Connect with us

Barrett Blogs

Has Sports Media Content Become Too Serious?

Published

on

Growing up in Brooklyn, sports were a huge part of my childhood. My first memory involved the New York Yankees winning the World Series in 1977, when my entire house erupted after Reggie Jackson crushed three home runs in Game 6 against the Los Angeles Dodgers. I wasn’t old enough to vividly recall any particular part of that series, but the jubilation inside my home, told me something good was happening.

Soon thereafter I became fascinated with Reggie, Willie Randolph, Ron Guidry, Goose Gossage and my personal favorite, Thurman Munson. The Yankees were atop the baseball mountain and their success produced great benefits for an adolescent including new shirts, baseball caps and trips to The House That Ruth Built.

But in the summer of 1979 I experienced my first taste of sadness. My five year old heart was crushed as I sat in the living room watching television with my grandfather and learned that Munson, the Yankees captain, had been killed in a plane crash. Reggie may have been the straw that stirred the drink, but it was Munson who was the team’s heartbeat. Needless to say, tears flowed like a waterfall that night.

At the age of five, I was given my first baseball glove. I would head outside to toss my blue rubber ball off of the wall of the auto body shop across the street, and let my imagination run wild thinking of different scenarios involving my beloved Yankees. As my passion for exerting energy outside grew, so did my interest in participating. I convinced my father to sign me up for little league, and for the next eight years I’d play every season, winning two MVP’s and being voted an All-Star six times.

The passion I developed for baseball stretched beyond playing too. I discovered the joy of collecting baseball cards, and each week would hit up my father for a quarter to run up the street and buy a new pack. Over the next thirteen years, I purchased every single Topps set, and that was followed by gaining interest in meeting players and acquiring autographs, many of which remain in my personal collection today.

When I reached my teenage years, the passion to play subsided but watching games still consumed me. Much like many teenage New York Yankees fans, I had Don Mattingly’s “Hit Man” poster on my wall. I experienced every joyless moment watching the New York Knicks get their collective throats stepped on by Michael Jordan, and I suffered thru every New York Rangers season, hearing the chants grow louder about the franchise not winning a Stanley Cup since 1940. The only saving grace were the New York Giants who produced multiple Super Bowl championships.

It was during my teenage years that I began to dabble in listening to sports radio. The format was new and unproven, and AM radio wasn’t appealing to listen to beyond the games, but because I loved the New York teams, I took a liking to hearing other people talk about it. My listening early on was very sporadic, but as the years passed by it became a bigger part of my life, especially once I started driving.

After completing high school, and entering the real world, I found myself in the car quite often. That increased my connection to my local sports radio station WFAN, particularly the Mike and the Mad Dog program. Mike Francesa had built a reputation on being smart and forceful with his opinions, but it was Chris Russo’s energy and passion which I connected to most. That was odd for me because Mike loved the Yankees, and Chris carried a huge disdain for them.

As I performed dead end jobs to pay bills, the fan in me remained alive and well. I continued to watch Yankees, Knicks, Rangers and Giants games, suffering thru a number of heartbreaks, when the tide finally turned in 1994. That year I witnessed the Rangers end a fifty four year drought, eliminating the Vancouver Canucks to bring the Stanley Cup back to New York. It’s why Mark Messier will go down in my book as the most important player in franchise history. If you wish to debate it, save your energy, you’re not going to change my mind.

Even more important to me were the Yankees championship teams of the late 1990’s. Derek Jeter’s arrival pumped new blood into an organization which had desperately needed it. After being named the team’s opening day starting shortstop in 1996, the fortunes of the Bronx Bombers began to change, and the euphoria surrounding the team became so contagious it was impossible not to get caught up in it.

In fact, when the Yankees knocked off the Texas Rangers to advance to the 1996 World Series, I was working a 10p-6a part-time job as a security guard at a local infirmary. I relied on my radio that night to hear the game. When the final out was recorded, and John Sterling announced tickets for the World Series would go on sale the following morning, I made a decision to abandon my post, and get into the car and drive to the Bronx. I had suffered thru enough bad seasons that I wasn’t going to miss out on an opportunity to be in the building when something special was taking place.

Imagine my surprise when I arrived in the Bronx a little after 1am and discovered thousands of people already in line. I was ready to give up hope and drive back home, but a fight broke out on the line, leaving a big hole in the middle. Myself and two others who were sitting on a patch of grass quickly took advantage of the situation, and eased our way in. The reward the next morning was purchasing 4 tickets to Game 2 of the fall classic, a game which left every Yankee fan miserable thanks to an October gem from Braves pitcher Greg Maddux.

