• 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

Energy 92.7: "A gay home on the radio dial"

Matt Bajko's article about KNGY (Energy 92.7) and owner Joe Bayliss appears in today's online edition of the Bay Area Reporter:

http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=376

Matt had contacted me while he was researching the article in quest of other local radio stations or personalities who were openly "out." Being a boring straight married guy from the Eastbay 'burbs, I could only come up with Karel on KGO (who actually works from LA) and the (BLEEP) Channel block on The Quake (KQKE) among the commercial stations; I'm sure that there are many more on the non-commercial outlets.

DJ<P ID="signature">______________
<center>

</center></P>
 
> Matt Bajko's article about KNGY (Energy 92.7) and owner Joe
> Bayliss appears in today's online edition of the Bay Area
> Reporter:
>
> http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=376
>
> Matt had contacted me while he was researching the article
> in quest of other local radio stations or personalities who
> were openly "out." Being a boring straight married guy from
> the Eastbay 'burbs, I could only come up with Karel on KGO
> (who actually works from LA) and the (BLEEP) Channel block
> on The Quake (KQKE) among the commercial stations; I'm sure
> that there are many more on the non-commercial outlets.
>
> DJ
>

Isn't Dave Morey openly "out?"
 
> > Matt Bajko's article about KNGY (Energy 92.7) and owner
> Joe
> > Bayliss appears in today's online edition of the Bay Area
> > Reporter:
> >
> > http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=376
> >
> > Matt had contacted me while he was researching the article
>
> > in quest of other local radio stations or personalities
> who
> > were openly "out." Being a boring straight married guy
> from
> > the Eastbay 'burbs, I could only come up with Karel on KGO
>
> > (who actually works from LA) and the (BLEEP) Channel block
>
> > on The Quake (KQKE) among the commercial stations; I'm
> sure
> > that there are many more on the non-commercial outlets.
> >
> > DJ
> >
>
> Isn't Dave Morey openly "out?"
>
and the jocks from kgay (live 105)<P ID="signature">______________
http://natedoggairchecks.6x.to/
xxnate_doggxx (at) myway (dot) com</P>
 
NateDogg wrote:

> ...and the jocks from kgay (live 105)

Yeah, but that's a one-weekend-a-year type thing, not regularly scheduled.

Funny how the board's software automatically bleeped out the reference to "Q*eer Channel" in my original post, ain't it?

DJ

<P ID="signature">______________
<center>

</center></P>
 
> >
> Funny how the board's software automatically bleeped out the
> reference to "Q*eer Channel" in my original post, ain't it?
>
> I've heard that Clear Channel's automatic censoring software was doing the same at the Quake when the word Q*eer was mentioned. It reminds me of the Catch 22 the D*kes on Bikes found themselves stuck in when they tried to copyright their name. It seems the federal government won't copyright the name because "D*ke" is a perjorative.
 
I think I'm going to refrain from commenting, as last time I did, I had my KGAY remarks removed, but, everytime I listen to 92.7, all I can hear playing in my head is the "thhhhuper" song from the South Park CD..

But yanno, it works, and if it wasn't working, well, 92.7 would be flipped to CHR. And the doghouse would be doing mornings there. And people would still be complaining about KFRC.
 
> But yanno, it works, and if it wasn't working, well, 92.7
> would be flipped to CHR. And the doghouse would be doing
> mornings there. And people would still be complaining about
> KFRC.

Just because Joe Bayliss and Don Parker gave some interview in the Bay Area Reporter and said that the station is doing well, it doesn't make it so. To say that it is "profitable" could mean that it is making $10,000 a year. I know, I know... I can already hear it... it's all about local sales, it isn't about overall ratings, it's about targeting the few key demographics that their research (and our common sense) generally think embrace dance music... Whatever. I think there is an upper bound on what you can even sell locally with a 0.6 12+. I agree -- their San Francisco COUNTY numbers (and the city/county itself has to be what they mean by "San Francisco"... it cannot possibly mean the whole Bay Area arbitron area) are not bad for their signal. But remember this from the investors' point of view. To make money on their $38 million investment (that is the # I heard from investors, not the $33 million quoted... maybe there was a mix of cash and stock given to the sellers, who knows), then Joe Bayliss and his crew are going to have to do much better than I think their strategy could ever allow, especially in a time when station prices are not quite what they were. I would argue that they would have to be taking $10 million to the bottom line (PROFITS, not REVENUES) annually to justify a sale price that would double the money they put in. We can argue about that # but I think given the station's poor signal, that it would have to be on the high side. And I don't think they can generate even that much REVENUE per year. The math just doesn't work. And at some point, the investors will unload the station for what they can get, so that their money isn't tied up any longer than it has to be.
 
> > But yanno, it works, and if it wasn't working, well, 92.7
> > would be flipped to CHR. And the doghouse would be doing
> > mornings there. And people would still be complaining
> about
> > KFRC.
>
> Just because Joe Bayliss and Don Parker gave some interview
> in the Bay Area Reporter and said that the station is doing
> well, it doesn't make it so. To say that it is "profitable"
> could mean that it is making $10,000 a year. I know, I
> know... I can already hear it... it's all about local sales,
> it isn't about overall ratings, it's about targeting the few
> key demographics that their research (and our common sense)
> generally think embrace dance music... Whatever. I think
> there is an upper bound on what you can even sell locally
> with a 0.6 12+. I agree -- their San Francisco COUNTY
> numbers (and the city/county itself has to be what they mean
> by "San Francisco"... it cannot possibly mean the whole Bay
> Area arbitron area) are not bad for their signal. But
> remember this from the investors' point of view. To make
> money on their $38 million investment (that is the # I heard
> from investors, not the $33 million quoted... maybe there
> was a mix of cash and stock given to the sellers, who
> knows), then Joe Bayliss and his crew are going to have to
> do much better than I think their strategy could ever allow,
> especially in a time when station prices are not quite what
> they were. I would argue that they would have to be taking
> $10 million to the bottom line (PROFITS, not REVENUES)
> annually to justify a sale price that would double the money
> they put in. We can argue about that # but I think given
> the station's poor signal, that it would have to be on the
> high side. And I don't think they can generate even that
> much REVENUE per year. The math just doesn't work. And at
> some point, the investors will unload the station for what
> they can get, so that their money isn't tied up any longer
> than it has to be.
>

Where do you get $10 million in profit? Stations sell for 10-15 times broadcast cash flow. It's likely their debt service is somewhere around 10% on the original purchase price (let's use $3.5 million/year for this exercise).

Depending on their operating costs (my guess is it will cost $3-$5 million to run), they'll probably need to do $8 million or so a year to break even in revenue (not profit).

But value is based on brodcast cash flow - where debt service is NOT included.

Even then, if they did $8 million and it cost $4 million to run - then it's worth anywhere from $4-$6 million in cash flow and worth $40-$90 million (depending on a potential buyer).
 
> Where do you get $10 million in profit? Stations sell for
> 10-15 times broadcast cash flow. It's likely their debt
> service is somewhere around 10% on the original purchase
> price (let's use $3.5 million/year for this exercise).
>
> Depending on their operating costs (my guess is it will cost
> $3-$5 million to run), they'll probably need to do $8
> million or so a year to break even in revenue (not profit).
>
> But value is based on brodcast cash flow - where debt
> service is NOT included.
>
> Even then, if they did $8 million and it cost $4 million to
> run - then it's worth anywhere from $4-$6 million in cash
> flow and worth $40-$90 million (depending on a potential
> buyer).

Good points... I might have been a little high on $10 million bottom line cash flow for them to double their money.

But I don't think I'm WAY off because I just don't think the usual multiple analysis applies to a class A signal like 92.7... if we agree that, based on the recent Susquehanna transaction, the multiple for major/large market properties is in the 13X range on average (considering a mix of cash and stock), I would argue that 92.7 would have to be below that because of its inferior reach. Although cash flow is cash flow no matter what the strength of signal is, there is an underlying "stick value" beneath any broadcast property, so I'd say 10X for 92.7 would be generous, actually. Think of it like this... KEAR 106.9 went for around $95-$100 million but that wasn't all cash and including KFRC-AM as part of the trading currency for Viacom, and that was probably high anyway. So factoring in some discount, let's say the price of a stick in the Bay Area (with no cash flow on it) is around $85 million. And it might have been even higher last year in October 2004 when 92.7 was sold to the current investors. Whether you call that price tag $33 million or $38 million, it was less than half of what a full power class B signal is worth. So although I'm not arguing that a Class A station WITH cash flow in the Bay Area is worth half of a Class B station with the same cash flow, I *am* saying that there is definitely a discount involved.

So I don't think $10 million BCF for 92.7 to get about an $80 million sale price (to double or slightly more than double) the investors' $33-38 million dollars is completely unreasonable.
 
> > Where do you get $10 million in profit? Stations sell for
>
> > 10-15 times broadcast cash flow. It's likely their debt
> > service is somewhere around 10% on the original purchase
> > price (let's use $3.5 million/year for this exercise).
> >
> > Depending on their operating costs (my guess is it will
> cost
> > $3-$5 million to run), they'll probably need to do $8
> > million or so a year to break even in revenue (not
> profit).
> >
> > But value is based on brodcast cash flow - where debt
> > service is NOT included.
> >
> > Even then, if they did $8 million and it cost $4 million
> to
> > run - then it's worth anywhere from $4-$6 million in cash
> > flow and worth $40-$90 million (depending on a potential
> > buyer).
>
> Good points... I might have been a little high on $10
> million bottom line cash flow for them to double their
> money.
>
> But I don't think I'm WAY off because I just don't think the
> usual multiple analysis applies to a class A signal like
> 92.7... if we agree that, based on the recent Susquehanna
> transaction, the multiple for major/large market properties
> is in the 13X range on average (considering a mix of cash
> and stock), I would argue that 92.7 would have to be below
> that because of its inferior reach. Although cash flow is
> cash flow no matter what the strength of signal is, there is
> an underlying "stick value" beneath any broadcast property,
> so I'd say 10X for 92.7 would be generous, actually. Think
> of it like this... KEAR 106.9 went for around $95-$100
> million but that wasn't all cash and including KFRC-AM as
> part of the trading currency for Viacom, and that was
> probably high anyway. So factoring in some discount, let's
> say the price of a stick in the Bay Area (with no cash flow
> on it) is around $85 million. And it might have been even
> higher last year in October 2004 when 92.7 was sold to the
> current investors. Whether you call that price tag $33
> million or $38 million, it was less than half of what a full
> power class B signal is worth. So although I'm not arguing
> that a Class A station WITH cash flow in the Bay Area is
> worth half of a Class B station with the same cash flow, I
> *am* saying that there is definitely a discount involved.
>
> So I don't think $10 million BCF for 92.7 to get about an
> $80 million sale price (to double or slightly more than
> double) the investors' $33-38 million dollars is completely
> unreasonable.
>

But no one can be expected to double their money quickly... They want to be able to prove they can run it at a profit early on. My only question would be how it was north of a 1 share and now is down closer to a 0.5?
 
Re: Energy 92.7: /Don Parker

Don Parker-weird guy. Sent the competition black roses
when he was the research director of X104 Fresno, he
was close to being anti social, never did an airshift
in his life. We called him Indian since his most
typical pose was standing with his arms folded and
a blank look on his face. That should work well
in the restaurant business.



> St. John, afternoons at Wild, is also openly gay.
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom