WODS & WROR Flip To All Christmas

Doug Drown revdoug1@verizon.net
Wed Nov 14 15:19:16 EST 2007

I have no trouble at all with what you're saying; I think you're absolutely
right.  But one of the points being made in these posts is that we Boomers
constitute an enormous demographic --- as one post said, it's the largest in
history.  Yet we are largely ignored and forgotten by the movers and shakers
of the broadcasting world, and that is something I, for one, can't
understand.  Let's address this from a purely "business" standpoint.  If
radio station owners are out to make money --- which is indisputable --- you
would think, wouldn't you, that they would want to have more stations with
formats that would attract older listeners.  It's one of those
as-plain-as-the-nose-on-one's-face observations: THERE'S MONEY TO BE MADE
HERE.  But few people in radio management seem interested.  Why?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Francini" <francini@mac.com>
To: <markwa1ion@aol.com>
Cc: <boston-radio-interest@rolinin.bostonradio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: WODS & WROR Flip To All Christmas

> Can it not be argued that "oldies" is a moving target?  When I was
> growing up, yes, "oldies" were indeed from the 50s and 60s during the
> 70s and 80s. However, now that we're in the 00s, wouldn't "oldies"
> translate to 70s and 80s -- i.e., no more than 30 years ago?
> In other words, "oldies" are a moving window into the past.  Or at
> least that's how it has seemed to me over the past 30-something years
> of radio listening.
> John
> On 14 Nov 2007, at 12:46, markwa1ion@aol.com wrote:
> > WODS may call itself an oldies station, but that's a farce in my
> > opinion.  They seem more in love with disco, Captain & Tennille,
> > and other '70s lame-o's than any kind of serious oldies from rock's
> > first 10 years ('54 to '64).  Like where's the Chuck Berry, Little
> > Richard, Buddy Holly, NYC doo-wop, or for that matter even
> > pre-"Burnin' Love" Elvis already ?  The Beatles will probably be
> > next on the chopping block as time marches on.
> >
> > All Christmas music may be the only way this station even sticks
> > its little toe into the '50s, seeing that they MIGHT play "A
> > Christmas Song" by Nat King Cole.  When the jingle bells stop
> > ringing, what's the chance that they (or any other station in
> > Boston) is going to play "Send for Me", "Nature Boy", or any of the
> > other outstanding work that Mr. Cole left behind ?
> >
> > Nah, I just had better be happy with my CD's from Collectors'
> > Choice, Rhino, and Bear Family because Boston Radio can't deliver
> > the goods in REAL oldies anymore.  Despite a sizeable part of the
> > population being 55+ (maybe the largest percentage in history?), it
> > seems that the powers that be have decided that we don't bloody
> > matter.  Or that we can be placated by '70s pop pablum masquerading
> > as "oldies" when a lot of us were listening to hard rock or Celtic
> > folk or entirely other things ... maybe even the real oldies ...
> > during that decade of dubious musical value.
> >
> > Ranting concluded.  Resuming Christmas shopping.
> >
> > Mark Connelly - Billerica, MA
> >
> > <<
> > WODS does OK the rest of the year, but the six week sojourn into
> > Santa land every year makes them profitable. This isn't even as bad
> > as WRKO, which would be a zeppelin going down in flames if it
> > wasn't for the Red Sox games. WODS isn't at that point, although
> > the demos are similar, and if the end of the year caroling keeps
> > that station from flipping to automated classic hits or something
> > completely different, then so be it.
> >
> > Dave Tomm
> > "Mike Thomas"
> >>>
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > __
> > Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL
> > Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest mailing list