(08-20-2014 04:06 PM)Jchuges7 Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 03:47 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 03:33 PM)Jchuges7 Wrote:  BTW mlb, locals sports talk radio doesn't and usually shouldn't try to compete with national shows. It's an apples and oranges comparison of the products. That being said, many elements can be borrowed from one another to make both products better but that's another topic for another thread.

I understand that, the problem is that they talk too much non-local talk on local radio.

For example, I know that Lance loves to talk Ohio State. I know there are some local OSU fans... but guess what? Most of the listeners that truly care about Ohio State are listening to Columbus stations (at least in my opinion). If I were wanting to get the real scoop on OSU sports, I'm certainly not listening to WLW or 1530. I'm going to go to a Columbus station either over the air or through IHeartRadio. I always thought the Enquirer was dumb for covering OSU as much as they did too... after the internet became widespread people could go to the Dispatch site and get all the OSU info they wanted, and it would be better and more timely than on the Enquirer site.

Local sports talk should be local sports talk.

Drop this Notre Dame garbage. Drop this OSU garbage. Drop this UK garbage.

It should go in this order...

1. Reds
2. Bengals
3. Bearcats
4. Xavier
5. Miami
5. Whatever big national thing is going on, but it should be the lowest priority

They should talk about the local happenings, and have guests related to each of those. In November and December the Reds shouldn't have any talk except Reds Fest.

From February through March there should be no Bengals talk. Talk Bengals in April during the draft, some in May with the OTAs and such, then shut up until camp starts. They should be talking UC and Miami from August through April, then shut up. They should be talking Xavier from November through April, then shut up. Cover the in season LOCAL sports teams.

Remember when they tried to simulcast Lance in Dayton about 10 years back? It was a disaster. The ratings for 980 tanked big time compared to their local talk that covered Dayton and Wright State because:

1. He didn't talk about them enough
2. When he did, he talked about stuff that was a week old

980 dropped him after a few months and now they have a local show again... talking local sports.

Have you seen the number 1 station during the 3-6 hour? Eddie and Tracy. Why are they number 1? They almost always talk LOCAL talk, very little non-greater Cincinnati talk.

I agree with everything you said 100%. But why is there OSU, UK or ND coverage? Because fans of those schools are vocal and have demanded it. Sad but true reality. If we want more UC coverage, to the point where it pushes out other schools and topics, we need to stand up and force those who make decisions to do so. Unfortunately, this fan base doesn't do that or expects it to be done just because.

Believe me, I want more UC coverage and little to none on other schools, but WE have to stand up and prove that we're going to make it worth a company's while to make us a priority. Same things that WE need to do in order to look more appealing to a better conference.

Chuges, I appreciate the insight into this topic from your perspective of working in the sports radio business. When you spoke of vocal demanding fans from ND, UK and tO$U, you didn't mean fans of those programs who live here in the Cincinnati area? I don't listen that much anymore, but I can't recall hearing any of these fans bellyaching on the air here in town about a lack of coverage of their respective schools.

[/quote]

I agree with everything you said 100%. But why is there OSU, UK or ND coverage? Because fans of those schools are vocal and have demanded it. Sad but true reality. If we want more UC coverage, to the point where it pushes out other schools and topics, we need to stand up and force those who make decisions to do so. Unfortunately, this fan base doesn't do that or expects it to be done just because.

Believe me, I want more UC coverage and little to none on other schools, but WE have to stand up and prove that we're going to make it worth a company's while to make us a priority. Same things that WE need to do in order to look more appealing to a better conference.
[/quote]

I appreciate the insight into the working of the radio station mindset, but in all honesty it's a bass-ackwards approach...

If the local radio stations want UC fans to tune in and, therefore, increase their ratings and profits, THEY need to provide content we find appealing. The lack of coverage suggests they're either too lazy, too risk adverse, and/or don't believe their ratings and profits would increase by improving their UC coverage.

The other thing I would add is when talk radio does cover UC, it is mostly to troll the fan base. When Kelly and Jones left there was wall to wall coverage. Lance creamed his pants when those guys left and failed to comprehend there were a lot of hurt UC fans here. Remember "Butch Watch"?

I don't buy the line that there are not people interested in UC. Set up a an hour or two that is nothing but college athletics and that is the type of calls you will get. Tell Bob in Blanchester to save his story about the time he bumped into Pete at a cadino in Vegas for another segment.

(08-20-2014 03:11 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 02:26 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 01:29 PM)Jchuges7 Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 01:25 PM)qsilvr2531 Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 01:19 PM)Jchuges7 Wrote:  Yes, there is a direct correlation between interest in a topic and how many people call their show. Your follow up points are valid, but calls are one of the only real, direct ways that hosts and producers can see that a topic is having an impact on their listening audience. As much as we want to hear the Bearcats talked about more and how strongly people say they will never listen or call in, our local hosts aren't paid to be cheerleaders for any particular team. They're paid to get listeners which the stations can then monetize in the form of paid advertising. It's not fun to hear, but it's the truth. Mo, Lance, all the others WANT to talk about UC sports but when they get little reaction they have to move to topics with a broader appeal like the Reds or Bengals. AGAIN, I know no one wants to hear this but it's the brutal reality of the situation. Do what you will with this information, just trying to give some insight.

Don't radio stations get ratings much like television? That would seem to be a much better way to determine what topic is having an influence on their audience (not that it would necessarily demonstrate that UC deserves more coverage).

They do get ratings but it's hard to tell when you're bouncing around from topic to topic over the course of a 3 hour show. I would say this though, what's a better way to tell right away if a TV show has a big impact or not: overnight ratings or people blowing up Twitter and other social media instantly? It's all part of creating buzz and interest.

I think a lot of local radio people think like this, but I can't help but believe this is outdated thinking. Listen to most the best national shows and they take very few calls and when they do the calls are all over the place. Cowherd talks repeatedly on the different ways he measures interest in topics and how he caters his show to those interests, I've never heard him talk about callers. I think talking callers is a limited way of looking at it, there are just too many better outlets for educated listeners to talk about sports and share their sports takes. Calling takes up time, often when someone is at their job and you don't always even get through. I and I think a ton of other listeners like sports talk radio for the interviews with people with knowledge about the sports and teams I am interested in. Radio shows that continue to depend on what a small, self selected, cross section of their audience wants to talk about when they call in are missing that point.

I think Mark just did a better job of summing up what I was trying to say earlier. If I'm listening to one of these shows, I often turn it off when they start taking callers because it quickly becomes tedious and boring. I listen to get more info, not to hear some guy who often seems to know less factually than I do. Listening to the one millionth guy call in saying that Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame or Joey Votto gets paid too much is like fingernails on a chalkboard.
These rambling lecture/monologues by a single host sitting alone in a studio are also painful to listen to as well. Personally, I would prefer a show where they have well informed guests on a topic and then have two or more hosts who have done their homework discuss it. Maybe the format is the way it is because it's too expensive to have more than one host? I guess ads for boner pills and testosterone tests don't add up to much revenue.
Notice how we all post on here when there's a guest coming up on one of these radio shows with a UC connection? People will listen if they're given something to listen to which interests them.

Totally agree. There are people that love to call into radio shows and love to hear their own voice and feel damn important doing so. They are the kind of person I never want to hear, especially as my work day is dragging on.

I am shocked that you mentioned cowherd as someone would have to pay big bucks to listen to him. He is worse than mo and lance together at trying everything to piss people off to generate interest in his show. I love when SVP and Russilo rip him on air.

(08-20-2014 08:38 PM)dalbc Wrote:  

Quote:I agree with everything you said 100%. But why is there OSU, UK or ND coverage? Because fans of those schools are vocal and have demanded it. Sad but true reality. If we want more UC coverage, to the point where it pushes out other schools and topics, we need to stand up and force those who make decisions to do so. Unfortunately, this fan base doesn't do that or expects it to be done just because.

Believe me, I want more UC coverage and little to none on other schools, but WE have to stand up and prove that we're going to make it worth a company's while to make us a priority. Same things that WE need to do in order to look more appealing to a better conference.

I appreciate the insight into the working of the radio station mindset, but in all honesty it's a bass-ackwards approach...

If the local radio stations want UC fans to tune in and, therefore, increase their ratings and profits, THEY need to provide content we find appealing. The lack of coverage suggests they're either too lazy, too risk adverse, and/or don't believe their ratings and profits would increase by improving their UC coverage.

Of course there are exceptions where a market can be cultivated/supplier-driven, but I disagree with you with regard to UC coverage on sports talk shows. I think what they are doing makes good business sense from their perspective. Sports talk shows are primarily in the business of giving the people what they want so they listen and thus attract advertisers. By all accounts here, people show they want to talk Reds and Bengals by calling in. Why risk losing birds in the hand for birds in the bush that don't seem to show any interest in your hand when given the chance? Why would they try to provide more UC coverage when they don't see much interest (relatively speaking) in the coverage they currently give?

For reasons I still don't fully understand, many UC fans seemingly prefer to post complaints/rationalizations on UC message boards like this one to actually calling in despite all the evidence that calling in about UC is the most obvious path to the desired change of more UC coverage.

I think there is a little bit of a Chicken vs egg argument for this topic. The radio people say that they don't talk UC football because there are not enough call in's from the fans to warrant such a discussion. But I could counter with, if they would set aside time each week to talk about it, whether anybody called in or not, I think interest would eventually be there and they would get call in's. Why? Because by making a point to set aside time to talk about UC football, the media is in TELLING the public it's important, which in turn fuels and aids discussion. It creates the perception that UC football IS important. At that point, I believe, people will start calling in. You can say I'm wrong, but look UC averaged what, 32K last year? What did the Reds average? So there are enough fans that support UC football. In addition, if the media made UC football a point and created this perception to the casual fan that UC football IS important I think some casual fans get caught up in it and more people call in. That's my take...

My take is that I decided about a decade ago that I am no longer going to wade through hours of wasted time to occasionally hear a nugget or two about UC (which I can pick up in minutes by going to the right web sites). I watch/listen to Dan Patrick in the morning for my sports talk now, whereas I used to listen to Bob Trumpy and Cris Collinsworth.

(08-21-2014 06:52 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  My take is that I decided about a decade ago that I am no longer going to wade through hours of wasted time to occasionally hear a nugget or two about UC (which I can pick up in minutes by going to the right web sites). I watch/listen to Dan Patrick in the morning for my sports talk now, whereas I used to listen to Bob Trumpy and Cris Collinsworth.

I agree with you; I have simply tuned out local sportstalk for years. If I hear a promo that one of our coaches will be a guest I will tune in at that time and I'm generally disappointed that it's such a short segment followed immediately by more Bengals or Reds talk.

Regarding coverage for Pitt: despite all those empty seats at their home games, they've historically sold lots more season tickets than the Bearcats. They had a strong case to make with the ACC on athletic revenue. They had a national championship in the 70s; a rich football history and longstanding tradition with generations of alumni and fans who believe it's a special program. All that probably means more media attention than their recent on-field accomplishments would merit.

Does UC football deserve better from our local media? Absolutely. Rome wasn't built in a day and the Bearcats are enjoying steady, measurable growth in season ticket sales, attendance and merchandise sales. To me, these are all leading indicators and media coverage will follow those dollars. This past decade, UC has achieved more coverage and as interest grows our fanbase will demand even more. A majority now get our news online and there is abundant fast breaking coverage there. For better or worse, newspapers and local radio are in decline and will never command the audiences they took for granted in the past.

I think that for a lot of longtime UC fans, we've always known that our athletic programs received poor coverage in the local media, and when we did it was usually negative, so most people who follow the teams have found other sources of news and information outside of local radio. Couple that with the fact that AM talk radio is dying out and probably won't even exist as a format in a generation, and it isn't surprising that few UC fans call these shows.
I often read others here in the past who say don't blame the customer when business isn't going well in relation to topics like ticket sales and fan support. Well the same applies to radio hosts. Blaming the audience for poor coverage isn't going to win over new listeners.

(08-21-2014 10:11 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  I think that for a lot of longtime UC fans, we've always known that our athletic programs received poor coverage in the local media, and when we did it was usually negative, so most people who follow the teams have found other sources of news and information outside of local radio. Couple that with the fact that AM talk radio is dying out and probably won't even exist as a format in a generation, and it isn't surprising that few UC fans call these shows.

Which is why they cater to those who do call in: Reds and Bengals fans apparently. Makes good business sense.

Quote:I often read others here in the past who say don't blame the customer when business isn't going well in relation to topics like ticket sales and fan support. Well the same applies to radio hosts. Blaming the audience for poor coverage isn't going to win over new listeners.

I'm one of those people and this isn't the same thing at all. Their ultimate customers (i.e. the ones who actually PAY them MONEY) are the advertisers. The advertisers for the most part don't have a Reds or Bengals or UC agenda. They have a listener agenda and Reds and Bengals fans apparently call in which serves as the best proxy they have for determining listeners. Why risk alienating them (i.e. having them stop listening to your station/show) by focusing on topics where nobody calls in - whether it's UC football or the WNBA? Unlike a lot of other potential topics, they seem to at least give UC sports an occassional chance. What would you conclude if the response was mostly silence? They are simply catering to their audience which again is generally good business.

It's not that complicated. The best, easiest, simplest and most logical way to change the situation is by calling in about UC. For business purposes they will eventually listen to the squeaky wheel, but it's measured by callers/listeners - not by UC message board complaints.

Just saying.....when you do call in, and being put on hold DURING the UC conversation, then they switch topics and DON'T take your call - how does that help?

Honestly, talk radio in this town sucks - at least Mo attempts to get UC stuff out there, but more times than naught, he's interrupted and loses the message.

For a UC perspective, there are only a handful that are actually knowledgeable and would make a UC only show work (Hoard, Jim Kelly, Machuck, etc). Sadly, there isn't a station in town with the vision to do something like that, even the so-called flagship station of UC athletics.

These arguments about talk radio are so old and beaten to death, why bring them up again and again? I'd rather spend my time at the events, and hitting other media outlets for information than sitting on my hands and hoping a snippet of UC stuff ever comes over the local radio stations.

(08-21-2014 11:33 AM)FLIP Wrote:  Just saying.....when you do call in, and being put on hold DURING the UC conversation, then they switch topics and DON'T take your call - how does that help?

So are you just sayin it's a conspiracy and this only happens to UC fans?

With the advent of the internet and social media, AM talk radio is a dinosaur which will go extinct soon anyway. I frankly don't care enough to sit on hold to save this hopeless cause.
Also, considering that ratings, which are based on the number of viewer/listeners, are what determines advertising prices, in the end, the listeners are the customers. No listeners=no advertisers.

(08-21-2014 12:18 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  With the advent of the internet and social media, AM talk radio is a dinosaur which will go extinct soon anyway. I frankly don't care enough to sit on hold to save this hopeless cause.

Maybe so, but why so many complaints around here about it then?

Quote:Also, considering that ratings, which are based on the number of viewer/listeners, are what determines advertising prices, in the end, the listeners are the customers. No listeners=no advertisers.

Demographic issues aside, I addressed this relationship pretty clearly above but I'll try it again since you keep insisting in making a point that is actually completely congruent with what I am saying. Those who listen are indicating that the talk is dominated by Reds and Bengals topics and callers rather than UC. So why risk alienating known listeners (as indicated by the callers) by force feeding other topics (e.g. UC sports) which seem to generate mostly silence when they are brought up? Any way you slice it, it still comes down to responding to demand which is largely defined by the callers/listeners coveted by advertisers.

I personally am not bothered in the least by the Reds and Bengals talk. What bothers me is the talk of schools outside of greater Cincinnati. If it is local talk, don't talk about schools 100 miles or more away.

(08-21-2014 12:45 PM)mlb Wrote:  I personally am not bothered in the least by the Reds and Bengals talk. What bothers me is the talk of schools outside of greater Cincinnati. If it is local talk, don't talk about schools 100 miles or more away.

They follow what they perceive to be listener interest measured the best way they know how: callers. If more people seem to want to talk about schools 100 miles or more away than about UC, then that's what they'll do.

(08-21-2014 12:59 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  They follow what they perceive to be listener interest measured the best way they know how: callers. If more people seem to want to talk about schools 100 miles or more away than about UC, then that's what they'll do.

And their ratings locally will continue to dwindle. That is the point.

(08-21-2014 12:40 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 12:18 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  With the advent of the internet and social media, AM talk radio is a dinosaur which will go extinct soon anyway. I frankly don't care enough to sit on hold to save this hopeless cause.

Maybe so, but why so many complaints around here about it then?

Quote:Also, considering that ratings, which are based on the number of viewer/listeners, are what determines advertising prices, in the end, the listeners are the customers. No listeners=no advertisers.

Demographic issues aside, I addressed this relationship pretty clearly above but I'll try it again since you keep insisting in making a point that is actually completely congruent with what I am saying. Those who listen are indicating that the talk is dominated by Reds and Bengals topics and callers rather than UC. So why risk alienating known listeners (as indicated by the callers) by force feeding other topics (e.g. UC sports) which seem to generate mostly silence when they are brought up? Any way you slice it, it still comes down to responding to demand which is largely defined by the callers/listeners coveted by advertisers.

Back to what I thought was my original complaint: I'm still waiting for some data to show me that the number of callers to a particular show has some direct statistical bearing on the overall number of listeners for that show(ratings). I think it's just an excuse for some hosts who would prefer to talk Reds/Bengals because obviously that will have a wider audience appeal in the city, and dismisses UC topics with awww, they never call anyway.

I don't buy the argument that WLW ratings would suffer if they had a little more UC programming. Many of the same people calling in to talk about the time they sat behind Dave Concepcion at a Frisch's in Hamilton would likely call in to talk a little UC football/basketball if there was a structured topic/guest. Even if they don't call in, those same guys probably aren't turning their dial. Most of the regulars who listen to the "Big One" do it out of habit. They aren't all of a sudden going to turn the dial to FM.

On a related note, I find it interesting that they don't talk UC because of a lack of calls-- Lance frequently covers Butler and Xavier basketball but I don't think they get that many calls.

(08-21-2014 01:25 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 12:59 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  They follow what they perceive to be listener interest measured the best way they know how: callers. If more people seem to want to talk about schools 100 miles or more away than about UC, then that's what they'll do.

And their ratings locally will continue to dwindle. That is the point.

I'll ignore the issue of what you are comparing their dwindling ratings to and focus on YOUR point that they are dwindling. So If that's the point, then it's all the more reason to cater to listener interests. Apparently when they talk Reds or Bengals they get a response. When they talk a lot of other subjects, e.g. UC football, hardly anybody calls. What would you do in their shoes?

It's common sense. Bitching about it ad nauseam here won't change anything. Calling in to talk UC football or whatever might.