• 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

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

A

AKA

Ever since KSTW became a wholly-owned property of CBS Corporation, I've wondered why the network doesn't turn the station into a CBS O&O. I know KSTW has been affiliated with CBS before (twice, actually), and that reviews of their two-year stint as an affiliate in the 1990s were less-than glowing.

Still, since the network now owns KSTW, I think it only makes sense for the network to move to Channel 11 and build a new local news operation from the ground up. How happy could they possibly be with KIRO, anyway?
 
AKA said:
Ever since KSTW became a wholly-owned property of CBS Corporation, I've wondered why the network doesn't turn the station into a CBS O&O. I know KSTW has been affiliated with CBS before (twice, actually), and that reviews of their two-year stint as an affiliate in the 1990s were less-than glowing.

Still, since the network now owns KSTW, I think it only makes sense for the network to move to Channel 11 and build a new local news operation from the ground up. How happy could they possibly be with KIRO, anyway?
Click to expand...

Why would you move the #1 network from an established station to a netlet affiliate with no news?
 
Why not? They'd have total control of the station and could build the news operation from the ground up.

Bringing news back to KSTW would make a lot of Seattleites happy. Theyhad a ten o'clock broadcast for many years that was rather popular on both sides of the Cascades (thanks to cable). The news department went to hell in the late '90s, though--not long after CBS went back to KIRO.

Besides, it's Seattle! Why WOULDN'T a network want to have an O&O there?
 
AKA said:
Besides, it's Seattle! Why WOULDN'T a network want to have an O&O there?
Click to expand...

Because the economics have changed.

When networks paid stations to clear their programs, it was in the network's interest to own as many big-market outlets as possible - each one was a profit center, and each O&O was one fewer outside affiliate owner that had to be paid compensation.

Today, local stations aren't as profitable as they used to be, especially given the hefty costs of the DTV/HD conversions and the fragmentation of local audiences. What's more, the new paradigm calls for station owners to pay the networks "reverse compensation" for their programming, which means it's potentially in a network's interest not to own anything outside the very biggest markets.

Why would CBS want to go through the hassle and expense of building studios and hiring staff for a fifth local TV news operation and hoping viewers will make the move from KIRO to KSTW, when it can extract reverse compensation from Belo and let Belo deal with all the hassles of running a local station in a market that's outside the top 10?
 
CBS can only look to the early-90's experiment with Gaylord. While KSTW had dedicated viewers at 10pm for many years, it didn't translate to news viewers at 5, 6:30, and 11pm -- which are the key time periods on the West Coast. In fact, most viewers continued to watch KIRO (the former CBS affiliate), which successfully expanded their newscasts.

So, why on earth would CBS try to move the affiliation to 11 again???? ???
 
Scott Fybush said:
Why would CBS want to go through the hassle and expense of building studios and hiring staff ... when it can extract reverse compensation from Belo and let Belo deal with all the hassles of running a local station in a market that's outside the top 10?
Click to expand...

Belo did own KIRO for a time, but not now. The station had to be divested after Belo acquired the Providence Journal Company - and KING (NBC) came with that. Cox presently owns KIRO after acquiring it from Viacom.

I think Belo got the better deal. KING is a very strong station, especially in local non-news content. KIRO is not - though they do have Seafair in the summer.
 
Joe_Capitano said:
Scott Fybush said:
Why would CBS want to go through the hassle and expense of building studios and hiring staff ... when it can extract reverse compensation from Belo and let Belo deal with all the hassles of running a local station in a market that's outside the top 10?
Click to expand...

Belo did own KIRO for a time, but not now. The station had to be divested after Belo acquired the Providence Journal Company - and KING (NBC) came with that. Cox presently owns KIRO after acquiring it from Viacom.

I think Belo got the better deal. KING is a very strong station, especially in local non-news content. KIRO is not - though they do have Seafair in the summer.
Click to expand...

Belo cancelled Almost Live
 
I think there's a point where you have to realize owning isn't everything. For instance, KTVU Channel 2 is owned by COX in San Francisco and is the FOX affiliate. Everyone is very happy with that arrangement. So why upset the apple cart, with something that works?

Another one is Sinclair having FOX in Baltimore, though FOX owns a station there.

CBS bought a lot of these stations as protection as they got hurt the most in the mid 90s with the affiliation changes. Now with digital TV it's changed a lot.
 
Mark said:
I think there's a point where you have to realize owning isn't everything. For instance, KTVU Channel 2 is owned by COX in San Francisco and is the FOX affiliate. Everyone is very happy with that arrangement. So why upset the apple cart, with something that works?

Another one is Sinclair having FOX in Baltimore, though FOX owns a station there.

CBS bought a lot of these stations as protection as they got hurt the most in the mid 90s with the affiliation changes. Now with digital TV it's changed a lot.
Click to expand...

Sinclair owns many Fox stations so it has some leverage in that when it negotiates with Fox, it's for many stations. Also, Sinclair as a company is based in Baltimore County, so WBFF is somewhat like it's flagship station, while not serving the largest market.

As far as Cox, it doesn't have many CBS affiliates-only Seattle and Dayton.

However, I think Cox has leverage in that they own cable systems. If CBS (or Fox) screw Cox, it might adversely affect CBS somehow if there is a CBS O&O in a Cox cable market elsewhere. Seattle is also an expensive place to do business, so the incentive for CBS to own the station and compete might be less appealing.
 
If Cox is a decent operator (station won't be a distant last) and willing to pay reverse compensation, there is little need for the network to change the affiliation on them. As a cable giant, the company should be well leveraged and funded.

CBS could also sell KSTW to Cox. Cox operates duopoly in SF effectively and probably would be open to the idea in Seattle.

However, CBS is still holding on to the station maybe b/c it feels it could be used as a fallback.

It'd be interesting if CBS bought out KCPQ(Fox) and KJZO from Tribune and then either traded with Cox so that Cox operated Fox, and CBS operated the CBS affiliate. CBS might need to divest an additional station.

Tribune isn't looking to sell piecemeal apparently but if many stations were involved, or if the money was right, maybe Tribune would change its mind.
 
If 11 was turned into a CBS O&O, it would be as bad as WWJ. You can't get those news viewers off of KIRO. KSTW's CBS affiliation in the mid '90s was pretty much a failure, as KIRO added more news and the ratings stayed up even with UPN.

-crainbebo
 
formeraa said:
CBS can only look to the early-90's experiment with Gaylord. While KSTW had dedicated viewers at 10pm for many years, it didn't translate to news viewers at 5, 6:30, and 11pm -- which are the key time periods on the West Coast. In fact, most viewers continued to watch KIRO (the former CBS affiliate), which successfully expanded their newscasts.

So, why on earth would CBS try to move the affiliation to 11 again???? ???
Click to expand...

This. It should say something that we have very little in terms of recordings of KSTW's news from its CBS era (they looked and sounded identical to KTVT Dallas). And KIRO was a lot like KTVK Phoenix, holding more than its own with a major news expansion. In fact had the situation continued Seattle would be a lot like Phoenix except with CBS instead of ABC.
 
Lots of good points in this thread, most of which I hadn't considered. It should have been a no-brainier to me that CBS has a good thing going with KIRO. I do remember how poorly KSTW performed as a CBS affiliate in the '90s, though I hasn't been aware until now of how successful KIRO was as a news-centric independent.

I guess I just have a soft spot in my heart for KSTW. Growing up in Spokane, "KSTWashington" was the regional superstation carried by Cox Cable. I watched the station a lot, before syndex was enforced, and remember wishing we had a station of our own in town the calibre of Channel 11.

With that in mind, it makes me a little sad that under current ownership, KSTW has been reduced to "CW11," a station with no personality of its own or even a news broadcast. But I guess that's more a reflection of the industry today than of KSTW/CBS.

Thanks again for the great input.
 
If KSTW ever looked like KTVT it's because of the Gaylord ownership.

But consider this: KSTW switched to CBS and KIRO to what was then
UPN, and that lasted about two years before KIRO went back to CBS.
Now why would CBS, KIRO, and KSTW go through all of that again, when
the result is likely to be the same?
 
I think CBS should make an offer to buy KIRO or trade KIRO for KSTW with Cox. KIRO has been the CBS affiliate for longer than KSTW has ever been. Its kind of a heritage station.

Just like KDFW in Dallas should return with CBS.
 
wild949austin said:
I think CBS should make an offer to buy KIRO or trade KIRO for KSTW with Cox. KIRO has been the CBS affiliate for longer than KSTW has ever been. Its kind of a heritage station.

Just like KDFW in Dallas should return with CBS.
Click to expand...

One *could* play devil's advocate, and say KSTW should BE the CBS affiliate, since it WAS the FIRST one (as KTNT-TV)....
 
Raymie said:
This. It should say something that we have very little in terms of recordings of KSTW's news from its CBS era (they looked and sounded identical to KTVT Dallas). And KIRO was a lot like KTVK Phoenix, holding more than its own with a major news expansion. In fact had the situation continued Seattle would be a lot like Phoenix except with CBS instead of ABC.
Click to expand...

I was living in D-FW area during that time and had a great laugh when visiting Seattle. They were virtually identical -- 11 News 11@11 (Seattle) vs. 11 News 11 on 11 (DFW). The branding was virtually identical. Dale Schornack and Neal Barton, who had previously worked in Dallas, were at KSTW in Seattle. It was absolutely the strangest thing!!!

The only difference was that the Seattle anchors didn't talk all over each other. You may recall that Midge Hill clearly thought that she was more important than Cameron Harper and, one night, they managed to both read the same 3 sentences off the teleprompter at the same time (neither one of them stopped).
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom