clear channel cuts hundreds

[alocispepraluger102]

clear channel the cess pool(to put it kindly) of broadcasting has cut nearly 1,000 jobs from its already skeletal ranks.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/27/clear-channel-cuts-d-j-s-across-the-country/

[Dan Gould]

Yeah, how dare they try to run the business in the interests of the shareholders? What kind of corporation does that?

Oh that's right - all of them do. And should.

With 20 billion dollars in debt, are they supposed to not look for ways to cut costs?

[Leeway]

The debt didn't just fall out of the sky; these mopes incurred it in highly leveraged buyouts (read: they didn't actually have the money to do it) of smaller chains and independent stations (you know, the guys who actually introduced us to much of the music we love). Having destroyed much of radio in this country, they are now busy destroying themselves, which is a good thing really, but I feel sorry for the people who lost their jobs. In a way, this move is a tacit admission that the dreck that Clear Channel programs needs no introduction. One hopes that CC collapses completely; perhaps new forms of radio can then emerge.

[alocispepraluger102]

Yeah, how dare they try to run the business in the interests of the shareholders? What kind of corporation does that?

Oh that's right - all of them do. And should.

With 20 billion dollars in debt, are they supposed to not look for ways to cut costs?

clear channel is privately held.

there are no stock holders to screw.

the limbaughs of the world play a big role in this sad scenario.

clear channel, the cess pool(to put it kindly), of broadcasting has again cut many jobs from its already skeletal ranks.

we wish our old familiar broadcast friends and voices nothing but the best.

ASHLAND/MANSFIELD<br style="color: rgb(85, 85, 85); font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Verdana; line-height: 20px; ">—————–<br style="color: rgb(85, 85, 85); font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Verdana; line-height: 20px; ">Country WNCO-FM/101.3 midday host-Talk WNCO/1340 program director Gene Davis<br style="color: rgb(85, 85, 85); font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Verdana; line-height: 20px; ">Production director Bryan Moore<br style="color: rgb(85, 85, 85); font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Verdana; line-height: 20px; ">Utility/sports/news staffer Josh Bowman

this is the way the way radio used to sound

where did broadcasting class, and its beautifully modulated voices go?

i miss it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K97vsEYWUg

The debt didn't just fall out of the sky; these mopes incurred it in highly leveraged buyouts (read: they didn't actually have the money to do it) of smaller chains and independent stations (you know, the guys who actually introduced us to much of the music we love). Having destroyed much of radio in this country, they are now busy destroying themselves, which is a good thing really, but I feel sorry for the people who lost their jobs. In a way, this move is a tacit admission that the dreck that Clear Channel programs needs no introduction. One hopes that CC collapses completely; perhaps new forms of radio can then emerge.

radio as an art form is gone, but i worry about the people.

i would not call npr with it's highly networked multicasting a reasonable alternative

i generally agree, lee.

they may have bought stuff no one else wanted, like gannett bought dying newspapers.

Edited October 29, 2011 by alocispepraluger102

[paul secor]

Yeah, how dare they try to run the business in the interests of the shareholders? What kind of corporation does that?

Oh that's right - all of them do. And should.

With 20 billion dollars in debt, are they supposed to not look for ways to cut costs?

clear channel is privately held.

there are no stock holders to screw.

the limbaughs of the world play a big role in this sad scenario.

clear channel, the cess pool(to put it kindly), of broadcasting has again cut many jobs from its already skeletal ranks.

we wish our old familiar broadcast friends and voices nothing but the best.

ASHLAND/MANSFIELD<br style="color: rgb(85, 85, 85); font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Verdana; line-height: 20px; ">—————–<br style="color: rgb(85, 85, 85); font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Verdana; line-height: 20px; ">Country WNCO-FM/101.3 midday host-Talk WNCO/1340 program director Gene Davis<br style="color: rgb(85, 85, 85); font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Verdana; line-height: 20px; ">Production director Bryan Moore<br style="color: rgb(85, 85, 85); font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Verdana; line-height: 20px; ">Utility/sports/news staffer Josh Bowman

this is the way the way radio used to sound

where did broadcasting class, and its beautifully modulated voices go?

i miss it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K97vsEYWUg

The debt didn't just fall out of the sky; these mopes incurred it in highly leveraged buyouts (read: they didn't actually have the money to do it) of smaller chains and independent stations (you know, the guys who actually introduced us to much of the music we love). Having destroyed much of radio in this country, they are now busy destroying themselves, which is a good thing really, but I feel sorry for the people who lost their jobs. In a way, this move is a tacit admission that the dreck that Clear Channel programs needs no introduction. One hopes that CC collapses completely; perhaps new forms of radio can then emerge.

radio as an art form is gone, but i worry about the people.

i would not call npr with it's highly networked multicasting a reasonable alternative

i generally agree, lee.

they may have bought stuff no one else wanted, like gannett with newspapers.

If you are correct, perhaps Dan will apologize - unless he follows the John Wayne philosophy from Tie a Yellow Ribbon: "Never apologize ...it's a sign of weakness."

