Introduction
Portfolio managers, analysts, and broadcast operators:
We are pleased to present the eighteenth edition of the Broadcast Television Fact
Book. In the Fact Book, we provide you with what we hope you find to be relevant
and useful information regarding the television broadcasting industry. The Fact
Book is divided into four distinct sections: 1) Ownership, 2) Transactions, 3)
Advertising, and 4) Ratings Data.
The January 2007 Broadcast Television Fact Book reflects the change to broadcast
ownership rules delineated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
the Commission’s August 5, 1999 Rulemaking that permitted TV duopolies.
The January 2007 Fact Book also reflects the FCC’s June 2, 2003 Rulemaking that
dealt with media ownership. The FCC’s June 2, 2003 Rulemaking addressed several
issues relating to the ownership of local TV stations.
1. The National Television Station Ownership Rule (NTSO). The FCC
recommended that the NTSO, which governs the percentage of U.S. TV
households that any broadcaster can reach with its TV stations, be raised to 45%
from 35%. In January 2004, Congress, as part of an omnibus spending bill, voted
to roll back the FCC’s proposal to 39%. This is now law.
2. The Local TV Ownership Rule — Duopoly and Triopoly. In its June 2, 2003
Media Ownership Rulemaking, the FCC recommended that the local TV
ownership rule, which governs the number of local TV stations a broadcaster
may own in any given market, be modestly loosened. In the past, a broadcaster
was allowed to own up to two TV stations in markets as long as 1) the two TV
stations were not among the four highest-rated TV stations in a market and 2)
there were at least eight other owners of commercial and noncommercial TV
stations in the market after the transaction (“eight-voice test”).
In the June 2, 2003 Rulemaking, the FCC elected to retain its restriction of
owning two of the top-four-rated TV stations in a TV market, but it also decided
to strike down the eight-voice test. So theoretically, any market with at least five
owners of commercial TV stations could have duopoly activity.
The new FCC TV order and rulemaking also outlined some waiver criteria that
would permit more opportunities for consolidation. Waivers would have been
considered if:
􀂃 a TV property operator has a significant competitive disadvantage relative to
other market players;
􀂃 a combination creates new news programming for a station that lacked it;
􀂃 a combination creates additional news services between the two stations; and

􀂃 one or both of the stations are UHF affiliates.
If the new FCC rules are ultimately adopted, we believe some operators might be
able to “buy in” local marketing agreements for which they have a contract to do
so.
In addition to changes in duopoly, the FCC also proposed rules for triopoly in
markets with 18 or more TV stations. These markets include New York, Los
Angeles, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, Dallas-Ft Worth, Washington,
D.C., Minneapolis-St. Paul, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, and Albuquerque.
3. Newspaper-Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule. In its June 2, 2003 Media
Ownership Rulemaking, the FCC recommended that the newspaper-broadcast
cross-ownership rule be substantially relaxed. Since 1975, local newspaper
companies were not permitted to own local TV and radio properties and vice
versa. In its June 2, 2003 rulemaking, the FCC decided to determine the extent
of newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership relief on the number of local TV
stations in a market.
We believe that there were three basic tiers laid out for proposed newspaperradio
cross-ownership:
􀂃 Three TV Stations or Less — No Cross-Ownership. If a local market has
three or fewer TV stations (either commercial or noncommercial) in a
market, newspaper-radio cross-ownership would not be permitted. We
believed, at that time, that 31 markets would not see any cross-ownership
relief. (Please see our June 2, 2003 First Call note, 28-Year Newspaper-
Broadcast Cross-Ownership Ban Is Over, for more details.)
􀂃 Four to Eight TV Stations or Less — Partial Cluster Can Be Assembled.
If a local market has four to eight TV stations (either commercial or
noncommercial) in a market, we believed that newspaper-radio crossownership
would be permitted, but only to a limited degree. In these
markets, we believed that a newspaper owner could own one TV station, but
not own two, even if duopolies between two TV stations (absent the
acquisition of the newspaper) would be permitted. We believe that 107 of
the top 210 designated market areas (DMAs) would fit this description.
In these markets, according to the proposed June 2003 rules, we also believed
that a newspaper could own 50% of the number of radio stations that a pureplay
radio operator would be able to assemble in a given marketplace. For
example, if a pure-play operator would be allowed to own six radio stations
in a market, then an owner of a newspaper would be allowed to own up to
three radio stations.
􀂃 Nine or More TV Stations — Limits Come Off. In markets with nine or
more local TV stations (either commercial or noncommercial), under the
proposed June 2003 rules, the newspaper-broadcast ban would be lifted
entirely. Essentially, in these markets, a newspaper owner could own an
amount of TV and radio stations equal to those of any other media player.

We believed that 72 of the top 210 DMAs, at the time of adoption, would
qualify for a complete ban on cross-ownership.
Congress and the Courts Weigh in on Media Ownership. Immediately after the
FCC’s Rulemaking was released, Congress and the courts became quite active in
challenging the rules. As we mentioned, Congress scaled back the FCC’s proposal
on national TV ownership rules from 45% reach of TV households to 39%.
And the courts had their say as well. In the court case Prometheus versus FCC,
consumer groups challenged the media ownership rules. The Network Affiliates
Station Alliance (NASA) also petitioned the court over the relaxation of the National
TV Station Ownership rule. One day before the rules were to become effective, the
Third Circuit Court in Philadelphia decided to stay the June 2, 2003 FCC ownership
rules until they could be addressed more formally in court.
In a split decision on June 24, 2004, the Third Circuit Court decided to remand the
newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules and multiple-TV station ownership rules
(duopoly/triopoly) back to the FCC for a more thorough justification. In remanding
the rules back to the Commission, the Philadelphia Court asked the FCC to come up
with a better rationale for its rule changes than the Diversity Index, which the court
found flawed.
In remanding the duopoly/triopoly rules, the court noted, “The deference with which
we review the Commission’s line-drawing decisions extends only so far as the linedrawing
is consistent with the evidence or is not ‘patently unreasonable.’ The
Commission’s numerical limits are neither.”
In June 2006, the FCC opened a new phase of a rulemaking proceeding on media
ownership. This rulemaking review is meant to review issues raised by the Third
Circuit Court in 2004 during their review of the media ownership rules as well as a
required periodic review of broadcast ownership rules (the FCC “Quadrennial
Review”) to “determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest
as the result of competition.” In July 2006, the FCC released an official Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Further Notice") to request comment on the
existing rules and to seek arguments and factual data about their impact on
competition, localism, and diversity. The comment period ended in late October and
reply comments were due in December 2006. Given changes in Congress in the midterm
elections, we expect little to change from current rules in the short to medium
term.
Fact Book Acknowledges June 2, 2003 Rules. In our duopoly analysis, we have
sections that identify duopolies permitted relative to the new June 2, 2003
rulemaking, and those that would be noncompliant with those rules as well.
We also acknowledge triopoly markets in our analysis, if applicable.
We will monitor developments and will make adjustments to our analysis as required.
For now, we will assume that the current FCC rules stay in place.

We hope that you find these data useful. If you have any questions, comments, or
suggestions on how we might improve the usefulness of the Broadcast Television
Fact Book, please feel free to call Victor B. Miller at (212) 272-4233, Christopher H.
Ensley at (212) 272-3171, Tracy B. Young at (212) 272-0178, or Monica G. DiCenso
at (212) 272-3062.

Introduction ......................................................................................................................3
Ownership Database: 50 Largest Broadcast Groups ..................................................10
Part I: Summary Rankings of 50 Largest Broadcast Groups ...........................................12
50 Largest Broadcasters — Ranked by Total Estimated Aggregate
Average Sign-On/Sign-Off Audience.................................................................15
50 Largest Broadcasters — Ranked by Percentage Change in Aggregate Audience 16
50 Largest Broadcasters — Ranked by Total Owned and Operated Clearance
(Syndicator Perspective).....................................................................................17
50 Largest Broadcasters — Ranked by Owned and Operated FCC Clearance .........18
50 Largest Broadcasters — Ranked by 2005 Gross Revenue .................………… 19
Part II: Ownership Database ............................................................................................20
Station Transactions —1991 Through January 2007 ..................................................60
Advertising Data — 1980 Through 2005 ....................................................................142
Part I: Total Advertising ................................................................................................144
Part II: Measured Media Advertising ............................................................................155
Part III. Local and National Advertising.........................................................................157
Part IV: Television Advertising......................................................................................160
Part V: Political Advertising...........................................................................................164
Ratings Data (1979-80 to 2005-06 Broadcast Season)................................................166
Part I: Network Ratings and Shares ...............................................................................168
Part II: Households Delivered........................................................................................171
Part III: Cable Network Viewership ..............................................................................173

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-5-5 10:21:13编辑过]