In the broadcasting business, a “flagship station“ is the broadcast outlet which originates a television or radio network, or a particular radio or television program. The term itself derives from the naval custom where the commanding officer of a group of naval ships would fly a distinguishing flag. In common parlance, “flagship” is now used to mean the most important or leading member of a group, hence its various uses in broadcasting.
In my world, the phrase “flagship station” is one which seems to carry an expectation that the radio station which broadcasts a local market team’s games, will spend the majority of content time talking about that particular team and do so in a positive fashion. From where I sit, that’s not only inaccurate but it goes against every core belief I have as a programmer.
Sports fans expect honesty, strong opinions and content on the stories that have the greatest local appeal. Whether a station gets paid by a team or pays for its local rights, if the content has lesser appeal or if the story surrounding the team is negative, your job as a personality and programmer is to tell the truth and share how you feel about it. There’s a way to present it without being overly critical but even at times when harsh truths are required, your job as a broadcaster is to serve the audience, not the team.
Two of the biggest issues I see in the broadcasting industry today on this issue are a reflection of poor expectations set on both sides. First, its the radio stations job to inform the team prior to conducting business of how they will approach the relationship outside of game broadcasts. Your team/partner, should not be blind sided and surprised by the tactics you employ on the air to engage a local audience. They don’t have to agree with you but they should know your strategy for approaching the content.
Secondly, the team needs to understand that the station’s credibility gets damaged when truths aren’t told. Furthermore, the radio station’s obligation is to provide the team with clearance for the game (and Pre/Post in most cases), not ownership of the content inside of talk shows. Anything discussed during shows is the station’s call, not a directive from the team.
I’ve seen a ton of these issues pop up across the country and when they do it’s extremely disappointing to me because fans today are not idiots. They know when their teams are bad, players say or do stupid things and when games are worth attending and when they’re not. To suggest otherwise is insulting to the customers who support each of our brands on a daily basis. It becomes even harder for the on-air talent when they’re doing the job they’re paid to do, only to have someone suggest they compromise who they are and how they present their opinion on the air.
I remember when I was in St. Louis, the Rams had started the Steve Spagnuolo era in Seattle with a bad loss. Richie Incognito had taken a personal foul penalty which got him thrown from the game and Josh Brown (who had prior success kicking in Seattle while with the Seahawks) missed two field goals which hurt the Rams and ultimately led them to a loss.
Following the game I spoke with our Rams broadcast crew and we agreed that the two people to talk with would be Incognito and Brown since the Rams had lost and their actions in the game had impacted the result. We got them both on the air, both were candid and excellent interviews and we felt we had served the Rams fan with the information they’d have the most interest in. Or so we thought!
The next day, I received a scathing phone call from a member of the team who was livid that we’d put on Incognito and Brown. They felt the team was presented in a negative light and wanted explanation why we’d go to them under such circumstances. I explained how the result (28-0 loss) was what it was and all we could do was tell the story of how it happened.
That wasn’t what this gentleman wanted to hear. He wanted to know why we wouldn’t have put on Ron Bartell since he had 5 tackles in the game and I reiterated how our job was to tell the story of the game and focus on the most important items which led to the final result. After being berated a few more times I finally exploded and asked “Did you want us to ask Ron Bartell what it was like to be burnt for 3 Touchdowns“? Needless to say, we never agreed on the issue but moved forward.
At the end of the season, we sat down to review the good, bad and in-between and most of everything was excellent but the issue of “partnership expectations” came up and we each made our points. I told the folks I was chatting with “I won’t ever compromise the integrity or credibility of the radio station” and they asked me not to paint the team in a negative light when there were other options to consider. Once again, both sides couldn’t agree but we moved forward.
The point of this is to shed some light on how this issue impacts every sports station across America and why it’s so vital for those involved in this format to protect the brand at all times. Yes we want play by play events on our airwaves and the benefit of a strong association by working with our local teams. But you can’t compromise your talent to obtain that association. I want our business partners to feel proud of being connected to us and I want them to experience a ton of favorable moments on our shows, provided they recognize that there will be other teams discussed too and when stories warrant a negative spin, it’s our job to deliver it.
I was at the Arbitron radio conference in Annapolis, MD in December 2012 when a sports radio panel was conducted and among the panelists was Chris Olivero of CBS Radio. Chris was asked about this exact situation and he said “when making play-by-play deals, make it clear to the team that outside of the games, personalities need the freedom to take the team to task when it’s called for”. I agreed with him then and still do now and that’s the approach I believe is necessary in order to make sure your weekday content is protected.
When you carry a teams games I believe you owe them the benefit of the doubt before you crush them for something bad. That doesn’t mean though that you should refrain from expressing disappointment or embarrassment when a bad situation occurs. Obviously everyone should be pulling for the team to do well but when things don’t work out, it’s our job to tell the truth and express how we feel, not sell the narrative provided to us. I understand that the team wants to limit the damage and negativity because it makes it harder to sell tickets and advertising but there’s a simple solution to that – win games!
One of the other real issues when it comes to this subject isn’t even the teams issue, it’s our own internal issue. Sometimes our own people sell their souls to land a play by play deal and after they do, they can’t handle the pressure that comes from the team bitching when the talent deliver strong on-air takes. Rather than reminding them of the separation between church and state and the fact that in most cases the station is paying for the rights to air their games, people often bend and do whatever it takes to avoid hearing more complaints.
From my chair, complaints aren’t a bad thing. If a personality says something strong enough to make you remember it and reach out to call, email, tweet or text me, chances are it was really good or bad enough to be fired over. Thankfully, more times than not it’s been really good.
The other internal issue I see is that our own people are hesitant to cover topics that are uncomfortable surrounding the team that a station may be affiliated with. Giving the team the benefit of the doubt is fair and shows you’re conscious of the business relationship, but having the ability to do ones job and speak passionately and candidly about a situation should not be something we have to fight for. If a pitcher loses 12 straight starts and a host says “he’s garbage and shouldn’t be on this team“, there’s no evidence to suggest he’s wrong. Even if someone wants to disagree, that’s ok. It’s strictly an opinion and it’s our job to share it.
The other touchy issue that pops up is when local teams expect more coverage time than others in the market. For example, if you listen to WFAN in New York, you’ll hear Mike Francesa during afternoon drive and he’s a proud Yankees fan. Prior to 2014 when the station landed the radio rights to the NY Yankees games, WFAN carried the NY Mets for 26 years.
Anybody who listened to Mike or Mike and the Mad Dog over the years, knew that the Mets games were on the air but the Yankees discussion was going to dominate the majority of the conversation on the afternoon show. Did the Mets like it? Probably not, but the content focus was done that way for one reason, the Yankees have a larger draw in the NY market than the Mets. If you’re playing a game of delivering ratings and trying the attract the most people possible to your business, you give them the content they seek most.
Sure they could have went full throttle with Mets coverage and maybe they could have mixed it in more but it’s hard to argue with the data in the market. I went thru the same thing in St. Louis and am doing so again here in the Bay Area. In St. Louis, the Cardinals drive the bus. You can try to program against it but the reality is, that’s what people want. You either give them a strong dose of it or they’ll find someone else who does.
In the Bay Area, it’s more like the NY situation. There are 2 football teams and 2 baseball teams and the fan bases for them couldn’t be more different. The Giants and 49ers deliver the strongest amount of interest but my station carries the A’s and Raiders. Nobody wants to see the Oakland teams win more than me for selfish reasons but to ignore what 75% of the market likes would be irresponsible and stupid. Our hardcore fans for the teams we carry may not like it or agree with it but we are running a business and trying to serve the largest amount of customers possible.
I’ve told people when asked about this “if you live in an area where people love to eat steak and you open up a restaurant and don’t offer steak, expect them to eat everywhere else besides your place“. I didn’t create the local market interest or geographical dominance for the Giants and 49ers, their results and better venues did. If their business model has the most appeal to the local audience, then it’s my job to serve that brand of content to them. This article by the NY Times shows what some regions face and this becomes really challenging for stations who operate the format in these places. You can ignore the facts and do it differently but I believe in programming to the strengths of a market and I expect my hosts to do the same.
Not everyone who has worked for me has agreed with that philosophy. I have seen guys with hardcore Giants affiliations wish we’d do more Giants and I’ve seen guys with hardcore A’s passions wonder why we’re not doing 100% A’s programming. In St. Louis I had a few guys who thought we should do nothing but Rams/NFL and ignore the Cardinals and others who thought we should focus on the Cardinals exclusively and ignore the Rams altogether. They all had legitimate reasons for their views but once again, you’ve got to make a decision and stick with it and realize that you can’t please everyone.
The bottom line, you’ve got to have a blend. In a market with divided interests, serving both sides of my market is important. In St. Louis, serving the Cardinals fan was critical but so was satisfying the appetite of football fans. Yes the ratings will be higher for the SF teams and the Cardinals but I do believe that there is a responsibility to drive higher interest in the brands you’re affiliated with too. To use my current brand as an example, we’re 4 years into the development of the radio station and the interest in the A’s has grown significantly since we started, even though it still pales in comparison to the Giants. A new ballpark and continued success could eventually see that gap become smaller which is what we’re all hoping for.
People that I work with know that the term “flagship station” doesn’t sit well with me. I prefer “home of“. That tells the audience that we carry the games and are going to promote them as much as possible and you can expect us to talk plenty about the team. What it doesn’t say though is that we’re planting our flag in the ground for the team we carry and promising to deliver only the good news and ignore the bad.
I also believe in doing weekly partnership agreements with local players, coaches, general managers and executives and in most cases everything runs smoothly but there are a few times where it gets bumpy. I’ve told agents and those I do deals with “we’ll be fair, honest and give you the benefit of the doubt but if things don’t work out or the organization has a negative situation on its hands, you’ve got to understand the position of our people and respect that they’re going to ask about it“. Luckily guys like Billy Beane, Trent Baalke, Steven Jackson and Isaac Bruce have understood that over the years and it’s worked out well.
While this is how I see things when it comes to play by play relationships with sports radio stations, there are plenty of others who disagree and win differently. I’ve seen brands only talk positive about the teams they cover and stay away from discussing the other local teams in a market and if that’s the way you prefer to go, more power to you. There’s clearly more than one way to skin the cat.
I firmly believe that honesty, strong opinions and a balance of discussion on local market teams is important and sports radio brands can’t just be spitting the message of what they’ve been told to deliver. It’s easier when you’re wearing the shoes of ESPN and can remind the NBA you spend 1.4 billion per year for the right to carry games and be honest but whether a brand spends 1.4 billion or 1 dollar, honesty and delivering the truth in a passionate way, is something that should never be for sale.
Your job is to play the hits that matter to the audience and speak honestly about how you feel about them. Audiences will respect and appreciate you for that and you’ll see it reflected in your ratings. Anyone who asks you to compromise your core beliefs and ignore the best interests of your listeners, is not thinking about you or your brand, only themselves. No amount of money or affiliation is worth that exchange.
Jason Barrett is the Founder and CEO of Barrett Media. The company launched in September 2015 and has provided consulting services to America’s top audio and video brands, while simultaneously covering the media industry at BarrettMedia.com, becoming a daily destination for media professionals. Prior to Barrett Media, Jason built and programmed 95.7 The Game in San Francisco, and 101 ESPN in St. Louis. He was also the first sports programmer for SportsTalk 950 in Philadelphia, which later became 97.5 The Fanatic. Barrett also led 590 The Fan KFNS in St. Louis, and ESPN 1340/1390 in Poughkeepsie, NY, and worked on-air and behind the scenes at 101.5 WPDH, WTBQ 1110AM, and WPYX 106.5. He also spent two years at ESPN Radio in Bristol, CT producing ‘The Dan Patrick Show’ and ‘GameNight’. JB can be reached on Twitter @SportsRadioPD or by email at Jason@BarrettMedia.com.
