-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
More On-Air Personnel Changes Forthcoming at WXXI?
- Thread starter The Voice of Reason
- Start date
Lee Rust said:Her name is Hélène Biandudi, and she's a welcome addition to the afternoon programming. Very professional.
So was the gentleman who also applied for the job. Very professional; very knowledgable about the Rochester market; and vastly more experienced on-air than the person hired.
However in the spirit of being a more civil society, I wish Ms. Biandudi the best of luck at her new job.
The EEO practices mandated by the FCC never had much to do with fairness when seen from the point of view of mature caucasian males. Although the original population-based quantitative hiring requirements were abolished some years ago, a general mandate to systematically and diligently seek employee 'diversity' remains.
Many broadcasters still go by the old rules just to play it safe. Stations who depend on the Federal government for any portion of their operating funds might well choose to err on the side of caution when making hiring choices.
Many broadcasters still go by the old rules just to play it safe. Stations who depend on the Federal government for any portion of their operating funds might well choose to err on the side of caution when making hiring choices.
Even VoR should understand the economics of hiring someone who's considerably younger. The cost of retirements is substantial.
SirRoxalot said:Even VoR should understand the economics of hiring someone who's considerably younger. The cost of retirements is substantial.
There is an old saying that "you get what you pay for."
Of course it is more economical to hire a younger person so that that management doesn't have to pay top dollar for someone with more experience. Also take into consideration that at some stations, saving money by hiring less experienced people means there is more money that can be funneled to the salaries of management. Also underpaid people are more likely to move on to higher paying jobs, thus a higher employee turnover rate. Worse thing for radio is a constant turnover of on-air people.
When one reaches a certain age I guess their years of experience and loyalty doesn't matter; it's the bottom line; or in the case of this particular station, how much the CEO can make.
Although the news person hired at WXXI appears to be a seasoned professional, the cold, sobering fact is, "youth will always win." This may be hard to accept for some of the 35+ predominantly white males like me that post here, but it's a fact. Whether intentional or coincidental, programmers and managers look for fresh talent and new blood. Much of that fresh talent and new blood works cheap, but radio and television stations have to cultivate new customers, which is why some TV anchors and reporters might look as young as our nieces and nephews. (Uncle Oskie is always bitching about "those high school kids on the television.") CHR jocks who are 53 aren't cutting edge. By the same token, a 26 year old Classic Rock jock has a few things to prove to the format's mostly 40+ male listeners. Whether it's banking, science, medicine or painting, plumbing and construction, yout' happens. Remember being young and hearing a new jock on your favorite radio station? In most cases it invigorated the listener. Although somehow, hearing new liners on Jack, Bob or Fickle isn't the same.
NPR stations are desperately trying to attract younger listeners, and reach a wider audience. One more old white guy ain't gonna get that job done. And I'm an old white guy.
Nobody in their right mind expected to go to work in radio, and stay in one place long enough to get a gold watch. Maybe that happens in your industry, VoR, but not in broadcasting.
Your snide implication that the hire was motivated by "more money that can be funneled to the salaries of management" reveals your real agenda here. SS,DD, ain't it? I think that we're all aware that you think WXXI is top-heavy with management, and you think that management is overpaid. Ho-hum. Now we'll be back to the circular "I don't support them, but I'm here to complain about them AGAIN" arguement.
Maybe you should submit your resume to the BoD, along with your salary requirements. Maybe you can replace one of those "overpaid" people - or offer them your consulting services for salary negotiations.
Nobody in their right mind expected to go to work in radio, and stay in one place long enough to get a gold watch. Maybe that happens in your industry, VoR, but not in broadcasting.
Your snide implication that the hire was motivated by "more money that can be funneled to the salaries of management" reveals your real agenda here. SS,DD, ain't it? I think that we're all aware that you think WXXI is top-heavy with management, and you think that management is overpaid. Ho-hum. Now we'll be back to the circular "I don't support them, but I'm here to complain about them AGAIN" arguement.
Maybe you should submit your resume to the BoD, along with your salary requirements. Maybe you can replace one of those "overpaid" people - or offer them your consulting services for salary negotiations.
SirRoxalot
"Your snide implication that the hire was motivated by "more money that can be funneled to the salaries of management" reveals your real agenda here. SS,DD, ain't it? I think that we're all aware that you think WXXI is top-heavy with management, and you think that management is overpaid. Ho-hum. Now we'll be back to the circular "I don't support them, but I'm here to complain about them AGAIN" argument. "
I wasn't implying anything. Sources have informed me that while employees have not received raises for the past few years, that is not the case for top management. Not only have they received raises but some also got bonuses as well.
It's also common practice in the business world that if management can save a few bucks by hiring new people for less money than the ones being replaced, or have moved on to other careers, then some of that "saved money" goes into the pockets of management as a bonus. Case in point the early retirement incentives offered to several employees last year where in return the CEO received a huge bonus from the Board of Directors.
Sorry if the truth bothers you, but it's out there. Unfortunately certain people either don't want to believe it, or would rather bury their heads in the sand and pretend it will go away.
"Your snide implication that the hire was motivated by "more money that can be funneled to the salaries of management" reveals your real agenda here. SS,DD, ain't it? I think that we're all aware that you think WXXI is top-heavy with management, and you think that management is overpaid. Ho-hum. Now we'll be back to the circular "I don't support them, but I'm here to complain about them AGAIN" argument. "
I wasn't implying anything. Sources have informed me that while employees have not received raises for the past few years, that is not the case for top management. Not only have they received raises but some also got bonuses as well.
It's also common practice in the business world that if management can save a few bucks by hiring new people for less money than the ones being replaced, or have moved on to other careers, then some of that "saved money" goes into the pockets of management as a bonus. Case in point the early retirement incentives offered to several employees last year where in return the CEO received a huge bonus from the Board of Directors.
Sorry if the truth bothers you, but it's out there. Unfortunately certain people either don't want to believe it, or would rather bury their heads in the sand and pretend it will go away.
There's nobody here dodging the "truth". It seems that most of the people on this board are less concerned with the salary levels of the upper management at WXXI than you are. Public broadcasting is decades removed from the "low budget & volunteer" model of the '70s. It's big business, like most not-for-profits. Raising money ain't an easy job. Being responsible for and running multiple TV and radio stations ain't an easy job - especially as new technologies emerge and rules change at the whim of the FCC. Apparently the current BoD is happy with the current management structure and compensation levels.
Like most of radio, if you don't like the gig, or the compensation, the only answer is to move on. Unfortunately, in radio - and TV, and newspaper, and almost every other "old media" outlet you can think of - there ain't many places to move on to. "Radio news" is becoming an oxymoron. I'd bet that there are news people at WHAM radio making less than the new hire at WXXI.
You obviously have a grudge against Norm Silverstein. So be it. Until you can figure out how to get the BoD to agree with you, your carping on this board is meaningless, and has become a "here you go again" annoyance for many people here.
Like most of radio, if you don't like the gig, or the compensation, the only answer is to move on. Unfortunately, in radio - and TV, and newspaper, and almost every other "old media" outlet you can think of - there ain't many places to move on to. "Radio news" is becoming an oxymoron. I'd bet that there are news people at WHAM radio making less than the new hire at WXXI.
You obviously have a grudge against Norm Silverstein. So be it. Until you can figure out how to get the BoD to agree with you, your carping on this board is meaningless, and has become a "here you go again" annoyance for many people here.
From: SirRoxalot
You obviously have a grudge against Norm Silverstein. So be it. Until you can figure out how to get the BoD to agree with you, your carping on this board is meaningless, and has become a "here you go again" annoyance for many people here.
I have no personal grudge, as you put it, against anyone. I just dislike hypocrisy. Don't get on the airwaves every few months telling a gullible public that the station (be it radio or television) may be forced to cut broadcast or educational programs if not enough money is raised when the same station can afford to fork over a million dollars a year in salaries to a handful of people.
Did you ever ask yourself where does the money come from to pay these top executives? I sure have, and never got an answer.
When I mention that government funding goes to public broadcasting, my God there are some who think that I swore in church. Here we are in an economy that has yet to fully recover from a major recession, and yet the government continues to shell out money to various organizations, like CPB, when the government should actually be cutting back on federal funding for pork barrel projects. You might find this hard to believe but I've always felt that NPR and PBS should be funded by the people who listen and watch. Unfortunately only a small percentage of that audience bothers to donate, and that's not right.
As for the the Board of Directors, they are just getting one side of the story. Perhaps the board should meet with some of the employees at the station in a one-on-one basis and find out what the morale is at the station, they would get a different picture than what is being spoon-fed to them by one individual with an agenda.
On the subject of Radio News being an oxymoron, you are right; except for one thing you have overlooked. People of my generation, who are gainfully employed and have money to spend on products like cars, television sets, are the ones still listening to the radio. This transformation into the world of I-Pods, digital and internet media is designed for the next generation, and they are not interested in listening to "10 in a row right after these (several minutes worth of) commercials." That and the fact they don't have the money my generation does. Instead many pay with credit, which is way we hear about so many foreclosures and bankruptcies.
Radio listenership, like those of television, has been declining for many years thanks in part to corporate greed and deregulation. Remember your history. At one time Henry Ford was the only car maker in America and it was either his way or the highway when it came to the color or type of car to purchase. Then competition came in (General Motors, Chrysler) and suddenly the public had a choice. Hard to have a choice in radio today when the same company owns the majority of all the radio stations in one market isn't it?
The D&C, who lately has been doing a very good job of investigative journalism when it comes to wasteful spending by the local government, refuses to report on the salary structure at a publicly-owned corporation like WXXI. Why is that? Because the editorial board at that newspaper is in bed with public broadcasting. I believe that even a few of these editors have or currently serve on the station's Board of Directors.
Interesting how the public reacted to a former airport director spending $17,000 for cigars. I wonder how the public would react to knowing how much fundraising money goes to pay one person who runs a non-profit organization, along with the numerous perks he receives on a regular basis? I'm not saying pay the CEO $20,000 a year. But someone making over $300k a year certainly doesn't need a station bought, gas eating, SUV every few years. I think that anyone making that kind of money, and wanting to help the station save money in order to continue to provide the public with quality programming would do what the rest of us do; buy our own vehicles with our own money. I can tell you that the CEO of the company I work for makes a lot more than $300,000 a year, but he doesn't have a company vehicle. In fact his car is several years old.
You obviously have a grudge against Norm Silverstein. So be it. Until you can figure out how to get the BoD to agree with you, your carping on this board is meaningless, and has become a "here you go again" annoyance for many people here.
I have no personal grudge, as you put it, against anyone. I just dislike hypocrisy. Don't get on the airwaves every few months telling a gullible public that the station (be it radio or television) may be forced to cut broadcast or educational programs if not enough money is raised when the same station can afford to fork over a million dollars a year in salaries to a handful of people.
Did you ever ask yourself where does the money come from to pay these top executives? I sure have, and never got an answer.
When I mention that government funding goes to public broadcasting, my God there are some who think that I swore in church. Here we are in an economy that has yet to fully recover from a major recession, and yet the government continues to shell out money to various organizations, like CPB, when the government should actually be cutting back on federal funding for pork barrel projects. You might find this hard to believe but I've always felt that NPR and PBS should be funded by the people who listen and watch. Unfortunately only a small percentage of that audience bothers to donate, and that's not right.
As for the the Board of Directors, they are just getting one side of the story. Perhaps the board should meet with some of the employees at the station in a one-on-one basis and find out what the morale is at the station, they would get a different picture than what is being spoon-fed to them by one individual with an agenda.
On the subject of Radio News being an oxymoron, you are right; except for one thing you have overlooked. People of my generation, who are gainfully employed and have money to spend on products like cars, television sets, are the ones still listening to the radio. This transformation into the world of I-Pods, digital and internet media is designed for the next generation, and they are not interested in listening to "10 in a row right after these (several minutes worth of) commercials." That and the fact they don't have the money my generation does. Instead many pay with credit, which is way we hear about so many foreclosures and bankruptcies.
Radio listenership, like those of television, has been declining for many years thanks in part to corporate greed and deregulation. Remember your history. At one time Henry Ford was the only car maker in America and it was either his way or the highway when it came to the color or type of car to purchase. Then competition came in (General Motors, Chrysler) and suddenly the public had a choice. Hard to have a choice in radio today when the same company owns the majority of all the radio stations in one market isn't it?
The D&C, who lately has been doing a very good job of investigative journalism when it comes to wasteful spending by the local government, refuses to report on the salary structure at a publicly-owned corporation like WXXI. Why is that? Because the editorial board at that newspaper is in bed with public broadcasting. I believe that even a few of these editors have or currently serve on the station's Board of Directors.
Interesting how the public reacted to a former airport director spending $17,000 for cigars. I wonder how the public would react to knowing how much fundraising money goes to pay one person who runs a non-profit organization, along with the numerous perks he receives on a regular basis? I'm not saying pay the CEO $20,000 a year. But someone making over $300k a year certainly doesn't need a station bought, gas eating, SUV every few years. I think that anyone making that kind of money, and wanting to help the station save money in order to continue to provide the public with quality programming would do what the rest of us do; buy our own vehicles with our own money. I can tell you that the CEO of the company I work for makes a lot more than $300,000 a year, but he doesn't have a company vehicle. In fact his car is several years old.
The Voice of Reason said:Did you ever ask yourself where does the money come from to pay these top executives? I sure have, and never got an answer.
Sure you have. You get an answer every time, but you refuse to accept it. Very different situation. You clearly have a big in your butt about this station, and funding isn't the real problem.
The Voice of Reason said:Radio listenership, like those of television, has been declining for many years thanks in part to corporate greed and deregulation.
No, also not true. It's declining because of an increase in the number of choices. Technically speaking, more people are listening to radio or watching TV than ever before. But they watch and listen in different ways that aren't measured in traditional ways.
TheBigA said:The Voice of Reason said:Radio listenership, like those of television, has been declining for many years thanks in part to corporate greed and deregulation.
No, also not true. It's declining because of an increase in the number of choices. Technically speaking, more people are listening to radio or watching TV than ever before. But they watch and listen in different ways that aren't measured in traditional ways.
Of course more people are listening. The population keeps rising. When you look at cume, it's hard to compare because we now have PPM, which measure hearing, not listening. When it comes to TSL, it's definitely down, and started dropping long before the number of choices changed. TSL started dropping when GMs started bringing in consultants with "magic formats" that reduced the role of "pesky" talent. It accelerated as programming became more homogenized by the consolidators.
The Voice of Reason said:But someone making over $300k a year certainly doesn't need a station bought, gas eating, SUV every few years.
Does it have funky wheels and spinners, too? And a Smart Car as a spare?
SirRoxalot said:TSL started dropping when GMs started bringing in consultants with "magic formats" that reduced the role of "pesky" talent.
So you're telling me that TSL has been down since 1966? Because that's when consultants started nationalizing formats. Things really kicked into gear in 1972. By the end of the 70s, the major radio groups had national program directors who oversaw local stations. I think the facts indicate all that was GOOD for TSL. That's why they did it. The major thing that reduced the role of "pesky" talent was the payola scandals of the 50s. The days of talent picking music was over by the 60s.
What hurt TSL was (1) The FCC over-licensing the spectrum in the 80s, (2) the rise of MTV and video music, and (3) the explosion of personal music devices. None of those things have anything to do with consultants. The "homogenization" took place, once again, with national program directors in the 60s. All stations owned by a company used the same jingle packages and played the same songs. As others point out, the facts don't jive with your theories.
TheBigA said:SirRoxalot said:TSL started dropping when GMs started bringing in consultants with "magic formats" that reduced the role of "pesky" talent.
So you're telling me that TSL has been down since 1966? Because that's when consultants started nationalizing formats. Things really kicked into gear in 1972. By the end of the 70s, the major radio groups had national program directors who oversaw local stations. I think the facts indicate all that was GOOD for TSL. That's why they did it. The major thing that reduced the role of "pesky" talent was the payola scandals of the 50s. The days of talent picking music was over by the 60s.
What hurt TSL was (1) The FCC over-licensing the spectrum in the 80s, (2) the rise of MTV and video music, and (3) the explosion of personal music devices. None of those things have anything to do with consultants. The "homogenization" took place, once again, with national program directors in the 60s.
You're in the ballpark A, but as it applies to Buffalo, in the wrong section as far as the National PDs and jingles go. Taft, CapCities & McLendon operated very competitive stations with outstanding personality formats in the 60s and 70s. McLendon and CapCities had national PDs, Ken Dowed and Joe Somerset, respectively, but Taft did not. Interestingly enough, Somerset left KB alone, most likely because its PD was bigger than life and the station had a weekly cume of 500,000 (yeah, hard to imagine especially these days!) KBs jingle packages, especially the 69 custom package, were anything but stock.
At WYSL, McLendon's national PD stayed on top of the situation, but WYSL also had dominant PDs, the likes of Michael Spears (Hal Martin) and a few others who could stand on their own and buck the national trends. WYSL had a custom TM package that was modeled after that used by KNUS, McLendon's Dallas top 40/album hybrid, yet different.
In the late 60s and early 70s, Taft's WGR came stormed back under the local direction of PD Dave Hammond, then went on to score massive ratings under the direction of Larry Anderson, a guy who discovered and first hired that character we know as Randy Michaels who worked at a kilowatt AM in Dunkirk-Fredonia.
Taft didn't have a 'national' at the time. Ironically, it was Larry Anderson and Randy Michaels who went on to influence many AM stations in Taft's portfolio, but IIRC, neither was a immediately named national PD (if at all.)
In all three cases, the local PDs made decisions that were market specific and had their stations sounding much different than co-owned properties in other (larger) markets. CapCities WPRO Providence did things very differently as well. It was an amazing time in this market. Crazy great competitive radio.
The only reason for the slow but steady decline in the commercial radio & TV business over the past 30 years has been the slow but steady decline in the total number of advertising dollars coming into the industry from other sectors of the economy.
The adoption of automation and the resulting staff cuts; the rise of program consultants and corporate bean counters; ownership consolidation, deteriorating professionalism and creativity... These are all just symptoms of the slow starvation of our broadcast media. They are not the cause of it.
The increasing scarcity of advertising revenue reflects the short-term growth of competing media and the long-term shrinkage of the workaday national economy outside of the financial and Federal sectors. Although some commercial broadcasters are still nominally profitable, all the old licenses to print money have expired.
On the local level, public radio & TV stations face the same issues as everybody else, although so far they alone have called upon their audiences for direct support. Someday soon we may be hearing Brother Wease urging his tribe to respond to yet another dollar-for-dollar listener 'challenge' during his Fall Fox-a-Thon, with the added incentive of some choice Honduran cigars for the first five contributors.
The funding of public broadcasting at the national level is more closely linked with Wall Street than with Main Street. Note how closely the fortunes of NPR and PBS have tracked those of their various corporate benefactors in insurance, finance and international agribusiness.
Perhaps that's why some of us react to the six-figure salaries of local public broadcasting management in much the same way that we do to the eight-figure management bonuses at Goldman Sachs.
The adoption of automation and the resulting staff cuts; the rise of program consultants and corporate bean counters; ownership consolidation, deteriorating professionalism and creativity... These are all just symptoms of the slow starvation of our broadcast media. They are not the cause of it.
The increasing scarcity of advertising revenue reflects the short-term growth of competing media and the long-term shrinkage of the workaday national economy outside of the financial and Federal sectors. Although some commercial broadcasters are still nominally profitable, all the old licenses to print money have expired.
On the local level, public radio & TV stations face the same issues as everybody else, although so far they alone have called upon their audiences for direct support. Someday soon we may be hearing Brother Wease urging his tribe to respond to yet another dollar-for-dollar listener 'challenge' during his Fall Fox-a-Thon, with the added incentive of some choice Honduran cigars for the first five contributors.
The funding of public broadcasting at the national level is more closely linked with Wall Street than with Main Street. Note how closely the fortunes of NPR and PBS have tracked those of their various corporate benefactors in insurance, finance and international agribusiness.
Perhaps that's why some of us react to the six-figure salaries of local public broadcasting management in much the same way that we do to the eight-figure management bonuses at Goldman Sachs.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.