From below: AM radio vs. FM radio

[cingram]

I've been following the thread below with some interest and while I have promised myself not to become entangled in pointless arguments here (like the previous Radio-Info board) the following opinion may be of interest.

Speaking as somebody who works for two AM stations, one of which is daytime only, there is no question that AM is a tougher sell. It's like a mall with one or two stores open (in this case, KDKA and WJAS). Most radio listeners don't turn on the AM band in a given week, and the younger you look the higher the percentage gets. The media buyers are all 30 years old and don't listen/don't know/don't care when it comes to AM radio.

You find yourself judging by other than the usual criteria. Do you get results? Is it making money? Does it sound good? Is everybody happy, including your clients? Our morning jock on 770 had 63 requests this morning. He has a small, but obviously loyal, following. (I worked at 3WS and don't remember ever getting that many calls in one show.)

By the way, the health shows on 620 are in the majority live and local, although somehow I don't think they meet the criteria of anyone posting on this board.

Content is king but delivery system matters. 50 Cent would not sell a lot of music if it were on 78 RPM records. Put WURP on the FM band and it would get ratings. Put WPGB on the AM band and they would lose listeners. Probably half of them.

With AM radio you have to work twice as hard just to get anyone to notice that you're even in the game. On the other hand, you can get away with things on AM radio that would never happen on the tightly-formatted FM stations.

It's an incredible challenge. I like it.

Your turn.

C.

 

[Oldiesgal]

> I've been following the thread below with some interest and
> while I have promised myself not to become entangled in
> pointless arguments here (like the previous Radio-Info
> board) the following opinion may be of interest.
>
> Speaking as somebody who works for two AM stations, one of
> which is daytime only, there is no question that AM is a
> tougher sell. It's like a mall with one or two stores open
> (in this case, KDKA and WJAS). Most radio listeners don't
> turn on the AM band in a given week, and the younger you
> look the higher the percentage gets. The media buyers are
> all 30 years old and don't listen/don't know/don't care when
> it comes to AM radio.
>
> You find yourself judging by other than the usual criteria.
> Do you get results? Is it making money? Does it sound
> good? Is everybody happy, including your clients? Our
> morning jock on 770 had 63 requests this morning. He has a
> small, but obviously loyal, following. (I worked at 3WS and
> don't remember ever getting that many calls in one show.)
>
> By the way, the health shows on 620 are in the majority live
> and local, although somehow I don't think they meet the
> criteria of anyone posting on this board.
>
> Content is king but delivery system matters. 50 Cent would
> not sell a lot of music if it were on 78 RPM records. Put
> WURP on the FM band and it would get ratings. Put WPGB on
> the AM band and they would lose listeners. Probably half of
> them.
>
> With AM radio you have to work twice as hard just to get
> anyone to notice that you're even in the game. On the other
> hand, you can get away with things on AM radio that would
> never happen on the tightly-formatted FM stations.
>
> It's an incredible challenge. I like it.
>
> Your turn.

Doug Hoerth has the most creative show I've heard in a long time. His impression of B. Mitchell Reid is wild. I wish it would go into syndication. When he bellowed that WJAS goes up and down the Eastern Seaboard, I flipped. He even plays old WIBG jingles. I love it. Wish he was here in Tampa.
>
> C.
>

 

[collegeDJ86]

Related Question on sound quality...

If AM is a tougher sell than FM because of sound quality, then why didn't AM Stereo catch on? Wasn't it supposed to match at least FM mono sound quality?

 

[Eli Polonsky]

Re: Related Question on sound quality...

> If AM is a tougher sell than FM because of sound quality,
> then why didn't AM Stereo catch on? Wasn't it supposed to
> match at least FM mono sound quality?

I'm in Boston, where there are still two AM Stereo stations in the area (there was almost a dozen here about ten to fifteen years ago).

If you haven't heard analog AM Stereo on a wideband AM Stereo receiver (which were only available in the 1980's and early 90's), you'd be very surprised. If you're getting a clean signal, it sounds almost as good as FM Stereo, with much better high-end frequency response than normally heard on conventional mono AM.

There were a few reasons why it didn't "catch on". First of all, there were originally two completely different methods of modulating AM Stereo, produced by two different competing companies. The methods were not compatible, and required two different types of receivers to demodulate them as AM Stereo.

AM Stereo began in the early 1980's, with various stations broadcasting in either one of the two incompatible methods. Though a limited amount of AM Stereo receivers were on the market, manufacturers were reluctant to produce many of them until it became clear which method was going to be ruled as the standard. (Sony briefly offered radios with a switch to flip between both methods, but was reportedly slapped with some sort of lawsuit for it).

Throughout the 1980's, the FCC dragged their heels coming to a decision on which AM Stereo method would become the standard. Some speculated that the FCC may have been receiving kickbacks from the competing AM Stereo manufacturers the entire time. Others alleged that certain powerful broadcasting companies with popular FM music stations influenced the FCC to delay their AM Stereo decision in order to discourage competition for FM music formats on the AM dial.

By the mid-80's, the Motorola C-Quam AM Stereo method was becoming more popular and there were some receivers for that mode on the market, but availability was still limited, and in some cases manufacturers charged up to $100 more for the same receiver with AM Stereo than without, which further discouraged consumers from purchasing them (the AM Stereo chip probably cost the manufacturers about two bucks).

By the end of the 80's, due to limited manufacture of AM Stereo receivers, most people still could not hear AM Stereo stations that were playing music in stereo, which resulted in ratings that were far less than what these stations had hoped for.

Due to that situation, it was not economically feasible for many of these AM stations to continue playing music and keep holding out for the hope that the FCC would finally make a decision and that more AM Stereo receivers would be marketed. Many of them finally abandoned music and went talk, sports, etc... for which there was no need for stereo.

In the early 1990's, the FCC finally quietly decided that the prevalent Motorola C-Quam AM Stereo system would become the industry standard, but by then many AM Stereo stations and most audio manufacturers had already given up on the idea. Barely anyone cared anymore. By the late 1990's, most AM Stereo stations had reverted back to mono.

The final nail in the analog AM Stereo coffin is IBOC HD Digital broadcasting on AM. Unlike FM, there is not enough bandwidth in an AM signal to support both analog stereo and IBOC HD Digital, so any remaining AM Stereo stations that intend to go with IBOC have had to unload their analog AM Stereo.

I have analog AM Stereo home, car and portable (Walkman) receivers that I've gotten on eBay, as they are no longer available on the market. The two remaining AM Stereo stations in the Boston area sound great on them. It's a shame what happened to that broadcasting format.

 

[trefdawg]

> Your turn.
>
> C.

Ahh you struck a nerve! When I look back on my 30 years in the business and the stations I worked for (AM-FM and TV) I'd have to say if I walk back and say "What am I most proud of?" of cousre I'd say the AM daytimers.

From '77-'82 I wore about every hat at the old 950 WLIT in Steubenville. As I recall we had a close knite staff of 7 full timers (on air, sales, office and a few weekend jocks.) We all knew we didn't have the ratings but we built relationsships with the listeners we had and the advertisers who continued to buy time.Our staff had to scratch and claw to get every $ and listener! We had a good sound(several formats tried, but all were well executed) and the sales staff was dedicated to each and every client. The station did make money, not what WEIR and WSTV/WRKY were billing, but we were making a profit.

In the late 80's I ran another daytimer in Southern Illinois, same situation, AM daytimer with a huge daytime signal. (2,500 watts on 1060 with 2.5 watts post sunset!Yes we ran football and basketball on 2.5 watts) Again the same situation, put together a small staff of hungry people who don't reflect on being the low man on the totum poll. You guessed it, in about 4 months upon my arrival we doubled the billing and gained respect from audience and advertisers.

The other stations I have been involved with FM's and TV are slam dunks... the audience is there and as long as you do your job audience and revenue will follow, don't get me wrong, I love what I'm doing and I strive to be on my game at all times, staying focused and building relationsships...but the "Yeah we actually did that?" never seams to rise to the surface.

It's to bad more listeners don't take some time to preview AM!(static shmatic) Your oldies music hours blow 3WS out of the water, Doug Heurth, Lynn Cullen, Mark Madden,George Kellas and Howard Monroe in our market and others stimulate lively discussion,( you may not agree with what they say, but it's a LOCAL forum) WJAS and WBBD in my neck of the woods give us an oppurtunity to hear music that our parents grew up on.

Just some thoughts....now off to put up the Christmas tree!

 

[Radio_Realist]

I agree with everything you've said in principle, except for the numbers.

Convincing listeners to tune in to an AM station is tougher, but not to the same degree you indicate. You do have to work harder, but I'd say it's more like 25% harder, not twice as hard. But you do have to work smarter to sell an AM station.

The research that I've seen indicates that much of what everyone assumes about radio sampling is based on outdated impressions of turning the radio's rotary station knob to find something to listen to. Since most people listen to radio in their cars, and car radios are all digital and push button equipped, most listeners now simply use their pre-set station buttons.

This was determined through research testing and surveys, similar to the testing and surveys used to research songs for playlists or to compile Arbitron ratings. I'm not spouting my opinions, I'm reporting what I learned from reading the reports of this research. It's my opinion that the research was valid, just as it's the opinion of those who believe that the research that proves listeners want tight playlists is also accurate. I include this disclaimier only to pre-empt arguments that I'm only expressing opinions I'm not entitled to hold since I work in media, but not directly in radio.

I don't see AM as being as obsolete as a 78 RPM record, though for a while there that was a good analogy. Once one accomplishes the challenge of getting listners to dedicate a station button for your AM station on their car radio, which is an uphill struggle, then they should tune in your station almost as easily as they hit the button for a preferred FM station. That's because most car radios now have two separate FM bands. Hit the band button once, and your five buttons are good for five FM stations, hit it again, and you get five more FM stations, and hit it a third time, and you get five AM stations. That technology change has restored AM to near parity in terms of ease of tuning.

Anyway, though the task of getting listeners to dedicate a station button to an AM station and to use that button, is more difficult, it's not impossible. It does take a good advertising campaign in other media to educate and motivate the listener to tune in. But, that advertising does work if done well, and it also helps the sales department convince commerical buyers to put the station in their mix. Best of all, once you run the campaign and get the listeners hooked with a dedicated button for your station, your station is as easy for them to tune in as any other station on the dial, FM or AM.

The funny thing is, even though some of this research has been available for a while now, I have yet to see any radio station run a "set a button for ____" campaign. It strikes me that something like a direct mail campaign to a targeted list that includes a little sticker to put on your car radio button would be very effective. I do get direct mail ads for radio stations, but none have tried using the sticker trick.

> I've been following the thread below with some interest and
> while I have promised myself not to become entangled in
> pointless arguments here (like the previous Radio-Info
> board) the following opinion may be of interest.
>
> Speaking as somebody who works for two AM stations, one of
> which is daytime only, there is no question that AM is a
> tougher sell. It's like a mall with one or two stores open
> (in this case, KDKA and WJAS). Most radio listeners don't
> turn on the AM band in a given week, and the younger you
> look the higher the percentage gets. The media buyers are
> all 30 years old and don't listen/don't know/don't care when
> it comes to AM radio.
>
> You find yourself judging by other than the usual criteria.
> Do you get results? Is it making money? Does it sound
> good? Is everybody happy, including your clients? Our
> morning jock on 770 had 63 requests this morning. He has a
> small, but obviously loyal, following. (I worked at 3WS and
> don't remember ever getting that many calls in one show.)
>
> By the way, the health shows on 620 are in the majority live
> and local, although somehow I don't think they meet the
> criteria of anyone posting on this board.
>
> Content is king but delivery system matters. 50 Cent would
> not sell a lot of music if it were on 78 RPM records. Put
> WURP on the FM band and it would get ratings. Put WPGB on
> the AM band and they would lose listeners. Probably half of
> them.

Here's where I have to disagree. Put WURP on the FM band, and it would still be carrying the second-choice syndicated programming that WPGB passed on. Its ratings would improve, but not all that dramatically, unless they also advertised heavily. Among listeners who could have picked up WURP on their AM radios if they wanted to, they wouldn't gain more than a handful by moving to FM. Any gains they made would be from people who could now receive their signal. And yes, WPGB would lose listeners on AM, but as long as the move was well advertised and marketed, the loss of listeners (aside from those who could no longer tune it in) would be more like 10%.

The problem with this discussion is there the whole apples and oranges thing going on. Of course any transmission media that puts a strong signal on more antennas over a wider territory will get more recievers. But the issue of whether listeners who are in a position to recieve two different stations equally well, one AM and the other FM, will automatically choose the FM for non-music programming is something else again.

> With AM radio you have to work twice as hard just to get
> anyone to notice that you're even in the game. On the other
> hand, you can get away with things on AM radio that would
> never happen on the tightly-formatted FM stations.
>
> It's an incredible challenge. I like it.
>
> Your turn.
>
> C.
>

 

[Inventor989]

> I've been following the thread below with some interest and
> while I have promised myself not to become entangled in
> pointless arguments here (like the previous Radio-Info
> board) the following opinion may be of interest.
>
> Speaking as somebody who works for two AM stations, one of
> which is daytime only, there is no question that AM is a
> tougher sell. It's like a mall with one or two stores open
> (in this case, KDKA and WJAS). Most radio listeners don't
> turn on the AM band in a given week, and the younger you
> look the higher the percentage gets. The media buyers are
> all 30 years old and don't listen/don't know/don't care when
> it comes to AM radio.
>
> You find yourself judging by other than the usual criteria.
> Do you get results? Is it making money? Does it sound
> good? Is everybody happy, including your clients? Our
> morning jock on 770 had 63 requests this morning. He has a
> small, but obviously loyal, following. (I worked at 3WS and
> don't remember ever getting that many calls in one show.)
>
> By the way, the health shows on 620 are in the majority live
> and local, although somehow I don't think they meet the
> criteria of anyone posting on this board.
>
> Content is king but delivery system matters. 50 Cent would
> not sell a lot of music if it were on 78 RPM records. Put
> WURP on the FM band and it would get ratings. Put WPGB on
> the AM band and they would lose listeners. Probably half of
> them.
>
> With AM radio you have to work twice as hard just to get
> anyone to notice that you're even in the game. On the other
> hand, you can get away with things on AM radio that would
> never happen on the tightly-formatted FM stations.
>
> It's an incredible challenge. I like it.
>
> Your turn.
>
> C.

Ok, here goes: as someone who is shopping around for his first ownership stake, I can tell you that, for the relatively tiny amount of cash that we have at our disposal, I would, without a doubt, get a more effective platform on AM than I would on FM. The effects of tropospheric bending, sporadic E and other atmospheric anomalies can take out a class A FM as near as three miles from its tower in drive times for months at a time. At least on AM, interference is predictable and can be compensated for...and when solar anomalies do take place, they tend to reduce, rather than increase, interference.

AM can do well. Check out WHLM-AM in Bloomsburg...from dead air to $25k a month in billing in three years.

 

[RadioEngnr]

Re: Related Question on sound quality...

I was working for a 50kW AM back then and we implemented the C-Quam (Motorola)system it took us a week to get it working and it took us 1 minute to turn it off, I disassembled the C-Quam system and sold it to a radio station in Mexico, and I gave him free shipping. AM stereo worked great for omni-directionals and for directional’s where the receiver was less than 10 miles from the tower, but beyond that we called it "2 Channels of Mud" you think multi-path is bad on the AM. C-Quam was great for stationary portable radios.

the problems with HD-AM

AM stations are usually considered to have 5 kHz of audio bandwidth. With double sidebands that are standard for most radio broadcasts, this results in a channel 10 kHz wide (in the Americas, at least). However, the AM version of HD Radio adds 10 kHz to each side of the center frequency, meaning that the signal extends out from the center frequency by 15 kHz. Again, with double sidebands, this results in an entire signal that is 30 kHz wide. This extra information is sent at fairly low power, but this is still a reason why iBiquity's technology has only been tested on AM band stations that have no adjacent channels. For this reason, some consider HD Radio on AM to be an in-band adjacent-channel (IBAC) system. Still, power level of the outer signals is quite low compared to the main signal, and the COFDM subcarriers fit within a standard AM spectral mask.

Most analog AM radios have electronic filters to remove anything more than 5 kHz away from the center frequency, but some "wideband" receivers don't filter this, making the encoded signal audible. Even on radios that do have such a filter, it is possible to hear the digital "hashes" of the sidebands by tuning up or down from the desired frequency by 10 kHz. Use of the system for AM stations has been highly controversial because of possible [[interference]] problems. This is nothing new for the AM band, though, as AM stereo has produced similar controversies. Because of the limited bandwidth on AM stations, iBiquity's standard is incompatible with C-QUAM AM stereo broadcasts. To reduce nighttime skywave interference problems with other stations, HD Radio can only be used during daytime broadcast periods on AM at present.