"K Isham" wrote in message news:46deb07a@kcnews01...
I realize that radio must make a profit, but, when you drive listeners
away with this buzzing noise on AM

"The buzzing noise" is heard on the channels adjacent to a local station
with HD. No "other station" is protected from adjacent channel interference
in the primary coverage are of the station using HD, and there is certainly,
other than DX, no listening to adjacent channels.

and trying to turn FM into all talk or info-mericials.

Radio is an entertainment medium. That entertainment may be talk, music, or
a combination. I see no evidence of extensive programming of infomercials on
FM, anyway.

Tell us that "Young only listens to FM" etc. It can only be a recipe for
future disaster.

This has been the case since the early 70's, where music listeners moved to
FM and abandoned AM, even when major AM music stations were trying to
compete. The difference in quality was a main reason for leaving; by 1977
half of all listening was to FM.

Were it not for the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, AM would be dead. As it
is, talk formats have made the larger coverage stations viable still
although much of the audience is old.

Example the young don't listen to AM because nothing is programed to their
tastes.

Many AMs have tried music formats, and failed. This is simply because there
are plenty of FM alternatives in most markets and nobody, today, wants to
hear AM quality analog if FM is avaialble. On the other hand, there are
plenty of viable small market music AMs that are doing well because there
are not as many station choices in such markets and listeners are obligated
to use AM for some formats.

Talk in HD or Stereo is still talk, plus most young people care little
about the news unless it affect them.

So? In most parts of the US there are plenty of stations to have both; your
statement about young people having no interest in news is, in a separate
arena, sad.

Back in 1980 the number 1 station in my home town of Tucson was KT KT AM
990, until new owners took over the station,

KTKT has been owned by Lotus since 1972. There was no new owner.

and to get the young to move to FM, They changed the format, fired the
local DJ's and switched to satellite programs, sure enough in about two
months time KTKT was in the bottom of the market.

It was already at the bottom of the market, having been beaten in its format
by an FM. The switch was to find a format that was viable.

Plus, there was no way of knowing in 1980 "in two months" the changes in a
station. There were ratings every Spring and Fall in Tucson then, and the
interval between them was 6 months.

I remember reading their whinnying about no listers, they thought they
could save money by eliminating the local talent.
Now, AM is to old, demographics rares its head again, well radio as
industry made it that way in allot of markets following the KTKT example.

Your example is fatally flawed.

I know of very few listeners that carry a watt or decibel meter to
determine if the signal is worth listening to, but when you have crappy
programing, you lose the audience every time.

Listeners know when a signal is "listenable" or not. When you look at
hundreds of thousands of incidents of listening, and find that they seldom
extend beyond a certain signal intensity, you can form pretty solid
conclusions.

PS You might want to point out to the Advertisers that due to the "BABY
BOOM" generation the median age of the population is predicted to be in
the mid-fifties in about five years, plus still have the most disposable
income.

But advertisers do not ask for 55+ listeners when they buy radio
advertising. It does not matter what the nature of 55+ persons are...
advertisers don't use radio to reach them.