CAN'T INDEPENDENTS BE AS PROFITABLE AS NETWORK STATIONS ?

[gregg75]

As broadcast ratings continue to slide, will there come a day when stations might opt to be
independent instead of a network affiliate? I'm sure ABC could find another station if WSB
went independent in 2020. WSB might decide they can do better on their own and make
more profit than showing broadcast fare like "PAN AM" seven nights a week and the limited
audience it would deliver.

Is being an affiliate of the lowly rated CW or MY Network TV an asset or liability? I'd vote
liability. Many hoped that they might become the next FOX, but that never happened.

Are independent stations getting ready to make a future comeback as networks decline?

 

[KeithE4]

As broadcast ratings continue to slide, will there come a day when stations might opt to be
independent instead of a network affiliate?

If the station is an NBC affiliate, they may not have a choice. I still say Comcast will pull the plug on this dinosaur by 2020 as they emphasize their cable and online offerings. NBC was the first to end comedy/drama programming on radio, and 2020 could be deja vu 1955 all over again.

Are independent stations getting ready to make a future comeback as networks decline?

Yes, but there I can see only 3-5 English-language stations, 2 or 3 Spanish-language channels, and a couple of religious stations per market in the not-too-distant future. Reducing the broadcast TV spectrum to, say, 470-662 MHz (RF 14-45) very well may be enough.

 

[Irishfl]

Thing is, if cable ever goes a la carte, network ratings will rise again, as locals will be the only channels everyone has.

 

[FreddyE1977]

There is a school of thought that networks may one day opt to ditch the local affiliate model because
it would free them up to directly provide content via the satellite and web without having to
worry about local exclusivity issues.

As more and more people get their video entertainment on wireless devices there is going to be a lot of pressure pushing them in this direction.

 

[KeithE4]

There is a school of thought that networks may one day opt to ditch the local affiliate model because it would free them up to directly provide content via the satellite and web without having to worry about local exclusivity issues.

As more and more people get their video entertainment on wireless devices there is going to be a lot of pressure pushing them in this direction.

Exactly. The networks are supplying affiliates less and less programming each year, outside of prime time - and even that is at risk on some days. Saturdays first, followed by Fridays - I don't think it's that far away when those days will be returned to the affiliates other than for sports. This will continue until it's all gone to the web. From a technical standpoint (not enough bandwidth for everybody), we're not close to that yet, but it's coming.

 

[ding12]

As broadcast ratings continue to slide, will there come a day when stations might opt to be
independent instead of a network affiliate?

Hasn't that day already come? WJXT in Jacksonville chose to go independent.

Is being an affiliate of the lowly rated CW or MY Network TV an asset or liability? I'd vote
liability. Many hoped that they might become the next FOX, but that never happened.

MyNetwork is considered syndication. It's not a liability but an asset. The station gets branding which is easy, and the programming service isn't expensive.

I'm not sure about The CW, but I remember that affiliates had to pay for The WB. Atleast it's original/new programming.

Thing is, if cable ever goes a la carte, network ratings will rise again, as locals will be the only channels everyone has.

I wish, although we haven't seen a la carte come to fruition. We still have Viacom doing whatever the heck it wants to do because their networks are all bundled together, and the cable operator doesn't anyway want to offer alacarte to the end customer.

I still say Comcast will pull the plug on this dinosaur by 2020 as they emphasize their cable and online offerings. NBC was the first to end comedy/drama programming on radio, and 2020 could be deja vu 1955 all over again.

I was thinking that NBC won't dissolve but maybe ABC folds into it. NBC still has some stronger assets like 'Today' andNBC Evening News, over the ABC equivalents. From ABC, they could take 'The View', Katie if she is still around. It'd be a UPN-WB type merger but eventually, we'd get one weaker network than the two competing, but Comcast would still make money from cable, Disney might reduce it's interest in broadcasting by 50% but still be making money from ESPN and cable programming. Hearst might get screwed but might prevail over other station groups, while station groups like Scripps, Allbritton would get even more screwed. It'd actually be really bad when it gets to the point that we reduce from 4 to 3 networks.

For the time being, the networks still make money running the networks. Otherwise we wouldn't see the generous salary deals for Matt Lauer, David Letterman, etc.

 

[mescutia]

Considering how many WB and UPN affiliates practically ran to either MNTV or the CW back in 2006 as if they were deathly afraid of being independent (and changed their call signs, to boot!), I have a hard time seeing many stations choosing to go independent anytime soon.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

KSMO (sister station of CBS KCTV) seems to downplaying their Mynet affiliation. The value of KRON has dropped since NBC ditched it.

 

[LKellerIII]

As broadcast ratings continue to slide, will there come a day when stations might opt to be
independent instead of a network affiliate?

If the station is an NBC affiliate, they may not have a choice. I still say Comcast will pull the plug on this dinosaur by 2020 as they emphasize their cable and online offerings. NBC was the first to end comedy/drama programming on radio, and 2020 could be deja vu 1955 all over again.

2020 is a long way off. For all we know, NBC could be the number one network by then. Given ABC's third place finish for the quarter century of television, who would have predicted it would be number one in the 70s? Given NBC's pitiful performance in the 70s, who would have predicted they would be number one in the 80s

 

[azumanga]

Given ABC's third place finish for the quarter century of television, who would have predicted it would be number one in the 70s? Given NBC's pitiful performance in the 70s, who would have predicted they would be number one in the 80s

Along that same corollary, given Fox's humble beginnings as a fourth-place network, who would have predicted it would become a major player that would land many of their shows in the Top 5, if not #1?

 

[TroyG]

I think KTVK in Phoenix happens to be a strong, prime example of a popular TV station without the support from The Big 4.

 

[arnoldevns]

There are individual instances where stations go independent and succeed, but there are just as many (if not more) instances where such a thing turned out to be a disaster for the station. Look at KRON in San Francisco. They ditched NBC, went independent and later added My Network TV. They went from being the top-rated station in the market to the absolute bottom.

In general, being a network affiliate is a better way to make a profit than being independent. Simply put: lower costs and higher ratings. It's very expensive to buy syndicated and sports programming to fill out a 24 hour schedule. Those shows generally don't get the kind of ratings that major network shows do. The cost of network compensation by affiliates is not nearly as high as paying for all that syndicated or sports programming.

The networks could switch to cable, but the problem is they would not displace the stations they currently are affiliated with on the cable systems. They would be relegated to different channel numbers and would have to find a way to draw the audience there. The former affiliates wouldn't just go away. There would likely be someone else come along to start new networks to provide them programming. All this would negate most of the benefits the networks might see by migrating to cable.

 

[gregg75]

All of your points are in TODAY'S terms. I'm talking about 2020 when the average network
viewing is about 800,000 per hour (as the network viewing trend is down). Surely, if that
happens the appeal of going independent will be greater.

 

[EricStein]

I think KTVK in Phoenix happens to be a strong, prime example of a popular TV station without the support from The Big 4.

This would be true in 1998, but not today. Belo slashed programming costs over the years they've owned the station, and then Oprah left the air. Word has it that "Wheel of Fortune" and "Jeopardy!" are returning to the station, so that could save them from the brink of irrelevance.

 

[dave73]

I was thinking that NBC won't dissolve but maybe ABC folds into it. NBC still has some stronger assets like 'Today' andNBC Evening News, over the ABC equivalents. From ABC, they could take 'The View', Katie if she is still around. It'd be a UPN-WB type merger but eventually, we'd get one weaker network than the two competing, but Comcast would still make money from cable, Disney might reduce it's interest in broadcasting by 50% but still be making money from ESPN and cable programming. Hearst might get screwed but might prevail over other station groups, while station groups like Scripps, Allbritton would get even more screwed. It'd actually be really bad when it gets to the point that we reduce from 4 to 3 networks.

For the time being, the networks still make money running the networks. Otherwise we wouldn't see the generous salary deals for Matt Lauer, David Letterman, etc.

Unless the rules get changed, the top 4 networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, & Fox) can not merge with each other. Those 4 networks already have such dominance that one would be too dominant. The DOJ & the FCC would rather see one of the networks go out of business completely than to merge with each other.

I However believe that Comcast will eventually move NBC (possibly Telemundo as well) to cable & satellite, & sell off their O&O stations to focus on their cable properties. I can't see Comcast keeping the TV stations. Not sure if Disney will even keep ABC. CW is a complete joke, & for Chicago, WGN-TV would actually do better as an independent

 

[FreddyE1977]

On another thread here someone mentioned the book "Outfoxed" by Alex Ben Block, detailing the
early days of the Fox network.

At one point he describes an affiliates meeting where there was an all-out revolt, largely over the
spectacular failure of Fox's "Wilton North Report". It looked as if a number of affiliates were about
to bolt, and it may have been the end of the line for the Fox network.

According to Block, the GM of their Pittsburgh affiliate then intervened. "So what are we all going to do
if we go back to being independents? Fox will invest time and resources into developing programming, and
sooner or later some of it will pay off. If we all go back to being on our own we'll be back in the same boat
where we started."

I doubt that affiliate sentiments have changed much in the 25 years since.

 

[Markxxx]

It's hard to be an independent in a smaller market.

In Chicago there has really only been enough room for three indies. Two strong and an also ran. WGN, WFLD were always the strong, with WSNS (then WPWR) picking up the rest. WGBO and WJYS tried to be independent and couldn't make a go of it.

New York couldn't hold 4 independents and sold one off to WNET. Of course it didn't help any that the three indies wanted less competition. LA's channel 9 struggled through the years and there was talk of selling that off and making it an educational.

The vast number of UHF indies signed on in the early 80s with scrambled signals, which worked OK till cable and BUDs became common. Then they found niches by beings Spanish or Shop-At-Home, which died off as the shopping moved to cable.

It's not just a matter of lack of programs as the owners of those shows, won't make them available or other larger indies buy the programs and won't show them to keep them off other channels.

 

[Robnoxious]

I would much rather The CW blow away so KTLA-5 in Los Angeles can go back to being the great independent it had become. Useless CW programming simply bogs down their schedule that could be better used with something else.

 

[Scoobyfan1]

This topic actually brings up an interesting point that I was thinking about(actually I thought about posting this in a seperate topic, but it could work here too I guess).

The point is this: let's say for a minute something happened and networks like Pax(Ion), the WB, UPN, the CW, My Net and Fox never existed. Would the shows that were more well known on all those networks(The Simpsons, Charmed, Smallville, American Idol, etc.) have worked in regular syndication, considering without the above networks, those would be the only option for those shows to air?

The reason I bring this up is because shows like Star Search, Star Trek The Next Generation, and many others in the 80s and early 90s seemed to do pretty well in syndication. For shows like American Idol, the two night a week thing would have been kind of tough for syndication, but the dramas and comedies and game shows at least I think might have worked better in syndication then on a network setup like Fox or CW.

I also wonder if these shows would have worked as sort of a loose syndication arrangement, or something similar. What I mean by that is each current Fox station(which would stay independent in this setup) would pick and choose where each show would air in their lineup.

I kind of think this setup would work pretty well because then pre-emptions wouldn't be a big deal to the people who would syndicate the shows(for the shows that were on the WB for example, Warner Brothers Television could have syndicated them) and then each station wouldn't have to run a show at a certain time each week, or the station could air the show at the same time each week.

For example, the Simpsons could be at like 7 or 8 PM every week, much like it is now, but without the network you could be looser with timeslots and such.

Without Fox, and the newer networks sports coverage would be interesting as well. College football and maybe MLB and NASCAR might be OK with syndicated coverage of their sports, but the NFL might have issues.

The subchannels that carry each network in smaller markets might be interesting as well. As for the title of the thread, like I mentioned already with the budgets of the pre Fox/CW/My Network syndicated shows, and the backing of companies like Warner Brothers Television, or 20th Century Fox Television or some of the studios that currently produce each of the shows on Fox or CW or whatever, maybe some of the shows that have aired on Fox or other newer networks might have worked in syndication.

This means of course that you wouldn't need to be a network affiliate if you are currently a CW affiliate or what have you. The stations from each of the newer networks could also program more news, or more movies, or more live local events or sports as well as the dramas, comedies and game shows of each of the syndicators.

Bottom line is a station in LA or Chicago or Washington D.C. might be able to work under this setup, while a station in a place like Billings, Montana or Norfolk, Virginia might have a tougher time, but could do very well in ratings with a setup like the one I mentioned.

Actually, with Fox, CW and the networks like WB or UPN, it's sort of like all these stations are still independents(technically speaking). Think about it: ABC, NBC and CBS have daytime programming, a news department, and sports departments; but other then Fox having news and sports departments, they're all still independents.

This may sound a little weird, but isn't a TV network technically composed of daytime programming, primetime programming, news and sports departments? If this is so, then technically Fox, CW and My Network are not networks, but they are merely loose confederations of stations and programming like the old Prime Time Entertainment Network or something similar.

I know Fox has prime time shows, as does CW, but if you really delve into it, if you take away the network branding of the stations and all that pizzaz and stuff, what are you left with? The stations as independents and them airing the shows as if they were in syndication.

 

[anotherguyTN]

Although I don't watch much of anything on CW and can't get MNTV at all, the thing I'm afraid would happen is that if they folded a lot of their stations wouldn't be like the earlier independents with movies and syndicated reruns and first run series like in the 80's, but would instead be more trash talk, courtroom shows, or worst of all infomercials. Although I don't like much of anything on CW or MNTV, in a lot of cases the other options would be worse.