once great stations that are now jokes!

[OhioMediaWatch]

I agree with you. KDKA sucks! They used to be very good, with lots of local shows and TRADIO! Now, it's crap! Syndication 24/7, blah, blah, blah...

I take it you can't pick up KDKA in Washington State, because that last sentence would be a surprise to:

Larry Richert
John Shumway
Marty Griffin
Fred Honsberger
The KDKA afternoon news block anchors
and Mike Pintek

In fact, the station doesn't even touch syndication until 10 PM (WW1's Jim Bohannon, then the KMOX/St. Louis-based Overnight America with John Grayson).

It's true that KDKA had a long history of even live overnight shows, which continues on weekends with "Dr. Knowledge"...but they're live and local 5 AM-10 PM these days. You may or may not like the above list, but it's all out of Pittsburgh.

 

[Leebo65]

Problem is, thanks to incredibly poor business decisions, the industry is hastening the exodus of cume by degrading programming.

"Hastening?" The body has been on life support for 30 years. This is the longest death watch since Generalissimo Ferdinand Franco.

The fact, however, is that the majority of AM stations are owned by small owners, not the big companies. That's why they suck. The ones owned by CBS, Entercom, and CC are the few bright lights left on the dial. The government is hastening its demise by lack of leadership. No surprise there.

Well then let it die. Lets Deregulate AM to the extent that there is no supervision. No license needed nothing. If an Anarchist wants to get on there and foment revolution no problem. Total freedom. Sounds promising.

 

[smedge2006]

Back in the 60s, when WABC was getting double digit shares, they didn't allow their airwaves to be used for discussion of local issues. It was highly controlled Top 40 hits 24/7.

I think we assume that local discussion on the airwaves is something that is supposed to happen. It's not.

Of course at that time, WOR was an all live-and-local mostly talk station, and WNBC was in its talk radio period, so New Yorkers who wanted local discussion had those two alternatives, joined by WMCA in 1971 which was live and local virtually around the clock in the 70's.

It's amusing that you would use WABC as an example, since the "public affairs" programming they did was head and shoulders above most stations, and according to the late Rick Sklar's book, short-form public affairs vignettes ran at times during other dayparts as well. Not to mention Action Central News. WABC as a top 40 station probably had nearly as much local (non-syndicated) content as WABC the talker does today -- and certainly more than the average talker in most markets (where the only local content is the dollar-a-holler spot) does now.

 

[TheBigA]

Well then let it die. Lets Deregulate AM to the extent that there is no supervision. No license needed nothing. If an Anarchist wants to get on there and foment revolution no problem. Total freedom. Sounds promising.

That's an interesting idea. I find it interesting that pirate radio stations tend to be on FM, not AM. Even pirates don't want to broadcast on AM.

 

[TheBigA]

Of course at that time, WOR was an all live-and-local mostly talk station, and WNBC was in its talk radio period, so New Yorkers who wanted local discussion had those two alternatives, joined by WMCA in 1971 which was live and local virtually around the clock in the 70's.

Depends on what you consider "talk radio." Keep in mind that prior to the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio generally didn't tackle controversial issues as they do today. WOR was mainly one-way talk, from the host to the public. When they took calls, it was mainly for advice, not discussion. When NBC started TalkNet, the two hosts gave advice, not political opinion.

It's amusing that you would use WABC as an example, since the "public affairs" programming they did was head and shoulders above most stations,

But it was one-way talk. It was not "discussion." Howard Cosell was speaking about about everything, as his show title said, but not in an interactive way with his listeners. Sklar's book made it clear he was not a fan of breaking format. He campaigned long and hard to get rid of the Breakfast Club, and he ultimately got rid of the nightly news block at 6PM. Keep in mind that news and public affairs was required then. It was not an option, as it is today.

 

[Silkie]

Or once great stations that slid too far into the gutter and are no more - at all.

 

[Steven21]

"Hastening?" The body has been on life support for 30 years. This is the longest death watch since Generalissimo Ferdinand Franco.

Whether the body has been on life support for 3 years or 30 years DOES NOT change the fact that they are HASTENING it's death. You are always in such a fit to correct everybody, you failed to recognize that the two points are not mutually exclusive of each other.

The fact, however, is that the majority of AM stations are owned by small owners, not the big companies. That's why they suck. The ones owned by CBS, Entercom, and CC are the few bright lights left on the dial.

FALSE analogy.

CBS, Entercom and CC typically picked up the BEST and most entrenched AM sticks in town. Mom & Pops rarely had the depth of pockets to compete on any level---on ANY level. You could expect small budgets, small staffs, less experienced programmers, inferior operations and yes, bad programming. What a shock.

Nice try.

 

[TheBigA]

Whether the body has been on life support for 3 years or 30 years DOES NOT change the fact that they are HASTENING it's death.

I don't agree with your premise. My point is you can't hasten the death of something that's already deceased. An d for the most part, with the exception of one or two signals per town, AM is dead, and has been for a long time.

Mom & Pops rarely had the depth of pockets to compete on any level---on ANY level.

Then THEY are the ones who are, in your words not mine, hastening the demise of AM. Because the big companies are still spending huge amounts of money on AM programming, particularly CBS, which funds locally staffed all-news outlets in numerous large cities.

But if you study the problems with AM radio, the quality of the signal isn't really the issue. WOR in NY is a 50K blowtorch, and is losing money like GM. It is one of the lowest billing stations in the city, and is local for large parts of its day. If you're going to blame someone for "hastening the demise" of something because of bad programming, you need to be specific where you aim your blame.

In my view, what will put the stake in the heart of AM radio will be the day when CBS and other major owners sell their last remaining AM properties. Because no one else has pockets deep enough to keep them on the air.

 

[Silkie]

Recognizing that this is a news/talk thread, nevertheless, we have some rockin' little oldies AMs in a few places. They are doing just fine.

 

[Steven21]

I don't agree with your premise. My point is you can't hasten the death of something that's already deceased. An d for the most part, with the exception of one or two signals per town, AM is dead, and has been for a long time.

Deceased? You're kidding, right? Exaggerate much? Do I really need to point out all the markets that have AM stations as ratings leaders? Dying, yes. Dead? That's absurd---which goes back to my original and quite obvious point (which you are refuting just for fun, apparently) that these companies are HASTENING the death of the band and the irrelevance of the medium by mismanagement---and I'm talking from programming to finance.

Then THEY are the ones who are, in your words not mine, hastening the demise of AM. Because the big companies are still spending huge amounts of money on AM programming, particularly CBS, which funds locally staffed all-news outlets in numerous large cities.

You're cherry-picking. I'm referring to the majority of companies who cannot cut staff fast enough, irrespective to how it destroys the on-air product.

But if you study the problems with AM radio, the quality of the signal isn't really the issue.

Really? In some cases it is, in some cases it isn't. You're tenuously denouncing this single reference among a list of others.

WOR in NY is a 50K blowtorch, and is losing money like GM. It is one of the lowest billing stations in the city, and is local for large parts of its day. If you're going to blame someone for "hastening the demise" of something because of bad programming, you need to be specific where you aim your blame.

Of all the stations to cherry-pick as an example, I knew you would bring up this one. They have done quite well in years past and now, like so many others, have sold out. It doesn't help that they are owned by Buckley.

Simple point: The biggest companies who run radio stations in this country have done little but speed up the death of AM and the further exodus of listeners to other audio sources. At a time when they should be investing in talent---the only thing they've got over most other audio sources--they instead take off on a wild goose chase with this hairbrained HD nonsense. This while counting paperclips and cutting sales commissions.

Thanks to many decades of hard work, this medium still has significant market penetration and cume. However, the corporations you relentlessly defend are, for the sake of short term Wall Street interests, selling the soul of this business and HASTENING it's decline.

I find it remarkable that you see little wrong with what is happening to this once great industry. Absolutely remarkable.

 

[TheBigA]

Do I really need to point out all the markets that have AM stations as ratings leaders?

No you don't, because if you read my post, you'll see I said exactly that. But they tend to be owned by one of the big companies, the ones you say are "hastening the death." To the contrary they are the only ones saving it.

Simple point: The biggest companies who run radio stations in this country have done little but speed up the death of AM and the further exodus of listeners to other audio sources.

You can believe what you want to believe, but the facts plainly show that the most successful AM stations in the large markets tend to be the ones owned by the biggest companies. The small ones are the ones who are running the most syndication, the most brokered programming, and the most inferior (albeit local) programming. And if you compare the programming budget of WCBS, WINS, KYW, or WBBM, you'll see they exceed the budgets of their competition, both on AM and FM.

However, the corporations you relentlessly defend are, for the sake of short term Wall Street interests, selling the soul of this business and HASTENING it's decline.

That era ended several years ago. No one is attempting to appeal to Wall Street any more. I think survival is more of the goal.

I find it remarkable that you see little wrong with what is happening to this once great industry. Absolutely remarkable.

Who says I see “little wrong?” I’m simply correcting your inaccuracies. You shouldn’t interpret that as either defending anyone or saying all is perfect. Because that certainly is no0t what I believe, regardless of what you think.

 

[Steven21]

You can believe what you want to believe, but the facts plainly show that the most successful AM stations in the large markets tend to be the ones owned by the biggest companies.

First of all, this was never about JUST the biggest markets, rather the industry as a whole. Secondly, Major market stations are obviously MUCH more likely to be owned by major companies--simply due to the extremely high cost of purchase.

FACT is, the biggest operators have gutted their operations. Twist that reality any way you want, but if you believe that has not dramatically contributed to the decline in quality nationwide and HASTENED, that's right---HASTENED the exodus of listeners from the medium, you're in denial.

 

[TheBigA]

First of all, this was never about JUST the biggest markets, rather the industry as a whole.

I don't think you can generalize about "the industry as a whole." It isn't that simple. Some large owners are better than others. The biggest companies, the ones you say are hastening the death of AM, are all in the biggest markets. So if you're blaming large companies for the problems with AM, you need to concentrate on the markets where they are. Not blame the problems in smaller markets on the big companies. Because they're not all there.

FACT is, the biggest operators have gutted their operations. Twist that reality any way you want, but if you believe that has not dramatically contributed to the decline in quality nationwide and HASTENED, that's right---HASTENED the exodus of listeners from the medium, you're in denial.

Because I disagree with you, I'm in denial? You need to gain some humility.

The main problem is the collapse of advertising. It's not just a radio problem, but is even hurting the internet. It has forced all ad-supported media to cut back on expenses. Even Google and Microsoft. EVERYONE has cut back on the expenses, including some big companies. THAT is a fact. But quite a few of the biggest operators continue to invest in programming, operations, staffing, and facilities.

But the latest figures from Arbitron and other audience measurement services clearly show that the use of the word "exodus" regarding radio listeners is greatly exaggerated. Some stations are losing, some are gaining, but most losses are coming from AM, which is plagued by a lot of problems. Spending lots of money at a time when advertising is down 25% is not going to fix any of AM's problems, which have been in place for 30 years. Those are the facts, regardless of what you want to believe.

 

[Steven21]

The main problem is the collapse of advertising. It's not just a radio problem, but is even hurting the internet. It has forced all ad-supported media to cut back on expenses. Even Google and Microsoft. EVERYONE has cut back on the expenses, including some big companies. THAT is a fact. But quite a few of the biggest operators continue to invest in programming, operations, staffing, and facilities.

Collapse of advertising? Are you kidding? Where have you been the last 14 years since the Telecom Act was enacted?

The decline in advertising is a much more recent condition and would not have prompted such dramatic cuts nationwide had there not been such monumental debt service needing to be tended to. Many radio stations that ARE quite profitable have STILL had to make cuts due to the recklessness of their corporate leaders.

Spin that as you may, but it is the undeniable truth and most know it.

 

[firepoint525]

The most recent station I worked for is a 50,000-watt powerhouse. But almost no one here in Nashville has even heard of them! They do NO (self) promotion, and have NO visibility in the community! They "advertise" on phone book covers and the like, and they run commercials promoting those phone book covers, but this is all a barter situation. No money changes hands. They advertise that you could pick up these phone book covers at the station's studios, but the studios are on a dead-end road, with "no trespassing" signs posted on this road! They have bumper stickers, and maps, but again, you must come to the station to get them! The only way that I can figure that anyone ever heard about us using this nonsense, is if they picked up these phone book covers at any of the other (non-radio) businesses that also advertised on them. But even then, it would have been by accident, because they would have had to hear about these phone book covers to even know that they exist! And if they weren't listening to us to begin with, how would they even know that?

This station has a website, but again, you would need to know that this station even existed in order to have enough of an interest in them to visit their website!

This station had a history of being one of the top-rated top 40 stations in Nashville back in the '60s. But that was under a previous owner. The power increase to 50K was done about a decade ago under current ownership, but by a now-retired manager/engineer. Seems that they would want to do SOME p.r. to increase visibility in the community, and this was even pointed out in a memo to management by a former sales manager back about the time of the power increase. I was almost embarrassed to tell people that I worked there, because no one seemed to have heard of us, even though we are right there under their noses!

 

[TheBigA]

Collapse of advertising? Are you kidding? Where have you been the last 14 years since the Telecom Act was enacted?

