Radio DOGE – Are We RIFing The Wrong Employees?

Some things you just know.  

For example, when the Merriam-Webster people choose their word for 2025, it will have to be DOGE.  Assuming, of course, their august dictionary decides it’s an actual word.

Derived from the cryptocurrency Dogecoin which came from the Polish word for “dog,” the word has now morphed into the acronym for the Department of Government Efficiency, the sweeping movement from Donald Trump and Elon Musk designed to downsize government and make it more efficient.  Many would agree the words “government” and “efficiency” are oxymoronic – not belonging in the same sentence or even the same blog post.

As we’re already learning, perhaps the hard way, there’s a science and a strategy that goes along with the practice of downsizing.  In other words, if you don’t have a strong understanding of the fat you’re trimming, you may very well end up throwing away the good with the bad, the baby with the bathwater, etc.

In just these few short weeks since Trump 2.0 has assumed office in a peaceful transfer of power, I may add, we’re already seeing questionable Reductions In Force – or RIFs – from the DOGE team.

Fast Company reports recent DOGE terminations by the Department of Agriculture ended the careers of employees working on a government response to the troubling bird flu outbreak. Attempts are now being made to reinstate these workers.

Similarly – and perhaps more alarmingly – a group of 350 nuclear safety employees were shown the door ten days ago.  And then the Trump administration backtracked that call in an attempt to get these workers back at their desks.

In an AP report, National Nuclear Security Administration deputy division director Rob Plonski made the observation this recent round of axings are “undermining the very systems that secure our nation’s future” adding that “cutting the federal workforce responsible for these functions may be seen as reckless at best and adversarily opportunistic at worst.”

Similar RIFs at FEMA, the IRS, the National Park Service, and the FAA (it’s been a tough month for them) raise similar questions whether the right employees are being pink-slipped and whether there’s an actual rhyme and reason behind these large-scale efforts to streamline the squeaky wheels of government.

In other words, there’s a cost to staff downsizing, especially if the thought process behind these attempts is flawed, hasty, or simply based on compensation or seniority.

In radio, we know this only too well.  And sadly, for perhaps the first time in decades, broadcasters actually got ahead of a trend.  You can decide for yourself whether being on the cutting edge of staff cuts is, in fact, a good thing.  But the reality is that large-scale station staff cuts have been going on for years.  And they’re apparently contagious.

In his wonderful radio trends newsletter yesterday, the venerable and well-traveled James Cridland (pictured) wrote an apropos column, over the weekend “A tale of two sets of radio closures.”  He contrasted the way two companies, Global and Southern Cross Austereo (SCA out of Australia) recently executed their latest rounds of staff cuts.

Global was thoughtful about how they presented their past glory, giving the terminated presenters and their audiences, the chance to enjoy a famous, final show.  According to James, ex-Global staffers were well compensated on their way out the door, provided they didn’t go rogue on social media.  SCA, on the other hand, killed off a once-popular night show on Tripe M in just 24 hours.

While its host, Luke Bona (pictured), got the courtesy to say his good-byes, James took the company to task for not giving a long-time employee and a highly popular presenter a chance to have a proper exit.

These stories are all too familiar to American radio pros.  Ironically, European and Australian broadcasters used to fly great distances and at great expense to hear iconic American radio stations in the pre-Internet era.  Sadly, the only U.S. radio trend they now copy is the methods and calculus we use to fire people.

But what about the net effects of all this downsizing?  By any measure of success in radio, they sure don’t seem to have been highly effective.  While often designed to satisfy – OK, placate – Wall Street, radio stocks have mostly headed sharply downward these past few years, now taking an increasing number of corporate chieftains down with them.  Spot revenue has been eroding for many years now, the sheer number of advertisers has shrunk, and national business is a shadow of its former self.

From a PR perspective, the last decade has taken a heavy toll.  Radio has become widely disrespected by musicians, record labels, and the auto industry, all trying to cut better deals with radio broadcasters – or cut them out of the process completely.  Among the young and the hip, FM radio is a cultural punchline, something one’s grandparents actively listened to.

And then there’s the radio product itself.  Subjectively, are broadcasters doing a better job producing a strong on-air product during these RIF years, as well as building lasting relationships with advertisers and community leaders?  As the media/audio space has become clogged with more and more competitors, has all this “efficiency” helped broadcasters better compete?

As the DOGE team is now being met with increasing questions and concerns revolving around whether it actually knows what it’s doing, so are there doubts aplenty about the wisdom – or lack thereof – of radio’s modern-day scorched earth policies, slashing airstaffs, salespeople, backend employees, and anyone else in the way of producing leaner and meaner spreadsheets.

Are there even tours of cavernous, near-empty radio station buildings, office space, and air studios when employees are few and much of the work has been cast off to remote workers or corporate hubs?

In the wake of these questions was a thoughtful blog post from Dick Taylor (pictured) yesterday.  “Pilot of the Airwaves” is a compelling story of the epic role air personalities have played since radio’s beginnings more than a century ago.

While so much has changed in the connected worlds of media technology over these decades, Dick points out that radio’s unique ability to deliver companionship has been a constant.  Show me a personality who’s been on the air for a decade or more, and you can predict the steady stream of fans they’ve encountered who use these words to explain and even define their relationship:

“I grew up listening to you/your show.”

Dick goes on to quote everyone from Freddie Mercury to Charles Osgood about radio’s historic role in people’s lives.  He cites the NuVoodoo study presented at CRS last week that shows increasing numbers of listeners cognizant of the many popular hosts that are now on the beach.

He also references last year’s Techsurvey 2024, yet another study that affirms the connection between personalities and the people listening.  Put in stark terms that everyone on the management team can comprehend, it’s the people walking around with diaries or carrying/wearing meters.

As an industry, broadcasters are pathologically obsessed about doing “ratings harm,” and yet, they continue to can the most popular “audience facing” employees on the station level – in many cases, radio’s “influencers.”  Listeners and advertisers may not know or care when a sales person, an admin, a manager, or a consultant is terminated.  But if the afternoon host with competitive or even better ratings who’s been a fixture on the station for a decade or more is gone, they’re going to notice.  And in a lot of cases, they’re not going to be happy with the decision, nor are they going to understand it.

But these are the questionable decisions being made pretty much every day by radio companies signaling to long-time listeners and advertisers they simply are doing their fiduciary responsibility.  And because these firings often lack the courtesy of an explanation beyond the ominous “Joe Jock is no longer with the company” or “We thank her for her contributions and wish her well in her future endeavors,” you can understand how negative feelings toward radio grow and even fester.

When I think about the priority of radio RIFs – the forerunners of the DOGE initiatives – I go back to a pre-pandemic moment at Radio Ink’s Forecast conference in New York City back in November 2019.  Deborah Parenti tapped me to moderate the final session of the day, the one where radio’s CEOs take the stage for a no-holds-barred Q&A session.  Then-Entercom CEO David Field and Cumulus/WW1 CEO Mary Berner were the featured radio leaders, and my charge was to engage them in a discussion about content – programming and brands.

As our conversation proceeded, the topic moved to layoffs, which were happening concurrent to the conference.  Oftentimes, RIFs in radio take place near the November/December holidays, a particularly sensitive time for employees and their families.  And I made the point that given the industry’s reliance on personalities, why were they so often prominent parts of radio layoffs.

David responded somewhat incredulously to me, making the point that of all people, I should know that not all radio personalities are talented or proficient enough to be successful on the air.  And to that I acknowledged his point but also put the onus back on companies, programmers, and yes, consultants to work with talent to help them improve and succeed.

It was a tough exchange, and fortunately, it came at the end of the session and the Forecast happy hour.  David was visibly displeased with the direction I took during the session.  I promptly sent him (and Mary) a thank-you note for participating with me to which he did not respond.  Sadly, we have not spoken since.

As an industry veteran and a supporter of talent – and radio – I know how difficult and challenging the ongoing downsizing process has become.  For federal employees, this is a new development.  For those in radio, it has sadly become part of the fabric of the industry.

Not long before that Forecast conference, Jacobs Media partnered with Morning Show Boot Camp to produce the first of seven studies of commercial radio talent in the U.S.  These research studies have been telling, especially revealing the ongoing rift between on-air talent and their stations and companies of employ.  Relations between both sides have only gotten more touchy since the pandemic.

Below is the chart showing the Net Promoter Scores trended over time – air personalities rating their stations and companies.  Since COVID, in particular, the scores are abysmal.  To provide a reference point, the typical commercial radio station in Techsurvey earns a score in the 40s among its fans:

It has not been easy to get the management teams in many radio companies to pay attention to these studies, even though they provide unique feedback from their most important employees – their on-air talent.

One can argue there’s always been a natural, philosophical schism between management and air talent, and the AQ findings are just a reflection of that.  Personalities are painted with the talent brush that’s lacking in fiscal responsibility while management is stereotyped as “bottom line” conscious to a fault.  In many ways, it’s that polar relationship that’s been there since radio’s beginnings.  And it’s that same tension the industry is feeling right now while challenging decisions are being made.

Ironically, the Trump administration may value radio talent more than some broadcasters based on the news that a star of the airwaves, Dan Bongino, has been named Deputy Director of the FBI.

An element of trust and honoring custom goes hand in hand in the building of a successful industry – or government.  While talent and management may spar and even feud, there must be an intrinsic understanding of their co-dependency.  That means being respectful of each other’s positions and challenges, and behaving accordingly.

In radio, that time-honored relationship has been eroding for many years now.  In our government, we’re beginning to witness the early effects of vitriol and heartache that go along with irresponsible spreadsheet slashing while calling out workers for being unproductive and wasteful.  If broadcast radio in the U.S. is an early indicator of how America will fare and perform in this pressurized environment, we’re all in for a rocky ride.

James Cridland summed it up this way in this weekend’s newsletter:

“The future of radio is a human connection and a shared experience.”

He goes on to castigate broadcast companies that demonstrate their lack of understanding of the business – and its people – with their insensitive policies and actions.  He credits these moves as aiding and abetting radio’s decline.

I agree.

To remain even reasonably successful in the years ahead, radio companies (or however they prefer to be called now) will have to play the game smarter and more empathetically.

Otherwise, we’re going to be just another footnote in a DOGE eat DOGE world.