The CW Affiliate Apocalypse of 2016

[arnoldevns]

Keep a couple of things in mind when discussing whether myNetwork TV affiliates would go to cw...
1. CW has a high network compensation demand of affiliates and low local inventory. It makes affiliating with them an expensive proposition. MyNetworkTV has no compensation and a 50/50 ad split. Simply put, stations can make more money with lower ratings on MyNetworkTv than higher ratings on CW.
2. The CW has lower ratings than MyNetworkTv. The latest report I could find was a few months ago, but MyNetworkTv has around 2 million viewers each night. CW has an average of around 1.5 million. The CW is not making a profit with those numbers. CBS only makes up for that with affiliate compensation. It is not a good long-term business plan. MyNetworkTv has a much better plan and a much brighter future with reruns.

 

[crackedscreen]

Keep a couple of things in mind when discussing whether myNetwork TV affiliates would go to cw...
1. CW has a high network compensation demand of affiliates and low local inventory. It makes affiliating with them an expensive proposition. MyNetworkTV has no compensation and a 50/50 ad split. Simply put, stations can make more money with lower ratings on MyNetworkTv than higher ratings on CW.
2. The CW has lower ratings than MyNetworkTv. The latest report I could find was a few months ago, but MyNetworkTv has around 2 million viewers each night. CW has an average of around 1.5 million. The CW is not making a profit with those numbers. CBS only makes up for that with affiliate compensation. It is not a good long-term business plan. MyNetworkTv has a much better plan and a much brighter future with reruns.

Still, I think a station would rather align itself with CW rather than MyNet. (CW does make a considerable amount of profit for CBS and Warner, just not in the broadcast arena.)

 

[Morgan Wick]

Keep a couple of things in mind when discussing whether myNetwork TV affiliates would go to cw...
1. CW has a high network compensation demand of affiliates and low local inventory. It makes affiliating with them an expensive proposition. MyNetworkTV has no compensation and a 50/50 ad split. Simply put, stations can make more money with lower ratings on MyNetworkTv than higher ratings on CW.
2. The CW has lower ratings than MyNetworkTv. The latest report I could find was a few months ago, but MyNetworkTv has around 2 million viewers each night. CW has an average of around 1.5 million. The CW is not making a profit with those numbers. CBS only makes up for that with affiliate compensation. It is not a good long-term business plan. MyNetworkTv has a much better plan and a much brighter future with reruns.

Still, I think a station would rather align itself with CW rather than MyNet. (CW does make a considerable amount of profit for CBS and Warner, just not in the broadcast arena.)

Which again, does jack all for the stations. If I'm a CW station owner who's paying them for the "privilege" of airing their network, I'm enraged every time I see CBS and Warners talk about how much money their network is making outside of broadcast, and I let them know about it. A full-scale affiliate revolt isn't out of the question as 2016 approaches.

 

[Casey]

I have not heard of many tv affiliates who are unhappy with the revenue they are getting. Shows like the Vampire Diaries target a pretty specific audience and a decent sized one. The advertising revenue might not be that great, but the retransmission fees are not bad. Especially if you sell retransmission as part of a cluster of stations. You can get quite a bit more money out of cable companies if you have a CW affiliation than a MyNet affiliation.

My CW station in my area used to offer offer both the CW and MyNet on the same channel. CW content was primary over the MyNet content. They recently dropped MyNet because the network was pretty much useless and it was picked up on a digital subchannel of the local ABC affiliate. Last I heard it had to be bundled with the ABC channel for free to even get cable/satellite companies because they refused to pay for it.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

If they don't renew their agreements or CW shuts down, what will they fill primetime with?

 

[dave73]

If they don't renew their agreements or CW shuts down, what will they fill primetime with?

In Chicago, WGN-TV would simply place some off-network syndicated programming, or movies in primetime. They still have the rights to a number of sportscasts for the Chicago Cub & White Sox during the summer, The Chicago Bulls for fall, winter, & spring, & the Blackhawks during the winter. For WGN-TV, the Cubs broadcast deal is up in 2014, & the Ricketts family is talking about moving the broadcasts to cable exclusively.

As for who might take the CW affiliation, should it remain around in 2016, I doubt Weigel Broadcasting will take the affiliation, as I believe they're happy with WCIU 26.1 & 26.2 being an independent. If they did agree to pick up the affiliation, it would likely end up as a subchannel to either WWME-LD or WMEU-CD, rather than WCIU (they simulcast MeTV & MeToo (Chicago's MeTV) on WCIU 26.3 & 26.4 to reach the entire market & This TV on 26.5 for now, plus the U Too on 26.2). CW would have to pay WJYS to carry the CW primetime lineup, since they broker out their timeslots, & I don't see CW doing that. I believe CBS O&O WBBM would be forced to carry it as a subchannel if everyone else took a pass. I definitely don't see Fox picking up the network, as they normally don't do subchannels, & they already have My Network TV on sister station, WPWR-TV, & adding Movies on 50.2 by the end of this month.

 

[crackedscreen]

CW certainly won't be happy about being regulated to a sub-channel or low power in the #3 market. I think they'd fight tooth and nail with Weigel to get the .1 slot on WCIU.

 

[mavtv]

If they don't renew their agreements or CW shuts down, what will they fill primetime with?

In Chicago, WGN-TV would simply place some off-network syndicated programming, or movies in primetime. They still have the rights to a number of sportscasts for the Chicago Cub & White Sox during the summer, The Chicago Bulls for fall, winter, & spring, & the Blackhawks during the winter. For WGN-TV, the Cubs broadcast deal is up in 2014, & the Ricketts family is talking about moving the broadcasts to cable exclusively.

As for who might take the CW affiliation, should it remain around in 2016, I doubt Weigel Broadcasting will take the affiliation, as I believe they're happy with WCIU 26.1 & 26.2 being an independent. If they did agree to pick up the affiliation, it would likely end up as a subchannel to either WWME-LD or WMEU-CD, rather than WCIU (they simulcast MeTV & MeToo (Chicago's MeTV) on WCIU 26.3 & 26.4 to reach the entire market & This TV on 26.5 for now, plus the U Too on 26.2). CW would have to pay WJYS to carry the CW primetime lineup, since they broker out their timeslots, & I don't see CW doing that. I believe CBS O&O WBBM would be forced to carry it as a subchannel if everyone else took a pass. I definitely don't see Fox picking up the network, as they normally don't do subchannels, & they already have My Network TV on sister station, WPWR-TV, & adding Movies on 50.2 by the end of this month.

If the Cw became available, I could see Weigel picking it up as 26.1 and 26.2 could be combined and I think they would be happier if they had a network as other than one station they have all network affiliates.

Also back in the day wasn't WCIU Chicago's home for kids WB as I recall WGN did not want to air the block?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCIU-TV#1994.E2.80.932004

 

[newsmark]

I have not heard of many tv affiliates who are unhappy with the revenue they are getting. Shows like the Vampire Diaries target a pretty specific audience and a decent sized one. The advertising revenue might not be that great, but the retransmission fees are not bad. Especially if you sell retransmission as part of a cluster of stations. You can get quite a bit more money out of cable companies if you have a CW affiliation than a MyNet affiliation.

I doubt any station gets much more in retransmission fees by being a CW affiliate than they would being independent. And they have to pay the network most of those fees in reverse comp, anyway. Bottom line: if The CW can't deliver a big enough audience to make the few local spots lucrative, then it's not helping the bottom line. It's not like The CW even helps the station's image much.

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

WGN (Was: Re: The CW Affiliate Apocalypse of 2016)

(WGN-9) still (has) the rights to a number of sportscasts for the Chicago Cub & White Sox during the summer..............For WGN-TV, the Cubs broadcast deal is up in 2014, & the Ricketts family is talking about moving the broadcasts to cable exclusively.

WGN is a superstation available on many cable systems across the country (under the brand name "WGN America"), although the CW programs and many of the syndicated shows they run locally in Chicago can't appear nationally (and neither can the Blackhawks under the NHL's current national TV deals).

If WGN loses the Cubs, or if a future MLB national TV deal prevents WGN from putting Cubs and White Sox games on the WGN America service, then the future of WGN America might be iffy. The reason it's even a superstation at all is the Cubs.

 

[vchimpanzee]

If they don't renew their agreements or CW shuts down, what will they fill primetime with?

In Chicago, WGN-TV would simply place some off-network syndicated programming, or movies in primetime. They still have the rights to a number of sportscasts for the Chicago Cub & White Sox during the summer, The Chicago Bulls for fall, winter, & spring, & the Blackhawks during the winter. For WGN-TV, the Cubs broadcast deal is up in 2014, & the Ricketts family is talking about moving the broadcasts to cable exclusively.

Why not just have the same programming as WGN America?

 

[Morgan Wick]

If they don't renew their agreements or CW shuts down, what will they fill primetime with?

In Chicago, WGN-TV would simply place some off-network syndicated programming, or movies in primetime. They still have the rights to a number of sportscasts for the Chicago Cub & White Sox during the summer, The Chicago Bulls for fall, winter, & spring, & the Blackhawks during the winter. For WGN-TV, the Cubs broadcast deal is up in 2014, & the Ricketts family is talking about moving the broadcasts to cable exclusively.

Why not just have the same programming as WGN America?

If the Cubs move exclusively to CSN, WGN America won't have much reason to exist much longer.

 

[Markxxx]

Well let me turn this question around a bit.

In what markets, which Tribune owns a station, would the Tribune be able to get a better deal elsewhere than the CW?

For example I know ABC is weak in St Louis, while the CW is on the Tribunes KPLR, which was a powerhouse independent in its day. Could the Tribune seek out ABC in that case? Now I don't know if they would, I was using that as an example of my question.

 

[nathannah]

Well let me turn this question around a bit.

In what markets, which Tribune owns a station, would the Tribune be able to get a better deal elsewhere than the CW?

For example I know ABC is weak in St Louis, while the CW is on the Tribunes KPLR, which was a powerhouse independent in its day. Could the Tribune seek out ABC in that case? Now I don't know if they would, I was using that as an example of my question.

Even under Koplar ownership until Tribune bought them in 2001, ABC has pretty much been do anything to get on KPLR, to deaf ears, and is stuck on KDNL surrounded with syndicated product more appropriate for a CW affiliate. I suspect because the latest KDNL deal expires in August 2015, whoever gets the Tribune stations will finally make an attempt to get ABC on KPLR; St. Louis is one of the few markets where the CW can easily beat ABC in a few time periods.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Well let me turn this question around a bit.

In what markets, which Tribune owns a station, would the Tribune be able to get a better deal elsewhere than the CW?

For example I know ABC is weak in St Louis, while the CW is on the Tribunes KPLR, which was a powerhouse independent in its day. Could the Tribune seek out ABC in that case? Now I don't know if they would, I was using that as an example of my question.

Even under Koplar ownership until Tribune bought them in 2001, ABC has pretty much been do anything to get on KPLR, to deaf ears, and is stuck on KDNL surrounded with syndicated product more appropriate for a CW affiliate. I suspect because the latest KDNL deal expires in August 2015, whoever gets the Tribune stations will finally make an attempt to get ABC on KPLR; St. Louis is one of the few markets where the CW can easily beat ABC in a few time periods.

Unless said new owner is actually interested in a fifth network and values having a situation analogous to Fox in many of the post-New World markets.

 

[Markxxx]

Right now the owners of the Tribune are the creditors.

JPMorgan Chase

Oaktree Capital Management

Angelo, Gordon & Co

...are the Senior partners and Oaktree is the one with any broadcast TV experience. I don't know if I see them trying to manage Tribune or just bleeding the company or selling it off or both. The companies have a good reputation (if you're an owner) of making money, but not so good if you're an employee or client of the company.

 

[ding12]

In Chicago, Weigel's WCIU is an option if they're willing to affiliate with a network. If not, they can go with .2 on CBS O&O WBBM.

CBS has been testing local news channels on its .2 subs in New York and Philadelphia at least, and is looking to do the same for all its CBS O&Os. The only markets where CBS has only an O&O and Tribune has a CW affiliate are Chicago and Denver. Respectively, WBBM-TV and KCNC-TV could add CW on .3 if Tribune (WGN-TV and KWGN-TV) bails on the network.

There's no other option in Washington but .2 on WUSA, if they relocate Bounce TV to .3.

Washington could be interesting because WJLA-TV is on the block and word on the street has CBS as an interested party, though my understanding is that Allbritton wants to sell its stations as a group. Just wanted that nugget put out there.

Another option would be if Disney bought out Tribune's stations, while CBS bought out Allbritton. Rather than starting up news on WDCW, Disney would sell off WDCW to Gannett while WUSA became an ABC affiliate, and WDCW remained CW.

DC aside, some Disney duopolies would be nice: WABC/WPIX, WLS/WGN, KABC/KTLA, WPVI/WPHL. In Philly, WPHL already airs Action News. In Chicago, WGN airs some syndicated shows (Live with Kelly and Rachael?) that are typically on the ABC O&Os. In the NY market, newspapers might show the Mickey mouse logo with one ear showing the WABC 7 logo, and the other ear showing the WPIX logo on the news of Disney duopolies.

WGN America would also be a cable network under the Disney division, and likely getting a needed boost with the new owner, that is Disney.

 

[mavtv]

Well let me turn this question around a bit.

In what markets, which Tribune owns a station, would the Tribune be able to get a better deal elsewhere than the CW?

For example I know ABC is weak in St Louis, while the CW is on the Tribunes KPLR, which was a powerhouse independent in its day. Could the Tribune seek out ABC in that case? Now I don't know if they would, I was using that as an example of my question.

Even under Koplar ownership until Tribune bought them in 2001, ABC has pretty much been do anything to get on KPLR, to deaf ears, and is stuck on KDNL surrounded with syndicated product more appropriate for a CW affiliate. I suspect because the latest KDNL deal expires in August 2015, whoever gets the Tribune stations will finally make an attempt to get ABC on KPLR; St. Louis is one of the few markets where the CW can easily beat ABC in a few time periods.

In many way's sinclair is becoming very Powerful as they at least in the eyes of TVNewsCheck/BIA Kelsey's annual Top 30 ranking of TV station groups the 3rd LARGEST group and I have a feeling slinclair has more power than tribune.

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/67641/sinclair-hops-from-sixth-to-third-in-top-30

 

[Mediafrog+]

DC aside, some Disney duopolies would be nice: WABC/WPIX, WLS/WGN, KABC/KTLA, WPVI/WPHL.

Disney and Tribune are also in Houston, which would be a KTRK/KIAH duopoly.

Tribune has KDAF in DFW, and Disney would probably love to get its paws on Belo's WFAA.

 

[Rollo-Smokes]

In Chicago, Weigel's WCIU is an option if they're willing to affiliate with a network. If not, they can go with .2 on CBS O&O WBBM.

CBS has been testing local news channels on its .2 subs in New York and Philadelphia at least, and is looking to do the same for all its CBS O&Os. The only markets where CBS has only an O&O and Tribune has a CW affiliate are Chicago and Denver. Respectively, WBBM-TV and KCNC-TV could add CW on .3 if Tribune (WGN-TV and KWGN-TV) bails on the network.

There's no other option in Washington but .2 on WUSA, if they relocate Bounce TV to .3.

Washington could be interesting because WJLA-TV is on the block and word on the street has CBS as an interested party, though my understanding is that Allbritton wants to sell its stations as a group. Just wanted that nugget put out there.

Another option would be if Disney bought out Tribune's stations, while CBS bought out Allbritton. Rather than starting up news on WDCW, Disney would sell off WDCW to Gannett while WUSA became an ABC affiliate, and WDCW remained CW.

DC aside, some Disney duopolies would be nice: WABC/WPIX, WLS/WGN, KABC/KTLA, WPVI/WPHL...WGN America would also be a cable network under the Disney division, and likely getting a needed boost with the new owner, that is Disney.

From my original post, one thing I failed to mention is: if CBS were interested in WJLA only or all of Allbritton, they'd have to handle the WJZ-TV situation up in Baltimore. I don't think the Commission will allow them to keep both stations, so conventional wisdom says they'll stay in the larger D.C. market and sell off Baltimore.

As far as a speculative Disney purchase of Tribune's TVs...the eight-station ABC O&O group has been the same since the Capital Cities-ABC merger 27 years ago (yes, Flint and Toledo came and went during that time). CapCities was frugal, and Disney even more so, so I wouldn't hold my breath on Disney buying a TV station in the name of ABC or to create duopolies.