The Official Ottawa Sports Radio Thread #2

[operasen]

Someone above indicated positive ideas were better. Here's one instead of the 60 minute shoot-off.

Why not set up a rotation of interviews with RedBlacks players, trainers and coaches. One a day in the same timeslot. Get to know our team.

Then for fun, we could do the same in the afternoon with the Senators, including the prospects. How's your summer and what are you working on; where are you travelling; what are you training for.

And in the later afternoon, do the Fury and Champions, and who knows, this could be expanded to include other athletes in town from golf and tennis to boxing.

Not too far out of the zone of interesting ideas - IF the hosts can be prepared with a serious, focussed set of questions to create more fan interest and keep the interview on the rails. Questions could even be prepared by the interviewee ahead of time, so the host does not have to spend 3 minutes asking it and telling a story of how the background relates and basically answering it themselves.

For these make the segments 12 minutes of air time (instead of 8)

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Someone above indicated positive ideas were better. Here's one instead of the 60 minute shoot-off.

Why not set up a rotation of interviews with RedBlacks players, trainers and coaches. One a day in the same timeslot. Get to know our team.

Then for fun, we could do the same in the afternoon with the Senators, including the prospects. How's your summer and what are you working on; where are you travelling; what are you training for.

And in the later afternoon, do the Fury and Champions, and who knows, this could be expanded to include other athletes in town from golf and tennis to boxing.

Not too far out of the zone of interesting ideas - IF the hosts can be prepared with a serious, focussed set of questions to create more fan interest and keep the interview on the rails. Questions could even be prepared by the interviewee ahead of time, so the host does not have to spend 3 minutes asking it and telling a story of how the background relates and basically answering it themselves.

For these make the segments 12 minutes of air time (instead of 8)

That is a great idea.

That's one of the big problems with some of the 'other' pro teams in the city. Most folks in the city have no idea who most of the players are, so it's hard to build an attachment to some of these teams (especially the baseball and soccer teams). Give all our professional clubs a higher citywide profile, and that will help dramatically to build a strong fanbase.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

Really? Really? You have zero idea what the term accountability could mean in relation to a radio station?

Well, that's not exactly what I meant ... what I meant is I have zero idea what accountability people would expect to see. Explained below.

It means exactly the same thing it does in any other profession, that you are to report, justify your actions and are answerable to a person above you in some capacity. In a radio station that takes the form of the station manager, who I believe is J.R. and beyond that other TSN/Bell Media executives.

Okay, excellent, these are some specifics.

What you're describing commonly falls under the term "performance management", and yes (almost) all companies do it. It consists of regular performance discussions (undocumented), formal performance reviews (documented), objectives and goals for the employee, "probation" periods (where an employee has been put on notice that they need to improve their performance in very specific, documented areas), and in extreme cases termination of under performing employees. Usually, people's annual salary increases are directly tied to their performance reviews, and many companies have some form of bonus program where actual $$ values paid out to the employee are linked to their performance.

I've been a manager of SW engineering teams at 4 different Ottawa firms for the past 20 years, have directly managed 100 or so people, and probably delivered >500 performance reviews in that time. So, I'm quite familiar with these concepts.

BUT here's the thing -- the specifics of performance management are private and confidential. The only people who know what performance reviews an employee is receiving are the employee, his manager and the VP of HR. The only time it becomes visible to other people, is when the employee is terminated.

So -- for all we know, Simpson could be on and off probation all the time for his sexist remarks, Steve Warne may not have had a raise in 5 years due to TGORs ratings, and Lee Versage may have been given feedback constantly that he needs to tone down the bickering.

This is what I have no idea about ... why people think that there is no accountability, simply because there would be no way for you to know what is happening behind the scenes with these guys.

(We do know, of course, that some on air personalities have been let go -- Jungle, Phil Melanson, Kulka. Surely this is evidence of accountability?)

I will state this -- I would be absolutely shocked if the station manager (JR) didn't have some part of his compensation tied to the station's ratings.

Specific examples would be; someone ensuring that hosts are prepared for interviews and segments with notes and pre-planned ideas of quality questions/topics, when segments get derailed by personal stories and bad jokes that have no relevance to the show someone is asking why, mandatory professional improvement (could take many forms).

Here you're evaluating the results of the performance management. You believe that there is no improvement --- and concluding from that that performance management isn't happening.

Only two points on this:
- There have been some indications in this thread that people have heard improvements (eg. Simmer is more professional than he was a year ago). You may disagree, but some people have made those statements.

- Simple fact is that at some point employees get to be as good as they can be. It's something that no VP of HR would ever admit or understand, but people are who they are, they're limited by their (lack of) god-given talents and attributes. Eg. JR could tell Simpson not to laugh at his own jokes every day for the next 5 years and it would still make no difference ... Simpson just can't change that.

So eventually, JR has to decide "Do I fire this guy for laughing at his own jokes, or do I just live with it?" And if you think the firing option is easy and obvious ... well it's not (trust me, I've been there).

 

[tsn1200lady]

Well, that's not exactly what I meant ... what I meant is I have zero idea what accountability people would expect to see. Explained below.



Okay, excellent, these are some specifics.

What you're describing commonly falls under the term "performance management", and yes (almost) all companies do it. It consists of regular performance discussions (undocumented), formal performance reviews (documented), objectives and goals for the employee, "probation" periods (where an employee has been put on notice that they need to improve their performance in very specific, documented areas), and in extreme cases termination of under performing employees. Usually, people's annual salary increases are directly tied to their performance reviews, and many companies have some form of bonus program where actual $$ values paid out to the employee are linked to their performance.

I've been a manager of SW engineering teams at 4 different Ottawa firms for the past 20 years, have directly managed 100 or so people, and probably delivered >500 performance reviews in that time. So, I'm quite familiar with these concepts.

BUT here's the thing -- the specifics of performance management are private and confidential. The only people who know what performance reviews an employee is receiving are the employee, his manager and the VP of HR. The only time it becomes visible to other people, is when the employee is terminated.

So -- for all we know, Simpson could be on and off probation all the time for his sexist remarks, Steve Warne may not have had a raise in 5 years due to TGORs ratings, and Lee Versage may have been given feedback constantly that he needs to tone down the bickering.

This is what I have no idea about ... why people think that there is no accountability, simply because there would be no way for you to know what is happening behind the scenes with these guys.

(We do know, of course, that some on air personalities have been let go -- Jungle, Phil Melanson, Kulka. Surely this is evidence of accountability?)

I will state this -- I would be absolutely shocked if the station manager (JR) didn't have some part of his compensation tied to the station's ratings.



Here you're evaluating the results of the performance management. You believe that there is no improvement --- and concluding from that that performance management isn't happening.

Only two points on this:
- There have been some indications in this thread that people have heard improvements (eg. Simmer is more professional than he was a year ago). You may disagree, but some people have made those statements.

- Simple fact is that at some point employees get to be as good as they can be. It's something that no VP of HR would ever admit or understand, but people are who they are, they're limited by their (lack of) god-given talents and attributes. Eg. JR could tell Simpson not to laugh at his own jokes every day for the next 5 years and it would still make no difference ... Simpson just can't change that.

So eventually, JR has to decide "Do I fire this guy for laughing at his own jokes, or do I just live with it?" And if you think the firing option is easy and obvious ... well it's not (trust me, I've been there).

What a great post, thank you. You are correct we don't know what goes on behind the scenes and as much as I may not be a fan of some I would hate anyone to lose a job. A few months ago, I emailed my concerns regarding a certain host and maybe they could find someone else to fill in on TGOR. JR actually emailed me back explaining said host is used because he has the less family and outside commitments and can easily change his schedule but that he will keep in him on track.

Despite all the bickering and criticism (yes, I'm guilty) we all have the common goal we would just like a good sports radio station and I think this board helps. Communication is always a good thing.

 

[operasen]

What a great post, thank you. You are correct we don't know what goes on behind the scenes and as much as I may not be a fan of some I would hate anyone to lose a job. A few months ago, I emailed my concerns regarding a certain host and maybe they could find someone else to fill in on TGOR. JR actually emailed me back explaining said host is used because he has the less family and outside commitments and can easily change his schedule but that he will keep in him on track.

Despite all the bickering and criticism (yes, I'm guilty) we all have the common goal we would just like a good sports radio station and I think this board helps. Communication is always a good thing.

All well and good, but performance reviews have to be measureable. When positive change is indicated, it has to become evident in the on-air presentation. This just does not happen at Team 1200 in any kind of an consistent, ongoing basis. There are one or two who get it, but more than most who just talk about anything for a paycheck. And management, based on the non-on-air improvement, thinks this is acceptable, because it fills the air until the next commercial.

 

[connor macdavid]

Two Man Advantage - July16th

Here's the archive of our show today:

7m --> RedBlacks preview (turned into more of an Eskimos QB discussion )
17m --> Interview w/Fury head coach Marc Dos Santos, followed by weekend preview
38m --> NHL offseason discussion
57m --> Ottawa weekend sports predictions

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

All well and good, but performance reviews have to be measureable. When positive change is indicated, it has to become evident in the on-air presentation....

I'm a big believer in "measurable" (aka quantifiable) performance management. But what that means, to me anyway, is that you've defined a set of metrics and you've done the work to gather them and you use them to define whether something is improving or not. Eg. You could measure how often Simmer laughs at his own jokes, and if in 2014 it was 27.3 times per show, and in 2015 it is 27.4 times per show, then you have the data to conclude that he has not improved in that regard.

But, I suspect you don't really mean "measurable"... as I'd really be surprised if you (or any listener) has gathered any real data about the "on-air presentation".

Once again though -- I really believe that JR has a performance measure related to the stations ratings, and his compensation is (probably) very much tied to that measure. So, I gotta believe he takes the ratings very seriously -- which you would then expect him to take the on-air product very seriously.

 

[MiscBrah]

I'm a big believer in "measurable" (aka quantifiable) performance management. But what that means, to me anyway, is that you've defined a set of metrics and you've done the work to gather them and you use them to define whether something is improving or not. Eg. You could measure how often Simmer laughs at his own jokes, and if in 2014 it was 27.3 times per show, and in 2015 it is 27.4 times per show, then you have the data to conclude that he has not improved in that regard.

But, I suspect you don't really mean "measurable"... as I'd really be surprised if you (or any listener) has gathered any real data about the "on-air presentation".

Once again though -- I really believe that JR has a performance measure related to the stations ratings, and his compensation is (probably) very much tied to that measure. So, I gotta believe he takes the ratings very seriously -- which you would then expect him to take the on-air product very seriously.

Why don't you just use radio station ratings? TSN 1200 got a nice bump this spring from the Hamburglar, let's see if they can carry that momentum forward. Before this Spring their ratings were nothing to be proud of.

Do you really think a Bell executive looks at the jump they had and said to their management team, "WOW, J.R. has really got things firing on all cylinders in Ottawa! Look at the ratings from this Spring!!"

I'm not buying it.

Do you have any evidence, other than theorizing that the station manager's compensation is tied to ratings, that leads you to believe that anyone takes the content seriously? I don't know how you can listen for more than a few days and come to that conclusion.

They are soooo damn fortunate that they have zero competition in the Ottawa market. People are tuning in solely because they crave sports radio and there is no alternative, not because they really enjoy the content or the hosts.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

...
Do you have any evidence, other than theorizing that the station manager's compensation is tied to ratings, that leads you to believe that anyone takes the content seriously? ...

Direct evidence? None whatsoever.

Experience with how managers in business are evaluated, compensated and incented? Yup, 20 years worth.

 

[MiscBrah]

Direct evidence? None whatsoever.

Experience with how managers in business are evaluated, compensated and incented? Yup, 20 years worth.

And has every manager whose compensation was tied to performance always actualized those company goals?

Most people's compensation is tied to performance and efficiency, yet there is still a large percentage of terrible workers. Using your model, everyone would be giving 100% effort 100% of the time, but we both know that doesn't happen.

 

[operasen]

I guess where I am going with it is towards understanding the program content and how it is delivered. Is there a focus on professionalism in the delivery.

If Simmer laughs at silliness 27 times a segment it is evident it doesn't belong and should change. If he maintains a sense of humour during the same time, it may be perceived differently. If he is repeatedly leading the discussion away from it's focus toward silliness, then that also becomes an issue.

In interviews, Mendez (by example) takes lot of sentences, during which he gives his own point of view and profiles the answer, to ask a question. Which is usually a pretty short point of view answer.

Another positive point to make: I wonder if the station would dare to allow three consecutive afternoon timeframes to have a listener discussion on the content and its delivery. Positive solutions and comments only - no maligning with insults - constructive criticism with a solution.

We are told the 60 minute shooter is a great thing in the morning; yet I doubt, beyond those who tune is to potentially hear someone make a fool of themselves, that is the case. And after 4 or 5 years, maybe there is something else that could better fill that timeslot.

Pierre gets a lot of listenership - like him or not. He talks hockey and has a point of view people want to hear. Macremella is another on the legal issues of sports. TSN690 also has Pierre, and many, many others who offer the same idea. We should build on the positives.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

And has every manager whose compensation was tied to performance always actualized those company goals?

Most people's compensation is tied to performance and efficiency, yet there is still a large percentage of terrible workers. Using your model, everyone would be giving 100% effort 100% of the time, but we both know that doesn't happen.

No, with my model everyone does not give 100% effort 100% of the time.

But, going way back to why I jumped into this thread, there were two points that I am addressing: 1) there is no "accountability", and 2) management doesn't care about the quality of the content

And, I've basically made two points:
1) The listener would never be privy to the "accountability", because it's part of performance management which is very private to the employee. So the statement "there is no accountability" cannot be backed up with any hard evidence.

2) I would be shocked if JR (station manager) does not have some portion of his compensation tied to station ratings. So, I would similarly be shocked if he "doesn't care" about the quality of content (assuming better content leads to better ratings).

If my two points are correct, you might conclude that that will automatically lead to better content (ie everyone giving 100% effort 100% of the time).

But that is not the case. There are many reasons why performance management / "accountability" fails and doesn't lead to actual better performance. I could go into these, but I suspect NO ONE on this board would really be interested...

 

[operasen]

No, with my model everyone does not give 100% effort 100% of the time.

But, going way back to why I jumped into this thread, there were two points that I am addressing: 1) there is no "accountability", and 2) management doesn't care about the quality of the content

And, I've basically made two points:
1) The listener would never be privy to the "accountability", because it's part of performance management which is very private to the employee. So the statement "there is no accountability" cannot be backed up with any hard evidence.

2) I would be shocked if JR (station manager) does not have some portion of his compensation tied to station ratings. So, I would similarly be shocked if he "doesn't care" about the quality of content (assuming better content leads to better ratings).

If my two points are correct, you might conclude that that will automatically lead to better content (ie everyone giving 100% effort 100% of the time).

But that is not the case. There are many reasons why performance management / "accountability" fails and doesn't lead to actual better performance. I could go into these, but I suspect NO ONE on this board would really be interested...

Make complete sense to me. I wish we could at least hear a difference in the programming content and delivery, but there is no-one to lay out how the on-air "personalities" are supposed to act, even with better content.

 

[tsn1200lady]

Make complete sense to me. I wish we could at least hear a difference in the programming content and delivery, but there is no-one to lay out how the on-air "personalities" are supposed to act, even with better content.

It wouldn't improve because the on-air "personalities" love to push each others buttons. Todd White "pokes the bear" to get AJ to off on one of his famous rants, they all like to debate Lee to get him going and when Simmer is on TGOR Steve and Hammer pick subjects that they know is going to lead him to say something totally inappropriate . Guessing they think listeners like it and I'm sure some do.

On a positive note, I think Todd White has been a great add to the staff and he should be named permanent co-host for in the box.

 

[connor macdavid]

Two Man Advantage: 07/23

Here's the podcast of our show today on 93.1 FM:


6:30m —> Show Start
7m —> RedBlacks Preview (key matchup: Gavins v. Rogers)
11m —> Copious amounts of Ravens women's hockey coverage
24:30m —> Ottawa Champions sputtering? Baseball discussion
43m —> NHL talk, Sens draft review, Oshie+Sharp deals.
54m —> Ottawa Fury FC talk

 

[freddy61]

Turned the radio on TSN1200 late this afternoon and caught part of Mendes going all stuffed shirt on a listener. Something about not wanting to talk about Chiasson when there was more important Toronto news and Baseball to talk about. Lee seemed in full agreement.

Anybody know what that was all about? Did someone write or call just asking about Chiasson or is there more to the story. Mendes seemed really peeved and Lee was cheering him on. I turned the radio off after hearing the last part of Mendes rant since they were going to commercial and he said they were going to talk baseball when they returned which is of no interest to me.

 

[Super Cake]

Turned the radio on TSN1200 late this afternoon and caught part of Mendes going all stuffed shirt on a listener. Something about not wanting to talk about Chiasson when there was more important Toronto news and Baseball to talk about. Lee seemed in full agreement.

Anybody know what that was all about? Did someone write or call just asking about Chiasson or is there more to the story. Mendes seemed really peeved and Lee was cheering him on. I turned the radio off after hearing the last part of Mendes rant since they were going to commercial and he said they were going to talk baseball when they returned which is of no interest to me.

Ian Mendes ‏@ian_mendes 2h2 hours ago
I do not believe in talking hockey 12 months of the year. Will talk hockey when it's warranted in the summer.

 

[freddy61]

Ian Mendes ‏@ian_mendes 2h2 hours ago
I do not believe in talking hockey 12 months of the year. Will talk hockey when it's warranted in the summer.

What's with the giant Bell LTE double quote of my post? Is this advertising by Bell? I don't get what that is and why you are doing that. I see no value added in being quoted twice with the second in a giant font.

I see you say that Ian Mendes says he doesn't want to talk hockey 12 months a year but there is no context as to why he was so upset and Lee was egging him on. Did one or more listeners call in, tweet or text in to blast him for not talking hockey or did someone just innocently inquire about Chiasson's contract status or some other hockey topic?

EDIT:

OK I'm a bit slow but I think I get the large font quote.

I don't use twitter but just Googled Ian Mendes ‏@ian_mendes. I clicked on the link and it showed Ian responding to my post copied from this site. Thanks for responding Ian but I wish you would have posted here since I don't use twitter. As I wrote above my main interest was in finding out what got you so upset. Lee gets hot which is fine by me but you are usually the voice of reason and calm. I find it hard to believe you'd take off just because someone wanted to talk hockey. I still lack context.

 

[Super Cake]

What's with the giant Bell LTE double quote of my post? Is this advertising by Bell? I don't get what that is and why you are doing that. I see no value added in being quoted twice with the second in a giant font.

I heard Mendes answer he doesn't want to talk hockey 12 months a year but there is no context as to why he was so upset and Lee was egging him on. Did one or more listeners call in, tweet or text in to blast him for not talking hockey or did someone just innocently inquire about Chiasson's contract status or some other hockey topic?

Sorry, I copied and pasted his tweet. His tweet included your post.

 

[freddy61]

Sorry, I copied and pasted his tweet. His tweet included your post.

Ok thanks if you look back I just edited mine once I figured out that twitter was involved.

 

[BloodRedArmy]

Turned the radio on TSN1200 late this afternoon and caught part of Mendes going all stuffed shirt on a listener. Something about not wanting to talk about Chiasson when there was more important Toronto news and Baseball to talk about. Lee seemed in full agreement.

Anybody know what that was all about? Did someone write or call just asking about Chiasson or is there more to the story. Mendes seemed really peeved and Lee was cheering him on. I turned the radio off after hearing the last part of Mendes rant since they were going to commercial and he said they were going to talk baseball when they returned which is of no interest to me.

I was listening. Someone called or emailed in and complained that all they were talking about was Lou/ Leafs, and that Chiasson was in arbitration and they weren't talking about that at all... was complaining that it was the "Toronto" sports radio.

Mendes just stated that there was nothing to report on re: Chiasson and that the Lou news was huge throughout the NHL, etc. etc. He was definitely annoyed, and rightfully so.

Lee was just being Lee, a complete ********.

 

[freddy61]

I was listening. Someone called or emailed in and complained that all they were talking about was Lou/ Leafs, and that Chiasson was in arbitration and they weren't talking about that at all... was complaining that it was the "Toronto" sports radio.

Mendes just stated that there was nothing to report on re: Chiasson and that the Lou news was huge throughout the NHL, etc. etc. He was definitely annoyed, and rightfully so.

Lee was just being Lee, a complete ********.

Thanks maybe it just sounded worse to me because I had just turned the radio on and first thing I heard was Ian who sounded more than a bit peeved and maybe even to my ears at least, a bit like ... "its my show and I'll talk about what I want to talk about so put that in your pipe and smoke it!" It's not often I've heard Lee Versage so impressed with the assertive side of Mendes. To be clear, Ian never said those words but without context there was that possible interpretation. On the old Team1200 post game shows a few times some hosts made it clear it was their show and refused to discuss certain topics like refs etc... Sports radio often nosedived in Ottawa on those nights where they kaboshed what many late night fans wanted to discuss.

From what you wrote here in this case, it sounds like you may be implying that the caller / writer might have been the problem pushing a no-news topic.

Anyway, this was just something unusual in timing and content that captured my attention and piqued my curiosity for those few minutes after my ultra short radio fix that day. I guess it was really nothing much or more people would have commented on it. TSN1200 might have a replay of the show. Maybe I can find it there if I get around to it.

 

[Canadian91]

Turned the radio on TSN1200 late this afternoon and caught part of Mendes going all stuffed shirt on a listener. Something about not wanting to talk about Chiasson when there was more important Toronto news and Baseball to talk about. Lee seemed in full agreement.

Anybody know what that was all about? Did someone write or call just asking about Chiasson or is there more to the story. Mendes seemed really peeved and Lee was cheering him on. I turned the radio off after hearing the last part of Mendes rant since they were going to commercial and he said they were going to talk baseball when they returned which is of no interest to me.

Some people love baseball. This isn't "freddy65 radio" it's sports radio. Baseball is a sport, they're allowed to talk about it, and they should talk about it.

 

[freddy61]

Some people love baseball. This isn't "freddy65 radio" it's sports radio. Baseball is a sport, they're allowed to talk about it, and they should talk about it.

Who said it was? Your comment makes no sense!!!

 

[BonkTastic]

Don Brennan is somehow more insufferable on the radio than he is in print.

I've only been back in Ottawa for like 3 weeks, and I already am forced to change the dial when Brennan is guest hosting with Mendes. It's un-listenable.