dying AM radio

[MickeyD]

AM radio

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.

Wouldn't take an AM station if I were given one. If you are thinking of purchasing one, find out what the land is worth and start from there.

 

[R.D.P.]

Not going to purchase one. My plans are to build a LPFM radio station. Hope to be on before May 2015.

Dan <><

P.S. If an AMer was offered to me, I would pass on it too.

 

[vchimpanzee]

A couple of times I saw the example of a daytime only AM getting very successful and having its format taken away by an AM. This really happened in Charlotte in 1985.

An oldies station with a 1000-watt daytime-only signal changed to classic rock because the man in charge saw how much people enjoyed music at one of the concerts. No one on FM was doing rock of any description other than including it in Top 40, which was on three stations. A station that could be heard in part of the Charlotte market was doing rock, but it had a few years to go before its power increase to 100,000 watts.

The AM became a Top 10 station. One of those Top 40s I mentioned decided to do something else, and that something else was rock, heavy on the classics. Still doing it. Another area station was Hot AC (not sure the term was in use then) and improved its signal along with a format change even before that, though it was farther away. That station did rock, but with fewer classics. It has been some form of rock ever since. The AM went gospel not long after that. Now it's Spanish and no one seems to know it's there.

As for that other rocker, it changed to "beautiful music" when it entered the market for real and was "Lite" (just a name) until a couple of years ago.

 

[JeffM]

While it may be true that you "cannot unring the bell," neither can you understand why AM radio is in its present state without knowing how it got there. A large part of every success or failure is the result of opportunities taken or not taken.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I challenge you, or any of the others in this thread who keep throwing the platitudes around, to present some solid reasons of how the knowledge of when technologies were (or weren't) adopted in the past, or when rules or regulations were passed can be put to use today, in 2014 and into 2015 to turn around AM radio's death spiral? What actions can be taken to change the path that AM radio is on that are based on that specific knowledge of the past in this specific situation. I'm not asking for generalities. I'm asking the know-it-alls who keep pontificating about Santayana's famous quote to show how to apply that general statement to specific action that will generate a specific result in this specific situation. If you understand "how it got there", show how that knowledge can be used to take it somewhere other than where it's going.

This has been answered many times, largely by David, but since you ask the question you either ignored the answers or dismissed them as either being less "specific" than you would like or not fitting your own concept of reality. So I will summarize, with apologies in advance if this is too much a list of "generalities" for you to accept.

1. AM is subject to electrical interference. Always has been, and much of that is the fact that the band used for AM radio transmission falls within those frequencies which are the most prone to electrical interference. Household appliances interfere with AM reception. Being too close to high-voltage transmission lines interferes. So do fluorescent and LED light bulbs. And the list of such interference goes on (but I've made the point). FM is not subject to this interference, and listeners know that. So unless they have no other choice, they will choose FM over AM.

2. The decision to implement IBOC on AM creates sideband emissions to adjacent frequency stations hundreds of miles away, thanks to the way AM signals propagate. If you have ever heard IBOC "hash" drowning out the station you are trying to listen to, you already know why it will make listeners stop trying to listen to that station. And they'll likely go to FM and never come back, no matter how compelling the programming.

3. Ah, programming. If you are going to try to overcome the limitations, you have to create programming that will attract listeners who will put up with all the interference. That's why ethnic and religious formats work well on AM: In nearly all cases, that interference-riddled AM is the only place those listeners can get what they want. They are a captive audience, unlike the more typical listener that will trade off programming to get something close to what they want on FM.

4. The failure to adopt regulations to better protect AM as interference sources multiplied is a failure that goes back way too far to undo. The approval of IBOC, even in the face of engineers' warnings of sideband "splatter", is another failure. So was the AM stereo standard debacle.

5. Urban sprawl. Even those AMs who had great city-wide coverage as recently as the 1960s and 1970s have found that the listenable signal didn't grow as cities developed further outward. (Duh, right?) But the interference sources also grew with the urbanization, having the effect of actually shrinking the usable signal area.

Your final request (or is it a demand?) is where your thought process errs. If you understand "how it got there", show how that knowledge can be used to take it somewhere other than where it's going. You tell me: How do we "undo" any of the above five reasons that AM got to where it was? I can't rewrite the laws of physics ... can you?

 

[davideduardo]

What actions can be taken to change the path that AM radio is on that are based on that specific knowledge of the past in this specific situation.

What the past shows us:

1. Limited coverage and increased noise have eliminated most larger metro area stations from any possibility of competing. This shows that any attempt to improve AM requires a total reallocation of the band and the elimination of many station.

2. Many stations were licensed that were never truly viable: 250 watts daytime at 1520 would be and example. In a tough economy, those can not survive. This class of station has never truly been viable and should be excluded from discussions.

3. Any band-aid efforts to improve overall quality such as AM Stereo have come too late or in the case of HD radio required expensive new radios and in retrospect did not work. This shows that technical "fixes" that require changes of consumer equipment do not work historically and things like changes in band (such as 76-88 mHz) will not likely work either.

3a. More recent restraints on bandwidth (NRSC) preclude any improvements in fidelity, meaning that the "AM sounds bad" issue can not be solved unless the band is violently thinned out. Even then, the issue of consumer preference for mobile delivery would make increased fidelity a useless improvement.

4. Small market stations will survive in proportion to the local revenue available in such towns and the ability of owners to create lots of local content that is not duplicated on the Internet or is more immediate and personable than the internet, i.e. "swap shop" is inherently more fun than a listing on Craigslist.

5. Those markets with AMs with signals that serve niche markets can sustain ethnic, religious and brokered options which, although they get no ratings, achieve profitable revenue levels and will for some years to come.

6. That leaves the bigger signal metro area rated market stations. As long as there are audiences for the traditional spoken word formats, most of these have no immediate need to change, and would lose revenue trying experiments of uncertain outcome.

So, in all 6 of these points, history shows us that we need to focus on a subset of stations that can survive in the near and intermediate future. And those are divided into small market, niche rated market and big signal rated market categories which each have different projectable lifespans.

And there is really nothing content-wise that can be done to innovate. History shows that every FM format once was an AM format and the AMs lost, as much due to signal coverage, noise and fidelity as to any issue of the format itself.

Of course, many existing AMs would be wise to increase the quality, precision and richness of their online content as streaming overcomes the quality, noise and signal issues. And streaming will soon be the "majority position" from the consumer perspective as use of AM or FM delivered content will continue to decline.

 

[semoochie]

What the past shows us:

1. Limited coverage and increased noise have eliminated most larger metro area stations from any possibility of competing. This shows that any attempt to improve AM requires a total reallocation of the band and the elimination of many station.

2. Many stations were licensed that were never truly viable: 250 watts daytime at 1520 would be and example. In a tough economy, those can not survive. This class of station has never truly been viable and should be excluded from discussions.

3. Any band-aid efforts to improve overall quality such as AM Stereo have come too late or in the case of HD radio required expensive new radios and in retrospect did not work. This shows that technical "fixes" that require changes of consumer equipment do not work historically and things like changes in band (such as 76-88 mHz) will not likely work either.

3a. More recent restraints on bandwidth (NRSC) preclude any improvements in fidelity, meaning that the "AM sounds bad" issue can not be solved unless the band is violently thinned out. Even then, the issue of consumer preference for mobile delivery would make increased fidelity a useless improvement.

4. Small market stations will survive in proportion to the local revenue available in such towns and the ability of owners to create lots of local content that is not duplicated on the Internet or is more immediate and personable than the internet, i.e. "swap shop" is inherently more fun than a listing on Craigslist.

5. Those markets with AMs with signals that serve niche markets can sustain ethnic, religious and brokered options which, although they get no ratings, achieve profitable revenue levels and will for some years to come.

6. That leaves the bigger signal metro area rated market stations. As long as there are audiences for the traditional spoken word formats, most of these have no immediate need to change, and would lose revenue trying experiments of uncertain outcome.

So, in all 6 of these points, history shows us that we need to focus on a subset of stations that can survive in the near and intermediate future. And those are divided into small market, niche rated market and big signal rated market categories which each have different projectable lifespans.

And there is really nothing content-wise that can be done to innovate. History shows that every FM format once was an AM format and the AMs lost, as much due to signal coverage, noise and fidelity as to any issue of the format itself.

Of course, many existing AMs would be wise to increase the quality, precision and richness of their online content as streaming overcomes the quality, noise and signal issues. And streaming will soon be the "majority position" from the consumer perspective as use of AM or FM delivered content will continue to decline.

Do you have any thought as to what direction the big News/Talk stations could go into, now that Conservative Talk seems to be on its way out?

 

[davideduardo]

Do you have any thought as to what direction the big News/Talk stations could go into, now that Conservative Talk seems to be on its way out?

It's likely that if we look at the better performing stations like WSB and KFI (ignoring for a moment that WSB is also on a rimshot FM) that we can see what is working in the sales demos.

KFI is virtually all live and local in the hours that matter. The content reflects the market, and is neither conservative nor progressive but simply Left Coast with a lot of non-political lifestyle stuff in the mix.

WSB has a lot of local, a bit of syndicated, and a good percentage of non-political including finance, lifestyle and other stuff.

So the success points seem to be a high percentage of local and much less politics as a content driver.

In secondary markets (with one being a diary market) it is worth looking at Austin's KLBJ and Buffalo's WBEN as relatively successful AMs that are talkers.

It would take a full daypart in-demo analysis of multiple markets to come up with verified success points as well as weaknesses.

 

[Avid Listener]

Your final request (or is it a demand?) is where your thought process errs. If you understand "how it got there", show how that knowledge can be used to take it somewhere other than where it's going. You tell me: How do we "undo" any of the above five reasons that AM got to where it was? I can't rewrite the laws of physics ... can you?

If you cannot use the understanding of "how it got there" to do something about it, then what's the point of having that knowledge? What good is it? What's the use of having it, in the context of this discussion, if not to put it to use?

Or, if those laws of physics are such a burden to AM radio that they cannot overcome them, why won't anyone simply agree with the launch post and come out and say, "Yep, AM radio is destined to go down the toilet"?

 

[landtuna]

Or, if those laws of physics are such a burden to AM radio that they cannot overcome them, why won't anyone simply agree with the launch post and come out and say, "Yep, AM radio is destined to go down the toilet"?

I think that point has already been made and you guys were just discussing how fast?

 

[davideduardo]

If you cannot use the understanding of "how it got there" to do something about it, then what's the point of having that knowledge? What good is it? What's the use of having it, in the context of this discussion, if not to put it to use?

The knowledge of the history of AM is what allows us to determine if an idea... whether it be HD Radio for AM or a new kind of talk format... is viable and will have an ROI.

We don't mind reinventing the wheel, if there is a new application. But reinventing the Edsel is something we can try to avoid looking at history.

Or, if those laws of physics are such a burden to AM radio that they cannot overcome them, why won't anyone simply agree with the launch post and come out and say, "Yep, AM radio is destined to go down the toilet"?

Gasoline powered motor cars are destined to go down the toilet. Fixed wing aircraft may go away, too. But while they are useful, we do not abandon them when they have a useful, productive lifespan that has not even come close to ending.

 

[davideduardo]

I think that point has already been made and you guys were just discussing how fast?

Exactly.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Using the example of a station owned by an older person, the one I listen to for music, which seems to be doing well, has a popular morning show and runs lots of ads for local business, was sold to the local college, which has made no programming changes. I have heard of a student working at the station, but eventually it will be used to train students for careers in broadcasting. Another station in the same town is being purchased by the college for the same purpose, though it is a talk station with mostly syndicated hosts.

 

[MarioMania]

AM isn't dying

Why do we have so many Unregistered posting, Are you afraid showing yourself?

 

[davideduardo]

AM isn't dying

Yes it is... the arguments and discussions here are mostly about how log a future life AM may have.

 

[Unregistered]

FCC may come up with ideas to try to help AM stations survive but-----its 30 years too late . (technical changes)

 

[MickeyD]

AM is dying it is time to get over it. The cost to operate an AM vs an FM is staggering and who is listening to it? When you cannot receive a local AM station in yur house when the transmitter is only a few miles away is a big problem. It is the that groups are dumping them, turning them off, or just letting the FCC take the licenses away. Take a look at the last few license renewal windows many, many deletions. How many of the Disney stations have been sold? If you want an AM station you can pick one up at fire sale prices. I know of a few AM station's in a major market that don't even sell local commercials they just accept what nationals they can scrape together.

 

[davideduardo]

AM is dying it is time to get over it. The cost to operate an AM vs an FM is staggering and who is listening to it?

That is an exaggeration. Smaller AMs can have costs similar to an AM. The expensive ones are those that require many acres of land and complex directionals. A station on 1240 or another of the local channels is not going to be significantly more costly to run than a typical Class A with its own tower.

In small markets, local AMs with localized services can do very well. And in larger cities, ethnic and religious station get small but respectable listening and are profitable.

As long as an AM can make money, it will survive. There are about 4700 AM stations, yet any given month may only see one or two going away permanently.

In many large markets, some of the top billers are AMs... think stations like WGN and KCBS and WBBM and WINS and so on.

It is the that groups are dumping them, turning them off, or just letting the FCC take the licenses away. Take a look at the last few license renewal windows many, many deletions.

The returned or canceled licenses number in the dozens... often very poor technical facilities that don't cover their markets or stations that never should have been licensed to begin with due to bad facilities or location in towns not capable of supporting a station.

 

[Silkie]

The AM band seems to me to be pretty busy, but then these boards have been predicting for years the death of radio and every other medium of communication, except of course the latest technology, which somehow goes out of vogue in a few months. Good ol' libraries are also still pretty busy.

...and how long have we been saying that other countries this, other countries that and other countries the other thing, so we should be imitators instead of innovators and originals in our uniqueness and greatness?

dit dot ditdit

 

[Unregistered]

I notice the licenses turned in are typically the AM facilities where the equipment needs to be replaced, a new ground system put in or rusting tower replaced. The other licenses that get turned in are the ones where the land for the directional array is so valuable it eclipses the value of the station. The point is the licenses where a major upgrade or highly valued land make the AM station owner decide the investment in equipment is not worth it or that selling the land is better, turn in their licenses.

Plenty of AMs make money, even daytime only stations. Bank presidents don't drool over us but if we turn a decent profit for an average small business. And my station is in a top 10 market. Good ground conductivity sure helps!