I stumbled across this piece on NPR the other day. I'd love to get your reaction. It's a perfect example of the type of story that plays in August...but not in months when there's more news happening.
7 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I thought it was odd that when you clicked on the link from NPR to hear this story that an ad popped up for Rabbit Ears Stories on CD. Are you kidding me? I thought the reporting was as good as it could have been I guess – there was a good host intro, the reporter got an interview with an employee, a couple reps from groups opposing the sale of bunnies, and an exec from PetSmart. I thought the sound bites were good too – the rattling of the cages, somebody laughing. I thought there was too much dead time though when the listener couldn’t actually see the little furry guys however. I thought the reporter’s phrase “bunny backlash” was a flippant attempt at a pun – but the editors must have thought it was ok? And then after the SOQ when the host segued into “Moving from bunnies to a dog’s life…” – I guess was good???
It was very ironic to see an advertisement for "Rabbit Ears: stories on CD" before the bunny story. The host intro was good, no complaints there. The reporting was thorough, we did seem to hear more from the opposition than from PetSmart reps. I also thought that there was too much background sound, since we couldnt see the little bunnies, it was weird to hear them being talked to. I thought it was good that PetSmart is suspending sales before Easter, at least they are recognizing a problem there. There were several silly lines, such as "multiplying like well...rabbits." Overall it was a good August story.
I thought the story was going to be completely different from what it was. I thought it would talk about a generous or sweet story since it was rabbits. The main point of the story wasn't major at all which was PetSmart selling rabbits. The reporter did a job well done including getting responses from the worker and a customer. I think the sound bites could've been avoided because it didn't help bring any good aspects about the story out. The lady laughing was very disturbing because you could'nt see an imagine to why she was laughing or any other noise that was made. Overall, the story was well reported, used good second references but wasn't that significant when there are other major issues going on in the world.
At first I was like so what Pet Smart is selling rabbits, but then after getting all the background information and finding out that Pet Smart had a policy about not selling dogs,cats, and even rabbits I was a bit surprised as to why they are selling rabbits. According to the reporter, she said that Pet Smart's spokesman Bruce Richardson said they decided to sell rabbits because they want to make money and that other pet stores sell them and they think they can sell them better. The thing that gets me is Pet Smart says they still won't sell puppies and kittens, but if they did, they would be making even more money, so why would they start with selling rabbits? Maybe Pet Smart is doing a "test-run" with rabbits to see how much money they make and to see how the public responds or the "backlash" they will get, before deciding to sell puppies and kittens. The only thing I didn't like about the piece were some of the sound bites, like cages opening and stuff, but the story was good and the contacts fit well in the piece.
OK, so this was a cute story that dealt with a serious topic: PetSmart apparently flip-flopping on a previous statement about selling rabbits. That doesn't mean we need as many "bunny" puns as the reporter could work into the story.
The reporting itself was fine though, with some good background information on both the situation and PetSmart itself.
There were a couple of dead air bits that might have worked on television, but without seeing anything, all we can hear is the cages rattling.
When I clicked on the link to the story the ad was for Chevrolet. I don't think there was a deliberate intent to use the "Rabbit Ears: stories on CD" ad.
The story provided a lot of detail from both sides of the issue. The only thing missing for me was the potential revenue increase for Pet Smart. I knew from the outset that it was a business decision to break the gentleman's agreement. I think this could have been mentioned at the start. The piece was a business story and not about cuddly pets as it may have been perceived by some.
There were some dead spots in the piece that were annoying and better suited to television. The reporter mentioned a nasty letter sent to Pet Smart and then there was giggling in the background. This soundbite did not work at all. I thought the person giggling was laughing as she tried to read part of the letter.
There is no doubt that Pet Smart will start selling cats and dogs too once the rabbit experiment proves financially successful. The reporter could have explored this possibility more.
The piece had all the requirements for a good story, but I think the reporter stopped it from being more hard hitting.
I didn't mind the story, I thought it was interesting, even if it was extremely soft news. The parts I didn't like were the sound bytes from the pet store. Usually it would just sound like a bunch of noise until you'd hear what sounded like a 14 year old girl making baby voices to the bunnies. I didn't think that really helped the story at all. The sound byte with the spokesman I thought added some credibility to the story, and got at the major issue of whether or not this was being done for money or popularity or both. I also liked the part when the lady came on and said that bunnies bite and scratch and many are returned after Easter. Before that I had no idea why there would be so many bunnies up for adoption. In one of the early sound bytes the lady said, "We don't need anymore rabbits in this community!" It made it sound like they were being overrun with rabbits, which kind of hurt her credibility. Maybe they could have cut that one.
7 comments:
I thought it was odd that when you clicked on the link from NPR to hear this story that an ad popped up for Rabbit Ears Stories on CD. Are you kidding me? I thought the reporting was as good as it could have been I guess – there was a good host intro, the reporter got an interview with an employee, a couple reps from groups opposing the sale of bunnies, and an exec from PetSmart. I thought the sound bites were good too – the rattling of the cages, somebody laughing. I thought there was too much dead time though when the listener couldn’t actually see the little furry guys however. I thought the reporter’s phrase “bunny backlash” was a flippant attempt at a pun – but the editors must have thought it was ok? And then after the SOQ when the host segued into “Moving from bunnies to a dog’s life…” – I guess was good???
It was very ironic to see an advertisement for "Rabbit Ears: stories on CD" before the bunny story. The host intro was good, no complaints there. The reporting was thorough, we did seem to hear more from the opposition than from PetSmart reps. I also thought that there was too much background sound, since we couldnt see the little bunnies, it was weird to hear them being talked to. I thought it was good that PetSmart is suspending sales before Easter, at least they are recognizing a problem there. There were several silly lines, such as "multiplying like well...rabbits." Overall it was a good August story.
I thought the story was going to be completely different from what it was. I thought it would talk about a generous or sweet story since it was rabbits. The main point of the story wasn't major at all which was PetSmart selling rabbits. The reporter did a job well done including getting responses from the worker and a customer. I think the sound bites could've been avoided because it didn't help bring any good aspects about the story out. The lady laughing was very disturbing because you could'nt see an imagine to why she was laughing or any other noise that was made. Overall, the story was well reported, used good second references but wasn't that significant when there are other major issues going on in the world.
At first I was like so what Pet Smart is selling rabbits, but then after getting all the background information and finding out that Pet Smart had a policy about not selling dogs,cats, and even rabbits I was a bit surprised as to why they are selling rabbits. According to the reporter, she said that Pet Smart's spokesman Bruce Richardson said they decided to sell rabbits because they want to make money and that other pet stores sell them and they think they can sell them better. The thing that gets me is Pet Smart says they still won't sell puppies and kittens, but if they did, they would be making even more money, so why would they start with selling rabbits? Maybe Pet Smart is doing a "test-run" with rabbits to see how much money they make and to see how the public responds or the "backlash" they will get, before deciding to sell puppies and kittens. The only thing I didn't like about the piece were some of the sound bites, like cages opening and stuff, but the story was good and the contacts fit well in the piece.
OK, so this was a cute story that dealt with a serious topic: PetSmart apparently flip-flopping on a previous statement about selling rabbits. That doesn't mean we need as many "bunny" puns as the reporter could work into the story.
The reporting itself was fine though, with some good background information on both the situation and PetSmart itself.
There were a couple of dead air bits that might have worked on television, but without seeing anything, all we can hear is the cages rattling.
When I clicked on the link to the story the ad was for Chevrolet. I don't think there was a deliberate intent to use the "Rabbit Ears: stories on CD" ad.
The story provided a lot of detail from both sides of the issue. The only thing missing for me was the potential revenue increase for Pet Smart. I knew from the outset that it was a business decision to break the gentleman's agreement. I think this could have been mentioned at the start. The piece was a business story and not about cuddly pets as it may have been perceived by some.
There were some dead spots in the piece that were annoying and better suited to television. The reporter mentioned a nasty letter sent to Pet Smart and then there was giggling in the background. This soundbite did not work at all. I thought the person giggling was laughing as she tried to read part of the letter.
There is no doubt that Pet Smart will start selling cats and dogs too once the rabbit experiment proves financially successful. The reporter could have explored this possibility more.
The piece had all the requirements for a good story, but I think the reporter stopped it from being more hard hitting.
I didn't mind the story, I thought it was interesting, even if it was extremely soft news. The parts I didn't like were the sound bytes from the pet store. Usually it would just sound like a bunch of noise until you'd hear what sounded like a 14 year old girl making baby voices to the bunnies. I didn't think that really helped the story at all. The sound byte with the spokesman I thought added some credibility to the story, and got at the major issue of whether or not this was being done for money or popularity or both. I also liked the part when the lady came on and said that bunnies bite and scratch and many are returned after Easter. Before that I had no idea why there would be so many bunnies up for adoption. In one of the early sound bytes the lady said, "We don't need anymore rabbits in this community!" It made it sound like they were being overrun with rabbits, which kind of hurt her credibility. Maybe they could have cut that one.
Post a Comment