FM chip in iPhone: What's wrong with THIS picture?

[Holland Cooke]

I didn't want to spoil the party at yesterday's closing luncheon at the Radio Advertising Bureau convention in Orlando, so I kept mum during Q+A after a speech by an AT&T suit, who alluded to his company exploring putting-a-FM-receiver-chip-in-iPhone.

Predictably, this news was a crowd-pleaser.

A "FM chip?"
How about A RADIO RECEIVER?

Have WE-in-radio totally given-up on AM?
Wasn't HD radio supposed to level-the-playing-field?

HC
www.HollandCooke.com

 

[TheBigA]

Keep in mind that "We-in-radio" don't build or manufacture phones. We don't manufacture anything. So we're dependent on manufacturers to see the value in what we do, and build devices or products that somehow benefit us.

Truthfully, ANY broadcast device in a phone doesn't help phone companies. They benefit when device owners stream audio from the web. That's partly why there isn't a radio receiver in an iPod. So this is quite a victory for ANY broadcaster.

With regards to HD, that's another debate. The view when it was released was that it would "level the playing field," but I think most people don't agree with that. The electronics involved in HD Radio wouldn't fit in a phone, and would draw too much battery power. That's why the iBiquity people haven't come up with a phone-like HD Radio. Their main product is a table radio, which even my grandmother doesn't own.

Is AM dead? Once again, that's another debate. To most people under a certain age, yes.

The big advantage radio had over the phone was radio was wireless. That was Marconi's goal: wireless telecommunications. Once phones became wireless, that put radio's biggest advantage in question. People are now buying phones at a far faster rate than radios. So if we're in the programming business, the goal is to have our content on devices most people own, which would be a phone.

Let's see what happens. Microsoft installed a radio receiver in their Zune, and where did that get them?

 

[Holland Cooke]

I should clarify...

Keep in mind that "We-in-radio" don't build or manufacture phones. We don't manufacture anything. So we're dependent on manufacturers to see the value in what we do, and build devices or products that somehow benefit us.

Thus my point, that OUR industry ought-not-be asking-phone-companies to put an FM chip in phones.
WE should be asking for AM/FM chips, even if the AM chip is only AMs-gone-HD.

...ANY broadcast device in a phone doesn't help phone companies.

If all-the-phone-companies-wanted was for us to use the device to make calls, all-the-device-would-be is a phone. HOW many iPod apps are there?

Is AM dead? Once again, that's another debate. To most people under a certain age, yes.

Only as-is.
80% of Time Spent Listening is to FM.
Making-AM-radio's-programming-assets-available-on-devices-young/female-listeners-USE would expose those assets to new ears.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

An AM receiver requires a certain sized coil as an antenna. It probably wouldn't fit within the iPhone form factor.

 

[Carmine5]

An AM receiver requires a certain sized coil as an antenna. It probably wouldn't fit within the iPhone form factor.

And yet, voila!, Sony Ericsson is bringing AM radio to a phone:


http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/...inging-am-fm-radio-to-a-series-of-new-phones/

Obviously it can be done if the desire/need to do so is there. The problem is that there is a mindset at work, even among radio execs, which has written off AM as dead or near to it.

However, I kind of agree with Jerry Del Colliano that, in the case of kids, they tend to want to use a cell phone just for two-way communication and an iPod just for music. I'm not sure an all-in-one or convergent device would be as successful with younger demos as one might think. And, of course, there is the power drain/heat issue to contend with.

It may be that an iPod Touch-type of player would be better suited for radio. In this case you would have a 3G enabled entertainment device with AM/FM, web browsing, video/audio streaming and MP3 playback, along with email and even recording capabilities.

Now THAT would be a fun device for anyone of any age to own.

C5

 

[davideduardo]

Re: I should clarify...

Thus my point, that OUR industry ought-not-be asking-phone-companies to put an FM chip in phones.
WE should be asking for AM/FM chips, even if the AM chip is only AMs-gone-HD.

As mentioned elsewhere, an HD chip is a power hog of major proportions. Even the new ones are not appropriate either in size or power consumption for a phone.

And an AM antenna would be bulky.

80% of Time Spent Listening is to FM.

Under age 55, it is more like 90%... in many markets even higher.

The makers and sellers of phones know who uses them... and putting AM in would not enhance the appeal to the core buyers.

Making-AM-radio's-programming-assets-available-on-devices-young/female-listeners-USE would expose those assets to new ears.

Then the AM station should move to FM or simulcast. Those that do begin seing 36-54 listening improve.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: I should clarify...

Making-AM-radio's-programming-assets-available-on-devices-young/female-listeners-USE would expose those assets to new ears.

That's a great idea. My suggestion is organize all those AM stations into their own membership organization, whose main goal is to bring newfound respect to this once-great band. I vote for you to be President, and you can petition phone companies and manufacturers to put your content on their phone. It's a great idea, and you'd do a wonderful job. Let us know how it goes.

 

[TheBigA]

And yet, voila!, Sony Ericsson is bringing AM radio to a phone:

What's the difference between AT&T and Sony Ericsson? Quite a few, but the obvious one is that Sony Ericsson is an international manufacturer, and AM is more popular in other countries than it is in the US. In fact, I can't think of another country that has done as terrible a job of regulating AM radio as the US.

I'd suggest this handset is aimed for non-Americans.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The challenge is that the geographic needs and opportunities are not consistent, not identical. I guess the greatest percentage of the U.S. population lives in metro areas where it doesn't take a hot-rod sophisticated receiver to bring in.... what? Maybe 10 or more stations.

I live just far enough outside Atlanta that my Sony Walkman will not give me much choice of listening when I work in the yard or take a walk down my bird-sanctuary country lane in the lake country. I wouldn't expect a receiver in a phone to be any better.

There are some small and/or rural markets where an AM receiver in the phone would be nice, but what portion of our population (read that prospective buyers) live in such a place? 5%? 10%? I live in a county that has NO A.M. station.

Someone mentioned that incorporating AM would be hard because the phone would need room for the sizable ferrite antenna. My experience with the Walkman is that FM requires the headset cord to function as an antenna and I spend so much time taking the Walkman off my belt clip and holding it this way and that way, constantly going through choreography moves to keep the reception going that I have given up on listening while I walk.

I suspect broadcast-receiver-in-phone is not going to be a biggie. Maybe a niche, boutique market.

 

[davideduardo]

..., and AM is more popular in other countries than it is in the US. In fact, I can't think of another country that has done as terrible a job of regulating AM radio as the US.

If anything, AM is less popular outside the US.

Canada has eliminated around 60% of AMs. Mexico has a plan that started last Fall to move as many as 95% of all AMs to FM in recognition of the fact that AM is no longer viable (paraphrased from the regulations). All through Latin America, with maybe the exception of Brazil and Argentina, the number of AMs is on the decline. Chile has seen 100 kw AMs in the capital turn in their licenses as they became unprofitable due to lack of audience.

Nations ranging from Austria to South Africa have eliminated nearly all AMs, and in much of Europe AM is barely listened to.

Some places, like Australia, have kept the number of AMs constant, but there is no growth and a shrinking audience.

I think the maniufacturrers of handsets see this and are reluctant to add AM to new devices.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

So...

Did y'all read the article that Carmine5 linked us to? It says the handset with AM receiver is intended for sale in Brazil.

I'd like to be able to try it when it is released. I suspect it would be a case of "Woo! I can pick up a 50 kW AM within 10 miles of the TX site while outdoors."

 

[GeneSavage]

I've got another problem with this discussion of "AM is dead."

I'll agree it's not the best place to put a hot-rockin' or booty-shakin' 12 - 24 yr old targeted station, but if AM is so abandoned by the audience, why do we see KRMG-AM 740 always in the top 2 12+ in Tulsa, OK?

Why does WBAP dominate in Dallas?

Why does KMOX dominate in St. Louis?

Why does KOA dominate in Denver?

WLS in Chicago?

I'd argue that the blowtorches have 95% of the AM audience while the other 5% is fought over by everybody else on the AM band... but it looks like LOTS of people are still going to AM for news, weather, sports, talk, etc.

Why is Radio Disney investing in AM stations to target their 6 - 12 yr olds for that matter, if "nobody" under the age of 55 is listening? Is there a big audience for Radio Disney in nursing homes or something?

As mentioned above, Australia is still using because FM isn't cost effective to cover the large distances needed, which Japan still uses AM because both the transmissions and the receivers are much higher fidelity than what we have here.

I'm not saying there should be AM in cell phones (I would expect interference, in fact), but I'm not willing to say AM doesn't still have a large audience.

FM ain't exactly growing these days either, in case you hadn't noticed.

 

[TheBigA]

I've got another problem with this discussion of "AM is dead."

I'll agree it's not the best place to put a hot-rockin' or booty-shakin' 12 - 24 yr old targeted station, but if AM is so abandoned by the audience, why do we see KRMG-AM 740 always in the top 2 12+ in Tulsa, OK?

You're right. Just about every city has one or two top rated AMs. Probably a vestage of the old days. DC recently lost a big AM station when WTOP moved from AM to FM. Its AM frequency was a Top 2 station as all news. Now the same frequency attracts a 1 share. Why? Because WTOP had an exclusive in DC on local 24 hour news. The AM listeners went with the format, gained even more, and it's now #1. If more popular AM stations made this move, we'd see a lot more growth on FM.

Why is Radio Disney investing in AM stations to target their 6 - 12 yr olds for that matter, if "nobody" under the age of 55 is listening? Is there a big audience for Radio Disney in nursing homes or something?

Radio Disney has an exclusive on that content aimed at that age group. And I'd suggest the parents have a lot to do with getting the kids to listen too. And no Radio Disney station shows up in the 12+ ratings. Then again, Radio Disney is mainly a marketing tool of Disney, not a traditional radio station.

 

[davideduardo]

I've got another problem with this discussion of "AM is dead."

I'll agree it's not the best place to put a hot-rockin' or booty-shakin' 12 - 24 yr old targeted station, but if AM is so abandoned by the audience, why do we see KRMG-AM 740 always in the top 2 12+ in Tulsa, OK?

Why does WBAP dominate in Dallas?

Why does KMOX dominate in St. Louis?

Why does KOA dominate in Denver?

WLS in Chicago?

I will use a couple of stations as examples, in that they explain virtually every AM's problems across the country.

WBAP is 15th in 12+ in the last book, but it is 25th in 25-54.
WLS is 3rd in 12+, but in 25-54 it is 10th in 25-54

With poor sales demos, and mostly 55+ audiences, the few AMs with ratings are declining in revenue much faster than the declines caused by the economy that affect radio overall.

All the stations you mention are in markets where ad agency revenue is essential... and agency accounts simply don't call for 55+ with any frequency, if at all.

Why is Radio Disney investing in AM stations to target their 6 - 12 yr olds for that matter, if "nobody" under the age of 55 is listening? Is there a big audience for Radio Disney in nursing homes or something?

The PPM covers 6-12, yet in the PPM markets, those stations have nearly no listening.

In LA, the Disney AM is 27th in 6-12 year olds. It's even beaten by Contemporary Christian Class A FM The Fish as well as 8 Spanish language FMs...

Disney uses the stations as marketing for the Disney brand... and the AMs came cheap.

As mentioned above, Australia is still using because FM isn't cost effective to cover the large distances needed,

Yet commercial AMs are limited to 5 kw, and there are relatively few ABC stations with higher power. Almost all the audience is on FM...just like any other country.

which Japan still uses AM because both the transmissions and the receivers are much higher fidelity than what we have here.

The receivers are, except for the 9 kHz standard, the same as sold by Sony and others in the US. And the transmissions are narrower-band due to the separation standard.

FM ain't exactly growing these days either, in case you hadn't noticed.

FM has actually not lost that much listening. Much of the decline in total radio shares is due to the loss of AM listening as the listeners mature and die, and are not replaced.

 

[GeneSavage]

TheBigA, it looks like what you have done is point on what is true on AM, FM, satellite, internet, or however else you want to transmit to the listeners:

Unique, desirable content wins WHEREVER & HOWEVER it is presented.

AM listeners can't get what they want on FM, so they get it on AM. My point is not which band people PREFER, but rather where they GO.

"I'd like to get news / sports / talk on FM" is not nearly as important to advertisers as "I get news / sports / talk on AM."

Many listeners of all ages know when the skies turn dark, or a news story breaks, or their favorite team is playing, the details are on AM if they have a local, quality news / talker or sports station. They may switch right back to FM once they get their fill, but they still go there.

I'll repeat: if AM doesn't work, and the PPM shows 6 -12 yr olds aren't listening to Radio Disney, why isn't Disney selling off all those dinky AMs across the U.S. to the highest bidder? Since everybody's hurting, I would think selling off those toaster ovens would be the fastest way to get in the black!

I have a cassette tape from an Australian pen pal from 1985 which the then-teenage girl recorded off of her all-in-one stereo... you remember the type: turntable, radio, dual cassette, none of it worked very well... she had no less than THREE AM stations in her area in stereo. AND SHE HAD AN AM STEREO RADIO!

It was this same time that I had worked to move heaven and earth to get the rectangular Sony AM stereo portable... and SHE gets one ACCIDENTALLY in a generally cheap unit!

Teens are listening to less radio, including FM:
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/index.cfm?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=84209

Canadian teens are leaving FM, too:
http://www.newspapersineducation.ca/eng/level_7to9/lesson5/images/les5_sample3.pdf

Canadian adults, too:
http://www.friends.ca/news-item/4139

UK radio listeners, too:
http://radiotoday.co.uk/news.php?extend.3941.7

In focusing on the "money demo," we've seen layoffs, falling revenue, and so on, long before the current recession started.

SOMETHING isn't working. But radio doesn't want to hear it.

BTW, and I expect you'll agree with me on this: an FM chip or an AM / FM chip is not the solution. STREAMING is the solution.

Give it another 5 years and internet radio in the car may well be a standard feature. Already many listeners are getting their favorite Shoutcast stations through their iPhones.

Here's what I'm talking about: "NY AC’s STREAM BEATS ITS BROADCAST SIGNAL FOR ADULTS 18-34, WOMEN 18-34" - http://textpattern.kurthanson.com/articles/628/rain-317-more-18-34s-listened-to-the-fresh-1027new-york-stream-than-its-broadcast

_________________________________________________

BTW, I work at a directional, 5KW day / 1KW night AM just outside of town which is INCREASING its income AND its listeners in the midst of the recession / loss of AM listeners / loss of FM listeners. How? Unique, quality entertainment and a personal connection with the audience and the advertisers.

It's all it's ever taken, but it's seems like it's more than corporate wants to allow local talent to do. I'm convinced the talent is there; the suits in another state just have to be willing to take the risk.

 

[davideduardo]

[AM listeners can't get what they want on FM, so they get it on AM. My point is not which band people PREFER, but rather where they GO.

And under-55's don't go to AM. Yet when the same formats are moved to FM or simulcast on FM, the forat picks up lots of under-55's.... WOKV, WPGH, KSL, WIBC, KIRO, WWL, KTAR, WTOP, etc., etc., show this true over and over and over.

I'll repeat: if AM doesn't work, and the PPM shows 6 -12 yr olds aren't listening to Radio Disney, why isn't Disney selling off all those dinky AMs across the U.S. to the highest bidder? Since everybody's hurting, I would think selling off those toaster ovens would be the fastest way to get in the black!

The value of the stations is minimal, and the promotional value, even with small, small audiences, is large. Radio Disney was never set up to make money... it is a commercial for the Disney brand.

In focusing on the "money demo," we've seen layoffs, falling revenue, and so on, long before the current recession started.

Well, since there is essentially zero revenue for teens or seniors, how would appealing to them hep?

BTW, and I expect you'll agree with me on this: an FM chip or an AM / FM chip is not the solution. STREAMING is the solution.

Not really. Localized services on WiMax are the solutions. The radio revenue model is local... and the healthy part of radio right now is local. There is no national streaming model, and local stations on the Internet have too much useless, unwanted spillage.

Give it another 5 years and internet radio in the car may well be a standard feature. Already many listeners are getting their favorite Shoutcast stations through their iPhones.

There are 300 million Americans. There are 20 million iPhones worldwide. Not a big segment.

