The Affari Edge Blog

During the past few days, former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather has been the target of much hate for his assessment of the current state of the program he hosted for 23 years. But when one looks at what Rather said, HE hit the target with his comments while those throwing bitterness at him are clearly missing the point.

It all began the morning of Monday, June 11th, when Rather appeared via phone on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, hosted by Joe Scarborough. When the topic of conversation shifted to the current state of the CBS Evening news, currently ranked third in the Nielsen ratings among the three network newscasts, Rather gave his honest opinion. In short, he felt the people at CBS have been “dumbing it down, tarting it up,” by having Katie Couric host the program. This comment is the one that has set most people ablaze. But I ask, what’s so wrong about what he said?

When Couric announced in May 2006 she was moving from NBC’s Today Show to the CBS Evening News, there was much hoopla– 98% of it from CBS. In a day and age where fewer people are getting their daily news from old media (network TV, radio, and printed newspapers), CBS felt it had to re-invent the wheel. Instead of a stodgy old man like Rather or Bob Schieffer sitting behind a desk with a map of the world behind him, here was a vibrant woman at the tail end of the Baby Boom age range. She would sit behind a desk, but she would also stand in front of green screens with a lot of eye candy in the form of nice graphics and really shiny colors zipping by. She would also introduce guest opinion segments called “Free Speech”, a rare (by today’s standards) editorial piece from today’s biggest celebrities.

The biggest re-invention though would be on the internet, where the newscast supposedly would have met with a larger audience through various innovations such as a Couric blog, on-demand “editor’s cut” versions of interviews, a rundown of that night’s newscast in the afternoon, and an on-demand one-minute newscast on the top stories of the day. With the new and younger face, and the hi-tech additions to the old-fashioned newscast, where would CBS do its research to see how this new newscast should be carried out? CBS decided to send Couric out on a nationwide “town hall meeting” tour in the summer of 2006, going through several major cities to see what the “average person” wanted in his or her nightly news. That would prove to be the biggest mistake by CBS.

Nowadays everything is title “MY” this or “YOU” that thanks in part to successful new media platforms Myspace and You Tube. As online technology and information gathering and dispersal fly miles ahead of traditional media, anyone who runs a TV or radio station, or a printed newspaper, is panicking to get in to the mix. CBS depended too much on the “average person” factor in shaping its new version of the nightly news. As the average person knows, yet major broadcast networks still fail to understand, is what works in Los Angeles doesn’t necessarily work in Chicago. The people who went out of their way to speak with Couric at one of these gatherings probably weren’t watching the nightly news that night. Do you see what I’m getting at? While a carefully molded group of likely young women were collected at meeting sites, the 60-something white males who are the network news’ bread and butter were at home actually watching the news.

Following these meetings, and some additional research from a demographic much younger than the one that watches network news now, CBS radically altered the nightly news. With Couric, it brought in the softer side of hard news. Unfortunately for the people at CBS headquarters, it didn’t bring in the hoards of people expected. Ratings for the newscast were excellent at first in September 2006, but by the end of October CBS had returned to its familiar third place in the ratings. The situation hasn’t improved much since then, as it has become painfully clear that people who watch the network news on a regular basis don’t want soft news coming from someone who spent 16 years interviewing celebrity chefs and fashion designers on the Today show. There’s a good reason why “hard” news segments last only five minutes on national morning talk shows– people who watch those shows want chatter and not news.

So I ask again, what did Rather say that was so wrong? In an attempt to beef up ratings, CBS spent on a ton of money to lure a morning show interviewer away from the competition, spent even more money promoting that interviewer, and tried to change the content of network news for a generation of consumers not brought up on Walter Kronkite or David Brinkley. From the view of an old hawk like Rather, this was CBS “dumbing down” and “tarting up” what he knew as network news from the 1960s and 1970s for the vastly different world of the early 21st century.

Network news ratings as a whole have continued to decline over the years, while most people under the age of 50 (and specifically under the age of 30) now get their news online in one form or fashion. CBS tried to bring the two different realms of media together and it hasn’t worked yet. To be fair to Couric and CBS, this experiment is only nine months old and any measure of success for any TV or radio program should be done over a year’s time.

Still, in the end, we may see CBS shift back to its traditional hard news delivery, and according to some insiders it may not be Couric delivering it after the 2008 presidential election. CBS will fall back in line, and the big three network news makers will still have a low-rated nightly newscast simply because there are enough people in their twilight years sitting in the recliner watching it.

While running to nowhere on an elliptical machine yesterday morning, I was reading through my latest edition of TIME magazine and saw something that almost caused me to fall off the machine. Yes, it was the new logo for the 2012 Summer Olympics in London.

Like a bloody car wreck, I had to stare at it. Was this something representative of 2012? While we don’t know what the future holds, I certainly hope it doesn’t involve shapes and colors straight out of 1989. I mean, really? Who designed this mess? I bet you if you watch the opening credits to Saved By the Bell frame by frame you’ll probably see this design slipped in somewhere. I’m wondering if the designer won an episode of Nickelodeon’s Guts in the early 90s, and was inspired by his or her glowing piece of the AggroCrag.

There’s no doubt that this well-researched, heavily-financed logo is the ugliest thing seen in the Olympic games since Atlanta’s memorable Izzy from 1996. There’s also no doubt the creators of this horrific art piece are also getting something any artist would LOVE to have: free publicity.

Irish author Brendan Behan once said, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.” That is certainly the case with the 2012 logo. Thanks in part to the fanatical British media, and art critics from all around the world on the internet, people are talking about the 2012 London Olympics. In case you forgot, the next Olympics are in China in 2008. That alone is a major victory for the London Olympics committee.

While the Olympics are still a major event, and still give a major ratings boost to NBC every summer, unless the games are in your backyard quite a few people don’t care. Actually, I should clarify that as not too many people watch it from start to finish. The buzz for most Olympic games, again when not in your nation, is typically minimal until just a few days before opening ceremonies. For the London group, they’re getting a five-year head start on the buzz. They’re also getting creative.

If you go to the 2012 Olympics website, you can design your own Olympic logo for the games. To date, there have been more than 400 entries posted (although probably thousands of more unacceptable ones are sitting in some 2012 staffer’s in-box). It’s a great and fun response from the 2012 group: Okay, you don’t like it? Design one yourself and do better! After perusing through most of the posted entries, I can say without hesitation that everyone else’s sucks just as much as the official logo. Granted there are a few excellent submissions, and a couple of humorous ones, but most of them are pure crap. I suppose it’s just further proof that anyone can be a critic.

But if the 2012 logo follows through on Behan’s idea of publicity, if it does indeed die in favor of a new logo, than a public search and competition for the next great idea in the 2012 Olympic logo creation will not only generate a nicer logo it will also provide another stream of buzz going in to that Olympic games.

If you know of the tale of the ugly duckling, you know that eventually it becomes a swan. I don’t know if the 2012 logo will actually change into a beautiful swan, as in a brand new and more easy-on-the-eyes logo. In fact, the logo doesn’t have to change period. The London Olympics committee already got its beautiful swan: free publicity. And that’s a creature so beautiful, money just can’t buy it.

This morning I caught a very interesting segment on Bay News 9. The segment highlighted a new advertising medium that is making some noise in Clearwater. I suppose it is a form of outdoor advertising. And yes, it seems to be billboard-esc. Yet, this form of outdoor billboard is much different than your traditional, roadside board that you purchase through Clearchannel outdoor. This billboard has a sweeter ‘ring’ to it.

Located at the Chi Chi Rodriguez Golf Club in Clearwater is a billboard that is part of an outdoor phone booth. However, this is no ordinary phone booth. This booth allows users to make long distance calls nationwide - and to over 30 countries - for free. It costs the user nothing, and it also cost the host (in this case Rodriguez’s golf club) nothing. All the user has to do is make the call in front of the paid advertisement.

I believe this concept is very interesting. Since each call has a limited time, costs won’t be too outrageous. Also, if placed in the right places, these phone booths could create a lot of buzz and draw lots of attention - which eventually ups ad pricing. For example, placing these booths in airports would be a great idea. Travelers make long distance calls more than most individuals - making this placement a no-brainer. The booths would be particularly popular amongst international travelers. When you first arrive in a new country, there is nothing better than a free phone call home. When placed in high traffic locations (such as airports) it opens the door to more advertisers. Local restaurants and shops would fit in great as potential advertisers at these booths.

I believe these booths would also fair well on college campuses. Campuses house thousands of exchange students every year who are always looking for ways to communicate with their families back home. These boards would also get plenty of exposure on campuses, especially at some of the nation’s larger institutions. I know I personally would visit these booths regularly, just to catch up with friends of mine who reside overseas. In fact, I would even be inclined to fill out a survey while on the phone since the call is completely free.

Either I am hung up on this news segment that I watched this morning, or there really is some potential with this new medium. I believe the units need to be strategically placed - meaning no more golf courses - in order to be effective while producing a good return on investment. I believe we will begin to see much more of these “simple-service” ads if this campaign proves successful. I look forward to running into one of these booths in the future, not only to give my Swedish friend Daniel a call, but to also observe this medium’s growth.

…but thank God the Stanley Cup Finals are over! At least that is what most people (especially NBC advertisers) are saying. If you haven’t heard about it by now, Game 3 of the NHL Stanley Cup Finals made history for NBC. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the ‘bragging-rights’ kind of history. Game 3 exhibited the lowest rating of all time for an NBC prime time program. Never before had NBC run a program with such a low reach, share, you name it during prime time.

ESPN talk shows normally discuss the competitiveness and the story lines that are balled-up in this historical series. This week, however, most ESPN talk shows focused on the fact that nobody is watching the Stanley Cup Finals. As hockey sports analysts cried out to fans, sports reporters began devising new systems to bring viewers back to the NHL.

Until the Stanley Cup Finals, playoff games could only be found on cable channel VS. NBC covered a game or two during weekends, but they never put the NHL playoffs on prime time network television. This week’s numbers show that it just doesn’t belong.

Historically, sports have not done well on prime time network television. In fact, the only sports programs that seem to produce great numbers are football championships (NCAA and NFL of course). Even though MLB and NBA playoffs and championships aren’t the best prime time sports producers, they have proved to be more desired that the NHL championship.

When the Lightning were in the playoffs for a whole (1) series, I wondered why they weren’t broadcasting the games on the major sports channels, or even on network television. I now see how terribly the NHL sits among American viewers.

Hopefully we acquire an ice skate client here in the coming year. We will be able to get them some great TV spots on prime time national television for super cheap! That is, if NBC dares to duplicate its risky prime time NHL broadcast again next year.

Recently, Sam Leccima, a regional host of A&E’s popular show Flip This House was accused of fraud following a story by Atlanta television station WAGA.

In the story, Leccima is accused of “fixing up” houses on the program with shoddy or temporary repairs that looked good on camera but didn’t actually make the house any nicer or safer. The bigger issue though is how Leccima allegedly had his friends or family members pose as potential buyers to the “flipped” house, then “sold” the house to the buyer even though he didn’t own the house. The reaction from A&E was fast and predictable: all reruns of the program featuring Leccima were pulled and any references of him on the network’s website were removed. What’s interesting though is what Leccima claims A&E, and the production company Departure Films, knew about the scam he was pulling. In short, he claims they knew exactly what he was up to.

In an Associated Press report on the allegations, Leccima claims, “Ask anybody who works in television how a reality show is made and you’ll find that ours was a very typical approach.” Leccima is right in this assessment, and it once again exposes one of the pitfalls of reality programming: it’s not always as real as it seems. Fudging the truth for the sake of entertainment (and larger ratings) is no secret in the reality TV world. Whether it was “re-doing” contest scenes in Survivor or cleverly editing audio on any of the popular dating shows to make a suitor seem nicer or bitchier, production companies and networks know that 100% truth does not stream from the final product. The networks and production companies also shouldn’t expect that to change as a poll by TIME magazine in 2006 showed more than half of the respondents weren’t looking for honesty in their favorite shows anyways. In fact, only 25% of the respondents thought reality shows were almost entirely or completely fake.

But this story has an interesting twist, far more alarming than “did so-and-so do such-and-such behind the bushes in that one episode”. Leccima claimed in the program he was a successful Atlanta-area real estate investor. Problem is, he wasn’t licensed. In fact, his license was revoked by the Georgia Real Estate Commission in 2005, a full year before his episodes were aired. The reason for the revocation: he “does not bear a good reputation for honesty, trustworthiness, integrity, and competence.” These claims were made after several complaints were filed from investors who said Leccima stole their money. After Leccima’s episodes aired on A&E, his phone allegedly rang off the hook from potential investors who wanted to give money to a man who apparently could fix up anything. Basically, this program became an infomercial for an alleged crook.

That’s the biggest problem in this whole mess. Nevermind the smoke and mirrors Leccima allegedly pulled out for his shows, but look at the greater picture of how everyone turned a blind eye to this guy’s past for the sake of a network’s highly-rated program. Networks keep pumping out reality programming because it’s cheap to produce, often featuring “every day people” or unheard of hosts who are cheap to work with. There’s rarely an expensive set or pricey actors to deal with, so the network makes money hand over fist with high ad rates for the most popular programs.

But when the network can’t see the forest through the trees, and can’t do its diligent homework on who they’re showcasing on their network, the reality of promoting a con artist is too real and all too possible.

After attending Bright House’s “New Technology of Advertising” seminar last week, I was really impressed by some of the new services the media provider has to offer. Bright House has found several ways to make television advertising interactive. By incorporating ad banners, surveys, direct mail, and Marketplace On Demand, Bright House has created a way to bring advertising into homes that we have never seen before in the Tampa market.

One of the new channels is Marketplace On Demand. I have actually seen the ad spot on TV several times since originally viewing it at the seminar. Basically, Bright House has created an on demand channel for products and services. Anything from real estate to auto dealers can be found on the channel. It works by categorizing all of the products and services, and then sub-categorizing them so that users can pinpoint exactly what they are looking for. After they select the product or service that they are interested in, a video will play the actual advertisement. The cool part of advertising on this channel is that you can see exactly how many viewers tune into your ad and how long they stay. For example, if you had a real estate client and you advertised on Marketplace On Demand, you would categorize it according to price range, location, etc.

Another very innovative feature is Bright House’s new “Request for Information” program. This program runs during your company’s regularly scheduled commercials. The difference is that once your commercial starts playing, a tool bar scrolls up at the bottom of the TV screen. Usually there is one line of text and three options below labeled “a”, “b”, and “c”. (These lettered buttons can be found on all Bright House remote controls.) A great example is a campaign that a local car repair shop is currently running. The text reads “Are you interested in…” and each letter reads “A. discounts on new brakes”, “B. coupons for an oil change”, and “C. special offers on tune ups.” If the viewer selects any of these options, he/she is taken to a different page that allows him/her to request information. Bright House then mails the special coupons to the viewer’s home address directly.

Sure, this feature is really innovative and neat, but it is actually much more valuable than it may seem. This feature combines the tools of television advertising with direct mail. Here’s the best part, not only does Bright House take care of sending the mailing, postage and address information, but they only send the mail pieces to individuals who are interested in the product/service. Regular direct mail campaigns have a return rate at around 2%. This excellent feature allows you to cut the losses usually incurred from launching massive direct mail campaigns. Brilliant!

Advances like these are what our industry needs in order to maintain its growth. Bright House is doing a fine job in adapting to the ever-changing media marketplace, and I look forward to seeing what other advancements they have in store for our market - and our clients.

Most influencing medium: Television. Demo most able to be influenced: Teens.

So why are so many ad professionals ripping their hair out over this generation? With so much hype in internet advertising, many companies may be missing out on the real deal. Sure, teens these days may be more educated when it comes to traditional advertising and commercials, but they aren’t smarter than us. They may not buy in to your classic, Ogilvy print ad anymore. A plain commercial on MTV may not bring you the ROI you want. But there is still one method of convincing these individuals that your product is perfect for them.

MTV has become so successful among teens for one reason. The station has aligned its programming, images, and storylines with those that this demo truly desires. This demo can directly relate with these programs because many of them portray the ideal lifestyle among this age group.

The hit show Entourage has done the same thing among a slightly older crowd. Vincent Chase lives a life of sex, fortune and fame with a sleek sense of style that every 18 - 30+ year old desires. It is amazing just how much product placement is in each episode of Entourage. Everything from cars, clothes and jewelry can be found from scene to scene in the show. Basically, the show ‘teaches’ viewers how to live the ‘good life’ and what it takes to gain and maintain that high social status that seemingly only exists in Los Angeles.

It seems that product placement is still one of the best forms of advertising - when done correctly. PP really works well on Entourage and MTV. Most advertisers on these programs incorporate products that fit into the lifestyle that the shows promote. In Entourage, you don’t see a Nike store along the street. Instead, one of the characters debates classic Nike shoes that are “hip and cool” with another character. Entourage has done a fine job of using PP to enhance the show. Products advertised in Entourage are all part of the stereotypical L.A. lifestyle. By bringing these products in and using them to define the show’s characters, the advertising not only generates some income for the show, but also spices it up. Without this PP, the show would probably die. It’s the luxury cars, designer clothes, and expensive toys that make Vincent Chase so cool and popular among the audience. While many people complain about PP, I applaud Entourage for using it, and using it well.

MTV also has its fair share of product placement - which is to be expected being that it is the premier television concourse for teens. Everyone from Apple to Hummer can be found on screen. MTV’s music videos are bursting with PP. Fancy cars, sunglasses, and (sometimes ridiculous) jewelry get more air time than most of the actual artists do. The problem with this PP is the fact that MTV isn’t receiving the benefits or the actual advertising dollars. Since the products are featured in music videos, the artists are collecting the benefits. MTV only receives payment for PP in its shows - which is a mere fraction of the PP that can be found in these music videos. Nonetheless, the advertisers are still getting great exposure.

These two examples illustrate the power of product placement, and how important it is to find the proper media niche for your particular product. If your product is something that can really enhance a show or program, then your PP campaign will have a lot of potential. I promise from now on you will never watch Entourage the same again.

During the past several years, the usage of digital video recorders (DVR) such as TiVo and those provided by cable and satellite providers has increased to a national average of 17% of households in America. With that number expected to jump into the upper 20s by the end of 2008, the “Big Four” networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX) and advertisers are jumping up and down worrying about whether or not viewers who watch a show are actually watching the ads. This week, and thanks to superb coverage of this issue by the New York Times, it has been revealed the networks and Nielsen Media Research have agreed to a unique way of accounting for audiences with live and recorded viewing. The system is called “live plus three”, a ratings report generated by Nielsen that will account for total viewers who watch a program live or via DVR within 72 hours of its original broadcast. While the new approach is intriguing, will it truly measure the total audience for a show? And will it appease both networks and advertisers who have been dragged kicking and screaming into the changing world of media?

The need for an accurate ratings system is imperative. As of just a few months ago, Nielsen’s prime source of information was the old-fashioned method of sending paper diaries to viewers in the hopes the viewer actually remembers what he or she was watching that day in case they didn’t write it down while watching TV. If you’ve ever taken part in one of those surveys, and I must admit I have before, it’s not as easy as it sounds. With the technology available today, Nielsen is FINALLY moving into the 21st century by collecting data through digital means, and through info collected by DVRs themselves. Accurate ratings are crucial to both the networks and advertisers. For networks, accounting for the “lost” viewers who record and later watch a program helps them raise ad rates since they have a clearer picture over who is watching their programs. For advertisers, an accurate number helps determine if a particular ad campaign on a particular network is paying off those big bucks spent on the spots. But I’m not so sure the “live plus three” is the best solution for this issue, although it is a start.

In Stuart Elliott’s article, the idea of “live plus seven” was apparently floated out to the networks and advertisers only to get shot down. This is curious to me because BOTH parties could use the “live plus seven” method to their advantages, and the capability of providing those numbers is available from Nielsen. I bring this up as an issue because some of us have hours and hours of prerecorded TV shows we haven’t watched yet, and they happen to be more than three days old. I actually have three or four episodes of House I have yet to watch, but I know when I get a free afternoon I will finally catch up on one of my favorite shows. I also haven’t watched last week’s edition of The Office yet, but I know I will watch it tonight before the season finale’. Both NBC and its advertisers have “lost” me, and since I love the show (and have since day one… I’m one of the few who can say that) they may want to count me in their final numbers.

Right there is the dilemma both parties are fighting. The networks would like to have the seven day report because those of us who take our sweet time watching a recorded show can be counted. That would mean bigger numbers, higher ad rates, and ultimately more revenue for the networks. Outside of revenue, a true accounting of viewers may also do the networks a great service since so many people think the Big Four are losing their relevance in today’s media-savvy society.

The advertisers, however, want instant gratification… and you can hardly blame them. Corporations spend billions and billions of dollars in national advertising in the hopes of generating and maintaining a consumer base. Even if viewers aren’t watching the commercials live or when the program is prerecorded on a DVR, the numbers generated will justify a corporation or ad agency to spend more or cut back on a particular show or network. With so much money at stake, and even a few corporations’ public image as well, the instant turnaround when it comes to results is a given. Viewers either really love a commercial, or they really hate it. Why spend more in seven days to air a spot that isn’t received well, and why hold back when consumers want more?

The division of interests has caused some tension between the parties. As it is stated in the aforementioned article, CBS president of sales Jo Ann Ross said, “This is still a gentleman’s business. You do business on gentleman’s agreements.” The article goes on to suggest CBS would really like the advertisers to try the seven-day method, and to let them “write the business” where recorded viewing is factored in to ad rates. I applaud CBS (and it appears other networks are leaning this way) for trying to get the best of both worlds with the seven-day plan. But in these days where the bottom line is everything with the Wall Street giants (the networks and advertisers) money talks and common sense walks. The advertisers want to make key financial decisions not just for a season or month of programming, but for individual episodes as well. The networks need every dollar that walks through the door, so the “gentleman’s agreement” gets done. That means both sides are still left a little short in my opinion.

For advertisers, I can’t see why a seven-day or even a 30-day plan can’t be effective. Sure, there are some products or services (such as movie releases, national car sales, etc.) that are time-sensitive. But even if a viewer sees a commercial for an “expired” product or service, didn’t the viewer still see the spot? It’s almost the “if a tree falls in the woods…” scenario. If I see an ad for a Ford F-150 that originally ran in April, wasn’t I exposed to the product? I may not be able to get that truck for the exact same monthly payment or interest rate advertised, but that won’t stop me from thinking it’s a pretty nice truck. The same goes for movies. I may be watching an ad for Spiderman 3 three weeks after the movie was first released, but does that mean I won’t go out and see it now? Does it also mean I won’t order it on Netflix or buy it when it comes out on DVD? NO! This short-sightedness is one reason why advertising in mainstream media is so fluky.

Another problem with the advertising world is why is advertising so crucial on the “Big Four”? Yes the message typically gets out to more people than the cable networks, but getting a message to your intended audience seems to make more sense to me (and also justifies your media spending a bit more). That F-150 ad would look better on CMT, GAC, or ESPN instead of in the middle of a “Heroes” episode. The Spiderman trailer might be more successful when used on the Sci-Fi channel, Cartoon Network, or Nickelodeon instead of lost in a sea of ads during “Ugly Betty”. Creative ads playing on You Tube or downloaded via iTunes would also hit that target consumer better than the “mass media”. It’s just another sign that some advertisers clearly haven’t figured out how to reach the consumers they want through new media.

As for the broadcasters, I would think the accounting of a show beyond seven days would be helpful in determining the real success of a show (and of course the ad rates). If a network discovers an extra one million viewers watched an episode of a show 8-14 days after it originally aired, could that save a show from getting canceled? Could it help a network show advertisers fans of shows are loyal to programming for weeks and weeks and not just 30 minutes a week? Could it also help networks devise programming and advertising methods that help viewers become more interactive with the show? If I’m told I could win a million dollars by answering a trivia question about a show online, but only after I watch the show live in its original airing, you can bet I’ll find some way to shift my schedule around for that carrot on a stick.

For now, both sides will wade through the waters of this new agreement to see how it works. It is a start, but I think the data available now can be used for better purposes on both sides. But since the advertisers need to make shrewd decisions now, and the networks need every penny they can squeeze out of them, I won’t hold my breath for things to change.

SOME OTHER NOTES ON ADVERTISING:

* It’s a bit of a spoiler, but NBC’s three-minute preview of tonight’s “The Office” on YouTube is simply genius. I was going to watch the show already, but now I’m so amped up for it I will probably watch it live! Note to networks: this is the use of new media as the “carrot on the stick” I was referring to before.

* The Orbit chewing gum commercials have grown old with me, mostly because they’re just plain silly (or in some cases not). But this commercial had me howling when I first saw it last night:

* On the not-so-funny end, in 2003 NHL player Dany Heatley was speeding in his car in a residential neighborhood in Atlanta. He lost control of his car, causing a wreck that killed his Atlanta Thrashers’ teammate Dan Snyder. Snyder’s parents are traveling across the U.S. and Canada to spread the word about their son. While they have forgiven Heatley, they haven’t forgotten what has happened. The use of Heatley in the Versus network’s bumpers for the NHL playoffs, where Heatley (now playing for the Ottawa Senators) proudly proclaims the playoffs are “do or die” time, just doesn’t feel right to me.

* Finally, success finds the most unexpected people at the most unexpected time. Just ask the guy who plays the role of the Geico caveman.

This summer, the sports talk radio format turns 20, practically a baby since broadcast radio’s first “official” station signed on 87 years ago. What was just an experiment by what is now WFAN-AM in New York City in that summer of ‘87 has since blossomed into one of the most lucrative and popular formats in the world. But in the past few years, the actual discussion of sports on sports talk radio has decreased. Oh sure, there’s still plenty of discussion about the biggest sports stories in national and local sports talk, but the keen ear will notice an increasing number of “guy talk” taking over the airwaves. And I hate to break this to you die-hard sports fans, but the trend will continue as long as radio continues to operate under the corporate structure it is in now.

Since the birth of the format, sports talk has become one of the most lucrative formats in radio. Some markets have THREE sports talkers competing against each other for slim ratings, but huge dividends when it comes to advertisers. Much like traditional news talk, sports talk draws a typically white male, age 25-54, who has a lot of disposable income for big-ticket items such as luxury cars, home mortgages, and investment banking. You don’t often hear commercials for “Bob’s Used Car Depot” on a sports talker, as it typically features car spots for Lexus, Cadillac, BMW, etc. Advertisers know sports talk fans have this money, because sports talk fans will buy anything representative of his or her favorite team or player. I dare you to walk into a grocery store and try NOT to find at least five people wearing SOMETHING with a sports logo on it.

With all of this money getting poured into sports talk stations, you would think sports talk would be at its best to bring in more listeners. But today, that is not the case as “guy talk” has started to take over the format.

Now I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “Matt, a lot of guys listen to sports talk, so what’s wrong with guy talk?” My response is, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with guy talk. But guy talk only has a small part in the world of sports talk. There’s a time and place for discussion of boobs, beer, and fart jokes, but the last time I checked the name of the format was “sports” talk. Think of it like alcohol: there’s a time and place to have a few stiff drinks, but when you have too much all the time you tend to become less of a social butterfly and more of a pain in the ass. So why the shift to “guy talk” and is it bad for the industry and those who advertise in it?

There are several culprits to this guy talk takeover, but there are two in particular that stand out in my opinion. First, the corporate nature of radio (and broadcasting in general) has forced stations to make decisions based on money and not quality of programming. It’s not cheap to field a mostly live and local cast of talent, especially if you’re in a top 25 market. If you do the math, five hosts for weekday programming from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. at $50,000 each (on average) will cost you $250,000 a year… and that’s just to cover the cost of the talent. Once you add an engineer, producers, a sales staff, and equipment purchases and maintenance, you’re looking at upwards of $500,000 just to stay on the air! With major corporations such as Clear Channel, CBS Radio, and others riding the wave of Wall Street with these stations, you just can’t sink so much money into a station. So corners get cut by having only two live shows a day, two part-time producers, and no remote broadcasts since it costs a lot of money to purchase and maintain station vehicles and broadcast equipment.

By trimming down the budget, the quality of the prgramming typically gets cut. With only two live and local shows, you have only six or seven hours of local programming while the remainder of the day is filled with satellite programming based in Bristol, Connecticut (ESPN), or Los Angeles (Fox Sports). It’s pretty safe to say whatever is considered big news in L.A. most likely isn’t that big in Tampa, or Baltimore, or even Atlanta. But a primarily satellite-run station saves money, and the owner of a station can save even more by hiring sub-par talent, the second big culprit in this guy talk mess.

It seems today the top qualifications of a sports talk host is a) say the dumbest thing first, and b) say it the loudest. Sports talk radio is filled with windbags who like to speak first and ask questions later. Gone are the days of research, confidential sources, and an understanding knowledge of certain sports and the people who participate in them. It is so much easier to say, “Alex Rodriguez sucks!”, then to explain why he sucks or why the people who says he sucks actually suck themselves. Too many sports talk hosts now walk in to a studio literally 15 minutes before a show, read the headlines in the local paper, and try to make a three or four-hour show out of that. Such a lack of preparation devolves into “poll question radio”. Instead of discussing how Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter together make the Yankees a force to be reckoned with, the unprepared host simply asks, “Who’s better: Alex Rodriguez or Derek Jeter?”, and waits for the phone calls to come in. Once the host gets some responses, then the real talking out of one’s behind begins. Instead of backing up statements and opinions with facts, the host spits out his or her thoughts on a subject simply to shoot down a listener. This is most evidenced in the discussion of steroids in sports, when hosts accuse athletes of using steroids simply because “he has a big head” or ” he gained 30 pounds in 10 years”. No medical research, no doctors or scientists as guests, just a shot in the dark with the hope of a target getting hit.

The lack of show prep in sports devolves to “guy talk”. Not everybody can break down why the Kansas City Royals are a trainwreck or why the acquisition of Randy Moss by the New England Patriots is a good deal for the Pats and his former team, the Oakland Raiders. But ANYONE can have an opinion on American Idol results, who should win an Oscar, or which NFL team has the hottest cheerleaders. Why do hours of homework on an upcoming league draft or dissecting the NHL playoffs when you can just talk about your favorite HBO show or throw out some hot-button issues like racism or politics? Call this the trickle-down theory of sports talk if you want. Cheap station owners hire cheap talent who in turn don’t want to invest his or her time in hosting an entertaining sports-based show. Despite the criticism of sports fans such as myself, the format is far from hurting.

Sports talk stations are putting up huge numbers in some markets, and even in the markets where three stations fight for the same audience, they still earn enough of a presence in the ratings to justify their existence and charge big rates for advertising. But does big ratings equal good radio? In my opinion, no. In fact, the flawed ratings system that is Arbitron actually HURTS radio. It all goes back to the corporate structure of radio, as most program directors in charge of these sports stations have never hosted a sports talk show ever. In fact, some sports talk program directors have been handed the job title because they can program a rock station or a country station– two formats that also grab the typically wealthier male. Some radio stations owners, in the interest of saving a big salary for a sports-minded program director, instead give the title of PD to a rock station or a country station because he or she has successfully pulled decent numbers from the same demo. While a male in the 25-54 demo may seem to be the same person to these PD’s, there’s a big difference between a sports talk listener and someone who listens to a rock station, country station, or even a news talk station.

The difference is the knowledge and the passion of sports fans. I’m not saying someone who listens to Metallica, Toby Keith, or Sean Hannity more often than not can’t be a sports fan. What I am saying though is people who listen to sports talk on a regular basis are a different breed than the others. These people know sports inside and out, as opposed to someone who casually watches sports while spending a lot of time in the pickup truck listening to Nirvana, the Dixie Chicks, or Glenn Beck. With the radio stations hiring cheap talent that half-asses its way through a daily show, the die-hard sports fans are getting kicked aside for the lowest common denominatior. Sure, the sports talkers are getting the big numbers, but the numbers are people who don’t live, eat, breathe, drink, and sleep sports. That in turn hurts the advertisers.

The message an advertiser sends is reaching more people, but not necessarily the right people. A format that is supposed to aim to the educated, passionate, and somewhat wealthy is now being inundated by the common man due to the common programming. Discussions about hot women, reality shows, and getting drunk in Costa Rica on your most recent vacation draws the younger crowd– a crowd that may not have the financial means to buy that Lexus or lock in that fixed-rate home mortgage. By watering down the talent, who then waters down the content, the once rich sports talk audience is now watered down with a lot of common people who probably can’t afford or don’t want to buy what advertisers are selling.

While this trend, and I hope it’s only a trend, is ruining sports talk radio now, it is really helping online sports discussions. Daily blogs such as Mike Florio’s Pro Football Talk or in-depth analysis from ESPN’s Insider or Fox Sports’ talented writers offer so much more in one column than most sports talk hosts can in one show. Even sports story posting boards such as Ben Maller’s or Drew Curtis’ FARK boards can offer more insight into a topic than the poll questions from hosts like, “Who’s better: Shaq or Kobe?” With the digital age in full swing, and more and more advertisers getting more bang for their buck in targeting sports junkies online, one can only wonder how much longer sports talk radio stations can maintain the charade of providing the right type of audience to big-spending national and regional clients.

You also have to wonder when the talent will get better on these stations, answering tough questions about why my favorite team didn’t go far in the playoffs instead of asking who should have been voted off American Idol last night. Until the stations make those changes, and I won’t hold my breath, I’ll just keep getting my info from trusty online sources.

And so will the next generation of well-to-do sports fans.