| ||||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSFor local TV stations, it's not just about TV -- not if they want to grow in the future. But what's the long-term cost for their brands?
Heeding the advice of some Internet consultants, NBC Universal has decided to revamp its local TV station Web sites, dropping call letters and/or channel numbers, reinventing sites as broader-reaching local media portals.
Instead of KNBC.com or WNBC.com, you'll have NBCLosAngeles.com and NBCNewYork.com. NBC already was moving in this direction in renaming its local TV group, NBC Local Media.
The good part of this strategy? NBC believes it should have a broader role in attracting and keeping its savvy TV customers, which will include all sorts of media -- Internet, print, radio, whatever.
That makes sense. So far, TV stations' online efforts have been essentially limited as a promotional tool. Customers and business partners -- online advertisers -- see those Web areas as marketing tool as well, which in the end can be devaluing.
Now the bad: NBC is throwing out some of its long-lived brands, eliminating call letters and channel positions. It will keep around the "NBC" name, however. But what does this mean for WMAQ-TV in Chicago, known as NBC5.com online? Its brand name is basically eliminated online (though it's still evident in Internet searches.
The problem is that getting bigger as a local media player can produce conflicts, or at least new Internet realities. If an NBC TV station's online business really wants to cover its market entirely, it will include some stuff from its competitors.
Many Internet news sites regularly have links to other competitors' stories. (MediaPost, for example, does this all the time). If a CBS affiliate breaks some interesting news, will an NBC Web site offer up a link, and give credit?
NBC believes the name "NBC" and the name of the city are the most important things -- which means a well-earned, long-time local brand name in that city is less valuable.
RSS FEEDS
My opinion is that NBC hopes to weaken the affiliate brand in anticipation of a truly national distribution of signals via some cable/satellite/internet backbone that allows TV commercial insertions -- and bypasses the affiliates. I know that sounds like a conspiracy theory, but hear me out: The number of people who get their signals over-the-air is miniscule. The last figure I read was 88% cable/satellite and 11% over-the-air (1% are the snobs who bore you with their condescending we-don't-even-own-a-tv drivel at cocktail parties). The broadcast networks could more efficiently reach homes without all those electricity-consuming radiating antennae reaching a tiny audience.
With broadband and wired communication, it's not even clear why anyone NEEDS terrestrial broadcasting anymore. Let the government subsidize the multichannel hold-outs with a lifeline service that gives them free cable or satellite access to just the signals that would go dark after a shutdown of TV spectrum. If you look at a spectrum chart, you'll see a HUGE area devoted to TV that 88% of people don't use. Sell that spectrum to the cell phone companies and other TRULY mobile services. I believe it's a poor use of resources to devote so much bandwidth to so few people.