CW President Dawn Ostroff Must Be Fired [Archive]

TMC1982

08-02-2008, 01:42 AM

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

08-02-2008, 07:29 AM

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

Right?

JDogindy

08-02-2008, 08:55 AM

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

08-02-2008, 09:33 AM

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

08-02-2008, 10:57 AM

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

08-02-2008, 11:06 AM

3. Fake wrestling isn't exactly prestige.

As opposed to real wrestling?

StoneGold

08-02-2008, 11:37 AM

3. Fake wrestling isn't exactly prestige.

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

TMC1982

08-02-2008, 04:09 PM

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

08-02-2008, 04:19 PM

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

08-02-2008, 04:47 PM

GRANT!

08-02-2008, 05:14 PM

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

mattx110

08-02-2008, 07:48 PM

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!

08-02-2008, 08:38 PM

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

08-02-2008, 08:45 PM

Sounds to me like someone really misses his wrasslin'.

GRANT!

08-02-2008, 09:14 PM

Sounds to me like someone really misses his wrasslin'.

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

Sean Whitmore

08-02-2008, 09:49 PM

Royal

08-02-2008, 10:00 PM

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

08-02-2008, 11:18 PM

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

08-02-2008, 11:30 PM

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

Wow.

GRANT!

08-02-2008, 11:33 PM

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

08-02-2008, 11:48 PM

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

08-03-2008, 12:05 AM

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

Nate Grey

08-03-2008, 12:57 AM

TMC1982

08-03-2008, 01:02 AM

: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

08-03-2008, 02:42 AM

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

08-03-2008, 02:50 AM

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

08-03-2008, 04:08 AM

Nyarlathotep

08-03-2008, 06:14 AM

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

08-03-2008, 06:47 AM

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

And I'm sitting here on Capital Hill.

DonC

08-03-2008, 09:48 AM

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

08-03-2008, 10:02 AM

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

08-03-2008, 10:23 AM

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

08-03-2008, 11:21 AM

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

08-03-2008, 11:01 PM

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

08-03-2008, 11:06 PM

Nate Grey

08-03-2008, 11:12 PM

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

08-03-2008, 11:12 PM

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

08-03-2008, 11:15 PM

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

08-03-2008, 11:24 PM

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

08-03-2008, 11:29 PM

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

08-03-2008, 11:40 PM

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

08-03-2008, 11:42 PM

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

08-03-2008, 11:43 PM

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

08-03-2008, 11:49 PM

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

08-03-2008, 11:56 PM

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

08-04-2008, 12:01 AM

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

08-04-2008, 12:06 AM

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

08-04-2008, 12:09 AM

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

08-04-2008, 12:11 AM

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

08-04-2008, 12:25 AM

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

08-04-2008, 12:29 AM

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

08-04-2008, 12:29 AM

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

08-04-2008, 12:41 AM

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

08-04-2008, 12:42 AM

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

08-04-2008, 12:50 AM

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

08-04-2008, 12:54 AM

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

08-04-2008, 12:57 AM

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

08-04-2008, 01:04 AM

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

08-04-2008, 01:05 AM

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

08-04-2008, 01:06 AM

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

08-04-2008, 01:12 AM

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

08-04-2008, 01:12 AM

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

08-04-2008, 01:13 AM

Crap, I owe Jake a Coke.

SEAN

Nate Grey

08-04-2008, 01:46 AM

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

08-04-2008, 01:47 AM

double post

noh-varr

08-04-2008, 01:48 AM

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

08-04-2008, 03:24 AM

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

08-04-2008, 06:38 AM

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

08-04-2008, 07:31 AM

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

08-04-2008, 07:37 AM

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

08-04-2008, 10:14 AM

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

08-04-2008, 10:53 AM

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

08-04-2008, 04:18 PM

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

08-04-2008, 04:20 PM

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

08-04-2008, 04:46 PM

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

08-04-2008, 04:53 PM

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

Jake V

08-04-2008, 04:55 PM

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

08-04-2008, 04:57 PM

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

08-04-2008, 05:06 PM

Jake V

08-04-2008, 05:12 PM

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

08-04-2008, 05:25 PM

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

08-04-2008, 05:27 PM

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

08-04-2008, 05:29 PM

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

08-04-2008, 05:31 PM

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

08-04-2008, 05:32 PM

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

08-04-2008, 05:34 PM

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

kalorama

08-04-2008, 05:37 PM

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

08-04-2008, 05:38 PM

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

08-04-2008, 05:41 PM

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

08-04-2008, 05:51 PM

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

08-04-2008, 06:03 PM

(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

08-04-2008, 06:49 PM

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

08-04-2008, 06:56 PM

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

08-04-2008, 11:12 PM

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

08-05-2008, 05:59 AM

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

08-05-2008, 06:37 AM

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

08-05-2008, 06:48 AM

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

Paradox

08-05-2008, 06:50 AM

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

08-05-2008, 06:51 AM

What, like wrasslin'?

Paradox

08-05-2008, 06:52 AM

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

kalorama

08-05-2008, 09:03 AM

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

08-05-2008, 11:01 AM

Nyarlathotep

08-05-2008, 11:11 AM

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

08-05-2008, 11:15 AM

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

08-05-2008, 12:45 PM

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

08-05-2008, 02:01 PM

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

08-05-2008, 02:09 PM

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

08-05-2008, 02:27 PM

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

08-05-2008, 02:58 PM

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

08-05-2008, 03:04 PM

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

08-05-2008, 03:21 PM

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

08-05-2008, 03:46 PM

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.

Pixie_Solanas

08-05-2008, 04:11 PM

Jake V

08-05-2008, 05:06 PM

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

08-05-2008, 05:19 PM

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

08-05-2008, 05:26 PM

Astonishing X-Fan

08-05-2008, 05:29 PM

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

08-05-2008, 05:34 PM

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

08-05-2008, 05:36 PM

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

08-05-2008, 05:40 PM

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

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

kalorama

08-05-2008, 05:42 PM

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

08-05-2008, 06:05 PM

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

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

Frank

08-05-2008, 06:55 PM

superion

08-05-2008, 07:06 PM

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

08-05-2008, 07:13 PM

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

08-05-2008, 10:23 PM

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

08-05-2008, 10:52 PM

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

08-05-2008, 11:06 PM

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

08-05-2008, 11:12 PM

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

08-05-2008, 11:14 PM

*runns through nude*

Floyd The Barber

08-05-2008, 11:15 PM

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

08-05-2008, 11:56 PM

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

08-06-2008, 12:05 AM

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

08-06-2008, 02:38 AM

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

kalorama

08-06-2008, 09:33 AM

If this is misogyny:

Then this misandry:

Which makes it better how?

Wide of the target by about a mile.

kalorama

08-06-2008, 09:37 AM

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

08-06-2008, 09:39 AM

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.

JDogindy

08-06-2008, 09:53 AM

SPAfreak

08-06-2008, 10:00 AM

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

08-06-2008, 10:16 AM

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

08-06-2008, 11:29 AM

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

08-06-2008, 01:49 PM

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

08-06-2008, 02:50 PM

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

08-06-2008, 03:03 PM

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

08-06-2008, 03:16 PM

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

08-06-2008, 03:21 PM

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

08-06-2008, 03:22 PM

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

08-06-2008, 04:25 PM

Wide of the target by about a mile.

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

SUPERECWFAN1

08-06-2008, 04:37 PM

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

08-06-2008, 04:53 PM

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

08-06-2008, 04:55 PM

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

08-06-2008, 08:49 PM

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

TMC1982

08-06-2008, 11:08 PM

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

08-06-2008, 11:19 PM

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

08-06-2008, 11:29 PM

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

08-07-2008, 03:49 AM

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

08-07-2008, 04:50 AM

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

08-07-2008, 06:37 AM

superion

08-07-2008, 06:39 AM

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

The Batman

08-07-2008, 06:56 AM

So where is wrestling going now? The CW's loss is going to be somebody's gain. Which network is going to hurriedly grab up this clear ratings winner?

Paradox

08-07-2008, 07:47 AM

superion still doesn't mention anything of signifigance:

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

And the only other broadcast network WB was beating was freaking UPN, and even then only most of the time. Heck, even now, Univision regularly beats out CW and the next rung up outdoes them by three times. CW, WB and UPN were always also-ran nobodies.

Ratings '98-'06 (http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/05/29/broadcast-network-season-averages-1998-2006/3957)

Ratings this season so far. (http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/24/season-to-date-broadcast-net-ratings-through-july-20/4503)

CW has NEVER been a big concern and neither were either of its antecedents.

kalorama

08-07-2008, 09:16 AM

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.

And the CW is a niche broadcasting network. So, again, not apples and oranges.

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

And even if that's true (and you have nothing resembling evidence to prove that it is) it's still not relevant because the CW is, by no means, a "major broadcast network."

And since when is canceling the highest rated program on your network not "simple business" on the contrary?

And, again, ratings don't automatically translate to profit. TV is a business. If a show's not making money, it should hardly come as a surprise that it gets canceled.

Astonishing X-Fan

08-07-2008, 12:15 PM

So where is wrestling going now? The CW's loss is going to be somebody's gain. Which network is going to hurriedly grab up this clear ratings winner?

It's going to MyNetworkTV, a channel I've never even heard of.

Don't matter to me, I live in Canada and I get it on The Score, so no missing wrestling for me.

Royal

08-07-2008, 01:06 PM

It's going to MyNetworkTV, a channel I've never even heard of.

It's the other CW.

They tried their stride with IFL and failed because production knew shit all about MMA.

Jamal

08-07-2008, 01:18 PM

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.

I didn't know the African American shows moved to sunday nights till I saw one of the actors complaining about it in an interview.

Floyd The Barber

08-07-2008, 01:57 PM

So where is wrestling going now? The CW's loss is going to be somebody's gain. Which network is going to hurriedly grab up this clear ratings winner?

Smackdown begins airing on MyNetwork TV on October 3rd (a Friday) at 8:00pm. MyNetwork TV is a FOX owned network which (to me) makes it a step up from CW. MyNetwork (to my knowledge) is a growing network while CW is a combo of two fading networks that became 1 fading network. So this'll be a good thing for Smackdown and MyNetwork I think.

CW can have their bratty spoiled Paris Hilton wannabe demo. Sorry... couldn't help myself.

And for the record: You can love Smackdown and hate Gossip Girl without being a misogynist. I absolutely love real non-trendy genuine strong women inside and out. (Sorry again.)

Nate Grey

08-07-2008, 02:26 PM

I didn't know the African American shows moved to sunday nights till I saw one of the actors complaining about it in an interview.

Is The Game on Sunday nights, too? I know it hasn't been canceled, but its parent show, Girlfriends, has. I just don't know where it falls in the lineup, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is on Sunday, before or after Everybody Hates Chris.

superion

08-07-2008, 04:52 PM

And the only other broadcast network WB was beating was freaking UPN, and even then only most of the time. Heck, even now, Univision regularly beats out CW and the next rung up outdoes them by three times. CW, WB and UPN were always also-ran nobodies.

Ratings '98-'06 (http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/05/29/broadcast-network-season-averages-1998-2006/3957)

Ratings this season so far. (http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/24/season-to-date-broadcast-net-ratings-through-july-20/4503)

CW has NEVER been a big concern and neither were either of its antecedents.

No one ever expected the WB/UPN to beat any of the major networks in the ratings but that doesn't mean the CW can't do better than being the Life network for teenage girls. There is a lot of space the CW can fall into between the big networks and a insignificant channel like the Life network.

The fact that the CW has lower ratings than what UPN/WB could generate alone some years just affirms what a lousy job the current head of the network is doing currently.

kalorama

08-07-2008, 04:59 PM

No one ever expected the WB/UPN to beat any of the major networks in the ratings but that doesn't mean the CW can't do better than being the Life network for teenage girls. There is a lot of space the CW can fall into between the big networks and a insignificant channel like the Life network.

The fact that the CW has lower ratings than what UPN/WB could generate alone some years just affirms what a lousy job the current head of the network is doing currently.

It doesn't even come close to doing any such thing. If it confirms anything, it's that expecting the marriage of two lifelong losers (UPN and WB) to spawn an immediate winner is wildly unrealistic.

Tish-the-Scorpion

08-07-2008, 06:23 PM

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?
.Who knows but that demo is heavily targeted by the music industry now. especially hip-hop which use to be male driven. now every rapper makes girl friendly songs for radio/tv play. its the same with a network like CW. maybe they know something we don't. it should be noted younger girls will always have money to spend.

Justin D.

08-07-2008, 10:15 PM

Awesome, now the thread's gonna get good.

SEAN

Funny, but you're not helping, Sean.

Astonishing X-Fan

08-07-2008, 10:19 PM

It's the other CW.

They tried their stride with IFL and failed because production knew shit all about MMA.

The channel doesn't even seem to exist over here in Canada. Can't get it on any cable services around here, anyway.

TMC1982

08-07-2008, 10:28 PM

And the CW is a niche broadcasting network. So, again, not apples and oranges.

And even if that's true (and you have nothing resembling evidence to prove that it is) it's still not relevant because the CW is, by no means, a "major broadcast network."

And, again, ratings don't automatically translate to profit. TV is a business. If a show's not making money, it should hardly come as a surprise that it gets canceled.

The CW is still on broadcast television, which is generally believed to be available in more homes than cable. And another thing, FOX when it started back in 1986-87, was more or less, a "niche network". It had cutting edge comedy shows like "Married... with Children", "In Living Color", "The Tracy Ullman Show", and "The Simpsons", groundbreaking reality shows like "America's Most Wanted" and "COPS", shows catered towards the urban demographic like "New York Undercover", "Martin", and "Living Single", and shows that were geared towards young people like "Parker Lewis Can't Loose", "21 Jump Street", and "Beverly Hills 90210". But eventually, they came to the conclusion, that they needed to broaden their mainstream appeal in order to compete long term with ABC, NBC, and CBS. Hence, them getting into sports starting with the National Football Conference package (under CBS' nose) in late 1993.

TMC1982

08-07-2008, 10:30 PM

TMC1982

08-07-2008, 10:58 PM

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).

Ads Gone Bad (http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/entertainmentcolumn/2008/col20080807.asp)

Spector also focused on the new print ads for the teen drama “Gossip Girl” on the little-watched CW network. They drew attention by using the disapproving words of TV critics to sell the show. One features a teenage girl character with her eyes closed and her mouth open as a man nuzzles her neck, with the Boston Herald’s verdict: “Every Parent’s Nightmare.”

Another ad features a topless girl in a pool passionately kissing a boy with his back to the camera. The critical words came from the New York Post: “A Nasty Piece of Work.” Get this: Ad Week magazine revealed a new trick on CW’s part: the ad is racier than the show. In the actual scene from the show, the girl is wearing a bikini. So network promoters have less scruples than the networks they’re promoting.

A third ad by the CW network marketing department promoting “Gossip Girl” features two teenagers in bed, and triggered this critique from the Parents Television Council: “Mind-Blowingly Inappropriate.” This was the ultimate spit in the face to parents. The message sent to their children: you should watch this show upstairs in your room while your nerdy parents aren’t looking.

Marketing consultant Tina Wells took on this campaign in The Huffington Post with an interesting twist. To what degree are the show promoters on the CW network really just perpetuating their own kinky stereotypes of teens, instead of reflecting the real attitudes of their target audience? Advertisers see young people as nothing but sex-hungry bags of hormones. “It's what they want kids to be, but I bet when they're sitting in that room coming up with the show's concept, there isn't a person under 20 anywhere in the vicinity.”

Wells goes to the numbers. “Gossip Girl” has been hailed in the media as a hot place where teens go to watch the pretty young things display the latest fashions (at least before they take them off). But it’s not true. Wells suggests these smutty new CW ads are “an act of total, irresponsible desperation,” since the show “averaged 2.6 million viewers per new episode, and only about 500,000 are teens, the show's supposed target market.” By comparison, MTV’s “The Hills” blew “Gossip Girl” out of the water in terms of popularity among teens, and it's a reality show produced on a fraction of their budget. CW’s problem? Their teen scenes aren’t seen as realistic.

In the final analysis, the irony of all this advertising is that it’s actually the opposite of boldness or daring to try and exploit sex to sell goods. It’s become the most hackneyed trick in a yellowed old book. Those executives signing off on this garbage are little more than dirty old men. And women.

TMC1982

08-08-2008, 12:10 AM

Then if that's the case, then there would've been no point in creating the CW in the first place.

Dawn Ostroff in my estimation, continues to prove how out of touch she is with Joe Public (hence her wanting to limit the CW's target audience), let alone with the times. She continues to push the young, rich and beautiful shows because in her eyes, the reflect 1980s era night time soaps like "Dynasty" and "Dallas". Her rationale is that like 20-25 years earlier, we were going through an economic recession, and those types of shows were "escapist" programming. Unfortunately, this isn't the '80s anymore, it's the year 2008. As I said before, Ostroff seems to mostly prefer shows that she personally likes, instead of what the people like.

And when the below average ratings for something like "Gossip Girl" is presented to here, she tries to spin it. Instead of going back and examining what went wrong and taking responsibility, Dawn Ostroff would rather blame the media or the vast majority of viewers for "misunderstanding" her product.

CW is tanking per WSJ (http://boards.eonline.com/Insider/Boards/thread.jspa?threadID=63454&start=0&tstart=0)
Bruce Rosenblum, president of the Warner Bros. Television Group and a member of the CW's board, says he was disappointed the network had not managed to capture a larger audience. But he pointed to the strength of its distribution system and its new-series development as reasons for optimism.

Frank

08-08-2008, 12:14 AM

Dawn Ostroff in my estimation, continues to prove how out of touch she is with Joe Public (hence her wanting to limit the CW's target audience), let alone with the times. She continues to push the young, rich and beautiful shows because in her eyes, the reflect 1980s era night time soaps like "Dynasty" and "Dallas". Her rationale is that like 20-25 years earlier, we were going through an economic recession, and those types of shows were "escapist" programming. Unfortunately, this isn't the '80s anymore, it's the year 2008. As I said before, Ostroff seems to mostly prefer shows that she personally likes, instead of what the people like.

And when the below average ratings for something like "Gossip Girl" is presented to here, she tries to spin it. Instead of going back and examining what went wrong and taking responsibility, Dawn Ostroff would rather blame the media or the vast majority of viewers for "misunderstanding" her product.

CW is tanking per WSJ (http://boards.eonline.com/Insider/Boards/thread.jspa?threadID=63454&start=0&tstart=0)

Maybe that's the assigment that her bosses gave her.

TMC1982

08-08-2008, 12:30 AM

Maybe that's the assigment that her bosses gave her.

Oh really!?:rolleyes:

Royal

08-08-2008, 12:36 AM

The channel doesn't even seem to exist over here in Canada. Can't get it on any cable services around here, anyway.

It's because that all of the affiliates MyNetwork has are the affiliates that got dropped during the UPN/WB merger in the US.

They also piggyback content from other channels as well, so they're technically half a channel.

TMC1982

08-08-2008, 12:49 AM

Maybe that's the assigment that her bosses gave her.

So putting all of your eggs in one basket (let alone one that really doesn't get great overall ratings to begin with), is an "ideal" assignment? All that she continues to due, is spin, spin, spin.

The Latest Gossip from CW Boss Dawn Ostroff (http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Biz/Dawn-Ostroff-Assesses/800037872)

TVGuide.com: You're building the CW's image around Gossip Girl, but it hasn't been a big hit by traditional standards.
Ostroff: I think the word there is "traditional." Our audience tends to be a little bit younger and they are more open to consuming their content and new media in different ways. I think when you look at a show like Gossip Girl, you hear about it, you see it, there are rabid fans everywhere who can't consume enough of the show, the music, the wardrobe and it's all just [about] how you reach them. A hit takes on a different meaning and sort of a different way of reaching the viewer. I know that this show is a hit and I know it's going to be a bigger hit. It's interesting to hear that Gossip Girl is the No. 1 show downloaded on iTunes. The streaming numbers are quite large.

TVGuide.com: But you want higher ratings on the CW. Isn't that why you're not making the new episodes available online? [See: Gossip Girl Returns... But Not on the Web]
Ostroff: We've always given fans of the show a lot of online content and we plan on actually adding to that over the next few weeks. While streaming won't be a part of that, there will be more new short-form content available to Gossip Girl fans. We are, however, going to experiment and see if we can grow the ratings by keeping these five episodes exclusive to our airwaves.

TVGuide.com: You have two corporate parents, Time Warner and CBS Corp., who believed the CW would be profitable right away. Do you think they'll give the network the time it needs to grow?
Ostroff: They've been very patient and as far as I know they will continue to be patient. I think they are pleased in what they see in terms of Gossip Girl, in terms of it really helping us establish a brand and a lot of buzz for this new network. Gossip Girl is the poster child and it will be joined by a number of shows that are in that milieu. As you know, we're developing a new version of Beverly Hills, 90210....

TVGuide.com: So what will the CW brand stand for going forward?
Ostroff: To a certain degree, female. Quality. Doing something that feels different, that feels special, that makes noise, that gets attention and has a youthful bent — which doesn't mean kids necessarily. It means contemporary.

TMC1982

08-08-2008, 01:29 AM

noh-varr

08-08-2008, 01:52 AM

This was in one of the links from above here is refresher of it:

http://boards.eonline.com/Insider/Boards/thread.jspa?threadID=63454&start=0&tstart=0

REAPER (The CW) - The netlet is moving forward with a second season of the freshman drama, industry sources confirmed this afternoon. Said pickup, for 13 episodes, is understood to be targeted for midseason following the conclusion of "Smallville's" run. About 2.56 million viewers on average tune into the series each week, on par with fellow CW dramas "Gossip Girl" (2.35 million) and "Supernatural" (2.69 million).

So their big hit show is drawing worse numbers then two "niche" genre shows. the perfect thing to build a network around! As long as Reaper is on they have me for an hour a week. That's all. Though it is more then Fox has me.

Also focusing on being a small niche network is well a bit stupid. You have one of the biggest studios behind you and all their properties. You are that "other" network. Why not create new content across the board? Wresting doesn't work for you? Fine whatever, it will still be on the air and MyNetwork will now have something to start ammasing an actual network behind. The companies behind the CW seem willing to put money into it, now would be the time to add real variety, but instead we will see the same old stuff. Oh and what kids want to see a rehash of a show they never watched? 90210 is familiar to those who saw it the first time, now? It's nothing. It's not worth anything why revive a property that won't be known to the audience?

Really I don't see the point in caring about the CW outside of one show. FX and AMC are actually creating more original and adult shows. Most people if they watch tv have cable. Really I think more cable channels will follow FX and AMC's suit and create their own content, or I sure hope so. The only way for change on CW (and any future situations) is there to be sucess elsewhere while they fail. It really seems like CW will be doing worse then the WB and UPN this IS important because if you take the best of both and can't do the same you just wasted money. Money is all that matters, it's a business. No money then it's a failure.

This isn't wrestling changing channels oh no! Following by "lol you like wrestling you suck.... oh wait I'm on a comic book site". It is a legitimate question posed. Of course put in the traditional exaggerated fashion only found on the internet.

Paradox

08-08-2008, 02:51 AM

TMC1982 hits the nail on the head:

Then if that's the case, then there would've been no point in creating the CW in the first place.

That's what I thought at the time, and I haven't seen anything to change that opinion since.

kalorama

08-08-2008, 08:30 AM

It doesn't even come close to doing any such thing. If it confirms anything, it's that expecting the marriage of two lifelong losers (UPN and WB) to spawn an immediate winner is wildly unrealistic.

Then if that's the case, then there would've been no point in creating the CW in the first place.

Nonsense.

See, the key word in that previous sentence is "immediate." The CW has really only been in existence for 1 1/2 seasons (the other half season being lost to the strike). You don't turnaround a business that's had nothing but consecutive losing quarters for multiple years in one fell swoop. Doesn't work like that. It takes time and it takes (brace yourself, because I know this will come as a shock) change. If all she was going to do was the same thing they had been doing, there would have been no point to creating the CW, because what they had been doing (before the merger) is what resulted in the cascading failure that put both networks on the brink of implosion.

Ontir

08-08-2008, 10:06 AM

The loss of Buffy and possibly "Felicity's" haircut (if you accept the belief of former WB president) is what lead to the downfall of the WB. When they lost Buffy the WB was then running even with the dying-on-the-vine UPN.

I still think the WB should've stuck it out, let UPN go down the drain or be folded into CBS, then moved forward. They ended up doing another season of 7th Heaven which always did well for them. They still have One Tree Hill, the success of which is unfathomable to me, but it's there. Smallville is on season 8, and if they had chosen to utilize it, they have the entire Looney Tunes and Hannah-Barbera libraries to choose from. It could've been pulled out with shows like Gossip Girl taking the place of Dawson's Creek.

superion

08-08-2008, 10:30 AM

Who knows but that demo is heavily targeted by the music industry now. especially hip-hop which use to be male driven. now every rapper makes girl friendly songs for radio/tv play. its the same with a network like CW. maybe they know something we don't. it should be noted younger girls will always have money to spend.

I don't know about the rest of the music industry but hip-hop is probably targeting girls because it is already so popular with males that there is no longer any potential for substantial growth within that demograhic. So the only way to continue to increase record sales is to target females.

Getting back to the CW it currently does not have a substantial number of young males or females watching so their decision to just forget about half of their potential audience is bizarre at best.

The Batman

08-08-2008, 10:40 AM

Again, why is dropping wrestling being regarded as synonymous with giving up completely on attracting any male viewership?

kalorama

08-08-2008, 10:43 AM

They still have One Tree Hill, the success of which is unfathomable to me...

You aren't the only one.

superion

08-08-2008, 11:05 AM

Nonsense.

See, the key word in that previous sentence is "immediate." The CW has really only been in existence for 1 1/2 seasons (the other half season being lost to the strike). You don't turnaround a business that's had nothing but consecutive losing quarters for multiple years in one fell swoop. Doesn't work like that. It takes time and it takes (brace yourself, because I know this will come as a shock) change. If all she was going to do was the same thing they had been doing, there would have been no point to creating the CW, because what they had been doing (before the merger) is what resulted in the cascading failure that put both networks on the brink of implosion.p

The only problem with that is that Dawn Ostroff was president of UPN from 2002 to 2006 so she was one of the people who caused the cascading failure to begin. In fact based on the links to the ratings that Paradox put up UPN was actually growing in viewership before she took over in Feb. 2002.

UPN
98-99 - 2.74 million viewers
99-00 - 3.92
00-01 - 3.74
01-02 - 4.29
02-03 - 3.52
03-04 - 3.37
04-05 - 3.35
05-06 - 3.10
CW
06-07 - 3.10

Since she started as president in the 02-03 season she presided over 4 consecutive years of decreasing viewership at UPN. Than she was rewarded for her failure by being made head of the CW where in the first year she finally avoided losing more viewers for once and that was only because the CW combined the most popoular shows from the WB/UPN.

Now her brilliant idea is to put all her eggs in the Gossip Girl/teenage soap opera genre. That idea didn't work years ago at the WB when after the initial success of Dawson's Creek they threw on one teenage soap after another to try and capitalize on its success. It didn't work then as most of those shows never lasted past a year and I would be shocked if it worked any better this time.

As for Gossip Girl itself aside from the fact the ratings from remained flat despite the large amounts of money they have spent promoting it. The creator of GG also did the OC which pretty much jumped the shark by its 2nd season. The OC was basically on life support its last two years before they mercifully cancelled in its 4th year. I can easily see GG going the same way next year and her brilliant strategy will sink with it.

Nate Grey

08-08-2008, 11:39 AM

Than she was rewarded for her failure by being made head of the CW

Still no one seems to grasp her superiors are working with info we the public don't have. If it was all directly her fault she wouldn't be "rewarded", meaning she was doing something RIGHT behind the scenes, or some things were out of her control.

Logically, why would the network put out every single bit of minutia about how their business is run and net profits and losses to the public? An open call for accountants? If they can't afford one on their own they've got bigger problems then who's president.

The Batman

08-08-2008, 12:06 PM

Why didn't any of the other, bigger networks pick-up wrestling? If it's such an unfathomably bad idea to not keep it around, why didn't anybody other than some small network a lot of haven't heard of snatch it up?

kalorama

08-08-2008, 12:07 PM

Still no one seems to grasp her superiors are working with info we the public don't have. If it was all directly her fault she wouldn't be "rewarded", meaning she was doing something RIGHT behind the scenes, or some things were out of her control.

To say nothing of the fact that being tasked to reverse the downward trends of what essentially amounts to two different networks at the same time doesn't really seem like much of a "reward."

The Batman

08-08-2008, 12:11 PM

p

The only problem with that is that Dawn Ostroff was president of UPN from 2002 to 2006 so she was one of the people who caused the cascading failure to begin. In fact based on the links to the ratings that Paradox put up UPN was actually growing in viewership before she took over in Feb. 2002.

UPN
98-99 - 2.74 million viewers
99-00 - 3.92
00-01 - 3.74
01-02 - 4.29
02-03 - 3.52
03-04 - 3.37
04-05 - 3.35
05-06 - 3.10
CW
06-07 - 3.10

Since she started as president in the 02-03 season she presided over 4 consecutive years of decreasing viewership at UPN. Than she was rewarded for her failure by being made head of the CW where in the first year she finally avoided losing more viewers for once and that was only because the CW combined the most popoular shows from the WB/UPN.

Now her brilliant idea is to put all her eggs in the Gossip Girl/teenage soap opera genre. That idea didn't work years ago at the WB when after the initial success of Dawson's Creek they threw on one teenage soap after another to try and capitalize on its success. It didn't work then as most of those shows never lasted past a year and I would be shocked if it worked any better this time.

As for Gossip Girl itself aside from the fact the ratings from remained flat despite the large amounts of money they have spent promoting it. The creator of GG also did the OC which pretty much jumped the shark by its 2nd season. The OC was basically on life support its last two years before they mercifully cancelled in its 4th year. I can easily see GG going the same way next year and her brilliant strategy will sink with it.

What caused those drops in ratings? Were they forces beyond Ostroff's control or a direct result of her programming decisions? Why have they been losing viewers steadily since 2001-2002, a time when they still had wrestling and hadn't yet put all their eggs in that one basket like they've supposedly done now?

Nate Grey

08-08-2008, 12:16 PM

To say nothing of the fact that being tasked to reverse the downward trends of what essentially amounts to two different networks at the same time doesn't really seem like much of a "reward."

Or in the timeframe she was given. I thought it was two seasons, but I didn't count the strike. I'd bet money they didn't expect her to turn that network into the equivalent of the big three, or even the top 5, in that short a period of time. Such an expectation is wildly unrealistic, and I'm sure they know that.

superion

08-08-2008, 05:07 PM

What caused those drops in ratings? Were they forces beyond Ostroff's control or a direct result of her programming decisions? Why have they been losing viewers steadily since 2001-2002, a time when they still had wrestling and hadn't yet put all their eggs in that one basket like they've supposedly done now?

There are only so many reasons for drops in ratings.

1. They loss some markets for some reason. That didn't happen as far as I know. UPN seemed to be appearing in more markets over the years.

2. The general loss of viewers by broadcast television. Looking at the charts there seemed to some erosion from the 4 major networks but nothing like the 25% loss in viewer ship suffered by UPN under her watch.

3. The number one reason any networks ratings decline is lousy programming. As President of the network that's her job. As she was President at UPN for 4 years every show that was on UPN at the time of the merger when ratings had tanked belonged to her either because she put them on during those years or she failed to replace them if they were under performing.

No one expected her to turn UPN/CW into a rival to the major networks but not losing 25% of your audience would have been nice.

I think this tidbit from the article TMC linked to says everything you need to know about Ostroff competence:

Then there’s the network’s Entertainment president herself. Many viewers and advertisers don’t have much faith in Ms. Ostroff’s past programming decisions and management of the network in general, and rumors for months have mentioned her being ousted from her role. Many of the disgruntled speaking out against her are loyal viewers that are witnessing their favorite show’s popularity erode and getting little network support in the process. She didn’t help her case in an interview in The Hollywood Reporter, in which all the network entertainment presidents gave interviews about the pilot season. While the others provided candid and revealing discussion, Ms. Ostroff was evasive with answers and didn’t paint any clear picture of where her network was headed, leaving many critics to wonder if she knew exactly what she was doing.

Rabid Trekkie

08-09-2008, 10:13 AM

The CW: How Can It Get Worse? (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/05/14/1717163.php)
2 (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/05/14/1717162.php) | 3 (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/05/14/1717163.php) | 4 (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/05/14/1717164.php) | 5 (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/05/14/1717165.php) | 6 (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/05/14/1717166.php)

If the CW is sooo bad in your opinion, why watch it? Why even care what a network does. I like Reaper and Supernatural, something happens to both those shows and CW no longer gets my viewership. Fox has Bones, House, and 24. I'm kind of interested in CBS' Eleventh Hour. ABC has nothing that I can think of. NBC has Heroes but I'm not as interested in it as I used to be.

Now for my point, those are the shows on network tv that I like. If they end or get cancelled, sure I may be pissed for a bit, but they also lose my viewership. Stop complaining about what a network is doing, if it doesn't have what you're looking for go else where. My family finally got cable, now I've got Burn Notice, Monk, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Doctor Who, Torchwood, Robin Hood, Middleman, and possibly more shows coming my way that will hold my interest. And of course I have my DVD's and my books. It's not like the CW heavily targeting the female audience will take away all the other shows on TV. There are so many other places to go for your entertainment fix that it boggles my mind why anyone would just harp on one network. We have more venues for entertainment, tailored to more types of consumers, than just about any other country on the planet at a time where entertainment seems to be the one thing that America is rich in. Stop complaining and find a new show somewhere else.

The Batman

08-09-2008, 11:36 AM

That's just it, this isn't about the CW or how well it's doing. Nobody really cares about the CW, it's just a stick to beat Ostroff with because she cancelled wrestling.

TMC1982

08-09-2008, 05:33 PM

If the CW is sooo bad in your opinion, why watch it? Why even care what a network does. I like Reaper and Supernatural, something happens to both those shows and CW no longer gets my viewership. Fox has Bones, House, and 24. I'm kind of interested in CBS' Eleventh Hour. ABC has nothing that I can think of. NBC has Heroes but I'm not as interested in it as I used to be.

Now for my point, those are the shows on network tv that I like. If they end or get cancelled, sure I may be pissed for a bit, but they also lose my viewership. Stop complaining about what a network is doing, if it doesn't have what you're looking for go else where. My family finally got cable, now I've got Burn Notice, Monk, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Doctor Who, Torchwood, Robin Hood, Middleman, and possibly more shows coming my way that will hold my interest. And of course I have my DVD's and my books. It's not like the CW heavily targeting the female audience will take away all the other shows on TV. There are so many other places to go for your entertainment fix that it boggles my mind why anyone would just harp on one network. We have more venues for entertainment, tailored to more types of consumers, than just about any other country on the planet at a time where entertainment seems to be the one thing that America is rich in. Stop complaining and find a new show somewhere else.

I'm not going to sit here and let you tell me what to do with my personal TV habits (that's condecending, if you ask me). I try to point out a major problem within the current television industry, and you want to turn it around and blame the messenger. Simply saying "watch something else" is not going to solve the problem or directly address the issue being presented.

The Batman

08-09-2008, 05:40 PM

Actually, watching somthing else is likely to be a lot more productive then complaining about something on message boards ever could be.

TMC1982

08-09-2008, 06:47 PM

Actually, watching somthing else is likely to be a lot more productive then complaining about something on message boards ever could be.

Why!? I there's only so many hours in the week to watch wrestling!:tongue:

superion

08-09-2008, 08:05 PM

That's just it, this isn't about the CW or how well it's doing. Nobody really cares about the CW, it's just a stick to beat Ostroff with because she cancelled wrestling.

The only thing I watch on the CW is Reaper so I don't care that she canceled wrestling. But what difference does it make whether a lot of people care or not? If she has done a lousy job and by every measure she has and someone wants to point it out and can back up their assertion why shouldn't they?

People get bashed on these boards for doing a lousy job all the time why do some people feel this great need to defend Ostroff? Jeb Loeb is getting ripped for his latest Hulk comic, Quesada got ripped for Brand New Day, fans ripped Chuck Austin a new a**H*** every time he wrote a comic and basically helped drive him from the industry. It comes with the territory.

I don't really care about the New York Knick's but when discussing sports I can still laugh at and ridicule the idiotic moves made by Isiah Thomas and James Dolan.

kalorama

08-09-2008, 08:10 PM

I try to point out a major problem within the current television industry, and you want to turn it around and blame the messenger.

You're going off the rails over the programming decisions made by one executive at the smallest, least watched broadcast network on the air. How, exactly, is a decision by the head of a network that almost no one watches and that no one else seems to be emulating "a major problem within the current television industry"?

The Batman

08-09-2008, 08:25 PM

The only thing I watch on the CW is Reaper so I don't care that she canceled wrestling. But what difference does it make whether a lot of people care or not? If she has done a lousy job and by every measure she has and someone wants to point it out and can back up their assertion why shouldn't they?

People get bashed on these boards for doing a lousy job all the time why do some people feel this great need to defend Ostroff? Jeb Loeb is getting ripped for his latest Hulk comic, Quesada got ripped for Brand New Day, fans ripped Chuck Austin a new a**H*** every time he wrote a comic and basically helped drive him from the industry. It comes with the territory.

I don't really care about the New York Knick's but when discussing sports I can still laugh at and ridicule the idiotic moves made by Isiah Thomas
and James Dolan.

So basically you're advocating complaining for the sake of complaining. And that's a good thing how?

superion

08-09-2008, 09:47 PM

So basically you're advocating complaining for the sake of complaining. And that's a good thing how?

It's a discussion board people can talk about whatever topic they feel like. There is nothing inherently better about most of the other topics on this board.

TMC1982

08-09-2008, 10:36 PM

You're going off the rails over the programming decisions made by one executive at the smallest, least watched broadcast network on the air. How, exactly, is a decision by the head of a network that almost no one watches and that no one else seems to be emulating "a major problem within the current television industry"?

There you go again, making excuse after excuse for Dawn Ostroff's poor job performance. If I criticized the top executive of a upstart cable channel for instance, would it be meanless since it's on a "channel that nobody watches"? A large part of the reasons behind the fact that the CW hasn't gained more viewers (despite the merger of the WB and UPN) is because of Ms. Ostroff's poor decision making. I don't care who you are, if you're not doing your job correctly, you should be taken to task.

The Batman

08-10-2008, 10:03 AM

It's a discussion board people can talk about whatever topic they feel like. There is nothing inherently better about most of the other topics on this board.

A lot of the other topics on this board aren't people complaining just for the sake of complaining. And even if they were, when has "well, everybody else is doing it" been an acceptable defense?

GozertheGozarian

08-10-2008, 10:04 AM

The Batman

08-10-2008, 10:15 AM

There you go again, making excuse after excuse for Dawn Ostroff's poor job performance. If I criticized the top executive of a upstart cable channel for instance, would it be meanless since it's on a "channel that nobody watches"? A large part of the reasons behind the fact that the CW hasn't gained more viewers (despite the merger of the WB and UPN) is because of Ms. Ostroff's poor decision making. I don't care who you are, if you're not doing your job correctly, you should be taken to task.

Nobody was defending Ostroff just now, only pointing out the fallacy in your statement that what goes on at the smallest, least infuential of broadcast networks constitutes a "major problem within the current television industry."

And really, this isn't about taking people to task for not doing their jobs properly, it's about beating Ostroff because she doesn't want wrestling on her network.

kalorama

08-10-2008, 10:38 AM

There you go again, making excuse after excuse for Dawn Ostroff's poor job performance. If I criticized the top executive of a upstart cable channel for instance, would it be meanless since it's on a "channel that nobody watches"? A large part of the reasons behind the fact that the CW hasn't gained more viewers (despite the merger of the WB and UPN) is because of Ms. Ostroff's poor decision making. I don't care who you are, if you're not doing your job correctly, you should be taken to task.

There you go again, ignoring what people actually say and replacing it with your tired boilerplate ranting.

I never said anything about Ostroff's performance. I asked you why the programming decisions of a single executive at the smallest, least watched broadcast network in the country count as a "a major problem within the current television industry." And, in predictable fashion, you failed to actually address my question.

superion

08-10-2008, 11:08 AM

A lot of the other topics on this board aren't people complaining just for the sake of complaining. And even if they were, when has "well, everybody else is doing it" been an acceptable defense?

What difference does it make if someone chooses to make a thread where they want to complain about somebody's job performance as opposed to debating over a quality of particular movie or arguing endlessly about who will win in a fight between Thor or Superman as they do on the rumbles board?

It's a topic the individual wants to discuss for whatever reason he chooses, he has no need to defend his interest in the topic only that he can back up the accusations he makes.

What exactly makes any of the other threads I listed "good things" and this thread a "bad thing" and since when was that a requirement for making threads on this board?

kalorama

08-10-2008, 11:37 AM

...he has no need to defend his interest in the topic only that he can back up the accusations he makes.

And therein lay the problem.

superion

08-10-2008, 12:46 PM

And therein lay the problem.

That's a matter of opinion. I think he provides plenty of evidence of her lousy performance. The article he last linked to even said there has been rumors of her ouster and that CW advertisers have basically lost any confidence in her abilities.

kalorama

08-10-2008, 01:11 PM

That's a matter of opinion. I think he provides plenty of evidence of her lousy performance.

Not really. Performance can only be properly evaluated if it's measured against the goals the performer is trying to achieve. And without having read her contract or performance reviews, we have no meaningful criteria by which to determine what her job goals are. But, given the state the WB and UPN networks were in prior to the last-ditch desperation merger, it's fair and logical to assume that achieving a history making ratings turnaround and vaulting into top 3 territory in less than 2 full seasons was not on the list.

The article he last linked to even said there has been rumors of her ouster and that CW advertisers have basically lost any confidence in her abilities.

Rumors are neither proof nor evidence.

kalorama

08-10-2008, 01:22 PM

In any event, the issue has never been whether she's doing a good job, per se. None of the people in opposition to TMC1982 tirade have actually been arguing that she's doing a good job.

superion

08-10-2008, 02:01 PM

Not really. Performance can only be properly evaluated if it's measured against the goals the performer is trying to achieve. And without having read her contract or performance reviews, we have no meaningful criteria by which to determine what her job goals are. But, given the state the WB and UPN networks were in prior to the last-ditch desperation merger, it's fair and logical to assume that achieving a history making ratings turnaround and vaulting into top 3 territory in less than 2 full seasons was not on the list.

Rumors are neither proof nor evidence.

Again no one ever expected her to turn the CW into a rival of the top 4 networks so that's a just a straw man argument.

You also choose to ignore the fact she was UPN president for 4 years prior to the merger. That makes 6 years at the helm of UPN/CW where she has done nothing but lose viewers every single year. I sincerely doubt the goals she was given as President was to lose 25% to 30% of her viewers in 6 years.

That record alone should have resulted in her firing.

kalorama

08-10-2008, 02:26 PM

That record alone should have resulted in her firing.

And yet, it didn't. Which, on its face, seems to stand as prima facie evidence that her superiors (who know considerably more about how the TV business works than we do) are using criteria and goals other than the bottom line ratings to determine her suitability for continued employment. Which, on its face, makes the use of ratings as the primary foundation for a ceaseless tirade in favor of her firing a meritless, dead end of an argument.

Ed Cunard

08-10-2008, 02:30 PM

Funny, but you're not helping, Sean.

Nothing's really going to help it, Justin. I mean, I'm enjoying it, but not for the right reasons--having spent almost a decade working in television, seeing some of the various arguments have been an actual delight to read ("So that's what people think about the industry!").

It's like 99% of conversations of the industry by viewers (the same probably holds true for comics and other serial entertainment options).

1. Show(s) get cancelled for whatever reason.
2. Fan(s) upset.
3. A modicum of research to craft semi-plausible pablum.
4. OFF WITH THEIR HEADS.

That's part of the nature of fandom--people get invested in things, and sometimes that level of passion takes silly turns and blinds people.

Kalorama gets it right in saying "it's fair and logical to assume that achieving a history making ratings turnaround and vaulting into top 3 territory in less than 2 full seasons was not on the list." I mean, really, is that the measure for success? The fact is, it takes years for a new broadcast network to gain ground. It took FOX quite a while to change the "big three" into the "big four."

It's also not surprising that, in certain markets, Telemundo would beat out the CW in ratings--the Hispanic television viewing market is one of the fastest-growing segments in broadcast viewership. But, speaking of that... Pappas? The broadcaster some have cited with going bankrupt due to the CW's performance? They had their own failed effort with Spanish-language broadcasting, including legal battles surrounding TV Azteca's practices. In other words, the Pappas issue can't easily be laid soley at the feet of Ostroff and the CW.

And it's also more than just "ratings and advertising," as others have pointed out. There's the cost of shows. Sci-fi shows (the ones comics fans are most likely to complain about when they are cancelled) tend to cost more than the average show of similar pedigree due to effects budgets and whatnot. Wrestling, if I'm not mistaken, is actually costlier than people realize, as--even though the production is done by WWE--the station buys the rights to air that programming, and those rights can come at a fairly high price--and the ancillary returns for those rights, like the video games and DVDs, go to the WWE, not the airing networks.

And, really, that price isn't necessarily worth paying. On 411mania.com, I found the following statistics for Smackdown!:

SmackDown*
Close (This Week's Rating): 2.4
Open (Last Week's Rating): 2.4
Percentage Change: UNCH
52-Week High: 2.9
52-Week Low: 1.6
All Time High: 5.8
All Time Low: 1.0

If we're going to point to the ratings trends of WB/UPN and the CW, the ratings for Smackdown! have dropped further than the UPN/CW ratings did. Mix that with a high license fee and the fact that any alternative revenue (product placement, for example, which--on a buzz show like Gossip Girl--can be remarkably lucrative; or licensed products) isn't possible means that, on something like Smackdown!, the only revenue is the traditional commercial time--something which has been devalued due to the rise of DVR services like Tivo and the overall decline in ratings on broadcast networks...

The more you factor things like this in with the other issues raised here (rebranding of the network, for example), dropping wrestling seems like a rather logical choice.

But, man, I want to kill her and eat her and poop her out and then eat her again for cancelling Reba, and I don't think that reaction is in the least bit hyperbolic or uncalled for and who are you to judge.

kalorama

08-10-2008, 02:36 PM

Again no one ever expected her to turn the CW into a rival of the top 4 networks so that's a just a straw man argument.

One of the underlying foundations of TMC1982's whole argument has been that the CW is a "major" network that's being run like a small "niche cable network." In order to be considered a "major" network, it would, by definition, have to rival the top 4 broadcast nets. And TMC1982 has repeatedly laid the blame for the CW's failure to do so directly as Ostroff's feet. Now tell me, what's the point of criticizing someone for failing to do something, unless there exists some expectation that they should have done what they're being blamed for failing at?

superion

08-10-2008, 03:46 PM

And yet, it didn't. Which, on its face, seems to stand as prima facie evidence that her superiors (who know considerably more about how the TV business works than we do) are using criteria and goals other than the bottom line ratings to determine her suitability for continued employment. Which, on its face, makes the use of ratings as the primary foundation for a ceaseless tirade in favor of her firing a meritless, dead end of an argument.

That is assuming her superiors are any more competent than she is. Ostroff would not be the first or last executive who has done a crummy job but retained their positions for inexplicable reasons. As previously mentioned Isiah Thomas and Matt Millen are people who have done nothing but failed and continued in their positions far longer than they should have.

Wouldn't ratings be the bottom line for job performance at a network much like wins and losses are for a sports franchise? But you are right on this point that this argument has basically reached a dead end.

Ed Cunard

08-10-2008, 03:52 PM

Wouldn't ratings be the bottom line for job performance at a network much like wins and losses are for a sports franchise? But you are right on this point that this argument has basically reached a dead end.

Ratings, no. Revenue, yes. While they're tied to a large extent, they aren't exactly the same thing. A low-rated show may be more profitable than a high-rated show. It depends on the costs going into producing the show, whether because the ad demo is considered more lucrative in the case of the lower-rated show, etc.

kalorama

08-10-2008, 04:02 PM

That is assuming her superiors are any more competent than she is. Ostroff would not be the first or last executive who has done a crummy job but retained their positions for inexplicable reasons. As previously mentioned Isiah Thomas and Matt Millen are people who have done nothing but failed and continued in their positions far longer than they should have.

Well, if Ostroff's employers are as incompetent as you say, then that raises some significant questions further in counter to your argument: (A) Isn't it possible that the problem isn't Ostroff? That maybe she's very good at her job, but that she's hamstrung by the incompetence of her employers, who are the ultimate decision makers? (B) If that's the case, would it really matter whether they replace her, because wouldn't whomever they put in her place also be hamstrung by their incompetence?

This argument is borne out in both of the sports examples you cite. The Knicks have been floundering for most of the time Dolan has been in charge of the organization, and the Lions have been a poorly run sad sack of a team and organization for decades. Both teams' current state of irrelevance and incompetence long predates the day Isiah Thomas or Matt Millen took the reins.

Wouldn't ratings be the bottom line for job performance at a network much like wins and losses are for a sports franchise? But you are right on this point that this argument has basically reached a dead end.

As Ed Cunard said above (and as myself and others have said many times previously) the goal of any business is profitability. There are many ways to judge how well that goal has been achieved that can't necessarily be determined by looking at the year-end ratings, sales figures, win/loss column or whatever other nuance-free statistical category you care to focus on.

As for wins and losses being the bottom line for a sports franchise, I have three words for you: Los Angeles Clippers.

TMC1982

08-10-2008, 06:10 PM

There you go again, ignoring what people actually say and replacing it with your tired boilerplate ranting.

I never said anything about Ostroff's performance. I asked you why the programming decisions of a single executive at the smallest, least watched broadcast network in the country count as a "a major problem within the current television industry." And, in predictable fashion, you failed to actually address my question.

Okay, I'll try to more directly, answer your much desired question:
*Why hasn't Dawn Ostroff been removed from her job given her apparent incompetence?

*Why does she think that dupclicating (and building the network around) an otherwise meager rated show like "Gossip Girl", will be the answer to during the CW around?

*How are you going to fully and convincingly rationalize getting rid of your highest rated show ("SmackDown!") regardless of it not being the most desirable among advertisers?

The Batman

08-10-2008, 06:21 PM

Why hasn't Dawn Ostroff been removed from her job given her apparent incompetence?

Because her employers, who have more information than us, haven't decided she's incompetent.

*Why does she think that dupclicating (and building the network around) an otherwise meager rated show like "Gossip Girl", will be the answer to during the CW around?

Because despite its meager ratings it is proving profitable.

*How are you going to fully and convincingly rationalize getting rid of your highest rated show ("SmackDown!") regardless of it not being the most desirable among advertisers?

Because, as Ed Cunard explained, the ratings aren't the best, aren't getting any better, and, most importantly, the show likely isn't bringing a lot of profit to the network.

The Batman

08-10-2008, 06:28 PM

What difference does it make if someone chooses to make a thread where they want to complain about somebody's job performance as opposed to debating over a quality of particular movie or arguing endlessly about who will win in a fight between Thor or Superman as they do on the rumbles board?

It's a topic the individual wants to discuss for whatever reason he chooses, he has no need to defend his interest in the topic only that he can back up the accusations he makes.

What exactly makes any of the other threads I listed "good things" and this thread a "bad thing" and since when was that a requirement for making threads on this board?

You kind of hit on it already. Those other threads, most of the time, accomplish what they were meant to - discussion. Even if it's only about the merits of Superman over Thor, it's still discussion.

What does complaining accomplish exactly?

TMC1982

08-10-2008, 11:17 PM

Because her employers, who have more information than us, haven't decided she's incompetent.

Because despite its meager ratings it is proving profitable.

Because, as Ed Cunard explained, the ratings aren't the best, aren't getting any better, and, most importantly, the show likely isn't bringing a lot of profit to the network.

Okay, then please explain why the CW has been regularly surpassed by Univision? And just because "Gossip Girl" is proving to be profitable today, doesn't necesssarily mean that it will be just as profitable say, two or three years from now (because "nothing last forever"). Take for instance, ABC oversaturating "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" back in 2000-2001, by scheduling it four nights a week. Frankly, the CW is in their own way, doing the same thing by relying heavily on spoiled rich kid soap operas and sleezy reality shows like "Farmer Wants a Wife" and that Pussycat Dolls show. Another thing to keep in mind is that Dawn Ostroff pretty much insulted the intelligence of the audience by saying that "SmackDown!" was a show in decline. You can't sit here and try to convince me, that Dawn Ostroff isn't alienating a large portion of the viewers with her utterly limited scope.

Paradox

08-11-2008, 01:01 AM

Ed Cunard knows whereof he speaks:

Ratings, no. Revenue, yes. While they're tied to a large extent, they aren't exactly the same thing. A low-rated show may be more profitable than a high-rated show. It depends on the costs going into producing the show, whether because the ad demo is considered more lucrative in the case of the lower-rated show, etc.

And this is why so many of the networks bombard us with "Reality" shows. They're incredibly cheap to make, by comparison.

Nate Grey

08-11-2008, 01:03 AM

Okay, then please explain why the CW has been regularly surpassed by Univision?

So? CW is so new her bosses are more concerned with it turning a profit, not beating anyone in whatever Univision is surpassing CW in.

And just because "Gossip Girl" is proving to be profitable today, doesn't necesssarily mean that it will be just as profitable say, two or three years from now (because "nothing last forever").

Like wrestling (see below)? That works both ways. And the network is worried about generating money NOW for future endeavors (i.e. new shows). If you're admitting its profitable, right there she's doing her job.

Take for instance, ABC oversaturating "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" back in 2000-2001, by scheduling it four nights a week. Frankly, the CW is in their own way, doing the same thing by relying heavily on spoiled rich kid soap operas and sleezy reality shows like "Farmer Wants a Wife" and that Pussycat Dolls show.

They've picked a demo that's drawing in the ad revenue and sticking with it. Like any network does.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Dawn Ostroff pretty much insulted the intelligence of the audience by saying that "SmackDown!" was a show in decline.

So when Ed said: "Wrestling, if I'm not mistaken, is actually costlier than people realize, as--even though the production is done by WWE--the station buys the rights to air that programming, and those rights can come at a fairly high price--and the ancillary returns for those rights, like the video games and DVDs, go to the WWE, not the airing networks."

and then

"If we're going to point to the ratings trends of WB/UPN and the CW, the ratings for Smackdown! have dropped further than the UPN/CW ratings did. Mix that with a high license fee and the fact that any alternative revenue (product placement, for example, which--on a buzz show like Gossip Girl--can be remarkably lucrative; or licensed products) isn't possible means that, on something like Smackdown!, the only revenue is the traditional commercial time--something which has been devalued due to the rise of DVR services like Tivo and the overall decline in ratings on broadcast networks..."

none of that registered with you?

Let's recap since I'm sure you'll glaze over everything I just typed:
1) Her bosses know more about what she does and what goes into her job than YOU do. Than ANY of us, really.
2) Her bosses see no reason to fire her (see 1) above).
3) Rating alone will not keep a show on the air.

Paradox

08-11-2008, 01:04 AM

TMC1982 wasn't listening:

Okay, then please explain why the CW has been regularly surpassed by Univision?

This was already covered. The Hispanic demographic in the US is one of the fastest growing in existence.

Nate Grey

08-11-2008, 01:07 AM

And this is why so many of the networks bombard us with "Reality" shows. They're incredibly cheap to make, by comparison.

And apparently people buy stuff during these Reality Shows. Being cheap wouldn't be enough to keep producing them if that weren't true.

The Batman

08-11-2008, 06:22 AM

Okay, then please explain why the CW has been regularly surpassed by Univision?

I'm not sure, it might have something to do with the remarkable growth in the number of the Spanish-language viewers. Really though, unless she was tasked specifically with beating Univision, what does this have to do with Ostroff?

And just because "Gossip Girl" is proving to be profitable today, doesn't necesssarily mean that it will be just as profitable say, two or three years from now (because "nothing last forever").

And in two or three years when "Gossip Girl" isn't profitable it will be replaced with something that will be. That's how these things work. Right now though, it is generating revenue and that's the point.

Take for instance, ABC oversaturating "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" back in 2000-2001, by scheduling it four nights a week. Frankly, the CW is in their own way, doing the same thing by relying heavily on spoiled rich kid soap operas and sleezy reality shows like "Farmer Wants a Wife" and that Pussycat Dolls show.

If scheduling "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" four nights a week generated a lot of revenue for ABC then it was the right movie for them to make. If what the CW is doing is generating a lot of revenue for them then ditto.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Dawn Ostroff pretty much insulted the intelligence of the audience by saying that "SmackDown!" was a show in decline. You can't sit here and try to convince me, that Dawn Ostroff isn't alienating a large portion of the viewers with her utterly limited scope.

Well, are the ratings for "SmackDown!" increasing or are they decreasing? Is the revenue it generates for the network increasing or decreasing? From what Ed seems to be saying, the answer to both those questions is that latter. And if that's the case, then I'm not sure how it's inappropriate to call "Smackdown!" a show in decline. Impolitic maybe, but not inappropriate and certainly not insulting to anybody's intelligence.

Rabid Trekkie

08-11-2008, 06:32 AM

I'm not going to sit here and let you tell me what to do with my personal TV habits (that's condecending, if you ask me). I try to point out a major problem within the current television industry, and you want to turn it around and blame the messenger. Simply saying "watch something else" is not going to solve the problem or directly address the issue being presented.

Actually you are talking about a problem at one network, not the current television industry. Unless of course we're going to have to talk about how female oriented episodes are taking over the world and that the nation is going around cancelling all wrestling shows.

And you can call it condescending if you like, but switching channels is probably one of the only ways you can make a station hear your voice. They care about their ratings, they care about you seeing their commercials and buying the merchandise. When you stop watching their channel, they lose. And I'm sure that there are a couple of other people out there who may feel the same way, that the removal of wrestling and Reba is a crime against humanity, and will also leave the CW. If enough people leave, the network will reevaluate their strategy. So if you stop getting so indignant about anyone with a different opinion and actually listen, you may be able to bring about the change you desire.

kalorama

08-11-2008, 10:06 AM

Dawn Ostroff ... MUST DIE! Don't let her get back together ... with Glenn Fry.
dawnostroffmustdie!

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Paradox

08-11-2008, 10:34 AM

Rabid Trekkie does know how ratings work, right?:

And you can call it condescending if you like, but switching channels is probably one of the only ways you can make a station hear your voice. They care about their ratings, they care about you seeing their commercials and buying the merchandise. When you stop watching their channel, they lose.

Actually, none of that means shit unless you're a Nielsen family.

SPAfreak

08-11-2008, 12:11 PM

Actually, none of that means shit unless you're a Nielsen family.

But how true is that any more? Ever since I got digital cable I've just assumed that my cable company had the right to pull the info on my viewing habits from the box and even more so since I got a DVR. I also thought that DirecTV and Dish regularly culled info from their boxes and sold them to ratings groups.

I guess I should note that I'm not basing this on any information beyond the assumption that they can do it, we signed a contract that actually allows them to pull certain info from our equipment and they can make a small side profit. In other words, I'm a bit cynical.

Jake V

08-11-2008, 12:15 PM

But how true is that any more? Ever since I got digital cable I've just assumed that my cable company had the right to pull the info on my viewing habits from the box and even more so since I got a DVR. I also thought that DirecTV and Dish regularly culled info from their boxes and sold them to ratings groups.

I guess I should note that I'm not basing this on any information beyond the assumption that they can do it, we signed a contract that actually allows them to pull certain info from our and equipment and they can make a small side profit. In other words, I'm a bit cynical.

Pulling your viewing habits is one thing, but it does nothing to influence the way ratings are calculated.

kalorama

08-11-2008, 12:28 PM

The widespread habit of "watching TV" by way of DVR/TiVo and internet downloads is another reason why traditional ratings can no longer be used as the sole measure of a show's viewership or a network's success.

kalorama

08-11-2008, 12:33 PM

Okay, I'll try to more directly, answer your much desired question:
*Why hasn't Dawn Ostroff been removed from her job given her apparent incompetence?

*Why does she think that dupclicating (and building the network around) an otherwise meager rated show like "Gossip Girl", will be the answer to during the CW around?

*How are you going to fully and convincingly rationalize getting rid of your highest rated show ("SmackDown!") regardless of it not being the most desirable among advertisers?

Just so we're clear, your idea of "directly answering a question" is to pose several more questions? Essentially, the same questions you've already posed multiple times and already received responses to from multiple people?

Really?

kalorama

08-11-2008, 01:05 PM

Another thing to keep in mind is that Dawn Ostroff pretty much insulted the intelligence of the audience by saying that "SmackDown!" was a show in decline.

How, exactly, does pointing out that a show has declining ratings, declining profits, or both constitute an "insult" to anyone's "intelligence"?

You can't sit here and try to convince me, that Dawn Ostroff isn't alienating a large portion of the viewers with her utterly limited scope.

just because you can't be convinced of something doesn't mean it's not true.

Ed Cunard

08-11-2008, 06:06 PM

Another thing to keep in mind is that Dawn Ostroff pretty much insulted the intelligence of the audience by saying that "SmackDown!" was a show in decline.

The numbers bear that out, though. Ratings drop + expensive licensing fee for struggling netlet = Smackdown gets the smackdown.

You can't sit here and try to convince me, that Dawn Ostroff isn't alienating a large portion of the viewers with her utterly limited scope.

Actually, people can and are. They might not be successful at it, especially considering you seem highly resistant to anything that doesn't say "YES EAT HER BRAINS SHE TOOK AWAY MY WRESTLING AND MY, ER, REBA."

I, for one, am not alienated by the loss of either show, nor the push behind "Gossip Girl." Television isn't like comics, exactly--few people say "I will only watch shows that air on ____." This season, I'm likely to watch shows on FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the CW, as well as shows airing on cable networks.

Here's the thing that I think is weird in all this--most people would say, "shit, I guess I'll just watch Smackdown on MyNetworkTV." Your reaction is the oddly personal kind, like the people who demand the heads of Joe Quesada, Dan Didio and whomever else comics fans demand the heads of. It's... weird. It speaks of fan entitlement.

Sean Whitmore

08-11-2008, 06:11 PM

Actually, people can and are. They might not be successful at it, especially considering you seem highly resistant to anything that doesn't say "YES EAT HER BRAINS SHE TOOK AWAY MY WRESTLING AND MY, ER, REBA."

I, for one, am not alienated by the loss of either show, nor the push behind "Gossip Girl." Television isn't like comics, exactly--few people say "I will only watch shows that air on ____." This season, I'm likely to watch shows on FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the CW, as well as shows airing on cable networks.

Here's the thing that I think is weird in all this--most people would say, "shit, I guess I'll just watch Smackdown on MyNetworkTV." Your reaction is the oddly personal kind, like the people who demand the heads of Joe Quesada, Dan Didio and whomever else comics fans demand the heads of. It's... weird. It speaks of fan entitlement.

I hope the shields failed long enough for some of that logic to sneak through.

SEAN

kalorama

08-11-2008, 06:20 PM

... MY WRESTLING AND MY, ER, REBA."

Which is a completely different head scratcher of a topic.

Cyke

08-11-2008, 06:27 PM

I only pop into this thread once ever two or three pages or so... and I keep seeing the same anti-Ostroff arguments brought up almost verbatim, regardless of the pages of answers from all directions and links coming in.

TMC1982

08-11-2008, 10:48 PM

How, exactly, does pointing out that a show has declining ratings, declining profits, or both constitute an "insult" to anyone's "intelligence"?

just because you can't be convinced of something doesn't mean it's not true.

Dawn Ostroff seems to believe (just like Jamie Kellner earlier) that only toothless, pick up truck driving, southern inbreds like wrestling, thus is difficult to attract advertisers.

Ed Cunard

08-11-2008, 11:11 PM

Dawn Ostroff seems to believe (just like Jamie Kellner earlier) that only toothless, pick up truck driving, southern inbreds like wrestling, thus is difficult to attract advertisers.

So that's why you're upset? That some woman thinks you're a toothless, pick up driving, southern inbred? If you're not, and she really is saying that, then she's the idiot, not you.

However, there are studies on the demographics that watch certain shows. Shows that demonstrate having a high-income audience are therefore more valuable to advertisers that sell high priced items and who can afford to spend more on the thirty-second spot and the product placement. I'm not sure what the current demographics are for wrestling, but it could be that, like many other television entities, Ostroff is trying to take the CW programming to a more affluent demographic.

They really do study this stuff--I remember reading in BROADCASTING AND CABLE and TELEVISION WEEK all sorts of rankings based on the affluence of audiences.

TMC1982

08-11-2008, 11:16 PM

So that's why you're upset? That some woman thinks you're a toothless, pick up driving, southern inbred? If you're not, and she really is saying that, then she's the idiot, not you.

However, there are studies on the demographics that watch certain shows. Shows that demonstrate having a high-income audience are therefore more valuable to advertisers that sell high priced items and who can afford to spend more on the thirty-second spot and the product placement. I'm not sure what the current demographics are for wrestling, but it could be that, like many other television entities, Ostroff is trying to take the CW programming to a more affluent demographic.

They really do study this stuff--I remember reading in BROADCASTING AND CABLE and TELEVISION WEEK all sorts of rankings based on the affluence of audiences.

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

kalorama

08-11-2008, 11:19 PM

Dawn Ostroff seems to believe (just like Jamie Kellner earlier) that only toothless, pick up truck driving, southern inbreds like wrestling, thus is difficult to attract advertisers.

So that's why you're upset? That some woman thinks you're a toothless, pick up driving, southern inbred? If you're not, and she really is saying that, then she's the idiot, not you.

Except there's no evidence she ever said anything of the kind, is there? Much like everything else TMC1982 has posted here, that appears to be simply another instance of him using his anger and hurt feelings over his shows getting canceled as an excuse to hurl venom and vitriol at Dawn Ostroff while attempting to couch his bitter opinions in the cloak of "facts."

TMC1982

08-11-2008, 11:28 PM

Except there's no evidence she ever said anything of the kind, is there? Much like everything else TMC1982 has posted here, that appears to be simply another instance of him using his anger and hurt feelings over his shows getting canceled as an excuse to hurl venom and vitriol at Dawn Ostroff while attempting to couch his bitter opinions in the cloak of "facts."

How exactly are these loose "facts", when I've provided (if you've even bothered to go back and read the articles I provided like the one from Wall Street Journal) as much info as I could possibly find about what the public/critics feel about the CW? Unlike you and just about everybody else who wants to make excuses for Dawn Ostroff's poor decision making, I don't try to speak like a corporate shill/suit. I don't care what the advertisers say, what logic is there to remove your highest rated show? I thought, that you were supposed to listen to what the audience liked (hence, why shows are canceled or renewed in the first place) before the advertisers. And who's to say that only men regularly watch "SmackDown!"?

And also, what excuse do you have for Dawn Ostroff to remove "Everwood" in favor of an aging show like "7th Heaven", just to have that show canceled again after one season? According to Ostroff, the huge ratings for "7th Heaven's" first series finale, justified the CW's decision to bring it back.

The Batman

08-11-2008, 11:37 PM

TMC1982

08-11-2008, 11:46 PM

Because, as has been pointed out previously in the thread, wrestling is expensive and it likely doesn't draw in advertising revenue to the network. Those supposedly high ratings are useless when they're not translating into profit for the network.

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

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

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

To wit: Nearly 28% of its target 18-34 demo has disappeared this season! Ratings are down 22% during May sweeps! Young viewers are flocking to the Web! "Writers strike" this, "skittish advertisers" that, co-owners CBS and WB are ready to drop their joint endeavor faster than a pair of Gossip Girl heroine Serena van der Woodsen's panties, etc. etc. In short: Divest all ye sinners, the end is nigh — as in "a year" nigh, give or take a month or two.

kalorama

08-11-2008, 11:50 PM

How exactly are these loose "facts", when I've provided (if you've even bothered to go back and read the articles I provided like the one from Wall Street Journal) as much info as I could possibly find about what the public/critics feel about the CW?

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

Unlike you and just about everybody else who wants to make excuses for Dawn Ostroff's poor decision making, I don't try to speak like a corporate shill/suit.

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

I don't care what the advertisers say, what logic is there to remove your highest rated show? I thought, that you were supposed to listen to what the audience liked (hence, why shows are canceled or renewed in the first place) before the advertisers.

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

And who's to say that only men regularly watch "SmackDown!"?

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

And also, what excuse do you have for Dawn Ostroff to remove "Everwood" in favor of an aging show like "7th Heaven", just to have that show canceled again after one season?

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

According to Ostroff, the huge ratings for "7th Heaven's" first series finale, justified the CW's decision to bring it back.

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