IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

David Frackenton Gleason aka Eduardo, the fake Hispanic in total desperation
tries really, really hard to impress us with $$$$ wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Frackelton Gleason aka Eduardo the fake Hispanic and all 'round
charlatan
wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Frackelton Gleason aka Eduardo the fake Hispanic wrote:

"RHF" wrote in message
ups.com...
DE - "two HD FM channels" = FM Stereo ?
-or- Two separate Channels of Programming ?

The digital channel can be sliced into one, two or more channels, and
receivers see these as HD 1, HD 2, etc for each station. There are
several
hundred of these HD 2 channels already launched.

And they all add up to one thing: QRM

You said. that. You are wrong. you are boring and tedious.

And you're a prancing charlatan.

And, if so, one with responsibility for $3.5 billion worth of HD or future
HD stations.

Gee, $3.5 billion worth of QRM, I'm impressed mr. charlatan.

Now get your fake Hispanic prancing ass over to some forum that really gives a
**** about the wares you're shilling.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
I found him real easy to work for, though. He's very clear about his
expectations. You meet them. He doesn't care how, as long as it's ethical.

His expectations are VERY high. But, then, so are his rewards.

That's a dream job, compared to some I've had.

A friend was one of his major PDs. But he left, and Mel was upset. A few
years later, my friend, who I will call Bill Smith, was on an elevator at
NAB when Mel got on. Mel turns to a person who was with him, and says, "I
would swear Bill Smith was on this elevator. But that can't be. Bill Smith
is dead, so he can't be here." The door opened, Mel got off and my friend
broke into laughter.


I have never had any discussion either in-house or with members of the
industry committee, about pay channels. I think nearly all of us see that
associating "pay" with terrestrial radio is a mistake. While the
discussion may have come up, I never saw it progress. Most of us believe
that splitting the HD digital FM in two offers great quality (absolutely
marvelous, in fact, compared to iPod and satellite channels) and the
ability to market new free channels.


I actually disagree with you about the mistake of pay terrestrial radio.
And so do others in the biz. Truth is, that subscription radio, whether
it be the baseband channel, or one of the alternates, may be the only way
to create viability for some formats that are not supportable through
traditional advertising.

I just don't think they will be on AM and FM. The problem is that the niche
formats, after the major ones are covered, do not get sizable local
audiences, even to justify subscription based concepts. Thi sis where
satellite works. take a format that attracts 500 listeners in the average
metro, and you have 250 thousand listeners in the top 50 cities in the
USA... or 125 thousand in the top 50 markets. With that, you can do very
good programming, as it is the equivalent of a #1 station in LA or NY. But
market by market, is is the equivalent of a no-show, and not enough
subscriber revenue to support it.

My GM, for instance, desperately wanted to create a viable blues format.
(Imagine, the Blues not viable in Chicago...but there it is). He could
never get the perceptual data to support it. But subscription radio would
have made that possible. Just as a number of the niche formats on XM and
Sirius, now.

I just do not se blues just for Chicago working Not enough subscribers. But
nationally, very viable format.

Now, on the other side of that, Karmazin believed the ratings/revenue
relationship to be more myth than reality in the presence of REAL sales
people. He preached it regularly. That the only thing needed to overcome
weak ratings is more sales people, who could then create demand within an
single station. Even driving rates up the card. And the 30+ sales ducks we
had on staff were a testament to that. And he believed that any station
that couldn't convert at a minimum of 200% needed an new Sales Mangler.
We routinely converted at 200% and above.

There are fewer and fewer cases of this... there is a finite revenue base in
each market, and as one staiton overconverts share to revenue (power ration)
the others wake up and do the same thing, and it levels out. There is no
"undiscovered" revenue in any market.

So, though, it's a good bet that subscription terrestrial radio is bad
idea, questionable at best, it's not entirely a settled issue. Out of the
box thinking can make pay radio happen, and clever execution can make it
work. Especially, where there is little advertiser support.

I'd love to do some of these formats, well (not like XM, which is a bunch of
juke boxes, mostly) but with real talent and real PDs doing one format...
but on WiMax. If there is a system where you can "push star 113 for blues"
this will work. If we have to type in URLs, it will not.

(One of Karmazin's other bone deep beliefs is that every service pay for
itself. No one gets subsidized. And if it can pay for itself, it can
profit. In that aura, pay radio is an eventual certainty.)

I think this was true in one window in time. In some cases,using one station
to protect or widen the moat makes another more profitable, so they,
collectively, do well. I did that back in the 60's, where I always tried to
have a spare station to use as the alligator in the moat to protect my big
stations from competiton. For those unfamiliar, consolidation is a very old
concept outside the US, going back into the 50's in places like Mexico. I
had a large cluster in Ecuador, built in the mid 60's... 4 AMs and 5 FMs in
one market.

As far as quality goes...that's a better marketing point than it is a
broadcast reality. Everyone talks about quality, and everyone has a
standard, but where quality is defined as absolute faithfulness to the
original material, it's failed everytime. If you use the tone control, on
your car radio, you're not that interested in high quality. If you have an
equalizer on your audio system....you get the picture.

Just look at the amazing percentage of listeners to FM who do not listen in
stereo... it is about good sound and good programming together. Hey, I
listen to an iPod while biking, and we know what that quality is...

HD Quality is, and will be, perceptual and personal. Right now, it's
being presented at its optimum. That will change. Stealing bandwidth will
begin. And look straight into your monitor and tell me you can name 5
engineers who can resist the temptation to 'tweak' their audio. Name me 5
more who don't believe they can 'improve' it.

In all fairness, engineers who know their stuff get a panel together when
tweaking and adjust the audio for a compromise sound for a range between
cheap and good radios, so that all can hear the station nicely.


The Quality pitch is temporary. Once HD is established, and there is a
significant user base, the whole 'quality' issue will no longer be
mentioned, except to say 'digital quality.' Which is what they say about
Sirius and XM...and some of that is pretty ratty.

I am not pitching quality, I am pitching digital. We know that there is
sucky digital, but it is a buzz word. Whatever works.

Since there are only 100 shares in any market, there will be no expansion
of radio listening, but there may be a slowing of any erosion. At the
same time, selling today is about clusters and combos, not single
stations for the most part... so having more specifically targeted
stations will definitely help. Low spillage and finely honed targets get
better rates than broad, vague targets, as sports AMs demonstrate.


No question. And HD formats will be, as cluster formats are now,
selected strategically, to protect the cash cow, and mop up any periphery.
Likely to be sold in unwired combo packages. With lip service paid to
innovative and alternative programming. At least in the short term.

Some of the new HD 2 formats are very clever, and others make up for what we
would have done if we had 5 instead of 4 statins in a market. In essence,
the formats are picked in descending order of audiencepotential, with
attention given to potential for taking your competitor's lunch a the same
time.

And at least for the time being, you may indeed see a slowing of
erosion. New, exciting toys, with fresh options for things not commonly
heard. But as XM did recently, gutting a number of the channels I enjoyed,
and replacing the music I preferred to hear with things that are more
'salable' and adding commercials to some music channels, eventually
terrestrial and HD will fall into the same patterns as terrestrial radio
exhibits, today.

Only in a static world. All broadcasters arelearning that there is a much
lower commercial load that will hold listeners, and there is better
understanding of listeners. That will enhance the experience as product is
re-emphasized.

The pith, here, is this statement:

"Since there are only 100 shares in any market,
there will be no expansion of radio listening,
but there may be a slowing of any erosion."

With evermore options for listening, and fractionalization of the
listenership into potentially thousands of niches, eventually, programming
offerings are going to have to be sold in combinations.

Many are now. Clusters sell together for national and regional, mostly. And
lots do combos locally. It will increase.

Actually quite large clusters of programming issues. That means that
programming offernings, whether on the baseband or the HD's, will have to
fit into certain packageable categories. Since the target demos
essentially do not change, and the maximum share is 100%, The total
numbers are fixed. Competition will have to be within the existing
numbers. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, as it were. Combo programming
packages will have to be selected, or created, with some target demo
participation. To remain salable in that context, some alternatives will
be too far off the target to be salable, in favor or more mainstream,
salable content.

Not necessarily. Efficient targets get better rates So targeting that is as
precise as magazines can be obtained, and advertisers pay more for less
spillage.


More channels, less revenue per channel. More channels, less expense
per channel.

Unless we use HD2 to develop very good regional or national concepts, those
that will work bess by summing stations to pay for better talent and staff.

Which is the point. Because after all, in the US, Radio is ALWAYS about
the money.

That is and has been correct since about 1921.

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
I found him real easy to work for, though. He's very clear about his
expectations. You meet them. He doesn't care how, as long as it's ethical.

His expectations are VERY high. But, then, so are his rewards.

That's a dream job, compared to some I've had.

A friend was one of his major PDs. But he left, and Mel was upset. A few
years later, my friend, who I will call Bill Smith, was on an elevator at
NAB when Mel got on. Mel turns to a person who was with him, and says, "I
would swear Bill Smith was on this elevator. But that can't be. Bill Smith
is dead, so he can't be here." The door opened, Mel got off and my friend
broke into laughter.


Yes, that's a common scenario, with Mel Karmazin.




I have never had any discussion either in-house or with members of the
industry committee, about pay channels. I think nearly all of us see that
associating "pay" with terrestrial radio is a mistake. While the
discussion may have come up, I never saw it progress. Most of us believe
that splitting the HD digital FM in two offers great quality (absolutely
marvelous, in fact, compared to iPod and satellite channels) and the
ability to market new free channels.

I actually disagree with you about the mistake of pay terrestrial radio.
And so do others in the biz. Truth is, that subscription radio, whether
it be the baseband channel, or one of the alternates, may be the only way
to create viability for some formats that are not supportable through
traditional advertising.

I just don't think they will be on AM and FM. The problem is that the niche
formats, after the major ones are covered, do not get sizable local
audiences, even to justify subscription based concepts. Thi sis where
satellite works. take a format that attracts 500 listeners in the average
metro, and you have 250 thousand listeners in the top 50 cities in the
USA... or 125 thousand in the top 50 markets. With that, you can do very
good programming, as it is the equivalent of a #1 station in LA or NY. But
market by market, is is the equivalent of a no-show, and not enough
subscriber revenue to support it.
My GM, for instance, desperately wanted to create a viable blues format.
(Imagine, the Blues not viable in Chicago...but there it is). He could
never get the perceptual data to support it. But subscription radio would
have made that possible. Just as a number of the niche formats on XM and
Sirius, now.

I just do not se blues just for Chicago working Not enough subscribers. But
nationally, very viable format.
\

XM does some nice things with blues, actually, and here, that is to
say, satellite, getting back to a thread past, is where a national
audience can be built and a few listeners here and there become a
sizeable contingent, yes, I agree. They can also be quantized, and made
salable.

What doesn't work for radio locally, does with satellite reach.

It's also a subscription based delivery system. There is a different
model on the business side than local radio.


Now, on the other side of that, Karmazin believed the ratings/revenue
relationship to be more myth than reality in the presence of REAL sales
people. He preached it regularly. That the only thing needed to overcome
weak ratings is more sales people, who could then create demand within an
single station. Even driving rates up the card. And the 30+ sales ducks we
had on staff were a testament to that. And he believed that any station
that couldn't convert at a minimum of 200% needed an new Sales Mangler.
We routinely converted at 200% and above.

There are fewer and fewer cases of this... there is a finite revenue base in
each market, and as one staiton overconverts share to revenue (power ration)
the others wake up and do the same thing, and it levels out. There is no
"undiscovered" revenue in any market.

That's exactly right. But if you get in there with a team of hired
assassins, you can pull it off. If only at one or two stations in a
market, and only for a short period of time, in most cases. Some
formats, Country Music being one of them, where overconversion is less
difficult to achieve and maintain. But it requires a ratings independent
sales pitch, which, often, we had to do.


So, though, it's a good bet that subscription terrestrial radio is bad
idea, questionable at best, it's not entirely a settled issue. Out of the
box thinking can make pay radio happen, and clever execution can make it
work. Especially, where there is little advertiser support.

I'd love to do some of these formats, well (not like XM, which is a bunch of
juke boxes, mostly) but with real talent and real PDs doing one format...
but on WiMax. If there is a system where you can "push star 113 for blues"
this will work. If we have to type in URLs, it will not.

You ever get to put this into practice, I'll come out of retirement
for it.



(One of Karmazin's other bone deep beliefs is that every service pay for
itself. No one gets subsidized. And if it can pay for itself, it can
profit. In that aura, pay radio is an eventual certainty.)

I think this was true in one window in time. In some cases,using one station
to protect or widen the moat makes another more profitable, so they,
collectively, do well. I did that back in the 60's, where I always tried to
have a spare station to use as the alligator in the moat to protect my big
stations from competiton. For those unfamiliar, consolidation is a very old
concept outside the US, going back into the 50's in places like Mexico. I
had a large cluster in Ecuador, built in the mid 60's... 4 AMs and 5 FMs in
one market.


It's still going on today. Bonneville is the major example here. WTMX
is the cash cow. WDRV goes after the demo that WTMX can't get. Together,
they do well. Not exactly blowing holes in the dial, but they do quite
well. And everyone pays for themselves.

At CBS, we all had numbers to hit, both revenue and profit. No one
got subsidized.

And the notion that everyone pays for themselves isn't new. Tisch did
it at CBS, when he declared that the News division was to be profitable,
and put it under Entertainment.

With the spectre of HDTV on the horizon, Karmazin as much as declared
that there would be subscription based alternative services delivered
with stolen bandwidth from the HDTV main channel. An announcement that
was followed by NBC and Time Warner. This when HDTV was approved but
prior to the first implementation. Now that Karmazin is gone, there may
be different cultures in place, but the boys running the show are sharp,
and revenue enhancing opportunities are tough to pass up. Especially, as
you point out, radio or television, shares, and revenue are finite.


As far as quality goes...that's a better marketing point than it is a
broadcast reality. Everyone talks about quality, and everyone has a
standard, but where quality is defined as absolute faithfulness to the
original material, it's failed everytime. If you use the tone control, on
your car radio, you're not that interested in high quality. If you have an
equalizer on your audio system....you get the picture.

Just look at the amazing percentage of listeners to FM who do not listen in
stereo... it is about good sound and good programming together. Hey, I
listen to an iPod while biking, and we know what that quality is...


Absolutely. We discussed this very point a year or more ago. Quality
is a factor only when content is widely available from more than one
source. But the notion of quality is subjective. And highly personal.


HD Quality is, and will be, perceptual and personal. Right now, it's
being presented at its optimum. That will change. Stealing bandwidth will
begin. And look straight into your monitor and tell me you can name 5
engineers who can resist the temptation to 'tweak' their audio. Name me 5
more who don't believe they can 'improve' it.

In all fairness, engineers who know their stuff get a panel together when
tweaking and adjust the audio for a compromise sound for a range between
cheap and good radios, so that all can hear the station nicely.


Which was the situation with the Optimod. But you've worked with
more engineers than I have. You know the percentage who really do know
their stuff. Sturgeon's Law applies. 99% of them are crap.



The Quality pitch is temporary. Once HD is established, and there is a
significant user base, the whole 'quality' issue will no longer be
mentioned, except to say 'digital quality.' Which is what they say about
Sirius and XM...and some of that is pretty ratty.

I am not pitching quality, I am pitching digital. We know that there is
sucky digital, but it is a buzz word. Whatever works.



Exactly my point. And it does work. There is no argument there.


Since there are only 100 shares in any market, there will be no expansion
of radio listening, but there may be a slowing of any erosion. At the
same time, selling today is about clusters and combos, not single
stations for the most part... so having more specifically targeted
stations will definitely help. Low spillage and finely honed targets get
better rates than broad, vague targets, as sports AMs demonstrate.

No question. And HD formats will be, as cluster formats are now,
selected strategically, to protect the cash cow, and mop up any periphery.
Likely to be sold in unwired combo packages. With lip service paid to
innovative and alternative programming. At least in the short term.

Some of the new HD 2 formats are very clever, and others make up for what we
would have done if we had 5 instead of 4 statins in a market. In essence,
the formats are picked in descending order of audiencepotential, with
attention given to potential for taking your competitor's lunch a the same
time.
And at least for the time being, you may indeed see a slowing of
erosion. New, exciting toys, with fresh options for things not commonly
heard. But as XM did recently, gutting a number of the channels I enjoyed,
and replacing the music I preferred to hear with things that are more
'salable' and adding commercials to some music channels, eventually
terrestrial and HD will fall into the same patterns as terrestrial radio
exhibits, today.

Only in a static world. All broadcasters arelearning that there is a much
lower commercial load that will hold listeners, and there is better
understanding of listeners. That will enhance the experience as product is
re-emphasized.


I do hope you're right. But my optimism is pretty thin, there.


Especially since, as I've pointed out here, there is little radio
serving me anymore. And I am one of it's true believers.



The pith, here, is this statement:

"Since there are only 100 shares in any market,
there will be no expansion of radio listening,
but there may be a slowing of any erosion."

With evermore options for listening, and fractionalization of the
listenership into potentially thousands of niches, eventually, programming
offerings are going to have to be sold in combinations.

Many are now. Clusters sell together for national and regional, mostly. And
lots do combos locally. It will increase.

Actually quite large clusters of programming issues. That means that
programming offernings, whether on the baseband or the HD's, will have to
fit into certain packageable categories. Since the target demos
essentially do not change, and the maximum share is 100%, The total
numbers are fixed. Competition will have to be within the existing
numbers. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, as it were. Combo programming
packages will have to be selected, or created, with some target demo
participation. To remain salable in that context, some alternatives will
be too far off the target to be salable, in favor or more mainstream,
salable content.

Not necessarily. Efficient targets get better rates So targeting that is as
precise as magazines can be obtained, and advertisers pay more for less
spillage.

More channels, less revenue per channel. More channels, less expense
per channel.

Unless we use HD2 to develop very good regional or national concepts, those
that will work bess by summing stations to pay for better talent and staff.

Now that has some interesting potential. To bring things nearly full
circle...with national, networked or not, channels with reach and intent
beyond the local contour.

That would be an exciting development.


Which is the point. Because after all, in the US, Radio is ALWAYS about
the money.

That is and has been correct since about 1921.



Damned straight.

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:

That is and has been correct since about 1921.



Damned straight.

Are you and I supposed to agree this much? It must be the long weekend.

Meant as a compliment: I'd bet you were a great devil's advocate in business
decisions, helping to make sure the ideas were well thought out. It's really
challenging to discuss things with you, and it forces double checking ideas
and facts. And that is fun.

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
That is and has been correct since about 1921.


Damned straight.

Are you and I supposed to agree this much? It must be the long weekend.

Meant as a compliment: I'd bet you were a great devil's advocate in business
decisions, helping to make sure the ideas were well thought out. It's really
challenging to discuss things with you, and it forces double checking ideas
and facts. And that is fun.



Actually, I was just a pain in the ass.

I really had no interest in being devils'advocate. But when I didn't
agree, I wasn't very quiet about it.

The GM didn't speak to me the last 4 months before I laid down my key
and walked out.

Less than a month later, everything I had predicted had come to pass.

As for agreeing....you and I have agreed more than either of us
wanted to admit. Usually on matters of how things work. Where we have
differed is in how things COULD work.

I don't believe that Radio need be as formulaic as it has become. I
understand why and how it's gotten that way. And the whole Genie/Bottle
thing now applies. But I don't believe it's been necessary. And Jake
Brodsky made a very interesting point...when all you have accessible to
you is formula, you get to the stage where you don't expect anything
else, and you come to accept it as not only the norm, but the good as
well. We're now at least two generations into overresearched formulaic
programming. And the public, which long bitched about the way things
have gone in business that directly address and interface the public has
stopped bitching. Not because they like things the way they are...but
because most have not known any better, and the rest...it does them no
good to complain and they know it.

Pertaining to Radio, the Jack format which cracks wise about "playing
what WE want" wouldn't have flown 15 years ago because it was perceived
as openly contemptuous to the listenership. 'We don't play requests,
don't ask,' is not the sort of comment you'd have heard on Sebastian's
KHJ. Even though requests had long since vanished from most radio, it
was something that wasn't spoken. Certainly not in the snide way that
Jack does it. But times have changed, and public acceptance of such
things is common. "Attitude" is the norm. Even required for many
stationality concepts. Even considered entertainment by a generation
that has never heard the kind of personality driven radio that brought
Wally Phillips, Jack Carney, Gary Owens, Lujack and Morgan to such
staggering shares. It was a different time, and it was a different stage
in Radio's life cycle. But it brought to bear a kind of thinking in
media that at least paid some lip service to the 'serve the public
interest as a public trustee' clause on the Instrument of Authority.

Today, there isn't even that.

And no one...not the public, not the broadcasters, not even the
FCC... seems to care.

Fort Worth gets blown off the map by tornadoes, without so much as
whistle, because the bulk of stations were unmanned, automated and voice
tracked, and what was the response? Clusterwide announcements to tune
to the one frequency where there was actual local coverage. Now, we're
all professionals, here. Does anyone really believe that today's radio
user is going to sit through hours of programming in which she/he has
zero interest just on the outside chance he/she is going to hear a
weather bulletin? Maybe after the storms hit. And only for a short
period of time. But until that moment...sitting ducks with a sky full of
shotguns.

And no one seems to be interested in a real option to such nonsense
that would genuinely serve the public in time of emergency.

Not that it's that different here. CCU, for instance, took Kiss from
pretty much all voicetracked to all live, and CBS radio stations are
mostly live overnight here...but that's not how it is in many markets.
Two companies, for which I do some contract work, still refer listeners
to the news/talk station when there is severe weather in the area at
night....but don't offer any way of informing listeners that it's time
to make that move.

That's an obscene breach of public trust. But no one seems to care.
And that's the way it is.

HD radio may be the future salvation of AM and the wall of sandbags
against terrestrial radio erosion, in general, but that is far from a
certainty, as you yourself have stated in this thread. And in the
process, trashing the band's 'unused' spectra preventing use by anyone
not interested in the local contour. Which stops being a problem when
the new technology is widespread, and HD receivers are commonplace, but
in the meantime, nothing says 'contempt for the listener' like wiping
out alternatives to the locals.

I live in between Milwaukee and Chicago. Even WLS doesn't come in
here cleanly most days. And in a populated area like this, I'm not alone
in the inability to access desired radio. But alternatives that I
regularly listened to from either city are now off the dial. Wiped out
in IBOC hash. My neighbors have also complained about their own choices
being eliminated. Boy, if you were going to create a system that
guarantees options to favor a handful of stations, IBOC sure would be
the way. And it's got the blessings of the FCC.

No, I don't agree that this is the way it has to be. You and I will
disagree on that point.

I understand why it's done this way, and how it got to be. And I
realize that only a failure of the system to catch on with the public
will really make a difference in the outcome. Because there will be no
money in continuing.

But I think there would have been a better way. One that doesn't
begin by trashing the band with all that interference.

And one that offers better audio than what I've heard of AM HD.

But then, as I said, I'm a pain in the ass. And a fossil that is no
longer served by Radio.

What do I know. And, in the scheme of things, what does it really
matter.

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
That is and has been correct since about 1921.


Damned straight.

Are you and I supposed to agree this much? It must be the long weekend.

Meant as a compliment: I'd bet you were a great devil's advocate in
business decisions, helping to make sure the ideas were well thought out.
It's really challenging to discuss things with you, and it forces double
checking ideas and facts. And that is fun.

Actually, I was just a pain in the ass.

"Pain in the Ass" = "Agent of Change" which is what our CFO named me.

I really had no interest in being devils'advocate. But when I didn't
agree, I wasn't very quiet about it.

Gee, that sounds familiar. I wonder why.

The GM didn't speak to me the last 4 months before I laid down my key
and walked out.

In my case, it helped being either a Gm or having some kind of title... and
ratings. Noisy people who create revenues are more tolerated than those who
don't. I can't tell how many times I have had to explain why engineers spend
money (Short version: **** breaks) and that when they don't. there are lots
of make-goods to run.

Less than a month later, everything I had predicted had come to pass.

Bad managers fire the competent, as they are threatening. Good managers hire
department heads who are better than they are, because it makes the job
easier.

As for agreeing....you and I have agreed more than either of us wanted
to admit. Usually on matters of how things work. Where we have differed is
in how things COULD work.

It's that I have the Nautel chrystal ball, and yours must be BE. The often
get different answers. Plus, the Arcadian Nova Scotia accent makes me
misunderstand a bit, too.

I don't believe that Radio need be as formulaic as it has become. I
understand why and how it's gotten that way. And the whole Genie/Bottle
thing now applies. But I don't believe it's been necessary.

Formula radio comes when you have good research, and a bad PD. A good PD,
armed with listener "advice" will make a fun station. Otherwisse, it is just
a jukebox.

And Jake Brodsky made a very interesting point...when all you have
accessible to you is formula, you get to the stage where you don't expect
anything else, and you come to accept it as not only the norm, but the
good as well. We're now at least two generations into overresearched
formulaic programming.

True maybe even much of the time. But when management lets a PD be creative
in everything from imaging to jocks, something way bigger happens. It's
magical at times. I am watching it now woring with a very talented and
intuitive PD who is doing the 13 Spanish Adult Hits stations we have
launched in the last 8 months... lots of research, but the day to day
operation is based on airchecking, listening to every show and jock,
dreaming up fun contests, working with community groups on activities for
the listeners... the stuff PDs should do if they get off their duffs. Most
PDs are glorified jocks, and being a jock is not a qualification per se for
being a PD... jocks are not like wine,a nd they do not become PDs
automatically after a set amount of time.

And the public, which long bitched about the way things have gone in
business that directly address and interface the public has stopped
bitching. Not because they like things the way they are...but because most
have not known any better, and the rest...it does them no good to complain
and they know it.

What I see is that people want even more stratification. More niche formats.
If you want proof, talk to a group of alternative rock males. Each one wants
a different version of the format, and different songs. At some point, this
formast will become 30 different formats and not viable on radio. I tis the
listener, who has come to expect personal gratification ("hey, I can do it
on my iPod, dude.) with no concern for anyone else. "That sucks" is the
standard response for 99% of things in an AR listener's life.

Pertaining to Radio, the Jack format which cracks wise about "playing
what WE want" wouldn't have flown 15 years ago because it was perceived as
openly contemptuous to the listenership. 'We don't play requests, don't
ask,' is not the sort of comment you'd have heard on Sebastian's KHJ. Even
though requests had long since vanished from most radio, it was something
that wasn't spoken. Certainly not in the snide way that Jack does it. But
times have changed, and public acceptance of such things is common.
"Attitude" is the norm. Even required for many stationality concepts.

And 40 years of mostly vacuous CHR jocks (with occasional rare exceptins)
has made many wnat NO jocks at all.

Even considered entertainment by a generation that has never heard the
kind of personality driven radio that brought Wally Phillips, Jack Carney,
Gary Owens, Lujack and Morgan to such staggering shares. It was a
different time, and it was a different stage in Radio's life cycle. But it
brought to bear a kind of thinking in media that at least paid some lip
service to the 'serve the public interest as a public trustee' clause on
the Instrument of Authority.

All I remeber is, as a kid, being glad my market had 3 Top 40 stations as
there was one that was NOT giving news at any one time. I swore I would have
a station that played music, and did not interrupt for what I did not come
for.

Fort Worth gets blown off the map by tornadoes, without so much as
whistle, because the bulk of stations were unmanned, automated and voice
tracked, and what was the response? Clusterwide announcements to tune to
the one frequency where there was actual local coverage. Now, we're all
professionals, here. Does anyone really believe that today's radio user
is going to sit through hours of programming in which she/he has zero
interest just on the outside chance he/she is going to hear a weather
bulletin? Maybe after the storms hit. And only for a short period of
time. But until that moment...sitting ducks with a sky full of shotguns.

That is part of the price for giving listeners what they want. News on one
staiton, music or entertainment on others. And that is why it is so
important to have a working emergency system... not Conelrad, not EBS, not
EAS. One that really works. the other issue is that for at least half the
day, less than 10% of the populaiton is not listening, and at the best, only
about 25% are. Radio is not as effective as we would like to think.

And no one seems to be interested in a real option to such nonsense that
would genuinely serve the public in time of emergency.

See above problem.

In the Minot debacle, which turned out not to be Clear's fault but the
morons at city hall, the incident occured at about 2 AM. Now, how many local
residents of Minot were litening to the raido at that our in the Dakotas? 11
would be my guess. we need self activating radios, and a good system to
activate them.

Not that it's that different here. CCU, for instance, took Kiss from
pretty much all voicetracked to all live, and CBS radio stations are
mostly live overnight here...but that's not how it is in many markets. Two
companies, for which I do some contract work, still refer listeners to the
news/talk station when there is severe weather in the area at night....but
don't offer any way of informing listeners that it's time to make that
move.

I see more cooperation with local TV news departments. We do it all the
time, getting backup reporters and breaking news. But we are live 24/7 on
nearly every station. That is how we train talent.

That's an obscene breach of public trust. But no one seems to care. And
that's the way it is.

I am not sure the audience looks at music radio stations to do anything
else. It is surprising how many actually know which statins have good news
coverage and actually use them when need arises.

HD radio may be the future salvation of AM and the wall of sandbags
against terrestrial radio erosion, in general, but that is far from a
certainty, as you yourself have stated in this thread. And in the process,
trashing the band's 'unused' spectra preventing use by anyone not
interested in the local contour. Which stops being a problem when the new
technology is widespread, and HD receivers are commonplace, but in the
meantime, nothing says 'contempt for the listener' like wiping out
alternatives to the locals.

There is real, overwhelming evidence that there is pretty much no listening
in such cases, so I don't see this as an issue or a loss.

I live in between Milwaukee and Chicago. Even WLS doesn't come in here
cleanly most days. And in a populated area like this, I'm not alone in the
inability to access desired radio. But alternatives that I regularly
listened to from either city are now off the dial. Wiped out in IBOC
hash. My neighbors have also complained about their own choices being
eliminated. Boy, if you were going to create a system that guarantees
options to favor a handful of stations, IBOC sure would be the way. And
it's got the blessings of the FCC.

If you look at local market coverage, you know most stations in the top 100
markets do not fully cover said markets. In other words, many should
disappear. The Am band may not be savable, but that is due to the
allocations based on 1946 city sizes.

But then, as I said, I'm a pain in the ass. And a fossil that is no
longer served by Radio.

That is one you can not pin on radio. In markets where ratings determine
sales, advertisers do not want anyone over 55. So we don't program to them.
No money.

What do I know. And, in the scheme of things, what does it really
matter.

You know more than 90 of today's GMs, most of whom think that creating a new
sales package is more important than programming.

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...


The question seems to be -- what do people want? The mass market
didn't
support FM back when it was the new and improved radio.

FM only "worked" when the FCC mandated a cessation of simulcating, in the
late 60's. New formats popped up left and right, and people liked them and
got radios.

And IBOC AM just simulcasts the analog channel. FM sounds pretty good as it
is. Multicasting might sell some radios, but there are now a wider variety
of formats available on current radios than there were in the late 60s.



I think there's a
good case to be made that increased interference is driving people away
from
AM,

AM has been relatively stable for about 15 to 18 years. What has hapened
is
that the decent signals, which are very few in each market, have developed
viable talk and spots offerings, and the remainder of staitons have found
small niches to serve, predominantly religious or brokered in the larger
markets... even a few music foormats like standards and gospel get some
numbers and some sales on AM.

The determination of AM listening is the local groundwave signal. Even
going
back 2 decades. scant listening to out of market signals was measured,
even
in rural areas. This is because FM was highly built out, reaching most
every
corner of the US with multiple signals.

and a reasonable first estimate might suggest that AM IBOC numbers might
more or less balance FM's, with similiar programming. So, maybe it
improves
AM fringe reception, and a few listeners switch from a FMer to an AMer.

There is no fringe usage, anyway. (meaning that probably less than a tenth
a
percent of AM listening is to staitons not home to the local makret). Even
truck drivers now have XM, so the skywave coverage is actually a negative
(it comes back down and creates an interference zone with groundwave)
rather
than the positive it used to be.



OK, fringes of the groundwave coverage, fringes of the audience, whatever.
I'm sure some very small number of people are driven away from radio
entirely by EM interference. A small number of people choose FM over AM for
the same reason.

I just don't think the percentages are large in either case.

Frank Dresser

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
om...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

Oh, my. A bunch of entrepreneurs started a bunch of radio stations
which
now hardly have any listeners and don't make a cent.

Actually, the owners of most 80-90 stations were already owners in other
markets. All they did was file for as many of these things as they could.
Or, in some cases, entrepreneurs filed, and then, when granted, sold to
existing broadcasters.

They're just
interfering with the radio establishment.

They were the radio establishment. In fact, the original case of Bonita
Springs saw a single owner, Dick Friedman, lose the license to Beasley,
who
had the FCC limit of staitons.

Good thing nobody will be much
bothered when the bigger station's IBOC generators light up. Sheesh.

There are already over a thousand HD stations on the air. There is more
theoretical complaining here than among listeners.

The complaining concerns IBOC AM. Aren't most of the current IBOC stations
FM?


Interestingly, two years ago KFI reduced bandwidth to prepare for HD.
Since
they did that, their ratings have increased from bottom of the top 10 in
LA
to #2. As I said, this group complains far more than the listeners who
simply will have better quality and more format options.



Well, yeah. Audiophiles are listening to recordings, not broadcasts -- and
I don't think anybody has any audiophile expectations of talk stations,
anyway.

The usual IBOC complaint is about it's interference. The IBOC sound
complaint comes up as a counterpoint to the claim that IBOC sound is much
better than radio sound, although listeners seem to find radio sound at
least tolerable.

I haven't heard demodulated IBOC so I can't comment much on the sound. I
have heard digital audio from CDs to cellphones. I'll assume the IBOC sound
falls somewhere in between.

Frank Dresser

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. net...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
om...


Since it only affects Am significantly, and does not affect AMs with
good
signals, we are talking about very few stations that are otherwise
viable
being affected.

I take it that electromagnatic interference from home electronics
isn't
significantly reducing the radio audience even though they are
listening
to
analog radios.

This one has been proven. A look at ratings from the 70's and even 80's
show
listening ZIP codes to include significant listening in those in the 5
mv/m
to 10 mv/m range. Today, in most large cities, the listening is almost
entirely in the 10/mvm or better... in LA, it is mostly in the 15 mv/m,
for
example. The difference is not new stations, as most larger markets
have
had
no new stations in that period, but the difficulty in listening... and
listener expectations of better signals and less noise.



And that's "very few stations that are otherwise viable being
affected."?

I don't understand the question.



You made a couple of points concerning interference which seemed
contridictary. If interference is driving signifivant numbers of people
away from radio, it's an important consideration for the public. If
interference is only effecting a very few viable stations, it's important
only to those very few stations.

Frank Dresser