There is a lot of speculation floating around right now about who'll go where in the considerable wake stirred up by today's big CW announcement. Some of it makes sense. A lot doesn't really jibe with the realpolitik of today's affiliation-relations world.
So here's my two cents, heavily adjusted for inflation. We'll see how closely it jibes with the reality of the negotiations that are surely already underway.
And, please, if you choose to reply to this lengthy screed, TRIM your quotes! (Thanks.)
1. Fox may be "upset," but it's still got a business to run.
There are surely some long faces in the Fox Television Stations executive suites tonight. Losing affiliations at otherwise identity-starved stations like WWOR, WPWR, KCOP, WDCA and KTXH can't be much fun. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes right now.
To extrapolate from that the idea that Fox would retaliate by taking away the Fox affiliations from Tribune stations in Hartford or Indianapolis or Grand Rapids or York is unrealistic, though. Fox has a network to run, and it still needs the reach that those Tribune-owned stations (some of which are among the network's stronger affiliates) provide. They're not going to throw that away in favor of LPTVs or whatever in a fit of pique. The business isn't played that way.
And Fox itself just might want to keep playing softball with the CW to keep the lucrative affiliation in its remaining markets of Phoenix, Minneapolis and Baltimore.
2. In a world of big station groups, focusing on individual markets misses the big picture.
Remember the 1994-95 affiliation shuffle that startled the industry? It included a lot of moves (ABC in Tampa to WFTS or in Phoenix to KNXV; NBC in KC to KSHB) that made very little sense on the individual market level, but which made perfect sense in the context of the big groups moving their pieces around the chessboard.
That's how this one will play out, too. Take Sinclair, for example. On the one hand, it's losing WB or UPN affiliations in some of its biggest markets (Pittsburgh, Norfolk and Tampa, for instance), which has to be a pretty big blow to a company that's already looking a little shaky.
At the same time, The CW has very little choice but to deal with Sinclair in other markets (Milwaukee, Birmingham, Las Vegas) where it controls the only viable affiliates for the "new" network. If I were David Smith, I'd never have gotten caught in the car with that hoo-- um, I mean, I'd be looking at using those markets as leverage to keep The CW in other markets where Sinclair faces competition for the affiliation - Minneapolis, Baltimore, Buffalo, Syracuse, Greensboro/Winston-Salem, just to name a few.
Interestingly, those first two just happen to pit Sinclair (KMWB/WB and WNUV/WB) against none other than Fox (WFTC/UPN and WUTB/UPN).
Is this the point where Fox pulls the trigger and moves its own Baltimore affiliation over to WUTB and away from Sinclair flagship WBFF? Or would that in turn endanger the affiliation relationships that Fox desperately needs to maintain in good stead with Sinclair to keep its own network on the air in places like Rochester, Syracuse and Pittsburgh?
Other groups with interesting political situations are Belo (which hasn't yet closed on its purchase of suddenly-independent WUPL in New Orleans, yet which the CW needs to court as it plays the affiliation game in Phoenix), Raycom (which has the most viable potential CW affiliate in Cleveland, and has WB/UPN stakes in a half-dozen other markets) and Granite (which was depending on the now-gone WB affiliations for a fair chunk of the value of its cash cows KBWB San Francisco and WDWB Detroit, still on the market but suddenly worth somewhat less.)
All of these factors will undoubtedly come into play as the negotiations continue.
3. Other factors being equal, cable and satellite trumps OTA
As the WB demonstrated fairly well, you can build a successful network in the 21st century even without OTA coverage in smaller markets. Cable penetration in most markets is in the 70% range these days, and in some of the smaller markets it's significantly higher even than that. It's a reasonable assumption that WBZL Miami and KSWB San Diego will continue to have DirecTV carriage into markets with no CW local-into-local affiliate on the bird, further boosting the network's reach.
There are plenty of markets now even within the top 100 (Toledo, Rochester) in which a cable-only or DTV-subchannel WB affiliate is significantly more successful than a UPN LPTV, even when that LPTV has cable carriage.
Especially in the markets where the cable system is Time Warner, there's no reason to think that those cable-only WBs will be at any disadvantage in the race to grab the CW affiliation.
