Sad news for those who think radio is dying.

[mwebster]

AM is not dead - only terminal

> > but it's absurd to suggest we
> > write the obitchuary column for KFI, WABC, WLS, and many
> > other "strong signals".
> >
> > Mabye I'm too optomistic, but let's not write the "this is
> > your life" story for something that has existed for well
> > over 80 years.
> >
>
> Exactly! Shall we continue?? How about the likes of WLW,
> KMOX, WSB, KOA, KSL, KOGO, WCCO, WTMJ, WJR, WGN, KGO, WEEI,
> WLW, WBAP, WBBM, KYW, WBZ, KFYI, KIRO, KEX, WTAM, KFBK...and
> so on......
>


A couple of dozen I-A's are doing OK - out of how many hundred AM radio stations in the US? And each of those I-A's doesn't bill as well as many FM's in the same market.

AM has existed for closer to 90 years (depending on how whom you want to believe); 80 or 90 is when obituaries start to be overdue.

I read the folks at Western Union had much the same reaction when Alexander Graham Bell showed up - and Charles Chaplin, when others started making talkies. When Henry Ford came along a few carriage companies started making auto bodies; the rest talked about how well everything was going until they went out of business. Things change. Adapt or perish (Darwin).

You folks are like the railroad companies who thought they were in the train business, rather than the transportation business. Broadcasters care about content. Management cares about profits. Tower climbers care about distribution technology.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Cume is off less than 2% in 41 years and dispelling untruths.

> Notice these reports that get made public never mention
> cume. These "reports" are press releases for broadcasters
> and for their consultants and suppliers. Of course, they
> are going to "puff" the radio biz.

Average market Cume share in 1965 when Arbitrons started was between 94 and 95%. Today it is in the 93& range. Loss is about 1.5% nationally, over a period of 51 years.
>
> Fewer people are listening.

Minimal. So samll as to be virtually insignificant in the overall efectiveness evaluation of the medium.

> The pie gets smaller while
> people talk about slices. And even a "minor drop" in TSL
> over 12 months starts to add up from one year to the next.
> Bet these "ratings experts" read "How to Lie with
> Statistics." Heck, maybe they even wrote it.

1956. Cume of all radio... 95%. Today, depending on market, around 93.3%. Big deal. In those 40 years we have seen the cassette, the CD, the DVD, the internet, video games, VHS, cellular phones, cable tv and many ther leisure time activities ocme on the scene. Hey, I forgot the 8-Track!
>
> Don't waste your time on the link to this so-called
> "report." It gets you these consultants' website homepage -
> not the report.

The report is there, and it comes directly from an analyis of Arbitron data. The company is not a consultant firm. It is a company stations hire to do in dept analyis of Arbitron ratings books using data not contained in the material given to stations. In fact, the founder of The Research Director, Rhody Bosley, was a former President of Arbtron.

Do your homework before you post next time. You have got it almost 100% wrong.

> And the homepage does not have a link to
> the report.

Yes, it does. I found it easily. Do your homework. Are you new to the web? You obviously are new to radio if yoou do not know how come has trended over the lasyt 51 years since the first Arbitron radio reports.


> The capacity of broadcasters to bury their heads in the sand
> continues to amaze me. Toss around all the statistics you
> want from these so-called "reports" but the bottom line is
> radio is consolidated, syndicated, automated and
> voice-tracked - all to save money - and still not all that
> profitable overall. Why? Because the money is not coming
> in. Rates are down because advertisers place less value on
> radio advertising and spend less on radio advertising.

Rates arenot down. Revenue is projected to increase around 4% this year, on about 15% to 20% fewer minutes in inventory, so rates have gone up nearly 20% in most competitive markets. This, of course, is driven by "Less is More" from Clear Channel which includes lower inventory levels, more 30 second spots and fewer minutes, and higher rates to make it up. Nearly every significant broadcaster has followe dsuit.

Again, do your homework.
>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: They never mention cume

> > The capacity of broadcasters to bury their heads in the
> sand
> > continues to amaze me. Toss around all the statistics you
>
> > want from these so-called "reports" but the bottom line is
>
> > radio is consolidated, syndicated, automated and
> > voice-tracked - all to save money - and still not all
> that
> > profitable overall. Why? Because the money is not coming
>
> > in. Rates are down because advertisers place less value
> on
> > radio advertising and spend less on radio advertising.
> >
>
> and your data is based on what? how? where?

His data, as I posted, is just simply wrong. He is creating a fantasy land that supports his view that radio is dead, and invents facts to support it.
>

 

[wiradioguy]

Re: amen

AMEN! At our stations which is small market, we break every "consultant" rule known to radio. We have 15 minute newscasts with obits, we have hour long farm news in the morning and we have Paul Harvey, Local news and farm news during the noon hour. All this on a FM station! And guess what...we kick the crap out of the 25 song in a row station down the road.

On our AM station we do the same type of thing but we add High School Sports. And yes we air the local church service on Sunday. And if you dont think anyone is listening..you should see the phones light up when we have a phone problem and cant get the game or church service on.

Our 2 stations may not be one of the big boys..but we sure have fun..and we make $$$.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Hail Radio's Lynch Mob of One.

> I hear a lot of talk about how radio re-invented itself
> before. I don't see it happening now. Radio keeps
> re-arranging the desk chairs on the Titanic and tells the
> look-out how shouts "iceberg" that he's bitter and
> pessimisstic ("this ship is unsinkable"). Radio is business
> that believes that if something is not working, you should
> do more of it.

Another post with no facts, no substance, just a death wish for radio.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Sad news

> > > the weak will turn to brokered
> > > time sales or paid religion.
> >
> > And probably make some good coin doing so!
> >
> Not when they paid 21 times cash flow for it a few years
> earlier and the stockholders or the bank want their money...
>

The kind of station that would be suitable for borkered progrmming was NOT sold for 20 x cash flow at the beginning of consolidation. In fact, those stations were the main reason for consolidation... the fact that 50% of stations had no cash flow. So such statins were sold for pennies, generally.

Example of change in value from early consolidation: LA FM (Class B) sold in 1997 for $115 million. Approximate value today: $325 million.

THis week, an AM in LA that does not cover well half the market and which was sold in 1991 for $600,000 was sold for $43,000,000.

Most consolidation was done with equity financing and mergers, not with debt. The major broadcast companie shave very low debt when compared to other industries and sectors. The heavy debt is actually in the smaller markets where someone risked the home and the 401-k to buy his or her first station.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: AM is not dead

> Sorry but I'm sick of all these "AM is dead posts". Sure, I
> will agree especially in light of HD Radio that some station
> on 1580 or such in LA is dead, but it's absurd to suggest we
> write the obitchuary column for KFI, WABC, WLS, and many
> other "strong signals".

Excellent point.

Many AMs were built in the 30's for the kind of urban environment we had then, which consisted of compact, small, centralized cities with little urban sprawl.

Many regional AMs no longer cover their market, because thecities grew. They can not compete. Many if not most of hte AMs licensed since 1950 have inferior and inadequate signals or are daytimers. None of these can be ocompared with the fewer strong signals that cover expanded markets and have the power to overcome the high noise levels of today's cities.

Many of the big AMs lead in billing in their markets, and there are several dozen in the top 100 billers in the US.

The rest of the AMs have to look to religion or ethnic or specialized formats as they can not compete, and that has nothing todo with iPods or the web.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: AM is Alive and billing like Hell.

>
> A couple of dozen I-A's are doing OK - out of how many
> hundred AM radio stations in the US?

Nearly every market in the US has one or more good AM signals that are billing right at the top. In the top 5 in Phoenix, two 5 kw AMs on regional channels are to be found. In Fresno, KMJ takes 17% of market billing, the triple of any FM. In Traverse City / NW Michigan, WTCM is the second highest biller. Look at 5 kw WTVN in Columbus or KERN in Bakersfield. 5 kw KFGO in Fargo. Or KFYR in Bismark or WNAX in Yankton, SD. And the list goes on and on. There are AMs with decent signals and adequate coverage leading the pack in many markets.

> And each of those
> I-A's doesn't bill as well as many FM's in the same market.

Wrong. In many markets, the leading biller is an AM. San Francisco, Chicago, Fresno, Sacramento, Dallas, Albuquerque, SLC, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Boston, Denver, Minneapolis, Hartford, Cincinatti, Detroit, etc. have AM's at the very top. Others, like Seattle, NY, LA, have an AM in #2 or #3. Ant that is the way it goes all the way down to markets like Raleiigh or Charlotte or Orlando.

In fact, the only places where there are not leading AMs is where the owner has not fully taken advantage of the facility. Otherwise, the big signal AMs in each market (and in Great Falls, a nice 5 kw regional is a big signal) do wonderfully.

Again, for the third time today, you have posted stuff that is just simply not true.
>
> AM has existed for closer to 90 years (depending on how whom
> you want to believe); 80 or 90 is when obituaries start to
> be overdue.

Tell that to WINS in NY, the second highest billing station in the USA last year. Or WGN, KOA, KIRO, WTAM, WLW, WSB, WDBO, WBAP, KLBJ, KFYI, KFBK, WFLA, WQAM, WKAQ, WUNO, WADO, WFAN, and many, many hundreds of others.
>
> You folks are like the railroad companies who thought they
> were in the train business, rather than the transportation
> business. Broadcasters care about content. Management
> cares about profits. Tower climbers care about distribution
> technology.

Content, irrespective of distribution, will be the king in the end. And broadcasters are perfectly capable of moving that content in any channel that is available and economically feasable. For the moment, transmitters on AM and FM are the choice delivery method.
>

 

[KMRichards]

A Moderator Note to Mr. Webster

> Again, for the third time today, you have posted stuff that
> is just simply not true.

Webster, I am not going to tolerate any more of your rhetoric without citable references to support your position. You have been proved wrong multiple times just in this thread (and if I add other threads with the same outcome, your cred factor is in the single digit percentages).

Next time you post something that is subsequently proven wrong because you don't know the facts, I start looking to kill your posts. <P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[SaltyDog]

Re: They never mention cume

If some people have "their head in the sand" as you suggest, it is also obvious that you have an axe to grind with radio companies. Neither position leads to objectivity.

Personally, I suspect (as opposed to "know") that the downward tread is real, but it has nothing to do with consolidation and the usual litany of complaints: "consolidated, syndicated, automated and voice-tracked". It's because of technology. People listen to Internet radio, satellite radio and iPods because it's there, not because they are necessarily unhappy with their local station. Most people who listen to alternative sources of audio entertainment also still listen to terrestial radio. Unless they have a personal reason for hating radio companies.<P ID="signature">______________
SD</P>

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

Re: Cume is off less than 2% in 41 years and dispelling untruths.

> Hey, I forgot the 8-Track!

No, believe me...you didn't.

 

[954]

Exactly!

> The sour-grapes crowd obviously has absolutely no experience
> owning or running local radio stations. I could care less
> what iPods or Satellite radio are doing. They can't compete
> with me, period-paragraph. To me, it's just absolutely
> laughable to think that a national non-market-specific
> service will ever put me out of business.

Exactly!

As a listener, I feel that radio without local content is
no better than my record collection.

Actually, it's much worse, because my record collection
happens to be commercial free, and the playlist is
hamd-picked by me!!!

When satellite radios are in the dollar store and the
subscription cost is negligible (less than a trip to
McDonalds), then I'll think about it. As an occasional
novelty.

Until then, no contest.

73s from 954

 

[OldiesCat]

so,

What are YOU doing to make yourself valuable to your station? (or are you just sitting back, waiting for what you see as "the inevitable"?)

If it's the latter, just keep doing what you're doing- Radio will be better off with you selling time shares.



> Anyone at anytime can be replaced even without good reason
> just be grateful for the time you have.
>

 

[radiodial]

Re: Sad news

I agree with your post. Radio will not die. But you also never made any mention of music. Radio is simply not the choice today to find music. That is over and will never be gotten back.

 

[RichWood]

Re: They never mention cume

> Personally, I suspect (as opposed to "know") that the
> downward tread is real, but it has nothing to do with
> consolidation and the usual litany of complaints:
> "consolidated, syndicated, automated and voice-tracked".
> It's because of technology. People listen to Internet radio,
> satellite radio and iPods because it's there, not because
> they are necessarily unhappy with their local station. Most
> people who listen to alternative sources of audio
> entertainment also still listen to terrestial radio. Unless
> they have a personal reason for hating radio companies.

Not many advertisers buy on cume, so it's less important than AQH. Cume only tells you someone sampled the station. It doesn't tell you how long they were there and whether or not they heard a spot.

Network advertising is based on AQH. All News stations will use Cume because listeners often sample a few times a day but don't stay through several news cycles. They don't get many quarter hours per sitting.

Radio simply isn't dying. The inaccurate assumption is that competing technology replaces radio. We find it shares.

Rich