I found this to be extremely interesting. It's not easy to find articles that disclose the Nielsen results.

November Ratings 2008 | NewsOK.com (http://www.newsok.com/kwtv-9-tops-late-news-kfor-4-gains-in-revision/article/3327542?custom_click=headlines_widget)

Just a year ago, KOCO was winning at 5 and 6pm (unless they were counting the numbers wrong at Nielsen), now they didn't win either slot!

Maybe some of you TV insiders out there can shed some light on this always fascinating ratings puzzle. I bet when the corrected Nielsens came out there was dancing in the streets at KFOR. (Maybe that's why Ali Meyer is so chipper lately.)

Wow, KOCO has fallen out of the race completely. That's surprising. They used to take 5pm because of the afternoon lead-in.

I'm a big fan of KOCO...or at least I was until they started losing talent. I cannot watch the male anchor they've brought in. Why didn't they promote John Flick to the evening slot? He seems to have good chemistry with the other anchors when I've seen him fill in.

Wow, KOCO has fallen out of the race completely. That's surprising. They used to take 5pm because of the afternoon lead-in.

This is why I don't like to believe in "lead-in". The lead-in hasn't changed in the past few years, yet KOCO lost the 5 and 6pm. Last year, they were #1 in those slots! When they were #1 at 6pm, everyone was saying it was only because of the Charles Gibson lead-in. What's the explanation now for the decline?

Perhaps the "hot anchor babe" marketing model isn't working anymore, or maybe it's just because KOCO has let its shot-quality decline from 2007.

You might think Maggie Carlo's departure had something to do with it, but I am at a total loss to explain why Linda Cavanaugh and Meg Alexander are mopping the floor with Jessica Schambach. Oh please don't tell me journalism has anything to do with it! (Say it ain't so!) :-)

Color me bewildered. ;-)

The numbers dont mean squat when advertisers arent spending money.

I would say it helps staff morale but you gotta have some for it to go up.


" the beatings will continue until morale improves" yeah that sums it up

All you guys out there who subscribe to the "lead-in conquers all" theory, step up and explain this ratings decline at KOCO! A year ago they were #1 at 5 and 6pm. Now they're #2 at 5pm and #3 at 6pm!

Something changed! The shows leading into the 5 and 6pm have not changed on ABC; perhaps the ratings of the lead-in shows fell?

How about all the changes KOCO has undergone in the past year? They've lost a lot of people, including Tyler Suiters and Maggie Carlo. If the anchors don't matter in the ratings, then the stations are wasting a huge amount of money scouring the country for these people.

Aside from the loss people, the main thing that has annoyed me with KOCO is the decline in shot-quality. They sneaked it in slowly, starting in early 2008, and the shows in 2008 are not nearly as beautiful to watch as the ones in 2007. Back then, we had much tighter two-shots (which meant more warmth and detail on your screen) and close-ups that were often nothing less than stunning.

For several months leading up to Maggie Carlo's departure, the close-ups were getting as anemic as the ones I often see on KWTV. They've improved upon that in recent weeks, thank goodness, but their two-shot quality in the evenings doesn't even match the quality of those same shots on their own morning show!

What's wrong with this picture?

Think about the reason you go out and spend thousands on a Hi-Def TV. It's to get more detail and clarity in the picture. On local news, we've got directors defeating the whole purpose of that by shooting farther back than they need to. They steal the pixels out the shots before they ever even reach our TV screen.

So my complaint is shot-quality, while others on this board despise the unnecessary interruptions for non-critical news. You'd think with these ratings declines that station management would make an effort to listen to viewer feedback, but I have to wonder.

Months ago, I actually started watching a solo-anchoring Kent Ogle at noon, rather than a co-anchored NEWS 9 with Ed Murrary and Melissa Maynarich! Why? I got so annoyed seeing Melissa in those ridiculous distant shots, it was actually more relaxing and enjoyable just to watch a hairy-legged Kent Ogle do his job with enthusiasm and a great sense of humor. For once, personality won out over beauty. Melissa is a good anchor and a nice looking lady, but with Melissa shot from 20 feet back for most of the show, I'd rather be amused by Kent Ogle. KWTV, blame it on your newscast director.

Good grief! Of all the reasons why people prefer one newscast over another, studio shot selection has to be WAY down on the list. Does it make a difference? Sure, but only to the extent that it has to be non-offensive and, believe me, the average viewer doesn't look at these things the same way you or I do. So what you might consider offensive is not what they are going to consider offensive. And, like it or not, lead-in does play a part in newscast ratings. I've always found it amusing that the stations who are #1 believe that their success has nothing to do with their lead-in, while the #2 station believes it's ALL about the lead-in. Then, when the positions change (just coincidentally at about the same time the network ratings change), the stations flip-flop their beliefs. The bottom line is, in a market as competitive as OKC, lead-in matters. It matters because all three affiliates put on very good newscasts, so it's often the lead-in that tips the scale one way or the other.

Good grief! Of all the reasons why people prefer one newscast over another, studio shot selection has to be WAY down on the list. Does it make a difference? Sure, but only to the extent that it has to be non-offensive and, believe me, the average viewer doesn't look at these things the same way you or I do. So what you might consider offensive is not what they are going to consider offensive. And, like it or not, lead-in does play a part in newscast ratings. I've always found it amusing that the stations who are #1 believe that their success has nothing to do with their lead-in, while the #2 station believes it's ALL about the lead-in. Then, when the positions change (just coincidentally at about the same time the network ratings change), the stations flip-flop their beliefs. The bottom line is, in a market as competitive as OKC, lead-in matters. It matters because all three affiliates put on very good newscasts, so it's often the lead-in that tips the scale one way or the other.

Excellent points. Maybe I should clarify. I don't consider the shots "offensive"; maybe a better phrase is just "totally unenjoyable".

And I do imagine that shot-selection is way down the list unless so many other things are equal, but when you've got one station giving its top female anchor beautiful close-ups, and the other one shooting her from the hips up, which would you rather watch? Imagine watching a football game shot from the top of the stadium with no close-ups and you get my drift.

It's especially infuriating to me, because if no one cares (besides me), then why not just give us the better quality shots since it costs no more money to do so? And then you get into the thing where one station gives us great shots on their morning shows, but pulls back in the evenings. That's infuriating.

I really like your points about lead-in. I was thinking about that myself. When you win the ratings, it's all about the great talent and the journalism; when you lose, well, dang it, it was that lead-in we couldn't overcome! ;-)

And then you get into the thing where one station gives us great shots on their morning shows, but pulls back in the evenings. That's infuriating.

It might also be a matter of experience. Unless things have changed radically, the morning shows usually have the most experienced studio camera operators because it's a day shift (or as close as there is to a day shift in tv).

It might also be a matter of experience. Unless things have changed radically, the morning shows usually have the most experienced studio camera operators because it's a day shift (or as close as there is to a day shift in tv).
I would say that has more to do with the shot the director calls for.

I think directors try to emulate the big market shots with the big studios.

Problem is no stations here have a big enough studio for those wide bumper shots without showing the edge of the set.


I also think the reason for declining shots is staffing. Alot of shows and especially on weekends one person is on the floor with 3-4 cameras.

Shot selection? Two-shots? One-shots?

Alas, there used to be a time when local stations won awards for biting investigative journalism, exposing corruption in the DHS, the county commissioner scandal, and now we're splitting hairs over, well, hairs.

I don't watch local news because there isn't local news anymore. Its variations on the same theme rehashed and retold. "Urgent news you need to know - Deadly Christmas Lights!" "Beware These Home Repair Scams", or "Let's Go to the Remote Truck For Live Pictures Of Absolutely Nothing!"

* sigh *

Shot selection? Two-shots? One-shots?

Alas, there used to be a time when local stations won awards for biting investigative journalism, exposing corruption in the DHS, the county commissioner scandal, and now we're splitting hairs over, well, hairs.

I don't watch local news because there isn't local news anymore. Its variations on the same theme rehashed and retold. "Urgent news you need to know - Deadly Christmas Lights!" "Beware These Home Repair Scams", or "Let's Go to the Remote Truck For Live Pictures Of Absolutely Nothing!"

* sigh *

Yes, you're right Dave, but each of us has our own passions in life. For some, it's OU Football, the most pervasive religion in the state; for some, it's the lousy content on our local news, but for me, I'm into the artistic part.

It's important to some people out there. Our news stations prove it every day in the people they hire, the majestic sets they purchase, and the graphics packages they buy. After all, it IS television, and the quality of the picture is supposed to matter.

And yes, I'm splitting hairs. When I spring for that 1080p TV running at 120hz, I don't want some newscast director shooting the whole show from so far back that he turns my thousand dollar purchase into a 480i TV.

For those of you who insist on watching your sporting events in Hi-Def, it's the very same thing. It's all a matter of being thoughtful and artistic in the area of presentation, and a tight close-up costs nothing more than one of those ridiculous "from the waist" shots we see so often on KWTV.

Picture quality matters, and it starts with the people running/directing the camera.

As for the content, I agree fully. It's just so stupid to see a reporter standing out in the cold, dark night doing a pointless live shot.

Shot selection? Two-shots? One-shots?

Alas, there used to be a time when local stations won awards for biting investigative journalism, exposing corruption in the DHS, the county commissioner scandal, and now we're splitting hairs over, well, hairs.



No, no....they've pretty much always worried about too much head room, crooked ties, and hairs out of place. You just didn't hear about it unless you were on the headsets.