Changes Coming To CBS News

[umfan]

I think her answer is appropriate. She has a staff around her who focus on all of the other details in a show. She's not going to put on a clown suit to get ratings.

While no one suggested she put on a clown suit (except for you), if she isn't focused on the ratings, it indicates a lack of willingness to make adjustments to keep the program viable. Not a surprising answer consider that the ratings she's pulling are notably less than those of her immediate predecessors and those numbers resulted in both of them no longer in the anchor chair.

An intelligent answer would have been something like:

Ratings are very important to any broadcast on a commercial network so of course I pay attention to them. While the ratings are important, I'm first and foremost focused on putting forth a quality product that both informs and entertains viewers. I believe by doing that and continually looking for ways to improve and refine the product, improved ratings would follow.

 

[TheBigA]

While no one suggested she put on a clown suit (except for you), if she isn't focused on the ratings, it indicates a lack of willingness to make adjustments to keep the program viable.

She's not in a position that would come up with those adjustments. She's a journalist. They have lots of producers and people who work on the show who come up with those kinds of ideas. She writes and reads the copy. She does interviews as needed. I think you'd get the answer you're seeking from the VP of News, the one who picked Norah to be the anchor. They knew what they were going to get when they picked her.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

While no one suggested she put on a clown suit (except for you), if she isn't focused on the ratings, it indicates a lack of willingness to make adjustments to keep the program viable. Not a surprising answer consider that the ratings she's pulling are notably less than those of her immediate predecessors and those numbers resulted in both of them no longer in the anchor chair.

An intelligent answer would have been something like:

Ratings are very important to any broadcast on a commercial network so of course I pay attention to them. While the ratings are important, I'm first and foremost focused on putting forth a quality product that both informs and entertains viewers. I believe by doing that and continually looking for ways to improve and refine the product, improved ratings would follow.

Her answer was fine for her role.

 

[Syfy]

https://www.thewrap.com/reince-priebus-cbs-news-trump-chief-of-staff-r/



A former Trump Cabinet member will join CBS News and CBSN as a Pundit during the impeachment hearings.

Apparently Trump was found not guilty on all impeachment charges earlier. So assuming this pundit will be leaving.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Um, that’s not how it works.

 

[Kelly A]

Consumers of network newscasts are generally creatures of habit. They watch what's familiar to them.

If CBS doesn't invest in marketing outside of CBS to encourage those creatures of habit to give their evening news a look, then chances are it will remain in forth place. Has nothing to do with Norah.

Now if CBS went full court press with digital and other forms of marketing and overnights jump up only to go back down? Then one has to assume viewers have sampled the product, and are going back to what they know.

 

[Syfy]

Um, that’s not how it works.

Well it said they would be joining as a pundit during the impeachment hearings which are over so one would assume they would be done with the role.

 

[umfan]

Maybe it's time for O'Donnell to actually start caring about ratings:

"CBS Evening News posted the most severe year-over-year losses, -18% in total viewers, and -29% in adults 25-54."

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/wee...to-7-consecutive-wins-in-adults-25-54/429205/

While all three newscasts were down, kind of ominous considering this is a Presidential election year with major nominating contests afoot, CBS had the largest drop.

But hey, if CBS management doesn't think their anchor should care if anyone is watching, why should anyone else?

 

[Kelly A]

Maybe it's time for O'Donnell to actually start caring about ratings:

But hey, if CBS management doesn't think their anchor should care if anyone is watching, why should anyone else?

Why would you think that O'Donnell doesn't care about her ratings? Talk about an ill informed assumption....

All talent wants viewers, more the better. O'Donnell only has so much latitude that effects overnight results. She presents the news in a way the news management put her in that role for. If the stories aren't compelling, or not enough blockbuster comments are revealed from someone she's interviewed, there's no opportunity for a breakout moment. That's not Norah's fault. Nor is the lack of marketing for the rebuilt newscast by CBS, Norah's fault.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Perhaps it’s time to stop obsessing over public platitudes about ratings. The numbers are what they are; the team at CBS is well aware of them (and by numbers I mean all relevant data).

 

[umfan]

Why would you think that O'Donnell doesn't care about her ratings? Talk about an ill informed assumption....

All talent wants viewers, more the better. O'Donnell only has so much latitude that effects overnight results. She presents the news in a way the news management put her in that role for. If the stories aren't compelling, or not enough blockbuster comments are revealed from someone she's interviewed, there's no opportunity for a breakout moment. That's not Norah's fault. Nor is the lack of marketing for the rebuilt newscast by CBS, Norah's fault.

I base it on her comments, her actual comments, that were detailed earlier in this thread.

 

[TheBigA]

I base it on her comments, her actual comments, that were detailed earlier in this thread.

OK, let's look at what she actually said:

"I think about just doing my job. I don’t see the ratings. They don’t talk about them with me."

So she didn't say she "doesn't care about the ratings." She says she doesn't see them. More importantly, the people who DO see them, namely her bosses, don't talk about them with her. She thinks about doing her job, and the ratings are not part of her job.

But if they were, what should she do to change her ratings? What would you suggest? How would she lure the typically older male audience to her newscast?

 

[Kelly A]

OK, let's look at what she actually said:

"I think about just doing my job. I don’t see the ratings. They don’t talk about them with me."

Exactly. That's like a radio personality saying they don't care whether people listen or not. Or a music artist saying that they don't care if anyone buys tickets to their concert. Management doesn't bog Norah down with numbers. Instead, they want her to concentrate on doing what they pay her big bucks to do. Again; ill-informed statement.

But if they were, what should she do to change her ratings? What would you suggest? How would she lure the typically older male audience to her newscast?

Uh oh, you lobbed one up!

 

[TheBigA]

Management doesn't bog Norah down with numbers. Instead, they want her to concentrate on doing what they pay her big bucks to do.

Here's what her boss says, according to the NY Post:

In October, in response to weeks of plunging ratings that saw O’Donnell’s viewers ages 25 to 54 routinely drop 20% to 29%, Zirinsky told The Post that she was “extremely pleased” with the show’s quality of journalism, adding that “ratings are not the sole measure at this time.”

I think that's what you'll get from most news people. At the same time, Norah's previous show, CBS This Morning, has also lost a lot of audience and is in third place. So to put all the blame on Norah is incorrect.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Because of the death of Kirk Douglas, "SNL" showed an episode he hosted. Jane Curtin, on "Weekend Update", said she had been begging Walter not to retire and that she couldn't imagine watching Dan for years.

Well, we did.

 

[Kelly A]

I think that's what you'll get from most news people. At the same time, Norah's previous show, CBS This Morning, has also lost a lot of audience and is in third place. So to put all the blame on Norah is incorrect.

That's the point that interested hobbyists on this board can't seem to understand. National ad buys, especially for TV, aren't solely based on pure ratings or household numbers. Sure, maybe M25-54 went down 30%, but another category may have gone up. This buys them to time to tinker with the format in small moves with the intent of seeing movement in steps. It's like the Indy 500. You have a lot of ground to make up from the back of the pack. Nobody is going to move up and take the lead after a just few laps.

 

[umfan]

Jeff Glor was fired in large part because of his ratings. His replacement was Norah O'Donnell. If the problem was ratings and addressing that problem was in the form of a change of anchors how are even lower ratings not O'Donnell's concern?

If, by her own admission, she '[doesn't] see the ratings', I think that is a problem. She should be actively seeking the ratings and getting with people who can help her understand them. From there, she could select stories or special interest pieces that might improve them. Ask for promotions to highlight certain upcoming features on the newscast.

If, by the assertion of Big A and Kelly, she has no impact on the ratings, then it doesn't matter who is anchoring the newscast and she, then, is insignificant in this regard. Perhaps that's the point you're trying to make. She certainly is doing nothing to dissuade such a conclusion.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

That strikes me as a mischaracterization of what both actually said. And ignores Kelly A’s excellent point about the overall buys.

Being hung up on one statement and reading more into it than what was actually conveyed.

Decisions are complex and based on a multitude of intersecting factors.

 

[TheBigA]

If, by the assertion of Big A and Kelly, she has no impact on the ratings, then it doesn't matter who is anchoring the newscast and she, then, is insignificant in this regard. Perhaps that's the point you're trying to make. She certainly is doing nothing to dissuade such a conclusion.

David Muir is #1 in evening news and I couldn't find a quote from him about his ratings. I also couldn't find a quote from Chris Wallace talking about Fox News ratings. What does that say about them? I was looking for quotes from Scott Pelley about his ratings, and the only quotes I found from him came two years after he was replaced. None of his quotes were about ratings.

The quotes come from the people who are directly responsible for the ratings and financial performance of the news division, and in this case it's Susan Zirinsky. I posted a quote earlier from her, and I'll post it again: "Ratings are not the sole measure at this time.”

 

[Kelly A]

Jeff Glor was fired in large part because of his ratings. His replacement was Norah O'Donnell. If the problem was ratings and addressing that problem was in the form of a change of anchors how are even lower ratings not O'Donnell's concern?

And that's the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread; it's not just about ratings. Ratings are a component, sure, but it's more likely revenue and how easy of a job sales has to sell the newscast. Over a much longer time than we're talking about here, if ratings were to not show growth in key demographics, then one has to look at the overall product. It's simply too early in the new game to go down that road yet.

If, by her own admission, she '[doesn't] see the ratings', I think that is a problem. She should be actively seeking the ratings and getting with people who can help her understand them. From there, she could select stories or special interest pieces that might improve them. Ask for promotions to highlight certain upcoming features on the newscast.

There is a rather large team of writers and producers who weigh in on what stories will be carried. Not just Norah. One thing you're correct about, is it needs to be promoted on media that doesn't include only CBS stations.

If, by the assertion of Big A and Kelly, she has no impact on the ratings, then it doesn't matter who is anchoring the newscast and she, then, is insignificant in this regard. Perhaps that's the point you're trying to make. She certainly is doing nothing to dissuade such a conclusion.

Neither of us said the anchor had no impact on ratings. What we said was the new anchor was rightfully not being burdened by management with minutia like overnight ratings, so she could concentrate on growing into her new anchor role.

Here's an example you might understand better: Let's say you started at a new job, quite a bit different than your last job. Your task is to do the best customer service in your role. Your boss however, is coming to you daily with concerns that you haven't been receiving enough positive compliments from clients. In spite of doing your job in the best way you know how, your boss keeps bringing unfavorable statistics to you in the new role. Do you really think you'll somehow do better if you are under more pressure to perform? Or will you be distracted by second guessing yourself and anxiousness?