Lawrence ? ? ?
> > Littleton, as I'm sure you're aware, is just a location
> > given as an example. The same could be said for Lowell,
> > Lawrence, Haverhill, Nashua, Methuen, etc. All places
> with
> > a growing level of diversity.
>
> However, all of the areas in the example had chiefly
> caucasian populations. All of the cities that you have
> listed have considerably diverse populations.
>
> As you also may have also noticed, the author of the
> previous post used chiefly-caucasian communities to describe
> the signal faults of WILD, so I used this fact to his
> disadvantage. Radio One would certainly like to serve all
> communities in Eastern Massachusetts, including both
> Lawrence and Littleton, although one would be considerably
> more beneficial to the station's advertisers and target
> demographic than the other.
>
> > The whole "all blacks live near Boston, so not having R&B
> in
> > the burbs is OK" argument smacks of stereotyping. If
> true,
> > then I shouldn't see whining about WAAF's crappy new
> signal,
> > which is fine in the aforementioned areas - but lousy in
> > Boston. Hey, most whites live in the suburbs, so why
> should
> > Entercom worry about reaching the city, right? Of course
> > not. The WILD argument is just as ridiculous. All owners
>
> > want ratings. If you want them, then you need to have a
> > good (or at least available) signal throughout the market.
>
>
> Of course all owners want a good signal. And WILD-FM's
> signal is fairly available in the majority of it's target
> area. It would not be fair to say that the majority of the
> audience targetted by WILD-FM is served by the stick,
> considering that it is now located quite close to the target
> demo.
>
> And given the signal coverage of WILD-FM, an urban-based
> format is the best use of the stick (as it is currently
> configured). If WILD-FM were to attempt a classic country
> format, it would certainly have trouble as the areas that it
> covers are those least in need of a country stick.
>
> I'm not really sure about the connection of WAAF into the
> argument. WAAF's format is directed in large part to
> younger, college-going demos. So clearly WAAF, a Worcester
> (or is it back to Westborough?) license, would like to
> enable interested college students, many of whom are located
> in Boston and Cambridge, to listen to the signal. Radio
> One's chief demographic is not farmers in Littleton, so I
> doubt that they would put too much effort (and $$$) into
> getting the signal to hit this area.
>
> > By the way, WJMN gets pretty decent ratings in Manchester
> -
> > especially for a station that has a fringe signal there.
> > More listeners than the local (92.1) signal of 'FNX. So
> > much for stereotypes.
>
> (if the Boston presentation of WFNX gets no ratings here,
> what would you expect when it is paired up with a market
> where a strong, very popular, and heritage AOR exists? Plus,
> I don't get the sense that WFEX is much of a local station;
> as there is no Manchester Phoenix, I would doubt that they
> have any offices.)
>
> WJMN is not WILD-FM. The presentation of WILD-FM is
> durastically different than WJMN; just listen to the
> airstaff and advertisers, which clearly target the urban
> areas of Boston (and surrounding areas). However, WJMN's
> suburban, white, and less-hardcore presentation lead it to
> become a success particularly in suburban areas.
>
> If you asked me if an R/CHR in Manchester would work, I
> would agree without a doubt. Keep in mind that Manchester
> also lacks a CHR as well, as WJYY 105.5 is a Concord signal
> that targets it's home market. If you asked me if an
> Urban-formatted station would work, I'd laugh.
>
Why would Radio One care about a black oriented station reaching Lawrence? Lawrence is a heavily Hispanic city. If any one should be concerned about reaching Lawrence, it would be a Spanish language station, which Boston doesn't have anymore (which is lame!)<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">
Edited by Ciao on 12/09/05 04:28 AM.</FONT></P>
