-
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
CC Seattle
- Thread starter 345palm
- Start date
Bloodbath would be the correct term...
So far the only Seattle casualty to make the press is Josh Sabrowsky... board op/producer on KJR AM.
http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/113290/another-round-of-layoffs-at-clear-channel
So far the only Seattle casualty to make the press is Josh Sabrowsky... board op/producer on KJR AM.
http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/113290/another-round-of-layoffs-at-clear-channel
@345palm - I totally agree. I thought it odd that he would leave on a Thursday as opposed to finishing out the week. I would definitely list him as a victim of the axe. Wow.
Actually it was Mike's own doing that he left.
I spoke with a very close friend of his who no longer works in the market who spoke to Mike back before the summer and Mike told him then that he was leaving KJR at the end of the year and asked that person to keep it quiet which that person did.
The day I saw Mike saying he was leaving I was shocked, reached out to a few people including this person and was told :" Mike told me months ago he was leaving at the end of the year".
I texted Josh on Friday after I had read on All Access that he had been let go, he's doing ok but it's strange, especially the first time it happens to you in the business much like the first format flip you go through.
Josh is a hard working guy, a hell of a Producer, very creative and always comes up with great guest ideas and not the same old guests everyone comes up with on a weekly basis.
I spoke with a very close friend of his who no longer works in the market who spoke to Mike back before the summer and Mike told him then that he was leaving KJR at the end of the year and asked that person to keep it quiet which that person did.
The day I saw Mike saying he was leaving I was shocked, reached out to a few people including this person and was told :" Mike told me months ago he was leaving at the end of the year".
I texted Josh on Friday after I had read on All Access that he had been let go, he's doing ok but it's strange, especially the first time it happens to you in the business much like the first format flip you go through.
Josh is a hard working guy, a hell of a Producer, very creative and always comes up with great guest ideas and not the same old guests everyone comes up with on a weekly basis.
Not that I am cheering for anyone's demise and nor does this have any political connection at all but it sure will be good to see Bain Capital get taken down or at least have to sell off part of CC/some of the stations they own in the coming year.
They have MASSIVE debt service that Wall St. analysts say they are skeptical that Bain will be able to keep their obligations going forward including 1.1 Billion due by 2014 and another 12 Billion due by 2016.
Even with massive layoffs, consolidation and a recent 5 Billion dollar debt. plan the thought persists doubting Bain's ability to repay it.
I understand that Bain NEVER bought CC to be in the radio business but rather as an investment but it sure looks things are going to be accelerated for them to sell.
I sure hope this helps bring back at least SOME local ownership, even if it just begins with smaller markets getting 60% or more of those stations out of CC/Bain hands would be FANTASTIC!
They have MASSIVE debt service that Wall St. analysts say they are skeptical that Bain will be able to keep their obligations going forward including 1.1 Billion due by 2014 and another 12 Billion due by 2016.
Even with massive layoffs, consolidation and a recent 5 Billion dollar debt. plan the thought persists doubting Bain's ability to repay it.
I understand that Bain NEVER bought CC to be in the radio business but rather as an investment but it sure looks things are going to be accelerated for them to sell.
I sure hope this helps bring back at least SOME local ownership, even if it just begins with smaller markets getting 60% or more of those stations out of CC/Bain hands would be FANTASTIC!
GenXRadio, you're a dreamer. There's nothing wrong with that; I won't say I'm not.
But by the time CC and Cumulus get out of the radio biz, it'll already have been ruined beyond repair, and even the most competent owners probably won't be able to survive.
Let's face it: CC was built on debt. I'm surprised they've been able to last this long.
But if local owners ever get the chance again, they'll have the tough task of convincing folks that the medium that's been letting them down for decades is one they can trust again. Alas, that'll be an almost impossible feat. If I had the money I'd try it, even though I'm sure I'd lose my shirt.
But by the time CC and Cumulus get out of the radio biz, it'll already have been ruined beyond repair, and even the most competent owners probably won't be able to survive.
Let's face it: CC was built on debt. I'm surprised they've been able to last this long.
But if local owners ever get the chance again, they'll have the tough task of convincing folks that the medium that's been letting them down for decades is one they can trust again. Alas, that'll be an almost impossible feat. If I had the money I'd try it, even though I'm sure I'd lose my shirt.
Think about it for a moment, Gas obviously has a very good agent... Agent probably has had several discussions with management over the last several months.. Contracts expire... Word was sent via the agent that Gas would not be getting the same deal next time renewell comes up.
CC has a habit of this, they even have a formula. if you're making more than the "correct" percentage of wage for the given ratings and revenue for your shift, you no longer "fit the model." Gas was the second highest paid staffer at KJR.
If ratings or revenue fall short and you are still making "too much" money, you will be ask to take a reduction, or take a walk...
See also The Groz and the T-man for how this works.
So Gas had "the choice..." work cheaper or "look for other creative options"
CC has a habit of this, they even have a formula. if you're making more than the "correct" percentage of wage for the given ratings and revenue for your shift, you no longer "fit the model." Gas was the second highest paid staffer at KJR.
If ratings or revenue fall short and you are still making "too much" money, you will be ask to take a reduction, or take a walk...
See also The Groz and the T-man for how this works.
So Gas had "the choice..." work cheaper or "look for other creative options"
Multiplex, I don't think anything is really as bad as everyone makes it seem. I agree with JJ Hemingway when he says voicetracking is an art and can sound just the same as someone locally. Boy Toy Jessie on Kiss is an example of this. What I do think CC should do is sell off there smaller market stations to smaller owners who may or may not keep the stations local. Having never been to Minot ND, I don't know for sure, but from what I've heard, there are two groups there, CC and someone else. If that other group is satilite feeding there stations, then CC should pull out of that market, but allow the new owners to keep the Premium Choice programming if they so choose. This would mean additional revenue for CC, but at least put a good mark in there bad reputation on these boards. While I think national formats are a good idea, they should be run on small stations like those fed by Dial Global's networks, not on big market stations that compete with locally staffed stations. That is not to say that CC made the wrong move in getting rid of Doormat at night on Kiss, that was actually a smart move.
Yes, voicetracking can be made to sound reasonably good. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing.
Less responsiveness to listeners and the community, no info in case of storm, quake or other emergency.
You can't convince me that people who are maxed out on their duties for multiple stations can consistently be as fresh as equally talented folks dedicated to serving a local audience.
There's one area where we might agree. Lots of voicetracking could sound better than it does.
But here's the problem: it has no soul. And I think listeners can subconsciously tell that it has no soul, even if they can't tell you why or what's wrong.
True, there'll be a few artistic jocks who'll be able to pull it off most of the time.
But then there's the well-known personality I heard on a Portland station two years ago.
Contrived phone bits, lots of liners and pretty phony-sounding chatter about nothing in particular.
It was pathetic. Granted, that guy has done much bigger and better things in this biz than I ever did. So I should have no room to talk.
But good grief, it was a travesty.
For the same reason cited above: no soul. You can get all the mechanics down, but there's nothing like a real jock interacting with a real audience in real time.
It's not sexy; it's supposedly not an efficient use of time or talent.
But my question is: if radio stations can't be bothered to have someone to show up to entertain, why should audiences be bothered to show up and listen?
Less responsiveness to listeners and the community, no info in case of storm, quake or other emergency.
You can't convince me that people who are maxed out on their duties for multiple stations can consistently be as fresh as equally talented folks dedicated to serving a local audience.
There's one area where we might agree. Lots of voicetracking could sound better than it does.
But here's the problem: it has no soul. And I think listeners can subconsciously tell that it has no soul, even if they can't tell you why or what's wrong.
True, there'll be a few artistic jocks who'll be able to pull it off most of the time.
But then there's the well-known personality I heard on a Portland station two years ago.
Contrived phone bits, lots of liners and pretty phony-sounding chatter about nothing in particular.
It was pathetic. Granted, that guy has done much bigger and better things in this biz than I ever did. So I should have no room to talk.
But good grief, it was a travesty.
For the same reason cited above: no soul. You can get all the mechanics down, but there's nothing like a real jock interacting with a real audience in real time.
It's not sexy; it's supposedly not an efficient use of time or talent.
But my question is: if radio stations can't be bothered to have someone to show up to entertain, why should audiences be bothered to show up and listen?
multiplex said:
I compare it to actors on a stage in front of a live audience vs actors making movies.
How can an actor perform without the response from an audience?
Are you saying that movies are a sham? No soul?
multiplex said:
But the station DOES bother to have someone show up. There is someone on the air. Just not in the local studio. To the listener, it's all the same thing. Like watching prime time TV. You go to a network TV affiliate after the late local news, and there's no one there. Just Jay Leno and Jimmy Fallon. Why should viewers bother to show up?
No, and it isn't a good comparison to begin with. The major studios shoot on location, and when they can't, they have lots where they simulate scenes, and plenty of props to set the scene, so actors can "feel" like they're in the scripted situation.
Going by your argument, then, why are many TV situation comedies performed before live audiences?
Because you can't accurately simulate the electricity in the room and the energy exchange between audience and actors.
Is "I Love Lucy" a dud because it wasn't done live? Of course not.
Would it have been better if it had been? I suspect it would, but we'll never know.
TV shows are performed live because there's an undefinable something that makes a show better when there's a real audience there, you're getting feedback, and every moment is for real. Sure, even that can be edited later, but you can't fake immediacy.
Voicetracking doesn't have that. You can psych yourself up all you want, but if you're in Palm Springs, you're not in Buffalo, sharing listeners' concerns and worries.
Even if you are voicetracking from Buffalo itself, you're not connecting with the audience in realtime.
But then again, these days people act as if a Facebook encounter is the same as a heart-to-heart conversation with a friend.
So it shouldn't surprise me that people defend voicetracking.
Finally, this from personal experience. If I'm on the air live, reading ad copy, chances are good that it'll come out the way I want it to.
If I read that same copy in a production room, knowing I can always polish it up and do it over. It may take me ten tries to achieve what I can automatically do well live in one take.
I know that doesn't apply to everyone, that some are better "actors" no matter how they present their info.
I haven't done this, but it might be interesting to ask a stage actor whether he feels that rehearsals and live performances are equal. I think I know what the answer would be.
I know, I know. Voice tracks aren't rehearsals. But they sure aren't live either.
It's been many years since I've heard a really good jock, going wherever his creativity took him from moment to moment.
You can simulate the mechanics, but I've never heard anyone get the same results.
Going by your argument, then, why are many TV situation comedies performed before live audiences?
Because you can't accurately simulate the electricity in the room and the energy exchange between audience and actors.
Is "I Love Lucy" a dud because it wasn't done live? Of course not.
Would it have been better if it had been? I suspect it would, but we'll never know.
TV shows are performed live because there's an undefinable something that makes a show better when there's a real audience there, you're getting feedback, and every moment is for real. Sure, even that can be edited later, but you can't fake immediacy.
Voicetracking doesn't have that. You can psych yourself up all you want, but if you're in Palm Springs, you're not in Buffalo, sharing listeners' concerns and worries.
Even if you are voicetracking from Buffalo itself, you're not connecting with the audience in realtime.
But then again, these days people act as if a Facebook encounter is the same as a heart-to-heart conversation with a friend.
So it shouldn't surprise me that people defend voicetracking.
Finally, this from personal experience. If I'm on the air live, reading ad copy, chances are good that it'll come out the way I want it to.
If I read that same copy in a production room, knowing I can always polish it up and do it over. It may take me ten tries to achieve what I can automatically do well live in one take.
I know that doesn't apply to everyone, that some are better "actors" no matter how they present their info.
I haven't done this, but it might be interesting to ask a stage actor whether he feels that rehearsals and live performances are equal. I think I know what the answer would be.
I know, I know. Voice tracks aren't rehearsals. But they sure aren't live either.
It's been many years since I've heard a really good jock, going wherever his creativity took him from moment to moment.
You can simulate the mechanics, but I've never heard anyone get the same results.
multiplex said:
It's not for the actors. It's for the backgrounds. The cameras. The actors shoot wherever it's cheapest. Toronto, Czech Republic, or a back lot somewhere. But my point was the audience, not the location.
multiplex said:
Yep...some are done that way. But some just use the canned laughter. They also aren't done live or in "real time," put pieced together. I've been to TV tapings, and they do lots of retakes. The audience is asked to react as though it's the first time. But it's not. The whole experience is a sham and a recreation.
So VT would be OK with you if done with an audience. It could also be done in a simulated location. Of course the dramas don't have the audience. So Law & Order is a sham.
multiplex said:
Huh? Have you listened to live & local radio? Most local DJs today don't share the listereners' concerns and worries. They instead talk about themselves.Music shows play songs recorded elsewhere, and their talk between songs isn't about concerns or worries, but rather happy stuff about vacations and time off. Talk shows use national talking points. Very little of what's on the radio, even when it's originated locally, actually deals with local "concerns and worries." It really comes down to traffic and weather, unless there's a major disaster.
The fact is that you get fooled every day by technology. You see TV shows that appear to be shot in one location, but they're actually done somewhere else. You watch comedies that sound like they were done before a live audience, but the laughter and reactions were actually dubbed in later by something called "sweeteneing." TV talk shows that appear to be live, but they're actually taped. Local weather forecasts that sound live, but actually come from Pennsylvania. And it's been going on for 30 years.
What it sounds like to me is you have a stereotype of the way radio should be done, based on your experience of the way it's been done during your lifetime. For you, nothing should change, and things should be done that way forever. But radio was done differently before you were born. We don't do things that way any more, because it was impractical, and because new technologies came along. It wasn't the exact same experience that your parents enjoyed, but it served the exact same purpose. You don't hear live music performed in a studio, but recordings of performances that were fine-tuned by electronical devices so all the imperfections were removed. That's the transition we're going through now. There's nothing wrong with it, and those who do it learn how to adjust. And it's not the same as it used to be, but traveling by car or plane doesn't provide the same connection to the environment that you got from the back of a horse. Things change, and that's just how it is. If everything stayed the same, we wouldn't be communicating on a computer message board.
To compare voicetracking on an automated radio station to the workings of the motion picture industry . . . is like a kid in a backyard tent thinking that his "home" is just as good as the 12-bedroom Victorian up the hill. They both have pillows, no?
The adolescent false-equivalencies that I hear all the time from talk show "talent" and mgt. alike betray the "shallowness is a virtue" attitude that is dragging the radio industry into the dustbin of irrelevance. There's more to it than just Mr. Dickey getting his millions any way he can. But the "art is for sissies" crowd can't seem to appreciate that a radio listener needs "moments" to make them value a station and its programming enough to become a frequent listener. Even if those moments are just the in-between chatter that is worth paying attention to, because it won't be the same old repetitive earwax that you get ten times an hour, ad infinitim. . .
The adolescent false-equivalencies that I hear all the time from talk show "talent" and mgt. alike betray the "shallowness is a virtue" attitude that is dragging the radio industry into the dustbin of irrelevance. There's more to it than just Mr. Dickey getting his millions any way he can. But the "art is for sissies" crowd can't seem to appreciate that a radio listener needs "moments" to make them value a station and its programming enough to become a frequent listener. Even if those moments are just the in-between chatter that is worth paying attention to, because it won't be the same old repetitive earwax that you get ten times an hour, ad infinitim. . .
Goldilocks94941 said:
Actually, forcing radio to operate as though computers were never invented is what's dragging radio into irrelevance. It's not the 60s anymore. At one time, radio was a new technology. Now it's 90 years old. No reason to operate as we did in the 1920s. You want to hear old time radio? Go to a museum. New generations have different expectations from their media, based on their experiences growing up in a digital world. It's up to radio to change and adapt to those new realities.
I no longer care if a show is live or voice-tracked, local or piped-in. Bottom line is very few of them say anything relevant anymore ... almost NONE of them entertain me. Hearing liners promoting the current contest, or billboarding artists coming up, or talking about "Honey Boo-Boo" or "Snookie" is not something I really give a flying damn about. Someone who could utter a line that makes milk come out my nose is what I crave and miss ... and I learned the hard way ... that is now the FASTEST way to get a consultant on the bat-phone ASAP.
Consider how worked up people around the world have become about a couple of radio DJs in Australia. At first, even Prince Charles thought it was cute. Now people want a lynching party. One person's humor is another person's stupidity, and when someone dies, it can lead to dire consequences. It can make a person think twice about when he says when he opens the mic. And in the short run, makes people a lot less willing to take chances on the radio. But to say radio is irrelevant because it's not local ignores one of the biggest stories of the week.
I believe that individual creativity and talent gets diluted and uninspired when, as an example, a morning show has 4-5 people in the CR to push and shove the entertainment part into the listeners head. Rivers etal is the only show that does this with any results and lately I'm kind of wondering about that group.
Some very good points have been brought up here. I really don't care if a show is local or voicetracked, that is if I can't tell the difference. However, I think CC has crossed the line in a few markets. Multiplex, you are right about not interacting with the listeners, although how can Boy Toy Jessie take requests and run the Interactive 8 at 8 the way he does? I don't think I would do anything different if I owned KIIS and KBKS and I needed to make some cuts. However, if I was running national formats on my stations and I wanted to track them to small markets, I would probably sell those stations and tell the new owners that they would be free to use the format as long as they wanted. Then, the station could choose there own immaging and the provider could get additional revenue through the contract.
- Status