News Updates vs. New Teasers

[qwertnyc 1]

With the ability to get news anywhere/anytime, it just seems to me that TV stations should be providing real news updates rather then these silly news teasers for their upcoming newscasts. It might actually keep people tuned in.

 

It used to be that you'd hear something like this- A big snow storm is heading for the Tri-State, and all areas will be affected by daybreak. Police say residents of Cobble Hill should take precautions as a rapist has targeted several women in a week's span, and Bayer has recalled all children's aspirin because of potential package tampering. In this example, there is not a lot of detail, but they have given us solid information and provided a service to their viewer.

 

Today it would be more like this- A storm is heading for the Tri-State, will it be wet or white and who specifically is under risk? A rapist is on the loose, we'll tell you where at 11, also tonight, a major over-the-counter medication has been recalled. Could it be in your medicine cabinet? All this and more when we see you tonight at 11. If any of this information actually interests me the first thing I'm going to do is go find all of this information on line, and guess what it probably won't even be that TV station's website. Wouldn't they gain credibility if they actually provided the details rather than keeping us guessing? This example is only three stories. The newscast is comprised of more stories than that so it's not as if they have given away all the "meat" of the newscast. They act as if giving us any details of a story would be providing a "spoiler".

 

Comments?

[newsguy22 59]

With the ability to get news anywhere/anytime, it just seems to me that TV stations should be providing real news updates rather then these silly news teasers for their upcoming newscasts. It might actually keep people tuned in.

 

It used to be that you'd hear something like this- A big snow storm is heading for the Tri-State, and all areas will be affected by daybreak. Police say residents of Cobble Hill should take precautions as a rapist has targeted several women in a week's span, and Bayer has recalled all children's aspirin because of potential package tampering. In this example, there is not a lot of detail, but they have given us solid information and provided a service to their viewer.

 

Today it would be more like this- A storm is heading for the Tri-State, will it be wet or white and who specifically is under risk? A rapist is on the loose, we'll tell you where at 11, also tonight, a major over-the-counter medication has been recalled. Could it be in your medicine cabinet? All this and more when we see you tonight at 11. If any of this information actually interests me the first thing I'm going to do is go find all of this information on line, and guess what it probably won't even be that TV station's website. Wouldn't they gain credibility if they actually provided the details rather than keeping us guessing? This example is only three stories. The newscast is comprised of more stories than that so it's not as if they have given away all the "meat" of the newscast. They act as if giving us any details of a story would be providing a "spoiler".

 

Comments?

 

For better or worse, TV news is a business. Stations only make money off of newscasts if people watch them.

 

Believe it or not, those teases do hold viewers to the next newscast. Yes, some will seek out that information on their own (internet, other sources, etc), but the majority will wait for 11pm.

 

And my gut tells me if someone would be motivated enough to seek that information out with the current tease format, they'd still probably do the same with your example.

 

My view on teases in local news is to tease local, enterprise stories that the viewer can't see anywhere else. If they want the story, they'll have no choice but to watch the newscast. And in the year 2010, that's what it's all about.

[Geoffrey 865]

I like your idea. Those promo/tease questions always sound so phony anyway. Teasing people is degrading and does nothing to build credibility.

 

Will I bother to watch your newscast tonight? Find out at 11!

[cityprod 9]

Okay, this is probably going to go against the grain of established broadcast thinking, but I would say it's better these days to do News Updates, rather than teases.

 

The reasoning is that not everyone wants 24 hour news channels, but do want news updates at regular intervals, and not necessarily long bulletins either. Back in the day, the shoirt updates on US TV used to be sponsored and very prevalent. Now, all you have left is one quick ABC News Brief just before 3pm. I hardly think that if somebody was waiting for the next programme to start, that they'd suddenly switch channels to avoid a quick 30 second or 60 second news update. This is why I find the lack of news updates to be troubling.

 

In the UK, radio is required to air short news bulletins regularly. Some are as short as 1 minute, others can be up to 5 minutes. Here, news bulletins cannot be sponsored, but I think that the short updates format that radio does so well, television can also do well with too. But as in so many other things in this country, we seem to fail so miserably at it, cos we're not prepared to work at it.

[Weeters 1931]

Part of it would have to do with how much time is given. There might be only 5 seconds available for a local news spot. Not really enough time for a lot of details...

[newsguy22 59]

As I said before, news updates don't bring in money. That :15 seconds is more valuable as a tease to 11pm, where stations do make money.

 

If people need to know what's happening at 10am or 8pm, they can, and often do, go to our website. That's why it's there.

 

Would it be a public service to do news updates around the clock? Absolutely. Would it make money? Nope. And we're all kidding ourselves if we think anything done by TV news companies (or any company for that matter) is motivated by anything other than money.

 

It may suck, but it's a fact.

 

Also, Weeters is right.

[hinto 0]

The "24 Hour News Source" thing was pretty popular in the 90s... Did most stations that went with it just treat it as a tease for an upcoming newscast, or were there some that did legitimate updates?

 

Fighting the frizzie, at 11.

[cityprod 9]

@newsguy22, I think this is a case of backward thinking. Most business these days does not think about revenue generation as much as they think about keeping costs down. The first thing in their head is protecting their bottom line, not generating new revenue. A 30 second sponsored news update, 1 per day, requires very little extra in terms of production and preparation, yet could be used to generate extra revenue. And what's more, in the US, you have that opportunity to do that with news. In the UK, such an idea is blocked by OFCOM regulations.

 

It's negative thinking, pure and simple. Instead of looking to make money, they look to not lose it. And you can tell that there is no enthusiasm for the industry, within the industry. It's bean-counting gone nuts. Instead of working to get viewers first, they work to get advertisers first. You find a popular show on commercial TV, and even if advertisers didn't flock to it at first, they pretty quickly will flock to it soon after. Advertisers go where the listeners and viewers are. It's not rocket science, it's simple fact. You get a popular show, every advertiser around will want a spot during that show. Advertisers are the most fickle beasts in the whole broadcasting chain. They have no loyalty to programmes or stations. They'll only stay there as long as the show or station is popular. Then, they'll leave it likes rats deserting a sinking ship. That's the reality of commercial broadcasting.

 

If no station is willing to step forward and really try something, you'll get what's been happening in commercial broadcasting for years, a stale product, that does not show the broadcaster to be anything other than a scared, weak, helpless animal, that quite frankly, should be put out of its misery.

[newsguy22 59]

@newsguy22, I think this is a case of backward thinking. Most business these days does not think about revenue generation as much as they think about keeping costs down. The first thing in their head is protecting their bottom line, not generating new revenue. A 30 second sponsored news update, 1 per day, requires very little extra in terms of production and preparation, yet could be used to generate extra revenue. And what's more, in the US, you have that opportunity to do that with news. In the UK, such an idea is blocked by OFCOM regulations.

 

It's negative thinking, pure and simple. Instead of looking to make money, they look to not lose it. And you can tell that there is no enthusiasm for the industry, within the industry. It's bean-counting gone nuts. Instead of working to get viewers first, they work to get advertisers first. You find a popular show on commercial TV, and even if advertisers didn't flock to it at first, they pretty quickly will flock to it soon after. Advertisers go where the listeners and viewers are. It's not rocket science, it's simple fact. You get a popular show, every advertiser around will want a spot during that show. Advertisers are the most fickle beasts in the whole broadcasting chain. They have no loyalty to programmes or stations. They'll only stay there as long as the show or station is popular. Then, they'll leave it likes rats deserting a sinking ship. That's the reality of commercial broadcasting.

 

If no station is willing to step forward and really try something, you'll get what's been happening in commercial broadcasting for years, a stale product, that does not show the broadcaster to be anything other than a scared, weak, helpless animal, that quite frankly, should be put out of its misery.

 

I agree with some of what you say. However, I don't think :30 local news updates are what will save the broadcast industry.

[newsguy22 59]

The "24 Hour News Source" thing was pretty popular in the 90s... Did most stations that went with it just treat it as a tease for an upcoming newscast, or were there some that did legitimate updates?

 

Fighting the frizzie, at 11.

 

 

Fighting the frizzies... excellent reference! This is what the 24 Hour News updates looked like at my old station:

 

[TennTV1983 804]

I read this thread, and I'm reminded of an old news update from WDIV.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdya9_hgv_c

[Bucc 4]

I actually would like to see more news updates like the one above in that video then teases.

[cityprod 9]

@newsguy22, no single programme idea is going to save the broadcast industry. What will save it is, as I have previously stated, changing their focus away from merely protecting their bottom line and towards working to actually generate revenue. Doing things that also add some credibility to the station will not go amiss either, but revenue generation is the key.

 

Online video has lots of good content, some of it produced very simply and quickly. Traditional broadcast television needs to learn quickly that the new generation of online viewers like a different kind of content to what has been the traditional content of television, which has its roots in both live theatre and the cinema.

[kjohnson 17]

Ah, yes. The infamous :30 updates in the dead of night that illustrate just how little effort stations were putting into overnight coverage. Badly framed anchor in a deathly quiet newroom reading copy.

 

On occasion, you'd see the cleaning crew in the background. The heady "24 Hour" news days of the 1980s and 90s.

[cityprod 9]

@kjohnson And that is unreasonable, why?

[kjohnson 17]

There was nothing singularly wrong with the idea of the hourly update overnight. It just would have looked better if there was some actual activity in the newsroom. It was supposed to be a twenty-four hour newsroom.

[cityprod 9]

There was nothing singularly wrong with the idea of the hourly update overnight. It just would have looked better if there was some actual activity in the newsroom. It was supposed to be a twenty-four hour newsroom.

 

I think the fact that there was no newsroom activity behind was correct and totally reflective of the reality of a local news operation. Even with the 24 hour cycle, very little local news happens overnight, so you only need a minimal staff anyway.

 

And with a short 1 minute update, do you really need 15 seconds of video for each story? Do you need any video at all? I see nothing wrong with looking at a newscaster for a minute.