Maybe It’s Time to Start a ‘Let AM Radio Die’ Campaign

If you want to put your money into an AM station, go ahead, have at it.

Date:

- Advertisement -Jim Cutler Voicesovers

Look, if the radio industry is going to keep pushing this “Save AM Radio” campaign on Capitol Hill, I might have to start a “Let AM Radio Die” movement.

Oh, who am I kidding? I don’t even have the energy to make a phone call, let alone lobby Congress. Still, it’s a waste of time and money to rescue a medium of limited utility when there are other, more effective options.

Yes, even in emergencies.

- Advertisement -

I could recount the technical woes that make it really hard to listen for very long, like the rising noise floor and the many stations that sold off the land underneath their towers and reduced power to save money. You know about that. You know that the industry itself has pretty much declared that AM stations need FM translator simulcasts to survive. You know that there are other media that can get emergency information out there, and while AM is useful when other media fail, it, too, can be rendered inoperative in a natural disaster. (We’ve had hurricanes and tornadoes come through here and AM radio didn’t offer anything FM and cell phones didn’t.)

Streaming has better fidelity, reaches the primary devices now used for audio. The religious and foreign language programming that occupies much of the AM dial in larger markets can and does use streaming. More AM talk and sports programming is landing on FM and podcasts. People under 55 generally have no clue that AM is even an option.

Why are we trying to prop it up? Let it go. You own an AM? If the programming is worth saving, put it on a full-power FM. You’d lose a revenue stream? Not the public’s problem. You spent a lot of money on an AM station? If you’re a big enough station group, take the write-off. If you’re a small operator, push the FCC to allow translators to originate programming. Anyone who buys an AM station and expects to make money in 2025 is only kidding themselves.

Oh, but there’s 77 WABC, right? Good 6+ ratings, loyal audience. Old audience. Very old. A rich guy bought it to do whatever he wants and help his political ambitions; revenue is beside the point. If reaching the 65+ audience is worth anything, someone else will do it on FM or streaming or podcasting. It’s condescending to suggest that seniors don’t know how to get podcasts or streaming. Most do.

If WABC’s tower in Lodi fell tomorrow and the station had to go to 100% streaming, the audience would ultimately find it, maybe not as many as they have now, but more than you’d assume. Look at TV: ABC is moving to an HD-2 channel (plus a low-power station) in Miami soon, and viewers will manage to figure things out and find their shows. It’s about the programming, not the station. If you have what people want, they’ll find it, especially if you indulge in even a little marketing.

Okay, AM isn’t really going to be shut down. There are too many people invested in those stations to just wipe them away (and imagine the whining of conservatives insisting that they’re being silenced, as if there are no other conservative media sources). And if you want to put your money into an AM radio station, go ahead, have at it. Just saying that you can probably get, what, like 4% or 5% putting that cash into a bank CD instead of losing your shirt on a facility in a shrunken market. It’s your money. Good luck with that.

Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. To stay updated, sign up for our newsletters and get the latest information delivered straight to your inbox.

- Advertisement -

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

spot_imgspot_imgspot_imgspot_img

Popular