benwolf said:
imhomerjay, It is rather naive to say NBC is changing the Weather Channel to improve their ratings and consequently advertising revenue.
Except that what I often point out is that it's more than simply ratings, it's the bottom line. That, by definition, implies both sides of the ledger. Merely generating higher ratings is all well and good (though not the least bit probable by "turning back the clock" as has been advocated), but if the expense kills your ROI, what end have you met? Satisfying a few online complainers?
benwolf said:
Besides the fact that NBC is America's most incompetent network
Yawn…and before that ABC was, and before that…and so on and so forth. Cyclical—someone is inevitably on the upswing, someone on the downswing. Moreover, have you taken a look at properties like, oh, I don’t know…USA? Seems the cable side group has what is generally at the top of its heap. Oh, wait, sorry, that doesn’t fit the whole mantra thing.
benwolf said:
they really have no interest in spending money to turn a .5 rating into a .8.
See the original point above; it’s about the bottom line.
benwolf said:
NBC bought the Weather Channel 1) for its website, and 2) to use the channel itself as a promotional vehicle for NBC.
Utterly irrelevant, even if entirely true (though not supported by a pesky little thing called evidence). If the value is in the website, it supports the underlying point that people are getting their info. from such sources in increasing (no one said exclusive, comical protestations by BRNout notwithstanding) numbers.
benwolf said:
That's why we get Al Roker's flopsweat every morning full of tie-ins to NBC's awful shows and stars, with cut ins from CNBC and MSNBC.
Hmmm, wonder if that might be because it is likely to deliver a better ROI than a significantly more costly effort that isn’t going to get viewers in enough numbers to justify said costs.
benwolf said:
If its ratings you want, you stick to your brand. The Weather Channel's biggest ratings are always during severe weather events, despite all the crap NBC is throwing on there.
And yet you ignore the issue that you can’t sell advertising in a meaningful way on the “hey, it MIGHT be nasty somewhere at some random time over the next three months” approach.
Thus, again, it’s the bottom line. Ratings are one factor--one that is going to gradually stagnate to the point of merely troglodytes hanging on and complaining that some business or another is trying to bolster its bottom line and not catering to their antiquated viewing choices.
BRNout said:
There's plenty of weather-related content that TWC could draw on to make itself even more useful and better.
That could be one of the more comical lines yet. Please, the moment it’s not all forecasting all the time, the litany of complaints starts. How dare it be something long-form? If documentary programming about, um, weather is so god-awful, that leaves…what? Let’s hear what would be a more cost-effective option in the face of weather info being more readily available through all kinds of means to many—again, slowly for those who may have trouble on their AOL dial-up account, not all—people.
BRNout said:
However, ever since NBC-U has taken over, we've been treated to a littany of ill-conceived programming moves, some of which have been downright idiotic.
Ill conceived because you happen not to like them. Yup, as usual, got that standard.
BRNout said:
Moving things forward isn't the same thing as plowing them head first into a brick wall. Yes, TWC was a better channel in 2002 than it is now. That's because of how stupidly NBC-Universal has managed it. Not because we all think that things should remain static.
With…what? A fancier graphics package? Nicer maps? More ways to slice and dice and name what amounts to someone showing weather maps and telling us it’s going to rain in Walla Walla tomorrow? As if the people in Walla Walla, or those traveling there, can’t find that information out themselves instantly?
BRNout said:
You see, "change" isn't always a good thing in and of itself (as if we aren't all figuring that out already).
And change isn’t entirely self-initiated. Sometimes you have to deal with what’s changed around you—what’s forced on you. It’s all well and good to live in a delusional fantasy bubble where that hasn’t happened, but out in the modern, real world, some folks accept that those bubbles aren’t the way to run a business.
BRNout said:
Sometimes "change" just makes things much worse than they otherwise would be.
Worse than spending more money on a decreasingly relevant business model (all weather forecasters all the time)?
This is an important point which I think hasn't been made clearly enough in terms of The Weather Channel.
BRNout said:
This, in turn, has turned off even more people than would have tuned out had they done nothing at all.
A thoroughly unproven theory (and contrary to delusions of grandeur, a message board of a few dozen regular whiners isn’t proof of anything other than what those few dozen complainers happen to dislike), it also ignores the COST aspect of the bottom line. As if that’s a surprise.
