mardek1995 200 Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Recently, it seems that a lot of broadcasting companies have standardized their graphics. Scripps has been doing so since 2009 and will have their graphics plastered on to the Journal Communications about as soon as WKBW did once they (Journal) get acquired by Scripps. Gannett has been doing so since 2008 and have brought in its current graphics in 2013-2014, and the Lone Star stations will soon have them (only without Gannett's rundown). And even Sinclair is joining in on the bandwagon with its standardization. The only exception that I know of is the New Lin Media (a.k.a. Media General), so what's up with the standardized graphics bandwagon that seems to be sweeping the nation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ns8401 846 Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Recently, it seems that a lot of broadcasting companies have standardized their graphics. Scripps has been doing so since 2009 and will have their graphics plastered on to the Journal Communications about as soon as WKBW did once they (Journal) get acquired by Scripps. Gannett has been doing so since 2008 and have brought in its current graphics in 2013-2014, and the Lone Star stations will soon have them (only without Gannett's rundown). And even Sinclair is joining in on the bandwagon with its standardization. The only exception that I know of is the New Lin Media (a.k.a. Media General), so what's up with the standardized graphics bandwagon that seems to be sweeping the nation? 1 graphics package is way cheaper than 10 or 20 or 30 or 40. Not only is there demand to improve the bottom line from shareholders but news profits in general have fallen as has viewership. It's almost too expensive to do individualizations these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardek1995 200 Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 1 graphics package is way cheaper than 10 or 20 or 30 or 40. Not only is there demand to improve the bottom line from shareholders but news profits in general have fallen as has viewership. Is that the same reason why many of the website graphics of TV stations owned by the same broadcasting company also have the same graphics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ns8401 846 Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Is that the same reason why many of the website graphics of TV stations owned by the same broadcasting company also have the same graphics? Yes.... They are templates these days. The technical term for all of this "corporate synergy" AKA cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samantha 2878 Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Another thing to consider too is that one of the reasons for station groups to consolidate has been increased back-office synergy. Presentation is definitely a back-office function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielMaron 5 Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Another key factor you see with the Gannet graphics is that since all of the Gannet stations have a standard graphics package, stations can share packaged reports while maintaining a similar appearance that blends in with each stations look. USA Today just covers up the Gannet stations ID box when the repackage videos from their local affiliates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkolsen 1679 Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Just thinking out loud here but with standardization you may have a higher standard of presentation quality group wide than you would if you went on your own. A small market station will not be able spend a lot of money on a graphics package that a big market station could. For example Gannett'ssmallest station KIDY in San Angelo, TX (DMA 198) will eventually get have the same polished graphics as WFAA in Dallas, TX (DMA 5). Standardization also allows a graphics hub more effectively push out graphics as needed as there is one uniform style guide they all follow. Even if a station does not have a graphics hub another stations art department would be able to easily produce graphics as needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProButtonPusher 230 Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Just thinking out loud here but with standardization you may have a higher standard of presentation quality group wide than you would if you went on your own. A small market station will not be able spend a lot of money on a graphics package that a big market station could. For example Gannett'ssmallest station KIDY in San Angelo, TX (DMA 198) will eventually get have the same polished graphics as WFAA in Dallas, TX (DMA 5). Standardization also allows a graphics hub more effectively push out graphics as needed as their is one uniform style guide they all follow. Even if a station does not have a graphics hub another stations art department would be able to easily produce graphics as needed. Very good points about the positives of Graphics Hubs. I personally like what some groups are doing...they have a couple packages to choose from, and they can tweak it for a station's affiliation or logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LexTVandRadio 412 Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Think Gray will have a Graphics package one day? If so, which station has the best? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoadStar 363 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I agree with others: give a small market newscast a large-market graphics and music package, and suddenly it looks a lot bigger than it actually is. Also, by using a corporate standard, it sells the idea that the newscast has the resources of the corporate parent available to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardek1995 200 Posted March 2, 2015 Author Share Posted March 2, 2015 I agree with others: give a small market newscast a large-market graphics and music package, and suddenly it looks a lot bigger than it actually is. Also, by using a corporate standard, it sells the idea that the newscast has the resources of the corporate parent available to them. For example, WMAZ, THV 11, WCSH and its satellite WLBZ. They're small markets owned by Gannett, a company normally associated with bigger markets like Denver, Atlanta, Washington D.C., and recently, Dallas, and those said stations have "USA Today" graphics and a music package (This Is Home) that makes them look (and operate) like they're the size of St Louis' market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEOMatrix 1295 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 To me, standardization is a double-edged sword. On one hand, smaller market stations get graphics that would otherwise be on its bigger bretheren. On the other hand (*cough...Sinclair...*cough), bigger market stations can get graphics that look OK on a podunk station and sadly they look chintzy. It depends on the ownership to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrannical bastard 3473 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Now here's an interesting parallel...... Companies like Meredith, Capital Cities (now part of ABC), and even Media General used to rely on forms of standardization...Meredith had the nearly identical "tv5" logo for KPHO, WNEM, KCTV, KVVU and WTVF. Cap Cities used a standardized open for their stations (way back in the 70s), and Media General's legacy stations (pre-Young) used to share common or similar packages. Flash forward to today, and all of these companies are moving away from it, choosing looks that reflect their affiliation or market. For Meredith, their CBS stations are mostly uniform (except for WNEM and for now, KMOV) whereas their Fox stations vary. Media General has been slowly drifting away from a shared package and has clustered looks throughout their group. Now with LIN and Young stations under their control, there's much more variation and the desire to customize the station to the market or area it serves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ns8401 846 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Now here's an interesting parallel...... Companies like Meredith, Capital Cities (now part of ABC), and even Media General used to rely on forms of standardization...Meredith had the nearly identical "tv5" logo for KPHO, WNEM, KCTV, KVVU and WTVF. Cap Cities used a standardized open for their stations (way back in the 70s), and Media General's legacy stations (pre-Young) used to share common or similar packages. Flash forward to today, and all of these companies are moving away from it, choosing looks that reflect their affiliation or market. For Meredith, their CBS stations are mostly uniform (except for WNEM and for now, KMOV) whereas their Fox stations vary. Media General has been slowly drifting away from a shared package and has clustered looks throughout their group. Now with LIN and Young stations under their control, there's much more variation and the desire to customize the station to the market or area it serves. Maybe the standardization is just another passing fad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hexagonal10 84 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Recently, it seems that a lot of broadcasting companies have standardized their graphics. Scripps has been doing so since 2009 and will have their graphics plastered on to the Journal Communications about as soon as WKBW did once they (Journal) get acquired by Scripps. Gannett has been doing so since 2008 and have brought in its current graphics in 2013-2014, and the Lone Star stations will soon have them (only without Gannett's rundown). And even Sinclair is joining in on the bandwagon with its standardization. The only exception that I know of is the New Lin Media (a.k.a. Media General), so what's up with the standardized graphics bandwagon that seems to be sweeping the nation? Wrong, LIN/MG stations somewhat share graphics. You see them stand out on MG with the WJAR/WNCN and the circles. But Lin has some similarities. WIVB and WPRI have similar sets and graphics... ish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Journalist 894 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 In Canada, standardization is basically the norm. Stations are identified by city name or location (i.e. CTV Vancouver, CBC Toronto, Global Maritimes) and presents a consistent image for the station and the affiliated network. Like the points mentioned previously, it's cheaper to have one image spread across the stations, it's cheaper to unite stations in terms of branding and it's make a small market station look very big market. (e.g. the graphics used in a station in Charlottetown are the same graphics used in a station in Toronto.) Standardization is still going strong in the North, no end in sight. Don't know about the States though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hexagonal10 84 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 ABC once had standardization. But that's gone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanewsguy 509 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 To me, standardization is a double-edged sword. On one hand, smaller market stations get graphics that would otherwise be on its bigger bretheren. On the other hand (*cough...Sinclair...*cough), bigger market stations can get graphics that look OK on a podunk station and sadly they look chintzy. It depends on the ownership to me. I actually like the Sinclair package, it's one of the better standardizations out there today. If you want podunk graphics look at Graham Media's graphics. It's just terrible, the colors don't really go together, the word "NOW" is their very prominent transition in opens and rejoins even though it makes no sense to be there. They feel like graphics for a lifestyle show and not a news show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGSJenkins 432 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I don't mind standardization (graphics and/or graphics), there has to be variation across the board because what works in one station will not work at another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkolsen 1679 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I don't mind standardization (graphics and/or graphics), there has to be variation across the board because what works in one station will not work at another. I don't mind them either as long as they look good across all stations. I wish that the art/services departments remained in tact at the local affiliates but once again it's not always feasible to do so. WBAL and WJZ have at least six full time employees doing graphics, promos and outside production work. As for the latter part of your post, I agree there should be some variation. I like the way Hearst set up WMUR where they have a different theme but the overall layout (could it be called geometry?) is the same. The chyron / bug are in the same layout but instead of being a parallelogram they just have rounded edges. At a quick glance it appears the full screen graphics have exactly the same layouts as the diagrid. I would not expect it to be disruptive to the workflow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skbl17 188 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I'm not against standardization per se, I just don't like it when a company mandate drives every aspect of the look. For instance, Look F may be a standardized look, but the level of customization the stations can implement is astounding. WNBC looks different from pre-2014 WCAU which looks different from WMAQ, for example. In short, standardization is fine, but I like it better when stations can add their own "touches" to the base package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkolsen 1679 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I'm not against standardization per se, I just don't like it when a company mandate drives every aspect of the look. For instance, Look F may be a standardized look, but the level of customization the stations can implement is astounding. WNBC looks different from pre-2014 WCAU which looks different from WMAQ, for example. In short, standardization is fine, but I like it better when stations can add their own "touches" to the base package. I agree there should be an ability to make your own touches as long as it doesn't wreck the overall style of the package. Is there any difference in workflow sense between different touches such as the general Look F and WCAU's original version? Or does Artworks just upload the updated version of the package into WCAU's Chyron boxes and producers select the graphic through the MOS protocol in iNews? I'm guessing it's the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeters 1811 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Scripps has been doing so since 2009 and will have their graphics plastered on to the Journal Communications about as soon as WKBW did once they (Journal) get acquired by Scripps. I wouldn't count on anything happening quite as fast as it did at WKBW... Especially with the things I've heard lately. No, I won't elaborate. :awesome: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ns8401 846 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I wouldn't count on anything happening quite as fast as it did at WKBW... Especially with the things I've heard lately. No, I won't elaborate. :awesome: Uh oh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCAUTVNBC10 408 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I agree there should be an ability to make your own touches as long as it doesn't wreck the overall style of the package. Is there any difference in workflow sense between different touches such as the general Look F and WCAU's original version? Or does Artworks just upload the updated version of the package into WCAU's Chyron boxes and producers select the graphic through the MOS protocol in iNews? I'm guessing it's the latter. WCAU art dept took Look F and built essentially a completely different package based off various elements in the toolkit. When they switched to the original incarnation I'm sure they already had it intact to load into their system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.