The Trouble With Affiliates

by

Disney made the right call by reinstating Jimmy Kimmel’s talk show after briefly pausing it due to pressure from the government. This was a positive development in a year where many large organizations have given in to demands from the Trump administration and its supporters. However, not everyone could watch Kimmel’s return immediately, as two major broadcasting groups, Nexstar and Sinclair, had been boycotting the show. While Sinclair has now agreed to air the show again, Nexstar might follow suit soon. This whole situation highlights a long-standing issue: the current relationship between TV networks and their local affiliates needs a significant overhaul.

The television landscape has evolved a lot this century, but the major networks – ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox – still distribute their shows to local areas in a way that hasn’t changed much for decades. Instead of sending programs directly to viewers across the country, these networks send them to hundreds of local TV stations. These stations then broadcast the shows over the air or provide them to cable and streaming services. Even if you watch a network show on a service like YouTube TV, it’s actually coming from your local station, not directly from the network itself.

Why do the major broadcast networks still rely on a complex system of distributing shows, especially when most people now watch TV through streaming services? The answer is simple: money. For years, local stations have been paying networks billions of dollars annually for the right to air their programs. This is known as “reverse compensation,” and it started in the 1990s. It began when local stations were allowed to charge cable and satellite companies for carrying their free, over-the-air broadcasts. The networks then asked those stations to share a portion of this new revenue with them.

As a movie and TV fanatic, I’ve been following the streaming wars, and it’s fascinating how much money *still* flows through traditional cable. Even with all the cord-cutters, S&P Global estimates cable companies paid around $15 billion to local stations last year. Half of that then goes to the big networks – we’re talking billions for each of the ‘Big Four’ networks just from affiliate fees. Honestly, that’s a huge chunk of change they wouldn’t easily replace if, say, Disney decided to just fold ABC into Disney+ and make it available to everyone. The old network TV system is barely hanging on, and it *needs* that money. That’s why networks are so careful about not upsetting those big station groups – they really try to keep them happy, because losing that revenue stream would be a disaster.

Why the Trump Administration Has Its Eye on Local TV

Honestly, I don’t think this whole thing with Kimmel is going to cause a huge shake-up in how things work. Even though there’s been some back-and-forth – especially from Sinclair – it sounds like they’re still talking to Disney and ABC. I’ve gotten the sense that *Jimmy Kimmel Live!* could actually be back on Nexstar stations before too long, if they can work things out. Someone in the industry told me they’re trying to find a solution that benefits everyone. But things are changing so fast in broadcasting, and what makes sense financially for both sides could change quickly too, so it’s hard to say what will happen long-term.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr is pushing policies that would benefit large television station groups like Nexstar and Sinclair, potentially at the cost of major networks. He’s expressed concerns to Disney CEO Bob Iger about how Disney is prioritizing its streaming services over its relationships with local affiliate stations. Since becoming chairman, Carr has also suggested he’ll work to remove limits on how many local TV stations one company can own, allowing groups like Nexstar and Sinclair to grow even larger and gain more leverage over networks, similar to how they’ve pressured shows like Jimmy Kimmel’s.

Carr claims his plan will give power back to “local communities,” but that’s misleading. While most local stations used to be owned by people within those cities, Carr’s proposal would concentrate ownership among just a handful of large corporations. These companies prioritize national interests over local ones, as demonstrated by the recent blackout of Kimmel’s show in cities like Washington, D.C., Seattle, and Portland – not due to local objections, but because the stations’ conservative owners imposed their views on those communities. Carr isn’t interested in true localism; he wants to give companies like Sinclair more power to control what people see.

Can Networks Have a Future Without Affiliates?

When the FCC removes the limits on how many TV stations one company can own, it could push the major networks to change how they work with their local affiliates. This might mean networks accepting less money from those stations in exchange for more control over how and where their shows are distributed. The current system, where networks make viewers wait until the next day to watch shows on demand, feels old-fashioned. Episodes, including news and talk shows, should be available to stream live nationwide at the same time they air on TV. Many people watching these shows live would likely still do so even if they could also watch them a couple of hours earlier on streaming services.

Honestly, when it comes to the NFL and other big sporting events, it just makes sense to leave things as they are. They still pull in massive live audiences, which means big money for the networks and their local stations. Plus, you know those games aren’t going to be bumped for some random controversy – they’re too valuable! It’s a pretty straightforward situation, really.

Networks should also be prepared for situations like the recent one with Jimmy Kimmel. The technology already exists to show live network programs to specific locations. For example, when NBC streams *Saturday Night Live* nationally on Peacock, viewers in cities like Seattle and Buffalo still see the local news and programming from their NBC station. ABC could easily allow Hulu subscribers in areas where Nexstar stations aren’t showing *Kimmel* to watch the show live as well.

Could television networks eventually ditch their current affiliate system? It’s a complex question. One possibility is that companies like Comcast, Paramount, and Disney could turn their broadcast channels into cable channels, allowing them to receive payments directly from cable companies like Charter instead of through affiliates. However, this might actually result in less revenue, and networks would need to create enough programming to fill an entire day without relying on local news or syndicated shows. It’s doable, but challenging, especially considering the uncertain future of traditional networks and the ongoing decline of cable television as more people cut the cord.

What If NBC Streamed on Netflix?

Let’s consider another idea: taking traditional TV network broadcasts and putting them directly on streaming services. The companies that own the major networks all have their own streaming platforms, so they *could* offer live, local broadcasts to subscribers without needing local TV stations as partners. However, doing so would mean significantly less money from those partnerships, or they’d have to increase subscription prices to cover the lost revenue.

Broadcasters are exploring options like partnering directly with streaming services such as Netflix, Prime Video, or Apple TV+. For example, a major French broadcaster recently agreed to send its live channels to Netflix while still broadcasting on traditional TV and cable. While Netflix hasn’t signaled any plans to do this in the U.S., it’s now a plausible scenario. These kinds of deals could even allow existing network relationships to continue, but without the usual restrictions and with significantly lower fees paid to broadcasters.

Netflix or Amazon likely wouldn’t pay as much for network programming as traditional cable and satellite providers do, especially since those programs wouldn’t be exclusive to their services. However, they could share advertising revenue with networks from those streams. Considering how popular shows like *NCIS* and *Grey’s Anatomy* are when re-run on streaming platforms, live network feeds could attract a large audience and potentially increase advertising rates, helping networks offset revenue lost from traditional affiliates. Whether any of these tech companies would actually be interested in such a deal is another question. Their main goal is probably to eventually replace network TV, not to keep it afloat.

Recently, Netflix has been focusing more on live programming and finding ways to encourage daily app usage, instead of relying only on new show releases. Offering live network feeds would provide a consistent stream of content at a low cost, without Netflix needing to purchase a network – something they’ve consistently stated they aren’t interested in. For the networks themselves, it could be a solution that avoids ongoing conflicts with their local affiliates.

It’s highly unlikely we’ll see major changes to the current television system in the near future. While it might evolve over time, it will likely continue until traditional network TV becomes outdated, much like AOL or Quibi. However, recent events have highlighted the growing tension between networks and their affiliates, and the White House seems willing to take advantage of this conflict. Companies like Disney should anticipate further challenges.

Read More

2025-09-26 21:56