Why doesn't CBS turn KSTW (Tacoma/Seattle) into a CBS O&O?

[TexasTom]

Besides, it's Seattle! Why WOULDN'T a network want to have an O&O there?

Well, apparently nobody wants an O&O in the Seattle/Tacoma market very badly. Consider the ownership of each of the "Big Four" affiliates:

ABC: KOMO-4, owned by Fisher Broadcasting
NBC: KING-5, owned by Belo
CBS: KIRO-7, owned by Cox
Fox: KCPQ-13, owned by Tribune

The closest thing to an O&O in the market is CBS's ownership of CW-affiliated KSTW-11.

 

[KTN Corp]

Just like KDFW in Dallas should return with CBS.

And change the calls back to KRLD-TV! (They own the cross-town 50 kW blowtorch also.)

Can't wait for that day.

 

[AKA]

Besides, it's Seattle! Why WOULDN'T a network want to have an O&O there?

Well, apparently nobody wants an O&O in the Seattle/Tacoma market very badly. Consider the ownership of each of the "Big Four" affiliates:

ABC: KOMO-4, owned by Fisher Broadcasting
NBC: KING-5, owned by Belo
CBS: KIRO-7, owned by Cox
Fox: KCPQ-13, owned by Tribune

The closest thing to an O&O in the market is CBS's ownership of CW-affiliated KSTW-11.

Good point! I guess Seattle's just not an O&O kind of town.

 

[Markxxx]

I think it helped that Seattle had 6 VHF stations from the go. That is more than most cities (though two were in nearby Tacoma).

This meant the networks didn't have to strive to own a station to get their network to get their programs on a VHF channel. If one of the VHFs dumped a network they could move to another VHF.

This kept things steady. Indeed the affiliation changes of the 90s were about deals made in other markets. The early affiliation changes came after the freeze on TV was lifted and the networks were still jockeying. Indeed at one time channel 11 carried CBS, though it was soon clear Tacoma would be part of the Seattle market

 

[taylorjsdad]

CBS also owns WTOG in Tampa Bay, while the actual CBS affiliate there is WTSP, owned by Gannett.

I am surprised that CBS has not sold this station to someone like Sinclair or Gannett.

 

[bpatrick]

I think it helped that Seattle had 6 VHF stations from the go. That is more than most cities (though two were in nearby Tacoma).

This meant the networks didn't have to strive to own a station to get their network to get their programs on a VHF channel. If one of the VHFs dumped a network they could move to another VHF.

This kept things steady. Indeed the affiliation changes of the 90s were about deals made in other markets. The early affiliation changes came after the freeze on TV was lifted and the networks were still jockeying. Indeed at one time channel 11 carried CBS, though it was soon clear Tacoma would be part of the Seattle market

I can think of only one other market affected by the switches to Fox where the Big Four all stayed on VHF and it, too, has
six VHFs (counting KDTN): Dallas/Ft. Worth.
There you have:
KDFW/4 Fox
KXAS/5 NBC
WFAA/8 ABC
KTVT/11 CBS

The only others I can think of where there have been switches since the '90s are:

Minneapolis/St. Paul: WCCO/4 CBS
KSTP/5 ABC
KMSP/9 Fox
KARE/11 NBC

Miami (actually 1989)WFOR/4 CBS
WTVJ/6 NBC
WSVN/7 Fox
WPLG/10 ABC

San Francisco: KTVU/2 Fox
KPIX/5 CBS
KGO/7 ABC
KNTV/11 NBC

Portland, OR: KATU/2 ABC
KOIN/6 CBS
KGW/8 NBC
KPTV/12 Fox

In other words, there are enough VHFs for these markets to have all the "Big Four" on VHF.

And somebody mentioned WTOG; if CBS were to sell it to Gannett or Sinclair, why doesn't it sell
WUPA Atlanta to Cox or Meredith?

And if KDFW ever does go back to CBS, I want to see WAGA right behind.

 

[fybush]

And somebody mentioned WTOG; if CBS were to sell it to Gannett or Sinclair, why doesn't it sell
WUPA Atlanta to Cox or Meredith?

The answer, I suspect, is that for the most part the former Viacom stations have been a fairly profitable small piece of the CBS empire. They were fairly cheap to run as standalones, and some of them (WSBK, WPSG, KBCW, WBFS, etc.) have become even cheaper to run as sisters to bigger CBS O&Os. Where the standalones are concerned, as long as CBS has good relations with its existing non-owned affiliate in the market (KIRO, for instance, or WTSP), there's no reason to run the risk of moving the CBS brand to a smaller station and incur the expense of starting a news operation.

I don't know this for sure, but I'd bet that within the CBS Television Stations corporate structure, the ex-Viacom stations are still treated somewhat separately from the "original" CBS O&Os.

Atlanta may be the outlier here: while WGCL isn't an especially strong affiliate, it's of strategic value so long as it keeps Meredith in the CBS fold in Phoenix and Hartford. And as weak as WGCL is, it still has an 18-year (!) head start now against what would be an even weaker WUPA news operation.

 

[searadiofreak]

One thing to keep in mind here, is KIRO has made some good ratings gains. They are #1 at 11, and compete more strongly during the evening. Just recently, they have been praised as providing the best and most live coverage in the mass shooting spree in Seattle. KIRO has increased the value of their brand, no question. If Cox was ever to sell, now would be a good time.

 

[formeraa]

Yeah, you're right about the ratings. KING seems rather lethargic lately, not much energy around KING's newscast. They can't rest on Jean Enersen forever (she's nearly 70 -- where have all the years gone???).

 

[Kent]

Atlanta may be the outlier here: while WGCL isn't an especially strong affiliate, it's of strategic value so long as it keeps Meredith in the CBS fold in Phoenix and Hartford.

Don't forget CBS on KCTV in Kansas City, which Meredith threatened to take to NBC if CBS didn't sign with them in Phoenix!

 

[searadiofreak]

Yeah, you're right about the ratings. KING seems rather lethargic lately, not much energy around KING's newscast. They can't rest on Jean Enersen forever (she's nearly 70 -- where have all the years gone???).

Agreed. KING seems to be falling back into resting on its laurels. This has occured at other times during their so-called #1 reign. They need to bring the energy back, and probably are looking for their next female star to replace Jean, who will probably retire within the next few years. (Although, I must say, if your age on her is accurate, she still looks great).

KING and KOMO are in the same boat in this regard. Both need a new anchor star, and I will predict we will see this start to play out in the next year or two. (Best wishes to Kathi at KOMO, btw, what a true star and God Bless her as she has handled her challenges with professionalism and grace).

 

[arnoldevns]

There are two simple reasons they don't do this:
1. Cost - it would take a huge investment to build a news department from the ground up. That would immediately make the place a money-losing operation for a couple of years at least. That would have the tendency to depress the stock in CBS and that's something Les Moonves will not do. There's also no reason to think the current CBS affiliate would immediately lose all of its news viewers or prime time audience to the new CBS affiliate. This would make it even more difficult to make KSTW a good affiliate.

2. Affiliation agreement - CBS already has a deal with its current affiliate. I'm sure their is an "out" clause, but it would likely be expensive for CBS to do so. This too would make it financially impractical.

Look at it this way, if CBS can make money on its deal with its current affiliate AND make KSTW a profitable station, it wins on both accounts. By ramping up the cost of owning KSTW by turning it into an affiliate, it loses money for at least a few years on KSTW and loses whatever revenue it had from the current CBS affiliate.

There are times when things like this make sense, but I don't think this is one of those times.

 

[searadiofreak]

There are two simple reasons they don't do this:
1. Cost - it would take a huge investment to build a news department from the ground up. That would immediately make the place a money-losing operation for a couple of years at least. That would have the tendency to depress the stock in CBS and that's something Les Moonves will not do. There's also no reason to think the current CBS affiliate would immediately lose all of its news viewers or prime time audience to the new CBS affiliate. This would make it even more difficult to make KSTW a good affiliate.

2. Affiliation agreement - CBS already has a deal with its current affiliate. I'm sure their is an "out" clause, but it would likely be expensive for CBS to do so. This too would make it financially impractical.

Look at it this way, if CBS can make money on its deal with its current affiliate AND make KSTW a profitable station, it wins on both accounts. By ramping up the cost of owning KSTW by turning it into an affiliate, it loses money for at least a few years on KSTW and loses whatever revenue it had from the current CBS affiliate.

There are times when things like this make sense, but I don't think this is one of those times.

And don't forget KSTW became the CBS affiliate in Seattle/Tacoma in the mid-90's only to give it up just a year or two later. They did upgrade their news department, and even continued the news for awhile after they lost the affiliation back to KIRO. If memory serves, they continued with a pared-down news department until 1998. KSTW has not had local news since, except carrying a KIRO produced 10 pm 'cast in 2003 and that also lasted just a couple years, on and off.

 

[compubit]

Instead of buying the whole station, why not just buy the virtual channel ;D

That's what happened in Hawaii -

Raycom owned KHNL/13/NBC & KFVE/5/MNT and "merged" with MCB Capital's KGMB/9/CBS. CBS & KGMB calls went to digital 5 (not in the top 4 in ratings at the time, so Raycom could own both), and KFVE calls and MNT went to digital 9 (at that time in the top 4), so Raycom now owns the 2 network affiliates and MCG owns the MNT/Indy station - though all 3 are run out of one facility and share news operations...