• 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

Why WGN Radio lost the Cubs: ‘The economic terms just don’t make sense’

mvcg66b3r

mvcg66b3r

Calvin Coolidge was in the White House when Chicago Cubs baseball began airing on WGN AM 720. With the exception of just a few odd years, the National League franchise and the Tribune Broadcasting radio flagship have been synonymous since 1925.

But now one of the most enduring partnerships in sports broadcasting is coming to an end. The Cubs and WGN Radio are splitting up after this season, Jimmy deCastro, president and general manager of WGN, confirmed Tuesday night.

http://www.robertfeder.com/2014/06/03/why-wgn-radio-lost-the-cubs/
 
It was easy when the Trib also owned the Cubs. Not so easy now. But the strategy makes sense. WGN needs to find ways to use their assets together in ways that drive listeners and viewers to their properties. CBS is doing a great job combining radio, TV, and internet into a dynamic marketing package. WGN needs to find a way to do that. Otherwise, the radio will probably not remain in their portfolio.
 
...BTW, the first Cubs game broadcasts were on WMAQ, and they were heard on WCFL and WIND as well as WGN in the first decades, before exclusive deals were cut with the teams. The oldest Cubs game I have in my collection is a 1937 post-season exhibition game against the White Sox on 2 October 1937, called by Bob Elson over WCFL...
 
Ultimajock said:
...BTW, the first Cubs game broadcasts were on WMAQ, and they were heard on WCFL and WIND as well as WGN in the first decades, before exclusive deals were cut with the teams. The oldest Cubs game I have in my collection is a 1937 post-season exhibition game against the White Sox on 2 October 1937, called by Bob Elson over WCFL...
Click to expand...

Would that have been the White Sox broadcast since Bob Elson was the Sox announcer?
 
The reason WGN gave up the Cubs is because it wasn't making financial sense. But how can that be? Aren't live baseball games still a big draw? Don't some of the listeners who find your station thanks to baseball likely to stick around for your other programs they may not have otherwise found?

After all, Clear Channel just paid a lot for the Mets to run on newly acquired WOR New York. I would think two of the most alike AM Talk stations are WGN and WOR. They were among the founding stations that started the Mutual Broadcasting Network many years ago. Clear Channel thinks the Mets will help 710 WOR but Tribune has determined that the Cubs won't help 720 WGN?

I think it's also ironic that in NYC, All-News WCBS just gave up being the flagship for the Yankees. But in Chicago, CBS All-News station WBBM is about to become the flagship for the Cubs. Why do CBS and Clear Channel believe baseball is good for their major AM stations but Tribune doesn't?
 
Gregg. said:
I think it's also ironic that in NYC, All-News WCBS just gave up being the flagship for the Yankees. But in Chicago, CBS All-News station WBBM is about to become the flagship for the Cubs. Why do CBS and Clear Channel believe baseball is good for their major AM stations but Tribune doesn't?
Click to expand...

How many AM stations does Tribune own in Chicago vs CBS?

Clear Channel sees the Mets as a loss leader. Tribune really can't afford to take a loss. Not after just coming out of bankruptcy.
 
Tom Taylor reported this today:

"As has been speculated, CBS will use the new partnership with the Cubs to “create and produce music events to be hosted at Wrigley Field.”"

And that's something simply that WGN-AM could never do.
 
>>>"CBS will use the new partnership with the Cubs to create and produce music events to be hosted at Wrigley Field.”<<<

OK, but you don't do a multi-million dollar deal that will preempt hundreds of hours of All-News each year on 780 just so you can create and produce music events at Wrigley Field. If the financials aren't good to stand on their own, adding music events at Wrigley Field won't make this deal work. CBS also wants the Cubs so if 670 WSCR loses the White Sox, they'll still have a MLB team to run on their Sports station. But again, if the financials don't work on their own, this added bonus won't change that.

I think it's also interesting that the Cubs didn't demand both AM and FM coverage. They didn't have that with WGN and they're not getting that with WBBM. The White Sox also are content to stay on only AM with WSCR. Are these teams not up on the exodus of younger listeners to the FM dial? The Cleveland Indians got Clear Channel to simulcast the games on AM Talk WTAM and FM Rock WMMS to keep the team. Till this year, only WTAM ran the games.

CBS obviously thinks they can make money where Tribune can't. Is Tribune right? Or are they short-sighted?
 
Gregg. said:
CBS obviously thinks they can make money where Tribune can't. Is Tribune right? Or are they short-sighted?
Click to expand...

Let's say that CBS makes exactly the same amount of money as Tribune, but has the bonus of exclusive use of Wrigley for their music stations. That alone is enough of a bonus to make it work.
 
Having run radio broadcasts on the flagships of the Pirates and the White Sox (and narrowly missed with the Red Sox) I will say it's all about the economics. We broke even, and sometimes lost on the Pirates at KDKA. We lost a little on the White Sox. We made a fortune on the Bulls. We made money on the Penguins (because the team bought the airtime from us and then sold their own advertising). We lost money on the Patriots. All of those things probably brought us listeners, but unless you can convert them to cash in some way, it's not a good deal.

CBS may or may not make money on the Cubs. I suspect the WBBM deal is simply "parking" the team for a year until WSCR "loses" the White Sox, which may be uneconomic for them. Then they can switch one set of rights for another, and having sold the White Sox against the Cubs, I can tell you that you will get a large multiple of dollars for one franchise over the other, just because of the image (and presumably the composition of the audience.) However it isn't always about logic. We sold Bulls radio sponsors at MUCH higher rates than White Sox or the all-news product, even though the radio ratings were (by far) lower, even during the Michael Jordan era. Sponsors wanted to be associated with a "winner" (he says, chuckling at the idea of the Cubs ever being so) and they paid. The Cubs have a storied franchise. The White Sox play baseball. It's different.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom