Zell to Purchase Tribune Co., Sell Cubs

[98navigator]

There is no doubt that ratings locally the Sox won the battle but I am not sure if that is the case nationally.

 

Yes, it is the case. The real story isn't a spike in Sox ratings following a WS, it's the Cubs TV and radio ratings drop because of a poor season (unlike previous poor seasons). The decrease was due, in part to the success of the Sox; Cubs defectors who not only started to watch and listen as well as go to the Cell, but it was also Cubs fans protesting a poor product.

 

The advertising money is based on ratings (which gets to my original point about WGN making a profit on Sox games). Overall, the Sox had higher ratings in 2006 thus, the network will have the luxury of charging more per ad during Sox games in 2007 (than they can charge for Cubs games). That said, I fully expect the Cubs to regain the television and radio lead this season and for the foreseeable future.

 

Also, as long as the Cubs and WGN share a common parent company, Sox games will never outnumber or equal Cubs games on the network. WGN Sports will continue to reassign more of its Sox games to WCIU/Sox Net (which can only seen locally) thereby reducing the number of national Sox games while maintaining local revenue. Yet another benefit to having a flagship network.

[CubColtPacer]

There is no doubt that ratings locally the Sox won the battle but I am not sure if that is the case nationally.

 

 

The advertising money is based on ratings (which gets to my original point about WGN making a profit on Sox games). Overall, the Sox had higher ratings in 2006 thus, the network will have the luxury of charging more per ad during Sox games in 2007 (than they can charge for Cubs games). That said, I fully expect the Cubs to regain the television and radio lead this season and for the foreseeable future.

 

Actually, that's not quite true-advertising dollars aren't done precisely on past ratings. The Cubs with their push over the offseason probably have convinced advertisers to pay more for their games again-there are going to be a great deal of Cubs fans that check in to this team to see how they are doing, and advertisers will project that the Cubs will likely be ahead in ratings again this year and spend their dollars accordingly.

[98navigator]

There is no doubt that ratings locally the Sox won the battle but I am not sure if that is the case nationally.

 

 

The advertising money is based on ratings (which gets to my original point about WGN making a profit on Sox games). Overall, the Sox had higher ratings in 2006 thus, the network will have the luxury of charging more per ad during Sox games in 2007 (than they can charge for Cubs games). That said, I fully expect the Cubs to regain the television and radio lead this season and for the foreseeable future.

 

Actually, that's not quite true-advertising dollars aren't done precisely on past ratings. The Cubs with their push over the offseason probably have convinced advertisers to pay more for their games again-there are going to be a great deal of Cubs fans that check in to this team to see how they are doing, and advertisers will project that the Cubs will likely be ahead in ratings again this year and spend their dollars accordingly.

 

It is true in a traditional sense. Nielson's television ratings rankings and Arbitron's radio ratings system are used to create a starting point for the cost of ad space based on the most recent pattern of consumers. It is also probably true that Cubs executives tried to negotiate a higher price per advertising based on a longer trackrecord of success. That doesn't mean they were successful; most likely the ad prices for Cubs games will be the same or slightly less than they had hoped (based on last season's prices) while not taking the kind of hit that other teams, with less loyal followings, would have experienced. The goal is to increase the cost of the ads yearly (at the worst they stay the same).

[Derwood]

if the Cubs are no longer on the national WGN, they might as well fold that station. Seriously, Superstation WGN is basically the Cubs, Saturday night Bulls games, and Becker reruns, occasionally interrupted by a Matlock or Magnum PI marathon. The station is complete junk. WGN Chicago runs almost 100% different programming than the national station

 

I agree with this. I just don't think WGN has much besides sports going on programming wise. Remember when WGN was trying "the WB". That idea went down in flames. The cable stations are all being forced out by specialty channels that cater to certain segments and show only certain stuff. WGN as a national cable station is probably largely being sustained by sports fans that complain to cable providers if it's dropped. I never see anything on there except endless reruns of shows that were popular sometime before I graduated elementary school.

 

FYI, the WB turned into CW...

 

only in the Chicago area. It was neither WB or CW on the Superstation

[Amazing_Grace]

White Sox games were more popular than Cubs telecasts last season (for the first time in over 20 years); the net effect is that during the 2007 season, WGN can make more advertising dollars for Sox broadcasts.

 

Do you have any support for that assertion?

