Say Goodbye to the AM Band

[davideduardo]

Shut down AM? I don't think so. In my marketplace there is a sea of media. We've got the group operations and overdone processing on FM and all the things other markets have, which makes it nice for me. My "little" 500 watt AM Radio station serves its community of license, which is something most of the FM stations don't even understand. Of course, since many of them don't even have studios or offices in the their city of license it's no wonder. We do the local news, stay really involved in the community, and play music. Yes we even play music on AM! It's a combination of "oldies" and "Beach Music". It works. Business was at a record level last year. We increased our income by over a hundred thousand dollars, and I suspect we outbilled several FM stations in the area. All of this is not to brag or be arrogant, because we sure do make mistakes. However, it does show that AM radio still can work. Our formula is to "do our thing" and let everything else take care of itself. Besides, if we got shut down, there are a couple of FM stations in the market that wouldn't be able to figure out new sales leads or their playlist.

WNMB?

 

[powerdown]

AM will always be around, as long as the smaller cities and towns are around...localism! (something FM has forgotten!)

 

[Bob1370]

"Realistically now...isn't it time the FCC shut down AM radio? It's not good sound quality, it can't compete with other media, and engineers hate to work on the things."

No mass medium has ever been totally replaced by other media as they came along. There will always need to be a radio service that's particularly well suited to efficient long distance, metro-wide coverage and to spoken word programming, and AM clearly fills the bill on both counts. Medium wave broadcasting has been around for 87 years, since WWJ and KDKA aired their first newscasts (it's no accident that those stations are still market leaders in their respective cities 87 years later), and it'll be around for at least another 87.

I'd also call attention to a series of studies that Capital Cities and its corporate successor, ABC's Radio Division, have conducted periodically over the last 30 years. They all say one thing...programming is a far stronger determinant of what station people choose, than perceived sound fidelity or stereo sound. A well programmed AM will always outperform an FM of comparable market coverage with lesser quality programming.

 

[wnmb]

Yes, David. It is WNMB
We promote it says "Wonderful North Myrtle Beach", but others might say "We're nuts in Myrtle Beach".

 

[oaktree]

I, like most on this board, grew up with AM radio and, among us, there is a large, loyal and committed constituency that will not go down without a fight ... especially a fight for our livlihood.

But we also can't bury our head in the sand as we sometimes do, or point fingers at just the FCC, the NAB, iBiquity IBOC, fickle listeners, the Internet, satellite, iPods, CDs, cassettes, 8-tracks or whatever new "digital" gizmo is yet to come down the pike.

We must learn reality and we must look around us.

Just like it is said that Rush Limbaugh saved AM radio (he didn't) ... we must be aware that there are many great broadcasters on this band, both large and micro-small.

But the facts are, that "The Times They Are A-Changin'".

Let's call this, "O' Canada."

Why is this that Canadian regulatory commissions equal to our FCC have done everything in its power to allow AM radio stations move to FM and they are, by the droves. Sure, there are incentives of potential higher power (and costs) to stay on AM, in much better frequencies for those not making the migration, but many of those great Canadian AM's have already made the move and more are working that way as we read.

Why?

Don't use the defense that there are more frequencies available, hence, more space. The FM dial in the Dominion is filling fast across a country much smaller than the US population wise. Let's not use that, either, that there are less people to serve, so, why not move them to FM, just because we gave an overbooked ticket to many to further add to the discredit of AM radio here in the US to cause a logjam that will be difficult to unjam.

So what to we have? Two crowded bands and huge interference on AM. We can't migrate to an expanded FM band, nor will we, without the AM ship torpedoed and forced to sink by the FCC.

Then, we'll start the new radio craze all over in developing new radios to put 143 new channels on "the level playing field."

Yeah...that will be fun to watch. And God help the little guys who have struggled so long and come so far in their communities till now.

Not that rural America doesn't know of or understand FM. They do. But many just don't have it, get it or, really, care about it, unless it's an absolute necessity for them.

I shudder when I read and re-read the post about FM forgetting localism. It's not "FM's" fault that localism isn't there. It's OUR fault. Local is local, whether we admit it or not. If we don't put it there, it won't be local.

That's like saying that the Internet won't be around, so AM is good. AM IS good for what it can serve better than FM. But so can the Internet and that's where I see the migration going in this country if the regulators stay the heck out of it and try to force feed us into uncharted FM territory.

Doing THAT would, for many of us, be a back-breaking revenue intensive work in progress and, for some, it will never happen. We just can't flip a switch and be "Instant FM."

And just how many iBiquity licenses at $25,000 a pop do you thing small AM broadcasters are going to pony-up to make the shift to HD? I can name hundreds, if not thousands, who won't do so even kicking and screaming and being dragged down a lone country road. Just ain't gonna happen.

I am truly impressed and energized by the number of posters here who believe in AM radio with all their heart and who have succeeded through years of what were probably difficult times to gain a small "piece of the rock." The thing is, though, that there are many who aren't and we're not the shoe store down the block that will just simply have a "going out of business sale" and just give up.

So, we leave it in the hands of regulators to decide whether the band will become a huge vast wasteland, move to a new expanded FM band, forced to go HD, migrate to the Internet or simple wilt and die when the last listener fades into the ether.

These will be difficult times in the near years to come. People moving to our communities aren't moving here just from AM only markets. They know the score better than the generations before it. The fact is, today, people aren't as aware about AM as they are any station that makes a huge effort to SERVE its community at all costs.

THAT'S where the saving grace of AM is today, tomorrow and forever. Serving the community with local, relative and viable service.

It's not about license values anymore on AM. It's about survival.

 

[KevinFodor]

Well, I agree with many of the local broadcasters here promoting their "local" broadcast services. God love
them...they really are providing service for their local communities.

But, let's face some facts here.

There are way too many stations on the AM band. Nighttime interference is killing radio listening at night on
AM. And, decisions to continue to narrow AM frequency response will only make things worse.

There are also too many small AM stations who are refusing to power down at night, or refuse to police their directional patterns (also adding to the interference problem). And, despite complaints, the FCC does nothing about it.

I believe in local broadcasting. But, I also think selectively pruning the AM band, reducing the number of stations on it..and moving those stations to an expanded FM band? Well, it wouldn't be easy, but it does
make a modicum of sense. Remember, the old Federal Radio Commission shut down a bunch AM stations to reduce interference way back when. And, those stations shut down weren't given an option. At least
Fred's idea offers an option that makes far more sense to me than seeing what we're seeing on FM today:
A bunch of small powered FM translators for big city churches popping up everywhere you go. I'd rather see
small stations going into small towns that would be programmed locally, rather than to see some satellite-delivered religious programming from some "mega ministry".

BTW: I have no problem with legitimate religious broadcasters. I just see problems brewing with the translators. And Fred's idea, though controversial, is worth discussing and debating.

 

[kenhawk1160]

There are also too many small AM stations who are refusing to power down at night, or refuse to police their directional patterns (also adding to the interference problem). And, despite complaints, the FCC does nothing about it.

That doesn't mean you shut down the whole AM band. It just means the FCC needs to step up enforcement efforts.

 

[Oldbones]

I'd also call attention to a series of studies that Capital Cities and its corporate successor, ABC's Radio Division, have conducted periodically over the last 30 years. They all say one thing...programming is a far stronger determinant of what station people choose, than perceived sound fidelity or stereo sound. A well programmed AM will always outperform an FM of comparable market coverage with lesser quality programming.

On what planet? If this were true, there would still be major market AMs doing music formats. Look at stations like WLS, WABC, WRKO (2 of which were/are owned by ABC)...all in the 2-3 share range at best as talkers...not much different than the numbers they got at the end of their days as top 40. All 3 (and I'm sure we can come up with many other examples) ran rings around their FM competiton content-wise at the end of their time as music stations, but got beaten up anyway...why? Because fidelity/clarity of signal IS important. Yes, quality of programming matters but the vast majority of listeners will listen to a mediocre station that sounds good than will go for one that's better programmed but has lousy audio or is noisy.

 

[davideduardo]

Why is this that Canadian regulatory commissions equal to our FCC have done everything in its power to allow AM radio stations move to FM and they are, by the droves. Don't use the defense that there are more frequencies available, hence, more space. The FM dial in the Dominion is filling fast across a country much smaller than the US population wise.

Canada always had a very different regulatory stance than the US. While the FCc allowed all stations that fit int he band to be licensed, Canada required new applicants to do economic impact studies so no market would be driven to unprofitability or inability to meet service requirements. This is why, at the peak number of stations, canada had only a handful of daytimers, and most stations were of significant power; markets that by population would have had 12 to 15 AMs in the US had 5 or 6 in Canada.

When it came time to consider moving most stations to FM, there were both few AMs in any market to move, and fewer FMs already operating in the market.

There is no comparison with the US because Canada protected the profitability and viability of its stations always. Yet now, the move to FM is based on the fact that many, many Canadian AMs were losing money because the audience had moved to FM.

Not that rural America doesn't know of or understand FM. They do. But many just don't have it, get it or, really, care about it, unless it's an absolute necessity for them.

If you look at most small markets, they now have more FMs than AMs, and, generally, the FMs have better coverage in the areas surrounding the central town.

Traverse City, MI, is a good example. In the 60's, it had one Class IV AM that barely covered the city, and did not cover the trade area including Leelanau, Benzie, Kalkaska and Antrim counties at night, and one high-band daytimer, that, similarly, did not make it much more than 15 to 20 miles in any direction. Today, the "metro" has 11 FMs, most Class C's, which cover the full extent of the trade area.

Or Lake City, FL. Previously, it had a Cass IV on 1340 that did not cover even the home county due to condutivity, and a directional 1 kw station on 960. Today, there are 5 local FMs and several more from Live Oak, all covering the two-county trade area.

These are both markets that in the 60's were barely 20,000 in population, and severely underserved by the deficient AM allocations of the time. At many times, in both markets, there were no listenable daytime signals in parts of the trade area, and at night much of the area had no local service and erratic service from distant towns in other states.

AM IS good for what it can serve better than FM.

What can AM serve better than AM? Neither band has a monopoly on service or localism. AM is much more susceptable to interference, static, summer lightning and auroral conditions, etc. FM is blocked by hills or mountains, and can have multipath problems. In other owrds, both have some defects... but the majority of FMs cover more than the AMs in the same market.

And just how many iBiquity licenses at $25,000 a pop do you thing small AM broadcasters are going to pony-up to make the shift to HD?

You exaggerate.

I am truly impressed and energized by the number of posters here who believe in AM radio with all their heart and who have succeeded through years of what were probably difficult times to gain a small "piece of the rock." The thing is, though, that there are many who aren't and we're not the shoe store down the block that will just simply have a "going out of business sale" and just give up.

The real problem is not your "sob story" about the small station owners. It is the fact that as each year goes by, there are fewer people who accept the sound of AM and who will listen to anything on the band. As time goes on, AM is running out of listeners.

These will be difficult times in the near years to come. People moving to our communities aren't moving here just from AM only markets. They know the score better than the generations before it. The fact is, today, people aren't as aware about AM as they are any station that makes a huge effort to SERVE its community at all costs.

There aren't any "AM Only" markets. There are 4,800 AM staitons, and 8,000 FM staitons. Obviously, there are more FMs in more places than there are AMs. And the average FM covers much more than the average AM.

THAT'S where the saving grace of AM is today, tomorrow and forever. Serving the community with local, relative and viable service.

So no FM serves its market? Interesting. I did not know that the system of modulation prevented serving the community on an FM.

 

[oaktree]

David - If I were as angry a person as you appear to be, I'd insult you, as others have here, but it's not worth the time or energy.

First, I operate an AM standalone in a city of 27,000 some 28 miles from the rated metro. Though my station is part of that market according to Arbitron, with 1 kw and mountains between us, by city grade is destroyed by 80 percent by the time it gets to the "big city" metro -- of 44,000.

Further, I have good ratings and even better billing in the several hundreds of thousands range, with good profit, so get off it.

The Hispanic station claiming the city of license broadcasts not from here, nor from the metro -- BUT FROM A SEPARATE MARKET 52 miles away! It is also simulcast with a low power FM on the coast ... and they sell one account in my city. They also get beat by my AM. Both simulcasts combined made them lucky in the last book, but that won't last.

Secondly, the rush to be in the "big city" from atop the moutain 18 miles from me, eliminated all but city of license presence for the FM station originall licensed here. It now makes no sales effort of note here and has no more heritage here. In fact, my
AM beats it's "county wide" signal with its "Hot A/C" format. You can't hear my station in half the county, let alone in the main metro, so, again, get off it.

The oldies station licensed to a city south of me has long been in the metro after moving there and does not do much here. It is not the heritage oldies station that was run out of this end of the county and it, too, is either tied or beaten by my kilowatt AM.

Thirdly, in a town 4 miles south, "its" lone FM is a simulcast of a Class A in the metro of the city below the mountains. Two frequencies, one station. And we beat it, or both, too.

I am the only radio station, let alone AM, actually serving the 72,000 person section of this county. We have 25-54s with talk and we are heavy 35+ but we get 30 percent on average in agency buys here.

Because we work for it. Go figure. Now, please, David...

 

[oaktree]

"iBiquity Digital Corporation announced today that it has extended its $5,000 introductory licensing discount for radio broadcasters until the end of June. On July 1, a new discounted fee schedule (see chart below) will take effect. Radio broadcasters planning to convert to digital over the next four years will continue to receive discounts on the $25,000 licensing fee. (June, 2005)"


David - I know this doesn't mean much and won't elicit any type of apology, because of thousands of posters, I've never met one yet -- except you -- who knows everything.

Sometimes, your attitude in "teaching" all of us, be it radio fans, employees of radio stations, management or owners (a few you've annoyed so much, they now avoid even reading Radio-Info anymore) is beyond irritating. It's only an exchange of ideas, thoughts and opinions, Mr. Gleason, not a college course for credit. It's enjoyment and an exchange. I can't turn a page without seeing you on it and you never have a kind word for anyone or any post and I find that disgusting and offensive.

I wish you would back off.

The next time to you tell me that "I exagerate" - I suggest you learn to live up to being wrong, as other posters have tried in vain to show you the errors of your ways. You may think you know everything about radio, but if you did, even on a "$10 AM" you'd be doing that so successfully -- instead of stuck in a Univision office crunching numbers all day and here all night.

Get a grip, David, and give broadcasters -- not accountants or so-called consultants -- a break for once.

Old grouchy radio person? You are that, my friend. But not a legend, except, maybe, in your own mind. Even misunderstandings are allowed here, so learn to understand and give a hand before knocking others for their usually factual and honest opinions, amigo.

 

[davideduardo]

First, I operate an AM standalone in a city of 27,000 some 28 miles from the rated metro. Though my station is part of that market according to Arbitron, with 1 kw and mountains between us, by city grade is destroyed by 80 percent by the time it gets to the "big city" metro -- of 44,000.

Of course, the situatiuon in Paso Robles plays right into my opinion that the FCC has not done an adequate job going back to the 30's.

What is key in your county is the aftermath of "Bonita Springs" where Richard Friedman's A in that community filed in the late 70's to do a major change to upgrade from an A to a C. A major change allowed at the time for competing applicants, and that one, outside both Naples and Ft. Myers, attracted 10 cross filers and Friedman lost the station.

The FCC made up for this by just opening the door to all kinds of meoves and upgrades, allowing staitons to find new cities of license and to upgrade simultaneously. Many local communities lost, for all practical purposes, their FM. Larger markets were "invadxed" by new move ins and rimshots with higher power, and the whole thing of changing the table of assignments and moving stations en masse came about.

Further, I have good ratings and even better billing in the several hundreds of thousands range, with good profit, so get off it.

So, congratulations. Since the local FMs abandoned the market, and there is severe terrain in play, it worked out. Now how many similar situations are there vs. the 4,800 AMs in the US? I'd say you have the exception that makes the rule.

The Hispanic station claiming the city of license broadcasts not from here, nor from the metro -- BUT FROM A SEPARATE MARKET 52 miles away! It is also simulcast with a low power FM on the coast ... and they sell one account in my city. They also get beat by my AM. Both simulcasts combined made them lucky in the last book, but that won't last.

Don't count on it. The two FMs in simulcast are about the only viable service for a market that is now nearly 20% Hispanic. Using Arbitron's Language report, about half are Spanish dominant. That means about 12 potential shares in the market, and Lazer is only getting around 6 of them. They have also been growing, book after book. Since Hispanics are not big AM users, 1030 will not be a factor, either.

Secondly, the rush to be in the "big city" from atop the moutain 18 miles from me, eliminated all but city of license presence for the FM station originall licensed here. It now makes no sales effort of note here and has no more heritage here. In fact, my
AM beats it's "county wide" signal with its "Hot A/C" format. You can't hear my station in half the county, let alone in the main metro, so, again, get off it.

Bonita springs again. KKAL's 70 dbu barely scrapes Paso Robles, yet city grades all of SLO.

The oldies station licensed to a city south of me has long been in the metro after moving there and does not do much here. It is not the heritage oldies station that was run out of this end of the county and it, too, is either tied or beaten by my kilowatt AM.

It's kind of unfair to compare KXDZ with anything. It's 70 hits neither PR or SLO, from what I can tell. It's loigical it does not do too well. KKIQO seems to share a site with KKAL, so it is somewhat logically going to serve the greater population area. On the othere hand, it is going to split the oldies market with the classic oldies staiton, making 5 available shares a 2 and a 3. That is competition in the same format, not localizaiton or service.

I am the only radio station, let alone AM, actually serving the 72,000 person section of this county. We have 25-54s with talk and we are heavy 35+ but we get 30 percent on average in agency buys here.

That is an enviable position... unfortunately, one most Class IV AMs do not enjoy. It's too bad that some of the dysfunctional AMs can not be eliminated so stations like yours can either change frequency or raise power to continue to serve the community you are in. Most AMs don't do that. Giving stations like yours more coverage and power and less interference would enhance the value of AM overall.

 

[davideduardo]

"iBiquity Digital Corporation announced today that it has extended its $5,000 introductory licensing discount for radio broadcasters until the end of June. On July 1, a new discounted fee schedule (see chart below) will take effect. Radio broadcasters planning to convert to digital over the next four years will continue to receive discounts on the $25,000 licensing fee. (June, 2005)"

Where in that do you read that the fees for HD are "outrageous" as has been posted? The fee is not $25 k, and the discounts on the "$25 k" continue in effect, particularly for smaller markets and operators.

Plus, there is no requirement to convert to HD... although I believe that AM will virtually disappear unless something is done to help AM, including and up to a massive frequency reasssignment and some way of clearing some stations from the dial.

David - I know this doesn't mean much and won't elicit any type of apology, because of thousands of posters, I've never met one yet -- except you -- who knows everything.

I don't "know" everything. As the saying goes, "the older you get the more you realize you don't know." But knowledge has little to do with this... this is a discussion of opinion. Yours is not the same as mine, that's all. If my opinions offend you, I surely do applogize for that. But I continue to see a real crisis in AM radio, caused by an old technology and old and ageing listeners.

What are your suggestions to keep AM alive with listeners under 45, who, nationally, use AM less than half what 5´+ listeners do? The problem is that, other than HD, I see no suggestions about a demonstrable problem.

Sometimes, your attitude in "teaching" all of us, be it radio fans, employees of radio stations, management or owners (a few you've annoyed so much, they now avoid even reading Radio-Info anymore) is beyond irritating. It's only an exchange of ideas, thoughts and opinions, Mr. Gleason, not a college course for credit. It's enjoyment and an exchange. I can't turn a page without seeing you on it and you never have a kind word for anyone or any post and I find that disgusting and offensive.

You have not read very much.

[/quote]The next time to you tell me that "I exagerate" [/quote]

Ah, and this broadside makes up for your inaccurate and exaggerated statements about Canadian AM and the way the CRTC and Industry Canada licences stations? Or your statement that rural America does not know FM? Two can play this game, but the real issue again is that, irrespecitve of what AM covers or does not, the band has immense problems in listenership and the age of the listeners. In a few years, AM will be almost exclusively a 55+ medium, and I don't see much being done about it... especially when companies like Bonneville, Clear, Cox and others are moving the "AM Formats" to FM, albeit slowly.

- I suggest you learn to live up to being wrong, as other posters have tried in vain to show you the errors of your ways. You may think you know everything about radio, but if you did, even on a "$10 AM" you'd be doing that so successfully -- instead of stuck in a Univision office crunching numbers all day and here all night.

I did my stint as an owner, and, due to some bizarre situations, chose not to follow that path again. In my "office" which measures 3500 miles by 1200 miles, I have found something personally satisfactory... the variety of working in multiple markets, with a lot of close listener contact and an involvment in a variety of formats. As an owner I could never have acheived that degree of satisfaction, as I was never fond of being in one place all the time... even in my ownership period, I built stations in 6 different markets to releive the boredom.

One of the very positive things I take away from these fora, and a main reason for participating, is the need to check facts; if I can not argue convincingly a point I want to make, I learn that my base data may be wrong. Many of these discussions have made me look at issues from a different perspective than the "conventional radio wisdom" and I have benefitted. On the other hand, I do not suffer fools gladly.

Get a grip, David, and give broadcasters -- not accountants or so-called consultants -- a break for once.

And please recognize that not all broadcasters think the way you do. I know that most don't think the way I do... I can remember being publicly ridiculed in a broadcasters association meeting for "wasting money" getting my first 5 FM licences when there were no FMs on the air! I'm used to it, in other words.

Old grouchy radio person? You are that, my friend. But not a legend, except, maybe, in your own mind. Even misunderstandings are allowed here, so learn to understand and give a hand before knocking others for their usually factual and honest opinions, amigo.

Please, then, point out the errors in fact... not opinion... and I will appologize readily. But I think the issue is, again, one of facing contrary opinions...

 

[oaktree]

You've got it wrong. You must be looking through rose-colored glasses or something. My question about the CRTC was, simply, "WHY?" not a dissertation about Canada's licensing process. Further, my remarks about rural FM had nothing to do with squat...I mentioned that it's an expense for broadcasters to make the move to FM, period, and that today's people moving into a rural area aren't fully ignorant of FM from the markets they came from, but that AM is something new to them because they are in an FM world. The point was that localism on FM has nothing to do with it being on FM. Man o' man. And the quote came direct from iBiquity...as posted. I didn't make it up.

 

[davideduardo]

You've got it wrong. You must be looking through rose-colored glasses or something. My question about the CRTC was, simply, "WHY?" not a dissertation about Canada's licensing process.

Please reread your own post. You made statements about the switch from AM to all-FM (outside the multiethnic metros) in Canada that are not true. Simply put, Canada did it because they could: they licensed far fewer stations per market than the US, on both AM and FM. When AM began its elimination, there were plenty of FM frequenices available to accomodate the switches. There is no US point of comparison.

Further, my remarks about rural FM had nothing to do with squat...I mentioned that it's an expense for broadcasters to make the move to FM, period, and that today's people moving into a rural area aren't fully ignorant of FM from the markets they came from, but that AM is something new to them because they are in an FM world.

So now there are no AMs in large markets?

And the quote came direct from iBiquity...as posted. I didn't make it up.

Then reread it. It says the deep discounts will continue for many more years.

This is almost as funny as calling the Radio Lazer numbers a fluke... imagine, the sole Spanish langauge FM(s) getting a 6 share in a market that is nearly 20% Hispanic! Oh, my gosh! (LA: 40% Hispanic, 26 Hispanic shares)

 

[oaktree]

It's their first win, David, in six years...and that as a two-on-the-same line simulcast. I mean, come, on, KLUN has separate numbers, as does KLMM. This is a simulcast, not standalone total. The same with the other dual-station combo. I think Arbitron should put them where then need to be...on separate lines, not together.

Further, the "for many years" about iBiquity is up in June of '08, unless HD bombs and they'll extend it.

P.S. - KLUN doesn't have the signal in SLO that my teapot has and certainly shouldn't be in the Santa Maria book. That should be credited to Morro Bay.

 

[davideduardo]

It's their first win, David, in six years...and that as a two-on-the-same line simulcast. I mean, come, on, KLUN has separate numbers, as does KLMM. This is a simulcast, not standalone total. The same with the other dual-station combo. I think Arbitron should put them where then need to be...on separate lines, not together.

Arbitron permits stations that are 100% similcasts to be listed under what they call "single line reporting" which means that they elect one of the calls and all the listening to both stations is shown under just one call. If the simulcast is not real, maning they break for separate content like different stopset content, then it does not qualify as a simulcast.

It appears that Lazer has not updated its profile with Arbitron for Spring, so I can not tell if the licensee has opted for single line reporting.

In any case, unless they select single line, they are reported on separate lines. But if they carry the same programming, everything but cume is additive, including share and AQH persons totals.

Further, the "for many years" about iBiquity is up in June of '08, unless HD bombs and they'll extend it.

The folks I worked with in PR indicated that the four year extension went through 2011. Or, perhaps, they offered a deal... I'm pretty certain that there will always be smaller market concessions.

P.S. - KLUN doesn't have the signal in SLO that my teapot has and certainly shouldn't be in the Santa Maria book. That should be credited to Morro Bay.

Since Spanish language-dominant diarykeepers, in a percentage in excess of 90%, put down dial position, I would assume that Arbitron has it reasonably correct.

 

[oaktree]

Then why do a couple of other trades go to the trouble to actually breakout the two line simulcast if what you say is true? I know for a fact that KXDZ does have separate spot content than it's other simulcast station.

Someone totally disagrees with you.

http://insideradio.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.******************


I think you might be interested in this ... for all 4 stations... No excuses, please.

 

[davideduardo]

Then why do a couple of other trades go to the trouble to actually breakout the two line simulcast if what you say is true? I know for a fact that KXDZ does have separate spot content than it's other simulcast station.

There can be two reasons:

1. The staton owner chose NOT to take advantage of single line reporting, in which case each member of a simulcast or trimulcast will appear separately.
2. There is not a true 100% simulcast, in which case Arbitron disallows single line reporting always.

The advantage of single line reporting is that the combo appears in rankers as a single entry, the sum of the two parts, rather than two lower-ranked components.

Someone totally disagrees with you.

The trades simply print things in the way Arbitron reports them. For example, in LA, KBUE, KBUA and KEBN are a 100% simulcast, and the numbers for all three are listed under KBUE. The other two do not appear in the book anywhere KRCD and KRCV are a 100% simulcast, and the total is listed under KRCD. KRCV does not appear in the book anywhere. On the other hand, KWKW and KUKW (1330 and 1220) are mostly simulcast, but one has some live sports the other does not have. They are treated separately and, if both make the book, are listed as two stations.

In another case (and the one that caused Arbitron to create the simulcast rule) the "networks" of 3 to 5 stations in Puerto Rico were considered not to be simulcasts, as they had both network and local spot breakes, and in the latter, different content was broadcast on each frequency / station.

And, finally, this is similar in intent to the streaming rule where streaming listeners are not added to the numbers of the broadcast station if the stream is not 100% identical to the broadcast; stations that obey the agency dictate to remove AFTRA talent spots will not have the streames added to station listening and will count as a separate station.

It's the station's choice, but to be single-lined, they have to be 100% in synch.

http://insideradio.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.******************
I think you might be interested in this ... for all 4 stations... No excuses, please.

I have no idea what your point is.

P.S. In LA, in all Arbitron reports, including Maximiser, the eBook, PD Advantage and Arbitrends, KRCV does not appear. However, R&R, Inside Radio and All Access generally list it as "KRCD/KRCV" to recognize the simulcast (Same with other simulcasts). The trades add ownership (not in the reports) and expand on the format descriptions they publish along with the numbers; Arbitron provides call letters and shares 12+ and nothing else. The trades add other information to make the tables more readable.

Since Lazer has not even presented an SIP for the Spring book, there is no way it can be listed as a simulcast and qualify for single line status, since this information has to be verified each survey period by submitting the SIP in a timely fashion.

Got it?

 

[kenhawk1160]

Simply put, Canada did it because they could: they licensed far fewer stations per market than the US, on both AM and FM. When AM began its elimination, there were plenty of FM frequenices available to accomodate the switches. There is no US point of comparison.

Very true...also, most of the stations that are on the air in Canada are owned by CBC. Many of them are repeaters of a single station. Thus, you don't have all the petitions from private owners applying for move-ins to bigger markets or translators.