Tribune Broadcasting

[crackedscreen]

You do realize the story you linked to later raised the possibility that the CW merger was a way for WB to phase itself out of the broadcast network business, right? In other words, you're assuming Warner Bros., let alone CBS, has any interest in running down the Big Four.

That was before the era of lucrative SVOD/international deals. CW's Netflix deal alone allows revenue from their programs to outweigh the losses on the network level ($1 billion worth of revenue to be exact). WB won't walk away from that.

Your proposal is basically the same arrangement the old WB network had, and the economics of the broadcast industry are a lot worse now than they were in 2006 - to the point that the only reason even the Big Four are on broadcast is because that's what they've always done.

Except this time, Tribune is a much more proactive entity than it was during the entirety of the old WB network. As you've said, they've spun-off their newspapers, and are completely re-focused on television. They're ready to churn out original programming via a newly launched Tribune Studios. They'd make the perfect joint-venture partner for a new network with WB.

 

[nathannah]

It's a partnership. Warner Brothers also creates programming. So it's up to both of them. No network has a 100% great schedule. Same with this.

And several of the network's shows are CBS/WB co-productions with a 50/50 split. If CBS thought Warner Bros. was providing them sub-par programming the network would've been dissolved years ago, and at least the WB side provided some competent programming advice over UPN's terrible management under Viacom/CBS. Also if the WB/CBS partnership was that bad, The Big Bang Theory and several other WBTV shows wouldn't be on CBS now.

 

[Morgan Wick]

That was before the era of lucrative SVOD/international deals. CW's Netflix deal alone allows revenue from their programs to outweigh the losses on the network level ($1 billion worth of revenue to be exact). WB won't walk away from that.

The question is, how do you know WB wouldn't be okay with a variant of the status quo without the CBS shows dragging down the network? CW shows still live or die based on who's watching them on linear television. If Netflix is what's keeping the network afloat, why not sell directly to them? Why maintain your presence in a medium where even the biggest players don't really want to be there?

Except this time, Tribune is a much more proactive entity than it was during the entirety of the old WB network. As you've said, they've spun-off their newspapers, and are completely re-focused on television. They're ready to churn out original programming via a newly launched Tribune Studios. They'd make the perfect joint-venture partner for a new network with WB.

Color me skeptical that an entity with absolutely zero experience in content production is going to do all that well, but Salem and Manhattan seem to be doing okay for WGN America. The problem I have is, Tribune is such a weird anachronistic hybrid unlike anything else in television, with a bunch of news-producing CW affiliates in really big markets on par with Big Four stations, but a fairly traditional network affiliate operation everywhere else, and one single haphazardly-distributed cable network that's slowly shedding its status as the last vestige of the "superstation" era of cable television. Do even they know exactly who they are?

Depending on how bean-counter-y the people running Tribune are, I wouldn't be surprised if they decided it was worth it to ditch those big-market stations and WGN America and refocused on being a traditional network affiliate operation, and got rid of any reason for them to be in the expensive content production business. Or maybe they make a play to be a big Sinclair-esque operation, but those big-market stations mean they're running up against the market cap already. Or maybe, since cable is where all the money is these days, WGN America is the one part of the company that's non-negotiable...

As the link I posted two paragraphs ago states, I think Tribune is going in the exact wrong direction if they want to make a huge financial outlay on behalf of WGN America. Live events are the only reason for the existence of linear television, and WGNA is ditching the live events they already had in favor of a scripted-programming-centric strategy full of stuff you could just as easily get online.

By the same token, I'll be convinced that WB is interested in running down the Big Four when they make a play for live events people actually care about, and I don't think they'll ever be able to consistently compete with them on the same terms until they do, but on the sports front they're pretty much shut out until next decade unless they're willing and able to siphon sports from Turner, and the economics of the sports business are so cable-centric these days.

 

[ding12]

The question is, how do you know WB wouldn't be okay with a variant of the status quo without the CBS shows dragging down the network? CW shows still live or die based on who's watching them on linear television. If Netflix is what's keeping the network afloat, why not sell directly to them? Why maintain your presence in a medium where even the biggest players don't really want to be there?



Color me skeptical that an entity with absolutely zero experience in content production is going to do all that well, but Salem and Manhattan seem to be doing okay for WGN America. The problem I have is, Tribune is such a weird anachronistic hybrid unlike anything else in television, with a bunch of news-producing CW affiliates in really big markets on par with Big Four stations, but a fairly traditional network affiliate operation everywhere else, and one single haphazardly-distributed cable network that's slowly shedding its status as the last vestige of the "superstation" era of cable television. Do even they know exactly who they are?

Depending on how bean-counter-y the people running Tribune are, I wouldn't be surprised if they decided it was worth it to ditch those big-market stations and WGN America and refocused on being a traditional network affiliate operation, and got rid of any reason for them to be in the expensive content production business. Or maybe they make a play to be a big Sinclair-esque operation, but those big-market stations mean they're running up against the market cap already. Or maybe, since cable is where all the money is these days, WGN America is the one part of the company that's non-negotiable...

As the link I posted two paragraphs ago states, I think Tribune is going in the exact wrong direction if they want to make a huge financial outlay on behalf of WGN America. Live events are the only reason for the existence of linear television, and WGNA is ditching the live events they already had in favor of a scripted-programming-centric strategy full of stuff you could just as easily get online.

By the same token, I'll be convinced that WB is interested in running down the Big Four when they make a play for live events people actually care about, and I don't think they'll ever be able to consistently compete with them on the same terms until they do, but on the sports front they're pretty much shut out until next decade unless they're willing and able to siphon sports from Turner, and the economics of the sports business are so cable-centric these days.

Perhaps Tribune wants to transform WGN America in a fashion like how American Movie Classics was transformed into the current AMC. There's no live events on AMC as far as I know, but the channel is entertainment focused and has scripted original shows.

As for the broadcast side, I think Tribune wants to be an affiliate group of the big 4 and wants to keep network affiliations where it has an affiliation agreement in general. Then, there is the major markets, where it runs either CW or MyNetwork. I think if it did start a network (assuming as a replacement for one or both of those), it could start a network but it'd be all about low end programming, keeping the good content for WGN America, and keeping a big 4 network affiliation first most. As for it's network - low IQ programming like shows like Big Brother and Wipeout. It'd probably fit 6well with the low IQ Jerry Springer, Maury, Steve Wilkos daytime programming that Tribune likes to fill on it's stations.

Keeping quality stuff on cable but crap on broadcast isn't totally new. Fox does this in a way, with a buildup of FX, and critically acclaimed higher quality shows reserved on FX, while keeping Fox stagnant with The Simpsons and American Idol.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

Tribune does have leverage with the local stations to get higher subscriber fees and distribution for WGN American, many cable systems don't even carry WGN America (including Chicago area cable systems).

 

[Markxxx]

You only have to look back at NBC's Red and Blue networks to see how owning two networks leaves one of them handicapped.

Also remember the Tribune is not a broadcaster. It's tightly controlled by not one, not two but three equity firms: Oaktree (23%), JP Morgan (9%) and Angelo, Gordon (9%). A private equity firms job is simply to raise capital and get money from the stock prices as it goes up and capitalize on that.

And those three came to "control" it because of bankruptcy hearings, not even necessarily that they wanted to buy into it.

This leaves the Tribune company as it is today, significantly different from other broadcasters.