But I think the folks at Cox believe their next step is to become a company like Gannett or even larger. That's what this is all about. They see companies like Sinclair, Disney, Comcast, and others expanding their reach, and wonder if they can do the same thing. They're a well run company, with high quality assets, so can they turn that into something bigger?
-
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
Cox TV Stations for Sale
- Thread starter RoddyFreeman
- Start date
But I think the folks at Cox believe their next step is to become a company like Gannett or even larger. That's what this is all about. They see companies like Sinclair, Disney, Comcast, and others expanding their reach, and wonder if they can do the same thing. They're a well run company, with high quality assets, so can they turn that into something bigger?
The thing that will probably hurt Cox the most in looking for a media partner is that they are a multi-platform media company that is mainly based in OLD MEDIA. Namely, print, radio, and local TV affiliates. The kinds of companies that are looking for this kind of deal and expansion aren't at all interested in newspapers or radio. They're moderately interested in local TV stations. But even Sinclair is looking to create some kind of national footprint that Cox simply doesn't have. So what Cox brings to the table is a lot of horse & buggy technology while the rest of the industry is in another galaxy.
At one time, a merger with another local media company: Turner Broadcasting, might have made sense. Now, there's really no need. Turner is now owned by AT&T, and they have no interest in newspapers or radio, and really don't need any more of a presence in Atlanta.
At one time, a merger with another local media company: Turner Broadcasting, might have made sense. Now, there's really no need. Turner is now owned by AT&T, and they have no interest in newspapers or radio, and really don't need any more of a presence in Atlanta.
Excellent synopsis!
Might Cox go public again and build that modern media empire on scale with the others?
That doesn't look like the path they're on, based on the OP.
No way Cox will expand in the media business. I just hope they keep WSB Radio/TV and AJC together. If they sell off WSB-TV, the radio stations and newspaper will soon follow as the family has decided to hit the exit door.
For a long time now Cox has been a cable TV and auto services company which happened to own some newspapers, radio stations and TV stations. In 2016 they had a reported $20.1 billion in total revenue. Only 1.8 billion or 9% came from Radio/TV/Newspapers; 36% or $ 7.3 billion came from the auto services...and a whopping 55% or $ 11 billion came from cable TV which includes traditional cable plus internet and phone service.
The value of TV stations is likely peaking right now with the FCC promise that ownership rules will be changed to allow one operator to own several stations in the same market. There appear to be two or three companies buying up every TV station they can which has any significant revenue...Sinclair and Gray are the top two. I think most TV folks think the two operators are after a large enough national footprint they can significant enough the networks will have to deal with them on content. The networks are all about providing content now not the actual nuts and bolts of operating stations. If you don't have a big enough national footprint then you're at the mercy of the networks.
The CEO Alex Taylor, great grandson of Governor Cox who founded the company in Dayton, Ohio, buying the AJC with WSB(AM) in the late 1930s, said the company plans to expand their holdings in healthcare or other non media type businesses.
Could Cox sell off their print and broadcast businesses and become a mini-Comcast and buy some small content businesses (cable channels such as Discovery or AMC or Scripps, and media production, maybe some Atlanta studio company)?
Regarding new media, it hasn't been for a lack of trying. Here's a great article about the AJC going online (pre-Web) in the 1980s on CompuServe and then via its own dialup service in 1990 (the original Access Atlanta), and then piggybacking onto Prodigy in 1992. Of course, AOL stomped Prodigy and CompuServe and the open Web stomped AOL.
http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/01/th...of-the-early-webs-most-innovative-newspapers/
With an aging population, healthcare is going to be THE growth industry in the United States and other post industrial countries.
I was floored when I saw the figures mentioned in an earlier post in this thread regarding how little media contributes to the Cox bottom line. I never realized cable was the big money maker...I thought television was the bread and butter at Cox.
I think a lot of smaller to medium-sized group owners are tired of the 'reverse comp' drumbeat that's been coming from several of the networks. Now that one of the major networks is owned by a cable company, I suspect the drums are getting louder.
Miami and Jacksonville are two markets where the networks played nasty with the local affiliates and they both told them where to go and went independent. This was back before there more than four networks..ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS. I am not as familiar with Miami as I am Jacksonville but both have been huge successes in every aspect and they did with local news coverage and neither had a legacy newspaper or radio station like Cox has with WSB Radio and the AJC. WSB -TV could go independent and would do super well.
RoddyFreeman
Walk of Fame Participant
I highly doubt ABC would ever take the chance of losing WSB. That's one station that will not have to worry about a network playing hardball.
secondchoice
Star Participant
I wonder if CBS would buy or LMA channel 2? It would give CBS a really strong local news affiliate in a growing market. They own a lot virtual of Channel “2’s” already. “CBS channel 2” graphics would be easy. It would give CBS two (2 and 69) “market covering” stations in a growing big market.
If they could get Disney (ABC) and CBS in a bidding war Cox could do OK financially. I think if CBS shows interest then ABC would pony up some funds to “save” the affiliation.
If they could get Disney (ABC) and CBS in a bidding war Cox could do OK financially. I think if CBS shows interest then ABC would pony up some funds to “save” the affiliation.
deejaywestbrook
Frequent Participant
I'm surprised Atlanta doesn't have more O&O TV stations. CBS owned stations don't do all that well in several markets. However look at ABC owned stations in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, etc. The Eyewitness News brand kills other stations in the ratings. Heck, even better...If Disney owned Channel 2, they can keep the "Action News" brand/format just as Disney owned WPVI/Philadelphia, which is the highest rated station there. Either way, WSB-TV as a Disney/ABC owned station would be VERY successful, IMO. Furthermore, no more network preemptions. Wow...It's the gift that keeps on giving! Lol
Last edited:
AMRocks
Star Participant
I highly doubt CBS would want the station because the graphics would be easy.
secondchoice
Star Participant
I just threw the graphics in there. But two market covering stations for CBS could be profitable if they don't pay too much for Channel 2.
Not sure how much it matters in the DTV and virtual channel era, and both Channel 2 and Channel 46 have good DTV-friendly UHF signals (side-eye to Channels 8 and 11 which are still on VHF), but once upon a time in the analog days CBS would have loved to pick up Channel 2 as an affiliate to replace losing Channel 5 to Fox and not be relegated to a UHF station.
nightmanager
Frequent Participant
Yes, but once you are an AT&T or Disney, how do you KEEP growing? All those quarterly reports and shareholders will demand huge percent growth every year, year after year. When you are already enormous, how do you sustain any sort of growth? The numbers run out of room real fast at that scale.
Cox might get gobbled up, sure, but then what?
I think they both just answered this. AT&T bought Time Warner, and got into another business. That's part of what you can do when you have limitless wealth.
The problem with Cox is they are still basically operating in the 20th century. A few years ago, someone there launched the Rare.com music sites, and it appeared that they would become a multi-platform media company. But alas that was just a 3 year experiment, and the site was shut down in April. It never really integrated the many assets available within the company, and it failed to achieve its potential.
The thing Disney has that more companies need is a President of Synergy. That is a top-lever executive whose job it is to find ways for the many assets a company owns to work together. Disney is one of the few companies I know of that has one. If Cox had such a person, the Rare site might have succeeded.
One of my biggest personal challenges is trying to fathom all of the changes in technology that keep coming at near speed of light. It takes a genius to fully understand it and decide which new technologies people will embrace and which will fail to succeed.
The President of Synergy Big A refers to must be one of those special people who can wrap their minds around this abstract world; I believe there are very few who can! Future success in business will absolutely require a new kind of CEO and management who are technological visionaries and fully grasp the strategies needed to succeed in our evolving world of technology.
- Status