WOTV brands itself as a Women's station

[Viper550 268]

West Michigan has two ABC affiliates, WOTV 4 in Battle Creek (owned by LIN as a sister station to NBC affiliate WOOD in Grand Rapids), and WZZM in Grand Rapids (a Gannett Company, of course). While they are both within the same market, WZZM's digital signal doesn't quite reach all the way to Battle Creek, so its presence its still important. But still, the two have found ways to differentiate themselves and co-exist (especially if one needs to pre-empt something)

 

But, I just discovered that this station is now trying something even more ridiculous to make themselves look different:

 

 

Yes, just a few months ago, they re-launched as WOTV 4 Women. Yes, you heard that right. And unfortunately, they appear to be serious. The big difference is that their site, instead of focusing on news, now focuses more on lifestyle-oriented content. And they do have what appears to be a Daytime-esque looking show called eightWest (though by the looks of the video on there, it also airs on WOOD-TV, and it existed before this re-launch.)

 

Real men watch WZZM, I guess? As someone on another forum effectively put it, wait until they air college football, "Last Man Standing", and NASCAR racing on a channel branded "for women." And yes, they do simulcast WOOD-TV's newscasts, too, as was the case before

 

I'm not saying gender-segregated channels are bad, but well, they're bad for a network affiliate though.

[ABC 7 Denver 1554]

And I suppose WZZM will be going for "WZZM 13. Man Size!" The anchors will chew tobacco and swear a lot. The entire newscast will be about military news, war, and sports. Weather will be brought to you be Ollie Williams.

[T.L. Hughes 753]

West Michigan has two ABC affiliates, WOTV 4 in Battle Creek (owned by LIN as a sister station to NBC affiliate WOOD in Grand Rapids), and WZZM in Grand Rapids (a Gannett Company, of course). While they are both within the same market, WZZM's digital signal doesn't quite reach all the way to Battle Creek, but still - the two have found ways to differentiate themselves.

 

But, I just discovered that this station is now trying something even more ridiculous to make themselves look different:

 

 

Yes, just a few months ago, they re-launched as WOTV 4 Women. Yes, you heard that right. And unfortunately, they appear to be serious. The big difference is that their site, instead of focusing on news, now focuses more on lifestyle-oriented content. And they do have what appears to be a Daytime-esque looking show called eightWest (though by the looks of the video on there, it also airs on WOOD-TV, and it existed before this re-launch.)

 

Real men watch WZZM, I guess? As someone on another forum effectively put it, wait until they air college football, "Last Man Standing", and NASCAR racing on a channel branded "for women." And yes, they do simulcast WOOD-TV's newscasts, too, as was the case before

 

I'm not saying gender-segregated channels are bad, but well, they're bad for a network affiliate though.

 

I found this strange when I heard about it weeks ago as well, and you're right, it doesn't make sense for a major network affiliate to try an target a gender-specific audience (an actual network focusing on a specific audience is a much different story). The only question is why doesn't Gannett buy WOTV from LIN Media, and turn it into a satellite of WZZM? There's no excuse why it couldn't happen as WOTV is in a market that is separate from WOOD-TV (WOTV being in the Battle Creek-Kalamazoo market, WOOD being in the Grand Rapids market), so the two stations aren't a duopoly, which would be harder to separate.

[kjohnson 15]

Okay. First things first; Isn't that a nice logo? I actually really like it. Clean looking. Kudos to the designer.

 

Now, for the other high heel to drop:

 

This is perfectly acceptable for a cable channel (and I'd applaud it if didn't retread what the others are doing), but for a broadcast OTA station, it's a bad move. Look no further than the CW for the ills of gender-based marketing, and how much of a failure it is.

 

News is gender-based; neither should programming. Alienate male viewers at your peril. The same is true for catering to a certain race. If a station did this and was catering to men (by no means a saturated market; the same can not be said for female-demoed programming), we would be up in arms (and rightly so) about it.

 

I like the concept, but the consultant that thought this up should be made unemployed...permanently.

[Samantha 2878]

Both Gannett and LIN TV could make money off a combo of WZZM and WOTV.

[WAVY 10 Fan 232]

 

I'm not saying gender-segregated channels are bad, but well, they're bad for a network affiliate though.

 

It may not be bad, but to do something like this, especially for a major network affiliate, is definitely one which has me questioning the management's judgment.

