That’s all good and well, but even the updated Audacy app is not user friendly at all. I was streaming several stations the other day and noticed some stations don’t even list the name or artist of a song. I even tried searching “K-Earth 101” and it took several tries and finally “KRTH” was the keyword that got the station to come up.
Audacy Buys Podcast Discovery App And Tech Firm Moonbeam.
Moonbeam, the year-old technology company created by tech entrepreneur Paul English, has been acquired by Audacy. Terms of the deal have not yet been made public, but English says thewww.insideradio.com
Audacy has a deal with Moonbeam. How that improves the stock value is yet to be seen here.
-
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 stock price
- Thread starter RadioGuy1864
- Start date
What? David is the friggin CEO. He doesn't deal with minutia like what formats are on which stations or whether this or that artist is being played. His only concern is EBITA, revenue, and Broadcast Cash Flow (BCF).
Good Lord.
I really don't think there's a relationship between stock price and radio formats. There are other companies that own alternative radio stations that are also struggling, and their stock price isn't as low as Audacy. There are no radio formats I know of they can switch to that would solve the financial issues of this company.
I'm not sure where it started, but the assertion that Field is in love with alt and has been pushing the format has been made on this board many, many times. It would be interesting to track it down and either confirm or debunk it.
I was at a conference earlier this year where he spoke, and he was asked to name some of his favorite songs. They were all alternative.
Sure, but David is no Tall_Guy. He's not going to influence radio formats because of his own personal music taste.
I agree.
It would be highly unusual for a CEO to be pushing his company in a direction that is not in the best interests of the shareholders. Forcing an underperforming musical format on stations in places where just about anything else would be more palatable to both listeners and advertisers is taking money out of investors' pockets. You'd think Audacy's board of directors would call Field into account, wouldn't you? This isn't about specific songs the stations are or aren't playing. It's about dollars and cents. Of course, maybe the board is packed with yes-men and everything he does gets a rubber stamp.
It would be highly unusual for a CEO or a board of directors to even get involved in the minutia of local station format changes. That kind of thing happens way down the food chain.
This is a Schoolhouse Rock view of how business works. The "sunk cost fallacy" is very strong in most companies, especially companies which are marginally profitable, because improving the business requires expenditure that struggling companies don't wish to provide.
The board is certainly biased towards being friendly to the executives. Joe and David Field combined own 22% of the shares. So the two of them have a very strong influence on who sits on the board. And it is a pretty sweet gig: the Audacy directors each made $200,000 to $250,000 last year for a part-time gig.
I personally don't find Audacy's investment in Alt to be so baffling, whether or not it was personally directed by David Field. While rock isn't nearly as strong as it was, say, 30 years ago, it still has an audience. Most markets do not have much competition for Alt or Active rock, so the only competition are streamers.
However, the competition from the streamers is pretty intense these days.
It depends. In the case of Audacy, the agreement to buy CBS Radio meant that CBS shareholders owned 72% of the stock, and had a number of seats on the board of directors. One notable name I see among the board members is former CBS Radio CEO Joel Hollander.
Forgetting discussion of the stupid Alt format, which ultimately means nothing to Audacy's financial situation, it seems to me there are two hurdles the company will need to overcome that doesn't involve what radio stations are which format:
1. Audacy was REALLY late to the streaming game. iHeart and even Townsquare was in much earlier. Audacy is trying to play catch-up in a market that has already become potentially saturated. Anytime you launch a new business model, it takes time and investment before you start to see traction. I bet David had been in Joe's ear for a long time about streaming. I can just hear Joe say something to the effect: "Why would you want to drive people away from our radio stations??" I'm sure he gets it now, but it may be too late.
2. The deal with CBS Radio came at exactly the wrong time. Everyone (smart) was looking at diversifying their business into other sectors to get out of being painted into a radio-corner after the 2008 recession knocked the bottom out of radio valuations. Taking on debt to save a bygone era and essentially getting deeper into more 'radio', was poorly timed. If CBS was going to shut down that operation, Entercom/Audacy should have just let them. Save yourself first.
Entercom was late, but the company they bought, CBS Radio, established Radio.com as a streaming platform in 2010.
The way the deal was constructed, CBS was actually a partner in the debt. But that was 6 years ago. I suspect the reason for the low stock price is the 72% of the company that had been CBS stockholders has sold out.
The original plan was for CBS Corporation to spin off CBS Radio as a separate company. Not shut it down. At the time, CBS Radio would have been fairly successful as a free-standing company. I think this $200 million debt has come about through bad management, not the purchase of CBS Radio.
And how has the CBS streaming platform Radio.com done in the fray? Rear view mirror is the description that comes to mind.
Viacom needed to dump the radio assets, and voting shareholders already knew why. Many remaining shareholder's jumped out when they saw Entercom wasn't going to buoy what was left, but only started slashing operations to cut expenses. A hedge fund could have done the same, except no VC or hedge funds were interested in getting into that business.
That was their wish of course, but other than Entercom, there weren't a lot of suitors at the time.
The sale of CBS Radio was done before the merger with Viacom. This was something Les Moonves wanted to do. Shari Redstone was opposed to it.
I said the plan was to spin it as a free-standing company with it's own stock. Not as a sale or merge with other companies.
Sure, knowing what we know now, that wouldn't have gone well.
I don't see any indication that it's the CBS stations that are dragging down Audacy stock.
Contrary to the problem with ABC and Cumulus.
It's official now. Audacy has received notice from the NYSE and now has 6 months to either get their share price over $1 or get delisted. From Radio Ink: https://radioink.com/2022/08/08/bad-news-from-the-nyse-for-audacy/?vgo_ee=TdU3mnOBMeMfn4RXm7JCQw==
Those of you who think it is highly unusual for C-suite executives to get involved in programming decisions evidently have already forgotten about Judy Ellis, John Dickey and others.
Didn't Pittman push iHM's Black Information Network?
It would not surprise me if one or more individuals in Audacy's C-suite had to approve the format changes that occurred following the CBS Radio acquisition, and the same likely holds true for the recent changes in NYC, S.F. and Boston. Sure, that's far different than selecting songs, imaging voices, format clocks, processing settings, traffic direction, etc., but in terms of impactful strategic decisions, the C-suite is almost certainly involved.
Didn't Pittman push iHM's Black Information Network?
It would not surprise me if one or more individuals in Audacy's C-suite had to approve the format changes that occurred following the CBS Radio acquisition, and the same likely holds true for the recent changes in NYC, S.F. and Boston. Sure, that's far different than selecting songs, imaging voices, format clocks, processing settings, traffic direction, etc., but in terms of impactful strategic decisions, the C-suite is almost certainly involved.
Last edited:
John Dickey wasn't the CEO. Do you have evidence of David Field getting involved in programming that is similar to the two examples you give?
- Status