• 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

Another wobble at WIVB-Channel 4

In the Buffalo market, of all places, the last thing you want to downsize is your weather-forecasting staff. Obviously the decisions about Channel 4 aren't being made locally, but at corporate (although you'd think a corporate office in Providence, Rhode Island would have at least some understanding of winter weather and how it affects a market--and how important it is to a station to get it right to compete--wouldn't you?)
 
The lesson to be learned here is that if you're not a main anchor or core reporter, you're 40-ish, and you've gotten a few raises, you're in trouble. There's somebody younger and cheaper with more upside available - even if they're not as good now. I expect that Wrobel will be replaced.

Macko doesn't fit the age profile, but his contract is likely up. His loss will have limited impact. It will be interesting to see if they replace him.

Buffalo is no longer in the Top 50 TV markets, and corporate sees numbers on a spreadsheet, not local impact. In today's economic environment, budgets get trimmed - and that means personnel budgets in particular.
 
I can't believe I'm about to write this, but here goes:

Did any of these companies ever consider having less profit for the sake of maintaining a quality product?

Crazy, I know. Quality comes from pride in one's work, not greed.
 
Macko wasn't bad. Wrobel had come a long way and was becoming a Buffalo favorite, dare we say star. She's still on the 4 Channel 4 website, which BTW looks pretty lame compared to Channel 2. The other night Lindsay Schwartswalder anchored 4's six o'clock local and used the phrase "out there" twelve times in the weathercast. Channel 4 might have been better served by retaining Wrobel and cutting Schwartswalder, but as the point has been made, it's all about money. Advertising sectors are getting killed and LIN is up against it. There's a lot of that going around. In the menatime, Postels looks like an aging cupcake, slurs his words and still can't pronounce "county" with a "t." But that's why he makes the big bucks and the support staff is getting chopped.
 
Coldfinger said:
Lindsay Schwartswalder anchored 4's six o'clock local and used the phrase "out there" twelve times in the weathercast.
Click to expand...

What?  No "moving on in..."?  That's the one that seemingly all TV weather people seem to favor and use
excessively.  It doesn't matter what market or what station, they must teach that at meteorological schools.

That one goes back to Ted Textor!  Count that one some night, Coldfinger!
 
Mark Giardina asks, "Didn't Wrobel work in the Rochester market for a while at Channel 8 TV?"

You are right, sir! She was Scott Hetsko's predecessor as Channel 8's lead forecaster. I doubt she'll come back to Rochester (all the full service stations are pretty set personnel-wise right now) but she has a strong enough track record that she shouldn't be on the beach for long...
 
I can't believe I know this, but it was Mary Ann Lauracella who wrote the Radio-TV column in the News back in the day....when they actually wrote about local radio more than three times a year (and on weekends in the sports section).

Back on topic, I too thought Mary Beth (or MB, as Hairless Myston often called her) did an admirable job and didn't warrant a pink slip.

Wonder if Don Paul played any part in her being let go? As "team captain" of the News4 weather team, did he try to salvage her job, or throw her under the bus?

I tend to believe it was a pure budget thing, but did any of the top dogs offer to take a little less salary to keep the team intact?

Naw....(what in the world am I thinking)????
 
Steven21 said:
Did any of these companies ever consider having less profit for the sake of maintaining a quality product?
Crazy, I know. Quality comes from pride in one's work, not greed.
Click to expand...

You have just outlined the formula that has virtually destroyed radio and television as an entertainment and news entity.

Major corporations that own broadcasting operations could care less about personnel. It's all profit. Yet they fail to understand that getting rid of veteran talent and replacing them with substandard employees who are willing to work for less money only contributes to the loss of viewers and listeners.
 
Major corporations that own broadcasting operations could care less about personnel. It's all profit. Yet they fail to understand that getting rid of veteran talent and replacing them with substandard employees who are willing to work for less money only contributes to the loss of viewers and listeners.
Click to expand...

"It's money that matters
Hear what I say
It's money that matters
In the USA"

- Randy Newman
 
The Voice of Reason said:
Steven21 said:
Did any of these companies ever consider having less profit for the sake of maintaining a quality product?
Crazy, I know. Quality comes from pride in one's work, not greed.
Click to expand...

You have just outlined the formula that has virtually destroyed radio and television as an entertainment and news entity.

Major corporations that own broadcasting operations could care less about personnel. It's all profit. Yet they fail to understand that getting rid of veteran talent and replacing them with substandard employees who are willing to work for less money only contributes to the loss of viewers and listeners.
Click to expand...

What really destroyed radio and TV are the accelerated advances in technologies combined with the zeal to get bigger and buy more radio and TV stations at inflated prices at unsustainable multiples. It turned out to be the perfect storm of bad timing, bad decision-making and bad economics. As a result, the people on camera and behind the microphone, like those mentioned in this thread, along with technicians and producers, suffered most. Gannett last week cut 2 thousand employees nationally, primarily in print media. Unfortunately, more cuts are likely to come in their electronic media division.

There will be a shake-out however, perhaps later this year or next, when companies go bankrupt or fire-sale their properties to highest bidders and the worm begins to turn as the situation improves. Slowly.

The problem with this prediction is there are very few banks and investment companies that are lining up to lend money to prospective buyers at this time. This might change, but banks know full well that media, particularly radio and television, are a mess and a shakey proposition these days. I recently talked to an investiment-type who's on the sidelines (on the prowl, perhaps), but there's no rush to jump in unless the price is very right and favorable financing is available. The cash flow multiples will have to come down to the 5-6 (if not 4) times cash flow range for investors to become interested.

Regent bought into Buffalo at $125 million, which is approximately $31 million for each of the four FM stations in the former CBS cluster, plus pocket change for WECK, which it spun off to Culver Communications for $1.3 million.

Entercom paid far less when they took over the entire Sinclair Radio division around 2000.

Let's presume Citadel's Buffalo cluster, three FM's and two AM's, sells for $80 million. The buyer might be $45 million ahead of Regent and even with Entercom. Some speculate the prices might even be lower. Imagine the leverage that difference might present? Companies, even ones that are nearly insolvent, insist that they'll never sell at multiples of 5 or 6. Wanna bet? Half a loaf is better than none at all and lenders and shareholder blocks will dictate what CEOs will eventually do... if those CEOs still have a job.

Add inflation to the mix and there may be a run of debt-holders who prefer to "get out now," taking 18 cents on a dollar. Recall the run on Citadel stock the week before it was delisted from the NYSE. Share holder that bought in at $8 were taking 23 cents or less per share. On the other side of the spectrum, buyers, sensing an opportunity might want to "get in now" before the interest rates go up and the value of the dollar drops. It's all speculative. I won't pretend to have the answers. The market runs on emotion as much as it does on hard, factual evidence. The adage goes, "Bears get killed, bulls get killed but pigs get lead to slaughter."

But please keep in mind that no matter what company buys radio properties from the many zombie companies, there always will be debt service to pay; so don't expect the glory days of radio to return. The days of Live 24-7 are over. Sadly. Of course, I'd like to be proven wrong in that prediction.

-9-
 
Much of what "9" says is true, but one thought comes to mind: If stations don't have the debt service sucking up so much profit, competition may force them to strengthen their programming. If their out-of-market VT or syndication is getting killed by local programming, then they'll either go after the guys who are killing them, or try to beat them with other live and local talent.

As far as the TV side is concerned, Buffalo is a medium market. It's a "destination" market for a core of anchors and key reporters who'll likely make a decent living. Everybody else is either on the way up, or on the way out. Some people wait until they get the bullet, some people move on before the bullet gets to them. Most of them aren't making the kind of living that you can raise a family on - unless they have a spouse with a good, stable job. Gee, sounds a lot like radio, huh?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom