Unclear Channel

May 1st, 2009 10:45 am · 5 comments

Right-wingers are always quick to tell you that the reason the newspaper business is in trouble is because newspapers are too lib’rul.

If media conglomerates were more conservative, they’d be more successful - just like Clear Channel Communications, which syndicates Rush, Hannity, and Glenn Beck. With that powerhouse lineup - how could anything go wrong?

It is too soon to say who will be the biggest loser among media companies in this recession. But Clear Channel Communications is vying for the title.

Clear Channel, the nation’s largest radio station operator and an outdoor billboard company, last year became the biggest leveraged buyout ever in the media business, after it was taken private by Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital.

Now its revenues are plunging and so is its cash flow, making it harder to meet the payments on the billions in debt accumulated in the process of buying out its public investors. If it violates some of its loan agreements, those interest payments rise sharply.

Scott Sperling, a president of Thomas H. Lee Partners, offered reassuring words about the company’s future in an interview on CNBC in mid-April. (See interview here)

“We do not have any expectation of an imminent blowup,” he said, adding that the company still had “a lot of levers it can pull to continue to generate reasonable cash flow.”

But days later, Clear Channel announced that revenue plummeted 23 percent in the first quarter and cash flow fell by 47 percent.

On Wednesday, the company announced it was laying off 590 employees after cutting 1,850 employees in January, for an overall staff reduction of 12 percent since the acquisition.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists

  5 comments  Tags: Media

There are currently 5 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog
czechschilling
5/3/09
4:36 AM
Clear Channel's WLAN FM97 recently fired two long-time on-air personalities (Aaron Price and DMurph) and now runs syndicated crap in their slots. One of the shows is Ryan Sechrist's radio show. It's a shame that Clear Channel forgets its mandate to serve the LOCAL community and eliminates two talented local men who have a real committment to the local area. Clear Channel is a disgrace!!

bring back D-Murph and Aaron Price!!!!!!!!!
skeptic2
5/3/09
7:18 AM
QUOTE (Lancaster Online @ May 1 2009, 10:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.
We can only hope that Clear Channel blows up into multiple smaller companies. Unfortunately, the initial effect will certainly be to see the loss of more local programming to syndication. Clear Channel and other conglomerates already pump out a homogenous AM format that mixes local news with syndicated national programming. FM could start to be more like that as well. Despite the good job that some of these newsmen do individually, how can you believe news from a source that is pumping out hate like Michael Savage's program most of the day?
oh geez
5/3/09
7:28 AM
I'm just glad we'll have professionals like you to keep us informed. wacko.gif
Keep on blogging. You and Perez will keep us in the know.
lanzate
5/3/09
8:11 AM
Sounds like Clear Channel is having trouble because of mismanagement of debt just like thousands of or other debtors out there in this economy. Are these media outlets really in trouble because of lack of listeners?

Today everything is a niche market. Newspapers try to be for everyone and that is simply not possible. That is like saying your son is going to be friends with every person in his class or that public school can serve the needs of every kid.

Marketers call it the rise of individual choice. Everything is personalized now. The melting pot idea is old school. I think this generation is more honest about diversity instead of trying to take everyone and make them swallow the same pill.
StrobeSML
5/3/09
11:07 AM
The problem with the media (and by this I mean television, radio and the newspaper) is that it depends on advertisers to spend money on the media company to keep it going. Advertisers are looking to cut costs and one area they do so is advertisement. The media cuts costs by firing people and moving towards more syndicated material that is less costly.

One of the ways that Rush got so popular was that his show was often offered for free. Radio stations would pick it up because they could fill a lot of time for no expense. I don't know if they still follow that pattern (probably not or stations like the one in Baltimore wouldn't have dropped Rush in favor of other programming). It is likely that other shows follow this model until they get popular.

In the same way, media companies need to attract readers/viewers/listeners to justify their advertising costs. It is because of this that we see stories about the Octo-mom and various celebrity scandals that are, frankly, unimportant but that people watch regardless because of their basic interest. I don't believe we have, overall, either a liberal or conservative media. What we have is a sensationalist media because those are the stories that sell. Certainly, some will have a conservative schtick in order to appeal to a certain audience. Others will go the other direction as their way of gathering an audience. However, overall, everyone panders to the sensationalist stories because that is what sells the ad space (whatever your schtick).
View Topic | Comment on this blog