Not great news for late news
Cory Bergman January 15th, 2007
Over the last year, 11 p.m. newscasts in the largest markets dropped 10 percent in ratings. Some markets have even dropped as much as 20 percent. Why? People are getting up earlier and getting more of their news and weather from the internet. “We all know the news by 11 p.m., so we’re not going to stay up to watch it,” says Steve Safran, who’s quoted in the piece. According to a study by Magid, while nearly half of people 35-54 years old turn to the Internet first for weather information or sports scores, only 10 percent turn to the web first for local news. All this information is compelling many local TV stations to get serious about the web in covering — not just repurposing — the news. As we say here at Lost Remote, better late than never.
17 Comments Add your own
1. theminneapolischannel | January 15th, 2007 at 9:42 am
“only 10 percent turn to the web first for local news”
it’s no wonder the google’s and yahoo’s are making a play for the remaining 90%.
and i would argue that this is “compelling many local TV stations” to bury their collective heads in the sand.
2. David Martin | January 15th, 2007 at 10:42 am
NDs are doing harm to their 11/10 shows by continuing to make use of the insipid tease. “An American music icon dies” without naming names when the world already knew James Brown had passed. The weather and sports teases are perhaps the worst. “Will the Bears go to the playoffs? We’ve got the answer tonight at 10.” The best used by date on the “empty” tease has come and gone.
3. Cory | January 15th, 2007 at 10:58 am
David, I can’t agree more. The tease is top on my list for reasons not to watch local TV news, as it just reinforces the fact that TV can’t deliver information as effectively as the web.
4. Rob | January 15th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Not having compelling content teased and going with spectacular plane crashes o’ the day and squirrels on skis does nothing for the late shows.
Holding news hostage - either from the web or from news teases - and going with fluff or nothing at all does nothing for the late shows (and the web) either.
5. Brad Weaver | January 15th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I’d rather watch The Daily Show over the latest shooting or fire on the local news. Start covering stories of interest and impact and maybe I’ll come back.
6. Alyssa | January 15th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
timeshifting
7. discreet_chaos | January 15th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Everybody else has already hit on my personal pet peeve, the tease, so I’m just going to point toward the weather guy standing in front of a radar; “Where is the snow falling and where is it rain? We’ll tell you at 10″. And, I’ll just assume that everyone else can see the blue, greens and pinks behind the dude.
Of course, sometimes the tease works and I have to say with me, though I’m predispositioned to watch the late news anyway, but it maybe works 20% of the time. For example last night, everybody was pushing a story about a woman who had been found after being missing in the woods for five weeks and the teases are definitely what kept me in front of the screen for another ten minutes on a Sunday night.
Unfortunately otherwise, the late news is usually just a bunch of stuff you already know, some wire footage of a water-skiing squirrel and a round-robin of live shots from tthe latest murders or other high-profile crime. And while the web and a lack of relevance may have something to do with it, I also have to wonder how many eyeballs have been shifted to the local news on cable options and to the hour-earlier Fox broadcasts.
After all, complain all they want, but today’s soccer parents probably aren’t getting-up any earlier than their parents or grandparents generations and the “blame” has to be elsewhere, if there’s even really a measurable problem.
8. Aidian | January 15th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Funny thing: I used to make a point of never withholding the “news” from a tease. Even if the viewer doesn’t already know, it seems insulting. In the time it takes me to promise the headline, I could have delivered it.
So I’d usually give the bullet point headline and promise more details, how we’ll advance the story, or some other type of viewer benefit (if you’ll forgive the consultant approved term).
I thought it was a responsible position that gives viewers a reason to stay tuned without insulting or tricking them. It took a little more time, but was worth it. At various times I’ve been told to stop doing it by two executive producers and a news director.
9. Nick Saban | January 15th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
All of these comments’ posts above are 100% correct!
Why can’t any of you people combine your knowledge, beliefs and initiative, and create your own online news operation?
My advice to anyone with a DVR is to record their home market news channel of choice, after all, most everyone has the same song and dance, just with different jingles, color of ties, bombshells, etc. Then, fire up the program off the DVR, fast forward to what you already know (”coming up: Are the Bears hibernating, all the NFL action next……shocking news: a Hollywood celeb is in trouble with the law…..we were the first to report…..”)
Magid, by far, is one partnership every station should drop….as in 5 years ago.
10. RichE | January 15th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I’ll be the first to say it but the local news anchors are dinosaurs,we need some youth up in here-
Old Folks are boring, I should know I am one myself!
I wanna see someone young,fresh,and without a turkeyneck!!!
11. Question the source | January 15th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Let’s see the numbers? Are we comparing People meter data vs Diary/meter numbers? Didn’t Nielsen also change the methodology last July (to address zero cell problems)? The even bigger question is demos, Household data is basically worthless in the big picture.
Magid also is questionable as well, how many people were in the study and what geography are we talking about.
Now I totatly agree with the thoughts on News Teases, but dont think its time to panic, YET.
12. invitedmedia | January 15th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
“but don’t think it’s time to panic, YET.”
yes, it’s always advisable to allow your house to become fully engulfed before calling out the fire dept.
13. Question the source | January 15th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
more panic should be from the private equity forms buying TV Stations.
14. thephoenixchannel | January 16th, 2007 at 6:40 am
agreed 100%.
this also applies to something once written about ultra-rich guys buying newspapers: if a company with a lifetime of experience running the place cannot make a go of it, what makes these guys think they can?
15. Hussman | January 16th, 2007 at 6:42 am
I love how everyone is so quick to blame the tease. Yes, it’s all the teases fault, because they have to be so vague and make such obscure promises.
I mean it’s not News’ fault that when the tease writer asks them what is going on for 10, they look and say, “We’ll have more on X” or more often, “I don’t know.” And when pressed for something more concrete, they say, “I haven’t even really thought about it yet.”
Hey, thanks for the help.
16. Randy Hoffman | January 16th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
This all goes back to research that every major station and consulting company did in the 1980’s. The question: What is the single most important thing that will keep you on the station you are watching at 9:30pm as opposed to turning to your favorite local news channel? The answer, by a vast majority of viewers - the 9:30 tease. And they still do work as, Discreet Chaos points out above. The problem in not the tease, it’s the execution. When done well, in an appropriate manner, it is still powerful advertising. The problem: It rarely get done well. Why? Because the hard truth for all TV news department’s is that on MOST nights their local newscast is interchangeable with the competition. Face it, outside sweeps, the difference in viewership comes down to lead-in, habit and some anchor preference. So for most nights the “tease” is useless. Stations should use the tease time to either promote a legitimate advance of a local story or promote something unique on their website, (assuming they have something unique there).
17. Hussman | January 17th, 2007 at 6:51 am
Randy… you are a wise man.
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed