Rush Foresees End

[naughtytalker]

Rush Limbaugh is talking about a bleak future for conservative talk radio and Clear Channel/Premier in the third person.

Limbaugh (paraphrased) : If Radio A (CC) doesn't have the money to pay billions of dollars in debt repayments in the coming months and Radio A needs to extend or renegotiate loans from banks taking bailout money, the government rules for banks lending to Radio A, allows the government to dictate programming investment decisions made by Radio A. Or lend no money and go bankrupt which may wipe out Limbaugh's multi-million dollar contract rights.

Rush foresees his shows end on terrestrial radio. There's no need for a fairness doctrine, it's a bloodless coup d'etat with government printed greenbacks.

 

[DToTheJ]

I heard somewhere that Clear Channel ended up laying off 12% of its workforce over the last few years, all the while keeping Rush's contract intact.

Oh yeah... That source was Keith Olbermann's TV show...

 

[John Waywoods]

Tough! No more bailouts for commercial ventures. The laws of capitalism mandate inefficient companies to die in order to make room for those that are efficient. ClearChannel dies someone else will come up with a better delivery or content system.

Remember, CC was first in line to beg for the 1996 Comm. Act to pass in order for them to be able to buy up anything that moves in media. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. They over-extended the company. It is time to shrink and re-image.

 

[MsMusicRadio]

1) To Rush-----don't slam the door on your way out.

2) If stations like WFLA, WRVA, KDKA, etc. loose these conservative talk shows, maybe they can go back to actually reporting the news or even better, go back to the concept of local radio with a full-service format. Even if they are conservative, they might lose the nasty edge going down for decades.

 

[Ferreri]

1) To Rush-----don't slam the door on your way out.

2) If stations like WFLA, WRVA, KDKA, etc. loose these conservative talk shows, maybe they can go back to actually reporting the news or even better, go back to the concept of local radio with a full-service format. Even if they are conservative, they might lose the nasty edge going down for decades.

Ms. Music. It is a business. One of the rules of being a successful programmer is to not let your personal likes or dislikes get in the way. Think this subject was touched on before on one of your political posts.

 

[Bob1370]

"Limbaugh (paraphrased) : If Radio A (CC) doesn't have the money to pay billions of dollars in debt repayments in the coming months and Radio A needs to extend or renegotiate loans from banks taking bailout money, the government rules for banks lending to Radio A, allows the government to dictate programming investment decisions made by Radio A. Or lend no money and go bankrupt which may wipe out Limbaugh's multi-million dollar contract rights.

Rush foresees his shows end on terrestrial radio. There's no need for a fairness doctrine, it's a bloodless coup d'etat with government printed greenbacks. "

Rush has it wrong on two counts. First, of course, communications law as it's now written bars the government from making any programming decisions other than sanctions against obscenity.

Second, any inference that the government is in any way responsible for the troubles of Limbaugh's syndicator, Clear Channel, are specious. They dug their own hole, which could conceivably become a corporate grave, through a combination of stupid, leveraged over-expansion of the station fleet and poor programming decisions that turned large numbers of listeners off in too many markets and consequently chased ad dollars away. What's more, Clear Channel seems bent on going further in the same direction that got them into trouble, canning dozens of well-liked local personalities in market after market and replacing them either with captive syndicated shows (like Rush or Ryan Seacrest) or personality-free juke box programming from the hard drive.

 

[Nostalgia]

"Limbaugh (paraphrased) : If Radio A (CC) doesn't have the money to pay billions of dollars in debt repayments in the coming months and Radio A needs to extend or renegotiate loans from banks taking bailout money, the government rules for banks lending to Radio A, allows the government to dictate programming investment decisions made by Radio A. Or lend no money and go bankrupt which may wipe out Limbaugh's multi-million dollar contract rights.

Rush foresees his shows end on terrestrial radio. There's no need for a fairness doctrine, it's a bloodless coup d'etat with government printed greenbacks. "

Rush has it wrong on two counts. First, of course, communications law as it's now written bars the government from making any programming decisions other than sanctions against obscenity.

Second, any inference that the government is in any way responsible for the troubles of Limbaugh's syndicator, Clear Channel, are specious. They dug their own hole, which could conceivably become a corporate grave, through a combination of stupid, leveraged over-expansion of the station fleet and poor programming decisions that turned large numbers of listeners off in too many markets and consequently chased ad dollars away. What's more, Clear Channel seems bent on going further in the same direction that got them into trouble, canning dozens of well-liked local personalities in market after market and replacing them either with captive syndicated shows (like Rush or Ryan Seacrest) or personality-free juke box programming from the hard drive.

I don't think anyone is saying the govt. would ever again have a direct hand in programming decisions, ie a man in a dark suit behind a tinted window with a big red censor button in front of him. This is a scenario for only the most paranoid among us although I should say, before I am called out on this, I am old enough to remember this happening which is why I said again.

Definately a more subtle approach, via a review of "programming investment decisions" like big outside contracts such as RL's "multi-million dollar contract" while layoffs continue. Still, for the behemoth it has become, I dont think CC has reached the point where it is too big to fail and bring total destruction to the radio industry as we know it therefore making it eligible for a bailout. Many of you would say that has already happened! Another round of selloffs, this time at more fire sale prices, MAY put some smaller market stations back in the hands of someone who may be able to do something with them.

And thank you Bob1370 for your short and to the point summary of the CC situation. Well said.

 

[jefflaurence]

The real issue here isn't so much the future of terrestrial radio stations but the future of how the populus gets it's audio entertainment. While all of the wranglings have been going on around regular radio stations, listeners have found new mediums to get what they want. The future of terrestrial radio is bleak because of the history of terrestrial radio, and the direction that it persued..and with that the re-conditioning of the listener (especially the ad-attractive 25-45 slice) to find new sources such as iPods, and WiFi radios. Satellite doesn't really enter into this because to a large extent they are carbon copies of the same archaic programming philosophies as we have on AM and FM.

The new listeners are computer and gadget savvy and like their new mode of delivery better than the old way. The Rush Limbaughs of the world that will survive will embrace the new media and seque seemlessley to it exclusively. The pld way (of network programming i.e soap operas, and big band concerts from hotels) is the NEW way (Seacrest, Delilah, Tom Kent etc) and it is far less expensive to pay a likeable guy like Ryan Seacrest a flat rate to put him on as many stations as you can..than to pay a local personalilty that will get the station into trouble, or call in sick, or otherwise become annoying to management..not to mention any insurance etc

I was in St. Pete over the weekend and hadn't been through the Gandy area recently..Look at WTSP's sign on the building..It practically doesn't mention television..it says "Home of 10 Connect" (thier website for streaming video) and the Clear Channel building in Tampa has a huge CLEAR CHANNEL sign, and a couple of wee-bitty small radio station logos at the bottom..

We all need to get cozy with the idea of streaming WiFi or WiMax audio, and run with it..The value of all that real estste that the multiple tower arrays sit on is becoming worth much more than the station's signals they emit

 

[Mike_Hennessy]

I had an interesting discussion with Gabe Hobbs a couple of years back where he suggested that within the near future radio stations would be tearing down their towers and shutting down their towers to go the Internet/Wi-Fi/Wi-Max route. I went him one better, by suggesting that the next step would be the end of centralized station facilities with everything done virtually and nothing in a central location except a central server, which might or might not be, in the same place as the supposed "city of license". Hell, I did news for the Cayman Islands out of a home office with a low end computer, a not very expensive mic and a dusty version of Cool Edit. Why go to the trouble and expense of maintaining a building the size of the Pentagon when you can just contract with people to work out of their homes? it may take longer than I predicted, but that's sure the way it's going.

 

[dwtpa97]

With regard to terrestrial stations within the future tearing down their towers to go the Internet/Wi-Fi/Wi-Max route, it would make sense except that the megacorporations paid a lot of big bucks to get their current AM-FM broadcasting franchises, and they'd be getting nothing back on that investment. Furthermore, there seems to be no limit to the competition they might encounter on the Internet/Wi-Fi/Wi-Max route, where entry of new program providers is almost unlimited. It seems more likely that the broadcasting stations will morph to a Seacrest, Delilah, Tom Kent, etc. type of approach, as indicated in Jeff Lawrence's post.

 

[KevinFodor]

1) To Rush-----don't slam the door on your way out.

2) If stations like WFLA, WRVA, KDKA, etc. loose these conservative talk shows, maybe they can go back to actually reporting the news or even better, go back to the concept of local radio with a full-service format. Even if they are conservative, they might lose the nasty edge going down for decades.

Again, here is another person who wants the 1950's and 1960's to come back.

It won't happen.

Full Service radio succeeded back then because there were a lot fewer stations in markets back then, and one or two stations could take the "all things to all people" approach. You could play a little music...do news twice an hour...do sports at :15 till and succeed.

Today, the landscape has changed. A "Full Service" station, in most cases cannot do sports as well as a well programmed all sports station. News could be done, but most companies refuse to put the money or effort into news programming. Why? It takes about 8 -15 employees (full and parttime) to do it right. Go ahead...ask your local station whose billing is down 20% from last year if they can hire
15 people. If people want news, they'll go to a station that does news and does it well...in most cases, it's a news-talk station. And that's because music stations have abandoned any attempts to cover news. (There are good news-talkers, even if the stations air conservative talk, whether your politics allows you to believe it or not.) The news on Newstalk stations is done the way it is because these stations understand how people use radio today...not how they used it in 1962. People lives are so complex, they don't have time to sit and listen to radio. If they want news, they want it encapsulated...tell me what I need to know in 3-4 sentences.

Don't believe me...do the research. The company for which I work has done it. And the newstalk I work for is #1 in our market...in a home city and home county that is heavily Democratic politically. We air syndicated conservative talk. And we get double-digit shares consistently.

You see, some of you who are too hung up on politics don't get it. To us, the talk shows are like records on a music station. They are the "filler" between informational or commercial segments. That's all.

When there's breaking news, or emergency weather information...we break in. And no, if it's important enough to break in, we don't care what the dittoheads say. They can sit and complain all they want...and do. You wouldn't believe the number of "I'm going to listen to Rush on (WXXX) outside of town" calls we get. Doesn't matter. We're still #1. Our news department, reporters, anchors and producers watch the news 24/7. If something happens at 2 am...we're on it.

Oh yeah...did I mention we produce 4 plus hours of local public affairs programming every week? Some of those shows air as late at 9:30 in the morning on Sundays. That's called serving the public "interest, convenience and necessity". We air pro and con interviews on many of the issues of the day.

Music? Nobody will listen to it on AM. Unless you're over 50 and AM is all you listen to. Audience moves from AM to FM...not the other way around. It's a proven fact. And over 50 audiences don't make money.

You see, we focus on our local information as the key to our success. Talk shows are secondary.

Now, to Rush's comments today? Sure, if Clear Channel goes bust and goes to the government hat in hand, yeah...the President could offer bailout money in return for "fairness". If that happens, I would bet the result would be about the same as we could...I said "could" see from General Motors in about 5-7 years. Another broke company selling products few want to buy propped up by government money none of us can afford to spend. But, that's just my thinking.

Moreover, Rush, you see...doesn't have one thing. That's a union to protect his interests with the government, as GM and Chrysler's current employees and retirees have with the UAW. AFTRA (the American Federation of TV and Radio Artists), is only in the largest of markets anymore. So, if (and remember, I'm speaking hypothetically here), Clear Channel gets too far in over their heads, and Premiere goes bust around it, declaring bankruptcy and re-negotiating or canceling high dollar contracts is a very distinct possibility. That's what Rush sees. And, he's right to be thinking about it. I hope he's saved his millions well, for his sake.

Actually, Ms. MusicRadio, I too wish the "good old days" could come back. So, I do share your sentiment. I just know the business and political realities of radio today. Even if the government broke up Clear Channel, forced them to sell 700 radio stations, little would change in the day to day economics of radio. Live 24/7 programming would not come back, because there's too much savings to be made by syndicating or voicetracking. You'd have more owners unable to pay good money for talent, operating on a shoestring...with fewer options other than to be jukeboxes.

I worked for a Mom & Pop station in the early 80's. I have no doubt that had a means existed to have only a live morning show, and everybody else voice-tracking part-time, that the manager of the station would have taken that option in a heartbeat.

And those same economic realities exist today.

 

[KevinFodor]

The real issue here isn't so much the future of terrestrial radio stations but the future of how the populus gets it's audio entertainment. While all of the wranglings have been going on around regular radio stations, listeners have found new mediums to get what they want. The future of terrestrial radio is bleak because of the history of terrestrial radio, and the direction that it persued..and with that the re-conditioning of the listener (especially the ad-attractive 25-45 slice) to find new sources such as iPods, and WiFi radios. Satellite doesn't really enter into this because to a large extent they are carbon copies of the same archaic programming philosophies as we have on AM and FM.

The new listeners are computer and gadget savvy and like their new mode of delivery better than the old way. The Rush Limbaughs of the world that will survive will embrace the new media and seque seemlessley to it exclusively. The pld way (of network programming i.e soap operas, and big band concerts from hotels) is the NEW way (Seacrest, Delilah, Tom Kent etc) and it is far less expensive to pay a likeable guy like Ryan Seacrest a flat rate to put him on as many stations as you can..than to pay a local personalilty that will get the station into trouble, or call in sick, or otherwise become annoying to management..not to mention any insurance etc

I was in St. Pete over the weekend and hadn't been through the Gandy area recently..Look at WTSP's sign on the building..It practically doesn't mention television..it says "Home of 10 Connect" (thier website for streaming video) and the Clear Channel building in Tampa has a huge CLEAR CHANNEL sign, and a couple of wee-bitty small radio station logos at the bottom..

We all need to get cozy with the idea of streaming WiFi or WiMax audio, and run with it..The value of all that real estste that the multiple tower arrays sit on is becoming worth much more than the station's signals they emit

Jeff - you hit on a good point here. Rush could move to internet, podcasting, etc. No FCC, or government to get in the way there. And he could still, ultimately, make many more millions.

 

[David67]

Rush Limbaugh is talking about a bleak future for conservative talk radio and Clear Channel/Premier in the third person.

Limbaugh (paraphrased) : If Radio A (CC) doesn't have the money to pay billions of dollars in debt repayments in the coming months and Radio A needs to extend or renegotiate loans from banks taking bailout money, the government rules for banks lending to Radio A, allows the government to dictate programming investment decisions made by Radio A. Or lend no money and go bankrupt which may wipe out Limbaugh's multi-million dollar contract rights.

Rush foresees his shows end on terrestrial radio. There's no need for a fairness doctrine, it's a bloodless coup d'etat with government printed greenbacks.

I have a feeling Talk Radio will be killed off by the upcoming reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine". I have a feeling Stations will program music rather than put on Liberal talk shows that wont get decent ratings.

 

[tomservo]

I had an interesting discussion with Gabe Hobbs a couple of years back where he suggested that within the near future radio stations would be tearing down their towers and shutting down their towers to go the Internet/Wi-Fi/Wi-Max route. I went him one better, by suggesting that the next step would be the end of centralized station facilities with everything done virtually and nothing in a central location except a central server, which might or might not be, in the same place as the supposed "city of license". Hell, I did news for the Cayman Islands out of a home office with a low end computer, a not very expensive mic and a dusty version of Cool Edit. Why go to the trouble and expense of maintaining a building the size of the Pentagon when you can just contract with people to work out of their homes? it may take longer than I predicted, but that's sure the way it's going.

I'm not sure that's ever going to happen.

At the current rates, which costs more: running a 100kW transmitter and the stuff/staff surrounding it, or streaming to tens of thousands of listeners over the internet?

This isn't a gotcha question, either. I really have no idea how the two compare, cost-wise. No idea of the power bill, no idea of the bandwidth bill, no idea of the soundexchange fees.

 

[DToTheJ]

The future of terrestrial radio is bleak because of the history of terrestrial radio, and the direction that it persued..and with that the re-conditioning of the listener (especially the ad-attractive 25-45 slice) to find new sources such as iPods, and WiFi radios. Satellite doesn't really enter into this because to a large extent they are carbon copies of the same archaic programming philosophies as we have on AM and FM.

The new listeners are computer and gadget savvy and like their new mode of delivery better than the old way. The Rush Limbaughs of the world that will survive will embrace the new media and seque seemlessley to it exclusively. The old way (of network programming i.e soap operas, and big band concerts from hotels) is the NEW way (Seacrest, Delilah, Tom Kent etc) and it is far less expensive to pay a likeable guy like Ryan Seacrest a flat rate to put him on as many stations as you can... than to pay a local personalilty that will get the station into trouble, or call in sick, or otherwise become annoying to management..not to mention any insurance etc.

Jeff - you hit on a good point here. Rush could move to internet, podcasting, etc. No FCC, or government to get in the way there. And he could still, ultimately, make many more millions.

Suppose Stern - currently on satellite - gravitates to Internet radio. Would it already be a foregone conclusion that he might do better?

btw Kevin, great insights in your previous post. (And readers, as good as it might be, for the love of Pete, please don't quote the entire thing! )

 

[One Who Knows]

Rush Limbaugh is talking about a bleak future for conservative talk radio and Clear Channel/Premier in the third person.

Limbaugh (paraphrased) : If Radio A (CC) doesn't have the money to pay billions of dollars in debt repayments in the coming months and Radio A needs to extend or renegotiate loans from banks taking bailout money, the government rules for banks lending to Radio A, allows the government to dictate programming investment decisions made by Radio A. Or lend no money and go bankrupt which may wipe out Limbaugh's multi-million dollar contract rights.

Rush foresees his shows end on terrestrial radio. There's no need for a fairness doctrine, it's a bloodless coup d'etat with government printed greenbacks.

I have a feeling Talk Radio will be killed off by the upcoming reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine". I have a feeling Stations will program music rather than put on Liberal talk shows that wont get decent ratings.

While the FCC can do as it pleases to a point, it is still responsible to the citizens of the America. It's our "airwaves", remember?

Any attempt to revive a "Fairness Doctrine" especially if it is aimed solely at one type of programming instead of broadcast media as a whole, I suspect would create a firestorm of negative response similar to what we saw happen during the immigration debate. If Congress thinks their phones melted down then...wait till they have to deal with angry dittoheads and hannitized, Savage-nation loving partisans. The pressure would be relentless, frankly from both sides politically speaking.

I'm not sure our lawmakers are ready to deal with that hot potato...it would go radioactive very quickly. There's little win-win in it...even though some will bluster about it to get in front of network news cameras.

 

[Mike_Hennessy]

The "Fairness Doctrine" hysteria is interesting because Obama's not pushing it and no one in Congress is pushing for it as far as I know either. It seems like a complete non-issue, but hey if it gets ratings, that's what it's all about.

 

[dwtpa97]

The hysteria is also useful for rallying the faithful! I guess it's all part of the game -

 

[smedge2006]

Here's the real threat to talk radio -- collapse of its business model and the destruction of the "farm team" by syndicating a thousand Rush clones and wannabes to the nation instead of letting local talent bloom. Anyone who can remember Tampa talk radio in the 80's knows it was far more compelling, can't-turn-the-radio-off than the uniform, creamy peanut butter of syndication we get today. Those above who say "it can't be brought back, it's too expensive" don't know how miserably little those guys were paid back then! ;D

 

[Mike_Hennessy]

I don't know what the "salaries" were back at the old WPLP, but I seem to recall that the way for hosts to make money was through personal endorsements and/or live ads. David Fowler was the absolute master of the live ad and Bob Lassiter freely admitted that it was Fowler who taught him how to do a great live read. Richard Shanks made a lot of money peddling his "super energy" pills as well and Time Coles was the spokesman for Lenny's Restaurant in Clearwater where he used to serve coffee on Saturday mornings.