Saving AM Radio

[rustyhodge]

You should probably read the law, because as I recall, it made accommodation for that.

I was more commenting on the fact that it's more than just "enabling a chip".

I asked ChatGPT to summarize "any technical requirements or make exceptions for interference caused by car electronics" of S.1669 and it says:

The bill does not dictate specific engineering solutions to mitigate AM interference but leaves it to automakers and regulators to find compliance strategies. However, it does require that AM remains available in vehicles, without defining whether traditional AM tuners, digital alternatives, or interference mitigation techniques must be used.

I could see that car manufactures could add poor-performing AM radios to meet this requirement, but I wonder if they worry about what the customer would think? What's the point of an AM radio that can't actually receive anything well?

 

[davideduardo]

It's a band that, in general, has gained a "rep" for hosting angry white men (mostly), dollar-a-holler preachers and foreign language broadcasts (nothing wrong with the latter).

And religion, sports, news.

I recall how city and business leaders in Kansas City would cringe when Rush Limbaugh, before he went national, also had a "rep," and not a good one, which they felt reflected poorly on the city.

Source?

I mean a book, magazine or newspaper, not just your opinion.

I see no evidence of "business leaders" doing so-called "cringing" about Rush. In fact, the origin of the Rush luncheon clubs was in that market.

Art Bell warned us "all politics, all the time" radio wasn't going to cut it.

Yet it did... for decades.

From the time that the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated... and we are talking about nearly a half-century ago... talk radio based on politics has been very successful. In fact, it is what most of us would call the "Savior of AM" when FM killed music formats on the older band.

I programmed talk stations in NY, LA, Miami, Houston, Chicago, Dallas and several others as a group PD in the 90's and found that AM talk was quite alive.

I think corporate radio owners who hitched their wagons to this narrow and hyper-partisan "my way or the highway" type of programming -- to the near exclusion of any other kind of shows that might appeal to "moderates" or non-conservative Repubs. (Repubs. are in no way are a majority of Americans) -- deserve their fate of declining ratings. They own the rep the crummy and intellectually indefensible band possesses.

Enough, already. Conservatives, whether Republican or Independent, make up around half of the population. And for a radio station to be successful, all it needs is to get, maybe, 3% to 5% of the local listening (AQH) audience. if you do the math, conservative talk has a large potential market and is only limited by not having another Rush to lead the format.

Am not worried about the obsolete band's demise. Like a lot of problems with radio, AM's death was self-inflicted.

AM's eventual closure will be due to the move of most content to streams and podcasts, not to the programming currently on AM stations. The same "stuff" will be available all over the web and on demand.

 

[davideduardo]

That's likely a big reason.
They keep the AMs going on automation. And, as you stated, provide lifeless, dull programming.

Many stations have been automated since the later 1960's. This is nothing new.

All of us who managed stations starting back in the 60's welcomed new technology:

• Cart machines that allowed ads to be run easily without a board op along with the DJ.
• Stable transmitters that did not require operators at the transmitter site any longer
• Program automation that allowed much or all of a format to be run "automatically".
• Computerized traffic systems that allowed one person to do the logs and billing for several stations.
• Computerized on-air systems that joined the commercial log and the music log for both live assisted and automated operation.
• Music scheduling software that permitted better rotations and music sets in much less time, eliminating the need for a "music director" at many if not most stations.
• The Internet, allowing easier STL connectivity, simple remote broadcasts, cheap delivery of syndicated programs and formats.

So don't oversimplify and blame "automation".

 

[gr8oldies]

Many stations have been automated since the later 1960's. This is nothing new.

All of us who managed stations starting back in the 60's welcomed new technology:

• Cart machines that allowed ads to be run easily without a board op along with the DJ.
• Stable transmitters that did not require operators at the transmitter site any longer
• Program automation that allowed much or all of a format to be run "automatically".
• Computerized traffic systems that allowed one person to do the logs and billing for several stations.
• Computerized on-air systems that joined the commercial log and the music log for both live assisted and automated operation.
• Music scheduling software that permitted better rotations and music sets in much less time, eliminating the need for a "music director" at many if not most stations.
• The Internet, allowing easier STL connectivity, simple remote broadcasts, cheap delivery of syndicated programs and formats.

So don't oversimplify and blame "automation".

My ex-father in law told me stories of working in small markets as a jock in the early 60s in a full-service format with all the spots being on one-inch reels. It did not sound like fun.

 

[Rusty Muck]

I don't see either going away altogether, but they will exist in much-diminished forms, and the business models will be quite different. What's happened with newspapers may indicate a similar path for AM and FM radio.

People tend to overlook how many newspapers have gone out of business since the 1960s. It accelerated once the internet made classified ads obsolete after the mid-2000s.

I have a car stereo with my 2021 Buick Encore (which I recently bought) but go right away to listening to stations on Apple Carplay plugged into my iPhone. You don't have to have a transmitter to be a radio station.

 

[Rusty Muck]

Enough, already. Conservatives, whether Republican or Independent, make up around half of the population. And for a radio station to be successful, all it needs is to get, maybe, 3% to 5% of the local listening (AQH) audience. if you do the math, conservative talk has a large potential market and is only limited by not having another Rush to lead the format.

In terms of audience reach and influence (especially in the previous election cycle), Joe Rogan is probably the closest one would find to another Rush. And he's not going to go over to a platform like terrestrial radio where language and content have to be monitored.

I think the audience for talk radio is still there, but it's been pivoting away from AM over to non-linear platforms just like everything else.

 

[davideduardo]

In terms of audience reach and influence (especially in the previous election cycle), Joe Rogan is probably the closest one would find to another Rush. And he's not going to go over to a platform like terrestrial radio where language and content have to be monitored.

I think the audience for talk radio is still there, but it's been pivoting away from AM over to non-linear platforms just like everything else.

Very good and strong points. In particular, many do not realize how few of the "big" podcasts could be run without extreme editing on broadcast radio!

 

[davideduardo]

My ex-father in law told me stories of working in small markets as a jock in the early 60s in a full-service format with all the spots being on one-inch reels. It did not sound like fun.

In my first job at WCUY (FM) in Cleveland Heights, OH, in 1959 we had all the spots as well as promos on those awful 3-inch (that was the smallest but I got your point!) reels.

We had to thread the tape and cue it for each item. We had two Magnecorders in the studio, and if one was out, we'd miss spots unless we learned how to do a 30" or less "musical bridge" off a disk while we took one reel off and loaded another. It was a challenge.

I was 13. I thought it was fun... for a while.

The AM moved closer to the African American community, and got cart machines. The FM, which ran 3 PM to 11 PM Monday to Saturday, did not.

 

[boombox4]

One could argue this from the other side, too: that the NAB is engaging in corporate greed by seeking to prop up a medium operated by its members for profit that's viewed by a substantial number of its potential audience as either irrelevant or obsolete.

The term "corporate greed" is just more empty calories.

OK, but corporate greed does exist. And the car companies make more money than the radio companies that the NAB represents. If I had spent 20 years of my life working for one of the big car companies, maybe I'd side with them on this issue. I didn't. I worked in Radio. The corporate greed I see in this issue is coming from car companies that now have cars that sell your driving (and other) data to whomever they want -- depending on the 20 page TOS that you didn't see when you bought the car -- not from the broadcasters.

 

[davideduardo]

OK, but corporate greed does exist. And the car companies make more money than the radio companies that the NAB represents. If I had spent 20 years of my life working for one of the big car companies, maybe I'd side with them on this issue. I didn't.

Car companies are much larger than any company in radio. They demanded a lot of capital to build huge factories and distribution networks. Investor owned companies get their money from the sale of stock (or temporarily from bonds, which are negotiable loans). Those investors give money in expectation of returns.

So to give an adequate return to shareholders, those companies have to make larger amounts because larger amounts of money have been invested.

You can't compare a huge business with a much smaller one.

2024 revenue for General Motors was $187 billion-with-a-B.- All of radio is estimated at around $14 billion. The largest radio company barely has $1 billion in revenue.

I worked in Radio. The corporate greed I see in this issue is coming from car companies that now have cars that sell your driving (and other) data to whomever they want -- depending on the 20 page TOS that you didn't see when you bought the car -- not from the broadcasters.

The auto companies have huge numbers of shares. GM has 1.16 billion outstanding shares. A huge percentage of the shares are owned by the retirement funds of cities and states, by union funds and by private individuals. All invest hoping that they will see growth and dividend income from their money.

At present, GM shares are around $48 and the income yield is less than 1%. Do you think that getting 1% on your investment in GM is "gouging" on any scale of measurement? Because that is what the "greedy owners" of GM are getting.

 

[TheBigA]

At present, GM shares are around $48 and the income yield is less than 1%. Do you think that getting 1% on your investment in GM is "gouging" on any scale of measurement? Because that is what the "greedy owners" of GM are getting.

That's only if you base the income of a company on stock price.

 

[davideduardo]

That's only if you base the income of a company on stock price.

That is the usual metric investors use. My financial advisors use that along with projected / anticipated growth when allocating my portfolio.

Since I first had a brokerage account at age 9 I looked at yield per share, earnings per share and historic and projected growth projected to share price. If all were in line, I would buy a share or two (yes, I bought single shares. But they eventually grew into what paid for my first radio station).

In the case of boombox4, we are discussing if companies have exorbitant profits. If you look at EPS, they do not.

 

[TheBigA]

That is the usual metric investors use.

But in the context of "greedy owners," the focus here is mainly on CEOs and management, not investors.

The criticism of David Field was about his role as CEO, totally ignoring his investment status.

In the case of boombox4, we are discussing if companies have exorbitant profits. If you look at EPS, they do not.

The main car company that has dropped AM radio is Tesla. They made $15 billion in profits in 2023.

We should not feel sorry for them if the government requires them to bring back AM radio.

 

[Mark Roberts]

At present, GM shares are around $48 and the income yield is less than 1%. Do you think that getting 1% on your investment in GM is "gouging" on any scale of measurement? Because that is what the "greedy owners" of GM are getting.

They're lucky to get that. The dividend was discontinued after March 2020 and wasn't resumed until December 2022. By way of comparison, Ford's yield-to-cost is just above 6%.

 

[davideduardo]

The main car company that has dropped AM radio is Tesla. They made $15 billion in profits in 2023.

Based on sales, that is not a particularly high margin.

Their new facility in Texas will cost vastly more than their profit from last year's operation. Again, that is not a huge number based on the size of the business.

 

[TheBigA]

Based on sales, that is not a particularly high margin.

It's more money in profit than the entire radio industry in revenue, according to you:

All of radio is estimated at around $14 billion. The largest radio company barely has $1 billion in revenue.

 

[Wolfie770]

There's a "SAVING FM" thread, so IDK how much of a chance AM has, if FM is not well-known anymore.

 

[davideduardo]

It's more money in profit than the entire radio industry in revenue, according to you:

And far more outstanding share and many more shareholders. We have to look in proportion to the size of the business.

 

[TheBigA]

And far more outstanding share and many more shareholders. We have to look in proportion to the size of the business.

But the question still is why are people defending car companies?

 

[davideduardo]

But the question still is why are people defending car companies?

Because the domestic ones are key to our economy.