CW President Dawn Ostroff Must Be Fired

[TMC1982]

And how, exactly, are the opinions of the public/critics regarding the CW proof of Ostroff's incompetence, the the need for her immediate dismissal, or her supposed belief that "that only toothless, pick up truck driving, southern inbreds like wrestling"? Once again, you "respond" to a point by ignoring the substance of the post at hand and bringing up tertiary irrelevancies. At least you're consistent.



In other words, you make no attempt to act like you actually know what you're talking about?



Uh ... you were wrong? TV is a business (where have we heard that before?) and businesses listen to the people who make them money.



Aside from the many people who are paid to do research into ratings and demographics to determine just such things? Pretty much anyone with an ounce of sense.



I have no excuses, but I have a very good (and fairly obvious) reason: 7th Heaven made the network money. Everwood didn't.



And do you have anything to suggest otherwise? (And since we're on the topic, I loved Everwood and hated 7th Heaven, and was mightily pissed off when the former was canceled.)

I don't feel like I need to actually work within the TV industry much less CBS/Time Warner to come to the conclusion that Dawn Ostroff hasn't been doing a good job. And when the question comes to why she hasn't been removed yet, you want to counter with, "Oh well, they have more info than we do!"

And as for "7th Heaven", of course its "series finale" was going to get huge ratings. Virtually all series finales for a popular, long running TV show is going to get a high rated. That still doesn't give a good enough of a reason to pull it out of retirement for just one more season at the expense of a younger show. It doesn't matter how much money "7th Heaven" made for the WB in the past, you still have to think for the long term. Besides, wasn't one of the reasons that "7th Heaven" decided to call it quits the first time, was because the WB could no longer afford to have the show on the air?


http://tvmakesyoustupid.com/category/tv-shows/everwood/

As the head of programming at the CW, she has made several decisionmaking gaffs, including the aforementioned failed Everwood ousting (boy, I bet they could’ve used Everwood’s steady 3.5 to 4 million viewers, hmm?), the total failure of anyone to tune in to the sixteenth minute of Seventh Heaven’s fame, scheduling all their black comedies on the wrong night, every show in their 9PM timeslots hurting for ratings, and - The Search for the Next Pussycat Doll? Seriously?

[The Batman]

Advertisers were running away anyway perhaps in large part, to the overall poor performance of the CW.

Network Death Watch Underway as Viewers, Advertisers Flee the CW (http://www.defamer.com.au/2008/05/network_death_watch_underway_as_viewers_advertiser s_flee_the_cw-2.html)


So, how exactly does this answer my question about Ostroff's remarks?

Again I ask, where did Ostroff ever say that only "toothless, pick up truck driving, southern inbreds" watch wrestling?

[TMC1982]

So, how exactly does this answer my question about Ostroff's remarks?

Again I ask, where did Ostroff ever say that only "toothless, pick up truck driving, southern inbreds" watch wrestling?

My point is that even without the "stigma" of pro wrestling, the CW has struggled to attract advertisers. And another thing, you're acting like I heard Dawn Ostroff actually said that stuff. The point that I was trying to get across, is that some of these TV executives like Dawn Ostroff and Jamie Kellner, not to mention advertisers, seem to have a certain mentality, which leds to negatively stereotype wrestling fans.

[TMC1982]

The CW = Cute & Wealthy. (Or, perhaps, Can't Watch this.) (http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/telefile/2008/07/the-cw-cute-wealthy-or-perhaps.php)

The CW Needs to Stop (http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/telefile/2008/06/the-cw-needs-to-stop.php)

The CW Goes Green by Reducing, Reusing and Recycling Plots (http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/telefile/2008/05/the-cw-goes-green-by-reducing.php)

[Rabid Trekkie]

And apparently, announcing that you're gong to only focus for the young female demographic (I'm going to say this again until we're all blue in the face, Dawn Ostroff isn't at Lifetime anymore), isn't another way of telling other potential viewers to piss off!? :confused:

Except that she seems to be keeping Supernatural just for the fans of that show. Part of the decision may be that both leads were on their other hot shows (Gilmore Girls and Smallville respectively) and so she's hoping the fans of both old shows will eventually make the switch or that other chicks will jump on for the beefcake much like V.I.P. stayed on for four years for the guys. And of course Reaper is there for, well I'm not sure who's the target audience for that but I enjoy it.

Doesn't really matter though, both are genre shows that generally show better amongst geeky men. So she has completely alienated the men.

[The Batman]

My point is that even without the "stigma" of pro wrestling, the CW has struggled to attract advertisers.

Alright, but how is keeping a costly program like Smackdown! that most advertisers, by your own admission, find radioactive supposed to reverse that problem?


And another thing, you're acting like I heard Dawn Ostroff actually said that stuff. The point that I was trying to get across, is that some of these TV executives like Dawn Ostroff and Jamie Kellner, not to mention advertisers, seem to have a certain mentality, which leds to negatively stereotype wrestling fans.

So, in other words, she didn't say anything like that and you just made it up?

[The Batman]

Doesn't really matter though, both are genre shows that generally show better amongst geeky men. So she has completely alienated the men.

Don't you mean that she hasn't completely alienated the men?

[Ed Cunard]

And apparently, announcing that you're gong to only focus for the young female demographic (I'm going to say this again until we're all blue in the face, Dawn Ostroff isn't at Lifetime anymore), isn't another way of telling other potential viewers to piss off!? :confused:

See, you're the one all upset about this and, frankly, I think that's batshit insane. She's not telling you, TMC1982, to piss off. She's steering the network in another direction. Whether or not that decision succeeds or fails is irrelevant. It's not personal--it's business.

I'm seriously baffled at your inability to see this.

I may start a thread, though, about how Food Network has decided to piss off potential anorexic viewers, and how G4TV is taking a hardline stance in order to alienate the Amish.

[kalorama]

I don't feel like I need to actually work within the TV industry much less CBS/Time Warner to come to the conclusion that Dawn Ostroff hasn't been doing a good job.

But you do need to understand how the TV industry works in order to properly judge the kind of job she's doing. Clearly you do not.


And when the question comes to why she hasn't been removed yet, you want to counter with, "Oh well, they have more info than we do!"

Yes, because informed decision making is such an awful, heinous thing.


And as for "7th Heaven", of course its "series finale" was going to get huge ratings.

Why? Lots of series finales don't get big ratings. Usually they're the series finales of shows that got poor ratings before getting cancelled. The reason the 7th Heaven finale got good ratings is because the show got good ratings all along. It was, for most of its run, one of the highest rated shows on the WB. Everwood was consistently one of the lowest rated shows, not just on the network, but on broadcast TV period.


That still doesn't give a good enough of a reason to pull it out of retirement for just one more season at the expense of a younger show.

(A) What does a shows "age" have to do with anything? If you are now arguing that "younger," lower rated shows (which Everwood certainly was in comparison to 7th Heaven) deserve more consideration, you should be applauding Ostroff's decision to cancel an old show like Smackdown in order to give a young whippersnapper like Gossip Girls a chance. (B) 7th Heaven was not brought back "at the expense" of Everwood. The decision to bring back 7th Heaven was announced after Everwood (a show that had floundered in the ratings for its entire existence) had already been canceled.


It doesn't matter how much money "7th Heaven" made for the WB in the past, you still have to think for the long term.

There was no "long term" for Everwood, regardless on 7th Heaven. It was a poorly rated show that was losing money and not attracting high ad rates. Its fate was sealed.


Besides, wasn't one of the reasons that "7th Heaven" decided to call it quits the first time, was because the WB could no longer afford to have the show on the air?

They also couldn't afford to have an hour long hole on their broadcast schedule. Once Everwood was canceled, they had to put something in it's place. 7th Heaven was expensive, but it was also popular with audiences and advertisers. Its production costs may have cut into their profit margin, but a smaller profit is always a better alternative than actually losing money.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Don't you mean that she hasn't completely alienated the men?

Stupid fingers never hitting the right buttons. I should cut them off for punishment.

[TMC1982]

But you do need to understand how the TV industry works in order to properly judge the kind of job she's doing. Clearly you do not.



Yes, because informed decision making is such an awful, heinous thing.



Why? Lots of series finales don't get big ratings. Usually they're the series finales of shows that got poor ratings before getting cancelled. The reason the 7th Heaven finale got good ratings is because the show got good ratings all along. It was, for most of its run, one of the highest rated shows on the WB. Everwood was consistently one of the lowest rated shows, not just on the network, but on broadcast TV period.



(A) What does a shows "age" have to do with anything? If you are now arguing that "younger," lower rated shows (which Everwood certainly was in comparison to 7th Heaven) deserve more consideration, you should be applauding Ostroff's decision to cancel an old show like Smackdown in order to give a young whippersnapper like Gossip Girls a chance. (B) 7th Heaven was not brought back "at the expense" of Everwood. The decision to bring back 7th Heaven was announced after Everwood (a show that had floundered in the ratings for its entire existence) had already been canceled.



There was no "long term" for Everwood, regardless on 7th Heaven. It was a poorly rated show that was losing money and not attracting high ad rates. Its fate was sealed.



They also couldn't afford to have an hour long hole on their broadcast schedule. Once Everwood was canceled, they had to put something in it's place. 7th Heaven was expensive, but it was also popular with audiences and advertisers. Its production costs may have cut into their profit margin, but a smaller profit is always a better alternative than actually losing money.

And what, you're telling me that you understand the TV industry to justify Dawn Ostroff's otherwise questionable decision making!?:rolleyes: While you're at it, would you dare to tell me your job description? I'm guessing, that you're an employee at the CW, and you're taking great offense to people like me daring to challenge their business practices.

And as for "SmackDown!", pro wrestling is a lot different than a one hour, TV drama like "7th Heaven" or "Gossip Girl". Pro wrestling is a cycical business, that constantly must reinvent itself and regularly introduces new stars to build the promotion upon. And like I said, what good are you going to serve yourself to at the last minute, order a show back on the air that had already aired its series finale?

[TMC1982]

See, you're the one all upset about this and, frankly, I think that's batshit insane. She's not telling you, TMC1982, to piss off. She's steering the network in another direction. Whether or not that decision succeeds or fails is irrelevant. It's not personal--it's business.

I'm seriously baffled at your inability to see this.

I may start a thread, though, about how Food Network has decided to piss off potential anorexic viewers, and how G4TV is taking a hardline stance in order to alienate the Amish.

Dawn Ostroff said for the record that she was aiming the CW to appeal to young women, since according to her, that's there "sweat spot". She also said that a show like "SmackDown!" was too "manly" for the CW's desired brand. So naturally, I'm going to take that as a person for whom, doesn't want men to watch her TV network.

And another thing, the CW, as I have said before, is a broadcast television network (regardless of how small it may be when compared to CBS, ABC, NBC and FOX) and not a self admitted niche cable channel like the Food Network.

[TMC1982]

But you do need to understand how the TV industry works in order to properly judge the kind of job she's doing. Clearly you do not.



Yes, because informed decision making is such an awful, heinous thing.



Why? Lots of series finales don't get big ratings. Usually they're the series finales of shows that got poor ratings before getting cancelled. The reason the 7th Heaven finale got good ratings is because the show got good ratings all along. It was, for most of its run, one of the highest rated shows on the WB. Everwood was consistently one of the lowest rated shows, not just on the network, but on broadcast TV period.



(A) What does a shows "age" have to do with anything? If you are now arguing that "younger," lower rated shows (which Everwood certainly was in comparison to 7th Heaven) deserve more consideration, you should be applauding Ostroff's decision to cancel an old show like Smackdown in order to give a young whippersnapper like Gossip Girls a chance. (B) 7th Heaven was not brought back "at the expense" of Everwood. The decision to bring back 7th Heaven was announced after Everwood (a show that had floundered in the ratings for its entire existence) had already been canceled.



There was no "long term" for Everwood, regardless on 7th Heaven. It was a poorly rated show that was losing money and not attracting high ad rates. Its fate was sealed.



They also couldn't afford to have an hour long hole on their broadcast schedule. Once Everwood was canceled, they had to put something in it's place. 7th Heaven was expensive, but it was also popular with audiences and advertisers. Its production costs may have cut into their profit margin, but a smaller profit is always a better alternative than actually losing money.

So wait a minute! It's a smart business decision to take "Everwood" off the air (even though as I've recently pointed out, it got better ratings (in roughly, the 3.5-4.0 range) than Dawn Ostroff's "beaken of hope", "Gossip Girl"), in favor of one more season of "7th Heaven", even though that particular show was expensive within itself!?:confused:

[LtMarvel]

TMC, I've got to tell you, like many others who have posted on this thread, I don't see your points at all. People have shown you time and time again that higher ratings =/= making money.

Lawrence Welk was on the air for years. Because the ratings were good? Nope. Because it made money. There was an advertiser that loved the audience the LW show attracted.

Others have shown you that wrestling didn't make money for CW. I have tried to show you that Gossip Girl does make money, because there are a group of advertisers that love the GG audience of wealthy young women.

Are there shows I wish CW kept on the air. Yes. (Veroncia Mars, we love you!) But that is true of nearly every network.

Your favorite show is off the air. I'm sorry. But it happens. Your hatred for the CW chief is misplaced. Take a deep breath...life's too short for this kind of hatred.

[kalorama]

So wait a minute! It's a smart business decision to take "Everwood" off the air (even though as I've recently pointed out, it got better ratings (in roughly, the 3.5-4.0 range) than Dawn Ostroff's "beaken of hope", "Gossip Girl"), in favor of one more season of "7th Heaven", even though that particular show was expensive within itself!?:confused:

See, now you're not even trying hard anymore.

Comparing ratings from 3 years ago to today is meaningless, because, as has been noted multiple times, overall broadcast TV viewership has declined significantly over the last few years. It's like comparing box office receipts of a movie that came out this year with one that came out 25 years ago, without adjusting for inflation. The numbers don't sync up.

And once again, slowly this tme, Everwood was losing money. 7th Heaven made money (although less than it could have because of the show's production expense). Making money is always better than losing money.

[kalorama]

And what, you're telling me that you understand the TV industry to justify Dawn Ostroff's otherwise questionable decision making!?

I'm not telling you any such thing, because (A) I'm not justifying her decisions and (B) there's no evidence that her decisions have actually been questionable, because with out knowing what her bosses are expecting her to accomplish, there's no way to fairly judge how successful she's been at achieving the goals that have been set for her.


Pro wrestling is a cycical business, that constantly must reinvent itself and regularly introduces new stars to build the promotion upon.

That is quite possibly the most egregious bit of utter nonsense I've ever seen posted on the Internet.


And like I said, what good are you going to serve yourself to at the last minute, order a show back on the air that had already aired its series finale?

And, like I said: profit, money, revenue, cash, moolah, loot, cabbage, benjamins.

[TMC1982]

See, now you're not even trying hard anymore.

Comparing ratings from 3 years ago to today is meaningless, because, as has been noted multiple times, overall broadcast TV viewership has declined significantly over the last few years. It's like comparing box office receipts of a movie that came out this year with one that came out 25 years ago, without adjusting for inflation. The numbers don't sync up.

And once again, slowly this tme, Everwood was losing money. 7th Heaven made money (although less than it could have because of the show's production expense). Making money is always better than losing money.

Of course it's hard to compare ratings from three years prior to now, because both UPN and the WB were still functioning as seperate entites. And how much money did "Everwood" lose exactly? It's not like the CW would've gone bankrupt if they continued to air it, in favor of "7th Heaven" (I don't care how much money that show made in the past, when it's not going to be around long term anyway).

[TMC1982]

That is quite possibly the most egregious mound of utter nonsense I've ever seen posted on the Internet.

It's only utter nonsense for you because you apparently, don't follow pro wrestling like I have. There's more to the wrestling industry beyond what goes into a weekly TV show (that's what I'm trying to get across).

[TMC1982]

TMC, I've got to tell you, like many others who have posted on this thread, I don't see your points at all. People have shown you time and time again that higher ratings =/= making money.

Lawrence Welk was on the air for years. Because the ratings were good? Nope. Because it made money. There was an advertiser that loved the audience the LW show attracted.

Others have shown you that wrestling didn't make money for CW. I have tried to show you that Gossip Girl does make money, because there are a group of advertisers that love the GG audience of wealthy young women.

Are there shows I wish CW kept on the air. Yes. (Veroncia Mars, we love you!) But that is true of nearly every network.

Your favorite show is off the air. I'm sorry. But it happens. Your hatred for the CW chief is misplaced. Take a deep breath...life's too short for this kind of hatred.

And as I've said before, a majority of advertisers have apparently been abandoning the CW anyway because of their poor, overall ratings performance this past season.

[TMC1982]

And you want to look at me like I'm crazy when I want to criticize the CW!:eek:
CW: You've lost another viewer! (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=189501) (2 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=189501&page=2) 3 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=189501&page=3) ... Last Page (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=189501&page=4))

Last Season to Prove Yourself (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=189680)

Disappointed in the CW (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=193726)

The Friday Wasteland??? (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=188533)

Decisions the CW Made (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=196454) (2 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=196454&page=2))

I miss the old WB (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=192149)

Time Warner Not Happy about The CW! (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=179122) (2 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=179122&page=2))

The CW says goodbye to male audience!!! (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=184144) (2 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=184144&page=2) 3 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=184144&page=3) ... Last Page (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=184144&page=5))

So, like, when's Dawn Ostroff going to be fired? (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=188505) (2 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?p=5186041#post5186041))

Poll: New Management for The CW Network (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=179868) (2 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=179868&page=2))

The CW HAS REALLY LOST IT- New Schedule for Winter 2008 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=163095) (2 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=163095&page=2) 3 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=163095&page=3) ... Last Page (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=163095&page=5))

CW why are you doing this? (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=135607) (2 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=135607&page=2) 3 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=135607&page=3) ... Last Page (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=135607&page=11))

CW is Smart In What There Doing So Be Quiet (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=123345) (2 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=123345&page=2) 3 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=123345&page=3) ... Last Page (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=123345&page=7))

TV.com: WSJ: CW could go under soon (http://www.tv.com/americas-next-top-model/show/14888/story/11306.html) (Page: 2 (http://www.tv.com/americas-next-top-model/show/14888/story/11306.html?cpage=1#comments) | 3 (http://www.tv.com/americas-next-top-model/show/14888/story/11306.html?cpage=2#comments))

KryptonSite Message Forums (http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90954) (2 (http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3834961#post3834961) 3 (http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90954&page=3))

the TV addict " Blog Archive " Everwood was on the CW schedule? (http://thetvaddict.com/2006/05/18/everwood-was-on-the-cw-schedule/?akst_action=share-this)

[Nate Grey]

And you want to look at me like I'm crazy when I want to criticize the CW!:eek:
CW: You've lost another viewer! (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=189501) (2 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=189501&page=2) 3 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=189501&page=3) ... Last Page (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=189501&page=4))

Last Season to Prove Yourself (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=189680)

Disappointed in the CW (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=193726)

The Friday Wasteland??? (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=188533)

Decisions the CW Made (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=196454) (2 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=196454&page=2))

I miss the old WB (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=192149)

Time Warner Not Happy about The CW! (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=179122) (2 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=179122&page=2))

The CW says goodbye to male audience!!! (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=184144) (2 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=184144&page=2) 3 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=184144&page=3) ... Last Page (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=184144&page=5))

So, like, when's Dawn Ostroff going to be fired? (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=188505) (2 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?p=5186041#post5186041))

Poll: New Management for The CW Network (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=179868) (2 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=179868&page=2))

The CW HAS REALLY LOST IT- New Schedule for Winter 2008 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=163095) (2 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=163095&page=2) 3 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=163095&page=3) ... Last Page (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=163095&page=5))

CW why are you doing this? (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=135607) (2 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=135607&page=2) 3 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=135607&page=3) ... Last Page (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=135607&page=11))

CW is Smart In What There Doing So Be Quiet (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=123345) (2 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=123345&page=2) 3 (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=123345&page=3) ... Last Page (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=123345&page=7))

TV.com: WSJ: CW could go under soon (http://www.tv.com/americas-next-top-model/show/14888/story/11306.html) (Page: 2 (http://www.tv.com/americas-next-top-model/show/14888/story/11306.html?cpage=1#comments) | 3 (http://www.tv.com/americas-next-top-model/show/14888/story/11306.html?cpage=2#comments))

KryptonSite Message Forums (http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90954) (2 (http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3834961#post3834961) 3 (http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90954&page=3))

the TV addict " Blog Archive " Everwood was on the CW schedule? (http://thetvaddict.com/2006/05/18/everwood-was-on-the-cw-schedule/?akst_action=share-this)

And this proves what exactly? People like to come on the net and complain? :confused:

[The Batman]

Of course it's hard to compare ratings from three years prior to now, because both UPN and the WB were still functioning as seperate entites. And how much money did "Everwood" lose exactly? It's not like the CW would've gone bankrupt if they continued to air it, in favor of "7th Heaven" (I don't care how much money that show made in the past, when it's not going to be around long term anyway).


So you want them to continue to air a show that's losing money because it'll stick around longer (presumably to continue losing them money) instead of trying to get one more season out of a show that is making them money?

And Ostroff's decision making is questionable?

[The Batman]

And as I've said before, a majority of advertisers have apparently been abandoning the CW anyway because of their poor, overall ratings performance this past season.

Again I ask, how is keeping wrestling, something you've admitted yourself a lot of people at the corporate level view as radioactive, supposed to turn this situation around?

Why would a network want to keep a show that's going to cost them a lot in fees, that isn't going to cut them in on any merchandising revenue, and that's not going to bring in big advertising dollars?

[kalorama]

And you want to look at me like I'm crazy when I want to criticize the CW!

We don't really want to, but it's not like you're giving us much choice.

[Ed Cunard]

It's only utter nonsense for you because you apparently, don't follow pro wrestling like I have. There's more to the wrestling industry beyond what goes into a weekly TV show (that's what I'm trying to get across).

Exactly. You're the scary, obsessive type of fan who then takes his scary obsession out on the MEAN MEAN LADY WHO TOOK THE WRESTLING AWAY, even though the exact same wrestling is still available to you on another network.

The well-adjusted wrestling fan would just say, "oh, this fall I have to make a note of Smackdown's new channel."

[TMC1982]

And this proves what exactly? People like to come on the net and complain? :confused:

No! There are a lot more people out there who share similar views about the CW and Dawn Ostroff than you want to believe or accept.

[TMC1982]

Again I ask, how is keeping wrestling, something you've admitted yourself a lot of people at the corporate level view as radioactive, supposed to turn this situation around?

Why would a network want to keep a show that's going to cost them a lot in fees, that isn't going to cut them in on any merchandising revenue, and that's not going to bring in big advertising dollars?

Advertising revenue aside, on the surface, it's rather fair and reasonable to question a network's decision to dump their highest rated show. And besides that, the CW has been losing money all around with or without "SmackDown!"

[TMC1982]

Exactly. You're the scary, obsessive type of fan who then takes his scary obsession out on the MEAN MEAN LADY WHO TOOK THE WRESTLING AWAY, even though the exact same wrestling is still available to you on another network.

The well-adjusted wrestling fan would just say, "oh, this fall I have to make a note of Smackdown's new channel."

Of course, I'm fully aware that "SmackDown!" is moving to MyNetworkTV. That just means that the CW's loss is MyNetworkTV's gain.

[Cyke]

No! There are a lot more people out there who share similar views about the CW and Dawn Ostroff than you want to believe or accept.

But apparently not enough to counter CW's current numbers, or enough to change the minds of Ostroff's bosses and/or shareholders.


Advertising revenue aside, on the surface, it's rather fair and reasonable to question a network's decision to dump their highest rated show. And besides that, the CW has been losing money all around with or without "SmackDown!"

It IS fair and reasonable to ask when seeing just the surface. However, there are posters in this thread who went below the surface, providing tons of details, as to why the cancellation went beyond face value. I sincerely believe that even if Ostroff's bosses came to this thread and explained their decisions to keep Ostraff, no matter what they may be, the thread would still denegrate to wrestling.


Of course, I'm fully aware that "SmackDown!" is moving to MyNetworkTV. That just means that the CW's loss is MyNetworkTV's gain.

So then what's the problem? Seriously? You named your own solution! Watch the show and release your anger that way.

[kalorama]

Advertising revenue aside, on the surface, it's rather fair and reasonable to question a network's decision to dump their highest rated show.

No it's not. Once you acknowledge that the show is losing money then it's not reasonable to question canceling it. It's not reasonable because the answer is right there in front of you. It was canceled because it was losing money.


And besides that, the CW has been losing money all around with or without "SmackDown!"
And now that they've canceled Smackdown, they're losing less money than they were before they canceled it. Again, what's there to question? It's a business. Period.

[TMC1982]

No it's not. Once you acknowledge that the show is losing money then it's not reasonable to question canceling it. It's not reasonable because the answer is right there in front of you. It was canceled because it was losing money.


And now that they've canceled Smackdown, they're losing less money than they were before they canceled it. Again, what's there to question? It's a business. Period.

And I'm going to keep countering by saying that CW has been losing money all around with and without wrestling on their schedule.

[TMC1982]

But apparently not enough to counter CW's current numbers, or enough to change the minds of Ostroff's bosses and/or shareholders.



It IS fair and reasonable to ask when seeing just the surface. However, there are posters in this thread who went below the surface, providing tons of details, as to why the cancellation went beyond face value. I sincerely believe that even if Ostroff's bosses came to this thread and explained their decisions to keep Ostraff, no matter what they may be, the thread would still denegrate to wrestling.



So then what's the problem? Seriously? You named your own solution! Watch the show and release your anger that way.

What "current numbers"? The CW isn't highly rated to begin with, so it isn't like that network has a whole lot of fans at the moment.

[The Batman]

And I'm going to keep countering by saying that CW has been losing money all around with and without wrestling on their schedule.

Right, and the way to reverse that situation is to get rid of shows, like Smackdown!, that cost a lot without bringing a lot in.

Or is it okay for the CW to lose money just so long as it's on shows you like?

[kalorama]

And I'm going to keep countering by saying that CW has been losing money all around with and without wrestling on their schedule.

You do that. And I'll keep pointing out that by canceling Smackdown, they reduced the amount of money they were losing.

[The Batman]

Advertising revenue aside, on the surface, it's rather fair and reasonable to question a network's decision to dump their highest rated show. And besides that, the CW has been losing money all around with or without "SmackDown!"

And this is your problem right there (well one of them), you don't get that revenue is the whole point.

[TMC1982]

You do that. And I'll keep pointing out that by canceling Smackdown, they reduced the amount of money they were losing.

Okay, since you seem to think you know all there is to know about running a broadcast TV network, how can you refute the afordmentioned Wall Street Journal article about the CW being in danger of going under if ratings don't improve in the near future? How can you explain why Univision regularly gets better ratings than the CW (and don't use the "Hispanic population is rapidly growing" arguement)? How do you explain Pappas Telecasting Communications filing for bankruptcy in response to the CW's failing ratings? How do you explain the decision of numerous Tribune owned stations to switch from the CW to FOX? How come it's so coincidential that Dawn Ostroff use to be a top executive for Lifetime, when she announced that the CW will be strictly focusing on the young female demographic?

[Cyke]

What "current numbers"? The CW isn't highly rated to begin with, so it isn't like that network has a whole lot of fans at the moment.

Because, frankly, there are more people who watch TV than go on message boards complaining about things. Think about CW's base audience and their core demographics, two issues that you've brought up. What's the first thing you see the doing in your mind? I bet it's not going on the CW's website demanding answers.

For that matter, the vast majority of any network's viewership won't spend their time writing to the network, to criticize or to praise. That's the nature of the beast.

For every single poster you find having a problem with the CW, there'll probably be two posters who love it, and probably 10 regular viewers who have never written to the CW in any occasion. THOSE numbers I'm talking about. Heck, that applies to almost anything on TV, including wrestling. For every fan who takes the time to comment, there'll be another 10 who love wrestling but won't care to log onto a message board to talk about it.

[kalorama]

Okay, since you seem to think you know all there is to know about running a broadcast TV network, how can you refute the afordmentioned Wall Street Journal article about the CW being in danger of going under if ratings don't improve in the near future?

Putting aside, for the moment, that this question has jack-all to do with the post you purport to be "responding" to (not like that's a shock or anything ...)

Why would I refute it? Of course the network will be in danger of going under if the ratings tank too badly. What does that have to do with the fact that wrestling was canceled because it was losing money (which, you may recall, was the actual topic of the post you were "responding" to)? (Rhetorical question, of course.)


How can you explain why Univision regularly gets better ratings than the CW (and don't use the "Hispanic population is rapidly growing" arguement)?

So basically your question is: "Can you give a reason why something happened without making reference to any of the verifiable facts that would actually explain why it happened?"

Yeah, right. Again ... what difference does it make whether CW beats Univision or not? Who cares? What does it prove? Or disprove? About anything?


How do you explain Pappas Telecasting Communications filing for bankruptcy in response to the CW's failing ratings? How do you explain the decision of numerous Tribune owned stations to switch from the CW to FOX?

Maybe because the CW's ratings were falling and they were losing money. (I'm pretty sure we've covered this.)


How come it's so coincidential that Dawn Ostroff use to be a top executive for Lifetime, when she announced that the CW will be strictly focusing on the young female demographic?

Um ... Y'see, the woman who ran Lifetime is the same woman now running the CW, so y'know ... it's not a coincidence. (OK, now you're actually starting to scare me.)

[Michael P]

What's wrong with going after the young female audience? It's the hottest demographic going right now.

[Nate Grey]

Good to see you responding at some other time besides when the board's hiccuping, TMC. Anyway:


No! There are a lot more people out there who share similar views about the CW and Dawn Ostroff than you want to believe or accept.

well:

Because, frankly, there are more people who watch TV than go on message boards complaining about things.

In other words, your links don't prove anything. At all. The people who compain on message boards < the people who actually watch TV and "complain" by flipping the channel.

So basically your argument is (and correct me if I'm wrong, you've moved your goal posts quite a bit), is that even though the CW was losing money on Smackdown, they should have kept Smackdown because it was losing money on other, cheaper shows anyway?

[Ed Cunard]

1. Okay, since you seem to think you know all there is to know about running a broadcast TV network, how can you refute the afordmentioned Wall Street Journal article about the CW being in danger of going under if ratings don't improve in the near future?

A: They need higher ratings on shows they receive more revenue from. They most likely receive less revenue from something like Smackdown--something that may very well have advertising in it that comes directly from the WWE.

2. How can you explain why Univision regularly gets better ratings than the CW (and don't use the "Hispanic population is rapidly growing" arguement)?

In which markets? That's important. Univision gets most of its ratings in urban areas. You can't just toss out "ratings" like it's an answer. Where are the ratings? What demographics are the ratings for? It's just not as simple as you need it to be to understand it.

3. How do you explain Pappas Telecasting Communications filing for bankruptcy in response to the CW's failing ratings?

Because it wasn't wholly in response to that, no matter what your pro-Wrestling sources say.

4. How do you explain the decision of numerous Tribune owned stations to switch from the CW to FOX?

Because it makes more sense. Go for the higher-profile broadcast identification--especially in markets that didn't already have one.

6. How come it's so coincidential that Dawn Ostroff use to be a top executive for Lifetime, when she announced that the CW will be strictly focusing on the young female demographic?

Wait. You've swayed me. Get them womens to stop watching our televisions.

But, seriously, so what? Again, switching their target demos (and, shit, maybe it's a good idea, considering how poorly they seem to be doing with their old plans) is not a direct, personal attack on you, which is why so many of us are perplexed by your vitriol towards Ostroff.

[LtMarvel]

But, seriously, so what? Again, switching their target demos (and, shit, maybe it's a good idea, considering how poorly they seem to be doing with their old plans) is not a direct, personal attack on you, which is why so many of us are perplexed by your vitriol towards Ostroff.

You know, if this is the one time that finally gets through to him I will be so jealous.

[TMC1982]

1. Okay, since you seem to think you know all there is to know about running a broadcast TV network, how can you refute the afordmentioned Wall Street Journal article about the CW being in danger of going under if ratings don't improve in the near future?

A: They need higher ratings on shows they receive more revenue from. They most likely receive less revenue from something like Smackdown--something that may very well have advertising in it that comes directly from the WWE.

2. How can you explain why Univision regularly gets better ratings than the CW (and don't use the "Hispanic population is rapidly growing" arguement)?

In which markets? That's important. Univision gets most of its ratings in urban areas. You can't just toss out "ratings" like it's an answer. Where are the ratings? What demographics are the ratings for? It's just not as simple as you need it to be to understand it.

3. How do you explain Pappas Telecasting Communications filing for bankruptcy in response to the CW's failing ratings?

Because it wasn't wholly in response to that, no matter what your pro-Wrestling sources say.

4. How do you explain the decision of numerous Tribune owned stations to switch from the CW to FOX?

Because it makes more sense. Go for the higher-profile broadcast identification--especially in markets that didn't already have one.

6. How come it's so coincidential that Dawn Ostroff use to be a top executive for Lifetime, when she announced that the CW will be strictly focusing on the young female demographic?

Wait. You've swayed me. Get them womens to stop watching our televisions.

But, seriously, so what? Again, switching their target demos (and, shit, maybe it's a good idea, considering how poorly they seem to be doing with their old plans) is not a direct, personal attack on you, which is why so many of us are perplexed by your vitriol towards Ostroff.


In which markets? That's important. Univision gets most of its ratings in urban areas. You can't just toss out "ratings" like it's an answer. Where are the ratings? What demographics are the ratings for? It's just not as simple as you need it to be to understand it.

And the CW has pretty much turn its back on the urban areas (e.g. moving "Everybody Hates Chris" up and down the schedule, scheduling "Everybody Hates Chris" and "The Game" in the "Friday Night Deathslot", abruptly canceling "Girlfriends", etc.) that UPN had previously courted.


Because it wasn't wholly in response to that, no matter what your pro-Wrestling sources say.

This has nothing to do with so called "pro wrestling sources". Does this following link look like a "pro wrestling source":
Pappas Telecasting files for bankruptcy, blames CW ratings - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/pappas-telecasting-files-bankruptcy-blames/story.aspx?guid={BD3264A3-7A33-4F4C-A513-C5E210DC5C28})


Because it makes more sense. Go for the higher-profile broadcast identification--especially in markets that didn't already have one.

Then if that's the case, it would've been pointless to associate with the CW to begin with.


Wait. You've swayed me. Get them womens to stop watching our televisions.

Of course, the CW needs to appeal to young females. But they shouldn't do that at the expense of other demographics. I thought the point of running a broadcast network was to maximize the audience not vice versa.

[TMC1982]

Good to see you responding at some other time besides when the board's hiccuping, TMC. Anyway:



well:


In other words, your links don't prove anything. At all. The people who compain on message boards < the people who actually watch TV and "complain" by flipping the channel.

So basically your argument is (and correct me if I'm wrong, you've moved your goal posts quite a bit), is that even though the CW was losing money on Smackdown, they should have kept Smackdown because it was losing money on other, cheaper shows anyway?


In other words, your links don't prove anything. At all. The people who compain on message boards < the people who actually watch TV and "complain" by flipping the channel.

So I guess in your world, people shouldn't have the right to express their disapproval over something via their computer!?:confused:

[Nate Grey]

So I guess in your world, people shouldn't have the right to express their disapproval over something via their computer!?:confused:

Someone who's mad their favorite show got cancelled and wants the head of a network fired because of it instead of just switching to the channel it now airs should not be throwing stones. First and foremost. I don't know if you expected everyone to magically agree with you, but since most (if not all) don't, not need to get snippy. Keep it civil if you can.

Second, you appear to be using a strawman. I didn't talk about the avenue for complaint itself, I said its not rational to use that as any sort of gauge on the success or failure of network. And I think you know that. This sort of sidetracking is transparent and not helping you prove your point.

[TMC1982]

Putting aside, for the moment, that this question has jack-all to do with the post you purport to be "responding" to (not like that's a shock or anything ...)

Why would I refute it? Of course the network will be in danger of going under if the ratings tank too badly. What does that have to do with the fact that wrestling was canceled because it was losing money (which, you may recall, was the actual topic of the post you were "responding" to)? (Rhetorical question, of course.)



So basically your question is: "Can you give a reason why something happened without making reference to any of the verifiable facts that would actually explain why it happened?"

Yeah, right. Again ... what difference does it make whether CW beats Univision or not? Who cares? What does it prove? Or disprove? About anything?



Maybe because the CW's ratings were falling and they were losing money. (I'm pretty sure we've covered this.)



Um ... Y'see, the woman who ran Lifetime is the same woman now running the CW, so y'know ... it's not a coincidence. (OK, now you're actually starting to scare me.)


Maybe because the CW's ratings were falling and they were losing money. (I'm pretty sure we've covered this.)

And I suppose, you don't want to accept that the CW should be held responsible for their falling ratings and finacial woes, rather than "outside forces".

[Nate Grey]

And I suppose, you don't want to accept that the CW should be held responsible for their falling ratings and finacial woes, rather than "outside forces".

Irrelevant and beside the point. If they're facing "financial woes", they have a fiduciary responsibility to halt, lessen, or even reverse such woes, regardless of whose fault it is. Cutting Smackdown lessened it. It was business, pure and simple.

[TMC1982]

Someone who's mad their favorite show got cancelled and wants the head of a network fired because of it instead of just switching to the channel it now airs should not be throwing stones. First and foremost. I don't know if you expected everyone to magically agree with you, but since most (if not all) don't, not need to get snippy. Keep it civil if you can.

Second, you appear to be using a strawman. I didn't talk about the avenue for complaint itself, I said its not rational to use that as any sort of gauge on the success or failure of network. And I think you know that. This sort of sidetracking is transparent and not helping you prove your point.

Why the hell are you making wrestling the center of this post? I also criticized them for pulling "Reba" and "Everwood", deemphasing urban sitcoms, not promoting shows like "Supernatural" enough, and overrelying on shows like "Gossip Girl" and "America's Next Top Model".

[Ed Cunard]

Of course, the CW needs to appeal to young females. But they shouldn't do that at the expense of other demographics. I thought the point of running a broadcast network was to maximize the audience not vice versa.

No, not at all. The point is to make money. Again, there are a ton of possible reasons why Ostroff and the CW thought shit-canning SMACKDOWN would improve their bottom line. And since it's their network and not yours, their opinion? It kind of matters a lot more.

[Nate Grey]

Why the hell are you making wrestling the center of this post? I also criticized them for pulling "Reba" and "Everwood", deemphasing urban sitcoms, not promoting shows like "Supernatural" enough, and overrelying on shows like "Gossip Girl" and "America's Next Top Model".

There's that moving goal posts I was talking about. You started this thread by saying she should be fired by removing Smackdown (and, secondary, Reba). We explained why it possibly occured, and that her bosses have more info on what goals they wanted her to achieved and if she achieved them or not, not you, me, or any messageboards you linked to. You then switched to saying essentially "well ALL the shows were failing" which ironically strengthened our point not yours since it brought costs into the picture.

Not promoting Supernatural enough? Maybe, but its still coming back for another season, and for all intents and purposes its future is secure if for no other reason than a thank you to the loyal viewers from when it was on the WB. So that point is irrelevant. "deemphasing urban sitcoms": did you watch any of those sitcoms? Most didn't, so they're gone, but at least The Game will be back. And finally "and overrelying on shows like "Gossip Girl" and "America's Next Top Model", yes, since they make them money and apparently doesn't cost much to make. Again, they're a business. A business's job is to make money and keep making money.

[Ed Cunard]

Why the hell are you making wrestling the center of this post? I also criticized them for pulling "Reba" and "Everwood", deemphasing urban sitcoms, not promoting shows like "Supernatural" enough, and overrelying on shows like "Gossip Girl" and "America's Next Top Model".

Don't forget that they got rid of their old cartoon block!

[TMC1982]

There's that moving goal posts I was talking about. You started this thread by saying she should be fired by removing Smackdown (and, secondary, Reba). We explained why it possibly occured, and that her bosses have more info on what goals they wanted her to achieved and if she achieved them or not, not you, me, or any messageboards you linked to. You then switched to saying essentially "well ALL the shows were failing" which ironically strengthened our point not yours since it brought costs into the picture.

Not promoting Supernatural enough? Maybe, but its still coming back for another season, and for all intents and purposes its future is secure if for no other reason than a thank you to the loyal viewers from when it was on the WB. So that point is irrelevant. "deemphasing urban sitcoms": did you watch any of those sitcoms? Most didn't, so they're gone, but at least The Game will be back. And finally "and overrelying on shows like "Gossip Girl" and "America's Next Top Model", yes, since they make them money and apparently doesn't cost much to make. Again, they're a business. A business's job is to make money and keep making money.

Most didn't watch the urban sitcoms likely because, they didn't advertise them properly enough. Since it has been on the CW, "Everybody Hates Chris" has been on three different days of the week (first Monday, then Sunday, and now, Fridays).

And as for what I said at the every start of this thread, I'm going to attempt to refresh your memory before you want to put words in my mouth:

*She has no clue how to reach her target audience at all. Instead, she keeps trying to reproduce pretty much the same shows that have already been tried and failed. For example, tasteless reality shows and teen dramas like "Gossip Girl" (it is popular among young teens and pre-teens but drastically misses the mark for the target audience, adults 18-49) that don't bring in anywhere near the target ratings the network needs to stay afloat. And yet, she still ventures to pick up more teen dramas and more reality shows instead of trying something a little more creative and fresh.

*She spends all of her network's money and energy promoting a show ("Gossip Girl") that doesn't even bring in sufficient ratings in one of the least competitive slots while ignoring the few quality shows the network does offer.

*She has spread the network too thin and alienated a large portion of the network's target audiences by focusing only on women in the 18-49 age group instead the audience as a whole.

*She allowed "SmackDown!" to walk even though it has continuously brought in the highest ratings on the network. And in so doing, lost a good portion of the male audience that might otherwise have watched the other shows on the network if there was sufficient promotion for them.

*She's managed to lose 30% of her target audience in under 2 years. Even more damning, she lost 28% of her target audience this year!! And this was not caused by the strike. She was losing over 20% of that audience BEFORE the strike.

[Ed Cunard]

And the reason you're so invested in all of this?

Be honest. It's because the mean lady took away things you like.

[Nate Grey]

Most didn't watch the urban sitcoms likely because, they didn't advertise them properly enough. Since it has been on the CW, "Everybody Hates Chris" has been on three different days of the week (first Monday, then Sunday, and now, Fridays).

Everybody Hates Chris is curious, but I'd have to see the ratings vs ad revenue on that and the others. And from another source besides yourself.


And as for what I said at the every start of this thread, I'm going to attempt to refresh your memory before you want to put words in my mouth:

I haven't once attempted to put words in your mouth. I have been attempting, miserably, to get you to address the points I bring up. I address yours even when they have nothing to do with what we're talking about, if for no other reason then to get them out of the way to get to the real meat and potatoes of what we're talking about. You just take mine (and everyone else's) long explanation (cause we want to be as clear as crystal to you) and quote it with a small angry blurb at the end that has nothing to with any of said explanation. You simply cannot prove your points, its obvious by this same tactic you've been using for 21 pages now.

You based this whole thread around Smackdown (and to a lesser extent Reba) in your opening post. In this post, you posted the bullets from your opening post but conveniently left out the paragraphs below the bullets in the very same post which complain about the loss of Smackdown even more. The "evidence against Ostroff" isn't evidence, its your opinion and interpretation of what's occuring on CW, nothing more, and should not be held as facts like you apparently expect us to.

Again, I ask, is your point that even though CW was losing viewers all around, it should have kept a costly show like Smackdown since it was losing viewers anyway no matter what it did?

[TMC1982]

Everybody Hates Chris is curious, but I'd have to see the ratings vs ad revenue on that and the others. And from another source besides yourself.



I haven't once attempted to put words in your mouth. I have been attempting, miserably, to get you to address the points I bring up. I address yours even when they have nothing to do with what we're talking about, if for no other reason then to get them out of the way to get to the real meat and potatoes of what we're talking about. You just take mine (and everyone else's) long explanation (cause we want to be as clear as crystal to you) and quote it with a small angry blurb at the end that has nothing to with any of said explanation. You simply cannot prove your points, its obvious by this same tactic you've been using for 21 pages now.

You based this whole thread around Smackdown (and to a lesser extent Reba) in your opening post. In this post, you posted the bullets from your opening post but conveniently left out the paragraphs below the bullets in the very same post which complain about the loss of Smackdown even more. The "evidence against Ostroff" isn't evidence, its your opinion and interpretation of what's occuring on CW, nothing more, and should not be held as facts like you apparently expect us to.

Again, I ask, is your point that even though CW was losing viewers all around, it should have kept a costly show like Smackdown since it was losing viewers anyway no matter what it did?

Even without "SmackDown!" being discussed, the CW should be held accountable someway and somehow for their overall poor performance. I feel that I don't need to bring up "SmackDown!" at whole, to still be able to get my point across concerning the CW's mismanagement.

[Ed Cunard]

Even without "SmackDown!" being discussed, the CW should be held accountable someway and somehow for their overall poor performance. I feel that I don't need to bring up "SmackDown!" at whole, to still be able to get my point across concerning the CW's mismanagement.

Accountable to whom?

[Paradox]

TMC1982 sets his ground rules:

How can you explain why Univision regularly gets better ratings than the CW (and don't use the "Hispanic population is rapidly growing" arguement)?

Yes, we should all stop using the truth! How dare we! :rolleyes:

[Nate Grey]

Accountable to whom?

Beat me to it. Which goes right back to my point of how, for all we know, Ostroff is meeting the objectives of her superiors (the only folks SHE is accountable to), objectives which aren't released to the public.

[Paradox]

It's just a meaningless fan entitlement phrase. :smile:

[TMC1982]

Beat me to it. Which goes right back to my point of how, for all we know, Ostroff is meeting the objectives of her superiors (the only folks SHE is accountable to), objectives which aren't released to the public.

Superiors like whom, Les Moonves!?
Les Moonves as James Dolan, Dawn Ostroff as Isiah Thomas? (http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/20/les-moonves-as-james-dolan-dawn-ostroff-as-isiah-thomas/3420)


I am a lover of sports. There’s also some part of me that is very interested in psychology and human nature. Sometimes sports collides with that in a very rich way that is at least the stuff of a made-for-TV movie.

The New York Knicks hired Isiah Thomas as both the general manager and then ultimately the coach of the basketball team. While Thomas very clearly was one of the best basketball players of my generation, there was nothing to suggest he had a clue when it came to running a team. In fact, on the business side there was a lot to suggest that he didn’t have a clue. Dolan hired him anyway. Despite the fact that Isiah did a lousy, terrible, awful job by any metric you could possibly come up with, it seemed like Dolan would never ever fire him.

Finally Isiah was replaced as both GM and coach, but Dolan won’t wash his hands of Isiah completely because no matter what Isiah does - Dolan loves, loves, loves him some Isiah.

This morning’s overnight ratings report (http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/20/nielsen-ratings-sat-apr-19-fox-wins-cw-does-something-right/3419) got me thinking that there may be a parable inside the broadcast television industry where Les Moonves stars in the role of James Dolan and the CW Network’s chief Dawn Ostroff stars in the role of Isiah.

While we doubt that Ms. Ostroff ever shamed the Tiffany network with a sexual harassment scandal as Isiah shamed the Knicks and the NBA, by every conceivable metric, save perhaps one, Ostroff has done an abysmal job running the CW network. While the CW is a joint venture between CBS and Time Warner, Time Warner ceded day-to-day operations completely to CBS.

Some have speculated that the CW deliberately fails in order to give CBS a tax write-off. But I’m not a big believer in any kind of math that amounts basically to throwing away $600,000 or so out of a million in order to get $400,000 back on a tax-return. I don’t buy into that kind of math.

So I wonder if there’s not something similar going on where Moonves just loves, loves, loves Ostroff no matter what she does. I consider this in a very different realm than Dolan, Isiah and the Knicks. Dolan may be a complete idiot, but it’s his team, his money, and while the fans won’t love him for it, he can do whatever he wants and it’s all on him. With CBS, the CW, Moonves and Ostroff it isn’t quite the same. CBS is a publicly owned company with shareholders so the infraction seems more heinous, even if less in the public eye.

Am I envious that the likes of Isiah Thomas and Dawn Ostroff can get paid millions of dollars for lousy performance? Of course I am.

[Nate Grey]

Superiors like whom, Les Moonves!?
Les Moonves as James Dolan, Dawn Ostroff as Isiah Thomas? (http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/20/les-moonves-as-james-dolan-dawn-ostroff-as-isiah-thomas/3420)

And if pointing to someone else's opinion on the matter was somehow fact, we'd have taken YOUR words on the matter as fact and left it at that. Clearly its not and we haven't.

One more time: her bosses know if she's doing a good job or not, and as such her bosses will keep her or let her go depending on said job.

[TMC1982]

And if pointing to someone else's opinion on the matter was somehow fact, we'd have taken YOUR words on the matter as fact and left it at that. Clearly its not and we haven't.

One more time: her bosses know if she's doing a good job or not, and as such her bosses will keep her or let her go depending on said job.

If that's the case, then was James Dolan doing the "right thing" by allowing Isiah Thomas continue to run the New York Knicks into the ground much like Les Moonves is currently doing with Dawn Ostroff and the CW?:biggrin:

[Nate Grey]

If that's the case, then was James Dolan doing the "right thing" by allowing Isiah Thomas continue to run the New York Knicks into the ground much like Les Moonves is currently doing with Dawn Ostroff and the CW?:biggrin:

Apples and oranges, as a basketball team can't be run like a television network, or vice versa. Its also your opinion she's running it into the ground, but its her bosses opinion that counts since they can fire her or keep her employed. If you're saying her bosses are idiots, then that puts Ostroff in the clear altogether since whoever's head will have to deal with these inept employers.

[Paradox]

TMC1982 wants judgment:

If that's the case, then was James Dolan doing the "right thing" by allowing Isiah Thomas continue to run the New York Knicks into the ground much like Les Moonves is currently doing with Dawn Ostroff and the CW?:biggrin:

Pretty much irrelevant, as in both cases, it's their decision and none of any of the public's business.

[Johnny_Luck]

Most didn't watch the urban sitcoms likely because, they didn't advertise them properly enough. Since it has been on the CW, "Everybody Hates Chris" has been on three different days of the week (first Monday, then Sunday, and now, Fridays).


Smallville is going into season 8, continuing to bring in very strong ratings for CW, is usually 4th overall for its target audience for the night, oh by the way it also was on tuesday, then wed, and is now for a while been going strong on Thursday.


House and Bones have been dropped mid season for world series games and picked back up afterwards and are still going strong for fox.

Everybody hates crhis is actually a solid ratings show regardless of how crappy it is.

Oh and Gossip Girl gets a hell of a lot more ratings and ad rev than you are getting it credit for. When other movies that are getting released use the tags, starring so and so from gossip girl, its a big show for the cw.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Even without "SmackDown!" being discussed, the CW should be held accountable someway and somehow for their overall poor performance. I feel that I don't need to bring up "SmackDown!" at whole, to still be able to get my point across concerning the CW's mismanagement.

But they will be held responsible. If they are making such terrible decisions regarding their line up and what ever else, then they will go away. TV is a business and business punishes those who are stupid. So don't worry, if all these decisions are so dire the nature of what they do will hold them accountable.

Sure you may lose your stock in the company (the only reason I can think of that you'd care enough to have this thread go on this long) but that's the breaks.

[Conn Seanery]

You know what always sparks off a good debate? A tantrum emoticon right beside the thread title.

[kalorama]

Most didn't watch the urban sitcoms likely because, they didn't advertise them properly enough.

Likely according to whom? Have you interviewed every person who owns a TV and asked them why they didn't watch Girlfriends? Or could it possibly be that you're just making that up and the real reason few people watched the shows is because there wasn't a large enough audience that was interested in them? Which is why they got canceled or moved.

[kalorama]

And I suppose, you don't want to accept that the CW should be held responsible for their falling ratings and finacial woes, rather than "outside forces".

For future reference, when you use quotation marks it's generally a good idea for the words inside them to actually be quoting something, which yours clearly aren't, since I'm fairly certain I've never used the phrase "outside forces" in a single one of my posts.

[Paradox]

To be fair, sometimes quote marks are used to indicate something that's called something it isn't, euphemistically usually. Not that TMC's right, but that's what's meant I think.

[TMC1982]

For future reference, when you use quotation marks it's generally a good idea for the words inside them to actually be quoting something, which yours clearly aren't, since I'm fairly certain I've never used the phrase "outside forces" in a single one of my posts.

So what, now you want to be my grade school English teacher besides being Dawn Ostroff's biggest cheerleader!?

[TMC1982]

Likely according to whom? Have you interviewed every person who owns a TV and asked them why they didn't watch Girlfriends? Or could it possibly be that you're just making that up and the real reason few people watched the shows is because there wasn't a large enough audience that was interested in them? Which is why they got canceled or moved.

Some articles documenting the cancelation of "Girlfriends":
Girlfriends: Cancelled, Proper Series Finale Too Expensive | TV Series ... (http://tvseriesfinale.com/articles/girlfriends-cancelled-p...ies-finale-too-expensive/ )

The CW Cancels 'Girlfriends' (http://www.buddytv.com/articles/girlfriends/the-cw-cancels-girlfriends-16703.aspx )

'Girlfriends' ends eight-year run | TV Biz | Hollywood Insider | EW.com (http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2008/02/girlfriends-to.html)

FASHIONALITIES: CW Girlfriends Cancelled (http://fashionalities.blogspot.com/2008/02/cw-girlfriends-cancelled.html)

E! News - CW Splits with Girlfriends (http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=37cc109...8d-4c9a-92c2-25b4ef933e3d)

Girlfriends Gone: CW Network Cans Popular Black Sitcom - Black Voices Blogs (http://www.blackvoices.com/blogs/2008/02/12/girlfriends-go...ans-popular-black-sitcom/ )

Girlfriends: Will the CW Series Finale Retrospective Happen? | TV ... (http://tvseriesfinale.com/articles/girlfriends-an-update-o...ies-finale-retrospective/)

Actor To MediaTakeOut.com: The CW Will Cancel THE GAME - Unless YOU ... (http://www.mediatakeout.com/22053/actor_to_mediatakeoutcom...less_you_help_us_out.ht ml)

TV.com: Girlfriends, CW Now say see ya (http://www.tv.com/story/10863.html )

A Hot Mess! " Blog Archive " Girlfriends' Unceremoniously Dumped (http://ahotmessblog.com/?p=2177)

Girlfriends Goes Bye-Bye - Today's News: Our Take | TVGuide.com (http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-News-Blog/...riends-Goes-Bye/800033227)

Is Girlfriends Cancelled? - The CW Lounge - Message Boards (http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?p=5530439#post5530439)

Girlfriends Goes Bye-Bye - Today's News: Our Take | TVGuide.com (http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-News-Blog/...riends-Goes-Bye/800033227)

[kalorama]

Some articles documenting the cancelation of "Girlfriends"

HA! Priceless.

Most of those are neither "articles" nor do they "document" anything. Half those links don't even work and most of the rest are opinion blogs, not reporting. I can only assume that your "research" consists of doing Google searches and posting links without actually looking at the sites, which seems quite fitting and appropriate given the level of your argumentative abilities displayed so far.

[TMC1982]

None of which do anything to substantively support your claim or dispute my point.

(And the fact that several of them are broken seems to somehow to fit quite nicely with the general tenor and quality of your *ahem* argument.)

How do you know that "Girlfriends" was canceled due to low ratings? "Girlfriends" was one of the highest rated scripted shows among African American adults and women aged 18-34. Do you like my reporting now!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girlfriends#U.S._television_ratings

[kalorama]

So what, now you want to be my grade school English teacher besides being Dawn Ostroff's biggest cheerleader!?

Speaking of your grade school English teacher, when you get back from summer vacation, I'd strongly suggest scheduling some additional tutoring time with her. And you might want to skip study hall and sign up for a rhetoric or debate class.

[TMC1982]

Speaking of your grade school English teacher, when you get back from summer vacation, I'd strongly suggest scheduling some additional tutoring time with her. And you might want to skip study hall and sign up for a rhetoric or debate class.

Call me around this time next year when your buddy Dawn Ostroff finishes running the CW into the ground, smart ass! I feel that I've done all that I could possibly do to get my point across. And naturally, I'm not going to sit around and make excuses (regardless of the differences between an opinion and a so called "fact") for Dawn Ostroff.

[kalorama]

How do you know that "Girlfriends" was canceled due to low ratings? "Girlfriends" was one of the highest rated scripted shows among African American adults and women aged 18-34. Do you like my reporting now!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girlfriends#U.S._television_ratings


Well, I'll give you credit. You did actually look at this site before posting the link. Good job. But you clearly stopped reading (or even scrolling) after the second paragraph, the one that ends withe the sentence "it became the longest-running live-action sitcom currently on network television, as well as one of the highest-rated scripted shows on television among African American adults and women 18-34."

Had you not stopped reading when you got to the part that you thought said what you wanted to hear, you might have noticed the ratings table near the bottom of the page, the one that says that in 8 years the show never ranked higher than 128th.

[TMC1982]

Well, I'll give you credit. You did actually look at this site before posting the link. Good job. But you clearly stopped reading (or even scrolling) after the second paragraph, the one that ends withe the sentence "it became the longest-running live-action sitcom currently on network television, as well as one of the highest-rated scripted shows on television among African American adults and women 18-34."

Had you not stopped reading when you got to the part that said what you wanted to hear, you might have noticed the ratings table near the bottom of the page, the one that says that in 8 years the show never ranked higher than 128th.

The ratings were good by UPN/WB/CW standards (get a clue).:rolleyes:

[Conn Seanery]

Have you not been reading the thread, TMC? No one cares except you. They can and have countered your arguments, but no one has anywhere near as much invested in Ostroff's position, success, or failure more than you. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're a Dawn Ostroff supporter. It just means they don't agree with you. Get a grip, man.

[TMC1982]

Have you not been reading the thread, TMC? No one cares except you. They can and have countered your arguments, but no one has anywhere near as much invested in Ostroff's position, success, or failure more than you. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're a Dawn Ostroff supporter. It just means they don't agree with you. Get a grip, man.

Why the hell do you care? Why the hell do you suddenly bother to butt in with your minimal take some 20 pages in!? If somebody is passionate about a particular subject/topic, then it should be their right to want to debate it on a public forum.

[kalorama]

The ratings were good by UPN/WB/CW standards (get a clue).

And this would be the part where I point out that in its last two seasons, Girlfriends averaged as many or fewer viewers than Gossip Girls did last season. So if Girlfiriends' ratings were "good by UPN/WB/CW standards" ... well, you can fill in the rest.

[kalorama]

Oh yeah, I forgot ...:rolleyes:

[Conn Seanery]

Why the hell do you care? Why the hell do you suddenly bother to butt in with your minimal take some 20 pages in!?
Because you're looking a lot like someone backed into a corner and lashing out at anyone who commits the crime of disagreeing with you. That's not debating TMC, that's blocking your ears, stomping on the ground and going "La la la I'm not listening..." You're practically on the slow road to trollsville if you keep ignoring what people say and purposefully take it out of context to justify your hostility.


If somebody is passionate about a particular subject/topic, then it should be their right to want to debate it on a public forum.
Show me where in my last I reply I told you not to express yourself. You can even link it, since you're so into that sort of thing.

[TMC1982]

Because you're looking a lot like someone backed into a corner and lashing out at anyone who commits the crime of disagreeing with you. That's not debating TMC, that's blocking your ears, stomping on the ground and going "La la la I'm not listening..." You're practically on the slow road to trollsville if you keep ignoring what people say and purposefully take it out of context to justify your hostility.


Show me where in my last I reply I told you not to express yourself. You can even link it, since you're so into that sort of thing.

How am I ignorning and blocking my ears, when I've backed my statements up to the best of my abilities? I'm not trying to give you fraudulant information about how poorly the CW has been run. Of course I'm going to "lash out" towards people who disagree with me. That's sort of the point of a disagreement. So you can go ahead and call me a troll all that you want. But you chose to get involved in this arguement without anything really substantial to add other than to personally attack me.

[Sean Whitmore]

Of course I'm going to "lash out" towards people who disagree with me. That's sort of the point of a disagreement.

Okay, we can stop digging, I think we've struck oil.


SEAN

[kalorama]

How am I ignorning and blocking my ears, when I've backed my statements up to the best of my abilities?

And, again, therein lies the problem


Of course I'm going to "lash out" towards people who disagree with me. That's sort of the point of a disagreement.

Well, that explains a lot.

[Conn Seanery]

How am I ignorning and blocking my ears, when I've backed my statements up to the best of my abilities. I'm not trying to give you fraudulant information about how poorly the CW has been run.
Because many of your responses have been evasive of the countering arguments of those who disagree with you. Hell, I wrote one paragraph up there about how you can't label someone a Dawn Ostroff supporter simply because they disagree with you, and you decide to come back at me as if I told you that you have no right to speak here. You're either not reading people's responses properly, or being purposefully ignorant just so you can rant and rave. Which is it?


Of course I'm going to "lash out" towards people who disagree with me. That's sort of the point of a disagreement.
It has never been more clear that you watch wrestling than right now. Someone disagreeing with you is not your enemy, they're just someone who disagrees with you.


So you can go ahead and call me a troll all that you want. But you chose to get involved in this arguement without anything really substantial to had other than to personally attack me.
Conn Seanery speaks to the incorrect allegation that anyone disagreeing with TMC1982 must be a Dawn Ostroff supporter (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7380834&postcount=329)

[Sean Whitmore]

I'm suddenly grateful that none of us have been whacked with a folding chair yet.


SEAN

[Nate Grey]

Of course I'm going to "lash out" towards people who disagree with me. That's sort of the point of a disagreement.

Mmm...no, actually it isn't. But it does explain a lot.


So you can go ahead and call me a troll all that you want.

Well...


But you chose to get involved in this arguement without anything really substantial to had other than to personally attack me.

He didn't attack you, but you attacked him AND us. Repeatedly. At least now we know why. Typically when somene disagrees with you, you explain your points, they explain theirs, and then you either come to a better understanding of each other's view points even if you don't agree, a middle ground, or at worse an agree to disagree truce. No fight or hostility is required. At all. Disagreement isn't tantamount to a personal insult to you. Or being a cheerleader for Ostroff.

But what I first quoted from you in this post tells me I'm wasting my breath. Fool that I am, though, I still wanted to try.

[Cyke]

I think I've disagreed with everyone in this thread at one point or another on various issues.

I think I wanna be drinking buddies with a few of them.

[TMC1982]

Because many of your responses have been evasive of the countering arguments of those who disagree with you. Hell, I wrote one paragraph up there about how you can't label someone a Dawn Ostroff supporter simply because they disagree with you, and you decide to come back at me as if I told you that you have no right to speak here. You're either not reading people's responses properly, or being purposefully ignorant just so you can rant and rave. Which is it?


It has never been more clear that you watch wrestling than right now. Someone disagreeing with you is not your enemy, they're just someone who disagrees with you.


Conn Seanery speaks to the incorrect allegation that anyone disagreeing with TMC1982 must be a Dawn Ostroff supporter (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7380834&postcount=329)

I feel that I don't have to honor somebody who doesn't want to stay on topic about how the CW is run. Apparently, just because I refuse to back down and continue to support my claims that makes me "purposefully ignorant"!? And logically, a person who disagrees with my point of view concerning Dawn Ostroff needing to be removed from her post, is by default, a "Dawn Ostroff supporter"! Just about every time you've bothered to want to contribute to a thread I started, you want to go out of your way to attack me. So I'm not the least bit surprised.:rolleyes:

[Justin D.]

I've stayed relatively hands-free of this thread until now. However, I need to address something TMC said.


Of course I'm going to "lash out" towards people who disagree with me. That's sort of the point of a disagreement.

No, that's not the point of disagreement. There are many points of disagreement, but to "lash out" at people is not one of them. Also, there are many options you have besides "lashing out" at people when you disagree with them. So far, you haven't recognized them. This thread has run in circles for quite a while now and we've (Stony and I) have pretty much let that go because things have been kept on the civil side for the most part. However, TMC, you need to understand something. People are going to disagree with you. They have disagreed with you often here. That is not anyone's cue to "lash out". Before you post anything else, take that into consideration.

One thing that is not tolerated on this board is ad hominem attacks. Pointless, circular arguing for the pure sake of arguing is also discouraged. Discussion is desired though.

[LtMarvel]

I feel that I don't have to honor somebody who doesn't want to stay on topic about how the CW is run.What you are doing is ignoring counter evidence/arguments presented to you.


Apparently, just because I refuse to back down and continue to support my claims that makes me "purposefully ignorant"!?
Not addressing the claims against your arguments makes you seem that way, yes.
And logically, a person who disagrees with my point of view concerning Dawn Ostroff needing to be removed from her post, is by default, a "Dawn Ostroff supporter"!
I disagree with your claim that higher ratings must mean higher revenue. Which you never adressed. Does that make me a Dawn Ostroff supporter?
Just about every time you've bothered to want to contribute to a thread I started, you want to go out of your way to attack me. So I'm not the least bit surprised.:rolleyes:So that's one person you wish to dismiss. What about the rest?

[Sean Whitmore]

And logically, a person who disagrees with my point of view concerning Dawn Ostroff needing to be removed from her post, is by default, a "Dawn Ostroff supporter"!

Okay, so we can add "logically" and "by default" to "disagreement" on the list of terms you don't understand.


SEAN

[TMC1982]

What you are doing is ignoring counter evidence/arguments presented to you.


Not addressing the claims against your arguments makes you seem that way, yes.
I disagree with your claim that higher ratings must mean higher revenue. Which you never adressed. Does that make me a Dawn Ostroff supporter?So that's one person you wish to dismiss. What about the rest?

Which I did (or attempted to do) by pointing out the stories about Pappas Telecasting having to file for bankrupucy, Tribune having at least nine of their CW stations switch to FOX, and the Wall Street Journal article pointing out that the CW is in danger of folding within a year if ratings don't improve. Also, it has gotten to a point for which the network can no longer afford to program Sunday nights by themselves.

[kalorama]

Which I did (or attempted to do) by pointing out the stories about Pappas Telecasting having to file for bankrupucy, Tribune having at least nine of their CW stations switch to FOX, and the Wall Street Journal article pointing out that the CW is in danger of folding within a year if ratings don't improve. Also, it has gotten to a point for which the network can no longer afford to program Sunday nights by themselves.

You still don't get it.

None of what you just said, in any way, actually addresses this:


I disagree with your claim that higher ratings must mean higher revenue.

Either you simply don't understand the point (in which case you may want to consider not responding until you've figured it out) or else you do understand it and are willfully and pointedly ignoring it in favor of banging the same drum over and over. In which case:


Apparently, just because I refuse to back down and continue to support my claims that makes me "purposefully ignorant"!?

It does if your "support" blatantly ignores the counter arguments being made against your point.

[Conn Seanery]

I feel that I don't have to honor somebody who doesn't want to stay on topic about how the CW is run. Apparently, just because I refuse to back down and continue to support my claims that makes me "purposefully ignorant"!?
No, it's when you ignore what someone's said to further your own point. No one's told you to back down from your opinion and neither have they told you to stop supporting your own claims.


And logically, a person who disagrees with my point of view concerning Dawn Ostroff needing to be removed from her post, is by default, a "Dawn Ostroff supporter"!
Yes, and someone who opposes the war hates the troops, right?

It's not that black and white, TMC. If you'd taken the time to actually read what people are saying, you'd see that. The only way someone could be supporting Ostroff is by actually having some kind of investment in what she does. For example: If I don't care about the CW or their programming and disagree with your reasoning, that doesn't make me a supporter. It just means I disagree with you, and that disagreement does nothing to benefit Ostroff.


Just about every time you've bothered to want to contribute to a thread I started, you want to go out of your way to attack me. So I'm not the least bit surprised.:rolleyes:
Well, as someone coming from the disgree=lash out school of thought goes, I can't say that's a surprising conclusion coming from you. But please, other than this thread show me exactly where else I've "attacked" you. PM me the links if you like, so as to spare everyone else of this nonsense since you're taking things so personal.

[TMC1982]

You still don't get it.

None of what you just said, in any way, actually addresses this:



Either you simply don't understand the point (in which case you may want to consider not responding until you've figured it out) or else you do understand it and are willfully and pointedly ignoring it in favor of banging the same drum over and over. In which case:



It does if your "support" blatantly ignores the counter arguments being made against your point.

What is there to not "understand"? I've tried to answer your question to the best of my abilities. Pappas Telecasting claimed that the reason for them going bankrupt was because of the CW's poor ratings. Which is apparently, an opposite effect of "higher ratings meaning higher revenue".

[kalorama]

What is there to not "understand"? I've tried to answer your question to the best of my abilities. Pappas Telecasting claimed that the reason for them going bankrupt was because of the CW's poor ratings. Which is apparently, an opposite effect of "higher ratings meaning higher revenue".

So I guess we can add "apparently" to that list Sean was talking about.

[Frank]

What's wrong with going after the young female audience? It's the hottest demographic going right now.

The numbers doesn't say that.

Plus it's a really fickle market. Once they reach a certain age, these girls do not come back. They throw away their Backstreet Boys dolls. It seems to me the entertainment field should cultivate a fanbase that's gonna be there longer. And it's always smarter to touch as broad a fanbase as you can. I really think that's why Buffy and Smallville succeeded, you got the genre fans, the girls, the guys, the young, the adults too.

[Wild Card]

While you are trying to make her look like Bonnie Hammer's clone sister. Let's look at a few things. On the the surface subleasing a night of primetime programing and letting your highest rated show go to the competition may seem bad. Ok, losing a primetime slot might be bad. But, are ratings all that anymore? Now days network TV is just a porthole to a larger multimedia universe. Who gets the money (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0397442/companycredits) from DVD and internet sales of Gossip Girl and who gets the money from Smackdown related sales? Which set of fans give the CW site more clicks?

[kalorama]

Coda:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090303934.html?sub=AR

[The Batman]

Right, but what about the wrasslin'?

[TMC1982]

Coda:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090303934.html?sub=AR

CW Parents Emphasize Support of Network (http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/08/cw_parents_voice_support_of_ne.php)


As The CW prepares for next month's launch of its super-hyped drama "90210," the leaders of parent companies CBS Corp. and Warner Bros. are offering an emphatic vote of confidence in the network.

In a letter to CW employees and affiliates delivered this morning, the executives—Barry Meyer and Bruce Rosenblum of Warner Bros. and Leslie Moonves and Nancy Tellem of CBS—acknowledge that building a network is "a difficult proposition" but state flatly that they "are dedicated to the CW" and that they "stand squarely behind you, and are committed to doing what is necessary to ensure the success of the CW venture."

"We support the network, believe in it, and are committed to its future," the executives add later in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by TelevisionWeek. "All of us must continue to work hard and push everyday to aggressively compete in this marketplace. Our success will be born of focused and sustained effort over the course of the next few years."

The letter also makes it clear that The CW is a part of both CBS's and Warner Bros.' business strategies.

"CBS and Warner Bros., through The CW, are collaborating to create valuable content assets and build a network that benefits all our business partners and our respective corporate entities," the executives wrote.

The letter comes just a few weeks after Ms. Tellem and Mr. Rosenblum made an unannounced visit to a meeting of The CW's current programming department. The pop-in was meant to convey the message that CBS and Warner Bros. were on the same page when it came to the network. The missive seems designed to underscore that message and eliminate any talk that CBS and Warner Bros. might have divergent interests.

In May, the Wall Street Journal reported that one of the partners in The CW might abandon the network next year if ratings didn't improve. Like most of the networks, The CW was hit hard by last year's writers strike and saw its ratings among adults 18-49 drop by about 15% last season.

Despite developing some of the most buzzed-about shows of recent years—"Gossip Girl," "90210," "Aliens in America"—The CW has struggled to get the attention of its core audience of younger viewers. The Sept. 1 return of "Gossip Girl" and the Sept. 2 premiere of "90210" will be critical indicators of how tough the upcoming season will be.

In their letter, the four executives—all of whom sit on The CW's board of directors—went out of their way to point out The CW's accomplishments and to thank staffers for their work.

"We presented Madison Avenue with 'Content Wraps' and "Quickies,'" they wrote, pointing out advertising formats the network introduced. "We upended the American pop culture with the creation of 'Gossip Girl.' Now, The CW has created '90210,' the most anticipated and buzzed-about show of the new television season," the letter states.

"All of this has been supported by the most innovative and talked-about marketing campaigns in recent memory, and along the way we have been embraced by every important constituency from advertisers to affiliates and even the press," the letter said.

[TMC1982]

Coda:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090303934.html?sub=AR

Toxic Beverly Hills (http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/entertainmentcolumn/2008/col20080905.asp)

For months, the CW network has been pushing its reworking of the old teen soap “Beverly Hills 90210.” When it finally debuted, Entertainment Weekly magazine joked: “‘90210' is the Sarah Palin of TV shows – it's new, it's pretty, few people have seen it in advance...and its main purpose is to remind you of a trusty old product while adding some new vigor and soap opera to the cultural discourse.”


Put aside that nasty insult aimed at the new star on the political scene. It’s the “new vigor” phrase that’s salient. The lame, recycled “90210" opened with – an oral sex scene.


Mark your clocks: that’s five minutes into the family hour, at 8:05 pm Eastern time. That’s 7:05 pm Central, when teens have just finished supper. The strategy to lure teens with adult sexual matter continues. Those teens – it is a show for teens – were introduced to the refurbished show’s brand-new teenager characters by having a girl walk up to a car in the school parking lot on the first day of school, and find her love interest in his car with a sort of panicked, yet winded reaction. Then up came another girl’s head from his lap.


Obviously, this show is high on over-the-top shock and low on authenticity if it thinks that in broad daylight, at school bus-unloading time, teenage boys are having sex in the driver’s seat of their cars. But all that matters is the shock.


CW executives might argue that the audience approves of this show. Publicists crowed that the “90210" debut set “network records,” but this is like saying someone achieved their personal-best 100-yard-dash time of three minutes. It brought in 4.9 million viewers. But the cable network TNT easily topped that with their new legal drama “Raising the Bar,” which opened with 7.7 million viewers. It’s also unclear if the show’s ratings will remain at the debut’s level now that the curious viewer caught a sleazy sample.


As for the show’s stars, they’re already showing time-honored Hollywood hypocrisy. Jennie Garth, one of the original “Beverly Hills 90210" stars who signed up for the sequel, suggested parents should watch the show first before letting “your young kids” watch it. When asked if she would let her young ones watch, Garth exclaimed “Hell no!”


The CW executives failed to screen the show’s debut for TV critics, probably because they knew it was going to be mocked as sub-standard. More importantly, they refused to screen the show for CW affiliates, this despite promises they’ve made to regulators in Washington that program managers out in the community could have some say in their programming. How many affiliates would have flat-out refused to run this trash? They also refused to screen it for advertisers, but they caved half-way and eventually showed it to advertising agencies.


Kristin Dos Santos of E! Online was astounded at the sex plot, and confirmed the suspicion that top brass pressed to add smut. She told CNN Headline News, “I was shocked when I saw that because I had read the entire script and that was not in the original script.” She said CW hadn’t finished filming yet. “So clearly, someone, a higher up at the CW, whoever it may have been, decided at the last minute that they needed to inject some sex into the show to make it more like ‘Gossip Girl,’ to create a bigger buzz.”


CW knows no bounds in creating “bigger buzz,” and will stop at nothing to get children to watch its smut. They marketed this ‘90210' debut with the shocking sex plot by using BusRadio – a service that broadcasts audio exclusively into school buses populated with children as young as six. The BusRadio website aggressively boosted the debut, complete with video clips touting the show: “Get ready for the two-hour event everyone will be talking about.”


One critic of the relatively new bus service struck the obvious note: “BusRadio sells itself to school districts as an age-appropriate alternative to FM radio, but once again they’ve demonstrated that they don’t know or don’t care what age-appropriate means.”


The show is also being promoted on such child-centric merchandise as backpacks, school supplies, cosmetics, T-shirts and sweatshirts. The CW network continues to enjoy marketing sexualized programming to children. It’s surprising there’s no word yet on whether CW will introduce its own line of promotional condoms or other sexual products.



The flailing, failing CW network is in dire straits. Their overall ratings stink. Their CW-affiliated stations are beginning to drop the “CW” out of their station logos – and that now includes even Chicago powerhouse WGN, their signature affiliate. This sleaze-selling strategy will result only in the latest in a line of CW flops and fiascoes.


In the meantime, now, thanks to CW, parents have to worry about poison on school buses.

[TMC1982]

CW Parents Emphasize Support of Network (http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/08/cw_parents_voice_support_of_ne.php)



"We support the network, believe in it, and are committed to its future," the executives add later in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by TelevisionWeek. "All of us must continue to work hard and push everyday to aggressively compete in this marketplace. Our success will be born of focused and sustained effort over the course of the next few years."

The letter also makes it clear that The CW is a part of both CBS's and Warner Bros.' business strategies.

"CBS and Warner Bros., through The CW, are collaborating to create valuable content assets and build a network that benefits all our business partners and our respective corporate entities," the executives wrote.

The letter comes just a few weeks after Ms. Tellem and Mr. Rosenblum made an unannounced visit to a meeting of The CW's current programming department. The pop-in was meant to convey the message that CBS and Warner Bros. were on the same page when it came to the network. The missive seems designed to underscore that message and eliminate any talk that CBS and Warner Bros. might have divergent interests.

In May, the Wall Street Journal reported that one of the partners in The CW might abandon the network next year if ratings didn't improve. Like most of the networks, The CW was hit hard by last year's writers strike and saw its ratings among adults 18-49 drop by about 15% last season.

Despite developing some of the most buzzed-about shows of recent years—"Gossip Girl," "90210," "Aliens in America"—The CW has struggled to get the attention of its core audience of younger viewers. The Sept. 1 return of "Gossip Girl" and the Sept. 2 premiere of "90210" will be critical indicators of how tough the upcoming season will be.

In their letter, the four executives—all of whom sit on The CW's board of directors—went out of their way to point out The CW's accomplishments and to thank staffers for their work.

"We presented Madison Avenue with 'Content Wraps' and "Quickies,'" they wrote, pointing out advertising formats the network introduced. "We upended the American pop culture with the creation of 'Gossip Girl.' Now, The CW has created '90210,' the most anticipated and buzzed-about show of the new television season," the letter states.

"All of this has been supported by the most innovative and talked-about marketing campaigns in recent memory, and along the way we have been embraced by every important constituency from advertisers to affiliates and even the press," the letter said.

Tribune gives CW the cold shoulder (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/browse_thread/thread/f3a9e4051d7dae86#)
Broadcasting unit rebranding affiliates
By MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

As the CW preps for what could be its make-or-break season, Tribune
Broadcasting has thrown a wrench into the net's branding efforts.

Over the past few weeks, Tribune's station group has scrubbed the
network's name off most of its 13 CW affils. Instead, the company,
whose stations are CW's most crucial affils in top markets, is
introducing new station identities without the CW moniker and is
de-emphasizing the network affiliation on its station websites.

In Houston, Tribune even changed the station's call letters, from KHCW
to KAIH, removing the CW's name in the process (that station, once
known as "CW39," now just calls itself "Channel 39"). In Dallas, what
had been known as "CW33" is now being called "The 33." Tribune's
Washington station, which had referred to itself as "CW50," is now
"DC50."

Move reps the latest salvo from Tribune in what's become an
increasingly strained relationship between the Sam Zell-led company
and the CW. Tribune earlier dropped the CW from its San Diego station
in favor of Fox (although the CW ultimately benefited by trading up to
a VHF outlet there). Tribune was also instrumental in driving CW's
partnership with financier-producer Media Rights Capital to take over
the CW's Sunday-night lineup.

Adding insult to injury for the CW is that Tribune is so far still
utilizing the News Corp.-approved logo and brand for its two
MyNetworkTV affils, in Seattle and Philadelphia.

As of now, Tribune's New York flagship, WPIX, is still calling itself
"CW11" -- at least online -- but the CW brand is harder to find on the
redesigned websites for L.A.'s KTLA and Chicago's WGN.

The CW-free rebranding effort comes as Tribune Broadcasting continues
to make changes under new prexy Ed Wilson. Decision to rebrand the
Trib stations also is reminiscent of News Corp.'s quick move to strip
UPN's name off its affils soon after CBS announced plans to merge UPN
with Time Warner's WB to create CW in early 2006.

[Nate Grey]

NOW things are back to normal.

Once again, opinion sites =/= fact. Period. You can google all that opinion sites you like that's hating on 90210, but the fact remains it pulled in the numbers CW wanted. Now as far as ad revenue, I have no way to gauge that, and my google searches are coming up empty, but I'd imagine the numbers on that are only days away.

As for the blowjob scene? It was implied. Strongly implied but implied. And not likely to be repeated again. If anything it was simply a major way to introduce the character Ethan, since that was the first time he was seen on screen. If you or the parents groups don't get that, or refuse to put that scene in context with the rest of the episode, then you both should be rightfully ignored. Then again, it is a form of free advertisting, so nevermind, whine away even harder than before. Haters are whatever they're hating's biggest fans, apparently.

Some stations not carrying CW but using the name slyly? Big deal, either they'll get on board later or get left in the dust. Doesn't effect CW making making either way. Speaking of CW making money, there's an all but final merger with MRC that has 400 million dollars per year to sink into projects. As a matter of fact, MRC taking the reigns has exactly everything to do with ad revenue and how it's model will affect other networks in the future. Read about it here. (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-channel9-2008jun09,0,1307435.story)

In short, don't know what the ad revenue was [yet] for 90210, but that's MRC's #1 focus since it's financing CW now.

[superion]

Speaking of CW making money, there's an all but final merger with MRC that has 400 million dollars per year to sink into projects. As a matter of fact, MRC taking the reigns has exactly everything to do with ad revenue and how it's model will affect other networks in the future. Read about it here.

In short, don't know what the ad revenue was [yet] for 90210, but that's MRC's #1 focus since it's financing CW now.

MRC is not financing the CW. It is financing its own Sunday night lineup and just paying the CW a fee for use of Sundays. Any benefits derived from the shows if they are a success will go to the MRC not CW.

There is no merger with MRC and I see the 90210 ratings are already dropping like a stone after one week and most of the other networks haven't even premiered their shows.

[Frank]

I would so hire somebody from British televison. These guys are doing great genre shows left and right from Jekyll to the new Dr. Who, Torchwood and so forth. Let somebody from there come in and take over the CW Network.

[TMC1982]

MRC is not financing the CW. It is financing its own Sunday night lineup and just paying the CW a fee for use of Sundays. Any benefits derived from the shows if they are a success will go to the MRC not CW.

There is no merger with MRC and I see the 90210 ratings are already dropping like a stone after one week and most of the other networks haven't even premiered their shows.

"90210" loses 30% of its audience (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080911.wratings11/BNStory/Entertainment/home), dropping to 3.3 million viewers for episode 2.

[Atom_basher]

Well the WB started as a network that catered to girly girls so she is just going back to the WB's original concept.

How is saying Dawn Ostroff is doing a crap job and deserves to be fired misogynistic? Because she is a women she can't be criticized?

I have been on sports message boards where people say a lot worse things about GM's and Coaches that are failures like the aforementioned Isiah Thomas and Matt Millen. I have also been on movie boards where the head of Fox movie studios Tom Roth is thrashed on a regular basis for Fox' treatment of the X-men and FF movies.

Untrue, WB started as more of an urban channel

[Toku King]

As long as they don't cancel "Reaper" and "Spectacular Spider-Man", I'm ok.

[superion]

Untrue, WB started as more of an urban channel


No that would be UPN. WB was the channel of Buffy, Dawsons Creek etc.

[Shellhead]

No that would be UPN. WB was the channel of Buffy, Dawsons Creek etc.

Actually, people used to say that WB should stand for "We Black" because there were so many shows targeted at African-American viewers. Remember The Parent 'Hood? Sister, Sister? The Wayans Brothers? The Jamie Foxx Show? Buffy and Dawson's Creek came later.