TSN/CTV have Canadian rights for all games. I don't believe Prime games air on Prime here, if they do then it's on both. 

RadioAaron wrote:

Oh, not exclusively for sure. In addition to.

However in order to do that they'd have to drop one of their four stations under current regulations. If I'm in charge I'm only considering that for 590, and like you said, only if it's cheap.

RadioAaron wrote:

93.6 will not be shut down. At worst, Rogers will grab it for cheap for FAN or NEWS.

Too risky IMO. Signal is just slightly too weak. I think someone else buying 93.5 and keeping it as music is far more likely. Not my point, but for instance they couldn't even do "cottage country traffic" on NewsRadio 93.5 haha.

RadioActive wrote:

Broadcast Dialogue has an interesting interview with Steve Jones, Stingray's president. 

Check out this quote.:

“I think the challenge was we had a real difficult time explaining to listeners and clients what was different about Today Radio. It was hard to translate to clients what was unique about it…we know the variety we played was infinitely wider and conversations infinitely deeper, but it became a really difficult thing to communicate. When you can’t communicate what makes you interesting or different, I think you’re kind of doomed.”

So let me get this straight. A station that was based on having communication with listeners failed to communicate its purpose with listeners. Is that about it? How ironic!

Stingray bets on New Country in Toronto

It's nice when you can tell whenever a corporate quote is actually from that individual and not a proper PR/communications specialist, as that was one of the stupidest explanations I've ever heard. I'll tell ya what was hard to explain to advertisers: why they should buy time on a station with a 0.8 share. Flow 98.7 had consistently higher ratings, which is embarrassing for Stingray. 

Country on 93.5 will not do better than a 2 share unless they truly invest in marketing it. Today had some billboards but they were brutal and ineffective.

RadioActive wrote:

OK, but I very much doubt a 2-year-old is even aware of what they're watching. What an odd audience to count. 

Advertisers would disagree

paterson1 wrote:

Highest rated CFL game was between the Hamilton Ti-Cats and Ottawa which had over 722,000 viewers on TSN.

That's surprising

RadioActive wrote:

if this doesn’t end upon TSN 1050, will 680 take it?

Rogers owns the rights, so it will either be on 680 or nothing. I seem to recall a game getting shafted to 92.5 the other year. Must've been a Rogers rights Leafs/Raptors/Jays overlap or something similar.
 

Here I go kicking a dead horse...

CanCon regulations alone hurt the radio business. It's a completely arbitrary percentage imposed on a medium which has to be broad and play to the masses. If it's something the audience wants, stations will play it. That's their business to figure out. CanCon has resulted in a sham industry of mostly crap music that gets spun to death because Canada exports less than 10% of the global English popular music, yet stations here are forced to play 35% of it, if not more. Instead of the CRTC asking Canadians if they "like" Canadian Music and think radio should maintain the same level of support (which everyone says "yes" to), they should've done their own music callout research to see just how badly most of it scores, then base the required percentage off of that research. Even if just CanCon regulations were revised (reduced %, the reporting structure simplified, and a centralized database of qualified songs created), it would almost instantly make the product more palatable to the masses and easier on the broadcasters to manage. Don't even get me started on the Emerging & Indigenous music targets they've set. 

The common ownership policy is outdated too, AM stations shouldn't even count towards the limit given how few years they have left (at least operating in the English language). I agree with Steve that there could be incentives for things like having a local news reporter, live/local hosts, etc. Sliding scale model. Explain to me why the feds are ok with foreign companies like Google and Amazon having massive market share in their respective industries (bordering on monopolies), yet aren't ok with a Canadian media company owning four FM radio stations in one city!?! Make it make sense. The reach is night and day. Radio/TV common ownership fears are not practical concerns in the year 2024, and the CRTC needs to make swift and bold action if they want to keep Canadian media afloat. 

With that said, I didn't know until no

Radiowiz wrote:

So what's really more profitable?
680 News with their 7.7 share? 
Or NT 1010 with their 2.0 share? 

On one hand, there's higher ratings, but then, on the other hand there's far lower ratings with a lot less business expense. 

680. Probably around 30 employees on their payroll. Highest billings in the city would offset that easily. They have more spots per hour than anyone.
 

RadioActive wrote:

Honestly, you have to wonder how much it really costs to send a crew of between two and four on the road for a few games. Outside of airfare, hotel, meals and a few other expenses, it can't come to very much for a company like Rogers or Bell. They likely spend more than that for a few corporate lunches. A classic case of pennywise, pound foolish. 

Tens of thousands. If you operated a company as if it has one big chequing account, then it will not do well. Why should Rogers Ignite revenue offset the cost of some random radio guy in a different division? The fact of the matter is that very few people listen to games on the radio anymore, it would be less than 1% of the total audience. The vast majority of those listening to the game on radio are doing so because they're not near a TV, so it's simply treated as a backup option. I'm nostalgic for the way things used to be, and of course my preference would be to have these guys travel to all games, but unfortunately there's no business model for sending crews on the road anymore. The cost of doing so (even if small in the grand scheme), will not be offset by anything, and the stakes are so low that it doesn't matter in the same way that the TV announcers must be there to ensure a top-notch product. We need to stop whining about this. These guys are paid to watch hockey for a living.. there are bigger problems facing the industry. 

They've always promoted newstalk1010.com and chum1045.com on their broadcasts (not too sure about the others). What exactly do all of you think has changed as of late?

And I have to agree regarding Bounce CKLH... their music must be on shuffle, whereas it should be curated. C+ to Boom's A- in my view. 

Many journalists don't seem to understand the difference between Bell Canada and Bell Media. There's no way Bell Media even has 4,800 total employees. Someone in this thread suggesting that local radio stations in the year 2024 have 100 employees each is laughable. 

paterson1 wrote:

Regardless, after the wild weather over the last few years, they probably should have looked harder at having a covered stadium.  Also opens up the building to be used for more than just football. 

The problem is building a covered stadium in Orchard Park is pointless since snow covered streets would leave people unable to attend anyways. If they want a covered field, they'd need to be closer to Buffalo proper, if not downtown. 

RadioAaron wrote:

torontostan wrote:

Many children and young adults would be watching on laptops, tablets or smartphones..... not TV sets. 

You can up that to this middle-aged household.

Let me guess... DINKWI? (dual-income, no kids, with iPads)

Walter wrote:

In theory.  I doubt it.
 

Doubt what? There's about 40 years of evidence to prove it. What do you suggest they do? Play the anthem and go to bed?