Vancouver Media Thread IV

[F A N]

You then went on to say Shah isn't a "star" (I don't think any local radio host is, tbh) because of ratings. I don't really care for the 1040/650 rivalry, they're both not great IMO. Both stations have good hosts and bad ones and overall are pretty mediocre. I find it funny when people try to use irrelevant objective data to make a subjective point. This clearly seems like a hill you want to die on, just your entire argument is flawed from the outset. It's amusing because we seem to agree on some points about not being able to measure subjective music/art, which is basically why I think your whole argument doesn't make much sense or hold any water.

Actually I don't think I actually said that Shah isn't a star but rather I asked why he is being considered as one. But you are stating that I did and you wouldn't put words into my mouth right?

I would argue that Don Taylor in his prime was a star. He was a recognizable name/face/voice in the Vancouver market and his shows drew huge ratings. The Vancouver market clearly liked him and tuned in to listen to him.

I admit that I know little to nothing about the art of sports talk radio hosting. I have just been a long time and frequent listener of sports talk radio and I find Shah difficult to listen over long periods of time. So please enlighten us as to what makes Shah a good sports talk radio host despite the fact that more people prefer to listen to someone else. Tell people what others and I are missing here.

The disagreement wasn't over who is more successful or who has more listeners/better ratings. This part of your post makes me believe you don't really grasp what we were discussing. It was that you didn't think Shah is that great which speaks more to his abilities and qualities as a host, not what the mainstream opinion is. This comes off as a straw man argument as it has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

Actually, I previously expressed my subjective opinion of Shah that had nothing to do with ratings. What I have been asking (before you jumped into the conversation) is that if Shah is so good then why is he getting steamrolled in ratings? I am of the opinion that greatness eventually gets recognized. If he is good (as in better than his competition) shouldn't he be gaining listeners rather relative to his competition rather than losing listeners? I think this is a fair question to ask. If you disagree please let me know why.

Lol I wasn't trying to exaggerate, and 27 is still a large number - the point still stands. Did you purposefully miss the overarching point that people can be unsuccessful but still be talented (and in the Dr. Seuss example, find success later in their careers)? That's great about the Vancouver market, but see my point above - it has no bearing on what we were discussing. Are you purposefully missing the point? It's hard to tell over text.

You know if you're only going to listen to yourself talk you're going to think that the other person isn't engaging in conversation with you. I specifically pointed out to you that the Dr. Seuss example you gave is an example of an artist who had yet to be discovered / just needed an opportunity. This isn't the case here with Shah who has spent years on the radio, on a well-known station, and has had his shows on two different prime time radio slots. No executive is deciding whether people will like Shah's work here. His work has been there for all listeners to hear for years and the market has decidedly chose to listen to someone else. If anything, your comparison is more applicable to Halford and Brough.

Take heed to your own advice on the chill front. And hey man, I can at least stick to the issue and not veer off into strawmen arguments. Conflating talking about sports with the actual sport itself is inane; I'll just leave it at that. That was a slug to read through and I doubt many others are enjoying reading this since we've both already set out our points and the discussion hasn't advanced much since then, so I'll leave it at that. Have a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and Happy New Year

That's weird. Didn't your last post get edited by a mod? Clearly you veered off or the mods wouldn't have had to edit your post.

Again. How about you do something to advance the discussion then. Those who tune into sports talk radio prefer to listen to someone other than Shah. So why don't you tell us what makes him so great and why his competition is increasing their ratings lead. Please don't tell me it's because he's his partners suck(ed). I get the records sales argument where selling the most records doesn't mean you are the best musician and there's ways to illustrate why. So please tell us why "the market" as in consumers of sports talk radio is not an accurate assessment of product quality here.

 

[rypper]

In his heyday Don Taylor on sportsnet, particularly post game, was gold. In the last few years he's definitely slid a bunch and phones it in a ton, coasting on reputation, but at one time he was a huge star in the market for sure.

 

[Fatass]

Actually I don't think I actually said that Shah isn't a star but rather I asked why he is being considered as one. But you are stating that I did and you wouldn't put words into my mouth right?

I would argue that Don Taylor in his prime was a star. He was a recognizable name/face/voice in the Vancouver market and his shows drew huge ratings. The Vancouver market clearly liked him and tuned in to listen to him.

I admit that I know little to nothing about the art of sports talk radio hosting. I have just been a long time and frequent listener of sports talk radio and I find Shah difficult to listen over long periods of time. So please enlighten us as to what makes Shah a good sports talk radio host despite the fact that more people prefer to listen to someone else. Tell people what others and I are missing here.



Actually, I previously expressed my subjective opinion of Shah that had nothing to do with ratings. What I have been asking (before you jumped into the conversation) is that if Shah is so good then why is he getting steamrolled in ratings? I am of the opinion that greatness eventually gets recognized. If he is good (as in better than his competition) shouldn't he be gaining listeners rather relative to his competition rather than losing listeners? I think this is a fair question to ask. If you disagree please let me know why.




You know if you're only going to listen to yourself talk you're going to think that the other person isn't engaging in conversation with you. I specifically pointed out to you that the Dr. Seuss example you gave is an example of an artist who had yet to be discovered / just needed an opportunity. This isn't the case here with Shah who has spent years on the radio, on a well-known station, and has had his shows on two different prime time radio slots. No executive is deciding whether people will like Shah's work here. His work has been there for all listeners to hear for years and the market has decidedly chose to listen to someone else. If anything, your comparison is more applicable to Halford and Brough.




That's weird. Didn't your last post get edited by a mod? Clearly you veered off or the mods wouldn't have had to edit your post.

Again. How about you do something to advance the discussion then. Those who tune into sports talk radio prefer to listen to someone other than Shah. So why don't you tell us what makes him so great and why his competition is increasing their ratings lead. Please don't tell me it's because he's his partners suck(ed). I get the records sales argument where selling the most records doesn't mean you are the best musician and there's ways to illustrate why. So please tell us why "the market" as in consumers of sports talk radio is not an accurate assessment of product quality here.

Didn’t Sat Shah start as a producer, who came on air often, with Talor and Pratt? I liked how Sat would argue with Pratt. That was entertaining. Maybe 650 needs to hire Pratt and put him with Sat? I think that pair could gain an audience. Morning drive time slot? I’d put Rintoul with Walker in that drive home slot. I don’t mind Jandha.

 

[I am toxic]

In his heyday Don Taylor on sportsnet, particularly post game, was gold. In the last few years he's definitely slid a bunch and phones it in a ton, coasting on reputation, but at one time he was a huge star in the market for sure.

Must-watch TV at the end of the evening.

 

[skeena1]

It was close, the year is almost over, but I think we've found the worst thread of 2020.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

It was close, the year is almost over, but I think we've found the worst thread of 2020.

The thread is as bad as the subject matter.

 

[F A N]

The thread is as bad as the subject matter.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my simple question. Please explain why Shah is such a great sports radio talk show host despite the fact that those who tune into sports talk radio overwhelmingly decide to listen to someone else. You're giving this long spiel about how I'm wrong when I at least presented some support for my opinion. Why don't you tell us why more and more listeners are choosing to listen to someone else has zero relevance to whether Shah is any good at his job.

 

[rypper]

At the time Shah was probably the hottest up and comer in the radio market. He was the best part of the morning show with Pratt. If 650 didn't snapped him up he likely would have gotten a bigger role with 1040, but 650 gave him a shot at bigger role first.

It's walker that sinks their show.

 

[Didalee Hed]

This thread has become very pejorative

 

[F A N]

At the time Shah was probably the hottest up and comer in the radio market. He was the best part of the morning show with Pratt. If 650 didn't snapped him up he likely would have gotten a bigger role with 1040, but 650 gave him a shot at bigger role first.

It's walker that sinks their show.

But Shah had a morning show with Jang. Halford and Brough beat them handily in ratings. Maybe it was Pratt who drove the ratings?

 

[Fatass]

But Shah had a morning show with Jang. Halford and Brough beat them handily in ratings. Maybe it was Pratt who drove the ratings?

Pratt needs a foil to amplify his bombastic nature. Sat did that nicely. So did Taylor.

 

[Riggins]

Shah can't carry a show. He's too dry and also has trouble with maintaining good flow. He was at his best with Pratt as the guy with knowledge who could chime in now and then and argue with the crap Pratt spews out.

 

[StreetHawk]

But Shah had a morning show with Jang. Halford and Brough beat them handily in ratings. Maybe it was Pratt who drove the ratings?

Kind of wonder if people are also just tuned into the station with the longer history.

like if Jason and Mike were offered one of the 2 prime slots on SN before TSN made the switch out with Pratt would they be doing as well?

I don’t look into the ratings but for TSN have their ratings since SN came in been about the same in each time slot since? Cause I know that they changed up who is in each current time slot now. Like are the ratings any better with Jason and Mike than Bro Jake and Pratt? Or the prime time afternoon one with price and Sekeras vs Taylor and co?

 

[Riggins]

Kind of wonder if people are also just tuned into the station with the longer history.

like if Jason and Mike were offered one of the 2 prime slots on SN before TSN made the switch out with Pratt would they be doing as well?

That's part of it. The sound quality also sucks on 650.

 

[Fatass]

That's part of it. The sound quality also sucks on 650.

650 reception is worse too. Sounds like a fifty watt station.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I'm still waiting for you to answer my simple question. Please explain why Shah is such a great sports radio talk show host despite the fact that those who tune into sports talk radio overwhelmingly decide to listen to someone else. You're giving this long spiel about how I'm wrong when I at least presented some support for my opinion. Why don't you tell us why more and more listeners are choosing to listen to someone else has zero relevance to whether Shah is any good at his job.

I never wrote or argued about Shah being great, I argued ratings being a dumb thing to rely on when judging the quality of a host. I think you’ve lost the plot, and this has been turd-quality discussion, so I’m out.

 

[StreetHawk]

That's part of it. The sound quality also sucks on 650.

So is it the team or the player that is driving the ratings?

thus my question about the performance of each time slot in TSN since SN entered?

If it’s about the same if you are TSN are you going to pay a premium for the air in personality? Or do you dare them to go to SN if you deem their demands are too high?

 

[m9]

Kind of wonder if people are also just tuned into the station with the longer history.

like if Jason and Mike were offered one of the 2 prime slots on SN before TSN made the switch out with Pratt would they be doing as well?

I don’t look into the ratings but for TSN have their ratings since SN came in been about the same in each time slot since? Cause I know that they changed up who is in each current time slot now. Like are the ratings any better with Jason and Mike than Bro Jake and Pratt? Or the prime time afternoon one with price and Sekeras vs Taylor and co?

It was hard to to find specific show ratings a few years back to compare.

What is clear is that the gap has widened big-time. It seemed like people were willing to give 650 a chance for the first little bit and then over time have determined that 1040 offers better product.

It's been a weird sports year. It seems the market for both stations was high last year when the Canucks were doing well but during the various breaks many people completely stepped away from local sports radio.

In terms of the Sat discussion, I think he should appeal more to the hardcore fan than the casuals. He has a very good understanding of the salary cap, prospect pool, player value and transactions. That type of knowledge appeals to me and others who talk Canucks on message boards but probably doesn't mean anything to 80% of fans who are more casual and don't require that level of knowledge. So, that is likely why his ratings don't equal his appeal on places like this.

I think this is where 650 has dropped the ball and has needed to pair him with a popular guy who has a larger appeal. Don Taylor would be perfect.. but someone along those lines. With Sat would be where you would slot in an ex-Canuck if possible.

It's clear at this point that Walker isn't the guy for that spot.

 

[StreetHawk]

It was hard to to find specific show ratings a few years back to compare.

What is clear is that the gap has widened big-time. It seemed like people were willing to give 650 a chance for the first little bit and then over time have determined that 1040 offers better product.

It's been a weird sports year. It seems the market for both stations was high last year when the Canucks were doing well but during the various breaks many people completely stepped away from local sports radio.

In terms of the Sat discussion, I think he should appeal more to the hardcore fan than the casuals. He has a very good understanding of the salary cap, prospect pool, player value and transactions. That type of knowledge appeals to me and others who talk Canucks on message boards but probably doesn't mean anything to 80% of fans who are more casual and don't require that level of knowledge. So, that is likely why his ratings don't equal his appeal on places like this.

I think this is where 650 has dropped the ball and has needed to pair him with a popular guy who has a larger appeal. Don Taylor would be perfect.. but someone along those lines. With Sat would be where you would slot in an ex-Canuck if possible.

It's clear at this point that Walker isn't the guy for that spot.

Fair take on sat. But I don’t think there is an ex player who is good on the radio. Thomlinson, not someone who should be hosting a show. Ferraro is too high profile. Bieksa too high profile and I would stick to someone that isn’t daily if I was him.

I do find the SN group of hosts to be rather vanilla. Appreciated that they gave people of color and women an opportunity. Jang, janda, shah, Lawrence, Rick D.

 

[m9]

Fair take on sat. But I don’t think there is an ex player who is good on the radio. Thomlinson, not someone who should be hosting a show. Ferraro is too high profile. Bieksa too high profile and I would stick to someone that isn’t daily if I was him.

I do find the SN group of hosts to be rather vanilla. Appreciated that they gave people of color and women an opportunity. Jang, janda, shah, Lawrence, Rick D.

Totally agree on the direction they took. I do give them credit as well for trying to get some representation from outside the middle-age white male demo.. the problem was as you said it's a really dry group. Like the comparison I made earlier, they put on way too many play-by-play guys and not enough colour commentary.

 

[Fatass]

Totally agree on the direction they took. I do give them credit as well for trying to get some representation from outside the middle-age white male demo.. the problem was as you said it's a really dry group. Like the comparison I made earlier, they put on way too many play-by-play guys and not enough colour commentary.

Well, actually the audience for sport’s radio is a pretty specific group of almost all men. By not catering to that group 650 went off the rails. It would be like a fashionable clothing store having 90% of their inventory for men, and only 10% for women. Or a nail salon advertising only in men’s magazines. 650 should hire people who appeal to their audience. That’s hockey experts, who appeal to male hockey fans.

 

[m9]

Well, actually the audience for sport’s radio is a pretty specific group of almost all men. By not catering to that group 650 went off the rails. It would be like a fashionable clothing store having 90% of their inventory for men, and only 10% for women. Or a nail salon advertising only in men’s magazines. 650 should hire people who appeal to their audience. That’s hockey experts, who appeal to male hockey fans.

Sure, but we were obviously speaking more towards the different races being hired and not just sex.

 

[Fatass]

Sure, but we were obviously speaking more towards the different races being hired and not just sex.

Imo it doesn’t matter the ethnicity or sex of the person on air. It’s that they are a hockey expert that’s most important. We actually have too many hosts on both 650 and 1040 who really don’t know a heck of a lot about hockey. I like Moj, but he’s really a football guy. Taylor, he’s more-so lacrosse. Rintoul is another football guy. I like Sat and Randeep because they are hockey first. So are the two goofy morning guys on 1040. Unless the host has the bombastic character of a Dave Pratt, then they sure as heck better know hockey. Vancouver, like the rest of Canada, is a hockey first region.

 

[StreetHawk]

Sure, but we were obviously speaking more towards the different races being hired and not just sex.

And none of the people hired had distinct accents that would be an issue for listeners. If they were not born in North America, then they have been around long enough to have next to no accent.

Lawrence was part of a 3 person morning so, thus much easier to break her in. Andy P on TSN hosts a show as well in Toronto. So, it's not like it wouldn't be done.

There is no bite or anything to play off for SN. Shah and Rintoul are best with an out there big personality to counter their POV with some logic. James C. tries to be funny, but he comes off goofy IMO. Perry, as vanilla as they come.

Walker, just isn't well known in these parts for the fanbase to consider his takes anything more than a schtick.

 

[Fatass]

And none of the people hired had distinct accents that would be an issue for listeners. If they were not born in North America, then they have been around long enough to have next to no accent.

Lawrence was part of a 3 person morning so, thus much easier to break her in. Andy P on TSN hosts a show as well in Toronto. So, it's not like it wouldn't be done.

There is no bite or anything to play off for SN. Shah and Rintoul are best with an out there big personality to counter their POV with some logic. James C. tries to be funny, but he comes off goofy IMO. Perry, as vanilla as they come.

Walker, just isn't well known in these parts for the fanbase to consider his takes anything more than a schtick.

I liked a guy that was on the now dead sport’s station from about 15 years ago. He was on in the mornings with Moj, and was actually kind of funny. I think his name was Foxman. Never heard of him again though after the station went all traffic.