Can The AM Band Be Saved?

[kenglish]

The info I quoted from (however old it is) said the top US Media sites are:

1) CNN

2) MSNBC

3) Fox News

4) KSL.com

[TheBigA]

The info I quoted from (however old it is) said the top US Media sites are:

4) KSL.com

KSL does well...it may get the most traffic of any radio-TV web site in the country.  But here are the latest numbers:

Estimated Traffic for Dec 01, 2011 - Dec 30, 2011 United States 
People per Month 844,726 +25%
Visits per Month 12,768,039 +1%

But as I said in my post, the point of media isn't about reach.  The goal isn't to change minds. The purpose is to serve the public.  That means giving them what they want.  Using a site like this to tell people not to use flourescent lights because they affect audio quality of AM radio is a waste of time.  You see how much luck Al Gore has telling people about hydro-carbons.

[DavidEduardo]

I am here to tell you, should you need reminding, that the average listener does not care about the advertiser and listens to radio for his/her entertainment/information.  It is all well and good to be concerned about the advertisers and revenue, we all understand radio is a business, but if the needle swings too far in that direction the listeners will go elsewhere.

But radio is in the advertising business, not the listener business.

Just as CocaCola is in the soft drink business, not the flavoring business or the can business. Flavors and cans are raw materials for the product, and enormously important. But Coke sells the product as a soft drink.

Just as radio sells advertising. Our "raw material" is listenership. It's critical to have the best listenership possible, but only if we have enough and of the right "flavors" can we make money.

Garlic flavor soda has little appeal to a soft drink consumer. Just as listeners over 55 have no appeal to most advertisers. But that does not reduce the importance of having the right "ingredients" and for radio that means being listener driven in programming or on the sales side there will be no advertiser appeal.

[DavidEduardo]

The very few AM signals I could get in my car, day or night, were either limited to a few miles.

Keep in mind that the allocations plan for radio was based on conditions in the early 30's.

- Cities were much smaller. Low power could cover most metros.
- Interference was much less. No computers, dimmers, etc.
- There were no car radios.
- Most listening was at night. The major network shows had big regional or clear channels and that was enough.
- The "Best" allocations ended up where the population was 80 years ago... Flint and not Phoenix, in other words.

There was once a wonderful AM station in Phoenix with a huge signal.  But they moved it up the dial to a signal that doesn't even cover the metro area.

The calls moved, not the station. KOY switched to talk, and then 1230 took a standards format and they gave the KOY calls to it to change the image of 550 AM to "FYI." Dumb or not, the station did not move.

  They put talk radio on the big signal but that hasn't been a good move so now are considering moving the talk signal to one of the best FM signals in the Valley.  If they continue with this "strategy" they will have wrecked one of the best AM's and one of the best FM signals. 

KOY/KFY as a talker moved to the top, and stayed there, beating KTAR which had been a leader for decades. Now that KTAR moved to FM, and is regularly beating KFYI in the sales demos, KFYI is obviously considering that it is time to move the product to FM as AM no longer has much appeal and the noise levels in the Phoenix metro are hard on that night signal, which is pretty limited.

Changes in listener preferences among those under 55 motivated changing the old MOR KOY 550 to talk. The same is happening with KFYI AM in considering going to FM.

The KOY calls may have been considered too identified with "old radio" and "old farts" to be kept on the talker... anyone's guess is good as to why they moved them.

And when all the audience is on smart phones and other such devices, they will shut down the AM and FM transmitters.

[DavidEduardo]

I thought the purpose of the media (in this case, broadcasters) was to CHANGE people's minds.

In programming, the job is to reflect people's tastes. When you try to change tastes, such as too much new music or new genres or talk with a slant the listener does not expect, people tune out. In my opinion, radio does not make taste, although it may expand tastes a bit.

In advertising, the function of radio is to convey a message. That is why it is an advertising medium, an advertising intermediary. The message is the responsibility of the advertiser... the intent may be to create awareness, provide information, enhance image, etc. The overall intent is to make an eventual sale, obviously. But radio does not do anything except convey the message.

[kenglish]

But, don't we (and the advertisers) try to change people's minds as to what they want....telling them that "Brand-X' dog food might be better for their dog than "Brand-Z", or a new, diet version of their favorite frozen entree is better suited to their tastes?
I'm not trying to say we tell them to eat their dog, but that some subtle changes might be beneficial.

[TheBigA]

But, don't we (and the advertisers) try to change people's minds as to what they want....

It's nice to have that confidence.  But realistically, all you have is a shot.  You have a platform and a chance to reach people.  You give it your best shot.  When you meet with an advertiser, your case is that you can reach so many people.  The advertiser may feel they have an undeniable message that just needs to be heard.  But the fact is that the success is a function of the message, not the medium any more.  Because everyone has access to an audience.  You want documented evidence that the broadcast of a message led to a sale.  That's not always easy to prove in broadcasting.  But radio can by PART of an overall strategic marketing plan. 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

This won't work in a lot of cases, but in the middle of the past century,  this guy out in Moberly, MO had this philosophy that worked very well for him in a small rural market.  He would accept only adverting copy that he referred to as "price and item copy".  No institutional ads as he called them.  I have heard other people call them administrative ads or image ads.  I can tell you from experience that if you brought in some bland copy like "they are good people to do business with" Shep would turn you around and point to the front door and send you back to get acceptable copy.

His simple rationale was:  I wan't people walking through the front door of the store asking:  where are those boots you advertised on the radio?  I want to see new spring dresses they talked about on the radio.

Times have changed.  (Try convincing the manager of the Big Box retailer that your station owner knows more about advertising on the radio than does your corporate office ad people.)

I find it interesting to tell the Shepherd story now and then and when everyone in the room says "that won't work today"  (doesn't have to be limited to the radio businesses) I simply smile and mumble some like:  Well, you seem to be a pretty smart person.  Think about that guy in Missouri 30, 40, 50 years ago and tell me what will work in OUR situation today that parallels what he did. 

Makes for interesting discussion  Sometimes a good idea comes out of the conversation.

(I got a particularly dirty look from Jerrell one day when I asked him what he expected a funeral home to put in a "price and item" ad.)

[borderblaster]

Now at Ned's Funeral Home, 2 funerals, just $1995.

[secondchoice]

Now at Ned's Funeral Home, 2 funerals, just $1995.

Don't laugh too hard, last summer while visiting relatives in the Tri Cites, I saw a bill board where one funeral home claimed to be $1200 cheaper the another funereal home for the same services.