Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Fair enough, but even looking at one of Bingo’s articles doesn’t hold a good comparison. I have no idea how long he takes, but the level of research doesn’t always easily equate to the amount of content. With 5 hours of research I can write a succinct read that takes about 5 minutes, something more in-depth that takes 20 minutes, or a podcast that runs an hour. If I add just an extra hour of research, I could up any of those 1.5x. The amount of research does not go up in proportion with the length or depth of content.
But really, if we’re talking an hour look at the new arena process for an AM radio station, I’m not seeing 80 hours of work there no matter how we cut it. There’s a big gap between what they’re doing now and award winning investigative journalism, it doesn’t require one or the other.
|
well I guess we are talking about different things.
I've read the discussion suggesting this become a component of drive time radio, so is that 5 hours of content per week?
It's live on the radio, so unlike segmented broadcasts, if you weren't there at the start of the commute you're only getting part of the story. Are you going to keep watching a show half way through an hour long episode?
Advertisers have to be convinced for this new format and then the ratings has to show it's successful.
All of this requires and outlay of capital above the existing keep the lights on overhead.
IMO it's basically asking for a podcast on the radio and their respective economies don't align.
The most successful format in am radio is segmented shows with branded news updates on set times during the hour. 'News on the Ones', stuff like that.
Drive time is two loud goofballs being goofy and occasionally having a strong opinion about something meaningless. It's not a format that draws me in as a listener but it has a market.
To the fireside chat pod guys, here is a free $10 000 idea:
Take the feedback.about the shortcomings of Calgary sports radio, and hit all of those marks over.snd over again.