Why Does News/Talk Get Less Local as Sports Talk Gets More Local?

[smedge2006]

In my locality, there are two local non-syndicated, non-brokered weekday political talk shows... but there are four local, non-syndicated, non-brokered sports talk shows.

In many cities, local talk radio has given way to syndication -- but sports talk stations, often owned by the same corporations, that started out as syndicated have added more local shows.

Why are the two formats trending in opposite directions?

 

[jimwalsh2001]

Local sports (both coverage of, and talk about) is a major cash cow in just about any market.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Piggybacking on Jim's point...WVKO's broadcasting the Columbus Clippers and local high school sports have helped the bottom line. And the loyal listeners are willing to sacrifice some progressive talk time, especially on evenings and weekends, because we understand the big picture.

 

[bigtalkradiofan]

Piggybacking on the last two points:

* Local sports - Sports talk stations usually broadcast: high school games and state tournaments, college games, semi-pro/minor league games, and pro games. Therefore, the stations' audience usually wants to talk about these local teams - before and after the big game.

Political talk may have an election here or there - but political talk doesn't really have an equivalent function as a weekly game or tournament.

* Counter-Program - Since there is one major dominant sports talk syndicator - ESPN (sorry FSR & SNR) - if you are flipping a station to sports, and nearly every market already has an ESPN affiliate - you counter-program with local sports talk instead.

Rush and Sean are dominant political talkers - but they aren't a 24/7 turn-key syndication operation like ESPN.

* More money - Sports has a younger audience demographics than political talk. Stations don't want to give up this potential ad revenue to syndication.

 

[smedge2006]

* Counter-Program - Since there is one major dominant sports talk syndicator - ESPN (sorry FSR & SNR) - if you are flipping a station to sports, and nearly every market already has an ESPN affiliate - you counter-program with local sports talk instead.

In my market, the ESPN station is the one adding the local talk -- despite failing to make the ratings in all but a couple of trends. It also has no play by play of its own to speak of. That leads me to believe that these aren't cash cows but loss leaders -- the station owners are willing to take a risk despite miniscule or non-existent ratings. Why doesn't that willingness to run non-brokered local shows exist in "general" or political talk radio?

 

[bigtalkradiofan]

* Counter-Program - Since there is one major dominant sports talk syndicator - ESPN (sorry FSR & SNR) - if you are flipping a station to sports, and nearly every market already has an ESPN affiliate - you counter-program with local sports talk instead.

In my market, the ESPN station is the one adding the local talk -- despite failing to make the ratings in all but a couple of trends. It also has no play by play of its own to speak of. That leads me to believe that these aren't cash cows but loss leaders -- the station owners are willing to take a risk despite miniscule or non-existent ratings. Why doesn't that willingness to run non-brokered local shows exist in "general" or political talk radio?

I'd look less at ratings - and more at profitability/revenue numbers & demographics.

A sports talk station can be successful, even with low ratings, if...

The sports talk station pulls in revenue from broadcasting local sporting events, the pre- and post-game shows, and coaches shows. Although this may not be occurring in your specific market.

Also, advertisers will pay a "premium" to reach certain "hard to reach" audiences - such as younger males, that are the core audience of sports talk.

 

[smedge2006]

Also, advertisers will pay a "premium" to reach certain "hard to reach" audiences - such as younger males, that are the core audience of sports talk.

Two of the three stations in the format rate too low to make the "book" and their numbers apparently must be "extracted" through software. I can't see how a 0.0 18-34 M is worth more than a 0.0 35-64A. I question whether 18-34 males -- or anyone else -- are listening to either station. Yet their owners are willing to make the investment in local talent and the six-share AM talker isn't, nor is the two-share or so AM talker that's (allegedly) trying to catch up to the six-share.

I tend to think that sports talk advertisers are paying a premium to indulge their own egos. As an example, I offer the story of a host who has brokered sports shows on various AM flea-powered stations. He has never made the ratings book, does his show over a dial-up phone line from his house, and his "insights" never rise above info he lifted from the paper and various catch-phrases ("they really came to play"). Yet, he has been able to eke out a living overpromising and underdelivering "remote" packages that claim "Bring one of the (sports franchise) players to your business!" The buyers get an appearance by the equivalent of a third-string placekicker who got cut in August. Many are dissatisfied and have complained -- and this guy has been the subject of a couple of TV "investigative reports." Even the teams have tried to shut this guy down. Yet he continues to find "suckers." Clearly his advertisers don't bother to look up ratings or do any homework -- they just buy "sports" mindlessly.

Either these sports-talkers have figured out how to get people to buy something totally worthless (spot packages on an unrated and/or brokered show simply attaching the word "sports"), or the political talkers are missing a real opportunity by not adding local shows.

 

[DToTheJ]

... I offer the story of a host who has brokered sports shows on various AM flea-powered stations. He has never made the ratings book, does his show over a dial-up phone line from his house, and his "insights" never rise above info he lifted from the paper and various catch-phrases ("they really came to play")...

Identity, please!

 

[Don62]

Two of the three stations in the format rate too low to make the "book" and their numbers apparently must be "extracted" through software. I can't see how a 0.0 18-34 M is worth more than a 0.0 35-64A. I question whether 18-34 males -- or anyone else -- are listening to either station. Yet their owners are willing to make the investment in local talent and the six-share AM talker isn't, nor is the two-share or so AM talker that's (allegedly) trying to catch up to the six-share.

I tend to think it's more of a Clear Ch. cheapness philosophy, as many other dominant AM talk stations in other similar-sized markets find room for local political shows in the mid-morning before Rush and in the p.m. after a delayed O'Reilly or after Hannity. The afternoon show, in fact, beats Hannity on the all-syndicated station.

They're getting the numbers, but CC's "brain" trust ( I use the term generously) doesn't think listeners in a Top 30 market want local talk.

Yes, you're talking about Tampa, where CC owns the biggest sticks. Just because they can doesn't mean they should.

 

[smedge2006]

... I offer the story of a host who has brokered sports shows on various AM flea-powered stations. He has never made the ratings book, does his show over a dial-up phone line from his house, and his "insights" never rise above info he lifted from the paper and various catch-phrases ("they really came to play")...

Identity, please!

He's well known on the Tampa board -- I only use his case to support my contention that a substantial percentage of sports radio buys (especially direct) are guys indulging their inner jock. If those buys were made using objective criteria, half of them would never occur and most cities would have only one sports talker IMO. Some of that money would go to political talk.

They're getting the numbers, but CC's "brain" trust ( I use the term generously) doesn't think listeners in a Top 30 market want local talk.

.. and yet the same ownership has extensive local content on its sports talker, not just 6 A - 7 P M-F but on weekends... not all of it linked to a particular sports franchise. Unlike the other two sports talkers, this one seems to have an audience...

 

[quadraphonic]

People seem to be more interested in more minutiae when it comes to local sports talk than they are in local political talk.
They like the idea of hearing their cousins' friend's name on a high school game.
If you go in to too much minutiae about a political person, you're doing "character assassination!" or "banging the drum too much!"

So I guess it all goes back to "inner-jock egos" when it comes to buying ads and time on a sports talk station.....maybe that's why half the ads on the local sports station(s) here are voiced by the owner/manager of the advertiser, too.

At least they are keeping the stations running though.

 

[smedge2006]

A couple of relevant articles on this very topic:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080420/ENT03/804200534

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080420/ENT03/804200559

 

[Don62]

I liked some of the reader comments to the story on the second link you provided.

WJR has really declined over the last decade or so. WJR calls themselves the heritage radio station of Detroit yet they give most of their prime airtime to syndicated shows that could care less about the Detroit area (I have even heard Detroit insulted on some these shows!). WJR should model itself after KFI (los Angeles), WBZ (Boston), and KGO (Bay Area) - these stations are true go-to stations in their communities - they have lots of live-local shows that focus on their regions - they have lots of call-in shows. WJR really only has the Frank Beckmann show that comes close to this. WJR needs a good overnite show, and they need more shows like the old David Newman show. Thanks heavens for internet radio - WJR seems programmed for the over 65 crowd.

WJR hasn't been the same since they dumped all the local announcers to make way for the syndicated junk.

Listeners do notice when heritage stations dump most programs for piped-in shows. Radio isn't compellign when its run by automation.

 

[bigtalkradiofan]

I tend to think that sports talk advertisers are paying a premium to indulge their own egos.

I only use his case to support my contention that a substantial percentage of sports radio buys (especially direct) are guys indulging their inner jock. If those buys were made using objective criteria, half of them would never occur and most cities would have only one sports talker IMO. Some of that money would go to political talk.

smedge,

Sorry to break the news to you...

But your "ego" of buyers theory - doesn't explain the difference between political and sports talk either.

I've heard many people say that - political talk is paid for/supported by business owners whose customer base is politically 50/50, moderate or even to the left of center.

So the line of thinking goes...if they are using radio to attract customers to their business - they should be advertising on both conservative talkers and libtalk - to attract potential customers to their business.

But the business owner buys advertising only on the local conservative talk station because he/she (the business owner) agrees with, and likes to listen to, Rush & Sean (their "ego") - and thus only supports the conservative station in town with their ad buys.

So the "ego" of the buyer theory - doesn't hold water - it doesn't explain the difference between political talk and sport talk - but actually it does explain how they are remarkably similar in attracting ad sales.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

I tend to think that sports talk advertisers are paying a premium to indulge their own egos.

I only use his case to support my contention that a substantial percentage of sports radio buys (especially direct) are guys indulging their inner jock. If those buys were made using objective criteria, half of them would never occur and most cities would have only one sports talker IMO. Some of that money would go to political talk.

smedge,

Sorry to break the news to you...

But your "ego" of buyers theory - doesn't explain the difference between political and sports talk either.

I've heard many people say that - political talk is paid for/supported by business owners whose customer base is politically 50/50, moderate or even to the left of center.

So the line of thinking goes...if they are using radio to attract customers to their business - they should be advertising on both conservative talkers and libtalk - to attract potential customers to their business.

But the business owner buys advertising only on the local conservative talk station because he/she (the business owner) agrees with, and likes to listen to, Rush & Sean (their "ego") - and thus only supports the conservative station in town with their ad buys.

So the "ego" of the buyer theory - doesn't hold water - it doesn't explain the difference between political talk and sport talk - but actually it does explain how they are remarkably similar in attracting ad sales.

It does go both ways, especially in the Columbus market. A lot of the businesses who advertise on WVKO would not do it on other stations.