[Dan Gould]

Uh, sorry, Aloc but held privately or traded publicly, there are shareholders in the corporation and their interests are paramount. And their interests are in cutting costs.

And as to LW's comment:

If its dreck they program, its because dreck gets ratings. You know, the way the rest of the culture sucks but people suck it up like there's no tomorrow.

And, to say that the dreck is so bad it needs no introduction is to ignore what Clear Channel is doing: Reducing employee costs by using their remaining announcers to record intros and outros.

No Clear Channel listener will notice a difference unless it really bothers them that their local station doesn't do "remotes" and they've never met the disc jockeys because they don't live in the community.

[Brownian Motion]

Uh, sorry, Aloc but held privately or traded publicly, there are shareholders in the corporation and their interests are paramount. And their interests are in cutting costs.

And as to LW's comment:

If its dreck they program, its because dreck gets ratings. You know, the way the rest of the culture sucks but people suck it up like there's no tomorrow.

And, to say that the dreck is so bad it needs no introduction is to ignore what Clear Channel is doing: Reducing employee costs by using their remaining announcers to record intros and outros.

No Clear Channel listener will notice a difference unless it really bothers them that their local station doesn't do "remotes" and they've never met the disc jockeys because they don't live in the community.

Well, go to Hell.

[Dave James]

For what's it worth, Clear Channel could outsource their programming to India and broadcast in Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Meitei, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu and/or Urdu and I wouldn't give a rat's ass. Anyone who listens to any of this pre-programmed bull dinky is so musically inert they probably wouldn't notice the difference.

[Leeway]

Uh, sorry, Aloc but held privately or traded publicly, there are shareholders in the corporation and their interests are paramount. And their interests are in cutting costs.

And as to LW's comment:

If its dreck they program, its because dreck gets ratings. You know, the way the rest of the culture sucks but people suck it up like there's no tomorrow.

And, to say that the dreck is so bad it needs no introduction is to ignore what Clear Channel is doing: Reducing employee costs by using their remaining announcers to record intros and outros.

No Clear Channel listener will notice a difference unless it really bothers them that their local station doesn't do "remotes" and they've never met the disc jockeys because they don't live in the community.

I hope they also reduce the $400 million they are paying Rush Limbaugh.

[Dan Gould]

Well, go to Hell.

Fantastic. One of the resident leftists has taken note of my signature and is offended, because demonizing the opposition is perfectly fine if you are a lefty, but ... well, you know the rest.

I hope they also reduce the $400 million they are paying Rush Limbaugh.

On what basis? Do you believe that no one (or perhaps no right-winger) should be paid such a salary? Or do you really believe that Rush doesn't make Clear Channel so much money that his salary isn't acceptable to the ownership because they make more than that in selling air time? Do you think they have set up a charity for talented right-wing talk radio hosts, and just want to enrich Rush regardless of the consequences for their corporation?

Or maybe you think its just unfair that he should be paid so much and so many dime-a-dozen announcers should get pink slips?

Cry me a river.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Dan Gould

[Leeway]

Well, go to Hell.

Fantastic. One of the resident leftists has taken note of my signature and is offended, because demonizing the opposition is perfectly fine if you are a lefty, but ... well, you know the rest.

I hope they also reduce the $400 million they are paying Rush Limbaugh.

On what basis? Do you believe that no one (or perhaps no right-winger) should be paid such a salary? Or do you really believe that Rush doesn't make Clear Channel so much money that his salary isn't acceptable to the ownership because they make more than that in selling air time? Do you think they have set up a charity for talented right-wing talk radio hosts, and just want to enrich Rush regardless of the consequences for their corporation?

Or maybe you think its just unfair that he should be paid so much and so many dime-a-dozen announcers should get pink slips?

Cry me a river.

Rush is making them so much money that they are buried in debt and have to fire people. I can't respond to the rest of your statement because it doesn't make sense.

[Dan Gould]

The debt didn't just fall out of the sky; these mopes incurred it in highly leveraged buyouts (read: they didn't actually have the money to do it) of smaller chains and independent stations

Rush is making them so much money that they are buried in debt and have to fire people.

You yourself state that they incurred the debt from using highly leveraged buyouts to build up the business. On what basis can you claim that Rush's contract is some sort of onerous burden?

Reality: Rush is a huge profit center for the company. They might make a greater profit if it salary wasn't as high but how can anyone possibly doubt that the company makes his salary back and much more from the syndication and commercial sales from his show?

I guess if they can't make back the 20 billion dollars from his show, he's a failure, right? A bad business decision, a contract forcing their hand to fire hundreds of other jocks.

What a joke.

[medjuck]

Yeah, how dare they try to run the business in the interests of the shareholders? What kind of corporation does that?

Oh that's right - all of them do. And should.

With 20 billion dollars in debt, are they supposed to not look for ways to cut costs?

So is there anything legal you think companies shouldn't do as long as it makes money for shareholders?

[Dan Gould]

Yeah, how dare they try to run the business in the interests of the shareholders? What kind of corporation does that?

Oh that's right - all of them do. And should.

With 20 billion dollars in debt, are they supposed to not look for ways to cut costs?

So is there anything legal you think companies shouldn't do as long as it makes money for shareholders?

Read your question again and the answer is obvious. So why don't we turn it back to you and say 'what legal things companies can do in the interests of shareholders should they be prevented from doing?"

Oops, there it is, as clear as day. Declaring something legal to be "illegal" because the left doesn't like it. There you have it, liberal thought in all its freedom-hating and free-market hating glory.

[thedwork]

Well, go to Hell.

x2

[thedwork]

...Having destroyed much of radio in this country, they are now busy destroying themselves, which is a good thing really, but I feel sorry for the people who lost their jobs.

leeway - allow me to ever so slightly manipulate your, as usual, excellent writing:

"[it's] destroyed much of [everything] in this country, [it's] now busy destroying [itself], which is a good thing really, but I feel sorry for the people who lost their jobs."

w/ my slight tweaks, it seems you've also succinctly described something that's been heatedly debated (and yes, predicted) for well over 100 years; and even moreso in the last couple of years in this country. just like Clear Channel, it starts w/ the letter "C." and i mean capital C. good post leeway.

[sidewinder]

Might be an idea to remove some of that 'staff information' that is of a personal nature otherwise there's a risk of someone being sued under Data Protection laws.

Edited October 30, 2011 by sidewinder

[Dan Gould]

...Having destroyed much of radio in this country, they are now busy destroying themselves, which is a good thing really, but I feel sorry for the people who lost their jobs.

leeway - allow me to ever so slightly manipulate your, as usual, excellent writing:

"[it's] destroyed much of [everything] in this country, [it's] now busy destroying [itself], which is a good thing really, but I feel sorry for the people who lost their jobs."

w/ my slight tweaks, it seems you've also succinctly described something that's been heatedly debated (and yes, predicted) for well over 100 years; and even moreso in the last couple of years in this country. just like Clear Channel, it starts w/ the letter "C." and i mean capital C. good post leeway.

Wah wah wah.

Capitalism, like democracy, is the worst system possible, except for all the others.

[Van Basten II]

So me let get this straight , feeing sorry for people losing their jobs you are being labelled a crazy leftist, seems to me this company is a microcosm of the US economy, company loses money , the company has a bunch of people getting middle-class salaries and and rich who are earning an obsene amount of money . Then the company to make costs is cutting down the middle class and elects not to touch any advantage to the megarich thus exarcerbating the gap between the money earned by the rich and the poor. We call that a great system and call extremists people who feel it's not fair and trying to figure out a better way.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Van Basten II

[Dan Gould]

Its not about "feeling sorry" for people losing their jobs. I've worked in radio and know how it feels like to get shit-canned. I (and everyone of those people who got pink-slips) also know that its part of the gig. Radio jobs are one of the least secure in the business, unless you are a "big name". Which gets us to this ludicrous notion that its somehow the fault of Rush Limbaugh's "obscene" salary.

(As an aside, are you at least consistent and also regard as "obscene" the salaries of every left-sing actor/director/musician who also makes a boatload of dough? Or is it OK if the "right" people make a lot of money because the money they make is more than compensated by the money their creations earn?)

Ah, whatever. We've seen lots of hypocrisy from the left, what's a little more? Back to Clear Channel and Rush:

They have big debts. They have to cut costs.

They signed a contract with Rush. Its guaranteed. He makes them a shitload of money. They can't fire him and they'd be fools to do so when he is a cornerstone of the business.

The "hundreds" of jocks don't have guaranteed contracts. Their employment is "at will" and they can be fired. Is this really so difficult to understand?

But I get it - you believe there is a level of income that is "obscene" and must be regulated.

I don't live my life hating the successful.

[Chicago Expat]

Why is there this continued mantra of "cutting costs"? Clear Channel themselves say it's not a cost-cutting measure. Their focus seems to be on the non-localization of radio programming. That is, IMO, a detriment to communities.

The homogenization of the news industry as large national corporations eat up small localized news organizations has been to the detriment of those communities, as well as to the overall quality of news reporting. Having the news reported from just a small handful of "voices" on the national level has seen the quality of news go into the crapper overall. Radio programming doesn't rise to the level of importance as the news, but I can easily understand the worry and lamenting of those who don't like Clear Channel's move.

And besides, if the company is so badly in debt, why should we trust that their actions firing people are any wiser than the ones they made to get into debt in the first place. Why would anybody extend to them the benefit of the doubt?

Cheers.

[JSngry]

Their focus seems to be on the non-localization of radio programming. That is, IMO, a detriment to communities.

I know it makes dial-hopping on road trips big and small a lot less fun than it used to be. It's pretty much to the "why bother" point now, although very occasionally you'll go through some samll town that still has their own music programming...you can tell it right away too, by the song selection itself and/or the sequencing. But those finds are few and far between these days. Pity. Dial-hopping while driving used to be fun.

[alankin]

Winner takes all. The other 99% can go look for a bread line.

[JSngry]

Does that mean there will be more job openings for bread makers, or that, in order to contain expenses, everybody will have to settle for less bread?

[Leeway]

Does that mean there will be more job openings for bread makers, or that, in order to contain expenses, everybody will have to settle for less bread?

Less bread