Luring Viewers With Cash   

TV newscasts are giving away serious money to raise their ratings, drawing criticism in the process.

Giving away big money on their newscasts may help local television stations temporarily boost their ratings. But the burgeoning practice could also do serious damage to their credibility.

"It's disgraceful," says John Culliton, general manager and the former news director at WCCO in Minneapolis. Last February a WCCO competitor, KSTP, offered viewers the chance to win up to $20,000 a night by watching the station's

10 p.m. newscast.

áSTP's "$250,000 Cold Cash Giveaway" was small change compared to the $2.5 million offered by two stations in Charlotte during last November's rating period. WSOC put up $1 million only to be topped by WBTV's $1.5 million.

"Some stations seem to be trying to turn TVs into slot machines," says the Poynter Institute's Scott Libin, who is researching news contests. "Pump a quarter-hour of your time in and you might find a fortune flowing at your feet. 'Bribe You to Watch' isn't a bad paraphrase for 'Watch to Win.' "

Whether it's $2.5 million in Charlotte or automobiles and color TVs in Columbus, Ohio, dozens of stations are trying to increase their news ratings with highly promoted giveaways during newscasts. This is not new. For years stations have used their weathercasters to help pass out snowblowers and lawnmowers to viewers who predict the first snow day or first robin sighting. What's different now is the amount of money being dispensed and the caveat that viewers supposedly must watch a specific newscast to win. Typically, a number or name is flashed on the screen during a commercial break and the potential winner has so many minutes to call the station. Because there's no interruption of the news, contest proponents see no harm to the station's reputation.

"In our research we have not gotten the sense that it reflects on the news," says Bruce Baker, general manager of WSOC. "People understand it's in the commercial break."

Jim Keelor, president of the eight-station Cosmos Broadcasting Corp., strongly disagrees, believing cash contests are a growing cancer. "Instinctively, I think there are very few bastions of fairness, honesty and credibility left on a television station, and if they're not going to be our newscasts, what the hell are they going to be?" he asks.

Still, many general managers say that the contests may be helpful in getting someone who doesn't normally watch a newscast to sample it. "A good station that does contests can build their ratings faster," says Elden Hale, general manager at WTKR in Norfolk and group vice president of the the New York Times broadcast group. "You have to have a good product first. If they sample and like it, they'll stay; if not, they won't. It's a marketing tool."

That was the point WPXI was trying to make in Pittsburgh. Both WPXI and WTAE gave away piles of cash during the November and February rating periods. The third network affiliate, longtime news leader KDKA, was so upset at what it called the contest "circus" that it suspended the services of the industry's only ratings company, Nielsen Media Research, for three months starting in early February. In the February ratings, WPXI, which had been running third for decades but was slowly gaining, was rated either first or second. KDKA was third. WPXI, which started running such contests in 1992, has now expanded the giveaways beyond the four major ratings periods in an attempt to deter criticism that its surge toward number one is tainted.

Cosmos' Keelor, who has currently banned newscast contests from his stations, is one who believes the ratings that result from the giveaways are "fraudulent" and debase the trustworthiness of local stations. "We live and die with the credibility of those ratings," he says, "and if the advertiser can't count on what the program is delivering in terms of audience, we're in trouble."

The American Association of Advertising Agencies agrees. In March, the organization issued a policy position censuring the "watch to win" contests. It also suggested member agencies and advertisers withhold advertising dollars from stations running such contests.

Even some industry people who don't find anything journalistically wrong with trying to entice news viewers by giving them big money are dubious about the effectiveness of the contests. Eric Braun, vice president of television for Frank N. Magid Associates, Inc., says, "People who are drawn into your newscast by a contest are people who have not yet been drawn in by the journalism. So, while you may elevate your ratings short term with a contest, you may not be building people who are loyal to your core purpose, and that's the journalism."

Some wonder why WPXI and the other stations don't simply end the overhyped cash contests altogether. Says Culliton: "It's a little scary to think that we don't have money for reporters and overtime but we've got time to give away $250,000 or more in the course of the year." l