The US Department of Defense (DoD) announced that the American Forces Network (AFN) will cease broadcasting play-by-play sports on radio later this summer. The DoD says the decision is based on a series of worldwide audience surveys which showed a preference to watch sports, rather than just listen to them. According to the DoD, the impact of live sports on overseas local affiliate radio schedules was also factored into the decision.
“AFN audiences prefer to watch the greater variety of sports on television rather than listen to them on the radio,” said Mr. Robert Matheson, director of broadcasting at the AFN Broadcast Center in Riverside, California. “When radio sports coverage comes on, most listeners tune out. Our mission is better served when the largest possible audience tunes in to non-sports programming and spends more time listening.”
As recently as 10 years ago, AFN radio play-by-play sports broadcasts were very popular. But since then, AFN television sports coverage has expanded exponentially. “More and more sports fans have been turning to AFN television for the greater variety of sports,” Matheson observed. “We used to air only one or two TV games a week. Now, since the introduction of AFN-sports and recently AFN-xtra, our multiple AFN television services carry nearly 80 events a week.”
Some motor sports programming will remain on AFN radio’s schedule in order to fulfil agreements already signed. ”We signed agreements with the Motor Racing Network and the Indy Racing League before reassessing our approach to radio sports,” Matheson said. ”We’ll honour those agreements.”
(Source: US Department of Defense)
Andy Sennitt comments: I find it interesting that the Department of Defense claims to be so concerned with audience figures, as a commercial operation would be. I would have thought that in a forces environment, not everyone will be in a position to watch a match on TV, especially given the time differences. The real reason for ending play-by-play coverage is surely as much about saving money as it is about the size of the audience. Similar arguments could be put forward for public broadcasters not carrying the World Cup on radio as well as TV, but the radio coverage is provided as a service to those who have paid their TV licence fee but cannot be in front of a set at the time of the game.
on Jul 7th, 2006 at 19:41
I agree with your comments, Andy. Put another way, while I might *prefer* to watch a game or match, having the opportunity to listen where television is not available or practical is the next best thing… certainly better than nothing at all. Somehow I can picture troops in a foxhole listening to a portable radio… I can’t picture them watching television, no matter how much they might *prefer* it.
Yes and I, too, thought AFRTS was a service for an audience with unique needs. The managers’ arguments are weak at best, illogical at worst.
on Jul 8th, 2006 at 17:53
May be a money factor too. Music is a lot cheaper than sports rights. They often say the sports commentary on the radio is better than the TV sound of the same event. My experience is very variable on this…I think the UK’s Radio 5 Live is indeed better, can’t really say that applies in Holland to NOS sports.
on Jul 8th, 2006 at 18:23
Yes, it’s interesting to watch the TV pictures while listening to the radio commentary, as you realise just how much more information a radio commentator has to give. A TV commentator can pause in a football match for several successive passes. On radio, this doesn’t work because the listener has to know how the ball got from one part of the pitch to another. But occasionally, when the radio commentator has been looking at the actual match and not the TV screen, he can miss something that the TV commentator has noticed from close-ups. Actually, since I have the BBC digital options, I often take the third alternative and just have the crowd noise. It’s surprising how much more bad language you can hear when someone isn’t talking over it