May Radio Ratings & This Week in Bad Twitter

June 16th, 2016 | by mike (in boston)
May Radio Ratings & This Week in Bad Twitter
business of sports

photo credit: Twitter


by mike in boston / @mikeinboston & TSM / @yyzsportsmedia


May Sports Radio Ratings


Jonah has dug up the ratings for both stations. We are trying to find out how much turnover there has been in the PPMs used to generate these numbers over the last few months, as well as the current number of PPMs being worn by sports radio listeners in the key demos. Those are closely guarded secrets for the time being and absent that info it's hard to know whether the changes we see relfect anything more than random chance. 


Here is how things shaped up in May. All numbers are Males 25-54. April '16 number in brackets.


  • Dean Blundell & Co: 6.8 [6.5]
  • Naylor & Landsberg: 1.2 [0.5]


  • The Jeff Blair Show: 10.8 [9.7]
  • Cauz & (variable): 0.4 [0.1]


  • Hockey Central: 5.0 [4.7]
  • Leafs Lunch: 1.0 [0.6]


  • The Andrew Walker Show: 5.3 [5.8]
  • The Mike Richards Show: 0.8 [0.7]


  • PTS: 8.0 [7.3]
  • Overdrive: 2.5 [2.4]


  • FAN 590 7-11pm: 9.0 [9.2]
  • TSN 1050 7-11pm: 2.8 [0.8]


We are prepping a full report on the state of the radio line-ups so we will omit serious analysis at this time. Basically, no major improvements for TSN but some feeble signs that some of the new shows are catching on. The FAN continues its dominance but, oddly, the big audience tuning in for Jays games at night seems to be skipping Dean Blundell's show in the morning and then tuning back in for Jeff Blair. Given how much we know about radio inertia this data is hard to understand. 


This Week in Bad Twitter


Can't recall a week with this much nonsense on Twitter. Here's a quick recap of some the stuff without which off we would have better been.


The Twitter gremlins claim another victim in Damien Cox. I have no idea what the context is for this tweet and neither do any of you. Damien's account is now on lockdown while he seeks out guidance from Steve Simmons and Nick Kypreos on how you come back from accidentally tweeting an embarassing DM.


Saved Photo


Next we have Ben Ennis vs David Langford. Not sure who to cheer for here since the argument seems to go off the rails pretty quickly. 



Here's another bad one. Ken Campbell with an "unconfirmed" BREAKING NEWS tweet. I would have thought since James Mirtle's Montador mistake people would be extra careful about death. I mean, how hard would it be to wait until it is confirmed before tweeting about it? Very hard apparently. 



Next up is Mike Richards expressing his displeasure about the a bill proposing gender inclusive language for the Canadian national anthem. I have no idea what this has to do with fighting a world war, but Mike sees a connection. Or rather he saw a connection until issuing a "sorry you were offended" tweet and deleting the original.


richards copy


Let's end on an uplifting note. Apparently Sid Seixeiro was away. Apparently he's back. Glad to see the lads are thriving on TV.


Saved Photo




thanks for reading and commenting,

mike (not really in boston) & TSM/Jonah



  1. GreyCountyMike says:

    Dave Langford is a must-read on Twitter because he not only will criticize any outrageous Canadian sports media, but does so from a position of credibility. Guy not only worked in the business “back in the day,” but is still in media today to my knowledge. A lot of people dismiss Marty York as being an embittered yesterday’s man, even if he is usually spot-on; by comparison, Langford remains fairly current, even when based in London, ON.

    As for Damien Cox, yikes!

  2. Stan says:

    Langford is very good at making specific suggestions (e.g. Too many irrelevant stats during a broadcast)

  3. Pete says:

    With those types of numbers, I’d say it solidifies Blair as the successor to McCown for Prime Time Sports. He’s pulling massive numbers in an unconventional time slot, he does an admirable job when filling in, and his sidekick could be Brunt who is one of the best in the business.

    Not much of a dent, but a reasonable increase for Naylor & Landsberg. I’m a broken record on this, but it makes sense considering what the alternative is.

  4. mario says:

    Thanks for the update. Looking at the numbers given Blair numbers a great and PTS is good as well seeing the shuffling or poor co- hosts. Not sure what Bell is thinking seeing they have been around now quiet a while now ,and how they are going to move forward.

  5. doug thompson says:

    Unconfirmed report that Damien cox is a philandering hound. Frank Magazine used to eviscerate him.

  6. Steve says:

    Landsberg and Wheeler both need to be put onto a boat and just have it sail out far onto the ocean. Imagine if these two had their own show together!! *shudders*

  7. Cirroc says:

    @Steve Add in Jonas Siegel as a recurring guest and you have yourself the worst show in the history of radio.

  8. Eric says:


    Agree 100% I don’t know why the powers at TSN Radio don’t realize this. Everybody else seems to.

  9. Original Mitch says:

    I don’t know man, I find the whole ‘you work for Rogers’ argument is getting a little stale. In their particular debate, Ennis was questioning the Pen and Langford almost immediately played the Rogers-shill card. Lame.
    I’m no Ennis fan (too many aahhhhhhs when he speaks), and I assume anybody who’s trying to land a permanent position within the company is going to tow the company line, but in this case, Langford is out to lunch.

  10. Original Mitch says:

    When I tuned into Overdrive yesterday and heard Jonas Seigel, I switched to 1150. Even though 2/3rd of crew was there, Jonas was enough for me to change the dial

  11. Daniel says:

    I think Blair’s numbers must be at least partly a reflection of how into the Jays people are these days. I think he’s the best in the city on baseball by far.

  12. Bobby G says:

    Personally, I’d take Langford’s opinion over Ennis’ on just about anything. But you can’t play the Rogers card that early. Langford is generally pretty good and offers valid criticism as opposed to whatever it is Marty York thinks he’s contributing.

    Blair’s number is all the more impressive when you consider how much air time is either dead or dedicated to grunting and snorts. It’s less impressive when you consider that he has absolutely no competition whatsoever up the dial during his time slot.

  13. Mookie says:

    I can see the TSN RAdio headline now…

    “…Cauz & (variable) Show ratings up 300%!!!…”

    And as for Blair ratings, although impressive, don’t you need to take them with a grain of salt perhaps when comparing to other dayparts? They are listed as share of audience during that particular time. So if the makeup or population of the available audience is demographically different, you could experience ratings growth by default (or vice versa).

    Would be interesting to see how the cume audience stacks up vs the other dayparts for context. But impressive nonetheless.

  14. KK says:

    The FAN’s morning show with Blundell and Co. has grown on me. They’ve got rid of the constant laughter and low-brow humour that was rampant early on. After listening to Joey Vendetta this week, is it just me or would it work if the show was a combo of Blundell and Vendetta?

  15. MontfromLondonOnt says:

    I’d like to hear Langford on PTS butting heads with McCown – I think that would make for an interesting segment –

  16. Anthony says:


    It certainly is becoming a painfully tired ‘trump card’ to play when someone doesn’t want to put forth the effort to actually have a dialog.

    There are different levels of posters on here. There’s the select ‘Marty York’ types who lack much in the way of logic and have a relentless aggression towards all things Rogers, regardless of what the facts may or may not say. Jays in 18 of 24 and someone says something positive about them, HOMERS!!!!! There’s no real logic there, but it makes them feel better, so he’ll do it.

    There are a second level (I coun’t myself in this one) who have issues with some of what Rogers does, but also appreciate that they do have some quality broadcasters, Jeff Blair being one of them. You may not like how he talks, but has incredible knowledge of the game, I learn something when I listen to him. Sadly for every Blair there’s a John Shannon, but that’s no different than any other station, no one person will love everything.

    As the second person, Longford’s rants seem more along the line of someone whose playing the ‘I’m not a homer, that’s why I’m not employed’ card, someone struggling to rationalize why they are not in the game anymore. It may be easy to say that, but the logic isn’t really there.

    If your a Marty York wanna be, people will be drawn to Langford because he says what you want to hear, he’s confirming your hate and aggression. Doesn’t mean he’s right, but it makes you feel better about why you dislike Rogers and give you more ammunition.

    The whole thing seems rather silly to me, If you don’t like something, why pay that much attention to it? I don’t like some programs on TSN/Fan, so i only listen to those that I do. I dont angry listen, life’s to short for that. I think that’s how 99 percent opperate, but the 1 percent who seem to need to find a new way to hate something, they don’t view things that way.

    Ces la vie, right? What can you do. IF they want to operate that way, allow them too. No skin of my nose, despite the fact that its incredibly tiring and suffocating to read on here, but thats why its an open forum.

  17. Big G says:

    It’s really hard to put meaning to the ratings war between TSN radio and the Fan

    When Rogers acquired the fan through it’s purchase of Maclean Hunter back in the early 90’s, they acquired the radio broadcast rights to the baseball version of the leafs in this country, Many will argue that in the early 90’s the jays owned the city in terms of sports, . With the purchase it brought all the listeners over to the Rogers camp. This was huge, as baseball was big on radio because some games were not broadcast on t.v. Since that point, the fan moved into sports talk and the listenership just got bigger and bigger, whoever would try to compete would have a tall task as the fan was way out in front. The purchase of the blue jays really hammered it home for Rogers in terms of broadcast rights as they had radio and wrestled TV from TSN apparently in exchange for Sunday night baseball. 590 would never look back because their was never anyone to worry about, and sadly probably never going to be. The same thing applies when it comes to wireless. Rogers wireless/cantel was the first and got a huge head start on it’s current competitors and never really had to look back since. Ultimately, with the intensity of the media climate today, and the loss of ad revenue due to the internet. I’m not sure how much longer I see Bell throwing money at what is turning out to be a useless venture. What smart business continues to poor money into something that does not yield any positive results.

  18. Mike V says:

    I just think Langford got mad for being called out as an outdated 80s guy with a bad, reactionary baseball take (and it was a bad, reactionary baseball take. Arguing that Sanchez shouldn’t have been in the 5th inning with this bullpen because Chris Davis hits a HR on a pitch 2 inches below the strike zone is ridiculous) and in the heat of the moment could only come back with a Rogers dig. If he waited another five minutes, maybe he would’ve come back with something more thoughtful.

    “Given how much we know about radio inertia this data is hard to understand.” Could one of you expand on this point. I’ve never heard the data behind “radio inertia” explained before and to me it seems fairly easy to switch radio stations back and forth. Also, wouldn’t that theory assume that the 9% audience listening to Jerry and Joe at 9pm, the 6.8% audience listening to Dean at 7:30am and the 10.8% audience listening to Blair, Brunt and Barker at 11am are the same audience who switch on and off? That’s not necessarily the case and I’d argue unlikely.

  19. Mike V says:

    Big G, I think it really says a lot about Bell’s dedication to TSN Radio just that it has gone on as long as it has. The TEAM had nearly identical ratings and it was gone in 18 months. TSNR is in year 6 now. Obviously the finances are different with Bell being able to leverage the TV side, but they could easily switch 1050 (and 1150 for that matter) back to the old music formats and instantly see a 200%, maybe more, boost to ratings. That they haven’t done it yet is very telling, IMO.

  20. Curt says:

    I think you missed the third type of poster, Anthony. That would be the Rogers zealot/employee, who tend to be very aggressive and sometimes personal when anyone is critical of SN. Personally, I’m no fan of either Bell or Rogers, but Bell doesn’t own the broadcasting rights to almost everything worth owning in this country. Rogers does. As such, they’re going to expose themselves to a lot of criticism when they do things poorly (i.e., HNIC, Blue Jays broadcasts, etc). I agree that sometimes posters react instead of critique when it come to SN and Rogers. But even those who offer reasonable criticism of Rogers are often shouted down on this board by people who take it all too personally. For me that is more tiresome than the so-called Rogers bashing. This is all I’m going to say, as I don’t want to get into a pissing match with “Type Three”.

  21. Anthony says:

    ‘ This is all I’m going to say, as I don’t want to get into a pissing match with “Type Three”.’

    Agree wholeheartedly.

    I know Ive been accused of being a Rogers ‘schill’, Mike Wilner, etc. all because I had the gull to suggest that something may not be so cut and dry as ‘he’s a homer’. The issue with the third poster (and perhaps the 1st, although those are obvious) is that they are all in the eye of the beholder.

    I honestly believe that poster #1 creates poster #3. Having to constantly read the same crap over and over will force those to react, Ive been there, and the accusations are thrown around.

    If we could somehow disassociate ourselves with #1 and #3, this place would be quite fun.

  22. Original Mitch says:

    Do we ever say “tsn/Bell shill”? I’m genuinely asking the question. I’m trying to figure out where this “rogers shill’ thing comes from. Obviously I understand the fundamental nature of owning teams & stations and wanting to stay employed, but aside from that, is it legit? I don’t hear a lot of Bell shills and yet, other than Rogers/Bluejays its basically the same thing. Bell owns teams as well. Why do we automatically go the Rogers-shill route?

  23. Tighthead says:

    For the record, I for one welcome any petty updates about Damo’s odd tweet.

  24. Alex says:

    Isnt TSN accused sometimes of pro-CFL coverage?

  25. Curt says:

    @ Mitch – Funny enough, I seem to remember Damien calling out some TSN reporters for being shills. He’s gone quiet lately tho…

  26. Anthony says:

    Damien has become quite the parody lately.

  27. Original Mitch says:

    Damien is objectively a bad tweeter. Doesn’t quite get the medium, doesn’t utilize it very well and clearly doesn’t’ know the difference between a DM and a regular tweet 🙂
    It isn’t an age thing either, since some old guys truly get twitter. Rogers (and Bell) should teach these guys courses in social media before sending them off to twitterland.
    Even a cat fight like Ben Ennis is embarrassing for both parties involved.

  28. Daniel says:

    Sorry, kicking a dead horse here, but just heard this on last night’s roundtable re Jose Bautista:

    Shannon: Is it fair to say you’re almost missing him (Bautista) more in the field than at the plate?
    Blair: No.
    Shannon: Ok.

    Then Shannon asked how much you’re really missing Bautista at the plate because he has a low batting average.

    If some Joe at a bar said either of these things to you, you’d roll your eyes and figure he didn’t know what he was talking about. Meanwhile Shannon’s getting paid to do week after week on the country’s highest profile sports radio show.

  29. Daniel says:

    David Amber wasn’t much better to be fair. But he’s not there every week, at least.

  30. Cirroc says:

    Blair and Barker had a good debate on Blair’s show regarding the second base slide rule. It actually seemed like it was getting a bit heated. Blair took the side of changing the rule mid year to avoid further problems, while Barker sided with changing after the season. I was kind of surprised when Tabler came on and sided with Barker. Interesting to see how the former ball players think differently than media.

  31. DJ says:

    This is a completely disingenuous description of the conversation that actually happened.

    Shannon very clearly states you lose the slugging threat……Don’t cut conversations short to prove your point. It is lazy.

    “Shannon: Is it fair to say you’re almost missing him (Bautista) more in the field than at the plate?
    Blair: No.
    Shannon: Ok.

    Then Shannon asked how much you’re really missing Bautista at the plate because he has a low batting average. “

  32. yaz says:

    Are the Blair ratings inclusive of the 11-12 Baseball Central hour or just 9-11? Baseball Central is a fun and informative show to listen to. 9-11 the Blair show hasn’t changed one iota leading me to believe he is benefitting from the Jays’ recent run. If Blundell isn’t benefiting it’s because he knows nothing about baseball and those who used to leave their station on 590 in the morning have figured that out and tumed out.

    Like many, I criticized all the Rogers employess saying after 20-30 Jays games ‘don’t worry, it’s early.’ Well, I have to admit now that this year, they were right. And they were right last year. Previous 20 years? Not so much.

  33. grangecoxhater says:

    Why does anyone care about sports radio in this country? For the most part it only talks Toronto sports at nauseum, where if you listen all day you would be bored and they don’t speak with a high level of discourse on sports. For better or for worst, the most consistently good radio is cbs sports radio.

  34. Alex says:

    I wonder if theres a noticable difference with Blair’s rating with and without Brunt. Also, did his ratings fluxuate when he was having those vocal issues?

  35. Matty Zero says:

    The Blair ratings must have gone up a tick when they stopped taking calls…now without Brunt they are back..ugh!

    Here’s hoping Shannon is gone for the summer like all the other hockey guys, but I have a feeling he’ll always be there.

  36. dogpounder says:

    “Langford remains fairly current, even when based in London, ON.”

    Yeah us slack-jaws out here in SW Ontario have a tough time keeping up…. with our rotary phones and horse-drawn buggies etc…

  37. dogpounder says:


    That was just awful. I stopped listening.

  38. dogpounder says:


    Not really.

  39. Poker Guy says:

    Strombo out, MacLean back in as HNIC host according to Feschuck

  40. Cirroc says:

    @Poker Guy

    That’s a good start. I might be in the minority but I liked HNIC prior to the Rogers acquisition. Sure it had it’s week links but as an overall product I preferred it tenfold to what Rogers gave us. Now this is a long shot, but if they could get Kypper off of my tv I’d be a happy camper.

  41. Poker Guy says:


    One could only hope…

  42. Hockey Editor says:

    Re: Richards and the anthem: several sets of English lyrics were composed by different writers in the early years of the 20th century. The ones that provided the basis for what we have today were first written in 1908 by Robert Stanley Weir. Over the years, he tweaked them a bit. For example, in a set of Weir’s lyrics published in 1913, a phrase was changed from “thou dost in us command” (a bit tough to sing, when you think about it) to “in all thy sons command.” Somewhere along the line, Canadians got the impression this was to honour the Canadian soldiers who went overseas to fight in the Great War. (Though it hadn’t started when these particular words were changed.) With that in mind, the recent move by Parliament to change the same phrase to “in all of us command” could be viewed by someone with a loose grasp of history and a heaping helping of Upper Canadian resentment as an assault on all that is good and holy. Even if it brings the words closer to what Weir wrote in 1908. The Canadian Encyclopedia notes one possible explanation for the change: the women’s suffrage movement was particularly active and militant in 1913. So maybe “in all thy sons command” was a giant FU to women who wanted the vote. Or maybe it was just a sign of the casual sexism underlying the assumption that “all thy sons” meant “all of us.” (This is around the point in history when “he” becomes accepted as the indeterminate pronoun. And yeah, people are currently getting their tighty-whiteys in a twist over using “they” in the singular sense.)

  43. Clarkey says:

    Big G…please don’t let facts get in the way of a good story.

    “When Rogers acquired the fan through it’s purchase of Maclean Hunter back in the early 90’s, they acquired the radio broadcast rights to the baseball version of the leafs in this country, Many will argue that in the early 90’s the jays owned the city in terms of sports.”

    Really? Is that what happened??? Here are the facts.

    The fan was owned by Telemedia until the late 90’s
    The fan was never owned by MACLEAN Hunter
    Telemedia /the fan actually lost the Jays rights to Chum in mid 90’s
    Standard bought Telemedia
    Standard sold the fan to ROGERS in 2001


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts Widget for Blogs by LinkWithin