The current layoff trend...

[AutoTranz]

I'm wondering how many of these companies are doing this out of necessity, or out of plain greed.

Some of these companies can NOT be bleeding this badly.

[overthehill]

I dunno Tranz. The economy is not great, even for the giant money machines that TV stations have generally been. Sure some are still making money and making profits, but the numbers aren't BIG ENOUGH for investors/stockholders.

Ask your sales staff: Ad revenue is not up to expectations at most media outlets--print, broadcast, even in some online. When the revenue isn't up to expectations, you cut elsewhere to make the bottom line look better to give a stronger appearance to the stockholders and investors. Call it greed if you will. Without a good looking bottom line, no one invests in the stock and...well...you know the rest.

Sometimes signs come in the form of personnel cuts, sometimes salary freezes, hiring freezes, delaying new/major purchases, trimming corporate contributions to 401K or retirement plans, delaying a new hire for a few months or just going without. They're all signs of a troubled broadcast economy. Hold tight. I predict it won't be over until several months after election day.

[interloper]

Stay tuned.

Yep, they are making cuts but this is not the end. In fact, for some of us, we know where the next cuts will be coming from and it won't be the soldiers who make content but those who think they know how to make content but never do.

Managers.

Lots of middle managers.

They are the next on the block.

This will be a reality check for many of them. TV stations need people who really make the product and get it on the air. They can only cut so many of them and we all know the truth, there are a lot more chiefs than indians in most newsrooms.

That will be changing.

[!]

For years, we have watched TV stations cut staff not because they were losing money, but because they weren't making as much profit as the previous year.

[AutoTranz]

For years, we have watched TV stations cut staff not because they were losing money, but because they weren't making as much profit as the previous year.

That's my point. I wonder how many of these groups are doing this just because the 2008's profit doesn't seem to be as much as 2007's. OR, how many are doing this just because Media General, Newport, Nexstar, and Belo (among others) are doing it...

I do know that those who weather the storm will be ahead of the curve when the light shines again.

[Spike]

For years, we have watched TV stations cut staff not because they were losing money, but because they weren't making as much profit as the previous year.

So? Are companies not allowed to make profits?

[Sigonfile]

I have no problem with laying off "big money" anchors. There are lots of pretty faces that can read a promptor for less.

[wxgeek]

I have no problem with laying off "big money" anchors. There are lots of pretty faces that can read a promptor for less.

Do I detect a hint of jealousy? I suspect that if you were one of those big money anchors, you'd feel differently.

[Spike]

I have no problem with laying off "big money" anchors. There are lots of pretty faces that can read a promptor for less.

Let's examine that for a minute.

Suppose you have a "big money" anchor working for your station. Why does he get big money? Probably because he's popular. Like it or not, one of the primary deciding factors for viewers when choosing a newscast is the anchors. Viewers choose and continue to watch newscasts with anchors they like.

So let's suppose you fire your "big money" anchors and replace them with cheap talent. Now you have people on the air who aren't attracting nearly as many viewers.

Fewer viewers means lower ratings.

Lower ratings lead to reduced revenue.

Reduced revenue leads to the need to cut costs to remain profitable.

So they lay off your dumb ass to reduce their salary expenses.

Hey, sounds pretty good.

[TVMattNYC]

Suppose you have a "big money" anchor working for your station. Why does he get big money? Probably because he's popular. Like it or not, one of the primary deciding factors for viewers when choosing a newscast is the anchors. Viewers choose and continue to watch newscasts with anchors they like.

Sorry, Spike, but your theory just doesn't hold water.

If that were the case, the CBS Evening News would have catapulted into first place the moment Katie Couric stepped on board.

And the Today show's ratings SHOULD have plummeted.

But neither happened.

So much for the Big Money anchor bringing in the Big Ratings and the Big Revenue.

[Desert Rat]

Spike,

Your scenario has a couple of variables....we don't know how much that particular station is increasing their profit margin by replacing the big bucks anchor with the small bucks anchor.

What if ratings stay the same?

How far would ratings have to drop to offset the gain in profit margin with the change?

In my opinion, too many variables to draw a definite conclusion.

Also, overall the ratings may go down....but if the ratings for the demographic that the station wants don't, your point is moot.

[Spike]

Sorry, Spike, but your theory just doesn't hold water.

If that were the case, the CBS Evening News would have catapulted into first place the moment Katie Couric stepped on board.

And the Today show's ratings SHOULD have plummeted.

But neither happened.

So much for the Big Money anchor bringing in the Big Ratings and the Big Revenue.

That's not what I said. I said that laying off a big money anchor and replacing him with cheap talent would result in a loss of viewers. NBC didn't replace Couric with cheap talent. CBS didn't lay off big money and replace it with cheap talent.

Your analogy does not even remotely apply.

Also, overall the ratings may go down....but if the ratings for the demographic that the station wants don't, your point is moot.

Look, think about it logically for a minute.

Television stations are profit-driven businesses.

They are looking for EVERY place they can cut costs. The layoffs in this thread are a perfect example of that.

So, what possible reason could they have for retaining a high priced anchor on staff, if it weren't profitable for them to do so?

If you think they don't make some difference that justifies their salaries, then there must be some other reason for retaining them on staff.

Can you think of one?

I can't.

Therefore, in the absence of any other reasonable explanation, it seems pretty clear that the reason the anchors are paid such high salaries is because they are worth it to the station, because they deliver viewers, ratings and sales.

[Desert Rat]

I agree Spike but you still can't predict with 100% accuracy that your scenario may be the one that happens.....it could just be that my scenario could happen.

As a matter of fact, that happened in our market when Kent Dana left Channel 12 to go to Channel 5. He was replaced with someone, who I believe, doesn't make near the amount of money that he did.

That station is still number one and that change happened about 3 years ago.

[Spike]

I agree Spike but you still can't predict with 100% accuracy that your scenario may be the one that happens.....it could just be that my scenario could happen.

I'm not saying that happens in 100% of the cases. I'm saying that overall, there MUST be some reason these anchors remain employed at their large salary levels, and that reason MUST be that overall, they're worth it. Otherwise that strong compulsion to cut costs, which results in the layoffs this thread was originally about, would compel the GM or ND to get rid of the high priced anchors.

Can you imagine the sweat on the GM's brow when he has to explain to a senior vice president or c-level executive why he has several million dollars in compensation expenses for just a handful of employees? He has to have some justification for it, because he's going to be under pressure for his business unit to perform. You don't think that bastard would risk his own job just to keep an anchor on staff at an inflated salary, do you?

As a matter of fact, that happened in our market when Kent Dana left Channel 12 to go to Channel 5. He was replaced with someone, who I believe, doesn't make near the amount of money that he did.

That station is still number one and that change happened about 3 years ago.

You're looking at the finger instead of where it points.

I don't know the specifics of that situation, but it doesn't really matter. This case would not be at all inconsistent with what I'm saying. It comes down to the fact that Channel 5 believed he was worth more than Channel 12 did. Channel 12 no longer believed he was worth what it would take to keep him there.

Was Kent Dana the only highly paid anchor at the station? Did the station get rid of all their highly paid talent to save money? I'm guessing the answer is no. Maybe the reason the station is still number one without him is that he wasn't actually doing anything for them, which could explain why they didn't keep him around.

[Desert Rat]

In Dana's case, he was the highest paid anchor in town..so the story goes. I bet that the profit margin went up because he was replaced by someone who wasn't making nearly as much money and his old station still is number 1, which proves my point.

All I'm saying is that your scenario isn't 100% foolproof.

Actually in some of the CBS O and O's we will get a chance to see first hand if your scenario or mine will be correct since they did dump a lot of their high priced talent.

Channel 5 isn't getting as much as they wanted from him ratings wise....and believe me they paid top dollar for him too.

[Spike]

Actually in some of the CBS O and O's we will get a chance to see first hand if your scenario or mine will be correct since they did dump a lot of their high priced talent.

You're still not getting the picture, because your scenario and mine are not mutually exclusive. If CBS dumped its high priced talent, it was because they didn't think keeping them was worth the money they were paying out. If they're right in that assessment, then they shouldn't see a material impact on ratings or revenue from the move. If that happens, then we'll both be right.

Channel 5 isn't getting as much as they wanted from him ratings wise....and believe me they paid top dollar for him too.

Then it sounds like 12 made the right decision and 5 didn't. 12 didn't think he was worth it. 5 did. Obviously they can't both be right.

But in general and on average and in the aggregate, anchors are paid highly because they are worth the money. Not 100% of the time, but on average. They would not be able to command such high salaries if they weren't, because the GMs and NDs under such pressure to cut costs would get rid of them. Again, why else would they keep them around in the face of the pressure to perform?

Thus, it doesn't really make sense for people like Sigonfile to begrudge anchors their salaries. They wouldn't make those salaries if they weren't worth it.

[TVMattNYC]

That's not what I said. I said that laying off a big money anchor and replacing him with cheap talent would result in a loss of viewers. NBC didn't replace Couric with cheap talent. CBS didn't lay off big money and replace it with cheap talent.

Your analogy does not even remotely apply.

How does it not "even remotely apply"?

Proven big talent is brought into CBS. Ratings PLUMMET.

Proven big talent leaves NBC. Ratings hold steady.

[rootboyslim]

How does it not "even remotely apply"?

Proven big talent is brought into CBS. Ratings PLUMMET.

Proven big talent leaves NBC. Ratings hold steady.

Let me try:

Proven big talent leaves a morning show that is pretty entertainment driven with an audience made up of a lot of women. That talent is a known liberal who tends to cater to that audience when she was on said morning show. She goes to an evening news at a number three of three network evening news show. THat said evenening news show had an anchor who was known to be a big liberal with a site dedicated to him. He has bad ratings. WHy? Much different audience. That audience is not looking for what may be perceived bias toward the left. That much more conservative audience with many more men watching are not interested in watching someone who is as or more liberal as the person they replace. After all, the interim replacement who came across as fair and balanced had pretty good ratings.

[!]

Let me try:

Proven big talent leaves a morning show that is pretty entertainment driven with an audience made up of a lot of women. That talent is a known liberal who tends to cater to that audience when she was on said morning show. She goes to an evening news at a number three of three network evening news show. THat said evenening news show had an anchor who was known to be a big liberal with a site dedicated to him. He has bad ratings. WHy? Much different audience. That audience is not looking for what may be perceived bias toward the left. That much more conservative audience with many more men watching are not interested in watching someone who is as or more liberal as the person they replace. After all, the interim replacement who came across as fair and balanced had pretty good ratings.
Or, it could be she just sucks.

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

Let me try:

Proven big talent leaves a morning show that is pretty entertainment driven with an audience made up of a lot of women. That talent is a known liberal who tends to cater to that audience when she was on said morning show. She goes to an evening news at a number three of three network evening news show. THat said evenening news show had an anchor who was known to be a big liberal with a site dedicated to him. He has bad ratings. WHy? Much different audience. That audience is not looking for what may be perceived bias toward the left. That much more conservative audience with many more men watching are not interested in watching someone who is as or more liberal as the person they replace. After all, the interim replacement who came across as fair and balanced had pretty good ratings.

Or, it could be she just sucks.
Ding da dinggg da dinng ding ding.!!!!!!!
You can't compare Katie to what Spike is talking about. She is in some Twilight Zone scenerio. Her mode of operation just didn't translate to evening news. I liked her on the morning, I don't like her style in the evening. I seem to fall into the 'majority' category.

[CKMD]

Stay tuned.Managers.

Lots of middle managers.

They are the next on the block.

This will be a reality check for many of them. TV stations need people who really make the product and get it on the air. They can only cut so many of them and we all know the truth, there are a lot more chiefs than indians in most newsrooms.

That will be changing.

I'm an asst. ND who line produces when needed, edits when needed, posts on the web and gets things onto the web when needed...and, let's see...when I say "when needed" that's daily.

So...what are you trying to say? I help make the product and make damn sure it looks fantastic on air.
Cut me and my newsroom suffers tremendously.

[Who Cares???]

No two markets are the same... except:

Big money anchors are disappearing...
Newsroom staffs are becoming smaller...
Photogs are not being replaced...
Editors (video) days are numbered...
Studio camermen are gone
Audio people let go first
Engineers are disappearing...
No more "take home" newstrucks...

I could keep going you know...

Greed... because of lower ratings...??? or in spite of...???

Beancounters are not TV people... that's the problem.

Did I mention Greed...???

[interloper]

I'm an asst. ND who line produces when needed, edits when needed, posts on the web and gets things onto the web when needed...and, let's see...when I say "when needed" that's daily.

So...what are you trying to say? I help make the product and make damn sure it looks fantastic on air.
Cut me and my newsroom suffers tremendously.

You are doing exactly what needs to be done to stay employed.

Be more than a manager.

It's what a lot more managers have to be willing to do to keep getting a paycheck.

[Bureau Chief]

We have had trouble keeping studio camera operators for years. Its a part time gig and they tend to move up or on in search of better hours. I have been a advocate of replacing positions with new technology at my station but corporate aint buying. Its not that Im anti people, we just cant find enough part timers anymore. We even tried retired people.

We have lost high dollar faces over the last couple of years, and replaced them with newbies who make a lot less. Product shows it too.

[Brain Cramp]

You can't blame Katie Couric for her failure at CBS .... at least not entirely. To me, what happened was this. the gurus at CBS News tried to perform a magic trick before our very eyes only they're not qualified magicians. They took a likeable, personable interviewer and host and tried to change her to fit that invisible criteria that makes someone an "ANCHOR WOMAN!!!!"

On that first night Katie was on the air, she looked freakish. Something was done to her eyes (a lift?) which immediately made her suspect because a person's personality comes through their eyes. Messing with her eyes to make her look younger or more credible or whatever the hell they were trying to do to her was a big mistake. So was the obvious botox treatments for the same reason. She was a distraction to herself.

As amateur magicians, the folks at CBS tried to transform the newscast into something else --- a news-like cast? A feel-good-about-ourselves cast? A folksy storytime with some news elements cast? It was horrible and pretentious and self-conscious and full of itself. It tried to define what news should be to the viewers. Uh, bad idea to try to define to viewers.

And then there was that initial segment where some schmo got to express his opinions about something/anything because, OH MY, THIS IS SO TERRIBLY RELEVANT. It was God awful and I don't know how long that segment lasted because I stopped watching after the second or third night of Katie's inaugeration.

The death of CBS Evening News wasn't Katie Couric coming to the anchor chair. It was consultants and suits who have no concept of "News" who choreographed and picked apart and constructed and de-constructed and postured and pretended and blah, blah, blah, blah blah'd their way away from a newscast and toward some pseudo reality-infotainment mess of their own design.

I only hold Katie Couric culpable for not having the guts or foresight to put up her hand and say "STOP!" to the cyclone of nonsense and pretense that ultimately enveloped her.

[adam & doctor drew]

You can't blame Katie Couric for her failure at CBS ....

totally agree.
they offered her a ridiculous amount of money to work a much easier schedule.
who wouldn't take that?

[TVMattNYC]

I only hold Katie Couric culpable for not having the guts or foresight to put up her hand and say "STOP!" to the cyclone of nonsense and pretense that ultimately enveloped her.

Well, she COULDN'T put up her hand ... both were weighted down with all that CBS loot ($67,000 a day).

[WOS]

I'm willing to do my part to help CBS but taking her place at HALF her salary, saving them megabucks, with the promise that the ratings cannot decline at any faster rate than they are now! If they do, I promise they can cut my pay in half again, and I'll work for a measly....what?,,,,2.5 million a year? CBS!!! Just think about it.....and get back to me after your people put the pencil to it.

[Bureau Chief]

Rumor has it that the ax is about to fall at the NBC & CBS affiliate in Erie PA. They are going to combine newsrooms. Operations and sales are already in the same house.

[adam & doctor drew]

Rumor has it that the ax is about to fall at the NBC & CBS affiliate in Erie PA. They are going to combine newsrooms. Operations and sales are already in the same house.

heard the same thing about Fox and CW in Denver.