How Long Before This Takes A Toll

[Radknowski]

From Inside Radio, Friday, April 14
<blockquote>
Lenders and shareholders start asking groups to sell off stations.
It's already begun in the case of one public company - shareholders frustrated about the stock price are going to the standard investors Plan B - "Sell off some of your assets to keep us happy." More in today's Inside Radio.
</blockquote>
<font face="times new roman" size="3" color="660033">
So the logical question is, are any Buffalo clusters and properties vulnerable, and at what price?

Considering interest rates and the condition of the business, it doesn't appear to be a sellers' market.

Which company has the healthiest cluster in Buffalo and would that operator be inclined to sell the cluster?</font>

 

[Yeziknoradio]

> So the logical question is, are any Buffalo clusters and
> properties vulnerable, and at what price?
> Considering interest rates and the condition of the
> business, it doesn't appear to be a sellers' market.
> Which company has the healthiest cluster in Buffalo and
> would that operator be inclined to sell the cluster?
>
If you were to own a cluster, and chose to let one station go, instead of the whole cluster, there would have to be one heck of a no compete clause in place to protect the remainder of your cluster.
If the exsisting station sold isn't free to change to a more profitable format, why buy it? (I mean, a cluster ISN'T going to let one of the more profitable sations go...right?) Therefore, I gather it will be a cluster that will be sold, even if someone were to offer a LARGE amount of money for one station in a cluster.
I may be overlooking the idea that there's dozens of possible (profitable) formats currently absent from the Buffalo market though...<P ID="signature">______________
"If you never say NO, How much is your YES worth?"
</P>

 

[sammy10002]

Obviously, the radio companies that are no longer in acquisition mode are more ripe to sell. It has long been held that Infinity, CBS, whatever they're calling themselves now, intends on dumping the smaller markets in their portfolio.

It's also fairly common knowledge that CCU, although not really in acquisition mode any more, wouldn't mind a Bufalo cluster.

I wouldn't look for either Entercom or Citadel to be unloading any cluster here anytime soon.

 

[NYRadioGM]

This story was removed from the Inside Radio website after Friday. I suspect someone didn't like it. We know who owns Inside Radio. Draw your own conclusions.

> From Inside Radio, Friday, April 14
>
> Lenders and shareholders start asking groups to sell off
> stations.
> It's already begun in the case of one public company -
> shareholders frustrated about the stock price are going to
> the standard investors Plan B - "Sell off some of your
> assets to keep us happy." More in today's Inside Radio.

 

[fybush]

> This story was removed from the Inside Radio website after
> Friday. I suspect someone didn't like it. We know who owns
> Inside Radio. Draw your own conclusions.

Gimme a break. As news editor of 100000watts.com, I work with Tom Taylor, the editor of Inside Radio. Neither he nor I would stand for any interference with our journalistic judgment, and the reason we're both still working for the company is because there is no such interference.

I can say this absolutely uncategorically - in more than three years of association with the company, I have NEVER been told what to print, or what not to print, or asked to alter anything that I've written. Neither has Tom - he'd be gone in a second if anyone tried, and I would be, too. In fact, the only communication I have with my boss (who works for a completely separate part of the organization from Clear Channel Radio) is about business matters. I don't think he's ever tried to provide any editorial direction, which is just the way I like it.

The only conclusion I draw from the headline disappearing from the website is that the website's updated several times a day, and the headline in question was part of the morning update. When the afternoon update was posted, the morning headlines went away. The story in question is still in the PDF version of the Friday Inside Radio newsletter, and it will still be there on Monday when that newsletter is moved to the archive page.

End of story.<P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2006 ON SALE! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>

 

[Element9]

Tolls Never Go Down

> If the exsisting station sold isn't free to change to a more
> profitable format, why buy it? (I mean, a cluster ISN'T
> going to let one of the more profitable sations go...right?)
> Therefore, I gather it will be a cluster that will be sold,
> even if someone were to offer a LARGE amount of money for
> one station in a cluster.

Breaking up a cluster and selling stations piecemeal isn't likely in market #52. For example, it's highly unlikely Entercom would ever spin off KB, especially to a competitor; perhaps 1400AM, but even that's unlikely since this station is well-targeted and formatted to cull listeners from the inner city. Entercom has been known to add 1400's ratings to that of Star to fatten up Star's already hefty female numbers.

> I may be overlooking the idea that there's dozens of
> possible (profitable) formats currently absent from the
> Buffalo market though...

You're not overlooking at all. There simply aren't "dozens of possible, profitable formats" absent the market. It's a market that's aging not all that gracefully and shrinkage set in long ago. Therefore, it's likely we'll continue to see "one of each" with a few stations flanking others. For example, the Lake is flanking 97 Rock. Jack is flanking... hmmm... What station is Jack flanking?
WHTT seems to be flanking Star and and taking WJYE on straight away.

Now that I've broached the subject, it's rather interesting to see how some stations are flanking others. This may be one of the most competitive times in the market.

Radio isn't about music, entertainment or personalities as much as it's about the commercials. Radio is a product delivery system. Entertainment is simply a means to an end.

Entercom has done its damnedest to impact 97 Rock's massive 25-54 Men, positioning WGR to attract sports-oriented males; The Lake to attract music oriented disenfranchised males. So far the results have been tepid at best.

Similarly Citadel seems to have positioned WHTT to impact WJYE's sizeable upper demo females. To this end, WHTT has been moderately succesful, but one or two good books do not constitute an overwhelming victory. WJYE has its hands full fending off Star, which has succesfully garnered 30-49 year old women.

The reigning market champ is WYRK. Ironically, neither Citadel nor Entercom has figured out how to unravel the riddle of WYRK's successful exclusive format without going tête á tête. This may be one reason why there's so much speculation and anticipation on this board about an eventual direct format competitor to WYRK. Frankly, neither Citadel nor Entercom has the signals to take on WYRK.
Unless...

And no, this is not to suggest HD, which at this stage appears to be a waste of time and money.

-9-

 

[NYRadioGM]

Well, good for you, I am glad you apparently are not interfered with but there are those of us who take a dim view of Clear Channel owning a primary industry news source and are wary of said news as a result. It is also well known that Clear Channel has "talking points" on a variety of issues and without meaning to impugn your credibility or that of Tom Taylor (whom I greatly respect) what you wrote in your response reads a lot like what I would expect someone from Clear Channel to say in reply to my suspicions, although you say you don't work for Clear Channel. So I will hold onto those suspicions (justified or otherwise) for a little while longer if you don't mind. Sorry if this reads like an X-Files "trust no one" post but I have my reasons not to trust them.

> Gimme a break. As news editor of 100000watts.com, I work
> with Tom Taylor, the editor of Inside Radio. Neither he nor
> I would stand for any interference with our journalistic
> judgment, and the reason we're both still working for the
> company is because there is no such interference.
>
> I can say this absolutely uncategorically - in more than
> three years of association with the company, I have NEVER
> been told what to print, or what not to print, or asked to
> alter anything that I've written. Neither has Tom - he'd be
> gone in a second if anyone tried, and I would be, too. In
> fact, the only communication I have with my boss (who works
> for a completely separate part of the organization from
> Clear Channel Radio) is about business matters. I don't
> think he's ever tried to provide any editorial direction,
> which is just the way I like it.
>
> The only conclusion I draw from the headline disappearing
> from the website is that the website's updated several times
> a day, and the headline in question was part of the morning
> update. When the afternoon update was posted, the morning
> headlines went away. The story in question is still in the
> PDF version of the Friday Inside Radio newsletter, and it
> will still be there on Monday when that newsletter is moved
> to the archive page.
>
> End of story.

 

[SirRoxalot]

For Whom the Tolls Bell...

> Frankly, neither Citadel nor Entercom has the signals to take on WYRK.
> Unless...

Unless... What about WECK. Hey, that Classic Country switch is hammering away at WYRK, right?

Oh, wait, WECK and WYRK are both owned by CBS...

Darn, there goes another theory.

 

[fybush]

> Well, good for you, I am glad you apparently are not
> interfered with but there are those of us who take a dim
> view of Clear Channel owning a primary industry news source
> and are wary of said news as a result. It is also well
> known that Clear Channel has "talking points" on a variety
> of issues and without meaning to impugn your credibility or
> that of Tom Taylor (whom I greatly respect) what you wrote
> in your response reads a lot like what I would expect
> someone from Clear Channel to say in reply to my suspicions,
> although you say you don't work for Clear Channel. So I will
> hold onto those suspicions (justified or otherwise) for a
> little while longer if you don't mind. Sorry if this reads
> like an X-Files "trust no one" post but I have my reasons
> not to trust them.

Your paranoia skills are well-honed, and your tinfoil hat is no doubt nice and shiny, but your comprehension skills could apparently use some sharpening.

First, I never said I don't work for Clear Channel. I said I don't work for Clear Channel Radio. Whether you want to believe it or not, there is a difference. I'm sure Clear Channel Radio has "talking points," and I hear them from time to time when I talk to people who work for Clear Channel Radio. (I also hear them when I talk to people from CBS Radio, or from Entercom, or from Citadel, and they get precisely the same weight in any case.)

They don't apply to what I do, or to what Tom Taylor or Frank Saxe or Mike Kinosian do. The sum total of my communication with ANYONE in San Antonio in the three years I've worked for the company has been the annual health insurance election. End of story, whether that's what you want to hear or not.

Second, for someone who claims to "greatly respect" Tom Taylor, you certainly wasted no time slamming him for what you perceived to be the politically motivated removal of an item from the website. That strikes me less as a mark of respect than as an indication that you're looking for anything to back up your preconceived notions of what Inside Radio's ultimate ownership has to do with its editorial independence, especially because your particular criticism was demonstrably 100% inaccurate.

Would I prefer that Inside Radio and 100000watts have no ties to any broadcasting company? Of course I would. It would certainly be nice to be free of the innuendo that's often aimed at all of us because of who the corporate ownership is. But I'll say it again - as much as I need the job, I'd be gone in a second if I perceived even the slightest attempt to slant the product. It's simply not there.

Look, there are a lot of divisions of Clear Channel Worldwide that provide services to other broadcasters. Whether it's Premiere's syndication, automation from Prophet, software from RCS or, yes, industry news from Inside Radio, those divisions can't show any favoritism toward Clear Channel Radio, or the rest of their business would dry up. That's just common sense, which seems to be lacking in this particular exchange.

Which, by the way, I have no problem signing with my real name. Anyone who knows me personally - and there are several on this board - knows that I wouldn't dare put the credibility that I think I've built up in a decade and a half of writing NorthEast Radio Watch on the line if I didn't believe in what I do.

You've made it clear that nothing I (or anyone from Inside Radio) might say here will convince you otherwise. I'd hope my work stands for itself, then.

Without apology,

Scott Fybush
News Editor
100000watts.com<P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2006 ON SALE! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>

 

[Shadowsabre]

Re: For Whom the Tolls Bell...

> Unless... What about WECK. Hey, that Classic Country switch
> is hammering away at WYRK, right?
> Oh, wait, WECK and WYRK are both owned by CBS...
> Darn, there goes another theory.

Cornering the market is always good.
WYRK could use some good competition though.
Wild 101 really should go country before someone beats them to it!

