KTAR buried!

[KMGX]

In many unsalable dayparts, informercials are the staple of talkers even in larger markets... or gardening shows or computer shows. They are all, 100%, sales driven.

I listen to a lot of radio in a lot of large markets (including Phoenix as I do live here), and I don't hear a 75 year-old talk show host discussing whether it's raining where I am, if my pipes burst last night and most importantly what the best hot spots are for travel in 2007, at least not on talk stations. Of course, when I say "talk stations" I am referring to those that aren't brokered talk like KFNX. Maybe there are McBland hosts in cities like (using your examples) Seattle, San Diego, etc, but I haven't heard them on the major talk stations.

Give me a break. Satellite is imploding,

Haha. I should have known that would be your position when I read this...

And I work with KHOT/KQMR. With all that,

Fact: Satellite radio (XM + Sirius) has now surpassed the 13.5 million subscriber mark, considering Sirius was at 600,000 in Q4 of 2004 and is now at 6.1 million, that ain't bad! As for losing revenue, I read an article on allaccess not more than two weeks ago talking about positive revenue streams for Sirius in Q4 of 2006. So, I understand that employees of terrestrial radio and terrestrial radio 'fanboys' can never admit that a product may have superiority over them and may pose a risk, but let's face it, terrestrial radio is the Titanic and the berg has been struck. The over expanded giants like ClearChannel are forced to 1) reinvent themselves, 2) sell stations, 3) make significant budget cuts--looks like more voicetracking folks! .. all of this in order to survive. Wake up...

One chow does not define a market.

True, but it can embarrass a market.

Obviously, if the show is still on, it does somethening management likes.

Management must like horrid ratings and programming with absolutely no spine. Take a look at the book and you'll see for yourself. I recall a time a year or two after moving to Phoenix (in 1982) when my grandmother would listen to Pat McBland and he had a vacuum cleaner repair man on his show discussing some of the things that can cause a vacuum to have a longer life and be more efficient. Shockingly, he has changed little in 20+ years. Of course ONE SHOW doesn't make the market, the entire station, while not nearly that repulsive, is meager.

 

[Legend City]

YES!

I win

3:43 PM, Pat asked "Did it snow where you live?"

And "how is the weather where you are?"

I swear he reads this board, I swear he does!

 

[oncentral]

I swear you listen to every minute of his show, I swear you do!

[EDIT]


[EDIT-inflammatory]

 

[KCIR]

[YES!

I win

3:43 PM, Pat asked "Did it snow where you live?"

And "how is the weather where you are?"

I swear he reads this board, I swear he does!/quote]

Just before this he was on with Ed Phillips and said the weatherchannel meteorologists were boring Go figure!!

 

[oldiesfan6479]

3:43 PM, Pat asked "Did it snow where you live?"
I swear he reads this board, I swear he does!

Do you realize that if all of us here on the PHX board (formerly known
as the Tanim Board) were R.B. Tron diary keepers, and we truthfully
logged the stations we listened to, then "Boffo"--and the rest of KT'R--
would likely get "boffo" ratings?!

 

[DrAkbar]

Nurse Jeff and I volunteer to be the caboose on this thread (no cheap shot needed, Zumaphobe). This one's gone on too long, so we'll step in and allow cars to cross the tracks now.

That's it...topic's closed...nothing to see hear...just move on folks and everything will be okay. By the way...is Pat McBland Boring where you are? ??? ??? ???

 

[davideduardo]

Fact: Satellite radio (XM + Sirius) has now surpassed the 13.5 million subscriber mark, considering Sirius was at 600,000 in Q4 of 2004 and is now at 6.1 million, that ain't bad!

No, it is horrible. December sales of new units was over 40% below the 2005 Christmas season, making all the investment analysts suggest shorting or selling the stock... XM is about 70% below its 18 month high, and sirius is even worse, percentage wise. The number of subscribers needed to make this concept profitable is proving elusive, and newer and better technologies will pass satellite by in a few years... just as they will be a major challenge for radio.

As for losing revenue, I read an article on allaccess not more than two weeks ago talking about positive revenue streams for Sirius in Q4 of 2006.

That was on an EBITDA basis (excluding interest on the huge debt, depreciation of the satellites, taxes and other non-operating charges. With the Christmas disaster in sales, and the slow-down of the auto industry, these projections are not being met. Add to that the declarations that the FCC would not look kindly at a bankruptcy-saving merger and the RIAA lawsuit on digital rights, and the satellite industry is in major trouble.

So, I understand that employees of terrestrial radio and terrestrial radio 'fanboys' can never admit that a product may have superiority over them and may pose a risk, but let's face it, terrestrial radio is the Titanic and the berg has been struck.

The challenges to terrestrial are many, and it is going to be a hard next decade. But satellite is not the challenge... thinking satellite is a thrat is going to make many boradcasters take their eye off the real ball (or balls) and that, in itself, could be a dnager. 14 million satellite radios, most in cars, can not get a 0.6 share of national listening.

Look around. Satellite is not particularly cool or hip, and, in fact, themajor subscriber groups now are older folks, not trendsetters and early adopters.

The over expanded giants like ClearChannel are forced to 1) reinvent themselves, 2) sell stations, 3) make significant budget cuts--looks like more voicetracking folks! .. all of this in order to survive. Wake up...

Clear Channel is a cash cow, and can make debt service many times over, pay a dividentd to shareholders and have money left over. Clear is selling stations in markets experience has shown contribute practically no cash flow, but take significant administrative time and effort. All 488 stations on the block produce less than 10% of the revenue and 5% of the cash flow. All businesses today control costs. Phizer, who brought you Viagra, is cutting 10 thousand employees. GM is nearly bankrupt, and Ford may have to sell to private investors... even big companies like Cisco and Oracle have tightend their belts... so radio stations that cut the fat are nothing unusual.

As to KTAR, Bonneville is pretty good at talk... and the move to FM looks like it is improving sales demos a lot. But in that format, it takes many books to get a real read. Give it time. just becaue you do not like a show does not mean everyone else thinks the same way.

 

[justthenumbers]

Management must like horrid ratings and programming with absolutely no spine. Take a look at the book and you'll see for yourself. I recall a time a year or two after moving to Phoenix (in 1982) when my grandmother would listen to Pat McBland and he had a vacuum cleaner repair man on his show discussing some of the things that can cause a vacuum to have a longer life and be more efficient.

Reading the above made my night! I am in TEARS laughing so hard!!! Thanks for sharing!

 

[tfg46]

More than anything else, I'm amused that there's a single, solitary "[EDIT]" crawling across the bottom of oncentral's post above.

--Clifton Gray
Proud to have slept through the great snowstorm of '07

 

[KMGX]

Look around. Satellite is not particularly cool or hip, and, in fact, themajor subscriber groups now are older folks, not trendsetters and early adopters.

Sorry, but if we're talking about cool and hip, terrestrial radio is going to lose every time. You bring up older demos only listening to satellite, but that's just false. Let's do the math, shall we? According to Billboard monitor, radio listening in the "young" demo (18-24 year olds--you know the 'cool and hip' demo) is down 22% since 1999.

Since you're also so inclined to discuss revenue/finances and you use "Clear Channel is a cash cow" as an example, I believe you should know that revenues in terrestrial radio over the past 5 years are up an incredible 0.3%. Over expansion by Clear Channel and the fact that they run consistently in the red probably contributed to that figure.

Here's the source on that data, God forbid that we allow facts to get into this discussion: http://www.bostonglobe.com/advertiser/datacenter/datacenter.aspx?id=1404

Let's face it, the youth are moving away from terrestrial radio and going to Internet radio, mp3 players (iPods, et al), satellite radio, CDs, etc. Why wouldn't they? Terrestrial radio offers the same tired content, heavily regulated by the FCC, 18 minutes of spots an hour or more, ooh wait, I forgot about less is more, where we are told how they're "getting us back to the music faster" rather than just getting us back to the music. Of course with the over expansion of terrestrial radio also means the distribution of talent is much more scattered--kind of like expansion in baseball, with all of the teams there is watered down talent... same applies to the radio industry.

I was once like you, I laughed at other mediums and said "there's no way that satellite radio could ever work, the internet and ipods can't replace local content." Well, guess what, that's flawed thinking.

I'll ask you this, if satellite (and internet) radio isn't a threat, then why has the NAB (specifically Clear Channel, CBS Radio) been lobbying the FCC to inact the same restrictions that are on "broadcast" or "terrestrial" television and radio stations? Could it be that maybe uncensored radio poses a THREAT to the terrestrial radio community? Or as many have said "an unlevel playing field"?

You dismiss satellite radio as being merely 14 million people (which is what it is today), but doesn't that say something when 14 million people would rather pay a montly fee than listen to the sludge out there today? I bet that number doubles in the next five to eight years... if the trends continue than that seems likely.

Personally, I listen to all radio, satellite (Sirius), terrestrial and internet (as I have involvement in the latter two), but I think outside media sources show a great threat to the business. Not to mention the radio industry attempting to kill itself from within daily.

 

[jayaz]

Hey boffo

I sure wish you'd take a look at 25 - 54. And look at December extraps. You would look so silly with both feet in your mouth. The "EXPERIMENT" is on it's way to amazing success.

Jay

 

[KMGX]

Hey boffo

I sure wish you'd take a look at 25 - 54. And look at December extraps. You would look so silly with both feet in your mouth. The "EXPERIMENT" is on it's way to amazing success.

Jay

13th place is pretty amazing!

What do you think, give me a call...

 

[jayaz]

I love reading the criticisms of KTAR and Pat. The discussion of what a big time market this is.

1. Obviously you know so much about Pat because you listen.

2. Have you heard WGN, WOR, other big market stations that bring adult conversation not screaming, name callers to those for whom infomation is important?

Larry King, kiss up to everyone Larry King, has stayed on tv for years and years, Rush Limbaugh lost the tv battle years ago, he's gone from tv.

Pat stays on tv year after year and has the top guests in the country on his radio show. is there a corollary
that can be drawn?


"just you wait enry iggins just you wait"

I might have to explain that line to many of you.

By the way has Shawn apologized for defending the soldiers who murdered 24 unarmed civilians?
Of course not. Suck up the the far right. KTAR doesn't do that. Information my brilliant radio critics
information.

Jay

 

[davideduardo]

Sorry, but if we're talking about cool and hip, terrestrial radio is going to lose every time. You bring up older demos only listening to satellite, but that's just false. Let's do the math, shall we? According to Billboard monitor, radio listening in the "young" demo (18-24 year olds--you know the 'cool and hip' demo) is down 22% since 1999.

But the young demo is not going to satellite. Satellite is in such trouble that, even with merger possibilities, investors are frightened.

In 18-24, the issue is broadening choice of alternatives for entertainment. These range from more targeteed cable and TV offerings to gaming consoles (who do you think has the highest concentration of the 120,000,000 of these in the US?) to iPods to a heightened interest in sports, recreation and fitness. Radio cume in this demo has not fallen appreciably: in 1998, 96.9% of all 18-24's in LA (which has 5% of US population) cumed radio. In Fall, 2006, the number was 94.5%, a change of less than 2.5% in nearly 10 years! In 1998, the average 18-24 listenedd to 22:15 hours of radio, and now it is 20:30, hardly a big number when you consider the range of non-radio options available... 7.8% to be exact. So your data is wrong here. (Source: Arbitron Maximi$er total market cume share and TSL, Spring 1998 and Fall 2006)

I checked 5 other top-5 markets, and the average is within a couple of ticks of the LA example.

Since you're also so inclined to discuss revenue/finances and you use "Clear Channel is a cash cow" as an example, I believe you should know that revenues in terrestrial radio over the past 5 years are up an incredible 0.3%. Over expansion by Clear Channel and the fact that they run consistently in the red probably contributed to that figure.

Radio revenues in 2001 were $18.5 billion. In 2005 they were $21.455 billion, which to me is being up by 17%. So your data is wrong here. (Source: RAB)

Clear Channel has had a net operating profit (not EBITDA) that totals $7.2 billion since 1996, with only one year, 2001, reporting a loss in what was a horrible year for the entire nationa and economy. Clear has paid dividends since 2003... a distribution of profits to shareholders. The current yield of about 2.1% is about 10% higher than the average yield of the Dow Jones Average! If that is running in the red, you have your colors inverted... again, your data is horribly wrong. (Source... CCU 10-k filings with the SEC)

the source on that data, God forbid that we allow facts to get into this discussion: http://www.bostonglobe.com/advertiser/datacenter/datacenter.aspx?id=1404

The last place I would go for an understanding of radio is a competitor... a newspaper in this case. I have no idea where they got the data, but the "horses mouth" industry figures contradict your data totally. Of course, the newpaper did not make the error of saying Clear was not historically profitable.

Let's face it, the youth are moving away from terrestrial radio and going to Internet radio, mp3 players (iPods, et al), satellite radio, CDs, etc.

In many cases, you have to go back to 45's and 8-Tracks, too. There have always been ways to have a personal muskic player. Today's are just more portable... but having a cassette player in the 70's was just as cool. The other fact is that you are not taking into account usage based on cume... the number that indicates whether a person uses radio. Your conclusion is simplistic and, in some cases, irrelevant.

Why wouldn't they? Terrestrial radio offers the same tired content, heavily regulated by the FCC, 18 minutes of spots an hour or more, ooh wait, I forgot about less is more, where we are told how they're "getting us back to the music faster" rather than just getting us back to the music.

The major market FMs (top 50), per Media Monitor, ran about 10 to 11 minutes of spots an hour in 2005. The only content that is regulated is obscenity, and that only affects a tiny percentage of listeners who really want edgy or extreme content.

Of course with the over expansion of terrestrial radio also means the distribution of talent is much more scattered--kind of like expansion in baseball, with all of the teams there is watered down talent... same applies to the radio industry.

So, how is internet radio going to get _any_ talent if is so scarce? You just defeated your own argument. Like satellite, internet radio has not yet developed a profitable economic model unless it is streaming from terrestrial stations!

I'll ask you this, if satellite (and internet) radio isn't a threat, then why has the NAB (specifically Clear Channel, CBS Radio) been lobbying the FCC to inact the same restrictions that are on "broadcast" or "terrestrial" television and radio stations? Could it be that maybe uncensored radio poses a THREAT to the terrestrial radio community? Or as many have said "an unlevel playing field"?

Satellite was chartered with very specific guidelines, such as no local origination. Not following the terms of thier licences is no different than objecting to pirate stations: illegal competion.

[/quote]You dismiss satellite radio as being merely 14 million people (which is what it is today), but doesn't that say something when 14 million people would rather pay a montly fee than listen to the sludge out there today? I bet that number doubles in the next five to eight years... if the trends continue than that seems likely. [/quote]

Historically, there have been about 5% of Americans that do not listen in any given week. And there is anoother 7% to 10% that we would consider light users. Together, this is the most fertil ground for satellite and has proven so since 2001. The math that you are fond of citing shows that the current subscriber base represents about a 0.5 to 0.6 share of radio listening... hardly significant when compared, for example, to the time that 12-24 year olds spend with gaming consoles which, as should be obvious, can not be played while listening to the radio.

Personally, I listen to all radio, satellite (Sirius), terrestrial and internet (as I have involvement in the latter two), but I think outside media sources show a great threat to the business. Not to mention the radio industry attempting to kill itself from within daily.

That's your opinion. Unfortunately, the actual numbers do not today support your contention. Radio has enormous challenges, like a coming change in distribution methods (WiMax or similar). But focusing on satellite and systems that have not proven to be mass appeal is more dangerous than not focusing at all... looking at the ball that is not in play.

 

[KMGX]

1. Obviously you know so much about Pat because you listen.

As I have stated repeatedly, I listen to a lot of radio in this (and other markets) along with internet and satellite. Honestly, I don’t listen to Pat daily, I check in from time to time to see if the leopard has changed it’s spots… and sure enough, after 20+ years the answer is, no.

2. Have you heard WGN, WOR, other big market stations that bring adult conversation not screaming, name callers to those for whom infomation is important?

I have heard a bit of WGN in the past, mostly “survey radio” much like KTAR. I’ve heard plenty of big market stations that carry the big named syndicated shows and have local shows where the hosts have a pulse, not just say “what do you think give me a call”.

Larry King, kiss up to everyone Larry King, has stayed on tv for years and years, Rush Limbaugh lost the tv battle years ago, he's gone from tv.

Umm… that’s TELEVISION, we’re talking about RADIO here. Kiss-ass TV works (unfortunately) in some cases, kiss-ass radio, not so much, at least in this market so it would seem.

Pat stays on tv year after year and has the top guests in the country on his radio show. is there a corollary
that can be drawn?

Again, TV is different. Although I must say, he’s on AZ-TV, not exactly the top of the show-biz ladder. As for his radio show, it’s failed in the past, but because he’s well known in the valley, he works his way back on the air… honestly do you really think McBland relates to the average 25-40 year old person? I hear his discussions on education, sex and… just about anything else, and he’s exceptionally out of touch with the culture, he believes it’s 1967 still.

By the way has Shawn apologized for defending the soldiers who murdered 24 unarmed civilians?
Of course not. Suck up the the far right. KTAR doesn't do that. Information my brilliant radio critics
information.

Ahh, your political leanings shine through like a beacon showing us all your ignorance. Shawn Hannity is paid to express his opinion, imagine that… a talk show host with an opinion. KTAR has talk show hosts that rarely express opinions, rather they throw out a topic and have the audience regurgitate 20-30 second phone call responses to topics that are rarely biting or thought provoking. Shawn Hannity is on 400+ affiliates, Pat McBland is on a station that’s in 13th place in Phoenix, Arizona… advantage: Shawn.

But the young demo is not going to satellite. Satellite is in such trouble that, even with merger possibilities, investors are frightened.

In 18-24, the issue is broadening choice of alternatives for entertainment. These range from more targeteed cable and TV offerings to gaming consoles (who do you think has the highest concentration of the 120,000,000 of these in the US?) to iPods to a heightened interest in sports, recreation and fitness. Radio cume in this demo has not fallen appreciably: in 1998, 96.9% of all 18-24's in LA (which has 5% of US population) cumed radio. In Fall, 2006, the number was 94.5%, a change of less than 2.5% in nearly 10 years! In 1998, the average 18-24 listenedd to 22:15 hours of radio, and now it is 20:30, hardly a big number when you consider the range of non-radio options available... 7.8% to be exact. So your data is wrong here. (Source: Arbitron Maximi$er total market cume share and TSL, Spring 1998 and Fall 2006)

I suppose there’s an old adage that applies here. “There are lies, damn lies and statistics.” Anyone may be able to bolster their side of an argument depending upon which sets of statistics they quote, and then to dismiss the other side, you simply quote the statistics that suit you while discrediting the ones that you don’t agree with; A fairly common tactic in debate. You work in the terrestrial radio industry by (or have) and your objectivity is in question, some folks work in the industry and aren’t willing to place our head in the sand. Let’s be totally honest here, terrestrial radio isn’t going away, it’s not a dead medium, nor will it ever be. All of that being said, these mediums, satellite, internet, and others are all eating into the share of listeners, whether you chose to accept that premise or not. One day, that share will be greatly cut into.

Radio revenues in 2001 were $18.5 billion. In 2005 they were $21.455 billion, which to me is being up by 17%. So your data is wrong here. (Source: RAB)

CBS lost $9 billion in Q4 2005—that was after they split from Viacom, some of that was television, some was radio… radio revenues were down 11%… that was before the disaster that is FREE-FM. RAB reports that radio revenue was down for the year 2006 (ending in October). National revenue down 19%!

The only content that is regulated is obscenity, and that only affects a tiny percentage of listeners who really want edgy or extreme content.

Incorrect. Stations are now fined for “indecency”, with the FCC threatening another long list of fines to come down soon. Many stations have been fined for airing material that was “indecent” but not “obscene”. (If not fined, the stations received Notices of Apparent Liability with further investigations pending). Another Challenge for terrestrial radio is the ever-changing landscape of “indecency” and the arbitrary lines that the FCC draw in the sand… affecting the quality of broadcasts. Not to mention the off chance that the “fairness doctrine” actually becomes a reality… although I doubt that highly.

So, how is internet radio going to get _any_ talent if is so scarce? You just defeated your own argument. Like satellite, internet radio has not yet developed a profitable economic model unless it is streaming from terrestrial stations!

Talent is all over internet radio. Podcasting is an absolutely booming aspect of internet broadcasting… internet stations, along with live talent, re-air podcasts frequently.

Like satellite, internet radio has not yet developed a profitable economic model unless it is streaming from terrestrial stations!

Incorrect again. The internet stations I’ve been involved with for the past several years all turn a nice profit, this is in spite of the efforts by the NAB, RIAA and others to impose ridiculously high royalty charges against net broadcasters. Just paid a bill over $6000 to sound exchange… and yet, still turning a profit. Of course, those profits don’t compare to some terrestrial stations that bill $100,000 a month, but your initial statement is still false.

Satellite was chartered with very specific guidelines, such as no local origination. Not following the terms of thier licences is no different than objecting to pirate stations: illegal competion.

It has nothing to do with that and you know it! Clear Channel had someone address the FCC saying (and I’m paraphrasing here) that “satellite radio provides an unlevel playing field when they are afforded uncensored content while we have restrictions on what can be said…” So it’s not just some altruistic protection of the spectrum and whatnot… this has to do with terrestrial radio acknowledging that satellite is “unfair” competition for them.

 

[ajhenderson]

So, how is internet radio going to get _any_ talent if is so scarce? You just defeated your own argument. Like satellite, internet radio has not yet developed a profitable economic model unless it is streaming from terrestrial stations!

Talent is all over internet radio. Podcasting is an absolutely booming aspect of internet broadcasting… internet stations, along with live talent, re-air podcasts frequently.

What talent? Internet talk radio is a bunch of people with big egos because they're experts in Oceanic stamp collecting. They'll tell you they have thousands of listeners and people downloading their show... big deal. The vast majority of these shows are brokered time, except the hosts are so insignificant they can't even broker time on the smallest terrestrial station, so they're forced online. Like every fledgling medium (not that the internet is fledging, but internet radio is compared to mainstream medias) it will eventually be taken over by the conglomates and will be improved to meet decent content standards for the masses. THe niche outlets will remain, but will be just that... niche. No longer will something that reaches so few people PER OUTLET get so much hot press. (keep in mind that the people who would fail or have failed on radio, like the bloggers and print journalists, are some of those who have internet talk shows, and are pumping themselves up)

 

[davideduardo]

I suppose there’s an old adage that applies here. “There are lies, damn lies and statistics.” Anyone may be able to bolster their side of an argument depending upon which sets of statistics they quote, and then to dismiss the other side, you simply quote the statistics that suit you while discrediting the ones that you don’t agree with;

The issue here is that there is only one source for data on radio listening, Arbitron. You cited an article that said young adult (18-24) listening was down. And you cited the analysis on a webswite designed to help a large newspaper sell space.

First, Arbitron only gathers two pieces of data from each respondent: stations listened to (cume) and time they listened (TSL). From this, share, cume share, AQH persons, etc., are mathematically derived.

To know how many people use radio you have to look at cume. The figure you cited was based on TSL.

To know how long a person uses radio each week requires using TSL for the market. The article used TSL data to illustrate radio usage... a common error by folks who are close to clueless on radio audience measurement.

Unlike the newpaper, I have Arbitron data for many markets. I took one market as an example, and then verified with 5 more top 10 markets. I looked in 1998 and in 2006 for two pieces of data: the market total Cume share and the market total TSL. There is no more basic data.

Market cume share gives the percentage of the 12+ universe that listens to radio. As mentioned, the change from 1998 to 2006 was less than -2.5% in 18-24. Market TSL gives the weekly average time spent listening to radio during the week per person. The difference in 18-24 is -7.7%.

Since this data is shown automatically in Maximi$ser as "Market Total" in each table, there is no more basic data and, more than that, there is no other source for this data.

You work in the terrestrial radio industry by (or have)

I do and have for 48 years.

and your objectivity is in question,

Only by you. Most of us in radio in decision making capacities are paid to and want to present reality. The problem is that you are trying to condem radio based on false usage data, false data on revenue, and even false data on the profitability of the largest radio company. I challenge you with the real root, source data and your answer is to question credibility... and this is not about my credibility as I am only citing Arbitron (usage) RAB (revenue) and the SEC (Clear Channel earnings filings).

[/quote]
All of that being said, these mediums(sic), satellite, internet, and others are all eating into the share of listeners, whether you chose to accept that premise or not. One day, that share will be greatly cut into. [/quote]

First, the radio usage figures in 18-54 are only off about a percent over 10 years. So the blythly say that shares are eroding wtihout qualifying the amount is alarmist.

Second, when there is a truly viable alternate delivery method, raido will be the predominant content provider. The impediment for all will be the potential for restrictions on digital delivery systems reintroduced to Congress which would make all digital delivery subject to record industry restrictions and fees.

CBS lost $9 billion in Q4 2005—that was after they split from Viacom, some of that was television, some was radio… radio revenues were down 11%… that was before the disaster that is FREE-FM. RAB reports that radio revenue was down for the year 2006 (ending in October). National revenue down 19%!

CBS and Viacom split in December, 2005. The charges you speak of were accounting charges by the parent, called Viacom, to facilitate the spin off of the smaller CBS... to the extent that they restated earnings for 2004 and 2005 on an unconsolidated basis to facilitate analysis. CBS became the tracking stock, and a new Viacom stock was created. For this reason, the accounting charges caused by non-operational issues related to the spin-off were attributed to the CBS issue.

Again, your data is wrong.

Actually, by year end, radio was up. National is enormously volatile, and was affected mostly by the problems at the Big 3 automakers last year... and auto retail was off also because of the same crisis in Detroit.

Incorrect. Stations are now fined for “indecency”, with the FCC threatening another long list of fines to come down soon.

Most of us in the industry actually refer to one of the terms... when we mean both. Sorry you don't understand that the only regulated area is that of indecency/obscenity and that my point is that most people don't find the thypes of programming that lies in this area to be of any interest. It's a non-issue.

Incorrect again. The internet stations I’ve been involved with for the past several years all turn a nice profit, this is in spite of the efforts by the NAB, RIAA and others to impose ridiculously high royalty charges against net broadcasters. Just paid a bill over $6000 to sound exchange… and yet, still turning a profit. Of course, those profits don’t compare to some terrestrial stations that bill $100,000 a month, but your initial statement is still false.

A rated market station that bills $100 k a month is very small... 13 out of 17 FMs in Boise, which is not even in the top 100 markets, billed that much in 2005. You seem to have a really limited understanding of broadcasting, regulation and even the equity markets...

 

[KMGX]

it will eventually be taken over by the conglomates and will be improved to meet decent content standards for the masses. THe niche outlets will remain, but will be just that... niche. No longer will something that reaches so few people PER OUTLET get so much hot press. (keep in mind that the people who would fail or have failed on radio, like the bloggers and print journalists, are some of those who have internet talk shows, and are pumping themselves up)

"Decent content standards for the masses" ? Now I'll be the first to admit that there are certainly a share of internet stations run by 15 year olds with broadband connections, but I find the content of SOME internet stations to be superior to terrestrial stations. Content standards for internet radio are determined by the listeners--as it SHOULD be, not big government bodies who are easily influenced by corporate bucks--i.e. the FCC so easily influenced by both Republican and Democrat special interests. The internet is really the last bastion for free enterprise in the radio business unfortunately, as the FCC continues to step in and derail the ventures of terrestrial radio.

Sounds to me as if you might be a tad bitter or jealous simply because a different medium actually gets positive press once in a while.

Admitedly, internet radio can never compete in terms of dollars to dollars with terrestrial radio, but it is a profitable industry for some. Unfortunately, as is the case with any building empire, it has a lot of problems as well, not the least of which being those that misrepresent themselves, hack, utilize DoS attacks against others or various other underhanded means... but these are the pitfalls of the biz as well.

 

[newswithoutdogs]

AM, FM doesn't matter. As long as there are self-appointed all-knowing experts in such great numbers alotting a great deal of time to spout their opinions about what is wrong with what everybody else is doing ad nauseum, there will be an endless pool of callers to be lured into the talk format whatever the medium. You have all proven it here.
It is too bad that you haven't listened to WGN and other major market stations, because considering a huge proportion of the population here has COME from those other major markets, bringing those levels of quality expectations with them, and quite honestly end up shaking their heads at ALL the local programming, radio and TV. (Can Channel 12 get through one night without a doggie or kitty story? Who the bleep is their consultant, the ASPCA. They had a story this week bout a child caught between two vicious dogs in a fight, and they reported on the hospital report on the DOG! Sorry, that's for another topic.)
The issue with Juan Carlo or whatever is that KTAR has opted to dive deeply into RANT radio, which is caustic to listeners, when the listening public is clearly tired of it, and perhaps they should at least take a peak at the last election results as a way of taking the temperature of the public and which way its mood is shifting. Engage people. There are a lot of interesting stories they have to tell. Don't tell them "this guy is a traitor and I don't care what you think." Please, it's uninformed and sophmoric radio.

 

[KOHS]

I love reading the criticisms of KTAR and Pat. The discussion of what a big time market this is.

1. Obviously you know so much about Pat because you listen.

2. Have you heard WGN, WOR, other big market stations that bring adult conversation not screaming, name callers to those for whom infomation is important?

Larry King, kiss up to everyone Larry King, has stayed on tv for years and years, Rush Limbaugh lost the tv battle years ago, he's gone from tv.

Pat stays on tv year after year and has the top guests in the country on his radio show. is there a corollary
that can be drawn?


"just you wait enry iggins just you wait"

I might have to explain that line to many of you.

By the way has Shawn apologized for defending the soldiers who murdered 24 unarmed civilians?
Of course not. Suck up the the far right. KTAR doesn't do that. Information my brilliant radio critics
information.

Jay

1. There are times when I thoroughly enjoy listening to Pat, especially when he has someone like Russel Shaw on the radio discussing something other than the standard toaster talk. I think the reason KFYI is more interesting to many on this board (and probably those that listen to the radio, as evidenced by the Arbitron numbers) is the discussion of current events- local and national. The addition of Ankarlo is a move in the right direction. That said, it's time to cut the cake for Pat's retirement party. A fixture and a legend he may be, but it's time for him to move on and let someone younger take over.

2. I'm not sure you can compare Spike O'Dell's show with Limbaugh's or Hannity's; it's a different brand of talk radio altogether. Oh, did you happen to catch Hannity's interview with Cindy Sheehan? He was very respectful and calm during the entire exchange. The exchange usually becomes heated when initiated by a hostile caller trying to hijack the show. If I were hannity, I would shut em down, too. ask yourself this question: Who's the host?

I think Limbaugh would be more successful on TV today than he was originally--more well known now. It would be interesting to see who would carry the show and at what times. Maybe Fox would be a good fit? Who knows.

Pat is very well known and his show provides a safe forum for guests. Is that a bad thing? Not when it comes to booking top guests who want a safe forum. I have a lot of respect for pat and I'm sure those he interviews do as well. He is an extremely affable chap!

Oh, and please tell enry and Liza that I said hello. Afterall, any old friend of Pat's, is a friend of mine. ;D

By the way, ever hear the phrase, "innocent until proven guilty"?? If the soldiers are convicted in a court martial, I'm sure Sean will discuss his defense of the soldiers. At least he is consistent--he defended the Duke Lacrosse players. 8)

Jay, you're a heck of a guy and have been a great host over the years. Thanks for sharing your opinions.