Buyouts at CBS Radio News in advance of Spin-Off

With all the talk of the actual stations leaving the CBS fold, it was a little unclear to me what was going to happen to CBS Radio News.

Long distributed by Westwood One I worried that without the all-news stations under the same corporate umbrella, they would lose carriage of the still very very good newscasts (see: ABC News & its former radio stations). Or, would the Radio anchors and reporters spin off with the new company, with a content agreement in place to use TV's resources when necessary?

I started to get a little worried when Harvey Nagler announced his retirement a few weeks ago. But I chalked it up to someone nearly the end of their career that just doesn't have the will or energy to drive the organization through the next transition (I've witnessed numerous people do that over the years, at companies I've worked at, when we've gone through M&A activities).

Looks like the other shoe dropped last week.

http://nypost.com/2016/12/02/big-names-out-as-cbs-radio-news-makes-cuts/

Exec Producer Charlie Kaye
Washington National Correspondent Barry Bagnato
Evening Anchor Bill Whitney
Afternoon Anchor Harley Carnes
Washington Bureau Chief Howard Arenstein

All took a retirement buyout.

All of these guys are in their 60s; a couple of them may be at or already past 65. They're all long time veterans. I'm going to miss them.

But I have some mixed feelings. If CBS actually brings in some newer, younger talent (at lower salaries, sure), I'd be hopeful for the product. Eventually, the old guys have to retire and make room for those trying to climb the ladder themselves.

But I'm afraid we're going to see another dilution of a what was a great radio news product, much like we've seen at ABC. Fox News Radio is the only one whose news product is growing, and they sound really good with quite a bit of experienced, but younger talent.

Today, Dave Barrett anchored afternoons, and the World News Round-Up Late Edition (the same schedule Bill Whitney worked until about 2006). White House Correspondent Pam Coulter had Harley Carnes' Sunday night spot over the weekend, and was doing the evening newscasts tonight.

Bill Whitney says goodbye, on 12/1, at the very end of the Late Edition:
http://audio.cbsradionewsfeed.com/2016/12/01/19/Hourly-19.mp3

Howard Arenstein says goodbye, at the end of the Weekend Roundup.
http://audio.cbsradionewsfeed.com/2016/12/02/16/02CBSNewsWeekendRoundupPodcast_1801_3657177.mp3

Hopefully the 'new' CBSR keeps the content from CBS. It is a fine product and it would be a shame to lose it.

As long as the all news stations get access to audio feeds (actualities, sound-bites, wraps, de-briefs), I would not be sad to see the TOH newscasts go. They are obsolete given that local stations can easily have access to the same resources as the network. Without the TOH news, news stations can lead with the most compelling stories - whether local or national. CBS started top of the hour newscasts November 28th, 1960 (after the radio network ended daytime soaps the previous Friday). CBS was the last major network to offer TOH news (ABC was first on weekdays with news "live at 55," although NBC started "Monitor News on the Hour" on weekends two years before). 56 years of TOH news is a good run but it's out-lived it's usefulness - even for all news stations. Currently WINS and KYW do not carry TOH newscasts, as do many affiliates which use material from the audio feeds and run the network spots. In a good many markets, CBS' TOH news is not aired at all (or only in off-hours).

I imagine people here can generate a pretty complete list of markets without CBS newscasts already. Off the top of my head, Wilmington DE is one where the affiliate only uses CBS for two-ways with local hosts.

Oscar Madison said:

I imagine people here can generate a pretty complete list of markets without CBS newscasts already. Off the top of my head, Wilmington DE is one where the affiliate only uses CBS for two-ways with local hosts.

Click to expand...

But, CBS's hourly newscasts DO run on some big stations in very big markets. They air in New York City, Boston, Washington, Dallas, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, San Fransisco, and Los Angeles. Just to name some off the top of my head. There's value in that. With all the braying over the death of radio and AM radio specifically, these outfits still command listeners.

KMan said:

I worried that without the all-news stations under the same corporate umbrella, they would lose carriage of the still very very good newscasts (see: ABC News & its former radio stations).

Click to expand...

The fact is that several of the all news stations have never carried TOH CBS Radio News. The best example is KYW in Philadelphia. Previously, they had been owned by Westinghouse. CBS News was on WPHT. WINS has never carried TOH CBS Radio News for the same reason. My understanding is that an affiliation agreement is in place with the CBS owned radio stations to continue to carry the TOH news for a specified period of time.

But here's another thing to consider: Just as the CBS Radio News veterans who just accepted buy outs were all in their 60s, so is the audience of those heritage AM news stations. It's not getting younger. There's nothing those stations can do to appeal to younger listeners. They can't adjust the playlist like music stations. Very few of the CBS TOH newscasts are carried on FM stations. TTBOMK, none are carried on music stations. So looking forward, who will listen to that great product 10 or 20 years from now? That's the real issue here.

The challenge for these companies will be to reinvent themselves to create relevant content that will appeal to the next generation. Back in the 1980s, it was obvious that the traditional radio network was dead. The networks that had provided radio shows in the 30s and 40s had become a shell. All that was left was TOH news and affiliate news feeds. Those companies realized they were in trouble, and formed new entertainment divisions that attempted to appeal to FM music stations. NBC Radio created The Source. CBS started RadioRadio. ABC added two new news networks and a satellite-delivered Entertainment division. The goal was to get network programming on the new growing FM music stations. It worked for a while. It kept those companies going for another 20 years. Now it's a new time. Time for some new innovation. The old model is dead or dying. Syndicated talk shows are aging. Casey Kasem has passed away. Who will carry the banner for these kinds of services moving forward?

TheBigA said:

The challenge for these companies will be to reinvent themselves to create relevant content that will appeal to the next generation.

Click to expand...

Bingo. Which is why Les Moonves wants to ditch the radio group. He would probably like ditch the TV & O&O's too. Operating over-the-air broadcast facilities are expensive; expensive to staff, to operate and to ensure compliance with regulations.

These big companies, CBS (and Viacom), Fox, ABC (and Disney) and NBC (and Universal) etc. are interested primarily now as being content creators. It's why Moonves wants a movie studio. In these times, One can produce and sell "radio" - read: audio content - and deliver it to the audience cheaply without using over-the-air radio. In fact, the listener will often take on the cost of listening! They do so by paying for mobile data and/or subscription fees.

CBS is starting down that road with television via it's "CBS All Access" App. It's new spin-off series of "Star Trek" (Hardly an nonperforming franchise) will not be seen on "TV" but on their app which you can watch on your TV set. Or your tablet, or phone or whatever.

"CBS Radio News" is not part of "CBS Radio." It's part of "CBS News" and a money-making part of it, at that. They will continue to produce product. It will evolve as time goes on to accommodate the new ways people listen.

NewsStud said:

But, CBS's hourly newscasts DO run on some big stations in very big markets. They air in New York City, Boston, Washington, Dallas, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, San Fransisco, and Los Angeles. Just to name some off the top of my head. There's value in that. With all the braying over the death of radio and AM radio specifically, these outfits still command listeners.

Click to expand...

What is the "value" in creating an artificial and arbitrary divide between local news and national/network news? In forcing national stories to lead the hour? In having to go back after the network news to cover the local angle on some story the network did? We have network news because 80-30 years ago, stations did not have the resources to get sound from outside their areas. Now they can. Heck, I have more resources on my smartphone than I even dreamed of having in the first several newsrooms in which I worked.

The markets you list are ones in which CBS owns stations (except DC). Why do those stations still run the network news? Corporate pressure? Inertia?

And if network news is so all-fired important to all news stations, why doesn't CBS provide a "bottom of the hour" newscast (beyond the "update")? CBS all news stations operate on half hour cycles but network news is only available every other cycle. At the bottom of the hour, local people do national stories (if needed). Network news doesn't sound all that necessary.

Oscar Madison said:

Why do those stations still run the network news? Corporate pressure? Inertia?

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with inertia. It worked for Isaac Newton. A body in motion, and all that. WTOP in Washington doesn't have to run CBS TOH news. They're the top billing radio station in the country, and can afford to do it themselves. They do it because it's a familiar element of their station that characterizes their brand. That's fine. No problem

Complaining about all-news stations running network news is nit-picking. It's certainly not a major issue, and dropping it won't attract younger listeners to an aging format. My point is that it's basically the only thing CBS Radio News does, and it's not growing. There's no new innovation going on. That's what radio needs to do, and we look to these big national organizations to come up with new products that we can't live without. So far, I'm not seeing a whole lot.

Oscar Madison said:

What is the "value" in creating an artificial and arbitrary divide between local news and national/network news? In forcing national stories to lead the hour? In having to go back after the network news to cover the local angle on some story the network did? We have network news because 80-30 years ago, stations did not have the resources to get sound from outside their areas. Now they can. Heck, I have more resources on my smartphone than I even dreamed of having in the first several newsrooms in which I worked.

The markets you list are ones in which CBS owns stations (except DC). Why do those stations still run the network news? Corporate pressure? Inertia?

And if network news is so all-fired important to all news stations, why doesn't CBS provide a "bottom of the hour" newscast (beyond the "update")? CBS all news stations operate on half hour cycles but network news is only available every other cycle. At the bottom of the hour, local people do national stories (if needed). Network news doesn't sound all that necessary.

Click to expand...

There is value in in network news on radio because it's a definite time and place to hear a roundup (if you will) of the world's events. There are still people who like that on the radio.

From a programmatic perspective, it's a way to kick off the hour. Not the only way. Some all-news stations don't, and they might have a focus on more local things. WINS in New York City is an example of that. KYW in Philly, too. WCBS or KNX, or WTOP, etc. have built brands on providing that service every hour at the same time. These stations do very well, despite being older-skewing and on the AM band. And many of them are proud to run CBS News on the hour. It's got little to do with pressure from corporate.

CBS's bottom of the hour update is what's available because that's what enough of the affiliates want. If enough of the stations demanded (and committed to airing) a five or six minute bottom-of-hour cast, you can be sure the network would do it. It's in the business of serving clients.

And to your point about the usefulness of network newscasts every hour 80 years ago being only because a local station couldn't get as good audio itself, I would say it's pretty hard for a single station to get a reporter on the air from the White House or a war zone. Not every station is going to afford to have their own person for that. A network would, and if your station runs the cast, you'll get such a feature on your station. Plus you can have the off-air feeds of the reporter on scene for local playback. Or even get a call-in by the reporter. And you don't have pay the guy a fee since he comes with your network affiliation.

And if you don't like having a national newscast on your clock at :00, delay it. I worked at a station where we digitally delayed the network TOH, to allow us to do a local tease followed by a traffic report when the top of the hour hit. The network cast usually started playing about 90 seconds after top.

NewsStud said:

There is value in in network news on radio because it's a definite time and place to hear a roundup (if you will) of the world's events. There are still people who like that on the radio.

From a programmatic perspective, it's a way to kick off the hour. Not the only way. Some all-news stations don't, and they might have a focus on more local things. WINS in New York City is an example of that. KYW in Philly, too. WCBS or KNX, or WTOP, etc. have built brands on providing that service every hour at the same time. These stations do very well, despite being older-skewing and on the AM band. And many of them are proud to run CBS News on the hour. It's got little to do with pressure from corporate.

CBS's bottom of the hour update is what's available because that's what enough of the affiliates want. If enough of the stations demanded (and committed to airing) a five or six minute bottom-of-hour cast, you can be sure the network would do it. It's in the business of serving clients.

And to your point about the usefulness of network newscasts every hour 80 years ago being only because a local station couldn't get as good audio itself, I would say it's pretty hard for a single station to get a reporter on the air from the White House or a war zone. Not every station is going to afford to have their own person for that. A network would, and if your station runs the cast, you'll get such a feature on your station. Plus you can have the off-air feeds of the reporter on scene for local playback. Or even get a call-in by the reporter. And you don't have pay the guy a fee since he comes with your network affiliation.

And if you don't like having a national newscast on your clock at :00, delay it. I worked at a station where we digitally delayed the network TOH, to allow us to do a local tease followed by a traffic report when the top of the hour hit. The network cast usually started playing about 90 seconds after top.

Click to expand...

You don't need a network newscast to have a definite schedule.

You don't need a network newscast to have a report from the White House. Wraps are included in network audio feeds.

CBS doesn't care if anybody runs a five or six minute newscast at the top or bottom of the hour. They only care if everybody runs the spots.

The only excuse for TOH network newscasts is inertia - we do them because we've always done them.

Oscar Madison said:

The only excuse for TOH network newscasts is inertia - we do them because we've always done them.

Click to expand...

The same could be said about a lot of things. So what? This has nothing to do with the issue of rising demographics or declining ratings at news stations.

