BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

[davideduardo]

Prior to 1966, manufacturers would have had to pay a royalty to the Armstrong family for FM, making FM radios more expensive than AM only radios. There really wasn't a motivation for "decent local service." That came later. People were satisfied with AM as it was. More stations was about money, not service.

I'd offer a different set of reasons.

First, the Armstrong royalties were minimal; less than the current day Dolby licenses. Alone, they did not prevent more FM radios from being made.

Second, the cost issue was principally due to manufacturing. In the pre-IC era, FM required separate circuitry from the antenna to the tuning components, and then needed a method to select between AM and FM. Since this occupied considerable space, it made for larger radios, and used more discreet devices and entailed far more labor.

Third, by the end of the 50's, FM station count was declining. 1000 in 1950, 700 in 1960. Most were by then simulcasting AMs, so there was nothing to "see" on FM. Most folks moved on. And they did not seek out radios with FM.

Fourth, even the introduction of FM stereo did not do much for FM. It took nearly 3 years for the first 200 stations to "go stereo" so that was not a powerful incentive, particularly since the stereo stations did not program for trendsetters and young adults as they tended to be classical and beautiful music stations.

Finally, it took a "do it or else" FCC ruling that stopped simulcasting dead in 1967 for there to be much interest in putting something different on FM. When operators of simulcast FMs decided they had better do something on their facility or lose it to a potential competitor, the appeal to consumers expanded. Since AM operators did not want to compete with their existing and probably profitable AM, they picked very different formats, many of which worked and drew people to the band.

FM was around for nearly 30 years and went nowhere in most cases. Yet in the decade from 1967 to 1977, it went from often unrated to 50% of total listening nationally. The change was not driven by cost of receivers but by availability of content.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I'm not jumping in to take sides in the back-and-forth between TheBigA and David Eduardo.... but I have another observation.

Early in my broadcast years, I worked at a station where we "rode the network" during part of my shift, and the owner of the station was an engineer so in the shop we had the NAB Enginnering Handbook which had a good chapter on the "theory of FM Broadcasting". (This was 1957-59 era so in rural areas of the south, FM was a bit non-existent.) I did a lot of reading on the subject and looked forward to the day when I could get my hands on a magnificent receiver... and maybe work for an AM station.

In Armstrong theory there were two great features that FM possessed: (1) With two competing signals on the same frequency (and I guess two adjacent frequencies) the tuner circuits would lock into one signal or the other and NOT deliver some noisy combination of the two. (2) FM signals as received could be pulled out of the noise... NO STATIC, etc.

I guess some of the great, expensive tuners in the 60s and 70s came close to meeting those specifications. But today's FM receivers apparently were never told the facts of life by their parents, because they violate these two great features of the FM band. We could argue that FM broadcasting would be better off if consumer receivers were of better quality; We could argue that FM broadcasting has a much larger audience because today's crappy receivers are affordable and plentiful.

 

[davideduardo]

I checked my facts about Armstrong royalties and found one error in my logic... the Armstrong fees were expressed as "pennies per unit" while more current licenses are based on a different scale. And, a 1950 "penny" is certainly worth more than one today. So the cost for each unit was, in fact, higher.

But still I think that the real cost of adding FM was in components and labor, not royalties. And the lack of content made for little incentive to either manufacture or buy an FM capable radio.

 

[KeithE4]

Looking at those ideas:

1) Class C stations, with, AFAIK, one exception (570 in Marinette, WI) all operate on six Local channels, on which no Class A, Class B or Class D stations operate. Close the Class C stations, and all you've done is wasted six channels without anything on the airspace. Many Class D stations do not cause any interference to other stations at all.

I would state here that allowing all Class IV (then) stations to run 1kw at night, without any power increase given to the other stations on adjacent channels, was a bad move, as it increased adjacent-channel interference to those stations.

I modified that proposal later, when I suggested that all frequencies between 1230 and 1490 become Class C. That means that all existing stations that could not move elsewhere would have to run 1 kW and a non-directional antenna. That would be a few hundred stations on those frequencies alone.

2) Directional antennas on AM were invented for a reason - to reduce interference. Eliminating directional antenna protection at night would only have the effect of turning every Class B station into a Class C. And beaming RF into the ocean, as wasteful as it may seem, is often the only way to have an AM in a large or major market serve its market without causing interference to other stations.

So? For an AM station to justify its existence, it would have to cover its entire market. No more 6+ tower arrays in order to sandwich a station into an area, only to cover part of its market.

Also, directional antenna arrays require a lot of land - land that is becoming increasingly unavailable. Between NIMBY issues, maintenance issues, and the fact that the land is more valuable than the station itself in many cases, it's long past time to get rid of directional antennas except when necessary to protect Canada and Mexico.

Besides, so what if two stations interfere with each other at a distance, so long as the interference doesn't occur within both stations' local areas? If, for example, WABC and KKOB wipe each other out in the midwest, who cares? Neither station targets the midwest, and neither station will lose listeners because of interference. As long as WABC is clear in the northeast and KKOB is clear in New Mexico, isn't that all that matters? Why is absolutely necessary for KKOB to protect WABC? I know skywave happens and the ionosphere is what it is, but I can't see any serious issues if both stations were ND.

3) That would mean either turning all the stations into Super C stations, or, the other way, turning all the US-priority channels to clear channels. Are you proposing reducing the number of AM stations in the US from about 4,000 to about 70?

Not 70, but maybe 500 Class A and B stations, plus whatever Class C stations can be put in the 27 channels between 1230 and 1490 kHz. There will be room for that many stations, although not anywhere near that many will be viable. Only, what, 500 AM stations make money now?

This is all hypothetical anyway. Such a reorganization will never, ever happen.

 

[davideduardo]

So? For an AM station to justify its existence, it would have to cover its entire market. No more 6+ tower arrays in order to sandwich a station into an area, only to cover part of its market.

Using Cleveland as an example, only one or two AMs would survive based on adequate day and night coverage. In Phoenix, one might survive.

The effect would be to reduce the number of AMs in most major markets to one or two. Of all the AMs in the Top 100 markets, only about 160 cover 80% of the market day and night.

Yet many of the more limited signal stations serve useful purposes, such as serving ethnic communities that often are concentrated in smaller areas.

 

[TheBigA]

The change was not driven by cost of receivers but by availability of content.

But the cheap availability of the receivers pre-dated the growth of the content by about five years. People couldn't discover the content until they bought a receiver of some sort.

 

[TheBigA]

But still I think that the real cost of adding FM was in components and labor, not royalties. And the lack of content made for little incentive to either manufacture or buy an FM capable radio.

Regardless of the source of the added cost, it was an issue. Adding FM to a typical portable transistor radio practically doubled the cost to the consumer, increased the size, plus required an antenna.

 

[davideduardo]

Besides, so what if two stations interfere with each other at a distance, so long as the interference doesn't occur within both stations' local areas? If, for example, WABC and KKOB wipe each other out in the midwest, who cares? Neither station targets the midwest, and neither station will lose listeners because of interference. As long as WABC is clear in the northeast and KKOB is clear in New Mexico, isn't that all that matters? Why is absolutely necessary for KKOB to protect WABC? I know skywave happens and the ionosphere is what it is, but I can't see any serious issues if both stations were ND.

Don't underestimate the amazing abilities of skywave to interfere at great distances.

As a teen, I witnessed a 10 kw station from the interior of Venezuela overriding WTAM (WKYC, KYW) in Cleveland on a number of occasions. And I lived less than 25 miles from the WTAM site.

If the skywave is "enough" to interfere frequently at night, it's going to affect listening.

 

[KeithE4]

Don't underestimate the amazing abilities of skywave to interfere at great distances.

As a teen, I witnessed a 10 kw station from the interior of Venezuela overriding WTAM (WKYC, KYW) in Cleveland on a number of occasions. And I lived less than 25 miles from the WTAM site.

If the skywave is "enough" to interfere frequently at night, it's going to affect listening.

That's what I wanted to know. I think we've all heard Cubans wipe out American 50 kW stations on occasion, but does something like that happen often enough to justify directional antennas (KKOB in my example)? If it was just a few nights (less than 20 out of 365, say), would that justify the requirement for the "less dominant" station being directional?

 

[davideduardo]

Regardless of the source of the added cost, it was an issue. Adding FM to a typical portable transistor radio practically doubled the cost to the consumer, increased the size, plus required an antenna.

By the time AM FM pocket transistor radios became very common in the mid-60's (64 to 66) they were the same size as AM only units and only cost a small percentage (15% to 20%) more than the AM solo units.

Those radios were not too common in the US at the time, as there was no consumer demand. But in Europe, where both state and private broadcasters began to use FM in earnest in the early 60's, they were easy to find. I bought them by the thousands in around '66 and resold them at cost in Ecuador to promote my FM stations, and was very familiar with the pricing.

And they were every bit as small as the smallest non-novelty AM radios. I used to see them all over Madrid, where FM Top 40 began around 1966.

It was a content issue, not a receiver issue. In the US, there was not much mass appeal content, so nothing drove manufacturers to offer much in the way of AM FM receivers, even though much of the rest of the world knew better.

 

[davideduardo]

But the cheap availability of the receivers pre-dated the growth of the content by about five years. People couldn't discover the content until they bought a receiver of some sort.

No, the content drove the sales of receivers based on word of mouth by users of the new formats post-67. Suddenly you had everything from hard rock to oldies as well as much more sophisticated Beautiful Music (Marlin Taylor, Jim Schulke et. al.) and other format varieties, and the near-addicts of these new or improved options told their friends and that sold radios.

I recall when I put rock on FM the first time (when no AM played it at all) we discovered every radio with FM available at retail had sold out within less than a month.

 

[TheBigA]

Someone had to own a receiver first. At the time, most FM receivers were owned by audiophiles and classical music nuts, not rock fans. That didn't start to happen until the receivers became more affordable and more portable. The "new formats" didn't really become widespread until the 70s. In the 60s, they were restricted to major markets.

Let's face it: You were IN radio at the time, so you probably owned an FM receiver. The majority of the public didn't. Word of mouth is a great salesman, but it starts somewhere, and that place is someone who actually owns a receiver. Then it takes a while for it to catch on, and the mass public to buy the things. By the late 70s, you could buy an FM convertor for your car for less than $20. That was a good deal.

 

[davideduardo]

Someone had to own a receiver first. At the time, most FM receivers were owned by audiophiles and classical music nuts, not rock fans.

But my point is that as soon as formats that had mass appeal appeared, the fans of that music jumped to buy receivers. The mass launching of new formats began in '67 concurrent with the FCC decree that ended nearly all simulcasting.

That didn't start to happen until the receivers became more affordable and more portable.

As I said, I bought pocket sized AM/FM portables around 1966/1967 at very, very affordable prices. In the US, cheap, affordable table radios and such were available within a short period after the FCC edict went into effect because manufacturers discovered the demand.

The "new formats" didn't really become widespread until the 70s.

By 1977, 50% of all radio listening was on FM. That included smaller rated markets.

I looked at Spring '77 in some markets that were outside the top 100:

Amarillo: 2 of the top 4 were FM.
Appleton: 2 of the top 5.
Augusta: 2 of the top 5, including Harley Drew's amazing WBBQ-FM with a share equal to the next three AM's combined.
Austing: 3 of the top 4

And that's just the smaller A's. In the big markets, we generally saw a Superstars station, a CHR and one or more Beautiful's in the top positions. Remember, Superstars evolved from the progressive rock format around 1972 at WQDR in not-so-big Raleigh, NC, market 75, not in a Top 20 market.

And some of the first oldies stations, like WMOD in DC, came on around 1978. CHRs that were part of daytime AMs improved facilities and challenged and beat AM Top 40's as early as 1970 in cases like WPGC in DC. CHR's that had no AM heritage came on in quantity by '71, with WDRQ, KSLQ, WMYQ and even Birmingham's WERC-FM becoming stand-alones and beating established AM CHRs.

Let's face it: You were IN radio at the time, so you probably owned an FM receiver. The majority of the public didn't.

By 1966 I owned an FM, and that station became profitable in its first year. The next year, I added another FM in the same market and added FM simulcasts to 3 AMs in the cluster. By 1970, one of the FMs was #2 in middle and upper income levels and there were more FM radios in the market than TV sets. The demand was created by programming... and the '66 launch was the country's first FM of any kind. While not the US, it illustrates that the cost of radios and their absence from households was not an impediment... the example is all the stronger when considering that at the time the per capita annual income in that country was less than $1000 yet people bought loads of FMs and used them.

Word of mouth is a great salesman, but it starts somewhere, and that place is someone who actually owns a receiver. Then it takes a while for it to catch on, and the mass public to buy the things. By the late 70s, you could buy an FM convertor for your car for less than $20. That was a good deal.

As I said, by the late 70's, FM had the majority of listening. In many markets, FM stations had become #1 well before that.

 

[TheBigA]

Sorry, but FM didn't explode in 1967. Word of mouth is slow. The "new formats" you talk about didn't come about until the 70s. As I said, if you compare prices, AM only portables were available for $10, and AM/FMs started at $20 to $50. That's a big difference, especially if you don't know what's on FM. Why pay twice as much if you don't know what you're going to get?

What was the format of the FM you started in 1966? Of course the station was #2 with upper incomes...the upper income folks listened to classical and beautiful music. Not mass appeal rock. Marlin Taylor was programming WRFM in NYC, which was beautiful music.

No argument about 1977. But that's TEN YEARS after the FCC decision. As I said, word of mouth was slow. TEN YEARS. By then, manufacturing had become cheaper.

 

[davideduardo]

Sorry, but FM didn't explode in 1967. Word of mouth is slow. The "new formats" you talk about didn't come about until the 70s.

The first progressive rockers happened within a year or so of the decree. Many happened by accident.

The first Oldies station I know of on AM was in DC in 1968.

There were all kinds of other experiments, such as the first independent (non-simulcast) Spanish language FM... WFAN. There was a great deal of experimentation. Early FM syndication was not just Beautiful Music... there was Drake Chennault's Hit Parade starting in 1968, which was an AC format that leaned Top 40... later referred to as Chicken Rock.

By the turn of the decade, WPGC was busy knocking off WEAM.

As I said, if you compare prices, AM only portables were available for $10, and AM/FMs started at $20 to $50.

But when you wanted to hear progressive rock in '68, $20 seemed cheap as there was no AM alternative.

That's a big difference, especially if you don't know what's on FM. Why pay twice as much if you don't know what you're going to get?

I had experiences with stations with little or no promotion going to #1 in one book based on word of mouth back in the late 60's. And among passionate listener groups... like hard rock fans... the reaction was almost instantaneous.

What was the format of the FM you started in 1966?

AC. It was the adult version of an AM CHR, with a broader library. It out-billed the AM within 2 years. And the AM had been the market's leading music station biller.

No argument about 1977. But that's TEN YEARS after the FCC decision. As I said, word of mouth was slow. TEN YEARS.

In '67, few FMs showed in ratings, and those that did show were well below a 1 share. Yet by 1970, using Dallas and Ft Worth as examples, we had an FM in each market in the top 5. By 1974, 6 of the top 10 were FMs.

 

[TheBigA]

The first progressive rockers happened within a year or so of the decree. Many happened by accident.

But they weren't particularly popular. And they only happened in a handful of major markets. Sure there were pioneers. That's not what I'm talking about.

All the dates you're giving prove my point. Long slow build. Ten years. You can cherry pick markets to me all day. It took ten years for a trend to happen. Then in the 80s you have docket 80-90, and that blew the roof off the dump. At the same time, the FCC takes action to limit the power of AM clear channels. Those two things began to change the course of radio in the US.

 

[davideduardo]

But they weren't particularly popular. And they only happened in a handful of major markets. Sure there were pioneers. That's not what I'm talking about.

FM went to zero to zero in its first 28 years. It went nowhere when FM stereo was introduced. But then the FCC required simulcasts break off with separate programming while maintaining a minimum operating schedule, and the band grew for essentially no listening to more than half of all listening in just a decade. That is quite rapid growth against quite a few obstacles, and it was based on content.

All the dates you're giving prove my point. Long slow build. Ten years. You can cherry pick markets to me all day. It took ten years for a trend to happen.

I picked Dallas simply because there is a site with more than 60 years worth of ratings for that market... while finding early 70's data for other markets is nearly impossible.

However, by the end of 1971, LA had 24 FM shares. By the end of '74, Austin had 34 shares. Big market. Small market (at the time) showing that the growth was not just a spurt at the tail end of the decade, but constant growth... about 25% of audience by about '72, and half the audience by '77.

Then in the 80s you have docket 80-90, and that blew the roof off the dump.

What we got from 80-80, which was the result of the Bonita Springs decision, was the ability to do changes of class and COL without being subject to crossfilings, and the amendment of the table of allocations allowing station in previously unsaturated areas of the country to add FMs. Many areas, though, had little if any impact from 80-90, others got many move-ins and a lot of small markets got double or more the existing FM channels. But that happened in Lake City, FL, not New York City.

At the same time, the FCC takes action to limit the power of AM clear channels. Those two things began to change the course of radio in the US.

The clear channels, save the experimental pre-W.W. II operation of WLW, never had more than 50 kw, the same limit they have today. None had power reduced. What did happen in the 70's was that the FCC decided to duplicate the clears in unserved gray areas by, for example, allowing a very directional 50 kw station in Wyoming on the same clear as WBZ in Boston. It had no effect at all on WBZ.

By the time the clear channels were broken down, AM listening only counted in the local market or trading area. Nearly none of the stations had significant night audience, and the breakdown did not affect that which did exist for overnight trucker shows and such. Of course, the breakdown had no effect on the revenue producing daytime coverage, so that's a moot point both revenue and audience wise.

In fact, some of the most successful clear channel stations of the 60's and 70's and beyond were not unduplicated 1-A clears but lesser classes with considerable duplication: WTIC, WRKO, WHDH, KNBR, KNX, KOA, KIEO, KING, KOMO, WINS, KYW, KAAY, KOMA, WKBW, KRAK, KOB, WAPE, WKIX, WLAC, WIBC, WDGY, WMAZ, WPTF, WBT, KFAB, WOR, KEEL, KWKH, KEX, WOWO, KGA, KFBK, WQXR, KPOL, WRVA, WWVA, KVOO, KRLA, KMPC, etc., etc.

 

[TheBigA]

The band grew for essentially no listening to more than half of all listening in just a decade. That is quite rapid growth against quite a few obstacles, and it was based on content.

You can keep on saying it over and over, but it won't change the fact that other things were going on at the time. There was a coincidental storm of events that happened in the mid-late 60s that sowed the seeds for the rapid growth that would happen in the 70s. One of those things was new content. But the growth itself didn't happen in the mid 60s, and it wasn't JUST the content that led to it. Because there WERE content pioneers before 1966, and the content then wasn't enough to attract the audience. It's the time-line approach to history. It takes more than just one thing to change the course of history. Mass production of the integrated circuit. The gradual movement of electronics manufacturing from the US to Asia. Improvements in FM technology. The baby boom. A real movement of the component audio market from audiophiles to a broader part of the population. The growth of the LP as a music medium. The resolution of the Armstrong lawsuit and the expiration of the patent. On and on. All of these things were happening as the FCC made its decision, and they all played a part in the FM boom of the 70's.

 

[davideduardo]

Because there WERE content pioneers before 1966, and the content then wasn't enough to attract the audience. It's the time-line approach to history. It takes more than just one thing to change the course of history. Mass production of the integrated circuit. The gradual movement of electronics manufacturing from the US to Asia. Improvements in FM technology. The baby boom. A real movement of the component audio market from audiophiles to a broader part of the population. The growth of the LP as a music medium. The resolution of the Armstrong lawsuit and the expiration of the patent. On and on. All of these things were happening as the FCC made its decision, and they all played a part in the FM boom of the 70's.

I'd agree to one extent or another with you on all of these. They were conditions that created fertile earth for the growth of FM.

But if you look back at the Post-War years of 1946 and 1947, you see that the same effort was put into FM... maybe more... as in the late 60's. Every issue of Broadcasting was full of ads for FM gear. Radio Daily hyped the new medium, and associations were formed to trumpet the static-free quality. AM licensees and a few lone fools applied for FM channels and over 1,000 were granted.

But the fertile field did not exist. We had the pseudo-racketeer Petrillio demanding live musicians at start-up stations. Most of the audience for radio was there for the network shows, and any independent had a struggle, with the FM independents being the real stepchildren. Local spot was often secondary to network compensation or "station breaks" between network shows. And that's what advertisers wanted because that was what they listened to at home with the wife and kiddies.

So you are right... the right combination of new receivers, the LP, changes in labor laws and the collapse of the AFM and such things contributed mightily to FM's success on its second turn at bat. But I believe the biggest reason for FM success was content and the fact that AM operators, forced to break sumulcasts, wanted nothing that would compete with AM programming where the money came from. So we got hippies and the 101 Strings, r&b formats that had previously been on Class IV's or daytimers, and even some Spanish language music stations. And we got slews of Top 40's early on, and they killed their AM counterparts, often in less than a year (ask Rick Dees why he left Birmingham... his station was decked by an FM sign-on). The common element here was content that was powerful enough to make ma and pa and the kids and the baby sitter all want a radio with FM.

True, some markets turned to FM later, and others much earlier. One Top 15 market I was in had a total of 14 FM shares in 1978... when the country as a whole had over 50%. One station changed to a format that was so mass appeal that in 6 months, the market had 55% FM shares... and the station that made the first change got as high as a 42.5 share in a 30-station market. That was a pure content play... so much so that 21 days after going on the air that station pulled a 22.5 in a Jim Seiler Mediastat, more than double the shares of the next closest station. Word of mouth, light commercial load, content.

 

[dougw9wi]

To go back to the original premise...

We're looking at the immediate post-war FMs not surviving, but we're also looking at that in an environment where large numbers of new AM stations were hitting the airwaves. Milwaukee, for example, had three AM stations at the end of the war -- within a few years, there were seven. All of the new stations were either daytimers, or highly directional.

What would have happened if those four new AM stations hadn't existed? What if, instead of competing against seven AM stations, Milwaukee's post-war FMs faced only three AM competitors? Would some of them have seen success?