"Shoulda never agreed to that Reverse Morris trust merger with CBS, son, it was nothing but a bad idea"
-
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
Good Karma To Lease 880; WCBS News Programming To End
- Thread starter lanceventa
- Start date
- Status
As I noted upthread to BigA, we don't know this. WCBS' revenues stayed flat YoY when they took on the Mets rights, and have declined in lockstep with WINS' revenues.
If the opportunity cost of paying for the Mets rights is the same top line ad revenue as you would have made without the Mets minus the cost of the Mets, that may not have been such a great deal.
Its been a few years since I took Financial Statement Analysis, but I do understand the difference between revenue and profit.
To Marchand's point, if WOR was losing money on the Mets contract, that means the revenues from ads they sold did not exceed the cost of the rights.
WCBS then came along and outbid WOR for the same rights - more cost, potentially similar revenues.
If the opportunity cost of the Mets rights was the same total revenues to the station, with higher costs (because, at least on weekdays, the same anchors were in the building whether their show was on or not) from the rights, was that a good business move?
It's not "the same." Listen to the types of ads you hear on an all news station, and compare them to the ads you hear during sports. You get a better grade of sponsors with sports, who want that kind of brand association. Why does iHeart do events like its Jingle Ball or its iHeart Music Festival? It gets them a better grade of advertisers who don't typically buy radio for one reason or another. Same with adding the Jets to WAXQ. We call them "premium sponsors" that you can charge a better rate because they get a desirable audience who listen longer. The news audience is mainly men over 65. Almost 40% of the audience is 65+. That's hard to sell. Sports is also very male, but gets most of its audience between 35 and 55. Their TSL is much higher. Then on top of that you can sell everything that happens during a game. This homerun is sponsored by, this call to the bullpen is sponsored by, etc. So the potential is to make more money.
Yes its not "the same" in the sense that as you noted, it's 9 minutes of spots per hour to sell during the Mets versus 22+ minutes during news.
But if your total revenue is "the same" as if you just sold your 22+ minutes of low quality spots during news, but your costs are higher for the annual rights fees, then what is the net effect on the income statement, with the mets versus without the mets?
Ask Craig Karmazin. He's the one rolling the dice. He's running a small company without a lot of debt. He does deals that are manageable. I bet his upfront fee to Audacy is low, but he's splitting ad revenue. He has confidence in his product and the people selling it.
The other thing you don't see is that BIA lumps all revenue together. That means digital with broadcast. So WTOP has the #1 local news site in DC. I would bet a big chunk of their $60 million is from digital. Audacy is not very good at digital. It's a very traditional broadcasting spots & dots business. That business is declining everywhere, but especially for older demos. The audience for news has gotten smaller and older in the last ten years. That's why something was going to change. As I've said throughout this thread, it was either this, or adding third string syndicated talk in mid-days and evenings. That's what's happening to news in other cities regardless of owner or debt.
One more thing: I have a lot of friends who work at CBS News Radio. Or they USED to. In my opinion, the entire radio news operation was hurt when the network was split from the stations. CBS News Radio has lost most of its senior anchors and correspondents. Why? For the same reason as WCBS. The audience is declining in size and is aging. Plus they don't have the guaranteed clearances on the O&Os anymore. This is a much bigger problem.
This argument comes up often but the same could be said for any format. Why do we need music radio when we can tap the songs we want to hear on demand online? Why do we need to sit through a radio talk show when you can listen to a more tailored podcast or read Fox Nation and X?
I hope your mind is not trapped in some kind of blinder box where you believe that since you have a phone you can't use any other kind of media. With regard to the news, sure I get it on my phone. I watch it on TV. I read it online. But your argument ignores the fact that it's perfectly valid to get news -- or music, or whatever -- from multiple sources throughout the day.
Listening to news on the radio is a totally different experience than getting it on your phone. The WCBS airstaff have big personalities and entertaining deliveries. Morning anchors Wayne and Paul have the kind of chemistry and banter typically heard on a music station, skillfully weaving music into their presentation of the news, talking about it in a way you'd expect from top-40 DJs. People commenting on this board who don't live in the market or listen to the station may not realize that.
Bridget Quinn, Steve Scott, Tom Kaminski, Craig Allen...they are all the types of familiar, relatable on-air companions that made radio such a great entertainment medium over the decades. In a way, WCBS was one of the best examples of personality radio left, even though it was all-news. While so many music stations have replaced their entertaining live jocks with voice-tracked liner-reading automation, WCBS was still a place to find live and local voices with something interesting to say, even though Audacy did its best to erode their schedule in recent years.
If anything, WINS with its straight-news delivery offers less of a personality value proposition so it supports the argument, "why is this needed on the radio" more than WCBS does. But either way, radio is still a valid place to consume news. You'd better not be tapping on notifications and scrolling your phone news feed while driving your car. And you might not have time to be doing that while you're trying to get ready for work and send the kids off to school either. So there is always the radio when you're on the road or making breakfast. But you're on a radio forum so you shouldn't need to have that explained to you.
I'm asking you. You're the one that insists on half answers and general contrariness.
You want to make an assertion in this thread? Back it up.
The talent at WCBS was absolutely off the charts.
Craig Karamzin is such a specialized owner and wouldn't do something value destructive like buying CBS Radio in the worst way possible (like Audacy did). He bought the Milwaukee stations from Scripps because it allowed him to upgrade ESPN Radio in the market; getting WTMJ was a bonus.
Sounds like they are destined for oblivion no matter what they do, huh? Add 65-dead demo programming and crater the ratings, or stick with what they have now and lose their shirts in the process because the core demo winds up 65-dead anyway. So what future do they have besides a license cancellation request filed to Washington, DC?
Handing in the license would construe an act of mercy.
I have. You don't accept what I'm saying. You believe what you want to believe and refuse to see the big picture. I explained to you the different categories in advertising. There was a time when you could sell "institutional advertising" for news stations. Now that money goes to public radio. They too have aging demographics, but it doesn't hurt them as much as commercial radio.
My assertion is that this was bound to happen. You can't have two commercial traditional all news stations, especially at a time when the news audience is growing at WNYC. It didn't matter who owned WCBS or what their financial situation is. I say that because I look at how Bonneville is running what used to be all news stations in Phoenix and Seattle. They're adding conservative talk. That's what would have happened to WCBS. This will happen to WINS soon too unless something changes. Moving to FM bought them some time. But not for long. Costs keep going up, and as you yourself said, revenues aren't.
Huh? KIRO and KTAR have never been all-news. They have/had news wheels in drive time but they've been talk stations at their core.
Yes. They said they were. They only mentioned 1050 am and app as the places.
This 880 deal came out of nowhere but surprised because 1050 signal is so bad and me thinks they used this month to test out the 1050 signal and before the month is even over, they made this deal.
Thinking of all the hard-working folks at WCBS and wishing you the best as you deal with this news. It was a privilege to be on your air for many years. I’ll miss hearing you when I’m in New York.
Thank you.
You did good.
Be proud.
Sam Litzinger
Thank you.
You did good.
Be proud.
Sam Litzinger
They've added more talk in recent years. The people there are furious.
The problem with "the wheel" is it's bad for TSL. Too much repetition. You don't have that problem with talk. People listen for much longer periods.
Unless we entered some alternate reality, they've never been "all-news" as THE format in any sense of the word. They've been talk stations, and only that.
WCBS hasn't been all news since 2019. They also weren't all news when they had the Yankees.
They also weren't all news on the weekends. People hated those infomercials. Not a problem anymore.
KTAR was all news in the mid 1970s. Far too long ago to be relevant today, but it still happened.
KIRO dropped the PM drive newsblock in ... 2005? This is ancient history.
Not the point. You're grossly incorrect labeling KTAR and KIRO as "all-news" when they never have been.
- Status