Weasels In the Hen House?

[SirRoxalot]

There are huge differences between texting friends to share an experience, and actually being at an event enjoying that experience. There's a huge qualitative difference between "kwl gig. shda bin here" and a professional communicator bringing the sights, sounds, and feel of the experience to someone who's not there. Otherwise, why bother with radio of sports events? People in the audience will just text the action to their friends, right?

The fact that you're simplifying things thusly proves how you're generationally removed from reality, or overly dependent on tabloid scare-mongering. You might as well be Steve Allen reading the lyrics to Be-Bop-A-Lula deadpan, if you get my drift.

Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion. While you're at it, please give me a clue as to how "tabloid scare-mongering" comes into play.

Besides, if it were all about shallow kewl txtng cltr among the kids (as opposed to something as open-ended as the web itself), then why did the youth vote go overwhelmingly for the "enlightened" Obama, and those who heeded radio's "professional communicators" opted for the "unenlightened" McCain-Palin ticket instead?

Obama made very good use of the Internet to reach the youth culture. Radio in general made NO attempt during regular programming to reach younger listeners on Obama's behalf - or McCain's for that matter. The radio shows that reached the largest number of listeners reached an audience that was 35+, and favored McCain. McCain did considerably better with that audience, which could be seen as an arguement for the effectiveness of radio.

In truth, the issues that influenced the voting were far more important than the medium delivering those ideas. Every study I've seen indicates that Obama/Biden got far more coverage, and more favorable coverage, than McCain/Palin.

 

[pocket-radio]

SirRoxalot you’re 100% correct. I’ve felt this way about radio for some time now.
While 235,000 people still listen each week, time spent listening is declining. And adults 12-24 have unplugged, go to any college campus for the evidence. And once free web access grabs hold of dashboards those numbers will decline.
www.hear2.com/2008/12/is-free-wireless-broadband-everywhere-only-a-year-away.html

But beyond the numbers what’s missing from radio is a thing called heart. It doesn’t sound fun anymore, stations today all sound the same, too processed and prepackaged
It’s the difference from a homemade chocolate chip cookie and a store bought brand.

The art of broadcasting comes from the heart, imagination, innovation and a gut feeling.
And all of those qualities are missing today. I guess you can blame the con-sultants. The best thing that could happen is stations go dark and corporate radio goes bankrupt. And you bet they’ll be the next ones asking for a taxpayer bailout.

A while ago, a listener came to our music test and wrote: “ listening to radio is like listening to your friends ipod with commercials.

Sadly many radio people are burnt-out making their opinions unreliable. There was a time when hype and lies took you very far and it didn’t really matter so long as you kept telling yourself more lies and living off hype. similar to Ron Burgundy the Anchor Man. Radio is filled with Ron Burgundy’s.

The era of accountability is upon radio and advertisers are demanding it, and media that can’t live up to their claims won’t survive. That’s why ad dollars, traditional media dollars are being shifted to new media. The truth is long before our current economic meltdown came into town, radio’s revenues have been flat and declining for years.
With the exception of small markets advertisers have lost confidence and radio stopped caring about clients a long time ago. It’s like screw clients hit budgets.

Radio needs an oil change but the current crop of managers won’t pull over until the engine stops running from lack of maintenance.

 

[adma]

I suggest that you get away from radio and pursue the new media. Maybe YOU need to "shut up and get out of the way", and let people who remember how to program radio effectively take a shot at reviving the medium.

.

Trouble is, said "people who remember how" are by and large approaching and beyond retirement years, if not outright dying off (hello/goodbye Bill Drake). And those who've pursued the new media are having the last laugh, because...they really are, by 2008 standards, better.

Remember: what was effective yesterday may no longer be so today. Look at Bill Drake: sorry to spit on his grave, but his form of "effective programming" became identified with greasy sleazeballs and come-on artists by about 1980 or so. That is, it may help to take a *critical* look at the past with regard to addressing present conditions...

 

[TheBigA]

Please give us a single link to a credible source that supports your position.

Believe what you want to believe. There are still lots of people who love radio drama and old time radio theater. But that kind of radio is done and gone. No growth in the audience for that kind of radio. Yet at one time, it captivated people. They'd sit around the console radio like it was a warm glowing fire. Then it went away. Sure a handful of people still want that kind of radio. They felt it was compelling content. Were they wrong? Did the end of radio drama mean radio was dead? Or did radio find new life with new uses inspired by a new generation? You tell me.

But I am not going to waste my time attempting to try to change your mind. Keep believing in the past. It's all you know, and you take great comfort in it. The world still needs museum curators. Maybe you can find work there.

 

[SirRoxalot]

A, as in "Assumption"

Believe what you want to believe. There are still lots of people who love radio drama and old time radio theater. But that kind of radio is done and gone. No growth in the audience for that kind of radio. Yet at one time, it captivated people. They'd sit around the console radio like it was a warm glowing fire. Then it went away. Sure a handful of people still want that kind of radio. They felt it was compelling content. Were they wrong? Did the end of radio drama mean radio was dead? Or did radio find new life with new uses inspired by a new generation? You tell me.

But I am not going to waste my time attempting to try to change your mind. Keep believing in the past. It's all you know, and you take great comfort in it. The world still needs museum curators. Maybe you can find work there.

Hey, YOU set the criteria for "belief" when you said "It is up to the accuser to produce supporting documents". You're making bold statements like "top-down, one-to-many communications is becoming obsolete in the 21st century" without a SHRED of evidence that your position has any validity at all. There's plenty of evidence that you're absolutely wrong. In point of fact, "broadcasting" is exactly what every web page, every FaceBook profile, every blog, and every message forum does. The fact that cume has remained as high as it has indicates that radio is far from "over". The decline in TSL is an indication that listeners aren't finding enough reason to hang around - even while their doing other things. That's a programming problem.

What I believe in isn't "the past", it's simple communications theory that has worked since the first cave man pounded on a hollow log to let his neighbors know that he scored a big kill, and that he had more meat than he could eat. In today's world, that message would be voice-tracked and run twelve hours later, while the meat rotted under the noonday sun.

Let us know when you score big in "new media". I'm still not sure why you'll be posting that on an "old media" discussion board.

 

[TheBigA]

Re:

What I believe in isn't "the past", it's simple communications theory that has worked since the first cave man pounded on a hollow log

Read that sentence, and tell me you're not in denial. The cave man isn't in the past? You've been watching too many GEICO commercials.

The word "communications" requires an EXCHANGE of information..back and forth. Not top-down.

Find in any of my posts where I've advocated voice tracking. You can't. You're arguing with yourself.

Your posts are once again reverting to insults. That behavior isn't acceptable here.

 

[adma]

Besides, if it were all about shallow kewl txtng cltr among the kids (as opposed to something as open-ended as the web itself), then why did the youth vote go overwhelmingly for the "enlightened" Obama, and those who heeded radio's "professional communicators" opted for the "unenlightened" McCain-Palin ticket instead?

Obama made very good use of the Internet to reach the youth culture. Radio in general made NO attempt during regular programming to reach younger listeners on Obama's behalf - or McCain's for that matter. The radio shows that reached the largest number of listeners reached an audience that was 35+, and favored McCain. McCain did considerably better with that audience, which could be seen as an arguement for the effectiveness of radio.

In truth, the issues that influenced the voting were far more important than the medium delivering those ideas. Every study I've seen indicates that Obama/Biden got far more coverage, and more favorable coverage, than McCain/Palin.

But unless there's a "the fix was in" message here, you're still not fully addressing the "enlightened" vs "unenlightened" part. That is, if the kids are so shallow, why did they opt for an Obama-figure over, shall we say, a Palin-figure who, with her dumbed-down you-betcha-ese, ought to have stooped more to their level? You gotta face it--the "argument for the effectiveness of radio" you're offering could just as well be an argument for how radio cocked up and became identified as a medium for redneck hillbillies and mouthbreathing bigots, no matter what age. Essentially, by means of its own "effectiveness", radio shot itself in the foot. If there's disinvestment now, it may be judgment on an long-term "undesirable" generated marketplace.

Heck, you might as well forget about "when radio was great" as a generator of enlightenment: to take on an even older fart's I-told-you-so perspective, maybe look at the Dubyah-The-Moron-and-his-constituency stereotype in terms of what happens when those boomer dolts transfixed by Top 40 and 20/20 news grow up and take power. Next to that, maybe the New Media Generation *is* truly better off...

 

[SirRoxalot]

Besides, if it were all about shallow kewl txtng cltr among the kids (as opposed to something as open-ended as the web itself), then why did the youth vote go overwhelmingly for the "enlightened" Obama, and those who heeded radio's "professional communicators" opted for the "unenlightened" McCain-Palin ticket instead?

Obama made very good use of the Internet to reach the youth culture. Radio in general made NO attempt during regular programming to reach younger listeners on Obama's behalf - or McCain's for that matter. The radio shows that reached the largest number of listeners reached an audience that was 35+, and favored McCain. McCain did considerably better with that audience, which could be seen as an arguement for the effectiveness of radio.

In truth, the issues that influenced the voting were far more important than the medium delivering those ideas. Every study I've seen indicates that Obama/Biden got far more coverage, and more favorable coverage, than McCain/Palin.

But unless there's a "the fix was in" message here, you're still not fully addressing the "enlightened" vs "unenlightened" part. That is, if the kids are so shallow, why did they opt for an Obama-figure over, shall we say, a Palin-figure who, with her dumbed-down you-betcha-ese, ought to have stooped more to their level? You gotta face it--the "argument for the effectiveness of radio" you're offering could just as well be an argument for how radio cocked up and became identified as a medium for redneck hillbillies and mouthbreathing bigots, no matter what age. Essentially, by means of its own "effectiveness", radio shot itself in the foot. If there's disinvestment now, it may be judgment on an long-term "undesirable" generated marketplace.

Heck, you might as well forget about "when radio was great" as a generator of enlightenment: to take on an even older fart's I-told-you-so perspective, maybe look at the Dubyah-The-Moron-and-his-constituency stereotype in terms of what happens when those boomer dolts transfixed by Top 40 and 20/20 news grow up and take power. Next to that, maybe the New Media Generation *is* truly better off...

Ad, I never said that kids were shallow. I simply stated that a text message, which is inherently limited in the amount of information it can reasonably transmit or receive, is no substitute for "long form" communication. Like every other generation, 12-24 has its share of "redneck hillbillies and mouthbreathing bigots". You'd be surprised at the number of 45+ people who are very skilled with computers and new media. Who do you think invented the Internet, and is financing the expansion of new media? Obama himself is 45+, and allegedly addicted to his "crackberry".

I don't subscribe to your "enlightened" vs. "unenlightened" divide. EVERYBODY uses radio because it's still the most ubiquitous form of electronic communication on the planet. Radio has a place that other "new media" would LOVE to occupy. The difference is, "new media" wants you to PAY for the privilege, through Internet access fees. ISPs are evolving into fee models that not only charge differently for various access speeds, but also charge differently for the number of bits that you transfer.

I also don't believe that you can reduce the recent presidential election to a generational divide, or use it as a test case for "new media" vs. "old media". Both new and old media appear to have been tilted toward Obama. If anything, the race may show that media IS less effective as you grow older. I said that the presidential race "could be seen as an arguement for the effectiveness of radio". I didn't say that it "should" be seen in that light.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Communications 101

What I believe in isn't "the past", it's simple communications theory that has worked since the first cave man pounded on a hollow log

Read that sentence, and tell me you're not in denial. The cave man isn't in the past? You've been watching too many GEICO commercials.

The word "communications" requires an EXCHANGE of information..back and forth. Not top-down.

Ah, no. Time for you to go back to Communications 101 - Day One. Communications encompasses one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many communications. It encompasses unidirectional, bidirectional, half-duplex, and full-duplex communications. Each has their place in the media world. In face, "top down" communications is probably growing faster than any other segment of the communications world. Thanks to the Internet, you don't need to own a broadcast station or printing press to reach the masses with your opinions.

Find in any of my posts where I've advocated voice tracking. You can't. You're arguing with yourself.

You're the one defending corporate radio here, and corporate radio is increasingly hacking away at live talent, and relying on VT and syndication.

Your posts are once again reverting to insults. That behavior isn't acceptable here.

Insults? What insults? Pointing out that you've failed to show any verifiable proof of your wild "assumptions" is not "reverting to insults". What, are you trying to get this exiled to the netherworld of "Take It Outside"? I don't believe that the mods are going to buy it.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: Communications 101

You're the one defending corporate radio here, and corporate radio is increasingly hacking away at live talent, and relying on VT and syndication.

Where am I defending corporate radio? Please show me.

But while we're at it, how does VT and syndication not fit with your definition of communications?

 

[SirRoxalot]

Re: Communications 101

You're the one defending corporate radio here, and corporate radio is increasingly hacking away at live talent, and relying on VT and syndication.

Where am I defending corporate radio? Please show me.

Hey, you're the one advocating that I mortgage the house and invest in corporate radio. You're the one who said:

All it would take to buy a million shares of Citadel is about $50,000. That's it. Even YOU can afford it.

You're the one warning about "people who are even worse than the current owners". That sounds to me like you're defending them. Don't you remember what you wrote on the first page of this thread?

As far as name-calling is concerned, you're the one who called me "a professional complainer".

But while we're at it, how does VT and syndication not fit with your definition of communications?

I never said that it wasn't communications. BTW, that's not MY definition of communications, it's a definition you'll find in any elementary communications textbook.

VT and syndication are communications. My problem with VT and syndication - particularly syndication that's time delayed - is that it throws away one of radio's greatest strengths - immediacy. Radio can be interactive if they utilize other readily available technologies like telephone, internet chat rooms, messaging, forums, and e-mail. That's either impossible, or drastically reduced when there's nobody live to correspond with in real time. The other problem is that radio has a limited geographic range, which makes it an inherently local medium.

Real-time syndication that addresses items of universal interest or import can be good programming. Ryan Seacrest talking to some starlet about life in sunny So-Cal doesn't have much in common with someone sitting in Bismarck, ND in February. If doing a morning show from 9-Noon Eastern time is a good idea, why aren't mid-day jocks allowed to take a shot at being more conversational and relevant on a local level?

But, just for a moment, let's address the original premise of this discussion. Is it possible that Citadel, and some of the other major groups who have a mountain of debt, are deliberately attempting to force bankruptcy so they could escape a large amount of that debt? That may sound like a cynical suggestion, but keep in mind the cynicism of the cuts that continue RIGHT NOW in the radio industry. I don't see a lot of these companies "building for the future". I do see them making moves that may virtually guaranty revenue drops that will far outweigh any "savings", leading toward bankruptcy.

 

[Element9]

Citadel. Lovely company. Farid Suleman: $11 million per year. Company pays his taxes. Nice work if you can get it, especially when the company stock is worth 20 cents a share. How does he do it.

 

[TheBigA]

How does he do it.

It's all in his contract, and his contract was written when the stock price was in the teens.

 

[davideduardo]

Citadel. Lovely company. Farid Suleman: $11 million per year. Company pays his taxes. Nice work if you can get it, especially when the company stock is worth 20 cents a share. How does he do it.

No, his salary is $1.25 million. The additional amount in 2007 had to do with conversion of stock options previously awarded. This year he has excluded himself from bonus payments, etc.

Remember, a company that is dooing pooorly may still award bonuses for minimizing losses based on a schedule. At one management job, I hired on to a very dead, money losing and decrepit combo and I got a first year bonus for reducing the losses, even though we did not make money... this is a normal business practice to attract management to a loss situation in the hopes of drying up the red ink.

 

[Element9]

I'd sure as hell not like to be the widows or orphans who bought in at 13... dollars.

 

[TheBigA]

I'd sure as hell not like to be the widows or orphans who bought in at 13... dollars.

Right...usually they're in mutual funds that sold off very early in the process.

If I remember correctly, the IPO was at $18, which was cheap at the time. The value of the company, in terms of properties, has increased since then. In traditional terms, as far as accumulating assets, this is a company that is still making a profit. Although not as great as before.

However, the perception of radio in the digital age is what's in trouble. It's not just a Citadel problem. The value of content-creation companies is way way down, because of the difficulty in monetizing content and copyright. The music industry is desperately clinging to the idea that music is copyrighted content. Broadcasters gave up on that idea a couple years ago. Now, you can download episodes of TV shows for free. So there no longer is much value in content. Or the value is very short term. What does that mean for advertisers or investors?

While it may be fun to talk about companies going bankrupt "on purpose," that doesn't do anything to solve the real problems, which is where will the money come from for investment in infrastructure? These radio stations need to spend on equipment improvements for the digital age, they need to invest in people who will take their content to multiple platforms, and they need to invest in expansion of those multiple platforms, beyond the on-air frequency. Going bankrupt won't get any of these companies or stations any closer to doing that. You go bankrupt, and NO one will take a chance on you. Bankruptcy only is good if you don't care who you piss off. That's not the case for these companies. The only solution, as I see it, it to sweat it out, find ways to refinance the debt, probably by selling assets, and hoping for a buy out. Some company, preferably in the tech sector, who sees broadcasting advertising as a way of diversifying its portfolio. The period of incest is over. There's no point in broadcasters buying other broadcasters. You end up like Sirius-XM or Citadel, with even more debt and no way to pay for it.

 

[TheBigA]

Let me add that the way to "force bankruptcy" would be to continue to spend money on salaries and benefits for products services that are (or have been) in decline, while not investing in the future. CBS Radio is obviously laying people off, but making strategic relationships with Yahoo and AOL. That seems like the prudent model to follow IF you have money to draw on. Most radio companies don't.

 

[Radknowski]

Curious about this observation,

You end up like Sirius-XM or Citadel, with even more debt and no way to pay for it.

as it relates to this statement earlier in your post,

The value of the company, in terms of properties, has increased since then. In traditional terms, as far as accumulating assets, this is a company that is still making a profit. Although not as great as before.

Particularly as it applies to Citadel:

Did you mean Citadel is unable to pay for the debt burden or did you mean that a prospective buyer would be unable (or unwilling) to pay for the debt, presumably incured as a result of purchasing the ABC radio stations and ABC (radio) Network from Disney.

The debt that you mention seems to be an ugly fundamental, especially as it relates to the attractiveness, or lack of such as it is, of the company's stock.

Those familiar with the company (market analysts as well as media professionals) have said that the ABC (radio) Network is not functioning as expected. Internal observations and analysts' assessments have not been kind to Suleman's management inasmuch as he has admitted that the medium markets are carrying the load and the major market acquisitions have not been living up to expectations.

As I read the 10Q and other financials, Citadel looks particularly weak, if not vulnerable. It certainly isn't a "buy."

It seems that since the merger, earlier on, a number of investors shorted this company with great success, much like some banks in the financial sector were shorted. Word from reliable trades is that Suleman made a number of enemies on "the street" and that he got played, or more particularly, Citadel got played. In any case, Citadel appears to have more weight than muscle to lift it and like Sirius, grossly miscalculated the market. The downturn in the automotive sector certainly doesn't help Sirius' cause.

Question(s): Do you foresee Citadel divesting stations and if so, (1) who would buy them, given the present credit crisis; (2) at what multiple would they be sold in the current economy, and (3) is there a chance that the ABC stations would revert to the control of ABC-Disney.

While Wall Street has fallen out of love with radio in general, it seems especially eager to divorce, if not banish, Citadel.

 

[TheBigA]

Did you mean Citadel is unable to pay for the debt burden or did you mean that a prospective buyer would be unable (or unwilling) to pay for the debt, presumably incured as a result of purchasing the ABC radio stations and ABC (radio) Network from Disney.

Good question. I'd say both. I think I read that the long term debt is $2.5 billion. Don't know what's due next year.

Right now, no one is able to pay for the debt, because credit is tight. That's why the stock is so low. Even though they have almost $4 billion in assets. That's why I say under normal circumstances, the value has increased.

Those familiar with the company (market analysts as well as media professionals) have said that the ABC (radio) Network is not functioning as expected.

I agree. They bought a pig in a poke. Overpaid employees, inefficient operation, aging equipment in need of replacement, and aging audience, with low investment in digital strategy. And yet, somehow they were seen as one of the last remaining great radio companies. Their PR department did a great job.

Word from reliable trades is that Suleman made a number of enemies on "the street" and that he got played, or more particularly, Citadel got played.

And yet, he was ready to walk away from the deal, and argued for a better price, which he got. At the time, his stock was still in the teens. If he got "played" it wasn't quick or easy. This was a long hard fought battle, which makes the current situation all the more painful.

Question(s): Do you foresee Citadel divesting stations and if so, (1) who would buy them, given the present credit crisis; (2) at what multiple would they be sold in the current economy, and (3) is there a chance that the ABC stations would revert to the control of ABC-Disney.

They have to sell assets. They have no other card to play. Who would buy? No one. The station market is glutted. Clear Channel and CBS are also looking to sell properties. Multiple? That's hard to say when no one's buying. As to your third question, I think they have some back door to regain the stations under certain circumstances, but Disney isn't exactly as strong as it was six months ago, and owning these propoerties would negatively impact Disney stock price. So they'd be better off turning and running. Look at what this purchase did to Citadel. In fact, anyone who buys either Citadel or a large number of radio stations is probably looking at some negative valuation until the situation turns around.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Conundrum

Dipping back into this is like pouring sand into my eyes, but....

I'm confused.

The value of content-creation companies is way way down, because of the difficulty in monetizing content and copyright... So there no longer is much value in content. Or the value is very short term.

These radio stations need to spend on equipment improvements for the digital age, they need to invest in people who will take their content to multiple platforms, and they need to invest in expansion of those multiple platforms, beyond the on-air frequency.

So, content is valueless, but radio stations should invest in taking that content to multiple platforms, and expand their investment in those platforms? In other words, they should spend MORE MONEY to disseminate content that HAS NO VALUE?

BTW, I'm not the one who considers content valueless.

But wait, there's more...

The value of the company, in terms of properties, has increased since then. In traditional terms, as far as accumulating assets, this is a company that is still making a profit. Although not as great as before.

WHY aren't they making as great a profit as before? Could it have ANYTHING to do with overburdening debt loads, and declining revenue? I think that we've already discussed WHY revenue is declining. No matter what your POV on that, there are only two answers to reducing the debt load:

1. Renegotiate your debt. Anybody want to try renegotiating on behalf of radio with Wall Street right now? They don't seem to have a pocket full of Chinese money available to lend at the moment.

2. Go bankrupt. You stiff the lienholders, stockholders, and vendors. You go to reorganization and come out leaner, meaner, and with a lot less debt. Your profits can be applied to rebuilding the company, recreating your product, and redistributing through those channels that you deem profitable.

Let me add that the way to "force bankruptcy" would be to continue to spend money on salaries and benefits for products services that are (or have been) in decline, while not investing in the future. CBS Radio is obviously laying people off, but making strategic relationships with Yahoo and AOL. That seems like the prudent model to follow IF you have money to draw on. Most radio companies don't.

What do Yahoo and AOL want from CBS? What can they get from CBS that they can't get from a computer algorithm? Both of them already have on-line radio, and already allow you to create personally customized stations that play what YOU want. What do they need CBS for?

Oh, wait, perhaps it has something to do with CONTENT that they DON'T have - provided by TALENT. If I'm not mistaken, PEOPLE provide that content, and are recompensed with salaries and benefits.

So, you advocate cutting the very thing that separates radio from existing on-line music services? And, on top of that, you want radio to invest in "infrastructure", and "people who will take their content to multiple platforms", but that content contains "products services that are (or have been) in decline"?

After all, music on the radio, after nearly a century of being a primary part of radio programming, needs to be cast aside, right? Just what kind of content will they be providing? Hundreds of talk show channels? Rosie O'Donnell's "variety show"?