Letter: AM's Downfall Is Poor Programming, Not Audio Quality - Radio World
In this letter to the editor, the author comments on Dave Bialik’s recent article "AMs, Don’t Be Passive About Your Fate."
www.radioworld.com
-
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
Interesting column about AM radio. "Bad programming ruining AM, not audio quality".
- Thread starter mikecroaro
- Start date
www.radioworld.com
Sounds like someone trying to rewrite history.
If you could somehow magically bring back all the great Top 40 airstaffs of the 60s on KYA or KFRC, it wouldn't be enough to get people to throw away their digital devices and buy AM radios.
The decline of AM in San Francisco began in the 60s with FM stations such as KMPX and then KSAN. It wasn't a one or the other thing. It was both.
Today, there's no consensus programming on either AM or FM that can attract the size audience it had in the 80s or 90s. There are simply too many options, the audience has been diluted to a point where for many stations it's not sellable. There are radio stations in San Francisco doing creative and inventive programming, and they get a 1 share.
The bigger story is the number of people using traditional radio is about half of what it was 20 years ago. The programming isn't going to fix that.
If you could somehow magically bring back all the great Top 40 airstaffs of the 60s on KYA or KFRC, it wouldn't be enough to get people to throw away their digital devices and buy AM radios.
The decline of AM in San Francisco began in the 60s with FM stations such as KMPX and then KSAN. It wasn't a one or the other thing. It was both.
Today, there's no consensus programming on either AM or FM that can attract the size audience it had in the 80s or 90s. There are simply too many options, the audience has been diluted to a point where for many stations it's not sellable. There are radio stations in San Francisco doing creative and inventive programming, and they get a 1 share.
The bigger story is the number of people using traditional radio is about half of what it was 20 years ago. The programming isn't going to fix that.
I've listened to the KQKD although it was years ago. It was great radio...full service and a fun listen.
Ron's memory is flawed and factually incorrect. There are many reasons for radio's decline. The popularity of FM is correct. 45 minutes of commercials an hour is a boldface lie. Owners did not give up on AM, the listener did. No owner in their right mind would do what Ron suggested to their investment.
So, Ron, if you own an AM and FM when AM was king and you opt for doing Top 40 on the FM, do you blow off all the billing on the AM? That is insane. When music lovers head to FM what do you put on your AM? Perhaps he could explain a successful non-music option.
My Dad advertised in the mid to late 1960s. He bought spots on an AM at $35 a spot and an FM at $1.80 a spot played 1 at a time, maximum 6 an hour. The AM, like those that were popular, played 18 minutes an hour in commercials. The FMs were sustained by their AMs. I recall KXTR FM had gone fulltime and a jock told me he was thrilled the station was up to 20 spots a day. KXTR was Classical 12N to Midnight; Jazz overnight and Beautiful Music 6am to Noon.
Ron's memory is flawed and factually incorrect. There are many reasons for radio's decline. The popularity of FM is correct. 45 minutes of commercials an hour is a boldface lie. Owners did not give up on AM, the listener did. No owner in their right mind would do what Ron suggested to their investment.
So, Ron, if you own an AM and FM when AM was king and you opt for doing Top 40 on the FM, do you blow off all the billing on the AM? That is insane. When music lovers head to FM what do you put on your AM? Perhaps he could explain a successful non-music option.
My Dad advertised in the mid to late 1960s. He bought spots on an AM at $35 a spot and an FM at $1.80 a spot played 1 at a time, maximum 6 an hour. The AM, like those that were popular, played 18 minutes an hour in commercials. The FMs were sustained by their AMs. I recall KXTR FM had gone fulltime and a jock told me he was thrilled the station was up to 20 spots a day. KXTR was Classical 12N to Midnight; Jazz overnight and Beautiful Music 6am to Noon.
The other part of the programming discussion is if you have great programming, you want to put it on the platform that will attract the most audience and make the most money. Right now, that platform isn't local radio, either AM or FM. Great programming isn't restricted by geography. If the great radio programmers of the 60s had access to the internet at that time, they would never have wasted their time with radio.
Big A, I agree 100% with your post, but don’t fall for the AOR started hurting AM in the late 60s history rewrite that many FM rock fans believe.
If any station was responsible for starting the decline of AM in San Francisco it would’ve have been beautiful music KFOG. But as late as 1980, FM listening was not even half of total listenership in San Francisco.
