The quality debate

I just posted on the Yahoo newspaper video news group my contribution to what has been a fascinating thread in the continued debate over quality issues, what brings people to newspaper sites, how those sites often hide their video or put it in players that often don't work across platforms, etc.

I thought I'd share my post, for what it's worth:

I find myself torn on the quality debate. On one hand, I have sided strongly on my blog (and in conversations with some newspaper execs) with PF's column on the need to not nickel-and-dime things if you expect to maintain a decent workflow and not burn out your staff.

But I also don't disagree with Howard Owens on his strategy of getting as many point-and-shoot cameras out in the field with reporters as you can.

I think an excellent point was made in an earlier message -- if the industry tries to force it all into a cookie-cutter solution, it's going to muck it up as badly as it has other things.

There clearly is a place for the quick, take-us-to-the-scene, let-us-see-the-person video embedded to or linked to right alongside the story. And there is the place for the produced piece seen in a branded player, perhaps with preroll (that, by god, ought to work in every operating system). The challenge is how to integrate both needs. My fear is that, in the name of economy and efficiency, decisions don't recognize this reality.

Take a look at the video efforts of the paper in Cullman, Ala., for instance. (Also recently featured in E&P .) It's posting through Google Video. You can find everything imaginable that is technically wrong with these. And Cullman is not some isolated outpost where people can't see "quality" TV video.

Yet I will bet you that folks in Cullman aren't going around saying "gee, what problems that video had." They're watching the tanker wreck, the fires, the arrests, the teens at the Wal-Mart parking lot, etc.

The Shelby Star in North Carolina led the way in a lot of this (and see how its video is not hidden - it's right out there on the homepage). And, yes, I was highly critical of some of its early efforts, not so much the efforts but because it appeared that the paper just seemed to decide to throw Jell-O against the wall instead of equipping staff with a modicum of simple training that is easily obtainable (Mindy McAdams also commented based on my post). It seems that remains a problem in parts of the business based on the memo referenced in an earlier post here (on the newspaper video group site).

But Shelby, and Cullman, and Bowling Green -- and others -- are doing it, and learning, and improving, and for their markets, doing it probably much better than some major metro papers or chains.

The bottom line: We really don't know why people will watch a certain piece of video, any more than we really know why some people will skim a story or just scan the headline and others will dive in, even forging past the jump. We can identify factors under theories such as uses and gratifications, but no one really knows what the "trigger" is. If we try to force it all into one solution, we are ignoring the reality that readers/viewers come at us from many perspectives and that getting them to click, read or whatever requires almost as many solutions in this digital age.

A colleague recalled how he recently asked a class of journalism school students (mostly PR and ad majors, but not all) where they watched video. YouTube and similar sites were the answers, not CNN or Fox or newspaper.coms. Didn't it bother them that the quality was poor, etc.? Nope, not a one. They just found the stuff interesting, and that was the most important thing. And it was there when they wanted it and how
they wanted it.

And here's the sobering thing: Most of them classified it as journalism.

Shift to the Web for TV

The Baltimore Sun has an interesting story about the massive shift to Web viewing for many of the TV networks, as well as for local TV news.

The problem with most local TV sites, of course, is that they remain primarily ad and promotion vehicles, not truly innovative news sites (unlike the networks'). But if these numbers continue, that will change.

Of course, it will be interesting to see how things change as Nielsen shifts from page view measurement to total time on site. The Sun article is touting page views. And read a pretty good alternative view that essentially time spent is going to be a lousy measure for any number of reasons.

If it bleeds, it leads ... but does it get viewers?

According to the folks at the Committee of Concerned Journalists, not really. The CCJ's latest "On Background" e-mail has some interesting stats. The essence is below:

We compared viewership data to the content analysis of the 5-year Local TV News Study of 34,000 stories from 2,419 newscasts at 154 stations in 50 markets over five years and found:

Viewers are less interested in being scared, shocked or amazed than they are in being informed.

• The ratings of broadcasts that led with public safety were no better or worse than newscasts that led with less “exciting” topics.


• One in every eight (12%) local news stories focused on subjects or presented information in a way that might shock, scare or amaze viewers. This approach did nothing to improve viewership using any of the measures we examined.


• On the late news, where concern about audience retention is highest, there is no significant statistical link between lead stories that typically feature flashing lights and yellow police tape and the ability of the broadcast to retain audience.


• Having a reporter on the scene of a story was not a factor in retaining or building audience. This is not an indictment of live coverage – but most live shots don’t show news, they showcase reporters. Of the 34,000 stories we deconstructed, live action occurred in 422 stories or 1.2%.

The reason many public safety stories fail to “hook” viewers is because they are basically hollow. When they are more complete, however, they get better ratings.

• Public safety stories did better on the early news than the late news. Early news stories were more complete – more information, sources, context. They were more likely to employ story-telling techniques such as central characters or time lines.


• On late broadcasts, where public safety news is often a late-breaking “incident” (about which few details are known) reporters spent more time vamping – stating the obvious, the irrelevant or, worse, just speculating.


• Half of all crime stories in the study were based on the thinnest kind of attribution – sources mentioned only in passing, anonymous sources, or no sources at all. Another quarter relied on only a single source – for example, a police department’s public information officer.


• A spot news story with three or more sources got a third of a ratings point among households and a quarter of a ratings point among younger viewers more than a spot news story based on anonymous sources or no sources at all.

Yeah, but try selling that to TV stations. I was at a statewide police public information officers' meeting the other day, and one of the panelists asked how many had seen increased contacts from TV newsrooms starting in mid-October, especially requests under the Freedom of Information act. Most of the hands in the room went up.

Of course. It's sweeps month.

Walter Dean, director of broadcast for the CCJ, notes that additional research will be published next year in “We Interrupt This Newscast: How to Improve Local News and Win Ratings, Too,” from Cambridge University Press.