Radio stocks

[SirRoxalot]

Deliberately Obtuse?

In the meantime, the Arbitron numbers show that radio as a whole has been steadily losing ratings points since the '80s, and that the trend has accelerated of late.

Does Arbitron attribute those losses to programming? Or is that simply your interpretation? Were there similar losses before any changes in programming? If so, then how can one attribute losses exclusively to programming, when it's documented in the same chart that there were losses before any changes in programming? I'm trying to find out exactly how you make this connection when there is no statistical reason for it.

Arbitron doesn't attribute the loses to anything. It just records them. I've said before that it's my opinion that programming is the culprit. There seems to be a correlation between the reliance in research in its current form and the decline in audience. The logical conclusion is that either the research is flawed, or the conclusions drawn from that research are flawed. Since the most obvious trend in programming during that period is the elimination of value-added elements - personality, information - it's seems reasonable to infer that programming is at fault. Those obvious instances where a return to more entertaining, more high profile value-added content yield higher ratings, are discounted. They're not seen as an example that change is need. CBS-FM is the latest example to get a lot of ink. Even the RAB convention discussed at length the need for more compelling content. Are the Draconian cuts hitting radio now going to provide more compelling content?

Check out a number of stations that were force-fed Opie and Anthony by corporate - a move that's since be rescinded because of poor performance by the syndicated show.

Those stations went to a live and local show that did even worse, and so they decided to go back to Opie & Anthony. What does that prove?

Most of the markets that were fed Opie & Anthony were former Stern markets. The stations never recovered from their dependence on Stern. O&A didn't improve on those post-Stern numbers. I know of an instance where O&A - as part of a package deal - replaced local talent that was #1 in their target audience. That show survived by the skin of its teeth, and is now killing in PM drive. O&A are history, and mornings are now "unsettled" in corporate parlance.

What it proves is that the reliance on syndicated talent puts you at the mercy of the syndicator, and that you have few options when that talent gets a better deal elsewhere. Moreover, why would you act as a distributor for content that's presented to greater advantage on a competitive technology? Seems just plain stupid to me.

In some markets, syndication forced on local stations by corporate agreements has cost them significant revenue. The latest round of cuts in live, local programming is likely to provide us with more examples.

I'm still waiting for examples of successful local programming that was replaced by syndication.

Entercom whacked several live, local, successful 7-midnight shows on AC or Hot AC stations and replaced them with Kim Iverson. The results have not been pretty in several markets.

Citadel has virtually eliminated live and local 7-midnight shows in most markets, without regard to ratings or revenue. It happened so recently that there isn't much hard data, but the first trend is down, and the response from listeners at stations I'm familiar with has be overwhelmingly negative.

Those are two examples, incorporated a significant number of stations. Once again, read the trades. You're falling behind on what's going on in the world of radio.

First you say people aren't listening, then you say there is successful local programming. I'm getting very confused here. It's either one or the other. It can't be both. If radio has been in a downward slide for over 20 years, then the local programming is where it began. It sounds like selective reasoning to me...where you bring up stuff when it proves your point, and attack it when it doesn't.

There is successful local programming. Unfortunately, there's less of it every day. The number of stations that have come under control of large corporate entities, and the amount of control exercised by corporate, have both grown - especially since 1996. Listening has declined, both in audience percentage and TSL, as corporate programming practices have spread.

Being deliberately obtuse is not becoming, A. Try to keep up, OK? And bring some facts to the table to bolster your arguements. So far, you're long on heat, and short on light.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Re: The Bottom Line

David throws around numbers that conflict with Arbitron's own published reports. Links, please?

No conflict. I am telling you what the PPM data shows. I have 8 market's worth. If you want very specific ratings data, you have to be a subscriber.

So, you admit that your data is based on an incomplete sample, and only markets that you're familiar with. And you position yourself as a expert statistician?

One major corporate blind spot is that what works in the top 15 markets doesn't necessarily work in markets that are smaller than that - and doesn't even work in all of those markets. What more indication do you need that programming needs to be target LOCALLY, not force-fed by corporate?

I have seen and been involved with the concept that the listener does not care where the studio is, but does care if what they listen to is personally entertaining, satisfying or informative. In most cases, being in the same city has little to do with this, or there would be dozens of Delialah clones that beat her, dozens of Rush clones that beat him, dozens of Piolín clones that beat him.

Perhaps it has a LOT to do with the fact that local talent ISN'T ALLOWED to compete because the "formatics" dictated by corporate consultants won't let them. What about stations that kill a local show in favor of syndicated content because they're afraid that a competitor might get that syndicated show? I've seen decisions like that come down from corporate by decree - especially when corporate is working a "deal" with the syndicator.

I'll agree that listeners don't care where the entertainment originates if you'll agree that many radio station restrict content so much that jocks don't have much opportunity to entertain. Competition dictates a level playing field. I'm not seeing that when it comes to local vs. syndicated.

You say that "CBS FM has not broken the mold. They simply copied the PPM success of WOGL in Philly. A decent classic hits station is no more "mold breaking" than a decent Alternative Rock station." What makes WOGL a "decent classic hits station"? What makes a station a "decent Alternative Rock station"? Could it be the fact that WOGL has a stellar lineup of PERSONALITIES? As does CBS-FM? Could it be that they give listeners something more than a cookie-cutter jukebox repeating the same 300 records endlessly?

Both stations have exclusive formats that did only fairly in the diary, but that benefitted from the PPM... likely due to "forced" listening or non-P1 status issues. Neither are better than Lite or B 100 in the two markets, and Lite and B 100 have far less "personality" yet win much more significantly in the sales demos and even 12+.

You just can't admit that CBS-FM might be a template for retaining - or even expanding - a certain segment of the audience. I've already said that passive listening stations get numbers. So do active listening stations when given the chance. In NYC, buys at major stations are almost all based on numbers. Go beyond the biggest stations in major markets and you'll find that many advertisers prefer to target an active listening audience. Skilled sales people have the training to understand and sell that concept.

You're better off comparing Jack to CBS-FM. It's a more representative illustration. When you present nothing but a jukebox, the only audience you'll get is one that wants nothing but a jukebox.

I am still giggling occasionally at your telling me that KLVE is a pop station!!!!!

Not being in LA, I have to rely on the information that Arbitron furnishes to me. If I'm confused, my guess is that there are others - including some agencies - that are also being misled. Giggle if you wish, but Arbitron says Latin Pop, as in "Spanish" and "Popular" (not hit, urban, alternative, or rhythmic) music. The point is, K-Love is a Spanish station. That works well in LA, not so well in hundreds of other markets.

As has been pointed out, you have not proven that lots more DJs is either the cause of declining PUR numbers, nor have you shown how having more local talents that talk more will increase numbers. The fact is, there is proof for neither.

Huh? Please reference the derivation of that statement.

The expansion of corporate programming practices, through both influence and ultimately acquisition, appears to correlate with the decline in listening. You blame it on technology. I blame it on bland, over-researched, "safe" programming that's led to an entire generation of disinterest in corporate product. For us, it's a difference of opinion. For the shareholders, it's penny stocks in place of the dollars they invested on corporate's assurances of success. For the people who work in the industry, it's the loss of their livelihood. Are you SURE that you're absolutely right? Recent results are not in your favor.

 

[LasVegasRadioJunky]

CDL closes at 17 cents for the third day this month.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: The Bottom Line

So, you admit that your data is based on an incomplete sample, and only markets that you're familiar with. And you position yourself as a expert statistician?

Arbitron issues complete summary data for all PPM markets. So far, there is only one currency market that I have to refer to the summary data for... since I see NY, SF, Chi, Hou, LA, IE, SJ... all the rest, in fact.

Perhaps it has a LOT to do with the fact that local talent ISN'T ALLOWED to compete because the "formatics" dictated by corporate consultants won't let them.

Perhaps the consultants, due to broader experience, greater ability to read research, etc., know more?

What about stations that kill a local show in favor of syndicated content because they're afraid that a competitor might get that syndicated show?

In that case, the management, local or not, has recognized the local show is not as good as the syndicated one and decides that the best show will please more listeners.

I'll agree that listeners don't care where the entertainment originates if you'll agree that many radio station restrict content so much that jocks don't have much opportunity to entertain.

You still have failed to show that more jock content is preferable in most formats to less content and better music flow.


Competition dictates a level playing field. I'm not seeing that when it comes to local vs. syndicated.

You just can't admit that CBS-FM might be a template for retaining - or even expanding - a certain segment of the audience. I've already said that passive listening stations get numbers. So do active listening stations when given the chance. In NYC, buys at major stations are almost all based on numbers. Go beyond the biggest stations in major markets and you'll find that many advertisers prefer to target an active listening audience. Skilled sales people have the training to understand and sell that concept.

When transactional buys are made, cost is the determining factor. In many cases, controversial or talk content will take you off the buy.

CBS FM is a nice station. It's shown that, as in Philly, Classic Hits gets better 25-54 than oldies did, and the key issue is the music they play, not the talent. The talent glues it together, but if a person does not love the music, they won't come to that party. The talent can make the experience more pleasing, but talent can also ruin it.

Since CBS FM benefits from the "nobody really hates the music" quality, it's a good station for anything from a bakery to a barber shop... thus getting lots of "hearing" vs. "listening" for the station. I'd contend that much of the cume growth of CBS FM is not due to active listening but, rather, to passive listening and hearing.

You're better off comparing Jack to CBS-FM. It's a more representative illustration. When you present nothing but a jukebox, the only audience you'll get is one that wants nothing but a jukebox.

I can compare Jack with pre-PPM data only, meaning CBS FM prior to changing to Jack. You know, I presume, that Jack was getting comparable if not better 25-54 numbers than CBS FM had been doing with oldies? Given the decline in CBS FM billing and 25-54, Jack was a nice alternative; CBS managed the PR terribly and that, not the format, hurt them.

I am still giggling occasionally at your telling me that KLVE is a pop station!!!!!

Not being in LA, I have to rely on the information that Arbitron furnishes to me. If I'm confused, my guess is that there are others - including some agencies - that are also being misled. Giggle if you wish, but Arbitron says Latin Pop, as in "Spanish" and "Popular" (not hit, urban, alternative, or rhythmic) music. The point is, K-Love is a Spanish station. That works well in LA, not so well in hundreds of other markets.

Arbitron does not "furnish" you with anything that says "Latin Pop." In fact, all the format descriptions in PPM for Spanish language stations start with "Spanish" and not "Latin" to begin with. There is "Spanish Adult Hits" for the Recuerdo and copies of the Southwest, there is "Spanish Tropical" for the salsa and merengue stations. There is "Spanish Urban" for the reggatón and rhythmic stations. But there is no "Latin Pop" and no "Spanish Pop." Sorry, don't pass GO, don't collect $200.

[/quote]The expansion of corporate programming practices, through both influence and ultimately acquisition, appears to correlate with the decline in listening. You blame it on technology. I blame it on bland, over-researched, "safe" programming that's led to an entire generation of disinterest in corporate product. [/quote]

"We" meaning "radio" researched our music going back to the 50's. Callout and music tests go back to the 70's. There is no correlation between researching... which means "finding out what the listener wants to hear"... and ratings declines, for either the medium or individual stations.

 

[adma]

Re: The Bottom Line

The expansion of corporate programming practices, through both influence and ultimately acquisition, appears to correlate with the decline in listening. You blame it on technology. I blame it on bland, over-researched, "safe" programming that's led to an entire generation of disinterest in corporate product.

Actually, an alternate blame for this disinterest may be placed on the inverse of this so-called bland safety. That is, thanks especially to talk radio, younger demos identify radio with today's Archie Bunkers. That's not attractive, you know.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Re: The Bottom Line

I am still giggling occasionally at your telling me that KLVE is a pop station!!!!!

Not being in LA, I have to rely on the information that Arbitron furnishes to me. If I'm confused, my guess is that there are others - including some agencies - that are also being misled. Giggle if you wish, but Arbitron says Latin Pop, as in "Spanish" and "Popular" (not hit, urban, alternative, or rhythmic) music. The point is, K-Love is a Spanish station. That works well in LA, not so well in hundreds of other markets.

Arbitron does not "furnish" you with anything that says "Latin Pop." In fact, all the format descriptions in PPM for Spanish language stations start with "Spanish" and not "Latin" to begin with. There is "Spanish Adult Hits" for the Recuerdo and copies of the Southwest, there is "Spanish Tropical" for the salsa and merengue stations. There is "Spanish Urban" for the reggatón and rhythmic stations. But there is no "Latin Pop" and no "Spanish Pop." Sorry, don't pass GO, don't collect $200.

Tell that to Radio & Record's listing of ratings for LA. That was the source for my 12+, and the "Spanish Pop" nomenclature.

You still don't address the fact that what works in one market doesn't necessarily translate to another market.

The expansion of corporate programming practices, through both influence and ultimately acquisition, appears to correlate with the decline in listening. You blame it on technology. I blame it on bland, over-researched, "safe" programming that's led to an entire generation of disinterest in corporate product.

"We" meaning "radio" researched our music going back to the 50's. Callout and music tests go back to the 70's. There is no correlation between researching... which means "finding out what the listener wants to hear"... and ratings declines, for either the medium or individual stations.

There is a correlation between the decline in immediacy in radio and the decline in listening. Whether its music, culture, news, or talk, one of radio's most important elements used to be immediacy. Radio news thrived on it. Radio programming in general used it to great advantage before the expansion of voice tracking.

Research has probably gone on since KDKA signed on in 1920. Research was certainly a part of selecting music from the time that recordings became the staple of music radio until today. The difference is that research was broader based from the '50s to the '80s. Call out research, checking what was selling locally, request tracking, and even observed response from a portion of the target audience are just a few of the techniques used in the past. The result was a broader-based research sample than it commonly used today. Even research mavens like Lee Abrams think that research has been used to make radio programming formulaic, not entertaining.

Computers do some things very well, but they have no taste, and no creativity. You can't turn everything in an entertainment medium into 0s and 1s. THAT'S the problem with so much of radio programming today.

 

[LasVegasRadioJunky]

BBGI closed at 92 cents today and was as low as 85 this afternoon.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: radio stocks

Since the most obvious trend in programming during that period is the elimination of value-added elements - personality, information - it's seems reasonable to infer that programming is at fault.

Which time period are you talking about? How can you attribute a 20 year trend to something that is just starting to happen, and at only at a few hundred radio stations?

Are the Draconian cuts hitting radio now going to provide more compelling content?

What makes you think "compelling content" is what the audience seeks? Where are your facts? Besides, if the people being cut now were employed anytime during the last 20 years, aren't they responsible for the drop off in audience you cite?

O&A are history, and mornings are now "unsettled" in corporate parlance.

O&A are on the air on K-Rock in NYC. If they weren't under contract by XM, you'd see them at more places. They provide lots of that "value-added" original content that you were talking about.

In other markets, they've been replaced by local shows. The Sports Junkies in DC, for example. Local grown talent. Are they beating Stern? You tell me.

What it proves is that the reliance on syndicated talent puts you at the mercy of the syndicator, and that you have few options when that talent gets a better deal elsewhere.

Hmmm...seems to me it's exactly the same thing that happens when a local DJ is lured away from the #1 morning show to a competitor. It happens all the time.

Entercom whacked several live, local, successful 7-midnight shows on AC or Hot AC stations and replaced them with Kim Iverson. The results have not been pretty in several markets.

Are you seriously going to tell me that 7 to midnight is a successful daypart? Compared to what? Overnights? Come on. There is no money from 7 to midnight. That's why stations have been running syndication there for years. Delilah isn't a recent thing. No one is going to give away money to syndicators if there's a chance to make it all themselves.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Educating the Mass

Since the most obvious trend in programming during that period is the elimination of value-added elements - personality, information - it's seems reasonable to infer that programming is at fault.

Which time period are you talking about? How can you attribute a 20 year trend to something that is just starting to happen, and at only at a few hundred radio stations?

The reduction in value-added elements - personality and information - has been going on since the '80s. It's accelerated since the Telecom Act of '96 changed the rules, and has accelerated as consolidation has occurred. It IS a 20+ year trend, as is the AQH rating decline. Please try reading the provided links in the previous discussions so you can keep up with the conversation.

Are the Draconian cuts hitting radio now going to provide more compelling content?

What makes you think "compelling content" is what the audience seeks? Where are your facts? Besides, if the people being cut now were employed anytime during the last 20 years, aren't they responsible for the drop off in audience you cite?

I'm beginning to think that reading comprehension is a problem for you. This question has already been discussed. Keep up, will you? I've already cited examples where better content got better ratings. Maybe you need a primer. Try the RAB Radio Lab Study on Advertising Effectiveness. Since I know that you won't read the whole thing, skip down to the "Radio As a Medium" section. You might also peruse the "Conclusions". One theme winds through the entire study:

"Listeners trust their stations and networks to bring them personally relevant content, including the advertising."

Tell me again how "personal" a voice track is? Especially when the weather doesn't go as forecast, or something momentous happens.

O&A are history, and mornings are now "unsettled" in corporate parlance.

O&A are on the air on K-Rock in NYC. If they weren't under contract by XM, you'd see them at more places. They provide lots of that "value-added" original content that you were talking about.

In other markets, they've been replaced by local shows. The Sports Junkies in DC, for example. Local grown talent. Are they beating Stern? You tell me.

Please keep up with the industry. O&A failed miserably in most markets where they were used as a replacement for Stern. What has corporate invested in the local shows that have replaced both Stern and O&A? In many places, they've thrown whoever was handy on the morning show with little support and less guidance.

What it proves is that the reliance on syndicated talent puts you at the mercy of the syndicator, and that you have few options when that talent gets a better deal elsewhere.

Hmmm...seems to me it's exactly the same thing that happens when a local DJ is lured away from the #1 morning show to a competitor. It happens all the time.

The number of jocks who are lured across the street is depressingly small. Even when that happens, is it better to have a problem in one market, or fifty? The reliance on Stern put dozens of stations in the dumper. If he hadn't been on that many stations, losing him wouldn't have as much impact. BTW, even Stern wasn't #1 in all the markets he infested. Stern was the choice of programmers who either couldn't or wouldn't build a successful morning show.

Entercom whacked several live, local, successful 7-midnight shows on AC or Hot AC stations and replaced them with Kim Iverson. The results have not been pretty in several markets.

Are you seriously going to tell me that 7 to midnight is a successful daypart? Compared to what? Overnights? Come on. There is no money from 7 to midnight. That's why stations have been running syndication there for years. Delilah isn't a recent thing. No one is going to give away money to syndicators if there's a chance to make it all themselves.

Are you seriously going to tell me that nobody makes a profit after 7PM? Produce some shred of evidence for that contention. If you're so ignorant that you believe that there's no money in 7-midnight, you really need to look at other stations and other markets. Evenings aren't as strong as they once were, but they still bring in profit at many stations after all the expenses are paid. They'd be stronger if corporate radio didn't treat them as a throwaway.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: Educating the Mass

I'm beginning to think that reading comprehension is a problem for you.

Please keep up with the industry.

If you're so ignorant

If you need to resort to insulting me, it doesn't do much for your credibility. I'm done with this thread.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Educating the Mass

Are you seriously going to tell me that nobody makes a profit after 7PM? Produce some shred of evidence for that contention. If you're so ignorant that you believe that there's no money in 7-midnight, you really need to look at other stations and other markets. Evenings aren't as strong as they once were, but they still bring in profit at many stations after all the expenses are paid. They'd be stronger if corporate radio didn't treat them as a throwaway.

There is very little revenue post-7 PM.

Local direct does not usually go for it since those accounts know that most people are watching TV at night.

Agencies don't want to pay for it, as they know stations will use post-7 spots to bring down the CPP to be competitive.

Stations manage to put some revenue spots in that daypart with ROS and saturation plans, however they may call them. A few very dominant stations mange to force other dayparts on clients who want mornings or 6 A to 7 P by making the rates more attractive is nights or weekends are added.

But, overall, the rationale is that, since we are not going to sign off, sell the time for whatever can be obtained or to bulk up packages or for bonus spots to increase the buy efficiency. Were we to depend on nights alone, we would make no money.

 

[SirRoxalot]

So, what you're saying is that evenings don't bring in the kind of money that 6a-7p does, but still may be on the plus side of the ledger? The why does it make any economic sense to whack a live personality who actually makes evenings profitable? That's what has happened by corporated decree at several stations owned by Citadel recently.

BTW, Citadel stock opens the day at 19 cents. The good news is that it's higher than its 17 cent low point. I think that's an appropriate coda to the discussion of radio stocks. Positions have been thoroughly discussed, and I doubt that there will be any resolution to the differences of opinion.

 

[gr8oldies]

Anyone who has ever worked in radio knows the spot load is lighter, or non-existent after 7pm (it was that way even when I started in the 70s). Sadly, I doubt that the elimination of most of those shifts will cost spots. Unless there's a personality doing lots of endorsements, it's not normally a profit center.

 

[Roger That]

So, what you're saying is that evenings don't bring in the kind of money that 6a-7p does, but still may be on the plus side of the ledger? The why does it make any economic sense to whack a live personality who actually makes evenings profitable?

I think his point is that it's a "plus side" regardless of what you put in there. 7p-Mid has a relationship to 6a-7p that is unchanged with a difference in talent. That talent isn't making the daypart profitable. If it is or isn't profitable, it's achieves that for other reasons.

Given the current economic climate, in which revenue is down in droves, it would be difficult to attribute loss of revenue after 7p to a major "corporate decree" as you suggest. If revenue was thriving, and a change such as that caused a loss, I would agree with you.

 

[LasVegasRadioJunky]

YIKES! Citadel was down to 12 cents an hour or so ago.

 

[RonRoberts]

Given the current economic climate, in which revenue is down in droves, it would be difficult to attribute loss of revenue after 7p to a major "corporate decree" as you suggest. If revenue was thriving, and a change such as that caused a loss, I would agree with you.

Then explain why the mega-companies have been so eager to VT out jocks in middays, afternoons, nights, overnights well BEFORE the "current economic climate?"

This mess is the making of the bean-counters, not true radio people. "True" radio people have been either silently grumbling under their breath or leaving the industry altogether, for well over a decade now.

When the typical mid-to-small market pop station has a VT'd midday jock, along with Ryan Seacrest in mid-afternoons, a VT'ed night show and heck, SOME having a syndicated morning show, tell me where the average listener is compelled to call that their "favorite" station? It can't be because of the music when your morning show and Seacrest swallow up valuable tune time blathering on about themselves or with Heidi from "The Hills."

Aside from Smulyan at Emmis, who's leading the charge to trumpet new technology like the FM/Zune where consumers LISTEN to radio, LIKE a song, SEE what it is, and DOWNLOAD it - all using their new Zune? There's your FM radio savior, friends.

But where is it?

How many of you guys knew Nokia had phones w/FM tuners on 'em? How many do you see out on the streets or in the cell phone stores?

Exactly.

 

[davideduardo]

So, what you're saying is that evenings don't bring in the kind of money that 6a-7p does, but still may be on the plus side of the ledger? The why does it make any economic sense to whack a live personality who actually makes evenings profitable?

No, again I did not say that. I said that, as long as you are going to be on the air anyway, try to do some good with the stopset times... the best action is often to add value to paid daytime spots with bonus spots. While you may sell some, in ROS or saturation type plans, it will never cover costs at most stations.

You talk so much about the listener, but did you think that the advertiser wants the best dayparts. When you sell them the bad stuff when they wanted good, you just irritate the advertiser. It's our job to try to give every advertiser value for the money so they will be ongoing radio users. Pushing crapp times does not do this.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Trimming with a Hatchet

You talk so much about the listener, but did you think that the advertiser wants the best dayparts. When you sell them the bad stuff when they wanted good, you just irritate the advertiser. It's our job to try to give every advertiser value for the money so they will be ongoing radio users. Pushing crapp times does not do this.

The 7-midnight guy on one of the highest rated Classic Rock stations in the country got whacked recently as the result of a corporate edict. He'd been on the shift for 15 years, had a large and loyal following, and had a string of advertisers who wanted to be on his show. There were entertainment businesses, attorneys, the local Harley dealer group, and others that paid specifically for 7-midnight because they got results. The savings from dumping this guy amount to about a spot an hour. They'll lose a lot more than that once the current contracts expire, because they won't be renewed. Not only that, but they're likely to take hit on the morning show as well.

The same group slashed hours for part-timers on orders from corporate. I know of a station that lost a couple of clients that used to do weekend contests. They won't run if they're not getting the benefit of the contest mentions, and the station won't get the benefit of contesting to bolster their weekend numbers. The weekends generally outperformed both the weekday numbers and the competition, and helped set the table for the Monday morning show.

The cost of the live shifts lost equals less than a spot a day. They're already poised to lose more than that from just one client. These are the kinds of things happening out there right now. They don't make economic sense. Local management would never make these decisions because they understand the value that they'll be giving up under these circumstances. Appeals to corporate fell on deaf ears.

That's what's happening out there in the real world. When revenues decline again, they'll make more cuts. They've started slicing steaks off the cash cows, and complaining that they're not giving as much milk.

Citadel stock closed at 17 cents today, down from 19.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Trimming with a Hatchet

The 7-midnight guy on one of the highest rated Classic Rock stations in the country got whacked recently as the result of a corporate edict.

Isn't it funny that your examples never have call letters or markets, and, in general, none of your opinions have any "support documents."

Citadel stock closed at 17 cents today, down from 19.

And GM is at the lowest point it has been since W.W. II. Microsoft is off something like 86% from it's high, and is around $19 today.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Speaking of Hatchet

The 7-midnight guy on one of the highest rated Classic Rock stations in the country got whacked recently as the result of a corporate edict.

Isn't it funny that your examples never have call letters or markets, and, in general, none of your opinions have any "support documents."

Unlike you, who ignores the "support documents" provided because you have your own super secret studies that show different results than information posted by Arbitron.

The 7-Midnight guy was Tom Tiberi at WGRZ - 97-Rock in Buffalo. A friend inside - a long-timer whom I trust - tells me that Buffalo, and especially 97-Rock, are cash cows for Citadel, especially since the ABC "merger".

Citadel stock closed at 17 cents today, down from 19.

And GM is at the lowest point it has been since W.W. II. Microsoft is off something like 86% from it's high, and is around $19 today.

I'm trying to recall ANYBODY touting the genius of American Automotive management - or unions for that matter. At least GM isn't in danger of being delisted.

Better check your math. Microsoft hit $58 during the dot-com boom. It's now at $19. That's about 33% of its highest value, a spike in 1999. It's lowest number was actually around $17 last week. That's about 29% of it's highest value. For the last 8 years, it's hovered around $30. This year, it hit $35 in January, hovered in the $25-$35 range for most of the year, so the drop isn't as drastic as you make it out to be. See what you can do with "statistics"?

The difference is that Microsoft will recover. The great majority of analysts have it as a "buy" or "strong buy", especially at the current level. Microsoft is in no danger of being delisted. NOBODY has Citadel as a "buy" or "strong buy". Citadel is in significant danger of being delisted. It would cost me 111 shares of Citadel for one share of Microsoft. Know anybody that wants to make THAT trade?