Local Media Coverage Of The San Jose Sharks Is Pathetic

[TealTown22]

The latest on TealTownUSA -> http://tealtownusa.com/2019/03/local-media-coverage-of-the-san-jose-sharks-is-pathetic/

Click to read more...

 

[Used As A Shield]

Yep, it is bad. Nice article though, wasn't expecting you to look that far into it.

 

[TealTown22]

Thanks. I appreciate the feedback.

 

[Solmors]

Nice summary, I liked it. I think you missed one though, India TV USA: USA San Jose Sharks Hockey Archives - INDTVUSA

And I agree that the Warriors being so good really hurt the Sharks media coverage.

 

[Groo]

Yeah, 95.7 almost exculsively snorkles the Warriors.
Heard Papa talking up the NFL draft this afternoon. A pleasant surprise

 

[one2gamble]

The warriors are special, that said. 30 minutes a couple times a week should be doable for the media and the sharks should help make it happen by making people available. For a long time they had shit social media and marketing. They fixed that receintly, this should be next on their list

 

[slocal]

Very nice rundown. Thank you.

I did a doubletake at Chris Tierney working for 95.7. Wasn't it Brandon Tierney?

 

[ChompChomp]

Nice summary, I liked it. I think you missed one though, India TV USA: USA San Jose Sharks Hockey Archives - INDTVUSA

And I agree that the Warriors being so good really hurt the Sharks media coverage.

When the Warriors were terrible, the Sharks media coverage still sucked.

 

[ChompChomp]

Good piece, thanks. The big problem isn't coverage, it's popularity/TV ratings. If the Sharks could get more people in the Bay Area to watch and take an interest, the coverage would increase. I don't thinking increasing the coverage would really help increase ratings/interest.

 

[tiburon12]

I remember talking to my Ranger-fan friend who lives in NYC and encouraging him to subscribe to the Athletic, to which he responded "we have so much local coverage of the Rangers, i don't need to pay for stories".

It would be nice to be in that scenario

 

[tiburon12]

Good piece, thanks. The big problem isn't coverage, it's popularity/TV ratings. If the Sharks could get more people in the Bay Area to watch and take an interest, the coverage would increase. I don't thinking increasing the coverage would really help increase ratings/interest.

Greg Wyshynski just moved to the Bay Area. I hope that bolsters Sharks coverage on ESPN and his other podcasts. He was pretty close to the Caps organization when he lived in DC and was working for Yahoo, perhaps that model can be replicated in SJ

 

[SnarkAttack]

I like Tolbert. His interviews with Remenda always were entertaining.

 

[TealTown22]

The warriors are special, that said. 30 minutes a couple times a week should be doable for the media and the sharks should help make it happen by making people available. For a long time they had **** social media and marketing. They fixed that receintly, this should be next on their list

Totally agree, but whether it's writers like Kurz, Gackle, Goldman, the broadcast crew, front office people, or players, people are always available.

 

[TealTown22]

Very nice rundown. Thank you.

I did a doubletake at Chris Tierney working for 95.7. Wasn't it Brandon Tierney?

Oops! Thanks for the heads up.

 

[TealTown22]

Good piece, thanks. The big problem isn't coverage, it's popularity/TV ratings. If the Sharks could get more people in the Bay Area to watch and take an interest, the coverage would increase. I don't thinking increasing the coverage would really help increase ratings/interest.

I disagree. I think if the local media outlets updated their sites and social accounts regularly with Sharks info, like scores/trades/etc, some might take notice and check them out. As they say, out of sight, out of mind. Any publicity is good publicity, right? You can't build popularity if no one is aware.

 

[Levie]

I like Tolbert. His interviews with Remenda always were entertaining.

Same, he's weak on analysis which is understandable but his player interviews are also good. Wish his higher ups wanted more hockey content.

 

[ChompChomp]

I disagree. I think if the local media outlets updated their sites and social accounts regularly with Sharks info, like scores/trades/etc, some might take notice and check them out. As they say, out of sight, out of mind. Any publicity is good publicity, right? You can't build popularity if no one is aware.

Sure, but I don't think lack of coverage explains the massive disparity between the 2016 NBA finals ratings in the Bay Area and the 2016 SCF ratings in the Bay Area. There's much deeper problems there than how much coverage the Sharks get.

I think the Bay Area Casual Sports Fan is aware of the Sharks but simply doesn't care. I don't think increased coverage is going to make that person care. (I think getting that person to a game could help get that guy to care. I think the Sharks doing a f*** ton of marketing and promotion in the entire Bay Area could get that guy to care. I don't think known hockey hater Damon Bruce becoming a guy talking Sharks every day is going to be that big of a factor in getting that guy to care).

 

[one2gamble]

The only people I know who hate hockey are people who have never seen a game with someone who knows hockey. I don't think I know anyone who has watched two games with me who doesn't at minimum casually follow the sharks now. Four people who never gave hockey a second thought now play the game.....

 

[hohosaregood]

I kinda think that the Sharks are gonna need a hometown hero for it to really get going. Or at least to act as a symbol. It's still a relatively new sport in the area and the grassroots are still growing. The kids who grew up bleeding teal have only recently became adults and hockey wasn't exactly an accessible sport around here when we were all growing up. We're only starting to get to the point where there are 2nd/3rd generation hockey fans and a youth hockey scene for kids to grow up with. There's still relatively only a few young adults in media that are both receptive to hockey and in a position to connect to a larger audience in this area too. I think it'll take a while to get to the point where it hits a critical mass

 

[PackShark]

Sure, but I don't think lack of coverage explains the massive disparity between the 2016 NBA finals ratings in the Bay Area and the 2016 SCF ratings in the Bay Area. There's much deeper problems there than how much coverage the Sharks get.

I think the Bay Area Casual Sports Fan is aware of the Sharks but simply doesn't care. I don't think increased coverage is going to make that person care. (I think getting that person to a game could help get that guy to care. I think the Sharks doing a **** ton of marketing and promotion in the entire Bay Area could get that guy to care. I don't think known hockey hater Damon Bruce becoming a guy talking Sharks every day is going to be that big of a factor in getting that guy to care).

I’ve always been curious as to what the ratings would look like if they broke Santa Clara County off into a separate category per say. The Warriors will always appeal to all reaches of the Bay. The Sharks have a passionate following, it’s just concentrated into the South Bay Area.

 

[Alwalys]

nice work aj

 

[The Ice Hockey Dude]

I think the Bay Area Casual Sports Fan is aware of the Sharks but simply doesn't care. I don't think increased coverage is going to make that person care. (I think getting that person to a game could help get that guy to care. I think the Sharks doing a **** ton of marketing and promotion in the entire Bay Area could get that guy to care. I don't think known hockey hater Damon Bruce becoming a guy talking Sharks every day is going to be that big of a factor in getting that guy to care).

I agree 100%

Compare the Sharks/Bay area to other teams/areas and there significant demographic differences.
Some examples;
- In Canada it's generally they national sport so *everyone* cares hence watches games, is interested in media, drives ratings that result in more media coverage for sure. Bay area as a melting pot with international flavor and lots of preferences in sports followed - Sharks hockey is not the Bay are sport, lots of completion and not enough history.
- Other US teams have better coverage as they are longer standing in the community (e.g. original six teams)
and may even have larger population centers, etc. Here there are generations of fans and longer history.

 

[TealTown22]

Sure, but I don't think lack of coverage explains the massive disparity between the 2016 NBA finals ratings in the Bay Area and the 2016 SCF ratings in the Bay Area. There's much deeper problems there than how much coverage the Sharks get.

I think the Bay Area Casual Sports Fan is aware of the Sharks but simply doesn't care. I don't think increased coverage is going to make that person care. (I think getting that person to a game could help get that guy to care. I think the Sharks doing a **** ton of marketing and promotion in the entire Bay Area could get that guy to care. I don't think known hockey hater Damon Bruce becoming a guy talking Sharks every day is going to be that big of a factor in getting that guy to care).

I totally agree there. NBA is simply more popular than the NHL in this market. But the point of the article was really pointing out that while tripping over themselves to talk about the Warriors 24/7, they could at least provide some Sharks coverage on their respective social media platforms and web presences.

 

[TealTown22]

nice work aj

Appreciate the feedback. Thanks.

 

[Bizz]

I want Purdy back