Will WSB AM be the new #1 station in ATL?

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

My favorite is WTOP Washington, DC. I stream them a lot. They have a steady pace and familiar anchors.

Size of market is important, but any kind of comparison or formula to determine if a market can have a successful all-news station would seem to depend on the "culture" of the market. Since Washington D.C. has so many government employees, and so many other listeners who work for companies that support government, lobby government, etc., I think broadcasters have long assumed news is more viable as programming content in such a market.

State capitols tend to be the same way.

Some university towns are so overwhelmed by the big state university that news (and gossip) about the university and the attached sports (or is that the sports and attached university?) make news programs focused on that audience viable.

Towns known for one particular industry also will disrupt any rule of thumb we come up with on how big the market needs to be to support news broadcasting with revenue. In Peoria that would be Caterpillar. In Rochester that has been Kodak. In Indianapolis you could build a station around Eli Lilly and the philanthropic causes the Endowment funds.

Nashville, TN has the headquarters of the nations two largest protestant church groups along with their publishing industry. Nashville would support news coverage of that "industry" in a way that another market of the same size could not support.

So. Does Atlanta have a "news revenue sweet-spot"? We have a lot of government but it is divided up: State, local and then Federal things including military but also CDC. Not one big "government blob" to serve. And what corporate presence DOMINATES the Atlanta market? At one time we might have said Coca-Cola. But the corporate audience for news is also split up by Home Depot, UPS, and others. Well, the university dominates local culture for focus on The University! And in Atlanta that would be..... Emory? Georgia Tech? UGA?

It looks like the Atlanta Market will or will not have viable ALL-NEWS Station(s) simply based the the number of people we have, and not the fact that one "industry community" alone will make the numbers work.

Is there some magic elixir that WSB has to use to sweeten it's news and talk to dominate and sit in position Number One?

 

[davideduardo]

One big difference.. they have THREE FM signals to blanket the wide metro area. WSB's 95.5 signal does not even cover Cheshire Bridge Rd and the downtown area.

One of the WTOP simulcasts is in a separate market, and does not cover the Washington, DC MSA. The second is a rimshot for Manassas with an antenna in a county that is also not in the metro, and only partial coverage of one MSA county. MSA coverage for WTOP is provided almost solely by WTOP-FM.

The real difference is that WTOP does not have a low-band, non directional 50 kw. AM station. WTOP FM stands alone, mostly because DC has no AM signals that cover the whole market. In the case of WSB, there is a very good AM signal with decent ratings being supplemented by an FM... an FM with an application to significantly improve its facility.

 

[trusty]

Size of market is important, but any kind of comparison or formula to determine if a market can have a successful all-news station would seem to depend on the "culture" of the market. ... So. Does Atlanta have a "news revenue sweet-spot"? ...

Does Dallas have such a "sweet spot"? KRLD has been its news radio for years - and very listenable (They don't repeat their calls every third word, and they don't seem to have time for sensationalism - imagine that!).

---

Also, how much does 95.5 increase (or appear to increase) its signal by going mono?

 

[secondchoice]

Size of market is important, but any kind of comparison or formula to determine if a market can have a successful all-news station would seem to depend on the "culture" of the market. ... So. Does Atlanta have a "news revenue sweet-spot"? ...

Does Dallas have such a "sweet spot"? KRLD has been its news radio for years - and very listenable (They don't repeat their calls every third word, and they don't seem to have time for sensationalism - imagine that!).


---

Also, how much does 95.5 increase (or appear to increase) its signal by going mono?

I wish we had an all news operation in Atlanta. It would only work if it had a signal that would cover all of the market 24 / 7. WABE is doing very well. So maybe someone someday will try.

Mono vs. Stereo coverage is not a factor in engineering studies regarding the FCC. The real advantage will be there is no stereo pilot tone (IIRC 19Khz.) so the receivers not try to “demodulate” the inverted out of phase channel, just the R + L. If your FM radio has a stereo / mono switch, go to a bad “signal” location (inside a large building) or on the fringe of the coverage of a station that is FM stereo, switch the radio into mono and you hear the difference. I saw a radio on time that even had a “narrow /wideband switch" that the narrow switch made the FM sound like “clean” AM (under 10KHZ). My shop when I was in the USAF was next to an old “main frame” Univac computer in the early 1970’s and we had one. It was the only radio that was “listenable” when we took lunch.

 

[secondchoice]

I wonder if by killing 95.5 (which I NEVER listened to so I am not complaining) if WSB / Cox will recover the lost revenue in the young demos I hear about all the time. Every time an oldies station does well in the 12+ published ratings in any market there are always posters who say the young demos are where the real revenue is and 12+ does not matter. IMHO if you are #1 you have to win or be second in some demos. PPM is supposed to be “sampled” age, race and sex wise to reflect the market. Some even say WKLS 96.1 (2.9 / 12+) will bill higher the WYAY 106.7 (4.0 / 12+) or even WSRV 97.1 (4.3 / 12+) based on younger demos. On the New York board where WCBS FM has been a top 3 station 12 + the last couple of ratings the general opinion is WCBS FM is not be a top 10 biller in New York. So did WSB give up a lot of revenue in an attempt to save the “flagship”?

 

[klutch00]

It will continue to keep going downhill until the FCC finally pulls the plug to use the spectrum bandwidth for something else.

Like what? What are those lower frequencies especially good for?

My dream plan would be to take TV channels 5 and 6, put them on the FM band (76-88MHz), and move all the AM class B's and C's to it. Then let the AM band be run by class A's and local daytimers (class D, no night signals). If anyone insists, have 2 or 3 stations per clear channel and go directional after dark as needed.

I like the idea...kind of. I agree that it would be wise to expand the FM band by 60 to 100 channels. I don't know if it's possible to expand above 108 MHz, but that might be a consideration.

In expanding the FM band, I feel that certain frequencies should be set aside to allow 100,000-watts maximum nationwide. In doing so, high-powered stations with compromised service patterns could be given the opportunity of moving to the expanded band while still maintaining most of their primary service areas. Such stations could include WRKO, WEEI, WINS, WEPN and WLIB, just for starters.

Now for the AM band, I like the idea of creating more unobstructed clear channels. Whether or not it should be "wall to wall" is another matter. I definitely say the clears should be virtually unoccupied at night. Allow limited time powerhouses (i.e the old WJJD) only east of the Rockies, yet allow them to broadcast until sunset at the dominant station. Consider reallocating the AM assignments from 10 kHz intervals to nine. Have at least one clear channel station per state; Florida should probably have at least two. If the Canadians (or anyone else) is not willing to use a certain frequency for whatever reason, they should be made to forfeit their broadcast rights for that/those frequency/ies. In the event that the band cannot be cleared of all non-clears and daytimers, set aside a handful of channels for local and amateur broadcasting, preferably above 1220 kHz.

 

[Talk_Dude]

I like the idea...kind of. I agree that it would be wise to expand the FM band by 60 to 100 channels. I don't know if it's possible to expand above 108 MHz, but that might be a consideration.

In expanding the FM band, I feel that certain frequencies should be set aside to allow 100,000-watts maximum nationwide. In doing so, high-powered stations with compromised service patterns could be given the opportunity of moving to the expanded band while still maintaining most of their primary service areas. Such stations could include WRKO, WEEI, WINS, WEPN and WLIB, just for starters.

Now for the AM band, I like the idea of creating more unobstructed clear channels. Whether or not it should be "wall to wall" is another matter. I definitely say the clears should be virtually unoccupied at night. Allow limited time powerhouses (i.e the old WJJD) only east of the Rockies, yet allow them to broadcast until sunset at the dominant station. Consider reallocating the AM assignments from 10 kHz intervals to nine. Have at least one clear channel station per state; Florida should probably have at least two. If the Canadians (or anyone else) is not willing to use a certain frequency for whatever reason, they should be made to forfeit their broadcast rights for that/those frequency/ies. In the event that the band cannot be cleared of all non-clears and daytimers, set aside a handful of channels for local and amateur broadcasting, preferably above 1220 kHz.

Why? Why got to all the trouble and expense of changing the spectrum, rendering all current radio receivers obsolete, and creating mega-stations with broader coverage when there's already virtually no diversity of programming on the air at all, and national coverage of any programming can be achieved via networking on multiple stations much, much more easily? The idea of needing a few mega-stations with powerful transmitters to cover the nation instead of using networks is an idea that ended up being proven less desirable in the 1920's.

If there were major changes made in the radio spectrum to create more channels, and people had to go out and buy new radios to replace their old ones, what makes you think the people wouldn't just by satellite radios instead? Or learn to rely on their iPods instead of radios? Hell, sales of HD radios hasn't been all that great. If people won't run out and buy new radios to hear the new channels that HD created, what makes you think there's any great demand for new radio stations on new frequencies?

 

[jabba17]

If there were major changes made in the radio spectrum to create more channels, and people had to go out and buy new radios to replace their old ones, what makes you think the people wouldn't just by satellite radios instead? Or learn to rely on their iPods instead of radios? Hell, sales of HD radios hasn't been all that great. If people won't run out and buy new radios to hear the new channels that HD created, what makes you think there's any great demand for new radio stations on new frequencies?

Simple...
--Adding the X-band to AM didn't raise the price of receivers. A 76-88MHz analog FM x-band wouldn't do it either. It might take a few years before everyone got a sufficient number of receivers for broadcasters to take advantage of it, but we would get there eventually.
--Satellite costs subscription money, per receiver. That limits penetration.
--The cheapest HD radio is $50. You can buy at least three analog AM/FM radios for that price. Digital costs extra money, at least for now.
--HD reception, at least until recently, has been crappy, and all of those issues have yet to be worked out. You wouldn't have that problem with an FM x-band.
--An FM x-band and reallocating the AM band channels to add more class A clears wouldn't render existing receivers obsolete, like DTV did to analog TV sets. The only downside is that existing receivers wouldn't be able to pick up an FM x-band.

 

[Talk_Dude]

If there were major changes made in the radio spectrum to create more channels, and people had to go out and buy new radios to replace their old ones, what makes you think the people wouldn't just by satellite radios instead? Or learn to rely on their iPods instead of radios? Hell, sales of HD radios hasn't been all that great. If people won't run out and buy new radios to hear the new channels that HD created, what makes you think there's any great demand for new radio stations on new frequencies?

Simple...
--Adding the X-band to AM didn't raise the price of receivers. A 76-88MHz analog FM x-band wouldn't do it either. It might take a few years before everyone got a sufficient number of receivers for broadcasters to take advantage of it, but we would get there eventually.

But it does make existing radios obsolete. It might not cost any more to buy a new one, but it does mean you have to buy a new one. And why would anyone want to buy a new radio to someday get new stations that are probably just going to be more of the same crap they get already?

--Satellite costs subscription money, per receiver. That limits penetration.

Yes, it does. But then again, market pressures could reduce that cost. Or, a merger between the satellite radio companies and statellite TV companies could make a satellite subscription a minor add-on to a Direct-TV or Dishnet subscription. Remember, nothing exists in a vacuum. A whopping huge shake-up in terrestrial radio would likely result in shake-ups in related media.

--The cheapest HD radio is $50. You can buy at least three analog AM/FM radios for that price. Digital costs extra money, at least for now.

And those cheap radios sound cheap. Not everyone is willing to listen to tinny, crappy, lo-fi sound.

--An FM x-band and reallocating the AM band channels to add more class A clears wouldn't render existing receivers obsolete, like DTV did to analog TV sets. The only downside is that existing receivers wouldn't be able to pick up an FM x-band.

Which creates an either/or negative. Either people would regard getting the new channels as not worth the money, in which case the new stations on the new bands wouldn't have enough audience to make them financially attractive to advertisers, or the public would want to replace their old radios, which would be really expensive. If the market remains content to only listen to what's available on existing radios, how would the new stations possibly survive.

But the important things aren't the points you attempted to refute. What about the other paragraph I wrote, the first one? How this new band usage scheme would be a better alternative to providing national coverage for programs than keeping the existing system and returning to the old system of network radio. What programming is not available now because there aren't currently enough stations? The radio spectrum is already sliced and diced so fine that it's difficult for anyone to make big money anymore. How will slicing up the existing market into even tinier pieces going to benefit anyone?

 

[davideduardo]

Now for the AM band, I like the idea of creating more unobstructed clear channels. Whether or not it should be "wall to wall" is another matter. I definitely say the clears should be virtually unoccupied at night.

Why?

Most radio listening is in the daytime. 7 to Midnight is somewhere close to just a third of the average daytime level. The only time being a cleared channel matters is at night, and there is little listening and even less revenue.

The business model of radio for the last half of a century has been based on the local market of each station. In fact, even coverage of adjacent markets is not generally monetizable these days.

Consider reallocating the AM assignments from 10 kHz intervals to nine.

The reduction of fidelity that is the NRSC standard was necessary due to the interference of strong signals on adjacent channels... reducing separation to 9 kHz just makes the band sound worse.

Have at least one clear channel station per state; Florida should probably have at least two.

What you suggest means moving many stations to other frequencies, probably enough of a change in most cases to render the current tower(s) either non-conforming with the rules or very inefficient and for directionals, would change the physical spacing of the towers, which is frequency based. Redesigning and rebuilding a directional can get into 7 figures easily.

If the Canadians (or anyone else) is not willing to use a certain frequency for whatever reason, they should be made to forfeit their broadcast rights for that/those frequency/ies.

That would require much work by the State Department as it involves the changing of an international treaty and can not be done unilaterally. State would ask "is it worth it?" and by the time anything could be negotiated, AM will be gone anyway.

In the event that the band cannot be cleared of all non-clears and daytimers, set aside a handful of channels for local and amateur broadcasting, preferably above 1220 kHz.

Clear channels are not needed or necessary. What is needed is enough power over a market to provide, at current noise levels, a ground wave signal of about 10 mV/m or better. In a small market, 1 kw may be adequate... in NY, even 50 kw may not be adequate. But night skywave service is, today, likely not of interest to even a fraction of a percent of the population.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Clear channels are not needed or necessary. What is needed is enough power over a market to provide, at current noise levels, a ground wave signal of about 10 mV/m or better. In a small market, 1 kw may be adequate... in NY, even 50 kw may not be adequate. But night skywave service is, today, likely not of interest to even a fraction of a percent of the population.

Exactly so! Clear Channels were developed in the 1920's as a means to provide nationwide, or almost nationwide, coverage of a single station to serve as a nationally unifying presence. The clear channel stations (not to be confused with Clear Channel stations!) were to be a national resource that made news and culture uniformly available across the country. The thing is, less than 10 years later the use of telephone lines to carry national signals to multiple stations in a network proved to be a more effective means of accomplishing the same goal. By the 1930's, all Americans from coast-to-coast were enjoying the same entertainment and hearing the same newscasts over NBC Red, NBC Blue, CBS, and Mutual. It was network radio, along with Hollywood movies, that homogenized American culture and helped unify the nation.

The last thing radio needs today is to attempt to return to the technical standards of the 1920's when there is no good reason for it.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

We are seeing replay of that 1920s-1930s era today in the arena of high speed Internet delivery. Those of us who live in the metro areas today are numbed by the number of resources we can choose from to get out "Internet Fix".

Parts of rural America today are standing in line for co-operatives, charitable organizations and government to pipe-in the Internet. Delivery models are being implemented that will seem quaint 30 to 50 years from now. People will stand around and ask: "Why did they ever do it that way?"

And just like some today want to re-establish the importance of booming 50kW stations, in the future there will be those who will want to revert back to the days when we received Internet back at the beginning of the 21st Century. It was "funner" back then.

If you haven't lived 250 miles out in the mesquite and cactus in the 1940s, you really can't comprehend the temporary pot-hole that the clear channel stations filled.

 

[klutch00]

Now for the AM band, I like the idea of creating more unobstructed clear channels. Whether or not it should be "wall to wall" is another matter. I definitely say the clears should be virtually unoccupied at night.

Why?

Most radio listening is in the daytime. 7 to Midnight is somewhere close to just a third of the average daytime level. The only time being a cleared channel matters is at night, and there is little listening and even less revenue.

The business model of radio for the last half of a century has been based on the local market of each station. In fact, even coverage of adjacent markets is not generally monetizable these days.

What the clears can do in the evening hours is offer programming which will be of interest to a wide, regional or national audience. This could include sports programming so that sports fans from far away can follow the latest news on teams they like. WFAN as I understand has quite a loyal audience. That's just one example. Something KMOX has done is offer a Saturday night oldies show "Route 66". But these are just a few examples. Something that the clears can do is sell to national advertisers during the overnight hours. Also, during major weather events, the clears can provide information that might not be otherwise available. I remember when Hurricane Hugo hit the Carolinas in 1989, many radio stations were knocked off the air and information may only have come form the few clears that were still broadcasting. Sometimes in such a situation, high tech is out of the question. Yes, the internet is taking over much of what used to be terrestrial radio, but it cannot totally supplant it.

Consider reallocating the AM assignments from 10 kHz intervals to nine.

The reduction of fidelity that is the NRSC standard was necessary due to the interference of strong signals on adjacent channels... reducing separation to 9 kHz just makes the band sound worse.

I'm sure there can be quality analog transmission standards implemented which can be used in a narrow transmission spectrum. Outside of North and South America, nine-kilohertz interval is the standard for AM and it hasn't gone the way of the dinosaur in those regions.

Have at least one clear channel station per state; Florida should probably have at least two.

What you suggest means moving many stations to other frequencies, probably enough of a change in most cases to render the current tower(s) either non-conforming with the rules or very inefficient and for directionals, would change the physical spacing of the towers, which is frequency based. Redesigning and rebuilding a directional can get into 7 figures easily.

With fewer stations on the clears, the service patterns of these stations don't have to be as restricted so I would think less hardware would be required to provide service. For example, let's suppose 690 was to be forfeited by the Canadians and WOKV Jacksonville wanted to increase its nighttime service area to cover the entire eastern seaboard and maybe a little beyond. Instead of using six nighttime transmitters, maybe they would only need two or three. With less hardware to utilize and a less restricted signal to transmit, one would think that costs could be reduced in order to update the facility. Granted, all this would have to depend on most if not all of that frequency being vacated to an expanded FM band.

If the Canadians (or anyone else) is not willing to use a certain frequency for whatever reason, they should be made to forfeit their broadcast rights for that/those frequency/ies.

That would require much work by the State Department as it involves the changing of an international treaty and can not be done unilaterally. State would ask "is it worth it?" and by the time anything could be negotiated, AM will be gone anyway.

Maybe the negotiation process could be sped up or maybe parties outside the government could negotiate the deal.

In the event that the band cannot be cleared of all non-clears and daytimers, set aside a handful of channels for local and amateur broadcasting, preferably above 1220 kHz.

Clear channels are not needed or necessary. What is needed is enough power over a market to provide, at current noise levels, a ground wave signal of about 10 mV/m or better. In a small market, 1 kw may be adequate... in NY, even 50 kw may not be adequate. But night skywave service is, today, likely not of interest to even a fraction of a percent of the population.

Sorry, but I have to differ with you for the reasons which I mentioned earlier, and there are probably some others as well. Some may say that I live in the past, and maybe I do; but I think it would be a mistake to sacrifice this band entirely.

 

[Wildstyle K]

FYI, WSB-AM is stale and they think using a FM signal to relay it will resolve their issues.

Stale is the perfect word for WSB-AM.

IMO, "Atlanta's Morning News" should go 5-9am, Boortz 9-12pm, Clark Howard (who I love but has more reruns/recycled material than Carson's last decade) 12-3pm, and if they insist on running Hannity, do it when he's live 3-6pm. Throw in a 60-minute news block 6-7pm (like the old "Sixty at 6" on WGST), and then Herman Cain 7-10pm and Michael Savage 10-1am. Use 1-5am to develop new talent and attract those people that work the graveyard shift, and skew it young. Recruit new lsiteners. When Boortz is on vacation, throw one of those new overnight hosts in there to shake things up, ala David Paul in the early 1990s. Boortz won't stick around forever, and as he ages so does his audience.

Long story short, Stale on AM will also be Stale on FM.

How well do you think Coast to Coast A.M. would work for WSB? With all the bad things I hear about WGST, I'm thinking it would probably be better off if WSB adopted the overnight show with daytime ratings.

 

[Wildstyle K]

And to answer the specific question at hand, it's possible.

Based on what normally happens, you'd think a very well performing talk radio station could reach #1, especially on FM. However, it will be interesting to see them battling out V-103, The BIG Station.

 

[jabba17]

How well do you think Coast to Coast A.M. would work for WSB? With all the bad things I hear about WGST, I'm thinking it would probably be better off if WSB adopted the overnight show with daytime ratings.

If CC/Premiere lets WSB have Hannity because they can make more money syndicating it to a competitor instead of keeping it in-house* on a station with a crappy signal after 5 PM during winter PM drive, syndicating Kook to Kook A.M. to WSB seems to be a no-brainer--if WSB is willing to pay for it versus the bang CC gets for merely having it on in ATL (compare Imus). But then again, I'm surprised that WSB even carries Savage considering how wacko he gets sometimes. Maybe ReBoortz gets more revenue for WSB than Kook to Kook A.M. would, plus Savage runs until, what, 1 AM?

*Yes, I know WSB's contract with Hannity may be an ABC/Citadel (pre-Premiere/CC) deal.

 

[jabba17]

Consider reallocating the AM assignments from 10 kHz intervals to nine.

The reduction of fidelity that is the NRSC standard was necessary due to the interference of strong signals on adjacent channels... reducing separation to 9 kHz just makes the band sound worse.

I'm sure there can be quality analog transmission standards implemented which can be used in a narrow transmission spectrum. Outside of North and South America, nine-kilohertz interval is the standard for AM and it hasn't gone the way of the dinosaur in those regions.

You've just rendered most digital AM tuners obsolete with such a move. IMO that would be a bridge too far.

 

[gr8oldies]

Guy named Ray Livesay wanted to do 9kHz spacing in the 70s. His plan was to put all daytimers on newly created channels as fulltimers.

 

[klutch00]

How well do you think Coast to Coast A.M. would work for WSB? With all the bad things I hear about WGST, I'm thinking it would probably be better off if WSB adopted the overnight show with daytime ratings.

If CC/Premiere lets WSB have Hannity because they can make more money syndicating it to a competitor instead of keeping it in-house* on a station with a crappy signal after 5 PM during winter PM drive, syndicating Kook to Kook A.M. to WSB seems to be a no-brainer--if WSB is willing to pay for it versus the bang CC gets for merely having it on in ATL (compare Imus). But then again, I'm surprised that WSB even carries Savage considering how wacko he gets sometimes. Maybe ReBoortz gets more revenue for WSB than Kook to Kook A.M. would, plus Savage runs until, what, 1 AM?

*Yes, I know WSB's contract with Hannity may be an ABC/Citadel (pre-Premiere/CC) deal.

I remember back in the '90s when I first discovered Boortz (and Re-Boortz for that matter) driving home from late night activities. It sure was/is better than all those syndicated programs. Boortz, Michael Reagan (on WOWO) and Jaz McKay (on WWWE) made for some good nighttime listening back then.

 

[klutch00]

Consider reallocating the AM assignments from 10 kHz intervals to nine.

The reduction of fidelity that is the NRSC standard was necessary due to the interference of strong signals on adjacent channels... reducing separation to 9 kHz just makes the band sound worse.

I'm sure there can be quality analog transmission standards implemented which can be used in a narrow transmission spectrum. Outside of North and South America, nine-kilohertz interval is the standard for AM and it hasn't gone the way of the dinosaur in those regions.

You've just rendered most digital AM tuners obsolete with such a move. IMO that would be a bridge too far.

Actually can't some digital tuners be reprogrammed to accommodate 9 kHz intervals? I know that my old Kenwood car stereo could do that and oddly enough, the factory radio in my 1987 Dodge Shadow could also. I remember when I first got the car that I somehow reprogrammed it to do that and for the life of me, I can't figure out how it happened; neither did the dealer.