Comments on: Who needs a TV network?

By: Mathew

Mathew — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:30:33 +0000

Thanks for the comment, John. I appreciate you providing some background — and good luck.

By: John Roberts

John Roberts — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:12:18 +0000

I am the C.O.O. of KZSW-TV. We are actually 40 minutes from San Diego. Many of the comments I have read are being made based on assumptions that don’t apply to us. Although we are considered to be part of the L.A. DMA, we have no numbers to sell with. We are a low power station that does not enjoy must carry rules for local cable. We do not sell CPM or CPPor any thing that is related to ratings. We sell results. It has been a long road but you must understand we are the only local TV station in a market of 4 million people. All other local news comes from L.A. stations. Any where else in the country we would be our own major market.
This is called the Inland Empire and includes Riverside and San Bernradino Counties. We use many sources of distribution so viewers who want local news can find it. (Including UHF antenas.) U-Tube has been fun and we hope it has sold a car or two for our clients. We are also on Verizon FiOS who contributes our local news with their fastest growing markets anywhere in the country. We also offer much of our local progamming on our web-site via VOD. When we talk with our advertisers, we show them all of the ways viewers can recieve it. We continue to look for avenues of distribution… where we can include our advertisers commercials. What we offer is local TV news. It is working for us.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:13:15 +0000

Totally, violently agree Michael — especially with the CPM thing, but also with the “because” thing.

By: Michael O'Connor Clarke

Michael O'Connor Clarke — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:59:03 +0000

I agree with Rob’s last comment there – the new hotness of this, if hotness there is, probably exists in “trying to amp up the involvement that people have with the content by applying social media tools to it”.

But I also think that KZSW’s decision could be seen as a good example of what Doc Searls calls the “because effect” – that is, while other people look to make money with something, KZSW in this case may be exploring ways of making money because of something.

Sure, KZSW may be missing out on potential TV ad revenue, and sure they’re most likely going to end up screwing with their CPM – but the experiment is still worthwhile. And CPM is such a crock anyway. It’s a crock upon which an enormous industry has been built, I know, but ’tis no less a crock for a’ that.

Who knows what kind of extra viewership this could generate for them, and what goodness might spring forth from that…?

By: Rob Hyndman

Rob Hyndman — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:41:49 +0000

Well, I take your point, but don’t think it’s right to say it’s identical, actually, and that’s the difference I’m talking about. I think that the right medium to experiment on is still a question of when and how, and that that varies by media, and my point is really that the right approach for one is not necessarily the right approach for the other.

So, TV is defacto a captive audience – captive to the high bandwidth of cable, a large screen, high resolution, stereo sound, and the like – people will for a while still have major attachment to that. I don’t really see a need yet for the hail mary – I agree that it’s coming, but it still seems to me to be way off. So giving your marginal viewers a way to not show up on your Neilsen ratings – or whatever they use – while earning what must really be marginal ad revenue seems very early to me. I certainly get the appeal of trying to amp up the involvement that people have with the content by applying social media tools to it – that sounds very cool, and there could be neat things one could do with programming in that vein – viewer suggestions and feedback, and the like. Maybe that’s a better way to look at it ….