April 3, 2007 Archives

Later today, I return to my night job after a few days last week working mornings. The two shifts couldn't be more different - not just the actual hours, but also the content.

First the obvious. I'm not sure how anyone gets used to, or comfortable with, those early morning hours. I had to be up at 2:00 AM. Working backwards, for eight hours of sleep you need to be in bed by 6:00 PM! I didn't like that beditme when I was three.

Morning anchors have the most trouble when they try to shift their bodies to 'normal' human hours on the weekend. It just can't be done... at least it can't be done at my age.

I am nocturnal. Getting home from work at midnight seems a whole lot more civilized to me than waking up at 2:00 AM. Left to my own devices, I'd probably drift to these late night hours naturally.

The less obvious part of last week's exercise was the immediate understanding I had in what the viewers needed, expected and would put up with.

Last part first. I think viewers are more willing to embrace someone who's a little bit silly in the morning. Look at what works on the radio.

Luckily, the anchors I worked with were willing to play along. Not every anchor is. Their willing participation made my life easier.

Weather in the morning is much more short term oriented. That's what viewers want and need. The extended forecast is never the focus. It's always about the next 8-10 hours. I immediately understood that on a visceral level.

In today's world, the evening shows are still the most important, even though mornings present the best growth area in local TV. On the other hand, I think the forecaster plays a more pivotal role in the morning shows.

Anyway, it's over. If you're expecting some announcement... some schedule change... I don't think it's going to happen. For three days, it was fun to walk in someone else's shoes. That's where it ends.

In this morning's Wall Street Journal:

Will I be called upon to go row-to-row to help people who can't connect?

Actually, I think this is a great idea. It will be interesting to see how much bandwidth each plane will have and how quickly someone's streaming video will bring that to a halt.

Rumored price is under $10 per flight.

My guess is, I'm the last to know about this video. It's been on Google since August with over 150,000 views.

Not only is it funny, it's clever enough to watch and watch again.

Here's the 'alleged' backstory: