All Drop In
Moderator
The Voice of Reason
Posts: 32,421 
|
Post by All Drop In on Feb 8, 2015 1:45:57 GMT -6
Everyone hates everything. Sadly, that's what most successful media is based upon these days. However, this is your chance to have your voice heard. Well.......
1) What are your personal preferences?
2) What do you think could actually create an audience?
3) Who could sell advertising, which involves one and two?
4) What do you think it costs to start?
5) What new ideas would you implement?
Please answer all of the above, and feel free to add additional comments. Do you feel that? I'm touching a special part of your, we'll just call it your brain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirkwoodref on Feb 8, 2015 8:33:34 GMT -6
As frustrating as Mully can be sometimes I think M&H is the perfect morning show. They spray to all fields, they're kind to callers still waking up (brain isn't functional with thoughts yet) or callers brains who haven't gone to bed yet. Mully actually was a journalist/columnist and doesn't pretend to be one. So he has good connections and is friends with the best (tallest midget) reporters in Chicago. Hanley's jokes are awful but really they're nothing different than Boers' terrible jokes. They're so bad you can't help but laugh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirkwoodref on Feb 8, 2015 8:48:18 GMT -6
1) I want somebody who is self aware. Who is a fan and doesn't pretend to be smarter just because they read fangraphs. Barstool shooting the shit. Someone who is ok debating with callers without getting all pissy and huffy. Spiegel is the sadly the Score's best version of this but he's too sensitive and emotionally unstable. Sports with guy talk is the money maker. Like you're with a group of guys at the bar. Shoot, like you're posting with a bunch of guys on a message board!
2 &3) Bigcat from Barstool Sports!!! He used to have a weekend gig on The Game. He's a pretty funny dude. He gambles, likes things other guys under 45 do. What a freaking concept. A little bro-y but anything much better than Meat or Dan. Mannelly is a good example but he's leaving!!! He was down to earth, didn't pretend to know anything and had some guy stories.
I like guy talk. None of the Score guys seem to be able to intertwine that into their show without it sucking ass. Spiegel guy talk is sitting on a couch and getting so drunk he passes out. Not that I don't approve but recounting how you did it for the 88th straight day gets old. Also stop calling your child a short person, a little person, a short one, etc. call him by his name already. He is always trying to be deep or clever and its comes off so sappy and burrito. Then we have Dan in the afternoon who can be his own thread.
4) A real station too much money. The thing is podcasting has greatly reduced my need for sports radio. I can listen to podcasts for Cubs, NFL, Hawks, gambling etc.
5) events!!!! Remotes are expensive. Not necessary. But, tailgates! Bowling nights! Engage the listener!!!!! Not a new idea. But a re engagement of simple idea. Engage the audience!!!!!!!
stop carrying press conferences. Oh my god they are so stupid. The laziness of carrying them is so obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terry's Peeps on Feb 8, 2015 9:12:04 GMT -6
As bad as he got at the end, Mike North was the perfect sports talk radio host. He was one of the guys and connected to the audience. He had a following. The Monsters remotes were always packed and he knew how to take care of his guys. He started convincing people to not go to Sox games to protest the 94 strike and the Sox have never recovered.
We need a course correction from the "smart" sports show. Nothing about sports is smart. It is about emotion.
A mix of early 90's Mike North and early 2000's Dan Bernstein would be the perfect show. Talking about sports as distraction it is and having off-the-wall segments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danny Busch on Feb 8, 2015 9:29:39 GMT -6
I agree with wanting someone that is a fan. I do not want someone who thinks their opinion is the most important and only one that matters. I do not want to listen to Bernstein Olberman tell me how it is because they are so god damn smart. Ideally you would be a fan first, a facilitator of discussion second and decider of nothing. By that I mean you don't get to act like the judge who has just heard all of the opinions from each side of a discussion and then feel compelled to make a firm decision on who is right and wrong.
Ideally you would also have a team....kind of like how they do broadcasting teams for live events. 1 play by play (the guy with some kind of writing/reporting background) and 1 color guy (either an athletic background or just a fan/talker with no writing/reporting background).
I think you would be looking for one of the guys to be in their late 20's early 30's and the other 10-15 years older than them. That should allow you to hit the target 18-55 demographic.
No shows on social issues. You can break news if it pertains to sports but you can not create 60 days of penn state programming out of it. I also don't want to hear grimace talk about the humanity and feelings and all of that other crap that has no place on a sports talk station. Do not tell people how to feel about Michael Sam.
Your shows need to balance each other. You need meatballs and non meatballs. Before Bernstein became Olberman he worked because North and Murph were there being meatballs. That was the best lineup ever. Meatball north, weirdo murph and B&B to make fun of them.
The best show on right now that I listen to is Chuck and Wickett. They fit just about every demand I have listed above.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danny Busch on Feb 8, 2015 9:42:35 GMT -6
I almost forgot...It is imperative that you be passionate about your job and the sports you cover. You are not getting 60 days of vacation. You are not taking off all the time because of your cover band side job. Wickett whom I mentioned above does some dj'ing and he also takes some fm all nighter shifts....and he is there and full of energy the next morning on his regular show every time. You are also not doing your show from home Terry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coast2Coast on Feb 8, 2015 10:50:43 GMT -6
Everyone hates everything. Sadly, that's what most successful media is based upon these days. However, this is your chance to have your voice heard. Well....... 1) What are your personal preferences? 2) What do you think could actually create an audience? 3) Who could sell advertising, which involves one and two? 4) What do you think it costs to start? 5) What new ideas would you implement? Please answer all of the above, and feel free to add additional comments. Do you feel that? I'm touching a special part of your, we'll just call it your brain. 1. If I were starting a radio station, it would not be about my personal preferences. My personal preferences are not necessarily what would sell to a younger demographic. 2. I think a guy channel could create an audience......what would a guy channel sound like? some sports, some stock market, some guy stuff like boats, travel, cigars, booze, music, bbq and other guy food, some comedy -- maybe a little raunchy, guy toys and some fun chicks to keep it lively. This would require fun guys to run the station, and maybe even some women hosts, but not sports guys and especially not guys with a journalism or broadcasting background. Sports media guys have ruined sports media. Their framing is much too narrow. Guys like Mully, Hanley, Booers, Silvy, Waddle, etc. are all sports guys. They wouldn't fit. Guys who have a broader range like Mac and Bernstein could potentially make it on a station like this, but Mac is too erratic and Bernstein too negative. So not those two guys, but people with similar range might be potentials. 3. Good advertising sales people are out there, but you won't find them in the usual places. You probably won't find them working for any of the local radio or tv stations. Their pay is too pitiful to attract the best sales talent. The best sales talent is in other businesses, not sports. I would advertise the job and make sure the salary/commission sales structure were attractive enough to attract the very best. 4. Property, equipment, talent, staff -- Probably in the $5 million plus range to start, but I'd want at least a few million in hand to start for marketing and building the brand. The great unknown is what the spectrum would cost if you were going with an over-the-air channel. That would be millions more. That's why I would probably start with an internet channel, build up an audience and hope a Sirius can get interested once an audience is built up. You certainly could do it for less, but having quality personalities to carry the content and having ample resources for marketing will be essential. Under-capitalizing this venture would guarantee failure. This would be a national channel, not a local channel. This market is much too parochial to embrace a big idea like this. 5. New ideas? I think I've already answered that question in 2 and 3.
Good luck! |
|
|
|
Post by Coast2Coast on Feb 8, 2015 11:57:24 GMT -6
Everyone hates everything. Sadly, that's what most successful media is based upon these days. I don't really accept this premise. This may be true of sports radio in Chicago and also true of news-oriented networks. But "most successful media" is a broad term and if I think about the highest rated national TV networks, the list includes ESPN (most of its programming is not negative news but live sports), History Channel, HGTV, Food Channel, MTV, Comedy, Spike, TBS, TNT, etc. I guess my point is that if you are looking to do a local or national sports media or news oriented network, than yes. Negativity and news is the current state. But if you look at the combined ratings of the national entertainment TV channels, the market for entertainment is much larger than the market for negative. |
|
|
|
Post by Positivity KS on Feb 9, 2015 16:32:58 GMT -6
I keep meaning to write something eloquent in this thread, but it's me, so you know I'm fairly incapable of that. All I know is that I love The Big Show (1250 AM WSSP & 1057FMTheFan - Milwaukee)
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirkwoodref on Feb 9, 2015 21:43:35 GMT -6
Kesha, I agree with your PxP and analyst set up. Rahmie does this very well on the Big Show. You'd think 4 guys is too much and even 5 when Gilbert checks in is too many people in the booth. But Rahmie does an excellent job keeping the discussion organized and moving well. Now that I think about it, do you think Rahmie applied for the Cubs pre/post gig?
M&H and Mac are skilled at having a diverse show that's constantly moving. Having a snappy well-paced show is a catch-22 as you can't really have sustained audience phone participation. But with texting and e-mail overtaking calls that's OK. Mac had an improved M&H show as he was able to add topics like grilling, movies, music and such.
There is so much content out there these days with blogs and fan sites providing "specialized" written and auditory content. The same 'ol sports station model that worked 25 years ago is dead. For example, updates at the hour and half-hour. Those are utterly useless except early in the morning. Otherwise they provide no value! If the PM insists on a sponsored "update" I'd feel the ZZ model where he provides a Bears report. Quick snippets of sound and a practice report.
Also with Twitter, Facebook, blogs providing so much info the hosts can't be authoritative "insider" dicks. There's so much accessible info that listeners can tell hosts are full of BS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danny Busch on Feb 9, 2015 22:03:40 GMT -6
IDK if Rahm dog applied for that. With his comedy side career and the success of the Big Show I would have to think he is pretty comfortable where he is. It would have been an opportunity to take each of those careers to the next level. I figure he thought about it but didn't pull the trigger.
|
|
