Ofcom / Digital Britain: no solid research on U.S. local news
As everyone knows the issue of local / regional television news provision has been teed-up for a possible resolution in the forthcoming Digital Britain report. Ofcom is also pushing the issue. I heard one of its officials on Steve Hewlett’s media show discussing it today. It also got a bit silly last week.
I’ve always said that anyone looking at the issue of how to best fund / provision high quality local news should undertake comparative U.K. / U.S. research. Why? The U.S. has great local TV news in most communities. Multiple providers (plurality), HD newscasts, helicopters (bigger markets), ultra sophisticted weather RADAR, local sports, live spots at crime scenes, etc. Here’s the great thing: There is no boring debate on how to fund it. For the most part, it’s advertiser funded. It’s just not an issue for most people. Even now, in the depths of the worst economic times since the Great Depression, the local broadcasters do not seem to have appreciably trimmed their coverage of local events (at least in Atlanta, the market where I live).
I raised this issue with Ofcom a few times in its PSB review. I was told (or it was suggested to me, I cannot remember) at some point during the PSB review that Ofcom was going to examine the U.S. experience and see what it can tell us. It was supposed to be addressed in Ofcom’s Sept 2008 Phase 2 report. Ofcom mentioned the U.S. a few times, but it was really summary data and mostly relegated to Annex 12 (here), dealing with Scotland. It wasn’t very robust and it didn’t answer the key question: What explains why local news is flourishing in the U.S. but struggling in the U.K.?
So what would useful comparative research look like?
– I think it would be qualitative in nature
– It would target one or more U.S. markets that are demographically comparable to U.K. markets
– It would involve a content analysis of the local stations’ news output
– It would examine all of the advertising in and around local news
– It would examine other programming in and around local news (including web & network affiliate)
– It would look at the financial perspective (how local news fits into stations’ overall business)
– It would look at headcount, training, technology
– it would be a large research project, but one that could be completed in 6 months
According to Ofcom local TV ad spend in the U.S. is tens times larger per capita than the U.K. I bet ITV would do a lot more local news if they could get ten times the local ad spend! So, let’s get behind that number. What explains it? Market structure? Maybe in part. Are we more local in the U.S.? I doubt that. Do we get more local pizza delivered? Maybe.
One thing is certain: We do have laws and policies that are substantially different. So I would combine this qualitative research with a comparative U.K. / U.S. legal analysis of laws and policies relating to advertising, due impartiality, listed events, media ownership, etc. I suspect most U.S. local stations make the bulk of their money doing things that are otherwise prohibited in the U.K. and/or Europe: political / issue adverts, HFSS adverts, Olympics adverts, pharma adverts, more adverts per hour, news sponsorship, etc. I think people should know the trade-offs involved: How do these laws and policies siphon money away from local news in the U.K.? Are U.K. policy makers making the right trade-offs? Maybe they are, but the relevant facts are not on the table.
The U.K. — over the years and through a series of piece meal decisions — has opted for a legal/policy regime that minimises broadcasting revenue and robust debate in favour of a safe and less commercial television environment that is perceived as more fair. That’s my take. We shouldn’t be surprised that (i) the internet is now the place for robust debate and political discussion in the U.K.; and (ii) television broadcasters are dumping news because it doesn’t pay. Some people claim those developments are inevitable. I disagree.
* * *
Anyway, I think Ofcom usually does a good job of integrating research into policy debates. But in this case, the most compelling story about local / regional news is why it works astoundingly well in the U.S. and why it needs government intervention in the U.K. But all we have is some anecdotal data and the desk research performed by Oliver and Ohlbaum for Ofcom. Shouldn’t Ofcom or the U.K. government undertake much more research before addressing these important questions?
I think so. But it appears as if the U.K. is about to make the really lazy choice to just shift the excess DSO portion of the BBC licence fee over for local news provision, blaming what it thinks are the natural forces of the digital revolution.
Russ, good post, but as mentioned on latest Guardian Media talk USA podcast loval tv stations in the US are not is great shape because advertsing drying up. They point to fact that biggest player in local tv advertising is the car manufacturers – need I say more.
Hey Scott,
I’m sure these stations are under pressure, so I would not expect the Guardian report to be inaccurate. But I think we need actual data from stations, rather than broad industry data or anecdotes. Plus, the advertising will rebound (albeit perhaps not 100%) as the economy rebounds. I think the key is getting behind the numbers and hearing the stories.
Here’s a good newspaper account of how local Atlanta stations are weathering the recession. Look at the second to last paragraph — it says half their profits come from delivering local news. But we are told in the UK that news provision is a money loser. I think we need more research as I outlined.
I think the below shows (sizable) revenue loss and layoffs, but they are adapting pretty well and surely will emerge on the other end. Look at the numbers for news provision — I think they are impressive and very worthy of comparative research:
* * *
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/06/09/tvstations0609.html
‘According to BIA Advisory Services consulting firm, the entire market has been hit hard. Revenues for all Atlanta TV stations —- including the four affiliates —- plunged from $542.8 million in 2007 to $473.6 million in 2008. BIA projects it will dive to $407.3 million in 2009.
The affiliates say they’ve trimmed where they could. ABC affiliate WSB, which is owned by Cox Enterprises, the owner of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reduced its staff by 28 —- the majority of them in the station’s news department —- over the past year, said station general manager Bill Hoffman.
Fox affiliate WAGA cut three from its newsroom. NBC affiliate WXIA and CBS affiliate WGCL confirmed they too have trimmed newsroom payrolls.
Yet none of the stations has reduced its weekly hours of newscasts. Nor, they say, have they altered the style or content of their newscasts, or rolled back their beat coverage.
“In actuality we have focused on more coverage and more live shots,” said Andy Alford, vice president and general manager of WGCL, which has reduced its newsroom staff by 3 percent in the past year while maintaining the 26 hours of news it produces every week.
It’s the same story at WSB, which still cranks out 37 1/2 hours of news a week. WAGA actually added an 11 p.m. newscast last year, and now produces 50 1/2 hours of news a week. WXIA produces a combined 29 hours a week of news for it, and its sister station WATL.
The stations have simply stretched staffs and made cuts elsewhere by reducing crews on some stories and using technology that will, for instance, allow them to do live shots without sending TV trucks.
And last month, WGCL, WAGA and WXIA launched a “test” to pool resources on some stories, such as staged news conferences. They say that frees up crews to pursue other enterprise work while still covering the news conference.
So far, station executives said this week, the test is a success. WSB didn’t join the pool because, Hoffman said, it would make the station’s news division “less independent.”
But WXIA general manager Bob Walker doesn’t see it that way. And stations have to adapt to the changing economics of the TV business.
“It’s clear the economy has permanently reset the bar, and we’re making adjustments,” Walker said.
Now, instead of sending a TV truck with microwave transmitter, he said, the reporter might transmit a story live by using Skype internet technology.
WSB’s Hoffman concedes that doing more with less is a “challenge.”
“Some great stories are happening though, as staff members use the new technologies and work harder and smarter to deliver more content,” he said.
Budd McEntee, news director at WAGA, said viewers still expect news from FOX, irrespective of the station’s declining ad revenues.
“We do news more than anybody else,” he said. “I think Atlanta thirsts for information and I think they thirst for local information, and that’s what we’re about.”
Bob Papper, a Hofstra University media professor who does an annual salary and staff survey of local stations for the Radio Television News Directors Association, said TV stations’ news divisions across the country have reduced their staff on average by 4.3 percent over the past year.
About half of local TV stations’ profits come from their local newscasts (the rest comes from a combination of fees from commercials run on network and syndicated programs). So it only makes sense they stretch staffs instead of shrinking newscasts.
“It’s the epitome of doing more with less,” said Papper.’
[...] (more on the U.S. local news comparison here). [...]
[...] a significant barrier to the creation of more local television and radio broadcasters. As I have said before — it’s a policy choice whether to have more state control over broadcast information or [...]