More Consolidation is Not the Answer to Poor Business Decisions

[davideduardo]

Nobody seems to get this: Complaint: Radio is so bad today without local programming, local air talent and just playing music, it is driving people to online listening versus radio. My Question: If you are complaining radio is just playing music and that's pretty much it. Because radio is doing that, it sends people to online stations. Please name the online stations that are local with local talent that you are listening to online. Then the complainer says they listen online because it is just music. My point is if on air radio offers just music, why is it people abandon radio for the same thing online? Aren't online stations driving people away from streaming radio for doing the same thing complainers say is what is driving people away from on air radio?

There is not much that local talent can do in most markets. The information they use is generally old compared to web sources and major shows like Seacreast. The reason why we don't have local shows after the evening news is that the national ones... back to the era of Steve Allen and Johnny Carson... have the guests and content people most want.

This has nothing to do with distance or music options or even commercials but that because radio is not local and do something along with music it is dying. Those listeners are getting that local and information online, as they imply, but they admit it is just music. So my point is if on air radio mimics online radio with constant music why is on air bad and online good?

For people under 50 or so, the term "local" is irrelevant. Everybody and everything is as close as their smartphone.

 

[davideduardo]

Sure it does. You can only receive it where there is cell service. There are big parts of this country with no cell phone service.

Where next to nobody lives.

Only because the broadcast system isn't owned by one company, so you have multiple frequencies playing the same music. If there was just one company, as there is with Sirius, you'd have no format duplication, and that would open those frequencies for other formats.

But in every market there are only a smaller number of full market, full coverage stations. The rest are either AMs with limited coverage and bad signals or suburban or rimshot FMs that are only fringe competitors. Among the major signals, there is not a great deal of format overlap.

 

[TheBigA]

Nearly all the nations in Europe have commercial national stations.

By the same token, they also have government run stations and networks. We don't. All the nations in Europe pay artists and labels a royalty for their music. We never have. Mainly because they never set up the required payment system to do it, as the songwriters did.

Our broadcasting system, as set up by the Coolidge administration and his secretary of commerce, is based on privately owned stations that operate independently from each other. It's been that way for over 100 years. They might carry a network or syndicated programming. But they are mainly sold locally. The law was written in such a way that stations are licensed to serve their communities. That's not the heritage in other countries.

 

[bobdavcav]

