• 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

KABL-960 Billing QUestion

C

collinsradio

Guest
Can anyone give me an idea on what KABL-AM was doing
in terms of billing during their "Standards" format
on 960-AM?. We all are aware that Standards can be
a hard sell, even with significant numbers, but if
anyone knows the kind of business they were doing
I'd really appreciate it.
 
> Can anyone give me an idea on what KABL-AM was doing
> in terms of billing during their "Standards" format
> on 960-AM?. We all are aware that Standards can be
> a hard sell, even with significant numbers, but if
> anyone knows the kind of business they were doing
> I'd really appreciate it.

About $35 to $40 thousand a month for the three years prior to the switch. Something like $400 thousand a year. There are 10 stations in Traverse City, MI, that bill more.
 
> > Can anyone give me an idea on what KABL-AM was doing
> > in terms of billing during their "Standards" format
> > on 960-AM?. We all are aware that Standards can be
> > a hard sell, even with significant numbers, but if
> > anyone knows the kind of business they were doing
> > I'd really appreciate it.
>
> About $35 to $40 thousand a month for the three years prior
> to the switch. Something like $400 thousand a year. There
> are 10 stations in Traverse City, MI, that bill more.
>
Their billing was more like $2,400,000 per year until they went to FM.
 
Thanks SFSTatic. That makes a little more sense. You could bill 30-40 k
in SF with infommercials on the weekends. David where are you
getting those low figures?


> > > Can anyone give me an idea on what KABL-AM was doing
> > > in terms of billing during their "Standards" format
> > > on 960-AM?. We all are aware that Standards can be
> > > a hard sell, even with significant numbers, but if
> > > anyone knows the kind of business they were doing
> > > I'd really appreciate it.
> >
> > About $35 to $40 thousand a month for the three years
> prior
> > to the switch. Something like $400 thousand a year. There
> > are 10 stations in Traverse City, MI, that bill more.
> >
> Their billing was more like $2,400,000 per year until they
> went to FM.
>
 
SFStatic wrote:

> Their billing was more like $2,400,000 per year until they
> went to FM.


Until KABL-960 went to FM? KABL had been simulcast on AM and FM since the 1960s.

Did you mean to say that KABL's billing was more like $2,400,000 per year until it went to 92.1 FM only?

Would KABL's billings have remained as high if it had stayed on 960, along with an FM simulcast?

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

</center></P>
 
> Thanks SFSTatic. That makes a little more sense. You could
> bill 30-40 k
> in SF with infommercials on the weekends. David where are
> you
> getting those low figures?

Miller Kaplan. All the major groups and stations report and share revenue data. This is the breakout for the AM alone per that analysis.
 
Re: KABL-960 Billing QUestion/Crdibility Question

I'm very familiar with Miller-Kaplan. But those figures
you are quoting are for a small market radio station.
The discrepancy between SF Static and yours are just
too much. Regardless of the upper demos, if those
numbers were true, that would indicate possibly
the most inept sales department in a major market
in history.



> Miller Kaplan. All the major groups and stations report and
> share revenue data. This is the breakout for the AM alone
> per that analysis.
>
 
Re: KABL-960 Billing QUestion/Crdibility Question

> I'm very familiar with Miller-Kaplan. But those figures
> you are quoting are for a small market radio station.
> The discrepancy between SF Static and yours are just
> too much. Regardless of the upper demos, if those
> numbers were true, that would indicate possibly
> the most inept sales department in a major market
> in history.

Or, it represents the lack of salability of standards in a town where most business is transactional. You can not sell 65+ to a buyer who has instructions to buy a different demo.
 
Re: KABL-960 Billing QUestion/Crdibility Question

I would like to see confirmation of these figures
from another source.


> > I'm very familiar with Miller-Kaplan. But those figures
> > you are quoting are for a small market radio station.
> > The discrepancy between SF Static and yours are just
> > too much. Regardless of the upper demos, if those
> > numbers were true, that would indicate possibly
> > the most inept sales department in a major market
> > in history.
>
> Or, it represents the lack of salability of standards in a
> town where most business is transactional. You can not sell
> 65+ to a buyer who has instructions to buy a different demo.
>
 
Re: KABL-960 Billing QUestion/Crdibility Question

> I would like to see confirmation of these figures
> from another source.

BIA also reports it. BIA uses MK plus its own survey of managers in the markets.

There is no other "real source" other than MK and BIA.
 
Re: KABL-960 Billing QUestion/Crdibility Question

> > I would like to see confirmation of these figures
> > from another source.
>
> BIA also reports it. BIA uses MK plus its own survey of
> managers in the markets.
>
> There is no other "real source" other than MK and BIA.
>
If the figures are for KABL AM for the past 12-14 months, that is the station on 1460 in Monterey, and the 35-40k per month is probably correct for that station. The 960 KABL AM billed over 5 times that much. I understand that Clear Channel doesn't allow any reporting to BIA at all, so their survey is worthless in this case.
 
Re: KABL-960 Billing QUestion/Crdibility Question

> > > I would like to see confirmation of these figures
> > > from another source.
> >
> > BIA also reports it. BIA uses MK plus its own survey of
> > managers in the markets.
> >
> > There is no other "real source" other than MK and BIA.
> >
> If the figures are for KABL AM for the past 12-14 months,
> that is the station on 1460 in Monterey, and the 35-40k per
> month is probably correct for that station. The 960 KABL AM
> billed over 5 times that much. I understand that Clear
> Channel doesn't allow any reporting to BIA at all, so their
> survey is worthless in this case.

The figures are for the San Francisco station on 960 that was KABL back to when Gordon started it. For the three years hrough 2004, the station did approximately $400 k a year, with 700 k in 2001. This is kind of typical billings for a standards station with that kind of listenership.

There is no ¨reporting¨ to BIA. BIA gets the data indirectly, from Millaer Kaplan reports (Which CCU does report to) and then narrows down cluster revenue splits by consuting with market experts of all kinds.

Any station or group with an SF station will have the MK data as long as they report themselves. All participants report monthly. The only non-participants are a few small stations, such as reliigious or brokered ones that do not get traditional revenue.
 
Down a familiar road

Here we have gone again ...

1. Someone asks perfectly rational question.
2. David E. pulls data from the various sources he has access to and answers the question.
3. Original poster questions validity of data, as if everything David E. posts is somehow suspect.
4. David provides source for data.
5. Original poster requests "second source" to qualify data; meanwhile, others jump into discussion to try to "prove" David's answer is wrong.

What the hell do you people have against David, anyway? <P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: Down a familiar road

> Here we have gone again ...
>
> 1. Someone asks perfectly rational question.
> 2. David E. pulls data from the various sources he has
> access to and answers the question.
> 3. Original poster questions validity of data, as if
> everything David E. posts is somehow suspect.
> 4. David provides source for data.
> 5. Original poster requests "second source" to qualify
> data; meanwhile, others jump into discussion to try to
> "prove" David's answer is wrong.
>
> What the hell do you people have against David, anyway?

Someoen famous onec said something to the effect that "emotion is a much more potent ingredient than reason."

I think that applies here.
 
Re: KABL-960 Billing QUestion/Crdibility Question

> I would like to see confirmation of these figures
> from another source.

I have checked with my inside sources at Clear Channel -- who must, sorry, remain confidential -- and David's numbers are correct within a reasonable margin of error.

I also checked with the sales department at Clear Channel and you would be sadly surprised at how little they charge for a 30-minute infomercial on Saturday morning on any of their AMs.

Consider the facts confirmed.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: Down a familiar road

KMRichards scribbled electronically:

> What the hell do you people have against David, anyway?


He's a bloated, annoying, overbearing and over-opinionated know-it-all that has to throw in his two cents' worth on every subject (whether anyone cares or not) and has a tendency to nit-pick anything that doesn't meet his "smell test."

Oh, wait a minute. I thought you were talking about me.

If you meant Mr. Eduardo, I have no clue. He's a very knowledgeable and well-respected fellow, and I (for one) am glad that he allows himself to be subjected to the occasional jerk (speaking!) and still comes back to interject his wisdom into the discussion.

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

</center></P>
 
Re: Down a familiar road

First of all, no need for you to mother hen in on
a dicussion like this, everybody is being nice.
Second, you saying it KM doesn't confirm anything.
I have a lot of respect for David's knowledge,
but he isn't 100 percent correct on everything,
what about SFStatic, he's clearly has a different
opinion.



> Here we have gone again ...
>
> 1. Someone asks perfectly rational question.
> 2. David E. pulls data from the various sources he has
> access to and answers the question.
> 3. Original poster questions validity of data, as if
> everything David E. posts is somehow suspect.
> 4. David provides source for data.
> 5. Original poster requests "second source" to qualify
> data; meanwhile, others jump into discussion to try to
> "prove" David's answer is wrong.
>
> What the hell do you people have against David, anyway?
>
 
Re: Down a familiar road

> > Here we have gone again ...
> >
> > 1. Someone asks perfectly rational question.
> > 2. David E. pulls data from the various sources he has
> > access to and answers the question.
> > 3. Original poster questions validity of data, as if
> > everything David E. posts is somehow suspect.
> > 4. David provides source for data.
> > 5. Original poster requests "second source" to qualify
> > data; meanwhile, others jump into discussion to try to
> > "prove" David's answer is wrong.
> >
> > What the hell do you people have against David, anyway?
>
> Someoen famous onec said something to the effect that
> "emotion is a much more potent ingredient than reason."
>
> I think that applies here.
>
It is always good to cite facts. The fact is, the numbers you cite, whether from M-K as you say, or not, are incorrect. The numbers that the station sent to CC and that people were paid bonuses on are 5 times higher than your numbers. Not having M-K at home, I looked up the number in Duncan's for 2001, the last year he put it out, and it's $2,360,000. That squares with a number I had seen from someone in the building.
 
Re: Down a familiar road

> > > Here we have gone again ...
> > >
> > > 1. Someone asks perfectly rational question.
> > > 2. David E. pulls data from the various sources he has
> > > access to and answers the question.
> > > 3. Original poster questions validity of data, as if
> > > everything David E. posts is somehow suspect.
> > > 4. David provides source for data.
> > > 5. Original poster requests "second source" to qualify
> > > data; meanwhile, others jump into discussion to try to
> > > "prove" David's answer is wrong.
> > >
> > > What the hell do you people have against David, anyway?
> >
> > Someoen famous onec said something to the effect that
> > "emotion is a much more potent ingredient than reason."
> >
> > I think that applies here.
> >
> It is always good to cite facts. The fact is, the numbers
> you cite, whether from M-K as you say, or not, are
> incorrect. The numbers that the station sent to CC and that
> people were paid bonuses on are 5 times higher than your
> numbers. Not having M-K at home, I looked up the number in
> Duncan's for 2001, the last year he put it out, and it's
> $2,360,000. That squares with a number I had seen from
> someone in the building.

Thanks SFStatic. I appreciate the information. It's interesting
how KM Richards seems to have such a stake in this discussion.
You said it all.
 
Re: Down a familiar road

>
> Thanks SFStatic. I appreciate the information. It's
> interesting
> how KM Richards seems to have such a stake in this
> discussion.
> You said it all.

SFStatic was, I remind you, the one who said that CCU did not let its employees "report to BIA." Since nobody reports to BIA, that should give you an idea of his credibility.

Duncan, does, in fact, report $2.1 million in revenue estimates for $2001. Keep in mind that Duncan did not get Miller Kaplans, and when there was no other data, I believe he and Mr. Anderton used a formula based on ratings and national comparable format power ratios.

A station I managed was under-estimated by more than 75% of our real billing, based on such a formula. In general the calculations helped get a good idea of the market, but the BIA figures based on MK or the figures each of us in a local market got directly from MK would be the closest to reality.

Obviously, I have access to MK as our stations report and receive reports. The BIA figures are accurate, and I believe KM has independently verified the figure MK reported (which is a cash billling, trade and bonus spot excluded, number.)
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom