Katie Continues To Drop

[fred flintstone]

There appear to be two issues in this thread:

1. Is Katie the right person in the right job at the right time? No. And it looks like a lot of people don't think so (fewer each week).

2.a Are new media evolving. Yes.
2.b Is the media lanscape and how content is distributed and experienced changing? Yes.
2.c Do we know how things will look in five or 10 years? No. Such guesses have a habit of being wrong.
2.d Will any of this save the network evening newscast as-we-know-it? No.

Whatever happens with "content distribution methods and advertising models" and advertising models, the evening news as a programming concept is already obsolete - and has been obsolete for about 15 years. Associated websites and TV audio on the radio won't change that. Old wine in new skins.

21"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. 22And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins." Mark 22:21-22

 

[Holland Cooke]

"There appear to be two issues... "

THREE issues...Keep an eye on that story count/length matter.

TV-news-on-demand has commoditized TV news.
There are more news channels than news stories.
TV news is like bottled water. Poland Spring, Aquafina, it's all water.
Thus the diabolically-clever Fox News approach.
It's Aquafina Splash...FLAVORED news.

This CBS research affirms data elsewhere:
Anyone can tell us what's happening.
Demand for CONSEQUENCE of what's happening is that third issue describe above.
Regardless-of-the-hour-at-which-it-is-presented, RELEVANT news will be more useful than me-too reporting.

And this flies-in-the-face-of conventional wisdom which relegates broadcast news to "a headline service."
The presumption has been that viewers' short attention spans dictate many, short stories.
Applause for CBS efforts to connect-the-dots, by relating what-it-means, with more depth on fewer stories.
Canny reckoning as-to WHICH stories, and impactful work by talented correspondents, can make fewer/longer more relevant.

The feed time of content we've regarded as "evening news" is irrelevant with online on-demand.
Note how, without fanfare, ABC's "World News Tonight" dropped the "Tonight."
CBS may be out-in-front in terms of online on-demand, but ABC/NBC are scrambling toward the same model.

 

[fred flintstone]

Issue 4

This CBS research affirms data elsewhere:
Anyone can tell us what's happening.
Demand for CONSEQUENCE of what's happening is that third issue describe above.
Regardless-of-the-hour-at-which-it-is-presented, RELEVANT news will be more useful than me-too reporting.

And this flies-in-the-face-of conventional wisdom which relegates broadcast news to "a headline service."
The presumption has been that viewers' short attention spans dictate many, short stories.
Applause for CBS efforts to connect-the-dots, by relating what-it-means, with more depth on fewer stories.
Canny reckoning as-to WHICH stories, and impactful work by talented correspondents, can make fewer/longer more relevant.

Everybody lies.

Broadcasting has a long history of hiring hacks to do bad research which will tell the client to do what he wants to do.
People sit in focus groups and (1) Respond to leading questions, (2) Give what they think is the acceptable or correct answer, or (3) Both. This is even more likely to occur in surveys.
If people wanted consequence everybody in New York would read The Times, everybody would listen to Morning Edition, everybody would subscribe to Public Affairs Quarterly and either The National Review or The New Republic, plus Harpers or Atlantic.
Sensational outsells Consequential: Always has, always will.
Don't believe me; ask Rupert Murdoch. Or get a Ouija Board and ask Hearst.
Pulitzer made his money with sensationalism before funding an award for consequential journalism; Like Nobel made his money from munitions before funding a peace prize.

Sensationalism rules. This is why the major national newscasts are the syndicated shows between 7 and 8 pm.

And the best way to communicate information is still print.
Confucius lies, too.

 

[Holland Cooke]

It pays to be humble about viewer/listener ATTENTION SPAN

Grumbling about research has recreational value, but is beside-the-point.
We LOVE what-the-research-says when it happens to validate our predispositions.
That's just human nature.
The teachers who gave you As were geniuses.
The ones who gave you Cs were dopes.
DIFFERENT issue that the one I raised.

Don't dismiss these non-Katie aspects of recent changes to the CBS show.

Online is where people are now.
Research already demonstrates that every hour online is an hour spent not-watching TV.
On-demand is at-the-speed-of-life.
PEOPLE ARE PACING IN FRONT OF THE MICROWAVE.

Certainly the onus is on story-choosers to choose-stories-people-find-relevant.
And to, as Don Hewitt put it, "tell me a story."
Now more than ever, the best litmus test for relevance remains WHO CARES?

 

[fred flintstone]

Agreed. But if on-demand is where people are now.....

What is the purpose of a dinner hour network newscast?
To retain a platform to sell the geezer demo until the angel in the white suit shows up?
To get geezers to sample new media?
To get slackers to sample old media?

And who is best positioned to provide on-demand news in a new and untried medium?
Possibly a true news gathering organization, not one that shows up later with a pretty face to take pictures and regurgitate the information real journalists have gathered.
Certainly not CBS, the House that Hewitt Built - by corrupting the White and Murrow traditions with smoke and mirrors tactics he brought with him from newsreels.

 

[Holland Cooke]

"What is the purpose of a dinner hour network newscast?"

Short answer: Funding.
Advertising within these shows represents gazillions of dollars in revenue.
Good thing!
News -- however it is distributed -- is still networks' most expensive programming pound-for-pound.
More do-re-mi per hour than CSI...IF you measure only-the-half-hour known (until now) as "evening news."

So, as networks pivot, in-transition-to new platforms/modes, it sure makes less sense to abandon that revenue than to exploit it. This is a-glass-half-full-way-of-saying "To retain a platform to sell the geezer demo."

I suppose that boss character in the Microsoft ad we see on CBS and cbsnews.com could, demographically, qualify as a "geezer." Having exited the 25-54 demographic myself, so could I, an AARP member. Yet, just this month, I have purchased and influenced-the-purchase-of the-very-product-Microsoft-is-advertising-in-that-particular-spot.

Item: Sen. George Allen (R-VA) is fighting-for-his-political-life, after several recent faux pas EXACERBATED by the cyberspace in-which our conversation here is taking place, and to-which networks are scrambling-to-transition. USA Today reports that NBC's server got hit for some 400 downloads after Allen's Meet The Press appearance...by-which-time over 250,000 had viewed the clip on YouTube.com

MEASURABLY, we have already seen the lines cross.
Fortunately for news organizations playing-catch-up, revenue is trailing.
If you work in a newsroom, hug a geezer.

ABC taking the "Tonight" out of "World News Tonight" may SEEM like a subtlety, but all three shows are scrambling to make feed time LESS-an-issue. It's only "dinner hour" if that's when the user chooses to use it.

But this when-people-watch-it issue is just one wrinkle.
And the who-anchors-it issue gets all the ink.
But watch how the show is written.

This matter of story choice/count/length that you keep talking-past...THAT "uncommoditizing" of the news will be fundamental.

Regardless of who anchors it (something which always-was/always-will-be subjectively regarded), and when consumers choose to consume (now a non-issue), what-comes-out-of-the-box being "a digest" is a success factor. News delivery is now a torrent of unprocessed data, to the extent that competition often obscures the-information-within-that-data. When the U.S. Supreme Court released That Definitive Document in the 2000 Florida recount, five networks' correspondents breathlessly sight-read it on-air, none intelligibly. But none dared be second to air.

What a show-length newscast can offer users is "here are the stories we think you need to know about;" and -- as we're seeing in the way the CBS show is challenging conventional wisdom about story count/length -- "here's what it means."

HC
www.HollandCooke.com

 

[JeeperOne]

Hi everyone:

Actually I am surprised that it has taken just five weeks for the viewing audience to be smart enough to go back to ABC and NBC. At this rate Katie will lose the audience that Bob Schieffer had built up during his brief tenure as CBS news anchor.

What Couric 's venture might hopefully mean is that the days of networks paying so-called "news readers" millions of dollars are over with.

Actually I think the problem is that people are so accustomed to seeing Katie on IN THE MORNINGS that most people have a hard time adjusting to seeing her in the evenings now.

Of course, being paid those big $$$ doesn't sit too well with viewers either.

They should move Katie back to mornings with Harry Smith and put either Hannah or Renee in the evening anchor chair.

Just my opinion

Cheers

 

[fred flintstone]

Re: "What is the purpose of a dinner hour network newscast?"

I suppose that boss character in the Microsoft ad we see on CBS and cbsnews.com could, demographically, qualify as a "geezer." Having exited the 25-54 demographic myself, so could I, an AARP member. Yet, just this month, I have purchased and influenced-the-purchase-of the-very-product-Microsoft-is-advertising-in-that-particular-spot.

Now, now. You of all people should marketing plans are based on aggregates, not individuals.
There are always exceptions to any rule.

Evening news more expensive - pound per pound - than CSI?
Ironic. They'd probably get more viewers with Marg Helgenberger and at a lower cost per pound.
And what pounds!

 

[mjlarochelle]

The network newscast concept still seems to work very well in Canada. Of course though, the model is very different. While American networks have long clung to local news from 5 or 6 to 6:30 then the network news from 6:30 to 7 (Eastern), we have CBC at 10 PM, CTV at 11 PM, and for those who want national news earlier, Global at 5:30. The CTV stations have local, national, and international news integrated into one package locally produced at each station from 6-7 PM. The national news is at 11 PM and is followed by a 35-minute local cast. CTV's model has been very successful throughout most of the country. (The one drawback is that none of the CTV affiliates can show late-night comedy in pattern with the American networks, meaning those programs end up on A-Channel, OMNI, and other smaller stations.)

Perhaps the American networks need to re-think their long-standing model and try something different. Young people are less likely to be around for the news before 7 PM, so they'll get their early news on the radio driving home or online. Later in the evening though, primetime is a great lead-in to national news.

So, perhaps, for example, CBS should give the 5-7 period to the affiliates for local news, and then have national news at 11 and a shortened local newscast at 11:20 until 11:35, allowing Letterman to be able to stay put. The affiliates would air national stories during the 5-7 period from their network - which they basically do already to varying degrees.

Just a thought.

 

[TheLaffer]

So now desperate measures are brought into play and the Couric Broadcasting System will roll out all manner of stunts, tricks, and time wasting antics to play catch up. Cronkite and Schieffer must be absolutley hysterical with laughter.

I'm quite sure that Katie has already has got her "CBS Goes Towards The Entertainment Tonight/Extra/The Insider Audience" plan
ready to go whenever she wants to go in that direction,in other words a step back to her Today Show days where she interviews celebrities rather than giving news,which she did more often than giving news on Today and her standing in Rockefellow Center in the snow and rain.

Charles Gibson gets more of my news since he is a newsman as is Brian Williams. Katie Couric is not a newswoman,far from it. She is more of the Entertainment Tonight type of newscaster than she is a newswoman. Maybe she can host The Insider along with Kathie Lee Gifford. She is more suited in that role than anything else.

Speaking of Cronkite. Using his familiar voice to intro Katie to gain any viewers is pretty pathetic. Kinda defeats the purpose. You know, A WOMAN ushering in a new generation and then using old fart face Walter. Not gonna work. Another CBS Blunder.

 

[Holland Cooke]

Yeah, that's it...

"Diamond in the back, sun-roof top, diggin' the scene with the gangster lean..."