Failures with great signals

[firepoint525]

For the record, my comment followed firepoint's exaggerated statements about how all AM is dead. I disagree. For select AMs, things are still okay. For some, the money still rolls in like mad. If I had my way, the FCC would clean house and get rid of about 2/3 of the stations on the band. That would make things a heck of a lot better for the survivors.

You seem to have difficulty with reading comprehension. Show me where I said "all of AM is dead." You can't because I didn't say that.

The AM in the small town where I grew up is still doing well, as far as I know. BUT, in the early '80s, they moved their top 40 format over to an FM that they bought about that time. AND they now have at least one additional FM station, in addition to another AM station simulcasting that original AM's signal. AND they are now broadcasting online.

WSM missed the boat when they didn't change over to all sports. There is an all-sports AM station that is doing okay here in Nashville, but if they had WSM's signal (without all their "heritage" baggage), they might be doing even better now. When the sports talkers weren't able to get WSM, they started taking over the FM stations.

I'd like to see ALL underperforming stations removed from the dial, regardless of which band they are on.

 

[firepoint525]

In other words, David and all, the DC market outgrew their allotted AMs. So yes, DC is a 'cherry picked' market that's chosen to make the 'AM is dead' point. AM is NOT dead. It has lots of problems but isn't dead yet. That's not to say that it won't or can't die. Then again that's true for all of us and the last I checked, we aren't dead yet either. I maintain that firepoint's dismissive "AM is dead" comment to the poster who said that WHAS does well is wrong. That was my original point and I stick by it. Some still do well.

Hmmm, do you think that if you repeat a lie long enough, that it will become the truth? Not as long as I am here to correct you. The real acid test here is, would YOU buy an AM station in 2009, not one that is already doing well, but starting one from scratch, without an FM translator? If it's performing well and billing well, you probably couldn't afford it.
If you want a signal to cover everything that YOU included in your version of the "city" of Chicago (which is actually its MSA, not just the city proper) then you WILL need one of those monster signals that Michael claimed that you don't need. How else are you going to cover all that territory at night? In December, you have about 18 hours of darkness, not just the 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. that Michael mentioned. So your morning rush hour, and your evening rush hour will be on "night power." Without a "monster signal," how are you going to reach the 'burbs?

 

[gr8oldies]

David and all, WLW seems to be an exception as far as being completely out of sales demos. They made an effort in the mid 80s to shed their old line image and slammed their way into being a younger station. How long does The Big One have left?

 

[gr8oldies]

I don't see CC blowing up WEBN or Kiss up to simulcast or move WLW there.

 

[Prais]

Firepoint said; "I'd like to see ALL underperforming stations removed from the dial, regardless of which band they are on."

Obviously YOU NEVER owned a station - or put your OWN money into a DOG to try to make it fly. What if you TRIED... and YOU couldn't pay the monhly payments?

Your statement is SO much nonsense to me. "Underperforming" means what? Underperforming in revenue? ratings? transmitter age? clean bathroom? Beatiful bosses daughter?

Wow! Socialism. Write Obama. He's on your side.

 

[davideduardo]

I don't see CC blowing up WEBN or Kiss up to simulcast or move WLW there.

Eventually, they will have to. The demos, even on WLW, are getting older and older and older.

 

[davideduardo]

David and all, WLW seems to be an exception as far as being completely out of sales demos. They made an effort in the mid 80s to shed their old line image and slammed their way into being a younger station. How long does The Big One have left?

There are a handful of stations on AM in news talk that have managed to hold a decent, although not market leading, 25-54 share... WLW is one, KLBJ in Austin is another... there's even one in Buffalo. If you look at another of these, KOA, you see that what lowers the dmeos is a considerable amount of sports... otherwise, these stations are ageing rather horribly.

 

[firepoint525]

Firepoint said; "I'd like to see ALL underperforming stations removed from the dial, regardless of which band they are on."
Obviously YOU NEVER owned a station - or put your OWN money into a DOG to try to make it fly. What if you TRIED... and YOU couldn't pay the monhly payments?
Your statement is SO much nonsense to me. "Underperforming" means what? Underperforming in revenue? ratings? transmitter age? clean bathroom? Beatiful bosses daughter?
Wow! Socialism. Write Obama. He's on your side.

I didn't say anything about ordering anyone off the air. Meanwhile, WPFD in Fairview is gone. They were definitely an underperformer. No one misses them.

If all these underperformers left the air, it would clear up the airwaves for those that are left.

 

[gr8oldies]

Consolodation is what kept a lot of these AM stations on the air. Many of them would not have survived individually. That and the fact that the FCC did not follow through with ordering the stations that moved to the X band to sign off on the old frequency (or they allowed someone else to power up there). There probably can be just a couple of viable AM signals per market, but if they can't upgrade to serve what is now the market (as opposed to the market as it existed in the 1940s), it's going to be difficult for them to survive.

 

[BRNout]

For the record, my comment followed firepoint's exaggerated statements about how all AM is dead. I disagree. For select AMs, things are still okay. For some, the money still rolls in like mad. If I had my way, the FCC would clean house and get rid of about 2/3 of the stations on the band. That would make things a heck of a lot better for the survivors.

You seem to have difficulty with reading comprehension. Show me where I said "all of AM is dead." You can't because I didn't say that.

The AM in the small town where I grew up is still doing well, as far as I know. BUT, in the early '80s, they moved their top 40 format over to an FM that they bought about that time. AND they now have at least one additional FM station, in addition to another AM station simulcasting that original AM's signal. AND they are now broadcasting online.

WSM missed the boat when they didn't change over to all sports. There is an all-sports AM station that is doing okay here in Nashville, but if they had WSM's signal (without all their "heritage" baggage), they might be doing even better now. When the sports talkers weren't able to get WSM, they started taking over the FM stations.

I'd like to see ALL underperforming stations removed from the dial, regardless of which band they are on.

Well I'll admit to being wrong here - you never exactly said "AM is dead". You said a lot of other things that mean the same, but you didn't say that. So, I apologize. Your erroneous comment was about WHAS being the best house in the slums but still in the slums. That was what I took issue with because you were as wrong about that as your comments were about Chicago being some sort of anomaly.

Now, don't misunderstand my arguments here either. I, in no way, am trying to say that AM is doing great. Just want to point out that there are profitable exceptions to the rule - and David actually did some of my work for me in a previous post. One or two successful/viable AMs in each market? Yeah, I'd agree. But those are often some of the most profitable properties in that market. Some AMs still bill like gangbusters - despite the "demos" issue.

Would I buy am AM now? It depends. If that AM is WBZ and the price is right (and I had the money to run it the way I'd like to) then absolutely! If it's W--- 1400 am with 500 watts of daytime power then no. Because there's nothing you can really do with that latter station to make it truly successful. Sadly the vast majority of AMs are like the latter example. Politically it is suicidal to pull the plug on most or all of those, but honestly it needs to be done. Do that, clear up the band, and you might actually put some life back into AM.

As recently as 1994, WMAL was overall 12+ #4 in the market after WMZQ, WPGC and WRQX; it was very close to two of those three, as well. It was, as posted, the end of the very successful morning show that threw the station into turmoil... as well as the slow erosion of the sales demos.

Still nearly 75% of the 12+ population lives in just three counties and DC, and a density analysis shows that most of the additional population lives in the nearest parts of the outer counties. And the day signal pretty well covers all of this... since nights represents so little of the PPM audience, that is not particularly relevant.

WMAL declined due to the decline in AM listening by under-55's and the programming decisions that tried to make the format more relative to under-55's which, of course, don't work anywhere.

The fastest growing and most affluent areas around DC are now more than 20 miles out. And WMAL's signal isn't strong enough to serve those areas with a clear signal. Also, you cited 'programming decisions' as being a factor. Absolutely, a huge one. Trouble is, once you chase people away from a station like WMAL (a 10kw/5kw signal in a sprawling metro with a transient population and lousy ground conductivity), it's hard to get them back. DC isn't a great example of "typical" for a number of reasons. For one, it has geographically outgrown it's AM stations. Secondly, it is an area with few "natives" who would actually be in the habit of listening to a local legacy AM signal. Thirdly, it's increasing racial/ethnic diversity is a bad omen for AMs there too.

I worked in Fairfax, the city, in 1970 and it was most definitely part of the metro. Manassas was considered "far out".

Small world! I lived in Chantilly at that very time....however, my occupation at the time was '1st grader'!

But I do recall lots of my parents' friends commenting on how we lived 'way out west' as most of the population was from Fairfax City inward. People thought like the relatively new Dulles airport was out in West Virginia. Manassas? Yeah, people went out there for day trips to the battlefield - not to commute! Little could they imagine that 40 years later, people now commute from Charles Town and Winchester and Manassas is considered just as much a part of the metro as Silver Spring.

That was also back when WPGC, WEAM and even WEEL were relevant. But we still listened to WABC and WLS at night because they were daytimers or had poor nighttime signals. Even back then, that was not a good area for AM.

In summary, people will still tune in to AM stations IF the content is what they want or need to hear. Sometimes, that means sports programming, news or talk. Rarely does it mean music any more, though WDIA in Memphis is a famous exception to that. Sure, those formats would probably do better when put on an FM signal. But, here's the thing: there aren't enough FM signals in most markets to include ALL formats. So, some will inevitably be left to the best AM signals. Trickle-down economics, in a sense. However, not hard and fast either. Boston's AM talker has duked it out with the FM one for years. Basically, the AM has managed (despite some horrendously stupid programming decisions by Entercom) to keep Rush Limbaugh and locally popular Howie Carr - and that content isn't available on FM. It's all about content. Move it to FM and those listeners will follow. But, that may well leave room for a different format to find life on AM - if well executed.

 

[michael hagerty]

If all these underperformers left the air, it would clear up the airwaves for those that are left.

To some extent, but you'd still have all the outside interference. Until the FCC gets serious about everything from lamptimers to business signage, AM's severely compromised.

 

[Prais]

Firepoint said; "I'd like to see ALL underperforming stations removed from the dial, regardless of which band they are on."....
Then he said; "I didn't say anything about ordering anyone off the air."

Fire, the key word YOU used is REMOVED. HOW are you going to accomplish that "removal" without "ordering them?"

NO Congress (full of station owners and those who OWE station owners) would ever do that.

 

[michael hagerty]

Firepoint said; "I'd like to see ALL underperforming stations removed from the dial, regardless of which band they are on."....
Then he said; "I didn't say anything about ordering anyone off the air."

Fire, the key word YOU used is REMOVED. HOW are you going to accomplish that "removal" without "ordering them?"

NO Congress (full of station owners and those who OWE station owners) would ever do that.

Not to get in the middle of a running gun battle here, but...

I believe that any owner who is serving the public interest and wants to continue despite low profit or even loss should be able to do so.

That owner should also have the right to sell that station...assuming regulatory approval.

But...if there are stations that simply aren't viable, then the owners can go dark and turn the license back in to the FCC....which can, and has, made decisions about deleting frequencies from communities and reallocating the channel where feasable to a new city of license.

Again, the spectrum is so full of noise that reducing the number of stations by taking poor performers (likely weaker signals to begin with) off the air you're not really making a dent in improving AM's quality of service, appeal to listeners or odds of survival.

 

[Silkie]

>>Again, the spectrum is so full of noise that reducing the number of stations by taking poor performers (likely weaker signals to begin with) off the air you're not really making a dent in improving AM's quality of service, appeal to listeners or odds of survival.<<

Not all poor performers have a weak signal.

 

[gr8oldies]

The only thing the government could do...short of actually buying out the station to shut it down (cash for clunky radio stations?) is to offer a tax credit to station owners (especially the consolodators) to shut down certain AM's, never to be reassigned. I don't see that happening. We all have our individual ideas of what "serving the public" is, but if there are listeners who like to listen to that 1000 watt AM carrying ESPN sports, or The Polish Hour on some brokered station, who am I to say the station should be shut down by fiat.

 

[michael hagerty]

>>Again, the spectrum is so full of noise that reducing the number of stations by taking poor performers (likely weaker signals to begin with) off the air you're not really making a dent in improving AM's quality of service, appeal to listeners or odds of survival.<<

Not all poor performers have a weak signal.

True...which is how this thread started. But poor performers with strong signals are by definition viable. They just need changes in programming, promotion, management, ownership or all of the above.

I was discussing the idea of taking stations that simply aren't viable dark...and how it would do less to "clean up" AM than an earlier poster had suggested. There's absolutely no point in silencing strong signals, which have the potential to serve a large audience.

 

[Prais]

Get the lawyers!

Who is to judge, "strong signal" "large audience" - etc. My busia always listens to the Polish Hour - she has for 40 years (it's true!) LEAVE IT ALONE!!!

Your "judgements are "relative" and "arbitrary."

 

[BRNout]

Get the lawyers!

Who is to judge, "strong signal" "large audience" - etc. My busia always listens to the Polish Hour - she has for 40 years (it's true!) LEAVE IT ALONE!!!

Your "judgements are "relative" and "arbitrary."

Prais, you bring up an excellent point and it's the reason why I commented that such a move would be quite difficult - politically. On paper, and to the ear of a sophisticated listener to MW, there are FAR too many signals on the band. The noise floor has become far too high and there are too many stations sharing far too little space. The FCC was idiotic in granting as many licenses as they have and in contorting the rules to allow the shoehorning of stations into geographic and spectral space where they never should have been permitted.

The continued operation and management of the MW band in this manner will lead to its demise. Everyone loses when that happens. But, it can be saved by weeding out a solid percentage of what's on AM now. Canada and other countries have done this already; however, they also have a lot more free spectrum on FM to play with. So, all that being said.....

Deciding who's licenses are revoked or not renewed and who's are would be a mighty difficult task. Not just the idea of picking and choosing which stations are "viable" and which are not (and defining "viable" in the first place). But also fending off the inevitable lawsuits that would follow. So, I don't know if we're ever going to get this done. And that's a shame because there are way too many stations on the band that have basically no listeners. They often don't 'serve' anyone but themselves (KAAY is a 50 kw example).

A good start would be to encourage (through incentives of some sort) owners to voluntary turn in licenses on underperforming signals. Another great start (and an easy one) would be to disallow IBOC use on the AM/MW band; make that one effective immediately.

AM can be viable, but it requires stations with a very strong signal and a band with a lower noise floor. We can't fix external issues (light dimmers, computer equipment, etc.), but we can certainly deal with broadcasters that have been allowed to pollute the band in a number of ways. I ask the FCC to get to work on this.

 

[gr8oldies]

Someone is listening to KAAY's religious programs, and donating to them, or the program producers would not be spending money to be on that massive signal. The program producers track that (and do you really want to get into a freedom of speech/freedom of religion argument in trying to choose whose license to revoke?) where the donations come from.

You will simply not have the FCC revoking licenses. The only things the government can do if they want to is offer tax incentives to turn in a license, or buy them out.

 

[BRNout]

Someone is listening to KAAY's religious programs, and donating to them, or the program producers would not be spending money to be on that massive signal. The program producers track that (and do you really want to get into a freedom of speech/freedom of religion argument in trying to choose whose license to revoke?) where the donations come from.

You will simply not have the FCC revoking licenses. The only things the government can do if they want to is offer tax incentives to turn in a license, or buy them out.

Yeah, and that someone is most likely a bunch of old people who have better things to spend their money on than to support hucksters. (Sorry, but I had to get that out.) KAAY's listenership is basically non-existent. Probably around 0.1 for 12+ (basically 55+) and that's IF you could even see numbers on them. As far as the public interest goes, that's hardly the best use of a 50 kw signal. I'll go so far as to say it is a waste of juice and yes you can quote me. Screaming 'preechers' and live coverage of snake handling hardly meet the definition of "broadcasting" - extreme narrowcasting is more like it. I'd bet that, on a really good night, these guys only have 200 listeners at a time.

Now, let's not misunderstand what I said with regard to making the band more viable. If you knew me, you'd know that I tend to be a small government guy. And, I already outlined some of the potential pitfalls of trying to "clean up" the band. Clearly, we can't do as the Bolivarian Government of Venezuela does and just do a wholesale revocation of licenses. That's illegal here and rightfully so. But, it needs to be done in some way - the heard needs to be thinned to save the strong from oblivion. And, stations that nobody listens to are a good target for cleanup. Again, since nobody is going to get away with summarily deciding who stays and who goes, I am in full support of sweetening the pot by offering financial/tax incentives to stations that meet a certain set of criteria. Perhaps they can be persuaded to do what needs to be done.