After 30 years at Petry Media Corp., Val Napolitano has ascended to the top job, succeeding Earl Jones as president and CEO.

But Napolitano's latest promotion could not have come at a more challenging time for the venerable national rep company.

For the past year, it has been buffeted by a series of setbacks — losses of key executives and, more important, major clients.

The trouble culminated this past spring when Gannett Broadcasting, with more than $400 million in spot billings, shifted its business to Cox's TeleRep.

The client losses — coupled with this year's surprising weak economy — have led some to wonder whether Petry will even survive.

But, in this interview with TVNewsday Editor Harry A. Jessell, Napolitano provides reassurance that Petry is here to stay, that backer Patriarch Partners remains committed and that the company can grow organically and by going beyond the conventional national spot business.

An edited transcript:

You will be the first Petry Media president with rep management experience in about 13 years. What strengths and philosophy do you bring to the table?

This is no comment whatsoever on any of my predecessors. It's just a comment on me. I believe that my longevity in my job and the ability to always speak the truth has allowed me to develop and maintain strong relationships. People do believe in me and I have a belief in the company, of course. My philosophy is has been always one of total transparency, credibility and truth.I think from that point of view we do start from a position of stability

Aside from that, I have the luxury of having developed and maintained some very, very strong relationships as far as our clients are concerned.

Let's talk about stability. Because of the defections and the loss of other businesses, people are wondering about the company. What can you say to give your clients some confidence that Petry is going to survive and take care of their business?

We have a firm commitment from our partner, Patriarch Partners. They are totally committed to us and in the decisions that we've made in terms of this latest redefinition of where our company is going. So it really is a turning point in the history of our company.

When you talk about the "redefinition," what exactly are you doing? Are we going to see changes in how the company operates or how it is structured?

I think we'd be kidding ourselves if we don't take a look at whatever economies and scale we can. That's a given and it's not isolated to us. Broadcasters are feeling the same pinch as we are — certainly this year. It's not a great revelation that this year is no way near what we expected it was going to be nine or 10 months ago. So we do have to adjust and see what we can save from a cost standpoint. That's really all that our partner, Patriarch, wants from us. They just want us to be a profitable, sustainable, viable company going forward.

Most of the clients were at Blair. Do you see Petry and Blair merging as part of this search for economies?

Right now, we need to maintain the two brand identities because of contracts and legal issues. So those two brands will be maintained. Will they be maintained inevitably? It's hard to say, but I think at some point down the road we have to take a look at what makes the most sense for our company from a branding standpoint, from a structural standpoint, from a cost standpoint.

You had layoffs in connection with the loss of the Gannett business and some layoffs early this year. Are you done with that? Are the layoffs behind you now?

For the most part, the answer is yes. Obviously, it has to be done with a caveat. I can't predict further erosion of the economy and, God forbid, if I were to lose another account, which I'm not anticipating right now. But, right now, I don't anticipate any further cuts.

We definitely want to grow the company, maybe in a different way. If we do that, we'll be adding.

What about downsizing or shutting down offices in terms of economies?

If an office contributes 1 percent or less of our revenue and if it doesn't even support hiring a sales assistant, that to me is not pragmatic business. We're going to take a hard look at those issues. There are some, not many, but some that don't generate the amount of revenue that we need to support an office.

A lot of it has to do with where we physically or geographically have clients. That's the rule of thumb for any rep firm. If we don't have locations or stations in an area, we simply won't have an office there. Conversely, too, if we pick up a piece of business and it makes sense for us to have an office where we don't today, then we'll add.

You've moved Steve Capozzoli into your old slot as head of Petry Television and Julie Holmberg-Bowyer continues to run Blair. Should we anticipate any other top tier management changes?

No not really. The only changes of that magnitude are those two that you just mentioned.

Your remaining big clients — LIN, Hubbard, etc. — are they solid at this point?

Yes. LIN, Hubbard, Journal, Sunbelt, New Age, Cowles. You can go down a long list of broadcasters.

What's the strategy for growing the company?

For one thing, we recognize that the spot marketplace is changing dramatically and we don't think that being totally reliant on spot television is smart. There are other things that we can do that are ancillary to our business. For instance, we now represent the RFD-TV, the national cable and satellite network.

Oh, that's where Imus is now.

Yes. Imus is there. It's a complement to what we do. The CPMs are very attractive for us to sell and the return on our investment is very attractive. The ability to generate very quick revenue and large revenues certainly is an enhancement to what we earn just selling spot television. We also represent Euronews and Eurosport, which are two entities in Europe, analogous to CNN and ESPN. Those also earn for us some rather high margins on our investment. We have a dedicated unit selling those.

I see us taking advantage of what we learned and growing and trying to grow in increased representation of regional and national cable networks not necessarily tier one of course, but maybe tier two and beyond.

In luring your clients away, have Cox and Katz been cutting commissions?

I would venture to say that some of the decisions of why we lost business are related to business decisions and one can only conclude that part of that would be, if I can save in my cost of sales. That might be a reason to leave. I don't think that it is any great secret that we have lost and gained stations based on that.

We'll always be a very, very competitive industry and I do think that we've got to reach a point, speaking purely from Petry's and Blair's points of view, where we cannot continue to deaccelerate our commission rates and expect to survive. So we're trying to try to do something a little bit differently maybe — sell more nimbly. Maybe smaller is better. Having fewer stations gives us the ability to be creative and flexible, particularly when the business is being handled so much on geographical data.

What are your prospects of turning the tables a little bit and snatching some business away from those other guys?

Well, we do have some really great relationships with the clients we currently have and they have been growing and adding to their station roster. So we have the ability to grow organically in that regard. Several of our groups have recently purchased television stations — New Age, Journal, Bonten Media.

Yes. Bonten just picked up a big one, WTVF, from Landmark.

Yes. They picked up a Nashville station. So there's an opportunity to grow organically and smartly in that regard.

I heard that the Tribune, which is now repped by Cox, is in play. What's going on there?

There's no decision on that yet. I think they're still working on some issues unrelated to the rep decision, having to do more with the Superstation and maybe retransmission with some cable systems. The decision as far as the rep is concerned has been put on the back burner for now.

But you're in that game?

Yes.