Winning baseball’s National League Championship is not only a momentous occasion in itself, but a beautiful and very impressive ring is given to the players on a team that wins either the National League Championship or the American League Championship. What is less well known is that the owners and other officials of the teams usually receive such a ring as well. When the Phillies won in 1983, each of the owners (and, indeed, their spouses) received a magnificent ruby and diamond ring with all the appropriate inscriptions. It is a large ring, but it is very beautifully crafted. Over the years I have not worn the ring a great deal, partly because it is so large but more importantly because I didn’t want to risk losing or damaging it. However, on a few occasions, for no particular reason, I have worn the ring for brief periods of time. Inevitably, when I have worn it, someone will spot it and ask me about it. As recently as March of this year, a flight attendant on a flight to Cincinnati spotted it and said, “Isn’t that a baseball championship ring?” But, the funniest incident occurred when I was taking some of the family to Disney World and extended my right hand with money into the cashier’s window. The young girl behind the counter said, “Oh my goodness, sir, that’s a beautiful ring. What is it?” I explained that it was a National League Championship ring. She responded, “That is so impressive—what position did you play?” I couldn’t resist, so I said something to this effect: “I was a short stop. I was not very well known but was proud to be part of a championship team.” She said, “I am so impressed. I have never met a Major League Baseball player.” I couldn’t continue the charade any longer because I was laughing too hard, so I said, “Well, the truth is, young lady, you still haven’t!” I then explained the whole story to her, and we both had a good laugh.
Further, among other enterprises, we embarked on a joint venture with the legendary John Malone’s Tele-Communications Inc. by which we entered the cable television business. We also became a significant owner of Black Entertainment Television. When we entered into the joint venture with Tele-Communications Inc., John Malone had already helped a young man named Bob Johnson and his wife, Sheila, start Black Entertainment Television. Bob’s vision was a cable channel that served a black audience with music and other programming that would appeal to that audience. Bob felt, correctly, that this was a very under-served market, and he also recognized that, even though cable channels in those days were frequently hard to come by, a channel of this sort would have a very good chance of being approved by the typical municipality, even cities that had put a freeze on new franchises. He and Sheila turned out to be right on both counts. They ended up building a highly successful and highly profitable enterprise, and our stock interest in BET multiplied many times in value. When we first became shareholders, Bob and Sheila were just starting out and had no infrastructure or “backroom.” So, in the early days, Taft Broadcasting did all of their bookkeeping and accounting at our television station in Washington, D.C., WDCA. I have always kidded Bob by telling him that without us they might not have ever made any money, and, even if they had, they couldn’t have counted it without us!
All of these investments spawned other smaller interests, such as a licensing and merchandising company to exploit the Hanna-Barbera cartoon characters and a company that designed amusement parks and choreographed shows that were a big thing in the parks in those days. I could go on and on, but the point is that all of these enterprises brought me in contact with people who became an important part of my life.
IN THE INTEREST of honesty and humility, I need to comment briefly on Taft Broadcasting’s foray into the motion picture business. The motion picture business has been a siren song to scores of companies and individuals over the years. It is glamorous and holds out the dream of making a great deal of money on a small investment. The fact that neither of these notions is true hasn’t seemed to deter anybody, and it did not deter us. I will mention only two of our projects, which are certainly the ones that stick out in my mind. The first was one of the few pictures that was profitable—Running Man starring Arnold Schwarzenegger—and it was quite profitable. We may have made a little money on a few of our early low-budget efforts, but Running Man probably allowed us to claim a break even in our movie efforts. The other movie, however, should be a lesson for anyone who dreams of success in Hollywood. It was what we thought was as close to a “can’t-miss” investment as one could imagine. Adapted from a Pulitzer Prize–winning novel called Ironweed, it starred (can you believe this?) Jack Nicholson and Meryl Streep! We had visions of Academy Awards and riches beyond measure! So, what happened? It was a financial failure, not because anybody did anything wrong—Nicholson and Streep were magnificent, and the book was faithfully transferred to the screen.* The problem was very simple—it was a dark, depressing story, and the public just plain did not like it. This was enough for me and my associates. We exited the movie business with a few scratches and bruises but modest losses and a significant amount of learning and experience. That’s the last movie we made.
IN THE MID-1980S we made a very large acquisition of television properties from the Gulf Broadcasting Company. The price tag was $755 million, a big number even today. We acquired a number of big-market TV properties, including stations in Fort Worth, Houston, Tampa, Phoenix, and High Point, North Carolina. This was a major step in the growth of Taft Broadcasting Company. We were, of course, very excited but would probably have been less exuberant if we’d realized that this acquisition would lead to the end of the company we had worked so hard to build.
I had an interesting experience while negotiating the deal with Gulf that I’m not sure I have ever shared with anyone. We were in the Gulf corporate headquarters trying to finalize the deal. Unbelievably, although we were prepared to offer $755 million, Gulf was insisting on $765 million. We were getting nowhere in resolving the dispute, and Grant Fitts, the CEO of Gulf, said, “Charlie, let’s go into a separate room, and you and I will settle this between ourselves.”
When we were alone Grant said, “I really need the price to be $765 million.” I pointed out that $755 million was what our board had approved, and I simply couldn’t go higher. As the argument went back and forth, I had a very strange experience. One half of my mind was engaged in the dispute; the other half was saying something like this, “Charlie, do you realize what’s going on in the other half of your brain? You’re talking about spending $755 million! You are just a little boy from a little town in the southeastern Ohio hills. What on earth do you think you’re doing talking about whether a deal should be $755 million or $765 million! Are you serious?!”
Fortunately, the negotiating side of my brain took over and we concluded the deal, but I have never forgotten that “out of body” experience!
THIS SEEMS LIKE a good spot to share briefly my thoughts on the “art” of negotiating. I have always had very strong feelings about the right way and the wrong way to negotiate. Over the years I have been engaged in countless negotiations, some as a lawyer and some as a principal, but my approach has always been the same.
I approach a negotiation as a discussion that leads to making a deal. As a result, I have always felt that respect for the other party and a willingness to compromise were essential ingredients. If one does not treat the other party with respect and courtesy it is, obviously, harder to reach an agreement. Similarly, if one is unwilling to compromise, it is hard to see how an agreement can be successfully reached. It’s like the old saying goes—a successful deal will not totally please either party.
I am very opposed to the opposite approach, the approach that sees negotiating as “winning” and humiliating your adversary. Again, negotiating should not be about winning, but rather reaching a satisfactory agreement and maintaining a relationship with the other party that will permit you to remain friendly and respectful in the