XM Radio

[gdvanc]

Re: What IS the state of radio?

> Radio has never been a license to print money.

Interesting. I heard Moonves describe Infinity as a cash cow for Viacom on CNBC a couple of weeks ago.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: What IS the state of radio?

> > Radio has never been a license to print money.
>
> Interesting. I heard Moonves describe Infinity as a cash cow
> for Viacom on CNBC a couple of weeks ago.
>

Infinity does not own all the stations in the US. They have few stations outside the top 50 markets where a good signal with even less than stellar programming will generally cash flow. That leaves about 11,000 or so stations in a lesser state of opportunity.

 

[davideduardo]

>
> I think Mr. Murrow is just reinterating what most of us have
> concluded about radio these days. David's comments are very
> intelligent, and I see and even agree with many of his
> points.

Thanks for reading them with an open mind. There has been a bit of acrimony here on occasion, when we should be having fun bouncing ideas around.

> As a (former?) owner of a station, I value his
> aspect of the business. I did'nt know statistically that 50
> percent of radio stations were unprofitable. My guess is
> smaller operators account for a lot of the loss catagory as
> it is MUCH harder to clear a profit when the potential
> audience is lower.

Definitly. I think the most insigtful statement was made by an owner I once worked for. He said that owning a smaller market station was basically guaranteed lifetime employment. You get a car trade, restaurant and travel trades, and enough income to keep the business running. But you never get ahead. Stations like that pay the owner a salary, but make no additional money.

> When I referred to the printing of
> money, I was making more of a reference to medium to large
> market radio clusters. Debt aside, the worst of radio
> properties in markets of these sizes make a hansome profit.
> Were most of them get into real trouble is the debt.

Quite true in many situations. The real burden is trying to keep up the stock price... the better companies acquired stations with stock trade or merger, so they don't have that much debt. Still, it's different than what those of us who lived radio in the 60's and 70's remember.
>
> Thanks for the intelligent discussion!
>

This did turn into an interesting exchange, didn't it!

 

[Gus]

> > Mr. Murrow,
> >
> > Maybe you're just fed up with radio because you are out of
>
> > the game or never made much.
> >
> > Reading your post thiese past few days i would say you
> don't
> > get along well with people. Am i right?
> > >
> >
> MR Balls:
> Fed up with radio? Yes, it's not really radio anymore, just
> a few real estate companies. Out of the game?Far far farrr
> from it. I made it many times. When an opportunity opened I
> made the best of it,as I am doing now and quite well, thank
> you. I get along with people fine. I don't have time however
> for over bloated egos or those with less than ten years
> experience thinking they are material for markets #1-10, and
> cannot take professional criticism to help them learn their
> craft. They don't feel they have to earn their way to
> success,and they are the ones who deserve to be called upon
> from time to time. As I pointed out to you before,if my
> posts annoy so much,why don't you just skip over it? 'nuff
> said.

Mr. Murrow,

Just what do you do? On air? Got an aircheck?
>

 

[smashedcd]

> Sorry -- as long as I can get music on my regular radio,
> I won't pay to listen.
>
> Yep - I'm old fashioned.
>
> Just seems silly to have to pay to listen when you can still
>
> get the sound anyway.
>
really..you can get real jazz/ blues/ all 80s metal/ deep track album rock ..all on the radio. please tell me where??<P ID="signature">______________
note to tvland...bring back wkrp!!!</P>

 

[smashedcd]

Re: What IS the state of radio?

> > > >
> > > I think Sat radio will do fine until the high-speed
> mobile
> >
> > > internet becomes deployed in most metros. I think
> there's
> >
> > > about ten years before that happens. That will be when
> > > streaming will have its day in the sun. Regardless,
> > > terrestrial will wither for many years to come, slowly
> > > loosing usefulness. I don't think it ever will totally
> go
> >
> > > away, however, it will NOT be a license to print money
> as
> > it
> > > has been for years.
> >
> > Radio has never been a license to print money. FCC figures
>
> > through the time financial reports ceased to be required,
> > and then independent reports, showed about half of all
> > stations, from the 50's through the 90's, did not make
> > money. There are too many of them.
> > >
> > > Terrestrial has taken the listener for granted for many
> > > years too long.
> >
> > There are many exceptions to that, enough to invalidate
> the
> > point. And the 60's and 70's operators... folks like Max
> > Richmond, Richard Eaton, Don Burden and such were probably
>
> > far worse than any of the corporations of today.
> >
> > > They have lost touch with what the listener
> > > wants, what they need.
> >
> > In most cases, they have a better sense of that... the
> kinds
> > of listener research and feedback that can be done today
> are
> > vastly superior to the cash Box subscription and some
> calls
> > to the record store.
> >
> > > They care nothing about the
> > > communities they serve or even the clients really. They
>
> > are
> > > living in disbelief that soon their kingdom will be
> > replaced
> > > by other broadcasting methods. Programming has
> suffered,
> > > and the public is mighty tired.
> > >
> > > Every so many years radio has a Renaissance.
> >
> > If you look carefully, you might conclude that this change
>
> > has been less apocalyptic and more gradual than it seems.
> > Most is evolutionary, not revolutionary.
> >
> > > When the
> > > network block programming was replaced with TV, radio
> had
> > to
> > > re-invent itself. Music radio was born.
> >
> > True and false. While TV hastened the move from network
> and
> > block radio programming, the real reason was the plethora
> of
> > independent stations licensed following the World War.
> >
> > The first Top 40 station, generally agreed to be KOWH in
> > Omaha in August of 1952, was not the first music station
> but
> > it was the first music station with what are close to
> being
> > today's formatics.
> >
> > In 1952, the TV freeze was still on. TV only reached about
>
> > 25% of the population, and very few people had sets. While
>
> > TV would kill the network radio programming and bring
> about
> > change, the end was really not until the late 50's. In the
>
> > meantime, music stations, especially Top 40, sprouted all
> > over the country.
> >
> > > When AM music
> > > radio became so corporate and controlled in the 70s, FM
> > > stations offered relief and soon overran AM with both
> the
> > > diversity of format and superior sound quality.
> >
> > I fail to see that AM music radio was corporate (whatever
> > that means) in the 70's. There was plenty of innovation in
>
> > programming, but the erosion of AM had already started in
> > the late 60's when the FCC mandated implementation of the
> > dropping of simulcasting it had ruled on several years
> > before.
> >
> > By ending simulcasting, in the late 60's we saw all combo
> > owned FMs create new programming, some good and some bad.
> > But we got progressive rock in the late 60's, AOR in the
> > early 70's, FM only CHRs in '72, and quite a few new
> formats
> > on FM, like Spanish, and a few early Black targeted
> > stations.
> >
> > > Now radio on
> > > FM has become the same dull product, or worse than what
> AM
> >
> > > used to be when it was effectively crap-canned by FM.
> >
> > The main reason FM started winning (parity was achieved in
>
> > 1988) was the non-simulcast rule, not the programming
> > itself. The programming was a byproduct of legislation.
> > Since the FMs had low spot loads and were more adventurous
>
> > since they started with no audience, they encroached on
> the
> > AMs. AM was hardly dull, as a listen to KCBQ or KHJ or
> even
> > WLS through the first half or more of the decade will
> show.
> > Even small market CHRs like WBBQ in Augusta did very
> well...
> > but in the end, the sound quality and lighter loads of
> > commercials made a difference. Keep in mind, during the
> 50's
> > and 60's, most major market CHRs ran the full 18 minutes.
>
> >
> > > It
> > > appears that XM and Sirius will have their day in the
> sun
> > > for a while. Then, streaming mobile in your car will
> > > replace them.
> >
> > I agree on the probability that some form of broadband
> will
> > replace satellite as an efficient delivery method. It may
> be
> > superior to AM and FM, too.
> >
> > I do not see XM and Sirius as having a day in the sun,
> > however. At present, with around 8 million subscribers,
> they
> > barely can break a 0.3 in local market ratings. In other
> > words, below minimum reporting standards. It will take
> over
> > 15 million subscribers to get around a 1 share (this
> assumes
> > that the current ratio of in car to portable installs
> > continues) based on average in car radio use of about 6
> > hours a day per person 18+.
> >
> > There are 5% of Americans who do not use radio each week.
> > There are another 7% or more of light users. If those who
> > don't use because there is nothing they want in mass
> appeal
> > formats buy sets, that will get the services to over 30
> > million subscribers and profitability. But will barely be
> > felt by radio.
> >
> > Broadband could be very different, totally remaking the
> > business model for programming delivery.
> >
> > > One cord runs though all of this. We are in
> > > the damn ENTERTAINMENT business. When the suites forget
>
> > > what business we are in, the eventually LOOSE. The
> public
> >
> > > will tolerate inferior product only so long, and then
> > there
> > > is hell to pay. Radio is long, long overdue.
> >
> > There have always been some sucky stations. I built my
> first
> > one on the premise that the competitors were
> > over-commercialized. I took all their audience and then
> > some. But that is competition, not a major change in
> radio.
> > The same will happen to today's radio. I don't see things
> as
> > bad off as you do, but that is a matter of opinion and I
> > certainly respect your criteria as you are looking at this
>
> > as an opportunity, and not doing the usual slam radio
> post.
> >
> > >
> > > Yes, I have XM. I tune to FM very, very rarely these
> > days.
> > > I cringe, but still gladly pay to get something that
> > doesn't
> > > suck. I put value on not having to listen to crap.
> > > Something tells me many others feel the same way. In
> > fact,
> > > over a million or so..
> > >
> >
> > About 8 million as of this quarter.
>
> I agree many stations suck, but there are many many that are
> just as good and better than XM. Satellite is just something
> new. We'll see how well it's doing in 10 years.
> >
>

7 million subs and counting. and please list these fm stations that are as good as XM...because i aint never heard them...at least not any since 1987..
<P ID="signature">______________
note to tvland...bring back wkrp!!!</P>

 

[smashedcd]

> > > Mr. Murrow,
> > >
> > > Maybe you're just fed up with radio because you are out
> of
> >
> > > the game or never made much.
> > >
> > > Reading your post thiese past few days i would say you
> > don't
> > > get along well with people. Am i right?
> > > >
> > >
> > MR Balls:
> > Fed up with radio? Yes, it's not really radio anymore,
> just
> > a few real estate companies. Out of the game?Far far farrr
>
> > from it. I made it many times. When an opportunity opened
> I
> > made the best of it,as I am doing now and quite well,
> thank
> > you. I get along with people fine. I don't have time
> however
> > for over bloated egos or those with less than ten years
> > experience thinking they are material for markets #1-10,
> and
> > cannot take professional criticism to help them learn
> their
> > craft. They don't feel they have to earn their way to
> > success,and they are the ones who deserve to be called
> upon
> > from time to time. As I pointed out to you before,if my
> > posts annoy so much,why don't you just skip over it? 'nuff
>
> > said.
>
> Mr. Murrow,
>
> Just what do you do? On air? Got an aircheck?
> >
>
just because you are on radio doesnt meant radio is still good. radio sucks in general. with only a very very few good stations left..and just a few good jocks...but one of them is on a station in dallas..a classic rock station..but thats just one shift. the rest of the time that station is playing the same 200 songs over and over again...and no i am no longer in radio. havent been since 1998..3 companies on all the stations here. and most are vt'ed..<P ID="signature">______________
note to tvland...bring back wkrp!!!</P>

 

[Musicradio]

songs

Smashedcd mentioned "only about 200 songs" played on the radio.
Maybe so -- if you're a hit radio format,
a tight playlist will be needed.

 

[gdvanc]

Re: What IS the state of radio?

> Infinity does not own all the stations in the US. They have
> few stations outside the top 50 markets where a good signal
> with even less than stellar programming will generally cash
> flow. That leaves about 11,000 or so stations in a lesser
> state of opportunity.
>

Yes, thousands more stations in the US. And (why stop there?) countless more stations outside the US.

However, it's always been my impression that when people here talk about the current state of radio, they are generally talking about major market radio - just as when people decry the state of baseball, they are generall talking about the bigs... not triple-A or double-A or the NPB (Japan).

And it seems to me that a fairly large portion of major market radio stations (net of the public stations and college/high school stations and rim-shots that don't cover) are owned by a fairly small number of corporations. Viacom, of course, is one. I have to assume that it is not having significantly greater luck with its radio arm than its large rivals have and that Moonves' statements are reasonably representative of that industry group.

This, I believe, is what people are talking about here: major market radio that is dominated by an oligopoly of the Viacoms and Clear Channels that are able to increase revenues by attracting national advertising and to more effectively control costs over their portfolio of stations through economies of scale and lower cost of capital. For these companies, radio can generate lots o' cash.

That, by the way, is what I assume people are talking about when they say "corporate radio". Yes, many (or most) of the locally-owned stations we grew up loving in the golden days of broadcast were *incorporated*. However, "corporate", in fairly common usage, is less about a business form and more about business run with complete primacy of short-term profit over all other considerations - including quality, employees, society, the environment, and in some cases even customers and owners (shareholders). Many of the old stations - incorporated or not - were run for the love music or of the business, for local fame, or perhaps for other non-profit-motivated reasons. That is one reason, of course, that many of them are no longer around.

I do enjoy your posts, David, and the views you bring to the board. Still, I do get the impression at times that you are the type of guy that, if someone were to say, "[Insert random PD or GM] is a sorry S.O.B.!", you would counter that he is not actually remorseful and his mother is not, in fact, canine.

 

[edwardrmurrow]

>
> Mr. Murrow,
>
> Just what do you do? On air? Got an aircheck?
I work in broadcasting. Yes. Yes..nice try.

 

[edwardrmurrow]

> just because you are on radio doesnt meant radio is still
> good. radio sucks in general. with only a very very few good
> stations left..and just a few good jocks...but one of them
> is on a station in dallas..a classic rock station..but thats
> just one shift. the rest of the time that station is playing
> the same 200 songs over and over again...and no i am no
> longer in radio. havent been since 1998..3 companies on all
> the stations here. and most are vt'ed..
>
Well put.

 

[smashedcd]

Re: songs

> Smashedcd mentioned "only about 200 songs" played on the
> radio.
> Maybe so -- if you're a hit radio format,
> a tight playlist will be needed.
>
but not if you are a rock station. or a classic rock station. there were more than 200 hit songs between 1967 and 1989..<P ID="signature">______________
note to tvland...bring back wkrp!!!</P>

 

[edwardrmurrow]

Re: songs

>
> but not if you are a rock station. or a classic rock
> station. there were more than 200 hit songs between 1967 and
> 1989..
>
The cheap owners and the consultants will disagree with you with their "research". I agree with you it can be done,but the "above" won't do it. Their research is slanted to give a projected response..their way to justify their means.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: What IS the state of radio?

I agree with your first several paragraphs, so am snipping them... not out of dismissal but out of seeing things like you do. The big markets are very consolidated, and run with more business systems than before.

>
> That, by the way, is what I assume people are talking about
> when they say "corporate radio". Yes, many (or most) of the
> locally-owned stations we grew up loving in the golden days
> of broadcast were *incorporated*. However, "corporate", in
> fairly common usage, is less about a business form and more
> about business run with complete primacy of short-term
> profit over all other considerations - including quality,
> employees, society, the environment, and in some cases even
> customers and owners (shareholders).

I agree on this but still feel that each group is a case by case study. Radio One defies this "it's only about the Benjamins" attitude, as do some groups like Cox, Susquehanna, Saga, etc.

> Many of the old
> stations - incorporated or not - were run for the love music
> or of the business, for local fame, or perhaps for other
> non-profit-motivated reasons. That is one reason, of course,
> that many of them are no longer around.

Unfortunately, in my US radio experience, I ran into the Don Burdens and Richard Eatons and did not see much "love of the art." I know there are some instances, but owner operator or small group owners of the 60's and 70's were not all good guys.
>
> I do enjoy your posts, David, and the views you bring to the
> board. Still, I do get the impression at times that you are
> the type of guy that, if someone were to say, "[Insert
> random PD or GM] is a sorry S.O.B.!", you would counter that
> he is not actually remorseful and his mother is not, in
> fact, canine.

To oversimplify, I may be in the "I see the glass half full" group. I just do not see radio's issues as being insurmountable, while realizing that there are just scads more entertainment options today which make it impossible for radio to be as domianant as in the past... but we live in an era of fragmentation and specialization.
>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: songs

> >
> > but not if you are a rock station. or a classic rock
> > station. there were more than 200 hit songs between 1967
> and
> > 1989..
> >
> The cheap owners and the consultants will disagree with you
> with their "research". I agree with you it can be done,but
> the "above" won't do it. Their research is slanted to give a
> projected response..their way to justify their means.
>

Of course, this is wrong and you know it. But it is a good way of keeping the thread active.

When one is responsible as GM or PD of a Dallas station, worth around $100 million, they don't purposely pre-bias a study which would reduce the viability and profitabilty of the station.

Research is intended to ether find opportunities or to find ways to improve a station. Anyone who biases a study by not talking to the right group of folks or by not asking the key questions is simply going to be out of a job really quickly.

Consustants don't do research. They help analyze and implement research obtained from qualified research organizations.

 

[KPLEXCOMPLEX]

Re: songs

> > >
> > > but not if you are a rock station. or a classic rock
> > > station. there were more than 200 hit songs between 1967
>
> > and
> > > 1989..
> > >
> > The cheap owners and the consultants will disagree with
> you
> > with their "research". I agree with you it can be done,but
>
> > the "above" won't do it. Their research is slanted to give
> a


> Of course, this is wrong and you know it. But it is a good
> way of keeping the thread active.
>
> When one is responsible as GM or PD of a Dallas station,
> worth around $100 million, they don't purposely pre-bias a
> study which would reduce the viability and profitabilty of
> the station.
>
> Research is intended to ether find opportunities or to find
> ways to improve a station. Anyone who biases a study by not
> talking to the right group of folks or by not asking the key
> questions is simply going to be out of a job really quickly.
>

DUDE: You can be wrong,believe it or not and you are at this moment. The days of stations caring about listeners are over it's the advertisers they cater to. Lowry said it himself in more ways than one. So a station's management will skew to what an advertiser seeks,and if some facts get lost along the way,so what? If they can still make money selling the spots,so be it.



Research organizations are suported by stations who get support from advertising. A daisy chain if there ever was one. Some research organizations belong to a huge corporations much like radio stations in major markets. They are very apolitical and do not want to lose a client themselves by saying their pet station in a market is reeking. Some research organizations have themselves been invested into by media owners. No bias there,right?
Individual stations need to conduct their own research,but that would cost the research organizations money and they can't have that,could they?

It's "Consultants" by the way. I know you got in a hurry with a need to reply to anyone who dares to disagree with you. Consultants are spin doctors and can make disasterous numbers look good. It's all politics,removed from reality.
Get some rest.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: songs

>
> DUDE: You can be wrong,believe it or not and you are at this
> moment.

Besides the slight umbridge taken at the pandering usage of "dude," I don't see any of your points as being relevant or correct.

> The days of stations caring about listeners are over
> it's the advertisers they cater to.

You are aware that radio has been ad supported from the beginning? Why, oh why, do you think Westinghouse established KDKA? Did you know that Paley bought WCAU to cut his ad expenses for his Cigar company? Did Sarnoff build the red and Blue nets of NBC because he was altruistic and a real nice gent?

Radio is an ad medium. Poor Richard's Alamanc was an ad medium. Commercial media attracts users (readers, viewers, listeners) and offers access to them via advertising. This surprising fact has been in play for over 80 years.

> Lowry said it himself in
> more ways than one.

Lowry would be lying were he not to say that. Radio makes money from advertisers, and makes none directly from listeners. The business of radio is selling ads and that is the reason why stations will do everything possible to be as appealing as they can to listeners.

> So a station's management will skew to
> what an advertiser seeks,and if some facts get lost along
> the way,so what? If they can still make money selling the
> spots,so be it.

Advertisers seek sepcific consumer groups. A commercial station can not survive programming to unattractive groups. So station programming is determined based on its possibility in collecting lots of listeners in a salable demo. Once the target of a station is determined, programming is developed to deliver this demo. That means that every effort will be made to make the station appealing.


> Research organizations are suported by stations who get
> support from advertising.

So? The research company is simply trying to find out what the listener interst is given a specific target or to provide data that will make the station more competitive. Research companies do not interface with advertisers. They study listener likes and dislikes so a station can do its best in reaching a specific group.

> A daisy chain if there ever was
> one. Some research organizations belong to a huge
> corporations much like radio stations in major markets.

The research companies that do programming studies come in two flavors. One is owned by the staiton group itself, and is a service department intended to deal specifically with a company's stations to improve them. The other consists of mostly small, entrepreneurial companies like Coleman, Paragon, Pinnacle, Haarker, Parakhal, etc. who are specialized in radio research techniques, many having highly specialized products that are radio-specific.

> They
> are very apolitical and do not want to lose a client
> themselves by saying their pet station in a market is
> reeking.

A research company does not say a station is good or bad. The listeners do that. A research company does not give opinions. It asks questions and tabulates the answers. The station decides what the results mean by interpretation.

> Some research organizations have themselves been
> invested into by media owners. No bias there,right?

No. That is the ideal situation, since the reasearch company does not have to observe confidentiality about findings in other markets that may be from projects done for competitive companies or stations. An in house research company will be able to share other market findings openly, and have the opportunity to deal with sensitive confidential subjects.

> Individual stations need to conduct their own research,but
> that would cost the research organizations money and they
> can't have that,could they?

Individual stations are, with nearly no exceptions, not qualified or trained or equiped to do local projects on their own. How many staitons have someone qualified to run a music test data set through SPSS to get a Pierson Correlation break into clusters? Huh?
>
> It's "Consultants" by the way.

Consultants don't do reasearch. Consultants, in house or outside, are often brought in to make the best use of reserch, both in interpretation or implementation.

> I know you got in a hurry
> with a need to reply to anyone who dares to disagree with
> you. Consultants are spin doctors and can make disasterous
> numbers look good.

A good consultant is hired to make bad numbers improve. And to hold good ones even in the face of competiton.

> It's all politics,removed from reality.
> Get some rest.

There is no politics at all involved.

Today's #1 station in Dallas has a 5.7. In Spring of 2002, it had a 1.5. It did research to determine how to improve, and used in house consultants to interpret and implement together with the local programming staff.

As I said... no politics at all involved.

 

[Phantom]

Re: songs

> >
> > but not if you are a rock station. or a classic rock
> > station. there were more than 200 hit songs between 1967
> and
> > 1989..
> >
> The cheap owners and the consultants will disagree with you
> with their "research". I agree with you it can be done,but
> the "above" won't do it. Their research is slanted to give a
> projected response..their way to justify their means.


It is beyoud me why anyone, any owner, or program director would want to "slant" research and jeopardize the success of a station.

That simply makes no sense.

And why would individuals want to risk their jobs by skewing research.

When I worked in telecommunications, we did not spend thousands traveling to Laredo for focus groups to test custom calling services, then slant the results in order to fail.

It is absurd.

 

[Gus]

Re: What IS the state of radio?

> > > > >
> > > > I think Sat radio will do fine until the high-speed
> > mobile
> > >
> > > > internet becomes deployed in most metros. I think
> > there's
> > >
> > > > about ten years before that happens. That will be
> when
> > > > streaming will have its day in the sun. Regardless,
> > > > terrestrial will wither for many years to come, slowly
>
> > > > loosing usefulness. I don't think it ever will
> totally
> > go
> > >
> > > > away, however, it will NOT be a license to print money
>
> > as
> > > it
> > > > has been for years.
> > >
> > > Radio has never been a license to print money. FCC
> figures
> >
> > > through the time financial reports ceased to be
> required,
> > > and then independent reports, showed about half of all
> > > stations, from the 50's through the 90's, did not make
> > > money. There are too many of them.
> > > >
> > > > Terrestrial has taken the listener for granted for
> many
> > > > years too long.
> > >
> > > There are many exceptions to that, enough to invalidate
> > the
> > > point. And the 60's and 70's operators... folks like Max
>
> > > Richmond, Richard Eaton, Don Burden and such were
> probably
> >
> > > far worse than any of the corporations of today.
> > >
> > > > They have lost touch with what the listener
> > > > wants, what they need.
> > >
> > > In most cases, they have a better sense of that... the
> > kinds
> > > of listener research and feedback that can be done today
>
> > are
> > > vastly superior to the cash Box subscription and some
> > calls
> > > to the record store.
> > >
> > > > They care nothing about the
> > > > communities they serve or even the clients really.
> They
> >
> > > are
> > > > living in disbelief that soon their kingdom will be
> > > replaced
> > > > by other broadcasting methods. Programming has
> > suffered,
> > > > and the public is mighty tired.
> > > >
> > > > Every so many years radio has a Renaissance.
> > >
> > > If you look carefully, you might conclude that this
> change
> >
> > > has been less apocalyptic and more gradual than it
> seems.
> > > Most is evolutionary, not revolutionary.
> > >
> > > > When the
> > > > network block programming was replaced with TV, radio
> > had
> > > to
> > > > re-invent itself. Music radio was born.
> > >
> > > True and false. While TV hastened the move from network
> > and
> > > block radio programming, the real reason was the
> plethora
> > of
> > > independent stations licensed following the World War.
> > >
> > > The first Top 40 station, generally agreed to be KOWH in
>
> > > Omaha in August of 1952, was not the first music station
>
> > but
> > > it was the first music station with what are close to
> > being
> > > today's formatics.
> > >
> > > In 1952, the TV freeze was still on. TV only reached
> about
> >
> > > 25% of the population, and very few people had sets.
> While
> >
> > > TV would kill the network radio programming and bring
> > about
> > > change, the end was really not until the late 50's. In
> the
> >
> > > meantime, music stations, especially Top 40, sprouted
> all
> > > over the country.
> > >
> > > > When AM music
> > > > radio became so corporate and controlled in the 70s,
> FM
> > > > stations offered relief and soon overran AM with both
> > the
> > > > diversity of format and superior sound quality.
> > >
> > > I fail to see that AM music radio was corporate
> (whatever
> > > that means) in the 70's. There was plenty of innovation
> in
> >
> > > programming, but the erosion of AM had already started
> in
> > > the late 60's when the FCC mandated implementation of
> the
> > > dropping of simulcasting it had ruled on several years
> > > before.
> > >
> > > By ending simulcasting, in the late 60's we saw all
> combo
> > > owned FMs create new programming, some good and some
> bad.
> > > But we got progressive rock in the late 60's, AOR in the
>
> > > early 70's, FM only CHRs in '72, and quite a few new
> > formats
> > > on FM, like Spanish, and a few early Black targeted
> > > stations.
> > >
> > > > Now radio on
> > > > FM has become the same dull product, or worse than
> what
> > AM
> > >
> > > > used to be when it was effectively crap-canned by FM.
> > >
> > > The main reason FM started winning (parity was achieved
> in
> >
> > > 1988) was the non-simulcast rule, not the programming
> > > itself. The programming was a byproduct of legislation.
> > > Since the FMs had low spot loads and were more
> adventurous
> >
> > > since they started with no audience, they encroached on
> > the
> > > AMs. AM was hardly dull, as a listen to KCBQ or KHJ or
> > even
> > > WLS through the first half or more of the decade will
> > show.
> > > Even small market CHRs like WBBQ in Augusta did very
> > well...
> > > but in the end, the sound quality and lighter loads of
> > > commercials made a difference. Keep in mind, during the
> > 50's
> > > and 60's, most major market CHRs ran the full 18
> minutes.
> >
> > >
> > > > It
> > > > appears that XM and Sirius will have their day in the
> > sun
> > > > for a while. Then, streaming mobile in your car will
> > > > replace them.
> > >
> > > I agree on the probability that some form of broadband
> > will
> > > replace satellite as an efficient delivery method. It
> may
> > be
> > > superior to AM and FM, too.
> > >
> > > I do not see XM and Sirius as having a day in the sun,
> > > however. At present, with around 8 million subscribers,
> > they
> > > barely can break a 0.3 in local market ratings. In other
>
> > > words, below minimum reporting standards. It will take
> > over
> > > 15 million subscribers to get around a 1 share (this
> > assumes
> > > that the current ratio of in car to portable installs
> > > continues) based on average in car radio use of about 6
> > > hours a day per person 18+.
> > >
> > > There are 5% of Americans who do not use radio each
> week.
> > > There are another 7% or more of light users. If those
> who
> > > don't use because there is nothing they want in mass
> > appeal
> > > formats buy sets, that will get the services to over 30
> > > million subscribers and profitability. But will barely
> be
> > > felt by radio.
> > >
> > > Broadband could be very different, totally remaking the
> > > business model for programming delivery.
> > >
> > > > One cord runs though all of this. We are in
> > > > the damn ENTERTAINMENT business. When the suites
> forget
> >
> > > > what business we are in, the eventually LOOSE. The
> > public
> > >
> > > > will tolerate inferior product only so long, and then
> > > there
> > > > is hell to pay. Radio is long, long overdue.
> > >
> > > There have always been some sucky stations. I built my
> > first
> > > one on the premise that the competitors were
> > > over-commercialized. I took all their audience and then
> > > some. But that is competition, not a major change in
> > radio.
> > > The same will happen to today's radio. I don't see
> things
> > as
> > > bad off as you do, but that is a matter of opinion and I
>
> > > certainly respect your criteria as you are looking at
> this
> >
> > > as an opportunity, and not doing the usual slam radio
> > post.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I have XM. I tune to FM very, very rarely these
> > > days.
> > > > I cringe, but still gladly pay to get something that
> > > doesn't
> > > > suck. I put value on not having to listen to crap.
> > > > Something tells me many others feel the same way. In
> > > fact,
> > > > over a million or so..
> > > >
> > >
> > > About 8 million as of this quarter.
> >
> > I agree many stations suck, but there are many many that
> are
> > just as good and better than XM. Satellite is just
> something
> > new. We'll see how well it's doing in 10 years.
> > >
> >
>
> 7 million subs and counting. and please list these fm
> stations that are as good as XM...because i aint never heard
> them...at least not any since 1987..

Z-100 New York Cume 3 million+ (that's just ONE station)
>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: What IS the state of radio?

>
> Z-100 New York Cume 3 million+ (that's just ONE station)
>

Your point is well taken. While the cume is actually a bit less than 2.4 million in the DMA, it illustrates that just two or three NY radio stations reach more listeners than all 250 satellite channels combined.