Removed from dying AM radio

[RadioFan2J3]

This is not the venue for that.

Why not?

You opened up the subject on regulations.

 

[Avid Listener]

While it may be true that you "cannot unring the bell," neither can you understand why AM radio is in its present state without knowing how it got there. A large part of every success or failure is the result of opportunities taken or not taken.

Understanding is good. However, there are times when understanding how a situation came to be helps in thinking of a solution. There are other times when it really doesn't matter. Any fool can repeat a platitude. It requires wisdom to discern when the platitude applies and when it does not. Specific reasons why a platitude do not apply in a single specific situation are not negated by the repetition of a general purpose platitude.

I challenge you, or any of the others in this thread who keep throwing the platitudes around, to present some solid reasons of how the knowledge of when technologies were (or weren't) adopted in the past, or when rules or regulations were passed can be put to use today, in 2014 and into 2015 to turn around AM radio's death spiral? What actions can be taken to change the path that AM radio is on that are based on that specific knowledge of the past in this specific situation. I'm not asking for generalities. I'm asking the know-it-alls who keep pontificating about Santayana's famous quote to show how to apply that general statement to specific action that will generate a specific result in this specific situation. If you understand "how it got there", show how that knowledge can be used to take it somewhere other than where it's going.

One of the know-it-alls likes to keep repeating how many "profitable" AM stations are still operating, ignoring the fact that the owners of the stations that are not corporations tend to be older people approaching the age of retirement or death (much like AM radio's audience!). They also ignore the fact that those stations remain profitable because expenses are slashed to the bone, with minimal staff and most programming either brokered or taken from a satellite feed. When the owners start retiring or dying, and the aging audience keeps dying without being replaced, AM radio will die. So tell me, how will you apply those lessons from the past to change that, to prevent that from happening?

 

[landtuna]

Using the example of a station owned by an older person, the one I listen to for music, which seems to be doing well, has a popular morning show and runs lots of ads for local business, was sold to the local college, which has made no programming changes. I have heard of a student working at the station, but eventually it will be used to train students for careers in broadcasting. Another station in the same town is being purchased by the college for the same purpose, though it is a talk station with mostly syndicated hosts.

Based upon what I've heard here someone ought to write a letter to the college and tell them they are preparing their students for a career which is not likely to exist.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Based upon what I've heard here someone ought to write a letter to the college and tell them they are preparing their students for a career which is not likely to exist.

Some of the skills they'll learn could apply to other areas, though. Some of the students are doing news stories, though I haven't heard them. Journalism is journalism, for example. Yes, I know what they're saying about newspapers. The ones selling commercial time could use that skill in other areas as well.

 

[Avid Listener]

Based upon what I've heard here someone ought to write a letter to the college and tell them they are preparing their students for a career which is not likely to exist.

As long as English Literature departments keep granting diplomas to poets, the argument about preparing students for a career which is not likely to exist holds little water.

 

[landtuna]

As long as English Literature departments keep granting diplomas to poets, the argument about preparing students for a career which is not likely to exist holds little water.

I should have used the sarcasm flag for my post because it was meant at least partially as tongue-in-cheek however... English Lit does have several career destinations besides poetry. Broadcasting, well... I guess you could aspire to host a TV game show based in L.A. (You might have to pass the dentistry program first.)

 

[MickeyD]

Correct. The United States has more people in it than Russia and China. When the On Line Stations go off during a storm, FM Stations get hit hard with their transmitter sites on some big hill or mountain somewhere in more of a remote area, a small AM station is easy to get back on the air than FM. We can do the old fashion thing of string a copper wire between tow poles, tune it up, and the AM Station is back on.

BTW: Cumulus, Clear Channel, CBS, and Emmis have too much money tied up in AM and Digital AM. They would take a huge hit on the stock market if they abandon their investments in their AM Stations.

The US has more people than Russia or China? One Chinese Province, pick one, has more people than the entire US population.

 

[davideduardo]

Disney paid around 40 million for 50KW WQEW and sold it for almost 13 Million. This is a NYC 50 KW AM signal. There aren't even any bites on their other stations. Look at the business side of radio not programming it. I wouldn't take an AM station as a gift.

You don't know whether there are sales being negotiated for the Disney stations. In all likelihood, there are quite a few deals in various stages of development and everyone is under an NDA, which is usual.

As to your LPFM statement, LPFMs are non-commercial and cover neighborhoods, not whole markets. They don't compete with commercial stations.

As to pricing, there is simply a new model for all media pricing that is mostly the product of the recession... just like happened with real estate. Even the most profitable station today goes for 5 to 6 times cash flow, not the 16 to 18 times that were common during the consolidation era.

 

[FredLeonard]

Funny you should say that.

Clear Channel has been donating a few of its AMs to the Minority Telecom Council, with the hope of inspiring more minority ownership of broadcasting. It's a pretty tough go, even when they get the frequency for free.

How disingenuous and hypocritical. Typical of Bain Channel, aka IHeart$. Sort of like giving stuff to The Goodwill instead of just throwing it out. If Bain Channel just turns the licenses back in, they don't get a tax deduction. Instead they give it to this "Minority Telecom Council," inflate the market value of a useless license, and take it off their corporate taxes.

Anybody bother to see how many of these "minority ownership" stations are actually operating?

 

[JeffM]

How disingenuous and hypocritical. Typical of Bain Channel, aka IHeart$. Sort of like giving stuff to The Goodwill instead of just throwing it out. If Bain Channel just turns the licenses back in, they don't get a tax deduction. Instead they give it to this "Minority Telecom Council," inflate the market value of a useless license, and take it off their corporate taxes.

Anybody bother to see how many of these "minority ownership" stations are actually operating?

Well...now we know who doesn't give anything to Goodwill (or probably anyone else.)

"If they would rather die, said Scrooge, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." (God help us, every one...)

 

[davideduardo]

How disingenuous and hypocritical. Typical of Bain Channel, aka IHeart$. Sort of like giving stuff to The Goodwill instead of just throwing it out. If Bain Channel just turns the licenses back in, they don't get a tax deduction. Instead they give it to this "Minority Telecom Council," inflate the market value of a useless license, and take it off their corporate taxes.

If a station is given away or if it is discontinued, the remaining asset value on the books becomes either a donation (deductible) or a loss on discontinued operations (deductible).

Companies don't just "make up" a value for the station in these cases. It's based on the book value of the assets, tangible and intangible. The write-off would be the same in either case. It's, in a sense, no different than a retailer disposing of unsold obsolete inventory... they could donate it to a charity or send it to a recycling center or the landfill; in either case, the value of the inventory is taken off the books as a "write off" rather than an asset (unsold inventory).

In the case of the donation, some potential good may come of the action, while in just turning back the license to the FCC nobody benefits.

 

[MickeyD]

If a station is given away or if it is discontinued, the remaining asset value on the books becomes either a donation (deductible) or a loss on discontinued operations (deductible).

Companies don't just "make up" a value for the station in these cases. It's based on the book value of the assets, tangible and intangible. The write-off would be the same in either case. It's, in a sense, no different than a retailer disposing of unsold obsolete inventory... they could donate it to a charity or send it to a recycling center or the landfill; in either case, the value of the inventory is taken off the books as a "write off" rather than an asset (unsold inventory).

In the case of the donation, some potential good may come of the action, while in just turning back the license to the FCC nobody benefits.

The only people that will accept a donated AM are people that know absolutely nothing about radio. The same is true for anyone that will buy an AM and think that "with the right programming they can turn it around".

 

[TheBigA]

How disingenuous and hypocritical.

Maybe in your opinion, but the FCC really prefers this to turning the license in. Donating the station keeps the license active, and donating it to a minority group also serves the goals and agenda of the FCC, which is seeking to encourage minority ownership in broadcasting. The tax benefit you mention is really negligible in a company the size of CC.

In my view, the only reason you don't see more of this is because the FCC continues to talk about promoting minority ownership without actually doing anything. So what CC did was actually help solve the FCC's problem without them actually doing anything.

 

[TheBigA]

The only people that will accept a donated AM are people that know absolutely nothing about radio.

It depends. The people who know the most about radio consider the licenses to be overpriced. Sometimes you need someone who doesn't know anything about the business to enter it in order for real change to take place. That's the thinking behind minority ownership. A smart experienced minority broadcaster like Oprah would never spend any of her money on buying a radio station. Imagine if she did. Instead, these stations get donated to people with little broadcasting experience, but lots of community experience. It might be an interesting experiment in the use of a public resource like AM radio.

 

[FredLeonard]

Maybe in your opinion, but the FCC really prefers this to turning the license in. Donating the station keeps the license active, and donating it to a minority group also serves the goals and agenda of the FCC, which is seeking to encourage minority ownership in broadcasting. The tax benefit you mention is really negligible in a company the size of CC.

In my view, the only reason you don't see more of this is because the FCC continues to talk about promoting minority ownership without actually doing anything. So what CC did was actually help solve the FCC's problem without them actually doing anything.

