• 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

CBS to sell entire radio group

Will_H_69_9 said:
now that the CBS radio brand is spinning off, does this mean the return of the name "Infinity Broadcasting" for CBS Radio or do they retain CBS branding.
Click to expand...

The prospectus/IPO filing indicates that they can continue to use the brand for a period of time.
 
Beasley or Entercom could've gotten the deal and CBS would have sold their radio division to them. That means after lots of years of KDKA, KYW, WCBS, etc, being side by side by their TV sister stations, sometimes, forever (the whole time both stations were on the air), they will (in my opinion) sadly by split apart by CBS selling them to other owners away from their TV sisters in Pittsburgh, Philly, NYC, and many other cities, maybe WBZ counts here too? That also means that after a long time together, the AM-TV counterparts that have stood around for a long time, the radio stations (KDKA and all the others) may move away from their TV counterparts buildings, because they are being spun-off. At least they could still do news and weather updates together still. It's just that they are forced to move away from each other by CBS spinning off it's radio division. Infinity Radio again? I don't know if that is going to happen.
 
Last edited:
Jonathan7157 said:
Beasley or Entercom could've gotten the deal and CBS would have sold their radio division to them.
Click to expand...

Beasley is quite small, and has pulled out of the very largest markets (MIA and LA, for example). Their CEO is ailing and on leave.

Entercomo might, with some swapping and sales, have done it. But CBS was not offering the kind of multiples David Field looks for.

And, more than anything, a straight sale would have had enormous capital gains liabilities for CBS. That is why most of the knowledgeable experts were saying it had to be a spin-off or IPO.
 
Last edited:
Right, and the TV stations that have stood around with their AM stations, like KYW for example are "sadly" saying good bye to their AM counterparts, in this case 1060 AM going away from Channel 3 in Philly. I also wonder if the AMP Radio name is staying after this, maybe they might, because all radio stations are being spun off together, but will the radio stations, like KYW move out from their TV counterpart's building they stood with for many years? I know they will still do weather and newscasts together, that's fine.
 
Jonathan7157 said:
Right, and the TV stations that have stood around with their AM stations, like KYW for example are "sadly" saying good bye to their AM counterparts, in this case 1060 AM going away from Channel 3 in Philly. I also wonder if the AMP Radio name is staying after this, maybe they might, because all radio stations are being spun off together, but will the radio stations, like KYW move out from their TV counterpart's building they stood with for many years? I know they will still do weather and newscasts together, that's fine.
Click to expand...

The IPO statement issued by CBS spells out the risk of separating radio from TV, the need to eventually move out of the shared facilities (although there is a significant grace period for this) as well as increases in overhead due to not sharing things like legal, engineering, corporate services and such.
 
RadioPatrol said:
New update for CBS Radio apparently Variety says something else about CBS Radio not spinning off.
Click to expand...

That's an analyst's story. The statements from CBS itself are pretty definitive that a spinoff will take place in the first quarter of 2017.

And the final sentence in the article completely contradicts the headline:

"A spinoff is starting to look like the most likely outcome after all."
 
Will_H_69_9 said:
plus, there's now speculation about a CBS/Viacom reunion after the recent changes in the boardroom at Viacom.
Click to expand...

The changes were made by Board Chairman Sumner Redstone, who controls 80% of both companies' stock. He is against such a merger. His daughter, Shari, is Vice Chairman. This quote from FoxBusiness.com last week:

A spokesman for National Amusements said Shari Redstone has not made up her mind about a possible CBS-Viacom merger, but wouldn’t rule out the possibility.

“The new board members have begun this week to work closely with senior management to look closely at Viacom and develop a strategy and there are a wide range of possibilities and no preferred course at this point,” the spokesman said.
 
Interesting article. I disagree with his point about the Telecom Act of 1996. To understand that Act, you need to study radio in the ten years before it. What happened then is the FCC changed its focus from being a regulatory agency to being a source of revenue for the government. That happened with the Reagan revolution. So the FCC over-licensed the spectrum, adding more competing stations to local markets, making it impossible for individually owned stations to make money. That's why a bunch of heritage companies, like NBC, GE, and several insurance companies, got out of the radio business in the 80s. The 96 Act was an attempt to correct the mistakes made by the FCC in the 80s. So yes, that changed the focus of radio, but the focus had to change because the FCC changed the playing field. It was impossible for radio to operate the way it had before 1985.

"Radio was interesting to locals because it was locally run and programmed. Now all the money has to go back to a corporate entity. No innovation is taking place."

This is actually completely untrue. We think of the 1930s as the Golden Age of Radio. The programming that made it Golden was nationally programmed network shows. If you look at radio in the 80s, most of the music was major nationally-known acts, programmed by national consultants and national music charts. So it really wasn't as local as people thought. Today, some of the money goes to the corporate entity, but that was the case in the 80s when you had lots of groups owning radio stations. That hasn't changed. As far as innovation, you need money to innovate. Local stations don't have the kind of money or resources to innovate. That's why they drew on syndicators and national program companies like news networks. Today, the big radio groups own their own syndication companies. The size of the platform has a lot to do with innovation. It takes a company the size of iHeart to compete with Pandora. A mom & pop in Fargo isn't going to do it. Any innovation with AM-FM has to be approved by the FCC, so that's where the hold-up is. The FCC approved HD Radio, but is opposed to digital radio. They won't approve any innovation that will make AM-FM competitive.

CBS was doing a lot of innovation with Radio.com and other new ideas. But being owned by a TV company was holding it back. The IPO will free CBS Radio up to seek out new businesses beyond transmitters and towers, and grow their platform into something that will compete in the new world of audio entertainment.
 
When I was growing up virtually every young person was listening to a station 150 miles away across a national border (CKLW). In my small town, we didn't follow the Tigers, Pistons, Lions, etc and we didn't go shopping or attend concerts in Detroit. The weather forecast was even incorrect for us. Yet, we listened to it while many of our parents listened to WOWO, only 50 miles away. A satellite feed of KHJ wouldn't have been much different. We had a local top 40 that went bankrupt. Another local did well but didn't get all the listening. There really is only so much jock talk about potholes and city council meetings most people are that interested in. The fact that we can all share music in seconds minimizes any local or regional hits (as if there were all that many to start with).




TheBigA said:
Interesting article. I disagree with his point about the Telecom Act of 1996. To understand that Act, you need to study radio in the ten years before it. What happened then is the FCC changed its focus from being a regulatory agency to being a source of revenue for the government. That happened with the Reagan revolution. So the FCC over-licensed the spectrum, adding more competing stations to local markets, making it impossible for individually owned stations to make money. That's why a bunch of heritage companies, like NBC, GE, and several insurance companies, got out of the radio business in the 80s. The 96 Act was an attempt to correct the mistakes made by the FCC in the 80s. So yes, that changed the focus of radio, but the focus had to change because the FCC changed the playing field. It was impossible for radio to operate the way it had before 1985.

"Radio was interesting to locals because it was locally run and programmed. Now all the money has to go back to a corporate entity. No innovation is taking place."

This is actually completely untrue. We think of the 1930s as the Golden Age of Radio. The programming that made it Golden was nationally programmed network shows. If you look at radio in the 80s, most of the music was major nationally-known acts, programmed by national consultants and national music charts. So it really wasn't as local as people thought. Today, some of the money goes to the corporate entity, but that was the case in the 80s when you had lots of groups owning radio stations. That hasn't changed. As far as innovation, you need money to innovate. Local stations don't have the kind of money or resources to innovate. That's why they drew on syndicators and national program companies like news networks. Today, the big radio groups own their own syndication companies. The size of the platform has a lot to do with innovation. It takes a company the size of iHeart to compete with Pandora. A mom & pop in Fargo isn't going to do it. Any innovation with AM-FM has to be approved by the FCC, so that's where the hold-up is. The FCC approved HD Radio, but is opposed to digital radio. They won't approve any innovation that will make AM-FM competitive.

CBS was doing a lot of innovation with Radio.com and other new ideas. But being owned by a TV company was holding it back. The IPO will free CBS Radio up to seek out new businesses beyond transmitters and towers, and grow their platform into something that will compete in the new world of audio entertainment.
Click to expand...
 
RadioPatrol said:
http://mobile.****************/cgi-bin/rolmobi.exe/dnheadline_id=b14850

Here's an update about CBS Radio by BIA/Kelsey.
Click to expand...

The main driving force in investment will be growth. For CBS Radio, it specifically means how can they generate growth in areas other than on air. Because that side of the business is what's stagnant.
 
They have the opportunity to do so in recasting their identity the way Clear Channel did in its evolution to iHeart. Perhaps getting management to sign off on the investment needed to accomplish this while a division of a media conglomerate wasn't possible and it might be as a standalone entity.

I hope the 'new' company does well.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom