Declining radio audiences

[davideduardo]

It's already happening on AM.

And, if the FCC and legislators allowed AM's with translators to keep the FM service with certain guarantees and shut off the AM, I'd bet that as many as 1,500 to 2,000 AM stations would be closed immediately. What is your estimate, Scott?

 

[TheBigA]

Why would any school offer broadcast courses when McDonalds pays 15 bucks an hour and the local broadcaster pays 12 with no free fries? The on air guys today are making about what we dinosaurs made in 1985 and none of us became rich back then.

Maybe because some people prefer doing radio than making fast food. I had that choice too when I was 17. I have never worked in fast food.

 

[davideduardo]

Maybe because some people prefer doing radio than making fast food. I had that choice too when I was 17. I have never worked in fast food.

Yes, very true. When I was 13 and got the chance to do part time at a radio station, I cut back on my part-time work in a print shop to make less money in radio... because it was more fun than sorting pied type!

 

[radiofan2023]

Maybe because some people prefer doing radio than making fast food. I had that choice too when I was 17. I have never worked in fast food.

Same for me when I was 16 - my friends would always tell me if I ever got free concert tickets they wanted some too, and I'd say, "If I got free concert tickets, I'm not giving them to you!"

 

[fybush]

And, if the FCC and legislators allowed AM's with translators to keep the FM service with certain guarantees and shut off the AM, I'd bet that as many as 1,500 to 2,000 AM stations would be closed immediately. What is your estimate, Scott?

Probably more than that, even.

But it requires legislative action, it will draw at least some opposition, and it is probably way, way down any list of priorities for the next Congress.

I don't expect any action on it in the next few years, so the slow attrition will continue.

 

[davideduardo]

Probably more than that, even.

Funny! I was going to post "1,500 to 2,000 stations" but revised downwards lest I be accused of hyperbole (something I never engage in, of course 😏 ).

But it requires legislative action, it will draw at least some opposition, and it is probably way, way down any list of priorities for the next Congress.

That is true. Who would oppose this? Many remaining stations might be able to go non-directional, increase power or simply expand coverage due to fewer interfering signals.

I guess the "LPFM Lobby" and licensees of full stations would fear being blocked by translators being given permanence.

I don't expect any action on it in the next few years, so the slow attrition will continue.

Of course, the NAB can not simultaneously promote AM preservation in car radios while encouraging a third of all AMs to just give up!

 

[tbolt909]

The funny part is that there are so many posts on these boards that radio owners are the problem. They're all "living in denial." Then you ask those people what should we do, and they all come up with the same solutions: Do live and local radio like the 1970s. To that I say: You people are living in denial!!! It's not the 1970s!!! You can't do what worked 50 years ago before computers and cellphones and expect it to work. The future won't be like the past. I've been saying that here for years.

We still do linear programming now because there still is an audience for that kind of thing. But it's declining. That's what this thread is about. Radio audiences are declining. We know. We can see that. We don't need to be told. And it won't be fixed with a new format because the whole concept of formats is obsolete. The TV networks can see it too. Linear broadcasting is on it's way out. It's all about on-demand, and creating programming that people can access on their own schedule from their digital device. Yes, we know.

"On Demand" programming sounds like "Play Listener Requests". That surely isn't a viable solution either...😑

 

[TheBigA]

"On Demand" programming sounds like "Play Listener Requests". That surely isn't a viable solution either...😑

No. What it means for music is that listeners make their own playlists and play their own music.

As far as what it means to radio companies, it means making all unique content available to listeners so they can listen on their own schedule. It also means placing that content on social media so that listeners can comment and interact with the show. That's just for starters. Linear radio, where people sit and listen, gets augmented with more interactive content online.

 

[tbolt909]

No. What it means is that listeners make their own playlists and play their own music.

It's still about content that people want. People watch movies, TV shows, go to the Theatre etc.. They did not write the script or choose the actors. Why should anyone watch or listen to ANY content that they didn't create themselves? We live in a Vanity Age where everyone thinks they are "talented". Just use your phone and make a Podcast. Stardom awaits...

 

[TheBigA]

It's still about content that people want.

Yes I know. I added this to my post after your comment:

As far as what it means to radio companies, it means making all unique content available to listeners so they can listen on their own schedule. It also means placing that content on social media so that listeners can comment and interact with the show. That's just for starters. Linear radio, where people sit and listen, gets augmented with more interactive content online.

"Content" is a big word. It's not a qualitative word. Some people like absolute crap. We know that. We can quantify how many. There is no one-to-many system that works anymore. Everybody wants their hamburger done their way.

Why should anyone watch or listen to ANY content that they didn't create themselves?

It's about giving people choices: Do you want THIS or do you want THAT?? That's how you handle that question. But with regards to music, that's a question for you to ask musicians, not a radio person. Because radio isn't part of the music business.

I go to music industry conferences and I hear writers and musicians complain that they're not making much money, and that royalty rates need to be increased. I point out to them that Justin Timberlake doesn't have that problem. Maybe they need to make better music, and they'll make more money. You can imagine what they think of my comments.

 

[tbolt909]

"Content" is a big word. It's not a qualitative word. Some people like absolute crap. We know that.

I go to music industry conferences and I hear writers and musicians complain that they're not making much money, and that royalty rates need to be increased. I point out to them that Justin Timberlake doesn't have that problem. Maybe they need to make better music, and they'll make more money. You can imagine what they think of my comments.

Yeah, Crap often sells. "Better Music or Better Literature" has nothing to do with making money. Edgar Allan Poe was a genius who died while destitute. Led Zeppelin ripped off great Blues artists for years before finally having to pay royalties. I personally don't see how Taylor Swift is considered to be a musical genius, but she's rich. Many variables can make or break some artists including Luck...

 

[PTBoardOp93]

That is true. Who would oppose this? Many remaining stations might be able to go non-directional, increase power or simply expand coverage due to fewer interfering signals.

The opposition would likely be from fiscal hawks in Congress who would insist upon an auction for these "new" facilities.

 

[fybush]

The opposition would likely be from fiscal hawks in Congress who would insist upon an auction for these "new" facilities.

It's not just "fiscal hawks" - the law is pretty clear that any new primary commercial service has to be auctioned and can't just be given away.

What's less clear is whether there's an interpretation that converting an FM translator to primary service while getting rid of the underlying AM might be considered a replacement of one primary service with another. I am not a lawyer and will not venture an opinion on that, or on whether such a conversion would violate the Local Community Radio Act, which I think is where @Michi would object.

Whatever the case, it's certainly more complicated under the US system than in Canada or Mexico, where regulators have an easier time simply moving an AM license to FM.

 

[davideduardo]

It's not just "fiscal hawks" - the law is pretty clear that any new primary commercial service has to be auctioned and can't just be given away.

What's less clear is whether there's an interpretation that converting an FM translator to primary service while getting rid of the underlying AM might be considered a replacement of one primary service with another. I am not a lawyer and will not venture an opinion on that, or on whether such a conversion would violate the Local Community Radio Act, which I think is where @Michi would object.

Whatever the case, it's certainly more complicated under the US system than in Canada or Mexico, where regulators have an easier time simply moving an AM license to FM.

But in Mexico it took an act of their Congress to facilitate the move to FM by about 75% of all Mexican AMs. They declare AM as no longer viable and opened the door to massive moves of AM stations. One thing they did was allow second adjacents in the same city or market area.

Mexico has a different concept of markets and cities of license, so it is hard to make direct comparisons.

Where Mexico was unable to move most stations was in the very largest markets abs on the U.S. border where the have to observe US second adjacent rules.

 

[boombox4]

And attrition is taking place in the non-commercial FM ranks, too. High schools and colleges are turning in their licenses (if they can't find a Godcaster to take the stations off their hands) due to students no longer being interested in radio, either as an interesting extracurricular activity or as a desirable future career.

And don't forget the commercial FM's that are being bought by non-comm's like EMF.

Students don't really need to take a course to be a podcaster or video influencer. All they need is a smart phone, a decent mic and backdrop (or car interior), and an internet connection. If they really want to look pro they get a decent vid camera. I think mass media courses in colleges, in general, will start aging out in 5-10 years. What's there to teach them? Mic technique? Nope. Lighting and framing? Nope. Writing techniques? Nope, most of it is ad-libbed. Even vid podcasters like Rick Beato wing it -- no script.

It's a whole new world from the one we grew up in.

 

[boombox4]

Yes I know. I added this to my post after your comment:



"Content" is a big word. It's not a qualitative word. Some people like absolute crap. We know that. We can quantify how many. There is no one-to-many system that works anymore. Everybody wants their hamburger done their way.



It's about giving people choices: Do you want THIS or do you want THAT?? That's how you handle that question. But with regards to music, that's a question for you to ask musicians, not a radio person. Because radio isn't part of the music business.

I go to music industry conferences and I hear writers and musicians complain that they're not making much money, and that royalty rates need to be increased. I point out to them that Justin Timberlake doesn't have that problem. Maybe they need to make better music, and they'll make more money. You can imagine what they think of my comments.

Better music won't make a difference. Timberlake was a star in the 2000's, that's why he doesn't have a problem with streaming royalties. He has been established for a long time. Same with artists like Sheehan, Taylor Swift, Drake, and the like. Same thing with the Stones and Metallica, and a few established rock acts left over from the last century. They still can make decent money from music, partly because they're the last really big singing stars.

But aside from genres like Country, there really isn't much room for new artists to gain any decent revenues from streaming, or even touring. I see vids put up by pro musicians all the time talking about the troubles with making any money in the business anymore. Some have left the business because of it.

The mid level artists who used to make money (I know a guy who was in a second tier rock band in 2000 that got national airplay and he made enough to buy his house) are now coping with streaming revenues and they are the ones who are the ones feeling the pain, if you can call it that. One million plays, you make $4000. One hundred thousand plays, which is probably more standard for second-tier, up and coming artists, you're talking $400. When download purchases were still a thing (in the late 2000's/early 2010's), that would have been at least $990K or $9,900 in gross revenue, not $4000 or $400. That's quite a difference. But it's the new reality. Deal with it or find another job. Or just do it as a hobby.

It's not music quality that's the issue, and I'm sure you already know that, it sounds like your comment was tongue in cheek. The issue is low royalty rates coupled with massive, massive competition. And increasing royalty rates won't necessarily bring in more gross revenues for artists, because there is probably a threshold where consumers won't pay more in subscription fees, if royalties go up.

The music business model was said to be broken by an Apple spokesman when ITunes was introduced. It looks like the music business model today, for most musicians and artists, means enjoy that hamburger and fries you were able to buy with your royalty check. Whether that is an example of 'broken' or not is beyond my pay grade to determine.

 

[TheBigA]

And increasing royalty rates won't necessarily bring in more gross revenues for artists, because there is probably a threshold where consumers won't pay more in subscription fees, if royalties go up.

That's the bigger part of this discussion, which is why the music industry generally is opposed to free streaming. They believe people should pay for music. That it should be part of everyone's internet bill. If you pay for internet, part of that money should go to music. There are people discussing that very bill in congress right now.

 

[Michi]

What's less clear is whether there's an interpretation that converting an FM translator to primary service while getting rid of the underlying AM might be considered a replacement of one primary service with another. I am not a lawyer and will not venture an opinion on that, or on whether such a conversion would violate the Local Community Radio Act, which I think is where @Michi would object.

The LCRA is not the only issue. It's also the Commission's current interpretation of §307(b) of the Communications Act. The current rules require community coverage for full-service AM and FM broadcast stations which require a specific contour to cover the designated community of license. Many translators are unable to provide some form of adequate community coverage to the (former) AM's community of license. It would also mean that primary (translator) facilities would now be allowed to be inside the interfering contour of primary (full-service) facilities. This would cause a ton of new rules and policies that would also have to exist for other full-service stations. Not to mention other technical rule changes, such as the elimination of the DA restrictions on full power stations (15 dB down and "2 every 10") as many translators cannot meet those requirements. What's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

There's only so many rooms in the house (the current 100 channels of FM, with only 80 of those channels available for commercial broadcasters). There are other ways to deal with this:
- Expansion of the FM broadcast band to add 60 additional channels (joining Brazil and other South American nations that are currently considering it).
- Increased awareness and availability of HD radio on FM.
- A new Region 2 convention (kind of like a "NARBA 2"). We have seen a reduction of AM facilities in the USA, Canada and Mexico. Perhaps it is time to refarm the AM band including a new regionwide convention on the expanded band. Of course, many AM stations these days will not be able to borne the expenses of a frequency change that comes out of such a "NARBA 2", but if it is able to provide the remaining stations with some additional flexibility at night, that may help some stations improve their facilities.
- The complete elimination of AM hybrid HD radio at night due to the adjacent channel interference.
- The prohibition of using FM translators for the rebroadcast of anything other than the main analog (HD1) audio stream while still permitting them to be used for AM fill-in service on a secondary basis.

I do still feel that hundreds or even thousands of new lower power (class A) FM facilities for AM replacement would far outweigh the overall public interest operating in spectrum where one channel currently has less than 10 primary stations nationwide (Channel 6, 82~88 MHz) and the other having less than 30 primary stations nationwide (Channel 5, 76~82 MHz). Channel 6 is currently being held hostage in different ways by Disney, all because ABC decided to have "R. J. Fletcher Syndrome" many years ago and insisted on keeping their digital assignments in VHF.(1) While most of those were in high VHF, Philadelphia was unlucky to have their ABC O&O on channel 6.

---

(1) - "R. J. Fletcher Syndrome" (from the motion picture "UHF"): The feeling of a station's superiority because they are operating on VHF as opposed to UHF. An attitude made obsolete with the worldwide adoption of terrestrial digital television in most areas exclusively on UHF.

 

[charlestondxman]

Probably more than that, even.

But it requires legislative action, it will draw at least some opposition, and it is probably way, way down any list of priorities for the next Congress.

I don't expect any action on it in the next few years, so the slow attrition will continue.

Talking about my market, three AM stations owned by the same operator got knocked off the air in the last four months. One had copper stolen from its transmitter, the other two lost their transmitter sites. One AM is looking to move from their old transmitter to 600 watt transmitter diplexed with its AM sister signal. The other AM has no plans yet.

They barely registered among the local radio community. Barely any listeners even on Facebook noticed. Five years ago it would have been a big deal. Charleston is a top 80 radio market, one of the faster-growing markets in the country, and we have a grand total of 4 full-power AM stations operating now. And three of them are religious, two off a bird, with the other a Cumulus talk AM that basically told their morning host who has been on air in this market almost continuously for 40 years to retire or be let go.

Charleston was one of the first radio markets to get majority FM listening in the late 1970s (as early as 1976) and it effectively continued. The country audience had already gone to FM as WEZL was the only country signal that covered the full market. The 1250 WTMA format (one of the most popular top 40 stations in the country at one time or another) effectively moved over to their co-owned 95.1 around 1981 and that was the beginning of the end for the AM dial here. Sure, you still had WPAL with Black programming on 730, and when the talk revolution happened in the early 90s WTMA was very well-billing and top rating, but the writing was on the wall.

 

[kwthom]

It's an ongoing thing. There are a couple hundred fewer AM stations now than a few years ago.

Other than a few listeners that might struggle with finding a different station to listen to, not sure the majority of the general population has really cared about Ancient Modulation stations in a couple of decades.