|
Today’s number: $122 billion
Monday, Jun 30, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller * Bloomberg…
* Local TV stations are a mixed bag online. Most of the Chicago TV outlets do a fairly good job, but Downstate TV websites are by and large a joke. They’re gonna find out pretty soon that their broadcasts are going the way of newsprint. Local TV online news writers generally aren’t very good, their online content doesn’t expand on those short “news” stories they put on the air, they’re not interactive enough, etc. There’s just no good reason to surf to their sites. They’ve gotta start spending some money on actual talent, real news development, all-day reporting and quirky hit-generating stuff like outtakes and bloopers (including for their network shows). They also have to stop solely relying on young pretty faces to attract viewers and advertising dollars. Hey, I like pretty faces. A lot. But I like brains and experience and insight, too. * Local newspapers were getting thumped by TV before the Internet ever came along. The massive move online is the way back for newspapers. They can dominate their towns again if they fully recognize the opportunity. TV better watch out.
|
 |
|
|
- :( - Monday, Jun 30, 14 @ 11:19 am:
They should also find a puppy as a mascot and post his/her adorableness all over their site. #oscar
- Precinct Captain - Monday, Jun 30, 14 @ 11:37 am:
You are right on the money Rich. Downstate media sites are horrible. All it takes is a little upfront investment and a decent CMS to allow one to dynamically add and update content. Considering that there are precious few independent television stations, the smaller station groups in the US could get a good deal by bringing all of their websites into the 21st century.
- Dirty Red - Monday, Jun 30, 14 @ 11:51 am:
Downstate media needs local control of their websites instead of having to use the corporate template. Heck, the folks upstairs might even find an innovative new advertising gimmick designed by the local webmaster that is quite effective.
- ah - Monday, Jun 30, 14 @ 11:52 am:
Bigger markets have more money and better and more news. To think smaller market sites/news should look as good as bigger places will never happen. Smaller marketd will never have better talent, etc, because the money wil just never be there. But by in large, tv dominates over all other forms of news outlets.
- A guy... - Monday, Jun 30, 14 @ 1:27 pm:
If you’re millennial, gen y or gen x or among a growing group of younger boomers, the text you read and the images you see are not in print or on TV. It’s all in your palm, and it’s all self-directed. An on-line Pulitzer will be part of the not so distant future.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Jun 30, 14 @ 1:28 pm:
This is the age of the disappearing middleman. If you want to reach out to voters under the age of 60, you build your own presence through the Internet. Why depend upon a second rate TV broadcast or netcast, when you can do a second rate video for the price of a smartphone?
If journalists are not providing content beyond the superficial fluff passing for news today - then they need to begin or they are out of business.
I get more commercials from my chosen Apps than I do from any television broadcast. Eventually candidates will find the 21st Century costs a lot less than the 20th regarding “advertising”.
- Ghost - Monday, Jun 30, 14 @ 1:58 pm:
This seems like an argument for a combined tv/newspaper entity.
- Judgment Day (on the road) - Monday, Jun 30, 14 @ 2:03 pm:
Secondly, the local/regional TV stations need to give people a reason to go to their websites. Let me give you a possible example:
There are real estate sales occurring every week. Create a web page (couple of pages) where you can go out onto their (TV) website and see information on each sale of property that has occurred. Make it visual, in cooperation with you local Board of Realtors.
The Realtors win, the TV station wins, you’re officially not trying to ’sell’ anything, as these houses are already ’sold’, and you tell the Realtors’ they can’t ‘advertise’ on the pages, but there will be direct links to their websites.
You want to keep it (website) clean, and you want to come across as more of a ’service’ in providing information.
Take advantage of your ability to present the information visually.
Put it another way: Use the Google method of presentation - simple and clean - instead of the Comcast method - crowded and obtuse.
Just a thought.
- Precinct Captain - Monday, Jun 30, 14 @ 2:58 pm:
==- ah - Monday, Jun 30, 14 @ 11:52 am:==
Big companies run these local stations. They can afford good website templates. They can license good ones from other media organizations. That’s the whole point of “synergy” and every other corporate buzzword thrown about.
- ah - Monday, Jun 30, 14 @ 4:53 pm:
Afford is true. Putting money in the smaller markets is another. Hence big markets have more people.
- drew - Monday, Jun 30, 14 @ 4:58 pm:
The quality of the content on downstate stations’ websites is terrible, but I’d argue that a lot of their newscasts aren’t worth watching on tv, either. It’s funny, the 10 o’clock news is a must watch for my parents, it’s not even a question. I feel like there’s maybe about 5 minutes of newsworthy content on a good night. On the other hand, I suppose it’s good to keep them in business so they’re around when there is something of importance to report.
- liandro - Monday, Jun 30, 14 @ 7:55 pm:
Spot on, Rich. Local newspapers have a chance to near-monopolize something everybody wants: local news (and gossip?), sometimes hyper-local–and they can do it better than anyone if they play their cards right.
My local paper has been pretty solid about it (reporter’s have their own special blogs, special online reports, etc., facebook posts, etc.). Local TV just seems to rehash (sometimes verbatim) their TV reports, and the format is often bad.