AM radio fights for survival

[SidS1045]

What I learned in school is that Sirius Radio is the one that is dying more than AM is.  The way my instructors made is sound that if it was not for Howard Stern, that would have gone under years ago.  It seems that his one of a kind perverted sense of humor that attracts millions of listeners could easily keep Sirius in business by itself.

Your instructor's comments fall under the heading of "fact-challenged."  SiriusXM is in the black and has a net gain of subscribers every quarter for the past few years.  Hardly a dying business.  It's probably not going to displace any other medium, but its place as a niche medium seems assured.

[SP Cook]

  As the angry-old-man conservative talk format begins to fail because its audience is dying off, no one is coming up with anything to replace it that will have any appeal beyond the 55-to-death demographic.

And that is what is wrong with not only the entertainment industry, but many industries. Everybody wants to market to the masses.  And, yes, that is where MOST of the money is.  But, what people forget is you can make a lot of money outside the "target demographic".  If you want to fight for your tiny sliver of the big pie, fine.  I can list dozens of industries where there are tremendously successful players, for which the "target demographic" has no use.  Business forgets that all money is green.  Del Webb died a billionaire.  Selling houses to retirees.

I would be sad if we lost Sirius. I travel a lot and find it easy to just throw on Sirius for hours instead of fishing for local stations whenever I enter a new market. I've never listened to Howard and never would.

SXM is doing fine.  The merger between the two services was needed, there just isn't the market for two competitors.  Truckers and other long form travelers keep it going, and there is nothing on the horizon that is going to replace that. 

Stern is entirely a creation of the hype machine.  Reality is he was on a few FM stations in a few cities when he was "king of all media".  He is a niche of a niche of a niche. 

[DandyDan]

Stern is entirely a creation of the hype machine.  Reality is he was on a few FM stations in a few cities when he was "king of all media".  He is a niche of a niche of a niche.

Having lived and been in several markets, my personal belief is that every market has someone on the radio who is like Howard Stern.  Howard Stern got lucky in that his market was New York and as they say, if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere.

[Brandon]

Stern is entirely a creation of the hype machine.  Reality is he was on a few FM stations in a few cities when he was "king of all media".  He is a niche of a niche of a niche.

Having lived and been in several markets, my personal belief is that every market has someone on the radio who is like Howard Stern.  Howard Stern got lucky in that his market was New York and as they say, if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere.

And he was always second fiddle in Chicago.  Others (Steve Dahl, Mancow) were doing what he was doing, but better in this market.  Plus, Dahl did everything Stern did long before Stern did it.

[Pete from Boston]

Stern is entirely a creation of the hype machine.  Reality is he was on a few FM stations in a few cities when he was "king of all media".  He is a niche of a niche of a niche.

Having lived and been in several markets, my personal belief is that every market has someone on the radio who is like Howard Stern.  Howard Stern got lucky in that his market was New York and as they say, if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere.

And he was always second fiddle in Chicago.  Others (Steve Dahl, Mancow) were doing what he was doing, but better in this market.  Plus, Dahl did everything Stern did long before Stern did it.

I don't know much about Dahl, but it seems like his career and Stern's have been more or less concurrent.  If anything, he made it big a handful of years before Stern did, not what I'd call "long."

[6a]

I once picked up KYW1060 clear as can be out in indiana, right at the ohio state line.

This reminds me:

I was able to catch WBZ out of Boston in the mountains of West Virginia. I was amazed.

They claim to reach 38 states (and "the best provinces of Canada").

I wonder what their budget has to be. A high powered antenna like that can't come cheap.

They get the same 50,000 watts all the other big boys get. One thing they do is employ a directional pattern to the signal to avoid broadcasting to the ocean. In layman's terms it's kind of like putting your thumb on the end of a garden hose. WBT in Charlotte has a similar effect, although for different reasons. You can hear it in Cuba at night, but reception to the immediate (like 5 miles) west is so poor they use an FM station to fill in the gap.

[SidS1045]

One thing they do is employ a directional pattern to the signal to avoid broadcasting to the ocean. In layman's terms it's kind of like putting your thumb on the end of a garden hose.

WWL/New Orleans does the same thing as WBZ.  Their transmitter site is in the swampland south of New Orleans and they're directional to the north to avoid wasting signal in the Gulf of Mexico.

[bandit957]

The right-wing talk format is garbage.

[bandit957]

Sirius XM is no better than FM. I got it for free with my last rental car, and they played the same songs over and over. If your station is 80's on 8, you have an entire decade to work with, yet they continuously repeated the same top 40 playlist from that week in 1986. It was pretty ridiculous. It would have been passable if they then did that week in 1983 and then 1989 or something and so on, but no, the exact same list on a 48 hour loop. As a subscription service, this is unoriginal and unacceptable.

How do they get people to pay for this crap?

[The Nature Boy]

Sirius XM is no better than FM. I got it for free with my last rental car, and they played the same songs over and over. If your station is 80's on 8, you have an entire decade to work with, yet they continuously repeated the same top 40 playlist from that week in 1986. It was pretty ridiculous. It would have been passable if they then did that week in 1983 and then 1989 or something and so on, but no, the exact same list on a 48 hour loop. As a subscription service, this is unoriginal and unacceptable.

How do they get people to pay for this crap?

As I said above, I pay for it because I travel too much and hate having to constantly change the number. They also have some niche stations that I really like. If you're a fan of something not on the radio, it's worth it. Their classic rock stations are also pretty decent.

[bandit957]

In my day, my dad used to listen to the Reds games on WLW on the stereo in the living room. I noticed that if you ran past the stereo really fast, it would create a rumbling noise on WLW. I kept doing this, and he got so mad!

Also, a next-door neighbor kept blaring Reds games on WLW when I was trying to do homework. So I took an electronics kit and somehow built a little "station" that created a high-pitched whistling noise that jammed WLW.

[bandit957]

Also, is there anyone else here from the Cincinnati area who remembers when WCLU was top 40?

[hbelkins]

The right-wing talk format is garbage.

Yet it's odd that left-wing talk never really got off the ground.

[Pete from Boston]

The right-wing talk format is garbage.

Yet it's odd that left-wing talk never really got off the ground.

Left-wing current-affairs talk radio fills a lot of NPR (not every station, but weekdays on the big ones).  The content, for me, eventually gets drowned out by the weird, inhuman cadence and tone and feel of the hosts.  They are not of this earth! 

People often respond to this complaint by asking me if I'd prefer the scathing hate-mongering at the other end, and that's a cop-out to excuse poor broadcasters.  I like that NPR tries some creative radio sometimes, but they have to lose these people I picture as being muppets with ugly sweaters voiced by Gary Owens.

[Scott5114]

The right-wing talk format is garbage.

Yet it's odd that left-wing talk never really got off the ground.

Not really. Radio, especially AM, skews toward older listeners, which tend to be right-wing. That, and the Republican Party is much more unified in its political positions than the Democratic party, so it's easier to create a radio station that is acceptable to the majority of its target market.

[SP Cook]

There are three, interlinked ideas relative to that issue.

First, as Limbaugh said "I am equal time".  No, that is not just some phrase.  The mainstream media is at the far left edge of political thought.  It, for nearly 80 years, has developed a style where it couches its commentary as flat reporting.  There are, therefore plenty of sources for left wing thought, from government subsidized PBS/NPR to the monolithic ABCNBCCBS, to your local newspaper.  AM talkers found an unserved niche.  One called, most people.

Second, Conservatism is about facts and logic.  Liberalism (actually socialism, used correctly liberal in the 19th century context is what we now call conservatism) is about emotion.  I want everybody to have *.  Well, OK, nice but in the real world (insert here an unlimited amount of discussion as to why you cannot just give * to "everybody" ) Oh, you are mean, and greedy, and ignorant.  Everybody should have *. * now. * now. * now.  Occupy.  Boycott.  Burn.  No facts.  No logic.  No reason.  And, relative to radio, not much time filled and not much said you haven't heard before.

Third, as Limbaugh's 23 Updated Undeniable Truth of the Universe says "The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're
not liberals".  Look at the upcoming Senate races.  West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Kansas, Alaska, on and on.  A far-left liberal who is running as a "moderate" who wants to "work together" and blah, blah, blah.  They really cannot remember who their party's leaders are, or why they are members of such a party with which they "disagree" with so much.  The last thing they want is some AM talker talking about what they really believe.

[agentsteel53]

Second, Conservatism is about facts and logic.  Liberalism (actually socialism, used correctly liberal in the 19th century context is what we now call conservatism) is about emotion.

negative.  conservatism is about using one's lizard brain when one's higher-order capabilities are distracted or otherwise unavailable.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/09/truthiness_research_cognitive_biases_for_simple_clear_conservative_messages.html

[Henry]

Well, I'm not surprised that AM is on life support as we speak. In my childhood, I was an avid listener of WLS-AM when it had the Top-40 format, and I was sad to see it go in favor of news/talk. Even today, you can find news/talk and sports on the FM dial! Needless to say, AM is indeed in a very sad state right now.

[bandit957]

Not really. Radio, especially AM, skews toward older listeners, which tend to be right-wing.

Older people are more conservative today, but in the '90s, younger people were more conservative. Older people in the 1990s were New Deal types. But even in the '90s, AM talk radio was already dominated by the right wing.

[bandit957]

The mainstream media is at the far left edge of political thought.

That's hilarious.

[SidS1045]

There are three, interlinked ideas relative to that issue.

First, as Limbaugh said "I am equal time".  No, that is not just some phrase.  The mainstream media is at the far left edge of political thought.  It, for nearly 80 years, has developed a style where it couches its commentary as flat reporting.  There are, therefore plenty of sources for left wing thought, from government subsidized PBS/NPR to the monolithic ABCNBCCBS, to your local newspaper.  AM talkers found an unserved niche.  One called, most people.

Second, Conservatism is about facts and logic.  Liberalism (actually socialism, used correctly liberal in the 19th century context is what we now call conservatism) is about emotion.  I want everybody to have *.  Well, OK, nice but in the real world (insert here an unlimited amount of discussion as to why you cannot just give * to "everybody" ) Oh, you are mean, and greedy, and ignorant.  Everybody should have *. * now. * now. * now.  Occupy.  Boycott.  Burn.  No facts.  No logic.  No reason.  And, relative to radio, not much time filled and not much said you haven't heard before.

Third, as Limbaugh's 23 Updated Undeniable Truth of the Universe says "The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're
not liberals".  Look at the upcoming Senate races.  West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Kansas, Alaska, on and on.  A far-left liberal who is running as a "moderate" who wants to "work together" and blah, blah, blah.  They really cannot remember who their party's leaders are, or why they are members of such a party with which they "disagree" with so much.  The last thing they want is some AM talker talking about what they really believe.

Limbaugh is so full of himself he's become a parody of the architypal reactionary nut-case rightie.  What he once was...a humorous, self-deprecating voice of a POV previously ignored as too radical for most...was long ago subordinated to the loudmouth "blame everything on the left" true believer...in his own PR.  Conservatives can, believe it or not, be articulate, brainy advocates for their POV with a sense of humor to boot.  Limbaugh is everything but, and IMO damages the cause.  He's nothing but perpetual anger and "everything bad is Obama's/Clinton's/Gore's/Pelosi's/Reid's fault."  Sorry, but *nothing* is ever so black-and-white.

I can take everything you just posted, turn it 180 degrees, and it would be just as valid to a leftie.

And just to keep this thread on track:  Several separate studies have shown that political talk on radio (almost all of it right-wing) are a large part of what's turning off the electorate.  Shrill, perpetually angry voices calling the other side "traitors" and claiming the other side "hates America" ad nauseam don't contribute to a well-informed electorate and do nothing to stimulate intelligent debate.

[hbelkins]

Left-wing current-affairs talk radio fills a lot of NPR (not every station, but weekdays on the big ones).  The content, for me, eventually gets drowned out by the weird, inhuman cadence and tone and feel of the hosts.  They are not of this earth! 

This.

The thing that gets me about most public radio stations, besides the obvious liberal slant, is the lack of passion that the announcers have. The monotone delivery that most of them have bore me to tears. Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin (the three conservative talk hosts that I listen to) show emotion and passion for what they're discussing. Even that poor slob Alan Colmes, whose show I listened to sometimes when I was driving late in the evening and I still had XM Radio and it was still carrying Fox News Talk, got passionate about his topics.

Random NPR host from Directional State University? Not so much. It's like they're just reading off a script dictating something.

First, as Limbaugh said "I am equal time".  No, that is not just some phrase.  The mainstream media is at the far left edge of political thought.  It, for nearly 80 years, has developed a style where it couches its commentary as flat reporting.  There are, therefore plenty of sources for left wing thought, from government subsidized PBS/NPR to the monolithic ABCNBCCBS, to your local newspaper.  AM talkers found an unserved niche.  One called, most people.

Second, Conservatism is about facts and logic.

These two things, too. Limbaugh was a counter to what you got from 6:30-7 p.m. Eastern time every night on the three broadcast networks and 24/7 on CNN, plus what you read on the editorial pages of seven out of every eight big daily newspapers. He reached out to a huge untapped audience.

Older people are more conservative today, but in the '90s, younger people were more conservative.

Even in the 80s. Anyone remember the Kinks song "Young Conservatives?" That song seemed to treat that demographic with disdain, from the same British band that had so aptly chronicled the failure of the Carter administration in song in "A Gallon of Gas" and "Catch Me Now I'm Falling."

[DTComposer]

There's part of me that doesn't want to wade into what's turning into a political discussion, but I do want to point out this: Conservatism appeals just as much to emotion to Liberalism does - it's just different emotions. The appeals to patriotism, individualism (as in, get the government out of my hair), American Exceptionalism, the idea that we're slipping into a socialist state - those all appeal to emotions of pride, fear, self-determination. And this is reinforced by the "passion" that right-wing talk show hosts display - their quasi-theatrical delivery succeeds precisely because they are playing to the listeners' emotions.

Now, if you subscribe to the idea that public radio is tilted towards the left, then the "lack" of emotion displayed by public radio and liberal talk show hosts would suggest that their listeners don't need the same stirring of emotions to reinforce their viewpoints - that a reasoned, rational, and intellectual (some can read this as "boring" or "lacking in passion") voice gets the job done. You could also argue, if you remember the debates, that this approach helped John Kerry lose the election in 2004.

Finally, to this:

an unserved niche.  One called, most people.

The belief that this country is primarily on one side or the other is, IMO, exactly what's causing the morass we're in. The popular vote for the winner of presidential elections has gone over 60% only four times in the last century (topping out at 61.05% - and it should be noted that two of those times were for Democrats, and two for Republicans), and is not likely to do so in 2016, regardless of which side wins. If the nation as a whole all spent a little less time worrying about being right (or more precisely, about proving the other side wrong), and little more time worrying about the actual problems at hand, then perhaps we'd get somewhere.

[Pete from Boston]

Now, if you subscribe to the idea that public radio is tilted towards the left, then the "lack" of emotion displayed by public radio and liberal talk show hosts would suggest that their listeners don't need the same stirring of emotions to reinforce their viewpoints....

MY point (I can't speak for following comments) is not simply that they lack emotion, but that the highs and lows of emotion don't match those of human beings.  They speak a dialect of what's spoken in commercials – something that sounds pleasant in a snippet but couldn't sound sincere for longer than that.  It's the audio equivalent of looking at someone who never blinks while talking to you, or the 1997 Star Wars animation that just didn't look like it could ever be mistaken for something real.

If the nation as a whole all spent a little less time worrying about being right (or more precisely, about proving the other side wrong), and little more time worrying about the actual problems at hand, then perhaps we'd get somewhere.

Amen to that. 

[cpzilliacus]

Third, as Limbaugh's 23 Updated Undeniable Truth of the Universe says "The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're
not liberals".

SP, why is it that so much of the Limbaugh audience depends on the largest federal government social programs, Medicare and Social Security?