Roger Christian

[tbolt909]

OK, how did you come up with this?



You keep wanting this nice guy to become angry and do nasty things. Why? The PD is his friend, who used to listen to him as a kid. He's not going to tell him to piss off. When did they offer him the part time gig?

It's not the PD, but the General Manager. The OP did not say where he heard about the news. He even said he hoped it was his decision to retire(which it clearly wasn't).

The story mentioned possible voice tracking and he didn't "want to go into it". That could mean they asked him and he said no. That is speculation, but it's not unheard of. It's moot now, because he has moved on...

 

[davideduardo]

David, I hate to break this to you, but you are the ultimate bean counter. You base you decisions only on numbers, not how people are impacted. That's what bean counters do. You're not a "how can we fix this" kind of guy. You're a "I'm going to fix this" kind of guy.

Yet none of my 55 years in management reflects what you say...

My first priority is to the enterprise, not to the individual. In other words, what decisions will make the station successful over time, guaranteeing employment to the dedicated employees and rewarding results to those who risked capital by buying the station.

If a station fails, requiring it be sold or the format changed, everyone loses.

 

[TheBigA]

The story mentioned possible voice tracking and he didn't "want to go into it". That could mean they asked him and he said no.

The story mentioned VT as how they'd handle the shift now that his position had been eliminated.

 

[Rob Piotrowski]

My first priority is to the enterprise, not to the individual. In other words, what decisions will make the station successful over time, guaranteeing employment to the dedicated employees and rewarding results to those who risked capital by buying the station.

But that priority changes when you bring in "other people's $$$" to run your business (IOW, go public). And when one makes what they believe is a strategic move to increase shareholder value that doesn't produce results as quickly as those "other people" want - slash and burn is what happens. Even to guys who the GM grew up listening to.

 

[TheBigA]

Even to guys who the GM grew up listening to.

Which is why you either have a personal contract or join the union.

Those who depend on the company to look out for them are destined to be disappointed.

 

[davideduardo]

But that priority changes when you bring in "other people's $$$" to run your business (IOW, go public). And when one makes what they believe is a strategic move to increase shareholder value that doesn't produce results as quickly as those "other people" want - slash and burn is what happens. Even to guys who the GM grew up listening to.

The funny thing is that going back to the 50's, 60's and 70's there were several dozen public corporations that mostly or significantly owned radio stations.

Rounsaville, Storer, Taft, Mooney, Metromedia, Sonderling, Starr, Gross,Rollins, Lin, CapCities, cox, Multimedia and others.

And there were plenty of combined Newspaper publishers that also owned radio and TV, like the NYT, WaPo, Tribune, Scripps, Hearst, Newhouse.

And there were TV nets that owned the maximum number of Radio and TV stations, like ABC, CBS and NBC.

There were insurance companies that owned radio stations, like the Lincoln group, Durham Life.

There were industrial companies like Westinghouse.

All were subject to investor desires to see a profit.

As are all commercial stations. Always.

There was even a supermarket company, Pueblo International.

All had shareholders.

 

[SirRoxalot]

David, you must admit that the corporate landscape is dramatically different now than it was in the '50s. There was a time when corporations felt a responsibility to their employees and their communities. Those days are obviously over. Very few corporations these days look beyond the expected term of the current CEO. These days it's the Louis XV theory of management, "Après moi, le deluge."

 

[frankberry]

Some of the posts from this thread have been moved here:

https://www.radiodiscussions.com/showthread.php?719858-The-benefits-of-being-fired

 

[TheBigA]

There was a time when corporations felt a responsibility to their employees and their communities.

I imagine that time was in the 1800s. Because by the early 1900s, the government came up with a bunch of laws designed to protect employees from corporations. The breakup of Standard Oil wasn't done because the company was so benevolent. As far as radio companies, everything they did, for employees and communities, was done because of the threat of losing their licenses by the FCC. That threat went away as the government's view of the FCC changed, and politicians got elected by promising deregulation.

 

[Kent]

There was a time when corporations felt a responsibility to their employees and their communities.

Being in my mid-40's, I obviously never lived through the 1950's and certainly never had a job at that time. I have, however, worked for several different corporations over the last 20 years, both inside and outside of radio. Some were public; others were private. Some were good employers while others were not. The one thing all of them had in common was that they were in business to make money. Even among the best I ever worked for, not one was good to its employees for altruistic reasons. Those who were good treated their employees well because they felt having a happy and steady workforce helped them make more money.

I will say that the best companies where I worked, both inside and outside of radio, were privately held. It did seem to me like the publicly traded companies tended to treat their employees worse, possibly because they had to answer to too many different people. The good ones, however, would’ve gladly thrown anyone and everyone under the bus if they could’ve found a way to make more profit than they were making with no workers. Hell, one of the better privately held companies where I worked cashed in and sold to Cumulus. But, of course, they cared about their people. Yeah, right!

 

[flybynight]

I will say that the best companies where I worked, both inside and outside of radio, were privately held. It did seem to me like the publicly traded companies tended to treat their employees worse, possibly because they had to answer to too many different people. The good ones, however, would’ve gladly thrown anyone and everyone under the bus if they could’ve found a way to make more profit than they were making with no workers. Hell, one of the better privately held companies where I worked cashed in and sold to Cumulus. But, of course, they cared about their people. Yeah, right!

It's even more interesting when you have worked for a particular company when they were private, and then again some years later after they'd gone public. Having had that experience, I can tell you companies are a bit less patient after going public.

 

[Kemosabe]

Scott Fybush offers his insight into the Roger Christian matter in this week's NERW column: Hall of Famer Silenced.

 

[Element9]

The funny thing is that going back to the 50's, 60's and 70's there were several dozen public corporations that mostly or significantly owned radio stations. Rounsaville, Storer, Taft, Mooney, Metromedia, Sonderling, Starr, Gross,Rollins, Lin, CapCities, cox, Multimedia and others. And there were plenty of combined Newspaper publishers that also owned radio and TV, like the NYT, WaPo, Tribune, Scripps, Hearst, Newhouse. And there were TV nets that owned the maximum number of Radio and TV stations, like ABC, CBS and NBC. There were insurance companies that owned radio stations, like the Lincoln group, Durham Life. There were industrial companies like Westinghouse. All were subject to investor desires to see a profit. As are all commercial stations. Always. There was even a supermarket company, Pueblo International. All had shareholders.

It bears mentioning that there also were caps on ownership. While most of those companies did business, the 7-7-7 rule was in effect. The landscape shifted dramatically after the NAB mu$cled the Telecom Act through Congress and Slick Willie signed it into law. The most laughable part of that fiasco, in a dark-comedy context, is Clinton, one of the sharpest knives in the political drawer, having the audacity to defend his support of the bill by saying he "thought it was all about cell phones." Still, there wasn't anything laughable about the thousands of radio and television professionals being RIFd. Undeniably, advances in technology and a shift in the way consumers and society use media played a significant role. But the adverse impact of The Act cannot be discounted.

 

[TheBigA]

It bears mentioning that there also were caps on ownership. While most of those companies did business, the 7-7-7 rule was in effect. The landscape shifted dramatically after the NAB mu$cled the Telecom Act through Congress and Slick Willie signed it into law.

I keep reading people say this as though it's true, and it's not. The Telecom act is called that for a reason. It was about Telecom. It was about phone companies. It's why we only have three phone companies. This deregulation was part of the Republican Contract With America. Look it up! It wasn't about the NAB, it was about less government. Less government means less taxes. The radio part of it was very small. It's like one page. Clinton didn't even know it was there. He was making deals with the House, and this was one of them. It was a fully bi-partisan bill. Ted Kennedy voted for it, as did Bob Dole. Only a handful of people opposed it.

But as for getting riffed, being in radio isn't the Supreme Court. There is no lifetime appointment. A lot of young people, myself included, got jobs by replacing older more expensive talent, and it was happening long before 1996. The FCC isn't in the job creation business. That's not their role. Radio stations were firing people in the 1930s. They fired lots of local musicians when DJs started playing records. They fired engineers when computers could do transmitter readings. They fired newsmen when the news obligations went away in the 1980s. So quit making like this is some kind of recent thing. It's not. I will also tell you that if companies were still limited to the number of stations they could own, there would still be national syndication, and that syndication would still be used to replace local talent. It existed in the 60s, it existed in the 80s, and it's still there now. You're not going to force owners to lose money. No matter who they are.

 

[davideduardo]

It bears mentioning that there also were caps on ownership. While most of those companies did business, the 7-7-7 rule was in effect. The landscape shifted dramatically after the NAB mu$cled the Telecom Act through Congress and Slick Willie signed it into law. The most laughable part of that fiasco, in a dark-comedy context, is Clinton, one of the sharpest knives in the political drawer, having the audacity to defend his support of the bill by saying he "thought it was all about cell phones." Still, there wasn't anything laughable about the thousands of radio and television professionals being RIFd. Undeniably, advances in technology and a shift in the way consumers and society use media played a significant role. But the adverse impact of The Act cannot be discounted.

The small part of the Telecom act that referred to radio was put in as a reaction to several issues.

First, the surveys of stations that showed that a huge percentage of stations were losing money.

Second, the FCC realized the mistake that was Docket 80-90 which overpopulated markets with no increase in local ad revenue.

The inability of radio stations and small owners to get financing because the business was so restricted.

The only participation the NAB had was conducting a financial study and expressing the concern that the FCC had made a series of wrong moves on both AM and FM in the prior 10 to 15 years.

Remember also that prior to Telecom the FCC had already relaxed the duopoly rule and ownership caps, but not enough.

Remember also that one of the effects of Docket 80-90 was to increase the number of stations running satellite format to wall over 20% of all stations outside of the top 100 markets and the almost total decimation of community service due to the same revenue base being divided among vastly increased numbers of stations. .

 

[TheBigA]

Remember also that one of the effects of Docket 80-90 was to increase the number of stations running satellite format to wall over 20% of all stations outside of the top 100 markets and the almost total decimation of community service due to the same revenue base being divided among vastly increased numbers of stations.

And we have to point out that the radio ownership rules have not changed since 1996. Has anything else changed since then? I'd suggest a few things have. I'd like to know why radio is forced to operate as though time has stood still, when we all know it hasn't.

 

[davideduardo]

I will say that the best companies where I worked, both inside and outside of radio, were privately held. It did seem to me like the publicly traded companies tended to treat their employees worse, possibly because they had to answer to too many different people. The good ones, however, would’ve gladly thrown anyone and everyone under the bus if they could’ve found a way to make more profit than they were making with no workers. Hell, one of the better privately held companies where I worked cashed in and sold to Cumulus. But, of course, they cared about their people. Yeah, right!

My first job in radio was with a privately owned group. I learned many, many ways of how not to do radio.

There was no janitorial budget, so I got in the door at age 13 by helping to clean and empty the trash. I did coffee runs, but those runs were often to get toilet paper or soap, as the budgeted amounts ran out weeks before the end of each month.

The mistreatment and abuses extended to things like firing a manager who had cancer because of he station group was self-insured.

I put in a couple of years as a board op, a bad DJ, and doing other odd jobs. Two years later, after an internship with a good group, I built my own first station and put into practice many things I had vowed to do differently from the methods of my first employer.

 

[TheBigA]

Two years later, after an internship with a good group, I built my own first station and put into practice many things I had vowed to do differently from the methods of my first employer.

My goal in the early days was to get health care. The small mom & pops didn't give health care (unless you were in the family, then you got covered). So I kept looking for a company big enough to offer health care to employees. I found one, but it came with a lot of other negatives.

 

[flybynight]

I will also tell you that if companies were still limited to the number of stations they could own, there would still be national syndication, and that syndication would still be used to replace local talent.

However, all the consolidation made those changes far more sweeping.

 

[TheBigA]

However, all the consolidation made those changes far more sweeping.

Not really. iHeart has no reason to run an independent syndicator because it does it all internally. But if they didn't own those stations, they'd still own Premiere, and they'd still want to clear spots on stations. That's what Cumulus is doing in markets where they're selling stations. They still clear their commercials in NY and LA on syndicated shows. That's what you'd see now if radio still operated under the old rules. That's where things were going in the 90s. That's why ABC still had a radio network when the network days were long over. Do you really think owners faced with 1% growth would still keep full staffs? Really?