As we left the stadium and made our sixty mile trek home, WFAN provided much needed noise. My father bitched and moaned the entire time about how pathetic the team had played, and wrote off any possibility of the Yankees battling back to win the series. It was hard to argue, given that they had been outscored 16-1 in the first two games, but the optimist in me held out hope that David Cone could save the season in Game 3.

Luck was on the Yankees side in Game 3, giving fans a renewed energy and confidence, but the euphoria started to dissipate when Kenny Rogers laid an egg in Game 4. The Yankees trailed 6-0 at the end of five innings, and every New York baseball fan was mentally preparing to hear the fat lady sing later that night.

But then the baseball gods decided to intervene.

Jim Leyritz, who had been a hero in the 1995 playoffs against the Seattle Mariners, stepped to the plate and delivered one of the most clutch home runs in franchise history, sending a Mark Wohlers slider over the left field wall, just beyond the reach of Braves left fielder Andruw Jones. That tied things up at 6-6. Quickly the momentum had shifted, and when Wade Boggs battled Steve Avery to earn a bases loaded walk in the 10th inning, Yankees fans lost their minds, and began to believe that destiny was on their side.

The next two games would be close and intense, but fortunately the Yankees prevailed. Their 4-2 series win brought a world championship back to the Bronx for the first time since 1978, and a ticker tape parade down the canyon of heroes, one which I was in attendance for.

By now you’re either asking yourself, what exactly does Jason’s recollection of New York sports moments have to do with this article? Or you’re screaming at your computer or phone, “I don’t give a damn about the Yankees or any other New York team.”

Allow me to explain why I took you down my personal memory lane.

Each of us have these kind of sports memories stained in our minds. They evoke emotions that run thru us and are part of what makes sports special. For many of us who choose to pursue sports media work professionally, these celebratory and devastating moments fuel our desire to tell stories, connect with fans, and experience excitement in each venue.

But as you distance yourself from high school and college, and settle into a career, joy and fandom start to wane. The pressures of paying bills, raising families, battling everyday issues, and tackling work responsibilities become your priority and the time you spend in front of a television or radio decreases. Suddenly the little kid in you who lived each day to throw a ball outside or open up a new pack of baseball cards is pushed aside, and the new adult version of yourself takes over.

Many in our audience work a full-time job that they don’t enjoy. They do it to put a roof over their families heads and food on the table. They’d prefer to make a living like us playing in the toy department of life, but being broke, living longer at home with mom and dad, and feasting on ramen noodles and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches doesn’t have great appeal.

For those of us in the sports media business who have paid our dues and been fortunate to escape low paying jobs and earn opportunities on larger stages, what’s our excuse? We’re not digging ditches, operating on patients, selling insurance or welding metal. We are talking sports, on radio, on television, on social media, and in print, and part of our job description includes watching games, reading stories, and conveying our honest thoughts to form a deeper bond with an audience. That should elicit excitement, passion, curiosity and fun in each of us.

But sadly when you look around the industry that isn’t always felt or presented on the air.

It’d be unfair of me to suggest that every sports media personality has silenced their inner fan. There are exceptions. Play by play announcers would be one of them. But, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to point out that a large majority of talk show personalities have distanced themselves from the teams and players they once loved.

In many cities and buildings, show units work together to identify topics and angles, and line up callers and guests who can fuel conversation and provide additional entertainment value. The host opinions are delivered from a neutral or antagonistic position, and the thought of being labeled a professional fan with access and a microphone is quickly rejected.

And the teams don’t make it any easier.

Inside every press box, media members are encouraged to cut the chord to their teams. If a player makes a great play or the team you’re covering rallies to win an important game, you’re reminded to avoid cheering or expressing yourself in a positive manner.

It’s easy to see why many in the media become jaded. After spending years developing a deep love and passion for sports and those who cover them, you’re immediately met by neutrality and negativity once you start covering them. It was OK to root, love, and support players and teams when you were younger and not a working professional, but once you earn a paycheck from a media outlet and enter an arena or stadium, a burial for your fandom is scheduled.

Another  problem which causes broadcasters to disconnect is the way they’re treated by those they cover. Many players are cynical of the media, and at times, even disrespectful. They view writers, reporters and personalities as potential enemies, and although the good ones may squeeze out solid information from time to time, the willingness of players, coaches, and executives to be candid, conversational, and unguarded is rare at best.

It’s no excuse, but when you’re treated poorly or disrespected, it’s going to show up at some point in your work. Rather than giving a player or coach the benefit of the doubt after a tough game or offering praise for a particular feat, the media gravitate to pointing out flaws, selling concern, and pouring gasoline on the fire. It becomes the one way they can fight back against individuals who play the game and think they’re invincible. It also reminds those players, coaches and executives just how powerful the media can be in shaping public opinion.

If you read a sports website, listen to sports radio, or watch sports television, you may notice that the majority of content is supplied by media members who are over 35 years old. Coincidentally, the content appeals better to the older part of the audience (35-64) than it does the younger demo (18-34). If a media member is mature, experienced, and able to reduce their fandom and handle egotistical, sensitive and guarded sports personalities, then it allows the outlet they’re working for to maintain a more neutral position.

But is that really what drew us to wanting to work in sports? Didn’t we become interested in doing this line of work because we appreciated great players with unmatched skill and larger than life personalities? Weren’t we enamored watching two teams or individuals compete to find out who was better? If they failed to execute or made bad decisions, we held them accountable, but we attached ourselves to teams and players and emotionally invested in their success.

That connection enabled us to invite conversation with others who shared similar interests. It allowed us to be kids again, and forget about life’s responsibilities and pressures for a while.

Which is why I wonder if the sports media business is hurting itself by becoming too serious. I see a lot of parallels today between the presentation of sports/talk and news/talk, and I’m not sure if that’s a good thing.

News is about reality. It’s our wake up call. It’s serious conversation, and what we need to hear, even when we don’t necessarily want to hear it. It’s often negative in tone, but helps to put life and its day to day challenges into perspective.

Sports is supposed to pull us away from that reality and negativity. We rely on it to make us feel good. It becomes a conversation starter, and the link between childhood and adulthood. Whether we’re with our families or complete strangers, it brings us together and gives us hope, joy, and something positive to look forward to.

But we don’t always hear, see or feel that from those who lead the sports conversation across the airwaves. Instead, there’s a strong journalistic approach, and the intent is often to dissect stories, provoke thought, and generate emotional responses, rather than share any genuine semblance of joy, passion, love or appreciation.

Are audiences really clamoring for neutrality and cynicism? Have they demanded broadcasters possess black hearts and icy veins and shun the idea of expressing their true passions and love for the teams that inspired them to want to earn a living in sports media?

The last time I checked, they had not.

Didn’t America’s best broadcasters grow up watching sports, loving them, playing them, and wanting to be around them? Then why have we silenced that part of our personalities now that we’ve become adults?

It’s OK to be excited to talk to a guest who you once cheered for and display that vulnerability to the audience. Expressing joy when your favorite team wins makes you human and more relatable. Sharing your personal memories and feelings, opens the door for further discussion and deeper attachments with your listeners or viewers. If we can’t take these qualities with us to the air, then we’re robbing the audience of half of who we are.

Many in sports media have become so disenchanted with the organizations and people they cover, that it’s rubbed off on areas of their presentation. Maybe the travel, long work hours, and interactions with delusional listeners and arrogant players can be a drain, but talking about sports and watching them for a living should lift us up, not bring us down.

A question we should all be asking ourselves is, how does being jaded, angry, detached and emotionless help us? Certainly there are times when tough conversations and negative stances are warranted, but is it to much to ask that our best on-air voices also display a little bit of love, joy, excitement and vulnerability?

It’s been said before that the sports media cares more about what takes place outside the lines than what occurs inside of them. I think that’s true. If you watched or listened to 60-minutes of any show last week, you heard much more discussion about Kyrie Irving demanding a trade, Colin Kaepernick not being signed, Tim Tebow deserving a call up from the Mets and the selling of hate between Floyd Mayweather and Conor McGregor, then you heard about athletic performances or any team’s progress.

But is that really good for our business? Does sports programming need to continue being served in a similar way to news?

If one of the few joys we share in life (sports) is presented in a neutral or negative fashion, and the personalities discussing them aren’t personally excited or invested in a team or individual’s success, it becomes harder to connect with the audience. I don’t think the airwaves need to be full of cheerleaders and apologists, but having fun, showing you care, and experiencing the same euphoria and agony with an audience shouldn’t require a sales pitch.

In life, people turn to sports because it makes them happy. They believe in its power to unite. I just wonder if the direction we’ve headed in is doing more to divide.

Barrett Blogs

Takeaways From The NAB Show and Six Days in Las Vegas

“I’m certainly not afraid to be critical but my enthusiasm for the NAB Show was elevated this year.”

Published

on

Six days on the road can sometimes be exhausting. Six days in Las Vegas, and it’s guaranteed. That was my world last week, as I along with more than fifty thousand people headed to sin city to take in the 2022 NAB Show.

The event didn’t draw as many as it had in the past, but after two years of inactivity due to the pandemic, it was good to be back. Judging from some of the vendors I talked to, the sessions I attended, and the feedback I received from folks I met with, though far from perfect, it was a solid return for an important event. Seeing people interact, celebrate others, and talk about ways to improve the business was a positive reminder of the world being closer to the normal of 2019 than the normal of 2020-2021. The only negative from the week, the consistent failure of Uber to appear in the right place at the right time. But that had zero to do with the NAB.

It feels like whenever I attend industry conferences, there are two different type of reviews that follow. Some writers attend the show and see the glass half full. Others see the glass half empty. I’m certainly not afraid to be critical but my enthusiasm was elevated this year. Maybe it was because BSM was a media partner or maybe it was due to the show not happening for years and just being happy to be among friends, peers, and clients and operate like normal. Either way, my glass was definitely half full.

For those who see events this way, it’s likely they’ll remember the numerous opportunities they had to create and reestablish relationships. They’ll also recall the access to different speakers, sessions, products, and the excellent research shared with those in attendance. The great work done by the BFOA to recognize industry difference makers during their Wednesday breakfast was another positive experience, as was the Sunday night industry gathering at The Mayfair Supper Club.

Included in the conference were sessions with a number of industry leaders. Radio CEO’s took the stage to point out the industry’s wins and growth, credit their employees, and call out audio competitors, big tech, and advertisers for not spending more with the industry. When David Field, Bob Pittman, Ginny Morris and Caroline Beasley speak, people listen. Though their companies operate differently, hearing them share their views on the state of the business is important. I always learn something new when they address the room.

But though a lot of ground gets covered during these interviews, there are a few issues that don’t get talked about enough. For instance, ineffective measurement remains a big problem for the radio business. Things like this shouldn’t happen, but they do. NBC and WarnerMedia took bold steps to address problems with TV measurement. Does radio have the courage to take a similar risk? That’s an area I’d like to see addressed more by higher ups.

I can’t help but wonder how much money we lose from this issue. Companies spend millions for a ratings service that delivers subpar results, and the accountability that follows is often maddening. Given the data we have access to digitally, it’s stunning that radio’s report card for over the air listening is determined by outdated technology. And if we’re going to tell folks that wearables are the missing ingredient for addressing this problem, don’t be shocked if the press that follows is largely negative. The industry and its advertising partners deserve better. So too do the reps at Nielsen who have to absorb the hits, and make the most of a tough situation.

Speaking of advertising, this is another one of those critical areas that deserves another point of view. Case in point, I talked to a few ad agency professionals at the show. Similar to what I’ve heard before, they’re tired of hearing radio leaders blame them for the industry’s present position. This has been a hot button topic with executives for years. I often wonder, do we help or hurt ourselves by publicly calling out advertisers and ad agencies? How would you feel if you ran an agency which spent millions on the industry and were told ‘you don’t do enough’? I’m a champion of radio/audio, and am bullish on spoken word’s ability to deliver results for clients, but having attended these shows for nearly seven years, it might be time for a new approach and message. Or maybe it’s time to put one of our CEO’s with one of theirs and have a bigger discussion. Just a thought.

Of the sessions that I attended, I thought Erica Farber’s ‘What Business Are You In?’ was excellent. I especially liked Taja Graham’s presentation on ‘Sharing Your Truth’. I also appreciated Eric Bischoff’s tips on ways to monetize podcasts, and am curious to see how Amazon’s AMP develops moving forward. My favorite session at the show though was “A GPS Session For Your Station’s Car Radio Strategy” led by Fred Jacobs. The insight shared by Joe D’Angelo of Xperi and Steve Newberry & Suzy Schultz of Quu was outstanding. Keeping the car companies on our side is vital to our survival, and how we position ourselves on the dashboard can’t be ignored. Other tech companies and audio operators take it seriously. We must too.

Sessions aside, it was great to check out the VSiN and Blue Wire studios, connect with a bunch of CEO’s, GM’s and Market Manager’s, and visit with Kevin Jones, Joe Fortenbaugh, Jeremiah Crowe, Jon Goulet, Bill Adee, Q Myers, Mike Golic Jr. and Stormy Buonantony. The NFL’s setup for the Draft, and the light show presented at the Bellagio was without a doubt spectacular, plus Stephanie had a chance to say hello to Raiders owner Mark Davis who was inside the back room of a Westgate restaurant where we were having a business lunch meeting. The personal tour we received at the Wynn showed off some of the best suites I’ve seen in Las Vegas, and I was finally able to witness Circa’s Stadium Swim in person, and meet owner Derek Stevens (heck of a suit game). What an outstanding hotel and casino.

Altogether, it was a productive trip. As someone who knows all about building and executing a conference, I appreciate the work that goes into pulling it off. This event is massive, and I have no idea how the NAB makes it happen so flawlessly. This was the first time my head of sales, Stephanie Eads, got to attend the show. She loved it. Our only negative, going back and forth between convention halls can get exhausting. Wisely, Stephanie and Guaranty Media CEO Flynn Foster took advantage of the underground Tesla ride to move from the North hall to the West hall. I wasn’t as bright. If that’s the worst part of the experience though, that’s pretty solid. I look forward to returning in 2023, and attending the NAB’s NYC show this fall.

Additional:

You’ve likely seen posts from BSM/BNM on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn promoting a number of open positions. I’m adding crew to help us pump out more content, and that means we need more editors, news writers, features reporter’s and columnists. If you’re currently involved or previously worked in the industry and love to write about it, send a resume and few writing samples by email to JBarrett@sportsradiopd.com.

With that said, I’m excited to announce the addition of Ryan Brown as a weekly columnist for BSM. Ryan is part of ‘The Next Round’ in Birmingham, Alabama, which previously broadcast on WJOX as JOX Roundtable. The show left the terrestrial world in June 2021 to operate as its own entity. Ryan’s knowledge and opinions should provide a boost to the site, and I’m looking forward to featuring his columns every Tuesday. Keep an eye out for it tomorrow, and if you want to check out the guest piece he previously wrote for us, click here.

Demetri Ravanos and I have talked to a lot of people over the past month. More additions will be revealed soon. As always, thanks for the continued support of BSM and BNM.

Continue Reading

Barrett Blogs

Six New Contributors Join Barrett Media

“These latest additions will make our product better. Now the challenge is finding others to help us continue growing.”

Published

on

Building a brand starts with a vision. Once that vision is defined, you identify the people who fit what you’re creating, lay out the game plan, and turn them loose to execute. If the product you’re creating is original, fills a gap in the marketplace, and the work turned in by your team is consistently excellent and promoted in the right locations, more times than not you’ll build an audience.

As you grow, the focus turns to studying what your audience wants, needs, and expects from your brand. Certain things you expect to be big turn out small, and the things you saw limited upside in create opportunities you never saw coming. It’s critical to be open minded and ready to pivot while also examining where and when people consume your product, which pieces of content do and don’t matter, and then use that information to direct your team to give folks more of what they value and less of what they don’t. Team members should want that feedback too. It tells them what is and isn’t worth spending their time on.

As I lay all of that out it may sound like I’m talking about a radio station or television operation. These are the things programmers do frequently to make sure the talent, shows, and brand is satisfying the expectations of an audience. But what I’m actually referring to is the brand you’ve made a choice to click on to read this column, Barrett Media.

I’ve mentioned many times on this website how I started this operation by myself, and didn’t expect to have a team of writers involved in it. I was focused on consulting sports stations, sharing my programming views on this website, and as I cranked out content consistently, I discovered others loved the business like I did and had a desire to share their insights too. Rather than sticking to my original plan, I pivoted and increased our content offerings. In return, the audience grew, clients grew, and it’s led this brand to grow beyond my expectations. Now we cover sports AND news media, we run an annual conference, feature a membership program, create podcasts, deliver a daily 8@8 and three times per week BNM Rundown newsletter, and work with various brands and companies across the broadcasting industry. I’m extremely fortunate to be in this position and don’t take it for granted.

But with growth comes change. We’ve been blessed to have a lot of talented people contribute to this site over the years, and as they produce quality work, and others across the industry recognize it, they earn interest for their services. That then leads to some having to sign off for bigger opportunities. I see that as a great positive for the brand. Would it be nice to have more consistency and keep a crew together for years? Of course. I know it’d make Demetri’s life a lot easier. If we’re losing people for the right reasons though, and they’re landing opportunities that help them advance their careers, I’m going to be happy for their success, and trust that we’ll find others to keep us moving forward. The success of our team helps make what we do more attractive to others because it shows that if you do good consistent work here, you can put yourself in a position to attract attention.

Over the past two months, I have challenged Demetri Ravanos to invest more time talking to people about writing for us. Expanding our Barrett News Media roster is a priority. So too is adding quality people to help us improve Barrett Sports Media. BSM has had just under seven years to earn trust with readers. BNM has had less than two. We’ve put out ads on our website and newsletters, social posts, an ad on Indeed, and we’ve reached out directly to people who we’ve felt may be able to add something interesting to our brand. Most of my time is spent listening to stations and talking with clients, but my eyes are always roaming looking for content, and my mind is always thinking about what we can create next to make an impact.

I don’t judge our brand’s success based on clicks, shares, breaking news before other outlets or showing up in the top three listings on Google. I care more effort accuracy, timeliness, passion, consistency, storytelling, insight, and being fair and non-agenda driven. We’ve found our niche being able to tell stories about broadcasting professionals, relaying news, and offering expert knowledge to serve those involved in the broadcasting industry. If we continue to excel doing those things consistently, I’m confident our audience will reward us by reading and sharing more of our content. It’s why we never stop recruiting to keep things fresh.

Having said that, I am excited today to reveal six new additions to the Barrett Media staff. Peter Schwartz is a name and voice many in New York sports radio circles are familiar with. Peter has spent three decades working with various outlets and I’m thrilled to have him writing weekly feature stories for us. Brady Farkas is a talented host and former programmer who now works for WDEV in Burlington, VT. Karl Schoening is a play by play broadcaster who has worked in San Antonio sports radio and has had the added benefit of learning the industry from his talented father Bill who calls Spurs games. Each of them will produce bi-weekly feature stories for the brand. Jason Ence is in Louisville and has written about sports betting for Twin Spires while also working for ESPN 680. He’ll be writing sports betting content for us on a weekly basis. Jasper Jones will help us by adding news stories on Friday’s. He’s presently in Philadelphia learning the business working for Audacy. Last but not least, veteran author, Brewers writer, and former radio professional Jim Cryns comes on board to help us with features on news media professionals.

These six additions make us stronger, and I’m excited to have them join the team to help us add more quality content to the website. That said, we’re not done yet. Demetri and I are still talking with others and I expect to make a few more additions in the weeks ahead. As I said earlier, we want to improve the news media side of our operation and continue adding people to help us make a bigger dent in the sports media space. Broadcast companies invest in us to help them, and I believe it’s important to invest back.

If you’ve programmed, hosted a top rated show, worked in measurement, led a cluster as a GM, sold advertising, represented talent or have worked in digital and feel you have knowledge to share, reach out. I can’t promise we’ll have room but we’re always willing to listen. I’m not worried about whether or not you’ve written for professional publications. Passion, experience and unique insights matter much more than a resume or journalism degree.

I appreciate everyone who takes time to read our content, like and share it on social, and all involved with this brand who help bring it to life each day. The latest additions of Schwartz, Farkas, Schoening, Ence, Jones and Cryns will make our product better. Now the challenge is finding others to help us continue growing.

Continue Reading

Barrett Blogs

Programming In Fear Is a Recipe For Failure

“The best programmers go to work focused on making an impact and thinking about what could go right not what could go wrong.”

Published

on

If you haven’t read Demetri Ravanos’ column this week, which included feedback from five programmers on whether or not they’d hire sports radio’s equivalent of Deshaun Watson, you should. It’s interesting, enlightening and sparked my interest to write a follow up column.

When it comes to decision making in the media industry subjectivity is at the center of everything. It’s not as simple as the NFL where wins and losses are often decided by talent and coaching. Instead, our business is judged by a small amount of meters and their activity using our products as determined by Nielsen, and personal relationships formed with advertisers and media industry professionals. All three of these areas may be less than perfect in determining if something is going to work or not, but it’s the way it is.

Let’s start with something I think most of us can agree on – listeners spend time with brands and individuals that cut through the noise. Most will also agree that advertisers value that too. If a talent can attract an audience and convert them into customers on a consistent basis, a company will employ them. Advertisers will ask to be included in their program too. If issues with a host’s track record or character exist it may turn off a few sponsors, but when there’s money to be made, the bottom line usually wins.

It’s similar in some ways to the NFL, which is why players like Deshaun Watson, Tyreek Hill, Antonio Brown, Michael Vick, Aldon Smith, Kareem Hunt, Joe Mixon and others are given second, and in some instances third and fourth chances to play. In a league where wins and talent impact the bottom line, executives care more about success than their morale standing. I know some folks would prefer that to be different but competition and business success drives many to look past certain situations.

In every business, there are people who are dirt bags. You may not want to associate with them or see them receive second or third chances, but if they can help a team win, make the franchise money, and excite a fanbase by helping to deliver a championship, owners are going to turn a blind eye to outside issues. They’ll even pay these players insane amounts of money despite their problems. Just look at the recent deals inked by Watson and Hill.

I know radio and television isn’t exactly the NFL, but as I read Demetri’s column I couldn’t help but think about the dilemma radio programmers face; to hire the best talent and run the risk of dealing with increased attention by inviting baggage into the building or play it safe and hire people with less problems even if their talent level is lower.

We work in the media industry. The job is to deliver audience, and ad revenue. If someone possesses the ability to help you do that, you owe it to your bosses to look into it. If you are going to pass up hiring someone with special talent because you value character more, I applaud you. It’s commendable and speaks volumes about who you are. But producing high ratings and revenue isn’t determined by who’s a better person. If your competitor loses to you in the morale department but wins consistently in those two areas, you may one day be calling me for advice on saving your job or finding the next one.

Audiences care far less about an individual’s behavior or the negative PR you have to absorb. They simply listen and/or watch people they find interesting and entertaining. Did the Chiefs and Bucs sell less tickets after adding Hill, Mixon or Brown? The answer is no. Fans wanted to see their teams win, and as long as those players helped them do that, far less cared about whether or not those guys were good or bad people. I’m sure Browns fans will do the same with Watson if he delivers a title for the city of Cleveland.

This issue is red meat for many in the media because it makes for great discussion, and generates a lot of reaction. However, as nice as it’d be to have good people in every enviable position, this is a business, and what matters most is the final result in generating audience and advertising. Sometimes that means adding people who bring baggage through the door.

Advertisers aren’t much different than fans either. They may voice concerns or reject being connected to someone initially who comes with negative attention, but if people start to listen or watch, they’re going to want to be involved eventually because it presents an opportunity to improve their bottom line. It’s why you don’t see a surge of advertising partners abandon NFL teams after they sign or draft a player with a troubled past. If it’s good for business, exceptions will be made.

Some may not like hearing this, but a brand manager is paid to improve their brand’s business not to manage the media’s morality department. I’d much rather work with good people who provide little drama. It makes work more enjoyable. But this is the entertainment business. Some high profile stars have ego’s, issues, ridiculous demands, and they create a lot of bullshit. Some are worth it, some aren’t. If they can help attract big dollars and a large audience, it’s an executive’s job to find a way to employ them and manage them.

I’m not suggesting that we should hire everyone with a prior track record of problems. I’m also not advocating not to do background checks, ask questions, double check with references, and feel as comfortable as possible with who you’re adding. It’s important to analyze the risks vs. the rewards when hiring someone who may cause some initial blowback. Not everyone is worth a second or third chance. More times than not, the HR department is going to prefer you add people with minimal risk who make the hiring process easier. But if a special talent is available and they come with baggage, you can’t be afraid to make a move that can grow your brand’s performance and bottom line.

For example, you may dislike some of the prior incidents that Howard Stern, Joe Rogan, Craig Carton, Dave Portnoy, and Ryen Russillo were involved in, but they’ve all shown a consistent ability to deliver an audience, revenue, and relevance. I used those 5 personalities as examples because Demetri specifically used Deshaun Watson, a QB who is widely recognized as a Top 5 QB in the NFL as the example. He’s seen as a game changer on the field just as these personalities are recognized as stars behind the microphone. If a programmer had a chance to hire one of those talents and bypassed them because they were worried about the ‘noise’ they’d have to deal with, I hope and pray their competition takes a pass too. If not, they’d be paying for it for a long time.

That said, I would not put my career on the line for a talent who has twenty two counts of sexual misconduct hanging over their head. I’d tell them to handle their legal situation first and then wait and see how the situation plays out. You can tell me how special a talent is, and I’ll tell you I’m all for second chances and I’m not afraid to put my job on the line to hire someone exceptionally gifted, but I’m also not stupid. Most corporate companies are going to want no part of that association and neither are advertisers. It’d be a bad bet.

But in Watson’s case, he was cleared of the criminal charges. That was decided in a court of law. Are we supposed to never hire him even though he was found innocent? This world is littered with examples of people who are talented, have been accused of wrongdoing, have prevailed legally, and have gone on to make the most of second opportunities. Yet social media is often seen as an approval ground where ‘noise’ matters more than facts.

Human beings are flawed and do stupid things sometimes. It doesn’t make them bad people or not worthy of being hired again. We also have a legal system for a reason. If one is accused of a crime, they have their day in the court, and a judge and jury decides if they are guilty or innocent. For some reason, whenever a high profile individual is linked to a situation, we have a tendency to react quickly, often declaring them guilty and permanently damaged. But that’s not right, and it often blows up in our face.

How did that work out with the Duke lacrosse case? Or when Rafael Palmeiro waved his finger at congress and said he never took steroids? Instant reactions were the Duke lacrosse team needed to be put away for life, and the media needed to leave Palmeiro alone. We later learned, both reactions were wrong. The same thing just happened again with Watson. In the court of public opinion, he’s guilty. In a court of law, he’s not. There’s something very wrong with that picture.

The minute you hire a person connected to controversy you have to know people are going to bring it up, and media outlets are going to draw attention to it. So what? If people listen/watch, and clients spend, deal with it. From the movie industry to politics to the world or sports and the media business, there are many examples of highly skilled people with imperfect records that were worth betting on. You have to have thick skin and be able to absorb negativity if you’re going to hire and manage people. You’re responsible for serving the audience, advertising community, and growing a business, not being the most liked inside your office or on social media.

Secondly, speaking of social media, I think we place way too much value on what listeners say on Twitter and/or Facebook. The majority of your audience isn’t living on Twitter. If they’re not happy with your product, they’ll change the dial or avoid pressing the button to stream your content. There is a lot of good that comes from social media, but when you make decisions for a brand that could raise a few eyebrows, your best move is to tune it out. Let people say what they want. If you’ve done your homework and added an individual who’s capable of making an impact, trust your gut that it’ll be proven right over time.

Third, when you’re talking to someone who has gone through a situation that can potentially create headaches for the brand you represent, remember that they’re going to act remorseful and tell you what you want to hear. They’re hoping to land a high profile job and recover from a setback. Talking to others who’ve been around them and have history with them is part of the process, and hearing them out is too. After you’ve gathered your facts and weighed the pros and cons, it ultimately comes down to whether or not you trust them, believe in them, and have the courage to handle the heat that will soon hit you when you enter the kitchen.

You can avoid all of that and hire someone safer. Sometimes that works. But in a business where talent ultimately wins, others eventually find ways to improve. If the brands you compete with have the guts to take the risk that you didn’t, you may pay for it later. Which is why you can’t dismiss star talent with blemishes on their resumes. It’d be great if we could all go through life, do the right thing, and never have to answer questions for controversial decisions, but that’s not realistic.

I’ve shared this story before, back when I was in San Francisco in 2013, I hired Damon Bruce. He had previously generated heat for comments about not wanting women in his sandbox. It was a bad take, one he endured a lot of negative attention for, and despite apologizing and serving a suspension, nothing seemed to satisfy the masses. When we started talking, I entered those conversations knowing if I brought him on board I’d have to deal with the noise. I got to know him, talked to others, and reviewed the facts. One thing that stuck with me, he had never been in serious trouble and he had spent a decade working for the same employer. More times than not, you don’t work somewhere for that long if people don’t value you and enjoy working with you.

Damon would be the first to admit that back then he could be a pain in the ass, and he came to the table with public attention that made him harder to hire. I chose to believe in his talent, trust my eyes and ears, and focus on how he could help us improve our business. There were emails, tweets, and voicemail complaints I had to deal with but typing this now nine years later, after Damon just signed a three year extension to remain in afternoons at 95.7 The Game, I know the right call was made. He had to own his mistake, learn from it, and I had to have the courage to give him a shot and support him. In the end, everyone benefitted.

One story I haven’t shared, took place in 2006. I had just been hired to program Sports Talk 950 in Philadelphia, which has since become 97.5 The Fanatic. Our roster was bare, our lineup had national shows occupying the majority of the weekday schedule, and we needed more top level local talent to get to the next level. As I reviewed local and external options, I put Mike Missanelli and John Kincade high on my list. Ironically, they now both host drive time shows on The Fanatic.

Well, as we were preparing to reach out and talk to people, Missanelli got fired by WIP for ‘violating company policy’. It was alleged that he got into a physical altercation with a part time producer. I wasn’t there so I didn’t know all the facts, but the noise from that situation affected our process. When I raised the idea of meeting with him it was quickly dismissed. I knew he was ready for the next step, would have a chip on his shoulder to beat his former employer, and had a ton of local relationships which could be good for business. I was willing to meet and learn more, and if during that process we felt it made sense to bring him on board, I’d have handled the heat that came from it.

It never even started though. Others worried about the ‘noise’ and decided to pass up the opportunity to add a difference maker to the lineup. The brand struggled to gain traction for the next few years, and when Matt Nahigian arrived in town, he wisely went and hired Missanelli. Almost instantly, the success and perception of the brand changed. Now, The Fanatic consistently competes against WIP, and Missanelli has helped deliver a lot of wins in afternoons over the past 13-14 years.

Each person who makes a decision to hire someone has a lot to consider. If a radio talent is seen in a negative light because of prior history with other professionals or because they delivered an insensitive rant that’s much different than being found guilty of twenty two counts of sexual misconduct. Having said that, I worry that some managers ignore the facts (Watson was found not guilty) and will add a solid talent with less negative attention than a more talented person with extra baggage. As a programmer, would you have had the guts to hire Craig Carton after he served time? Would you have the stomach to handle the heat if Dave Portnoy worked for you and the Business Insider story cast a dark cloud over your brand? Would you stand by Joe Rogan when others attack him for comments made in the past or as artists pull their music because of not agreeing with his views?

I’m not sure if I’m right, wrong, smart or stupid, but I know this, if I believed in them enough to hire them knowing that the noise would increase the second they entered the office, then I’d do my best to have their back. I’d also not think twice about my future or whether or not my corporate boss had a bullseye on my back. I think the best programmers go to work focused on making an impact and thinking about what could go right not what could go wrong. If you program in fear and play it safe to avoid the noise, you run the risk of hearing silence. And sometimes that peace and quiet comes when you’re sitting at home rather than dealing with headaches inside of the office.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 Barrett Media.