• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Entertainment
  • Radio
The 2011 Rugby World Cup Coverage Thread
<<
<
4 of 7
>>
>
The Difference
19-09-2011
Originally Posted by Iworkinradio:
“talksport's increase in audience is largely due to the extension of its Premier League rights, to suggest anything else is nonsense.”

Agreed, but now that 47% of their existing audience comes under the ABC1 male demographic and I believe this has been steadily rising over a number of years, this is a trend too big to ignore or simply put down to their comparatively recent success in the Premier League radio rights market.

It is clearly arrant nonsense to persist with the myth that talkSPORT's audience is made up of "white van man football supporters" as you have done when audience information gathered by RAJAR paints a markedly different picture when it comes to the social backgrounds of the stations listeners.

Originally Posted by Iworkinradio:
“Do you deny that TS attempt to move their audience upmarket have been pretty clunky? There's nothing "wrong" in what you're trying to do in moving the audience upmarket but I don't think it works.”

As a regular listener to the station since 1999, I don't think their steady move upmarket has been clunky at all.

I think that most of presenters they've introduced under this regime in recent years (Saggers, Kelly, Collymore, Keys and Gray) have fitted in smoothly and have proven to be good additions. Upmarket programmes like Full Contact, My Sporting Life and Football First (all of which are some of the highest quality programmes on British sports radio IMO) have been given suitable timeslots with mostly more populist stuff going out in core timeslots. I think it's been very balanced in that respect.

As I've said, you can't deny their current line-up is getting results. The overall listening figures are the best in their history, many of their weekday programmes away from their live football coverage have cracked the 1 million listeners mark and they are not struggling to attract advertisers.

Originally Posted by Iworkinradio:
“Qoting Nivea and Ford as an example of ABC1 advertsing is a bit dim. they're top quality companies with huge spends which is great for any commercial station but their products are hardly the preserve of the cotswold set are they?”

How is it a bit dim? I am only stating facts, facts that you were denying to be the case. A dim argument would be to claim that any ABC advertisers would desert them after the tournament - when quite clearly that has not been the case in the past and going by that trend is highly unlikely to happen in the future.
The Difference
19-09-2011
Originally Posted by Iworkinradio:
“during 2007 there was extensive coverage of other games in france on 909 693 even when they clashed with live Prem games.”

Really? I remember listening to 5 Live back then (I was more of a listener to that station then than I am now) and 5 Live's sports coverage seemed to be dominated by football at the time.

talkSPORT had just won national Premier League radio commentary rights for the first time in autumn 2007 and seemingly to counter this, 5 Live's output was littered with trailers proclaiming they had "more live Premier League football than anyone else" and they had moved the presentation of their Saturday sports coverage from its studio base of many years to sports grounds, more often than not the site of the ground playing host to that Saturday's live talkSPORT commentary game.

I don't recall this "extensive coverage" you speak of - I don't believe they even had reporters covering the pool games not involving the big nations. I know they did less than 20 commentaries from the tournament on analogue radio and didn't have a weekly rugby union programme that ran beyond the duration of the tournament at that point, so in that respect talkSPORT's coverage this year is much more in-depth than the BBC's was four years ago.
SouthCity
19-09-2011
This is the BBC Radio live match schedule for RWC 2007. You'll notice that there were not many pool matches which didn't involve the home nations:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pre...29/rugby.shtml

South Africa and Samoa are meeting again this time round and talkSPORT will broadcast live commentary (on all platforms) next Friday (30th September).
Iworkinradio
19-09-2011
Originally Posted by The Difference:
“ talkSPORT's coverage this year is much more in-depth than the BBC's was four years ago.”


nonsense, outside the commentaries on 1089/1053 you wouldn't know it was on.
The Difference
19-09-2011
Originally Posted by Iworkinradio:
“nonsense, outside the commentaries on 1089/1053 you wouldn't know it was on.”

Given the amount of coverage they are giving the tournament in terms of dedicated evening programmes, build-up and reaction to the live games involving the home nations and reports and discussion during other shows (look at the line-up of guests on any weekday daytime show), that's garbage and you know it.

