IMHO sports talk hosts should stick to sports and not go off on tangents. This happens very often when there are two or three hosts. A few days ago Michael Kay, Don LaGreca, and Peter Rosenberg were discussing the versions of Bridge Over Troubled Water by Simon and Garfunkel, Aretha Franklin, and Elvis Presley. I think that would turn off many listeners.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Sports Talk Hosts Going off on Tangents
- Thread starter BruceNYC
- Start date
Talk formats are based on endless blather, hence the name TALK. I've known Sports Talk hosts who are burned out on Sports. They've become bored with the tedious repetition and regurgitating the same things. That's probably why they wander off into other tangents.
I would expect that most listeners of Sports Talk only care about their favourite teams. Anything unrelated to what "they" want is a tune out...
I would expect that most listeners of Sports Talk only care about their favourite teams. Anything unrelated to what "they" want is a tune out...
Last edited:
Most under-55 listeners, for sure.
Try telling any talk host what to do. In any type of talk. Certainly talking about 50 year old music by long-dead artists is a bad idea if you're concerned about the age of your audience. But if your job is to sit in front of a mic and talk with co-hosts for four hours a day, five days a week, the conversation will go off topic from time to time. That's when it's time to go to commercial.
Isn't the Program Director or GM there to offer feedback? If ratings & revenue are acceptable, then the host is free to run amok. Some of these shows have been around so long, they function by rote. The plug gets pulled when revenue dries up...
And it could be that the advertisers and agencies are more comfortable with older listeners in the sports format than they are in others, since the average age of TV viewers of all of our major team sports is now over 50.
That's why Nickelodeon aired an alternate Super Bowl. The NFL is trying to get kids interested.
The big 3 TV networks -- CBS, NBC, ABC have seen their Prime Time ratings collapse. They would be better off showing reruns of BONANZA, MASH, CHEERS, etc...
The ratings would improve, but of course it would be 55 and over folks...
Sure. Who has the bigger fan base: Michael Kay or some unknown GM? At some point these hosts get too big to reason with. They're the ones with the contract, they're the ones the advertisers know, they're the ones attracting the audience, and after a while they have all the power.
The way it works in practicality is there's usually a show producer who also co-ordinates with guests and callers, makes sure the commercials run. He's the one who is supposed to step in when things go off track. But once again, the host is the big banana.
It all depends on the host. The good ones want feedback, they want to know where they can improve because they'll have tunnel vision while in the studio and may or may not realize they've gone off track.
Then there are others who have been on the air for a long time, and this program director will be replaced by another in a year or so as they either move on or have their responsibilities expanded to the point that regular one-on-ones become less regular. And most GMs these days come from the sales side and could care less about the programming as long as it sounds good, there's no dead air and they can sell it.
As for a show producer, it's far more likely that person is also screening calls and maybe even running the board as well and will get blown off by the host.
That said, going back the OP, how long was this segment? A couple of minutes of banter like that near the end of the show, I wouldn't get too worked up about as a PD if the rest was on point with whatever Topic A was that day.
Then there are others who have been on the air for a long time, and this program director will be replaced by another in a year or so as they either move on or have their responsibilities expanded to the point that regular one-on-ones become less regular. And most GMs these days come from the sales side and could care less about the programming as long as it sounds good, there's no dead air and they can sell it.
As for a show producer, it's far more likely that person is also screening calls and maybe even running the board as well and will get blown off by the host.
That said, going back the OP, how long was this segment? A couple of minutes of banter like that near the end of the show, I wouldn't get too worked up about as a PD if the rest was on point with whatever Topic A was that day.
I'm less of a fan of sports betting talk than off topic stuff during a sports talk show.
Every radio format is designed to reach a demographic. The name of the format, the topic of the format, type of programming simply exist
Sports Talk is simply a mechanism to sell content to advertisers looking to reach male audiences. The advertisers do not care if the station is playing test tones as long as its generating an audience to hear their commercials. The CONTENT does not matter.
It's why Beyonce can become a Country artist. Why gold stations evolve. Etc.. Its' all about serving the demographic to sell to advertisers and nothing else
Sports Talk is simply a mechanism to sell content to advertisers looking to reach male audiences. The advertisers do not care if the station is playing test tones as long as its generating an audience to hear their commercials. The CONTENT does not matter.
It's why Beyonce can become a Country artist. Why gold stations evolve. Etc.. Its' all about serving the demographic to sell to advertisers and nothing else
Yeah, I'm kind of the opposite of what BruceNYC thinks. Continuously talking about the details of the most recent performances by Aaron Judge or Tommy DeVito is incredibly boring.
Listening to "just the guys" is a little more interesting.
Listening to "just the guys" is a little more interesting.
@CTListener I don't mean to sound like I'm challenging your comment, 'cause I'm not - but I'm curious if this is a statistic you've actually seen data on or if it was just an off the cuff comment? Curious as I can see that "over 50" viewer comment being true for some sports like baseball, but for other sports like Basketball, when I look in the stands or go to a sports bar to watch a game, the crowd is quite obviously skewing much younger than 50.
I agree with the sports bar thing. If you follow Barstool or anything like that, the audience is in their 30s.
I don't have data on TV viewing. As of 2021, Sports talk radio median age is 50, with 40% of the audience between 35-55. There's a very different group who leave the house and engage in bars vs. those who stay home and listen to radio or watch TV.
The goal in sports radio now is to bring the median age down about 10 years, and they're mainly doing that with all the betting talk. That's very popular among young men. Gaming is also big (video games) for men who grew up in the 90s. They also find that play-by-play is less important than short clips of scoring and other short highlights.
In what significant market does the GM do day-to-day coaching and airchecking? The PD will go over formatics, use of the station name or call letters, cross promotion. The PD and, often, corporate format managers, will go over ratings and research.
Unless a particular host is very controversial, agency and most direct buys are for the station and not the individual shows, There is no way to optimize “reach” by buying just one show.
It's a stat I've seen. NBA and NHL lovw 50s, NFL mid 50s, MLB near 60.
If your example is recent, another thing to keep in mind is that there's a bit of a lull in sports-related stuff to talk about right now. The Super Bowl just happened so no recent football games to discuss. MLB spring training doesn't begin for some weeks. NBA teams have no games for about a week as it's their All-Star break. So aside from hockey and some front office / coaching moves or trades here and there, there's not a whole lot of "meat" in the sports world to fill a show. Certainly not like some months when multiple sports are in full swing and they get to start off the show with "We've got a lot to talk about today, and hope to be able to get to it all".
Big A essentially was saying once hired, the hosts can do whatever they want. That renders the PD impotent. If the host is the star, they need no coaching or staff meetings. It's irrelevant anyway because most stations have a skeleton crew. There's no staff to gather for a meeting anymore...
It depends on the host. The OP is talking about Michael Kay, who is a heritage host and voice of the Yankees. He is the big dog at WEPN. If he wants to talk about Simon & Garfunkel, that's what he talks about. He & David Cone or Paul O'Neil talk about a lot of the same things when they do Yankee games on YES. People who are familiar with that will find it entertaining. Those who don't can switch over to WFAN.
These boards are filled with comments from people who feel the suits are ruining radio, and they should let talent be talent. If a station hires someone to be a personality, then this is part of their personality. On the other hand, someone else wants the experienced talent to stick to sports. My point is that a successful personality is going to be hard to control, no matter the format.