DISQUS

Polly · 1 year ago

Robert - You have a wicked sense of humor. Love the post. (You also have some very good points!) Maybe the CW can hire you after Dawn totally destroys it?

Julia · 1 year ago

From the day CW was announced and began marketing itself, it was a disaster. You'd think that when creating a new network they'd actually hire some decent advertising people. The hideous green and the "Free to be..." were busts from the get go. Don't they do testing with those sort of things?

But I've been saying since early last season that they need to use product placement more to their advantage. Anecdotal evidence or not, I know that people were always trying to find where they could get Veronica's bag or Lorelai's phone or whatever. While CW did add a little thing to their site letting you see a select few fashions worn during one episode of a show, they were ignoring a huge potential here. And they will continue to ignore it because it is a criminally mismanaged network. Oh well.

dave · 1 year ago

Here's my brilliant idea to make the CW a success. Move Jericho to the struggling network. CBS does own the CW, right? Jericho would draw over 5 million making it the most watched show on the network. They could pair it with Reaper or Supernatural and create a strong sci-fi night to build around. Plus all those rabid Jericho fans would be happy.

Robert Seidman · 1 year ago

No offense Dave, but...Jericho doesn't appeal to the youth demo and the fans of the show aren't buying fashion. it would be one thing if the show inspired people to think "Holy crap, I need to build a bomb shelter and stock it with provisions", but that didn't happen.

I never once got an email from anyone saying, "I need the same post apocalyptic clothes Jake was wearing."

Here I Am · 1 year ago

I need the same post apocalyptic clothes Jake was wearing!!!

Here I Am · 1 year ago

on a serious note though, you have it right about the CW and Gossip Girl ... clearly they have utterly failed to be a traditional broadcast network so perhaps they could find success in being the network of the future (at least this would make them unique)

I hope for the CW's sake that they listen to you because I think that making such changes are really their only choice.

QD4rmBAMA · 1 year ago

The sad part is JERICHO would be an awesome show for The CW to pick up!!!! That would make more since than blowing the dust off of BEVERLY HILLS, 90210!!!!!

But you're right. If it's not concerned with fashion or slut-training 101, it's not The CW. Which sucks because this network has the ability to bring the best to the 18 - 34 MALE & FEMALE demo, but instead they decide to prey on teenaged girls.

Doug · 1 year ago

Great points, Robert. The CW has its head stuck far in the sand as far as the new wave of TV is concerned, which is shocking considering that it's supposed to be the network most "in tune" with the younger generation. All of ABC, NBC, Fox and CBS have jumped on the bandwagon, but the CW has stalled. Perhaps it's that they're in such a mess right now that they don't even know where to start.

For me, a 27 y/o male (prime demo for advertisers), the only show that I make it an absolute point to watch live is Lost. The rest - Ugly Betty, The Office, The Amazing Race, Desperate Housewives, Brothers and Sister & HIMYM, if I manage to see them live, great, if not, I can just download them and watch them later. Up in Canada, the US nets have blocked access to their streaming sites (to the ridiculous point that I can't even watch SNL CLIPS on NBC's website), and the Canadian nets steam a few shows, but mostly cable ones that I don't watch. The result? TV Links or download. I'm cutting my cable after the tv season and getting rid of it all together. $40 a month for Lost? Not worth it.

John · 1 year ago

Fox and the CW are mini-networks which means they have less programming to worry about. Fox became the ratings leader following the strike mostly because of one "unscripted" show. I wonder why the CW didn't hedge their bets more in this direction. They seem to be mired by their conservative CBS programming bosses and studio based Warner Bros. scripted shows. I suggest the network forget convention and try out controversial topics and formats and more "event" based shows. If they are also targeting young women, why do they show wrestling and urban sitcoms? They need to define their audience and go after them 100% which would help them differentiate their brand just like Fox did in the early years. What's there to lose?

Robert Seidman · 1 year ago

John, it is allegedly for the reason of targeting primarily young women that the CW did not renew its contract for Friday Night Smackdown -- it will be on MyNetworkTV next season.

Julia · 1 year ago

Doug, I just got rid of DirecTV a couple of months ago. Between Hulu and network sites (which I know you can't watch) I have no need for TV. If it weren't for Xbox, Wii and wanting to watch DVDs somewhere other than my computer, I would get rid of the ugly box all together.

It does mean I'll have to go back to my pirating ways when Weeds and Dexter start up, but other than that I'm being 100% legal in my non-TV watching on TV ways!

Gusar · 1 year ago

Because there's so much talk about it here, I decided to give this show a chance. It didn't last long, this show is such crap that I quit the media player during the 3rd episode and deleted everything, all the 14 episodes I had downloaded.

And before someone gives me a moral lecture about "questionable" downloads, let me just say this: it's the CW's fault, they're the ones who pulled the streams off their website. They could have gotten some ad revenue from me, but they chose not to.

Which brings me to why I write this here: Everyone is talking about what a huge internet phenomenon this series is, so pulling the show from their website makes no sense whatsoever. I can draw only two conclusions:
1.) The CW have no idea what they're doing.

2.) Being an internet phenomenon does not help the CW one bit financially, all the big bucks are still made with live viewers - which this show doesn't have.


Thanks for reading my rather long-ish rant.

Robert Seidman · 1 year ago

@Gusar, I can't comment on the show's appeal. It's targeted at young women and I'm a middle aged man. As for points 1 & 2, I agree with you, and it's more or less why I wrote the post you commented on.

I suspect that it really doesn't help much financially and that's a huge problem if the show is really an internet phenom.

If especially younger viewers are getting more and more of their video via the Internet for it's "on demand" capabilities and you have a show targeted at young people and you can't monetize any of the internet viewing...that's a problem.

It's impossible for us to scope the true size of the show's Internet appeal. But anecdotally it seems loved from Soho to Singapore.

soholove · 1 year ago

*nods furiously* Hopefully Ms. Ostroff tries out some of these ideas. It might be too late for this season, but maybe next.

Doug · 1 year ago

I'd love to do the same as you, Julia - be completely legal with my TV watching. It's astounding that things like Hulu are blocked in Canada considering that I get all of the US nets with my cable (except the CW - big loss, I know) and every US program also airing on Canadian TV are simulcast (except Lost, which, thanks to timeshifting channels from the Atlantic provinces, I can watch at 7pm ET). I know that it's the Canadian nets that own the broadcast rights here and they'd lose ad money, but they're losing it now thanks to downloading. It's ironic - I can get streaming Nip/Tuck on CTV.com (the big national network here), a show that Americans have to pay extra to see on FX, but I can't get streaming Lost, a show that Americans can see for free on ABC. Bizarre.

ctal1999 · 1 year ago

Robert, I have to disagree with you about the potential for Jericho on the CW. Granted, it's not a perfect fit with the overall concept they based the network around, but I think we can agree that, as concepts go, this one has had limited success. I think that Dave is correct. The rabid fans of Jericho WOULD follow it to any network, and pairing it with Supernatural or Reaper would almost surely add some Jericho fans to those audiences as well. I don't think that you thought through the ad situation either. Admittedly, the CW has aimed at the "young and hip" demo, as it used to be called, and Gossip Girl fits right in. Still, by that logic, they have no business touching a show like Supernatural (even though the girlies may watch to drool over Sam and Dean), because the focus is off. Where's the designer fashion? The young romance (with the attendant mad texting on the latest Verizon phone or IM chatter on the new, cool Mac?). If the only ad pool they go after is mated to a show format, the CW would have to get classic car dealers, Time-Warner classic rock collections and...well...purveyors of demon hunting supplies. In truth, there are advertisers spending money with the CW right now who'd love to spend more to get their messages in front of the Jericho bunch. In addition, there are probably some old Jericho advertisers who've never spent a dime with the CW (but would if they could follow Jericho to the network).

Robert Seidman · 1 year ago

I have no doubt Jericho would be one of the top shows on the CW if they aired it there. I also have no doubt that if the San Francisco Giants brought Barry Bonds back, he'd be the team's most productive hitter.

But I also have no doubt about this: neither will happen. Barry Bonds will play on no team run by Peter McGowan, and Jericho will air on no network where Les Moonves is the ultimate boss.

ctal1999 · 1 year ago

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that you're right on that. However, that doesn't argue against the wisdom of the idea, though it may reflect on the wisdom of Mr. Moonves, et al.

Angie · 1 year ago

Oh, Robert. I am disheartened by this open letter. It sounds like you have partially bought into the the fake hype that the CW has been spouting over Gossip Girl. If the internet numbers are so great, why haven't they ever provided them? Because they aren't significant. They can't say that Gossip Girl is a ratings grabber, so they're claiming it's an internet sensation, and it's a great lie because they aren't providing numbers. We have to take their word for it. You think I believe what they say? No way.

I am so sick of being beat over the head with this show by the CW. I would not watch it for all the tea in China. And I am smack in the middle of their target demo.

Robert Seidman · 1 year ago

Angie, I don't buy into the hype of itunes numbers or CW's streaming. I do buy into the possibility (rather than the certainty) that more people may be streaming/downloading the show via means that can't be tracked by the CW because it's not happening on iTunes or CW's site.

David M. · 1 year ago

Reaper.
Reaper.
Reaper.

Gossip Girl? Gag.

Reaper.

josh · 1 year ago

I live in the UK and just thought you might like to know that it gets around 300,000 viwers on digital only channel ITV2... thats below the slot average.

Sam · 1 year ago

Personally, I don't understand the mentality of only aiming for young women at all. Would someone explain to me why it is a good idea to aim for a single target audience while passing up and getting rid of current opportunities that get you more viewers and higher ratings (the highest on the network for WWE) just because it doesn't appeal to that target audience? How can this possibly help the CW? It just seems like a terrible idea. If anyone would care to explain to me why this idea is more financially and logically sound, I'd be willing to listen.

Robert Seidman · 1 year ago

Sam, reportedly advertisers are willing to pay much more for certain demographics, young women being one of them.

Sam · 1 year ago

Still, wouldn't advertisers pay more for about double the viewers than for that demographic with half the viewers?

Robert Seidman · 1 year ago

Apparently, no. You have to remember the scale is pretty small for CW shows. So, I can see advertisers willing to pay for 2.5 million viewers where a high percentage were in the target demo vs. 4 million where they weren't.

If it was the difference between 2 million and 8 million total viewers, I think your logic is probably sound. The CW let one of its highest rated shows Friday Night smackdown get away. It routinely does better than 4 million viewers but apparently most of them are middle aged men like me ;)

Nate · 1 year ago

The CW really needs to encourages its affiliates to push their HD channels onto cable systems alot more than they are now. I do not watch the CW more than I have to because the analog signal from the station I watch it on through cable is horrible, and Sinclair wants money to put HD channels on cable systems. They want more money for what is a network without much compelling programming, and it doesn't do anything but annoy cable systems for 15 hours of network a week, then 10 year-old reruns the rest of the time.

I think to an extent depending on digital subchannels in many markets instead of offering the network to existing stations also shot CW in the foot. They can't air HD through subchannels at all, the network ends up on a sub-200 channel on cable systems with a shopping channel or a very old show leading into the CW instead of high-quality reruns, and unless they're lucky, don't get carried on the dishes. They thought way too much of their image in branding the network before they got to thinking about how the network was carried, and without Gilmore Girls and Veronica Mars has pretty much lost any tanglible link to the WB and UPN.

Also, it's never a good sign when one of the CW partners brings back the old WB as a streaming service. I won't be surprised if TheWB.com lasts much longer than the CW does.

warnerte7 · 1 year ago

Is there a way to contact Dawn? I would like to point out to her that the number of viewers for the networks most watched shows are less then the viewership of the show she axed the first year of the CW, and that show is Everwood. I only hope that decision has helped in leading the CW to the point is now, which is close to going out of business and placing Dawn out of work.

juls · 1 year ago

THIS SO RIGHT !!!!
"So rather than trying to control distribution, which you will never, ever be able to do, why not try to maximize it, and make as much money as you possibly can? "...and viewers care about the show so they definitely will watch it "streaming" with the ads if they knew it will make a difference about cancelling it ....!!