Can Clear Channel Sink Any Lower?

[pocket-radio]

Give me a break. Rush.. He connects with kool-Aid drinking conservative white men, 50+
AM radio is dying in part because it's all Rush and Hannity all the time.

Radio, proved they're are good at finding new ways to cut expenses, doing more with less and distributing cheapened content over multiple channels....

Radio failed to understand it's in the entertainment business. Producing rich compelling content, not found on every iPod like cloned service.

Free music is everyplace today.. A $19.99 mp3 player can handle 1000 songs.. And radio's listeners can hear any 1000 songs they want, when they want..

News, weathers and traffics... Again technology easily provides similar services, found anyplace today..

What's left, what can radio can produce or create that's unique and can't be found anyplace else?

Part of that answer lies in the very people who're being fired..

Radio's leaders are again suffering from shortsighted vision and seemingly forgot they're still in the entertainment business. I can’t make this up…

I can hardly wait to hear what the Kool-Aid drinkers think..


“Radio is finished as we know it. But that doesn't seem to matter to people in radio. They talk a big game... The guys that run radio are these big people and they regard themselves as big people... I laugh because they are big in their own minds." - Cramer

 

[pocket-radio]

Tuesday, the wonderful CC is cutting 1500 people mostly from sales. The sales people left will be given accounts of those AE's who didn't make it. It's a joke, CC pays the lowest commissions and their clones plus the idiots across the street will follow their lead. It's like I'm an idiot and you're an idiot too..

AE's who’re left will be given these great and wonderful accounts, plus their budgets will then be raised even higher. Some might think the sales people will make more money, but it’s more work for less pay. If AE's don't hit budgets, now raised even higher they’ll be paid lowered commissions. It’s a management screw job. Many accounts don't return because it was the relationship that sold them in the first place. Once the relationship goes the accounts are gone too. But the salespeople are stuck with the accounts history that they didn’t create. It's no joke, Clear Channel is just cutting cost to sales and spinning their web of hype and lies. Cutting local talent for national programming is the same.

You bet management will be next. With less sales people who needs all those managers..
And you can double bet Clear Channel’s clones and the idiots across the street will follow their strategy.

I’m an idiot and you’re an idiot too, being an idiot counts for membership.

 

[DaleGriffin]

Give me a break. Rush.. He connects with kool-Aid drinking conservative white men, 50+
AM radio is dying in part because it's all Rush and Hannity all the time.

In most clusters the AM talk station is not the problem. Forget the ideology this is business.

 

[Carmine5]

A good friend of mine who works for a Clear Channel cluster in Ohio confirmed that it will be primarily sales people. According to him, the sales staff where he is make so little in commissions that many work other jobs on the weekends. It's hard to say if the remaining sales force, after the firings, will make more money or just simply work harder for the same money.

However, RBR makes an interesting observation about this. They contend that the firings could be good news for local stations as these stations steal away accounts that are being under-serviced by an over-worked sales force as well as by providing better programming than the one-size-fits-all content Clear Channel stations are offering. They feel that ratings for Clear Channel stations will only suffer with this maneuver.

RBR also mentions that there are rumors that Citadel will be next with mass firings.

http://www.rbr.com/radio/12370.html

C5

 

[TomT]

"RBR makes an interesting observation about this. They contend that the firings could be good news for local stations as these stations steal away accounts that are being under-serviced by an over-worked sales force[...]"

Yep. You don't call on the accounts, you don't make the sale. We don't have to steal the accounts, they willingly surrender to us.

 

[adma]

Give me a break. Rush.. He connects with kool-Aid drinking conservative white men, 50+
AM radio is dying in part because it's all Rush and Hannity all the time.

In most clusters the AM talk station is not the problem. Forget the ideology this is business.

But if that's what it takes to sustain the business, then who on earth would find it attractive?

You might as well be speaking for the movie-house operators who were reduced to the XXX trenchcoated-weirdo circuit in the 70s...

 

[DaleGriffin]

Give me a break. Rush.. He connects with kool-Aid drinking conservative white men, 50+
AM radio is dying in part because it's all Rush and Hannity all the time.

In most clusters the AM talk station is not the problem. Forget the ideology this is business.

But if that's what it takes to sustain the business, then who on earth would find it attractive?

You might as well be speaking for the movie-house operators who were reduced to the XXX trenchcoated-weirdo circuit in the 70s...

This is a business, if there's money to be made there will be money made. The model is not perfect, but were talking about business not our personal tastes.

 

[RonRoberts]

Clear Channel's assertion, today, that their pending cuts are their way of "catching up" with other radio companies who've been down-sizing is complete b.s.

Clear Channel LED the charge the last 10-12 years (since deregulation); first with morning show syndication, then with voice-tracking, and now because voice-tracking into multiple markets doesn't save 'em enough, now they're FTP'ing Seacrest's morning show segments to middays and early PM drive across the country.

Their business model has been a failure from the day the dereg bill was signed; they've continually moved AWAY from relating to the listener and now that they've diluted their product, they find that they have to continue to diminish their station's programming to make ends meet. Ironic?

What programmer in their right mind believes that regurgitated Seacrest bits are more compelling midday and PM drive listening than, say, oh I don't know, pop/top 40 songs and local interaction? Every time a station signs on to this ridiculous notion, you see a re-hashed quote from that statoin's PD talking about 'star power' and how just HAVING Seacrest on the air will draw people... who among us believes people are watching 'American Idol' because Seacrest hosts it? Anyone? Anyone? I. Don't. Think. So.

So we're to think that the typical CHR listener is clamoring, then, to hear Seacrest on the phone or in-studio with Dakota Fanning or Heidi from 'The Hills' while they're at work, rather than working with a pop song on their radio station in the background? Not buying it.

And then there's the "no night jocks" rationale many station owners are going to with their contemporary formats. Right. The younger demo (that more easily embraces new technologies like the mp3 player and the internet) is a throw-away for you, then, I supppose. So when THEY'RE the 18-34 demo, will you just swap your statoins away from CHR, urban and country? Might as well, since you're giving up on 'em early.

No, you think, actually, that just playing music with sweepers and commercials will have 'em tuning in... sounds alot like their iPod, except of course, their iPod doesn't PLAY SPOTS TO 'EM!!! Idiots.

Clear Channel, and others, have been doing this, all the while, over the last 10-12 years, they've been lowering their spot rates to under-cut their competition, which means their competition has to cut rates, and then their competition has had to cut staff payroll, and so on and so on; is it just me, or is it bad business practice to go out and tell your customers that what they've been paying for all this time was worth LESS than what they'd been paying for all along, anyhow? Ridiculous.

When your local stations are nothing more than repeaters for the "regional" mothership-stations, you can look back and thank Clear Channel for the busy signal at local request line.

 

[TheBigA]

Their business model has been a failure from the day the dereg bill was signed

And yet, somehow or other, they have at least one station in the Top 5 of 16 out of the Top 20 markets.

Either the public is really stupid, or CC isn't really a failure. But you can't have the ratings success they've had with terrible programming. Unless people prefer bad programming to other choices in the market.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Success?

Their business model has been a failure from the day the dereg bill was signed

And yet, somehow or other, they have at least one station in the Top 5 of 16 out of the Top 20 markets.

Either the public is really stupid, or CC isn't really a failure. But you can't have the ratings success they've had with terrible programming. Unless people prefer bad programming to other choices in the market.

Most of the time, CC is living on the legacy created by programmers that came long before they overpaid their way into the market. You have to give them credit for going after the top properties most of the time. They've assembled some very powerful groups, and some de facto format monopolies.

In response, other groups overpaid to create competitive clusters so they could battle Clear Channel. Thus began the vicious cycle of cutting "expenses" (i.e. talent), and driving rates down, forcing the other clusters to do the same if they were going to compete for buys. The result? Less revenue, forcing further cuts in "expenses", driving rates down, and forcing other clusters to drop their pants to compete. Wash, rinse, repeat.

The result? NOBODY wins - shareholders, talent, staff, or listeners. Well, almost nobody wins. The guys at corporate win because they pay themselves before they pay anybody else.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: Success?

Most of the time, CC is living on the legacy created by programmers that came long before they overpaid their way into the market. You have to give them credit for going after the top properties most of the time. They've assembled some very powerful groups, and some de facto format monopolies.

There's no such thing as a format monopoly. In fact, CC itself has gone out of its way and challenged other companies who have had format monopolies, like ABC with country in Atlanta, or Jefferson-Pilot with country in San Diego. And it has seen its format monopoly with Soft AC challenged in NY and Chicago. And, by the way, they're still winning.

The fact is that if CC sucks, they should not be getting the ratings they're getting, regardless of format, heritage, or signal.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Out of Your Depth

There's no such thing as a format monopoly. In fact, CC itself has gone out of its way and challenged other companies who have had format monopolies...

So which is it? Are there format monopolies or not? You contradict yourself in a single sentence.

It's amazing how you can discount "format, heritage, and signal". It indicates your depth of understanding of radio programming.

How about the rest of the post - about how CC has "competed" by cutting, cutting, cutting. Yes, other groups have followed suit, to the detriment of radio as a whole as shown by declining TSL and revenue. What they've been cutting is their own corporate throats.

Keep dishing out the Kool Aid. The faster CC, Citadel, and others destroy themselves, the sooner radio may have a chance to compete against other emerging media.

I personally hope that CC does choose Inauguration Day to make the moves that they've already planned. It won't go unnoticed by the Obama people. They've certainly shown an awareness of the electronic media, and a certain zeal for responding to perceived slights.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: Out of Your Depth

So which is it? Are there format monopolies or not? You contradict yourself in a single sentence.

It's rare that the marketplace allows a format monopoly to last unchallenged. That was the point I made. There is no point in allowing any one radio station to have a ten share or better in a format. You're better off trying to split that ten than trying for 100% of a 4 share.

It's amazing how you can discount "format, heritage, and signal". It indicates your depth of understanding of radio programming.

It indicates that I've seen stations with huge heritage, dial position, and signal squander it all because its people got lazy. And I've seen stations with crappy signals and no money go from worst to first in a single book.

As I said, if CC stations were so awful, they would not remain at the top of the ratings after 10 years of ownership.

How about the rest of the post - about how CC has "competed" by cutting, cutting, cutting.

I personally know some top CC air talent in several markets who are making huge salaries, the largest amount of money they've seen in their careers, six and seven figure salaries, and they will not be part of any budget cuts. These are well known DJs who own their markets, and work hard even though they're already legends. Yes, the company CAN be very cheap about some things. But they know good talent, and they pay them very well.

They've certainly shown an awareness of the electronic media, and a certain zeal for responding to perceived slights.

Obama is a big fan of Lincoln, who said, "I have no malice nor hatred in my soul." He doesn't take "perceived slights" personally. He's bigger than that.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Re: Out of Your Depth

It's rare that the marketplace allows a format monopoly to last unchallenged. That was the point I made. There is no point in allowing any one radio station to have a ten share or better in a format. You're better off trying to split that ten than trying for 100% of a 4 share.

You were talking about Top 20 markets. There ARE no 10 shares. In markets where there are 10 shares, a successful challenger would be thrilled with a 4 share if that meant the other guy dropped to a 6.

It indicates that I've seen stations with huge heritage, dial position, and signal squander it all because its people got lazy. And I've seen stations with crappy signals and no money go from worst to first in a single book.

Do tell. Got any examples that you'd like to cite? There are far more cases where Clear Channel - and others - squandered huge heritage, dial position, and signal advantages by cutting programming and sales talent. They have a number of stations that are a shadow of their former selves, and earn considerably less money than they did 10 years ago - and that happened long before the current economic downturn.

I personally know some top CC air talent in several markets who are making huge salaries, the largest amount of money they've seen in their careers, six and seven figure salaries, and they will not be part of any budget cuts. These are well known DJs who own their markets, and work hard even though they're already legends. Yes, the company CAN be very cheap about some things. But they know good talent, and they pay them very well.

I'd be willing to bet that CC's talent budget is MUCH smaller than it was 10 years ago. There are a few people that get paid very well. There are MANY more people who are unemployed, or whose pay is the same or LESS than it was 10 years ago.

Obama is a big fan of Lincoln, who said, "I have no malice nor hatred in my soul." He doesn't take "perceived slights" personally. He's bigger than that.

Obama will be busy with far more important issues, but there are other people in his administration that will be paying attention.

 

[davideduardo]

Their business model has been a failure from the day the dereg bill was signed; they've continually moved AWAY from relating to the listener and now that they've diluted their product, they find that they have to continue to diminish their station's programming to make ends meet. Ironic?

No, not ironic. Just untrue. Clear has, if anything, more solid market positions in most places than the sum-of-the-parts pre-consolidation or just after it.

What programmer in their right mind believes that regurgitated Seacrest bits are more compelling midday and PM drive listening than, say, oh I don't know, pop/top 40 songs and local interaction?

I would say so. Seacrest has talent, within the pop and CHR format, and huge name recognition and equity with his audience. He is a magnet, and most effective in drawing cume in this cume-important PPM era.

Every time a station signs on to this ridiculous notion, you see a re-hashed quote from that statoin's PD talking about 'star power' and how just HAVING Seacrest on the air will draw people... who among us believes people are watching 'American Idol' because Seacrest hosts it? Anyone? Anyone? I. Don't. Think. So.

You totally miss the point... Seacrest came from radio, and was hugely successful in Atlanta, and then PMs at Star in LA. He's a good radio person who has, whatever you think, star power.

So we're to think that the typical CHR listener is clamoring, then, to hear Seacrest on the phone or in-studio with Dakota Fanning or Heidi from 'The Hills' while they're at work, rather than working with a pop song on their radio station in the background? Not buying it.

Since his and most CHR's target demo is 18-34 women, perhaps you don't get this, either. Yes, the listeners love Tinseltown tidbits from Ryan, and they like listening to stars, just like they like watching Oprah.

Clear Channel, and others, have been doing this, all the while, over the last 10-12 years, they've been lowering their spot rates to under-cut their competition, which means their competition has to cut rates, and then their competition has had to cut staff payroll, and so on and so on; is it just me, or is it bad business practice to go out and tell your customers that what they've been paying for all this time was worth LESS than what they'd been paying for all along, anyhow? Ridiculous.

And similarly untrue. When you have two CC stations billing about $60 million in LA ('07 of course) and nearly as much in NY with Lite, and being three of the five top billers in the US, they are not cutting rates.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Out of Your Depth

with crappy signals and no money go from worst to first in a single book.

Do tell. Got any examples that you'd like to cite? There are far more cases where Clear Channel - and others - squandered huge heritage, dial position, and signal advantages by cutting programming and sales talent. They have a number of stations that are a shadow of their former selves, and earn considerably less money than they did 10 years ago - and that happened long before the current economic downturn.[/quote]

Perfect, if not the classic example... WRBQ in Tampa, against, well, Randy Michaels. Did all the wrong things, and went from double the billing of the next closest station to an also ran in a year.

And the Clear Channel station revenues and earnings, through, let's say, 2007, are way up. Example: KFI in LA, which was around $20 million before Clear and in '07 was over $50 million.

Like any company, they have some down markets or stations, but the gainers far exceed the losers. You can find the 10k and 14k reports from '96 to '07 online and they show this growth in revenues.

 

[KyDXIn]

I remember when the Clear Channel folks bought one of the stations that I had worked for. It was an AM/FM combo with a long history of news and local involvement. The first thing that they did was fire anyone on the staff who had been there for more than a year or so. The second thing was remove the 50 or so years of awards and citations for service from the walls and throw them in the dumpster. It was obvious to me then that they were just buying sticks, not stations.

That is so sad. If you can't compete with the past, then ignore the past! Way to go CC!

 

[adma]

Give me a break. Rush.. He connects with kool-Aid drinking conservative white men, 50+
AM radio is dying in part because it's all Rush and Hannity all the time.

In most clusters the AM talk station is not the problem. Forget the ideology this is business.

But if that's what it takes to sustain the business, then who on earth would find it attractive?

You might as well be speaking for the movie-house operators who were reduced to the XXX trenchcoated-weirdo circuit in the 70s...

This is a business, if there's money to be made there will be money made. The model is not perfect, but were talking about business not our personal tastes.

But again, who on earth would find it attractive? And other than the fact that you're entrenched and making money, why do *you* find it attractive?

It just makes *you* look, er, not attractive, by association...

 

[Carmine5]

Well, as it turns out, it isn't just sales people that CC fired today (1/20). They've let go production, programming and air staff as well. My friend in Ohio was one of the ones cut.

Congratulations to Clear Channel! They have now whittled it down to a staff of 18 running seven radio stations, or about 2.5 persons per station.

C5

 

[RonRoberts]

Their business model has been a failure from the day the dereg bill was signed

And yet, somehow or other, they have at least one station in the Top 5 of 16 out of the Top 20 markets.

Either the public is really stupid, or CC isn't really a failure. But you can't have the ratings success they've had with terrible programming. Unless people prefer bad programming to other choices in the market.

Care to compare that to where the stations they now owned were BEFORE consolidation? Dig that up and let's compare.

Oh, and let's account for the degradation in radio-listening, period, as well, okay?