Re: Things you can do on AM

[SteveOrdinetz <steveord@xtdl.com>]

At 06:50 AM 6/5/97 -0400, Steve Sawyer wrote:
>H Glazer wrote:
>>  Remember the point that has been made countless times in 
>this group... With a good LOCAL program, at least some of the audience 
>will listen, even on AM providing there is an attempt at serving their 
>COL.  Canned stations are a good tax write-off.
>

I still say, what is the percentage of people who will even bother to check
out an AM station (other that WBZ for news/storm closings, etc.)?  EVen a
flamethrower like WRKO is losing audience.  Yeah, all of us backseat drivers
can bitch about how badly they're doing the format, but my guess is that
programming a talk station, like anything else, is a lot harder than it
looks.  I can't imagine a company with as deep pockets as ARS doing what
they're doing because they don't know any better.  Another example: a couple
years ago WORC was a damn good sounding oldies station...in stereo, a good
mix of huge hits and lesser ones, and a knowlegable (local) airstaff.  In a
good book, they were lucky to pull a .5 share, while WODS had a 3 or 4 in
the Worcester book.  I can't believe they dumped it for satellite talk
because they figured Ollie North made for superior programming.

Who was it on this list a couple weeks ago used his mother as an
example...hasn't listened to AM in years, won't even listen to an FM that
doesn't stop the scan.  It's nice to dream, but the public has voted on AM.
Maybe some of these ideas would have worked 10 years ago, but AM has been
irrelevant too long, and no one cares.

------------------------------

End of boston-radio-interest-digest V1 #62
******************************************