WBZ-TV 4 rebranding

Brian Vita brian_vita@cssinc.com
Tue Feb 6 10:07:57 EST 2007

Don A wrote:
>>>> "Almost" is right....Except that it de-emphasized the localism...
>> And localism is one of their strengths.<<
>> Again, a call sign is irrelevant to most viewers for that purpose too.
> Most is right....Unless the call sign has a history...and a 
> reputation..and goodwill.
> And WBZ has that....
As I grew up, in a non-radio geek houselhold, we listened to WBZ or WHDH 
not 1030 or 850.  Interestingly, when it came to TV and someone asked 
what channel something was on, it was WBZ or channel 5 or 7 (pre-cable 
days).  Channel 4 was always referred to as WBZ.  The others were just 
channel numbers.  I still miss hearing (or seeing) "A Group W station" 
at the end of the ID, though, ironicly it was years before I new what 
the hell "Group W" was.  I still automatically think of NBC as channel 4 
then correct myself.

Its interesting that in the 60's and 70's, WBZ did such a fantastic job 
of branding itself that it still sticks with me 40 years later.  Its 
unfortunate that some 20 something MBA felt the need to rebrand it into 
yet another generic channel.

Just my thoughts.

Brian Vita

More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest mailing list