My Take On What's Wrong With Radio

[calguy]

Looking at all the firings and problems with radio companies got me to thinking… This may be a bit of a rant, but perhaps it’ll make sense to some of you.

I may be looking at the past through rose colored glasses, but it seems to me that before consolidation there was plenty of money, more than enough being made to fully staff radio stations, pay those employees and still make a handsome profit. The problem with the companies that are terminating employees is that while they cry poverty, they still have the money to pay their top management and star employees huge sums of money. Market managers make enormous amounts of cash as do those above them, but they cry poverty when the average employee who makes just enough to get by or less and hasn’t had a raise in years asks for a small increase. The cost of living keeps going up, but pay rates do not. I would suggest that if CC, CBS and the like would cut the huge salaries instead of the people making normal wages they could staff their properties properly and pay them decent wages. Actually if the wealth was spread a little more evenly most could make a good wage and maybe even get ahead in life instead of barely getting by and slipping closer to the poverty level. Instead of firing these lower paid people, they could save the same amount of cash by cutting the fat up above.

And what of those lucky ones that didn’t get fired? They live in fear and are told that they can’t even ask for a cost of living increase in pay even though they now do the work of 2 or 3 people working twice as many hours as before.

As Barney Fife used to say “nip it in the bud” and if that could’ve been done it would have meant no deregulation. Every industry that has deregulated has gone to hell. It opens up these industries to greedy people who spout platitudes to their common workers in emails detailing how much they care about them and how they are the heart of their companies while in reality doing everything they can to cut these people down any way that they can. When someone is that wealthy, they no longer have any understanding of what life is like for the average worker.

The real reason for the sad state of radio is greed.

Calguy-Los Angeles

 

[davideduardo]

I may be looking at the past through rose colored glasses, but it seems to me that before consolidation there was plenty of money, more than enough being made to fully staff radio stations, pay those employees and still make a handsome profit.

In 1996, half of all US radio stations did not make a profit. Going back to the FCC Financial Report tabulations fromt he 50's into the Reagan years, the same percentage of stations were profitless. And in the 80's, Docket 80-90 added many more stations while radio revenues were increasing barely at the rate of inflation. Less for everyone.

The problem with the companies that are terminating employees is that while they cry poverty, they still have the money to pay their top management and star employees huge sums of money.

If they don't, the good people go away and they lose money. A manager is like a coach and a star talent or seller is like a star quarterback.

Market managers make enormous amounts of cash as do those above them, but they cry poverty when the average employee who makes just enough to get by or less and hasn’t had a raise in years asks for a small increase.

The person who has not had a raise often needs to think about whether they have done anything to justify that increase.

The cost of living keeps going up, but pay rates do not.

That depends where you work. And how well you do it.

I would suggest that if CC, CBS and the like would cut the huge salaries instead of the people making normal wages they could staff their properties properly and pay them decent wages.

Actually, a couple of years of that and you would see pay cuts, not raises. The "movers and shakers" can find cmparable or better jobs elsewhere... there are few of them vs. the need. When they leave, the station suffers unless someone comparable comes on board. "Comparable" costs the same or more money. It's about supply and demand.

As Barney Fife used to say “nip it in the bud” and if that could’ve been done it would have meant no deregulation. Every industry that has deregulated has gone to hell.

Not really. In many deregulated areas, expansion has occured. One I see every week is that today's airfares are about 1/3 to 1/4 of what I paid 10 years ago.... and I fly nearly every week of the year.

It opens up these industries to greedy people who spout platitudes to their common workers in emails detailing how much they care about them and how they are the heart of their companies while in reality doing everything they can to cut these people down any way that they can. When someone is that wealthy, they no longer have any understanding of what life is like for the average worker.

It's supply and demand again. And that is why so much manufacturing has gone offshore... larger supply of inexpensive labor. This is not a radio issue, it is fundamental economics.

The real reason for the sad state of radio is greed.

Again, in '96 half of US stations were not profitable.

You will find that growing stations pay well and offer advancement. Unfortunately, most sectors in radio do not grow any more.

 

[Stewy]

Have to jump on this one. Calguy, you are dead on. David, you are dead wrong. The only Economics at work here are the economics of the greedy and self centered. Managers cut and cut and cut to increase, increase, increase their bonuses. The focus on short term profitability led by the Wall Streeters has done this, thanks to deregulation.

Please check out my response to "Spots for Sale on E-Bay" and you'll see where this short term thinking is leading.

David, economists and their opinions are like [EDIT] I know because I am one, a card carrying member actually. Supply Side Economics was what we needed when introduced during the Reagan Administration but our economy has been operating under those "privileged" principles too long and needs to move back to the center. Spout all the stats you'd like, stats are always old data by their very nature.

I do agree that many, many stations were unprofitable but many were operated that way purposely. Lets see, that should have been covered in the second session of Intermediate Accounting or maybe Cost II.

Hope all have a good weekend and don't fear, don't be bitter about what's happening. It is necessary to allow the industry to purge itself from the greed and short term profitability that has triumphed for the past decade. All will be better.

Oh yes, I too apologize for this rant.


[EDIT-offensive content]

 

[doublecashkgb]

David lives in a bubble. He spend 90 percent of his time on the boards, amazing he stays employed.

 

[davideduardo]

David lives in a bubble. He spend 90 percent of his time on the boards, amazing he stays employed.

I spend a couple of percent of my time here. I check in on breaks, or from airports and such as a wlecome and interesting diversion from other things. By the way, I am employed, not a slave. Not all of the 24 hours in a day belong to the boss man... ;D

 

[purdyum]

David Gleason is the epitome of what is wrong with radio and I am glad to see him out himself. Radio is imploding now because of extremely poor management, a total disregard for the people they employ AND serve and a fundemental lack of understanding about the business they are in.

These terminations are crazy, the terrible programming, The John Hogan memo...as bugs would say..."what a maroon".

 

[davideduardo]

Please check out my response to "Spots for Sale on E-Bay" and you'll see where this short term thinking is leading.

No different than Expedia and the sellers of excess inventory in other areas of commerce.

I do agree that many, many stations were unprofitable but many were operated that way purposely. Lets see, that should have been covered in the second session of Intermediate Accounting or maybe Cost II.

No, they weren't. Maybe there is an exception or two, but the reason, going back to the 50's, is that there were more stations than revenue and many stations were inferior facilities.

In the top 100 markets there are about 1800 AM stations licensed to the metros. Only about 240 to 250 are "viable" in the sense that they cover 80% or better of the metro day and night. Many were dead at birth: daytimers, wildly directional, high dial postion, etc. But quite a few are heritage facilites that, after W.W. II saw suburban growth extend beyond the signal. These statios accept low billing from brokering or selling religious programs, or they lose money trying to be talk station #3 in the market.

Docket 80-90, and several other FCC initiatives like breaking down the clears, caused thousands of new stations in an industry where revenue growth is slow, and, today, nearly stagnant.

In 1960, as an example, Traverse City, MI, had two AMs, one a daytimer, and an FM simulcast of the 250 watt AM fulltimer. Today, there are more than a dozen primary signals over the city, and 29 over the market (there were 6 in 1960) chopping up just over $10 million in revenue.

Or go to Lake City / Live Oak, FL. 3 AMs, 2 FMs with three owners in 1988. Today, double. No population growth, and a bad economy. Now, two of the owners make a take home salary, but earn nothing on the captital. The billing for the whole market is less than the gross sales for a McDonalds.

We are about to see many station sales this year at multiples that are half the going rate of the last decade, and significantly below the pre-consolidation levels. Unfortunately, in many places the available radio revenue can not support the existing stations when many of those stations are inferior facilities or when there is just not enough revenue in the market.

My final example: KYOR AM 1450 in Blythe, CA. When it was the only station there, it made a decent living for its manager and its owner, and the station covered everything from city hall to hospital admissings, lost dogs and swap shop. Today, due to multiple FMs entering the market area, KYOR is silent and the license turned back to the FCC. The local service is gone, and nobody makes money.

 

[davideduardo]

David Gleason is the epitome of what is wrong with radio and I am glad to see him out himself. Radio is imploding now because of extremely poor management, a total disregard for the people they employ AND serve and a fundemental lack of understanding about the business they are in.

There are companies that are growing, where decent pay and good work conditions exist. There are companies where there is no voicetracking, and where talent is rewarded and the listener is the basis for product development (meaning programming, web content, HD channels, etc.). These are companies that realize that the future of radio is a combination of "today" and "tomorrow" where listener loyalty is considered essential.

These terminations are crazy, the terrible programming, The John Hogan memo...as bugs would say..."what a maroon".

The neat thing about capitalism and competitive industries is that the participants who make mistakes are "corrected" by the marketplace. If shortchanging the listener by offering a deteriorated product results in lower ratings, lower revenue follows. At some point, those operators who only saw "today" either sell or have a major epiphany and realize that significant changes have to be made.

 

[purdyum]

David in previous posts, (regarding the IE), you saw no value in the future, now you are a proponent. Pick which side of the argument you want to be on. You have proven once again that you are out of touch and now you will try to back yourself out by boring the board with your 5 paragraph posts.

David Gleason is on the list with Hogan, Ashlock and their ilk.

 

[davideduardo]

David in previous posts, (regarding the IE), you saw no value in the future, now you are a proponent.

The future is not in the IE for any LA station. The future involves being open to a changing platform for the same content within one's servicable and servable market area. If you serve those local listeners well, the future is good.

Pick which side of the argument you want to be on. You have proven once again that you are out of touch and now you will try to back yourself out by boring the board with your 5 paragraph posts.

There is no way to take my belief and that of the other LA broadcasters that the IE contributes nothing of value to out of market stations and compare it with any sort of vision of the future for radio.

Here is a small extract from a Hispanic Marketing Weekly report which shows my focus on the future which is serving the local audience with live personality radio:

"Study: Record Growth Ahead For Hispanic Media

MONTEREY, CA -- February 6, 2008: A new study from SNL Kagan, "Economics of Hispanic TV & Radio in the U.S.," predicts that Hispanic radio's revenue growth will considerably outpace the industry in 2008, rising by 6 percent, to $1.21 billion, compared to expected growth of 2 percent-3 percent for radio overall. Over the next four years, SNL Kagan expects Hispanic radio-station revenues to grow at about 4.9 percent annually.

"The recognition of a growing audience with increasing buying power has highlighted the importance of targeting the Hispanic population," said Deana Myers, Senior Analyst for SNL Kagan. "Spanish-language broadcast networks have been rapidly growing over the past several years, attracting new advertisers, while English-speaking broadcast networks have struggled during the same time period to generate minor growth in advertising dollars."

 

[jrplbg]

Calguy -- I think you're right on the money. No pun intended.

I also know that as few as three years ago, a certain middling (at best) air "talent" was making close to 150K a year, while more talented jocks were making substantially less at the same station. And ratings didn't even make the argument for this person, as his ratings weren't as good as others.

Right now, the overarching problem is that the biggest radio owners DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT RADIO. It's merely bottom line business. I grant that the financial bottom line is always important, it was then as now, but the difference now is that there is NO care for radio as an entity in and of itself with these people. They could just as well be raising pigs if it made them the same money, they wouldn't care.

 

[calguy]

Calguy -- I think you're right on the money. No pun intended.

I also know that as few as three years ago, a certain middling (at best) air "talent" was making close to 150K a year, while more talented jocks were making substantially less at the same station. And ratings didn't even make the argument for this person, as his ratings weren't as good as others.

Right now, the overarching problem is that the biggest radio owners DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT RADIO. It's merely bottom line business. I grant that the financial bottom line is always important, it was then as now, but the difference now is that there is NO care for radio as an entity in and of itself with these people. They could just as well be raising pigs if it made them the same money, they wouldn't care.

Thanks jrplbg. I appreciate your thoughts. I bet I know the middling "air talent" you're speaking of. In his case it's obviously who you know etc.

As for David's reply to my original post, I find it hard to believe that half of all stations as of 1996 did not make any profit. You're a master statistician, but we all know that numbers can be manipulated, so I tend to believe that a lot of those stations made more than you think. I also find it hard to believe that they were all really in the red or they would've all gone out of business. David also stated "The person who has not had a raise often needs to think about whether they have done anything to justify that increase." That's exactly the cruel way of thinking that is going on right now at the headquarters of many large radio companies. But you see that's the way companies are managing successful stations. Stations that wouldn't be where they are without talented people who while contributing to the success of their stations have not been rewarded for many years. Oh and David, you can be very talented, a mover and shaker as you put it and still have a hard time finding another job. So many jobs have been eliminated that you can be on the beach for quite a while, and heaven help you if you don't want to pull your kids out of school and move across the country.

Your supply and demand statement is why people can't afford to buy a house and such. They can't buy when they can't get a job because it's now done for cents on the dollar in New Delhi.

Lastly you stated "You will find that growing stations pay well and offer advancement. Unfortunately, most sectors in radio do not grow any more"

A station doesn’t have to be growing to make a fine profit, it only needs to be successful and many successful stations are cutting personnel and budgets even though they make many times their operating budget. Someone is getting wealthy, and it's not the common radio worker. Oh and before you say it, I already know that radio stations are now being run as one large unit and that the successful ones have to prop-up the underperformers. That's nothing new, but with groups being so large now, the good ones really suffer to keep the bad ones going.

 

[davideduardo]

As for David's reply to my original post, I find it hard to believe that half of all stations as of 1996 did not make any profit.

If you go back to the 50's you find the same thing. Back then, the unprofitable stations were the old line network affiliates that had not transitioned to music and news formats or the FMs, none of which made money (over 1000 in 1950, down to under 600 by 1960) and the weak signals and daytimers in markets that were already overpopulated with stations. Of course, in that period and into the Reagan years, the FCC mandated annual financial reports and "lack of candor" or lying was license revocation material.

In the late 60's, the ban on simulcasting caused many FMs to become unprofitable, as they would remain in some cases for up to a decade. Remember, Clear Channel started when Lowery and Red took over a bankrupt San Antonio FM around 1975. They later took over a failing Class 1-A clear channel station, WOAI, which had been losing money for years and years.

The 70's also brought the breakdown of the clear channels, and hundreds of new AMs, just in time, in 1977, for FM to surpass AM in listening. More unprofitable stations. Them the 80's brought Docket 80-90 and the move-ins... thousands of stations and no significant increase in radio revenue.

Radio's share of the national ad budget is now less than it was in 1960. Yet there are something like four times the number of stations on the air. I find it surprising that more stations are not losing money.

You're a master statistician, but we all know that numbers can be manipulated, so I tend to believe that a lot of those stations made more than you think.

Since the mandated financials of three decades, improperly filed, could cause license revocation (and many a license was not granted when a competing applicant showed the other guy did not have the capital they claimed to have to open a station) I feel those reports were correct. I filed many of them myself, and we were scrupulous to the point of having our outside auditor review the data.

I also find it hard to believe that they were all really in the red or they would've all gone out of business.

Until recently, many more people wanted a station than there were stations to be had. Losing stations simply took their losses and sold. Many, if you review the "For the record" section of Broadcasting Magazine from the 50's on, went bankrupt and the assets sold by the court receiver or the creditors. Most simply went to someone who thought they could do it better.

In my own experience, of the stations (3 in a top 15 market, 2 in a top 50 market, 1 in a top 5 market) that I managed or programmed from 1970 to 1980, every one was losing money when I went in. Again in the late 80's the group I was with had me work on 5 acquisitions, not one of which made money. The company I am with now expanded almost entirely by buying money losing stations and changing format and turning them around.

David also stated "The person who has not had a raise often needs to think about whether they have done anything to justify that increase." That's exactly the cruel way of thinking that is going on right now at the headquarters of many large radio companies.

Actually, that statement is a paraphrase of a recent Jack & Suzy Welch column in Business Week. People who do not justify raises seldom get them. And this is not a radio issue, it is a business issue. Radio does not serve a single listener if it is not run in a businesslike manner, either.

But you see that's the way companies are managing successful stations.

No, it is the way any successful asset is managed and that includes you own home or car or other property.

Stations that wouldn't be where they are without talented people who while contributing to the success of their stations have not been rewarded for many years.

Speak for yourself. I do not witness this, and if you do, perhaps you should restrict it to your own specific experience. In any field, there are good and bad and mediocre operators. Market forces tend to weed out the bad ones. If CBS or Clear are making mistakes (and I am not opining one way or another as that is a separate issue), then they will pay the consequences and have to change methods.

Oh and David, you can be very talented, a mover and shaker as you put it and still have a hard time finding another job.

That's true in any field. Heard about where Carley Fiorina is hanging her hat today? Athletes who don't perform get dumped. Casts of bad TV sows get dumped. Success has its privileges and failure has its costs. You write as if this were radio-specific and it is not.

Today we have large corporations, and four decades or so ago we had Don Burden, Max Richmond Richard Eaton and other people who made radio horrible... heck, the big corporations have health benefits, HR departments, etc. Those maniacs of the 60's could fire you just because your tie was crooked.

So many jobs have been eliminated that you can be on the beach for quite a while, and heaven help you if you don't want to pull your kids out of school and move across the country.

Some jobs went when the FCC allowed remote controlled sites. Some were lost when larger stations went combo. Others were lost when automation came on the scene. More were lost when things like news and traffic could be centralized due to technology. More were lost when transmitters could run on their own for months with no maintenance. Computerized billing and traffic created more job losses. Payroll went to ADP. The switchboard became a "press 1 for bad debts" operation. Secretaries disappeared with Wang word processors.

If you want to blame something, blame technology or progress. Don't blame radio specifically.

Your supply and demand statement is why people can't afford to buy a house and such. They can't buy when they can't get a job because it's now done for cents on the dollar in New Delhi.

It's not "my" statement. These are the facts of life. And, again, not just in radio. Of course, radio had all those inside jokes in the 60's and 70's about U-Haul frequent mover discounts for radio folks...

A station doesn’t have to be growing to make a fine profit, it only needs to be successful and many successful stations are cutting personnel and budgets even though they make many times their operating budget.

That's absurd. I don't think that there is a station in the US that is making "many times its operating budget." A station that has some nice ratings increases might exceed budget by 5% or 10%, but not by multiples of several times. A manager who sandbagged to the extent of multiples would be severely questioned, in fact.

Someone is getting wealthy, and it's not the common radio worker.

And it's not the owners, either. Most radio stocks pay no or little in dividends, and the sector is off in share price by something like 60% in the last 18 months.

Oh and before you say it, I already know that radio stations are now being run as one large unit and that the successful ones have to prop-up the under performers. That's nothing new, but with groups being so large now, the good ones really suffer to keep the bad ones going.

You just pointed out why radio, preconsolidation, had a hard time getting financing. With the 7/7 limit, one station in trouble could put the whole company in danger, so banks did not like the risks. Today, one can have risk spread around many markets many stations deep, so financing is easier. A few years ago, I talked about an acquisition loan, and was told that none were being given for just one or two stations in a single market... but if I wanted to buy 15 or 20 stations across 4 or 5 or 6 markets, I would have an easier time. For most stations, this has not been a good business for the last 50 years.

[/quote]

 

[calguy]

David, I respect your opinions, but I don't always agree with them.

Quotes from Business Week, hmm, quoting opinions of Jack & Suzy Welch is just that quoting their opinions.

In a perfect world one's accomplishments would justify a raise every couple of years, but that's just not the case. In some companies you can't get one even if you can prove your worth. I have a friend who works for one of the LARGE radio companies and they're trying to make asking for a raise reason for termination. Further more this company wants to terminate you for not accepting a lower wage. It may be good business in the short run, but it's bad in the long run as the really talented people will not seek employment at this company when they realize that they'll never move up. Oh I could go on and on and turn this into real &%$ing match, but it won't accomplish anything.

As for not getting a raise in many, many years, I am speaking for myself, and the thousands of people who are experiencing the same thing. By the way, the someone getting rich may not be the stockholder, but these huge corporations are run by executives that ARE making a fortune. Your statement about the facts of life may be on target, but it doesn't make them right. Oh and deregulation has been bad. Look at the energy companies. What a mess they've made of people's lives. Can you say Enron? Just look at how the state of California was gouged a few years back. It put Gray Davis out of office. I could go on, but we won’t agree on most of this I'm tired after working a job that 2 people used to do on top of having to freelance to make up for the pay I'm not getting for the added duties I've been forced to take on... I’m going to bed.

 

[Pennyaword]

Calguy,

I hear you loud and clear. On the NY board this morning I posted the headline I saw yesterday regarding this week's 158 CBS layoffs. (All About Country dot com)

Can we be optimistic about our industry? Someone told me yesterday that this is truly only the beginning of the carnage we will see.

I just keep thinking that while Radio has been dying a slow, silent death (due to the '96 Telcom Bill and the corporate suits wanting to only make a buck), the general public is unaware. Thousands of families have been devastated by all the changes throughout the past several years.

We read about the suits and the politicians dealing with the FCC, but has there ever been a grass roots effort, or a public outcry that could potentially catch the ears of the powers that be within the FCC to facilitate improvement? Or, are we going to have to sit and watch the gradual extinction of our industry?

 

[calguy]

Pennyaword,

Sadly I don't believe that we can expect any government help, and it's hard to remain optimistic about the industry when you hear people saying that it's only going to get worse. I hear those same comments where I work. Besides, big business, including the large radio companies has made big contributions to the politicians and will continue to get what they want from government, and it's not the same thing you and I want.

Yes, many families have been devastated, and it would seem many more will follow. It's not just a radio thing. Look at how many auto workers, workers in many industries are being cast-off without a thought as to what they'll do next to feed and shelter their families.

People complain that radio is boring, stale, not creative or really good enough anymore to hold an audience and instead of doing something about it, the radio companies just cut more which I see as going in the opposite direction. By firing thousands and consolidating, the radio companies are eliminating their greatest resources and the ones left behind at those stations are burning out as they try to keep up.

Gotta go to work now...

 

[Pennyaword]

Calguy,

Thanks for the reply. Wish there was better news.

 

[davideduardo]

Can we be optimistic about our industry? Someone told me yesterday that this is truly only the beginning of the carnage we will see.

The companies or stations that do stupid short term things will pay the consequences in the future, as the marketplace will punish them and they will have to change.

I just keep thinking that while Radio has been dying a slow, silent death (due to the '96 Telcom Bill and the corporate suits wanting to only make a buck), the general public is unaware. Thousands of families have been devastated by all the changes throughout the past several years.

This thought does not take into account the fact that in the last decade, radio growth has barely kept pace with inflation, and all the while new ad media have developed and new challenges for entertainment choices have come on the scene. Internet advertising is now bigger than radio, and things like satellite and the iPod did not exist when dereg occured in 1996.

We read about the suits and the politicians dealing with the FCC, but has there ever been a grass roots effort, or a public outcry that could potentially catch the ears of the powers that be within the FCC to facilitate improvement? Or, are we going to have to sit and watch the gradual extinction of our industry?

What can the public say? You can not legislate programming (the awful requirements of the 50's through the early 80's proved that), and you can not legislate a requirement for even more stations to lose money.

 

[davideduardo]

I have a friend who works for one of the LARGE radio companies and they're trying to make asking for a raise reason for termination. Further more this company wants to terminate you for not accepting a lower wage. It may be good business in the short run, but it's bad in the long run as the really talented people will not seek employment at this company when they realize that they'll never move up.

What you describe is a company that is casting its own future demise. Management by fear does not work for long. As I said, the marketplace tends to punish this kind of company.

As for not getting a raise in many, many years, I am speaking for myself, and the thousands of people who are experiencing the same thing. By the way, the someone getting rich may not be the stockholder, but these huge corporations are run by executives that ARE making a fortune.

The fact is that good key executives are in short supply, just as the best basketball players or hit producing recording artists. The choice for companies is to pay the going rate, or have poor leadership. It may sound bizarre and unfair, but tough economic times enhance the value of key executives.

Oh and deregulation has been bad. Look at the energy companies. What a mess they've made of people's lives. Can you say Enron?

Electric and gas utilities are regulated, but oil producers, sellers and traders are not and were not. Enron is a case of a handful of crooks bringing down a whole company with thousands and thousands of honest and hard working employees, but this had nothing to do with deregulation... it had to do with larceny.

[/quote] I'm tired after working a job that 2 people used to do on top of having to freelance to make up for the pay I'm not getting for the added duties I've been forced to take on... I’m going to bed.
[/quote]

If you have been in radio as long as I have, you will realize that it used to be worse. It's never been a field with good stability, benefits, etc., for most.

 

[purdyum]

It is important to keep perspective. Calguy, you brought up a good topic, one that rational people in the biz can discuss and articulate their opinions. I must ask one favor of you, don't capitulate to David Gleason and give him any credit for being a master statistician, if anything, he is a master statisical manipulator in the same way that every radio station can be number 1 in something.

[EDIT] 1996! are you kidding me? Of course there were losses a decade ago, that is when these monsterous buyouts were taking place! That is a terrible comp. Look at the 80's, before this mess started. Stations made money, talent had big shares, no voice tracking. Solid companies doing good business. (still big business, still plenty of greed to go around, not claiming perfection).

Look at companies like Univision, Clear Channel, CBS, etc...hire tons of people only to fire them later...It is not right. And David Gleason, no matter how many long winded post you write, you can't make it right.


[EDIT-inflammatory]