As for online vs. over the air radio, from my personal experience, lots of what I listen to online is over the air somewhere in the country. I'm currently listening to WWAV, 102.1 The Wave, from Fort Walton Beach, FL. Why? because it's what I'm in the mood for today. What makes that station more compelling than my own local variety hits station, 97.1 Charlie FM KYCH? I've heard the Wave go from Frank Sinatra to Ed Sheeran, and Garth Brooks to The Ramones. Charlie isn't going to make either of those transitions. Plus, the station's center is more 90s-2000s pop-rock than typical variety hits, which these days is just a broader classic hits format in many markets.
Re: regulations. I read the Inside Radio article about what regulations should be eliminated, and while relaxing second-adjacent spacing requirements makes some sense, I don't see under the current situation how allowing the fill-in stations as we'll call them will allow many stations to move from AM to FM as some have proposed. Let's look at several markets I'm familiar with for examples why.
Los Angeles, there's lots of non-commercial spacing issues here that I'm not going to get into, so let's just focus on the commercial band in this market.
92.7, I could see EMF canceling two licenses here and moving the remaining license to Mount Wilson as a full class B.
93.5 same situation, currently a simulcast with one station in the suburbs and one in Riverside County.
94.3 same situation, with an additional 105.5 which we'll get to later.
95.1 is unavailable because of stations in Riverside and Ventura.
95.9 cannot move any closer due to already being shortspaced to the station in the Ventura area.
96.7 is currently an Orange County signal, I'm not familiar enough with what else is on that frequency to give any speculation on whether that would be able to move north.
97.5 is a big signal in Riverside, unlikely to be able to get anything else in there.
98.3 I think this is a simulcast of a 103.9 in the area, but I want to say there's another 98.3 in the Riverside area which would probably be able to upgrade.
99.1 I think now does have a translator for what was KRDC 1110, but last time I was in the market KGGI was audible in Anaheim.
99.9 KOLA puts a big signal over a good portion of the market.
100.7 might work, but you'd run into co-channel issues with San Diego.
101.5 same situation.
102.3 see 96.7 above.
103.1 see 92.7, 93.5, and 94.3 above.
103.9 I would think that station would want an upgrade.
104.7 there's certainly not room for another station here. Point Broadcasting does operate both stations currently on the frequency, but they aren't actually targeting Los Angeles.
105.5 this is an interesting one. Perhaps the operator of a small AM in this station's coverage area could get it, but I think it might be locked where it is due to 105.5 in the Ventura area.
106.3 see 96.7 above.
107.1 see 92.7, 93.5, 94.3, and 103.1 above.
107.9 is a class B licensed to Orange County, but not sure if the owners would want to move it into Los Angeles if that's even possible.
Moving about a thousand miles to the north to Seattle:
88.1 current rimshot, probably can't move any closer due to Canadian co-channel.
88.9 class D, not likely to change due to Canadian co-channel.
89.1 you could probably put a class A here, but would there be rules in place to give this to an already existing AM station, or could it go to CSN, which already operates two translators on the frequency? There's only one AM I could see in the market that would want that frequency, and I'm not sure if it would be any better than the current 1050.
89.9 you currently have two class A signals on the frequency. It's possible one could buy out the other, but that would still result in at least one canceled license, and possibly two. Also that still wouldn't be a competitive signal with the other Seattle signals due to having to protect a co-channel in Portland.
90.7 cannot move south due to 90.9 in Tacoma. If KSER decided to buy out KGRG for an upgraded 89.9, this license might go, but I can't see anyone getting it, as Everett's other stations are all commercial.
91.7 is already a signal from Gold Mountain that can't move due to a signal in Skadget County.
92.1 CBU-FM-1 puts a good signal over much of the northern half of the market. I suppose a class A could be put down in the Olympia area, with the second-adjacent 91.7 protection gone, but that's all I can see happening.
92.9 no, co-channel in Bellingham that covers a large portion of the market.
93.7 Seattle rimshot that can't move north due to Canadian co-channel.
94.5 the most crowded frequency in the region. There's already a translator for 770 here, but there's no way KTTH would be able to survive with that signal that can't be upgraded.
95.3 I suppose a class A could be put here, but I'm not sure how much of the market it would cover.
96.1 no, see 93.7 above.
96.9 no, see 93.7 and 96.1 above, plus you have to deal with Yakima as well.
97.7 see 93.7 and 96.1 above.
98.5 same situation, but the co-channel is closer.
99.3 see above.
100.3 not only do you have the monster Canadian, but you have a full class C from Portland to protect.
101.1 perhaps a class A, but unlike 95.3 where you have a class A on the Washington coast, you have a class C in Portland to protect.
101.9 could potentially have a class A to the north as the Canadians aren't really much to worry about in the metro, but won't be a competitive signal. Perhaps a good frequency for either KRKO or KKXA.
102.1 maybe? I'm not an engineer so can't comment on whether this or 101.9 would be a better frequency. You have co-channel problems to the southwest and east on this frequency.
102.9 would probably be best to keep it where it's at, given first-adjacent Canadians including 103.1.
103.3 could probably benefit by moving south, but you still have to protect the Portland co-channel.
104.1 no, Bellingham station covers a good portion of the market.
104.9 no, co-channel Canadian. From what I've heard, iHeart tried to get that upgraded but was unsuccessful.
105.7 no, Canadian co-channel and potential move-in under construction.
106.5 no, see 92.9 and 104.1. I suppose both 104.1 and 106.5 could potentially work in the Olympia area, but not much farther north.
107.3 could potentially work somewhere, but you run into a Canadian co-channel and first-adjacent in Portland, plus a Yakima co-channel. That would actually be incredibly tight spacing.
Portland,
88.7 no, Sandy-licensed rimshot.
89.5 no, already home to a rimshot signal. That signal could possibly upgrade, but I doubt it could move much closer to Portland.
90.3 I don't think the station on this frequency could upgrade, because I think there's a co-channel in Salem.
91.1 potentially, but again a non-commercial frequency.
91.9 I'd need to look at what's on the frequency currently. I get something at my location, but I think it might be a translator.
92.7 is already home to a translator. If co-channel spacing were relaxed to the standards used to justify many of these translators, then I could see that sticking around in its current form, but may require it to be owned by someone who owns a current AM. If co-channel rules are not relaxed, you have to worry about co-channels in The Dalles and Newport.
93.5 no co-channel in Newport to worry about here but first-adjacent in Eugene and co-channel translator in Longview that may want to exist. Certainly not going to be competitive with the big class C FMs in the market.
94.3 no, Government Camp rimshot.
95.1 you have co-channels in Winlock and Monmouth to worry about.
95.9 you have co-channels to the east and west to worry about.
96.7 this could potentially work, but you do have a co-channel in Lincoln City to worry about.
97.5 you have a co-channel in Bend and Lincoln County to worry about, but you might be able to get a decent signal there. There's already a translator rebroadcasting an AM on this frequency.
98.3 no, co-channel in Longview is audible in the northern parts of the market, getting fairly deep into the core. It's a DX signal by the time you get to Vancouver, but at only 30 or so miles, not much room for another station.
99.1 co-channel in Eugene to worry about here.
99.9 co-channel in Albany to worry about.
100.7 possibly, but you have to worry about co-channel in Seattle as well as Newport and Bend. The distance to the co-channels makes this potentially workable, but it might be tight.
101.5 no, co-channel in Corvallis.
102.3 translator is already hemmed in by co-channels to the south, east, and northwest.
102.5 potentially, not sure how Seattle co-channel factors in.
102.7 there's a now vacant allotment in Independence that could possibly be relocated. If we're protecting that as is though, I don't think that will work.
102.9 is already a translator and won't be able to upgrade due to the co-channel that rimshots Seattle.
103.7 co-channels in Eugene and Seattle.
104.5 would have worked for about 10 years, but now with the new signal in White Salmon it wouldn't work.
104.7 no, co-channel is Florence that has a big signal.
105.5 no, see 98.3 above. You also have a co-channel to the east to worry about here.
106.3 no, see 99.9 above.
107.1 no, co-channels to the south and north. Again, both 106.3 and 107.1 do already have translators on them, but I can't imagine an owner wanting to loose lots of coverage by shutting down the AM signal.
107.9 no, see 106.3 and 99.9.
I was also going to do a similar analysis for Eugene, Spokane and Bend, but it's already taken me an hour or more to write this out, so I'll leave it at that. Those three markets do have a few more open frequencies that could work, but not nearly enough for all of their respective market's AM stations.

 

[Delete My Account]

The reason why we don't have local shows after the evening news is that the national ones... back to the era of Steve Allen and Johnny Carson... have the guests and content people most want.

For people under 50 or so, the term "local" is irrelevant. Everybody and everything is as close as their smartphone.

I'd argue there's less of a "most people" today. There's a million niches. I know plenty of people who've never listened to a single Taylor Swift song and she's the closest thing to a mega-star there is. Everyone's in their own little camp, be it politically or socially or musically. Mass appeal is less of a thing than it was in previous decades. Most people don't listen to or watch Seacreast.

 

[davideduardo]

The law was written in such a way that stations are licensed to serve their communities. That's not the heritage in other countries.

But the industry has changed. Local revenue has nearly disappeared with online sales and big box stores dominating most markets. National revenue has declined because radio is to difficult for agencies to buy.

So, we can either keep trying to do the same thing over and over that has resulted in about 65% lower radio revenues since 2005 or we can reform the system and create a new model that will work better.

 

[TheBigA]

But the industry has changed.

The law is still the law. If we "reform the system," it still has to follow the law. That's the problem in a regulated business.

 

[davideduardo]

The law is still the law. If we "reform the system," it still has to follow the law. That's the problem in a regulated business.

And there are processes to change laws; that is why we can have a glass of wine with dinner or a beer while we watch a game.

