Other platforms are all that matters. It's 1939 all over again. Some companies transitioned to TV. Some stuck with radio. Who are the survivors?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Radio Predictions for 2020
- Thread starter Y2kTheNewOldies
- Start date
Other platforms are all that matters. It's 1939 all over again. Some companies transitioned to TV. Some stuck with radio. Who are the survivors?
Broadcasting on 530-1700 kHz is a worldwide, ITU-allocated frequency band. The FCC can't reallocate it to any service(s) other than broadcasting. Besides, who could use it, and with what transmission/modulation method(s), other than ham radio operators? Giving it to the hams is never going to happen.
Then why did many European countries phase out AM? They figured out that AM transmitters were spitting out huge bills and an ever-shrinking audience. They went to FM and streaming. Ireland no longer has RTE on AM. Luxembourg doesn't have their 1440 (IIRC) anymore. I don't think Sweden or Norway really uses AM anymore either...but I could be wrong on some smaller stations.
I could see it happening here in the next several years.
I could see it happening here in the next several years.
Where AM has been phased out is generally in nations where the government plays a bigger part in broadcasting and is able to dictate the standards for the industry. This applies even where there is commercial radio.
The big 500 kw to 1 megawatt AMs and even most of the low power 1-50 kw and 100-250 kw stations were government owned. England had no licensed commercial radio on AM until the later part of the 20th century (1973, over 50 years after the US did), and some nations never had commercial AM stations; FM was where local commercial radio grew.
So the government pretty much decided that they wanted to be on FM and DAB because "they are the government and they know what is good for you".
Luxembourg left AM because there was so much more local commercial radio in France, England, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany that nobody would listen to a station from far off. Before that, Radio 208 had been the only commercial station with pop music in that whole NW European area. Similarly, Radio Monte Carlo abandoned commercial AM when local commercial stations grew in southern France and NW Italy. Same for the two Andorra stations on the French/Spanish border; nobody listened to a distant AM when they had local FM.
RTL established divisions in several nations and did local radio instead. Monte Carlo went to religion. Andorra's two stations closed.
Closer to home, Mexico and Canada gave paths to most AMs to migrate to FM because listening had declined and owners were motivated. AM in both nations is being revived with cultural and ethnic stations on frequencies that used to be mainstream commercial.
The answer about why European government broadcasters moved to AM is "because they could".
Last edited:
I had this discussion with friends in the recoding industry here in New York earlier this year. One participant, too young to have experienced what happened twenty years ago (Napster), evinced the same arrogance I remember back then.
I asked what price would be Ok in his view for streaming. His response was whatever we can get and then “build on that”.
I pointed out that there are dozens of free (and offshore) downloading sites with searchable databases. There are probably millions (at least) of impenetrable VPN’s.
People have infinitely more storage space and much faster connections than 1999.
Streaming has given the industry a glass key. If they try to get back to the days of penthouses and blow parties by sticking it to the consumer, they’ll learn those lessons all over again.
LCG
I do rememeber that napster created the debate over music piracy at the time and also sparked the debate over should labels make deals with internet music outlets. Case and point Apple was one of the first to have deals with recording labels back when Apple Music was then known as Itunes.
Talk about ironic. Aren't they known for gambling, which religious broadcasters would tend to oppose?
I expect that will happen to TV before it happens to radio. All it would take is for the NFL to sign exclusive agreements with Google or to force people to its own streaming protocol to kill local TV the way we know it now. If that were to happen, the local affiliates wouldn't be able to sustain the reverse comp they're paying now, the cable and satellite companies wouldn't pay to carry them, and the networks would take their programming in house to apps. Local TV will die a relatively quick, but painful, death if/when that domino falls. We'll end up with one or two local TV stations that remain strong due to news content while the rest of the spectrum will be reruns and religion.
Radio, in spite of its current challenges, seems better positioned to handle the digital transition than TV. If nothing else, it's cheaper to run and has been quicker to embrace IP delivery.
That's quite a doomsday scenario. I would imagine aggrieved corporations will buy as many politicians as necessary to get legislation created and passed to maintain the status quo.
Consider the number of politicians in both parties who want to break up tech companies such as Google, Facebook, and Apple. In the meantime, all the major TV companies are already building their own streaming platforms. The only folks left out in the cold are the smaller TV companies.
I meant FM to be re purposed for Religion, ethnic Programming, brokered programming, News/talk and Sports/talk within the 2020's in more parts of the country.
TV's business model is so tied to the NFL that, if anything upends the current relationship, it’s over. Not sure if the politicians could keep the business relationship the way it is even if they wanted to. Another potential disaster is the quality of football going down due to what we now know about blows to the head and the long term effects of them. If just 10% of parents stop letting their kids play, football will suffer irreparable harm to the game. Even if the relationship itself could be legislated, the quality of the game can’t be. TV has no Plan B.
Radio isn’t in similar straights. Not that it doesn’t have its problems, but they’re not so dire that one business partner could kill it.
Early 2000's songs from 2000-2005 will become part of the classic hits/oldies playlist within the 2020's.
I don't see any drastic changes to either AM or FM unless the new, proposed increased music royalty legislation actually goes through, and music radio stations have to pay more fees. That could shake up things at some stations.
I can see HD2's being shut off over the next decade, as they do not apparently make their stations any money. It's sort of sad, as those extra channels were a selling point for HD radio, but that's the shakes. Enjoy those extra channels while you can.
All digital AM won't be a big thing, but nationwide, a handful of adventurous stations may try it by the end of the decade.
I wonder if by the end of the decade the aging out of major sports like baseball and football will affect broadcasting? The NFL is in a better position than baseball comparatively, but the average NFL fan presently is around 50 years old. I think for baseball it's more like 55 (NBA is apparently 42, NHL is around 49).
I think in some of the sports the average age of fans has gone up a year for every two calendar years (depending on sport). How will this trend affect sports radio? Play by play? Broadcasts of games? Or even will it?
I can see HD2's being shut off over the next decade, as they do not apparently make their stations any money. It's sort of sad, as those extra channels were a selling point for HD radio, but that's the shakes. Enjoy those extra channels while you can.
All digital AM won't be a big thing, but nationwide, a handful of adventurous stations may try it by the end of the decade.
I wonder if by the end of the decade the aging out of major sports like baseball and football will affect broadcasting? The NFL is in a better position than baseball comparatively, but the average NFL fan presently is around 50 years old. I think for baseball it's more like 55 (NBA is apparently 42, NHL is around 49).
I think in some of the sports the average age of fans has gone up a year for every two calendar years (depending on sport). How will this trend affect sports radio? Play by play? Broadcasts of games? Or even will it?
If the millennials who are now so heavily into gaming never turn into fans of team spectator sports, that will be a huge problem going forward. The games available to them are just going to keep getting more complex, more challenging, more addictive -- because, after all, pixels don't have to worry about injuries or any of that other stuff that human beings do -- while basketball, football, baseball and hockey will stay pretty much the same. If you've been playing video games online since you were 13 and now you're 21 and into them more than ever, what are the chances you'll ever become a fan of human sports, where the games all last at least 2 hours and have hardly any meaningful action in them?
I was in Vegas in September. Gaming is not only a spectator sport, but people are betting on it there. There are areas inside several casinos where one can not only play, but watch and bet on the participants. Hey, to each his own.
Is that average age just for ticket buyers, or for listeners/viewers/streamers of sporting events.
With the price of tickets today, it would be natural that few teens and younger Millennial would attend games.
Those look like figures I've seen for television viewers of the sports. Basketball does the best, as you might expect, but even its average viewer is over 40. I remember being surprised at the NFL number, but one must remember that a lot of younger folks follow the sport and play in fantasy leagues or bet on games legally or illegally, but do their viewing through the NFL's own "Red Zone" channel, which allows them to look at all the games at once, but only when action is inside the 20-yard line. It's akin to joining soccer matches only for corner kicks, free kicks and action in the box, omitting all the build-up, goal kicks and attacks that sputter out in the midfield. People watching Red Zone contribute to the ratings of none of the games they see.
I wonder if the increase in average age also parallels cord cutting and viewers using OTT channels exclusively.
Of course, those replacing cable with OTA reception might still be in the regular ratings pool, but the rest will not be there.
- Status