Kffg sold to emf...

Radical348 said:

Nope. When I ask, I get people who actually did listen to it on a regular basis until one of two very specific events: 1) blowing out most of the staff in 2016 and 2) blowing out the rest of the staff in 2018. I listened almost exclusively until event 1, regularly until event 2, and now I couldn't care less.

Click to expand...

It's kind of like the Giants keeping the same players and coaches while they continue to deliver losing seasons. If the staff of KFOG had been doing well in 2016 and 2018, they wouldn't have been blown out.

Meanwhile, down in El Lay, the venerable KROQ isn't doing much better than KFOG.

I'm surprise that the 97.7 (KJLV) is a KLOVE feed instead of Air-1 feed. I can hear KLOVE on 87.7, 91.9, 100.9,104.1 and 107.3 in San Jose area. Since 107.3 covers most of the bay area including San Jose, why can't 97.7 be an Air-1 Station instead of K-LOVE station?

michael hagerty said:

" I haven't listened in a year" qualifies as a long time. "I haven't listened in three years" qualifies as a really long time. Especially in a medium that measures its audience monthly.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but those who stopped listening at those points aren't the ones wringing hands, and they are most definitely not the ones saying "Um...it's been a long time, but I thought that was just me. I mean K-Fog's still a big deal, right?". They know why the station collapsed.

TheBigA said:

It's kind of like the Giants keeping the same players and coaches while they continue to deliver losing seasons. If the staff of KFOG had been doing well in 2016 and 2018, they wouldn't have been blown out.

Click to expand...

They were doing fine, but not great, in 2016. The problem was that everyone they replaced them with were annoying, and did even worse...kind of like how everyone who was actually listening to the station said they would. We shall see if the new EVP can turn things around, but I'm not holding my breath.

e-dawg said:

I'm surprise that the 97.7 (KJLV) is a KLOVE feed instead of Air-1 feed. I can hear KLOVE on 87.7, 91.9, 100.9,104.1 and 107.3 in San Jose area. Since 107.3 covers most of the bay area including San Jose, why can't 97.7 be an Air-1 Station instead of K-LOVE station?

Click to expand...

87.7 isn't actually FM, and an LMA to boot. It's actually Channel 6, analog LPTV so it is temporary.

While KLVS 107.3 does cover San Jose, it's similair to how KSAN 107.7 performs in San Jose, it's alright but right at the edge of city grade coverage. The 107.3 TX was never moved to it's current location with San Jose as it's main target, rather San Francisco and Oakland. 91.9 is on St. Helena and a "reach-in" at best... 100.9 is an 8W translator and 104.1 is a 250W translator.

Here's what I'm betting they do...

91.9 Remains K-LOVE, nothing changes.
107.3 K-LOVE Bay Area (same as 97.7 branded as a simulcast at TOH)
97.7 K-LOVE Bay Area (same as 107.3 branded as a simulcast at TOH)
87.7 Changes to Air1 until LPTV is turned off.
100.9 Becomes Air1 -- This will likely get an upgrade from 8W to 250W since Air1 will be on the HD2 of 97.7, this can now become a "super translator" under FCC current guidelines.
104.1 Becomes Air1

There you have it. Air1's format recently shifted and it's always kinda been the red headed step child of K-LOVE. My 2 cents...

While the K Love website was updated with the big changes on and around May 31 within a few days with signal maps within days. The Air One site station list has not been updated in a while and have no signal maps or call letters.

Most operators vastly prefer to fix a damaged or declining brand. This is because a full format shift is very expensive. First, all existing revenue is lost, and it takes close to a year to get back to former levels with a new format if the format even works as expected. So in a market like San Francisco, you are talking about a revenue hit of perhaps as much as $5 million based on startup costs, lost revenue and the slow build to get new revenue.

Click to expand...

Understood, but in the case of KFOG, I would contend the opportunity cost associated with multiple consecutive years of terrible revenue (and presumably, cash flow) performance is very expensive!