-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
What if...
- Thread starter prodigy3
- Start date
9
93-3TheSurge
Guest
fredcantu said:
Yeah, Fred, as far as Houston/Beaumont goes, I don't think it is important to cover Beaumont, Orange, Lake Charles, etc. if you are a Houston station. You are Houston; that's enough.
For the Austin/San Antonio area, however, I think it would work to your benefit if you could sale both Austin and San Antonio. I think a sales department would love the fact that they could sell to two Top 15 cities.
93-3TheSurge said:
I most definitely agree, first and foremost with the constant ups and downs of the radio industry, it may be an incintive to have both markets combined..
What everybody fails to relize is that technology is constantly changing and radio is going to do whatever is it to stay in...
Imagination is the intent, and so many people are quick to not think of things being possible and that's the problem with radio now, people are so afraid to take risks, "let's just play it safe" and that's why the younger generation (excluding me) aren't as attached to radio as our parents and grandparents generations were... anyways I could rant about that but...
anything is possible and yes San Jose is it's own market but you can get KMEL just as clear there as in San Fran...
93-3TheSurge said:
On a real quick inspection, I don't think any of the full C's in SA could move to that location; they are locked in by spacing requirements with other stations on their channel and adjacents and next adjacents.
That site has the disadvantage that the 64 dbu signal (where 95% of most station's at work and in home listening happens) would not cover half or more of each market. Markets are not the city center... they are the complex multi-county marketing areas around each central city. SA is an 8 county metro, and Austin is a 5 county one; in the case of Austin about 40% of the market population does not live in Travis County!
Were you to move, let's say, KLBJ to 38 miles south SSW of Austin, you lose usable signal in Williamson County, which is a third of the market total!!!
Translators are on different frequencies, so imagine the issues there in marketing the stations. And there would be a huge, huge loss of usable signals in fixed-location radios that could bring ratings down dramatically.
Not even close, assuming of course all stations could move... which they can not.
No, they cover parts of the mentioned markets. They are rimshots to Houston and do not cover effectively the areas to the west and southwest at all... which is why they don't do soo well in ratings.
The real issue is that to consolidate the markets, Arbitron subscribers would vote on creating a CMSA... as they have to consolidate Dade and Broward counties in Florida (1981 by a narropw margin) and to not consolidate Riverside/San Berdoo with LA about 20 years ago. And those are cases of markets where many existing stations fully cover the proposed combined area.
A vote on this would obviously lose, as so few stations, if any, could move sites and cover parts of both markets. All the lesser signals, and the AMs, would vote against as they would be more screwed than they already are.
There is no advertiser demand for an expanded metro, so it dies on that count, too.
93-3TheSurge said:
Austin is market 38 and SA is market 41. Niether is "Top 15."
And there is little or no advertiser demand for consolidation by advertisers.
The Honda dealer in the Austin market is not going to pay more per spot for coverage of SA... so there is no rate increase potential. And the fragmentation caused by having more signals (were this even technically possible... which it is not) would defeat any gains for national accounts.
wild949austin said:
You are forgetting the Univision, Telefutura and Telemundo channels... with the Univision ones among the top performers in sales demos in each market.
9
93-3TheSurge
Guest
DavidEduardo said:
103-5 KBPA already does cover both markets, and their stick is in a small town called Mountain City, which is 23 miles SSW of Austin and 55 miles NNE of San Antonio. Imagine if the station was in Hunter, which is 38 miles from both cities, it would blanket both cities entirely. As far as all stations, if you go back and look at my previous post, I specifically said not all stations would go for it, but six or seven from either city could move.
DavidEduardo said:
Your opinion!!! Schlitterbahn would absolutely love to be able to hit two birds (cities) with one stone (radio station). So would Fiesta Texas, Sea World, the San Antonio Spurs, etc. Austin nightclubs would love to promote weekend events to both cities, and vice versa. Go ask a sales manager at Clear Channel, Cox, Emmis, etc. how much easier their lives would be if they could combine Austin and San Antonio.
D
DominiqueRadio
Guest
93-3TheSurge said:
I would strongly have to agree with this.
It is not practical with the current FM landscapes on the northeast side a Walkman or mp3 radio is cluttered with several adjacent stations and translators. The only way this would happen if several stations jumped ship (not going to happen) the FCC mandates digital broadcasting on the audio frontier like they did television (scary) or the FCC expands the FM frequency to say 126.1 FM. Second rail is expensive why advocate rail, when HOV managed lanes dedicated only to interurban buses is a more cost effective solutions and in towns you can have non rail streetcar or bus connectors in cities such as Kyle, Buda, New Braunfels, Selma, Schertz. Rail is much more expensive and more bureaucratic to build and transit dependent people on that use existing bus service would be disadvantaged because of it google Bus Riders Union Of Los Angeles California Vs. Bay Area Rapid Transit
93-3TheSurge said:
No, it does not. It does not put a 64 dbu over any of Bexar County, and anything east, south or west of SA. It only gets about half of Williamson County in the Austin metro. The 64 dbu only covers 65% of the Austin market population as it is.
Technically, I do not think any could move to that half-way point without reducing power/height and covering neither market well.
The LA Class B FMs for the most part also cover the Riverside / San Bernardino market (there are 4 that don't but most put full signals over most of the Inland Empire population. No need to move antennas or anything... yet no effort to consolidate the two markets ratings wise has prospered, and advertisers buy each market separately... because that gives the flexibility of creating campaigns stressing local locations or promotions, etc.
Combining the markets means higher ad rates, and that would exclude all but the biggest multi-location retail chains. Agencies are not concerned with buying each market specifically, as that is what they do all over the coutry. You are dreaming about site moves that are likely not possible for any station and a market consolidation which is appealing to most stations in each separate market. Further, the resultant coverage would be inadequate to fully cover both markets, as the stations as they are often do not fully cover single markets with a usable signal.
9
93-3TheSurge
Guest
willdav713 said:
Sure, it is normal to experience stations on top of each other when using a Walkman; that's par for the course. You wouldn't experience that in the car or with a good home stereo, however, even if you are in northeast SA, southwest Austin, or the aforementioned Hunter.
9
93-3TheSurge
Guest
DavidEduardo said:
OK, before this gets into a "no its not! yes it is! no its not!" argument, I have been all over San Antonio and Austin, and KBPA comes in just fine. There is one exception, downtown SA, and that is because of the translator on 103-7, which could be removed, just as K287AY is being moved because of complaints from listeners of KSMG. Other than that, you may not be able to pick up KBPA in Kerrville or Pearsall, but I'm not worried about Kerrville or Pearsall. Also, I don't see any reason why you would have to reduce power or height. When KYRK out of New Orleans moved to Vacherie so it could combine New Orleans and Baton Rouge, its power and height stayed the same.
DavidEduardo said:
And higher ad rates are a bad thing why? If Howdy Honda can't afford it, Schlitterbahn (and several other potential buyers) can. Clear Channel isn't worried about what certain companies can and can't afford; if they were, I'm sure you would see more ads for the Valero on I-35 and Pat Booker Road, Hispos del Mundo, or Discoteca Sanchez.
DominiqueRadio said:
So an Austin car dealer would pay to reach listeners in San Antonio and vice versa? And do listeners in Austin care about weather and traffic reports for San Antonio and vice versa? Instead of trying to broaden your reach using old technology, the future might be in using smart phones and GPS to customize hyper-localized programming for individual listeners.
93-3TheSurge said:
Again, a great deal of analysis has gone into the conclusion that, on avedrage, 80% of a station's at home and at work listening takes place inside the 70 dbu contour, and 15% more inside the 64 dbu to 69 dbu contour. Simply put, there is not enough signal for listening inside structure once you leave the 64 dbu.
Your sampling, likely in a car with an antena optimezed for FM reception, represents the extension of coverage possible in vehicle due to the better reception offered by being outdoors and in the relatively clear environment of roads and highways. But only about a third of all listening takes place in cars, so the at home and at work is far more important.
Finally, being able to "hear" a station does not mean anyone will listen. It may have a marginal signal that you can manually tune to, but if it does not lock on scan and is not totally freee from spotty zones, then it will not be used.
In the area about 200 miles or so arround SA and Austin, you have other stations on the same frequencies as the ones in the two markets. You have close-by first and second adjacents. Any move of a transmitter site has to maintain the minimum spacing required by the FCC for all five affected fredquencies... carrier, adjacent and next adjacent. So, were KXTN to try to move north, it might (I did not do the numbers) have prohibited overlap with 107.5 in the Dallas area, and also might create a number of prohibited overlaps with 107.1, 107.3, 107.7 and 107.9. If that station still wanted to move, it might have to reduce antenna height or power and, perhaps, directionalze and all that would defeat the purpose. Every other frequncy I glanced at and for which I did a simple contour map had seemingly unresolvable issues that would prohibit a move to a location between the two markets (unless they bought and lowered class on all the offending stations).
Unless my recall is wrong, this station is and always has been a Houma station and it positioned itself to the north of its COL and ended up serving much of the NO and BR markets, but it is still a rimshot... it is not "home" to either NO or BR. And where the leading NO station bills over $1 million, KYRK bills just over $1 million... not a good case for putting a marginal signal over two markets and serving neither competitively.
Well, San Bernardino / Riverside clients don't buy LA stations, despite the fact that over 65% of listening is to LA stations in the IE. The reason? They get all they need from the local stations at much lower rates. Nobody pays for coverage they don't need.
A single gas station is not going to do radio advertising... Valero might buy radio on occasion, but their agency would probably prefer to buy Austin and SA separately because by every metric, including U. S. Census definitions, the two areas are separate markets and Valero likely measures its advertising and does its budgets on a market by market basis.
To build a multimillion dollar facility to get some club ads is absurd if you have been in the business....
fredcantu said:
Yep. $10 million is the correct figure.
Even the top Baton Rouge stations do over $5 million.
93-3TheSurge said:
I think it already crossed the line. The data is there, provided by one of the most qualified posters here, and it disputes your undocumented, incidental observations. I don't know why you can't accept it.
Easy solution? It would be an absolute nightmare! You'd have a situation similar to one that was the subject of a lengthy legal battle that began about ten years ago; "the plan" involved re-allocations of stations that stretched all the way from southern Oklahoma to San Antonio. Only one thing, though, it didn't make to San Antonio (the Tower of the Americas, to be precise) and a number of other places due to a combination of inherent "flaws" and the timing of some applications. The whole mess involved a couple of dozen stations but your "Hunter, TX" proposal might involve twice that number. It would be doomed from the start. If you don't want to believe me that's fine, but like David, I've done my homework. (Details of the "plan" I mentioned, if you'd like to research it, can be found at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=00-148 )93-3TheSurge said:
DavidEduardo said:
That bears repeating. The circle labeled as "local" on coverage maps from Radio-Locator, as well as the FCC's "service area" maps, depict the 60dBu contour. In reality, local coverage is within the 70dBu contour, something that you wouldn't ordinarily see unless, for instance, it's contained in the exhibits for a particular station's application. As pointed out that's where the majority of listening takes place, and it's not based on one person's opinion.
93-3TheSurge said:
I'll echo a prior response about your observations, for what it's worth: just because you can hear a signal at a great distance like 85 miles away doesn't make it "usable" in the real sense. Also note that a station receives full protection from interference only to the extent of their 60dBu contour, which for even the most powerful stations in the area averages in the neighborhood of 50 miles.
After reading ALL these dam posts, I want to make my opinion.....
1. I think the perfect place for radio towers that could cover both SA and Austin would be just north of San Marcos on the hill, maybe on the same hill next to Texas State. So that way, there would be no need for translators in Georgetown and Round Rock.
Also, I hate bringing up the Bay Area in Central Texas, but I believe that a tower similar to the Sutro Tower in San Francisco, would work really REALLY well. If you don't know, Sutro Tower is a three pronged tower that currently holds 11 television stations and 4 FM radio stations. If such a tower was build for SA/Austin, I am pretty sure it can hold at least a minimum of 8 FM radio stations, and all would be the same height. ERP may vary.
2. If Los Angeles radio stations can advertise to ALL of Southern California, which is 3 times the population of SA and Austin combined, then I am sure it can work for a radio station that serves both SA and Austin. Schlitterbahn, Thundercloud Subs, Ideal Image, SA and Austin Clubs, Simon Malls, HEB, National chains like NTB, Mattress Firm, McDonalds are good examples of advertisers for both markets.
3. SA and Austin can still maintain separate Arbitron markets, but (once again) take a look at the Bay Area. San Francisco radio station KFOG brands themself as KFOG 104.5/97.7, with 104.5 for SF and 97.7 for San Jose.
Also KYLD 94.9, KMVQ 99.7, KITS 105.3, and KMEL 106.1 are San Francisco stations that promote San Jose heavily in advertising and promotions. They rank high in San Francisco's Arbitron ratings numbers, yet they AT LEAST rank at all in the San Jose books.
KIOI 101.3 for example would be a powerful signal for SA/Austin. Its transmitter is located in South San Francisco. When I was there, I could get the station as far as Hollister, CA which is about 92 miles from Downtown San Francisco...I think.
1. I think the perfect place for radio towers that could cover both SA and Austin would be just north of San Marcos on the hill, maybe on the same hill next to Texas State. So that way, there would be no need for translators in Georgetown and Round Rock.
Also, I hate bringing up the Bay Area in Central Texas, but I believe that a tower similar to the Sutro Tower in San Francisco, would work really REALLY well. If you don't know, Sutro Tower is a three pronged tower that currently holds 11 television stations and 4 FM radio stations. If such a tower was build for SA/Austin, I am pretty sure it can hold at least a minimum of 8 FM radio stations, and all would be the same height. ERP may vary.
2. If Los Angeles radio stations can advertise to ALL of Southern California, which is 3 times the population of SA and Austin combined, then I am sure it can work for a radio station that serves both SA and Austin. Schlitterbahn, Thundercloud Subs, Ideal Image, SA and Austin Clubs, Simon Malls, HEB, National chains like NTB, Mattress Firm, McDonalds are good examples of advertisers for both markets.
3. SA and Austin can still maintain separate Arbitron markets, but (once again) take a look at the Bay Area. San Francisco radio station KFOG brands themself as KFOG 104.5/97.7, with 104.5 for SF and 97.7 for San Jose.
Also KYLD 94.9, KMVQ 99.7, KITS 105.3, and KMEL 106.1 are San Francisco stations that promote San Jose heavily in advertising and promotions. They rank high in San Francisco's Arbitron ratings numbers, yet they AT LEAST rank at all in the San Jose books.
KIOI 101.3 for example would be a powerful signal for SA/Austin. Its transmitter is located in South San Francisco. When I was there, I could get the station as far as Hollister, CA which is about 92 miles from Downtown San Francisco...I think.
wild949austin said:
As mentioned, nearly none or perhaps none at all of the SA or Austin stations could move there due to the spacing requirements for cochannel, adjacent and next adjacents.
Sutro worked because either stations were already in the vicinity, or moved west from the hills above the East Bay. Since there are no stations to protect on the Farallones Islands or in the Pacific Ocean, that move was possible.
LA stations serve, and cover adequately the LA market... although not all of them cover 100% of it. Those FMs on 5,300 foot high Mt Wilson that are grandfathered also cover the Riverside San Berdoo market, which is adjacent... if they were conforming B's, they would not cover that area. The LA stations do not cover San Diego, Palm Spring, etc., all part of SoCal.
SA has no 5,000 foot high mountains.
The LA metro is not all of SoCal.
You are discussing clients when, thechnically, this can not happen.
San José is inside of and part of the San Francisco market... it is what is called an embedded market, with a separate report... but it is part of SF.
The stations that simulcast, which are just a couple, do so because FM coverage is very difficult in SF due to mountains and terrain.
The listeners in SJ are part of the SF book too; think of SJ as a breakout report... just like Nassau County is a breakout market from NY, but part of the NY metro, too.
It is time to stop speculating about things that just can't be done using incorrect comparisons to justify them.
The "Bay Area" is a lil different than "Central Texas". Austin and SA simply arent that similar. I realize all the cities in NorCal aren't either, but there's still a huge difference. For all the bitching and moaning that goes on about local, local, local here....you wanna homogonize programming for 2 distinct markets? I woud like to see Lisle and Hahn vs Dale & Bob...but they would both be watered down shows and lose a LOT if they suddenly had to add another market. Same goes for every single station in this coversation. How many people would drive 70 miles to go to a club? The people in SA know 6th street is there. I don't thik a few more club spots would drive traffic that much. Same for Austin...they know where the Riverwalk is.
- Status