Entercom Changes in Seattle

[Delete My Account]

I find the economics of noncommercial religious radio puzzling at times. Take for example Birmingham, AL.

88.1 - 88.3 - 88.9 - 89.5 - 91.9 NCE
93.3 (2 LPFMs)
92.5 - 93.7 - 95.3 (AM translator) - 96.1 (HD translator) - 96.9 (AM translator) - 97.7 - 97.9 (AM translator) - 101.1 - 101.5 (simulcasts 91.9)

I've heard other markets like this. Every click of the NCE dial apart from NPR seemed to be a different Christian outlet. Now, there's a relatively limited number of Christian formats that actually are sustainable - CCM, which is generally AC, Urban Gospel, Southern Gospel, or talk/teaching. And EMF, Salem, and a fair number of local groups, both religious based and secular who understand the radio business have succeeded with them.

And of course, you can't regulate formats. But it seems to me the non-commercial aspect skews a lot of the economics. So you have NCE spectrum being used by organizations that don't primarily sustain themselves as broadcasters (EMF being the exception) or even necessarily involve having a significant audience.

Take for example BBN's purchase of 93.7 FM in New Iberia, LA. BBN paid close to $2 million for that signal. I have no idea how many people listen - and I'm not unfamiliar with the religious culture of that region, either. But BBN's programming is regarded as somewhat old in style even to most conservative religious folk. Still, they had the money to make the purchase.

I get how EMF works - their product is polished, contemporary, and well done. I completely understand why someone in the target demo would listen or contribute to it. But some of these networks seem to exist primarily to fill spectrum and promote their base church. And in many markets it completely dominates and, I think, distorts the purpose and economics of the NCE spectrum. If this had been better managed, would there ever have been demand for an LPFM service to begin with? Of course, in the first LPFM window, you again saw large parent church groups attempting to fill the spectrum with a license for every local church, which again felt like a spectrum grab.

So while I don't fault ethical religious broadcasters or deny they have their place, I think there's been marketplace distortion by some that isn't healthy for radio.

 

[TheBigA]

If this had been better managed, would there ever have been demand for an LPFM service to begin with?

How or who would manage it? The FCC? Keep in mind, the FCC benefits by having more, not less, licensees.

We're in a situation now where lots of colleges and universities are selling their NCE FMs. They're mostly all going to religious groups. The one big exception was KPLU in Seattle.

It would be wonderful if non profit music groups such as the Rhythm & Blues Foundation or even the Rock Hall of Fame bought some of these NCEs. But they don't want to get into that business.

 

[Delete My Account]

But the FCC is prohibited from collecting filing fees from NCE stations and LPFMs. So I'm not sure how they benefit from flooding the NCE spectrum to begin with, or the allowance of "satellators" - satellite fed translators.

In fact, before K-Love was the household name it is, I read a filing where EMF specifically objected to the creation of an LPFM service on the basis in part it would financially dilute contributions to their translator model and THEY would be "unable to sustain service" to as many communities.

The genie is out of the bottle. But one way would have been to have limited the ability to feed a translator in Alabama from California. Of course then, one would probably cry foul on religious discrimination/1st Amendment grounds, and given the power of that lobbying sector, we'd have ended up in the same situation.

For those interested, here's some background:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070409032843/http://www.cjr.org/issues/2006/2/Schulman.asp

 

[davideduardo]

A couple years ago when my wife and I were driving through Italy from top to toe, I found the same Italian Classic Rock station/format everywhere I drove with no interruption or having to change frequencies. To me as a listener, it was totally seamless. Each of the stations were running their version of RDS (RBDS) which had the ability to force-tune the radio to the next station it found with the same format. If I were you setting up a network of FM's or translators with the same format in South America, I'd totally explore that option. RDS will do the same thing, but here in the States, you're only allowed to force-tune radio's in the event of emergency.

That is a core part of the system, and one reason why a European manufacturer is being selected for equipment provisions. But in "third world" nations, in-car audience is far less important since even middle class uses public transportation as cities are more compact and parking at a shortage everywhere.

Traffic between cities on highways is predominantly commercial traffic and buses, not private vehicles.

 

[TheBigA]

We're in a situation now where lots of colleges and universities are selling their NCE FMs. They're mostly all going to religious groups. The one big exception was KPLU in Seattle.

Speaking of which...here's an example from today:

https://radioinsight.com/headlines/...ds-to-eau-claire-acquiring-college-owned-aaa/

 

[davideduardo]

T

It's now possible for foreign interests to own 100% of any US radio station. And how the hell are the rest of us going to compete with that too?

I mean, what's the point of fighting uphill in an avalanche of blood, sweat and tears to barely raise a million to buy the cheapest station when SERGEI over there can just plop down $10 million right now, right there, of Putin's pocket fluff for that same station?

And everybody here knows money doesn't talk in this business. It SCREAMS.

Why does this even matter? Any organization, domestic or foreign, that wants a voice can stream it. The interest in licensed broadcast stations for political purposes is approaching zero.

The requests for full foreign ownership have, in their majority, been for individual small markets stations run by US residents who are not citizens. The few larger cases are based on things like the inability to control foreign ownership of public corporations as shares are often held in broker accounts. Or the Univision case, where their principal program provider is a Mexican company and it is possible that they, or their associates, will be the most interested in taking investment bank shares of ownership as, in general, investment bankers try to get out of actually owning companies they had to take equity in only because of bankruptcy.

 

[Delete My Account]

Why does this even matter? Any organization, domestic or foreign, that wants a voice can stream it. The interest in licensed broadcast stations for political purposes is approaching zero.

Which is why the Russian effort in Kansas City is.. odd. Washington, DC I get. Sort of.

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/09/813763840/state-run-russian-radio-is-looking-to-expand-in-the-u-s

 

[davideduardo]

It sets precedent for other outlets. While all of know that there is nothing even remotely objectionable on a K-LOVE broadcast, who is to say that other outlets won't use this model to their advantage. Bongwater is correct in the sense that any group with the financial capability could technically start a national service if they were inclined to do so. This could potentially be something that we want to consider more carefully before we allow this to be the business model for ANY service with the resources to set up a network.

National systems are the norm in much of the world. Only in the US is local broadcasting so protected.

The reasoning goes back to the 30's when the FCC and Congress were afraid that a couple of broadcast companies would control opinions and news coverage nationally unless they limited station ownership, imposed very low AM power limits and loads of content restrictions and requirements about studio location and the like.

Those rules were put in place when medium markets had only two or three stations, and many smaller ones had none. There was no TV, no profusion of AMs, no idea that there would be ten thousand or more FMs and translators, no Internet and no cellphones and portable devices. The protectionism ceased to be important decades ago, and it has hurt US radio since then.

II see national simulcasts with single talents doing country-wide shows, but with local commercials, weather, and traffic (if those services are not, also, precluded by Internet options). Local radio is going to be a niche in small markets, but even local HS sports will end up on the web.

 

[TheBigA]

II see national simulcasts with single talents doing country-wide shows, but with local commercials, weather, and traffic

I expect stations will continue to do a lot of local outreach at various events and locations to drive local sales and brand recognition.

 

[fordranger797]

II see national simulcasts with single talents doing country-wide shows, but with local commercials, weather, and traffic (if those services are not, also, precluded by Internet options). Local radio is going to be a niche in small markets, but even local HS sports will end up on the web.

Didn't we already establish that local programs perform better in the ratings than nationwide programming? Of course, there will always be examples of shows that still do very well, but I was under the impression that, as a general rule, listeners prefer shows that are located in their market that mention topics that are relevant to their market.

 

[TheBigA]

Didn't we already establish that local programs perform better in the ratings than nationwide programming?

It depends. Steve Harvey is huge for urban stations. All things Considered and Morning Edition are the main attractions at KUOW. It depends on how well the programs are marketed to the local audience. If a local station just throws a syndicated show on with no marketing or promotion, it won't do as well as a syndicated show with local marketing.

 

[boombox4]

The difficulty with having several religious broadcasters dominating a radio band is it makes it less of an option for the secular masses. It hasn't worked very well for AM. And not everyone is going to jump into the baptismal pool. You can't force them there either. That's just the way it is.

And while I've heard "But look! We have Christian Rock, Christian Alternative, Christian Oldies, Christian Top 40, Christian Country, Christian Hip-Hop, Christian Classic Hits, etc" First, most people don't want to live in a ready-made bubble of unfamiliar music. And if that's where radio goes, it will lose the majority of it's listeners. That's all.

There has to be limits to that. Or local radio, being the universal, free (i.e. "people's") medium it traditionally is will essentially become a state-sponsored mouthpiece of organized religion. And that's terrifying. Because in spite of every intention, theocracies of all kinds really suck.

The problem with your argument is that religious broadcasters aren't dominating any radio band, aside from the US domestic SW band, to which few listen, aside from a handful of hobbyists.

Count the channels in any metro or market with AM and FM stations on them, and divy them up by format. The religious ones aren't that dominant. I can tune my AM radio and maybe hear five religious broadcasters during the day (including brokered religion on brokered stations), and maybe five or six on the FM band, if one includes some translators. That isn't dominance.

Assuming some day that religion becomes dominant on AM and FM, it will be when few, if any people, already listen, as has happened to SW here in the US. In other words, in the big picture, it will be a non-issue, because people will be getting all of their audio entertainment online by then. No theocracy necessary.

As for Radio Sputnik, the Russians get more coverage online, with RT TV and the like. I don't think they have plans to take over the AM or FM band. Same with the Chinese.

 

[davideduardo]

Didn't we already establish that local programs perform better in the ratings than nationwide programming? Of course, there will always be examples of shows that still do very well, but I was under the impression that, as a general rule, listeners prefer shows that are located in their market that mention topics that are relevant to their market.

There is no proof of that.

Local topics on music stations used to include weather and traffic, both more specifically available in personalized form on one's cellphone. So the local show can say, "hey, it's cooling today, so take a jacket or sweater with you when you go out" and things like that. But that does not drive listening; personality and entertainment do.

We are on our way towards the model used in most of the rest of the world where shows are national, with local tidbits and ads inserted in the national feed.

Local will be more important where there is a huge amount of local content: talk/news and sports. Otherwise, there is no reason to think that a local morning show has a great advantage over a more entertaining networked one.

 

[Delete My Account]

As for Radio Sputnik, the Russians get more coverage online, with RT TV and the like. I don't think they have plans to take over the AM or FM band. Same with the Chinese.

Which makes the Kansas City endeavor quite odd to me. I get wanting to be on FM in DC. Why would they need terrestrial reach anywhere else?

 

[boombox4]

Which makes the Kansas City endeavor quite odd to me. I get wanting to be on FM in DC. Why would they need terrestrial reach anywhere else?

Because the owner of the station, which was faltering in revenue, approached them?

Because Kansas City is as mid-American as it gets?

Because broadcasting six hours of Radio Sputnik on an AM station is relatively cheap for a government-funded entity?

Because the point of Radio Sputnik -- like any network's point -- is to get a message out?

Because AM radio still reaches 16% of radio listeners in the US? I imagine if the Kansas City station were FM, it would make no difference...

 

[davideduardo]

Because AM radio still reaches 16% of radio listeners in the US?

That's an inaccurate number.

The national average share shows around 10% of those listening to the radio are listening to AM. Some markets, like LA and NYC and Chicago are around 14%, but some are much lower... Fresno is 7%, Bakersfield under 5%, Sacramento 13%, Las Vegas 7%, Macon 9%.

The cume, meaning people who listen to AM for a qualifying quarter hour once a week, is much higher. Cume is not additive, so you can't just look at all the AMs and sum them; the figure is generally over 30% in the markets where total AM share is over 10% and in the 20% to 25% range in markets that have some attractive AM programming. Most, however, is over 55.

The reach of AM is still considerable. One of the main reasons why there is not a higher share is that most markets don't have more than a couple of full market, day and night, AM stations. If people can't hear them, they don't listen to them. In fact, in the top 100 US metro areas, there are only about 175 total AM stations that cover 80% of the market or more, day and night.

 

[DN14224]

We are on our way towards the model used in most of the rest of the world where shows are national, with local tidbits and ads inserted in the national feed.

We are not "on our way".

We've been "on our way" since PC-based automation made it more economical to replace a local talent with someone not local. It started in the late 90s with CC and hasn't stopped.

What ETM is doing is in the model of iHM's "Premium Choice" experiiment where the best national talent were internally syndicated. How'd that work out?

Oh, and in case anyone forgot, the USA isn't "the rest of the world". Good, bad or otherwise - what may work elsewhere won't necessarily work here.

 

[TheBigA]

What ETM is doing is in the model of iHM's "Premium Choice" experiiment where the best national talent were internally syndicated. How'd that work out?

It worked out just fine. The stations that use premium choice in some cases are beating live & local talent. The success is a function of how well the stations integrate and promote the hosts with their existing local talent. I expect that'll be the case here too.

This isn't a recent thing. The fact is radio has utilized national programming since the 1920s. They call that era the golden age of radio.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_radio

 

[Kelly A]

It worked out just fine. The stations that use premium choice in some cases are beating live & local talent. The success is a function of how well the stations integrate and promote the hosts with their existing local talent. I expect that'll be the case here too.

True. Up until two years ago, I was part owner of four smaller market stations that had 85% of the daily music programming via satellite. In every instance, the ratings and revenue from my stations beat my competition, which were running at least 60% locally produced programming. (swap-and-shop, local morning show, let's talk about weather) The reason is simple: The satellite provider played researched music and had professional jocks tracking the shows. The competition naturally sounded small market, with non-professional talent and shoot-from-the-hip music choices. Advertisers also appreciated the 'big market' sound and presentation verses a home-spun, "Hooterville" presentation.

 

[davideduardo]

Advertisers also appreciated the 'big market' sound and presentation verses a home-spun, "Hooterville" presentation.

Is Hooterville where the Hooter's Bar & Restaurant chain originated?