This thread is at 2,000 posts. Have we saved AM radio yet?
-
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
Saving AM Radio
- Thread starter BruceB
- Start date
No. We're still arguing over possible solutions/non-solutions...
Have we at least laid hands on AM radio?
If the format is profitable and draws enough audience to draw advertisers they will move to an FM that they will be able to BUY. If they can not afford said property it will be like the homeowner at Sears looking at the attractive riding lawn mower that he can't afford. So far is "it's not fair that these underserved people can't have an FM", it's also unfair that the poor homeowner can't afford the glossy read lawnmower. But they can't and he can't. Life ain't fair. It's life. Live it, appreciate what you have and stop crying about what you can't afford.
So what? If you a good product and can make money with it, it will sell. If you don't, it won't. Believe me, even the evil white guy at the monopoly broadcasting company will broadcast (name an ethnicity) programs if they can earn money. Can you say capitalism? Bet you can. Even PBS is learning the word.
I think I explained that interns are being compensated with and educational process. I complain about the 40 year old who "has radio in his blood" and will work for next to nothing just be be on the radio (instead of getting a transfusion and having his health restored with normal blood)
Again, you get what you pay for. We've all heard them and got a chuckle from them. Then the independent owners all sold to the giant companies and there was no more competition, no more variety and no reason to be on the radio. Now you have one guy working for twelve stations from a central location. Some of those are proud to be on so many stations. Good for them. I don't really care who does what, but if you work for little money, you know your worth. If you are any good and demand more, you can negotiate. If an owner who doesn't have any competition because he owns most of the stations in a market, he doesn't have to negotiate and won't and you embarrass yourself if you accept a job from him for minimum wage. But that's up to you. Enjoy that great rock n roll and the imagines you have of being the big star that you are in your mind.
Why would anyone care about being on something they don't enjoy? Since three companies own most of the stations, they have no competition and it's like no one even tries. (please don't give the one or two examples of good programming. There is some, but not much)
Because Cumulus made some bad decisions and needed money quickly. I think it was bad management more than a profit making scheme to see off much of the properties including being PLJ. And the PLJ thing kind of proves that if you have a product that makes money (and it doesn't need be from commercial sales) you can buy an FM. So let's not cry for minority broadcasters.
Although especially AM
Part of the reason that no one is making any money is that there are simply too many radio stations. The advertiser pie is spread too thin. Someone has to die. I vote for AM
Again if ethnic broadcasters are profitable withing their communities, keep doing what you're doing and start negotiations to buy an FM.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Sorry. I inadvertently put your quote out of context when challenging @Hyrum's statement. Your post was meant to go after the question as the basis for asking it of him.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
No, they will not as the economics that allow moderately profitable AM stations will not allow the higher price for an FM..
Actually, consolidation in the mid to later 90's led to greater format diversity. Because clusters are sold in combination, groups could have higher rated as well as mid-range and even lower rated stations in the package and get good combo rates.
Nobody owns "most of the stations in a market".
The top 3 owners have less than 10% of all US AM and FM stations.
I can name dozens of well done group owned stations. All over the country, and in every viable format.
Not as simple as that. Many AMs are very profitable with niche formats when they run with tight expense controls.
"The advertiser pie" is a broad term. In LA, you have many advertiser groups, starting with agency accounts, local direct ones, and then ones only seeking Hispanics, Persians, Armenians, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc. Each is a separate market.
Most would not be profitable if they got a full FM. Many, across the country, have translators that cover their market area well, in fact, so they already have all the FM that they need.
Not only have we not saved it, but Democrats really need to pull their support from the AM Radio in Every Vehicle act.
Republicans want to mandate AM Radio because its all about keeping their conservative talk channels alive. But then they killed funding for Public Radio which matters to Democrats. Looks like they want to have their cake and eat it too. Democrats are idiots if they keep going along with it.
There are AM public radio stations too
Doesn't matter. Their strategy is crystal clear.
It does matter because the band is more varied than just one format
Doesn't mean it needs a mandate, especially since Republican strategy is to tip the scales toward rightwing conservative media platforms while defunding and suppressing those that they don't like. Democrats should not go along with it. Let the market decide.
AM radio has certain broad coverage advantages in area-wide emergencies that FM does not have. And there is plenty on AM besides conservative talk. It's the only way to reach many minority groups in quite a few markets.
You have just admitted that public radio favors Democrats; everyone else seems to make a case for it being rather neutral or non-political.
You are making stuff up here about things which are not supported by facts.
That's a ruse that has been disproven repeatedly here.
Because Democrats favor factual news, which as you point out is what Public Radio delivers. There is no way anyone could argue that the conservative talk shows on AM Radio are anything but one-sided rightwing propaganda, which is why Republicans want to mandate it in vehicles forever.
They are supported by facts which have been written about at length here. Just because you disagree with them due to your political preference doesn't mean they are not facts.
But he does have a good point.
It happens that most, if not virtually all conservative talk that is on OTA radio happens to be on AM, and most if not virtually all of the sorts of talk that matter to Democrats (NPR, etc.) is on FM, on mostly public stations that receive (well, did receive) funding from CPB.
That's a good point.
It had been one of those rare instances of the two sides meeting in the middle and actually agreeing on something. Not anymore, of course.
By the way, after all this, does anyone know how the AM bill is doing? Is it going to pass?
Also a good point, and on this basis, Democrats should continue their support for the AM bill.
Well, yeah, but not necessarily because public radio is left leaning; Outside of places with far-left super majorities, such as California, Democrats tend to be in favor of things being neutral or non-political, so it makes sense that they would want to support something like public radio on that basis.
I do agree, though, that just like the far-right, there are those on the far-left who are inclined to favor the opposite extremes of what the far-right favors, with a similar, um, enthusiasm, and those views don't necessarily reflect the views of all Democrats. And likewise, not all Republicans are hard-right ultra conservative.
It is?
It's true that it isn't what it used to be, with the drastically increased noise floor caused by all kinds of electronics, and most stations being automated makes much of what they offer rather meaningless in emergencies, save for EAS, which, while also far from perfect, is better than nothing, and AM still does have a better reach than FM in that sense.
Agreed. See also my comments above.
c
AM covers wider areas daytime, and vastly wider ones at night than any FM. FM is line of sight, AM is conducted by the terrain.
Usually. The MAGA crowd believes that the coverage leans to the Blue side, and often.
The AM movement came out of the NAB and has been supported by all kinds of public officials who believe that AM can endure much greater emergencies than cellular, FM and TV. This was proven amply in the Puerto Rico hurricane just 7 years ago.
Start with you misinformation about the coverage advantages of AM, on which you are totally wrong.
AM has better reach only in some cases where it's a station with a big signal. Most AM radio stations can't even cover their market, though. Besides, what's the point if there's no news department and no one in the building. Those are the examples I was referring to. It's exceedingly rare for AM radio to be the vital emergency resource people can rely on in the heat of the moment. I would estimate it has been decades since we saw anything like that, for example with Katrina 20 years ago.
I just did, written while you were typing that.
A very few. Top of my head, I can only think of WNYC AM and several stations in the Jefferson Public Radio network, based in Ashland, Ore.
Almost all public radio outlets are on FM, because that's where the noncommercial reserved band is. Most of Jefferson Public Radio's AM licenses were donated or purchased for a nominal sum when they no longer had commercial viability. The others are licensed to other entities with a programming agreement to air JPR.
All it takes is one good signal to cover an area-wide emergency. Example: WWL in the New Orleans hurricane or WKAQ in the Puerto Rico one. Oh, and in Puerto Rico electricity did not come back in some areas for months, telephones were down even in urban areas for weeks, all the major TV stations lost towers, as did most full power FMs. Cellular service took half a year to return in some areas.
Oh, and after a disaster all the noise generating things like computers and wall warts and the like will not be operating. Just those batter radios will be.
The information in emergencies comes from the EAS system. If that is not working, authorities can work with the "last man standing" station to cover events. The point is that the best chance for acceptable coverage and uninterrupted service lies with AM stations.
Uh, how about the Puerto Rico hurricane that left 3.5 million without electricity, phones, cellular service, the internet, TV or even FM?
In those cases, AM is the best chance for emergency information to be delivered.
WIPR in San Juan is another. 10 kw fulltime on 940.
WHA in Madison, perhaps the oldest non-commercial station in the nation, is another.
Well one of those cases is the hurricane from 20 years ago I just mentioned, lol. And Puerto Rico is truly an outlier case in a U.S. territory that doesn't have voting representation in Congress and isn't entitled to electoral votes for President. But sure, exploit their situation when it suits your argument.
The narrative you're pushing echoes the Republican talking points being used to try to scare Democrats into voting for their agenda over some nearly fictional emergency resource ruse. They just want to mandate their beloved AM Radio conservative talk ecosystem while killing the platforms that don't parrot their rightwing propaganda. Democrats in Congress need to wake up about this. The Republican strategy is clear, and I don't think there's any point for me to keep reiterating it.