• 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

Can local ownership 'buy back' WBZ from CBS?

ChrisNH

ChrisNH

WBZ, on both the TV and radio sides of the business, has been wallowing in varying stages of misery the past few years. It's gotten worse lately.

The financial crisis has one positive side effect: There is a ton of money parked off to the side, waiting for a place to go.

Would it make sense for some local investors to pool resources and try to wrest WBZ away from CBS, at least on the radio side? It seems that the WBZ-CBS tie-up--speaking about radio now--has been more of a bad thing than a good one.

The iconic three-letter call sign is pretty much an asterisk now in the face of the moronic gyrations that are going on over there...on both sides of the business. Good people going; bad people staying; IKEA-like HD set; giving away six hours of radio time to some station in St. Louis. On and on; WBZ is a parody of itself now.

WBZ is and ought to be treated as a New England icon. Now it's just a pinata. On the radio side it is 50,000 watts behaving like 5,000.
 
Do you think another investor is going to buy WBZ and then start spending money like water?


1. CBS is not going to sell WBZ in a down market. (They are hesitating selling some of their lesser properties in a down market, they are certainly not going to sell a flagship like WBZ.)

2.) Let me get this straight, you think someone is going to invest in WBZ and then start filling up the newsroom with extra bodies and then start eliminating all netowrk programming?

3.) Money on the sidelines is there because it is a safe place for it. DO you think any investor is going to take their money (right now parked in a safe place). and suddenly put it into r-a-d-i-o...?

4.) Does anyone see radio as a growth industry?

5.) Does anyone see the situation with the AM band getting better, in terms of audience and advertising?


With all of the whining and hand-wringing, WBZ is still the best station on the AM band, is still one of the best stations in Boston. It does more to serve the people of Boston than any other station. It does the best job of covering news in all of New England.
 
I have to agree with Don Juan... Despite CBS (the radio side at least) already toying with the idea of selling stations, I can't imagine WBZ would be high on that list. WBZ is worth a lot in the name value alone and I can't imagine CBS getting what it thinks it is worth in a down market like we have today.

Also, you'll be hard pressed to find people interested in investing a large sum of money into the AM Band right now. With AM IBOC looking dead-in-the-water, we may be looking at the final nail in AM's spectral coffin. You might catch a few more local or minority broadcasters bargain hunting with small AM stations, but not much more.

I'd expect CBS to sell WBCN before it would sell WBZ.
 
OK...I guess I'd agree with the doom-and-gloom. I certainly count myself among those who loved WBZ 'way back when' but I can't bring myself to listen to the station today. I certainly have no empathy for the New York Times being stuck with The Globe, or CBS being stuck with WBZ. It serves them both right. The big problems with big media are, largely, self-inflicted. Listeners, viewers and readers have all been chased away. And that means advertisers who won't (and shouldn't have to) pay big bucks for advertising if they aren't reaching eyeballs or ears with it.
 
ChrisNH said:
...advertisers who won't (and shouldn't have to) pay big bucks for advertising if they aren't reaching eyeballs or ears with it.
Click to expand...

This is an especially big problem with the AM Band. AM Radio is a very expensive way of broadcasting, particularly in terms of engineering. Any prospective buyers of a station like WBZ would have to keep in mind the maintenance costs. That alone would chase a lot of investors away.
 
"Some station in St. Louis" has been the number one station in its market for longer than many people here have been alive. It's produced a large number of major national broadcast figures. "Some station" isn't a little coffee pot in Buttcheek, Kansas. It's a 50KW clear channel (such as they are nowdays) blowtorch. Just like WBZ.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom