• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Internet vs. Expanded Local TV News

kfbkfb

kfbkfb

When WDAF TV changed their affiliation from NBC to FOX in 1994-09, they greatly increased their local news.

Since this was before wide use of the Internet, I sometimes watched more than a hour of the news on WDAF throughout the day.

I cancelled cable TV 4+ years ago, I watch OTA TV "for free", I have several digital TV stbs and 3 TVs with digital TV tuners [in addition to my new ADTH ATSC 3.0 stb].

I made myself a web page of links (stored on my ad supported "free" web site) which I can call up on my PC, tablet and smartphone, this web page has links to the local newspapers, the national TV networks (with news divisions), the major cable news channels and the local TV stations (with news divisions) and the Google and Bing news sections.

I find I rarely watch either the national network TV or the local TV newscasts now, so expanding (in this case, local) news time doesn't matter to me, I use my web page of links like a newspaper, just skimming the headlines, clicking on some articles and in rare cases, watching a short TV news segment video.

The main advantage of my approach is that it is on demand, mostly text (useful for my small screen tablet and smartphone) and I can quickly get caught up on national & local news anytime day or night.

Is it really cost effective to allocate a lot of time on a local station for news when the associated TV station web site can provide the same information without having to watch (potentially hours) of news on TV?

(maybe some syndicated programs could be broadcast instead of more local news and the TV station could periodically direct viewers to their web site for up to the second news)


Kirk Bayne
 
Should they also give out AM radios?

If it weren’t cost effective, they wouldn’t do it. They get to keep all the ad revenue and in many cases are making less of an investment than in a syndicated show. Staffing may be incremental if at all depending on how you work it.

Not everyone creates some kind of pile of bookmarks. Some people want to have it on in the background, or while multitasking, or heck just to watch it without needing to peruse a bunch of links.

That works for one person, great. But it certainly isn’t the preferred way for everyone.
 
kfbkfb said:
(maybe some syndicated programs could be broadcast instead of more local news and the TV station could periodically direct viewers to their web site for up to the second news)
Click to expand...
Syndication is really the problem that led to more local news, not the answer.

The basic timeline was: Oprah ended, and the shows that notionally took its place all flopped ("Anderson Live", "Meredith", and "Katie"). "The Ellen Degeneres Show" existed prior to Oprah leaving broadcast syndication, and became the highest rated talk show for most of its remaining time -- but it was already existing, and former Oprah stations needed something for that time slot.

4pm news was tried by a few stations after Oprah left TV, and the practice became widespread as Oprah's replacements failed.
 
WTOV9 in Steubenville runs four straight hours of morning news on its Fox channel. The anchors must have bladders made of titanium, or the restrooms are close by during commercials. Yes, I am showing my age here.
 
Almost any station designed by a competent firm is going to have restrooms nearby. But there are those weather breaks and commercials to sneak one person out at a time. It's all doable when needed.

But 4 pm news already existed before Oprah left. Some of her bigger affiliates, including the ABC O&Os in the east, had plans in the work to get that hour for news; syndication wasn't on the menu, good bad or otherwise. And if I were making those decisions even back then, it would be an easy call. Keep the revenue for an important hour, or shell out for a syndicated show. Oprah had a spectacular run, and got a lot of eyeballs trained to those stations at that time. Now I could convert a chunk of those eyeballs to my own product and pocket all that money especially in election years in major markets? That's a classic no-brainer. :) And when the time comes that something like Jeopardy and Wheel go away, what would I do if I'm running those stations? Looking seriously at whether I can do better with news (with the caveat that we have no idea when that will come, and the state of the industry will determine the outcome; I'm talking about today's realities)

The world changed in her several decades on the air. There really wasn't a direct replacement even informally. She was replaced, but not with a singular show pitched specifically for that purpose by the distributor.

Much like some other things, when the larger markets went a certain route in larger numbers, it flowed to smaller markets.
 
One big issue is that syndicated programming is rather expensive for stations. They pay for the show AND they give up about half of the ad time in that show.

Yes, a station could frequently push the audience to its website for updates. But digital products (websites, live streams, etc) don't bring in nearly as much money as commercials in TV newscasts. It's not even close to being close. If a station cancels newscasts, it will also lose staff and there will be fewer people contributing to the website.
 
Indeed. It’s supplemental. They can throw on streaming extensions of their newscasts, and that’s great. Pick up a little extra ad revenue? Cool. It isn’t going to sustain you today, but who wouldn’t like some extra where you can get it?
 
One thing the TV stations could do instead of having a news "crew" working for the station - rebroadcast the audio from the local news/talk/sports radio station (in KC, KMBZ FM) when no syndicated or network program is on.

The video could be just still pictures with ads (similar to billboards) or specially made video only (no sound) ads (just show the TV station logo when a radio ad is on).

If the news/talk/sports radio station is on AM, this would be the ultimate AM translator - a full power digital TV signal.


Kirk Bayne
 
kfbkfb said:
One thing the TV stations could do instead of having a news "crew" working for the station - rebroadcast the audio from the local news/talk/sports radio station (in KC, KMBZ FM) when no syndicated or network program is on.

The video could be just still pictures with ads (similar to billboards) or specially made video only (no sound) ads (just show the TV station logo when a radio ad is on).

If the news/talk/sports radio station is on AM, this would be the ultimate AM translator - a full power digital TV signal.


Kirk Bayne
Click to expand...
The main reason viewers of TV news choose to watch rather than listen to radio or read print news, is to see corresponding video and detail. If it's a story about a warehouse fire or plane crash or even a city council meeting, they want to see video footage of the scene, maybe maps and graphics that give even more detail, and interviews of the people involved. Very few are going to sit in front of a TV and watch still photos or billboard ads while listening to audio of a radio broadcast. It's inherently bland, and for all intents and purposes, unwatchable TV. If your argument is that it's just something to have on in the background and not actively "watch", then those folks don't need a TV for that - they can just switch on the radio and listen, or much more commonly, stream the audio using their phone, tablet or smart speaker.
 
newsmark said:
One big issue is that syndicated programming is rather expensive for stations. They pay for the show AND they give up about half of the ad time in that show.

Yes, a station could frequently push the audience to its website for updates. But digital products (websites, live streams, etc) don't bring in nearly as much money as commercials in TV newscasts. It's not even close to being close. If a station cancels newscasts, it will also lose staff and there will be fewer people contributing to the website.
Click to expand...
True and also Syndicated programming are moving to places like Freevee, PlutoTV and Tubi in some cases. I can see why local TV has to expand local news in other places.

tubitv.com

Watch Free TV & Movies Online | Stream Full Length Videos | Tubi

Watch free on Tubi. From deep cuts to hit movies, shows, series, live TV and awarded originals. No subscription. Free forever.
tubitv.com tubitv.com

Watch Prime Video Live TV — TV shows, sports, and news

Discover a wide range of live content on Prime Video. Stream and explore top content from popular channels and subscriptions. Unleash the full potential of your streaming experience with Channels. Free trials — sign up now.
www.amazon.com
 
A lot of what’s going there is the most tired, least valuable content. (Not all; but look at many of those titles and it’s clear why they are where they are; it’s the only place left for them to go.)
 
Not everyone wants to read the news in a lot of winddowns on the smartphone, laptop etc. I'm not a news junkie I only will click on a headline if I think it's interesting or read a bit more beyond the headline if I don't think isn't interesting, I'll just push back to the main page on the laptop/computer.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom