[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


At 03:28 PM 10/13/2002, Martin J. Waters wrote:
>     Of course, I can't resist editorializing: WATD also is an example of
>why it's good to have the lower power FM category of stations. How long
>would WATD remain the funky local outlet -- or locally owned -- if it got a
>big power increase and tip-toed its antenna site north to Hingham or

(note - I'm speaking about FM here....AM is a somewhat different story)

Martin, this is one of those damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't 
situations.  At 1600 watts WATD covers a pretty hefty area (rough 

I have noticed that most stations under 1000 watts (or the HAAT equivalent 
of 1000 watts, like WMBR) tend to have a LOT of trouble getting listeners - 
even during their good shows.   Off the top of my head, I can easily think 
of a dozen stations that fit into this category...most of them college 
stations, natch, but nevertheless...WZBC is entirely student-run (although 
their airstaff is 2-to-1 community to student)  but they do pretty well 
since they got the broadcast reach.   WBRS is also student-run, is about 
half-and-half student to community volunteer on the air...and they're 
better funded than almost every other college radio station in the 
area...and yet they consistently place dead last in the ratings.   That 25 
watts just ain't much juice!

So how exactly do you define "low power"??   In my experience unless you're 
pumping out several hundred watts at a minimum you're not penetrating 
buildings worth a damn in your core audience area, and that's 100% 
essential...unless you're targeting drive time, at which point you need a 
lot of watts to reach a wide area that people are driving in.

Aaron "Bishop" Read       aread@speakeasy.net
Fried Bagels Consulting   www.friedbagels.com
AOL-IM: ReadAaron         Brighton, MA 02135