• 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

Howard Stern: How The Mighty Has Fallen

naughtytalker said:
Who's banking $500,000,000 dollars... you?

And not Howard Stern either: he's banked lots and lots of money but not $500 million from Sirius. The $100 million a year is to pay him, his staff, studio cost and things like taxes. As part of his compensation package got what was at one time $225 million in Sirius stock and he sold a lot of that early on when Sirius stock had not dropped too far from the $6+ price it had on the day Stern started - but that sale was most likely to pay the $93.7 million he owed in taxes for the stock he was given. According to this article http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/05/news/newsmakers/stern/index.htm the $225 million+ in stock was part of his $500 million contract and because Sirius met some growth goals during the hoopla leading up to Stern's move to satellite, it really was a $600 million contract based on stock values at the time. Howard in Jan. 2007 got another stock grant that was worth about $83 million at the time. Now the question is: how much stock does he still have? It is known that he sold 17 million shares back when the stock was worth maybe $5 or more a share and in January 2007 he still had 39 million shares shares: back then they would have been worth $144,690,000: today they are worth $10,530,000. Now remember he started out with $255 million in stock, got another grant of stock that was worth $83 million at the time it was issued, sold perhaps $100 million to pay taxes and now has "only" just over $10 million in stock, unless he sold some more before it crashed so hard. One source has said the $83 million stock grant pushed Stern's five year deal to $700 million, but if he has held on to most of his stock, then it may be the total package is less than $500 million: not chump change, but after expenses and taxes Howard is not going to keep most of it and no doubt when the contract is over it will not be renewed: if indeed Sirius survives that long. Howard should still be quite rich the rest of his life without ever having to work again, but this an ego-driven man and the money he does have probably does not compensate for his loss of stature in the entertainment world since going to Sirius. He should consider himself lucky that the SEC did not go after him for "pump and dump" after he rang the opening bell at NASDAQ, declared that Sirius stock was undervalued by half, and then soon after showed his lack of confidence in Sirius's future by getting permission to sell all 34 million shares he owned at the time (he did not sell all, but did seek permission to do so).

I'm not a big fan of radio shows that get their kicks from having naked women on an aural medium, but Howard is a talented guy and 99.99 percent of the so-called shock jocks who think they emulate him haven't a clue. But, much of Howard's act was the conflict with "the man" and once he eliminated that, most of the outside world stopped being the least bit interested in Howard and now it's just him and his small group of diehard listeners on Sirius, with no rules to break.
 
I dont think the title of this thread is very fair. The LA Times article was obviously written with an agenda. Stern is still one of the best interviewers out there. He gets a guest and asks the questions that other talk show hosts dont have the b***s to ask. I think the bigger problem is the health of Sirius XM. The merger was supposed to save it but the general state of the stock market and the economy has taken it down along with too many others. I wonder if the studios, equipment and satellites are now worth more than the stock.
 
Stern will be back on radio before the end of 2009.

Apparently non of you have noticed that satellite radio is doomed.... never made any money, and is unlikely to be able to make the huge payments due next year. The merger didn't help, in part because the huge slump in the auto sector means way fewer new "subscribers" (I use quotes because I don't think that folks who get a free subscription with their new car should really count, and the re-up rate backs me up).

But the real reason satellite is doomed is that it cost way too much money to launch a freaking satellite. Duh. Wi-max will be the final nail in the coffin, and is (and always hes been) the real threat to so-called "terrestrial" radio.
 
I been thinking why can't they censor the stern show and offer it in middays, afternoons or evenings. I am sure there would be a good amount of stations wiling to air a censored version especially in pm drive.
 
softmachine said:
DToTheJ said:
The Los Angeles Times has an article on Stern's apparent fall from fame, and decreased audience, since jumping to satellite radio in 2006.

"Where once Stern routinely commanded a parade of Hollywood's hottest stars -- George Clooney, Johnny Depp, Julia Roberts -- today publicists are left to tout studio appearances by the likes of Chevy Chase, Joan Rivers or Hulk Hogan."

Radio-Info's own Tom Taylor is quoted in the article:
"There's a sense talking to the people who know him that he is aware that he's isolated. But he knew this would happen."

Full story:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-stern13-2008oct13,0,7473563.story

Ach, who cares what a newspaper says about emerging media? Aren't they losing readers? Yeap, hence the article about a 'once popular media star'-which has produced a lot of traffic for the LATIMES , I'm sure.

And who would be these "people who know him"? I would love to be a fly on the wall for those discussions.

I happen to think the LA TIMES is a usual newspaper. I wipe my ass with it every morning. :D
 
"I been thinking why can't they censor the stern show and offer it in middays, afternoons or evenings. I am sure there would be a good amount of stations wiling to air a censored version especially in pm drive"

stern's show really isn't so filthy that one can't tweak it a bit and put it on regular radio. i listen everday and i don't hear anything so outrageous that one can't put it on regular radio.

folks are always taking shots at howard. if howard wasn't relevant - then why write an article about howard? slow news day?
 
BossJock1947 said:
softmachine said:
DToTheJ said:
The Los Angeles Times has an article on Stern's apparent fall from fame, and decreased audience, since jumping to satellite radio in 2006.

"Where once Stern routinely commanded a parade of Hollywood's hottest stars -- George Clooney, Johnny Depp, Julia Roberts -- today publicists are left to tout studio appearances by the likes of Chevy Chase, Joan Rivers or Hulk Hogan."

Radio-Info's own Tom Taylor is quoted in the article:
"There's a sense talking to the people who know him that he is aware that he's isolated. But he knew this would happen."

Full story:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-stern13-2008oct13,0,7473563.story

Ach, who cares what a newspaper says about emerging media? Aren't they losing readers? Yeap, hence the article about a 'once popular media star'-which has produced a lot of traffic for the LATIMES , I'm sure.

And who would be these "people who know him"? I would love to be a fly on the wall for those discussions.

I happen to think the LA TIMES is a useful newspaper. I wipe my ass with it every morning. :D
 
BossJock1947 said:
softmachine said:
DToTheJ said:
The Los Angeles Times has an article on Stern's apparent fall from fame, and decreased audience, since jumping to satellite radio in 2006.

"Where once Stern routinely commanded a parade of Hollywood's hottest stars -- George Clooney, Johnny Depp, Julia Roberts -- today publicists are left to tout studio appearances by the likes of Chevy Chase, Joan Rivers or Hulk Hogan."

Radio-Info's own Tom Taylor is quoted in the article:
"There's a sense talking to the people who know him that he is aware that he's isolated. But he knew this would happen."

Full story:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-stern13-2008oct13,0,7473563.story

Ach, who cares what a newspaper says about emerging media? Aren't they losing readers? Yeap, hence the article about a 'once popular media star'-which has produced a lot of traffic for the LATIMES , I'm sure.

And who would be these "people who know him"? I would love to be a fly on the wall for those discussions.

I happen to think the LA TIMES is a useful newspaper. I wipe my ass with it every morning. :D
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom