• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

CBS selling radio division, Houston impact?

As has been predicted, CBS will sell off its radio division. Six stations affected in Houston: KILT 610, KIKK 650, KKHH 95.7, KHMX 96.5, KILT-FM 100.3 and KLOL 101.1.

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/cbs-radio-stations-sale-investors-1201730033/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/business/media/cbs-looks-to-exit-radio-business.html?_r=0

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...-announces-cbs-radio-sale-20160315-story.html

http://www.insideradio.com/free/cbs...cle_a615516a-eae3-11e5-8cc2-13336560457c.html

Let the speculation begin. Will be interesting to see if the Houston cluster is sold as a whole or by individual stations.

If existing players in the Houston market wind up with the local CBS properties it could mean some format shuffles on the FM band.
 
God no.... I don't even want to think about what happens next with these stations, especially with one specific company that is eligible to acquire all of them (Hint: they only have one property here).
 
God no.... I don't even want to think about what happens next with these stations, especially with one specific company that is eligible to acquire all of them (Hint: they only have one property here).

The more probably end game is spinning off the radio division to shareholders.
 
Curious to see how this will all play out. Who will end up with certain stations and if they will flip the current formats. We do need a good shake up on the dial
 
Nothing will change , Mega 101 will be Mega 101, Mix 965, Hot 957 will remain the same too KILT will stay as Country the only ones that could probably change are the AMs. Probably be leased out
 
In a perfect world, the conglomerates would be allowed no more than one AM / FM pair in a market. This would mean more independent owners.
 
In a perfect world, the conglomerates would be allowed no more than one AM / FM pair in a market. This would mean more independent owners.

That would be fine if there had been a cap on the total number of AM & FM stations at about 4,000, and limit the maximum number of stations to a market to five.

After Docket 80-90, the old station limits made no sense, and a lot of companies like NBC got out of radio completely. Did it lead to "more independent owners?" I don't think so.
 
That would be fine if there had been a cap on the total number of AM & FM stations at about 4,000, and limit the maximum number of stations to a market to five.

After Docket 80-90, the old station limits made no sense, and a lot of companies like NBC got out of radio completely. Did it lead to "more independent owners?" I don't think so.

It led to highly leveraged conglomerates with awful product that has fewer and fewer listeners. Hopefully when these stations are acquired for pennies on the dollar you'll understand. The main problem with radio now is it has lost generations of listeners on both ends of the age spectrum. Millennials don't listen to radio because they can get their information and music in other ways. Boomers have been edged out by the know it all consultants who say our music is too old to support a station. And the demise of radio continues because of these and other incorrect assumptions.
 
Last edited:
It led to highly leveraged conglomerates with awful product that has fewer and fewer listeners.

Not true. Docket 80-90 happened during the Reagan administration. You should study some radio history. The number of radio listeners as a percentage of the population really hasn't changed. And as far as leverage, internet radio companies are also building a lot of debt. The internet has the same problem OTA has, which is listeners want to hear radio, but they don't want to pay for it.

The main problem with radio now is it has lost generations of listeners on both ends of the age spectrum.

In a study just released last week, it was discovered that as Millennials age into the core radio demo, move into their own homes, and have kids, they begin to listen to OTA radio. It's not a function of ownership or content, it's a function of their time and interest. Boomers have aged out of the demo that advertisers want, however, they're welcome to listen to non-commercial radio if they choose. Some do, some don't. The problem with boomers is they don't want to pay subscription fees, and they complain about commercials. In other words, they want something for nothing.

And the demise of radio continues because of these and other incorrect assumptions.

You're blaming horses for the population using cars. If the horses just ran a little faster, ate a little less, people would still prefer them to personal automobiles. Does that logic make sense? The fact is that 15 years after satellite and the internet, radio listenership is very stable.

The problem in cities like Houston is the population has changed dramatically, with more immigrants, and that has changed the target for radio stations, leaving some older, white men without stations they like. If you moved to another place, you'd a very different view about radio.
 
The problem in cities like Houston is the population has changed dramatically, with more immigrants, and that has changed the target for radio stations, leaving some older, white men without stations they like. If you moved to another place, you'd a very different view about radio.

If I made oversimplified generalizations like that about a racial group - I would rightfully be called a bigot. I am sure glad the people making statements like some I read above aren't in charge of scientific or engineering matters, or we would get a flood of bad science and deadly engineering disasters across the country.
 
If I made oversimplified generalizations like that about a racial group - I would rightfully be called a bigot.

The facts don't lie.

Population: 5,546,400
Black: 962,500 (17%)
Hispanic: 1,878,200 (34%)

That means that half of the population is either Black or Hispanic. That has an effect on radio formats. BTW Blacks and Hispanics are huge users of OTA radio.
 
I am amazed at how people think that companies operate under the premise of not giving customers (listeners) what they want or will not serve a group that supposedly, by claim of that person, is so viable. I'm not a business guru but I do understand these big corporations are stock owned and when you are stock owned, you have to maintain the value of the stock or you simply crash and burn.

I do know the way you stay in business to give people what they want. It might not be the ideal venue for a certain person, but the product is designed to appeal to as many as possible so that your product is successful. I have never heard of one company that intentionally do not do this. If there is, I'd like to know.

As a side note, in programming my philosophy was always to be the station loved by my target audience and the better choice for as many radio listeners as possible. By this I mean you might have some complaints about the programming if outside the target demo but when all is said and done, on the radio dial we are the better choice not the ideal station. I recall trying to explain to a listener why we weren't rock but top 40. I said the percentage of people that want only rock was too small in our city of 150,000 to make a rock format economically viable but there were enough people to create a successful rock station in the city he came from with 3 million people. I asked him the best station on the dial and he said we were the best of all the choices. So, I concluded, "While we are top 40 and you'd rather us be rock, you will still listen because we toss in a rocker here and there, right?" He agreed. I said that was why we were doing what we were doing because we could reach the greatest number of listeners, even the folks wanting only rock.

Radio is a business. It has to make money like any other business. This is a fact for every radio station, LPFM to the biggest station, public or private...just as true as if you are living in the USA you need money for food, shelter, transportation and such. I'm not saying radio is perfect, but that it is a business and functions like any other business. If it can sustain itself financially, great and show growth in revenue in some manner, even better. To produce revenue it must provide a product people want. Sure the older demographics are losing stations but this is due to the dollars coming to radio being dictated to reach listeners where businesses can economically recruit new customers economically. If the advertisers would buy older demos in quantity enough to make it viable in a market, it would be done but if the money is not there to operate it, well, it is as simple as a gas engine car: it is not going to operate without the money to buy the gas to fill the tank.

In short, radio still puts up the good fight, still makes money and likely is better in tune now with listeners than ever before. It has to be. Radio struggles with high debt in many instances and it could be that debt once thought manageable at the time is not quite as manageable today in a softer market. Lots of industries and services are fairly soft right now. There's always lean years no matter your business choice. It's not that radio is failing but that things are rather soft at the moment. Yes, competition is stiff for the ad dollar and we are seeing ad buying trends changing just like many other lines of business, but these are hurdles companies face every day and learn to navigate. I'm far from the thinking that radio is going the way of the horse and buggy, at least from my vantage point.

Blame your opinion of radio on whatever you choose but the real reason the way things are being done as they are is because the current situation is producing the income, bringing in the listeners to earn that income and appeasing the stockholders. If that wasn't the case, they'd be gone.

As for CBS, I suspect the stations will remain pretty much the same, a shuffle as it were, to maximize a portfolio here and bolster a portfolio there. Overall, CBS has good product and is nicely invested in its stations, not always taking many of the fat-trimming tactics that others have. Time will tell if my foot is firmly entrenched in my mouth.
 
As a comedian I one heard said: Have you ever wondered if the person that shouts racism is the one who is? Then he added, "Maybe I shouldn't have brough that up".
 
I am amazed at how people think that companies operate under the premise of not giving customers (listeners) what they want or will not serve a group that supposedly, by claim of that person, is so viable.

The other assumption is if a radio station wasn't in debt, or didn't listen to consultants, they would program what I want. You can look around to stations in Houston that aren't owned by debt ridden companies, and see if any of them are directing their programming to boomers. If the answer is no, perhaps it's an "incorrect assumption." A lot of people assumed that an all news station would attract a lot of listeners and make money in Houston. All News is successful in the Northeast, so it should work in Texas. They were wrong. So sometimes, making programming decisions that appear to be correct based on one's personal taste doesn't bring the expected results, because of factors that haven't been considered.
 
It led to highly leveraged conglomerates with awful product that has fewer and fewer listeners. Hopefully when these stations are acquired for pennies on the dollar you'll understand. The main problem with radio now is it has lost generations of listeners on both ends of the age spectrum. Millennials don't listen to radio because they can get their information and music in other ways. Boomers have been edged out by the know it all consultants who say our music is too old to support a station. And the demise of radio continues because of these and other incorrect assumptions.

Only few groups are so highly leveraged as to be at risk. And the risk is purely financial. For example, many of the Clear Channel clusters like LA and New York are immensely profitable and throwing off operating margins on the order of 50% or better.

Were they sold, they would get premium prices (within the current valuations) due to cash flow.

Millenials, as BigA says, listen to a lot of radio once they become involved in family formation. They come to radio because it is satisfying and less time consuming than building playlists when a person has other responsibilities and priorities. They may use radio overall less than prior generations, but they still make radio the best reach medium there is.

It is not "some suit" that determines not to serve the over-55 crowd. It is the group of America's major clients and advertisers, via their ad agencies, who had determined that going after older consumers is not cost efficient. So if there is no money being spent against 55+ listeners, there is no profit to be made programming for them.

You see, you have made a bunch of wrong conclusions, and then built your case on them. So, of course, your argument fails in so many ways.
 
Millenials, as BigA says, listen to a lot of radio once they become involved in family formation.

The other thing to remember about millennials is they don't all do the same thing. Radio listenership isn't strictly a function of age. There are lots of other demographics, as well as the availability of formats that appeal to millennials, that factor into their decision. And while national numbers say one thing, actual local listenership may be different.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom