IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

"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.

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

So does HD... at the transmission end.
Although I sitll figure ibiquity has the pay radio card up it's sleeve.

I tis never mentioned, The license fees are ad-billing based, in fact. The
contracts have no provisions for pay radio.



When I was with CBS, and Mel Karmazin was running the radio division,
he used to come to us from time to time, for a staff breakfast and a chat.

He would do most of the chatting.

The subject of IBOC came up at one such, and at the time IBOC was
still quite a ways off. But he did pointedly say that the future of any
successful business long term will include multiple revenue streams, and
that IBOC, much in the same manner as SCA, will offer the opportunity
for alternative programming streams, and the digital nature of the
stream will permit technology to be implemented for make alternate
streams both advertising and subscription based.

He said he was quite excited about this.

Similar pronouncements have been utterred about HD TV. But that's
another topic for another time.

The conversation became quite active with the rest of the staff, and
you could see exactly who was really getting it, and who wasn't. One
side was clearly excited about the digital medium for its quality
improvement, and the other, excited about the digital medium for it's
ability to be broken up into salable chunks to add to the company's
bottom line. Quality for that side was only an opportunity to steal
bandwidth from the higher quality transmission, and use it for other,
salable commodity. At one point, Karmazin said that users of radio are
not significantly driven by audiphile quality, and that the extra
bandwidth will be used for revenue enhancement, and that audio quality
will be about what it is now.

And what came out of that particular chat session was that the idea
that IBOC's implementation would create opportunities for new business.
And eventually, as a salable listener base becomes measured,
subscription radio.

This for FM. AM IBOC was not going to be as versatile, but would
present the opportunities for marketing AM radio, again, but with,
again, the possibility for subscription based listening.

A few years later Karmazin was 'out-Karmazin'd' By Sumner Redstone,
and he found that the best way to improve his station was to gt out.
Interesting that, now, he's at subscription radio and the discussion is
about increasing the subscription base, and debate about advertising.

iBiquity may not have mentioned subscription implementation, but its
licensees certainly have.

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

A few years later Karmazin was 'out-Karmazin'd' By Sumner Redstone, and
he found that the best way to improve his station was to gt out.
Interesting that, now, he's at subscription radio and the discussion is
about increasing the subscription base, and debate about advertising.

iBiquity may not have mentioned subscription implementation, but its
licensees certainly have.

Nice post, with an interesting insigt from one company's point of view. Mel
is definitely one of the most interesting people we have seen in radio, and
his statements are well worth considering.

Mel, despite his rather edgy manner, did think out of the box as he looked
at future revenue opportunities. I was once offered a job with him for the
NY Spanish station, but was so putt off by either him or the native New
Yorker he represented that I did not take the opportunity. It would have
been an interesting ride, though, until one of us screamed at the other.

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.

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.

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. ..
AM analog has to be backed off to a 5 kHz to 7 kHz upper limit, but since
most analog radios don't go that far even, there is no loss and actually
the more limited bandwidth sounds better on many of today's radios. It
certainly sounds no worse.

MOST.. not ALL. How many millions of GE Superadio III's are out there that
will no longer be able to take advantage of the wide AM setting?

Given the CEA estimate of the lifespan of such devices, probalby less than
100 thousand are in operation. Less than 400,000 were sold int otal. I have
been through 4 of them, and none are among the living today.

And these are still in production, not 40+ year old tube radios with dual
bandwidths.

They are a specialty device, of not much appeal to most listeners as they
are not stereo. And, as I said, all the models have sold well under a
half-million.

AM IBOC destroys the usability of those radios on the wide setting.

No, it does not. It just does not sound any better on wide than regular,
because the analgo is limited to 5 to 7 kHz. Considering that there are 1
billion radios in the Us, a few tens of thousands of hi-fi AM radios is
rather insignificant. Since NRSC has limited AM bandwidth to 10 kHz anyway,
the net loss is trifling.

There are some crappy radios that are naturally in wide mode all the
time. They will hear the splatter. What is worse, it will be heard as
high frequency noise.

You keep talking about no loss, nobody's listening, nobody matters.

The fact is that there is very little daytime listening to AM outside the
city grade contours. There is essentially no measurable night listening
except to a handful of clear channel staitons, mostly the old 1 Am and a few
1 B channels. On the other hand, radio faces major challenges, but AM and
FM. If a tiny amount of present-day fringe listening is lost to give radio a
longer life span, that is a tiny price to pay.

It used to be the FCC served the public, not the broadcasters. Now it
only serves the public when naked breasts are involved. There ARE
people who live in rural areas where there is no FM service. Really,
I've been there. AM is all they got, so they DX all the time, not as a
hobby. IBOC is intentional QRM.


You are defending a "today" that is ending. If you want there to be free
radio tomorrow, some chnages have to happen.

Take your IBOC shilling somewhere else. I don't see where most of us here
want to hear about it.

I am trying to explain why htings must change if there is to be any kind of
free radio in the future... AM, FM, SW of any kind. If you want media all
controlled by Rupert Murdeoch and a few major companies that are world-wide,
then stick to your guns. You will be part of the death of free radio.

You are a shill, but a polite shill.


Take it to rec.radio.broadcasting if you are even still welcome there. I
know at least one person who has met you in r/l and says you're just as
much a pompous ass in r/l as you are here.

Funny, I tend to get invited to speak at conventions and such because I say
what has to be said. were I a paraiah, I doubt I would be at the keynote
sessions of the NAB and such.

I get so sick of being marginalized by the likes of you. You are
"marginalizing" yourself, if I get what you mean by the word. the
interstate highways marginalized Route 66. There is a reason: Americans
had more money, better cars and greater needs for fast delivery of goods.
Route 66 is analog. HD is digital radio.

You ARE affecting people with this crap, we are not NOBODY.

Sorry, but you are. You are standing nearly alone with a dwindling bunch of
AM DXers who want the world to spin backwards. If you care about radio
surviving, and, more than that, if you care about the 120,000 employees of
US radio stations, you would be more wise to look at what can make the
medium viable further into the future.


HD will do more harm to AM than help it. Everyone knows those "free" HD
channels won't be free for ever, Radio is about content first and
foremost. The only thing that will save us from HD will be the
religious stations that will not go HD because they won't pay the
royalities, and will complain about the reduced audience. For a
religious station, it is the schmuck with the check that matters, not
an Arbitron rating.

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

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.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A few years later Karmazin was 'out-Karmazin'd' By Sumner Redstone, and
he found that the best way to improve his station was to gt out.
Interesting that, now, he's at subscription radio and the discussion is
about increasing the subscription base, and debate about advertising.

iBiquity may not have mentioned subscription implementation, but its
licensees certainly have.

Nice post, with an interesting insigt from one company's point of view. Mel
is definitely one of the most interesting people we have seen in radio, and
his statements are well worth considering.

Mel, despite his rather edgy manner, did think out of the box as he looked
at future revenue opportunities. I was once offered a job with him for the
NY Spanish station, but was so putt off by either him or the native New
Yorker he represented that I did not take the opportunity. It would have
been an interesting ride, though, until one of us screamed at the other.


LOL! I've heard tell that this happened from time to time at the
corner office at BlackRock. But nothing definitive.

I do know of at least one GM who voluntarily fell on his sword rather
than deal with Mel after a series of bad quarters. And here, in Chicago,
Mel refused to speak with my GM, after a revenue tumble. This went on
for a couple of years.

He's an interesting bird. And I'm not at all sure he's been good for
radio, except in that he put radio revenue on the map, and proved
conclusively that many of the myths by which radio lived were, in fact,
mythical.

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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.)

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.

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.


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.






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.

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.

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.
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 exactly like anything else, in the package, but not
that different, either. No matter how you slice it, if advertising
support is going to be part of the business framework, nothing's really
going to change, except how the programming offerings slice up the
existing demos.

In the end, the same research that gives you what you have now, will
give you a different slicing of the same listeners for thousands of new
channels.

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

Profits fall.

Consolidation of expenses rears its ugly head, once again.

In the end, not much really changes, except how the pie is sliced.
Because there are only 100 shares in any market. And radio has saturated
the market with a mature product.

Now, in reality, Radio can't acknowledge this. Especially, not
today, in a stock price driven radio economy. So HD will forge ahead,
with promises of newer, better, cleaner, stronger.

Most only realized for a short time before economic realities crash
the party. The rest, unrealized at all.


All on technology that admittedly is a best guess at preventing
erosion. Sounds a lot like "do something, even if it's wrong."

But then, a lot of business is like that.

In the process. We, as listeners, get our dial trashed, but spend
more money. And in the end, the overall economy booms.

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

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

"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.

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A few years later Karmazin was 'out-Karmazin'd' By Sumner Redstone,
and he found that the best way to improve his station was to gt out.
Interesting that, now, he's at subscription radio and the discussion is
about increasing the subscription base, and debate about advertising.

iBiquity may not have mentioned subscription implementation, but its
licensees certainly have.

Nice post, with an interesting insigt from one company's point of view.
Mel is definitely one of the most interesting people we have seen in
radio, and his statements are well worth considering.

Mel, despite his rather edgy manner, did think out of the box as he
looked at future revenue opportunities. I was once offered a job with him
for the NY Spanish station, but was so putt off by either him or the
native New Yorker he represented that I did not take the opportunity. It
would have been an interesting ride, though, until one of us screamed at
the other.


LOL! I've heard tell that this happened from time to time at the corner
office at BlackRock. But nothing definitive.

I do know of at least one GM who voluntarily fell on his sword rather
than deal with Mel after a series of bad quarters. And here, in Chicago,
Mel refused to speak with my GM, after a revenue tumble. This went on for
a couple of years.

He's an interesting bird. And I'm not at all sure he's been good for
radio, except in that he put radio revenue on the map, and proved
conclusively that many of the myths by which radio lived were, in fact,
mythical.

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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.)

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.

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.


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.






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.

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.

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. 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 exactly
like anything else, in the package, but not that different, either. No
matter how you slice it, if advertising support is going to be part of the
business framework, nothing's really going to change, except how the
programming offerings slice up the existing demos.

In the end, the same research that gives you what you have now, will
give you a different slicing of the same listeners for thousands of new
channels.

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

Profits fall.

Consolidation of expenses rears its ugly head, once again.

In the end, not much really changes, except how the pie is sliced.
Because there are only 100 shares in any market. And radio has saturated
the market with a mature product.

Now, in reality, Radio can't acknowledge this. Especially, not today,
in a stock price driven radio economy. So HD will forge ahead, with
promises of newer, better, cleaner, stronger.

Most only realized for a short time before economic realities crash the
party. The rest, unrealized at all.


All on technology that admittedly is a best guess at preventing
erosion. Sounds a lot like "do something, even if it's wrong."

But then, a lot of business is like that.

In the process. We, as listeners, get our dial trashed, but spend more
money. And in the end, the overall economy booms.

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

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

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

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

wrote:
There ARE
people who live in rural areas where there is no FM service. Really,
I've been there. AM is all they got, so they DX all the time, not as a
hobby. IBOC is intentional QRM.

Yup. I was in such an area this weekend. Schoharie County (Howe Caves,
Cobleskill, that area) in northern New York. There are a couple of FM
stations - all music (plus a couple religoius) formats. No news on
those. You get some bits and pieces of Fly 92 and WGNA-FM from the
Capital District.

As far as AM, there's a couple local daytimers - the big one being
WSDE-1190 (a local full-service station) and then there's WGY AM 81 out
of Schenectady. All WGY does as far as information is a few seconds of
Fox News Radio at the top of the hour and some Capital District news
done locally. Most of that thing is network-delivered talk, though:
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Phil Hendrie, Mike Savage, etc.

At night, the sundowners (WSDE among them) dump carrier and go off the
air; and the dial comes alive. If you want news on the radio you can
catch WCBS-88 and WINS-1010 and WBBR-1130 from New York City solid.

You pretty much have no choice but to listen to long distance radio in
the rural areas.

I had forgotten what it was like - I used to love listening in to
long-distance radio as a teenager. It's going to be a disaster when
the whole dial is covered by buzzing hash, though.

--
Stephanie Weil
New York City, NY

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...


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.


Man made interference is the issue today, not between stations... the
inter-station issues have existed for decades.

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:

KFI is the #3 radio station in LA, the worlds largest radio market in
terms
of revenue. It is the 4th highest billing radio station in the US, and,
maybe, the world. YOur subjective judgement on the quality seems to be
unobserved by the 1.2 million Angelinos that listen each week.

KFI succeeds on content, not sound quality.

I think there is an echo here. I just said that.

And the potential interference with
out of town stations (i.e. where the hash of one IBOC channel sits on
the analog signal of another station) is a real show stopper,
especially if at night.

However, there is no evidence that there is any appreciable listening to
out
of town AMs at night.

In numbers that impresses you I suppose.

No, in numbers that do not have lots of zeros to the right of the decimal
point before getting to anything serious.

In most every part o fthe US, there are multiple FMs, even in western ND
or
on the Navajo Nation in AZ, to name a few. Nobody listens to fady AM when
they have FM at hand, or other alternatives like satellite.

I have driven parts of Utah and Nevada without a freakin' cell phone
carrier let alone FM radio station. Take a trip from Ely to Vegas and
tell me how much FM you receive. Yet there are houses spattered all
along the way. There are people who live off the power grid. No phone
either. Oh yeah, well armed too.

I have done that, and there are FMs my car radio pick up all the way.

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

"Stephanie Weil" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
There ARE
people who live in rural areas where there is no FM service. Really,
I've been there. AM is all they got, so they DX all the time, not as a
hobby. IBOC is intentional QRM.

Yup. I was in such an area this weekend. Schoharie County (Howe Caves,
Cobleskill, that area) in northern New York. There are a couple of FM
stations - all music (plus a couple religoius) formats. No news on
those. You get some bits and pieces of Fly 92 and WGNA-FM from the
Capital District.

As far as AM, there's a couple local daytimers - the big one being
WSDE-1190 (a local full-service station) and then there's WGY AM 81 out
of Schenectady. All WGY does as far as information is a few seconds of
Fox News Radio at the top of the hour and some Capital District news
done locally. Most of that thing is network-delivered talk, though:
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Phil Hendrie, Mike Savage, etc.

At night, the sundowners (WSDE among them) dump carrier and go off the
air; and the dial comes alive. If you want news on the radio you can
catch WCBS-88 and WINS-1010 and WBBR-1130 from New York City solid.

You pretty much have no choice but to listen to long distance radio in
the rural areas.

I had forgotten what it was like - I used to love listening in to
long-distance radio as a teenager. It's going to be a disaster when
the whole dial is covered by buzzing hash, though.

The issue, though, is double. Is the content from Manhattan of any interest?
And, more than that, you have to wait till night time. Hardly anyone listens
to any radio at night (less than a third of daytime levels) and even less to
AM. hose signals may be available, but not used as there is no demand.

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

David Frackelton Gleason aka Eduardo the totally fraudulent Hispanic wrote:

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...


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.


Man made interference is the issue today, not between stations... the
inter-station issues have existed for decades.

Now made only worse by the QRM known as IBOC.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

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

I had both ratings AND revenue. I was tolerated for 11 1/2 years. If I'd
had any sense, I would have walked out the second day, and found someplace
that was a better fit. I was offered a place across town my first day.

I have a strange resumé. It started years ago as a project to learn Page
Maker 1.0 (long ago) and I made a biographical, illustrated resume that is
about 60 pages long. A number of people said it was extreme, improper,
egotistical (me?) and such. But a close friend who is also successful in
radio said, "anyone you want to work for will like it. Anyone you would hate
will not. Consider it a filter."

What I learned there, and over the decades of my career was invaluable.
And a huge amount of fun, in isolated doses. Mostly I got to pick my own
assignments, and create projects for my amusement.

I was lucky in that.

I was lucky at the beginning. When I realized I was a lousy jock, I knew I
wanted t be a PD. But there were not many openings for 16-year-old PDs. The
only way was to won the station, something I did in Ecuador. I got to do
whatever I wanted. Fortunately, I somehow made money, too.

Interestingly, I did, intuititvely, very mainstream formats. The exception
was my "homage to FM" which was the first FM in northern South America, run
non-commercial for my own enjoyment (I started in FM in 1959). It ended up
being my biggest money maker, with just 6 20" spots an hour, one very 10
minutes.

Unfortunately, most lone owners I came across were real pieces of work, and
the stories of the owner's wife requesting songs be played out of format are
legion... and mostly true.

It is really tough for me to say that consolidation and bean counters is
worse than crazy owners, no insurance and whimsical firing policies.

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.

Yes. I've gotten to experience that more than once. And during my first
9 years at CBS. It is magical.

It is also, almost always short lived. Magic only lasts so long.

I have seen the magic work for longer times. Gorman at WMMS. Tanner at Y
100. And many more. But they are few compared to the sheer number of statins
in the US. But, then again, it is hard to create these outside the larger
markets or the very dominant facilities in medium ones. It is hard to
envision such a creature in Ispeming or Show Low or Pampa. There are very
few WLNG's in small markets that are really great stations. Docket 80-90
killed about 75% of the ones that did exist, too.

Fred Moore, of KOMA fame, told me that the PD is nearly always the worst
jock on the station. With only two exceptions, in my experience, he's been
right.

I know some... Bill Tanner again comes to mind. And the PD of our Recuerdo
stations is also the highest rated talent on the LA station... but these are
very rare exception. Another axiom I have come to believe is that people who
know too much about the music are way to analyitical about it. I had one PD
who excluded songs because he had perfect pitch and thus would not play
songs with sour notes... even if they were #1. Give me a radio geek any
day... someone who lives in awe of radio and is thrilled to be allowed in
the front door! Such PDs hear the station in their heads like a listener,
not like a dork behind a desk.

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.


No doubt. But one of the very foundations of the science of audience
measurement, and perceptual research is that the sample's behaviour
changes when the sample is aware of being watched. One of the top reasons
why you can't 'apply' to be an Arbitron diary keeper, and instead have to
be invited to be screened. Talking to a group of alternative rock males,
for instance, may actually produce different results than when observing
them unaware. As naive listening produces results differing from direct
questionnaire.

This is why I do not do focus groups. Focus groups, as a researcher in
Puerto Rico I respect said, are "a party without the booze." An alpha male
or a female gossip takes over... always. And you gett all kinds of group
dymnamics. Focus groups were designed for managers, not the people who build
the widgets. An hour, and you know everything.

I do one on one interviews, with each person alone for 45 minutes to an
hour, in a controlled, neutral environment with an interviewer who is not a
peer... and who specifies they are from out of town and don't know anything
about any station, artist or whatever. This significantly removes the
noxious components, and is further helped by recruiting people based on
having them reconstruct last week's listening, not based on "favorite
station or show." The ones that exhibit the right behaviour are recruited.

Also, we have to keep in mind that we are not researching listeners. We are
researching potential diarykeepers so we emulate Arbitron recruit
characteristics. It's reality. When Pulse went door to door, I did research
door to door!

A study I did as part of a social studies class in high school asked a
randomly selected cross sectioned sample of 200 students at two different
high schools about their favorite radio stations. In both schools,
respondents described KSHE by the largest margin. More than 50%. KXOK was
the number two station at the time, behind KMOX. But not one respondent
admitted listening to KXOK. KSHE was AOR. KXOK, Top 40.

The environment... at schoool... introduces significant bias. That was a
defintely faulty sample design as being at school conditions all responses.

But when we sent other persons out to do some naive listening in teh
cafeteria, and the subject turned to radio, many of the KSHE respondents
could describe in detail individual instances on KXOK, even quoting
remarks by some of the jocks. Two had been recent participants in Johnny
Rabbitt's phone bits.

And if you did it on the street, on the phone or at athe mall, you would get
even clearer indications of reality.

My favorite story...

When I got to Puerto Rico in 1970, the survey company did in home
conincidentals. Two questions: radio on? What station? I went out with the
field crew and we were in anewer, very upper middle class neighborhood. Down
the street, we heard a radio blaring the station that broadcasters called
"the washerwoman's station" meaning it was very downscale and vulgar. We got
to the house. Ask the questions, please. The woman said, "WIPR" which was
the San Juan equivalent of NPR... classical and talk. Right. She was
responding like she thought residents of the neighborhood should, not as she
actually did.

In most research that is well designed, you ask some questions that will
identify lemon participants. When you check data, you eliminate these as
they did not behave as they said they did. Out.

It not only depends on how the question is asked, but, in fact, on
what's really at stake with the individual at the moment. Or the
respondent's mood. Or the phases of the moon. And while most of these
things can be compensated for to some degree, there is always the wild
card event that strikes listeners so well, despite fitting into no
established category for 'proper' quantization.

The problem is that most listeners are very mainstream, and you can run an
electronic "EKG" on music and spot where new songs are in a sample by the
enormous dip in score. Every time. There is a very limited passion for
innovation, but a big one for renovation. Freshening, not rebuilding.

I'm familiar with the concept that results in 30 different formats
requested by 25 different respondents. If you're talking about music, then
to satisfy the lion's share of them, yes, you need some pretty stout
research if you're going to play music alone. Probably very expensive and
time consuming research, too.

Most formats are pretty monolithic. And you can do factor and cluster
analysis to see how far out you can go without losing listeners, and see
subsets of your own listeners and schedule music so sets of sngs that are
"bad" to one group do not play back to back. The problem is where you have
young males who listen in black and white: i love it or I hate it. No
degrees. You either embrace it or flip it the bird. Know any 23 year old
males that act that way?

That's why I've always made noise about the fact that any station can play
a record, and then asked what we can do to bring something fresh to the
grille cloth that no other station can master. What has always come down
is that those are intangibles, and not quantifiable.

It is the glue that sticks it together. The talent, the imaging, the spot
load, and, especially, the mix of the songs. I can take 10 top scoring
songs, and mix them so they score very high as a mix, or very low... just by
optimizing or destroying the song to song flow. Many PDs think Selector is
intelligent and will program the music for them. Wrong.

More than one consultant, John Lund comes to mind, has said in response
that the only thing that people tune in for is the music. More, better,
timelier music, and you don't need anything else. Which is nonsense. You
can build that on your iPod. What can Radio do that ISN"T replicable at
home? Bring THAT to the speaker, and you'll keep listeners through portions
of an ABBA/Gordon Lightfoot marathon. A little of the RIGHT music and you
have a monster station.

I say that on music stations, it is the ability to create a better blend,
and package it nicely. In other words, a better flow of music than an iPod
on shuffle. Since most iPod onwers have only around 300 songs, radio can
compete if done nicely.

But what are those intangibles?

Well, that's a good question. Depends. You certainly can't ask your
sample about them. It's the very definition of creativity that creative
products are things not seen/heard before. Whether they're good...you'll
know it when you encounter it. That's too much of a risk for some
Manglement. But much of what's really of value in radio can't be simply
asked about. But once experienced, it can be as addictive as Wally
Phillips.

I agree. I do not research creativity except to get an idea of what worked
and what did not. The talent has to take that data and process it... the
research or the listener can not. This is where the good PD working to
orchestrate a staff comes in. Of course, if you are voice tracking or
automated, this will never work. It is ajuke box with an antenna.

Well, the book came and went and the listeners did NOT return.
Instead, they went to...say it with me, now....TALK RADIO. It was not
what they were looking for, but the entertainment intangibles were enough
to hold an audience looking for something else.

Dumb GM. There are hundreds and hundreds of documented cases of "more
stations in format create higher total shares" and "station leaving format
reduces total format shares" and there are no exceptions.

But that's the very reason you have live personalities. They bring
something fresh, new, and hopefully exciting to every break. Remove
unpredictable intangibles, and you have what....Jack FM?

Yet some are so burned with jocks they want Jack. For a while. I have seen
this in one market for years. Two similar stations, one personality, other
jsut music. For a decade, nearly tied. Listeners to the music station did
not want personality. Today, the music is not as good, so the personality
station wins. But there is a component who says, "shut up and play the
music." Often, a big one.

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


So they will tell you. Until they hear a good one. Admittedly rare. Very
rare, indeed. But, then no one needs a Cadillac Eldorado, until you drive
one.

As mentioned, I have seen a marvelous personality station tied by a totally
neutral music station... playing the same songs, nearly. Talent is
polarizing, and some listeners do not want talk... they are there for songs.

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.

I remember thinking the very same thing during the 'LS/'CFL wars. And
then I saw Topeka, Kansas AFTER the tornado. Radio was the only thing that
saved most of those people's lives.

Still, considering that at peak hours 3 out of 4 people are not listening to
the radio, I just do not think the current system is very good. And at off
hours, it can be less than one in 20.

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.


No, it's not. But it certainly can be. When I was at KWKH, if there
was a crack of thunder, listeners all over the Ark-La-Tex tuned in to
KWKH, even over and above KEEL. Why? Because in the history of KWKH, it
was THE instant news station. If something was happening...it didn't
matter what--weather, plane crash, traffic, the police chief's bribe money
was late--anything, KWKH was on it. And over the years, that became
ingrained in the marketplace. To the degree that KWKH was THE station
listeners turned to, even if they never listened to the station at any
other time. Even if they weren't listening to radio at all when the first
flash of lightening split the sky.

There still are a bunch of good AMs in this regard. The problem is that most
folks under 35 don't use AM, and may not even know what it is. FM can not
get the fringe coverage of a big AM... and many parts of the US, including
the nation's capitol, have no big AMs. We have a defective system of
allocations for AM to be effective, and FMs are usually pretty limited in
coverage.

A technical solution is not the only answer. Getting people to turn
on their radios in expectation of super service is a better way.

Just as newspaper readership is down, and TV news is about Paris Hilton
rather than the Summit in Paris, France, there is a dumbing down of America
that makes American Idol be considered a cultural event. I thik this is far
more than a radio problem. I took my youngest daughter out of an LA public
school because she was not learning anthing solid in the things I though
important, like reading and the ability to write an original thought and how
to do math without a calculator. Same problem, different manifestation (she
went to a private school in Puerto Rico, where half the classes were in
English, half in Spanish and Freench was taught as a foreign language. She
can actually talk intelligently now).

Let a self activating radio go off at 2 in the morning, and the man who
brought it into the house had better not plan on getting laid anytime
soon. If he doesn't get to sleep in the dumpster for a while. Self
activating radios are often premptively de activated. Defeating their
purpose.

What is the difference between this and a system of alert sirens, as was
common for tornados in rural America in the past? Today, we sleep with
windos closed and the AC or heat on, so we can not hear sirens...


And that's where music stations need to take a leadership role. Provide
necessary service when the need arises, and screw the music format if
necessary. The truth be told, you and I both know that even a music
intensive station can pick up the mantle during heavy weather without a
great disturbance in the format.

In a major hurricane in PR some years ago, I took my music FM to simulcast
the AM non-stop coverage of the storm. Ratings showed that we lost virtually
all the audience. Everyone who wanted storm news went to the several
established news specialists, and the music stations that kept format kept
ratings. I had miscalculated, and it took half a year to recover. I should
have remembered that a Hurricane Kit in PR is a bunch of candles and 4 cases
of beer... and realized that listeners saw the storms as a way to not have
to work and have a party. I did not provide the party music, and did no good
anyway.

I have similar anecdotes about earthquakes, floods, and even plagues of
locusts (OK, no locust stories... that was Moses).

Screw it. Take the leadership. Do the job. Serve. As a public trustee.
Just as the Instrument of Authority requires.

See my comments on education and awarenss. There is just not an interest,
and among those who have an interest, there is a well established well.
Digging new and shallow wells does not help.

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


As flattering as that is...It's really disturbing that today's
broadcast industry is in the hands of GM's who know less than I do.


Oh, you're SO doomed.

Eventually, the companies that are sales driven will realize it is a lot
easier to sell the #1 station than the #15 one. I learned that at about age
17, so I put product first. Most managers see it as an expense.

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

dxAce wrote:
David Frackelton Gleason aka Eduardo the totally fraudulent Hispanic wrote:

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...


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.


Man made interference is the issue today, not between stations... the
inter-station issues have existed for decades.

Now made only worse by the QRM known as IBOC.

no it isn't QRM it is just an added chalenge

dxAce
Michigan
USA

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

David Eduardo wrote:

The FCC chose the Magnavox, and Lenard Kahn sued, and then the FCC came out with a marketplace ruling 5 years later. To get to C quam, we went through a
singe system ruling, a lawsuit by a disgrunteld designer who did not care if
he killed AM,, and then a marketplace rulling. So they DID do a single
system ruling, even if changed later. The result was C Quam, and one
company getting all the (very limited) money for generators and royalties
for recievers.

Yup. And by then, it was too late for AM Stereo. When did the FCC do
that final ruling on C-QUAM?

Was it in early 2000s? By then I had given up on AM Stereo as the
local MW stations dropped the system one-by-one. Last one to go was
WFAN-AM 660, I believe, when the AM Stereo exciter burned out.

My little Sony AM Stereo walkman was languishing in its box until I
gave it away a couple years ago. I don't miss it.

--
Steph

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

"Stephanie Weil" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:

The FCC chose the Magnavox, and Lenard Kahn sued, and then the FCC came
out with a marketplace ruling 5 years later. To get to C quam, we went
through a
singe system ruling, a lawsuit by a disgrunteld designer who did not care
if
he killed AM,, and then a marketplace rulling. So they DID do a single
system ruling, even if changed later. The result was C Quam, and one
company getting all the (very limited) money for generators and royalties
for recievers.

Yup. And by then, it was too late for AM Stereo. When did the FCC do
that final ruling on C-QUAM?

The "marketplace decision" was August, 1982.

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

David Eduardo wrote:

The "marketplace decision" was August, 1982.

No no. After that. When the FCC finally implemented C-Quam as THE
STANDARD for AM stereo.

That was only a few years back, if I recall.

--
Steph

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

DE,

How many Roof-Top TV or FM Antenna does anyone
see today vice 20 and 40 Years ago ? ? ?

How many Cable TV Systems now carry the Local
AM and FM Radio Stations Today like they did back
20 and 40 Years ago ? ? ?

the times they are a changing ~ RHF

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

David Eduardo wrote:

Nobody listens to the adjacent channels that are next to local stations. So
there is no loss if there is nobody there anyway.


Bull****. I listen to WSM on 650 KHz AM, and there is a crappy local
on 640 KHz AM that already causes problems. If they added IBOC, they
would make it even worse. They play big band crap and constantly over
modulate even though the FCC never seems to catch them. The engineer
only shows up if they are off the air for an hour or so, and only fixes
what he's told to. When the interference gets too bad I have to listen
to the online stream.




--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

David Eduardo wrote:

How many Roof-Top TV or FM Antenna does anyone
see today vice 20 and 40 Years ago ? ? ?

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with the idea of having to
buy an extra antenna for an HD FM radio station when I can pick up the
analog version of that same station using the built-in whip on a ghetto
blaster?

At least that seems to be what is implied with the BA-Recepter. Well
we made a crappy deaf radio, but you can always spend MORE and add a
roof antenna or whatever.

Meanwhile the 20 year old JVC monster ghetto-blaster keeps pumping
away.

--
Steph

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

"Stephanie Weil" wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]


Does IBOC sound better than current analog AM? Yes.

Yeah, others have said it sounds good. And I think ibiquity is doing it
with a lower bitrate than even mp3s, although they had to change their
decoder to get it right. I don't really know anything about digital
demodulation, but ignorance has never stopped me from imagining things, and
I wonder if ibiquity has somehow optimized their demodulator for current
programming. That would be fine for now, but maybe not so fine if jazz
music gets a big as it ought to be or if Beautiful Music makes it's dreaded
comeback or if the Chinese Communist Party "new economies" all the radio
stations and blankets the country with Chinese opera.

Again, I don't know anything about digital decoders, but I don't imagine
we're getting something for nothing.

And it wouldn't make a bit of difference to ibiquity, as long as the radios
sound OK until thier patents run out.



Would it be the saviour of AM radio? No, and I'll tell you why. Too
many analog radios in use. Billions probably.

People will be using those radios for a long time to come. Hell, some
people are still listening on radios that are 50-60 years old! At
night, it's going to be nasty when these listeners (at least the ones
in the hinterlands) try to tune in a long distance station, because all
their locals are off-air, and can't get anything but hiss and hash.


IBOC AM is nasty enough during the day on a current radio. Tune around and
hear the HIISSSSSSSS between a few stations. What happens if ibiquity gets
their way, and almost every station has a IBOC noisemaker running 24/7? How
annoyed will most people get? Will some choose to avoid the AM band
entirely? Most people know as much about the technical side of radio as
they want to know, which is practically nothing. I suppose Big Radio will
have to start telling people that if people just knew more about radio,
they'd get it through their thick heads that the HIISSSSSSS is just chock
full o' crystal clear digital audio.

You'll love the HIISSSSSS, after we sell you an expensive radio!!



IBOC-FM does seem like a nice thing though. There's no interference
caused to the analog signal like there is on AM; and you can get a
couple more channels of acceptable fidelity.

Sure you get the 67 and 92 khz subcarriers on analog FM (plus RDS), but
the SCAs sound nasty. I should know. I listen to quite a lot of SCA
stations in this city.

The problem with digital broadcasting of any kind is that you won't get
an imperfect signal that's still listenable/watchable.

Either you get a good picture/sound or you get NOTHING. There's no
middle ground.

Ah, yes. More of the "broken radio" sound. Normal AM interference is
intuitively obvious, it sounds pretty much like what it is, two people
talking at once, or whatever. It requires no explanation. But dropouts?
What the hell is that? Is there smoke coming out of the radio?



And there's way too many people that are in that middle-ground area
that are going to be dumped out. Especially when it comes to stations
with niche programming, it's going to chop up their audience numbers
quite a bit.

--
Steph


Frank Dresser

IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
 

"Stephanie Weil" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:

It is very bad for them. It doubles the free FM formats or options in
each
terrestrial market. XM and Sirius sell based on"more options" and HD
gives
for free what costs $150 a year on satellite.

But....XM & Sirius have commercial free music. And deep playlists.

To a lot of people, $150 a year for what they get free is not worth it. Deep
playlists generally mean that hte channels play lots of less popular songs.
Some like this, most do not. If there were 2000 songs people wanted to hear
in any format, terrestrial radio would play them.

Supposedly.

Yeah, for the moment.