The REAL Ratings

[nwebster]

David Hinckely has published 2005 revenue figures for New York radio stations (from BIAfn's annual station revenue survey) in today's New York Daily News.

Following are how talk stations fared.

2. WINS: CBS Radio - News
60.8M, up from $60.6M (Arbitron #6).

3. WCBS-AM: CBS Radio - News
$57.2M, up from $55.7M (Arbitron #12).

4. WFAN: CBS Radio - Sports
$54M, up from $52.5M (Arbitron #14).

15. WABC: ABC Radio - Talk
$24.2M, up from $24M (Arbitron #10).

17. WOR: Buckley Broadcasting - Talk
$20.1M, up from $19.6M (Arbitron #19).

OTHERS:

WEPN: ABC Radio - Sports
$7.8M, unchanged. (Arbitron #25).

WLIB: Inner City - Talk
$5.0M, up from $4.0M. (Arbitron #23).

WLIB is operated 19 hours a day by Air America Radio under an LMA. Current terms of the LMA call for AAR to pay annual "rent" of $2.5M plus 49% of revenue in excess of $2.5M. That means AAR paid $3.725M for the LMA, leaving $1.275 for other costs.

CBS Radio has a gold mine in New York. The three CBS Radio stations also made the national revenue top 10: WINS at No. 3, WCBS-AM at No. 6, WFAN at No. 7. WFAN does much better in the revenue ranking than in the overall audience numbers because it gets young male listeners which advertisers will pay a premium to reach.

Mostly conservative talker WABC is under-performing in revenue relative to its audience. WOR and WLIB are disappointing both for audience and revenue.

Once again, news appears to be a better revenue-producer than talk, which raises the question why so few stations have adopted this format.

 

[tbetz]

> David Hinckely has published 2005 revenue figures for New
> York radio stations (from BIAfn's annual station revenue
> survey) in today's New York Daily News.
[...]
> WLIB: Inner City - Talk
> $5.0M, up from $4.0M. (Arbitron #23).
>
> WLIB is operated 19 hours a day by Air America Radio under
> an LMA. Current terms of the LMA call for AAR to pay annual
> "rent" of $2.5M plus 49% of revenue in excess of $2.5M.
> That means AAR paid $3.725M for the LMA, leaving $1.275 for
> other costs.

I don't see these details mentioned in Hinckley's story. Are you certain that the $5 million mentioned there isn't what AAR is paying Inner City Broadcasting, who owns WLIB? If so, how so?<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>

 

[nwebster]

>
> I don't see these details mentioned in Hinckley's story.
> Are you certain that the $5 million mentioned there isn't
> what AAR is paying Inner City Broadcasting, who owns WLIB?
> If so, how so?
>

No, the rent could be higher than the reported $2.5M base +49% of additional revenue. Given that other marginal operations cleared in excess of $5M, WLIB probably generated appreciably more in revenue under its old format than ICBC gets now in rent. AAR may well be getting off dirt cheap. And even if they are, there's also the question of whether AAR can afford the current rent.

Maybe part of the reason the LMA is in renegotiation is that when ICBC made the deal, they were expecting AAR to generate more local revenue than it has - and thereby more in rent for ICBC. If WLIB got revenue closer to WOR's, the rent would be inexcess of $12M (assuming reported terms of the LMA are anywhere in the ballpark).

Local sales appears to have been something of an after-thought. AAR seemed mostly concerned with having a network repeater in New York. WLIB did not even have a local sales manager until less than a year ago.

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

> Once again, news appears to be a better revenue-producer
> than talk, which raises the question why so few stations
> have adopted this format.

Because so few markets have enough news to fill up a full-time schedule. Also, the big all-news stations around the country have been so for years now: WINS (1965), KYW (1965), KFWB (1968); WCBS (A), WWJ, KCBS, and KNX have been all-news for a long-time too. All of those stations have been the go-to news station for generations of listeners, and also happen to be in markets with huge-mongous populations, and enough news to fill the time (they also tend to be monster kilowatt houses--except for KFWB). It's also interesting that the all-news format tends to be on CBS properties--either historically CBS stations (WCBS, KNX) or former Westinghouse properties (WINS, KYW, KFWB).

New York, Philadelphia, and LA have enough going on in the metro and in the immediate suburban areas to fill it up, while also adding national news.

To see how it works in a lower-ranked market: KQV in Pittsburgh gets a consistent 1.0, 12+. It's billing isn't anywhere near the top. It's been around since 1975 and serves its niche audience. But even in Pittsburgh, where the standard "22 minutes" slogan is also in effect, there's only so many people who want to hear all-news. It doesn't help that even with the cut-back in news staff at the Big K, the go-to news station in Pittsburgh is still KDKA.

 

[jh]

> >
> > I don't see these details mentioned in Hinckley's story.
> > Are you certain that the $5 million mentioned there isn't
> > what AAR is paying Inner City Broadcasting, who owns WLIB?
>
> > If so, how so?

Since Inner City owns the station, the $5 million should be Inner City's revenue from WLIB... rent from AAR and whatever they make from the overnight and weekend programming not LMAed to AAR.

Would the non-LMAed hours generate 2.5 million? If not, then AAR paid more than $2.5 million.

> >
>
> No, the rent could be higher than the reported $2.5M base
> +49% of additional revenue. Given that other marginal
> operations cleared in excess of $5M, WLIB probably generated
> appreciably more in revenue under its old format than ICBC
> gets now in rent.

Quite possibly, Spanish talk WADO generated $8.3 million with only slightly higher 12+ numbers than WLIB.



AAR may well be getting off dirt cheap.
> And even if they are, there's also the question of whether
> AAR can afford the current rent.
>
> Maybe part of the reason the LMA is in renegotiation is that
> when ICBC made the deal, they were expecting AAR to generate
> more local revenue than it has - and thereby more in rent
> for ICBC. If WLIB got revenue closer to WOR's, the rent
> would be inexcess of $12M (assuming reported terms of the
> LMA are anywhere in the ballpark).
>
> Local sales appears to have been something of an
> after-thought. AAR seemed mostly concerned with having a
> network repeater in New York. WLIB did not even have a
> local sales manager until less than a year ago.
>