The CW - One Step Closer To Death

[Spot's Meow]

As for why the CW has failed, I will try to answer as someone who grew up on the WB. I loved the network, and there were several shows that I enjoyed. There wasn't really anything I liked on UPN...I barely knew it existed until America's Next Top Model started airing. I liked the advertising for the WB too. It had nice music, people my age, and was just...pleasant. One of the first things I noticed when the networks merged was the awful music and hideous colors. The advertising felt like it was for 10 year olds. They also cancelled Everwood, which really upset me. It was the best show on the WB. I felt like it was no longer the nice, wholesome WB, but some second rate network trying to appeal to the hip-hop/rap middle school crowd. So, all those reasons combined are what drove me away.

 

[Dorian Thompson]

No kidding with that sentiment about its better shows. The CW will be launching its fall season early this year.....with the exception of Smallville and Supernatural, which will launch after the other network shows. Gotta give Survivor, Ugly Betty, The Office, CSI, and Grey's Anatomy a head start. God knows they all need it. Gossip Girl, Top Model, and 90210 TNG will of course get all the advertising dollars. Gossip Girl got an order for 24 episodes this coming season. All other returning programs have had their budgets slashed. That's official out of Dawn's own mouth. She didn't put it that way, of course, but that was the gist of it. Reaper won't even be back until midseason.

They also cancelled Everwood, which really upset me.

Of course they did. Everwood committed the same sin Supernatural and Reaper commits. Too many fans over 35 and too many with penises. They want the idiot teen girl crowd to tune in. Ergo, another rich white kid show with 90210 reincarnated.

 

[nx1701g]

My prediction is that, barring a miracle happening next season with 90210 TNG becoming a mainstream hit next season, the CW has two seasons left in it.

I doubt that 90210TNG will do very well. It is going to be on opposite:

ABC: Opportunity Knocks
CBS: NCIS
FOX: House
NBC: The Biggest Loser

House and NCIS are pretty big ratings draws.

 

[Dorian Thompson]

What people don't realize about House is just how high it's 18-24 demo is. MediaLife published some real narrow demographic stats. 18-24 was considered college age demo. House's college demo was through the stratosphere. That alone is gonna kill 90210 junior--that--and the fact that high schoolers today are too young to remember the original. Luke Perry? Ewwww, he's old. He's.....40. Isn't Shannen Doherty that chick from Charmed?

When The WB and UPN combined to make The CW, it was widely assumed that the new network would be stronger than The WB. But I remember reading that ratings were disappointing, right out of the gate. It was as if millions of viewers just tuned out. So what happened?

Because, in reality, the CW only has about 83 percent national coverage. It's lower than the WB had. Of course it has lower ratings than its two parent channels had. In too many areas, it's only available on a cable digital subchannel while WB and UPN were both free channels. Hard as it is to believe, a lot of people don't have digital cable. Plus, as a previous poster stated, the advertising really is juvenile and it really does suck. After 2 years there are still people who don't know the CW exists.

One of the first things I noticed when the networks merged was the awful music and hideous colors. The advertising felt like it was for 10 year olds

You aren't lying. I've made the point before, but at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, I must make it again. This is all the tangible proof you need of just how unfathomably incompetent the CW's marketing team is.

Supernatural promo produced its by executive producer Eric Kripke

Supernatural/Smallville promo by Dawn Ostroff and CW marketing executives

I can't make a better case for the CW's marketing incompetence than that. If the second had been the first promo I'd ever seen for Supernatural, I wouldn't have ever watched it.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

One of the first things I noticed when the networks merged was the awful music and hideous colors. The advertising felt like it was for 10 year olds

You aren't lying. I've made the point before, but at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, I must make it again. This is all the tangible proof you need of just how unfathomably incompetent the CW's marketing team is.

Supernatural promo produced its by executive producer Eric Kripke

Supernatural/Smallville promo by Dawn Ostroff and CW marketing executives

I can't make a better case for the CW's marketing incompetence than that. If the second had been the first promo I'd ever seen for Supernatural, I wouldn't have ever watched it.

That's funny, a few days ago I was telling a friend that I was surprised The CW had any viewers, and I used that second one to prove how bad the promos were.

 

[Dorian Thompson]

You did? Oh, that's priceless. "The Girls of Thursday Night" truly is infamous in CW promo history.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

You did? Oh, that's priceless. "The Girls of Thursday Night" truly is infamous in CW promo history.

Yeah, we were talking about "teen" channels, and I was saying I thought the promos were horrible, even compared to the ones on our teen channels, like E4 and BBC Three.
For reference, here's a couple of trailer from E4. Skins Smallville

And Supernatural is on a channel aimed at women, and here's a couple from there Supernatural 2

 

[Dorian Thompson]

Whoa!! That second ITV2 promo was steamy times ten. The teen trailers were so much better than CW's that it's embarrassing.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^Thought you might appreciate that one.

 

[Warp Coil]

As for why the CW has failed, I will try to answer as someone who grew up on the WB. I loved the network, and there were several shows that I enjoyed. There wasn't really anything I liked on UPN...I barely knew it existed until America's Next Top Model started airing. I liked the advertising for the WB too. It had nice music, people my age, and was just...pleasant. One of the first things I noticed when the networks merged was the awful music and hideous colors. The advertising felt like it was for 10 year olds.

That's definitely something I noticed. The WB was never the greatest netlet, but it was pretty damn stable. The WB produced a number of "hit" series (not quite ratings winners, but successful enough) that people seemed to notice. Let's think about the past WB shows that went on to lead pretty nice lives - Dawson's Creek, Felicity, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Roswell, Charmed, Smallville, Gilmore Girls, 7th Heaven.... All of these shows managed to attract some sort of attention from the younger audience.

What does the CW have? Absolutely nothing. They have been unable to produce a single "hit" series since the new network was created. I'm placing 99% of the blame on Dawn Ostroff and the former-UPN execs running the network. The WB actually had a few talented people running the network. The WB brand was strong and clear, and their marketing folks were pretty decent. UPN was like a dark void - no talent anywhere in sight. Poor branding, poor marketing, poor programming choices. So how the frak did they end up getting the reigns to the new CW?! And look at what they've come up with - hideous green colors, tacky promos, a severe lack of identity, and more bad programming.

I mean, really, what were they thinking?! And why would Warner Bros. agree to it?!

 

[HRHTheKING]

Why does the CBS Corporation operate the CW if they already have a network (CBS)?

What's the point in having two?

If they want to target teens and women, they could incorporate that audience into their CBS programming, or maybe create a cable channel called CBS Teens or something.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Why does the CBS Corporation operate the CW if they already have a network (CBS)?

What's the point in having two?

If they want to target teens and women, they could incorporate that audience into their CBS programming, or maybe create a cable channel called CBS Teens or something.

Why do Universal have NBC, Sci-Fi, and USA network? Why do 20th Century Fox have Fox and Fx.
Or here in the UK, BBC have 9 channels, ITV have 5, Channel 4 have 4 and RTL own 3.
It seems it's easier to target different demographics with different channels. You can tailor your schedule to attract certain types of people, but these days, it's really to create brand loyalty.

 

[nx1701g]

Why does the CBS Corporation operate the CW if they already have a network (CBS)?

What's the point in having two?

If they want to target teens and women, they could incorporate that audience into their CBS programming, or maybe create a cable channel called CBS Teens or something.

More revenues especially if they would have been able to become one of the big networks (instead of the Big 4 somehow it became the Big 5).

 

[Samurai8472]

You did? Oh, that's priceless. "The Girls of Thursday Night" truly is infamous in CW promo history.

and the lamest poster in the shows history

 

[Jack Bauer]

Looks like by this time next year the CW may be gone gone gone. If it does manage to make it past next season it probably will not go a year beyond that.

 

[wamdue]

Looks like by this time next year the CW may be gone gone gone. If it does manage to make it past next season it probably will not go a year beyond that.

wasnt this forum saying that when it started.

 

[PsychoPere]

UPN was like a dark void - no talent anywhere in sight. Poor branding, poor marketing, poor programming choices.

One plus, though: UPN did have Veronica Mars during its last two years.

 

[Dorian Thompson]

If Veronica Mars had sold well in the foreign market, Warner would have gone to bat for it like it did for Supernatural when Dawn Ostroff wanted to cancel it before this season. Unfortunately Warner didn't see the dollar signs internationally for VM, so it let the show die. No syndication dollars to fight for as a return on its investetn.

At this point Kristin Bell and especially Tina Majorino would not fit into the CW's plans to attract airheaded teenage girls. They don't fit the OMFG image. The suits want Blair and Serena from Gossip Girl. They want Girlicious and The Pussycat Dolls. Tina Majorino, though I find her adorable, is too smart and (not to be unkind) not pretty enough for CW. Kristin Bell's characterization of a smart blonde who doesn't use sex to get what she wants is a non starter these days. I suppose that's why Allison Mack's Chloe didn't make it into the "Girls of Thursday Night Promo" with Kara, Bela, and Ruby. She's smart, and she doesn't bust the boys' balls simply because they're boys and for no other reason. Don't we girls all love our heroes to be emasculated when they haven't behaved badly? Isn't that cute?

Good Sex, Bad Lex. Sheesh. Doesn't quite hit the smoldering mark, does it? I'm surprised they aren't going straight for a Kara/Supergirl theme next season. Maybe they'll try that for season 9 if CW survives next season, complete with Kara in skimpy clothing. The funniest thing I ever heard was Dawn Ostroff claiming she didn't "get" Supernatural. It must puzzle her and the suits that the show has a following when its gorgeous, leads don't take off their clothes regularly. In three years Padalecki has lost his shirt a total of twice. Not twice a season but just twice. Ackles has lost his shirt once. Two sex scenes in three seasons (one for each brother) and one shot of a brother with a towel coming out of the shower is all the skin they've showed. I take that back. Ackles lost his shirt twice as we;;, but the second time was when he was playing a shape shifter, so after the shirt came off the skin came off when the shape shifter molted like a snake. So--twice for each brother but that second time for Ackles doesn't count since it was disgusting and bloody.

I've listened to DVD commentary. The SN producers and writers were talking about how the CW suits had wanted them to put a sex scene in a really serious episode (they refused) and how the rallying cry from the network is always, "more boobs, more boobs." Their words, not mine. I'm pretty sure that the two sex scenes that did happen were at network request.

 

[mswood]

The thing is the WB and UPN started in 1995 in a completely different tv landscape. Sure there was cable, but very little in the way of original content strictly for entertainment (they always had documentaries and such that were original). As such even though the netlets pay less for all forms of talent (just like syndication) in comparison to major networks. Both netlets were able to get talent (both in front and behind the camera) for at least some of their programs. WB tried fairly quickly in its history to go niche towards women. UPN tended to cast a wider net with different demographics almost for each night. While UPN was able to easily beat the hell out of the WB (thanks primarily to the first few years of Voyager), the WB was slowly building a brand identity. Something UPN (to its final days) was never able to do.

Both netlets were very serious about going out of business (since I don't think they ever cleared a profit). But a deal was reached to merge the shows. At the time the netlets had really decent coverage with about 95% of the nation getting coverage. Both owners thought with a combined network they could bump up to nearly a 100%. That they could take a UPN business model (a variety of different types of shows broken down by night) and move towards a WB model (which is build to whatever audience sticks with you). Thats why you saw a family night, a african america comedy night, a young female night, a action adventure night, and an older male Wrestling night.

But what they never dreamed would happen, happened. They didn't gain coverage they lost coverage. They lost over 11% coverage. And even that number is misleading. Take my crap ass town I live in. Its considered part of the coverage. Yet in the WB and UPN days we had full free coverage. Meaning you could see it over free rabbit ears, or cable. Now you can see it with cable (considered about 65% of homes have), or free with an HD receiver (when CW started that was estimated to be about 7% of the population (and most are more likely to already have cable). So in many smaller markets instead of 100% coverage you are getting about 70% coverage. So you actually assume that the CW is only hitting about 75% of the nation.

Since the CW generally took their better performers they were able to fill their schedule with shows that should have averaged 3.5 to upper 5 million. Which would have been a nice overall increase over the average that either the WB and UPN's full schedule would have managed. But with the lose of affiliates that couldn't happen. Most shows declined about 15%, some a little more some a little less. So by the end of the season the CW had the same average as either of the WB or UPN.

And that seriously hurt the netlet. They had a considerable small budget to start up with (as far as advertising, and had to spend it not on shows, but on selling the CW. They were really hoping that with the increase of viewers they would get increased ad rates to help propel the network development slate and ability to promote itself.

While I may have not made the same exact choices in which shows were originally picked up and where they aired, I can understand the reasons why.

There are only a few things that I think were extremely poor mistakes.

1. Using UPN's promotional department. One of the WB's strongest assets was its ability to promote. Not only in created a brand name but in making the most of its dollars, and showcasing its episodes fairly effectively. These are all things that UPN was never successful with.

Now whether that was Dawn's fault or if it was a choice mandated by Les Moonves, I don't know. It is rumored around the industry that he wanted a yes man in charge of the CW. Which at least suggest that whoever was running the CW would have to meet a lot of studio demands.

And with the lack of upfront money for development and the lack of ad revenue, I understand that they had hours to fill that would not be scripted (or high dollar reality shows, for example Survivor and Amazing Race are both more expensive to produce then most shows on the CW).

Which leads me to mistake #2.

2. With hours to fill and no money to spend the CW did two things I just couldn't believe. Hell I can't even remember their name but CWNow and Online Nation (or some damn things). This was a huge blunder. They also new they would have to rely on addition reruns on a few occasions during the schedule. They did this with multiple airings of Crowned.

I think all of us can understand that with the budget problems they would have to have some holes filled. But why oh why did they not reuse, some of their better performing scripted shows. Unless they were so restricted in money that even the fee to pay residuals and secure some rerun rights for materials produced by parent companies would be too expensive. This again hurt overall numbers and the already weak brand identity of the netlet.

I certainly can't blame the scripted shows picked up over its 2 years. Reaper pilot was good, Aliens in America was good, Gossip Girl was good (for a type of show I don't care for), Runaway (had a fairly good pilot). The only scripted show that was considered crap were Life is Wild (and why it was left deserted on Sunday) and a bad soap they used up during the summer (I can't even remember its name). But for a network, percentage wise it developed mostly good shows. But none of them were able to grab a significant audience (even a sampling audience).

Nor can I blame the current slate of pickups (which yeah thanks again studios for ruining pilot season). A 90211 remake designed to work with that young female audience but also hoping to bring in adults who watched the original. Stylista designed to appeal to the followers of shows like America's Next Top Model (Easily CW's strongest show in both viewers and demo), and the other show is the one I wished they could have picked (which they had little to pick from) that would have a base appeal among men (even if the young demo.

But with no money (which they admit is a huge problem), they need desperately to be able to cross promote shows. They needs on Top Model to work for any for their shows.

Of course the problem with this, isn't that they are trying for a niche market. But that their ad work sucks.

Between poor choices for filler programming holes, with a terrible marketing campaign (in fact the OMFG campaign is probably to date their only ad campaign that I liked at all and it isn't aimed at me. Okay imagery, told what the show is about (which it is) and finally some decent uses of color (for the print ads).

But in all honesty I believe their biggest problems had nothing to do with Dawn (who I even if on occasion defend her, want gone bad...), the strike not her fault, the huge lose of coverage not her fault, the change in the market not her fault (how she tries to each that audience different story see marketing).

And since neither party is willing to upfront the cash or give it anywhere near the start up time they gave either UPN or the WB, they are certainly just playing the waiting game for when it gets pulled.

 

[Dorian Thompson]

I totally agree. They're just waiting. Like I said, Warner wants its Smallville, One Tree Hill, and Supernatural to have plenty of episodes for their syndication packages. I suspect Warner already considers the network a failure or it would be pumping more money into it.