CW President Dawn Ostroff Must Be Fired

[TMC1982]

The evidence against Ms. Ostroff:
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.

If or when the CW goes under, I'm going to point blame first and foremost to Dawn Ostroff. It's not really surprising that she wants the CW to cater towards the 18-34 female demographic because before she went to UPN (one of the CW's predecessors), she was the Executive Vice President for Lifetime. Catering mostly to women is alright if you're dealing with a niche cable network like Lifetime, WE, or Oxygen. But with the CW, you're now dealing with a national, over-the-air broadcast television network. Instead of wanting to build their audience, Ostroff's mentality seems to be, that the CW should narrow and restrict the target audience.

Besides "SmackDown!", she also had "Reba" canceled even though it was the highest rated sitcom on the WB at the time of the merger. But since "Reba" didn't call into Ostroff's "desired target demographic", that show had the go. Another bad move that she made was canceling "Everwood", yet bringing "7th Heaven" back for I believe, an 11th season, only to cancel it again. To make matters worse, she's managed to alienate the CW's potential urban audience (that UPN had previously catered towards) by canceling "Girlfriends" and moving "Everybody Hates Chris" all over the schedule (it will be in the "Friday Night Death Slot" come the 2008-09 season, in place of "SmackDown!").

Dawn Ostroff in my estimation, is engaging in reverse sexism with her stance that she doesn't want "SmackDown!" on her network because it appeals too much to men. Frankly, I strongly believe that she'll only pump up shows (i.e. give them the most promotional time) that she personally likes like "Gossip Girl" or "America's Next Top Model". That's why virtually every other show on the CW is a near duplicate of those particular show's formula. How else can you explain them trying to recreate "Beverly Hills 90210" (to join "Gossip Girl" in the "pretty, rich, white kids w/ problems" pack)? She's more concerned with who watches their network than how many people watch her network.

Dawn Ostroff is really no different than Jamie Kellner, when he ordered that WCW's programming be kicked off of TBS/TNT just as Eric Bischoff and his group of investors were about to purchase the company back in 2001. Both apparently believe that you lack intelligence if you watch pro wrestling. It's kind of ironic considering that Ostroff wants to peddle a show just as low brow (if you've, at the very least, seen the racy "OMFG" ads), if not more, like "Gossip Girl".

Dawn Ostroff to me (to use a pro wrestling analogy), reminds me of one of those bookers/promoters who are more skilled a running a fringe, regional promotion, than something of more national scope. Think ECW when it was on TNN, the AWA when it was on ESPN, or the early years of WCW (after Turner Broadcasting bought Jim Crockett Promotions), when they had Ole Anderson and Dusty Rhodes doing to booking.

[Royal]

y'know.....there are such things as DVD outlets and bookstores right?

Right?

[J Dog]

y'know.....there are such things as DVD outlets and bookstores right?

Right?

Yeah, but still, you have to see that a merger of two struggling television companies could've actually made things worse for them.

I'm aware of the stance against pro wrestling, but there's a few good things that can come out of it, namely ad revenue and viewers, both of which are tied. Remember the common fact that if the ratings are high (or high for your network standards), you can charge more for ad space and make more money. Plus it gets the coveted "18-to-24 year old male demographic", which includes me. Besides, with the ads for "Gossip Girl" and showing stuff like "Farmer Wants a Wife", it contradicts your stance. And I do agree that her view is on par with Jamie Kellner, the true killer of WCW.

Besides, its not as if they did anything to capitalize on anything that was part of UPN, including the few shows that they brought in like "Everybody Hates Chris".

[LtMarvel]

1. Ratings are only part of the picture. Gossip Girl does exceptionally well with the young wealthy demographic which advertisers love. It also does well via other delivery systems (other than CW).

2. Reba was the victim of high production costs vs. potential gain. It would have been canceled a season sooner if not for a kill fee that CW would've had to pay.

3. Fake wrestling isn't exactly prestige.

Interestingly enough, CW has given up trying to program Saturday mornings and Sunday evenings, subcontracting both of those out.

[Cyke]

It's not often that I come to the defense of Gossip Girl *sigh*. I've never watched it, and I have the feeling that it caters to the lowest common denominator. But one can't deny the sheer amount of media exposure the show gets, either in the form of reviews or casting news or the future of the show. People care about it and it brings the CW a huge amount of publicity. Other, older networks have a history of keeping shows around that, while are mid-level performers, always seem to attract A-level publicity. If Gossip Girls is the only show on the CW roster that fulfills that roll, the network will definitely keep that show.

[Nyarlathotep]

3. Fake wrestling isn't exactly prestige.

As opposed to real wrestling?

[StoneGold]

3. Fake wrestling isn't exactly prestige.

And reality shows about whores trying to bang a farmer are?

[TMC1982]

y'know.....there are such things as DVD outlets and bookstores right?

Right?

There have been DVD outlets and bookstores long before the CW has been in existance, so what the hell does that have to do with my original point? That's just evading the issue of Miss Ostroff's overall incompetance at running a major network.

[Ontir]

I'm 42 and I fucking love Gossip Girl! The show has done very well for the struggling CW, so it's no surprise they're going to promote the living shit out of it! I saw a bus covered with a "GG" ad the other day that had a quote from some parents' group calling it "wildly inappropriate," or something similar, and I thought that was a stroke of genius! That alone will get people watching it. It's similar to the controversy in the early seasons of "Dawson's Creek[/b]. When everyone began talking about how the kids on the show talked about sex, more people started watching and the show became a hit, helping to cement the fledgling WB.

The real mistake that was made was merging the WB with UPN, which aside from Veronica Mars had NOTHING to offer. They should've cut deals with "Mars" and if need be, "Pro Wrestling," "If&When" contracts to just seemlessly move them over when UPN finally tanked.

From UPN's side, they should've folded what worked into CBS rather than merge with Warners'. It's just an odd marriage that doesn't seem to work at all.

I think selling off saturday morning is a major mistake. When you're part of a corporation that owns Looney Tunes, Hannah-Babera, AND DC Comics, there's no need to give that day up at all. In this area she's made a major mistake! Smallville needs to end now as well. I'll watch the "Legion" episode this year, but that will be the first time in like 2 years that I'm going near it. I can't imagine how it will work at all without Rosenbaum, the cornerstone of the show. I can't say that 90210 stirs any interest in me. I didn't watch the first one. She needs to get her development cranked up to high, and make sure she's got good product for mid-season replacements because I think she's going to need them!

[TMC1982]

I'm 42 and I fucking love Gossip Girl! The show has done very well for the struggling CW, so it's no surprise they're going to promote the living shit out of it! I saw a bus covered with a "GG" ad the other day that had a quote from some parents' group calling it "wildly inappropriate," or something similar, and I thought that was a stroke of genius! That alone will get people watching it. It's similar to the controversy in the early seasons of "Dawson's Creek[/b]. When everyone began talking about how the kids on the show talked about sex, more people started watching and the show became a hit, helping to cement the fledgling WB.

The real mistake that was made was merging the WB with UPN, which aside from Veronica Mars had NOTHING to offer. They should've cut deals with "Mars" and if need be, "Pro Wrestling," "If&When" contracts to just seemlessly move them over when UPN finally tanked.

From UPN's side, they should've folded what worked into CBS rather than merge with Warners'. It's just an odd marriage that doesn't seem to work at all.

I think selling off saturday morning is a major mistake. When you're part of a corporation that owns Looney Tunes, Hannah-Babera, AND DC Comics, there's no need to give that day up at all. In this area she's made a major mistake! Smallville needs to end now as well. I'll watch the "Legion" episode this year, but that will be the first time in like 2 years that I'm going near it. I can't imagine how it will work at all without Rosenbaum, the cornerstone of the show. I can't say that 90210 stirs any interest in me. I didn't watch the first one. She needs to get her development cranked up to high, and make sure she's got good product for mid-season replacements because I think she's going to need them!

I think selling off saturday morning is a major mistake. When you're part of a corporation that owns Looney Tunes, Hannah-Babera, AND DC Comics, there's no need to give that day up at all.

If anything, the CW should be asking the Cartoon Network (also under the Time-Warner umbrella) for support instead of 4KidsTV.

[GRANT!]

I think she should be burned at the stake as a witch. How dare she cancel Reba?

[mattx110]

I think she should be burned at the stake as a witch. How dare she cancel Reba?
I think it's a good thing. The actor who plays the husband of her daughter is really quite good, but he's gotta play a stupid shmuck all day.

[GRANT!]

I think it's a good thing. The actor who plays the husband of her daughter is really quite good, but he's gotta play a stupid shmuck all day.

BURN HER! BURN THE WITCH!

[DonC]

Sounds to me like someone really misses his wrasslin'.

[GRANT!]

Sounds to me like someone really misses his wrasslin'.

Wrasslin' and Reba. It's all the entertainment America needs.

[Sean Whitmore]

If she fails at drawing in viewers and revenue, she'll be fired.

If she succeeds, she won't be, no matter how much you wah-wah-wah about her canceling your favorite show.

Next time, on Explaining How the World Works: How a bill becomes a law!


SEAN

[Royal]

There have been DVD outlets and bookstores long before the CW has been in existance, so what the hell does that have to do with my original point? That's just evading the issue of Miss Ostroff's overall incompetance at running a major network.

Well....I think the solution to all your worthless whining is actually using the money that you pay for cable and...

a) Apply for a Netflix account.
b) Invest in the wonderful world of DVD
c) Buying a stack of books monthly
d) All the above
e) Sell all your stuff, shave your head and become a monk.

[TMC1982]

Well....I think the solution to all your worthless whining is actually using the money that you pay for cable and...

a) Apply for a Netflix account.
b) Invest in the wonderful world of DVD
c) Buying a stack of books monthly
d) All the above
e) Sell all your stuff, shave your head and become a monk.

The points that I posted about Dawn Ostroff's job performance is mostly factual information. You on the other hand, have provided some of the most ignorant, narrow-minded excuse to turn the subject around and attack me. Oh and by the way, the CW is a broadcast television network rather than cable. So it's pointless of you to be telling me where I should be using my money.

[Royal]

Rent a DVD and read a book is an ignorant and narrow-minded attack?

Wow.

[GRANT!]

If she fails at drawing in viewers and revenue, she'll be fired.

If she succeeds, she won't be, no matter how much you wah-wah-wah about her canceling your favorite show.

Next time, on Explaining How the World Works: How a bill becomes a law!


SEAN

"I'm just a Bill, yes I'm only a Bill..." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ)

[TMC1982]

If she fails at drawing in viewers and revenue, she'll be fired.

If she succeeds, she won't be, no matter how much you wah-wah-wah about her canceling your favorite show.

Next time, on Explaining How the World Works: How a bill becomes a law!


SEAN

If she fails at drawing in viewers and revenue, she'll be fired.

I guess you missed this vital portion of my initial post:
*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.

"Will be fired" is a whole lot different than "should be fired"!

[Royal]

Yes. One is is an order and the other is a reccommendation.

[Nate Grey]

:mad:

Well, first off, I just wanted to use that red faced meany smiley. Is that what's its called? I figured this is the only context where I can use it, so...:mad: Its so cute! It all mad and stuff.

Second, you're calling for someone you don't know to get fired cause...your show got cancelled? Then again, I miss Reba too. Well not really, but its good background noise, the reruns.

[TMC1982]

:mad:

Well, first off, I just wanted to use that red faced meany smiley. Is that what's its called? I figured this is the only context where I can use it, so...:mad: Its so cute! It all mad and stuff.

Second, you're calling for someone you don't know to get fired cause...your show got cancelled? Then again, I miss Reba too. Well not really, but its good background noise, the reruns.

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not criticizing Dawn Ostroff simply because "my favorite show got canceled". My point was that it wasn't very smart to cancel "Reba" because it was still the highest rated sitcom on the WB. The CW under Ostroff's watch has been poorly managed all around (in part due to her knack for pigeon holing the CW as only being for women aged 18-34), if you've read all of my initial post. That would be very irrational thinking to call for a TV executive's head purely because they canceled a favorite show of mine. And another thing, just because "I don't know" Dawn Ostroff personally, doesn't necessarily mean that I don't have a right to examine and grade her job performance.

[kalorama]

You say Gossip Girls
... is popular among young teens and pre-teens but drastically misses the mark for the target audience, adults 18-49

How, exactly, did you come to the conclusion that the primary target audience for a show about teenage girls includes people in their 30s and 40s? Is it possible that the reason it does so well with teen girls is because that's who the show is aimed at?

[SPAfreak]

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not criticizing Dawn Ostroff simply because "my favorite show got canceled". My point was that it wasn't very smart to cancel "Reba" because it was still the highest rated sitcom on the WB. The CW under Ostroff's watch has been poorly managed all around (in part due to her knack for pigeon holing the CW as only being for women aged 18-34), if you've read all of my initial post. That would be very irrational thinking to call for a TV executive's head purely because they canceled a favorite show of mine. And another thing, just because "I don't know" Dawn Ostroff personally, doesn't necessarily mean that I don't have a right to examine and grade her job performance.

It's called diminishing returns. Reba was doing well when it was cancelled but the show had been on the air too long. The actors' salaries had become large enough that the production costs were too high to guarantee a big enough profit. A mistake in hindsight? Maybe. A firing offense? Not really.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Getting rid of Smackdown seems strange, not only was it the CW's biggest ratings draw, but it managed to do so while occupying the Friday night "death slot".

It really was their big gun, no matter how many stupid "lol fake fighting" comments people make.

I mean I get that it's not the demo they're wanting to base the network around, but dropping it feels to me like it's going to do more harm than good.

[Nyarlathotep]

It really was their big gun, no matter how many stupid "lol fake fighting" comments people make.

But, like, OMG. Wrestling is FAKE. I just heard this. This is news and I need to post so people will know about it. Like, seriously! I had to Tivo Big Brother and Project Runway just so I could go around informing people that this show is fake.

[Howard Allan]

"I'm just a Bill, yes I'm only a Bill..."

And I'm sitting here on Capital Hill.

[DonC]

It's called diminishing returns. Reba was doing well when it was cancelled but the show had been on the air too long. The actors' salaries had become large enough that the production costs were too high to guarantee a big enough profit. A mistake in hindsight? Maybe. A firing offense? Not really.


I've found that explaining the economics of television is useless on people who just want to complain that their show has been canceled. I call this "The Farscape Folly."

[The Batman]

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not criticizing Dawn Ostroff simply because "my favorite show got canceled". My point was that it wasn't very smart to cancel "Reba" because it was still the highest rated sitcom on the WB. The CW under Ostroff's watch has been poorly managed all around (in part due to her knack for pigeon holing the CW as only being for women aged 18-34), if you've read all of my initial post. That would be very irrational thinking to call for a TV executive's head purely because they canceled a favorite show of mine. And another thing, just because "I don't know" Dawn Ostroff personally, doesn't necessarily mean that I don't have a right to examine and grade her job performance.

Do you own stock in the CW? Work for them? Why the vested interest in this one particular person at this one particular network?

[Dr Cthulwho]

Eh, I'm usually uninterested in getting to worked up about something like this.

Sure, Ostroff likely bears a large amount of the responsibility for how things are going down (like anyone is a similar position) due to decisions she makes, but she isn't single handily running the show. Any issues can be is indicative of wider problems. I doubt firing her would be a magic bullet.

Ultimately when and if the powers that be decide there is someone better suited to the role then she will be moved on. Until then I guess they aren't to unhappy with her performance.

[stealthwise]

Getting rid of Smackdown seems strange, not only was it the CW's biggest ratings draw, but it managed to do so while occupying the Friday night "death slot".

It really was their big gun, no matter how many stupid "lol fake fighting" comments people make.

I mean I get that it's not the demo they're wanting to base the network around, but dropping it feels to me like it's going to do more harm than good.

Negative attention, which hurts when you're trying to draw in attractive advertisers.

Pro wrestling is basically pornography in the eyes of many, for justified and unjustified reasons, and dropping it basically gets rid of the huge headache of having to deal with Vince McMahon and all of the ridiculous crap that he constantly slings.

Ratings-wise it doesn't make a ton of sense in the short-term, but it's probably better long-term to just cut the cord and figure out your own programming.

[Chiasm]

I will gladly like Ostroff's boots so long as Supernatural keeps getting renewed.

Complain all you want about stuff like Gossip Girl, which I would never willingly watch, but you have to accept that the CW has been very good to genre shows like Supernatural. I especially respect how the CW execs support the show while accepting that Supernatural will never deliver stellar ratings in its timeslot, the toughest bar none on TV as it goes against CSI Las Vegas and Greys Anatomy. Sure shows like Supernatural and Smallville started under the WB but no one is forcing the CW to keep renewing them.

[Jake V]

Is the implication in this thread that once this person gets fired, all these issues will be addressed and fixed by the next guy, or that the thread starter just wants someone to get fired out of spite because he can't watch his wrasslin'?

[Nate Grey]

Is the implication in this thread that once this person gets fired, all these issues will be addressed and fixed by the next guy, or that the thread starter just wants someone to get fired out of spite because he can't watch his wrasslin'?

I'm guessing the latter. Cause the next guy/woman could very likely keep the status quo or make things worse.

[TMC1982]

Is the implication in this thread that once this person gets fired, all these issues will be addressed and fixed by the next guy, or that the thread starter just wants someone to get fired out of spite because he can't watch his wrasslin'?

Whomever is the head of the CW should think about getting as many viewers as possible, rather than aim for a desired demographic like Dawn Ostroff. It has nothing to do with being able to watch "wrasslin'"?:rolleyes:

[Jake V]

Whomever is the head of the CW should think about getting as many viewers as possible, rather than aim for a desired demographic like Dawn Ostroff. It has nothing to do with being able to watch "wrasslin'"?:rolleyes:

All the other networks have done pretty well without WWE programming, so maybe she's following their lead.

[TMC1982]

All the other networks have done pretty well without WWE programming, so maybe she's following their lead.

No offense, but that's an awfully lame excuse. None of the other major networks have much of a history with pro wrestling (to the best of my knowledge) other than NBC's periodical "Saturday Night's Main Event" specials. "SmackDown!" was pretty much one of the few things that continuously brought the CW (and UPN for that matter) respectable ratings (even in the so called "Friday Night Death Slot"). If the CW had something else that reliable to fall back on (in order to subplant "SmackDown!"), then maybe I could better accept or understand your point. This goes back to my point, that Dawn Ostroff is just alienating the CW's potential young male audience/demographic by wanting to aiming primarily towards the 18-34 female demographic.

[Jake V]

No offense, but that's an awfully lame excuse. None of the other major networks have much of a history with pro wrestling (to the best of my knowledge) other than NBC's periodical "Saturday Night's Main Event" specials. "SmackDown!" was pretty much one of the few things that continuously brought the CW (and UPN for that matter) respectable ratings (even in the so called "Friday Night Death Slot"). If the CW had something else that reliable to fall back on (in order to subplant "SmackDown!"), then maybe I could better accept or understand your point. This goes back to my point, that Dawn Ostroff is just alienating the CW's potential young male audience/demographic by wanting to aiming primarily towards the 18-34 female demographic.
Given the cultural success of Gossip Girl and the Top Model show, I can see why they don't care too much about the male demographic.

If you're gonna be the network of teenage girls, it's best to not devote an entire night to teenage boys.

[TMC1982]

Given the cultural success of Gossip Girl and the Top Model show, I can see why they don't care too much about the male demographic.

If you're gonna be the network of teenage girls, it's best to not devote an entire night to teenage boys.

The problem is (going back to one of my initial points) that the CW is not a niche cable channel like Lifetime, Oxygen, or WE. There has to be a proper sense of variety if your going to run a major broadcast television network. CBS during the 1960s became wary of their reputation as being the "Rural Network", because that they time, their high profile shows were "Green Acres", "Petticoat Junction", and "The Beverly Hillbillies". And then during the 1970s, their reputation was that of being the comic book superhero network with "The Amazing Spider-Man", "Wonder Woman", and "The Incredible Hulk". From my understanding, they ultimately grew wary of this to because of the stereotyping and fear of oversaturation.

[Jake V]

The problem is (going back to one of my initial points) that the CW is not a niche cable channel like Lifetime, Oxygen, or WE. There has to be a proper sense of variety if your going to run a major broadcast television network. CBS during the 1960s became wary of their reputation as being the "Rural Network", because that they time, their high profile shows were "Green Acres", "Petticoat Junction", and "The Beverly Hillbillies". And then during the 1970s, their reputation was that of being the comic book superhero network with "The Amazing Spider-Man", "Wonder Woman", and "The Incredible Hulk". From my understanding, they ultimately grew wary of this to because of the stereotyping and fear of oversaturation.

Everybody hates Chris and the Smallville/Supernatural block add to their variety.

There. They don't need rasslin' now.

[The Batman]

It's called an opinion! That's why I'm using this computer to address it. I'm not going to take you seriously since you clearly don't understand what I'm discussing. You seem to believe that the CW is a cable channel and not a byproduct of UPN and the WB's merger.


Again, why do you care so much about the fate of the CW?

I mean, for reasons besides being burned when they cancelled wrestling and Reba.

[TMC1982]

Everybody hates Chris and the Smallville/Supernatural block add to their variety.

There. They don't need rasslin' now.

And what exactly has the CW done with those particular shows? They don't get as much emphasis in the promotional end as say "Gossip Girl", "America's Next Top Model", or this upcoming "90210" sequel. "Everybody Hates Chris" has bounced around time slots in the past two years, and is now, slated for Friday nights. "Smallville" is likely entering its final year anyway.

[TMC1982]

Again, why do you care so much about the fate of the CW?

I mean, for reasons besides being burned when they cancelled wrestling and Reba.

I guess in your universe, only people who either own stock or are employed by a TV network, should have a right to dispense an opinion (positive or negative) about said network (as opposed to being a potential consumer/viewer)? That would be like saying, that I shouldn't critique a movie unless I own stock in the studio or theater chain. It's my business why I care so much about the fate about a certain TV network. I don't feel that I should delve deeply into my reasoning behind this.

[Jake V]

I guess in your universe, only people who either own stock or are employed by a TV network, should have a right to dispense an opinion (positive or negative) about said network (as opposed to being a potential consumer/viewer)?
Well, yeah. At the end of the day, those are the only people whose opinions matter.

That would be like saying, that I shouldn't critique a movie unless I own stock in the studio or theater chain.
Critiquing is different than demanding a complete stranger lose their job.

It's my business why I care so much about the fate about a certain TV network. I don't feel that I should delve deeply into my reasoning behind this.
Don't worry. Everyone was able to figure it out anyway.

[TMC1982]

Well, yeah. At the end of the day, those are the only people whose opinions matter.


Critiquing is different than demanding a complete stranger lose their job.


Don't worry. Everyone was able to figure it out anyway.

Critiquing is different than demanding a complete stranger lose their job.

Apparently, you missed the initial post that examined the CW's shortcomings under Dawn Ostroff's leadership.

[kalorama]

Whomever is the head of the CW should think about getting as many viewers as possible, rather than aim for a desired demographic like Dawn Ostroff.

Every programming head at every network aims their shows at a particular audience. It's not an idea that Dawn Ostroff pioneered. It's the way network television has worked for decades. As for her supposedly targeting a young female viewership ... it's called indentity branding. Again, not exactly a new phenomenon (assuming that's even what she's actually doing).

[Jake V]

Apparently, you missed the initial post that examined the CW's shortcomings under Dawn Ostroff's leadership.

If you had left it there, you might have something resembling a point.

However, you demand that a complete stranger lose their job, which damages whatever your opinion was to the point where no one can take it seriously.

[TMC1982]

If you had left it there, you might have something resembling a point.

However, you demand that a complete stranger lose their job, which damages whatever your opinion was to the point where no one can take it seriously.

Why does the fact that Dawn Ostroff is a "complete stranger" to me make my opinion of her job performance relevant? That would be like saying I shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on any high ranking official unless I know them personally.

[TMC1982]

Every programming head at every network aims their shows at a particular audience. It's not an idea that Dawn Ostroff pioneered. It's the way network television has worked for decades. As for her supposedly targeting a young female viewership ... it's called indentity branding. Again, not exactly a new phenomenon (assuming that's even what she's actually doing).

Just because it has happened in the past doesn't necessarily or automatically mean that it's guaranteed to work. You still have to have quality shows that people are willing to watch. And like I said before, Dawn Ostroff is continuing to run the CW with the same mentality that she had ad running a niche cable network like Lifetime.

[Jake V]

Why does the fact that Dawn Ostroff is a "complete stranger" to me make my opinion of her job performance relevant? That would be like saying I shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on any high ranking official unless I know them personally.

Saying that they're doing a bad job is an opinion about that person.

Saying that they should be fired is an insane demand.

[Royal]

It's called an opinion! That's why I'm using this computer to address it. I'm not going to take you seriously since you clearly don't understand what I'm discussing. You seem to believe that the CW is a cable channel and not a byproduct of UPN and the WB's merger.:evilangry:

Maybe it's because I usually watch DVDs and read books these days. Oh well...

[TMC1982]

Saying that they're doing a bad job is an opinion about that person.

Saying that they should be fired is an insane demand.

So apparently, using the common and simple logic of asking/calling for the removal of anybody who is underperforming at their job is an "insane demand". :confused:

[Jake V]

So apparently, using the common and simple logic of asking/calling for the removal of anybody who is underperforming at their job is an "insane demand". :confused:

If their job performance effected you in a direct and significant way, that might be another story. As it stands, shes a person that cancelled a show you like.

Boo hoo.

[Ontir]

If anything, the CW should be asking the Cartoon Network (also under the Time-Warner umbrella) for support instead of 4KidsTV.

That's all you got out of all I posted?

[Sean Whitmore]

So apparently, using the common and simple logic of asking/calling for the removal of anybody who is underperforming at their job is an "insane demand". :confused:

Here's a little logic problem for you.

The people who own the CW network have the same information about her performance that you do (not to mention information you don't have), and have so far chosen not to terminate her.

Why is that, do you think?


SEAN

[Jake V]

Here's a little logic problem for you.

The people who own the CW network have the same information about her performance that you do (not to mention information you don't have), and have so far chosen not to terminate her.

Why is that, do you think?


SEAN

They're incompetents that should be fired too! I should be the president of the network! I should be the president of everything!

[Sean Whitmore]

They're incompetents that should be fired too! I should be the president of the network! I should be the president of everything!

Damn. You zeroed in on the one flaw in my argument.


SEAN

[TMC1982]

Here's a little logic problem for you.

The people who own the CW network have the same information about her performance that you do (not to mention information you don't have), and have so far chosen not to terminate her.

Why is that, do you think?


SEAN

So I guess, everything that I posted about the CW under Dawn Ostroff has been fabricated or exaggerated!? I'm just as bewildered by her continued employment. It's no different than how Matt Milen is still employed as the general manger of the Detroit Lions. Or how Isiah Thomas managed to be employed by the New York Knicks for so long. But that doesn't mean that she is really doing a good job.

[Jake V]

So I guess, everything that I posted about the CW under Dawn Ostroff has been fabricated or exaggerated!?

Not fabricated or exaggerated, just irrelevant to the people who know a hell of a lot more than you about running a network.

[Sean Whitmore]

So I guess, everything that I posted about the CW under Dawn Ostroff has been fabricated or exaggerated!?

I'm not saying your facts are inaccurate (I have no idea one way or the other).

I'm suggesting that if they were significant, someone would have done something about it.


SEAN

[Sean Whitmore]

Crap, I owe Jake a Coke.


SEAN

[Nate Grey]

So apparently, using the common and simple logic of asking/calling for the removal of anybody who is underperforming at their job is an "insane demand". :confused:

Yes. Because you have NO IDEA if that will solve the "problem" or not. Not to mention, like Sean said, HER bosses are working with the same data you have and have chosen to keep her. Scratch that, they're working with MORE data than you have or is available to the press because of the inner workings of an office. That's common sense. You're seeing this one thing she's done wrong (and its wrong to you, hence why its your opinion, obviously), when her bosses are seeing 10 other or more things she's doing RIGHT. You're working with missing information and calling for someone to be fired based on that gap in knowledge.

You keep saying "if you had read my original post.." Yes, I read it just fine, thanks, but it was an opinion piece not an essay on facts. Pointing back to your original opinion, when you've added the addendum she should be FIRED since that original opinion, doesn't somehow make it better or you right.

[Nate Grey]

double post

[noh-varr]

Favorite part of this thread is that people on a COMIC BOOK website are mocking another form of staged entertainment in wrestling. Pot meet kettle. Carry on.

[Jake V]

Favorite part of this thread is that people on a COMIC BOOK website are mocking another form of staged entertainment in wrestling. Pot meet kettle. Carry on.

To be fair, I also mock people who want writers or editors to he fired because they did something bad to a superhero.

[Chiasm]

And what exactly has the CW done with those particular shows? They don't get as much emphasis in the promotional end as say "Gossip Girl", "America's Next Top Model", or this upcoming "90210" sequel. "Everybody Hates Chris" has bounced around time slots in the past two years, and is now, slated for Friday nights. "Smallville" is likely entering its final year anyway.

The CW has continued to support the shows and renew them despite dismal ratings for both. Especially Supernatural which they recognize has a devoted fanbase.

[LtMarvel]

Favorite part of this thread is that people on a COMIC BOOK website are mocking another form of staged entertainment in wrestling. Pot meet kettle. Carry on.
OK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maus), that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen) makes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandman_%28Vertigo%29) perfect (http://www.flakmag.com/books/golem.html) sense. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usagi_Yojimbo)

[DonC]

Whomever is the head of the CW should think about getting as many viewers as possible, rather than aim for a desired demographic like Dawn Ostroff.


See, there's your problem: You think getting as many viewers as possible is her job. It isn't. Making the network money is her job. Let me see if you can follow this logic: The more popular a show becomes, the more it costs to produce. Now with a hit show like Friends or Seinfeld that isn't a problem, you just jack up the commercial rates. But something like Reba or wrestling, on the CW, they can't jack up the commercials all that much because a "hit" on the CW is a show that breaks the Top 100 instead of the Top 10. So sometimes a show on the CW will become a victim of its own success. It becomes costly to produce, the profit margin shrinks and the network drops it.

[The Batman]

I guess in your universe, only people who either own stock or are employed by a TV network, should have a right to dispense an opinion (positive or negative) about said network (as opposed to being a potential consumer/viewer)? That would be like saying, that I shouldn't critique a movie unless I own stock in the studio or theater chain. It's my business why I care so much about the fate about a certain TV network. I don't feel that I should delve deeply into my reasoning behind this.

Giving a movie a critique and calling for the head of the studio because you didn't like said movie are two different kinds of responses. One is appropriate, the other, pretty out there. Examples of otther responses that are out there? Wanting this woman fired because she cancelled wrestling and Reba.

[SPAfreak]

I've found that explaining the economics of television is useless on people who just want to complain that their show has been canceled. I call this "The Farscape Folly."

I'll stop.

Can I complain about Fox canceling Futurama instead?

[kalorama]

Just because it has happened in the past doesn't necessarily or automatically mean that it's guaranteed to work.

Nothing in life is ever guaranteed to work, so really, what's your point? That people should only try things that are guaranteed to work? If that's true, then no one would ever try anything.

You still have to have quality shows that people are willing to watch.

"Quality shows" like WWE Smackdown?

And like I said before, Dawn Ostroff is continuing to run the CW with the same mentality that she had ad running a niche cable network like Lifetime.

(A) Did the Lifetime network turn a profit under Ostroff? Because that's her job, to make her employer money. If her employers didn't think she was adequately pursuing that goal, they wouldn't implement her recommendations, let alone continue to pay her no doubt considerable salary. (B) Since when is the CW not a "niche" network? Both of the networks from which it spawned (WB and UPN) based their programming philosophies around pursuing audience segments they felt weren't being well-served by the big broadcast networks. It's pretty clear that part of what the network is attempting to do is define what their niche is in the wake of the merger.

[kalorama]

I've found that explaining the economics of television is useless on people who just want to complain that their show has been canceled. I call this "The Farscape Folly."

I always thought the "Whedon Whine" had a nice ring.

[TMC1982]

Giving a movie a critique and calling for the head of the studio because you didn't like said movie are two different kinds of responses. One is appropriate, the other, pretty out there. Examples of otther responses that are out there? Wanting this woman fired because she cancelled wrestling and Reba.

You're making it sound as if I'm only criticizing this woman because she had two particular shows canceled!:confused:

[The Batman]

Call it a hunch but something tells me had she not cancelled wrestling we wouldn't be here.

[Jake V]

You're making it sound as if I'm only criticizing this woman because she had two particular shows canceled!:confused:

No, that's the way you're making it sound.

[TMC1982]

Nothing in life is ever guaranteed to work, so really, what's your point? That people should only try things that are guaranteed to work? If that's true, then no one would ever try anything.



"Quality shows" like WWE Smackdown?



(A) Did the Lifetime network turn a profit under Ostroff? Because that's her job, to make her employer money. If her employers didn't think she was adequately pursuing that goal, they wouldn't implement her recommendations, let alone continue to pay her no doubt considerable salary. (B) Since when is the CW not a "niche" network? Both of the networks from which it spawned (WB and UPN) based their programming philosophies around pursuing audience segments they felt weren't being well-served by the big broadcast networks. It's pretty clear that part of what the network is attempting to do is define what their niche is in the wake of the merger.

Comparing to the Lifetime Network and the CW Network is an apples and oranges statement. One is a cable network that uses subcribers as well as advertisements as a sources of revenue.

And another thing, Dawn Ostroff is apparently, not making the CW enough money. They're Sunday night schedule this upcoming season be be programmed by Media Rights Capital (http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-News-Blog/Todays-News/Cw-Puts-Sunday/800039275) (who has purchased time for the block) rather than the CW. This completely contridicts Ostroff's intent on making the CW a network for women aged 18-34.

One of the major affiliate groups of the network, Pappas Telecasting, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy for thirteen of their stations on May 10, 2008. Pappas specifically cited the network's low ratings and performance as one of many complications that had forced it to take the action.

And on May 16, 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121089546043097065.html) that the CW is in danger of folding if ratings don't improve.

[TMC1982]

Nothing in life is ever guaranteed to work, so really, what's your point? That people should only try things that are guaranteed to work? If that's true, then no one would ever try anything.



"Quality shows" like WWE Smackdown?



(A) Did the Lifetime network turn a profit under Ostroff? Because that's her job, to make her employer money. If her employers didn't think she was adequately pursuing that goal, they wouldn't implement her recommendations, let alone continue to pay her no doubt considerable salary. (B) Since when is the CW not a "niche" network? Both of the networks from which it spawned (WB and UPN) based their programming philosophies around pursuing audience segments they felt weren't being well-served by the big broadcast networks. It's pretty clear that part of what the network is attempting to do is define what their niche is in the wake of the merger.

When the WB and UPN merged, the intent was to combine forces (or the best of both worlds) in order to create a solid "fifth" television network. In the eleven years that UPN and the WB were on the air, the two networks lost a combined $2 billion.

[Jake V]

I've gotta say, the level of research you've put in to your quest for this woman to be unemployed is staggering.

It's the kind of dedication you only see in stalkers and mental patients.

[DonC]

I always thought the "Whedon Whine" had a nice ring.


I'm going to write that down. The pilot for Dollhouse is being completely redone. The over/under dropped from 8 episodes to 4 when that was announced.

[TMC1982]

Yes. Because you have NO IDEA if that will solve the "problem" or not. Not to mention, like Sean said, HER bosses are working with the same data you have and have chosen to keep her. Scratch that, they're working with MORE data than you have or is available to the press because of the inner workings of an office. That's common sense. You're seeing this one thing she's done wrong (and its wrong to you, hence why its your opinion, obviously), when her bosses are seeing 10 other or more things she's doing RIGHT. You're working with missing information and calling for someone to be fired based on that gap in knowledge.

You keep saying "if you had read my original post.." Yes, I read it just fine, thanks, but it was an opinion piece not an essay on facts. Pointing back to your original opinion, when you've added the addendum she should be FIRED since that original opinion, doesn't somehow make it better or you right.

The fact that Dawn Ostroff hasn't been fired for incompetence seems to indicate that politicking is a lot more important in Hollywood than achieving actual results.

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)

An Open Letter to The CW’s Dawn Ostroff (http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514)

The CW zigs where others only dare to zag (http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2008/07/the-cw-zigs-whe.html)

CW chief: "Smackdown" was just too manly for our "brand" (http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2008/07/cw-chief-smackd.html)

Report: MTV boss may replace The CW boss (http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/dawn-ostroff/)

[The Batman]

I'm going to write that down. The pilot for Dollhouse is being completely redone. The over/under dropped from 8 episodes to 4 when that was announced.

Oh, this (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117989323.html?categoryid=14&cs=1).

At the very least, if this tanks, there's now one less step in their routine.

[The Batman]

I've gotta say, the level of research you've put in to your quest for this woman to be unemployed is staggering.

It's the kind of dedication you only see in stalkers and mental patients.


You know, if she is fired, she'll have some time free to fill out the paperwork for a much needed restraining order.

[TMC1982]

The CW has continued to support the shows and renew them despite dismal ratings for both. Especially Supernatural which they recognize has a devoted fanbase.

And what happens in the process? She pulls "Supernatural" off the air for almost two months in favor of "Reaper", which did poorly.

[Paradox]

The concept of "devoted fanbase" is pretty much a bad thing business-wise. It usually indicates that that's the ONLY people watching.

[kalorama]

When the WB and UPN merged, the intent was to combine forces (or the best of both worlds) in order to create a solid "fifth" television network. In the eleven years that UPN and the WB were on the air, the two networks lost a combined $2 billion.

None of which (A) refutes what I said or (B) supports your screed against Ostroff.

[DonC]

It was a strike-shortened season and Supernatural was out of episodes for the time being. So she moved Reaper into its slot to try to get more viewers for Reaper.

[kalorama]

Oh, this (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117989323.html?categoryid=14&cs=1).

At the very least, if this tanks, there's now one less step in their routine.
“I showed some scenes to David Lynch and he’s all, ‘Whuh?’ Bad sign,” Whedon wrote.

When David Lynch says your story makes no sense, you know you're in trouble.

[kalorama]

Comparing to the Lifetime Network and the CW Network is an apples and oranges statement. One is a cable network that uses subcribers as well as advertisements as a sources of revenue.

(A) Lifetime is not a pay cable station, so the number of individual subscribers is not a source of revenue. The only subscriber benefit they get is based on the number of basic cable services that carry the station. And Lifetime is carried by most of the major basic cable services in the country. (B) The decision to carry Lifetime is made based on the ratings and viewership of the shows they program which also determine ad rates and revenue, just like on a broadcast network such as the CW. So not do much apples and oranges as granny smith apples and red delicious apples.

And on May 16, 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121089546043097065.html) that the CW is in danger of folding if ratings don't improve.
So? The only reason the CW exists is because its two original component networks were on the verge of going under to begin with. It takes time to right a sinking ship, and this ship was well on its way to going under long before Ostroff took the helm. If it does go under, the worst that could be said if her is that she failed to bring a critically injured patient back from the brink of death. This stands in sharp contrast to your obvious belief that she intentionally and nefariously plotted and executed the murder herself.

[TMC1982]

(A) Lifetime is not a pay cable station, so the number of individual subscribers is not a source of revenue. The only subscriber benefit they get is based on the number of basic cable services that carry the station. And Lifetime is carried by most of the major basic cable services in the country. (B) The decision to carry Lifetime is made based on the ratings and viewership of the shows they program which also determine ad rates and revenue, just like on a broadcast network such as the CW. So not do much apples and oranges as granny smith apples and red delicious apples.


So? The only reason the CW exists is because its two original component networks were on the verge of going under to begin with. It takes time to right a sinking ship, and this ship was well on its way to going under long before Ostroff took the helm. If it does go under, the worst that could be said if her is that she failed to bring a critically injured patient back from the brink of death. This stands in sharp contrast to your obvious belief that she intentionally and nefariously plotted and executed the murder herself.

Lifetime is on cable, for which you still have to pay for. I never said it was a premium service like HBO or Showtime or a basic cable service, for which Lifetime is.

Did you even bother to read the Wall Street Journal article!? And I never said or implied that she's "intentionally" doing a poor job, just an incompetent one.

[EZMOHR]

As a fellow Bay Area resident....I suggest you forget about The CW, and on October 9th, turn your tv to KRON (Channel 4 on Direct TV & you can even use an antenna to get it.) Smackdown will be on that night on KRON for the duration of it's TV run (however long it will be.)

As for Ostroff, I don't know how bad she is doing, but if she has ran the CW since the merger she has....

1.) Fostered a show with HUGE buzz (Gossip Girl) that appeals to a group that does NOT WATCH TV (girls, age 18-24) that spend a lot of money. The same goes with America's Next Top Model

2.) Fostered a show as of now not on the air (90210) that going into the TV season as the most buzzed about show of the fall.

3.) Cut down cost on shows (Smackdown, Reba and other older shows) that had demographics that don't appeal to money making people when it comes to buisnesses buying add time. Notice what commercials come on during Smackdown right NOW. FCC mandated ones about the digital conversion in 09,local commercials, WWE commercials, CW commercials, and what is coming on the CW on a local venue. Smackdown rarely has national commercials any more...AT ALL. That means Smackdown is making NO MONEY for the CW. Notice what commercials come on for Gossip Girl (if you watch the show.) Commercials for stuff people buy. That means Gossip Girl makes money for the CW. If companies don't want to buy add time on your show, no matter how great it is...the show will NOT be around. What do they say, it's not Show Friends it's Show Biz. And dude, I'm a Smackdown fan 4-Life.

4.) Kept shows on the air that cost a lot that by all right should've been cancelled either due to low ratings(Everybody Hates Chris, Supernatural) or that just plain suck now (Smallville.) But, in one case, she keeps it cause it is a critical darling (Chris) in a medium that is life support even as we speak (the sitcom.) She is able to keep Supernatural around cause it has very small (and yes clones, the cult of Supernatural is miniscule compared to other rabid fan cultists) that watch and support the show non-proportinetly, and Smallville cause it still garners ratings in the key demographic to commerial time buyers.

All in all, whomever runs the CW has got a hard job cause they will never have the money or air time or clout other networks have. They will be fighting an uphill battle no matter what. All in all, it seems this Person actually knows who watches her station (Girls 15-34, Geeks Virgin-Felt a Boob,) and she is doing a decent job of catering to her demographics. When you've got nothing to work with, you try to make that nothing into at least a meager something. No one will do better or worse than her in the same position. If you run The CW, you just try to hang on and try to get something done.

And, I'm sorry, you must be dense if you think Gossip Girl is not in a Competitive Time Slot. The one night a week a cable show beats netowork in the slot in Monday at 8pm. MNF on ESPN pulls network #'s. Prison Break which still does about 10 million a week, this little phenom called Dancing w/the Stars that does 20 million a week, oh, and in a lot of markets, another show you might be familiar with that does 5 million or so people a week on cable/satallite....WWE Monday Night RAW. To say Monday at 8 pm is not competitive is stupid.

And of course the network has lost viewers. Shows that pulled good #'s for the CW were either gone cause of the creator was done (Gilmore Girls) or because the ad companies didn't want to buy time from them anymore cause either no one watched them (Veronica Mars) or they cost more to produce than what they earned (Reba, Girlfriends, Smackdown.)

[kalorama]

Lifetime is on cable, for which you still have to pay for. I never said it was a premium service like HBO or Showtime or a basic cable service, for which Lifetime is.

Never said you did. However, you did say
Comparing to the Lifetime Network and the CW Network is an apples and oranges statement.

Which is flat out wrong. For a basic cable service like Lifetime, the role of advertising profits is more in line with the role it plays for a network like the CW than a pay TV network like HBO, thus invalidating your whole "apples and oranges" argument. Even basic cable networks need ratings, viewers, and ad revenue to make a profit, making them no different in that way than broadcast networks.

[TMC1982]

Never said you did. However, you did say


Which is flat out wrong. For a basic cable service like Lifetime, the role of advertising profits is more in line with the role it plays for a network like the CW than a pay TV network like HBO, thus invalidating your whole "apples and oranges" argument. Even basic cable networks need ratings, viewers, and ad revenue to make a profit, making them no different in that way than broadcast networks.

Why are you so concerned (or arguing with me over this) about the adverising profits of a cable service? My point was that Dawn Ostroff is seemingly running something big like the CW as if she's still at Lifetime (which is smaller in comparison).

[Agent Helix]

I like the fallacy that the CW is some huge, extremely popular network, and not a dumping ground for shows that have no chance on real television.

[Paradox]

The only reason it draws twice as many viewers as Lifetime is that it's both cable AND broadcast. But that doesn't keep it from being a joke of a network. Combining UPN and the WB (both failing at the time) only slowed the ultimate failure.

[Agent Helix]

Drawing twice as many viewers as Lifetime is kind of like boasting that you're taller than most midgets.

[Paradox]

True. It gets even worse when you consider that a lot of Lifetime's programming is considered a bad joke in terms of quality, as well.

[Agent Helix]

What, like wrasslin'?

[Paradox]

Battle of the Lame Networks...IN A STEEL CAGE!! :biggrin:

[kalorama]

Why are you so concerned (or arguing with me over this) about the adverising profits of a cable service?

I couldn't care less about the relative advertising profits of Lifetime vs. CW per se. It's simply another avenue by which to point out that your entire broadside attack on Ostroff lacks any meaningful, factual foundation.

My point was that Dawn Ostroff is seemingly running something big like the CW as if she's still at Lifetime (which is smaller in comparison).

And that point is utterly invalid, because the CW is not something "big." It's the undernourished runt of the broadcast network litter.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

CW is going down anyhow. The network's owners are getting pissed at how the network is being ran and not really doing much. So if its Dawn Ostroff then..... as the immortal Vince McMahon will say "Your..... FIIIIIIRRRRREEEDDD."

And she will be...in 2009/2010. Because even if people mock the decisions to replace a Wrasslin show ...that Wrasslin show brought your best ratings. And its about "ratings" in the end. Regardless of quality . Smackdown reached that 18-34 demo that TMC is debating...so letting it go is a huge colossal failure on the Network. Because if thats who their aiming for , then they allowed one of their hits in that demo to fly.


Plus Reba McEntire was wanting to end the show of hers anyhow ...it ran 7 seasons ...and by that point all the kids had grown up . There was nothing left for it...and like all comedies when the kids grow up...it gets stale. I can see why they allowed Reba to go.

But it doesn't excuse bad decisions like allowing your top ranked show to leave to program a revamped version of 90210. If this is what CW thinks will save the network....their screwed. Because its just a copy of Gossip Girl and other teen dramas.

The rest of the schedule is getting old. Smallville is pretty much on its last legs even with Johns doing a LSH episodes soon. The show should have been showed the pink slip . But its all CW has left basically.

[Nyarlathotep]

I think a point no one here has considered is that "wrasslin'" is fake and it sucks, and that's clearly the key issue.

Note: Wrestling fans get a rep for being dumb, but I have to say anyone who types the word "wrasslin'" or feels the need to point out scripted TV shows are "fake" doesn't seem any brighter than the guy with the replica spinner belt and vintage 1999 Stone Cold T-Shirt. Just saying

When David Lynch says your story makes no sense, you know you're in trouble.

Right. It's almost like Whedon pulled Lynch's name out air as the prototypical obscurist film maker instead of literally saying he showed Lynch a pilot for his Fox network TV action show.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I think a point no one here has considered is that "wrasslin'" is fake and it sucks.

I think many who do enjoy it just ignore those who basically make a point to say this over and over.

[Jake V]

Note: Wrestling fans get a rep for being dumb, but I have to say anyone who types the word "wrasslin'" or feels the need to point out scripted TV shows are "fake" doesn't seem any brighter than the guy with the replica spinner belt and vintage 1999 Stone Cold T-Shirt. Just saying

The argument against wrestling isn't that it's scripted, it's that the script itself is awful.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

The argument against wrestling isn't that it's scripted, it's that the script itself is awful.

Like all types of entertainment, this is sometimes true and sometimes false.

There is plenty of good wrestling out there. Though admittedly, the WWE rarely provides it.

[TMC1982]

I couldn't care less about the relative advertising profits of Lifetime vs. CW per se. It's simply another avenue by which to point out that your entire broadside attack on Ostroff lacks any meaningful, factual foundation.



And that point is utterly invalid, because the CW is not something "big." It's the undernourished runt of the broadcast network litter.

Of course the CW isn't ABC, NBC or CBS. But I figured that when UPN and WB combined forces, they saught to be something bigger and more substantial. Instead, the CW this past season, has averaged about a fraction of the total amount of viewers than what UPN and the WB combined (about six million) to do in each of their respective final seasons. To make matters worse, Telemundo has reguarly topped the CW in the ratings.

[Floyd The Barber]

Now that Smackdown's moving to MyNetwork 1st week of October and Smallville's obviously winding down and going into it's 8th season with no Rosenbaum or Kreuk, once Smallville's gone I'll have absolutely no reason to ever tune to CW. Unless of course I wanna watch reruns of old sitcoms and well...you could do that just about anywhere.

[TMC1982]

CW is going down anyhow. The network's owners are getting pissed at how the network is being ran and not really doing much. So if its Dawn Ostroff then..... as the immortal Vince McMahon will say "Your..... FIIIIIIRRRRREEEDDD."

And she will be...in 2009/2010. Because even if people mock the decisions to replace a Wrasslin show ...that Wrasslin show brought your best ratings. And its about "ratings" in the end. Regardless of quality . Smackdown reached that 18-34 demo that TMC is debating...so letting it go is a huge colossal failure on the Network. Because if thats who their aiming for , then they allowed one of their hits in that demo to fly.


Plus Reba McEntire was wanting to end the show of hers anyhow ...it ran 7 seasons ...and by that point all the kids had grown up . There was nothing left for it...and like all comedies when the kids grow up...it gets stale. I can see why they allowed Reba to go.

But it doesn't excuse bad decisions like allowing your top ranked show to leave to program a revamped version of 90210. If this is what CW thinks will save the network....their screwed. Because its just a copy of Gossip Girl and other teen dramas.

The rest of the schedule is getting old. Smallville is pretty much on its last legs even with Johns doing a LSH episodes soon. The show should have been showed the pink slip . But its all CW has left basically.

Latest 'Secret Life' more popular than 'Gossip Girl' (http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/07/abc-familys-sec.html)

Tuesday’s episode of ABC Family's "The Secret Life of the American Teenager" broke through into new territory in all its target demos, including a 16% increase this week in total viewers (3.6 million) and a 7% gain in adults 18-49 (1.6 million).

That means the fifth episode of "Secret Life" outperformed any given episode of the CW's "Gossip Girl" in total viewers and bested the "Gossip" season average by 11% -- despite being on a cable network in the summer instead of a broadcast network during the regular season. (Is this a fair comparison? Not for ABC Family, but they certainly don't mind.)

[StoneGold]

The funny thing is, if this thread was just titled "The CW sucks," would anyone be offering a different opinion? I think the issue here is more with the overblown personal attack.

[kalorama]

The funny thing is, if this thread was just titled "The CW sucks," would anyone be offering a different opinion? I think the issue here is more with the overblown personal attack.


Tinged, as it is, with a faint hint of misogyny.

[Nyarlathotep]

The argument against wrestling isn't that it's scripted, it's that the script itself is awful.

What does your personal opinion of the quality of programming that you feel the need to call "rasslin" have to do with anything at all in this thread? Glancing over it seems to be more about ratings and demographics, not Jake V's personal culture war against something he pretends to not know how to spell.

[Agent_Torpor]

The evidence against Ms. Ostroff:
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.

If or when the CW goes under, I'm going to point blame first and foremost to Dawn Ostroff. It's not really surprising that she wants the CW to cater towards the 18-34 female demographic because before she went to UPN (one of the CW's predecessors), she was the Executive Vice President for Lifetime. Catering mostly to women is alright if you're dealing with a niche cable network like Lifetime, WE, or Oxygen. But with the CW, you're now dealing with a national, over-the-air broadcast television network. Instead of wanting to build their audience, Ostroff's mentality seems to be, that the CW should narrow and restrict the target audience.

Besides "SmackDown!", she also had "Reba" canceled even though it was the highest rated sitcom on the WB at the time of the merger. But since "Reba" didn't call into Ostroff's "desired target demographic", that show had the go. Another bad move that she made was canceling "Everwood", yet bringing "7th Heaven" back for I believe, an 11th season, only to cancel it again. To make matters worse, she's managed to alienate the CW's potential urban audience (that UPN had previously catered towards) by canceling "Girlfriends" and moving "Everybody Hates Chris" all over the schedule (it will be in the "Friday Night Death Slot" come the 2008-09 season, in place of "SmackDown!").

Dawn Ostroff in my estimation, is engaging in reverse sexism with her stance that she doesn't want "SmackDown!" on her network because it appeals too much to men. Frankly, I strongly believe that she'll only pump up shows (i.e. give them the most promotional time) that she personally likes like "Gossip Girl" or "America's Next Top Model". That's why virtually every other show on the CW is a near duplicate of those particular show's formula. How else can you explain them trying to recreate "Beverly Hills 90210" (to join "Gossip Girl" in the "pretty, rich, white kids w/ problems" pack)? She's more concerned with who watches their network than how many people watch her network.

Dawn Ostroff is really no different than Jamie Kellner, when he ordered that WCW's programming be kicked off of TBS/TNT just as Eric Bischoff and his group of investors were about to purchase the company back in 2001. Both apparently believe that you lack intelligence if you watch pro wrestling. It's kind of ironic considering that Ostroff wants to peddle a show just as low brow (if you've, at the very least, seen the racy "OMFG" ads), if not more, like "Gossip Girl".

Dawn Ostroff to me (to use a pro wrestling analogy), reminds me of one of those bookers/promoters who are more skilled a running a fringe, regional promotion, than something of more national scope. Think ECW when it was on TNN, the AWA when it was on ESPN, or the early years of WCW (after Turner Broadcasting bought Jim Crockett Promotions), when they had Ole Anderson and Dusty Rhodes doing to booking.


Frankly, "Gossip Girl" is the only CW show I watch. So tough titties.

[Jake V]

What does your personal opinion of the quality of programming that you feel the need to call "rasslin" have to do with anything at all in this thread? Glancing over it seems to be more about ratings and demographics, not Jake V's personal culture war against something he pretends to not know how to spell.

Terribly sorry, the next time I mock poorly scripted, poorly booked, and poorly acted "sports entertainment" I'll try to spell it right.

[Frank]

CW is a strange experiment wheras it seems like they don't mind losing money and having bad ratings as long they reach their girly girls demophraphic. I have this image of a daughter of an executive saying "please keep my shows alive, dad! I want my shows!"

[kalorama]

I find the fanboy outrage over Ostroff keeping Gossip Girl on the air despite lackluster ratings hilarious and wildly hypocritical. Where was this insistence on fiscal responsibility by the networks for all those years when the WB and UPN were dragging ratings anchors like Buffy, Angel, and Smallville across the finish line by sheer force of will? Or is giving a cult fave show with struggling ratings a chance to grow only permissible when Joss Whedon is the creator and/or when the show features shit blowing up and people getting punched in the face before every commercial break?

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Terribly sorry, the next time I mock poorly scripted, poorly booked, and poorly acted "sports entertainment" I'll try to spell it right.

Not all wrestling is poorly scripted, poorly booked, and poorly acted.

[superion]

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.

[The Batman]

I find the fanboy outrage over Ostroff keeping Gossip Girl on the air despite lackluster ratings hilarious and wildly hypocritical. Where was this insistence on fiscal responsibility by the networks for all those years when the WB and UPN were dragging ratings anchors like Buffy, Angel, and Smallville across the finish line by sheer force of will? Or is giving a cult fave show with struggling ratings a chance to grow only permissible when Joss Whedon is the creator and/or when the show features shit blowing up and people getting punched in the face before every commercial break?

I can't remember where, but I recall reading that despite its so-so ratings advertisers are still finding that when a product is featured on the program its sales go up. So it's possible that Gossip Girl, even if it isn't setting the Neilson's afire, might still be bringing in advertising dollars to the CW.

[Jake V]

Not all wrestling is poorly scripted, poorly booked, and poorly acted.

alright, just the kind that's on tv then.

[kalorama]

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?

Saying she needs to be fired isn't misogynistic. It's silly and pointless, but not misogynistic.

Basing the complaint around the fact that she canceled wrestling and hatched a plan to cater to a very desirable (from an advertiser's standpoint) young female demographic in an attempt to make the network more attractive to advertisers (thus raising revenue) is where the hint of misogyny comes in. When the person making the compliant goes so far as to characterize the programming plan as:

Dawn Ostroff in my estimation, is engaging in reverse sexism with her stance that she doesn't want "SmackDown!" on her network because it appeals too much to men. Frankly, I strongly believe that she'll only pump up shows (i.e. give them the most promotional time) that she personally likes like "Gossip Girl" or "America's Next Top Model". That's why virtually every other show on the CW is a near duplicate of those particular show's formula. How else can you explain them trying to recreate "Beverly Hills 90210" (to join "Gossip Girl" in the "pretty, rich, white kids w/ problems" pack)? She's more concerned with who watches their network than how many people watch her network.

Then it edges a ways out of the "hint" territory.

When people say things like:

CW is a strange experiment wheras it seems like they don't mind losing money and having bad ratings as long they reach their girly girls demophraphic. I have this image of a daughter of an executive saying "please keep my shows alive, dad! I want my shows!"

then the border has been crossed.

[Royal]

alright, just the kind that's on tv then.

Just say "NorAm Mainstream Wrestling". It'll clear everything up.

[Frank]

I find the fanboy outrage over Ostroff keeping Gossip Girl on the air despite lackluster ratings hilarious and wildly hypocritical. Where was this insistence on fiscal responsibility by the networks for all those years when the WB and UPN were dragging ratings anchors like Buffy, Angel, and Smallville across the finish line by sheer force of will? Or is giving a cult fave show with struggling ratings a chance to grow only permissible when Joss Whedon is the creator and/or when the show features shit blowing up and people getting punched in the face before every commercial break?

when was Smallville dragging in ratings?

[superion]

when was Smallville dragging in ratings?


Buffy and Angel also never dragged in the ratings like Gossip Girl. Buffy had more viewers when it was canceled than Gossip Girl does now.

[kalorama]

Buffy and Angel also never dragged in the ratings like Gossip Girl. Buffy had more viewers when it was canceled than Gossip Girl does now.


Broadcast TV as a whole had more viewers then than it does now; the number of free TV viewers has been falling for years.

But the fact remains, Buffy, Angel, and Smallville were/are routinely near the bottom of the overall ratings. They stayed on the air because they were relatively popular with desirable demographic segments of the audience, just like Gossip Girl.

[TMC1982]

Saying she needs to be fired isn't misogynistic. It's silly and pointless, but not misogynistic.

Basing the complaint around the fact that she canceled wrestling and hatched a plan to cater to a very desirable (from an advertiser's standpoint) young female demographic in an attempt to make the network more attractive to advertisers (thus raising revenue) is where the hint of misogyny comes in. When the person making the compliant goes so far as to characterize the programming plan as:



Then it edges a ways out of the "hint" territory.

When people say things like:



then the border has been crossed.

Dawn Ostroff pretty much said point blank that "SmackDown!" was too "mainly" for our brand (http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2008/07/cw-chief-smackd.html). If that isn't a small case of reverse sexism than I don't know how to convince you, what could be otherwise.

[TMC1982]

Broadcast TV as a whole had more viewers then than it does now; the number of free TV viewers has been falling for years.

But the fact remains, Buffy, Angel, and Smallville were/are routinely near the bottom of the overall ratings. They stayed on the air because they were relatively popular with desirable demographic segments of the audience, just like Gossip Girl.

I've heard all of the excuses like it was the strike (which in part, may be true), or Nielsen should calculate their ratings differently. And in the process, the CW lost 28% (http://tvblog.ugo.com/index.php/tvblog/more/the_cws_time_may_be_up/) of its target demographic. Part of the problem likely may be that the audience can be very fickle. Another problem maybe, that some of the shows just aren't very good. The CW didn't help matters by acting as if the internet was their enemy, instead of better utlitizing it to market their shows.

[Floyd The Barber]

when was Smallville dragging in ratings?

Yeah, I'd like to know that one myself. I remember hearing quite a few times that Smallville was the networks highest rated show. Not sure if it currently is but I've certainly never heard that it was hurting either.

[TMC1982]

I've heard all of the excuses like it was the strike (which in part, may be true), or Nielsen should calculate their ratings differently. And in the process, the CW lost 28% (http://tvblog.ugo.com/index.php/tvblog/more/the_cws_time_may_be_up/) of its target demographic. Part of the problem likely may be that the audience can be very fickle. Another problem maybe, that some of the shows just aren't very good. The CW didn't help matters by acting as if the internet was their enemy, instead of better utlitizing it to market their shows.

Here's another thing that Dawn Ostroff seemed to overlook concerning the male demographic. In its final season on the WB, "Smallville" was No. 1 in its time period among men 18 to 34 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/20/arts/television/20smal.html?ei=5088&en=323c93b7ad90ff3d&ex=1305777 600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print), a hard-to-reach audience that would often rather play video games than watch television. (Over all it averaged 5.3 million viewers for new episodes, a slight increase over the previous year.)

[Royal]

*runns through nude*

[Floyd The Barber]

If this is misogyny:

CW is a strange experiment wheras it seems like they don't mind losing money and having bad ratings as long they reach their girly girls demophraphic. I have this image of a daughter of an executive saying "please keep my shows alive, dad! I want my shows!"

Then this misandry:

Or is giving a cult fave show with struggling ratings a chance to grow only permissible when Joss Whedon is the creator and/or when the show features shit blowing up and people getting punched in the face before every commercial break?

Which makes it better how?

[TMC1982]

It was a strike-shortened season and Supernatural was out of episodes for the time being. So she moved Reaper into its slot to try to get more viewers for Reaper.

A move that had apparently backfired (strike or no strike):
Show Return Updates: Supernatural (http://scifi.about.com/b/2008/01/19/show-return-updates-supernatural.htm)

If anyone was thinking that The CW secretly liked Supernatural and was just giving it a friendly breather, the network's unaccountable disdain for this excellent show is revealed in its explanation of the reshuffle: "We're giving Reaper a few Thursday airings," said CBS and The CW scheduler Kelly Kahl earlier this month, "which means for the first time a real compatible lead-in for the show, from Smallville."�

It sounds like this means (a) they think Reaper is a better fit for Smallville than Supernatural, and (b) they're more excited about Reaper than either of these shows. Now, don't get me wrong: I like Reaper. But it doesn't need Smallville; if anything, a fresh new show with tons of buzz and a hip attitude should be on its own, not paired with a veteran slogging doggedly though a positively byzantine seventh season. Meanwhile this move leaves Supernatural with no good place on the schedule at all (what's it going to pair with, Gossip Girls?), which is obviously why they left it off – something they wouldn't do if they cared.

Time and time again, American TV networks create solid, high-quality science fiction and fantasy series, and then kill or bury them when they don't get the Grey's Anatomy-level ratings. Seriously, what's up with that? These shows generate serious fan loyalty almost every time at bat, which is more than you can say for some of the paint-by-numbers melodramas and CSI clones out there. In this case, we've got one genre show shoving out another, which is even more irritating.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

I just don't get why they would limit themselves to just one demo. Why not push Gossip Girl AND Smackdown? it's not like some lady is going to be like "I wanna watch Gossip Girl, but I'm not gonna cause I don't like wrestling!" or vice versa.

[Paradox]

Please stop saying "reverse sexism". It's a meaningless phrase. Simply "sexism" is what you're looking for.

[kalorama]

If this is misogyny:



Then this misandry:



Which makes it better how?


Wide of the target by about a mile.

[kalorama]

Dawn Ostroff pretty much said point blank that "SmackDown!" was too "mainly" for our brand (http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2008/07/cw-chief-smackd.html). If that isn't a small case of reverse sexism than I don't know how to convince you, what could be otherwise.


You can't convince me of something I know to be untrue. If the CEO of the Lifetime channel said the same thing would it be "reverse sexism"? No, because the Lifetime channel appeals to a female demographic and pro wrestling doesn't. If the CEO of Spike TV said Gilmore Girls was "too girly" for his station, would that be sexism? No, it would be a reflection of their obvious programming philosophy. Ostroff is putting together a programming agenda that targets young female viewers. Young female viewers don't like wresting. Therefore wrestling isn't part of her plan. There's nothing "sexist" (reverse or otherwise) about it. It's simple business. Period.

[kalorama]

I just don't get why they would limit themselves to just one demo. Why not push Gossip Girl AND Smackdown?

For the same reason the Coca-Cola corporation doesn't sell animal feed and high-end electronics.

[J Dog]

Personally, I don't think Dawn should be fired, but I still agree with the fact that it's not going well with her at the helm.

Again, I'm aware of the debate against NorAm Mainstream Wrestling (there you go, Royal), so I won't get into that.

However, I decided to look at the ratings. SmackDown! got a 4.0. last week. No other show (not even the highly coveted "Gossip Girl") cracked 1.3.. Is it wrong to try to cater to several demographics, even the ones so hard to get? Other network stations do that.

Dawn may run the risk of making the CW into a niche network, which is fine in cable, but not okay on network TV.

[SPAfreak]

I always thought the "Whedon Whine" had a nice ring.

Dammit. I was trying to come up with another "f" to go with Firefly and then you give me this.

I like it. Granted I like Whedon's stuff but I still love the term.

[The Batman]

However, I decided to look at the ratings. SmackDown! got a 4.0. last week. No other show (not even the highly coveted "Gossip Girl") cracked 1.3.. Is it wrong to try to cater to several demographics, even the ones so hard to get? Other network stations do that.

It's not just ratings though, it's advertising dollars too. What kind of advertising dollars does Smackdown bring to the CW versus something like Gossip Girl?

[kalorama]

It's not just ratings though, it's advertising dollars too. What kind of advertising dollars does Smackdown bring to the CW versus something like Gossip Girl?

And (as has already been discussed) there's also the issue of cost versus revenue.

Ratings alone don't determine a show's profitability.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

For the same reason the Coca-Cola corporation doesn't sell animal feed and high-end electronics.

Oh, come on. That's hardly a good comparison. It's more like Coca-Cola only focusing on diet sodas and taking the non-diet stuff out of production, instead of catering to customers that like diet and non-diet drinks.

CW is a network. Networks don't commonly focus on just one sole demo.

[Sean Whitmore]

Oh, come on. That's hardly a good comparison. It's more like Coca-Cola only focusing on diet sodas and taking the non-diet stuff out of production, instead of catering to customers that like diet and non-diet drinks.

I'm actually not sure how good a comparison that is. It's more like Coca Cola focuses on making carbonated drinks, and leaves the lemonade to others.


SEAN

[The Batman]

If wrestling was really the only show that the CW had that was targeted at a male audience, and that cancelling it means they've given up completely on that demographic, then I think that the CW gave up on dudes a long time ago.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

NetworkTV is dictated by advertising and RATINGS. Even if you hate , detest and believe the show or programming is shit ...if your letting your best rated show go for the fact it appeals more to men who just watch it is beyond foolish .

Your running a network. Just because Group A decide to watch one show doesn't mean they'll wanna watch Beauty and the Geek or Reaper (which is awesome...) later in the week. Its little shock she's failing and why people think that letting "proven ratings" winning shows go is great business shocks me.

Once CW does go down Dawn Ostroff will run back to Lifetime.

[kalorama]

Oh, come on. That's hardly a good comparison. It's more like Coca-Cola only focusing on diet sodas and taking the non-diet stuff out of production, instead of catering to customers that like diet and non-diet drinks.

The difference between WWE and Gossip Girls is more than just a bit of sugar and artificial flavoring. They're two completely different products from two completely different assembly lines.

CW is a network. Networks don't commonly focus on just one sole demo.

The fact that they're still airing Smallville, Supernatural, Reaper and any number of other shows that appeal to young males means that the CW isn't just focusing on one demographic either. The fact that they canceled wrestling, put a big push behind Gossip Girls, and are hyping the 90201 revival means that they're also trying to broaden their appeal to another demographic. Again, where's the crime in that?

And the fact is that smaller cable networks, with whom the CW has as much, if not more in common than ABC, NBC, and CBS, do, in fact, target narrow demographic segments all the time. I'd list them, but we all know who they are.

[kalorama]

NetworkTV is dictated by advertising and RATINGS.

Network TV, like every other business in America, is dictated by PROFIT. Just because a show gets relatively good ratings doesn't mean it makes money.

[Floyd The Barber]

Wide of the target by about a mile.

Yep...on both accounts. Which was kinda my point.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Network TV, like every other business in America, is dictated by PROFIT. Just because a show gets relatively good ratings doesn't mean it makes money.

Lets put it this way.... what good is Gossip Girl gonna do if the Network goes down ? You need Highly Rated shows to make the case your Network can eyetrack eyeballs . If your booting a show that has done a 3.0-4.0 weekly and was in-expensive ( McMahon produced it...and it gave CW 48-50 WEEKS of TV ) then your foolish.

The show was the cheapest , highest rated thing they had. They made a lot of money off Smackdown in the 9 years it ran on UPN/CW . Its a reason Sci-Fi Network is keeping ECW....its cheap , produced by Vince and its 48-50 weeks of New TV.

[superion]

Personally, I don't think Dawn should be fired, but I still agree with the fact that it's not going well with her at the helm.

Again, I'm aware of the debate against NorAm Mainstream Wrestling (there you go, Royal), so I won't get into that.

However, I decided to look at the ratings. SmackDown! got a 4.0. last week. No other show (not even the highly coveted "Gossip Girl") cracked 1.3.. Is it wrong to try to cater to several demographics, even the ones so hard to get? Other network stations do that.

Dawn may run the risk of making the CW into a niche network, which is fine in cable, but not okay on network TV.


If her strategy was actually succeeding I might understand her infatuation with Gossip Girl and this new 90210 series. But the ratings of Gossip Girl are mediocre at best (for CW). It's just slightly better than Reaper which was shelved as a mid-season replacement.

Regarding this valuable demographic Gossip Girl reaches, someone needs to explain to me why the teenage girl demographic Gossip Girl reaches is somehow so much more valuable than the teenage male and young adult male demographic. When did teenage girls somehow get so much more disposable income than teenage boys and young males who may actually hold jobs?

As for dropping wrestling I think that mainly has to do with McMahon and his organization having a unsavory image which the CW doesn't want.

[Sean Whitmore]

When did teenage girls somehow get so much more disposable income than teenage boys and young males who may actually hold jobs?

Awesome, now the thread's gonna get good.


SEAN

[Pinball]

I'm still wondering how you know "Gossip Girl" is aimed at adults...?

[TMC1982]

You can't convince me of something I know to be untrue. If the CEO of the Lifetime channel said the same thing would it be "reverse sexism"? No, because the Lifetime channel appeals to a female demographic and pro wrestling doesn't. If the CEO of Spike TV said Gilmore Girls was "too girly" for his station, would that be sexism? No, it would be a reflection of their obvious programming philosophy. Ostroff is putting together a programming agenda that targets young female viewers. Young female viewers don't like wresting. Therefore wrestling isn't part of her plan. There's nothing "sexist" (reverse or otherwise) about it. It's simple business. Period.

That's still an apples and oranges argument. As I said before, Dawn Ostroff is no longer working at Lifetime, which is a niche cable network like Spike TV. Catering almost exclusively towards young females (instead of showing more variety and balance) for a major broadcast network, isn't good for the long term, because that particular demographic is likely, relatively small to begin with. And since when is canceling the highest rated program on your network not "simple business" on the contrary?

[TMC1982]

If her strategy was actually succeeding I might understand her infatuation with Gossip Girl and this new 90210 series. But the ratings of Gossip Girl are mediocre at best (for CW). It's just slightly better than Reaper which was shelved as a mid-season replacement.

Regarding this valuable demographic Gossip Girl reaches, someone needs to explain to me why the teenage girl demographic Gossip Girl reaches is somehow so much more valuable than the teenage male and young adult male demographic. When did teenage girls somehow get so much more disposable income than teenage boys and young males who may actually hold jobs?

As for dropping wrestling I think that mainly has to do with McMahon and his organization having a unsavory image which the CW doesn't want.

Which is ironic within itself in a sense, due to the fact that a show like "Gossip Girl" (http://youtube.com/watch?v=kRI8_DqAam4) has been reguarly criticized by the Parents Television Council and other conservative/parental watchdog groups for its racy content (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/film-and-tv/tv-radio-reviews/uptown-boy-will-screaming-teenage-girls-and-wild-tabloid-rumours-destroy-chace-crawford-881176.html).

[TMC1982]

The difference between WWE and Gossip Girls is more than just a bit of sugar and artificial flavoring. They're two completely different products from two completely different assembly lines.



The fact that they're still airing Smallville, Supernatural, Reaper and any number of other shows that appeal to young males means that the CW isn't just focusing on one demographic either. The fact that they canceled wrestling, put a big push behind Gossip Girls, and are hyping the 90201 revival means that they're also trying to broaden their appeal to another demographic. Again, where's the crime in that?

And the fact is that smaller cable networks, with whom the CW has as much, if not more in common than ABC, NBC, and CBS, do, in fact, target narrow demographic segments all the time. I'd list them, but we all know who they are.

And yet, they've poorly promoted those particular programs. It doesn't matter if you have shows that appeal to young males (or African Americans like "Everybody Hates Chris"), if you don't properly market and advertise them (to let the viewers know of their presence), then you might as well forget it.

[Frank]

In a way Smallville has been the ideal show as far as getting both demographics: super-heroes for the boys and the girls gets to see Welling shirtless. :biggrin:

[Paradox]

TMC1982 keeps making this mistake:

Catering almost exclusively towards young females (instead of showing more variety and balance) for a major broadcast network, isn't good for the long term, because that particular demographic is likely, relatively small to begin with.

The CW is anything BUT a "major" broadcast network. It barely doubles Lifetime's pittance of an average of a million and a half viewers. The CW couldn't be a more minor broadcast network. It's the lowest of the low in that area, and leagues behind all the others.

Not that you don't have some points, but continuously characterizing the CW as anything BUT a tiny niche network is doing your points more harm than good.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Which is ironic within itself in a sense, due to the fact that a show like "Gossip Girl" (http://youtube.com/watch?v=kRI8_DqAam4) has been reguarly criticized by the Parents Television Council and other conservative/parental watchdog groups for its racy content (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/film-and-tv/tv-radio-reviews/uptown-boy-will-screaming-teenage-girls-and-wild-tabloid-rumours-destroy-chace-crawford-881176.html).

The PTC is a joke of the highest order. They have no power and most networks and cable networks ignore their complaints since its just them complaining. The PTC will never have any power to do anything since their a bunch of idiots who complain about swear words on TV and how someone is dressed.

[superion]

The CW is anything BUT a "major" broadcast network. It barely doubles Lifetime's pittance of an average of a million and a half viewers. The CW couldn't be a more minor broadcast network. It's the lowest of the low in that area, and leagues behind all the others.

Not that you don't have some points, but continuously characterizing the CW as anything BUT a tiny niche network is doing your points more harm than good.

The CW only doubling Lifetime 1.5 million viewers is true currently. CW shows like Gossip Girl and Reaper draw less than 3 million on average but there was a time when the old WB did much better than that.

Buffy at its height used to average nearly 5 million viewers. 7th Heaven the WB's most highly rated show used to get as much as 6 to 7 million viewers. You would think Ostroff would try to imitate what worked in the past for the WB with a more well rounded schedule of programs that include family fare, action, etc