How valuable is the old Mainstream Media (MSM) saying, "If it bleeds, it leads?" That is, what evidence is there that bad news is more desired by information consumers than good news?
I'm starting to think that bad news isn't a demand-driven product, but a supply-driven one.
This weekend I did some volunteer work for the Special Olympics. I brought along my camera and told everyone I was going to blog about it for my weekly World of Good post. They loved the idea. Everyone wanted to tell their story. It was a huge amount of fun. In the course of the conversations, they all talked about how tired they were of the constant drumbeat of bad news from the MSM.
Either these consumer interviews were wrong, or the MSM is selling an inferior product.
I would argue that bad news is cheaper to come by than good news. Remember that the MSM is out to make a profit and profit is income minus expenses. Compare the cost per story of watching the police blotter and listening to the emergency bands on the radio versus sending a crew out to the Special Olympics. By listening to the police band, you could pick up several stories a day. The Special Olympics takes a whole day and gets you one story.
It's immediately apparent that bad news is cheaper to get. I've done a cursory search for market research that indicates that people want bad news, but haven't come across anything. As a matter of fact, it seems that focus groups tell you the exact opposite.
What happens when the blogosphere is able to deliver the stories consumers want and the MSM is clinging to it's old way of packaging the news? You get declining ratings and declining stock prices.
Bingo.
Previous business analyses of the MSM can be found here.
Technorati tags: msm business marketing profit
I have to respectively, and sadly, disagree. Bad news can be very cheap to come by. The evening drive by costs nothing to cover. What costs money is research and background. Do you remember Don Henley's "Dirty Laundry."
ReplyDeletePeople love it when you lose,
They love dirty laundry ...
She can tell you ’bout the plane crash with a gleam
In her eye. It’s interesting when people die.
Is the head dead yet? You know, the boys in the newsroom got a Running bet. Get the widow on the set!
I think the key is that they want to give people drama and excitement. Its news as entertainment. Which is not news at all. And since folks watch this, at some level its what people want. Why else are shows devoted to celebrity meltdowns so prevalent. Why do we really care that Tom Cruz is insane or that Angelina Jolie goes to such great lengths to avoid the press. Why does night line and the PBS news hour struggle to keep an audience, but the viscous hateful shouting head cable news shows thrive. Its the same reason that anyone still watches pro wrestling and car chase reality shows. Its the drama of an impending wreck.
Kelly, you make some good points. Also, as their income dwindles, they will be forced to cover the less expensive stories, which means more car wrecks and murders.
ReplyDeleteGood newz can b dramatic..smiles..Keep it up!
ReplyDeleteVery very interesting post.
ReplyDeleteIntriguing idea and I think you're on to something.
ReplyDeleteHow much easier is it to show a reporter "live" outside a building where something happened hours earlier and going over the same story ad nauseum instead of trying to cover something current? Throw a couple of teasers throughout the evening shows, "Woman dies horrible death, details at 10" and you can get someone to watch an entire half hour of nothing just to see the headline story that's actually presented at 10:25. The more dramatic the teaser, the better to entice viewers.
Until the viewers decide not to play the game anymore.
I gave up the local news a few years ago because of the overwhelming amount of negative stories.
Thanks for the interesting perspective. Kelly is right (sadly) - a quote from another blog is that "..peoples' interest in news is much more intense when there is a perceived threat to their way of life.."
ReplyDeleteFor my part everybody ought to glance at this.
ReplyDelete