-
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 Television Stations (Owned and Operated)
- Thread starter e-dawg
- Start date
Fox prefers "Fox 5?" Then why hasn't it tried to swap with KTLA in Los Angeles? They have been "Fox 11" in Market #2 for many years, now. And why would they (or CBS for that matter) care enough about "preferred" dial position to start swapping channels? Dial position is inreasingly irrelevant in today's cable and satellite world. Example: "NBC Bay Area."
And why purchase KRON - the broadcasting equivalent to a slum?
Way too complicated - Fox has had a productive and profitable ongoing relationship with KTVU. I predict that they either try to buy KTVU, or just keep things the way they are. There's no strategic reason that they have to own a station in the SF market.
And why purchase KRON - the broadcasting equivalent to a slum?
Way too complicated - Fox has had a productive and profitable ongoing relationship with KTVU. I predict that they either try to buy KTVU, or just keep things the way they are. There's no strategic reason that they have to own a station in the SF market.
1069_KIFR said:
Except in Chicago, where it's CBS2, NBC5, and ABC7.
Or Philly, where it's CBS3, ABC6, and NBC10.
Or Detroit, where it's CBS62, NBC4, and ABC7
Or...
Or...
Or...
Come to think of it, the CBS2/NBC4/ABC7 combo are only in NY and LA. And even in LA, it was CBS11 at one time (although they certainly never called it that).
1069_KIFR said:
Huh? ??? ??? ??? :
AFAIK, the only network that publicly indicated a preference for a certain channel was ABC. They wanted their O&Os on Channel 7 because there was a possibility in the early '50s of channels 2-6 being withdrawn from TV use. They would have been "first on the dial" if that had occurred. That, of course, never happened.
Of the other networks, CBS has only owned original Channel 2s in NY, Salt Lake City, and Pittsburgh. The latter two are not part of the original group (KUTV was bought from NBC and sold off a few years later. KDKA-TV was part of the Westinghouse merger).
In the other cities where they've owned stations, either Channel 2 was not allocated to those cities, or it was not available (not including their early UHFs in Hartford and Milwaukee). They bought Channel 2 in LA and sold Channel 11. They moved from Channel 4 to 2 in Chicago because of interference issues between Milwaukee and Kalamazoo on Channel 3, with the FCC moving the Channel 4 allocation to Milwaukee and shutting down Zenith's experimental station on Channel 2.
NBC only owns Channel 4s in NY (only because their previous Channel 1 had been reallocated to "community" stations only), LA, and Washington - plus Denver and Columbus before those stations were sold. Again, in other cases, Channel 4 was either not allocated to the cities where they owned stations, or was already in use (such as Chicago prior to 1953, and not allocated after that).
But why in the world would you think that CBS and NBC would "prefer" to have Channels 2 and 4, respectively? Again, only ABC made their preference public back in the day. It was also impossible to allocate 2, 4, and 7 to Philadelphia due to its proximity to New York and Washington/Baltimore.
Lkeller said:
NBC was quite content to buy a "slum" (and slit KRON's throat in the process) in order to have an O&O in the Bay Area. And I'm sure FOX had a productive and profitable ongoing relationship with WCCB until the opportunity to swipe the Charlotte affiliation on the cheap came about. Owning O&Os in NFC cities is seen by FOX as key to its business model. Cox has rebuffed multiple offers from News Corp to buy KTVU over the years; I imagine their patience will eventually wear thin.
http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/65130/charlotte-move-puts-fox-affiliates-on-edge
newsbot said:
Actually, that wasn't the case with WCCB at all. WCCB was on the verge of getting it affiliation snatched from the back in the 90s when Fox demanded they bring back their news department (similar to the coup that almost occurred in Seattle with KCPQ). WCCB has had more of an OK relationship with Fox (but crappy because of the high turn over and constant off-air incidents with news staff which hurt overall ratings for WCCB's news operation). The deal is a result of Capitol begging Fox/NewsCorp not to snatch its Raleigh/Durham affiliation from WRAZ.
Cox and Fox are benefiting quite well with their long relationship because Fox/NewsCorp knows KTVU is a very dominate station in the market with the "Channel 2 News" brand. I doubt they would jump ship considering how much of a ratings mammoth KTVU is the market.
Lkeller said:
KTVU is a very strong FOX affiliate. Why rock the boat?
If FOX buys KRON, they're buying a lot of headaches. That's why they haven't made a move in the Bay Area.
It's obvious FOX likes their relationship with KTVU. They don't even hassle them for the unconventional branding that de-emphasizes FOX (WSVN in Miami is the only other affiliate that I can think of that also gets away with this).
FightingIrish said:
There are a few aside from KTVU (WSVN, KCPQ, and KHON).
- Status