“A display ad on Facebook is a lifeless emotionless waste of marketing dollars.”

That’s how one radio industry analyst colorfully put it.

Although one might ask exactly where isn’t a simple “display ad” a “lifeless emotionless waste of marketing dollars”?  And just how emotion-packed and full of life is a Google ad?  Yet that would hardly be called a “waste.”

The debate over the wisdom or foolishness of advertising on Facebook is wrong-headed and self-serving and replete with too much premature chest-thumping and grave-dancing.

So GM drops a chump-change investment in Facebook advertising in favor of a much larger investment in the brand and customer management power of Facebook.  Granted, Facebook makes money from the former, not the latter, but that’s Facebook’s problem and Facebook’s fault.  Facebook didn’t do a good job servicing the needs of this client, and so they got “fired.”  That says less about the “effectiveness” of Facebook overall than about the dynamics of this particular relationship.  Haven’t you ever lost a client?  Does it mean your brand doesn’t work for advertisers?

I would bet all the money I have that GM will be back advertising on Facebook. In a different way, at a different time, and quite probably under the direction of a different agency.  But they’ll be back.  And what should radio conclude then?

We need to stop dismissing popular competitors for advertiser attention and start learning from them.

This morning on MSNBC Joe Scarborough was chuckling about how nobody clicks on Facebook ads.  Well nobody clicks on Morning Joe ads either – nor on your TV spots, but that isn’t so funny, is it, Joe?

The larger puzzle is not whether Facebook ads work, it’s whether or not brands want to spend their money in advertising or in marketing. Confuse the two at your peril.

The marketing dollars invested in Facebook by GM are growing even as the ad dollars are shrinking.  That tells us marketing dollars on Facebook are working for GM even if the company momentarily concludes that ad dollars aren’t.

Today, brands can be their own media platforms, and in that audience playground mediated by platforms like Facebook, the best ad dollar spent may be the one tagged “marketing.”

Are you helping your clients market or helping them advertise?

Value to clients is about more than running ads.  And value to consumers is about more than simply playing music.

That’s the new world of radio today.

No longer is there a “sales side” or a “programming side.”  Nowadays there’s only one “side” and it’s the “value side.”

Value to clients and consumers at the very same time – mediated by your brand.

In the digital space, its all about value – not about interruptive ads stuck in the middle of valued content. In many ways, the client’s content IS the valued content. Watch this brief overview of the “value side” and why it’s the only side any of us should be on.

The video is part of a live Q&A with Federated Media managers hosted by Federated’s James Derby (thanks to Federated and to James for a great conversation).

Watch:

Prefer audio?  Try this:

Download mp3

(You can subscribe to all the MRM video and audio via iTunes and get the goodies before everybody else.  You can also get advance notice of this content if you “like” MRM on Facebook or follow me on Twitter).

A recent Mediapost piece commented on the inevitable consolidation of players in the every-day-a-new-entrant social TV space.  This is the ecosystem surrounding your favorite shows and fresh ways to interact with them and with your friends in their presence via second screen digital platforms.

The whole notion of social interactions surrounding entertainment brands is something I have been talking about for some time, and it remains an area relatively unexplored by radio broadcasters.

But the Mediapost piece makes an important point:

Viewers need clear locations to get their social TV media fix – not just separate “silos” of TV program information. Say hello to another Hulu-like problem.  Social media platforms are like any other mass entertainment business – they need scale. All this comes from the main instigators of TV content – big media companies who also need scale, as do TV marketers.

Radio has scale.  And to the degree that radio has the kind of content that makes one station – or the radio medium itself – unique from any other station or medium, scale amplifies the value of that content.  And the only thing harder than creating great content is creating great content that scales.

If a tree falls in the forest nobody hears it, no matter how splendid it may be.

For example, the greatest perceived threat of Pandora to radio is its fast track to scale, not simply the value proposition of personalized radio. Personalization is common.  Scale, that’s scarce.

Scale is radio’s most precious resource.  And it is one largely provided by our legacy monopolization of consumer ears, especially in cars.

Now is the time we must continually earn that scale, that reach.  And we will have to do so by focusing intently not on what our industry needs and wants but on what its consumers and advertising partners need and want.

This is a time of incredible opportunity for radio because it’s a time of incredible opportunity for entertainment brands that scale.

Use it wisely.

In 2010, BBC management discussed closing down BBC Radio 6 Music as part of a cost-cutting package. Protests from listeners increased the public awareness of the station and lifted its audience figures to a record high.

The judges at the Sony Radio Academy Awards said that “6 Music displays a confidence across its schedule that not only reflects a real passion for music but also a firm understanding the audence they are broadcasting to”.

Bauer Radio’s rhythmic CHR network Kiss FM won the breakfast show award for Kiss Breakfast with Rickie, Melvin and Charlie. Kiss FM’s PD Andy Roberts was named station programmer of the year. The special award went to Global Radio’s Classic FM and the “gold award” for lifetime achievement to Nicholas Person for his “outstanding and total commitment to Just a Minute, a programme that Nicholas has brilliantly presented for an amazing 45 years”.

Another study from NAB has been issued which supports the notion that consumers want FM on their mobile phones.

And, like all studies about what people WILL do rather than what they HAVE DONE in the past, it’s flawed.

You can ask people what they value and what they have done and they will give you an answer that represents their best frame on reality. But ask them what they intend to have for breakfast tomorrow morning if the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars, and their answer will be far less predictive of actual behavior.

The NAB study asked some interesting questions, including this one:

During times of emergencies, such as blizzards, hurricanes, tornados and local or national security threats, a cell phone with a built-in radio would let you listen to local weather and other emergency alerts as they are happening. How important would this feature be to you?

That’s a decent question and it’s about what folks value, not how they predict their future behavior.  However, the question assumes no trade-off.  It assumes that the consumer makes no choice in how they would access this information.  It doesn’t, for example, ask them what form they would prefer to get their emergency information in (e.g., TXT, radio, email, tweet, etc.).

That said, it’s interesting to note that the fraction of consumers who consider this to be “very important” is actually down from 34% to 29% since 2010.

Then, after priming consumers with this value proposition for radio (and priming is a form of bias), they ask the “money question”:

When thinking about purchasing your next cell phone, would you consider paying a one-time only fee of 30 cents if you could receive access to local radio stations through your phone? This option would not require using a data or calling plan and would be a one-time only charge when you purchase the phone. Would you…[strongly, probably, or not consider this option]?

Now we’re into the “tomorrow’s breakfast” question.

The truth is that it’s easy to answer “yes” to this question because it lives in a bubble, whereas the real world features the nagging inconvenience of choices and trade-offs.

For example, we could ask this same question about receiving local radio stations in your toaster or your golf cart or your new tie. Actually, the idea of an extra 30 cents for radio in a new tie is a pretty good one!  Maybe I should have held that one back.

43% say they’d “strongly consider” the option of 30 extra cents for radio on their phones (ahem, but shouldn’t this be way closer to 100%?!  It’s 30 friggin’ cents!)

It’s a silly question for another reason – if you actually had two versions of the same phone, one with radio and the other without, and one was 30 cents more than the other, 100% of consumers choosing between those phones would buy the radio-powered one!

It’s easy to say “yes” to a small price point for value.  It’s tougher to trade that value off other value and determine what phone (not what radio) one is actually going to buy when at the point of purchase.

And then the study goes on to ask a truly absurd question:

Regardless of whether you own a cell phone or not, if your phone was equipped to receive local radio stations without using applications (apps) or your data plan, for which of the following, if any, would you use this function? Please select all that apply….[weather, music, emergency information, etc.]?

So now we are asking to consumers to imagine owning a phone (if they don’t) and further imagine that they are unable to use any apps or data on their device (note we are specifically not asking them if they would prefer to get any of this information by TXT, which is how Kenyan Coffee farmers will be getting it, and their grid isn’t better than yours).

So what does it all add up to?

I think it would be fabulous if radio were part of every mobile phone.  But I think it’s up to the consumer to vote for that feature at the cash register.  And it’s our value proposition, not a survey statistic, which will drive that outcome.

There are phones with this capability built-in – even in this study 16% of consumers say their phone contains a radio. Are they right?  Do FM-enabled mobile phones possess 16% of the market?  If so, then isn’t that a far better argument for FM on mobile phones than any biased construct that aims to predict future behavior without trade-offs?

And why is the selling point obsessed on emergency information when “the grid” goes down?  What about the convenience of using the same radio dial consumers are comfortable and familiar with transplanted to their favorite mobile device?

This is not a tough discussion.  Either consumers value the feature and actually buy the phones – or they don’t and won’t.

Rather than deal with hypotheticals and maybes, why don’t we deal with ways to make the cash registers ring for sellers of mobile devices?  Why don’t we deal with what consumers actually want, not what they say they might want later?  Why don’t we ask device makers how radio could help them sell more and better phones?

So says Pandora CEO Joe Kennedy in this opening session highlight from the recent Worldwide Radio Summit, moderated by Triton’s Mike Agovino.

Joe also shares some stats on reduced TSL for radio and matches that against the growth for Internet Radio.  These are stats that are not often publicized in the radio industry.

Let’s be frank:  Of course some Internet radio growth will come from radio. Maybe most of it will come from radio.  And it will not stop people from listening to the radio.  Rather, it will shave away quarter-hours from radio, just as every other entertainment distraction does.

That’s not to minimize its impact, it’s to recognize that all media of all types are losing usage (if not users) as choices and forms and control options proliferate.

There’s more music than ever being listened to – just not on the radio.  There’s more TV than ever being watched – just not on the big screen in your living room.  It’s important for radio to face up to this and deal with it as the challenge it is.

For only by facing the truth of the present can we smartly and enthusiastically act to change the truth of the future.

Watch:

Prefer audio?  Try this:

Download mp3

(You can subscribe to all the MRM video and audio via iTunes and get the goodies before everybody else.  You can also get advance notice of this content if you “like” MRM on Facebook or follow me on Twitter).

On the surface, retailer Target may not have a lot to do with your radio brand. But look closer, because the similarities are staggering.

Like radio, Target has a wide array of items, together aimed at a broad-based, massive audience.  Like radio, Target is suffering from a million tiny cuts as Internet options eat into their business with lower pricing or greater selection (i.e., in the radio context, greater value).  Like radio, Target is a trusted brand that includes human-to-human interaction.  Like radio, Target lives in your local market.

So why is Target discontinuing Amazon’s Kindle, how does this speak to a larger trend, and what does this have to do with radio?

From Huffington Post:

Target’s decision to phase out the Kindle is also occurring as the retailer, along with other major merchants, are trying to fight a growing practice called “showrooming.” That’s when shoppers, armed with smartphones, browse products in physical stores and then shop online for a better price.

Want to hear Lady Gaga?  There are a million places to do it now.  Love a song you just heard on the radio?  Buy it with one-click from iTunes.  Want an experience similar to your favorite station’s but without all the commercials? Sign up for SiriusXM or Pandora.

So what’s Target’s solution to this problem?

Again, HuffPo:

Earlier this year, Target sent out a letter to vendors asking for help in developing exclusive merchandise and matching rivals’ online prices.

“Exclusive merchandise.” That is, something you can find only on the shelves at Target.  To excel in a world with a million ways to get some form of you, you have no choice but to aspire to be the best in the world at what you do.  And the easiest way to be “best” is to be exclusive.

So what’s exclusive about your brand and highly valued at the same time? Exclusive means “one of a kind,” remember.  Exclusive means “only you.”

“Matching rivals’ online prices.” This is another way of saying that Target wants to alter the value differential between their offerings and those of anybody else. For that content which cannot be exclusive to you, how do you make the experience that surrounds it just as good as any other experience consumers can get from anybody else?  This is the radio equivalent of matching price.

If the inadequacies of our “value match” lead consumers to search out options elsewhere, we will have nobody to blame but ourselves.

So think like Target:  Increase your “exclusives” and match the value proposition of your alternatives.

In this highlight from the Jacobs Media TechSurvey8 poll, Fred Jacobs summarizes the key ways broadcasters can tap into the emotional benefits of radio to improve the lives (and the listening) of its audiences.

Fred’s points remind me of a regular theme in this blog and his own:  That radio’s advantages over competing technologies do not require doing the same thing the other guys are doing, but rather doing what radio does really well that those other guys can’t or won’t do – as long as it’s solving a problem or fulfilling a need for our consumers.

This clip is from a session I recorded (with Fred’s permission) at the 2012 Worldwide Radio Summit in LA (I’ll have more clips from the WWRS coming up next week).

Watch:

Prefer audio?  Try this:

Download mp3

(You can subscribe to all the MRM video and audio via iTunes and get the goodies before everybody else.  You can also get advance notice of this content if you “like” MRM on Facebook or follow me on Twitter).

Recently I was visiting a client and sitting in on a sales meeting, when the GM flew in, looking as animated as I had ever seen him.

It seems that a nearby sister-cluster’s sales team had thrown down the gauntlet. Not only did they have the gall to suggest they were a more potent sales team, but they had the gall to do it in a song!

A song?! How dare they, this smaller market!?

And to make matters worse, the song was funny and clever and biting in just the right good-natured way, even the jabs at the GM’s choice in neckties.

How DARE they?!

So the agenda for this sales meeting would be tossed out, the GM said. And it would be replaced by a new objective: Counterattack!

Our foe expected a response and as God is my witness they surely would be getting one. Because there’s nothing that riles up a room full of sellers more than a competitive challenge from another riled up room full of sellers.

We would have to tell a better story than they did, the GM said. And we would have to tell that story better (high performance does that – it lifts the performance of all).

Bam! Off to brainstorming…. What would our messages be? How would we tell them? Who can do the music? The animation?

And so it was that Cluster A met Cluster B on the field of battle, and in this congenial yet combative Game of Thrones only one army of sellers would emerge victorious.

At least in this round.

It was a sublime moment for me, watching this unfold. It was the kind of experience that many insist has long since been baked out of radio. Yet here it was, in all its fun-loving, good-natured, what-it’s-really-all-about glory.

And these warriors were far from war-weary.

For good-natured competition is fun.  And having fun makes for a fun workplace. And a fun workplace makes for a happy workplace. And a happy workplace makes better radio. And better radio makes happier consumers and happier clients.

Let the Game begin.

A recent Jacobs Media research finding noted that 43% of Pandora users say the service should be considered “radio” while 49% say it should not.

These stats should chill you.

And that’s not just because 43% is such a large number or that it comes from actual listeners.

It’s because the average listener should not care whether or not Pandora is classified as “radio,” so the largest answer should be “don’t know – because I’ve never even thought about it.”  They should not be thinking about an issue like this because it’s of concern primarily to the industry that owns the labels, not to the consumers who own the behaviors.  In that context, 43% is huge.

To the average listener, the issue isn’t whether or not Pandora “is” radio, the issue is whether or not Pandora is used for the same things radio is used for. That is, is it a substitute or not? That is a different question, of course, and if the “is it or isn’t it” question gets 43% saying “it is,” just imagine how many would agree that Pandora is used for the same things radio is used for.

Cue chill.

So all of those elements that make radio different from Pandora have their value to be sure, but to 43% of Pandora’s audience they amount to a distinction without a difference.

This is, of course, exactly in line with what I have been arguing for some time.

But 49% say Pandora is not radio, you might say.  Yes, indeed.  But would you have ever guessed the number would be so low?

Value – and uniqueness – are in the ear of the beholder.

This is not a time to rest on laurels or a time to project Pandora into some imaginery non-radio ghetto.

It’s a time to magnify uniqueness – the kind that consumers value – and to make radio ever-more, ever-better, and ever-worthy of their scarce attention.

Daniel Galinski replaces Jean-Christophe Lestra immediately and will be responsible for Lagardère’s radio stations in Poland (Radio Zet and Radiostacja), Romania (Europa FM and Radio 21), the Czech Republic (Dance Radio, Evropa 2, Frekvence 1 and Info Radio), Germany (107.8 Antenne AC and Delta Radio) and South Africa (Jacaranda FM). He has been the CFO for the group’s music radio stations since 2008. Jean-Christophe Lestra, CEO of Lagardère Active Radio International, will devise new development activities for the company until July 2012.

“Lagardère Active wishes to thank Jean-Christophe Lestra for the decisive part he played in developing our radio business. Under his capable leadership, the Group has become a leading player abroad, in various eastern European countries and in South Africa, contributing significantly to Lagardère Active’s earnings for several years” says Richard Lenormand, the senior executive director of radio/television at Lagardère Active.

Emmis Broadcasting has decided to close down its New York-based urban AC station 98.7 Kiss FM (WRKS-FM) on Monday. Kiss will be merged into former rival WBLS 107.5 and some of the Kiss presenters will move their programs to WBLS. As a tribute to Kiss FM’s 30 years history, the two stations are simulcasting until Monday.

“WBLS and WRKS have been the voice of the tri-state black community for 30 years and we plan to merge the best of both stations to create a stronger voice to deliver the best in R&B music while also super serving our community” says Deon Levingston, the vice president and general manager of WBLS.

Emmis Communication will rent the 98.7 Mhz frequency to ESPN Radio, as part of a 12-year deal worth 8.4 million dollars a year. The Spanish language sports network ESPN Deportes is set to be introduced on the AM frequency in the fall, but until then ESPN New York will be available on both AM and FM.

“Local, local, local.”

It’s a constant refrain in the radio industry.  It’s usually expressed as one of our key advantages relative to media and advertising options which are not “local” and not active in the local community.

What what does “local” mean – really?

I have written about this before, and in this video I spell out why, in many ways, there is no such thing as “local” per se – “local” is really a state of mind.

Radio’s success has less to do with being located around the corner and more to do with being meaningful around the corner.  ”Local” is a state of mind that has more to do with yourself, your family, and your neighborhood than the city where you just so happen to live.

“Local” is not a talking point or a handy cliche.  Watch this video to see what “local” really means.

The video is part of a live Q&A with Federated Media managers hosted by Federated’s James Derby (thanks to Federated and to James for a great conversation).

Watch:

Prefer audio?  Try this:

Download mp3

(You can subscribe to all the MRM video and audio via iTunes and get the goodies before everybody else.  You can also get advance notice of this content if you “like” MRM on Facebook or follow me on Twitter).

Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington was on CNN last weekend where she outlined the key elements of HuffPo’s success.  And while not every (or maybe even not any) other site can hope to become the traffic magnet that is Huffington Post, it seems to me her prescription is relevant for any local media company that aspires to truly serve the information interests of their audiences (Public Radio and News/Talk – I’m talking to you).

It is most certainly not simply about spreading our content – whatever it is – across platforms.

Arianna spells out four elements of the HuffPo formula:

1. Original reporting
2. Aggregation of content that matters from elsewhere (HuffPo’s commitment is to bring you “the best of the web”)
3. Blogging by a large fleet of independent voices
4. Commenting and participation from you and me, the consumers

Arianna acknowledges that HuffPo mixes the lowbrow and the highbrow. “That’s how people consume news,” she says, and I think she’s right.  The same person who reads the Wall Street Journal in the morning may peruse Perez Hilton in the afternoon.  That’s a useful point to keep in mind for News/Talk stations who think the news begins and ends with politics and the attention spans of potential consumers do likewise.  It’s a useful point to keep in mind for Public stations who view their digital platforms as somehow beholden to the same qualitative constraints that drive their over-the-air ones, even though time is scarce on-air but space is infinite online.

So if you’re a local media company with an expectation for news and information, I know you’re repurposing your content online and I know you’re aggregating content from elsewhere.  But what about your original reporting? What about blogs by independent (and local) voices?  What about commenting and participation from your consumers?

Indeed, is your digital platform positioned simply as a digital ad for your station?  Simply a distribution point for content and marketing material for your over-the-air brand?

Or is it designed to be the hub for local people interested in your filter, your perspectives, and their own?

The goal is not to replicate HuffPo and shrink into its shadow.  But nor is it to simply repurpose your content and promote your brand.

The goal is to leverage your brand in a fresh way and delight and engage your tribe by allowing that tribe to play together in the sandbox of your brand.

Here’s the full interview with Arianna (note to CNN – Please enable my ability to clip and share the highlights I want, not the whole video (just like MSNBC does)):

“Will you talk to me?”

I mean, one-on-one?

It’s my observation that most program directors spend infinitely more time talking to the ratings reports than talking to actual listeners.  Needless to say, this confuses input (listeners) and outcome (ratings).

As a practitioner of consumer research, I’m not foolish enough to believe that one conversation with one listener represents a fact, but it does represent a story.  And the sum total of all listener behavior is the sum total of those stories.  So if you don’t start asking for stories, you’ll never understand why people do what they do, and God knows the ratings will never tell you.

So talk to your listeners.

Ask them what they like and don’t like about your brand.  What could you do to improve?

Ask them if they can imagine living without your brand, and if so, why?

Ask them what your brand provides to their lives that they don’t, can’t, or won’t get from any other place.

Ask them how they use radio today relative to all the other techno-distractions of everyday life.

Stop waiting around for trends to lead you and start leading the trends.

Because before a trend is a trend, it’s a story.

And stories happen one listener – one consumer – at a time.

GigaOm bottom-lines this week’s NAB with this:

If this week’s National Association of Broadcasters Show is any indication, by 2020 “broadcasting” is a term that will be foreign to anyone under 40. Based on the show’s programming this year, as well as the general vibe that multiplatform delivery is the future, it seems that pretty soon no one will be concerned about how content is distributed — just if it’s good or not.

To repeat for emphasis:  ”…pretty soon no one will be concerned about how content is distributed — just if it’s good or not.”

This is an important takeaway, particularly as we obsess on AM or FM, Online or Radio, HD or pretty much anything else.  All of these obsessions are misplaced.  Control is in the hands of the consumers who demand content. We can create great content or mediocre content – that’s up to us.  But how consumers get it is very much up to them.  They don’t care about our heritage platforms and our monetization models – they care only about themselves and they’re open to any disruptor who cares as much about their wants as they do.

Just recently, SiriusXM updated their mobile app.  Typically such updates are associated with improved features or functionality.  Not this time.  Until now I had been able to go back in time up to five hours on CNN or other Sirius news channels and listen to shows from earlier in the day while skipping commercials.  But no longer.  Sirius is charging more and providing less and standing squarely in the way of what this consumer – and no doubt others – wants.  It’s as if Time Warner stole into your house in the middle of the night, removed your DVR, and called it a “service update” in the morning.  That kind of regrettable behavior, regardless of its cause, sets the stage for a disruptive competitor, and all I can say is “bring one on.”

Give me the good content the way I want it, please.  Or I’ll get it some other way or from some other source.

“Broadcasting,” Schmoadcasting.  A recent piece in Advertising Age called TV “just a state of mind” and put it this way:

Web-video producers have been waiting years for TV dollars to move where the eyeballs increasingly are — online. But what if TV dollars were to stay where they are and online were to become TV?

The same could be said about radio.  Everything is everywhere and everything can be anything nowadays.  We are limited not by distribution and technology but by the attention of the audience, their specific tastes in content, and the ideas we produce to connect the right content with the right consumers and the right advertisers.

In this zone, the cream will rise to the top.

And those who limit themselves to narrow bands of distribution will get creamed.

WAMU increases its marketshare from 7% to 8.2%, while Hubbard’s commercial competitor WTOP FM drops from 7.5% to 6.9%.

WAMU is the second public station to become a market leader in the top ten markets in the March ratings. San Francisco’s KQED returns to number one and increases its marketshare from 6.1% to 6.6%, replacing CBS Radio’s KCBS AM as number one.

In New York, Clear Channel’s AC station Lite FM widens its lead over CBS Radio’s class hits-formated WCBS-FM. Lite FM’s marketshare is up from 7.3% to 7.5%, while WCBS-FM drops from 6.6% to 6.3%. Clear Channel’s Z100 stays at number three with an un-changed 5.2% share and sister station KTU increases .3 to 4.7%. The SBS-owned Spanish-language station Mega FM is in fifth place with a 3.9% share.

Clear Channel’s talk station KFI AM is the market leader in Los Angeles for the third consecutive month with a flat 4.9% share, ahead of sister stations KIIS-FM with 4.8% (+.4), KOST with 4.4% (-.1) and My FM with 4.3 (+.1). Emmis-owned rhythmic CHR Power 106 is at number five with a 4.1% share (+.3).

Registration of consumers on radio’s web platforms is a hot topic at this week’s NAB.

In this video I lay out some of the key arguments as to why broadcasters should absolutely positively require registration in exchange for value (and yes, those last four words are key).

We are in a world of registration.  Are you ready, able, and worthy to be part of it?

Watch:

Prefer audio?  Try this:

Download mp3

(You can subscribe to all the MRM video and audio via iTunes and get the goodies before everybody else.  You can also get advance notice of this content if you “like” MRM on Facebook or follow me on Twitter).

CBS Radio has five stations in the top ten, with Chicago’s WBBM-AM now outperforming sister station WCBS-AM in New York. Clear Channel has four stations on the list, including Los Angeles outlets KIIS FM and KFI AM at number two and three.

1. (1) WTOP FM (Washington D.C., news, Hubbard) $64 million
2. (2) KIIS FM (Los Angeles, CHR, Clear Channel) $57 million
3. (4) KFI AM (Los Angeles, talk, Clear Channel) $48.1 million
4. (7) WBBM-AM (Chicago, news, CBS Radio) $48 million
5. (3) WCBS-AM (New York, news, CBS Radio) $47.5 million
6. (6) Z100 (New York, CHR, Clear Channel) $46 million
7. (10) KROQ (Los Angeles, alternative, CBS Radio) $42 million
8. (-) 1010 WINS (New York, news, CBS Radio) $42 million
9. (5) Lite FM (New York, AC, Clear Channel) $42 million
10. (9) WFAN AM (New York, sports, CBS Radio) $40.5 million

Radio Ink made a classic mistake last week when it celebrated the strength of AM radio by trumpeting the financial success of the top radio brands, many of which happen to be on AM.

Why is this a mistake?  Because it confuses the band with the brand.

AM radio is not what makes stations like WFAN so successful.  WFAN is what makes WFAN so successful.

Indeed, the trajectory for AM radio in general is not pretty.

We generally assume that AM, like FM, is universal simply because it exists everywhere.  But existing everywhere and being used by all people are two completely different things.  And the usage of the AM band varies quite widely by market.

Arbitron was kind enough to run some numbers for me.  They gathered a “market basket” of 15 medium and large PPM markets to answer this question: What fraction of the population in each market listens exclusively to FM stations (and not to AM at all)?

Among persons 6+, the answer was an average of 65%.  That is, two out of three persons 6+ across these markets listen ONLY to FM. AM radio may be available to them, but it is not being used.

These numbers obviously vary widely by market – from a high of 81% FM exclusive in one market to a low of 49% in another (Arbitron has asked me not to share the identities of these markets, but if you’re a subscriber you can ping your nearest ARB rep).  Your mileage will vary.

But note that the HIGHEST proportion of persons in any market in my sample who use AM radio was only half.  And while I didn’t plot long-term trends over time, can there be any doubt what direction they’re moving in?

Well, you might say, but if only there were better things on the AM band then more people would listen to it…Says who?  Are you in the business of attracting consumers to your brand – or to your band?!  I suggest that the former is infinitely easier than the latter.

Just look at how this compares to online radio….

The most recent Edison/Arbitron stats indicate that 39% of persons 12+ listen to online radio in the last month.  While the bases aren’t quite evenly matched (the ages differ slightly and the sample frame for Edison is monthly while for PPM it’s weekly), it’s almost possible to argue that online radio today reaches more consumers (39%) than AM radio does (35%, based on my sample of markets), and the trends are moving in opposite directions.

So the strength of many AM radio brands are testaments to those brands, not the band they live on.  It is inevitable in my view that these brands will fare better on FM than on AM over the long run, simply because the distribution potential is greater on FM than on AM.  There’s more “there” there on FM than on AM, and from this point forward there always will be.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that you can throw an FM competitor at an AM institution and kill it dead.  Distribution may not be more important than institution – at least not yet.

It means that institutions deserve to breathe.  They deserve the greatest possible distribution to maximize their audience potential, and the distribution on FM beats the distribution on AM.

The reason Pandora wants into the cars is because of the massive distribution potential there.  The reason TV networks get higher ratings than cable nets do is because of distribution advantages.  The reason why Living Social is better off with Clear Channel than without it is due to distribution.

Distribution, not “availability,” is what matters.

The future of AM radio is irrelevant. What matters is the future of your brands. Your clients buy your brands, not your tower.

You should favor more distribution over less.