Thank you, Mass Media

[SilverNRed]

Again, the media's acting like the media. I'd have been more shocked if they didn't air it.

Actually, this is exactly the problem.

[The Dean]

Dean, you may know this and it's something I always wondered.

 

Yes, I understand how the major networks and cable news networks ratings go up during crises like this. But how does this transfer to real dollars? First, wouldn't they lose a ton of money in the first few days of this when the cut out almost all commercials, worried people will change channels? And actually owing companies that already paid for those spots. And how do they gauge new dollars in ad rates after the fact when they don't know when or if there is going to be another tragedy like this where suddenly tons more people tune in?

 

OK...quick version:

 

If one station or network does it (cuts commercials) they end up losing $$, but hope the increased coverage leads to an improved news image. This can actually work if there is anything to cover. That is, anything with new developments and it is on a topic with great public interest and/or relevance. Also, since many sponsors don't want to be involved with this kind of coverage, they can remove their spots (and make them good later). The decreased amount of inventory (assuming they net is running SOME ads) becomes more valuable, as it is scarcer. The ratings (assumed) are higher and there are sponsors who will pay a good $ to be on this kind of coverage. So, they can raise the rates to the sponsors who want to be on during this period (this is true it is one, or all news outlets).

 

Since the people who want to be in the coverage are spending their ad $ during the coverage, the bumped spots (the spots that don't run during the coverage) can run pretty easily, once the coverage is off. Also, the increased ratings get figured into the average ratings, the theory is, the rates will go up outside of the "tragedy" coverage period, as well. Do they? Depends, I guess. Smart buyers will remove the spikes from the averages before buying.

 

Depending on the length of the coverage, the interest in it and how well the spots and dots are handled, it can result in a small loss or gain for the media outlet. In some rare occasions it can be a windfall. The "new dollars" question will have to be tabled for another discussion.

 

One more quick thing. Are people getting sick of this kind of coverage? I'd like to think so...and they seem to be saying they are. But they are still watching. Part of the reason they are still watching (this is all just a personal, The Dean, rant) might be due to the lack of major media news alternatives. That is, it has become common for EVERY local news station to cover a story to death and EVERY national media news station to engage in this kind of coverage. Of course, you can stop watching...but that hasn't really happened yet.

 

As you know, media management types tend to be pretty dim bulbs (except for me, of course ) and, therefore, the business is driven by a copy-cat mentality. If something works, EVERY outlet copies that formula. (BTW, most business seems to run this way.) Cover your ass, do what the others are doing, play it safe and try not to get fired.

 

My unsolicited advice to a media outlet struggling to attract viewers is this:

 

Become the station/network that does not engage in this kind of questionable coverage. Do it well and promote the s#it out of it:

Tired of Ana Nicole Smith stories? Last night the KKKK 6PM News spent 15 minutes on this story. KXXX, used 12 minutes of their valuable news time. As there were no new elements to the story, we at KCCC decided to not waste your valuable time with sensationalism. Instead we covered these stories which we believe are more important and relevant to the lives of our viewers.

1. Don't worry, if something important happens in any story, including the tragic death of Ana Nicole, we'll have the information, and report it to you in proper perspective."

 

I'd love to see how that approach would work.

[The Dean]

I take it you don't own one of these contraptions? You know you want one.

 

 

A Clockwork Orange. Excellent!

 

Actually, I'd prefer this:

 

http://www.widerscreen.fi/pictures/2005/3/...eodrome_3-2.jpg

[Kelly the Dog]

OK...quick version:

 

If one station or network does it (cuts commercials) they end up losing $$, but hope the increased coverage leads to an improved news image. This can actually work if there is anything to cover. That is, anything with new developments and it is on a topic with great public interest and/or relevance. Also, since many sponsors don't want to be involved with this kind of coverage, they can remove their spots (and make them good later). The decreased amount of inventory (assuming they net is running SOME ads) becomes more valuable, as it is scarcer. The ratings (assumed) are higher and there are sponsors who will pay a good $ to be on this kind of coverage. So, they can raise the rates to the sponsors who want to be on during this period (this is true it is one, or all news outlets).

 

Since the people who want to be in the coverage are spending their ad $ during the coverage, the bumped spots (the spots that don't run during the coverage) can run pretty easily, once the coverage is off. Also, the increased ratings get figured into the average ratings, the theory is, the rates will go up outside of the "tragedy" coverage period, as well. Do they? Depends, I guess. Smart buyers will remove the spikes from the averages before buying.

 

Depending on the length of the coverage, the interest in it and how well the spots and dots are handled, it can result in a small loss or gain for the media outlet. In some rare occasions it can be a windfall. The "new dollars" question will have to be tabled for another discussion.

 

One more quick thing. Are people getting sick of this kind of coverage? I'd like to think so...and they seem to be saying they are. But they are still watching. Part of the reason they are still watching (this is all just a personal, The Dean, rant) might be due to the lack of major media news alternatives. That is, it has become common for EVERY local news station to cover a story to death and EVERY national media news station to engage in this kind of coverage. Of course, you can stop watching...but that hasn't really happened yet.

 

As you know, media management types tend to be pretty dim bulbs (except for me, of course ) and, therefore, the business is driven by a copy-cat mentality. If something works, EVERY outlet copies that formula. (BTW, most business seems to run this way.) Cover your ass, do what the others are doing, play it safe and try not to get fired.

 

My unsolicited advice to a media outlet struggling to attract viewers is this:

 

Become the station/network that does not engage in this kind of questionable coverage. Do it well and promote the s#it out of it:

I'd love to see how that approach would work.

Seems to me your answer is as I expected, there is really no windfall at all to this. They lose some here and there, they gain some here and there, and there may or may not be some down the road.

[GG]

Seems to me your answer is as I expected, there is really no windfall at all to this. They lose some here and there, they gain some here and there, and there may or may not be some down the road.

 

The key part of his answer was the copy cat theory.

 

Obviously, there's no immediate financial boom. But, the fear that if your news division doesn't give blanket coverage, but Network Y does, your viewers won't return on the next day, and that will appear in the ratings. Herd mentality rules, baby - among the audience and executive suites.

 

My biggest McBeef with the coverage is not that we've been blanketed by it, but the two-faced facade of the news divisions staking a high moral ground of serving a public good while peddling violence equivalent of porn to the masses.

[Kelly the Dog]

The key part of his answer was the copy cat theory.

 

Obviously, there's no immediate financial boom. But, the fear that if your news division doesn't give blanket coverage, but Network Y does, your viewers won't return on the next day, and that will appear in the ratings. Herd mentality rules, baby - among the audience and executive suites.

 

My biggest McBeef with the coverage is not that we've been blanketed by it, but the two-faced facade of the news divisions staking a high moral ground of serving a public good while peddling violence equivalent of porn to the masses.

Agreed. Another McBeef however, is really complaining about that, because the people at those positions pretty much have to make those decisions, and pretty much have to say what they are saying, regardless of its 90% bull sh-- factor. It initially annoyed me when I heard Steve Capus say in the Imus fiasco that the decision to fire him had nothing to do with money when it obviously was one of those omnipresent "when they say this isn't about the money it's about the money" things. But on second thought, he really can't be honest. He can't say he made the decision based on money, he can't throw the sponsors under the bus, he can't just say nothing and then have everyone come out and say it's all about the money. I'm sure there WAS a lot of intra-company talk about the firing before everyone decided that was a total waste of time and it's all about the money. But that's the way the country works, and frankly, I have a lot of respect for Yakov Smirnoff.

[The Dean]

Agreed. Another McBeef however, is really complaining about that, because the people at those positions pretty much have to make those decisions, and pretty much have to say what they are saying, regardless of its 90% bull sh-- factor. It initially annoyed me when I heard Steve Capus say in the Imus fiasco that the decision to fire him had nothing to do with money when it obviously was one of those omnipresent "when they say this isn't about the money it's about the money" things. But on second thought, he really can't be honest. He can't say he made the decision based on money, he can't throw the sponsors under the bus, he can't just say nothing and then have everyone come out and say it's all about the money. I'm sure there WAS a lot of intra-company talk about the firing before everyone decided that was a total waste of time and it's all about the money. But that's the way the country works, and frankly, I have a lot of respect for Yakov Smirnoff.

 

 

What a country!

[Ramius]

I'll do that when I meet him at the playground after school to fight.

 

"You're such a gay little loser, John. And nobody likes you!"

 

Now THIS is how the media should have been headlining the tragedy. I'm being serious too. Want to stop the next psycho? Put this headline up...

 

"Pathetic loser with no life and small dick murders 32 at Virginia Tech."

[IDBillzFan]

Now THIS is how the media should have been headlining the tragedy. I'm being serious too. Want to stop the next psycho? Put this headline up...

 

"Pathetic loser with no life and small dick murders 32 at Virginia Tech."

Would you really want to unjustly scare Ed's new wife like that?

[John Adams]

I still haven't seen any of it too, by the way. "Could not be avoided" is nonsense.

 

Careful--your head just entered your ass too.

 

Ironic that the guy complaining about the mass media coverage is so engrossed in it. But I'm the guy with his head in his ass. Carry on.

[John Adams]

There's still no explanation for why they did it. Even NBC News' explanation doesn't make sense. It's just some shlock about how important respecting the "victims and heroes" was to them and a brief reminder that everyone else did it too.

 

Here's the explanation: you're eating it up. Therefore it's good for ratings.

[DC Tom]

Careful--your head just entered your ass too.

 

Ironic that the guy complaining about the mass media coverage is so engrossed in it. But I'm the guy with his head in his ass. Carry on.

 

Just be sure you remove your hat from your ass during the National Anthem...

[John Adams]

Just be sure you remove your hat from your ass during the National Anthem...

 

According to Bill in NYC, maybe I'd want VA to remove it for me.

[SilverNRed]

Here's the explanation: you're eating it up. Therefore it's good for ratings.

Yeah, because checking the front pages of a few different news websites on Wednesday and being disgusted at the giant pictures of this guy that they plastered on there is really "eating it up."

 

I've definitely checked in for a minute or two at a time to see the friggin' abortion that is the coverage of this thing (which I have to if I'm going to continue participating in this thread) but overall I'd say I'm watching less TV news because they're only reporting on one story right now and they're not doing a good job anyway.

 

But, please, I encourage you to convince yourself that I'm spending 4 hours a night watching this garbage.

[GG]

He can't say he made the decision based on money, he can't throw the sponsors under the bus, he can't just say nothing and then have everyone come out and say it's all about the money. I'm sure there WAS a lot of intra-company talk about the firing before everyone decided that was a total waste of time and it's all about the money. But that's the way the country works, and frankly, I have a lot of respect for Yakov Smirnoff.

 

And why double speak like that will get them burned in the end. Maybe not so much for NBC, as Imus's morning show didn't do that much to their revenue stream, but the revenue hole the new CBS Radio head just dug will not be an easy one to climb out of. But, Dan Mason doesn't have to worry because he works for the most patient boss in showbiz.

[Just Jack]

Now THIS is how the media should have been headlining the tragedy. I'm being serious too. Want to stop the next psycho? Put this headline up...

 

"Pathetic loser with no life and small dick murders 32 at Virginia Tech."

So the next ones video will include him dropping his pants.

[Kelly the Dog]

And why double speak like that will get them burned in the end. Maybe not so much for NBC, as Imus's morning show didn't do that much to their revenue stream, but the revenue hole the new CBS Radio head just dug will not be an easy one to climb out of. But, Dan Mason doesn't have to worry because he works for the most patient boss in showbiz.

While that may be true, and I believe it is, isn't it then the sponsors fault, and not the media, Bush or Clinton?

[GG]

While that may be true, and I believe it is, isn't it then the sponsors fault, and not the media, Bush or Clinton?

 

If you want to boil it down further, it is the fault of every person who listens to commercial radio or watches commercial TV.

[Kelly the Dog]

If you want to boil it down further, it is the fault of every person who listens to commercial radio or watches commercial TV.

Which is what I have been saying all along whenever these topics come up concerning blamethrowers.

[GG]

Which is what I have been saying all along whenever these topics come up concerning blamethrowers.

 

You have, but in their effort to give the people what they want, they risk alienating those same people by either crossing the line or engaging in duplicitous talk about their true mission is. The trouble for traditional media is that they don't know if they should operate in the parochial Edward R Murrow timeframe, the crossover 24/7 hyperventilating Ted Turner world, or the up- to-the-second bombastic Drudge or Youtube mindset.

 

IMHO, they try to straddle the line to be everything, and are getting burned. I have a hunch many of them they wish they were PBS or CSPAN that they can deliver sober news without commercial pressure.