As of right now, it is still up in the air if KQCA/58 will join My Network TV? To me it is a no brainer since there is pretty much no other alternative TV station to pick it up. I don't see Paxson switching KSPX/29 to My Network TV unless they sell it to Fox? Maybe there is a possibility that My Network TV will not be in Sacramento.
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
My Network TV is still up in the air for the Sacramento/Stockton Market.
- Thread starter Floyd
- Start date
M
mrpariot
Guest
> As of right now, it is still up in the air if KQCA/58 will
> join My Network TV? To me it is a no brainer since there is
> pretty much no other alternative TV station to pick it up. I
> don't see Paxson switching KSPX/29 to My Network TV unless
> they sell it to Fox? Maybe there is a possibility that My
> Network TV will not be in Sacramento.
>
Smart money is still on KQCA/58 going with it. Fox can't afford not to have the Top 20 markets covered; KSPX/29 is not a rational option for anyone; and there's no one else to take it. Plus, it makes good sense for KQCA.
> join My Network TV? To me it is a no brainer since there is
> pretty much no other alternative TV station to pick it up. I
> don't see Paxson switching KSPX/29 to My Network TV unless
> they sell it to Fox? Maybe there is a possibility that My
> Network TV will not be in Sacramento.
>
Smart money is still on KQCA/58 going with it. Fox can't afford not to have the Top 20 markets covered; KSPX/29 is not a rational option for anyone; and there's no one else to take it. Plus, it makes good sense for KQCA.
> > As of right now, it is still up in the air if KQCA/58 will
>
> > join My Network TV? To me it is a no brainer since there
> is
> > pretty much no other alternative TV station to pick it up.
> I
> > don't see Paxson switching KSPX/29 to My Network TV unless
>
> > they sell it to Fox? Maybe there is a possibility that My
> > Network TV will not be in Sacramento.
> >
> Smart money is still on KQCA/58 going with it. Fox can't
> afford not to have the Top 20 markets covered; KSPX/29 is
> not a rational option for anyone; and there's no one else to
> take it. Plus, it makes good sense for KQCA.
>
I think Fox needs to offer a station for sale to bring Hearst to the table. WUTB 24 (MYNET)/Baltimore would be a strategic duopoly partner fit for Hearst, who owns WBAL 11 (NBC).
An agreement w/ Fox would give Hearst 2 MyNetwork stations (Baltimore, Sacramento), and Fox has clearance in Sacramento.
Fox has no need to own a station in the Baltimore market, as it's the only market where they don't and won't own the Fox as well. Sinclair being based in that area.
Divesting WUTB can lower Fox's ownership cap, enabling them to buy out a station in another market, if ever needed.
>
> > join My Network TV? To me it is a no brainer since there
> is
> > pretty much no other alternative TV station to pick it up.
> I
> > don't see Paxson switching KSPX/29 to My Network TV unless
>
> > they sell it to Fox? Maybe there is a possibility that My
> > Network TV will not be in Sacramento.
> >
> Smart money is still on KQCA/58 going with it. Fox can't
> afford not to have the Top 20 markets covered; KSPX/29 is
> not a rational option for anyone; and there's no one else to
> take it. Plus, it makes good sense for KQCA.
>
I think Fox needs to offer a station for sale to bring Hearst to the table. WUTB 24 (MYNET)/Baltimore would be a strategic duopoly partner fit for Hearst, who owns WBAL 11 (NBC).
An agreement w/ Fox would give Hearst 2 MyNetwork stations (Baltimore, Sacramento), and Fox has clearance in Sacramento.
Fox has no need to own a station in the Baltimore market, as it's the only market where they don't and won't own the Fox as well. Sinclair being based in that area.
Divesting WUTB can lower Fox's ownership cap, enabling them to buy out a station in another market, if ever needed.
R
RobertMoore
Guest
Well its no secret that Hearst-Argyle seem to harbor their true feelings towards Fox becuase of parent company News Corps' conservative slant, so chances of KQCA affiliating with My Network TV will take more than a miracle, at least.
> Well its no secret that Hearst-Argyle seem to harbor their
> true feelings towards Fox becuase of parent company News
> Corps' conservative slant, so chances of KQCA affiliating
> with My Network TV will take more than a miracle, at least.
>
In Kansas City, Hearst Argyle chose to go with The CW, over MyNetwork. H-A's preference is The CW. They weren't sour grapes (over loss of a network in Sacramento), or thinking what's cheaper (go with MyNetwork over The CW), like maybe Sinclair.
Now, I wonder if it's a possibility, if CBS would willing to let KQCA take on The CW, with, CBS programming KMAX 31 with Dr.Phil (as KOVR/KMAX will have rights), other King World programs and any other syndicated programs, as well in primetime.
1. It would prevent a rival MyNetwork clearance in the market.
2. Programming CBS has interest in (King World) gets better exposure, 2 ways.
3. Hearst doesn't mind reverse compensation (as seen in Hearst's choice to go with The CW), which would be 3rd party revenue going into CBS/TimeWarner's revenue from The CW.
It is probably obvious by now H-A hasn't submitted an application for MyNetwork, unlike Granite. Fox will have to be approaching H-A.
In comparison, KCAL/L.A, KTXA/Dallas, along with WSBK, are all going to be CBS owned indys, in markets a Tribune station is The CW's outlet. CBS won't be hesistant to program KMAX as an indy, if needed.
> true feelings towards Fox becuase of parent company News
> Corps' conservative slant, so chances of KQCA affiliating
> with My Network TV will take more than a miracle, at least.
>
In Kansas City, Hearst Argyle chose to go with The CW, over MyNetwork. H-A's preference is The CW. They weren't sour grapes (over loss of a network in Sacramento), or thinking what's cheaper (go with MyNetwork over The CW), like maybe Sinclair.
Now, I wonder if it's a possibility, if CBS would willing to let KQCA take on The CW, with, CBS programming KMAX 31 with Dr.Phil (as KOVR/KMAX will have rights), other King World programs and any other syndicated programs, as well in primetime.
1. It would prevent a rival MyNetwork clearance in the market.
2. Programming CBS has interest in (King World) gets better exposure, 2 ways.
3. Hearst doesn't mind reverse compensation (as seen in Hearst's choice to go with The CW), which would be 3rd party revenue going into CBS/TimeWarner's revenue from The CW.
It is probably obvious by now H-A hasn't submitted an application for MyNetwork, unlike Granite. Fox will have to be approaching H-A.
In comparison, KCAL/L.A, KTXA/Dallas, along with WSBK, are all going to be CBS owned indys, in markets a Tribune station is The CW's outlet. CBS won't be hesistant to program KMAX as an indy, if needed.
K
KMRichards
Guest
> Now, I wonder if it's a possibility, if CBS would willing to
> let KQCA take on The CW, and instead, CBS program KMAX 31
> with Dr.Phil (as KOVR/KMAX will have rights), other King
> World programs and other syndicated programs, as well in
> primetime.
No, and I will explain this in the context of your closing paragraph:
> In comparison, KCAL/L.A, KTXA/Dallas, along with WSBK, are
> all going to be CBS owned indys, in markets a Tribune
> station is The CW's outlet. CBS won't be hesistant to
> program KMAX as an indy, if needed.
If you go back to the original list of CW stations when the network was announced, you will see that the <u>only</u> CBS-owned stations that are not CW are in markets where both they and Tribune own stations, and in those markets the Tribune station took the affiliation (you noted that, but I don't think you saw the significance).
That is not the same as the situation in Sacramento (Tribune owns no station in that market), so that is where your logic fails. CBS will not go independent in any market unless <u>Tribune</u> is the CW affiliate. (And KCAL has been independent all along anyway.)<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> let KQCA take on The CW, and instead, CBS program KMAX 31
> with Dr.Phil (as KOVR/KMAX will have rights), other King
> World programs and other syndicated programs, as well in
> primetime.
No, and I will explain this in the context of your closing paragraph:
> In comparison, KCAL/L.A, KTXA/Dallas, along with WSBK, are
> all going to be CBS owned indys, in markets a Tribune
> station is The CW's outlet. CBS won't be hesistant to
> program KMAX as an indy, if needed.
If you go back to the original list of CW stations when the network was announced, you will see that the <u>only</u> CBS-owned stations that are not CW are in markets where both they and Tribune own stations, and in those markets the Tribune station took the affiliation (you noted that, but I don't think you saw the significance).
That is not the same as the situation in Sacramento (Tribune owns no station in that market), so that is where your logic fails. CBS will not go independent in any market unless <u>Tribune</u> is the CW affiliate. (And KCAL has been independent all along anyway.)<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Tribune indeed owns a Sacramento Station.
>
> That is not the same as the situation in Sacramento (Tribune
> owns no station in that market),
Actually Tribune does own a Sacramento station, KTXL/40 ,A Fox Affiliate but I doubt Tribune would drop the proven Fox over the unproven CW. Other than that, I agree with everything you posted on this subject.
>
> That is not the same as the situation in Sacramento (Tribune
> owns no station in that market),
Actually Tribune does own a Sacramento station, KTXL/40 ,A Fox Affiliate but I doubt Tribune would drop the proven Fox over the unproven CW. Other than that, I agree with everything you posted on this subject.
K
KMRichards
Guest
Re: Tribune indeed owns a Sacramento Station.
> > That is not the same as the situation in Sacramento
> (Tribune
> > owns no station in that market),
> Actually Tribune does own a Sacramento station, KTXL/40 ,A
> Fox Affiliate but I doubt Tribune would drop the proven Fox
> over the unproven CW. Other than that, I agree with
> everything you posted on this subject.
You are correct, Floyd. What I had intended to say that Tribune owns no WB affiliate in the market, therefore the CBS-owned UPN station automatically becomes the CW affiliate.
Thanks for clarifying.
The point is still that, absent a Tribune-owned station taking the CW affiliation, what was suggested would not occur in any market (CBS allowing the CW to go elsewhere and program their station as an independent). Tribune is the <u>only</u> exception being made to a CBS-owned station not going with CW (except, of course, in markets where they only own one station and that station is a CBS affiliate), and even so, there are markets where Tribune stepped aside for the CBS-owned UPN station to be the CW affiliate.
Hearst-Argyle isn't going to see KMAX step aside in favor of KQCA. No way.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> > That is not the same as the situation in Sacramento
> (Tribune
> > owns no station in that market),
> Actually Tribune does own a Sacramento station, KTXL/40 ,A
> Fox Affiliate but I doubt Tribune would drop the proven Fox
> over the unproven CW. Other than that, I agree with
> everything you posted on this subject.
You are correct, Floyd. What I had intended to say that Tribune owns no WB affiliate in the market, therefore the CBS-owned UPN station automatically becomes the CW affiliate.
Thanks for clarifying.
The point is still that, absent a Tribune-owned station taking the CW affiliation, what was suggested would not occur in any market (CBS allowing the CW to go elsewhere and program their station as an independent). Tribune is the <u>only</u> exception being made to a CBS-owned station not going with CW (except, of course, in markets where they only own one station and that station is a CBS affiliate), and even so, there are markets where Tribune stepped aside for the CBS-owned UPN station to be the CW affiliate.
Hearst-Argyle isn't going to see KMAX step aside in favor of KQCA. No way.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.