How the shutting down UPN and WB for The CW was a direct strike at Fox

[Garrett]

If it hasn't been pointed out already, this here link shows how this had to do with dealing with Fox owned/run UPN affliates.

Check this out: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6302849.html?display=Feature&referral=SUPP

This makes me wonder about affliates that are not owned by Fox, but are duopolied in markets (like Lubbock TX) where the company that owsn the Fox affiliate also runs both the UPN and WB affliate. But I'm probably thinking about this a little too hard, eh?

 

[arnoldevns]

> If it hasn't been pointed out already, this here link shows
> how this had to do with dealing with Fox owned/run UPN
> affliates.
>
> Check this out:
http://www.broadcastingca> ble.com/article/CA6302849.html?display=Feature&referral=SUPP
>
>
> This makes me wonder about affliates that are not owned by
> Fox, but are duopolied in markets (like Lubbock TX) where
> the company that owsn the Fox affiliate also runs both the
> UPN and WB affliate. But I'm probably thinking about this a
> little too hard, eh?
>

This was not some action by a cabal that's "out to get Fox."
They won't be trying to attack Fox affiliate owners in smaller markets like Lubbock.

This was CBS and Warner trying to find a way to cut their losses. UPN and WB were both losing a ton of money. Merging them into one might make them profitable.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see Fox step in to create (or join in the creation) of another network to fill the programming holes on former UPN/WB affialites. Even if that doesn't happen, Fox will probably be happy to sell tons of syndicated programming to these stations.

 

[KMRichards]

> I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see Fox step in to
> create (or join in the creation) of another network to fill
> the programming holes on former UPN/WB affialites.

That was already discussed in one of the many threads we've had over the past few days. The consensus was "no they won't".<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[JeeperOne]

Hi everyone:

> > I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see Fox step in
> to
> > create (or join in the creation) of another network to
> fill
> > the programming holes on former UPN/WB affialites.
>
> That was already discussed in one of the many threads we've
> had over the past few days. The consensus was "no they
> won't".

I agree. If FOX does ANYTHING with those stations, they'll either sell them (depending on the station and the market it's in that is) or turn 'em all into KCAL-like traditional Indies. No problem.

Cheers

Pat
<P ID="signature">______________

http://patspodcast.blogspot.com/
Radio? Uhh.....What's THAT?? </P>

 

[desertv]

> > If it hasn't been pointed out already, this here link
> shows
> > how this had to do with dealing with Fox owned/run UPN
> > affliates.
> >
> > Check this out:
> http://www.broadcastingca>
> ble.com/article/CA6302849.html?display=Feature&referral=SUPP
>
> >
> >
> > This makes me wonder about affliates that are not owned by
>
> > Fox, but are duopolied in markets (like Lubbock TX) where
> > the company that owsn the Fox affiliate also runs both the
>
> > UPN and WB affliate. But I'm probably thinking about this
> a
> > little too hard, eh?
> >
>
> This was not some action by a cabal that's "out to get Fox."
>
> They won't be trying to attack Fox affiliate owners in
> smaller markets like Lubbock.
>
> This was CBS and Warner trying to find a way to cut their
> losses. UPN and WB were both losing a ton of money.
> Merging them into one might make them profitable.
>
> I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see Fox step in to
> create (or join in the creation) of another network to fill
> the programming holes on former UPN/WB affialites. Even if
> that doesn't happen, Fox will probably be happy to sell tons
> of syndicated programming to these stations.
>
There were plans to merge WB and UPN several years ago, that were scuttled then probably due to the Viacom/CBS merger