• 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

Fox May Trim TV Station Group

> Fox is considering selling off TV stations that it owns
> outside the top 25 markets to cut down overhead and simplify
> operations. The move would also allow Fox to move farther
> back from the current 39% ownership caps, allowing the
> company to expand in the larger markets down the line.
>
> Here is a link to the "Broadcasting & Cable" story about
> Fox's possible strategy:
>
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6257847.html?display=John+Higgins&referral=SUPP
>

Just by using the numbers at B&C (and averages) we can guess the prices...
(not based on the operating cash flow of the individual stations)

800,000,000 / 5,327,520 = 150.16 a household

WDAF of Kansas City, MO (31):
903,540 HH = $135.7 million

WITI of Milwakee (33)
880,390 HH = $132.2 million

KSTU of Salt Lake City (36)
810,830 HH = $121.8 million

WBRC of Birmingham, Ala. (40)
716,520 HH = $107.6 million

WHBQ of Memphis (44)
657,670 HH = $98.8 million

WGHP of Greensboro-Winston Salem, N.C. (47)
652,020 HH = $97.9 million

KTBC of Austin, Texas (53)
589,360 HH = $88.5 million

WOGX of Gainesville, Fla. (162)
117,190 HH = $17.6 million<P ID="signature">______________
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.stationindex.com/>TV Station List</a></P>
 
> Fox is considering selling off TV stations that it owns
> outside the top 25 markets to cut down overhead and simplify
> operations. The move would also allow Fox to move farther
> back from the current 39% ownership caps, allowing the
> company to expand in the larger markets down the line.
>
> Here is a link to the "Broadcasting & Cable" story about
> Fox's possible strategy:
>
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6257847.html?display=John+Higgins&referral=SUPP
>
As I see it, the most expendable small-market Fox O&Os are definitely KSTU, the network's only VHF O&O in a sub-#25 market with four full-power Vs, and WOGX, the only sub-#25-market Fox O&O with a UHF analog channel.

Fox would be taking a much bigger risk by selling WDAF, WITI, WBRC, WHBQ, WGHP, and KTBC. Not only are those six stations on VHF channels in markets with fewer than four full-power Vs, they were all affiliated with Big Three networks before Fox bought at least partial stakes in them in the mid '90s. Thus, Fox had better be prepared for the chance that any of those stations may return to the Big Three fold and that Fox may even have to return to the UHF band in any of those markets (especially Birmingham, whose only other commercial full-power V is an NBC O&O, and Austin, where KTBC is the only full-power V).<P ID="signature">______________
This is AirwaveSurfer, reminding you that portions of this post have been prerecorded.</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by AirwaveSurfer on 09/19/05 09:57 AM.</FONT></P>
 
> As I see it, the most expendable small-market Fox O&Os are
> definitely KSTU, the network's only VHF O&O in a sub-#25
> market with four full-power Vs, and WOGX, the only
> sub-#25-market Fox O&O with a UHF analog channel.

Isn't WOGX operated in tandem with WOFL Orlando? That probably makes it pretty inexpensive to run, and the Gainesville/Ocala area is a fast-growing market in a fast-growing state.

I don't think the VHF/UHF issue is as big a deal anymore as you make it out to be. The arrival of DTV is equalizing the OTA signals across the dial in most markets, and of course cable and satellite have done a lot to level the playing field. In a few years, the only distinction will be a higher virtual channel number, and that hasn't proven to have much effect on the success of Fox O&Os like WFXT (25) Boston , WTXF (29) Philadelphia and WFLD (32) Chicago.<P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2006 JUST RELEASED! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>
 
> > As I see it, the most expendable small-market Fox O&Os are
> > definitely KSTU, the network's only VHF O&O in a sub-#25
> > market with four full-power Vs, and WOGX, the only
> > sub-#25-market Fox O&O with a UHF analog channel.
>
> Isn't WOGX operated in tandem with WOFL Orlando? That
> probably makes it pretty inexpensive to run, and the
> Gainesville/Ocala area is a fast-growing market in a
> fast-growing state.
>
> I don't think the VHF/UHF issue is as big a deal anymore as
> you make it out to be. The arrival of DTV is equalizing the
> OTA signals across the dial in most markets, and of course
> cable and satellite have done a lot to level the playing
> field. In a few years, the only distinction will be a higher
> virtual channel number, and that hasn't proven to have much
> effect on the success of Fox O&Os like WFXT (25) Boston ,
> WTXF (29) Philadelphia and WFLD (32) Chicago.
>
I, too, think that, especially with the advent of DTV, the VHF/UHF issue is fast becoming moot. I just wonder if execs at Fox and other broadcasters will be allowed by their egos to realize that fact soon enough.<P ID="signature">______________
This is AirwaveSurfer, reminding you that portions of this post have been prerecorded.</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by AirwaveSurfer on 09/19/05 11:44 AM.</FONT></P>
 
> > Fox is considering selling off TV stations that it owns
> > outside the top 25 markets to cut down overhead and
> simplify
> > operations. The move would also allow Fox to move farther
> > back from the current 39% ownership caps, allowing the
> > company to expand in the larger markets down the line.
> >
> > Here is a link to the "Broadcasting & Cable" story about
> > Fox's possible strategy:
> >
http://www.broadcastingcable.c> om/article/CA6257847.html?display=John+Higgins&referral=SUPP
>
> >
>
> Just by using the numbers at B&C (and averages) we can guess
> the prices...
> (not based on the operating cash flow of the individual
> stations)
>
> 800,000,000 / 5,327,520 = 150.16 a household
>
> WDAF of Kansas City, MO (31):
> 903,540 HH = $135.7 million
>
> WITI of Milwakee (33)
> 880,390 HH = $132.2 million
>
> KSTU of Salt Lake City (36)
> 810,830 HH = $121.8 million
>
> WBRC of Birmingham, Ala. (40)
> 716,520 HH = $107.6 million
>
> WHBQ of Memphis (44)
> 657,670 HH = $98.8 million
>
> WGHP of Greensboro-Winston Salem, N.C. (47)
> 652,020 HH = $97.9 million
>
> KTBC of Austin, Texas (53)
> 589,360 HH = $88.5 million
>
> WOGX of Gainesville, Fla. (162)
> 117,190 HH = $17.6 million
>
For my part I'd be perfectly happy to see WGHP
get sold and go back to ABC. WXLV is one of the
sorriest excuses for an ABC affiliate anywhere,
and besides, it would deprive Sinclair of an
ABC affiliate.

Don't look for WBRC to go back to ABC, or KTBC
to go back to CBS. Allbritton owns WCFT/WJSU/
WBMA (ABC in Birmingham), and all its stations
are ABC affiliates. Viacom, I believe, owns
CBS affiliate KEYE in Austin.

The sale and possible affiliation switch
I'd most like to see is not on the list:
WAGA Atlanta, so CBS could have a decent
affiliate there again. But since Atlanta
is a top-10 market, I can forget it.
 
> Fox would be taking a much bigger risk by selling WDAF,
> WITI, WBRC, WHBQ, WGHP, and KTBC. Not only are those six
> stations on VHF channels in markets with fewer than four
> full-power Vs, they were all affiliated with Big Three
> networks before Fox bought at least partial stakes in them
> in the mid '90s. Thus, Fox had better be prepared for the
> chance that any of those stations may return to the Big
> Three fold and that Fox may even have to return to the UHF
> band in any of those markets (especially Birmingham, whose
> only other commercial full-power V is an NBC O&O, and
> Austin, where KTBC is the only full-power V).

If Fox sells these stations they could include long term affiliation deals in which the stations would remain affiliates of Fox. They could also sell to a company that owns mostly Fox stations.
 
> > I don't think the VHF/UHF issue is as big a deal anymore
> as
> > you make it out to be. The arrival of DTV is equalizing
> the
> > OTA signals across the dial in most markets, and of course
>
> > cable and satellite have done a lot to level the playing
> > field. In a few years, the only distinction will be a
> higher
> > virtual channel number, and that hasn't proven to have
> much
> > effect on the success of Fox O&Os like WFXT (25) Boston ,
> > WTXF (29) Philadelphia and WFLD (32) Chicago.
> >
> I, too, think that, especially with the advent of DTV, the
> VHF/UHF issue is fast becoming moot. I just wonder if execs
> at Fox and other broadcasters will be allowed by their egos
> to realize that fact soon enough.
>
Also after the transition to digital is complete, the big four networks (though not others straight off) will lose the UHF discount. I'm sure they will granfather in the stations already owned but still might be a thought.

I think for non cable people the UHF/VHF is still applicable for local programs anyway. I live in Chicago and the low VHFs are (for me) unwatchable. Thus I watch WLS-TV Channel 7 news by default. Certain U's like WCIU-TV come in better than even the high VHFs. However other U's like WPWR Channel 50 are worse than than low V's

So I still think it might have bearing in markets with low cable penetration<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
 
> If Fox sells these stations they could include long term
> affiliation deals in which the stations would remain
> affiliates of Fox. They could also sell to a company that
> owns mostly Fox stations.

I agree. Fox see those stations as very successful and very crucial to the network, which is why they'll look for companies who they see as very loyal to News Corp.
 
> In a few years, the only distinction will be a higher
> virtual channel number, and that hasn't proven to have much
> effect on the success of Fox O&Os like WFXT (25) Boston ,
> WTXF (29) Philadelphia and WFLD (32) Chicago.

I'd emphasize that in the case of WFLD, a station that doesn't even use it's channel number!

It would be interesting to find out how many people in Chicagoland know the calls and/or channel number of WFLD. Weren't they the first Fox affiliate to be called Fox (city name here)? I believe that Philly, Boston, and probably a few others used this ID at one time or another in the past.
 
> It would be interesting to find out how many people in
> Chicagoland know the calls and/or channel number of WFLD.

Given WFLD's storied history, I bet that many Chicagolanders know both.
 
>
> Don't look for WBRC to go back to ABC, or KTBC
> to go back to CBS. Allbritton owns WCFT/WJSU/
> WBMA (ABC in Birmingham), and all its stations
> are ABC affiliates.

Kinda makes me wonder how tight WIAT-42(B'ham) and Media General are with CBS, though I ultimately doubt any switch would take place.

UPN 6, anybody? (j/k) <P ID="signature">______________
"Not fixing [New Orleans'] levees before Katrina struck will now cost us untold billions. Not resolving the nation's issues of race and class has and will cost us so much more."
--Wynton Marsalis
</P>
 
> > If Fox sells these stations they could include long term
> > affiliation deals in which the stations would remain
> > affiliates of Fox. They could also sell to a company that
> > owns mostly Fox stations.
>
> I agree. Fox see those stations as very successful and very
> crucial to the network, which is why they'll look for
> companies who they see as very loyal to News Corp.
>
Makes sense, but if you read my post below, wishful thinking
makes me hope WGHP gets ABC back. I also mentioned that I
think WBRC and KTBC will stay with Fox, due to ownership of
their competitors (especially in Birmingham, with an NBC o&o,
Allbritton-owned ABC, and Media General-owned CBS--and Media
General is very tight with CBS in the South).

Which stations I think are vulnerable to a switch back to
their old network if Fox can't hold onto them:

WGHP (ABC would love to unload WXLV)

WITI (CBS could get off Ch. 58 and get back on Ch. 6)

WDAF (maybe--Meredith owns KCTV/5 and is tight with CBS;
Hearst-Argyle, I believe, owns KMBC/9 and is a company
we've mentioned as a possible buyer of ABC at some
future time; KSHB/41, I don't know how it does with NBC,
but NBC would probably prefer Ch. 4 again)

WHBQ (again, possible, and ABC gets back on Ch. 13)

Those that I think will stay put:

WBRC
KTBC
KSTU (CBS has an o&o. Fox programming surely isn't going
to run on KSL/5, owned by the Mormon church. ABC
seems to do just fine on KTVX/4.)

WOGX (If this is a satellite of Orlando's WOFL, I don't think
any of the Big Three in Orlando will take Fox--unless
WKMG/6, owned by Post-Newsweek, would just like to
spite CBS (sister station WJXT/4 Jacksonville dropped
CBS and went independent), and I don't foresee anything
of the kind happening.)

Now, remember, this is all contingent on Fox not being able
to get these affiliates (not o&os anymore once they're sold)
to stay put or to sell them to strong Fox-oriented companies.
This is also wishful thinking. But I stand on this: Fox
retains at least four of the seven as affiliates.
 
> >
> > Don't look for WBRC to go back to ABC, or KTBC
> > to go back to CBS. Allbritton owns WCFT/WJSU/
> > WBMA (ABC in Birmingham), and all its stations
> > are ABC affiliates.
>
> Kinda makes me wonder how tight WIAT-42(B'ham) and Media
> General are with CBS, though I ultimately doubt any switch
> would take place.
>
> UPN 6, anybody? (j/k)
>
Media General is pretty tight with CBS, at least in the
South. Its Southern CBS affiliates:

ALABAMA

WKRG/5 Mobile
WIAT/42 Birmingham

GEORGIA

WRBL/3 Columbus

MISSISSIPPI

WJTV/12 Jackson (and, I believe,
a satellite in Laurel/Hattiesburg)

NORTH CAROLINA

WNCT/9 Greenville/New Bern/Washington

SOUTH CAROLINA

WSPA/7 Greenville/Spartanburg/Asheville
WBTW/13 Florence/Myrtle Beach/Lumberton

TENNESSEE

WJHL/11 Bristol/Kingsport/Johnson City
WDEF/12 Chattanooga

And even though WIAT is, and always has been,
one of CBS's weakest affiliates, I don't think
any other station in Birmingham wants it.
Remember: WBRC dropped CBS many years ago (1961),
WVTM/13 is an NBC o&o, and Allbritton owns
ABC 33/40. WTTO/21 seems to be doing just fine
with the WB, and WABM/68 (UPN) I know nothing about.
So I think WBRC stays put.
 
I was thinking the same thing with Memphis and Milwaukee.

In the case of WHBQ-13, I don't see Disney buying the station, and Clear Channel will want something in return if WPTY-24 loses ABC since CC has several(ABC affiliated stations) in their roster.

As for WITI-6, I'm not so sure if Viacom wants the station, but we could see other suitors. Plus CBS seems to be pleased with WDJT-58(At this point) so it'll probably be a while before Milwaukee see another musical chair of affiliation switches.
 
> I also mentioned that I
> think WBRC and KTBC will stay with Fox, due to ownership of
> their competitors (especially in Birmingham, with an NBC
> o&o,
> Allbritton-owned ABC, and Media General-owned CBS--and Media
>
> General is very tight with CBS in the South).

But, considering that WIAT ch.42 is the perennial loser in the Birmingham market, I would think that CBS would want to contemplate moving to WBRC, if that station is sold.
 
> Media General is pretty tight with CBS, at least in the
> South. Its Southern CBS affiliates:
>
> GEORGIA
>
> WRBL/3 Columbus
>
Lest we forget the tiny WNEG ch.32 in Toccoa, which is, more or less, tied into Spartanburg's WSPA.
 
> > I also mentioned that I
> > think WBRC and KTBC will stay with Fox, due to ownership
> of
> > their competitors (especially in Birmingham, with an NBC
> > o&o,
> > Allbritton-owned ABC, and Media General-owned CBS--and
> Media
> >
> > General is very tight with CBS in the South).
>
> But, considering that WIAT ch.42 is the perennial loser in
> the Birmingham market, I would think that CBS would want to
> contemplate moving to WBRC, if that station is sold.
>
I don't doubt that CBS would try to sign up WBRC, but I've
always sensed a certain hostility to CBS in Birmingham that
dates back to the incident that was partially the cause of
WBRC's switching from CBS to ABC in the first place: Howard
K. Smith's 1961 documentary "Who Speaks For Birmingham?",
which placed the city's racial situation in an unfavorable
light. A few years later, Walter Cronkite did not air in
Birmingham. I've been gone from Birmingham since 1973, so
I'm not totally up to date on Birmingham's attitude toward
CBS. I do remember these things: Birmingham is the only
city I ever lived in where the CBS soap block was the perennial
loser in the afternoon; CBS primetime hits such as All In The
Family, M*A*S*H, and Mary Tyler Moore did not have the enthusiastic
response of other markets (even nearby Huntsville). And in 1970,
when Channel 13 had to choose between NBC and CBS, they took NBC.

Perhaps things have changed in 32 years, but I somehow feel that
Birmingham perceives CBS as too liberal. But, obviously, a lot
will depend on the company that buys WBRC. I'm not ready to
predict a switch.

Probably not relevant to your posting, but closer to home for me,
WGHP is a former ABC affiliate that I do feel has a chance to get
back with its former network. There is no particular hostility
to ABC in Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point; WXLV/45 just has
some of the same problems as WIAT, namely being on a UHF with
poor reception. ABC was doing fine when Channel 8 was its affiliate,
and I think it more likely that WGHP goes back to ABC than WBRC
goes to CBS (our CBS affiliate, WFMY/2, isn't going anywhere).

Bottom line: CBS had better make WBRC an offer it can't refuse, like
a big comp for carrying the network's programs.
 
> I was thinking the same thing with Memphis and Milwaukee.
>
> In the case of WHBQ-13, I don't see Disney buying the
> station, and Clear Channel will want something in return if
> WPTY-24 loses ABC since CC has several(ABC affiliated
> stations) in their roster.
>
> As for WITI-6, I'm not so sure if Viacom wants the station,
> but we could see other suitors. Plus CBS seems to be pleased
> with WDJT-58(At this point) so it'll probably be a while
> before Milwaukee see another musical chair of affiliation
> switches.
>
All I'm looking at is this: if you were ABC and you had a
chance to move from 24 to 13, would you take it? And if
you were CBS, would you prefer to be on 58 or 6?

CBS probably wishes Detroit was on this list. That would
be an excellent incentive to get rid of that lousy o&o they
have and reaffiliate with WJBK/2. Likewise, Atlanta, where
WGCL/46 is the market joke; I think CBS would take WAGA/5
back in a minute.
 
> And even though WIAT is, and always has been,
> one of CBS's weakest affiliates, I don't think
> any other station in Birmingham wants it.
> Remember: WBRC dropped CBS many years ago (1961),
> WVTM/13 is an NBC o&o, and Allbritton owns
> ABC 33/40. WTTO/21 seems to be doing just fine
> with the WB, and WABM/68 (UPN) I know nothing about.
> So I think WBRC stays put.
>

I don't think there'll be a change, either.

WBRC switching to CBS wouldn't be a step down, given the strength of CBS's returning schedule. But it'd come at the expense of WBRC's very profitable local news presence (IIRC, it's own morning show beats "Today",plus the daily local newscasts from 5-6:30pm and 9pm with no network programming to worry about).

I think it's the local news that'll keep Fox on WBRC 6. <P ID="signature">______________
"Not fixing [New Orleans'] levees before Katrina struck will now cost us untold billions. Not resolving the nation's issues of race and class has and will cost us so much more."
--Wynton Marsalis
</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom