Talk:WAXQ

	Radio portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio Stations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of radio stations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Radio StationsWikipedia:WikiProject Radio StationsTemplate:WikiProject Radio StationsRadio station articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The station claims to be the most listened to rock station in the United States. They cite Arbitron; if this can be confirmed then it certainly belongs in the article.128.237.246.138 21:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't having a high rating on Arbitron mean that they receive more money, from advertisers and whatnot? Is this why they can play so much music and have such short commercials? --69.120.63.248 03:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

history of WNCN becoming WAXQ

Some of the early history is a bit inaccurate. It actually changed from WNCN (classical) to WAXQ in 1996, having a mainly alternative format (I was working there at the time). Howard Stern noted this and called it his favorite station (no other commercial station was playing alternative yet). Then after about a year, when bought by Viacomm, it changed to Classic Rock and Stern's station (K-Rock) changed to alternative. And I don't believe Adam Curry ever worked there. Can anyone help find some references for this? x 21:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I take back my memory of the year, I have a t-shirt from when we changed over, and it says December 1993. But yeah, it was bought by Viacomm in 1996. And the rest I said is correct, WAXQ was the first commercial alternative-music station in NYC, maybe in the U.S. x 20:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 for tuesday

Shouldn't 2 for Tuesday be considered a popular segment? Seldon1 18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on air Schedule

I updated the schedule with My knolage of the DJ shifs and reading the DJ Bio on Q104.3 it was not copied or pasted.DLA75 01:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sopranos

User 148.168.40.4 (Talk | Contribs) added some stuff about The Sopranos. I initially removed only the portion which I could prove to be untrue. But it seems likely that the entire thing was a fabrication, so I deleted all of it. If anyone has evidence that "The Sopranos often featured the station as the radio station Tony Soprano would set his alarm clock to." is true, please feel free to put it back in. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relentless Commercials

I believe an article describing WAXQ should include discussing its commercials, if only because of the considerable percentage of on-air time they consume. I can only imagine there's a balancing exercise: more commercials would tend to increase profits, but it also tends to reduce listenership which would reduce profits. As WAXQ is a commercial entity, I would like to see this article discuss how management determined that their ratio of commercials-to-content maximizes profits. Furthermore, if people feel the commercials are relentless (in percentage of on-air time, repetitiveness, loudness, and inanity) and they therefore stop tuning in, how does management recognize they've lost listenership due to the commercials?

The article discusses at length how the minutia of tweeking the ratio of (for instance) Classic-Rock-to-Active-Rock impacts listenership. But isn't it possible that the ratio of commercials-to-music might be even more significant to the level of listenership? If the lesser subject is discussed, then the more-significant subject certainly should be. I believe there's more to the business side of this broadcast station that the article should include in addition to who-purchased-who over the years.

Another example: In this article about this commercial venture, a text-search for the word "profit" comes up with no mention, which seems contradictory. Thanks. Nei1 (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]