Can The AM Band Be Saved?

[TheBigA]

It will take 5 years or more but not 20 + like FM took.

The car companies are more interested in offering in-dash wi-fi and mp3 players than digital radio. The TV industry benefited from a government mandate and a change from tube to flat screen. Plus cable and satellite companies made the transition pretty easy. Not so for radio. And the FCC is on record opposing any form of mandate for radio, and opposing using the TV spectrum for radio.

 

[davideduardo]

It will take 5 years or more but not 20 + like FM took.

The first FMs went on in the 1939-1941 period. By 1950, there were over 1000. By 1960, there were around 700. It was nearly 30 years after FM began that the FCC mandated an end to simulcasts... January of 1967... and it took 10 years more for FM to achieve parity with AM.

The average age of cars has been increasing over the last several decades as the quality of vehicles has improved, including, even, American built cars. Consumers lost the new car every two years mentality because cars lasted a lot longer, and styling changed much more gradually.

While the recession pushed the average age up by about two years, with the economy still in the doldrums, there is no reason to think that more than 5% to 6% of cars will be replaced annually in the foreseeable future.

 

[davideduardo]

One selling point for keeping the GM and Chrysler Bankruptcies (11) from becoming Chapter 7 (liquidation), was the accepted fact that the average car on the road is over 10 years old. At least 30% will have to be replaced a few years due to wrecks, and "fatal" (many of thousands of dollars repairs like engine or transmission) mechanical failures. The TV industry handle the Digital switch. Do you remember the FM "converters" that you dial an AM frequency then you have a FM tuner for your car. It will take 5 years or more but not 20 + like FM took.

Another point is that about 70% of radio listening does NOT take place in the car, so there are other and larger factors involved in creating a whole new band for today's AM stations. The main one is that terrestrial transmission models may expire before such a plan could be legislated and implemented (it took the better part of a decade for AM stereo to go from concept to implementation...)

 

[TheBigA]

The main one is that terrestrial transmission models may expire before such a plan could be legislated and implemented (it took the better part of a decade for AM stereo to go from concept to implementation...)

That's what I was thinking. I think the way to go is make your content available via other existing digital platforms, like internet and mobile, and the rest doesn't matter. The government isn't going to solve the problem. Electronics manufacturers aren't going to solve this problem. The only people who are worried about this are the owners of AM stations, and they need to begin transitioning their content to other platforms, or they'll be stuck.

 

[secondchoice]

How much royalties does a typical HD radio manufacturer have per unit. IIRC One Urban legion had it at 25 or 50 cents per receiver for the FM stereo patents. I have no facts this "deall" between RCA and GE or even if such a thing took place. My source was a former employee of WFGM who claimed the former owner (the late Ellis Jones) worked or consulted for the FCC when the stereo type was accepted. IMHO Ibiquity (I forgot the correct spelling) which is "semi owned" by broadcast interests should offer HD for free or just enough to cover the R & D costs.

 

[davideduardo]

How much royalties does a typical HD radio manufacturer have per unit. IIRC One Urban legion had it at 25 or 50 cents per receiver for the FM stereo patents. I have no facts this "deall" between RCA and GE or even if such a thing took place. My source was a former employee of WFGM who claimed the former owner (the late Ellis Jones) worked or consulted for the FCC when the stereo type was accepted. IMHO Ibiquity (I forgot the correct spelling) which is "semi owned" by broadcast interests should offer HD for free or just enough to cover the R & D costs.

First, usage of all patents generally carries the requirement that fees be paid. So a radio manufacturer may pay fees on a variety of patents, or the component parts that they buy from suppliers may have paid patent fees that are part of the price of the item.

iBiquity was funded by venture capital and smallish investments by a number of radio groups. From experience, the radio industry portion was more "seed capital" than any investment that had a prospect of a big return.

iBiquity negotiates a fee with the chip manufacturers and that fee is part of the price of the chip that has the iBiquity system on it. But iBiquity, as a company owned by private investors, has to charge something or it can not stay in business.

 

[KTN Corp]

There's always shortwave!

 

[pollitt]

I believe the AM band is doomed. But I also remember the words of Steve Allen, who said years ago, " Radio didn't die. It committed suicide."

 

[KeithE4]

There's always shortwave!

No there isn't. Shortwave broadcasting in and to the Western Hemisphere is almost dead - American bible-bangers, Cuba, and Asian stations relayed via Canada being the few remaining exceptions.

 

[johnbasalla]

To Mr. Eduardo's post on the previous page, about Radio One acquiring 1490 AM in Cleveland as part of the deal that got them the FM. They could have taken it off the air. Now they have two AM's, the other being 1300.

 

[davideduardo]

To Mr. Eduardo's post on the previous page, about Radio One acquiring 1490 AM in Cleveland as part of the deal that got them the FM. They could have taken it off the air. Now they have two AM's, the other being 1300.

But since they already own both of them, and they came with more desirable FM attachments, they have been looking for something that makes money, even a small amount.

If they sold them, the new owner would have to pay down debt and make money, which is unlikely to work for those dog facilities.

If they sign them off, they take a loss, which does not help the financials. So, for the moment, they keep them on.

But many companies are either giving away or closing bad AMs. Clear has donated or closed a dozen or so. Midwest Family tore down the towers and closed an AM in South Haven, MI, last week. Disney closed several when they got no buyers for pretty rotten facilities. Stations are going silent, others are simply simulcasting FMs. And a few are getting FM translators, thus requiring that the AM stay on even if no one listens.

 

[semoochie]

In Portland OR, one of the stations was broken into and most of the transmitting equipment destroyed. Since they've been off the air, the ratings have actually gone up because their 99 watt translator is still operating!

 

[kenglish]

I started a thread on this (about the same time this one was started), over on the Engineering side, hoping to start some dialogue on the interference issues....but there isn't much activity on there like this one.

What DO we do with the "Silent" stations' channels, though? Some broadcasters I've talked to would rather sit on a bad AM channel, than give it up after (presumably) getting an FM channel or FM translator. The old adage of "Bad real estate is better than no real estate at all" comes to mind....stations would rather hold that channel than allow another owner to eventually take it. So, you'd have to turn in the old slots to the FCC, with some guarantee that they would be permanently deleted.

I guess we could turn the entire AM Broadcast Band over to Mexico, but what if THEY ran the power up really high, and put some sort of desirable programming on it (think, "American Graffiti" and the Wolfman)? Would it siphon off listeners, and defeat the purpose....especially near the borders.........strike that,...the signals would be audible everywhere at night with no U.S. competition.

As for the interference issues, though,....I got to thinking about this last night:
What if somebody broke in at your site and stole your ground system? Would you just shrug it off, and lose a huge chunk of your audience? What if they broke in at the transmitter (AM, FM, TV,...doesn't matter) and vandalized your transmitter, so it only made 10% power. You'd lose a lot of audience, but would you care?

Of course, you'd care. You'd likely be P.O.'ed. You'd call the cops and the FCC.

Well, there are vandals at work, stealing our ability to reach our audience with OUR Federally licensed facilities. They are the consumer electronics manufacturers, with their noisy junk. They are the power utilities, who don't maintain their equipment. They are the manufacturers of noisy new light bulbs. They are the people who don't know, and possibly don't care, that their stuff is causing interference.
They are stealing our ability to do our jobs. Why CAN'T we educate the public a little? Why CAN'T we put some useful information on our websites? Why CAN'T we refer interference complaints to the local utilities and to the FCC? (We do it with "Pirates", but not other spectral vandals?)
Why CAN'T we work to keep what is OURS, instead of just "packing up" and moving (entirely) to a new technology. The new technologies are an asset, but they can't replace what we already have. Any kid with a keyboard can do the new technologies. We have the advantage of being licensed broadcasters, who serve our communities well, and should have certain standards. The rest are just playing.

 

[TheBigA]

Why CAN'T we educate the public a little? Why CAN'T we put some useful information on our websites? Why CAN'T we refer interference complaints to the local utilities and to the FCC? (We do it with "Pirates", but not other spectral vandals?) Why CAN'T we work to keep what is OURS, instead of just "packing up" and moving (entirely) to a new technology.

No reason why YOU can't. Go ahead. Send your interference complains to the FCC. Put educational material on your website (have you compared your web traffic to your ratings lately?) In the words of Nancy Reagan and Michael Jordan: Just Do It!

But don't expect a whole lot in return. The public has already made up it's collective mind on the issue. You end up sounding like Bob Strubel talking about his great victories with HD radio. You see how successful he's been in changing the minds of the public. You end up sounding like a recording artist who can't get anyone to listen to their music. Like a spammer trying to get you to buy their insurance.

It's a tough crowd, and radio as an industry hasn't done much to build friendships with the audience or the FCC. The industry flips formats and fires on air personalities, angering the audience. And the industry has ignored pleadings from the FCC to do more public service. So why should the FCC spend its time helping profit-making companies get rich? The public and the government are both at a point where they don't need radio as much as they once did. Sure they use it when it does what they like. It's hard to make a case when we appear to be selfish. Radio flips formats, and the audience goes to other platforms, like satellite or the internet. Radio's only choice is to go there with them. Because they're not coming back.

 

[borderblaster]

Reminds me a little of the TV campaign within the last year by NetZero. "Wanna know how to save hundreds of dollars on broadband internet? Come back to dialup"!

 

[landtuna]

You "in the biz" radio people crack me up. Virtually every time I post something from a listener perspective someone reminds me that radio is in the advertising business and is beholden overwhelmingly to the advertiser.

I am here to tell you, should you need reminding, that the average listener does not care about the advertiser and listens to radio for his/her entertainment/information. It is all well and good to be concerned about the advertisers and revenue, we all understand radio is a business, but if the needle swings too far in that direction the listeners will go elsewhere.

Maybe that last sentence should have been in the past tense.

 

[borderblaster]

The point of this thread is that they've already gone away from AM, and there are huge doubts that there's anything stations could do to bring them back

 

[kenglish]

Why CAN'T we educate the public a little? Why CAN'T we put some useful information on our websites? Why CAN'T we refer interference complaints to the local utilities and to the FCC? (We do it with "Pirates", but not other spectral vandals?) Why CAN'T we work to keep what is OURS, instead of just "packing up" and moving (entirely) to a new technology.

No reason why YOU can't. Go ahead. Send your interference complains to the FCC. Put educational material on your website (have you compared your web traffic to your ratings lately?) In the words of Nancy Reagan and Michael Jordan: Just Do It!

But don't expect a whole lot in return. The public has already made up it's collective mind on the issue. You end up sounding like Bob Strubel talking about his great victories with HD radio. You see how successful he's been in changing the minds of the public. You end up sounding like a recording artist who can't get anyone to listen to their music. Like a spammer trying to get you to buy their insurance.

It's a tough crowd, and radio as an industry hasn't done much to build friendships with the audience or the FCC. The industry flips formats and fires on air personalities, angering the audience. And the industry has ignored pleadings from the FCC to do more public service. So why should the FCC spend its time helping profit-making companies get rich? The public and the government are both at a point where they don't need radio as much as they once did. Sure they use it when it does what they like. It's hard to make a case when we appear to be selfish. Radio flips formats, and the audience goes to other platforms, like satellite or the internet. Radio's only choice is to go there with them. Because they're not coming back.

I thought the purpose of the media (in this case, broadcasters) was to CHANGE people's minds. We aren't worth much in the ad game if we don't have that power. True, many greedy minds have created bad karma in our industry, but that's no reason for those of us within the industry to give up on it. I still get a rush when I turn on a radio and hear a local (no matter where they are sitting) announcer or DJ. And, I think my prostate has to work a little bit harder when i see a set of tower lights glowing in the dark...I guess I'm still a romantic at heart.

And, if we really have alienated our listeners, what good does it do for us to keep chasing some "Holy Grail" of "latest technology"? They still won't listen to us. Maybe that's one more reason not to give up on our core business, but to use the new tech to add to it's value.

BTW, I just checked some marketing stuff upstairs....
Our radio stations are still #1 and #3 in the market. The website does 3.8 million unique visitors a month, and 200 million page visits a month.
Damn! I wish I COULD get some educational material on the site. I've asked. ;D

 

[TheBigA]

I thought the purpose of the media (in this case, broadcasters) was to CHANGE people's minds. We aren't worth much in the ad game if we don't have that power.

The purpose of advertising isn't to change minds, but to create product awareness. Same with the media. Rush Limbaugh doesn't change minds, he preaches to the converted. There is no DJ in this country who can make a Justin Bieber fan out of a hater. Playing a song I don't like on the radio won't change my mind. It will get me to change the station.

And, if we really have alienated our listeners, what good does it do for us to keep chasing some "Holy Grail" of "latest technology"? They still won't listen to us.

They will if you give them what they want. But if you try and change their minds, which is what you want to do, they won't.

Our radio stations are still #1 and #3 in the market. The website does 3.8 million unique visitors a month, and 200 million page visits a month.

I think you’re misreading your traffic stats. As an example, WTOP is the #1 radio station in Washington, and it’s website is the #1 local news site in DC. According to Quantcast, it has 4.8 million monthly visits, and 400,000 uniques. If you’re getting 200 million visits, that would make you one of the top 25 sites in the world. Even WalMart.com only gets 181 million visits.

 

[landtuna]

The point of this thread is that they've already gone away from AM, and there are huge doubts that there's anything stations could do to bring them back

I understand that. I grew up with AM but radio is its own worst enemy on that front. It created tons of AM stations that broadcast all over each other and when other technologies interfered with the signals it did nothing of significance to protect its turf.

A year or two ago I posted my consternation when, after my first coast-to-coast drive in a number of years, I was unable to find even one, JUST ONE, quality AM station to listen to. The very few AM signals I could get in my car, day or night, were either limited to a few miles or, if far away, were religious nutballs taking phone calls from people less stable than those on the air. I had to listen to FM's which were generally good for less than 50 miles or less than 1 hour at a clip. It is no wonder former listeners have shut the door on AM and are vacating FM as well.

Another poster opined that he got gooseberries when he spotted the beacons on a tower. I do too. But if the content or range isn't there why would I listen?

There was once a wonderful AM station in Phoenix with a huge signal. But they moved it up the dial to a signal that doesn't even cover the metro area. They put talk radio on the big signal but that hasn't been a good move so now are considering moving the talk signal to one of the best FM signals in the Valley. If they continue with this "strategy" they will have wrecked one of the best AM's and one of the best FM signals. And there are still people who wonder why radio is losing audience......

Hey, I'm just a listener. What the hell do I know?