• 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

LA AM for sale

You're correct, semoochie! Still, I think we can agree that there is enormous diversity in Los Angeles and that it has been increasingly diverse over our lifetimes. And that's part of what makes it difficult to say "L.A. is a (fill in the blank) town" in terms of sports, media, or whatever.
The Hispanic or "Latino" population in LA was relatively small in 1970. In 1972, I began a 3-year stint consulting KWKW in LA and at the time the Spanish language stations, basically KALI and KWKW, together got less than a total of 3 to 3.5 shares. Today, it is close to 25 shares and even more in 18-34.
 
I’m sure in 1970, Miami would’ve have been the number one market for Spanish language radio shares. But would Los Angeles have still been number two? Or would L.A have been smaller in 1970 than New York or Chicago or maybe Houston or San Antonio?
 
Don't know about Chicago or Houston, but NYC had a significant Hispanic population by 1970, mostly from Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, and a little from Cuba. Towards the later 70's there was the beginnings of immigration from Columbia and Central America, which exploded in the 1980's.
 
I’m sure in 1970, Miami would’ve have been the number one market for Spanish language radio shares. But would Los Angeles have still been number two? Or would L.A have been smaller in 1970 than New York or Chicago or maybe Houston or San Antonio?
San Antonio, El Paso, Albuquerque, Fresno, Bakersfield, Corpus, McAllen/Brownsville were the high percentage Hispanic markets in 1970.
 
So it’s not klaa…
I wouldn't read today's announcement by Mr. Moreno as an indication the brokerage listing several weeks ago was not for KLAA. Just before Christmas, the commissioner of baseball said in an interview he expected the Angels to be sold by baseball's opening day in April. The decision not to sell was likely undertaken quite recently.
 
Given the Angels' mediocre performance last season, that's understandable.
The franchise would be a lot easier to sell if it didn't have the huge contracts of bland, unmarketable superstar Mike Trout and the useless Anthony Rendon attached to it. Moreno is responsible for overspending on those two while neglecting the team's many other needs, and now he really needs a trading partner willing to take one or both of those contracts off his hands, which is not going to happen.
 
The franchise would be a lot easier to sell if it didn't have the huge contracts of bland, unmarketable superstar Mike Trout and the useless Anthony Rendon attached to it. Moreno is responsible for overspending on those two while neglecting the team's many other needs, and now he really needs a trading partner willing to take one or both of those contracts off his hands, which is not going to happen.
Yet I have family in the OC who has the kind of Angelitos loyalty I have only seen in the past with the Cubs.
 
The franchise would be a lot easier to sell if it didn't have the huge contracts of bland, unmarketable superstar Mike Trout and the useless Anthony Rendon attached to it. Moreno is responsible for overspending on those two while neglecting the team's many other needs, and now he really needs a trading partner willing to take one or both of those contracts off his hands, which is not going to happen.
I would hardly call Mike Trout bland. Unmarketable, maybe. But we all know that wouldn't be the case if he played for the Dodgers, in NYC or in his home market of Philadelphia.
 
I would hardly call Mike Trout bland. Unmarketable, maybe. But we all know that wouldn't be the case if he played for the Dodgers, in NYC or in his home market of Philadelphia.
Spectacular baseball player, the "bland" only applies to his public image, or lack of it. He apparently has no desire to be the sort of athlete who transcends his sport. He doesn't do many commercials; in fact, I'm hard pressed to remember even one. He's not seen in the company of non-baseball celebs or making the late night talk show circuit. For Angels fans, I'm sure he's as beloved as most superstars are by their home fans. But while old Angels fans will tell their grandkids and great-grandkids about him the way old Yankees fans now tell theirs about Reggie Jackson or old Cubs fans tell theirs about Ernie Banks, I somehow think it's unlikely that many outside the Angels fan base will have much of a memory of Trout. Maybe getting into, and starring in, several World Series will help, but the window on that is closing rapidly.
 
Very few baseball players are celebrity endorsers these days. I can only think of three: Bryce Harper, who did ads for T-Mobile (but perhaps not recently?) and Fernando Tatis Jr. and Cody Bellinger, who each did an ad for DQ ("Dairy Queen" for the elders around here).

The problem is that baseball is very regional. While the OC may know who Mike Trout is, I imagine his name recognition in Atlanta or Pittsburgh is quite low.
 
Translation: “We couldn’t get the price we wanted for the Angels so we’re going to hang on to the team a bit longer and hope market conditions improve.”
It has been reported by local news media quoting sources close to the negotiations that that wasn’t the reason. Moreno just had a change of heart
 
Very few baseball players are celebrity endorsers these days. I can only think of three: Bryce Harper, who did ads for T-Mobile (but perhaps not recently?) and Fernando Tatis Jr. and Cody Bellinger, who each did an ad for DQ ("Dairy Queen" for the elders around here).

The problem is that baseball is very regional. While the OC may know who Mike Trout is, I imagine his name recognition in Atlanta or Pittsburgh is quite low.
Not to take this thread even further away from the mystery of the LA AM station for sale and toward baseball -- and incurring the displeasure of a certain non-baseball fan moderator -- but perhaps MLB's new schedule that starts in 2023 will help expose its stars more, as every team will now be playing every other team (in league and interleague play) every season.
 
Last edited:
All that says is that he's not selling the baseball team. Keeping it and selling the radio station (along with broadcast rights for the team) makes a certain amount of sense.
Why does it make sense to sell radio rights that you already own unless you’re trying to raise money to keep a certain star pitcher who is about to become a free agent?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom