Woes Could Spell Trouble For Free TV

For more than 60 years, TV stations have broadcast news, sports and entertainment for free and made their money by showing commercials. That might not work much longer.
By
Associated Press,

NEW YORK (AP) -- For more than 60 years, TV stations have broadcast news, sports and entertainment for free and made their money by showing commercials. That might not work much longer.

The business model is unraveling at ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox and the local stations that carry the networks' programming. Cable TV and the Web have fractured the audience for free TV and siphoned its ad dollars. The recession has squeezed advertising further, forcing broadcasters to accelerate their push for new revenue to pay for programming.

Story continues after the ad

That will play out in living rooms across the country. The changes could mean higher cable or satellite TV bills, as the networks and local stations squeeze more fees from pay-TV providers such as Comcast and DirecTV for the right to show broadcast TV channels in their lineups. The networks might even ditch free broadcast signals in the next few years. Instead, they could operate as cable channels -- a move that could spell the end of free TV as Americans have known it since the 1940s.

"Good programing is expensive," Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. owns Fox, told a shareholder meeting this fall. "It can no longer be supported solely by advertising revenues."

Fox is pursuing its strategy in public, warning that its broadcasts - including college football bowl games - could go dark Friday for subscribers of Time Warner Cable, unless the pay-TV operator gives Fox higher fees. For its part, Time Warner Cable is asking customers whether it should "roll over" or "get tough" in negotiations.

The future of free TV also could be altered as the biggest pay-TV provider, Comcast Corp., prepares to take control of NBC. Comcast has not signaled plans to end NBC's free broadcasts. But Jeff Zucker, who runs NBC and its sister cable channels such as CNBC and Bravo, told investors this month that "the cable model is just superior to the broadcast model."

The traditional broadcast model works like this: CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox distribute shows through a network of local stations. The networks own a few stations in big markets, but most are "affiliates," owned by separate companies.

Traditionally the networks paid affiliates to broadcast their shows, though those fees have dwindled to near nothing as local stations have seen their audience shrink. What hasn't changed is where the money mainly comes from: advertising.

Cable channels make most of their money by charging pay-TV providers a monthly fee per subscriber for their programing. On average, the pay-TV providers pay about 26 cents for each channel they carry, according to research firm SNL Kagan. A channel as highly rated as ESPN can get close to $4, while some, such as MTV2, go for just a few pennies.

With both advertising and fees, ESPN has seen its revenue grow to $6.3 billion this year from $1.8 billion a decade ago, according to SNL Kagan estimates. It has been able to bid for premium events that networks had traditionally aired, such as football games. Cable channels also have been able to fund high-quality shows, such as AMC's "Mad Men," rather than recycling movies and TV series.

That, plus a growing number of channels, has given cable a bigger share of the ad pie. In 1998, cable channels drew roughly $9.1 billion, or 24 percent of total TV ad spending, according to the Television Bureau of Advertising. By 2008, they were getting $21.6 billion, or 39 percent.

Having two revenue streams -- advertising and fees from pay-TV providers -- has insulated cable channels from the recession. In contrast, over-the-air stations have been forced to cut staff, and at least two broadcast groups sought bankruptcy protection this year.

Fox illustrates the trend: Its broadcast operations reported a 54 percent drop in operating income for the quarter that ended in September. Its cable channels, which include Fox News and FX, grew their operating income 41 percent.

Analyst Tom Love of ZenithOptimedia said he expects the big networks will end the year with a 9 percent drop in ad revenue, followed by an 8 percent drop in 2010 and zero growth in 2011.

A small chunk of the ad revenue is being recouped online, where the networks sell episodes for a few dollars each or run ads alongside shows on sites such as Hulu. Media economist Jack Myers projects online video advertising will grow into a $2 billion business by 2012, from just $350 million to $400 million this year.

But that is not significant enough to make up for the lost ad revenue on the airwaves. Advertisers spent $34 billion on broadcast commercials in 2008, down by $2.4 billion from two years earlier, according to the Television Bureau of Advertising.

So rather than wait for the Internet to become a bigger source of income, the networks and local stations are mimicking what cable channels do: They're charging pay-TV companies a monthly fee per subscriber to carry their programming.

Edit Article

Comments (12) -

HowardMBurgers Nickname posted over 2 years ago
Cable has been on a free or cheap ride with the big four networks and local broadcasters since the beginning. It's time now with their increased choices and popularity to pay for access to those choices. As with broadcasters have over the years with syndicated programming, the cable MSO's also need to choose what level of programming they're willing (or forced), to carry and what the costs are.
RustbeltAlumnus2 Nickname posted over 2 years ago
Broadcasters will still lose this battle. Cable has its own channels and no longer needs local stations, at least not nearly as much as believed by the people who can't let go of the outdated broadcast model. TVB puts the percentage of over-the-air homes at 9 percent. How much lower can it go before the FCC reclaims the wasted spectrum? The best evidence that broadcast has washed up on the shore is that the networks are even considering a competing awards show to the Emmys. How sad to be in such denial. And just when the broadcasters want to get tough, the cable providers are in the catbird seat. The fact is, the NCTA outlobbied the NAB as long as twenty years ago. Let's face it, broadcast TV has followed the fate of the landline phone.
PhillyPhlash Nickname posted over 2 years ago
And how often do you pick up your "blog-spamming services" check from the broadband-cable lobby?
granddaddy Nickname posted over 2 years ago
There is one idea still left for the Networks. If they set up a system (repeters) to reach all of their DMA's (90 to 95% reach) in each state, they could offer HD/Digital TV free to everyone in the country. With the current spectrum each local station has, they can start offering over 30 free broadcast stations over the air in a DMA. The Internet is offering programming for free or a small cost now and I can see ESPN offering all their programming on the internet for a small fee in the near future. Cable is expensive and the public is not going to pay for it if there is a cheaper alternative. Local/National advertising revenue would climb because of the decrease in cable viewers. The public is going to get the programming they want, put much less expensive. Our county is not going to have the spending power it has had in the past. Right now every tax payers portion of the nation debt is $110,000. We as broadcaster have to understand the economy and not just the current but long term effects of what is happening today.
Barry O'Brien posted over 2 years ago
What happens if cable/satellite viewers opt out of local package and use an antenna to receive OTA programing? See LA TIMES article (12/28) on the return of rabbit ears. While not every market has the benefit of a Mt. Wilson (central transmission site) over the air viewing is still a possibility in many locations. How would broadcasters collect a fee from those viewers?
Sammy Nickname posted over 2 years ago
Barry, cable/sat companies won't go that route- it would cost them money. In addition a smart broadcaster would never allow a cable/sat company the right to put their stations on anything but a basic tier.
PSIPthing Nickname posted over 2 years ago
the placement is actually specified in law, but it's not exactly a "basic tier" something like a market-specific side tier.
Ben Tucker posted over 2 years ago
Broadcasters have had an uphill battle ever since the FCC allowed cable to retransmit broadcast in a "Must Carry " environment ...no cost for cable to to use local broadcast signals to build their business on local stations back.When local Broadcasters and One Network (CBS) won the retransmission battle in the early 90's ...three Networks seized the opportunity to use their local retrans rights to get carriage of their New cable program services.So Broadcasters were not out lobbied the Local Broadcasters and Networks just never had the same business plans or vision of where the opportunities existed. There is a window right now where the Nets and Local Affiliates can develop a multi- channel free service that is somewhat unique in every community. There is also an opportunity to partner to make sure that retrans dollars are negotiated and shared in an appropriate fashion between the Nets and the Affiliate owners ....all of this requires LEADERSHIP to step up and have open meaningful discussions about their vision of the future and to fully explore the opportunities at hand.
HopeUMakeit Nickname posted over 2 years ago
Newspaper stringers have been forecasting the demise of Broadcast TV for the past 50 years. VCR's ?, TIVO?. Gimme me a break ! The only threat to broadcast is pitiful prime programming! NBC has one good night and they leave it buried on Thursday to grab movie business !! I find it curious the ghetto pimp of programming(FX), Rupert Murdoch, would be leading a retrans compensation battle. How dare you not bring back DIRT ! Penetration would drop about 50% because subs would really question why they are paying for 9 shopping and 20 foreign language channels that they will never view.. take it all A LA CARTE we will see who has value..
Chuck Dunning posted over 2 years ago
There is still a reason that broadcast shows make up 90+ of the top 100 programs each week, in spite of the "quality" programming on cable such as Mad Men, Sopranos, and others. It is the reach into local markets provided by the local stations that give broadcast shows the promotional exposure needed to generate large audiences.
Günter Marksteiner posted over 2 years ago
Reporters who submit stories like this should first learn something about the subject. The title clearly suggests the "end of free TV" (and radio broadcasting) is near. Yes, radio also is part of the successful broadcast model (as long as there are cars). Furthermore, what Comcast ultimately does with the NBC stations, or what the major networks do with their programming has absolutely nothing to do with the survival of free TV. The FCC mandates that every U.S. television station broadcast at least one unencrypted program stream free to the public as a condition of keeping their license. There are no exceptions. TV stations may also encode several data streams so that a decoder is required at the receiver in order to watch. There are no plans to manufacture TV sets with a capability for "pay TV" although the ATSC system does support the capability. Next, the ridiculous proclamation that only 10% of viewers in the U.S. watch OTA will not suddenly become "true" simply by repeating it. A lot of people wish that it would. They are the ones with non-competitive "point-to-point" distribution services like satellite and cable. The fact is that a large and rapidly-growing proportion of satellite TV viewers also are equipped with an antenna. They use it to watch HD programming from their local DTV station because satellite-delivered HD is 9 Mbps compressed crap. Anyone with a 50+ inch HDTV can see the overwhelmingly better image delivered by the local terrestrial broadcaster. Satellite local-into-local service carries only one of the 2 to 5 local station program streams. With its growing 30% market share, satellite TV is local HD broadcaster's "best friend". Cable systems carry the entire transport stream of local broadcast stations within their QAM signal. Virtually any DTV set will automatically display QAM channels if the cable is directly connected to the TV (after the DTV set is scanned). New HD set buyers are only now discovering all of the "extra" channels they can now receive for just the "basic" cable fee. 50% of U.S. households now own an HDTV. The cable operator's QAM signal delivers the same HD signal quality as the local broadcaster's 8VSB signal. Terrestrial TV antenna sales are nonetheless at a record high. Sales are growing so fast that antenna manufacturers cannot make them fast enough. Sound like the death of free TV to anyone? Dream on. Then comes the killer app for local TV broadcasters - mobileTV. Mobile TV modulators are in record high demand and virtually every TV station in the country has some plan to implement the OTA service. It took the telco industry (and Apple Computer) to finally get handheld TV hardware into mass production. Major network-produced programming still accounts for about half of all TV viewing. Cable and satellite would not exist without this programming. Whether the programming is delivered directly by cable and satellite as just another one of the many MSO's signals, or is also supplied to the public under an advertiser-supported model has nothing to do with the survival of OTA free TV U.S. broadcast model. The unique capability of the local broadcaster to deliver HD programming at top quality (and soon mobile TV) to virtually every square meter of every major market is a capability that cable and satellite providers only dream of. About 30% of viewer calls to our TV stations in New England and in South Florida are about OTA TV and where to obtain antennas. Only an idiot would continue to foster the belief that the "free TV" broadcast model is coming to an end.
PhillyPhlash Nickname posted over 2 years ago
This AP reporter takes the handout. Could that be because AP's fortunes are so closely tied to broadband distribution? Gordon Smith should demand a follow-up that is "fair and balanced," which this story is not. Mr. Smith should suggest that the AP editor overseeing this reporter read the L.A. Times piece (linked on this site yesterday) on the return of "rabbit ears." That's the truth, and it's what scares the bejezzus out of cable-broadband greedsters.

Classifieds

The Market

Symbol Last Change (%)
Nasdaq 2905.66 +45.98 (+1.61%)
NYSE 8060.43 +115.00 (+1.45%)
S&P 500 1344.90 +19.36 (+1.46%)
Updated 02/04 4:11p ET Quotes delayed at least 20 mins.
Source: Financial Content

Ratings

Overnights, adults 18-49 for February 3, 2012
  • 1.
    3.9/11
  • 2.
    3.5/9
  • 3.
    2.5/7
  • 4.
    1.5/4
  • 5.
    1.5/4
  • 6.
    0.9/2
Source: Nielsen
Reviews
Opinions
Features
  • Robert Lloyd

    Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele, veterans of Fox's sketch comedy MADtv, have a new series of their own, Comedy Central's Key & Peele. It is a genial, at times almost genteel, half-hour in which the pair's obvious niceness shines through even their more pugnacious characters. (Key's version of road rage is to shout, "Selfish!") In a roundabout way, that's the point. The sketches are consistently smart and smartly acted and flow easily from ordinary premises to weird conclusions.

  • Hank Stuever

    Discovery's Bering Sea Gold doesn’t seem at first like it has crossed any new reality TV frontier, relying on elements and structure familiar to the form. Enticingly (to the network), it combines the ocean and the gold and the cold and the reactive testosterone among bad-tempered desperados. To which I am surprised to cry: Eureka, they’ve found it! Bering Sea Gold is a testament to how thoroughly absorbing the genre can still be, when it’s done right.

  • Neil Genzlinger

    All Star Dealers, Discovery Channel's sports-memorabilia addition to the bloated auction/pawnshop/storage locker subgenre of reality television, should have been a winner, with endless stories to draw on and a built-in fan base. But rather than find its own formula, it was content to borrow from existing shows, and it borrowed all the wrong things.

  • Joanne Ostrow

    Kiefer Sutherland displays his softer side in Fox's Touch, a touchy-feely drama merging paranormal, spiritual and sweetly familial elements. shows off his acting chops, long forgotten, in scene after scene. It's heavier lifting than usual for the actor who was often reduced to caricature in 24. Sutherland is all about vulnerability in a show whose goal is nothing short of proving the interconnectedness of human life. We'll see if audiences can tolerate the notion of profound interrelatedness as weekly entertainment.

  • Tim Goodman

    Let's jump right to the most obvious of all sentiments when it comes to HBO's new horse racing/gambling series Luck: Do not bet against David Milch in this one. Like a lot of HBO series, Luck will require patience. It's telling a dense story with nuanced characters and it doesn't feel the need to rush in, like a network series, and hammer home the main themes. But each episode is more enriching, more engrossing than the last and there's Hoffman's superb turn at the forefront, even though his story unfolds with the least rush. Luck is a smart and ambitious series that looks to truly pay off in the home stretch.

  • Mike Hale

    The timing of FX's animated series Unsupervised is unfortunate. A kind of reversed Beavis and Butt-Head — in which the teenage heroes, while losers in just about every way, are also social strivers yearning for suburban domesticity and dispensing Oprah Winfrey-style affirmations — it has the bad luck of coming along three months after the original was revived by MTV. The new show looks awfully pale by comparison.

This advertisement will close automatically in  second(s). You will see this ad no more than once a day. Skip ad