• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Saving AM Radio

TheBigA said:
iHeart and Pandora are in two very different businesses, even though they each use the internet. Same with Spotify and YouTube. They are not comparable. Just as Pandora and Sirius are two very different businesses owned by the same company.
Click to expand...
But we're talking big picture here, from the perspective of the consumer. Remember, from a consumer perspective, the business plans are more or less irrelevant. And when it comes to which streaming platform is more popular among the under 35's, it's relevant to platforms that Radio uses, like IHeart, TuneIn (and its competitors), & Audacy.

YouTube definitely is different from all the others. It's a video / audio free for all there. I don't really know how Amazon and Apple Music operate -- never looked into it, don't have friends that use those services.

That aside, from the consumer perspective, how are Pandora and IHeart and Spotify not comparable? They all stream music. They all are streaming platforms with multiple, formatted 'channels' (Spotify calls them 'playlists', and their Pop section has 35 of them; IHeart has 21 "Genres" playlists and also others divided into moods, decades, etc.; Pandora -- which I've used, as it's on my phone

IHeart advertises its pre-formatted, genre based channels on their OTA radio stations.

Obviously, IHeart has literal radio station streams, where Spotify and Pandora and YouTube don't. So in that respect, you are absolutely correct. But the other platforms, especially among the under 35's, are presently eating IHeart's lunch. And what percentage of those 8% of under 35's listening to IHeart are tuning into IHeart's radio station streams? I can't find any data on that.

Of course, these listening percentages could change. I still think that the streaming field is still in the shakedown phase. We've got people getting their audio from OTA as well as their smartphone now. As the years progress, it's going to gravitate more towards phone-only.
 
Kelly A said:
Anymore terrestrial transmission facilities are considered just another content delivery method than they are a big part of the product. Radio and local TV management would like nothing more than ditch the hassle and expense of transmitters, towers, antennas, and links. I suspect like what we're seeing with AM, as the audience that grew up-on or relies on OTA transmission for their news and entertainment eventually dies off, that's when you'll see a transition away from transmitters and towers.
Click to expand...
It's obvious that you know more about the business than I do.

So when all those transmitters end up being switched off, and "Radio" is all online, what percentage of the 15K radio stations we have today will survive even 10 years of online only status? Because it appears that saturation on the internet is a very big issue for any content creation operation or company. I'm just curious as to your take on this.
 
boombox4 said:
But we're talking big picture here, from the perspective of the consumer.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. The consumer also doesn't care about a research study or which streaming service has more users. They want what they want, regardless of user statistics.

boombox4 said:
Obviously, IHeart has literal radio station streams, where Spotify and Pandora and YouTube don't. So in that respect, you are absolutely correct.
Click to expand...

Yes I know. To assess the consumer perspective, you have to dig deeper into your research study. Just comparing them side by side doesn't explain user perception. User perspective is why one service has fewer users.

boombox4 said:
But the other platforms, especially among the under 35's, are presently eating IHeart's lunch.
Click to expand...
Because they're in a different business and consumers recognize that. Fast food hamburger restaurants attract more customers than more formal sit down steak houses. But they're each considered restaurants. If Ruth's Chris put in a drive through, they might get more business.

I addressed this in another thread. There is a growing audience for on-demand unhosted music. That's what Spotify does. On the other hand, iHeart, Audacy, and Sirius mainly do hosted curated music & entertainment. The reason there is growing demand for on-demand music goes back to the end of the physical product era. People no longer buy records or CDs. A least not to the degree they did in the 80s& 90s. They simply stream the songs they want to hear. That kind of streaming has replaced what was once a huge business, with music stores that sold physical product. Now it's all done online. Radio stations are using the same platform to distribute their hosted & curated content. But the demand for it is lower. There's still a viable business, but it's not as big as the music distribution business.
 
boombox4 said:
It's obvious that you know more about the business than I do.

So when all those transmitters end up being switched off, and "Radio" is all online, what percentage of the 15K radio stations we have today will survive even 10 years of online only status? Because it appears that saturation on the internet is a very big issue for any content creation operation or company. I'm just curious as to your take on this.
Click to expand...
Some former staff from a station in the Bay Area started an online country station and got high enough numbers on their stream to be listed in the ratings.
 
Has been proposed for a long time but nobody is buying radios and cars are kept so long it might be 15 years before all cars have a radio dial to tune these stations in. Thus, killing AM would be just exactly what happens if AMs moved to 75-87.9 FM and 108-120.1 FM. I love the idea myself but it just won't work. Maybe if it was tried about 1990 to 2000.
 
radiofan2023 said:
Some former staff from a station in the Bay Area started an online country station and got high enough numbers on their stream to be listed in the ratings.
Click to expand...
You do realize that just one PPM wearer listening to a station for 15 continuous minutes during the rating period can win the station a 0.1 in the next book, right? Nielsen hands out 0.1s like candy as "participation trophies" to keep stations subscribing.
 
bturner1 said:
Has been proposed for a long time but nobody is buying radios and cars are kept so long it might be 15 years before all cars have a radio dial to tune these stations in. Thus, killing AM would be just exactly what happens if AMs moved to 75-87.9 FM and 108-120.1 FM. I love the idea myself but it just won't work. Maybe if it was tried about 1990 to 2000.
Click to expand...
The upper range won't work because there's an aircraft band there.
 
I wonder if some of these AM's might survive as a hobby for affluent radio buffs.You know, use volunteer talent on air.Just pay for the electricity and the upkeep of the equipment.Is that possible?
I'm guessing some of these AMs could be gotten cheap from companies that want to be rid of them.
 
TheBigA said:
They would still have to be licensed, and would have to comply with all FCC regulations including EAS.

It's easier and less cumbersome to do a part 15.
Click to expand...
I'm tempted to use WABC in New York as an example.I don't think Cats has any previous experience in radio.He is surely paying people to run the station and handle the regulatory duties.And in his case he's paying the Air Talent too.
On a smaller scale, in a smaller market, a rich radio buff could possibly get retired radio people to help him out because they share his love of radio. There might me guys on this board that would do it if the station was close to where they lived. A retired guy looking for something to do?
 
BruceB said:
I wonder if some of these AM's might survive as a hobby for affluent radio buffs.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. They do today. See WABC and it's owner. However the main discussion as I read it is about preserving the AM band in its present business state. It can't be done. You can't hear the local stations through the noise. The few big signal stations which have been mentioned as successful are surviving, but with a few exceptions, the money making stations are FM signals. Now considering the cost of a station. You need all the electronic audio gadgets, a LOT of land for the transmitting facility, and a pile of cash to pay for all that, plus a staff unless you plan to have automation provide the same old stuff that has been on AM for too many years. It's not a hobby for anyone without very deep pockets or a very successful grocery store chain.
 
DavidEduardo said:
We are starting to see the transition. In my school district (and like many others) we have had a tax added to our property tax to provide iPads to all students. There is also a program to subsidize or provide low-income families with cell phones.

Undocumented immigrants are getting limited use cell phones along the border.

What we seem to be seeing is that connectivity is a basic right. The government may provide faster low cost / now cost Internet, and things like iPads and cellular phones.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Connectivity. :rolleyes:

Not only does that take place in our generation, it is taking place now. We will have a highly connected general public if local, state and federal governments increase their intervention in these areas.

None of those devices, though, has a radio
Click to expand...
None of those devices, though, has a radio

Those devices ARE the radio.

I don't know about I-Pads, but if they are at all similar to my laptop, I can readily listen to any radio station. Because I can also do so with my phone, any prospect of AM getting removed from cars will be a non-issue for me, as my phone becomes my "radio".
I don't live near Washington DC, but WCSP-FM is a regular hit Sunday afternoons on the Alexa, especially since cutting the TV Cable.

Smart radio operators, AM and FM will embrace this new portal for their content and push, Push, PUSH an App for their station. If they want younger, advertiser desirable demos, first get the programming right. If KABC can't function as a talk station with where their tower and power are stuck at, change what they can - namely the programming. Figure out what makes that station in Orlando work and put it on 790 and their App. Go to where young people hang out on the web and get some internet advertising that invites them to hit the "channel 79" App on their phone. Go to college campuses and high schools with "cool" presentations that get a buzz going. New listenership might start out mostly on the internet, but the ease of a car push button will also include terrestrial afterward. How the listener gets the advertiser supported content is not important. The fact that desirable demos are listening is. Of course, all of this will be easier if it were done with an FM station. But that would require taking a chance on blowing up a format for something unknown. (I am thinking that the future of radio, FM and AM, is primarily unique spoken word. Music will be increasingly harder to monetize). If AM is 'dying' or 'dead' they have nothing to lose in trying, except the cost of assembling the talent.

Broadcast Radio I think has the advantage in attempting this. If I was to start McKinneyRadioLA.com trying this, it would be twice as hard to get people to punch the App because I am unknown, and I think advertisers would see me as just another internet speck and be reluctant to jump on board.
 
If the cost of streaming music becomes so prohibitive that only the wealthiest of major media corporations can afford to do it, then the number of "internet specks" looking for advertisers would be much lower, and much more attractive for potential advertisers,
 
blackgold said:
I have a novel idea-expand the FM Band down to 75.1 on the left direction, and up to 120.1 on the right direction and put daytime AM radio stations on those sides. This can enable them to operate 24 hours a day.
Click to expand...
Brazil took the former low band VHF frequencies and moved AM stations there. The problem is that none of them are making money because nobody is buying new radios to hear them.

(Brazil, like the rest of the world outside of NARBA, never had daytimers. They just moved AM stations to the "low band" FM channels. There was enough space to accommodate them all even though Brazil had more AMs per capita than the US)
 


Back
Top Bottom