tyrannical bastard 3444 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Unless the station has a serious audience problem, don't count on any major branding changes. They've pretty much used the same logos with some exceptions like WNWO's total re-do and WKEF/WRGT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jero23 105 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Instead of that, why can't they just call it ABC Alabama or ABC Central Alabama? First off, that would be a terrible branding, second my branding(s) would be better and three, ABC is on digital sub channels with the exception of WBMA-LD 58.1. Maybe they would use ABC Alabama instead? As somebody originally from Birmingham, hell no! I'm so tired of that "Alabama/Central Alabama" branding being pushed down the market's throat that is nauseating. Call keep it as "ABC 33/40" because it's already annoying that WVTM is using that god-awful "Alabama's 13" moniker again. I wish Hearst would change it to "WVTM 13' or even go back to "NBC13" branding. Media General damaged the station enough so let's erase all reminders of their tenure with the station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRolyPoly 1844 Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 As somebody originally from Birmingham, hell no! I'm so tired of that "Alabama/Central Alabama" branding being pushed down the market's throat that is nauseating. Call keep it as "ABC 33/40" because it's already annoying that WVTM is using that god-awful "Alabama's 13" moniker again. I wish Hearst would change it to "WVTM 13' or even go back to "NBC13" branding. Media General damaged the station enough so let's erase all reminders of their tenure with the station. There's no way WBMA is keeping ABC 33/40, since ABC is no longer on 33 and 40. They can call it ABC 58 if they want, since WBMA is the only station to carry ABC on a main station, which is WBMA-LD 58.1. If anything, if you don't want Alabama in the branding, then just call it ABC 58. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samantha 2878 Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 As somebody originally from Birmingham, hell no! I'm so tired of that "Alabama/Central Alabama" branding being pushed down the market's throat that is nauseating. Call keep it as "ABC 33/40" because it's already annoying that WVTM is using that god-awful "Alabama's 13" moniker again. I wish Hearst would change it to "WVTM 13' or even go back to "NBC13" branding. Media General damaged the station enough so let's erase all reminders of their tenure with the station. And I would have to disagree. "ABC Alabama" makes a lot more sense than 33/40 — heck, it would have been a better name for the station to launch with in 1996. And calling the station "ABC Birmingham" would be prone to ticking off viewers in the DMA outside of B'ham in places like Tuscaloosa and Gadsden. The market spans the entire width of the state; "ABC Alabama" or "Alabama's 13" is an appropriate name, and it's far more useful in branding a station to a market outside of Birmingham proper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrapmcdowell 1 Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Instead of that, why can't they just call it ABC Alabama or ABC Central Alabama? First off, that would be a terrible branding, second my branding(s) would be better and three, ABC is on digital sub channels with the exception of WBMA-LD 58.1. I initially listed it as ABC68/58/21 becuase when the sale to Sinclair was finalized there was alot of questions to as how they would keep 33/40 after surrendering the license(s)... Several folk thought that ABC33/40 might become either: ABC21, or ABC68 effectively replacing and/or moving MY68 to a subchannel and/or replacing CW21 and moving all of the CW content to a subchannel. Personally I would like to see ABC33/40 move out of the small studio in Hoover to a bigger location (maybe Red Mountain), get a new set (Devlin?), and rebrand/relaunch as ABC21 'Alabama's News Leader' with the new Sinclair Graphics and Curves music from 615. This is of course just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobvick 9 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I initially listed it as ABC68/58/21 becuase when the sale to Sinclair was finalized there was alot of questions to as how they would keep 33/40 after surrendering the license(s)... Several folk thought that ABC33/40 might become either: ABC21, or ABC68 effectively replacing and/or moving MY68 to a subchannel and/or replacing CW21 and moving all of the CW content to a subchannel. Personally I would like to see ABC33/40 move out of the small studio in Hoover to a bigger location (maybe Red Mountain), get a new set (Devlin?), and rebrand/relaunch as ABC21 'Alabama's News Leader' with the new Sinclair Graphics and Curves music from 615. This is of course just my opinion. I agree with the ABC 21. Should make 68 CW and have a My 58. Put 58 on the .2 of 68 and 17. 