Jump to content

CBS News Detroit launches


BluesNews

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, DirtyHarry said:

Think of it this way: you're sitting in your Laz-Z-Boy watching whatever channel. You're bored of it and you start flipping through other channels. Think of all the crap out there you have to flip through, all the infomercials, all the Mexican channels, all the preacher creatures, all the diginets and all the LPTVs with crap programming. And don't forget Canadian TV! Wouldn't it be nice to have good real estate right next to Fox and NBC? Wouldn't it be nice to just have to punch the number "3" on your remote to get to CBS?

Plus when you have 2,3,4 and 7 as your big 4 just in a short turn... it works out for the viewer and CBS as well. It get rid of your 62 problem and also solves a major issue CBS has in that market in Detroit: Visibility of your product. It's literally the Boston NBC 10 situation but in a situation where it makes perfect sense for them to do it in this case and it is a gain for everyone. 

 

Edited by ColumbusNewsFan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ColumbusNewsFan said:

Plus when you have 2,3,4 and 7 as your big 4 just in a short turn... it works out for the viewer and CBS as well. It get rid of your 62 problem and also solves a major issue CBS has in that market in Detroit: Visibility of your product. It's literally the Boston NBC 10 situation but in a situation where it makes perfect sense for them to do it in this case and it is a gain for everyone. 

 

 

15 isn't too bad of a number. You're still in the general vicinity of everybody else with 4 and 5 (and 25). But Channel numbers like 46 and 62 are problematic IMO, from the standpoint of making it easier for the viewer.

16 minutes ago, 24994J said:

For the record, it appears that CBS Detroit is found on at least one cable provider slotted at channel 6. It's not up at 62 for everyone.

 

Right, but we're talking about OTA here as well as branding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ColumbusNewsFan said:

Plus when you have 2,3,4 and 7 as your big 4 just in a short turn... it works out for the viewer and CBS as well. It get rid of your 62 problem and also solves a major issue CBS has in that market in Detroit: Visibility of your product. It's literally the Boston NBC 10 situation but in a situation where it makes perfect sense for them to do it in this case and it is a gain for everyone. 

 

 

Sinclair thought it was important enough to petition the FCC to let them keep virtual Channel 3 for whatever signal they ended up being on in Las Vegas. I think CBS could probably make the same case and just buy the virtual channel number from whoever has that channel 3 signal. Or buy the station, take the channel number and then sell it back to whoever owns it. Lots of ways to skin this cat.

Edited by DirtyHarry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2023 at 7:19 PM, Myron Falwell said:

Weigel has “CBS 58” Milwaukee and “ABC 57” South Bend and you don’t see them being embarrassed about those numbers because they invested in the stations and have tried. CBS never did that with WWJ for a garden variety of reasons, and wound up making “62” a tainted brand by negligence and inaction.

Since they added WDJT to my cable system, it's been just either '9' or '605' in the Roledex of my mind so I knew where to tune, and now it's just 'CBS 58' because that's what they've been every day since December 1994 and never changed the branding. Their first priority was to get established, then build a news division; on that front they've been very successful and now you nearly forget that CBS bounced around 6, 12 and 18 for so many decades, and they've got a good syndicated schedule.

 

Meanwhile, WWJ has just...kinda existed. They just pass through CBS-owned content in syndication and outside of a few Lions games here and there and watching CBS, there's really been nothing to keep you there because 2, 4 and 7 are always there in their niches. Same when they purchased WKBD and made it just another bland UPN/CW station. And it's either 62 CBS, CBS Detroit, CBS, WWJ, CBS 62...never any consistent branding. And it didn't help that CBSNS had old guard management at the Westinghouse stations that wasn't changing a thing any time soon, or dysfunctional idiots with battling egos who bought stations to get into a golf club, and in Detroit, just never really tried.

 

Still ended up a better result than getting WADL as an affiliate, though; that entire station is a headache and a half as it is now. Imagine having to fight them every few years on affiliation terms.

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mrschimpf said:

Since they added WDJT to my cable system, it's been just either '9' or '605' in the Roledex of my mind so I knew where to tune, and now it's just 'CBS 58' because that's what they've been every day since December 1994 and never changed the branding. Their first priority was to get established, then build a news division; on that front they've been very successful and now you nearly forget that CBS bounced around 6, 12 and 18 for so many decades, and they've got a good syndicated schedule.

 

Meanwhile, WWJ has just...kinda existed. They just pass through CBS-owned content in syndication and outside of a few Lions games here and there and watching CBS, there's really been nothing to keep you there because 2, 4 and 7 are always there in their niches. Same when they purchased WKBD and made it just another bland UPN/CW station. And it's either 62 CBS, CBS Detroit, CBS, WWJ, CBS 62...never any consistent branding. And it didn't help that CBSNS had old guard management at the Westinghouse stations that wasn't changing a thing any time soon, or dysfunctional idiots with battling egos who bought stations to get into a golf club, and in Detroit, just never really tried.

 

Still ended up a better result than getting WADL as an affiliate, though; that entire station is a headache and a half as it is now. Imagine having to fight them every few years on affiliation terms.

 

Of course, you have to have the product to back up the channel number. If you have a crappy product, channel number isn't going to help you But don't discount how helpful it would be, either. Especially if you have a crappy brand like Channel 62. It's like having a shop at a good mall, versus the plaza down the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, mrschimpf said:

Since they added WDJT to my cable system, it's been just either '9' or '605' in the Roledex of my mind so I knew where to tune, and now it's just 'CBS 58' because that's what they've been every day since December 1994 and never changed the branding. Their first priority was to get established, then build a news division; on that front they've been very successful and now you nearly forget that CBS bounced around 6, 12 and 18 for so many decades, and they've got a good syndicated schedule.

 

Meanwhile, WWJ has just...kinda existed. They just pass through CBS-owned content in syndication and outside of a few Lions games here and there and watching CBS, there's really been nothing to keep you there because 2, 4 and 7 are always there in their niches. Same when they purchased WKBD and made it just another bland UPN/CW station. And it's either 62 CBS, CBS Detroit, CBS, WWJ, CBS 62...never any consistent branding. And it didn't help that CBSNS had old guard management at the Westinghouse stations that wasn't changing a thing any time soon, or dysfunctional idiots with battling egos who bought stations to get into a golf club, and in Detroit, just never really tried.

 

Still ended up a better result than getting WADL as an affiliate, though; that entire station is a headache and a half as it is now. Imagine having to fight them every few years on affiliation terms.

WADL didn't like the contract and terms of the CBS contract that why they never affiliated with them.  WADL's owners wanted more $$$ out of the CBS deal back in 94. If Cox hadn't sold WKBD in 1993, WKBD probably would of been

the CBS affiliate.  When WKBD was FOX50 it 10pm did well.  I'm sure under Cox in the 90s it would of pony up the $$$ and would compete against 2,4,7.  I remember back in the 90s 62 mgmt kept saying a local news was coming in 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000. By then WKBD/WWJ were merged under the CBS/Paramount brand. Using WKBD's facilities to do 10&11pm news then it get the axe. 20 years later a newscast returns. Almost 30 years to the network switch. It good to see them doing a newscast, but with so many new talent- at sometime you do have to bring in a talent in the market that has a name brand the audience knows.  Someone posted online and said "62 has news"

CBS prime time has done well in Detroit battling WXYZ & WJBK for 3rd in prime time. I hope there some good promos at 62CBS.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m trying to understand the logic of debating the importance of channel numbers when they’ve been falling into irrelevance since the DTV switchover… and will further become irrelevant as ATSC 3.0 is rolled out.

 

This isn’t 1994.

Edited by Myron Falwell
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Thought-Provoking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Myron Falwell said:

I’m trying to understand the logic of debating the importance of channel numbers when they’ve been falling into irrelevance since the DTV switchover… and will further become irrelevant as ASTC 3.0 is rolled out.

 

This isn’t 1994.

I agree. I use YouTube TV and regardless of the channel number, the first channels that appear are CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox. I'm in San Diego, so the order isn't even in number order... 8, 10, 7, 5... 

 

I'll also add, that's the default, but you can customize the order of the channel listings by putting your most watched at the top. So in the end, that channel number really doesn't matter 

 

PXL_20230127_205435833.jpg

Edited by Bsean
Adding additional point
  • Like 2
  • Thought-Provoking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bsean said:

I agree. I use YouTube TV and regardless of the channel number, the first channels that appear are CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox. I'm in San Diego, so the order isn't even in number order... 8, 10, 7, 5... 

 

I'm thinking it goes by the OTA numbers (not cable allotments) 8, 10, 39, 69. But even then, its still not in numerical order because PBS is 15.

Edited by CircleSeven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CircleSeven said:

 

I'm thinking it goes by the OTA numbers (not cable allotments) 8, 10, 39, 69. But even then, its still not in numerical order because PBS is 15.

Right. Telemundo and CW are even further down and they are subchannels.

 

Edited by Bsean
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Myron Falwell said:

I’m trying to understand the logic of debating the importance of channel numbers when they’ve been falling into irrelevance since the DTV switchover… and will further become irrelevant as ATSC 3.0 is rolled out.

 

This isn’t 1994.

 

For some stations, a chunk of the large legacy audience is older and still familiar with the channel numbers as the 'brand.'

 

Probably less so or close to none with  some of these 4th place CBS stations, or a new one like CBS DETROIT. And certainly a lot less so than 20+ years ago, and as you note fading further.

 

Think WPVI or KTRK for example. 

1 hour ago, Bsean said:

I agree. I use YouTube TV and regardless of the channel number, the first channels that appear are CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox. I'm in San Diego, so the order isn't even in number order... 8, 10, 7, 5... 

 

I'll also add, that's the default, but you can customize the order of the channel listings by putting your most watched at the top. So in the end, that channel number really doesn't matter 

 

PXL_20230127_205435833.jpg

 

FWIW my Hulu screen shows channel logos but it's alphabetical (including cable nets) - and for the local stations uses the network name as the first letter for(so ABC 10 before CBS 😎 sorting 

Edited by sfomspphl
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Myron Falwell said:

I’m trying to understand the logic of debating the importance of channel numbers when they’ve been falling into irrelevance since the DTV switchover… and will further become irrelevant as ATSC 3.0 is rolled out.

 

This isn’t 1994.

The audience who've been around will cling to a channel #.  They will see the # in the logo, because people only remember the abstract.

4 hours ago, Bsean said:

I agree. I use YouTube TV and regardless of the channel number, the first channels that appear are CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox. I'm in San Diego, so the order isn't even in number order... 8, 10, 7, 5... 

 

I'll also add, that's the default, but you can customize the order of the channel listings by putting your most watched at the top. So in the end, that channel number really doesn't matter 

 

PXL_20230127_205435833.jpg

They sure move The Young and The Restless around in San Diego. Wasn't it just a decade ago they moved to 11am?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bsean said:

I agree

 

What's not to understand? Cable TV used to have 90% penetration, now it's 50%. That means people are using good old-fashioned channel numbers. What's so hard to understand about making it easy for people to see you and get to you, instead of having to sort through a bunch of Mexican, home shopping and preacher channels to get to you all the way up where all the crappy TV stations are on the high end of the dial. What's so hard to understand that people like using channel up and channel down buttons to flip through TV channels but that their patience isn't endless? (Try flipping through a couple of those LPTVs with 12 sub channels of crap all fired up.)

 

Finally, what's so hard to understand that by and large TV stations with VHF Channel numbers get better ratings than people with UHF Channel numbers? Programmers fight to get low channel numbers on cable, Sinclair fought to keep their low channel in Las Vegas, Block jumped through a few legal hoops so they could be Channel 8 in Lima, too, NBC tried to get the lowest channel number it could in Boston. If it didn't matter, people wouldn't be going through all this effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Breaking News said:

The audience who've been around will cling to a channel #.  They will see the # in the logo, because people only remember the abstract.

Including the very old demos that seek out cable talk channels regardless of the high channel number they are on?

 

6 hours ago, Bsean said:

I agree. I use YouTube TV and regardless of the channel number, the first channels that appear are CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox. I'm in San Diego, so the order isn't even in number order... 8, 10, 7, 5... 

 

I'll also add, that's the default, but you can customize the order of the channel listings by putting your most watched at the top. So in the end, that channel number really doesn't matter 

 

PXL_20230127_205435833.jpg

Surprised that no one has pointed out that those channels are listed as “CBS”, “ABC”, “Fox” and “PBS” … not “News8”, “10News”, “Fox 5/69” or “KPBS”. The generic displays on YouTube TV lend themselves DIRECTLY to CBS’s new branding convention.

Edited by Myron Falwell
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DirtyHarry said:

And furthermore, I can't think of any place other than Louisville, Birmingham and maybe Chicago where a UHF station has been able to drag itself out of the cellar it has VHF competition. By and large, low channel numbers are the most successful.

KVUE and KXAN are two UHFs that repeatedly beat KTBC, the biggest bust of all the New World—Fox stations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2023 at 7:05 PM, Myron Falwell said:

Including the very old demos that seek out cable talk channels regardless of the high channel number they are on?

 

Surprised that no one has pointed out that those channels are listed as “CBS”, “ABC”, “Fox” and “PBS” … not “News8”, “10News”, “Fox 5/69” or “KPBS”. The generic displays on YouTube TV lend themselves DIRECTLY to CBS’s new branding convention.

 

For Fox or CNN they never had the memory of on air channel number branding visual or audio. There’s also no local vs national programming distinction. 

 

For a WPVI they’ve heard and seen  “Channel 6” or “ABC 6” with that iconic “6” for decades. What would an older person using voice command remote say by instinct? “ABC Philadelphia” or “Channel 6”? Maybe “Action News” 

 

In Denver it’s “9” through and through. 

 

Then there is the Fox decision to de emphasize Fox and emphasize the KTVU 2 in the most digital forward market.  TEGNA has emphasized iconic channel logos in recent years.

 

Lots of puts and takes unique to each station and market not all of them related to digital program guides.

 

Hard to make a blanket decision unless you have fewer legacy viewers at risk. It’s an easier one for the also rans or newer entrants to make.

 

Like KUSI that ditched the attempt at 9 branding (they started as a hidden 51 emphasizing KUSI at the start)

Edited by sfomspphl
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sfomspphl said:

 

For Fox or CNN they never had the memory of a channel number branding visual or audio. There’s also no local vs national programming distinction.

Of note, Fox affiliate branding conventions came from how the MetroMedia chain identified themselves for decades. What had been “MetroMedia Channel #” was altered to “Fox Television Channel #” when Rupert bought the chain. By 1988, it was simplified to “Fox #”.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sfomspphl said:

Lots of puts and takes unique to each station and market not all of them related to digital program guides.

 

My take is that it's real estate and you have to make it easy for your customer to find you, just like any other consumer driven business. I realize that viewers aren't the real customers in media, but media still depends on attracting eyeballs.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sfomspphl said:

Hard to make a blanket decision unless you have fewer legacy viewers at risk. It’s an easier one for the also rans or newer entrants to make.

I think it’s safe to say that CBS Detroit falls into the “fewer legacy viewers at risk” category. Not only is channel 62 hard to get to for OTA viewers; that station (in its current form) doesn’t have much of a legacy to speak of.

 

28 minutes ago, DirtyHarry said:

My take is that it's real estate and you have to make it easy for your customer to find you, just like any other consumer driven business. I realize that viewers aren't the real customers in media, but media still depends on attracting eyeballs.

I generally agree, but it depends on how much CBS is invested in attracting OTA viewers in Detroit. Moving their virtual channel would only impact people who don’t have cable or streaming. I’m not sure if the number of antenna-only viewers in the Detroit viewing area would make that a big enough concern. Plus, CBS is putting a big emphasis on their streaming news networks anyway, so their Detroit OTA channel probably isn’t their highest priority right now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My take is this. You dont have to include channel numbers in station branding. "CBS Miami" is more unique than the multitude of CBS 4s. However, channel number should be referenced, in some way, assuming tv is still the dominant medium for news consumption. One way to do that:

 

Example:   CBS News Detroit Logo

                    WWJ-TV | Channel 62 

 

This might be especially useful for higher channels like WWJ in Detroit. Someone without cable may not know what dial CBS is and might not take the time to flip as far up as 62 on their OTA television.

 

With location based branding, indicating call letters becomes less important for distinguishing purposes (there's only one CBS Detroit) than the actual tv channel on which to find the station. 

Edited by iron_lion
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, nycnewsjunkie said:

I think it’s safe to say that CBS Detroit falls into the “fewer legacy viewers at risk” category. Not only is channel 62 hard to get to for OTA viewers; that station (in its current form) doesn’t have much of a legacy to speak of.

The bitter part is that WGPR-TV has a legacy. It was merely erased from channel 62 in 1994 when CBS was forced to buy the station under duress and is now confined to a museum.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, nycnewsjunkie said:

I think it’s safe to say that CBS Detroit falls into the “fewer legacy viewers at risk” category. Not only is channel 62 hard to get to for OTA viewers; that station (in its current form) doesn’t have much of a legacy to speak of.

 

I generally agree, but it depends on how much CBS is invested in attracting OTA viewers in Detroit. Moving their virtual channel would only impact people who don’t have cable or streaming. I’m not sure if the number of antenna-only viewers in the Detroit viewing area would make that a big enough concern. Plus, CBS is putting a big emphasis on their streaming news networks anyway, so their Detroit OTA channel probably isn’t their highest priority right now.

 

I don't know what OTA viewership is now percentage-wise. I know cable penetration is way down. I'm sure some of that has gone to OTT, but you would have to think that OTA viewership has also grown.

 

Look at it this way, Detroit has something like 1.9 million households in its DMA, not counting Canada, Toledo, Flint, Cleveland and wherever Detroit signals go. The old number was 10% for OTA and it has to be a minimum of 20% these days. That's a market of almost 400,000 people. That's comparable to Charleston-Huntington and Omaha. Yes, I would say that's important.

 

Screenshot_20230129-114848.thumb.jpg.6dff7824621f91034fcf4586d0591eca.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using TVNewsTalk you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.