MyNetworkTV 2013-14 Lineup Revealed

[mescutia]

They could even acquire to rights to broadcast programs from other countries besides the United States.

MHz Worldview already does this non-commercially. Additionally, one would think if something like this were done, it would be done by a network, rather than 100+ individual stations. There are plenty of great shows made in Canada, Australia, and the UK, but a lot of the ones that are brought here do poorly and the rest never even make it that far.

This brings up a good point: There are a ton of Canadian shows that have never appeared here in the States (a side effect of Can-Con rules); a broadcast or cable network could exclusively show Canadian shows and not run low on programming for a long time. It'd be like BBC America, only with Canadian shows.

 

[Morgan Wick]

MyNet stations are practically independent anyway. It's just a syndication package.

Exactly. If you want to get technical about it, since MyNetworkTV is a programming service and no longer a network, MNT affiliates are actually independent stations. Maybe not the type of independent everyone grew up watching, but times change.

Anyway, every time this topic is brought up, the discussion boils down to, "I hate that these stations have to show two hours of syndicated programs every night. They should give the time back to the stations so they can show two hours of syndicated programs every night instead."

And yet 90% of its stations still use the "My" branding and there are still subchannel services serving the purpose of delivering MyNet "programming" to local markets. Some stations seem to be having success airing news in primetime.

So what? It's programming that's cheap to run and station branding that's easy to apply. There are subchannels serving the purpose of delivering all sorts of reruns and second-hand programming that don't send people into a tizzy. Why not go with a programming service like MyNetworkTV that has a bit of staying power, with shows that your average TV viewer has heard of, not to mention are less expensive to run than several hours of local news and the expense that comes with it?

I'm not quite sure why some people here are personally offended by MyNetworkTV's existence. Is it the silly name?

It's the fact that it has a name! It's the fact it allows station owners to get lazy with branding. It's the fact that at least those rerun-filled wastes of spectrum are specifically intended to fill space on subchannels; MyNet is specifically intended to fill space on would-be independent stations, and to go to all the effort to create a subchannel just for it continues to give it the aura of a network with programming that HAS to be delivered into every market, no matter what News Corporation says or how they program it. It's the fact that it's a symbol of how TV has changed that the independent stations the old fogies here are used to are now cost-prohibitive, that localism is seemingly dead, that general-entertainment stations are so desperate for someone to bail them out for ten hours a week when even today, they could air news, movies, or - shock horror! - actual original syndicated programming. Oh, and it's the fact that in markets like Cincinnati and Hawaii, it forces the CW onto a subchannel and hogs the main affiliation on a main channel.

 

[Brother]

I'm not quite sure why some people here are personally offended by MyNetworkTV's existence. Is it the silly name?

It's the fact that it has a name! It's the fact it allows station owners to get lazy with branding.

Again, so what? Station owners with "real networks" are just as lazy with their station brandings.

It's the fact that at least those rerun-filled wastes of spectrum are specifically intended to fill space on subchannels; MyNet is specifically intended to fill space on would-be independent stations, and to go to all the effort to create a subchannel just for it continues to give it the aura of a network with programming that HAS to be delivered into every market, no matter what News Corporation says or how they program it.

You could replace "MyNet" and "News Corporation" with "CW" and "CBS and Time Warner" here. The CW airs just as many primetime hours per week as MyNetworkTV. What makes the CW different? Their affiliates are mostly former independents, too. Is it because they offer original, first-run programming?

It's the fact that it's a symbol of how TV has changed that the independent stations the old fogies here are used to are now cost-prohibitive, that localism is seemingly dead, that general-entertainment stations are so desperate for someone to bail them out for ten hours a week when even today, they could air news, movies, or - shock horror! - actual original syndicated programming.

News and overall localism are alive and well on the stations that can afford it. And I still don't see much difference between running movies or original syndicated programming umpteen times with airing syndicated programming from an established service like MyNetworkTV.

Oh, and it's the fact that in markets like Cincinnati and Hawaii, it forces the CW onto a subchannel and hogs the main affiliation on a main channel.

What difference does it make whether the CW is on a .1 or a .2? Hawaii's CW is available on cable and satellite, and Cincinnati's CW is on cable and DirecTV (unavailable only on Dish Network). I'm pretty sure these stations can be found rather easily. As long as the viewers know how and where to tune in, it doesn't matter that it's an over-the-air subchannel. You're obsessing over matters here that the average viewer neither knows nor cares about.

 

[Morgan Wick]

I'm not quite sure why some people here are personally offended by MyNetworkTV's existence. Is it the silly name?

It's the fact that it has a name! It's the fact it allows station owners to get lazy with branding.

Again, so what? Station owners with "real networks" are just as lazy with their station brandings.

Which is the root of the problem. I don't really have much of a problem, in and of itself, with every station smashing its network together with its channel number or market name and calling that its branding, though that may have to do with living in a market where all the Big Four stations do incorporate their call letters into their branding to some extent. I do have a problem when that is used so much as a crutch that stations become desperate for a network just to give them that branding, no matter how little that "brand" means.

It's the fact that at least those rerun-filled wastes of spectrum are specifically intended to fill space on subchannels; MyNet is specifically intended to fill space on would-be independent stations, and to go to all the effort to create a subchannel just for it continues to give it the aura of a network with programming that HAS to be delivered into every market, no matter what News Corporation says or how they program it.

You could replace "MyNet" and "News Corporation" with "CW" and "CBS and Time Warner" here. The CW airs just as many primetime hours per week as MyNetworkTV. What makes the CW different? Their affiliates are mostly former independents, too. Is it because they offer original, first-run programming?

YES! If a market doesn't have the CW anywhere, someone who wants to watch The Vampire Diaries is screwed. If a market doesn't have MyNet, all they're missing out on is a bunch of shows that are already getting rerun ad nauseam elsewhere, especially if they have cable.

Oh, and it's the fact that in markets like Cincinnati and Hawaii, it forces the CW onto a subchannel and hogs the main affiliation on a main channel.

What difference does it make whether the CW is on a .1 or a .2? Hawaii's CW is available on cable and satellite, and Cincinnati's CW is on cable and DirecTV (unavailable only on Dish Network). I'm pretty sure these stations can be found rather easily. As long as the viewers know how and where to tune in, it doesn't matter that it's an over-the-air subchannel. You're obsessing over matters here that the average viewer neither knows nor cares about.

[/quote]
Unless they want to watch their shows in HD, that is.

Look, my problem is that no matter what Fox says or does, the rest of the television industry still treats MyNet as though it was the sixth network, if not an equal with the CW. They still treat it as though every market HAS to have it even though it's just a gap-filler. My problem is that a lot more people may, if not have a problem finding it, still see one network or the other as having second-class status if it doesn't have a station of its own if cord-cutting catches on, especially considering the general failure of subchannels.

Most people here are so nostalgic for independents that one recent thread, apparently lost in the recent server fritzing, claimed that "in a perfect world", even Fox would go away and its stations revert back to being independents (and then tried to claim that he didn't actually mean any harm to Fox, but still). For them, MyNet is an outlet for their dashed hopes of an independent renaissance following the merger. My problem with MyNet is the opposite: when the merger happened, I wanted the CW to run down the Big Four and become a true fifth network, and while CBS' interest probably precluded that from happening right out the gate, the existence and effect of MyNet certainly did not help.

I was recently surprised to realize that only three of the top 15 markets do not have at least one general-purpose independent station: Philadelphia, Boston, and Washington DC - and that's not counting outlying stations in the former two markets that try to target the big market to varying extents. It is, in fact, possible to still program an independent station in this day and age. But Fox, Sinclair, and all the other MyNet owners are too scared/cheap to try.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

People miss the indie stations of their childhood

 

[PTBoardOp94]

People miss the indie stations of their childhood

Which is fine, but the indie stations of the 70s are an anachronism in an 85% cable penetration universe.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

People miss the indie stations of their childhood

Which is fine, but the indie stations of the 70s are an anachronism in an 85% cable penetration universe.

a lot of the things the filled the schedules of indie stations has moved to cable

 

[nathannah]

People miss the indie stations of their childhood

Personally my independent stations were terrible, under budget and seemed to tape their syndicated programming off a rented VCR from the video store down the street, and their promotional budgets seemed to be wasted on promoting some overheated car lot with a Department of Consumer Trade complaint list a mile long. And back in the old days they either existed to carry the bombs of network stations no affiliate wanted on their air, or bad movie after bad movie. Also, two words; Small Wonder. Thanks to syndication on a "childhood indie station", we all had to suffer through that and other sitcoms like it.

I might not watch MyNetworkTV (I'm not a fan of procedurals), but at least it gives a station a unified look and promo image at the very least, and now bad movies are stuck on either weekends, This, or Netflix. The biggest problem I found with the CW/MyNet situation is that syndicated programming, rather than stepping up, has gotten worse. We now have a choice of more trash talk shows, real court shows, court shows with scripts adapted from public domain court cases, terrible "100 at a time" sitcoms...or multiple Armando Montelongo infomercials. Netlet syndication isn't being used as a lab for good programming ideas any longer and is only rehashing old ideas, and any initiative NewsCorp might have isn't there. Why try your own original programming when your affiliates throw on two hours of court shows, four hours of trash talk, and three hours of sitcoms and call it a day? Unless Fox does something like a news requirement for their MyNet stations, which will not happen, the situation will not change.

 

[arnoldevns]

We have one independent station in the DFW area, but it is owned by CBS. It has terrible ratings when the Rangers, Mavericks and Stars are not on. The My Network O&O does much better in prime time and over the rest of the day. The only other partial independent we have is a MeTV affiliate. It is trying local programming, but so far has not found an audience. Why would any station want to seek out a programming strategy that does not work? Simply put, they don't. That's why there are so few independents anymore.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

Indie KCMI in Kansas City, sister station of NBC affiliate KSHB, has no local programming besides some Big 12 Basketball games

 

[nomadcowatbk]

People miss the indie stations of their childhood

Personally my independent stations were terrible, under budget and seemed to tape their syndicated programming off a rented VCR from the video store down the street, and their promotional budgets seemed to be wasted on promoting some overheated car lot with a Department of Consumer Trade complaint list a mile long. And back in the old days they either existed to carry the bombs of network stations no affiliate wanted on their air, or bad movie after bad movie. Also, two words; Small Wonder. Thanks to syndication on a "childhood indie station", we all had to suffer through that and other sitcoms like it.

I might not watch MyNetworkTV (I'm not a fan of procedurals), but at least it gives a station a unified look and promo image at the very least, and now bad movies are stuck on either weekends, This, or Netflix. The biggest problem I found with the CW/MyNet situation is that syndicated programming, rather than stepping up, has gotten worse. We now have a choice of more trash talk shows, real court shows, court shows with scripts adapted from public domain court cases, terrible "100 at a time" sitcoms...or multiple Armando Montelongo infomercials. Netlet syndication isn't being used as a lab for good programming ideas any longer and is only rehashing old ideas, and any initiative NewsCorp might have isn't there. Why try your own original programming when your affiliates throw on two hours of court shows, four hours of trash talk, and three hours of sitcoms and call it a day? Unless Fox does something like a news requirement for their MyNet stations, which will not happen, the situation will not change.

Childhood memories for many are better than they actually were. These are the same people who are mad that MTV does not play music videos anymore, while also outside MTV's demographic. That demographic has no memory of an MTV that played music or even Beavis and Butt-Head during it's original run.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

People need a brand for their business. A cheap hotel will do more business as Days Inn franchisee than as an indie no-name cheap hotel.

 

[Mario500]

Childhood memories for many are better than they actually were. These are the same people who are mad that MTV does not play music videos anymore, while also outside MTV's demographic. That demographic has no memory of an MTV that played music or even Beavis and Butt-Head during it's original run.

Music Television (MTV) actually broadcast music videos in recent times as part of a regular program normally broadcast from Monday through Friday between the hours of 3:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. under the name "AMTV".

 

[nomadcowatbk]

Childhood memories for many are better than they actually were. These are the same people who are mad that MTV does not play music videos anymore, while also outside MTV's demographic. That demographic has no memory of an MTV that played music or even Beavis and Butt-Head during it's original run.

Music Television (MTV) actually broadcast music videos in recent times as part of a regular program normally broadcast from Monday through Friday between the hours of 3:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. under the name "AMTV".

MTV doesn't even have "music" in its name anymore.

 

[ercjncpr]

Here's an idea: give the time back to affiliates and bring back the independent station, like what should have happened in 2006 to begin with.

Except in several markets like Los Angeles, the MyNET TV is part of a duopoly, so the stations would not truly be "independent"

 

[Morgan Wick]

Here's an idea: give the time back to affiliates and bring back the independent station, like what should have happened in 2006 to begin with.

Except in several markets like Los Angeles, the MyNET TV is part of a duopoly, so the stations would not truly be "independent"

??? KCOP is part of a duopoly in Los Angeles.

 

[Mario500]

The post by ercjncpr reminded me of the situation in the Mobile, Alabama-Pensacola, Florida TV market in which the Sinclair Broadcast Group operates the local "independent station" (WJTC-TV) and the local affiliate for MyNetworkTV (WFGX-TV) along with the local affiliates for NBC and ABC (WPMI-TV and WEAR-TV respectively) while owning the broadcast licenses for only the stations affiliated with ABC and MyNetworkTV (Deerfield Media, Inc. owns the broadcast licenses for WPMI-TV and WJTC-TV).

By the way, the times in my previous message about MTV reflect the Central time zone. I forgot to mention that fact earlier.

 

[tripinva]

Here's an idea: give the time back to affiliates and bring back the independent station, like what should have happened in 2006 to begin with.

Except in several markets like Los Angeles, the MyNET TV is part of a duopoly, so the stations would not truly be "independent"

??? KCOP is part of a duopoly in Los Angeles.

That's what is being said. Since KCOP is part of a duopoly, it wouldn't be independent anyway.

- Trip

 

[mavtv]

Here's an idea: give the time back to affiliates and bring back the independent station, like what should have happened in 2006 to begin with.

Except in several markets like Los Angeles, the MyNET TV is part of a duopoly, so the stations would not truly be "independent"

??? KCOP is part of a duopoly in Los Angeles.

That's what is being said. Since KCOP is part of a duopoly, it wouldn't be independent anyway.

- Trip

The other thing is stations like KCOP are also considered secondary FOX affiliates in case of a preemption made by KTTV during FOX network programming it gets bounced to My 13.

Also KCAL 9 here in Los Angeles is considered a secondary CBS affiliate in case of a preemption made by KCBS even though it is rare as KCAL seems to be the "local" end of the duopoly.

But in general if a My network TV or any independent has a sister station that has a network like CBS,ABC,NBC they usually take on a secondary affiliation with the other station's network in case of a preemption for local or breaking news.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Here's an idea: give the time back to affiliates and bring back the independent station, like what should have happened in 2006 to begin with.

Except in several markets like Los Angeles, the MyNET TV is part of a duopoly, so the stations would not truly be "independent"

??? KCOP is part of a duopoly in Los Angeles.

That's what is being said. Since KCOP is part of a duopoly, it wouldn't be independent anyway.

- Trip

"Except in several markets like Los Angeles, the MyNet is part of a duopoly..." says to me that LA is an exception to the general rule of MyNet being part of a duopoly. If the exception was that MyNet was part of a duopoly (which happens to include every last O&O of the network), I would expect it to read "where the MyNet is part of a duopoly", or a period at the end of the first clause, thus making clear that it was trying to continue my statement instead of standing alone as a counterargument.