List of largest radio broadcasters?

[gr8oldies]

Rox, how is it that you "know" programming would improve if a liquidated Citadel were purchased by a new owner or piecemeal one cluster at a time? You don't even know who the new owners would be let alone what they would do. Are you seriously suggesting each station in a cluster would be sold to a different owner? You'd split the revenue 5 different ways in a medium market, get rid of operating efficiencies (5 different office suites, receptionists, etc ) and expect that the purse strings would be opened for more DJs?

 

[icycool7227]

I guess I sparked a good discussion here. Got a little bit off track from my original post but that's fine. It's all radio related and it's very nice to see a lot of discussion about it.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Please read back what you wrote. You discussed what would happen were Citadel to liquidate.

But I didn't say that they were in Chapter 7, as you charged.

And Gr8oldies is right... there are certainly some significant cases of small market stations that can't keep operating where the lenders do not want to keept he station on the air. They go silent, and wait for a sale or a miracle.

A few small market stations have gone silent - with or without bankruptcy. That's a far cry from the scenario that Gr8oldies proposed under a Chapter 7 scenario- that all of the Citadel stations would go silent for months awaiting liquidation. That's just plain silly.

That's not a creditor group. That is a group of three related investment companies that bought a bunch of stock for very little money to see if they could make something from it. They are shareholders, not creditors.

Stockholders aren't creditors in a bankruptcy? That's news to the bankruptcy judge. They're not SECURED creditors, but they're certainly creditors.

Please quote me on this. You can't because I NEVER SAID IT. What I said was
"Once the industry took off, lots of people invested in radio. When it got expensive enough that individual players couldn't afford it, broadcasting companies were born so many players could share the cost, and share the benefits."

And you placed that event post-1930, when, in fact, it was post 1925.

Show me where I said anything about post-1930. You can't, because I never said it. You repeating a falsehood doesn't make it so.

Fred was out of radio pre-Radio Act. And stations were licensed pre-1927, but with a model that proved to be quickly antiquated of selecting only a few wavelengths and putting lots of stations on each... in individual markets, there was considerable share-timing, and the use of few wavelengths precluded any station affording relaible rural coverage. What the Act did was spread the existing stations that were legitimate over more frequencies, eliminating about 90% of the share-timing and allowing stations on some channels to increase power to be regional voices.

There were plenty of small businesses running stations before the Radio Act of 1927. Licenses were required by he Radio Act of 1912. Until 1928, they were easy to obtain, and couldn't be denied. Originally, there were only two frequencies for the AM band. Before the 1927 Act, The Commerce Department regulated radio, and expanded the number of AM frequencies. They didn't change the simple licensing process, and licenses couldn't be denied until the Radio Act of 1927. The value of licenses didn't increase until the supply was limited by the Radio Act of 1927, and the application process became much more difficult, all but ruling out investors who didn't have deep pockets.

I looked at 1926, pre-Act, 1928, post act, and 1935, post WLW's 500 kw experimental operation to show that even by the mid-30's, 80-some percent of stations were 500 watts or less, and there were less than 30 50 kw staitons... in contradiction to your assertion that the 100 watters were mostly hobbyist stations.

Except I never made that assertion. You're making stuff up again. What I WROTE was:

There were plenty of 50 watt stations run by hobbyists and schools, but there were also a significant number of 5 Kw, and even 50 Kw stations.

And, going back to your point about stations creating more demand for Westinghouse power grid products, all I can say is that a newly lit residential street would put more demands on the grid than a new local radio station in the power range that most stations had in those days.

So? YOU said

So that johnny come lately of Westinghouse, which had a portfolio of stations by the mid twenties, was not a "broadcasting company?"

.
My response was that Westinghouse was not PRIMARILY a broadcasting company. Broadcasting was a small part of Westinghouse. You reinforce my point that Westinghouse made a LOT more money from other divisions. Westinghouse was involved in broadcasting because it was a way to advertise their other products, and because they had the expertise in high-power (i.e. "greater than 110V, 15Amp household circuits) installations and equipment. They even got into the transmitter business because they had expertise in the field of ELECTRICITY.

But, enough of the nitpicking. David will NEVER admit a being wrong, even when it's clearly demonstrable. Go on, David. You've wasted more than enough of my time, and anyone who's still reading this thread at least benefitted from a discussion of the evolution of radio regulation.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Rox, how is it that you "know" programming would improve if a liquidated Citadel were purchased by a new owner or piecemeal one cluster at a time? You don't even know who the new owners would be let alone what they would do. Are you seriously suggesting each station in a cluster would be sold to a different owner? You'd split the revenue 5 different ways in a medium market, get rid of operating efficiencies (5 different office suites, receptionists, etc ) and expect that the purse strings would be opened for more DJs?

I never said that I "knew" any such thing. I did say that greater competition would improve programming. The past history of radio indicates that programming was better when there were more owners competing in the marketplace. How the stations are liquidated in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy - should that ever take place - would be based on the decisions of the Bankruptcy judge, and the offers recieved. Some buyers might want an entire cluster. Some might not. Some might sell off "losers", increasing the number of owners in a market. Some stations might go silent. There's a full range of possibilities, but there's a possibility that some people who got out of broadcasting because they recieved a boatload of money from a consolidator might consider getting back into the business if they could buy back in at the "right" price.

The "economies" of consolidation have largely been shown to be a myth. Radio's mostly a local business. I think that it operates better with local owners. Some of you disagree with that. So be it.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Stockholders aren't creditors in a bankruptcy? That's news to the bankruptcy judge. They're not SECURED creditors, but they're certainly creditors.

Ahhh! It is obvious you have never lived through a bankruptcy, first hand.

I am NOT an attorney, and I presume you also do not have such training.

Nobody ranks lower in the pecking order than stockholders!!!!

In a "reorganization" bankruptcy, the stockholders can come out the other end of the process with a company, but they may have to take in new stockholders, either for new cash or in response to debt forgiveness by a creditor. In a "liquidation" bankruptcy stockholders usually walk away with NOTHING.

 

[TheBigA]

The past history of radio indicates that programming was better when there were more owners competing in the marketplace.

That has never been my experience. The minute a new competitor popped up in my format, the playlists got tighter, and the experimentation went away. It's easier to take chances in a format when it won't burn you. So if wider playlists or taking chances is your idea of better programming, then you won't get it with more competition in the marketplace.

As far as the number of owners leading to better programming, past history actually indicates otherwise. There are more stations per market than viable formats. So typically what happens in markets where you have more owners is you get more duplication of format, and therefore more stations playing the same songs. Although Wilks is running two competing country stations in Kansas City, so who knows? In pre-consolidation days, you had a handful of owners programming a handful of popular stations, and then a large number of dogs that never got good ratings, and did so with awful programming. There is no connection between number of owners and quality. And I don't think past history, regardless of examples, means anything now.

Radio's mostly a local business. I think that it operates better with local owners. Some of you disagree with that. So be it.

I worked for local and non-local ownership, and it didn't matter. The station is run by management. As long as they're local, it doesn't matter where the owner is. Most managers prefer the owner to be far away, so they have more lattitude in operations. No one likes an owner who interferes with management. In pre-consolidation days, most big owners weren't broadcasters (except the networks), so they stayed out of local operations.

 

[amfmxm]

I guess I sparked a good discussion here. Got a little bit off track from my original post but that's fine. It's all radio related and it's very nice to see a lot of discussion about it.

Yeah, that happens...

To get back to your original question, there are dozens of companies not on David's list that are larger than, say, Emmis with 23 stations. Off the top of my head... NRG, Forever, Max, New Northwest, NextMedia, First Media, Morris. Was Pamal on that list? Lots of smaller-market outfits you never hear of--presumably privately owned.

As far as the larger discussion goes, yeah, there have always been companies involved in radio whose major focus was somewhere else. There have also always been owners who entered the business on a lark--or by accident. Neither instance, however, automatically spelled doom. Remember that Clear Channel started (as Mays Broadcasting) when Lowry--in his role as a financier--had a San Antonio FM fall in his lap when his entrepreneur client went bust.

Radio has always been a mix of art and science. Part of the science is having a solid understanding of math and markets, whether the market is New York City or Elizabeth City (NC). Part of the art is having the discipline to continually study the market as it changes around you... and being able to respond appropriately.

Most people can't do one or more of these things. Thank God! (Or everybody'd be doing it).

 

[davideduardo]

But I didn't say that they were in Chapter 7, as you charged.

Nobody had mentioned Ch. 7 until you brought it up. If you whip the mule, expect it to kick.

Stockholders aren't creditors in a bankruptcy? That's news to the bankruptcy judge. They're not SECURED creditors, but they're certainly creditors.

If you look at any common stock certificate, other than an arbitrary "par value" there is no promise of return on investment. Unlike creditors, who gave up money in a loan or goods and services in a transaction in expectation of payback with interest or payment in full, sharehlders understand that they have slivers of ownership and get nothing unless the company is profitable and pays dividends or the shares increase in value and are marketable. Otherwise, the entirity of the investment is at risk.

There is no debt with the shareholders. But in a liquidation, there is return of capital if anything is left after paying creditors.

Show me where I said anything about post-1930. You can't, because I never said it. You repeating a falsehood doesn't make it so.

I spend enough time as a radio historian as it is; I do not need to document you inaccuracies. Go back and read your posts. You did make that statement, and I did paraphrase it.

There were plenty of small businesses running stations before the Radio Act of 1927.

Most stations today are small buisinesses. So?

You said that many were run by hobbyists and the like in 1927. A check of the lists, easily available, shows that by 1927 there were scant few hobbyists runing stations and what we did have is a huge number of stations that are recognizable today.

Licenses were required by he Radio Act of 1912. Until 1928, they were easy to obtain, and couldn't be denied. Originally, there were only two frequencies for the AM band. Before the 1927 Act, The Commerce Department regulated radio, and expanded the number of AM frequencies. They didn't change the simple licensing process, and licenses couldn't be denied until the Radio Act of 1927. The value of licenses didn't increase until the supply was limited by the Radio Act of 1927, and the application process became much more difficult, all but ruling out investors who didn't have deep pockets.

I think I already stated the part about limited wavelengths (frequencies were not licenced, wavelengths were) causing many sharetimers and shared channels across the country. You are simply obfuscating.

I looked at 1926, pre-Act, 1928, post act, and 1935, post WLW's 500 kw experimental operation to show that even by the mid-30's, 80-some percent of stations were 500 watts or less, and there were less than 30 50 kw staitons... in contradiction to your assertion that the 100 watters were mostly hobbyist stations

Except I never made that assertion. You're making stuff up again. What I WROTE was:

"There were plenty of 50 watt stations run by hobbyists and schools, but there were also a significant number of 5 Kw, and even 50 Kw stations.

You made the statement int he context of explaining away the low power stations as hobbyist operations. By 1927, there were hardly a handful of hobbyist stations left.

My response was that Westinghouse was not PRIMARILY a broadcasting company. Broadcasting was a small part of Westinghouse. You reinforce my point that Westinghouse made a LOT more money from other divisions. Westinghouse was involved in broadcasting because it was a way to advertise their other products, and because they had the expertise in high-power (i.e. "greater than 110V, 15Amp household circuits) installations and equipment. They even got into the transmitter business because they had expertise in the field of ELECTRICITY.

You said thast Westinghous went into radio expecting to make money "on both ends" of the equation, and since it was an electrical company, they woud benefit from the large loads put on the power grid and be able to sell into that market. The fact is that early radio made no significant demands on the power grid, and your argument is specious.

But, enough of the nitpicking. David will NEVER admit a being wrong, even when it's clearly demonstrable. Go on, David. You've wasted more than enough of my time, and anyone who's still reading this thread at least benefitted from a discussion of the evolution of radio regulation.

You called shareholders creditors when they are really partial owners. You said Westinghouse got into radio partly to sell power grid equipment. You said the low power stations were principally run by hobbyists, which is patently untrue. You were abviously unaware that the act of 1927 was to redistribute stations and create and orderly AM band in that only a few wavelengths had been used prior to 1927.... and you vastly exaggerated the number of "higher power" stations in the 30's when, in fact, over 80% of stations in 1935 were 500 watts or less, and nearly alf of them were 100 watts or less.
[/quote]

 

[SirRoxalot]

Show me where I said anything about post-1930. You can't, because I never said it. You repeating a falsehood doesn't make it so.

I spend enough time as a radio historian as it is; I do not need to document you inaccuracies. Go back and read your posts. You did make that statement, and I did paraphrase it.

You can't quote it, because I NEVER SAID IT. If I did, simply show us all the quote. If you could, you would have. Sorry, but I have to call BS on this one.

You called shareholders creditors when they are really partial owners.

If you take somebody's money, you owe them something. That makes them a creditor. If there's money left after the secured creditors get paid, shareholders will get something. That makes them a creditor. You're using semantics to try to deny it, but the shareholders have a stake in the bankruptcy.

You said Westinghouse got into radio partly to sell power grid equipment.

Westinghouse was in the business of electrical distribution. Any electric appliance - and especially equipment requiring more than plug-in-the-wall power was of interest to them. the more electrical appliance, the more robust the grid, the better it was for Westinghouse.

You said the low power stations were principally run by hobbyists, which is patently untrue.

No, I didn't. If I did, quote it. Your MISUNDERSTANDING or TWISTING of what I ACTUALLY said doesn't count.

You were abviously unaware that the act of 1927 was to redistribute stations and create and orderly AM band in that only a few wavelengths had been used prior to 1927

Not true. Originally, there were only two AM frequencies available for stations under the Radio Act of 1912. That number was expanded before 1927. In 1926, there were stations on frequencies ranging from 550 to 1480. but don't take my word for it:

http://jeff560.tripod.com/1926am.html

.... and you vastly exaggerated the number of "higher power" stations in the 30's when, in fact, over 80% of stations in 1935 were 500 watts or less, and nearly alf of them were 100 watts or less.

I only "vastly exagerrated" in YOUR mind. I said "significant number". In 1926, there were 14 stations with output powers over 1000 watts and 3 dozen more with 1000 watts. Compared to the 10, 15, and 50 watters, that's "high power". I call that a significant number. You may not. C'est la vie.

 

[davideduardo]

Not true. Originally, there were only two AM frequencies available for stations under the Radio Act of 1912. That number was expanded before 1927. In 1926, there were stations on frequencies ranging from 550 to 1480. but don't take my word for it:

Or how about this list... from 1935

http://www.davidgleason.com/Archive Stevensons Burgess/Stevensons February 1925.pdf

Note that there were 47 wavelengths, and many stations shared time. This allocation scheme was based on the work of the Third National Radio Conference.

Another expansion ocured prior to the 1927 Act, and created this scenario.... including frequencies that were not even 10 kc intervals... http://www.davidgleason.com/Archive Stevensons Burgess/Stevensons 1926 Early Winter All.pdf

Note, for example, 278 meters where Grand Forks, Cedar Rapids, Vermillion and Council Bluffs all shared the channel... apparently with the two stations in Minneapolis, too. And notice that even by 1927, there were few "hobbyist stations" yet plenty of 100 watt and 50 watt stations.

By 1928, we had an evolution, not a revolution. Still very few stations with much power, and still lots of shared time stations. Only 32 stations were 5 kw or more. http://www.davidgleason.com/Archive Stevensons Burgess/Stevensons Vol 3 No 2 Winter 1926.pdf... and less than 100 watters were so numerous that they were not listed.

Going further back, to 1925, http://www.davidgleason.com/Archive Whites/Whites No 6 1925.pdf we see that even many of the 10 watt stations then have endured... such as WRAW in Redding, PA or WSAN in Allentown or thaat mighty 5 watt hobbyist station, WWL at Loyola Univeersity of the South, New Orleans.

Ionly "vastly exagerrated" in YOUR mind. I said "significant number". In 1926, there were 14 stations with output powers over 1000 watts and 3 dozen more with 1000 watts. Compared to the 10, 15, and 50 watters, that's "high power". I call that significant number. You may not. C'est la vie.

In 1926 there were 79 stations with 1 kw or more. That's a little more than 10% of the exizting stations, although a true percentage would have to consolidate share-timers. Since many of the remainder were 250 and 500 watters, I just don't see your high power argument... 1kw only covers double what 250 watts does, not four times the amount.

High power would be 10 kw or more... there were two of those. And 17 with 5 kw. That's an insignificant number. http://www.davidgleason.com/Archive Whites/Whites No 10 Fall 1926.pdf

 

[davideduardo]

You called shareholders creditors when they are really partial owners.

If you take somebody's money, you owe them something. That makes them a creditor. If there's money left after the secured creditors get paid, shareholders will get something. That makes them a creditor. You're using semantics to try to deny it, but the shareholders have a stake in the bankruptcy.

What is owed to stockholders of common shares is diligent administration of the funds invested. Shareholder equity is the difference between debts, short and long term, and the value of the company. This does not change in liqidation. If a company must liquidate, it paus its creditors as well as it can per the orders of the court, and if anything is left, that is residual shareholder equity which is paid out. But there is nothing owed to a common shareholder save the hope that the investment will produced appreciation and dividends.

 

[bossbill]

To simplify for the business-impaired. Say you have $1,000. You open a lemonade stand. You buy supplies. You spend all $1,000 and you don't have enough left to pay the cup distributor and the sugar and water people (creditors). Another lemonade stand operator offers to take over your stand, by paying off your creditors. Where did your $1,000 go and how do you get it back? You don't. Why? Because you took a business risk with your money.

A shareholder is an "owner". Whether there is one "owner", or thousands, this is risk money. Secured creditorss come first, followed by unsecured creditors. The "owners" must wait in line. That's why it's risk money.

You didn't give somebody money that they "owe" you. You bought in as an owner. You own a piece of the company. And if the company ends up owing more money than assets, you own a piece of... nothing.

 

[TVradioguru]

Or to make it even simpler and timely..

I owned shares of GM, now I have no shares of GM. Lost my investment completely. Do I expect to ever get anything back as would a creditor? Nope! That was investment money which is now gone. When you buy shares in a company, you should know the risk.

Now if I loaned GM money with a contract for them to pay me back with interest, then I would be a creditor and (hopefully), considered for repayment if the judge decided I was worthy and the business assets were being sold or liquidated, only then there is a potential I may get pennies on the dollar.

Shareholders are not creditors.