New FOX affiliate for Springfield, MA?

[MJB13]

I have been hearing rumors of a new dedicated FOX affiliate for the Springfield television market to be launched by 2007. I can't vouch for the credibility of the sources, but was wondering if anyone had more reliable information one way or the other. Could a smaller market like Springfield even support its own FOX affiliate?

I know quite a few people in Western Massachusetts, including myself, were disappointed and angered by FOX's decision to air the recent Giants game instead of the Patriots on Hartford's FOX 61, as discussed here and on other forums. A Springfield FOX affiliate would hopefully prevent another New York team override (ala FOX 61) in Western Mass. when a New York versus Boston/New England game scheduling conflict arises.

 

[kzrockwell]

That might be a good idea, would they start from scratch, new dial position?


> I have been hearing rumors of a new dedicated FOX affiliate
> for the Springfield television market to be launched by
> 2007. I can't vouch for the credibility of the sources, but
> was wondering if anyone had more reliable information one
> way or the other. Could a smaller market like Springfield
> even support its own FOX affiliate?
>
> I know quite a few people in Western Massachusetts,
> including myself, were disappointed and angered by FOX's
> decision to air the recent Giants game instead of the
> Patriots on Hartford's FOX 61, as discussed here and on
> other forums. A Springfield FOX affiliate would hopefully
> prevent another New York team override (ala FOX 61) in
> Western Mass. when a New York versus Boston/New England game
> scheduling conflict arises.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
It's not the size of the tower.....
It's how you use it.</P>

 

[MJB13]

> That might be a good idea, would they start from scratch,
> new dial position?


Good point. I'm not sure there are any open/available/unused channel allocations in the Springfield market though.

 

[jlehmann]

> > That might be a good idea, would they start from scratch,
> > new dial position?
>
>
> Good point. I'm not sure there are any open/available/unused
> channel allocations in the Springfield market though.
>

Maybe just on a LPTV with cable coverage, like what WSHM is doing?

 

[odomski]

Since there is no Fox affiliate dedicated to the Springfield market, what Fox station(s) do Springfield viewers get? WTIC-61 from Hartford? WXXA-23 from Albany? WFXT-25 from Boston? All three perhaps?

Also, do cable TV subscribers there have any or all Albany, Hartford, or Boston affiliates on their channel lineup?

 

[KML0224]

> Also, do cable TV subscribers there have any or all Albany,
> Hartford, or Boston affiliates on their channel lineup?
>

Comcast of Springfield carries only Hartford for FOX.

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

It will probably be an LPTV outlet, and likely be under the same ownership as either WTIC-61 Hartford or WFXT-25 Boston.

 

[JustinT]

> It will probably be an LPTV outlet, and likely be under the
> same ownership as either WTIC-61 Hartford or WFXT-25 Boston.
>

If it's a FOX outlet run by either Hartford or Boston, it would almost have to be run by Boston. WTIC-TV is owned by Tribune; so wouldn't they want to put the seed of the parent company (WB Network) on this hypothetical (at the moment) LPTV?

Who owns the Fox station in Albany, anyhow? Clear Channel?

 

[odomski]

YEs, Clear Channel owns Fox affiliate WXXA-23 in the Albany, NY market.

 

[crisisbroadcast]

> > It will probably be an LPTV outlet, and likely be under
> >the same ownership as either WTIC-61 Hartford or WFXT-25
> >Boston.
>
> If it's a FOX outlet run by either Hartford or Boston, it
> would almost have to be run by Boston. WTIC-TV is owned by
> Tribune; so wouldn't they want to put the seed of the parent
> company (WB Network) on this hypothetical (at the moment)
> LPTV?

A couple of things:

1) Should the owner of Fox 25 -- FOX! -- decide to operate a low-powered in Springfield, it will most likely only be a tranlator or relay for what's on Fox 25. I doubt Fox would vest much interest in setting up a full-service station of any sort in Springfield.

2) The WB is not Trib's "parent" company; in fact, it's quite the opposite. Tribune owns part of The WB, which is a main reason why they own the WB affiliate in every market they have a presence in (except one -- Grand Rapids, MI, I believe).

You do have a point though: why wouldn't Trib put WB programming on the LPTV? Well, simply, you're right, but they also aren't stupid. They own both the Fox and WB affiliates in Hartford (WTIC along with WTXX). They may very well, if they were to program an LP targeted specifically for Springfield (like Meredith's current set-up), not just one that's a relay of the Hartford stations, make the Springfield station a primary Fox affiliate with a secondary affiliation with the WB, or they could just program a Fox affiliate with news or other local programming and keep their WB affiliate from Hartford on the Springfield cable line-up, depending on what the demand is.

It would make the most sense to go the Fox route and keep on feeding Springfield viewers with WTXX anyway as WB stations typically don't have much local content. Tribune has been killing off the news departments on their WB outlets, so there wouldn't be much local-to-Hartford programming on 'TXX anyway that would alienate Springfield viewers.

It will be interesting to see how things shape up.<P ID="signature">______________
FPXMedia: TV, Radio, and Anything Else
FPX Radio - Coming Soon!
Be Mused...</P>

 

[MJB13]

> 2) The WB is not Trib's "parent" company; in fact, it's
> quite the opposite. Tribune owns part of The WB, which is a
> main reason why they own the WB affiliate in every market
> they have a presence in (except one -- Grand Rapids, MI, I
> believe).
>
> You do have a point though: why wouldn't Trib put WB
> programming on the LPTV? Well, simply, you're right, but
> they also aren't stupid. They own both the Fox and WB
> affiliates in Hartford (WTIC along with WTXX). They may
> very well, if they were to program an LP targeted
> specifically for Springfield (like Meredith's current
> set-up), not just one that's a relay of the Hartford
> stations, make the Springfield station a primary Fox
> affiliate with a secondary affiliation with the WB, or they
> could just program a Fox affiliate with news or other local
> programming and keep their WB affiliate from Hartford on the
> Springfield cable line-up, depending on what the demand is.
>
> It would make the most sense to go the Fox route and keep on
> feeding Springfield viewers with WTXX anyway as WB stations
> typically don't have much local content. Tribune has been
> killing off the news departments on their WB outlets, so
> there wouldn't be much local-to-Hartford programming on 'TXX
> anyway that would alienate Springfield viewers.
>
> It will be interesting to see how things shape up.
>

Most cable systems in the Springfield Market (including Hampden, Hampshire, and Franklin Counties) only receive the WB cable feed branded as "Pioneer Valley's WB 16", a.k.a. "WBQT". Only a handful of cable systems, if any, carry WTXX anymore.

 

[JustinT]

> > If it's a FOX outlet run by either Hartford or Boston, it
> > would almost have to be run by Boston. WTIC-TV is owned by
>
> > Tribune; so wouldn't they want to put the seed of the
> parent
> > company (WB Network) on this hypothetical (at the moment)
> > LPTV?
>
> A couple of things:
>
> 1) Should the owner of Fox 25 -- FOX! -- decide to operate a
> low-powered in Springfield, it will most likely only be a
> tranlator or relay for what's on Fox 25. I doubt Fox would
> vest much interest in setting up a full-service station of
> any sort in Springfield.

Agreed. Heck, I don't know why CBS4 has set up a Worcester bureau, but there would be even less interest in Springfield news.

> 2) The WB is not Trib's "parent" company; in fact, it's
> quite the opposite. Tribune owns part of The WB, which is a
> main reason why they own the WB affiliate in every market
> they have a presence in (except one -- Grand Rapids, MI, I
> believe).

Sorry I didn't make that clear. I was referring the WB to be "the seed", not the parent comapny. Essentially, all Tribune-owned WB stations can be seen as O&Os.

> You do have a point though: why wouldn't Trib put WB
> programming on the LPTV? Well, simply, you're right, but
> they also aren't stupid. They own both the Fox and WB
> affiliates in Hartford (WTIC along with WTXX). They may
> very well, if they were to program an LP targeted
> specifically for Springfield (like Meredith's current
> set-up), not just one that's a relay of the Hartford
> stations, make the Springfield station a primary Fox
> affiliate with a secondary affiliation with the WB, or they
> could just program a Fox affiliate with news or other local
> programming and keep their WB affiliate from Hartford on the
> Springfield cable line-up, depending on what the demand is.

Any chance they would flip those? Seeing how Viacom's sole operation in Providence is WLWC (actually licensed to New Bedford, MA), they run the UPN lineup during primetime and run UPN after hours. So perhaps Tribune would run the WB in primetime and run FOX after hours. It depends on whether they would want to come out of the market saturating the target audience with company-provided programming and eliminating a competitor, or most likely making the most money for the parent company.

> It would make the most sense to go the Fox route and keep on
> feeding Springfield viewers with WTXX anyway as WB stations
> typically don't have much local content. Tribune has been
> killing off the news departments on their WB outlets, so
> there wouldn't be much local-to-Hartford programming on 'TXX
> anyway that would alienate Springfield viewers.

Viewers would get the most benefit out of Fox. I had read in one place that most of the divisions of a large company attempt to make the most money for the parent company rather than using wholly-owned divisions to their own advantage. So perhaps that will happen, as Tribune would easily make more money with a local FOX affiliate than with a WB affiliate.

> It will be interesting to see how things shape up.

Very true.