Why Hire a Talent Coach?

Most anchors and reporters I know have at least one person in their life who gives them feedback, not to mention all those viewers who email. And most News Directors and General Managers I know have a lot to say about how they want their talent to conduct themselves on air. So why do you need to hire a talent coach?

First, consider the most common problems with broadcast delivery – higher than normal pitch, lack of energy, and monotone or uniform delivery. We know we don't like these attributes when we see them, but the common cures don't cure them.  To convey more energy, most people go louder and faster (louder doesn't really allow faster so the result is frenzy). And the reason most people sound like they're reading, instead of the preferred "just tell it like you're talking to your best friend" is because they are reading!

Solving these problems is easier said than done. And most reporters and anchors are already trying their best to "just be themselves."  So that’s why you hire a coach – to help teach people how to do things differently, to point out when there is good expression and tone and when delivery is flat and unremarkable, to help people really see and hear a difference. Sometimes the voices of feedback in your talent's lives reinforce the wrong things. There are a few people around who think flat monotonous delivery is how it's supposed to be (all due respect to my Uncle Alan!). A good coach is an outside, but qualified voice who can translate all the input -- good and bad -- and help an anchor or reporter make changes.

Another reason? To be the bad guy! A good coach should be more than used to delivering honest, sometimes tough information in a way that results in positive change. That’s something most news managers don't always have the time or inclination to do. Plus, sometimes it's just better to have an outside, objective voice deliver the tough criticism. News managers, though, do need to reinforce coaching if it's going to stick. 

As a manager, you're trying to create a distinctive news product, one that goes beyond the basics. Your talent is part of that equation.  A good talent coach can be your ally and help you achieve those goals.

- Laura Hernandez

Reporter, a.k.a. Multi-media Information Gatherer and Distributor

What do we call people who report the news these days?  I find it amusing that the industry is struggling to come up with new names for reporters.  Are they VJ's?  Backpack journalists?  Multi-media journalists?  Multi-platform reporters?  Perhaps you prefer the old-fashioned "one-man band" name.

Since when does a change in technology dictate finding a new name for yourself?  Musicians didn't become digital recording artists when they started putting their songs on iTunes.  Hearst recently announced that their reporters were all being trained to create and distribute material in all sorts of places - but they were sticking to the "reporter" name.  Good call.  In the newspaper world, photographers who grew up shooting film now shoot digital still pictures and take video, too.  So are they photographers or videographers?  Or digital jounalists? 

One thing is certain -- for the readers/users/viewers who receive information, it really doesn't matter what we call ourselves.  This new identity crisis of ours is just a reflection of the industry's temporary uneasiness with technology change. A reporter who filed a story by telegraph 100 years ago was still reporting. Yes, it's cool and it requires some new skills, but does sending a story using a Droid phone really require a title change?   

- John Altenbern

Clean Delivery Isn't Enough

In my many years of coaching, too many anchors have taken any discussion about being passionate and descriptive in delivery to mean that they have carte blanche to say what they want. But I wasn't talking about crosstalk! (Especially talk that doesn't serve the viewer.) Rather, I was talking about bringing more expression and passion to the way they read a story.

Smooth, clean delivery - no mistakes, but no expression and no context - is just not enough. Viewers want and need expression and intonation that support the words, because that's what helps them hear and understand stories. It's the look on a reporter's face and the tone in their voice that helps viewers hear how urgent a fire is. It's good communication. To achieve that, it comes down to listening... truly listening.

Why does it always come down to listening? Reporters and anchors can make their delivery a lot more real by simply tuning in to - and really hearing -- the content that precedes and follows theirs. Like they do during breaking news.

Listening brings appropriate context and connection with the story. The delivery then, is descriptive and passionate. And being descriptive and passionate is compelling television.

-Laura Hernandez

Casting Characters

In his blogs on Why Local Newscasts Are Getting Easier to Ignore, Bruce Northcott talks about how there are no characters who deliver the news. The truth is, there aren't many Bill Bonds out there any more, and those people that do have something to say probably have their own cable shows. There are some who are willing to take chances, but they don't always have something interesting to say.

There are few people who can and do know when to color outside the lines. If that person exists in your newsroom, it's important to give him/her license to do it. And you must have a producer, director and production team on board to support it. If the producer is yelling "wrap, wrap, wrap!!!" in the IFB of someone trying to make a point, the likelihood of that being a real moment is greatly diminished.

And this is where life isn't fair... just because you give one anchor the license to be a greater voice, doesn't mean you have to give that freedom to everyone. That's how newscasts end up with those comments after stories that are trite, or cross talks that are inside and "optional," because they're about the anchors and not about the issues or the stories. Not everyone can pull it off.

If I were casting the players for a station, there would be at least one character - a leader with a voice. (Ideally, you'd have one for each daypart.) And that leader would be smart - smart enough to know when to push the format aside and have something to say.

- Laura Hernandez

Local News and the Populist Uprising

Are you part of the populist uprising?

If you haven't noticed, there's a populist uprising going on in the country.  People are mad. They don't think government works for them and those fat cats down at the bank who took all that taxpayer money are now denying loans while writing themselves obscene bonus checks. 

In this environment, local television news should hardly be sitting on the sidelines.  In Chicago, long-time WBBM reporter Jay Levine reported on a wealthy suburb's plan to renovate its high school - to the tune of $174 million dollars.  As Levine pointed out, that's more money than President Obama originally sent to Haiti for earthquake relief! 

Today, the critic's chorus in Chicago is taking Levine and WBBM to task.  Levine, they say, is "pontificating."  He's unfairly characterizing the proposed underground parking at the high school as "heated."  (Hey, it's 10 degrees on a Chicago parking lot this morning - underground is 50.  That IS heated!)  His report, say the critics, may have even led voters to defeat the bond issue (62% of almost 13,000 voters rejected it) for school renovation.
Hogwash!

At a time when local television news better get off its duff if it wants to survive, we need more reporting like Levine's.  The usual "straight down the middle," bland, vanilla reporting is going to be lost in the noise.  Why do we want to produce material that is so easy to ignore? 

If you live in South Chicago and your kid's school is a dump, you're sitting on the couch asking the same questions Levine is raising about the gold-plated renovation.  Why shouldn't television news have an attitude?  Your viewers certainly do.  And they might actually appreciate - and not turn off - a newscast that takes a risk or two. 

- John Altenbern

I rest my case... More on Why Local Newscasts are Getting Easier to Ignore

Just last week I wrote about bland on-air personalities being one of the reasons why local newscasts are getting easier to ignore. Agreed, there are other factors, of course. But, in my mind, we need more characters in local newscasts. They are all gone... or at least most of them.

On the heels of my rant, last week results of a new Harris Poll that identifies America's Favorite Television Personalities was released. In it, author Regina A. Corso says, "One of the joys of watching television is seeing characters and over-sized personalities." After more than 30 years researching local newscasts, I am convinced viewers love bigger than life personalities on TV. Corso makes that notion the centerpiece of her new study.

So, why do we, in local television, keep putting on safe, look-alike, sound-alike on-air people? The smart-aleck answer is that we have a death wish! The truth is that the real-decision makers in local television are not big risk takers. I urge clients all the time to hire people who don't look and sound like everyone else on TV... and, who have something to say about the world around them.

The people who topped the new Harris Poll:
1. Oprah Winfrey
2. Glenn Beck
3. Jay Leno
4. Ellen DeGeneres
5. Hugh Laurie

OK, I know they are not "news" people, but all of them (and most on down the list) look and sound very different than everyone else on TV. And they all clearly have something to say about the world around them. You may not always, or ever, agree with them, but they are opinionated.

What is the lesson for local TV? I made the case in my blog last week. Harris seems to support the premise. Now, get out there and hire someone unique for your next key on-air opening. Make sure they also have something to say about your community and the world around them.

If we don't do it as an industry, we're going to continue down a road that simply "makes local newscasts to easy to ignore."
- Bruce Northcott