Interesting. I'm wondering how 4 all-news/infotainment TV stations survive in markets, even the top 100, let alone smaller markets. Overkill might be overkill. Broadcast TV dissapearing completely could happen---and make for a lot of news deserts, where whatever gossip is on Facebook (or TikTok) is "the news".
-
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
Are broadcast networks becoming obsolete 10-20 yrs from now?
- Thread starter CurtisNEPA
- Start date
My situation is such that I have zero need for local TV or cable and OTA is impossible due to geography. My part of Vermont is scarcely mentioned on Burlington or Manchester (NH) TV, and mountains cut me off from all but one OTA signal. Signal pirates post Jeopardy to YouTube every day, so that's one show taken care of. And I can always get what little happens here in the newspaper, while keeping up on my longtime home of Connecticut on Hartford/TV stations' websites or on Tubi, which carries Fox 61's news. Not into any current scripted series, having cut the cord 12 years ago, and I spend about $60 a month on ESPN+ and a couple of other over-the-top sports services. Happier with TV than I've ever been. The affiliates can curl up and die.
Two main reasons:
1. Flying became the preferred passenger ride.
2. Railroads, by comparison, were cattle cars but rail has made somewhat of a comeback with more comfortable seats and eating choices. The only fly-in-the-ointment is that, except for commuter routes in the big cities, passenger trains must yield to freights. Much less hassle boarding a train than with aircraft.
Maybe in a market like Yakima, but that isn't the case for 75+% of the local TV markets. Local TV in markets that have group-owned stations where agency dollars are still in play are still very profitable.
As BigA mentioned; Netflix, along with most of the other streaming divisions lost a ton of subscribers this past year. Local TV stations still serve a purpose, in providing low/no cost news and entertainment. Sure, small to medium markets have taken a big financial hit when local advertisers started getting crushed by big box stores and Amazon. Some may not survive, especially ones that are smaller groups that don't have the geographic spread agencies want to reach.
A lot of that was due to the repack. The government was willing to pay you more than a station was worth on the open market. You just need to negotiate with another station to carry your programming on their 'dot' channel. To the viewer, the move was completely transparent.
If the station is being centralcasted and carries the same programming as more than one station in a group? Absolutely!
I can see that, but (I mean no disrespect to my former colleagues) KIMA is a dinosaur, and has been that way for years. Just because you watch KIMA, doesn't mean every station is like that.
That's assuming the viewer has a tablet and streaming subscriptions. Not everyone does.
I agree with that, but most can't do basic math, or aren't allowed to learn history at the risk they might feel bad about themselves.
I assume they will, maybe consolidated on a single ATSC 3.0 carrier that serves both Yakima and Tri Cities.
And 3: The rail infrastructure hasn't been adequately maintained over the years. In many cases, the rails, and what supports them for many miles, are 100 years old.
If so, why are these groups like Apollo, Grey, Sinclair, and Nextstar buying all these broadcast TV stations?
I said could, not would.
To make what money is to be made in the meantime.
Meredith bought KTVK in Phoenix. Seven years later, they wanted (and got) out of TV station ownership entirely.
A guy I used to work with used to talk about how many “good” (profitable) years were left in any given business. He said it’s fine to buy into the last ten years, as long as you’re out by eight or nine.
Consolidation is good for today. If Tegna can get a five cents more out of Comcast or Spectrum each month per subscriber than Dispatch Broadcast Group could, that is millions of dollars a year.
Ultimately that five cent increase is also killing the goose that laid golden eggs.
In the larger markets, it'd be a dogfight. Can you deliver the rating the ad agencies are looking for and does that end up giving you enough revenue to meet a profit target? If everyone doing news in that market can, everyone lives. Those who can't end up doing something else, though again---syndication is expensive and a lot of stations have found out that it's near impossible to get a number in middays and afternoons that attracts sufficient advertising to make the syndication fees profitable.
Exactly. Leaving money on the table is not what these guys do---and in the publicly traded companies, it would be a dereliction of fiduciary responsibility if they did.
But ultimately, it's making cable systems pay more to carry stuff as fewer people subscribe to cable.
Back in the early C-band days we could select each programmer individually or package. Most people did the individual choice because you didn't have to pay for channels you never watched. If cable did that today they might pick up a ton of new subscribers and stop the hemorrhage. Cable just got too expensive (or an unnecessary expense) for a lot of people.
Wouldn’t ala carte be more expensive than the current offerings?
That may be cable's best shot, tuna---giving in to the calls for a la carte. When I still cared what was on my cable, it fried me that to get Turner Classic Movies I'd have to pay for a tier that included six other channels I didn't want. There are a ton of people who'd prefer not to have any of their subscription fees go to FOX News, and those who feel the same way about MSNBC and CNN, as well. Unbundling would make the cable companies popular with a lot of people---none of them at those networks.
It would depend on how they structured the tiers. Let's say they offered all local channels for $25 a month and most everything else for $9.95 a month each. Maybe they give discounts for bundling---$9.95 for ESPN alone, but buy it with nine other sports networks and it's $80 a month instead of $99.50.
They'd take a bath on guys like me---give me basic and Turner Classic Movies for $34.95---but there are at least seven guys on my block who'd buy every sports channel they can offer.
And probably a majority would select none of the three.
Quite possibly......both supporters and detractors of the cable news networks completely overestimate the viewership of them.
Absolutely. "No news viewing" is the biggest group.
If you live in San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York and Chicago the Network owned stations like KABC, KNBC, KCBS and KTTV will simply go inside their respective networks news app. Or like PBS Affiliates like KVIE, KPBS and KQED they are already inside the PBS app for local and national programming.
I know in KOVR's case for Sacramento they will not disappear but simply move inside the CBS News and Paramount + since they are owned by Paramount. KCRA they go inside the Very Local App by Hearst Television. KXTV is going to be on Tegna's website/app. Most likely local TV would be like the TV version of KNX Radio, KCBS Radio, WINS-AM and WTOP-FM as in all news TV with some documentaries of investigative stories in their areas if we are going to include PBS affiliates like KVIE and KQED into discussions here.
Not necessarily. If I paid additional fees for cable tiers but was allowed to exclude ESPN and the other sports channels that I never, ever would use.
- Status