• 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

Citadel Doles Out Stock To Execs, CEO Farid Suleman To Get 1.9 Million Shares

I promise, this won't hurt. Follow my finger:

The issue is people like Suleman and Ellis and other operators consistently making the wrong decisions, which adversely affect the lives (and health) of good employees, to say nothing of duping investors, compounded by rewarding themselves richly for their ineptitude.
 
So what?

We all know how the game is played, we're all mature adults, yet for some reason we think we're exempt. The employees got screwed because employees always get screwed. Tell me something new. Shareholders got screwed because they failed to sell when all the writing on the wall was screaming "Sell Sell Sell!!!!" They have their own selfish greed to blame.
 
To those who are singing the same ol' Citadel song (and you know who you are), re-read this snip from TheBigA:

TheBigA said:
So what's the point? Why rant? Get off your butt and make a difference.

Yes I know banks aren't lending. Yes I know it's not going to be easy. But nothing worth doing ever is.

Let me put it another way:
Those who can, do.
Those who can't - rant about it anonymously on a message board.

Why not follow Jim Pastrick's lead for a change and "be Switzerland" - while working to make a REAL difference in our industry?
 
SRP said:
To those who are singing the same ol' Citadel song (and you know who you are), re-read this snip from TheBigA:

TheBigA said:
So what's the point? Why rant? Get off your butt and make a difference.

Yes I know banks aren't lending. Yes I know it's not going to be easy. But nothing worth doing ever is.

Let me put it another way:
Those who can, do.
Those who can't - rant about it anonymously on a message board.

Why not follow Jim Pastrick's lead for a change and "be Switzerland" - while working to make a REAL difference in our industry?
Trust me, it's not that I don't have strong opinions, especially on this particular topic. As an gentlemanly aside, I'm not a fan of the "those who can, do..." bromide. It slights a lot of people in many fields, including radio. There are hundreds (probably thousands) of people, I'm sure, who would like to "do" but because of the state of the business, they simply cannot. In my talk radio days, I once heard that axiom used in reference to teachers. "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach." I suspect it's from Mencken. A newspaper guy. Or Twain... another newspaper guy. Figures. Anyway, the person who spouted it got an earful from me.

Years ago a sports columnist, maybe it was Dick Young, wrote a great column about the "those who can, do; those who can't..." axiom as it related to ball players and managers. He pointed out that some of the greatest managers weren't necessarily the best baseball players, but they knew how the game was played and were great motivators and teachers. As to the anonymous names here, some of the most interesting posts come from guys whose birth certificates most likely don't match their board names. Although Hey Day Begone would make one helluva unique name. Is that Irish, by any chance?
 
JimPastrick said:
There are hundreds (probably thousands) of people, I'm sure, who would like to "do" but because of the state of the business, they simply cannot.

I disagree with this small point. In my view, based on hundreds of unemployed former broadcasters I've spoken with, the issue isn't as much the "state of the business," but rather their unwillingness to compromise on one of several major things: (1) Money, (2) geography, or (3) a particular person they don't want to work for. And so they choose not to work in their prefered field. There are lots of smaller things, like the unwillingness to work at a station with no ratings or leave commercial for non-commercial. One could blame the "state of the business," but it's really an excuse. They could get a job in the business, but they'd either make less money, work in a smaller market, or work for a jerk. Some folks get to a point where they feel they're above compromise. But I know a lot of people who compromised on one or more of the above, and are gainfully employed and very happy. So in a way, those who CAN...do. As in, those who can compromise. Those who can't demand justice, and end up being unhappy, because there is no justice.
 
I guess it's just hard to understand how a management team that has failed so decisively gets so handsomely rewarded, while so many who have performed admirably under increased workloads while taking pay and benefit cuts get no relief. Keep that in mind the next time some suit from corporate tells you "When the company wins, we all win". Hahahaha - that's nearly as good as "We bought you because you're doing so well. We just want to help you get better".
 
SirRoxalot said:
I guess it's just hard to understand how a management team that has failed so decisively gets so handsomely rewarded....

Why is it so hard to understand? Who controls the money?
 
This has been a very interesting thread.

Certainly a sad state of affairs that Fagreed, Lew Dickey and Lee & Bain can inflict so much misery on this industry. They're really nothing new...radio has always had its share of operators who made an art of penny-pinching to line their pockets or fulfill an agenda. It's just that now in the era of consolidation they can do it on a massive scale and people affected by their machinations have fewer alternatives.

I'd like to believe that once credit markets open up...or once some deep-pocketed old-time radio guys (like Larry Wilson's Alpha Broadcasting) feel some stability coming back to the economy, you'll see the sharks get their comeuppance.

Ok call me naive...(insert joke here)...but if live-and-local wins...something the Citadels and Cumuluses of the world aren't willing to invest in...then at least - in theory - the opportunity is there.
 
chas108 said:
I'd like to believe that once credit markets open up...or once some deep-pocketed old-time radio guys (like Larry Wilson's Alpha Broadcasting) feel some stability coming back to the economy, you'll see the sharks get their comeuppance.

The very first thing Larry did when he bought the CBS cluster in Portland was fire on air talent. In fact, the very first thing Wilks did when it bought CBS in Kansas City and Denver was fire talent. I have no reason to feel that this pattern is limited to a handful of companies.
 
TheBigA said:
based on hundreds of unemployed former broadcasters I've spoken with, the issue isn't as much the "state of the business," but rather their unwillingness to compromise on one of several major things:

Just out of curiosity, how have you spoken to hundreds of unemployed former broadcasters? Do you know that many or are you writing a book or article? Are you in the biz...or were you and maybe are still in touch with hundreds of former broadcasters? I know I was in the biz for over 35 years and, aside from what I read on two radio boards, am in touch with at the most a dozen former colleagues.
 
Debaser said:
Just out of curiosity, how have you spoken to hundreds of unemployed former broadcasters?

I know a lot of people from working in about 20 markets and taking part in all the major conventions. My suggestion to everyone is keep in touch with all your former collegues because you never know when you'll be out of work.
 
TheBigA said:
Debaser said:
Just out of curiosity, how have you spoken to hundreds of unemployed former broadcasters?

I know a lot of people from working in about 20 markets and taking part in all the major conventions. My suggestion to everyone is keep in touch with all your former collegues because you never know when you'll be out of work.

"Hundreds", "a lot", whatever. Whatever it takes to make "A" point, whether it's factual or not. :D
 
Jerry left radio to start his newsletter in the 70s. He missed a lot of the pre-consolidation action. In his head, there was radio in the AM era, and then consolidation killed it. That's not a real view of how it was in the 80s and pre-96 90s. Sales has always been a bit of a grind. Not that WKRP is a faithful depiction, but Herb Tarlick was not a happy man. And he was a good example of what radio salesmen were like before consolidation.
 
TheBigA said:
The very first thing Larry did when he bought the CBS cluster in Portland was fire on air talent. In fact, the very first thing Wilks did when it bought CBS in Kansas City and Denver was fire talent. I have no reason to feel that this pattern is limited to a handful of companies.

A, you're absolutely right, but wouldn't you agree modern-day CC/Citadel/Cumulus have raised the practice to an art form? And for no other compelling reason than corporate cost-cutting?

New owners/management coming in and blowing out talent, or more often than not an entire airstaff - format change or not - is in itself old as the hills. Since you brought up WKRP, isn't that how the original show ended...Mama Carlson sold the place and the new owners came in and blew out the airstaff in a format change? Yes there was often cost-cutting involved but wasn't it usually tied to local results, rather than corporate fiat?

The four years I spent working for (former 'GR PD) Larry Anderson at WWVA-WOVK/Wheeling 1989-92 were a time of transition in the industry. When owner Osborn Communications had lost its shirt on a failed joint venture called Fairmont, they began to plunder the two successful properties in the company: Wheeling and 93Q-WNDR/Syracuse. The cost-cutting began in those two markets to attempt to prop up Osborn's other failing properties.

In addition, Osborn had bought a station in Brunswick, GA to upgrade its signal in an attempt to get into the Jacksonville, FL market. When that failed, Brunswick, I'm told, became the nation's first LMA. In two years we went from getting profit-sharing checks to layoffs...entirely because of financial woes at the company's other failing properties.

At least in my experience...it wasn't all sunshine and roses before consolidation and fire and brimstone after. But it did give people pre-disposed to cutting in all the wrong areas a forum to do it on a grand scale. And since many consolidators grossly overpaid for those properties...it only made the situation worse.

And as far as radio salespeople go...Herb Tarlek's still about as faithful a depiction as they come.

The leisure suit's long gone and sexual harassment laws prohibit hitting on the receptionist...but I've only worked with a handful of AE's who wouldn't sell your mother if that's what they needed to do to make budget. Having been production director or a main go-to prod guy for most of my four decades in this business, that's been my experience.

I read Jerry Del Colliano every morning...I believe he'd welcome significant re-regulation of the business. But I don't see it solving anything. What I would like to see is to see an end to move-ins and new licensing of any kind. It sounds mean but I think it's time for the FCC to allow for some significant contraction. If a signal has a history of failure, let the license expire and turn it in for a tax deduction. Our competition now goes far beyond our medium, and far beyond TV and the web. It's cell phones and texting. It's on-demand programming. Only those who can adapt will survive. I know Jerry sometimes sounds like the Apple stockholder that he is, but he makes very good points.
 
chas108 said:
A, you're absolutely right, but wouldn't you agree modern-day CC/Citadel/Cumulus have raised the practice to an art form? And for no other compelling reason than corporate cost-cutting?

If companies whose primary motivation isn't cost-cutting are cutting back on live talent, and re-targeting their staffing, then maybe it isn't all about cost-cutting. MAYBE (and this will be hard for some to accept) it's time to reinvent the role of station airstaff. And I think what Larry is doing at Alpha is an example of what you'll see all around the country because Larry has credibility. That's what I think needs to happen, and I look to existing air personalities to redefine that role. And to their credit, quite a few are.

Over and over I read about cost-cutting, but I am here to tell you that if you provide a service to an employer that is tangible and documentable, you won't be fired. I say that as one who got fired once during a budget crisis. I was determined from that day forward never to allow myself to be put in such a position. And amazingly I haven't been fired again since that day.
 
TheBigA said:
Over and over I read about cost-cutting, but I am here to tell you that if you provide a service to an employer that is tangible and documentable, you won't be fired.

That's simply not true. We've seen it happen locally and nationally. On-air talent has been cut, ratings have dropped, and revenue for the daypart has dropped significantly more than any cost savings resulting from the cut. In many cases, a decision was made at corporate to cut live talent from certain dayparts in certain formats, and appeals from local management fell on deaf ears. Sales people have been cut in spite of having outperformed the market. Programmers have been assigned additional stations, without receiving additional compensation or assistance, replacing programmers who had a winning track record.
 
SirRoxalot said:
That's simply not true. We've seen it happen locally and nationally. On-air talent has been cut, ratings have dropped, and revenue for the daypart has dropped significantly more than any cost savings resulting from the cut.

In almost every case, revenue was dropping before the decision was made to cut talent. And the cuts in talent and sales were made after other staff was let go. But the revenue drop is what led to the staff cuts. Revenue started dropping four or five years ago as the ad sales depression hit radio and other traditional media. But the one thing I've noticed is that even with the drops in revenue, and even with staff cuts in certain day parts, all companies have strived to keep as many of their most profitable talent around. A lot of them also happen to be the highest paid. A station could pay for an entire day of live talent for the salary of one morning team. But they choose to keep the morning team. Why? Because they bring in the money.

THe point of my post though is the talent that remain need to redefine themselves, because the audience expects other things from talent besides front and back announce, or time cues. Some of that has to do with getting out among the audience and becoming more than a disembodied voice.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom