This week’s guest needs no introduction. But we’ll give him one anyway.
Ric Bucher has spent twenty five years carving out a highly successful sports media career, including reinventing himself from a writer and beat reporter into a multi-platform sports media personality. He’s enjoyed national stints with ESPN, Bleacher Report and SiriusXM’s Mad Dog Sports Radio, and gained his local sports radio education while working for Jason at 95.7 The Game in San Francisco. In this conversation, Ric reflects on his various career experiences, and offers his advice, insights and opinions on a number of industry related subjects.
TOPICS COVERED WITH RIC BUCHER:
The early days entering the business and growing as a writer and reporter
What goes into working a daily beat and what it takes to be successful at it
How to handle situations when you’re wrong and prevent future incidents
An introduction to local radio on San Francisco and what it taught him
The difference in mindset, preparation and execution in AM & PM drive
Providing PR advice to athletes who are considering entering sports media
How he’d have advised ESPN to handle their PR crisis of eliminating 100 people
What he saw in Bleacher Report that convinced him they’d grow & compete big
Ric takes exception to the lack of coverage for his partner (Nicole) and agent (Debbie)
How each day’s show on SiriusXM gets assembled given the communication challenges
Quick Hits – ESPN stint, Best player to cover, Sideline reporting, Today’s best insider
To borrow a line from Clark Griswold, “Where’s The Tylenol?” If you’ve invested time reading the headlines about the radio business lately, chances are you need it. Week after week, publications flood the marketplace with stories about flat to declining revenues, career instability, and mergers and sales, while industry officials strike back by touting radio’s position as the number one reach medium.
If you’re a young person thinking about entering the radio business, a veteran wrestling with the decision of whether or not to stay involved in it, or an advertiser wondering if placing your dollars in the industry remains a sound investment, you’re likely going to proceed with caution. The overwhelming feeling is that the industry is going to hell in a hand basket, and what’s sad, is that much of this sounds a lot worse than it is.
But do you know who’s fault it is that this has become the public’s perception of our business? It’s ours.
Step back for a minute and think about why you chose to pursue working in radio. For many, they heard a song on the radio, the voice of a talk show host or a comedic bit on the air and it struck a chord with them. The more time they spent consuming the station’s content and hearing how much fun everyone was having, the more they wanted to be part of it.
For others, they might have been drawn to radio after attending a station event, reading about it online, meeting someone in the field, hearing about a contest, watching someone speak, or simply by luck.
Regardless of where you first connected, once you got involved, you stayed involved, because it was fun and brought people together. You felt proud to call yourself an employee of the radio station and you took pride in the performance of the company.
This is the bond that radio produces that is different from other mediums. Television doesn’t provide the same level of intimacy. Neither does the print industry. Social media may create conversations on public platforms, but the human touch and personal connection is different.
But how often do we hear about the positive benefits our business provides? Where are the headlines on the amazing content being produced? Or the special connections and unique experiences being created by our radio stations? How often do we highlight the success stories of our gifted personalities who make our brands meaningful to local and national audiences?
For one reason or another, the daily conversation on our business has become centered around ratings, sales, quarterly earnings, and satisfying shareholders, and less on the reasons why radio is and will always be cool.
I’ve said it before and I’ll continue to beat the drum until we make this part of our business better – if you don’t tell your story, someone else will, and once they control the narrative you won’t like the results.
I hear industry people complain about the things that are said, written and presented about brands and companies, but I don’t see a ton of action being taken to highlight the many positives. Brand managers, marketing directors, personalities and producers share just as much of a responsibility to spread the message about the amazing work they’re doing as a CEO and Market Manager of a company has to sell their story to advertisers, investors and employees.
And I’m not just talking about promoting yourself on your own social media accounts. That just reinforces your positives with those who already know what you do. How about those who have no idea of your success? I can point out the way the industry is presented across multiple publications, and you may agree, but if you never provide a press release, success story or audio sample of something you created, then how is anyone else supposed to give you credit?
People don’t choose to work in this industry because they want to learn more about layoffs, mergers, stock prices, shareholders, consolidation, sales, bankruptcy, and corporate restructuring. Yet these are the words right now that are shaping the image of our business. Do any of them give off a positive vibe and make the industry sound cool to you? Do they give you hope for where the business is headed? Would you take your own money and invest it in an industry that presents its own story this way?
We are losing sight of what our business is, does and represents. And it’s a crying shame. There are way too many great things happening for us to be projecting this public image of a bunch of lost souls heading towards their own funeral.
Don’t get me wrong. I realize that the radio business has illnesses and limited remedies. I’m not suggesting we should sweep under the carpet the realities of what many of our broadcast companies are dealing with. But pardon my french, do you know who doesn’t give a shit about the majority of these issues? The audiences we cater to.
If we continue to carry dark clouds above our heads, and act as if we’re on the verge of the apocalypse, audiences will eventually trade in their time with us for others who provide a more uplifting experience. How exactly does that benefit us?
This is even more true with advertisers. Relationships may help a brand navigate thru treacherous terrain, but if a company is frequently connected to negative stories about layoffs, poor ratings, underachieving sales, and failing stock prices, clients and agencies are going to pause before parting ways with their money. They read the trades and news media even more than our audience. When gloom and doom surrounds a business, it becomes harder to place your faith in it.
Understand this, while we’re busy expressing our displeasure, disappointment, frustration and concern about the current state of our industry, do you know who isn’t doing that? Apple, Spotify, Pandora, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Amazon, and Twitter. Coincidentally, the majority of those companies are trending upward.
Whether you see it or not, they are all competitors. As radio shares one depressing story after another, these media companies are pushing innovation, content, fun and connection. They are chasing the same ad dollars that we are, and they’re gaining a hell of a lot more of them than anyone else. Quarter after quarter they’re enjoying massive growth, while the radio business pushes the message of “flat is the new up.”
I don’t claim to have all of the answers on how to remedy the radio industry’s PR problem but I think a good starting point is to draw attention to the many great things being created on a daily basis.
We conduct powerful interviews. Creative promos are written, produced and presented. Entertaining bits and benchmarks are featured and elicit emotion and reactions out of our audiences. Memorable content has big promotional value and is share worthy.
We also use our airwaves to help listeners and companies during times of struggle. We rally our communities around local causes and events. We excite our listeners by developing contests that offer them once in a lifetime experiences. Even play-by-play broadcasts create a bond between the audience and the radio station because of the shared interest in supporting the home team.
All of the items I just mentioned, have the potential to be newsworthy. We do them daily and fail to recognize their promotional value. It’s easy to seek promotional support when your ratings increase, a high profile talent signs a new contract, or your station breaks news or generates a controversial on-air response from a guest. But showcasing your brand beyond your own social media accounts and email databases requires taking additional steps.
When you create a promotion or contest, do you alert anyone besides your audience and staff? As someone who has promoted them many times for brands on this website, I can tell you that I often have to dig for them, rather than be made aware of them. I may take the extra step to help a sports station highlight something cool they’re doing but guess who isn’t? The rest of the trades and news media.
How often do you pass along creative promos or on-air bits to showcase your station’s entertainment value? Have you alerted media outlets about some of the ways your talent have gone above and beyond to make a difference in the lives of the audience? Maybe even invited an outlet to tag along and cover the story?
When was the last time you shared an audio clip of a talent telling a personal story on the air? Case in point, Mike Valenti delivered a moving on-air commentary three weeks ago on 97.1 The Ticket after his partner Terry Foster announced his retirement. I included it in a piece I wrote, but had I not looked for it, it’d never have been promoted outside of Detroit.
And that’s not a knock on The Ticket. It simply shows how something we do daily, and take for granted as being newsworthy, can actually have larger promotional value if the trades and news outlets are notified. I’d much rather have seen stories the next day in Radio Ink, Inside Radio, All Access and Talkers highlighting Valenti’s heart felt monologue to his partner than being subjected to another industry piece on revenue declines and budget cuts.
And before you bring it up, I understand that we have no control over which stories get featured in the trades and no guarantee that ink would have been given to Valenti’s commentary. Maybe I’m being too optimistic but I have confidence in those outlets because at their core they care about the success of radio.
It’s also been my observation over the years that when outlets are notified of something positive or powerful happening on a local or national radio station, they’re more than willing to help share that story. They’re not going to take the bait on everything you throw in front of them, but they’re more than fair in providing coverage. When you combine excellence with persistence it often leads to increased visibility.
There are many skeptics questioning the viability of radio. I am not one of them. I love this business and all that it entails, and believe that many of the solutions are inside of our own walls. However, we can do a much better job of changing the message about our brands, content, people and industry.
If you made it to Las Vegas for the NAB Show, then you saw how high the enthusiasm was for the future of media. Radio wasn’t as present as I’d have liked it to be, but each room was filled with people wanting to learn more about podcasting, content strategy, the future of the dashboard, the industry’s projected growth, and other areas of our business.
Then there was Fred Jacob’s TechSurvey 13 which included responses from more than fifty thousand people. Many of these participants share a passion, love and interest in our brands and programs, and 90% said they’re listening to either the same or more AM/FM radio than they had in the past. That’s remarkable. Especially when you consider how media consumption has shifted in recent years.
Why is that important? Because voice technology is making it even easier for people to listen to radio/audio. Automakers want it present inside the vehicle, and because of its simplicity, the use of it is increasing radio’s ability to stay connected to its audience inside the home. That’s an area that radio has struggled to penetrate in recent years.
We’re also seeing people invest more time with stations and their personalities by listening to on-demand audio and original podcasts. According to Edison Research, 42 million are listening weekly to podcasts, and that’s double from where things stood just 4 years ago.
These are all signs that illustrate how healthy the radio/audio business is. But if you spent a week looking at the way the industry is presented in public spaces you’d lose sight of that.
The fight to monetize and measure our brands and companies better is never ending. This is a competitive industry and operators have every right to demand improvement and profitability. But let’s not forget why audiences come to us in the first place, and take more control of the image we’re projecting about our business. If we don’t, we may be measuring and monetizing a lot less in the future.
One week after terminating an estimated 100 on-air employees, ESPN has been the topic of conversation in every sports media circle. Jason recaps the events of the past week and identifies three big issues he feels have played a part in the network’s decision to reduce head count.
But the conversation doesn’t end there.
Jason is joined for a round table discussion by two exceptional sports media reporters, Michael McCarthy of the Sporting News, and Bryan Curtis of The Ringer. Mike and Bryan add their insights and opinions on the various issues facing ESPN, expected changes coming soon to sports television, the future of play by play deals, FS1’s current standing and ability to ascend higher and much more.
TOPICS EXAMINED WITH MICHAEL MCCARTHY & BRYAN CURTIS:
The #1 reason why an estimated 100 people lost their jobs at ESPN
Who among ESPN’s numerous cuts produced the biggest surprise
The likelihood of ESPN making annual cuts and possibly trimming again in 2017
ESPN’s political influence and the negative impact its had on brand perception
Why industry people have lost confidence in ESPN’s play by play deals
Will the NFL’s ratings recover in 2017 or has the bubble burst?
What John Skipper’s ESPN legacy would be if he exited tomorrow
If ESPN loses one of its right deals in the future which one will it be?
Which network poses the biggest threat to luring away one of ESPN’s rights deals
Mike Greenberg’s move to morning TV and whether or not it will be successful
FS1’s leash with the Murdoch family and how long until higher numbers are expected
The possibility of FOX News’ challenges impacting future commitments on FS1
Quick Hits – Bill Simmons, Restoring faith in ESPN, Mike Francesa, 3 names to add
As Entercom prepares to merge its radio business with CBS Radio, it’ll be doing so with the addition of Mike Dee as President of Entercom Sports. The company says the newly created position will focus on creating value for its sports business enterprise. Given Entercom’s play-by-play relationships across the nation on many of the industry’s top sports radio brands, adding someone with Dee’s qualifications was necessary.
Most recently, Mike served as President and Chief Executive Officer for the San Diego Padres. He’s also served in the same capacity with the Miami Dolphins, and as Chief Operating Officer for the Boston Red Sox.
Dee will be based in Philadelphia and report directly to David Field, President and Chief Executive Officer at Entercom. He’ll be charged with helping the company increase its revenue development from national sales and marketing programs, creating new platform opportunities, expanding sports distribution, and elevating Entercom’s position as a leading sports media partner in support of the company’s expansive suite of local sports radio stations, personalities and sports play-by-play relationships.
“Mike is a highly talented and accomplished executive with over 20 years of leadership experience with some of the most respected organizations in the world of sports,” said David Field. “The creation of this new role underscores our commitment to leveraging our sports platforms to compete more effectively with other media as we drive new opportunities and expand our customer base. Mike is uniquely equipped to help us develop cohesive national opportunities across sports and we are delighted to welcome him onboard.”
“I am thrilled to join Entercom during this exciting time in the company’s history,” said Mike Dee. “I look forward to building on Entercom’s terrific footprint of outstanding sports properties to deliver the maximum ROI for the company and our stakeholders.”
It’s been called a bloodbath. The demise of a once great brand. The end of ESPN, and a few other expletives that I’d rather not repeat in this column.
Last week ESPN put into action what had been expected for the past month, a parting of the ways with many talented and dedicated sports media professionals. The total amount of people let go by the company is estimated to be near 100. As a result, a high number of qualified individuals now find themselves searching for future opportunities despite executing their jobs the way they were asked to.
Much has been written about ESPN during the past week due to the immediate shock of these layoffs. Some of the articles have been extremely insightful. From Dave Zirin’s column to Glen Macnow’s to Forbes’ story and the Wall Street Journal’s, every media outlet has shared a perspective on ESPN’s troubles. I’m just the latest to attend the party. I recognize that I’ve arrived a little late, but I wanted to collect my thoughts and make sure I was ready to mingle before putting on my three piece suit and invading the dance floor.
This is a difficult subject to write about because it’s extremely depressing. When stories like this are generated they add to the perception of ESPN’s sports media empire being on life support. That’s utterly ridiculous when you take into account that the current valuation of ESPN is 50 billion dollars and the Disney stock price is closing in on its all-time high. But when negative headline after negative headline invades the digital universe, brands earn labels that aren’t easy to recover from.
Over the years I’ve had the good fortune of getting to know some of the key people who were affected by last week’s layoffs. In addition to being leaders in their respective fields, they’ve been quality people too.
I understand that this is relevant news that deserves to be examined, but being served a daily reminder that you’ve lost your dream job and are among the unemployed, as others debate publicly whether or not you should’ve been terminated and if you provide any value to potential employers can’t be easy to digest.
We often assume that the news is just news and those who are part of the latest cycle should just “toughen up and deal with it” but when it’s your name and livelihood that have been altered, it’s not always easy to detach yourself and move on. People after all are human beings with very real emotions and these kind of life changing decisions do have lasting impressions.
Upon learning about the cuts while attending the National Association of Broadcasters conference in Las Vegas last week, it seemed that many on social media were rejoicing over familiar names and faces being given their walking papers. Others called for the worldwide leader to expand its list and take a few others.
As I sifted thru the responses, I couldn’t help but be disappointed. I realize that the style of each host, anchor, reporter and analyst is received differently, but rather than rooting for someone to be unemployed, on the street, and permanently barred from the sports media industry, there is another alternative – tune them out.
I love this business as much as anyone but let’s be honest, we aren’t curing cancer. This is simply entertainment. If an individual doesn’t provide you with the experience you’re searching for, it’s OK to change the channel or not click on their story.
The goal of every media professional is to generate reaction to their work. If the audience is moved enough to share a favorable or negative response, then the broadcaster has done their job. It’s when viewers, listeners or readers don’t respond that outlets pay closer attention. It may be tempting to verbally destroy someone on social media who’s content you don’t enjoy, but when you ignore their existence and have no opinion to share of their work, it sends a much louder message.
That’s why I believe it’s silly to play the game of “Why would ESPN fire Ed/Trent/Jayson instead of Stephen/Jemele/Michael?” Unless you’re on the inside and understand the way each person is viewed, paid, and rated, it’s a wasted discussion.
If you’ve read my work over the past two years then you’re aware that I’ve been critical of a few things ESPN has done. I believe that’s an important responsibility for anyone who chooses to write, report, and share opinions on the media industry. No matter how many friendships I hold inside the company or how much I prefer to see people succeed there, when it’s time to tackle sensitive issues my honesty and integrity are not negotiable.
Do I think ESPN has made strategic mistakes in recent years? Yes. Do I consider them as formidable as they once were? No. But if they fail it hurts the entire sports media industry. That alone should be reason enough to hope they solve their problems and create a brighter future.
Since this topic is extremely popular and contains multiple angles worthy of examination, I’ve attempted to break it up into ten different sections. Here are what I consider to be the key takeaways from last week and the questions that ESPN must answer going forward.
Is The Era of Invincibility Over?: In the span of seven days, two of the biggest media giants on the planet were significantly damaged. FOX News dropped its biggest television star (Bill O’Reilly) and ESPN halted the careers of nearly 100 sports media professionals.
