Isn't 'share' the term I used? I looked at the tribute site for a long time today but could not find the original statement I was quoting so perhaps it was on another site. At any rate I don't recall if that original statement was any more scientific than I stated. I seem only to remember the term "half the listeners" and doubt that it explained whether a share or rating. Knowing the popularity of the Kalil show back then it might have been both (for his time period obviously).
A 50 rating would mean that half of all people in the market were listening.
Remember, in the 50's and 60's radio ratings did not have age breakouts, so that would mean, first, that more than half of all people were listening to the radio every minute during Kalil's shift and at least half of the market was listening to him.
In those years, listening to
all radio was not even near 50%. In other words, that's impossible.
And even back then, there were other stations in Tucson. And when KTKT moved to 990, it was a daytimer... it took several years for them to be able to add a night operation. When they moved from 1490 to 990, the new station on 1490 immediately became the #2 station, with shares nearly as big as KTKT. A lot of KTKT listening was for the music, not the DJs.
A high-20's share means that other stations got a low 70's share, combined. And all 100 shares were not, on average, more than 25% of all the people in the market.
In any case, there was no share of 50%. It did not even get to a 30% in the best of times, before the move to 990 fragmented its audience by leaving the new 1490 to take many of the prior listeners.
