Re: MESSAGE ID: 1EC610858

["Shel Swartz" <shel@lotsofun.com>]

WEEI-AM.
>
>But another reason I think the old 'EEI lost money was that it was a 5,000
> watt signal with a north/south directional pattern. You can hear 590 well
> on Block Island and Rochester, New Hampshirte, but you couldn't hear it
> in Worcester, and very weakly (if at all) in the western part of what
> is now the I-495 belt (Marlboro, Hudson, Hopkinton, etc.), areas that
> were just starting to grow in 1974 when WEEI went all-news.
>
>Were CBNS
>
>Were CBS to switch WBZ to a 24-hours-a-day all-news outlet, they might
> at least break even. WBZ has a strong 50,000-watt signal and reaches many
> areas to the west of Boston that 590 can't (then or now). This additional
> reach, particularlly in the fast-growing "MetroWest" area, could actually
> make a 24/7 all-news format on 1030 successful both in the ratings AND
> in the bottom line.

Maybe. But in my humble opinion, a big signal doesn't always mean big
advertising dllars.  There are many 50kW AM stations barely surviving.
All-News and/or News-Talk in a hugely-expensive format.  In order to pay for
that, you must attract national advertisers, which will run large, renewing
schedules.

Smaller businesses, such as mom-and-pop stores, or individual businesses of
any kind, usually find that the expense of advertising on a 50kW
flamethrower are out fo their budgets.  And even if advertising were cheap
enough, who's going to travel more than 25 or so miles to your business?  So
what if WBZ reaches Greenfield by day, and sme 38 states by night.  That
means nothing for local advertisers; little for regional advertisers.  Only
national advertisers could benefit the most.

Having said al that, I'm not at all discounyting the great possibilities for
mail order sales via even a small, local company, because orders sent by
mail mean that customers don'thave to ddrive far.  THey could even call a
toll-free number. I know, because I've done that very successfully!

:) shel

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