Originally posted by Fred Farrar: You can blow smoke with excuses about "demographics" and "business models", etc, but the answer isn't all that hard to discern:
One network puts on programs many people want to see.
The other doesn't.
That? Was rude and pissy. I don't work for either CBS or The CW. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em. Reasonable people are free to disagree.
The problem is--at least part of it--is that the audience that The CW programs to tends not to watch their (The CW's) programming the conventional way. Their problem is that their audience ain't in front of the set and that they're not getting credit for the viewing that's done off-air.
Case in point is the Optimedia Power Ratings report. Gossip Girl is ranked #115 among all show w/r/t viewing, but is #15 by Optimedia.
Different strokes and all that.
Adapt or die. Les is trying to have his cake and eat it too. This is going to get very interesting.
Posts: 271 | Location: Los Angeles | Registered: 25 February 2008
Originally posted by mushu_jj: I think the overabundance of crime dramas that at first gave CBS all those younger viewers will eventually lead them back to being the "old" network. Many of them lost significant 18-49 numbers in the past few years while retaining the older viewers. Its not something advertisers like the look of. Granted some of it was due to DVRs but let's face it: these shows are on their downhill slide as are many shows on TV. Greys would be another example although they at least keep the majority of their viewers in the demo.
An yet, they still finished 2nd, to FOX, last year in the Demo and should be able to repeat that again this year.
IIRC, CBS is only 0.1 ratings point both ABC and NBC in the "Season To Date" demo ratings. Getting all their shows up and running far ahead of the other nets will push them quickly infront of the those two.
Well when its the same thing week after week I guess its not as hard getting a show up and running but good ratings are far from a given. Its not like their shows are going to suddenly pull season highs. The strike is going to hurt everyone. And since CBS was down there competing with NBC last fall in the demo while ABC was ahead, I expect the same to happen again.
Originally posted by robert: BTW when i first red today the news about CW's 90210 spin-off i was vey negative. But reading the media coverage of the news now i think this project might be a winning bet for CW. But only if CW is very clever about this project. And we all know who runs CW i'm afraid
The same guy who runs CBS--Les Moonves.
For all the wailing that I see here about Dawn Ostroff and her poor decision-making and lousy scheduling abilities, the truth is that every decision that gets made at The CW, even down to the level of promotion a show receives, where and how it's promoted, etc., has to be signed off on by none other than Mr. CBS himself.
Which is exactly why the CW has failed. Les is the main problem. Youth nuts Les. He drove off the key viewers UPN had (you may know them as minority viewers) by only carrying over 3 of the comedies and poorly scheduling them on Sundays. He drove off the fans of Everwood by picking up the likes of Veronica Mars, Runaway, and Hidden Palms over it. Not to mention, he sucked what little life 7th Heaven had left in it and drained it and then some on Sundays. Most importantly, for two seasons now, he waited to launch the new season until October for several shows instead of giving them early launches against repeats. Almost makes sense.
Originally posted by mswood: Obviously a high demo rated show (a grey's) does great immediately. But it sucks (in comparison) for its repeat, and I wonder how well something like that does in synidcation.
I remember how short of life Dallas had in syndication. The first year it had prime spots, but by the next it was either off or pplaced in poor AM time slots.
Grey's off-network life may be regulated to niche networks like Lifetime. I don't see much of a chance in traditional syndication.
Originally posted by mswood: Obviously a high demo rated show (a grey's) does great immediately. But it sucks (in comparison) for its repeat, and I wonder how well something like that does in synidcation.
I remember how short of life Dallas had in syndication. The first year it had prime spots, but by the next it was either off or pplaced in poor AM time slots.
Grey's off-network life may be regulated to niche networks like Lifetime. I don't see much of a chance in traditional syndication.
Here's how I see it. Greys is making its syndication money through things like iTunes downloads, DVD sales, and other forms of non-conventional viewing. Those are things that the CSI's will never be able to top it in, but they will own the traditional syndication like cable repeats.
Saw tonight's Reaper return. Excellent as expected. Already enjoying tonight's Eli Stone. I hope ABC tries it in a timeslot that isn't cursed. In fact, maybe once Lost is done they should try some Friday night airings of Eli Stone. There should be at least four or five episodes left to try out on Fridays at 8 where there are no scripted shows airing now or at least try some repeats there. If it pulls 4 million, at least it would do better than Greys repeats.
I remember when "Dallas" premiered in syndication on the old Channel 66 in Chicago at 6 p.m., but the program only got a 2 share (which was basically the station's overall average), and it moved to a daytime slot a few months later.
"Dynasty" had a prime-time slot at 9 p.m. weeknights on WFLD back in 1985, and that was pulled in a matter of months as well. Another station had "Knots Landing" in a good slot, but lost that too.
Serials usually don't repeat well in syndication. Even "Soap" (a serialized sitcom) was a ratings disappointment for stations who bought it.
quote:
Originally posted by TV-aholic:
quote:
Originally posted by mswood: Obviously a high demo rated show (a grey's) does great immediately. But it sucks (in comparison) for its repeat, and I wonder how well something like that does in synidcation.
I remember how short of life Dallas had in syndication. The first year it had prime spots, but by the next it was either off or pplaced in poor AM time slots.
Grey's off-network life may be regulated to niche networks like Lifetime. I don't see much of a chance in traditional syndication.
I'll second that. For someone to claim that accomplished actors like Peter Krause, Donald Sutherland and Jill Clayburgh aren't up to snuff to David Caruso's monitone delivery is ludicrous.
quote:
Originally posted by whatsonpop: Nothing on earth makes David Caruso look worthy of an Emmy. And CSI:Miami is NO WHERE near DSM in quality. Cast, script, and potential. CSI:M is the third best of a second-rate franchise.
quote:
Originally posted by robert:
quote:
Originally posted by xwiseguyx: But neither will ever be as bad as CSI Miami.
quote:
Originally posted by robert: He made a mistake: DSM is not the worst new show, it's the second worst show after VL of course
DSM would kill to have the quality and numbers CSI Miami has. The acting on DSM is so bad that it makes David Caruso worthy of an Emmy
I agree. Caruso is no where near as bad as some of TV's actors today, but he pales in comparison to the cast of the DSM, the regular CSI, and oodles of other actors and actresses.
quote:
Originally posted by xwiseguyx: I'll second that. For someone to claim that accomplished actors like Peter Krause, Donald Sutherland and Jill Clayburgh aren't up to snuff to David Caruso's monitone delivery is ludicrous.
quote:
Originally posted by whatsonpop: Nothing on earth makes David Caruso look worthy of an Emmy. And CSI:Miami is NO WHERE near DSM in quality. Cast, script, and potential. CSI:M is the third best of a second-rate franchise.
quote:
Originally posted by robert:
quote:
Originally posted by xwiseguyx: But neither will ever be as bad as CSI Miami.
quote:
Originally posted by robert: He made a mistake: DSM is not the worst new show, it's the second worst show after VL of course
DSM would kill to have the quality and numbers CSI Miami has. The acting on DSM is so bad that it makes David Caruso worthy of an Emmy
I could easily name a dozen, or two, shows from this season that performed worse than T:SCC.
How many of them lost over half their premiere audience in the course of nine episodes, though? And how many cost as much?
Nice spin, using once again the cost argument (when no one here knows exactly how much SCC costs compared to other FOX shows), but as usual you were wrong!
MoT: It didn't do that well since it greatly benefited from its lead-out AI. By how much did it grow in the half-hour?
Last night episode of Lost was actually good, although characters on the Island continue to behave like brainless robots.
Posts: 636 | Location: NYC | Registered: 02 November 2007
I could easily name a dozen, or two, shows from this season that performed worse than T:SCC.
How many of them lost over half their premiere audience in the course of nine episodes, though? And how many cost as much?
Nice spin, using once again the cost argument (when no one here knows exactly how much SCC costs compared to other FOX shows), but as usual you were wrong!
MoT: It didn't do that well since it greatly benefited from its lead-out AI. By how much did it grow in the half-hour?
Last night episode of Lost was actually good, although characters on the Island continue to behave like brainless robots.
Where is pisher wrong? SCC plummeted exactly like BW, and BW was slaughtered on this forum although BW at least managed to have a 14 million premiere on its own not beacause the network gave it a 40 million lead-in
Nobody has any proof that SCC is really that expensive. However, I'm sure a lot of money was poured into its marketing. If it still makes 8 million/3.5 in the demos next year without the marketing buzz it might still be a viable show.
