Sox on WGN America Updated Info...

[Lip Man 1]

For what it's worth:

Heard from a high ranking member of the Sox front office before today's game. They said the story in Crain's is untrue. I was told the Sox were surprised when this story came out and that the reporter made incorrect assumptions. Specifically that what the Tribune CEO said "was truth and that it was happening soon..."

My source told me that something could happen "at some point" regarding Sox national TV coverage, that they couldn't promise it would stay this way forever, but it definitely is not changing "anytime soon."

The question is (and I've asked my source) what do they mean by "anytime soon..." One year? Three years?? Five years??? It might depend on how the contract between the Sox and WGN / Tribune Company is written.

If I can get a response I'll add it to this thread.

Lip

[kba]

Originally Posted by Lip Man 1

For what it's worth:

Heard from a high ranking member of the Sox front office before today's game. They said the story in Crain's is untrue. I was told the Sox were surprised when this story came out and that the reporter made incorrect assumptions. Specifically that what the Tribune CEO said "was truth and that it was happening soon..."

My source told me that something could happen "at some point" regarding Sox national TV coverage, that they couldn't promise it would stay this way forever, but it definitely is not changing "anytime soon."

The question is (and I've asked my source) what do they mean by "anytime soon..." One year? Three years?? Five years??? It might depend on how the contract between the Sox and WGN / Tribune Company is written.

If I can get a response I'll add it to this thread.

Lip

For those interested, here's the audio of the Tribune CEO's remarks at the conference. (Free registration required to listen.) His brief comments about sports telecasts are at 29:20. He says WGN's sports contracts net only about $250,000 profit, which he calls "irrelevant" compared to what he thinks he can earn on scripted shows.

He doesn't specifically address the timing of any programming change, but says it would be tied to Tribune's ongoing conversion of WGN America from a "superstation" to a basic cable channel. (He says the sports contracts will not be a part of the new basic cable WGNA.)

This part is over my head, but the conversion apparently involves renegotiating WGN's agreement with Time Warner, Direct TV, and every other cable and satellite provider. At 10:33, he says that will be a two to three year process, and he expects to have converted 40 - 50 percent of providers by the end 2014. I'm not clear if he's saying the sports telecasts will disappear gradually over the next several years on a provider-by-provider basis, or if he plans to pull the plug on sports all at once after every provider has converted WGNA to basic cable.

[Lip Man 1]

Of course the other variable is if this tool is still in charge two or three years from now.

Lip

[anewman35]

No matter who is in charge, I doubt it ever goes back more in the direction of Chicago-centric stuff. The status quo seems to basically mean they're not on as many systems as they want to be and get pretty low ratings, I can't imagine anybody who's in charge of them will ever be happy with that.

[soxfanreggie]

Who knows what will happen with baseball media though in 3-5 years. Things always seem to be changing with what gets offered to fans.

[Lip Man 1]

Just a few thoughts:

Regarding KBA's question about what the CEO means in certain aspects. My sense is the guy is saying that every single agreement with every single cable and satellite provider has to be renegotiated if WGN / WGN America / Tribune Company makes severe changes to their programming. That could impact where they are placed on systems and what can be charged...therefore every deal has to be redone from the ground up.

I'm not saying this is the case for the majority of operations but just as an example. Cable company in Iowa says, "if you aren't going to carry Chicago sports anymore, we aren't paying X per subscriber to you, if you want us to carry you in the future we'll pay only X..." So Tribune has to work out a new agreement with that company.

One other thought, I won't get into it in detail because I don't want to get into trouble. I found it interesting that the Tribune CEO says, Chicago sports only makes a "250,000" profit per year.

Oh...

So screw sports fans (not just Chicago sports fans) around the country because a "250,000 profit" a year isn't enough.

We'll see what happens in the future.

Lip

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by Lip Man 1

So screw sports fans (not just Chicago sports fans) around the country because a "250,000 profit" a year isn't enough.

Yes, I understand that you are in journalism, but that is how actual businesses in profitable industries work.

Here's just a nugget for you, FX, which seems to be one of the models for the new WGN America, who mixes Hollywood movies, syndicated popular shows, and original programming is a "significant" part of News Corp.'s cable portfolio which earned over $800 million in profit LAST QUARTER

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/bu...anted=all&_r=0

[Lip Man 1]

Double:

I can't say what I wish because it's not allowed here so I'll try to state it without getting into any trouble.

I have no issues with profit or a company or individual making them. They take the risk, they earn the right to do so. But when profit turns to greed, when people get screwed over in that process...be they fans, employees, retirees that's wrong.

I may only be in journalism and not a hot shot, high tech, smart individual like many on this site, but I know the difference between right and wrong.

It's one thing for the Tribune Company to make drastic changes because they are losing money, it's quite another because they aren't making as big a profit as they think they should be. BIG difference.

In the end it doesn't matter to this guy, the Tribune CEO, if he's wrong...if in three years his gamble blows up in his face it won't matter...he'll be bought off through a golden parachute and laugh all the way to the bank. Seems like the type of person some around here would call a hero. I wouldn't.

I've said my piece, I'll let it go.

Lip

[WhiteSox5187]

Originally Posted by doublem23

Yes, I understand that you are in journalism, but that is how actual businesses in profitable industries work.

Here's just a nugget for you, FX, which seems to be one of the models for the new WGN America, who mixes Hollywood movies, syndicated popular shows, and original programming is a "significant" part of News Corp.'s cable portfolio which earned over $800 million in profit LAST QUARTER

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/bu...anted=all&_r=0

Honestly, I am just surprised that the Tribune Company would want to turn down any part of their company that can turn a profit. I don't think they're in a position to do that.

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187

Honestly, I am just surprised that the Tribune Company would want to turn down any part of their company that can turn a profit. I don't think they're in a position to do that.

I'm not sure why any more, overall Trib. Co. is profitable again and they specifically divided the company into different parts (I want to say 12-18 months ago) with one segment, Tribune Broadcasting, which is the arm that owns WGN America as well as their other channels, to specifically focus on broadcasting.

People can complain about this move being "greedy" or whatever, but there's a reason why no other teams have this kind of setup, it's not very profitable, Tribune Broadcasting and WGN America is a privately owned company, their responsibility is to their shareholders, be grateful you got so many years of such a unique product but it's clearly one that doesn't make any real cash for the company. There cannot be that much of a demand for Chicago-centric programming on a cable channel carried across the entire country, it just doesn't make any sense.

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by Lip Man 1

Double:

I can't say what I wish because it's not allowed here so I'll try to state it without getting into any trouble.

I have no issues with profit or a company or individual making them. They take the risk, they earn the right to do so. But when profit turns to greed, when people get screwed over in that process...be they fans, employees, retirees that's wrong.

I may only be in journalism and not a hot shot, high tech, smart individual like many on this site, but I know the difference between right and wrong.

It's one thing for the Tribune Company to make drastic changes because they are losing money, it's quite another because they aren't making as big a profit as they think they should be. BIG difference.

In the end it doesn't matter to this guy, the Tribune CEO, if he's wrong...if in three years his gamble blows up in his face it won't matter...he'll be bought off through a golden parachute and laugh all the way to the bank. Seems like the type of person some around here would call a hero. I wouldn't.

I've said my piece, I'll let it go.

Lip

I might agree with you in most instances on this, but I just don't necessarily see the point of a national cable network televising a local, barely even regional, sports team. It just doesn't have national appeal. Sure, that sucks for out-of-market fans of that locale, but at least now there are multiple options for those folks (whether Extra Innings or MLB.tv).

[MUsoxfan]

I long to see the Mets on WWOR. How else would I follow nationally meaningless teams?

[GoSox2K3]

Originally Posted by doublem23

Yes, I understand that you are in journalism, but that is how actual businesses in profitable industries work.

Here's just a nugget for you, FX, which seems to be one of the models for the new WGN America, who mixes Hollywood movies, syndicated popular shows, and original programming is a "significant" part of News Corp.'s cable portfolio which earned over $800 million in profit LAST QUARTER

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/bu...anted=all&_r=0

I agree. Though, to counter that argument, WGN rarely airs Chicago sports during prime time. In Chicago, they've kept those time slots clear for CW programming.

Regardless, having Chicago sports shown nationally on WGN over cable systems is just a relic of a bygone era at this point. Years ago, cable viewers nationwide were able to watch the Braves on "WTBS" (before they changed the cable station to simply "TBS". We were also able to watch the Mets and all other local NY programming on WOR. I remember watching those goofy NY ads on WOR - "Crazy Eddie, his prices are INSANE!!!" Access to that went away years ago.

I'm actually surprised WGN has hung on with local Chicago content on cable systems as long as it has.

[gobears1987]

The fact that WGN has kept Chicago sports on as long as they have while barely making any money on it represents part of the reason that company has been losing money for years.

[gobears1987]

Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187

Honestly, I am just surprised that the Tribune Company would want to turn down any part of their company that can turn a profit. I don't think they're in a position to do that.

They know they will make a much larger profit if that airtime were dedicated to other programming. I'm pretty sure a syndicated sitcom could generate more profit on WGN America than a Sox or Cubs game.