It was once considered an impossible task to challenge these two brands, yet both are now showing vulnerabilities. While changes occurred for different reasons, the bottom line is that each company is weaker today than they were last week. Whether or not that continues and their competitors take advantage of it in the future remains to be seen, but these moves remind us that even the best can be rattled when they make a series of errors.
It’d be interesting to run a poll and ask industry folks who gave Jamie Horowitz and FOX Sports 1 zero chance of challenging ESPN if they still feel the same way now. Something tells me many would reconsider their position.
Although ESPN continues to offer more original sports programming and play by play than any other network, and employs the largest group of sports broadcasters in the industry, their public profile has been significantly damaged. It’s not a question if ESPN remains the top rated performer among sports networks. It’s whether or not they can retain/grow subscribers and advertising revenues and lower expenses.
If the company’s current trend continues, and another sports network or new competitor such as Amazon, Netflix, Facebook, Apple or Google enters the mix and snags a play by play agreement in the future, the stranglehold ESPN has held on the rest of the industry could be escaped. That would make things instantly different.
Personalities Matter Most: It was hard to ignore the messages ESPN sent with their personnel decisions last week. The value of writing, reporting, analysis and anchoring pales in comparison to high profile personalities who generate buzz by delivering ear shattering opinions.
But Woj’s situation aside, the majority of people impacted last week were known best for their information and analysis and less for their personalities. Guys like Jayson Stark, Marc Stein, Andy Katz and Ed Werder have been trusted reporters for nearly two decades and their departures instantly weaken the network’s credibility.
For decades ESPN built its reputation off of providing highlights, analysis, and information. When the majority of individuals departing the nation’s top sports network are involved in those areas, and sacrificed before others with a stronger flair for the dramatic, it indicates that the times have changed, and Bristol executives have placed higher premiums on other roles.
Hockey Isn’t Important: The commitment to hockey coverage was already minimal on ESPN, but with the exits of Scott Burnside, Joe McDonald and Pierre LeBrun it’s decreased even more. With John Buccigross’ future also up in the air, it’s hard to wrap your arms around the network’s vision for presenting the coolest game on ice.
At this point, Barry Melrose and Steve Levy are two of a very select few with a passion for the NHL at ESPN. Hockey may not provide the interest that other major sports do, but you’d expect a full fledged sports network to cover the game with more than 2-3 quality people.
It’s possible that ESPN has other people in mind internally who they want to groom and feature more prominently, or maybe they’ll strike a deal with TSN, the NHL Network or NBC to share content as they recently did with the MLB Network. As of now though they are significantly weaker, which isn’t saying much, given their previous standing.
Baseball Coverage Decreases: ESPN has produced some of the finest baseball content on television during its existence, but despite its history of creating stellar original programming around America’s favorite pastime, something clearly went astray. In one fell swoop, the network released analysts Dallas Braden, Doug Glanville, and Raul Ibanez, and other notable contributors Jim Bowden, Jayson Stark, Dave O’Brien and Jim Caple. A few beat reporters were also laid off.
Adding to the overhaul was the network’s decision to partner with the MLB Network to air its daily baseball program Intentional Talk on ESPN. It’s not everyday that the worldwide leader in sports plays the role of an affiliate, but in this instance they did. By securing that agreement it gave ESPN the flexibility it needed to send its longtime baseball program Baseball Tonight to a slow death. BBTN now airs each Sunday prior to the Sunday night game of the week.
MLB Network has certainly developed high quality baseball content since its inception. To think though that they’d contribute to the demise of one of ESPN’s most recognized programs is surprising. This leaves many now wondering, is ESPN a content creator of baseball programming or the MLB Network’s lead distributor?
The Future of ESPN Radio: The once dominant sports radio network is going thru an identity crisis. Is ESPN Radio committed to being a major market player? Is its main function to provide support to small market operators with lesser budgets? Or is the long-term strategy to worry less about terrestrial radio partnerships and focus more on creating television content and on-air programming for the company’s owned and operated radio brands and digital platforms?
As the network attempts to regain its footing, one key challenge it must conquer is offering consistency on its airwaves. Change often breaks up a listener’s routine and in the past two years the company has fed a steady diet of it to its audience and affiliates. That makes it harder to connect to the personalities and shows plus it gives local operators (especially in markets outside of the top 25) anxiety because much of their success stems from the network’s ability to deliver a strong consistent lineup.
Along those lines, the network has almost completely overhauled its entire lineup during the past 2 years. For starters, Colin Cowherd left the 10a-1p slot and was replaced by Dan Le Batard. With Le Batard moving up in the schedule, his afternoon drive slot was turned over to Bomani Jones who had previously hosted evenings. As Jones vacated the evening hours, Jalen Rose and David Jacoby, and Sarah Spain and Israel Gutierrez became fixtures at night. Spain and Izzy were added to the schedule when Jorge Sedano moved to Los Angeles and Jen Lada was switched to a different role. The one consistent contributor to the network’s evening programming has been Freddie Coleman, although even he was switched from hosting solo to joining forces with Ian Fitzsimmons.
But wait there’s more.
Scott Van Pelt left the 1p-4p slot with Ryen Russillo to host the late night SportsCenter. He was replaced by Danny Kanell who was let go during last week’s cuts. Russillo is now hosting solo until the company either adds a new co-host, places the show’s future in his hands or goes a different direction altogether and moves him elsewhere. Noise was made in recent months of Stephen A. Smith being added nationally in the 1p-4p slot (he’s already hosting during those hours on ESPN NY and ESPN LA), and although that possibility can’t be discounted, birds have stopped chirping about it recently.
All of these changes don’t even include the network’s most publicized move. ESPN is expected to break up Mike and Mike and the early word is that Trey Wingo and Mike Golic Jr. will join Golic Sr. for a revamped morning show. If Golic Jr. does in fact move into mornings with his father and Trey, that would explain the network’s decision last week to part ways with Robin Lundberg who recently teamed up with Jr. during the early morning hours.
The lack of consistency has caused concern among numerous affiliates. Those who have adopted the ESPN moniker aren’t likely to change affiliates because establishing a new brand name could prove costly. Others will explore adding local programs to make up for a lack of confidence in the network’s offerings. Some may even drop the network for other options.
It’s understood that the radio business isn’t driving ESPN to profitability. A sharp decision was made recently to add Justin Craig to the programming team, but the network is going to have to work extra hard over the next 12-24 months to convince stations that they’re headed in the right direction and can be trusted to provide consistently great programming.
Wrong Space Wrong Time: It’s peculiar that during a time when ESPN is panicking about its future and trying to reinvent its business model, it continues to invest in platforms that are less valued by their audience. Taking risks and introducing new personalities and forms of programming is appreciated but you also have to take calculated risks. Simply put, you leap during times of strength, not weakness.
As I looked at the list of names who were affected last week I couldn’t help but wonder if some of the departures could’ve been prevented had the company not dumped resources into platforms with less of a connection to their core audience. The work done on fivethirtyeight, The Undefeated, ESPNU, and the Longhorn Network may be solid, but they’re luxuries that the network can afford to live without.
I have applauded the network for taking a chance with The Undefeated. I feel they employ some talented writers and deliver quality content. The other brands I mentioned I have less of a personal connection to. But even if I felt they were exceptional, if my golden goose was in jeopardy of being harmed, I’d focus first and foremost on making sure it was protected before sinking resources into other areas that are less necessary.
It’s convenient to blame all of ESPN’s problems on cord cutting and bad play by play deals. Each have presented real challenges for the company and undoubtedly influenced the latest series of cutbacks. However, we can’t ignore and discount how the network has invested dollars in other niche spaces. Were these platforms more important than retaining key contributors to the network’s most important properties? I’m not sure they were.
Too Political: Sports is supposed to provide an escape from the pressures and negativity of real life. But as we’ve discovered over the past decade, mixing the two has become a reoccurring theme.
Are there times when it’s justified? Absolutely. But when personalities begin to share personal thoughts on issues that can sever a relationship with a loyal audience, that’s where things get complicated. Many would love for ESPN to return to what it was in the 1990’s, but 2017 isn’t 1997, and ESPN isn’t going in that direction whether we want them to or not. In fact, they plan to be even more open about their personal beliefs.
Therein lies one of the network’s biggest dilemmas. How do you balance being open and honest with the audience without causing them to disconnect from your product? If you fail to acknowledge a social interest story that has everyone talking, it can lead to less eyeballs on your content. But if you do engage in discussion, that too can lead to immediate tune out.
“Old school viewers were put in a corner and not appreciated with all of these changes,” said Cohn. “They (ESPN) forgot their core. You should never forget your core, and be grateful for your core group.”
ESPN has to decide who it wants to be. Is it a full service sports media company that values its role as the world’s biggest distractor from everyday troubles. Or is it looking to assert social influence and stretch beyond the boundaries of sports?
Here’s the issue with the latter. Sports and politics don’t blend well. This country once enjoyed a deep connection to ESPN even as real events such as 9/11, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a highly publicized white house sex scandal took place. Sports remained the focus, and a necessary distraction from the events of the world that left many of us shaken.
Whether the company loses 5%, 10% or 50% of its audience due to sharing political opinions and exploring divisive content, the question is, why is that worth it? It’s one thing to have the President fill out an NCAA tournament bracket, and another to turn on the ESPY’s and see Caitlynn Jenner receiving the Arthur Ashe Courage Award.
There are certain situations that feel right, and others that don’t. ESPN can help itself by using better judgment, regardless of how large or small the percentage is of fans who are turned off by the company’s current positioning.
Play By Play Deals: Between the cuts in 2015 and this latest series of moves, sports leagues have been put on notice by the worldwide leader in sports. Paying astronomical rights fees for TV programming as media consumption shifts to digital platforms and large amounts of staff are lost, doesn’t appear to be a winning formula. ESPN may be bound by its existing deals, but they’ll be seeking economic relief when it’s time to discuss future arrangements.
It’s always possible that when push comes to shove ESPN caves in and continues to pay exorbitant fees to retain the NFL, NBA and MLB, but to commit over 5 billion dollars per year on play-by-play in the next go around seems like a frightening idea at best.
One thing to take into account is that although the network may not reap the financial benefits the way it once did, it still remains profitable. No matter how much the expenses hurt, ESPN understands that live sports programming is their most important asset.
When their current deals expire they’ll arrive at the negotiating table with the blood of 400-500 eliminated positions on their hands, but whether or not that’s enough to justify a reduction in rights fees remains to be seen. You can bet that FS1, Turner Sports, CBS, FOX and NBC will want in on the action too, but they’ve had a front row seat to ESPN’s challenges and are aware that one poor business decision can cripple their business.
What we don’t know is how valuable these sports networks will consider the television rights as compared to streaming. The digital space is also likely to attract competition from other non-traditional media groups.
While it’s a given that each media outlet will cry poverty and languish over the rising cost of rights fees, it’s hard to believe that when faced with the possibility of losing its most valuable programming ESPN won’t do what professional owners do and find a few extra nickels and dimes at the last minute. The only question is how many will they pony up to retain their rights?
John Skipper’s Legacy: ESPN’s President and co-Chairman has held those titles since January 2012, and been a part of every key decision involving the network’s play by play rights, company layoffs, and the subtractions of some key on-air talent. He’s bright, engaging, forward thinking, and projects a great confidence for the brand’s future.
During his time at the top there have been noticeable changes. The company has demonstrated a strong commitment to diversity, SportsCenter has been redesigned, anchors have been encouraged to share their personal connections to their favorite teams, political influence has infiltrated numerous on-air and online conversations and events (some good, some bad), and the network has included WWE programming in its content strategy. We’ve also seen ESPN become more aggressive when criticisms have been directed at the network’s people and programming.
Some say Skipper was dealt a bad deck of cards. Others say he’s made the most out of impossible situations. The rest remain split on whether his tenure as ESPN’s top executive has been a success or failure. Although the network has received more negative press in recent years than at any point in its history, it’s also remained the undisputed leader in sports media. Profits may be down compared to previous years, but ESPN continues to register in the black which many say is a testament to Skipper’s leadership during tumultuous times.
Providing a letter grade for his performance may not be possible at this time, but the next year will tell us a lot about where the company is heading. If ESPN emerges from the fire with no sign of trauma, the short-term discomfort will be seen as a necessary part of the maturation process towards making ESPN whole again. If though the company experiences life threatening injuries, it could signal the beginning of the network’s fall. Whichever way it turns out, Skipper will earn the credit or blame for it.
Can ESPN Be Fixed? The answer of course is yes, but it’s much bigger than just adding top talent, familiar faces and programming which suits our desires. If tomorrow the company followed up the addition of Woj with an announcement that deals had been struck with Dan Patrick, Peter King, and Rich Eisen we’d say they were making great decisions to improve their quality. But that doesn’t solve their economic challenges or the reality of a world spending less time with programs and splintering their interests across multiple platforms.
As Colin Cowherd mentioned during a radio interview last week with “The Bull and Fox” on 92.3 The Fan, the downward spiral for ESPN began when the company committed massive dollars to rights deals, and the consumption of media content started to shift from television to digital devices. To ESPN’s credit, they’ve built their infrastructure to be attractive across all platforms, but when the majority of income comes from subscriber fees and advertising revenues, it becomes harder to provide the same profitability.
The setbacks that have stunted ESPN’s growth remind me of what the newspaper business encountered over a decade ago. Many in the print industry understood the importance of shifting their content into the online space, but when those daily and weekly subscriptions declined, along with newspaper advertising dollars, an economic blow was impossible to avoid.
Work begins immediately to do more work with less bodies, increase advertising dollars, secure new digital revenue streams, and of course, reduce the costs of future play by play deals. It won’t be easy, but ESPN remains in the driver’s seat because it’s still a massive brand with worldwide appeal and it produces big results.
Don’t think for a second that the major sports leagues don’t understand the value they receive in return for having their programming air on ESPN’s channels too. If they need to be reminded, Skipper and his team can put them in touch with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman.
We have no way of knowing what the world will look like in 1 year, 2 years, 5 years or 10 years, but for the sake of all of us working in the sports media industry, let’s hope ESPN makes the right choices. One major misstep could lead to a lot more harm than 100 layoffs, and those are bad enough already.
Each year when millions across the nation get diagnosed with a heavy case of ‘Draft Fever’, I like to use the most popular event of the NFL’s off-season to relate it to the world of sports radio. Given the differences in cost, style, geography, and the varying tastes in each program director, we have no way of knowing whether or not sports radio’s top personalities would have success in other locations.
But it’s fun to ponder the possibilities.
Imagine if an annual draft took place and every single talk show host was up for grabs. Would Mike Francesa have the same impact in Chicago or San Francisco? How much of a difference maker would Dan Patrick be in a local market? Which personality would slip to the later rounds and become the sports talk format’s version of Tom Brady?
It’s fun to play the “what if” game, but the truth is we will never be able to answer these questions. However, since this is draft day, and the best and brightest NFL front office executives have as much of a shot at being right with their selections, as a talk show host does with their opinions, I figure, let’s roll the dice and have some fun.
This is the third year I’m conducting this exercise and although I’ve enjoyed producing the 2015 and 2016 Sports Radio Draft’s with the help of the nation’s top program director’s, I felt it was time to shake things up. Since many on-air personalities feel they can identify talent better than their bosses, I decided to give them the opportunity to prove it.
You’ll find that this year’s cast is comprised of thirty two on-air personalities who are well known either on a local or national level. Each host was given the freedom to select any sports talk personality that they wanted. The only conditions were that they couldn’t pick themselves, or anyone who was taken before them.
While we certainly won’t change the world with this exercise, I hope you’ll enjoy it and remember that when it comes to the world of sports radio, everything is subjective, and anything can happen.
Now here are the results of the 2017 Sports Radio Draft (the hosts who were involved drafting are on the left, the personalities they selected are on the right).
Speculation about Mike Francesa’s radio future grows as the WFAN talk show host inches closer to the end of his contract. After leaving the door open for a possible Mike and the Mad Dog reunion, Jason examines the possibility of Francesa-Russo 2.0 and lays out some options that could be available to New York’s leading sports radio voice.
The featured guest on this episode is sports radio veteran Jorge Sedano. During the past two decades Jorge has built a name for himself on the national stage with ESPN and FOX Sports Radio, in Miami on 790 The Ticket and WQAM, and in Los Angeles where he presently hosts morning drive alongside Keyshawn Johnson and LZ Granderson on ESPN LA 710. During the conversation Jorge shares his thoughts on numerous tricks of the trade, explains why investing in yourself pays off, expresses his disappointment with sports talk’s lack of minority voices, takes aim at those who are singling out ESPN, and informs listeners of the various stages and challenges he’s faced during his broadcasting career.
SUBJECTS EXPLORED WITH JORGE SEDANO
Interning for Scott Kaplan & Sid Rosenberg and the start of his radio career
Getting on the air hosting a wrestling show & how it led to reps doing sports
How paying his own way to the Super Bowl helped him get to FOX Sports Radio
Hosting overnight on FSR and getting Andrew Ashwood’s buy in to do it his way
The differences between WQAM and 790 The Ticket and why he joined 790
Why Miami struggles generating big ratings and how Los Angeles is similar
The lack of Hispanics in sports radio and cities that are missing the mark
The negative press and singling out of ESPN and why he takes issue with it
His Twitter spat with Jonathan Coachman and where things stand between them
Hosting a 3-man show and the balance of involving others & getting his own touches
How Colin Cowherd & Mike Greenberg’s execution with formatics rubbed off on him
Why phone calls are no longer critical to executing a successful sports talk radio show
His content strategy in Los Angeles where multiple teams play and interests are split
Quick Hits – Producer’s contribution, LA or Miami, PD role, advice to young people
Mark Cuban once said “work like there is someone working twenty four hours a day to take it all away from you.” In the media industry, nothing could be more true.
When a brand and its personalities enjoy success, they seek to hold on to it for as long as humanly possible. As soon as a competitor rears its ugly head and announces their intentions of disrupting one’s place atop the mountain, people say and do desperate things to protect their positions.
But while competition is supposed to bring out the best in us, it can also bring out the worst. Just ask the executive team and employees of FOX News.
When a brand has a strong leader at the helm, and the most powerful on-air lineup in its format, the rest of the field recognizes they’re playing for second place. I’m sure the Portland Trail Blazers, Utah Jazz and Memphis Grizzlies entered the 2016-2017 NBA season talking publicly about chasing a championship, but behind closed doors they knew the Golden State Warriors were in a much different class.
During the span of the past two decades, FOX News has controlled the narrative on news television. They’ve been the king of the castle, and no matter how many times competitors have tried, their attempts to replace them atop the ratings have gone unsuccessful.
But as exhilarating as the ride to the top can be, the fall to the bottom can be ten times more painful.
During the past eighteen months, the undisputed leader in news/talk television programming has lost tons of revenue and key people, while earning a permanent black eye on its image. The brand’s insides have been ripped out due to poor leadership, a vile culture and an abuse of professional power, which has resulted in numerous lawsuits against the company.
Gone are FOX News’ top boss Roger Ailes, the network’s biggest two stars Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly, and other valuable on-air talent such as Greta Van Susteren, Gretchen Carlson and Andrea Tantaros. These were some of the most recognized and successful people in news television, and their departures have made FOX News vulnerable for the first time in decades.
To draw a comparison to the world of sports, O’Reilly, Kelly and Ailes’ exits from FOX, would be equal to the New England Patriots losing Tom Brady, Bill Belichick and Rob Gronkowski. If you add Carlson, Van Susteren and Tantaros to the conversation, that’d be like the Patriots also losing Malcolm Butler, Stephen Gostkowski, and Dont’a Hightower.
We may consider the Patriots the most successful NFL franchise of the past two decades, and have faith in Robert Kraft’s abilities as an owner to right the ship, but when an organization loses that many difference makers on the field and at the top of the organization, in a short period of time, a crash is inevitable.
Just ask the San Francisco 49ers how quickly the tide can turn. During the span of their 2015 off-season, the team lost Jim Harbaugh, Greg Roman, Vic Fangio, Patrick Willis, Frank Gore, Chris Borland, Michael Crabtree, Anthony Davis, Mike Iupati, Justin Smith and Chris Culliver. They’d spend the next two seasons going 7-25, replacing their General Manager, and they’re now onto their fourth head coach in four years.
I raise this point because in the media business, we often think that those at the top can’t be toppled. If a brand and its talent are superior for a long stretch of time, we assume that their next decade of success is guaranteed too.
Well, it isn’t.
Just because Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Ronnie Lott and Steve Young wore 49ers uniforms and made the franchise the model of success throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s didn’t mean a similar novel would be written in the 2000’s and 2010’s. The Bulls, Yankees, Lakers and Cowboys can attest to this as well.
The number one disruptor to a brand’s success is itself. When great talent leaves, valuable assets such as play by play rights fall into a competitor’s hands, and poor leadership, culture and complacency harm a brand’s performance and profile, momentum shifts quickly. You can tout your track record all you want, but the audience lives in a Janet Jackson world of “what have you done for me lately.”
Most fans who consume sports media form a deep relationship with their local teams and the professional sports leagues in which they play. They become immersed in a brand’s programming due to the conversations that are built around those specific subjects. If the station delivers a local team’s games, and features on-air hosts who are funny, smart, opinionated and relatable, they’ll attract an audience. It isn’t exactly rocket science.
But just like a relationship, connections fade if you don’t continue making an effort and adapting to unforeseen changes.
It’s very hard to disrupt the pattern of most sports media consumers. In most cases it takes a long time. But it can be done.
When Howard Stern left terrestrial radio, millions followed him to SiriusXM, which helped grow the satellite radio company’s profile and business. Morning radio on the FM dial hasn’t been the same since. While Sirius was wise to pursue the opportunity to land Stern, if CBS/Infinity hadn’t left the door open, the story for both companies would be entirely different.
In New York, WFAN will face a similar challenge when Mike Francesa departs his afternoon show later this year. The radio station responded superbly to the loss of Imus in the Morning by inserting Boomer and Carton into morning drive, but the brand’s success can evaporate if the station misfires on Francesa’s replacement. Although WFAN’s history in the format and role in the lives of New York sports fans is respected and appreciated, that won’t mean much to local listeners in 2018 or 2019 if the station doesn’t feature the same exceptional talent that it’s provided during the past three decades.
For each person who tells me that the best can’t be unseated, I remind them of how sports radio has changed in multiple major markets. There are many examples of heritage sports brand’s being pushed off their pedestal’s due to their own undoing.
For instance, in Philadelphia, Mike Missanelli and Anthony Gargano got away from WIP and joined 97.5 The Fanatic. They were two of the top personalities in the market. Since their arrival, The Fanatic has enjoyed a lot of success including plucking away the radio rights to the Philadelphia Flyers and 76ers. Had each of those talents remained at WIP, maybe the ratings don’t soar, and those teams don’t eventually switch sides.
It’s a similar strategy which Jamie Horowitz has implemented at FOX Sports 1. He’s targeted high profile talent who are well known by ESPN’s fan base, and introduced a style of programming which has been successful on the four letter network. The one difference is that FS1 has aggressively called out the worldwide leader in sports, including plastering billboards of Skip Bayless’ arrival in the company’s backyard of Bristol, CT.
That approach has drawn the ire of ESPN, leading network executives to bite back whenever Horowitz has taken verbal shots at their programming. That’s a diversion from the company’s previous way of responding to attacks from competitors.
In year’s past ESPN spent little time worrying about threats to its empire. But it’s clear they recognize FS1 as a formidable foe. They’ve since moved First Take from ESPN 2 to ESPN, adjusted the style and presentation of SportsCenter, and invested significant resources in retaining important stars like Stephen A. Smith, Michael Smith, Jemele Hill and Mike Greenberg.
One thing FS1 lacks that ESPN has is an established brand identity. Fortunately for them, people don’t tune in to watch a company’s logo. They turn on their television to watch quality programming presented by top notch talent.
Which is why Horowitz and his team haven’t stopped adding top talent to the roster. Their belief is that it’s a very long race, and although they may be far off in the distance right now, their speed, stamina and persistence will serve them well in passing ESPN to the finish line.
As sports fans, we may support a team and wear their jersey, but the amount of tickets we buy and games we watch on television are determined by who’s on the field and the results they deliver. Our loyalty may be sound, but if inferior talent (see the New York Knicks) are featured, and failure begins to seep in, eventually our passion and commitment to that team decreases.
When that occurs, the organization’s undoing is due to their own inabilities to perform, no one else’s. The same holds true with media brands. If the radio station or television channel you enjoy fails to retain its best talent and assets, then its their own mistakes which have opened the door for a competitor to rise to prominence.
In the case of FOX News, they’ve added another layer to the conversation. Enabling powerful people to operate above the law, while ignoring the signs of a morally inept culture.
They may continue to outperform CNN and MSNBC in the ratings, because although their home is in flames, they still employ a lot of great talent and present a unique point of view. Their competitor’s have also failed to introduce new talent or programs which would cause FOX’s audience to adjust their routine.
But when moral decency is void inside the work place, it never ends well for a brand and its top people. Money and fame are great, but they’re not worth the cost of self-respect. It becomes only a matter of time until the whistle gets blown, heads start to roll, and a brand’s reputation and position atop the ratings ladder come under attack.
Proving once again, that the journey from the penthouse to the outhouse starts on the inside. When wounds are opened and salt is poured onto them, there’s no way to prevent the stinging.
ESPN Las Vegas midday host Mitch Moss is making a change. After spending thirteen of the past fifteen years of his career working for the Lotus Broadcasting radio station, Moss has announced on social media that he’s joining Brent Musberger’s Vegas Stats and Information Network.
Aside from a two year detour in San Francisco where he worked for 95.7 The Game from 2011-2013, Moss has been a mainstay on the Las Vegas airwaves. He’s been a fixture in middays with former NFL wide receiver Mike Pritchard, hosting the popular program Mitch and Pritch. Prior to joining forces with Pritchard he worked with market veterans Ed Graney and Seat Williams.
Moss’ new opportunity reunites him with former colleague Paul Howard. The two men will team up weekdays from 11a-1p PT and broadcast live from VSIN’s studios inside the South Point Casino. Their new show debuts on Monday April 24th and will be available on SiriusXM satellite radio and in video and audio form on VSIN’s website.
Donald Trump isn’t the only one making waves in the nation’s capital. Sports radio station 106.7 The Fan is as well.
In the 2017 winter ratings book, The Fan led the market’s sports brands by coming up strong across all demos. Among Men 25-54, The Fan’s share helped them earn a tie for 6th M-SU 6a-Mid. In the weekday prime hours, M-F 6a-7p, The Fan’s share earned them a 5th place finish. By comparison, ESPN 980 finished 15th M-F 6a-7p and M-SU 6a-Mid.
For the weekday shows, I’ve listed their rankings for the quarter. Keep in mind, the two stations feature their key weekday shows during different time slots which requires analyzing them differently.
One additional item to point out, ESPN 980 simulcasts their programming on 92.7 WWXT-FM and 94.3 WWXX-FM. These rankings below are based on their performance on WTEM-AM. When the listening from those other stations is added to the conversation it may slightly increase 980’s ranking.
That said, their simulcast will soon come to an end. 980’s ownership group Red Zebra Broadcasting recently agreed to sell WWXT to Radio One. WWXX is also expected to be sold to Radio One in the near future according to sources.
STATION ———— SHOWS ———— TIMESLOT ———— RANK
106.7 The Fan —– Sports Junkies —— 6A-10A ——— tied for 4th
106.7 The Fan —– Grant & Danny —— 10A-2P ————– 4th
106.7 The Fan —– Chad Dukes ———- 2P-6P ———– tied for 6th
With two shows in the top 4 and another on the doorstep of the top 5, it was a strong quarter for The Fan. With the Nationals back in action, the NFL Draft on the horizon, and the Wizards and Capitals in the playoffs, the appetite for sports in D.C. should remain strong when the spring book is released.
Good luck to both brands as they strive to increase their standing in the local marketplace.
