Did the massive affiliation switches of the 1990s improve or degrade television?

[Sammi Brie]

We now stand about 15 years out from some of the most turbulent years in American television to date: the 1990s affiliation switches. Massive swaps occurred to affect some 80 stations in some three dozen cities; two television markets were even lost to the switch!

Did all of what occurred between 1994 and 1996 end up improving American television or setting it on a lesser path?

My answer: at first, the former, then the latter. Why?

Well, at first, some of the legacy and pomp of television stayed. KSAZ, which had months prior just rolled out a very expensive and modern image campaign and new call letters in its last CBS days, saw its plans cut as they started to fit the Fox image. KCNC responded to its switch from NBC to CBS with a beautiful new news graphics and music package (Newsmusic Central's custom Image X). KTBC had a shiny new "NewsCenter 7" image, complete with a beautiful Texas-star 7 logo. KDFW had an amazing "News 4 Texas" image with flying Texas flag transitions and a bold custom 615 Music news package. WTVT had some of the best opens in its entire history as a station in 1996.

Then it got worse. WTVT, WAGA, WHBQ, and WJBK all dropped their heritage "Eyewitness News" names. After about a decade or so, the sunset 10 was banished from KSAZ. KCNC started really rolling CBS into its image, especially in its 2003 overhaul. Network branding – and later, standardization – was the norm. Thanks to this switch, today three out of the Big Four stations in Tampa and Phoenix have identical music and graphics. News departments of the likes of WFTS, KNXV, KDNL, and WWJ saw little ratings traction, and some died as a result. Now TV just looks trashy and feels like it too. (Though WIAT, indirectly a product of the switches by gaining a major new audience, was a huge hit!)

If I could turn the clock on KSAZ and KCNC's graphics, I would do it happily. Today, KSAZ looks like every other Fox O&O (yuck!) and KCNC is a network robo-clone (ick!). Break down the great monopolies and duopolies in television. Something is still lost in television...and it may never return. Gladly give me a graphics time machine. Somebody. SOMEBODY!

 

[KentBrockman]

Sounds like you are more obsessed about the stations' image campaigns versus their decline in viewership and revenue over the past 15 years. Stations are all similar now thanks to corporate mergers, local owners selling out and cost cutting
running rampant. These stations are not the powerhouses they once were... thanks to the current 500 channel universe, the DVR and the Internet. There are so many choices now... local stations are currently under the gun to gather news cheaper, that is if they even still have a news operation. I think we will see even larger dramatic change in the next 15 years than we've ever seen before. IMO networks probably won't even have schedules or affiliates, everything will be on-demand. Watch it when you want, and that will make your local affiliate and it's news operation obsolete. I have a feeling Comcast is already working on this with their purchase of NBC and will the be the pioneers of the affiliateless network. I think they will change the business model completely. Network television is a 60 year old model that has never been updated for modern technology.

Look for a larger marriage between tv and the Internet in the next 15 years or so when it comes to the program delivery side of things as technology improves. I think we are at the tip of the iceberg as things stand right now technology-wise.

As for the local news side of TV in the future, IMO it will change drastically. Networks will drop local affiliates and move to on-demand, leaving affiliates high and dry. Most news ops will close up shop, leaving only the higher rated stations left to fend for themselves. A great number of stations news ops will not survive. Those that do will have to carve out a niche as local news on-demand channels that must adapt.

I really think we are on the the verge of major change.

 

[landtuna]

If that 'major change' means we'll get more of the stations that indie KPHO used to be before C(BS) then bring it on. I'm really tired of the corporate cookie cutter format that network affiliates now have.

 

[arnoldevns]

It's a tough call. I think it depends on your perspective. It was great for Fox and not so good for CBS, although CBS has recovered quite a bit. If you like Fox then this was a good thing. If you're a fan of CBS, not so much.

It was great if you like having more options for news, but it likely didn't improve the quality of anyone's news. A lot more stations are doing news now than were before the switches. They're also doing news in timeslots they weren't before. It's likely that many of those stations would not be doing news now had the switch not happened and the expanded time periods would have come along a lot later with fewer choices to choose from. Quality may have been hurt by having more inexperienced people put into the business. Then again, that was a problem before the switch. The switch may have just spread it out over more places.

The trend that has bothered me most in the past 20 years in local TV has been the move to automation. Many stations no longer have master control operations in house. They're "hubbed" somewhere across the country. Many stations have fired dozens of long-time veteran production people to replace them with robots who simply don't do as good a job. I think many of the highly leveraged station purchases of the early 90's are the blame. Station owners demand cuts in costs to pay for the debt service or to make up for lost ad revenue in the past few years. Meantime, the employees that are left have to do a lot more work with fewer resources for no extra money - or sometimes even on a pay cut. This is a prescription for failure.

 

[mjlarochelle]

More than anything I think it damaged the once reputable journalistic integrity of the affected stations. WTVT and Monsanto. Enough said.

 

[landtuna]

Did all of what occurred between 1994 and 1996 end up improving American television or setting it on a lesser path?

From a Phoenix viewer perspective I think it was a disaster.

3, formerly ABC, went indie and is now a female-oriented station showing mostly syndicated fare. Fail.

5, formerly a very strong indie with a long history in AZ (the first TV station in the state) became CBS. Fail.

10, formerly CBS, became Fox. Fail.

12, NBC, no change.

15, formerly an indie, became ABC. Until the digital conversion it was a Fail due to poorer signal (UHF vs VHF). Now a toss-up.

Overall market: Fail.

 

[JeeperOne]

Sounds like you are more obsessed about the stations' image campaigns versus their decline in viewership and revenue over the past 15 years.

Or in the case of KCNC (And rival KUSA 9, who switched from ABC to NBC) - The Lack Thereof

Then there are stations like KMGH 7 who actually GAINED viewers after the switch from CBS to ABC because if memory serves me right, CBS kinda sucked as a network back then whereas ABC (Like NBC, whom KMGH balked at because McGraw Hill wanted to bring KMGH in line with its sister stations) was more competitive (Still is today). Between that & a better news department, lead to the station gaining viewers instead of losing viewers.

IMO networks probably won't even have schedules or affiliates, everything will be on-demand.

And online. Don't forget that.

I have a feeling Comcast is already working on this with their purchase of NBC and will the be the pioneers of the affiliateless network.

I don't think NBC is part of the deal with NBC Universal.

Network television is a 60 year old model that has never been updated for modern technology.

Except for Color & HDTV that is.

As for the local news side of TV in the future, IMO it will change drastically. Networks will drop local affiliates and move to on-demand, leaving affiliates high and dry.

That would please the owners none the better as they could turn the stations into Indies & run local programming. They're already beginning to make the transition in some places.

I really think we are on the the verge of major change.

I agree.

Cheers

 

[desertv]

Yes, NBC will be a part of Comcast also.

As to network stations turning "indie", It would just be more reruns and syndicated talk crap, and very little "local" programmiing.

 

[1069_KIFR]

I know it degraded Letterman. Since most of the switches involved CBS affiliated stations. Many of them went to UHF stations. What used to be CBS 2 in some markets became CBS 42. Hard to tune into and the picture quality was not as good. Letterman's ratings suffered. NBC got the advantage, as did FOX.

 

[kilamanjero]

I know it degraded Letterman. Since most of the switches involved CBS affiliated stations. Many of them went to UHF stations. What used to be CBS 2 in some markets became CBS 42. Hard to tune into and the picture quality was not as good. Letterman's ratings suffered. NBC got the advantage, as did FOX.

Not exactly. In markets like Kansas City and Mobile, NBC suffered as well since they wind up being affiliated with UHF stations as well.

 

[nathannah]

I know it degraded Letterman. Since most of the switches involved CBS affiliated stations. Many of them went to UHF stations. What used to be CBS 2 in some markets became CBS 42. Hard to tune into and the picture quality was not as good. Letterman's ratings suffered. NBC got the advantage, as did FOX.

Not exactly. In markets like Kansas City and Mobile, NBC suffered as well since they wind up being affiliated with UHF stations as well.

ABC also took major harm with their new eventual Sinclair affiliates in St. Louis and Greensboro/High Point; KDNL is treated as the market joke in St. Louis with CW and MyNetworkTV station standbys Maury and The Simpsons sandwiching World News Tonight, and both cities don't carry news at all.

NBC took damage in Green Bay after WLUK was more than happy to lose them (they barely branded with NBC after 1990) and were hitched with WGBA, which struggled to build a relevant news department then in 2004 became basically another screen for their new owners at Journal in Milwaukee to play with; almost everything is controlled from there, a skeleton staff of newscasts and staff remains, and the disaster that was the mostly-informercial weekday schedules of 2008 and 2009 has yet to disappear, while WLUK got bought by LIN TV, enjoys a syndicated lineup (Judge Judy, the Sony game shows and Seinfeld) most Fox affiliates would kill to have, and just bought the CW affiliate to strengthen their position while Journal struggles with their LMA with the ultimate in non-competitive MyNet affiliates (if not for The Simpsons, nobody would watch them at all).

Milwaukee would have to be called a toss-up at this point; WITI managed to avoid most of Fox's interference and kept most of their staff and remains a pretty strong operation, while WDJT got CBS and struggled for the longest time. But they've begun to make good progress with their "10 minutes" branding and format, along with getting Ellen, Dr. Oz and the Sony game shows, and they're now near parity with everyone else. Journal's WTMJ is struggling though thanks to NBC and bad management which seems to be obsessed with gimmicks and 'bleed it leads' in their hours and hours of newscasts for the last few years, along with a lousy syndicated schedule (they just restored "Better" this year to the 2pm slot after being obliterated when they aired 292 year-old reruns of "Cold Case Files" last year).

 

[e-dawg]

How about Hawaii? KHON -TV went from NBC to FOX. They are still number one in their newscast. While KHNL-13 (Cable 8) place 4th in their newscast and programming after the major FOX shuffle switch.

 

[pab]

There was another bit of turmoil during that period that did more damage in the long run to television than the affiliation changes: the birth of the "netlets" UPN and WB. They destroyed more legacy independents than the affiliate swaps ever could.

The loss of at least one, and usually two, independents per market meant the market for first-run syndication dried up to be replaced by generally weak network offerings in prime time. They also accelerated the "Network name branding" for local stations that Fox had started with its arrival in the 1980's.

The initial growth of UPN and WB also spawned the bane of all of television's existence: PAX, which became I(nf)o(mercial televisio)n. This ate up a good number of remaining independents and completely destroyed them.

By the time both netlets died the concept of an independent station was so foreign that they were replaced by two more netlets: one created from the bloated remains of the two originals and one comprised of programming so bad that it wouldn't have been picked up by either of the dead networks.

Between 1986 and 1996, Philadelphia (for example) went from being a market with three thriving competitive independents (WTAF 29, WPHL 17, WGBS 57) to a market with six network affiliates and no independents at all. Even the attempted "move ins" of Channel 61 from Wilmington DE, 65 from Vineland NJ, and a revived 48 from Burlington NJ wound up stillborn as all three soon found themselves networked with PAX, HSN (then Univision), and TBN before the netlets ate up the last two indys in Philly and thus none were viable replacements.

I think in Philly, at least, television was harder hit by the loss of "WPHL 17" and "Philly 57" than it was from people needing to remember "that's right, NBC is on Channel 10 now."

 

[bpatrick]

Re: Did the massive affiliation switches of the 1990s improve or degrade televis

It probably goes without saying that CBS took its biggest
hit in Detroit, moving from Ch. 2 to Ch. 62 and forcing a lot
of people to turn to "Toledo Eleven" for CBS.

BTW, Eyewitness News was not a "heritage" name on WAGA.
The station used "Panorama News" in the '50s and '60s, and
"News Scene" in the '70s. "Eyewitness News" had been used
by WQXI (WXIA) from 1969 to 1972 and had been so unsuccessful
with it that no other station in Atlanta would touch the name for
years.

As for the prospect of Comcast turning NBC into an "affiliateless"
network, it would suit me fine. Maybe then CBS could upgrade to
Ch. 11 in Atlanta, and ABC to Ch. 12 in Greensboro/Winston-Salem.

 

[JayR]

There was another bit of turmoil during that period that did more damage in the long run to television than the affiliation changes: the birth of the "netlets" UPN and WB. They destroyed more legacy independents than the affiliate swaps ever could.

The loss of at least one, and usually two, independents per market meant the market for first-run syndication dried up to be replaced by generally weak network offerings in prime time.

Absolutely correct!

Look at what's offered in first-run syndication:

*crickets chirping*

Exactly!

 

[kilamanjero]

Re: Did the massive affiliation switches of the 1990s improve or degrade televis

It probably goes without saying that CBS took its biggest
hit in Detroit, moving from Ch. 2 to Ch. 62 and forcing a lot
of people to turn to "Toledo Eleven" for CBS.

BTW, Eyewitness News was not a "heritage" name on WAGA.
The station used "Panorama News" in the '50s and '60s, and
"News Scene" in the '70s. "Eyewitness News" had been used
by WQXI (WXIA) from 1969 to 1972 and had been so unsuccessful
with it that no other station in Atlanta would touch the name for
years.

As for the prospect of Comcast turning NBC into an "affiliateless"
network, it would suit me fine. Maybe then CBS could upgrade to
Ch. 11 in Atlanta, and ABC to Ch. 12 in Greensboro/Winston-Salem.

IDK, don't count out WGCL these days. I think Meredith has finally realized that you have to actually have qualified talent on the station for its ratings to improve. Also the Piedmont Triad is in the 40s (market size), so Sinclair apparently doesn't care at all. I think 2 stations should have "moved-in" that 3 primary city metro/market and formed a single operation like Allbritton did in the Birmingham/Tuscaloosa/Anniston market with "ABC 33/40". The latter market isn't as consolidated as the Piedmont Triad, so such a set up would have flowed much better there for a market ABC affilate.

 

[vchimpanzee]

In Greensboro, NC, ABC went downhill. Terrible signal until DTV, which made everyone more or less equal and gave the ABC station a chance to move its transmitter to a better location (unless you're in the mountains), and a newscast that bombed. There is no local newscast on the ABC station.

The Fox affiliate that was ABC has an excellent news operation, of course.

 

[ding12]

Between 1986 and 1996, Philadelphia (for example) went from being a market with three thriving competitive independents (WTAF 29, WPHL 17, WGBS 57) to a market with six network affiliates and no independents at all. Even the attempted "move ins" of Channel 61 from Wilmington DE, 65 from Vineland NJ, and a revived 48 from Burlington NJ wound up stillborn as all three soon found themselves networked with PAX, HSN (then Univision), and TBN before the netlets ate up the last two indys in Philly and thus none were viable replacements.

I think in Philly, at least, television was harder hit by the loss of "WPHL 17" and "Philly 57" than it was from people needing to remember "that's right, NBC is on Channel 10 now."

I actually thought Philly fared better for a while, over New York or Washington. WPHL and WGBS stayed longer as true indys compared to say WWOR and WPIX. With WGTW, there was more classic TV, etc. on the Philly dial than in New York and Washington. WGTW never reached great heights, but it stayed indy for a quite awhile (1992-2004) before sale to TBN.

By the mid 90's, WWOR and WPIX's were the homes /primary clearancesto garbage filled programming : Ricki Lake, Richard Bey, Rolonda, etc. Most of that content didn't appear on 17and 57, while 17 and 57 stuck to a random mix of programming , reruns etc. The modern talk crap went to Fox 29, and the late hours of KYW, and WPVI. But ultimately, WPHL's format as an indy was phased out and cloned to WPIX's programming, and WPHL wound up worse, as WPIX aired some shows like Seinfeld, local news, live baseball (WPHL ceased showing the Phillies...while WPIX had lost Yankees but atleast got Mets).

 

[bpatrick]

Re: Did the massive affiliation switches of the 1990s improve or degrade televis

It probably goes without saying that CBS took its biggest
hit in Detroit, moving from Ch. 2 to Ch. 62 and forcing a lot
of people to turn to "Toledo Eleven" for CBS.

BTW, Eyewitness News was not a "heritage" name on WAGA.
The station used "Panorama News" in the '50s and '60s, and
"News Scene" in the '70s. "Eyewitness News" had been used
by WQXI (WXIA) from 1969 to 1972 and had been so unsuccessful
with it that no other station in Atlanta would touch the name for
years.

As for the prospect of Comcast turning NBC into an "affiliateless"
network, it would suit me fine. Maybe then CBS could upgrade to
Ch. 11 in Atlanta, and ABC to Ch. 12 in Greensboro/Winston-Salem.

IDK, don't count out WGCL these days. I think Meredith has finally realized that you have to actually have qualified talent on the station for its ratings to improve. Also the Piedmont Triad is in the 40s (market size), so Sinclair apparently doesn't care at all. I think 2 stations should have "moved-in" that 3 primary city metro/market and formed a single operation like Allbritton did in the Birmingham/Tuscaloosa/Anniston market with "ABC 33/40". The latter market isn't as consolidated as the Piedmont Triad, so such a set up would have flowed much better there for a market ABC affilate.

ABC was on two stations in the Triad following the switch, Chs. 45 and 48, for about a year. Ch. 48 then became the UPN, and now MyNetwork, affiliate. 45 is licensed to Winston-Salem, 48 to Greensboro, so what you're saying about ABC33/40 in Birmingham should have worked in Greensboro and Winston-Salem. As for the former ABC affiliate, WGHP, Greensboro News and Record readers just voted it the best news operation in the Triad, and it is certainly competitive in the ratings.

 

[KERCAlum]

In D/FW, the swap wasn't as severe, with FOX moving from 33 to 4 and CBS moving from 4 to 11. KTVT had been an independent for about a century and a half (first as KFJZ), so becoming a network affiliate was a shock to most people. Likewise KDFW losing CBS and gaining FOX, but that one worked out OK because that was also about the time the NFC moved from CBS to FOX and the AFC moved from NBC to CBS. So viewers worried that they couldn't find their precious Cowboys were relieved that they wouldn't have to change the channel.

Now, though, like another poster said they're all just a bunch of cookie-cutter stations (Only Belo-owned WFAA still looks like its own brand, instead of like all the other ABC stations across the country).

In an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, the android Data postulated that TV would cease to be a viable form of entertainment sometime in the 2030s (IIRC). Prophetic? We may be seeing the end of the evolutionary line of TV.