WBEN dropd FM Simulcast

[Element9]

I'm curious to know where the decision to abandon the news-talk effort on 107.7 originated. Whether it was a local decision or came from Philadelphia, it points to the inability of WBEN to attract, subtly or by brute force, listeners to the FM band. Recall the predictions raised by the local management team when The Lake was trashed, it's few live personnel sent packing as WBEN exultantly took over 107.7: "This will bring in younger listeners..." No. Sorry. It didn't. The upper demos glued to 930 AM wouldn't move to the FM band. Sure, it's testimony to the strength of the AM, but it's also quite telling about the audience the station attracts. "Younger" listeners (read, anybody under 55) couldn't be less interested in Rush, Hannity and the local conservatives playing the same old song. WBEN on FM? Epic FAIL.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm curious to know where the decision to abandon the news-talk effort on 107.7 originated.

Probably a complicated question. The fact is that there are some markets where the AM/FM simulcast has been a success. For Entercom, I'd suggest looking at Kansas City. KMBZ is a very similar station to WBEN. They carry Rush and Hannity, but have a lot invested in local talk & news talent. No question that news/talk on AM isn't growing. So they decided on an FM simulcast, and it was a hit. KMBZ AM & FM is getting a 4.5 in Kansas City, and they attribute a lot of that to the FM simulcast. Not so in Buffalo.

To put the decision in context, several other radio companies tried the same thing. Cumulus did a simulcast with WMAL in Washington DC, and CBS did one with their all-news WBBM in Chicago. More recently, CBS started a simulcast for sports talk WFAN in NYC, mainly to compete with a new ESPN sports talk station. The results are mixed, with WMAL having the same experience as WBEN. I'm sure other posters have lots of other examples around the country. In Philadelphia, Merlin took Rush & Hannity away from CBS-owned WPHT-AM, and put them on WWIQ-FM. The result was a ratings disaster for both stations.

The long term problem with WBEN is that the news/talk audience isn't growing, while the costs for supporting the format are. The question is how do you support an expensive format on the AM band? That's why I said earlier in this thread that I expect the next steps here will be to find ways to cut costs at WBEN. Had the simulcast worked, it would have breathed new life into the aging giant, as it has in Kansas City.

 

[flybynight]

There's a reason many young people don't/won't listen to talkradio---and it's NOT just because it's on AM.

AM talkradio almost NEVER talks about things that interest non-partisan, non-politically-obsessed people. I am not politically minded, but I love interesting and entertaining conversation about life's issues in general. Most people like relatable conversation. There's less and less of that in talkradio every day. Less now than ever before.

 

[TheBigA]

There's a reason many young people don't/won't listen to talkradio---and it's NOT just because it's on AM.

Non-political talk was a hit on FM for a while. They called it Hot Talk. It was originally anchored by Howard Stern, and usually featured mostly male hosts like Don & Mike or Tom Leykis or Mancow or Bubba The Love Sponge or Opie & Anthony. They attracted younger audiences. In Indianapolis, you have Bob & Tom. In New Jersey, you have NJ101.5. KFI in LA attracts younger audiences to AM, but they're doing it without Rush & Hannity. Maybe Cumulus is onto something. Maybe the problem is Rush & Hannity.

 

[davideduardo]

KFI in LA attracts younger audiences to AM, but they're doing it without Rush & Hannity. Maybe Cumulus is onto something. Maybe the problem is Rush & Hannity.

KFI carries Rush. In the last book it was 19th in 25-54, and has been on a 9-month downtrend in the sales demos

 

[davideduardo]

I think that it's already been well-established why they paid $10.5-million for the signal. Of course, you're right about everything else. After all, you've been in this market for a long time and know both the history and listenability of the signal in question. Thanks for straightening me out.

I've made a rather nice career out of giving a non-jaded and objective opinion about markets where I had never been and never lived. You know, the forest-for-the-trees thing.

As to signal listenability, there are certain things that are determined by laws of physics and the quality of the average radio; a multi-market analysis of a dozen or so Top 100 markets as large as New York City and as small as McAllen with millions of data points showed that 95% of all in-home and at-work listening occurs inside the 65 dbu signal and 85% takes place inside the 70 dbu signal. Hilly or flat, warm or cold, the only cases where there was a small increase in outside the 65 dbu listening was for classical and NPR stations.

BTW, we're not a PPM market.

I had that figured out, since I've been dealing with PPM markets and data since 2001.

However, I brought up the PPM data because more precise measurement reveals that there was severe rounding-up of diary entries in the PPM markets. We can very safely assume that real listening in diary markets is really the same as in those that now have PPM. In the diary, people will write in "6 AM to 9 AM" when in fact they listened for about an hour and a half within the 6 AM to 9 AM period... and the granular PPM data can show how. 6 AM is really 6:15 because the snooze alarm was hit. Knock out 15 minutes to walk the dog or take out the trash, or 20 minutes to take the kids to the bus stop. Then you actually don't listen from 8:50 to 9:00 because you got to work and have to check in... and so on.

The reality, in any market, is that listening levels are higher in PM drive and mid-days, and lower than previously thought in mornings.

And it's easy to tell by listening that they're not putting much in the way of resources into mid-days, music-intensive or not. Have you noticed that the stations with the live people are leading the market? This ain't SoCal, or NYC

Huh? In LA the leading stations, are live or custom voice tracked (which is exactly the same thing) in middays and afternoons.

I know that everybody says it, but here it's really true. It's a different market, with a long tradition of rewarding foreground stations, not background music.

I was told that Karachi was a different market. It wasn't. Other than those differences caused by median age variations, ethnic composition and such, markets in the US and, indeed, most of the world, react to much more in common than what they have differently. That's why, with only tiny percentage differences, TV shows perform just about the same all over the country.

Personally, I have found in 100% of the cases where there was a broad belief that "this market is different" that the market was ripe for the taking by a competitor with a less provincial attitude.

If people in offices want background music, they'll go on-line. It's easier than trying to pull in FMs in the shadow of the Rand Building if you're downtown.

And very possibly, those folks online will listen to the same radio station they like when they are listening to OTA radio. You are forgetting that radio broadcasters are not in the transmitter business... leave that to Harris and Nautel and others. Radio is in the content business, and the move away from AM and FM to new distribution channels is happening very fast.

 

[TheBigA]

KFI carries Rush. In the last book it was 19th in 25-54, and has been on a 9-month downtrend in the sales demos

Sorry...my mistake. But they don't carry Hannity. However they probably will soon, since Sean will be leaving KABC soon. I can't imagine they're excited about the prospect.

 

[SirRoxalot]

95% of all in-home and at-work listening occurs inside the 65 dbu signal and 85% takes place inside the 70 dbu signal.

Have you noticed that all the eastern and southern suburbs, and a pretty good chunk of Buffalo is within the 60 dbu contour? And virtually the entire MSA is within the 70 dbu contour?

The reality, in any market, is that listening levels are higher in PM drive and mid-days, and lower than previously thought in mornings.

In LA the leading stations, are live or custom voice tracked (which is exactly the same thing) in middays and afternoons.

As I said, Buffalo is NOT NY or LA. Look at the numbers, and you'll find that the leading stations in mid-days are live, not tracked. The battle of the trackers begins farther down the ratings.

I was told that Karachi was a different market. It wasn't. Other than those differences caused by median age variations, ethnic composition and such, markets in the US and, indeed, most of the world, react to much more in common than what they have differently. That's why, with only tiny percentage differences, TV shows perform just about the same all over the country.

TV is an entirely different animal. There's very little live and local outside of newscasts.

Personally, I have found in 100% of the cases where there was a broad belief that "this market is different" that the market was ripe for the taking by a competitor with a less provincial attitude.

Personally, I've seen a lot of programmers come into the WNY from outside and claim that they'd "own the market in two books". Two years later, they left with their tails between their legs, or learned that programming in this market is different because we have a different history (we were a top 25 market in many peoples memory) and Canada's #1 market is next door with some very good radio. We compete successfully with some very good Canadian stations.

Radio is in the content business, and the move away from AM and FM to new distribution channels is happening very fast.

Radio IS in the content business. If you can get the content from a national website, what's the benefit for local advertisers? If it's not timely and relevant, who's going to listen to an advertisement in order to receive the content? Where's the money going to come from, considering that 85% or more of radio revenue is local? Satellite hasn't figured out how to break even. Neither has Pandora. Sooner or later, somebody's got to come up with a model that doesn't bleed money. So far, broadcasting, with local content, is the only winner in that race.

 

[davideduardo]

Have you noticed that all the eastern and southern suburbs, and a pretty good chunk of Buffalo is within the 60 dbu contour? And virtually the entire MSA is within the 70 dbu contour?

The 60 dbu is useless for in-home and at-work listening. It's the 65 dbu that is the brick wall where essentially all indoors listening stops. And, if you want some further data, the wall has been getting higher over the years as a function of the poorer quality of the average FM radio.

The 65 dbu covers about 190,000 persons, a third of which is in Wyoming County which is not in the MSA. The 65 dbu covers about a third of Erie and none of Niagara.

In-home and at-work are a bit more important in the Buffalo MSA, as the commute times are low and thus the percentage of in-car listening is on the low side for markets 50-100.

As I said, Buffalo is NOT NY or LA. Look at the numbers, and you'll find that the leading stations in mid-days are live, not tracked. The battle of the trackers begins farther down the ratings.

The average listener, whether in Buffalo or Budapest or Buenos Aires does not know the difference between live and voice tracked stations. So whether a station has a body in the studio is pretty much irrelevant for most formats.

TV is an entirely different animal. There's very little live and local outside of newscasts.

I'd say that you just hung yourself with your own rope. As I have said before, and based on extensive listener interviews, "live" is anything that comes to an entertainment device in real time, while recorded is what we do with a TiVo or via a podcast or Hulu or some similar method or device. The term "live" has lost any of its traditional meaning.

Personally, I've seen a lot of programmers come into the WNY from outside and claim that they'd "own the market in two books". Two years later, they left with their tails between their legs, or learned that programming in this market is different because we have a different history (we were a top 25 market in many peoples memory)

That may have more to do with the relatively greater stability of ownership than with whether the market is different.

Radio IS in the content business. If you can get the content from a national website, what's the benefit for local advertisers? If it's not timely and relevant, who's going to listen to an advertisement in order to receive the content?

I'm not talking abut national streams but those of local stations which are moving their distribution model to the web. In fact, there are quite a few stations that are georestricting stream access to just the MSA or the TSA. What I am talking about is the fact that listeners consider "radio" to be much more than AM and FM no matter how much some broadcasters insist that unless there is steel in the sky, it's not radio.

You are doing the same thing that the Post Office did for decades in claiming that United Parcel Service was not a competitor.

Satellite hasn't figured out how to break even.

Sirius / XM are quite profitable. Last fiscal year they had EBITDA of $1.2 billion on $3.6 billion in revenues.

Neither has Pandora. Sooner or later, somebody's got to come up with a model that doesn't bleed money. So far, broadcasting, with local content, is the only winner in that race.

It's really too soon to know if the Pandora / Spotify / Apple radio will work. The issue is legal, because of royalties. The demand and usage is there... about a quarter of all adults in the US use Pandora weekly and the figure is growing. And that is for just one of a number of web pureplays. Radio has to move fast to maintain its image and brand valuations or it will simply perish... live or not... local or not.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The 65 dbu covers about 190,000 persons, a third of which is in Wyoming County which is not in the MSA. The 65 dbu covers about a third of Erie and none of Niagara.

Somehow, this station managed to get a 7 share a few years ago. If you build it, they will come. Nobody expects them to get a 10 share, or to take on a market leader. There's enough audience available to make money with it. I live here. I know the ground, and so do the other folks who live here. You are a number cruncher. You need to look beyond the spreadsheet once in a while.

The average listener, whether in Buffalo or Budapest or Buenos Aires does not know the difference between live and voice tracked stations. So whether a station has a body in the studio is pretty much irrelevant for most formats.

And yet, live and local wins here. You still haven't addressed that.

I'd say that you just hung yourself with your own rope. As I have said before, and based on extensive listener interviews, "live" is anything that comes to an entertainment device in real time, while recorded is what we do with a TiVo or via a podcast or Hulu or some similar method or device. The term "live" has lost any of its traditional meaning.

You insist on equating TV and radio. They're two different mediums, with very different expectations from the audience, completely different programming, and completely different delivery systems. TV has been tethered to cable or satellite for 93% of the viewers in this market for years. The only viewing done outside of homes is Bills games in bars when they sell out in time to get the broadcast.

That may have more to do with the relatively greater stability of ownership than with whether the market is different.

You can't admit you might be wrong, so you deflect, and offer an alternate reality. Once again, you don't really know the market, so you're out of your element. Unfortunately, that's a typical corporate attitude. "Corporate knows best. We're smarter because we make more money." No, you just craved that shinier suit, and were willing to give up family and friends to get it. It doesn't make you smarter. It makes you greedier.

I'm not talking abut national streams but those of local stations which are moving their distribution model to the web. In fact, there are quite a few stations that are georestricting stream access to just the MSA or the TSA. What I am talking about is the fact that listeners consider "radio" to be much more than AM and FM no matter how much some broadcasters insist that unless there is steel in the sky, it's not radio.

But, with VT and syndication, you ARE talking about national streams. Cumulus would love for the Nash format to take off, with syndication nationwide. You compare radio to TV, which is essentially syndication nationwide. Have you noticed that network TV has been on a downward spiral since cable TV brought alternative programming to TV a decade or two ago? There's no live and local competition for TV, so people go to cable channels looking for alternative programming.

Sirius / XM are quite profitable. Last fiscal year they had EBITDA of $1.2 billion on $3.6 billion in revenues.

You are correct. They are profitable. Their profit margin is a fraction of radio's but they are profitable.

It's really too soon to know if the Pandora / Spotify / Apple radio will work. The issue is legal, because of royalties.

On-line has been around for year. The costs of streaming are known. Don't you have to factor that cost into your company's expenses? The streamers are trying to get the rules changed because their model simply doesn't work. Add the issue that millions of dollars haven't paid to artists whose pre-1972 recordings have been a staple of many of their most popular formats, and you've got another potention bomb waiting to drop.

I know that major broadcast groups would love to abandon those steel towers, and get listeners to pay for the delivery of content by paying for bandwidth in their homes and on their phones. They'd like to get the telecoms to pay for steel towers and transceivers to deliver content, and not compete with the broadcasters. At what point does Verizon or AT&T decide to buy a content provider, and take on canned formats with canned formats of their own?

Radio is still the most convenient, most listened-to audio service on the planet. Those steel towers make it accessible to virtually everybody, and over 90% of the people use it, independent of economic circumstance. It's still enormously profitable, and will continue to be IF it focuses on local markets, and brings in local money.

 

[TheBigA]

At what point does Verizon or AT&T decide to buy a content provider, and take on canned formats with canned formats of their own?

That's a very good question. I was at a conference with the CEOs of both companies and asked them. I was told that neither of them are interested in creating content. They feel that would significantly change their roles from common carriers, in regulatory terms, and its a change that they're not interested in making. Also, they feel that creating original content is expensive, and there is more money to be made by building and owning the pipes than by creating content. Could that view change? Maybe, but this is why they haven't gotten into the content business, even in the light of Comcast-NBC-Universal. Using that as the model, IF they get in the content business, it would be strictly video, not audio.

 

[davideduardo]

Somehow, this station managed to get a 7 share a few years ago.

Three decades ago it got big number... when radios were on average much better and some formats, on rimshots, had to be listened to or there was nothing else. Today there are many choices.

There's enough audience available to make money with it.

Maybe. But today, with alternatives to bad signals, and with radio revenues still off the pre-recession level by 30%, it is going to be hard to make anything other than a minimal profit.

I live here. I know the ground, and so do the other folks who live here. You are a number cruncher. You need to look beyond the spreadsheet once in a while.

Actually, I am a fairly innovative programmer and have been for 49 years... I simply learned about 30 or so years ago that having a good grasp on market characteristics and listener-expressed needs was a fabulous tool in making stations better.

And yet, live and local wins here. You still haven't addressed that.

I don't think it does, outside of the "morning show" model (which does not have to be restricted to just AM drive, time wise). Simply, many stations have "always" run live and so they continue to do so. But most could voice track and use the talent more productively and do just as well or better.

You insist on equating TV and radio. They're two different mediums, with very different expectations from the audience, completely different programming, and completely different delivery systems.

