Comments on: Roanoke.com ends TimesCast, do news webcasts work?

By: Kent Chapline

Kent Chapline — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:44:14 +0000

We had the same experience here in D/FW. For us, TV newscast-style webcasts required a fair amount of work to produce for relatively little payoff in terms of audience size. We quit doing them after about a year and have not heard a single complaint. I think people don’t watch them much because the linear experience of TV news doesn’t work with the nonlinear experience of online news. It’s a square peg in a round hole.

By: MSM

MSM — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:14:25 +0000

fleetwood — I like “crowdsourcing” instead of “citizen journalism,” because (a) it recogizes this content as SOURCE content rather than JOURNALISM end-product, which is most often the case, and (b) because it recognizes that the “crowd” — i.e. multiplicity of viewpoints, shots, videos — is what makes it valuable. not interchangeable terms, obviously, but more on the mark for my money.

By: Patrick Beeson

Patrick Beeson — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:25:08 +0000

Can you post a link to the entry you mentioned on Terry Heaton’s blog? I just did a search for it, and can’t seem to find any mention of “John Jackson” or “TimesCast” on the site.

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:11:49 +0000

Perhaps the future is in Atom feeds, personalized so I can select the categories I want built into my feeds. And yes, I will accept targeted advertising as the cost of getting my individualized news.

The problem as you said is not with the webcast per se but with the bundling.

By: Glen

Glen — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:43:38 +0000

This mirrors the experience we’ve had with webcasts at my station. We’ve experimented with different formats and site placement, but the results are the same — not many people view them.

I firmly believe most people are inclined to avoid news webcasts because they don’t know specifically what the content will be. When someone clicks that link for raw tornado video, the user has a good idea about what it is and is more willing to give up a few minutes of time to get it.

That said, there’s no good reason to stop doing webcasts if the content is readily available — just don’t spend too much time on it when there are other things that have far greater impact.

By: discreet_chaos

discreet_chaos — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:21:42 +0000

I assume that it’s a victim of cost analysis because 200-400, in and around Roanoke is a number that I’d applaud. Naturally, I haven’t done any market research, but from my visits to that part of the world, I doubt broadband goes much beyond the limits of the area towns and the local college campuses.

By: tdc

tdc — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:47:09 +0000

2-4 hundred is definitely a small number. but cut it now and you’ll have 2-4 hundred po’d hombres who’ll go elsewhere.

if you’re already paying camera and talent, why would it be considered ‘expensive’ to produce?

i see a few making a renewed effort here and i say ‘go for it’.

singles and doubles add up.

By: fleetwood mack

fleetwood mack — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:40:24 +0000

Of course it isn’t.

Are all who post proven to be “citizens” and of what?

And what is a “journalist” other than someone who keeps a journal?

We’ve wrapped this form of self-expression in a populist name so misleading as to make my teeth hurt everytime i hear it or it is used to defend the right to run off at the mouth or keyboard.

How about a Lost Remote contest to come up with a proper name?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:28:36 +0000

I bet if NYT created a daily newscast, people would watch it. They have so much video and audio, but they don’t produce a simple daily summary. I don’t get it.