• 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

Entercom To Rebrand as Audacy

And MTV isn't about music anymore.
I'm working now for a vendor that sets up displays in Walmart stores and worked recently on tagging children's clothes. One thing I noticed is that they had MTV T-shirts with the Music Television slogan. I can see doing that for nostalgic t-shirts for adults, but this is for kids who have never seen that version of MTV. I can see kids asking "Where's the music???" :rolleyes:
 
Does anybody else think they are in a state of disarray over there? I can't think of any station they own that sounds good (especially the alternative ones) and most of their ratings are poor.
I would disagree with this sentiment. I don’t think you can make a broad generalization that all their stations don’t sound good. Entercom / Audacy still own and operate the best all-news stations in the entire United States (WBBM, KNX, KCBS, etc...). They also have some of the best classic hits stations in the entire country like KRTH and WCBS FM. Their alternative stations might stink, but they do run some quality stations across the country.
 
I would disagree with this sentiment. I don’t think you can make a broad generalization that all their stations don’t sound good. Entercom / Audacy still own and operate the best all-news stations in the entire United States (WBBM, KNX, KCBS, etc...). They also have some of the best classic hits stations in the entire country like KRTH and WCBS FM. Their alternative stations might stink, but they do run some quality stations across the country.

Own and operating flagship stations with name recognition is not the same as them performing well. Just because they are well known doesn't mean they are doing well. They will make money regardless.
 
Name recognition is of value but you still need to deliver a product people want. Making money is the entire purpose of a for profit corporation. So that that end, they are delivering with those stations. If the news and sports stations are delivering the goods, they’re doing the job.

“Dissary” seems hyperbolic. Any owner is going to have a mixture of successes and sore spots across the portfolio.
 
“Dissary” seems hyperbolic.
It's not a word, but should be -- meaning a dictionary of phrases of disrespect! It would need nearly constant updating as the nation's political/racial/cultural wars intensify.

Agree, though, that disarray -- a state of confused disorder -- definitely seem hyperbolic when applied to a large media company.
 
I would disagree with this sentiment. I don’t think you can make a broad generalization that all their stations don’t sound good. Entercom / Audacy still own and operate the best all-news stations in the entire United States (WBBM, KNX, KCBS, etc...). They also have some of the best classic hits stations in the entire country like KRTH and WCBS FM. Their alternative stations might stink, but they do run some quality stations across the country.
I wonder, though, how much of that is due to the fact that the stations you mentioned are not long time Entercom/Audacy properties, but ones they acquired from CBS. I don't know how much of the "old guard" is left at those legacy CBS stations, but those brands were not built by Entercom. The question is, have they been smart enough to let those stations continue to operate as they have, or did they decide to "fix" them to fit their plans?
 
I wonder, though, how much of that is due to the fact that the stations you mentioned are not long time Entercom/Audacy properties, but ones they acquired from CBS. I don't know how much of the "old guard" is left at those legacy CBS stations, but those brands were not built by Entercom. The question is, have they been smart enough to let those stations continue to operate as they have, or did they decide to "fix" them to fit their plans?
In the cases mentioned, they have pretty much left the formats intact, even though a lot of the very high paid former CBS managers and programmers are gone.
 
Entercom/Audacy is far from the first group to stumble over an attempt to swallow a bigger-market group with a different culture. Citadel choked on the ABC stations so badly that it ended up having to sell out to Cumulus, which didn't end well either. Emmis was a solid operator in Indiana, but trying to become a big-market owner with the former NBC stations in NY and Chicago ultimately didn't go well. Operating in a top-10 or top-20 market is a whole different set of competencies - a different way of selling, a different model of talent compensation, a completely different universe of real estate deals, a completely different level of debt that's involved, and also a very different set of rewards when it's done well.

Has there ever been a truly successful broadcast group that's excelled simultaneously at running big-market radio and small/medium-market radio? (EMF doesn't count, since they don't run "local" stations as we understand the concept.)
 
Has there ever been a truly successful broadcast group that's excelled simultaneously at running big-market radio and small/medium-market radio? (EMF doesn't count, since they don't run "local" stations as we understand the concept.)
Guess it depends on what you consider successful

Market conditions, and whether the parent company shares are publicly traded, generally dictate success, failure, or mediocrity.

Back in 1996, when groups like Clear Channel started buying up practically anything with a tower, credit for those sorts of acquisitions was flowing like a raging river. CC was growing leaps and bounds, and because of the rapid growth, were considered a successful media darling in the eyes of Wall Street. With free flowing credit for media companies pushing consolidation, and the promise of increased operating margins purely based on volume, effectively owning markets, lines of credit were plentiful and welcomed. Then 2007-2008 hit, and the bottom fell out.

Was the concept of a handful of corporations owning the majority of radio or TV a flawed model? On paper, not really. In my view the problems became:
1. Banks and Private Equity who were lending to dot.com's, didn't understand how traditional media worked. They saw the proposal of the large groups as "fixing" the traditional media revenue model through consolidation appealing. Station values provided to lenders based on cash flow estimates were overly optimistic, but lenders didn't know anything about that world, so they took the word of the station groups. Hey if broadcasters are valuing their individual markets at X-times-cashflow, that means these properties consolidated, are worth WAY more than they're borrowing.

2. What became large broadcast groups felt that their world of traditional media would never change, and that scale was the next logical step. Problem was, they believed too much of their own rhetoric. If the banks are willing to lend us all this money, we must be doing something right!

For all the negativity about iHeart on this discussion forum, I feel they did the best at turning things around. As part of the reorg, they were forced to cut fat while at the same time being innovative about how to focus more on leveraging their content in the forms of streaming, podcasts, and traditional radio, while whittling-away at concrete debt shoes of having purchased AM stations at ridiculous multiples, and low-performing stations in small markets.
 
"Has there ever been a truly successful broadcast group that's excelled simultaneously at running big-market radio and small/medium-market radio? (EMF doesn't count, since they don't run "local" stations as we understand the concept.):

Cox comes to mind. While they were in big markets, they also had several medium markets too. Always ran a top notch business.
 
Has there ever been a truly successful broadcast group that's excelled simultaneously at running big-market radio and small/medium-market radio?

One of the first David & Goliath purchases during the media gold rush of the 1980s was Capital Cities and ABC. I think their smallest market was Huntington WV.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom