AM-Man wrote:

AM radio is dying for the very same reason Hollywood is dying. Lower standards, and left leaning woke bs. The people on AM radio today are for the most part horrible at their jobs, that's because if you fit the category they are looking for you are hired! The best of the best don't matter today. Even this board is a left leaning echo chamber.    

re: AM-Man: "AM radio is dying for the very same reason Hollywood is dying. Lower standards, and left leaning woke bs.? 

The likes of Jerry Agar, Mark Towhey, Alex Pierson will most likely take offence being labeled as purveyors of left leaning woke bs ..

Stay in your MAGA, alternative facts, outrage, echo chamber, you'll be happier .. 
 

AM-Man wrote:

AM radio is dying for the very same reason Hollywood is dying. Lower standards, and left leaning woke bs. The people on AM radio today are for the most part horrible at their jobs, that's because if you fit the category they are looking for you are hired! The best of the best don't matter today. Even this board is a left leaning echo chamber.    

I actually laughed out loud when I saw this.

Since Jim Bohannan left his show just before his passing, I can't find single show other than NPR on US talk radio that is even slightly right or centrist.  Bohannan leaned right but he was rational.  AM radio, particularly in the US, is the home of complete lunatics.  It's a bunch of racist old men hoping to get noticed by Donald Trump.  In Canada it's a bunch of rich centre right men who love their own voices.  Other than the CBC where are you finding left leaning talk?

RadioActive wrote:

All that bloodletting came at a big cost. 

Bell spent $80 million on severance costs in the second quarter amid sweeping job cuts

However, with all of the hate-on for Bell shutting down AM stations, it's not just Bell.
https://gta.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=10306

 

Marc1178 wrote:

Another possible buyer is Evanov Communications.

Now that Arise radio has been shut down, I highly doubt it. 

So what was the plan, all those years ago?

The conglomerates decided to acquire any and all radio and TV stations they could. They boasted of synergy, rationalisation and savings; all to "better serve the public".

However, what they failed to ask the public was, "Do you want to lose your local news, sports and weather?"

Now that the big guys have determined that more money can be made by ignoring local...guess what's going. You got it in one: local.

Legislation should have been enacted, decades ago, that owners (and subsequent owners) must maintain a local news, sports and weather capability...IN HOUSE.

Don't like that requirement? Then don't buy the local station (that you wish to destroy to increase your corporate bottom line).

Dial Twister wrote:

So what was the plan, all those years ago?

The conglomerates decided to acquire any and all radio and TV stations they could. They boasted of synergy, rationalisation and savings; all to "better serve the public".

In this case, "the public" = these companies' faceless, greedy, heartless, soulless, spineless, brainless, snooty, good-for-NOTHING shareholders. Absolute bloody scum of the earth. A malignant cancer of society. There is nobody lower in society than these scumbags. The world would be a hell of a lot better without these jackasses who are NEVER satisfied and are ALWAYS short-sighted and NEVER look at the big picture.

Regarding BCE's second quarter results last week.  It is again worth noting, nowhere in the long financial report released to the public was there any mention of radio.

Previous financial updates included at least a paragraph on radio in the Bell Media portion.  This time there didn't appear to be any reference to the companies significant radio operations.  Bell owns over 100 stations in 58 markets across the country.
. 
Digital, TSN, CTV, Noovo (Bell's french OTA network), Crave etc. were mentioned or information updated on how these platforms performed. 

The company did just quietly sell their majority stake in the Pinewood Studio complex in Toronto.  Bell had recently completed a large expansion of studios and facilities and then turned around and sold their controlling stake in the lakefront property. 

I wonder if the company is going to start selling off some of their radio properties?  This in addition to the three AM operations that are currently on the market or possibly already sold.  

If they do start shifting out of radio, I hope it is done in chunks or geographically. This would make it easier to sell smaller groups of stations and in the long run Bell would make more money from the sale. 

Pattison Media would be a prime company to buy up stations in Eastern Canada where currently they own none.  Pattison is a broadcast company with interesting and varied formats with a successful track record in radio in Western Canada, both for revenue and ratings.

Also selling stations off geographically would give medium and smaller broadcast companies who are usually profitable a chance to plant their flag in some larger markets.

But Bell may need to be prepared to take a haircut on some stations if they do want to exit radio.  To their credit they did update stations with new equipment and studios over the years. With the exception of whatever AM operations they still have, most stations technically are in reasonable shape from what I have been told.  

I know most here won't agree with me, but if you can offer programming that's different or compelling enough, AM or FM won't matter in the end. But the cookie cutter stuff we have now prevents it from ever coming true. 

If you could get someone to confess he was in on the assassination of John F. Kennedy on the grassy knoll in 1963 and he had the evidence to prove it, I wouid listen - no matter what band it was on. Far fetched, yes, but the point is I continue to believe if you build it, they will come. 

Leave things as they are, and they won't. 

RadioActive wrote:

I know most here won't agree with me, but if you can offer programming that's different or compelling enough, AM or FM won't matter in the end. But the cookie cutter stuff we have now prevents it from ever coming true. 

If you could get someone to confess he was in on the assassination of John F. Kennedy on the grassy knoll in 1963 and he had the evidence to prove it, I wouid listen - no matter what band it was on. Far fetched, yes, but the point is I continue to believe if you build it, they will come. 

Leave things as they are, and they won't. 

Listening levels aren't even the current central challenge for the medium; it's the fragmented advertising industry. Even if listening were at 1980s levels, revenues would be down significantly.

If radio is going to overcome this, I agree things need to change, but you're not going to like the direction. Australia offers a model that works: you need fewer brands, with a base of strong national programming and promotion with room for good local content. Quebec has been doing this for decades. 

Scaling down only increases your cost per station without significant improvement in revenue.
 

g121 wrote:

Does anyone have good options for other stand-up comedy channels that aren't profanity-fests? 

Not trying to be snarky at all, I promise (because my answer involves sidestepping the radio).  I would sooner either watch Tubi with classic episodes of Dick Cavett (my girlfriend and I were watching Bob Newhart and a couple other funny people as guests), or I would just spin classic comedy LPs.  You can find it all on YouTube as well.

 

RadioAaron wrote:

paterson1 wrote:

I Pattison is a broadcast company with interesting and varied formats with a successful track record in radio in Western Canada, both for revenue and ratings.
 

Pattison doesn't operate any formats that the other guys don't. They VT smaller markets from bigger ones just like everyone else.

Be careful what you wish for with hoping for a sell-off.

New owners can't control the state of the advertising market or the increasing costs of staying on the air.

I agree that in most ways, Pattison and a few others are traditional broadcasters.  Pattison has been successful and did pioneer the conversation/music format that Today Radio in Toronto is attempting.  Pattison has made this format popular out west and Today is still trying to find their place here in Toronto. 

As we know, Pattison runs a very successful country FM, where this type of format shouldn't be so popular.  Vancouver's JR FM does quite well in a market that is very diversified, multicultural and competitive.  And listening to some of their Rock FM stations, maybe it is just because I don't hear them much, but they are a nice change from Q 107 and seem to play songs that Q doesn't play.  Finally any on air talent I have heard is well trained and good on air.

You are correct that like all broadcasters, Pattison and others are first and foremost  businesses and they are not afraid to streamline, cut costs, and lay off staff if conditions warrant or they go into the red.  So we need to be careful thinking that "real broadcasters" will suddenly staff the newsroom at CFRB again, or bring back live late evening programming.

Hopefully though they will be more attentive to detail and not let poorly produced over modulated voice tracking go to air the same way that Bell stations do, especially in smaller markets.  And the way that Bell has programmed some AM stations over the years has been shameful.  Bloomberg Radio in Hamilton has been poorly executed since day one in February 2021.  The station on air still has too many technical glitches.  At least it seems that way whenever I have tuned them in.  The bare minimum of effort and it shows.   

RadioAaron wrote:

Jody Thornton wrote:

RadioAaron wrote:

If radio is going to overcome this, I agree things need to change, but you're not going to like the direction. Australia offers a model that works: you need fewer brands, with a base of strong national programming and promotion with room for good local content. Quebec has been doing this for decades. 

Scaling down only increases your cost per station without significant improvement in revenue.
 

I'm not sure what you're specifically saying that's not to like?  Are you proposing an idea that involves networking and stronger spending on national content?  I know that was tried and failed with sports, but what did your idea involve?  Are you saying that your idea would involve less local content, but more money would be paid towards the national talent?
 

Yes, investment in talent is the only way to extend radio's life. That means big salaries and big marketing. The revenue required to do this simply isn't available on the local level.

Maybe not, but the success of Buddy Shula in Buffalo with WECK-AM (and now on FM as well) gives me hope that anything is still possible if the people in charge simply care enough.  

RadioAaron wrote:

paterson1 wrote:

Pattison has been successful and did pioneer the conversation/music format that Today Radio in Toronto is attempting.  Pattison has made this format popular out west and Today is still trying to find their place here in Toronto.  

Pattison didn't make that a success; Rawlco did. Pattison just bought it, and their attempts to duplicate it have led to them landing in last place in Vancouver and Winnipeg.

Pattison doesn't create; they buy. They had $14billion in revenue last year - slightly less than Bell (all of Bell) and three times that of Rogers. The are not the white knight you're looking for.

Pattison likely wouldn't be a white knight, but they would give radio in Ontario a much needed shake up and more competition.  They and some other smaller broadcasters would give some new life to radio and hopefully some alternatives.

I wasn't sure that Rawlco was still around.  Looks like they have 7 stations, so not a lot.  Don't know where you got your figures.  BCE had revenues of $24.17 billion in 2022 and Rogers Communications $15.4 billion.  So Pattison in terms of revenue at $14 billion is considerably smaller than Bell and about 15% smaller than Rogers.  

Pattison has been in radio since 1965 and own 48 stations in about 30 markets in western Canada.  Yes they are into various other businesses as well and are one of Canada's biggest companies. So what?

They also have a long and successful track record in radio, something that big blue doesn't have.  After the auto dealership, radio was one of the first businesses that Pattison invested in.

Of course they could buy part of a cluster here if something became available.  Another experienced operator in Ontario would absolutely be new competition.  How could it not be?  

Why did Bell not include radio in their latest financials?  They always have before. Does this indicate that radio is no longer an important part of Bell Media?   Are they planning to sell other stations?  Are they planning to get out of radio or drastically reduce the number of stations they currently own? 

Anything is possible.