It's too bad legacy type stations apparently can't give a sh-t to find ways to keep legacy type talent.
-
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
Local Layoffs at Audacy (and a Resignation), the 2025 Edition
- Thread starter Joey1986
- Start date
I'm sure if the decision were left to the stations (GM, PD, ND), they do and would.
It's not.
There's only so much money. The legacy type listeners keep aging, and their legacy type value to advertisers is declining.
So unless the legacy talent is willing to adjust their pay commensurate with revenue, that leaves only one option.
Right now, that's the pay model that is sometimes offered: You make a percentage of what your show attracts. The union usually doesn't like that model.
Well doesn't News Director Julie Chen still work there? She was under Ken Charles' charge and therefore under Silverman. No word that she's left. They should give it to *her*. She has just about more experience in life and in Radio than Silverman has years on this planet.
Lol. The union has nothing to do with any bonuses or commissions a talent negotiates with a union-covered station. The unions negotiate scale minimums. As with any job in any field, the talent (or in this case, perhaps the talent's agent--most radio talent don't even use them) negotiates over-scale and bonuses with the companies, directly, themselves. Guaranteed that the union would be thrilled for any talent who negotiates a deal over scale.
As I noted a few posts back, Julie Chin is still there. Apparently Audacy's keeping her as News Director, and Dennis Foley as ND at KCBS, and Jen will be PD for both. Julie and Dennis are consummate pros, so this should work, even though it's a lot more responsibility (and probably some travel) for Jen.
Correct. They also can't prevent a company from dropping an employee. All they can do is ensure a company follows the contract.
That is because it exposes the union's inferior value proposition for actual talent that can drive ratings/revenue.
Actual talent that can drive ratings and revenue don't need the union. The problem is they also don't need radio.
The problem in radio now, and the reason for these continuing layoffs, is the salaries are exceeding the revenues.
Yes, correct. Union member for 20+ years. The union doesn't govern HR issues or a company's decision to hire and fire. Any comments implying anything to the contrary reflect a lack of understanding of what SAG-AFTRA's role is. The union, by design, as with most if not all American unions, negotiate for wages and working conditions, and stand for employment rights based on state and fed Labor Law, including negotiating proper severance in the case of a firing without cause. It also provides guidelines by which any talent can earn Health insurance & Pension. Any union member on this board can call their station rep and ask for clarification on the scope of the union's role. But if you're not (and you're not), you cannot.
Anyway, we now return back to regular programming: discussion about Audacy's latest layoffs.
Incorrect. The union's role has nothing to do with this. The union exists in order to negotiate scale contract wages & working conditions, represents & advocates for members to ensure compliance with state & fed labor laws (including processing claims for unpaid wages & penalties), and structures the ability to obtain Health & Pension benefits (because many corporations don't offer these anymore).
The union doesn't have jurisdiction over members based on "ratings;" that is a ridiculous statement. In the case of good ratings, their statement would be, "congratulations. That's an amazing achievement." Because it is. What you are commenting on is corporatized radio's place in the entertainment/news/content space and how the parent companies view a talent's performance, and whether or not the talent can demand or negotiate bonuses. Same is true at a company that, say, makes widgets.
Wow, you flat out tell me I am wrong and then prove my point all in the same post.
With each passing day the union that represents television and radio talent becomes increasingly irrelevant. The only way they survive is with their "closed shop" model. If they actually let talent choose union membership, they would see mass defections and fold up like a tent. And as I said, the most talented will be the first to go.
The simple rule is this in any industry: talented employees don't need the union, but the union cannot survive without them.
FYI, I am a former Teamster, I know of what I speak.
Yet in market after market, station after station, people are choosing to unionize. Employees vote as a station to join the union. Certainly the company doesn't force them to join. Here's one example:
Another Public Radio Group Joins SAG-AFTRA.
Texas Public Radio has become the latest non-commercial media outlet to announce plans to unionize. “We are declaring our intent to unionize under SAG-AFTRA,” a statement from employees read. The
Just last week, WFMT announcers voted to join AFTRA. The point of the union is to be united. It doesn't have the strength to negotiate if employees aren't united.
I agree with this part of your post. Having big names among your members gives the union more power in negotiating contracts. It certainly helps when the union votes for a strike, as happened to AFTRA a few years ago.
If you're a big name talent, you have an agent or lawyer negotiate your own deal, so you don't need the union representation. The way I've seen it handled in contracts is there is an allowance made in the salary to cover any "fees" or "dues." We're obviously talking about a salary that's higher than scale. Nobody I know has ever opposed it. It's as we say "the cost of doing business." It's also tax deductible. My view is that when you are a top talent, you have responsibilities beyond yourself. You know that going in.
Ouch! I was on KROQ during it's early years. I'm not old enough to be this old...
IIRC, the layoffs at the "legacy" (CBS) stations only started to hit after Audacy (nee: Entercom) realized that they had to do something to balance the books after taking on about a billion dollars worth of debt. The CBS stations were (from I recall) cash rich, and more importantly had no debt to service, so while they might not have been squeezing every last dime out of the talent, they didn't always need to. CBS (at least under Dan Mason) was relatively de-centralized. So long as a local market was pulling good numbers, day to day operations were left alone for the most part. It was only when a cluster wasn't hitting targets that "corporate" would pay them a visit.
According to Les Moonves, they were losing money. That's why he wanted to get rid of them. CBS Corporation saddled them with the debt as part of the spinoff plan. Whether they were sold to Entercom, or spun off to their own company, that debt was going to be attached.
As you know, CBS was already firing high paid talent (at KMLE and KOOL) before the sale to Entercom. Those changes may have been made locally, but they happened nonetheless. Regardless, what happened 9 years ago has no relevance now, given the pandemic and the collapse of ad-supported media. Right now, even Spotify is laying off staff.
Radio personality Steve Goddard, KOOL-FM part ways
After an eight-year run, the veteran disc jockey is no longer with KOOL-FM.
www.azcentral.com
Last edited:
In the wake of the 2008 crash, there were lots of layoffs as well. When that started to subside, the staffs were rebuilt to a degree (albeit with lower pay) but the stations (and the company) managed to weather that storm. It's easy to point to the pandemic and say "welp, there's no way we're coming back from that," but arguably the Great Recession was a harder road back than the wake of the pandemic (at least from an economic standpoint aside from the human cost).
Going even farther back, 19 years ago (roughly) the former Clear Channel was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and the running joke in 4th quarter was "it's the holidays again, and time for another round of mass layoffs!"
iHeart managed to weather that, but I'm wondering aloud if the folks in charge at Audacy are going to be able to navigate running the company into Chapter 11 and coming out the other side. It's an old joke, but "will the last person at Audacy please shut the lights off before you leave?" is something that needs some thought.
Side note: Les Moonves was (IIRC) not a fan of Star Trek, and was more than happy to keep running reruns of the old shows. Investing money in a new show was probably not his biggest priority. Now there's a streaming service (Paramount +, formerly CBS All Access) built on a cornerstone of new Star Trek shows (Discovery, Picard, Strange New Worlds, Lower Decks, etc) and has been fairly successful.
Audacy has a whole lot less debt than iHeart. My view is the amount of debt doesn't matter when you're not making money. There are discussions in other threads that there's a deal in the works to merge Audacy & Cumulus. I really don't see who benefits from that. Unless there's a big pile of money somewhere that I can't see. The difference between the companies is the people who ran Audacy are gone.