Re: 560 WGAN

[mwaters@mail.wesleyan.edu (Martin J. Waters)]

>Dan Strassberg wrote:
<snip>
>In WBZ's case, I think it was the FM at 103.3, more
>than the switch to digitally tuned radios, that motivated the change in how
>the frequency was described.

        Didn't WBZ make that change way back in the early or mid '70s --
way before any regular civilians had digital radios?

        In WGAN's case, we sure don't want any confused people trying to
tune the station in at 56 on the FM dial.  Maybe it's just me, but would a
station or its advertisers really want an audience that can't figure out
how to tune a digital radio to a station IDing its dial position as, for
example, 56? Or is it that the "can't figure out" segment of the audience
would be close to a 100 share?