 

[NYRadioGM]

Sorry but some of this just doesn't hold up for me, I don't think the agendas (whatever they are) of Clear Channel and Clear Channel radio are meaningfully different, I think the company is run as a whole and intended to be run as a whole, the word "synergy" has been specifically invoked by them. You say to me that none of the Clear Channel divisions can show favoritism to Clear Channel radio stations but tell me how many stations did Premiere yank Rush Limbaugh from in order to hand the show to Clear Channel stations in the same markets, what about the concert promotions (yes I know they have since sold off the concert business) with Clear Channel stations to the exclusion of other stations in the same markets, the "Prophet" company was purchased by Clear Channel, the "RCS" company was also purchased by Clear Channel, both of which make any station using them totally transparent to Clear Channel if they so desire, how many examples do I have to give? Why did Clear Channel buy Inside Radio if not to silence a vocal critic in Jerry del Colliano? (yes I know Jerry could be unreasonable but at least he was an independent voice and called Clear Channel to account on some things) I did NOT slam Tom Taylor, I pointed out that a story had been removed from their web site (which is a statement of fact) while other stories remained there all weekend, maybe this was the harmless matter of your PM update, maybe not, but the point was raised by me, my thought being that maybe someone had told him to remove the story. I wish I had kept some record of the stories appearing in Inside Radio which have been critical of Clear Channel because frankly I don't remember any, has CBS News ever aired ANY pieces critical of Viacom, I don't remember any there either, what do you think, am I making my point? If you don't see the inherent problem/conflict then I'm sorry I have bothered with this discussion. There is no need for the personal insults concerning "tinfoil hats", just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you, I don't sign with my real name for exactly that reason, we all know they read these boards and many others, and you are defending your personal integrity and editorial independence (which is fine) but if you were posting some comments of another kind I think you would probably find it prudent to use an alias, especially since you work for them, they would not look too kindly on that. Clear Channel's actions speak for themselves, I'm sure no one really needs me to point that out by this time. Good night & good luck

> Your paranoia skills are well-honed, and your tinfoil hat is
> no doubt nice and shiny, but your comprehension skills could
> apparently use some sharpening.
>
> First, I never said I don't work for Clear Channel. I said I
> don't work for Clear Channel Radio. Whether you want to
> believe it or not, there is a difference. I'm sure Clear
> Channel Radio has "talking points," and I hear them from
> time to time when I talk to people who work for Clear
> Channel Radio. (I also hear them when I talk to people from
> CBS Radio, or from Entercom, or from Citadel, and they get
> precisely the same weight in any case.)
>
> They don't apply to what I do, or to what Tom Taylor or
> Frank Saxe or Mike Kinosian do. The sum total of my
> communication with ANYONE in San Antonio in the three years
> I've worked for the company has been the annual health
> insurance election. End of story, whether that's what you
> want to hear or not.
>
> Second, for someone who claims to "greatly respect" Tom
> Taylor, you certainly wasted no time slamming him for what
> you perceived to be the politically motivated removal of an
> item from the website. That strikes me less as a mark of
> respect than as an indication that you're looking for
> anything to back up your preconceived notions of what Inside
> Radio's ultimate ownership has to do with its editorial
> independence, especially because your particular criticism
> was demonstrably 100% inaccurate.
>
> Would I prefer that Inside Radio and 100000watts have no
> ties to any broadcasting company? Of course I would. It
> would certainly be nice to be free of the innuendo that's
> often aimed at all of us because of who the corporate
> ownership is. But I'll say it again - as much as I need the
> job, I'd be gone in a second if I perceived even the
> slightest attempt to slant the product. It's simply not
> there.
>
> Look, there are a lot of divisions of Clear Channel
> Worldwide that provide services to other broadcasters.
> Whether it's Premiere's syndication, automation from
> Prophet, software from RCS or, yes, industry news from
> Inside Radio, those divisions can't show any favoritism
> toward Clear Channel Radio, or the rest of their business
> would dry up. That's just common sense, which seems to be
> lacking in this particular exchange.
>
> Which, by the way, I have no problem signing with my real
> name. Anyone who knows me personally - and there are several
> on this board - knows that I wouldn't dare put the
> credibility that I think I've built up in a decade and a
> half of writing NorthEast Radio Watch on the line if I
> didn't believe in what I do.
>
> You've made it clear that nothing I (or anyone from Inside
> Radio) might say here will convince you otherwise. I'd hope
> my work stands for itself, then.
>
> Without apology,
>
> Scott Fybush
> News Editor
> 100000watts.com

 

[OldAkronite]

Sticking Up For Scott

OK, so I'm biased here.

I've known Scott Fybush for - what's it been now, Scott, some 10 years now? I'm one of the folks who usually tags along on his "Big Trips", and other similar trips, meaning we probably spend about a couple of weeks or so together each year.

And I'm sorry, NYRadioGM, what you're writing does not jibe with my long-time friendship with Mr. Fybush, and my view of his credibility.

I know what you're saying. I know how some people have this monolithic view of Clear Channel and how it operates. I have seen some of this go into practice. But, like Scott, I've also seen the company go "hands off" where you would very much expect it to be hands on, to the surprise of many.

Take the Rush Limbaugh/Premiere thing, which you brought up. Do you know that Clear Channel owns an AM talk station in San Francisco (KNEW/910) and did NOT move Rush to it? That's right, they got a better deal by selling the rights to ABC/Disney's KSFO/560. The renewal happened a good year or two after CC mounted the talk format on KNEW. Instead of running Rush, KNEW competes against him.

And Clear Channel has not universally made that move. I worked in a market where it was long-rumored that CC would steal Rush from us (I worked for a competitor) and flip its AM station there from sports to talk. It never happened, and probably never will.

I can't 100% argue things like the purchase of Inside Radio and the effect of "removing" one of the company's biggest critics. But that's darn near ancient news these days. And though I am not a subscriber to IR, or M Street, nothing I've seen filtered down from them would indicate to me that they treat CC any differently than they treat any other broadcaster.

And back to my friend Mr. Fybush. You may not consider me a valid source because of that friendship, but I have my own credibility to deal with. I've seen Scott put together his 100KW updates and I've seen him put together NERW. I know how he works and I know his integrity and credibility. If he felt even the SLIGHTEST editorial pressure from Clear Channel, he'd break his association with them so fast you'd have to measure it with a precision stopwatch.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>

 

[Bob1370]

> From Inside Radio, Friday, April 14
>
> Lenders and shareholders start asking groups to sell off
> stations.
> It's already begun in the case of one public company -
> shareholders frustrated about the stock price are going to
> the standard investors Plan B - "Sell off some of your
> assets to keep us happy." More in today's Inside Radio.
> So the logical question is, are any Buffalo clusters and
> properties vulnerable, and at what price?

Let;'s begin with the question of which company might be the one in question. Several really fit the description, Clear Channel probably being the most prominent among them because of its size, its decline in market capitalization and its ongoing struggle to regain profitability within its core radio business (its outdoor advertising and entertainment promotion businesses, along with some of its local TV properties, are providing the positive cash flow these days). We also know Les Moonves isn't happy with the CBS radio division's performance and by his admission, some CBS properties are discreetly on the block. But others are also debt-loaded from the acquisition binge of the 1990s.

> Which company has the healthiest cluster in Buffalo and
> would that operator be inclined to sell the cluster?

Two different questions. The healthiest cluster isn't necessarily the one least likely to be sold off.
Clear Channel isn't currently in Buffalo, and as it shuffles its portfolio it may end up being a buyer in the market, picking up what someone else wants to dump. Moonves has named Buffalo as one of the markets he'd be interested in leaving as he pares down the radio division so we know stations like WYRK, WJYE, WBLK and WECK are already being shopped quietly even though the Arbitron numbers remain healthy overall. As to Entercom, it's a good news/bad news situation-some stations in the cluster are healthy while others are not, and there's that pesky payola case. Citadel is an interesting combination of strong and marginal properties, and what they'll do now that the Mouse is effectively the company's majority stockholder is anyone's guess and perhaps ultimately known only to Bob Iger.

 

[Mark_Giardina]

Re: Sticking Up For Scott

Please add my name to the list of Scott's friends. For anyone who knows Scott Fybush they can attest to the fact that he is honest and above doing anything unethical.

Not only do I consider Scott to be a good friend, I also financially support his web site www.fybush.com

I do so not just because we are friends, but I know when I read Scott's material, it will be the truth and not something he was pressured into writing by his employer.

Signed

Mark Giardina

<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>