TV Network Affiliates May Disappear Sooner Than We Expected

Are the network affiliates those of a certain age grew up with on their way out? In a manner of speaking, perhaps. But it’s complicated.

When I grew up, there were basically four television stations. It was before cable television and its lineup of more than 100 channels. The network affiliates pumped in programming from ABC, CBS and NBC. (The Fox network hadn’t started, yet.) Of those four network affiliates, the fourth was the PBS station.

I know. For some of you, it’s virtually impossible to imagine having only four choices when it came time to turn on the tube. But that was life in the 1970s.

As cable television came into the picture, we suddenly had independent channels called “superstations” with loads of syndicated programming the big four couldn’t fit into their schedules. The first two superstations I remember were WTBS in Atlanta (which in the 1970s was WTCG) and WTTG in Washington, D.C. Eventually, WGN in Chicago showed up in my lineup.

Then came satellite hundreds of channels to choose from. Too many choices. And yet, with all the choices, it seems there was even less to find that was worth watching.

Now we have multiple streaming channels. The networks all have a hand in streaming.

What about those little network affiliates?

When I started in TV — and long before that — there was this little thing called network compensation. Every time an affiliate ran an episode a network program, the network paid a small fee. I got a glimpse at a compensation sheet in the early 1990s. Some episodes of some shows might only have generated $30 or so. Others might earn $800, maybe $1,000. In some cases, even more than that.

No, it doesn’t sound like much. But when you consider how many episodes of network programs most affiliates carry, you can see that it could add up quickly.

Over the years, the networks not only reduced the amount of compensation down to zero, they started reverse compensation, forcing their affiliates to suddenly pay them for the programming.

Imagine your budget if your income from work suddenly dried up — and then you suddenly had to pay out the amount you’d previously been earning! How long could you pull that off?

As satellite and cable companies grew, stations were able to benefit from retransmission fees. In a nutshell, cable and satellite companies charge their customers for carrying broadcast station signals. The stations, naturally, wanted a cut of the money those companies were making off selling the distribution of their signals.

And the networks came after their share of those retransmission dollars.

Add it all up and you have a big, growing problem. As Hank Price points out in a TVNewsCheck column, the network’s demands on retrans fees don’t take into account all of the cord cutters. The result, he says, is some affiliates are now paying networks more in programming fees than they receive in retransmission payments from cable and satellite companies.

“If the network/station system is to survive, affiliate programming fees must be reduced,” he says.

The affiliate stations serve their viewers with local content as well as network content. But the networks want people to focus on the network content. Let’s not pretend: The networks hope one day they’ll be able entice everyone to subscribe to their streaming channels. If they can bypass affiliated stations and have everyone just subscribe directly, they may think they’d make more money.

NBC has Peacock. CBS has Paramount+. I’m not sure exactly what ABC has: Some of their programming is on Hulu and I imagine some is on Disney+…but I’m not sure if there’s a way to live-stream ABC. As for Fox, I see some of its programming on Hulu as well. I don’t know that there’s a Fox network streaming app to subscribe to.

Some affiliates are feeling the tension

I’ve noticed there are network affiliates across the country who are quietly rebranding. With updates to logos come the conspicuous absence of the little peacock, eyes, sphere and searchlight logos we became so familiar with.

A station that might have been known as, say, “NBC2,” may now be called “2News.” Or a station that may always have been known as WZZA-TV8 may still be that, minus the little CBS eye — or whatever other network logo that might have been perched next to the big numeral eight.

It’s not that all stations are making this change. But it definitely seems that some are quietly distancing themselves from their networks — at least in branding. They’re running the same programming. They still consider themselves network affiliates, of course.

But given that they now have to pay the networks instead of the other way around, I can understand why they don’t give the networks any free advertising!

As Price rightly points out, it would be stupid of the networks to kill off their affiliates. The networks do, after all, make money from them. But charging fees that, in some cases, are pushing stations into the red, will likely have to change.

Eventually some of those affiliates are going to start looking for ways to focus on more news and local programming and consider bidding their networks goodbye.

The majority of current network affiliates — particularly those that already have news teams — will first look at adding additional newscasts or other local programming. For those stations, in some cases, more local programming would be cheaper than syndicated fare.

But stations that don’t have news teams will face a tough choice. They’ll either have to build one, which is very costly, or pay for more non-local programming if their network pulls away.

I still think the traditional networks will continue for a while longer. But you can see concern on the horizon.

As streaming television continues to grow and the choices increase, networks and their affiliates will have to start working together again. Let’s hope that happens before it’s not too late.