KFI News Format Change?

[fybush]

WAY off anything broadcasting related. Stop. Now.

 

[davideduardo]

FOX fans want to use ratings to show that their views are popular when it is well known that confirmation bias is what drives these viewers and talk radio listeners. 3.6 million viewers out of the 330 million living in the U.S. is next to nothing.

That is average viewing, not total reach. Because television is programmed and sold as block programming... Maddow and Hanity, not the cable channels they are on... we see the average viewership of each show.

What we do not see often is the total number of different viewers that watch a TV channel each week, such as "cume" in radio. I would imagine that the weekly cume of Fox News might be on the order of 40 to 50 million.

I did a search on "total weekly viewers of fox news" and all I got was page after page of links to data on each show, not the total channel's cume.

 

[henry]

Neat. FNC set a record with its aging white viewership.

Meanwhile, in Los Angeles with a talk station that's been trying to reach people who are NOT on Social Security, I still think anything with the FNC brand is toxic to their listener base. Keep that FNC brand over at 1150 where it belongs.

 

[davideduardo]

Neat. FNC set a record with its aging white viewership.

And it is enormously profitable because it is a national channel that reaches persons over 50 magnificently. There are plenty of advertisers who do want to reach that demographic, even if they are not in the majority.

Meanwhile, in Los Angeles with a talk station that's been trying to reach people who are NOT on Social Security, I still think anything with the FNC brand is toxic to their listener base. Keep that FNC brand over at 1150 where it belongs.

The problem with KFI is more the problem with radio in general. Agencies don't want the work of buying individual stations in a hundred or more markets to reach an older demo when there are other options that deliver huge numbers with a single, national, buy.

 

[bmasters1981]

I'm on business and was forced to watch Fox News each morning at the continental breakfast. Politics aside, I just don't like it (I also don't like MSNBC). FNC is practically a religion now. And their stupid bell and "FOX ALERT" graphic still cause a pavlovian response in me that takes me back to their aftermath coverage of 9/11 -- when the bell meant another building had collapsed.

And these days, it's also used on opinion shows, sometimes when the hosts want to emphasize a point (when there is no actual reporting).

 

[TheBigA]

And it is enormously profitable because it is a national channel that reaches persons over 50 magnificently. There are plenty of advertisers who do want to reach that demographic, even if they are not in the majority.

The problem is that the people in that demographic dislike advertising and avoid it any chance they get.

The problem with KFI is more the problem with radio in general. Agencies don't want the work of buying individual stations in a hundred or more markets to reach an older demo when there are other options that deliver huge numbers with a single, national, buy.

You keep saying that, and Bob Pittman feels he has addressed that issue in the way he's built iHeart.

As more advertisers look to buy advertising through programmatic exchanges, iHeart is taking steps to ramp up its availability where that business is being transacted. “It's a growing part of the ad market,” Pittman said, telling investors that he believes the computers that make buying decisions will not have the anti-radio bias of some buyers, and that should work in their favor. “When the algorithm looks at the facts and makes choices about allocations, that can be very beneficial to broadcast radio,” he said. To grab a share, iHeart’s broadcast radio inventory will begin to be available in the Yahoo DSP and Google Display & Video 360 exchanges beginning next month. Pittman said will put iHeart radio avails alongside other programmatic assets like CTV. “This is a critical early step in aligning our broadcast assets with digital buying behavior,” he said.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

The problem is that the people in that demographic dislike advertising and avoid it any chance they get.

Stone cold crazy, right? Who ARE these people?

 

[davideduardo]

The problem is that the people in that demographic dislike advertising and avoid it any chance they get.

Where is there proof of that? In fact, those who are over 50 grew up on ad supported media and are used to it. Those are the people in the same group that is most likely to have cable TV and listen to over the air radio. They don't reject ad supported media in general.

You keep saying that, and Bob Pittman feels he has addressed that issue in the way he's built iHeart.

Bob Pittman is not one of my "radio heroes" and I find him to simply have "fallen upwards" throughout his career. He's still the same guy who could not beat an AM Top 40 station that had a directional signal with his full signal FM back in the 70's.

iHeart's radio revenue is suffering just as much as the rest of the industry; it can't even keep up with inflation on year to year comparisons.

 

[TheBigA]

iHeart's radio revenue is suffering just as much as the rest of the industry; it can't even keep up with inflation on year to year comparisons.

You haven't addressed the specific solution iHeart has developed to address the stated agency problems. Maybe these agencies just don't want radio, regardless of the way it's being sold.

 

[FledSoCal]

iheart - a few years ago the stock was trading at $27/share, now at about $1/share with a market cap of $150 million. During the prior three years, they have basically recorded about $3 billion of non-cash charges to write-off the goodwill, which means the forward looking net profit projections were insufficient to recover the goodwill balances. They survive on juggling debt, creating more efficiency, reducing costs, and trying their best to expand in the digital space. The good news - a) they throw off about $100 million a year in free cash flow, and b) the assert that they are increasing market share at the expense of their competitors.

so if you are running iheart and want to remain viable, you will make changes. doing nothing will likely lead to bankruptcy for sure, just a repeat of 2019.

a super problematic business. so if KFI is mandated by iheart to go with Fox for news, I get it - if it helps KFI staying on air than that is good enough for me.

 

[davideduardo]

You haven't addressed the specific solution iHeart has developed to address the stated agency problems. Maybe these agencies just don't want radio, regardless of the way it's being sold.

iHeart's use of programs that are on both their and other people's stations is not what agencies want. They do not want to buy a show; they want the reach of the whole station's cume and not just one daypart.

Yes, there is some sales opportunity in shows like Charlemagne, Seacrest and Bones. But that is not the total reach that agencies want and get from national streaming services in the U.S. or their affiliate agency offices like to buy in Paris or Santiago or Madrid or Manila.

If one salesperson, one seller, one order, one display of national reach, one invoice, one payment for full national reach could be achieved, far more accounts would be on radio. That system is shown to work much better in essentially all the free economy nations of the world except the U.S. and Canada. Obviously, we are doing it wrong.

Mini-example: In the 80's I found that radio in Puerto Rico was not being included in agency buys for many accounts. I helped create a mini-network of FMs that covered the whole Island in a full simulcast. We went from less than $500,000 in billings to over $8 million in about 5 years because we got on nearly all the agency buys. Now, all the leading AM and FM stations are networked, and radio in Puerto Rico gets a much higher percentage of total ad budgets than the mainland U.S. does... nearly double, in fact.

 

[TheBigA]

iHeart's use of programs that are on both their and other people's stations is not what agencies want. They do not want to buy a show; they want the reach of the whole station's cume and not just one daypart.

Nowhere in his quote does he say they're selling programs.

 

[davideduardo]

Nowhere in his quote does he say they're selling programs.

But that is essentially what they do. When they get away from selling named programs, the control and coordination with the non-iHeart stations is very different.

The named shows can be sold to run spots inside the shows in specific time slots or breaks. But outside of those shows, iHeart acts as a rep firm, not a network. Spots don't run at the same times or even with the same priorities and dayparts.

And that is why agencies find buying radio in the U.S. to be so hard. It's just too much "logistics" for too little reward.

 

[TheBigA]

And that is why agencies find buying radio in the U.S. to be so hard. It's just too much "logistics" for too little reward.

It's not hard. They just have an anti-radio bias. They wouldn't buy it regardless of how easy it was. You can see it when they get the option to buy non-broadcast events. All of a sudden you see advertisers who never buy radio.

The fact is that the government will never allow any radio company to become truly national unless they can control it. That isn't just this administration. It goes back to the break-up of NBC in the 1940s.

 

[fybush]

In what way is the government controlling, or attempting to control, K-Love? It's a de facto national radio company now.

 

[TheBigA]

In what way is the government controlling, or attempting to control, K-Love? It's a de facto national radio company now.

It's a good question. I think what keeps it off the radar is that it's non-commercial. I don't know of a non-profit that gets scrutiny for monopoly.

In addition to the radio, they also host an annual awards show just like iHeart. But the FCC isn't investigating them for payola. Hmmm.

 

[davideduardo]

It's not hard.

It is very hard and has lots of logistics issues. Every station bought separately has a separate invoice, separate reconciliation, even separate kinds of invoice forms. Even when a single show is bought "nationally" they don't reach every desired market; affiliated but not network owned stations are billed separately.

They just have an anti-radio bias.

No, they don't. They do have a cost-vs-rewards bias, and the amount of paperwork is a big obstacle. What if one station is late with the invoice, or has a discrepancy? Then the whole buy is not "closed" until they fix this.

They wouldn't buy it regardless of how easy it was.

Yet the same agencies buy radio heavily at their offices in London or Madrid or Rome or Buenos Aires or Bogotá or Bangkok or Manila. It's easy there, as one buy gets the whole nation.

You can see it when they get the option to buy non-broadcast events. All of a sudden you see advertisers who never buy radio.

And special events are a separate part of a client budget at most companies and agencies.

The fact is that the government will never allow any radio company to become truly national unless they can control it. That isn't just this administration. It goes back to the break-up of NBC in the 1940s.

There is no reason why one company could not buy one or two stations in each of the top 200 markets. That does not violate any ownership caps. The problem is that today's American radio companies own assortments of stations in assorted markets. Even if they have AC stations in, let's say, 40 markets, they don't in another 160. And in some markets, they own no stations.

It's not impossible, but improbable but there is a solution if the groups trade off stations, deciding that to have one, two or three stations in every market is better than 6 or 7 in some and none in others.

I did my first agency call in 1962 and sold Coca-Cola ads for my high school newspaper. I did my first "real selling" at age 18 for my Top 40 station in a million-plus market, and have not quit visiting agencies... and having loads of agency friends... ever since. Agencies don't work the way you are assuming they do.

 

[davideduardo]

It's a good question. I think what keeps it off the radar is that it's non-commercial. I don't know of a non-profit that gets scrutiny for monopoly.

In addition to the radio, they also host an annual awards show just like iHeart. But the FCC isn't investigating them for payola. Hmmm.

If you look at BIA, having one station in each rated market is nowhere near a monopoly. That would mean 200 to 250 total stations out of the 15,000 licensed stations (not including translators and LPFMs) in the country. There is no monopoly there, any more than saying Walmart or Target have a retail monopoly because they have one or more stores in nearly every metro area.

 

[TheBigA]

Yet the same agencies buy radio heavily at their offices in London or Madrid or Rome or Buenos Aires or Bogotá or Bangkok or Manila. It's easy there, as one buy gets the whole nation.

All smaller countries with much different laws and customs. Not comparable.

There is no reason why one company could not buy one or two stations in each of the top 200 markets.

No TV company has that ownership either. Does TV have this kind of problem?

 

[TheBigA]

If you look at BIA, having one station in each rated market is nowhere near a monopoly.

I just used monopoly as one example. I'm not aware that there is any kind of scrutiny being done of K-Love. On any basis. They get a full pass.