IP: [OpenDTV] Lessons for Broadcasters from the WTC/Pentagon Bombings

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> To: OpenDTV Mail List <openDTV () topica com>
> From: John Willkie <jwillkie () digitalspotnews com>
>
> Sender: For the last few weeks, I've been taking notes of what 
> broadcasters should have learned, and I believe have learned from the 
> terrorist bombings of the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon 
> in Arlington, VA.
>
> 1.  Over the Air Broadcasting Rules!
>     Before the blasts at the WTC, WCBS-TV's evening news was usually 
> trumped in the ratings by Spanish-language news casts.  After the blast, 
> as they were for a while the only VHF station broadcasting in the market 
> (at standby facilities) their ratings "skyrocketed."  Even in a highly 
> cabled market like NYC, with cable customers having access to the same 
> signals as usual, OTA made the difference.  Sure, many of these viewers 
> were variable and many would soon dry up.  But, considering the multitude 
> of signal sources on cable (news 12, NY1, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, FNC, etc) 
> covering the crisis, CBS's massive ratings jump must be a grim milestone 
> for broadcasters to ponder at the verge of a commercial DTV transition.
>
> 2.  Multicasting Works
>    The Viacom model, right after the blast, was to plaster CBS News 
> content over all of their available channels, including UPN, CMTV, VH-1, 
> MTV, etc.  With no increase in information.  To a certain extent, this 
> was the model followed by ABC vis a vis ESPN, and Fox with their multiple 
> channels.  Call it mimeo broadcasting.  Maybe it made sense, as nobody 
> was watching anything else.
>
> For a day or so after the blast, this largely was the model followed by 
> GE.  Then, in the second day after the blast, they changed course:  Tom 
> Brokaw was on the NBC feed, while CNBC and MSNBC used their own anchors, 
> and some of the reporters from NBC, for their own specialized or 
> additional coverage.  I'm not sure what MSNBC's model really is (tech 
> news?  taking MS money?) but these three networks provided complimentary 
> coverage that largely was not available elsewhere.  And, they used the 
> crisis to exert individual identities of their channels.  Now, if they 
> only had an operation for acquiring and understanding news from outside 
> the borders of the USA ...
>
> 3.. Single Stick Broadcasting Saves Money (most of the time)
>    We've heard on this list and elsewhere that the big stick model of US 
> broadcasting is dead, and proponents say that it works in the US and 
> saves money over the way others do it.  I believe that the current 
> situation will prove otherwise.  Contemplate what CBS's giant ratings 
> boost will do for them when there is a future similar 
> crisis.  Contemplate how much money was saved over the last 30 years 
> since WTC stations went on-line (by not keeping back up 
> facilities.)  Then, calculate how much money the stations will lose in 
> money (not to calculate prestige) in the next three or four (or more 
> years) because of using minimal facilities.  My seat of the pants 
> synopsis is that they lost much more in money than they saved.  Of 
> course, if advertising rates to to 1970 levels ...
>
> Then, try to figure out where stations will broadcast from, if as appears 
> to be the current sentiment, if the WTC is not rebuilt.  One of the many 
> advantages of the WTC was the tremendous reach of the stations (more than 
> 100 miles in my experience) and the single location of the VHF's in the 
> market, easing tuning problems.
>
> Also, since the topic is DTV, contemplate using a dozen or more locations 
> for the existing NYC tv stations to broadcast DTV signals.  Perhaps the 
> single stick model is dead.
>
> 4.  Every station that presents news needs a backup transmitter 
> site.  Cartoons -- and stations that are off the air -- are irrelevant in 
> a crisis.  Will the future have more such events than the past 30 years, 
> or fewer?
>
> 5.  Acqiescing to Government Programs is no guarantee of Commercial Success.
>    On September 11, 2001, at least 19 persons were able to take over four 
> US commercial jet liners, despite the institution of FAA-mandated 
> screening programs at all airports.  The airlines did "everything they 
> were required to do by law" and yet guys armed with box cutters were able 
> to take over jets and crash them into two buildings.  American Airlines 
> was insured for $1.5 billion per building; they are essentially bankrupt 
> as the damages for the WTC is right now estimated to be $18 billion, and 
> AA does not have $15 billion in the bank.  United Airlines had similar 
> coverage, yet not enough to cover the crash at the Pentagon.  (Flying 
> planes create significant -- and until recently -- unrealized exposure.)
>
> These two companies will only be able to survive -- if at all -- if they 
> are granted some form of drastic relief by the government.  When that 
> comes up, ALL ASPECTS OF THE AIRLINES' BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL PRACTICES 
> will be up for grabs.  (Nice touch, AA, furlougihing 20,000 employees and 
> after the bill was signed by the president to put $800 million into your 
> coffers, telling the furloughed employees that there would be no severance 
> pay.  That will cost you in the long run, but I suspect you're not engaged 
> in the long run at this time.)
>
> The ATSC transmission system, you might recall, was mandated by the 
> government.  It is not hard to imagine that the future of TV broadcasting 
> in the US will, at some point in the future, be subjected to the same 
> political process.  (Who remembers the NAB/MSTV "vote" and still thinks it 
> was taking the long-range view?)
>
> 6.  Very few local stations can be trusted to not step over important 
> national coverage for local foolishness.  Here in San Diego, KFMB-TV 8 
> stepped all over the ever-present CBS coverage to present the local 
> angle.  (Which, for all practical purposes, amounted to nil.)  As a 
> result, I've now stopped watching their news for the rest of my 
> life.  McGraw-Hill's KGTV/10/ABC, on the other hand, had a cable news 
> channel on the Cox cable system.  Until Friday evening, they never 
> interrupted ABC's stellar coverage, except once an hour with a :10 (I'm 
> sure this only appeared on sets attached to cable) saying "For local news 
> on the terrorist bombings, please tune to cable channel 15.")  I don't 
> know that the cable channel carried spots, the local angle never attracted me.
>
> 7.  This is related to the OTA rules point, but it's something to 
> contemplate in the cable, NTSC and ATSC world.  Cable subscribers are 
> essentailly a fixed part of your audience.  Each cable subscriber has a 
> wide panopoly of programming sources.  OTA viewers, without the monthly 
> committment, are more variable group, with a much more limited selection 
> of options.
>
> John Willkie
>
> P.S.  Suggestion for broadcasters who feel the need for all their digital 
> signals being carried on cable.  The next time there's a crisis meriting 
> saturation coverage, put all the crisis coverage on of your DTV virtual 
> channels that is not carried by cable.  Run the same old programming on 
> the main (cable carried) channel.  Run a crawl saying: your cable company 
> has declined to carry our crisis coverage because  they want to limit the 
> information available to you.  For more information, call Joe Cable on 
> XXX-XXXX.  "Impossible" carriage will be arranged within 30 minutes, I bet.
>
>
>
> ==^================================================================
> EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: 
> <http://topica.com/u/?bz8QYL.bAeipm>http://topica.com/u/?bz8QYL.bAeipm
> Or send an email To: openDTV-unsubscribe () topica com
> This email was sent to: farber () cis upenn edu
>
> T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
> <http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register>http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
> ==^================================================================------extPart_000_00A8_01C1467B.7B556400-- 



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/