from ABC; Imus back by January?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3472963

Imus' close friend Kinky Friedman said the shock jock's comeback could come as early as January.

"He's told me that he's definitely coming back," Friedman said. "He's very much like Jesus. He's coming back and boy is he PO'd."

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/news/story?id=2974125

Don Imus has reached a settlement with CBS over his multimillion-dollar contract and is negotiating with WABC radio to resume his broadcasting career there, according to CBS and a person familiar with the negotiations.

Don't know where they would slot him in . They have Curtis and Kuby (which has very good ratings), John Gambling, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Imus has another suit to settle too.

New York Times reporting that Charles will rejoin Imus, no matter where he lands, and that Bernie will not be asked to rejoin the team. No word regarding Lou Ruffino. Decisions are expected soon states The Old Gray Lady.

ABC radio would probably have to get rid of Kuby (not Curtis Sliwa) and Gambling to make room for Imus (and his paycheck, which is expected to be around $8 million annually according to The Times).

Remember how Francesa should to break Bernie's chops saying he would be nothing if not for Imus. Also have noticed that Francesa and Russo never stuck up for Bernard but did non-stop for Imus.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3472963 LOVE IMUS............


IT has been two quiet without his man.................

He is washed up and kissed the asses of all the politicos who didn't defend him one bit. Time to retire Imus.

He is washed up and kissed the asses of all the politicos who didn't defend him one bit. Time to retire Imus.

I'll concede that he didn't have his A-game this morning but he's still better than the rest of the competition. People foolishly point out Imus' ratings as though they are the only metric by which to judge him. It is his targeted ratings among a specific demographic that shows his value and worth.

The only people who listen to him are people his age --67 year olds. Not exactly the right demographics.

The only people who listen to him are people his age --67 year olds. Not exactly the right demographics.

link?.....

The only people who listen to him are people his age --67 year olds. Not exactly the right demographics.

And there are 16 year olds typing on a PC that will be extolling the hotness of Britney when they're 67.

Yeah but are they BUYING?

He lost MSNBC but you can watch him on channel 379 on direct tv. It is some kind of rodeo channel. That is a huge drop from MSNBC.

Well, somebody is listening and somebody is buying the products advertised on the Imus in the Morning show. CBS made the PC decision to dump Imus and they were forced to pay him a significant sum due to his contract. Citadel Broadcasting (flagship WABC) has signed him to an enormous contract for the next 5 years. Advertisers have flocked back to his show. Are the executives at these media companies paying the I-Man all this money because he attracts 67 year-old listeners? Why would the Rutgers women basketball team given a rat's ***** if Imus' audience was composed of 67 year-olds? The answer is that Imus has always attracted a much younger demographic, the much desired 25-50 professional crowd that has plenty of disposable income and influence.

Listening to racks, you would believe that bringing Imus back was a charity case, a benevolent gesture to a 67 year-old American radio legend by some soft-hearted radio executives. Nothing could be further from the truth. The people running these companies are bottom-line types - if you don't earn your keep, adios MFer! View the Imus return to the airwaves as a business decision by all parties involved.

Well, somebody is listening and somebody is buying the products advertised on the Imus in the Morning show. CBS made the PC decision to dump Imus and they were forced to pay him a significant sum due to his contract. Citadel Broadcasting (flagship WABC) has signed him to an enormous contract for the next 5 years. Advertisers have flocked back to his show. Are the executives at these media companies paying the I-Man all this money because he attracts 67 year-old listeners? Why would the Rutgers women basketball team given a rat's ***** if Imus' audience was composed of 67 year-olds? The answer is that Imus has always attracted a much younger demographic, the much desired 25-50 professional crowd that has plenty of disposable income and influence.

Listening to racks, you would believe that bringing Imus back was a charity case, a benevolent gesture to a 67 year-old American radio legend by some soft-hearted radio executives. Nothing could be further from the truth. The people running these companies are bottom-line types - if you don't earn your keep, adios MFer! View the Imus return to the airwaves as a business decision by all parties involved.

Amen to that!

Be honest. He is past his prime. You either love him or you hate him. I don't like him at all. The firing was long past due. His friends are back because he has a show again. How many defended him when he was fired. Yeah he has advertising dollars but not ratings. He now has a black woman reading sports and a black guy on his team. I am sure Bernard will be speaking less too. So much for his show not changing.

I think the show is actually BETTER. I listened -- it would seem, unlike many here -- for his interviews and insights. The sophomoric, lame Clinton, Patton, and Egan impressions were not of interest at all.

It seems a little more mature THUS FAR.

I'm holding out hope that it will continue.


I agree, though, he IS past his prime. And you love him or hate him.

I don't love him so much as I lament the lack of serious, sustained political/social discussion available elsewhere. He's opinionated but not polemical in the way of O'Reilly, Air America, Hannity, etc.

It -- occassionally -- makes for an interesting listen.

I understand I'm in the minority here, but I'm glad he's back. More to the point, I used to hate him, too. And never thought I could miss him!!!!!!!!!

It is early yet. It remains to be seen if he will continue on this path. If you like him -- more power to you. I guess it is a matter of taste to each person.

The answer is that Imus has always attracted a much younger demographic, the much desired 25-50 professional crowd that has plenty of disposable income and influence.

I'd be really interested to know if you have any facts to back up this statement. Any ratings study?

Considering Imus' overall ratings at FAN were abysmal, I find it hard to believe that he scored within any demographic with a degree of success. Moreover, why would "the much desired 25-50 professional crowd"
have any desire to listen to one big long commercial periodically interrupted by boring interviews with so called Washington insiders?



I suspect the powers at ABC brought him back in hope that the notoriety gained by the Rutgers affair would translate into large enough short term ratings and advertising dollars to make their investment worthwhile. Personally, considering the consistently unlistenable quality of the Imus show, I think it was a dumb decision.

I'd be really interested to know if you have any facts to back up this statement. Any ratings study?

Considering Imus' overall ratings at FAN were abysmal, I find it hard to believe that he scored within any demographic with a degree of success. Moreover, why would "the much desired 25-50 professional crowd"
have any desire to listen to one big long commercial periodically interrupted by boring interviews with so called Washington insiders?



I suspect the powers at ABC brought him back in hope that the notoriety gained by the Rutgers affair would translate into large enough short term ratings and advertising dollars to make their investment worthwhile. Personally, considering the consistently unlistenable quality of the Imus show, I think it was a dumb decision.
I don't know about the age range that Dan Costello cited, but it is certainly true that his listeners, by and large, have money. You pretty much answered your own question within your post. You stated, correctly, that Imus' ratings were "abysmal." Abysmal might be a bit much, but they weren't great ratings by any stretch. Yet the man managed to stay on the air and make a hell of a lot of money. Where does the money come from? Advertisers. Why are advertisers so interested in a show that doesn't overwhelm in the ratings? The majority of people who do listen are quite well off.

. Yet the man managed to stay on the air and make a hell of a lot of money. Where does the money come from? Advertisers. Why are advertisers so interested in a show that doesn't overwhelm in the ratings? The majority of people who do listen are quite well off.


Again, anything to substantiate that Imus "made a hell of a lot of money"? It may be that Imus stayed on the air because he gave the station a bit of cachet due to his insider guests. A good example of this phenominon is Chris Matthews, or even the World Series. Shows that don't make money but bring a certain amount of prestige. I know the Imus followers ( all four of them) like to maintain the myth that despite his putrid ratings Imus still made tons of dough due to his high advertisng rates but I'd like to see some proof for this cliam.

Again, anything to substantiate that Imus "made a hell of a lot of money"? It may be that Imus stayed on the air because he gave the station a bit of cachet due to his insider guests. A good example of this phenominon is Chris Matthews, or even the World Series. Shows that don't make money but bring a certain amount of prestige. I know the Imus followers ( all four of them) like to maintain the myth that despite his putrid ratings Imus still made tons of dough due to his high advertisng rates but I'd like to see some proof for this cliam.

Yes, me too. Because I'm certain that Imus' sponsors, who include GM, NetJets, et al, aren't paying the same ad rates as the "put the sportsbar in your basement" or "before I tried crystal meth" sponsors are paying to be on the Buffoon and the Cartoon in the Morning.

MSNBC just announced significant reduction in news division. "Morning Joe" last in most local markets. No traction for news cycle at all.

Again, anything to substantiate that Imus "made a hell of a lot of money"? It may be that Imus stayed on the air because he gave the station a bit of cachet due to his insider guests. A good example of this phenominon is Chris Matthews, or even the World Series. Shows that don't make money but bring a certain amount of prestige. I know the Imus followers ( all four of them) like to maintain the myth that despite his putrid ratings Imus still made tons of dough due to his high advertisng rates but I'd like to see some proof for this cliam.
To begin with, I'm not an "Imus follower." I'm an old Stern guy who stopped listening to him about 5 years ago, and I've never cared for Imus at all. Now, as to the money question, if it's so intriguing to you, why don't you just google "Imus' salary" and see what comes up? Here's what I found:

"The growing advertiser boycott put NBC and CBS in an increasingly difficult spot. Imus recently signed a five-year, $10 million-per-year extension to his deal..."

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117962860.html?categoryid=18&cs=1

Here's a New York Times piece from 1996:

"In New York, "Imus in the Morning" is on from 5:30 to 10 A.M. with an average of 16 minutes of ad time an hour at a price of about $2,000 a minute, said Joel Hollander, the station's general manager. Total weekly revenue: $720,000. Ad prices in other markets vary, and in some cases are a mix of cash and barter.

In return, Infinity pays Imus a salary of about $5 million a year, industry insiders estimate. "

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E7DA1F39F931A15757C0A9609582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

In 1996, Imus was garnering $2000 a minute in ad revenues and was paid about $5 mil a year.

Also, I would argue with your assertion that certain things remain on the air just to bring "cachet." It's all about money. I don't know anything about Chris Matthews' show, but I'd have to imagine it makes money. So does the World Series.

"To begin with, I'm not an "Imus follower." ".

Never said you were. Sorry if you interpreted my remarks otherwise.


"Now, as to the money question, if it's so intriguing to you, why don't you just google "Imus' salary" and see what comes up?"

Its not intriguing to me. I just think that when someone makes a statement the burden should be on them to support it with facts.

Not sure what a 1996 article about Imus' salery or ad revenue has to do with my question, but thanks for trying.

Finally, don't you think that corporate decisions aren't necessarily all about immediate dollars and cents? For example, when Jack Welch made a decision to have Imus on MSNBC, don't you think part of that reason was to give NBC a platform on which its newspeople could appear? I'm not very sophisticated about corporate decision making but check out the movie "Network" where
Howard Biel wasn't fired despite dismal ratings because the network CEO liked him. I suspect this kind of thing goes on in real life.

Not sure what a 1996 article about Imus' salery or ad revenue has to do with my question, but thanks for trying.
mutaman, you wrote, in response to my saying that Imus has managed to stay on the air and make a hell of a lot of money: "Again, anything to substantiate that Imus "made a hell of a lot of money?" I took that to mean that you were looking for some sourced material that quotes his salary. I gave you some - a NYT article from the mid '90's that stated that he was making millions of dollars, and an article from earlier this year that showed he was making even more. If I misunderstood your question, I apologize.

Finally, don't you think that corporate decisions aren't necessarily all about immediate dollars and cents? For example, when Jack Welch made a decision to have Imus on MSNBC, don't you think part of that reason was to give NBC a platform on which its newspeople could appear? I'm not very sophisticated about corporate decision making but check out the movie "Network" where Howard Biel wasn't fired despite dismal ratings because the network CEO liked him. I suspect this kind of thing goes on in real life.Yes, I do think that networks engage in the behavior you outlined, in order to create a platform for political/economic/etc. views that they wish to expound.

Network was a great movie. This is my favorite part - brings tears to my eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dib2-HBsF08

Thanks. I think you and I pretty much agree. No question Imus made a lot of money for himself. Indeed, financially the Rutgers affair was probably the best thing that could have happened to him. Life is not fair, but we already knew that.

In some ways, it helped him in other ways it didn't. I am sure his ranch suffered since he couldn't plug it every 5 minutes or talk about autism.

there are exactly TWO platforms with a verifiable track record for promoting books on air and causing the sales to zoom....Oprah and Imus. I would imagine, BTW, they hump different books to different audiences.

So we'll see what happens to the sales volume of the new books that get plugged on Imus. If his effect repeats his past, then his audience is certainly out there. Sorry Muttaman. BTW, how is Howard Who doing on Serious Pay Radio and how big is your monthly bill? The only guy I know who gets Pay Radio
(a regular here who shall remain anonymous in this post) says that over time his IPOD defeated pay radio in real playtime. He continues to pay for Howard Who out of habit. He likes Howard's schtick (so do I), but it does become a tad repetitive over time. And the bum takes off Fridays.