21 Comments Add your own

• 1. StephM  |  August 24th, 2007 at 8:05 am

  Launch a second web site is my vote. A community site or social media integration should be an element within your digital strategy not the whole enchilada.

  And, what is up with traditional media organizations starting up incredibly broad social sites?

  Isn’t the point of social media to find specific communites that you are passionate about and want to participate?

• 2. Brink  |  August 24th, 2007 at 8:18 am

  I’m tired of all this “user input” crap when it comes to news websites (or newscasts). This is not talk radio. Users come to news websites to get the news, not to read what others contribute. There are millions of sites that allow people to have their say.

• 3. Scott  |  August 24th, 2007 at 8:34 am

  The CBS affiliate in Champaign, Illinois did this. It’s called illinoishomepage.net. I’ve been to the site a few times, and while there isn’t much obvious promotion for the station (WCIA), it looks better than many local station sites I’ve seen. Also, their on-air promotions also tend to focus on getting users to use it to sell their stuff (online classifieds).

• 4. Safran  |  August 24th, 2007 at 8:36 am

  Fundamental rule: users always hate site redesigns. But I do agree with having lots of sites - you want to have a network of sites that include your brand extension.

• 5. Jay  |  August 24th, 2007 at 8:42 am

  In fairness, the top story about Iraq was about a local soldier being killed.

  We had a local station do this as well. I thought it was just them but it seems to be a trend, eh?

• 6. Safran  |  August 24th, 2007 at 8:42 am

  Also…. I wonder what DigPhilly thinks. (And what Digg thinks, for that matter.)

• 7. Michael Gay  |  August 24th, 2007 at 9:01 am

  Jay: The top story on the site now is local, but in the screen grab you can see when I checked the site out it said, “Senator Calls For Troop Withdrawl.” That particular top story wasn’t local to the Triad.

• 8. John  |  August 24th, 2007 at 9:02 am

  What an awful time for a screengrab, as there was a misspelling in the Troop Withdrawal headline!

  But other than that, Brink, you’re right; there are a million other sites that give people their say. Which is exactly why news sites have to make the same offer if they want to keep/grow their audiences.

• 9. lr  |  August 24th, 2007 at 9:12 am

  as scott referenced with the illinoishomepage.net…all of the nexstar tv stations have been shifting over this for the past year. i used to work for the little rock nexstar station and they did the change last thanksgiving. since then, the growth over the station branded site has been exponential. maybe it’s better suited for smaller markets?

  (click my name to go to the kark website…now known as arkansasmatters.com)

• 10. Jay  |  August 24th, 2007 at 9:14 am

  Oops, you’re right.

• 11. tdc  |  August 24th, 2007 at 12:36 pm

  do major magazine publishers only print one title?

  safran is much smarter than me, but here we agree…. more channels.

• 12. Gorman  |  August 24th, 2007 at 1:59 pm

  If they’re not “doing it just to do it,” then I think it’s a great idea as a second site. It might even allow you to pare down some of the fluff stuff that’s on your “traditional” news homepage.

  The smaller the market, the more impact those five or six fanboys or trolls will have on user content, which could be a good or bad thing, depending on the people.

  But if you’re doing it just to do it, as a flavor of the month, “the GM saw this, thought it was cool and wants to do this… can you have it live by Friday?” …then its just going to get lost amid the din of all the social/UGC sites out there.

• 13. Rob  |  August 24th, 2007 at 2:35 pm

  Crapola. I just wrote a response and it got eaten.

  Michael … I like the site. I like that they’ve unshackled themselves from their on-air brand because they might attract people that aren’t WFMY fans to their site. Plus, as its brand neutral it might attract more visitors from other stations, other regions, other markets.

  I like that they have optional registration. They give you everything on the site except social networking features without having to register. But if you want to comment, blog, share multimedia, then you need to register. Seems reasonable.

  I found the site relatively easy to navigate … however the casual user who doesn’t get paid to spend 40+ hours a week on the Internet may initially be confused, especially if they’re a regular WFMY website visitor and the new navigation system is different from the old system. There was a good amount of depth in the content and the variety was solid.

  The social networking feature is solid and what makes it solid is the station talent’s buy-in … I saw anchors, reporters, photographers and producers all sharing blogs, pictures, videos and interacting with the community in the forums.

  The branding … everyone has an opinion. My opinion is that they tried something new. Love it or hate it, you gotta give them some credit for breaking out of the standard ‘this is our news website’ mold and trying something different.

• 14. discreet_chaos  |  August 24th, 2007 at 6:35 pm

  Down the road from the Triad is the Triangle, where you could say that the News & Observer did something kind of similar in the early 90s. And, I wanted to say that there was nando[dot]net and newsobserver[dot]com from the get-go, but the Wikipedia article which I’m linking from my name implies that NandO may have preceded, the other.

• 15. Chris  |  August 24th, 2007 at 6:51 pm

  I like the site. I do NOT like that they’ve dropped so much branding, but the home page is clean compared to many other TV sites. It’s a nice mix of news, local events, user comments, etc. I don’t think it’s a bad look at all. Hopefully the Web staff at WFMY will be allowed to do their job and be trusted — at a local and not corporate level — to make it even better.

• 16. Anonymous  |  August 25th, 2007 at 6:33 am

  As one of many-many people involved in the project, the hope is that we move from “local news website” to “local web services” for customers in Greensboro, Winston-Salem and Highpoint. News, weather and traffic are still major parts of those services. But, “places to go, things to do” takes on a larger role, as does local search (not just site search) and organizing local “community conversation” (even if it means a healthy dose of constructive criticism on the site itself). That customer submitted content is also regularly showcased on local television. And, those customer submissions are additionally monitored for new story ideas or to advance stories. Triad customers can add their own events to the calendar, start their own blogs and rate articles. Or they can just read, watch and click around. As one person pointed out, you can be as lean forward or as lean back as you want to be on this site. As for news hounds, wait until you see what the site ltransforms into when a big story happens in the triad… Anyway, this is version 1.0 and we’re working on version 1.2 based on early customer feedback. And, after that, we’ll get crackin’ on version 1.3…. As for the branding, etc., this project is part of larger innovation and R & D project. What works will be replicated, what doesn’t won’t. Is all of this a risk? Yes, a very calculated risk…

• 17. invitedmedia  |  August 25th, 2007 at 7:07 am

  did anyone else get the sense that 1/2 the comments were from other tv people in their market who are either jealous or just want to take a pot shot at the competition?

  some of the criticisms seemed to me to be ones ONLY another beleagured tv person would make.

  many had to do with the lack of legacy branding- to the general public who gives a WFUK?

• 18. Chris  |  August 25th, 2007 at 12:00 pm

  I’m a competitor in their market and am neither jealous nor wanting to take a pot shot in comment 15. I like the clean look of their site. The branding opinion is simply my own. And as comment 16 notes, they’re working to make it even better. Good for them.

  I’ve lived in the Triad for years and know WFMY has some very bright people.

• 19. invitedmedia  |  August 25th, 2007 at 12:46 pm

  yikes! my bad chris.

  i meant the comments left at THEIR new web channel, not here at LR.

  after reading your reply and then re-reading mine i can see it might have confused folks.

  i’d suggest reading some of the comments over there yourself if you haven’t already. you might see the point i was trying to make.

• 20. Chris  |  August 25th, 2007 at 1:11 pm

  Actually maybe I should have read your comment closer! Can’t we all just get along?

• 21. DC  |  September 18th, 2007 at 8:18 am

  WFMY has seen its share of really bad management.. trust me i know! They have lost all touch with what people really want, local news and weather. Gannett is on the cutting edge of technology with their view but one manager there has no clue whats going on. The place is a joke to the community and the other stations in the market. The change in the web site is just another bad decision in a long list of bad decisions.. it is just so sad they were at one time on the cutting edge of TV now they are just a shell of their former selves.

  SAD so SAD

Leave a Comment

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed