• 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

So, AZTV, where's RTN on 7.2?

Ultimajock

Ultimajock

...it's March already and there ain't nothing there that I don't see on 7.1 ;-) ...


SELF EDIT: Never mind, Michael. I didn't read your post about the September 1st target date until after I posted this. But why so late? Syndication issues?...
 
King Daevid:
Actually, we're trying to get the timetable for cable carriage of 7.2 moved up. September 1 is the outside. We'd like to have RTN on sooner. More as we know it.

---Michael
 
So, here it is, September 9th, and still no RTN.

I always said I'd criticize AZTV if they deserved it, and right now, they deserve it. Horrible job of managing expectations. I understand that they were waiting on cable coverage, which to me means being held hostage by Cox, but there was no way they could have put RTN on 7.2 OTA-only? If for no other reason, than to give cable subscribers a reason to bang on their carriers demanding that they carry 7.2 somewhere?

AZTV has really dropped the ball on this one.
 
So what's to stop AZTV from putting RTN OTA ASAP? Seems like that would be a win-win for them no matter whether cable carry ever happens.
 
landtuna said:
So what's to stop AZTV from putting RTN OTA ASAP? Seems like that would be a win-win for them no matter whether cable carry ever happens.
Click to expand...

Well, that price differential mentioned by "dhett" sounds like a pretty compelling reason for AZTV to hold off until they can get cable carriage for 7.2. "An extra 5 figures per month" implies that AZTV will pay at least $10,000/month more for RTN if it is OTA-only versus if it is also available on cable. I'd wait too.
 
Hmmmmm.....I had understood his post to mean that the cost would be lower for OTA-only. It doesn't make sense to me they would be charged more for fewer viewers.
 
TexasTom said:
landtuna said:
So what's to stop AZTV from putting RTN OTA ASAP? Seems like that would be a win-win for them no matter whether cable carry ever happens.
Click to expand...

Well, that price differential mentioned by "dhett" sounds like a pretty compelling reason for AZTV to hold off until they can get cable carriage for 7.2. "An extra 5 figures per month" implies that AZTV will pay at least $10,000/month more for RTN if it is OTA-only versus if it is also available on cable. I'd wait too.
Click to expand...

Credit where credit is due - stationi mentioned the price differential.

I had assumed it would be flat-rate pricing based on market, whether one had cable coverage or not, and it would be advertiser revenue that would determine the channel's profitability. If I can promise 1.5 million households through OTA and cable coverage to a potential advertiser, I can charge more than if I could only promise 15-20% of that with OTA-only, or 225-300K households. I get that.

Still, not every cabled household has every TV hooked to cable, meaning the percentage of households readily capable of receiving OTA broadcasts without fiddling with the TV set is actually higher. Moreover, proper advertising of the station should drive some demand, especially since RTN seems to be so popular. Other stations add channels without cable, then advertise the heck out of them, and soon, cable adds the subchannels. Granted, there's a risk of running a temporary loss there, and even though AZTV has been a successful LPTV station in Phoenix, it's still an LPTV station, and "success" has really been defined as "not in last place", and "having one or two shows at the top of the ratings heap", which is great for an independent LPTV station competing among the full-powers. But cable doesn't have RTN, and reading discussions of what TV Land no longer is, I think there could have been a possibility. Would it have been worth taking the chance on? We'll never know.

Being forced to wait for cable to grant coverage before adding a subchannel is what I consider "being held hostage". AZTV no longer controls the business decision, and that's unfortunate. Equally unfortunate was the fanfare at the signing of the agreement with RTN, and the promises of Feb. 1st, then Mar. 1st, promises unrealized. Had they said Sept. from the outset, and not just Sept. 1 at the outside, it wouldn't have been so bad.

This wasn't meant to be a criticism of Michael Hagerty in particular, although Michael, I did appreciate your reply, but rather of the station in general.

I could just extend this into a rant against cable TV, but that is another thread altogether, and probably better suited for the National TV Board.
 
desertskies said:
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is RTN?

I thank you in advance.
Click to expand...

Sorry, RTN is Retro Television Network. AZTV had announced that they'd be adding the channel on 7.2 on Feb. 1st, then March 1st. We still don't have it.
 
RTN is kind of like what TVLand was originally. Old 'classic' TV shows.

Google RTN and you'll see where they currently have affiliates and also their programming.
 
With egg on my face and crow in my mouth...

I received a question about the February 1st and March 1st dates on which I'd claimed RTN was promised, so I did some research, and was embarrassed to find that nowhere did either AZTV or Michael Hagerty promise either date. Every news release from AZTV said that they would add RTN in 2008. Michael did say September 1st at the outside, but there's a huge difference between once mentioning a goal that may or may not be met, and mismanagement of expectations, of which I accused AZTV.

The information I'd referenced came from another source, completely unreliable, and involved other programming rumored to be added to AZTV on those dates.

Accordingly, I retract my accusation and apologize for not checking facts before spouting off. As they say in the newspapers, I regret my error.

You'd think I would have learned by now...sheesh!!
 
landtuna said:
Hmmmmm.....I had understood his post to mean that the cost would be lower for OTA-only. It doesn't make sense to me they would be charged more for fewer viewers.
Click to expand...

RTN is apparently offered to stations on a cash plus barter basis -- which means that RTN affiliates (including AZTV, whenever they eventually sign it on) pay some cash and give up six minutes/hour of advertising time during RTN programming. Cable carriage means more viewers, which makes that six minutes of bartered ad time more valuable to RTN. Presumably, the higher cash payment for stations lacking cable carriage is intended to compensate for the reduced value of the bartered advertising time.
 
RTN does charge more for over-the-air only stations than for stations on cable. Like a few others have mentioned, RTN would make more money by being on cable than strictly over-the-air.

My sources for the information is two tv station owners, both who were looking into RTN and one that actually did sign up. The numbers they gave me were: RTN Over-the-air only is $14,000/month and RTN on cable is $1,000/month. These were 100+ markets.
 
KEWL!!!! Just in time to take the pressure off the new network disappointments.

Guess I'll have to put AZTV back on my menu. :)
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom