-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Layoffs at LAist
- Thread starter Chase Andrews
- Start date
Wow. Who could have seen this coming?
Given that this is an NPR station, you wanna take another run at an analysis of the situation?
Hope this doesn't happen to you up in Sac...
I guess I'm not following your question.
Clarification?
1. The entire deal with having "LAist" branding into bed with KPCC was to improve the station. End "brand confusion" (LA Times, 1/31/23).
2. Catastrophic cuts to the newsroom are happening. One in eight. That's quite serious. While it's not on par with the cuts other newsrooms have seen, it still means a significant reduction in tame local coverage.
3. A hungry audience for local news will find less "meat" at KPCC, and will go to other places for a tasty snack. These "other places" are likely not newsrooms. Like most "news" content generated in 2023, it's probably some lame YouTube channel, podcast, or blog that offers fun fiesty analysis but no actual coverage.
4. America is the most polarized it's been since before the U.S. Civil War (USC, 2016). This coincides with the emergence of Limbaugh, Fox News, and their liberal counterparts — at a time when conventional news has declined significantly. The newspaper industry employs half the staff it did in 1990 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016).
Does that clear the air enough for you? No single nail seals the coffin, but KPCC's cuts are yet another nail. And we (Americans collectively) are the ones trapped inside. It sucks.
You're assuming that the financial situation was caused by the branding change. It wasn't.
You say they're "cutting their way to success." They're a non-profit, and the cuts are just about meeting their expenses.
The radio station hasn't cut any local news programming at all. They're cutting a podcast.
If you're concerned about the future of public broadcasting, you can help by making a tax-free donation. You can even specify how you want your money to be spent.
So you're saying the total work of the 21 laid off individuals totals to just one cut podcast?
Wow again.
Did you read the article in the OP?
Strategy Shift For LAist Means Layoffs And Cutbacks For Podcast Unit.
LAist Studios, the podcast studio created by Southern California Public Radio’s “LAist 89.3” KPCC Los Angeles, is facing cutbacks as CEO Herb Scannell has announced a shuffling of how the
Did you read the article in the OP?
Strategy Shift For LAist Means Layoffs And Cutbacks For Podcast Unit.
LAist Studios, the podcast studio created by Southern California Public Radio’s “LAist 89.3” KPCC Los Angeles, is facing cutbacks as CEO Herb Scannell has announced a shuffling of how thewww.insideradio.com
The title of the first article is "LAist (KPCC) lays off 21 People". You stated authoritatively that the only service cut is one podcast.
I am just following along.
You also state authortitatively that the rebranding had nothing to do with the layoffs. Unless you work in KPCC management, it is hard to see how you can know so much about the situation.
I don't work for the station, so there's nothing I say that's "authoritatively." The quote says they are "reallocating resources." So the work is being done by others. That's not me talking. That's the station spokesman.
And the station representative explained why the cuts are happening, and nowhere does he attribute it to the rebranding. The rebranding only affected the radio station, and the article says the cuts are in the podcast unit.
Thanks. Knowing exactly what you meant helps.
I agree that the situation at LAist/KPCC is tragic. The LAist purchase was five years ago. While I'm not a fan of the re-branding earlier this year, I think that likely played a very minor role, if any, in the cutbacks. Far more problematic are the expenses---especially paying the prior President and COO $500,000 a year to do---as it's noted in the filing---0.0 hours worth of work.
The cuts seem more likely to impact production of podcasts and secondary programming, which are becoming difficult for a lot of creators to monetize now, than actual daily news gathering and broadcasts.
Even if these cuts were to send LAist/KPCC listeners in search of other content, they're unlikely to choose YouTube, FOX News or Limbaugh's successors and imitators to fill the void---especially in a market with another NPR station (KCRW), and a lot more content from public broadcasters available.
The article says the problem is an advertising shortfall in the podcast unit. It's in the first sentence of the first article. The CEO pay was a budgeted expense. The advertising shortfall was not. This is the exact same reason why NPR cut 10% of its staff last year.
NPR to Cut 10% of Workforce as Ad Revenue Slumps
NPR will lay off 10% of its workers, or more than 100 employees, as its feels the pinch of a slowdown in advertising and sponsorship revenue.
variety.com
Many media organizations staffed up when they started podcasting. While the audience for podcasting is growing, the ad revenue isn't. That doesn't seem to make sense, but the advertisers say we're in a recession. Even Spotify has laid off 2% of its staff due to changes in ad revenue. You can't pay people if the revenue drops.
That COO salary is obscene...
You're right about the podcasting, but the fact of the matter remains that there's half a million dollars a year going to a former CEO who worked 0.0 hours in that year. It may have been a budgeted expense, but it had the same benefit to the station as setting $500,000 on fire. $500,000 that could have been used to offset the revenue shortfall and save many of those 21 jobs.The article says the problem is an advertising shortfall in the podcast unit. It's in the first sentence of the first article. The CEO pay was a budgeted expense. The advertising shortfall was not. This is the exact same reason why NPR cut 10% of its staff last year.
NPR to Cut 10% of Workforce as Ad Revenue Slumps
NPR will lay off 10% of its workers, or more than 100 employees, as its feels the pinch of a slowdown in advertising and sponsorship revenue.
Many media organizations staffed up when they started podcasting. While the audience for podcasting is growing, the ad revenue isn't. That doesn't seem to make sense, but the advertisers say we're in a recession. Even Spotify has laid off 2% of its staff due to changes in ad revenue. You can't pay people if the revenue drops.
Wanna have fun? Go on the fund drive and tell listeners that their donations help fund objective, impartial journalism and half a million dollars a year in salary for the guy who stopped working for us four years ago.
The current one makes some level of sense to me---$625k. It's L.A. But to pay the guy who left four years ago half a mil---that is obscene.
CEO salaries in non-profits are based on the amount of money they raise. In the for-profit world, CEOs get stock grants, and that's usually where the bulk of their money comes from.
...and again, we're talking about a former CEO who left four years ago, is listed as having worked 0.0 hours and is still taking a $500,000 yearly salary. I have no issues with $625k for the current CEO who's actually doing the work and raising the money.
Salaried workers don't fill out time cards. So there's really no way of knowing how long he worked. The fact of the matter is he's getting paid because of the terms of a contract. The station could stop paying him, but then they'd get sued.
Donations don't go to CEO salaries. If you read the station's financials, you'll see that.
If you read the station's financials, you'll see that every other salaried worker has 40 hours a week listed, so that's nonsense.
And you don't see a problem with a listener-supported radio station entering into an agreement to pay CEOs for years after they stop working? And pay them almost as much as their successors who are working and raising money?
I don't see that. What I do see is that the station took in $16.7 million in membership dues in 2021, and less than what they pay the current CEO and the previous CEO combined ($1.125 million) in advertising revenue ($1.027 million.
- Status