AM Listening by Market: A ranker

[vchimpanzee]

There are agri-businesses that support farming in farm communities. Having said that, I was told by a major farm advertiser 15 years ago that advertising on the radio was no longer necessary to reach the target audience; farmers were getting their farm prices on their laptops.

Whether this means anything or not (and there is a translator) WERT Van Wert, Ohio, with a standards format that leans in a more traditional direction than Westwood One America's Best Music or LRN, the advertising indicates a lot of farmers must be listening, and either the commercials provide important information or let people know the advertisers do.

 

[davideduardo]

Whether this means anything or not (and there is a translator) WERT Van Wert, Ohio, with a standards format that leans in a more traditional direction than Westwood One America's Best Music or LRN, the advertising indicates a lot of farmers must be listening, and either the commercials provide important information or let people know the advertisers do.

Why do you keep bringing up this tiny station as an example of anything? It's AM 5 mV/m signal covers less than 20,000 persons and the translator covers only about half of that.

Tell us instead what WNAX, KRVN, KMA or KFYR are billing compared with 10, 20, 30 years ago.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Tell us instead what WNAX, KRVN, KMA or KFYR are billing compared with 10, 20, 30 years ago.

As someone who grew up in part near the Iowa-Missouri border, and who can recognize a "Kitchen Klatter" accent from miles away, I'll bite: how is KMA doing these days?

 

[davideduardo]

As someone who grew up in part near the Iowa-Missouri border, and who can recognize a "Kitchen Klatter" accent from miles away, I'll bite: how is KMA doing these days?

I don't know, but suspect that billing in inflation adjusted dollars is a small fraction of what it was 30 to 40 years ago.

 

[boombox4]

As I said in my original comment: If you take a look at the average of all radio markets sited in the link, not Seattle/Tacoma as you wanted to talk about; the average of those markets across the board, was around 30% of surveyed radio listeners, which correlates with the percentage of Republican voters who still support the former President, and likely listen to the kind of programming AM features, like right-wing talk.

Now, getting to your latest swerve: According to the U.S. Census Bureau statistics, July 1,2022, out of 333,287,557 persons, "65 years and over" is 16.8%. Not 11-12% as you allege. And, that 16.8% has increased since the original census information was gathered in 2021. Again, that's a percentage of 333,287,557 persons, not just registered voters, nor a percentage of just polled radio listeners.
Even you should see that's two different percentages.

If you care to click on the link, here are the statistics I just sited: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222

OK, but you're forgetting that you have to cut that 16.8% in half to get the number of MEN 65+ right? The population is roughly 50/50 male/female, which it also says on the chart you linked (50.5% female).

Half of 16.8% is 8.4%. That means 8.4% of the US population is men (of all races) over 65.

However, you've stated that the "vast majority" of AM radio listeners are "white males 65+".

So, if you figure in race into the Census stats, older white men would be around 76% of that 8.4% (whites make up roughly 76% of the US population, according to your Census chart).

That' means white men over age 65 are roughly 6.38% of the entire population.

Which tells us that more than just 'old, angry white men' listen to AM radio at least once a month.

 

[davideduardo]

Which tells us that more than just 'old, angry white men' listen to AM radio at least once a month.

The figure being used is "percentage of radio listeners" it appears, not the percentage of the population. Because over 90% of those over 55 use radio every week, the base is much larger in the number of people than, let's say, 12-17 where in diary markets, most don't listen to radio at all.

(It's different in PPM markets, as PPM effectively registers people who hear a station but did not consciously listen)

 

[Kelly A]

OK, but you're forgetting that you have to cut that 16.8% in half to get the number of MEN 65+ right? The population is roughly 50/50 male/female, which it also says on the chart you linked (50.5% female)

Oh come on, this isn't that hard. There's a difference between U.S. population count estimates via the Census, and what was shown in the radio listening survey David posted. They simply aren't the same numbers. You can't possibly believe that every person in the Census is also a radio listener, or were included in the radio survey? For one thing, the overall sample for the radio survey isn't anywhere close to being the Census.

.Half of 16.8% is 8.4%. That means 8.4% of the US population is men (of all races) over 65.

But again, you're assuming that every person in the Census is also a radio listener, and were part of the radio survey.

However, you've stated that the "vast majority" of AM radio listeners are "white males 65+".

Yes, according to existing radio survey demographics, that's been shown to be the case. Technically the bracket is 55+, but evidence is it skews well into the plus range.

So, if you figure in race into the Census stats, older white men would be around 76% of that 8.4% (whites make up roughly 76% of the US population, according to your Census chart).

Again, you're trying to compare apples to watermelon.

Which tells us that more than just 'old, angry white men' listen to AM radio at least once a month.

We in the business according to research have stated many times that for more than a decade AM has been dominated by N/T format(s). Since Rush Limbaugh essentially saved the AM band back in the day, the average age of a talk format listener is comprised of white males "55+". Because the format is predominantly right wing, or Republican-based, that's a sector of society which is mainly white. Are there a smaller percentage of outlying talk listeners who are African American, Latino, or female? Probably, but surveys show those in very tiny percentages and shrinking along with the overall listening base due to no new listeners to AM coming in.
The reason for the "angry" label, is political talk shows create or report topics to get their listeners fired up, aka: angry. Angry listeners are motivated to return the next day, or stick around for another hour. Taxes, sex, race, conspiracy theories, immigration, and more recently, LGBTQ discussion, gets the older male Republican outraged about 'where the country is going'. This is the job of the host hitting particular hot buttons to see what resonates. Their audience is predominantly old, white, males, so you find topics that resonate with old, white, males to make them fired-up about the topic.

 

[gr8oldies]

Why do you keep bringing up this tiny station as an example of anything? It's AM 5 mV/m signal covers less than 20,000 persons and the translator covers only about half of that.

Tell us instead what WNAX, KRVN, KMA or KFYR are billing compared with 10, 20, 30 years ago.

Dude is still running up Chris Roberts' internet bill. Yes there is still farm broadcasting in Ohio, with the descendant of the Agri-Broadcasting Network, that was on every non-rated market station in the state in the 70s-90s

 

[gr8oldies]

Oh come on, this isn't that hard. There's a difference between U.S. population count estimates via the Census, and what was shown in the radio listening survey David posted. They simply aren't the same numbers. You can't possibly believe that every person in the Census is also a radio listener, or were included in the radio survey? For one thing, the overall sample for the radio survey isn't anywhere close to being the Census.

But again, you're assuming that every person in the Census is also a radio listener, and were part of the radio survey.

Yes, according to existing radio survey demographics, that's been shown to be the case. Technically the bracket is 55+, but evidence is it skews well into the plus range.

Again, you're trying to compare apples to watermelon.

We in the business according to research have stated many times that for more than a decade AM has been dominated by N/T format(s). Since Rush Limbaugh essentially saved the AM band back in the day, the average age of a talk format listener is comprised of white males "55+". Because the format is predominantly right wing, or Republican-based, that's a sector of society which is mainly white. Are there a smaller percentage of outlying talk listeners who are African American, Latino, or female? Probably, but surveys show those in very tiny percentages and shrinking along with the overall listening base due to no new listeners to AM coming in.
The reason for the "angry" label, is political talk shows create or report topics to get their listeners fired up, aka: angry. Angry listeners are motivated to return the next day, or stick around for another hour. Taxes, sex, race, conspiracy theories, immigration, and more recently, LGBTQ discussion, gets the older male Republican outraged about 'where the country is going'. This is the job of the host hitting particular hot buttons to see what resonates. Their audience is predominantly old, white, males, so you find topics that resonate with old, white, males to make them fired-up about the topic.

Now half the topics are made up "Democrats want to make your kids trans!" That becomes legislation in red states

 

[Kelly A]

Now half the topics are made up "Democrats want to make your kids trans!" That becomes legislation in red states

And I didn't intend on turning the topic into a political or culture war discussion. But the facts are, that remaining popular AM stations primarily cater toward a particular demographic which also happens to have that sort of political-lean.

 

[boombox4]

And I didn't intend on turning the topic into a political or culture war discussion. But the facts are, that remaining popular AM stations primarily cater toward a particular demographic which also happens to have that sort of political-lean.

Last time I saw a guy say "all the AM stations in my city are angry white guy talk", I looked at the AM stations in his metro. The majority were other formats. Maybe 25 AM stations in the market, and 3 were 'angry white guy talk'. With low ratings, mostly.

The top rated AM stations in the country aren't "angry white guy talk". They're news stations, or lean heavily towards news and traffic, with some talk. The conservative talkers are like the cable news networks, and some political podcasts. They got to keep the faithful fired up to try to deliver for the advertisers. And they're all losing listeners and viewers over time, except the podcasts, which will be around longer, obviously.

As for the radio listening survey, if 30% of Americans listen to AM at least once a month, and there are only 8% of Americans who are angry old white guys, somethings off in the accounting somewhere. But believe what you will.

 

[Kelly A]

Last time I saw a guy say "all the AM stations in my city are angry white guy talk", I looked at the AM stations in his metro. The majority were other formats. Maybe 25 AM stations in the market, and 3 were 'angry white guy talk'. With low ratings, mostly.

The top rated AM stations in the country aren't "angry white guy talk". They're news stations, or lean heavily towards news and traffic, with some talk. The conservative talkers are like the cable news networks, and some political podcasts. They got to keep the faithful fired up to try to deliver for the advertisers. And they're all losing listeners and viewers over time, except the podcasts, which will be around longer, obviously.

As for the radio listening survey, if 30% of Americans listen to AM at least once a month, and there are only 8% of Americans who are angry old white guys, somethings off in the accounting somewhere. But believe what you will.

Yet again, you're trying to compare U.S. Census data with radio surveys. Not the same thing. You also seem to compare radio in Seattle as some sort of model for the rest of the country. It isn't.

I get it, as a older, white guy, you don't like being labeled an old white guy. Just because the demographic term makes you uncomfortable, doesn't mean it isn't accurate.

As I mentioned; right-wing talk likely saved AM radio from an earlier demise once music listening completely left the band. Local news is the most expensive and difficult format to have while still making revenue. Most major market news stations have moved to FM, or simulcast, because (with the exception of a handful of radio nerd hobbyists) most listeners under 55 no longer seek out AM for anything. What's left on AM is predominantly right wing talk, which appeals to white males over 65. Now, are there still non-English and religious stations on AM? Sure. But those are a smaller percentage of viable formats on AM verses right-wing talk.

 

[Todd Mitchell]

Tell us instead what WNAX, KRVN, KMA or KFYR are billing compared with 10, 20, 30 years ago.

I can only refer to one of those four, but thanks to the ag industry still embracing the efficient reach of AM radio...just fine. Sports and conservative talk help nicely, too.

But 30 years ago, there were far fewer options for marketers (and listeners), so the pie gets sliced...but that's true of stations of all sizes.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

As for the radio listening survey, if 30% of Americans listen to AM at least once a month, and there are only 8% of Americans who are angry old white guys, somethings off in the accounting somewhere. But believe what you will.

This is absurd, though. Talk stations (or those that pretend to be “news talk” but are just right wing talk) over-index on one segment of the population. The idea there would be an even distribution across the board makes no logical sense.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Why do you keep bringing up this tiny station as an example of anything? It's AM 5 mV/m signal covers less than 20,000 persons and the translator covers only about half of that.

I mean…it isn’t exactly a surprise at this point, is it?

 

[Miss Tuned]

Most modern farm equipment these days have either phone app pairing to the various screens inside the cab, or some actually run the application via cell/pcs/wifi right in the piece of equipment. There's no need to wake up early and listen to the ag report on the local radio station.

The other one that baffles me is Bloomberg. Their 1130 in NYC is always the first AM to come in when transatlantic reception opens up (and it's on DAB in London), but I don't get who is listening to it. For up-to-date financial info, there are far more efficient ways of getting hold of it (not least through Bloomberg themselves). It seems like a relic of an age that's long since passed.

 

[boombox4]

This is absurd, though. Talk stations (or those that pretend to be “news talk” but are just right wing talk) over-index on one segment of the population. The idea there would be an even distribution across the board makes no logical sense.

Understood. But I never said it was evenly distributed across the board. In fact, I repeated the statistic that David posted at the start of the thread -- that the 82,346,800 number represents those who tune in at least once a month -- which could be anything from just tuning in a traffic or weather report once a day, or the odd sporting event.

And I said that a number that large would have to include more than just one demographic.

Obviously, the band is aging out, just like paper newspapers, cable news and cable TV in general, optical entertainment media, and baseball.

 

[CTListener]

Understood. But I never said it was evenly distributed across the board. In fact, I repeated the statistic that David posted at the start of the thread -- that the 82,346,800 number represents those who tune in at least once a month -- which could be anything from just tuning in a traffic or weather report once a day, or the odd sporting event.

And I said that a number that large would have to include more than just one demographic.

Obviously, the band is aging out, just like paper newspapers, cable news and cable TV in general, optical entertainment media, and baseball.

NFL football isn't far behind. Last I saw, the average NFL fan's age was 52 or 53, not far from MLB's 57, and even closer to the age of irrelevance to Madison Avenue, 55. Spectator team sports seem to be aging across the board, with only soccer defying the trend. Of course, in one-on-one sports, MMA demos are an advertising executive's delight, so we're seeing more and more on TV every year.

 

[davideduardo]

The other one that baffles me is Bloomberg. Their 1130 in NYC is always the first AM to come in when transatlantic reception opens up (and it's on DAB in London), but I don't get who is listening to it. For up-to-date financial info, there are far more efficient ways of getting hold of it (not least through Bloomberg themselves). It seems like a relic of an age that's long since passed.

Bloomberg Radio is just a brand extension and image enhancement. Not many people have to listen as Bloomberg's main customers are for their data services... the "Bloomberg terminal".

"Most Bloomberg setups have between two and six displays. It is available for an annual fee of $24,240 per user ($27,660 per year for firms that use only one terminal), leased out in two-year contracts. As of 2022, there were 325,000 Bloomberg Terminal subscribers worldwide."

So, I'm guessing that the prime radio target is among terminal users who are commuting in their car... maybe they ask their driver to put it on.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Bloomberg Radio is just a brand extension and image enhancement. Not many people have to listen as Bloomberg's main customers are for their data services... the "Bloomberg terminal".

"Most Bloomberg setups have between two and six displays. It is available for an annual fee of $24,240 per user ($27,660 per year for firms that use only one terminal), leased out in two-year contracts. As of 2022, there were 325,000 Bloomberg Terminal subscribers worldwide."

So, I'm guessing that the prime radio target is among terminal users who are commuting in their car... maybe they ask their driver to put it on.

Bloomberg finally joined the open TCP/IP networking world but it took them a long time. I worked on a project about 17 years ago where some of our execs wanted to put Bloomberg terminals in multiple locations, needed since our company was expanding. For the longest time, the hangup was that Bloomberg insisted on having the terminals connected with special "Bloomberg cable". An Ethernet connection was not good enough for them, even though the terminals by then actually communicated with a TCP-based application-level protocol over IP. There was quite a tussle for a while and we gave in. A few years later, "Open Bloomberg" was touted; we moved quickly when we learned of that and got rid of that $%^&@! cable.

You may be joking a bit with that last paragraph, but I actually don't think you're far off!