• 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

Who carried the Daytona 500 in Pittsburgh on the radio.

Re: No radio numbers but......

> The race drew a record number of viewers for a Nascar event,
> drawing an 11.3 rating, or roughly 37 million viewers.

I'm not surprised. NASCAR strikes me as tailor-made for television. I haven't been attempting to make or prove a point about whether it also works on radio, because I simply do not know if it works or not.

I know that on a nice summer day, listening to a baseball game on the radio on your back porch might be more pleasant that watching the same game indoors on the television. I do not know if NASCAR is also like that.

I so know that there are more people stuck working on Sundays nowadays than in the past. But, I also know that there are still more people free to watch NASCAR on television on Sundays than on any other day of the week. As a result, I don't know if carrying NASCAR on the radio would be a beneficial thing for a radio station or not. That's why I asked questions, so I could learn from the answers.

This is not a scientificly validated observation, it's just what I have observed. And what I have observed in life is that there is a large number of people who are sports fans, who like football, baseball, hockey, & basketball. And, there is a large number of people who are NASCAR fans. But, there aren't all that many people who are both sports and NASCAR fans. Most sports fans I've known regard auto racing as not being a "real" sport. And most NASCAR fans I've known regard any sport played with a ball or puck as merely a "game". Maybe I don't know enough of the right people.

But it does strike me that a radio station that caters to "sports" fans isn't really a natural fit for NASCAR, while a radio station that caters to people whose lifestyle might include NASCAR (and the NHRA), like a country music station, would be a much more natural fit for motor sports.
 
Yes and no

I get your point.

However, by that same token then basketball would be best served on a urban contemporary station, or hockey on a classic rock.

Perhaps all sports would be best served on a music station that has a format catering to the fans the sport targets.

After all, I think more people are listening to the Steelers game on WDVE than WBGG.
 
Re: Yes and no

> I get your point.
>
> However, by that same token then basketball would be best
> served on a urban contemporary station, or hockey on a
> classic rock.
>
> Perhaps all sports would be best served on a music station
> that has a format catering to the fans the sport targets.
>
> After all, I think more people are listening to the Steelers
> game on WDVE than WBGG.
>

I agree with your last sentence. I'd much rather listen in stereo than on a fuzzy AM station.

Here's another point to ponder. Sure, Nascar is a big VIEWING sport, does that translate to radio??? I'd much rather watch it, than listen to it on the radio. Perhaps that's why it's the most "viewed" sport? People enjoy seeing the action and it doesn't really translate without the pictures.

Now, I'll listen to DVE with the national sound down, so I can hear Bily, Tunch, and Wolf. They're Pittsburgh. I listen to Tunch and Wolfley almost every morning. To me, that's the difference of listening to a sport on the radio. There's some "local interest" for the listener. You don't get that with Nascar.

Mr. Music
 
Re: Yes and no

> I get your point.
>
> However, by that same token then basketball would be best
> served on a urban contemporary station, or hockey on a
> classic rock.

No, it seems that you didn't get my point. It strikes me that sports like baseball, football, basketball, and hockey seem to appeal to "sports" fans, while motor sports seem to appeal to people who are not "sports" fans.

Anyone who is a fan of any particular kind of event programming will tune into any station to hear that event, regardless of what that station usually plays the rest of the time. This isn't about whether or not fans of any sort of event programming, sports or otherwise, will tune that event in. It's about how much spill-over that station will get by promoting the rest of their programming during the event.

I submit that if a station that normally plays polkas carried NASCAR, then NASCAR fans would tune to that station to hear the race, but wouldn't tune in at any other time to hear polkas unless they were already polka fans in the first place. However, if a country music fan who usually listens to 107.9 were to tune to a Froggy to hear NASCAR, then that might prompt him to also start tuning into Froggy instead of WDSY for his favorite music.

> Perhaps all sports would be best served on a music station
> that has a format catering to the fans the sport targets.

It's not about serving sports. It's about leveraging the broadcasting of sporting events to boost listenership the rest of the time.

> After all, I think more people are listening to the Steelers
> game on WDVE than WBGG.

True, because WDVE has a nice, clear strong FM signal, while WBGG sounds like it's playing on a tin can. I can't imagine anyone ever voluntarily choosing to listen to anything that's carried on both an AM and an FM station on the AM station, unless they only have an AM receiver, or they just can't pick up the FM station.

Then again, there are always a few oddballs who like tinny, scratchy, static-filled audio.
 
Re: Yes and no

> Now, I'll listen to DVE with the national sound down, so I
> can hear Bily, Tunch, and Wolf. They're Pittsburgh. I
> listen to Tunch and Wolfley almost every morning. To me,
> that's the difference of listening to a sport on the radio.
> There's some "local interest" for the listener. You don't
> get that with Nascar.
>
> Mr. Music

That's the biggest thing about NASCAR. It's a "sport" that has little or no regionality to it. It's more like the PGA tour, or the Pro Bowlers tour. There are fans of the sport, but with no teams that identify with a particular city, the local fan rooting interest just isn't there.

I'm sure we all know plenty of Steeler fans who aren't all that interested in watching football games with no Steeler connection. And look at how poorly the NBA does in Pittsburgh's TV ratings, since Pittsburgh has no NBA team. I don't even know if any local radio station carries any NBA games, let alone how good their ratings are.
 
Re: NBA On ...

> Look at how poorly the NBA does in Pittsburgh's TV ratings, since Pittsburgh has no NBA team. I don't even know if any local radio station carries any NBA
games, let alone how good their ratings are.

WEAE-AM 1250 carries the ESPN Radio broadcasts of NBA games. The Cavaliers' network is not heard on local radio, though on TV their games are split between WBGN and Fox Sports Net-Pittsburgh.
 
Re: NBA On ...

> > Look at how poorly the NBA does in Pittsburgh's TV
> ratings, since Pittsburgh has no NBA team. I don't even know
> if any local radio station carries any NBA
> games, let alone how good their ratings are.
>
> WEAE-AM 1250 carries the ESPN Radio broadcasts of NBA games.
> The Cavaliers' network is not heard on local radio, though
> on TV their games are split between WBGN and Fox Sports
> Net-Pittsburgh.

What kind of ratings do those broadcasts get? Do the NBA games on 1250 come anywhere close to the ratings of broadcasts of sports that include Pittsburgh teams?
 
It's no diferrent.....

I'm getting a chuckle out of all of the people who never watch or listen to a Nascar race trying to figure out why other people do. Setting aside the Steeler fans who turn down the sound to hear Hilgrove & Co., why would any sports fans listen to the broadcast of an event on the radio, instead of watching it on TV? Because they are unable to get to a TV set (Work, travel, etc.), or they would rather be doing something while following the event. So should Nascar fans be any different? They want to keep track on who is winning, who's out of the race, who is two laps down. and so on. So on a hot summer day, you listen to the race on the radio while washing the car, working in the garage, grilling steaks on the patio, or sipping a beer on the porch. Or you tune in while driving back from a softball game, or for a run to the store to buy something the wife forgot for Sunday dinner. IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN BASEBALL, FOOTBALL, HOCKEY, OR BASKETBALL! (All sports that I also watch and listen to). And for the person that said there is no local flavor to Nascar, so less people would listen.....it's popularity is for exactly that reason - A winning driver has fans from all over the country, not just one region. While a football fan in Pittsburgh has little interest in the broacast of a game between Arizona and Minnesota (unless they bet on it), A Jeff Gordon fan can be from anywhere and will want to follow his progress during a race.
 
Re: It's no diferrent.....

> I'm getting a chuckle out of all of the people who never
> watch or listen to a Nascar race trying to figure out why
> other people do.

All I can say is that there have been times when I have had to sit through a NASCAR race on television, and after having watched the whole damn thing, I still don't know why anyone would voluntarily watch or listen to a race. Watching a bunch of cars zoom around a track makes a baseball game seem exciting. And baseball is almost as exciting as watching grass grow.

And, while it's rather obvious why someone would have to listen to something instead of watching it, my question was about the proportions of listening versus watching. If you absolutely cannot watch, then obviously you have to listen. And, if you want to listen, then you don't have to watch, you can listen. What I've asked was where do most NASCAR fans draw the line?

I know that most baseball fans don't seem to care much whether they see the game or not, as long as they can hear it. The fans of broadcast baseball that I've known would often choose to just listen, even if they could watch. But the fans of hockey I have known would almost never choose to listen if they could watch. They'd only listen as a last resort.

You say "on a hot summer day, you listen to the race on the radio while washing the car, working in the garage, grilling steaks on the patio, or sipping a beer on the porch." but that doesn't answer the question of how willing is a NASCAR fan to give up watching the race on television in order to do those other things while only listening to the race. Are NASCAR fans, on average, more like baseball fans who don't much care if they only hear the race, or are they more like hockey fans who only settle for the radio version if they have no other choice?

> Setting aside the Steeler fans who turn
> down the sound to hear Hilgrove & Co., why would any sports
> fans listen to the broadcast of an event on the radio,
> instead of watching it on TV? Because they are unable to
> get to a TV set (Work, travel, etc.), or they would rather
> be doing something while following the event. So should
> Nascar fans be any different? They want to keep track on
> who is winning, who's out of the race, who is two laps down.
> and so on. So on a hot summer day, you listen to the race
> on the radio while washing the car, working in the garage,
> grilling steaks on the patio, or sipping a beer on the
> porch. Or you tune in while driving back from a softball
> game, or for a run to the store to buy something the wife
> forgot for Sunday dinner. IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN BASEBALL,
> FOOTBALL, HOCKEY, OR BASKETBALL! (All sports that I also
> watch and listen to). And for the person that said there is
> no local flavor to Nascar, so less people would
> listen.....it's popularity is for exactly that reason - A
> winning driver has fans from all over the country, not just
> one region. While a football fan in Pittsburgh has little
> interest in the broacast of a game between Arizona and
> Minnesota (unless they bet on it), A Jeff Gordon fan can be
> from anywhere and will want to follow his progress during a
> race.
>
 
Re: It's no diferrent.....

You've seen the Steeler fans who paint their faces, wear their Steeler clothes, and go crazy during games. And they may have their homes decked out in Steeler colors and parapharnalia. Some Nascar fans are no different, except they are that devoted to their favorite driver. They are the ones who are most likely to watch on TV instead of listen to the radio, because they plan their day around the race. Many other more casual fans are just like what I described - watching if they get a chance, but still willing to do other things, while keeping track of the race. I think there are enough of these fans to warrant having the races on the radio. But as I mentioned in a previous post, the Nascar season is longer than any other (9 months), and the races are sometimes over fours hours. That, and the required additional MRN programming, could keep many stations from carrying the races. That said, MRN has over 700 affiliates, and claim to be the largest independent sports network, so I guess someone is listening.

I sympathize with you having to sit through something you didn't enjoy or have any interest in. Sort of like listening to the KDKA morning show.
 
Re: It's no diferrent.....

ARRRRGGGGHH!!!!!!

I understand that "some" like one thing, and "others" like another. What I'm curious about, from a radio programming point of view, is how large the "some" is compared to the "other", especially in Pittsburgh. No matter what kind of programming you put on the air, there are "some" people who will like it. The question is whether or not the "some" includes enough people to make it worthwhile to advertisers. I don't doubt that MRN has 700 affiliates. But that could prove either that lots and lots of people want to listen to it, or it could prove that it doesn't cost stations very much money to use it to fill up a few hours of programming time a week. Not knowing the details about MRN, I keep asking, and I keep getting non-answers like "some do" and "some don't".

> You've seen the Steeler fans who paint their faces, wear
> their Steeler clothes, and go crazy during games. And they
> may have their homes decked out in Steeler colors and
> parapharnalia. Some Nascar fans are no different, except
> they are that devoted to their favorite driver. They are
> the ones who are most likely to watch on TV instead of
> listen to the radio, because they plan their day around the
> race. Many other more casual fans are just like what I
> described - watching if they get a chance, but still willing
> to do other things, while keeping track of the race. I
> think there are enough of these fans to warrant having the
> races on the radio. But as I mentioned in a previous post,
> the Nascar season is longer than any other (9 months), and
> the races are sometimes over fours hours. That, and the
> required additional MRN programming, could keep many
> stations from carrying the races. That said, MRN has over
> 700 affiliates, and claim to be the largest independent
> sports network, so I guess someone is listening.
>
> I sympathize with you having to sit through something you
> didn't enjoy or have any interest in. Sort of like
> listening to the KDKA morning show.
>
 
Re: It's no diferrent.....

Sorry, I don't have ratings numbers, if that is what you are looking for. I have been going on the assumption that you know little about the Nascar fan base in Pittsburgh, since you compared it to the fans of English cricket. I have been just trying to educate you in general terms based on my own experience in dealing with race fans for 20 + years, including the airing of various auto racing talk shows. I don't know if Nascar, or anyone else, has done a study of how many of their fans listen to the races on the radio, in various markets. If I get any numbers from my sources, I'll post them for you.

If you really are interested, call or e mail Larry Mattingly, the General Manager of Jennerstown Speedway. He has been in Motorsports marketing and promotion for 40 years.
 
Re: It's no diferrent.....

Since we have no numbers for Pittsburgh, after all racing hasn't been on the radio here in years (though I would love to know if someone was so bored as to actually keep that info stored away) we now have national radio numbers.


http://www.whowon.com/sresults.asp?SanctionID=230&StoryID=176416


With 7 million radio listeners and another 37 million TV viewers, you are looking at roughly a number between one out of every 6-7 listeners catches the race via radio, rather than TV.
 
Finally!

Finally, the one single post in this entire thread that actually offers something that indicates whether or not carrying NASCAR is a good or bad idea for any Pittsburgh radio station that might consider doing it!

> Since we have no numbers for Pittsburgh, after all racing
> hasn't been on the radio here in years (though I would love
> to know if someone was so bored as to actually keep that
> info stored away) we now have national radio numbers.
>
>
http> ://www.whowon.com/sresults.asp?SanctionID=230&StoryID=176416
>
>
>
> With 7 million radio listeners and another 37 million TV
> viewers, you are looking at roughly a number between one out
> of every 6-7 listeners catches the race via radio, rather
> than TV.
>
 
Re: Finally!

Wow - after all this, you are pleased with some generic national numbers, that have nothing to do with Pittsburgh, for a race that does not reflect the rest of the season. That would be like the Pittsburgh stations that broadcast the Steelers basing their ad rates on the national listening audience for the Super Bowl. But hey, as long as you are happy!

BTW, Fox Sports 970 carried the second half of the Nascar season last year, and moved them to 94.5 during the Steeler season. I believe that is what started this thread many postings ago - why aren't they doing it this year? Radio Realist, if you want the numbers-call them. Frankly, I don't care if they carry the races - I'll listen on 107.5.


> Finally, the one single post in this entire thread that
> actually offers something that indicates whether or not
> carrying NASCAR is a good or bad idea for any Pittsburgh
> radio station that might consider doing it!
>
> > Since we have no numbers for Pittsburgh, after all racing
> > hasn't been on the radio here in years (though I would
> love
> > to know if someone was so bored as to actually keep that
> > info stored away) we now have national radio numbers.
> >
> >
> http>
> ://www.whowon.com/sresults.asp?SanctionID=230&StoryID=176416
>
> >
> >
> >
> > With 7 million radio listeners and another 37 million TV
> > viewers, you are looking at roughly a number between one
> out
> > of every 6-7 listeners catches the race via radio, rather
> > than TV.
> >
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom