WAAF sold to EMF....

[mnradiofan]

I'm also seeing that on my HD radio here in Somerville. No audio on it.

Doesn't make much sense to me. If it's not some sort of weird error, why would EMF want K-Love to be on WZLX HD3? Especially if they have to pay iHeart for use of the channel? Wouldn't seem worth it for a subchannel.

EMF may want a full-power (analog) FM transmitter right in Boston as well as 107.3 in metro-west, but WZLX is still doing pretty well for iHeart, a lot better than WAAF was doing for Entercom. Doesn't seem like iHeart would want to sell WZLX. Perhaps one of their lesser-performing Boston FM's?

Though it's not full-power, I could see them going for 97.7 WKAF, using the old WAAF/WKAF idea of covering west and north of Boston from Boylston, and Boston proper and south of Boston from Blue Hill.

Or, could EMF be wanting to use WZLX HD3 as an over-the-air link to feed their signal to another (analog) station elsewhere in the area?

K-Love has a national agreement with iHeartMedia in exchange for getting to use translators that K-Love no longer needs. Here in the Twin Cities, they get to use two translators that K-Love no longer needs in exchange for HD3 relays. Those HD3 relays are usually used to feed translators. They MIGHT be using an HD3 to feed WAAF temporarily until they can get the equipment in place to broadcast how they normally do, especially given the quick turnaround. Depends on the agreement they have with Entercom.

On another note, this is the third or fourth station I have listened to prior to going to K-Love, and I am noticing a pattern. In each case it seems like a legacy brand that has faded (WLUP, Mix in DC, etc). As a FAN of radio, it does seem like radio has gotten worse in the last 20 years. As a guy that ALSO understands business, and the competitive nature of audio entertainment we now have, I have to wonder what is ultimately leading to the downfall of commercial FM. Was it the consolidation and cost cutting that is now leading to a severe lack of talent to replace the popular hosts? Or was the cost cutting more of an effect of shrinking budgets due to the fact that listeners had already moved on? Perhaps this isn't the right forum or thread for this, but as someone who respects business, I am curious on the professional thoughts of people still IN the business. And what does radio due to stop the revenue bleed, as competition for advertiser dollars continues to rise?

I don't like the format of K-Love, but I must respect how they are able to run. Doesn't take many listeners donating to cover the day-to-day operations of keeping a signal on the air when you have no other presence.

 

[davideduardo]

As a FAN of radio, it does seem like radio has gotten worse in the last 20 years. As a guy that ALSO understands business, and the competitive nature of audio entertainment we now have, I have to wonder what is ultimately leading to the downfall of commercial FM. Was it the consolidation and cost cutting that is now leading to a severe lack of talent to replace the popular hosts? Or was the cost cutting more of an effect of shrinking budgets due to the fact that listeners had already moved on?

There are three main parts of what I call the "perfect storm" of radio:

First was the recession. That reduced billing considerably because one of the easiest expenses to cut in a downturn is advertising.

Second was the introduction in 2008-2009 of the People Meter. That caused the more accurately measured average quarter hour audience to decrease by about 30% or more in all the PPM markets. Advertisers who use ratings base the rates they pay on rating, not share. So there was a huge revenue hit.

Third was the introduction in the same period of the smartphone. With a multi-use device, radio usage began declining in the subsequent years.

In inflation-adjusted dollars, radio revenue has fallen over 60% since 2005.

 

[TheBigA]

And what does radio due to stop the revenue bleed, as competition for advertiser dollars continues to rise?

You mean what does radio do? My view is to find new revenue streams to replace declining on-air revenue. The only other choice is to continue to cut costs. Because you can't increase spot price, and you can't add more commercials per hour. Streaming the air signal is one thing, but the digital music royalties don't make it profitable. It's not a one-to-one replacement. So the radio companies are looking at a number of new revenue streams, from podcasting to concert promotion.

 

[Eli Polonsky]

On another note, this is the third or fourth station I have listened to prior to going to K-Love, and I am noticing a pattern. In each case it seems like a legacy brand that has faded (WLUP, Mix in DC, etc).

K-Love's last acquisition in the greater Boston area last year before now WAAF was not legacy at all. It was WUBG 1570 AM in Methuen, MA, about 30 miles north of Boston (with a low power night signal), with a recently added low power FM translator on 105.3 closer to Boston in Medford, MA but directional away from Boston. It had many incarnations as a small local north of Boston station for decades, most recently until last year running Westwood One's Oldies satellite channel after it lost its affiliation with a Portuguese network just before K-Love took it over.

 

[mnradiofan]

There are three main parts of what I call the "perfect storm" of radio:

First was the recession. That reduced billing considerably because one of the easiest expenses to cut in a downturn is advertising.

Second was the introduction in 2008-2009 of the People Meter. That caused the more accurately measured average quarter hour audience to decrease by about 30% or more in all the PPM markets. Advertisers who use ratings base the rates they pay on rating, not share. So there was a huge revenue hit.

Third was the introduction in the same period of the smartphone. With a multi-use device, radio usage began declining in the subsequent years.

In inflation-adjusted dollars, radio revenue has fallen over 60% since 2005.

Thanks for the insights. I had no idea revenue fell that far. Do you think that other forms of media have taken a lot of that revenue? I know marketing departments are looking for the highest return on investment, and my theory is that Facebook ads, Youtube ads, and even Podcast ads have a higher ROI because you can target more specific consumers.

 

[mnradiofan]

You mean what does radio do? My view is to find new revenue streams to replace declining on-air revenue. The only other choice is to continue to cut costs. Because you can't increase spot price, and you can't add more commercials per hour. Streaming the air signal is one thing, but the digital music royalties don't make it profitable. It's not a one-to-one replacement. So the radio companies are looking at a number of new revenue streams, from podcasting to concert promotion.

Yeah, sorry for the typo/misspelling, not sure where my head was at when I typed that.

Don't stations streaming online pay different royalty rates than "pure play" streamers? I know to be "streaming only" the royalty rates have gotten to be downright unsustainable. I also question the viability of "linear" programming for music when the big streaming services can serve up music not only more tailored to my taste, but also give me the ability to skip the "misses".

As someone who is also a fan of rock music, I recognize how it has splintered. I'm also a fan of dance music, and that format was never viable on FM for the same reason.

 

[mnradiofan]

K-Love's last acquisition in the greater Boston area last year before now WAAF was not legacy at all. It was WUBG 1570 AM in Methuen, MA, about 30 miles north of Boston (with a low power night signal), with a recently added low power FM translator on 105.3 closer to Boston in Medford, MA but directional away from Boston. It had many incarnations as a small local north of Boston station for decades, most recently until last year running Westwood One's Oldies satellite channel after it lost its affiliation with a Portuguese network just before K-Love took it over.

Yeah, I realize they don't always acquire legacy stations, but my point was that the ones that NOBODY seems interested in have definitely fallen from their glory days.

It can't be a good sign for radio that Entercom thinks selling the signal gives the highest return to investors. A format flip was inevitable (I know, expensive) but the fact that they don't want to even do that speaks volumes. And I know WAAF has a poor signal, but other stations are "full market" stations like the one in Chicago or DC, and nobody else was interested enough to invest the money. WAAF even just had someone who used to own stations in the studio, and even he said it is a tough business and doesn't make financial sense for smaller operators anymore.

 

[Delete My Account]

For an independent/small broadcaster, an increased streaming audience is a loss - there is no current way for streaming to be "profitable" for small broadcasters in music formats to my knowledge.

As to digital advertising, it has its own issues. Many of the Facebook ads I get for local events don't make it into my feed in a timely fashion to plan ahead for an event. There's a lot of transparency issues and online has its own tune out. I personally shop online for some things, but it's very rare anything advertised to me digitally even catches my notice. People are oversold to and at a certain point it's harder to make an impression. The best radio advertising connects on a very personal level.

Quite frankly, I think a lot of the digital spend is based on smoke and mirrors.

 

[mnradiofan]

Quite frankly, I think a lot of the digital spend is based on smoke and mirrors.

That may be true, but with modern systems, marketing groups are able to tell down to the person how effective each ad channel is. When you get a marketing email, the person sending the campaign can tell if you opened the email, how long you spent reading it, whether it resulted in you visiting a website, and whether that visit actually lead to a sale. Because of the data companies now have on us, if McDonalds were to advertise on Facebook, they know exactly how many of those people actually end up buying something with a pretty low margin of error, because that ad was likely delivered via your cell phone via one of 4 ad networks that can use your location data to track whether you actually VISITED a McDonalds, and depending on how you paid for the purchase, whether or not you actually MADE said purchase. And if you use Google for everything like many do, Google can (and does) aggregate purchase receipts sent to email in conjunction with location data sent from your phone so they can use that to sell ads. (Bought a car? Chances are you are in the market for new car insurance! Recently got a 4K TV from Best Buy? Better hit you up with ads for streaming services in 4K! etc)

 

[jlehmann]

EMF is only leasing 1570 WUBG/105.3. I wonder how long of a contract they have? Not sure they’d care to keep it just to run Air1.

I expect the 99.9 translator in Haverhill will switch from K Love (Via WMSJ in ME) to Air 1 via 107.3 HD2. 91.1 WKMY Winchendon will probably also switch to Air1.

 

[TheBigA]

Don't stations streaming online pay different royalty rates than "pure play" streamers?

They are considered "non-interactive," so that's the rate they pay SoundExchage. I believe they've also negotiated a streaming discount with songwriters, since they already pay 100% royalty for broadcast.

 

[mnradiofan]

They are considered "non-interactive," so that's the rate they pay SoundExchage. I believe they've also negotiated a streaming discount with songwriters, since they already pay 100% royalty for broadcast.

So what is the benefit of iHeartMedia placing an online stream on an HD2/3 station? I had always (incorrectly?) thought that the reason they did that was to pay a lower royalty rate. Was that ever the case?

The only rate table I am familiar with is for a streaming-only operator, as that's all I ever qualified for. The rates are so high now that it no longer makes sense to stream as a hobby (even if you sound good, as I did) and many smaller independent streamers have gone under.

They must have closed the "loophole" when Pandora bought that station in CO then?

 

[TheBigA]

So what is the benefit of iHeartMedia placing an online stream on an HD2/3 station?

It depends on the specific example. I'm aware of iHeart putting their Breeze stream on an HD2 to block other companies from putting that format on a full signal. But I don't know of any discount from SoundExchange for broadcasters.

They must have closed the "loophole" when Pandora bought that station in CO then?

That was a South Dakota radio station Pandora bought in order to get a discount on songwriting royalties. The songwriters made a big stink about it, so Pandora sold the station. Here's a link to the story from 2013:

https://money.cnn.com/2013/06/11/technology/pandora-buys-radio-station/index.html

 

[gr8oldies]

There is apparently a "broadcast discount" if a stream is a simulcast of an OTA station, as opposed to a pure play. That's why iHeart's streams are on an random station's HD channel somewhere in the country.

It depends on the specific example. I'm aware of iHeart putting their Breeze stream on an HD2 to block other companies from putting that format on a full signal. But I don't know of any discount from SoundExchange for broadcasters.



That was a South Dakota radio station Pandora bought in order to get a discount on songwriting royalties. The songwriters made a big stink about it, so Pandora sold the station. Here's a link to the story from 2013:

https://money.cnn.com/2013/06/11/technology/pandora-buys-radio-station/index.html

 

[Retro]

Though it's not full-power, I could see them going for 97.7 WKAF, using the old WAAF/WKAF idea of covering west and north of Boston from Boylston, and Boston proper and south of Boston from Blue Hill.

Now that would be very ironic if if that happens!

 

[TheBigA]

There is apparently a "broadcast discount" if a stream is a simulcast of an OTA station, as opposed to a pure play.

Yes I said that in post 211. The discount however is only with the songwriters, not SoundExchange. The reason was radio stations have already paid the full royalty for broadcast over the air. So they should get a discount if it's the exact same content online.

 

[inorm99]

Worcester is a separate market, but Nashua and Manchester since 1998 are considered part of the Boston market

 

[inorm99]

Nonsense. Corporate radio is the problem. The stations that decided to tell their audience to pound sand instead of giving them what they want, lost cume.
Don't blame it on the bands, and certainly don't say the format isnt viable
Unless you shock the stuffy people like the majority on this board, then your product sucks

 

[TheBigA]

The stations that decided to tell their audience to pound sand instead of giving them what they want, lost cume

You're saying "the audience" all agree on what they want? Because if that's the case, then it would be very easy to get great ratings.

 

[davideduardo]

Nonsense. Corporate radio is the problem. The stations that decided to tell their audience to pound sand instead of giving them what they want, lost cume.
Don't blame it on the bands, and certainly don't say the format isnt viable
Unless you shock the stuffy people like the majority on this board, then your product sucks

Actually, it is the larger radio groups that spend more per station on specialized research, like perceptual projects with real listeners, current song research if the station is current-based (with real listeners), music tests for the library if it plays gold, also with actual listeners. They also tend to buy the additional products that Nielsen has to get a better idea of listener behaviour.

These are also the groups that pay for format research to test variations of actual formats or entirely new ones. They also do format searches where they look at as many as 20 different music blends, mixes and types when they buy an under-performing station.