You've jokingly accused SouthCity of being Moz Dee, well seeing as you are proud to proclaim you work in radio I'd be interested to hear what angle you are looking at talkSPORT's coverage from. You certainly seem to be raking the mud to find things to use to berate the station with.
Iworkinradio
19-09-2011
Originally Posted by The Difference:
“Really? I remember listening to 5 Live back then (I was more of a listener to that station then than I am now) and 5 Live's sports coverage seemed to be dominated by football at the time.”

those two things are not incompatible, live updates from the games when they clashed with PL commentaries, lots of interviews and analysis following games, embedded reporters leeping you up to date.

The TS hit and run strategy isn't for me.
swansea steve
19-09-2011
I've got a lot of time for TS's coverage.
as the Difference points out, more games are being covered live on TS than 5live covered in previous world cups.

their coverage also goes some way I think to refute the criticism of the station that it is 'talk football' rather than Talksport. it seems they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. people will have a dig at them if they just talk about the same football topics again and again and now people are digging at their rugby world cup coverage.

it is true that the standard of 5lives rugby commentators is IMO, higher (Ian Robertson is a very hard act to follow) but this is TS's first world cup so to judge them on just 10 days coverage perhaps is a little harsh.
The Difference
19-09-2011
Originally Posted by Iworkinradio:
“The TS hit and run strategy isn't for me.”

Maybe you could let those of us this "strategy" (which includes more hours of coverage than ever before and the only regular weekly rugby union programme on national radio) is for to enjoy it then?

Originally Posted by swansea steve:
“their coverage also goes some way I think to refute the criticism of the station that it is 'talk football' rather than Talksport. it seems they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. people will have a dig at them if they just talk about the same football topics again and again and now people are digging at their rugby world cup coverage.”

A very salient point. At one turn Iworkinradio is criticising talkSPORT for broadcasting rugby union coverage because he thinks it will turn off his perception of their core audience; the next he is criticising the station for a lack of coverage of the tournament.

To hammer them for only doing AM/DAB reports on a match not involving a home nation that in all likelihood wouldn't have been covered even in terms of reports eight years ago, seemingly solely on the basis of 20 minutes of listening seems extremely harsh to me.
Iworkinradio
19-09-2011
Originally Posted by The Difference:
“Maybe you could let those of us this "strategy" (which includes more hours of coverage than ever before and the only regular weekly rugby union programme on national radio) is for to enjoy it then?

To hammer them for only doing AM/DAB reports on a match not involving a home nation that in all likelihood wouldn't have been covered even in terms of reports eight years ago, seemingly solely on the basis of 20 minutes of listening seems extremely harsh to me.”

I've listened to more than 20mins, I just listened to 20 mins yesterday.

It just feels that their heart isn't in it, The likes of Brazil, Durham, Gray, Hawksbee just give a toss about rugby, The station spends more time on specialist fishing programmes than it does on rugby programmes,



Quote:
“A very salient point. At one turn Iworkinradio is criticising talkSPORT for broadcasting rugby union coverage because he thinks it will turn off his perception of their core audience; the next he is criticising the station for a lack of coverage of the tournament.”

Its not my perception of the audience, its what the audeince think. some of my best friends are TS listeners, they take the mickey out of me for liking rugby, mainly because they hate it being on "their" station. I suspect they reflect the audience and considerable number of TS staff.

why pretend to be something you're not?
4-4-2
19-09-2011
Maybe this should be read:

Quote:
“Moz Dee, TalkSport's programme director, and Niall Sloane, head of ITV Sport, admitted that what makes the rights to the World Cup so prized for commercial broadcasters is that it represents the kind of opportunity that does not come round too often – once every four years in fact – to connect with millions of the young, well-heeled, males traditionally coveted by advertisers.

ITV's coverage will be sponsored by IBM – the equivalent commercial tie-in for rugby league on Sky is Irn-Bru, which gives you an idea of where the two codes stand in the eyes of the advertising industry – while TalkSport makes the message even clearer, with its two major sponsors, Land Rover and Dove For Men. And should any of those nicely moisturised men driving round in their posh vehicles feel dissatisfied with their wheels – or their five-blade turbo-charged razors – you can be sure there will be upgrades on display during the breaks.

But Dee says that for TalkSport, which has recently made big gains in audience, the World Cup is more than just a commercial opportunity. "Together with our capture of exclusive rights to some Premier League football, it helps us be seen as credible sports broadcasters. We will not make money out of the World Cup in itself. For us it is about an investment in perception."

Perception is important to TalkSport, still seen by many as white van man radio, despite winning Sony Radio Academy station of the year, and boasting a surprisingly upmarket audience (56% ABC1).

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog...-talksport-itv”

Iworkinradio
19-09-2011
Originally Posted by 4-4-2:
“Maybe this should be read:”

classic marketing mistake

You change the perception of the product, attracts new consumers
product doesn't match perception
consumers leave product disappointed never to return.

Woolworths did the same over and over again in the 80s and 90s

They tried to market themselves as upmarket, consumers came into flashy new stores to find err... same old Woolworths.
Eventually wasn't sustainable and they run out of money and customers.

If they'd have stuck at being FW Woolworth as they have in the US they'd have survived

Talksport is the Woolworths of broadcasting and they should understand that.

Stick to pick'n'mix and cheap saucepans and stop trying to pretend you're flogging Foie Gras and Le Cruset
The Difference
19-09-2011
Originally Posted by Iworkinradio:
“It just feels that their heart isn't in it, The likes of Brazil, Durham, Gray, Hawksbee just give a toss about rugby, The station spends more time on specialist fishing programmes than it does on rugby programmes,”

Well that's not the impression I've been getting and I listen to at least an hour or so each day. Take Paul Hawksbee for instance, who according to you doesn't "give a toss about rugby", I listened to him on the Monday after the England v Argentina game interviewing Lawrence Dallaglio and Jeff Probyn on his show. It was clear that he had watched the game and had found England's performance as worrying, going on to say some of his fears about their chances had been allayed due to the points Jeff and Lawrence had made during his conversations with them. It didn't sound like he couldn't care less to me, nor were talkSPORT ignoring the tournament during a regular programme either.

And what's your point on talkSPORT dedicated four early AM hours each week to fishing? What relevance does that have to anything? It seems like you are desperate clutching a straws now, looking for ever more randoms reasons to berate talkSPORT and their rugby coverage.

Originally Posted by Iworkinradio:
“Its not my perception of the audience, its what the audeince think. some of my best friends are TS listeners, they take the mickey out of me for liking rugby, mainly because they hate it being on "their" station. I suspect they reflect the audience and considerable number of TS staff.”

So we've moved on from (incorrect) assumptions about the social backgrounds of their audience to further assumptions about what these listeners think. You know a few talkSPORT listeners who don't like the rugby union coverage. Obviously you must recognise that it would be ridiculous to use this as hard evidence to prove your point.

If we're going on anecdotal evidence, I'm a long-term talkSPORT listener, I love my football but I'm also a rugby fan so I welcome their coverage of the sport. Full Contact is a programme I listen to most weeks, either live if I'm in a position to listen or later in the week through Listen Again. I also know a few people who've heard talkSPORT's Rugby World Cup commentaries who are not massive fans of the sport but are following the tournament, and they've voiced their approval of them.

I think the only way we'll find out what the talkSPORT listenership as a whole think about their coverage, as opposed to people in our social circles or commenters online, is when the listening figures come in.

Originally Posted by Iworkinradio:
“classic marketing mistake

You change the perception of the product, attracts new consumers
product doesn't match perception
consumers leave product disappointed never to return.”

You seem to refuse to listen to any reason or hard evidence presented to you, so I'm not sure how much use this is, but I've got news for you...

talkSPORT have tried to change perceptions and attract a more upmarket audience, and it has already worked. 56% of their audience ticks the ABC1 box, the bulk of this being male. That is an upmarket audience which is appealing to advertisers, there can be no question about that, no matter how much of a negative picture you and other critics of the station would like to make out. The statistics speak for themselves, the approach UTV Radio has taken continues to be successful.

The fact that you have resorted to a quite frankly bizarre comparison to address 4-4-2's post, let alone have made so many loosely supported (at best) to totally incorrect assumptions suggest that are you are either purposefully trolling this forum or have some kind of hidden agenda. I don't like to make to such statements about other comments, but it has got to the point where you are totally ignoring everything contrary to your viewpoint that it is beginning to look like this is the case.
jimmylad
19-09-2011
Originally Posted by Iworkinradio:
“nonsense, outside the commentaries on 1089/1053 you wouldn't know it was on.”

Well I've just stuck talkSPORT on, and within 2 minutes I've heard what must be their latest jingle and it went something along the lines of 'official broadcaster of the Rugby World Cup talkSPORT'...

And as for all the stations listeners being football supporting white van men? Well the programme on at the minute has two presenters and one of them is former cricket player! Seems an odd choice of presenter for football supporting listeners...

I won't say anything about their actual World Cup radio coverage because I own a tv...
fortytwo
19-09-2011
Not knowing who, if anyone, was covering the RWC I finally found it last week on TalkSport.

I don't know who the commentator was but he really was hopeless. He obviously could only identify a few of the players because there were constant gaps in the commentary when he was looking up their names.

I just found it quite amateurish.
Ultra Magnus
19-09-2011
Originally Posted by jimmylad:
“And as for all the stations listeners being football supporting white van men? Well the programme on at the minute has two presenters and one of them is former cricket player! Seems an odd choice of presenter for football supporting listeners...”

Darren Gough is an odd choice of presenter given pretty much any matter. He's abysmal - and mostly deployed to talk about football.

When Talksport is good - it's very good - H and J is the best show on the radio.

But Gough should never ever be used in a defence of TS. He's atrocious.
4-4-2
20-09-2011
talkSPORT

Rugby World Cup 2011: Pool C
Italy v Russia - John Anderson and Chris Sheasby (08:30 online commentary; updates on AM/DAB)
MeicY
20-09-2011
Originally Posted by Iworkinradio:
“nonsense, outside the commentaries on 1089/1053 you wouldn't know it was on.”

Yes, because talkSPORT has a nationwide network of TV channels, other radio stations and internet sites to cross promote on doesn't it?

Oh wait....


(Incidentally, all BBC Sport match pages mention it, along with ITV, as being a broadcast partner; such as this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugb...n/14812570.stm
Iworkinradio
20-09-2011
Just caught one of the high quality, ABC1, non white van man trails inbetween the sports betting ads

Quote:
“THIS WEEKEND

Its the ARGIES against the Scots

YOU WANT SOME?

COME ON IF YIU THINK YOU'RE HARD ENOUGH”

Rolex, Gucci, Bentley must be queueing up to have their brands assocaited which such measured, non inflamatory comments.



Quote:
“Not knowing who, if anyone, was covering the RWC I finally found it last week on TalkSport.

I don't know who the commentator was but he really was hopeless. He obviously could only identify a few of the players because there were constant gaps in the commentary when he was looking up their names.

I just found it quite amateurish”

its a poor product out of place on a station where the audience doesn't want it.

Quote:
“The fact that you have resorted to a quite frankly bizarre comparison to address 4-4-2's post, let alone have made so many loosely supported (at best) to totally incorrect assumptions suggest that are you are either purposefully trolling this forum or have some kind of hidden agenda”

its not a bizarre comparison, its an accurate business case study which illustrates the mistakes TS have made
The Difference
20-09-2011
"Accurate." So far you have posted absolutely no evidence to support your largely anecdotal and assumption-based theories about how the talkSPORT audience are dead against hearing rugby coverage and how trying to appeal to their existing 56% ABC1 audience will eventually lead to the station going the way of Woolworths.

So many of the arguments you have put forward against talkSPORT's coverage have since been exposed as being completely untrue, you've contradicted yourself a number of times as well (one minute they're doing too much coverage, the next they're not doing enough; you say their other programmes are ignoring the tournament, then you say they're talking about it to the point of boredom). But hey, keep digging away if you wish, I'm intrigued to see how creative you can get when it comes to trying to find some mud to sling at the station.

As for their trailers - not all of them are to my taste, but they must be pleasing someone as the talkSPORT Creative team seem to be highly-regarded in the radio industry as they have won a large number of Sony, Radio Academy and other awards over the years.

If slating their marketing is the best you can come up with to criticise the coverage itself, then I have to admire your persistence at finding ever more random reasons to slate them. It just baffles me why you seem to be so bitter about talkSPORT's coverage when in my opinion it's been very enjoyable to listen to in the main and hasn't justified anywhere near the level of ire you are pouring their way.

Fortytwo - you've made a fairly strong accusation about whoever the main commentator in question was. But I have to ask which game you were listening to? It's clearly unfair to tar the whole of the talkSPORT team with the same brush if a single commentary was as you describe, so it would be good if you could name the game you listened to so we can identify the commentator(s) who covered that game. I also think it makes a fair bit of difference here if the guys in question were covering a game involving two of the bigger nations or if one/both teams playing that morning were among the less well-known squads.
Iworkinradio
20-09-2011
dp delete
Iworkinradio
20-09-2011
Originally Posted by The Difference:
“"Accurate." So far you have posted absolutely no evidence to support your largely anecdotal and assumption-based theories about how the talkSPORT audience are dead against hearing rugby coverage and how trying to appeal to their existing 56% ABC1 audience will eventually lead to the station going the way of Woolworths.

So many of the arguments you have put forward against talkSPORT's coverage have since been exposed as being completely untrue, you've contradicted yourself a number of times as well (one minute they're doing too much coverage, the next they're not doing enough; you say their other programmes are ignoring the tournament, then you say they're talking about it to the point of boredom). But hey, keep digging away if you wish, I'm intrigued to see how creative you can get when it comes to trying to find some mud to sling at the station.

As for their trailers - not all of them are to my taste, but they must be pleasing someone as the talkSPORT Creative team seem to be highly-regarded in the radio industry as they have won a large number of Sony, Radio Academy and other awards over the years.

If slating their marketing is the best you can come up with to criticise the coverage itself, then I have to admire your persistence at finding ever more random reasons to slate them. It just baffles me why you seem to be so bitter about talkSPORT's coverage when in my opinion it's been very enjoyable to listen to in the main and hasn't justified anywhere near the level of ire you are pouring their way.

Fortytwo - you've made a fairly strong accusation about whoever the main commentator in question was. But I have to ask which game you were listening to? It's clearly unfair to tar the whole of the talkSPORT team with the same brush if a single commentary was as you describe, so it would be good if you could name the game you listened to so we can identify the commentator(s) who covered that game. I also think it makes a fair bit of difference here if the guys in question were covering a game involving two of the bigger nations or if one/both teams playing that morning were among the less well-known squads.”

The Woolworths analysis is entirely accurate. Look it up. They ignored their core audeince by trying to appeal to an aspirational audience that didn't wangt to shop there. When they tried Woolworths they found the product didn't match up to the marketing. Couldn't be clearer Moz.

I don't think I've accused them of doing too muhc, quite the opposite. Inventing contradictions does you no good. Very Adrian Durham

Some very bizarre things win awards, but that "Argies" trail was treading on Piers Morgan "ACHTUNG!" territory

fortytwo had it spot on JT sounded well off the pace on sunday morning, confusing centres and the back row on quite a few occasions

Your admirable loyalty is very touching, but not very objective
The Difference
20-09-2011
Originally Posted by Iworkinradio:
“The Woolworths analysis is entirely accurate. Look it up. They ignored their core audeince by trying to appeal to an aspirational audience that didn't wangt to shop there. When they tried Woolworths they found the product didn't match up to the marketing. Couldn't be clearer Moz.”

Accurate to the case of Woolworths - but clearly anything near that case study is not true of talkSPORT at the moment. As a station, you cannot deny they are doing extremely well. Just look at the data about their RAJAR figures, audience demographics and advertising revenue, the station has never been more healthy and indeed appealing to their audience.

How do you know fortytwo was talking about John Taylor on England v Georgia? Or is that yet another assumption? And as for you talking about them doing too much coverage, didn't you bemoan the fact they were doing too much cross promotion before trotting out that ridiculous "you wouldn't know it was on" line?

I notice you are quick to accuse others of being Moz Dee on this and other threads, but I'm interested to know what your agenda is. You've clearly got some kind of wider issue with the station, I'd be interested to know why this is but so far you have dodged my question. If you are going to be so quick to question other people's objectivity, then it's only right and proper that we know where you are coming from.
Iworkinradio
20-09-2011
Originally Posted by The Difference:
“Accurate to the case of Woolworths - but clearly anything near that case study is not true of talkSPORT at the moment. As a station, you cannot deny they are doing extremely well. Just look at the data about their RAJAR figures, audience demographics and advertising revenue, the station has never been more healthy and indeed appealing to their audience.

How do you know fortytwo was talking about John Taylor on England v Georgia? Or is that yet another assumption? And as for you talking about them doing too much coverage, didn't you bemoan the fact they were doing too much cross promotion before trotting out that ridiculous "you wouldn't know it was on" line?

I notice you are quick to accuse others of being Moz Dee on this and other threads, but I'm interested to know what your agenda is. You've clearly got some kind of wider issue with the station, I'd be interested to know why this is but so far you have dodged my question. If you are going to be so quick to question other people's objectivity, then it's only right and proper that we know where you are coming from.”

I assume that's the game forty two was on about because I hear him make mistakes during the Georgia game.

Nope, not me, cross promotion good, basic radio station management. The wouldn't know it was on line related to the lack of content in the daytime/weekend schedule outside gthe commentary, lack of enthusiasm and knowledge from the main presenters.

I love Moz, he's a great radio man with a great passion but he's got the rugby call wrong. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. Don't think I've mentioned him on any other thread apart from this one twice

You remind of him because he's the sort of bloke who would be still standing in the middle of Hiroshima, post bomb, with a bow and arrow saying "we could still win this"
The Difference
21-09-2011
Originally Posted by Iworkinradio:
“I assume that's the game forty two was on about because I hear him make mistakes during the Georgia game.”

So, that's another assumption then. And I find it weird that you continue to listen to something you have made it clear that you aren't enjoying.

Originally Posted by Iworkinradio:
“The wouldn't know it was on line related to the lack of content in the daytime/weekend schedule outside gthe commentary, lack of enthusiasm and knowledge from the main presenters.”

I don't like to assume , but I take it you don't listen to much of the station then?

Over the past two or three weeks there have been two or three rugby-related guests on each of the weekday daytime programmes I've listened to. And I've found the likes of Paul Hawksbee, Andy Jacobs, Adrian Durham, Richard Keys and even Mike Graham to be surprisingly enthusiastic about the tournament. Your accusations here couldn't be any further from the truth in my mind.

Originally Posted by Iworkinradio:
“I love Moz, he's a great radio man with a great passion but he's got the rugby call wrong. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. Don't think I've mentioned him on any other thread apart from this one twice

You remind of him because he's the sort of bloke who would be still standing in the middle of Hiroshima, post bomb, with a bow and arrow saying "we could still win this"”

I remember replying to a post from you in a RAJAR thread where you'd accused someone of being Moz for saying that talkSPORT among other stations had done well in that quarters figures. So I guess SouthCity and I are in good company, it's not a comparison I mind but I do wonder why you've ignored my questions about what angle you are coming at this from?

And Iworkinradio, I repeat, talkSPORT are winning. The station is doing as well as it ever has done. Their coverage of the Rugby World Cup is unlikely to have a detrimental effect in the long-run and if anything Moz has made a particularly shrewd move as it can only help change the "talkFOOTBALL" and downmarket perceptions about the station.
Iworkinradio
21-09-2011
Originally Posted by The Difference:
“So, that's another assumption then. And I find it weird that you continue to listen to something you have made it clear that you aren't enjoying.



I don't like to assume , but I take it you don't listen to much of the station then?

Over the past two or three weeks there have been two or three rugby-related guests on each of the weekday daytime programmes I've dipped listened to bits of. And I've found the likes of Paul Hawksbee, Andy Jacobs, Adrian Durham, Richard Keys and even Mike Graham to be surprisingly enthusiastic about the tournament. Your accusations here couldn't be any further from the truth in my mind.



I remember replying to a post from you in a RAJAR thread where you'd accused someone of being Moz for saying that talkSPORT among other stations had done well in that quarters figures. So I guess SouthCity and I are in good company, it's not a comparison I mind but I do wonder why you've ignored my questions about what angle you are coming at this from?

And Iworkinradio, I repeat, talkSPORT are winning. The station is doing as well as it ever has done. Their coverage of the Rugby World Cup is unlikely to have a detrimental effect in the long-run and if anything Moz has made a particularly shrewd move as it can only help change the "talkFOOTBALL" and downmarket perceptions about the station.”

Its #winning like charlie sheen is #winning

I have no angle, and yes I agree that you and southcity would make very good company. You clearly have slightly disturbing knowledge of my posting hsitory. The point is the same. Moz is great fun, good for the industry but his relentless overconfidence does require the odd pinch of salt. Its nothing ore than an affectionate tease.

You have to understand that radio is an emotional medium
not a forensic one. Its about how it makes you feel. I feel that TS rugby coverage is poor, it leaves me disappointed and I think its wrong for the audience. Its my opinion, I don't have to prove it, but its based on quite a bit of marketing and radio experience.

I'm interested in your comment Their coverage of the Rugby World Cup is unlikely to have a detrimental effect in the long-run

but in short run it may? coming round to my point of view?
<<
<
4 of 7
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map