From the ND-Time to Cut Back-I'm looking at Weather

[blackforest]

I have been thinking of breaking the mad growth and expense in weather. Our outfit has spent easily over half a million dollars over the past several years in weather producing, radar, graphics and five on air weather talent folks. EXPENSE_EXPENSE and more Salary !

The GM has given me the ok to come back with a proposed cut back weather look at the station. While weather will remain as a feature on every news product we have, I'm thinking of greatly reducing the way we present the weather story. In fact weather would now be toned down from a 2:30-3:00 minute full segment to a 45 second 'here is your forecast' from the anchor desk or news room with limited graphics for regional currents, radar and forecast pages. A meteorologist would have the duty of presenting this toned down forecast. This person would also report. In times of severe weather ( less than once a month ) we would grow the weather presence to the needed time and coverage.

The savings in equipment cost's and the elimination of on air talent will help to stem some of the crazy cost's associated with this area of news. I'm also thinking that we don't need all the explanation for the current and past weather. Just give the viewers the forecast as is. The additional time saved from weather segment cut backs will be devoted toward local non hard news items and special segments.

[wxgeek]

The savings in equipment cost's and the elimination of on air talent will help to stem some of the crazy cost's associated with this area of news.

Shouldn't a news director know to avoid unnecessary apostrophes?

Seriously, though, ratings have shown time and again that you must win weather to win ratings. Cut back on weather, and your competitors will love you.

[PTP WX]

Our outfit has spent easily over half a million dollars over the past several years in weather producing, radar, graphics and five on air weather talent folks. EXPENSE_EXPENSE and more Salary !

In fact weather would now be toned down from a 2:30-3:00 minute full segment to a 45 second 'here is your forecast' from the anchor desk or news room with limited graphics for regional currents, radar and forecast pages. A meteorologist would have the duty of presenting this toned down forecast. This person would also report.

The savings in equipment cost's and the elimination of on air talent will help to stem some of the crazy cost's associated with this area of news. I'm also thinking that we don't need all the explanation for the current and past weather.

You are obviously in no way a news director. $500,000 with 5 mets and equipment over several years? You are already running the least expensive operation in the country!

90% of viewers watch local news for 1 reason...... I'd cut it to the bone to save money!


OK, on a serious note.... we have 4 meteorologists that fill and cover a lot of content.... valuable content. We produce our own forecasts, stack our own shows, build our own graphics, promote the station by doing audio forecasts for 16 local radio stations, provide graphics to a local newspaper, and update the number #1 driver to our web site, and do break outs in the news for special events and severe weather.

Here's how you save money..... hire news anchors, that research and write their own stories, produce the newscast, anchor the newscast, build all of the graphics and OTS's, edit the video, and provide radio news updates and update the web.

Use that money saved to hire more meteorologists.:thumbsup:

[wx427]

As the above response say's ratings and weather have gone together for a long time. Risky isn't it to cut back so much in weather? Although I would tend to agree that what I see on my local weather forecast's is roughly 75 % waste.
In fact most of my friends serious about weather do their own looking online and skip the local weather-local news all together.

[adam & doctor drew]

gotta be a fake post.

makes too much sense.

[Laughing Angel]

Cut weather? Sure, that'll work. (Sarcasm font on) Because nobody cares about weather (sarcasm font off). What they don't see they won't miss, right?

Hey blackforest, I've got an idea--why don't you throw this up on the wall over at the wxline and see what the professionals have to say about it?

[Another side]

I think the OP is onto something; it's certainly worth investigating (Although, I worry about what would be used to fill the time.)

When normal, seasonal weather is around, all I care about is the forecast.

When severe weather hits (or is coming) I'm constantly flipping between the four local newscasts, favoring the one that is most informative that day. I have allegiance to a particular name or face -- I just want the most current information I can get to help me make the right decisions to provide for the safety of my family.

I also have a scanner going and the local AM station to help filll in the blanks ... but neither has anything to do with this thread.

[Chartsengrafs]

I think cutting wx is a spectacular idea. Just think of all the extra time you'll have for even more stories no one cares about. Car wrecks! House fires!Sweeps packs about dirty hotel linens and shaving your Betty! Onward and Upward you clueless manager you!

[adam & doctor drew]

I think the OP is onto something; it's certainly worth investigating.

I do too.
no one's saying people don't care about weather.
but does the only part you care about----the forecast----need to be preceded by 3 minutes of meaningless maps and stats, out-of-state snow video, the dew point, super doppler this and that, etc?

[ewink]

I do too.
no one's saying people don't care about weather.
but does the only part you care about----the forecast----need to be preceded by 3 minutes of meaningless maps and stats, out-of-state snow video, the dew point, super doppler this and that, etc?
I really think you've hit the nail on the head here. There is no doubt weather is one of the only things keeping people attached to local news. But how much of that weather is necessary? I, as a viewer - since I am that before I am a whatever it is I do now - do like knowing what's possibly in store for us in the coming days. Personally, I like hearing the explanation of why what is going to happen will happen, but that could just be me. But how much does the average viewer - i.e. someone who doesn't really have any interest in meteorology - care?

Some of it could be cut, depending on the market, I suppose. The ABC in Las Vegas makes a big deal about their super-duper desert doppler.

K. It rains four times per year in Vegas. Yes, when it does rain, it's a whole lot of rain, but still. Seems like a lot of money spent on something you will really only use four times a year.

Places like here in Oklahoma or the rest of tornado alley, yes, the investment could be worth it.

One of the major things this ND has to worry about is severe weather. That's when you need the equipment. That's when you need the staff. You will get no credibility if you have one of your Georgia reporters at the green screen trying to explain the difference between a tornado and straight line winds.

And Adam, you couldn't be more right about out of state snow. The only person who gives a damn about snow 17 states away is the one person who is transplanted from there. And you don't deliver your newscast around that one guy. Also... It's December. Snow in Minnesota or Michigan or any place north of Oklahoma isn't news.

[Consider This]

I worry about what would be used to fill the time.

Agreed.

The main reason we see weather so often and for so long during a newscast is not just to show people that the station cares about what its research says is the number one reason people watch.

It's a time filler.

Let's face it: Yes, weather is important. But all people care about is knowing what's going to happen. Most of them don't care about the detailed explanation leading up to it. All that radar stuff exists just to convince you that you can believe what it says on the 7-day.

If you're going to divert some of the supposed savings from the cuts the OP plans (or would if he were an actual ND -- I think it's a bogus post) to other people who will generate content, then it might be something for a station to consider.

But that's not going to happen. Any savings will go into the station's coffers.

[Diggin' Bear]

Man, whoever said the fishin in December was bad? We gotta fire that guy...first!

[Consider This]

Man, whoever said the fishin in December was bad? We gotta fire that guy...first!

A bogus post doesn't preclude a legitimate discussion ensuing.

[Diggin' Bear]

A bogus post doesn't preclude a legitimate discussion ensuing.

Yeah, you're right. But it's still fishin' at its finest. FWIW, nobody in their right mind who looks at the research is going to hire 5 mets and spend a lousy 500k on a weather center. We all know it costs a LOT more than that, and the numbers easily support MORE severe weather coverage as opposed to less.

I mean, can anybody here come up with a lower cost center than weather when it comes to cost versus time on air/advertising?

[wx or not]

I mean, can anybody here come up with a lower cost center than weather when it comes to cost versus time on air/advertising?
"On Your Side" type of consumer advocates.

[PTP WX]

hire 5 mets and spend a lousy 500k on a weather center. We all know it costs a LOT more than that, and the numbers easily support MORE severe weather coverage as opposed to less.


That was 500k over a few years, for 5 mets and a weather operation. I think he misplaced his decimal, and forgot to multiply by the few years!

[Diggin' Bear]

"On Your Side" type of consumer advocates.

Nope. I'd bet if you did a salary comparison between your basic consumer type who uses a photog and turns, say, three pieces a week, then look at a met who works five days a week and gathers the necessary info via remote, it's not even close.

[adam & doctor drew]

Yes, weather is important. But all people care about is knowing what's going to happen. Most of them don't care about the detailed explanation leading up to it. All that radar stuff exists just to convince you that you can believe what it says on the 7-day.


and the irony is, the weather person often has to RUSH thru the 7-day, the only thing we care about, because too much time was used on all the preliminary BS.

[Nanook of the North]

Fake post. In any event, I'd like to see who he gets for applicants when he has an opening. Better yet let's see his/her tornado coverage when his "meteorologist" is covering GA news at a city council meeting.

[Hard_reign2004]

No one is answering the question. You could still keep the weather time the same while reducing your met staff. 5 mets? Yeah that is a lot of mets and I would hope some of them are reporting. The point is the time is a mute point, when it comes to money. On air time does not equal money. You can do, and most do, just as much with less. So let's talk about what he can do. You can lay off two mets perhaps and have three overworked mets. I would think laying off one met is probably the way to go. OK so you get rid of the # 4 guy. That cuts you 35k. From the number you gave it already sounds like you have no bells and whisltes on your weather computers with respect to the information they are pulling in. So I guess you are going to walk into your GMs office with a 35k cut per year along with a plan to put a housekeeping today pkg in and drop weather to :30 seconds. Sounds like a sure fire plan to me to ensure that you either stay in fourth place or soon will be in fourth place. On top of it all do you really want to put your neck out on the line like that? That is a big gamble to me...

[Mr. Pratfall]

I think it would be annoying to work in a newsroom where the ND preceded everything he or she said with "From the ND."

[Another side]

No one is answering the question.

There was no question posed, either by the OP or by you.

And I hope no one jumps of you for "mute point," because that would be kind of a cheapshot.

[Tripe Face]

One reason weather is the number one draw for local tv news is that it's one of the few stories that people EVERYwhere in your viewing area care about.

Even the smallest markets cover a dozen or more counties, often two or three states. There is no way that a change in a law in one area is going to impact people in the rest of your viewing area... so they don't care, they stop watching. Same with spot news... ESPECIALLY with spot news. Unless you know the person who was killed, or had their house burn down, or live down the street from where it happens.... you don't give a damn... so you stop watching.

Sometimes a successful sports team in the heart of the market might draw the attention from viewers all over the area... but that's fleeting the attraction ends when the season ends.

What local news directors need to do is find stories that impact people all over the viewing area. Yes... that's weather... sometimes sports... but you need to find other stories.... other beats that generate stories on a regular, even daily basis. It won't be cheap... rolling a camera guy to shoot that 2 car fatality on the highway is easier... but will that bring in new viewers, or bring back viewers who long ago found something ELSE to watch at 5 and 11? No.

[milemarker0]

Weather should be a bump....