KGIL 1260 Going HD

[Carmine5]

And, yet, in the top five markets the stations that are at the very bottom of the ratings heap are FMs. Wow, being on the FM band is sure helping them.

BTW, kudos to Mr. Savage. I think most of us here have had enough of the bullying.

C5

 

[davideduardo]

And, yet, in the top five markets the stations that are at the very bottom of the ratings heap are FMs. Wow, being on the FM band is sure helping them.

Where did you get this information? It's wrong and distorted.

First, the stations at the bottom of the ratings don't even show in the lists. In some markets, as many as a third of stations don't even show. Most are AM daytimers, suburban low power AMs, non-commercial FMs with low power, and suburban Class A FMs.

I looked at the last PPM book for the top 5 markets, NY, LA, Chicago, San Francisco and Dallas. Here is what I found, looking at all stations home to the metro being measured.

NY There are 75 stations home to the market. 60 make the ratings book. Of those from 51 to 61, 9 are FMs from far suburban locations, all of which are either non-commercial or Class As. Of the top 25, 6 are AM.

Chicago. 5 of the top 25 are AMs. 137 stations are licensed in the metro, and the bottom 75 that don't show up are mostly AMs and some far suburban class A FMs.

San Francisco. 4 of the top 25 are AMs. 69 stations are licensed to the metro. The bottom 10 with ratings are half AM and half FM.

LA 54 of 91 stations have ratings, the rest don't. The bottom 3 with ratings are licensed to the Antelope Valley, which is in LA County, but isolated from the metro. 2 are FM, 1 is AM. The next is an FM with limited signal in Orange County, and the next 5 consist of 4 AMs and a non-commercial listener supported FM. Of the 37 stations that don't show, two thirds are AMs and the rest are either ethnic or religious or low power FMs like the one at Mt. St Antonio Community College District with 4 watts. On the other hand, of the top 25 stations, only 3 are AMs.

Dallas. 85 total stations, 51 make the book. The bottom 10 are 6 AM, 4 FM. The no-shows are 75% AM. Of the top 30, 3 are AM. In 25-54, only 2 are in the top 25, one at 10th and the other at 15th.

The bottom stations all ave 0.0 to 0.1 share, and there are in each market a dozen or more stations at that level... meaning that knowing who is lowest is impossible. In most cases, alphabetical order is the determination factor.

The real issue is that very, very few AMs are in the top 25 stations in any market... and when you rank on sales demographics, there are even less in the top 35... typically 2 or 3.

BTW, kudos to Mr. Savage. I think most of us here have had enough of the bullying.

Truth is hardly bullying. Ask Mr. Savage how well his station ranks... (it's tied for 26th 12+ and has less than a 20th the share of the highest rated AM in the market). And in his market, AM does fairly well, compared to most... 16% of all listening 12+ is to AM (it's less than 9% for the under-55 group, though)

 

[R.F. Burns]

Something like Sirius XM uses to adjust the bandwidth to the need would be great, of course, that would require digital radio (NOT I-BLOCK, though)

No, not HD but then again, There's no monthly bill for listening to HD radio.

That begs the question: who would pay for something that has the SOS on it and can't be received reliably? I pay for Sirius-XM because of two things: its has great content and it's extremely reliable. I still listen to both AM and FM radio but certainly not to iBlock, it's an insult to anyone with any intelligence, especially AM iBlock which is more than completely useless, it's horrendous and should be illegal according to the FCC's own rules which they are ignoring.

You think IBOC audio sounds bad yet you pay for Sirius/XM? That says it all. XM audio is horrible. I only use a in home HD radio and reception is very reliable. I get a solid signal from NYC using just the dipole that came with my B.A. and that is the least sensitive of all my HD radios. I ahve 2 Sangean tuners (HDT-1 & HDT 1X) and a Sony tuner as well. Of course I live within the market I am trying to receive.

 

[R.F. Burns]

"Truth is hardly bullying. Ask Mr. Savage how well his station ranks... (it's tied for 26th 12+ and has less than a 20th the share of the highest rated AM in the market). And in his market, AM does fairly well, compared to most... 16% of all listening 12+ is to AM (it's less than 9% for the under-55 group, though)"


To be fair to Mr. Savage, agencies don't buy 12+ and his station being in Avon, I'm sure he doesn't rely on agency buys to exist. That's one of the overlooked issues here. You have larger market radio stations seeing their audiences disappear and doing what it can in an attempt to secure the younger listeners agencies want and you ahve small market stations which aren't governed by agency purchases and see no reason to change anything. That and the fact that many of these smaller local stations both don't have the money to install the new digital service and the fact that if you are running 50 KW and lose a small portion of your coverage by adding HD it's no big deal but if you are running 1 KW or less and are co-channel to an HD station you will lose most of your coverage and that is intolerable to them. It's a major problem the broadcast industry must work to resolve. My suggestion would be to move most of these lower powered AM facilities to FM where possible. That way they could serve their communities properly and cut down on the high level of interference now heard on the AM BCB.

 

[tomservo]

You think IBOC audio sounds bad yet you pay for Sirius/XM? That says it all. XM audio is horrible. I only use a in home HD radio and reception is very reliable. I get a solid signal from NYC using just the dipole that came with my B.A. and that is the least sensitive of all my HD radios. I ahve 2 Sangean tuners (HDT-1 & HDT 1X) and a Sony tuner as well. Of course I live within the market I am trying to receive.

You get what you pay for.

Don't get me wrong, XM and Sirius both are pumping out the worst sound quality they've ever had, but the truth of the matter is SQ-prickly enthusiasts like you and I are in the minority. The vast majority of people enjoy satellite service because of the content.

At least on AM, going HD doesn't add content, and as the SXM model shows, people will listen to low-fi audio if they get the content they want. So that's a 1-2 dismissal of AM-HD.

And that's not even taking into consideration the rural people like me who are probably SXM's bread and butter. The ONLY reason I still pay for that awful audio? There's no classic rock or alternative rock station that covers my town. Or any of the nearby towns, for that matter. And, I like O&A, believe it or not. I can either pay to listen to what I want or listen to satellite oldies and satellite country or satellite gospel or satellite r&b for free and with constant commercial interruption.

Oh, and none of those are in HD. The MPB (public radio) network is mostly HD but I seriously doubt I could receive it here. Ever since their "antenna upgrades" the analog signal is so weak it's unlistenable in the house. So I doubt I'd get any HD even with a decent antenna.

 

[davideduardo]

To be fair to Mr. Savage, agencies don't buy 12+ and his station being in Avon, I'm sure he doesn't rely on agency buys to exist.

That's a valid point... however, when we look at the demos most advertisers like to use, we find the typical news / talk station to have much more than half its audience over 55. For example, KFI in LA has 22% in 75+.

On the other hand, the center of Avon is about 18 to 20 miles from the center of Rochester, and WYSL spent a good deal of money to upgrade to 20 kw days, certainly more than is needed to cover Avon and the norhtern Livingston County area around it.

That's one of the overlooked issues here. You have larger market radio stations seeing their audiences disappear and doing what it can in an attempt to secure the younger listeners agencies want and you ahve small market stations which aren't governed by agency purchases and see no reason to change anything.

WYSL does not look like a typical small market station, since it is well inside the Rochester metro and, daytime at least, covers two of the 6 metro counties very well, and good pieces of the remaining 4 counties also.

My suggestion would be to move most of these lower powered AM facilities to FM where possible. That way they could serve their communities properly and cut down on the high level of interference now heard on the AM BCB.

Unfortunately, the FM band is so congested in the US I can't see that happen. Canada has moved more than two-thirds of its AMs to FM, and a number of countries ranging from Austria to South Africa to Mexico have or are moving as many if not all AMs they can to the FM band.

 

[Savage]

The inconsistent and implausible arguments of the few remaining HD proponents are revealing.

First, they endlessly chant the "AM is dead" mantra about the band, yet NEVER can point to a single example of how HD Radio is improving/has improved AM's lot. And the reason is obvious: because HD isn't helping. If anything, it's hurting AM since the noise floor is vastly increased. And, in a classic example of the self-defeating argument, HD's disastrous adjacent-channel interference actually blocks its own chances of widespread acceptance, since the increased skywave noise prevents reliable nighttime digital decode unless you're listening to a 50kw signal within 5 or 10 miles of the transmitter.

Most curious among the pro-HD arguments is the assertion that simulcasts of AMs on HD-2 or HD-3 subs is somehow a harbinger of success for HD-AM. That's ridiculous. If HD-AM was actually fixing the band's problems the simulcasts would be redundant and unnecessary. If anything, the sub-simulcasts make the point that HD-AM should be discarded, and sooner rather than later.

In any case - whether HD is distributed directly on AM channels or through HD-FM simulcasts, it's irrelevant since more people take their pet ocelots to work daily than regularly listen to HD Radio. So by any avenue it's not likely HD in any form is about to help AM appreciably.

 

[Savage]

RF Burns: while we may not agree much about HD Radio, I personally find you to be a civilized and reasonable poster here. I enjoy our jousts, which may be spirited but never nasty. Therefore this disclaimer: the following does NOT apply to you.

Q: "How do I know I'm winning an argument about HD Radio?"

A: "When the pro-HD person attacks my radio station."

Classic case of the ad hominem retort. Can't defend HD Radio as having real value. So attack the critic.
(So obvious. So juvenile. So tiresome.)

 

[elchupacabras]

RF Burns: while we may not agree much about HD Radio, I personally find you to be a civilized and reasonable poster here. I enjoy our jousts, which may be spirited but never nasty. Therefore this disclaimer: the following does NOT apply to you.

Q: "How do I know I'm winning an argument about HD Radio?"

A: "When the pro-HD person attacks my radio station."

Classic case of the ad hominem retort. Can't defend HD Radio as having real value. So attack the critic.
(So obvious. So juvenile. So tiresome.)

The head of Digital Equipment also said in 1977 that he could not ever imagine the need for a personal computer. Just because something might take a few years, doesn't make it bad.

 

[Savage]

And if nobody at IBM, Radio Shack or Apple ever came up with a PC that had any practical use, or which performed reasonably up to expectations or fulfilled the representations made by its sellers....

....the Digital Equipment guy would have been proven correct.

 

[davideduardo]

The inconsistent and implausible arguments of the few remaining HD proponents are revealing.

I'm not an AM HD proponent. I'm also not an AM proponent. I have not mentioned HD except as a sidebar in this entire thread. Why do you bring it up, suddenly? The issue is where AM is headed, with or without HD.

First, they endlessly chant the "AM is dead" mantra about the band, yet NEVER can point to a single example of how HD Radio is improving/has improved AM's lot.

HD is not improving AM. Nothing can do that.

Even if HD AM had a chance, the economy, the problems with the auto companies, etc., have made it impossible on AM and improbable on FM.

And the reason is obvious: because HD isn't helping.

Yes, an I.V. in a cadaver won´t help, either.

Most curious among the pro-HD arguments is the assertion that simulcasts of AMs on HD-2 or HD-3 subs is somehow a harbinger of success for HD-AM.

I've never heard it said that way. Some FMs, for lack of anything else, put an AM on an HD2 FM channel when the AM has deficient night coverage (a statement applying to about 95% of all US AMs). It' can't hurt, but right now it likely does not help, either.

That's ridiculous. If HD-AM was actually fixing the band's problems the simulcasts would be redundant and unnecessary. If anything, the sub-simulcasts make the point that HD-AM should be discarded, and sooner rather than later.

So by any avenue it's not likely HD in any form is about to help AM appreciably.

Look, market by market, at 5 year intervals, at the percentage of AQH persons under 55 using AM. In some markets, it is now well below 10%... and dropping constantly as the audience for AM ages.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Believe it or not Bob you and I have a mutual friend (at least one) and while we have never met I do believe we have talked once (not under the best of circumstances) over the phone. While we may have disagreements on certain things, I do respect you and realize that the needs of your busines are different than the needs of stations in major markets. If other posters knew your credentials as someone who loves radio and has a background far beyond that of a money man (someone who would be just as happy owning a True Value hardware store franchise as a radio station) which most of today's station owners are. As we are all aware, radio is basically a dead medium following afternoon drive. The number of people listening to radio (especially AM stations) at night is minimal, compared with AM & PM drive. Most people are either watching TV or on their computers at night. I'm not saying that HD will save radio, but it won't kill it either. It hasn't been around long enough to have had much of an impact due in part to the way the FCC refused to allocate spectrum for the new technology. Let's look at FM stereo which had been around from the 1950's and didn't catch on until the 1970's and that was in an era where radio had much less competition than it now does. It took many years for FM stereo to become commonplace. If radio as we know it is around in 20 years and if by that time we are still broadcating both analog and digital hybrid broadcasts on the same channel then even I will say it's time to give up and try something new.

 

[Savage]

No, David, the "reason I bring up HD suddenly" is.....check the SUBJECT of this board, which is "HD Radio" and the TOPIC of this thread, which is "KGIL 1260 going HD." See....notwithstanding your declaration, the subject under discussion is NOT "where AM is headed." In any case that's a massive generalization. "Where AM is headed" really depends on which stations you're talking about.

The fact that you pose this question proves the obvious: you come here to pontificate, not to have a reasonable exchange of ideas.

Maybe you should search out a message board for "Disaffected Broadcasters Who Like To Argue For The Sake Of Arguing" and select or start a thread you could title, "100 Reasons Why I Hate AM Radio And You're Wrong If You Disagree."

If HD's chances of helping radio are "impossible on AM and improbable on FM," I guess that leaves you and me in a curious sort of agreement. Guess the most productive thing to do would be to order that all HD broadcasting cease at once, right? It would save a lot of time and money and give a lot of people peace of mind.

 

[davideduardo]

No, David, the "reason I bring up HD suddenly" is.....check the SUBJECT of this board, which is "HD Radio" and the TOPIC of this thread, which is "KGIL 1260 going HD."

Yet the subject of my posts was, as the old Spanish proverb goes, "even if you dress a monkey in silk, it is still a monkey." HD on AM does not change the basic fact that AM is in decline. If you look at the "maturation curve" described in a lot of business books, you find AM "in decline" and the fairly standard metrics for decline are all met, particularly the one about "no new consumers comeing in to replace those that mature out of the market."

The fact that you pose this question proves the obvious: you come here to pontificate, not to have a reasonable exchange of ideas.

I come to give my point of view. So far, I have seen no one dispute the basic facts that AM share of listening is and has been declining and the remaining AM listeners are more and more concentrated in over-55 and over-65 demos, which have less sales appeal.

If HD's chances of helping radio are "impossible on AM and improbable on FM," I guess that leaves you and me in a curious sort of agreement.

You see? Maybe it's only coincidence, like the "even a broken watch is right twice a day." Or maybe we are not so far apart, but maybe one of us sees things like Andrew Weyth and the other like Andy Warhol.

Guess the most productive thing to do would be to order that all HD broadcasting cease at once, right? It would save a lot of time and money and give a lot of people peace of mind.

In this economy, that is not such a bad idea. I wonder about the investment of time in the system vs. allt he other challenges that radio has today.