Radio is Broke and How It Can Be Changed
By Mike Silva ~ March 4th, 2009. Filed under: Sports Media Commentary.
On Monday, Neil Best of Newsday’s Watchdog joined me to talk about current topics in sports media. This was especially relevant to New York baseball as we talked about the Mike Francesa/David Wright feud. We also discussed the state of radio. If newspapers are forced to compete, and change, how much longer will listeners subject themselves to repetitious, boring, cookie cutter radio shows?
Neil made an excellent point when he countered my “Mike Francesa is not prepared” statement. How can one individual be expected to know all things about all sports? None of us know everything about whatever industry in which we work, why should Francesa be held to a higher standard? My response was twofold. First, for the kind of money he makes (let’s assume around 5 million), his employer should demand a better educated talk show host. Unfortunately, ratings rule and so far no one has been able to counter with anything better.
Second, the top line, five hour, all sports format needs to change because the listeners are moving past the hosts in knowledge. With the advent of 24/7/365 information known as the internet, fans are able to become subject matter experts on the games they enjoy. It’s unacceptable for someone getting paid to talk sports to not keep themselves as current, or better, than the listeners. It’s as if you ran a business and people walking in your store knew more about your product lines then you. How long would you be able to keep your doors open? Again, it goes back to how do you hold someone accountable to know everything when there is only 24 hours a day? The answer is segmented radio content.
Think about what shows seem to be growing or maintaining popularity. Boomer and Carton is one that comes to mind. The other, on a lesser scale, is Steve Somers. Each has a niche appeal that makes up for the lack of knowledge on many sports. Boomer and Carton use humor and shtick, while Somers makes a living off of agitating listeners. This is often a rare trait that can’t easily be achieved. Francesa’s strength has been time slot and name recognition. He probably can get away with this for quite some time, but eventually the gig is up. I find myself listening less to Francesa each day. How much longer will those follow my lead?
Where does the segmented content come into play? First, you need to start hiring those that have personalities and knowledge of the sport they talk about. Plenty of hosts already employed have certain sports expertise over another. WFAN is screaming for a niche show about hockey. Why haven’t then done it yet? They have it for baseball (Ed Randall) and football (Francesa’s NFL Now). In business they are called subject matter experts or SME’s. Radio needs to understand that a good show combines calls, guests, and thought provoking content. They are long on the calls, ok with the guests, and short on original ideas. Rather than conjure up mindless debate why don’t you give the listener something to think about? Won’t that generate just as much call traffic? When you don’t know your topic that becomes impossible, thus forcing the host to resort to contrived debate.
The main point is that the current radio setup is stale and doesn’t draw the listener to consistently turn on the radio. Unfortunately it seems that radio executives are concerned with the numbers today and lack the vision to prepare for tomorrow. Ask the financial sector how that philosophy worked out. This situation will only get worse as technology grows .It’s time to combine personality and expertise into niche radio shows. Only then will radio return and have the impact of yesteryear.
If you missed Neil Best with Mike CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE REPLAY.
March 4th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Mike S, you make very good points and I disagree with Neil Best here. Francessa is especially sloppy with his facts, and sometimes I believe he stretches the truth to such an extent as to virtually lie (as in the Church instance). There is no excuse for such a poor grasp of the facts that he displays all too often.
Another problem with Francessa’s show is that without Russo it has degenerated into a run-of-the-mill sports talk show without any distinguishing characteristics. With Russo, the entertainment value of the show was very high, but now that’s totally missing. As a Mets fan, I also can’t stand Francessa’s strong anti-Mets bias. So there’s nothing left in that show to make me want to listen or to overcome Francessa’s bias the way there was when Russo was there. Because before, even if I didn’t like the anti-Mets bias, I could always get a lot of laughs out of the show. And, at least Russo would sometimes counter Francessa’s anti-Mets propaganda by bashing the Yankees, which served to temper Francessa’s bias a bit.
I still love listening to the FAN when other hosts are on. But I won’t listen to Francessa anymore.
March 4th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
There is one medium that you do not mention here. That is Sirius/XM where Mad Dog Russo does an excellent afternoon show. He has his own station and programs in almost precisely the way suggested here. He also knowledgeable, but not too pompous to be wrong about somethng, like Francessa, who was a major reason Dog left in the first place. Yes, terrestrial radio is quite stale and not only in the sportstalk format. Satelite is the way to go.
March 4th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Excellent article here, and I agree completely. For years now I have been more up-to-speed on baseball and hockey knowledge than Francessa, and the reason I tune in is because I want to listen to experts, not just personalities.
Francessa represents the past: An era where talk show hosts with a know-it-all bulldog personality would rule. Loud mouths like Chris Russo and snobs like Mike Francessa, drawing in listeners on confidence alone.
Where does Francessa deserve credit? History. He has a lot of knowledge when it comes to the rich history of each of these sports, but because he is getting on in years and probably very busy between personal life and celebrity appearances, he has been fumbling for years now on all subject matter that isn’t about the Yankees, Red Sox and (football) Giants. That’s all he has time to keep on top of.
Francessa would make an excellent host for a daily 2-hour show on the Yankees, but as soon as you start talking Mets, you see that he has no clue who the top prospects are and hardly anything about the role players or the National League teams they play.
I’d kill for a good hockey show on WFAN every day, even just an hour long, that focused on the Rangers, Islanders and Devils. As things currently stand, I know far more about these teams than Francessa, Esiason and Carton combined know, and I’m no expert!
March 4th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
People don’t even watch hockey, why would they want to listen to sports talk radio about hockey?
Carton and Boomer’s show is awful. Steve Somers and Tony Paige are the two best hosts on WFAN. Somers is hilarious, he doesn’t take himself too seriously, and he lets the callers talk. I used to love Sid Rosenberg when he was on the fan because he was such a character.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Francesa only makes around 1 mil per year.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Mike your on the mark as usual. When Francesa first game on FAN he was always prepared and he and Russo were at their best during the Knicks run under Pat Reily and with the Yankee’s great 90′s winning seasons. But whether it’s age or doing this too long Francesa has lost his fastball he no longer enjoys or watches the NBA or College B-ball and his baseball knowalge is passable at best. Without Russo there is no entertainer love him or hate him Russo could make you laugh whereas Mike does not have that personality. WFAN has gone stale What was great 20 years ago is old and tired today The station needs renovation