Gordon Borrell keeps a close watch on the local Internet marketplace, tabulating total revenue in the various markets and how it is being split among newspapers, TV stations, radio stations and the myriad non-traditional media companies, or what he calls "pure plays," that operate locally oriented Web sites.

In the lastest report from his firm, Borrell Associates Inc., he pegs 2007 local Web revenue at $8.7 billion. Of that, TV stations account for 6.9 percent, while newspaper take 24.6 percent and pure plays like Google and Craig's List grab 57.3 percent.

Borrell's perspective has led him to form some strong opinions about how TV stations ought to be exploiting the Internet and they run counter to how most TV stations are now trying to do it.

In this interview with TVNewsday Editor Harry A. Jessell, Borrell contends that TV stations' Web sites must be more than mere online extensions of their current brand and service. They must be freshly branded platforms that aim to be the No. 1 sources of all local information, including news, sports and weather as well as classifieds and directory listings, he says.

TV stations' carefully nurtured on-air brands are "baggage" on the Internet, he says.

Borrell also warns that as more homes get broadband connections and the ability to more easily watch video online, the Web will morph from being a take-it-or-leave it opportunity for TV stations to a serious competitive threat.

An edited transcript:

If you were advising a TV station group on what to do, what's the first thing you would tell them?

The first think I'd say is they need a very broad vision statement of what the Internet means to their business. They need a very clear picture of what they want to achieve. Frankly, what we see is a lot of tactical implementation and excitement over the next new shiny thing. Yet, the top executives at the company have not established the company's point of view.

And what should that vision be?

Each individual company has to set it. But if I were the head of that company, I would want the vision to be that we want the No. 1 Web site in the community where people come when they want any bit of information.

That includes the phone number of the local florist?

If I want to find out a local florist's phone number, if I want to find out why there's a traffic jam on the freeway, if I want to find out if there are any bikes for sale because I am concerned about the price of gas within my ZIP code, if I want to find out what happened at the school board meeting last night, if I want to find out if there are any CPA jobs available because this one really sucks... . It's the Boston.com approach to the market.

That's the Boston Globe Web site?

Yes. It's also important that the site not be branded as a television station. So it would be digphilly.com, which is WCAU's play in Philadelphia. It doesn't mean that you don't have a site for your television station, but I think a lot of TV companies are looking at this through such a narrow focus and missing the bigger opportunity.

Now hold on. You just said you like the idea of one site that does it all, provides you the news of what's happening along with the classifieds and the directory listings. Now you seem to be saying that TV stations ought to think about two sites—one for news, the other for other kinds of information.

I'm saying that the No. 1 site that people go to probably shouldn't be branded to the television station because that's a TV station site. People would expect TV stuff off of it. The No. 1 portal site would probably have a tab for the television station.

But isn't creating a portal site like Boston.com or digphilly.com throwing about 50 years of brand building and brand awareness around calls letters and channel numbers?

No, your brand is baggage on the Internet because the brand that you have developed is specific to the television medium. People will think they're coming to a television station site. Is the brand going to carry over so that people go to WOOD-TV for classified adds? No, it's not. I'm going to go to WOOD-TV to find news, weather and sports. Why bring that the baggage over to the Internet? Why not create a completely new brand?

If just the brand itself were so darn strong, then how come when we go to search something, we don't go to Britannica.com? Britannica was the biggest, baddest name in looking up information 15 years ago.

All Britannica.com did was use the | More …