• 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

The reason why Dr Phil is NOT shown in Houston.

T

TroyG

This explains everything, according to Wikipedia;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPRC-TV#End_of_Dr._Phil_in_Houston

KPRC still holds the rights to Dr. Phil from CBS Television Distribution until September 2011. Therefore, other stations in Houston won't pick up Dr. Phil from KPRC after the clause expires until then.

Viewers who still want that Dr. Phil fill might head on up over to Beaumont to watch him on KFDM-a CBS-TV station that serves the Golden Triangle Area, K-SAT, an ABC San Antonio station, or K-EYE-TV in Austin , which is also a CBS station.
 
Since KPRC still has the rights for the show, they should put Dr Phil on an overnight time slot. That way, the viewers who need their "Dr. Phil fill" can tape, DVR or Tivo the show to see the next day, rather than drive about a 100 miles to the nearest TV market to see it.

If KPRC does not want to do that, then CBS Television Distribution should revoke :)o, yes revoke) KPRC's right to carry their programs (i.e. Entertainment Tonight, Rachel Ray).
 
nbc9houston said:
If KPRC does not want to do that, then CBS Television Distribution should revoke :)o, yes revoke) KPRC's right to carry their programs (i.e. Entertainment Tonight, Rachel Ray).
Click to expand...

Isn't that type of program bundling illegal?
 
Here's the weird thing: If Post-Newsweek finds Phil so offensive, why is he airing on other stations in the group, including WDIV in Detroit? Makes zero sense. They were probably wishing/hoping CBS would let them out of the deal ... but there's no way CBS would be able to get as much for the show now as it did when KPRC first signed on. So ... Houston waits.
 
On the other hand, Dr. Phil has putting an emphasis on headline-ripping stories and something you normally see on Springer & Maury, rather than helping people with their own personal issues and problems, which was the show's original basis. Since then, KPRC has decided to dump Dr. Phil for Dr. Oz in the due process. KPRC could have put Dr. Phil over on This Channel (2.2) without any comprimise.
 
I'm surprised Dr Phil hasn't aired a show, "Why I'm not being aired in the Houston market," where he interviews viewers in Houston who enjoy his show.

I'm not a big fan of Dr Phil, but I feel bad for all of the jobless middle-aged women who can't watch their savior.
 
So KPRC is paying for a show that it's not even airing? Makes sense.
 
fredcantu said:
nbc9houston said:
If KPRC does not want to do that, then CBS Television Distribution should revoke :)o, yes revoke) KPRC's right to carry their programs (i.e. Entertainment Tonight, Rachel Ray).
Click to expand...

Isn't that type of program bundling illegal?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. Sorry for going extreme on the "revoke" bit. I just think its stupid for KPRC to waste money on a show that they don't want to air anymore.
 
Yes, KPRC is paying for Dr. Phil, but not airing it. The ratings for the show sank and hurt KPRC's news.
Dr. Oz has better ratings and helps boost the numbers of KPRC's news. That boost is enough to make it worth the trouble for KPRC to pay for Dr. Phil but not run it.

I am also not sure Dr. Phil's contract would let him air on This TV. Furthermore, the This TV schedule is not condusive to airing a show at a set time in the afternoon each day.

CBS is well within its rights to cancel the Dr. Phil contract with KPRC and put the show on another station willing to pay for it. That should tell you a lot. CBS can't find another station in the Houston area to pay what they want for Dr. Phil. Therefore, they're happy to keep taking KPRC's money and have no viewers in that market.

Simply put, if no station in that market comes up with a better deal for Dr. Phil, you won't see him on the air there until the KPRC deal ends in 2011. After that, someone will pick him up for a lot less money, but it will be the best deal CBS can get in the market.
 
I recall reading an article recently, I think in Broadcasting and Cable, that there are several markets unhappy with the ratings performance and high cost of "Dr. Phil." One market that sticks out is Providence, RI where the local ABC (WLNE) dumped the show because of the ROI wasn't worth it.

In that case, CBSTVD sued the station
 
I might have a feeling CBS could sue Post-Newsweek's KPRC-TV for NOT having "Dr. Phil" to be shown in Houston, which is clearly a breach of contract.
 
Troy Goodwin said:
I might have a feeling CBS could sue Post-Newsweek's KPRC-TV for NOT having "Dr. Phil" to be shown in Houston, which is clearly a breach of contract.
Click to expand...

Your feeling is incorrect. KPRC-TV has the rights until the end of the contract. Unless that contract specifically dictates that the station MUST air it, KPRC can do whatever they want.
 
Chuck Tiller said:
Your feeling is incorrect. KPRC-TV has the rights until the end of the contract. Unless that contract specifically dictates that the station MUST air it, KPRC can do whatever they want.
Click to expand...

You are correct. As long as KPRC has the rights and is paying for them, they can do what they want with the show. Any specifics would be spelled out in the contract. If they were required to actually air the show, it would at least get used as overnight filler.

It is possible that KPRC at the very least has to pull out any barter spots from Dr. Phil and run them at some point during the day.

Stations buying, and then NOT airing programming is nothing new. In the past many large market stations would buy the rights to programming they had no real interest in or use for, just to keep particular shows out of the hands of competitors. Might have made some business sense when TV stations were money cows, but in the tough broadcast economic climate these days, it would seem to be a foolish waste of scarce money.
 
The reason CBS sued WLNE was because they reportedly weren't paying the bills. The station owed CBS thousands of dollars for several shows, including Phil, so CBS ultimately yanked them and filed suit. The CBS shows all quickly found homes elsewhere in the market. Totally different scenario.
 
I believe "ET", "The Insider" and "Rachael Ray" were also casualties of WLNE being in arrears with CBS. From what I read, most if not all of the shows now air on the Fox station in the market, WNAC.

Back to the original topic, hard to believe as it is, when a station pays for a show and signs a contract, apparently, it can sit on it if it wants to. A lesser example of this, from what someone has told me, happened many years ago in Philadelphia, when WPHL got the rights to air reruns of "Perfect Strangers" (I told you it was a lesser example ;D ) but kept it off the air due to low ratings. So, something like this is not unprecedented, but it is jarring that this is happening in a major market with a show like "Dr. Phil."
 
Doctor Phil isn't even a real doctor, anyway. He was a plumber before Oprah "discovered" him.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom