Why no Milw news in HD yet?

[Mags]

I'm amazed - we have a home in Tampa also - 2 channels there have had HD news now for over a year.

How many in Milwaukee?  ZERO - ZILCH.

I don't get it?  Does the news stations think we are a bunch of blue collar brat eaters (which we are)?  Why does Tampa not discrespect their HD viewers?

Is Tampa that much bigger a market?  Why such disrespect by our local stations to the HD market?

This seems like something that this board should lead and address.  It seems as if the Milw broadcasting market doesn't care at all about HD.  Maybe it is an average income issue in Milwaukee?  I can't believe it is that much different than it is in Tampa.

Thoughts anyone?  Why won't our local stations support HD?  Any ideas?

[techguy1975]

Keep in mind, alot of decisions on capital expenses like that are *NOT* made at the local level.  The closest corporate entity for any of the stations is Wiegel, based in Chicago.  TMJ technically is owned by Journal Broadcast Group, and not by the Journal/Sentinel.

While I'm no expert on the subject by any means, it would seem to me that such decisions would be up to the corporate big-wigs to give the go-ahead to outfit the station to locally originate HD programming, especially news.

I'm sure it will come on the not to distant future

[LoadStar]

The closest corporate entity for any of the stations is Wiegel, based in Chicago.  TMJ technically is owned by Journal Broadcast Group, and not by the Journal/Sentinel.

No, the closest corporate entity IS Journal Broadcast Group, which is headquartered at 720 E. Capitol.

Weigel would be the next closest (Chicago), then Local TV LLC, soon to be owners of WITI (Lexington, KY). Finally, Hearst-Argyle (New York City) is the furthest.

In any case, all but WITI have announced plans to go HD. WISN and WTMJ will probably be first, but the earliest either will go HD would be right around the time of the digital cutover next February. (WITI didn't announce plans, because of the pending purchase by Local TV LLC.)

[RLJSlick]

I think Channel 4 WTMJ will be the first one around here, NBC seems to be in the fore front of HD News. Their Evening news is the only one that seems to be in HD that I can see.

[Tom Snyder]

As previously reported here, 4, 12 and 58 have budgeted money for their local programming to be broadcast in HD by early 2009. 12 seems to be the most aggressive, actually promising a launching in February 2009, with a new HD-friendly news set. 6 is in limbo because they're being sold.

[tencom]

You  should know by now Milwaukee OTA,  tv stations,. are only interested in the bottom line even though many OTA stations have a profit margin in excess of 70%
and will only make the transistion to local originated HDTV productions only if forced to by competitive reasons.  To most big 4 Network carrying  stations spending a million dollars,  (figure may be high) to upgrade to full HDTV would be a drop in the bucket, when compared to the stations profit.

[Talos4]

You  should know by now Milwaukee OTA,  tv stations,. are only interested in the bottom line even though many OTA stations have a profit margin in excess of 70%
and will only make the transistion to local originated HDTV productions only if forced to by competitive reasons.  To most big 4 Network carrying  stations spending a million dollars,  (figure may be high) to upgrade to full HDTV would be a drop in the bucket, when compared to the stations profit.

+ 70% GP !!! :eek:

Not a chance!!

Can you provide proof?

1 million a drop in the bucket, and that may be high :huh?:

Where do you come up with this stuff?

[REVM1M]

All Channel 4 knows to do is , have 24 hours news about SNOW instead of thinking to update their system to HD.

[tencom]

+ 70% GP !!! :eek:

Not a chance!!

Can you provide proof?

1 million a drop in the bucket, and that may be high :huh?:

Where do you come up with this stuff?

I do a lot of reading and can't quote the source for the profit margin  but is common knowledge that owning a OTA station with a major network affillation in a market the size of Milwaukee is a very profitable enterprise I got this information from a book on mass communication, put out by a well respected publisher, and the author of this book quoted a good source for this information, and gave figures from several broadcast groups. At one time the FCC required broadcasters, to file financial statements, with the FCC. But thanks to the  REAGAN  admiistration, that is no longer required, so it is not easy obtain. I will stand-by that figure.
 I personally believe that the expense of hardware conversion for HDTV origination is not going to be that great if  quality HDTV  cameras and assocated equipment is already available to the consumer, and if channel 10, could afford the HDTV conversion, even if they got partial goverment funding. Why not the local broadcasters?

[jjallou]

and if channel 10, could afford the HDTV conversion, even if they got partial goverment funding. Why not tje local broadcasters?

Partial Government funding and...........and...........and.............Viewers Like You!
Can You say Channel 10/36 Friends? I'm sure the other local broadcasters would be thrilled if you threw them some money as well. It could be spent on programming & equipment.

[tencom]

Partial Government funding and...........and...........and.............Viewers Like You!
Can You say Channel 10/36 Friends? I'm sure the other local broadcasters would be thrilled if you threw them some money as well. It could be spent on programming & equipment.

The local OTA channels don"t need a government handout they make enough money on their own in fact I believe that profitable TV stations should contribute some of there profit to PBS since the commericial stations refuse to carry the type of educational programs that PBS. offers. All the commerical OTA station when they received there broad cast licenses all promsed that they would carry educational and culture programming but don't. Why should the taxpayers subsidize PBS for forfilling a role that the commercial stations said they would do. I believe a broadcast station upon renewing there broadcast license should show that they will support educational and culture programming such as PBS after all the public owns the airwaves and does not give the broadcasters the sole right to do what they want with there portion of the airwaves!

[Tom Snyder]

Man.. where do I start?

Would I like local HD news? You bet. But I'm not sure how making them pony up a huge donation to MPTV helps that happen.

Journal Communications made $65m gross on $238m in revenue from their broadcast operation in 2006. That's 27% pre tax. That includes radio and TV, but both have a pretty similar revenue model. Any textbook that says that a 70% gross profit for a broadcast operation is just flat out wrong.

I agree that taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing PBS. But for different reasons. The government has no business in the broadcasting business. NPR/PBS frequencies should be opened up to the free market, and if they want to keep them, find donors and philanthropists to buy them and fund their operation. The only thing the government should have to do with broadcasting is arguably just frequency allocation to prevent interference, but in a true free market economy, they'd just leave it up to the broadcasters to negotiate non-interference agreements, but that would make even more lawyers rich, so I'll give yield to the government there.

The FCC DOES mandate a percentage of all commercial TV programming to consist of a percentage of educational programming (that's why Channel 24 had to nuke the music channel they were broadcasting... it skewed their educational programming ratio in the wrong direction.

I know that in the warped view of social engineers commercial operations that make a profit are somehow immoral, but unfortunately, the profit doesn't go in the pockets of some evil corporate entity (who votes Republican)... those profits go to shareholders (um , that would be YOUR 401k if you were wise enough to invest in your own future).

Unless you've run a business, made payroll, been responsible for a P&L or created a balance sheet, just stay out of the discussion about what is a "drop in the bucket" and what kind of subsidies the government should compel private businesses to give to social projects like NPR/PBS. Just don't even go there. :OnAir:

[StarvingForHDTV]

I know that in the warped view of social engineers commercial operations that make a profit are somehow immoral, but unfortunately, the profit doesn't go in the pockets of some evil corporate entity (who votes Republican)... those profits go to shareholders (um , that would be YOUR 401k if you were wise enough to invest in your own future).

Sometimes corporate executives are overpaid.  Some corporations join interest groups and funnel money in to lobbying the government.  Occasionally there are lavish corporate headquarters and private jets to fly big shots around.  None of those profits end up in the shareholder's pocket......  Some companies are worse than others in the aspects I mentioned above.

[Talos4]

I do a lot of reading and can't quote the source for the profit margin  but is common knowledge that owning a OTA station with a major network affillation in a market the size of Milwaukee is a very profitable enterprise I got this information from a book on mass communication, put out by a well respected publisher, and the author of this book quoted a good source for this information, and gave figures from several broadcast groups. At one time the FCC required broadcasters, to file financial statements, with the FCC. But thanks to the  REAGAN  admiistration, that is no longer required, so it is not easy obtain. I will stand-by that figure.
 I personally believe that the expense of hardware conversion for HDTV origination is not going to be that great if  quality HDTV  cameras and assocated equipment is already available to the consumer, and if channel 10, could afford the HDTV conversion, even if they got partial goverment funding. Why not the local broadcasters?

And I've got a co-worker, who knows someone that knows someone who thinks an acquaintance of his used to work at a TV station although he's not sure which one.

Please,

Your narrow view of the operation of a business broadcast or not is typical of those with a narrow agenda.  

Let's consider the SG&A of the business, in other words the day to day expenses to operate. That includes utilities, payroll, health insurance, Gas for all those remote trucks, ($$$$) Repairs to those trucks, Maintenance on those trucks, paper, pens, pencils, PC's, heating, cooling, building maintenance, That includes the new roofs that were just installed over the broadcast studios. ($$$$$$)

Where does all that money come from?    

What takes priority? Businesses have to budget and plan for these expenses and those over and above.

It doesn't matter that some think they've had enough time to plan and budget.

On a personal note, I NEEDED to replace all the windows in my home when I bought it 10 years ago they were terrible, Because I had to plan and budget that didn't happen until 2 years ago.

WTMJ as well as the other stations in the last couple of years have had to purchase and install new transmitters and all the equipment just to get the digital signal up and out.  They didn't HAVE to provide HD content but they went the extra step to give us the HD that the networks are providing.

If you held the purse strings at WTMJ and had the final word on where your money was going where would you start?

Local HD news or replace the leaky roof in your broadcast studios?

Local HD news or keeping your remote fleet up and running?

Running a business is not easy or cheap.

I won't get involved in the political slant of the post.

[tencom]

And I've got a co-worker, who knows someone that knows someone who thinks an acquaintance of his used to work at a TV station although he's not sure which one.

Please,

Your narrow view of the operation of a business broadcast or not is typical of those with a narrow agenda.  

Let's consider the SG&A of the business, in other words the day to day expenses to operate.

After all is done, commercial television still keep for themselves, most of the money
As MICHAEL DREW former television columnist for the MILWAUKEE JOURNAL, once said  "Owning a television station is like printing money"  And RUBERT MURDOCH
Head man with FOX BROADCASTING and  most lately owner of DIRECT TV said the reason he got into television is because "it's easy money" Why do you think  when purchasing,  a new auromobile your paying well over a thousand dollars  to cover the cost of advertising. And you tie my beliefs, as political which I deny as political it's making broadcasters, more responsible in the use of the public airwaves. Aren't you concerned about the  low quality of commercial television, that might be having a negative effect,  on American culture.