The future of the TV News tease, and lessons from outside TV
The guys at 602 Communications are the best I've seen at teaching people to write effective newscast teases. I've seen Graeme Newell and Doug Drew in action, and what they say about tease-writing ("make a promise") makes sense. We use their strategy where I work. Their website has several articles on news teasing that are worth reading, including this one on "one-word coverage promises". Since teasing is still a necessary evil for most of us, why not do it the best way possible?
In TV news, we know most of our viewers don't like our teases. We often hear the complaint "quit jerking us around, just tell us the news". But we know (and they know too) how easy it is for them to change the channel, and we think our teases are the best chance to keep our viewers in place for another segment, another quarter-hour tick. Graeme and Doug will tell you that what viewers really hate are poorly-written teases, and their coaching is designed to help you write the kinds of teases that will get your viewers to stick around without angering them in the process.
Another factor that we can't forget is that TV is a linear medium, and thus our viewers are well served when we can provide a light and a roadmap to the path ahead. Good teasing can be a good service in this regard, but so often we fail to see it that way, and we write just another one of those throwaway lines. Or we wind up looking like Entertainment Tonight, which to me is just one tease after another, with a smattering of news content thrown in.
But after giving some thought to my recent reading of "Mavericks at Work", I recalled a story about DPR Construction, a general contractor of buildings for very specific and technical needs. One of their company's goals, as stated in "Mavericks", is to increase each year the number of jobs they win without having to submit a bid -- in other words, jobs they win because their customers choose them first and only.
I wonder if a similar goal (being a viewer's first and only news source) is still attainable in this era of 200+ channel choices and an easy-to-use remote control. And if a station could attain such lofty status, could they do without teases altogether, and would their newscast ratings suffer without them? Could such a station make hay that they've eliminated their teases, and have that point-of-differentiation pay off for them? If I were a solid number-one in my market, I'd give it a try. Even if I didn't cut out every tease, I could scale back and put extra effort into the ones I left in my show (using good production and writing a good promise).
Another example from the book is craigslist.com, which has become one of the most useful and one of the most valuable sites on the Internet, without doing a single shred of traditional marketing. The site is plain, but because the information inside is of so much value, people use it again and again to meet their needs. Is there still a place in the wide-open TV news market for a top-rated newscast that does what Craigslist does (plain and simple, give me the news), or are our viewers just too accustomed to having all the bells and whistles thrown at them? If we provided better content, would they be loyal to us, and if so, what would that better content be?
In TV news, we know most of our viewers don't like our teases. We often hear the complaint "quit jerking us around, just tell us the news". But we know (and they know too) how easy it is for them to change the channel, and we think our teases are the best chance to keep our viewers in place for another segment, another quarter-hour tick. Graeme and Doug will tell you that what viewers really hate are poorly-written teases, and their coaching is designed to help you write the kinds of teases that will get your viewers to stick around without angering them in the process.
Another factor that we can't forget is that TV is a linear medium, and thus our viewers are well served when we can provide a light and a roadmap to the path ahead. Good teasing can be a good service in this regard, but so often we fail to see it that way, and we write just another one of those throwaway lines. Or we wind up looking like Entertainment Tonight, which to me is just one tease after another, with a smattering of news content thrown in.
But after giving some thought to my recent reading of "Mavericks at Work", I recalled a story about DPR Construction, a general contractor of buildings for very specific and technical needs. One of their company's goals, as stated in "Mavericks", is to increase each year the number of jobs they win without having to submit a bid -- in other words, jobs they win because their customers choose them first and only.
I wonder if a similar goal (being a viewer's first and only news source) is still attainable in this era of 200+ channel choices and an easy-to-use remote control. And if a station could attain such lofty status, could they do without teases altogether, and would their newscast ratings suffer without them? Could such a station make hay that they've eliminated their teases, and have that point-of-differentiation pay off for them? If I were a solid number-one in my market, I'd give it a try. Even if I didn't cut out every tease, I could scale back and put extra effort into the ones I left in my show (using good production and writing a good promise).
Another example from the book is craigslist.com, which has become one of the most useful and one of the most valuable sites on the Internet, without doing a single shred of traditional marketing. The site is plain, but because the information inside is of so much value, people use it again and again to meet their needs. Is there still a place in the wide-open TV news market for a top-rated newscast that does what Craigslist does (plain and simple, give me the news), or are our viewers just too accustomed to having all the bells and whistles thrown at them? If we provided better content, would they be loyal to us, and if so, what would that better content be?
Labels: news, tease, television
posted by Chip Mahaney at 10:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home