wms conference

Stations Need A Clear Internet 'Vision'

TV stations' current focus of streaming existing content and selling banner ads isn't going to cut it in the future, according to panelists at BIA's Winning Media Strategies conference. Instead, broadcasters should be focusing on developing new ways and means of engaging users, using new technologies and dedicating sales people to new media.
By
TVNewsCheck,

Despite the years-long hoopla about the Web's potential, the majority of broadcast companies still don't have a clear plan about how to maximize their use of new platforms -- meaning only the most forward-thinking companies are making real money from their digital endeavors, according to experts.

"Most businesses don't have a vision for the Internet," said researcher Gordon Borrell, CEO of Borrell Associates. "There is no company statement or vision, in many cases, about what the Internet represents."

Story continues after the ad

Borrell was one of the three industry experts who explored ways broadcasters can make the most of the Web on Wednesday as part of the BIA Advisory Service-sponsored conference, Winning Media Strategies 2009. The conference, being held in Washington, continues today.

The other panelists -- Ray Mena, co-president of Emmis Interactive, and Daniel Anstandig, president of McVay New Media -- echoed Borrell's comments, saying that broadcasters' won't make money on the Web unless they dedicate resources to developing and selling on-line endeavors.

In 2008, on-line revenue accounted for an average of 3 to 5 percent of TV broadcaster's revenue, according to Anstandig. That number is expected to increase to rise to 5 to 8 percent this year, he said.

To rise about that, however, broadcasters need to look creatively at how to use the Internet as a new and innovative platform, rather than merely an extension of an existing TV or radio station, panelists said.

Doing so, they said, means investing time and money in developing new business strategies including content, dedicated sales forces and wooing both users and clients who may otherwise go untapped.

"Broadcasters have to ask themselves if they are going to treat [digital endeavors] as a hobby or a businesses," Mena said, explaining that broadcasters' current focus of streaming existing content and selling banner ads isn't going to cut it in the future.

Instead, companies should be focusing on developing new ways and means of engaging users, using new technologies and dedicating sales people who know how to sell new platforms to new and existing clients.

"The problem now is that companies are putting so little resources into the interactive area that it's hard to monetize it," Mena said.

Using the Web in a strategic way also gives broadcasters concrete means for learning what does -- and doesn't -- work, he said.

Unlike spot ads, the success of which can be measured only anecdotally, on-line endeavors give broadcasters concrete means for tracking usage.

"Your success is measurable, your failures are measurable," Mena said.

"At the end of the day, it's about creating a profitable outcome for the station," he added.

Edit Article

Comments (8) -

HopeUMakeit Nickname posted over 3 years ago
The problem now is that companies are putting so little resources into the interactive area that it's hard to monetize it," Mena said. Really?, I choose to look at it another way. TV advertisers have become spoiled with success of their spot schedules. Also, they do not want to support the development of a platform that will force them to compete with out-of -market competitors who don't stock inventory, seldom pay state taxes and of course don’t provide any local jobs. The platform should expand the reach of the station’s news and entertainment efforts. Then how do you make that work when your Chief finance Officer won’t even let you staff your newsroom?
D. Michael Hood posted over 3 years ago
Most content on station web sites is a rehash of news. The internet is a means of providing "interaction" between the station and the viewers, something missing since the early days of remotes and before dependence on syndicated programs/features.
Kevin Mirek posted over 3 years ago
Stations Need A Clear Internet 'Vision' ? Why? Nielsen just released its new A2/M2 (Anywhere Anytime Media Measurement) and found time watching TV in the home is now 153.27 hours per month versus 29.5 hours using the internet and 3 hours watching video on the internet. So, here's a vision for monitizing your efforts: Stop pouring money into a medium (Internet) that people are clearly not using for viewing video news or entertainment, stop giving your content to others' Internet sites (including your own)... they contribute nothing and you are doing ALL the heavy lifting, and litigate for damages whenever you see your content on the web (a nice revenue stream in itself). People (97% including 18-24s) are obviously very happy watching TV in the traditional way, despite claims by Internet gurus who would have you believe the web is the video source of the future. Based on the usage facts, theirs is an incorrect and self-serving opinion. Do what you do best, TV, and leave the Internet to library research, day trading, real estate, home video jackass productions, and porn. You don't need that. You are only wasting your time, energy, and money.
David Sams posted over 3 years ago
Reinvent Technology is making a big move toward becoming a major player in the convergence of TV and the Internet. You can read more about the great convergence of TV and the Internet here: http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2009/dailyposts/05-13-09.htm david@sams.tv
Kevin Mirek posted over 3 years ago
The following is borrowed from a lifelong TV Chief Engineer who responded to my post through e-mail. I do not think he will mind me quoting him: "I really question the internet and mobile numbers. My feeling, and this from my experience and in working with others, is that the internet and mobile numbers are actually smaller. Video quality on the internet is mostly bad, and I am not talking about content, just technical video quality. And most people only can watch that for a short period of time before becoming quite frustrated with breakup, stream interruptions, poor quality, and many other issues with computers. You know, I have seen so many times when you turn on a computer, it has to boot up load whatever in the process, and so many times comes up with some error. How many times does that happen with a tv set. Your tv comes up and is operating much faster than your pc and never burps. On to mobile tv. They say the greatest watched items are comedy and weather. Hmmm, I will give you odds, the comedy is mostly graphics on you tube, and the weather is nothing more than animated radar maps. Now to the general user, this is VIDEO because it is on a screen.But it is NOT TV as we know it. You must make the report clear. Define what a user thinks is video. TV wins, hands down.
Ed Salgado posted over 3 years ago
As a software provider to TV stations, I see a solution, but I don't think it'll ever see the light of day. Many moons ago, we use to say that all the advertising on a single newspaper made 10 times more than all the TV stations in that market. And the advertising on 1 TV station was 10 times more than all the radio stations in that market. Today, as newspapers are feeling the pinch and begin to die off, that advertising revenue represents quite a bounty for those that can take advantage. Here is where TV can make it's mark. But here's the rub, the TV stations in a given market need to band together and create a single website that allows those in that market access to news, classifieds and auto ads for that entire market (much like you hear them doing now for news). Each station creating their own website only produces fragmentation and reduces the quality of the experience for the consumers. Now, instead of going to the newspaper to find something, consumers may have to scoure up to 6 or 7 websites where they once found it in one spot. This fragmentation also opens up the market for non-TV websites such as Craigslist. But alas, TV stations are still fierce competitors and will probably never be able to settle on a single site for the betterment of themselves and their consumers. All this does is open the game back up allowing the newspapers time to possibly re-invent themselves on the internet. Maybe the TVB or someone can push a more centralized market-centric solution that will cross the affiliate boundry. Until then, I continue to see the TV station website languishing just as this article describes. -ed www.OneDomain.com
Kevin Mirek posted over 3 years ago
The TV execs should kill their own websites and sue for damages against anyone who rips-off their content. That way TV can control what they do best ... VIDEO News and Entertainment. As previously stated, TV wins the "time spent with media" by HUGE margins. They can strangle the Internet by denying Internet quality video. Viewers will still spend way more time with TV than any other media. That should be enough for TV execs. They cannot win at the Internet game. And Internet cannot and will not produce video content like CSI, NCIS, Nightly News, or Meet the Press. TV should circle its wagons.
Kevin Mirek posted over 3 years ago
Let me put it this way, ...article... "broadcast companies still don't have a clear plan about how to maximize their use of new platforms." Calling the Internet a platform for video (considering the vast difference in TV's video time usage compared to the Internet) is like saying the barely floating bamboo raft is a new platform for the aircraft carrier next to it.

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 3:48a ET Quotes delayed at least 20 mins.
Source: Financial Content

Ratings

Overnights, adults 18-49 for February 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