Editing Local marketing agreement (section)

===Consolidation===
The most common use of an LMA in television broadcasting is to create a "virtual duopoly", where the stations operated under the agreement are consolidated into a single entity. The operations of the stations can be streamlined for cost-effectiveness through the sharing of resources, such as facilities, advertising sales, personnel and programming.<ref name=tvnc-fire/> Many broadcasters that engage in the practice believe that such agreements are beneficial to the survival of television stations – especially in smaller markets, where the overall audience reach is considerably less than that of markets that are centered upon densely populated [[metropolitan area]]s, and the cost savings achieved through the consolidation of resources and staff may be necessary to fund a station's continued operation.<ref name=tvnc-fire/><ref name="nyt-change"/>

Sharing agreements may also be used as a loophole to control television stations in situations where it is legally impossible to own them outright. For instance, FCC regulations only allowed a single company to own more than one full-powered television station in a given market if there are at least eight distinct station owners, and also prohibits the ownership of two or more of the four highest-rated stations (based on total day viewership) in a market. An LMA or similar agreement does not affect the ownership of the station's license, meaning that they do not require the approval of the FCC to establish, and the two stations are still legally considered separate operations from a licensing standpoint.<ref name="nyt-change"/> Both [[Tribune Media]] and the [[Gannett|Gannett Company]] were required to use shared services agreements as a similar loophole to take control of certain stations in their respective 2013 purchases of [[Local TV LLC|Local TV]] and [[Belo Corporation|Belo]], as they did not have exemptions to the FCC's [[Media cross-ownership in the United States|newspaper cross-ownership restrictions]] in the affected markets.<ref name="adweek-gannett">{{cite journal|title=Public Interest Groups, Cable Companies Oppose Gannett-Belo Merger|url=http://www.adweek.com/news/television/public-interest-groups-cable-companies-oppose-gannett-belo-merger-151425|author=Katy Bachman|journal=[[Adweek]]|publisher=[[Prometheus Global Media]]|date=July 25, 2013}}</ref><ref name="dp-saletotribune">{{cite news|title=''Daily Press'' owner Tribune Co. to buy 19 TV stations, including WTKR |url=http://www.dailypress.com/business/tidewater/dp-nws-tribune-daily-press-buys-wtkr-20130701,0,6214410.story |author=Sarah J. Pawloski |work=[[Daily Press (Virginia)|Daily Press]] |date=July 2, 2013 |access-date=July 2, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130707182952/http://www.dailypress.com/business/tidewater/dp-nws-tribune-daily-press-buys-wtkr-20130701%2C0%2C6214410.story |archive-date=July 7, 2013 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Both companies have since spun out their publishing arms as independent companies; the [[Tribune Publishing Company]] and Gannett Company. [[Tegna Inc.|Tegna]], who holds the former Gannett's broadcasting and digital media properties, re-acquired the licenses for most of the affected stations following the split.<ref name=fcc-saletotegnacomplete/><ref name="usat-tegna">{{cite news|title=Gannett to change name to TEGNA amid print unit spinoff|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/04/21/gannett-changes-name-to-tegna/26127343/|author=Roger Yu|newspaper=[[USA Today]]|publisher=[[Gannett Company]]|date=April 21, 2015|access-date=April 21, 2015}}</ref> On November 16, 2017, under the [[First presidency of Donald Trump|Trump administration]], the FCC voted in favor of removing the requirement for a market to still have eight distinct station owners in order to allow duopolies, but the prohibition of owning two of the top four stations in a market remains.<ref name="bc-deregulate"/>

Broadcasters could also collect carriage fees for the stations they operate under sharing agreements on behalf of their owner, often bundling its carriage agreements with those of stations they own outright. This could, especially in LMAs between two stations affiliated with the "major" networks, allow the broadcaster to charge higher fees for [[retransmission consent]] to television providers for carrying the stations, which could result in smaller cable companies not being able to afford the higher fees imposed. Cable television providers advocated barring sharing agreements between television stations for this particular reason. In the United States, the FCC no longer allows broadcasters to collude with one another in negotiating retransmission consent fees.<ref name=tvnc-jointretrans/><ref name=tvnc-fire/><ref name="nyt-change"/>