Offline
I was out running errands on Sunday afternoon and trying to listen to the Blue Jays spring training game on The Fan 590. I say "trying" because they did not make it easy. They were simulcasting the TV audio and this was an especially bad decision.
In addition to not saying the score for innings at a time (because it's aways on screen - which doesn't help you at all on the radio) they also referred to graphics that listeners had no way of seeing. And they never once joined back in on time. Which meant Ben Shuman (not Dan) calling the game always came back after a break in the middle of a word or a sentence. They didn't get it right even once.
And then came the middle innings, when Kevin Gausman finished his work for the day. The TV broadcast got an interview with the starter, which went on for the entire inning. Only problem was the game was still going on and while viewers could see what was happening on the field, radio listeners only heard from Gausman.
Did someone hit a home run? Get a key base hit? Strike out? Who knows, because for an entire inning, we never heard anything about the actual game as it was going on.
I realize radio isn't their primary concern and this is a mostly meaningless spring game, but honestly - if you're going to try to serve two masters, acknowledge that there's more to it than just the visual. What a huge disservice for part of their audience.
If you know you're doing both media at once, at least give the score verbally once in a while. And don't write off an entire inning.
On Sunday, it wasn't any of the players who struck out. It was Sportsnet Radio.
Offline
But how much money did they save?
Offline
There's the old cliche that television is radio with pictures. I know people who actually watch the TV image but listen to the radio commentary. The solution is very simple Call it as a radio game and forget the mindless chatter. Simulcast the audio on radio, and save the money. All they need to do is keep the commercial breaks the same duration. Save the cost of the whole radio crew.
Offline
Skywave wrote:
There's the old cliche that television is radio with pictures. I know people who actually watch the TV image but listen to the radio commentary. The solution is very simple Call it as a radio game and forget the mindless chatter. Simulcast the audio on radio, and save the money. All they need to do is keep the commercial breaks the same duration. Save the cost of the whole radio crew.
Radio is gong to be less than 5% of the audience. Makes no sense to cater the audio to them.
Offline
You probably care more than they do...
Offline
Saul wrote:
You probably care more than they do...
Maybe. But I just figure if you're going to broadcast the game, at least do it right. And for God's sake give the score once in a while, even if you're also on TV.
Offline
RadioActive wrote:
Saul wrote:
You probably care more than they do...
Maybe. But I just figure if you're going to broadcast the game, at least do it right. And for God's sake give the score once in a while, even if you're also on TV.
Not saying I don't agree with you. I do. I just don't think they care... maybe it's just the preseason. Guess we'll find out soon...
Offline
RadioAaron wrote:
Radio is gong to be less than 5% of the audience. Makes no sense to cater the audio to them.
Yes, that's right. The blind are less than 5%. Who cares about them.
Online!
This is fairly commonplace for Sportsnet’s baseball coverage, especially when they are just rebroadcasting the TV coverage. I must have tuned in briefly during the Gausman interview as I thought the game wasn’t on or over, and I moved on, I didn’t realize it was Gausman to boot!
Offline
I wonder if Rogers management reminds the TV announcers that it is simulcasting on radio and to remember that during the telecast.