• 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

Audacy just filed Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

TheBigA said:
I never used those words. But if you're going to make a financial statement, you need to know the finances.



You can't discuss the financials of any business if you don't actually know them. Ownership isn't the issue.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they were. I said that I'm observing this from the perspective of Boston's listening habits. That's all.
 
Least said:
I'm making a point of listener habits, which is a necessary understanding to be profitable in your buisness.
Click to expand...
Least said:
I didn't say they were. I said that I'm observing this from the perspective of Boston's listening habits. That's all.
Click to expand...

No you didn't. Read what you wrote:

Least said:
And without a big four team, they will become less financially sustainable.
Click to expand...

You're trying to talk finances, and you don't know what they are. You don't know how much sports rights are, or if the station is making money. The decision will be made strictly on if the station is making money. You don't know if they are or not.
 
TheBigA said:
No you didn't. Read what you wrote:



You're trying to talk finances, and you don't know what they are. You don't know how much sports rights are, or if the station is making money. The decision will be made strictly on if the station is making money. You don't know if they are or not.
Click to expand...
I admit that I worded that inaccurately. A better phrasing would have been that format would not be successful, over saying "financially sustainable." The reason at the time was that, if advertisers would buy a format of the sound of frogs croaking, then they're would be no reason to change that format. But advertisers go where listeners are. My theory is still the same that without a big four team, listenership would drop, resulting in a dip in revenue, resulting in a format flip.
 
Least said:
My theory is still the same that without a big four team, listenership would drop, resulting in a dip in revenue, resulting in a format flip.
Click to expand...

But they have a big four team right now, and it hasn't helped their ratings compared to WBZ. Has it?
 
TheBigA said:
But they have a big four team right now, and it hasn't helped their ratings compared to WBZ. Has it?
Click to expand...
You're right, but that big four team we can argue is the biggest draw in listeners; because when that team isn't playing, WEEI draws less than WBZ-FM. If I own a dying mall, and people come into JC Penny more than in the mall, but I don't renew the lease on the JC Penny, am I going to draw more people to my mall without it? Now if I can't afford to have the JC Penny there, than it seems that my mall is soon to close. The same as if WEEI goes only Sports talk without an NHL, NBA, MLB, or NFL franchise, and their ratings were originally low, then they will perform worse without the games that they had, ending with a potential format flip. That's all I've been saying. This became much more because of wording that I used not matching my intended position.

Nowhere was I saying that Audacy needs to keep the Red Sox contract. I'm saying without it, listenshership for current format will drop further. Heck, with the likes of Greg Hill, they could easily start conservative talk and a portion of his audience would remain.
 
Last edited:
Advertisers go where they can most efficiently reach the demographic they're trying to sell to.

Sports talk tends to overperform in revenue compared to overall ratings, simply because 25-54 males are hard to reach any other way and there are lots of advertisers (especially sports betting these days) looking to reach them.

WEEI doesn't need to be #1 overall or even be the #1 sports station to get enough of that revenue to be profitable. My guess - and it's only an educated guess! - is that the Sox are at best a wash financially. They bring in listeners for the whole day but they also cost a lot.

There's an assertion here that losing the Sox would eliminate enough audience to make WEEI unsustainable. I don't agree. I think losing the Sox will reduce ratings somewhat in the summer - but we see WEEI's numbers don't dip that much when the Sox are done and they're talking Pats and Bruins and Celtics. The station seems to survive just fine in the off season. But only Audacy and its creditors have the numbers to say for sure.
 
Least said:
I didn't say they were. I said that I'm observing this from the perspective of Boston's listening habits. That's all.
Click to expand...
And you do that without citing any data on listening habits. And, of course, without any factual knowledge of confidential private research done by local stations in Boston.
 
This thread is now a bunch of industry pros debating with someone with no inside industry knowledge and no access to a specific station's financials.

As moderator, I will close the thread if this silliness continues.

I have said this before, and before Frank's passing he also said that new participants who don't have industry knowledge should first listen and ask questions before telling the rest of us "how it's done".
 
I honest to God thought that said $35 million first time I read it, and I was like "Wow, there's the bursting of the bubble right there."
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom