-
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
Here's a thought for those soon to be independent stations...
- Thread starter RALfan
- Start date
> Try taking a risk and start your own prime-time
> entertainment programs! Maybe with the right budgets you
> can produce local shows geared to your market just like back
> in the day. Most stations nowadays spend their profits only
> on local news and I think that really needs to change.
>
Some will say this is a far-fetched idea. I say it's a potential gold mine.
In most major to mid-sized markets there are hundreds of actors and production people who could put on a good show with the right creative direction. Putting it all together could be difficult, but not impossible. The pay wouldn't even have to be all that great to make it work. If you get a hit, there's nothing that says you couldn't syndicate it around the country.
> entertainment programs! Maybe with the right budgets you
> can produce local shows geared to your market just like back
> in the day. Most stations nowadays spend their profits only
> on local news and I think that really needs to change.
>
Some will say this is a far-fetched idea. I say it's a potential gold mine.
In most major to mid-sized markets there are hundreds of actors and production people who could put on a good show with the right creative direction. Putting it all together could be difficult, but not impossible. The pay wouldn't even have to be all that great to make it work. If you get a hit, there's nothing that says you couldn't syndicate it around the country.
> > Try taking a risk and start your own prime-time
> > entertainment programs! Maybe with the right budgets you
> > can produce local shows geared to your market just like
> back
> > in the day. Most stations nowadays spend their profits
> only
> > on local news and I think that really needs to change.
> >
>
> Some will say this is a far-fetched idea. I say it's a
> potential gold mine.
> In most major to mid-sized markets there are hundreds of
> actors and production people who could put on a good show
> with the right creative direction. Putting it all together
> could be difficult, but not impossible. The pay wouldn't
> even have to be all that great to make it work. If you get
> a hit, there's nothing that says you couldn't syndicate it
> around the country.
>
Good in theory but in "reality" actors have by in large priced themselves out of the market. This is why you have a glut of "reality" shows.
Even marginal actors are demanding rates that make it prohibitive to start up costs.
Look at Broadway, actors claim if the show was flimed for any reason they should be paid each and every time that "Film" is played.
Music interests the same, they have priced themselves out of the market. Too much product and not enough willingness to negotiate fees. This is WHY music is stagnet. Why should I buy a remake of a song when I can get the orginal song on CD? Too much product already.
But in most other industries it fails to work like that. I develope a spreadsheet, a new C# program for my boss. Do I GET PAID each and every time someone uses my idea or talent? No.
Even in small local markets actors a sitting idle while demanding residuals and percentages of plays and other things that make it not even worth the start up costs<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
> > entertainment programs! Maybe with the right budgets you
> > can produce local shows geared to your market just like
> back
> > in the day. Most stations nowadays spend their profits
> only
> > on local news and I think that really needs to change.
> >
>
> Some will say this is a far-fetched idea. I say it's a
> potential gold mine.
> In most major to mid-sized markets there are hundreds of
> actors and production people who could put on a good show
> with the right creative direction. Putting it all together
> could be difficult, but not impossible. The pay wouldn't
> even have to be all that great to make it work. If you get
> a hit, there's nothing that says you couldn't syndicate it
> around the country.
>
Good in theory but in "reality" actors have by in large priced themselves out of the market. This is why you have a glut of "reality" shows.
Even marginal actors are demanding rates that make it prohibitive to start up costs.
Look at Broadway, actors claim if the show was flimed for any reason they should be paid each and every time that "Film" is played.
Music interests the same, they have priced themselves out of the market. Too much product and not enough willingness to negotiate fees. This is WHY music is stagnet. Why should I buy a remake of a song when I can get the orginal song on CD? Too much product already.
But in most other industries it fails to work like that. I develope a spreadsheet, a new C# program for my boss. Do I GET PAID each and every time someone uses my idea or talent? No.
Even in small local markets actors a sitting idle while demanding residuals and percentages of plays and other things that make it not even worth the start up costs<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
> Music interests the same, they have priced themselves out of
> the market. Too much product and not enough willingness to
> negotiate fees. This is WHY music is stagnet.
On a slightly different tangent, this is why shows like "WKRP in Cincinnati" aren't on the air or on DVD -- the music industry's asking for so much for the rights to their music, even if only a few seconds of a song is being used.
> the market. Too much product and not enough willingness to
> negotiate fees. This is WHY music is stagnet.
On a slightly different tangent, this is why shows like "WKRP in Cincinnati" aren't on the air or on DVD -- the music industry's asking for so much for the rights to their music, even if only a few seconds of a song is being used.
J
Joseph_Gallant
Guest
Rugrats 1 notes:
> On a slightly different tangent, this is why shows like
> "WKRP in Cincinnati" aren't on the air or on DVD -- the
> music industry's asking for so much for the rights to their
> music, even if only a few seconds of a song is being used.
But when "WKRP" premiered in 1978, no one knew that there would be numerous TV outlets hungry for reruns, the proliferation of video and DVD, or the Internet a little more than 25 years later.
I would suspect that producers who are now doing programs with lots of popular music recordings in the soundtrack are negotiating rights to those pieces of music for any possible technology that may be used to view the show now or in the future.
> On a slightly different tangent, this is why shows like
> "WKRP in Cincinnati" aren't on the air or on DVD -- the
> music industry's asking for so much for the rights to their
> music, even if only a few seconds of a song is being used.
But when "WKRP" premiered in 1978, no one knew that there would be numerous TV outlets hungry for reruns, the proliferation of video and DVD, or the Internet a little more than 25 years later.
I would suspect that producers who are now doing programs with lots of popular music recordings in the soundtrack are negotiating rights to those pieces of music for any possible technology that may be used to view the show now or in the future.
right on!
> > Try taking a risk and start your own prime-time
> > entertainment programs! Maybe with the right budgets you
> > can produce local shows geared to your market just like
> back
> > in the day.
I absolutely agree! The fact that little to no local programming (besides news...) is being produced in a top ten market is a disgrace. I remember well when every local Boston TV station had a kids' show, for example. Hell, I was on a couple of 'em! Shows like Community Auditions will ALWAYS have a local audience. The stations already have studio facilities, a (union) crew - fixed costs that have already been amortized. As for actors, writers - with all of the local homegrown talent available, stations could "grow their own" talent/personalities. Forget the Hollywood types with their outrageous demands. Form associations with local theater groups, colleges. Sponsor competitions for writing submissions. Time to dump the consultants and the "suits". Do something different that sets your station apart from the pack. Cookie-cutter programming gets lost in the crowd (something 30,000 Ford Motor Company employees are about to find out REALLY soon...)
especially in a 300-channel universe. Counter-program. Hire management who actually has some vision and who thinks "outside the box". Any mangement types who insist it can't be done should be sent packing, and should look for another profession...
> > Try taking a risk and start your own prime-time
> > entertainment programs! Maybe with the right budgets you
> > can produce local shows geared to your market just like
> back
> > in the day.
I absolutely agree! The fact that little to no local programming (besides news...) is being produced in a top ten market is a disgrace. I remember well when every local Boston TV station had a kids' show, for example. Hell, I was on a couple of 'em! Shows like Community Auditions will ALWAYS have a local audience. The stations already have studio facilities, a (union) crew - fixed costs that have already been amortized. As for actors, writers - with all of the local homegrown talent available, stations could "grow their own" talent/personalities. Forget the Hollywood types with their outrageous demands. Form associations with local theater groups, colleges. Sponsor competitions for writing submissions. Time to dump the consultants and the "suits". Do something different that sets your station apart from the pack. Cookie-cutter programming gets lost in the crowd (something 30,000 Ford Motor Company employees are about to find out REALLY soon...)
especially in a 300-channel universe. Counter-program. Hire management who actually has some vision and who thinks "outside the box". Any mangement types who insist it can't be done should be sent packing, and should look for another profession...
Before you go to far in your Euphoria for Independent TV....
I don't think Independent stations are all that great. The way I remember it, were poorly run, low (if any) budget TV stations that simply ran stale cartoons in the mornings and afternoons, with endless off network repeats and moldy old movies all night long. I used to hate when somebody in the house had on Channel 56, because I'd always ask: "isn't there something new and fresh on?" While 4, 5, and 7, were busy covering Mayor White's announcement that he wan't running for re-election, or about the cutback's on the MBTA (insert your own city and local stations), we were sitting there watching some rerun of Happy days from 1976. Not my idea of a great moment in TV history...
> Rugrats 1 notes:
>
> > On a slightly different tangent, this is why shows like
> > "WKRP in Cincinnati" aren't on the air or on DVD -- the
> > music industry's asking for so much for the rights to
> their
> > music, even if only a few seconds of a song is being used.
>
>
> But when "WKRP" premiered in 1978, no one knew that there
> would be numerous TV outlets hungry for reruns, the
> proliferation of video and DVD, or the Internet a little
> more than 25 years later.
>
> I would suspect that producers who are now doing programs
> with lots of popular music recordings in the soundtrack are
> negotiating rights to those pieces of music for any possible
> technology that may be used to view the show now or in the
> future.
>
I don't think Independent stations are all that great. The way I remember it, were poorly run, low (if any) budget TV stations that simply ran stale cartoons in the mornings and afternoons, with endless off network repeats and moldy old movies all night long. I used to hate when somebody in the house had on Channel 56, because I'd always ask: "isn't there something new and fresh on?" While 4, 5, and 7, were busy covering Mayor White's announcement that he wan't running for re-election, or about the cutback's on the MBTA (insert your own city and local stations), we were sitting there watching some rerun of Happy days from 1976. Not my idea of a great moment in TV history...
> Rugrats 1 notes:
>
> > On a slightly different tangent, this is why shows like
> > "WKRP in Cincinnati" aren't on the air or on DVD -- the
> > music industry's asking for so much for the rights to
> their
> > music, even if only a few seconds of a song is being used.
>
>
> But when "WKRP" premiered in 1978, no one knew that there
> would be numerous TV outlets hungry for reruns, the
> proliferation of video and DVD, or the Internet a little
> more than 25 years later.
>
> I would suspect that producers who are now doing programs
> with lots of popular music recordings in the soundtrack are
> negotiating rights to those pieces of music for any possible
> technology that may be used to view the show now or in the
> future.
>
T
Tom_Desmond
Guest
Re: Before you go to far in your Euphoria for Independent TV....
To each their own...
I suspect that the reason that many of us have fond memories of the independent TV stations was because they did run the weekday morning and afternoon cartoons along with lots of classic situation comedies in the early evening. Back in the days when most folks could only receive a handful of stations, that made a nice alternative to the talk shows, game shows, and local newscasts that were typically on all three network affiliates in any given major market.
The result was that for kids, the local independent became "our" station -- where we could tune in to see "The Flinstones", "Leave it to Beaver", "Bewitched", and other fun programs instead of having to sit through Mike Douglas followed by endless reporting of car crashes on the local news. Yeah, we'd seen every episode of "The Flinstones" a dozen times, the film prints were scratched and out of focus, the programs were badly edited to allow for additional commercial breaks...but these stations were the only game in town during the week for young viewers. And, as a result, these stations commanded a great deal of loyalty from many of those young viewers.
With the number of channels available to most viewers today, it's not something that is even conceivable in the current environment. But for those of us who grew up with these stations in the seventies or early eighties, many of us have great memories of watching these stations. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't trade the fun of watching these marginal independent stations back then for the commodization of television in the form of 100 channel cable/satellite services today.
> I don't think Independent stations are all that great. The
> way I remember it, were poorly run, low (if any) budget TV
> stations that simply ran stale cartoons in the mornings and
> afternoons, with endless off network repeats and moldy old
> movies all night long. I used to hate when somebody in the
> house had on Channel 56, because I'd always ask: "isn't
> there something new and fresh on?" While 4, 5, and 7, were
> busy covering Mayor White's announcement that he wan't
> running for re-election, or about the cutback's on the MBTA
> (insert your own city and local stations), we were sitting
> there watching some rerun of Happy days from 1976. Not my
> idea of a great moment in TV history...
To each their own...
I suspect that the reason that many of us have fond memories of the independent TV stations was because they did run the weekday morning and afternoon cartoons along with lots of classic situation comedies in the early evening. Back in the days when most folks could only receive a handful of stations, that made a nice alternative to the talk shows, game shows, and local newscasts that were typically on all three network affiliates in any given major market.
The result was that for kids, the local independent became "our" station -- where we could tune in to see "The Flinstones", "Leave it to Beaver", "Bewitched", and other fun programs instead of having to sit through Mike Douglas followed by endless reporting of car crashes on the local news. Yeah, we'd seen every episode of "The Flinstones" a dozen times, the film prints were scratched and out of focus, the programs were badly edited to allow for additional commercial breaks...but these stations were the only game in town during the week for young viewers. And, as a result, these stations commanded a great deal of loyalty from many of those young viewers.
With the number of channels available to most viewers today, it's not something that is even conceivable in the current environment. But for those of us who grew up with these stations in the seventies or early eighties, many of us have great memories of watching these stations. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't trade the fun of watching these marginal independent stations back then for the commodization of television in the form of 100 channel cable/satellite services today.
> I don't think Independent stations are all that great. The
> way I remember it, were poorly run, low (if any) budget TV
> stations that simply ran stale cartoons in the mornings and
> afternoons, with endless off network repeats and moldy old
> movies all night long. I used to hate when somebody in the
> house had on Channel 56, because I'd always ask: "isn't
> there something new and fresh on?" While 4, 5, and 7, were
> busy covering Mayor White's announcement that he wan't
> running for re-election, or about the cutback's on the MBTA
> (insert your own city and local stations), we were sitting
> there watching some rerun of Happy days from 1976. Not my
> idea of a great moment in TV history...
Re: Before you go to far in your Euphoria for Independent TV....
> To each their own...
>
> I suspect that the reason that many of us have fond memories
> of the independent TV stations was because they did run the
> weekday morning and afternoon cartoons along with lots of
> classic situation comedies in the early evening. Back in
> the days when most folks could only receive a handful of
> stations, that made a nice alternative to the talk shows,
> game shows, and local newscasts that were typically on all
> three network affiliates in any given major market.
>
> The result was that for kids, the local independent became
> "our" station -- where we could tune in to see "The
> Flinstones", "Leave it to Beaver", "Bewitched", and other
> fun programs instead of having to sit through Mike Douglas
> followed by endless reporting of car crashes on the local
> news. Yeah, we'd seen every episode of "The Flinstones" a
> dozen times, the film prints were scratched and out of
> focus, the programs were badly edited to allow for
> additional commercial breaks...but these stations were the
> only game in town during the week for young viewers. And,
> as a result, these stations commanded a great deal of
> loyalty from many of those young viewers.
>
> With the number of channels available to most viewers today,
> it's not something that is even conceivable in the current
> environment. But for those of us who grew up with these
> stations in the seventies or early eighties, many of us have
> great memories of watching these stations. Speaking for
> myself, I wouldn't trade the fun of watching these marginal
> independent stations back then for the commodization of
> television in the form of 100 channel cable/satellite
> services today.
>
Chicago had a few independents, including WGN-TV (pre-1995), WCIU (before English speaking programming when it was ethnic programming), WFLD (pre-1987), WCFC (now WCPX and PAX for partial programming), WPWR-TV (both on 60, their original channel and their current ch. 50 and all pre-1995), and WGBO (pre-1995, which was sold to Univision because the station never made any money from the time it lost the Spectrum network in 1983).
WCIU is the only true independent in Chicago and they took a risk by dumping their ethnic programming on a low-power signal they turned on in 1995, and putting both re-runs and first run syndicated programs in English, and has done well for themselves. They especially stepped up to the plate when then Newsweb's WPWR-TV on 50 decided to carry UPN. If Newsweb still owned WPWR-TV today, they would have no program going back to independent. If Fox decides to sell WPWR, maybe Weigel Broadcasting could try to buy it and have a second independent station under their belt, but I wonder if they would have to divest a low-power station to do it, should Fox decide to sell it. Weigel Broadcasting has 1 full power and 2 low power stations (WCIU on 26 {FP}, WWME-CA on 23 and WFBT-CA on 48).
> To each their own...
>
> I suspect that the reason that many of us have fond memories
> of the independent TV stations was because they did run the
> weekday morning and afternoon cartoons along with lots of
> classic situation comedies in the early evening. Back in
> the days when most folks could only receive a handful of
> stations, that made a nice alternative to the talk shows,
> game shows, and local newscasts that were typically on all
> three network affiliates in any given major market.
>
> The result was that for kids, the local independent became
> "our" station -- where we could tune in to see "The
> Flinstones", "Leave it to Beaver", "Bewitched", and other
> fun programs instead of having to sit through Mike Douglas
> followed by endless reporting of car crashes on the local
> news. Yeah, we'd seen every episode of "The Flinstones" a
> dozen times, the film prints were scratched and out of
> focus, the programs were badly edited to allow for
> additional commercial breaks...but these stations were the
> only game in town during the week for young viewers. And,
> as a result, these stations commanded a great deal of
> loyalty from many of those young viewers.
>
> With the number of channels available to most viewers today,
> it's not something that is even conceivable in the current
> environment. But for those of us who grew up with these
> stations in the seventies or early eighties, many of us have
> great memories of watching these stations. Speaking for
> myself, I wouldn't trade the fun of watching these marginal
> independent stations back then for the commodization of
> television in the form of 100 channel cable/satellite
> services today.
>
Chicago had a few independents, including WGN-TV (pre-1995), WCIU (before English speaking programming when it was ethnic programming), WFLD (pre-1987), WCFC (now WCPX and PAX for partial programming), WPWR-TV (both on 60, their original channel and their current ch. 50 and all pre-1995), and WGBO (pre-1995, which was sold to Univision because the station never made any money from the time it lost the Spectrum network in 1983).
WCIU is the only true independent in Chicago and they took a risk by dumping their ethnic programming on a low-power signal they turned on in 1995, and putting both re-runs and first run syndicated programs in English, and has done well for themselves. They especially stepped up to the plate when then Newsweb's WPWR-TV on 50 decided to carry UPN. If Newsweb still owned WPWR-TV today, they would have no program going back to independent. If Fox decides to sell WPWR, maybe Weigel Broadcasting could try to buy it and have a second independent station under their belt, but I wonder if they would have to divest a low-power station to do it, should Fox decide to sell it. Weigel Broadcasting has 1 full power and 2 low power stations (WCIU on 26 {FP}, WWME-CA on 23 and WFBT-CA on 48).
K
KMRichards
Guest
Independent TV ... what is the reality?
Could we step back for a minute and remember something about exactly what is going to happen in September to those stations which lose their WB or UPN affiliation and do not win a CW affiliation?
UPN stations lose ten hours a week of programming in prime-time and the weekend network repeat hours (one or two, IIRC).
WB stations lose fifteen hours a week in prime-time, the late-afternoon optional rerun block, and the weekend kids programming.
And we don't yet know whether or not the new network will continue any of the non-prime programming.
There are not likely to be wholesale changes at the stations involved, and all this posturing about major upheavals in programming are, quite honestly, without basis in reason. No station is going to do a total overhaul of their programming. There will be movies in prime-time, there will be first-run syndication in prime-time, there will be some repeating of daytime programming in prime-time and late-afternoons, there will be some repeats in late-afternoons of sitcoms that stations already run in early fringe, etc.
Can we stop the panic attacks about this, please?<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Could we step back for a minute and remember something about exactly what is going to happen in September to those stations which lose their WB or UPN affiliation and do not win a CW affiliation?
UPN stations lose ten hours a week of programming in prime-time and the weekend network repeat hours (one or two, IIRC).
WB stations lose fifteen hours a week in prime-time, the late-afternoon optional rerun block, and the weekend kids programming.
And we don't yet know whether or not the new network will continue any of the non-prime programming.
There are not likely to be wholesale changes at the stations involved, and all this posturing about major upheavals in programming are, quite honestly, without basis in reason. No station is going to do a total overhaul of their programming. There will be movies in prime-time, there will be first-run syndication in prime-time, there will be some repeating of daytime programming in prime-time and late-afternoons, there will be some repeats in late-afternoons of sitcoms that stations already run in early fringe, etc.
Can we stop the panic attacks about this, please?<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Re: Independent TV ... what is the reality?
> And we don't yet know whether or not the new network will
> continue any of the non-prime programming.
Actually, The CW's been saying since its initial press release that it will follow the WB schedule, including the kids block and "Easy View" Sunday repeats.
> There are not likely to be wholesale changes at the stations
> involved, and all this posturing about major upheavals in
> programming are, quite honestly, without basis in reason.
> (snip)
> Can we stop the panic attacks about this, please?
The issue, I think, isn't so much one of replacing 10 or 12 hours of prime-time programming. It's one of imaging.
WWOR and KCOP and WSBK will do just fine no matter what happens. My local WBGT-LP, however, owes much of its reason for being to those 10 hours of prime time. While it offers a remarkable amount of (hideously low-budget) local programming for an LPTV, it was fighting a losing battle for cable carriage - in a market with better than 70% cable penetration, where its two LP transmitters don't cover very well - until it wrested the UPN affiliation away from WUHF, the Fox affiliate that was carrying UPN out-of-pattern at night.
Even then, it took several years of nonstop pestering of the cable company, heavily aided by the passionate Star Trek fans in town, before WBGT was able to reach an agreement for full-time cable carriage, and even then it had to pay dearly for the privilege.
Without the promotional push it gets from being not "WBGT-LP" but "UPN18," will the station be able to keep up its end of that contract, or attract viewers to whatever programming is left?
Worse yet are the stations - whether DTV subchannels, LPs or even marginal full-power operations like WNYA in the Albany market - that were created solely to provide UPN carriage in their markets. What happens to a station that's never had any identity except "UPN Capital Region" when UPN goes away? Even with 158 hours of programming that's not changing, they're still starting from scratch in many ways.
Hey, Howard Stern was only filling up 20 or so hours out of the 168 each week on my local modern rock station, but it doesn't mean they're not still struggling without him...<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>
> And we don't yet know whether or not the new network will
> continue any of the non-prime programming.
Actually, The CW's been saying since its initial press release that it will follow the WB schedule, including the kids block and "Easy View" Sunday repeats.
> There are not likely to be wholesale changes at the stations
> involved, and all this posturing about major upheavals in
> programming are, quite honestly, without basis in reason.
> (snip)
> Can we stop the panic attacks about this, please?
The issue, I think, isn't so much one of replacing 10 or 12 hours of prime-time programming. It's one of imaging.
WWOR and KCOP and WSBK will do just fine no matter what happens. My local WBGT-LP, however, owes much of its reason for being to those 10 hours of prime time. While it offers a remarkable amount of (hideously low-budget) local programming for an LPTV, it was fighting a losing battle for cable carriage - in a market with better than 70% cable penetration, where its two LP transmitters don't cover very well - until it wrested the UPN affiliation away from WUHF, the Fox affiliate that was carrying UPN out-of-pattern at night.
Even then, it took several years of nonstop pestering of the cable company, heavily aided by the passionate Star Trek fans in town, before WBGT was able to reach an agreement for full-time cable carriage, and even then it had to pay dearly for the privilege.
Without the promotional push it gets from being not "WBGT-LP" but "UPN18," will the station be able to keep up its end of that contract, or attract viewers to whatever programming is left?
Worse yet are the stations - whether DTV subchannels, LPs or even marginal full-power operations like WNYA in the Albany market - that were created solely to provide UPN carriage in their markets. What happens to a station that's never had any identity except "UPN Capital Region" when UPN goes away? Even with 158 hours of programming that's not changing, they're still starting from scratch in many ways.
Hey, Howard Stern was only filling up 20 or so hours out of the 168 each week on my local modern rock station, but it doesn't mean they're not still struggling without him...<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>
K
KMRichards
Guest
Re: Independent TV ... what is the reality?
> > And we don't yet know whether or not the new network will
> > continue any of the non-prime programming.
>
> Actually, The CW's been saying since its initial press
> release that it will follow the WB schedule, including the
> kids block and "Easy View" Sunday repeats.
I'm glad you noticed that, because with all the discussion here, etc., I have missed it.
> The issue, I think, isn't so much one of replacing 10 or 12
> hours of prime-time programming. It's one of imaging.
Without requoting your well-phrased post, that is exactly my point. So many people seem to think there will be major overhauls of the former affiliates, when that is not the case -- at least for the full-power affiliates.
I agree that many of the LPTV and digital affiliates are going to be hit harder, and there is obviously going to be a lot of cases amongst them where infomercials, religion, and home shopping may be the only option that doesn't lose money for them.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> > And we don't yet know whether or not the new network will
> > continue any of the non-prime programming.
>
> Actually, The CW's been saying since its initial press
> release that it will follow the WB schedule, including the
> kids block and "Easy View" Sunday repeats.
I'm glad you noticed that, because with all the discussion here, etc., I have missed it.
> The issue, I think, isn't so much one of replacing 10 or 12
> hours of prime-time programming. It's one of imaging.
Without requoting your well-phrased post, that is exactly my point. So many people seem to think there will be major overhauls of the former affiliates, when that is not the case -- at least for the full-power affiliates.
I agree that many of the LPTV and digital affiliates are going to be hit harder, and there is obviously going to be a lot of cases amongst them where infomercials, religion, and home shopping may be the only option that doesn't lose money for them.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Re: Independent TV ... what is the reality?
Scott's right (and btw, I've been to Albany recently),
Here in Lubbock, we have the same situation. At first it was "UPN 22," and then they realized they needed more signal, so they added some LP's, a few translaters, and it became "UPN Lubbock." It's been that way for few years now. Now that 22 is WB, "UPN Lubbock's" been abandoned to LP 14.
The interesting thing is, when the switch was announced last December, the promotions director for WB 22 went on the air about how great it was that there would now be more choice in Lubbock. Yet, I'm convinced that when the CW (or successor) debuts, say goodbye to LP 14.
> > > And we don't yet know whether or not the new network
> will
> > > continue any of the non-prime programming.
> >
> > Actually, The CW's been saying since its initial press
> > release that it will follow the WB schedule, including the
>
> > kids block and "Easy View" Sunday repeats.
>
> I'm glad you noticed that, because with all the discussion
> here, etc., I have missed it.
>
> > The issue, I think, isn't so much one of replacing 10 or
> 12
> > hours of prime-time programming. It's one of imaging.
>
> Without requoting your well-phrased post, that is exactly my
> point. So many people seem to think there will be major
> overhauls of the former affiliates, when that is not the
> case -- at least for the full-power affiliates.
>
> I agree that many of the LPTV and digital affiliates are
> going to be hit harder, and there is obviously going to be a
> lot of cases amongst them where infomercials, religion, and
> home shopping may be the only option that doesn't lose money
> for them.
>
Scott's right (and btw, I've been to Albany recently),
Here in Lubbock, we have the same situation. At first it was "UPN 22," and then they realized they needed more signal, so they added some LP's, a few translaters, and it became "UPN Lubbock." It's been that way for few years now. Now that 22 is WB, "UPN Lubbock's" been abandoned to LP 14.
The interesting thing is, when the switch was announced last December, the promotions director for WB 22 went on the air about how great it was that there would now be more choice in Lubbock. Yet, I'm convinced that when the CW (or successor) debuts, say goodbye to LP 14.
> > > And we don't yet know whether or not the new network
> will
> > > continue any of the non-prime programming.
> >
> > Actually, The CW's been saying since its initial press
> > release that it will follow the WB schedule, including the
>
> > kids block and "Easy View" Sunday repeats.
>
> I'm glad you noticed that, because with all the discussion
> here, etc., I have missed it.
>
> > The issue, I think, isn't so much one of replacing 10 or
> 12
> > hours of prime-time programming. It's one of imaging.
>
> Without requoting your well-phrased post, that is exactly my
> point. So many people seem to think there will be major
> overhauls of the former affiliates, when that is not the
> case -- at least for the full-power affiliates.
>
> I agree that many of the LPTV and digital affiliates are
> going to be hit harder, and there is obviously going to be a
> lot of cases amongst them where infomercials, religion, and
> home shopping may be the only option that doesn't lose money
> for them.
>
Re: Independent TV ... what is the reality?
> > > And we don't yet know whether or not the new network
> will
> > > continue any of the non-prime programming.
> >
> > Actually, The CW's been saying since its initial press
> > release that it will follow the WB schedule, including the
>
> > kids block and "Easy View" Sunday repeats.
>
> I'm glad you noticed that, because with all the discussion
> here, etc., I have missed it.
>
> > The issue, I think, isn't so much one of replacing 10 or
> 12
> > hours of prime-time programming. It's one of imaging.
>
> Without requoting your well-phrased post, that is exactly my
> point. So many people seem to think there will be major
> overhauls of the former affiliates, when that is not the
> case -- at least for the full-power affiliates.
>
> I agree that many of the LPTV and digital affiliates are
> going to be hit harder, and there is obviously going to be a
> lot of cases amongst them where infomercials, religion, and
> home shopping may be the only option that doesn't lose money
> for them.
>
It's already official that WGN-TV is going to be the new CW affiliate. Tribune is given priority in most markets and Chicago is one of those markets. Since Fox owns WPWR and has been running UPN programming on it during prime time, Fox will have to decide what to do with WPWR since there will be no network affiliation with the station. I did a typo in one of my posts, and to correct it; if Newsweb still owned WPWR-TV, they would have no problem going back to being an independent. Newsweb programmed WPWR rather well. They originally aired lots of 50's & 60's programs that rarely aired, and did it until the money rolled in to air first run syndicated programming. I was rather disappointed when it became a network affiliate, but I believed it would become a network station. I however don't think Fox will program the station as well as an independent. It hasn't been the same since Fox took over the station. But IF Fox decides to sell the station, there's the possibility that it could be bought by Weigel Broadcasting and either be ethnic programming, or move the Me-TV programming from lp-23 to 50. There's also a possible rumor if WPWR is sold, that Aztec America might try to buy the station as they want a full power station in Chicago. They currently have LP-13 and it doesn't even cover all of Chicago because of the big null they have to the west to protect a ch. 13 in Rockford.
> > > And we don't yet know whether or not the new network
> will
> > > continue any of the non-prime programming.
> >
> > Actually, The CW's been saying since its initial press
> > release that it will follow the WB schedule, including the
>
> > kids block and "Easy View" Sunday repeats.
>
> I'm glad you noticed that, because with all the discussion
> here, etc., I have missed it.
>
> > The issue, I think, isn't so much one of replacing 10 or
> 12
> > hours of prime-time programming. It's one of imaging.
>
> Without requoting your well-phrased post, that is exactly my
> point. So many people seem to think there will be major
> overhauls of the former affiliates, when that is not the
> case -- at least for the full-power affiliates.
>
> I agree that many of the LPTV and digital affiliates are
> going to be hit harder, and there is obviously going to be a
> lot of cases amongst them where infomercials, religion, and
> home shopping may be the only option that doesn't lose money
> for them.
>
It's already official that WGN-TV is going to be the new CW affiliate. Tribune is given priority in most markets and Chicago is one of those markets. Since Fox owns WPWR and has been running UPN programming on it during prime time, Fox will have to decide what to do with WPWR since there will be no network affiliation with the station. I did a typo in one of my posts, and to correct it; if Newsweb still owned WPWR-TV, they would have no problem going back to being an independent. Newsweb programmed WPWR rather well. They originally aired lots of 50's & 60's programs that rarely aired, and did it until the money rolled in to air first run syndicated programming. I was rather disappointed when it became a network affiliate, but I believed it would become a network station. I however don't think Fox will program the station as well as an independent. It hasn't been the same since Fox took over the station. But IF Fox decides to sell the station, there's the possibility that it could be bought by Weigel Broadcasting and either be ethnic programming, or move the Me-TV programming from lp-23 to 50. There's also a possible rumor if WPWR is sold, that Aztec America might try to buy the station as they want a full power station in Chicago. They currently have LP-13 and it doesn't even cover all of Chicago because of the big null they have to the west to protect a ch. 13 in Rockford.
S
shadowman
Guest
Re: Before you go to far in your Euphoria for Independent TV....
> I don't think Independent stations are all that great. The
> way I remember it, were poorly run, low (if any) budget TV
> stations that simply ran stale cartoons in the mornings and
> afternoons, with endless off network repeats and moldy old
> movies all night long. I used to hate when somebody in the
> house had on Channel 56, because I'd always ask: "isn't
> there something new and fresh on?" While 4, 5, and 7, were
> busy covering Mayor White's announcement that he wan't
> running for re-election, or about the cutback's on the MBTA
> (insert your own city and local stations), we were sitting
> there watching some rerun of Happy days from 1976. Not my
> idea of a great moment in TV history...
While there are bad independent stations out there, there are indies that have done very well, and have deal with the production costs for local actors. The biggest example I can give you are two stations that LIN Television Coorporation own in Puerto Rico. There's WJPX TV 24 (operating as MTV Puerto Rico which has some locally produced segments during the day, while airing music videos), and WAPA TV 4 (they call themselves Televicentro, but we know it in the states as WAPA America, which happens to be the biggest independent station in the island and has about 33.5 hours of local programming (including two hours of e/i programming a week, and not to mention this number varies when they air music specials produced by them), besides the 44.5 hours of local news and news related shows).
> I don't think Independent stations are all that great. The
> way I remember it, were poorly run, low (if any) budget TV
> stations that simply ran stale cartoons in the mornings and
> afternoons, with endless off network repeats and moldy old
> movies all night long. I used to hate when somebody in the
> house had on Channel 56, because I'd always ask: "isn't
> there something new and fresh on?" While 4, 5, and 7, were
> busy covering Mayor White's announcement that he wan't
> running for re-election, or about the cutback's on the MBTA
> (insert your own city and local stations), we were sitting
> there watching some rerun of Happy days from 1976. Not my
> idea of a great moment in TV history...
While there are bad independent stations out there, there are indies that have done very well, and have deal with the production costs for local actors. The biggest example I can give you are two stations that LIN Television Coorporation own in Puerto Rico. There's WJPX TV 24 (operating as MTV Puerto Rico which has some locally produced segments during the day, while airing music videos), and WAPA TV 4 (they call themselves Televicentro, but we know it in the states as WAPA America, which happens to be the biggest independent station in the island and has about 33.5 hours of local programming (including two hours of e/i programming a week, and not to mention this number varies when they air music specials produced by them), besides the 44.5 hours of local news and news related shows).
- Status