30 Comments Add your own

• 1. Doug Perry  |  June 17th, 2008 at 10:31 am

  Is it ironic that you need to register to read the article about how to build your business online?

• 2. scott  |  June 17th, 2008 at 11:42 am

  In the last paragraph when they talk about using IB or Worldnow, what sort of revenue sharing deal is typical between a station owernship group and developer in terms of national advertising?

• 3. Lee Bow  |  June 17th, 2008 at 11:56 am

  I hate to break it Gordon but DigPhilly is an abysmal failure. It’s traffic is way under a million monthly page views with a staffer larger than WCAU’s site.

• 4. Don Day  |  June 17th, 2008 at 12:06 pm

  We tried the DigPhilly model several years ago… and it tanked. Now we’re going the free classifieds/business guide route and its taking off like crazy. The problem is that every single market is different. You have to do what’s right for your audience - not just try something because Borrell says it’s great.

• 5. tdc  |  June 17th, 2008 at 12:11 pm

  “… with a staffer larger than wcau’s site”

  who cares if they have a fat employee?

• 6. re: Lee Bow  |  June 17th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

  When you say abysmal failure, do you mean it’s had a steady increase in traffic for the last year? Is that what you mean?

  All Web sites start somewhere, and DP is growing, so while it may fall short of a million this month, in won’t next year.

  And while I don’t know its staff, this is the first I’ve heard of them being overweight.

• 7. tdc  |  June 17th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

  and i would caution don about “several years ago”, too.

  a lot has changed in several years…. like the term “audience”.

  ?

• 8. Barney Lerten  |  June 17th, 2008 at 5:56 pm

  As a WorldNow site, I know the pluses and minuses all too well. I also know the old love-hate debate over tying one’s Websites to the call letter/station brand mothership. Anyone who thinks everyone should do it a certain way is using too broad a brush. Sure, keep thinking about different ways, but notice how all the ‘clean-looking’ Websites are starting to look… boringly alike? I don’t want to be a lemming, or a sheep, but strike out for a unique feel for our Website(s). Anyone trying to work KickApps into their TV sites? I’m so trepidatious, but going there anyway. Social networking is… sticky;-)

• 9. geraldz  |  June 18th, 2008 at 4:27 am

  “the Lost Remote mantra, “the web is not TV,” ”

  What do you mean? My web is TV (http://zipityzap.com).

  “Then he urged a broader approach to going after new business: classifieds, yellow pages, . . . ”

  Are you kidding me? My yellow pages has at least a half inch of dust on it.

• 10. MG  |  June 18th, 2008 at 5:30 am

  Newspapers are trying to compete online, too. If this is the strategy recommended for TV stations, wouldn’t it be the same strategy for newspapers too? And if that’s the case, will there be enough room for so many such sites in a given market?

• 11. Hussman  |  June 18th, 2008 at 6:13 am

  To Barney… we are also a WorldNow site, and better off for it than we were when it was internal.

  We do use Kick Apps, and it has taken off, big time, partially because of the fact we had the tornadoes, then floods, but still it has generated traffic.

  We’ve also finally got a forum of sorts. Slowly, but surely, we’re getting there.

  For us though, we do need to tie it to our Call Letters. People know us and by default, know our website.

  Website link in name.

• 12. tdc  |  June 18th, 2008 at 6:38 am

  thanks for proving borrell correct- “handcuffs” comes to mind when i see kwwl over a dozen times on the homepage alone.

  tv extension anyone?

  and how will 100k users a month ever pay the bills that the broadcast side will no longer be able to?

• 13. Hussman  |  June 18th, 2008 at 7:19 am

  I don’t know, we’re getting 4-5 times that amount.

• 14. Rocker  |  June 18th, 2008 at 7:42 am

  Barney: So the clean-looking sites are starting to look “boringly alike”…do you think users surf from station to station, market to market, making aesthetic comparisons?

  Ask yourself: Why do I care about this? Am I catering to my own sensibilities and those of the other people in the building (TV station), or the needs and desires of the audience, top 100 of which are:
  1-99: Find what I want/need easily
  100: Nice looking site

• 15. tdc  |  June 18th, 2008 at 7:48 am

  while i’d love to call horse hockey on that “4-5 times that amount”, maybe you can provide a verifying link to settle the matter?

  i can to my 100k claim.

• 16. Hussman  |  June 18th, 2008 at 8:07 am

  I used the last 4 weeks of reports we have internally. We have 413,868 Visitors to the site.

  So, fair enough. Five times may have been pushing it. Still, I fail to see how we’re being “handcuffed” by our TV presence. We generarte traffic, we generate content, and we’re moving in the right direction. Heck, the recent flooding was proof enough of the benefits of the two working together well.

  How is this bad?

  One market is not all markets. Rocker has points.

• 17. tdc  |  June 18th, 2008 at 8:15 am

  fair enough.

  my link actually shows a steady increase over the last several months, so you’re doing some things right there. keep it up!

  we’ll check back in a few months when the tornados and floods pass.

  i don’t think borrell is saying what’s “bad” vs. what’s “good” but rather what has more potential over the long term.

  i can point you to some reverse rebrands that have HALVED their uniques going the call letter route.

  hope all is well.

• 18. Hussman  |  June 18th, 2008 at 8:45 am

  And you make a good point as well. When we get back to normal, things may slide back down. Our challenge is to capitalize on the success we have now.

  The nice part is, we do have a corporate backing that does realize where the future lies, so they are really behind trying to do things right. It’s tough if you don’t have support from up top.

  And there could be issues over the long term. A lot depends on the people you serve though too.

• 19. grumpy smurf  |  June 18th, 2008 at 8:55 am

  sh#t.

  and this thread was shaping up to be a good bar fight.

  i hate it when we all get along.

• 20. Hussman  |  June 18th, 2008 at 10:08 am

  Sorry…

  Would it help if I insult your mom or something?

• 21. James  |  June 18th, 2008 at 10:22 am

  @Hussman

  Yeah, but how many of those are in-market? If it’s more than 50%, then good for you!

  The point is that we look at the web upside down in broadcasting. The web should be a tool to point people to watch/listen to our stations more while also creating completely new revenue streams. There is no question the web is taking business away from our traditional model. But how does pointing people to a site that is only advertised on your airwaves bring new people to you? It’s the difference between a straw and a funnel.

• 22. grumpy smurf  |  June 18th, 2008 at 10:47 am

  oh yeah!

  we could have us a bar fight afterall- the topic of in-market vs. out-of-market users always makes some blood boil!

• 23. Jojo  |  June 18th, 2008 at 3:53 pm

  Has Gordon Borrell ever worked in broadcasting or local TV? I think his background is mostly in newspapers. Just asking.

• 24. Rob  |  June 18th, 2008 at 5:52 pm

  Hussman … can you send me a link to how you’ve integrated KickApps into your WN platform to cover the storms? Looked on your site earlier and couldn’t find what you were referring to as far as using KickApps in your coverage.

  WorldNow user here as well … always on the hunt for ideas on what we can do to extend the platform beyond its limitations. Looked at KickApps about a year ago and couldn’t really find a decent way to integrate it into our site.

  Thanks!

• 25. Hussman  |  June 19th, 2008 at 6:19 am

  Well, by using it, we encouraged people on-air to upload their phots to “Show & Tell 7″ (our name for KickApps). We also profiled photos that were showing up there, and moved the widget above the fold to increase it’s visibility. I don’t really have a link, as I wasn’t directly involved, but IIRC, WorldNow was able to just integrate the code into the page. Code given to us from KA.

  Hope that helps.

• 26. Dude  |  June 19th, 2008 at 9:23 am

  Debate, plead, demand all you want, but most of this is driven by factors that most people can only loosely influence. The change needs to happen, but one factor will above all others force it to happen — pain. When the fat, profitable incumbents can’t stand the pain of losing profits any longer, they will make the change. I’ve been in TV since 1992 and Web since 1997. That’s not very long to you if you are TV engineer living in TV station Master Control for 50 years, but in this Web/TV industry that is several lifetimes. I have seen it over and over again. Progress (read: change) will be made in pockets, individual markets, by individuals with passion, but incumbents will remain in denial until their profits are really threatened. The thing that keeps TV people up at night is money, particularly when they have had huge margins for so many years. They will wake up, but I now believe it is too late. Google in particular has too much momentum, technology, vision in local. They are having TV and newspapers for lunch and Google is about to have dinner, too. If you don’t believe me, then you haven’t been paying attention.

• 27. tdc  |  June 19th, 2008 at 10:10 am

  well said.

  of course, “they” can stay the course and let someone else figure out the business model then simply copy it.

  i guess if you’re shooting for second place this might work.

• 28. StephM  |  June 19th, 2008 at 10:20 am

  Are we missing an opportunity in reshaping the TV station brand to a multi-media brand, so the legacy remains as well as the growth into new spaces? It’s something I think my station is learning and starting to do pretty well. And I fully admit that there is a long road to go.

  Why are we so hung up on building spearate brands for a TV station and a web property that no matter how hard you try to make it a separate business will in the end be adsorbed into the legacy business to give it new life. Let’s call a spade a spade… local TV needs to become local mullti-media and leverage the strength of broadcast to execute some kick butt integration within the marketplace across a variety of media outlets. As successful as we look at newspapers, they have still taken a bite out of the legacy business to a degree that will negatively impact the overall success of the new media company.

  hey, what makes you curious… declareyourcuriosity.com

• 29. tdc  |  June 19th, 2008 at 11:16 am

  sure, let’s call a spade a spade.

  if you somehow think the “seperate business (internet?) will in the end be absorbed into the legacy business to give it new life”, i’d say you are seeing things BACKWARDS.

  i’ll gladly send you a new spade so you can keep digging.

• 30. Anonymous  |  June 19th, 2008 at 9:56 pm

  @Hussman My mother wouldn’t be fazed much.

Leave a Comment

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed