| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Winter Ratings https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=128&t=69223 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Mac [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Winter Ratings |
Here's the truth, that cannot be disputed. Winter arbitrons are as follows: Mully and Hanley (5-9) finished first in the men 25-54. I believe they have tied or are close to tying the MJH standard (sports talk) for most 1st place finishes in the MONEY DEMO. For all of you who say they suck.... the ratings say otherwise. M&M finished 4th. McNeil and Spiegel (9-1) finished third in the men 25-54. S&W were 6th. Kudos to the staff for keeping the ship afloat during extended periods when I missed four weeks of the book... and when Spiegs missed two weeks of the book. Kudos to Laurence and Jason for bringing the goods. Men 25-54 and MARKET RANK is all that matters. Thank you. |
|
| Author: | Eaglo Jeff [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
What about 2-6? |
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
Mac wrote: For all of you who say they suck.... the ratings say otherwise. Jersey Shore gets good ratings |
|
| Author: | Eaglo Jeff [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
rogers park bryan wrote: Mac wrote: For all of you who say they suck.... the ratings say otherwise. Jersey Shore gets good ratings This is going to get good......unlike Jersey Shore. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
Mully and Hanley get a point for winning. LoHo gets a point for carrying the midday show in Mac's absence(with an assist from Goff). Looks like it's tied 3-3 in the M&H vs. LoHo debate. |
|
| Author: | SomeGuy [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
Mac wrote: Here's the truth, that cannot be disputed. Winter arbitrons are as follows: Mully and Hanley (5-9) finished first in the men 25-54. I believe they have tied or are close to tying the MJH standard (sports talk) for most 1st place finishes in the MONEY DEMO. For all of you who say they suck.... the ratings say otherwise. M&M finished 4th. McNeil and Spiegel (9-1) finished third in the men 25-54. S&W were 6th. Kudos to the staff for keeping the ship afloat during extended periods when I missed four weeks of the book... and when Spiegs missed two weeks of the book. Kudos to Laurence and Jason for bringing the goods. Men 25-54 and MARKET RANK is all that matters. Thank you. The ratings say what the ratings say.... The Twilight Saga are shitty movies but they made a ton of money. M&H is still bad radio. And M&H are still bad hosts. |
|
| Author: | Eaglo Jeff [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
I would never say that M&H are bad. They are sorta bland though. I do enjoy the Big Doug segments. I listen to them because I can't handle the M&M alternative at all, really. |
|
| Author: | Baby McNown [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
Eaglo Jeff wrote: I would never say that M&H are bad. They are sorta bland though. I do enjoy the Big Doug segments. I listen to them because I can't handle the M&M alternative at all, really. Morning radio in this city is why the good lord invented iPods. |
|
| Author: | doug - evergreen park [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
I've got "the clock" system from 6:17am until 7:30 when I get to work. P1, P2, etc... |
|
| Author: | SomeGuy [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
Eaglo Jeff wrote: I would never say that M&H are bad. They are sorta bland though. I do enjoy the Big Doug segments. I listen to them because I can't handle the M&M alternative at all, really. No, they're bad. My only explanation for the ratings is that people are: 1.)Still half-asleep during their commute. 2.)The poor competition fielded by ESPN 3.) God has abandoned us. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
Mac wrote: Here's the truth, that cannot be disputed. Winter arbitrons are as follows: Mully and Hanley (5-9) finished first in the men 25-54. I believe they have tied or are close to tying the MJH standard (sports talk) for most 1st place finishes in the MONEY DEMO. For all of you who say they suck.... the ratings say otherwise. That's all well and good but I have yet to hear anybody explain why they don't suck. Bigfan came the closest and his biggest reasons were a.) Mike North is worse and b.) They have the best bears info. A is irrelevant and I disagree with B. I'm guessing you wouldn't be able to explain the appeal of their show either Mac. Also keep in mind that not everybody listens to the radio in their cars. Between 5-9 I'm usually watching M&M on ESPN2, and a few times I've turned on the Score app to check out M&H. I doubt the ratings can accurately take stuff like that into account. |
|
| Author: | 312player [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
i think this should sum it up...mully sucks more than hanley and the show is not good, it is bad...just not as bad as mike n mike. |
|
| Author: | SomeGuy [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
312player wrote: i think this should sum it up...mully sucks more than hanley and the show is not good, it is bad...just not as bad as mike n mike. Yeah, that wraps it up in a nice little bow. No one ever said M&H didn't get "the numbers", that was never in dispute by anyone so using that has a cudgel against the "M&H Suck" crowd is dumb and totally misses the point...the point about the M&H show being bad. |
|
| Author: | lipidquadcab [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
FavreFan wrote: That's all well and good but I have yet to hear anybody explain why they don't suck. I guess me saying I find them entertaining isn't a valid reason...meh... Also, for what it's worth, most everyone here who says M&H suck leave it at that...I hardly ever see any reasons why from them either. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
lipidquadcab wrote: FavreFan wrote: That's all well and good but I have yet to hear anybody explain why they don't suck. I guess me saying I find them entertaining isn't a valid reason...meh... Also, for what it's worth, most everyone here who says M&H suck leave it at that...I hardly ever see any reasons why from them either. There's an entire meme on this board based solely off one of the reasons they suck. |
|
| Author: | lipidquadcab [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
FavreFan wrote: lipidquadcab wrote: FavreFan wrote: That's all well and good but I have yet to hear anybody explain why they don't suck. I guess me saying I find them entertaining isn't a valid reason...meh... Also, for what it's worth, most everyone here who says M&H suck leave it at that...I hardly ever see any reasons why from them either. There's an entire meme on this board based solely off one of the reasons they suck. Cool... ...still doesn't change that most posts about them sucking just say they suck...read this thread. |
|
| Author: | SomeGuy [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
lipidquadcab wrote: FavreFan wrote: That's all well and good but I have yet to hear anybody explain why they don't suck. I guess me saying I find them entertaining isn't a valid reason...meh... Also, for what it's worth, most everyone here who says M&H suck leave it at that...I hardly ever see any reasons why from them either. I dunno liquid.....there have been plenty of specific reasons given about why they suck....it's one thing that isn't in short supply concerning criticisms of radio. Also, liking something or being entertained by something because it's bad or not-on-purpose-funny is just fine and dandy (i.e. Larry on some occasions), but the product is still bad. For example, I was and still am a big fan of Nightrain, it is terrible and bad but I love the fact that it's cheap, will get me fucked up and have me involved in all sorts of wacky hi-jinks. It's bad, but when I can find a bottle I pick it up, blow the dust off of it and buy it. |
|
| Author: | spmack [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
Mac, if you think Mully and Hanley are so good, how about a transition with them??? |
|
| Author: | SomeGuy [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
lipidquadcab wrote: FavreFan wrote: There's an entire meme on this board based solely off one of the reasons they suck. Cool... ...still doesn't change that most posts about them sucking just say they suck...read this thread. Well, at this point I would think the reasons are just implied. |
|
| Author: | lipidquadcab [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
This thread is bad. I have no reasons why...it just is. |
|
| Author: | SomeGuy [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
lipidquadcab wrote: This thread is bad. I have no reasons why...it just is. You're not getting it. Time for you to leave. |
|
| Author: | lipidquadcab [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
SomeGuy wrote: lipidquadcab wrote: This thread is bad. I have no reasons why...it just is. You're not getting it. Time for you to leave. Fine. Too much bad up in here anyways. |
|
| Author: | Colonel Angus [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
Eaglo Jeff wrote: What about 2-6? Bump. |
|
| Author: | Urlacher's missing neck [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
To be accurate Meat's vacation time needs to be doubled from the above stated 2 weeks. Saying it was 2 weeks is like saying Byrd and Beckham are batting .3OO. |
|
| Author: | Franky T [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
I don't understand the M&H hate on this board. I agree they aren't the best, but compared to M&M it's not even close. M&M are only good for an occasional listen during football season for a national perspective on the NFL as a whole. I would also like to know the 2-6 ratings. Larry sucks no matter what though. |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
Mac wrote: Mully and Hanley (5-9) finished first in the men 25-54. I believe they have tied or are close to tying the MJH standard (sports talk) for most 1st place finishes in the MONEY DEMO. For all of you who say they suck.... the ratings say otherwise. M&M finished 4th. So much for worrying about your own timeslot 
|
|
| Author: | Scorehead [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
Mac wrote: Here's the truth, that cannot be disputed. Winter arbitrons are as follows: Mully and Hanley (5-9) finished first in the men 25-54. I believe they have tied or are close to tying the MJH standard (sports talk) for most 1st place finishes in the MONEY DEMO. For all of you who say they suck.... the ratings say otherwise. M&M finished 4th. McNeil and Spiegel (9-1) finished third in the men 25-54. S&W were 6th. Kudos to the staff for keeping the ship afloat during extended periods when I missed four weeks of the book... and when Spiegs missed two weeks of the book. Kudos to Laurence and Jason for bringing the goods. Men 25-54 and MARKET RANK is all that matters. Thank you. So despite you & Spiegel missing 6 weeks, the Scores ratings in the 9-1 day part weren't affected? That's not what you want to see happen... |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
Mac wrote: For all of you who say they suck.... the ratings say otherwise. People drink the sand because they don't know the difference. |
|
| Author: | Urlacher's missing neck [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
How are these ratings even determined? I know you can actually track the internet feeds but what about the actual radio? Who the hell knows what you are listening to and when? |
|
| Author: | good dolphin [ Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Winter Ratings |
We have a collective almost 40 years of morning sports talk in this city. Mully and Hanley are the best show in that rather lengthy time span. Those who say they suck, consider my theory that sports radio simply does not lend itself well to the morning shift. I cannot completely pinpoint the reason. The pace, with traffic, updates and commercials does not really allow substantive discussion. The topics are wide, deep and fresh from the night before which leads to a scattered/undisciplined show. It is difficult to get guests with specialized knowledge to appear because they were usually working late the night before. I don't know what it is, but it is difficult to deny in the face of 40 years of sample size. As for me, I see Mulligan and Hanley like Murph. These shows always had ratings. These shows are both generally disliked by the B and B crowd. Both were much more sports driven than personality driven. Both also have a kind of corniness to them. I don't like Hanley and never have. I'd like to tweak the show. I like Mully's football knowledge and analysis of information. The show could use someone with a baseball backround to team with him. Still, I enjoy the show. It gets me the information I need in my commute without assaulting my ears. Every single show on the station lacks a little something and I keep getting back to the point that Hood would fit everywhere. Mitch, end the banishment and bring back the man with the best basketball and baseball thoughts in Chicago sports talk |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|