I've been Arizona and California for 12 years, so I've fallen away from the nuances of Canadian radio. Can you explain the "impossible on FM" for me like I'm five?
-
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
Rogers Shuts Down Six Stations
- Thread starter Huff
- Start date
Yeah I’m not really buying that. Maybe it’s purely coincidence, but one can’t help but wonder when they take a flash cut approach to ending programming (while simultaneously spending a huge sum of money on Toronto sports). It speaks to a larger issue at play. The fact that resources in Canada are often spent on Toronto with everyone else SOL.
I was looking into career options with Rogers at one point. One thing that Rogers loves to hammer home is that as an employee, you’ll get some special perks. One of those perks is a discount on tickets to see Toronto Blue Jays Baseball games. I highly doubt anyone working outside of Ontario cares about that.
You’re right about broadcasting not being a “lifetime” career anymore. That’s the nature of the businesses and is neither here nor there. But I definitely feel terrible for people who are going through this in a job market like Vancouver (where getting a job seems to require sacrificing your or something equally extreme).
Essentially, the CRTC prohibits it. Spoken word program and sports content is basically stuck on AM (unless there’s an exception made). So in this scenario, a broadcaster operating a FM in a market like Vancouver or Calgary cannot just start airing talk, news, or sports on their FM station. It seems like an archaic rule, but it is what it is.
Keep in mind the company doesn't need your permission. It's their money. If AM radio wasn't dying, those stations would still be there. Rogers can't keep pumping money into a dying business.
"Anymore?" When was it ever?
Prohibits is a stretch; and illegal is just incorrect. It's just a different category of license. Ownership caps have prevented many from applying to change categories anyway.
Corus in Calgary and Rogers in Ottawa both tried to do it first and apply for the category change after the fact. The changes were denied, likely because of the way they went around it.
And... sure my phone gives me that stuff. But I have to interact with my phone and take time out of my busy day (and especially morning).
I'm on the air in the mornings now so I'm up and out of the house before most morning shows start. But I would usually just flip on the local morning show while showering in the morning before I had that shift. By the time I got out of the shower, I'd know what I needed to know to get my day going in the right direction. I can't do that with my phone.
Yes, I look at my phone for weather. But it's also nice to hear on the radio. Especially for the context, as you mention.
I also wear a watch. And have a clock in my kitchen on the wall. Why? I hate having to pull my phone out of my pocket to figure out what time it is.
Sure, we can get pretty much everything from our phones. But that doesn't mean the phone is the end-all-be-all.
But what it does is make all competing devices less important and less utilized. That translates to less money to pay for the service.
It would be different if radio stations weren't owned by private companies. But they are. So they have to make money in order to exist.
They don't know. They're just guessing. Meanwhile other posters say all of the spots they heard were for other Rogers businesses, such as cell or internet service. So it's not real money.
Either way, the company explained why it's shutting down those six stations. They don't need government approval or a vote by the people to do it. Any changes would have needed government approval. This alleviates that need. If the government is concerned about public service or competition, they could expedite their process. But that seems pretty unlikely.
Agreed, BigA. But the reality is that the internet has caused pretty much every business (aside from the biggest of the big) to be in the same boat. The dollar is spread thinner across many industries and sectors, not just radio.
Yes, radio now has a lot more competition. But it's not unique in that - a lot of sectors do. If anything, radio historically has had an un-level playing field to its advantage. Not anymore.
Also - even when stations were giving "time & temperature" all of the time back in the 60s & 70s as standard practice, most folks had a watch on their wrist and a clock on the wall in the kitchen... they didn't "need" an announcer to let them know that it was 8:55 in the morning. They could just look at their wristwatch. Or any of the many clocks that used to be on storefronts. Or at the clock on their car's dashboard (no, not every car had one but many of them did). Especially for folks in cities, there have been plenty of ways to tell the time since before the dawn of radio. In smaller towns, there was often a church bell that sounded off the hours all day long.
Weather? Our local newspaper still publishes forecasts. In 1965, anyone with a newspaper subscription (a lot of folks) had access to a printed weather report for the whole week. There's also the NOAA's weather radio service. TV has been doing forecasts for decades, too - and a majority of houses had televisions while the "time & temp" era was still alive and well.
In other words, there have been lots of ways to access the time & temp as long as if not longer than radio has been around.
I, for one, appreciate when stations still do that. It's convenient and makes life a little easier.
Enjoy it while you can.
I do. There aren't many places left that have it at this point. And so it goes.
That was not my observation. Lots of spots from non Rogers businesses. Maybe even the majority.
How much do they charge per spot per station? Are the spots enough to cover the expenses? If not, that would support the company.
As you know, the all news format is very expensive. It's practically impractical in the US in markets outside the Top 10.
Once again, it's the company's decision. They're not complaining or making excuses. They're just leaving the business.
Keep in mind lots of similar companies once owned radio in the US, and left the business. CBS is one recent example.
Spot inventory expires so it is always better to sell spots for something than don't sell spots (and fill with PSAs), as we discussed with the CBS Radio News shutdown.
What matters is if sum of all the spots and various associated rates charged per month covers the monthly expenses. I have no idea (none of us do) if this is the case.
What I do know is the station has not been shrinking their staff in the same way we've seen with other failing news/talkers with a revenue problem. Staff that left was replaced. There hadn't been major layoffs for a few years. The "CityNews Everywhere" cost cutting experiment was ended and went back to separate, local broadcasts (higher costs).
This is very different behavior than we saw with Audacy and WCBS, CBS Radio News, iHeart a few weeks ago (and a few months ago with KFI), etc.
Canada is also a different country. We don't know how Rogers will be treating its former employees. I assume it depends on the contracts and work agreements in place. I doubt any of it will be made public unless the employees themselves wish to do so.
As I've said Rogers is a bigger company than any US radio company. So if they act differently, it's because radio is a very small part of their business.
The bottom line is companies are free to shut down stations if that's what they want to do. They absorb the loss and handle relations with employees as per the law. They can't be forced to continue to own a radio station if they choose not to.
Current temp is not as rare as you think and while time isnt as common, its not unheard of in the forecast.
We run weather at 18 and 48 after on KLMI, done by Weatherology.... we have the forecast with the very polish last name and at the end of the forecast, its tagged with the temp. Shews recorded a bunch of different phrases and their system goes out, grabs the forecast and assembles all those phrases then grabs the current temp and it's attached at the end of the forecast
Here, take a listen:
43102.mp3
drive.google.com
The temp part at least is updated every hour and the forecast is updated at least 3x a day
No one is saying otherwise. But this is a radio forum. Are we not allowed to grieve the loss of radio stations because "suck it up, bud, that's how business works these days"?
Sure, but the comments are saying there is some kind of corporate responsibility to the public, and I'm not aware that there is.
For example, we know there are a lot of "I hate cheap channel forums." I've been told this is not intended to be one.
We have people in San Francisco grieving the loss of another commercial station to K-Love. Would that have been better here?
Last edited:
Well I think there’s a little extra vitriol on this particular issue because of the way that Rogers Media operates. iHeart definitely gets some bad press (not always undeserved), but at the end of the day their business decisions will only compromise your favorite programming (not so much your wallet). An argument can certainly be made that nobody is forced to use Rogers services or products, but that’s legitimately getting harder year after year.
Rogers, on the other hand, nickels and dimes Canadians every chance they get. We’ve already gone over the myriad of reasons how and why earlier in this thread. Of all of the companies to stick up for and refute, Rogers would not be high on my list.