‘Kiss your brands goodbye’ online
Cory Bergman January 9th, 2008
I’ve written before about how brand consistency is one of the most damaging maxims for media companies trying to succeed online. And I just read this interview with Nancy Bruner, who heads up online development for Fisher Interactive (which owns KOMOtv.com here in Seattle, a competitor of mine). She says her biggest advice to broadcast companies “is not to do what most newspaper companies have done — use the web as an extension of the core brand. The web should be embraced on its own merits as a unique medium.” Exactly. Now, think of this from a broader perspective than whether your core site should continue to carry the same brand as your station (because it probably should at this stage of the game). Branding is such a powerful force at most TV stations that it carries considerable sway over new product ideas and development. Consciously or unconsciously, people think of new product ideas in terms of brand — how will it support the brand, extend the brand, reinforce the brand — but the brand is an embodiment of who you are and who you’ve been as a TV station. Yet as Lost Remote readers know, the web is not TV. Not by a long shot.
If you ask me my opinion of why most TV stations have done a poor job succeeding online, I’ll give you these four reasons: 1) lack of investment in people and technology 2) unwillingness to take necessary risks 3) TV-driven power structure which results in the inability for web management to quickly allocate resources as they see fit and 4) a bizarre addiction to brand consistency, which limits creative ideas up and down the organization.
14 Comments Add your own
1. Joel Cohen | January 10th, 2008 at 6:53 am
I think you and Nancy are just “talking heads” …. and have no understanding of what the user wants … and that’s simply -information.
The web is no longer a “unique medium” and is rapidly becoming the “second tv.” Yes, you can take away some of the flashy overdone logos off the website, but they make me feel comfortable, that I’m getting my information from a reliable source.
It’s unfair for you to say in a blanket statement that tv staions have done a poor job succeeding online, when you don’t know their specific objectives are … let alone not knowing what their benchmarks for success are.
The only point I will add to this is that a lot of tv station web sites are overdone with advertising.
When the ads become so overwhelming in terms of amount of “real estate” on the home page they take up, rather than that space devoted to more news and information, that turns the user away.
Maybe one of the issues is, are the tv stations looking at their web sites as advertising revenue generators or information vehicles?
Joel Cohen
2. tdc | January 10th, 2008 at 7:42 am
i have no position on this issue, but i recall an essay terry heaton wrote on this about a year ago.
you can find it in the nav column @ thepomoblog (’bout 1/2 way down).
3. punky brewster | January 10th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Curious about how you describe it as a “second tv” … why not a second newspaper? Second radio station?
I think the point is that it’s a *new medium.* To call lit a second anything drives home the point in the posting … looking at it as simply an extension of the current old medium.
Let’s try this mantra: The web is not TV …. the web is not TV … the web is not TV.
4. Anonymous | January 10th, 2008 at 8:25 am
‘TWINT’- the web is not tv.
like ‘viewser’ this too will be used without attribution to lr.
5. Drew | January 10th, 2008 at 8:45 am
OK there are lots more reasons why local TV stations have had trouble exploiting their brands on the web. Most importantly, local stations cannot begin to deliver the set of products/services to their core audience that they deliver via their OTA broadcasts. Remember most people watch local TV most of the time for network and syndicated programming. Often that programming is exclusive to a local affiliate — for most people Channel 6 is the only place they can find Dr. Phil or Lost. Local stations offer news products that have direct and open competition from other stations as well as newspapers and radio. If there’s a tornado coming, who cares if the news comes from Channel 3 or newsok.com? And how many viewers watch more CBS network programming because of the high ratings of the local news team?
Because of network shortsightedness and digital rights complications, local stations can’t offer the entertainment product that most viewers associate with their brand. “Where’s the Bengals game? Ah it’s on CBS which means KRC”. Of course if I can’t go to wkrc.com and see the game, a large chunk of the brand value is lost.
TV station that offer local news online face even more competition than for their OTA products. And with only a fraction of the production values viewers associate with TV news. However because anyone can start a website “NewsNowIowa” and become a competitor, I’d say it’d be a mistake for a station trash what little brand equity they can bring to the internet.
IMO local TV can only succeed at a scale proportionate to their OTA business, if they can bring their entertainment properties (Dr. Phil and Lost) to their local audiences. And with the same identical adload seen on OTA broadcasts. The idea of trading 24 minutes of ads on Heroes via local broadcasters for 3-4 30 secs. from a network website is stupid for the networks and a disaster for affiliates.
6. Cory | January 10th, 2008 at 10:22 am
To back up my point about how most TV stations are doing a poor job succeeding on the web:
The newscasts from the top TV stations in most markets are watched by significantly more people than who read the local physical newspaper. Yet in most markets, the newspaper’s website typically beats the top TV station’s website in both audience and revenue by a significant margin.
The top TV station in most markets garners a 15-25 percent share or more of local television dollars but only 1-3 percent of local internet ad dollars.
A typical TV website repurposes 90-100% of all its information from TV and the wires. The editorial process for assigning stories to reporters in nearly all TV stations is based entirely on TV criteria.
Etc.
I’m not criticizing local web teams. On the contrary, as I explained, this lack of success is due to bigger factors that are largely out of their control.
7. Randy Hoffman | January 10th, 2008 at 10:35 am
I’ll add this reasoning to local TV’s tentative web success….sales of TV time are still relatively strong, budgets are still, by and large, being made, (do you think every TV general manager took delight and relief in the millions spent on local TV in Iowa and New Hampshire?), and I know of very few, if any TV owners, GM’s or GSM’s that has any idea how to make their web efforts profitable. Particularly when the TV promotion inventory cost is calculated.
8. Cory | January 10th, 2008 at 11:12 am
And one more thing about Joel’s left-field comment. The web isn’t just about information like TV, it’s about interaction, community, connection, like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc., etc.
Second TV? That’s the thinking that leads to failure on the web.
And by the way Joel, nice site.
9. Safran | January 10th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
@Joel - if the web is becoming a “second TV,” you’re gonna need to refresh that site of yours about 29 frames faster a second.
It’s nice to hear someone bitching about ads whose site consists entirely of gaming Google search so people will come see his ads that link to other ads and pages with cut-and-pasted content. Well played! Best Ironic Post of 2008!
… Just another retired talking head
10. El Dangeroso | January 10th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I agree with the sentiment that most TV pages are overrun with advertising. What’s worse, the navigation is a nightmare. At my station, we have to tell viewers to go to the “as seen on” link on our homepage for more information. “As seen on”? That’s the best catchphrase we could come up with?
In addition, a lot of news managers make the website a ridiculously low priority. Your story loses a lot of power when stripped of the images and the script is just posted as text online. You need to craft it like a newspaper column, and that’s time reporters and producers don’t often have. If I were running a station, I’d lure in as many college newspaper staffers as possible and turn them loose to populate the site with fresh information. It’s better than the cut-and-paste mentality we have now.
Give me a site that’s simple and clean, with easy navigation and smooth/functional video links. Oh, and push the best content to the front page, no matter who generates it or what format (video/print/blog) it is.
11. tdc | January 10th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
@safran,
your name looks much nicer in BLUE… like in last night’s two comments under the eventcasting story.
somehow i thought it was a sign that ‘retirement’ was over.
12. Brink | January 11th, 2008 at 6:40 am
“Your story loses a lot of power when stripped of the images and the script is just posted as text online. You need to craft it like a newspaper column, and that’s time reporters and producers don’t often have.”
It’s easy to propose solutions like this, where you tell us how it should be done, but then say, “Of course, *I* don’t have time to do this, but someone else…”
13. El Dangeroso | January 11th, 2008 at 10:45 am
@ Brink
I already stay a half-hour after each shift to blog for my station. Maybe if managment would take away arbitrary and time-consuming producing tasks (making OTS graphics, creating video “placeholders,” flagging certain stories for archive and others for discarding, logging every song used in our newscasts) everyone would have extra time to contribute.
14. Joel Cohen | January 11th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
It’s not necessary to throw barbs at people with opinions other than yours. Most importantly, it’s easy to criticize a web site, especially when one doesn’t understand the concept, the objectives and the money that’s made. You’re right, the web isn’t becoming another tv, but my computer is.
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