Re: Recent ratings thoughts....

["Chris Beckwith" <beckwith@ime.net>]

At 16:39 on 25 Apr 98 ASchinella wrote:

> Why did they change it? It took them quite awhile with this lame
> "hot talk" format to get back what they once had with "serious
> discussion talk"... 

Why indeed, when "hot talk" around the country hasn't exactly lit
many fires, ratings or revenues-wise.  In Portland WZNN, after a
strong start, has fallen precipitously in the ratings.  Imus in the
Morning's local breaks have become a tedious litany of PSAs and
promos with very little commercial content.  At least WGAN is more
than holding its own with a killer local morning show and a stable
of strong satellite talent in middays.  The addition ot John
McDonald as local afternoon host bodes well for the future, too.

> As for WFNX, correct me if I am wrong but WFNX's rating have never
> been above 2. Even at their highest, I think they were a 1.7 and
> they were very excited to get that

I believe they peaked a few years ago close to a 3 share.  Then WBCN 
switched to alternative and all hell broke loose.

> WFNX, which, not to sound like my parents, has gone
> to hell in a handbasket. What is that noise they are playing!

It seems like they're degenerated into a WBCN clone, which exposes
them as the relative amateurs they are; it doesn't help that 104FM
has cherry-picked their talent pool.  The fundamental problem, as
with WXRV in recent months, is that they can't accept that they're
niche players in the market with a relatively small but loyal core
audience.  If both stations had stuck to their basic approach
instead of trying to compete with the big boys they might not be in
the mess they're in now.

Take care,

Chris

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

End of boston-radio-interest-digest V2 #47
******************************************