-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
I wasn't talking about the beginning but the trend.
In that case, we will have thrown in the towel and it will have become the "buggy whip" capital of the world! Just don't expect much support from the NAB. (I'm sorry. I was trying to respond directly to the subject lines but couldn't figure out how to do it.)
And that reason is conservative people have more choices now. In 1990, the ONLY place you could hear someone talking about things with a conservative bent was AM radio. Now, there are a couple of TV networks, millions of bloggers and AM radio. In 1990, a liberal person could find his viewpoint represented everywhere else BUT AM radio. It's all about competition. The market for conservative media wasn't diluted until about 10 years ago. Which is coincidentally when AM radio started showing the declines we're seeing now.
Really? There were a lot of liberals on the radio in 1990. It took a few years before they were killed off by Rush. But Larry King was still on AM until the mid 90s. And there were quite a few local liberals on AM around the country. But as Rush became so popular, that's all anyone in radio wanted. That's when all the copy cats started appearing.
What do you suggest radio owners do? Spend millions of dollars on formats that once worked 40 years ago and act like nothing else has changed?
The future won't be like the past. Radio companies don't own the roads. Just the cars that drive on them. The road itself is owned by the feds. Radio companies are given licenses to drive on those roads. If the roads become eclipsed by high speed interstates, we simply take our cars over to the newer, faster roads.
I wish I knew and that's why I'm asking but I don't see how the band's future can lie in niche' programming. Property values alone could eat up whatever stations are likely to make and what would encourage receiver manufacturers to continue including AM?
Why are we giving this thread the time of day?
We all know the FCC/Government don't really give a s**** about AM, Everyone lies in the FCC like everyone in Congress, So it's fallen on death ears
We all know the FCC/Government don't really give a s**** about AM, Everyone lies in the FCC like everyone in Congress, So it's fallen on death ears
Last edited:
The niche programming is one that makes sense for AM if other options are already covered on AM and FM. It is risky. As I explained to a group that wanted us to go to an oldies format, it takes lots of ramp up money investing in promotion, sales people, air talent and such. Essentially it is much like starting any other station.
Selling a niche is almost impossible. In a large market, you will not ever get any agency dollars so virtually any business that regularly advertises has an agency that makes those decisions for them. Smaller businesses might have a single person agency. You'll have a chance there. Here's the problem as I have experienced it: you might have thousands of listeners but they are scattered across the city. When your advertisers are single location Mom and Pop businesses, which is your typical client, there are so few listeners in their primary trade area, the advertising likely will not work. That limits you to businesses that are connected in some way to your niche.
If the programming is not duplicated and you can make that group aware you offer what they want. You will at least get part of that group. The big question is will the cost of acquiring the station and operating it until you can make back your investment is reasonable. If so, then, is the billing and audience size an amount to make the higher priced and struggling FM want what you have? In essence, that niche needs to not make sense to a struggling FM. If your audience and/or billing attracts the attention of a hungry FM or stronger AM with better coverage, expect to go back to square one with a new format and all that ramp up cost while hoping every other station stays well fed and experiences no hunger pains.
Marginal and lower powered AM signal values will likely drop in coming years allowing this option to become less of a risk but will AM simply be more obscure by then.
About the easiest way to get an AM to fund itself is with brokered time. When you eliminate the programming aspect, you save a lot of money. There are usually local churches and ethnic groups within a city wanting a voice on radio. If you can get enough, keep them paying and police them well enough, you can make it. Everything you know about radio is tossed out. You could care less about ratings or how programming flows from one programmer to another. The other thing that makes this very scary is you cannot really prospect for new customers. They have to call you. Then, if they need time today, chances are they have found a radio home tomorrow if your station is unavailable to them today.
Some slam such stations but for the most part they give segments of the city a voice that would have none without you. An ethnic group of 50,000 can't buy a major market station but they might be able to support a few hours a day on a station.
Selling a niche is almost impossible. In a large market, you will not ever get any agency dollars so virtually any business that regularly advertises has an agency that makes those decisions for them. Smaller businesses might have a single person agency. You'll have a chance there. Here's the problem as I have experienced it: you might have thousands of listeners but they are scattered across the city. When your advertisers are single location Mom and Pop businesses, which is your typical client, there are so few listeners in their primary trade area, the advertising likely will not work. That limits you to businesses that are connected in some way to your niche.
If the programming is not duplicated and you can make that group aware you offer what they want. You will at least get part of that group. The big question is will the cost of acquiring the station and operating it until you can make back your investment is reasonable. If so, then, is the billing and audience size an amount to make the higher priced and struggling FM want what you have? In essence, that niche needs to not make sense to a struggling FM. If your audience and/or billing attracts the attention of a hungry FM or stronger AM with better coverage, expect to go back to square one with a new format and all that ramp up cost while hoping every other station stays well fed and experiences no hunger pains.
Marginal and lower powered AM signal values will likely drop in coming years allowing this option to become less of a risk but will AM simply be more obscure by then.
About the easiest way to get an AM to fund itself is with brokered time. When you eliminate the programming aspect, you save a lot of money. There are usually local churches and ethnic groups within a city wanting a voice on radio. If you can get enough, keep them paying and police them well enough, you can make it. Everything you know about radio is tossed out. You could care less about ratings or how programming flows from one programmer to another. The other thing that makes this very scary is you cannot really prospect for new customers. They have to call you. Then, if they need time today, chances are they have found a radio home tomorrow if your station is unavailable to them today.
Some slam such stations but for the most part they give segments of the city a voice that would have none without you. An ethnic group of 50,000 can't buy a major market station but they might be able to support a few hours a day on a station.
Way to completely miss the point. So the liberal viewpoint was on 95% of media instead of 90%. Doesn't change the argument a bit.
I addressed the point directly. You said there were no liberals on AM in 1990. That's not true. There were also a lot of conservatives.
But it's also not true that the rest of the media was liberal. You're just using Roger Ailes talking points. That doesn't mean it's true.
Are you honestly going to deny that the vast majority of broadcast media is left leaning? Because if you can't even admit such an obvious truth, it's going to be hard to have an honest conversation.
Who are you talking about? And specifically which era are you talking about? Because the history of radio is filled with all kinds of conservatives, including religious conservatives, political conservatives, and financial conservatives.
It also depends on what you consider "left leaning." To some, if you're not always attacking Obama, you're a left leaner.
If you don't want to agree with me, that's OK. But don't assume that because we don't agree that I'm wrong.
His idea of an "honest conversation" is talking to a bobble-head doll...
You seem to have some difficulty grasping the concept that YOUR views and denials and assumptions also make it hard to have an honest conversation if you are going to be in the room and participating.
Yes, trying to have a discussion with a full-blown, 100% wool and a full-yard-wide liberal can try one's soul.
I live in a county that was rated 3 or 4 years ago as the second most Conservative Republican county in America. I think the natives here are born with a Confederate Battle-flag tattooed on one buttock, and a pocket sized copy of The Constitution on the other. It's hard to step up to the counter at McDonalds and order an Egg McMuffin without having to recite your political bona fides.
Can you begin to understand what goes on in the head of this grandfatherly aged person when some young twit behind the counter says: (cue the Appalachian accent) "Ain't it awful whut Obummer done yesterday?"
There is another soul-trying side to this "It's going to be hard to have an honest conversation" that constantly invokes the canard about the "dreaded Liberal Media".
The latest data shows that AM and FM are still king. The most listened to, period. There is still time to save both services.
Congress was ruled by Democrats up until January 2015.
I'm a bit hesitant to speak for others but, to me, the conversation has been that the youngsters now days are not big fans of radio as they were when my people were kids so the problem is - who will the listeners be when these kids grow up? How can radio make itself relevant to people who have never listened to it?
That is a perfect question landtuna. If the youth are not as passionate as prior generations, then something needs t be done to create that.
On the plus side, we probably know more than at any other time about the radio listener and what they want. Note I say radio listener. That wealth of information is a good thing.
On the negative side, it is difficult to convince the stockholder or business owner that has so much at risk to take a chance on anything that is not solidly proven to be successful already. Even with that said, the chance for evolving radio lies with corporate radio. They can leverage and create places to experiment, refine and add to the ranks of radio fully aware early attempts will likely not be a success (the Lone Star 92.5 experiment and a station in San Francisco that I never heard but was podcast oriented have been tried and I think by the Corporate guys exclusively).
Radio is in pretty decent shape at the moment. I'd say pretty darn good considering the listening options. We know radio will get tougher, not easier in the future. I think radio will evolve and find a way to make itself more important to younger demos. At least at this point radio is trying to think ahead, keep up with the pace and try to create the better mouse trap. Good thing this is happening before other listening choices try to wipe out radio.
Funny thing, some folks I talk to say they don't listen to radio. I ask what they listen to and they rattle off some call letters. I usually say "So, you listen to the internet simulcast of the radio station. I think you are saying t listen to the radio online instead of with a radio receiver."
On the plus side, we probably know more than at any other time about the radio listener and what they want. Note I say radio listener. That wealth of information is a good thing.
On the negative side, it is difficult to convince the stockholder or business owner that has so much at risk to take a chance on anything that is not solidly proven to be successful already. Even with that said, the chance for evolving radio lies with corporate radio. They can leverage and create places to experiment, refine and add to the ranks of radio fully aware early attempts will likely not be a success (the Lone Star 92.5 experiment and a station in San Francisco that I never heard but was podcast oriented have been tried and I think by the Corporate guys exclusively).
Radio is in pretty decent shape at the moment. I'd say pretty darn good considering the listening options. We know radio will get tougher, not easier in the future. I think radio will evolve and find a way to make itself more important to younger demos. At least at this point radio is trying to think ahead, keep up with the pace and try to create the better mouse trap. Good thing this is happening before other listening choices try to wipe out radio.
Funny thing, some folks I talk to say they don't listen to radio. I ask what they listen to and they rattle off some call letters. I usually say "So, you listen to the internet simulcast of the radio station. I think you are saying t listen to the radio online instead of with a radio receiver."
- Status