That was a surprise. And iHeart '80s got to 3.0Sad to see KITS up to 2.0. Have noticed more alternative on it, though. They definitely are a weird station.
No. It is just that that book is pretty useless, as the data is contained in the San Francisco book (San Jose is an "embedded market" which means it is a subset of a bigger one). So no need to buy the book.KSOL (KSQL in SJ) also stopped subscribing in SJ, interestingly enough. Wonder if they’re considering a format change?
....but not a lot sadder than the 11 years leading up to this.KGO, once the dominant Bay Area station for years, with ratings all the other stations could only dream about, now...a ratings no show at 0.0.
Sad, very, very sad.
Does sports betting register on the the books anywhere it is on air? I feel it is just a cheap place holder like Comedy Radio up in Canada.KGO, once the dominant Bay Area station for years, with ratings all the other stations could only dream about, now...a ratings no show at 0.0.
Sad, very, very sad.
Those previous 11 years were A LOT better than the sports betting garbage that's on now. If you look at KGO separately during that time without comparing those 11 years to the previous legendary KGO, it was a pretty decent News/Talk station, and they still had mostly local hosts. I listened to it, as a secondary talk station to KFI. I think all the negativity about it, was that too many people expected KGO to be as great it once was, instead of accepting it on its own merit.....but not a lot sadder than the 11 years leading up to this.
Here's the difference: Comedy Radio doesn't make money in and of itself. Sports betting buys the airtime. The station makes money whether it gets ratings or not.Does sports betting register on the the books anywhere it is on air? I feel it is just a cheap place holder like Comedy Radio up in Canada.
Your first post was about ratings. That was what my comment was about. Your reply is about content.Those previous 11 years were A LOT better than the sports betting garbage that's on now. If you look at KGO separately during that time without comparing those 11 years to the previous legendary KGO, it was a pretty decent News/Talk station, and they still had mostly local hosts. I listened to it, as a secondary talk station to KFI. I think all the negativity about it, was that too many people expected KGO to be as great it once was, instead of accepting it on its own merit.
Yes, I thought your reply was about KGO overall, not just ratings. But I don't see how a mid to upper 1 share is as bad or sad as a 0.0. You can't be any worse off than that. Actually, these days for an AM radio station to pull in a mid to upper 1 share, is not bad.Your first post was about ratings. That was what my comment was about. Your reply is about content.
KGO was running in the mid-to-upper one shares. A 0.0 is not a lot sadder.
Apart from the fact that you can't make money with it.Yes, I thought your reply was about KGO overall, not just ratings. But I don't see how a mid to upper 1 share is as bad or sad as a 0.0. You can't be any worse off than that. Actually, these days for an AM radio station to pull in a mid to upper 1 share, is not bad.
As are (figuratively-speaking) Mickey Luckoff, Jack Swanson, Jim Eason, Ronn Owens, Ed Baxter, Rosie Allen, Dean Edell and a bunch of still-breathing others, as well as (more literally) Jim Dunbar, Ted Wygant, Owen Spann, Pete Wilson, Gene Burns, Lee Rodgers and Ray Taliaferro. Maybe Ira Blue too.I think the sad reality is that KGO has been "off-the-air" for a very, very long time now, even though the transmitter is still operating...Even though you may have agreed or disagreed with him on many issues, Dr. Bill Wattenburg must be rolling in his grave...
You're kidding, right? 100.7 is a Class A, with a stick 15 miles north of S.F. It only covers a portion of the geographically-huge Bay Area. But it works fine as a signal-extender of 105.7 in San Jose.100.7 has such a strong signal...