In the Spring 1976, KFOG was the only FM in the top 6. The top 5 AM stations alone accounted for over 33% of the shares. Top AOR, KSAN was only at 14 with a 2.6.
If any station was responsible for starting the decline of AM in San Francisco it would’ve have been beautiful music KFOG. But as late as 1980, FM listening was not even half of total listenership in San Francisco.
In the Spring 1976, KFOG was the only FM in the top 6. The top 5 AM stations alone accounted for over 33% of the shares. Top AOR, KSAN was only at 14 with a 2.6.
I really doubt that many listeners of KYA switched to KFOG in the 70s. My point is that the audience was being diluted. It still is.
Actually, I'm not sure that San Francisco is the best indicator of what was happening between AM and FM in most markets back then. Keep in mind that there is a lot of terrain blocking of FM signals in that city, especially in the Richmond district (where my brother used to live back in the 1990s). Most markets, such as my residence in Phoenix, AZ, while they may have had terrain blocking in some of the outlying suburbs, didn't have that problem inside the city itself and therefore FM took off much faster than it did in San Francisco.
I expect that most of you who clicked on Ron Schacht's letter from the OP glanced at the "May 1, updated May 3" part of the heading and didn't give it a second thought, but anyone else notice that it was published on May 1, 2023, not 2026. Yep, guys, you are discussing a three year old article and letter to the editor.
After reading Ron's letter, I took a look at Redfield , SD's radio stations through a site not liked by this site's administrator. (I couldn't use @Michi's site as she has no way other than graphically to show how many stations may be received from a given location.) Anyway, the numbers on the site I checked indicated that Redfield really has only four radio stations that can be received well there: the one AM and two FM stations licensed to the town itself and an AM outlet licensed to nearby Aberdeen. In such a case (assuming the information is accurate), an AM outlet with music, if programmed well, probably has a good chance in succeeding in that local market among radio stations.
The question would then become has the arrival of the Internet and its myriad of radio choices changed anything in that location. I don't know, but I do suspect that Internet radio listening is not as widespread in Redfield, SD, than say, San Francisco, CA. That will most likely change sooner rather than later but I think that, for now, Ron's advice about programming AM stations might be applicable in his and other small towns that don't have a lot of other available options.
The question would then become has the arrival of the Internet and its myriad of radio choices changed anything in that location. I don't know, but I do suspect that Internet radio listening is not as widespread in Redfield, SD, than say, San Francisco, CA. That will most likely change sooner rather than later but I think that, for now, Ron's advice about programming AM stations might be applicable in his and other small towns that don't have a lot of other available options.
Last edited:
I would bet that someone posted it here 3 years ago, and it likely received the same comments. It’s a pretty common view. They think the only problem with AM is the programming. Ostrich thinking.
While making a few accurate historical points, most of this column is bollocks.
Example 1: He asserts that AM radio produces sound quality "several steps" above that offered by an 8-track tape. Which is obviously a bogus claim - 8 tracks have better frequency response, dramatically less noise, lack the smash mode processing that was a signature of AM broadcasting, and offer stereo playback.
Example 2: The anecdote about a "60 share" station "in a 40 station market" on AM is obviously a false memory. For a simple reason: If 39 stations in the market each had a 1 share, they would have all been bankrupt. Usually these kinds of shares were seen in the 1960s, when FM was barely a thought. And most markets had only a handful of AMs, which resulted in these huge shares. Everybody had a 10 share because there were only 6 stations. For example, there is an Arbitron book for Omaha from 1967 on the WorldRadioHistory archive. Only 8 stations were listed, 6 AM and 2 FM, and three of the AMs had at least a 20 share.
Probably he is using the modern definition of the market, with all the FMs and AMs, where the leading station usually has a 5 or 6 share, or he is counting a bunch of far-off stations received via skywave.
Example 3: No one runs music on AM any longer, because stations proved music on AM would lose to format competition on FM every time back in the 90s. When AM started to fail in the 80s, lots of stations went to niche formats like big band or classic country. But today, those formats mostly run on Class A FM stations, if they exist at all on the radio. (Very few Big Band stations still exist)
Example 1: He asserts that AM radio produces sound quality "several steps" above that offered by an 8-track tape. Which is obviously a bogus claim - 8 tracks have better frequency response, dramatically less noise, lack the smash mode processing that was a signature of AM broadcasting, and offer stereo playback.
Example 2: The anecdote about a "60 share" station "in a 40 station market" on AM is obviously a false memory. For a simple reason: If 39 stations in the market each had a 1 share, they would have all been bankrupt. Usually these kinds of shares were seen in the 1960s, when FM was barely a thought. And most markets had only a handful of AMs, which resulted in these huge shares. Everybody had a 10 share because there were only 6 stations. For example, there is an Arbitron book for Omaha from 1967 on the WorldRadioHistory archive. Only 8 stations were listed, 6 AM and 2 FM, and three of the AMs had at least a 20 share.
Probably he is using the modern definition of the market, with all the FMs and AMs, where the leading station usually has a 5 or 6 share, or he is counting a bunch of far-off stations received via skywave.
Example 3: No one runs music on AM any longer, because stations proved music on AM would lose to format competition on FM every time back in the 90s. When AM started to fail in the 80s, lots of stations went to niche formats like big band or classic country. But today, those formats mostly run on Class A FM stations, if they exist at all on the radio. (Very few Big Band stations still exist)
IMHO The dilution really started after the early 1980's when almost all car radios started to included FM. It probably wasn't a big thing in markets that had several AMs with night time signals that covered most of the market, but if your market didn't have several strong AMs, FM was your logical choice for pre sunrise commutes and post sunset commutes.
I don't feel the sound quality was that big a deal with all the road noise back then, but for example:
If you were more than ten miles north of downtown Chattanooga, except for a class C AM surberban station, your best car AM reception was out of town skywave in winter mornings and evenings. Directional AM stations were hard, expensive and sometimes impossible to move to cover the suburbs by 1980.
No two markets are exactly the same, but some Class C AMs in sub 50K markets did OK until the 1990's but they were really really really well programmed.
I don't feel the sound quality was that big a deal with all the road noise back then, but for example:
If you were more than ten miles north of downtown Chattanooga, except for a class C AM surberban station, your best car AM reception was out of town skywave in winter mornings and evenings. Directional AM stations were hard, expensive and sometimes impossible to move to cover the suburbs by 1980.
No two markets are exactly the same, but some Class C AMs in sub 50K markets did OK until the 1990's but they were really really really well programmed.
Absolutely true. Where I live, about 30 miles from Sutro Tower, and ~25 miles from the antenna farm on San Bruno Mountain, all those signals are fine if I'm anywhere near the Bay. But 2/10th of a mile up the street from my house is a large hill, which effectively terrain blocks most of those signals. I'm effectively in a valley. Anything I receive is mainly via multipath (as opposed to South Bay signals which are direct line-of-sight). There are thousand upon thousands of other listeners who had similar problems with FM, which is why KGO and KCBS (pre-simulcast) and KNBR (pre-simulcast) and KSFO (pre-wingnut talk) survived well past their pull dates.
True and where we are now when audio apps are common. Also in some cities like San Francisco and Washington DC their top stations in the ratings are local News/Talk NPR affiliates and All News Radio on the FM side. Some of it is that the niche music formats can be anywhere from Satellite Radio, HD Radio or Dashboard apps. Also the Audio content providers need to adapt to where the currents demos are at.
Even allowing for the fact that AM receivers were much higher quality back then...if you were the average someone listening to a Top 40 format going all the way back to the 70's, would you have chosen a 50,000 watt Stereo FM, or a 1000 or 5000 watt AM to hear it on? The choice for listening to the AM was limited to having an AM only radio in your car. AM was dying long before the programming was.
It's more like wish-tory.
Radio, in Y2K, cumed about 94% of the population. Today, the PUMM figure for most markets is in the high 80% region (the lowest is NYC, which was always much lower due to people unable to use radio in subways and many trains) . That is not "half" but more like 8% to 10% less. What is painful is that they listen for about 75% less time per week.
Not only is your point valid in those rugged terrain markets, but we also have to consider that the "best AM signals" were licensed in the 1930's. Today, most of those do not cover their entire market any more due to urban sprawl and man made noise.
There are huge markets like Phoenix and Houston that only have one or two (if that) AMs that cover the whole market day and night.
The fellow w ho wrote to Radio World fails to take into account that most larger size markets outgrew most or all of their AM stations decades ago.