Streaming is trying to cut back on the number of shows it has it seems. I would not be surprised if shows are dramatically cut back over the course of the next year's. I am surprised how many canceled shows stay on some of the platforms (like Angie Tribeca on Max, for instance. ) There are some niche services which do not have many subscribers (I am probably one of ten that subscribes to Sundance Now, owned by AMC networks. ) It would seem the services all have only a few shows they build around, while the rest take up space..and money!
-
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
Media Companies Are Ready to Sell. Does Anyone Want to Buy?
- Thread starter davideduardo
- Start date
- Status
They're in a situation where the big hits have largely been "prestige" shows with insane budget (a season of "Succession" cost $90 million to produce). And so they gave most of their shows insane budgets---only to find out that doesn't guarantee a hit.
Absolutely expect them to reduce the number of original offerings and (apart from Netflix, which seems to believe three seasons is enough of any original series) run successful franchises for as long as they can. Max, despite the cost, was disappointed that "Succession" chose to end with this past season rather than go another year or two.
Or it hit a high point and faded. 8-Tracks, Cassettes. Or never got over the hump and died: Video Disks, AM Stereo, Quad.
And famous names: Crosley, Admiral, Zenith.... even RCA.
Depends. If a station qualifies for Must Carry, half their income or more comes from cable fees.
And my point is that streaming's nowhere near its high point yet. These guys are confusing a lack of profitability with a lack of popularity. This is about epic expenses intended to achieve scale quickly.
And in radio, those not inside the business don't get that a format change is not just buying some music. All the old revenue disappears instantly. New revenue can take 6 months to start building revenue if the format is working. The firs 12 months will likely lose money, maybe a lot of it.
One good book won't get many buys; the few you might get are at very cheap rates.
It takes 6 or more PPM books to show agencies and big local accounts that you are here to stay and have a big attractive audience.
Salem is unloading 3 FM’s - Salem Sells Greenville/Spartanburg Trio To Educational Media Foundation - RadioInsight
Continuing on the theme that everyone is ready to sell, but the only groups that want to buy are religious.
A day will come when the only things on traditional radio is religious and other non-commercial content.
Are there enough religious operators out there to do such a thing
Today? No. But if you get to that stage, there will be megachurches that will decide they should own radio stations.
Why pull things off the platform that they own? Why should Netflix pull their back catalog. The goal is to get people to keep watching not take away their choices.
If the shows aren't meeting a certain number of views, the residuals and licensing fees can make the show a money-loser for the platform:
Netflix spent billions on original content. They are not going to just throw it away.If the shows aren't meeting a certain number of views, the residuals and licensing fees can make the show a money-loser for the platform:
I'll let them know you said that.
It's my strong feeling that the FCC demonstrates what I refer to as "passive favoritism" toward religious broadcasters. There's nothing formal to put one's fingers on, but whenever the FCC ...or at least the FCC staff...can give a religious broadcaster a break where other broadcasters might not get such a break, they seem to go in that direction. The vehement and longlasting response to the Lansman-Milam petition on religious broadcasting decades ago seems to have spooked the staff into being afraid of religious broadcasters or, more precisely, afraid of the responses from ill-informed members of the public that could be generated by more stringent enforcement of rules and regulations. I was reminded of that in one of Lance's items this week regarding KRSN Los Alamos, NM and its translator, whose licenses had been turned in. Non-commercial KANW in Albuquerque petitioned to revive those licenses on an emergency basis and was denied. I strongly suspect that, if a religious broadcaster, particularly a non-commercial one, had made the same request, the outcome would have been different. I have only a suspicion and a hunch that the FCC staff is more afraid of religious broadcasters than they are of the Albuquerque Public Schools. I will admit that this was something of a "hail Mary" on the part of APS.
I guess let the megachurches and overbearing denominations who try to tell everyone how to live their lives waste the money they squeeze out of their followers - they'll end up just talking to themselves.
Last edited:
Okay, so you deserve a less smart-aleck answer.
No, they're not. But they can reduce the losses they incur by resting them from their streaming service, and not having to pay residuals and licensing fees. Max (formerly HBO Max) is doing this right now---putting the word out to other streaming services that their now-dormant content can be had, for a fee. Which would then make it profitable.
I'm not saying you're wrong about the observation, but I suspect a couple of factors play into appearing to favor religious broadcasters over commercial:
1. When modern religious broadcasters acquire a station(s), it a simple, straightforward cash deal. The paperwork required for review by the Commission is substantially less. Not to mention, considering an organization like EMF has been making lots of station purchases, their organizational and financial documents are already on record at the FCC. No need for additional passing-around for approval with the SEC, or other government branches.
2. Because EMF is a non-commercial entity, it's assumed they already operate within well-established rules, including the lack of ownership limits, so no review there either.
A good point actually. It's pretty well known that the number of younger radio listeners has been on the decline for years. Older demos are more likely to be radio listeners than streaming. Given older folks are more likely to be religious and listen to the radio, the two end up hand in hand. Want a look into the future, especially for AM? Listen to SW bands. I doubt FM will become all religious in our lifetime, but I bet at some point 50% of major market stations will feature some sect of Christianity, whether it's Evangelical or Catholic.
I’m ready to see the playlist when TBN completes their purchase of kroq 😂
What I got from that article is that the streaming model is already brokenIf the shows aren't meeting a certain number of views, the residuals and licensing fees can make the show a money-loser for the platform:
As I said yesterday---Netflix is profitable. Hulu is profitable. Max, Paramount+, Disney+, Apple+ and Peacock aren't, mainly because they spent huge sums of money to achieve the scale Netflix and Hulu have had 20 and 15 years respectively to build, in three or four.
- Status