Sinclair buying the Weather Channel & hubbing weather?

[Rusty Muck 4168]

I will just throw this out there I think that The Weather Company stupid to sell the non broadcast assets to IBM.

It's also very telling that IBM only wanted the digital assets.

[Rusty Muck 4168]

I just had another thought. Perhaps this could also be part of their plans for News Channel 8?

 

The Weather Channel turning into "The Weather and News Channel" might be where this is going. Non-stop weather is overkill, but a cable news channel whose niche isn't conservative news or liberal news but an expertise on weather? I think it works.

 

Or maybe it's a vehicle to bundle News Channel 8 along with the Weather Channel.

Bundling both networks is far more likely IMO. For goodness sakes, they didn't buy the Tennis Channel to keep it as-is (not that I have anything against tennis, but it is too much of a niche sport to sustain a 24/7 cable network much less any reasonable viewership).

 

Honestly, I don't have that much of a problem with S!nclair buying the Weather Channel. They definitely wouldn't try stunts like "Weather and a Movie" or retain the pseudo-weather reality shows trotted out prior to and during NBC management. It would be run like any S!nclair property, lean and mean... which for a network that is intended to be nothing but weather forecasts and analysis... actually isn't that bad of an idea.

[jsn1992 25]

Sinclair would definitely return the Weather Channel to its roots of just giving the weather, but it would hurt staffing on both sides. The Smith's must be smiling with all of the profits rolling in, if and when this happens.

[Eat News 4738]

Dont care about wht other people think, they said. Sinclair took that advice really well and, as I can guess that you think, a little too well

 

Sinclair has no obligation to the viewer in this case. The viewer can always use the NWS info. Yes, there are EAS obligations for Sinclair broadcast outlets...but that does not preclude them from hubbing.

 

As far as cost...

That is determined by how big this hub would need to be, and what resources TWC already has .

Think multiple hubs as opposed to one hub.

[RCA TK47 274]

I doubt the channel would even stay with a weather format. I could see Sinclair changing it into something else totally different.

[NEOMatrix 1295]

For all we know, Sinclair might rebrand the Weather Channel as News Channel 8 and make it a rolling news wheel similar to the old Headline News. Then, if the channel is carried in a Sinclair market, It would have "Weather on the 8s" and a news/weather update at :25 and :55. Otherwise, just "Weather on the 8s" on satellite and cable systems in non-Sinclair markets.

[mardek1995 200]

For all we know, Sinclair might rebrand the Weather Channel as News Channel 8 and make it a rolling news wheel similar to the old Headline News. Then, if the channel is carried in a Sinclair market, It would have "Weather on the 8s" and a news/weather update at :25 and :55. Otherwise, just "Weather on the 8s" on satellite and cable systems in non-Sinclair markets.

And we cant do shit about that, which really sucks.

[Eat News 4738]

And we cant do shit about that, which really sucks.

 

It takes a village my son...

 

 

...and a drum circle.

[mardek1995 200]

It takes a village my son...

 

 

...and a drum circle.

You forgot to mention how hard it would be to work woth David Smith. He will budge as willingly as Roger Ailes (which isnt very much btw).

[Tyler Tomasino 6]

The Weather Channel alpha tested a live hyper local Local On the 8s in the Pittsburgh market a few years ago. They had a live meteorologist, with much more local maps, traffic and airport delays during the Local On the 8s versus the typical graphics and narration. It was nice. They tested it for a few months and then nothing ever came of it. I could see this concept working for small market stations. Here's a link to the video, it starts at about 15 seconds in.

[Eat News 4738]

Sinclair has already begun test sessions with the IMMIGRANT weathercasters.

Yes it's true... Sinclair is importing and hiring immigrants from the south to replace local weather professionals.

 

This must not continue.

Here is EXCLUSIVE video.

[DirtyHarry 719]

Sinclair has already begun test sessions with the IMMIGRANT weathercasters.

Yes it's true... Sinclair is importing and hiring immigrants from the south to replace local weather professionals.

 

This must not continue.

Here is EXCLUSIVE video.

 

Only in Pittsburgh.

[DirtyHarry 719]

In terms of radio stations using a group weather think of how generic and non-detailed these weather segments actually are. I don't think that would work in TV. Not to mention the severe weather situations, or even just active weather, going on in several markets at the same time. TWC has even admitted on the air during these that they cannot cover everything. Good luck trying to do that when you have to cover everything and do it all locally.

 

I absolutely agree, especially during severe weather. But by the same token, do you really need a staff of five propeller heads? If I'm of a mind to save money, I would use the National Weather Service model where you have one hub covering about a 75 to 100 mile radius that does all the grunt work, with a few guys on staff locally to refine things when necessary and if you need a local presence. Other than rain, the weather in Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati really isn't that different. Likewise, with WNWO in Toledo and the Michigan stations Sinclair owns.

 

I'm not in the business so I don't know if that works from the standpoint of work flow, but that's the way the NWS does it and I haven't seen many planes go down due to weather ...

[Weeters 1811]

It's worth noting that this is already happening in smaller markets, and has been for over 20 years. WeatherVision has a team of 4 meteorologists and they do weather for small stations across the country. Geoff Fox was also making waves in the industry recently for doing weather forecasts out of his garage.

 

Weather drives ratings, but does it matter if the meteorologist saying it's going to rain tomorrow is at the station, or across the country? Technology has grown to the point that, yes, you could do severe weather coverage hubbed out of Atlanta while the meteorologist interacts with the talent at the station in real time. And nobody would know if they didn't mention that it was going on.

 

I can see this happening, I can see it working well, and I can see the industry getting a little closer to dying off in the process.

[mardek1995 200]

It's worth noting that this is already happening in smaller markets, and has been for over 20 years. WeatherVision has a team of 4 meteorologists and they do weather for small stations across the country. Geoff Fox was also making waves in the industry recently for doing weather forecasts out of his garage.

 

Weather drives ratings, but does it matter if the meteorologist saying it's going to rain tomorrow is at the station, or across the country? Technology has grown to the point that, yes, you could do severe weather coverage hubbed out of Atlanta while the meteorologist interacts with the talent at the station in real time. And nobody would know if they didn't mention that it was going on.

 

I can see this happening, I can see it working well, and I can see the industry getting a little closer to dying off in the process.

Its already dying thanks to cord cutting becoming more common. And though I'll give you that Sinclair might be accelerating cord cutting, cord cutting will still be the thing that kills television (the networks will still survive however). You've got the AccuWeather app which makes their subchannel redundant and cable tv is desparate to survive by 2030 (something Comcast seems to be making very clear with the possible move to NBC in Boston from WHDH to WNEU), for example.

[Rusty Muck 4168]

It's worth noting that this is already happening in smaller markets, and has been for over 20 years. WeatherVision has a team of 4 meteorologists and they do weather for small stations across the country. Geoff Fox was also making waves in the industry recently for doing weather forecasts out of his garage.

 

Weather drives ratings, but does it matter if the meteorologist saying it's going to rain tomorrow is at the station, or across the country? Technology has grown to the point that, yes, you could do severe weather coverage hubbed out of Atlanta while the meteorologist interacts with the talent at the station in real time. And nobody would know if they didn't mention that it was going on.

 

I can see this happening, I can see it working well, and I can see the industry getting a little closer to dying off in the process.

As I said earlier in the thread, there was a reason why IBM only wanted The Weather Company's digital assets and not The Weather Channel. The websites and apps for Weather.com and WeatherUnderground.com both eclipsed the cable channel in popularity and overall usage, a trend no doubt exacerbated by NBC's somewhat questionable programming moves.

 

And TBH, what is more practical? Opening up any weather app on your smartphone (be in local or national) and getting the latest weather forecast for your immediate area in a matter of seconds, or waiting until "the 8's" on the TV (give or take silly non-weather primetime programming)?

 

It doesn't matter who owns what... if S!nclair is going to make The Weather Channel work, they need to build up digital assets on their end. And they will do so... they have no choice.

And we cant do shit about that, which really sucks.

You can't halt progress or force a regression to the way things were. You CAN learn to adapt and embrace new things.

 

Again, S!nclair would be a far better owner of the network.

[mardek1995 200]

As I said earlier in the thread, there was a reason why IBM only wanted The Weather Company's digital assets and not The Weather Channel. The websites and apps for Weather.com and WeatherUnderground.com both eclipsed the cable channel in popularity and overall usage, a trend no doubt exacerbated by NBC's somewhat questionable programming moves.

 

And TBH, what is more practical? Opening up any weather app on your smartphone (be in local or national) and getting the latest weather forecast for your immediate area in a matter of seconds, or waiting until "the 8's" on the TV (give or take silly non-weather primetime programming)?

 

It doesn't matter who owns what... if S!nclair is going to make The Weather Channel work, they need to build up digital assets on their end. And they will do so... they have no choice.

 

You can't halt progress or force a regression to the way things were. You CAN learn to adapt and embrace new things.

 

Again, S!nclair would be a far better owner of the network.

I dont think anyone needs to force a regression or halt progress, especially if they cant stop it. But they can influence how progress goes.

 

Also, how would sinclair be a better owner of the weather channel?

[Rusty Muck 4168]

Also, how would sinclair be a better owner of the weather channel?

They wouldn't air garbage like "Fat Guys in the Woods" or feature films... or fail to break away from their reality show blocks when severe weather strikes.

 

NBC has set the bar comically low with their treatment of the Weather Channel.

[MidwestTV 1173]

I'm a meteorology student who will be graduating soon, and I avoided this thread because of the words "Weather Channel" and "Sinclair" but finally decided to click on it.

 

Thank you for scaring me shitless about my future. I'm already concerned I'm getting into a dying industry. Reading this thread now makes me feel almost obsolete.

[GoldenShine9 1509]

I'm a meteorology student who will be graduating soon, and I avoided this thread because of the words "Weather Channel" and "Sinclair" but finally decided to click on it.

 

Thank you for scaring me shitless about my future. I'm already concerned I'm getting into a dying industry. Reading this thread now makes me feel almost obsolete.

 

Just because one company wants to do this doesn't mean everyone will...the public will likely scream at the idea and the competition would step it up.

[MidwestTV 1173]

Just because one company wants to do this doesn't mean everyone will...the public will likely scream at the idea and the competition would step it up.

 

Or it saves them millions of dollars and competition looks into doing it themselves to also save millions of dollars.

[NEOMatrix 1295]

They wouldn't air garbage like "Fat Guys in the Woods" or feature films... or fail to break away from their reality show blocks when severe weather strikes.

 

NBC has set the bar comically low with their treatment of the Weather Channel.

Sinclair would put the Weather back into The Weather Channel, assuming that they don't rebrand it to something else entirely.

[newsbot 269]

I doubt that Sinclair would "hub" TWC; they would likely use it as they're using Circa, to syndicate weather-related stories across their news-producing stations and (perhaps) leverage TWC as a co-brand for their local weather operations.

[Thundershock MN 169]

There are several ways to look at this, good and bad...no matter what your opinion is:

 

How much money will it really save? Couldn't you hub weather even without purchasing TWC, saving even more money?

This is my thought as well. If the whole point of this purchase is "hubbing" weather (personally I don't think it is. I'll elaborate further below) couldn't they just do this now? Don't they have the scale to do this now if they wanted to? I mean they could just go all NBCU 2.0 and have neighboring larger market stations do weather forecasting, see KNBC/KNSD.

 

Do you only have hub weather in certain markets on weekends, with the ability for local weekday talent to take over in a severe weather situation?

If "hubbing" is a part of this purchase that would be what I'd expect to see happen. In other words, "hubbing" the off-peak hours, vacation fill in, etc.

 

The Weather Channel brand is strong. VERY strong. It could give major credibility to Sinclair stations ... many of which are dog stations that are last or next to last in their respective markets and can use whatever boost they can get.

It's worth noting that the Weather Channel brand is now owned by IBM. The current owners of the TV channel are licensing the name.

 

And just when you thought The Tennis Channel (which Sinclair now owns) isn't enough to satisfy the huge appetites of the big wigs over at Hunt Valley...

I'll repeat what I said in speculatron 9000,

The Weather Channel. It's worth more to Sinclair than it is to the current owners at this point. It's a stand alone cable channel that can be had on the cheap relatively speaking, like Tennis Channel. There isn't much of a place for stand alone cable channels anymore. And, right now there's not much more room for Sinclair to grow on the local station front. So, they need to look to other avenues for growth. Sinclair has hundreds of local channels they can leverage at negotiation time to expand distribution and retransmission fees for cable outlets like The Weather Channel and Tennis Channel.

 

Bundling both networks is far more likely IMO. For goodness sakes, they didn't buy the Tennis Channel to keep it as-is (not that I have anything against tennis, but it is too much of a niche sport to sustain a 24/7 cable network much less any reasonable viewership).

 

Honestly, I don't have that much of a problem with S!nclair buying the Weather Channel. They definitely wouldn't try stunts like "Weather and a Movie" or retain the pseudo-weather reality shows trotted out prior to and during NBC management. It would be run like any S!nclair property, lean and mean... which for a network that is intended to be nothing but weather forecasts and analysis... actually isn't that bad of an idea.

NBC didn't/doesn't run The Weather Channel. It's run independently and the other partners (read: the PE firms) are the ones driving the bus. NBC is just tagging along for the ride. But, I agree the management has been nothing short of an abject failure.

 

I also agree with the remainder of your post 100%

 

It's worth noting that this is already happening in smaller markets, and has been for over 20 years. WeatherVision has a team of 4 meteorologists and they do weather for small stations across the country. Geoff Fox was also making waves in the industry recently for doing weather forecasts out of his garage.

 

Weather drives ratings, but does it matter if the meteorologist saying it's going to rain tomorrow is at the station, or across the country? Technology has grown to the point that, yes, you could do severe weather coverage hubbed out of Atlanta while the meteorologist interacts with the talent at the station in real time. And nobody would know if they didn't mention that it was going on.

 

I can see this happening, I can see it working well, and I can see the industry getting a little closer to dying off in the process.

As you noted it's already been happening. And, one thing I found slightly humorous in the speculatron thread was that some posters hope TWC fails so WeatherNation can take their place. Umm...I hate to break it to those people but WeatherNation got it's start as a weather outsourcing/"hub" service for TV stations. And, they still provide those outsourcing/"hub" services to stations today through an affiliated company.

 

With that said I don't think Sinclair is looking to purchase the Weather Channel strictly to "hub" their weather departments. As I noted above, I could see some "off peak" style hubbing. But, I honestly think that they are looking at buying the Weather Channel for the same reason they bought Tennis Channel. It can be had "on the cheap" and Sinclair can use all their local channels as leverage to increase fees. And, it's already been mentioned in this thread but I also think it's possible the Weather Channel could evolve into a news/weather hybrid under Sinclair. Likewise, dispite their statements I still see Tennis Channel evolving into ASN down the road too.

[mardek1995 200]

I'm a meteorology student who will be graduating soon, and I avoided this thread because of the words "Weather Channel" and "Sinclair" but finally decided to click on it.

 

Thank you for scaring me shitless about my future. I'm already concerned I'm getting into a dying industry. Reading this thread now makes me feel almost obsolete.

Now you know how I would feel if I tried to get into the TV industry and worked my way up (it would already be too late by the time I did that). But there's still hope for the industry, which is why I'm trying to recruit people to join me in founding the activist blog, and it doesn't have to be a large group, 2 or 3 people (including myself) is a good enough start, but I already have a thread on that, so I wont get into great detail here