You may have read the title of today’s post and wonder whether it even exists. On the one hand, Musk is an innovator in fields like electrification, automotive, and even space travel. But his latest foray into social media has been a disaster, right?
Is there even an “other hand?” Maybe. But maybe not.
As a power Twitter user from the early days, I’ve been underwhelmed with Musk’s moves. And as analysts have watched Twitter’s valuation not just slip but plummet, it has become that much harder to defend his changing strategies and his shoot-from-the-hip tactics.
But that’s one of the reasons I enjoy publishing this blog. We’ve got a cadre of smart readers who consistently bring more to the table than the stuff I write. And that’s precisely what happened with my post earlier this week, “Why Is Elon Musk Putting Lipstick On A Pig?” The oinker in this case is Twitter which has now been hastily transformed into X. I held little back in the post, making my distaste for this sloppy rebrand abundantly clear.
And while many of you agreed wholeheartedly with my not-so-complimentary “take” on X, nee Twitter, there was a comment or two about a certain method to Musk’s madness. In fact, the most eloquent of them came from none other than Pat Holiday.
When we think about stone cold pros who have enjoyed stellar, multi-decade careers in the radio business, Pat is right up there. I first heard his brilliance at CKLW, the Big 8, perhaps the greatest Top 40 station of the era (and I say that with total respect for WLS, WABC, KHJ, and the others that radio old timers lovingly recall).
Before I had the pleasure of meeting Pat when we both worked for WNIC, I experienced his genius as a listener. And as I got to know him, it became clear to me he’s one of the best thinkers in the business. In addition to CK and WNIC, Pat served as a PD, GM, and National PD for Canada’s largest chain of stations.
He’s tapped the brakes a bit in recent years, but continues to teach while producing Musicom Academy, a YouTube channel which teaches air talent how to transform themselves into successful program directors. You can access it here.
Here’s Pat’s response to my blog post about Musk and X. – FJ
By Pat Holiday
It’s interesting reading the dialogues/comments about Musk and X. Conversations are so missing anymore.
May I add three insights to all this. Unfortunately this will all be memory and paraphrasing, but true.
But first a question. “If you were going to change format at a radio station, would you continue using the same name?”
Hold that thought.
A couple of months ago I saw an interview with one of Space X’s chief engineers. Seems early on they were having trouble making their propulsion system work. They brought in 8 or 9 of the world’s best rocket people to find a solution. Months of work and $$$ and they couldn’t fix it. Musk finally weighs in frustrated. He asks for all the data. Goes away and a day or two later comes back with the fix. By himself. Yet he knows nothing about propulsion prior. So…collaborating with known experts, yes, but the fix ultimately comes from him. Clearly, his mind is at some level that most of us regular humans can’t remotely operate on.
About a year ago the world was awash with how Tesla was done, Musk was killing the company because of the Twitter purchase, and you’d be an idiot to stay in the stock. Even shareholders were antsy and vocal. But, he was just opening the new Texas mega plant (almost all automated by the way). An ignored factor. He then did the unthinkable. Dropped the prices of Teslas which was totally against the grain of all other car companies raising prices. Outcome. Tesla stock is up over 100%. Profits are up considerably. But most importantly, those low prices have sucked away EV sales from every other car company, so now Tesla’s share is bigger than ever. Shareholders aren’t griping anymore.
Lastly, upon the takeover of Twitter, Musk made it known in many interviews that his vision was to basically copy Tencent (We
Chat) and turn Twitter into the China model of one do-all entity in the social space like they did. Think YouTube, TikTok, Twitter, Apple Pay, Facebook, and more all-in-one single apps. WeChat dominates China for everything under one umbrella. That’s the vision and goal.
In our terms, he’s got an underperforming radio station that he wants to grow into something else. Something way grander. Something for the future. Don’t we radio people CONSTANTLY complain about radio companies not doing that?
So that question again: “If you were going to change format at a radio station, would you continue using the same name?”
Will he make it? No idea. Lofty goal. And there’s that pesky reality of execution, new competition and market reactions as he yet again goes against the grain of normal thinking. This could ultimately be his Waterloo battle.
But back when Tesla’s “end was near,” there were many writing that it’s unwise to bet against a genius who’s also one of the richest people on the planet. So, there’s that.
And…I’m not a big fan of the “X” thing either. But….
Thanks, Pat – a lot to think about here. As Musk has gravitated to political spaces with X, it is easy to get caught up with the vitriol and lose sight of what may be really happening under the hood. I’ll be interested in your responses to Pat’s POV. Thanks to him for stepping up to give us another perspective.
I hope you’ll leave a comment. You can reach Pat directly at [email protected] – FJ
Jacobs Media has consistently walked the walk in the digital space, providing insights and guidance through its well-read national Techsurveys.
In 2008, jacapps was launched - a mobile apps company that has designed and built more than 1,300 apps for both the Apple and Android platforms. In 2013, the DASH Conference was created - a mashup of radio and automotive, designed to foster better understanding of the "connected car" and its impact.
Along with providing the creative and intellectual direction for the company, Fred consults many of Jacobs Media's commercial and public radio clients, in addition to media brands looking to thrive in the rapidly changing tech environment.
Fred was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 2018.
- Old Man, Take A Look At My Ratings - December 20, 2024
- In The World Of On-Demand Audio, How Do We Define Success? - December 19, 2024
- Scenes From The Classic Rock Highway – 2024 Edition - December 18, 2024
Question: If you block someone on X, would that now be called X’d out? Just asking.
When I was the Program Director of The Big 8/CKLW, I knew that Pat Holiday was one deep thinker and all around nice guy.
His comments today about the Elon Musk Twitter Name Change to X
is spot on!
I agree that the Twitter story has yet to be written. The site is very far from being washed up. My Twitter feed has actually improved since Musk took over. My feed is more focused on matters that interest me. It’s less random.
The name change is odd. I drive a Tesla, not an X. I tweet, and don’t xxx. As parent company name X is fine, but why replace the friendly blue bird with an ugly black X? It’s cold an impersonal. Something that only an obsessive techie or a porn addict could love.
I wonder, Richard … is your feed less random now because of changes Musk made, or is it that the sources of the previous random content have left the platform?
That is a future study in the making, I think.
Would not launching a new multi-platform effort including TWITTER make more sense than rebranding Twitter? He throws away huge brand value for what? So that we can X rather than Tweet?
However, to Pat’s point, this is above my paygrade!
Maybe you’re not a tech icon, my friend, but you raise a good question.
While the jury is still out on whether Musk succeeds or not, I have my hesitations about viewing this from the premise Pat started with.
In our business, you don’t blow up a station and change formats unless what you had already wasn’t working. Changing the brand is very much an essential part of that and in general there are no expectations that any of the existing audience will stick around. Unless you are just adjusting a strong brand where the direction you are going is compatible with who’s already listening (Jhani Kaye’s fix to 94.7 KTWV here in L.A. comes to mind), there’s no downside to a new branding and plenty of reasons to expect positive results.
Is that the case here? I think not. Twitter was successful … to the point where you had to have been living under a rock for a couple of decades to not immediately recognize the name. And the previous Twitter board would not have fought Musk’s hostile takeover if they didn’t see that the brand had a huge amount of value. X? Not unique in the least … in fact, so non-unique that we are all eXpecting trademark infringement lawsuits to be filed. (See what I did there?)
And, like so many format changes, Musk does not appear to care if the existing user base defects. That’s arrogance on his part — no big surprise there — but where does he expect to get a replacement “audience” from? Certainly not from all the people who have accepted Mark Zuckerberg’s invitation to join Threads in the past relatively few weeks.
The old saying is “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. The problem here is that Twitter wasn’t broken before Musk arrived, the only reason it needed fixing is because of his actions when he did arrive, and I am not optimistic about his chances at success. Of course, as Dennis Miller used to famously say: Of course, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.
But if there are any parallels to our business, they aren’t as valid as Pat has opined that they are.
There’s one radio parallel that I think can still be made: grossly overpaying and then panicking. Nothing in creating a WeChat-style “everything” app should’ve necessitated the original purchase of Twitter–especially at that high of a price. And, one thing that tends to be forgotten is that he tried backing out of the deal for some time.
As a consultant, I can see the gray area, K.M. Like Pat, I truly believe Musk has bigger goals. It’s not just the name change – it’s the regular drama that has transformed a once reliable brand into a daily roller coaster of vitriol. I also don’t believe Twitter wasn’t broken. It was always a laggard. But not every social media platform can be Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. Why Musk didn’t try to build on Twitter’s strength and foundation is the mystery to me.
We see it in radio all the time. An outside looks at a station without knowing what really going on inside its walls, but assumes he is smarter than they are. I think Musk sat outside Twitter, scheming and dreaming about “fixing it” for years. And as the old adage goes, be careful what you wish for. Once he finally bought it, he didn’t want it (as another commenter mentioned). But as another adage states, “You break it, you buy it.” Musk has reversed it, hurting those of us who use and are dependent on it, as well as his own balance sheet.
Musk is NOT a genius and he did not ‘Goes away and a day or two later comes back with the fix. By himself.” as the author suggests. This is typical Musk-boy drooling by the uninformed. Musk got the answer from a You-Tuber. HE didn’t come up with it. The guy is dense AF. K.M.’s comment above is correct. you don’t flip a station that is performing even MODERATELY well. Fred, your assessment of Musk and his actions is correct.
Appreciate the comment, Peter.
No. Please don’t do this. This is not a cute thought model. There are real world consequences when the richest man in the world buys a preeminent communications platform and commits, as Casey Newton has said, “cultural vandalism.”
