Brett Miller has been a media broker since forming Miller & Associates in 1988, which today is MCH Enterprises.
In this column, he discusses what he refers to as “The Premium Dilemma” — why sellers with money‑losing stations should not be asking top dollar if they really want a suitable suitor to purchase their properties.
If your station for sale loses money every month, a prospective Buyer is not being asked to pay for performance, they are being asked to pay for your problems.
And Buyers know it. So, when a Seller insists on top dollar, the Buyer’s internal monologue is brutally simple: “Why am I paying you extra for the privilege of fixing what you could not?”
That’s the real question. And it deserves a real answer–not the industry’s favorite fairy tale about “upside potential“.
In every negotiation, there comes a moment when the Buyer leans back, folds his arms, and asks the question no Seller wants to hear:
“Why should I pay a top dollar for a station that loses money every month?”
It’s a fair question. It’s also the one that exposes the widening gap between how Sellers see their stations and how Buyers evaluate them.
For years, the industry has relied on a comfortable myth — that “upside potential” is a form of value. But let’s be honest: upside potential is not value. Upside potential is work. And work is something the Buyer, not the Seller, will have to do.
When a station is losing money, the Buyer isn’t paying for performance. They’re paying for the privilege of inheriting someone else’s unfinished business. That’s not a premium; that’s a project.
And yet, Sellers continue to act as if the station’s past glory or theoretical future should command top dollar. They want yesterday’s valuation for today’s performance. They want to be paid for the station they meant to run, not the one they actually have.
But here’s the nuance — and it’s important:
A money‑losing station isn’t worthless. It’s just not premium‑priced unless something else justifies it.
Buyers don’t pay premiums for hope.
They pay premiums for leverage.
A station can lose money and still be strategically valuable if it offers one or more of the following:
- a rare or protected signal
- a market position that can’t be replicated
- a format franchise with brand equity
- adjacency value to an existing cluster
- regulatory or contour advantages
- a geographic foothold competitors can’t easily buy
In other words, Buyers will pay top dollar — but only when justified by the assets, not the aspirations.
The real disconnect isn’t about profit and loss. It’s about narrative. Sellers often frame their station as a turnaround opportunity. Buyers see it as a turnaround obligation. One is a pitch; the other is a cost.
So, the question isn’t “Why won’t Buyers pay top dollar?”
The question should be: “What, specifically, about your station is so rare, so strategic, or so irreplaceable that it deserves one?”
If the answer is compelling, Buyers will listen.
If the answer is vague, nostalgic, or rooted in potential rather than proof, they won’t.
The industry is changing. Margins are thinner. Competition is broader. Buyers are smarter. And the days of pricing based on sentiment, legacy, or upside potential are over.
But here’s the opportunity for Sellers who understand the moment:
A station doesn’t need to be profitable to be valuable — it just needs to be defensibly unique.
If you can articulate that, you’re not just selling a station.
You’re selling a position in the market.
And positions — real, strategic positions — will get you closer to top dollar, even in a world where the P&L is upside‑down.
Brett E. Miller can be reached by voice or text at 805-680-2265 and via e-mail at [email protected]. MCH Enterprises’ website may be visited at https://mchenterprises.com.
