Will newspaper newscasts compete with TV?
Cory Bergman June 10th, 2007
Broadcasting & Cable’s Michael Malone has a good overview of many of the daily newscasts popping up on newspaper websites lately. Could they compete with TV? The Roanoke Times, for example, publishes its daily video newscast at 3:30 p.m. “It’s meant to be before the day’s major newscasts,” says Roanoke Times Multimedia Editor Seth Gitner. “After the noon news but before the 5 p.m.” But some TV execs aren’t worried. “I’m not terribly concerned,” said Allan Horlick, president and GM of Gannett’s WUSA. “A lot of what goes into a TV newscast is the appeal of the presenters because of their communication skills…. If you don’t have credible presenters, [the user] can just click on the stories.” Truth be told, The Roanoke Times’ webcast is seen by just 200-500 unique users a day, according to B&C’s report. Which in fact, mirrors the success many TV sites have had with their newscasts/webcasts, even with their credible TV anchors.
Personally, I don’t believe online newscasts will succeed unless they have something truly unique — they cater to an underserved area, for example. Otherwise, why not just click on the stories you want to read or watch? But I’d like to read your take on it, as well as your reaction to Horlick’s quote about the importance of personalities…
Adds Michael Rosenblum in comments below: “As long as newspapers mimic local tv news in their presentation they will be far behind. But if newspapers can wrap their heads around a webcast instead of a tv newscast on tv - (ie, zefrank with local content), they might break through.”
Adds Angela: “I think we need a new model for the web. I agree that linear newscasts don’t work and they do receive very few views no matter who serves as anchor. Outside of great weather events, the webcast we produced at my former newspaper just didn’t fly, and it was good by TV standards. The audience wants something different. We weren’t committed enough to figure out what that was.”
15 Comments Add your own
1. Marc Rullo | June 11th, 2007 at 4:41 am
Computer usage is an engaged immersive activity at two-feet. A traditional newscast is a conventionally passive experience at ten-feet. The presentaion does not fit the method of engagement. The web is a means of delivery dominated currently by usage at two-feet. This will change, eventually, and you’ll have your choice of experience irregardless of the method of delivery. At that point users will be able to choose the flavor of the presentation. Personally, I might want to experiment with a series of avatars of my own design to fit my mood. If some newspaper site has this functionality one day then that is where I will have my news read to me provided that I am able configure the content via a personalized selection algorhythmn that caters to my history of behavior.
2. Marc Rullo | June 11th, 2007 at 6:32 am
Oh, and by the way, I’ll need to be able to view the newscast at the time of my choosing. So 3:30 or 5 or whatever, if I want my news read to me, it is going to be when I’m parked on my couch with my feet up after my kids have gone to bed sometime after nine-ish.
3. Rocker | June 11th, 2007 at 6:54 am
Personalities are to news as decoration is to construction - important, but secondary. I’d be a little concerned about a strategy that relies primarily on personalities to differentiate a product. In other news, what’s Katie Couric up to Today?
4. answer to Rocker's ? | June 11th, 2007 at 7:01 am
about 180 lbs
5. Michael Rosenblum | June 11th, 2007 at 7:28 am
As long as newspapers mimic local tv news in their presentation they will be far behind. But if newspapers can wrap their heads around a webcast instead of a tv newscast on tv - (ie, zefrank with local content), they might break through.
6. ! | June 11th, 2007 at 7:42 am
if either one quits being so news centric with their web channel then they might break out too.
7. Aaron | June 11th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Yes, personalities matter in video content, regardless of platform. From Ze Frank to French Maid TV, it’s clear that many of the same things that make good TV make good webcasts/podcasts.
The trick is going to be finding video *news* content that makes it worth taking time out of your day (and your regular web surfing) to watch a linear product.
Anyone doing a news webcast needs to ask themselves this: What does this webcast add to our news that isn’t in our traditional text/photo/short clip product? Does that added value outweigh the user’s convenience lost from browsing the news in a non-linear fashion?
If your webcast is simply a summary of everything that’s new on your website in the last x hours, don’t bother. I can find that faster in text. If your webcast is useless or old after 3 hours, don’ bother. The value of video content comes from the archived views you get in the next week, month, and year. That goes triple for podcasts, which you know won’t be viewed right away.
Use traditional text stories for breaking news. Sure, use live streams if there’s something to look at, but that’s the exception for the moment. If you’re going to commit resources to web video content, make sure it has a long shelf life.
8. Tom Planchet | June 11th, 2007 at 9:40 am
We had special circumstances following Katrina and many displaced people watched the local news from afar. While we continue to offer that service because it is relatively pain-free and is a service to those still displaced, we no longer draw a huge audience (it’s in the range of the newspaper in the blog story).
I tend to agree with Cory that it needs to be unique, but even then, people are adverse to watching (and listening) to video while at work, which is where a lion’s share of viewing occurs.
9. discreet_chaos | June 11th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Shoving a camera up somebody’s nose and having them editorialize may be of interest to some people, but it’s not really news and a couple of hundred viewers in central Virginia are very respectable numbers.
Congratulations! I believe I gave the webcast a sample, back when LR posted about its debut and I’ll have to give it another look-see, now that they’ve found their rhythm.
As for the subject of webcasts, I generally watch when there’s something of interest and when I’m looking context. Clicking individual stories sometimes doesn’t get you the anchor’s intro and it rarely covers the aspects which doesn’t have a full video package, plus it’s only for the “big” stories.
I probably watch local newscasts on the web more than most people and I know that I watch them originating from a larger variety of places. As has been said, it’s relavtively pain-free and it’s a service to the viewer. If you can come up with something better, then by all means, send out a press release, but I’m sure the “better” will soon become old hat.
10. Stefan Richter | June 11th, 2007 at 11:33 am
More newscasters should have the courage to go live on air, online, especially with breaking news topics. Only then would the medium really be leveraged to its max. Just think of the possibilities, you could for example allow ‘normal’ people to send a live feed (providing they have a laptop, camera and internet access) way ahead of any journalist or satellite truck being on scene.
The technology is here today, you just have to go ahead and use it.
11. discreet_chaos | June 11th, 2007 at 11:44 am
BTW: I know that zeFrank has some fans around here and I’ll watch him from time to time, but without taking anything from him, I wanted to relate the following;
Back in the 70s, most television stations had in-house editorialists and a lot of the fringe groups would record a “message of the day” on their new-fangled gadget (an answering machine), which they’d invite their followers to dial-in to listen.
Zefrank may not be sponsored by any single group, but he still comes from his particular point-of-view and as far as us old-timers are concerned, the distribution is all that’s new.
12. Angela | June 11th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
i think we need a new model for the web. I agree that linear newscasts don’t work and they do receive very fiew views no matter who serves as anchor. Outside of great weather events, the webcast we produced at my former newspaper just didn’t fly, and it was good by TV standards. The audience wants something different. We weren’t committed enough to figure out what that was.
13. discreet_chaos | June 11th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I realize that I’m wearing out my welcome in this thread, but 200-500 viewers in Roanoke Virginia is a triumph and the article also focuses on the thing from the Delaware News-Journal, where there’s no local television. Sure, their numbers might not play in the big cities, but it appears that in Delaware, they’ve found a niche and the thing from Roanoke should be considered a success.
14. Matt Sokoloff | June 11th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
The big difference between online video (be it on a TV site, newspaper site or youtube) and TV video is that the audience on the internet is active whereas the audience on TV is passive. Most people watch TV while doing something else (especially news) maybe talking on the phone, with family, cooking dinner or just walking around the house. If a story comes on the don’t like…most don’t change the channel. They’ll wait for the next story. That’s why we can have a 5 minute commercial break. Try doing that on the internet. We know you lose people after a 30 second spot. The reason is that the internet is an active medium.
Folks don’t hate news anchors more on the internet, they just don’t want someone telling them what to watch (voice of god?). A newscast with various stories probably won’t do well online because people want to pick and choose their stories….That combined with the fact that they can get the same thing by either reading the news on your site or watching the individual story clips.
With that said I think there has to be a solution to this. We’ve all heard and maybe even tried to create an interactive show that allows you to skip stories. But there just isn’t a clear reason as to why someone would want to do that over just picking clips. I agree that it is a waste of resources to spend time putting together a newscast when that person (or people) could be on the streets creating content. Did I mention anchor and produce a Midday Update on our site every day?
15. yemek tarifleri | June 19th, 2007 at 7:25 am
i thing it is impossible.
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