Sounders Radio Broadcast is Broken
Let's start off with the big ticket item
Not Arlo White's fault!
And, to the long time readers, I'll eat some crow now. I was someone who said that simulcast can work, and while that is true for basketball and baseball, it clearly doesn't work for soccer.
This weekend I went camping-lite (in a yurt), but still managed to listen to the game, albeit on the radio. Let's ignore the technical problems, which were not under control of the team, nor their broadcast partners. Let us also ignore that one of the pre-game experts has had so many phone calls during broadcasts that the host mocked him for it.
These are issues that are either very easy to fix, or impossible to fix.
I'm going to focus on the actual play-by-play of Arlo White.
"Dave, didn't you just say that it isn't Arlo's fault? And that the broadcast is broken? and now you are going to focus on Arlo White?"
Yes. Yes. No. I'm going to focus on the play-by-play of Arlo White as it comes across to a radio-only audience but during a simulcast. I did not have the opportunity to see the action, I could only count on the images as painted by the esteemed host.
The problem was that he is also calling for TV.
For a vast majority of the game I did not know which team was in attack, what formation or tactics were being used. It was quite frustrating for me.
Now, I've listened to a lot of radio play-by-play in my life. I was formerly a producer of radio play-by-play on a simulcast. Arlo has to balance the wordplay required of radio with the reluctance to speak that is at the pinnacle of TV play-by-play.
While he's amazing, those two things are hard to reconcile for a sport of this pace. Basketball is fast, so easier. Baseball is sporadic, so doable as well. While soccer has a slow pace similar to baseball in ways, it also does not have the pauses that baseball has.
Seattle Sounders FC would have a much stronger, and more salable to advertising buyers, product if they had an independent radio play-by-play and color commentating team. It would cost more money, but quick product mentions could be dropped into the run-of-play (seriously, it isn't tough to do, I helped drop quotes from coaches into basketball) but it would also help those who love the game but can't be in front of a TV follow the sport.
Also, radio networks have the potential to reach a larger audience (particularly on AM), which would continue to expand the fan-base for the team.
In short, this off-season the Sounders need to find an up-and-coming radio play-by-play voice and a color man to improve their overall product and make 2011 better than these first two seasons. Arlo on TV is extraordinary, but the radio only product isn't there yet. A simple, but potentially costly change is needed.
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
First things first
Sounders need to find a real radio broadcast partner. Someone that will be able to broadcast every game instead of just when its convenient. 97.3 just isn’t that station. I know 710 is pretty full with M’s and Seahawks… If only there was another sports station in town…
That other station will NEVER bump a Husky game for Sounders
So less games than 97.3 does…
unless you get an agreement that guaruntees 850 + the Everett station, but that’s unlikely.
But it would probably mean more radio for the midweek games (that’s where 97.3 fails the most) and likely more love for the sport during non-pbp moments, because 710 is an absolute failure at covering the Sounders. Despite their “official” status.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
710 does have that weekly show i think
Except they change the times its aired so much i’ve only been able to listen 2 or 3 times this year. I’m not even sure its still on. haha. The hosts are great though. That show deserves more of a chance to catch on then its been given.
IHMO the starting point is to get arlo a broadcast partner...
I think if he had someone to play off it would help in general and especially in radio. Also I sure wish we could get a pre match show and an extra 30 on the post match.
Of course I have no idea what I am talking about other than my personal tastes… ;-)
During our Q&A, we talked about this
Arlo doesn’t seem to be itching to have a partner in the booth. I think he’d probably give up radio, rather than take a color man.
Kicking k-nowledge at Sounder at Heart and Dreaming of Wigan
by Jeremiah Oshan on Sep 27, 2010 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Please no
Less is more. Overcrowded booths and the pointless chatter they generate are a distraction to me.
You will hear us on Brougham, you will hear us on Occidental, you will hear us on King. We are all around you, there is no escape.
by 108Ultra on Sep 28, 2010 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Simulcast
Actually doesn’t always work so well in baseball. The mariners have 2 teams that switch places halfway through between radio and tv.
Don’t know how Arlo works with a partner. They do need a separate guy or duo for the radio.
What about 770?
Funny though, I didn’t have so much trouble “seeing” the game on radio this week.
Good Points
Excellent article. I agree completely. Now if we could only convince MLS to switch to Versus for national broadcasts, and be the “home of MLS”.
Respectfully disagree...spending on radio is like flushing your money
Not too many people calling for investments in terrestrial radio these days Dave…hard to justify spending the money on two additional on-air personalities and a production crew for such a dying media. Take a look at the average decline in audience per annum across the board in radio (AM, FM, sports, talk, whatever) and I think you’d be forced to admit that while adding a radio team might make your next trip to a yurt more enjoyable, it also is a pretty crazy way to spend Sounder money.
I’d say invest a fraction of that cash into better match day internet streaming, and you couldve been watching/listening on your phone, which is what I do when I go camping or boating. ATT is pretty much everywhere in the world these days.
Don't play a dangerous game.
I don't think you can lump all AM/FM together
While music formats are struggling, talk is still strong.
Sure, it is more centralized now, but the listenership, ratings and advertisizing are still there.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Definitely think Arlo needs a co-commentator with him on the radio
So he can stop saying “Rave Green” every 2 minutes.
On that note I’d love to hear how he sounds on NFL games.
Bandwagon leader for Michael Robinson as Seattle Seahawks starting QB.
I'm horrified at the suggestions of pairing Arlo with someone else
And it’s not that I like Arlo so much, it’s that there is finally a sports broadcast out there where I can hear myself think!
Typically in a two-man booth on television (or the true horror of a three-man booth) the commentary degenerates into what amounts to PTI with a game in the background. And I hate it. I don’t need that much analysis on the game in the middle of the game—there’s a game to watch. There is more than enough time for commentary after the game is over. The commentators become so wrapped up in talking with one another that the game doesn’t get announced properly, or one of them has to start talking over the other to announce something exciting happening, and it just gets to be a mess—a mess where no one ever stops talking.
If the radio broadcast isn’t working, they should find someone (emphasis on one) to broadcast the game on radio. Communicating the game over each medium is a distinctly different task and should be tackled by a different person.
by ubelmann on Sep 28, 2010 8:00 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
One man booth is awesome
Count me among the people that want Arlo to stay lonely up there… If they bring in a new radio team they may be better as a duo but Arlo is fantastic on his own.
Solo Arlo
Yeah, keep Arlo on his own. I don’t think there is a human on earth that could sit next to him during the dairy queen ads without breaking down in hysterics.
Please, please, please invest some $ in streaming. I would happily pay for the service. I signed up for the stupid MLS streaming service, which was a complete waste of money since the SSFC games are always blacked out on game day. Since we don’t have television in our house, this and radio are usually my only options on away games if I can’t get to a bar.
I resorted to one of those hinky p2p streaming services this weekend and am waiting for either a major virus to attack my laptop or a fed to burst through my door any minute. THAT is how much I love my Sounders.
Keep it as it is
The first point is short. Keep Arlo alone for tv broadcasts.
Second, the Sounders should spend their money and energy on internet/smartphone video streaming for those times that getting to a tv is not possible. Surely this is the future anyway. Let’s put the resources into speeding this up. In the meantime, keep the simulcast on the radio as a backup such as when you are in the car. (Like I found myself this past Saturday. I was equally frustrated with the lack of detail/ visualization, but I can’t see how putting money into this is worthwhile.)
smartphone penetration is ~5% in the USA
radio penetration is 100%
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
5% is either old data or inaccurate. I’ve seen anywhere from 66% to 82% of Americans have a cell phone, depending on the web site I look at. Of those, 21% were smart phones in Q4 2009, and projected to go to 50% in Q4 2011. Why not get ahead of the curve?
by Jeff Kusowski on Sep 28, 2010 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions
I think a better view would be smartphone penetration among Sounders fans.
Seattle is a very tech savvy town and would make use of this more than other markets.
because it actually costs more
and MLS owns the internet/mobile rights for its broadcasts, while the team owns the rights for the local radio?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
100% is still greater than 35%
which is the projection for Q4 in a year.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Totally agree with you on the rights issue. That very well could make my argument moot.
Disagree on the radio versus smartphone/ internet stream. HD penetration is currently around 65% while standard def is near 100%. Does that mean that since 100% > 65%, the Sounders should focus on standard def? Not the perfect comparison, but clearly the increased enjoyment of the HD over SD makes it worth the added expense. Similarly, my enjoyment of watching the game on my smartphone would be greater than listening to it on the radio.
I digress. Good discussion, though.
by Jeff Kusowski on Sep 28, 2010 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Both?
The Sounders are bringing in some serious money that they can’t re-invest in the team due to salary cap and other expenditure rules for MLS. However, they can invest in a radio announcer and streaming capability. Both of which should increase the reach of the team and improve its brand.
If its a choice between improving the team and improving the radio broadcast then I’ll choose the team every time. However, that’s not necessarily the case here because of the MLS rules.
So, unless they plan on making a big outlay on something else…like new Field Turf…then I don’t see why they can’t invest in improving the radio broadcast and live streaming (assuming they can do that without running afoul of their contracts with ESPN, FSC, etc.).
But investing in HD does not make SD moot
Ignoring radio for mobiles, does.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
While I would welcome a better radio broadcast, I don’t think it would be worth it financially versus investing where the market is clearly going, which is internet and smart phones. Just my opinion. I value yours greatly. I’ve posted 10x more just today than all prior posts combined, so I’ll bow out now.
by Jeff Kusowski on Sep 28, 2010 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions
We like people who post
People said that TV was going to replace radio – it didn’t happen.
People then said that the internet/peer2peer would replace radio – it didn’t happen for talk radio.
For breaking news radio, and lately twitter, is still a hot item.
And, it is actually fairly cheap
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
internet broadcast is already available through MLS matchday live
But I don’t think it’s available via phone.
this is to protect the tv rights of the national broadcasters
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Arlo's radio is great, when he's not simulcasting
I usually have to catch all the games by radio, and Arlo’s call is much different on games he’s not calling on TV versus the ones he is. He’s much more like you want him to be as a radio announcer when he’s not simulcasting. Do you think TV audiences could tolerate the chatter of the radio? I do, but I guess the FO does not.
I don't think it's the FO
I think it’s probably Arlo tailoring his message for TV, the way he believes TV should be broadcast. I would rather him keep doing TV the way he does it and get a new radio guy, rather than have him alter his message.
Kicking k-nowledge at Sounder at Heart and Dreaming of Wigan
by Jeremiah Oshan on Sep 29, 2010 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Slightly off-topic but not totally...
Dave, as you are on the council, do you know anything about the possibility of the games being aired on other radio/television stations outside of the seattle market?
More specifically, I live in northern Idaho, which is in the Spokane market. Has there been any mention of the games being picked up over here?
Not 100% sure
But i think FSN has the rights to broadcast games live outside of the King/Kong broadcast area.

by 

















