Howard Stern Show Canceled After 20 Years as Reports Claim It’s “No Longer Worth the Investment”

ThatRobGuy · Aug 6, 2025

Howard Stern Show Canceled After 20 Years as Reports Claim It’s “No Longer Worth the Investment”

One insider said, “Stern’s contract is up in the fall and while Sirius is planning to make him an offer, they don’t intend for him to take it. Sirius and Stern are never going to meet on the money he is going to want. It’s no longer worth the investment.”

That same source believes SiriusXM will still try to work out a deal to keep Stern’s massive library of past shows, but his live show will not continue.

While some aspects are still speculative, and to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't been "officially addressed" yet, by the company, what the insider is describing would match the M.O. of how SiriusXM has been known to "let people go" in the past. (Opie Hughes and Jim Norton both got the same treatment from SiriusXM a few years back)

...which is, rather than outright termination (which would involve some hefty form of severance or paying out some "golden parachute" provision, they instead opt for making an intentionally low-balled contract renewal offer (that they know the person would never accept), so that it's the on-air talent that's "walking away" and not the company. -- sort of the entertainment equivalent of how "if you're fired, you're entitled to certain benefits, but if you quit, you're not"

If the insider information reported to the Sun is true, there could be a few reasons behind it
1) The brand of "shock" and "edge" that Stern was once synonymous with, simply isn't that "shocking or edgy" anymore by modern standards
2) The market is somewhat saturated with other content that people can access for free (or for a much lower price than a Satellite radio subscription)
3) They probably want to use some of those funds to invest in other things (and if his show isn't drawing the numbers anymore, that could free up a lot of budget)
4) He's had a history of drawing resentment from other on-air people/shows at organizations he worked with.

RocksInMyHead · Aug 6, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
...which is, rather than outright termination (which would involve some hefty form of severance or paying out some "golden parachute" provision, they instead opt for making an intentionally low-balled contract renewal offer (that they know the person would never accept), so that it's the on-air talent that's "walking away" and not the company. -- sort of the entertainment equivalent of how "if you're fired, you're entitled to certain benefits, but if you quit, you're not"

They have a contract that's up for renewal every x number of years. Neither party is under any sort of obligation to renew it. Simply telling Stern that they didn't want to renew wouldn't cost them any more than lowballing his contract. It might actually cost them less, because not offering a contract means that you don't have to pay someone to draft it.

I don't know why they would deliberately lowball him - maybe it's intended as an insult, or maybe they just want to leave the option on the table in case he's secretly desperate (kind of like the contractor who deliberately overbids on a job he doesn't want on the off chance that you'll actually pay double what the job is actually worth).

ThatRobGuy · Aug 6, 2025

RocksInMyHead said:
I don't know why they would deliberately lowball him - maybe it's intended as an insult, or maybe they just want to leave the option on the table in case he's secretly desperate (kind of like the contractor who deliberately overbids on a job he doesn't want on the off chance that you'll actually pay double what the job is actually worth).

Based on interviews I heard with Jim Norton and Opie (from the old Opie and Anthony show), it seemed like that was the way the company did things when they were trying to shove people out the door.

Norton had mentioned in his interview (because the interviewer flat out asked "why didn't they just decline to offer a contract?"), that it was baked into his current contract that that they had to offer him some sort of renewal option or pay him $X within 30-days of his contract expiring to fulfill their obligations.

So basically, they offered him a renewal that was 30% less than what he was making, and cutting the overall budget for his show (meaning he would've had to fire a few staff members as well)

RocksInMyHead · Aug 6, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
Based on interviews I heard with Jim Norton and Opie (from the old Opie and Anthony show), it seemed like that was the way the company did things when they were trying to shove people out the door.

Norton had mentioned in his interview (because the interviewer flat out asked "why didn't they just decline to offer a contract?"), that it was baked into his current contract that that they had to offer him some sort of renewal option or pay him $X within 30-days of his contract expiring to fulfill their obligations.

So basically, they offered him a renewal that was 30% less than what he was making, and cutting the overall budget for his show (meaning he would've had to fire a few staff members as well)

Makes sense. But it's still all contractual stuff - if you require the company to offer you a new contract or pay a buyout and don't put any stipulations on the contract terms (e.g. "can't be more than x% lower than the previous contract"), it's kind of on you when the company decides to massively lowball you rather than paying the buyout.

Personally, I'd consider terms like that to be a bit of a trap, as it allows the company to string you along right up until the deadline. If the contract is over with no future obligation, you have a lot more freedom to negotiate.

ThatRobGuy · Aug 6, 2025

RocksInMyHead said:
Makes sense. But it's still all contractual stuff - if you require the company to offer you a new contract or pay a buyout and don't put any stipulations on the contract terms (e.g. "can't be more than x% lower than the previous contract"), it's kind of on you when the company decides to massively lowball you rather than paying the buyout.

Personally, I'd consider terms like that to be a bit of a trap, as it allows the company to string you along right up until the deadline. If the contract is over with no future obligation, you have a lot more freedom to negotiate.

I think with radio & TV personalities, the company itself has to hedge a little bit. (especially with guys in that genre of radio)

While the satellite radio aspect gives them a little more wiggle room with regards to FCC content regulation, it's still not completely unrestricted, and radio personalities (especially in that genre), have the ability to get themselves thrown off the air while still under contract.

...and things like FCC regulations change from administration to administration, so they never really know what the regulatory landscape is going to look like from year to year.

That happened with Opie and Anthony... it may have been when they were still under the ClearChannel umbrella, but they were locked into a 3-year lucrative deal, and 6 months into the deal, they did a stunt that got them a 2-year FCC suspension. Long story short, the company was on the hook and got stuck paying them high six-figure salaries to sit at home for 2 years. (not to mention the costs associated with hiring replacements for the morning drive timeslot in 4 major radio markets since they were syndicated -- I imagine the advertiser fallout was probably a big dent as well) -- it was their 3rd time doing that particular stunt, and at the time their contracts were penned, they would've had no way of knowing that "stricter" regulatory measures were on the horizon that were perhaps more lax before.

Obviously, I don't think Howard presented that kind of "risk" anymore, he's gotten a little older now and much more tame than what his show used to be.

I think the advertiser-friendly podcasting market has given some of those guys a little more leverage than they once had (one would hope)

I think it would go without saying that if Howard decided to start his own weekly podcast from his basement, it'd probably be a 7-figure/year endeavor right out of the chute with very little effort due to his name recognition.

RocksInMyHead · Aug 6, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
I think with radio & TV personalities, the company itself has to hedge a little bit. (especially with guys in that genre of radio)

Not sure what you're getting at here - requiring a new contract or a buyout is a way for the company to control the talent. It disincentivizes going elsewhere and allows the company to string the talent along in the hope of getting another big contract, leaving them little time to negotiate with other media outlets once they finally realize it isn't happening. For a situation in which the talent is a liability, the only added benefit is the option to use the terms to deliver an insult (a ridiculous lowball offer) or screw the talent over by making it harder to negotiate with other companies. It doesn't hedge against anything.

ThatRobGuy said:
I think the advertiser-friendly podcasting market has given some of those guys a little more leverage than they once had (one would hope)

I think it would go without saying that if Howard decided to start his own weekly podcast from his basement, it'd probably be a 7-figure/year endeavor right out of the chute with very little effort due to his name recognition.

Exactly. Howard Stern isn't going to be hurting the least bit over this - the worst-case scenario is that he retires so that he can enjoy the massive pile of money he's already made. He's 71, after all.

ThatRobGuy · Aug 6, 2025

RocksInMyHead said:
Not sure what you're getting at here - requiring a new contract or a buyout is a way for the company to control the talent. It disincentivizes going elsewhere and allows the company to string the talent along in the hope of getting another big contract, leaving them little time to negotiate with other media outlets once they finally realize it isn't happening. For a situation in which the talent is a liability, the only added benefit is the option to use the terms to deliver an insult (a ridiculous lowball offer) or screw the talent over by making it harder to negotiate with other companies. It doesn't hedge against anything.

It's a hedge in that I can stop them from pulling a George Costanza move (if you recall that episode where he's trying to get fired from the Yankees on purpose so he can pursue a gig with the Mets)

Sort of the aspect of "Company A putting up the initial investment and taking the risk, and wanting to get a return on their investment before the person bounces and goes to Company B" - which is understandable.

I know radio isn't exactly the "hot market" is once was...but if we get in our time machines and go back to that era.

Say I'm a station director/owner in NYC or Chicago, and you're a virtual unknown from a tiny market in Idaho. If I'm willing to take a 2 year risk on you (putting up money for promoting your show, and giving you a huge audience to hone your craft...which is part of the selling point with advertisers), and you end up becoming a household name six months later, you getting fired on purpose so that it frees you up to go get a different job is obviously something I'd want to prevent.

I think that's why advertiser-funded entertainment endeavors have trended toward the contact-based model for on-air talent.

RocksInMyHead · Aug 6, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
It's a hedge in that I can stop them from pulling a George Costanza move (if you recall that episode where he's trying to get fired from the Yankees on purpose so he can pursue a gig with the Mets)

Sort of the aspect of "Company A putting up the initial investment and taking the risk, and wanting to get a return on their investment before the person bounces and goes to Company B" - which is understandable.

I know radio isn't exactly the "hot market" is once was...but if we get in our time machines and go back to that era.

Say I'm a station director/owner in NYC or Chicago, and you're a virtual unknown from a tiny market in Idaho. If I'm willing to take a 2 year risk on you (putting up money for promoting your show, and giving you a huge audience to hone your craft...which is part of the selling point with advertisers), and you end up becoming a household name six months later, you getting fired on purpose so that it frees you up to go get a different job is obviously something I'd want to prevent.

I think that's why advertiser-funded entertainment endeavors have trended toward the contact-based model for on-air talent.

That's the purpose of a contract in general, yes. I'm not sure how that applies to the specific contractual terms we've been discussing though.

Search

Search

Howard Stern Show Canceled After 20 Years as Reports Claim It’s “No Longer Worth the Investment”

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd