Well, that's not a fair statement. Nobody can predict the future, especially when it comes to business, even if it's the one they're in. One of my stations was worth over $5M in 2006, dropped to a third of that valuation in 2008, and was sold for a tenth of that value last year. If I could have predicted the bottom of broadcast valuation would have fallen out during the 08 recession, I could have cashed out prior. Does that mean I didn't know squat too?
It's more than fair, regarding the original statement. It was that my position on this discussion had no merit, and the owners' position is all that mattered. Well, this discussion is happening specifically because the owners' position resulted in the circumstances in the first place.
They could be. And it is a stalemate, because I still have a point. If what dives listeners to a station is that they have the rights to a team; and due to finances, they need to remove said rights, that may help remedy Audacy's bank account. However, if a subsequent goal is for WEEI to attract listeners, resulting in attracting advertisers, then removing a main reason to listen to WEEI will not help that particular goal. It's the same as a dying mall losing its last anchor tenant.
So, given your premise; have you personally always made positive financial decisions that have been based on information you had at the time? If so, then what are you doing on some inane radio discussion board, rather than being the richest guy on the planet?
But, as you agreed with my rights-fee statement earlier; what if the broadcast rights fees and the amount of available inventory during a game, have become so oppressive, that carrying the games will lose Audacy money? Especially at this stage of the game for Audacy, having one station become a financial drag on the chance that they'll lose money because the audience will be less is a business negative, period. Seems to me the bad financial decision would be to keep paying the escalating rights fees.
I'm here because it interests me. Furthermore, I work in the public sector, realizing that when I die, no monitary fortune comes with me. Therefore, I choose to make financial sacrifices (making enough to feed my family and pay for my children's activities) than try to be "the richest guy on the planet." Perhaps, more than money motives some of us.
But if making money is your job, and recessions, pandemics, or how Wall St. sees the future for a particular industry is outside your prevalence, then you believe every company leader who ultimately makes the wrong call is incompetent? Really?
Absolutely true. Therefore, it is important to note the perspective. I'm looking at this inward from WEEI. In Boston, successful sports stations (in the sense of attracting listeners) requires local content and broadcast rights to at least a big four team. If the Red Sox go away without a replacement, with WEEI's current status as a far number two to WBZ-FM, then I theorize that WEEI will end up flipping formats.
Certainly not Boston, but I worked for a sports station that lost a local team broadcast contract to the competition. Sure ratings went down without the games, but it didn't come close to killing the station financially. The station still had local sports talk hosts during drive times and post games talking about the various games without all the expense and burden that being a broadcast rights holder brings. And honestly, sports stations don't live or die based on ratings. Most national ads are looking to sports stations as desired demographics 18-45 males. That's why all the large beer brewers and car manufacturers buy on sports stations without regard to ratings.
No. I feel that saying that anyone on here has no merit to discuss any matter, compared to the leader of the company (especially when the is in bankruptcy) is disrespectful. Therefore, my reaction is that these people don't know more as if they did, they would not be in this situation.
Just for context, where was the station ratings wise, in comparison to the competition in dayparts? My theory is also based on over a decades worth of ratings where WEEI underperformed compared WBZ-FM. Hypothetically, Greg Hill outperforms Toucher and Hardy, then that would help. But WEEI doesn't outperform WBZ-FM anywhere, except when the Red Sox are playing and WBZ-FM has talk.
All radio is in that situation, with inflation adjusted revenue off by about 2/3 since 2004. Every station is seeing lower total market radio revenue with the biggest hits happening during the 2008 recession and during and following the pandemic. None of these conditions were particularly predictable; even the lenders in both instances did not see either event occurring despite extensive economic models that they use for “best” “worst” situation.
The important thing here is the advertising market. That includes how much advertisers will pay for special programming, such as play-by-play and the general valuation that agencies and big accounts put on radio.
Again, a great amount of the billing for all-sports stations From sports marketing budgets and not from general market advertising budgets. Those advertisers are looking for “guilt by association“ in having their ads in a pure sports environment, where there is a great deal of foreground, highly involved, listening.
I'm not debating any of this. I'm also not saying that Audacy should keep the Red Sox contract. Plus, my statement was based on Big A's presentation that I didn't have any merit to my position on specifically WEEI. It was harsh, and I admit that. But it was regarding this specific situation. As a researcher, I know that you reference data that is collected. Therefore, I'm not saying that owners are incompetent, as Kelly interpreted my statement. I'm saying that the owners obviously don't have all tbe answers, because of the circumstances that you identify. It was a defense approach to Big A who I interpreted as saying that I shouldn't open my mouth, because I'm not the owner.
Okay let's take a quick look at just a few of the variables that broadcasting as an industry has encountered:
And you don't think that the broadcast industry studies consumer habits? Adjustments are being made all the time. Just like any time you deal with humans and their habits, sometimes things stick, and more times they don't.
That's not true at all. Research is being done all the time. Just because you haven't been included, doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Absolutely not, concerning owners ability to predict. But don't profess them to be the all knowing (not you specifically). That's my issue. Also, I never said that radio doesn't take in qualitative data. I said that Big A was only going off numbers and dismissing my input.
I'm making a point of listener habits, which is a necessary understanding to be profitable in your buisness.
