News stations should watch for competition from low-power upstarts

http://current.org/2016/10/news-stations-should-watch-for-competition-from-low-power-upstarts/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/15/b...-that-dont-reach-far-but-reach-deep.html?_r=0

Interesting take on LPFM's though by NY times and Current.

Except LPFMs are limited in terms of money for staffing for this kind of news coverage. NPR programming costs money to carry.

Just because they CAN do this kind of thing doesn't mean they WILL.

TheBigA said:

Except LPFMs are limited in terms of money for staffing for this kind of news coverage. NPR programming costs money to carry.

Just because they CAN do this kind of thing doesn't mean they WILL.

Click to expand...

But wait in able for an LPFM to air news in some cases the selling point would be to air Democracy Now and Free Speech Radio News podcasts to attract an audience and donors. NPR Stations on the other hand would air on a 100kw station like KQED to cover the market well. Or a 50kw fm to capture an audience.

LPFM's are more niche in my area though and they are usually less than 1000 watts to transmit.

RadioPatrol said:

But wait in able for an LPFM to air news in some cases the selling point would be to air Democracy Now and Free Speech Radio News podcasts to attract an audience and donors.

Click to expand...

How is that a selling point and what does that have to do with the topic of LPFMs doing local news?

TheBigA said:

How is that a selling point and what does that have to do with the topic of LPFMs doing local news?

Click to expand...

Ok Your correct though that LPFM's may not have the budget to air local news though they are limited by two ways though by budget for news staff and target area though. In the article they say Hyperlocal news was one of the talking points for LPFM's and also an alternative to NPR as the current article said though.

RadioPatrol said:

In the article they say Hyperlocal news was one of the talking points for LPFM's and also an alternative to NPR as the current article said though.

Click to expand...

It's not a true talking point if stations can't afford to create the content. Therefore, they're not actual competition.

Wow, the writer of the current.org article is way off in my opinion. It seems to me that an LPFM is as much of a threat to a full power non-comm as The Hudson Independent with it's 13,000 plus circulation being a threat to the New York Times. Sure, a well funded LPFM can beat anyone on hyper-local news if they have a way to fund it.

Most LPFMs are operated by groups with no radio experience and mostly can barely scrape together the funds to get on the air. In fact many, when faced with leased tower sites find it nearly impossible. The biggest issue seems to be selling Underwriting and creating packages that potential businesses would feel good about investing in.

There is too much of an attitude of 'we are a non-profit and it's just not right to sell clients on the idea of benefiting from Underwriting' which is plain wrong. I contend LPFMs offer stand alone businesses trade area advertising where every dollar goes to reach potential customers without having to pay to reach those who will never become their customer. For many stations that package is a couple of spots during one weekly show...not enough to be effective or reach many of the small listenership the station has.

Programming choices are typically very poor. For some illogical reason the thinking is to do something that reaches a tiny portion of the radio audience even though the station might reach maybe 2% of a market. When you go after 1% of an audience and that audience is 50 times smaller than the other stations, it's a terrible idea. In reality, you need as many in your 60 dbu you can possibly get in order to make it. And if that means playing the 'safe' stuff, then swallow hard and play the safe stuff.

Naturally there are exceptions and some mighty fine ones. I simply talk to lots of LPFM operators and more often than not (very much more often) the above stereotypes prevail. I haven't talked to 2 or 3 but a few hundred LPFM stations. Many complain I'm 'too corporate' in my programming and 'too sales oriented' in talking Underwriting. The worst was the radio pro with about 40 years, some of those running stations, was told by the board they knew just as much about NCE radio as he did because he had never managed a NCE. Strange but true.

For LPFM, it is mom and pop single location businesses and neighborhood information combined with programming as many in your area want to hear that creates a viable station. I tell lots of folks, the station is not about you, it's about what the potential audience wants even if it isn't your cup of tea. A successful radio station operator knows what the people in their area want from radio and delivers it making sure to market it with ideas that local businesses like. (Ask the guy I worked for that loved classical and detested country but ran a great country station because that's what his town wanted).

I'd love nothing more than for LPFM to make a local impact. Unfortunately, the lack of knowledge in programming, sales and more than anything, the egos of the groups demanding their personal preferences is simply working to insure most LPFMs will ever take its rightful place in media nor be taken as seriously as LPFM should be taken. In fact, history has shown 1 in 3 existing LPFMs will turn in their license, shutting down as a failure.

I thought this related to NPR because "Weekend Edition" did a story on this right before the Sunday "Best of Car Talk".

vchimpanzee said:

I thought this related to NPR because "Weekend Edition" did a story on this right before the Sunday "Best of Car Talk".

Click to expand...

No, the Current article and the Times article appeared before Sunday morning. Apparently Weekend Edition got the story from them, just as OP did. Problem is OP apparently just reads headlines and doesn't bother to evaluate the quality of the information before rushing here to post.

The articles also make clear that the LPFM's target niche audiences, not general audiences like Public Radio news and information stations or commercial major market all news stations. In that sense, there is no competition. And, yes, if competition is defined as picking up shows from Pacifica, PRX or Free Speech Radio, then public radio stations already run that stuff on their HD sub-channels - and those shows are widely available online.

Besides niche broadcasters and hobby stations have long been around on weak stick and high-end of the band AM stations, as well as on brokered stations. Opening up more LPFMs adds nothing new. Again, as the FCC adds stations the audience continues to shrink.

Oscar Madison said:

Besides niche broadcasters and hobby stations have long been around on weak stick and high-end of the band AM stations, as well as on brokered stations. Opening up more LPFMs adds nothing new. Again, as the FCC adds stations the audience continues to shrink.

Click to expand...

Maybe in the future the audience will shrink? Because I keep reading here on RD that radio's audience hasn't shrunk. But then you have this:

"The trend lines aren’t in FM radio’s favor. A recent analysis from Edison Research and Triton Digital showed that 53 percent of all Americans listened to online audio last year, while 21 percent of American households no longer even own an FM radio — and that number jumps to 32 percent among 18-to-34-year-olds."

That was from the NY Times article.

I knew some younger folks had trouble knowing what a "radio" is, but one fifth of US households not even having one was new to me.

I have to agree: over the air radio listening is available via 1) radio; 2) mobile device and 3) online.

Streaming only stations generally do very, very poorly. The online listening is to over the air radio, iHeart and Pandora primarily. The poor stand alone streamer is severely challenged at capturing listeners.

TSL or Time Spent Listening is poor with streaming stations. From my research an average listener tunes in 3 times a month, spending less that 2 hours a calendar month with a preferred station. A typical over the air station has a listener for around 2.5 hours a week. It gets worse. Many streaming only stations have low maximum numbers where listeners cannot exceed a certain amount at any given time. Over the air radio doesn't have that. Then, Sound Exchange's pricing model eats up, for most, more revenue than the listener base can allow the operator to monetize.

DavidEduardo said:

A major error in the report is thinking that "radio" is just AM and FM. Most of us consider any form of new media delivery of our content to be "radio" too.

Click to expand...

A major about-face for DE to include "any form of new media delivery" as "radio" but this allows him to continue to claim the audience is not disappearing.

It does seem, however, that this definition excludes "new media delivery of content" from anyone not currently engaged in terrestrial or rusty tower delivery of content. Non-broadcasters took over the new media audience while broadcasters were still in denial of new media. Now broadcasters are trying to play catch-up.

So, David, on-demand is NOT "radio?" The distinction is radio is programmed, we decide and you listen. Radio has "gatekeepers." Radio does not include time-shifting (which is the essential and distinctive feature of podcasting).

As I've long suspected, broadcasters are addicted to control. They described their own mind-set in 1963:

There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We can reduce the focus to a soft blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... The Outer Limits.

Click to expand...

Nielsen Ratings have included over the air radio's online stream as a separate entry for a long time now. Oscar, you're obviously trying to pick a fight. A radio station, perhaps better described as an FCC licensed entity is what we call over the air radio and the device used to receive that broadcast can be any mode the listener chooses: radio or stream. The distinction has always been a radio station that is broadcast over the AM or FM dial PLUS online versus an online only product.

The device used to receive an over the air broadcast is changing and has been for many years. Even so, the availability of radio and the lack of cost involved has kept the device termed a radio a very popular device.

In my research, this is proven. A streaming only college station at a school of almost 12,000 has 153.7 listening hours a week. They do a fine job in programming and promotion. In fact, I'm shocked by the low number. A school with under 3,000 and an over the air and streaming option gets around 851.78 listening hours a week online. These figures indicate the over the air signal builds awareness for the online stream. In this respect, the over the air signal that promotes the online presence, increases online listening hugely. Why? The over air signal has the listeners to effect this. Likewise, a college of nearly 45,000 commissioned a study: 78.1% of listeners opted for the audio via cable TV versus the 21.9% that chose to listen online. Why? It frees up the mobile device for other things and, the big thing, it doesn't cost them anything (data) to listen.

The biggest things I have uncovered: over the air does better (even over closed circuit or cable TV audio) because they are free, don't use data the user pays for and listening online is interrupted by other uses for the phone/mobile device (try taking a call while streaming, something you can do with a device called a radio). For listening, it is not the first option on the list of things to do with a mobile device but a device called radio is the first and only option for listening to radio.

I guess the best terminology is to clarify over the air signals that may or may not stream: such listening is not falling off as the doomsayers claim. The device is changing but the product being listened to by all but a very tiny group is a the over the air signal or it's streaming version. In other words if it was 25% listening via a radio and 75% via the stream, the broadcast radio station is not losing audience, it's mode of delivery would have changed.

Now, consider this: in many cities there are over the air broadcast TV stations. How many people receive that programming in a manner other than directly over the air? Do they have no viewers because people watch them via Dish, cable or streaming?