Some questions

[RockJazz]

I am just a listener and an occasional reader / commentator here.

I had some questions that I'd appreciate feedback on if anyone cares to. Some may be simple and show my lack of knowledge of industry basics, some may not be simple and might possibly be interesting. Let's find out:


1. Do FMs stations have just one transmitter and it that the limit for technical reasons, per current policy or a combination?

2. How many of Seattle's top 5, 10, 20 stations acceptably and reliably reach 60, 80, 90% of the metropolitan area (according to census definitions for MSAs or CMSAs)? How do these numbers compare to other markets with more "standard" geography?

3. Can you simulcast on 2+ FM and AM stations basically if you own it or do you have to demonstrate some necessity? Is this necessary because you can't transmit the same station on the same frequency from different towers or is this a choice to have two stops on the dial as well as better regional coverage?

4. Is (or could) Simulcasting arise more than usual here from geographical challenge? Do you think Simulcast will be become a bigger and bigger trend and what is the experience in other markets?

5. How does the capital gain opportunity for small stations from eventual sales for Simulcasts or flankers or other big owner "needs /desires" compare in size to average or best example small station operating profits?

6. Is the FCC rethinking anything to facilitate regional or super-regional broadcasting? "Should" it?

7. Is there any precedent for big advertisers or a consortium of big advertisers in a market owning stations or even ownership stakes? What are the pros / cons or legal barriers?

 

[TVradioguru]

To many vague questions for one reply. Boil it down to a couple specific questions and I suspect you'll get specific responses.

 

[RockJazz]

Some of these questions may be vague but most are not. Big or open-ended is not the same as vague. If you think 11 questions is too many, that is your opinion. I wanted to ask them, most build on each other, so I did.

If anybody wants to pick off one question or a few they can. Don't have to take them all on. If nobody wants to, that isn't a big deal either.

 

[AQH]

I am just a listener and an occasional reader / commentator here.

I had some questions that I'd appreciate feedback on if anyone cares to. Some may be simple and show my lack of knowledge of industry basics, some may not be simple and might possibly be interesting. Let's find out:


1. Do FMs stations have just one transmitter and it that the limit for technical reasons, per current policy or a combination?

2. How many of Seattle's top 5, 10, 20 stations acceptably and reliably reach 60, 80, 90% of the metropolitan area (according to census definitions for MSAs or CMSAs)? How do these numbers compare to other markets with more "standard" geography?

3. Can you simulcast on 2+ FM and AM stations basically if you own it or do you have to demonstrate some necessity? Is this necessary because you can't transmit the same station on the same frequency from different towers or is this a choice to have two stops on the dial as well as better regional coverage?

4. Is (or could) Simulcasting arise more than usual here from geographical challenge? Do you think Simulcast will be become a bigger and bigger trend and what is the experience in other markets?

5. How does the capital gain opportunity for small stations from eventual sales for Simulcasts or flankers or other big owner "needs /desires" compare in size to average or best example small station operating profits?

6. Is the FCC rethinking anything to facilitate regional or super-regional broadcasting? "Should" it?

7. Is there any precedent for big advertisers or a consortium of big advertisers in a market owning stations or even ownership stakes? What are the pros / cons or legal barriers?

