Blame the bean counters!

Mavridis wrote:

How about we blame the greedy old station owners instead, who took the big easy corporate payout instead of selling to the next generation.   

There's a lot of blame to go around, but you're not wrong. I've read tons of stories over the years that suggest the giants buying out stations is the day radio died, removing the local content from a lot of them in an effort to save money and maximize profits. So you can also blame the FCC for this - at least in the U.S. - for allowing these guys to get bigger - and greedier.

The result - radio that wasn't for listeners. It was almost inevitable this would happen. 

While they can't own as many stations here, the Rogers and Bells in Canada essentially did the same thing. 

Paul Jeffries wrote:

Mavridis wrote:

How about we blame the greedy old station owners instead, who took the big easy corporate payout instead of selling to the next generation.   

Depends on whether the next generation wants to inherit a radio station or not. I can't totally fault an owner who's worked hard all of his or her life and wants to have a nice little nest egg for their retirement. If their kids aren't interested in keeping it in the family, selling it to the highest bidder seems like the best option, I would think.


PJ

I agree with Paul.  Likely many in the next generation of the family business didn't want to be involved with the station that the family started. Could be that many stations were on the slide when it came time to for the kids to take over.  Much better to inherit a Home Hardware which is a growing business and much more stable. 

RadioActive wrote:

Mavridis wrote:

How about we blame the greedy old station owners instead, who took the big easy corporate payout instead of selling to the next generation.   

There's a lot of blame to go around, but you're not wrong. I've read tons of stories over the years that suggest the giants buying out stations is the day radio died, removing the local content from a lot of them in an effort to save money and maximize profits. So you can also blame the FCC for this - at least in the U.S. - for allowing these guys to get bigger - and greedier.

The result - radio that wasn't for listeners. It was almost inevitable this would happen. 
While they can't own as many stations here, the Rogers and Bells in Canada essentially did the same thing. 

I beat the drum about this all the time and continue to do so - don't expect any different behavior from any of the big three. It's not about the product, it's about increasing the dividends. Homogenizing playlists, formats, brand names and out-of-market voice tracking are the easiest ways to achieve that end. 
In Ontario, check out independent companies like Durham Radio, Bayshore Broadcasting, Blackburn Radio for instance where being locally focused still matters. Yes, they are businesses but they also understand that people are what help make a station successful.
 

Mavridis wrote:

Right, because the owners of the CHUM group desperately needed a 'nice little nest egg for their retirement'.  This is my point exactly.  It was nothing but greed from already rich assholes.  And I'm guessing none of you with the 'nest egg' mentality are Gen X or younger.  So, next time you complain about radio's path over the last quarter century, remember that you are on the side of making old, generational media moguls even richer.  

So what you're saying is, if you worked hard over the decades and built a successful business that you intended to pass along to your children, but they weren't interested, you'd be willing to sell it to an outside buyer for pennies on the dollar?

Just for the record, I'm a Gen X-er and I'm still working on my nest egg. Barring a major lottery win, I'll probably still be working at least part of the time even past retirement age, but I don't begrudge people that have more money than me, or assume that it automatically makes them an "asshole".


PJ

JON POLE wrote:

While I get the point that by exiting legacy owners cash out and take their knowledge, passion and expertise with them thus hurting the industry. Certainly parts of this are true, however you have way over simplified it. Estate planning is a huge part of an exit strategy (which is real for families) Also on the list - wanting to do something different or nothing at all (which after decades of grinding is fair and required). Also keep in mind when you run a big company - much of your day is not spending time doing the "fun radio stuff". The bigger the staff - the bigger the problems. . Thr reality is staff can leave when they want, its not different for owners. I think its more of case of dont be sad its over - be happy it happened.

Well put, Jon.

Although there may be some people that want to keep working until they kick the bucket, the majority of us would like to take it easy in our golden years, and part of that is being financially stable.

Also, there's no guarantee that if you pass your business on to your kids (or other family members) that they're not going to do something unscrupulous with it, either. Once you cash out, it's out of your hands what happens to the business after that, regardless of who the new owner is.


PJ

A checklist to determine if a radio station is worth more dead than alive. It's skewed toward the rules of the FCC in the U.S., but there are lessons and similarities for Canadian radio, too.

“An Outbreak of License Forfeitures”

Paul Jeffries wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

My contacts - some of whom went on to other jobs in the industry - said that's when they learned never to trust an owner's word on anything that's not written on a contract. And even then.

When a station brass says "Your job is safe", that's when you should be worried.

PJ
 

That's true for any workplace.
 

Mavridis wrote:

Paul Jeffries wrote:

So what you're saying is, if you worked hard over the decades and built a successful business that you intended to pass along to your children, but they weren't interested, you'd be willing to sell it to an outside buyer for pennies on the dollar?

PJ

You're really missing the point here: The Waters family and the Slaights didn't NEED the nest egg.  They were already super rich.  If they truly loved radio and TV after milking it for generations, then maybe they should have sold their stations to individual owners who would have carried on the spirit of what they started.   Instead, they went for the easiest, biggest payout: corporate media.  That's what I'm talking about.  This has nothing to do with making sure Allan Waters' grandson can afford college.  It was about having enough money to put the family name on the side of one.  
 

And as I also mentioned before, once an owner sells a station (or station group), what the new owner(s) do/does is out of their hands. There's no guarantee that a mom and pop organization isn't going to eff things up once they take over, either.

I also don't subscribe to the theory that "Rich people don't deserve to be rich" and should do what the rest of us tell them to do with their money.

And as far as the Waters and Slaight families not needing that nest egg, how would you know that for certain, unless you've seen their financials? 



PJ