Executive Session with Jerry Gumbert

Leaders Needed To Re-Engineer Local TV

The president of news consultant AR&D talks abou his firm's new book on local TV news and offers strategies for how TV stations can claim their spot as the top local news source on the Web and extend their dominance to mobile. Key is finding -- and listening to -- visionaries, who aren't shackled with the old processes and the old business models.
TVNewsCheck,

One of the attributes that propelled TV news past newspapers is immediacy. TV stations can report the news as it happens, while newspapers must wait for presses and trucks to roll.

But as both media have moved onto the Web, newspapers have usurped TV stations' traditional role. Their sites tend to be more timely and up to date.

Story continues after the ad

And, according to new book, Live. Local. Broken News: The Re-Engineering of Local TV, it's why more people now name newspaper sites as their No. 1 source of local online news. "On the Web, newspapers are beating television at its own game," the book says.

Live. Local., authored by the troop of news consultants at Dallas-based AR&D, is a call to action for broadcasters and a 263-page strategy for how they can claim their spot as the top local news source on the Web and extend their dominance to mobile.

The book also offers tips on how stations can reinvigorate their on-air weather and sports offerings in the face of increasing new media competition.

In this interview with TVNewsCheck Editor Harry A. Jessell, AR&D President Jerry Gumbert discusses reengineering local TV news so that it becomes more than just a producer of half-hour newscasts three or four times a day, so that it becomes an around-the-clock source of news for the Web and whatever mobile opportunities arise, so that it again becomes first with the news.

An edited transcript:

What's the No. 1 lesson or takeaway from this book?

That the industry needs leadership. It needs a much higher caliber of thinkers, of visionaries, who aren't shackled with the old process and the old business model and can see a much brighter future for broadcasters. In a lot of ways, this industry has become complacent because of 55-plus years of unbelievable success.

Do you think there are some stations or station groups out there that do get it?

You'll find very few broadcast groups that have done a significant amount of work on the creation and distribution of content that is more than just an evolutionary or transitional move. However, when you look at what Gannett is doing, what Scripps is doing and what Media General is doing, I think that they really get it. They understand it, but it's real early in the game.

What's holding the majority of broadcasters back?

Right now they still see themselves as broadcasters. What they must do to change their stars is make the transition not just mentally, but physically, to local media companies. And they have to think about themselves serving very specific consumer groups based on what they want to watch, where they want to see it, when they want to see it and how they want to see it.

That's going to dictate not just innovation of the products and services themselves, but an entire new operational model that is multiple-platform oriented and that isn't stuck on what we call a finished product news model -- that is, on a broadcast program that is scheduled and that dictates someone watch from home in a passive way.

The book advises stations to get into the continuous news business instead of focusing on creating three or four newcasts each day. If you do that, if you shift the focus away from those newscasts, aren't you inviting terrible consequences in terms of ratings and revenue? After all, that's where the money is.

Absolutely, it's where the money is. It's where almost all of the money is right now and we don't believe that you shift your focus off the newscast or the finished news product. We believe that you've got to go from a single-path strategy to what we call a simulpath strategy.

Let's continue the scheduled appointment newscasts that are passively viewed in the home as we historically have done. Do they have to be better? Yes. Do they have to be more interesting? Yes. But at the same time, let's march forward on a parallel path on the Web. We call it a continuous news path and it serves a distinctively new consumer group in a unique way.

This group comprises those who are at work between 8 and 5 o'clock and who have an insatiable appetite to be continually informed on what's happening in their local communities. We believe you can monetize this 8-to-5 group, given that in some markets during daytime the Web traffic of local news and information sites is higher than television viewing.

When you look at Web-based businesses, the low hanging fruit clearly is continuous news. A lot of people will tell you that they're doing continuous news, but most are not doing it at the level that satisfies the news and information appetite of the online consumer. For instance, each day, the average television station posts yesterday's news and then four or five items between 8 and 5 o'clock. Well, our vision of a continuous stream of news is a commitment to posting between 60 and 90 stories online every day between 8 and 5.

Edit Article

Comments (35) -

HopeUMakeit Nickname posted over 3 years ago
all of his points are good points but he missed 1 very big one. The bean counters who run station groups got those jobs by convincing the founder's great great step son that he or she could create 10 more profit points by slicing the newsroom staff in half. Great people produce great content. Great content cannot be changed by mode of delivery. The only reason print is better suited for web delivery is because they have 5 times as many reporters. Information junkies like myself want it all, not snippets of half of the available news. tell your station groups to triple the size of the news room, promote the fact and charge for the web access. I am so sick of broke, teenage cyber-crooks changing our economy with their pot smoking-commune based "everything should be free" economic model for the web.
Wondering Nickname posted over 3 years ago
Why would the head of a company who makes his living off the television industry slap it in the face by calling it "Broken News". That may sell well with lower level staff members - but the CEO's of the business will be appalled at what this guy is selling
Rocker Nickname posted over 3 years ago
@Wondering: The CEOs of the business are contemplating the very real prospect of being OUT of the business in a year or two (less in quite a few cases) if they don't figure out a new roadmap/model. That does not say that the AR&D vision is the correct one (although I think a great deal of it is on the mark). But I think they're smart to call it "broken", and the market is ready for that message. It's a credit to them to stand up and say "hanging in there until the recession is over" , tweaking a little here or there, and rationalizing that fundamentally the old way is still really the right way, is an insane way of thinking at this point. Enough CEOs understand this now (finally)so that I think the AR&D "intervention" marketing strategy will pay off for them.
azobserver2 Nickname posted over 3 years ago
You miss the mark. A CEO worth his or her salt is aware that the old TV News model no longer works and that companies need to change to survive. Also, the 'lower level' staff members may actually resist this change the most since their job requirements will completely change.
Hoyt Andres Nickname posted over 3 years ago
I agree. Jerry Gumbert's news is old news for anyone who has worked for any of the main station groups in recent years. Everyone knows that the key to success is the new technologies - like the web and mobile devices. The lower level staff members that didn't want to write for the station website, because they were "TV journalists" are all gone away from the station I used to manage. They left years ago. Anyone who is currently in the "TV news" business that thinks that TV is the only way to disseminate local news should be drawn and quartered. It's all about being in the "local news and information electronic distribution business" whatever the technology.
azobserver2 Nickname posted over 3 years ago
Rocker is right on the money.
Chip Harwood posted over 3 years ago
News and Weather, News and Weather, get over it if anyone want news and weather it's on the internet, cable news, 24/7.Radio does trafiic better, ESPN, sports-talk radio does sports better. The pardiam has shifted ( several years ago) Television has cease to inform with a rare exception( 60 Minutes), but it's still the best medium for entertainment! Embrace the change go for more targeted, niche programming it not your father's TV any more!
Kevin Mirek posted over 3 years ago
HopeUMakeit has it on the mark. This is yet another attempt by Jessell to get his grubby hands on more free content. TV still is the most used medium, by a lot! People spend 4.6 hours each day with TV. Internet doesn't come close. Internet would be dead if it were not for the free content stupid TV execs keep giving them. And monitizing it? That's a joke. Not one TV station has yet to figure-out how to create any meaningful revenue from their websites. Does the web create news? NO! Unless one wants to consider Jessell's self-serving opinions as news. Maybe, before they all go belly-up, TV stations will realize that their content contributions to the web are just fueling a competitor that will, someday, kill them. Then there will be no news, because there will be no one to invest in the news bureaus and personnel to create it.
Hoyt Andres Nickname posted over 3 years ago
Kevin. You are wrong! A number of stations are currently creating A LOT of revenue from their websites. The web and mobile phones/PDA are just another technology that "TV stations" can use to get local news and information to local users. If TV stations don't do it, someone else will. I said 8 or 10 years ago when I was still managing a TV station (with lots of web revenue - even then) that web revenue would someday exceed TV spot revenue. That day may be years away, but trust me, it will happen.
Rocker Nickname posted over 3 years ago
@Kevin: Yes, some of us have been saying this all along. If we just ignore this internet thing, it will go away. We should also ignore the vast technological, social, cultural, media consumption and ad spending shifts that are now pulling us with exponentially accelerating velocity into the vortex of a media singularity, punctuated by an economic depression. Worry about only one thing: Producing regularly scheduled linear news shows. Make the people come to us. The advertisers will follow. Bring back those million $ anchors. That's the plan. I think I'll hang out a shingle myself - there's definitely a market for these ideas, if I can just capture it before they all lose their jobs. Now, if only the newspapers had ignored Craig's List....
Kevin Mirek posted over 3 years ago
@Rocker: The only reason the Internet has news of any kind is because they rip it from AP, NYT, TV, etc. Yes, indeed, technology is accelerating. Unfortunately, investment in news gathering is not, and that is because the press and TV are free funding technological advances to their own demise. When Jessell employs camera crews and reporters to cover the world, he may have a point. Until then, he's just another pirate copy / pasting from his bed in his pajamas.
Kate Nickname posted over 3 years ago
This is a really annoying and empty article. Gumbert recommends that, in response to the fragmenting of the audience, stations make the regularly scheduled newscasts more interesting, with better journalism, AND roll out a sophisticated web strategy. He has not explained, however, how this approach will increase revenues to the extent necessary to pay for the highly talented, hard-working personnel necessary to do all of this. It’s not that many more viewers – just more modes of delivery. A decent business focuses on the strategies that produce the best returns (i.e., that someone values highly enough to pay for) and doesn’t just try to do everything that consumers might want in a world of unlimited resources (such a strategy fails, in part, because it is not possible to do everything, so nothing gets done right). High-quality journalists may be worth every penny of their salaries. The station might derive positive value from its website. But this article has not explained how this works. And how does this respond to the polarization of the audience regarding local sports? “We believe you ought to invest in sports and a sports segment and in sports personnel, but the primary focus is to tell great stories and to do great journalism about the sports community inside a given market.” Is he saying that better journalism will make more people like sports? Or is he just unable to answer the question?
D. Michael Hood posted over 3 years ago
Now that I am on the outside looking in after 30 years, I don't think the local television news product is very good. The writing is poor; the obligatory live shots rarely add anything to the story. The local newscasts appear more as promotional vehicles to draw viewers to stay around for the next newscasts and the next and finally you realize you have waited for “details at 6, 11 or whatever and you turn the set off knowing only that the station has a live truck. It may or may not rain; but you can depend on them to be there for you to tell you if it is or is not raining. The anchor thought the reporter did a good job. However you will have to turn in tomorrow to get the rest of the story…I think local news today is more about beating the competition, or pleasing the consultants instead of informing the customers (viewers). Remember if I was any good I would not be out of work...
Hoyt Andres Nickname posted over 3 years ago
Michael - I agree with you. When I retired I moved to a very small town in the mountains. I really don't have a TV market that serves this area, so I don't watch local news anymore. Why? Because it's not local to me. My homepage is my old TV station's website, so I can keep up with what's happening back in my former hometown. I get weather alerts for my home and my vacation condo 5 and a half hours away delivered to my Blackberry and my computer (via My Weather) and I have bookmarks on my Blackberry to dozens of Weather Underground local weather stations in places that I travel to. I don't need a 6pm or 11pm weathercast to give me the forecast or current conditions. I get them when I want it right on my Blackberry or laptop.
Newsman Nickname posted over 3 years ago
I disagree with Kate. Gumbert didn't write the artricle (Jessell did), he wrote the book. Jessell says at the top that there are 263 pages of the book that describe the "how to". I guess you should read the book.
Delta47 Nickname posted over 3 years ago
I believe to rethink local TV would be to detemine if operators would be better served by leaseing parts of the available Digital stream to outside interests. Becomeing a common carrier of digital data with a fixed income for bandwith model. Maybe a local cable company mobile service, or audio subs delivering radio services with video billboards. Don't ask why someone would do that but, rather if it could be done. Challange everything you know about broadcasting.
Kevin Mirek posted over 3 years ago
Someone still must invest in creating the content. It is not and never was free. Before anyone can distribute, they must have content. A lot of people out there think it's free. That's wrong on so many levels.
MikeLI Nickname posted over 3 years ago
This "someone", that Mr. Mirek refers to, is a disguised groveling, for BIG GOVERNMENT to give "hand-outs" or "bail outs". We all know "what" that results in, Mr. Mirek...GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP AND CENSORSHIP ! THIS IS SO ANTITHETICAL, TO THE FREE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS, THAT BROADCASTING, IS, it's laughable, "IF" it wasn't so FRIGHTENING ! Mr. Mirek wants his groveling, to sound harmless. Believe Me, Mr. Mirek, PEOPLE KNOW IT'S NOT FOR "FREE" ; FREEDOM COMES WITH A PRICE ! Mr. Mirek wants us to "share" the wealth. Using the example of, say, Venezuela, where Freedom of Broadcasting is at a premium, right now. Perhaps, Mr. Mirek would like to re-think "why" it's so "wrong on so many levels", while he, at the same time, enjoys the Freedom of this Country making his comments here, where, if he were in Venezuela, he would do what the Government there, says "what" to do.
sswash68 Nickname posted over 3 years ago
I think there are some reasonable points to both sides of this argument. But I must agree with HopeUMakeit and Kevin that content will always be key. Finding more efficient and viable ways to get it to the consumer is critical as well, but if is content is crummy then it doesn't matter how innovative your marketing and distribution strategies are.
Kevin Mirek posted over 3 years ago
Mile LI: I am takling about news and entertainment, not Venezuela (where did that come from)? Maybe you want to start-up and fund a Washington News bureau and give all your product to Jessell so he can comment. Yikes! Hope you have deep pockets.
TVManager Nickname posted over 3 years ago
Kevin is very right...no content..no audience. The rest of this doesn't matter. Make all the product extensions or variations you want...they won't come if it's not there. Tough times bread buzz words and people. Lot of talking about structure...spare me! Talk about content and to get there. The mold has to be broken for infomration gathering and distriubtion. This is all about putting band aides on a dated system. Gooney bird thinking.
Tones Nickname posted over 3 years ago
SO true! I am just so tired of this high-brow, I-use-more-big words-than you do stuff. It seems like everyone wants to engage in this discussion about distribution and the web and yadda yadda yadda.... The real problem IS content. It SUCKS! Plain and simple. You need to fix the content first... then worry about distribution, etc. It's just amazing that so many groups can't see this. If your *#&$ stinks, no one wants it no matter how you give it to them! Can I get a witness? :)
formergm Nickname posted over 3 years ago
Most local TV news is crap. News is defined as crime, car wrecks, and weather hype. The commercial and promotional load in an average half hour newscast is now over 10 minutes. Most websites are terrible and don't hold a candle to their newspaper competitors. When local stations wake up and start treating viewers with some respect then maybe they can stop the bleeding. Many won't wake up, and in five years will be history.
Kevin Mirek posted over 3 years ago
Yeah, your personal likes and dislikes aside, the fact remains that many more people still take their news from TV than from press or internet sources. It's the whole sight, sound, motion, emotion, color thing that is now and for 50 years has been the big winner. You can complain all you want about car wrecks and crime (real local service items), but I do not see Google or TVNEWSDAY creating anything at all, much less anything better. Over 98% of all TV revenues come from TV AD revenues and nearly nothing from Internet sites. It's pretty clear to me that reinvestment of those website dollars in more "GOOD" content and in hiring an attorney to sue anyone who rips or pirates that content. TV would better enrich TV stations than trying to play web wizard.
Hoyt Andres Nickname posted over 3 years ago
Kevin..Kevin. That whole sight, sound, motion, emotion thing is so old. That may be true for TV commercials, but it's not true for news and information. People want news and information when they want it - not when stations want to put it on the air. That's why the web and mobile devices/PDA's are growing so fast. You are so yesterday. Stations who are doing the web thing right are making lots of money and it's growing.
formergm Nickname posted over 3 years ago
One of the most important statements in the interview is the fact that weather is a commodity. TV stations give the highest priority to something everyone can get any time from several different sources. The average station gives about six minutes of time over three segments within a half hour newscast to weather - even if there isn't a cloud in the sky or anything significant in the next few days. So 30% of the average station's content goes to weather (hype). How does that make any sense?
TVManager Nickname posted over 3 years ago
Seriously the demo isn't biting...tweeter dee and dumber....all day. You cannot promote content they don't care about or will watch. Does work for entertainment guys...pop culture does work. We have extra channels...so where is the 18-34 one or something similar on these vaulted websites? You can play with news orgnaizations all you want to no end. It has to change. Why worry about the lower/newer staff people think? Are they in charge or should they be for content? If they can't drive an audience to their own demo...Get new ones. If you can't sort that out, then question your own buzz word ridden shelf life. AR&D should check its own research about WX's importance as a recruiter, certainly for AM shows. All of this tinkering with an outdated product. Why not put fan jet engines on a DC3?
Kate Nickname posted over 3 years ago
True, Jessell wrote the article, which obviously can't describe everything that is in a 263-page book. But my criticism isn't that the article fails to explain "how to" get more viewers than other stations -- it's that there is nothing in the article that shows the author has any concept of return on investment. If the advice is just to fulfill an extremely long and impractical wish list, it's not really very interesting advice.
Newsman Nickname posted over 3 years ago
It's not that weather isn't important, of course it is. Weather data is a commodity now and TV weathercasters must reinvent themselves, too. They cannot rely on just being "data presenters" day in and day out. Sure, they show up for severe weather, but what about all of the other days? What do they really do?
Terry Heaton posted over 3 years ago
Excellent discussion. Content is super important, of course, but there's a very serious issue hiding in the assumption that fixing the content fixes the problem. The assumption is that better content would lead to a bigger audience, which would lead to more advertising revenue. Like media, however, advertising is in full disruption today, and the people formerly known as the advertisers are themselves becoming media companies with the ability to reach people in ways beyond anybody's expensive mass. So fixing the content adds only some limited value to the evolving picture, because nobody is safe in the assumption that mass marketing is the most efficient way for businesses to reach consumers anymore. Another factor to consider in looking at all of this is that public companies run on growth, not pure revenue, and it's just close to impossible in today's environment to produce sustainable growth with the old revenue model. To be sure, there are exceptions, but local media has issues that go beyond the commodification of weather and the general homogeneity of the 6 o'clock news. The quo has lost its status, and that's why we wrote the book.
D. Michael Hood posted over 3 years ago
Good point as usual Terry, I cannot wait to use "commodification" in a real conversation!. I tried at one point to change the sales person's compensation to reward the better sales effort, for example it took more sales effort to sell a commercial in the "Beatrice Berry Show" than "Oprah" , but accounting did not want to go to the trouble, besides business was good so "don't fix what is not broken" Today the broadcaster must go to the trouble to provide not only valuable content, but that which is available on demand. It is time to act not react later. There is no mass market, only individuals concerned with meeting their selfish needs for products, services, entertainment and information. These discussions always come up in tough times or after "bad books"!
TVManager Nickname posted over 3 years ago
Kate... Thought the author conducted an interview? Anyhow not a lot of practical thinking in much of this. Hope the book isn't about restoring an antique....or "wide eyed" visionanry platitudes so far, this doesn't feel like any kind of how to thing. Fact is content brands and process need an overall...now. Otherwise we are back to why is the grass green or something?
Kate Nickname posted over 3 years ago
No, I didn't think the author conducted the interview. I probably should have written that "there is nothing in the article that shows the author OF THE BOOK has any concept of return on investment." I suspect that the book is, indeed, a collection of visionary platitudes. Or, alternatively, that Jessell's article has failed to capture why Gumbert's book is worth reading.
TVManager Nickname posted over 3 years ago
Kate..It was a little consusing to me..but I'm not that smart. Thought Gumbert's answers were a little vague. You're right. Lacking concepts related to ROI. One of their guys waxed on in this thread that content isn't the main driver or something. What? Thing of it is that techncology can strenghten distribution and revenues if the there is a vialbe product(s). If not...well. Guess I wonder do why they didn't say anything about their research on the Demo? Seems to me that twould have been the foundation for their sermon, with some crative subjectivity. Catchie book title, though
HowardMBurgers Nickname posted over 3 years ago
First of all I admire and respect the folks at AR&D and their expertise. I've worked with them for years. That being said, isn't it ironic that they have been a big part, as consultants, of making TV news what it is today? Now they step in and make the claim that TV news is "broken"?

Classifieds

The Market

Symbol Last Change (%)
Nasdaq 2905.66 +45.98 (+1.61%)
NYSE 8060.43 +115.00 (+1.45%)
S&P 500 1344.90 +19.36 (+1.46%)
Updated 02/04 3:51 ET Quotes delayed at least 20 mins.
Source: Financial Content

Ratings

Overnights, adults 18-49 for 2月 3, 2012
  • 1.
    3.9/11
  • 2.
    3.5/9
  • 3.
    2.5/7
  • 4.
    1.5/4
  • 5.
    1.5/4
  • 6.
    0.9/2
Source: Nielsen
Reviews
Opinions
Features
  • Robert Lloyd

    Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele, veterans of Fox's sketch comedy MADtv, have a new series of their own, Comedy Central's Key & Peele. It is a genial, at times almost genteel, half-hour in which the pair's obvious niceness shines through even their more pugnacious characters. (Key's version of road rage is to shout, "Selfish!") In a roundabout way, that's the point. The sketches are consistently smart and smartly acted and flow easily from ordinary premises to weird conclusions.

  • Hank Stuever

    Discovery's Bering Sea Gold doesn’t seem at first like it has crossed any new reality TV frontier, relying on elements and structure familiar to the form. Enticingly (to the network), it combines the ocean and the gold and the cold and the reactive testosterone among bad-tempered desperados. To which I am surprised to cry: Eureka, they’ve found it! Bering Sea Gold is a testament to how thoroughly absorbing the genre can still be, when it’s done right.

  • Neil Genzlinger

    All Star Dealers, Discovery Channel's sports-memorabilia addition to the bloated auction/pawnshop/storage locker subgenre of reality television, should have been a winner, with endless stories to draw on and a built-in fan base. But rather than find its own formula, it was content to borrow from existing shows, and it borrowed all the wrong things.

  • Joanne Ostrow

    Kiefer Sutherland displays his softer side in Fox's Touch, a touchy-feely drama merging paranormal, spiritual and sweetly familial elements. shows off his acting chops, long forgotten, in scene after scene. It's heavier lifting than usual for the actor who was often reduced to caricature in 24. Sutherland is all about vulnerability in a show whose goal is nothing short of proving the interconnectedness of human life. We'll see if audiences can tolerate the notion of profound interrelatedness as weekly entertainment.

  • Tim Goodman

    Let's jump right to the most obvious of all sentiments when it comes to HBO's new horse racing/gambling series Luck: Do not bet against David Milch in this one. Like a lot of HBO series, Luck will require patience. It's telling a dense story with nuanced characters and it doesn't feel the need to rush in, like a network series, and hammer home the main themes. But each episode is more enriching, more engrossing than the last and there's Hoffman's superb turn at the forefront, even though his story unfolds with the least rush. Luck is a smart and ambitious series that looks to truly pay off in the home stretch.

  • Mike Hale

    The timing of FX's animated series Unsupervised is unfortunate. A kind of reversed Beavis and Butt-Head — in which the teenage heroes, while losers in just about every way, are also social strivers yearning for suburban domesticity and dispensing Oprah Winfrey-style affirmations — it has the bad luck of coming along three months after the original was revived by MTV. The new show looks awfully pale by comparison.

This advertisement will close automatically in  second(s). You will see this ad no more than once a day. Skip ad