Slip, Slidin' Away

[Element9]

As if to verify the findings of the NY Times posted in a previous thread, here's what appeared in Inside Radio, 9-18-06:

New Edison study says 12-24 listening shows "sharp decreases in TSL and usage."
Radio has largely concentrated on ad-friendly 25+ formats and young Americans are less interested in what's on AM and FM. Edison's Larry Rosin says this followup to research first done six years ago shows not only declines in TSL and Persons Using Radio - but "most importantly, attitudes about radio among 12 to 24's." More in today's Inside Radio.

Any surprises here? No, didn't think so.

It may be that in ten years, not even HD, News-Talk or Oldies will sustain AM radio. Imagine the Standard Broadcast Band becoming a thing of the past? The thought never crossed our minds when we were listening to WLS, WABC, WBBF, CKLW, WPTR, WCFL, WAXC, WFIL, 13Q, CHUM, WYSL and KB back in the glory days. But just as 8-Tracks gave way to cassettes which gave way to CD's which gave way to mp3s which gave way to iPods; just as AM gave way to FM, "the most music," "the best music," "progressive rock," "album rock," "AOR" and "CHR," time and technology march on.

Where AM radio is concerned, there may be hope and it may lie in narrow-casting rather than broad-casting; it may lie in super-saturating and super-serving a community with a product (and I don't mean Super Tradio or Obituaries) that no other web based, FM or Wi-Fi service can match. It may be a synergy of many platforms. Where FM is concerned, it may be the rejection of voice-tracking and the return of content-based, relatable local personalities.

Whatever the saving grace may be, I will say this staunchly, it won't be cheap and those who attempt to do it on the cheap will be largely and roundly ignored. So if you're running a major market FM cluster or a Class D in a small community, it clearly would be wise to be pro-active and get as far ahead of the curve as possible. Otherwise, in ten years, technology will leave your major market FM "B's" and "C's" and your AM Class D obsolete, without even the 60+ crowd to sustain it.

Sad, but ever more evident these days, true.
-9-

 

[Bob1370]

Broadcasters who pay attention to their audiences (a minority, sad to say) have known this for 30 years. CapCities/ABC, back when it owned WKBW, did a survey not only of Buffalo but of all the markets where it had a presence (which even then included NYC, LA and Detroit). It was groundbreaking research into what motivated people to make the audio entertainment choices they did--and even in 1977 they could choose among radio stations, home stereos, car stereos or the Walkmen people were starting to carry around. They found out that people didn't care much if something was AM or FM, or even care a whole hell of lot if it was mono or stereo, high fidelity or phone-quality. What they cared about above all else, by a decisive margin, was the programming the station or other medium presented, and whether they liked the personalities who were presenting it. Nothing else mattered then. Nothing else mattered much when the studies were repeated through the 80s and 90s.

And in all likelihood, nothing else matters much now.

People still care more about content than about technology, or even acoustical quality of the sound. As long as the sound quality isn't painful or annoying, they'll opt for the best and most entertaining fare, content they expect they will like, even if they are offered a technically better sound from some other source. (The success of aurally tinny but self-programmed iPods speaks volumes to that.) If you want to get an audience back, or at least stop the bleeding, all you have to do is invest in programming that people will enjoy, presented by people they like. Do that and your station, AM or FM, will survive and prosper.

 

[mimo]

I couldn't agree with you more. It's all about the programming. When I lived in Vancouver in the 80's the number 1 station among teens was an AM top 40, there was comptetition from other top 40 stations including a few on FM that couldn't pull in what the AM station had in terms of audience. One girl told me yes FM sounds better but the music on AM is so much better. Steve Bridges in Iowa City Iowa to0k an easy listening am station in the 90's turned it into a top 40, programmed it with personality, made it a station the city could rely on for news and did some old fashioned radio programming and the station was a success. People said "you're going to play new music on AM? Are you nuts?" He said most radios don't have to0 much sound difference between am and fm unless they're high end radios and at low volumes you can't even tell the difference, people would go where the programming was. Could anyone imagine an am hit music station being number 1 in the late nineties, turn of the century? He did it, so could anyone. It's all about the programming.

 

[lash]

A decent example of this, is WDIA in Memphis. While its not an AM Top 40, its an AM Urban AC that is #1 in its market. I believe in what your saying, and wish that more people would try it.

 

[SpareChange]

Bob1370

CapCities/ABC, back when it owned WKBW, did a survey not only of Buffalo but of all the markets where it had a presence... groundbreaking research into what motivated people to make the audio entertainment choices they did... even in 1977 they could choose among radio stations, home stereos, car stereos or the Walkmen people were starting to carry around.

Good historical reference, but it's nearly 30 years since. Does this research hold up under today's conditions?

Nothing else mattered much when the studies were repeated through the 80s and 90s.

Again, good historical reference, now 20 some years after the research.

And in all likelihood, nothing else matters much now.

This is a presumption and may be a good premise. Would a survey of today's listeners, especially the 12-24's that were part of the survey quoted in the initial post, prove different?

People still care more about content than about technology, or even acoustical quality of the sound. As long as the sound quality isn't painful or annoying, they'll opt for the best and most entertaining fare, content they expect they will like, even if they are offered a technically better sound from some other source. (The success of aurally tinny but self-programmed iPods speaks volumes to that.) If you want to get an audience back, or at least stop the bleeding, all you have to do is invest in programming that people will enjoy, presented by people they like. Do that and your station, AM or FM, will survive and prosper.

Without being negative, why is it that KB, in its Oldies re-incarnation, fell flat on its face? The personalities were there. Was it the lack of promotion or inconsistencies in music or whatever has beenput forth in other posts?
---
mimo

I couldn't agree with you more. It's all about the programming. When I lived in Vancouver in the 80's the number 1 station among teens was an AM top 40, there was comptetition from other top 40 stations including a few on FM that couldn't pull in what the AM station had in terms of audience.

Once again, good historical reference, but it's 20 some odd years after the fact. Also, doesn't the CRTC prohibit true CHR on Canadian FM's? In which case, it's not an accurate comparison.

lash

It's all about the programming.

Hard to argue this assertion. Good programming trumps many factors.

An example of this, is WDIA in Memphis. While its not an AM Top 40, its an AM Urban AC that is #1 in its market.

WDIA is a heritage radio station, especially (but not exclusively) in the African-American community. Yet, the Black composition of Memphis is greater that 60%. As such, WDIA's success as an AM may be unique to that particular market.

There've been some very thought-provoking posts in this thread. While I may not concur with everything that's been suggested, it makes one think. It's fair to assume that we agree that good programming makes a considerable difference. This having been said, I'm not so sure AM has more than ten years of shelf life.

 

[Ed Trefzger]

It's fair to assume that we agree that good programming makes a considerable difference. This having been said, I'm not so sure AM has more than ten years of shelf life.

Who knows how long FM's is either?  In an age of Wi-Fi and internet protocols, we may find that conventional broadcasting will be supplanted by universal ultra-high-speed wireless broadband.  The scarcity of broadcast outlets and the barriers to entry will be eliminated and quality of programming will be even more important.  It's happened in so many other industries -- imaging, recording, publishing -- it would be foolish to assume it won't happen to broadcasting.  Check out Chris Anderson's The Long Tail (http://www.thelongtail.com/) or Kurt Hanson's forthcoming blog and book Radio Revitalized! (http://www.radiorevitalized.com/).

All industries facing obscelence need to reconsider their paradigms.  Had the railroads considered themselves in the transportation business and not the railroad business, they might have adapted when trucking and air travel came along.  Similarly, if broadcasters think of themselves as being in the program delivery business, they'll adapt and prosper.  (Clear Channel is all set -- they consider themselves to be in the commercial delivery business already and have for years.  )

 

[mimo]

The CRTC relaxed the hit music rule on FM back in the 90's and it was at that time that AM top 40 gave up. The stations I was mentioning were american stations from Bellingham and Seattle Washington that threw very go0d signals into the Vancouver area. Still the Vancouver and Victoria AM rockers had a better product. Here in Ottawa, we have hot 89.9 which is a pure CHR and we have kiss which is a CHR at night, also an FM plus energie 104 and Tag radio which are French CHRs. Yes while my facts were from the past, the point was that people would go to where they were meeting their needs. Regardless of Band.

 

[Radknowski]

Radio: Out of Control?

I think a lot of the discussion here, while interesting and factual to a large extent, misses one very important point. The point would be the issue of control.

I've observed over the years and especially since I've been out of the business, that ALL people exert control of what they want to read, watch, see and hear. It's this issue of control that poses a major challenge to radio, today more than ever. TV has issues as well, years ago with remote controls, VCR's and now DVR's. But that's a discussion for another venue.

In the 60's, 70's and 80's, the issue of control was centered in the battle to keep radio listeners from "punching the button." While broadcasters continue to fight the "punch the button" battle, new technologies offer different and broadened avenues that take potential listeners AWAY FROM THE RADIO completely. In this venue, broadcaster are completely detached from exerting or influencing the listeners' choices and the issue of control is moot.

When a potential or ex-listener powers up his/her computer and logs on to any number of websites featuring webcasts, podcasts or videos, that potential listener isn't listening to over-the-air, terrestrial radio. When a young male parks his ass in front of his computer or TV to play video games, radio has again lost control. And when a person puts earbuds or headphones on to listen to his/her mp3, iPod or CD, radio has absolutely no influence on that person.

When I read the initial post on this thread, the research synopsis immediately made me think of these factors rather than "good programming vs. bad programming" or "AM vs. FM."

Radio compounds the problem in every format with tight rotations of well-tested songs. Certainly, the research shows that the stations' listeners "like these songs" so typically, the stations play them to death. Years ago I heard a brilliant reserach scientist (a real-world kinda guy with a bunch of degrees in math and science) offer that "radio research can be designed and manipulated to prove anything the sponsors and underwriters of the research want it to prove." I guess if you test 600 hooks in any format, 300 songs will float to the top, 200 songs will bob in the middle and 100 songs will be absolute bottom crawlers. Ergo, play those top 300 songs!

The research published in "Inside Radio" appears to indicate the "problem" is an issue of listeners' choice of "radio vs. un-radio." Evidently and to the surprise of few who read the I-R summary, 12-24's are very "un-radio" oriented. In my opinion, it's all about control. These particular listeners control the source, the music or the type entertainment and how much or little of it they want when they put their iPods on shuffle or scan through their music-mood folders.

I'm not sure that it's in radio's power, bright as some programmers may be, to reverse this trend. While webcasting the station may help, it may be small help at that. As we all know and the RAB and NAB often bragged, "radio is portable, you can take it with you." Well, guess what, so is the new technology, be it WiFi, iPod or whatever else is in the works. Radio is fighting a control battle. It may win the battle, but it's doubtful that radio will win the war.

Keep the peace. [/Mike]

 

[TVJunkie12]

Research is destined to be ruin of radio as we know it. Programmers today don't want the accountability of not following the same research as everyone else lest they don't succeed. If they follow the research they can claim that it's not their fault when it doesn't work. As far as playing the same tired crap over and over because it tests well, what about all those songs that were huge hits and sold a million copies yet are never heard? Does no one like them anymore? Or is it as you said and the research is manipulated by a bunch of programmers whose egos dictate that they know what everyone wants to hear. In any case, the audiences are withering away while the geniuses follow the same research and play the same songs over and over. You have to wonder where it will all be in a few years.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Kids, Kids, Kids

You know, I hate to sound like an old fart, but today's situation reminds me of the late '60s. Radio had Top 40, and the Drake format was hammering the same 30 songs at listeners, with songs in a "hot" rotation running TWICE an hour.

Along came a bunch of punk-ass kids who got their hands on a few "underground" radio stations. The signals were on the FM dial - which nobody cared about as long as big-ass AMs were blasting out over half of the continent. Well, those punk-ass kids created a revolution in radio, and a few years later you could buy one of those big-ass AMs for a song.

So, where are those punk-ass kids now? Programming iPods, and making mix CDs. Since that's an inefficient way to share them with friends, some of them are programming podcasts and Internet streams - both legally and illegally. Sound familiar?

Jack already evolved from an Internet stream into a radio format. I have the feeling that Jack won't be the last format to evolve from an Internet stream. And, some of those smart-mouthed punks are going to want to dis their elders in real time, and comment on the stupidity of those damn oldsters without having to wait for people to download a podcast. Add high-speed wireless Internet access to the mix, and you have something that closely resembles a radio station.

Next thing you know, one of those old farts who owns a failing radio station will get wind of the fact that those punks are gathering an audience, and will turn over the keys to the console to them. If history repeats itself, another radio revolution just might be around the corner.

Will the big corporations benefit from such sacrilege? I hope not. I'd like to see them fall on their greedy, short-sighted bean piles. If shareholders take a beating, tough. The shareholders who'll lose the most are the ones who demanded the greatest short-term gains instead of investing in the long-term health of the business.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

Well said Rox, you are so right. Then of course the money guys saw what the kids were diong with FM and they got their greasy little fingers in it!

I always wondered what would happen if some of the kids today had a chance to play with an AM station or two? Might be fun to listen to....and that's what is lacking today in radio fun!

 

[SpareChange]

Well said Rox, you are so right. Then of course the money guys saw what the kids were diong with FM and they got their greasy little fingers in it! I always wondered what would happen if some of the kids today had a chance to play with an AM station or two? Might be fun to listen to....and that's what is lacking today in radio fun!

That's what 14X did years ago in Buffalo, with guys like Tedd Shredd and Meltdown. Both now have more prominent roles in radio. I can't recall the call letters, but 14X (AM 1400 Buffalo, now WWWS) was a balls-out metal/new music format. The guys who worked there loved the music they were playing and the station had spirit and energy. When the 14X format went down, some of the guys pitched the format to the owners of KB. Howard Stern was doing mornings and other than that, the programming on KB at the time was a mish-mash of bad, no-ratings talk. Word was the suits at KB considered it, but the PD of Kiss put the kibash on it. The thinking was a format like that on KB would hurt Kiss' ratings.

Huh???

You can hear WBNY at Buffalo State in some parts of the city. "Kids" have control of that station. The music is adventurous but the station blows. "Adventurous radio" is like playing jazz. You have to be a good musician to know how to play it and "experiment" within the context and structure of the ensemble. Half the "kids" doing radio at WBNY seem to have a problem assembling three coherent sentences. Sorry, I LISTEN to WBNY and my ears are often astounded by the lack of professionalism. I don't expect it to be WBFO, but I do expect the people on the air to have a clue.

Like I said: Jazz. Musicianship. Know the scales. Discipline. THEN you can solo and noodle.
Anyway, giving a tired, beat, useless AM radio station to college kids is still an encouraging idea.

Somebody call WJJL.

 

[SirRoxalot]

My only comment is that I don't advocate giving a commercial radio station to a bunch of college kids. Turn WJJL over to a bunch of "kids" who are truly interested, have invested themselves in an Internet radio station, have gotten past the "vanity" stage, are presenting something that isn't crap, and may even have a sponsor or two.

Hey, it can't do worse than what WJJL has on the air now.