The Future of Television Stations?

Ion and Scripps are merging their chains of television stations. I saw an executive from one of the companies on CNBC explaining that more people would turn back to local television as they cut their cable cords and the merged companies would live happily ever after.

But I thought local television ratings were still seeing declining ratings even as people cut their cable cords. The audience instead is moving to streaming.

I thought local television stations had offset the loss in viewers by raising subscription fees they charged the cable companies. But as a long term strategy I did not think this would work any better than publishers raising subscription rates as circulation declined. Eventually cable subscribers will move to virtually zero.

Am I wrong? Are viewers coming back to the networks and local affiliates?

 

It’s like watching what happened to all of us in print 10 years in delay.

 

Don’t know the statistics, but I doubt many cord cutters are doing it to just go with the antenna.

 

Or like local radio about 25 years ago.

 

The amazing thing to me is local TV ought to be the best at exploiting social media. You've already got the capability of editing and posting audio and video from the scene. But at least in my experience, the stuff I'm trying to find on Twitter/YouTube is seriously awful. We're talking top 10 markets, not Sioux Falls.

How hard is it to put together a social media-only two-minute video package of a breaking news event like the California fires, the Atlanta Wendy's shooting or the Iowa derecho? Instead, they post a clip from the 5/6/11 o'clock with the anchor tossing it to a field reporter, who stumbles to ad-lib through a live shot without actual video footage.

The guy on San Francisco TV doing the fire coverage from Vacaville was horrid. So was the reporter standing in Centennial Park after the police car fire in front of CNN. Good God, is this what broadcast schools are churning out now?

That's what you think will make people subscribe to your channel or want to watch more of your product? Hell, I'll even click on raw unedited footage instead.

 

One thing I will say about the cord cutting - Because of the monopoly or near-monopoly most cable companies have on high speed Internet in their respective areas, I do think they kind of still have a decent floor when it comes to their revenue. Like, my wife and I wanted to get rid of cable when we lived in Rhode Island and now in Texas... but the cheapest "Internet only" plan is still around $60 to $70, and at that price point, might as well throw in the "basic" cable package for another $10 a month or so. I think the level with ESPN is closer to $100 to $120 a month, so we're not getting that, especially since pre-Covid, I'd rather watch a big game out of the house anyway.

 

There’s also still something to be said for the reliability of cable. No matter how good your internet is, you have to deal with buffering or snafus multiple times per live sporting event.

Especially on the MLB games for my Apple TV, dammit.

 

One thing that got me thinking about this is that last night I watched the Tampa Bay- Bears game on Amazon Prime.

I subscribe to Direct TV for NFL games, the NBA playoffs (I can get NBA season pass on streaming, CNBC and to watch Indiana basketball (I am an alum). Amazon, Apple and Netflix have been buying up the best dramas. At what point do the streamers start taking the sports packages? And when they do what happens to cable subscribers? And to local television stations that carry the NFL and NBA finals?

 

I’m hoping Amazon makes a play for the NFL package.It’s the only reason I have Direct TV. Everything else is on Youtube TV’s streaming service.

Bezos has that much money in his glove compartment.

Heck, Amazon's streaming service is basically just a vanity project and value added to Prime membership. They don’t make much off it.

 

Here's one example: AT&T owns Direct TV and U-Verse and Turner.

So not only do they have the ability to produce content, they have multiple distribution channels (cable, satellite and streaming via mobile) as well. They've basically covered themselves for any eventuality. Disney's got the same gameplan with Disney+ and their share of Hulu.

Unless someone creates a new technology that makes everything before it obsolete, they're well protected. (And they'll just buy that company, too.)

 

I think the streamers have made it known that they're interested in the sports packages - Hulu made a big push in their advertising about the fact that they have live sports, and Peacock now streams a bunch of international soccer games. But much like when FOX bid on the NFL, there's probably some reluctance from the leagues to put the good stuff on the streaming services.

 

Not for much longer. Someone (2mcm?) posted here that AT&T is trying to ditch it at a firesale price.

Cable bills suck, really. You know what, though? It could be worse. If I wanted to buy every sports streaming package out there and pay for high speed Internet... I can probably get the same amount of sports for a slightly reduced price by just getting it all bundled. And I don't have to worry about local blackouts or restrictions or whatever. And, oh yeah, get CNN and MSNBC and probably HBO with it. And a DVR. A lot of the cord cutters are shortsighted.

Now I haven't had a real home phone line for almost 20 years. That was a waste; I just didn't use it.