• 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

Sinclair to "My Network TV"

> Here`s the link to that story
http://www.broadc> astingcable.com/article/CA6312455.html?display=Breaking+News
> other markets included are Tampa, Buffalo, Vegas, Cincy,
> Mobile & Birningham, Ala. & about 10 others. I guess CW`s
> options have become limited in a few places because of this
> deal!

In Milwaukee, Las Vegas, and San Antonio, it looks like the only choices for The CW now may be low-powered (WMLW and KTUD for Milwaukee and Vegas, respectively) or, in the case of San Antonio, a rimshot station (KBEJ). Sinclair still has a chance to affiliate with The CW in Milwaukee, Vegas, and Birmingham, but in the case of Vegas, on the weaker of the two in the duopoly.

I feel this will be a losing proposition for everyone.
 
> In Milwaukee, Las Vegas, and San Antonio, it looks like the
> only choices for The CW now may be low-powered (WMLW and
> KTUD for Milwaukee and Vegas, respectively) or, in the case
> of San Antonio, a rimshot station (KBEJ). Sinclair still has
> a chance to affiliate with The CW in Milwaukee, Vegas, and
> Birmingham, but in the case of Vegas, on the weaker of the
> two in the duopoly.
> I feel this will be a losing proposition for everyone.

I think you may be right. In San Antonio, for example, KBEJ may have trouble taking CW because it's technically in both the Austin and San Antonio markets. That might stop a station like KNVA in Austin from taking CW. Of course, to keep things as they were may have been a losing proposition. As I've heard it, neither WB nor UPN made a dime.
 
Don't count CW out so quickly.
You are forgetting that the CW is made up of the most popular TV shows of Two different networks. If the ratings are good enough, affiliates will pay for it.
And I wouldn't be suprised if CBS/WB sweatens the deal for CW.

We'll have to wait this one out.
One thing is clear, the affiliate sign-up marathon has begun!

> > In Milwaukee, Las Vegas, and San Antonio, it looks like
> the
> > only choices for The CW now may be low-powered (WMLW and
> > KTUD for Milwaukee and Vegas, respectively) or, in the
> case
> > of San Antonio, a rimshot station (KBEJ). Sinclair still
> has
> > a chance to affiliate with The CW in Milwaukee, Vegas, and
>
> > Birmingham, but in the case of Vegas, on the weaker of the
>
> > two in the duopoly.
> > I feel this will be a losing proposition for everyone.
>
> I think you may be right. In San Antonio, for example, KBEJ
> may have trouble taking CW because it's technically in both
> the Austin and San Antonio markets. That might stop a
> station like KNVA in Austin from taking CW. Of course, to
> keep things as they were may have been a losing proposition.
> As I've heard it, neither WB nor UPN made a dime.
>
 
> Here`s the link to that story
http://www.broadc> astingcable.com/article/CA6312455.html?display=Breaking+News
> other markets included are Tampa, Buffalo, Vegas, Cincy,
> Mobile & Birningham, Ala. & about 10 others. I guess CW`s
> options have become limited in a few places because of this
> deal!
>

Also of note is that in every market where Sinclair operates a WB AND UPN affiliate, the UPN station is taking the My Network programming.

This leaves many markets where Sinclair can still affiliate with CW.

23 WMWB Minneapolis WB
54 WNUV Baltimore WB
22 WLFL Raleigh WB
58 WNAB Nashville WB
18 WVTV Milwaukee WB
21 WTTO Birmingham WB
34 KOCB Oklahoma City WB
33 KFBT Las Vegas IND<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> Don't count CW out so quickly.
> You are forgetting that the CW is made up of the most
> popular TV shows of Two different networks. If the ratings
> are good enough, affiliates will pay for it.
> And I wouldn't be suprised if CBS/WB sweatens the deal for
> CW.
>
> We'll have to wait this one out.
> One thing is clear, the affiliate sign-up marathon has
> begun!
>

I agree..the CW should have no problem getting an affiliate in all of these areas except maybe two. Paducah & Syracuse. In Syracuse it all depends on what Raycom will or will not do. I'm not sure if there are any other outlets in paducah to go with. That could be one of the 1st to go with CWcable.....
 
> Don't count CW out so quickly.
> You are forgetting that the CW is made up of the most
> popular TV shows of Two different networks. If the ratings
> are good enough, affiliates will pay for it.
> And I wouldn't be suprised if CBS/WB sweatens the deal for
> CW.
>
> We'll have to wait this one out.
> One thing is clear, the affiliate sign-up marathon has
> begun!
>

In some of these markets, they may need to rethink reverse compensation or the amount of money they are asking in order to carry The CW. That may prevent some owners from even signing up.

Who is to say that Sinclair will even affiliate with CW in Milwaukee, Vegas, the Twin Cities, Nashville etc. Especially with their frugal reputation. One would think that they would would out a deal in those markets, but conventional wisdom also says that WSTR would go with the CW. At least it is good news for the low powered station that is Cincinnati's UPN affiliate as they have fought with Time-Warner for many years over carriage in that city. <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by The_Outsider on 03/02/06 11:49 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Makes Sense to Me (Also: Mobile)

> Here`s the link to that story
http://www.broadc> astingcable.com/article/CA6312455.html?display=Breaking+News
> other markets included are Tampa, Buffalo, Vegas, Cincy,
> Mobile & Birningham, Ala. & about 10 others. I guess CW`s
> options have become limited in a few places because of this
> deal!

This makes a lot of sense to me really, and here's why.

Sinclair has shown, repeatedly, that it is all about the bottom line. The CW is simply too expensive for Sinclair, while MyNet is, if I understand correctly, more profitable for them than WB and UPN were. When you think about Sinclair like that, it makes sense why they did it.

Plus, many of these stations are UPN stations--the ones that hadn't gotten HDTV upgrades from Sinclair. And since MyNet will not do HD (IIRC), more savings right there.

One thing is clear though, and that's that the CW is in trouble in regards to affiliates in some areas. They're really going to have to deal in markets where MyNet has yet to land if they want the ideal stations. As it is...

1- The only option in Cincinnati is the LPTV that is currently home to UPN.
2- San Antonio is completely up in the air, since KBEJ is in Austin as well (though if KNVA goes with MyNet, then CW could go here) and that's it for full-service stations
3- Las Vegas is up in the air too, since Sinclair chose Independent over UPN for KFBT and UPN was on KTUD-CA, a low-powered station.
4- Mobile. I'll go into detail at the bottom of this.
5- CW will likely wind up on 100+ in Charleston SC.
6- UPN in Paducah is on WQTV-LP and WQWQ-LP, owned by Raycom, who just said no to CW in Cleveland.
7- UPN in Syracuse is on WSTQ-LP, owned by Raycom. See 6.

MOBILE; At least one station in Mobile will walk away without an affiliation, as WFGX was Independent and will be picking up MyNet. Clear Channel owns UPN WJTC-44, and Emmis owns WB WBPG-55 (the latter has no digital assignment). Also note that despite WFGX's poor coverage now, their digital will have much greater coverage from a tower near Pensacola (or, if approved, the WEAR-DT tower between Pensacola and Mobile).

And I imagine in many small markets, the battle will be over MyNet, not CW.

- Trip<P ID="signature">______________
Visit my website, www.rabbitears.info! It's eventually going to be your one resource for television info! Digital television, histories, and technical information for the entire USA from one source!</P>
 
Dual Affilation?

No one has brought up the possibility that some stations may choose a dual affiliation with Fox's My Network and CW. Is it likely to happen anywhere?
 
Re: Makes Sense to Me (Also: Mobile)

> > Here`s the link to that story
> http://www.broadc>
> astingcable.com/article/CA6312455.html?display=Breaking+News
>
> > other markets included are Tampa, Buffalo, Vegas, Cincy,
> > Mobile & Birningham, Ala. & about 10 others. I guess CW`s
> > options have become limited in a few places because of
> this
> > deal!
>
> This makes a lot of sense to me really, and here's why.
>
> Sinclair has shown, repeatedly, that it is all about the
> bottom line. The CW is simply too expensive for Sinclair,
> while MyNet is, if I understand correctly, more profitable
> for them than WB and UPN were. When you think about
> Sinclair like that, it makes sense why they did it.
>
> Plus, many of these stations are UPN stations--the ones that
> hadn't gotten HDTV upgrades from Sinclair. And since MyNet
> will not do HD (IIRC), more savings right there.
>
> One thing is clear though, and that's that the CW is in
> trouble in regards to affiliates in some areas. They're
> really going to have to deal in markets where MyNet has yet
> to land if they want the ideal stations. As it is...
>
> 1- The only option in Cincinnati is the LPTV that is
> currently home to UPN.
> 2- San Antonio is completely up in the air, since KBEJ is in
> Austin as well (though if KNVA goes with MyNet, then CW
> could go here) and that's it for full-service stations
> 3- Las Vegas is up in the air too, since Sinclair chose
> Independent over UPN for KFBT and UPN was on KTUD-CA, a
> low-powered station.
> 4- Mobile. I'll go into detail at the bottom of this.
> 5- CW will likely wind up on 100+ in Charleston SC.
> 6- UPN in Paducah is on WQTV-LP and WQWQ-LP, owned by
> Raycom, who just said no to CW in Cleveland.
> 7- UPN in Syracuse is on WSTQ-LP, owned by Raycom. See 6.
>
> MOBILE; At least one station in Mobile will walk away
> without an affiliation, as WFGX was Independent and will be
> picking up MyNet. Clear Channel owns UPN WJTC-44, and Emmis
> owns WB WBPG-55 (the latter has no digital assignment).
> Also note that despite WFGX's poor coverage now, their
> digital will have much greater coverage from a tower near
> Pensacola (or, if approved, the WEAR-DT tower between
> Pensacola and Mobile).
>
> And I imagine in many small markets, the battle will be over
> MyNet, not CW.
>
> - Trip
> My Network (it`s really Rupert Murdoch`s, not ours, let`s be real!) is being offered on a 9-5 split (9 minutes per hour for the station, 5 for the net) 7-7 for the Saturday telenovela recaps in addition to no reverse comp, plus no other schedule requirements besides primetime (for now), so yes, I can`t really blame the Smiths for taking that bargain. However, what if, Sinclair decides not to pick up CW in markets where they can & otherwise CW (with a stronger slate from the former UPN/WB) won`t be carried. I guess they`ll be hearing it from P-Oed fans of "Smallville", "Top Model" & "Gilmore Girls" who`d miss those shows, among others! Another risk Sinclair`s likely taking is falling behind CW`s more "mature" schedule, especially if My`s telenovela strategy falters. On the other hand for CW, they may (as explained by others) have no choice but to turn down the volume in regards to reverse comp if they want to gain coverage in Sinclair markets, I assume/hope cooler heads`ll prevail & things come together, otherwise, it may really be bad! Enjoying the TV/radio chatter here & just joined you posters today, take care! :)
 
Re: Dual Affilation?

> No one has brought up the possibility that some stations may
> choose a dual affiliation with Fox's My Network and CW. Is
> it likely to happen anywhere?

Good question.

Without WSTR/64 in Cincinnati, CW's left with UPN LPTVer WBQC/38. It's a pretty decent little station as LPTVers go, but it doesn't do HD.

I'm assuming Sinclair's deal with My/FOX is driven by economics, and that it is NOT in addition to a future CW deal. I'm guessing My/FOX isn't signing up secondary affiliates at this stage in the game.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>
 
> Don't count CW out so quickly.

I don't think any of us are counting CW out. After all, I pointed out that both UPN and the WB were big money losers, and they've been around for 10 years. I don't think CW could do much worse than that. The way I read Eric's statement and meant mine is that what they are requesting is putting them behind in the affiliation race with My Network TV, which means weaker affiliates, while I don't see anyone jumping at the opportunity to watch English-language telenovelas. That doesn't look like a winning situation for either party, especially when you consider CW would have had two stations fighting over it in most markets if it played its cards better.

> You are forgetting that the CW is made up of the most
> popular TV shows of Two different networks.

I don't think any of us are forgetting that. Neither of the networks are running very many programs that are even remotely competitive.

> If the ratings
> are good enough, affiliates will pay for it.

I do agree with this. Hopefully, they can find a way to put better and more competitive programming on-the-air. They have some decent resources if they can find a way to take advantage of them.

> And I wouldn't be suprised if CBS/WB sweatens the deal for
> CW.

They don't appear to have much choice.
 
At least it is good news for the low powered station
> that is Cincinnati's UPN affiliate as they have fought with
> Time-Warner for many years over carriage in that city.
>

But suppose Time Warner decides to run a cable only CW, with CW in HD for digital subs, in that market, leaving WBQC no affiliation.
 
TWC To Shut Out WBQC in Cincy?

> But suppose Time Warner decides to run a cable only CW, with
> CW in HD for digital subs, in that market, leaving WBQC no
> affiliation.

Interesting thought.

Probably isn't happening, for two reasons:

1) The CW version of the "WB-100 plus" group is still presumably aimed at markets much smaller than Cincinnati.

2) CW is asking for reverse compensation ($$$), which it would basically lose if Time Warner preempted WBQC from anteing up for the network. Assuming Mr. Block's willing (and able) to play, they'd be pushing aside money.

I know the CW folks do want an HD feed, and perhaps TWC would even work with WBQC to this end...at least bringing in a HD feed of CW's prime-time lineup along with WBQC's analog carriage.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>
 
> > Don't count CW out so quickly.
>
> I don't think any of us are counting CW out. After all, I
> pointed out that both UPN and the WB were big money losers,
> and they've been around for 10 years. I don't think CW
> could do much worse than that. The way I read Eric's
> statement and meant mine is that what they are requesting is
> putting them behind in the affiliation race with My Network
> TV, which means weaker affiliates, while I don't see anyone
> jumping at the opportunity to watch English-language
> telenovelas. That doesn't look like a winning situation for
> either party, especially when you consider CW would have had
> two stations fighting over it in most markets if it played
> its cards better.

CW dropped the ball by asking too much from potential affiliates before proving themselves. I've mentioned before that I think My Network TV is a glorified syndication service pretending to be a network. You can't just strip English-language telenovelas and call yourself a "network." If a once highly-profitable CBS affiliate in Jacksonville didn't want to pay for their network and went independent in protest, why didn't CW learn from that lesson (they're co-owned by CBS)? Now they're asking smaller stations with less resources and revenue to pay for their product.


> > And I wouldn't be suprised if CBS/WB sweatens the deal for
>
> > CW.
>
> They don't appear to have much choice.

If not, they'll be left out in the cold by even more station groups.
 
Re: Dual Affilation?

> > No one has brought up the possibility that some stations
> may
> > choose a dual affiliation with Fox's My Network and CW.
> Is
> > it likely to happen anywhere?
>
> Good question.
>
> Without WSTR/64 in Cincinnati, CW's left with UPN LPTVer
> WBQC/38. It's a pretty decent little station as LPTVers go,
> but it doesn't do HD.
>
> I'm assuming Sinclair's deal with My/FOX is driven by
> economics, and that it is NOT in addition to a future CW
> deal. I'm guessing My/FOX isn't signing up secondary
> affiliates at this stage in the game.
>
> -OA
>

I'm wondering if that could happen in Memphis with WLMT 30. They already have a dual afiliation with UPN and WB.
 
Speaking of My Network TV

Will the Montgomery Alabama area, get this new network?

If not, I know of a perfect candidate for it.

WBIH Channel 29 would be the best choice, since the other major networks already have a spot on the TV dial in Montgomery.

For years, this TV station has been trying to find their way. If they were to sign up with this network and get some real direction, they would experience success beyond measure. Although my idea may sound crazy, it wouldn't hurt to try something different Dr. Flinn and company and see if would help WBIH in the long run.

RDP <><
 
Re: Speaking of My Network TV

> Will the Montgomery Alabama area, get this new network?
>
> If not, I know of a perfect candidate for it.
>
> WBIH Channel 29 would be the best choice, since the other
> major networks already have a spot on the TV dial in
> Montgomery.
>
> For years, this TV station has been trying to find their
> way. If they were to sign up with this network and get some
> real direction, they would experience success beyond
> measure. Although my idea may sound crazy, it wouldn't hurt
> to try something different Dr. Flinn and company and see if
> would help WBIH in the long run.
>
> RDP <
>
Unless it's the current UPN affiliate WRJM-67 (licensed to Troy), I'm not sure any station in the area is going to rush to pay reverse compensation, RDP. "WBMY" is one of the cable-only stations (NBC affiliate WSFA 12 runs it, IIRC). <P ID="signature">______________
Let us live so that 100 years from now, someone may be proud of us.</P>
 
Re: Dual Affilation?

> Good question.
>
> Without WSTR/64 in Cincinnati, CW's left with UPN LPTVer
> WBQC/38. It's a pretty decent little station as LPTVers go,
> but it doesn't do HD.
>
> I'm assuming Sinclair's deal with My/FOX is driven by
> economics, and that it is NOT in addition to a future CW
> deal. I'm guessing My/FOX isn't signing up secondary
> affiliates at this stage in the game.

...so Sinclair comes to the negotiating table and says "sorry, we're already affiliated with Fox's new My Network" then CW offers them a sweet deal to get their shows on... Maybe CW is even forced to pay Sinclair for airtime in certain markets. Sinclair owns an awful lot of stations that CW appears to NEED and they've already made other commitments? That seems awful strange.
 
> Also of note is that in every market where Sinclair operates a WB AND UPN
> affiliate, the UPN station is taking the My Network programming.
>
> This leaves many markets where Sinclair can still affiliate with CW.
>
> 23 WMWB Minneapolis WB
> 54 WNUV Baltimore WB
> 22 WLFL Raleigh WB
> 58 WNAB Nashville WB
> 18 WVTV Milwaukee WB
> 21 WTTO Birmingham WB
> 34 KOCB Oklahoma City WB
> 33 KFBT Las Vegas IND

Your above highlight got me to thinking overnight that, perhaps, Sinclair does indeed want to sign up with CW. However, the fact that Sinclair signed up with MY TV first may have been a message to CW that it would behoove CW to bring their demands down a bit. I'm sure a lot of other ownership groups (from Raycom to LIN to maybe even ACME) believe the same thing. But while those groups are still pondering what to do, Sinclair felt open enough--and tough enough--to turn their reverse comp concerns into action. When all is said and done, this may very well be the biggest splash in the "CW vs. MY" affiliate derby; it definitely owns that title so far.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom