Humm, I remember a time when The Weather Channel covered severe weather events. I guess not anymore. We have storms bearing down on us in Louisville, yet they MUST show Storm Stories repeats. Guess it's a good thing there are other outlets for information now. Don't need to depend on the Weather Channel anymore.
-
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
More Weather Channel idiocy
- Thread starter Bengalsfan
- Start date
S
searadiofreak
Guest
I'm sure some high level consultant is telling "The Weather Channel" how to do it these days, but I too am less than enthused as to what this channel has become.
This morning, as an example, I saw on the "Wake Up With Al" segment, one of their seasoned reporters doing a standup from Iowa, saying, "Believe it or not, some weather watchers actually like to chase after tornadoes!". Wow, what a revelation. As if nobody has ever heard of storm chasers before. Give the audience some credit, geesh.If there is one thing on TV that gets my blood boiling, it's insulting my intelligence. The poor reporter was probably handed a script and was cringing as he read those inane words.
This morning, as an example, I saw on the "Wake Up With Al" segment, one of their seasoned reporters doing a standup from Iowa, saying, "Believe it or not, some weather watchers actually like to chase after tornadoes!". Wow, what a revelation. As if nobody has ever heard of storm chasers before. Give the audience some credit, geesh.If there is one thing on TV that gets my blood boiling, it's insulting my intelligence. The poor reporter was probably handed a script and was cringing as he read those inane words.
I think the purpose of the Weather Channel adding shows like Storm Stories is to try to increase the amount of time the average viewer watches the channel. In most cases if you're just tuning in for a weather forecast you're not going to tune in and sit there for an hour watching the forecast. You might just tune in for one 10-minute segment. But with shows like Storm Stories they might have you watching for 30 minutes or an hour.
ansky212 said:
I have known people who watched them all day. Seriously. What they are doing by not covering events like this is making themselves irrelevent since people will go to other sources. I guess NBC has to pay for the investment now and needs to drive ad rates up. Oh well, it was a nice run while it lasted.
Bengalsfan said:
There are those who lurk here on this board (you know who you are) who would say that you're living in the past and are a luddite, etc. for actually expecting the Weather Channel to pay attention to........weather. After all, it's not 1996 anymore. :
And yes, that's the arrogant attitude that NBC-Universal has about the subject as well.
F
FreddyE1977
Guest
"Weather Channel Idiocy" is an oxymoron....
I
imhomerjay
Guest
And if lots of people were watching it regularly, and thus bringing in bucks, do you think maybe, just maybe, things would have been a bit different?
imhomerjay said:
Well, from 1982 until the sale in 2008, it must have made money covering the weather or it wouldn't have stayed on the air that long. Now, NBC feels the need to tinker with the format and it will eventually be like all the other cable channels I don't watch.
I
imhomerjay
Guest
Because the world of 1982 and the one of 2008 aren't the least bit different. :
Staying on the air and making a significant return on investment aren't the same thing--yet another business basic. When someone buys a property, even if the last owner felt enamored of it (yet not enough to hold on to it, a convenient little fact), the new owner's obligation to shareholders is to maximize the return on the investment.
It ain't 1982 anymore, it's time to deal with that reality. If they can't make a sustainable living here and now in 2010 with wall to wall weathercasting, then you don't do it. And given all that's changed since 1982, much to some luddites' dismay (had to work it in for fun), no, you're not going to make the kind of return now that you did back then.
Time to up the bran content in the muffins at Mighty Oaks rest home again.
Staying on the air and making a significant return on investment aren't the same thing--yet another business basic. When someone buys a property, even if the last owner felt enamored of it (yet not enough to hold on to it, a convenient little fact), the new owner's obligation to shareholders is to maximize the return on the investment.
It ain't 1982 anymore, it's time to deal with that reality. If they can't make a sustainable living here and now in 2010 with wall to wall weathercasting, then you don't do it. And given all that's changed since 1982, much to some luddites' dismay (had to work it in for fun), no, you're not going to make the kind of return now that you did back then.
Time to up the bran content in the muffins at Mighty Oaks rest home again.
S
searadiofreak
Guest
imhomerjay said:Because the world of 1982 and the one of 2008 aren't the least bit different. :
Staying on the air and making a significant return on investment aren't the same thing--yet another business basic. When someone buys a property, even if the last owner felt enamored of it (yet not enough to hold on to it, a convenient little fact), the new owner's obligation to shareholders is to maximize the return on the investment.
It ain't 1982 anymore, it's time to deal with that reality. If they can't make a sustainable living here and now in 2010 with wall to wall weathercasting, then you don't do it. And given all that's changed since 1982, much to some luddites' dismay (had to work it in for fun), no, you're not going to make the kind of return now that you did back then.
Time to up the bran content in the muffins at Mighty Oaks rest home again.
I will admit that the relevance of the Weather Channel covering specific local storm situations has worn out its welcome, (local affiliates and internet coverage has become more important), but changing the Weather Channel into some sort of historic flashback station makes no sense. What a waste. Documentaries about weather can be interesting, but they can't sustain a cable channel. So, what does TWC do? This is the real question. Hour after hour of regional weather maps isn't that answer, but a weather doc about a flood or tornado 20 years ago isn't either.
imhomerjay said:
That's fine. So we'll turn the channel into a clone of one of the hundreds of other cable channels out there and just fade into the background. How's that for a return on investment? It used to be that channels stood out by their programming. Not anymore. Everybody programs like everybody else.
I
imhomerjay
Guest
Setting aside the hyperbole about all channels being identical (an utterly bogus straw man argument), "standing out" means nothing if you're spending too much and not bringing enough in. Many a business has "stood out" but failed because they didn't deliver what enough people chose to watch. Simple as that.
imhomerjay said:Because the world of 1982 and the one of 2008 aren't the least bit different. :
Staying on the air and making a significant return on investment aren't the same thing--yet another business basic. When someone buys a property, even if the last owner felt enamored of it (yet not enough to hold on to it, a convenient little fact), the new owner's obligation to shareholders is to maximize the return on the investment.
It ain't 1982 anymore, it's time to deal with that reality. If they can't make a sustainable living here and now in 2010 with wall to wall weathercasting, then you don't do it. And given all that's changed since 1982, much to some luddites' dismay (had to work it in for fun), no, you're not going to make the kind of return now that you did back then.
Time to up the bran content in the muffins at Mighty Oaks rest home again.
There was no Weather Channel in 1982. Speaking of absurd arguments - TWC was just fine as recently as 2006-7. Perhaps you're the one who's feeling a little irregular, homer. You're not as sharp as usual, though you are quite predictable.
I
imhomerjay
Guest
Point taken and obviously agreed. I was replying to BengalsFan and used the same time frame. An oversight to be sure, but one that does not, in the least, change the underlying issues.
Does "fine" refer to your judgement of the programming, or were you the accountant? You may have liked it, and that's the bee's knees and all that, but it doesn't necesarily mean the trend lines weren't moving in the wrong direction and that all was peachy on the budget, now does it?
Does "fine" refer to your judgement of the programming, or were you the accountant? You may have liked it, and that's the bee's knees and all that, but it doesn't necesarily mean the trend lines weren't moving in the wrong direction and that all was peachy on the budget, now does it?
BRNout said:
Yes there was -- at least according to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weather_Channel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_The_Weather_Channel
- Status