Can somebody please explain to me why there is such bitterness toward clearchannel? Seems to be a general theme on the message boards. Are these posts generally from former employees? I'm curious as to the number of folks on this thread that aren't former employees. It seems the jabs are emotionally charged and hardly objective at all. I guess I'm surprised by the criticisim that clear channel is trying to make a profit. Yeah, and... ?
-
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
Clear Channel bloody Thursday
- Thread starter olebud
- Start date
Of the C's: Cox, Cumulus / Citadel, CBS, and Clear Channel, CC has laid off the most people. They have been financially gutted by by the GOP's mostly candidate's former employer and have a huge debt which they feel can paid down by cutting staff instead of growing their properties.* CBS and Cox looks on the employees as an asset. Clear Channel views employees as an expense on a balance sheet, that must be eliminated.
* CC is simi private and not all that transparent with financial statements (which is legal). But there is a well documented debt "time bomb" coming. At that time they will not have enough employees left to fire to make the payment. Save your money, there might be a national "fire sale" of good radio properties in the next couple of years.
* CC is simi private and not all that transparent with financial statements (which is legal). But there is a well documented debt "time bomb" coming. At that time they will not have enough employees left to fire to make the payment. Save your money, there might be a national "fire sale" of good radio properties in the next couple of years.
Tarpon123 said:
Many of us who have not worked for the Cs were participants in music radio's glory days when stations weren't owned by megaconglomerate corporations. Those of us who fall in that category are basically anti-corporate ownership of what is supposed to be a community service medium for the people. Our dislike is normally directed at the concept, rather than at a particular company. And believe me, if you weren't around in those days, there's a huge difference between then and now.
firepoint525 said:After the recent storms in March, I turned to radio. Weather radio. Sure beats all those EAS interruptions on radio stations affecting counties well outside a given station's coverage area. :techguy1975 said:Interrupting Hippie Radio for watches in Giles County? Gimme a break! :
That 30-40 year figure that you gave would probably cover my generation.
Most stations are good about programming their EAS boxes to not do that...I too tune to my weather radio whenever there is bad weather in the area, but that is more because I'm a weather geek. One of these days I'd love to go storm chasing, but I'm getting day off topic here
Furniture Light and Gallery Sorry...I knew that wasn't right..it's "Hermitage Lighting Gallery" --anyway, I can't stand it when they go directly into a commercial after a song plays.
Tarpon123 said:
I've worked for both Cumulus and Clear Channel and while I don't hold any personal grudges with either, I don't approve of the way they (corporate) run their markets and stations within them. That's not a slight against anyone that I worked with because it isn't their fault. When Clear Channel started buying up stations in markets like Somerset, KY, I knew then and there that locally programmed radio was dying. They had no financial business buying stations in a 'market' like Somerset. This is just one example mind you. But like I said, I don't harbour ill feelings toward them or the other companies at all. I just don't like the cookie-cutter way they tend to manage some top markets. I'll leave you with a thought. Should people in Louisville (a smaller market than Nashville) realistically be doing the news for Nashville, Memphis, and the state of Tennessee via the TRN?
Preach it, Brother!jetfli said:
Tarpon123 said:
Tarpon123:
This song says it all:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=697195&songID=11549768&showPlayer=true
It came off the Cincinnati board.
Objective view toward Clear Channel. Anyone out there that has one?
The objective view is that with all the big companies running radio in Nashville, which one chose to wipe out its entire air staff and replace them with Jack? Even thought, at the time, the station was doing well in the ratings? Was it the big mega corporation in Texas, or the family-owned regional?
The reality is nothing is the same as it once was. There were some huge sociological and technical changes in the personal media environment that came along at the same time as radio consolidation. Music was changing, technology was changing, devices were changing, the way we consume music and media was changing, and the diversified companies that once owned radio, like National Life or Life & Casualty, were getting out forever, to be replaced by radio-only companies. You can't just look at one part of the change and blame that one thing without taking into account the bigger picture. And when you do, you discover that had Clear Channel remained the small company it was in 1992, radio could not continue to operate the way it had previously. And the scientific way to prove that is to look at stations that weren't sold to mega-companies, and see how they're run today.
The idea that radio was supposed to be a "community service medium" is complete mythology when you study the invention and development of radio in the 20th century. Marconi wanted to make money. Westinghouse wanted to make money. RCA wanted to make money by selling radios. National Life wanted to sell more insurance. That's the foundation of the original radio boom. If the purpose of radio was to be a community service medium, the government would not have turned over its operation to privately owned for-profit companies. Screaming DJs and popular music didn't make radio a community service medium. It did the complete opposite. It got so bad in the 1960s that the government created public broadcasting, a government financed system, to do what the commercial stations refused to do, and actually service the public without the pressure of ratings and advertisers. And now consolidation is hitting the non-profits.
The reality is nothing is the same as it once was. There were some huge sociological and technical changes in the personal media environment that came along at the same time as radio consolidation. Music was changing, technology was changing, devices were changing, the way we consume music and media was changing, and the diversified companies that once owned radio, like National Life or Life & Casualty, were getting out forever, to be replaced by radio-only companies. You can't just look at one part of the change and blame that one thing without taking into account the bigger picture. And when you do, you discover that had Clear Channel remained the small company it was in 1992, radio could not continue to operate the way it had previously. And the scientific way to prove that is to look at stations that weren't sold to mega-companies, and see how they're run today.
The idea that radio was supposed to be a "community service medium" is complete mythology when you study the invention and development of radio in the 20th century. Marconi wanted to make money. Westinghouse wanted to make money. RCA wanted to make money by selling radios. National Life wanted to sell more insurance. That's the foundation of the original radio boom. If the purpose of radio was to be a community service medium, the government would not have turned over its operation to privately owned for-profit companies. Screaming DJs and popular music didn't make radio a community service medium. It did the complete opposite. It got so bad in the 1960s that the government created public broadcasting, a government financed system, to do what the commercial stations refused to do, and actually service the public without the pressure of ratings and advertisers. And now consolidation is hitting the non-profits.
I have never worked for CC. They did buy some stations that I use to work at but that is another thread.
I will give CC credit for doing a better job than Citadel's purchase of the ABC radio part of Disney.
CC is the poster child for "corporate radio". A large number Corporate Radio's managers have never:
sold the first commercial to a "tight wad" client,
tried to read poorly written and often miss-spelled copy live on the air,
up at 4AM trying to get a lightning damaged transmitter back on the air before Morning Drive.
A very large number of posters on this site have done one of the above or more.
Sometimes the truth does not seem objective, to an outsider.
I will give CC credit for doing a better job than Citadel's purchase of the ABC radio part of Disney.
CC is the poster child for "corporate radio". A large number Corporate Radio's managers have never:
sold the first commercial to a "tight wad" client,
tried to read poorly written and often miss-spelled copy live on the air,
up at 4AM trying to get a lightning damaged transmitter back on the air before Morning Drive.
A very large number of posters on this site have done one of the above or more.
Sometimes the truth does not seem objective, to an outsider.
Long-time listener, first-time caller...
I agree with Big A's response, for the most part. Not that anything he said was wrong. And I don't have a problem with a company making money. But I do have a problem with any company (all of the big ones have done it and are still doing it) that borrows more money that it can possibly pay back (and shame on the banks for loaning it out), then lays off its staff - lots of veterans and hard-working employees who gave their lives to do what they loved and made each station great - to run on a skeleton crew with everyone except management wearing multiple hats, only to get downsized again, just so Corporate can pay back their loan while continuing to make record profits and bonuses.
There are mutliple problems with the ecomony/the world. But the biggest problem is greed. Be responsible. Make educated decisions. Life is not about how we can make the most money, even though that seems to be Corporate America's motto. How can we remain a team when there is no one left in the dugout? And kudos to Watt for quoting scripture, although Proverbs 27:23-24 might be equally suited.
I agree with Big A's response, for the most part. Not that anything he said was wrong. And I don't have a problem with a company making money. But I do have a problem with any company (all of the big ones have done it and are still doing it) that borrows more money that it can possibly pay back (and shame on the banks for loaning it out), then lays off its staff - lots of veterans and hard-working employees who gave their lives to do what they loved and made each station great - to run on a skeleton crew with everyone except management wearing multiple hats, only to get downsized again, just so Corporate can pay back their loan while continuing to make record profits and bonuses.
There are mutliple problems with the ecomony/the world. But the biggest problem is greed. Be responsible. Make educated decisions. Life is not about how we can make the most money, even though that seems to be Corporate America's motto. How can we remain a team when there is no one left in the dugout? And kudos to Watt for quoting scripture, although Proverbs 27:23-24 might be equally suited.
70SaturdayNight said:
I have no evidence that they're using money from laid off employees to pay back their loan. If anything, it appears that they keep on postponing the moment of doom every few years. They are like the credit card user who pays the minimum balance every month. As for the profits and bonuses, they don't appear to be "record." For this industry, they are average. And they continue to hire and promote from within. So for those who remain with the company, it seems to be a fine place to work. I know a few who've gone back several times.
70SaturdayNight said:
Well it's not just corporate America. It's pretty much everyone, from the guy mowing the lawn to the morning team. They all are looking for increases every few years, and that money has to come from somewhere. I know one station where every time a press release went out announcing the morning team had been re-signed for 3 more years, another staffer walked the plank. The dearly-departed's money was handed over to the morning crew. It happened several times.
Regarding CC management, I thought it was very interesting that they basically forced Bob Pittman to buy stock with his own money before they took him seriously. That hasn't happened anywhere I know. Farid got paid the bulk of his salary in stock, but he didn't have to buy it on the open market. Stock grants are common. Actual stock purchases using private money are rare. I'd like to see it more often. It would make me more confident in management if their own personal fortune was at risk.
TheBigA said:
I have the evidence. But I've already said too much.
- Status