The Great Houston translator invasion

[purpledevil]

Nothing happened that year in particular that hadn't been begun ten years earlier. And for Houston, the real change was sociological. That's what changed everything else. You have to ask yourself, when did the population change? When did oil crash? The answers to those questions will help you understand when Houston radio changed.

I'll concede to that, A. The actions taken and legislation passed during Reagan's administration most assuredly laid the foundation for what we have in front of us today. It led radio straight into the open arms of media ownership concentration, which in turn, completely removed the individuality of the various markets, and the uniqueness of the stations that served it. In the 80s, KTSA was San Antonio. KILT was Houston. KAYC was the Golden Triangle. I don't need to tell you about that time in radio, hell from what I gather, you lived it. There was something special about the relationship between a radio station and its populace served, and that's what seems to be the most glaring thing missing today.

Perhaps it's only noticeable to men of our age. Our children tend to not notice and/or seem to care about how it used to be. When you don't know your history, you're doomed to repeat it. These younger guys and gals really ought to sit up and take notice to what's currently going on around them. Our generation is getting up there in years, and it's going to be up to them to carry on those old lessons learned.

Sure, the demographics have changed some, but not so much that it should relegate men of our age to the pasture these days, A. Our generation outnumbered our parent's too, but they still had their music choices readily available on the dial and I contend that is a direct correlation to the resulting consequences of a handful of companies owning the majority of all operating facilities in this nation.

Some would then argue that without the large conglomerates owning the majority of the radio dial, a share of those very facilities around the country would no longer exist, licenses surrendered. I couldn't think of a better way to thin the herd of the lame and gimp myself, but that's just me, I guess.

 

[The Rimshot]

When an FM is directional, it is to provide protection, not more power than the equivalent for its class in any direction.

In other words, a 50 kw FM can radiate no more than 50 kw in any direction. If it is directional, it will radiate less than the 50 kw level in certain directions.

So the station can't put any more power towards Victoria.

Thanks, DavidEduardo. I learned something from that post.

 

[TheBigA]

In the 80s, KTSA was San Antonio. KILT was Houston. KAYC was the Golden Triangle. ]

The problem with that was monopoly. When you have one station with that much power, it's a problem. Hard for the government to approve that. Which is why the agenda of the FCC since 1983 was to add as many licenses as possible. The problem is it killed the golden goose. It's why all the heritage radio companies from the early days, like GE and RCA, left the business in the 80s. It hasn't changed. Thus, all the translators. It's continuing what was begun in the 80s. It took a while for all that to have an effect. But it's why things are the way they are. Now, even with one company owning 800 stations, and 6 in Houston, it doesn't have the concentration of power one station had in the 60s. Today 1Heart has 20% of the Houston radio market. 45 years ago, one station alone could get a 20 share.

Our generation outnumbered our parent's too, but they still had their music choices readily available on the dial and I contend that is a direct correlation to the resulting consequences of a handful of companies owning the majority of all operating facilities in this nation.

Nope, because the people owning those companies are your age. They'd love to have the music of their generation on the stations they own. But it would be bad business. The problem with the baby boom is it begot another baby boom. Your kids generation is actually bigger than yours. They have more buying power. Advertisers want to stick their hands in your kids' wallets. All we're doing is giving them some help.

 

[ContinuousWave]

In the 80s, KTSA was San Antonio. KILT was Houston. KAYC was the Golden Triangle.

KAYC had died by the 1980s...KAYD FM, its sister had taken on the Top40 mantle in 1978....and KIWC as well as KZZB B95 were the dominant signals...In the 70s, KAYC shared the status with KOLE and somewhat from KLVI (though LVI flipped to country in 77)...KWIC started to make a dent but it wasnt until 1980 did it really cut into the AM status....when B95 came along, it kicked butt....and KWIC by that time was gone....Alas the BPT market is nothing like it used to be....though the audience is still the same size, the amount of advertising had dropped....with more companies gone from what it used to be...downtown PA is a ghost town....Midcounty/N PA is thriving somewhat but mostly hotels and restaurants...the number of other businesses are down and a lot of old ones are gone...sad

BTW KAYC changed to KIKR in the 1980s during its country run....

 

[davideduardo]

Thanks, DavidEduardo. I learned something from that post.

Most of us are used to AM directionals, where the same, for discussion, 50 kw transmitter power can be omni-directional and a true 50 kw in all directions... or in a highly directional configuration where all the power is focused on perhaps a 60° arc... or the equivalent of 300,000 watts in the major lobe and nearly zilch across the other 300°.

A world class example of directionals was KLIF's night pattern. When Dallas and Ft Worth were combined into a single rated market, the ceiling caved in and the floor dropped out... the night signal covered essentially none of the Ft Worth market in an era when night listening for a Top 40 station was crucial.

 

[TheBigA]

KAYC had died by the 1980s...KAYD FM, its sister had taken on the Top40 mantle in 1978....

That corresponds to the growth of FM, displacing the AM powerhouses of the 60s. The bad news with more stations was it divided the pie. It was good for listeners, because they had more choices. But radio owners were making less money. Which is why they started selling.

 

[ContinuousWave]

Most of us are used to AM directionals, where the same, for discussion, 50 kw transmitter power can be omni-directional and a true 50 kw in all directions... or in a highly directional configuration where all the power is focused on perhaps a 60° arc... or the equivalent of 300,000 watts in the major lobe and nearly zilch across the other 300°.

A world class example of directionals was KLIF's night pattern. When Dallas and Ft Worth were combined into a single rated market, the ceiling caved in and the floor dropped out... the night signal covered essentially none of the Ft Worth market in an era when night listening for a Top 40 station was crucial.

1190's night site is 5KW but an ERP of 75KW in the main lobe....with a 30 deg beamwidth..cant hear it at night at the current studios at I635 and Tollway

 

[purpledevil]

The problem with that was monopoly. When you have one station with that much power, it's a problem. Hard for the government to approve that. Which is why the agenda of the FCC since 1983 was to add as many licenses as possible. The problem is it killed the golden goose. It's why all the heritage radio companies from the early days, like GE and RCA, left the business in the 80s. It hasn't changed. Thus, all the translators. It's continuing what was begun in the 80s. It took a while for all that to have an effect. But it's why things are the way they are. Now, even with one company owning 800 stations, and 6 in Houston, it doesn't have the concentration of power one station had in the 60s. Today 1Heart has 20% of the Houston radio market. 45 years ago, one station alone could get a 20 share.



Nope, because the people owning those companies are your age. They'd love to have the music of their generation on the stations they own. But it would be bad business. The problem with the baby boom is it begot another baby boom. Your kids generation is actually bigger than yours. They have more buying power. Advertisers want to stick their hands in your kids' wallets. All we're doing is giving them some help.

I may not have conveyed myself very well, as I believe we're basically on the same page. At the least, reading from the same chapter. I certainly don't fault you for doing what is required of you to ensure your own means of survival within the profession you've chosen. You've got to do what you've got to do to appease the customer. My own 30+ year career is squarely in the toilet if I were to ever lose sight of that simple fact. I understand that my son's generation outnumbers mine the very same way my generation outnumbered my parent's generation, and I figure theirs did with the generation before that.

I must confess, my generation had drive-ins in nearly every neighborhood when we were growing up, which is a somewhat related reason there was so much "begatting" going on and led up to us being outnumbered. Now, they may very well have more buying power, and are certainly more heavily targeted for whatever money they may have in hand to impulsively spend, but I think it's pretty safe to say that the generation (I guess it's Y because at 50 I believe I'm considered one of the first litters within the Gen X crowd) that follows mine will be the first one in American history to earn less money on average, than the generation that proceeded it.

My viewpoint on this particular line of thinking would be, don't give up on us 50 somethings quite yet, advertisers. Most of us have worked our butts off pretty hard for the last 3 decades, and realize that its now time to spend a little bit of that hard earned, before we're too old to really enjoy it. The boomers had a pretty wide variety of "classic hits" music just a decade ago. All the while, here's my group of 40-50 something's that have no place to turn on the dial in the 2010s, for our trip down memory lane. I simply think the advertisers are missing the boat on us, and leaving guys like you between a rock and a hard place, knowing they are missing out on good business, knowing they aren't really providing a quality overall product in some cases, and knowing there's little that you can do about it without jeopardizing your own survival.

Poor golden goose. It was a lot of fun to watch it lay those golden eggs while it did. At least I got the chance to bear witness to it in my lifetime. The Y's never had the chance to hear what all the fuss from us ole codgers is all about. If they only knew.

If they only cared. *sigh*

 

[purpledevil]

BTW KAYC changed to KIKR in the 1980s during its country run....

Sure did. Shortly after the Owens' 10 kilowatt pride and joy in Conroe, became simply Jimmy's joy.

I should qualify my previous contribution to the discussion by saying that I should've previously said the 70s, but was stuck thinking the 80s while formulating my response to A concerning the time period the legislation came about that paved the way for concentrated media ownership, and the birth of the cookie cutter radio station. KILT was DOA by 1980 as well, having been long overtaken by KRLY & KRBE-FM. KTSA outlasted them both, trudging on until around '86 or '87, and not even worthy of being called a shell of its former self, by that point.

 

[TheBigA]

My viewpoint on this particular line of thinking would be, don't give up on us 50 somethings quite yet, advertisers.

They haven't. They still buy news/talk. But that's about it for radio. They decided the best way to get you is via TV. And they're subtle about it. Lots of times you might not even know they're getting you watching a Texans game. But they gotcha.

Poor golden goose. It was a lot of fun to watch it lay those golden eggs while it did.

I'm still laying 'em.

 

[b-turner]

I think the big demise is number of choices. In the 1980s, as a jock, I managed to get my parents to get me a subscription to Broadcasting & Cable. I recall an article from Ted Turner. He talked about the number of offerings that would be available in just a few years. His point was TV would become so specialized that it would become difficult for any one station to get an audience the size they currently get from a station. His second point was what were they going to program. He remarked that the cost to create a TV show was so substantial that in the future it would be very hard to recover production costs because the viewership was so minimal due to the massive number of choices available. Who would have though TV networks running one particular show virtually around the clock or one station repeating the same movie over and over. Is reality TV, being so cheap, the reason so much reality TV is aired?

If we change television to radio, much the same could be said. The number of choices means audience numbers are too few to do things the old way. I remember reading McClendon had something like a 60 share with KLIF at some point. Today, if you manage 10% you have an incredible station. Chances are a 2.5, 3 or 4 is decent. Ad dollars might be greater now related to retail sales but that pie is being divided by many other players today. In fact, in many markets you don't have a two or three way fight per format. In some cases you do, but not like what I recall with there were 10 MOR stations on the AM dial and 10 shades of Beautiful Music on FM. I really think there is more variety today although there are certain groups without a station serving them for whatever reason.

 

[purpledevil]

They haven't. They still buy news/talk. But that's about it for radio. They decided the best way to get you is via TV. And they're subtle about it. Lots of times you might not even know they're getting you watching a Texans game. But they gotcha.

Kind of like the quick flash of a frothy, cold flow of beer on my screen during the game that makes it dawn on me that I'm suddenly thirsty for a tallboy of Coors? I vividly remember the same tactics used in movie theaters way back when. A single frame featuring a bottle of pop, a box of Junior Mints, and a tall, overflowing bucket of popcorn, suddenly interrupting the feature flick, if only for a mere nanosecond. I had no idea those methods of advertising will still being utilized.

Perhaps I did, subliminally.

I'm still laying 'em.

The problem of which is all my own, A, is that you aren't laying 'em in Houston. Nobody is.

 

[stan]

Radio is still laying eggs, all right.

I'm done with it. My Honda Accord has Apple CarPlay and I can listen to podcasts, Pandora, or music from my phone. Haven't listened to radio in quite awhile.

It's funny that some broadcasters still don't get it regarding we older listeners. Many of us are quite comfortable with technology and utilize it daily. If the 'format' you've chosen for us is 'news/talk', you've lost many of us who don't listen to AM any more and would rather listen to music. The number of stations analogy comparing with cable channels is true. There will never be one dominant station again in a market the size of Houston. The paradigm has shifted and broadcasters may be facing the same closures that have plagued print media like newspapers.

And some are laughably arguing to turn on the often nonexistent FM chip in smartphones.

 

[b-turner]

Stan, one small correction - radio offers formats radio advertisers buy...public radio that will attract enough support. The advertising industry will not buy older demographics except news/talk. Literally the advertiser 'picks' the format. As we both know, the commercial is the money that runs the station, so radio is forced to go where the money is. Now, a public FM could launch a format or two appealing to older demographics but none have...likely research saying it wouldn't work or other options are easier. At least you found what you want beyond radio and I'm sure there are others in your age group that have done the same.

 

[davideduardo]

It's funny that some broadcasters still don't get it regarding we older listeners.

Radio "gets it" entirely.

Advertisers essentially don't want to reach anyone over 55 with music stations, and seldom even with talk based stations. So there is little to no revenue available programming to seniors.

If there were ad budgets targeting those over 55, there would be a commensurate number of stations catering to those groups.

 

[b-turner]

I know it is mere speculation, but does anyone feel the length of the average lifespan might lead to media interest in the 50+ demographics? With the quality of life well beyond previous decades, the 50+ demographic is getting larger as medical advances continue. Obviously the 'cost to convert to a customer' is a factor. The 50+ is more 'loyal' to prior buying decisions, we know. The current research shows other media more advantageous than radio in reaching this demographic. Still, it is a growing demographic that at some point could be more 'viable' in merchant's eyes. I have heard, but cannot cite sources, that the average person today, say, 30 years of age, can reasonably expect to live to 100 (but at what quality of life). If that is reflective of the medical community, then the numbers might mean something as current thinking evolves. What say you?

 

[rbrucecarter5]

I know it is mere speculation, but does anyone feel the length of the average lifespan might lead to media interest in the 50+ demographics?

Forget them. If they don't want to program to over 55, return the favor and don't listen to the stuff they condescend to provide. Use whatever technology it takes to get around over the air format censorship. It has been that way for me for most of my life. Midland offered heavily censored top-40, so kids listened to KOMA and WLS at night. A few of us made quite a science out of it - a collective middle finger to the powerful local family that put their initials on KCRS and exercised censorship over the musical content. Now days there are so many other options other than DX, it is downright easy to get just what we want to listen to - as opposed to the stuff people want us to listen to. Oh you mean you don't like ____ music? What is wrong with YOU?! Nope - it's the other way around. And that spirit of rebellion is spreading to more and more people tired of mediocrity and "one size fits all" formats, badly executed narrowcasting low power and translator stations cluttering the band with whatever somebody with money wants to hear. Scr___ them. Scr___ them ALL! Except NGEN and Cypress radio which are actually doing something creative in the midst of complete mediocrity on the rest of the frequencies.

 

[purpledevil]

I say that you nailed it, people don't seem to understand it, but the reality of the situation is that radio people no longer control radio. Until that discrepancy is corrected, either by radio station ownership suddenly deciding that profit is secondary to entertainment value, or by a monthly fee (read as a tax) being initiated to every person that resides in the coverage area of said station forcing the general public to financially contribute to the service provider, then the song will remain the same. Literally.

The problem there, is that neither of those two solutions are feasible. Nobody in their right mind is in the business of losing money, and if they are, they won't be in business for very long. With respect to the second option, how many in the general public are willing to fork over money for a service they may or may not use enough to justify the expense, and of which has always been a free service?

I don't think we'd need two hands to count them, that's for certain.

No, Bill, I don't think it will make one iota of a difference if we live to 60 or 160. Once a person like myself hits a certain age and/or maturity level, no amount of pressure or repetitive advertising is going to change our first impression and ultimate decision as to whether it is a necessary expense or something we can simply live without.

 

[purpledevil]

Pray tell, Bruce. Exactly what is NGEN doing that is so creative? For the lack of a better description, it is basically the KRBE of Christian Top 40. Same 100 songs over and over, until one of them falls off the Christian currents chart, being replaced by whichever song it is that took the former's place in line. Poor argument, Bruce. I know what NGEN's purpose is just as well as anyone, and in this particular case, it appears that I'm more familiar with its content than you.

 

[davideduardo]

I know it is mere speculation, but does anyone feel the length of the average lifespan might lead to media interest in the 50+ demographics? With the quality of life well beyond previous decades, the 50+ demographic is getting larger as medical advances continue. Obviously the 'cost to convert to a customer' is a factor. The 50+ is more 'loyal' to prior buying decisions, we know. The current research shows other media more advantageous than radio in reaching this demographic. Still, it is a growing demographic that at some point could be more 'viable' in merchant's eyes. I have heard, but cannot cite sources, that the average person today, say, 30 years of age, can reasonably expect to live to 100 (but at what quality of life). If that is reflective of the medical community, then the numbers might mean something as current thinking evolves. What say you?

As I've mentioned, until marketers place radio budgets against 55 and over, radio can do nothing.

And unless the "newer" 55 and over folks are shown to respond more actively to advertising for mass market offerings of goods and services, they will be excluded from buy specs.