KGO 810 Ratings ,take two

[alok]

Since no body spilled the beans on how KGO's ratings are now with their programming during news vs. during talk programming ,how about I ask this . . . we don't need to know reasons unless you want ,just your numbers.

If KGO went back to the way it was . . .using the people it had and airing news like it did would its ratings go up or down ,from where they are at now ?

I say they would go up to maybe that 5.x they were at.

How about if they went back to the way they were but with all new local talk show host , keeping Ronn & the people they have now on weekends.

I'd say they go to about a 4.x share.

Now supose they went all-news ,no talk at all.

I'd say they go down to a 1.x.

Now I know there are going to be the real experts out there that know ratings inside & out . . . I want to hear from you ,for the whiners . . . will take your comments too.
Go ahead break it down if you like ,for people that write left handed between 18-45 , people that ride their bike backwards 7-14,etc.

Al

 

[MC]

hard to say. people's listening habits change

 

[michael hagerty]

Since no body spilled the beans on how KGO's ratings are now with their programming during news vs. during talk programming ,how about I ask this . . . we don't need to know reasons unless you want ,just your numbers.

If KGO went back to the way it was . . .using the people it had and airing news like it did would its ratings go up or down ,from where they are at now ?

I say they would go up to maybe that 5.x they were at.

How about if they went back to the way they were but with all new local talk show host , keeping Ronn & the people they have now on weekends.

I'd say they go to about a 4.x share.

Now supose they went all-news ,no talk at all.

I'd say they go down to a 1.x.

Now I know there are going to be the real experts out there that know ratings inside & out . . . I want to hear from you ,for the whiners . . . will take your comments too.
Go ahead break it down if you like ,for people that write left handed between 18-45 , people that ride their bike backwards 7-14,etc.

Al

It would depend partly on how KGO promoted it. Once a change is made, people assume that's it and if they're not a fan of the changes, they move on. Even done right, you'd never get them all back. Anytime you blow off an audience, it's very difficult to recover.

 

[TheBigA]

If KGO went back to the way it was . . .using the people it had and airing news like it did would its ratings go up or down ,from where they are at now ?

Doesn't matter. They're not going back. The cost of running the station with the previous hosts was way beyond what the station was taking in, regardless of the ratings. Cumulus already has a top-rated AM with KNBR, so it doesn't need KGO to get a 4 share.

 

[leethalweapon]

As painful as it may be to some listeners, evolution has to happen. Sometimes most of the time, cost is involved. What some poeple see as cost cutting, others may see it as securing a future.

 

[chris319]

The cost of running the station with the previous hosts was way beyond what the station was taking in, regardless of the ratings.

And the source of this information is ... ?

You're saying KGO lost money during all those years with Mickey Luckoff at the helm. I find this very hard to believe. First, Mickey wouldn't have lasted in his job if that were the case. Second, common sense tells us that the talk hosts weren't commanding multi-million-dollar salaries.

We have it on good authority that weekend hosts were making $500 per day. Multiply by five and that's $2,500 per week or $130,000 per year. Even if we're extra generous and pay double that amount it's still $260,000 per year, not a king's ransom.

 

[TheBigA]

You're saying KGO lost money during all those years with Mickey Luckoff at the helm.

No. I'm saying that in his final year, he saw the writing was on the wall.

 

[HCochet]

The cost of running the station with the previous hosts was way beyond what the station was taking in, regardless of the ratings.

And the source of this information is ... ?

You're saying KGO lost money during all those years with Mickey Luckoff at the helm. I find this very hard to believe. First, Mickey wouldn't have lasted in his job if that were the case. Second, common sense tells us that the talk hosts weren't commanding multi-million-dollar salaries.

We have it on good authority that weekend hosts were making $500 per day. Multiply by five and that's $2,500 per week or $130,000 per year. Even if we're extra generous and pay double that amount it's still $260,000 per year, not a king's ransom.

I too question the op's facts, but you only mentioned the weekend person's pay and I think he/she was talking about all of it. Ray, Gene, Bill, Joannie, etc. It wasn't even the weekend people who lost their jobs.
I don't believe that the pay all the employees (janitor, security, secretary, call screeners, hosts, etc.) were getting exceeded the amount of advertising dollars coming in. Not ever. I don't think they had trouble selling air time. If the ratings meant they had to sell ads for less, and there was "writing on the wall", then for sure it was time to not renew contracts. But I do not believe the op's claim that I (in 2011?) the amount of labor costs exceeded the amount of advertising money coming in.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't believe that the pay all the employees (janitor, security, secretary, call screeners, hosts, etc.) were getting exceeded the amount of advertising dollars coming in. Not ever. I don't think they had trouble selling air time. If the ratings meant they had to sell ads for less, and there was "writing on the wall", then for sure it was time to not renew contracts. But I do not believe the op's claim that the amount of labor costs exceeded the amount of advertising money coming in.

Believe what you want to believe, but this station was staffed and paid based on several factors: At one time it was a top rated station, and at one time it was co-owned with a network TV facility. Salaries at TV networks are higher than those for local stations. Once Disney sold off the radio stations, the radio salaries were no longer part of the TV structure. They had to exist on their own. But the salaries were still at the level of a network O&O. At the same time, the ratings for KGO was starting to fall. Falling ratings meant falling revenues, and the audience demos were skyrocketing. Yet salaries were still the same, and the staffing was still at the level of a station co-owned with a TV facility rather than a free-standing radio station. They couldn't spread the expense anywhere else any more. Just take those very basic facts, combined with the overall collapse of the advertising market and value of radio stations, and it becomes obvious that something had to change at KGO.

 

[HCochet]

The cost of running the station with the previous hosts was way beyond what the station was taking in, regardless of the ratings.

And the source of this information is ... ?

You're saying KGO lost money during all those years with Mickey Luckoff at the helm. I find this very hard to believe. First, Mickey wouldn't have lasted in his job if that were the case. Second, common sense tells us that the talk hosts weren't commanding multi-million-dollar salaries.

We have it on good authority that weekend hosts were making $500 per day. Multiply by five and that's $2,500 per week or $130,000 per year. Even if we're extra generous and pay double that amount it's still $260,000 per year, not a king's ransom.

I too question the op's facts,...............

oops. I mean TheBigA (not the op).

 

[HCochet]

I don't believe that the pay all the employees (janitor, security, secretary, call screeners, hosts, etc.) were getting exceeded the amount of advertising dollars coming in. Not ever. I don't think they had trouble selling air time. If the ratings meant they had to sell ads for less, and there was "writing on the wall", then for sure it was time to not renew contracts. But I do not believe the op's claim that the amount of labor costs exceeded the amount of advertising money coming in.

Believe what you want to believe, but this station was staffed and paid based on several factors: At one time it was a top rated station, and at one time it was co-owned with a network TV facility. Salaries at TV networks are higher than those for local stations. Once Disney sold off the radio stations, the radio salaries were no longer part of the TV structure. They had to exist on their own. But the salaries were still at the level of a network O&O. At the same time, the ratings for KGO was starting to fall. Falling ratings meant falling revenues, and the audience demos were skyrocketing. Yet salaries were still the same, and the staffing was still at the level of a station co-owned with a TV facility rather than a free-standing radio station. They couldn't spread the expense anywhere else any more. Just take those very basic facts, combined with the overall collapse of the advertising market and value of radio stations, and it becomes obvious that something had to change at KGO.

OK, since you know the figures, you're not just speculating, would you please share them with us. You wrote "The cost of running the station with the previous hosts was way beyond what the station was taking in".
What is "way beyond"? Is it $10,000.00 per month? $100,000.00 per month? How much money was KGO Radio taking in and how much was it paying out in each month from June 2011 - November 2011?

 

[TheBigA]

You wrote "The cost of running the station with the previous hosts was way beyond what the station was taking in".

The company that owned KGO went bankrupt, right? What causes a company to go bankrupt?

The new owner recently said that the former ABC AM news/talkers were a drag on the profitability of the company. Excluding them, the company was making money.

You do the math.

 

[davideduardo]

OK, since you know the figures, you're not just speculating, would you please share them with us. You wrote "The cost of running the station with the previous hosts was way beyond what the station was taking in".
What is "way beyond"? Is it $10,000.00 per month? $100,000.00 per month? How much money was KGO Radio taking in and how much was it paying out in each month from June 2011 - November 2011?

In 2000, KGO billed $42 million. In 2011, it did $16 million.

Billing figures are "gross" and if you have any of the industry directory subscriptions, pretty simple to find out. Bottom line data is very, very insider information.

But...

Knock off $4 million from the top for selling expense, and you have $12 million to pay for an operation that was used to spending that and more in operating expenses.

I have no idea about the P&L as there are things like corporate expense, etc. that can't even be guessed at (all stations in a group pay a share, usually proportional, for corporate office expenses ranging from administration and auditing to legal and risk management). But were I to guess, they were losing $200 k a month in 2011.

 

[HCochet]

You wrote "The cost of running the station with the previous hosts was way beyond what the station was taking in".

The company that owned KGO went bankrupt, right? What causes a company to go bankrupt?



You do the math.

Well, since KGO radio is the only thing they did. Not one other single thing, (I'm being sarcastic if you can't tell) then I guess it was all Ray Taliaferro's fault.

 

[chris319]

In 2000, KGO billed $42 million.

Back in the pre-PPM era.

 

[davideduardo]

In 2000, KGO billed $42 million.

Back in the pre-PPM era.

Market billings have little to do with PPM.

The total radio revenues in San Francisco in 2000 were about $300 million, which is about the same as it is today, post recession.

On the other hand, KGO's revenues are off about 60% over the same period.