I feel that the future of media lies in the hands of the business men/women who will have to change their economic model to meet society's needs. For too long the economic model has remained consistent while technology and society has changed. Obviously that has come back to bite media outlets, specifically newspapers, in the but. People don't use media the same way today as they did five years ago. Advertisers want to reach clients in different ways, consumers want to access information in different ways, and technology allows all of that to happen.
I honestly feel that media companies will have to go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate the way in which information is disseminated. Having the big story won't be nearly as important as how that story is told. I know that personally I don't want to go online to see the same story picked up by forty different news aggregation sites. I want to see different aspects of that same story covered by different news organizations. I want personalized news. If I'm living in Ann Arbor I want to know how the information will impact me. I want to read about the sports teams that I care about. I think that the local news angle will have to make a comeback. The difference this time around is the way that local news is marketed and disseminated.
Traditional media platforms will have to rely more heavily on non-traditional sources to enhance/expand stories. Interactivity will be really important. I will use Michigan as an example for how a new media environment can increase user participation and thus serve as both a marketing tool and means for dissemination.
I think sites like MGoBlue.com will need to build a social networking aspect that can be controlled within the site. This will allow immediate feedback and socialization among Michigan fans, while at the same time providing yet another avenue for information distribution. Messages to members can get information bits out in a quick manner. Those that are members can be privy to informational tidbits not published other places (or at least released other places first) that can make them feel as though they are getting somthing they couldn't otherwise get anywhere else. The site should also piggy back with iTunes so that subscribers can download podcasts and videos for personal comsumption. Podcasts can feature audio clips with coaches and players...and not just on topics making the news but also on feature like topics. Videos can provide quick hit highlights and wrap ups with also generating revenue through advertisements.
The subscription service will allow for easy statistical analysis and will allow the department to focus on topics/people that are popular while also finding new methods of cross-marketing non-revenue sports. The key is to cover stories that have the piggy-back effect. The way the site is currently set up there is too much segregation between sports. Football fans will gravitate towards football related material, so find ways to include non-football related material as well. If you want to selll more basketball tickets too do a story on "The Coaches from West Virginia" that highlights BOTH individuals, thus creating those lasting ties between the programs. When you do feature stories on athletes find a tie that can include athletes from multiple sports.
I also think that you need to bring an entertainment aspect to the new media platform. People don't just want to get the news, they want to get it in an entertaining manner. You can include features that provide a comedic aspect. For example, I have been wanting to do a "Teach a Blonde to...." segment. A Michigan quarterback could teach a blonde to throw...watching a girl learn to throw would be funny, but the serious information you could gather and convey while spending a day watching the way in which a college quarterback prepares for a game would be the series feature story. You could do this with a variety of sports and hopefully create a reoccuring segment that would engage audiences and provide informaiton that would keep them coming back.
New media has to be focused on long term consumer committment and the packaging of the news. Everyone can get the story, so you have to give them a reason to get the story from you. I honestly see the hard hitting style of news that has defined outlets like the Associated Press collapsing in favor of a more blog-style reporting effort that both engages and entertains consumers.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
NCAA coverage critique
The commentating on the NCAA men's basketball Final Four wasn't entirely different from any of the other sports commentating appearing on American television these days. Basically a bunch of former athletes combine with one actual broadcast journalist in an attempt to bring audiences "closer" to the game.
The problem I see with sports commentating today is that it isn't going anywhere. The same arguments are regurgitated over and over again and more often than not they turn out to have little to no impact on the actual sporting event.
For example, during the coverage of this year's Final Four the analysts often referred back to how it was in THEIR playing days. It felt as though they were more concerned with tooting their own horns and flaunting their own accomplishments than shedding any actual light or creating any relevance to this year's tournament. The game of basketball has changed greatly over the years (even Magic Johnson admitted that during his halftime appearance in the National Championship game). The same rules and methods don't always apply. I think that commentators feel their credibility comes from having playing experience when really it comes from knowledge of the sport in general. And even if you have that knowledge you have to be able to convey it in a meanful way to your audience. I understand that announcers have to appeal to fans that no very little about the sport, but they shouldn't punish the fans that are knowledgeable at the same time by excluding information relevant to them.
I understand that the major theme throughout this year's Final Four was what it meant for the State of Michigan as a whole, especially having Michigan State present. I also understand the major storyline for the TarHeels was the senior class' coming back after a dissapointing finish last year to get redemption. Everyone else beat those stories TO DEATH, making me NOT want to hear it over and over again from the men bringing us the game on CBS.
That was my other problem with the coverage of the tournament. I saw Tracy Wolfson ONCE during the championship and that was in a tape-delayed interview she did with Larry Byrd. Why didn't she provide more insight throughout the game with sideline reports? Why couldn't she have gone into a locker room at halftime and talked about the atmosphere and the mentality of the team? I love listening to Jim Nance but he is limited in his scope as a play-by-play announcer. If you have the resources USE them.
I didn't just want to know where Ellington took his shots, I wanted to see how he GOT his shots. There was almost NO meaningful analyzing at halftime. The interview with Magic Johnson and (another nod to the past!) Larry Byrd were great additions, but they didn't provide us with anything other than entertainment value.
CBS harped on the amount of Spartans in the crowd and talked about the great fan following that UNC had as well, but other than a few crowd shots there was no substance to that story. Why didn't anyone bother to do a package highlighting some of those fans and the journey that they took to get to the game? Why didn't they show parts of the pep rally, talk about State's past riots and what the outcome could mean for the campus, or any of the other thirty things I can think of right now that would have made for compelling TV?
Overall I gave CBS a C- for their coverage. It was average at best.
The problem I see with sports commentating today is that it isn't going anywhere. The same arguments are regurgitated over and over again and more often than not they turn out to have little to no impact on the actual sporting event.
For example, during the coverage of this year's Final Four the analysts often referred back to how it was in THEIR playing days. It felt as though they were more concerned with tooting their own horns and flaunting their own accomplishments than shedding any actual light or creating any relevance to this year's tournament. The game of basketball has changed greatly over the years (even Magic Johnson admitted that during his halftime appearance in the National Championship game). The same rules and methods don't always apply. I think that commentators feel their credibility comes from having playing experience when really it comes from knowledge of the sport in general. And even if you have that knowledge you have to be able to convey it in a meanful way to your audience. I understand that announcers have to appeal to fans that no very little about the sport, but they shouldn't punish the fans that are knowledgeable at the same time by excluding information relevant to them.
I understand that the major theme throughout this year's Final Four was what it meant for the State of Michigan as a whole, especially having Michigan State present. I also understand the major storyline for the TarHeels was the senior class' coming back after a dissapointing finish last year to get redemption. Everyone else beat those stories TO DEATH, making me NOT want to hear it over and over again from the men bringing us the game on CBS.
That was my other problem with the coverage of the tournament. I saw Tracy Wolfson ONCE during the championship and that was in a tape-delayed interview she did with Larry Byrd. Why didn't she provide more insight throughout the game with sideline reports? Why couldn't she have gone into a locker room at halftime and talked about the atmosphere and the mentality of the team? I love listening to Jim Nance but he is limited in his scope as a play-by-play announcer. If you have the resources USE them.
I didn't just want to know where Ellington took his shots, I wanted to see how he GOT his shots. There was almost NO meaningful analyzing at halftime. The interview with Magic Johnson and (another nod to the past!) Larry Byrd were great additions, but they didn't provide us with anything other than entertainment value.
CBS harped on the amount of Spartans in the crowd and talked about the great fan following that UNC had as well, but other than a few crowd shots there was no substance to that story. Why didn't anyone bother to do a package highlighting some of those fans and the journey that they took to get to the game? Why didn't they show parts of the pep rally, talk about State's past riots and what the outcome could mean for the campus, or any of the other thirty things I can think of right now that would have made for compelling TV?
Overall I gave CBS a C- for their coverage. It was average at best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)