WHUD Westchester County Reduces Staff

[Gregg.]

This was announced a few weeks ago. WHUD, an AC station owned by Pamal Broadcasting, has cut its weekday DJ staff to three people. The male-female morning team has been split. Mike Bennett continues by himself in AM drive. Former morning co-host Kacey moves to middays. And Andy Bale stays in afternoons. The station already has the syndicated John Tesh Intelligence for Your Life in evenings and it's automated overnight. I believe the weekend staff has also been cut back.

WHUD ended its arrangement with Total Traffic. Now someone from another Pamal station, likely in Albany, does traffic and news in drivetimes. It's also likely someone in Albany acts as PD and does the music as well. Pamal has a highly rated AC station in Albany, so I guess it those people can do the same job for WHUD, 100 miles to the south.

It wasn't that long ago when WHUD had its two-person morning team and DJs in all other dayparts, even overnight. And an off-air program director. And if you go back far enough, it had a news department too.

 

[TheBigA]

It wasn't that long ago when WHUD had its two-person morning team and DJs in all other dayparts, even overnight. And an off-air program director. And if you go back far enough, it had a news department too.

When revenues keep falling, you reach a point where you can't afford the staff you once had.

This is not a unique problem. If you put the word 'layoff' in the site search, you'll see that lots of stations have made similar changes this past year.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

When revenues keep falling, you reach a point where you can't afford the staff you once had.

And yet by cutting popular on-air staff you give the audience less reason to listen, creating the all-too-familiar downward spiral.

 

[TheBigA]

And yet by cutting popular on-air staff you give the audience less reason to listen, creating the all-too-familiar downward spiral.

Do you have a solution to the revenue problem? If the popular air staff don't attract enough money, what should they do?

 

[Hyrum]

Do you have a solution to the revenue problem? If the popular air staff don't attract enough money, what should they do?

The one who has the answer to that question will be a zillionare about a week after they implement it. As Theater of My Mind pointed out though, to devalue a consumer product will not enhance its chances of success. WHUD probably has the second best signal of all the stations north of New York City and south of Albany, next to WSPK. With that to work with they stand a better chance in coming up with something to make money, but as I've suggested before, making a product less attractive won't help it's future. Playing music of any format without something more to entertain and make you want to listen to that source above others just doesn't work. I don't have the zillion dollar format, but I know what is happening to stations like WHUD will only make the downward slope steeper.

 

[Steve Green NEPA]

Either or -- emphasis on continued service or one eye on diminishing returns -- the move doesn't herald optimism for Pamal in particular and radio in general. WHUD has to be one of the paramount ornaments in the Pamal exhibit, if not the shiniest one.

How times have changed. I was a kid, like 18, doing P/T at a Long Island station when one of the other part-timers, an older fellow named Bob Gleason, told me about this 'big new station in Westchester that was opening up', or hiring -- Beautiful Music -- and that we both should apply.
Never knew if he went there. I'm retro-sorry I didn't. As a full-flags-flying station, they were *it* for the longest while. Like WRCH in Hartford, or WDUV in Tampa.

What with 50,000 watts, I'd imagine that there was a spacing impediment that prevented them from inching closer to Midtown's big Class B signals the way Class A's from Westchester, Stamford CT, et al were doing a decade back.
Sad to see an *FMer* now ..... a music station ..... and a 50-flippin'-thousand one -- starting to blow a little oil. Everyone knows that leaks never get better by themselves.

 

[AM-FM-DXer]

Regarding the revenue problem, could WHUD market itself as a Bronx station? I remember a station in London - I don't recall which one - that called itself "the Sound of Southwest London." Could WHUD make more money by targeting the larger population base of just one of the boroughs? WHUD's signal in much of the Bronx is pretty serviceable.

 

[72167-3530]

Radio is little different from any other consumer product. Reduce the value, cut enough corners, cheapen the product enough, and eventually people stop buying it.

Turn your station into an iPod, and people will just listen to their iPods, instead.

Turn your station into a generic store brand that costs the same, and people will just switch to Coke.

There's no shortage of generic low-end consumer goods. But there is a shortage of smart people who know how to make their product stand out and a success.

 

[Kelly A]

And yet by cutting popular on-air staff you give the audience less reason to listen, creating the all-too-familiar downward spiral.

If advertisers don't want to advertise on any dayparts than morning and afternoon drive shows, how does one pay salaries for the periods of the day?

 

[Hyrum]

Regarding the revenue problem, could WHUD market itself as a Bronx station? I remember a station in London - I don't recall which one - that called itself "the Sound of Southwest London." Could WHUD make more money by targeting the larger population base of just one of the boroughs? WHUD's signal in much of the Bronx is pretty serviceable.

I would guess that diminishing their Hudson Valley presence and localness could cause more difficulty selling ad time to the Westchester clients. They're not likely to compete well against the New York signals selling locally in the Bronx and they are not going to get any more of the national buys that they may already be getting. If you put out a good product that people enjoy listening to, they'll tune to it in even if they live on the other side of the county line from your studios.

 

[Kelly A]

Radio is little different from any other consumer product. Reduce the value, cut enough corners, cheapen the product enough, and eventually people stop buying it.

This isn't the 60's anymore. Consumers aren't looking for radio to provide a friendly voice that tells them what time it is, what the temperature outside is, or what concerts are coming to their area. That's now available on this handheld device called a smartphone.
Radio provides free music, traffic, and headlines, provided you're willing to listen to commercials. Having staff working just because it used to be that way before the public Internet or streaming kills radio faster than not paying for stuff that isn't needed.

Turn your station into an iPod, and people will just listen to their iPods, instead.

iPods ended back in May of 2022. Streaming is the thing now.

Turn your station into a generic store brand that costs the same, and people will just switch to Coke.

No idea what that means.

There's no shortage of generic low-end consumer goods. But there is a shortage of smart people who know how to make their product stand out and a success.

Tell you what. There are a lot of small market radio stations on the block today. Many of those stations could be purchased for the price of a new economy car. Why don't you get a second mortgage on your home and buy a station to show us all how it's done? Wait until you have to make payroll every other week when advertisers don't want to advertise on the station no matter how much they like the music. Then come back here and talk about how broadcasters have cheapened the brand.

 

[Hyrum]

If advertisers don't want to advertise on any dayparts than morning and afternoon drive shows, how does one pay salaries for the periods of the day?

You can't. That's why radio will continue its decline until and unless they come up with something new to draw in new listeners and excite them enough to respond to advertising. At present they don't and although a lot of people cry and whine about "the poor station can't afford to pay for a decent product". That doesn't change the fact that people are leaving, revenue is down. and to continue to do what the stations are doing, the decline will continue until the power company sends the final notice for payment the station can't afford, and turns off the electricity.

 

[luperm]

This nonsense again? The revenue is not there to pay people. It's actually that simple.
It's not because of the programming.

Advertisers are spending less across the board.
There are many more options for advertising.
The cost to employ people and operate radio facilities are materially increasing.
Something has to give, and that is usually the largest line item (people).

I see a lot of talk on these boards about this topic. I have not seen one constructive post offering a solution to this fundamental problem. I will say it again: round up a bunch of your like-minded friends, start an "exciting" radio station that prints money, and then bask in your newfound wealth by showing us all how it is done.

 

[72167-3530]

This isn't the 60's anymore. Consumers aren't looking for radio to provide a friendly voice that tells them what time it is, what the temperature outside is, or what concerts are coming to their area. That's now available on this handheld device called a smartphone.
Radio provides free music, traffic, and headlines, provided you're willing to listen to commercials. Having staff working just because it used to be that way before the public Internet or streaming kills radio faster than not paying for stuff that isn't needed.

iPods ended back in May of 2022. Streaming is the thing now.

No idea what that means.

Tell you what. There are a lot of small market radio stations on the block today. Many of those stations could be purchased for the price of a new economy car. Why don't you get a second mortgage on your home and buy a station to show us all how it's done? Wait until you have to make payroll every other week when advertisers don't want to advertise on the station no matter how much they like the music. Then come back here and talk about how broadcasters have cheapened the brand.

You are right, it's not the 1960's anymore. But you can't just use ageism to waive away the problems with radio. "Ohh, everything is different now. Woe is me!" Get over it. Whether it's 1960 or 2060, it's still just radio. Same formula as before listeners + advertisers = money. It's time to stop making excuses

I know you think you're being clever by pointing out that iPods aren't current. Neither is the word "telephone" or the floppy disk icon that Microsoft used to indicate "save." All nitpicking language does it ignore the facts in front of you.

And for everyone who says, "Then go start your own radio station," that's not addressing the problem; it's attacking the messenger.

The problem isn't the people who want better radio, the problem is that there are too many people in radio who don't have the answers. Who sit around and make the same old budget cuts we did last century. Who do the same consolidation and automation we did last century. Who know that things have changed, but refuse to change.

So sorry if I offended you for thinking that there is something better than populating the nation with 50,000-watt iPods. Sorry if I offended all the people in radio who think they're such experts at radio, yet do little more than rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic while it sinks. I don't have to be the ship's captain to point out where it all leads. I already have my lifeboat.

 

[luperm]

You are saying nothing. What is your answer? You don't have one. Just because you don't have an answer does not make it a personal attack. You simply complain over and over again that radio is not what you personally want it to be.

Radio is now one of many methods of delivering entertainment or information to people. It used to be one of fewer methods.
The size of the advertising pie has diminished and is now spread among many more outlets.

At least one of two things needs to happen. One is that you need to convince relevant demographics (people advertisers actually want to reach) to use radio more, as opposed to alternative platforms. Or two, convince advertisers that there is money to be made trying to reach other demographic groups not currently targeted. Neither of these are easy.

Throwing millions of dollars down a hole in hopes that it will magically change things is foolish. But seriously, if you have an answer, let's hear it.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't have the zillion dollar format, but I know what is happening to stations like WHUD will only make the downward slope steeper.

You assume the changes they made will ''devalue the product.''

That doesn't change the fact that people are leaving, revenue is down. and to continue to do what the stations are doing, the decline will continue until the power company sends the final notice for payment the station can't afford, and turns off the electricity.

The changes didn't cause the revenue to go down. They were fully staffed when the revenue started to drop.

Where are people going? To music services that have no local talent and no local information. That apparently is what people want. Not live & local radio.

 

[TheBigA]

The problem isn't the people who want better radio, the problem is that there are too many people in radio who don't have the answers. Who sit around and make the same old budget cuts we did last century.

One answer would be to add more commercials. Another answer is to charge listeners a subscription fee like Spotify. How do you like those answers? The money has to come from somewhere.

 

[Hyrum]

You assume the changes they made will ''devalue the product.''



The changes didn't cause the revenue to go down. They were fully staffed when the revenue started to drop.

Where are people going? To music services that have no local talent and no local information. That apparently is what people want. Not live & local radio.

OK...so the Donkey goes before the cart. Got it. Thank you for educating me. Changes that make radio the same as the other services listeners can find WILL devalue the product. People are going to no local talent and no local information services because of the radio commercial load. They do want something exciting that is local. Current radio offers little of that and that's much of the reason they seek entertainment elsewhere. Why stay with radio and it's commercial load when you get blandness and the same music elsewhere?

You seem to insist that because radio is having financial problems they must cut back on programming. True to an extent, but if they do they will continue to see the decline until there is nothing left. Before you mock me for not having the programming answer and condemn me for not buying a losing radio station and doing it myself, I'm not suggesting I have the answer or there may not be an answer, but to do as you suggest, sit back and tell people "it's tough, Wxxxx can't do any better because of revenue, so just listen to what they offer" is even less helpful.

I have said I don't have the answer, but I know more of the same is NOT the answer and the audience decay proves that.

 

[Hyrum]

This nonsense again? The revenue is not there to pay people. It's actually that simple.
It's not because of the programming.

How is this nonsense? It's the fact of life. If Coke and Pepsi are going broke and can't afford to put sugar in their soda, no one will buy it. Same thing with radio.

Advertisers are spending less across the board.
There are many more options for advertising.

100 percent true

I see a lot of talk on these boards about this topic. I have not seen one constructive post offering a solution to this fundamental problem. I will say it again: round up a bunch of your like-minded friends, start an "exciting" radio station that prints money, and then bask in your newfound wealth by showing us all how it is done.

If I or anyone had the cure for cancer or the cure for radio, we'd market it and be rich. Few have suggested that we do. But to do what is being done is just stupid when you can see the cliff ahead ahead. Changes have to be made. I don't know what it will be, but unless you make radio something people want, by giving them something they can't get elsewhere at lower cost (little or no commercial load) only the geeks will be in the car as it speeds off the cliff. So far as your suggestion that we get rich with an exciting radio station, great idea. Yet I've not heard you say anything except to live with the product they're offering and shut up. As a consumer, none of us have to do that. Many have already abandoned it. Enjoy the ride.

 

[TheBigA]

You seem to insist that because radio is having financial problems they must cut back on programming.

You can't pay people if you don't have money. They're not cutting back on programming, just changing the staffing. Nothing wrong with that. Still live & local hosts all day.

I have said I don't have the answer, but I know more of the same is NOT the answer and the audience decay proves that.

They're not doing 'more of the same.' They're making changes in staffing.

You keep talking about the audience, but don't post any facts. WHUD is the #1 station in Hudson Valley.