17.1 could be a simulcast of 68.1. I still can't get over the fact they have 33/40 on the .2 sub channels. Birmingham defiantly has to be the biggest market with ABC on a .2. I know, I know. It is on 58.1 that is "technically" the affiliate. Still seems dumb to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrannical bastard 3444 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 This is the new "mess with our OCD" when it comes to where channels end up. 20 years ago, I thought it was unheard of to have a VHF station pick up a FOX affiliation, dumping the dispaced affiliation to a UHF channel. Then came Jacksonville, which had three VHF stations (one non-comm), and after WJXT dumped CBS, only one of them had a "big 3" affiliation...WTLV. And then came Nexstar and WTVW, making the sole commercial station on VHF an independent all because of an affiliation spat with FOX (while dumping ABC in the 1990s). Now comes the subchannel game, where stations that are primary, are now secondary, only to skirt around FCC ownership rules by using subchannels. As long as the picture is acceptable and not hampered by lower bitrate than if it was a primary subchannel, the business arrangements stations enter in order to secure carriage negate any of the pitfalls of "must-carry" limitations. It makes satellite TV a little more hinky, since Channel "33" is now on "68". That is one of the advantages of satellite, putting channels on their actual channel numbers, as opposed as to some different analog or three-digit digital number... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COSMOS2013 0 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Using WJSU RF9 and rebrand as "ABC 9" (Wishful Thinking). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samantha 2878 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 This is the new "mess with our OCD" when it comes to where channels end up. 20 years ago, I thought it was unheard of to have a VHF station pick up a FOX affiliation, dumping the dispaced affiliation to a UHF channel. Then came Jacksonville, which had three VHF stations (one non-comm), and after WJXT dumped CBS, only one of them had a "big 3" affiliation...WTLV. And then came Nexstar and WTVW, making the sole commercial station on VHF an independent all because of an affiliation spat with FOX (while dumping ABC in the 1990s). Now comes the subchannel game, where stations that are primary, are now secondary, only to skirt around FCC ownership rules by using subchannels. As long as the picture is acceptable and not hampered by lower bitrate than if it was a primary subchannel, the business arrangements stations enter in order to secure carriage negate any of the pitfalls of "must-carry" limitations. It makes satellite TV a little more hinky, since Channel "33" is now on "68". That is one of the advantages of satellite, putting channels on their actual channel numbers, as opposed as to some different analog or three-digit digital number... ...Honestly I'm of the opinion that at some point down the road, maybe with ATSC 3.0, that we're going to wind up with national channel numbering for the major networks. Sure, imagining NBC as being "channel 4" for everyone may be impossible now in El Paso, Charleston or Kansas City, but I think something like that is going to wind up happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrapmcdowell 1 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 ...Honestly I'm of the opinion that at some point down the road, maybe with ATSC 3.0, that we're going to wind up with national channel numbering for the major networks. Sure, imagining NBC as being "channel 4" for everyone may be impossible now in El Paso, Charleston or Kansas City, but I think something like that is going to wind up happening. ABC 'circle' 7 for everyone:) I could live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrannical bastard 3444 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 ...Honestly I'm of the opinion that at some point down the road, maybe with ATSC 3.0, that we're going to wind up with national channel numbering for the major networks. Sure, imagining NBC as being "channel 4" for everyone may be impossible now in El Paso, Charleston or Kansas City, but I think something like that is going to wind up happening. DirecTV sort of does this with their network "On Demand" channels....CBS is on 1002, NBC is on 1004, and ABC is on 1007. The other on-demand channels simply add a "1" to the 3 digit channel number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTSC1980 96 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 ABC 'circle' 7 for everyone:) I could live with that. Or CBS2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrapmcdowell 1 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I agree with the ABC 21. Should make 68 CW and have a My 58. Put 58 on the .2 of 68 and 17. 17.1 could be a simulcast of 68.1. I still can't get over the fact they have 33/40 on the .2 sub channels. Birmingham defiantly has to be the biggest market with ABC on a .2. I know, I know. It is on 58.1 that is "technically" the affiliate. Still seems dumb to me. With WIAT 42 news gaining viewers and occasionally winning 1st over WBRC in the 10 o'clock news, and that awesome new set they debuted with the new graphics and impact v.5, it might be tough for ABC33/40 to regain the number 2 slot in the Birmingham DMA. And this is Sinclair we are talking about, so they might be ok with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4164 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 ...Honestly I'm of the opinion that at some point down the road, maybe with ATSC 3.0, that we're going to wind up with national channel numbering for the major networks. Sure, imagining NBC as being "channel 4" for everyone may be impossible now in El Paso, Charleston or Kansas City, but I think something like that is going to wind up happening. In Australia (the ABC, Seven Network, Nine Network and Network Ten) and in Canada (CBC/RadioCanada, CTV and CTV two, Global, CityTV), all of those networks and systems have unified branding conventions, albeit with a few notable exceptions. Chances are more likely that unified network branding with minimal emphasis on the affiliate (e.g., Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC) will be taking place eventually. As to HOW it happens, what with group owners like Scripps, Gannett, Raycom, etc. all having branding conventions of their own... is another matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTSC1980 96 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrtraveler01 737 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Well that puts the rebranding rumors to a rest. I imagine that WCIV will still use the News 4 branding as well. And we're still waiting on WLOS and WEAR to get these. Gotta admit, the way Sinclair is rolling out this package makes no sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4164 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Well that puts the rebranding rumors to a rest. I imagine that WCIV will still use the News 4 branding as well. And we're still waiting on WLOS and WEAR to get these. Gotta admit, the way Sinclair is rolling out this package makes no sense to me. Well, S!nclair is now a sprawling mega-conglomerate. This package is uninspiring and very bland, but it's a necessary utilitarian look. That they are even able to do any type of a rollout for a standardized graphics package like this is pretty remarkable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrtraveler01 737 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Well, S!nclair is now a sprawling mega-conglomerate. This package is uninspiring and very bland, but it's a necessary utilitarian look. That they are even able to do any type of a rollout for a standardized graphics package like this is pretty remarkable. To be fair, it's much better than their last package. But then again, that's an incredibly low bar to set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrapmcdowell 1 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 To be fair, it's much better than their last package. But then again, that's an incredibly low bar to set. Very low bar to set. Sinclair graphics are live as of the 5pm newscast. Such an improvement over the last allbriton stuff. Several kinks to work out however. Several transitions with the music synch, The crawl at the bottom of the screen covers part of the L3, etc... And with the new light blue in the graphics .. The set looks even worse Sad note: saying goodbye to newsmusic v.1 and hello to the "glass /curves" music package from sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobvick 9 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I wonder if Sinclair will get them a new set soon? In spite of the channel numbering, I have to say one thing for the Sinclair ownership, at least they are doing something, which is a lot more than Allbritton did. Hope they get them a new set, the one they have is terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike91 66 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 They need a new set horribly bad. Also, good to see the new music, News One V.1 was beyond tired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
news89 467 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Truly end of era, with NewsoneV1 on WBMA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry 718 Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Or CBS2. What would the national channel number for Fox be? Fox 62 maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samantha 2878 Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 What would the national channel number for Fox be? Fox 62 maybe? :awesome: Likely 5, maybe maybe 11. I think in any situation like this New York would end up being the tone-setter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundershock MN 169 Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 I agree with the ABC 21. Should make 68 CW and have a My 58. Put 58 on the .2 of 68 and 17. 17.1 could be a simulcast of 68.1. I still can't get over the fact they have 33/40 on the .2 sub channels. Birmingham defiantly has to be the biggest market with ABC on a .2. I know, I know. It is on 58.1 that is "technically" the affiliate. Still seems dumb to me. I still think some shuffling, like moving ABC from the .2, will still eventually happen. I think the current setup is an interm one due to contractual restrictions and just needing to find a home for everything. ...Honestly I'm of the opinion that at some point down the road, maybe with ATSC 3.0, that we're going to wind up with national channel numbering for the major networks. Sure, imagining NBC as being "channel 4" for everyone may be impossible now in El Paso, Charleston or Kansas City, but I think something like that is going to wind up happening. I don't know how such an arrangement would work here. In most countries with such an arrangement the stations are almost always O&O's of the network and basically act as 24/7 repeaters for the network. That is not the case here as most stations are programmed individually. And, most of these stations have built their brand around their channel number. So, I don't see them giving that up easily. I guess what I'm saying is that most of those countries started television broadcasting with such a set up from the get go. And, I just cannot see The States changing to such a set up. DirecTV sort of does this with their network "On Demand" channels....CBS is on 1002, NBC is on 1004, and ABC is on 1007. The other on-demand channels simply add a "1" to the 3 digit channel number. They are mapped to the channel numbers of the LA locals. DirecTV has to map them somewhere so, they use the channel number of the OTA networks in their "home" market. As such when Fox and MundoFox appear here soon they will be mapped to 1011 and 1022 respectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.