"Take that Calgary Puck!" — SN960 and Calgary sports media discussion

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Mccree

Wasn't WWE in Edmonton yesterday?

No, September 21.

Personally I like wrestling and WWE coverage, but I can understand its place not being on a sports channel. Maybe they should have a separate podcast for that sort of thing.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This kind of content is actually very difficult to produce.

You're talking maybe 100 hours of work to produce 90 minutes of content.

Gotta call you on this one. It's not close to true.

A properly prepared, in-depth podcast (the closest thing in my professional experience I can compare it to) requires about 5x the work for each minute of content, on average (you shoot for less, but it's not always the case).

If you're producing 90 minutes of radio content, that number is certainly less.

Even in the worst-case scenario where we're talking about people who are inexperienced in producing content or everything happens to go wrong, you maybe get to 10:1.

90 minutes (commercials not included) would take a maximum of 15 hours, at the absolute highest end. More likely within 7-10 hours.

[SportsJunky]

That doesn’t seem like enough time for a proper investigative journalism piece. I’d bet Flash is close.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

That doesn’t seem like enough time for a proper investigative journalism piece. I’d bet Flash is close.

It is enough considering the scope of what's being discussed, it's more than enough. Investigative journalism also has a pretty wide range, from an in-depth well-researched look into a single topic to following a story for year, accumulating hundreds of hours of interviews and producing a single long-form piece out of it. This is what we're talking about, and does not fall into the latter:

Originally Posted by Yamer

An in-depth look at the Raptors championship season. An examination of the new arena process. An investigative report into equalization of pay...the demise of the CWHL...an oral history of the 2004 Cup Run...and so on, and so forth.

You could produce any of those subjects properly, especially for AM radio, within the 5:1 ratio goal. It'd be an extreme waste of time otherwise.

The ideal that to come away with something informative, detailed, and entertaining takes up to 100x the amount of work to the amount of content is silly. Especially for AM radio.

If Yamer wants the quality of a podcast like The Dropout every week, yeah, big ask. But if we're talking any comparable sports podcast at all, including The Full 60 like Flash mentioned, the 5:1 ratio holds.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Even if it is 5:1 the economics of that wouldn’t work

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Gotta call you on this one. It's not close to true.

A properly prepared, in-depth podcast (the closest thing in my professional experience I can compare it to) requires about 5x the work for each minute of content, on average (you shoot for less, but it's not always the case).

If you're producing 90 minutes of radio content, that number is certainly less.

Even in the worst-case scenario where we're talking about people who are inexperienced in producing content or everything happens to go wrong, you maybe get to 10:1.

90 minutes (commercials not included) would take a maximum of 15 hours, at the absolute highest end. More likely within 7-10 hours.

I'm talking production man hours. That includes things like the cost to run the booth, the audio engineer/producer, you have to have someone selling ads for this particular show, the research talent time. Are you going to have this episode transcribed? Would be a shame to put so much into it with just a single channel for mentization.

Podcasting is not easy, but it's easier than radio. Fitting in 1 hour per week (per day?) of long form radio journalism is hard.

Ask bingo how long it takes him just to do the cursory research for one of his articles. If you were scripting a show, you'd start there and you can read one of his articles in 5-7 minutes.

It's an expensive proposition to produce which is a big reason why you don't ever see it.

It would work in syndication, but then you'd get precious little flames content.

[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.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Assuming there is enough appetite for that
Which I don’t think there is
But stations are having their road personalities out less and less time into their work
With voice tracking djs can pump out a five hour show in 1 hour plus prep time

[Harry Lime]

One of the guest hosts for Jim Rome, a while back was Jason Whitlock. I'm pretty sure that he hosts a weekly, one subject, three hour show in Kansas City.

There are a lot of investigative journalists either out of work, or working in podcasts, because the journalistic media has become a broken model. And podcasts are taking a huge chunk of the audience away from radio, because there is a demand for this content.

There are ways of working around the cost and time differential, that honestly are not that difficult. Use local talent to host the show like Alfred Hitchcock Presents, and then contract out the hour to underutilized talent. Pay them higher on a contract basis, per show, enough to cover both research, writing and onair talent if needed.

Sell it to affiliates.

Semi-retired or part time talent would be all over this. University level talent would attack it with relish. Build a roster of individuals or groups to provide content at the rate of 60 to 90 minutes plus call-in, every six to eight weeks. Build a following. If one of the shows is a massive hit, hire the crew that put it together. Extend their contract. Build an industry. Attend award nights held in your honor.

Radio can either take on the podcasts directly, or cry about the death of their industry.

[mikeecho]

With the number of Sportsnet radio stations in the country, I'm a bit surprised that they don't produce more national content, or in some cases the content isn't used nationally.

The original Hockey Central at Noon based out of Toronto does a fairly good job of covering the stories league wide (It gets aired on the NHL network in the States) and actually gets good guests. Sure McLean and Shannon can drive a normal person crazy but it can draw a person in whether you like or dislike them. Why wouldn't 960 air that to fill an hour of time (11:00-12:00) and then do the Flames hockey central (12:00-1:00)? An hour of Sportsnet radio has to be cheaper than paying for Jim Rome if they're so focused on money.

I'm sure there's another hour of radio somewhere that they could spread out across the entire Rogers network.

I know that Calgary isn't a basketball hot bed and I'm not a huge fan, but listening to the local Calgary personalities discuss the NBA with their limited knowledge of it isn't appealing. It's the exact opposite and drives me away. When I listen to Toronto TSN or Sportsnet with people close to the Raptors discussing the team, it's much more compelling and I do get interested.

[Robbob]

I think maybe the issue some people have with radio, is they kind of unknowingly expect it like a podcast. When they turn it on, they expect to hear what they want, even if that discussed 20 minutes prior.

It costs me nothing, so it isn't a high bar to gets your monies worth.

[Flash Walken]

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.

[topfiverecords]

All they have to do is licence and slot in the best sports podcasts out there. There's your content and gives extra exposure and income for the podcast creators.

I'm surprised they're not already doing that with the Sportsnet branded ones like 31 Thoughts and The Lede etc.

Wouldn't fill the whole day or week, but would cut down on the need for half a dozen talented local personalities.

[Incogneto]

Krahn on the radio this morning, Giordano calls in and drops a comment that '...Heard Krahner is on the radio every morning now, so needed to call in.'

Krahn = Rhett's full time replacement?

[troutman]

I hope so.

[The Yen Man]

If Krahner's the new replacement, then I'm happy. The guy is pretty engaging to listen to, and just as self depreciating as Rhettro. Plus, Krahner offers some pretty good insights into the game. That's a win for the morning show if he's their regular guy.

[PepsiFree]

Where does Commodore slot in, then?

[Northendzone]

i wonder if commie and krahn would be too much if they were on the air at the same time

[Strange Brew]

You gotta have a professional radio guy on there too IMO.

[Huntingwhale]

Iggy being interviewed! Hopefully it gets uploaded later. Love listening to him speak.