44 Comments Add your own

• 1. tdc  |  April 29th, 2008 at 1:06 pm

  “linking the competition”

  actually, linking the competition puts you ABOVE them thereby removing the competitive nature of things.

  there’s a news producer in denver who has done a steady stream of linking to sources and i wrote her to tell her how much that added to the news they presented… being the class act she is, she actually sent a reply.

  imagine that.

• 2. Aaron  |  April 29th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

  I’ll add one: Showing your raw video to the public.

• 3. Aaron  |  April 29th, 2008 at 1:15 pm

  And several more that are, for the moment, Not Done:

  - Embeddable video players
  - Expressing opinion & analysis
  - Going live without live trucks (although this one is going to get Done very quickly because of the cost savings)
  - The artificial distinction of “on-air” and “off-air” employees
  - Reporters covering stories that won’t end up in a newscast
  - Letting anyone in the newsroom pick up a camera and shoot (this is going to be a huge fight in a lot of union shops)

• 4. aam  |  April 29th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

  “aggregating the competition” using clever programming to pull in rss feeds, embed-able links, and archiving the links/feeds forever making them searchable.

• 5. just me  |  April 29th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

  Linking… try just mentioning them in a story. I can’t write a story about the local team being scheduled to play on Monday Night football on ESPN because I would be mentioning ESPN.

  I still do it, but I hear about from the program director. You know, its only news if its broadcast on our station. Otherwise it isn’t happening. Like the people don’t already know.

• 6. Rocker  |  April 29th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

  Done, not done….dumb, not dumb….or maybe dumb and dumber.

• 7. Safran  |  April 29th, 2008 at 3:21 pm

  Linking out will be Done once stations realize how it helps their Google ranking, their Technorati ranking and how that’s, in fact, what the audience wants.

  Just remind your NDs that Google’s entire business model is based upon sending you elsewhere. Seems to work for them OK.

  Thanks for the link, Cory.

• 8. Barney Lerten  |  April 29th, 2008 at 10:56 pm

  Oh I’d try the argument you raise, Steve, but you know what I’d hear from the ND: ‘We’re not Google.’
  Nope, we’re sure not… sigh;-)

• 9. Wireless Butterfly  |  April 30th, 2008 at 2:46 am

  Consume, produce and share.

  2 billion hours a year watching spent watching television
  and you’re worried about a link??

  The cognitive connection is your seed.

  Get to it.

• 10. jstathgt  |  April 30th, 2008 at 4:35 am

  the cognitive connection is your seed? c’mon, speak english or spanish or chinese, but not jibberish…

• 11. Jiggy  |  April 30th, 2008 at 5:19 am

  Oh, our ND was fine with it when we started linking to the competition.

  Sales, however, was not. So we were stopped by the GM

• 12. Hussman  |  April 30th, 2008 at 6:06 am

  Why would we want to be Google, when your business is local news? If your business was to be a search engine and other utilities to be productive, then great, go for it. But it’s not. It’s to provide local news, that’s relevant only to your coverage area.

  And Google rankings? Really? If you live outside a market, how often do you really do a Google search for “News location X”? Please someone convince why Google rankings are really that important.

  Also, raw video… with a few obvious exception, what person *really* wants to see that? Are there really that meany people out there who want to see 25 mins of raw vid?

  Now, I do agree that the culture needs to change, but give it time. The bulk of reporters that are coming are web-savvy and seem to “get it.” NDs are slowly working there too. The real power for change coems from the Top-down. Corporate owners need to realize that their future is online, and push for it.

• 13. MJ  |  April 30th, 2008 at 6:12 am

  You know, you’d be surprised at raw video viewer numbers, I think.

  We’re looking to move toward putting all interview footage online for each story.

  But there’s legal issues ahoy, in that you couldn’t really refuse to give attorneys or police your unused footage if it’s all on the Web

• 14. tdc  |  April 30th, 2008 at 6:17 am

  what i’ve seen over the last several weeks leads me to believe it won’t be long until we once again see the mount rushmore of local tv anchor heads adorning the masthead.

  this most recent circle of wagons is really sad.

• 15. Safran  |  April 30th, 2008 at 6:50 am

  @Hussman: I will explain. People don\’t do a search for \”news location X.\” They go to Google (and Google News) and type in keywords about a story they may have heard about: A governor\’s name, a local election, a city event, etc. Your ranking needs to be high if you expect people to find you as the top result and come to your pages.

  Remember: most visits to a site do NOT come in through the front door. They come in via search, links, RSS, recommendations, etc. It\’s not that you \”want to be Google.\” You want to be a top result for news story keywords. You just can\’t write off this important fact of the Web.

