PDA

View Full Version : Which job is more prestigious: Reds TV broadcaster or Reds radio broadcaster?



macro
10-04-2006, 04:13 PM
The hiring of Thom Brennaman to fill the Reds radio broadcast booth got me to thinking about this. I haven't read much of the Brennaman hiring threads, so forgive me if this has been brought up...

Twenty years ago, I would have considered the job of the Reds' radio broadcaster to be more prestigious. Only about 40 or so games a year were available on television, and even those were only available to those who either had cable or were within antenna reception range of a station that was a part of the Reds television network. The bottom line was that on most days or nights during the baseball season, Reds fans were listening to Marty and Joe call Reds games on the radio. Furthermore, the Reds radio network was about four times as many stations as it is today.

Today, the radio network is much, much smaller, and with more and more games being available (almost all of them in 2007) on television, are that many people really listening to the Reds on radio anymore? Who is going to be more recognizable to the newest generations of Reds fans, the radio guys or the TV guys?

It would seem to me that if Thom wanted the job with the greatest stature, recognizability, and exposure, he would've wanted the job as the Reds TV guy.

Reds4Life
10-04-2006, 04:18 PM
I'd say TV. I don't know any Reds fan under 30 that listens to the game on the radio unless they are in a car.

flyer85
10-04-2006, 04:20 PM
with 145 games on the tube I would say TV.

Joseph
10-04-2006, 04:22 PM
I'd wager that were dad not on the radio, Thom would be here strictly as a TV guy now.

Of course I guess you could also add that were dad not with the Reds he wouldnt have left Arizona, but the point stands that Marty being on the radio is why Thom is split between the two instead of solely TV.

MartyFan
10-04-2006, 04:31 PM
Not even close...RADIO...hardly anybody watches the TV broadcasts.

Red Leader
10-04-2006, 04:34 PM
Not even close...RADIO...hardly anybody watches the TV broadcasts.

I disagree.

I grew up listening to the Reds on radio. Now that 100+ games are aired on TV, I'd rather put up with George and Chris and actually get to watch the game than listen to Marty, Joe, Steve, etc and NOT get to watch the game. The only time I listen to the games on radio is when the game is not on TV.

I'd venture to guess that anyone under 35 or so wouldn't choose to listen to the game on radio over watching it on TV.

flyer85
10-04-2006, 04:34 PM
Not even close...RADIO...hardly anybody watches the TV broadcasts.is that you Marty? :evil:

MartyFan
10-04-2006, 04:38 PM
Yeah...no seriously...the history of the Radio Broadcast and all the great calls make it far and away a bigger deal than the TV broadcast...I haven't watched a Reds game on TV in years but when I did I would turn down the TV and listen to Marty and Joe.

Danny Serafini
10-04-2006, 04:40 PM
I'd say radio. The prestige TV jobs are national ones - ESPN, Fox Game of the Week, etc. If you're doing local team broadcasts, you're essentially a B level performer. You don't have that situation with radio, as national radio broadcasts aren't a big deal. You get to be a top dog, instead of second-tier.

KronoRed
10-04-2006, 04:49 PM
I'd say about equal these days.

flyer85
10-04-2006, 04:51 PM
Yeah...no seriously...the history of the Radio Broadcast and all the great calls make it far and away a bigger deal than the TV broadcast...I haven't watched a Reds game on TV in years but when I did I would turn down the TV and listen to Marty and Joe.and yet if the Reds put Thom in the TV booth I am willing to bet you will listen to TV broadcast.

TOBTTReds
10-04-2006, 04:58 PM
Not even close...RADIO...hardly anybody watches the TV broadcasts.

A little out of touch with the 2000's??? The reason why people don't listen to TV games is bc of the announcers. I despise listening to GG, but I still watch every single game that is on. I really don't know anyone who would sit around and listen to the game when a TV is right in front of them.

As far as prestige goes, I would say radio is more prestigious still. I think it will change soon enough though.

Ltlabner
10-04-2006, 05:42 PM
I'd venture to guess that anyone under 35 or so wouldn't choose to listen to the game on radio over watching it on TV.

I'm 34 and would rather listen on the radio. So you would have guessed wrong. :evil:

I don't often have the time to watch an entire ballgame so I'd rather have the passive radio broadcast in the background so I can do other things than be tied to the TV.

redsfan30
10-04-2006, 06:07 PM
I'd say TV. I don't know any Reds fan under 30 that listens to the game on the radio unless they are in a car.

:wave:

Matt700wlw
10-04-2006, 06:18 PM
When I wasn't doing what I do now...or happen to have a game off, whether or not the game is on TV or not, I have the radio on...even if I ALSO have the TV on.

I don't know how much of that will change when Marty hangs it up, but if Thom is here for a while, he may be a big factor in my decision.

Red in Chicago
10-04-2006, 06:35 PM
i definately prefer to watch baseball, as opposed to listening on the radio...however, if i were a local, i would turn down the tv and put the radio on...george really gets on my nerves...i enjoy marty a great deal on those chances i've been able to listen...

i'm excited about thom coming to cincy

vaticanplum
10-04-2006, 06:41 PM
:wave:

:wave:

I'm too cheap for cable, so it's a matter of necessity. But I think I'd listen to the radio even if I had cable -- it sounds more like a baseball game than TV looks like a baseball game.

RedsBaron
10-04-2006, 07:12 PM
radio

MrCinatit
10-04-2006, 07:59 PM
While I personally prefer radio, television easily. Video killed the radio star.

Unassisted
10-04-2006, 09:15 PM
I have a different view. TV is more prestigious in the markets where the games are available on broadcast TV. Since that is not the case in Reds Country, radio wins the race.

REDREAD
10-04-2006, 11:35 PM
I think TV is more prestigious. Let's face it, the TV stations pay a lot more for broadcasting rights. That tends to imply that more people watch it on TV than radio, or at least implies that the advertising time on TV is worth more.

Most people will watch it on TV if they have free time to spend. If one has to multitask, radio is better.

MartyFan
10-04-2006, 11:46 PM
Hmmm...let me do some looking into the numbers...I will try to find out how many watch and how many listen to the average Reds game.

I do think that there is something to the post about availability on local stations.

WVRedsFan
10-05-2006, 12:30 AM
Baseball is a sport of tradition. It's different that any other sport. The NFL is a television sport, no doubt. NASCAR on TV is the only ticket. Same for the NBA. Ah, but baseball..

Your favorite NFL team is on once per week. It's a big event. It's on Sunday (well, usually. These days, who knows?). You're usually home and if not, FOX or CBS might have it on. The NBA is a TV sport. Same with NASCAR. Baseball is different.

Up until the last five years, we had no Reds TV in WV. Years ago, when WLW TV was doing the games, WSAZ in Huntington carried he games and you watched those. Later it changed to WVAH in Hurricaine, but when the Reds went to FSN (SportsChannel Cincinnati), we were shut out. The rare times they were on National TV were the only times you could see a game on TV. So, you listened to the radio. Then the miracle of DirecTV came to the world and Extra Innings. I was then able to get FSN-Ohio (nee SC Cincinnati) and the Reds games. If you live in Cincy, you always had TV, but for us fans out away from the city, it has always been radio. With the advent of XM, we now can listen no matter where we are. Radio is baseball.

Most people know he radio voice of the MLB teams. Unless you are a fan of a certain team, name the TV voice. Who's the TV voice of the Astros? How about the Pirates? But...everyone knows Milo Hamilton and Lanny Frantierre (sp for sure).

Prestige? You cannot tell me that George Grande has more prestige in his job than Marty Brenneman. Not even close.

Ga_Red
10-05-2006, 01:14 AM
2/09/07

BCubb2003
10-05-2006, 01:27 AM
TV audiences may be larger, but I think in terms of personalities and standing in the community, it would be more prestigious to replace Marty and Joe than George and Chris.

Wheelhouse
10-05-2006, 01:58 AM
For the Reds--Radio: Waite Hoyte. Red Barber. Al Michaels. Marty. Joe. The radio booth is a throne. Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it's only within the last 15 years that the Reds did ANY TV of home games for fear of losing ticket sales. And the Fox bit is so cookie-cutter for every team: Aflac trivia, pimping Best Damn Shorts Show, same music when they post the lineups. Yawn.

RedFanAlways1966
10-05-2006, 08:31 AM
prestige
– noun
1. reputation or influence arising from success, achievement, rank, or other favorable attributes.
2. distinction or reputation attaching to a person or thing and thus possessing a cachet for others or for the public: The new discothèque has great prestige with the jet set.
–adjective
3. having or showing success, rank, wealth, etc.

With the above definition and answering the question asked... RADIO.

A radio announcer is there every game. A radio announcer is almost considered a member of the team by some fans. TV announcers seem to be more fly-by-night in Cincy. They change guys more often... although the radio announcer has seen some changes in the last two years, the TV announcers have changed many more times in my lifetime.


Baseball is a sport of tradition. It's different that any other sport. The NFL is a television sport, no doubt. NASCAR on TV is the only ticket. Same for the NBA. Ah, but baseball..

Well said, WV... well said!

WVRedsFan
10-05-2006, 10:16 AM
For the Reds--Radio: Waite Hoyte. Red Barber. Al Michaels. Marty. Joe. The radio booth is a throne. Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it's only within the last 15 years that the Reds did ANY TV of home games for fear of losing ticket sales. And the Fox bit is so cookie-cutter for every team: Aflac trivia, pimping Best Damn Shorts Show, same music when they post the lineups. Yawn.

Back in the 60's, you got a few (maybe 4) games a year at home (and it color, which was really rare), but in the 70's, the Reds were on quite often from Riverfront.

The 80's are a blur. I don't remember.

Chip R
10-05-2006, 10:46 AM
For the Reds--Radio: Waite Hoyte. Red Barber. Al Michaels. Marty. Joe. The radio booth is a throne. Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it's only within the last 15 years that the Reds did ANY TV of home games for fear of losing ticket sales. And the Fox bit is so cookie-cutter for every team: Aflac trivia, pimping Best Damn Shorts Show, same music when they post the lineups. Yawn.

I agree on Fox being cookie cutter. Though I shudder to think what the Reds would have done left to their own resources. Public access broadcasts might have been better produced. :eek:

WVRedsFan makes a good point. Radio has been around so much longer than TV that it has been ingrained into the fans - especially the older ones. Those of us who didn't grow up around here but loved the Reds only had radio to keep them informed on a daily basis. There was no internet, cable or satellite package to listen or watch the games. Personally, I feel a lot of loyalty to radio broadcasts of Reds games. Now I do choose TV over radio while at home even though the radio team is much better than George and Chris. But that is mainly cause it's a bit of a hassle to listen to both.

I'd probably say that for now radio is more prestigious. But I think that's mainly due to the person(s) behind the mike rather than the medium itself. But TV is catching up.

Jr's Boy
10-05-2006, 03:11 PM
No Banana phone on tv during rain delays.:dunn:

KronoRed
10-05-2006, 04:25 PM
No Banana phone on tv during rain delays.:dunn:

That's a zillion points for TV