Mike Leghorn wrote:

>Chicago recently was reduced to just one classical station (WFMT) when
>WNIB sold out to Rock'n'Roll about a year ago.  This is a scary trend.
>Why is classical music so unpopular?

The loss of WNIB in Chicago was something of a "special case".  WNIB
was essentially a "Mom-and-Pop" operation, with its studios in a home
no less, whose owners were getting on in age and just not willing or able
to continue the effort to keep it alive.  They were offered a very large
amount of money (substantially more than $100 million) for the station
(essentially for the license to use the frequency).  It was an offer that
they just could not refuse.

In Chicago, this loss does not reflect any decrease in listeners, since
virtually all of WNIB's listeners now listen to WFMT (whose listening
audience had been slowly increasing anyway).

Jocelyn Wang wrote:

>The fact is that commercial classical music tends to be quite profitable.
>However, it is less profitable than pop, which is why commercial stations,
>instead of making millions with classical, opt for zillions with pop.

I'd love to see the data supporting the profit of "millions with
classical".  WFMT, which by any reasonable standards is one of the
best classical stations in the United States, cannot fully support its
operations with commercial advertising alone.  Not too many years ago,
when it was in danger of failing, it appealed to its listeners for direct
support in the form of subscriber contributions.  Today, fully 33% of the
financial support for WFMT comes directly from listener contributions.
Incidentally, the station is run on a very tight budget, with minimal
staff and relatively low salaries.

Nick Yasillo
(A loyal WFMT supporter)