• 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

Huge mistake in the WB/UPN merger

A

arnoldevns

Merging the networks is probably not a bad idea, but calling it CW is a huge mistake.

Viewers have gotten to know the names WB and UPN since they started 10 years ago. NO ONE knows CW and the new network will have to spend a fortune to promote that brand. They wouldn't have to do that if they had kept the name of one of the current networks. (I'd pick WB)
 
It's confusing ham radio operators all over the place...

Haha.

Sorry, just thought we'd like the humor.
 
> Merging the networks is probably not a bad idea, but calling
> it CW is a huge mistake.
>
> Viewers have gotten to know the names WB and UPN since they
> started 10 years ago. NO ONE knows CW and the new network
> will have to spend a fortune to promote that brand. They
> wouldn't have to do that if they had kept the name of one of
> the current networks. (I'd pick WB)
>


This gives "The CW" an opportunity to introduce itself as something other than "The WB" or "UPN." However I don't like "The CW", it sounds tacky and the logo is just dull.



______________
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.stationindex.com/>TV Station List</a></P>
 
> Merging the networks is probably not a bad idea, but calling
> it CW is a huge mistake.
>
> Viewers have gotten to know the names WB and UPN since they
> started 10 years ago. NO ONE knows CW and the new network
> will have to spend a fortune to promote that brand. They
> wouldn't have to do that if they had kept the name of one of
> the current networks. (I'd pick WB)
>
id pick upn<P ID="signature">______________
http://natedoggairchecks.6x.to/
xxnate_doggxx (at) myway (dot) com</P>
 
Understand the legalities

> Merging the networks is probably not a bad idea, but calling
> it CW is a huge mistake.
>
> Viewers have gotten to know the names WB and UPN since they
> started 10 years ago. NO ONE knows CW and the new network
> will have to spend a fortune to promote that brand. They
> wouldn't have to do that if they had kept the name of one of
> the current networks. (I'd pick WB)

There is a reason why this is being done the way it is, and that is because the new network will have a mix of previous UPN and WB affiliates. If CBS/Warner chose one of the existing names, they would leave themselves open to legal challenges to uphold affiliation agreements by "jilted" affiliates.

Note that this was announced as "UPN and WB will cease operations and CW will be launched as a new network." That allows <u>all</u> of the existing affiliation agreements to be cancelled.

I, for one, wouldn't want News Corp. challenging the new network affiliations with the Tribune stations in the top three markets on the basis of "you're still UPN, the existing affiliation agreement is still valid." (That is an example, but you can see how even if you chose WB as the name, former WB affiliates who lost out to former UPN stations in their market could sue just as easily.)<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: Understand the legalities

> Note that this was announced as "UPN and WB will cease
> operations and CW will be launched as a new network." That
> allows all of the existing affiliation agreements to be
> cancelled.
>
> I, for one, wouldn't want News Corp. challenging the new
> network affiliations with the Tribune stations in the top
> three markets on the basis of "you're still UPN, the
> existing affiliation agreement is still valid." (That is an
> example, but you can see how even if you chose WB as the
> name, former WB affiliates who lost out to former UPN
> stations in their market could sue just as easily.)
>

Agreed. I'm sure that Viacom/CBS was never terribly happy with NewsCorp controlling a boatload of their affiliates in some of the major markets (New York, LA, Minneapolis) when Chris-Craft/United Television sold a bunch of their affiliates shortly after Viacom took over CBS, even though Viacom did swap a few affiliates (Houston, DC) for duopolies in other markets (San Fran and, possibly, Miami - any know?).

This move definately gets NewsCorp out of the affiliation picture almost entirely.
 
Re: It's confusing ham radio operators all over the place...

> Haha.
>
> Sorry, just thought we'd like the humor.
>
And I didnt think I had enough money to start a network :) !!!!
 
Re: Understand the legalities

> > Merging the networks is probably not a bad idea, but
> >calling it CW is a huge mistake.

Not really. People can get used to stuff really, really quickly - if you repeat it alot. Just look at the Nashville Network becoming Spike TV...

As for merging the 2 netlets - I was saying this YEARS ago! Better yet, add PAX/I
(whatever) into the mix also. Cherrypick the "best" (highly subjective...) from each, and dump the rest. Let the remaining stations revert back to real indies...
 
Re: It's confusing ham radio operators all over the place...

> Haha.
> Sorry, just thought we'd like the humor.

Not confusing to me - not like they called it QST or anything...

73,
de WA1RFF
 
Re: Understand the legalities

> Let the
> remaining stations revert back to real indies...

As has been discussed already in various threads, the odds of "real" indies reappearing anywhere but the largest markets is pretty much a fantasy.

Smaller market stations have better profitability running infomercials, home shopping, or religion than by buying syndicated programming and trying to sell enough advertising to cover the costs.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: Understand the legalities

> As has been discussed already in various threads, the odds
> of "real" indies reappearing anywhere but the largest
> markets is pretty much a fantasy.
>
> Smaller market stations have better profitability running
> infomercials, home shopping, or religion than by buying
> syndicated programming and trying to sell enough advertising
> to cover the costs.
>

It's a bit more complex than that, I think... maybe a lot more.

In the markets where an LPTV is the orphaned station, I think they are indeed headed to shopping, religion or someone like A1 in most cases.

In many of the largest markets, a true independent is feasible as you state. In LA, two VHF independents (as will be the case in the fall) are feasible.

But what we have today that we didn't have in the years prior to Fox, WB and UPN is the TV duopoly. With a duopoly, there's a lot less expense to run the extra station than running that station alone would cost (and programs that flopped but are still under contract to burn off as well). (We also have the ability now to run a station mostly remotely from another market if there is no local duopoly). So, looking at my market (Albany), there's likely no way the orphaned WNYA/51 would be able to be run by its own staff, but there's a JSA and a tight operating relationship with Freedom's WRGB. Today, it just might be feasible to run WNYA as an indy, on a shoestring, from WRGB, but with programming that is a big step above something like A1.

There are, however, also definite issues in some bigger markets as well. Phoenix, for example, already has two true indies... successful KTVK and less-so KAZT. (It also has a full-powered Univision, will very soon have a full-powered Telemundo, and a low-powered Telefutura.) How this jumble sorts out is anyone's guess. (Will Fox sell KUTP, allowing a third full-power Spanish station in a market that probably could support it? Will Fox try to program KUTP as a third market indy -- in a market that already has a very strong indy? Who knows?)
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom