Leaderboard

This is about the most stunning announcement I have heard. What a big pickup for Hearst - a company that almost never buys stations. (Also, it pretty much wipes them off the "seller" list). It takes Fort Myers-Naples down to one locally owned station.

It's too small of a market, NBC Universal isn't interested.

I'm surprised it took this long for Waterman to sell after Bernie Waterman's death several years ago. It is great to see Hearst buying. It will be interesting to see how it shifts the culture of the market, which as someone who worked there for a few years, is beyond toxic competitively. And all the stations have toxic internal cultures too. Now we wait and see if the McBrides realize now is the time to cash out WINK.

Always a bummer to see local ownership selling to a larger corporation, but the economics of it just don't work anymore. The press release also mentions Hearst will be taking over the existing SSA for WZVN as well. It'll be interesting to see if Hearst continues to operate WZVN as its own distinct news operation, or if we'll start to see more cross pollination between the two newsrooms.

https://nbc-2.com/news/2023/04/05/waterman-broadcasting-selling-wbbh-tv-nbc2-to-hearst-television/

Aren't those LPs that don't count against the cap?

I"m sure Hurricane Ian may have prompted them to sell. They fared much better than WINK, but the storm may have give them the realization that they need sister stations to step in when the next storm comes. And given the market, corporate ownership may be a good thing, dissolving the toxic cultures that have seemingly permeated the market for years. It is an end of an era for sure. What other market has been primarily comprised of locally-owned stations in this day and age?

After watching all of the newscasts for the past month or so, I will agree that this is a refreshing take on the local news. Yes they still have some flaws/kinks/etc to work out, but overall a very solid local news content.

Just playing catch up with watching WCBS: right now, they seem to be all over the map within a single newscast. I’m hearing: - CBS 2 News - CBS 2 News New York - CBS 2 New York - CBS News New York All depending on who’s speaking - and that’s in the first 5 minutes of the newscast… It seems that they’re headed to CBS News New York - just stumbling there along the way, rather than making the hard cut… (and I’m taking to the theme music and graphics…) Jim

This is a long one, so my apologies in advance. TLDR, Nexstar isn’t the future, local≠always better, and accessibility is paramount. I’ll have to disagree on quite a few of your points. First, Nexstar is not handling change in the industry well at all. They don’t have many other assets other than a mammoth amount of TV stations, which, in an industry that’s on the downswing, is like being the king of the coy pond. They’ve also put all their eggs in the proverbial basket of a floundering cable channel that has been hampered by distribution from the start. Also, it certainly doesn’t help that Nexstar actively restricts local streaming in order to “fulfill obligations to cable providers” or however they spin it. When you still live and die on retrans money, to the point where I can’t live stream a newscast, you aren’t handling change in the industry well. Also, where did you get the ratings info for the stations you cited? I find it rather surprising that KRON was able to beat KTVU. That said, if they did, I doubt it’s because KRON has more of a local brand; on the contrary, I would credit the amount of upheaval and turnover at KTVU more than anything innovative KRON has supposedly done. Also, no offense, but KUSI is a joke. Appealing to angry boomers is not a sustainable plan that anyone should follow. Granted, if WGN decided to call themselves “NewsNation Chicago,” people would notice. However, just because a station slaps on a local brand doesn’t mean they’re a better station, or one that has an advantage in the market. There are some stations that have enough legacy and clout to have a unique local brand, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. Most TV stations are bland, boring, and stuck in the 1990s in terms of branding, accessibility, content, and relevance. To get back to what this thread is about, what CBS has done is an effort to future-proof the company’s local newsrooms. Their stations are far more accessible than ever before; I can go on the CBS News app and see any CBS owned station’s local news, plus additional local content. It’s the best approach to accessibility that any station group has implemented so far. Compare that to your example, Nexstar, which does absolutely nothing on this front. That said, if some successful stations hold on to legacy brands either temporarily or permanently (like WBZ or KDKA, for example), I don’t think it matters as much as we think it does, especially since every station so far (except KCAL) visually emphasizes their presence on the CBS News app. Conversely, if most CBS stations drop their channel number, I don’t think it will either positively or negatively affect their ratings or viewer trust; there was neither outcry nor excessive curiosity among most viewers when KPIX and KCNC switched over. While *some* stations don’t need to drop legacy brands that are already working for them, they do need to reinvent themselves a bit, and prioritize accessibility in order for both older viewers and people in my age group to consider them relevant. So far, while the implementation hasn’t been perfect, CBS has done a decent job of that.

Yeah.

Welp, there's Hearst's purchase for the decade. Meanwhile, I can just imagine the reaction from staffers at WVIR when they realize what they missed out on.

Missed opportunity by NBCUniversal to create a duopoly between NBC 2 and Telemundo Fort Myers.

One of Standard General’s Appeals of FCC’s Media Bureau Action Is Dismissed One of Standard General’s appeals to get its acquisition of Tegna approved by the Federal Communications Commission before its financing expires on May 22 was dismissed Monday by a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. A decision by the FCC’s Media Bureau sending the matter for a hearing by an administrative law judge will stretch out the review of the deal beyond May 22, when financing for the deal expires, effectively killing the deal, according to Standard General. Standard General had asked the court to treat the Media Bureau’s hearing designation as a final order that it could rule on, but the court instead granted an order to dismiss, deciding that an appeal filed after a bureau decision but before resolution by the full commission is subject to dismissal as incurably premature. ... Continued at link: https://www.nexttv.com/news/one-of-standard-generals-appels-of-fccs-media-bureau-action-dismissed

I thought it was a late April Fool's joke at first, but I'm sure the staff there is breathing a sigh of relief.

What a big move on Hearst’s part; I imagine both stations will get full rebrands like WJCL and WVTM did

This package by far is the best one that Gray has pushed out... I do agree that the Barlow series font isn't the greatest choice, but it's so much better than plain Arial/Helvetica...

Hughes handled coverage in the afternoon. Not sure she did all of it (maybe Vittert helped carry the load at some point????). Assuming she anchored her normal 3 hr block, that's a lot of hrs. for one person to anchor solo.

ABC NEWS ALUMNI ASSEMBLE!

Yes Sunday Morning Baseball on Peacock. Started last season.

I think interactions between the anchors will come with time. It’s a new format that everyone will have to get use to. I guess (hope) they get a chance to sit down off camera because standing for 3 hrs is a pain. Honestly, I’m glad there were no panels or political discussions. I know that’s their bread and butter, but viewers can get that elsewhere. I rather they focus on the news during these two 3 hr. blocks. I agree the show appeared too scripted, but that’s an easy fix. I’m interested in seeing how things will go when there’s breaking news (I.e… will they wheel in a desk and chairs for the anchors, etc…). Overall, not too bad.

Doubt it. Their business has grown. They manufacture broadcast antennas now. They probably just want to separate those businesses out into their own unit. Diamond stayed with the TV stations because what's the point of moving it when it's going to get written off. But more to your point, maybe it's those ancillary businesses that get spun off.

I was surprised that unlike MSNBC, CNN broke away from Trump's Florida departure to cover other stories. MSNBC temporarily did so just for the southern tornadoes. It's hard to think of recent time where MSNBC has covered something non-Trump/politics related with the exception of severe weather.

This constant debate is getting nowhere. The gaslighting and ad hominem attacks aren't constructive. Both "sides" here are making compelling points, but some are less rooted in the reality of the situation than others. Folks, we can sit here and scream about "market research" and "freedom to brand as they want" until we're all blue in the face, but that doesn't change the material facts being offered up at this point in time. Every station (with the exception of KCBS/KCAL, using a modified variant) has adopted the "CBS News [location]" co-brand, which is, in essence, the dominant brand in the graphics. Most, but not all of the stations, have also begun verbally using only the "CBS News [location]" brand, with the co-brand being regulated to nothing more than an image on the screen. If there was truly as much freedom being offered to the stations as some claim, I cannot imagine a world where every single station has adopted the same exact branding strategy with minimal to no variation. The rumored KYW co-brand is the first one that seems to have been designed for the branding scheme developed here, however even it is confined to the co-brand box. Either every station is on-board with the strategy CBS has developed (likely!) or there's now a real "CBS Mandate" that they stick to the one size fits all "cram your co-brand in this square" strategy. Otherwise, I'd suspect we'd be seeing stuff like this or this. "Brand equity" and "market research" is just a snapshot of consumer sentiment at one point in time. Many of these stations, with a few exceptions, are only visually co-branding. KTVT may still show the old CBS11 logo in their bug and certain graphics, but every single on-air mention, every promo, every reference to what the station is, calls it "CBS Texas". What's that mean for "brand equity"? It means that, over time, more and more people will connect "CBS Texas" to the station than the "CBS11" brand. This could happen six months from now, or maybe six years from now. Who knows! In the case of KTVT, the SVP of Brand Strategy and Development for the CBS O&O group is on record as saying "I think it was a no-brainer that while you’re trying to make a position around CBS New[s] Texas, that [the CBS11 logo] remained.” A very interesting choice of words, as "while you're trying to make a position around CBS New[s] Texas" seems to imply that the CBS11 logo will stick around as they build up the CBS News Texas brand, but not forever. Yes, older generations are going to refer to these stations however they damn well please until they ultimately depart this mortal plane. I still have family members that call WITI "TV6" despite the fact they haven't branded as such for almost thirty years. WITI smartly used the long-dormant "brand equity" for the TV6 brand on their Antenna TV channel, which appeals to those same people. This same demographic has also long aged out of the demographic these stations are largely trying to appeal to on their primary channel. All of this, all of it, is at the whim of a few managers at each station and a few people at corporate. The understanding is that the News Director at KCBS/KCAL fought for the "KCAL News" brand. What happens if he leaves? What if viewership and impressions decline? Whoever comes in next could easily blow up the whole branding strategy and decide to brand as "CBS News Los Angeles" in an attempt to change things up. To claim any of this is "permanent" is disregarding how this industry has worked for the past 40+ years. Nothing is permanent in this industry. There's been graphics packages that have lasted less than a year (some that have never even launched!), sets that get re-worked within months of debuting (look at what became of the very expensive WBBM Streetside Studio set...), brands like "Ei8ht is News" that lasted all of a handful of months. NewsNation launched with a bright "WGN America" plexiglass panel on the front of the desk. Surely, someone at Nexstar knew that the channel would be renamed "NewsNation" in the future, yet they paid for that WGN America panel anyways. @Myron Falwellis free to have his own opinion as to when this will happen, so is everyone else. I'm a bit more conservative with my guesses, I think it could take some stations years to move away from their co-brand, and I think a handful (KCAL, maybe WBZ) could keep their co-brands indefinitely (though the co-brand box is super awkward for a long-term brand.) Fighting about it isn't constructive. It doesn't have any effect on anybody's day-to-day life, unless you're in one of the aforementioned positions making these decisions. My opinion? Folks, we're not in 1995 anymore. The local broadcast TV industry has long resisted necessary changes, and we're now on the precipice of needing to do some once "unthinkable" things for it to remain viable. People who actually work in it were telling me 6 years ago that they expect it to utterly collapse by 2030, and that was before we had a global pandemic that showed these companies that you can have your reporters file packages out of their home and pipe in newscasts from the other side of the continent. Nothing lasts forever, and that includes retrans fees (which, I should add, largely became a "thing" when stations started seeing ad revenue fall off a cliff) and political ad dollars. At some point, the proverbial gravy train is going to come off the tracks. These station owners, large and small, are going to have to cut costs more than they already have, and that could come in the form of working with the networks to have more national news programming with local opt-outs (Similar to how the BBC handles regions, which the US morning shows kind of already do, and NBC News Daily does precisely) or the companies will just opt to do it themselves (Nexstar is in a position to do this with NewsNation, Scripps with Scripps News, etc. Why pay for a network news service when you already have your own?) The "CBS News [location]" strategy accounts for this while also giving each station a unique brand, which is more important in the digital age than ever before. There are a lot of "CBS 2"s out there, but only one "CBS New York"/"CBS Chicago"/"CBS Los Angeles". If the local media landscape looks the same in 2033 as it does now, some terrible mistakes were made.

What’s KOVR/KMAX and WCCO? Chopped liver?

They've come a long way from stretched Helvetica. This look so nice. -- Matt

This is the what New York Living looked like from the new studio.

And the new WX graphics look really awkward with the classic L3 is also shown on the screen. That said, this is the same station that as of last week was still using "CBSN Minnesota" graphics... But, I did notice the last couple of days that reporters are ending their bits with "(name) WCCO News". Not trying to speculate, but it is an observation.

Mike Woods has been out recovering from back surgery. Reagan had been doing GDNY, but they've brought in Cheryl Nelson (whose IG says that she's a freelance meteorologist) and the video she posted said that she'll be there for a few months, so I guess Mike is going to be out for a while longer. Update -- corrected the name.

I'm not sure what I think of the new format. I like the use of graphics on the studio screens that give flat walls an appearance of depth. I like the new music (or at least the retro CNN signature -- the rest felt like generic production music). I'm not a fan of the lack of anchor interaction. There are three anchors but they almost never acknowledge each other. They're all pretty much presenting stories individually. Toward the end, John and Kate discussed March Madness with sports contributor Christine Brennan, but that was it. What's the point of three anchors other than to satisfy previous contractual agreements? John and Kate have worked together in the past (used to co-anchor At This Hour before John went to 9-11am Newsroom, before going to New Day) and have great, sarcastic chemistry, but none of that was seen today. It felt "heavily produced" which I actually don't like, especially for a daytime newscast. I wonder how well equipped they will be at handling unexpected stories if they don't have maps, graphics and camera shots planned in advance. Will they be slower? Also felt like fewer panels or discussions with experts with a greater focus on live reporters in the field. More reporting is good but I think cable news viewers have become accustomed to panels/debates. The whole broadcast overall felt kind of lifeless, and I'm a fan of these three anchors.

Also think of these three surprising things that give strong local news brands an advantage...and wise operators are leveraging and listening to them along the way - 50% more OTA homes than 10 years ago. Who would have predicted that the drive to digital on demand viewing would result in more over the air households? https://www.nexttv.com/news/nielsen-sees-uptick-in-over-the-air-households - An aging population - news viewing has always skewed older, and the size of the cohort with the time and desire to consume news is rising - Mistrust in national news brands. Whether you like it or not, for decades a sizable minority has felt unheard by the NY-based network news operations. And local brands at least have some dissociation from that for the cohort that cares about it. Awareness and action on that mistrust is higher than it was 10 or 20 years ago for better or worse. On the flip side who would have guessed 20 years ago the evening news on 3 networks plus cable would still be around? Remember in the 90s and 2000s we were lamenting the stations in big markets that lost their affiliate status as dead men walking? KRON beat KTVU at 10pm recently. Who would have thought WHDH even more recently as an example would remain a contender without NBC, let alone lead some ratings after the split? WSVN still means 'news' more than any other english station in Miami. KUSI is a perennial contender in the San Diego market to the chagrin of some WGN leads many time slots The streamers are signing carriage agreements with the locals https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nexstar-reaches-multi-agreement-youtube-110000355.html Fact is we've already seen 25% of cable households cut the cord. Smartphones are ubiquitous as are the socials they feed. The disruption based on the elements we see today is very far along, and what you see today in habits and financials already reflects that. Future change will be things we can't see (who knows what AI does to productivity for example). CBS can brand all it wants, but NBC has played the network/local combo brand punch in O&O markets for years and it's no magic sauce for NBC. Heck the top web search term for them in LA is....KNBC...which hasn't ever been used in their on air news branding. Consumers will do what's easy for them to reach the talent telling stories they want to see, graphics be damned. The company that's most deftly handling change in the industry at scale is in my opinion Nexstar, and in ways I wouldn't have guessed 5 or 10 years ago. But investors already figured that out, perhaps too widely, given Nexstar's valuation today.

Now that KDKA has joined the CBS collective, we are waiting for WJZ, KYW, WBZ, WBBM, and WCBS. Come to the collective guys. Resistance is futile lol.