TheBigA said:

The same could be said about a lot of things. So what? This has nothing to do with the issue of rising demographics or declining ratings at news stations.

Click to expand...

"Rising demographics" sounds like demographics are improving. We all know they are not, at least as far as media buyers are concerned. And yes, I'll agree network TOH newscasts are a secondary, maybe tertiary question for all news stations. But at least it's an issue that can be solved. No way to make the audience younger. Something safe to say because any conceivable approach to get younger listeners has been tried.

Oscar Madison said:

But at least it's an issue that can be solved.

Click to expand...

It's not really an issue to anyone but you. If stations didn't want TOH news, they wouldn't carry it, and as we've both pointed out, there are lots of stations, including several owned by CBS, that don't. Those that do have real reasons why they carry it.

Steven Portnoy posted this on his Facebook today. I'll just leave this here, for now, and not make any further comments:

"You may have read the news that we’ve been wishing some of our very best friends and colleagues at CBS well as they enter retirement with a bit of corporate encouragement. A word on that —
The people we’ve hailed are, frankly, irreplaceable. They represent a big chunk of the institutional memory of our newsroom and their departures leave us feeling quite sad.

It’s important for radio fans to understand why this is happening. It is NOT because fewer people are listening. In fact, just the opposite is true! Nielsen and Edison Research tell us that radio now reaches more people than any other medium, including the social one you’re reading right now. Many of our stations are at the very top of the ratings in their markets. Tens of millions of Americans of all ages learn about our world from network radio news — don’t let anyone convince you otherwise, we’ve got the data that proves it’s just not true.

The trouble is, marketers — the companies that buy advertising, in the hopes that you’ll buy the things they sell — are always looking for the newest, most cost-efficient way to reach people in a crowded media universe. They’re spending less money on advertising generally and are trying to figure out whether that will work for them. The jury is still out, but network radio in particular has taken a pretty tough hit from the shifting dollars. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the idea that fewer people are listening isn’t one of them.

It's with this backdrop that CBS has, however, been forced to make tough, careful decisions about our staffing. My understanding is that no more cuts are planned.

What’s important for you, a fan of radio news, to know is this — each hour, 24 times a day, 7 days a week, 365 days each year, the <BONG> that proudly introduces our newscast will continue to signal the very best in broadcast journalism.

The people of CBS News are as committed as ever to living up to a legacy that began with Robert Trout and Ed Murrow, evolved with Douglas Edwards, Dallas Townsend and Christopher Glenn, and continues today with Frank Settipani, Steve Kathan, Dave Barrett, Pam Coulter and countless others who have made it their life’s work to bring the most up-to-date news to you, a member of one of the largest audiences any media entity in America can claim.
Just look at the time — another fresh report is coming up from CBS News in just a few minutes. Miss the last one? It’s right here — http://www.cbsradionewscast.com.
Thanks for keeping our colleagues and what we do in your thoughts, and thanks for listening."

Nick Young, in response to Portnoy, from Facebook...

"While I admire the work and dedication of my CBS colleagues, the ones who survived this round of bloodletting and those who didn't, where is the great hope for radio's robust future in your argument, Steven? Radio listenership is growing, you say, yet advertising dollars are fleeing ("network radio in particular has taken a pretty tough hit.") If radio with its increasing audience isn't convincing media buyers, what's going to change their minds? And in the absence of that change, what lies ahead but shrinking revenue and relentless pressure on stations, networks and their news operations? I've spent nearly fifty years in the business, and I'm still at it, so I don't mean to kill the buzz; but it's damned hard to paint a rosy future based on the evidence . . . and the departure of these friends and colleagues from West 57th is just the latest, sad sign."

Tim Scheld, with a different take...

"Kodak died when the digital camera came but I take more photos than I ever have with my phone. Couldn't agree more that the traditional business is challenged and our pivot is way too slow. But the business is filled with people delivering great content and many of them are young people and I'm pretty excited about finding places to deliver this content including social platforms that haven't even been built yet. Difficult? You bet. Delusional? Nope. The future of news and storytelling and information collection and delivery is bright. The race is on to find out who can have the platforms to bring it home."

It isn't just network news that is suffering fewer ad dollars, it is all national platforms. According to RAB, national revenue fell by 5.5% from 2011 to 2014.

I think Westwood One's platforms in particular have been hit harder than some other companies.