1. No, some stations, especially ones up on Cougar Mountain that broadcast at 100kw ERP have two transmitters. They run into a "combiner" and up goes the power to the antenna.
2. The reach throughout Seattle is pretty good. Tiger Mountain stations get shaded into downtown Seattle a bit, but as for exact percentages, I can't give you that. Seattle has the advantage of not worrying about things like adjacent markets being too close (relatively speaking with Portland and Vancouver).
3. Yes, you can. The question then becomes viability because of costs. Remember there are power bills (and other operational costs) to pay for each signal, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to have the same programming on multiple sticks. WTOP in the DC area is a slight exception, as there are signal issues in multiple markets there. But in general, it's rare to have the scenario you describe.
4. No, simulcasting will not be very big. For a few reasons: 1. AM is dying; there are some cars that don't even have AM radio. 2. AM is mostly seen as spoken word format band (exception: MOYL). Also, as mentioned in the last point, there are power bills to pay, and AM, I believe, costs more to maintain (depending on tower array, pattern, ground conductivity). KSSK in Honolulu is a 100% simulcast because there are people who view AOL as cutting edge technology, they still listen to AM (and their morning show, Perry & Price is very old).
4a. I wouldn't be surprised that we start seeing companies simply turning in their AM license because it's more of a liability. Stations like KIRO, KOMO, KJR and KVI, to name a few, I think will do alright. It's the smaller-market and the large market, crappy signal stations that might fade away after awhile.
5. I'm not sure I understand the question.
6. There are some "super-regional" programming going on, especially in Clear Channel markets. I believe KTRH in Houston has some of its newscasters to "local" news for other regional markets in Texas. It's not a 100% simulcast, just more of a manpower thing. If a group were to simply re-broadcast another signal from another market, there might be some repercussion when it comes to license renewal, should someone decide to challenge for the license.
7. By "big advertisers" I assume you're talking about companies like Anheuser-Busch, McDonalds or Coke. It's simply not their forte, it's an entirely different kind of operation and thinking altogether. Even operating TV stations is different than radio. Some sports franchises have purchased a radio station largely to maximize revenue; KTRS in St.Louis for the baseball Cardinals come to mind. But, I wouldn't be surprised if they're regretting that decision right about now. As for legal barriers for advertisers or agencies to own, I don't think there are any. Don't expect the agencies to come knocking down doors to buy stations, as radio is a really bad investment right now.

Hope this answers your questions.

 

[RockJazz]

Thank you.


Perhaps I should have started out just asking

"Is it likely that we will see more simulcasting?"


It is prompted by earlier threads about the simulcasting that has already happened and talk about north-end and sound-end markets, signal quality and the evolution of their stations.


My list of questions was information-gathering for this main question.


Question 5 may have been vague or reaching a bit but there is talk of north-end and sound-end stations that are getting bought up and made into core Seattle market stations as much as possible, or appear to hoping to be, or might eventually, though some stations want to stay independent.


By big advertisers in question 7 I didn't initially have specific companies in mind, I was just thinking about whether big advertisers might possibly get some advantage from 1) owning some stakes in radio outlets as a hedge against the major radio holders getting too much control of other stations and leveraging that into higher rates or 2) essentially buying up and using the otherwise unsold inventory on their own stations.

(After I made the post I wondered if Microsoft could find value in owning a station in this market for various reasons including in show "product placement".)

 

[TVradioguru]

Actually the original radio and television stations were built to promote the main company products or services. The original broadcasters were: Westinghouse, General Electric and Crosely; who used radio to sell radios and other consumer products. Eventually this went to promoting television. The first licensed broadcast facilties in the United States were owned by Westinghouse, who really pioneered radio.

Even up until recently, GE owned ( I guess they still do) NBC networks/O&O stations, not only to make money in television, but to promote GE products. NBC ownership may change of course with the merger with Comcast.

There are some of my peers in the industry that feel consumer product companies may again return to radio and television ownership, feeling that it will be cheaper to promote their core products than buying ad time through agencies or even direct. As a broadcaster, I don't think that model pencils out. Chances are history would repeat itself and large corporations would simply jettison broadcasting when things get tight, just as happenned in the 1970's when companies like Westinghouse got out.

Today you'll still find a smattering of local sports team owners, also owning radio to carry their team and advertising. Just as with consumer product companies found, radio and television is expensive to own and maintain for a seasonal few hours of special programming content per week.

 

[LITTLEBOYBLUE]

The most recent change as it relates to the ownership was the rule change for "FinSyn" -- which granted the networks the right to own the production companies that produced the programs they carry. Opened up some serious ethical issues at the time ... but everyone seems to have accepted without any backlash. That's why you see so many shows now tagged with "Fox Studios" ... "ABC Productions" ... etc. where it used to be the ownership of "MCA/Universal" (Prior to NBC merger), "United Artists", etc. That was, as I recall, early 1990's.