Commentary

Looking For Local TV Protection On Media's Main Street

Just when TV stations have been salivating over what comes with growing retransmission revenues, the broadcast networks could be saying: "Wait a minute -- what about the cost of our programming?"

 

Retransmission revenues were thought to be the new land grab  for both independently owned TV affiliates and network-owned TV stations. Now, add one more party: the networks themselves.

A senior executive at Belo Corp., a major ABC affiliate TV station group, now says ABC wants a piece of its retransmission revenue. How much? Not 100%, was the reply. Nice.

Cable system operators must be smirking a bit -- hoping, in vain, that any riff between the networks and its affiliates might help their cause. But it won't happen.

Broadcasters are united in their efforts, especially with the digital media winds of change in the air, with fractionalization of TV viewers, and the dreaded prospect of advertising revenues not coming back.

advertisement

advertisement

TV stations saw  "network compensation" disappear some years ago. Decades ago big profitable TV networks could afford to keep stations -- the only viable distributor of TV content around -- happy by giving them cash in addition to running their network programs. Now the shoes -- and media profitability -- are on other feet.

Network-owned TV stations hope to gain 50 cents a subscriber per month from cable operators in the coming years. CBS believes $300 million in retrans money could go directly to its bottom line in a few years. (Reports say News Corp wants $1 a sub!).

This would seem to be fair compared to what ESPN has been getting -- around $3.50 a sub. Other major entertainment cable networks are at a dollar or higher.

It's true that TV stations depend heavily on programming from outside sources - networks and syndicators. But there is somewhat of a rev share at work: stations get local ad time to sell, with networks getting the lion's share. (Syndication is more of a 50-50 model for most daytime shows).

Cable has been eating into local TV recently -- and it could get worse on the local advertising front if Canoe Ventures gets its act together.

Now, just when TV affiliates were hoping to level the playing field, TV programmers have been knocking -- a lot --  on their doors. It doesn't seem like they're leaving the porch anytime soon.

1 comment about "Looking For Local TV Protection On Media's Main Street".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Douglas Ferguson from College of Charleston, November 5, 2009 at 4:54 p.m.

    So I get to pay a higher cable bill (and the 50 cents will be passed along, no doubt) to get free channels that I watch less and less each passing year. Sounds like a terrific plan, right? Maybe for the buggy-whip makers.

    I have a better solution. Move the broadcast channels to cable, where they can compete toe-to-toe with other content providers, sell off the television spectrum (to those who logically need wireless more than home-based viewers) to pay down the massive TARP debt, and dedicate a tiny share to fund a government-lifeline service of one or two local channels and CSPAN (via cable or satellite) to the 11-percent of viewers who cannot afford cable or satellite.

    I'm a former TV broadcaster, but, really, OTA is so 20th Century. It makes no sense to have wired phones and wireless TV, anymore: Has not everyone learned about the "Negroponte switch"? It means wired TVs and wireless phones, period.

Next story loading loading..