More reverse discrimination. And sort of patronizing: They can't make it on their own; they need our help. If Bain Channel and the rest were really worried that these "minority" stations could compete, could be a force in the market, they'd never do this. Bain Channel isn't actually doing anything either.

And what happens after some "minority" interest gets hold of one of these affirmative action properties? I know one example, where the property actually had some value. The local government decided to divide up the territory for cable TV and to set aside a big chunk of the city for a franchise which had to go to a minority owner. It went to a Black guy with political connections, who turned around and sold out to Comcast.

I still can't figure out why you Dittoheads who veer right on everything else are so willing to embrace reverse discrimination.

 

[TheBigA]

More reverse discrimination. And sort of patronizing: They can't make it on their own; they need our help.

In a way. We donate our clothes to Goodwill only after we have no further use for them. Same with these stations. CC didn't give them away simply out of generosity, but because THEY couldn't do anything with them. And after years of trying, they couldn't find anyone to buy them. This is the last resort. If it's patronizing, so be it. Those receiving the stations don't have to accept them. And you're exactly right, they can simply turn around and sell them for a profit if they choose. But they were able to create value in the stations that CC could not, and for that, they should be commended.

As for reverse discrimination, blame the FCC. They're the ones with this agenda of promoting minority ownership of broadcasting. They want a diverse ownership base that reflects the diversity of the population. Maybe it's the modern day equivalent of 40 acres and a mule.

 

[FredLeonard]

Or they are groups that wish to serve a constituency too small or too specialized for a large group to program for. Take 1310 in Dearborn (Detroit MSA) which could not compete in the general market. It is going to be a Spanish language station serving many of the 200 thousand Hispanics in the Detroit area and has a good chance of being, albeit on a smaller scale, both profitable and a valuable community asset.

Oh, sure! Bilingualism has worked so well for Canada, hasn't it?

The FCC should ban all foreign language broadcasting. All government offices and all businesses in interstate commerce should be required to operate only in English. English should be mandated as the official language of the USA. And only people who can speak, read and write English should be allowed to immigrate (and stay).

 

[TheBigA]

English should be mandated as the official language of the USA.

It's fine to have that opinion, and you're welcome to it. But until what you want actually becomes law, we operate with the rules we have.

 

[davideduardo]

As for reverse discrimination, blame the FCC. They're the ones with this agenda of promoting minority ownership of broadcasting. They want a diverse ownership base that reflects the diversity of the population. Maybe it's the modern day equivalent of 40 acres and a mule.

Or simply recognition that the "system" was not fair in the past and needs to be kick started to allow previously discriminated against groups to catch up.

 

[davideduardo]

Oh, sure! Bilingualism has worked so well for Canada, hasn't it?

Canada has a unique situation in that one province and some adjoining areas contain predominantly Francophones while the rest of the nation is English speaking. Not unlike the Basque and Catalán speaking areas of Spain.

Where the whole nation has multilingual characteristics, there are far fewer issues. Think Switzerland. Or India. Or Perú, Bolivia and Ecuador.

The FCC should ban all foreign language broadcasting.

Why? Can you cite any study that shows that giving first generation immigrants media in their birth tongue is bad?

In fact, the US has a rich history going back to pre-Independence times of media in French, German, Dutch and, over the decades, Yiddish, Polish, Chinese and other languages. At first, these were printed publications and they contained both news of the homeland and things about life in the new country. Then came radio and we got stations in Italian, all manner of European languages and then Asian tongues. We also got a fair number of stations in Native American languages, too.

This media helps immigrants to adapt to the new nation they live in and gives them a bit of the culture they were raised in. Nation building in the United States was based on immigration.

All government offices and all businesses in interstate commerce should be required to operate only in English. English should be mandated as the official language of the USA.

The US has long been at a competitive disadvantage because there were so few bilinguals and polyglots in the nation. For example, in the 60's and 70's, the Japanese virtually took over the TV broadcast equipment market in South America because they had Spanish and Portuguese speaking staff in Japan to sell and service the products, as well as manuals in correct Spanish or Portuguese. The US companies, for the most part, had none of those.

In addition, immigrants whose language abilities in English are limited need certain services in their own language. It benefits society overall to help such folks because, if we believe immigrants are of benefit, then we need to insure that they have equal access to all aspects of life in the US.

How many languages do you speak?

And only people who can speak, read and write English should be allowed to immigrate (and stay).

But most immigrants come here... and have come here... for economic reasons. The huddled masses did not have the ability to learn English back in the homeland, often because they were either near starvation or persecuted or in some way unable to survive.