Posted on 04/28/2008 7:53:35 AM PDT by abb
Decreases in Ads and Viewers Mean Change Is in the Air for Big Three
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- The big three TV network newscasts lost about 1.2 million viewers last year, and advertising on their three big morning news shows fell to an estimated $1.03 billion. The average viewer is 60 years old, and the demographic marketers most want to reach is more likely to be facing a computer screen than a TV screen when the evening news comes on. Collectively, ABC, NBC and CBS's network newscasts lost about 1.2 million viewers in 2007, according to an analysis of Nielsen data by the Project for Excellence in Journalism Collectively, ABC, NBC and CBS's network newscasts lost about 1.2 million viewers in 2007, according to an analysis of Nielsen data by the Project for Excellence in Journalism
Given that rather sobering picture, maybe the discussion shouldn't be over whether Katie Couric will last at CBS through the election. Maybe it should be whether we need network-TV news at all.
None of the networks was even willing to entertain the suggestion that it wasn't completely committed to its evening newscasts, so this isn't a story about how one or the other is about to close down its news division. But the economic incentive to reshape their news departments is pressing.
Collectively, ABC, NBC and CBS's network newscasts lost about 1.2 million viewers in 2007, according to an analysis of Nielsen data by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a 5% drop from the year before. Even the audience for the morning news shows -- the most successful of the news departments' endeavors -- fell for the third year in a row, the PEJ study said, down 2% from the year before, its lowest point since 1999.
Not surprisingly, ad revenue has followed viewers elsewhere. Spending on the three major morning news shows -- ABC's "Good Morning America," NBC's "Today" and CBS's "Early Show" -- fell to about $1.03 billion in 2007 from about $1.05 billion in 2005, according to Nielsen Monitor-Plus. And ad spending on the three major-network evening newscasts tumbled to about $502.8 million from about $538.3 million in 2005.
Target is not at home The audiences advertisers most want to reach -- upper-income consumers between the ages of 18 and 49 -- are still at work, not sitting in front of the tube, when the news comes on. The average age of the evening-news watcher is 60, according to media agency Magna Global.
"The people that you're after, they are not home watching the 5 o'clock news or the 5:30 news or the 6 o'clock news," said Debbie Basham, senior VP-director of negotiation and activation for Interpublic Group of Cos.' Mullen agency, who oversees local ad buying for the firm. "There are a lot of media plans that may not have news on there, because the people you are seeking are not out there."
Networks have already responded to the squeeze. Based on estimates, PEJ believes total network-news staffing declined 10% between 2002 and 2006, with the number of on-air journalists falling 7% and the number of producers off 12%. According to reports, between 100 and 160 employees at various CBS Corp.-owned TV stations recently were laid off as part of an initiative to meet budget requirements; several of those were high-profile on-air news personnel.
As a result, perhaps, subject focus has begun to shift. During the past several years, coverage of international stories has been scaled back, said Andrew Tyndall, whose Tyndall Report analyzes the content of network newscasts. Despite an initial rush to cover the war in Iraq, he said, that focus has begun to trail off. "Iraq has fallen off the radar" as the U.S. presidential campaign becomes a bigger story, he said. "That change, I don't think, is anything that would have happened 20 years ago."
Public-interest obligations Optimism seems in short supply among financial analysts. Sharing news operations in far-flung parts of the world seems increasingly likely, said David Joyce, a media analyst with Miller Tabak & Co. News organizations that can amortize costs by creating stories for a number of outlets are probably best off, said Michael Nathanson, a media analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein. "You would think that NBC has a clear advantage because of their link with MSNBC, and CBS and ABC probably will have a harder time long term finding cost synergies," he said.
Digital technology could give these programs new access to younger crowds -- though it's not clear whether increased efforts in that area would ultimately bolster the economics of news-gathering by network or local-affiliate news departments. The belief is TV networks and stations will deliver news in a broader fashion, in a way that is not as heavily dependent on sitting in front of a screen at a certain time of day.
Even as the web beckons, broadcasters still have an obligation to act in the public interest as part of their licenses to use federally owned broadcast signals. Given the new-media landscape, is it possible the three networks eventually will be able to make the case to the Federal Communications Commission that their news divisions would be more effective on other platforms? Digital opportunities abound, including transmitting content across multiple TV channels and streaming reports online.
"One of the big questions will be: What are broadcasters' public-interest obligations in the digital age?" said Scott Cleland of Precursor Group, a media and technology consultancy.
That issue could be one to argue in the not-so-distant future. "I can say with no hesitation that we will see changes within the network-news paradigm over the next few years," said Debora Halperin Wenger, associate professor of convergence and new media at Virginia Commonwealth University. Those stories aren't just for TV anymore Even as support for their flagship newscasts gradually erodes, networks and local broadcasters are testing ideas designed to harness digital media's potential. Why wait for 6:30 p.m. to roll around when people are getting their news online all day -- and network-branded newscasts can insert themselves into the equation?
NBC News sees a future in distributing content around the clock, whether it be through online video, a blog written by anchor Brian Williams or its flagship newscast. The news-gathering operation has aligned itself so its work can be used by the evening broadcast, MSNBC or digital properties, said Steve Capus, president-NBC News. The operating idea these days, he said, is "bring it in once and use it as many times as humanly possible, and that is how our newsrooms are set up and ... how the business is set up."
At ABC, the news division can point to its "ABC News Now," which delivers news stories of various lengths to TV, the web and mobile devices. In September, the network deployed seven "digital reporters" in various places around the world, said Paul Flavin, senior VP-ABC News, who oversees its digital operations. These reporters may see their stories on the evening newscast but are focused on delivering content for multiple venues.
Digital distribution also means hunkering down more strongly on certain topics, Mr. Flavin said. "We can't be all things to everyone, but we can have the best investigative unit in the business. ... We can bring a level of reportage and quality to entertainment reporting, law and justice, politics."
CBS also sees a chance to try new things, said Sean McManus, president-CBS News and Sports. Streaming live events online has potential, as does soliciting opinion and user-generated content from viewers. Like ABC's Mr. Flavin, however, Mr. McManus sees a healthy future for the traditional evening news and said a big, recognizable network anchor continues to be an important part of the recipe.
The online business, however, is viewed as its own product when it comes to advertising, one that draws a higher cost per thousand given the difference in reach, though ads on the web versions of the news are much less expensive.
Network evening newscasts will go dark after the '08 elections and their news divisions disbanded.
ping
5% drop from the year before
Bet that matches the death rate of their viewing demographic perfectly.
;->
We can always hope. I only watch nutwork news if I am at my grandmother’s house. She is 104 years old.
Is Katie Couric "big" enough?
Is KC recognizable enough?
Or is McManus too myopic?
So what will now emerge as the dominant propaganda arm of the Left?
Someone with a greater grasp of the era may correct me, but my recollection is that the major networks have been running interference for the Democrats, and more broadly, Leftist causes in general, since the late 60’s.
Cronkite’s Tet offensive lies may have been the Sweet Sixteen party, but the overblown Watergate fiasco was the debutante ball.
Precisely. Watergate was a coup d’état by the media.
I can’t believe no one chimed in with an REM parody lyric.
It’s the end of network news as we know it,
And I feel fine.
Considering the outright left wing bias of the networks, it’s hard to feel bad.
As much as we’d like to say that bias is the only thing that is hurting it, new technology including the internet is also part of it.
The loss of superior coverage over the air signals next February will also hurt the networks, but they’re told that the new digital signals are equal to the old. Really, that is only in the flat coastal areas.
And switching over OTA TVs with converters will be such an annoyance that many will say forget it.
That is a very interesting point. I never thought of that before. Any actuaries on this thread?
......So what will now emerge as the dominant propaganda arm of the Left?......
Excellant question. I too would like to know the answer.
It is my understanding that it will be the Blogs. The problem seems to be however that like the ill fated Air America radio network, the rank and file won’t tune in and won’t really follow them with regularity.
I’ve always surmised that the MSM’s reign of cultural terror really started with the 1960 election, when media leaders (mostly leftist to start with) saw that JFK had been elected largely by his TV image.
They realized the real extent of their power and exploited it for all it was worth. Generations of lefties have followed, solidifying 60s “new left” dogma as the default position for the professional media, but their day will soon be over.
“Maybe the discussion should be whether we need network-TV news at all.”
Of course we don’t need that indoctrinating tripe.
This whole thing is insane.
Let’s be honest - who DOESN’T want to hear Diane ‘Sleep Your Way To The Top’ Sawyer bleating at 7 AM about Bazooka Bubble Gum causes schizophrenic episodes or whatever other alarmist nonsense they can come up with?
“maybe the discussion shouldn’t be over whether Katie Couric will last at CBS through the election. Maybe it should be whether we need network-TV news at all.”.....
Network-TV news has become a 1/2 hour each night of a liberal look at everything. It’s boring as hell to get only one side all the time. The networks know they have lost most if not all people on the right and I honestly believe most libs find it a giant yawn!
"And now, for this evening's news, same as last night and every night before that: Iraq bad. Economy bad. Republicans very bad. Bush bad, bad, bad. Blechhh. Feh."
Am I the only person who thought this was just a badly written article? The 1.2 million drop was mentioned three times in the first paragraphs, the revenue drop twice and overall I couldn’t finish the piece. No wonder the MSM is in trouble, their writers are terrible.
Maybe we have a freeper mole at Ad Age who just can’t help but rub it in. We are everywhere you know just ask Dan Rather.
Maybe we have a freeper mole at Ad Age who just can’t help but rub it in. We are everywhere you know just ask Dan Rather.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.