AGain the predictions are right on.

[dumber than a box of hair]

I could be wrong, but I'm almost certain there were legal limits in the 60's-70's. IIRC a certain AM top 40 in Wildwood NJ used to have to get a waiver to "Annualize" their spotload so they could oversell the summers. That's 2nd had from a colloege roomate who worked there, but I have always assumed it was accurate.

I'll say it again: There were no limits. I was working in radio at that time, and worked on many renewal applications (remember the license term was three years back then). You had to tell the FCC how much commercial time you were running on the old renewal forms, but it was for information only and there were no specific limits in the rules. The FCC might have come back at you for what they considered excessive commercial loads, under the general heading of being contrary to the public interest, but again there was no specific number in the rules (probably one reason they stopped reviewing commercial loads...they were applying judgments based on nothing specific, which the courts don't tend to like). The only limit in place, an advisory one, was 18 minutes an hour under the old NAB Code of Good Practice.

 

[davideduardo]

I'll say it again: There were no limits.

None in the ryules, true. But in practice, any day on the composite week where there were hours that exceeded 18 minutes of commercials triggered a letter from the FCC requiring justification. For all practical purposes, there was an 18 minute limit, or you got your renewal slowed down.

I was working in radio at that time, and worked on many renewal applications (remember the license term was three years back then). You had to tell the FCC how much commercial time you were running on the old renewal forms, but it was for information only and there were no specific limits in the rules.

What you ran was baed on the composite week for your state; as I said, running over 18 minutes triggered an inquiry.

The FCC might have come back at you for what they considered excessive commercial loads, under the general heading of being contrary to the public interest, but again there was no specific number in the rules (probably one reason they stopped reviewing commercial loads...they were applying judgments based on nothing specific, which the courts don't tend to like). The only limit in place, an advisory one, was 18 minutes an hour under the old NAB Code of Good Practice.

The FCC bases many things on administrative law, not the rules. There were certain guideposts on a renewal that got you flagged: excess commercial time, and performance / promise below a certain percentage on news/PA/other and PSA's.

The problem was that in the 60's, pre-FM, the major AMs were all running close to 18 minutes an hour, and the FCC was concerned about abuse.

 

[R.F. Burns]

As far as spot load is concerned 18 minutes an hour sounds about right and today we might have 15 minutes every half hour ofr some of these shows.

OK. Where are we getting 15 minutes every half hour?

Seriously, this would be allowable now, but who actually does it?

And I could be wrong, but I'm almost certain there were legal limits in the 60's-70's. IIRC a certain AM top 40 in Wildwood NJ used to have to get a waiver to "Annualize" their spotload so they could oversell the summers. That's 2nd had from a colloege roomate who worked there, but I have always assumed it was accurate.

Clouseau

Ok Here's how it breaks down spot wise for a half hour of Rewound. Starting at :00 we have a 6 minute newscast, two minutes of which is commercial load. The first stop set ran roughly 4:30 seconds. About 10 minutes later there's another stop set which runs 5:30 plus or minus 30 seconds. That's a lot of clutter and commercial content breaking program continuity and that was on a holiday weekend. So we have about 10 minutes of comemercial content per 30 minutes but because of the newscast at the top we have 16 minutes of non program content per half hour. Maybe 10 minutes from 30 to 60, I didn't time it. Anyway you look at it, the spot load kills continuity. Take a look at the O'Reilly clock for an idea about the heavy spot load which is driving the audience away; http://images.westwoodone.com/images/pdf/techinfo/oreillyclock.doc

Doing the addition we're talking about 33 minutes or so of content for every 60 minutes of program. For those screaming for interesting content why not try listening to stations below 92 Mhz on the FM band. No commercial content and original and varried programing.

 

[JbeJay]

... why not try listening to stations below 92 Mhz on the FM band. No commercial content and original and varried programing.

Aha! THAT's why so many of those stations have so few listeners:
[1] lack of commercials, and
[2] original and varied programming.

Thanks for helping me to figure that out!?!

Jay

 

[R.F. Burns]

... why not try listening to stations below 92 Mhz on the FM band. No commercial content and original and varried programing.

Aha! THAT's why so many of those stations have so few listeners:
[1] lack of commercials, and
[2] original and varied programming.

Thanks for helping me to figure that out!?!

Jay

Huh? You'd be surprised how many listeners many of those non commercial stations have.

 

[JbeJay]

Huh? You'd be surprised how many listeners many of those non commercial stations have.

I wouldn't really be surprised at all, RF. I've seen the numbers -- book after book after book.

Some of them do. Most of them don't.

Jay

 

[R.F. Burns]

Huh? You'd be surprised how many listeners many of those non commercial stations have.

I wouldn't really be surprised at all, RF. I've seen the numbers -- book after book after book.

Some of them do. Most of them don't.

Jay

Well here in NYC we have WBGO, WKCR & WFUV as well as WNYE who have a very healthy listener base. There are others which do very well but they don't all cover the entire metro area.

 

[JbeJay]

Huh? You'd be surprised how many listeners many of those non commercial stations have.

I wouldn't really be surprised at all, RF. I've seen the numbers -- book after book after book.
Some of them do. Most of them don't.

Well here in NYC we have WBGO, WKCR & WFUV as well as WNYE who have a very healthy listener base. There are others which do very well but they don't all cover the entire metro area.

I repeat, RF: I have seen the numbers. Unfortunately, you evidently have not.

My understanding is that we cannot quote those numbers here within board messages.

Let's just say that if your idea of "very healthy listener base" or "do very well" means having a market share which is less than a 1.0, then you are correct about quite a number of non-commercial stations in NYC. Those of us who think that "very healthy" for a New York station means having 2's, 3's, 4's, or better (and even better in a good demo) would not describe any of those stations as "very healthy".

Jay

 

[Tom Wells]

Huh? You'd be surprised how many listeners many of those non commercial stations have.

I wouldn't really be surprised at all, RF. I've seen the numbers -- book after book after book.

Some of them do. Most of them don't.

Jay

Well here in NYC we have WBGO, WKCR & WFUV as well as WNYE who have a very healthy listener base. There are others which do very well but they don't all cover the entire metro area.

I listen very often to the streams of WFMU East Orange, and when in Jersey, it's my 1st preset.
Most sundays I listen 3-4 hours to Rich Conaty's Big Broadcast on WFUV's stream. I used to listen on WQEW 1560, before the mouse.
WFUV was on as I read this thread.

My FM tuner seldom goes above 91.5, and is usually parked at 88.3, 88.7, or 89.3 locally in Chicago.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Huh? You'd be surprised how many listeners many of those non commercial stations have.

I wouldn't really be surprised at all, RF. I've seen the numbers -- book after book after book.
Some of them do. Most of them don't.

Well here in NYC we have WBGO, WKCR & WFUV as well as WNYE who have a very healthy listener base. There are others which do very well but they don't all cover the entire metro area.

I repeat, RF: I have seen the numbers. Unfortunately, you evidently have not.

My understanding is that we cannot quote those numbers here within board messages.

Let's just say that if your idea of "very healthy listener base" or "do very well" means having a market share which is less than a 1.0, then you are correct about quite a number of non-commercial stations in NYC. Those of us who think that "very healthy" for a New York station means having 2's, 3's, 4's, or better (and even better in a good demo) would not describe any of those stations as "very healthy".

Jay

Oh do you have the breakdowns or are you quoting 12+ numbers? Actually I have read that non commercials are rated seperately from commercial operators and what is a success for a non commercial station is different than a commercial radio station. Take a look at WNYC. Whille you don't see themn in the "ratings" they make incredible amounts of money. Their expenses are very high with a fully professional staff and yet they are profitable. To use an analogy, WABC AM which does very well in the ratings is nowhere near as profitable as much lower rated WFAN. ratings don't always equal success. What this has to do with HD is beyond me. My point was that there are other programing choices on terrrestrial radio for those who seak it out.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

Actually I have read that non commercials are rated seperately from commercial operators and what is a success for a non commercial station is different than a commercial radio station. Take a look at WNYC. Whille you don't see themn in the "ratings" they make incredible amounts of money.

What you've read is wrong. The non-coms are rated using exactly the same criteria as the commercial stations, and their ratings appear in Arbitron's Maximi$er software right alongside all the commercial stations.

 

[JbeJay]

Oh do you have the breakdowns or are you quoting 12+ numbers?

A subscriber can see 12+ numbers and individual demos. But my understanding is that we're not allowed to repeat them here. My repeated assumption, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, is that you haven't seen the numbers but are drawing conclusions based on your own limited experience or something other than actual awareness of the numbers.

... I have read that non commercials are rated seperately from commercial operators ...

By Arbitron? Not really.

If you are part of the small fraction of a share of the New York metro listenership who would write down WFUV in your diary, your diary entry would be tabulated the same as that of someone else who wrote down Lite.

... what is a success for a non commercial station is different than a commercial radio station. ... To use an analogy, WABC AM which does very well in the ratings is nowhere near as profitable as much lower rated WFAN. ratings don't always equal success.

You seem to be trying to change the criteria, RF. At the start you were speaking of "how many listeners" certain non-commercial stations had and claiming that they had "a very healthy listener base". But now that you know that isn't true, you are trying to redefine the situation by saying that (audience) size doesn't matter.

(To explore your analogy briefly, whether WABC or WFAN is "lower rated" depends on whether you are looking at 12+ -- as no time-buyer does -- or the demo target.)

Bottom line: I am happy for you and anyone else who is thrilled to listen to a non-commercial station. In the grand scheme of things, in the case of most (but not all) non-comms, there aren't that many of you. That's why someone had to point out that a large "listener base" isn't what most of them have.

But rather than simply to trust what you "have read", here or elsewhere, you may feel free to contact Arbitron and confirm all of my statements above.

Jay