1 of 1- RadioActive
- Moderator
Offline 
The Other Side Of The Rogers Closure Of 6 Stations
The shockwave from Rogers suddenly shuttering 6 stations across the country isn't over, but in a remarkable op-ed in Broadcast Dialogue, an industry veteran who also tried to save his favourite local outlet, comes to Big Red's defence.
He argues it was their only real choice and outlines what happened in his own case.
Not saying I agree with his conclusions but I found it a thoughtful read.
Among his points is one many here asked: why didn't they try to sell the stations instead of closing them?
"Even if Rogers had found buyers—and that’s far from guaranteed—the regulatory approval process alone would likely have taken many months, perhaps even longer than a year. Meanwhile, the financial losses wouldn’t stop."
He also believes the CRTC's misguided attempts to save AM may actually have backfired and made things worse.
Check out his side of the story here:
What the Rogers Radio Station Closures Really Tell Us
- mic'em
- Member
Offline
Re: The Other Side Of The Rogers Closure Of 6 Stations
Financial losses ? They had the jam to spend 4 billion for MLSE.
- RadioAaron
- Member
Offline
Re: The Other Side Of The Rogers Closure Of 6 Stations
The only station that maybe could have sold is 95.7 Halifax, but it has a specialty license. Anyone interested in the frequency would be better off letting it go dark and then applying for a new license.
- RadioAaron
- Member
Offline
Re: The Other Side Of The Rogers Closure Of 6 Stations
mic'em wrote:
Financial losses ? They had the jam to spend 4 billion for MLSE.
I can walk fine on my broken foot; I just bought a nice new shirt.
- kevjo
- Member
Offline
Re: The Other Side Of The Rogers Closure Of 6 Stations
Financial losses ? They had the jam to spend 4 billion for MLSE.
I can walk fine on my broken foot; I just bought a nice new shirt.
Whether one agrees or not with the rationale, the fact is publicly traded corps like Rogers have to keep increasing revenue for shareholders. The way they see it, radio, particularly AM, has no future as a profitable holding. Major sports properties, on the other hand will pay off big time.
- Shorty Wave
- Member
Offline
Re: The Other Side Of The Rogers Closure Of 6 Stations
Financial losses ? They had the jam to spend 4 billion for MLSE.
I can walk fine on my broken foot; I just bought a nice new shirt.
Whether one agrees or not with the rationale, the fact is publicly traded corps like Rogers have to keep increasing revenue for shareholders. The way they see it, radio, particularly AM, has no future as a profitable holding. Major sports properties, on the other hand will pay off big time.
I agree that sports is the money maker these days but Rogers better get both the Jays and Leafs in better shape, as they both are looking bad at the moment, last night’s Jays win aside. I stopped watching the Leafs last season and have not been watching the Jays like I usually do due to their poor performance. The Raptors seem to be their most promising property at the moment, but not the most popular sport in this market, yet!
- DX
- Member
Offline
Re: The Other Side Of The Rogers Closure Of 6 Stations
Financial losses ? They had the jam to spend 4 billion for MLSE.
Just because a business is successful doesn't mean it has an obligation to carry a money-losing operation into perpetuity. Banks have jam too but they need to eventually close their low-traffic branches that are no longer economically viable. Even newspaper companies have still-viable papers but have needed to close their money-losing papers. The key here is that a white knight new owner had never emerged to purchase these radio stations, and it's getting similar to how a number of small-market TV stations have closed (Victoria was an exception) over the years with no other company or operator willing to buy them or even snatch up the vacated licences. The business is in a slow death spiral as audience continues to shift elsewhere.
Last edited by DX (Yesterday 11:23 am)