WBZ should not hang it's head in shame

[D. A.]

Now see what happened!  You got the Boss involved!



--- On Fri, 6/1/12, Mark Casey <map@mapinternet.com> wrote:

> From: Mark Casey <map@mapinternet.com>
> Subject: WBZ should not hang it's head in shame
> To: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org
> Date: Friday, June 1, 2012, 3:51 PM
> The years make very little, if any,
> difference. With minor changes, 
> new-weather & traffic are and are going to be similar 20
> years ago or 20 
> years from now. The changes are, and only maybe, in how it's
> delivered. Not 
> that a newer delivery method would be better. It might not.
> It might be like 
> "New Coke", Quadraphonic,  AM stereo, Or HD radio!
> 
> WBZ does a fine job and is superior to any other all-(or
> mostly)-news 
> operation that CBS has. WCBS and WINS have a much shorter
> "playlist". KYW's 
> not any better. It's been a while since I listened to KNX,
> but they weren't 
> any better than WBZ either. The short "playlist" is a
> disadvantage. All the 
> headlines in 22 minutes if fine for the very short term
> listener, and is 
> probably on viable in the largest 2 or 3 markets like New
> York and Los 
> Angeles. There's a significant amount of the audience that
> listens longer 
> and likes to hear the special features like those by Keller,
> Caruthers, 
> Chayet and others. WCBS used to have more variety, but it
> seems to have cut 
> back in the last few years and it is more like WINS than
> ever, so it gets 
> hard to listen there for more than the 22 minutes. I think
> WCBS has hurt 
> themselves by the narrowness.
> 
> Atlanta's WYAY has only been on for a few days and is OK,
> but it is a pretty 
> thin second string operation compared to WBZ. YAY's
> "playlist" is really 
> short. I would not want to listen to it for more than 20
> minutes. Even 
> though I'd like to hear more special features, and more
> stories on WBZ, I 
> can listen to it for a lot longer.
> 
> Folks that are interested in news & information are
> going to listen to WBZ, 
> no matter what their ages, or whether it's on AM or FM-they
> will find it. 
> There's little that any programmer can do to bring in
> non-news listeners to 
> an all new station. The format has little to do with grampy.
> It has to do 
> with folks that want News & Information related
> programs. Given the current 
> trend with all ages and formats, adding an FM similcast
> would be likely to 
> increase audience. FM just sounds better even if the program
> is just voice. 
> But, dropping the AM all-news would be a big mistake. There
> are many places 
> that the FM signal would not work, and the AM would, just
> like the many 
> places the AM is unlistenable because of noise and the FM is
> fine. And, 
> nearly every person that I know that travels throughout New
> England as part 
> of their job--sales, or service, or whatever--listens to WBZ
> at some point 
> every week, or every day, or multiple times per day. If WBZ
> goes to FM only, 
> then, that audience, and it is significant, goes away.
> 
> Switching the oldies from 103.3 to 1030 would be a big
> mistake. Nearly all 
> of us that grew up in the 60's-70's-80's would be the target
> audience and I 
> know of no one in that group that would go back to listening
> to music on AM. 
> After all, today's oldies generation is the generation that
> made FM a 
> success.  WODS 1030 would have few listeners.
> 
> The best thing WBZ can do is stay with the current format,
> add FM (not just 
> HD2--HD radio sounds OK, but coverage is poor and it is a
> flop, just like AM 
> HD) if they can find a decent signal, and to get people to
> listen longer, 
> increase the number of stories and special features, and add
> newer features.
> 
> Mark Casey
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Chris Hall" <chris2526@comcast.net>
> To: <boston-radio-interest@lists.bostonradio.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:40 PM
> Subject: WBZ should hang it's head in shame
> 
> 
> Most of us have very fond feelings for WBZ but it is 2012
> not 1985. KISS-108 
> sounded great in 1985 and it would be great nostalgia but it
> would not be 
> viable CHR in 2012. While almost all the other CBS Radio
> owned and 
> programmed news outlets have moved along with the times WBZ
> is stagnant in 
> the past to its detriment and that is sad. They get away
> with it because 
> there is no competition, Do you think CBS would sit back and
> allow WBZ-TV to 
> look and sound like they did in 1987.......never. Someone in
> the 
> organization would be wise to bring in the programmers from
> WINS and WCBS 
> before it is too late.
> I recently wrote on Radio Info of being at a family
> Christening loaded with 
> both men and women in the 20 to 35 year age group. Since at
> the time it was 
> a hot topic I asked around if anyone listened to WBZ all
> news radio.  The 
> answerers ranged from I didn’t know there was an all news
> station......you 
> mean  channel 4? (WBZ-TV).......  is it closer on
> the dial to WEEI or the 
> Sports Hub. They do not have the fast paced product that
> this age group 
> would listen to.
> I asked my niece (32) and nephews (28) and (30) , the three
> of them agreed 
> that WBZ was one of the stations that Nana and Grampy always
> had on in the 
> car whenever they took them out for a ride or to McDonalds
> over 20 years 
> ago. Nana died in 1999, Grampy left us in 2007. If WBZ
> continues to keep 
> their head in the sand it will be at their own peril, even
> if they were to 
> move the current product to FM it may be too late for the
> long run.
> 
>