WGST: 'SPLAIN THIS TO ME

[bclark71.]

Help me understand this from a business standpoint...

WGST replaced Denny Schaffer with a syndicated program. Denny still gets paid for another two years.

WGST also replaced Kim Peterson with a syndicated show. The Kimmer still gets paid for another year.

Syndicated programs cost money. They're not free. So why take two people off the air that you're still going to have to pay, and then spend more money for a new show? Why not leave Schaffer and Peterson for now and replace them when they're up for renewal?

Somebody will say, "Because the ratings might improve and their ad rates might get better." If this were WSB replacing one talker with another, that might be true. The same might apply when a morning show gets blown out on the FM dial. But does Clear Channel really think that these changes will generate enough money to justify getting rid of (and paying off) Schaffer and Peterson and paying out more money for the replacement shows? This is WGST. They've tried everything. Nobody is listening!

Somebody please 'splain this to me.

 

[TheGreenskeeper]

Because it’s Clear Channel, and that’s the way they do things in San Antonio.

 

[itburnswhenipee]

Yes, there is a simple explanation.

Denny and Kimmer's shows were so awful, WGST was better off with any other show, including dead air or radio static. It really is a testament to how pathetic your show is, when management will actually PAY YOU to go away.

 

[jmoore3rd]

Contract Buy-Outs don't always cost as much as the Full Salary + any other costs such as Health Insurance, 401K matching, etc. We'll never know what 'settlement' may or may not have been reached.

 

[ajhenderson]

These syndicated shows don't get paid. McConnell is a barter show; he can't get anyone to take him, either. Ramsey is most certainly barter as well... and he throws in some billboards!

 

[hail2theorange]

There are other costs associated with a live show other than on-air talent. The board op and the engineer as well as the producer... if you replace local show with local show, your argument would have merit -- the savings here are that by replacing local show with syndicated programming, the infrastructure costs are saved.

 

[Signal_Faded]

I'm confused...I though syndicated hosts (with the exception of Hannity and Rush who have begun to ask affilaites for money) only got revenue through their national ad sales. Help me out here.

 

[RandomGuy6]

I'm confused...I though syndicated hosts (with the exception of Hannity and Rush who have begun to ask affilaites for money) only got revenue through their national ad sales. Help me out here.

That's GENERALLY the way it works. One of the problems with syndication, it the loss of local ad revenue, since your local inventory is usually cut in half. However, WGST has been less than healthy in the ad revenue department lately, so it might have been a worthwhile tradeoff.

 

[nightmanager]

If GST comes up with some viable local talent (OK OK you can stop laughing now), then it's easy to pull the plug on McConnell and swap in the new local show. To do it cheap, find some bloke with a Zephry in his house and let him run his own remote board. And make him sell his own ad time. Been done before.

McConnell is unlikely to gain any kind of Atlanta following so there's nobody to piss off should GST replace him with a new show or static. And some listeners are upset, hell, his show is on XM so send the listeners there when they call in to complain. Heck, GIVE them XM radios to just go away. No loss.

Meanwhile the new local show lets you call it "new and improved GST" and run a bunch of promos (for far too long) pushing "GST has more local daytime talk hours than SB" (because going from none to three is big, you know) and you're done. I can hear Jim's voice doing the liners now. LOL.

I'll take my consultant fee in marshmallow peeps, please. The kind with heads you can bite off. Best eaten stale. Yum.