The New Language of Radio

First Clear Channel, then Emmis et.al., slashed jobs to appease stockholders, who usually have jobs (or don't need them). This week CBS, um, released a bunch of good radio people. Here's the way CBS described it:

With these actions, we continue to build on our strategy of deploying our assets to best grow our ratings and monetize the results ...

CBS Radio also ... considerably strengthened our digital assets in order to distribute our content on all available emerging platforms.

Yeah, that's the way I talk, too ... all "deploy" and "monetize" and "aggregate" and "assets." The problem with this business today is that the people who write stuff like that wouldn't know a mic or a playlist if it bit them on the ass.

There are some exceptions - big companies that know they're in the radio business, treat their people well, and know they have a responsibility to those who got them big in the first place. Greater Media comes to mind, and Federated, and ... hmmm, I seem to have run out.

I guess it's easier to shit-can people if you think of them as "assets." Except if you shit-can them, they're "liabilities," aren't they?

Even program directors are talking that way nowadays, in the spirit of joining them in lieu of licking them.

But really, which gets you more excited, doing great radio or monetizing assets?