You need to get over your obvious dislike for a handful of companies, and look at the bigger picture. Because people are being let go at lots of small stations that aren't owned by companies with debt, who weren't part of the consolidation of the last 14 years. And we're at a point where the small stations, without the support of a larger parent, are in danger of shutting down. THAT is the reality. There are hundreds of small stations that were once Top 40 powerhouses in markets like Washington DC and Denver and Portland that are on the verge of collapse. I'm not talking about Clear Channel or Citadel. I'm talking about 5KW AMs that can't meet payroll or cover their tax bill. THAT is what this thread is about. Stations that were once market leaders and now don't even show up in the ratings.

You need to get over your hatred and anger. The problem is bigger than a handful of companies.

 

[Steven21]

Collapse of advertising? Are you kidding? Where have you been the last 14 years since the Telecom Act was enacted?

You need to get over your obvious dislike for a handful of companies, and look at the bigger picture. Because people are being let go at lots of small stations that aren't owned by companies with debt, who weren't part of the consolidation of the last 14 years. And we're at a point where the small stations, without the support of a larger parent, are in danger of shutting down. THAT is the reality. There are hundreds of small stations that were once Top 40 powerhouses in markets like Washington DC and Denver and Portland that are on the verge of collapse. I'm not talking about Clear Channel or Citadel. I'm talking about 5KW AMs that can't meet payroll or cover their tax bill. THAT is what this thread is about. Stations that were once market leaders and now don't even show up in the ratings.

You need to get over your hatred and anger. The problem is bigger than a handful of companies.

You're combining two completely different dynamics that have simialr symptoms.

Yes, there has been a decline in radio advertising dollars, which has hurt. This has been compunded by the incredible debt a number of big companies have taken on. Some companies, especially the bigger ones, are suffereing from the effects of BOTH of these problems, while smaller companies are primarily suffering from the former.

 

[kinetic]

Interesting that these are all AM stations that are considered "jokes." Which should be no surprise to anyone. The sun set on the AM band for the most part over 30 years ago. Sure perhaps there's still one powerhouse AM station that still attracts listeners, strictly for news and talk. But how many stations do you need covering the same news or airing the same talk shows? This is not a content issue or a reinvention issue. Better programming is not going to bring listeners back to AM. There is really nothing that radio itself can do to fix AM any more. It's time has passed, and it's time to let it go.

Then why not take AM programming and put it on FM. I know some markets are doing this but maybe not enough of them. Why not? What are they waiting for? How many markets have neglected FMs phoning in their music product courtesy of a computer program. If the market dinosaur syndicates everything, is there any tactical advantage to establishing an underperforming FM as a home for local hosts talking local issues? Where I am, they run 12-hour old "Best of" programming later in the day --a total embarrassment when you think about major stories that broke in the middle of the day: Sarah Palin announcing her resignation, Michael Jackson's death, this kidnapping case in California, and even the wildfires in California currently. Turn on the local news-talk station and you've got programming that's 12 hours old. Seems like that'd be an easy thing to compete against, in addition to the local emphasis.

 

[TheBigA]

Then why not take AM programming and put it on FM. I know some markets are doing this but maybe not enough of them. Why not? What are they waiting for?

The elephant in the room: The Performance Royalty.

Radio is in a transitional phase now. I believe we're in the final years of music formats on radio. They will disappear as the audiences for music continue to fragment and disappear, as they find more personalized services elsewhere, and if the royalty comes to be.

I really think we all are making too much of this "local hosts talking local issues" idea. The goal is to attract big audiences 24/7, and I really don't see local talk attracting big audiences in most markets. There simply isn't that much to talk about. I've heard small market talk stations try to milk things like school board elections and the number of traffic lights, and it really becomes old after the second commercial break. Most local talk shows end up covering national issues, which get more passionate calls.

 

[Steven21]

I really think we all are making too much of this "local hosts talking local issues" idea. The goal is to attract big audiences 24/7, and I really don't see local talk attracting big audiences in most markets. There simply isn't that much to talk about. I've heard small market talk stations try to milk things like school board elections and the number of traffic lights, and it really becomes old after the second commercial break. Most local talk shows end up covering national issues, which get more passionate calls.

So I guess ALL of radio, in a few years, will be nothing but nationally syndicated Rush Limbaugh clones.

Great.

That'll guarantee quite a future for radio!

By the way, most decent local hosts don't dwell on politics and only politics--but that IS what the overwhelming majority of tier 1, 2 & 3 syndicated hosts do. How long do you think THAT will sustain?