Anyway, the average age of autos in the US was 8 years... it is, with the economy approaching 10 years. So it would be 2025 before half the cars in the US had in-car internet. That's a worse projection than satellite, and we know how that has failed, nearly 10 years later.

Here's what I'm talking about: "NY AC’s STREAM BEATS ITS BROADCAST SIGNAL FOR ADULTS 18-34, WOMEN 18-34" -

That is a PPM fluke based on sample size. It will disappear as fast as it showed up... all it shows is that PPM samples can be influenced by a single household very severely.

All your statements are based on errors of fact or errors of reality.

 

[TheBigA]

AM listeners can't get what they want on FM, so they get it on AM. My point is not which band people PREFER, but rather where they GO.

But when they get what they want on FM, they prefer it to AM. That's the case with WTOP and KOMO and other AM formats that have moved to FM. WTOP became more popular on FM than it had been on AM. Sports talk, a staple of AM, becomes more popular once you move it to FM.

"Teens are listening to less radio, including FM:"

But, contrary to conventional wisdom, they still listen to the radio in large numbers. Coleman says 84% listen to personal devices and 74% listen to radio. Add them up and you discover it equals more than 100%. Which means that they do both.

Add the phone to the list of devices teens us, and it's also very high. That's why the NAB wants to get radios included in phones. The device of choice for teens and under 30s when they leave the house is not a radio or portable mp3 player, but a phone. If they have the device, they're more likely to use it.

Canadian teens are leaving FM, too:

That's not what the study says. Just like the US, Canadian teens are combining FM use with other things. If a radio is combined with those other things (like a phone or mp3 player) they'll use it. Teens use the radio IF there's a radio where they are, such as a car or home. But they don't take portable radios with them, as they once did, because they prefer phones, and their parents want them to carry a phone. So radio needs to be included on phones.

BTW, and I expect you'll agree with me on this: an FM chip or an AM / FM chip is not the solution. STREAMING is the solution.

Only because the only choice you have on a phone is streaming audio. But if people have radios on their phones, and the reception is good, they'll use the radio.

But it's not one thing vs. another. It's not streaming instead of FM. It's streaming PLUS FM.

Here's what I'm talking about: "NY AC’s STREAM BEATS ITS BROADCAST SIGNAL FOR ADULTS 18-34, WOMEN 18-34" -

That's New York, where you have lots of tall steel buildings that make it difficult for radio waves to penetrate. In addition, they can stream on their desktop computers, which eliminates the need for an outboard radio. Computers don't come with radios. So streaming is really the only choice. Interesting that when people stream, the most popular streams are their conventional FM stations. Not internet-only streams like Live365. That's why local radio stations should not fear the internet in cars. What Kurt's article says to me is that local radio can still win on the internet. BUT it has to be there to win.

It's all it's ever taken, but it's seems like it's more than corporate wants to allow local talent to do. I'm convinced the talent is there; the suits in another state just have to be willing to take the risk.

Which portable mp3 players have DJs? None. So it's possible that one of the reasons people are using mp3 players is to escape local talent, right?

 

[LynnW]

Steve Jobs will not allow radio to be added to the iPhone. He's never allowed radio receivers in iPods and it makes a lot less sense to have it in iPhones.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Steve Jobs will not allow radio to be added to the iPhone. He's never allowed radio receivers in iPods and it makes a lot less sense to have it in iPhones.

Interesting.

Apple has iTunes so they have a vested interest in NOT steering people toward radios. I sense that Microsoft keeps it's eye on the "content business" and would like to own a piece of that industry.

Which gives me this thought: Much of radio today is focused on music. The minute radio begins to break through and finds promotional ways to get more and more people to "get their radio" via the stream via the Internet, via the phone network, then if radio has NOT made local content a big part of their appeal to the audience, the iTunes, Microsoft or other national/international companies jump in and swamp the market. They too can provide 18 or 24 flavors of music if that is the attraction. If local personality and local information are key to the radio success via streaming (to the phone or without the phone) then the behemoth oligopolies will not find clear sailing to scoop up your audience.

 

[TheBigA]

If local personality and local information are key to the radio success via streaming (to the phone or without the phone) then the behemoth oligopolies will not find clear sailing to scoop up your audience.

That's a mighty big "if," don't you think?