A question for you...

[ckik]

Picture this:

CBS network sends an official memo to all of it's local affiliates (including KPHO CBS 5) to change their local station's on-air ID to just CBS. Let's pretend that they mandate this even though some affiliates are privately owned. So now, starting tomorrow, CBS 5 news identifies its local news casts as CBS news at 6, CBS news at 10, etc. No longer do they even mention the channel number, or even that it originates from Phoenix. Nothing mentioning anything about even being local, even thought it is separate from the national news from New York.


How would you feel? Any opinions?
I'll tell you why I pose this question...

In Calgary, the CTV network O&O branded "CFCN" recently changed their on air ID and news branding to just "CTV news", and there have been many discussions of the pro's and con's of this on the Canada TV board.

 

[desertv]

> Picture this:
>
> CBS network sends an official memo to all of it's local
> affiliates (including KPHO CBS 5) to change their local
> station's on-air ID to just CBS. Let's pretend that they
> mandate this even though some affiliates are privately
> owned. So now, starting tomorrow, CBS 5 news identifies its
> local news casts as CBS news at 6, CBS news at 10, etc. No
> longer do they even mention the channel number, or even that
> it originates from Phoenix. Nothing mentioning anything
> about even being local, even thought it is separate from the
> national news from New York.
>
>
> How would you feel? Any opinions?
> I'll tell you why I pose this question soon...
>
Not likely...even the network O&Os like to keep "locality" in their local newscasts and station IDs...and network affiliates tend to be an ornery bunch (like KSL in Salt Lake)

 

[ckik]

This is a hypothetical question. How would you feel?

 

[Teddio]

> This is a hypothetical question. How would you feel?
>

I think it would stink. You need to have your local id to connect with your viewers.
I remember when the hubbub hit about Dan Rather, CBS and the fraudulent document re Bush's military service, KPHO took great pains to remind local viewers that they weren't owned by CBS.
Now they would have to be tied to them in the viewers' eyes no matter what?

 

[buster2]

> > This is a hypothetical question. How would you feel?
> >
>
> I think it would stink. You need to have your local id to
> connect with your viewers.
> I remember when the hubbub hit about Dan Rather, CBS and the
> fraudulent document re Bush's military service, KPHO took
> great pains to remind local viewers that they weren't owned
> by CBS.
> Now they would have to be tied to them in the viewers' eyes
> no matter what?
>


Affiliates would revolt. Many are already skittish about their network affiliations and with the erosion of network audiences due to cable, satellite, other media, the advantages of being an affiliate are ebbing away.

In fact, networks should be concerned about their viability in the future. I predict a day may come in which networks no longer exist as such, but simply become brand names.

This is already true in some respects. When you think of the WB, you think of shows skewing younger. FOX is edgy and sometimes pretty crass. CBS skews older and more traditional, and so on.

Now imagine if enough TV ownership groups got together and said, "Y'know, these networks aren't offering all that much to us anymore. People are getting news from cable, sports from cable, and shows can be produced by Steven Bochco, Mark Burnett, etc. Why is it we need networks, exactly? Maybe I don't want to be committed to 18 hours of network prime time shows a week when only five of those hours gets any profitable audience. I'm going on my own, and buying shows that I know will make my stations money. Are we together on this?"

Should that happen, the streets of New York would be littered with network vice presidents who just jumped out the window.

Then again, the opposite may occur. With cable and satellite penetration being so strong, networks may go straight to consumers without local affiliates. There's a nice little network that has a lot of "watercooler" shows but has exactly zero local affiliates. You may have heard of HBO.

That day may never come. But I bet it does.

 

[mikenaz]

> > > This is a hypothetical question. How would you feel?
> > >
> >
> > I think it would stink. You need to have your local id to
>
> > connect with your viewers.
> > I remember when the hubbub hit about Dan Rather, CBS and
> the
> > fraudulent document re Bush's military service, KPHO took
> > great pains to remind local viewers that they weren't
> owned
> > by CBS.
> > Now they would have to be tied to them in the viewers'
> eyes
> > no matter what?
> >
>
>
> Affiliates would revolt. Many are already skittish about
> their network affiliations and with the erosion of network
> audiences due to cable, satellite, other media, the
> advantages of being an affiliate are ebbing away.
>
> In fact, networks should be concerned about their viability
> in the future. I predict a day may come in which networks
> no longer exist as such, but simply become brand names.
>
> This is already true in some respects. When you think of
> the WB, you think of shows skewing younger. FOX is edgy and
> sometimes pretty crass. CBS skews older and more
> traditional, and so on.
>
> Now imagine if enough TV ownership groups got together and
> said, "Y'know, these networks aren't offering all that much
> to us anymore. People are getting news from cable, sports
> from cable, and shows can be produced by Steven Bochco, Mark
> Burnett, etc. Why is it we need networks, exactly? Maybe I
> don't want to be committed to 18 hours of network prime time
> shows a week when only five of those hours gets any
> profitable audience. I'm going on my own, and buying shows
> that I know will make my stations money. Are we together on
> this?"
>
> Should that happen, the streets of New York would be
> littered with network vice presidents who just jumped out
> the window.
>
> Then again, the opposite may occur. With cable and
> satellite penetration being so strong, networks may go
> straight to consumers without local affiliates. There's a
> nice little network that has a lot of "watercooler" shows
> but has exactly zero local affiliates. You may have heard
> of HBO.
>
> That day may never come. But I bet it does.
>

This kind of has already happened here in Arizona in the early 90's. Prime example is CH3. They had to replace all of their network programming and became pretty successfull at it. I just wonder if Belo would ever take a network back for this station if that ever came up. I remember originally too they first started showing WB programming on 3, but then soon as 61 started up, they moved the programming there. So if a station buys the right syndicated shows, you really don't need a network. I remember seeing a old video from one of the original owners they had on their website years ago, where she stated that they were going to continue to run the station like a network affiliate.

 

[johndavis]

> In Calgary, the CTV network O&O branded "CFCN" recently
> changed their on air ID and news branding to just "CTV
> news", and there have been many discussions of the pro's and
> con's of this on the Canada TV board.
>

Since it's an O&O, I don't see a problem. Aren't all of CTV's stations O&O anyway?<P ID="signature">______________
...co-moderator of the Satellite Radio, Phoenix, and San Diego boards...</P>

 

[ckik]

There are a few privately owned affiliates, but majority are owned and operated.