Why does ESPN Radio not take a lot of phone calls?

[the golden boy]

I listen to ESPN Radio at various times of the day and I would seldom hear a phone call. Granted, I can't always listen because of my work schedule but even in the times that I can listen, I hear no phone calls. The hosts always encourage listeners to send text messages and e-mails. Seems to me that having their toll-free call-in number would be a waste of money to have.

 

[UpstateNYBill]

Sometimes they take calls, like Colin Coherd. But they seem to be concentrating to just get guests or their own inhouse "gurus" to chime in on topics.

 

[quadraphonic]

It's part of their branding. They want to be the authority, the source we all turn to for them to tell us about sports. They can't be the authority on sports, and the source for all sports information, if they're taking calls from yahoos across America asking them hard [or asinine, whatever the case may be] questions they haven't ever thought of researching.

It's how Disney runs things. They are all about packaging and how things look, and so a lot of it is prepackaged, or already covered on the espn.com/espn2.com/espn3.com/espnu/espnradio/tv/magazine/skywriting/telepathy/other media. Since it's prepackaged to fill out the hours pretty full, they don't need to do much on the fly from "the great unwashed in flyover country."

 

[sprtschick]

My question would be....is it a good thing or a bad thing that ESPN doesn't take calls from the listeners?

 

[quadraphonic]

I think it makes it more boring and bland and one hour runs into the next and days into months that all sound the same, but that's just my opinion, no statistics to back that up.

 

[FM 100 Means Music]

The problem with Colin Cowherd is that he only allows callers to talk about the topic of his choice. If someone wants to call in and get Colin's opinion on who the Kansas City Royals will take in the Rule 5 draft, they're out of luck.

I think what the original poster was complaining about is that ESPN does not have any "wide open callers" shows.

But it's obvious that most of ESPN's shows are heavily scripted, or have hosts who rely on copious amounts of notes to get through three hours. Freddie Coleman being the most egregious example of the current group of taletn at ESPN, though he's nowhere near as bad as Mark Madden when Madden was hosting the Sunday morning show in 2004 where he would do interviews and there would be these long pauses as he looked at what the next question he had written down was.

 

[Shoot From Hip]

This is called controlling your show. Wide Open Caller shows aren't on because they don't attract ratings. Especially when the show is syndicated. Why would I want to listen to a show that's all about fans giving their opinion on localized, specific issues that are important only to them? How does that entertain?

 

[quadraphonic]

It doesn't have to be "wide open," there has to be somebody guiding the ship in the producer/call screener spot, but it could still be entertaining. Even if they had some callers who were plants [a la proven "friends of the show" like Rome on the Smackoffs or the days of 1on1 where they had callers calling all the shows who were obviously actors doing schtick, but it was entertaining], it would be nice to have something different than they give on every other medium 24/7.

 

[FM 100 Means Music]

This is called controlling your show. Wide Open Caller shows aren't on because they don't attract ratings. Especially when the show is syndicated. Why would I want to listen to a show that's all about fans giving their opinion on localized, specific issues that are important only to them? How does that entertain?

You hit it right on the head there. Fans hearing about what they want to hear, not having to listen to ESPN blabber on about the World Cup or FSR focus on Yankees/Red Sox at the expense of the other MLB teams, or SNR having third-rate guests and otherwise let ESPN/FSR/SNR dictate to the fans what they will be hearing about.

Back in 2004 when FSR actually did whole shows where Chris Landry would take calls, I was able to get Chris's views on the St. Louis Rams games by calling in and asking him. If I wanna hear what Mel Kiper thinks about Mizzou's WR corps, I'm probably out of luck today.

 

[Mainedude2007]

If I wanna hear what Mel Kiper thinks about Mizzou's WR corps, I'm probably out of luck today.

because it's not college football season, so the sports talkers are talking about RELEVANT things, and right now baseball, NBA free agency and World Cup/Wimbledon (because they're once a year kind of things) are what the masses want to hear about, if you want to know about something that specific, this is a well connected enough world that you can find information about anything at any time.

 

[Pratte4Life]

Three cheers for quadrophonic. I for, one, am of the belief that ESPN tries to push down their agendas on us- political, social, we broke the stories we really didn't- etc.

Right now ESPN is so heavily promoting the World Cup and where LeBron James is going to go I find it unlistenable. I don't care about the World Cup- I'd much rather talk baseball- and am not an NBA fan. Yet I'm told ESPN (I'm told- I hardly listen anymore) is going so far as to ask John Clayton where he thinks James will end up.

That said- ESPN really has changed the face of sports talk radio. When they started in 1991 not taking calls- it was a novel approach- but they also only had weekends to fill up and so they had top notch guests on. I'm not just talking sports figures, either- it was a thrill to be able to listen to an interview with Ringo Starr, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, etc. and their opinions about sports as compared to- say- Butch from the Cape bashing all things Boston or Brad from Bristol, Va. talking about absolutely nothing on the Pete Rose Show day after day.

Remember, at this time we were only a few years removed from Pete Franklin- who was the No. 1 sports talk show host in the country in the '80s- bragging that he "talked to more sports fans than anyone."

I think the industry has changed. It's gotten to where solo hosts are becoming less and less frequent- the content is dictated to having two hosts go back and forth on a topic instead of waiting- and hoping- the lines will light up.

Now, I'm not sure this is a positive. I always enjoyed hearing a call-in show where fans would go back and forth on their ideas on, say, who was going to win the NL East, or win the Super Bowl, or where King James was going to wind up. When your team was going well and you could listen to people talk about their perceptions of their big game coming up- it was a great public forum.

Today, you have the host telling you his ideas- and the back-and-forth has moved to message boards. Cowherd, for instance, uses callers only to advance his own agendas, and the end result is he winds up using callers as pawns rather than knowledgable sports fans wanting to chime in with different perspectives.

A host attracts his own callers. If he treats them with respect and knowledge- he will get respectful and knowledgable callers. If he acts like the resident know-it-all, he'll generally get abrasion and people arguing with him and a host who hangs up on you if you disagree- no matter how knowledgable your point is.

Steve Somers on WFAN tends to be a character. As a result, he gets callers who are characters as well.

My suspicion is we're going to go further away from caller driven sports talk. Nobody wants to battle busy signals and wait on hold for an hour when a message board provides one with an outlet with no waiting and be possibly insulted by the host.

Furthermore, there is a general perception that if a host doesn't go out and get guests, he's lazy and isn't providing one with scoops- just opinions that may or may not be as knowledgable as a fan who does his homework.

And I'm not sure that's a good thing- because you're losing the community involvement that made talk radio popular in the first place.

 

[Leebo65]

I could listen to NFL/College Football talk 24/7. Give me Mel Kiper/John Clayton and I'm happy as a clam.

 

[quadraphonic]

Crud, Pratte. When you mentioned Cowherd there, it occurred to me that while he doesn't take any calls, in the short time when he's not "Spanning the globe" and talking to other talking heads from the network, he's deconstructing what he thinks listeners think about topics, and repeating his opinions about how what he thinks they think is wrong a major portion of the time. So that's almost like taking a call, from inside his head, and arguing with a straw man, who only exists inside Colin's head. Not really "entertainment" so much as it is "time filler" until TalkingHeadX gets back over from the tv studio. "I'm Colin Cowherd. Here's what you think, and here's why you're wrong. (It's all about tax rates, and you need to be like me.)"

I kind of miss it when hosts don't take calls. Even if it's not "professional, polished" it's still more like Joe Sixpack is somehow involved in the action, part of the game, all that kind of stuff.

 

[KMGX]

Sports radio has undergone quite the paradigm shift indeed; listeners are told what topics are important and how they should think. There was a time when the reverse was the case--listeners/callers dictated what was important.

Callers provide the most integral part of sports talk and that is, of course, the FAN'S perspective. What is a sport without fans? Getting that reaction or having a legitimate give-and-take with the host of a particular show makes sports radio great. Listening to talking head after talking head talk about the same 4 topics on rotation seems very CHR/Top40esque to me.

The other problem in the business is the Jim Romeing of sports radio--whereby every caller seems to read from a script and callers are expected to be another talking head or mini-host. Of course if you aren't a polished phone host or actually wish to engage, maybe even DISAGREE with the host, you're immediately 'run' off the show. Conversation truly is the lost art, between the puking hosts, scripted callers and ESPN Radio in general, it's very sad to see sports radio in it's current state.

Finally, I am so glad to see that others feel as I do about Colin Cowherd. Never have I heard a more pompous, self aggrandizing, pseudo-intellectual type in my life. He tells the listeners what they think (or should think) and why it's right or wrong. Running with what a previous poster suggested in this thread, maybe Colin should just go complete schizo and be the voice of listeners on the phone in sort of a Phil Hendrie style. Naturally, you can't possibly have the opportunity to refute Colin, because (again) he rarely takes calls from us lowly types in flyover country. I understand that only Los Angeles, New York, Boston and Chicago matter, but if his highness could be troubled to allow one of the peasants to have a word I would be ever so grateful.

 

[Pratte4Life]

Ah, but don't you see? Cowherd is the epitome of the ESPN mindset!

 

[KeithE4]

Sports radio has undergone quite the paradigm shift indeed; listeners are told what topics are important and how they should think. There was a time when the reverse was the case--listeners/callers dictated what was important.

Topics that are important to ESPN Radio are those being covered by the ESPNcable networks, which right now, are LeBron, LeBron, LeBron, and LeBron. ESPN Radio exists solely to promote the ESPN brand. If ESPN is covering it on TV, ESPN Radio will be talking about it.

Finally, I am so glad to see that others feel as I do about Colin Cowherd. Never have I heard a more pompous, self aggrandizing, pseudo-intellectual type in my life. He tells the listeners what they think (or should think) and why it's right or wrong. Running with what a previous poster suggested in this thread, maybe Colin should just go complete schizo and be the voice of listeners on the phone in sort of a Phil Hendrie style. Naturally, you can't possibly have the opportunity to refute Colin, because (again) he rarely takes calls from us lowly types in flyover country.

Cowherd is paid by ESPN. Therefore, he has a vested interest in talking about things that are important to ESPN. He does throw the west coast a few non-Laker/USC bones only because he's from there. And since ESPN cares not one bit about anything south or west of Philadelphia, except for the Lakers and USC (maybe), neither does Cowherd. And his style can best be described as the worst combination of Rome and Limbaugh - a pompous, arrogant, know-it-all.

I understand that only Los Angeles, New York, Boston and Chicago matter, but if his highness could be troubled to allow one of the peasants to have a word I would be ever so grateful.

You think Chicago and LA are really on ESPN's radar screen? There's a reason why folks semi-jokingly call it the Eastern Seaboard Partisan Network. LA gets coverage only because Disney's corporate HQ is there (I don't recall all that much LA coverage other than USC and the Lakers when ESPN was under Cap Cities' ownership). Chicago has that huge advertising industry, which is what pays everybody's salary. So we do get Cubs coverage, but for the most part Chicago isn't part of their agenda even though they own a radio station there.

 

[Pratte4Life]

I always like to say that Bud Selig tried to contract two baseball teams- the Expos and Twins- but ESPN contracted every team but the Red Sox and Yanks.

 

[quadraphonic]

Cowherd could do other voices, but they would all end up sounding like "Montgomery Burns doing a fan's voice" or "Montgomery Burns doing a celebrity's voice." ;D

 

[bordeaux]

I have a small ownership poisition in several radio stations. I deal with all the syndicators on a regular basis. ESPN knows exactly what they are doing.
After the predictable and non offensive mike and mike (in a slump right now w ratings) and before the equally non offensive Van Pelt show, Cowherd is EXACTLY what ESPN wants. Somebody to shake things up, and go after people.
Since cutting his show to three hours, Cowherd's energy has significantly picked up. He's also, according to the research ESPN shares with me, getting a kiss from his Tv show, and finding new listeners.
CNN hires nice people and is dying. FOX hires pompous wingnuts and blows them out. Personality sells on radio and cable tv.
Again, This network has sharp people. What ESPN radio could really use, is more true radio people, and fewer TV people, who come over to fill shows. It needs more pep, not less.
I've shared that with them for two years but I'm not a big enough
stakeholder to matter. As for callers, less is always better. At least thats my opinion.

 

[the golden boy]

Cowherd is paid by ESPN. Therefore, he has a vested interest in talking about things that are important to ESPN. He does throw the west coast a few non-Laker/USC bones only because he's from there. And since ESPN cares not one bit about anything south or west of Philadelphia, except for the Lakers and USC (maybe), neither does Cowherd.

Hmmm, that's quite a departure. He always homered for the Pac-10, even tried to make an argument of them being the best conference in football. Whatever.