Whenever someone takes the time to forward me something that they think might make for a decent musing, I’m genuinely appreciative. When it happens to deal with some aspect of research, I’m all the more thankful–it means that at least on the surface they appreciate what has gotten me out of bed for the better part of the last half-century.
So I was somewhat optimistic when a piece authored by VARIETY’s Brian Steinberg yesterday morning arrived in my inbox from no less than two different friends/followers that brought back warm fuzzy memories from a name I’ve trusted for a significant portion of those years:
Magid, a media consultant that has worked for decades with TV networks and stations, believes local and national TV-news organizations need to start giving viewers more context, depth and emotional reassurance, rather than relying on breaking news and dozens of star anchors and correspondents.
“We’ve fully arrived in the ‘context’ era, and we are completely out of the ‘breaking news’ era,” says Jaime Spencer, Magid’s chief operating officer, during a recent interiview. “It doesn’t mean that breaking news isn’t important. It’s an expectation. It’s just become a completely functional attribute that doesn’t drive brand loyalty or consumption.” Instead, the executive says, news broadcasters need to think about what will keep viewers they’ve already acquired watching for longer periods of time, rather than trying to get as many people to watch as possible. That means focusing more intently on new kinds of attributes.
I’ve been a client of Magid for a long enough period of time that I was actually being serviced by the eponymous founder of the Iowa-based company. Frank Magid himself helped me open a new era for research at The Family Channel when I was handed the keys to that kingdom after my first stint at FOX. He had a deep relationship with the executives at ABC that had taken over the network, going back to, as Steinberg noted, when they had a hand in creating the format that ultimately became “Good Morning America” . Considering how much of their outsized bonuses arose from establishing a competitive and lucrative beachhead in the theretofore uncontested early morning daypart, anyone associated with Magid was seen as walking on water. I first crossed paths with their team when I was part of a team of advisers to local TV stations about how to maximize their programming schedules. Many of my company’s client stations were clients of Magid’s as well; we’d share the spotlight at corporate planning meetings. Magid was their spirit animal when it came to all things local news, including which personalities would become the faces of their stations. When they spoke, much like the E.F. Hutton commercials of that era, people listened.
But that was in an era where local TV was booming and competition was real and diverse. Station groups were most often modestly-sized with similar heartland of America values to that which the Magid brand espoused. In contrast, they were rarely even thrown a bone while I was at FOX, and even if a station snuck in a project under the radar their findings were even more rarely taken seriously by the ultimate powers that be. Roger Ailes saw research as little more than a quantitative tool to support a taunting billboard about winning a ratings period strategically placed adjacent to a competitor’s office. It’s that sort of mentality that is still pervasive there, let alone the ideologically aligned megagroups like Sinclair and Nexstar that now control an overwhelming majority of today’s local TV landscape. And despite what some judges are attempting to do to at least put a finger in the dyke of such expansion, when your competition is yourself, you’re that much less likely to pay attention to what anyone from a qualitative consulting company might be offering up.
Last year two of Spencer’s lieutenants, single-S Marisa DeCandido and double-S Marissa Nelson, offered up dos and don’ts in a pair of well-intentioned advisories that drew from the company’s vast history of being in the trenches in dozens of markets. Ask anyone in TV journalism if they think David Smith or Perry Sook–or for that matter Bari Weiss–even saw these findings. Or gave a rat’s ass about them if they did. 
Ask anyone at what was not that long ago the pre-eminent local station in Indianapolis if they felt those recommendations had been in place when what POYNTER’s Kerwin Speight chronicled earlier this month:
An entire local TV newsroom in Indianapolis disappeared overnight. News of layoffs spread on social media Wednesday morning. “If you haven’t heard yet, WRTV was sold yesterday to another owner in town, and essentially the entire staff was let go,” read the beginning of a Facebook post by Todd Klaassen, a meteorologist who was laid off from the station. Its new owner, Circle City Broadcasting — already the owner of WISH-TV in Indianapolis — bought it from Scripps for $83 million.
Ask anyone at FOX’s main competitors in the top markets how much sage Magid advice went into the decisions we mused about a month earlier.
For that matter, you might want take Spencer and the Maris(s)as aside and ask them how they were feeling when what FTV LIVE’s Scott Jones reported on a little less than two years ago went down:
A source tells FTVLive that TV consulting firm Magid has decided to “retire their Talent Services division. Since I have no clue what the Talent Services division did or was supposed to do, I can’t tell you if this is big or not.
Let’s go to the spin room from Magid about the move, “we’re prioritizing our Magid resources further into innovation, product development, and evolved service that speaks to the challenges and opportunities that our clients face.”
I know that fewer stations are using consultants. Most groups have their own in house headhunters, and obviously there is little need for the Talent Services Division. Again, whatever that is.
For the record, you arrogant putz, the Talent Services division was what took center stage at those aforementioned big corporate gatherings. When local news was actually making money, and when the audience was young enough for stations to actually sell diverse advertising to year-round–not a heavy dose of seasonal politicals and a slew of pharmaceuticals with embedded QE codes.
Those days in particular have gone the way of 8-track cartridges. Might be why some of Spencer’s recommends per Steinberg are now about as diametrically opposed to those of his predecessors:
(N)ews organizations need to promote themselves as places to get more understanding and reassurance, says Spencer, not as backers of trustworthy, reliable information. “If you’re just looking to monetize and grow an audience, trustworthiness isn’t really a part of that anymore. In fact, those that are more confirming of my personal beliefs are more likely to get attention to get consumption, to have brand connection.”
Just as digital influencers can gain massive audiences without well-appointed studios and dazzling visuals, so too can news outlets, Magid suggests. “There is no correlation between overhead costs and perceived quality,” he says, and traditional broadcasters can gain by emulating that model. Magid has begun recommending that local news organizations try to bet on one main “quarterback” rather than developing dozens of different news stars. And news outlets need to think about bringing in a devoted audience, rather than the largest. “
Let’s run that back, shall we? Don’t put out trustworthy information. Spend as little as possible. And don’t try to be number one.
I get that’s what Magid’s desired clients might be saying–and certainly doing. I am actually touched by Spencer’s hail mary. There are still many top-notch people in his employ–most of them focused on those new products and more opportunistic industries that Jones dismissively rattled off. Some of them–such as their Emotional DNA metric–were innovative and impressive enough for even my most recent employers to drop a dime on. But even that development is now a decade in the rear view mirror, and the gentleman who helped develop it long gone from the company. I couldn’t tell you who or what is involved with it now–if anyone.
So yeah, it’s nice to see Magid once again getting headlines for a change–and enough attention from at least moi and my friends to warrant a musing. I’d like to believe some more significant people are also paying attention. If they were, that WOULD be newsworthy.
Until next time…