On the flip side of the equation, as long as that cable coverage is solid and there's local-into-local satellite carriage, rimshot full-power signals are no longer at any particular disadvantage to signals in the middle of the market, either.
And of course a full-power signal still easily trumps an LPTV or a cable-only, all things being equal (and absent other political factors from groupwide negotiations), which is bad news indeed for low-power UPN affiliates like WBQC Cincinnati.
4. The only way there's a new sixth network out of all of this is if Fox does it, and even then it's far from a slam dunk.
Any new sixth network needs the big markets in which Fox just lost its UPN affiliations, and while Fox inherited UPN when it bought those stations, it's not going to put itself at any other network's mercy now (except, as noted, in Phoenix, Minneapolis and Baltimore, where it may stay with the CW.)
Whatever Fox launches, if it launches anything, won't be a Fox News Channel simulcast, and there's probably just not enough programming available to go out of the box and launch some sort of Fox en Espanol, even though it would be a pretty substantial contender right from the start in some pretty big Hispanic markets (LA, Chicago, NY, Houston) and wouldn't need full national coverage to be successful. (WFTC, for instance, would be a spectacularly useless affiliate for such a network.)
That leaves the possibility of a general-audience network building off the success of the main Fox network. But any such attempt would face the very same problems that drove UPN and The WB into a merger - there's only so much programming going around, for one thing, and outside the largest markets, there are only so many viable affiliates. (Not to mention that now The CW will have an even stronger affiliate roster than either UPN or The WB had individually, leaving an even weaker slate behind for our hypothetical Fox-2.)
5. The old-time "indies" still aren't coming back.
Sure, we all pine for the days of "11 Alive" and "Ask the Manager" on WSBK. But the TV marketplace has changed so dramatically since then that whatever happens now, we won't be seeing a return to the "Million Dollar Movie" on the stations suddenly left without an affiliation.
The off-network reruns are either already on these stations to fill the many hours in which WB and UPN didn't offer programming, or they're on TBS, USA or TV Land. The sports packages have gone to cable, and they're staying there (though there will certainly be deals struck in larger markets that will bring some of those games back to broadcast through secondary-sales agreements with the cable rightsholders). In a world where every movie ever made is as close as the corner Blockbuster or Netflix, it's hard to imagine a station making much impact with the relatively limited library of movies available to broadcast.
Which means, in the absence of "Fox-2", the model will probably be the existing "21st century indies" like KRON, KTVK and KCAL: judge shows, daytime talk strips repurposed at night, and newscasts at unusual hours.
It's not pretty, but if you think about it, each of the needs that the old-line indies once served for a few hours each day (kiddie shows, sports, reruns, movies) is now available many times over, 24 hours a day, on cable.
6. This won't be pretty for the smallest ex-WB/UPN affiliates.
Even five networks was probably too much for many smaller markets, which means six was certainly too many. And that means we'll undoubtedly see some outlets bowing out of the general-interest TV business entirely. My local UPN affiliate, WBGT-LP, made it to cable carriage only by virtue of its UPN affiliation, and even then it had to pay for the privilege. It won't have much going for it once UPN goes away, and neither will a lot of the other LPTVs and DTV subchannels that were created entirely to get UPN or WB on the air in market 175.
Will they go off the air completely? A few may - but expect more home shopping and religion to result from this mess.
7. This will be OK for the largest ex-WB/UPN affiliates.
There's no reason to expect that CBS or Tribune will have any trouble succeeding with their big-market stations that lose their UPN or WB affiliations as part of the merger.
It's worth noting a bit of careful strategy on CBS's part in deciding in which markets it would cede the CW affiliation to Tribune. WSBK Boston, WBFS Miami and KTXA Dallas are all part of duopolies with CBS O&Os. So they're already incredibly cheap to run, and they've got plenty of programming to draw from, even before considering the additional sports and news that could be added fairly easily.
Likewise, Tribune's KTWB is part of a duopoly with Fox affiliate KCPQ in Seattle, and WATL Atlanta and WPHL Philadelphia are strong stations in their markets even without an affiliation. They'll do just fine, and so will WWOR, KCOP, WDCA, WPWR and KTXH.
Let the (informed) speculation begin...<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>
So here's my two cents, heavily adjusted for inflation. We'll see how closely it jibes with the reality of the negotiations that are surely already underway.
And, please, if you choose to reply to this lengthy screed, TRIM your quotes! (Thanks.)
1. Fox may be "upset," but it's still got a business to run.
There are surely some long faces in the Fox Television Stations executive suites tonight. Losing affiliations at otherwise identity-starved stations like WWOR, WPWR, KCOP, WDCA and KTXH can't be much fun. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes right now.
To extrapolate from that the idea that Fox would retaliate by taking away the Fox affiliations from Tribune stations in Hartford or Indianapolis or Grand Rapids or York is unrealistic, though. Fox has a network to run, and it still needs the reach that those Tribune-owned stations (some of which are among the network's stronger affiliates) provide. They're not going to throw that away in favor of LPTVs or whatever in a fit of pique. The business isn't played that way.
And Fox itself just might want to keep playing softball with the CW to keep the lucrative affiliation in its remaining markets of Phoenix, Minneapolis and Baltimore.
2. In a world of big station groups, focusing on individual markets misses the big picture.
Remember the 1994-95 affiliation shuffle that startled the industry? It included a lot of moves (ABC in Tampa to WFTS or in Phoenix to KNXV; NBC in KC to KSHB) that made very little sense on the individual market level, but which made perfect sense in the context of the big groups moving their pieces around the chessboard.
That's how this one will play out, too. Take Sinclair, for example. On the one hand, it's losing WB or UPN affiliations in some of its biggest markets (Pittsburgh, Norfolk and Tampa, for instance), which has to be a pretty big blow to a company that's already looking a little shaky.
At the same time, The CW has very little choice but to deal with Sinclair in other markets (Milwaukee, Birmingham, Las Vegas) where it controls the only viable affiliates for the "new" network. If I were David Smith, I'd never have gotten caught in the car with that hoo-- um, I mean, I'd be looking at using those markets as leverage to keep The CW in other markets where Sinclair faces competition for the affiliation - Minneapolis, Baltimore, Buffalo, Syracuse, Greensboro/Winston-Salem, just to name a few.
Interestingly, those first two just happen to pit Sinclair (KMWB/WB and WNUV/WB) against none other than Fox (WFTC/UPN and WUTB/UPN).
Is this the point where Fox pulls the trigger and moves its own Baltimore affiliation over to WUTB and away from Sinclair flagship WBFF? Or would that in turn endanger the affiliation relationships that Fox desperately needs to maintain in good stead with Sinclair to keep its own network on the air in places like Rochester, Syracuse and Pittsburgh?
Other groups with interesting political situations are Belo (which hasn't yet closed on its purchase of suddenly-independent WUPL in New Orleans, yet which the CW needs to court as it plays the affiliation game in Phoenix), Raycom (which has the most viable potential CW affiliate in Cleveland, and has WB/UPN stakes in a half-dozen other markets) and Granite (which was depending on the now-gone WB affiliations for a fair chunk of the value of its cash cows KBWB San Francisco and WDWB Detroit, still on the market but suddenly worth somewhat less.)
All of these factors will undoubtedly come into play as the negotiations continue.
3. Other factors being equal, cable and satellite trumps OTA
As the WB demonstrated fairly well, you can build a successful network in the 21st century even without OTA coverage in smaller markets. Cable penetration in most markets is in the 70% range these days, and in some of the smaller markets it's significantly higher even than that. It's a reasonable assumption that WBZL Miami and KSWB San Diego will continue to have DirecTV carriage into markets with no CW local-into-local affiliate on the bird, further boosting the network's reach.
There are plenty of markets now even within the top 100 (Toledo, Rochester) in which a cable-only or DTV-subchannel WB affiliate is significantly more successful than a UPN LPTV, even when that LPTV has cable carriage.
Especially in the markets where the cable system is Time Warner, there's no reason to think that those cable-only WBs will be at any disadvantage in the race to grab the CW affiliation.
On the flip side of the equation, as long as that cable coverage is solid and there's local-into-local satellite carriage, rimshot full-power signals are no longer at any particular disadvantage to signals in the middle of the market, either.
And of course a full-power signal still easily trumps an LPTV or a cable-only, all things being equal (and absent other political factors from groupwide negotiations), which is bad news indeed for low-power UPN affiliates like WBQC Cincinnati.
4. The only way there's a new sixth network out of all of this is if Fox does it, and even then it's far from a slam dunk.
Any new sixth network needs the big markets in which Fox just lost its UPN affiliations, and while Fox inherited UPN when it bought those stations, it's not going to put itself at any other network's mercy now (except, as noted, in Phoenix, Minneapolis and Baltimore, where it may stay with the CW.)
Whatever Fox launches, if it launches anything, won't be a Fox News Channel simulcast, and there's probably just not enough programming available to go out of the box and launch some sort of Fox en Espanol, even though it would be a pretty substantial contender right from the start in some pretty big Hispanic markets (LA, Chicago, NY, Houston) and wouldn't need full national coverage to be successful. (WFTC, for instance, would be a spectacularly useless affiliate for such a network.)
That leaves the possibility of a general-audience network building off the success of the main Fox network. But any such attempt would face the very same problems that drove UPN and The WB into a merger - there's only so much programming going around, for one thing, and outside the largest markets, there are only so many viable affiliates. (Not to mention that now The CW will have an even stronger affiliate roster than either UPN or The WB had individually, leaving an even weaker slate behind for our hypothetical Fox-2.)
5. The old-time "indies" still aren't coming back.
Sure, we all pine for the days of "11 Alive" and "Ask the Manager" on WSBK. But the TV marketplace has changed so dramatically since then that whatever happens now, we won't be seeing a return to the "Million Dollar Movie" on the stations suddenly left without an affiliation.
The off-network reruns are either already on these stations to fill the many hours in which WB and UPN didn't offer programming, or they're on TBS, USA or TV Land. The sports packages have gone to cable, and they're staying there (though there will certainly be deals struck in larger markets that will bring some of those games back to broadcast through secondary-sales agreements with the cable rightsholders). In a world where every movie ever made is as close as the corner Blockbuster or Netflix, it's hard to imagine a station making much impact with the relatively limited library of movies available to broadcast.
Which means, in the absence of "Fox-2", the model will probably be the existing "21st century indies" like KRON, KTVK and KCAL: judge shows, daytime talk strips repurposed at night, and newscasts at unusual hours.
It's not pretty, but if you think about it, each of the needs that the old-line indies once served for a few hours each day (kiddie shows, sports, reruns, movies) is now available many times over, 24 hours a day, on cable.
6. This won't be pretty for the smallest ex-WB/UPN affiliates.
Even five networks was probably too much for many smaller markets, which means six was certainly too many. And that means we'll undoubtedly see some outlets bowing out of the general-interest TV business entirely. My local UPN affiliate, WBGT-LP, made it to cable carriage only by virtue of its UPN affiliation, and even then it had to pay for the privilege. It won't have much going for it once UPN goes away, and neither will a lot of the other LPTVs and DTV subchannels that were created entirely to get UPN or WB on the air in market 175.
Will they go off the air completely? A few may - but expect more home shopping and religion to result from this mess.
7. This will be OK for the largest ex-WB/UPN affiliates.
There's no reason to expect that CBS or Tribune will have any trouble succeeding with their big-market stations that lose their UPN or WB affiliations as part of the merger.
It's worth noting a bit of careful strategy on CBS's part in deciding in which markets it would cede the CW affiliation to Tribune. WSBK Boston, WBFS Miami and KTXA Dallas are all part of duopolies with CBS O&Os. So they're already incredibly cheap to run, and they've got plenty of programming to draw from, even before considering the additional sports and news that could be added fairly easily.
Likewise, Tribune's KTWB is part of a duopoly with Fox affiliate KCPQ in Seattle, and WATL Atlanta and WPHL Philadelphia are strong stations in their markets even without an affiliation. They'll do just fine, and so will WWOR, KCOP, WDCA, WPWR and KTXH.
Let the (informed) speculation begin...<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>
