Natalie Jacobson To Retire

[David Tomm]

I think people get settled with one newscast and tend to stick with it. 
  Younger viewers have historically been drawn to 7's tabloid style 
presentation.  Fox 25's newscast will probably siphon off more viewers 
from them than the other stations as they also have a faster paced 
delivery.  Older viewers have tended to watch Channel 5, due to the 
draw of a veteran reporting staff (Gail, Jorge etc) along with Natalie, 
Dick Albert, Harvey Leonard and Mike Lynch.  Even their graphics are 
"old school."

At the end of the day, WBZ just gets lost in the shuffle.  They've 
brought in personalities from other stations in the market, like John 
Keller and Chris May but it doesn't seem to help.  And that may be the 
underlying problem.  I tend to watch 4 more than the others and it's 
always been a revolving door over there.  You never know who's going to 
be on which newscast, even when it's not vacation season.  People tend 
to like a certain style of newscast, and they'll stay with it if there 
are personalities they can rely on night in and night out.  Channel 5 
had that credibility but by jettisoning Natalie, that could be put into 
jeopardy.

WBZ needs to stabilize the people in their newscasts and keep them 
there.  If Natalie goes to 1170, they should find a spot for her and 
let it develop, not bounce her around between 5, 6, & 11 like they've 
done with other anchors.  If 5 is trying to go younger to run with 7 & 
25, I'm sure there will be more veteran departures coming out of 
Needham.  WBZ should snap some of them up and build a newscast that 
specifically targets the upper end of 18-49.  It's not sexy, but with 
three other stations fighting over the 20 & 30 somethings, WBZ could 
find a niche with older viewers which could be lucrative in an older 
skewing market like Boston.

Dave Tomm
"Mike Thomas"

On Jul 11, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Doug Drown wrote:

>> Of the Big Name Anchors, Jack Williams is
>> now the only one left, and his station's news mired in fourth place
>> overall, despite having the strongest network affiliation.<
>
> As I haven't lived in Mass. for years, I've been curious for some time 
> as to
> why this is so.  WBZ-TV changed its network affiliation twelve years 
> ago, if
> memory serves, and it's never been able to get itself out of the 
> doldrums
> since --- despite the fact, as you say, that it's affiliated with the 
> lead
> network.  When I make my visits to family/friends in the 
> Gardner-Fitchburg
> area, I make a point of watching and comparing 4, 5 and 7.  4 and 5 
> seem
> fairly similar in "style" if you will, while 7 is much more slick.  Any
> opinions as to why Channel 4 has become the perpetual also-ran?
>
> -Doug