I'm the VJ from the NPPA mag. Any questions?

[verdantFOX]

You're right Dog

It's all over for VJs.

 

[Chicago Dog]

It's all over for VJs.

That's a very predictable response. Why? Because you don't even put up a fight. If you think I'm wrong, at least put some sort of effort into what you believe. You're admitting to my assertiveness by copping out with lame, predictable sarcasm.

Until then, you're absolutely right about me being right.

 

[verdantFOX]

OK, I'll bite...

Dog, your observation about my response to you was both accurate and just as predictable. But hey, I'll give your points a shot.


1. The system was pitched by a "guru" who has no local news experience whatsoever. None.

Answer: MR may be a charlatan, but I don't believe he is without experience. Even if that were the case, sometimes the best innovations come from people with very little direct experience in a particular field. They have the benefit of not having already bought into current systems. In addition, the people at the stations have vast experience in local news. And they are the ones doing it. Still you don't have to be a pilot to design an airplane.


2. Both WKRN and KRON had their staff trained when the OMB/VJ experiment began. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the staff decided to leave after they gave the OMB/VJ system a shot.

Answer: I don't know how many left when. I wasn't there at the time. Neither were you. The people I've run into at KRON said that many bailed before training, some after. Besides, my point in earlier posts was who left when and how many doesn't really matter to management. They'll just get more cheaper or save the money. So it's no indication of ultimate failure and could actually be a benefit in the eyes of management.


3. They were tired of having their asses handed to them by other stations and their own management, proving that only failing management teams would use such a ridiculous set-up.

Answer: Interesting perspective, but I've seen little evidence people having their "asses handed to them" here in SF. The whole market is a quagmire of underperforming self-important media organizations (including mine I might add). KRON's ratings sucked before they began the VJ thing, they suck now. So does every TV station.

WC did mention, however, that he or she was surprised KRON looked as good they did and was complementary about the people who made the choice to VJ. It just wasn't for WC. My observation from watching them is that they suck about the same as everyone here. So they are at least competitive.

WC also mentioned that he or she didn't believe management wanted the VJs to fail and didn't indicate either way that the managers were a particular problem at KRON. Morale seems to be real bad at KRON. And that’s usually a sign of bad management. But WC could expand on that better than I. From what Alex says WKRN sounds like a mess.

So I think your statement is full of unsubstantiated emotional conjecture and proves nothing. It is also typical of too many posts on the subject. Ignore the facts that don't support my strongly held popular opinion.

4. Michael Stoll interviewed Rosenblum (and others) about the OMB/VJ system. Rosenblum denied most of what he was quoted as saying. When Stoll suddenly appeared to back up his article -- well -- I can't say I've ever seen someone backpedal as quickly as Rosenblum did.

Answer: This seems to indicate that Rosenblum is a backpedaling, unreliable, scoundrel. OK, we agree. I think your opinion is backed up by the facts. Well done.

5. Ever since word began trickling in about the OMB/VJ system's impending doom, Rosenblum has disappeared. His own blog is suddenly silent. He tucked tail and ran.

Answer: See answer to #4.

Your case that the VJ thing is already a failure is also weak given the fact that KRON puts on VJ stories every day and there is no indication that will change. I'm not sure why that is so difficult for you to accept? I'm not saying it will succeed, just that it hasn't failed. Yet. But claiming so confidently that it's already dead simply flies in the face of reality. Give it time. I'm prepared to keep an open mind. Are you?

 

[Chicago Dog]

Dog, your observation about my response to you was both accurate and just as predictable.

Accurate, yes. Predictable, no. Called you on it, yes.

1. The system was pitched by a "guru" who has no local news experience whatsoever. None.

Answer: MR may be a charlatan, but I don't believe he is without experience.

From the News Photographer magazine follow-up OMB/VJ article, written by Karin Schwanbeck:

Lucas says his complaint about Rosenblum is that he has never worked in a newsroom and he doesn't understand the daily grind.

Still you don't have to be a pilot to design an airplane.

This is an incredibly poor analogy. Aerospace engineers still must understand the dynamics of flight.

2. Both WKRN and KRON had their staff trained when the OMB/VJ experiment began. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the staff decided to leave after they gave the OMB/VJ system a shot.

Answer: I don't know how many left when. I wasn't there at the time. Neither were you.

Do you read anything Alex Lucas is writing? He's there with first-hand knowledge.

3. They were tired of having their asses handed to them by other stations and their own management, proving that only failing management teams would use such a ridiculous set-up.

Answer: Interesting perspective, but I've seen little evidence people having their "asses handed to them" here in SF.

From this thread:

They should have learned their lesson. You can't make a one man band arrive late, fight with a live double crew every day, and then yell at them about the other guys superior live product, and expect them to stay.
One man just can't carry the world on his shoulders, while the bosses sit around and call themselves innovators in the press.

How is WKRN going to be any different from KRON? Same ownership. Same management style. Same "innovative" system. Why is a "quagmire of underperforming, self-important media organizations" used as base-of-reference? Better yet, how can you aptly say the OMB/VJ system will do well when you associate it to looking up-to-par with "underperforming, self-important media organizations?"

... they suck about the same as everyone here. So they are at least competitive.

Do you realize you've just disproved your entire argument with that conflicting idea?

... he or she was surprised KRON looked as good they did ...

Sorry to say, but that's not a compliment. That's like getting beaten in a sporting event and saying, "Well, at least we didn't lose by a landslide."

So I think your statement is full of unsubstantiated emotional conjecture and proves nothing. It is also typical of too many posts on the subject. Ignore the facts that don't support my strongly held popular opinion.

Hmm... nope. Once again, did you read any of Lucas' posts? I'm honestly curious. Have you been following this topic at all lately?
I won't bother going over the rest of your response, because we agree on those points.

Your case that the VJ thing is already a failure is also weak given the fact that KRON puts on VJ stories every day and there is no indication that will change.

When someone's fleeing from the LAPD on four flat tires throwing sparks from the rims, do you honestly think they've still got a chance of evasion? Know how they better their chances of getting away from the cops? They ditch the car.

Let me say that again: they ditch the car. Get it?

I'm not sure why that is so difficult for you to accept?

What's there to accept? The OMB/VJ system may not be an absolute failure yet, but it's definitely circling the drain. That's undeniable fact.

 

[WestCoast]

I want to clarify a few things from my previous post:

WC also mentioned that he or she didn't believe management wanted the VJs to fail and didn't indicate either way that the managers were a particular problem at KRON. Morale seems to be real bad at KRON. And that’s usually a sign of bad management. But WC could expand on that better than I. From what Alex says WKRN sounds like a mess.

Although I said earlier that I didn't believe that management WANTED us to fail, I do believe that they EXPECTED many of us to fail. In fact, they NEEDED some of us to fail. They had said all along that they needed to cut staff.

Both WKRN and KRON had their staff trained when the OMB/VJ experiment began. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the staff decided to leave after they gave the OMB/VJ system a shot.

Many of them didn't have a choice. For some it was a great opportunity. For others it was either give VJ a shot or lose your job. A good example of this is the editors at KRON were told that their jobs were going to be eliminated. The only option they had was to take the severance or sign up for VJ training.

For me it was a no brainer. Why not take the training and get paid for it. I had nothing to lose. But if I was going to do it, I was at least going to give it 100%. And I was lucky. I was able to secure freelance work before I left.

WC did mention, however, that he or she was surprised KRON looked as good they did.

Chicago Dog was right. That was not a compliment.

My observation from watching them is that they suck about the same as everyone here.

I don't agree with that. I don't think they do as good a job as the other stations in the market. I don't think they have the resources. It's unfortunate because they have some talented people on their staff.


I don't want to attack Verdant Fox. I don't agree with everyting he wrote but I think he brought up a good point. My former chief photographer called me up to ask about our set-up, what gear we used and how our stories were filed. This is not a station on the edge of bankruptcy. This is a station where the management has always placed emphasis on quality in storytelling and photography. The fact that they are testing this out says alot to me.

 

[telestar]

New Chapter Written for the WKRN VJ's

I spoke with a WKRN VJ last night. Apparently management held a meeting with them regarding a change in their pay.

Good news: they all recieved a "very small" raise.

Bad news: they are all exempt employees from now on.

In short, no more Overtime for WKRN VJ's.

 

[Baltimore Shooter]

Pretty soon, there won't be anyone at WKRN to run cameras, VJs or real Cameramen. Then management will have to figure out how to shoot. Won't that be funny.

Warren

 

[Dink]

Oh, please.

Pretty soon, there won't be anyone at WKRN to run cameras, VJs or real Cameramen. Then management will have to figure out how to shoot. Won't that be funny.

That won't happen. They'll just move to the next stage in this process: hiring 22 year olds with no experience. Isn't that what we've all been saying would happen?

I read your other rant. I think you're right. You need to plan to get out. There's still considerable money to be made for you for the next few years, but you need to start planning for your exit now, while business is still good.

I know I am. When the last lines fall, I don't intend to be stuck with no other skills but those of a teevee cameraman.

 

[AlexLucas]

Hey, I'm back for a second.

Okay, I have been hearing a lot of the counterarguments about what management thinks, and I have a response to this:

1. WKRN did this because it felt it was losing. This was not a "changing the way we do television" thing. That was a big ribbon on the box that says 'cutbacks' on the inside. Even my fellow ex-Vj from KRON said that the station needed to cut people (and apparently, as KRON was not the source of this 'brilliant VJ epiphany of news,' they were more honest with what was going on, in my humble opinion) The real reason (IMHO again) of why it was losing was that it had management issues, that stemmed from the fact that they were disengenous to the staff about what they were doing. The sign on the walls said, "News 2," but the heart of the organization said, "we're only doing news because multiple shows make money out of the same stories, and we'll cut if we can." That in itself is a losing attitude. The moment that you say, "well, we can cut and lose money on this daypart," is the moment you've admitted defeat. That was where the losses were really coming from.

2. How many times do I have to say that the pressures of speed, and carrying multiple hats broke the system? It is regular news to the third power in intensity. This is not about storytelling, this is about reducing staff. Period. This is not about anything but money.

MONEY. MONEY. MONEY.

I am sorry to get so pedantic about it. I don't want to appear to be rude, but as a person that did the job as a VJ, with first hand experience, I just know it was about the money. I also believe that the managers, if given a choice, would have not done this if they knew this was going to happen. They would like their old ratings back, thank you very much.

There is a long history of one man bands, and not one successful story about them. Anderson Cooper might look like he's the media guru with a minicam, but the truth is, he isn't.
Every time the camera dynamic shifts, you get turkeys for a little while until it sorts itself out. Examples?
-When 3/4" Umatic came out, they believed that they could get rid of the photog. They really didn't do that. Television looked better, so there was more of a demand for it, and good photographers as well.
-Then the Camcorder came out. Hey, now that they don't have to carry that deck around! Let's get rid of the photographer! As you can see, that didn't work.
-Now the cameras are small, and they're just as complex as they used to be, and the skillset has not changed, just the buttons. They are trying the same old game that they tried when film got sound, when Umatic really replaced film, when camcorders replaced bulky decks, and now when the cameras are just getting smaller and a little lighter.

Nothing has changed. Picasso didn't have crayolas. If he did, it wouldn't have mattered. I had crayolas, but I didn't end up as Monet or Warhol. The technology helps, but it doesn't shoot it for you. The electronic keyboard explosion in the 80's just proved that not everyone was good at playing keyboards. Technology never takes away the pressures and the impact of good storytelling. The camera never walks itself out there and shoots the story for you.

Sure, the little cameras look absolutely phenomenal for the price. There's no doubt. They look as good as Beta when you step them down. When you go all HD, that is really where they shine.

Still, you get what you pay for.
The glass is terrible. TEERRRIIIBBLLE.
If you really know your cameras, that lens alone should be enough right there to make you scream and run away like a little girl.
Mine was plastic. Think about any piece of equipment on your camera that is plastic. Think how many times you've had to replace it.
The lenses, for the most part, are internal. Mistake. If you buy a six thousand dollar minicam, you really should learn to at least focus by hand. Period. I don't have any idea why they would think that not knowing how to roll focus was something of an issue.

Most of these MiniDV HDV cameras are poorly laid out to almost tragic levels. A lot of them have terrible viewfinders. Holy crap, a viewfinder that could find focus? In a camera? Why the hell would they make a camera that you can't find focus on? Why in the hell would you really do that? No. SERIOUSLY. They have no sense of design, and they are harder to shoot on. That's right. They are harder to shoot on. I said it. I had one for months, and I could never get the buttons right, because the ones I needed, I couldn't access. If I wanted to adjust the audio? No pots, no sliders. Go to the internal menu. Not funny in the middle of an interview.

Look, all I am saying is that given the best circumstances, the VJ is already at a disadvantage, just with the camera.
Add the pressures, and it just doesn't work. If you really need a lesson on this, look up C5, NY1, most tiny bureaus, and a lot of other places that thought that this was a great idea.

Here's the good news guys. They're not coming for your jobs. Trust me on this. If they do want to go VJ, just make your tape, and give everyone else a hug, and quietly move on to another pasture.

 

[AlexLucas]

That won't happen. They'll just move to the next stage in this process: hiring 22 year olds with no experience. Isn't that what we've all been saying would happen?

That's a good point, but let me tell you this. There will always be photogs.

I always could, have, and easily will beat the living hell out of a 22 yr old on a story. Give me a VJ cam. Give the 22yr old a double crew. Give me half the time. I will beat them resoundingly every day. Experience counts. It always does, it always will.

What you have missed is that the stations across the street have had their numbers go steadily up as the audience has fled WKRN in the last two years. WTVF has been successful with the demise of the station across the street, and so have others, however, my current employer caught a lot of loyal WKRN watchers. You could actually watch the erosion on a monthly basis. The management kept saying that it was being stolen by cable, and whatever. It was being lost, and taken by the smoother, cleaner, crisper, simpler, well-lit, informative station across the street.

They have been so successful that they actually hired back a full time overnight crew with the new revenue. They don't want to just a majority of the eyes to watch them, they want them all.

Guess who they budgeted with some of that newfound audience money?
Yours truly.

See? Quality counts in free television. All the audience has to do is hit the button. That means the best can really win, and win big.

Photogs are not going anywhere. Photography tools are changing, that is all. Once again, the cameras do not "practically take care of themselves," as many people claim they do.

 

[Baltimore Shooter]

The management kept saying that it was being stolen by cable, and whatever. It was being lost, and taken by the smoother, cleaner, crisper, simpler, well-lit, informative station across the street...See? Quality counts in free television.

Oh no! Say it ain't so!!! Quality doesn't matter anymore! People WANT to see grainy, shaky, out of focus, poorly lit, over modulated and pointless stories. They think that's the coolest! Rosenblum is gonna come over there and kick your ass!

Warren

 

[Dink]

Sorry Alex, you're missing an important point.

Alex, you're absolutely right that other stations will be reluctant to try the full blown Rosenblum experiment. But that's not how it will happen.

Remember when a newscast moved at a comfortable pace? Packages were 2:00 and live shots were only used on the important stories that warranted them. Then consultants convinced news directors to pick up the pace, and slowly, second by second, the news got faster. Packages got shortened to 1:45. Then 1:30. Then 1:15. Now many stations won't allow packages more than a minute long, because the managers think they need higher story counts. At the same time, live shots were multiplying the same way, little by little.

That's how the VJ revolution will take over the local news business: in increments. You already see KUSA and other allegedly quality-driven stations advertising for "backpack journalists," which are the same thing as VJs. The guy from KRON said the system is working well in the bureau out there. First you'll see this in more bureaus. Then it will become the norm there. More VJs will start showing up on staff at the main stations. As they take on more stories, the stations will rely on them more. Managers at larger stations will start looking for people from smaller stations with VJ experience on the reel.

Will it completely take over? No. But an increasingly larger portion of the newscast will be produced by "backpack journalists" until some sort of equilibrium is achieved. They'll keep the shooters they need to get the product on the air, but they won't keep more than they need. And as they adjust their working methods to make the most efficient use of the VJs, they'll need fewer and fewer shooters.

So what about the quality? Viewers demand quality, right? Well, yes, but not if they don't realize the quality is eroding. If it's done gradually, viewers will come to accept the lower quality as normal, just as they have with shorter packages and lower quality journalism. Throw a frog in pot of boiling water, and he'll try to jump out; put him in cold water and heat it slowly, and he'll stay there 'til he dies.

But what about the stations that demand quality? Think about what you've seen in this business. Have the "quality" stations really been able to resist the temptation to compete with the other stations running at lower budgets? I have personally seen stations that five years ago wouldn't have put a one man band in their bureaus end up with reporters shooting from their main stations, just because the other guys in town were able to get a product on the air cheaper. These smaller cameras just make the transition harder to resist, because a GM who came from sales sees the small camera and thinks it must be easier to use.

These VJ experiments failed in large part because Rosenblum tried to change the whole system all at once. I guaran-damn-tee you that there are news managers all over this country who are still looking at this as a possibility, but on a limited scale. They see that a full scale revolution is impossible, but that it might work for one or two reporter positions in the station. That's what KUSA is doing. Next year it'll be two or three positions. The year after that, three or five.

And THAT's how they'll get us. As more reporter positions are filled with VJs, there will be fewer positions for us (unless we want to apply for those VJ slots) and fewer positions elsewhere for us to move into. I am NOT a VJ supporter in the least. But I can see the writing on the wall.

Enjoy your jobs while they last, folks. But don't be surprised when they no longer exist.

 

[NYC Street]

[Q] an increasingly larger portion of the newscast will be produced by "backpack journalists" until some sort of equilibrium is achieved. [/Q]

I doubt that. The bean counters have occasional temporary wins, but this experiment has failed so many times over that - absent a financial disaster like Young Broadcasting - it seems unlikely that GMs and NDs will adopt this. Remember, these guys succeed when their stations succeed. No VJ station in this country has *ever* been a financial success... and though you may see the occasional one man feature reporter, I suspect mid to major market television will let this die, unless there's an unlikely major change in human abilities, allowing one to perform simultaneous multiple functions in multiple locations.

KUSA seems to the first intelligently designed attempt to make any of this work - but it will still break down the moment the one man band is the closest guy to the major breaking story...and can't begin to handle the assignment on his own.

 

[formernews2er]

From what Alex says WKRN sounds like a mess.

in the interest of fairness, i'd like to mention that WKRN was a BIG mess LONG before Rosenblum rode into town...he just tightened the screws

 

[Baltimore Shooter]

So what about the quality? Viewers demand quality, right? Well, yes, but not if they don't realize the quality is eroding. If it's done gradually, viewers will come to accept the lower quality as normal, just as they have with shorter packages and lower quality journalism. Throw a frog in pot of boiling water, and he'll try to jump out; put him in cold water and heat it slowly, and he'll stay there 'til he dies.

They HAVE noticed the quality eroding. Why do you think viewership (read: ratings) have been declining in local news for many years. How do you think so many people are turning to the web for even thier local news? It's not "because the web is there", it's because the quality of news has been eroding, talking viewers with it. And of course, it's NEVER the NDs and GMs fault. They have to blame it on the web, newspapers, the bums on the street, the weather, anything but them. So what do they do? Hire a CONsultant and the cycle repeats itself.

Warren

 

[Dink]

The bean counters have occasional temporary wins, but this experiment has failed so many times over that - absent a financial disaster like Young Broadcasting - it seems unlikely that GMs and NDs will adopt this.

It has failed when the stations have attempted to replace everyone with VJs all at once. You can't really say it has failed one by one, because there are those who have made it work, and there are stations that are trying to make it work on a small scale without risking the whole operation on it.

As you say, these individual VJs won't be able to compete with two man crews on real breaking news. But the stations will keep pushing, very slowly, to see how much they CAN get out of VJs. They'll reach an equilibrium. It will happen slowly enough that the ratings won't erode as fast as the costs. Other GMs will see that the station across town is doing the same amount of news with fewer people and not really taking a loss in the ratings, and they'll feel the pressure to do the same thing to compete financially. When they succumb to that pressure and add VJs to their own staffs, they'll become less competitive. That will in turn make the entire market less competitive. When it's less competitive, the first station doesn't have to be as competitive and can respond to more real news with VJs. At that point the equilibrium shifts, and they can get rid of another photog in favor of a VJ.

There will always be photogs and two man crews. There will just be fewer of them.

Driving this in large part is the continued oversaturation of the market with news. There just aren't enough viewers to support four, five or six news operations in many markets. Most markets really only need three, four at most. With everyone fighting for the same viewers AND the same advertising dollars, cutting costs will become increasingly important. The smaller stations will go with VJs to keep from having to cut news altogether. The larger stations will see the economic benefit and the "success" of it on the small scale, and will add a few VJs to try it out. Once the process is started, it will progress slowly and steadily toward that equilibrium I mentioned.

It'll probably be a long time before it happens in YOUR market, NYC, because the unions and the "that's-the-way-we've-always-done-things-around-here" mentality won't let it happen as quickly. It also won't be necessary, because there's a lot more money where you are. But in the smaller markets it has already started.

Rosenblum has it all wrong, but for the wrong reasons. He thought he could force the issue with an all or nothing approach that would make him a lot of money. There's no money in it for him if it has to happen gradually. That's the real reason we're not hearing from him any more. He's not ashamed of his failure. He just doesn't see an opportunity to make money here.

 

[2gigch1]

Sadly, so sadly, the most important ingredient in all the formulae for success discussed here is the talent of the staff, the very thing that no manager, accountant or consultant can quantify. Give me a talented two person crew and give them an RCA VHS camcorder and a flashlight and I guarantee they will beat the pants off a rookie with the latest HD equipment.

And no I'm not trying to start and equipment based flame war; I'm saying it takes talent to do the job well, and unfortunately many in the upper tiers of management do not understand what makes a crew work well and produce.

I know management doesn't know that when the elusive comptroller suddenly walked in the room while I was at rest my experience and abilities had my camera from dead cold slung across my back to rolling in five seconds and the skill of my reporter and I together, unspoken, blocked him from moving and we grabbed the exclusive interview of the day; beating eight other crews in town.

No, they noticed it was blueish for the first soundbite since the room had a heavy outdoor light intrusion, and I opted to wait for the first soundbite to complete before correcting it (I could easily fix it on the Avid later) so as not to interrupt the flow.

In a darkened corner office someone will note that a prosumer camera with auto trace white balance would have eliminated the errors of the idiot cameraman while saving a significant amount of money!

In other places folks look at their budgets and see charges for missed meals and other issues; overtime, overnight, short turn - and decide it would bode well to eliminate such costs. After all, you work in news, right? You should expect such things. You can get a sandwich on the road, between shoots, it's easy. You field crews have it easy.

Our profession is changing; the cost of people is one of the highest costs in any business anywhere - where do we trim? Anchors? The public expects to see the regulars. Reporters? The backbone, no not there. Producers? We see them every day, we know how hard we push them, no we've already cut them too far. Photogs? Hmmm, let's see....

Really I'm not trying to whine here, but like many of you I have a mortgage, three kids, bills to pay and I do not have high hopes for my future. I understand it is the nature of business; they must do what they must do.

And so must I.

 

[Chicago Dog]

in the interest of fairness, i'd like to mention that WKRN was a BIG mess LONG before Rosenblum rode into town...he just tightened the screws

From what I gather, people here don't like Rosenblum not because they feel as if he's after their jobs, but because he's cocky in the face of inevitable failure. Watching him drone on and on about how this system works in Sweden and how "it's only a matter of time" was really quite frustrating.

But, yes. He did tighten the screws, especially on himself with that "Messiahs don't come cheap" line. What a joke.

It has failed when the stations have attempted to replace everyone with VJs all at once. You can't really say it has failed one by one, because there are those who have made it work, and there are stations that are trying to make it work on a small scale without risking the whole operation on it.

I think you're missing the point here.

It fails at stations because it's an inept model -- not because the employees are inept. I work with plenty of talented people in a top-rated newsroom. We're all two-man teams. Do I see our numbers tanking if the VJ system were implemented? Yes. Inversely, do I see numbers of the #2 - #4 stations not getting any better if they try it? The answer is also yes.

It doesn't fail at other stations for two reasons:

1. Small markets tend to use them every once-in-a-while.

I was actually hired at my first job to eliminate a OMB. That's right -- the job was outsourced from a OMB to a photog so the OMB could concentrate on reporting.

2. Small markets don't make their entire stations OMB/VJ.

It's true small markets may have a few (read: few) number of OMBs. The two OMBs at my old station were in the bureaus. The stations' finances (read: finances) did not allow for a photog to be hired for a spot in the bureau.

So, in the words of Alex Lucas:

This is not about anything but money.

MONEY. MONEY. MONEY.

I'm still in awe that supporters of a system that's proven nothing but failure actually exist.

 

[Baltimore Shooter]

This was in an article on Broadcasting & Cable's website regarding the increase in indedpendent TV stations in the last couple of years:

"One high-profile exception is Young Broadcasting's KRON San Francisco. After decades as a strong NBC outlet, the station lost its affiliation in 2001. As an indie, KRON beefed up to 8½ hours of local news a day and bought Dr. Phil, but KRON's ratings are well below those of its days as an NBC outlet. And its share of market revenue has dropped from 21.8% in 2001 to 8.7% in 2004, according to BIA Financial. A KRON executive did not return a call for comment."

Warren

 

[Dink]

I think you're missing the point here.

It fails at stations because it's an inept model -- not because the employees are inept.

No, I'm afraid you're the one missing the point. I never said anything about the failure having anything to do with inept employees. What I said was that the system failed at these two stations because it will not work as a comprehensive replacement for the current system.

Suppose for a moment that station management suddenly said, "EVERY story now has to be live. EVERY one. NO exceptions." It wouldn't work, right? To turn every single story with a live shot, including packages, VOs and VOSOTs, would generate such a burden that it would immediately fail.

However, consider what has actually happened over the years with live shots in most markets. Once upon a time they were only used for the most important stories. Consultants then convinced managers that stories seem more important when the reporters are live. So managers started trying to force more live shots into the shows. They didn't make every story live. But they crammed as many damned live shots into the shows as their current staffing model could accommodate. Eventually they established an equilibrium, where the number of live shots forced into the shows equals the number of live shots physically possible given the level of staffing and equipment the station has.

It's easy to see that an "all live" system would fail. It's easy to see that an "all VJ" system will fail. But if you open your eyes, it's also easy to see that in both cases a limited restructuring of the system WILL work, or at least won't fail in a sufficiently spectacular manner as to make the managers realize it has eroded their quality and viewership. As the cost benefit outpaces the loss in viewers, the net effect will look like a success to the MBAs running the show.

Do I see our numbers tanking if the VJ system were implemented? Yes. Inversely, do I see numbers of the #2 - #4 stations not getting any better if they try it? The answer is also yes.

The numbers might tank if you tried to replace your entire system with VJs. If it's done gradually, the way it is already happening, the ratings numbers won't be eroded as quickly as salary expenses.

It doesn't fail at other stations for two reasons:

1. Small markets tend to use them every once-in-a-while.

* * *

2. Small markets don't make their entire stations OMB/VJ.

It's true small markets may have a few (read: few) number of OMBs. The two OMBs at my old station were in the bureaus. The stations' finances (read: finances) did not allow for a photog to be hired for a spot in the bureau.

In both cases above, you're actually agreeing with me and don't realize it. In regard to #1, you're right, stations do use VJs sparingly, for now. But the point is that they're actually using them. As they learn how to use them, they'll use them more often. As they use them more often, they'll learn new ways to use them, and the news model we know now will change to make use of the cheaper system.

As for #2, that's exactly why it works at those stations. They DON'T try to make the entire station VJs. That's why WKRN failed. If they had tried, instead, to gradually work up to a combination model, they may have succeeded. As more stations add a VJ or two to their rosters, that style of journalism and television will become more acceptable, and the equilibrium between traditional and VJ crews will be found and exploited to its fullest.

Stations have been using OMB for ages. What makes this different is that there's a perception that the new cameras make the OMB model cheaper and easier. You will not be able to dispel that perception. From a corporate manager's point of view, if a cheaper model is available that will (in their eyes) achieve similar results, why not adopt it, especially when other stations with the reputation of KUSA are doing it on a limited scale?