Can AM Be Saved from IBOC?

[JohnnyElectron]

Clevelander Ted Alexander has an interesting article in November edition of "Radio Guide" (page 36). He has an concept for a hybrid analog AM/FM system on the AM band. It sounds worth trying. Once again, this is one of about 5 different things that should have been tried on improving the AM band other than only iBiquity's digital.

Leonard Kahn did have one thing right - the FCC should have had their 'blue ribbon panel' and had half a dozen methods of improving the AM band tried and tested - DSP with C-Quam AMAX, CAM-D, DRM, AM/FM hybrid, DRM, iBiquity, and a simulcast system tested on 26MHz, 87MHz and 700MHz in additio to MW. Is it too late to still try to do it right?

 

[LinoNYC]

Clevelander Ted Alexander has an interesting article in November edition of "Radio Guide" (page 36). He has an concept for a hybrid analog AM/FM system on the AM band. It sounds worth trying. Once again, this is one of about 5 different things that should have been tried on improving the AM band other than only iBiquity's digital.

Leonard Kahn did have one thing right - the FCC should have had their 'blue ribbon panel' and had half a dozen methods of improving the AM band tried and tested - DSP with C-Quam AMAX, CAM-D, DRM, AM/FM hybrid, DRM, iBiquity, and a simulcast system tested on 26MHz, 87MHz and 700MHz in additio to MW. Is it too late to still try to do it right?

C-Quam, A-Max and Kahn-isb have all been tried, they work but didn't help AM's problem with young listeners.

The DSP C-Quam concept would have been my preferrence however it's too late now for an AM only solution. AM listenership has sunk to single digits in many areas of the country and all AM's have over-50 listeners. There isn't enough interest in Am by consumers or manufacturers to make a system that only addresses the AM band viable.

I have repeatedly outlined what has happened to AM here in market #1, take an honest look at you own area and you'll see why a radical and comprehensive (am-fm) approach is needed.

Lino

 

[rbrucecarter5]

[C-Quam, A-Max and Kahn-isb have all been tried, they work but didn't help AM's problem with young listeners.

So - how come Radio Disney is making a really good profit reaching out to kids on AM?

Two words: Hannah Montana

Three words: High School Musical

Put programming on AM that people want to hear, they will come no matter what age. The problem with AM is the programming, not the band.

 

[KeithE4]

So - how come Radio Disney is making a really good profit reaching out to kids on AM?

Two words: Hannah Montana

Three words: High School Musical

Put programming on AM that people want to hear, they will come no matter what age. The problem with AM is the programming, not the band.

Has Radio Disney ever made money on its own? I thought it was strictly a 24-hour informercial for Disney products, stars, and shows. Maybe more entertaining than Colon Blow, but still essentially an informercial.

 

[davideduardo]

So - how come Radio Disney is making a really good profit reaching out to kids on AM?

As Keith already observed, Radio Disney is a marketing brand extension for Disney. I agree in doubting it ever made money.

In the two PPM markets I have seen where there is a Disney O&O and where 6-11 year olds are measured, neither of the Radio Disney stations shows any AQH listening in that demo... which is their target.

 

[Kelly]

So - how come Radio Disney is making a really good profit reaching out to kids on AM?

As Keith already observed, Radio Disney is a marketing brand extension for Disney. I agree in doubting it ever made money.

In the two PPM markets I have seen where there is a Disney O&O and where 6-11 year olds are measured, neither of the Radio Disney stations shows any AQH listening in that demo... which is their target.

I agree David. Radio Disney is a molecular-sized drop in the Disney ocean which makes no money. It's a tough advertising sell too, with many of them being on AM stations, in which kids within the demo don't know exists. Essentially RD is a tax write-off for the Mouse.

 

[vsa]

[C-Quam, A-Max and Kahn-isb have all been tried, they work but didn't help AM's problem with young listeners.

So - how come Radio Disney is making a really good profit reaching out to kids on AM?

Two words: Hannah Montana

Three words: High School Musical

Put programming on AM that people want to hear, they will come no matter what age. The problem with AM is the programming, not the band.

Radio Disney has also made itself available on XM and on the Internet. Someone's listening because Hannah Montana and High School Musical are huge sellers.

 

[davideduardo]

Radio Disney has also made itself available on XM and on the Internet. Someone's listening because Hannah Montana and High School Musical are huge sellers.

Yeah, they are huge... due to TV. The radio net is a support vehicle for those properties.

 

[vsa]

Radio Disney has also made itself available on XM and on the Internet. Someone's listening because Hannah Montana and High School Musical are huge sellers.

Yeah, they are huge... due to TV. The radio net is a support vehicle for those properties.

I forgot Radio Disney is also on Sirius.

I've noticed that Radio Disney is listed in the iTunes radio tuner. So is Batanga.com. Nothing from Univision there. How come?

Is Batanga becoming any kind of competitive threat yet? Check out their video at the link.

http://www.batanga.com/mediakit/

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Bruce said:

Put programming on AM that people want to hear, they will come no matter what age. The problem with AM is the programming, not the band.

The answer to AM's woes is not a problematic, noisy new "HD" modulation scheme reducing analog fidelity to half and requiring the purchase of expensive new radios with finicky, clunky, external antennas in order for listeners to derive even marginal benefit (and then, only within the highest signal strength areas).

To get back the high fidelity that was lost by adding noisy, adjacent channel HD digital signals, listeners are expected to replace all their radios with expensive, proprietary new HD models so they can play with their clumsy new HD external antennas?

Not likely. The general listening public isn't buying HD radio's overblown hype.

HD is not AM's salvation, any more (and perhaps less) then previous novel modulation schemes requiring new radios.

 

[LinoNYC]

Bruce said:

Put programming on AM that people want to hear, they will come no matter what age. The problem with AM is the programming, not the band.

The answer to AM's woes is not a problematic, noisy new "HD" modulation scheme reducing analog fidelity to half and requiring the purchase of expensive new radios with finicky, clunky, external antennas in order for listeners to derive even marginal benefit (and then, only within the highest signal strength areas).

To get back the high fidelity that was lost by adding noisy, adjacent channel HD digital signals, listeners are expected to replace all their radios with expensive, proprietary new HD models so they can play with their clumsy new HD external antennas?

Not likely. The general listening public isn't buying HD radio's overblown hype.

HD is not AM's salvation, any more (and perhaps less) then previous novel modulation schemes requiring new radios.

For those keeping track, we have numbers 3-3A, 5 and either 12 or 14 from 'Ol Sup's cut-and-paste file.


I think the best way to handle a character like this is to simply ask: What would you do to solve AM radio's dilemma?

We might get a cogent answer...or.. just more from the files. We'll see.

Lino

 

[RadioFixerCLE]

Well, first off, the FCC should establish some minimum standards for AM radios. No more of these broad-as-a-barn glorified crystal sets that have been invading the low-end market for the past....oh 20 years or so.

Next, increase the clear-channels' power from 50 KW to ... well whatever. And get rid of all these flea-powered night-power stations (the ones doing like a watt or so at night) that are clogging the dial up.

Then once the receiver issue is solved, its up to the radio stations themselves to take charge. Put on good, compelling programming. Distinguish yourselves from the FM band. The listeners will come. No more continous blocks of paid religion, patent medicines, get rich quick schemes, etc.

Of course this would probably mean having these executives think in the long term and not quarter-by-quarter. You will not make as much money as you'd want in the beginning, but as listeners trickle back in, the advertisers will definitely follow. And if you can sell to advertisers from outside your "primary contour", by all means do it. If your station has a good signal five states over, people are listening, so their local advertisers can take advantage of that.

The good thing is that the stations that can't make it on their own will go off the air. These licences will be turned into the FCC and deleted, thereby further cleaning up the band for the stations that are able to succeed.

 

[davideduardo]

Is Batanga becoming any kind of competitive threat yet? Check out their video at the link.

In over 100,000 listener interviews this year, it has not been mentioned once. It probably does better among nice Spanish language format listeners and those in markets where there is little variety or few options in Spanish language radio.

 

[clouseau]

HD is not AM's salvation, any more (and perhaps less) then previous novel modulation schemes requiring new radios.

Very Insightful. I guess the whole "Frequency Modulation" requiring a new radio supports this, right?



Unfreakin' believable.

Clouseau

 

[Savage]

Um...I think we either have a "Fundamental Misunderstanding" (abbreviation: "FM," haw haw!) or "semantics situation," Houston.

IBOC-AM (depending on what's meant by "novel modulation scheme") has been offered as a solution to declining AM listenership, which would involve by definition: those listening to AM radio.

FM is an entirely different band and method of modulation. It was never touted as a way to correct AM's technical faults. FM overtook AM's dominance of the radio audience because it better fit listeners' lifestyles and preferences.

If AM can figure out a way to regain listener interest, it will succeed again with or without technical advancements, be that HD-AM, AMax, CAM-D, C-QUAM, DRM or narrow-band FM....or nothing.

I know, it's a truism. But it's a really true truism.

 

[RadioFixerCLE]

In over 100,000 listener interviews this year, it has not been mentioned once. It probably does better among nice Spanish language format listeners and those in markets where there is little variety or few options in Spanish language radio.

Seems almost like a Live 365 or Yahoo music type of service. No portability. I couldn't listen to it at work, and I bet most others can't (especially if you're listening while working in a truck, car or shop floor where there aren't any computers with Internet).

David, "nice Spanish language" format listeners? ??? You mean like us old fogies who want boleros and trios and other moldy oldies from the 40s/50s/60s? ;D

 

[davideduardo]

David, "nice Spanish language" format listeners? ??? You mean like us old fogies who want boleros and trios and other moldy oldies from the 40s/50s/60s? ;D

What a difference an "h" makes. Of course, it shouldhave read "niche" but it came out "nicely" amusing that way.

Yes, the problem until we have a true national WiMAX service and all devices are converted to WiMAX, is that alternative distribution is either not portable, expensive, unreliable or all of these!

 

[davideduardo]

FM is an entirely different band and method of modulation. It was never touted as a way to correct AM's technical faults. FM overtook AM's dominance of the radio audience because it better fit listeners' lifestyles and preferences.

I'd ask you to read Maj. Armstrong's declarations during his lawsuit against RCA. He frequently defended his 1933 patent on FM as, and I paraphrase, correcting the deficiencies of AM such as static, interference and quality."

Those seem to be technical faults to me.

If AM can figure out a way to regain listener interest, it will succeed again with or without technical advancements...

No, it won't. FM acheived dominance way before NRSC and the vastly more crowded band of today. Now, AM sounds crappy by comparison (and the standard to the "never listen to AM" is the lowly 128 kbs MP3) to FM and personal music and entertainment devices. Two generations have little use for the band... and this is why the trend is on to move news / talk to FM when possible because there is an immediate increase in 35-54 listening in every case with the same format on the "other" band.

It's all about technical issues.

I know, it's a truism. But it's a really true truism.

You are starting to sound like a Scott Adams character.

 

[RadioFixerCLE]

I'd ask you to read Maj. Armstrong's declarations during his lawsuit against RCA. He frequently defended his 1933 patent on FM as, and I paraphrase, correcting the deficiencies of AM such as static, interference and quality."
Those seem to be technical faults to me.

In fact, didn't Armstrong end up developing FM after David Sarnoff asked for a system to "eliminate noise" from radio broadcasts?

Of course Armstrong comes up with a totally new modulation system, wholly incompatible with the existing receiver base and transmitter/antenna infrastructure.....so Sarnoff tries squashing Armstrong's baby. Well, you know the rest. :-[

 

[davideduardo]

In fact, didn't Armstrong end up developing FM after David Sarnoff asked for a system to "eliminate noise" from radio broadcasts?

I did not know that. I've muddled through the reports on the Armstrong vs. RCA lawsuit in Broadcasting Magazines from the era... it is interesting how Sarnoff managed to place obstacles against FM development, such as getting the whole FM band moved from 47 mHz to the current allocation right after W.W. II.

Amazingly, the FM "system" is about 75 years old. When in the process of doing due diligence for the purchase of WLVH-Hartford in 1979, I got to see the transmitter site where the original "Made by Armstrong himself" FM transmitter still lived.