[Michigan Media 0]

 

I found this strange when I heard about it weeks ago as well, and you're right, it doesn't make sense for a major network affiliate to try an target a gender-specific audience (an actual network focusing on a specific audience is a much different story). The only question is why doesn't Gannett buy WOTV from LIN Media, and turn it into a satellite of WZZM? There's no excuse why it couldn't happen as WOTV is in a market that is separate from WOOD-TV (WOTV being in the Battle Creek-Kalamazoo market, WOOD being in the Grand Rapids market), so the two stations aren't a duopoly, which would be harder to separate.

 

Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo and Battle Creek are in the same TV market (DMA #42). The individual cities have their own radio markets, but they are combined into one TV market.

 

Gannett would have trouble acquiring WOTV because they also own The Battle Creek Enquirer (newspaper) in Battle Creek. Even though WZZM is in the same TV market as the Battle Creek Enquirer, WZZM’s over-the-air signal does not sufficiently cover Battle Creek (WZZM is still available on cable and satellite in Battle Creek). The FCC would certainly have a problem with Gannett acquiring WOTV because it would blatantly violate newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rules.

[10Viewer 319]

Too much demographic pandering if you ask me. I don't see how that would serve anyone properly.

[Viper550 268]

I took a look at the weekday schedule, and ... wow. It's just as, let's just say, odd.

 

News 8 Daybreak

GMA

Nate Berkus

Better

The View

Wendy Williams

ABC afternoon lineup (The Chew/The Revolution/General Hospital)

Dr. Oz

Swift Justice double-run

News 8 at 6, ABC World News

Dr. Oz rerun

ABC primetime

 

So yeah, it's pretty much just a typical ABC affiliate schedule, except with less news, and syndicated programs that are hosted by women or lifestyle-oriented.

[tw-804 190]

Wow, you've got to be kidding me. Way to go, WOTV. /sarcasm

[Viper550 268]

I'm also quite glad that they didn't make their slogan "It's all about the O"

[Jess 1110]

I.... actually think this is a smart idea.

 

Think about it, a lot of programming on network stations, at least outside of primetime, is targeted to women, whether it's explicitly stated or not. Newscasts are also increasingly targeted to women. Why not just come out and say it?

 

I'm not saying that the strategy would necessarily work - there's a reason Spike doesn't brand as "the channel for men" anymore - but at least on the face of it it's not a horrible idea.

 

 

As someone on another forum effectively put it, wait until they air college football, "Last Man Standing", and NASCAR racing on a channel branded "for women."

They'll fit in just as fine as they did before.

 

Really, the model here is TBS and TNT. TBS brands as comedy, TNT is the drama channel. Both networks concentrate on their specific areas, and their signature shows fit into those areas, but the formats are loose. TBS airs stuff like Lord of the Rings. TNT has aired comedies. Both networks run sports, which last I checked wasn't comedy or drama. When they do stuff like that, it's not out of place. I'd wager the same would be true here.

 

Like I said, it working is an open question. But there have been dumber brands (JOEtv anyone?)

[kjohnson 15]

I.... actually think this is a smart idea.

 

Think about it, a lot of programming on network stations, at least outside of primetime, is targeted to women, whether it's explicitly stated or not. Newscasts are also increasingly targeted to women. Why not just come out and say it?

 

I'm not saying that the strategy would necessarily work - there's a reason Spike doesn't brand as "the channel for men" anymore - but at least on the face of it it's not a horrible idea.

 

 

 

They'll fit in just as fine as they did before.

 

Really, the model here is TBS and TNT. TBS brands as comedy, TNT is the drama channel. Both networks concentrate on their specific areas, and their signature shows fit into those areas, but the formats are loose. TBS airs stuff like Lord of the Rings. TNT has aired comedies. Both networks run sports, which last I checked wasn't comedy or drama. When they do stuff like that, it's not out of place. I'd wager the same would be true here.

 

Like I said, it working is an open question. But there have been dumber brands (JOEtv anyone?)

 

I'm going to walk this one back a bit.

 

Valid points. It just seems like wasting energy on a moving target is waste of time and money (something that should be spent on news...which is lacking everywhere these days). Personally, I don't dislike the idea; I'm even curious to see how it works (I can't see it working any better than targeting viewers in an age group as a block, but I digress).

 

I guess we should wait and see if the experiment gets torpedoed in the next few months (when some other consultant convinces management to change to another format).