I've just checked back to the season opener, every week but 1 it's been number 1 on ITV2 +1 and all but 2 weeks it's been number 1 on ITV2 where the only thing to beat it was American Idol, and it's been no lower than number 3.
"The CW Is Going Girly, And I Don't Like It..."
- Thread starter Dorian Thompson
- Start date
That's a rather confusing article. I understand it's main point - CW is failing to produce shows that will capture the imaginations of the fannish, and networks need these kind of anchor-shows before they can build up their repetoire of more nice programming.
Where it lost me is on the need to cast this as the girlification of the channel. Woman-led shows have cornered large sectors of the viewing public plenty of times. Bad TV is bad TV, and well-written tv will build a loyal base regardless. There's no need to pull out foolish accusations about "chick networks" or wev-the-hell.
Where it lost me is on the need to cast this as the girlification of the channel. Woman-led shows have cornered large sectors of the viewing public plenty of times. Bad TV is bad TV, and well-written tv will build a loyal base regardless. There's no need to pull out foolish accusations about "chick networks" or wev-the-hell.
^By doing what they're doing they're limiting themselves and thus shooting themselves in the foot.
Ultimately, their responsibility is to their shareholders. They are not providing value to those shareholders by removing highly profitable shows from their network just because those shows get a different, but larger, audience to the one they're looking for.
Ultimately, their responsibility is to their shareholders. They are not providing value to those shareholders by removing highly profitable shows from their network just because those shows get a different, but larger, audience to the one they're looking for.
Sior, the op-ed writer is calling it a "chick" network because that's what the network and Ostroff always emphasize in its press releases on ratings. How the network scores in the 18-34 female demo and how it scores in the teen female demo. Ostroff is pretty straightforward about it. Unfortunately, their idea of what young females (if you're over 35 like me they don't care) like is teen trash shows like OTH and Gossip Girl. Young females (and older females) like intelligent, well written shows just like guys do--but the network suits don't think they do. This reality emphasis on Top Models (and the pussycat doll reality shows) and soapy teen dramas is pretty limiting for a network that's not cable. It can't succeed by trapping itself into a niche, but the suits think it can. Even Smallville suffers when it goes all soapy with Clark and Lana. That's driven fans away.
All the scripted shows got a budget cut this year. All except Gossip Girl, which had lower ratings last year but scored relatively high in the teen girl demo. It got a budget increase big enough to produce two more episodes. Now there's a spinoff in the works and a Melrose Place pilot. That's not going to lift the CW to long term success.
All the scripted shows got a budget cut this year. All except Gossip Girl, which had lower ratings last year but scored relatively high in the teen girl demo. It got a budget increase big enough to produce two more episodes. Now there's a spinoff in the works and a Melrose Place pilot. That's not going to lift the CW to long term success.
Yes. But "what they're doing" is focussing all their attention on shows which are too similar in tone and genre, limiting the variety of their viewing demographic. Where my BS detectors start screaming is where the author couches this limit scope in terms like "girly" "girl-driven" and "girl-focussed" without explaining what he means by that.
He gives out about how Supernatural fails because it's 'cookie cutter', and how CW is falling into the trap of catering to fads. Where he fails to support his argument is in proving that shows are a fad because they appeal to girls, or because they have a female lead.
Look at these two paragraphs:
The first one makes a perfectly valid point. To remain relevant CW needs to take risks. Supernatural is a very different kind of show to Gossip Girl, and having both on their schedule increases their grab of the viewing audience. Broader horizons are better.
But then he goes back to the lame duck of confusing too-limited a generic scope with the gender of protaganists and the implied gender of those willing to watch. Because the only criticism he feels it necessary to level against the proposed The Body Politic is that it's got a female protaganist. Seriously? Because we all know that Buffy, Alias, Sex and the City, Touched by an Angel and, I dunno, Dora the Explorer all appeal to the exact same homogenous "minority demographic", right? (Nevermind that the three most obsessive viewers of GG that I know are all blokes.)
As far as I can tell, it's just silly attention-grabbing to couch the article in these terms. If he was arguing that in tone, subject matter, style etc TBP was too similar to Gossip Girl - that it wasn't varied enough to pull in viewers who don't like GG - fair enough, he'd have a point. I'd even accept it if he pointed out that gender was one element of the characteristics of the typical member of this demographic - along with other factors. But couching it in terms of "yuck, a show about a girl! Who watches girls except other yucky girls?!" is simplistic. And deeply dismissive of the intelligence of television viewers in general.
He even makes it obvious that genre - not gender - is the real issue in the paragraph where he lauds cables which are balancing hard hitting drama with lighter drama, and appealing to one sector of the audience with comedy and another with psych-drama.
This is his actual point, and it's a sensible one. Variety is necessary to keep a network on its feet. Labling the problem as "going-girly" however, is just stupid stunt-rhetoric which actually only serves to undermine his own points at various turns in the article.
ETA:
See, now that's a take on the "chick" network phenomenon which actually makes sense as a criticism of CW's foolish marketting, and which I'd be quite interested to read and take aboard.
in years to come that & UPN generally will be a forgotten fact.
Well, if you don't like a 'girlie' network, go watch Spike TV.
You know - the one girls don't whine about men having.
You know - the one girls don't whine about men having.
Their business strategy is to be girly. It's like complaining that McDonald's makes hamburgers.
The CW has as good a business strategy as any of the option open to them. The last thing they should be do is taking on the same market as larger competitors who are failing at reaching that market anyway - unless they know how to do it better than those larger competitors and I see no indication CW knows anything of the sort.
Exactly. There's a reason McDonald's sticks to hamburgers and Taco Bell makes tacos.
Bingo. Let's say CW decided to chase the young male market instead. They'd be duking it out with FOX and NBC - which have been struggling like hell to reach that market. What chance does a pissy little network like CW have? Do they have some magic formula for success that FOX and NBC haven't figured out?
"Subversive shows" aren't a Nielsens magic bullet. Usely the opposite is the case.
The CW has as good a business strategy as any of the option open to them. The last thing they should be do is taking on the same market as larger competitors who are failing at reaching that market anyway - unless they know how to do it better than those larger competitors and I see no indication CW knows anything of the sort.
Let's face it, neither gender flocks to "intelligent, well-written" shows reliably enough that you can build a business around it, and the people who do like smart TV tend to TiVO it, which just makes the dummies more attractive as an audience to cater to. TV abounds with badly written crap that is rewarded with kickass ratings. Just look at the continued sickening success of reality TV for proof of that.
Exactly. There's a reason McDonald's sticks to hamburgers and Taco Bell makes tacos.
Last edited:
Hey, there's good stuff on Spike TV. I'd watch Reaper on Spike TV if it were there. The problem is that "male" programming tends to be more inclusive than "female" programming. Or what network exes think is "female" programming. To them, female programming=soap opera.
Grey's Anatomy. BLECH!!! Lifetime Television movies. BLECH!! Gossip Girl. OMFG....that sucks.
Blech. I'd rather watch Nascar and wonder if they're gonna break a record for cautions at the Vegas speedway. Or great shows where feral kids live in the walls of a house and offer up, in all good intentions, a live rat that they've caught for their captives to eat. All recent Supernatural viewers need no explanation. 
I'd rather watch live rats than Meredith whine about McDreamy treating her like shit one more time, but that's "female" oriented programming in the minds of an exec. At least the male programming, when it's devoid of all intelligence, like MTV's Jackass, is funny. I'd rather watch a moron set his ass on fire on a dare than watch women whine about their relationships.
Which is why trying to build a broadcast network around a narrow younger segment of one half of the not so intelligent viewing audience isn't good business strategy. A cable niche network can try that. Not a broadcast network. Are we sure the Heroes' writing staff isn't moonlighting as CW programming execs?
What TV execs think girls like
What girls actually like. Guess which one the CW advertised, and which one it didn't?
Grey's Anatomy. BLECH!!! Lifetime Television movies. BLECH!! Gossip Girl. OMFG....that sucks.
Blech. I'd rather watch Nascar and wonder if they're gonna break a record for cautions at the Vegas speedway. Or great shows where feral kids live in the walls of a house and offer up, in all good intentions, a live rat that they've caught for their captives to eat. All recent Supernatural viewers need no explanation. I'd rather watch live rats than Meredith whine about McDreamy treating her like shit one more time, but that's "female" oriented programming in the minds of an exec. At least the male programming, when it's devoid of all intelligence, like MTV's Jackass, is funny. I'd rather watch a moron set his ass on fire on a dare than watch women whine about their relationships. Which is why trying to build a broadcast network around a narrow younger segment of one half of the not so intelligent viewing audience isn't good business strategy. A cable niche network can try that. Not a broadcast network. Are we sure the Heroes' writing staff isn't moonlighting as CW programming execs?
What TV execs think girls like
What girls actually like. Guess which one the CW advertised, and which one it didn't?
Despite the occasional fluke like Buffy & Angel, the WB had always been a girly network. Even stuff with a strong male appeal like Buffy, Smallville, & Roswell still had the high school drama aspect to them. (Really, Angel was the only series that seemed to completely defy the WB formula.) Frankly, I didn't mind it so long as they made quality shows.
Where they started to piss me off was shortly after the CW merger. I was a big fan of Veronica Mars and I was elated to find out that it would continue on the CW. But after they paired it up with Gilmore Girls on Tuesday nights, they started doing these segments during the commercial breaks, sponsored by some feminine hygene product, where a group of ditzy teenage girls would make banal comments about the shows and about Lorelai's & Veronica's love lives. I don't have a problem with a show with strong female protagonists. But these segments seemed like the CW nailing a big sign up on the shows that said, "No boys allowed." (Ironically, this was around the same time that Veronica Mars was alienating some of its female fans with its unfavorable depiction of the campus feminists.)
As for why they made the merger, I think it was because the networks realized that they were airing a lot of shows produced by the other studios. The WB was airing Paramount shows like 7th Heaven & Charmed. UPN had Warner Bros. shows like Veronica Mars. Plus, UPN was already trying to be more like the WB, focusing less on testosterone driven sci-fi/action and more on character dramas like Veronica Mars & Kevin Hill.
I think there should be a fast food merger between Taco Bell & Nathan's Famous. Tacos & hot dogs together. It's how God wants it, dammit!
But....but......Veronica and Logan and Lorelai and Luke were like....oh my Gooood....so cute. And Kotex with wings has a light fresh scent for those days when girls aren't feeling so fresh. It's what the girlies want to talk about. 
The CW knows.
The CW knows.
A
Amaris
Guest
What girls actually like. Guess which one the CW advertised, and which one it didn't?
I suggest you subscribe to a femdom porn site if that's what you want the CW to produce. It'd be easier.
Not the point here at all. If you are going to go after a market, you still have to satisfy the old one. It's bad business sense to drive customers away. WWE Smackdown, like it or not, did good, profitable numbers for the CW. It's doing good, profitable numbers for MyNetwork TV now instead.
Add to that the wussification of a show about Superman and I'm not too impressed at all.
That's a picture of Ackles from Smallville (which I'm not a fan of either) you humorless nincompoop. Get a sense of humor. It's not what I want the CW to produce. I was joking about the CW not wanting to push its shows with attractive male leads who can actually act in favor of female slut-ification like the pussycat dolls, Gossip Girl, and Top Model. You remember the discussion about smart female shows with smart female leads like Veronica Mars being cancelled by CW a few posts back--and me extolling the virtues of feral children feeding rats to their human hostages in haunted houses? Give me both over Gossip Girl any day. Veronica Mars didn't have a chance on a network like CW. Supernatural wouldn't either if it weren't popular overseas. It would have been gone, too. It's no surprise the CW suits tried to dumb down both VM and Gilmore Girls with the teenaged feminine hygiene commercials masquerading as discussion stuffed between them.Of course the CW got rid of wrestling, which performed well on Fridays for it. Wrestling doesn't fit in with the teen girl marketing and so the CW has comedies which perform poorly on Fridays. It's a failed network waiting to happen.
Last edited:
I'll ignore the minor flame for now and point out that I was kidding.
I know it was from Smallville, I even know what episode it was from. Not that guys losing their shirts and getting tortured on Smallville is an unusual occurance. This one just stands out because it wasn't a woman doing it for a change.
That episode showed a good old fashioned TV double standard, too. Lex and Jason are bloodied and beaten, it looks like they've been tortured for hours but they don't break. Then the Chinese soldiers drag Lana in and immediately it's the WORST THING IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD (you can tell from the dramatic music and the horrified looks on Jason and Lex's faces) that Lana might receive the same treatment that two male characters have already received.
Of course, she goes all magical on them and kills the soldiers.
I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I never watched Veronica Mars, but it was well thought of around here.
I'm cranky when I'm up with insomnia. Ignore me, hermiod. 
I used that picture precisely because I heard it was such a silly, exploitative ep of Smallville. Of course little Lana couldn't bear up. The Lana centric nature of Smallville turned me off the series a long time ago, but the endless angsty romance is good for the CW suits, I'm sure. I'd rather watch brothers selling their souls to save the other and feral children mistaken for ghosts eating rats. Dean and Sam get beaten up constantly and seldom lose their shirts. TPTB at SPN can get away with that because their leads actually have enough talent to sustain the characters. Throw in Jim Beaver from Deadwood and no wonder the show's so good. No teen romance required. Guys can relate to the brothers Winchester. What's interesting is that every "young" female semi regular added has basically bombed out and left. The female characters not intended as love interests, the middle aged mother of love interest number one, the ghostly version of the boys' murdered mother and the teenaged incarnation of her, and the boys' dearly departed grandmother all rocked hard. No romance equals a successful show.
You never watched Veronica? The third season sucked, but the first two were pretty good. Veronica was not a brainless Mary Sue. I'm sure TPTB at CW didn't quite know what to do with her. Putting feminine hygiene dicussions in mini commercials throught it wasn't the way to go. It's good to see that Kristen Bell gets movie work.
I used that picture precisely because I heard it was such a silly, exploitative ep of Smallville. Of course little Lana couldn't bear up. The Lana centric nature of Smallville turned me off the series a long time ago, but the endless angsty romance is good for the CW suits, I'm sure. I'd rather watch brothers selling their souls to save the other and feral children mistaken for ghosts eating rats. Dean and Sam get beaten up constantly and seldom lose their shirts. TPTB at SPN can get away with that because their leads actually have enough talent to sustain the characters. Throw in Jim Beaver from Deadwood and no wonder the show's so good. No teen romance required. Guys can relate to the brothers Winchester. What's interesting is that every "young" female semi regular added has basically bombed out and left. The female characters not intended as love interests, the middle aged mother of love interest number one, the ghostly version of the boys' murdered mother and the teenaged incarnation of her, and the boys' dearly departed grandmother all rocked hard. No romance equals a successful show. You never watched Veronica? The third season sucked, but the first two were pretty good. Veronica was not a brainless Mary Sue. I'm sure TPTB at CW didn't quite know what to do with her. Putting feminine hygiene dicussions in mini commercials throught it wasn't the way to go.
It's good to see that Kristen Bell gets movie work.whilst I agree with pretty much all you said about Supernatural, I would say that Ruby hasnt been the total flop that the other female characters were.
and whilst not female, Bobby works very well on the show as well.
I'm cranky when I'm up with insomnia. Ignore me, hermiod.
Fair enough.
Ah, but she could! Lana is super-tough! The last new episode they aired had loads of flashbacks showing how she went to some ex-military guy while she was off the show and learned how to be even tougher!
That's only a few episodes after she beat up the Green Arrow. Yes, the DC comics superhero. Who was wearing body armour as part of his costume.
I will admit, though, the fight she had with Tess Mercer (which Lana won despite Tess being shown to regularly practice with expensive expert martial arts trainers) was well done. It's not just guys she shouldn't be able to beat up!
Guys don't mind romance in their TV shows, it's ham-fisted Jennifer Aniston movie romance we don't like. We like Laura Roslin and Bill Adama, Sawyer and Juliet, the list goes on. I kind of liked Faraday and Charlotte too.
If the female character involved is likeable to us guys then we don't mind the romance part. If that characted is unlikeable, played by a bad actress and shoved down our throats like Lana is/was then we want her off the screen, regardless of the storyline.
You never watched Veronica? The third season sucked, but the first two were pretty good. Veronica was not a brainless Mary Sue. I'm sure TPTB at CW didn't quite know what to do with her. Putting feminine hygiene dicussions in mini commercials throught it wasn't the way to go.
Ad targeting never makes sense to me anyway.
I liked Katie Cassidy as Ruby very much. I wish she were still playing the part. I can picture her seducing Sam to the darkside much better. Budget cuts forced her off. The only gripe I have with Ruby is the current actress is wrong for the part, IMO.
. Somehow I think Linda Hamilton pulled it off better than Ms. Kreuk. Tell me you're joking, Please. What's the fascination with Lana Mary Sue? For good reason. Laura and Bill are mature and sexy and every bit of believable (while Lee and Kara made me want to blow chunks). Can you imagine the CW allowing two actors over 50 to be shown in bed together, with the woman being bald? That just wouldn't compute in their minds. Women over 50 who aren't mothers all go away and die in CW land.
