-
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
- Status
OldGringo said:
One would almost surmise that you had some empathy with thousands of suddenly unemployed GM workers, when, in fact, you side with the bosses. GM or CC, they all do the same thing for the same reason and it is not to provide affordable reliable automobiles in one instance or quality radio in the other. The bottom line is to provide a good return on the investment of stockholders it is not to provide quality transportation man in the USA with USA workers for the average US citizen (much less the world). The same with CC, so you must pardon mere mortals who, unlike yourself, foolishly believed that if they work in radio and these cuts effect people who work in radio, maybe their jobs might be in jeopardy or who, heaven forbid, actually do empathize with those who are suddenly unemployed. But I hasten to add that this is the economic system we have chosen and those who are out of work can always find employment in some other industry--although I don't know where that might be for former broadcasters in an ever-shrinking job market. But you've got yours and they are SOL.
Gringo;
You said I could choose not to work for Clear Channel... But one time they put the station I worked for out of business with predatory practices, and I took the first available job... with CC.
Then, after 6 years of abuse, mis-treatment, insults and broken promises, they transferred me to a company they had an LSA with. The LSA strictly and explicitly forbade that, but they did it anyway. I quit, and went to work for another company. We were quite successful, until CC came to them and told them they would have to sell, or CC would put them out of business. The stations were sold. I did not choose to work there.
As I applied for other jobs, I became aware of an unstated cap on salaries...About 40% less than what it was before Lester led the fight for consolidation. It's not envy. It's hurt. I hurt. My family hurts. My ability to provide for them is diminished.
As for ball-players and coaches, they are employees, and the owners have to pay them to get the best talent. In broadcasting now, talent doesn't matter. In fact, the best paid are the first fired, under this new paradigm.
A CEO who provides growth and dividends for his stockholders should be rewarded. Anyone who bought CCU in 1999, at 96 $$ a share, was and will not be rewarded. See above post for reasons CCU stock is lower than it should be.
Finally, the employment tax is a tax. It is about 16%. I pay it whether I live to collect SS or not. It pays widows and orphans as well as the disabled. It is not a retirement plan, it is SOCIAL SECURITY.
The capital gains Lester, Red, and all the other corporate insiders will pay is 15%. The employment tax does not apply. Likewise, any dividends paid Lester and the gang is taxed at 15%, with no employment tax deducted.
We're obviously looking out of different windows.
BTW- use your christmas bonus to buy a DPL TV instead of a plasma. They last longer.
You said I could choose not to work for Clear Channel... But one time they put the station I worked for out of business with predatory practices, and I took the first available job... with CC.
Then, after 6 years of abuse, mis-treatment, insults and broken promises, they transferred me to a company they had an LSA with. The LSA strictly and explicitly forbade that, but they did it anyway. I quit, and went to work for another company. We were quite successful, until CC came to them and told them they would have to sell, or CC would put them out of business. The stations were sold. I did not choose to work there.
As I applied for other jobs, I became aware of an unstated cap on salaries...About 40% less than what it was before Lester led the fight for consolidation. It's not envy. It's hurt. I hurt. My family hurts. My ability to provide for them is diminished.
As for ball-players and coaches, they are employees, and the owners have to pay them to get the best talent. In broadcasting now, talent doesn't matter. In fact, the best paid are the first fired, under this new paradigm.
A CEO who provides growth and dividends for his stockholders should be rewarded. Anyone who bought CCU in 1999, at 96 $$ a share, was and will not be rewarded. See above post for reasons CCU stock is lower than it should be.
Finally, the employment tax is a tax. It is about 16%. I pay it whether I live to collect SS or not. It pays widows and orphans as well as the disabled. It is not a retirement plan, it is SOCIAL SECURITY.
The capital gains Lester, Red, and all the other corporate insiders will pay is 15%. The employment tax does not apply. Likewise, any dividends paid Lester and the gang is taxed at 15%, with no employment tax deducted.
We're obviously looking out of different windows.
BTW- use your christmas bonus to buy a DPL TV instead of a plasma. They last longer.
grantchester said:
I have never heard of a station being put out of business due to predatory practices when a monopoly did not exist, and nobody has ever had a radio monopoly in the US. What I have seen is bad stations falling to competiton and new techniques.
The question is why you did this for 6 years without changing, not what they did.
I have never heard or seen of this. At our place, salaries are up each year over all the years since consolidation. You seem to have managed to be int he wrong place all the time.
CEOs are talent. Do you think, maybe, there is some difference between a Jack Welch and some recent MBA grad? You get what you pay for.
We are not just talking radio. All radio stocks hit a high in '02 and '03, and many then crashed. Salem was in the $30's, Emmis above $28, pre-Split Radio One was over $90. Every stock got banged due tot he slowdown in growht and what I call the Viacom Factor, or guilt by association with the whole old media industry sector.
It's an entitlement, because in most cases you get it back in direct relationship to how much you pay in. That is not the dfinition of a tax.
That is because capital gains are not earned income. It has been proven over and over that the economy improves for everyone if there is incentive to invest. Double taxation is not an incentive, since dividends are already taxed as income at the company that pays them. So dividend income is taxed at higher than any other rate. Double taxsation should be eliminated.
The Christmas bonus is a thing of the past. I have not received one for 14 years,a nd then only because they were required by law. DPLs are too deep, and can not hang on a wall. 42" LCD is where it is for me... lighter than Plasma, and hitting the price point soon.
klifhanger said:
There was and is no such plan, as I clearly stated. You are just trying to cover for the fact that you lied about it, saying, in essence, "there was a plan but it got out so they killed it:" Like anybody cares what someone says on these boards...
(Univision was already sold, and does not have to seem attractive to anyone... don't ytou even know that? We are merely waiting for approvals and closing in 90-120 days, per the press reports)
Gringo,
For the story of a station being put out of business by CC predatory business practices, have a chat with Nathan Safir's son, Larry.
When I joined CC, and for a few years after, Lester, Mark, Randy and I were on cordial terms. It was a challenging time, but promises were made if success was achieved. Success was achieved. Promises were not kept. Things got worse and worse, and then I was gone.
You have not been in the room when a GM frankly told me the new lay of the land. I have not seen salaries go up each year. I have seen more and more positions eliminated, and the remaining ones out-sourced, turned into part-time, and in general, paying less.
Some CEO's have talent. Others belong to an old-boy network that allows them to keep coming back into positions of authority, even after they have destroyed the value of the stations and chains they worked for. I'll name names if you wish, but I have a hunch a few are friends of yours. I have paid, I did not get what I paid for.
Social Security is not an "entitlement". It is a social contract we as citizens enter into, so that after rapacious and unchecked capitalism ruins the jobs and fortunes of many of us, we will have a subsistence, and won't have to break into your home and steal your new 42" LCD tv.
When it comes to the top management of Clear Channel, I agree that the riches that are about to rain down on them are un-earned. They were bought and paid for by guys and gals like me, who did their best, in good faith, and were dealt with in a cynical and dishonest manner.
Glad the new TV's are hitting your price point. Fortunately for me, I have a 20 year old Trinitron that still works fine.
btw- You assume a lot when you say I have never run a business or paid an employee. I have a tax-I.D. #... and I recall the employment tax was closer to 17%, once you counted in the T.E.C. tax. And my employer pays half of the FICA/SS etc, no more. I'm beginning to see why KLIF has gotten so exasperated with you.
g
For the story of a station being put out of business by CC predatory business practices, have a chat with Nathan Safir's son, Larry.
When I joined CC, and for a few years after, Lester, Mark, Randy and I were on cordial terms. It was a challenging time, but promises were made if success was achieved. Success was achieved. Promises were not kept. Things got worse and worse, and then I was gone.
You have not been in the room when a GM frankly told me the new lay of the land. I have not seen salaries go up each year. I have seen more and more positions eliminated, and the remaining ones out-sourced, turned into part-time, and in general, paying less.
Some CEO's have talent. Others belong to an old-boy network that allows them to keep coming back into positions of authority, even after they have destroyed the value of the stations and chains they worked for. I'll name names if you wish, but I have a hunch a few are friends of yours. I have paid, I did not get what I paid for.
Social Security is not an "entitlement". It is a social contract we as citizens enter into, so that after rapacious and unchecked capitalism ruins the jobs and fortunes of many of us, we will have a subsistence, and won't have to break into your home and steal your new 42" LCD tv.
When it comes to the top management of Clear Channel, I agree that the riches that are about to rain down on them are un-earned. They were bought and paid for by guys and gals like me, who did their best, in good faith, and were dealt with in a cynical and dishonest manner.
Glad the new TV's are hitting your price point. Fortunately for me, I have a 20 year old Trinitron that still works fine.
btw- You assume a lot when you say I have never run a business or paid an employee. I have a tax-I.D. #... and I recall the employment tax was closer to 17%, once you counted in the T.E.C. tax. And my employer pays half of the FICA/SS etc, no more. I'm beginning to see why KLIF has gotten so exasperated with you.
g
klifhanger said:
No, there was not. Except in your diluded mind, there was none.
You can not put a lie on hold. Your claim is a lie, with no substance.
I'm not in the PR department. I am in programming and audience research.
Paly's biographers were clear that Paley was guilty of non-stop hyperbole. The fact is, multiple sources such as Paley's bios, Broadcasting and Fortune and the Columbia Broadcasting System annual reports and SEC filings all say CBS made money since 1929, and all is public record. You claim to have read something in personal papers that are published nowhere that disagrees with dozens and dozens of public documents. You posted a lie, and have been amply exposed.
(The fact I have an almost complete collection of Fortune does not in any way change the validity of articles published in that magazine... )
As to San Antonio, there is no way that the Census data matches the data you posted. I suspect you mis-read the reports, and I suspect that you took data that represented a percentage of foreign born Hispanics in the SA area and are trying to claim they apply to either the whole metro or all Hispanics, not just the foreign born. By the way, the data actually matches the Bexar county percentage of foreign born Hispanics who are illegal, but not the way you misquoted it.
No, you applied the percentages to all Hispancs, not "foreign born in Bexar County." You misread the data and the scope of the study.
The deal is finalize, The only things that have to happen are the regulatory approvals, which take time. The deal is final, pending regulatory approval.
grantchester said:
Next time I am in McAllen, I will ask him. It will be a first to hear how it is possible for a non-monopolistic company can run another station out of business... unless that other station is under capitalized and poorly run.
I presume you go the promises in writing?
For the last 40-some years, I have been fortunate to either manage or be an executive of growing and successful radio staitons. I have seen salries and benfits increase regularly. I have also seen some areas of staff decrease (like engineering as technology improved) and other increase, like sales and marketing and promotion. All business changes, and the job functins are affected as much or more by technology and the general economy than by internal factors.
Unlikely. I worked most of my life outside the US, and was an owner myself.
An "entitlement" is something where money is paid in with the expectation that it will return in rough proportion. Whether you call it a tax, and most people do, it is not a tax in the conventional sense because the returns on other taxes are very indirect and certainly not proportional to what you pay in.
FICA and Medicare are both shared by the employer and the employee, but if it is self-employment (which I assumed you meant) the self-employer pays more... as in "all."
Klif is simply a liar. He has lied about everything from CBS's profits to the company's I have worked for and now, is even creating a lie about non-existent layoffs at my current plaace of employment. I can't think of anything he has said that IS true, in fact.
Now ya' see, O.G., here we are parsing the definition of social security, when the real issue is, Lester and company made a concerted effort to divert a public resource (radio communications) from its' intended purpose (public service) into a profit center for him and his big-business banker friends. Lives and careers are ruined, and we're niggling over how much the employment tax is. When someone embarks on a campaign to dominate an industry, re-write the rules, and does basic damage to the primary mission of that industry, you can expect people who care to speak out. I did some of the best work of my career for Clear Channel. For that I am grateful. It is tragic how greed and short-sighted goals have ruined radio for so many broadcasters and listeners. That is what this conversation is about. Taking CCU private will shield the management from much of the scrutiny they have suffered through in recent years. That's too bad...
The good news is that a new paradigm will emerge. Lester and his new friends can eat those transmitters, because we're off to newer and better things.
"The Future- Live it, or live with it!"
(-Firesign Theater, "We're all bozos on this bus")
The good news is that a new paradigm will emerge. Lester and his new friends can eat those transmitters, because we're off to newer and better things.
"The Future- Live it, or live with it!"
(-Firesign Theater, "We're all bozos on this bus")
grantchester hits a key point--maybe THE key point--in this whole CC fiasco: "When someone embarks on a campaign to dominate an industry, re-write the rules, and does basic damage to the primary mission of that industry, you can expect people who care to speak out."
They re-wrote the rules.
The first re-write was the anti-trafficking rule that prevented licensees from selling a license for 3 years. That was a big one, because when it was gone, stations could be sold and re-sold like anything else. Radio became Real Estate.
Around the same time (the 80's) lending rules were loosened, allowing "one dollar down, $50 million credit" transactions (remember all those empty shopping centers & office buildings littering the Texas landscape)?
And finally, the ownership caps were first loosened, then (nearly) eliminated. Very loose local caps; no national caps.
While all this was happening, Mays & Hicks were working with "finders" (we thought they were real companies) to gather up 1,200 radio stations-- a tenth of the entire industry--to scoop up when the light turned green. Though it took 3 years to merge it all, the station-gathering was really done in 2 years. Think of it. They purchased 1,200 radio stations in about 520 working days!!!!! It's almost as though they knew something before the rest of us did!
Point is, the rules can now be re-written, again. Reverse them. Re-institute the caps. Re-institute the anti-trafficking rules. Re-establish responsible lending laws.
It's been done before. Standard Oil. AT&T. Break 'em up. Lowry & Tom got their billions. They don't care what we do with radio now.
So, what do you want the industry to look like?
They re-wrote the rules.
The first re-write was the anti-trafficking rule that prevented licensees from selling a license for 3 years. That was a big one, because when it was gone, stations could be sold and re-sold like anything else. Radio became Real Estate.
Around the same time (the 80's) lending rules were loosened, allowing "one dollar down, $50 million credit" transactions (remember all those empty shopping centers & office buildings littering the Texas landscape)?
And finally, the ownership caps were first loosened, then (nearly) eliminated. Very loose local caps; no national caps.
While all this was happening, Mays & Hicks were working with "finders" (we thought they were real companies) to gather up 1,200 radio stations-- a tenth of the entire industry--to scoop up when the light turned green. Though it took 3 years to merge it all, the station-gathering was really done in 2 years. Think of it. They purchased 1,200 radio stations in about 520 working days!!!!! It's almost as though they knew something before the rest of us did!
Point is, the rules can now be re-written, again. Reverse them. Re-institute the caps. Re-institute the anti-trafficking rules. Re-establish responsible lending laws.
It's been done before. Standard Oil. AT&T. Break 'em up. Lowry & Tom got their billions. They don't care what we do with radio now.
So, what do you want the industry to look like?
klifhanger said:
I never laid off anyone named "Annette." People who have been over 20 years with the company do not know who this is, either. I assume you are confusing me with someone else or, simply, making this up.
Again, you may have taken the right percentage in SA but applied it to the wrong universe. You siad studies showed that something around 40% of Hispanics (whether in Bexar County, the OMB metro or the Arbitron metro, I do not know) were illegal, when in fact, that percentage applies only, possibly, with foreign-born Hispanics in Bexar. Since around 75% of the market's Hispanics are born in the US, and thus can not be illegal, it shows that you are looking at the wrong universe. My data is the US Census, Claritas and Arbitron.
You claimed Columbia Broadcasting System lost money through the end of W.W. II. This is untrue, as published annual reports, filings with the regulatory authorities and articles in many magazines show profitability as early as 1929.
And the universities referred to have collections of Paley's papers, but they have not ruled on the accuracy of same. Paley, as his biographers have said, was a master of hyperbole. The shareholder reports are vastly more accurate... including reports on the payment of dividends starting in the mid-30's.
You referred to layoffs "a few months ago" which is untrue. There were none. Then you predicted layoffs this month, which is also untrue. Let's see you wiggle out of this one.
S
SmokeRing
Guest
Don't know if this is the case in radio, but in the newspaper business in the last 20 years, most two-paper towns were reduced to one-paper towns by large conglomerates coming into the markets, buying one of the papers and then undercutting the other's cost for ad space. The conglomerate would operate at a ridiculous loss and would eventually run the other paper out of business. Quite often that "other" paper was kicking the pants off of the conglomerate-owned paper in Pulitzers won and other journalistic awards.
So, David, you don't have to own a pure monopoly to stage an attack on the free market forces of Capitalism.
SmokeRing said:
What you're describing is also not unlike the Wal-Mart business philosophy. It would go into a small town and undercut the smaller mom and pop shops and run them out of business. Wal-Mart could buy in bulk, which the mom and pops could not, and, therefore, sell everything at a better price and get better merchandise. The customers would send all of their business to Wal-Mart instead.
While it was never good to see the enterprising locals get run out of the business, it wasn't all bad either. Those who worked for the mom and pop shops could actually get comparable jobs at Wal-Mart, and those who got in early enough got great benefits the mom and pops could not offer.
I have similar mixed feelings about the Clear Channels and Cumuluses of the radio industry. While I don't see them as all bad, I certainly don't like the overall loss of jobs and some of the nationally branded programming initiatives. I'm also not convinced we have a total "Wal-Martization" of radio. While Clear Channel can definitely use its Prophet System to make cheaper programming sound better, I haven't experienced any real undercutting the competition to run them out of business. Most of the smaller operators I've dealt with are equally good at squeezing every last dime out of the radio operation and are every bit as lean if not moreso. As an example, I worked for a small company a few years ago that had 7 stations in a single market (its only stations and in a small market) and fewer than 21 full-time employees on the programming side.
S
SmokeRing
Guest
Oh, I was off a little in my diagnosis. Yet again you were using a specific example and trying to apply it too broadly. An argumentation fallacy.
I had referred to the game plan of Gannett in the 80's and 90's. A widely known and and widespread abuse of capitalism. What you call the "economics of advertising" was in reality a big company swooping into a market and undercutting the local paper's ad rates--at loss. And unlike similar examples of this practice in other businesses (like book sellers), I don't think a reasonable person can argue the news in our papers has improved as a result. And if the product has gotten worse, as it HAS, then the free market has failed us. But not because the free market isn't the way to go--but because of abuses from Big Business.
Like a gnat, you buzz around the periphery of the main issues, David. And, also like a gnat, you deserve a swipe of hand--not to eliminate a threat, but to eliminate an irritant.
I’m not so sure I agree. Wasn’t it revealed some time ago that the Dallas Morning News had falsely inflated their subscription numbers?
I used to subscribe to the DMN every day from 1990 until about 2003. Nowadays if I read it at all, most likely it’s off of their website. Yet they still keep sending me “Let’s get back together” snail mail.
R
K
klifhanger
Guest
MASTER OF GRAND ILLUSION. Lastily. You're are once again lying in regards to your stats. Census does a poor to NONE job counting "illegals"Why?Because they are illegal. U.T.S.A. and St. Mary's Universities included them and their research was thorough. So you're wrong again,and refuse to admit. Layoff's,Yes they occurred in Lunavison's TV section. Something you disavow knowing about,and state you are only in radi
k thats half-baked. You know layoffs,cuts are planned despite the "glowing profits" of Lunavision. You just deny it because word got it out and you couldn't control it. So a "delay" in that action has been imposed awaiting the "fall out" from the CC announcement. So deny it all you want. Its going to happen soon or the early months of 2007,either way,you are denying and lying about it. The CBS subject. Again you relied on on old periodicals( 70 years old),that you know no one will bother to look up.and due to age wouldn't be able to find. Your "PERSONAL LIBRARY" is hardly a good reference point. I cited the papers at Columbia University,you rejected them. You have a thing against University libraries( obviously),and claim they are flawed becasue they contradict your weak sources of information. <Yawn>You lost the argument Davey,plain and simple. Your ego demands you have the final word,after all "you can't allow someone" to know more than you. I believe you told a poster on the LA board that awhile back. Your denial in the layoff of a single mother stricken with Cancer is a measurement of the coldness you have shown and continue to show employees.
Thanksgiving is tomorrow,and your goose is cooked. Moving on. ad nauseaum.
k thats half-baked. You know layoffs,cuts are planned despite the "glowing profits" of Lunavision. You just deny it because word got it out and you couldn't control it. So a "delay" in that action has been imposed awaiting the "fall out" from the CC announcement. So deny it all you want. Its going to happen soon or the early months of 2007,either way,you are denying and lying about it. The CBS subject. Again you relied on on old periodicals( 70 years old),that you know no one will bother to look up.and due to age wouldn't be able to find. Your "PERSONAL LIBRARY" is hardly a good reference point. I cited the papers at Columbia University,you rejected them. You have a thing against University libraries( obviously),and claim they are flawed becasue they contradict your weak sources of information. <Yawn>You lost the argument Davey,plain and simple. Your ego demands you have the final word,after all "you can't allow someone" to know more than you. I believe you told a poster on the LA board that awhile back. Your denial in the layoff of a single mother stricken with Cancer is a measurement of the coldness you have shown and continue to show employees.Thanksgiving is tomorrow,and your goose is cooked. Moving on. ad nauseaum.
klifhanger said:
All parties believe the Census was amazingly close in counting illegals. One of the reasons was an extensive media campaign on ethnic radio (not just Spanish, but Asian languages, and even staitons with Russian programming...) indicating that the Census did not give data to the INS, and participating helped get each community the services its population deserved.
No random probability sample is the same as a census. There is, therefore, no way the research could be compared to the US Census.
Not in the timeframe you indicate. There was the ending of a TV production division in November of 2005, but that is not the "a few months ago" you constantly refer to. In fact, as I have also mentioned, TV shows end all the time and the staffs are laid off. Or, in case you don't get it, when a movie is filmed, the crew is laid off when the movie is finished. This is the nature of the entertainment industry.
There were no layoffs in the radio division (they are called "divisions" in a company, with a President and separate staff, not "sections")
Something you disavow knowing about,and state you are only in radi
There were no layoffs in 2006, and none "a few months ago" and none on the horizon.
TV and radio and Internet and Records are separate groups, with separate management. All together, there are 4,000 employees. I don't know them all, and nobody does.
You are making this up. Univision has already been sold to new investors, and we just had our best quarter in history.
I happen to have a collection of several thousand "Broadcasting" and nearly all the "Fortune" up to 1970. I also have nearly every Broadcasting Yearbook form 1940 to 1980. The fact that I have them does not man that the data is invalid. In fact, you can get the Fortune I mentioned at nearly any big library, order it in microfiche, etc. There are thousands of viewable copies around the country, and one listed on e-Bay today. Broadcasting magazine in complete collections going back to the 30's is available at UofMaryland, Emory and many, many other places. It was printed on good stock, and copies are available that are nearly "perfect" condition even on e-Bay. In fact, I just in the last month have acquired over 500 copies, which I am going to remove the spine from and duplex scan so they can be put on the internet as PDFs.
I said that the random papers of a know exaggerator, Mr. Paley, are scant reason to dismiss NYSE filings, annual reports (also available at libraries, like UC Berkley), Broadcasting, Fortune and two Paley bios stating that he often played loose with the facts to his own self-agrandizement.
Actual copies of Broadcasting and Fortune are NOT weak sources. They are superior to a person's personal memorabilia, which is all the source you reference is... what you reference is not a study, a research project or a verified data set. It is just the detritus of a person's life, notes and "stuff from thier desk and boxes from their attic" that are preserved at a university without endorsement or verification only because the person is well known.
As I said, I have no idea who you are talking about, and the folks I have asked, to a person, have no idea who the imaginary Annette is. Nor did the fictional Rick Morales work for me or with me, ever.
SmokeRing said:
When you know that only one paper can survive, you have to decide if you want to fight to be that one.
I think we are both actually talking about the same happenings, and you simply have a different political, social and economic outlook than I do. You see this "thinning of the flock" in newpaperland as an indictment of the economic system, and I see it as the weakening of newspapers as a business.
In my perspective, the roots went much further back.
From the April 7, 1958 Broadcasting Magazine, this is an extract of Simon Goldman's remarks regarding a comment in the Christian Science MOnitor criticizing radio news (Si Goldman was one of America's finest small market operators at his WJTN in Jamestown, NY).
"As the number of daily newspapers has tended to decline in this country, the number of radio stations has tended to grow... Today there are 19 states without locally competitive daily newspapers. In these instances, radio is the only competitor to the local daily paper..."
So, the fallout of competitive papers began right after WW II, not in the 60's or 70's. Per my stepbrother, one of they key issues turned out to be color. When papers had to replace older letterpress plants with color offset ones, many could not afford to put the old Goss to pasture and convert to color and offset. So, they remained monochrome or tried to do letterpress color, and eventually lost market share.
Consolidation in radio was the direct effect of the fact that half of American radio staitons were unprofitable going back even into the 60's. Just as newspaper competiton proved untenable as TV took up the news position, radio went through changes that required a different business model.
- Status