-
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
Format flips
- Thread starter CassChopper96
- Start date
I'm not seeing where any of these format suggestions for 96.5 would work honestly.
Hey, let's do a La Real 96.5! after 106 tried it a few years ago and failed.
hey let's do a classic rock! and they'd have to somehow be different than WMGK and pull enough advertisers, nope not seeing that.
Country? WXTU does not have a huge audience, enough to survive but i"m not seeing a second country station in Philly.
There's nothing new that hasn't been tried that isn't too old, unless you count Hungarian folk songs. I hear that's the new fab! lmao! Oh and then there's we had a 96.5 thread a year ago and this all came up then.
Hey, let's do a La Real 96.5! after 106 tried it a few years ago and failed.
hey let's do a classic rock! and they'd have to somehow be different than WMGK and pull enough advertisers, nope not seeing that.
Country? WXTU does not have a huge audience, enough to survive but i"m not seeing a second country station in Philly.
There's nothing new that hasn't been tried that isn't too old, unless you count Hungarian folk songs. I hear that's the new fab! lmao! Oh and then there's we had a 96.5 thread a year ago and this all came up then.
Which explains why they haven't changed formats at this station. The company stock is trading at 62 cents, and changing formats will cost them money. This is not a good time to make an expensive format change.
Perhaps poor format execution and poor format decisioning are reasons why both EBITDA and share price are suffering?
Classic rock, mentioned earlier, might pair nicely with WIP-FM for sales purposes.
96.5, frankly, given its current cume ought to be generating stronger AQH share. They have a TSL issue. Q102 outcumes them by only 5% or so yet wins decisively when it comes to AQH share.
Classic rock, mentioned earlier, might pair nicely with WIP-FM for sales purposes.
96.5, frankly, given its current cume ought to be generating stronger AQH share. They have a TSL issue. Q102 outcumes them by only 5% or so yet wins decisively when it comes to AQH share.
Last edited:
How about a recession and an advertising depression that's affecting a lot of ad-supported media, not just Audacy?
What they need is a format that isn't affected by a bad advertising market. Ideas?
I expect radio revenues to stay behind pre- pandemic levels. WBEB, WOGL and KYW must make Audacy a lot of $$$ though
We had projections from multiple sources like BIA and the RAB that this year would be ahead of 2019, but then the inflation spiral and the talk of a recession hit. But that hits every ad medium, from Google to little local shoppers as well as radio.
Wonder if using the WYSP call letters would help make this successful at 96.5?
You realize WMGK was once a soft rock station called "Magic." That heritage hasn't impeded its success as a classic rock station. So no, I don't think reviving old call letters will cause anyone to change to a station that is mostly playing the same 50 year old songs as WMGK. Maybe they could bring back Ed Sciaky.
I think the folks who collect massive salaries in the C-suite need to figure out ways to hedge against weakness in the radio advertising market, not me.
I will say Audacy has done a lackluster job shedding itself of real estate related expenses and of monetizing land where functionally obsolete AM stations are located.
You are, of course, correct that recessionary pressures are weighing heavily on the share prices of radio - errrr audio - companies, but Audacy has been hit harder than most with regard to share price deterioration.
Looking at some of the big TV consolidators, Nexstar Media Group's share price is actually performing quite well in the current economic environment.
Heck, on the radio side, Saga Communications' share price has been fairly flat over the past two years (and pays a decent dividend).
The only conclusion I can draw is Audacy is being hit harder than some of its peers because Wall Street is concerned about its heavily levered balance sheet, is perhaps not fond of the management team, and yes, is not fond of big radio's business model in general.
Wells Fargo Cuts Ratings on 3 Media Stocks, Citing Risk of Ad Market Slowdown
Wells Fargo analyst Steven Cahall cut his ratings on three highly leveraged media plays, setting a target of zero for one company's stock price.
www.barrons.com
Last edited:
Interesting article, and nowhere in it does it say that programming formats are the reason for the low stock price:
I do think EBITDA would be a bit better if Audacy did a better job programming its radio stations and executing its sales strategies. Would it be enough to stave off a distressed restructure of its debt given current and recent economic circumstances? Perhaps not. I've been saying for a long time they paid too much for CBS Radio (i.e. added far too much debt onto the balance sheet), which has certainly impaired the company's nimbleness in confronting financial headwinds.
People say that all the time. The lenders would not have lent them the money if the lenders felt the price was unfair. Every stake holder has a say in the purchase before the deal is signed. No lender wants to lose money. No lender wants to create a situation where a borrower has to declare bankruptcy or restructure. So everyone had a say in the price before the deal was signed. The buyer paid market price. They didn't know at the time that the world would face an international pandemic and a subsequent recession.
When you look at the situation, there is no format that will help the company make $600 million in two years. That's the situation the company faces. Audacy's problem is a financial one, not a programming one. When the sales was done, the company promised millions of dollars in new efficiencies for the combined company. Have they accomplished that? You bring up certain real estate assets, and I'm not aware that the company has done that. We know they spent hundreds of millions of dollars building a new corporate office in Philadelphia. Probably not a prudent expense, given what we know now. I'm aware that the company sought to combine AM tower properties in Chicago. There has been quite a bit of personnel movement, with retirement of senior staff in many offices. But there's likely still a lot of work to do.
Good points. Great point regarding the new corporate HQ in Philly.
I've not performed any research into who funded (purchased) the debt at the time the deal was consummated. It would be interesting to see that list of names. I suspect a fair amount of that debt has potentially since changed hands via trading on the secondary market.
Indeed, the original valuation on which the debt instruments were underwritten was based on a presumption that synergies would create something like $100 million or $150 million in new per annum EBITDA. Audacy has certainly cut expenses over time, but whether that occurred without negatively affecting the top line is debatable.
I've not performed any research into who funded (purchased) the debt at the time the deal was consummated. It would be interesting to see that list of names. I suspect a fair amount of that debt has potentially since changed hands via trading on the secondary market.
Indeed, the original valuation on which the debt instruments were underwritten was based on a presumption that synergies would create something like $100 million or $150 million in new per annum EBITDA. Audacy has certainly cut expenses over time, but whether that occurred without negatively affecting the top line is debatable.
Last edited:
So the price Citadel paid for ABC was, even at the time, justifiable? Some do well, but for the most part Citadel got some struggling stations in small clusters in big markets, which is a bad combination. If I recall, that transaction ended up hurting Citadel pretty badly and it then carried over to Cumulus.
They were bankrolled at the time by Forstmann, Little, an investment company. They approved the loan and held the debt. If Teddy Forstmann approved, it was justifiable. They faced a similar problem with the recession of 2008. Cumulus bought the company out of bankruptcy court. As I recall the price for the entire company was about what Citadel paid for ABC.
The unfortunate fact of the ABC stations was that they had very few strong brands. Sure, they had WABC, WLS, WPLJ, WDRQ, KGO, etc but most of these brands were in distress. The best pickups from that deal were the Dallas, Atlanta, and Twin Cities clusters. I’m sure a big portion of what Citadel paid was for these dinosaur AM’s other than WBAP and WJR which still do decently.
Which explains why Cumulus was quick to sell former ABC stations in NY, LA, and DC after their bankruptcy. Had Citadel made that change ten years ago, they would have likely been stronger, and wouldn't have dragged down Cumulus. Comparatively, many of the CBS AMs are still very profitable.
Iheart and Audacy seems to be investing more and more into apps and podcasts. But i assume most of their revenue comes from their radio stations
Perhaps, but the radio revenue isn't growing, while the digital is.
- Status