• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Who's listening to these fm translators?

B

bobdavcav

Star Participant
Is it too early to ask for numbers from stations that have recently gotten an fm translator? The one that's got me all worked up right now is the Catholic station in my market has just signed on a new translator at 100.3, taking out the huge signal of a Canadian rock station with a huge signal that was easily audible throughout the north end of the market. The problem I have with this is that I can't think of anyone under 40, and that may be pushing it, maybe even under 50, that listens to Catholic radio regularly. In fact, I only have ever known two listeners to Catholic radio regularly. One has been dead for nearly 10 years, and the other one was certainly over 40 if not 50 when I saw him last, that was 7 years ago. So, what's the benefit of this station having a translator? I'm not quite as angry about the other translator in my market at 94.5, for two reasons:
1. It was an existing translator that had been around for at least 10 years and was on its third input from what I can gather since signing on.
2. The Canadian it takes out is already pretty weak by the time the translator cuts in. No, DXers may not be happy that that translator exists, but the average listener will likely have tuned away long before the translator interference on 94.5, while I heard 100.3 at the ice rink last time I was there, which was just a few months ago. Not only is that signal very usable, I mistook it as a local signal when I first discovered it 12 years ago. In any event, my question is just as, if not more valid with the second translator, because it rebroadcasts an AM that does subscribe to the ratings, with a Conservative Talk format. This arrangement has also been going on for a year and a half now, as opposed to the 100.3 translator, which I just discovered the other night. Even so, I haven't seen any kind of bump in the station's ratings. So, how much are these translators really helping?
 
bobdavcav said:
Is it too early to ask for numbers from stations that have recently gotten an fm translator? The one that's got me all worked up right now is the Catholic station in my market has just signed on a new translator at 100.3, taking out the huge signal of a Canadian rock station with a huge signal that was easily audible throughout the north end of the market. The problem I have with this is that I can't think of anyone under 40, and that may be pushing it, maybe even under 50, that listens to Catholic radio regularly. In fact, I only have ever known two listeners to Catholic radio regularly. One has been dead for nearly 10 years, and the other one was certainly over 40 if not 50 when I saw him last, that was 7 years ago. So, what's the benefit of this station having a translator? I'm not quite as angry about the other translator in my market at 94.5, for two reasons:
1. It was an existing translator that had been around for at least 10 years and was on its third input from what I can gather since signing on.
2. The Canadian it takes out is already pretty weak by the time the translator cuts in. No, DXers may not be happy that that translator exists, but the average listener will likely have tuned away long before the translator interference on 94.5, while I heard 100.3 at the ice rink last time I was there, which was just a few months ago. Not only is that signal very usable, I mistook it as a local signal when I first discovered it 12 years ago. In any event, my question is just as, if not more valid with the second translator, because it rebroadcasts an AM that does subscribe to the ratings, with a Conservative Talk format. This arrangement has also been going on for a year and a half now, as opposed to the 100.3 translator, which I just discovered the other night. Even so, I haven't seen any kind of bump in the station's ratings. So, how much are these translators really helping?
Click to expand...

There is a wide range of reasons for a translator.

In the case of a Catholic station, they may well believe that one soul that was saved is worth the expense... they are not ratings driven.

Since we don't know how much of a translator's audience is the FM or the AM or other FM or HD-2 or HD-3 that they translate, we can't really tell what the translator adds.

In some markets, there are translators for HD channels with 3 share results... Austin, for example. So a lot depends on the market, and the skill with which the translator is programmed.
 
I think the short answer is the number of FM radio listeners versus AM radio listeners. I have seen figures of 5-15% of radio listening happens on the AM dial and I'd think in most markets it is generally 10% or less.

So, a translator hitting 200,000 people in a market of 1,000,000 that can be reached by the AM signal would generally mean a translator might have double the number of listeners by covering 20% of the population served by the AM station.

As for Christian Radio, statistics I find are 6.2% of radio listening is to Christian Radio. 58% prefer Christian music formats and 42% to talk and teaching formats. The Catholic denomination has a large percentage of converts as a mainline denomination, generally 20% although in some markets it is over 50% and as low as 5% in the worst markets. Catholic Radio formats attempt to be broad based with more general interest talk and dispensing the Catholic slant in addressing subjects. At times the programming sounds rather secular. In addition, most Christian radio listeners tend to have long TSLs and tend to listen almost exclusively to Christian radio. They might only get a 1.0 overall but the AQH is better than with secular stations with a 1.0 and listeners tend to be pretty loyal to business supporters.

As for translators in general, I think even though the coverage is only a small part of a market in general, the number of listeners on FM can double to triple the audience of AM alone. I'd suppose if a translator of an AM would be given primary status and the FCC allowed, many AM operators would turn in the AM license if only to lower operating expenses and literally put them in the black ink.
 
A big benefit for an AM with a translator is to have a better signal when the primary needs to switch to a night pattern.

As to how many listeners might be added, a look at 5-6 successive books after the translator goes online should be able to indicate if there is an impact. I know there's a lot of variation in that as someone wearing a PPM meter would have to find the new station. If not accompanied by some marketing, I don't think generally a translator does much.
 
David, the first point you raise about Catholic radio warrants a thread of its own, so I'll simply stick to my original question. Also, I don't think the HD to translators you reference are relevant to this discussion, as I'd be willing to bet that 90% or more of those listeners come from the translator. My question had to do with existing stations that already have a listener base on AM. The second station I reference is KTTH, which has had an fm signal for about a year and a half. I've seen no statistically significant bump in their ratings since 94.5 went to simulcasting KTTH. Another station in Portland, KXTG, actually started its current format on fm before moving to its current frequency, where it was exclusively for over three years before getting a translator. They didn't start marketing the translator until it changed frequencies, but that was nearly four years ago. Again, I've seen no statistically significant bump in their ratings. True, they're the top or second of four sports stations, but at least in some books, they get beat by a competitor that only has an am signal. I When I posted my question last night, I already understood the argument broadcasters make for clogging up the band with translators that kill reception of distant stations, but I haven't seen evidence to back up that argument.
 
bobdavcav said:
David, the first point you raise about Catholic radio warrants a thread of its own, so I'll simply stick to my original question. Also, I don't think the HD to translators you reference are relevant to this discussion, as I'd be willing to bet that 90% or more of those listeners come from the translator. My question had to do with existing stations that already have a listener base on AM. The second station I reference is KTTH, which has had an fm signal for about a year and a half. I've seen no statistically significant bump in their ratings since 94.5 went to simulcasting KTTH. Another station in Portland, KXTG, actually started its current format on fm before moving to its current frequency, where it was exclusively for over three years before getting a translator. They didn't start marketing the translator until it changed frequencies, but that was nearly four years ago. Again, I've seen no statistically significant bump in their ratings. True, they're the top or second of four sports stations, but at least in some books, they get beat by a competitor that only has an am signal. I When I posted my question last night, I already understood the argument broadcasters make for clogging up the band with translators that kill reception of distant stations, but I haven't seen evidence to back up that argument.
Click to expand...

This is a math problem where we are missing key data to solve an equation.

In this case, Nielsen does not give us separate AM and translator data... it's all combined and can't be broken out.

So we have a question about how much the translator contributes, but we also have the variables of programming, competition and even the geography of the Nielsen sample. Some of these are specific, but others are very subjective and can't be quantified.

If you try to evaluate the sports situation you described, we need to examine things like how well local teams were doing during the period under evaluation, the changes in each station's talent and focus, and all the resulting nuances, along with the addition of a translator.

And a translator can be used simply to move an existing audience to FM, or to expand listening because of the preference for FM or in cases such as a highly directional AM, a daytime AM or a low-power high-dial AM that actually covers less than the translator.

If you take all those factors into account, you can do your own "was it worth it" evaluation.

Oh, and don't forget that many advertisers will think that it's a "better deal" if there is an FM in the package because most people understand that AM is not used by many, as Mr Turner has well described in a prior post.
 
It also depends on what type of Catholic programming we are talking about.

We used to have a Catholic station here that aired some fairly engaging talk shows.
There is another outfit that actually owns 3 stations in the market and simulcasts.
Their programming is all very deep Inside Baseball stuff about the church that probably
appeals to the 25 people who attend Mass in Latin over at St. Boniface.
 
I agree.It depends on the programming. The bulk of Catholic stations use one of the Catholic satellite feeds that tend to sound more like talk radio most hours and then supplement with a few local shows. I've heard of a few that are way out in left field sticking to older Catholic traditions including some Latin, Gregorian Chant and such few would find appealing.
 
The Catholic broadcasters I'm familiar with are all lay organizations, and at least some tend to be more conservative, and have no official connection to the heirarchy. They don't seem to be all that focused on getting protestants or "nones" to turn Catholic.
 
Those I know of are lay organizations as well. No lay organization would launch a station without the 'blessing' of the Diocese (aka permission) and would adhere to official Diocese directives. Without that, they don't get the backing and support of the clergy and parish membership but would be viewed as an off-shoot organization not in sync with the Church. While programming is directed to the choir versus the masses, the idea is to 'soft sell' the mindset through programming others that might not be Catholic might like as well. They do this by discussing issues common to all or most people, Catholic or not. With that said, they'd be careful to 'not water down' or downplay the Catholic slant on things. Such stations are going to do the Rosary and likely a mass each day, for example, as part of their programming. Denominational programming has it's own culture and protocol that is outside the realm of radio.
 
DavidEduardo said:


This is a math problem where we are missing key data to solve an equation.

In this case, Nielsen does not give us separate AM and translator data... it's all combined and can't be broken out.

So we have a question about how much the translator contributes, but we also have the variables of programming, competition and even the geography of the Nielsen sample. Some of these are specific, but others are very subjective and can't be quantified.

If you try to evaluate the sports situation you described, we need to examine things like how well local teams were doing during the period under evaluation, the changes in each station's talent and focus, and all the resulting nuances, along with the addition of a translator.

And a translator can be used simply to move an existing audience to FM, or to expand listening because of the preference for FM or in cases such as a highly directional AM, a daytime AM or a low-power high-dial AM that actually covers less than the translator.

If you take all those factors into account, you can do your own "was it worth it" evaluation.

Oh, and don't forget that many advertisers will think that it's a "better deal" if there is an FM in the package because most people understand that AM is not used by many, as Mr Turner has well described in a prior post.
Click to expand...

Ok, you raise several good points that I'll try my best to break down one by one.
1. In the case of the Portland sports station, I think the only team in question would be the Timbers, though Seattle Seahawks might contribute as well. The last time I looked at Portland's ratings though the Seahawks hadn't started preseason yet, and though I think the Timbers are doing pretty well, I admit I don't follow sports much, except when it comes to baseball, and that's not really a factor here since the Mariners are on Entercom's second sports station.
2. As far as content, I know when Entercom ditched CBS sports for ESPN, KXTG ditched NBC for CBS, and they have made some local changes as well, not sure how well those were doing.
3. I would think with some marketing, even simply pointing out the fm, you'd see some kind of bump in the ratings. Let's say their's a sports station running 300 watts at 1580 that's highly directional. Its average rating over the past year has been a 0.7, then they get a translator and start identifying it on air. Over the next six months, the average rating has bumped up to a 1.3. I would think that bump would be significant enough to attribute to the translator, even if we can't get data directly about how the translator does itself. It is numbers like that that I was hoping for, and that I have not seen since these translators have signed on.
 
My gripe is not content related but rather the technical issue of translator signals interfering with the strong clear signal of distant radio stations. At my location in Greenville, SC, several LPFM or translator stations now interfere with the clear signal reception of full power stations from the neighboring market of Charlotte, NC. The low power WXRU now interferes with the full power WLNK on 107.9-FM, which always used to come in clear. Car reception is now problematic, although my home radio will still pull in the WLNK signal with rabbit ears, including the HD. So obviously a strong signal is still there, but riding in the car you have static and interference with 2 stations on the same channel. Even worse a Hispanic translator station on 102.9-FM now drowns out WLKO variety hits from Charlotte, also on 102.9-FM. These low power signals should have only been allowed in Anderson County where the Charlotte signals begin to drop out, not in Greenville where the Charlotte signals were previously clear. But apparently this annoying trend of translator interference is occurring nationwide. Seems like the rules were changed a few years ago.
 
I hear your gripe many times. As a fan of hearing distant stations, I understand.

Imagine, if you will, a long road stretching to the horizon with nothing to block the view. Off in the distance is a street light. The purpose of the light is to illuminate a certain intersection at night by extending light out far enough for a vehicle to see the intersection and slowdown to make the turn. Because it is the only intersection on this road for some distance, the light can be observed from afar. As time moves on, other smaller side streets are built and street lights erected. From the same spot you could clearly observe the once single street light, you find the new street lights at the new intersections make observing the original street light impossible.

Given the once lone street light was only intended to light a certain area, it still does so although you cannot see it from afar. The new street lights serve their purpose as well by illuminating the respective intersections where they are placed.They all serve their purpose as intended.

The radio dial is much like this. The new stations block the original station you once heard. The reality is that distant station that cannot now be heard was never intended to be heard so far away. As the frequency filled up with other stations that meet the FCC's distance separation requirements, you cannot hear the once lone station. That station on the uncrowded frequency was once heard in areas it was never intended to be heard.

The new stations are not at fault. They meet all the requirements. It's just that the unused spaces are now getting used.

Obviously this does not offer a solution but it does explain what is happening. I offer this because some think the FCC okays stations that willfully interfere with others or that its like the old west and broadcasters are just claiming space they have no right to. Neither is the case. The new station never gets a construction permit until it proves it meets all the criteria and distance to not cause interference to other stations as per FCC Rules.
 
tylerSC said:
My gripe is not content related but rather the technical issue of translator signals interfering with the strong clear signal of distant radio stations. At my location in Greenville, SC, several LPFM or translator stations now interfere with the clear signal reception of full power stations from the neighboring market of Charlotte, NC. The low power WXRU now interferes with the full power WLNK on 107.9-FM, which always used to come in clear. Car reception is now problematic, although my home radio will still pull in the WLNK signal with rabbit ears, including the HD. So obviously a strong signal is still there, but riding in the car you have static and interference with 2 stations on the same channel. Even worse a Hispanic translator station on 102.9-FM now drowns out WLKO variety hits from Charlotte, also on 102.9-FM. These low power signals should have only been allowed in Anderson County where the Charlotte signals begin to drop out, not in Greenville where the Charlotte signals were previously clear. But apparently this annoying trend of translator interference is occurring nationwide. Seems like the rules were changed a few years ago.
Click to expand...

I completely understand your argument, and it's part of the reason I asked the question. Actually, I think I started this thread after encountering a similar situation on 100.3, which has a huge signal here in the Puget Sound region, coming off of Vancouver Island, suddenly being covered up by a Catholic translator. The other translator in my market is at 94.5, which, while that's also on top of a Canadian signal, isn't nearly as strong. I've gotten, and probably still can get, CFBT if I turn my antenna just right, but it isn't, and never has been, a usable signal this far south. I don't really care what your programming is, all I was saying basically is "prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you actually need this translator." Another example is out of Albany, where WAIX 1160 had a 106.1 translator. This was a class D station, so logic says that sure, it should have a translator, that should solve its problems. So, what happened? It is now one of four AM stations in the market that is dark. Yeah, that translator helped, huh? I think not.
 
It's less if you need a translator but rather that you meet the criteria to get one. The FCC doesn't just dole those out to anybody. By the way, some of the translators just coming on in the last couple of years have been waiting well over a decade to around 15 years for approval. In some instances they had to fend off many applicants for the same frequency and incur sometimes tens of thousands of dollars to defend their application. In many instances new sites had to be found and applications adjusted for all the new stations after doing the engineering in the first round.
 
I have a situation where there are two translators on 101.7 that fight each other where I live in Alamo, TN, which is about 20 to 25 miles from both. One is a K-LOVE translator in Brownsville, TN that was actually there first, and the other was a translator for WTRO in Dyersburg, TN, which had previously been on 102.5 and 102.1, but moved to 101.7 later. I actually would rather be able to get WTRO, but the fact is K-LOVE was there first, and I think WTRO's translator should be on another frequency.
 
It will be interesting in the long haul whether providers and station groups of Catholic programming see benefit or gains (soul saving, or otherwise) of making such a large stake in radio. Organizations like EMF have been doing well at it, paying crazy prices for stations, but it's taken several years to become the big dog of religious radio. Other bilk-little-old-ladies-out-of-their-life-savings groups like barely-breathing Family Radio, concentrated on AM stations to reach those little ol' ladies. Salem started with the same model as Family, but went more 'mass appeal' with right wing talk, now the pursuit of translators for all their AM's.
 
I never understood Catholic radio. Because Catholics have traditionally avoided a large national mass media presence in the US until about 20 years ago. Even hearing the Rosary on the radio was a rare thing in most places (although it was a regular daily thing on KBLE for decades BEFORE the Catholics bought it. At least since the early '80s.)
 
Bongwater said:
I never understood Catholic radio. Because Catholics have traditionally avoided a large national mass media presence in the US until about 20 years ago. Even hearing the Rosary on the radio was a rare thing in most places (although it was a regular daily thing on KBLE for decades BEFORE the Catholics bought it. At least since the early '80s.)
Click to expand...

Check your history on that. Father Charles Coughlin, a Detroit priest, had a HUGE national following on
NBC Radio back in the 1930's.
 
The Catholic church is a centralized, beaureacratic organization. Protestantism is split by thousands of denominations and independents (anyone can rent a storefront and start a church), and more entrepreneurial. Therefore you get preachers who will buy radio time, and sometimes declare themselves to be the new modern-day prophet (see the Armstrongs and Brother Stair)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom