KFI in Top 10 billers

[L Mays]

I think John and Ken would agree with me on their news department since they always seem to slam them for never asking revelant questions of politicians when they are on their show to plug their story.

I've always heard John and Ken praise their news deparment and make it a point to criticize TV reporters.

 

[LKellerIII]

In the San Francisco Bay Area, Limbaugh runs on Citadel's KSFO (KGO's sister station), not on either of Clear Channels 2 talk stations - KNEW or KKGN. I assume they do this because KSFO gets higher ratings in general than either CC station.

Neither CC AM has what could even remotely be called a full market signal. KSFO is pretty close to being one, however.

No doubt you are correct, but I'll point out that in past decades, some top-rated stations have been on those 2 frequencies - including '"Color Radio" KEWB, Channel 91 in late 50s thru mid 60s, KNEW 910 from the mid 70s thru the 80s with the "California Country" format, and Beautiful Music from the 60s thru the 80s on KABL 960. The KABL standards format in the late 80s through mid 90s didn't do too badly, either.

Yes - ancient history I realize, but perhaps some indication that those 2 frequencies currently owned by Clear Channel could bring in better than the current pathetic ratings if the programming was compelling.

 

[davideduardo]

No doubt you are correct, but I'll point out that in past decades, some top-rated stations have been on those 2 frequencies - including '"Color Radio" KEWB, Channel 91 in late 50s thru mid 60s, KNEW 910 from the mid 70s thru the 80s with the "California Country" format, and Beautiful Music from the 60s thru the 80s on KABL 960. The KABL standards format in the late 80s through mid 90s didn't do too badly, either.

Yes - ancient history I realize, but perhaps some indication that those 2 frequencies currently owned by Clear Channel could bring in better than the current pathetic ratings if the programming was compelling.

The market is now from north of Santa Rosa to Campbell, while in the Color Radio days it was geographically much smaller. And, at the same time, man made noise has cut the effective coverage area of AM stations by half or more.

 

[calguy]

amisdead said

KFI is already doing very well. KHHT's operating expense does not put a dent into their 12 million
(approx.) in billing.

KHHT bills just a bit under $20 million.

Any station has certain expenses that are revenue based. Selling expense, depending on the station and market, can be up to 25% of gross revenue, so right there you start whittling down the profits. In LA, costs like transmitter site rent can be very high... so don't think that just because the station has a lower cost air staff, the station costs much less to run than KOST or KYSR.

And KFI is losing, slowly, ground in 25-54. At some point, like we see in other markets ever week (in the last 7 days, Kansas City and Portland saw AM talkers move to FM), KFI will have to make a move.

Everything you said is true David, but I don't believe that KYSR and KOST have very large operating budgets these days. KYSR dumped their 2 million dollar morning show years ago, first by letting Danny Bonaduce go and then Jaimie White. They also track quite a bit. Down the hall KOST cut their morning show budget by half when they let Kim Amidon go. They further cut the budget by dropping their "live" midday show and all this is after they terminated most of the weekend staff and automated overnights. CC stations without a doubt run leaner than most and nowhere near what they used to on salaries and other people related costs. The LA exceptions for CC have to be KFI and KIIS, two stations that still pay well and in the case of KFI, very well. Yes, they would need to make up the revenue lost by one of their FM's, but since KFI still bills pretty high, that shouldn't be too much of a problem, they'll just fire a few more people and have the jobs done by part timers who don't work more that 29 hours a week, a typical CC operating procedure. Slight hangup if they make KHHT the new KFI-FM, KFI is union and I don't believe Hot 92 is. I'm sure that AFTRA wouldn't mind picking up another union shop, they'd just have no one in that shop.

 

[davideduardo]

Everything you said is true David, but I don't believe that KYSR and KOST have very large operating budgets these days. KYSR dumped their 2 million dollar morning show years ago, first by letting Danny Bonaduce go and then Jaimie White. They also track quite a bit.

Air talent is only a portion of operating expense. Yes, in pre.PPM days there were many more big salaries in mornings, but the meter pretty much exposed many of those shows to be tune.outs and superfluous.

There are all kinds of other expenses that come with a station in LA, including allocated cluster expenses like rent, janitorial, insurance, etc. There is management, sales management, traffic, billing, accounting, engineering, maintenance, fees, permits and licenses, bad debts, legal, apportioned audit fees, home office allocation, main and auxiliary site maintenance, FCC fees, dues, subscriptions, web servers and streams, and even employee parking and insurance.,, all at LA and CA prices.

 

[justpassingthough]

David, in your opinion, what does this mean for attracting younger audiences to the FM band in general, long term? I just turned 30, but as I view it, if talkers and sports channels start flooding the FM dial, then FM appears as AM currently does- staid and a place my parents or grandparents would go for music, sports, news and information.

This is all perception and completely my opinion, but I have never received my news or talk programming from radio, and I think they hamstring the FM band if they start to move these services over from AM. Its like the nail in the coffin of FM. I increasingly use satellite, Pandora and my iPod as is, but if FM gets filled with what is currently on AM, then I will probably stop listening to terrestial radio altogether.

Are any programmers thinking this may be an issue in the long run?

 

[davideduardo]

David, in your opinion, what does this mean for attracting younger audiences to the FM band in general, long term? I just turned 30, but as I view it, if talkers and sports channels start flooding the FM dial, then FM appears as AM currently does- staid and a place my parents or grandparents would go for music, sports, news and information.

This is all perception and completely my opinion, but I have never received my news or talk programming from radio, and I think they hamstring the FM band if they start to move these services over from AM. Its like the nail in the coffin of FM. I increasingly use satellite, Pandora and my iPod as is, but if FM gets filled with what is currently on AM, then I will probably stop listening to terrestial radio altogether.

Are any programmers thinking this may be an issue in the long run?

I think what we have is a maturation of the audience issue. Those who used news/talk have traditionally been over 35. But in the last 10 to 15 years, the "new" 35-year olds have been part of the post-FM generation which is made up of people who simply did not listen to AM much, if at all, in their youth. While they may have come into the age group that enjoys news/talk, they don't like AM, did not grow up on the "sound" of AM processing and think it sounds old and horrible.

So I think that having spoken word alternatives on FM means that people over 35 will have things they like beyond music. That means they will continue to user radio more than if they did not have alternatives. That reduces dependence on alternatives. It's good for radio.

Anecdote time, sample size of one. When I am at my home in Prescott, AZ, the local talk AM is puny in power and sounds less than nice... it's so audio challenged I half expect them to say, "10-4 good buddy" instead of a legal ID. And that is part of why I renewed my satellite account.

I know that news, pure news, is often found on the web. But talk radio uses news as a feature, just like the hog report on KRVN... not the core of the station, but a compliment. It's really the entertainment of the dialogue and the discussion and the political hyperbole that is attractive to many.

In most markets, there is really only one dominant talker (not news, not sports, but talk) and often that one wins as much due to signal as content. But I don't think we will see more than a couple of spoken word stations on the band in any market... there is not enough audience. But having them gives diversity of choice to the 35-54 listener today.

 

[semoochie]

The big AM stations, that have a brand to protect, will find a way to move to FM. The rest will eventually wither and die. AM stations, in the sticks, may continue indefinitely. It's hard to say.

 

[AM FM listener]

David, in your opinion, what does this mean for attracting younger audiences to the FM band in general, long term? I just turned 30, but as I view it, if talkers and sports channels start flooding the FM dial, then FM appears as AM currently does- staid and a place my parents or grandparents would go for music, sports, news and information.

This is all perception and completely my opinion, but I have never received my news or talk programming from radio, and I think they hamstring the FM band if they start to move these services over from AM. Its like the nail in the coffin of FM. I increasingly use satellite, Pandora and my iPod as is, but if FM gets filled with what is currently on AM, then I will probably stop listening to terrestial radio altogether.

Are any programmers thinking this may be an issue in the long run?

I think what we have is a maturation of the audience issue. Those who used news/talk have traditionally been over 35. But in the last 10 to 15 years, the "new" 35-year olds have been part of the post-FM generation which is made up of people who simply did not listen to AM much, if at all, in their youth. While they may have come into the age group that enjoys news/talk, they don't like AM, did not grow up on the "sound" of AM processing and think it sounds old and horrible.

So I think that having spoken word alternatives on FM means that people over 35 will have things they like beyond music. That means they will continue to user radio more than if they did not have alternatives. That reduces dependence on alternatives. It's good for radio.

Anecdote time, sample size of one. When I am at my home in Prescott, AZ, the local talk AM is puny in power and sounds less than nice... it's so audio challenged I half expect them to say, "10-4 good buddy" instead of a legal ID. And that is part of why I renewed my satellite account.

I know that news, pure news, is often found on the web. But talk radio uses news as a feature, just like the hog report on KRVN... not the core of the station, but a compliment. It's really the entertainment of the dialogue and the discussion and the political hyperbole that is attractive to many.

In most markets, there is really only one dominant talker (not news, not sports, but talk) and often that one wins as much due to signal as content. But I don't think we will see more than a couple of spoken word stations on the band in any market... there is not enough audience. But having them gives diversity of choice to the 35-54 listener today.

I think the FCC should move the exclusive non-commercial space to the higher frequency portion of the AM band and allow owners of existing non-comm FM stations to sell them to commercial operators. This would be good for non-comm's (e.g., colleges) because they could monetize a lot of equity in those stations and put them to other uses. For example, how much could Santa Monica College sell 89.9 FM for? This would also free up more space on the FM band for both (commercial) talk and music radio to expand.

 

[semoochie]

The only problem I can see is if they expect any listeners, they won't be able to get any because there won't be any AM radios on which to receive them!