Both radio and TV are entertainment. Listeners today want all their entertainment to be available on one device that is flexible, portable and results in "single billing" for all the sources they like. They want to use the smartphone to shoot video to the big screen, play music or a radio station in the car, and to provide entertainment on the go. So, if anything, radio and TV, in the consumers' mind, are merging.

TV has been tethered to cable or satellite for 93% of the viewers in this market for years. The only viewing done outside of homes is Bills games in bars when they sell out in time to get the broadcast.

But video viewing is moving to mobile very fast. That's why we have two updates to the Overnights now... to include DCRs, Hulu, Amazon, etc,. played back either on a fixed device or, increasingly, via mobile devices. Or haven't you noticed that the major networks (cable and the conventional kind) make many programs available ONLY to android and iOS devices soon after running?

You can't admit you might be wrong, so you deflect, and offer an alternate reality. Once again, you don't really know the market, so you're out of your element.

No programmer "knows the market" because we are all radio folks, with a collection of anecdotal experience, ego motivation and personal preference influencing our decisions. So the only real answer is to consult with listeners to find out what they want. Done that way, you program to the market, not to yourself and your personal taste.


[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, that's a typical corporate attitude. "Corporate knows best. We're smarter because we make more money." No, you just craved that shinier suit, and were willing to give up family and friends to get it. It doesn't make you smarter. It makes you greedier. [/QUOTE]

I dunno' who you are talking about, unless you are simply trying to perpetuate a Hollywood style stereotype. This statement is no different than saying that all record promoters are like Joe Isgro and they run around with baseball bats whacking folks who don't spin their record...

Cumulus would love for the Nash format to take off, with syndication nationwide.

Nash is a brand, not a format. It's a different implementation in each market, with some shared resources.

You compare radio to TV, which is essentially syndication nationwide. Have you noticed that network TV has been on a downward spiral since cable TV brought alternative programming to TV a decade or two ago?

Have you noticed, that with close to 90% cable / satellite penetration (and the miserable OTA reception of digital TV) there is no difference between CBS/NBC/ABC/Univision/Fox/CW and TNT, Lifetime, SiFi, FX,MTV et. al.? The viewer really does not distinguish which channels have, by the way, local OTA transmitters and which are pure cable plays. Oh, right.... traditional web affiliates have local news. But if you put that local newscast in the middle of the Lifetime lineup, viewers would not sense the least little bit of difference.

You are making technical distinctions based on having or not having steel in the sky. Viewers don't do that.

You are correct. They are profitable. Their profit margin is a fraction of radio's but they are profitable.

Actually, a 33% margin is much better than all but the very outstanding, top rated radio stations.

On-line has been around for year. The costs of streaming are known. Don't you have to factor that cost into your company's expenses? The streamers are trying to get the rules changed because their model simply doesn't work. Add the issue that millions of dollars haven't paid to artists whose pre-1972 recordings have been a staple of many of their most popular formats, and you've got another potention bomb waiting to drop.

The blame for the pre-72 issue lies with the Federal Government for not making provisions. The end result may well be the exclusion of all pre-72 music from all digital distribution channels.

In any case, when you have Apple doing streaming radio and have a quarter of the adult population using Pandora regularly, there is both a market and an endgame. The business model will be negotiated as the RIAA members realize that they need to adjust to be able to derive ongoing revenue from pureplays. But the fact is that listeners are flocking to streaming and leaving OTA radio. For radio to survive, the industry has to provide its content on all available channels in the most convenient form.

I know that major broadcast groups would love to abandon those steel towers, and get listeners to pay for the delivery of content by paying for bandwidth in their homes and on their phones.

Pay models have received little attention. What broadcast groups want to do is place their content on the delivery method that listeners are using. Period.

Radio is still the most convenient, most listened-to audio service on the planet.

But when the PUR (Persons Using Radio, the percentage of the universe using radio in a given time) has gone from around 20 (meaning a rating of 20) to appreciably below 10 in the last decade, OTA radio needs to focus on the way people are getting entertainment now.

This is not about "my" winning. This is about radio continuing to win by moving to new distribution channels. The fact that half the listening time is gone indicates that listeners want their content conveniently delivered... and that is no longer on a "radio".

(Have you tried to buy a radio in a store lately? There are hardly any on sale, indicating that consumers don't want radios... they want content)

 

[TheBigA]

(Have you tried to buy a radio in a store lately? There are hardly any on sale, indicating that consumers don't want radios... they want content)

The most interesting part to me is that with all of the money Pandora, Apple, and Google have, all three have chosen to simply be distribution systems for pre-recorded music. None of them have gone into original content creation. Why is that? Are they stupid? Don't they know about live & local? Isn't content creation where the money is? Obviously not. The only thing they're doing locally is sales, and they seem to be getting customers, even without DJs and newscasters.

I agree that consumers want content, and their definition of content may be different from what previous generations wanted 40 years ago.

 

[davideduardo]

I agree that consumers want content, and their definition of content may be different from what previous generations wanted 40 years ago.

There is probably no definition more telling than that of the term "DJ".

To those who were radio listeners in the 50's and into the 90's, the definition is clear: Cousin Brucie, Dick Biondi, Dan Ingram, Wolfman Jack, Alan Freed.

To today's generation a DJ is someone who often does not say anything, mixes records (often cutting them up or creating new mixes and edits) and creates flow.

Each kind of DJ is totally different.

Some other terms radio has relied on that have changed:

"Traffic Report" - What your Google Maps or GPS gives you.
"News" - Huffington Post and Drudge for some, TMZ for others.
"Weather" - They have cool apps for that
"Community" - My FB friends.
"Local" - In my personal world
"Live" - I'm streaming it now.
"Recorded" - I put it on the DVR for later.
"Hit" - A song I want to hear.
"Radio" - An audio stream without pictures.
"AM" - The opposite of PM

 

[TheBigA]

CNN's Reliable Sources spoke with college journalism students this morning about where they get news. All but one said online. The one exception said NPR. Most said the first thing they check is Twitter or Facebook.

 

[dougw9wi]

Heck, I've been out of college since 1980 & the three places I go for news when I get up in the morning are NPR, Twitter, and CBC.ca... sorry guys, but commercial radio isn't even on the radar.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Radio abandoned news a decade or more ago. It's no longer a reliable news source.

Pandora, Apple, and Google realize it would take a major expenditure of resources to try to compete with local content, so they simply compete with recording companies for music distribution. They offer national content because they don't have much choice.

Sirius/XM's profit margin is 13.34%. That's considerably lower than the average for radio stations.

Not everybody has - or uses - a smart phone. It's a danger on the highways for traffic and weather reports - and illegal to use it in the car for data while driving in many states. Radio still works, and is relied on by the majority of drivers who don't want to mess with a smart phone while driving.

You still haven't addressed how you're going to replace the revenue from local advertisers if radio relies on apps, Apple, Google, and Pandora. Local stations still bring in 85% of the revenue in the industry. Distribution methods may eventually change, but you'll have to disenfranchise a lot of people who can't afford a data plan if you abandon towers and transmitters. And you'll lose people who have to search for and program in stations that they'd normally get by hitting "Seek" on their car radio, and assign a button if they decid that they like it.

Radio is easy, effective, caters to local markets, and brings in local revenue when corporate hires the right people and doesn't interfere. It would be nice if some of that profit stayed in the market instead of lining the pockets of out-of-towners, but that ship sailed with the Communications Act of 1996.

David, you need to look at a rating book. Live and mostly local handily beats canned in mid-days in Buffalo/Niagara Falls.

But, I know, both you and TheBigA both know this market better than the people who live here. As I say, that's the typical corporate attitude. Thanks for your "help".

 

[TheBigA]

Radio abandoned news a decade or more ago. It's no longer a reliable news source.

Except in major markets like NY, LA, CHI, Philly, DC, and SF, where all news stations are at the top of the ratings.

The bad news is the format doesn't translate to places like Houston, Atlanta, or Dallas.

Sirius/XM's profit margin is 13.34%. That's considerably lower than the average for radio stations.

That's what happens when you overpay for content. Their Oprah deal is perhaps the centerpiece of overpaying.

You still haven't addressed how you're going to replace the revenue from local advertisers if radio relies on apps, Apple, Google, and Pandora.

First of all, as I've said to you many times, it's not an all or nothing thing. It's multi-platform media presentation. That's what Apple, Google, and Pandora can't do. Second of all, if Pandora can open local sales offices, why can't everyone else? OTA radio doesn't own a patent on local sales. Sirius has been doing it in major markets for years. National content, local sales. It's already being done by OTA competitors.

 

[davideduardo]

Radio abandoned news a decade or more ago. It's no longer a reliable news source.

Don't you notice the "coincidence" of the broad availability of on-demand web sources for news and radio's further reduction in its dependency on news for content. Radio has been far more selective in its news coverage, adjusting the amount and times to fit listener needs.

And, although it happened decades ago, radio did its major trimming of news once the 8% News/PA/Other for AM and 6% for FM renewal expectation was off the table. Able to do nearly pure music formats, which we knew the listeners wanted, many formats totally eliminated news save for a bit of morning drive content. So instead of hiding news in overnights and doing more of it than listeners wanted, formats were adjusted to reflect listener needs. And it had nothing to do with consolidation, corporations or conspiracies.

Pandora, Apple, and Google realize it would take a major expenditure of resources to try to compete with local content, so they simply compete with recording companies for music distribution. They offer national content because they don't have much choice.

And also because they know that a huge percentage of audio listeners don't want disk jockeys and whatever else you consider to be "local". They capitalize on the fact that most under-50 consumers have moved into the demand mode and there is considerable interest in pureplay music channels

Sirius/XM's profit margin is 13.34%. That's considerably lower than the average for radio stations.

Actually, historically, and going back nearly 60 years, about half of all radio stations have not been profitable. And in today's economy, the percentage that do no more than break even is likely even higher.

Margin in radio is generally calculated on EBITDA. Sirius / XM has a 33% margin, which exceeds all but the bigger stations in any given market.

Not everybody has - or uses - a smart phone.

It's over 50% and growing very fast. And my point is that there are nearly no radios being sold, and tens of millions of smartphones. Radio has to have new media distribution as an option today, as the new media channels will be almost universally used in a few years.

It's a danger on the highways for traffic and weather reports - and illegal to use it in the car for data while driving in many states.

You haven't been following the changing dashboard. You link your smartphone to the dashboard, and use it as a "radio" and entertainment center. Although it will take a decade to replace just half of all cars on the road with so equipped vehicles, many cars on the road today have the ability to connect smartphones and to listen via the car's audio.

Again, the point is that the trend away from AM and FM is already building and there are many ways to use smartphones legally and with great versatility. I have the ability in my car to tell the phone, via the dash, what stream to select, using audio commands.

Radio still works, and is relied on by the majority of drivers who don't want to mess with a smart phone while driving.

The smartphone is usable just as if it were a radio... but one that can get an almost endless number of stations.

You still haven't addressed how you're going to replace the revenue from local advertisers if radio relies on apps, Apple, Google, and Pandora.

Local streams that simulcast local AM and FM stations. It's already being done, and it's growing.

... but you'll have to disenfranchise a lot of people who can't afford a data plan if you abandon towers and transmitters.

Nobody suggests abandoning towers and transmitters. But listeners are abandoning this mode of distribution so radio has to follow listener trends.

And guess where the highest percentage of smartphone ownership is? Among Hispanics... who have become the greatest group of CPO's and who find the cost of a phone with a data plan to be lower than separate home phones, cable service, etc. Yet this group would be, if you go by your "affordability" evaluation, the least likely to get smartphones.

David, you need to look at a rating book. Live and mostly local handily beats canned in mid-days in Buffalo/Niagara Falls.

As I said before, I am quite certain that voice tracking of those "live" music stations would make no difference were the stations to change.

As to local, the term is meaningless in your context today with today's under-55 listeners.

But, I know, both you and TheBigA both know this market better than the people who live here.

Another meaningless term: "know the market". What you have to "know" is what listeners want, and the best way to do that is to ask them.

 

[TheBigA]

They capitalize on the fact that most under-50 consumers have moved into the demand mode and there is considerable interest in pureplay music channels

I find it interesting that when the MTV Networks moved their music videos off their main channels and on to their on-demand sites about 8 years ago, the only viewers who complained were boomers.