TV Meteorologists Laid Off, Weather Channel Will Take Over Local Weather

Ben Holcomb said:
As someone who never watches local TV news, I can't be alone. Those budgets are slowly shrinking. I rarely even watch TV. The Allen guy bought TWC back when it was for sale a bit back and it makes sense to me that he'd want to have them take over what he considers redundant positions to save $.

The bottom line here, though, is that if I needed to advertise something I am choosing "Advertising during local TV news" probably last right ahead of fax machines. Unless I am selling something to retired boomers.
Click to expand...
Never really thought about that. We cancelled Directv January last year. Went to youtube TV but we have since cancelled that too.
 
Ben Holcomb said:
As someone who never watches local TV news, I can't be alone. Those budgets are slowly shrinking. I rarely even watch TV. The Allen guy bought TWC back when it was for sale a bit back and it makes sense to me that he'd want to have them take over what he considers redundant positions to save $.

The bottom line here, though, is that if I needed to advertise something I am choosing "Advertising during local TV news" probably last right ahead of fax machines. Unless I am selling something to retired boomers.
Click to expand...
Byron Allen is a comedian and former comedy writer who recently stepped back into that arena with a late night CBS comedy show. Allen also is a successful business professional and has primarily been since initially stepping away from comedy in the 1980's, or at least that is my understanding. To note here, I have no affiliation with Mr. Allen at present. When Allen Media Group acquired The Weather Channel, of which IBM wanted zero part of the original cable outfit when it bought The Weather Company and The Weather Channel name brand over a decade ago, it was an attempt to switch up the format of that company in a continued era of cord cutting pre pandemic. That all accelerated drastically with the pandemic as we all witnessed to boom of podcast streamers galore. Bottom lines always are priority one for corporations, big or small, and most certainly legacy media where I have most of my prior experiences from. Allen also purchased stations in college town markets, i.e. West Lafayette, Indiana = Purdue, Madison, Wisconsin = UW Madison, etc as sports streaming is now big business amongst local station groups such as Sinclair... which put a bid in for The Weather Channel just prior to Allen Media Group. That was in 2016-17 or so when I was working for E.W. Scripps and WEWS in CLE.

Ad revenue always goes up during election years in traditional broadcast television and radio. Sales and ad traffic departments in TV ride that like a wave and for decades it worked, yet more often now, streamer platforms by way of Alphabet, Google/YouTube, Netflix, etc have overlapped and excelled in delivering high quality creative services or "brands" if you will better than what legacy i.e. local media can deliver due to a host of internal factors; and I write this having worked in both small and large local + national television markets in assorted capacities on/off camera and in executive producer roles. While I disagree with the hype color model of RH'Y and others that toady up to that format, it clearly "sells" for how algorithmic and tech platforms function at present. Tech, as you know Ben, moves fast. That's another topic for another time.

While I have not visited the ATL HQ or been associated in a freelance capacity with The Weather Channel since before AMG bought it, the recent move to lay off affiliate meteorologists met such a backlash that, as John notes below, AMG reversed the move on Friday. Good on AMG for doing this, as clearly the public demand for local meteorologists on traditional broadcast remains strong for the reasons previously noted in this thread, even if the said broadcast product that gets put out is highly generic and overall lacks any originality in presentation styles verses the eras of Tom Skilling, et al to note as a Chicago reference.

Blake
 
This may be a little off-topic, but if streaming services are as much the wave of the future as people keep saying, how come hardly any of them (other than Netflix) are making a profit? You can only pour money into something because it is "the wave of the future" for so long if it keeps losing money. I still prefer getting all or nearly all my channels from one place rather than dealing with numerous different streaming services. The only one I have is Peacock, and that is because I was pretty much forced to by their putting certain sports events only on that service. This practice has generated some increase in subscribers, but it and most of the others continue to lose money. I will drop that at the end of the hockey and basketball seasons, most likely. Trying to force people into something they don't want does not seem like a good business model to me. But then I am one of those retired baby boomers, so what do I know?
 
I would imagine Amazon Prime is also turning a profit, although their profits are a bit more muddy.

I think a lot of younger folks have diversified into more niche programming, which can easily be found on streaming sites and specifically stuff like youtube. Lots of content creators out there now, and they're able to reach the masses with some software and a camera and microphone. Gone are the days of needing expensive equipment to broadcast video. Everyone carries the equivalent of a 1990s era TV station live truck in their pocket nowadays.

Sports programming seems to be the only thing keeping these older "traditional" methods of content delivery alive. The Disney/ESPN cartel seems to be keeping the lid on that. That Allen media group tried to get into sports programming too, with Bally sports networks. We're seeing the new players getting in on the action as well and may see that cartel break up. NetFlix hosted some NFL games during Christmas and Amazon Prime has been doing Thursday night football this year.

I mention all that to just say the writing is on the wall for what most of us think is traditional Television.
 
just a quick reply:
It saddens me to hear of local broadcast meteorologists being laid off and twc taking over.
With that- recent personal experience: my parents were in Hurricane Milton and one of the major EF3s passed a 1/2 mile from their house. They only knew from me texting them to get to safety, and because my Mom saw it outside the living room window. The news only began to report after the tornado touched down and caused damage. It’s a difficult reality but local television networks are dying as we move into an age of getting our news from alternative sources.
I’m sure there will be an adjustment period, and as hard as it is to let go of the things we are comfortable with it will work out for the best.
 
Ben Holcomb said:
I would imagine Amazon Prime is also turning a profit, although their profits are a bit more muddy.

I think a lot of younger folks have diversified into more niche programming, which can easily be found on streaming sites and specifically stuff like youtube. Lots of content creators out there now, and they're able to reach the masses with some software and a camera and microphone. Gone are the days of needing expensive equipment to broadcast video. Everyone carries the equivalent of a 1990s era TV station live truck in their pocket nowadays.

Sports programming seems to be the only thing keeping these older "traditional" methods of content delivery alive. The Disney/ESPN cartel seems to be keeping the lid on that. That Allen media group tried to get into sports programming too, with Bally sports networks. We're seeing the new players getting in on the action as well and may see that cartel break up. NetFlix hosted some NFL games during Christmas and Amazon Prime has been doing Thursday night football this year.

I mention all that to just say the writing is on the wall for what most of us think is traditional Television.
Click to expand...
Summed up most fluidly, like the atmosphere, there Ben! Agree 100%. As Stan Lee loved to say, "Nuff Said."

BWN
 
John Farley said:
This may be a little off-topic, but if streaming services are as much the wave of the future as people keep saying, how come hardly any of them (other than Netflix) are making a profit? You can only pour money into something because it is "the wave of the future" for so long if it keeps losing money. I still prefer getting all or nearly all my channels from one place rather than dealing with numerous different streaming services. The only one I have is Peacock, and that is because I was pretty much forced to by their putting certain sports events only on that service. This practice has generated some increase in subscribers, but it and most of the others continue to lose money. I will drop that at the end of the hockey and basketball seasons, most likely. Trying to force people into something they don't want does not seem like a good business model to me. But then I am one of those retired baby boomers, so what do I know?
Click to expand...
John,

It's a mere technology shift. Happens generationally. Teletype to phone lines, modems to streaming. It's all part of the evolving nature, nor do I intend to put a "code" into the mix by stating "ride the wave" or any of that nonsense. It's mere common sense from a technology standpoint.

Humans and weather will always share a connection, be it digitally, physically or both. In terms of local broadcast television, that ship sailed two decades ago. It's over kids. Jump to your niche platform and see where you can imagine yourself. ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX is not your gravy train anymore.

BWN
 
I know I cut the cord years ago and rarely watch local stations. I think I spend less than $10 a month on tv entertainment.

The weather segment is usually what pulls viewers in for local stations, kind of what sports does for the streaming platforms as Ben mentioned. But, the need for wall to wall coverage of a weather event is pretty small (almost infinitesimal) in most locales so I can see where the TV Mets might be considered replaceable, especially as YT grows and the amount of real time weather info grows along with it.

If I were a TV Met I'd be starting my own YT channel and growing my following ala RHY or a handful of others who have had some success. It's simply where the future is.
 
Although it was decades ago, in the Wichita television market, a scientific survey showed that more than 80% of people said weather information was "important" or "very important" in a survey. I doubt that has changed much.

While I agree with you that the audience for day-to-day television weather is shrinking, there is more than a little evidence that there are still quite a few that use television when they are apprehensive about storms in their area or the sirens are going off. If there is a tornado genuinely threatening Wichita, I doubt people will choose RHY over locally-based meteorologists. RHY is more of a "Weather Channel for people extremely interested in, or entertained by, severe storms."
 
Blake Naftel said:
John,

It's a mere technology shift. Happens generationally. =
Click to expand...
IMHO, content ought to drive technology, not the other way around. I think the local stations are still the best and most-widely used source for local weather, news, and sports. And the legacy networks for sports. If you think I am wrong, look at statistics for games that are available both on regular TV and streaming. Many more watch those on regular TV. The only reason streaming is growing in the sports area is because the media giants are trying to force people in that direction. For example, the next two MSU basketball games are available ONLY on Peacock, so if you want to watch, you have to pay for Peacock. Put them on both NBC and Peacock and see who watches where. Now I will agree that traditional TV has become pretty useless for things other than news, weather, and sports - most of what is on is garbage. But that is a content problem, not a media problem, and some of that applies to streaming services except perhaps for sports and Netflix (the only one really making money). Which helps explain why the networks are losing viewership and most of the streaming services are still losing money. Maybe Youtube is the future, but for most of what I am interested in, TV works better. I don't watch much on Youtube besides storm videos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Steve Miller
Storm clouds are gathering over the Weather Channel
Replies
10
Views
7K
John Olexa
John Olexa
Media Portrayal of Severe Weather
2
Replies
25
Views
10K
Jesse Risley
Jesse Risley
Tim Vasquez
  • Sticky
R.I.P., storm chasers
Replies
12
Views
42K
Randy Jennings
Randy Jennings
Back
Top