The News Consumer is King. Seriously.
Here's the thing, you local newsers: you ain't all that anymore. Those days have gone into the proverbial history books. And if you don't start accepting this fact, you'll be in the history books as well.
As Ken Auletta wrote in a chapter that was cut from his new book on Google, "consumers are no longer tethered to a network program schedule, a wire, a single screen or device--a TV set, a game console, a physical newspaper, magazine, or book--for their information or pleasure. With choices, consumers feel in control, putting an end to the old argument over which is king, content or distribution or technology. It's the consumer."
Yes, you're a bigshot because you own a big building, a lot of fancy livetrucks and an FCC license. But with each passing moment, all that infrastructure's looking more and more like massive printing facility at the newspaper across town: a liability. Yup, you spent all that damn money converting to HD amid a catastrophic economic meltdown in the television industry, and now I'm saying it's like investing in dinosaur meat? Kinda.
At the Future of News conference in Minneapolis this week, one message to legacy media companies was crystal clear: you no longer have a monopoly on local news (and sports, of course, as ESPN expands its brand), and today the reality is that innovative young startups (Ken Doctor called them "ankle-biters" who could quickly grow in size) have their eyes on your lunch. The leveler is the technological factor, where once upon a time a startup couldn't afford to compete with you, now they can, and some would argue that it won't be long before their run-and-gun-low-tech bottom line will give them the edge.
So what's the answer?
Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently talked to the Nieman Lab about the news consumer of the future and the expected trend of consumers moving from the one size fits all news buffet that most local television stations still serve exclusively, and toward a hyperpersonalized "news stream." Here's Schmidt's idea of what it might look like:
We have about ten news stream ideas, of which hyperpersonalization is one. And, again, I’d rather not talk about specific products or even prioritize them, but I would make the following observation: In five or ten years, what will the primary news reader look like?
Well, that person will be probably on a tablet or a mobile phone, probably the majority of the reading will presumably be online not offline, just because of the scale of it. It’ll be highly personalized, right? So you’ll know who the person is. There’ll be a lot of integration of media — so video, voice, what have you. It’ll be advertising-supported and subscription-supported, so you’ll probably have a mixture. Think of the Kindle as an example. The Kindle is a proto of what this thing could look like. People will carry these things around.
So if you start thinking about that, it becomes pretty obvious what the products need to be: more personalized, much deeper, capable of deeper navigation into a subject. Also, show me the differential. Since you know what you told me yesterday, just tell me what changed today. Don’t repeat everything.
So ask yourself this: does your newsroom do anything to serve a customer like this? Anything?
The Knight Foundation's currently spending five million dollars a year to help those ankle biters build innovative news operations, mostly online. The list includes experiments like Spot.us, Everyblock.com, and the Media Lab at MIT, but you won't see local television stations on the list of beneficiaries. Why is that? Is anybody working at an old media company willing to think about the future, or is the present just too overwhelming?
I asked Spot.us' David Cohn for his take on local television news and innovation. "Local TV stations boggle my mind," he said. "They are ever more screwed than newspapers, they just don't know it yet. You ask why stations aren't changing. For me that question is simple: The overhead. They are running TV stations the only way they know how and that requires several camera people, an announcer, a field correspondent, a van of equipment, etc. All that might be needed now.... but it won't, soon."
Cohn says stations are "producing news for a consumer that doesn't exist anymore." And it's true. Yes, the numbers are still there and you can, with more effort than ever before, squeeze profit out of that building and that FCC license. But for how long? At what point is it innovate... or die?
You can already start thinking toward serving news streams digitally, and the faster you make the mental adjustment, the better you'll do when you have Google opening its own local news site in your town, or the supposed-to-be-dead-already newspaper doing a better job delivering a video-rich hyperpersonalized news stream to your audience where your audience is, like on a Kindle or an iPod or an Apple tablet.
I love local news. But man, as I've said before, if you think starting a fanpage on Facebook is "innovation," you're dead already.
The Future of Local News: Available Today. Watch this Space.
It's so easy in the run-and-gun world of local news to be far withdrawn from the academic and wonky talk of the future. Especially now that you don't get to tool around in the station car with your photog trying to sneak off to the mall to get a little shopping done while "checking out a tip." These days, your photog's got his own story to shoot, write and edit.
But trust me. While the managers in your newsroom may be telling you it's belt-tightening time and that Action News will find a way to survive the bleak times and return to Number One, there's an army of creative media gurus (many with exactly no background in the Way We Do Things) who are redefining what local news may look like for consumers five years from now, ten years from now, or, in some spots, this afternoon.
In my tireless pursuit to keep you ahead of the curve whether you like it or not, I'll be rubbing elbows with these forward-thinkers today in New York, at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, where some of the brightest minds of new news modeling will gather at a forum--okay, a "HyperCamp" as the kids call conferences these days--entitled "New Business Models for (Local) News."
I'll report back to you here on what I discover. But hey, in a get-your-feet-wet experiment in new news models, why not join me at the HyperCamp right now? I'll be on Twitter and sending out the best stuff I can shoehorn into 140 characters. Follow me at @standupkid for live updates through the day. And I'd love to get your questions as well to direct to some of the smarty pants speakers. (As soon as I know the hashtag for today's event, I'll tweet that)
I'd love to have some LocalNews readers with me for this. It's our future that's on the table. There's no reason not to get excited about it. And since your news director insisted that you tweet all damn day, why not make it work for you?
Leno at Ten: NBC “Wins,” as Local News Suffers
I watched the first night of Jay Leno's new primetime show on NBC, and I haven't been back. I found the show unfunny, boring, and devoid of originality. I said as much on Twitter that night, and found, to my surprise, that some of my friends were delighted with the easy-bake comedy Leno was serving up at 10:00. These were, by and large, people who told me they liked getting some Leno at an earlier hour, since family and work made it hard to "stay up" until 11:30.
Ratings figures for Leno show a significant drop off in the second half hour, as some of my friends nod off mid-way through Leno's "no surprises" show. And that, as NBC stations across the country feared from the start, is not an excellent way to build up steam for a late local newscast. In fact, as an unnamed network exec told TheWrap, the numbers are "just scary."
As TheWrap's Josef Adalian reported, WNBC/NY saw its late news numbers plunge 37 percent (Adults 25-54) in Leno's first week. KNBC/LA took a 30 percent hit at 11:00, and Philadelphia's WCAU had a "Leno Related Loss" (LRL) of 32 percent.
These are not the kinds of numbers news directors feel good about. And especially when said program is your lead in five nights a week. As veteran news director Bob Jordan (WFTV/Orlando) wrote on Twitter the week of Leno's debut: "Note to NBC affiliates: gonna be a rough November."
The thing about the Leno numbers, though, is this: the network's satisfied. NBC's getting exactly what it needed to make the Leno experiment work: minimal numbers at minimal cost. Jay Leno doesn't need to win the time period to make the dollars add up for NBC. As Jeff Bercovici wrote on DailyFinance last month:
"The thing to keep in mind is that Leno doesn't have to do big ratings to earn its keep. As NBC has said over and over again, the show is so cheap to produce in comparison to a scripted hour-long drama, it can come in third, as Brill and others expect it to, and still generate nice profits for parent company NBC Universal."
So I repeat what I've been saying about NBC for months now about the new normal between the network and its stations: they're just not into you. Jay Leno's show is all about what works best for NBC, and has absolutely nothing to do with delivering any kind of worthwhile audience to NBC stations for one of the most important half hours of the day.
NBC can still make money despite losing a third of its audience at ten. Can you?
Rescue Me: Local News Reporters Trapped Inside a Burning Business Model
Every now and then, somebody finds a way to bring a fresh perspective to something that up to that moment, you thought was pretty well explained already.
We all know that local news models, both broadcast and print, are collapsing, right? And we're pretty much in agreement that what comes next has yet to be fully understood. Who, we wonder, will pay us to report the news?
Clay Shirky steps up today with an insightful experiment that clears the decks and gives us a new way of looking at just what we truly need to save in local news. Save the local paper? Not exactly. Shirky says save the reporters.

Clay Shirky
Shirky was thinking about the high cost of "saving" a local paper--even one in a smaller city with a smaller workforce. His hometown paper has 59 names on the masthead, and he thought at first glance that's a lot of people to support for a future news model like nonprofit. At least it was until he started sifting through the paper (literally cutting it to shreds) in search of the news:
"I then cut up each page, labeling every piece in two separate ways. The first label was about content: News, Ads, and Other (opinion columns, sports, crosswords, and the rest.) The only judgement call was an article in the sports section about a judge’s ruling in the Major League Baseball steroids case; I put that in the News pile; the rest of sports went in Other."
Result? The hometown paper was a bit of a bait and switch: local news written by local reporters on the front and back page, and filler, fluff, ads and AP stories covering all the pages in between:
"The Trib seems to realize the importance of local reporting to their readers. The outside of the paper (front and back page of section A) was all local bylines and no wire service news, while the inside had not one local news byline. (Local opinion, yes. Local sports, doubly yes. Locally reported news? No.) The local reporters were (expensive) lures, put on the outside of a product that included none of their work, and lots of the AP’s, on the inside pages."
Boiled down and sliced up, the paper had the work of six local reporters--which turns out to be the entire "reporting" staff of the paper. So, in a sense, "saving" local news vis a vis that paper means saving six jobs, not sixty. And hypothetically (I do speak from some experience here, as a newly-hired community supported journalist) that is something a nonprofit formula could manage, if the community truly wants to keep local news reporters on the beat covering their town.
Shirky argues the six reporters, along with six more employees (editors and such--must we really save the editors?) would be the folks to rescue: "what’s needed for a non-profit news plan to work isn’t an institutional conversion, it’s a rescue operation. There are dozen or so reporters and editors in Columbia, Missouri, whose daily and public work is critical to the orderly functioning of that town, and those people are trapped inside a burning business model. With that framing of the problem, the question is how to get them out safely."
This experiment could be easily applied to local television. On a half-hour newscast, how many stories are really news, and how many are truly local? Strip the fluff and filler away, and how many people do you need to do that work? In your station, who should we rescue?
Why Killing Local TV Sports is a Bad Idea
I'll admit I've come around on this one.
As the belts started tightening months and months ago, news reporters like me just shivered and felt thankful when the managerial reaper walked through the newsroom and into the sports office. It seemed a natural, even easy way to slice and dice. Who could really justify the expense of a local sportscast that was essentially nothing but highlights and the occasional local sports feature?
Certainly news directors from coast to coast saw sports as a good way to reclaim some bucks without too much heartache, and they swung the axe on sports producers, photogs, reporters and even the biggest anchors of them all, like Len Berman at WNBC.
The age-old argument has been: ESPN means there's no need for local sports on TV. If anyone's really interested in sports, the thinking goes, then they're already watching ESPN, not you. And a "sportscast" that runs perhaps two minutes on the best of days? Why bother?
Add ESPN's much-discussed plans to go local, and it seemed the age of "let's go to the videotape" on the 11 o'clock news was nearing an end.

Eric Deggans
But then I read Eric Deggans' really brilliant column this week, and I realized we had it all wrong. Sports coverage is something that local TV used to, and can again, do better than any national sportscast, and better than most other media. Encouraging news directors to innovate at a time of chaos and cutback (what? innovate now?) may be asking a lot, as Deggans admits: "This may be the equivalent of recommending renovations on a house in the path of a California wildfire. But here are my ideas on a few ways to invigorate, rather than depreciate, local sports TV segments."
And his 7 point plan is smart. From breaking actual sports news (instead of handing non-fluff sports news to general assignment reporters), to developing full-sized, high-powered local sports websites and aggregating the massive potential of local sports bloggers, these ideas really got me thinking.
Am I hopelessly naive thinking that local news could bring back sports and start playing it as a strength?

