The Walt Disney Company is pushing the market with a bold Super Bowl sales strategy. But advertisers aren’t buying in—yet. The company is reportedly seeking $10 million for a 30-second spot in Super Bowl LXI, according to Variety.
That price has created hesitation from advertisers. Four sources familiar with negotiations tell Variety deals have lagged early expectations. Recent Super Bowl sellers like FOX and NBCUniversal moved 40% to 60% of inventory before upfronts.
Disney has not matched that pace.
“The original ask was $10 million,” said one source to Variety. “There is a big delta from where they started to where advertisers want to be.”
Disney reportedly also wants advertisers to match that spend across its broader portfolio. That includes assets tied to Monday Night Football and MLB.TV. Those bundled deals add complexity to negotiations. A source close to Disney told Variety the company is in “active conversations” and added there are “more requests than inventory to sell.”
The challenge is converting interest into signed deals.
Pricing pressure is real. Super Bowl ads cost roughly $5 million in 2016. Prices have climbed steadily since then. Still, networks typically open negotiations closer to $7 million. That approach worked for NBC this year. Demand surged late, pushing select units past $10 million. Most inventory sold between $7 million and $8 million.
Disney’s broadcast will air on ABC and ESPN. An alternate telecast featuring Peyton Manning and Eli Manning will stream on ESPN2. The game lands on Valentine’s Day, with Presidents Day following.
Disney is banking on scale. Its early 2027 slate includes the College Football Playoff, Oscars, and Grammys. Still, buyers remain cautious. At $10 million, advertisers aren’t convinced—at least not yet.
Disney Seeks $10 Million for Super Bowl Commercials, But Advertisers Push Back (EXCLUSIVE) https://t.co/SjdI4xN5N6
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
Federal regulators are widening their focus on how professional sports leagues distribute games, and Major League Baseball (MLB) is drawing increased attention as part of that effort. Bloombergreports that Brendan Carr acknowledged that much of the early discussion has centered on the NFL.
However, he made clear the broader review extends beyond football. In fact, Carr suggested other leagues could be testing the limits of current law even further.
“You could make the argument that there’s other sports leagues out there that are potentially pushing the limits of the Sports Broadcasting Act even further than what the NFL has,” Carr said Thursday. “The NFL is something that everyone is aware of and focuses on. And so I speak of it just as a shorthand, but we are focused more broadly on other leagues as well.”
At the center of the conversation is the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, which allows leagues to negotiate media rights collectively. That framework has long shaped how fans access live games. Now, regulators are questioning whether it still applies cleanly in a streaming-first environment.
The U.S. Department of Justice has already opened an inquiry into the National Football League over potential antitrust concerns tied to media rights deals. That probe is expected to expand. Sources are telling Bloomberg that the DOJ plans to review other leagues covered under the same law. This includes Major League Baseball.
Carr pointed to a chain of rising costs, where each layer of the distribution system shifts blame. Cable providers cite high retransmission fees. Broadcasters point to national networks. In turn, networks often trace those costs back to league-level rights agreements.
That dynamic has not gone unnoticed in Washington. The Federal Communications Commission has been collecting public comments on sports distribution. According to Carr, baseball fans have been especially vocal.
He said the level of feedback tied to MLB surprised him. Many fans expressed frustration over blackout restrictions, platform exclusivity, and the growing number of subscriptions required to follow a single team.
“We care a lot about the health of the local broadcast market and we also care about the consumer’s experience that’s been really frustrating,” Carr said.
As regulators continue their review, MLB’s evolving media strategy could become a new key test case. And depending on the outcome, the way fans watch games may be poised for another significant change.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
The podcast expansion at Netflix continues, as NBC News correspondent Ellison Barber will launch a new show on the platform later this month.
Allegedly will debut on Wednesday, April 29th. The show will be focused on the highest-profile true crime cases. According to Netflix, the show will “pair sharp reporting with a conversational format.”
Barber is a New York-based correspondent for NBC News. She joined the network in 2020 after spending nearly four years as a general assignment reporter for Fox News.
“As an avid viewer of true crime and someone who’s always loved digging into details, I’m eager to bring viewers inside our reporting process as we examine the most compelling evidence with guests whose unique perspectives shed new light on cases capturing the nation’s attention,” Barber said.
Allegedly will be produced by NBC News Studios. It will release new episodes weekly.
The announcement of the new show comes as Netflix has invested heavily in the podcast space. The streaming giant has spent tens of millions to license shows from The Ringer and Barstool Sports, among others. Barber’s video podcast announcement comes after Netflix announced that former NBC News anchor Brian Williams will also launch a weekly show on the platform.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
Audacy is making a notable change to its lineup at KRXQ 98 Rock. It is shifting one of its newer voices into a key daypart. Abe Kanan will move from afternoons to mornings beginning Monday, April 20.
Kanan joined 98 Rock in early 2024 and quickly became a recognizable presence in afternoons.
Prior to his arrival in Sacramento, he spent time at WCHI Rock 95.5 and held roles at rock stations in Indianapolis and Miami.
The host shared the news directly with listeners, delivering the announcement during his afternoon show on Thursday. He described the move as “the biggest announcement in the history of 98 Rock.”
Additionally, Marty Whitney, who most recently handled morning duties at 91X, will now host afternoons. Whitney brings years of rock radio experience and a track record in morning drive.
“I am overjoyed and honored to contribute to the great winning legacy of 98 Rock in Sacramento with the support of Andy Hawk, Aaron Miller, Ryan Castle and Dave Richards,” said Whitney. “Born in the Bay and raised in the Sierra, I started as a Sacramento radio listener in the crowd at Metallica’s July 23, 1994, Cal Expo show. Now destiny and luck have brought me to serve my NorCal community as the afternoon voice of the legendary 98 Rock! We’re ready to roll in and ride the lightning.”
Kanan replaces Paul Marshall, who exited the station in late February. The change gives Kanan his first opportunity to lead mornings at the Sacramento-based active rock outlet.
“With his strong history in Northern California and A+ talent, Marty is the perfect fit for 98 Rock,” said 98 Rock Brand Manager Andy Hawk. “Our listeners are going to love and connect with his infectious, friendly energy and heart for the community. “We are amped to have Abe lead our mornings … This lineup is designed to dominate the dial and carry forward the legacy of this iconic Sacramento brand.”
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
The podcast ecosystem just got a little more complicated. YouTube announced this week that users will soon be able to set a daily time limit for Shorts viewing, all the way down to zero minutes. That effectively eliminates the feed entirely. It’s a digital wellness feature, sure. But it’s also a quiet threat to one of podcasting’s most reliable growth engines.
Here’s why it matters. Short-form clips have become the front door to long-form podcast content. A 60-second highlight finds a stranger on a Shorts feed. That stranger watches the full episode. Eventually, they’re a loyal subscriber — maybe even a Patreon member or live-show ticket buyer.
That’s the cycle. Now, a portion of the audience can opt out of ever seeing that front door in the first place.
When a user sets the timer to zero, Shorts disappear from the YouTube homepage entirely, though they can still appear in subscription feeds. So an existing fan isn’t lost. The problem is the prospective listener who never subscribed. They’re the ones who won’t stumble across your clip anymore. Discoverability, already a brutal challenge in a crowded market, just got harder.
The counterargument exists, and it’s worth acknowledging. The feature is optional and easy to bypass — like the time limits many of us already ignore on our own phones. Adoption probably won’t be massive overnight. Most casual scrollers aren’t sitting around thinking about their Shorts habits. Still, even marginal erosion of that discovery funnel deserves attention from creators who’ve built audience-growth strategies around short-form clips.
So what’s the message here? It’s actually a clarifying one. If someone’s capping their Shorts time at 15 minutes a day, your content has to earn a spot in those 15 minutes. It has to be compelling enough that a viewer — already rationing their time — stops, watches, and wants more. That’s a higher bar than simply hoping an algorithm serves your clip to someone mid-scroll. Convenience used to do some of the work for you. Now, quality has to do more of it.
That reality benefits the best creators. Sharply-produced, genuinely interesting short clips will still break through. Filler content — the kind that existed only to feed the algorithm — won’t survive a more intentional viewing environment. In that sense, this might actually clean up the landscape a bit. The platforms that got lazy about clip quality should be paying attention.
For podcasters specifically, the answer isn’t to panic. It’s to diversify.
Don’t treat YouTube Shorts as your only discovery channel. Cross-post to Instagram Reels and TikTok. Build an email list. Cultivate a community that doesn’t depend solely on any one platform’s algorithm to sustain itself. The creators who thrive will be the ones who’d survive even if YouTube Shorts disappeared tomorrow.
YouTube isn’t trying to hurt podcasters — it’s responding to screen-time concerns and parent pressure. But the effect is real, regardless of the intent. The short-form-to-long-form pipeline remains the best organic growth model podcasting has.
Protecting it means making content so undeniably good that even the most disciplined Shorts user burns through their daily limit — and still wants more.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
Successfully launching a new morning show is probably the toughest thing to do in radio. Even if the audience didn’t like the old show, it’s incredibly difficult. If the audience liked or, even worse, loved the old show, the task becomes a much steeper mountain to climb.
That’s where the team at Cumulus’ Top 40 WWWQ/Atlanta found themselves when Bert Weiss, host of The Bert Show, retired after twenty-five years anchoring mornings on the station. His last show aired in October 2025.
Since then, the station has been playing music in the morning while assembling a new show capable of meeting the challenge. Almost exactly five months later, Joe Breezy, Daena “DK” Kramer, and Cort Freeman hit the air as the Q Morning Crew.
Collectively, the three bring a lot of radio experience to this new endeavor.
Breezy had recently been music director and afternoon host at Midwest Communications AC WJXA/Nashville and has been on the air in Atlanta before. Kramer has been off the air for some time but previously hosted mornings in Houston, San Francisco, and Las Vegas. Freeman most recently served as a producer for Dave & Chuck the Freak in mornings at Beasley Rock WRIF/Detroit.
While that collective experience is helpful, it doesn’t guarantee success.
However, certain factors can push the odds in a new show’s favor, and this team has several—starting with motivation.
“A lot of morning shows I’ve seen, it’s the driver that has the motivation. Or it’s the producer that’s the hard worker,” says Kramer. “In this case, all three of us are working our asses off. There’s not one element of slack off to be had.”
Another early advantage the team has is strong chemistry, even though the trio had never worked together previously.
“When we initially met online for a vibe check, we hit it off instantly,” said Breezy. “It was like we knew each other for a million years. We had the same vision, sense of humor, and the same strategy about what we would do in this unique situation.”
Although they get along well, they are those little differences which provide contrast between personalities. Freeman believes that each talent assists the others with any topic providing a unique perspective for the listener.
While high marks for ambition and camaraderie are encouraging, successful shows also need a clear vision. For Kramer, that starts with understanding the demographics of the station’s target audience.
“Typically Top 40 stations are looking for a twenty-something female that goes to festivals and clubs,” Kramer says. “Now, almost all radio listening is thirty-plus. TheBert Show’s core was thirty to fifty year old women.”
For Breezy, the shared vision centers on hitting the right topics to engage the audience.
“We like to say our tagline is that we are the group chat that you actually want to be in. Because we are talking about things you are already discussing with your friends,” notes Breezy.
When the trio was formed, before hitting the airwaves in Atlanta there were demo sessions. Even though the program was apart in different locations around the country, they began holding Zoom calls where everyone came prepared with content.
“We would read through topics and news stories like we were on the air,” says Kramer. “Then we started practicing right away. We didn’t want to wait until everyone got in the building to do that. When we finally got together. we saw there was a big difference between being on Zoom and doing actual mock shows in a real studio. That’s when it felt like we were really cooking. We could fine tune what the dynamics were going to be.”
And while things were busy leading up to the launch—with photoshoots and videos to film—the team continued practicing.
“We still fit in at least two or three hours every day doing content together,” says Breezy. “Then we’d spend an hour or two after that with (Program Director Patrick Davis) discussing how it sounds.”
The team says Davis, along with Vice President/Market Manager Justin Schaflander and Chief Content Officer Brian Phillips, were instrumental in putting the show together and helping them reach this point.
Since they’ve hit the air in Atlanta, things have been going well. However, with anything new there is still some trepidation.
“In my experience with other new shows you often see just as much hate as positivity. The haters are louder than the people that want to praise you,” says Kramer. “I don’t know if it’s because they had five months of no morning show, but we haven’t seen any hate. Of course, I’m still just waiting for that phone call to come.”
They’ve also committed to making the show as local as possible. They included a special segment in the six o’clock hour engaging listeners who are up early with them. The program also added Kramer’s Around the A, which features news and stories about what’s happening in town.
“This is live and local radio,” says Breezy. “When we’re asking for perspectives or sharing ours it’s about the city that people are choosing to live in. Atlanta is a big city, but it’s got such a big heart. People love being from Atlanta.”
While that all sounds positive, it doesn’t mean there haven’t been bobbles. For Breezy, who’s behind the board, the challenge is technical execution.
“We can have this great break, but if I hit the wrong button, that just went out the window,” explained Breezy.
For Kramer, the challenge is getting back into the everyday flow.
“I’ve disappointed myself a few times by not being as prepared as I should be,” she says. “I haven’t established a daily routine that’s consistent. That’s made finding my rhythm a little tougher than I remember.”
Freeman faces a different challenge coming from a rock morning show.
“The number one rule of comedy is know your audience,” he says. “A joke that would really be fire on Dave and Chuck the Freak could get me fired from here. It’s a different filter for my brain to make sure that I’m expressing the right stuff to our listeners.”
And like any show replacing a legend on a station with a large audience, these early shows include the added challenge. How to sound unique and distinct from The Bert Show without straying too far from what the audience expects.
“We appreciate the magnitude of following The Bert Show but we just go in every day being ourselves,” says Breezy. “It isn’t necessarily about comparing anything to the past. It’s more like, ‘hey, let’s be the best versions of ourselves.’”
Or as Freeman explains it, “People love that flavor, but we’re baking our own cake.”
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
A term I grew to love working in sports radio was “advertising categories,” where we could attach a specific client to be the “official (fill in the blank with an advertising category) of (fill in the radio station)” for an elevated dollar figure in advertising revenue. We’d never avoid accepting the advertising dollars of competitors in a certain category, but those clients just wouldn’t earn the “official” designation. In other words, we air ads for Bud Light, but Coors Light is the “official beer of…” You get the picture.
Admittedly, I’m not the smartest rock in the bag when it comes to the difference between sportsbooks and prediction markets. While sportsbooks continue to fight for legality across the country, the legal prediction market boom in sports has been a fascinating watch. Sports leagues are taking advantage of that newfound interest and revenue. MLB and the NHL have already dived in with “official prediction market” agreements. The NBA is reportedly next.
Which leads me to a simple question: if they look the same, act the same, and let you risk money on the same outcomes, what exactly makes them different advertising categories? And should media companies and sports radio follow the same model?
Here’s the easiest way to look at it.
I live in Florida, where the only online sportsbook I can use is the Hard Rock Bet app. If I look at the over/under for tonight’s Charlotte Hornets–Orlando Magic game, I see 217.5 points. Then I go to a prediction market like Kalshi or Polymarket, and I’m seeing 218.5.
Different numbers, same concept, all sports. If I can put my own money down on the outcome in all three places, this stops being about definitions and starts becoming something else entirely. Because that’s where the confusion fades — and the strategy begins.
At face value, there is a structural difference. A sportsbook is taking wagers, setting lines, and holding a margin. A prediction market, as it’s being framed, facilitates trading on outcomes more like a financial exchange than a bookmaker.
That’s the clean, regulatory-friendly explanation.
But from a consumer standpoint — the person sitting on their couch deciding whether to throw $20 on the over — that distinction is meaningless. The interface looks the same. The outcomes are the same. The risk is the same. Call it a “contract” instead of a “bet” if you want. The behavior it drives doesn’t change, and leagues know that.
What they’ve found isn’t a new product — it’s a new category. But how?
Advertising categories were always about perception as much as product. You’re not just selling exclusivity, you’re selling differentiation. As long as something can be positioned as different, it can be sold as a separate lane.
That’s exactly what’s happening here.
Sportsbooks occupy one bucket. Prediction markets, thanks to regulatory gray area and some well-crafted semantics, occupy another. Never mind that both are competing for the same consumer dollars, often on the same games, sometimes with nearly identical lines. To the leagues, that overlap isn’t a problem — it’s an opportunity.
Because if you can convince one partner they own “official sportsbook” rights and another they own “official prediction market” rights, you’ve effectively turned one revenue stream into two. It’s the same logic that once allowed teams to have an “official beer,” an “official light beer,” and an “official import beer” all at the same time. It’s all beer, just different forms of beer.
Is it double dipping? From a purist standpoint, absolutely. From a business standpoint, it’s just smart packaging, and something that media companies and sports radio should look to copy.
Leagues have never been in the business of limiting revenue opportunities out of philosophical consistency. If anything, they’ve consistently shown a willingness to redraw lines — pun intended — whenever new money enters the ecosystem.
The more interesting question isn’t whether this is double dipping. It’s whether it’s sustainable.
Because eventually, one of two things is going to happen. Either regulators decide prediction markets function too much like sportsbooks to be treated differently, collapsing the categories into one.
Or sportsbooks themselves push back harder, especially as they expand into the same “prediction” space with products tied to FanDuel and DraftKings. Which are already “official league partners” spending millions in advertising revenue.
At that point, the argument becomes less about definitions and more about fairness — why pay a premium for exclusivity in a category that’s no longer exclusive?
At that point, the argument shifts from definitions to fairness: why pay a premium for exclusivity in a category that’s no longer exclusive? Until then, don’t expect leagues to slow down. They’re not choosing between sportsbooks and prediction markets. They’re choosing both — and selling each as if the other doesn’t exist.
There’s a lesson in that for networks and sports radio. Because in the end, advertising categories were never about clean lines. They were about how many lines you could draw — and how long you could get away with pretending they mattered.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
The NFL Draft used to be a list. Now it’s a content war, and for the first time, it’s a war being fought by the same army. When the draft kicks off April 23rd, what you’re really watching isn’t just teams picking players; it’s ESPN flooding the zone with four different broadcasts of the same event after absorbing NFL Network into its ecosystem.
For decades, ESPN and NFL Network went head-to-head with competing coverage. Different tones, distinct philosophies, and very real editorial differences. That competition mattered because it gave viewers a choice.
Now, the choice still exists, but it’s being programmed from the same playbook. That’s what makes this one of the most fascinating sports media stories of the year.
Before getting into the television chess match, it’s worth understanding why the NFL has leaned into this so aggressively. The numbers demand it.
Last year’s draft averaged 7.5 million viewers across platforms, up 27% year-over-year and good enough to rank as the second-most-watched draft ever. Round 1 alone pulled 13.6 million viewers. Day 2 matched the overall average at 7.5 million, and Day 3—Rounds 4 through 7, when even diehard fans are scrambling to look up scouting reports—still drew 4.3 million viewers, the most-watched final day in draft history.
Those aren’t just good numbers; they’re dominant. Some NBA Conference Finals games don’t reach those figures. Some World Series games hover in that range.
April 23-25, ESPN, ABC & NFL Network present the '26 #NFLDraft
🏈Available across 9 platforms; 5 different telecasts Thu 🏈65+ commentators onsite 🏈@PatMcAfeeShow, NFL Live, @CollegeGameDay, @SportsCenter, NFL Draft Kickoff & more – live from Pitt
The NFL has turned its hiring process into one of the most valuable pieces of television inventory in sports.
The growth hasn’t just been on television. It’s happened on the ground. In many ways, that’s where the league’s biggest innovation has occurred. When the draft left New York and became a traveling event, it transformed from a niche broadcast into a full-blown national festival.
Detroit drew approximately 775,000 fans in 2024, setting an all-time record. Nashville brought in around 700,000. Green Bay followed with more than 600,000 in 2025—an almost absurd figure when you consider the city’s population barely cracks six digits. These aren’t just strong turnouts; they’re Super Bowl-adjacent crowds for an event where no football is played.
A podium, mic, stage, well-dressed football players hearing their names called, and a big hug for their new boss.
Context is critical because it explains why ESPN isn’t consolidating coverage in 2026. It’s expanding it.
On April 1, NFL Network talent officially became part of the Disney/ESPN umbrella, which could have led to a streamlined, single broadcast. Instead, ESPN is doing the opposite. It’s flooding the zone with four distinct presentations of the same event.
ESPN will carry the traditional broadcast, with Mel Kiper Jr., Adam Schefter, and Mike Greenberg driving a pick-by-pick, analysis-heavy show that feels like the draft has for decades. NFL Network will continue to operate in its established lane with Rich Eisen, Daniel Jeremiah, and Charles Davis, leaning more heavily into X’s and O’s and maintaining its reputation as the more football-centric broadcast. ABC will present a broader version built around the College GameDay crew, with Rece Davis, Kirk Herbstreit, and Nick Saban emphasizing the college-to-pro jump and the human side of the prospects.
Then there’s the digital layer, where ESPN+ and streaming platforms will carry alternate presentations, including the Pat McAfee Draft Spectacular, designed for a younger, more personality-driven audience.
What makes this different from previous years is that all of these broadcasts now exist within the same ecosystem. This is no longer ESPN versus NFL Network. It’s ESPN programming ESPN. The networks still maintain different tones and identities, but competition has been replaced by segmentation.
Instead of one broadcast trying to serve every viewer, ESPN is targeting every viewer with a different broadcast. The hardcore fan gets NFL Network. traditionalist gets ESPN, and the college fan gets ABC. The digital-first audience gets McAfee.
It’s not about winning the night; it’s about owning every lane of it.
That strategy extends beyond the three days of the draft itself. The lead-up has become a coordinated programming machine, with a reported 13-show umbrella that now includes both ESPN and former NFL Network properties. Shows like NFL Draft Daily and Path to the Draft are no longer separate entities competing for attention; they’re part of a single build designed to keep the audience engaged for weeks.
By the time the first pick is announced, the viewer has been saturated with mock drafts, prospect profiles, insider reports, and storylines. The draft isn’t just a single broadcast; it’s the payoff to a multi-week content cycle.
What makes all of this even more remarkable is that, at its core, the draft still defies logic as a television product. Nothing actually happens. There is no gameplay, no score, and no outcome beyond projection and speculation. Yet it consistently delivers massive audiences.
The reason is simple, even if it sounds cliché: the draft is about hope.
It’s the one event on the sports calendar where every fan base believes it got better. Every pick is framed, and every selection creates a new narrative. The quarterback who slid becomes a chip-on-his-shoulder storyline. The unexpected pick becomes a debate. The “steal” becomes a reason to believe.
The broadcast amplifies all of it, from the walk to the stage to the jersey reveal to the now-traditional hug with Roger Goodell, which has become less of a spontaneous moment and more of a perfectly timed piece of television choreography.
The question going forward is what happens to the edges. For years, ESPN and NFL Network pushed each other because they had to. Different production philosophies created different viewing experiences, and that friction made the coverage better.
Now that both networks sit under the same umbrella, the risk is that everything becomes a little too polished, a little too aligned, and a little too safe. The voices are still different for now, and ESPN has been smart to preserve that distinction in 2026.
However, as contracts expire and talent inevitably shifts, the line between the two broadcasts could blur. The upside is obvious—greater efficiency, tighter coordination, and even more control over the product. The downside is just as clear. You lose the tension that made flipping between the two broadcasts worthwhile.
What’s undeniable is where the NFL Draft now sits in the sports landscape. It began in 1936 as a quiet meeting in a room. It became a televised curiosity in 1980 and evolved into a prime-time event and then into a traveling spectacle, drawing hundreds of thousands of fans in person and millions more on television.
Now, in 2026, it has become something else entirely. It’s a fully integrated media ecosystem, controlled across multiple platforms, formats, and audiences by a single entity. The NFL doesn’t just own Sundays anymore. It owns the calendar, and with the draft, it has figured out how to own every screen you choose to watch it on.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
This week, Salem Media’s and CNN‘s Scott Jennings was in Kansas City as the keynote speaker for the Kansans for Life annual fundraiser in Overland Park, Kansas.
I was the emcee for the evening. Jennings also broadcast his radio show from our incredible facilities at Cumulus Kansas City. He was as pleasant and easy to work with as it gets, and gave a killer keynote address on the value of life, Western civilization, and the future of the country.
As a result, it gave us multiple opportunities to briefly discuss radio, the media landscape, his life and career, along with the ups and downs.
One conversation we had that any news/talk host can relate to is the never-ending balancing act of figuring out when and how to take a break. We agreed that even one day off the air can feel like a week, given today’s news cycle. You almost feel naked. What did you miss? How many stories did you miss? How many angles on the recurring stories did you lose the opportunity to opine on?
The ramp-up after even a couple of days off is real. When you’re in it and on every day, the stories and days flow together. Take a day, and you feel like a little kid learning how to ride a bike again.
Please don’t misunderstand. None of this is intended to be a complaint. We agreed that we are blessed to do what we do for a living, but it’s also a really unique part of the job that doesn’t apply to individuals in most industries.
The conversation with Scott Jennings got me thinking about how we can best handle that. It’s easy to say, “Put away the phone,” but that’s not always realistic. Even when you’re off, there are expectations to engage with the audience on other platforms.
Once again, not a complaint — just a reality in today’s 24/7 personality-driven media environment. You may be “off” from your show, but your fans are still scrolling Facebook, X, and Instagram, and looking for your perspective on the hits of the day.
So what’s the balance?
To me, the balance is in giving them content — albeit less — and making it more driven by your life. Take them behind the scenes. It can be serious. It can be silly. Don’t overthink it. It doesn’t need to be the hottest take of the day on a serious political story.
And when you return to the airwaves, find a personal story or two that you weave into your first show back. Where were you? What were you doing? Within reason, of course. But humanizing yourself with a radio audience is something most TV personalities don’t have time for in their shows. You have it. You have a different relationship with your audience than a TV anchor or personality. Use that to your advantage.
Now, I’m not saying to bury Topic A, or talk about nonsense that your audience doesn’t care about. Be targeted. Be creative. And leave them wanting more. It’s something Scott Jennings does well. It doesn’t need to be more than a couple of minutes. Segue into or out of a story that gives your audience a peek behind the scenes of your life.
Frankly, we should probably be doing more of this anyway — especially in the news/talk format, where the expectation can sometimes, and wrongly, be to just spout big hot takes after big hot takes.
As we start to approach the summer season, and hopefully you have the ability to get a little time away, it will do you good. The news cycle is moving faster than ever.
And while it might be admittedly scary to step away, for fear of missing stories or getting out of rhythm, it will be beneficial. The show will be there when you get back. And as you ease in, use it as an excuse to lean in even more and let the audience learn more about you. You won’t regret it.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
Mike Vrabel and Dianna Russini. You know the story. Everyone does. But it’s not the story that’s most important — it’s what your show did with it. In the next three minutes, you’ll learn a lot about your RockTernative show or podcast.
At my other day job, I curate a content tool called The Drop for shows and brands I work with. Vrabel Gate has been orbiting my world since the 7th. For shows that create content stretching past the musical psychograph of a brand, this story was a gift. It has all the layers, mass relatability, and dozens of interesting ways to cover it.
You’ve likely heard consultants or PDs refer to The Topic Tree. Dianna Russini/Mike Vrabel is a champion oak among topic trees. That’s why it can serve as an X-ray for your show, and why PDs and group heads should be using this same exercise.
Let’s start with a word I’m guilty of overusing: “treatment.” By that, I mean — what’s the unique content treatment angle?
Outside of highly compelling personalities or shows propped up by an endless supply of cash giveaways, treatment is what separates the top tier from the mid-pack. Because there’s very little exclusive news out there. Everyone already knows the headlines. It’s what’s done with them that matters.
Once Page Six dropped the photos, every show knew about it by morning drive. The best producers and talent thought to themselves, “toss the rundown, forget yesterday’s prep meeting.”
This is when the game of treatment begins — it’s what separates the unique from the sound-alikes across the dial.
So, what did your show do with this story? How many different angles did your show use? At last check, from the jump through Russini’s resignation, I count over 20 interesting and different treatment options. The number of angles a show used isn’t the measuring stick — it’s how sticky the angles used actually were.
If your show mostly ducked it because “it’s sports,” “it’s sad,” “it’s tabloid stuff,” or because “everyone else is covering it,” maybe it’s time for a vision reset. It could also be a sign of a comfort zone that’s holding the show back.
No one has to celebrate the mess of a potential scandal, but the key is having relatability to what the audience is already talking about — and even opening their minds to things they haven’t considered yet.
More than a week later, we can look back and learn from this story — like Vrabel watching game film with his players. It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that if you dropped in on market after market, many shows covered it the exact same way, with the exact same treatment:
Read the details from Page Six
Discuss or state personal observations
(Lazy close out) Headline delivered, personal feelings stated, now let’s bail
But the first two are like kickoff — they’re the natural places to start, not where a show should stop. Not with a story this deep, widespread, and with multiple arcs. The third is where the game starts — where critical thinking finally shows up.
While there were many options — 20 or more — here are 10 easy examples of how a show could have started being unique at step three:
Talk to listeners whose parents cheated — how did it affect them as kids?
Should consequences be equal? Will this become a male vs. female sexism debate?
If it’s really an affair, is her credibility really ruined? What matters more to the audience — the information or how it was obtained?
If there’s no affair, should she have resigned?
What’s the worst punishment: losing the job, her credibility, privacy, or trust at home?
Even if innocent, is that public behavior acceptable for two married public figures?
If the photos came from an investigator, who benefits most from hiring the PI and the photos leaking?
If you run ESPN or Fox, is Dianna Russini more hirable now that she’s a household name — or less hirable and possibly toxic?
Talk to listeners who were caught up in something that made them look very guilty, but they were innocent. What was it, and how did it play out?
Book a private investigator to share wild stories of what they’ve uncovered.
Those treatment options shouldn’t shock you, and there were many more. What’s shocking is how often critical or deeper thinking doesn’t take place these days. Moments like these are when content shows can make their move — gaining ground on competitors or widening their lead — by avoiding the lazy, low-hanging fruit that shows across the street lean on daily.
It’s also what can actually cause someone to walk into work or post online asking, “Did you hear what Show X did with the Dianna Russini story this morning?”
Anyone can do steps one and two. Most everyone does — and then they stop.
But the real winners live for step three and beyond. Because that’s when the show starts sounding like theirs and not everyone else’s.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
