I certainly concede that possibility - as I believe I've mentioned - so, in some ways, the real question is how far iHeart is willing to go to preserve the KOA brand and image in a time when AM radio is in notable decline. Or are they just going to give up on it in some future year? Two little translators, peripherally situated, are not enough to cover the whole market.
-
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
Why does KOA bother?
- Thread starter Mark Roberts
- Start date
Can I get an amen brother?
And to emphasize your point Scott; many sports teams and leagues around renewal time are requiring the flagship and associated affiliate stations be FM's.
Do as others have: Buy or trade for an FM signal and give it the KOA calls, then sell block programming on the AM. Branding remains with a signal that listeners will actually hear.
With six full-power FM stations in the Denver market, iHeart is maxed out already.
But, they could change the calls of one of their existing FM's? Been done before.
Yes, it's been done before (KNX, KKOB are two examples that come to mind) but the barrier is high.
Here's my thinking which is easier for me to do with quasi-algebraic symbolism. Otherwise I have to write a bunch of words words words and the point will be lost.
Let a = KOA revenues on AM.
Let b = KOA revenues if it were on FM.
Let c = KOA infomercial/sepearate programming revenues if the programming moved partially or entirely to FM.
Let r = Revenues of the station that would be displaced by KOA were it to move to FM.
PV = present value; FV = future value at given point in time (call it t).
If I were an iHeart decision-maker having to justify moving KOA to a full-power FM signal to my management, I would at least have to show: FV(b + c) > FV(a + r).
Under present-day circumstances, the justification might be more stringent: FV(b + c) >= PV(a + r).
To show future value, one would have to do financial forecasting, which would involve modeling and modeling always involves assumptions. If those assumptions were wrong - and the probability of that is not low - then FV(b + c) < PV(a + r) at a different time t (i.e. in the past), and the person making those assumptions will probably lose their job. In other words, it would take a lot of justification and plain old flat-out courage to make this kind of decision in this particular set of circumstances. Modern radio is not a field that rewards visionaries.
The only way I see this working is if a candidate to be the replaced station, r, crashes and burns and starts having such dismal financial performance that there's a compulsion to do something about it. Then the replacement could take place and there would be less risk by starting from a lowered base of revenue. There could also be externalities such as a sports team or university insisting on a full-market FM station for coverage. Until the time that these things might happen, KOA is on a couple of translators with peripheral coverage in most circumstances, and, for FM-exclusive listeners, it's not a full-market signal, which also isn't exactly the path to long-term success. And, yes, there may be AM-curious listeners but that cohort is dwindling. Under present circumstances, KOA seems to be stuck. (Edited this paragraph in hopes of making it clearer.)
Here's my thinking which is easier for me to do with quasi-algebraic symbolism. Otherwise I have to write a bunch of words words words and the point will be lost.
Let a = KOA revenues on AM.
Let b = KOA revenues if it were on FM.
Let c = KOA infomercial/sepearate programming revenues if the programming moved partially or entirely to FM.
Let r = Revenues of the station that would be displaced by KOA were it to move to FM.
PV = present value; FV = future value at given point in time (call it t).
If I were an iHeart decision-maker having to justify moving KOA to a full-power FM signal to my management, I would at least have to show: FV(b + c) > FV(a + r).
Under present-day circumstances, the justification might be more stringent: FV(b + c) >= PV(a + r).
To show future value, one would have to do financial forecasting, which would involve modeling and modeling always involves assumptions. If those assumptions were wrong - and the probability of that is not low - then FV(b + c) < PV(a + r) at a different time t (i.e. in the past), and the person making those assumptions will probably lose their job. In other words, it would take a lot of justification and plain old flat-out courage to make this kind of decision in this particular set of circumstances. Modern radio is not a field that rewards visionaries.
The only way I see this working is if a candidate to be the replaced station, r, crashes and burns and starts having such dismal financial performance that there's a compulsion to do something about it. Then the replacement could take place and there would be less risk by starting from a lowered base of revenue. There could also be externalities such as a sports team or university insisting on a full-market FM station for coverage. Until the time that these things might happen, KOA is on a couple of translators with peripheral coverage in most circumstances, and, for FM-exclusive listeners, it's not a full-market signal, which also isn't exactly the path to long-term success. And, yes, there may be AM-curious listeners but that cohort is dwindling. Under present circumstances, KOA seems to be stuck. (Edited this paragraph in hopes of making it clearer.)
