• 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

REGENT'S FOUNDER DIDN'T WANT TO BUY THE CBS BUFFALO STATIONS

Regent Regrets

The Cincinnati Post said:
The article begins... "A little more than two years ago, Terry Jacobs stepped down as CEO of the radio company he founded, Regent Communications, because of what he then called "philosophical differences."

Truncated, the story continues,

"Over his objections, the company opted to continue growing as a public company and invested $125 million a year ago to buy five stations in Buffalo from CBS.

'Buying the Buffalo stations severely limited the company's ability to buy back its own stock, a tactic that would have allowed the company to move toward going private and given it more control over stock prices,' Jacobs said."

This story is quite telling and it would behoove readers and poster on this illustrious board to read it at least once, because it's relevant to what's going on in this business called broadcasting.

Business ain't as good as it should be. Here's a quote form the very self-serving and quite wealthy Mel Karmazin. He's talking about comparing the finances of Sirius to that of terrestrial radio groups.

Radio & Records said:
Karmazin said Sirius was the fifth fastest-growing radio company during the first half of 2007 with $431 million in revenue, with “pro forma” growth of 55.5%.

  • [size=10pt]Clear Channel topped winners with $1.7 billion in revenues, with pro forma growth at 2%
  • CBS had $861 million in revenues with a growth loss of 4.5%
  • XM had $541 million with 24.2% growth
  • Citadel, $465 million, minus 2.4%; Sirius
  • Entercom with $225 million and flat growth
  • Cox Radio, $219 million, 1.9% growth
  • Univision Radio, $204 million, 15.4% growth
  • Radio One, $163 million, -3% growth
  • Cumulus, $160 million, 0.3% growth
  • Emmis Radio, $122 million, with growth off 5.8%.

It's hard to feel sorry for Jacobs and guys like him at other companies. He, like many other radio execs, had hoped to buy back the company, much like what Clear Channel is attempting to do.

What a neat little ploy. Essentially, these companies get the public to buy stock based on certain growth projections and return. The shareholders "carry the weight." After a set number of years, the companies then attempt to transfer the value back to the top brass by buying back the stock.

If you've followed the Clear Channel process over the last few months, you know that a number of very large shareholders such as investment houses and mutual fund companies that own sizeable shares of stock, really made sure they'd get a premium price for the shares when the Mays family announced plans to buy back the stock and take the company private.

Getting back to the Regent issues, reading between the lines of the story in the CP, you can deduce how divergent the principals of the company were when Regent bought the CBS Buffalo cluster, now its largest market. It may be that Regent is learning that they cannot conduct business in Buffalo the way they do in Utica-Rome. This said, a recent quarterly report indicated that earnings at the Buffalo properties were quite good.

Now, word has it that Regent is going to sell off WECK. It's been suggested on this board that a local owner may buy the station or it could be purchased by the owner of Catholic Radio, WLOF-FM. Whoever purchases WECK, there's no question that the money will be used to pay down Regent's debt load from the WJYE, WYRK, WBLK, WBUF purchase.

Already, there are tales of discontent from the Rand Building. No big surprise there. The Buffalo market is shrinking ("shrinking.... shrinking...") and sadly, doing business here often involves downsizing and minimizing in order to stay alive.

My peeve is that it's rarely the executives who get downsized, but almost always the guys behind the microphones, the traffic department or the news department. Of course, Regent won't have to worry about downsizing a news department because there ISN'T any at its Buffalo cluster.

Too bad Mr. Jacobs saw his share price tumble from the $4+ range to the $2.60 range. If it's any consolation to him, it's not that severe a haircut and he can write off those losses. Radio it seems, is a like the housing industry, where sub-prime mortgages are wreaking havoc.

Just don't look for Regent to sell its Buffalo cluster any time soon. The buyers, especially the qualified buyers, aren't there... and them what's there aint necessarily jumping at the opportunity to buy into the Buffalo market, even with cheaper money now that the Fed has cut rates by half a basis point.

-9-
 
Revenue Growth vs. Profit Margin

What I would like to know is not what the revenue growth is, but what the profit margin is.

If 30% of a radio station's revenue is profit, then most investors should be happy if the growth keeps pace with inflation.

Of course, those aren't the promises that were made to investors when companies sold them stock. In fact, if the company is making enough profit to buy more radio stations, or to buy back big chunks of stock, isn't it the shareholders who are being shortchanged if they aren't getting a dividend? If companies are financing additional acquisitions by selling more stock - and diluting the value of existing shares - isn't the shareholder be shortchanged again?

It's all a big shell game. Too many shareholders and executives have no regard for the long-term health of the company. They just want to get in, pump up the stock price, then get out with a tidy profit. Unless the company pays dividends on profits that keep the shareholder interested in the long-term health of the entire enterprise, it's nothing more than buying and selling real estate. Those of use who work in the industry find our value to the company diminishing daily because too many companies have no interest in the long term health of the enterprise.
 
Can anyone help me with this question/theory?

Is it possible (based on what is being discussed in this thread) that the major corporations may sell off more of their stations and we might go "back to the future" with more stations being owned by local owners who only own that station or a very small group.

Thanks!
 
Back to the Future?

What's happening with the Clear Channel sell-off is that smaller groups are buying up small-market clusters. In some cases, existing owners in a market are taking the opportunity to consolidate their stranglehold on the market by buying up the CC cluster, keeping the winners, and spinning off the losers to even smaller groups or single owners.

This is not solving the problem to too much consolidation. In some cases, further cuts to CC's already stripped-down staffs have occurred because the new owners paid too much, or didn't get as much as expected for the spin-offs. Some owners have gotten some bargains. Check out the the Syracuse/Utica board to see how the Utica CC stations went to Galaxy of Syracuse for pocket change.
 
MediaBoy4Radio said:
Can anyone help me with this question/theory?
Is it possible (based on what is being discussed in this thread) that the major corporations may sell off more of their stations and we might go "back to the future" with more stations being owned by local owners who only own that station or a very small group.

I'm far from being an expert. I would say "YES" it is possible, but I think the barrier to entry for a "mom and pop" or small group is going to be price. These larger groups aren't going to give these stations away in most cases.
 
Mom & Pop Get the Leftovers

I see the stations with decent signals, or rimshot potential, going to groups. Mom & Pop are likely to get the daytimers and highly-directional AMs that the groups need to spin off to stay under ownership limits. Of course, they'll have to arm wrestle with the big religious broadcasters who are always looking to extend their reach.
 
It might be interesting to study the correlation between the success ratio of AM radio stations owned by independent operators (such as mom & pops) and the radio conglomerates. Seems to me, most mom & pop stations are run on a shoe string, some more effectively than others. WBTA is a better programmed radio station that WJJL and as such generates more revenue than WJJL. WBEN is a better sounding station that WBTA and, being in a larger market where there's more money, has more employees and generates more revenue. The question, disjointed as it may seem, is if mom & pops own more AM's, particularly the daytimers and directionals, won't there be a downward slide in the sound and service of the stations? Seems there's already a large gap between AM's that sound good (WBEN, WYSL) and AM's that sound like a catchall (WLVL, WXRL) for the Owner's/GM's/SM's poorly produced money-making schemes.
 
Apples & Oranges

Comparing WBEN to WLVL is comparing apples to oranges. One station services a mid-sized market (Buffalo), the other services a small town (Lockport). I don't necessarily agree with your evaluation of WBEN as "good", and WLVL as "catchall". Both service their markets pretty well.

The needs (and desires) of Lockport listeners are quite different from the needs (and desires) of Buffalo listeners. I'd submit that WBEN has cut staffing & increased reliance on syndicated programming to the point where it's a shadow of its former self from a quality standpoint. It wins be default because there's no other viable AM signal in the market that can compete directly with WBEN that isn't owned by Entercom.

WLVL has resisted going satellite-fed pap, and still provides much-needed LOCAL news, weather, talk, and other local programming directed at Lockport.

As you say, WBEN rakes in big bucks - and doesn't put nearly as great a percentage of its profits back into local news and talk programming. WLVL is in a much smaller market, and has less revenue to draw from, yet still directs substantial resources to serving their local audience. Can they afford salaries that will attract people from the same talent pool as Buffalo? No.

In this case, it's market size that determines the quality, not the owner.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom