Going back to the early days of FM - it seemed there was at least some thought of an AM to FM migration. Many AMs were given FM licenses and simulcast at least at first. If the idea was to migrate to a newer technology, that would have made the most sense to continue with. Then the priority seemed to shift to expanding the number of radio stations using both bands. Simulcasting was discouraged/restricted and a lot of AM and FM licenses were given out independently. A lot of AMs that had an FM sold them off to make a quick buck. Even Westinghouse in the early 80's decided to focus on AM and sold their FMs.
Some of the largest markets might be exceptions, but most areas had the same number of FM's as they did legacy AM's prior to 1980. The reason was because FM's were thought to be natural compliments with existing AM's. Most of your legacy AM stations were also offered an opportunity to get a TV station if they wanted one. A handful of broadcasters took the FM licenses, ran them on the cheap, and stuck it out, but a large number of them concluded the FM's weren't worth the expense. A handful also made the mistake of believing FM would never take off into the 70's and early 80's.
I know revenue is drastically down for radio over a prolonged number of years. There are just way too many stations which was a problem even when revenue was better.
The explosion of new radio stations in the 1980's when the advertising pool was shrinking was a problem. That's how we ended up with the mass consolidations we've seen over the last roughly 30 years.
All these AM/FM simulcasts going on today (specifically using a full power FM to simulcast an AM) are more about lack of knowing what to do with the FM than it is about saving the AM. The AM format must have appeal if it is worth putting on FM. In the case of WINS FM/KROCK the station never found its footing since losing their morning show to Sirius. "Let's just put WINS on there".
I tend to disagree with you here. The AM/FM simulcasts we're seeing today would seem more to me about preserving the profitable programming on AM. Major broadcasters are aware that AM radio has no future. If they're going to preserve stations like WINS, they're not going to be doing that on AM. Given that WINS is one of the highest billing stations in the entire country (let alone in the Audacy portfolio), it was going to have to migrate to FM at some point if it was going to remain the cash cow it was. So, Audacy decided to rip the band aid off and do it.
Radio needs some new thinking to bring in a new audience. I'm not saying I have any ideas - I'm just making the observation. Mason Kelter Liveline is an example as the show seems to be appealing to a younger audience prying them away from their phones. A lot of it is just looking to the past and refreshing it for today. Lots of bantor, lots of callers and requests. Using the requests to figure out what music the audience wants. I think talk radio could do similar - get some fresh out of college talent who are funny and can bantor with a younger crowd. WBZ has Matt Shearer who is a step in that direction for news radio.
The problem is that the younger generation wants a push medium. Radio is a pull medium. I'm not sure how radio solves that problem. New thinking might help, but even that doesn't solve the problem that radio just isn't what younger millennials and zoomers want. Anything new you could do with radio could also be done with Apple Music and Spotify. Personally, I like radio because it's easy. Building a personal playlist takes work, and radio isn't something I'm willing to work at to enjoy. I like being able to push a button and hear what I want to hear. If I hear something I don't like, I push another button, and that programming is replaced by new programming. Even building a playlist through suggestions from Spotify or Apple Music requires more clicks and more button pushes than radio. Having said that, even I don't consume radio with a regular radio very often anymore. The real question to me that will determine radio's viability, at least in the concept we have of it now, is whether the younger generation will do like the rest of us and spend more time with radio as they get older. After all, I had mixtapes and CD's with just my favorites in my teens and 20's. That's been too much work for the last 20 years. I've also said many times that radio, in some form or another, will always exist. It just may not be consumed on traditional AM and FM and might not work exactly the way it does now. At some point, we have to just let old technology die. Hopefully, we've embraced something new first.
"" giving AM a place on the FM dial. ""
You mean taking the former TV channel 6, 82-88 MHz? Most FM radios tidsat don't reach those frequences so the same problem exists, not getting listeners until those potential listeners buy new radios to hear those stations.
No. I am referring to allowing AM stations translators on the FM band. Using Channels 5 & 6 for an expanded FM band was briefly considered roughly 30 years ago when digital TV was being planned. Even then, broadcasters had little to no appetite for a change like that.
(By the way, unless you're using a device that doesn't support it or use adaptive technology, please use the quote feature. It would make your messages a lot easier to read and would likely mean less work for you once you figure it out.)
The two goliaths that fell this week -- WCBS and CHML -- had some of the best signals possible with amazing coverage, though. It's a combination of things that add up to make AM radio irrelevant in the Internet era. Coverage is one, yes. But let's face it, the sound quality is atrocious and there are too many radios now that don't even have the AM band anymore.
That just underscores that AM is already dead. WCBS has almost no listeners under 50. AM certainly suffered multiple wounds in its more than 100 year lifespan, but people not growing up with it guaranteed they wouldn't ever think of it. That mostly goes back to coverage and that people who grew up in suburbs and large metro areas never had access to enough of the programming on it. A strong station or two isn't enough to overcome that, especially when those few strong stations went after older people anyway.
