Blog

Picture credit: Jon Tyson via Unsplash

We need to talk about Tuesday – well just about any day!

On Tuesday, the average person woke up, scrolled through their phone for eleven minutes before getting out of bed, listened to a podcast in the shower, half-watched a breakfast news programme while checking emails, watched vertical video on their commute, sat through three Teams calls, ate lunch at their desk finishing a YouTube series, caught a WhatsApp voice note, glanced at the BBC homepage, started a Netflix show at 9pm, gave up after twenty minutes, and fell asleep with an audiobook murmuring into the dark.

At some point during all of that, every major media platform, broadcaster, streaming service, social network, and content creator on the planet was competing for a piece of them.

None of them won. They all just got a slice.

That is the media landscape in 2026. And the industry is still – still – asking the wrong question about it.

“What does the future of TV and content look like?”

It’s a reasonable question. It is also, increasingly, an irrelevant one.

Because the future of media will not be decided by format. It will be decided by who earns people’s time. And time, not attention, not eyeballs, not reach, is the only currency that actually matters now.

This distinction is more important than it sounds.

The attention economy gave us a useful framework for a while. It made us think about headlines, about thumb-stopping content, about the first three seconds of a video. It produced snappier journalism, shorter clips, and a mild collective shame about the listicle. But attention was never truly scarce. People will sit through a three-hour documentary without blinking. They will read a 10,000-word piece about something they genuinely care about. They will watch the same match highlights four times. Attention is not in short supply — it just has very high standards.

Time, on the other hand, is merciless. There are 24 hours in a day. You cannot AB test your way around that. You cannot optimise it with better metadata or solve it with a content calendar. And here is what makes that so consequential right now: the number of things competing for those 24 hours has become almost cosmically absurd.

Vertical content dominates daytime viewing. Social owns the second screen. YouTube is quietly becoming television. Netflix keeps expanding into live sport, events, formats that used to belong to broadcasters. Advertisers are diversifying spend accordingly. Every platform is hunting the same prey, your time, with increasingly sophisticated weapons.

Linear decline, in this context, does not mean people stopped loving content. It means others got better at capturing attention. The audience did not leave. It redistributed.

So what separates the winners from the rest?

The companies that will define the next decade of media are not thinking in formats. They are thinking in ecosystems. The question is no longer “what show should we make?” It is “what intellectual property can we create, own, and deploy across every surface where our audience lives?”

Create IP once. Distribute everywhere. Build audiences directly, not through platforms you rent, but through relationships you own. Then expand: live experiences, merchandise, communities, new formats, global franchises. This is not a radical new idea. Disney has been doing it for eighty years. What has changed is that the barriers to entry have collapsed. A single well-constructed podcast can now seed a media brand that touches multiple formats, multiple revenue streams, and a genuinely loyal audience without a network, a transmitter, or a commissioning editor.

The organisations and companies that are winning right now understand that the question is no longer “did anyone see this?” It is “was it worth their while?” Because every piece of content, every article, every clip, every episode, every post, represents an active trade-off by a real human being. They are giving you minutes. Actual, irreplaceable, finite minutes of their one and only life. That is an extraordinary act of trust. The brands, broadcasters, and creators that treat it like one are the ones building durable audiences. Everyone else is just filling a feed.

The media industry loves a good format debate. Streaming versus linear. Short-form versus long. Vertical versus horizontal. These are interesting conversations. They are also, largely, distractions.

The real debate is simpler and harder: are you worth someone’s Tuesday?

If the answer is yes, reliably, consistently, in a way that makes them come back, you have a media business. If the answer is “probably, if they happen to find us,” you have a content operation with a strategy problem.

Time is the battleground. Earn it or lose it. There is no third option.

Tick toc.

Our take on what’s coming in 2026…

At BHC we pride ourselves on being a consultancy that is always forward-thinking, and can engage honestly with our clients. 2025 was immense for the world of communications…but we think we haven’t seen anything yet and the speed of change is accelerating.

As we kick off the new year, we find ourselves looking to the 12 months ahead and asking ourselves, what does 2026 look like for news and communications?

Here are some of our predictions…

These trends will reshape how every organisation communicates, how audiences consume information, and how trust gets built or destroyed in public conversation.

Three things jumped out:

The traffic cliff is real – and it’s coming for everyone

Publishers expect search traffic to drop more than 40% over the next three years. Google referrals are already down a third globally. AI overviews are eating clicks. Chatbots are becoming the new front door.

This isn’t just a journalism problem. If you’re a business relying on content marketing, SEO, or organic discovery to drive leads, awareness, or engagement – the ground is shifting under your feet. The old playbook of “create content, optimise for search, wait for traffic” is dying faster than most communications teams have realised.

The question: how do you show up when people aren’t searching anymore – they’re asking?

Distinctiveness beats scale

Media leaders are saying the same thing: more original investigations, more on-the-ground reporting, more human stories, more analysis. Less generic news, less evergreen content, less commoditised information that AI can summarise in three bullet points.

This applies beyond media teams. In a world where AI can generate infinite “content,” the only thing that cuts through is content that couldn’t have been created by a machine. Original thinking. Real expertise. Lived experience. A distinctive voice that’s recognisably human.

If your comms strategy is built on generic thought leadership, repackaged trends, or surface-level commentary – you’re already competing with an algorithm that does it faster and cheaper.

The creator economy is eating traditional media’s lunch

70% of news executives are concerned that creators are taking time and attention away from publisher content. 39% worry they’re losing top talent to the creator ecosystem.

But here’s what matters for the wider communications industry: creators aren’t just competing with journalism. They’re competing with all institutional voices. Politicians, CEOs, brands, and organizations are all facing the same challenge – audiences increasingly trust personalities over institutions.

The response? Three-quarters of publishers say they’ll get journalists to behave more like creators this year. They’re putting faces to bylines, building platform personalities, hiring young talent who understand TikTok and Reels.

For corporate communications teams, the question is: who are your creators? Which voices inside your organization can build authentic connection? And are you giving them the permission, tools, and training to show up in the places your audiences actually are?

What this means for communications professionals

If you’re working in PR, corporate comms, public affairs, or stakeholder engagement, these trends should be setting off alarm bells:

• Your carefully crafted press releases are competing with AI summaries and creator commentary
• Your CEO’s LinkedIn post is going head-to-head with influencers who’ve built trust through personality, not position
• Your media strategy can’t rely on traditional gatekeepers when audiences are bypassing them entirely
• Your “content strategy” needs to be about distinctiveness, not volume

The organizations that will win aren’t the ones with the biggest content engines or the slickest SEO. They’re the ones with something genuine to say, said by people audiences actually want to hear from, in formats designed for how people actually consume information today.

Which means: less corporate polish. More human voice. Fewer press releases. More vertical video. Less broadcasting. More conversation.

The internet is basically one big video player now. Podcasts are part of the daily routine. People expect stories to land quickly, clearly, and creatively. The old comms playbook doesn’t work anymore.

The question is: are you ready to rewrite it?

Let’s talk…

Or can brands really gain value.

Welcome to the BHC Bulletin…news from mediaville and  beyond….

If you are a regular reader of the Bulletin you know we have a huge interest in YouTube. The audience is there and so are our clients and partners.

We pay a close interest and this week there has been some real deep-down analysis of who is watching what on YT by BARB – the UK audience measuring company.

And it makes fascinating reading and has created a great deal of analysis. But like all views – many should come with a pinch of salt.

YT has for a long time now positioned itself as the future of television – if this research shows anything maybe YT is the future of babysitting!!!

Look at this chart from BARB:

Ok – a microsecond read shows its mainly kids shows. Nothing wrong with that – but it’s a clear look at where the volume is viewing.

The chart shows the top 20 channels, the top 200 were surveys, but that info is only available to subscribers of the service who pay.

Those that have seen it say as C21 reported:

“The overall list also features channels from sports bodies like FIFA and WWE, UK and international news and politics such as Fox News and Times News, entertainment like Doctor Who and Warner Bros Entertainment and popular YouTubers such as MrBeast, Sidemen and Topper Guild2.

To choose the 200 YouTube channels, Barb worked with SeeViews, an independent business that specialises in planning ad campaigns on YouTube. 

The selection was primarily based on volumes of viewing and considered whether the channels meet industry-agreed standards for brand safety. The weekly report doesn’t feature YouTube channels operated by TV companies, as Barb includes this viewing in the audience figures it reports for such firms, which it began doing in 2021.”

So, what else can we take from this – well it shows how vast You Tube and the video world is. This data represents only 0.3% of viewing. You Tube (and all other VoD platform have long-tails of content!)

Full article here:

http://www.c21media.net/news/barb-starts-reporting-tv-set-viewing-of-youtube-channels-in-world-first-initiative/

But here’s a real gem from The Media Leaders article on this:

“Take MrBeast. He’s YouTube royalty, with 400M+ subscribers… But the perception vs reality is stark. In the UK, his channel reaches just 319,000 weekly TV viewers (4+), almost exactly the same as BBC3 Parliament.”

Full article here:  

https://uk.themedialeader.com/barb-lifts-the-lid-on-youtubes-viewership-reality/

So is You Tube really television? 

I think the question is now irrelevant – programming, long form, short form, professional or user generated is everywhere. 

The tech has made the boundaries close to impossible to define. 

So why the Bulletin on this – well for our clients, cutting out the gatekeeper of commissioners and editors is vital to reach the audience. We encourage all clients to experiment with video content; some take to it naturally, others with our guidance find their voice.

The old phrase about turning up is vital – you can’t post 10 videos and go home, it’s a routine, daily, weekly, monthly episodic – it depends on the client, the industry and the message.

We work with library owners and get their archive in front of a new audience. One recent project has fabulous documentaries shown only once on TV but now being viewed around the world on TY and being monetized.

Other businesses are now getting emails from around the world trying to source good or services.

Is You Tube TV – yes and no – but its sure good for business who are confident with content.

If you want to learn more visit us at: www.beechhillconsultancy.com

More soon from the BHC Bulletin, for now enjoy the rest of the summer.

The Race Against Time to Stay Relevant: Broadcasting in Northern Ireland – Navigating the Next Decade

As global platforms reshape the way audiences consume content, the future of Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) in Northern Ireland and the UK’s devolved nations is entering a critical decade. While the digital transformation of media is not new, its accelerating pace, driven by changing viewing habits, algorithmic curation, and financial disruption, has brought PSB to an inflection point.

This was the backdrop for a recent high-level event at the Ulster University in Belfast, where regulators, broadcasters, politicians, and academics gathered to assess how PSB must evolve if it is to remain relevant, trusted, and truly public.

More than one speaker made it clear there could be only 10 years to fix this issue – and that’s about the time of one or two legislative cycles – so time is tight. Maybe the BBC Royal Charter renewal in 2027 will put some focus on the issue – but only a very confident personal would view a workable solution being delivered on that timeframe.

The Evolving Role of PSB

At its core, PSB is meant to serve all audiences to inform, educate, and entertain with integrity and accessibility. Recently Public Service Media has replaced PSB as the phrase as it’s meant now to cover all platforms of distribution – online as well as broadcasting. 

Yet in a world of personalised media feeds and streaming services, the idea of universality is under pressure. Traditional linear broadcasting is giving way to on-demand viewing, and with that comes a shift in how content is funded, prioritised, and accessed.

For PSBs, this evolution brings a new challenge: how to maintain their public service remit when competing in a market that values volume, scale, and short-term engagement. 

Entertainment formats tend to dominate VOD strategies, leaving genres like investigative journalism, arts, and regional storytelling vulnerable. In Northern Ireland, where identity, representation and inclusion carry heightened importance, this erosion could have serious consequences for civic trust and democratic engagement.

In NI the local newspapers – especially the Irish News – top the league tables for circulation figures (although all are on a downward slope). Local TV news programmes on both the BBC and commercial UTV are some of the highest ratings in the UK. (For full transparency I was the Managing Director of UTV for more than a decade.) Plus, local radio is still very strong, still local, and has well respected newsrooms.

So Northern Ireland is in a good shape compared to much of the UK. However, in a totally digital world, where linear TV is switched off, regional material comes much harder to find in an IP delivered world, and I fear the cliff edge is close, and the fall much steeper than for many other parts of the UK, who have already started the drop!

With fantastically high broadband speeds coving a significant proportion of the population Northern Ireland could easily be chosen as a test area for IP only broadcast delivery. It was the last region of the UK to have analogue tv transmitters turned off, but it could be the first to have ALL TV transmissions go dark.

The threats are serious, growing and unlike broadcasting regulation/legislation in the past which has focused on domestic issues, these issues are global in scale and therefore far more difficult to address.

Three Strategic Threats to PSB

1. Economic Fragility and Funding Models

The financial foundation of PSB is weakening. Declining licence fee revenue coupled with increased reluctance to pay and strong feeling the licence fee is regressive taxation, fragmented advertising markets, and political resistance to new funding mechanisms are making it harder for PSBs to deliver at scale. 

In smaller nations and regions like Northern Ireland, this is felt acutely. Without ring-fenced investment or diversified revenue, there is a risk of ‘postcode PSB’ with meaningful provision available only in large population centres. “News deserts” as they are already called in the US.

2. Platform Dominance and Discoverability

Even the best PSB content struggles to compete with the global reach and algorithmic grip of platforms like Netflix, TikTok, and YouTube. Audiences increasingly encounter public service content not on native apps or TV schedules, but through third-party aggregators, if at all. For PSB to remain relevant, discoverability must be prioritised through smarter digital strategies, cross-platform partnerships, and even regulatory mandates ensuring fair visibility. Through the new UK Media Bill, Ofcom is doing some of this work right now (again for full disclosure I sit on Ofcom’s Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland: this is written in a personal capacity), but how the platforms react is yet to be seen.

3. Trust, Accountability and AI

In an era of misinformation and AI-generated content, the role of PSB as a trusted source of accurate, verified information has never been more vital. But trust must be earned continually, through editorial independence, transparent governance, and a demonstrable commitment to serving diverse communities. 

The next decade will also test how PSBs use AI ethically, balancing innovation with accountability.

A Distinctive Northern Ireland Context

The challenges of PSB are amplified in Northern Ireland by its political sensitivities, unique media consumption habits, and the need for programming that reflects life of distinct communities. 

Audience expectations are high, because for so long there has been overdeliver and very strong plural media.

The future of PSB here will depend on strengthening regional commissioning, investing in local talent pipelines, and ensuring that institutions like the BBC, UTV/ITV and Channel 4 are held accountable for delivering authentic, inclusive stories.

Moreover, cross-border media access particularly remains inconsistent. Improving this could enhance cultural exchange, reduce duplication, and better reflect the island’s complex identity.

Also, the market needs to remain open to new entrants with new models that focus on public service content for a digital age. No one should argue that the legacy broadcasters should be the gatekeepers to the new world, any more than the American tech companies which now hold the balance of distribution and consumption power on most devices should be.

Beyond Broadcasting: A Civic Infrastructure

What emerged clearly from the Belfast event is that PSB should no longer be viewed simply as a broadcast service it is part of the wider civic infrastructure. Like healthcare or education, it supports public trust, community cohesion, and informed citizenship. Its decline would not just reduce the range of available content; it would damage the social fabric was a view many held.

The next ten years will require bold decisions: regulatory reform, public engagement, smarter funding models, and a renewed commitment to public value. Devolved governments, civil society, and the broadcasters themselves must all play a role.

This was a superb starting point for engagement and discussion: the team at Ulster University understand the issues. Dr Phil Ramsey who organised the event has written a number of PSB tracker studies and understand the landscape as well as anyone.

For Beech Hill Consultancy, its important the future of PSB/PSM is decided in the nations where it matters most. Not around boardroom tables of London based corporates and that politicians continue to see the values of plural news sources, portrayal and representation on screen (whatever size that screen happens to be and wherever its viewed) when policy and legislation is devised.

We’d be keen for Phil and Ulster University to build an even stronger position in thought leadership and research in this space: looking at the audience, the global challenges and how others are addressing them and seeing where future business models can take us as an informed society. First stop another conference or workshop later in the year looking at possible solutions not the well-rehearsed challenges: maybe?

For Northern Ireland with its history, diversity, and complex future the stakes could not be higher.

The Rise of Long-Form Content on YouTube

Welcome to the latest BHC Bulletin, this is another single-subject note, on the rise of YouTube as a “channel” in its own right. How the audience is consuming content, and why you as a business should be thinking about developing a channel with your personal or corporate content.

YouTube has undergone a significant, quiet, yet quite deliberate transformation, evolving from a platform dominated by short, user-generated clips to a leading destination for long-form content, or linear television

This shift has positioned YouTube as a formidable player in the television landscape, rivalling traditional broadcasters and streaming services – indeed in the US YT gets more eyeball minutes than any other single platform or service.

Research by Digital I reported in TVTech indicates a significant increase in the consumption of extended videos on YouTube:

www.tvtechnology.com/news/long-form-content-viewing-on-youtube-rose-8-percent-in-2024

In 2024, the average viewing time for videos lasting 30 minutes or more rose by 8 percentage points, from 65% in October 2023 to 73% in October 2024. This trend is particularly noticeable among young adults, with their long-form content viewing on mobile devices increasing from 58% to 79% in the same period.

And why’s this happening: 

It can be attributed to YouTube’s wide and varied content offerings, which range from in-depth documentaries and comprehensive tutorials to serialised shows and live streams. 

Creators are increasingly producing high-quality, long-form videos that engage audiences for extended periods, fostering deeper connections and higher viewer retention.

Beech Hill Consultancy is already working with leading independent television producers to develop You Tube channels that deliver impact, eyeballs and revenue.

YouTube’s Dominance in Television Streaming…yes really!

YouTube’s influence now extends beyond computers and mobile devices into living rooms worldwide. As of December 2024, YouTube emerged as the most-streamed platform on televisions, surpassing traditional streaming giants in viewing time. This shift is facilitated by the YouTube app’s integration into smart TVs and streaming devices,  making it easily accessible to a broad audience.

Neal Mohan, YouTube’s CEO, highlighted this transition, noting that TV screens have surpassed mobile devices as the primary medium for consuming YouTube content. In the UK, 34% of YouTube viewing time occurs on TV sets, a figure that continues to rise, especially among younger demographics. 

Our own data shows that more than 55% of the audience is watching through a TV screen – not a mobile or tablet you would instinctively expect YT viewers to be using.

In addition, our own data doesn’t have the kids watching longform but over 50’s are the core demographic for viewers. 

It’s true – YouTube has scaled back its investment in original scripted content, it continues to serve as a launchpad for creators who transition to mainstream media. 

YouTubers, such as MrBeast, have expanded their reach through collaborations with platforms like Amazon Prime Video, blending the lines between digital and traditional media. This strategy underscores YouTube’s role as a launch-pad for talent that resonates with diverse audiences. 

The Guardian has more on this here:

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/feb/18/beast-games-youtube-television

Implications for Advertisers and Content Creators

The platform’s evolution offers significant opportunities for advertisers and content creators. The rise in long-form content consumption allows for more immersive advertising experiences and sponsorships. Brands can engage with audiences through integrated content, product placements, and collaborations that align with viewer interests.

For content creators, the demand for extended videos opens avenues for deeper storytelling, comprehensive tutorials, and serialised content that can attract and retain subscribers. Monetisation opportunities are enhanced through longer watch times and diversified content offerings.

Plus, YT seems to have escaped the worst of impact of the moderation rows and changes at Meta and X – so it’s a more tolerant environment in the main.

YouTube’s transformation into a leading platform for long-form content signifies a clear and irreversible shift in how audiences consume media. Its seamless integration into television viewing habits, coupled with a diverse array of content, positions YouTube as a formidable competitor in the entertainment industry. 

As the platform continues to evolve, it offers unparalleled opportunities for advertisers, creators, and viewers alike, solidifying its status as one of the cornerstones of modern media consumption.

This MarketWatch article has much more detail on YT’s history and revenue:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/youtube-now-dominates-tv-streaming-and-even-podcasts-heres-a-look-at-how-it-got-there-c8bd3bc1

Anyone with a content library should be looking at YT as a distribution platform – corporates, indi’s even schools and universities can create their own channels. Beech Hill Consultancy is happy to give advice and maximise brand, message and impact of any new YT venture…just get in touch: www.beechhillconsultancy.com

TV loses traction with Gen Z – the January blog – BHC Bulletin – from Beech Hill Consultancy.

It’s an age thing – part 1

A recent, major report called “Video Redefined” from the big brains at Hub Entertainment Research has some key findings on content consumption. It’s a deep dive into how viewers choose and use content across multiple platforms. I’ve just read the latest edition in the last few days and the key findings are interesting not just for the media industry – but anyone creating real quality content for any audience:

For as long as I can remember, TV has been the centre of the entertainment ecosystem – but for Gen Z and that’s a big change.

All research used to point to the audience viewing on content on the largest available screen. So, when the adults left the room, the kids would turn the TV to watch THEY wanted to watch, and ditch the phone. 

Not anymore – they are happy to choose the small screen for convenience.

So here are more headlines:

35+ viewers watch TV over and above all other kind of screen-based entertainment – 43 per cent of their total screen time, with only one fifth of their time going to gaming or online video on platforms such as YouTube or TikTok.

But that is reversed for those age 13-24: they estimate less than a fifth of their screen time (17 per cent) is spent on TV shows. They spend more than twice that on gaming and non-premium video combined.

The home TV is for premium video content – Netflix, Disney etc. 

Those age 13-24 give over 30 per cent of their screen time to content on their smartphone.

Advanced Television summarised the digital use like this:

“YouTube remains the biggest player in ‘non-premium’ online video: more than 80 per cent of respondents use it regularly. But TikTok has become indispensable to many young viewers, in a relatively short period of time. Among those age 13-24…

• Two-thirds have used TikTok in the past week (second only to YouTube)
• Among those using TikTok, 72 per cent say they watch it every day (compared with just 48 per cent of YouTube users in that age group)
• Among those who use *both*, more than half (51 per cent) say they’d choose TikTok over YouTube if they could only have one”

That final point should be deeply troubling to You Tube owners Google – who have already had a bad start to the year.

Boss at Hub Entertainment Research is  Jon Giegengack, “The ‘streaming wars’ monopolise the spotlight when it comes to predicting the fortunes of media companies in the future, but this obscures an even more important shift: the next generation of TV consumers are just less engaged with traditional TV itself. Gaming and social video are the focus of their entertainment lifestyles. There’s no reason to assume they’ll grow out of these habits as they age. Media organisations need to adapt to these changes in order to meet tomorrow’s viewers on the devices and platforms where they will spend most of their time.”

But it’s not just media businesses – any content creators need to meet the audience on the screen they are watching.

Beech Hill Consultancy has been helping clients do that since it was created, with high end “linear” content ideas, down to the shortest social climbs that help clients connect with future customers, users and fans!

But don’t ignore the baby boomers either….

It’s an age thing – part 2

A study has shown that in the UK advertisers inadequately represent the over-55s, despite this group accounting for 60% of the UK’s wealth, research by ITV and System1 reveals.

Over-55s appear in less than a quarter of ads even though they constitute nearly one-third of the UK population. Perhaps more revealing about the failure of the ad industry to represent the market – the study found it was far rarer for older women to star in TV ads than older men.

More than 1000 ads were analysed – so this issue runs deep.

More and more older people are being marginalised by media – both ads and creative content – even though their spending power is far more significant than any other demographic.

Content investment – the cheque book is closing, so is the second “golden age” over?

Ampere Analysis (a media and insights company)  think the year ahead will see the slowest growth in content spend in a decade, (excluding the 2020 Covid slump).

Ampere says it expects global content expenditure to increase by just 2% year-on-year compared to last year where global content spend grew by 6% to a whopping US$238bn.

Basically, the economic crisis around the would mean the SVoD platforms think we will all save our cents and pennies and cut back on subscriptions, plus their costs are rising too and they need to keep them in check.

Hannah Walsh, research manager at Ampere Analysis, said: “Services will continue to focus on original content to compete in a crowded cost-sensitive market, but we are already seeing a shift in content commissioning to incorporate a greater volume of cheaper unscripted formats.”

And finally….

Tune in, tune out, and the final turn off.

A little bit of radio history is taking place this month in the UK – with the nationwide Absolute Radio closing all its AM (Medium Wave) frequencies for the station.

Absolute Radio launched on AM (as Virgin Radio) 30 years ago in 1993 

There will be no howls of disapproval – apart from radio anoraks – as just two percent of all radio listening now takes place on AM.

As quoted on Twitter by audio consultant Matt Deegan

“Interesting fact from the DCMS’ Ian O’Neill – AM radio accounts for around 2% of listening – but 35% of radio transmission’s energy costs.”

While it was big news in the US in the last few months, due to the war in Ukraine, the subsequent energy crisis and the death of Her Majesty the Queen a very interesting – and in my view pioneering – piece of legislation put onto the statute books in New York may have missed your attention.

Enshrined in the New York City Human Rights Law the snappily titled “salary transparency provisions” demands that employers advertising jobs in New York City must include “a good faith salary range for every job, promotion, and transfer opportunity advertised.”

Simple! And in an instant delivers fairness and transparency in the mystical world of corporate recruitment.

The new legislation comes into force in a couple of weeks on November 1^st – so it will be a while before we see the impact, but I suspect it will be significant.

Businesses need to understand that communications to prospective future employees – the talent that will drive the business and hopefully lead to growth and innovation – need to improve. If the salary is ‘highly competitive’ or ‘market leading’ then prove it and show us the money – literally.

As with all work and human interactions, transparency should be key!

While report after report shows that salary isn’t often the main reason people move jobs, I wager there are few people who jump roles (unless for very specific reasons) that actually take a pay cut. 

This new rule is hugely significant and will start a process of openness. Time after time,

candidates are upfront, honest and transparent about their education, qualifications and experience during the interview process, only to run the risk of being misled by the recruiter about salary, knowing there’s really no way for the candidate to find out the real scale the company has budgeted, and to get transparency as to the job’s salary benchmarked against peers already working in the business.

So what are the new rules:

All employers that have four or more employees covered are including this new provision of the law, with owners and individual employers counting towards the four employees. There’s a kicker too – to ensure a catch-all – the four employees do not need to work in the same location, and they do not need to all work in New York City. As long as one of the employee’s works in New York City, the workplace is covered. 

The rules that cover salary transparency are: (taken from the NYCCHR website)

“Employers must state the minimum and maximum salary they in good faith believe at the time of the posting they are willing to pay for the advertised job, promotion, or transfer opportunity. “Good faith” means the salary range the employer honestly believes at the time they are listing the job advertisement that they are willing to pay the successful applicant(s).

Employers must include both a minimum and a maximum salary; the range cannot be open ended. For example, “$15 per hour and up” or “maximum $50,000 per year” would not be consistent with the new requirements. If an employer has no flexibility in the salary they are offering, the minimum and maximum salary may be identical, for example, “$20 per hour.” “

That feels fairly simple, straightforward and clear to me – and a result for potential candidates.

Of course, there are some issues – how do you account for the experience of someone whose been in the job for years being on a higher salary because of annual increments?

And with employment packages differ big hugely / the value of pension, shares, bonus, health etc can add thousands of invisible perks

But all of these are issues already in the market anyway.

The simple and straightforward fact is that by stating salaries there should be a reduction in pay gaps based on gender or race.

Enforcement is through complaints of discrimination filed by members of the public, with employers and employment agencies who are found to have violated the legislation being open to paying financial damages to affected employees – penalties can be up to $250,000 (ouch!) 

Right now – a huge round of applause for the New York City Commission on Human Rights. It would be superb to see this initiative being passed into legislation in more jurisdictions. (Since beginning to research this subject, it appears the state of Colorado already has a similar law – and in Europe it’s already law in Austria)

Of course, there is nothing stopping businesses from taking the initiative and rolling out salary transparency without being forced into it by the law! 

It would show open leadership. Plus based on comments on social media linked to the announcement of the implementation of the new rules, many have said it would be a sign of a company they would WANT to work for – so it’s good business for those companies wanting to get high quality candidates in an ever challenging employment market.

Across the last few months media commentators have been obsessed with the battle between Disney+ and Netflix with the forecast that the Mouse would dwarf Reed Hastings business.

But…the reality is the landscape is tough for media giants.

In the summer the FT reported that the largest US media companies have shed almost $400billion in value this year. Recession worries, audience changes post-pandemic and advertisers taking cover all add to the pain.

In fact, the S&P500 had at the time dropped 13% – the media sector giants had fallen 35%.

So what’s happening – well the streamers are beginning to think like the traditional networks. SVoD (Subscription Video on demand) is beginning to be supplemented by AVoD (Advertising-based Video on Demand).

Isn’t that just a re-booted linear service delivered through streaming rather than through the air? It feels like it.

Having worked in the broadcast business for more than three decades, I’d be a rich man if I had a dollar or a pound or a euro for every time I hear advertising agencies or journalists saying, “Linear TV is dead” Even the boss of Netflix used the line recently….

But sorry guys the reality is it isn’t dying, it is evolving.

The streamers are looking more like traditional tv broadcasters, and with new platforms the TV businesses are looking like and beginning to act like streamers and aggregators. In the UK ITVX should launch in Q4 2022, NBC is positioning Peacock as its gateway. In the Middle East broadcast networks are looking to take a slice of the streaming pie with localised streaming platforms.

Yes, we are seeing some broadcasters close channels – Disney and the BBC have recently closed or announced shutdowns – but these are for what are in reality niche services that never had huge audiences. 

The main Networks in each country can still record huge figures for events such as Superbowl, major dramas and news events – just think of the global audience for the funeral of the Queen.

We as an audience want a shared (or near shared) experience, we want a community and a commonality of experience. Live TV does that in a way steaming does not. Yes, millions may watch a streaming premier – but the watercooler moment is usually patchy compared to linear tv events where there is a greater universality of experience when a fixed channel shows a promoted show in a given timeslot.

We are also lazy – I’m writing this watching linear tv – it’s the news and (thanks to Hurricane Ian) the weather. I can rattle away on the laptop while someone else scheduled my entertainment saving me the pain of searching for something that scratches a viewing itch.

And while I mention ‘News” – none of the streamers have tried to offer news. It’s expensive, takes a huge amount of resource and can go wrong so very easily without a real understanding of how to make it.

We are also seeing the US-based companies re-trenching back to their home patch as subscribers think twice about multiple SVoD accounts. Netflix, Amazon and others have reduced their spend in international shows – less relevant content is heading the way of European customers. But on linear tv, the domestically based broadcasters are still pumping hundreds of millions into content production.

Researcher Moffett Nathanson also notes the continued value of linear TV. In the US linear TV revenue (mainly from ads and carriage deals) sits at $86.3 billion (€89.2bn). That’s nearly four times that of the streamers at $22.6 billion. 

No doubt more tv channels will close, but I would also wager that we’ll see the closure or merger of some of the major streamers too.

Well actually that’s not really breaking news: but we are Beech Hill are excited. (Thanks to WigWam for all their hard work creating the site)

But Breaking News has been in the news this week…mainly because just like a new website or blog, most breaking news isn’t really breaking….and much of it isn’t news!

CNN has announced it plans to dump or at least reduce the phrase Breaking News. Their new top news execx Chris Licht has declared the end to the red flashing lights and music fanfare that’s been a constant punctuation of the channel for years.

The decision is a rare one – one that will probably change a whole industry in just a single move. Others will surely follow across the globe.

As Fred Jacobs wrote in the brilliant Jacobs Media Strategy blog:

“In one fell swoop, CNN is serving notice they are slashing the hype, the bombast, and the overheated narrative… If everything is “breaking,” then nothing stands out or captures the consumer attention.”

And that’s good news…..

Having worked in broadcast news for three decades much of the time at international rolling news channels the use of the phrase is totally valueless to the audience in most cases

At Beech Hill we specialise in communications with purpose and leadership. As the world’s news leader VNN is right to reduce the use of the phrase.

News channels need a suite of tools and graphics to guide the audience through the lifespan of a story. Yes, a major story ‘breaks’ but it also gets updated, and develops, and needs analysis.

How about:

Breaking News for the big stories

Happening Now for live events – which might become breaking news depending on what happens

News Updates for errrrr you guessed it, updates on major stories

And I’d be keen to hear your thoughts on other ideas – please use the comments section

I’d like to see CNN and others work on helping the audience understand the story at all stages, what’s new? What’s been corrected? To explain and analyse.

In a world where social media is breakneck and Twitter is a primary news source, then trusted news brands have a different purpose. Yes to make sure the story is broken in the first place, but then to sort the facts, report the facts, and help the audience by delivering thorough analysis that underpins the story and how it (might) affect them.

It’s the same for any story – or workplace communications – facts are needed to fill the information vacuum and reduce rumour and speculation.

The message needs to be tailored – clear, calm, and reasoning explained. It’s the basics of good practice.

I’m sure we will return to this subject in the months ahead to see how CNN handles this change and if others follow. but for the sake of the viewer this is a positive.

I was watching a news channel last week that used a breaking news strap over helicopter pictures of London’s Houses of Parliament ahead of a major vote. The problem? Well, the vote was over an hour away. Hardly anything breaking….certainly not news.