The TV broadcasting business stinks
Terry Heaton says "Broadcasting is an industry in deep trouble, and it will take innovation and integrity to save it from a real disaster." He then shows the stock charts over the past year for the 12 publicly listed companies that own TV stations. While the number of lines going south is striking, it's a bit hard to see them in context that way. So I've re-run the numbers and expressed them below in percentage terms.
(Note: some of these companies, such as Gannett and the New York
Times company, are primarily in the newspaper business, although they
also own some TV stations. But since Terry listed them I'm also including
them here for the sake of completeness.)
Stock performance over the past 12 months:
- Belo (BLC): -11.6%
- Emmis (EMS): +8.7%
- Fisher (FSCI): -3.1%
- Gannett (GCI): -24.2%
- Gray (GTN): -38%
- Hearst-Argyle (HTV): -6.9%
- Media General (MEG): -17%
- Meredith (MDP): -2.4%
- New York Times (NYT): -30.7%
- Sinclair (SBGI): +29.1%
- Tribune (TRB): -24.8%
- Young (YBTVA): -80.2%
-------------------------------
Average: -16.8%
Dow: +4%
Thanks to Lost Remote for the pointer.



heh.
Posted by: Ross | November 28, 2005 at 12:00 PM
You left out the Washington Post Company (WPO) which also owns some TV stations, I believe- and is down approx. 30% YOY.
Posted by: Josh | November 28, 2005 at 12:07 PM
Chris,
I wonder what accounts for the apparently trend-bucking performance of Sinclair (and to a lesser extent Emmis)? Is it due to other profitable assets masking the performance of the TV assets? Or have they found a formula different than the other companies for keeping TV profitable?
Conversely, to what extent do you feel that poor newspaper performance figures into the overall bad numbers for NYT and GCI?
While I agree that this points to some trouble for TV station owners, it would be fascinating to see a more comprehensive assessment of this.
Cheers!
Posted by: LB | November 28, 2005 at 12:10 PM
Belo's Houston and Dallas stations are still unstable from News Director changes, affecting ratings, and thus probably affecting revenues severely.
Posted by: Laurence Simon | November 28, 2005 at 12:11 PM
chris - just look at what is happening in uk commercial radio ...
Private equity groups are circling GCap, the radio group born out of the merger of Capital and GWR, after analysts described a recovery programme unveiled by chief executive Ralph Bernard as tantamount to 'commercial suicide'.
Following a string of profits warnings since the merger was announced six months ago, Bernard said last week that he was cutting the number of advertising slots in order to bring back listeners and obtain more money for fewer adverts.
barmy? desperate? both? go figure - full story at
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1651417,00.html
Posted by: richard lander | November 28, 2005 at 01:25 PM
Yeah, it's interesting to see the decent performance of Sinclair given their behavior during the elections. It would be worth looking into their numbers to see what their holds / profit centers are....
Posted by: _Jon | November 28, 2005 at 02:26 PM
I was wondering who the poor bastards at Young were, the ones who dropped 80 percent. It seems they own television stations:
I guess buying network television stations in the Red States isn't the sure-fire investment I thought it was. Who knew!
The CEO still payed himself two and a quarter million.
Posted by: Brian | November 28, 2005 at 04:15 PM
I'm looking forward to better TV from whoever takes over these assets.
Posted by: Jon Lester | November 28, 2005 at 06:35 PM
Back in May Emmis announced that they were moving out of the television business. They sold nine stations in August and another four stations in September, which leaves them with only three, including one in New Orleans.
Posted by: Old Grouch | November 28, 2005 at 07:45 PM
The companies listed are largely diversified old media companies. Other properties (e.g., newspapers) are also impacting stock prices, and possibly more than television broadcasting. I think your later post on The Long Tail of Time about multiple underlying factors also applies here. I've posted about this on my weblog: http://technology360.typepad.com/technology360/2005/12/a_stock_picture.html
Posted by: Dennis Haarsager | December 03, 2005 at 07:10 AM
The companies listed are largely diversified old media companies. Other properties (e.g., newspapers) are also impacting stock prices, and possibly more than television broadcasting. I think your later post on The Long Tail of Time about multiple underlying factors also applies here. I've posted about this on my weblog: http://technology360.typepad.com/technology360/2005/12/a_stock_picture.html
Posted by: Dennis Haarsager | December 03, 2005 at 07:14 AM
Jon says: it's interesting to see the decent performance of Sinclair given their behavior during the elections.
---------
I recall they had been trending downward in November 2004.
They intended to show an anti-Kerry film immediately before the elections. There was enormous protest against it. They still showed it, but in an edited version.
My point is that if they are rebounding, they are rebounding from what was a very low point.
NJCher
Posted by: NJCher | December 04, 2005 at 08:55 AM