  As for \”give it time…\” I\’ve got plenty. It\’s not my companies that are sinking under lost revenue and the inability to keep up with the massive shift that\’s happening. In this case time really does equal money. It\’s up to the stations to decide how much time/money they want to let go to the other local advertisers.

• 16. Tom Planchet  |  April 30th, 2008 at 7:54 am

  Steve, do most visits to local TV news web sites really come from search engines? That’s not what my statistics seem to show. Doesn’t someone in the Seattle metro area know that if a news event is happening to go to the local station or newspaper web site?

  I NEVER Google current local news. I do Google archived stuff and news out of market, but maybe I’m the exception. If I hear of a big sports story, I’m on ESPN.com, a big stock story, Marketwatch.

  Having said that, I’m in agreement on just about EVERY other point made.

  And, I agree that Google searches are important. I just think that in my market, I’m competing for consumers of our news, and while it’s nice every now and then to get a link from Drudge so people in Chicago or Alaska visit, I don’t expect them to come back often.

  I love WRAL and KING5’s sites, but if I wasn’t in the business trying to get great ideas from them, I’d never visit those sites unless there was a big national story coming from those areas.

• 17. Nick  |  April 30th, 2008 at 8:24 am

  A question about linking out to competitors — which I think is a great idea by the way. However, are there any legal ramifications from a copyright standpoint? Google doesn’t seem to be worry about it — but if I pull an RSS feed from my competitor and display on my site, can I run into problems. Of course, they would be dumb to complain since I’m sending them traffic, but you never know.

• 18. Gorman  |  April 30th, 2008 at 8:49 am

  I always google for national news stories. I never google for local ones, unless it’s a bit older or obscure and I can’t find it.

• 19. tdc  |  April 30th, 2008 at 8:50 am

  if i heard a “news event was happening” in philadelphia, denver, portland, salt lake city, denver or new york in the last hour i’d be over at livenewscameras… they had LINKS to live streaming news available in every one of those cities.

• 20. Aaron  |  April 30th, 2008 at 9:30 am

  FWIW, I Google local news all the time. Regular Google for archive stories, Google News for day-of.

  Looking at the percentage of visitors that come from Google is a bit misleading, since ideally those first visitors like what they see and come back again without Google’s help.

  The more often you show up at the top of the search results, the more you’re perceived as a market leader and primary source for news.

• 21. Editz  |  April 30th, 2008 at 9:43 am

  I also Google for local news. I find it to be more convenient than going to individual sites. Once I’m on a particular site I may look around for awhile, but I never bother to make it my first stop since they never include *all* of what’s going on. That’s the value Google provides.

• 22. Aaron  |  April 30th, 2008 at 9:47 am

  Going back to Jiggy’s point — Sales can be an even bigger source of the Not Dones than news management.

  Remember that these changes threaten the way things are Done in sales just as much as they threaten news. Google is making billions of dollars selling ads without a sales staff.

  If (when?) the suits decide they can make more money without a warm body taking a commission on each ad, there’s a lot of jobs going away.

  The result of that fear — anything that smacks of changing the status quo gets smacked down, even if it’s a brilliant (and/or blindingly obvious) idea.

• 23. rich  |  April 30th, 2008 at 11:38 am

  It’s not like the web is pure! Site owners censoring competing sites, posts, and writers — and block IP addresses of those who go off-script however defined. In one example the site gave an error message blaming a block post on technical problems.

  It seems they don’t want to mention sites or possibly products from unapproved vendors, and filter results and postings with an internal blacklist of “enemy” sites.

• 24. Rocker  |  April 30th, 2008 at 11:40 am

  It ’s not just news, or sales…it’s EVERYBODY. We need every employee up and down the line to understand we’re in the multimedia, multiplatform business…and become engaged on that level. Otherwise, we’re doomed.

  I think most TV stations have a l-o-n-g way to go.

• 25. just me  |  April 30th, 2008 at 1:05 pm

  If you don’t value the usefullness and also the threat of Google to local news, you’re falling behind the curve.

  Sounds like a lot of web producers are falling behind the curve on a lot of issues. I’ll remember that when you send me your resume.

  No wonder most of your sites suck.

• 26. Safran  |  April 30th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

  @Nick: No legal problems whatsoever linking to others. The web IS links. Linking to CNN doesn’t make you liable for their content any more than it makes you CNN. We worry too much about lawsuits.

  @Tom: Don’t mistake yourself for market research. Search is king. Even if it weren’t, why ignore this important part of how people behave? Wouldn’t you rather be first in a search result?

  I’ve found that Google News does a better job finding stories for me than some local sites themselves. Site search can be that bad.

  @Aaron: Damn straight. There is a whole lot of Not Done in sales. But this isn’t because of artificial editorial policy so much as lack of education. Sales will do what it has to, once it has proper training about just how much damn money there is out there.

  @Rich: Amen. Blocking others makes you look evil.

• 27. tdc  |  April 30th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

  if you’re “linking to cnn” hopefully it’s to the WORLD section… there are some decent stories tucked in back there.

  the US section is tabloid by comparison. very.

• 28. Rocker  |  April 30th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

  CNN International is much more palatable to watch the CNN domestic too. Wandering way off topic…so is Al Jazeera English. I watched it last summer in Europe, fully expecting to be appalled…and in fact, found them covering a wide variety of topics, in far greater depth than any American network…and reasonably detached. I’d be surprised if the Arabic version is so reasonable. I think it’s outrageous (and stupid in a face cutting of nose sort of way) that no one will run it here.

• 29. Anonymous  |  April 30th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

  If I want media clips I look to You Tube, the parent Google stinks as a search engine and the only thing they might really be good for is finding porn.

  90% of all searches can’t all be for porn but they haven’t been of much help for maybe five years now.

• 30. Aaron  |  April 30th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

  I’m confused by anon #29… is he frustrated that Google isn’t any help finding porn?

  Perhaps the problem is that his Google queries are as unintelligible as his comments.

• 31. Hussman  |  May 1st, 2008 at 6:06 am

  I NEVER use Google News search. Giving me my news is what my custom Google and Yahoo! pages are for. Why waste time on a search when I can build a page that pushes.

  And looking at where and how people are reaching our site, search engine refewrences are abysmally low when compared to direct traffic.

  Or are we talking about different things.

• 32. Daniels  |  May 1st, 2008 at 6:45 am

  I manage a small hyperlocal and link to everything I can and embed video (including my competition’s) whenever possible. Heck, I’d link to their stories but they stash them in a pay-to-see archive system after two weeks.

  The local newspapers that are run from the top down can’t seem to grasp the multimedia aspect of the Web or the concept of sharing across the Net.

  We’re tiny yet we consistently beat them to the top of the Google Local news search and the feedback we get is very good.

  That said, I agree with several of you above who say they already know where to go for their news. We’re only a few years old; the newspapers have more than a century in name recognition. Of course, a lot of their readers won’t be around in a couple decades.

• 33. Tom Planchet  |  May 1st, 2008 at 12:02 pm

  Steve, I agree that we should do what we can to up our searchability, I’m just not sure that so many people Google local news…but, I appear to be naive on that one.

• 34. Jason  |  May 1st, 2008 at 12:19 pm

  Oh no. Another Steve Saffron commercial for AR&D masquerading as a “best practice”

  Can we please, please stop hearing from Steve and Terry Heaton that “Search is king”?

  Or for that matter that ____ is king?

  The successful sites on the web in our medium are successful because they do a lot of things (but not a ton) VERY well. And, it’s not because of search. Period.

  Of course, this all helps create the *image* of AR&D’s online group (two people) as being “hip” and “getting it” when, in fact, neither of them have really worked at TV station websites for long enough or in a key position enough to understand the realities. Really.

  In fact, neither of them would know the real data behind some of the most successful TV station Websites if they didn’t have an inside link to King5 — no offense Cory, but it’s true.

  In complete truth, the snake oil salesman who try and try to constantly tell us that ___ is king (and they have a great way to make sure you get in for the low, low cost of …. half of whatever it was last year) are ruining this for all of us who really know what we are doing.

  I am amazed at the amount of completely stupid GMs and publishers who hang on every word of these obviously self-egrandizing self-important (and UNBELIEVALBLY motivated by selling their own “formula” and software) salesman.

  Let’s finally call them for what they are: salesman! (who masquarade as consultants who seemingly have every answer — including what is “king” this week).

  The internet is never as simple as these people claim it is and its never as difficult as they want to make it seem either. Plastics.

• 35. tdc  |  May 1st, 2008 at 12:55 pm

  i’m guessing here, but i’d bet jason’s “very successful site” doesn’t allow unmoderated comments like this one do.

  what an asshole.

• 36. Safran  |  May 1st, 2008 at 1:45 pm

  Jason is king.

• 37. Jason  |  May 1st, 2008 at 2:22 pm

  Gosh where is WKRN when you need them.. oops.. forgot, the video-only/blog/100 different urls king is now a WorldNow site…

  oh well…

  what is the sales pitch this year? let me guess? search

• 38. Jason  |  May 1st, 2008 at 2:28 pm

  oh, and I forgot.. congratulations steve…

  you just sold some stupid GM on your product through your coolness

  “look he doesn’t even need to argue with the guy. that is how cool he is. no excuses or information even necessary. I need to pay him to help make me cool too. where do I sign up? forget the cost ($40k THIS year — $20k next year)… just sign me up!!!!”

  yes. that thinking does happen.

  I wish I could have seen the printing press operation of proposals that was in action at NAB this year. every sheet of letter-sized paper must have been sold off the shelves in Vegas… desperation time…

• 39. Steve Safran  |  May 1st, 2008 at 2:40 pm

  Apparently the sales pitch is that I’m cool. This, of course, would be short and unsuccessful, but thanks for the kind words.

  Oh - and since you decided to libel me, “Jason”:

  - I ran a station website for six years, up until 2006. Please tell me where you get your information that says I did not.
  - We get data from many sites, including those for which we consult and from our research.
  - Cory does not give out competitive information about his work. Not even to us. Kindly show the evidence that led you to write your insulting slur.
  - We don’t call anything “king.” We try to give lots of ideas. There is no silver bullet.
  - Absolutely nothing in my essays requires my help. In fact, I know of no consultants who offer as much free advice as we do.
  - There is no masquerade. I am completely upfront about who I am and what I do. I research everything I do and stand by the best practices of journalism.

  It is apparent by your writing that you are unburdened by the need for facts. I hope your audience feels otherwise.

• 40. Jason  |  May 1st, 2008 at 2:42 pm

  Wow - this is all over the place. Let me share some Hitwise research that will hopefully make the picture a little clearer.

  TV Web sites on average receive 17.17% of their traffic from search engines. We as an industry are 4.76% below the industry average for News and Media searching. So yes there is room for improvement across the industry but the impact is not as strong as those that suggest.

  25.37% of TV website traffic is from other news media sites which are a 4.33 % advantage over the news and media category.

  We believe that your true impact is growing your ability to create deep digital roots with your community and that this will vary from station to station based on their strengths and the communities in which they serve.

  The question is do you have tools to go after these relationships and can you do it in an efficient manner?

• 41. Jason  |  May 1st, 2008 at 2:47 pm

  FYI, Different Jason then listed above

• 42. Jason  |  May 1st, 2008 at 3:10 pm

  Thanks Smart Jason. You are indeed a help and brave to reveal your real identity to the tigers that lurk here looking for lawsuits.

  As for libel, I’m not sure that is what happened here.

  Merely expressing an opinion that someone is perhaps unqualified or questioning experience of someone is not enough to get one sued successfully — which seems to me to be what you’re begging to have happen (go running to the lawyers — a salesman and consultant’s best friend).

  Although, I guess if you can prove this hurt your business (or just that it hurt your feelings) I am sure you will find a sympathetic jury (who loves your smooth delivery) to make up for whatever pittance you’ve lost as a result.

  I do love your facts you cite Steve and wish there were more of them from you and Terry more often. Instead, it is smooth talking buzzwords laced with endless I-have-the-ultimate-answer slickness.

  I am sorry if I accidentially got a couple of details wrong. It was just an innocent mistake. But, I did use an important qualifier “enough to understand the realities” which is a subjective statement — not a fact, thus making it not pass the libel test. (It would be as if I called you a dork or something — an opinion, not passed off as fact.)
  Still, I guess I should brace for the lawyers. Now all we need are a ton of GMs claiming my stunning post caused them to stop signing a deal with you at the last second…

  I guess playing the virtually unknown (and luckily for AR&D becoming hidden more and more everyday) WKRN card brings out the real person underneath all the sales gimmick.

• 43. tdc  |  May 1st, 2008 at 3:24 pm

  so between linking and search, over 42% of your traffic is generated.

  42% is nearly 1/2 where i come from.

• 44. the dude  |  May 2nd, 2008 at 11:46 am

  Appointment Viewing is Dead — newscasts are included there. I worked on tv websites for more than 10 years and management never seemed to understand the value and power of the web.

  Organizations don’t change overnight, but they need to at least keep pace with trends. I have completely stopped regular viewing of local news. Why? It’s content is pre-formatted for me. I can’t choose the stories that interest me the most. It’s of very little value. The web offers TONS of value. Which is why it’s important to link to relevant information in your stories. Let your viewers see how you did your research. Provide them with resources to learn. Encourage them to communicate. Learn from them (ALLOW COMMENTING ON STORIES!!!).

  Marriott’s CEO allows for all kinds of comments on his blog — basically it’s called a “warts and all” strategy. Good or bad, the company wants to hear what you think.

  Life is not lived in a vacuum. I’m willing to bet that if TV stations were more transparent as well, the advertising bucks would improve. . .I can think of a whole handful of ideas to use this transparent approach to increase revenues.

  Happy being a dinosaur? Stay the course. Otherwise learn how to walk upright with the rest of the digital universe.

Leave a Comment

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed