dying AM radio

[MikefromDelaware]

AM is here, it is changing as it always did. AM used to broadcast radio dramas, comedy, and musical variety shows. Today TV does that. Radio became more of a music juke box. When FM decided in the 1970's to start playing pop and rock music instead of only elevator music or Classical music then AM's decline started as no matter what you do to AM the frequency response is limited vs FM. It's kind of like listening to an old 78 rpm record playing Glenn Miller's In the Mood vs hearing the same arrangement recorded in Stereo on modern recording methods on CD. Same song, same arrangement, but what a difference. THAT is AM's problem in competing with FM.

I live in the Wilmington/Philly area and can listen to the Philly Eagles broadcasts on both an 1150 AM WDEL, or on 94.1 FM WIP-FM. Same broadcast. What a difference. You can hear the sounds of the game far better on the FM. So younger listeners are going to choose WIP-FM to listen.

AM has reinvented itself a few times. One such reinvention was moving from music to spoken word programming. Lots of choices there, religious [Christian such as Catholic, Lutheran, and various other denominations, plus non-denominational Protestant; Jewish, and any other religious faith could use AM radio], all news, news/talk, sports, sports/talk, financial/talk, girl/talk, political/talk both right wing and left wing, topical/talk, foreign language programming, even some form of audio books.

As one poster mentioned earlier, there is nothing that requires a station to be used by everyone. It is a business, so if a broadcaster thought they could make money by playing Polkas 24/7 they would.

Folks here complain that AM radio doesn't appeal to the masses, well I could say the same thing for television. Get over 300 channels via cable and darn little to watch in my opinion. Its all in the eye or ear of the beholder. Bottom line is the station owner found a format, even an all computerized in the closet off the bird station that makes he/she money. These folks are business people interested in making money, just as any other business owner. We all here tend to want the art of doing radio, the creative side, but the station owner has bills to pay or his/her station goes silent.

Some complain that the dollar a hollar preacher stations are a waste. They're not my cup of tea either, BUT someone apparently is listening and sending in their dimes and quarters in to keep those preachers on the air. Same with "public radio" be it NPR or college stations, etc. Someone sees enough value in what they broadcast to pay with their own money to keep such programming on the air.

My point is AM serves someone, it may not be you, and it may not be the largest population block.

One thing AM stations are doing today to once again reinvent itself is broadening their brand to beyond the AM dial. They do this by broadcasting online via the internet, HD radio on their FM sister station, providing apps so anyone can listen to their AM station's programming via smartphones, Ipods, Kindles, etc. In all of those places that AM broadcast does sound like FM, clear no static.

So I'd not write of AM radio just yet. As long as money can be made, someone will figure out a way to use AM radio to do just that. It may not be programming we'd want to listen to, but that's just the reality of it. Radio is very targeted. So yes it broadcasts, but that broadcast is very narrowly focused.

 

[TheBigA]

When a show starts to slip in the ratings, it's the responsibility of the suits to fix it.

That's like saying if a baseball team is losing, it's the responsibility of the coach to start hitting and pitching. On-air talent are not trained monkeys, who just follow the orders of "suits." They have to deliver something unique that attracts an audience. Otherwise, it's the responsibility of the "suits" to find someone else. It's the responsibility of listeners to listen. Once they stop, and don't come back by the time the talent's contract is up, that contract won't be renewed.

The situation AM radio is in isn't going to change because of programming. Because the problem with AM is bigger than programming. There once was great programming on AM, and that great programming was still there when the audience started to abandon it. The radio station tried to fix it, and the audience stayed with their new choice. That happened at station after station. So what was a specific example became a broad principle. That's where we're at now.

 

[davideduardo]

WELLLL, actually the FCC did pick Magnavox first in 1980 or 81 iirc...THEN came the lawsuits (mostly from Leonard Kahn) and the FCC's back pedal under the Reagan's admin "let the marketplace decide"....It was not until 1990 iirc when the FCC finally adopted CQUAM as the standard. Radio manufacturers gave up waiting on the decision and went back to mono only by then...and the music stations had left AM because of the delay. (WLS survived until 1988 iirc)

But the "pick" was responded to by Leonard Kahn's lawsuit almost immediately, so there was no time for a station to actually get on the air. What was supposed to happen in early 1978 did not occur and it was not until well into the 80's... about 5 years later... that stations could actually operate with a system.

But you make the real point very clearly: manufacturers tired of waiting and the music stations had mostly left the band.

In my opinion, what killed AM was Leonard Kahn.

 

[Avid Listener]

Oh, come on now. If your theory about the networks' purpose being to keep a show running were true, "Amos 'n' Andy" would still be on the air!

Who are you responding to? Who in this thread said anything about networks?

 

[Avid Listener]

That's like saying if a baseball team is losing, it's the responsibility of the coach to start hitting and pitching. On-air talent are not trained monkeys, who just follow the orders of "suits." They have to deliver something unique that attracts an audience. Otherwise, it's the responsibility of the "suits" to find someone else. It's the responsibility of listeners to listen. Once they stop, and don't come back by the time the talent's contract is up, that contract won't be renewed.

No, it's like saying that if a baseball team is losing, it's the responsibility of the coaches, manager, and front office to replace the players that need replaced with better players. On-air talent are performers. Any decent performer knows how to take direction. And, if that talent can't change and adapt, that talent gets fired and replaced.

But how can anyone say it's the, "It's the responsibility of listeners to listen"? What the hell does that mean? A listener who doesn't like what he hears on one stations switches to another station. He has no "responsibility" to continue listening to a station he doesn't like any more until his listener contract expires. The statement "It's the responsibility of listeners to listen" is one of the most damn fool stupid things I've ever read!

 

[Avid Listener]

In my opinion, what killed AM was Leonard Kahn.

So you admit AM is dead, right?

 

[TheBigA]

But how can anyone say it's the, "It's the responsibility of listeners to listen"? What the hell does that mean? A listener who doesn't like what he hears on one stations switches to another station.

Sure. But when that listener wants to know what happened to something he once loved and enjoyed, the answer is: You stopped listening. Everyone has a level of responsibility for everything that happens. Just that most people don't care. Once they've moved on to their next thing, what they used to enjoy is no longer on their radar. Until they want to know whatever happened to that thing they once enjoyed. It's a reality most people aren't willing to face. It's easier to blame others. But at the end of the day, the reason AM is dying is because the listeners stopped listening and moved on to something else.

 

[davideduardo]

So you admit AM is dead, right?

"Killed" in the sense of remaining competitive with FM.

For the last two decades, AM listening has been under 20% of total listening.

We often say "Walmart killed small businesses". In fact, many small businesses continue to exist and they make money. But compared to Walmart, they are far less significant.

 

[davideduardo]

No, it's like saying that if a baseball team is losing, it's the responsibility of the coaches, manager, and front office to replace the players that need replaced with better players. On-air talent are performers. Any decent performer knows how to take direction. And, if that talent can't change and adapt, that talent gets fired and replaced.

Obviously, you have never worked with a morning show.

 

[Avid Listener]

Sure. But when that listener wants to know what happened to something he once loved and enjoyed, the answer is: You stopped listening. Everyone has a level of responsibility for everything that happens. Just that most people don't care. Once they've moved on to their next thing, what they used to enjoy is no longer on their radar. Until they want to know whatever happened to that thing they once enjoyed. It's a reality most people aren't willing to face. It's easier to blame others. But at the end of the day, the reason AM is dying is because the listeners stopped listening and moved on to something else.

What difference does it make in a discussion of the topic, "dying AM radio", with the implied pro and con positions "Yes, it is" and "No, it isn't" whose fault it is?

Obviously, you have never worked with a morning show.

Any performer who cannot take direction is not a "decent" performer. The ability to take direction is one of the marks of being a professional entertainer. But, if the talent on a morning show cannot or will not take direction and as a result they are losing audience, then the second part of my statement takes effect. "That talent gets fired and replaced." Morning show, PM drive show, lunchtime show, it doesn't matter. If the show isn't attracting the audience in needs to, or used to, then the show content, including talent and the more important part of the content on a music format show, the music, needs changed.

I don't care how much the suits whine about how hard it is. If someone running a radio station can't turn things around by changing what needs changed, then he has no business running a radio station.

 

[TheBigA]

If someone running a radio station can't turn things around by changing what needs changed, then he has no business running a radio station.

When you run a radio station that's licensed by the government on frequencies owned by the public, there are things that affect the success of the operation that you can't control. That's what it says in the prospectus for any radio company.

 

[davideduardo]

I don't care how much the suits whine about how hard it is. If someone running a radio station can't turn things around by changing what needs changed, then he has no business running a radio station.

Obviously, you have never run a radio station.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Obviously, you have never worked with a morning show.

Obviously, you have never run a radio station.

I have a feeling even more will become obvious if this thread goes on much longer.

 

[R.D.P.]

When you run a radio station that's licensed by the government on frequencies owned by the public, there are things that affect the success of the operation that you can't control. That's what it says in the prospectus for any radio company.

Could we be talking about: (1) Break downs with the studio equipment, (2) Troubles at the transmitter or tower site, (3) Spending more than you're getting and (4) Having a dull and stodgy presentation, that doesn't work. I could go on but I hope everyone reading got the message.

If I got that right, give this poster an A+.

Dan <><

P.S. AM radio still lives on. Not going to bash nor demean it. Many AM stations are still making a go of it . My previous examples proved that point. ...And for the record, I once announced on a local FM radio station. Enjoyed that stint. Now trying to make a return to the business. Things are looking up for me now.

 

[boombox4]

Avid, there's evidence in radio of the 'suits' firing and replacing staff all the time -- whenever a station switches formats, or upgrades their format drastically, they often get rid of people, and then hire new people to replace them.

Radio is famous for this.

It's when the PR blurb concerning the person fired says "(fill in the name of the fired person here) is seeking new opportunities."

 

[davideduardo]

It's when the PR blurb concerning the person fired says "(fill in the name of the fired person here) is seeking new opportunities."

You are forgetting the ever-popular "... left over philosophical differences" or "... left over creative differences".

 

[Avid Listener]

Avid, there's evidence in radio of the 'suits' firing and replacing staff all the time -- whenever a station switches formats, or upgrades their format drastically, they often get rid of people, and then hire new people to replace them.

Radio is famous for this.

It's when the PR blurb concerning the person fired says "(fill in the name of the fired person here) is seeking new opportunities."

Replacing on-air talent can mean upgrading the station's appeal to the audience, or it can be re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Not enough radio suits seem to realize that the product they send out their transmitters is entertainment, and that radio is the bastard step-child of show business.

To take that a step further, anyone capable of successfully managing the entertainment content of a radio station's output should be able to use those same skills to successfully operate almost any entertainment venue, including a night club, concert hall, dinner theater, or any other such enterprise. It's all about recognizing what entertainment the audience wants.

That doesn't mean that the unique aspects of radio, such as managing the physical plant, aren't unique. I'm only referring to the single most difficult task for any entertainment venue or media. That is managing the entertainment. You can hire bean counters to maintain records, and technicians to keep the equipment working. Managing the on-air content is the one aspect of managing AM radio stations that the results of listenership measurements prove is being done very badly in the industry as a whole.

Does that mean that of the thousands of people responsible for what goes out the stick, there aren't any who are particularly skilled? No. There are a relative small portion of the total number who are producing excellent results. That portion is, however, too small to make up for all the others who are allowing the stations they run to wither away to nothing.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

<snip politics out>
You miss two important points. AM radio was only available in monaural and it sounded like crap. FM was in stereo, and it sounded good. Amazingly enough, some folks prefer to hear music that sounds reasonably good instead of music that sounds like tinny crap.

When many AM stations were on music-based formats, and most radios were AM-only, many AM radios sounded quite good indeed. True, the little $10 pocket radios sounded lousy, as the technology to make a tiny speaker with any bass response at a low price had not yet been developed. Car radios and radios with a 4" or larger speaker sounded much better. One common "trick" to listen to music on AM was to deliberately tune the radio off to one side, e.g., tuning to about 804 to listen to CKLW on 800 (nearly all radios had continuous tuning back then), allowing the higher treble range into the IF passband.

From about 1961 on, AM radio was monaural because the law said it was monaural.

I had heard some excellent audio on AM from a few stations during the AM stereo era (mid-late 1980s), and had wideband radios to hear it with. Some stations sounded great, while others ruined it with their overemphasis and overprocessing habits they could not break.

There is nothing inherent in amplitude modulation that says it cannot offer perfect audio transmission, though it does lack the capture effect of FM and thus can only deliver truly good audio if the signal level is far above the noise level. Analog TV picture transmission was AM, and could deliver flat frequency response to 4,200,000 Hz!

 

[1L6E6VHF]

"Killed" in the sense of remaining competitive with FM.

For the last two decades, AM listening has been under 20% of total listening.

We often say "Walmart killed small businesses". In fact, many small businesses continue to exist and they make money. But compared to Walmart, they are far less significant.

The Walmart comparison seems hilariously appropriate!

An AM station can only survive by providing content that is not available on FM. When an AM station finds a format that really works, an FM station in the same market will quickly take the format and wipe the AM station out (WMTG 1310, for example, before WMXD went Urban AC). It sells what is not available on the mass market (FM), so it is like the small neighborhood business, the old shop whose mortgage had been paid off years ago, often a second-hand store.

Sirius XM is the boutique of radio, offering more music and music not available on terrestrial radio, it's like the stores in the shopping mall, or the stores along 5th Avenue or Rodeo Drive.

FM radio is loud, brash, bright, and full of pressures to buy at every turn. It has no products of quality, is open 24 hours, and thrives by serving low-income customers (some of them its own employees) by the hundreds of millions. It's Walmart!

 

[MickeyD]

Correct. The United States has more people in it than Russia and China. When the On Line Stations go off during a storm, FM Stations get hit hard with their transmitter sites on some big hill or mountain somewhere in more of a remote area, a small AM station is easy to get back on the air than FM. We can do the old fashion thing of string a copper wire between tow poles, tune it up, and the AM Station is back on.

BTW: Cumulus, Clear Channel, CBS, and Emmis have too much money tied up in AM and Digital AM. They would take a huge hit on the stock market if they abandon their investments in their AM Stations.

If no one listens, no one listens.