Radio Manifesto

[longtimelistener]

Re: Radio Manifesto THERE'S ONE OTHER THING YOU NEED TO DO...

> You don't need an exclusive license to broadcast now. All
> you need is a distribution strategy, effective marketing and
> a viable product. It's a new paradigm, and you are no longer
> dependent on the big chains to decide if an idea is viable
> any more. Demonstrate success, and they will throw money at
> you.

When you figure out how to demonstrate success by getting people to listen to your podacast in their cars and elsewhere in sufficient numbers to get a .1 in the ratings, we'll all call you a certified genius.

 

[nuzguy]

Re: Radio Misinformation

> > Dave, I was puzzled by the point of view you take, but
> then
> > I realised, YOU ARE THE MAN!
> > >
> > > Supply and demand again.
> >
> > Supply and demand lost out when consolidation came. Fewer
> > work alternatives leads to higher management leverage
> > against the workforce. That's why radio wages have
> declined
> > since 1996
> >
> > > The model for station
> > > pricing is based on market revenues
> >
> > Lowry Mays was paying 5 times cash flow in the early
> '90's.
> > I think the model has now gotten closer to 20 times cash
> > flow.


Quite a volley. Game, set, match Mr. Wells.
>
> I don't think so. In the early 90's when I was buying,
> mostly in FL, it was 14 to 16 times BCF on an FM. I did a
> deal for a turn around in FL (no CF) for 3 times billings.
> Sticks were worth whatevery yu were willing to pay.
>
> A decade before, when I did dels for an FM in NY, and FM and
> AM in Miami nd an FM in Hartford, the rule was about 15
> times CF.
>
> The cash flowers I seen now are in the 18 range, in larger
> markets. Rimshots and unprofitble stations are, like lobster
> in the restaurant, market priced.
>
> Multiples have changed very little... even the temporarily
> higher multiples in the frenzy years were based on future
> value of cluster building and opportunity costs. In other
> words, if I knew I had only one option to fill out a
> cluster, I looked at leading CF instead of trailing and
> bought at tomorrow's price, looking out 24 to 36 months.
> >
> >
> > , the whole distribution model of
> > > all entertainment will change.
> > >
> > My point to begin with. Say Hi to Mac and his lovely wife
> > for me.
>
> Will do. We are a different company now, but Mac is still on
> the board and still the kind of person broadcasting needs.
> How many third generation broadcasters do any of us know.
>

 

[nuzguy]

Re: Radio Misinformation

> > Dave, I was puzzled by the point of view you take, but
> then
> > I realised, YOU ARE THE MAN!
> > >
> > > Supply and demand again.
> >
> > Supply and demand lost out when consolidation came. Fewer
> > work alternatives leads to higher management leverage
> > against the workforce. That's why radio wages have
> declined
> > since 1996
> >
> > > The model for station
> > > pricing is based on market revenues
> >
> > Lowry Mays was paying 5 times cash flow in the early
> '90's.
> > I think the model has now gotten closer to 20 times cash
> > flow.
>
> I don't think so. In the early 90's when I was buying,
> mostly in FL, it was 14 to 16 times BCF on an FM. I did a
> deal for a turn around in FL (no CF) for 3 times billings.
> Sticks were worth whatevery yu were willing to pay.
>
> A decade before, when I did dels for an FM in NY, and FM and
> AM in Miami nd an FM in Hartford, the rule was about 15
> times CF.
>
> The cash flowers I seen now are in the 18 range, in larger
> markets. Rimshots and unprofitble stations are, like lobster
> in the restaurant, market priced.
>
> Multiples have changed very little... even the temporarily
> higher multiples in the frenzy years were based on future
> value of cluster building and opportunity costs. In other
> words, if I knew I had only one option to fill out a
> cluster, I looked at leading CF instead of trailing and
> bought at tomorrow's price, looking out 24 to 36 months.
> >
> >
> > , the whole distribution model of
> > > all entertainment will change.
> > >
> > My point to begin with. Say Hi to Mac and his lovely wife
> > for me.
>
> Will do. We are a different company now, but Mac is still on
> the board and still the kind of person broadcasting needs.
> How many third generation broadcasters do any of us know.
>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Radio Manifesto THERE'S ONE OTHER THING YOU NEED TO DO...

> > You don't need an exclusive license to broadcast now. All
>
> > you need is a distribution strategy, effective marketing
> and
> > a viable product. It's a new paradigm, and you are no
> longer
> > dependent on the big chains to decide if an idea is viable
>
> > any more. Demonstrate success, and they will throw money
> at
> > you.
>
> When you figure out how to demonstrate success by getting
> people to listen to your podacast in their cars and
> elsewhere in sufficient numbers to get a .1 in the ratings,
> we'll all call you a certified genius.

Actually, that is coming soon. There are devices in Asia that can be programmed to download programming on demnd, including podcasts, TV shows, etc, and store them along with ones's music library, photos, etc. This will work in Asia because average connection speeds are 5 to 10 times faster than the US. When we have an improved infraastructure and more reasonable pricing, we will get this in the US.

All you do is dock or bluetooth your desired content onto your car player and speaker system. Elegant, versatile, and all the needed functions, including the weba dn phone in one small container.
>

 

[longtimelistener]

Re: Radio Manifesto THERE'S STILL ONE OTHER THING YOU NEED TO DO...

>
> > When you figure out how to demonstrate success by getting
> > people to listen to your podacast in their cars and
> > elsewhere in sufficient numbers to get a .1 in the
> ratings,
> > we'll all call you a certified genius.
>
> Actually, that is coming soon. There are devices in Asia
> that can be programmed to download programming on demnd,
> including podcasts, TV shows, etc, and store them along with
> ones's music library, photos, etc. This will work in Asia
> because average connection speeds are 5 to 10 times faster
> than the US. When we have an improved infraastructure and
> more reasonable pricing, we will get this in the US.
>
> All you do is dock or bluetooth your desired content onto
> your car player and speaker system. Elegant, versatile, and
> all the needed functions, including the weba dn phone in one
> small container.

Yes, the technology is there. I can download podcasts, and other content from lots of non-mainstream sites and listen in my car, at home or at work.

KSKY bought a .6 in the universally available medium of radio in their first book with a billboard campaign that cost more than $500,000. Assuming that one had a site that had spectacular, compelling unique content available via the new technology at half the price it's at now, how much money do you think one would have to spend advertising that site to beat KSKY in the ratings?

>

 

[KPLEXCOMPLEX]

Re: Radio Misinformation: Jon-David has summed it up, nailed it straight up and Down.

> First of all, I want to say here that I respect you very
> much. From time to time, some have felt more heat from my
> debating style than light. For the record, nothing could be
> further than the truth.
>
> "This is the subjective area of the argument. I actually
> believe most stations do a better job of serving the
> listener than they did 20 or 30 years ago."---David Eduardo
>
>
> David, this is simply untrue. Radio stations 20-30 years
> served their communities better as a matter of law....
>
> --Federally mandated News committment
> --Federally mandated Public Service committment
> --Federally mandated Local Origination
> --Federally mandated Decency Requirements
> --The Fairness Doctrine
> --Licensed Operators
> --Live, Trusted, and Effective Emergency Broadcasting
> Protocols
>
> None of these exist today. And the NAB has yet to mandate
> minimum standards to replace the above, like the USGA, for
> example. What is golf without the rules? 7-Thousand yard
> cow pastures covered with fly-covered manure. Sound
> familiar? No? Listen to Tom Leykis today.
>
> "For example, a person int he 60´s or even most of the 70´s
> who wanted softer contemporary music (what we call AC today)
>
> with limited talk and intrusion had nowhere to go."---DE
>
> Sure they did, 8-track and cassettes. But Radio then
> offered more.
>
> "I use this example because there is a belief that all
> listeners at
> all hours want personality jocks, which is untrue."---DE
>
> First, how do you know? All experience has a shelf-life.
>
> Second, music Radio has reduced itself to 5 or 6 piles of
> 250 records, recorded liners about having no obnoxious DJ's,
> and commercials. OK, IPODS have individual playlists of
> exactly what their owners want to hear with no obnoxious
> DJ's and no commercials. More IPODS were sold last year to
> kids than transistor radios. Why, because so far Radio told
> 2 generations of listeners that's what they wanted. Where
> is Radio's competive advantage? According to you, there is
> none. However, I believe it lies where it was in the 70's
> and 80's....a better On-Air product. Evocative, (not
> provocative) Local, Fun, Exciting Entertainment.
>
> Further, Talk Radio has reduced itself to the same 6
> automated personalities coast-to-coast, apologetically
> augmented with 1 or 2 local shows per day. Didn't you just
> argue that fragmentation is good? Where is it? Where is
> Talk Radio's competitive advantage? In providing News
> Committment, Public Service Committment, Local Origination,
> Decency, Competent Personalities, Fairness, and Live,
> Trusted, and Effective Emergency Broadcasting Protocols.
>
> Yes, my way of thinking is expensive. How expensive is
> losing the entire industry? Remember we've already lost 2
> generations of new listeners. They're 24 years old now, and
> think Radio is immobile, unprogrammable, and relegated only
> to cars. You fight for that trend to continue, I fight for
> an opportunity to entertain, inform, and protect them.
> Live, local, and in real time. You even say you cannot
> predict the Future. Why? Are you blind, as well as deaf?
>
> (Again, I'm not trying to be a prick, I just don't know
> another way to make it plain.)
>
> "Similarly, look at the contituencies that were not served
> well in the 50's through the 70's, such as Hispanics nd
> African Americans. Today, these groups, accounting for over
>
> 25% of America's population, have multiple choices in the
> areas where such groups are a dignificant element of the
> population."---DE
>
> In 1985, I went to work for Q-93, New Orleans. No audience,
> regardless of ethnicity was better served by any radio
> station ever. We had an audience share in the 20's, 25-54.
>
> "So you're saying brand extension and product
> fragmentation, accompanied with a near catastrophic
> reduction in
> experienced workforce is a good thing?"---JD/FB
>
> "I don't see such a "catastrophic" reduction. What I do see
> is a bunch of government regulations and rules and
> miscellaneous facts of life that make it very hard to get
> into radio "the old way."---DE
>
> There are 15-thousand fewer On-Air Broadcasters now that in
> 1980. How is that not catastrophic? Further, aside from
> sales, there is no way to get into Radio, period. That's
> another catastrophic malfunction you can't/don't see.
>
> "Today you can not hang around a station and learn."
>
> Who are you going to learn from? The Program Director with
> no budget for On-Air talent, or the Sales Manager looking
> for fresh meat?
>
> "Insurance, labor laws and even EEOC rules make that
> [learning about radio]very
> dangerous for the licensee."---DE
>
> Where does over-reaching in station acquisition, irrational
> cost-cutting, and good old-fashioned greed fit in to that
> problem?
>
> "There is nothing radio can do to compete with
> non-commercial, generally subscriber financed
> alternatives."---DE
>
> If you truly believe that, you need to get out of our way.
>
> Jon-David Wells
> Fearless Broadcaster
>


MY God that was brilliant!You cornered him and proved him wrong many times over. He will not admit or yield to what you had to say. He can never be wrong in his small domain. Jon-David,you are absolutely correct in every line of your statements.

 

[KPLEXCOMPLEX]

Re: Radio Misinformation

> > >
> > EXCELLENT JON!! He will argue and miss the point however
> as
> > most consultants do. They know it all,and their eyes,ears,
>
> > and minds are closed to alternatives along with common
> > sense.
>
> The fact is I have made a career of doing alternatives that
> have been dismissed as "this will not work here," and going
> back over 40 years.
>
> You are blinded by something, perhaps having more to do with
> your career than mine.
>
No David just disagreeing with your approach and your narrow scope of reality. My career has been great in broadcasting,and flows counter to your own ideas.Happy New Year.

 

[pbf1]

CORRECTION

> Most emergency broadcasting is in the hands of local
> authorities, who can activate all stations. If you look at
> the infamous Minot case, the blame lay on the local
> government, which had no clue of how to use EAS... which
> would not have worked anyway since at the time of the
> incident, 2 AM, nobody in that kind of town would have been
> listening anyway.

Actually, the city's EAS was sitting on a shelf, uninstalled. It was later installed by a Clear Channel engineer, at CCU expense, to appease the locals.

Still, had it been installed by the city in the first place, my guess is the person there at 2AM wouldn't have known how to use it.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: CORRECTION

>
> Actually, the city's EAS was sitting on a shelf,
> uninstalled. It was later installed by a Clear Channel
> engineer, at CCU expense, to appease the locals.

There was a Radio World (I think) report that there was supsedly a backup system, where the EAS could be ctivated from the field form a touch tone phone. I don't know if this is true, but it would further implicate the local authorities.
>
> Still, had it been installed by the city in the first place,
> my guess is the person there at 2AM wouldn't have known how
> to use it.

Besides the fact that in all liklihood, not a sould would be listening.

 

[KPLEXCOMPLEX]

Re: CORRECTION

> > Most emergency broadcasting is in the hands of local
> > authorities, who can activate all stations. If you look at
>
> > the infamous Minot case, the blame lay on the local
> > government, which had no clue of how to use EAS... which
> > would not have worked anyway since at the time of the
> > incident, 2 AM, nobody in that kind of town would have
> been
> > listening anyway.
>
> Actually, the city's EAS was sitting on a shelf,
> uninstalled. It was later installed by a Clear Channel
> engineer, at CCU expense, to appease the locals.
>
> Still, had it been installed by the city in the first place,
> my guess is the person there at 2AM wouldn't have known how
> to use it.
>
True and it goes to show what telecom ,deregulation has done in watering down prepardness ,no matter what any pro-corporation consultant says.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: CORRECTION

> >
> > Still, had it been installed by the city in the first
> place,
> > my guess is the person there at 2AM wouldn't have known
> how
> > to use it.
> >
> True and it goes to show what telecom ,deregulation has done
> in watering down prepardness ,no matter what any
> pro-corporation consultant says.

How is the failure of a municipal government to do what it is suppsed to do any reflection on consolidtion, deregulation or the phase of the moon?

The licensee, under EAS, is supposed to, basically, have the facility ready to receive and retransmit an alert. The system itself is not coordinated by radio or TV or cable, but by the governmet and civil defense authorities.

Clear Channel, in this case, did everything the EAS program required of it. The stations were enabled, and they were even on the air at times when a local operator might have been off the air.

The problem was with Minot authorities. Go regulate them.
>

 

[edwardrmurrow]

Re: Radio Misinformation

> > > Dave, I was puzzled by the point of view you take, but
> > then
> > > I realised, YOU ARE THE MAN!
> > > >
> > > > Supply and demand again.
> > >
> > > Supply and demand lost out when consolidation came.
> Fewer
> > > work alternatives leads to higher management leverage
> > > against the workforce. That's why radio wages have
> > declined
> > > since 1996
> > >
> > > > The model for station
> > > > pricing is based on market revenues
> > >
> > > Lowry Mays was paying 5 times cash flow in the early
> > '90's.
> > > I think the model has now gotten closer to 20 times cash
>
> > > flow.
>
>
> Quite a volley. Game, set, match Mr. Wells.

Mr. Wells won hands down. His opponent reminds me of a lyric from the Broadway play "Annie get your Gun" The Lyric: "Anything you can do I can do better" In this case it is best answered by the title of an Aerosmith song" Dream on". Happy New Year. May it be the year radio wakes up and returns to its community of license.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Radio Misinformation

> > > > Dave, I was puzzled by the point of view you take, but
>
> > > then
> > > > I realised, YOU ARE THE MAN!
> > > > >
> > > > > Supply and demand again.
> > > >
> > > > Supply and demand lost out when consolidation came.
> > Fewer
> > > > work alternatives leads to higher management leverage
> > > > against the workforce. That's why radio wages have
> > > declined
> > > > since 1996
> > > >
> > > > > The model for station
> > > > > pricing is based on market revenues
> > > >
> > > > Lowry Mays was paying 5 times cash flow in the early
> > > '90's.
> > > > I think the model has now gotten closer to 20 times
> cash
> >
> > > > flow.
> >
> >
> > Quite a volley. Game, set, match Mr. Wells.
>
> Mr. Wells won hands down. His opponent reminds me of a lyric
> from the Broadway play "Annie get your Gun" The Lyric:
> "Anything you can do I can do better" In this case it is
> best answered by the title of an Aerosmith song" Dream on".
> Happy New Year. May it be the year radio wakes up and
> returns to its community of license.

Gee, except for the fact that nobody was ever buying stations for 5 times cash flow, the post makes perfect sense.


>

 

[KPLEXCOMPLEX]

Re: Radio Misinformation

> >
> >
> > Quite a volley. Game, set, match Mr. Wells.
>
> Mr. Wells won hands down. His opponent reminds me of a lyric
> from the Broadway play "Annie get your Gun" The Lyric:
> "Anything you can do I can do better" In this case it is
> best answered by the title of an Aerosmith song" Dream on".
> Happy New Year. May it be the year radio wakes up and
> returns to its community of license.
>
I wholeheartedly concur. The resident debator,"argumentator" <new word?> needs windex for his glasses to see it. Mr.Wells,there are a lot of us who agree with your Factual analysis.Only one will not conceed to your statement. Big surprise.

 

[grantchester]

Re: Radio Misinformation

> Gee, except for the fact that nobody was ever buying
> stations for 5 times cash flow, the post makes perfect
> sense.


OK, Dave, so the stations aren't highly leveraged, the cost cutting is not prompted by debt service. Where has the money gone? Radio staff salaries have declined about 40% in the decade since the Communications Act re-write.
Thousands of positions have been eliminated. News and public affairs organizations have been wiped out. Who got those cost savings? Was it the hundreds and hundreds of six-figure salaried Vice Presidents now roaming the halls of the major communications companies?
I love the comment about how executive salaries aren't out of line with other industries. The average CEO in the '80s used to pull down 40 times his lowest full time employee's salary. Now it's hundreds of times more. In the case of some of our Radio C.E.O.'s, it's approaching a thousand times more. All the more reason to withdraw from such a skewed business model, and create your own.
g

 

[Jimprewitt1954]

Re: Radio Misinformation

> > Gee, except for the fact that nobody was ever buying
> > stations for 5 times cash flow, the post makes perfect
> > sense.
>
>
> OK, Dave, so the stations aren't highly leveraged, the cost
> cutting is not prompted by debt service. Where has the money
> gone? Radio staff salaries have declined about 40% in the
> decade since the Communications Act re-write.
> Thousands of positions have been eliminated. News and public
> affairs organizations have been wiped out. Who got those
> cost savings? Was it the hundreds and hundreds of six-figure
> salaried Vice Presidents now roaming the halls of the major
> communications companies?
> I love the comment about how executive salaries aren't out
> of line with other industries. The average CEO in the '80s
> used to pull down 40 times his lowest full time employee's
> salary. Now it's hundreds of times more. In the case of some
> of our Radio C.E.O.'s, it's approaching a thousand times
> more. All the more reason to withdraw from such a skewed
> business model, and create your own.


I forget which company it was (non radio) but i heard on cnn last night one ceo went to work for a company for 14 days and was fired. He walked away with $45 million dollars!!!

Maybe one day the "folks" will rise up and say enough is enough.

<P ID="signature">______________
Lead, follow or get out of the way...

And remember, the early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

</P>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Radio Misinformation

> > Gee, except for the fact that nobody was ever buying
> > stations for 5 times cash flow, the post makes perfect
> > sense.
>
>
> OK, Dave, so the stations aren't highly leveraged, the cost
> cutting is not prompted by debt service. Where has the money
> gone? Radio staff salaries have declined about 40% in the
> decade since the Communications Act re-write.

First, what is your source for the 40% decline? I'd like to look at the data yu are referring to to see a number of things.

Then, in the 9 years since consolidation began, we have seen radio revenues across the country go up at a rate slightly above inflation, something like 45% depending on the market (Dallas was $218 million to $418 million, for example). Nationally, billings went fro $11 billion to about $21 billion.

In that time, I have seen salaries everywhere I am familiar with increase on the order of 50% to 60% at the minimum for ongoing employees. For entry level employees, starting salaries are fairly close to what they were in 1997, except where they were so low (call out or street team staff, for example) that they were pushed by minimum wage laws.

The reason entry level salaries have not increased much is simple: supply and demand. why would a business... any business... pay more than the lowest amount they can hire somebody for?

Nowhere do I see a decline for ongoing staff. I see people who leave (for whatever the reason) replaced with the most economical alternative. In some cases, that means paying more. In others, it means the same, And, if a station is lucky, they save money in a new hire.

> Thousands of positions have been eliminated. News and public
> affairs organizations have been wiped out. Who got those
> cost savings? Was it the hundreds and hundreds of six-figure
> salaried Vice Presidents now roaming the halls of the major
> communications companies?

Not really. Consider that every 7/7 station group had a President, CFO, Group PD and a few other corporate executives. Let's say, 4 big corporate executives at big salaries. Now, in the extreme, you have a company of 1,200 stations but they do not have 380 big corporate exectuitve (1200 / 14 x 4). They have, more like 60 or so, including corporate executives and regional managers and format specialists. So they save on exectutive salaries.

One of the objectives of consolidation was to "rescue" radio since over half of all US radio stations did not make a profit in pre-consolidation years. In fact, this figure is close to or above 50% all the way back to the mandatory FCC financial reports of the 60's.

So, yes, consolidation allowed more staations to operate with less people. technology also allowed further reductions in people requirements. Alltogether, they appear (there is no financial reporting required by the FCC today) to have made radio a more profitable buisness by allowing efficient operators to acquire the less efficient ones.

For example, I am told that nearly all the near 25 stations in the Traverse City market lost money in the early 90's, save WPBN. Today, it appears that all the clusters are profitable.

The fact that newd separtments have disapperared is not necessarily distressing. As long as there are a few or even just one station specializing in news, folks will find it and know where to go for such. So, yes, there are fewer people there, too.

The money saved has gone mostly to make radio more profitable. It's a business.

> I love the comment about how executive salaries aren't out
> of line with other industries. The average CEO in the '80s
> used to pull down 40 times his lowest full time employee's
> salary. Now it's hundreds of times more. In the case of some
> of our Radio C.E.O.'s, it's approaching a thousand times
> more. All the more reason to withdraw from such a skewed
> business model, and create your own.

Again, supply and demand. Boards (most of these big companies have a board as they are publicly traded) have a compensation committee for top exacs. They know that to attract the top talent, they must pay top dollar. And there is not that much talent in any industry. It is the same reason why Stern made what he did, and why good morning people in the biggest markets make 7 figure salaries.

Put it this way... if I am offered several times my current salary to leave and go to another company I like, I would consider it. But for a few extra dollars, I would not. CEOs think much the same way... it takes huge incentives to get the best ones away from where they are in any industry.

If there wre a similarly tight market for any other area except top executives and morning people and talk hosts, the salaries in these areas would also be very high. In fact, in the biggest markets, you see street sellers making mid-6-figure salaries because sales talent is scarce, too. In other ares, ther eis no perceived scarcety because there are people with talent willing to work for the current wages.

It all sounds market driven to me.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Radio Misinformation

>
> I forget which company it was (non radio) but i heard on cnn
> last night one ceo went to work for a company for 14 days
> and was fired. He walked away with $45 million dollars!!!

In Business Week in the editin just before Christmas there appears the results of a poll that shows that more than 80% of all VP or higher level coroporate executives would not liek to have the CEO or COO postion at their current place of employment.

Among reasons stated are legal liability, Sarbanes-Oxley, increasing global competition, long hours and excess travel, damage to family and personal life, helth impact, isolation from "the ranks" and loneliness at the top, uncertainty of value of incentives such as options, high tax rates in incremental income, etc.

A common statement, in fact, was something on the order of "they could not pay me enough to make me take it."
>
> Maybe one day the "folks" will rise up and say enough is
> enough.

Highly unlikely. Most people thing good executives... the ones like Jack Welch... are worth every penney they earn because they bring prosperity to the owners (shareholders) and the employees (failed companies don't give raises).

Interestingly, the places where salaries are dropping, like in the airlines, are where the government over regulates to the point of making business at a profit very hard. This was true of radio up into the mid 90's.

 

[KPLEXCOMPLEX]

Re: Radio Misinformation

> > Gee, except for the fact that nobody was ever buying
> > stations for 5 times cash flow, the post makes perfect
> > sense.
>
>
> OK, Dave, so the stations aren't highly leveraged, the cost
> cutting is not prompted by debt service. Where has the money
> gone? Radio staff salaries have declined about 40% in the
> decade since the Communications Act re-write.
> Thousands of positions have been eliminated. News and public
> affairs organizations have been wiped out. Who got those
> cost savings? Was it the hundreds and hundreds of six-figure
> salaried Vice Presidents now roaming the halls of the major
> communications companies?
> I love the comment about how executive salaries aren't out
> of line with other industries. The average CEO in the '80s
> used to pull down 40 times his lowest full time employee's
> salary. Now it's hundreds of times more. In the case of some
> of our Radio C.E.O.'s, it's approaching a thousand times
> more. All the more reason to withdraw from such a skewed
> business model, and create your own.
> g
>
Several Good points again Mr.Chester. Too bad your adversary doesn't get it and refuses to try. His OCD will have him rspond to this. He has to have the last word on any given subject. His compulsiveness causes that. He should acknowledge you plus others know what they are talking about and are more correct than he.

 

[grantchester]

Re: Radio Misinformation

>more than 80%
> of all VP or higher level coroporate executives would not
> liek to have the CEO or COO postion at their current place
> of employment.
>
HA HA HA HA HA !!!
Poor Babies! Lets just hand the keys to the house to the bank, sell the car, put the kids in foster care, and live at the YMCA so we can continue to create value for our executive overlords! They deserve millions for having to work in luxury offices, fly in corporate jets, make deals over golf, take meetings at the exclusive club, and be driven home to their gated mansions.
When Bernie Waterman was making millions off KTSA/KTFM, he didn't need a raft of vice presidents, presidents, CEO's and the like. Ron Rogers and Roy Butler managed to make do for years at KVET/KASE without the extra suits. They even managed to serve the community, and provide living wages for employees while they made their millions.
I would not call people who destroy careers, gut station content, ignore their responsibility to the public, take payola, and hold their employees in contempt "Good Executives'. Corporate America needs an enema.
g