Last edited:
I agree with you there... and i bet in the case of KNX and KKOB, the ratings and or $ for what became their full power FMs had been bad or was starting to slide and they figured they couldn't do any worse, and maybe even better
It seems that iHeart's version of Mark's equation varies a little from Audacy's. They've been much slower and more reluctant to move their news/talk brands to FM in most of their established AM markets.
I suspect there's another variable at play in the math, and that's the question of whether the audience can be moved to streaming platforms faster than it can transition from AM to FM.
If you're KOA, do you need to use a full Lookout Mountain class C FM just for building penetration when not many of your listeners are using standalone radios? Or if you're iHeart and you have the leading streaming app, do you have the data that shows your in-home listening is mostly on the app? And in that case, maybe the translator is just good enough to get in-car listenership in most of the metro without having to sacrifice one of your existing full FM formats?
I suspect there's another variable at play in the math, and that's the question of whether the audience can be moved to streaming platforms faster than it can transition from AM to FM.
If you're KOA, do you need to use a full Lookout Mountain class C FM just for building penetration when not many of your listeners are using standalone radios? Or if you're iHeart and you have the leading streaming app, do you have the data that shows your in-home listening is mostly on the app? And in that case, maybe the translator is just good enough to get in-car listenership in most of the metro without having to sacrifice one of your existing full FM formats?
I agree, and I would now put Cumulus in the same category as Audacy (viz. KNBR, KKOB), but that's hard to quantify, I think. There may be some variations in corporate cultures that make iHeart much less willing to displace an FM station with an AM format.
Could be. It might also depend on how much money they get from that channel. I have the impression that streaming ad revenues don't come close to approaching revenues obtained from traditional broadcast, but I could be wrong.
JeeperOne
Banned
Not all of them though as MANY have turned to Audacy, Cumulus & other broadcasters
JeeperOne
Banned
WHY though??
Because most people under 60 don't listen to AM? As mentioned; at contract renewal, many teams are requiring the radio stations carrying the team/league to be FM, because that's where the listeners actually are.
I'm thinking that the listeners would go to an AM station if it was the only station carrying the games.
Anymore it seems like listeners under 60 only know of FM and streaming. AM doesn't exist.
Ford says its data, pulled from internet-connected vehicles, shows that less than 5 percent of in-car listening is to AM stations.
Younger listeners will stream if they hear of a good "product". Most realized that sports talk is time sensitive, and among the least viable content for podcasts so they can be taken to a stream with adequate promotion.
(The big issue with radio is that neither the on-air products nor their streams are adequately promoted.)
If those under-40 generations like a sports talk show, they can be enticed to listen online. Not so much on AM.
Station operators will claim this idea takes away from the "real station's audience" but I think that good sports talk stations should condense each show into one or more "highlights" 15 minute podcasts to be run right after the show is over. We know many under-40's don't like watching a full game's play by play, but love seeing highlights. This concept mirrors the behaviour of that group as applied to radio shows. "Cut the crap and give me the action" works in radio, too.
Exactly. The problem is, depending on the team/league, a team flagship station may not be able to stream the game at the risk of it going out of market/jurisdiction. Some have paid to geofence the radio stream, but many times the league doesn't allow streaming because they may be streaming games for a fee.
The other problem is that in most cases, the station owns inventory only in the pre, half, and post game shows. The team or league owns all the in-game inventory. The question would be what the motivation for a station to create a summary of the game when they can't sell it?
I'm referring to the "bar talk" shows on the rest of the station. Not the games themselves.
Again, I'm referring to doing podcasts and streams based on the sports talk shows, not the games themselves. In other words, the other 155 to 160 hours a week.
It’s so much easier and less expensive telling listeners to download an app to listen to your station’s crystal clear audio rather than spend millions on fm translators people might listen to
It depends. Some leagues/teams don't allow a local station to stream because it violates market agreements.
Even with geo-fencing?
- Status