“AM Radio Is Dead and its Rotting Corpse is Stinking Up the Airwaves"....

[TheBigA]

Does programming mean nothing to the bean counters running radio today? No wonder radio is in such a sorry state.

Bean counters don't make programming decisions. At least not at any station I know. They also don't hire the people who make the programming decisions.

But if there's no money coming in, none of the programming is possible. Medicine tastes bad. But if you want to get better, you take your medicine.

 

[TheBigA]

NONE of the current sponsors would have gotten past the sales desk in the station's top-40 days.

I think most of the comments missed this line in the OP. And I agree with this comment. Why? Because the demos of a Top 40 station are very different from a conservative news talker. The spots you're hearing are aimed at the demo. That says a lot about the demo. Our research says a typical news talk listener believes the Bible, and is looking to get rich quick. They also have health problems that include E.D. That's in the research. So no surprise that those advertisers are picking WABC and not Z100.

 

[Gregg.]

This is a silly post... or at least a silly title. First, bad ads have been around since advertising began. Show me a 1930s Look or Life magazine. It's filled with ads with women wondering if their bad breath of feminine odor is the reason Johnny hasn't asked them to marry yet. Or you'll be more likely to date pretty girls if you're driving a new 1938 DeSoto.

Second, why post this on the NYC page? This is the market where AM is probably the healthiest in the whole country! WCBS, WINS and WFAN (OK, they got an FM simulcast but only this year) are three of the five highest earning stations in the market.

Everything is relative. Yes, AM listening is dropping. But it didn't happen yesterday. It's been happening since FM radios became widely available in cars, around 1980. Yet groups that were underserved in years past, ethnic and religious, can now afford AM stations. Rarely does an AM station go off the air, never to return, unless it has a really poor signal or needs too many towers and can't find a transmitter location.

TV didn't put movies out of business. The internet isn't putting Radio out of business. Both did have to adopt to a new reality. It's a little too early to write AM radio's obituary.

 

[davideduardo]

Ladies and Gentlemen, please note that nowhere in this list is even the mere mention of ON-AIR CONTENT! Yes, this list is valid and the items are important, but SHEESH!

To a statistician the last thing that matters is the one thing that might actually attract an audience. Does programming mean nothing to the bean counters running radio today? No wonder radio is in such a sorry state. Why not just go ahead and air the bleating goats in between the commercials as well?

Just as real estate has its "location, location, location" rule, radio has a "signal, signal, signal" dictate.

If much of a market can't hear you, you can't compete. In such cases, if you do end up doing something good, someone with either a bigger signal jumping your format or an FM taking it on.

A "reality check" is not the same as only looking at statistics. The reality is that there are an average of less than two AMs in each of the top 100 markets that covers at least 80% of the population day and night. Some markets have a couple more, some have none. And that means that most Top 100 markets are overloaded with stations that can't compete.

The further reality check is that, irrespective of programming, AM does not sound as good as FM or even as good as a 128 kbs stream or mp3. Who the heck is going to listen to AM if there are an almost infinite number of options that sound better and are more widely receivable?

As those who grew up on AM age out of the salable demos and as noise levels increase further, AM will be even less attractive.

Add in the fact that ALL radio has a lower revenue pool and more stations and there is a reason why nobody is putting much in the way of resources behind any but the best AM signals.

In Spanish, we have a saying, "A monkey dressed in silk is still a monkey".

 

[TheBigA]

Second, why post this on the NYC page?

Because the specific example is WABC. But it could have been WOR or WNYM. I'm sure they all run the same ads.

 

[wadio]

Just as real estate has its "location, location, location" rule, radio has a "signal, signal, signal" dictate.

If much of a market can't hear you, you can't compete. In such cases, if you do end up doing something good, someone with either a bigger signal jumping your format or an FM taking it on.

A "reality check" is not the same as only looking at statistics. The reality is that there are an average of less than two AMs in each of the top 100 markets that covers at least 80% of the population day and night. Some markets have a couple more, some have none. And that means that most Top 100 markets are overloaded with stations that can't compete.

The further reality check is that, irrespective of programming, AM does not sound as good as FM or even as good as a 128 kbs stream or mp3. Who the heck is going to listen to AM if there are an almost infinite number of options that sound better and are more widely receivable?

As those who grew up on AM age out of the salable demos and as noise levels increase further, AM will be even less attractive.

Add in the fact that ALL radio has a lower revenue pool and more stations and there is a reason why nobody is putting much in the way of resources behind any but the best AM signals.

In Spanish, we have a saying, "A monkey dressed in silk is still a monkey".

You've missed the point completely. I agree with you about all of AM's technical issues and have been saying for years that AM is a dinosaur that should be retired. BUT to completely overlook the stale, crappy programming as a major issue is ridiculous.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

This is a silly post... or at least a silly title. First, bad ads have been around since advertising began. Show me a 1930s Look or Life magazine. It's filled with ads with women wondering if their bad breath of feminine odor is the reason Johnny hasn't asked them to marry yet. Or you'll be more likely to date pretty girls if you're driving a new 1938 DeSoto.

Are you familiar with life in the 1930's?.
A lot of people were using outdoor toilets... out-houses.
A lot of people were bathing in a #3 washtub... an event that did not happen every day for those people.
In homes without running water, I suspect the brushing of teeth was not as often as we take for granted today.

Maybe the advertising you are bashing was quite appropriate for the times.

No, I don't remember the 30's.... but as a child I do remember visiting relatives who were "still living in the 30's" because that was the house they had, the out-house they still had, and when you needed water, you went to the well with a bucket. The first house I remember had running water, but not running HOT water. Bath time was an interesting event involving a large tea-kettle on the kitchen stove.

Thank goodness advertising has changed. No ads about DeSotos. Today's equivalent ad seems to be: If you are the girl driving the Cadillac CTS... you are more likely to date the eligible hunks of the male variety.

 

[davideduardo]

You've missed the point completely. I agree with you about all of AM's technical issues and have been saying for years that AM is a dinosaur that should be retired. BUT to completely overlook the stale, crappy programming as a major issue is ridiculous.

The programming is a result of lousy signals, lowered available revenue, low audio quality and higher than ever noise.

The stations that have at least a superior signal tend to win, although among an aging demographic: WCBS, WINS, WCBS. Even neglected WABC has respectable billing.

There is a reason why in other countries like Canada, Mexico, Austria, South Africa and even El Salvador it has been realized that AM is not viable for the most part in the longer term and strategies have been implemented to move many if not all AMs to FM leaving just a few stations, often to serve very niche audiences. In the last few months, Brazil announced a rulemaking procedure intended, also, to clear stations off the AM band.

 

[FredLeonard]

The programming is a result of lousy signals, lowered available revenue, low audio quality and higher than ever noise.

The stations that have at least a superior signal tend to win, although among an aging demographic: WCBS, WINS, WCBS. Even neglected WABC has respectable billing.

There is a reason why in other countries like Canada, Mexico, Austria, South Africa and even El Salvador it has been realized that AM is not viable for the most part in the longer term and strategies have been implemented to move many if not all AMs to FM leaving just a few stations, often to serve very niche audiences. In the last few months, Brazil announced a rulemaking procedure intended, also, to clear stations off the AM band.

At least in Canada, not everyone agrees with the CBC's decision to abandon AM. Maybe Toronto's sreetcars caused reception problems downtown but AM was also able to reach people outside the Metro who now find themselves beyond Radio One's transplanted FM signal. In sparsely populated regions, especially between the Appalachians and the Rockies, AM may still have role. At least it would if mega broadcasters used it as something more than translators for syndicated hosts and infomercials.

FM sound quality is comparable to 64 kbs.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

FM sound quality is comparable to 64 kbs.

You would like maybe to give us a good technical support of that claim?

If I had been asked to make such a comparison... I would have guessed that 192 or 256 kbps would be needed to achieve what we expect from an FM signal.

64 kbps stereo would give the level of quality that we get from 32kbps mono.... right?

Even content limited to only spoken words (no music)... barely gets by on 32kbps. You will find that churches that put their sermons on line at 32kbps sound like crap and they do it only if they know they have people listening via dial-up modem.

Maybe I missed what you were trying to say? Canadian FM sounds like 64 kbps? Their FM is different than ours?

 

[davideduardo]

At least in Canada, not everyone agrees with the CBC's decision to abandon AM. Maybe Toronto's sreetcars caused reception problems downtown but AM was also able to reach people outside the Metro who now find themselves beyond Radio One's transplanted FM signal. In sparsely populated regions, especially between the Appalachians and the Rockies, AM may still have role. At least it would if mega broadcasters used it as something more than translators for syndicated hosts and infomercials.

FM sound quality is comparable to 64 kbs.

The CBC dropped AM in almost all cities because of a number of factors, only starting with the noisy reception in large metros. They wanted better quality, and used FM to achieve it. To achieve wide area reception, they converted the huge network of low power AMs to FM, essentially covering every populated area in the country.

To compare mp3 audio with FM, we have to know the algorithm and the compression ratio (in oversimplified terms). In general, reasonably clean FM stations will sound most like a 256 kbs mp3.

A 64 kbs mp3 is full of nasty artifacts and close to unlistenable under most encoding algorithms... it can be useful for voice, but even then it can be very fatigue-laden after a while.

I don't understand your comment on AMs in the "heartland" as between the Appalachians and the Rockies, most places have many more FM signals than AM. And distant AMs are only listenable at night, when most people have not listened to radio ever since the time when the TV freeze was lifted... 60 years ago.

 

[WNTIRadio]

http://www.engineeringradio.us/blog/2013/11/what-bitrate-is-needed-to-sound-like-analog-fm/

Paul Thurst's excellent engineering blog just covered this bitrate issue.

 

[wadio]

There are lots of variables. FM under less than ideal conditions (distance from the transmitter, receiver design and quality, multiplexing interference, etc.) can sound subjectively worse than mp3. Also not all mp3 files are created equal regardless of bitrate -- there are psycho-acoustic differences depending on the encoding engine. In addition, bad processing (which is quite prevalent on FM) is far more destructive than mild mp3 artifacts, IMO.

 

[MVB13]

I don't believe the AM dial is dead it needs to have better quality. AM is always static at times. AM is much more useful in areas such as Western Jersey in this market where you can't pick up any FM NYC stations to hear News or Sports. I do not mind Sports being on FM but they do not need to be on it all the time. What would help the FM dial clear up is if these Religious FM's didn't go and take all of the stations above 92.1 FM and even those below 92.1 FM to 89.9 FM. If we expanded the commercial dial to 90.1-107.9 I think that we would be better off. Also AM could be fixed in terms of its quality. There is still a use for AM if we can fix its sound. The solution of giving each AM station its own FM translator isn't a good idea it's not solving anything it's overcrowding the FM dial and if we expanded the FM dial we would still have the same issues as we have now. If we fix the AM sound itself it could be useful for stations that no longer are on FM like Rock in NYC or even Classic Country, Country, and have those HD-2 stations that were a failure go to those frequencies in there maybe. Religious broadcasters could go to AM at least some of them could. Even Classical could go there. Jack FM could be resurrected as well as Jammin' Oldies and Gen X music & 80's Hits. It could be like XM but for free on AM! You'd probably have more people go from paying for radio to AM/FM. Also AM radio is much better in natural disasters when they have more coverage for more people to hear them. Radio is a necessity it's not going away. Natural Disasters we need to be prepared because the internet and iPods won't help us when the Internet is down and we have no electricity but we have battery powered radios and radios in our cars. All cell phone makers should be required to put FM chips in their phones because of emergencies.

 

[bturner]

In an earlier post: I don't understand your comment on AMs in the "heartland" as between the Appalachians and the Rockies, most places have many more FM signals than AM. And distant AMs are only listenable at night, when most people have not listened to radio ever since the time when the TV freeze was lifted... 60 years ago.

You must have never been to the Midwest. I have driven South from Canada listening to KFYR, Bismarck, ND and continued to listen until I reached North Platte, NE. At that point I could pick up another AM that would take me to Oklahoma City...all daytime listening. Ground conductivity is amazing in the center of the country.

 

[davideduardo]

You must have never been to the Midwest. I have driven South from Canada listening to KFYR, Bismarck, ND and continued to listen until I reached North Platte, NE. At that point I could pick up another AM that would take me to Oklahoma City...all daytime listening. Ground conductivity is amazing in the center of the country.

I actually spent a portion of my youth in a place in the Midwest where there was exactly one good daytime signal, although several signals from a large market about 350 miles away could be heard on days that didn't have static or thunderstorms. At night, there was no local signal at all, as the 20-mile-away Class IV AM was obliterated by co-channel stations.

Today, there is still no AM that is usable at night, but there are 15 local grade FMs and some additional close fringe stations that are totally usable.

There are very few WOW's and KRVN's and WMT's and WNAX's compared to the thousands of Midwestern FMs that cover the dial. The issue is the difference between one or two good signal but non-local AMs and sometimes a dozen or more FMs.

 

[flybynight]

I'd argue that nationally AM has troubles due to... in no special order...

-Dramatic increases in man made interference, reducing coverage.
-Two generations who have grown up on FM and find AM "sounds funny".
-Poor quality of AM radios of last several decades.
-Urban sprawl that has put much of each market's population outside the average AM signal.
-30% decline in inflation adjusted dollars for radio since 1999.
-New media

All these things, combined, make it necessary for AM owners to cut costs and to accept the newer reality of the kind of client they can attract. It's cause and effect. Most of this thread criticizes the effects, without looking at the causes.

Nice list.

It doesn't, however, list the ONE thing that has me listening to less AM radio than I have in 40+ years: lack of interesting content. Talkradio used to be fun to listen to. Now it's this endless, boring, politically oriented, partisan rhetoric show. It's just not interesting anymore. As someone who is easing into what is supposed to be talkradio's key demo, I'm actually listening to it less and less. And that's only due to content, nothing else.

 

[davideduardo]

It doesn't, however, list the ONE thing that has me listening to less AM radio than I have in 40+ years: lack of interesting content. Talkradio used to be fun to listen to. Now it's this endless, boring, politically oriented, partisan rhetoric show. It's just not interesting anymore. As someone who is easing into what is supposed to be talkradio's key demo, I'm actually listening to it less and less. And that's only due to content, nothing else.

I tend to agree with you. But as I discussed this with the person who was my APD at an LA talk station in the 90's, she mentioned to me that she felt that perhaps the problem was not with radio: society as a whole is more polarized, partisan and combative.

It's an interesting point. And it makes me wonder how much talk radio's success depends on the national mood.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I tend to agree with you. But as I discussed this with the person who was my APD at an LA talk station in the 90's, she mentioned to me that she felt that perhaps the problem was not with radio: society as a whole is more polarized, partisan and combative.

It's an interesting point. And it makes me wonder how much talk radio's success depends on the national mood.

I think you and the employee from the 90s are right on target. Radio has to live in the world that exists, not the world we wished was in existence.

May I add this observation: When I was 22, I had certain expectations of radio and my memory cells were ready to receive information and concepts that seemed fresh and new to me. When I was 52, I had some of the same expectations of radio, but as you mentioned society had changed and radio was busy chasing the new society instead of standing around worrying about making me happy. But many of my memory cells were already filled and I wanted not only the radio style I had always expected.... but I wanted everything to be fresh and new... but radio was busy meeting the needs of people who were younger by did already have their memory clogged up like mine.

Now that i'm nearing 102.... you get the picture. Things that are new and exciting for listeners who are 22 and 32 are old hat, boring to me. Give me something fresh and new. It's all about me, me, me!

It's the radio dilemma!

 

[wadio]

Nice list.

It doesn't, however, list the ONE thing that has me listening to less AM radio than I have in 40+ years: lack of interesting content. Talkradio used to be fun to listen to. Now it's this endless, boring, politically oriented, partisan rhetoric show. It's just not interesting anymore. As someone who is easing into what is supposed to be talkradio's key demo, I'm actually listening to it less and less. And that's only due to content, nothing else.

I find David's posts interesting because they reinforce my long held belief that radio consultants don't take content into consideration at all when making programming decisions.

For instance, a couple of decades ago Rush and Dr. Laura both did cutting edge shows with great ratings. Without listening enough to develop a visceral reaction to these shows you'd think running them back to back would be a great idea -- just look at the numbers! But common sense would tell you that the Rush fan is likely to detest Dr. Laura and vice versa. So for a station trying to build loyalty the combo isn't such a great idea.

I don't discount research and if my money or job were on the line you bet I'd use it. But I still believe there's more to making radio successful.

There are plenty of singers who hit all the right notes and make all the right moves but, while the audience might not throw eggs or may even react positively, they lack what it takes to develop a real following. That "star quality" is something that can't be measured. It takes some amount of "gut feeling" to recognize it.

There are plenty of excuses for the decline of terrestrial radio, AM in particular -- all of them valid -- but I'd put CONTENT at the top of the list, not at the bottom.