Commentary

Local TV Broadcasters Need To Take Bigger Role In National Ad Game

The digital ad world sees audiences and content as fully fungible across times of day, sources of distribution, or by geographic footprint. The TV ad world does not -- still -- and that hurts TV media owners in their ability to maximize the yield on their premium video audiences.

TV ad buying and selling  has historically been very siloed, whether by distribution format (broadcast versus cable), daypart (prime-time versus sports versus daytime) or geographic coverage (national versus local). Not only have there been different buyers and sellers working on different floors or in different cities or buildings for each silo subset, but frequently entirely different companies handle each of them for the same clients or same media owners. What may have had a sense of justifiability during TV advertising’s “domination era,” from the 1970s through the early 2000s, makes absolutely no sense today.

It has always amazed me that local TV companies didn’t proactively work with national cable TV programmers to stitch their audiences together in true data-driven ways to create a 1+1=3 or 4 value for national advertisers.

advertisement

advertisement

Yes, in the planning phase many agencies may have taken into account audience delivery to be achieved across their national and local campaigns on a demographics and gross ratings point basis -- but this was never done very precisely. As we all know, what is planned on TV always looks quite different than what is ultimately bought.

But if media sellers do it proactively, they can not only deliver a superior solution to advertisers and agencies, they can capture the added value in premium pricing. That is what digital companies would do.

Of course, there have been consortias and reps that combined national and local inventory pools, but like agencies, this has typically been based on media weights, not targeted audiences and outcomes. Plus, as we know, consortias tend to be great at getting industry trade headlines, but they rarely move mountains.

If you look at the Nielsen Gauge numbers, local broadcast has held its audiences relatively well these past years as national cable numbers have plummeted. It has certainly helped broadcasters that their product can be viewed free and has been supplemented this past decade with free over-the-air diginets tuneable on most smart TV sets today.

Today, every local broadcaster should be looking at how it can better penetrate the national TV ad market, not just by building a “carve” of spots from each of their markets available in a combined package, but planned, activated and measured in combination with complimentary delivery on national television channels to deliver the most efficient, effective and valuable campaigns possible for those advertisers.

What can we lose? We all know how much local broadcast inventory is under-utilized. Strategically packaging it into national campaigns on an audience and outcome-defined basis could drive significant incremental revenues, margins and profits.

What do you think?

5 comments about "Local TV Broadcasters Need To Take Bigger Role In National Ad Game".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Jack Wakshlag from Media Strategy, Research & Analytics, May 21, 2026 at 4:54 p.m.

    The WB network, which I was a part of had a way of working with cable operators that was unique. The WB 100+ group provided local cable operators a fully functional local tv affiliate in markets where there were too few stations to accommodate a 5th network. The technology was innovative and it worked great. Kudos to Jamie Kellner who created it and Russ Meyerson who ran it successfully for many years. 

  2. Dan C. from MS Entertainment, May 22, 2026 at 2:37 a.m.

    I don't think it has anything to do with ratings.


    National TV buy budgets are separate from local ad budgets - they are not interchangeable.  And you could argue that a type of "localization" is already available on national buys with local tags which cable TV led the way many years ago.


    Local TV buys are typically more market/region specific in messaging and/or the brand is looking to heavy up reach or frequency in certain markets after the efficiencies from a national buy are in place.


    And don't even get me started on how flawed Nielsen ratings have been for the past 20 years.

  3. Dave Morgan from Simulmedia replied, May 22, 2026 at 6:05 a.m.

    Jack, thanks for sharing. Super smart. I didn't realize that WB did that.

  4. Dave Morgan from Simulmedia replied, May 22, 2026 at 6:07 a.m.

    Dan, I agree that it doesn't have to do with ratings, though if there were holistic numbers available over the years, we certainly would have seen more integrated buying and selling. And, for sure, local cable has for decades been able to sell "local access" to national porgrammaring.

  5. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, May 22, 2026 at 7:17 p.m.

    Dave, I must say, this is very confusing. 

    You mentioned Nielsen's The Gauge Reports showing that local broadcast viewing has held up well compared to cable---but much of the "broadcast" viewing reported in The Gauge is to either national broadcast network or nationally syndicated fare--not content, like local news,  which is created by each station. 

    Also, national advertisers are not heavy users of local TV--either syndicated shows or  news, sports, etc. There was a time when this was not so, but over the past thirty years local ad spend on TV stations has far surpassed what comes from national advertisers. 

    It should also be noted that "spot cable" --well targeted buys sold by local cable interconnects in most markets--has become a major competitor to the stations. Latest estimates have it garnering about $5-6 billion annually. The spot cable advertiser--again mostly local or regional advertisers----can target consumers with fine geographic splits as well as by selecting which national cable channels to associate with in ad placement. 

    Re Jack's point about the WB using cable to gain coverage, I write about this in my new book , "TV Yesterday, Today And Tomorrow" ( It's on Amazon, folks ) , and what happened was that after Fox launched its independent station based fourth network, the other studios became alarmed that they were being shut out of venues for their own TV shows, so Paramount and Warner Brothers both raced to sign up the best indie stations that were left. Paramount's UPN won that battle, garnering over 80 stations, leaving The WB with less than 50. So, as Jack said, it came up with a creative solution and filled in using local cable systems. 

    What I don't get is how a local TV station can pair up with a national cable channel to offer advertisers great targeting opportunities. Even if a TV station group tried this, it would find that the audience it controls in its most common locally produced content--news-- was mostly old adults and its CPMs were considerably higher than what the national cable guys were getting. Worse, national advertisers who do not have meaningful local market strategies wouldn't know how to exploit the city by city selectivity inherent insuch a combination. As for those that do have such strategies why not simply buy time on the cable interconnects and any stations that offer a good deal? 

    So, as I said, I'm confused by this one, Dave. Help!

Next story loading loading..