 

With that in mind, I am merely bringing up the potential negatives that could arise.

 

If you're implying that Zell might look to ratings in 2006 and decide to cut back on Cubs programming, while increasing White Sox programming, don't you think a man that was able to make billions as an investor is more sophisticated than to base such a decision on ratings for only the last year? Also, doesn't it also assume that you're right about your initial point - that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be more than the cost of advertising on Cubs' games? I would be quite surprised if that's true.

 

On your first question, it's common knowledge that the Sox beat out the Cubs in radio and TV ratings (2006) for the first time in over 20 years. It really isn't a surprise considering the Cubs won 66 games and the Sox were basking in the glow of a WS.

 

It was published in the Tribune so you may want to search the archives.

 

On your second point, no, my view is that Zell doesn't care about the baseball part of the Tribune (he's admitted as much).

 

My point about the Sox was specific to the poster I was replying to---who implied that WGN must be profiting because they are running Sox games--as if to say there is minimal profit in Sox telecasts. My reply is two fold: because of the recent success of the Sox, WGN can charge more per advertiser in 2007 than they can for Cubs games... Also, the Cubs, Sox, and Bulls will always be shown locally in Chicago because it is a local station (with a national following).

 

The poster you were replying to is me, but I'm not saying that Sox games are unprofitable. I'm saying that they are profitable, but that Cubs games have been and likely will be more profitable over the long term. You seem to be saying that WGN will drop national telecasts because the new owners don't care about baseball and because TBS dropped the Braves, but the first is irrelevant, because we've all seen how much the Trib cares about baseball vs. profit, and the second is a different situation with a different network in a different city with different ownership.

 

I'm simply saying that the decision will be based on profit, and the evidence suggests that WGN is making money on televising the games of both baseball teams. With all the problems the Trib is having financially, do you really and truly believe that they wouldn't drop Cubs games to bring in more money if they had the chance? I think if they could make more money dropping baseball, baseball would already have been dropped. Who the owner is is rather irrelevant from a what's profitable vs. what's unprofitable perspective. If there's something that will be more profitable than Cubs games that becomes easily accessible for WGN--like say, if the Trib was bought by Rupert Murdoch, who has a huge TV empire and a lot of programming that he could put on WGN--then maybe they'll stop the broadcasts, but who knows if and when that will be.

 

Just because the team or WGN gets a new owner who knows or cares nothing about baseball does not mean national telecasts will end. That decision will be based on the new owner's call on what the best way to make money is, and it is as likely as not to be the same decision the Tribune made to make the most money.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Amazing_Grace

[Amazing_Grace]

if the Cubs are no longer on the national WGN, they might as well fold that station. Seriously, Superstation WGN is basically the Cubs, Saturday night Bulls games, and Becker reruns, occasionally interrupted by a Matlock or Magnum PI marathon. The station is complete junk. WGN Chicago runs almost 100% different programming than the national station

 

I agree with this. I just don't think WGN has much besides sports going on programming wise. Remember when WGN was trying "the WB". That idea went down in flames. The cable stations are all being forced out by specialty channels that cater to certain segments and show only certain stuff. WGN as a national cable station is probably largely being sustained by sports fans that complain to cable providers if it's dropped. I never see anything on there except endless reruns of shows that were popular sometime before I graduated elementary school.

 

FYI, the WB turned into CW...

 

only in the Chicago area. It was neither WB or CW on the Superstation

 

Yes, we're really talking about two completely different animals. The WGN that we have on cable here in Kentucky is largely made up of the reruns we've mentioned. There's another station in our area that used to be UPN and I think is now CW. I believe the rule is that WGN can't show network programming on the national station because they would be infringing on the domain of other network affiliates. There are really two WGNs here, the one you're talking about, and the one that us out-of-towners are talking about.

[J.R.]

WGN's superstation carried the WB for a few seasons in the network's early days.

[hawkcub]

WGN's superstation carried the WB for a few seasons in the network's early days.

 

I remember that. I also remember being mad because I didn't have a local WB affiliate where I lived. Then one magically popped up.

[frostwyrm]

Any new owner absolutely has to understand that Hendry has made comittments(including Z's coming deal) that render the Cubs unable to contend before 2011 unless they maintain one of the largest payrolls in the NL. We could be looking at an incredibly brutal few years of baseball if the payroll goes back to being just above average and not huge.

[Amazing_Grace]

WGN's superstation carried the WB for a few seasons in the network's early days.

 

Ah, I thought I remembered WB being on there. Perhaps WB changed the rules on them somewhere along the way.

[Handlebar McSkullet]

WGN's superstation carried the WB for a few seasons in the network's early days.

 

Ah, I thought I remembered WB being on there. Perhaps WB changed the rules on them somewhere along the way.

 

FEI..... WB was on the Superstation WGN because in the first few years of its inception it wasn't considered a "network" as defined by the FCC. Once the WB became a network, WGN had to split into a network channel and the superstation version that the rest of the country sees.

 

Here are some helpful background facts as was explained to me(it might not be 100 percent accurate because im just regurgitating what I learned in undergrad 5 years ago. In order for something to be considered a Network, it has to have affiliate local station in different markets. And its programming must make up certain percentage of the affiliates total airtime. Network programming cannot be charged to the public(i.e be a cable channel). FCC allows networks to use public frequencies in exchange for free programming.

 

That why WGN was the WB nationally for a while. Once the WB got bigger and was able to produce more programming, they officially became a network, and could no longer be shown on cable(superstation).

[oldstyle81]

wgn just said the trib turned down Zell's offer told him to up his offer

[J.R.]

I believe the Board will meet again before the night's over to consider any upped bids.

[transplanted_suburbanite]

According to the tribune website.. it is a done deal!

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-070402tribune-zell,0,294383.story?coll=chi-newsbreaking-hed

[oldcubsfan]

Zell says he will sell the Cubs according to Bloomberg TV.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

All over the news now; Zell wins the bid, Cubs are to be sold after the 2007 season. Does this affect the Zambrano negotiations???

[oldcubsfan]

All over the news now; Zell wins the bid, Cubs are to be sold after the 2007 season. Does this affect the Zambrano negotiations???

 

 

Sure hope not, sign him today!!

[98navigator]

Hopefully, the Cubs are sold to someone who really cares about baseball. I think the odds are pretty good versus the guys who were only interested in the Tribune... We'll also find out, soon enough, what happens with WGN.

[Brian]

Hopefully, the Cubs are sold to someone who really cares about baseball. I think the odds are pretty good versus the guys who were only interested in the Tribune... We'll also find out, soon enough, what happens with WGN.

 

Yeah we can hope. I gotta imagine that one guy that owns part of the Chicago Wolves hockey team that reported that he really wanted to buy the Cubs has put in a call, will Mark Cuban get involved after all the speculation?, can Steve Stone put together a group of investors. My main fear is somebody that sees the majority of Cubs fans as blind loyal that will follow the team (spend money on it) whether the team is in first or last and run it with sole purpose of maximizing profit.

[Soul]

Mark Cuban, your plane is waiting.

[Balsa]

Oh boy. Hopefully it's not out of the frying pan and into the fire.

[Jon]

I think the odds are the Cubs will be worse-off in terms of payroll longterm compared to the growth we've seen in recent years. My main hope is that the owners are going to be smarter.

 

Sounded like he's buying the Trib for $34 a share.

[Jon]

All over the news now; Zell wins the bid, Cubs are to be sold after the 2007 season. Does this affect the Zambrano negotiations???

I doubt it. And I'm sure Hendry and the Cubs have been well aware that this was likely going to happen during the negotiating process. Let's just hope it doesn't really hurt next offseason, though.

[frostwyrm]

This makes retaining Hendry look even dumber. He's been allowed to make huge financial committments that will require a huge payroll to contend for the next few years, meanwhile the Tribune was for sale. We have no idea what the new owner will do to the payroll. This is yet another reason why the Cubs should have used 2007 for rebuilding. Considering all the circumstances I find it almost impossible to imagine a more inappropriate time to attempt an overnight worst-to-first turnaround.

[Soul]

This makes retaining Hendry look even dumber. He's been allowed to make huge financial committments that will require a huge payroll to contend for the next few years, meanwhile the Tribune was for sale. We have no idea what the new owner will do to the payroll. This is yet another reason why the Cubs should have used 2007 for rebuilding. Considering all the circumstances I find it almost impossible to imagine a more inappropriate time to attempt an overnight worst-to-first turnaround.

 

Depends on the philosophy of a potential buyer.