Oh, my goodness, R. F.
I never argued that young people stopped listening to AM. I echoed Chuck's eloquent statement of the obvious: that people of our generation who grew up habitually listening to AM are getting older, hence the aging demographic associated with the band. Nobody suggested that today's teens once listened but have stopped. Nor did either Chuck or I allege that there is a "new influx of aging listeners." You completely missed this point.
Your statement about WNYC and its simulcasts or lack of other New York simulcasts is irrelevant. I was stating that if owners were required to put standalone programming on their AMs instead of just duplicating FMs it might force them to think about utilizing them fully - and profitably.
As far as picking the best management talent properly, you stand corrected: Wall Street does not care about "payrolls" any more than they care about what automation software radio companies use. These are niggling matters which are entirely left to managers. Wall Street cares about fiscal PERFORMANCE. And if you'll check it, radio isn't doing very well. CC is trading at about 25% of its high. Gee, maybe if big radio management thought about AM, and developed it with a little imagination, it could make a contribution to the bottom line - instead of just representing a maintenance cost and power bill.
As far as smaller companies finding revenue where larger ones can't: I just can't define your argument here, much less understand it. What I was trying to say is: if Bill in North Myrtle Beach can make AM work with 500 watts, and Bob in Rochester can throw off $100K annually with a standalone suburban AM, there is absolutely no valid reason why big radio groups with vastly superior resources can't make money on the band. To argue otherwise is absurd.
I never argued that young people stopped listening to AM. I echoed Chuck's eloquent statement of the obvious: that people of our generation who grew up habitually listening to AM are getting older, hence the aging demographic associated with the band. Nobody suggested that today's teens once listened but have stopped. Nor did either Chuck or I allege that there is a "new influx of aging listeners." You completely missed this point.
Your statement about WNYC and its simulcasts or lack of other New York simulcasts is irrelevant. I was stating that if owners were required to put standalone programming on their AMs instead of just duplicating FMs it might force them to think about utilizing them fully - and profitably.
As far as picking the best management talent properly, you stand corrected: Wall Street does not care about "payrolls" any more than they care about what automation software radio companies use. These are niggling matters which are entirely left to managers. Wall Street cares about fiscal PERFORMANCE. And if you'll check it, radio isn't doing very well. CC is trading at about 25% of its high. Gee, maybe if big radio management thought about AM, and developed it with a little imagination, it could make a contribution to the bottom line - instead of just representing a maintenance cost and power bill.
As far as smaller companies finding revenue where larger ones can't: I just can't define your argument here, much less understand it. What I was trying to say is: if Bill in North Myrtle Beach can make AM work with 500 watts, and Bob in Rochester can throw off $100K annually with a standalone suburban AM, there is absolutely no valid reason why big radio groups with vastly superior resources can't make money on the band. To argue otherwise is absurd.
