are other stations to go to.  It's dreaming (even more than I'm dreaming by even proposing this) to think that anyone would uproot their entire programming to take on The Ticket guys, but on a showgram-by-showgram basis?  ESPN or The Fan?  They'd love to have The Musers.

Don't leave comments telling me I'm crazy.  (Oh, all right, go ahead.)  It's not that crazy.  Some of these hosts are angry.  And they should be.

Horrifying thought:  Is it possible that some of the guys, a little bit, like being The "Little" Ticket (I'm not necessarily referring to Mike here).  They like being the scruffy, underpowered, tech-challenged underdog constantly whipping the be-jeebers out of coddled lame-o sister stations and better-financed and reliably audible competitors? 

I hope not.  I personally don't find the meltdowns amusing (except for the way that Danny handles them on The Hardline, which can be counted on to crack me up), and from the comments it seems to me that the Nation doesn't perceive any benefit there, either.   And, again, I find it insulting that Cumulus offers an audio product this lame especially since AM technology has been around for over a century and FM for over 60 years and stations have been doing remotes for decades?

Hosts, arise!  You have nothing to lose but your comfortable incomes through the noncompete period!!  (I wonder if Lenin got his start this way.)

Mike, you really should have waited for my advice.

* * *

Follow Your Plainsman on Twitter: @Plainsman1310

Email Your Plainsman: ThePlainsman1310@gmail.com

I've Had a Vision

As the last commenter pointed out, it's February.

Mike Rhyner contract time.

Or is it?

You can say what you want about Richie Whitt, but, unlike Your Plainsman, he had sources.  So when Mike and Corby signed their deals, he knew about it and reported on it and got some quotes.

Me -- as they say on The Hardline -- not so much.

So we heard Mike speculating on the conclusion of his tenure at The Ticket at the campout on Lake Mingus last spring, mentioning February, what I speculated was the end of his contract.  So I've had some fun the past couple of months with speculations, guessing, predictions, and, of course, our valuable advice to the CTO.

And then, listening to The Hardline a month or two back, right around the time I was finishing up the last of the four pieces, I heard something.

I was in the Conestoga at the time wrestling with some recalcitrant horsies, so I couldn't write anything down and by now, I've forgotten exactly what I heard, forgotten the words.  I should have written about this awhile ago but thought I would save it up.  The problem with that, of course, is that memory fades.

So this will be a little frustrating for me to relate and for you to read, but as I had the Philco struggling to pull in 1310 AM while I was gee-hawing the horsies, I heard Mike talking.

And he said something.

I can't remember the words, but I remember the sound of his voice.  It was like he temporarily forgot he was broadcasting, he kind of sighed and said something kind of -- I don't know, sentimental, suggestive, relieved -- didn't sound like Mike.

And then it struck me.

That son-of-a-buck signed his contract months ago.

I should have figured it out sooner.

Look, if the guy was getting all morose about staying at the Ticket early in 2011, then he was probably already talking turkey with the CTO.  It was going to get done sooner than 10 months later.  I think it did.

And no Richie Whitt to tell us about it.

So how can we get this confirmed or denied?  I have two strategies.

The first was inspired by a discussion on the Musers, I believe it was, talking about how gossip-mongers and website sensationalists drive traffic, by making an outrageous assertion that no one bothers to deny, but by denying that the reporter himself actually believes it they halfway protect themselves.  I'm going to give it a slight grammatical twist.

So I am here to report that:

I'm not saying I have any proof of this, and it could possibly be false, but:  (1) Mike Rhyner was born as a female, or (2) he signed a new contract with The Ticket/Cumulus sometime in mid-to-late 2011.


This can only be denied if both parts of it are false.  So if this statement is denied by someone with knowledge, then Mike did not sign a contract some time ago.  If someone in authority says it is true, then we are left to imagine which half is true (because the statement is true if either part is), and the unlikelihood of (1) will suggest to us that (2) is true.

Of course, if no one says anything, then we're back where we started.

Which leads me to my second strategy:

Begging:

Hey, Jeff and Mike:  How about a scoop for the Confessor Nation?  Come on, I know we take our shots from time to time but I think you have to admit that both this site and the Confessor Nation are positive about The Ticket and even finds some nice things to say about the CTO from time to time.  Even when we're critical, we make every effort to be fair and keep things civil.  How many times do you get a chance to do a solid for Your Home for Responsible Ticket Journalism?  Drop me a line at ThePlainsman1310@gmail.com.   No details, just the broad outlines of the deal.  Aw, come on, how's about it?   


I'll let you know if I hear anything.

I don't know if he's an Old Grey Wolf.  But I'm pretty sure he's at least an Old Grey Fox.

Old Grey Fox -- I swear, I did not Photoshop this

Follow Your Plainsman on Twitter:  @Plainsman1310

Email Your Plainsman:  ThePlainsman1310@gmail.com

It's Not Too Early to Ask Some Hard(line) Questions -- PART 1

I think the archetypal P1 harbors the thought that if he were personally acquainted with a Ticket host, that said host would like said P1.  And in general, most hosts have a reputation for friendliness towards P1's they meet out and about and at remotes and events.

But I don't think Mike Rhyner will like the next set of articles -- and, alas, probably Your Plainsman -- much at all.  Not because they will be critical of him -- quite the opposite.  It's because he judges his employment relations with Cumulus/The Ticket -- because that is what we are going to be considering -- to be none of anyone's business but his. 

And why shouldn't he feel that way?  Would you want your employment issues to be the subject of a public website?  Of course not. 

But he's kind of brought this on himself, a little. 

First, his contracts, if not their details, are the stuff of news reports.  It was a big deal when he re-upped in February 2009. 

Second, there was that little matter of the alco-fueled speculation on the verdant shores of Lake Mingus back in March, where he suggested he might disappear after February.  If you want a refresher on this episode, you might want to review this article.

Third, he (and the Hardline generally) allude to their somewhat adversarial relationship with their employers as a recurring bit on the showgram.

Finally, The Ticket as a whole has cultivated a highly personalized relationship between the hosts and the P1.  Mike's welfare is naturally of widespread interest to the largest and most loyal listenership in the metro.

So, at the risk of aggravating a gent of whom most of us are extremely fond, we're going to have a look at what might be in store for him, The Hardline, and the P1.

===============

NOTE:  Other than what Confessors suggest in comments, which may or may not be credible, I have zero inside information on any of what you're about to read.  I don't even know for a certainty that his deal is up in February.  However, circumstantial evidence and at least one knowledgeable-sounding Anonymous suggest that it is.
===============

The first question is an easy one:   Do we want Mike to re-up?

That answer is very easy for me:  Absolutely.  And it has nothing to do with him being the founder, blah blah blah.  He is simply the most listenable guy on the radio.  I'm going to cheap out and quote myself from an article last spring:

"I think Mike Rhyner is a broadcast genius, quite aside from his founding of The Ticket.  He is the rock upon which DFW sports radio is built.  Asking "what's so great about Mike Rhyner," which is a perfectly sound question, is kind of like asking "what was so great about Walter Cronkite?"  After all, the guy just read the news.  He might have had a minor editing function, but in the years in which he became famous he was basically a guy who sat in front of a camera and read stuff that other people wrote.  And yet, he was an utterly compelling broadcast presence, the most trusted man in America.  

"Mike is like that.  *   *   *   The man has a sound, an authentic Texas sound.  It's just flat likable.   Despite his curmudgeonly pose, his essential goodwill and humanity can be felt through the speakers.  And he's smart as hell.  And, yes, there's the don't-give-a-damn attitude that is very distinctive -- as opposed to media figures who claim to offer I-don't-care-what-other-people-think viewpoints but who are obvious poseurs without conviction, Mike truly does not care what happens to him -- no, he's not immune from getting his ass fired, but his ass truly could not care less and truly knows that he's got the Cumulo-Ticket Overlords by their nine-kilowatt balls."

In upcoming posts I'll back off on a little of that, but not my regard for Mike. 

Some of you may recall that among the motivations for my founding this site was the impression that the Hardline was in trouble -- very out of balance, with Mike seemingly losing interest and focus on the showgram.  I wasn't the only one who observed that.  Lots of comments on Mike "phoning it in."

That tendency of the show, it seems to me, has decisively reversed itself.  It's been a long time since I thought the OverCorby had escaped his cage.  Mike has been much more present on the show, his attention seems only seldom to wander.  I think I've expressed the thought that Danny's increased role has something to do with keeping the show in equilibrium.  I don't think it's a salary drive -- it feels real to me.  Reason doesn't matter -- the Rangers' ascendancy; Mavs greatness; feeling good about life for reasons that are truly none of our business -- dunno, maybe none of those things.  I've found myself laughing out loud at the show more the last few months than I have in a long time. 

His talent really is unique.  He may be baseball Jesus, but he's not noted for profound sports expertise.  In fact, he parodies that fact, sometimes picking the Cowboys to win all their games and go on to win the SuperBowl.  When he's on pre- or post-game duty, he's almost invisible.  In fact, he's not really all that comfortable in segments with other hosts.  Nope, he's a star, but a star with his own rhythms and cadences and lyrics and tempo and it works best when he's the conductor. 

And on The Hardline it works very well indeed. 

So, as I say, the answer for me is easy.  But not everyone is a big Mike Rhyner fan.  I don't know how the P1 breaks down on the subject of Mike.  In fact, the above excerpt was from an article responding to a Confessor who was wondering "What's So Great About Mike?"  So let me ask you this:  Knowing the alternatives in DFW drive radio, if Mike were to disappear and not be replaced -- The Hardline becoming the Corby/Danny/Ty/Grubes show -- would you continue to listen?

Let's hold the speculation on who might replace Mike.  We'll come back to that, promise.  I want to gauge your interest in whether Mike stays on or not. 

We'll explore other issues surrounding the enigmatic Mike R in following articles.

Unless he finds me and beats me up first.

*     *     *

Follow Your Plainsman on Twitter:  @Plainsman1310

Everyone Wants to Talk About Mike, So Let's Talk About Mike

Preliminary thoughts.

(1) Mike has earned the trust of P1's for honesty and speaking truth to Cumulus.  So I would propose that our first thought -- not our only one, but our first one -- is to take him at his word.  The problem, of course, is that there have been two words:  The campfire prediction of a February 2012 departure, and the showgram denial of any truth to it.  A rather adamant denial, and one that rang true to my ears.  Added to that is that the first was uttered under circumstances of fatigue, alcohol, and hypnotically dancing flames, and the second in the cleansing light of professional reality.  So I am more than 50% inclined to hold with those who say -- as someone did on The Musers this morning -- that both Mike and Norm will have to have their necrotic fingers pried from the microphone before they go.

(2)  How much over 50%, I'm not entirely sure.  I heard the replay of his campfire remarks for the first time this morning on The Musers.  The "February" statement is not what got my attention; it was what he said about -- hell, he said it in his usual orotund, circular fashion, but it was to the effect that the February date was what everyone who had been a part of the general discussion was believing.  (I haven't gone looking for tape on this -- anyone who remembers his phrasing, please advise.)  Whatever it was, I had the impression that he was not talking about the people sitting around that campfire, but other people -- The CumuloTicket Overlords.   This suggests, contrary to my point (1), that this is more serious than Mike is now claiming.

(3) Can we reconcile points (1) and (2)?  Maybe.  At this point, please click on this sentence and read the first few paragraphs of this article.  It is (ironically) Richie Whitt's Sportatorium article, dated February 13, 2009, on Mike's new contract with Cumulus.  (Note Richie's tip of the hat to The UnTicket.)   His old contract would have been up on February 20, 2009.  I suggest that that was a three-year contract, and that it expires on February 20, 2012.  I would further suggest that Mike has already been talking with the CTO's about what is going to happen on February 21.  Consider also another clue that the Whitt article gives us -- since Mike was considering skipping to The Fan, either his old contract did not have a noncompetition clause in it, or it was a very short one -- six months max.  Suggesting further that if Mike's agent/attorney was on the ball, his present contract probably doesn't have one, either.  Meaning that Mike has some cards to play in negotiating a new deal if he wants to keep broadcasting, as I'm betting he does.

And negotiating may be exactly what he's doing.  It explains his seemingly contradictory references to departing and staying.   Just a little something to terrify the CTO's, and a little something to make them feel better -- but not a whole lot better. 



Used without permission of The (Incomparable) UnTicket

I've had "what should Mike's new contract look like" on my topic list for well over a year and I've got one term to suggest to him that I think I'll hold off on for a bit.  But I can see I'd better get to it soon.

(4)  On a related topic -- everyone around that fire had had a few as well.  Someone asked Mike if he was contemplating retirement, or going elsewhere.  Mike didn't answer (to my recollection, at least not coherenly), and no one pushed him.  Somewhere along the line a jolt of electricity penetrated the hydrocarbonic haze in that group, and they realized they were not only being warmed by a fire, they were playing with it.

(5) Here's another fun fact for you Confessors:  It looks like Corby's contract might well be co-terminal with Mike's.  Clicking on this sentence will take you to Robert Wilonsky's Unfair Park article of February 19, 2009, announcing Corby's new contract.  Suggesting that Corby's fortunes can indeed by tied to Mike's.

Now those of you of a conspiratorial bent may recall that Corby did not show up at the Saturday night bacchanalia.  I am prepared to be simultaneously laughed-at and roundly condemned for tossing out the suggestion that maybe Corby knew the topic of "jeez, what will we all do after The Ticket?" was going to come up, and maybe he crept off to snuggle with his bottle of Woodford Reserve to let Mike toss off his "February" tease without being called upon to give his reaction.

Do I really think it's that calculated?  Uh -- no, no, I actually don't think it happened that way.  Just having a spot of fun.

Also, note that both the Whitt and Wilonsky articles state that these are "long-term contracts" guaranteeing The Hardline's survival in its present form "for years to come."  Would they say that about a three-year deal?  Sure.  Especially if Mike and Corby were about to fly the coop, they would have been in a position to bargain for a shorter deal if they thought the showgram was going to maintain its popularity so they could do another deal sooner rather than later.  Pretty good bet, I'd say.  (Unlike pro athletes, they don't have to worry about injuries shortening their career -- although considering the Ticket-wide sporting contests and stuff like the Campout, query.)  

(6) Consider Danny's position.  Most likely without a contract.  Almost certainly tragically underpaid for what he brings to the signal.   A huge contributor and multi-talented, I wouldn't be shocked if he were highly recruited around town.  His status may well be an element of Mike's calculation as to his own future.

So there are a few thoughts.  I can assure Confessors I am utterly without inside or industry sources on this (on pretty much everything, actually).  As a result, this article is quite possibly preposterous in every particular. 

One works with the clues one has.  Hey, I was right about Lake Mingus, for awhile.  

Cue Vanderjagt drops again.