Dear Rogers:
At one of your big press conferences, announcing your plans for Hockey Night In Canada, Ron Maclean said, tongue-in-cheek, to George Stroumboulopoulos “Don’t screw this up. It’s a big show.”
In fact, Strombo was probably not as much in need of the warning as you, the broadcaster was. Using the money available to you as a publicly traded company and knowing it far exceeded anything a Crown Corporation could match, you secured the Canadian rights to the NHL. Bravo. No doubt you had quite an extensive team of people working for a very long time on your bid to ensure you could convince the NHL to go in another direction.
The challenge you face is enormous. Hockey Night in Canada is as deeply woven into the cultural quilt of Canada as the beaver and the maple leaf. People have a strong identification with the show. The brand, the broadcast and the hockey itself have been entrusted to you.
And to that I say: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is wrong with you?
Have you seen your broadcast? Are you under some illusion that this is an audition for the NFL? Have you forgotten your audience is not only Canadian but incredibly well informed and knowledgable?
Let’s start with the set. It’s noisy. It’s distracting. The floor that lights up only highlights how uncomfortable your hosts look standing there. They all seem very focused on trying to figure out what to do with their hands. Very little of what they say registers because it’s difficult to look away from the arcade-like atmosphere you’ve created.
More is not more. You cannot close the gap between excellence and the current quality of your show with blinking lights. Or touch screens. I mean, are you purposely trying to pay homage to Wolf Blizter and the Situation Room? If so, you’ve gone about ten miles of ironic hipster too far.
Can we talk about the hosts and the talking heads? Did you really look around the country, examine all the available hockey commentators and come to the conclusion Nick Kypreos and PJ Stock are the best choices? The Stock Exchange segment seems to be an opportunity for Stock to yell, talk over people and offer such deep insights such as “I hated the handshake line as a player.” Do you have to pay him extra for that kind of a hot take? At one point last night, he turned his back to the camera, face pressed up against a monitor and I thought that was the most insightful thing he’s ever done.
And Kypreos. He of the “PK Subban rubs people off the wrong way.” Yes, I know, we all misspeak but with Kypreos it seems like it’s his second language.
I understand that hosting HNIC is likely the fulfillment of a lifelong dream for Stroumboulopoulos but does it have to be out loud? His earnestness is not endearing. And while he’s a fine host in other capacities and is a good one-on-one interviewer, there isn’t anyone confusing him with a credible hockey voice.
As for the opening of your show, I make no secret of the fact that the elimination of musical montages by Tim Thompson is a mistake. I also make no secret of the fact that I’m a huge fan of his work and so admittedly, I’m not entirely objective. But what he is able to do with three minutes, a great song and a deep understanding and respect for hockey history is magic. He told us stories every Saturday night and only used words when necessary. He provided context to the game and the bigger picture.
So you’ve opted to go in a different direction. The opening essays feel like a lecture. And a bad one at that. They are so overzealous, all they are missing is a visual narration by a guy in a plaid shirt with a beard and a beanie. There is nothing stirring about them; they are completely superficial.
The good news for me is that TSN has the rights to 50 of the Senators 82 games. The good news for the Senators is I will likely buy more tickets to games so that I don’t have to watch your headache inducing broadcast.
My complaint is not that you are not the CBC. I don’t need you to be the CBC. You should be different, shake it up a little.
My complaint is that you don’t know your audience. My complaint is that by winning the lottery you think if you buy all the flashy toys people will want to be your friend. My complaint is that you seem to be rather disrespectful of your audience. You don’t need to sell us on hockey, that part is already built in. But you seem intent on trying to teach us something when we have already mastered the subject matter.
There is so much try in your broadcast you are like a Kardashian sitting in the front row of Paris Fashion Week. Actually, scratch that. You are so try-hard you might as well rename yourselves Fox Sports and introduce a glowing puck.
Sure, I should probably cut you some slack and be patient as you figure yourself out but I have no desire to watch as you try and get it together. It actually takes away from the enjoyment of the game for me. I would rather watch an American broadcast than what you are calling Hockey Night in Canada.
From the opening to the set to the hosts and talking heads you would do well to remember that the loudest voices in the room are rarely the most credible ones.
Regards,
Me
