My idea on how local broadcasting can stay competitive

[Market146 2]

So it was all talks that two of the big four networks were moving to cable. The network affiliates are getting lost in the deal, scrambling to remain competitive. What you may think of my idea how these local broadcasters can stay competitive may be silly or non-feasible. But my idea is that the local broadcasters need to evolve to adapt a more regional or even global perspective on news and content. Essentially my ideal is that they become their own 24-hour content networks themselves. Does this give anybody ideas?

[MidwestTV 1232]

...so in other words...turn our local TV stations into mini versions of CNN, MSNBC and Fox News? No...I don't think so please.

[DirtyHarry 727]

I think the current model seems to be "okay" for the time being, but I have a couple of ideas.

 

1. Have a network of LPTV stations in each DMA's submarkets. Sell local advertising or do local inserts relevant to each submarket.

 

From the news side, I would envision this as, say, being the news reporter at the local radio station doing double duty for the TV station. He would have an intern and maybe a sales guy working with him or maybe you piggyback on the radio station's sales guy's efforts. The local news would flow in such a way where you would have a pre-recorded introduction from the main anchor as a segue to the local segment and then all the local segments cutting away at the same time. Each LPTV/submarket would have its own insert.

 

I don't know how you would organize this, but the way I would do it in this DMA would be that you would do your sensational/top story first, then you would do stories of regional or state interest, then when it's time for city news is when you would cut away to each submarket's local segment.

 

Sales would have a couple of different tiers where you could pay for your ad to run in the entire DMA, or local spots relevant to that particular submarket.

 

I think this would be the best of both worlds. Not a lot of extra overhead, but also fostering more viewer intensity in the outlying areas and generating extra revenue you otherwise wouldn't get from a business in one of the outlying areas who doesn't want or need to reach the entire DMA.

 

2. Otherwise, I would just go with the flow with the main channels, generate whatever generates revenue. BUT ...

 

3. I would experiment with more local programming on the subchannels. Especially more entertainment programming. I think there exists a great opportunity to expose people to a lot of things going on in the community, especially from an arts and entertainment standpoint, even if they might not be the most telegenic people.

 

4. Fox News at night is mostly a cable version of talk radio. Likewise, Sports Time Ohio has Bruce Drennan's "All Bets are Off" (his house was raided by the FBI for sports-gambling). Drennan is an interesting character who is fun to watch. It's essentially a radio talk show on TV.

 

I don't know what the economics are going to be, but the big thing is going to be to have people who are interesting and entertaining just like in the golden days of broadcasting. If you throw up a bunch of suits and people are too corporate, it will never work.

[Samantha 2896]

Cable and especially satellite carriage would be a nightmare in such a distributed system.

[Thundershock MN 169]

 

So it was all talks that two of the big four networks were moving to cable. The network affiliates are getting lost in the deal, scrambling to remain competitive. What you may think of my idea how these local broadcasters can stay competitive may be silly or non-feasible. But my idea is that the local broadcasters need to evolve to adapt a more regional or even global perspective on news and content. Essentially my ideal is that they become their own 24-hour content networks themselves. Does this give anybody ideas?

 

First, This whole "big four networks moving to cable" has been really misreported. IF they make a "cable move" they won't leave OTA entirely. They will employ a “Dual Stream Strategy.” Most affliates are fed by fiber directly to the cable head ends or sat providers uplink stations. So, the OTA version just wouldn't be clean or would be blacked out of premium (ie: prime-time) content. I can't really blame them if they do it. Aereo really teaters on being illegal in my mind. I think Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Denny Chin said it best when talking about Aereo calling it “a Rube Goldberg-like contrivance, overengineered in an attempt to avoid the reach of the Copyright Act and to take advantage of a perceived loophole in the law.”

 

Second, With the consolidation taking place it's wouldn't shock me to see more KELOland/KSN style regional operations. In fact I kind of expect it.

 

Lastly, I see no way a local station could churn out 24 hours worth of unique content. The budget just isn't there even in NY and LA.

[sanewsguy 511]

The conventional OTA TV system in the US is broken today as we know it. This is what really needs to happen: The FCC needs to repeal this stupid rule where one single owner can cover no more than 39% of the country. The current rule where one owner can own no more than two stations in a market if there are 8 or more owners can remain, it's a good rule.

 

In a perfect world, the networks would own and operate most of their stations (top 100 markets) while the markets under 100 are affiliates. Look at Canada, UK, Australia, Mexico. The major networks there own and operate almost all of their stations. In the smaller cities, they are affiliates. This is a great model. Also the news broadcasts would be standardized. I'll use ABC for example. WABC becomes "ABC New York" with local newscasts referred to as "ABC News New York at (time)" except night which would be "ABC News New York Late Night". WPVI becomes "ABC Philadelphia" and "ABC News Philadelphia at xx:xx". KOMO could be "ABC Seattle" and "ABC News Seattle at 5/6". And so on. The music and graphics would be standardized (CBC in Canada is a good example, as are 7, 9, 10, and ABC Australia).

 

America needs to get with the rest of the world. Local identities are getting too expensive and an outdated mode of imaging if you ask me. Standardization is the way to go.

[Samantha 2896]

 

The conventional OTA TV system in the US is broken today as we know it. This is what really needs to happen: The FCC needs to repeal this stupid rule where one single owner can cover no more than 39% of the country. The current rule where one owner can own no more than two stations in a market if there are 8 or more owners can remain, it's a good rule.

 

In a perfect world, the networks would own and operate most of their stations (top 100 markets) while the markets under 100 are affiliates. Look at Canada, UK, Australia, Mexico. The major networks there own and operate almost all of their stations. In the smaller cities, they are affiliates. This is a great model. Also the news broadcasts would be standardized. I'll use ABC for example. WABC becomes "ABC New York" with local newscasts referred to as "ABC News New York at (time)" except night which would be "ABC News New York Late Night". WPVI becomes "ABC Philadelphia" and "ABC News Philadelphia at xx:xx". KOMO could be "ABC Seattle" and "ABC News Seattle at 5/6". And so on. The music and graphics would be standardized (CBC in Canada is a good example, as are 7, 9, 10, and ABC Australia).

 

America needs to get with the rest of the world. Local identities are getting too expensive and an outdated mode of imaging if you ask me. Standardization is the way to go.

 

This can't happen in the United States for a number of reasons.

 

For one thing, there's a massive evolutionary process required, in which presumably (to get to that point) networks would align with large owners of affiliate stations first. Gannett is the largest owner of NBC affiliates, but after Belo, it will also hold the same title for CBS. Both networks would need to secure their largest affiliate groups. The result would be not only a national affiliation switching mania putting 1994 to shame, but also the awkward position of competing stations. For instance, suppose that Gannett were to convert all of its stations to NBC. It would run into NBC-owned stations' conflicts in Dallas and Washington. Also suppose that both Scripps and Hearst, the two most important owners of ABC outlets, were to both sign ABC affiliation contracts for their entire station group. In markets like Kansas City and Cincinnati, this would create a duplication of ABC and box out a network (in both cases, NBC). Imagine the nightmare that Nexstar, which almost exclusively operates duopoly shops, would have; it would need to line up the same two networks in dozens of cities (including Fresno, which is home to an ABC-owned station).

 

Another factor is the sheer size of the United States. Australia's paved road to consolidation was aggregation, in which the regional stations that served just one or two community suddenly were serving 10 or 11, with centralcasted local news; and there were (and are) just five non-regional markets. There were only 14 or 15 ITV regions (two of which are STILL separate from ITV plc). The resources required to bring a uniform "ABC Local News" to every ABC affiliate would be mammoth; 200-some identical sets would need to be constructed, equipment standardized across stations, etc. That does not exist.

 

Here's a third. We produce lots of local news. In Australia, it's typically a 30- or 60-minute local newscast every evening. The regions of ITV did much the same. Now try to standardize the comparatively copious local news content of American stations. Morning shows, early evening news, late news. Newscast formats: could CBS or ABC bring "Action News" or "Eyewitness News" as a brand to all of their affiliates without significant conflicts (the most visible ones in Philadelphia and Baltimore)? What about the individual personalities of anchor teams and news formats, especially morning shows?

 

Now compare that to something you describe in one form but exists in another in the US; Spanish-language networks. Univision and Telemundo have uniform graphics and (when it's not production tracks) music across their stations. Univision commissions and produces its own news music and graphics (the 2006 and 2013 successors to Turning Point are not Mark Haffner's work). Each company has just one major affiliate owner to deal with (Entravision, ZGS Communications). And their local stations produce one hour of local evening news a day, and at many Telemundo shops (including Arizona) that does not include weekends. (Some still lack local news—WWSI, anyone?)

 

In short—the diversity of large station groups, the diversity and size of the United States as a country, and the diversity of newscast formats across the plentiful local news output of local stations prevent that from becoming a reality in English-language American television. What you want to see exists in the United States—except it's in Spanish.

[Nelson R. 569]

If the FCC actually allowed two affiliates of the same network in one market it would not be a good thing. I can't ever imagine, say, WCNC and WSOC as ABC.

[sanewsguy 511]

 

This can't happen in the United States for a number of reasons.

 

For one thing, there's a massive evolutionary process required, in which presumably (to get to that point) networks would align with large owners of affiliate stations first. Gannett is the largest owner of NBC affiliates, but after Belo, it will also hold the same title for CBS. Both networks would need to secure their largest affiliate groups. The result would be not only a national affiliation switching mania putting 1994 to shame, but also the awkward position of competing stations. For instance, suppose that Gannett were to convert all of its stations to NBC. It would run into NBC-owned stations' conflicts in Dallas and Washington. Also suppose that both Scripps and Hearst, the two most important owners of ABC outlets, were to both sign ABC affiliation contracts for their entire station group. In markets like Kansas City and Cincinnati, this would create a duplication of ABC and box out a network (in both cases, NBC). Imagine the nightmare that Nexstar, which almost exclusively operates duopoly shops, would have; it would need to line up the same two networks in dozens of cities (including Fresno, which is home to an ABC-owned station).

 

Another factor is the sheer size of the United States. Australia's paved road to consolidation was aggregation, in which the regional stations that served just one or two community suddenly were serving 10 or 11, with centralcasted local news; and there were (and are) just five non-regional markets. There were only 14 or 15 ITV regions (two of which are STILL separate from ITV plc). The resources required to bring a uniform "ABC Local News" to every ABC affiliate would be mammoth; 200-some identical sets would need to be constructed, equipment standardized across stations, etc. That does not exist.

 

Here's a third. We produce lots of local news. In Australia, it's typically a 30- or 60-minute local newscast every evening. The regions of ITV did much the same. Now try to standardize the comparatively copious local news content of American stations. Morning shows, early evening news, late news. Newscast formats: could CBS or ABC bring "Action News" or "Eyewitness News" as a brand to all of their affiliates without significant conflicts (the most visible ones in Philadelphia and Baltimore)? What about the individual personalities of anchor teams and news formats, especially morning shows?

 

Now compare that to something you describe in one form but exists in another in the US; Spanish-language networks. Univision and Telemundo have uniform graphics and (when it's not production tracks) music across their stations. Univision commissions and produces its own news music and graphics (the 2006 and 2013 successors to Turning Point are not Mark Haffner's work). Each company has just one major affiliate owner to deal with (Entravision, ZGS Communications). And their local stations produce one hour of local evening news a day, and at many Telemundo shops (including Arizona) that does not include weekends. (Some still lack local news—WWSI, anyone?)

 

In short—the diversity of large station groups, the diversity and size of the United States as a country, and the diversity of newscast formats across the plentiful local news output of local stations prevent that from becoming a reality in English-language American television. What you want to see exists in the United States—except it's in Spanish.

 

You missed the point. We'd kiss companies like Hearst, Scripps, and Gannett bye-bye. If they want to continue as separate newspaper companies, then so be it. But ABC would own all their stations. CBS, NBC, FOX would own the stations outright.

 

There wouldn't be two affiliates of the same network in the same market. If CBS (for instance) did not get their hands on the Gannett CBS stations, then they yank the affiliation and put it on another station they own. Even if that means going low power.

 

Another stipulation is that the under DMA 100 affiliates have to conform mostly with the branding and imaging conventions at the network run stations or their affiliations get yanked (Nine and WIN in Australia is another good example). Network affiliates should like this though because the network provides them with music and graphics, so the station saves money on that.

 

You don't have to produce 200 identical sets per se. New York, L.A., Chicago get a cutting-edge set. The lower the market, the cheaper the set. CTV is a good example. CFTO has a really really nice Devlin set, probably the best Devlin set I've ever seen (they probably paid a fortune for it too). CIVT has a good set. CFCF has a miniature version of the CFTO set. CFCN and CFRN have Devlin sets based on mostly on the sets they've done for Sinclair. Then from there they are cheap ugly sets. CJCH still uses their 1993 newsroom set (though they got a new desk from Devlin a couple of years ago that doesn't match the rest of the set at all). Or you could take the Nine Australia route and go with identical sets. Or you could follow Global's footprints and just use virtual sets. It's cheaper and easier to give all the stations a uniform look.

 

You would kiss the Action News, Eyewitness News, News Channel, etc. brandings good bye. Hello ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, and Fox News.

 

If they were to standardize music, I hope inthegroove does it. Gari and 615=bad. They should take cues from CTV, CBC, and Global news themes. The Canadian news themes blow the American ones out of the water.

 

Thankfully the CBS/NBC/Fox O&O's have already gone in the right direction with music, graphics, and website names. Just drop the channel numbers and call letter references and you'll be set.

 

This would be a lot better. Most people do not even refer to their local stations by their call letters unless the station has done a good job embedding the call letters in to the fabric of the community (e.g. WJZ). Otherwise most refer to it by channel number or network. (ex: I'm going to watch channel 7, or ABC rather than KGO). I bet a lot of people do not know the call letters of their local station. The FCC should also get rid of the rule where a station has to ID by their call letters once an hour because the other countries don't make their stations do this. Why should the USA make stations ID by the calls?

 

In fact, here in San Antonio, 11 years after channel 4 switched their calls back to WOAI, a lot of people STILL call it KMOL. Call letters today are irrelevant and is only for regulatory purposes.

 

I'm glad the Spanish stations do it already. The English ones to do it now.

[Samantha 2896]

I'm trying to think of natural steps toward the standardization you described. One of them would almost certainly involve, as a matter of progression, the largest affiliate groups. Especially a few years down the line if we see a lot more M&A activity.

 

Once that happens, then there'd be a massive station trade so that those duplication cases are avoided. (For instance, in my scenario, Gannett or another NBC affiliate system would buy into Cincinnati to resolve the ABC conflict. If LIN were to align with NBC, Austin, Texas would have two potential NBC outlets with KXAN alongside Gannett's KVUE; Scripps or Hearst or an ABC system would buy into Austin.) Then there'd be a few large affiliate owners for each network—a reminder that in the Australian and US Spanish cases, there are major third parties tied to each network (WIN, Prime, Entravision, ZGS, etc.) You wouldn't see the networks acquire them outright for regulatory reasons, but they'd all be pretty much under their thumb.

[skbl17 188]

Warning: there is a very long pseudo-rant ahead. If you think that what's ahead is nothing but babble, skip to the end to see the TL;DR version.

 

Firstly, sub-regional newscasts.

 

Opt-outs could work, but this begs three questions: is the DMA too large to be served from one central point? Also, is there viewer interest in such a setup? Finally, does the central station serve outlying communities effectively? If the answers are yes, yes and no, then an opt-out setup (maybe 10 minutes in a 30 minute newscast) could be a good idea. For example, let's take a blatantly obvious example: KAKE (and any Wichita station, for that matter). The Wichita stations serve almost 80% of Kansas; so you'd need a damn extensive news operation to serve such a large area. Is the Wichita market large? Quite. Next, would there be viewer interest? Maybe; severe weather-wise, regional operations are important, but what about news? If most of the news comes out of Wichita and Salina to the detriment of central and western Kansas, then viewers would likely come around to the idea of a local operation. Finally, does KAKE serve outlying communities effectively? If they do, then an opt-out isn't needed, just a little more focus on the rest of Kansas. If they don't, then KAKE may as well just setup semi-autonomous news operations in Dodge City and Garden City. Above all, does the station have the money to pull off a partial regionalization?

 

However, even with all of the aforementioned variables in place, there are still random factors. First, someone could pull a WMBF on western Kansas and start up an ABC station in Dodge City, with other networks on digital subchannels. If a majority of people tune in, then western Kansas is separated from Wichita and made its own DMA; the argument for KAKEland opt-outs there is defeated. Next, does enough happen to warrant an opt-out? Coming back to the KAKE example, if there isn't really much to talk about outside of Wichita, then is it really necessary to have an opt-out? Next, what about the potential viewership numbers? Wichita's market is big, but it's also sparsely populated. I don't know if you could capture a good viewership base with those population figures.

 

Next, more local programming to fill slots on subchannels. First, one must consider the fact that many cable, satellite and IPTV operators (mine included,) don't carry subchannels. Therefore, station x is already faced with a roadblock; must-carry rules do not apply to digital subchannels. What about more local programming on the x.1 channel? Station x could try, but without the viewership and advertisers to support the local programming, the trial would likely end in failure. Without the network programming that people turn to the station to watch, the station wouldn't be able to survive without serious cutbacks (newscasts may be an exception though).

 

However, most affiliates won't simply go off the air. First, there is must-carry; stations basically take this as a guaranteed form of cash. Next, the stations could enter cross-market agreements in order to survive; this would likely lead to the effective end of DMAs as we know it, with new "super-DMAs" taking their place. The ultimate fate of local affiliate stations may very well end up in the FCC's hands. If the ownership rules are rewritten to eliminate the "39% rule", that would only delay the almost inevitable:

 

In the end, all of the affiliate stations would likely end up as either O&Os or stations owned by puppet owners/shell companies that the networks indirectly control. If done correctly, that in and of itself may not turn out to be a bad thing; I wouldn't hold my breath though.

 

Therefore, my best solution (by no means is this foolproof) is this:

 

The number of DMAs should be reduced. There's no reason why Glendive, MT shouldn't be eliminated as a DMA, nor is there a reason why Abilene and San Angelo's DMAs shouldn't be merged. Binghamton and Scranton/Wilkes-Barre should share one DMA. Is there a reason why Panama City and Dothan shouldn't be merged into one DMA? Why can't Gainesville, FL be eliminated as a DMA? The list goes on and on and on...it could get to the point where there is an ABC Australia-like setup, where there is one affiliate (plus opt-outs) for each state (i.e. ABC Georgia, NBC Florida, CBS Texas, FOX Colorado, PBS Nevada, etc.) It may seem like a very loony idea, but if Australia can work it out, why can't we?

 

Must-carry rules should extend to subchannels, but with limits. Now, some stations may become "subchannel farms" (WANN-CD is the one here; I think it has over 20 subchannels,) so a cap should be placed on the number of digital subchannels a station can have.

 

Eliminate JSAs and SSAs, but allow failing stations to merge with neighboring out-of-market stations. If, say, WNCF-TV wasn't doing too well and wished to merge with WBMA/WCFT/WJSU, the transaction should be allowed.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

TL;DR: I don't even see why we are having this discussion right now. Local broadcasting is here to stay for quite some time. Will the form be different? Consolidation will see to it; but there's no practical reason to think that local television is going to die in the immediate future. It's too early to think about whether Aereo will be successful or what impact it will have on broadcast stations. Local broadcasting will evolve; it won't remain the same way it is now, but once again, local television will not die. The worst-case scenario is that all of the network affiliates will either become O&Os or puppets of the network.

[MidwestTV 1232]

 

Warning: there is a very long pseudo-rant ahead. If you think that what's ahead is nothing but babble, skip to the end to see the TL;DR version.

 

Firstly, sub-regional newscasts.

 

Opt-outs could work, but this begs three questions: is the DMA too large to be served from one central point? Also, is there viewer interest in such a setup? Finally, does the central station serve outlying communities effectively? If the answers are yes, yes and no, then an opt-out setup (maybe 10 minutes in a 30 minute newscast) could be a good idea. For example, let's take a blatantly obvious example: KAKE (and any Wichita station, for that matter). The Wichita stations serve almost 80% of Kansas; so you'd need a damn extensive news operation to serve such a large area. Is the Wichita market large? Quite. Next, would there be viewer interest? Maybe; severe weather-wise, regional operations are important, but what about news? If most of the news comes out of Wichita and Salina to the detriment of central and western Kansas, then viewers would likely come around to the idea of a local operation. Finally, does KAKE serve outlying communities effectively? If they do, then an opt-out isn't needed, just a little more focus on the rest of Kansas. If they don't, then KAKE may as well just setup semi-autonomous news operations in Dodge City and Garden City. Above all, does the station have the money to pull off a partial regionalization?

 

However, even with all of the aforementioned variables in place, there are still random factors. First, someone could pull a WMBF on western Kansas and start up an ABC station in Dodge City, with other networks on digital subchannels. If a majority of people tune in, then western Kansas is separated from Wichita and made its own DMA; the argument for KAKEland opt-outs there is defeated. Next, does enough happen to warrant an opt-out? Coming back to the KAKE example, if there isn't really much to talk about outside of Wichita, then is it really necessary to have an opt-out? Next, what about the potential viewership numbers? Wichita's market is big, but it's also sparsely populated. I don't know if you could capture a good viewership base with those population figures.

 

Next, more local programming to fill slots on subchannels. First, one must consider the fact that many cable, satellite and IPTV operators (mine included,) don't carry subchannels. Therefore, station x is already faced with a roadblock; must-carry rules do not apply to digital subchannels. What about more local programming on the x.1 channel? Station x could try, but without the viewership and advertisers to support the local programming, the trial would likely end in failure. Without the network programming that people turn to the station to watch, the station wouldn't be able to survive without serious cutbacks (newscasts may be an exception though).

 

However, most affiliates won't simply go off the air. First, there is must-carry; stations basically take this as a guaranteed form of cash. Next, the stations could enter cross-market agreements in order to survive; this would likely lead to the effective end of DMAs as we know it, with new "super-DMAs" taking their place. The ultimate fate of local affiliate stations may very well end up in the FCC's hands. If the ownership rules are rewritten to eliminate the "39% rule", that would only delay the almost inevitable:

 

In the end, all of the affiliate stations would likely end up as either O&Os or stations owned by puppet owners/shell companies that the networks indirectly control. If done correctly, that in and of itself may not turn out to be a bad thing; I wouldn't hold my breath though.

 

Therefore, my best solution (by no means is this foolproof) is this:

 

The number of DMAs should be reduced. There's no reason why Glendive, MT shouldn't be eliminated as a DMA, nor is there a reason why Abilene and San Angelo's DMAs shouldn't be merged. Binghamton and Scranton/Wilkes-Barre should share one DMA. Is there a reason why Panama City and Dothan shouldn't be merged into one DMA? Why can't Gainesville, FL be eliminated as a DMA? The list goes on and on and on...it could get to the point where there is an ABC Australia-like setup, where there is one affiliate (plus opt-outs) for each state (i.e. ABC Georgia, NBC Florida, CBS Texas, FOX Colorado, PBS Nevada, etc.) It may seem like a very loony idea, but if Australia can work it out, why can't we?

 

Must-carry rules should extend to subchannels, but with limits. Now, some stations may become "subchannel farms" (WANN-CD is the one here; I think it has over 20 subchannels,) so a cap should be placed on the number of digital subchannels a station can have.

 

Eliminate JSAs and SSAs, but allow failing stations to merge with neighboring out-of-market stations. If, say, WNCF-TV wasn't doing too well and wished to merge with WBMA/WCFT/WJSU, the transaction should be allowed.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

TL;DR: I don't even see why we are having this discussion right now. Local broadcasting is here to stay for quite some time. Will the form be different? Consolidation will see to it; but there's no practical reason to think that local television is going to die in the immediate future. It's too early to think about whether Aereo will be successful or what impact it will have on broadcast stations. Local broadcasting will evolve; it won't remain the same way it is now, but once again, local television will not die. The worst-case scenario is that all of the network affiliates will either become O&Os or puppets of the network.

 

As someone living in Kansas, I do not quite know if that idea would work. For one thing, IT'S KANSAS. There are only about five or six major population centers: Kansas City (which has its own market), Topeka (which has its own market), Wichita, Salina, Lawrence and Manhattan. Lawrence and Manhattan are college towns and are inside of the KC and Topeka DMA's respectively. As for Dodge City and all of those other towns? I assure you that virtually nothing is happening over there that their own little city-wide news service can't handle. The population is more or less barren out that far. Kansas has large population centers that are awkwardly placed I suppose when you're talking about TV markets.

 

BUT! On the flip side, look at KQTV and KTVO, both ABC affiliates in St. Joseph, MO and Kirksville, MO. They are both inside of the Kansas City DMA, yet still have their own television station to cover that little general area...and Kirksville only has a population of a bout 15 thousand. So after remembering those two, perhaps you are actually right. The problem then though, is that the overall quality of the station is pure crap.

 

But as far as reducing the number of DMAs? Well if you want to do that then you better get rid of all of those tiny market-inside-of-markets. But the problem with reducing DMAs or merging them is this: some places will now be left out and other places will now be too large. Therefore, you would end up with places like Kansas or Wyoming where the market is essentially the whole entire state (just as an example to show how large some DMAs might now become) and areas would stop being covered because the resources aren't large enough.

[GoldenShine9 1513]

 

I'm trying to think of natural steps toward the standardization you described. One of them would almost certainly involve, as a matter of progression, the largest affiliate groups. Especially a few years down the line if we see a lot more M&A activity.

 

Once that happens, then there'd be a massive station trade so that those duplication cases are avoided. (For instance, in my scenario, Gannett or another NBC affiliate system would buy into Cincinnati to resolve the ABC conflict. If LIN were to align with NBC, Austin, Texas would have two potential NBC outlets with KXAN alongside Gannett's KVUE; Scripps or Hearst or an ABC system would buy into Austin.) Then there'd be a few large affiliate owners for each network—a reminder that in the Australian and US Spanish cases, there are major third parties tied to each network (WIN, Prime, Entravision, ZGS, etc.) You wouldn't see the networks acquire them outright for regulatory reasons, but they'd all be pretty much under their thumb.

 

I could also see the merged groups deciding to buy the networks outright. For example, in the Scripps-Hearst situation if they came together, they could buy off ABC from Disney and effectively create O&O's out of their existing assets.

[24994J 5585]

 

I could also see the merged groups deciding to buy the networks outright. For example, in the Scripps-Hearst situation if they came together, they could buy off ABC from Disney and effectively create O&O's out of their existing assets.

 

One minute for rebuttal? :wacko:

[GoldenShine9 1513]

 

One minute for rebuttal? :wacko:

 

If these companies buying up TV stations end up so big and powerful, they may have enough clout that they may buy off networks if they go up for sale or create merger opportunities. They aren't exactly cash cows, at least on the broadcast side (some of their cable assets are, but even there, they have seen decline).

[DirtyHarry 727]

My thoughts on the above comments, in no particular order are going to be based on analogy. My caveat is going to be that I don' t know if any of this makes any financial sense, I'm just using logic, analogy and common sense here to share some basic principles I see that might be drawn upon

 

1. People love local. Just look at how radio has declined once it went to a more generic, national format. There is simply something about hands-on interaction that comes through over the airwaves. Compare a good local PD's music selection versus generic premium choice formatting which really sounds flat. Compare a voice-tracked announcer from half-way across the country to someone local who interracts with his audience and his advertisers. One of the local broadcast legends around here Spook Beckman, considered interacting with and networking with advertisers to be part of his job and a key part of his success. I believe Jim Scott (or maybe it was someone else) in Cincinnati also got started in the business by going to advertisers door-to-door and spreading the word.

 

2. People in small markets REALLY love local. Just look at the newspaper biz. Major metropolitan newspapers' circulation usually drops off outside their home counties. Just look at the Cleveland or Tampa markets for examples. OTOH, look at all the small town newspapers Gannett owns that seem to thrive.

 

3. People love to interact. That used to be the basis of local radio. It is also the basis of talk radio, comment boards on newspaper sites, and even boards like this one. Fox News to me is really a video version of talk radio at night.

 

4. People love local (continued). Those small towns thrive on local news about festivals, high school sports, school board meetings, city council meetings, church news and crime news to a much greater degree than metropolitan stations do. They are smaller towns, more people know each other and are more connected to their communities to a very large degree. They love meth dealer bust stories down there.

 

5. Economies of scale. A small market like Mansfield or Chillicothe, Ohio might consider a start up broadcast operation to be an iffy proposition. You have a lot of costs and overhead involved. But if you rely on the metropolitan station to do most of the work, it seems like you could pull something like my vision of with just a few people and a 15kw LPTV transmitter simply doesn't cost that much to a company running a $200 million metropolitan TV station.

 

6. People like to see themselves on TV or read their names in the newspapers, especially in small towns.

 

For example: When WWHO-TV first came on the air in the 1980's, it was decidedly a low-budget affair. It was focused mostly on Chillicothe (45 miles away; 78,000 population in Ross Co.) but they tried to cover Columbus. They didn't have money for any kind of a decent stick, so they used LP Channel 17 and had very poor production value. They failed and filed bankruptcy. I remember Mike Smith doing news reports. I didn't know who the guy was back then, but I later found out he is morning anchor on the radio in Chillicothe for the Clear Channel-owned stations there.

 

 

That's what makes me wonder if you can take these 50,000+ population counties and do something like this. It seems that all you need is one person producing content, another person doing sales, and agreements with the local newspaper and radio station allowing you to piggyback on their efforts as "news partners" if you will. The local inserts wouldn't have to be the highest production value, but you can send the raw material up to Columbus and have someone there clean it all up if that's important.

 

Incidentally, WDEM-LD 17 continues to be owned by the same family that owned WWHO-TV and tried to pull off something similar to what I'm talking about:

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/life_and_entertainment/2009/03/09/1A_WDEM-TV_--_timely.ART_ART_03-09-09_D1_EED4EE7.html

 

They actually had some pretty good content on that station, but without being Cable TV and because of the recession, they pulled the plug very quickly.

 

7. High School Sports. You could air high school sports on one of the LPTV subchannels. People in small towns loooove high school sports and this is a big revenue source for local radio stations. With today's technology, away gams can be done very cheaply. I don't know how well the production value would mesh with the image a big TV station would want to have. You would have to be careful about this so it doesn't look like a high school production.

 

WCSN-LP was another stab at something like this, trying to put together a channel featuring local sports coverage 24/7 on LPTV. It failed because of the recession and because the market is too big. Someone on the east side of the metro isn't going to care about a football game in one of the northern suburbs unless its a rival game. Simply not enough intensity to sustain a channel. Small towns, however, do have that kind of intensity.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2007/05/14/story5.html?page=all

 

8. Incremental Revenue. When you sell time on a metro station, some advertisers such as Kroger might be willing to pay to get out to the entire DMA. Other advertisers like Elder-Beerman or Menards, don't (or didn't) have stores in the big city and can't afford to have the kind of TV advertising exposure they should be having. Elder-Beerman is in Chillicothe but not in Columbus. Like I said, Gannett and Clear Channel seem to make money there as do the cable companies, so why can't this be incremental revenue for TV stations? Computer technology should make it easy to do.

 

9. Weekly newspapers. Most of the metropolitan dailies also own chains of weekly newspapers with more localized content for these very reasons. People are simply more interested in what goes on in their own backyard as opposed to the big city. But I don't think someone in a suburb of Columbus is going to have the same kind of intensity about his community as someone in Ross County.

 

10. TV on a statewide platform. I think it depends on the market. WBNS tried to operate ONN as an Ohio news channel with a little sports thrown in. It was not a success, not to mention that it was pretty boring. Sports Time Ohio and Fox Ohio does better with the sports angle, but sports teams do generate more interest statewide than local news does. Kansas may be different, but there are 10 or 11 DMA's serving Ohio and they are all decent sized cities so I think the historical patterns are set. Nobody cares about what is going on in Cleveland unless its a sensational story, like the three women held hostage.

 

11. Small town TV stations. The stations in Zanesville, Mansfield and Lima seem to do okay and they have to shoulder all the overhead of a fully operational TV station. A setup like this wouldn't have to do that. My setup would kind of be like a KELO-land, but at the county level.

 

Anyway, what does an LPTV transmitter cost, $5,000? It seems like someone who is creative and has some vision could try something like this really cheaply ... like for less than $250,000, including maybe even a couple of years' worth of salaries.

 

Let's say they can pull out another $1 million a year out of Chillicothe with a setup like this. Would it be worth it? WBNS probably makes $15 million a year profit (based on the $100 million revenue for Dispatch Broadcast group at about a 33% profit margin). I don't know. But it would definitely increase the loyalty factor for the metro TV station, if that still means anything. I would guess there would also be some other benefits you won't be able to quantify.

 

So, a little extra revenue, a better OTA signal (as opposed to the metro signal 45 miles away) and also a way to make the metro station "their" local station to encourage viewer loyalty. Would it work?

 

Anyway, these are my thoughts on the subject. More local is better. I don't know if you can make money at it, but this might be a way you can do so.

 

P.S. I think there is room for ONE player to do something like this in each local market. I don't think all three stations would be able to pull it off.

[DirtyHarry 727]

Sorry for the long-winded post above. I was on a roll. Thought of another reason why this should be tried.

 

If you're interested, go to the Radio-Info Columbus and Cincinnati boards and see what Mark Bohach has done with a little 500 watt daytime radio station in Lancaster, Ohio, a Columbus bedroom community. He relies on local news, three hours of local talk, sports, and B-list syndicated talk the rest of the day. His operation has been a great success focussing on Lancaster and Fairfield County as opposed to trying to be a Columbus station with a weak rimshot signal.

 

There is enough separation to make it work because Lancaster has a separate identity and separate interests from Columbus, even though it's in the next county. Ross Co. is two counties away, so there is even more separation. Likewise for Marion County, Knox County and a few others large enough. Couldn't this work for TV?

 

I think you would have to have at least a one-county separation between the metro station and any of these mini-satellites so you don't cannibalize your metro station.

 

I don't know, just thinking out loud creatively about this subject. But it would be interesting to try. LPTV used to be crap in the analog world, but digital LPTV is of decent enough quality that it has opened up a lot of opportunities if you think creatively about it. Why else would the Gray's of this world be dabbling in LPTV if it didn't have a lot of potential?

[Market146 2]

I actually part-like the standardization that's been described here. I wonder if local or OTA even has a future at all in some form. If so, it needs to change.