Comments on: Web service firms face evolving station needs

By: Tonto Weinstein

Tonto Weinstein — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:00:30 +0000

TV stations are starting to realize that the web isn’t a dumping ground for what they didn’t air or a place to put streams that will never make it to air. When that was the predominant thinking, it was fine to pay or partner with someone to take your existing content and make a web site out of it.

Times are obviously changing and stations are starting to “get it”. And that requires someone who can turn on a dime and give management what they want — even if it’s the wrong idea! IB and Worldnow are stuck in that 1999 web hosting mentality where they’re the “web masters” and their visions are the only correct visions.

By: Tripp Fenderson

Tripp Fenderson — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:55:19 +0000

@John Proffitt

If stations have “no staff or no vision as to what could/should be done online”, they’re not serving their customer base by outsourcing their web operations so cookie cutter based “services”.

IMHO, they shouldn’t even be online — it’s just a waste of money.

There are many inexpensive and easy-to-use CMS tools on the market now, making it possible for even the leanest of operations to set up a custom site that truly serves the needs of the local audience.

By: Wyeth

Wyeth — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:12:11 +0000

Loved this article. I have nothing to add. It speaks for itself.

By: John Proffitt

John Proffitt — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:58:39 +0000

Services like these (there’s a similar service in the public broadcasting world) are good for those stations with either no staff or no vision as to what could/should be done online. As soon as you have someone that is well-versed in web trends and technologies, these platforms begin to slow you down and stop you from innovating.

If you want to use the web as the web, then you have to do it yourself. It moves too fast to buy a paint-by-numbers hosted or managed service.

By: tdc

tdc — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:00:57 +0000

and btw- if ib ultimately loses nbc o/o’s it would be the best thing for them… a huge opportunity.

didn’t that sandhi kosuch(sp?) of cox used to work for world now?

By: tdc

tdc — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:54:27 +0000

maybe i read the article wrong, but i get the impression most of these station groups are aiming to cram even more crap onto an already constipated screen.

i was really hoping someone would take the initiative and actually ‘dump’ a load.

By: Yeah, I'm a coward. Big deal.

Yeah, I'm a coward. Big deal. — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:12:11 +0000

Having dealt with one of these companies for a number of years, let me just say Amen. The one we dealt with was cookie cutter and sluggish to adapt to trends/needs of their customers.

One size does not fit all. Yes there were attempts to allow customization, but when it came down to it, there was perhaps 1 or two 2 basic options you could chose from. Not to mention the one company we used had perhaps the clunkiest, slowest loading template, showed little cross browser concern, much less cross platform.

Then again, It’s driving television groups to find less TV-centric solutions, or perhaps even develop their own, so it does come with its own silver lining.

By: Brent Booth

Brent Booth — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:19:52 +0000

I currently work on a group of Inergize Digital websites. One of the greatest things about this platform is the flexibility. As webmaster I can get in and change the complete look of the site, sections, css etc. without having to get Inergize involved every time. This is huge for us! We can implement new ideas without slowing down the developers at Inergize. They can keep developing great new ideas while we can maintain our own “local” look and feel.

I have been asked to work with several template providers and one of the biggest “turn-offs” was the inability to make my own changes. On the local level you really need more control other then just adding local news content!