• 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

A question to New Yorkers...

C

ckik

Guest
Picture this:

NBC network sends an official memo to all of it's O&O's (including WNBC 4) to change their local station's on-air ID to just NBC. So now, starting tomorrow, Newschannel 4 identifies its local news casts as NBC news at 5, NBC news at 10, etc. No longer do they even mention the channel number, or even that it originates from New York City.

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.
 
> Picture this:
>
I have been watching channel 4 for over 50 years when they say NBC it equals Channel 4 to me just like CBS = 2 and ABC = 7.
>
 
> Picture this:
>
> NBC network sends an official memo to all of it's O&O's
> (including WNBC 4) to change their local station's on-air ID
> to just NBC. So now, starting tomorrow, Newschannel 4
> identifies its local news casts as NBC news at 5, NBC news
> at 10, etc. No longer do they even mention the channel
> number, or even that it originates from New York City.
>
> 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.
>
As long as the "Content" was the same I wouldn't care. (OK I am not in Chicago but I once lived in NYC). If they changed the content I'd care.<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
 
> Picture this:
>
> NBC network sends an official memo to all of it's O&O's
> (including WNBC 4) to change their local station's on-air ID
> to just NBC. So now, starting tomorrow, Newschannel 4
> identifies its local news casts as NBC news at 5, NBC news
> at 10, etc. No longer do they even mention the channel
> number, or even that it originates from New York City.
>
> How would you feel? Any opinions?

But then Len Berman and Sue Simmons couldn't announce sports as "Live at 5"! I vote against it, but I'd still watch it :D
 
> Picture this:
>
> NBC network sends an official memo to all of it's O&O's
> (including WNBC 4) to change their local station's on-air ID
> to just NBC. So now, starting tomorrow, Newschannel 4
> identifies its local news casts as NBC news at 5, NBC news
> at 10, etc. No longer do they even mention the channel
> number, or even that it originates from New York City.
-----------
The FCC would not permit this. I believe the FCC has fined stations for not airing IDs. They are much stricter than Industry Canada. Plus, with NBC having several affiliates within a short distance of each other, it would be highly unlikely. WCAU and WNBC will always be differentiated somehow. Americans understand the importance of local branding anyway. Good question though.

> 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.
-----------
The only exception is in the Maritimes, where they still call the 5 PM newscast "Live at 5".<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>
 
> The FCC would not permit this. I believe the FCC has fined
> stations for not airing IDs. They are much stricter than
> Industry Canada. Plus, with NBC having several affiliates
> within a short distance of each other, it would be highly
> unlikely. WCAU and WNBC will always be differentiated
> somehow. Americans understand the importance of local
> branding anyway. Good question though.

Good observation, but I believe the original poster was referring to the on-air image and not the legal ID (i.e., "NBC News Live at Five" instead of "Newschannel 4 Live at Five" or "NBC First at Four" instead of "NBC 10 News First at Four").

I agree that local branding is huge in the states, though, and thus we'll always see NBC 4s and 10s.
<P ID="signature">______________
FPXMedia: TV, Radio, and Anything Else
Be Mused...</P>
 
> I have been watching channel 4 for over 50 years when they
> say NBC it equals Channel 4 to me just like CBS = 2 and ABC
> = 7.

Actually, this is quite a common thing. My dad lived in the NYC market from the time he was born in 1952 until 1995 when he moved here, to Virginia. To this day, he still refers to CBS (on 7 here) as channel 2, NBC (on 10 here) as channel 4, Fox (on 27 here) as channel 5, and ABC (on 13 here) as channel 7. UPN and WB and PAX did not exist at the time, and PBS is on two channels here so he's careful to differentiate.

But it gets confusing when he says he watched something on channel 7 and you don't know if he means CBS or ABC!

- Trip<P ID="signature">______________
Visit my website, www.rabbitears.info! It's eventually going to be your one resource for television info! Digital television, histories, and technical information for the entire USA from one source!</P>
 
> Picture this:
>
> NBC network sends an official memo to all of it's O&O's
> (including WNBC 4) to change their local station's on-air ID
> to just NBC. So now, starting tomorrow, Newschannel 4
> identifies its local news casts as NBC news at 5, NBC news
> at 10, etc. No longer do they even mention the channel
> number, or even that it originates from New York City.
>
> 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.
>

Fox did that in Philly, with WTXF's newscast. For about a decade, It was Fox Ten O' Clock News. Not Fox29 news, not WTXF news, not Fox Philadelphia Ten O' Clock news or such. Though, Fox Philadelphia was the identity of WTXF otherwise, when syndicated programming was advertised. But as said, the newscast didn't have the channel number (29); exception, Philadelphia may have appeared in small print below, on the hand mikes.

When WTXF, under Fox ownership, picked up Ricki Lake after WPVI dumped her, they did an ad "Ricki rocks Fox". In most markets, she wasn't necessarily on FOX, though, nor was her show anyway related (as in produced) by Fox. In NY, she was on WWOR9 from start to end. The promo was very short lasted,though. WTXF didn't even keep Ricki on the lineup; a year or so later she moved to WPHL. (another story).

I don't think I ever saw any other Fox tie for something not on FOX network, from WTXF after that. All other syndicated show ads said "ON Fox Philadelphia", not just "ON FOX"
 
> Picture this:
>
> NBC network sends an official memo to all of it's O&O's
> (including WNBC 4) to change their local station's on-air ID
> to just NBC. So now, starting tomorrow, Newschannel 4
> identifies its local news casts as NBC news at 5, NBC news
> at 10, etc. No longer do they even mention the channel
> number, or even that it originates from New York City.
>
> 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.>

To me, call letters and their associated channel numbers are like brand names. It equals up to easy recognition to the customer -- or the viewer, in this case.

I've always used this example: for nearly 47 years, WPIX 11 was known as either "WPIX" or "Channel Eleven" to most of us in the New York area. Then in January 1995, the Tribune Co. wants us to start referring to WPIX as "the WB-11". To those who have no knowledge of the station and its history, they now thought a new station had arrived in town -- not realizing that it was the same channel 11 they grew up watching! (I, of course, knew better.) The same went with viewers of WWOR-TV simultaneously, with that station's rebranding as "UPN-9".

When the former Metromedia stations took on the Fox identity in 1986-88, it was a slow process, at least here in New York. WNYW (the former WNEW-TV) went from "Channel Five" to "Fox Channel Five" and finally to "Fox Five", that way the viewers could not be caught off-guard by such a sudden switch.

Another thing -- VIEWERS AREN'T STUPID!! We all know what network were watching when we change the channel, so is it necessary for a Big Three affiliate to push the "network + channel number" branding? If your station was affected by the affiliation switches in the mid-90s, then I can understand. But long term? I don't think so. When you're watching KCRA-TV (NBC in Sacramento), WBNS-TV (CBS in Columbus, Ohio), WSOC-TV (ABC in Charlotte), and WSVN (Fox in Miami), you know what network is alligned with those stations. You'll never see those stations become (respectively) "NBC-3", "CBS-10", ABC-9" and "Fox-7" anytime soon.

Then again, what does that say about WGN-TV Chicago and KTLA Los Angeles, the only Tribune-owned WB stations that did not rebrand? If these two were so special, why didn't Tribune leave WPIX and KWGN-TV Denver alone??
<P ID="signature">______________
"Know your role and shut your mouth!!" -- The Rock</P>
 
> To me, call letters and their associated channel numbers are
> like brand names. It equals up to easy recognition to the
> customer -- or the viewer, in this case.
----------
When CBS changed the on-air brand of Boston's WBZ from WBZ-4 to CBS-4 a couple years back, they explained that the "4" was there so viewers would know that the station was on channel four. That works easily in the United States where most stations only broadcast on one transmitter (or at most, a couple low-power translators in addition). However in Canada you've got stations being simultaneously broadcast on over 10 or 20 full-power transmitters, mostly on different channels over a very wide geographic area. To say for instance that CBLT Toronto is on channel five works fine for Toronto viewers, but the station has some un-Godly number of rebroadcast stations, only one of which is on channel five. It would be like WNBC broadcasting across New York state, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania on the existing NBC transmitters. In all of Canada there are only a small handful of stations with only one full-power transmitter (not counting low-power translators) - CFCF, CIVT, CFPL, CKNX, CKVR, and a couple others. So in Canada it's just easier to say "CTV News" instead of "CTV 9 News", since CFTO is on channels 9, 21, and 54.

> I've always used this example: for nearly 47 years, WPIX 11
> was known as either "WPIX" or "Channel Eleven" to most of us
> in the New York area. Then in January 1995, the Tribune Co.
> wants us to start referring to WPIX as "the WB-11". To
> those who have no knowledge of the station and its history,
> they now thought a new station had arrived in town -- not
> realizing that it was the same channel 11 they grew up
> watching! (I, of course, knew better.) The same went with
> viewers of WWOR-TV simultaneously, with that station's
> rebranding as "UPN-9".
----------
That is a marketing tactic that really irritates me. Sometimes station continuity gets forgotten.<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>
 
Another thing I should mention is that if NBC tried to be like CTV, they would cut most local programming. There would be no local morning show, and supper-hour news wouldn't start until 6 PM.

Another reason why American local stations are better than most Canadian stations.<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>
 
As recently as 15 or 20 years ago, I saw a letter in TV Guide from a transplanted New Yorker living in Florida, who wanted to know why CBS wasn't on channel 2 where she lived.


> > I have been watching channel 4 for over 50 years when they
>
> > say NBC it equals Channel 4 to me just like CBS = 2 and
> ABC
> > = 7.
>
> Actually, this is quite a common thing. My dad lived in the
> NYC market from the time he was born in 1952 until 1995 when
> he moved here, to Virginia. To this day, he still refers to
> CBS (on 7 here) as channel 2, NBC (on 10 here) as channel 4,
> Fox (on 27 here) as channel 5, and ABC (on 13 here) as
> channel 7. UPN and WB and PAX did not exist at the time,
> and PBS is on two channels here so he's careful to
> differentiate.
>
> But it gets confusing when he says he watched something on
> channel 7 and you don't know if he means CBS or ABC!
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom