Why TV sites lag newspaper sites
Cory Bergman March 24th, 2008
“Better reporting and writing. Simple as that,” writes Harry Jessell in TVNewsday, who points out the obvious that nearly all local TV sites lack the depth and breadth of newspaper sites. But what about video? “That’s fine. But unless the news clips contain some really compelling video, I just as soon read about it on the newspaper website. A still photo of a fire or accident is sometimes just as good as video—sometimes better,” he writes.
He’s right. A vast majority of a local TV site’s visitors are still reading text and looking at slide shows, not watching video — 80% or more, in my own experience. Strategically, video is still critically important, but TV sites will never compete with newspapers (on average) unless the quality and quantity of text coverage and photos improve.
There are two root problems, as we’ve written about many times before. The first is the fact that broadcast scripts are not appropriate to read online. They must be rewritten, usually by a web producer because the reporter A) “doesn’t have time” or B) can’t write. From a financial perspective, the time rewriting this script is a wasted cost. Reporters should write their own web stories — multiple updates throughout the day if needed — following AP style. (The only exception is breaking news against deadline, but they should be communicating new developments.)
The second is the misguided notion that a TV station’s web staff is there just to repurpose TV stories with a few extras here and there. As a result, TV sites are oppressively heavy on crime/fires/accidents and feature thin TV versions of newspaper and AP stories. Weekly franchise segments are just clutter — they’re not produced frequently enough to sustain their respective content sections online. And many TV-designed sweeps stories look silly when rewritten for the web. Oh, but there’s video!
Web staffs should be producing their own original content — not long features or investigative pieces (for now), but topical, wire-style stories (and slide shows, snappy blog posts and data-driven content) that fill the gaps left by TV coverage. What gaps, you say? On a daily basis, TV ignores stories that 1) have boring video 2) are too far away 3) don’t fit the story mix of a newscast 4) can’t be covered because of a lack of resources… etc. But an enterprising web producer can pick up the phone and turn a one-page story in an hour or two.
To get there, stations must shift more human resources to the web. “If stations intend to stay in that game and challenge the newspapers for local dominance, they had better start beefing up their stable of local editors, reporters and columnists—and showcasing them,” writes Jessell. “Perhaps it’s time to raid the newspaper for talent rather than another station.”
Good advice. Because TV sites can’t depend on breaking news, video and weather coverage to stay competitive in the months and years to come. Newspapers are getting faster at breaking news, and they’re starting to shoot video. Weather is gradually slipping away to portals and other pure plays. And online advertisers are hungry for categories like health, travel and sports. If local TV sites want to excel in the years to come, they have to take it to the next level. And expanded coverage is one place to start.
(The other place is aggressively innovating and expanding into local niches, as I wrote here over a year ago).
26 Comments Add your own
1. Howard Owens | March 24th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
There’s also the issue that in any given specific market, no single TV station has much more than 1/3 the reach of the major daily serving the same market. That’s a good deal of promotional power to overcome.
2. Dan | March 24th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
You know, and I’m pretty sure most people will think
I’m nutz, but in my opinion the TV packages are not
really what people what to see. Yes, it’s how we grew up
with TV. But I believe if a newspaper (or TV station)
would provide a good well written story and
support it with b roll from the coverage (edited but not
with standups) as an optional click next to or in
the story, I know I’d go to those stories more often.
The problem I have with TV sites is you HAVE to
watch their videos stories. And I’d rather
read at my own pace and watch video if I feel
engaged by the story. Make sense?
With most TV stories there is not enough information.
The reporters or the producers demand 1:15 stores
and that’s not enough time. Why in the world,
in the vastness that is the web, would anyone want to
limit the coverage to that extent. Yes, you need to edit.
I’m not saying you don’t edit your work. But not
to the extent local TV does. Newspapers could
really shine if they took away the still cameras
from their photogs and gave them HD video
cameras. The reporter would cover the story
the same way they do now but it would be
supported by video. NOT STANDUPS for
goodness sake, but video of the event and
of the interviews if possible. Not even interviews
would be necessary really. Just great shots of
what was happening at the scene, the same way
that photog would have shot it with a still camera.
Yes, they will have to learn how to shoot video,
but they are pros and will do it.
Dan
3. Nathan | March 25th, 2008 at 6:13 am
You guys also need to remember something else: many TV station’s Web staff consist of only one, or maybe, two people.
There is just not enough money yet in the budget at most places to pay for more staff.
These overworked people are expected to generate the same quality of product as the TV side? Impossible, unless you have enough people who can concentrate just on stories without having to deal with other issues. Forthat, in my opinion, you need around 5-6 people at the very least.
4. Don Day | March 25th, 2008 at 7:55 am
The best way to beat the newspaper? Get on their turf in an aggressive way. Now.
5. Rocker | March 25th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Howard: Not sure where you’re getting your numbers from, but a typical network affiliate has a broadcast cume (reach) of 70-80% or more…far more than any newspaper I’m aware of. The ability to cross-promote is actually a great advantage for TV stations, although sadly most don’t do a very good job of it.
6. tdc | March 25th, 2008 at 8:15 am
yes, there are great opportunities out there for traditional broadcasters. as said earlier, though, most would rather write about what others are doing.
remember what jfk once said about the “three types of people” in the world?
7. Joe | March 25th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Good article. Lots of great information showing TV sites how to succeed. Now, good luck convincing your GM, ND and Marketing Dir. that this is the way to go, since they know more than the web staff. If slapping a giantic photo of your anchor team on the home page made the site successful (don’t forget to add tons of station logos!) TV sites would be more popular than they are now. And usually, that’s really all the GM and his or her gang care about.
8. Rob | March 25th, 2008 at 8:37 am
@Don: How does a TV station, which no matter what market you might live in, go head to head with the depth and breadth and attention to detail of the reporting you’ll find on a newspaper site when their staff numbers don’t even come close to comparison?
How do you get aggressively on their turf when, as we discussed a few weeks back, most TV shops can’t dedicate more people to online news because the advertising revenue isn’t there to support more staffers?
9. Alyssa | March 25th, 2008 at 9:02 am
For me, the choice is simple - newspaper sites with slideshows win out because they don’t annoy my co-workers
10. Don Day | March 25th, 2008 at 9:15 am
It’s NOT just a battle of depth. It’s a battle of speed and being the most current. I look at so many TV sites and see moldy news from the previous night’s newscast until 4pm the next day. Bleck.
Write some new stuff, be on the LEADING edge of the daily news wave instead of behind it.
We launched a successful classifieds initiative by undercutting on price and putting big GRPs behind it.
It can’t happen everywhere… but it can happen.
11. Cory | March 25th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Right, there’s no way to match the newspaper’s depth and breadth, but most TV sites aren’t even close.
At KING5.com, we’re fortunate enough to have a larger staff than most. On a daily basis, our web team writes original stories — quick, wire-style stuff — that helps round out our coverage and give KING5.com a bigger feel.
I also think this is important because the vast majority of TV stories are no longer relevant to 20 and 30-somethings — an audience we MUST deliver on the web.
12. wtf TV people? | March 25th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
*** VO SOT CD3019er ***
IN OTHER NEWS TODAY … TV WEB-SITES CONTINUE TO TREET THE WEB LIKE ITS A RED-HEADED STEP CHILD
THIS WAS ONE OF THE MORE POPULAR STORIES ON THE WEB TODAY …. A WEBSITE …WWW DOT LOST REMOTE DOT COM
WE’LL HAVE MORE ON THIS STORY TONIGHT AT ELEVEN PM OR YOU CAN CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE SOMETIME AFTER SEVEN PM TONIGHT WHEN WE DO OUR ONCE PER DAY UPDATE …IF WE HAVE TIME.
13. Z | March 25th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Another issue I’ve hit time and again is that TV folks will either not gather or not convey to others all the information that a newspaper reporter will. So when it comes time to write up the Web story based on a reporter’s pkg, I have only the pkg to work with, unless I want to chase down the reporter to get their notes (rarely taken) or their soundbyte verbatims (rarely written), or try to find the time to go through their raw tapes/discs (ha ha ha)
TV reporters, by and large, will gather the info they need for their TV story, and not much else. I mean, they won’t go find people to talk to if they’ve already got “enough” interviews, which might be all of two.
And Alyssa’s dead on–most people who are TV Web audiences view the site from work, and many, many of them can’t or won’t watch video on a work computer.
But a slideshow is silent.
14. tdc | March 25th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
yeah, and with slideshows you don’t have to sit through a f’in :30 preroll for a lady’s laxative.
guys, i thought 30’s got buried along with the n-word.
15. tdc | March 25th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
z,
suggestion: start a crusade to move past the term “re-purpose” to the new term “dual-purpose”.
if tv (as some have said elsewhere today) is thinking “outside the box”, then this may be a good place to start.
16. Z | March 25th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Tried. Reporters aren’t interested in doing my job, too.
Part of the issue, too, is that when a TV reporter writes a story, it’s not usually even close to Web-ready because it’s written for a different audience. But a newspaper reporter’s story can often go online verbatim or nearly so.
17. TR | March 25th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Z, it’s the TV reporter’s job. Having come from a TV newsroom where we were working aggressively to have everyone produce for both online and on-air — and now producing text, photos and video for my own site — the complaints about “not enough people” just make me laugh. There is no way in HELL that a “web producer” should be rewriting an “on-air” person’s web story. That TV person should have access to laptop with aircard and be writing for the web before he/she ever hits air. And if he/she can kick her/himself in the butt to work truly quickly, that can be done in a minimum of time without somehow “hurting” the tv product. Now, excuse me, I’ve got 20 minutes of self-imposed deadline to write a newspaper-length story for my own site. Then another 45 minutes after that to process 15 minutes of video for the next story I have in queue. All the while, I can hear the sound of TV crews clattering across the country whining that they have only six hours to research, collect, write and edit their minute-thirty package for 10 or 11 pm tonight and then OMG OMG OMG they are going to have to stay 15 minutes late to write something for the web AFTER the show OMG. Bah.
18. Michael Chastain | March 25th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
It seems to me that partnerships between newspapers and TV stations would leverage the advantages of both mediums, but I’ve rarely seen that. But I’m an outsider, what do I know?
19. Cory | March 25th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Tracy, that comment made my night.
20. NotDan | March 25th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
#12 -funny as hell.
#17 - na ga do that. Uh, Ms. Simmons, can you stay past 11:35 to rewrite that vo/sot someone else wrote for you for the web? Or someone else, can you rewrite that? Oh, it’s overtime, fugeddaboutit. Uh,Mr. Editor, can you stay and re-edit that piece for the site? Does that mean overtime? Nah, forget it. Hey crew guys and field reporter, can you re-edit and feed that again for the site? Overtime? Great, it’ll take me 2 hours plus another hour to break down and another to get to the garage, and oh yeah that means you hit my second meal penalty. And since I was called in on a sixth day …my whole family’s going to Hawaii on vacation!
21. Merrell | March 26th, 2008 at 6:40 am
I agree with Nathan, the problem I see with TV Website Operations is resource allocation. (It’s one of the problems in The Innovator’s Dilemma)
The profit generated by many online businesses are slim to none so why invest more money? Why not allocate more resources to our core business with a 30%+ profit margin? It’s a logical way of thinking but it’s that kind of thinking that results in the downfall of a many a company. (Kodak, Compaq, NCR)
22. tdc | March 26th, 2008 at 6:55 am
i’ll argue just the opposite of merrell and nathan.
why go into the content generation business to begin with?
there is more than enough already out there and making your own means bloating a payroll.
funny how these purported “local” efforts are packing in more and more national content when, as the good witch in the wizard of oz will tell you, “there’s no place like home.”
23. Gorman | March 26th, 2008 at 9:19 am
You can bust your hump to beat everybody in a 200 mile radius on a breaking news story.
You can coach reporters on how to efficiently and properly format a story for the Web, and even post it well before the evening news.
You can have photographers feed some photo-friendly video or take a picture with a camera-phone as soon as they arrive on scene.
You can have producers, editors, PA’s and interns churn out copy while you grab stills, build maps, etc and pull it all together.
But you can’t get overtime “just for the web.” Not on even an intermittent basis. Even in a progressive newsroom. And when you’re smaller-staffed, that’s a big hurdle.
24. Rob | March 26th, 2008 at 10:34 am
TR - Yeah, you’re right, I shouldn’t complain about not having enough staff. I should have TV reporters writing their content for the web.
And I’d love to have them do that as soon as I’m able to teach them how to take out all that producer-driven drivel ‘We’ve uncovered, we’ve learned, we’re live, we’ve got exclusive footage, all of that we’re doing our jobs and we’re letting you know we’re doing our jobs factor’ as well as teach them about the mysteries of grammar, punctuation, proper attribution of quotes (And writing quotes verbatim instead of paraphrasing them), spelling and the wonders of the AP style guide and the inverted pyramid.
Then once all that’s done I get to train them on publishing their content to the web, and since I’m on WorldNow that should be as easy as teaching a gerbil geometry.
Yes, once I can get all that done, I’ll have TV reporters trained as convergent content producers for TV and the web.
25. Chris V | March 26th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
This is the best exchange I’ve ever seen on Lost Remote. When I feel it has run its course, I will print both the post and the comments and share them with station personnel at my site in Baltimore (click my name to give me a page view). I have one full-time staffer under me and a small army of people trying to get involved, so all of you are helping with this debate!
26. Michael Odza | April 10th, 2008 at 6:21 am
This discussion makes me feel so much better! I work at a newspaper web site, where we are also (still) having all these debates/complaints. The real issue, as Merrill notes (#21) is that the incumbent industry does not want to give up the profit margin in its “core” business, even though that very core is shrinking in the face of the new business, which isn’t as profitable…yet. If owners or managers don’t divert some of the resources from the core to the new, they’ll never succeed — regardless of what philosophy of content or particular work flow they try.
Having got that off my chest, I will say that in my opinion, the written word does still take precedence over video, especially for the search engines, which supply a big chunk of the audience for any site. And the more words relevant to what people want, the better. (Quality, in some journalistic sense, is not as important, I’m afraid.) Breadth of coverage is more important than depth. (But depth helps too, just secondary.) And something no one has mentioned: true conversation between and among web site and audience members. And advertising. Classified ads (where we haven’t lost everything to craigslist, eBay, autotrader, Monster, etc.) are still valuable generators of audience. And timeliness, as a few people mentioned in the comments. The TV promos should tell people to check the site between scheduled newscasts (and there should be fresh content there to satisfy.) Newspapers also don’t want to send people to the site between printings, but you gotta do it.
Both newspapers and TV are leaking audience, but precious few of them have “grasped the nettle” and really faced up to the fact that a new medium (with seductive, but ultimately quicksand ability to reproduce some aspects of the old media) requires new thinking, new everything. Good luck to us all!
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