Rock 92.9 To Bloomberg

[Radiopaw]

I think it’s interesting when we discuss how “all songs are researched on a market basis, song by song” and say that radio is doing the best it can while also (objectively) dying a slow death.

Not many people that actively engage on this forum are going to be making programming decisions, sure. But there is logic in there being some more experimentation among a dying medium.

And respectfully, as someone in the generation (Gen Z) that is not engaging with radio. The reason is it doesn’t play things we like. It’s an extremely common sentiment, like asking how the recent Borderlands movie is. You’d have to try to find a different answer.

(also, please don’t say people are going to internet radio… they aren’t. That’s been dying for nearly two decades. They’re going to YouTube, Spotify or Apple Music, with playlists they make. And nothing but respect for internet radio staff, but it’s not even a fraction of the user base of terrestrial radio.)

 

[davideduardo]

I think it’s interesting when we discuss how “all songs are researched on a market basis, song by song” and say that radio is doing the best it can while also (objectively) dying a slow death.

Unfortunately, many companies use research in one market to make decisions to multiple markets. This is very true when past research has shown that certain markets are very parallel in test results.

In many cases, though, the Internet has reduced local difference within genres so that "everywhere tests the same".

Not many people that actively engage on this forum are going to be making programming decisions, sure. But there is logic in there being some more experimentation among a dying medium.

All stations that play currents are experimenting with every new song they add.

The formula is similar now as it was in the past: a listener has to hear a song at least 6 to 8 times to decide if they like it or not. Today, the problem is that people hear songs from so many different sources, so it is not just about how many times your station plays a tune but how many times a listener may have heard it elsewhere. So now we might say "it takes 3 weeks" or "it takes 4 weeks" after release to be able to test a song.

In the meantime, we fly blind based on our ability to guess the hits, the name value of the artist, etc.

Even record companies have tried to do research for new releases, and failed. If you play a brand new song for the first time to a listener, all you can get is a "it sounds good" or "it is sucky" but no vision on how they will react after hearing it multiple times over a few weeks time.

And respectfully, as someone in the generation (Gen Z) that is not engaging with radio. The reason is it doesn’t play things we like. It’s an extremely common sentiment, like asking how the recent Borderlands movie is. You’d have to try to find a different answer.

The issue is not "things we like" but the fact that Gen Z is used to having everything they hear be one of their favorites. You only get that from one-to-one streams where the user picks their playlists or can listen to a very specific programmed stream.

(also, please don’t say people are going to internet radio… they aren’t. That’s been dying for nearly two decades. They’re going to YouTube, Spotify or Apple Music, with playlists they make. And nothing but respect for internet radio staff, but it’s not even a fraction of the user base of terrestrial radio.)

Again, Internet radio is just terrestrial radio without RF energy being radiated... it is "one for many" and not programmed specifically for "just me". It is not one-for-one, and that is what the other services offer.

 

[boombox4]

If you really want to be worried, sit in some of the conferences I go to where futurists worry about who will pay for journalism now that the old revenue model is disappearing. Even NPR is struggling. But that's a different subject.

Journalism is changing, and it's being redefined. It's being replaced by the modern, digital, TikTok and Joe Rogan version. The influencer, the podcaster, the Nextdoor neighborhood website version of 'journalism' is replacing the nightly news / afternoon newspaper version that we who are older than 40 still think of as "journalism". Journalism as it existed in the last century is aging out and transforming, just as all media are changing.

It's become just another form of "content".

There are only 45K "journalists" in the United States this year. Last year the BLS said there were more like 46K. NPR said there are 30% less journalists in the US now than there were in 2000 or 2005. The business model has changed.

The journalists themselves -- at least those who don't go on TikTok or Twitter/X and try their hand at being news/influencers and delivering that sort of content -- are being replaced. Who'll pay for it? Pop-up ads, and the endless, mind-numbing plethora of animated banner ads you see as you scroll through a 'news' site that looks like carnival hawkers on meth designed it. So yeah, just like Radio, TV -- it's all changing.

 

[boombox4]

In the Blizzard of ‘78 radio here proved it was THE most important source of news, information, entertainment, even personal safety. Of all sources. Newspapers were a FAR greater source than now. And Broadcast TV an INFINITELY larger player than today (audiences 100%+ bigger in share)..so please with the “only game in town”. We in radio had FAR bigger local competitors than today!

Radio was the "only game in town" because it had just two main competitors for local news (Newspapers and TV), and no real competitors for broadcasting music.

Today Radio has thousands of competitors. All on the internet, all accessible by any smartphone with a working cell connection. I can access any newspaper in the US if I want to. And many different radio stations -- or music streams. All just on my phone. One device (smartphone) with access to potentially a million channels of news, music, and other content; where in 1970 I'd have had one device (my radio) with access to the 15-20 local AM and FM stations.

That's the difference. It's dilution, thanks to nearly infinite competition. If you worked in the industry -- as you seemed to have -- then you obviously understand the concept of competition. Well, Radio, the medium, has a lot more competition. And that competition is thousands of various streaming and other content channels on the internet. A lot of that content is high quality. Newspapers also have that sort of competition So does TV.

And all that content is competing for one or two screens -- the one on your smartphone, or the one on your laptop computer or flatscreen TV (most of which have internet connections these days).

As for your arguments about Radio dropping the ball content-wise over the years -- in my view, you may have a point. WCBS was one of the biggest billers in the country, and they just flipped to ESPN, in a city (Market #1) that already has an ESPN and a popular Sports station (WFAN) as well.

Is that a smart radio move? Personally, I don't think so. But then, I'm not looking at the books at the Audacy corporation, nor have I dealt with the business side of radio, so maybe I'm wrong, and maybe that decision to kill a top biller in Market #1 was a genius move. I guess we'll find out how it works out in a year or two. If WHSQ 880 fails miserably, guys like you and me may turn out to have had a point. If in a year it's a smashing success, or NOT losing the company money, then we were wrong.

But at the same time, every year, statistically, Radio loses about 1% of its listeners (a gradual 10% drop between 2012 & 2022 and I doubt that trend has changed much), and who knows the real reason? Lack of compelling content, as you have suggested? Younger people preferring to call up TikTok channels on their phones instead of tuning to a radio stream or station? Older demos going to streaming platforms to hear their preferred music? It's probably a bunch of reasons.

And then you have stations like the one in Seattle I mentioned upthread -- they tried something new, with a new format that seemed designed to appeal to the Seattle listener. They were thinking outside the box. The format, however, bombed.

It's easy for guys like us to make all sorts of playcalls from the sidelines, but we're not the ones having to pay the bills to run the stations. So personally, I trust the opinions of a lot of the experts here -- they have that experience, and when they say Radio is up against a demographic and technological wall, and it has to change (i.e. head online, and otherwise adapt to changing media conditions), I think they're onto something.

 

[BostonRadioListener]

Radio was the "only game in town" because it had just two main competitors for local news (Newspapers and TV), and no real competitors for broadcasting music.

Today Radio has thousands of competitors. All on the internet, all accessible by any smartphone with a working cell connection. I can access any newspaper in the US if I want to. And many different radio stations -- or music streams. All just on my phone. One device (smartphone) with access to potentially a million channels of news, music, and other content; where in 1970 I'd have had one device (my radio) with access to the 15-20 local AM and FM stations.

That's the difference. It's dilution, thanks to nearly infinite competition. If you worked in the industry -- as you seemed to have -- then you obviously understand the concept of competition. Well, Radio, the medium, has a lot more competition. And that competition is thousands of various streaming and other content channels on the internet. A lot of that content is high quality. Newspapers also have that sort of competition So does TV.

And all that content is competing for one or two screens -- the one on your smartphone, or the one on your laptop computer or flatscreen TV (most of which have internet connections these days).

As for your arguments about Radio dropping the ball content-wise over the years -- in my view, you may have a point. WCBS was one of the biggest billers in the country, and they just flipped to ESPN, in a city (Market #1) that already has an ESPN and a popular Sports station (WFAN) as well.

Is that a smart radio move? Personally, I don't think so. But then, I'm not looking at the books at the Audacy corporation, nor have I dealt with the business side of radio, so maybe I'm wrong, and maybe that decision to kill a top biller in Market #1 was a genius move. I guess we'll find out how it works out in a year or two. If WHSQ 880 fails miserably, guys like you and me may turn out to have had a point. If in a year it's a smashing success, or NOT losing the company money, then we were wrong.

But at the same time, every year, statistically, Radio loses about 1% of its listeners (a gradual 10% drop between 2012 & 2022 and I doubt that trend has changed much), and who knows the real reason? Lack of compelling content, as you have suggested? Younger people preferring to call up TikTok channels on their phones instead of tuning to a radio stream or station? Older demos going to streaming platforms to hear their preferred music? It's probably a bunch of reasons.

And then you have stations like the one in Seattle I mentioned upthread -- they tried something new, with a new format that seemed designed to appeal to the Seattle listener. They were thinking outside the box. The format, however, bombed.

It's easy for guys like us to make all sorts of playcalls from the sidelines, but we're not the ones having to pay the bills to run the stations. So personally, I trust the opinions of a lot of the experts here -- they have that experience, and when they say Radio is up against a demographic and technological wall, and it has to change (i.e. head online, and otherwise adapt to changing media conditions), I think they're onto something.

Completely correct. Which is why you need complete re-invention. There are better ways to access music—better, more personalized selection without spots, and multiple ways to access more information, better information AND on demand. The industry is in crisis and it’s in denial and blaming the economy and everything else. Even messengers who point this out!! Which is truly bizarre given I’ve heard this same argument through 2 recessions and 3 booming recoveries.

So you need to come around to accepting the secular, long term decline that’s obvious. Until you do THAT, we can’t get help right? I don’t even sense agreement on that, but if you string together the comments on this site and ask ChatGPT I’d suggest it would summarize “this industry is screwed, dead, a mess. And most people don’t care given level of Contributions”. Something like that…the economy’s not gonna bail you out, the internet is not being shut down, Amazons not going out of business dear local advertiser, And the big radio groups’ outrageous long term debt (they own pretty much everything) is not going away, (OK, sure..maybe at the next BK filing….).

When you finally admit this is busted— you can work on solutions.

How do you create a whole new paradigm? I don’t know the answer. I absolutely KNOW the problem. Maybe hyper local is not the answer, I have no idea. Just throwing it out,,,the idea of moving NATIONAL is intuitive and to me makes sense—but doesn’t that basically flush local radio for good? That may be inevitable I don’t know…
Give it thought ..throw out ideas—there are no bad ones.
Putting lipstick on the pig and shining the bumpers isn’t enough…examples
like Traffic on the 3s when everyone gets traffic on the 1s through 10s on demand on the route they want. It’s not 1992! This is how radio continues to give pre internet era ANSWERS to 2024 PROBLEMS. I could go on about formats and ad clusters but you know even better than I.

Radio Broadcasting semi-denied narrowcasting and now is in denial on individual-casting. And no “economy” will ever change that. It’s not 1992 anymore. Here’s the other brutal reality: the economy can likely not maintain its present STRENGTH longer term. That’s the macro reality. We’re in a cyclical UPSWING and recessions are always inevitable. Think about that. It’ll be a lot worse a year or 2 or 3 from now. That’s how economy cycles work.And all the major groups are on the financial EDGE…now.

 

[davideduardo]

Completely correct. Which is why you need complete re-invention. There are better ways to access music—better, more personalized selection without spots, and multiple ways to access more information, better information AND on demand. The industry is in crisis and it’s in denial and blaming the economy and everything else. Even messengers who point this out!! Which is truly bizarre given I’ve heard this same argument through 2 recessions and 3 booming recoveries.

Okay, so you want reinvention. Where are your suggestions?

Radio's revenue is off by about 60% to 70% in inflation adjusted dollars over the last 20 years. The principal sources of revenue, local direct accounts and local and regional agencies are struggling. Some of the money is going elsewhere, but the real issue is a decline in real dollars in every market. Local media has lost much of its client base.

So you need to come around to accepting the secular, long term decline that’s obvious. Until you do THAT, we can’t get help right?

We are bright enough to know that revenue is off and Persons Using Radio (the average number of people listening to all stations combined) is off by more than 2/3 since around the year 2000.

The issue is that one-for-many radio is not personalized and is ad supported. That can't be fixed.

I don’t even sense agreement on that, but if you string together the comments on this site and ask ChatGPT I’d suggest it would summarize “this industry is screwed, dead, a mess. And most people don’t care given level of Contributions”. Something like that…the economy’s not gonna bail you out, the internet is not being shut down, Amazons not going out of business dear local advertiser, And the big radio groups’ outrageous long term debt (they own pretty much everything) is not going away, (OK, sure..maybe at the next BK filing….).

There are plenty of the 15,000 AM and FM stations that are not owned by the biggest groups... who really only hold about 10% of all US stations. But every station is finding it harder to make money... nothing new as as far back as the late 50's FCC financial reports, half of all stations were not profitable.

When you finally admit this is busted— you can work on solutions.

The issue is that one-for-many media is outdated. There is not a way to make this last for a long time, so the short term is the only possibility. And this is why great broadcasters like Jeff Smulyan of Emmis has withdrawn entirely from radio. And even he can't find a buyer yet for his last station, a full facility FM in the nation's second highest billing market, New York.

How do you create a whole new paradigm? I don’t know the answer. I absolutely KNOW the problem. Maybe hyper local is not the answer, I have no idea. Just throwing it out,,,the idea of moving NATIONAL is intuitive and to me makes sense—but doesn’t that basically flush local radio for good? That may be inevitable I don’t know…

"Local radio" was a pólitical move in the early 30's... politicians feared that high power stations could be more of a threat than local news papers, and they severely limited ownership and power levels. Most of the world did the opposite.

Radio Broadcasting semi-denied narrowcasting and now is in denial on individual-casting.

There is no way to individualize broadcast radio that is open to all and paid for by advertisers. The FCC requires this system, and it is way too late to change allocations, powers and technical standards... about 90 years too late.

And no “economy” will ever change that. It’s not 1992 anymore. Here’s the other brutal reality: the economy can likely not maintain its present STRENGTH longer term.

At the local level, the advertising business is in a recession. Read about it in Ad Age and look at inflation adjusted local market total ad expenditures.

That’s the macro reality. We’re in a cyclical UPSWING

Not with local advertising, and radio, by legislation, is made up of limited coverage relatively low power local stations.

Think about that. It’ll be a lot worse a year or 2 or 3 from now. That’s how economy cycles work.And all the major groups are on the financial EDGE…now.

No, not all of them. Some are in deep debt... and the biggest got the debt from a purchaser, not due to operations. And some have manageable debt and others are relatively debt free. Look at ones like Saga and Summit and some others that are relatively large... limited and manageable debt or none at all, but in a local revenue recession.

 

[Gregg.]

Isn't this crazy? Boston has TWO country stations but only one commercial rock station, WZLX. At one time, Boston was one of the best rock markets. Over the years, it had legendary Album Rock, Progressive Rock, Hard Rock and Alternative stations. (It does have a good adult alternative station, 92.5 WXRV, in its suburbs and Jack-clone Big 103 WBGB is mostly rock.)

Compare Boston now to...

--Denver, Portland Oregon and Portland Maine each have TWO classic rockers, an alternative station, and an adult alternative station. Portland ME also has a hard rock station.

--Detroit has TWO classic rockers along with veteran hard rock WRIF. And Audacy ended a Soft AC format to put Alternative on one of its stations.

--Philadelphia has long-time rocker WMMR, plus alternative WRFF and classic rock WMGK. WMMR and WMGK are always in the top five.

--Dallas just restored a hard rock station, KEGL, to go with a classic rock outlet and an alternative station.

--Los Angeles and San Diego each have TWO alternative stations and a classic rock outlet. San Diego also has a hard rock station.

 

[TheBigA]

Isn't this crazy? Boston has TWO country stations but only one commercial rock station, WZLX. At one time, Boston was one of the best rock markets.

The audience shifted online, and they appear quite happy with their options.

Boston is a very sophisticated and intelligent market. People know how to find the music they want.

 

[CTListener]

The audience shifted online, and they appear quite happy with their options.

Not to mention that rhythmic genres such as hip-hop and much of what's played on CHR aren't limited in appeal to Black, inner-city audiences anymore, and haven't been for a couple of decades. Suburban white youth have been drifting away from rock for a long, long time. It's their dads' music.

 

[BostonRadioListener]

Okay, so you want reinvention. Where are your suggestions?

Radio's revenue is off by about 60% to 70% in inflation adjusted dollars over the last 20 years. The principal sources of revenue, local direct accounts and local and regional agencies are struggling. Some of the money is going elsewhere, but the real issue is a decline in real dollars in every market. Local media has lost much of its client base.

We are bright enough to know that revenue is off and Persons Using Radio (the average number of people listening to all stations combined) is off by more than 2/3 since around the year 2000.

The issue is that one-for-many radio is not personalized and is ad supported. That can't be fixed.

There are plenty of the 15,000 AM and FM stations that are not owned by the biggest groups... who really only hold about 10% of all US stations. But every station is finding it harder to make money... nothing new as as far back as the late 50's FCC financial reports, half of all stations were not profitable.

The issue is that one-for-many media is outdated. There is not a way to make this last for a long time, so the short term is the only possibility. And this is why great broadcasters like Jeff Smulyan of Emmis has withdrawn entirely from radio. And even he can't find a buyer yet for his last station, a full facility FM in the nation's second highest billing market, New York.

"Local radio" was a pólitical move in the early 30's... politicians feared that high power stations could be more of a threat than local news papers, and they severely limited ownership and power levels. Most of the world did the opposite.

There is no way to individualize broadcast radio that is open to all and paid for by advertisers. The FCC requires this system, and it is way too late to change allocations, powers and technical standards... about 90 years too late.

At the local level, the advertising business is in a recession. Read about it in Ad Age and look at inflation adjusted local market total ad expenditures.

Not with local advertising, and radio, by legislation, is made up of limited coverage relatively low power local stations.

No, not all of them. Some are in deep debt... and the biggest got the debt from a purchaser, not due to operations. And some have manageable debt and others are relatively debt free. Look at ones like Saga and Summit and some others that are relatively large... limited and manageable debt or none at all, but in a local revenue recession.

You asked for suggestions…I gave 1 and agree we need a lot more. I mentioned hyper local. I think you mentioned national. Fine, everything’s on the table…

Yes, radio’s traditional advertisers ARE struggling. Agree. So…what’s been the change in Retail? The Pie, last I checked is actually as big as ever—but to your point traditional radio advertisers are having a very tough time within that context with traditional retail clients absolutely. And, despite a recent softening, online is attracting $billions of new revenues with strong growth each year—micro targeting. And look, I DO get that there’s demo targeting in Radio but it’s not nearly as precise & dollar efficient as Facebook. Facebook can target every single woman with incomes above $60,000 in the 4 towns closest to your Bridal Shop. And you pay for that Reach ONLY. Radio can’t do that but it can target a lot better than it does. And it can SELL a lot better than a dude with an email and an Arb book. Would it really be beneath sales folks to knock on doors and do old fashioned sales with cultivating real local relationships. My contacts tell me that’s a lost art-am I wrong?

And no, I don’t see business migrating from the Megas back to traditional radio buyers—but we can hope right? The traditionals are getting squeezed by the megas: Amazon/Walmart/Costco and the Home Depot/Lowes of the world. A radical change in sales MIX , however, should not be confused with a sales DECLINE . Despite a little blip recently, that sales mix is an absolute bonanza for social media giants. They’ve never had it better. That mix is bad for 1 medium, great for another.

Finally, Irony of ironies I feel the long since abandoned point of this thread may be the most telling point of all.

More FINANCIAL education…and fewer tired old classic rock entries. I think we’d better off with BOTH.

 

[TheBigA]

How do you create a whole new paradigm? I don’t know the answer.

I gave you the answer in post #104.

You want a new & different solution for radio? It's simple: Radio companies need to diversify. That's how people use media now. In the 70s, people had radio. That's all. Now they have a million ways to get music and information. Sure you can do it better or locally, but the pool of radio users is nowhere near what it was in the 70s. So you have to go where the people are and bring what you do to them. That means doing podcasts, providing streaming options of your unique content, building media sources that aren't dependent on transmitters & towers, and diversifying the revenue stream so you're not overly dependent on selling spots. The users of media don't like commercials. A percentage are willing to pay money to avoid commercials. Radio needs to offer that option, because users are paying other companies for something radio could do. But there aren't enough people in Boston to make it work. So yes, there has to be a revolution in media. The future won't be like the past.

 

[raccoonradio]

Not a full signal on FM but the rock 92.9 format will go to 106.1 .and 1330..
Are baby boomers and their love for (classic) rock dying off, or are they and more recent generations opting for rock on places besides AM-FM radio?
At my workplace someone has a boom box speaker and feeds it with a playlist of classic rock faves on his phone. No ads. No DJs.
Then there's the various apps and sites that have rock or other music.

Competition.
Internet killed the radio star
Internet killed the radio star
We can't rewind, we've gone too far
Websites came and broke your heart

 

[TheBigA]

Not a full signal on FM but the rock 92.9 format will go to 106.1 .and 1330..
Are baby boomers and their love for (classic) rock dying off, or are they and more recent generations opting for rock on places besides AM-FM radio?

The music has become too diverse for radio, with no real consensus stars or hits. People have their favorite bands, and want to hear music by their favorites, rather than a curated playlist made by someone else.

There was a time when people listened to radio stations like WBCN because they felt the station represented them and their taste. The radio station was their only connection to the artists and the music. They were more willing to sit through songs they didn't like because they felt the station was their tribe. Today the tribe has shifted to the artist. The artists don't need intermediaries or translators. They have their own direct link to fans through social media.

Music isn't being made to fit formats. It's being made to build artist fan bases who tour off that music. It's a different model than 50 years ago. Back then the companies that owned NBC, CBS, and ABC also owned record labels and shared in revenues from music. Not anymore.

 

[Kent]

Are baby boomers and their love for (classic) rock dying off, or are they and more recent generations opting for rock on places besides AM-FM radio?
At my workplace someone has a boom box speaker and feeds it with a playlist of classic rock faves on his phone. No ads. No DJs.
Then there's the various apps and sites that have rock or other music.

If you look at Beasley's stations in Philadelphia, 102.9 MGK is routinely a leader in both 25-54 and 18-34. Classic rock can still work for a younger crowd, and that plays out in multiple markets. Classic rock tests a lot better with younger generations than classic pop, though it has still had to tweak its playlist slightly over the years. More than likely, Boston just didn't have enough room for classic rock on 92.9 with it already being on 100.7, where it is, by most accounts, done better. Haven't listened in a long time, but WROR also used to be more of a rock leaning classic hits stations. If that's still the case, classic rock probably is pretty well saturated.

 

[Futabachannel]

I wonder what Adam 12 will do after this. He's had a tough time staying in one place, though it's no fault of his own. Those late-stage BCN lineups of O&A, T&R, Adam 12, and Hardy made for great radio.

 

[Identnut]

Boston just didn't have enough room for classic rock on 92.9 with it already being on 100.7, where it is, by most accounts, done better.

So much so that they're sports talk in the morning

People in Boston want classic rock so badly that the WZLX Facebook got flooded with comments about much Rich sucks and they should play music in the morning with Pete and Heather. And they can't be wrong.

 

[MarcB]

Classic Rock stations are adding newer older songs. Here in Hartford 102.9 The Whale plays "Fight For Your Right to Party" by The Beastie Boys. That song is 38 years old now. That whole thing there breaks my 42 year old heart. 😂 I've also heard songs from the early 90s on that station.

102.9 The Whale is not a corporate station. It's owned by Full Power Radio a company that owns approximately 30 FCC licenses. (Lots of translators).

 

[TheBigA]

Beasley's stock has been under $1 for a while, and that's against the rules at the NY Stock Exchange. So the board has approved a reverse stock split that will raise the price to conform to the rules:

Beasley Board Gives OK To Reverse Stock Split.

Beasley Broadcast Group, long dogged by a sub-dollar share price that has threatened its listing on the Nasdaq exchange, has approved a reverse stock split of the company’s outstanding shares.

www.insideradio.com

The companies that have done this have had a temporary reprieve. But the price usually settles back down pretty quickly.

 

[Gregg.]

The audience shifted online, and they appear quite happy with their options.

Boston is a very sophisticated and intelligent market. People know how to find the music they want.

So you're saying Boston rock fans know how to find their music on line? But folks in Denver, Portland, LA, San Diego, etc. don't? Why do those cities have three, four or five rock stations? They haven't learned about streaming yet?

This is the same theory about a variety of things radio does. "We don't need that because it's available on line." True, everything radio does is available on line. Music, news, weather, traffic, sports, talk.

Or is it easier to just hit one button on your radio when you get in the car. As opposed turning on your phone, finding the right app, turning that on, then deciding on the station you want, then making sure your car radio is able to stream it from your phone.

I can do all those things even though I shouldn't do them if I'm driving. So my first choice is, can I find what I want on my radio? If nothing appeals to me, then I can do those other things if I'm stopped at a red light or pull over to do them.

Apparently that's what's still going on in those multi-rock station cities.

 

[TheBigA]

So you're saying Boston rock fans know how to find their music on line? But folks in Denver, Portland, LA, San Diego, etc. don't?

That's not what I said. Read it again.