Clear Channel firings

[RickSklar77]

With the massive layoffs swirling around Clear Channel, the company's CEO John Hogan apparently became confused and fired himself. When he realized his mistake several hours later, he re-hired himself at twice his original salary.

 

[dmargalotti]

Nice thought...however, if you actually fired yourself you wouldn't have the power to re-hire yourself would you?

 

[Anyacat]

Clear Channel is divesting itself of dead weight, which is how Clear Channel geniuses look at on-air personalities. They are ready to sell itself for $18 billion and then continue to screw with the music scene in some other way. Before I continue, please understand that I hate Clear Channel and all of the corporate weasels who for the past 10 years have worked so hard to completely destroy radio as we know it. My hatred is implacable and, as all hatreds go, probably unreasonable. I do not care. I hold Clear Channel is the same contempt that they hold their listeners. Having twisted the knife in radio's dying heart, the corporate giant is now set to do the same online. From the New York Daily News: Clear Channel just hired its first "online program director," Zena Burns, for its six New York stations, and that hiring was consistent with Clear Channel CEO John Hogan's recent comment in Inside Radio that the company feels it is essential to shift some of its focus to "new media" areas.

Eventually, all Clear Channel stations will have the same voice tracking and play list because it's cheaper that way and so much more advantageous to the bottom line. There is no hope for change or reprieve. Clear Channel corporate honchos promise a revenue growth in 2007--and they will do it with fewer on-air people and more corporate weasels.

The only thing Clear Channel is interested in is collecting ad revenue. If Lowry's could do that at the point of a gun and get away with it, they would. As it is, they have to pretend that they are in the radio business. Woe to the rest of us.

 

[OldGringo]

Clear Channel is divesting itself of dead weight, which is how Clear Channel geniuses look at on-air personalities.

That is not true. In general, Clear learned that voice tracking was not a viable option in many cases and is doing far less of it that in the few years right after consolidation.

They are ready to sell itself(sic) for $18 billion and then continue to screw with the music scene in some other way.

The reason for selling (or going private) is that wall Street favors new growth. Private equity tends to favor stong cash flow streams. While the stock was worth $30 on wall Street, it appears to be worth $40 to private equity investors. The board of CCU is bound in its fiduciary capacity to get the best value for shareholders possible, and that is how the request for bids came up.

"Screwing with the music scene" is something there is no evidence at all of.

Before I continue, please understand that I hate Clear Channel and all of the corporate weasels who for the past 10 years have worked so hard to completely destroy radio as we know it. My hatred is implacable and, as all hatreds go, probably unreasonable.

We agree on that. It is totally unreasonable.

I do not care. I hold Clear Channel is the same contempt that they hold their listeners. Having twisted the knife in radio's dying heart, the corporate giant is now set to do the same online. From the New York Daily News: Clear Channel just hired its first "online program director," Zena Burns, for its six New York stations, and that hiring was consistent with Clear Channel CEO John Hogan's recent comment in Inside Radio that the company feels it is essential to shift some of its focus to "new media" areas.

Moving into new channels of distribution and taking advantage in other ways of the web is only sensible... it is the way all radio has to move.

Eventually, all Clear Channel stations will have the same voice tracking and play list because it's cheaper that way and so much more advantageous to the bottom line.

Nope. It is to the advantage of CCU for each station to win locally. That is why they have reduced voice tracking, and own two reseasrch companies that do local music and perceptual testing in each market... because CCU has seen that no two markets are exactly alike and each has to have its own program director, music list and local research.

There is no hope for change or reprieve. Clear Channel corporate honchos promise a revenue growth in 2007--and they will do it with fewer on-air people and more corporate weasels.

You are confusing terms. "Revenue growth" is an increase in ad sales, and totally unaffected by the underlying cost structure of producing the product. Profit growth is created by increasing revenues and controlling costs. Cutting on-air staff does not increase revenue.

The only thing Clear Channel is interested in is collecting ad revenue. If Lowry's could do that at the point of a gun and get away with it, they would. As it is, they have to pretend that they are in the radio business. Woe to the rest of us.

The purpose of all companies is to make money.

 

[Anyacat]

Dear OldGringo:
I know you are a staunch ally of consolidation and I admire your loyalty to your masters...no two markets may be alike, but in the dark, it's damn hard to tell one Clear Channel CLone from another...cutting on-air personnel does decrease operating costs, which, lo and behold, has a very beneficial effect on the bottom line...as for the rest, oh hum, I would have been disappointed had you not jumped in to set the record straight for the poor misunderstood Clear Channel

 

[OldGringo]

Dear OldGringo:
I know you are a staunch ally of consolidation and I admire your loyalty to your masters...no two markets may be alike, but in the dark, it's damn hard to tell one Clear Channel CLone from another...cutting on-air personnel does decrease operating costs, which, lo and behold, has a very beneficial effect on the bottom line...as for the rest, oh hum, I would have been disappointed had you not jumped in to set the record straight for the poor misunderstood Clear Channel

Consolidation has many benefits that you are ignoring.

In all size markets, it allows braodcasting companies to compete better with newpapers, TV and cable and emerging technologies. In all cases, it allwos the owners to be able to afford, based on staff size, better benefits packages. And it allows many to offer things like 401-K's that smaller owners could not do. There is often a career path within the same company, which was seldom found pre-consolidation.

Consolidation took radio out of the small business realm and made it possible for compaanies to access the capital markets efficiently. Before, getting any financing or expansion capital was extremely hard.

And consolidation in smaller markets has allowed groups like the Ingstad brothers to create very efficient clusters in smaller markets where they can increase the amount of community service, something Docket 80-90 almost killed in many locations by overpopulating the dial.

I had experience with consolidation far before anyone in the US... in 1965 I owned two AMs in the same market, and in a few years had a cluster of 9 in that market. I was able, due to efficiency of operation, to sustain the market's first FM with no revenue for over a year, to add another FM soon after with service to the foreign communities by day and the Classics by night, and even to build stations along the Andean Oil Pipeline before the towns grew... as I had other stations making lots of money to pay the development costs. I think there was a benefit to the community and to radio, as we had the hihgest ad rates and the best pay of any station in the market (700,000 population, 42 radio stations in 1965). The benefits of consolidation also included having the best equipment and technical facilities, paid vacations and other good stuff for the staff.

 

[Anyacat]

Consolidation has been very very good to you and you are wise to pay it court--it has not been good to other people and I do not believe it has been good to radio in general...live long and prosper

 

[Tibbs4]

Oddly enough, I see OldGringo and Anyacats point of views to be totally valid. Con-solidation should have included the trickle
down theory, and in some ways it has benefitted those who work for the big companies. Better/newer equipment, fewer leases/rents/
double/triple expenses. But, somewhere along the way, the cost cutting legal obligation of a US corporation like Clear Channel
ran opposite to the real objective of making massive amounts of sales. They clipped the very product's great taste and sacrificed
quality for mediocrity or worse and consumers have been bolting to other products faster than anyone ever thought possible.
It's like changing the taste of Coca-Cola, Big Macs or Hersey's Kisses. Do it to save a few bucks and people revolt and it cost's
these companies billions.

The crap on the radio that CC is pawning IS ACTUALLY COSTING CC BILLIONS. They are cutting corners, but man, are those
corners really expensive. The real question is what could have CC really become instead of this??? And to have to say this
and have so many people believe it, is a costly and sad mistake that the CEO's and others should be held accountable for.

Hence, that all new state-of-the art expensive equipment of the six station cluster in those swank offices full of nice furniture
and desks full of well-dressed, well paid suits sure have benefitted from the profits of radio stations in the past decade. Thing
is, they could have GOLD PLATED it all if they had paid attention the the real shareholders --- the millions of listeners ---
that they lost forever.

 

[LeChat]

Didn't Lowry Mays once say that he was not in the business of providing news or entertainment but in the business of providing a return on the investment of his stock holders? I think it's fairly clear that he, at least, knows what he's about. He could be selling shoes, but instead he's selling radio stations and time on radio stations. This focus on advertising revenue at the expense of radio is bound to have some negative effect on the listening public, which, if statistics are at all valid, are seeking what they want from other sources. Seems to me, however, that Clear Channel could have done better by the public while improving his bottom line. I guess it depends on what kind of business radio is, or perhaps, how the licensees perceive it. If your focus is solely on the bottom line, then no, one could never expect Mays or any of his executive to be at all interested in how they get there and I think that is bad for the public. But then, I have been informed that as I do not buy advertising time, my thoughts on the subject are worthless. Clear Channel drove people away from radio. It will be interesting to see what they do in other venues.

 

[Lopaka]

How did things go in the airline industry after deregulation? Well you lost routes, service, and pensions for the workers. How did things go in banking after deregulation. Well you the taxpayers got to make up for the $100 billion (estimate) stolen and lost thru incompetent mismanagement. How did things go with deregulation of electricity in California? Well some of the Texas looters behind the scam are finally starting their prison sentences while you read this. Refunds? Don't be silly.

So why, how, could it possibly be a surprise that deregulation of broadcasting has been anything but yet another disaster? There is an actual financial value to the public interest which WAS protected by regulation. And who has swallowed it? The big shots, the intended beneficiaries all along. Under regulation the industry benefitted not only the public but thousands of individual station owners and their thousands of employees. They were not the intended beneficiaries of deregulation; a mere handful of big players were.

Its not just financial. One of the horrible losses has been the degredation of our entire culture. You tell me, is the public better off, is America a better place, with Mozart or Beethoven playing on FM, or somebody shrieking "Take Your Panties Off".

 

[Anyacat]

I'm one of those goofy people who think the public media is important. It's not a matter of music taste, but that our public airwaves, the information we get and the method of how we get it, is increasingly controlled by a company managed by ad salesmen who only care about ad revenue. It is impossible to impart to those who benefit from this system how dangerous it is when a democracy has lost the power to communicate, when news and information is managed. The issue is so much more than the fact that what I want on radio in terms of entertainment is no longer available to me because some 30 year decided I don't buy enough of the right stuff. Increasingly, what we read, what we see and what we hear is determined by a small number of wealthy faceless guys in Texas. That is the root of my anger.