104.3 The Fan in Denver has hired Armen Williams as their new Program Director. Williams was most recently the PD and afternoon host for 104.5 The Team in Albany, NY.
“I’m excited to be a part of one of the best sports radio brands in the country,” Williams said. “The Fan is a first class organization and Bonneville is a great company. I’m looking forward to working with the extremely talented staff to continue giving the Denver sports fan the highest quality of Sports Talk radio.”
“Armen brings to The Fan a perfect balance of winning sports radio programming, plus an exceptional knowledge of digital media,” Bonneville/Denver VP/Market Manager BoB Call said. “Armen has worked with a number of high profile Sports personalities through his career, plus developed some solid NFL play-by-play network experience. Armen will be the third program director in The Fan’s 20 year history.
Williams replaces Nate Lundy who left the radio station in November. He’s expected to begin his stint with the radio station in January.
One of the most common mistakes that air talent make is assuming that they’re solely responsible for creating and delivering content and generating ratings. I’ve heard one say “I get paid to talk about sports and bring listeners to the station, sales is for the guys down the hall“.
While that may be true to an extent, the number one reason a host is on the air and a show exists in the first place, is because the radio station believes it can generate revenue from it. A good talk show host delivers an audience, those people spend time listening, and in doing so, they become attractive to advertisers who wish to inform them about their products.
In essence, the talk show host is the bait used to lure the fish. When the talent delivers the message well, the fish bite the hook and are taken home for dinner. When the talent executes poorly or displays little interest in the product they’re speaking for, the fish stay away and nobody gets fed.
There is a big difference between emotionally connecting to a product and selling it to your audience with passion and conviction, and sleepwalking through an endorsement. As a host, you should understand that your word does matter, so believing in the products you pitch is important. But never lose sight of the fact that you’re in that studio every day collecting a check because you represent the company and are a key piece being utilized to generate revenue.
You may personally care about topics, guests, callers, and other programming items, but executing endorsements, delivering a good read for an upcoming promotion or website initiative, and demonstrating daily that you’re a great place for other advertisers to place their future business is as important as any job you do.
The job extends beyond your air shift too. Networking and bonding with clients is an important responsibility and if you don’t understand that, then you’re missing the big picture and likely leaving a lot of money on the table. The less helpful you are to sales and the little connection you have to top advertisers, the more likely you are to be replaced. I don’t care what market you look at, no top personality is getting paid top dollar for a long period of time if they’re not helping grow the radio station’s business.
One person who understands this as well as anyone is Bill Simonson. For the past 14 years, Bill has built an incredible brand in the state of Michigan and he’s been able to do so thanks to the support of his advertisers. He recognizes that without those paying customers, his brand value becomes less. To keep them satisfied, Bill spends time with them, familiarizes himself with their products and includes them in his show. He makes his clients feel like partners, not just businesses who spend some money on his program.
Today Bill hosts “The Huge Show” weekday afternoons from 3p-6p on the Huge Radio Network, which carries his program on 12 different stations across the state of Michigan. He physically broadcasts from flagship station 107.3FM WBBL in Grand Rapids. Additionally he hosts “The Saturday Night Huge Show” nationally on the CBS Sports Radio Network.
I knew Bill would have an excellent perspective to share on growing a statewide network and developing and maintaining relationships with key clients and I think you’ll appreciate some of the tips that he’s provided. If you’re an on-air talent and you follow his example, it very well could help you fatten your wallet. It may even help you expand your own local show.
Creating Job Security Through Advertising & Expansion
When I was in Chicago at ESPN 1000 back in 1998 I thought the key to success in radio was getting to the biggest market you could and doing great radio. I lived for the ratings book. It was a quarterly validation of what i was supposed to be in radio. If I did a good show, had great guests and busy phones, and got decent ratings, then I was set for life in radio.
That was 1998-2001. Radio was evolving and I didn’t see it coming. It went from a ratings based business to a revenue tradeable commodity on Wall Street. I didn’t pay attention to advertisers like I should have.
When my run in Chicago ended in 2001, I easily could’ve blamed Jerry Reinsdorf for having the ability to censor my comments about the Bulls and the White Sox, or the fact that ESPN thought 6 sports updates an hour were good radio. I won’t even challenge the lack of intimacy that ESPN wanted with their radio audience. They wanted many voices connected to the Huge Show and just didn’t let Lou Canelllis and myself be ourselves.
Forget the radio side of what could’ve been better for me in Chicago. What I really learned was that at my next radio stop I had to connect to advertisers like they were family. I ended up back home in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I knew to stay there I would need to find a way to charge big money for commercials.
My GM at the time, Matt Hanlon, had the idea of starting a statewide sports network. We began with four company owned stations and now are on 12 statewide stations in afternoon drive in Michigan for the past 14 years. My show’s revenue has been above seven figures at times.
My advice to any successful sports talk show is to get with your management and see if you can regionally syndicate your local show in an area where they talk about the same teams you talk about on a daily basis. It is a sales tool your competition can’t sell. It creates that bond with advertisers that others can’t put in the same sales pitch. Most importantly, regional syndication allows you to charge bigger money for the live endorsement ads you read. More money for the company and for yourself is a good thing.
Most sports talk show hosts don’t get the revenue side of the business. You want protection in the cut throat bottom line radio business we live in today? Help increase the revenue connected to your show. The only shows that survive on ratings are big market shows that get consistent big numbers.
By helping sales bring more revenue to the show, you in turn bring more endorsements, appearances, and remote fees to your pay stub every two weeks. That is job security my radio friends.
More sports talk show hosts need to understand this. News talk lives by the revenue creed and it’s the number one format in our business. Please don’t tell me too many ads are a turnoff for your audience. Do you watch sports on TV? Notice the advertising on your phone? Apps? Blogs?
There’s an achievable advertising balance that you can achieve with these moves:
1: Get with the top salespeople in your building. Let them know everything about you. Use those lifestyle decisions you make on purchases to become part of the organic content of your show. Live endorsement reads integrated in your daily show don’t turn off the audience as much as commercial breaks do.
2: Take part in lunches, games, golf, or grabbing a few beers as often as you can with advertisers.
3: Give your sales team weekly ideas on lifestyle things that you do or buy that you would endorse on-air.
4: Find things on your show that advertisers could sponsor and in turn be willing to endorse their product.
5: Become emotionally connected to the product. The sincerity will come across the radio airwaves.
6: Develop close relationships with the best salespeople at your station.
We live in a revenue based radio world. It’s not changing anytime soon. Job protection in our business is limited to the radio elite. Even then the out of left field stories of major talent losing their gigs are usually based on the revenue game.
If your company looks at your salary and doesn’t see more revenue coming in than they’re paying you, chances are you’re in trouble. You’re probably on the cut line the next time the corporate quarterly call is below expectations.
Growing the reach of your local show via regional syndication and working with sales to increase the revenue connected to your show can give you stability in the unstable corporate radio world we live in today. If it works for me in Grand Rapids, Michigan it can work for you.
Bill Simonson hosts Afternoon drive on the Huge Radio Network in Michigan. He is also host of the Saturday Night Huge Show on CBS Sports Radio and proud to be the voice of the video game NFL Blitz 2000. He’s also featured as the play by play voice in the Kurt Russell movie “Touchback”. You can follow him on Twitter by clicking here or on Facebook by clicking here.
The November ratings are in, and in the all-important category of Men 25-54, The Ticket has finished slightly ahead of The Fan in Dallas. The Ticket produced a 5.3 rating. The Fan did a 5.2 and ESPN 103.3 was in third with a 2.8.
Monday through Friday during the prime hours of 6A-7P when talk shows occupy the majority of air time, The Ticket was even stronger with a 6.5. Much of that success comes from The Musers who were once again delivering double digits in morning drive. The Fan finished with a 5.2 during prime and ESPN 103.3 turned in a 2.9.
Supporters of The Ticket suggest that The Fan is only within striking distance because the station holds the rights to the Rangers and Cowboys. That is a flawed argument though considering the station’s midday and afternoon shows win the head to head battle and the majority of leading sports stations around the country largely feature the same mix of great talk shows and play by play deals. If anything, they deserve credit for landing those partnerships.
That said, The Ticket gets the nod for November, and their morning show is performing on a different level right now than the rest of the market. One thing to be aware of, The Fan sits #1 overall with Men 18-34. How that impacts future ratings battles remains to be seen.
Individual Show Ratings For November:
The Musers (Ticket), 6-10 a.m. – 10.4
Ben & Skin (Fan), 3-7 p.m. – 6.7
The Hardline (Ticket), 3-7 p.m. – 5.2
G-Bag Nation (Fan), 10 a.m.-3 p.m. – 5.0
BaD Radio (Ticket), noon-3 p.m. – 4.3
Norm & Donovan (Ticket), 10 a.m.-noon – 4.1
Mike & Mike (ESPN 103.3), 5-9 a.m. – 4.0
Shan & R.J. (Fan), 6-10 a.m. – 3.8
Cowlishaw & Mosley (ESPN 103.3), 3-6 p.m. – 2.6
Dennis & Friedo (ESPN 103.3) 11 a.m.-3 p.m. – 2.2
Dan Le Batard (ESPN 103.3), 9-11 a.m. – 1.8
Credit to the Dallas News who originally provided much of this information
Last week in Detroit, CBS Detroit and the Detroit Lions announced an end to their broadcast partnership after eighteen seasons together. The Lions will be moving to WJR next season.
CBS Detroit Market Manager Debbie Kenyon released a statement which was in line with Valenti’s assessments. She said “In the end it came down to the integrity of CBS — the refusal to be censored in talking about the team and making honest assessments on the air about this team.”
Valenti and Kenyon’s strong assertions forced the Lions into damage control mode. Elizabeth Parkinson, Senior Vice President of Marketing and Corporate Sponsorships for the Lions offered her position. “I know there’s a bit of narrative out there regarding the notion that, somehow the Lions are practicing some sort of censorship. If we were trying to practice any sort of censorship, we certainly would’ve done it (the switch) much sooner. Anytime our media is either not factual or misrepresenting the content that they’re sharing, those calls are made. Our media team works with all media outlets to correct inaccuracies, and they were working with The Ticket to correct inaccuracies.”
But was the team using its position as a partner to reach out and correct mistakes? Or were they using the association to limit negativity and increase positive conversation?
Gregg Henson, who now programs in Pittsburgh, and spent 15 years in Detroit as a Programmer and On-Air host, said the Lions issues with the media are very real. In a blog post on his website, Henson added: “It’s been going on for 20 years. When I programmed WDFN in the 90’s, the Lions on many occasions complained to our bosses about the on-air content and we weren’t even the rights holder for the team. At one point, they informed WDFN upper management that if Art Regner and I were terminated they would “consider” granting WDFN the team’s broadcast rights.”
Henson continued ” The main culprit was Lion’s PR Director Bill Keenist. He attempted to turn hosts against one another and complain that Art (Regner) and I didn’t go to practice. He implored our bosses to “mandate” that we come to practice. Why? So he could bully us into his way of thinking. He even threatened to pull our credentials if we didn’t fall in line.”
When organizations attempt to control the way personalities think and operate, it often ends badly. You don’t develop great relationships that way. I used to tell one individual “if you’re not going to consult me when you’re changing your roster and potentially impacting my station’s ability to generate ratings and revenue, then don’t expect me to afford you the same courtesy”.
Some teams that I’ve worked with have been more than fair in the way they handle business. Much of that starts with the individuals who are in charge. In the Bay Area, I had a great rapport with both football teams because Marc Badain and Will Kiss with the Raiders and Bob Sargent and Bob Lange at the 49ers, are not only first class people, but they respect the media and understand the business. Rarely did my phone ring for something minor.
I’ve also dealt with a few teams who were very sensitive to criticism and wanted on-air talent fired, suspended, or required to attend games and practices. Those teams not only lose the respect of the hosts but they also create a situation where they become the enemy of the Program Director. That’s not positive for anyone involved.
One word that far too often comes into play is ‘partnership’ and it’s a word that means something entirely different to each side. Many teams believe it means the radio station will be positive, avoid difficult subjects, and offer the franchise the benefit of the doubt when bad things happen. Radio stations believe it means the station has the exclusive right to air the team’s games, sell ads during the broadcast, use the franchise’s logos in all marketing materials, and have access to special guests and broadcast opportunities without their weekday content being compromised.
From where I sit, both sides need to understand what they’re signing up for in advance. Rights fees don’t increase when teams create headaches and roadblocks, and stations don’t continue to enjoy the benefit of the association when they’re close minded and using the airwaves to deliver verbal haymakers.
One rule I’ve stressed to my staffs over the years was to be critical of performance, but avoid personal attacks and cheap shots. The result of a game, the performance by an athlete, the poor execution by an organization to provide a positive game experience, those are all fair. Teams may not like hearing it but the facts are the facts. We owe the audience an honest analysis and if the criticisms are directed in that way, I’ll battle for any individual’s ability to speak their mind.
On the other hand, it’s tougher to defend a talent when they step outside the lines and get personal. Whether the team gave you good seats to a game, the best setup at training camp, the interview you wanted, or the best spot in the media press box shouldn’t influence how you speak about their performance. You’re privileged to have access to many of these things and if you don’t get your way, that shouldn’t restrict your ability to be fair. If you want to call the owner a drunk, or suggest that a front office executive has photos of the owner to remain employed, be prepared to lose that fight, and in some cases your job.
Where this becomes interesting is when you’re forced to choose between play by play and your weekday programming. While I’m sure money was a big factor in the conversation in Detroit, I do believe that the integrity of the radio station came into play. I respect Debbie Kenyon and CBS for standing by Mike Valenti. I’m not sure how many others would’ve done the same.
Play by Play rights fees are high and often cause stations to lose money. But they also deliver audience, attract good sales people, and usually help a station enjoy great ratings success. When a team leaves a radio station, good people usually follow, and ratings aren’t far behind. Whether that will or won’t happen in Detroit remains to be seen.
In looking across the country at the top 25 markets, the ratings leader in each city usually has a play by play partnership with a popular local team. Less than 5 of the top 25 cities had a station winning the local competition without an NFL, MLB, NBA or NHL franchise on their airwaves. Those who carry local NFL/MLB teams perform even higher than those with NBA/NHL rights.
As necessary as it may be for sports stations to offer dynamic air talent M-F 6a-7p, numerous radio operators believe that they stand a better chance to drive higher ratings and revenue with play by play on their airwaves.
But what happens when you’re forced to choose between the two? Can you win without a popular local team’s games on your radio station? Can you afford to lose a dominant personality and replace them with lesser talent simply to keep a team on your airwaves?
I was curious of how other programmers felt about the importance of play by play and what their preference would be if they had to choose. Given the sensitive nature of the discussion, I’ve elected to keep the identities of the 5 programmers I spoke with private. Although I’d love to believe that a candid conversation like this wouldn’t lead to additional headaches, I’m not certain it wouldn’t.
How important is play by play to your ratings success?
PD1: Play-by-play of a winning team is the greatest marketing a station can get. It brings people to your station that you’d never otherwise have sample your product. When you combine that with a brand which is better than the competition, but not the heritage station in the market, it can be very valuable to success.
PD2: Play by play is important because there is a big cume available for stations to use to send their messages to listeners. This is important for directing the audience back into your weekday programming.
PD3: Very! Though the caveat is what sport, what team(s), and most importantly – relevance. The NFL is king. I could run a Jacksonville-Buffalo game on a Sunday morning and get a ton more meters than other sports’ play-by-play. With everything else, it depends on the specific significance of the event. As our local teams progress thru their respective seasons, we see either ascending or descending interest based on how they perform.
PD4: It’s very important but it’s not the play by play as much as it is using the game broadcast to get folks to come back the day(s) after to help with cume for the M-F shows.
PD5: Ratings success depends largely on the success of the team. I have been PD of a station with Play By Play of a team that does not attract a large audience and therefore the pxp is a detriment to the success of the station. It’s 3 hours where the station could be talking about other teams in the market or content that has greater local appeal. If the team is in second or third place or even worse in terms of standings or importance, it hurts.
How important is play by play to your station’s revenue success?
PD1: It helps. As much as anything, it opens doors with advertisers who may not be familiar with us. When you’re the flagship of a major professional team, very rarely do you have sales calls go unanswered. We’re not allowed to sell spots in our “direct play-by-play,” the game, coach’s show, etc., but what the play-by-play allows us to do is build shoulder programming around it and position ourselves as the flagship.
PD2: Enormous. It’s not just the on-air commercials that spike rates and revenue. It’s the relationship and tickets that come with the partnership. My sales manager once said, “having that relationship allows you to say “please” to potential new clients and “thank you” to loyal clients.”
PD3: Revenue is a big part of play by play deals. Making a buck is tough these days especially with expensive rights deals. For many clients, the emotional attachment to a certain team is the deciding factor in spending money on the station. Having it available helps bring clients in the door, with the goal being to make them a larger part of the station down the road, whether that’s through buying features associated to the team, sportscasts or anything else programming related.
PD4: It is very important to our revenue. We put a lot of effort into selling our local play by play and when we have success selling it, it lifts all aspects of revenue for the station. We tie together our play by play sales and station sales so when play by play is hot, it carries over to the spot sales and NTR (non-traditional revenue) for the sports talk programming.
PD5: It depends on the specific play-by-play partner and relationship. Most teams/franchises are taking their broadcasts in-house and controlling all or most of the inventory, so the value in these affiliations might be in ancillary programming – coach’s shows, pre/post game, sponsored features/segments suited towards team coverage. The ratings help you might get from play by play cume increases, can boost your weekday numbers which helps your sales department when it comes to selling spots and other station items.
Considering the financial commitment that is required to secure a local team’s broadcast rights, are they worth it?
PD1: If it’s an “A” property – MLB, NBA, NFL, major college, I think it is worth it. It can be a tremendous hassle (I’ve seen it in every market I’ve worked) but from a branding and credibility standpoint, whether you’re an established station or a startup – it has undeniable benefits that couldn’t be attained any other way.
PD2: Having worked in several markets where team broadcast rights fees are a big part of the stations expense line, it really comes down to the bottom line and how much the station/company is willing to partner with the team. That “partnership” and the willingness to work together in the “radio marriage” is essential. Does the team have a list of restricted categories for selling? Are they willing to work and push dollars from their major sponsors to you? Is the station willing to introduce their clients to the sports property? It is one of the biggest commitments and all of these items must be presented before the marriage is set – no surprises. Surprises are what lead to a bitter relationship.
PD3: This depends on the sport, franchise and city. For example, if you went to Minneapolis, I’m sure it’d be worth it to be the flagship for the Minnesota Vikings, but probably not as much to carry the Minnesota Timberwolves. Each market has a team or two that exceeds the others in value and interest.
PD4: In today’s radio business climate, I think it’s important to enter into these agreements with the idea of making money or at least breaking even. The problem with losing money on radio rights deals is that it ends up impacting your sports talk lineup. Usually when a station loses money on the rights, they’re forced to trim staff.
PD5: It depends on the market and team. In my city, if you have football it’s worth it. If you were in St. Louis and you had baseball, it’s worth it. Football rules in most markets, but in some the others (baseball and basketball) do and don’t make business sense.
What chance does a station have of winning a ratings & revenue battle in a local market if it doesn’t have play by play and the competitor does?
PD1: Year round it’s all about your station’s personalities. Those who have polarizing talent with an ability to “say something” always keep a brand from being dependent on the performance of a local team. Owning NFL coverage in a city can make it seem to listeners that your station gives the “best” coverage without owning the rights.
PD2: It depends on the market and teams. I think if you do some research on top rated stations in NFL cities you will see the majority have the rights to the NFL team. Then the question is, what came first? Did the team go to the top station and the top station got better? Or did the team make that station the top station?
PD3: Creative programming wins. Having the ability to sell special features, shows, covering the team with reporters, segments and special guests can give the station the upper hand in being the station of record for the sports property. If the play by play for a popular franchise is not available in the market, get over it and start thinking of ways you can still cover the team and win.
PD4: It is hard to win the 12+ number in the ratings world if you don’t have play by play but you can win the 25-54 battle 6a-7pm if you have great personalities, and that demo is key for most sports stations. As for revenue, not having play by play might make winning the overall billing battle more difficult but you can still be profitable as a radio station without play by play.
PD5: It’s very possible to win the ratings without play-by-play. Some stations have the luxury of being the hotter brand than the team. In other cases, the team is a hotter brand than the station. A station needs to see where they stand in that assessment when analyzing their play-by-play options. Not every station needs play-by-play to drive their success. But even on stronger brands, it’s nice programming to have on nights and weekends, where it doesn’t interfere with what is really driving the station, for both ratings and revenue.
How do you handle situations that arise when teams wish to influence content on your airwaves?
PD1: I meet for lunch with front office personnel and attend games regularly. Relationships are key and I believe in making myself available as a sounding board, not my on-air talent. I have never had a problem with a team because I explain up front that we will criticize but be fair and I encourage my hosts to show up in the locker room and at practices and games. That helps build the relationship.
PD2: There is one guarantee when becoming a flagship, the team will have “concerns” with the on-air commentary and voice their opinions to management about them. This has taken place in every single team-station relationship I’ve been a part of. Being accessible to discuss issues is key, and each situation is dealt with on a case by case basis.
PD3: Hopefully at the point of agreeing to the contract, we’ve made it clear who we are and what we’re about. My direction to my talent is that they (a) go to the games…that’s why I get them credentialed (b) give your opinions based on what you saw and experienced, not always on what you read from someone else. That way if/when a team has an issue with something we’ve said, we can say we’ve done so from a standpoint of coverage and credibility, not just being salacious and/or outspoken. When you’re at the games and the PR staffs see you there covering the team on a night in/night out basis, they’re less likely to question your motives when you’re critical.
PD4: The number one rule is to not make it personal. When you do that, it is harder to defend. If you are critical of the team because they are playing bad, no problem, but taking low blows at people in the spirit of being mean and hurtful is just not smart. So, if there is a complaint, I usually just try to first get context by listening back to the content, and then try to make it clear that this is an opinion based business and the opinions being sharing are based on what’s happening on the field. If the product is better, the talk will be more positive. If the product is not good, that talk is not going to be positive. The key as a programmer is you have to serve as a buffer so that you protect your talent’s ability to speak their mind as much as possible. You have to be willing to take the calls, talk through the difficult conversations, hear the complaints and stay calm and focused. Many times the situation will dissipate.
PD5: Welcome to business. Generally, we give our partners the benefit of the doubt, and we try to keep critiques between the lines. Not all stations do or need to operate that way but that’s how we value our relationships with teams, weekly guests, networks, sponsors, etc.
If you had to choose between keeping your play by play rights and your #1 personality, what would you choose? Why?
PD1: Personality by far. That is what makes talk radio unique and it carries your programming year round. It’s hard to believe you would ever have to consider choosing between both.
PD2: It would depend on the talent. If my #1 personality was king of the city and entrenched in the market for 10+ years then you stick with the talent. If the #1 talent is doing well but not crushing/overshadowing every other show, then you have to look for somebody else while trying to work with the talent/team in order to keep the relationship with the team. Each circumstance is different.
PD3: I would always choose my #1 personality. That said, this is a business and it’s a much more complex question. Many programmers know that you can back your talent all you want but if you don’t have support of your management team than it won’t matter. I know Mike Valenti is an incredible talent who can be abrasive and come close to crossing the line, but the key in that situation turning out the way it did was a result of his GM having his back.
PD4: I’d rather keep my best show than the rights to a local team. But if a station doesn’t have a singular, dominant personality with major market appeal, then they’d probably lean towards sticking with their play by play rights.
PD5: You keep your #1 personality, hands down. Play-by-play is fleeting (one year they might be great, the next they might suck) and seasonal. My personalities are on year-round. Personalities can help make the radio station more money thru solid ratings, promotional opportunities, endorsements & appearances, plus they’re involved in our community outreach. No question in my mind about this one.
Although the nation’s capital may be known for its political climate, the appetite for sports radio is very healthy. With 106.7 The Fan and ESPN 980 providing original content and high profile personalities each day, the market is responding by investing time in both radio stations.
In the latest November ratings, 106.7 The Fan benefitted the most, winning the market among Men 25-54. The radio station finished in the top 8 M-SU 6a-Mid with a 4.3. They advanced into the top 7 during prime time programming (M-F 6a-7p) with a 5.1.
When you dig deeper into the local show performances, it’s another strong story for The Fan. The “Sports Junkies” finished 7th in mornings with a 4.8 and “Chad Dukes vs. The World” was 7th in afternoon drive with a 4.5.
Where The Fan really popped was during middays. “Grant and Danny” produced a 6.8 to finish 2nd overall. During the show’s first 2-hours, they’re actually tied for 1st with a 7.0. That’s extremely impressive.
For ESPN 980 there are some good signs as well. The station’s “Inside The Locker Room” program which features Scott Jackson, Brian Mitchell and Doc Walker finished in the Top 10 with a 2.9. The afternoon show which consists of Steve Czaban, Chris Cooley and Al Galdi and airs during a different time (4p-7p) than The Fan (2p-6p), is only separated by a few tenths of a point during the 3 hours they’re on the air. Czaban’s show generates a 2.7 versus The Fan’s 3.1.
One other item that stood out in afternoons and is worth noting, SportsTalk 570 which is owned and operated by Red Zebra Broadcasting (the owner of ESPN 980) and operates ESPN Radio and Yahoo Sports Radio network programming, saw some lift in afternoon drive. Bomani Jones’ show delivered a 1.5 and was the only network program to appear on the first page of the ratings report.
Where ESPN 980 experienced their lowest weekday prime performance was in morning drive. The radio station has since eliminated the “Man Cave” which was anchoring that slot. The next monthly will provide a better indication of how that helps or hurts the station going forward.
For the sake of this conversation though, The Fan has taken control of the ratings in DC for the November book. But as we often see in many cities, there are usually two or three great brands providing sports radio content, and in Washington DC that story is no different.
Few markets in the country produce the interest in sports talk radio that Boston does.
Led by WEEI and 98.5 The Sports Hub, it’s become a common theme to see the two stations finish among the top 2 stations in the market and deliver more than 20% of all male listening, especially during drive times.
And the November book was no exception.
The Sports Hub finished the month in 1st place with Men 25-54. WEEI came in second.
However, there was one big change worth celebrating for WEEI. The station’s morning show “Dennis & Callahan” which features John Dennis, Gerry Callahan and Kirk Minihane, recorded an impressive 14.4 rating to win the month against the Sports Hub’s “Toucher and Rich”. It was the second month in a row that Dennis and Callahan turned in a 14 share.
In middays, afternoons and evenings, the Hub was strong and finished 1st. WEEI came in 3rd during middays and 2nd in afternoons and evenings.
What’s become clear is that while bragging rights are important to both stations and their personalities, the performances by each brand are very impressive and the audience has access to two great local sports talkers.
The sports radio format often promotes the success achieved by stations in New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Detroit. But brands that deliver strong results in the Midwest, the South, and on the West Coast often receive less recognition.
But the noise that KFAN in Minneapolis is making is impossible to ignore and deserves to be highlighted.
The radio station which is made up of “The Power Trip” in mornings, “Paul Allen” from 9a-12p, “The Common Man” from 12p-3p and “Bumper To Bumper with Dan Barreiro” in afternoons, completed its November book by finishing 1st overall with Men 25-54. That marks 15 straight months in 1st place with Men 25-54.
Two thirds of the way through the Fall Book, and the station’s Monday-Friday shows are all in 1st place in their respective dayparts. “The Power Trip” have now finished ahead of long time Twin Cities morning leader KQRS for four months straight.
If that wasn’t impressive enough, the station also sits 1st overall Monday-Sunday 6a-Mid with Adults 25-54.
With the Vikings looking like a playoff contender, and the weekday show’s delivering double digit ratings, KFAN should finish 2015 as one of the best performing sports station’s in America.
On Thursday, Talker’s released its 4th annual Heavy Hundred of Sports Talk Radio, and as you’d expect it’s creating a lot of noise. Lists are very effective in terms of generating debate and discussion. When the focus becomes sports radio personalities and radio stations, that stirs even more emotion. Having created a few pieces like this myself, I know how subjective these things can be. So I recognize how difficult this project can be for the Talkers crew.
To assemble a piece like this and generate buzz is very easy. It’s the evidence though that supports each decision that determines if the list carries any weight. The outlet behind the piece also is important. There’s no question that Talkers has been a reputable source for talk radio for a long time. That’s why the “Heavy Hundred” creates interest throughout our industry. People in radio want to feel like their work is being recognized and measured by those who understand the challenges of doing it. Not by those who are uninformed or wearing rose colored glasses.
When I clicked on the link yesterday to review the list, I hoped to be pleased with the final result. I wanted to believe that quality research was done to showcase the industry’s best but once again I was left with more questions than answers. There also seems to be a bias directed towards certain shows, stations, and cities.
On Wednesday, Talkers posted on their website what some of their criteria was for the “Heavy Hundred”. They stressed that the final results are admittedly subjective and a number of factors determine who makes the cut. Which qualities mattered most though was not clear.
I thought it was worth researching to find out which criteria was most important and if the decision making was done in collaboration with different radio companies and programmers or if it was done independently. Many stations and industry professionals have been led to believe that there is a group of industry executives determining these results.
I started my investigation by reaching out to more than 50 Program Directors and Corporate Executives. I asked them how involved they were in sharing feedback with Talkers for their process. Only one Program Director said they had shared their input with the company. Whether Talkers asked for it or even considered it is unknown.
Next, I reached out to Talkers to get an idea of how they handle the process. The three questions I posed were:
Who takes part in the selection committee for deciding the Top 100? (Are they strictly folks from the magazine/website or are managers from different radio groups included)
Which factors matter the most in determining where you slot a show? (Ex: Ratings, Revenue, Market size, Longevity, etc.)
If ratings are taken into account, are you looking at 6+, 12+ or the format’s key demo Men 25-54?
Michael Harrison, the company’s Editor and Publisher, didn’t address the questions directly but he did offer the publication’s perspective. He said “putting this list together is based on as much art and subjectivity as it is objective and empirical. In other words, this is not an “official” PPM-style ratings project based on a hard methodology – but rather, an impression based on a combination of information and opinions and that’s the way we want it to stay. Lists like this are thought-stimulators and not to be taken TOO seriously.”
What Michael said in his last line is very important to be aware of. The list is meant to be a fun, thought provoking piece, that highlights the best in the format through the eyes and ears of the editors at Talkers Magazine. It’s not industry involved by design and whether a show finishes 1st or 100th, simply earning recognition from an industry resource like Talkers should make a talent and radio station feel good.
But therein lies the issue. Talkers has done a great job at building a brand that the radio industry values. They have a larger responsibility to showcase the industry properly. A fun subjective list that’s not to be taken seriously is something we should expect from our friends on Facebook. Not from one of the radio industry’s leading publications.
Yesterday after the list was released, I received five different press releases from radio stations pumping up their people who were on the “Heavy Hundred”. That tells me that the industry takes this list very seriously. One particular quote stood out. David Dickey with 680 The Fan in Atlanta said “We are thrilled that experts in the sports industry recognize The Fan as the most credible and most consumed sports station in Atlanta, airing some of the best sports-talk shows in the country”.
There’s one problem with that quote. Experts in the sports industry did NOT participate in this project. It was done independently by the editors at Talkers.
Being a former Program Director who studies this format as intently as I do, there are a couple of issues I believe need to be addressed. Most of the Talkers group are based on the East Coast. Call me cynical but I don’t believe they are listening to sports stations in the South, Midwest, or West Coast on a regular basis. Nor do I believe they are in tune with how impactful, successful or not successful, some of those brands and personalities are.
I also know that gaining access to a station’s ratings and revenue is very difficult. Especially when you take into account that the key demo for the format (Men 25-54) isn’t made available to the public. You can dissect 6+ and 12+ numbers but those are not what accurately reflect a sports station’s performance. You can also see total revenue for a brand but that doesn’t tell you which personalities bring in the dough and which ones don’t.
As I analyzed the list, my initial impression is that many of the shows selected were chosen based on reputation of brand and longevity of show. I don’t believe ratings and revenue factored heavily into the equation as previously suggested. It feels more to me like “The Reputation 100” than a review of the best of 2015.
One other thing that I noticed that is very troublesome is that this list rarely changes. There’s no way in the world of radio ratings and revenue (where things change constantly) that you’re going to convince me that these shows have produced the same for the past 3 years. The only time you’ll see major changes are when shows no longer exist or guys who recently started with a station are lower one year and higher the next. Take some time and look at the lists for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015. You’ll see a lot of the same results. Here is some photo evidence.
A few years ago one of my shows made this list and at that time the program had been on the air less than six months and was rated 17th in the market. Another show on my station which didn’t make the list, had spent 2-3 years together and was consistently rated in the Top 5. They were also our highest generating revenue program. I wasn’t asked nor was my General Manager for any information about our station or personalities ratings or revenue.
While that was then, let’s take a look at now.
In San Francisco, Damon Bruce not only generates revenue for 95.7 The Game, but he’s been a Top 5 rated program throughout the past year. If you’re a Top 5 performer in the 4th largest market in America, how can you not be included as one of the industry’s Top 100?
Talkers also said that in addition to ratings and revenue, a few other criteria were important. They included “effort, courage, uniqueness, recognition, impact and doing a show at the time of the list’s release”. Once again, Damon checks all of those boxes. So does Greg Papa and John Lund who work at the same station and have been in the Top 5 for the past 3 years and just finished #1 in October.
But that’s my former radio station so clearly I’m biased right? Well let’s switch coasts then.
Mark Madden does afternoons on 105.9 The X in Pittsburgh. He’s not on a full-time sports station, but he hosts a sports talk show for 4 hours a day in afternoon drive and delivers HUGE double digit ratings and revenue. He also possesses many of the attributes that Talkers said were important. He too though is not on the list. Three of the market’s shows on 93.7 The Fan made the list (deservingly so) so that eliminates any argument about the market being smaller.
Staying in Pennsylvania, Josh Innes hosts afternoon drive on WIP in Philadelphia. He started in that slot in February with Tony Bruno and quickly the show was leading the afternoon ratings battle against Mike Missanelli who’s ranked 15th on the Talkers list. Bruno left the show in July which many thought would hurt the show. But WIP never lost momentum. Innes continued to win afternoons with a new crew.
If I were to ask Andy Bloom who runs WIP, I’m sure he’d tell me their station is making a lot of money by finishing in the top spot in Philadelphia. If Innes is winning in afternoons, and doing so with two different versions of his program during the past calendar year, that should only further help his standing right? Nope. He’s rated 49th.
Missanelli is an exceptional talent and deserves to be in the Top 15. That’s not the issue. A host who’s on a heritage brand and in the same conversation for afternoon ratings and providing many of the qualities that the publication said were necessary shouldn’t be 34 spots away.
That same issue exists in Chicago where Waddle & Silvy (58th) on ESPN 1000 have won multiple months against Boers and Bernstein (18th) on The Score and in Kansas City where “The Drive” with Danny Parkins and Carrington “CDot” Harrison aren’t even on the list, despite doing a great show and leading the ratings against Kevin Keitzman (42nd) from WHB. How Michael Kay of 98.7 ESPN New York is relegated to 56th (third year in a row 55th or 56th) is another head scratcher.
Moving south to Dallas, G-Bag Nation airs on 105.3 The Fan and is an incredible program. It beats The Ticket and ESPN 103.3 in middays and is often The Fan’s highest rated show. But once again, the show isn’t on the list. Their competitors who they beat consistently each month are. Norm Hitzges and Donovan Lewis from The Ticket are 79th and Steve Dennis and Mark Friedman are 83rd.
Ben & Skin (who are a really good show) work on the same station as G-Bag Nation and they finished 43rd despite delivering the same or lower numbers than the midday show. If G-Bag Nation produces the top ratings on their station, and beats the two shows (Hitzges & Lewis and Dennis & Friedo) that they line up against, then how are they left out?
Finally, I don’t need ratings evidence, only a good set of ears to know that Bomani Jones, Adam Schein and Dan Dakich are three of America’s best on-air talents. There’s no defense for them not being included. They are way too good to be left off.
In the grand scheme of things, this is only a list. We’re not dealing with a life threatening illness. But shouldn’t we expect some transparency when it involves voting on our entire industry? Is that too much to expect?
I remember when sports media people voted for MVP awards and made terrible decisions but couldn’t be held accountable because we didn’t know how they voted. Then two specific situations occurred and it’s been very different since. Fred Hickman voted for Allen Iverson as MVP over Shaq in 2000 and Keith Law placed Javier Vasquez above Adam Wainwright and Chris Carpenter in the 2009 NL Cy Young voting. Both men received a ton of backlash for their selections and with social media a major part of people’s lives now and accountability being important to the general public, it’s much harder to place a vote and hide.
What frustrates me most is that people in our format really do care about this. They want to be measured fairly and some checks and balances would go a long way towards getting it right. Furthermore, there are stations using this information in local marketplaces to create confusion and present a false narrative for their brands and personalities. It’s similar to when a radio station runs a promo touting itself as America’s #1 sports station, when the truth is that they’re not even rated #1 in their own market. Just because you say something is factual doesn’t mean that it actually is.
The last part I want to draw attention to is SiriusXM. I recognize that the focus of this type of list is going to be on ‘terrestrial’ radio but if we’re identifying the Top 100 sports hosts in America, then shouldn’t they be included? Stephen A. Smith, Evan Cohen and Mark Packer aren’t good enough to make the Top 100? Chris Russo, despite having an entire channel named after him is only the 35th most important? Really?
In talking to a number of Program Directors, they’re disappointed because they’re not asked about their shows and stations and they feel that Talkers aren’t privy to key information. I’ve often wondered why Program Directors weren’t interviewed as part of this process. Why consultants like Rick Scott, Tom Bigby and myself who follow the format nationwide and interact with stations and personalities aren’t asked to share a perspective. Why executives like Bruce Gilbert and Scott Masteller weren’t asked for feedback when they operated ESPN Radio and Fox Sports Radio and had regular communication with local stations across the country.
I’d think that Program Directors, Consultants, and Executives like Bruce, Mark Chernoff and Mike Thomas at CBS, Steve Cohen with SiriusXM, and Don Martin with Premiere/Fox Sports could lend some extra insight and information that would be beneficial. Some will say that by talking to them they’ll be biased towards their own people and while that’s probably true, they still have information that’s important. I’m not suggesting they be part of the final decision making process. That should absolutely belong to Talkers. But without knowing key details about many of these stations, it leaves a lot of industry people feeling like the list is very skewed and not well researched.
If you’re an On-Air talent and you made the list, be appreciative towards the folks at Talkers who have highlighted your show and clearly value your work. However, just because you made the list, doesn’t mean you deserve a raise or that you should start bombarding other Program Director’s for bigger jobs because you’ve clearly established yourself.
I had one talent reach out to me two years ago and explain why I needed to hire them. They told me that based on their ranking on the Talkers Top 100, it was clear that the entire industry knew they were a difference maker. This individual didn’t finish in the Top 30 so when I responded by asking them “why should I hire you over all of the other shows that finished ahead of you” they didn’t take too kindly to my sarcasm. Now knowing that the survey is done independently by Talkers and without the involvement of the top radio minds in America, that same person may want to craft their wording a little differently.
I’m glad Talkers does this piece each year to give our format and our people some exposure. I know it’s a very hard list to assemble and everyone involved at the publication has to view this project as a love/hate assignment. No matter what they put out, there’s going to be some disagreement with it. By not providing transparency though with their process it leaves them open to additional criticisms.
From where I sit, I don’t think you can find much room to argue with the Top 15-20. Personalities like Mike Francesa, Boomer & Carton, Jim Rome, Colin Cowherd and Dan Patrick deserve to be high on the list. In many ways this list reminds me of the NFL Draft. You can identify who the top prospects are but after Round 1 it’s a crapshoot and the great organizations do their homework and strike gold, while others miss the mark and ultimately pay the price for it.
To those that made the list, congratulations. Whether you take it seriously or with a grain of salt, it’s a nice honor. The last thing I wanted to do was rain on Talkers parade but the process and research that goes into this should matter and industry people deserve to know who determines the results and what criteria matters most. Many assumed that top executives and programmers were involved in this process. But they’re not. They’ve also not been spoken to. If some additional conversation takes place, this list could become excellent and one that all groups look forward to being a part of.
For now though, the Talkers Heavy Hundred has become our Santa Claus. It started as a good idea that made us feel good inside, but the more we choose to believe in it, the more disappointed we become.
Alpha Media and John Canzano have agreed to extend the successful run of Canzano’s Bald Faced Truth sports radio show (weekdays 12-3 p.m.) on 750-AM and 102.9-FM The Game.
Alpha signed Canzano to a four-year contract extension this week that will keep The Game’s longest running sports talk show on the company’s flagship Portland-based station.
Alpha Media Executive VP of Programming, Scott Mahalick commented on the announcement, “Renewing a seasoned professional varsity multimedia broadcast talent like John Canzano is the perfect centerpiece to The Game’s talent roster.”
Canzano has been with The Game since its launch in 2008 and also serves as a sports commentator at KGW-TV, Portland’s NBC affiliate. Canzano’s social media following includes more than 65,000 followers. His radio show guests have ranged from national figures such as President Obama to Mike Tyson and regular spirited exchanges with the local sports athletes and coaches.
“John Canzano is a multi-media Portland sports brand that Alpha Media is thrilled to extend to 750/102.9 The Game for many years to come,” remarked Alpha Media Senior Vice President/Market Manager, Milt McConnell. “John’s ability to get big name sports personalities and unique insights on our local sports franchises provide some of the most compelling content on local radio.”
“Today’s sports talk listener wants great local talk; unbiased and truthful,” added Canzano. “It’s why my show and The Game connect so deeply with listeners. I’m proud to sign a long-term contract to be part of a sports station that is surging forward.”
Read more at The Oregonian which is where this article was originally published
To make things better in life and business, we often have to tackle difficult subjects and be willing to engage in conversations that make us flinch. As a former programmer, I was taught to avoid three subjects which can divide an audience – race, religion, and politics. While I agree that those topics can be divisive in everyday sports talk conversation, I don’t think those subjects should be avoided when they apply to the progress or lack thereof in our format.
For some in the media industry, this column will serve as a breath of fresh air and make them feel inspired to have deeper dialogue on ways to evolve our people and brands. For others, this trip into the land of the uncomfortable is going to make them uneasy and maybe even angry or dismissive. But it’s necessary.
Sharing our views on a subject such as race is often perceived as dangerous. Why? Because it’s a topic that gets people’s emotions stirred and when information is lacking or revealed, it can make us look uninformed, irresponsible or agenda driven.
While it may be complex and make the hairs on our necks stand up, it’s a conversation that shouldn’t be ignored when it comes to sports radio. We’re all adults and it’s 2015 not 1865. Anyone who works in this format should understand that we benefit more by reaching the entire audience, not just select demographics. You can’t do that though by only providing one side of the conversation.
Since the sports talk format was created thirty years ago, it’s been heavily targeted to white males between the ages of 25-54. Part of that stems from white audiences being more interested in the content. Some is a result of on-air lineups and station management being heavily caucasian and refusing to step outside of their comfort zones.
ESPN Audio’s Vice President of Network Content David Roberts says those realities extend beyond the media business: “In many industries there’s still this comfort level to pick people who we identify most with. Diversity means being willing to listen to ideas and surround yourself with people who look, think, and act different than you do. If someone can bring a different perspective and help a company improve, then it only makes sense to explore hiring them.”
Although the format has grown, there are many sports stations today that don’t deliver big ratings. In some cases, brands finish between 10th and 20th place, and reach only 2-3% of the Male 25-54 audience. Yet, that is considered a success. To play devil’s advocate, one could argue that 97-98% of Men 25-54 DIDNOT listen to those stations/personalities. It’s really hard to use the word ‘success’ when you look at it that way.
So why do sports stations struggle to generate bigger numbers? Is it because the programming is predictable? Is it due to a steady presence on AM radio which younger people listen less to? Is it because of poor measurement? Or is something else happening that prevents the format from reaching the largest pool of people?
That ‘something’ I’m referring to is a lack of diversity on the air. And let’s be clear, that doesn’t mean black personalities – it means Black, Asian, Hispanic, Indian, every ethnic background that is non-white.
I’ve programmed in San Francisco, Philadelphia, and St. Louis – three different pockets of the country, and in each case, the percentages of white males to non-white males who listened were between 70-90% white, and 10-30% non-white. There are a few markets where the percentages are different, but overall, this is a regular trend.
What that tells us is that the content appeals to a select group of people (white males 25-54). Attracting interest from minority audiences remains a bigger challenge.
One of the first diverse shows to expand the audience in a local market were the “2 Live Stews” who broadcasted on the now defunct 790 The Zone in Atlanta. Doug and Ryan Stewart were the hosts, and they debuted in 2001 and grew from late evenings, to mid-days, to afternoon drive, and became The Zone’s highest rated show. That led to appearances on ESPN, a show on ESPN2, a syndication deal with Radio One, and a national slot on Sporting News Radio.
Despite all of that success, the pair have had a tough time gaining another opportunity in Atlanta, or anywhere else for that matter. They currently host a 1-hour program on Saturday morning on WGST in Atlanta.
Doug said “The diversity in Sports Radio almost 15 years after the debut of the “2 Live Stews” is very disappointing. We were lauded for being the first (all) black show in sports radio history and you’d think it would open up doors right? Not. We don’t have a job (or real interest for that matter) and not many other black hosts have been given opportunities either. Factor in that just about all of our station contemporaries are working in the industry, and add to the equation the “verifiable” success that we had concerning numbers and national success, and it’s disheartening to say the least.”
It’s common to gravitate to those who think and sound like us and share a similar upbringing. When we hear someone speak differently and approach topics from an unfamiliar place, we usually reject it. What makes that problematic is that for someone like myself, who’s 41 and a white male, I can still put on a sports radio station and hear 80-90% of people who I stand a chance to connect with. For a minority listener though, they’re treated to 15% of people who share a similar background. That means that if they want to listen to sports talk, they have to listen to hosts who they may identify with less. The only other option is to not listen at all.
I went through the top 20 markets and the stations in each of those cities that operate this format. I also analyzed 5 national sports networks and SiriusXM’s key sports channels to look at the total amount of regular weekday on-air personalities who are white vs. non-white. I’m not including update anchors, fill-in hosts or reporters – just the people who occupy positions M-F between 6a-Midnight.
Now take a look below at each market’s demographics and how they compare to the talent mix in each city.
For additional observations on the information I presented above, click the following link.
If you were to create a headline from the data above, it would say “sports radio stations over deliver on white personalities and under deliver on non-white personalities“. 85% of the on-air people in this study were white. That’s 22% higher than the percentage of people in these cities who fit the same description. The only demographic in line with its statistics are African Americans. They make up 15% of the population among the Top 20 cities, and are represented by 14% of Black on-air personalities.
What’s more alarming is the shortage of Hispanics who are hosting sports talk shows. I counted five in top 20 markets and across all national platforms. That means only 1% of our key on-air talent are Hispanic, yet they make up 22% of the population in these markets. Hispanics love sports as much as everyone else, and they are a larger group of people than even African Americans. Still, they are the most underrepresented group in our entire format.
Altogether, minorities (Black and Hispanic) represent 37% of the population in these cities but only 15% of the format’s On-Air personalities come from minority backgrounds. This is a major issue that needs to be corrected, but it’s one that I’m not sure we’re prepared right now to fix. Here’s why. Did you know that of the entire list of stations above in top 20 markets, only 1 has a Program Director who isn’t a white male (Terry Foxx at 92.9 The Game in Atlanta)? If you look at the 5 national sports networks, only ESPN Radio employs a minority Programmer (David Roberts). They also employ two female programmers (Amanda Gifford and Louise Cornetta). No other network does that.
If we expect to expand our thinking, and reach more people, it has to start up top. I’m not privy to the braintrust of each group and why they make the decisions that they do, but the disparity I see on the air is not in line with the makeup of the audience. If you look deeper, the same challenges exist with market manager positions, corporate executive jobs, and ownership. In the NFL, the Rooney Rule was introduced to encourage organizations to consider candidates who weren’t white. I’m not sure if that type of approach is necessary or if it would even work, but clearly something has to be done.
As true as it may be that we have work to do in hiring minority managers and on-air talent, there is also a problem with getting them interested in our business, especially Hispanics. That doesn’t mean there aren’t great non-white candidates out there who are worth investing in, but the options to choose from are definitely less.
In May 2014, Chris “Mad Dog” Russo addressed this subject on his national radio program when a caller asked him why his channel didn’t feature any minority personalities. He said “What would you like us to do? There are not a million candidates. Would you like us to put on a black host for the sake of putting a person on? If there is any person of any ethnicity who wants to get a job at ‘Mad Dog Radio’ and we feel he or she is capable of doing a national talk show at the highest level, I’d put them on in a second. Let’s just say we are not being overwhelmed by resumes.”
Although Russo’s comments were originally criticized, I appreciated his honesty. My only issue was that while he was absolutely right about a lack of interest, the solution is to go out and find people, not wait for them to find us. Most personalities don’t know the challenges that exist inside each radio company, and it’s the Program Director’s job to find talent, bring them in, coach them up, and give them the platform to display their skills.
To their credit, Mad Dog Radio solved the issue by partnering with ESPN Radio. That relationship resulted in Stephen A. Smith joining the channel and becoming the host of weekdays 1p-3p EST. As part of the agreement, ESPN Radio produces the program.
When Smith was initially named host of the program he said “I’m not just able to help myself but various African Americans within the radio industry that are looking for opportunities. I’ve got to be a trendsetter and make it happen because if I drop the ball, I not only drop the ball for me but I drop the ball for all of us.”
He’s probably right, and that in itself saddens me. No person should have to go to work feeling like they have the weight of an entire race on their shoulders. Can you imagine if a white on-air personality was faced with that responsibility and their success or failure determined whether or not other companies would employ future white hosts?
We can talk about these problems until we’re blue in the face but what our industry needs now are solutions. For starters, there should be a stronger emphasis on training and recruiting. It’s easy to tell a manager “go hire great people and get us ratings” but most radio stations don’t talk to their managers about the importance of being diverse, nor do they show them why it matters or how to find candidates from different backgrounds. If nobody else inside an operation thinks it’s critical, and the programmer is judged on their ability to deliver ratings, they’re not going to care as much about the makeup of a lineup, as they are its ability to produce results. They’re also more likely to surround themselves with people they relate to.
I asked a Program Director (who wished to remain anonymous) about this issue and he confirmed that it’s a problem. “I’d love to say that I’ve done a good job at promoting diversity but the truth is that I can do better and probably need to focus on this more than I have in the past. We can place blame on a lack of training but that’s a cop out. The bigger issue I believe is simply having a discussion about it. Very few people want to talk about race. I think it’s only natural for people in my position to hire talent who they connect with most. Our audience comes from a similar place. But to your point, we’re not going to grow the audience if we don’t make hiring minority talent a bigger priority and it all starts with increasing dialogue”.
Early in my career when I first started programming, building a diverse radio station wasn’t on my radar. I went to work, listened for great talent, reviewed the candidates that applied for an opening, and made decisions based on what I felt was good. However, when I built 101 ESPN in St. Louis, I took a different approach. I made a real conscious effort to make sure we had a unique mix of people to reach the entire community. I wanted younger personalities, and veterans. Male and Female. White and Non-White.
During that time I hired D’Marco Farr and the late Bryan Burwell in weekday positions. I also hired Alvin Reid and Rene Knott as weekend hosts, Tony Softli as a Reporter, Rick Venturi as an Analyst/Host, Sara Dayley as an Anchor, and Michelle Smallmon as a Producer. The brand was unique and full of talented people from multiple backgrounds and together we enjoyed a lot of success.
In San Francisco I took a similar approach. NFL Network personality Eric Davis was part of our initial afternoon show with Brandon Tierney. As we grew I added others to the roster from different backgrounds including Henry Wofford, Daryle “The Guru” Johnson, Gianna Franco, Anna Kagarakis, Lorenzo Neal, and a program called “The Three Amigos” which featured Victor Zaragoza who was Mexican, and Rudy Ortiz and Brandon Santiago who were Hispanic.
While my previous two stations took diversity into account, and did a good job of making it important to the programming mix, one could still argue that we didn’t do enough. I can’t disagree but I can say that we did try and put a lot of thought into every decision we made.
One group which I believe did a masterful job at making their programming more diverse recently is ESPN Radio. Dan Le Batard, Jorge Sedano, Bomani Jones, and Freddie Coleman are all non-white and talented, and they’ve been given the same chance to succeed on the network as Mike Greenberg, Mike Golic, Jon Weiner, Ryen Russillo, Danny Kanell and Jen Lada. Traug Keller, Mo Davenport, David Roberts, Amanda Gifford, Pete Gianesini, Ray Necci, Louise Cornetta and every other ESPN Radio manager who was involved in the talent process deserves to be applauded for taking steps to create change.
I asked Roberts how the hiring process worked and he said “We never select numbers for how many people will be given a position based on their background. As long as you operate by making sure that the best talent available is selected, then the principles and impact of diversity will take care of itself. The wider you make the net, the better chance you have at success. The more narrow the pool, the less likely you are to succeed.”
Let’s understand one really important thing on this subject. Just because a white personality hosts a show, doesn’t mean they can’t relate or connect with an African American or Hispanic listener. The same holds true for any minority host trying to connect with a white audience. If the content is great, and the topic, information, and opinion is intriguing, people will listen to it. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to provide a better mix of on-air talent so we can appeal to all demographics.
To get a better read on the challenges our industry faces with regards to diversity, I thought it’d be helpful to talk to some non-white personalities who I respect a great deal. I think you’ll find this conversation to be very enlightening. Change can only happen when we recognize a problem and care enough to fix it. If a few people in our format in positions of influence read this and are moved to re-evaluate their approach and commitment to diversity, then that’ll be a step in the right direction. From where I sit, we could all benefit a great deal from it.
Jorge Sedano – Host of “Jorge & Jen” on ESPN Radio
Carl Dukes – Host of “Dukes & Bell” on 92.9 The Game in Atlanta
Newy Scruggs – Host of “Voices of The Game” on NBC Sports Radio
Freddie Coleman – Host of “The Freddie Coleman Show” on ESPN Radio
Sean Adams – Co-Host of “The Bottom Line” on AM 1300 The Zone in Austin
How do you feel about the balance in sports radio today as it applies to presenting diverse on-air personalities and programming?
Adams: I don’t think it is diverse at all. People might look at the raw numbers and say things are better but many members of the mainstream media who also write and do television, are still pulled from a very homogeneous group of white men that lack the the most important part of diversity, experience.
Sedano: I think a market or a network should reflect its communities. At ESPN Radio, we have done a great job with diversity. Look at our weekday lineup. Mike & Mike, Dan Le Batard, Ryen Russillo & Danny Kanell, Bomani Jones, Jalen Rose & Dave Jacoby, Freddie Coleman, Jen Lada and myself. It’s a reflection of our society. That’s a testament to our leadership at ESPN, Traug Keller, Mo Davenport and Dave Roberts. They look for the most talented group of hosts who can provide different perspectives. It’s what the medium was built on – different perspectives.
Dukes: I don’t think there is a balance. When you look around at the major market radio companies and stations and the major dayparts on those brands, how many African American are hosting shows? The balance is still very inadequate when you talk about sports radio today and how it applies to presenting diverse on-air personalities and programming.
Harrison: There is no racial balance in sports radio today. Look at the Talkers Top 100 list from any year, and count the number of non white people on that list. An even better exercise, count the number of non-white non athletes on the list. Sports talk radio is a middle aged white male platform so the hosts reflect that and largely speak from that relatable point of view and connect with the intended audience.
Is it better, the same, or worse than it was 10 years ago?
Sedano: I came from Miami where 50% of the radio listening audience is Hispanic. When I worked in Miami there were only 3 Hispanic hosts in the weekday lineups. LeBatard, Orlando Alzugaray and myself. Now my ESPN colleague and long time friend Israel Gutierrez is doing drive time in Miami. 25% of Miami is African American. There are only three African American hosts on weekdays in Miami. Joy Taylor is a morning host on the Ticket, Leroy Hoard does middays there and Channing Crowder does afternoons on WQAM. There are 4 sports stations in Miami. The number of ethnic hosts don’t reflect the community there enough. I can say the same for most markets in America. For that matter, I can say the same for some radio networks as well.
Dukes: It is certainly better. Some doors have been opened for minorities but it’s still not as good as it should be. I think it has a lot more to do with guys like myself, the 2 Live Stews, Terry Foster in Detroit, and others having success when they do receive an opportunity. I’m a big believer that you have to see it to believe it. Once people can see us doing well, it will give more of them the courage to pursue their dreams too.
Scruggs: It’s better because you get to hear shows with hosts like Bomani Jones, Steve Kim, the 2 Live Stews or Mike Hill. You can actually give points and opinions from a minority perspective and not be afraid you’ll be pulled off the air. Some PD’s don’t want you to sound too “urban”, the code word.
Coleman: Definitely better because there are more minorities who are a part of sports talk radio. For the longest time, there weren’t any to listen to nationally or locally.
In sports radio, many of the on-air talent who aren’t white, have a background in professional sports. Why do you believe that stations will take a chance on a former athlete but not as much on an individual from a different background who is simply well educated or a good broadcaster?
Adams: Historically those from non-white backgrounds have had to have more credibility than their white counterparts. In some ways it worked almost like television where one was the play by play (radio guy) and one was the color. Non-whites filled the second role and their credibility came from former players.
Sedano: I’m not in those other guys heads so I can only speak for myself. I was the PD/Host at WQAM for one year (Sept 2012-Aug 2013). In that time, I put on Channing Crowder who played in the NFL, and on the weekends I hired Ed Freeman & Jeff Fox who were broadcasters. I tried to hire Bomani Jones. I texted him once to gauge his interest, but he had bigger things on the horizon. Obviously, we see what that was.
It’s easier to hire a former jock because they have name value. It takes more of an investment to give a broadcaster that same opportunity. Most PD’s are under pressure to produce ratings and help sales staffs to meet numbers. So they don’t want to invest the time and effort it takes to coach a good, young broadcaster.
Dukes: The reason why is because the formula has always been that you needed a former professional athlete on the station to attract an audience. I don’t believe that formula is true anymore. My partner (Mike Bell) and I here in Atlanta didn’t play professional sports and we’re doing well. Toucher & Rich in Boston and Ben & Skin in Dallas are doing excellent and they didn’t play the game. I’ve worked with numerous former athletes, including Kordell Stewart here at The Game, and as knowledgeable as they are about the game, sometimes they can be limited in what they’re willing to say or do.
Scruggs: PD’s like names and get fooled all the time when athletes want to get into radio. The person hiring thinks they hit a 2-run homer: a former local player AND he’s black/Latino. Most players don’t want to put in the work that it takes to do sports radio at a high level. That is not a shot but it’s something I have seen.
Why is it important for sports stations to feature personalities who come from different backgrounds?
Dukes: That’s what life is all about. We should all strive to see what’s out there. When you include different cultures and ethnicities, then you can respect things more when certain stories come up. For example, when the Adrian Peterson story blew up last year, two white guys from Iowa discussing that topic versus an African-American with the same cultural experience, is a different deal. That viewpoint is going to be different and I think that’s beneficial and important to sports radio. As society continues to change, and we are truly one big melting pot, I think it’s important that listeners and fans get to hear as many perspectives as possible.
Scruggs: Just look at the world we live in. It’s important to bring viewpoints from women, gays, minorities and people of different faith. The world has changed.
Harrison: Talk radio is such a different type of medium because so much of your personality, upbringing, culture, background, and religious beliefs come out in how you portray your opinions. Since when is having different voices (not just black males) but a woman’s perspective too a bad thing? Can’t they provide a view that I don’t have? Isn’t that the point of open discussion?
If all the personalities are largely the same and essentially at the same point in life (married, two kids, house, etc.), how is the conversation ever truly unique? That’s not representative of the entire audience. I’m a 27 single black male, and on some levels it is impossible for me to relate to the middle aged white male, but doesn’t my story and the story of people like me also deserve to be heard?
Coleman: Because everybody isn’t the same and I’ve always believed that you don’t have to like people from different backgrounds, but you should be able to understand the differences. To me if you don’t, then you have a completely narrow view. Not every white person thinks the same, but a host has to understand, no matter their color or background, that understanding has to play a part.
If the majority of listening is done by white males between 25-54, and they relate strongly to white hosts in the same demographic, why should a company executive alter their approach?
Adams: Those same white males enjoy watching sports that are largely minority and the value of the diversity in former players (of any level) lends credibility to said host.
Sedano: Why wouldn’t you want to grow your audience beyond white males between 25-54? Are executives afraid that the white male audience will not be retained if there is a minority host? I think that’s a bit presumptuous. Good content is good content. People want good content.
Dukes: A lot of guys are afraid to alter their approach because they’re afraid that people won’t listen. My approach has always been that I need everyone to listen to win. I am not solely dedicated to having just African Americans listen. I want the husband, the wife, the sports fan, the fringe fan, no matter what they look like, or where they come from, I need all of those people to win.
I never try to delegate my style or my delivery to one type of individual. I hope the audience likes who I am and what I do but I’m not trying to do something to attract a certain type of individual. How does it sound? Is it smart? Is it intelligent? Is it entertaining? If it checks those boxes, then it shouldn’t matter what you look like because people will listen, and that should be the reason why an executive should be receptive to altering their approach.
Scruggs: So it’s OK to bring in the ex minority ballplayer for pre and postgame coverage of the station’s games but keep the host white so you don’t offend the white audience? That is hooey and 1990’s type of thinking. We live in a country where the voting public is overwhelming white and a black man was elected President of the United States twice. There are many talented non white male broadcasters that can bring compelling sports talk to the airwaves.
What is the #1 reason in your opinion of why stations struggle to employ more non-white on-air talent? (is it a lack of interest from minority candidates, programmers afraid to leave their comfort zone, listening audiences won’t listen as much, etc.)
Adams: Not only are programmers afraid to leave their comfort zones but they are also uncomfortable with communication styles and patterns that might work against non-traditional forms of diction and odd usage. Stuart Scott was popular and hated for a reason. He was different. That scares people.
Dukes: This is traditionally a white male dominated field. It’s slowly changing though. When we can stop saying there’s one minority candidate on a sports station in an entire market occupying a major daypart as a lead host, that’s when we can say we’ve made real progress. Most stations are afraid that the listening audience won’t connect if they feature more non-white personalities, and I disagree with that. I think you connect through your experiences and your likes about sports and real life. I have children, I’m a homeowner, I own a car, I enjoy restaurants, those things apply no matter what you look like or where you come from.
We need to get past what a person looks like, and think about what they offer to the radio station and the listening audience. Here in Atlanta it’s very unique. Terry Foxx is the Program Director and Sean Thompson is the Assistant Program Director and both are African American. That dynamic isn’t anywhere else in the country, but it should be. But those doors haven’t opened as much. None the less, because there are not enough minorities
Scruggs: Sports radio PD’s are on par with baseball. I saw it two years ago when there was pushback from executives on a black talk show host who had strong opinions. The GM identified him as an up and coming young talent. The GM also had a young white writer with strong sports opinions who he felt was also an up and coming young radio talent. He wanted to hire both but he listened to his staff’s opinion instead of his gut.
The white male ended up getting a show and they passed on the black candidate. The black candidate now has a successful national show and has blown up with a different network. The white male has been very good and performed well, just like the GM predicted. The station could have had both.
Harrison: Lack of effort. Lack of development. Lack of trying. Everyone wants a job like this. You get to talk sports for a living. Sure like any job it comes with a certain set of challenges but it’s an incredible line of work. It’s what I always wanted to do. It requires someone taking a chance and believing that you can do it. More PDs have to believe that someone like me is capable of connecting with a large audience. It takes time and patience.
How do you feel non-white personalities are measured in sports radio?
Adams: It’s no different than what we see with non-white coaches being hired. While it is getting better in all parts of society, a smaller margin for error is usually in place.
Sedano: I can only speak to my own experience. Once you’re in the business, it’s the same. You have to make it on your own talent and some good fortune. Don’t get it twisted. We all need a few bounces to go our way in any walk of life. Especially, in this business. The issue for minorities is getting in the business.
Coleman: I would say under the microscope more, but not as much as before. I think there are plenty of programmers that look at ratings and that’s enough. I could be wrong though.
Scruggs: You don’t see any minorities getting manager jobs without experience. Ain’t no Latino, Asian or Black Brad Ausmus’ or Scott Servais’. I’ll always remember this one guy told me in an email I was simply hired because I was black. Little did he know I had a longer resume and worked in a larger market than all of the white hosts who were at the station that he felt were more qualified than I was.
What do you attribute the lack of non-white station managers and programmers to?
Adams: Many folks in executive positions in radio stations studied radio, broadcast and television in college and planned on being in the industry on one way or another. Many non-whites join the industry trying to figure out a way to leverage their expertise and playing or coaching history. That leaves the technical side of the job wanting in most cases.
Sedano: Most people hire people like them. We see it in all walks of life. I’ve had all different people manage me. White, African American, Hispanic, and women. Though, I don’t think I’m the norm in that regard.
Harrison: It’s a cycle and there’s a lack of talent. There aren’t many hosts as it is, let alone minorities who are training and developing to become PD’s. If they’re not around the radio business to see how it runs and works then they can’t be given opportunities to manage.
Coleman: It goes back to comfort level and how much of a chance they have to succeed as well as the resources invested. I think it’s as if they’d rather interview, but not hire someone from a non-white background so they won’t get in trouble for being discriminatory.
What can sports radio do to become a more appealing career destination for people from non-white backgrounds?
Sedano: Invest in young talent and people of all backgrounds. There are a lot of good young talented people out there and they need to be given opportunities. Not all of them are conventional broadcasters. Look for the local blogger who covers your local sports landscape. See what they’re made of. Stuff like that takes effort. I think a lot of managers in radio are on cruise control and take the path of least resistance.
Dukes: I think we need to get into schools especially middle-schools and high-schools. We need to create programs, especially for under privileged children, and kids of color. They need to see that this is something they can do. The business has changed so much thanks to technology. You don’t have to work at a radio station to start practicing but those things have to be shown to people. I don’t think we’re doing enough in this business to create those opportunities for people who are going to come after us.
Harrison: I don’t think it’s non appealing to non white backgrounds. I think it’s a matter of seeing more minorities hired. It’s discouraging to some to look at the media and not see many people like them in places of power. That shouldn’t be a deterrent. You have a dream, chase it, and put the work in.
Coleman: It IS an appealing destination. I get letters all the time from young black broadcasters who want to do what I’m blessed to do. I don’t think the format needs to do anything to attract more interest.
What advice do you want to pass along to aspiring broadcasters who aren’t white and are looking to receive consideration for a future opportunity?
Sedano: This will sound totally cliche, but there is a reason it becomes a cliche. Knock on every door and don’t be afraid of rejection. It’s going to happen. Get over it quickly and move on. Don’t let that stuff linger. It’s a useless exercise. Also, network your behind off, but be respectful of people’s time. No one likes anyone who is overbearing or worse… annoying. And, if you get in the business… Be nice to EVERYONE. You never know who your next boss will be.
Dukes: Be yourself. You don’t have to change or do anything different than what you’re doing. I was told by my mentor “don’t do it for the money, if you’re good enough, the money will come”. He was right.
The other thing, if you aspire to be, you can achieve it. Just because there may be no one who looks like you doing it in your town, doesn’t mean you can’t be the first to do it. Be a pioneer, be a trendsetter, and make it happen. Don’t let anyone stop you. I’ve been told many times “you don’t sound like the radio station, I’m not sure this is going to work, we might have a spot for you in a lesser daypart”. Those things didn’t stop me, so don’t let anyone try to steal your dreams.
Scruggs: Work hard and continue to pursue your dreams. The big thing is to build your contacts and be in touch with decision makers. Go to conventions and conferences and get in front of people. I landed three radio jobs by going to the people who did the hiring and said give me a look. I made it happen. Now, it is easier for me because I’m a local TV sportscaster but you have to be willing to go grind and hustle to find work.
Also, be willing to move and work in a smaller market to get daily reps to become a good host. Never allow anyone to say you are not prepared. Too many guys in this business do ZERO prep work. Do the darn work. Build your contacts. Show up to events and games.
Coleman: Never give up or give in. There will be a person that will be advanced enough in their thinking to give you an equal chance. Once you’re in there, to use the old black adage, “be twice as good and never be afraid to be yourself”. That’s what got you in the door in the first place.