 

[TheBigA]

And there are processes to change laws; that is why we can have a glass of wine with dinner or a beer while we watch a game.

The current congress can't even agree on a budget, much less make changes to complicated broadcast law that they don't understand.

Since you mentioned it, prohibition lasted 10 years, was passed by republicans, and it took the great depression to get them to repeal it.

 

[davideduardo]

The current congress can't even agree on a budget, much less make changes to complicated broadcast law that they don't understand.

But the budget is always a back and forth with the House and Senate versions being "compromised" and eventually passed.

I have a different feeling on highly technical matters, and it is the same reasoning that makes me skeptical of "a jury of your peers" for court cases involving science and technology. Like the average juror who can't possibly evaluate most technical matters, the average congressperson does not have the depth to evaluate such fields.

Unfortunately, today we have a new FCC chairperson who does not really understand broadcasting. I can't tell whether he has any understanding of cellular or other communications that use the RF spectrum, but I am skeptical as he seems agenda driven and not technology aware... to the extreme.

Since you mentioned it, prohibition lasted 10 years, was passed by republicans, and it took the great depression to get them to repeal it.

But it was repealed. Women and Blacks can vote. All kind of things can be done by legislation and referendums.

 

[TheBigA]

But the budget is always a back and forth with the House and Senate versions being "compromised" and eventually passed.

They haven't actually passed a budget in years. Just continuing resolutions.

 

[davideduardo]

They haven't actually passed a budget in years. Just continuing resolutions.

Okay, terminology differences here. The end effect is that a working budget is produced.

 

[boombox4]

Boombox, you are missing my point: People tell me frequently that radio chases the listener off to online listening because we don't have live and local 24/7 and such, complaining we are a computer jukebox in a closet. The typical online only station is not live and local 24/7 and simply a computer jukebox in a closet. My question is what makes listening to a jukebox radio station over the airwaves drive away people from radio to listen to the same thing online.

I'm not missing your point, B-Turner, but I don't think your point is an accurate assessment of why people shirk Radio for online streaming.

Sure, some Boomers say radio is dying because it's no longer "live and local".

But I don't think that's the reason Radio is losing audience. I think the points I made are the reasons that online is increasing while OTA radio is decreasing in popularity.

Where we both may have some agreement is that it's true that Boomers and GenXers are the last generations that grew up with radio (along with some older Millennials), and the radio they grew up with was more" live and local" than it is today in many places. And maybe Radio is pushing some of those older demos away because of the changes that have been made to Radio since the 1990's. But I don't think that the vast majority of listeners choose online because Radio is no longer "live and local". I don't think most listeners care about "live and local", even many in the older demos. Since the rise of the internet, even older demos view media as national, or even international in scope -- much more than they would have pre-internet, or pre-Compuserve / AOL etc.

I think listeners go online because they can hear their own playlist, or if it's not their own playlist, they can hear whatever niche they want to hear -- even curated channels, like the Nu-Metal channel I referred to. Because Radio has to broadcast 'consensus' formats, they lose a few demos who want to hear nothing but Nu-Metal, or nothing but Grunge, or nothing but AAA, or nothing but Americana, or nothing but Smooth Jazz. A lot of listeners prefer niche formats that Radio can't make a living putting on the air.

Then you have the convenience of numerous channels on these streaming services that have a wide range of format flavors, offering more variety than radio can economically provide.

I think that sort of factor has more bearing than whether Radio is "live and local" or not "live and local".

 

[TheBigA]

A lot of listeners prefer niche formats that Radio can't make a living putting on the air.

If there actually were "a lot of listeners," then they could make a living with it. But factually, there aren't. That's why they're niche formats.

 

[ted chittenden]

I'm not missing your point, B-Turner, but I don't think your point is an accurate assessment of why people shirk Radio for online streaming.

Sure, some Boomers say radio is dying because it's no longer "live and local".

But I don't think that's the reason Radio is losing audience. I think the points I made are the reasons that online is increasing while OTA radio is decreasing in popularity.

Where we both may have some agreement is that it's true that Boomers and GenXers are the last generations that grew up with radio (along with some older Millennials), and the radio they grew up with was more" live and local" than it is today in many places. And maybe Radio is pushing some of those older demos away because of the changes that have been made to Radio since the 1990's. But I don't think that the vast majority of listeners choose online because Radio is no longer "live and local". I don't think most listeners care about "live and local", even many in the older demos. Since the rise of the internet, even older demos view media as national, or even international in scope -- much more than they would have pre-internet, or pre-Compuserve / AOL etc.

Rolley James is an 80-something-year-old woman who lives in Globe, Arizona. She owns and operates two radio stations from there: a commercial FM country station and an AM outlet, KJAA, at 1240 kHz that is really her own personal oldies jukebox. I've never heard any commercials on it (it's streamed online as well as the FM) and she certainly doesn't have any live and local personalities on it, just her own automated voice after every two or three songs identifying what the listener is listening to.

She also hosts an Internet only radio station called "The Rolley (or is it eye?) James Show," which is mostly her talking with guests, many from the broadcasting industry. A few years ago, I was listening to one of her shows on that internet-only station and I heard her relate the following story:

She was traveling by car in North Dakota. The weather was getting bad so she tried to find a radio station that might say how bad it was going to be (she thought that a tornado may have been coming). She couldn't find one so she drove on to the hotel as the weather was worsening. When she got to the hotel, she commented to the front desk clerk how she couldn't find out anything about the weather on her car radio when she was coming in. The clerk reached into his pocket, pulled out his cell phone, and explained this was how he kept track of the weather now. Any emergency weather statements were texted to him and an alarm went off on his phone when he received them.

The point of this story is that a lot of younger people believe they don't need radio anymore to get the information that you and I used to depend on it for. And that leaves nothing for radio but to provide a jukebox of sorts (or controversial talk programming) just to try to gain an audience. But, as has been noted by others, more niche-oriented (and sometimes customizeable) jukeboxes are available online that radio cannot hope to do over the air.

Where I think the youngsters have it wrong (and I say this as a 62-year-old totally blind person) is the belief that the Internet and cell phone service will always be there and available when needed. As noted on this and other threads, cell phone and Internet service are not available in some sparsely populated areas; in addition, it may be easier when under attack to stop Internet and cell phone service than to stop an over-the-air broadcaster. Finally, there is the raging battle between broadcasters, webcasters and the recording industry about the rates the former should pay the latter. It is possible that the rates could go so high as to make the possibility of niche formats on the Internet nonexistent.

 

[gr8oldies]

I'll bet Carr will get rid of the EEOC requirements--it dovetails nicely (sic) with this administration's complete opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

No doubt. No EEOC and white men will be prioritized for all hiring and promotion.

 

[kevtronics]

She also hosts an Internet only radio station called "The Rolley (or is it eye?) James Show," which is mostly her talking with guests, many from the broadcasting industry.

The Rollye James Show isn't just online. It's also on WGN in Chicago:

https://wgnradio.com/rollye-james/

 

[gr8oldies]

I'm not missing your point, B-Turner, but I don't think your point is an accurate assessment of why people shirk Radio for online streaming.

Sure, some Boomers say radio is dying because it's no longer "live and local".

But I don't think that's the reason Radio is losing audience. I think the points I made are the reasons that online is increasing while OTA radio is decreasing in popularity.

Where we both may have some agreement is that it's true that Boomers and GenXers are the last generations that grew up with radio (along with some older Millennials), and the radio they grew up with was more" live and local" than it is today in many places. And maybe Radio is pushing some of those older demos away because of the changes that have been made to Radio since the 1990's. But I don't think that the vast majority of listeners choose online because Radio is no longer "live and local". I don't think most listeners care about "live and local", even many in the older demos. Since the rise of the internet, even older demos view media as national, or even international in scope -- much more than they would have pre-internet, or pre-Compuserve / AOL etc.

I think listeners go online because they can hear their own playlist, or if it's not their own playlist, they can hear whatever niche they want to hear -- even curated channels, like the Nu-Metal channel I referred to. Because Radio has to broadcast 'consensus' formats, they lose a few demos who want to hear nothing but Nu-Metal, or nothing but Grunge, or nothing but AAA, or nothing but Americana, or nothing but Smooth Jazz. A lot of listeners prefer niche formats that Radio can't make a living putting on the air.

Then you have the convenience of numerous channels on these streaming services that have a wide range of format flavors, offering more variety than radio can economically provide.

I think that sort of factor has more bearing than whether Radio is "live and local" or not "live and local".

Growing up, the stations I most listened to were live and local, but not local to me. That was typical because the station 175 miles away was playing the music and format we wanted.

 

[Kent]

Nobody seems to get this: Complaint: Radio is so bad today without local programming, local air talent and just playing music, it is driving people to online listening versus radio. My Question: If you are complaining radio is just playing music and that's pretty much it. Because radio is doing that, it sends people to online stations. Please name the online stations that are local with local talent that you are listening to online. Then the complainer says they listen online because it is just music. My point is if on air radio offers just music, why is it people abandon radio for the same thing online? Aren't online stations driving people away from streaming radio for doing the same thing complainers say is what is driving people away from on air radio?

This has nothing to do with distance or music options or even commercials but that because radio is not local and do something along with music it is dying. Those listeners are getting that local and information online, as they imply, but they admit it is just music. So my point is if on air radio mimics online radio with constant music why is on air bad and online good?

Maybe some of the complainers don't see the contradiction, but I don't think that's most of us here. Some people might want what they want and not care about anything else, but most of us understand it's a business and that people started leaving radio when it had more local content than it has today. We may have some disagreements as to the best way forward, but most of us see the situation and the contradiction crystal clear. Most of us also understand that most owners want what we want. They can't change the direction the train is traveling any more easily than we can.

The answer to your question of why on-air is bad and online is good is much easier to answer. The answer is that the listener can have more of what (s)he wants online. It's more music, more control, and fewer commercials. The average listener, especially the younger listener, wants a push medium. Radio is a pull medium. Today, you can get the former without much work and without a bulky device. What made Apple the leading player in an industry it wasn't even in 10 years earlier was iTunes. No matter how much people groused about it, iTunes enabled everybody to get music on an iPod without any real effort or technical knowledge. It has continued advancing that approach by allowing us to add music to our collections without even leaving our phones. Growing up in the 80's and early 90's, we made mix tapes, but they took time to make. The music had to be recorded in real time. A 90-minute mix tape took at least 90 minutes to make, and it had, at most, 25 songs on it. Plus, if you didn't record the music off the radio or lift it from a friend's tape(s), you had to buy each song (and probably 8 or more songs on the album that you didn't even want). When Tammy (my high school girlfriend) handed me a mix tape before going on a trip, I was going to listen to it at least a couple times because I knew she spent a good amount of time, and maybe even money, on it. Today, you can make multiple playlists with a few hundred songs each for less than what we paid for a single album 30 years ago in 90 minutes and can share each in a matter of seconds. Granted, you have to pay monthly if you want to keep listening to those playlists ad-free, but most of us bought an album a month in high school anyway. Also, even in the early 90's, you could find portable radios smaller than today's iPhone or Android, but, if you were going to listen to tapes of CD's, you had to have a much bigger device. I was a tad too old for it, but, by the time my sister was in high school, she and her classmates were allowed to have small radios in PE class for individual activities, like running around the track. Having small radios kept them from socializing and slowing each other down and, if anything, meant fewer distractions as they weren't yelling at and taunting each other on their runs. They couldn't, however, use radio/cassette or radio/CD players.

 

[TheBigA]

It is possible that the rates could go so high as to make the possibility of niche formats on the Internet nonexistent.

That's what I tell my friends in the music business. When they wrote the DMCA they wanted to carve out a space for small webcasters and fringe genres. What they did instead was empower the iHearts and Apples and Spotifys. The cost of music royalties has frozen out a lot of the small players. Even Live365, a company that provides hosting for small webcasters, had to shut down for a while and reorganize because the royalties keep increasing. The music folks feel there will always be people who will be willing to pay to play music. The royalties are the price of admission.