The “Natasha effect”.

In yesterday’s post ,Pitching the News, I said that Five’s decision to pay one million pounds for their anchor showed their understanding of pitching.  Today’s announcement of viewing figures for the first month  confirm that it was indeed  an inspired decision.

“High Five for Natasha as ratings rocket 72%”, a headline in London Life.

Importantly, the figures out yesterday suggest the majority of new viewers are staying with her daily 7pm news bulletin.  She is reported as saying it is ‘a credit to what the team is doing’ which is nice of her. However, in reality ,the success is down to her, the way she tells it and the emotional (and valuable) connection  she is establishing with her viewers, many already loyal fans.

Watch this space for the next pitch battle for TV news audiences!

1 Reply

Pitching the news.

Everyday as viewers we can choose to watch any one of around ten or so mainstream news programmes. How do they compete for our custom?

It would be reassuring to think that it is through the quality of the content, depth of coverage and incisivness of the reporting.All of these are important and must be delivered at a reasonable  (rational) level but for most of us do not determine our choice.

Our choice is  largely  our emotional response to the personality of the programme and that in turn is our response to the people fronting the news. Do we connect with the almost parental reassurance of Sir Trevor,the cool elegance of Fiona Bruce., the directness of  Huw Edwards or the intimacy of Natasha Kaplinski?

At Five, clearly, the decison to pay one million pounds for their ‘anchor’ shows their understanding of pitching. It’s the way you say it that matters and the anchor is not just someone who fronts but someone who connects with the audience.

    

Leave a reply

Pitching in Parliament

Yesterday, as so often, it was not what was said but the way it was said that captured attention.

Quentin Letts in his regular , entertaining, column in the Daily Mail wrote “…………Mr Brown rushed through his statement, showing little strong interest in what he was saying. It was almost as though he had not bothered to rehearse it. He stumbled over several words….

……Mr Cameron , replying , barely bothered to mention Europe.You sometimes get the impression from the Tory leader that he is not much of a detail man. His Budget speech last week was amusing and combative and delivered with assurance. But it was not the work  of a man seized by economics or immersed in fiscal calculations…….

….And yet the maddening thing for the Prime Minister is that the Cameron spiel seems to work. People on all sides of the House yesterday were charmed by Mr Cameron (whereas they were simply bored by Mr Brown).”

A reminder that in any pitch content is important but ‘ people buy people’.

Leave a reply

Pitching a budget.

Most of us have experience of ‘pitching’ a budget.It can be a fee proposal to a client, a request for a salary increase or for a loan from the bank. How well do we think Alastair Darling pitched his budget to us yesterday?Did he persuade us to his point of view?

The budget itself was pretty nondescript. Bit of this, bit of that, bit of green and the usual on drink.As anticipated nothing dramatic given economic factors outside his control.

What was in his control, or should have been, was the way he put his message across.He had plenty of time to prepare and , presumably, to rehearse. Yet his performance was at best dreary and was slated in the press-“so boring he even stupified himself” .

Worse than this was the lack of confidence. How can we be confident in what he proposed if he is not?

The only person to benefit from his poor performance is Gordon Brown. He,in contrast, we remember as a master of his subject- whether we agreed or not- who radiated confidence, a quality less evident in his current role.

Leave a reply

Enthusiastic amateur or professional athlete?

In a recent television interview Martin Johnson legendary captain of England’s successful World Cup winning rugby team -how long ago that seems – talked of his huge admiration for American football. The major difference , in his view, was that in the highly professional American game players had to be great athletes over and above their expertise as footballers.

Perhaps modestly he said that despite his size and footballing skill he would not have succeeded in the American game where athleticism is paramount.

There is a parallel in the pitching playing field. Most of us , most of the time, are more comfortable in a pitch concentrating on our area of expertise be that law, architecture, real estate or advertising. This is our comfort zone where we assume our skills as ‘rugby’ players will win the day.

What we need to do is inject the attitude and approach of the professional athlete ,not that of the enthusiastic amateur, to our pitching.

Leave a reply