WYSL: "WHY YOU DON’T NEED, OR WANT, 'HD-AM' RADIO"

[awj223]

This is a case where a facilty that can not possibly have a future is trying to blame all kinds of other things on its inevitable demise. The station is too far out of the population center to really be viable daytime. It has a flea-power night authorization at a northern latitude, meaning it can not compete in most of the metro well into drive times in morning and afternoon. It is what anyone would consider a non-viable facility.

It is perhaps a bit cold to say that, whether local or not, the decision to try to make a go of that facility may not have been based in practicality. We have not only a deficient facility, but also the inability of all but the biggest AM signals to still compete _and_ the fact that AM audiences are ageing and advertisers are finding less and less reason to use them.

David, why are there so many stations located such that the metros they try to serve are outside their protected contours? I can understand the situation of the station that covered the metro well at one time, but the metro later expanded beyond the protected contour, but why are there so many stations located in the middle of nowhere 50 or 100 miles from the major metro areas of today, trying to serve those areas? Way back when all these stations were licensed, why did the original owners not get themselves licensed in the larger cities? For example there was discussion earlier about WGTO Cassopolis, MI, that is located out in the middle of nowhere and tries to serve South Bend as a rimshot.

Cassopolis is in the middle of nowhere, and has always been. What could have motivated the original owners to apply for a Cassopolis license rather than a South Bend license?

Another point is that in metros, where there are generally high noise levels from man made interference, there just are no significant diary returns for the ratings outside very strong contours... around 10 mv/m in noisier cities, and well above 5 mv/m in smaller metros. In LA, for example, the diary returns outside the 15 mv/m contours of AMs are minimal. So if the station is interfered with outside the really "usable" signal area, it is irrelevant as very few listeners will exist there anyway.

I don't see what this has to do with HD though. The FCC's policies are based on contours and masks, not diaries, and they are obligated to protect a station with zero diary returns in its protected contour, as well as stations that don't make any money, and also in theory can't do anything about a station getting interference outside that contour even if it has a 70 share there.

 

[sbe1]

Here is a great story with pics on WYSL, a true local mom and pop radio station. It might clarify a lot of the mis information in this thread. http://www.fybush.com/sites/2007/site-070126.html

 

[davideduardo]

David, why are there so many stations located such that the metros they try to serve are outside their protected contours? I can understand the situation of the station that covered the metro well at one time, but the metro later expanded beyond the protected contour, but why are there so many stations located in the middle of nowhere 50 or 100 miles from the major metro areas of today, trying to serve those areas? Way back when all these stations were licensed, why did the original owners not get themselves licensed in the larger cities? For example there was discussion earlier about WGTO Cassopolis, MI, that is located out in the middle of nowhere and tries to serve South Bend as a rimshot.

The FCC has long licensed AMs wherever they technically fit. There is no need to prove they can be viable, just that they don't interfere with the protected contours of existing stations.

For many decades, it was hard to get a new license to a "central city" of a metro, but one could apply for an "unserved community" even if it was tiney, even unincorporated, in the peripheral area of a large market. Since it was only necessare to prove and provide city grade coverage (used to be 25 mv/m over the center of the city) to the city of license, one could becom a metro area station by only providing a really nice signal to one township or city of lesser importance or size.

Many of these stations never really did a good job of covering the metro. Like many AMs licensed in the 30's and 40's, either the city outgrew the signal or it never fully covered it day or night. And such stations really could not compete, particularly after FM made AM significantly less viable.

An example of this is also the story of both Black and Hispanic stations in larger markets. In Cleveland, neither WJMO nor WABQ could cover the entire market in the late 50's or early 60's, but they did cover the areas where, at the time, most Blacks lived. R&B came to Cleveland thanks to this coincidence. In many Southwestern markets in the 70's, there were AMs that could no longer compete due to coverage (directionality, low power, high dial position) or because they were daytime. As FM began to rise to dominance, such stations that had been secondary players could no longer be viable in English, but many covered the dense, centralized Hispanic populations and they converted to a format directed at this group.

Today, if you analyze Arbitron diary data, you find that AM stations are not listened to in the lesser signal areas in urban environments. Typically, nearly lall the listening occurs in the 10 mv/m contour. That means that many markets have very few if any AMs that cover the whole market day and night.

Cassopolis is in the middle of nowhere, and has always been. What could have motivated the original owners to apply for a Cassopolis license rather than a South Bend license?

Radio has always been a business where the passion for the medium often overcomes common sense. So people who want to own a station convince themselves that what they are going to program is so great that even a lesser signal will achieve results. THis actually does happen sometimes, but not often.

>>"quote author=DavidEduardo link=topic=70250.msg506045#msg506045 date=1178156959]
Another point is that in metros, where there are generally high noise levels from man made interference, there just are no significant diary returns for the ratings outside very strong contours... around 10 mv/m in noisier cities, and well above 5 mv/m in smaller metros. In LA, for example, the diary returns outside the 15 mv/m contours of AMs are minimal. So if the station is interfered with outside the really "usable" signal area, it is irrelevant as very few listeners will exist there anyway."

I don't see what this has to do with HD though. The FCC's policies are based on contours and masks, not diaries, and they are obligated to protect a station with zero diary returns in its protected contour, as well as stations that don't make any money, and also in theory can't do anything about a station getting interference outside that contour even if it has a 70 share there.

As I said, the FCC has no concern anymore for the viablility of a station, just its technical operation.

HD coverage is comparable with the "usable" (although not the protected) signal area on AM. My point is that interference to the weaker areas is irrelevant since there is little to no listening in them.

 

[Savage]

Hi, folks: Bob Savage, owner of WYSL here, to weigh in with a few additional IBOC-AM observations, and reaction to some of the statements made here.

I've made my arguments about why I think iBiquity's AM-HD system is badly flawed, on the WYSL site and in the pages of Radio World so I'm not going to rehash them here. Just a couple of footnotes: first, re: the reduced analog bandpass issue. WYSL expermented with 6 kHz for a few months. Notwithstanding the insistence of some observers that receivers are so narrow nowadays that nobody hears the difference, as soon as we re-set the Omnia 3a to 10 kHz, we got unsolicited compliments from advertisers, staff and - yes, even competitors - about how nice the station sounded. My own personal observation was that on almost every radio except for the $3 drugstore variety, the additional bandwidth made a dramatic improvement, so the proof of the pudding is in the listening.

I will add that no American enterprise has ever improved its lot by voluntarily reducing quality. Would you return to a restaurant after learning it was loading its food up with lard and salt, because "most people think it tastes better?" When Detroit elected to start building lousy cars with poor fit & finish in the 1970s based on similar demand-based sophistry, the imports starting eating their lunch - and they haven't recovered since. For the AM industry to sacrifice audio quality for the 99.998% of listeners using analog radios just to accomodate an ephemeral future digital audience is illogical to the point of being ludicrous.

All this being said: reasonable minds can differ about the merits of iBiquity's HD-AM. I understand the arguments of the pro-IBOC crowd and, for one, I value them highly. But I respectfully disagree based on what I've seen and heard. You guys are gonna have to convince me, using real-world experience, that the system won't do more harm than good.

Prediction: HD-AM in its current incarnation will eventually tank because of low consumer demand combined with the much-discussed adjacent-channel interference problems. Remember that economics of AM are driven by analog, not digital - like it or not. Wait until, say, WFAN drops a share point because much of the band has become a wall of analog noise and listeners can't be bothered to tune through it - that's about ten mil a year in lost revenue. Or national advertisers stop using AM because of the interference. Or the first skywave federal lawsuits hit (WISN vs. KMOX, KDKA vs. WBZ, etc.) Management won't be able to turn the IBOC exciter off fast enough.

Here's where I really have to blow the whistle, though: the astonishingly arrogant and uninformed comments about WYSL made by posters here, notably Richard Eduardo, who uses terminology like "sour grapes," "rimshot station" and "inevitable demise" to describe our proud and successful independent station which he declares is not "viable."

WYSL recently celebrated 20 years of non-viability by completing its THIRD major facility upgrade, this one to 20kw DA-D (soon to be followed by a fourth, a big increase in nighttime power, but more on this some other time.) WYSL's growth has been entirely self-financed and the station turns a high five-figure profit every year, with annualized revenue growth over the last five years averaging 17%. The station has the highest advertiser-retention rate in the Rochester market, and is highly prized by direct advertisers as an efficient and effective medium - including many hard-nosed ad agency buyers. This is all accomplished without big corporate-parent resources or sister FMs to leverage revenue onto the AM. WYSL does it all as a standalone, which anyone who knows anything about this industry knows is astounding.

WYSL is that all-too-rare commodity, an independently-owned local radio station where the owners are involved in all day-to-day operations. We're a valued news partner for local print and TV outlets, feature award-winning local collegiate sports play-by-play as well as local pro franchises, feature four of the top twelve national talk shows according to TALKERS mag as well as an excellent local daily talk program, plus much more. The station has historically been a technological leader, pioneering live 24-7 web streaming in the Rochester market eight years ago, and we're launching long-form program podcasts this coming week.
We have a 3000-square foot showplace facility including TX/phasing plant, four studios, offices and two conference centers on a picturesque 13-acre site including our four-tower array. The station is a community asset local leaders point to with pride - in summation, what a successful, vibrant local station should be.

And it was entirely built with the love and sweat of the local owners who conceived it: in 1986, the WYSL site was a derelict cornfield. The dedicated professionals who staff WYSL and drive it succeed are proud of it, notwithstanding Mr. Eduardo's mean-spirited pontification about stations he has decided are not "viable." Perhaps he can point to a comparable accomplishment in the radio industry to which he can lay claim.

And this leads me to a final comment about what I've observed about some members of the pro-IBOC crowd: their incredible willingness, declared in RW and elsewhere, that stations they have concluded are not "viable" should be sacrificed for the greater good of IBOC-AM. This is an ugly, Stalinist proposition which should spark outrage among all who are members of the AM Band Of Brothers. And who decides which stations are "viable," sitting in their distant computer cubicles, referencing Arbitron and a coverage contour? Politicians? The FCC? Richard Eduardo?

History will reveal in due course whose "demise" was indeed "inevitable" -- WYSL's or iBiquity's HD-AM.

 

[radiopilot]

Hi, folks: Bob Savage, owner of WYSL here, to weigh in with a few additional IBOC-AM observations, and reaction to some of the statements made here.

I've made my arguments about why I think iBiquity's AM-HD system is badly flawed, on the WYSL site and in the pages of Radio World so I'm not going to rehash them here. Just a couple of footnotes: first, re: the reduced analog bandpass issue. WYSL expermented with 6 kHz for a few months. Notwithstanding the insistence of some observers that receivers are so narrow nowadays that nobody hears the difference, as soon as we re-set the Omnia 3a to 10 kHz, we got unsolicited compliments from advertisers, staff and - yes, even competitors - about how nice the station sounded. My own personal observation was that on almost every radio except for the $3 drugstore variety, the additional bandwidth made a dramatic improvement, so the proof of the pudding is in the listening.

I will add that no American enterprise has ever improved its lot by voluntarily reducing quality. Would you return to a restaurant after learning it was loading its food up with lard and salt, because "most people think it tastes better?" When Detroit elected to start building lousy cars with poor fit & finish in the 1970s based on similar demand-based sophistry, the imports starting eating their lunch - and they haven't recovered since. For the AM industry to sacrifice audio quality for the 99.998% of listeners using analog radios just to accomodate an ephemeral future digital audience is illogical to the point of being ludicrous.

All this being said: reasonable minds can differ about the merits of iBiquity's HD-AM. I understand the arguments of the pro-IBOC crowd and, for one, I value them highly. But I respectfully disagree based on what I've seen and heard. You guys are gonna have to convince me, using real-world experience, that the system won't do more harm than good.

Prediction: HD-AM in its current incarnation will eventually tank because of low consumer demand combined with the much-discussed adjacent-channel interference problems. Remember that economics of AM are driven by analog, not digital - like it or not. Wait until, say, WFAN drops a share point because much of the band has become a wall of analog noise and listeners can't be bothered to tune through it - that's about ten mil a year in lost revenue. Or national advertisers stop using AM because of the interference. Or the first skywave federal lawsuits hit (WISN vs. KMOX, KDKA vs. WBZ, etc.) Management won't be able to turn the IBOC exciter off fast enough.

Here's where I really have to blow the whistle, though: the astonishingly arrogant and uninformed comments about WYSL made by posters here, notably Richard Eduardo, who uses terminology like "sour grapes," "rimshot station" and "inevitable demise" to describe our proud and successful independent station which he declares is not "viable."

WYSL recently celebrated 20 years of non-viability by completing its THIRD major facility upgrade, this one to 20kw DA-D (soon to be followed by a fourth, a big increase in nighttime power, but more on this some other time.) WYSL's growth has been entirely self-financed and the station turns a high five-figure profit every year, with annualized revenue growth over the last five years averaging 17%. The station has the highest advertiser-retention rate in the Rochester market, and is highly prized by direct advertisers as an efficient and effective medium - including many hard-nosed ad agency buyers. This is all accomplished without big corporate-parent resources or sister FMs to leverage revenue onto the AM. WYSL does it all as a standalone, which anyone who knows anything about this industry knows is astounding.

WYSL is that all-too-rare commodity, an independently-owned local radio station where the owners are involved in all day-to-day operations. We're a valued news partner for local print and TV outlets, feature award-winning local collegiate sports play-by-play as well as local pro franchises, feature four of the top twelve national talk shows according to TALKERS mag as well as an excellent local daily talk program, plus much more. The station has historically been a technological leader, pioneering live 24-7 web streaming in the Rochester market eight years ago, and we're launching long-form program podcasts this coming week.
We have a 3000-square foot showplace facility including TX/phasing plant, four studios, offices and two conference centers on a picturesque 13-acre site including our four-tower array. The station is a community asset local leaders point to with pride - in summation, what a successful, vibrant local station should be.

And it was entirely built with the love and sweat of the local owners who conceived it: in 1986, the WYSL site was a derelict cornfield. The dedicated professionals who staff WYSL and drive it succeed are proud of it, notwithstanding Mr. Eduardo's mean-spirited pontification about stations he has decided are not "viable." Perhaps he can point to a comparable accomplishment in the radio industry to which he can lay claim.

And this leads me to a final comment about what I've observed about some members of the pro-IBOC crowd: their incredible willingness, declared in RW and elsewhere, that stations they have concluded are not "viable" should be sacrificed for the greater good of IBOC-AM. This is an ugly, Stalinist proposition which should spark outrage among all who are members of the AM Band Of Brothers. And who decides which stations are "viable," sitting in their distant computer cubicles, referencing Arbitron and a coverage contour? Politicians? The FCC? Richard Eduardo?

History will reveal in due course whose "demise" was indeed "inevitable" -- WYSL's or iBiquity's HD-AM.

Savage..

Excellent write up and evaluation of your station 'viablity' of your station and the consumers of your station... all my kudos for you coming on board and setting these guys straight... see you don't work for the corporate broadcasters so your take on HD radio is one of honest assessment of the Ibiquity hash... now WE are all still waiting for one of the AM engineers that RFBurns knows that runs the WFAN or whatever AM station to come on this board and give his assessment of their AM stations but guess what they won't because they've been 'zippered up' by their management to keep the details of their supposedly lousy HD setup from the public...

Although I don't have a 5kw, 10kw or whatever station and only a Part15 setup I can relate to how your listeners are loyal to you... as they are to my little hole in the world... give them quality sound and content and hope they stay with... they sure aren't with the powerhouses providing nonsense and crap on the air 24/7...

Thank you again...

Radiopilot

 

[R.F. Burns]

Hi, folks: Bob Savage, owner of WYSL here, to weigh in with a few additional IBOC-AM observations, and reaction to some of the statements made here.

I've made my arguments about why I think iBiquity's AM-HD system is badly flawed, on the WYSL site and in the pages of Radio World so I'm not going to rehash them here. Just a couple of footnotes: first, re: the reduced analog bandpass issue. WYSL expermented with 6 kHz for a few months. Notwithstanding the insistence of some observers that receivers are so narrow nowadays that nobody hears the difference, as soon as we re-set the Omnia 3a to 10 kHz, we got unsolicited compliments from advertisers, staff and - yes, even competitors - about how nice the station sounded. My own personal observation was that on almost every radio except for the $3 drugstore variety, the additional bandwidth made a dramatic improvement, so the proof of the pudding is in the listening.

I will add that no American enterprise has ever improved its lot by voluntarily reducing quality. Would you return to a restaurant after learning it was loading its food up with lard and salt, because "most people think it tastes better?" When Detroit elected to start building lousy cars with poor fit & finish in the 1970s based on similar demand-based sophistry, the imports starting eating their lunch - and they haven't recovered since. For the AM industry to sacrifice audio quality for the 99.998% of listeners using analog radios just to accomodate an ephemeral future digital audience is illogical to the point of being ludicrous.

All this being said: reasonable minds can differ about the merits of iBiquity's HD-AM. I understand the arguments of the pro-IBOC crowd and, for one, I value them highly. But I respectfully disagree based on what I've seen and heard. You guys are gonna have to convince me, using real-world experience, that the system won't do more harm than good.

Prediction: HD-AM in its current incarnation will eventually tank because of low consumer demand combined with the much-discussed adjacent-channel interference problems. Remember that economics of AM are driven by analog, not digital - like it or not. Wait until, say, WFAN drops a share point because much of the band has become a wall of analog noise and listeners can't be bothered to tune through it - that's about ten mil a year in lost revenue. Or national advertisers stop using AM because of the interference. Or the first skywave federal lawsuits hit (WISN vs. KMOX, KDKA vs. WBZ, etc.) Management won't be able to turn the IBOC exciter off fast enough.

Here's where I really have to blow the whistle, though: the astonishingly arrogant and uninformed comments about WYSL made by posters here, notably Richard Eduardo, who uses terminology like "sour grapes," "rimshot station" and "inevitable demise" to describe our proud and successful independent station which he declares is not "viable."

WYSL recently celebrated 20 years of non-viability by completing its THIRD major facility upgrade, this one to 20kw DA-D (soon to be followed by a fourth, a big increase in nighttime power, but more on this some other time.) WYSL's growth has been entirely self-financed and the station turns a high five-figure profit every year, with annualized revenue growth over the last five years averaging 17%. The station has the highest advertiser-retention rate in the Rochester market, and is highly prized by direct advertisers as an efficient and effective medium - including many hard-nosed ad agency buyers. This is all accomplished without big corporate-parent resources or sister FMs to leverage revenue onto the AM. WYSL does it all as a standalone, which anyone who knows anything about this industry knows is astounding.

WYSL is that all-too-rare commodity, an independently-owned local radio station where the owners are involved in all day-to-day operations. We're a valued news partner for local print and TV outlets, feature award-winning local collegiate sports play-by-play as well as local pro franchises, feature four of the top twelve national talk shows according to TALKERS mag as well as an excellent local daily talk program, plus much more. The station has historically been a technological leader, pioneering live 24-7 web streaming in the Rochester market eight years ago, and we're launching long-form program podcasts this coming week.
We have a 3000-square foot showplace facility including TX/phasing plant, four studios, offices and two conference centers on a picturesque 13-acre site including our four-tower array. The station is a community asset local leaders point to with pride - in summation, what a successful, vibrant local station should be.

And it was entirely built with the love and sweat of the local owners who conceived it: in 1986, the WYSL site was a derelict cornfield. The dedicated professionals who staff WYSL and drive it succeed are proud of it, notwithstanding Mr. Eduardo's mean-spirited pontification about stations he has decided are not "viable." Perhaps he can point to a comparable accomplishment in the radio industry to which he can lay claim.

And this leads me to a final comment about what I've observed about some members of the pro-IBOC crowd: their incredible willingness, declared in RW and elsewhere, that stations they have concluded are not "viable" should be sacrificed for the greater good of IBOC-AM. This is an ugly, Stalinist proposition which should spark outrage among all who are members of the AM Band Of Brothers. And who decides which stations are "viable," sitting in their distant computer cubicles, referencing Arbitron and a coverage contour? Politicians? The FCC? Richard Eduardo?

History will reveal in due course whose "demise" was indeed "inevitable" -- WYSL's or iBiquity's HD-AM.

"Wait until, say, WFAN drops a share point because much of the band has become a wall of analog noise and listeners can't be bothered to tune through it"


WFAN has been running an IBOC exciter for at least 6 months and it has had no negative effect on audience share or income. The only issue causing an income drop at WFAN will be the Imus firing.

 

[davideduardo]

Well, since I was th eonly one named specifically (although incorrectly named) I guess a response is warranted.

First, much of the argument here has nothing to do with that little station in suburban upstate New York. It has to do with several mistaken and misshapened policies of the FCCC.

First, the FCC could not decide about national coverage and local service, so they crippled the "clear channel" stations by allowing them only the limited power of 50 kw. This move meant that in the daytime, much of America had very poor radio service. But, heck, in the 30's, most radio listening was in the evening.

Second, the FCC then created two absurd entities, the daytimer and the Class IV staiton. The daytimer, particularly in more norhtern latitudes, my operate only 10 hours a day in winter. The Class IV was intended to cover local markets; in its ignorance, the FCC did not realize that any towwn that could be covered by one was actually, in most cases, a trade center for a surrounding zone that got nearly no AM service at night and little by day.

So, at one end they crippled local service to limited areas and then they crippled the large stations to a power level that is inadequate for regional coverage. The FCC also failed to see the growth of urban areas (suburban sprawl) and the increases in man made interference that has made AM virtually useless in many areas.

So we now have WYSL. This is pretty much a daytimer on a clear channel (WHO's) which got on the air when the clears were allowed to be broken down (making a bad thing worse) under the excuse of creating grey area coverage; WYSL and many like it snuck in on the coattails of the breakdown despite being in areas with plenty of local service. Of course, at that time, the FCC was obcessing with the idea of "first local service" which we know was used by thousands of broadcasters to slip a new station into a metro by finding one of 30 suburbs that had no station licenced to it... whether it needed it or not.

Finally, stations like WYSL that got on clear channels as daytimers got low night powers... totally inadequate powers for covering a cohesive metro area. All they did was make the band more crowded.

Well before HD AM was agonizing. By 1995, AM listening had slipped below 20% of radio listening. The usage by younger people was very small, to the point today that less than 10% of listeners are under 35 ever cume AM, and most of the band's listeners are over 55. As we know, older persons are a very lightly utilized buying demographic... but that is not the issue... as time goes by, unless there is change, the bulk of AM listeners will be even older and eventually there will be none as younger Americans are not using AM because the sound sucks.

I refuse to use the evidence of one station vs. that of the NRSC in the matter of quality. The NRSC testing showed that, on a broad sample of consumer radios, the frequency response was off 10 db or more at 4.1 kHz and that listeners in a controlled sample preferred AM with lower badwidth (6 kHz was optimum). Since the audio was the same, and the devicces not tweaked at each stage, I believe this test. I have no way of knowing, buy I suspect WYSL tweaked its audio at each stage and may not have done it right. In my experience, we have had no negatives, no audience loss and no "apparent" quality degradation when doing a well engineered switch form full NRSC bandwidth to HD-recommended bandwidth. But in the case of "mine is better than yours" I defer to the NRSC tests with guys like Bob Orban at the helm.

The owner I worked with for twenty years (and who has been a friend for nearly 40 years) once siad that most staiton owners were simply acheiving "guaranteed lifetime employment." What he meant was the most (way over half) of US radio stations bill less than the sales of a single McDonalds. The profits are either non-existent, because the owner takes a salary, or minimal (because the owner is still avoiding double taxation on profits by using the proper type of corporate structure). We are tallking about an owner who can take out a "high five figure" salary, trade a car and some restaurants, and live as his or her own boss. Nothing worong with that... for the moment.

But, overall, the issue is that AM is about to croak. Old listeners, dying off. Too much interference on AM from dimmers to power lines for anything but huge signals to be heard. Very little advertiser interest, and declining. Viable formats moving to FM.

Something has to be done to make AM viable as a band in the future. Protecting stations that were only licensed by virtue of FCC and regulatory shortsightedness is not a reason to make the whole band stand at jeopardy of disappearing. And when I look at the writers of the Anti-HD segment of AM operators, I see one thing in common: defective technical plants (due to allocations) with no discernable audience.

 

[PocketRadio]

But, overall, the issue is that AM is about to croak. Old listeners, dying off. Too much interference on AM from dimmers to power lines for anything but huge signals to be heard. Very little advertiser interest, and declining. Viable formats moving to FM.

Something has to be done to make AM viable as a band in the future. Protecting stations that were only licensed by virtue of FCC and regulatory shortsightedness is not a reason to make the whole band stand at jeopardy of disappearing. And when I look at the writers of the Anti-HD segment of AM operators, I see one thing in common: defective technical plants (due to allocations) with no discernable audience.

"50,000-Watt AM Stations"

http://www.northpine.com/broadcast/50kwam.html

"Arbitron Ratings Data"

WHO-AM News Talk Information 9.7 7.2 9.9 10.6
WLW-AM News Talk Information 8.9 9.9 11.2 9.8
WSB-AM News Talk Information 9.3 8.7 9.2 8.2
WGN-AM News Talk Information 5.3 5.5 5.8 5.4
WBBM-AM All News 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.6
WLS-AM News Talk Information 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.8
WTAM-AM News Talk Information 7.3 8.0 6.5 7.3
WJR-AM News Talk Information 4.8 4.9 5.3 5.3
KMOX-AM News Talk Information 8.4 7.7 8.2 8.4
KSL-AM News Talk Information 5.9 6.7 8.6 7.7

http://www.arbitron.com/radio_stations/home.htm

Of course, as an HD/IBOC supporter, you are also AM's naysayer; AM is alive-and-well, especially for news/talk/sports - the youngest of the baby-boomers are just now turning 50. In the above partial list of 50KW AMs, many are ranked #1, and almost all are ranked in the top-5. The AM stations are not disappearing, and some are only simulcasting on FM, such as KSL. AM-HD will just drive listeners away, with adjacent-channel interference and only 60% the coverage of analog:

“RW Opinion: Rethinking AM’s future”

“Making AM-HD work well as a long-term investment is seen as an expensive and risky challenge for most stations and their owners. There is the significant downside of potential new interference to some of their own AM analog listeners as well as listeners of adjacent-channel stations.”

http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0044/t.557.html

 

[davideduardo]

Of course, as an HD/IBOC supporter, you are also AM's naysayer; AM is alive-and-well, especially for news/talk/sports -

With only a few exceptions, what you say is a lie. Being #1 in 12+ is a useless and meaningful thing. Advertisers do not buy 55+ as a rule, and most of the stations you list are predominantly 55+ in listenership. Nearly every one has declining sales.

KGO is off 30% since 2000. KMOX is off comparably. WGN is off significantly. WTAM is flatt, WSB is off slightly.

AM is dying, and it is hard to name more than one successful AM in most markets, and, in most cases, that station is ageing and billing lower than it had in the past.

Your posting, over and over, of 12+ numbers and an incorrect conclusion about 12+ being somehow meaningful, is an indication that you don't have one bit of radio knowledge-.

 

[Chuck]

KGO is off 30% since 2000. KMOX is off comparably. WGN is off significantly. WTAM is flatt, WSB is off slightly.

AM is dying, and it is hard to name more than one successful AM in most markets, and, in most cases, that station is ageing and billing lower than it had in the past.

I can’t say that I’ve listened to KMOX or WGN recently, but I’ll take a wild guess that part of the reason they are off in their numbers is the programming just isn’t what it used to be. I know that the Dallas AM stations I use to listen to, KRLD and WBAP to be specific, are mere shadows of their former selves. These days, I think they are just plain boring. I’ll bet I’m not the only one who thinks that. If so, it could explain declining ratings. I know just can’t find much reason to listen to them anymore.

My lack of interest in these stations has nothing to do with their low fidelity on AM, even though KRLD has further narrowed their audio to 5 KHz. I doubt very seriously if I’d listen for any length of time to either station as they are currently programmed, even if they had 20-20,000 frequency response with a signal to noise ratio better than 90 db. All that would do is make them “boring in high fidelity.”

 

[davideduardo]

I can’t say that I’ve listened to KMOX or WGN recently, but I’ll take a wild guess that part of the reason they are off in their numbers is the programming just isn’t what it used to be.

Actually, both are strong in 12+ ratings... it is just that the 25-54 is not there any more as listeners age.

 

[Chuck]

Actually, both are strong in 12+ ratings... it is just that the 25-54 is not there any more as listeners age.

Could it be that 25-54 is down because people in that age group are put off by the programming?

I really don't mean to be a skeptic, but I don't see how a new electronic band-aid fixes that.

 

[PocketRadio]

AM is dying, and it is hard to name more than one successful AM in most markets, and, in most cases, that station is ageing and billing lower than it had in the past.

You are just an HD/IBOC supporter and AM naysayer - I provided proof that there are many AMs ranked #1 and in the top-5. Would you like to talk about C++ and UNIX/Solaris Memory Management ?

 

[davideduardo]

Actually, both are strong in 12+ ratings... it is just that the 25-54 is not there any more as listeners age.

Could it be that 25-54 is down because people in that age group are put off by the programming?

I really don't mean to be a skeptic, but I don't see how a new electronic band-aid fixes that.

In markets where the same format it moved to FM, the 35-54 snaps wayyyyyyy up.

WTOP in DC moved form AM to FM a year ago; 25-54 are haigher than at any time in 15 years. KSL added an FM simulcast... 25-54 way up. New traditional news talk in Pittsburgh took the 25-54 honors from KDKA in less than a year, leaving KDKA mostly 55+. There are lits more like this, enough to show that 35-64 listen to the format, but not as long as it is on AM.

In Mexico, they learned this way before the US made the discovery: almost every major n/t fomrmat in Mexico City is on FM or a simulcast because otherwise the audience is too old to sell.

It's AM: people under 50 do not want to listen to it.

 

[davideduardo]

AM is dying, and it is hard to name more than one successful AM in most markets, and, in most cases, that station is ageing and billing lower than it had in the past.

You are just an HD/IBOC supporter and AM naysayer - I provided proof that there are many AMs ranked #1 and in the top-5. Would you like to talk about C++ and UNIX/Solaris Memory Management ?

Those stations have lots of listeners... almost all over the age of 55.

Radio advertisers do not buy listenership over 55.

Conculusion: such stations will drop in reveneu and eventaully either move to FM or disappear.

As mentioned, being #1 12+ is irrelevant. Advertisers do not buy 12+ l,istenership. They buy very specific ages, and over-55 is not one of them. All the staitons you mention are predominantly over-55 staitons, losing viability, dropping in sales and at the same time very costly to run. Many are making plans to move to an FM signal to save the format, like what WTOP, KTAR, KSL, WNLS, WOVK, WHIO, etc., etc. have done.

 

[PocketRadio]

I already called KSL - they are just simulcasting on FM, with no plans of shutting down AM; this is probably the case, with the rest of the AMs. FM is already jammed, and there is a backlog at the FCC. AM will be around at least until the baby-boomers die-off, and just like HD radios not selling, that is all that matters !

 

[davideduardo]

I already called KSL - they are just simulcasting on FM, with no plans of shutting down AM; this is probably the case, with the rest of the AMs. FM is already jammed, and there is a backlog at the FCC. AM will be around at least until the baby-boomers die-off, and just like HD radios not selling, that is all that matters !

And you spoke to whom on a Sunday who knows Bruce Rees' strategy?

And Bonneville already moved WTOP in DC to FM, and KTAR in Phoenix, too. There is talk of moving or simulcacting KIRO, as well. Why? Because in under-55 demos, AM is dead or dying in every market.

Anyway, you made my point: an AM alone can not get the sales demos, so it is becoming increasingly necessary to add an FM simulcast to remain viable in those salable, undedr 55 listeners.

And you are obfuscating: moving an AM to a co-owend and co-located FM does not require FCC permission. Why do you even mention it?

 

[Mike Walker]

PocketRadio wrote "FM is already jammed, with a backlog at the FCC". Thanks for making THE BEST CASE of HD2 and HD3 streams. It's the only viable way of offering new over-the-air services.

 

[PocketRadio]

PocketRadio wrote "FM is already jammed, with a backlog at the FCC". Thanks for making THE BEST CASE of HD2 and HD3 streams. It's the only viable way of offering new over-the-air services.

Yea, there already more than enough radio stations - who needs more of the same, with the HD channels being underfunded, bland copies of the analog streams. FMeXtra and AM Stereo never took off, for good reason.

 

[PocketRadio]

I already called KSL - they are just simulcasting on FM, with no plans of shutting down AM; this is probably the case, with the rest of the AMs. FM is already jammed, and there is a backlog at the FCC. AM will be around at least until the baby-boomers die-off, and just like HD radios not selling, that is all that matters !

And you spoke to whom on a Sunday who knows Bruce Rees' strategy?

And Bonneville already moved WTOP in DC to FM, and KTAR in Phoenix, too. There is talk of moving or simulcacting KIRO, as well. Why? Because in under-55 demos, AM is dead or dying in every market.

Anyway, you made my point: an AM alone can not get the sales demos, so it is becoming increasingly necessary to add an FM simulcast to remain viable in those salable, undedr 55 listeners.

And you are obfuscating: moving an AM to a co-owend and co-located FM does not require FCC permission. Why do you even mention it?

Most of the 50KW AM stations are ranked #1, or are in the top-5, well-ahead of the FM stations - AM radio has many years left, and AM-HD will just make matters worse.