Musk has allowed the return of Nazis to the platform. He has platformed and promoted the lie that Paul Pelosi was attacked in a gay lover fight. He spread COVID misinofrmation with Bronny James. he allowed someone who posted heinous child pornography back on the platform (https://twitter.com/Q__talk/status/1684628093103976448?s=20)
He has flushed billions of dollars of market value. Only idiots would give this man their financial information and participate in his plans for a super app.
Let’s can the “he’s playing 3-D chess” stuff. Musk is an aggrieved edgelord who is fine with racist, transphobic, white supremacists.
There aren’t positive transferable lessons here.
This has nothing to do with radio. Stop doing this.
Michael, thanks for talking about how Musk’s personality and beliefs have permeated the discussion. I know Pat does not relishing politics with media and technology, but for many people, it’s unavoidable.
My first thought upon learning of the change from Twitter to X was this theoretical radio parallel:
A market leading well-established radio station is sold, for whatever reason. The new owner comes to town and tells the GM, “We are going to fire half the staff, replace the air personalities, tinker with the music, require payment for access to premium features, and change the call letters, slogan and logo.”
Now, I certainly respect Pat and understand his reasoning. I also value being able to consider a different perspective that I may not have thought of before. If Elon Musk is a brilliant strategist and intends to basically transform Twitter into a different type of product, then the radio analogy is irrelevant.
Well, something similar, and obviously on a smaller scale, happened to me in the late 90s.
We had the number 1 station in the country’s capital and number 1 in several markets, since it was a national network of 16 stations, all under the same brand.
It was a CHR station called Radioactiva. We were so obsessed with our success that we didn’t realize how big our Morning Show was doing.
Due to a change of the Program Director, the top 3 talents of the Morning Show resigned and went directly to the station that competed with us, and that was going through a bad patch.
We had overestimated our musical programming and, in some ways, underestimated the talents of the Morning Show.
We had to replace the PD again, and to replace the talents that we lost we made the mistake of hiring a couple of comedians who had a very acid and irreverent humor, which did not go with the attitude of our Top 40 station.
At first they were a hit with the ‘Shock Radio’ trend that was prevalent at the time, but their mocking comments and obscene language scared away many listeners and advertisers, not wanting to be associated with such content.
In such a difficult situation, and taking advantage of the fact that we were part of a cluster of 11 stations of different formats in Bogotá and could take that risk, we made the decision to change the station’s format and to revamp its brand.
With the help of John Parikhal’s Joint Communications, we went from having a station in the CHR format to a format we called ‘Pure Rock’.
We took Radioactiva’s clean, neat and colorful logo and kind of “destroyed it with a hammer” to give it a new attitude, leaving only the colors black and red, and we subliminally hid the word ‘Rock’ in its name, like this: RadiOaCKtiva.
The success was almost immediate. We became the only Rock music format in the country, and since its launch in 1988, the station has remained in the highly overcrowded and competitive market of Bogotá, a city of 9 million inhabitants.
Radioacktiva is currently ranked number 9 and has a Cume of 480,000 daily listeners.
So, when you ask the question “If you were going to change format at a radio station, would you continue using the same name?”, I think that if it is accompanied by a strategy that complements that change and gives a new meaning to the brand, it is possible to continue with the same name (with a slight and almost unnoticed change), although for some it may have seemed that it was just a simple cosmetic change.
Great story and wonderful lessons about format changes, branding, and reading the market. Plus, a truly smart outside view like you had with Parikhal underscores the value of an insightful consultant.
A brand is about trust. While “move fast and break things” may be a great way to code, it is not a great way to build trust. All you end up with is a bunch of devastated customers looking at the broken pieces of a brand they used to love.
To launch your “everything app” by destroying your brand relationship with as many customers as you can as publicly as you can is the height of marketing stupidity. Perhaps there is a substantial share of market now thinking “Loved what he did with Twitter– can’t wait to give him all my financial information.” Perhaps.
But the “mystique of Musk” is not enough to make that case. Major League Pitchers are not automatically Brain Surgeons. Hit Songwriters aren’t also brilliant real estate tycoons. And piling up billions of dollars in tech stock doesn’t mean you know shit about mass-marketing. If Musk hadn’t had some success– say, if he were some anonymous guy named “Pat Holiday”– would you even for a millisecond assume something brilliant is going on here?
Finally, about format changes: Radio in the olden days was an artificially limited, high-cost of entry product. There were X number of sticks in a market. If you bought one, you had to maximize its value. Thus format/identity changes.
In the real world, the number of companies you can start is unlimited. So you don’t have to buy a successful company, publicly tear down its brand, wreck its product and change its name. There’s no point. Instead you hire people, put together a great product and marketing strategy and just…start another one. $44 billion is a lot of cash. A skilled and inspiring leader with a clear vision could probably make something great. Notice that that is not what we have here.
Hey, Fred– good column. Can we do David Zaslav and the studio heads of the AMPTP next?
Some truly smart observations about branding and content launches that could only come from Steve Stockman. Thanks for reading the blog and engaging with this post.