WBZ-TV 4 rebranding
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.
More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest