Gannett + Belo

[nomadcowatbk]

I know Jack Sander will be buying KMOV, but I think it would be even more interesting if Disney tried to purchase KMOV so they can finally get ABC off that horrible KDNL station that has been run into the ground by Sinclair.

ABC's agreement with KDNL lasts another 2 years, how much long is the agreement between CBS and KMOV? And is ABC really that desperate for a better station in STL that they'd buy one when they're not really agressive in buying stations in bigger markets?

 

[justpassingthough]

I know Jack Sander will be buying KMOV, but I think it would be even more interesting if Disney tried to purchase KMOV so they can finally get ABC off that horrible KDNL station that has been run into the ground by Sinclair.

ABC's agreement with KDNL lasts another 2 years, how much long is the agreement between CBS and KMOV? And is ABC really that desperate for a better station in STL that they'd buy one when they're not really agressive in buying stations in bigger markets?

I was just making conversation- as its doubtful Disney has any interest in KMOV. If they were worried about STL, they would have tried to go after KTVI or KPLR when they were sold in the last few years.

 

[TroyG]

ABC could go after KPLR, and send The CW affiliation to KDNL. But I doubt it.

 

[michael hagerty]

Unless something changes....and it's television, so anything's possible....I think you've seen the last of networks buying O&Os on a regular basis...and affiliate swaps, for that matter.

The networks are reaching for other platforms and station owners realize that there's very little difference in the deal you can get from any of the big four (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX). In terms of the sales demo, the difference between the #1 network in the season just ended and the #4 network is about 0.7. Not much incentive to say "my network's in a slump...I'll be better off being a (name here) affiliate."

 

[justpassingthough]

Unless something changes....and it's television, so anything's possible....I think you've seen the last of networks buying O&Os on a regular basis...and affiliate swaps, for that matter.

The networks are reaching for other platforms and station owners realize that there's very little difference in the deal you can get from any of the big four (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX). In terms of the sales demo, the difference between the #1 network in the season just ended and the #4 network is about 0.7. Not much incentive to say "my network's in a slump...I'll be better off being a (name here) affiliate."

That was my argument in another thread. The value of the O&Os and broadcast stations in general is only going to diminish as the networks start their slow and eventual transitions into cable channels. The real value in these stations will be in offering syndicated fare and news programming- especially in the larger markets. Medium and small markets will only be valuable if they're in a cluster where the news gathering costs are shared and syndicated programming can be purchased for the entire group so the group can organize a better deal. As a part of a traditional broadcast network, though, these stations all have a limited shelf life.

 

[secondchoice]

IMHO, the OTA signal is for local stations will still be valuable. I am in the process of dropping cable, A manly internet connection gets me Netflix and Hulu. The off the air HD signal from the local TV broadcasters is at a superior bit rate than cable. Except for "naked" high speed internet, I have no use to cable. Plus I save $$$. Comcast bought NBC Universal from GE. I believe they did it because they wanted the NBC TV network platform. They could have bought a bunch of successful cable programming networks for a whole lot less.

 

[justpassingthough]

IMHO, the OTA signal is for local stations will still be valuable. I am in the process of dropping cable, A manly internet connection gets me Netflix and Hulu. The off the air HD signal from the local TV broadcasters is at a superior bit rate than cable. Except for "naked" high speed internet, I have no use to cable. Plus I save $$$. Comcast bought NBC Universal from GE. I believe they did it because they wanted the NBC TV network platform. They could have bought a bunch of successful cable programming networks for a whole lot less.

Cable channel was probably a poor way of saying what I'm trying to get at. Cord cutters will still be happy if the OTA signal goes away but the "broadcast networks" make themselves available for a nominal monthly fee either online or via app that can be loaded on any device ranging from a smartphone to a set top device like the PS3 or Apple TV. This is where I see "broadcast" headed. There is tremendous brand recognition with CBS or NBC or Fox that people will probably follow them wherever they go. This is probably the closest we will ever get to an a la carte type situation too.

 

[KeithE4]

Comcast bought NBC Universal from GE. I believe they did it because they wanted the rights to Sunday Night Football, Notre Dame, the NHL, NBC News, and maybe a few successful shows NBC TV network platform.

Fixed. ;D

All of those things I mention above, with the exception (at least for the foreseeable future) of the NFL, can be moved to a Comcast/NBC-owned cable channel and/or online. And eventually, they probably will be. Comcast is primarily in the cable business, not the broadcast business.

I've been a cord-cutter for almost 4 years, but I'm a sports fan and a realist. I know there is a limited future for broadcast television. Between the FCC spectrum repacking that will be coming in a couple of years and the fact that the cable sports networks can put more games on, as well as can afford expensive rights fees (without ESPN, Disney couldn't have kept Monday Night Football or the BCS - they wouldn't have had the money just from ABC alone), I just don't see a bright future with expensive transmitters and tower setups that make little, if any money on their own.

 

[michael hagerty]

Comcast bought NBC Universal from GE. I believe they did it because they wanted the NBC TV network platform. They could have bought a bunch of successful cable programming networks for a whole lot less.

Comcast bought NBCUniversal because they wanted the content-creating capabilities of Universal and the foot into online as a Netflix competitor afforded by the Hulu platform. They had to promise the FCC they wouldn't sell off the Owned Stations Group, and since that promise wasn't binding, a lot of people are waiting to see whether Comcast had its fingers crossed.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Two things.

One, I think it would be a mistake to declare OTA broadcast television completely a relic of a bygone era, especially if we're talking about online replacing it. I've said this before: online is good at bringing many programs to a few people, but broadcast, and admittedly traditional linear channels in general, are good at delivering a few programs to many people. NBC ran into major problems streaming all of the Summer Olympics live, and I don't think that ever got very far beyond a million at a time. We're a very long ways from streaming becoming the major means of watching the Super Bowl. Add to this, it was recently reported that ESPN was trying to get wireless companies to exempt their streams from data plans, and you have to think there's got to be a better approach.

Second, if a la carte happens, and this may be wishful thinking but I fully expect it to, anything on cable probably won't find its way to more than a third of the American populace. Unless it's something already willing to settle for premium cable or pay-per-view, I don't think sheer money will be able to overcome that. Take these two things together, and broadcast television becomes the best and perhaps only platform capable of reaching a truly mass audience.

 

[newsmark]

Two things.
One, I think it would be a mistake to declare OTA broadcast television completely a relic of a bygone era, especially if we're talking about online replacing it. ///
Second, if a la carte happens, and this may be wishful thinking but I fully expect it to,

I think you're right about OTA. It's still the easiest way to watch TV. Just flip a channel and there it is. Netflix and Hulu are pretty cool, but it's a lot more work and you have to reply on the infrastructure of the net to hold up when you need it. A local television station is generally on 24/7, with a few rare exceptions for major technical problems. The stations may have to reinvent themselves in the next decade. (On the other hand, a lot of markets do have a station or two that just make you scratch your head and say "what are they thinking?" You know, the ones that run all infomercials.

A la carte seems like a good idea, but it would cause a dramatic change in cable as we know it. (My apologies to anyone who's read my thoughts on this in another thread.) CNN and Fox News would see their budgets cut, since many Fox News fans wouldn't pay to also have CNN and vice versa. Those channels would lose both subscriber fees and ratings, since fewer people could stop on the channel for a few minutes while channel surfing. I think we'd see a lot of channels fold and we wouldn't see new startup channels, since they wouldn't be able to count on being part of a package to get money from day one.

 

[Morgan Wick]

MSNBC and Fox News would see their budgets cut, since many Fox News fans wouldn't pay to also have MSNBC and vice versa.

Fixed. I'm guessing you're moderate enough to realize that Fox isn't really "fair and balanced" but conservative enough to buy in to the idea that CNN is enough of a liberal equivalent. There may be enough conservatives who want no part of the "liberal media" to keep Fox News afloat, but most of the relevant polls still suggest more people would sign up for CNN than either Fox or MSNBC. It's an open question whether a la carte would alleviate or heighten the growing political divide.

I think we'd see a lot of channels fold and we wouldn't see new startup channels, since they wouldn't be able to count on being part of a package to get money from day one.

I think any new cable channel would have to follow a different business model. Ideally, they'd have some way to get people to sign up for the channel right off the bat, but they might have to settle for a slower build than they can get now. The Internet might be able to make up for the cable channels that fold anyway.

 

[bringbackradio]

Fox seems be interested in having O&Os in AFC markets, CBS seems less interested in having O&Os in AFC markets

Fox has two stations in a mostly AFC town: WFXT and KRIV (Boston and Houston). They used to own KDVR Denver, WDAF Kansas City, KTVI St Louis and WJW Cleveland before cutting them loose to Local TV, plus they also owned WUTB Baltimore (MNTV) before Deerfield/Sinclair grabbed em. WNYW New York is their only one where NFC/AFC co-exists since LA (where KTTV is) lost all their teams.

 

[bpatrick]

Broncos, Chiefs, and Browns games usually air on the CBS
stations in those markets (KCNC, KCTV, and WOIO) because
those are AFC teams. KTVI is the only one you mention that
would regularly have the local team, as the Rams are in the NFC,
which is what Fox carries.