nomadcowatbk 144 Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 People watch CBS prime time in Detroit, too, but if WWJ tried a newscast, it would fail just like their previous attempts. same with KDNL even if they made a serious effort, people in STL still watch ABC primetime and the Oscars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C Block 1488 Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 The only reason why I brought up KNTV's channel number was because it was part of the reason why it was a known quantity in San Jose for 40 years prior to the NBC switch. It was not an outright startup like NBC Boston is. If anything, it's the comparing of NBC Boston to KNTV that is 100% irrelevant. You're better off comparing apples to lawn furniture. I don't think it's entirely fair to say it's a complete startup. Much of the resources were already there by way of NECN. Same building, a lot of the same people, just a lot more staff and an additional TV business model that has the potential to attract a much larger audience on a major network. Had NECN and the Telemundo signal not been there already, I doubt NBC would have gone through with any of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie56 3065 Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Very similar here in Dallas....and yes I know 3 out of the 4 primary stations are O&Os but even before KTVT & KXAS were O&Os, they were still referred to as CBS 11 and NBC 5. The only station that is not referred to by its' network is WFAA. It's always been Channel 8 as long as I can remember. However, I do know that before KDFW became FOX 4 it was also referred to as Channel 4 with no CBS identifier. Off topic here, but we rarely get female members. Welcome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetroCity 247 Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Maybe it's ahead of its time (but hardly unprecedented; CBS and NBC tried affiliations on UFH signals in the 1950s, and failed every time) but it doesn't make NBC Boston any less foolish of a venture. Not by a long shot. Good God. OK. I'm done. When someone starts comparing NBC's Boston adventure with network UHF stations in the 1950's, I know this thread has jumped the shark. I don't have a dog in this fight. Those of you who hate it so much, buy some stock in Comcast and go to a stockholders meeting. Otherwise, I think this whole discussion has reached its Sell-By date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eat News 4738 Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Good God.., I know this thread has jumped the shark..... Excuse me... But "Shark Jumping" is painful and hurtful. Many sharks suffer from lower self esteem due to unprovoked jumping. Please keep the "jumping" to the back alleys of Philly...and the local bouncy house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEOMatrix 1295 Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 All I have to say is that NBC at least doesn't have to deal with Ed Ansin anymore. All the $$$ NBC gets stays at NBC. That was the end game this whole time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onthesea 292 Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Did JC Monahan start anchoring at NBC Boston? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCB4TV 331 Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 An occasional Sunday night game doesn't and won't translate into ratings for their weekday newscasts. Game ends, and they'll flip back to either 4, 5, 7 or 25. In addition to the Super Bowl in February, NBC also has the Winter Olympics which start the weekend after the Super Bowl. Will Boston viewers stay and watch the news after Olympic coverage or turn it to another channel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCB4TV 331 Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 All I have to say is that NBC at least doesn't have to deal with Ed Ansin anymore. All the $$$ NBC gets stays at NBC. That was the end game this whole time. I believe that getting away from Ansin was more of the priority then ratings at this time. As we know, this is the second time that NBC purchased/built an O&O to get away from Mr. Ansin, see Miami in 1989. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channel99 45 Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Did JC Monahan start anchoring at NBC Boston? Yes, about a month ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4165 Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 I believe that getting away from Ansin was more of the priority then ratings at this time. As we know, this is the second time that NBC purchased/built an O&O to get away from Mr. Ansin, see Miami in 1989. Then why in the Wide Wide World of Sports DID NBC go to WHDH in the first place? Seriously. NBC could have bought WFXT (still owned by the Celtics, who put the station on the block at that same time), WSBK or WLVI back in 1994 and saved themselves so much goddam trouble. All three stations had viable news operations and would have easily been branded in due time as "NBC Boston," while WHDH would have thrived as a news-intensive UPN or WB affiliate and truly have been the WSVN of the North. Seriously, if NBC supposedly hated Ed Ansin as much as folklore and urban legends lead us to believe, they would never have been on WHDH. It is ridiculous to assume that they were forced onto WHDH by default. They had opportunities not to deal with Ed Ansin if they didn't want to deal with him. They dealt with him. Should tell you something. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEOMatrix 1295 Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 Then why in the Wide Wide World of Sports DID NBC go to WHDH in the first place? Seriously. NBC could have bought WFXT (still owned by the Celtics, who put the station on the block at that same time), WSBK or WLVI back in 1994 and saved themselves so much goddam trouble. All three stations had viable news operations and would have easily been branded in due time as "NBC Boston," while WHDH would have thrived as a news-intensive UPN or WB affiliate and truly have been the WSVN of the North. Seriously, if NBC supposedly hated Ed Ansin as much as folklore and urban legends lead us to believe, they would never have been on WHDH. It is ridiculous to assume that they were forced onto WHDH by default. They had opportunities not to deal with Ed Ansin if they didn't want to deal with him. They dealt with him. Should tell you something. End of story. To NBC, being on a VHF station was probably more important than who owned WHDH at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4165 Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 To NBC, being on a VHF station was probably more important than who owned WHDH at the time. Allegedly the Celtics were in conversation with NBC about affiliating with WFXT... then they put the station up for sale. And it's not like NBC couldn't have outbid Fox (who was fighting to retain the Herald and buy WFXT)... I mean, they went to the trouble of buying WCAU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onthesea 292 Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 I think that WHDH should thank NBC eternally, because without them (and Ed Ansin's faster-paced newscasts) they would never became a strong #2 in TV news. Maybe they're regretting of going independent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channel2 869 Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 Didn't Fox have the inside track on buying back WFXT? They got an option to do so in 1993. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4165 Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 Didn't Fox have the inside track on buying back WFXT? They got an option to do so in 1993. News Corp. couldn't own both the Boston Herald and WFXT at the same time, so they had sold off WFXT and kept the Herald. Likewise, the New York Post was sold off and WNYW was kept (The Post nearly collapsed as a result, and IIRC, Rupert somehow got a waiver to reacquire them in 1993). If such an option existed to reacquire WFXT, wouldn't it have been directly tied to spinning off the Herald (which is what ultimately happened)? And if so, why didn't THAT transaction happen in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4165 Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 I think that WHDH should thank NBC eternally, because without them (and Ed Ansin's faster-paced newscasts) they would never became a strong #2 in TV news. Maybe they're regretting of going independent. WHDH is hanging very tough in a market with strong loyalties, aided in part by a faultering WFXT. Ed Ansin outsmarted the industry when NBC ditched him in 1989, he'll do the same again. If anyone is regretting anything, it's NBC for making a truly boneheaded move in a vain attempt to have an O&O. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRolyPoly 1847 Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 I think that WHDH should thank NBC eternally, because without them (and Ed Ansin's faster-paced newscasts) they would never became a strong #2 in TV news. Maybe they're regretting of going independent. WHDH shouldn't thank NBC. WHDH should thank itself for hanging in there. After all, some of their timeslots are #2. With WFXT faultering and WBTS not really showing anything, WHDH got a blessing. And no, its not regretting of going Independent. They're taking every single advantage of it, just like how WSVN took advantage of FOX starting in 1989. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onthesea 292 Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 WHDH shouldn't thank NBC. WHDH should thank itself for hanging in there. After all, some of their timeslots are #2. With WFXT faultering and WBTS not really showing anything, WHDH got a blessing. And no, its not regretting of going Independent. They're taking every single advantage of it, just like how WSVN took advantage of FOX starting in 1989. I agree completely on what are you saying, but I was talking about when WHDH was #3 and affiliated with CBS. Then came NBC in '95 and everything changed for the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4165 Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 I agree completely on what are you saying, but I was talking about when WHDH was #3 and affiliated with CBS. Then came NBC in '95 and everything changed for the better. WHDH was already showing growth in the market after installing a (somewhat) watered-down form of the WSVN formula. Success would have ultimately happened regardless of what network they were affiliated with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbnews 344 Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 This whole NBC Boston thing is stupid. Their news product is very good, but people like what they like. NBC should have just stayed with WHDH rather than starting a new station which has been failing terribly. I hope this teaches NBC that the TV news market is competitive and a new station usually doesn't work out too well. On another note, does anybody know who composed WBTS' new theme and what it is called? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowBergen 485 Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 Then why in the Wide Wide World of Sports DID NBC go to WHDH in the first place? Seriously. NBC could have bought WFXT (still owned by the Celtics, who put the station on the block at that same time), WSBK or WLVI back in 1994 and saved themselves so much goddam trouble. All three stations had viable news operations and would have easily been branded in due time as "NBC Boston," while WHDH would have thrived as a news-intensive UPN or WB affiliate and truly have been the WSVN of the North. Seriously, if NBC supposedly hated Ed Ansin as much as folklore and urban legends lead us to believe, they would never have been on WHDH. It is ridiculous to assume that they were forced onto WHDH by default. They had opportunities not to deal with Ed Ansin if they didn't want to deal with him. They dealt with him. Should tell you something. End of story. I think you also need to remember that back in 94, NBC was owned by GE who became very tight with money, so buying a UHF station was not going to fly with the suits at GE considering the size of the market. Instead it bought WJAR in Providence a few years later, which not only was on VHF but dominated in the ratings by a long shot. In the end, NBC is keeping all the money now, as has been mentioned and that was a primary driver. Comcast also seems to be giving NBC time to invest and develop across the board, so they know it is the long haul. And who knows what will happen with WSVN long term considering Ansin's age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mre29 1340 Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 WHDH was already showing growth in the market after installing a (somewhat) watered-down form of the WSVN formula. Success would have ultimately happened regardless of what network they were affiliated with. Has anyone considered that the tabloid-y formula used on WHDH may be one reason why NBC wanted to get off of there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrschimpf 2058 Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 Has anyone considered that the tabloid-y formula used on WHDH may be one reason why NBC wanted to get off of there? CBS deals with a lot of affiliates with horrid tabolidish formats like WPEC, WOIO (in the past) and for their news director du jour, WGCL, even with their national just the facts hard-news reputation. They don't seem very bothered by affiliates taking that direction as long as they aren't placing below the market's MyNet station, or pull a Swann where CBS has to say 'knock it off' to WGCL. And I'm also taking the long view with WBTS. By 2030, like UHF, the entire 'it's a low-power station' debate will be over because we'll likely be getting everything via IP or repeating cells through 7G networks or whatever rather than One Tower Farm in a certain place. It's undeniably complicated for now, but standards will change, along with scheduling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4165 Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Has anyone considered that the tabloid-y formula used on WHDH may be one reason why NBC wanted to get off of there? That format was already in place for three years when NBC aligned with them. NBC knew full well what they were getting into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.