Random Ratings -
#1 - WGN - 5.5
#2 - WGCI - 5.0
#5 - WOJO - 4.2
#11 - WPPN - 3.0
#12 - WLEY - 2.9
#23 - WMVP - 1.7
#26 - WSCR - 1.5*
#27 - WVIV - 1.5* - (*another service has WVIV before WSCR)

what about the ratings for the individual shows ?

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

[quote][quote="nostradamus"]Random Ratings -
#1 - WGN - 5.5
#2 - WGCI - 5.0
#5 - WOJO - 4.2
#11 - WPPN - 3.0
#12 - WLEY - 2.9
#23 - WMVP - 1.7
#26 - WSCR - 1.5*
#27 - WVIV - 1.5* - (*another service has WVIV before WSCR)[/quote)

Phew!!!

I'm glad Mitch let you post that memo.

Previous ratings are in brackets after this ratings period:

23. WMVP-AM (1000) ..............................................1.7 [1.3]

26. WSCR-AM (670) ................................................1.5 [1.6]

_________________
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are not suitable for work or home viewing.

The name's Rockmore. Beef Rockmore

What the fuck is WVIV?

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

Spanish FM.

The gospel station beat out the score.

Again...

I question why the 670 frequency is being used for sportstalk Maybe there's nothing better, but I wonder if a "best of 70s" station could out-draw? That's just ridiculous...

_________________
Middle Aged Crazy, like Uncle Terry

I'm not in the know, but havent they essentially said the original way radio ratings were calculated was flawed, then they moved to a new format that is essentially more flawed?

The line is that sports talk draws a very specific demographic, something that is more attractive to many sponsors than a station that has a scattered listenership.