Cox TV Stations for Sale

I realize this is not the TV board but wanted to post this because of its stunning nature.

Cox Media Group announced it is "exploring strategic options for ownership or other interest" in its TV stations, which of course include WSB-TV. The press release added it "has no immediate plans for other parts of the portfolio," including radio and the AJC.

The decision apparently was driven by the mergers occurring in the industry, such as Gray/Raycom and Sinclair/Tribune, which have put pressure on the smaller TV groups.

I thought Cox just said a few months back it was getting out of radio with the exception of Atlanta, and Dayton, Oh.
Wouldn't it make sense to explore merger options for its television operations?

wavo said:

I thought Cox just said a few months back it was getting out of radio with the exception of Atlanta, and Dayton, Oh.
Wouldn't it make sense to explore merger options for its television operations?

Click to expand...

Perhaps that's what they mean by "other interest."

I bet they're just testing the waters. A few years ago, they launched a bunch of internet sites under names like Gamut and Rare Country. Then in March without warning they shut the whole thing down. Then they talked about getting out of radio. I suspect they discovered that anyone with money isn't interested, and companies with interest don't have money. Most of the Journal properties are still on the market. Lots of options, not much money.

TheBigA said:

I bet they're just testing the waters. A few years ago, they launched a bunch of internet sites under names like Gamut and Rare Country. Then in March without warning they shut the whole thing down. Then they talked about getting out of radio. I suspect they discovered that anyone with money isn't interested, and companies with interest don't have money. Most of the Journal properties are still on the market. Lots of options, not much money.

Click to expand...

The memo to the staff from CMG President Kim Guthrie talked about how the media landscape is undergoing tremendous change. It then said, "Our analysis shows that scale is critical to be successful. We firmly believe that our great stations--and talented people--will need to be part of a larger entity to thrive in the future. Success will depend on our stations' ability to drive digital growth and approach relationships with networks and distributors from a position of strength."

It basically acknowledges that they will need to be bigger to compete in the future.

TheBigA said:

I bet they're just testing the waters. A few years ago, they launched a bunch of internet sites under names like Gamut and Rare Country. Then in March without warning they shut the whole thing down. Then they talked about getting out of radio. I suspect they discovered that anyone with money isn't interested, and companies with interest don't have money. Most of the Journal properties are still on the market. Lots of options, not much money.

Click to expand...

How deep do you estimate Cox's pockets to be? Would Cox possibly go public again (for the second time)to give them the leverage needed to purchase another large group of stations?

What, if any, are the options if you feel you need to grow to survive?

wavo said:

What, if any, are the options if you feel you need to grow to survive?

Click to expand...

It sounds like they want a "leverage neutral" deal. One that doesn't cost them debt, and one that grows the ad platform.

Is being a network affiliate just not worth it anymore, with other viewership options that don't involve local affiliates?

Most radio stations are online in some manner--iHeartRadio, TuneIn, radio.com, the various Cox station-specific apps, Alexa skills, the list goes on and on. Not so for TV stations. And now with Hulu, CBS's OTT service, and other options you can cut the affiliate out of the loop. For once radio has held the upper hand here when it comes to putting programming online, vs. TV. The fact that the radio biggies have their own syndication arms (Premiere, WW1, etc.) helps, too.

Heck, it probably makes more sense to put WSB-TV's news operations on ajc.com and/or wsbradio.com and let the rest go, if broadcast network viewership continues to dwindle overall and local affiliate viewership continues to be cannibalized. I wonder how the web traffic compares among wsbtv.com, wsbradio.com, and ajc.com (and all of the other AJC web properties).

Isn't Cox in the process of combining the WSB Radio, WSB-TV, and AJC newsrooms anyway?

Could Cox dump TV and use the money expand their presence in radio? They're probably too small to buy iHeart or Cumulus, but everyone else might be fair game.

It's kind of funny that once Cox got the cross-ownership rule removed, now they might have less of a need for it.

jabba17 said:

I wonder how the web traffic compares among wsbtv.com, wsbradio.com, and ajc.com (and all of the other AJC web properties).

Click to expand...

Good question. Take a look:

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ajc.com

Remember what their CEO says: "Scale is critical to be successful." Think AT&T. Think Disney. That's scale.

TheBigA said:

Good question. Take a look:

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ajc.com

Remember what their CEO says: "Scale is critical to be successful." Think AT&T. Think Disney. That's scale.

Click to expand...

ajc.com ranks 1189 in the US. myajc.com ranks 6541. accessatlanta.com is far down the list.
wsbtv.com ranks 4055 in the US.
wsbradio.com ranks 18,764 in the US.

ajc.com/myajc.com is the CMG Atlanta big dog, vs. the WSB branded properties.

jabba17 said:

ajc.com/myajc.com is the CMG Atlanta big dog, vs. the WSB branded properties.

Click to expand...

Compared to WashingtonPost.com: #70

The "failing" nytimes.com is #32.

Just to pull out two other great newspapers.

Then cnn.com is #29

For comparison FoxNews.com is #48

Remember what the CEO said about scale.

jabba17 said:

Is being a network affiliate just not worth it anymore, with other viewership options that don't involve local affiliates?

Most radio stations are online in some manner--iHeartRadio, TuneIn, radio.com, the various Cox station-specific apps, Alexa skills, the list goes on and on. Not so for TV stations. And now with Hulu, CBS's OTT service, and other options you can cut the affiliate out of the loop. For once radio has held the upper hand here when it comes to putting programming online, vs. TV. The fact that the radio biggies have their own syndication arms (Premiere, WW1, etc.) helps, too.

Heck, it probably makes more sense to put WSB-TV's news operations on ajc.com and/or wsbradio.com and let the rest go, if broadcast network viewership continues to dwindle overall and local affiliate viewership continues to be cannibalized. I wonder how the web traffic compares among wsbtv.com, wsbradio.com, and ajc.com (and all of the other AJC web properties).

Isn't Cox in the process of combining the WSB Radio, WSB-TV, and AJC newsrooms anyway?

Could Cox dump TV and use the money expand their presence in radio? They're probably too small to buy iHeart or Cumulus, but everyone else might be fair game.

It's kind of funny that once Cox got the cross-ownership rule removed, now they might have less of a need for it.

Click to expand...

But wait Newson and CBS Local apps are around to keep local TV Stations relevant in the app age in the form of Local News on Demand. Note it depends on how the TV Station owners stay in the loop with their affiliation in the app age. In the case of CBS Local its CBS owned stations doing local news on demand and the CBS Local App stream live news from the CBS Owned stations also Some of the CBS O&O talent may appear on the national CBSN app just in case breaking news takes place. I say being a network affiliate not owned by the network is more uncertain though. But being a talent working for a Network O&O like CBS is somewhat relevant though when it comes to news division though.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.newson.vinson&hl=en_US

However Newson is trying to make local affiliates in the app on demand age and they are trying to be like the Iheart and Tunein of Local TV News two of the part investors (Sinclair and Raycom) are currently dealing with merger issues (Sinclair/Tribune) and (Gray/Raycom) and also Sinclair's broadcasting contract with Newson is uncertain due to the fact that Sinclair is talking about forming a rival streaming service to go against Newson in the future. Also Raycom and Gray are going to release their broadcasting contract with investigate TV.

Newson other investors are Tegna, Cox,Meredith, Disney, Graham and Hearst they have local TV broadcasting contracts with them too as of 2018.

I forgot to mention PBS Digital Studios its keeping its affiliates in the loop by having stations like KQED do made of PBS App and Youtube segments for the Public media outlet though.

jabba17 said:

Is being a network affiliate just not worth it anymore, with other viewership options that don't involve local affiliates?

Most radio stations are online in some manner--iHeartRadio, TuneIn, radio.com, the various Cox station-specific apps, Alexa skills, the list goes on and on. Not so for TV stations. And now with Hulu, CBS's OTT service, and other options you can cut the affiliate out of the loop. For once radio has held the upper hand here when it comes to putting programming online, vs. TV. The fact that the radio biggies have their own syndication arms (Premiere, WW1, etc.) helps, too.

Heck, it probably makes more sense to put WSB-TV's news operations on ajc.com and/or wsbradio.com and let the rest go, if broadcast network viewership continues to dwindle overall and local affiliate viewership continues to be cannibalized. I wonder how the web traffic compares among wsbtv.com, wsbradio.com, and ajc.com (and all of the other AJC web properties).

Isn't Cox in the process of combining the WSB Radio, WSB-TV, and AJC newsrooms anyway?

Could Cox dump TV and use the money expand their presence in radio? They're probably too small to buy iHeart or Cumulus, but everyone else might be fair game.

It's kind of funny that once Cox got the cross-ownership rule removed, now they might have less of a need for it.

Click to expand...

You are right about TV vs. Radio online. I can take radio anywhere on my phone, tablet, or car. Plus radio (both analog and HD is mobile while driving). Local TV doesn’t allow you to leave your home unless you have a portable TV. My Xfinity app won’t allow me to leave the home and watch broadcast TV off my WiFi box. Also the current broadcast ATSC TV standards don’t allow for mobile broadcasting while driving. No error correction. Supposedly ATSC 3.0 will have mobile capabilities.

It's now looking like Cox doesn't want to outright SELL the TV stations, but enter into a "partnership"
https://www.rbr.com/cox-on-the-block-ajc-confirms-possible-tv-station-sale/

Could do some LMAs or maybe merge with another company and they own a portion of the company.

It will be very strange for Cox to not own WSB-TV

AMRocks said:

It's now looking like Cox doesn't want to outright SELL the TV stations, but enter into a "partnership"

Click to expand...

Yes that's actually what they said yesterday.

RoddyFreeman said:

I realize this is not the TV board but wanted to post this because of its stunning nature.

Cox Media Group announced it is "exploring strategic options for ownership or other interest" in its TV stations, which of course include WSB-TV. The press release added it "has no immediate plans for other parts of the portfolio," including radio and the AJC.

The decision apparently was driven by the mergers occurring in the industry, such as Gray/Raycom and Sinclair/Tribune, which have put pressure on the smaller TV groups.

Click to expand...

If Cox decides to sell off WSB-TV then they should just go ahead and sell off the radio stations and newspaper, too. They have kept Dayton Ohio all these years despite that market's decline because it's where the company started but the real spending money for the company has been made in Atlanta. Everything they own today...auto auction business, cable, TV and radio group and putting the family on the list of wealthiest people in the world...Atlanta provided the seed money. I get that one has to always look at the big picture in business, and, needless to say new media is changing the landscape quickly but you also have to step back and look at the individual marketplace. It just doesn't get much better if you are going to be in media in the United States, than to be in Atlanta and be in Cox's position. There is no reason in the next 15 to 20 years why WSB-TV and Radio won't make a lot of money producing far more cash flow than a sale now would ever generate. My newspaper buddies tell me Cox made great strides in cutting the losses at the AJC to the point where I assume it's making money. True, it won't ever be anything like it once was, no newspaper or media outlet ever will be, but there is a place for the AJC if the standard is to compare to present day world metrics. Their properties are wildly successful. If the Atlanta wasn't so profitable and WSB Radio and Television, plus the AJC, were not such a huge part of the Atlanta market...well that's one thing but hopefully they will not just look at the forest but focus in on the tallest trees in the forest. Finally if the networks won't play fairly with TV, go independent. It would be very successful and that's where the resources of the radio stations and AJC can play a huge role.

AMRocks said:

It's now looking like Cox doesn't want to outright SELL the TV stations, but enter into a "partnership"
https://www.rbr.com/cox-on-the-block-ajc-confirms-possible-tv-station-sale/

Could do some LMAs or maybe merge with another company and they own a portion of the company.

It will be very strange for Cox to not own WSB-TV

Click to expand...

I don't think it's that clear cut.

One thing that's clear is Cox does not want to acquire another TV station owner, taking on big debt in an industry that's shrinking. They seem to be open to any other option, including a merger, an outright acquisition by another company or some kind of partnership that would give the combined stations clout with syndicators and networks.

RoddyFreeman said:

They seem to be open to any other option, including a merger, an outright acquisition by another company or some kind of partnership that would give the combined stations clout with syndicators and networks.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what the CEO said in your OP. Don't understand why no one else sees that.

TheBigA said:

Compared to WashingtonPost.com: #70

The "failing" nytimes.com is #32.

Just to pull out two other great newspapers.

Then cnn.com is #29

For comparison FoxNews.com is #48

Remember what the CEO said about scale.

Click to expand...

The AJC (and by extension the online properties) is not really considered a national newspaper, regardless of what the folks at Cox would like to believe. Cox has their own national beat but it mainly serves other Cox properties and to put stuff on the wire. People don't subscribe to the AJC as a national news "primary source" the way they do like the WaPo or the NYT, or the WSJ (#168, which sounds bad until you realize that most of their content is behind a quite secure paywall), or maybe the LA Times.

There's not really a way to scale local content. People have tried (like Yahoo, AOL, and patch.com), without really consistent success. National news has a national if not international audience. Nobody outside of Georgia cares about the shenanigans in DeKalb County.

FWIW, looking at similar-size metro areas the Dallas Morning News site is 1487, the Seattle Times is 1163, the Miami Herald is 1096, the (Phoenix) Arizona Republic is 1953, and the Boston Globe in 972. I am not including newspapers in larger metro areas (like the SF Chronicle, LA Times, and Chicago Tribune), trying to compare apples to apples.