Television digest with electronic reports (Jan-Dec 1954)

2 KRTV was Little Rock's only TV when it went on air last April. Its first competitor was Pine Bluff's KAIV (Ch. 7), which began telecasting in Dec. from site 25 mi. from Little Rock. Another vhf, KARK-TV (Ch. 4), is due to begin in Little Rock next month with NBC affiliation — and KRTV feared it would be unable to renew its CBS contract. To compete with 2 vhf stations. KRTV management decided it needed 12-kw transmitter — which would cost |4000 a month to pay off. Opportunity to sell its physical facilities to KATV for $400,000 was important factor in KRTV's decision to surrender CP — though a spokesman said action was dictated by "poor prospects for the economic future." Pine Bluff station will use KRTV facilities for its Little Rock studios, plans to retain some of KRTV staff. CP will be surrendered and telecasting discontinued March 31. KRTV's principal owners, Kenyon Brown & John H. Rowley, also own vhf KWFT-TV & KWFT, Wichita Falls, Tex., and Brown has additional interest in vhf KMBY-TV, & KMBY, Monterey, Cal. and 2 other AMs. ♦ * * ♦ How many other stations are at the crossroads? It's difficult to estimate. We know of perhaps a dozen which could swing either way. Three other uhf stations have gone off air; WROV-TV, Roanoke, began Feb. 15, 1953, quit July 17; WBES-TV, Buffalo , Sept. 5-Dec. 18, 1953; KCTY, Kansas City, June 6, 1953-Feb. 28, 1954. Oklahoma City's KMPT, still on air, is in receivership (Vol. 10:9). But it's not only the uhf stations which have had post-freeze troubles. One of the 2 Lincoln (Neb.) vhf outlets bought at distress prices by Fetzer Bcstg. Co. (Vol. 9:30; 10:9) goes off air March 13. John Fetzer continues to operate KOLN-TV (Ch. 12) while closing down KFOR-TV (Ch. 10). After FCC approval of KFOR-TV sale, he plans to shift KOLN-TV to Ch. 10. Vhf KFXD-TV, Nampa, Ida. , also foundered shortly after going on air (Vol. 9:39), and although its CP has been bought by new owners, it's still off air. Vhf KONA, Honolulu, went off air last March due to financial troubles (Vol. 9:11,23), resumed operation in June with new owners. * * ♦ * We do not subscribe to the view that uhf itself carries the seeds of failure. There are many uhf stations now operating profitably, as secure in their markets as any vhf outlets. We have been accused of beating the drums for uhf as often as we have been accused of selling uhf short. But we'll continue to report facts, and call the shots as we see them. In this light, what is uhf's biggest problem? Uhf's technical difficulties — and they're due principally to its newness — don't constitute uhf's most important problem, they merely contribute to it. We have said before that the program's the thing — and that still holds. Conversion problems can be licked only with good shows. But there's no question now that the public will convert if conversion is the only way they can get top programs of the leading networks. If they can get these shows easily on vhf, the uhf audience buildup is extremely slow. The strictly technical problems fade to insignificance beside the simple fact that it takes top-notch network programming to build an audience. We won't say that there can't be exceptions to this rule — and we know of several stations making progress by concentrating on sports, good local programming, etc. The pre-freeze pioneers went through years of red ink that makes current uhf losses look like peanuts. But vast majority of post-freeze grantees can't stand big losses, and a number of them are known to be desperately seeking more capital to continue operation. The big question for many; Go in deeper or quit now at a loss? * * ♦ * What can be done to encourage uhf? FCC's proposal to permit ownership of 5 vhf and 2 uhf has support of uhf operators, who believe it would give networks and other multiple owners bigger stake in uhf success. On other hand, some uhf stations are alarmed about FCC's 5-kw "power floor" plan. It would force them to spend extra money they can ill afford for more elaborate equipment, they say. FCC's new proposal (Notice 54-327, Doc. 10952) would apply initially to stations not yet on air, eventually to many stations now operating. However, chances of final adoption are slim. Comments on proposal are due April 16.