NHT: Has anyone ever turned into a football game because he wanted to listen to an announcer? | Page 2 | The Boneyard

NHT: Has anyone ever turned into a football game because he wanted to listen to an announcer?

Nostical said:
Certain announcers can greatly enhance the enjoyment of whatever game you're watching... I don't get those who say they like watching with the sound off.
Expand ...
Because most games don't have certain announcers.
 
No but if Joe Tessitore is on the call I turn the channel or turn the volume all the way down.
 
Gburyhusky said:
Great recollection! And you may recall that Marty Glickman was the UConn mens basketball radio play by play announcer for a season in the 70s. To this day I have a clear recollection of listening to him call a UConn game from Tulsa, OK (for whatever reason I remember that one).
Expand ...
Marty Glickman is a legend!
 
If I’m just skimming the dial, I am absolutely more likely to stop on good announcers and switch off bad announcers.
 
I used to love to hear jack Buck do the old AFL games. He had a masterful voice for calling the games and added much needed excitement. Blanda back to pass its a beautiful spiral into the arms of Charlie Hennigan down to the Denver 10.
 
Gburyhusky said:
Great recollection! And you may recall that Marty Glickman was the UConn mens basketball radio play by play announcer for a season in the 70s. To this day I have a clear recollection of listening to him call a UConn game from Tulsa, OK (for whatever reason I remember that one).
Expand ...
I know he did UConn football for a couple of seasons.
 
I go to UConn football games just to see GameDay Connor work his magic with the mic. But this year the team might finally be making home games fun to watch again…
 
Nostical said:
Why would you begrudge what anyone makes? I say good for them.
Expand ...

I completely agree. I don't begrudge anyone their success.

But I do examine the value of things. If it could be proven that announcers increase ratings, then they deserve a share of the revenue they produce. My guess is that announcers of games have very little effect, positive or negative, on the viewership numbers of the games that announce. My theory is that people tune in to see the Patriots or the Cowboy or their favorite team and the announcers do not enter into the decision to watch or not watch the game.

This makes me wonder what is the value proposition that makes Romo worth 18 million dollars a year if he doesn't contribute to ratings. There are certainly less high profile individuals that could analyse the game as well, perhaps better, than Romo at a better price. There has to be something else at play here.
 
Palatine said:
I completely agree. I don't begrudge anyone their success.

But I do examine the value of things. If it could be proven that announcers increase ratings, then they deserve a share of the revenue they produce. My guess is that announcers of games have very little effect, positive or negative, on the viewership numbers of the games that announce. My theory is that people tune in to see the Patriots or the Cowboy or their favorite team and the announcers do not enter into the decision to watch or not watch the game.

This makes me wonder what is the value proposition that makes Romo worth 18 million dollars a year if he doesn't contribute to ratings. There are certainly less high profile individuals that could analyse the game as well, perhaps better, than Romo at a better price. There has to be something else at play here.
Expand ...

I agree with you for the most part.

But certain announcers like Romo and Nantz get the big game of the week because their voices and personalities have gravitas and it gives the viewer the impression that this is the big game.
 
Nostical said:
Why would you begrudge what anyone makes? I say good for them.
Expand ...

I don't think that's the point. I'm just not sure that you had to pay them that much? Who are you bidding against? Brady makes $25M more per year than Greg Olson. If they make $25,000,001 more in ad revenue because Brady broadcasts games - it is a good deal. If not, they are wasting money. And the way ad revenue is sold - it isn't based on who is broadcasting the game. So it isn't like I'm mad about Brady getting his - but as someone that has worked in the media business it doesn't make any sense.
 
J187Money said:
I don't think that's the point. I'm just not sure that you had to pay them that much? Who are you bidding against? Brady makes $25M more per year than Greg Olson. If they make $25,000,001 more in ad revenue because Brady broadcasts games - it is a good deal.
Expand ...

Nitpicking here, but actually that's inaccurate. Revenue directly attributable to Brady would have to at minimum equal his salary plus whatever the company's expected margins are. So if the company historically budgets for a 6% profit margin, then net revenue would have to equal 1.06% cost of Brady. And actually higher than that as Brady isn't a fixed cost.
 
storrsroars said:
Nitpicking here, but actually that's inaccurate. Revenue directly attributable to Brady would have to at minimum equal his salary plus whatever the company's expected margins are. So if the company historically budgets for a 6% profit margin, then net revenue would have to equal 1.06% cost of Brady. And actually higher than that as Brady isn't a fixed cost.
Expand ...

You would think so, but the media business doesn't work like other businesses. Sometimes they will pay people for optics or to keep people out of rival hands as a loss leader, fearing that revenue / eyeballs will go somewhere else, even if by doing so margin increases. So the math doesn't always work the way that it should. Media will almost always take an extra $ of EBITDA over margin.
 
I used to tune into the NFL pre-game show to watch Phyllis George but I must admit I wasn't really "listening" to her.
 
As for the money talk, I disagree that announcers don't influence a broadcast. It's not that you won't watch the game you love if the announcers are bad, you're more apt to seek out a who cares game if Howard Cosell is on it, or John Madden etc. Some voices are grating and boring, others mellifluous and informative. And there's the Q factor. Won't you be more apt to see a movie if a certain actor is in it, over another? That's the answer.
 
Glickman/Giants Yes
Gifford, Meredith, Cosell Yes

Vin Scully/Dodgers YES
 
Nostical said:
As for the money talk, I disagree that announcers don't influence a broadcast. It's not that you won't watch the game you love if the announcers are bad, you're more apt to seek out a who cares game if Howard Cosell is on it, or John Madden etc. Some voices are grating and boring, others mellifluous and informative. And there's the Q factor. Won't you be more apt to see a movie if a certain actor is in it, over another? That's the answer.
Expand ...

Actors are brands. You often hear the phrase, George Clooney's new movie or there's a new Mel Gibson movie.

In football you hear the Cowboy game or the UConn game, never the Greg Olsen game. You might hear that Romo is doing the Chiefs game, but the teams are the brand.
 
Was never a huge college football fan, but I always liked hearing Keith Jackson. As a Yankee fan, just listening to Rizzuto, Bill White, Murcer, Seaver and whoever else was around was part of the fun even during the bad days (89-92) and when things were building back up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
250
Guests online
1,539
Total visitors
1,789
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,067
Messages
4,380,874
Members
10,177
Latest member
silver fox


.
..
Top Bottom