Back in the 50's, 60's and 70's, stations had to file annual financial reports "under penalty of loss of license". They showed that half of all stations lost money or broke even, even in the later 50's when radio was growing again thanks to music formats.Is this hyperbole, or is there something more to the idea that "half of all US radio stations do not make money"?
Remember, in the 70's when FM "took over" we ended up with an average of three times the number of viable stations in each market, but no similar increase in radio revenue. The same happened again after Docket 80-90.
Revenue is revenue. National, local, regional, agency, direct. It all goes to the same "income" line on the p&l.I thought in the good old Musicradio days, any 1000 watt station with good DJs could make a tidy profit serving their community. In the current era, individual (mostly AM) stations may not make money, but the overall corporate owner does, due to the fact they provide a platform for national advertising.
Except for national network buys, national agency buys are made station by station.
No way it made money at that billing level in NYC. And it had no ROI that made sense, given the cost of the station.I would think even the recently departed WNSH made money, just not enough of it to justify being on NYC FM signal.
No, only commercial stations.Does the half of the US stations that 'do not make money' include religious or public/community broadcasters? - they are not in the business to be making money.
Last edited: