Yes, but as the article said, with a 1.3 (beating KFWB), 710 was laying people off.
One single book. And that still ranked them way, way at the bottom and not eligible for nearly any agency buys.
There are too few of those for a successful station. In a market where a market leader can cume over 2,500,000, KABC last cumed less than 200,000. That is 200,000 total different people during a whole week of broadcasting... in a market of 14,000,000 persons. That is just not enough people to be attractive to advertisers. This is not about supporting a team or appealing to a small nucleus of alumni who live in the limited signal area of the station.
If the team wants a voice, it should just set up a streaming station. Full market coverage and the ability to charge fees.
Some seasons, that is debatable. Recently the Clippers have had success, but historically speaking, some of the best college teams could have beaten the Clippers!
I get your point, but to most consumers of media, college sports are different from major league sports.
It's such a scam when a syndicator believes that "exposure" is the same as "audience."
What is the potential for FM sports talk in LA? In New York, WFAN and WEPN combine for a 5-6 share; in Philadelphia, WIP and WPEN total around 6-7. And in Boston, WBZ-FM and WEEI often pull in an aggregate 9-10. I know, it's the northeast, a different place, a different audience with different habits and traditions. But would ESPN or the CBS/Audacy partnered "CBS Sports Radio" be be better served on what's currently a low rated, but big signaled FM? Down the coast. it does appear that the Padres-driven 97.3 KWFN is finally catching on, with a 4.9 (6+) in its most recent month.
Apart from hot streaks, L.A. is a crappy sports town. The Dodgers and Lakers are arguable exceptions, but if they’re having bad years, they find out how many are fair weather fans.
KROQ broadcast USFL games in the early 80s, but I don’t know what kind of ratings they got.
I never knew that KROQ aired sports programming
It is no such thing. Advertisers who buy these "unwired networks" know that they are getting minimal audience but they pay minimal prices and find that such media buys are very efficient for certain kinds of products and services. The advertisers and agencies involved have all the statistics, and they make reasoned buys.
No, there is definable delivery... just not huge numbers.
Yet each of those stations has measured audience and the efficiency, cost per point and other metrics can be analyzed.
They have had significant growth in 25-54 since adding the FM, moving to the 2-share range. They are not going to sacrifice one of the 50 highest billing stations in the US to be the 4th sports station.
I didn’t either until I found that out
Even during the supposed heyday of sports radio in the 90s, Los Angeles never had a big sports station. You could do an hour or two, as KABC did with its "Sportsfan" shows, and Jim Healy was a certified legend, but even on a (then) decent signal with a reputation for sports coverage, KMPC (710, not 1540), there's just never been a success story.
There used to be a study from Arbitron called RADAR, which studied these unwired networks. It was designed to allow buyers to optimize their buys for reach. e.g. if you bought 10 spots a week with Network X and Network Y, you could expect to reach Z% of adults 25-54 in Los Angeles in that week.
