It's the opposite with digital TV.
The actual channels may be different now, though.
-
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
1995-1996 Affiliation Shuffle
- Thread starter e-dawg
- Start date
The actual channels may be different now, though.
Do channel numbers really matter any more?
That's what I meant, during its days as an independent superstation, it already had a newscast.
So? As far as the antenna and receiver are concerned, the RF channel is what matters because that is where the signals are. Virtual channels are strictly for the convenience of the general public, to identify stations using their old familiar analog channel numbers. The system works quite well since the TV does the translation work.
Viewers in Kansas City only require a UHF antenna, while St. Joseph needs both VHF-Hi and UHF. And if I read rabbitears.info correctly, all four KC network affiliates run a million watts ERP.
On receivers that 99% of the public are using, regardless of OTA, cable, or satellite, they absolutely do matter. They're how the stations market themselves. Even though they're irrelevant when streaming, they're still how stations are identified, even more than call letters in most cases nowadays.
I wouldn't go as high as 99% anymore.
Legacy channel numbers seem to matter these days to maybe 75% of markets. There are a growing number where stations have figured out that viewers see them at different spots all over the dial (cable and satellite positioning, for instance, in areas with high penetration), and we're seeing those stations go to different forms of branding, whether it's just calls or network/city.
This is especially true for stations that may not even have existed in the analog era. If you're NBC Fort Wayne (WPTA 21.2) and you're on five different channel numbers depending on the system, you just want to be "NBC Fort Wayne" and leave it there.
For legacy stations that have spent 60 or 75 years building an identity around their channel number? That's a different story. Ask 100 people in Denver where they go for 60 Minutes and 98 of them will say "channel 4."
You don't throw away that kind of consumer recognition just for the hell of it. (Which makes it odd that CBS has chosen to do just that for what's now branded as "CBS Colorado.")
Legacy channel numbers seem to matter these days to maybe 75% of markets. There are a growing number where stations have figured out that viewers see them at different spots all over the dial (cable and satellite positioning, for instance, in areas with high penetration), and we're seeing those stations go to different forms of branding, whether it's just calls or network/city.
This is especially true for stations that may not even have existed in the analog era. If you're NBC Fort Wayne (WPTA 21.2) and you're on five different channel numbers depending on the system, you just want to be "NBC Fort Wayne" and leave it there.
For legacy stations that have spent 60 or 75 years building an identity around their channel number? That's a different story. Ask 100 people in Denver where they go for 60 Minutes and 98 of them will say "channel 4."
You don't throw away that kind of consumer recognition just for the hell of it. (Which makes it odd that CBS has chosen to do just that for what's now branded as "CBS Colorado.")
They're pushing streaming pretty hard.
Note also that many PBS member stations identify more strongly with locality (e.g. Rocky Mountain PBS) than by channel number.
By the way, over the last couple of years, I've been in quite a few Hilton-affiliated hotels, and many of them use the same type of TV program selection. Programs are arranged alphabetically and local affiliates are identified by network - not by channel number. So, for example, the local ABC affiliate is nestled next to A&E, regardless of whether you're in Des Moines or Portland or Denver or Frostbite Falls. This may seem more familiar to viewers accustomed to streaming.
I get it newer TV's are set up by app names not by channel numbers. Also there are TV apps that are setup by carriage agreements like YouTube TV, Fubo. Channel numbers are how places like FuboTV, YouTube TV, Pluto TV Hulu Live TV and Tubi are organized.
The median demos for people who identify by Channel number or App Name I wish we have data for that one though.
KPIX-5 and Pittsburgh's KDKA-2 were already CBS affiliates prior to Group W/Westinghouse buying CBS.
YouTube TV does not recognize OTA channel numbers other than by the station logos they display. Channels can be arranged any way one prefers. After all, channel numbers are irrelevant on the Internet.
Personally, I go by OTA channel number, then sports channels. Almost everything else gets blanked out. But that is strictly my choice.
JeeperOne
Banned
Typically TV stations these days only identify themselves visually with their callsign, virtual channel & COL as that's what viewers recognize. Only the FCC cares about full identification
The typical viewer doesn't recognize (Or CARE TO recognize) some channel which the station may be transmitting on RF wise. Viewers only care about the virtual channel (Which only in VERY FEW cases even today) are one & the same
JeeperOne
Banned
However The Roku Channel (And maybe other Smart TV streaming services too) use channels & network logos (Such as they are on the Internet) on their TVs though I often wonder why...
The one time that the RF channel can matter is when a viewer is buying an antenna for off-air reception. In that instance, knowing that the station that shows up as 8.1 is actually transmitting on RF channel 30 would be useful in knowing what type of antenna to get.
Also for some of the stations that switched to ABC around that same timeframe from 1994-1996 like KXTV, KNXV , WFTS, WMAR, WGNO, WXLV and KNDL. These stations became ABC affiliates right when Disney took over ABC.
For some markets, while Fox pushed for VHF it took a little longer. For example, Fox didn't get a VHF station until 2001 when they bought Chris-Craft owned "KMSP". We then quickly saw Clear Channel trade WFTC (29) to Fox because they saw the writing on the wall and the two affiliations were flipped.
Ironic now, because the "main" signal for KMSP is now using the license of 29 due to the coverage for digital being BETTER on UHF, and KMSP originally electing to keep their RF signal on Channel 9.
KMSP itself has a very interesting history, and this isn't even the first time Fox has owned them (although the last time they owned them Fox Network didn't exist). It went from a very weak (and poorly invested in) ABC affiliate to one of the strongest independents in the country after ABC left them for KSTP in the 70s. They picked up Fox again when it launched, but the independent/syndicated content did better than the network content so they dropped them (as many stations did early on) and went back to an independent. They had a strong newscast at 9, and I believe went on to be a strong UPN affiliate, retaining the strong performance of their news department and slowly expanded their news to other dayparts. When Fox bought them, that investment into news and local programming outside of network hours only increased, and between them and what is now "Fox 9+" they produce the most news in the Twin Cities.
I know its slightly off topic as it didn't happen in 1995-1996, but it was born from the same drive Fox started then due to them now being the "home" for the local NFL team due to the NFC deal.
Ironic now, because the "main" signal for KMSP is now using the license of 29 due to the coverage for digital being BETTER on UHF, and KMSP originally electing to keep their RF signal on Channel 9.
KMSP itself has a very interesting history, and this isn't even the first time Fox has owned them (although the last time they owned them Fox Network didn't exist). It went from a very weak (and poorly invested in) ABC affiliate to one of the strongest independents in the country after ABC left them for KSTP in the 70s. They picked up Fox again when it launched, but the independent/syndicated content did better than the network content so they dropped them (as many stations did early on) and went back to an independent. They had a strong newscast at 9, and I believe went on to be a strong UPN affiliate, retaining the strong performance of their news department and slowly expanded their news to other dayparts. When Fox bought them, that investment into news and local programming outside of network hours only increased, and between them and what is now "Fox 9+" they produce the most news in the Twin Cities.
I know its slightly off topic as it didn't happen in 1995-1996, but it was born from the same drive Fox started then due to them now being the "home" for the local NFL team due to the NFC deal.
I wish Disney/ABC purchase WXLV and KDNL since their ratings are in the toilet and they barley have any news operations because of Sinclair.
KDNL?? Really? I hope you realize that the only kind of news presence KDNL had before it picked up ABC was “The Financial Observer”, an all-day broadcast of a stock ticker with occasional appearances by Lee Coffee, either to read a summary or to do interviews. St. Louis is a conservative market in its habits; for example, there are probably people who still watch KMOV just because they remember the glory days with Julius Hunter and Steve Schiff when it was KMOX-TV. No one these days is going to build a TV news presence from scratch, and that’s what KDNL would have to do. I think Disney is smart enough to realize that.
do advertisers care about the people old enough to remember those days?
In late 1996 (closing in early '97), Fox bought out New World's remaining shares of the stations they bought into in 1994, including KSAZ-TV/10 Phoenix and WDAF-TV/4 Kansas City, among others, making them all Fox O&Os. Both, last I checked, were VHFs in the analog era.
Answer me this: who watches TV news?