-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Fox stations renew MyNetworkTV through 2018; CW impact
- Thread starter crackedscreen
- Start date
M
MMVRBfan
Guest
Well, as I see it, the CW probably will come up with some new affiliate contract and continue on since it's recent ratings rises with 'CBTV' aka ComicBookTV. If it does, it'll have lasted longer than the predecessors UPN and the WB did. So, I suspect more of the same-ol' same-ol' between the CW and MyNetworkTV 'service' keeping away much CW takeovers...much to the derision of some of the masses missing the days of UPN/WB/indie--special emphasis on independent 'UHF' stations or anything else to shake up broadcast to make things exciting to talk about--though it would be something.
Deadline reports that The CW is having talks with Fox Television Stations, and that the MyNet deal does not preclude them from taking in CW programming.
https://deadline.com/2015/10/fox-tv-stations-mynetworktv-renewal-cw-tribune-1201597635/
https://deadline.com/2015/10/fox-tv-stations-mynetworktv-renewal-cw-tribune-1201597635/
MyCWNetwork?
If they'd trey simple things like showing a movie one night during the week, try some new syndicated programming, things that independent stations used to do (the Kaiser/Field stations were great at this), I think the network would get some eyes. Playing L&O SVU or CI reruns in prime time is a waste of bandwidth not because these are necessarily bad shows (I can't stand SVU though, Hargitay is very pompous), but they just simply aren't going to draw many people.
M
MMVRBfan
Guest
"MyCWNetwork" as a contingency plan is funny. Now only if MNT could possibly (cheaply, of course these days) bring in new generic original programming like PTEN did in the early/mid 90s then MNT would be IMO more lucrative to watch rather than taking the ION route--perhaps taking in any first-run syndicated programs out there...what little there is. Of the top of my head, The Pinkertons is the only thing I can think of right now...basic cable series on like TNT, AMC and such decimated first-runners. Again though, there maybe a few affiliate changes in the top markets, but I'm still thinking that it'll be much of the same standoff. Stations with MNT will simply keep it to save costs rather than have to go through the effort (of course) of finding programming to fill in as long as MNT is still out there.
I think it's a great idea, but with so many movie channels between cable and diginets, there aren't a lot of movies out there for broadcast channels to run. Unless they pulled a programming deal along the lines of "ESPN on ABC" and "Qubo on NBC." Maybe it'd be "This TV on The CW."
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
When This TV first launched, I remember that affiliated stations were allowed to also run individual movies from the schedule on their main channels. Unless that changed over the years, such a suggestion as above would not be out of character.
The way for broadcasting to survive going forward is for stations and networks to make a renewed pitch for sports local and national - a tall order given how the economics of the industry are slanted towards cable, but a necessary one. Even if you don't agree, it's certainly not the approach MyNet is taking of rerunning the same shows you can get on Netflix and elsewhere on the schedule.
But then, Fox wouldn't do anything that would cannibalize their regional sports networks and other cable investments, and their reaction to the Aereo affair suggests they'd try to kill broadcast entirely as soon as they think they could get away with it.
This is why I think the FCC's duopoly rules are exactly backwards. As we've seen, everything the FCC has tried hasn't worked in terms of keeping companies like Sinclair from circumventing the rules in smaller markets, suggesting the state of the industry today may mean the number of owners the FCC wants literally can't be supported in those markets (and now they've started consolidating multiple affiliations on a single signal outside the reach of FCC duopoly rules entirely), but Fox should be forced or at least encouraged to divest their MyNet stations in the largest markets (and maybe should have been forced to do so before 2006), because they're effectively hoarding stations that might otherwise produce truly innovative programming models, or at least would compete with their "real" stations. But then, the FCC seems to be out to kill broadcast itself...
But then, Fox wouldn't do anything that would cannibalize their regional sports networks and other cable investments, and their reaction to the Aereo affair suggests they'd try to kill broadcast entirely as soon as they think they could get away with it.
This is why I think the FCC's duopoly rules are exactly backwards. As we've seen, everything the FCC has tried hasn't worked in terms of keeping companies like Sinclair from circumventing the rules in smaller markets, suggesting the state of the industry today may mean the number of owners the FCC wants literally can't be supported in those markets (and now they've started consolidating multiple affiliations on a single signal outside the reach of FCC duopoly rules entirely), but Fox should be forced or at least encouraged to divest their MyNet stations in the largest markets (and maybe should have been forced to do so before 2006), because they're effectively hoarding stations that might otherwise produce truly innovative programming models, or at least would compete with their "real" stations. But then, the FCC seems to be out to kill broadcast itself...
They just can't--at least not with national sports.
You're absolutely right about the economics being slanted toward cable. Every cable/satellite customer in the country pays ESPN $6-7 a month--whether they ever watch the channel or not. That gives them a bucketload of money to pay toward sports licensing fees--before they even sell one spot! Other sports nets have similar fees--not nearly as much as ESPN, but still more than any broadcast net gets.
Interestingly enough, even ESPN can't afford it. They just laid off 300+ people and blamed sports licensing costs.
Stations COULD try with local sports, but it's an expensive endeavor. Without those big subscriber fees, it's gonna be hard to make it profitable.
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
In the comments at Deadline, someone pointed out that KCOP/13 here in Los Angeles now carries MyNetwork programming in late night (I looked it up, and indeed they are, from 11:00pm to 1:00am, in favor of running TMZ Live and Hollywood Today Live in prime-time).
Having not even noticed that KCOP was doing that, I wonder how many viewers may not have noticed either.
Having not even noticed that KCOP was doing that, I wonder how many viewers may not have noticed either.
M
MMVRBfan
Guest
Interesting. Another contingency plan that could be thrown about is with the 600 MHz auction next year force-squishing more stations and pushing double-ups and sharing. Some stations might be preparing for that scenario.
I admit it's a pipe dream of mine, and the real solution is for the FCC to have fixed its rules a long time ago, and for Congress to have come up with a better solution than retransmission consent to de-slant the economics of the industry. But then, none of them seem all that invested in broadcasting's survival, and the FCC in particular seems to be out to kill it.
Broadcast TV SHOULD be thriving in the age of cord-cutting - that's how the misnomer term "cord-cutting" developed, the notion that digital television would produce enough choice on broadcast that people could cut the cable cord and just watch broadcast for free. Even with Internet-driven cord-cutting, linear television has the value that it can deliver the same content to many devices at once much more efficiently than the Internet, and within linear television, broadcast SHOULD have the advantage over cable of being able to deliver content to mobile devices without needing the Internet as an intermediary. But the economic forces of the past decade-plus favoring cable have barely budged, and while cord-cutting SHOULD be squeezing out cable before broadcast, instead people talk about it merely forcing cable to adopt new models and killing broadcast entirely.
Linear television's value is most pronounced with live programming, and most of the live programming out there is sports. That's why sports are so valuable to broadcast and cable networks and why ESPN can charge such exorbitant rates. Broadcast needs to pick up the lion's share of sports in order to survive, but the economic factors they're up against to do so are impossible to scale, and the way to scale them is to lean heavily on retransmission consent, which gives them an interest in trying to keep people from cutting the cord and using an antenna to pick up their signal.
But all that is beside the real point. Like I say, you may not agree, but even if you don't you have to admit MyNet is a complete waste and is giving its stations zero reason not to surrender their stations in the incentive auction. One of Fox's own stations doesn't even have need to show MyNet in prime time - you know, the whole reason the "network" ostensibly exists to begin with. That suggests the real reason MyNet exists is to offer stations something that sounds valuable and gives stations an excuse to be lazy but really prevents them from doing anything that might actually compete with Fox's broadcast and cable assets. MyNet stations could be showing sports (especially local sports), they could be offering original programming, or they could be doing something else entirely. Instead they're showing a bunch of reruns no one cares about and using that as an excuse to brand themselves like they're affiliated with a "network" when even Fox claims it's only a "syndication service".
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
Without cluttering my reply with quoted text from Morgan, I'll just add my two cents to an already well-worded post.
I used to have DirecTV, but the main reason I had kept it the past few years was in order to watch Dodgers telecasts and hear the legendary Vin Scully call home games (plus the away games in San Francisco, San Diego and Phoenix); on television, he calls the entire game, as opposed to only the first three innings on radio.
Well, as you may have heard, for the past two seasons the Dodgers' new owners made a deal with the devil and moved all the games to "their own channel" on Time Warner Cable. Said TWC wanted to charge so much for DirecTV and the other companies to carry the channel (their own fault for promising the Dodgers more money than the U.S. Mint prints in a year) that literally all the non-TWC companies said no. After a while, with no progress being made, I shut off my satellite service.
I had already bought a little Zenith digital television box and hooked it up to the ancient antenna in my building's attic, discovering that I live close enough to Mount Wilson (where all of L.A.'s television transmitters live) and had enough of an unobstructed path to there that I get great off-air reception, including subchannels. How great? Well, excluding non-English language channels, home shopping, and religious networks, I have a selection of 31 channels. No, wait, make that 32, as the new Comet sci-fi movie channel debuted today on 56.4 (bumping The Works to 56.8 in the process).
Now, I will grant you that I'm in a good position, reception-wise, and in the #2 market in the U.S., so practically everything that's available is on a subchannel somewhere, but I'd settle for half, or even a third, of what I get, because the price is right. FREE.
You are right on the mark when you say "broadcast television should be thriving in the age of cord-cutting". I think the problem is that there is no marketing of these channels. Why isn't KCBS running the occasional promo for Decades on 2.2? Why doesn't KNBC promote Cozi on 4.2? KABC touting Laff on 7.3? KDOC promoting MeTV on 56.3, Comet on 56.4, The Works on 56.8? KTLA plugging Antenna TV on 5.2 and This TV on 5.3? KCOP running spots for Buzzr on 13.2, Movies on 13.3, H&I on 13.4? They might find that there is an audience out there ... an audience they can tap into for ad sales, even if it's just a "bonus spot" incentive for a buy on the main channel.
The problem is that relatively few people know these channels are out there, unless they either cut the cable/satellite cord and investigate broadcast's offerings as a result, or if they never had cable and found these channels from having to use a converter box post-2009.
You might calling it a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I used to have DirecTV, but the main reason I had kept it the past few years was in order to watch Dodgers telecasts and hear the legendary Vin Scully call home games (plus the away games in San Francisco, San Diego and Phoenix); on television, he calls the entire game, as opposed to only the first three innings on radio.
Well, as you may have heard, for the past two seasons the Dodgers' new owners made a deal with the devil and moved all the games to "their own channel" on Time Warner Cable. Said TWC wanted to charge so much for DirecTV and the other companies to carry the channel (their own fault for promising the Dodgers more money than the U.S. Mint prints in a year) that literally all the non-TWC companies said no. After a while, with no progress being made, I shut off my satellite service.
I had already bought a little Zenith digital television box and hooked it up to the ancient antenna in my building's attic, discovering that I live close enough to Mount Wilson (where all of L.A.'s television transmitters live) and had enough of an unobstructed path to there that I get great off-air reception, including subchannels. How great? Well, excluding non-English language channels, home shopping, and religious networks, I have a selection of 31 channels. No, wait, make that 32, as the new Comet sci-fi movie channel debuted today on 56.4 (bumping The Works to 56.8 in the process).
Now, I will grant you that I'm in a good position, reception-wise, and in the #2 market in the U.S., so practically everything that's available is on a subchannel somewhere, but I'd settle for half, or even a third, of what I get, because the price is right. FREE.
You are right on the mark when you say "broadcast television should be thriving in the age of cord-cutting". I think the problem is that there is no marketing of these channels. Why isn't KCBS running the occasional promo for Decades on 2.2? Why doesn't KNBC promote Cozi on 4.2? KABC touting Laff on 7.3? KDOC promoting MeTV on 56.3, Comet on 56.4, The Works on 56.8? KTLA plugging Antenna TV on 5.2 and This TV on 5.3? KCOP running spots for Buzzr on 13.2, Movies on 13.3, H&I on 13.4? They might find that there is an audience out there ... an audience they can tap into for ad sales, even if it's just a "bonus spot" incentive for a buy on the main channel.
The problem is that relatively few people know these channels are out there, unless they either cut the cable/satellite cord and investigate broadcast's offerings as a result, or if they never had cable and found these channels from having to use a converter box post-2009.
You might calling it a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I'm pretty sure I don't. I don't have ESPN in my package. You can just watch the channels that used to be available with an antenna before all these digital channels came along, plus in my case WGN America, Pop, Home Shopping and a local news channel.
Regarding lack of interest in antennas, maybe it's just that with digital TV too many people have reception problems.
...in Sacramento, the diginets are in fact being heavily promoted on the x.1s. The same is true for Chico-Redding, as it was in Tucson and Bakersfield when I was there. I suspect it's mainly a matter of market size, and the diginets aren't being promoted in the largest markets...
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
That's a good point. I am told I am quite fortunate to have a direct line-of-sight to Mount Wilson and less than 30 miles in distance from there.
Saw the same in Springfield, MA a few weeks ago where the CW (on their NBC) and Fox are on .2's, and Fox/ABC/CBS (which is on an LD) are under the same ownership...there were plenty of ads for the .2 CW, along with Cozi on CBS's .3. In Milwaukee same story with Weigel having four signals in town and plenty of subchannels, and even WISN pushes the Movies subchannel plenty and WITI with Antenna. After that though? WTMJ's marketing of their Laff and Cozi subs is pitiful (though rightly so because they have zero cable coverage due to old inept management), and the Sinclair stations have so much ad inventory it's a shock when a Grit, Get or Comet promo plays.
Quite the opposite is happening. The 4 broadcast networks delivered 9% fewer viewers in the first two weeks of the new TV season compared to a year ago among viewers age 18-49 in prime-time.
CBS Corporation reported its earnings today. Its advertising revenue from July through September was down 4.3% from last year. With CBS losing ratings share faster than other networks, I'd say a 4.3% drop in advertising revenue is going to feel pretty good to CBS execs by 2017.
- Status