-
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
4th Of July, Esplanade Coverage on WBZ
- Thread starter jake1966
- Start date
jake1966 said:
Well, there was also the time a few years ago when WBZ-AM promoted that the 4th Esplanade festivities would be broadcast in AM stereo, but then they weren't.
CBS, please sell to WBZ TV 4 to NBC, we'd love them to have it, and so would we!
I also noticed from watching their website that this year they no longer branded it as "The Fourth on 4."
You know? I don't think these people at CBS have a clue. It's good they brought back the "WBZ" branding ,but what they failed to realize is " 4 " was just as much of their heritage as the call letters "W-B-Z" was. It's not "CBS 4," it's not "WBZ," its "WBZ-TV 4," and a broken "Group W" 4.
When they get that right, maybe they'll have something.
I think the best favor CBS can do for Boston TV right now is to sell WBZ TV/AM and just call it a day. Maybe they can sell it NBC. NBC can go back to 4, and restore some semblance of resolution to this stupid fiasco. Besides, I hear NBCU is looking to buy...
I also noticed from watching their website that this year they no longer branded it as "The Fourth on 4."
You know? I don't think these people at CBS have a clue. It's good they brought back the "WBZ" branding ,but what they failed to realize is " 4 " was just as much of their heritage as the call letters "W-B-Z" was. It's not "CBS 4," it's not "WBZ," its "WBZ-TV 4," and a broken "Group W" 4.
When they get that right, maybe they'll have something.
I think the best favor CBS can do for Boston TV right now is to sell WBZ TV/AM and just call it a day. Maybe they can sell it NBC. NBC can go back to 4, and restore some semblance of resolution to this stupid fiasco. Besides, I hear NBCU is looking to buy...
Re: CBS, please sell to WBZ TV 4 to NBC, we'd love them to have it, and so would we!
Bwuh? You're saying that WBZ is doing poorly because they don't have a stylized number 4 in their logo? Seriously?
I'd much rather see WBZ remain as a CBS affiliate, even if CBS were to sell it -- and this long after the '95 swap, I doubt I'd be the only one.
Garrett said:
Bwuh? You're saying that WBZ is doing poorly because they don't have a stylized number 4 in their logo? Seriously?
I'd much rather see WBZ remain as a CBS affiliate, even if CBS were to sell it -- and this long after the '95 swap, I doubt I'd be the only one.
The lack of "4" branding has been rehashed on this board numerous times.
It should be noted, however, that the 'BZ 11pm news was #1 for both November and May sweeps. Their 4th of July programming was #1 for the entire night. (The pre-show was called "4th on Four"). The 11pm news on the 4th had nearly twice the viewership of last year's.
Some info: http://hinghamweather.com/bostontvnews/?p=279
It should be noted, however, that the 'BZ 11pm news was #1 for both November and May sweeps. Their 4th of July programming was #1 for the entire night. (The pre-show was called "4th on Four"). The 11pm news on the 4th had nearly twice the viewership of last year's.
Some info: http://hinghamweather.com/bostontvnews/?p=279
Re: CBS, please sell to WBZ TV 4 to NBC, we'd love them to have it, and so would
No,
I'm saying that CBS doesn't get it, and that it doesn't have the heritage look that KPIX, WJZ, and (to a lesser extent) KDKA has. WBZ TV 4's branding was perfect, just prior to the so-called "CBS mandate." That's what they should have brought back, not this BBC look alike branding.
Yes, image matters. TV is a picture medium, and the graphics you use are just as important as the programming (if not more).
WBZ's higher rated news at 11 is more likely the product of CBS's higher ratings (and NBC's latest drought), than the success of WBZ's less than energetic newscast.
mescutia said:
No,
I'm saying that CBS doesn't get it, and that it doesn't have the heritage look that KPIX, WJZ, and (to a lesser extent) KDKA has. WBZ TV 4's branding was perfect, just prior to the so-called "CBS mandate." That's what they should have brought back, not this BBC look alike branding.
Yes, image matters. TV is a picture medium, and the graphics you use are just as important as the programming (if not more).
WBZ's higher rated news at 11 is more likely the product of CBS's higher ratings (and NBC's latest drought), than the success of WBZ's less than energetic newscast.
While the CBS lead-in certainly factors in the viewership of the late news, there's a new philosophy in place and it would appear as though viewers are taking notice.
Their Declare Your Curiosity (declareyourcuriosity.com) campaign is admirable. So is Project Mass. (wbztv.com/projectmass). Stories that matter Stories that affect. Stories in my backyard. It's a back to basics and sensibility approach that seems to have caught on.
Their Declare Your Curiosity (declareyourcuriosity.com) campaign is admirable. So is Project Mass. (wbztv.com/projectmass). Stories that matter Stories that affect. Stories in my backyard. It's a back to basics and sensibility approach that seems to have caught on.
Re: CBS, please sell to WBZ TV 4 to NBC, we'd love them to have it, and so would
I don't know where Garrett "heard" that NBCU is "looking to buy" - it's quite the opposite, in fact. The company is moving as fast as it can away from the terrestrial local TV business (in English, anyway; Telemundo is a different story.) It's already put one big chunk of its O&O holdings (WTVJ and WVIT) up for sale, and there are very strong rumors that most of the rest of the remaining group - even very big stations such as WRC-TV in Washington - are quietly on the market, too.
GE is all about continued growth, and they're sending a loud signal that they no longer see local English-language TV as a growth business, just as they (correctly, in the long run) saw little upside potential for radio in the late eighties.
It's been almost 50 years since NBC first sought a Boston O&O (1960, when it had a deal to buy WNAC radio/TV from RKO General); it didn't happen then, and it doesn't look any more likely to happen now.
azumanga said:
I don't know where Garrett "heard" that NBCU is "looking to buy" - it's quite the opposite, in fact. The company is moving as fast as it can away from the terrestrial local TV business (in English, anyway; Telemundo is a different story.) It's already put one big chunk of its O&O holdings (WTVJ and WVIT) up for sale, and there are very strong rumors that most of the rest of the remaining group - even very big stations such as WRC-TV in Washington - are quietly on the market, too.
GE is all about continued growth, and they're sending a loud signal that they no longer see local English-language TV as a growth business, just as they (correctly, in the long run) saw little upside potential for radio in the late eighties.
It's been almost 50 years since NBC first sought a Boston O&O (1960, when it had a deal to buy WNAC radio/TV from RKO General); it didn't happen then, and it doesn't look any more likely to happen now.
Re: CBS, please sell to WBZ TV 4 to NBC, we'd love them to have it, and so would
So, you're saying graphics are just as, or MORE important than programming?
With the exception of a few TV geeks, I can't think of anyone saying, "dear, lets watch this station, I don't care whats on, they have nice graphics." ;D
Garrett said:
So, you're saying graphics are just as, or MORE important than programming?
With the exception of a few TV geeks, I can't think of anyone saying, "dear, lets watch this station, I don't care whats on, they have nice graphics." ;D
Re: CBS, please sell to WBZ TV 4 to NBC, we'd love them to have it, and so would
Hi Scott,
I was making a half hearted reference to already existing swirling stuff about WHDH here on the boards that NBC wants an O&O in Boston, I didn't really "hear" from a source that they wanted to buy. Sorry for the misunderstanding, my apologies. No news here. (This is how rumors get started ;D )
That said, I still think it would be better for CBS to sell WBZ and let someone else get NBC back on 4.
Scott Fybush said:
Hi Scott,
I was making a half hearted reference to already existing swirling stuff about WHDH here on the boards that NBC wants an O&O in Boston, I didn't really "hear" from a source that they wanted to buy. Sorry for the misunderstanding, my apologies. No news here. (This is how rumors get started ;D )
That said, I still think it would be better for CBS to sell WBZ and let someone else get NBC back on 4.
Re: CBS, please sell to WBZ TV 4 to NBC, we'd love them to have it, and so would
Perhaps not "more" important. But just like everything else, I think presentation is important. First impressions are everything, if you have no image, you have nothing. I think graphics and music DO make a difference. Take WHDH as an example. For years they dominated the news in Boston. But cut down the video from 7 and 4 and compare them. Take out the graphics and the music, and you can't tell them apart. At WHDH "news is the star." I'm not saying that's what WBZ or any other station should do. However, there should be no question that the right production can make the difference between an interesting newscast and a boring one.
That doesn't mean that news delivery isn't important either. If your anchors are just re-reading the AP off the prompter for 20 minutes (and believe me, we have those were I live), all the flashy graphics and music in the world can't save your newscast. On the other hand, if you can fill half an hour with local reporting and investigation plus a good package, that's a quality newscast people will watch.
Just to make the point: Of the 3 original network affiliates here, we have two that are owned by the same company, and on one of their stations, the anchors look like they just woke up, and after the first 2 or 3 local top stories, they read 20 minutes of AP stuff and look like they just heard it themselves for the first time (which becomes apparent when they try to ad-lib, and end up sounding misinformed). The other affiliate carefully fills with local news, somber, honest anchors, and a theme package that is very good. Guess which one is in 1st?
12 In a Row said:
Perhaps not "more" important. But just like everything else, I think presentation is important. First impressions are everything, if you have no image, you have nothing. I think graphics and music DO make a difference. Take WHDH as an example. For years they dominated the news in Boston. But cut down the video from 7 and 4 and compare them. Take out the graphics and the music, and you can't tell them apart. At WHDH "news is the star." I'm not saying that's what WBZ or any other station should do. However, there should be no question that the right production can make the difference between an interesting newscast and a boring one.
That doesn't mean that news delivery isn't important either. If your anchors are just re-reading the AP off the prompter for 20 minutes (and believe me, we have those were I live), all the flashy graphics and music in the world can't save your newscast. On the other hand, if you can fill half an hour with local reporting and investigation plus a good package, that's a quality newscast people will watch.
Just to make the point: Of the 3 original network affiliates here, we have two that are owned by the same company, and on one of their stations, the anchors look like they just woke up, and after the first 2 or 3 local top stories, they read 20 minutes of AP stuff and look like they just heard it themselves for the first time (which becomes apparent when they try to ad-lib, and end up sounding misinformed). The other affiliate carefully fills with local news, somber, honest anchors, and a theme package that is very good. Guess which one is in 1st?
- Status