• 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

Viacom Sheds Another TV Station

R

RichD

Viacom continues to sell off more of its smaller market stations with the sale of UPN affiliate KAUT in the 45th-ranked Oklahoma City market to the New York Times Company. Viacom is continuing its strategy of concentrating its ownership efforts in the largest media markets.

Within the past year, Viacom has sold off standalone UPN outlets in 25th-ranked Indianapolis and then-34th-ranked (now 32nd-ranked) Columbus, Ohio (to Lin Television) and 43rd-ranked New Orleans (to Belo). The one purchase Viacom made was of KOVR-TV in 19th-ranked Sacramento, California from Sinclair Broadcasting.

Here is a link to a MediaWeek.com article about the sale:

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/tvstations/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001137299
 
> Viacom continues to sell off more of its smaller market
> stations with the sale of UPN affiliate KAUT in the
> 45th-ranked Oklahoma City market to the New York Times
> Company. Viacom is continuing its strategy of concentrating
> its ownership efforts in the largest media markets.
>
> Within the past year, Viacom has sold off standalone UPN
> outlets in 25th-ranked Indianapolis and then-34th-ranked
> (now 32nd-ranked) Columbus, Ohio (to Lin Television) and
> 43rd-ranked New Orleans (to Belo). The one purchase Viacom
> made was of KOVR-TV in 19th-ranked Sacramento, California
> from Sinclair Broadcasting.
>
> Here is a link to a MediaWeek.com article about the sale:
>
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/n> ews/tvstations/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001137299
>

Hmm, will they also sell WGNT-27 in Norfolk to the New York Times Company, owner of CBS affiliate WTKR-3 there?

- 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>
 
Trip Ericson asks:

> Hmm, will (Viacom) also sell (UPN affiliate) WGNT-27 in Norfolk to
> the New York Times Company, owner of CBS affiliate WTKR-3 there?

Quite possible.

Or, less likely, Viacom will buy WTKR to create a duopoly of CBS and UPN O&O's. However, I don't think Viacom is interested in a duopoly in that small a market.

I think Viacom's TV station strategy might be to create CBS and UPN O&O duopolies in major markets (top 20 markets?), and if they can't own both a CBS and UPN station in the same market, they'll sell.
 
> I think Viacom's TV station strategy might be to create CBS
> and UPN O&O duopolies in major markets (top 20 markets?),
> and if they can't own both a CBS and UPN station in the same
> market, they'll sell.

Correctamundo. Prime example: Houston, where Viacom sold UPN KTXH to the FOX O&O. Apparently they tried to pry CBS affil KHOU from Belo without success.
 
> Trip Ericson asks:
>
> > Hmm, will (Viacom) also sell (UPN affiliate) WGNT-27 in
> Norfolk to
> > the New York Times Company, owner of CBS affiliate WTKR-3
> there?
>
> Quite possible.
>
> Or, less likely, Viacom will buy WTKR to create a duopoly of
> CBS and UPN O&O's. However, I don't think Viacom is
> interested in a duopoly in that small a market.
>
> I think Viacom's TV station strategy might be to create CBS
> and UPN O&O duopolies in major markets (top 20 markets?),
> and if they can't own both a CBS and UPN station in the same
> market, they'll sell.
>

That's a station Viacom may want to keep. It's their most successful UPN station revenue wise. The station makes a lot more money than FOX and a little less than CBS.

The station they really want to get rid of is Green Bay. UPN in Norfolk makes the same amount of revenue and has far less overhead.
 
> I think Viacom's TV station strategy might be to create CBS
> and UPN O&O duopolies in major markets (top 20 markets?),
> and if they can't own both a CBS and UPN station in the same
> market, they'll sell.

You mean they'll sell their CBS O&Os in NY, LA, and Chicago? Fox owns the UPN stations in all 3 markets.
 
No. I think they'll try to buy-out the existing UPN station in some very large markets where they have CBS O&O's.
 
> No. I think they'll try to buy-out the existing UPN station
> in some very large markets where they have CBS O&O's.

Still leaves out New York and Chicago, where they have no duopoly (only the CBS O&O). And, as has been discussed before, they can't move UPN to their second station in Los Angeles, because Fox has already said they would dump UPN in NYC and Chicago in retaliation ...

Here are CBS' O&Os:
KEYE-TV - Austin, TX
WJZ-TV - Baltimore, MD
*WBZ-TV - Boston, MA
WBBM-TV - Chicago, IL
*KTVT-TV - Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
KCNC-TV - Denver, CO
*WWJ-TV - Detroit, MI
WFRV-TV - Green Bay, WI
*KCBS-TV - Los Angeles, CA
WCBS-TV - New York, NY
*WFOR-TV - Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, FL
WCCO-TV - Minneapolis, MN
*KYW-TV - Philadelphia, PA
*KDKA-TV - Pittsburgh, PA
*KOVR-TV - Sacramento, CA
KUTV-TV - Salt Lake City, UT
*KPIX-TV - San Francisco, CA

The markets with asterisks are ones where Viacom has a duopoly. Of those, their second stations are UPN in every market but Los Angeles.

They own single stations, UPN-affiliated, in Atlanta, Norfolk, Providence, Seattle, Tampa, and West Palm Beach (actually, they also own a pair of non-network LPTVs in the last market).

Let's presume Joseph's theory on Viacom's strategy is correct. These would be the top-40 markets where they would be shopping:
#1 New York
#3 Chicago
#15 Minneapolis
#18 Denver
#24 Baltimore
#36 Salt Lake City

If they did the opposite (look for a second station to complement an existing UPN):
#9 Atlanta
#12 Tampa
#13 Seattle
#38 West Palm Beach
(The rest of their UPN-only markets are in #42 and #51, and may be the next stations sold ... for that matter, KEYE is in #53 and WFRV is in #69.)

So what stations in those markets might be perceived as for sale at the right price?<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
> > I think Viacom's TV station strategy might be to create
> CBS
> > and UPN O&O duopolies in major markets (top 20 markets?),
> > and if they can't own both a CBS and UPN station in the
> same
> > market, they'll sell.
>
> Correctamundo. Prime example: Houston, where Viacom sold
> UPN KTXH to the FOX O&O. Apparently they tried to pry CBS
> affil KHOU from Belo without success.
>
I wasn't aware that Viacom sold KTXH to Fox. When did this happen? I kind of felt that Viacom would not be able to get Belo to sell or swap KHOU since Viacom really didn't have anything in its station portfolio that would have been of equal value and Belo would be unlikely to sell a top 20 station in its home state.

My feeling has been that Viacom will try to sell all of its standalone UPN outlets--at least those outside of the top 20 markets. What I have been unclear on is what the company might do about its standalone UPN outlets within the top 20.

Looking at Viacom's current station group lineup, there are three standalone UPN outlets in the company's portfolio: WUPA (Atlanta, Georgia--DMA #9), KSTW (Seattle-Tacoma, WA--DMA #12), WTOG (Tampa, FL--DMA #13), and WGNT (Norfolk, VA--DMA #41).

Unless Viacom--or the new CBS Corporation after the split--can persuade the owners of the CBS outlets in the above markets to sell, I could see the company selling all of them. With the sale of both KTXH and WDCA (Washington, D.C) to Fox, CBS seems not to be interested in owning a UPN outlet in a market by itself.

One possible deal that CBS could make that--if agreed upon by both parties--could give the network another CBS O&O is if the network got Meredith to swap its CBS affiliate in 14th ranked Phoenix--KPHO--for WUPA. Such a deal would give Meredith a duopoly in Atlanta, where it owns CBS affiliate WGCL, while CBS would get another CBS affiliate, which would be more valuable to it than WUPA on its own.
 
Green Bay could be interesting. In a news story when WFRV marked its 50th anniversary earlier this year, their GM said CBS wanted to keep the station as a way to have some idea what smaller-market stations went through. And it's profitable, especially with a sister station in the Upper Peninsula. Add to that the fact that the network put up the money to get Packer preseason games (they're a CBS production, down to the graphics), and they have a lot of $$$ invested there.

However, it can't get a duopoly, as the UPN station in town is WACY. It has an LMA with WGBA, owned by Journal Group, and Journal Group has the option to buy the station from Ace TV if the FCC allows it.
 
> > No. I think they'll try to buy-out the existing UPN
> station
> > in some very large markets where they have CBS O&O's.
>
> Still leaves out New York and Chicago, where they have no
> duopoly (only the CBS O&O). And, as has been discussed
> before, they can't move UPN to their second station in Los
> Angeles, because Fox has already said they would dump UPN in
> NYC and Chicago in retaliation ...


When Channel 50 WPWR Gary/Chicago was up for sale (eventually went to Fox for over 450 million) Viacom (and Tribune) both made a run for it. Tribune also tried to buy WCIU-TV Channel 26 (owner turned them down).

So if something should happen to WCPX-TV Channel 38 (current Pax/I affiliate) and it goes up on the block, I would think Viacom would try for that (as well as Tribune).

Possibly WJYS-TV Channel 62 Hammond/Chicago. While the anologue signal is out of south/southwest suburban Tinley Park and doesn't even reach to downtown Chicago, it's digital channel is on Channel 36 and is out of Sears Tower. So once digital transition is made, that raises a good possiblity too. <P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
 
> I wasn't aware that Viacom sold KTXH to Fox. When did this
> happen?

I just checked the FCC's website -- it looks like the sale to Fox was approved in October of 2001.

> My feeling has been that Viacom will try to sell all of its
> standalone UPN outlets--at least those outside of the top 20
> markets. What I have been unclear on is what the company
> might do about its standalone UPN outlets within the top 20.
>
> Looking at Viacom's current station group lineup, there are
> three standalone UPN outlets in the company's portfolio:
> WUPA (Atlanta, Georgia--DMA #9), KSTW (Seattle-Tacoma,
> WA--DMA #12), WTOG (Tampa, FL--DMA #13), and WGNT (Norfolk,
> VA--DMA #41).

Small typo, since that's actually four stations.

> Unless Viacom--or the new CBS Corporation after the
> split--can persuade the owners of the CBS outlets in the
> above markets to sell, I could see the company selling all
> of them.

One issue involved here is that CBS Corp is very close to the 39% national ownership limit, which could limit their ability to create duopolies by adding VHF CBS affiliates to UHF UPN affiliates in the same market. If they do this, they lose the 50% UHF limit for that market, which could cause them to go over 39% and have to seel in another market. This would be a problem if they bought the CBS affiliates in either Tampa or Norfolk. It wouldn't be a problem in Seattle/Tacoma (since KSTW is a VHF station) or in Atlanta (where CBS is currently on a UHF channel).

But I'm sure that you're right that they would like to double up if they can in a couple of those markets and sell off the UPN stations in the markets where they can't.
 
> > I wasn't aware that Viacom sold KTXH to Fox. When did this
>
> > happen?
>
> I just checked the FCC's website -- it looks like the sale
> to Fox was approved in October of 2001.>

And, it was a two-for-one swap. KTXH and WDCA went from Viacom to News Corp., and KBHK-TV San Francisco -- acquired by Fox as part of the Chris-Craft/United deal -- went to Viacom. With the trade, Fox created duopolies in D.C. and Houston, and Viacom got one in the Bay Area.
<P ID="signature">______________
"Know your role and shut your mouth!!" -- The Rock</P>
 
> > > No. I think they'll try to buy-out the existing UPN
> > station
> > > in some very large markets where they have CBS O&O's.
> >
> > Still leaves out New York and Chicago, where they have no
> > duopoly (only the CBS O&O). And, as has been discussed
> > before, they can't move UPN to their second station in Los
>
> > Angeles, because Fox has already said they would dump UPN
> in
> > NYC and Chicago in retaliation ...
>
>
> When Channel 50 WPWR Gary/Chicago was up for sale
> (eventually went to Fox for over 450 million) Viacom (and
> Tribune) both made a run for it. Tribune also tried to buy
> WCIU-TV Channel 26 (owner turned them down).
>
> So if something should happen to WCPX-TV Channel 38 (current
> Pax/I affiliate) and it goes up on the block, I would think
> Viacom would try for that (as well as Tribune).
>
> Possibly WJYS-TV Channel 62 Hammond/Chicago. While the
> anologue signal is out of south/southwest suburban Tinley
> Park and doesn't even reach to downtown Chicago, it's
> digital channel is on Channel 36 and is out of Sears Tower.
> So once digital transition is made, that raises a good
> possiblity too.
>
At least a reasonable opportunity for a UPN O&O station exists in Chicago. The same cannot be said for New York City; Paxson, religious broadcasters, and especially non-English-language broadcasters have taken most (if not all) of the channels in and around the Big Apple that might be good homes for a UPN O&O.<P ID="signature">______________
This is AirwaveSurfer, reminding you that portions of this post have been prerecorded.</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by AirwaveSurfer on 09/18/05 02:13 PM.</FONT></P>
 
> > > > No. I think they'll try to buy-out the existing UPN
> > > station
> > > > in some very large markets where they have CBS O&O's.
> > >
> > > Still leaves out New York and Chicago, where they have
> no
> > > duopoly (only the CBS O&O). And, as has been discussed
> > > before, they can't move UPN to their second station in
> Los
> >
> > > Angeles, because Fox has already said they would dump
> UPN
> > in
> > > NYC and Chicago in retaliation ...

[edit]

> At least a reasonable opportunity for a UPN O&O station
> exists in Chicago. The same cannot be said for New York
> City; Paxson, religious broadcasters, and especially
> non-English-language broadcasters have taken most (if not
> all) of the channels in and around the Big Apple that might
> be good homes for a UPN O&O.

But Viacom HAS to have an O&O available in both New York and Chicago or they can't move UPN in either market, or Los Angeles, as I said originally (requoted above).

So it depends on what you mean by "reasonable opportunity". My feeling is that, since the demise of the WTC transmission site, Viacom is opposed to UPN being on UHF in NYC.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
> At least a reasonable opportunity for a UPN O&O station
> exists in Chicago. The same cannot be said for New York
> City; Paxson, religious broadcasters, and especially
> non-English-language broadcasters have taken most (if not
> all) of the channels in and around the Big Apple that might
> be good homes for a UPN O&O.

Well here are some possible scenarios:

1. Fox loses its waiver for WWOR ownership, then Viacom buys WWOR.
2. Viacom buys WLNY.
3. Viacom buys WRNN.

Scenario 1 may only occur when there are more Blue States than Red, but one can only hope.
2 and 3 are unlikely as they are out on the fringes of the market with weak OTA signals compared to WWOR.<P ID="signature">______________
WCBS = We're Crazy Buffoons and Schmucks
<a href=http://chuck.spotteddogs.org/tv/>Spotted Dog TV Talk - for all your non-news TV Talk</a></P>
 
> 2. Viacom buys WLNY.
> 3. Viacom buys WRNN.

Both are cable- and digital-only and are rimshots. Big time. WLNY has no OTA presence in NYC, and WRNN barely has one (I visited Fair Lawn NJ and managed to get a blip out of it once). Neither one would be suitable.

In fact, I can't think of ANY suitable stations.

- 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>
 
WWOR, UPN, Rupert Murdoch, and Inside-the-Beltway Politics

> > At least a reasonable opportunity for a UPN O&O station
> > exists in Chicago. The same cannot be said for New York
> > City; Paxson, religious broadcasters, and especially
> > non-English-language broadcasters have taken most (if not
> > all) of the channels in and around the Big Apple that
> might
> > be good homes for a UPN O&O.
>
> Well here are some possible scenarios:
>
> 1. Fox loses its waiver for WWOR ownership, then Viacom buys
> WWOR.
> 2. Viacom buys WLNY.
> 3. Viacom buys WRNN.
>
> Scenario 1 may only occur when there are more Blue States
> than Red, but one can only hope.
>
At the risk of delving too much into politics, here's what I think:

1. Even a Democratic President or a Democratic-controlled Congress might not have enough backbone to resist machinations and temptations by a tycoon as politically shrewd as Rupert Murdoch seems to be.

2. Breaking up the Fox NYC duopoly may be too low a priority for even the most anti-Murdoch politicians in D.C.

3. If a future Democratic-dominated federal government comes to show a nearly biblical fury against Big Business, then not only would the Fox duopoly in NYC become toast, but CBS would likely be denied the chance to form a duopoly of its own in the Big Apple.

4. Bill Clinton basically rubber-stamped the '96 Telecom Act, and his wife, currently the most likely Democratic presidential nominee for '08, doesn't strike me as differing enough from him politically to refrain from doing anything similar.

Therefore, CBS execs shouldn't expect a "régime change" in Washington to aid WWOR's chances of becoming a UPN O&O all that much. Frankly, I think the bigwigs at Black Rock would be better off hoping that Paxson's financial troubles persist to the point of forcing a fire sale of that company's TV stations.<P ID="signature">______________
This is AirwaveSurfer, reminding you that portions of this post have been prerecorded.</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom