Time For An AM Radio Revival

[landtuna]

Most people are freeloaders, and that's a big reason why radio is the way it is.

I don't understand that statement.

T-radio has always been advertiser supported, not individual subscription. Listeners support their favorite stations by listening and perhaps buying the advertisers products. How is that freeloading? Although it goes without mention that (a) I will not listen to stations whose content I don't like and (b) I will not support advertisers whose products I don't like.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't understand that statement.

It's in direct response to the preceding post, that said he is one who would and does pay for what he wants to hear.

My comment is that people who pay for radio are in the minority.

 

[landtuna]

Ah. I guess we understood his comment "I on the other hand am one of those people who would pay to hear quality programs-- and in fact, I do by supporting the classical stations that I listen to." in two different ways.

 

[davideduardo]

The same argument can be applied to radio. So much of pop radio is programmed by middle-aged guys, pouring over statistics and data and trying to second guess what would appeal to a generation much younger than they are.

Lots of programmers are out of demos, and many don't even have an enormous love for the music genre they program. What a programmer does do is find out what people who like a certain kind of music, or who are in certain psychographic groups, want. They find out the things that the group share in common beyond music and which define a lifestyle. Then they use the knowledge they have of radio to assemble a product that will appeal to, entertain, and provide enjoyment to that group.

A couple of weeks ago we read about a Canadian kid who was running a pirate station. His peers from all over the area were tuning in.

Yes, all 27 of them.

Do you think he programmed his little station using statistics or do you think he instinctively knew what his generation wanted to listen to?

He knows what he likes, and simply assumed that others would like it too. That's the classic pirate justification, too.

Oh, and the "statistics" radio management uses are actually data about specific listener likes, dislikes, preferences, etc. It's called "research" and the difference between "research" and the kid in Canada is that the kid obviously talked to people like him, while real research talks to a well selected cross section of a potential audience so that more than one viewpoint is heard from.

It's been found that kids with green spiky hair like green spiky hair. Duh.

And although the kid was broadcasting on FM, I highly doubt his peers would have cared what band he was using.

Since Canada has been making an effort to pretty much eliminate AM from most of the country, and make it a specialized band elsewhere, I doubt the guy's peers would have ever even thought of looking on AM for anything interesting. Yuch.

 

[davideduardo]

There is enough spectrum to air programs that appeal to kids and old folks. But our system of so-called "free over-the-air broadcasting" does not encourage this.

Our free system depends on advertising to support stations. There is no radio tax, there is no subscriber fee.

Since there are essentially no advertisers interested in sub-18 or over-55 listeners, there is no way for a station programming principally for either kids or old folks to make money.

Even the pre-teen Radio Disney is used as a Disney brand enhancement, and is being scaled back. It sells very little advertising.

 

[Carmine5]

Maybe a better approach is to get out of the way and let those of the generation they're trying to reach program and host shows.

The problem with that is the current generation won't get out of the way, and get pretty offended when the suggestion is made. They bring up things like "age discrimination" and similar charges. I know of a situation now of a morning show where the average staff age was 60, aiming at a target demo of 40. They just let go one of the staffers, who is 70, and were attacked for doing it. All they want to do is bring someone in who can relate to the target demo. That's not too much to ask.

There's room for older radio professionals, particularly in management, sales and engineering. Of course, there are a lot of seasoned jocks and personalities who do a great job with oldies or shows targeting an older demo.


c5

 

[Carmine5]

The same argument can be applied to radio. So much of pop radio is programmed by middle-aged guys, pouring over statistics and data and trying to second guess what would appeal to a generation much younger than they are.

Lots of programmers are out of demos, and many don't even have an enormous love for the music genre they program. What a programmer does do is find out what people who like a certain kind of music, or who are in certain psychographic groups, want. They find out the things that the group share in common beyond music and which define a lifestyle. Then they use the knowledge they have of radio to assemble a product that will appeal to, entertain, and provide enjoyment to that group.

Bingo! And that's why so many kids and young adults hate radio. As for the rest of your post--ZZZZZZ. Wake me up when you're done pontificating.

c5

 

[gr8oldies]

Yeah I know, don't do any research, the PD should "just know". The kids who hate radio want their own iPod, period

 

[TheBigA]

There's room for older radio professionals, particularly in management, sales and engineering.

Older radio professionals in management? You mean like Farid Suleman?

Certainly, it's a mistake to have 50+ jocks trying to appeal to teens. That's a mistake. But it's boomer management thinking that can't see the problem in the first place.

And having older sales people attempting to deal with 20-something agency reps is a disaster too. The agencies are talking about web sales, and the station rep is talking AQH. They're not speaking the same language. I know some boomer station sales guys who don't have smart phones, who don't know what Twitter or Facebook is, and who don't live their station's demo. How do you expect these guys to make a sale?

 

[davideduardo]

Bingo! And that's why so many kids and young adults hate radio. As for the rest of your post--ZZZZZZ. Wake me up when you're done pontificating.

Radio does not program to "kids" if you mean teens by that generalization. There are no ad dollars there, just as there are no ad dollars chasing 55 and over.

Young adults, meaning to me and the industry 19-34, use radio a lot. In the PPM, over 95% use radio weekly. Radio occupies a considerable portion of their audio listening time, as has been shown by countless studies.

Young adults don't "hate" radio; they do, of course, give it less passion than prior generations did but that is function more of the wealth of choices available than of any dislike of radio.

 

[davideduardo]

And having older sales people attempting to deal with 20-something agency reps is a disaster too. The agencies are talking about web sales, and the station rep is talking AQH. They're not speaking the same language.

Sellers that call on agencies are negotiators. They take the agency cost goals and requests for value added and try to put together a package that will get the station(s) on the buy.

Buyers are generally specilized at the big shops. Radio buyers buy radio, new media buyers buy new media. Each has a budget for their medium and for each market, and that budget was determined much higher up in the agecny / client food chain, generally with the AE, Media Director and the client's marketing heads. Media buyers have negotiating powers, but not campaign decision making powerss. At most agencies, buys are independently audited today for efficiency and goal based focus.

A station rep at an agency does not get much chance (if every) to change the media mix and seldom can influence demo secifications. It's all about pricing and add-ons like talent endorsements or live reads, remots, promotions, bonus spots, CPP, contribution of the station to reach and frequency, etc.

The equation on the station side is based on trust, believabilty, performance. On the agency side, it is based on price, price and price.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

And having older sales people attempting to deal with 20-something agency reps is a disaster too. The agencies are talking about web sales, and the station rep is talking AQH. They're not speaking the same language.

Sellers that call on agencies are negotiators. They take the agency cost goals and requests for value added and try to put together a package that will get the station(s) on the buy.

Buyers are generally specilized at the big shops. Radio buyers buy radio, new media buyers buy new media. Each has a budget for their medium and for each market, and that budget was determined much higher up in the agecny / client food chain, generally with the AE, Media Director and the client's marketing heads. Media buyers have negotiating powers, but not campaign decision making powerss. At most agencies, buys are independently audited today for efficiency and goal based focus.

A station rep at an agency does not get much chance (if every) to change the media mix and seldom can influence demo secifications. It's all about pricing and add-ons like talent endorsements or live reads, remots, promotions, bonus spots, CPP, contribution of the station to reach and frequency, etc.

The equation on the station side is based on trust, believabilty, performance. On the agency side, it is based on price, price and price.

Radio time buys are down, new media buys are up. Are you saying radio lacks credibility and is way overpriced in relation to new media results?

 

[Savage]

The BigA: yes, naturally my proposal to improve AM would require governmental action. Not for nothing, but that is the FCC's job. They are supposed to enact communications policy as dictated by Congress and promulgate the engineering rules and practices in specific terms.

Buying into governmental laziness and ineptitude is not in anyone's interests.

So, yes, my proposal would actually require the FCC to do something with AM radio. Other than rolling over for the IBOC lobbyists and giving CBS and Greater Media and iBiquity whatever they want, irrespective of the public interest, convenience and necessity.

 

[Savage]

"My oft-stated and unpopular opinion is that WYSL never should have been granted."

Aha! At last! A rare moment of candor! The true agenda is finally revealed! (*)

We all have our crosses to bear on this HD discussion board.

For example: I think I can speak for numerous posters here in saying it's a shame we all have to constantly endure endless contrived-Latino-identity lectures denigrating the accomplishments of other posters, their stations and their livelihoods. Mounds of off-topic obiter dicta about long-forgotten Central American radio stations of the 1960s (last I checked, this is the HD Radio board.) Piles of self-aggrandizing and unverifiable war stories about alleged exploits south of the border, utterly irrelevant to the topics under discussion. A tiresome, constant and demonstrably untrue litany of "AM Radio is dead and anyone who disagrees is stupid and incompetent." And the typical pro-IBOC desperate credibility grab, to wit: "Now, I'm not an HD proponent. I really don't care whether IBOC succeeds or not," followed immediately by virulent attacks on any and each IBOC critic.

All of the above delivered, it must be said, in a patronizing, arrogant, intolerant, and infantile tone. You know what I mean.

I suggest to my fellow-posters, given the proliferation of posts of the above nature recently, that we all simply ignore future such material. No matter what is said or how personal it gets.

(*) This self-righteous stand for AM spectrum purity - aimed at the station whose owner is a poster with whom he disagrees on IBOC - comes from a guy who on this very board bragged about "owning" stations on 570 and 590 in the same market.

 

[TheBigA]

The BigA: yes, naturally my proposal to improve AM would require governmental action. Not for nothing, but that is the FCC's job. They are supposed to enact communications policy as dictated by Congress and promulgate the engineering rules and practices in specific terms.

Hmmm, and how has that worked out with regards to IBOC interference? I rest my case.

If you depend on the government to fix the AM band, you will get what we have now. It's not laziness, ineptitude, or rolling over for lobbyists.If the FCC simply gave in to industry lobbyists, we would not have had the latest legislation for LPFM. It has more to do with clearly stated FCC policy and their own agenda, which has been supported by Congress. I see nothing in the current makeup of the FCC that gives me any reason to believe they will change. And there's really nothing the industry can do. So buying an FM translator is the only option.

 

[Savage]

I don't think the median age of management personnel has much, if anything, to do with "what's wrong with radio these days."

I would instead tend to blame the lack of management vision on a proponderance of attitudes, frankly, I read all too often on this and other radio-info.com discussion boards. And they would be, to wit: those from people who really don't like or understand radio. People who weren't brought up in a culture of content creation and active entertainment of the audience - as opposed to delegating it to what passes these days for the music industry.

To reiterate: too many programmers today think that "radio" is fourteen in a row, "getting you back to the music faster," one or two lengthy music sweeps, a couple of big gobs of commercials, and an angry-voiced liner guy. ZERO content outside of the music. No wonder radio programmers are so afraid of iPods, satellite radio, iPhones, the internet, and people whistling to themselves as they walk down the street.

If you believe in radio, you've got to believe that our job starts fifteen seconds before the current on-air song starts to fade - and doesn't end until the vocal hits on the next upcoming song. Keeping the audience through a commercial stopset? That's artistry.

 

[Savage]

BigA: putting it another way, precisely how could ANY proposal to "fix" AM radio proceed without some kind of "government action?" If your sense of "government action" prevailed in the 1940s and 1950s we wouldn't have an interstate highway system.

After all, "you can't expect government to buy all that land and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on road construction. Government can't order Detroit to stop making old hard-breathing L-head engines and convert Americans to high-revving OHV V-8s. And the oil companies won't just chip in by making high-temp engine multiviscosity oil and high-octane gas. Then think of all the small-town businesses that will be forced out of existence because high-speed roads will bypass them. If people want to get somewhere fast - they'll take the train."

Et cetera....

 

[TheBigA]

BigA: putting it another way, precisely how could ANY proposal to "fix" AM radio proceed without some kind of "government action?" If your sense of "government action" prevailed in the 1940s and 1950s we wouldn't have an interstate highway system.

If we had waited until the 1990s to build the interstate highway system, it never would have been built. I find it interesting to watch municipalities discuss road projects similar to the interstate idea, only to have the idea mired in political interest groups who delay the work to the point where it's no longer financially viable. Thus, no new roads get built. One need only drive around Washington DC to see the result of this thinking.

The FCC took a terrible turn during the Reagan administration, and it has gone downhill since. Year after year, they replace government engineers with outside contractors. That's also how other agencies work. The kind of government we have now is not like the government we had before Reagan.

And the public is frustrated with all of this. They see the problems in this kind of government, just as you do. But it never improves, and the people advising Obama are no better than the people who advised Bush. If anything, especially with regards to broadcasting, they're worse.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

And the public is frustrated with all of this. They see the problems in this kind of government, just as you do. But it never improves, and the people advising Obama are no better than the people who advised Bush. If anything, especially with regards to broadcasting, they're worse.

Ding ding ding we have a winner! Finally another person who realizes that neither the democans or republicrats operate in the best interest of the public that elected them. And that trickles down to radio.

 

[Savage]

Oh, I see your point now. You're not so much agreeing with the current outsourcing and inaction in government as you are pointing out how it exists. I completely agree.

And you are also correct in observing how the "outsource" model in regulatory circles, makes government vastly more vulnerable to special interests and lobbying. It also reduces accountability and magnifies government incompetence, because bureaucrats can shove failures off on a third party. "Hey - don't blame us! We were just lied to by iBiquity!"

All of this is to our general detriment, I must add, and the FCC is only one of many examples. This is a significant future campaign issue: "get government to stop outsourcing their responsibilities and sending us the bill for third-party incompetence and self-dealing."