Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 55

Thread: siilent AM stations

  1. #21
    WEll, they let private parties play DJ with their own playlist - why not with actual programs? The advantage to them would be that they ciould insert x minutes of commercials per hour just like Live 360.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Art Landing View Post
    The advantage to them would be that they ciould insert x minutes of commercials per hour just like Live 360.
    Depends....there's not a whole lot of money to be made by online commercials. Tens of thousands of page-views translate to maybe a couple hundred bucks. You really need to aggregate a big number to make it work. It works for YouTube and Google. Not so much when you have a bunch of radio stations with a few listeners apiece. And as you said in your previous post, it takes a lot of time to produce actual programs.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Art Landing View Post
    WEll, they let private parties play DJ with their own playlist - why not with actual programs? The advantage to them would be that they ciould insert x minutes of commercials per hour just like Live 360.
    Because picking a few songs isn't a big deal. When someone playing radio goes on their stream with a "program", it reflects on their product. All you have to do is go to Blogtalk and listen to some of the people who think they're doing "radio" to understand why Clear Channel wouldn't want their name associated with that.

  4. #24
    I'm not acquainted with blogtalk - maybe I should drop by just to be informed - but your point is well taken. That is why I specified "screened and approved internet non-music stations." I was thinking in terms of screening out bigots, conspiracy wackos and informercials as opposed to bona fide internet stations such as are on Live 360. The screening consideration certainly would extend to what you're apparently referring to on blogtalk.

    What we did on our Internet station would compare favorably to some of the programs on KHTS (Home town station) in Santa Clarita (hometownstation.com if you want to check it out). From 1998-2003 what is now KHTS was actually owned with different call letters by Clear Channel. The problem is that because we were internet only our audience penetration for our service srea wasn't equal to what KHTS does.

  5. #25
    I'm not even talking about the wackos, which really is the majority of pretend talk shows, I'm just talking about the quality of the programming. There are a few people who have actually done real radio that make their shows to the same quality, but the majority of it is just a bunch of idiots yapping into gaming headsets and pretending they're doing big time radio.

    I think there's a market for a streaming company that would sort through the garbage and find the good ones, but it isn't in Clear Channel's interest to do that.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Where Appalachia collides with Atlanta
    Posts
    4,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Art Landing View Post

    I was thinking in terms of screening out bigots, conspiracy wackos and infomercials as opposed to bona fide internet stations such as are on Live 360.
    WHO would get to be the screener? Who would compose the screening rules and hand them to the screener who would then in turn decide who is qualified to have a broadcast and who is not.

    There was a time when I had confidence that we could hand the screening process to some individual, some company, and let them do the job. (It was an implied task of anyone or any company who became a broadcast licensee.) Today I am losing confidence that the American Civilization implants the genes and protein into the heads of citizens that would make them capable of such discernment.

    Congress today is populated by members who would not have passed the screening test of 30 and 40 years ago.
    Life is too short to waste time dancing with ugly posts

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Goat Rodeo Cowboy View Post


    I think you are addressing what is equitable for the station OWNER.

    I was addressing what is equitable for the COMMUNITY.

    If you have a major metro area with 25 to 45 stations, then your logic could be front and center. The FCC simply needs to deal with a owner that can't, won't, refuses to deal with the rules and expectations.

    But when you are considering how the rules and enforcement affect the COMMUNITY and we are talking about maybe a community with only one station, maybe it would be EQUITABLE for the community to have a seat at the table. If their station is owned by an licensee who seems to have "juvenile Delinquent Mentality" maybe there should be a mechanism that opens up the license for a new licensee. The way it works today, a licensee can take one of those stations to his/her grave if they wish, and the community stands by in ingnorance and helplessness.
    All well and good, but how is that different from enforcing the existing regulations which would cause the bad owner to cease operations due to fines and/or the inability to get the license renewed due to fines? It may also cause the bad owner to sell and get out, which in either case opens the station up to new ownership. One thing that there is no way of dealing with though - the facility is privately owned and AM stations are very costly to build from scratch, so unless the owner sells the facility, you are still going to have one less poorly run, interference causing AM station on the map. I would argue that one less poorly run station is a good thing in almost all cases, even in some rural areas where there are fewer stations.

  8. #28
    The other issue is how local are these poorly run AM stations in rural areas? No profit for years, so most of them are far from local and are running satellite programming. This issue has been discussed to death - one local station and all they do is run off of the bird almost all of the time. How big a loss is it if that is the case? If it can't survive, let it die, and maybe even hasten it's demise by just enforcing the existing regulations.

    And don't even get me started on LMA's that are nowhere near legal.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by ok walters View Post
    If it can't survive, let it die, and maybe even hasten it's demise by just enforcing the existing regulations.
    But as I said earlier, why would the FCC decrease the number of licensees, especially when it knows that no one would want this station if it went dark? That's why they turn their head in so many cases. Plus the fact that they're so short staffed in DC.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Where Appalachia collides with Atlanta
    Posts
    4,509
    Quote Originally Posted by ok walters View Post

    The other issue is how local are these poorly run AM stations in rural areas? No profit for years, so most of them are far from local and are running satellite programming.
    Careful how you assemble the fact at hand, and what conclusions you draw.

    I worked for 15 different radio stations during my years of radio. Most of them didn't have a clue when it came to being creative and creating a product that was sellable. It was an era of "monkey see, monkey do". This is what everyone else in doing... it must be the thing to do!

    Are AM stations in rural area failing because of their market, or are they failing because "monkey see, monkey do" management is copying their most favorite big-market station thinking this is what will make my station successful.
    Life is too short to waste time dancing with ugly posts

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

     
Useful Contacts
Community


123