Originally posted by Obveeus: You whined a bunch about how the few good shows on CW are treated so miserably by constantly getting shifted to different timeslots and not getting decent spots on the schedule...and you used Supernatural as an example. Until CW can find an audience that doesn't think that way, what hope do they have...seriously?
Oh, I whined? Classy.
This whole discussion started because I agreed with another poster's argument and then added to the discussion with some of my own thoughts (typical of a 'discussion board'). Perhaps this should be called a roasting board, because that's what it's turning into.
I used Supernatural and OTH as examples of getting put in the most difficult time slots (Supernatural) and getting moved around a lot (OTH). Both of those are true.
To me, there's a blatant error in logic that shows like Gossip Girl and Veronica Mars are given inumerable chances because of executive favoritism, while shows like SPN and OTH have to fight for a renewal. If you don't agree with it, that's fine, but I'm not a whiner more than anyone else on this forum contributing their opinions.
Originally posted by pisher: Seriously, does anybody REALLY think a better night would help Jericho?
And I really don't hate the show--but I hate SOS campaigns. So much. It's. Just. A. Television. Program. Send the network an email and forget about it. Life's too short, and there are poor people somewhere who'd love to eat those nuts. Or squirrels.
To be fair we're all here on a message board debating moves networks make involving television shows and posting on it several times daily. So I guess to most of us on here the shows that we like are more than "Just. A. Television. Program." Ive only participated in one SOS campaign when it comes to spending any money and that was for Arrested Development during its first & second low rated seasons. I know none of my efforts had much of anything to do with the show lasting for 2nd and 3rd abbreviated seasons but I don't regret doing it.
Originally posted by Obveeus: I agree that you cannot buy success (even if it does work with presidential candidates), but it doesn't make sense for the network to push all their new programs equally, either. Some nights and some timeslots are more important than others. CW would have been foolish to have spent as much promoting CW Now and Online Nation as they spent promoting Gossip Girl, for example. Wednesday night is very important to them since they already have some established traction there. Sunday night is as close to throw scheduling away as they have.
You made a very good point.
I think one of the many problems with The CW is that they are very selective with what shows they want to succeed. They could've done better with handling shows such as: Life Is Wild, Hidden Palms. But they're support was almost nonexistent. Dawn Ostroff seems to be pushing the shows she likes, rather than trying to support a show that may have broader interest with viewers. It's a very self-destructive attitude if you ask me. It's probably the reason she never made UPN successful and can't lead The CW out of the wilderness. You need to find the pulse with the viewers, not shun viewers by mishandling some shows and putting others on a pedestal.
Originally posted by AmericanGothic: I think one of the many problems with The CW is that they are very selective with what shows they want to succeed. They could've done better with handling shows such as: Life Is Wild, Hidden Palms. But they're support was almost nonexistent. Dawn Ostroff seems to be pushing the shows she likes, rather than trying to support a show that may have broader interest with viewers. It's a very self-destructive attitude if you ask me. It's probably the reason she's never made UPN successful and can't lead The CW out of the wilderness.
Careful, this is the exact argument I've made today and apparently I'm a whiner. However, it is nice to see someone else who feels the same way. (Although, Hidden Palms was pretty terrible.)
They are relying on a demographic, which makes it harder to make quality programming. Catering mainly to the teen market is not going to get them anywhere. They really need to boarden their horizons and demographic if they want to bring in more viewers. And I think quality programming will do that. They need shows with an edge to them; not the crappy GG they have now. I understand that teens like that show, but in the end, one show having an impact on the teen market is not going to get them anywhere. They really have not found their identity. Huge problem right there.
Second, as I mentioned, quality programs can do a lot for them. They need to branch out with their shows; edgy shows that will attract all viewers I think will help. Simply stricking to the 18-34 demo will not help them survive.
Third, I really think another network president would do a hell of a lot for the CW. I am sorry, but Ms. Ostroff is not cutting it anymore. They also need to figure out how to "equally" promote all of their shows across the board. The CW should not be putting all of its promotion marbles into one or two shows.
At the moment, the CW is in such a mess, if things do not turn around for them in the next season, I think it will only last one more season after that. This network did have potential, but picking the wrong people to be in charge of the CW has only hampered it, not helped.
Originally posted by AmericanGothic: I think one of the many problems with The CW is that they are very selective with what shows they want to succeed. They could've done better with handling shows such as: Life Is Wild, Hidden Palms. But they're support was almost nonexistent. Dawn Ostroff seems to be pushing the shows she likes, rather than trying to support a show that may have broader interest with viewers. It's a very self-destructive attitude if you ask me. It's probably the reason she's never made UPN successful and can't lead The CW out of the wilderness.
Careful, this is the exact argument I've made today and apparently I'm a whiner. However, it is nice to see someone else who feels the same way. (Although, Hidden Palms was pretty terrible.)
pisherafferty-free since 2008
Posts: 414 | Location: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: 01 December 2006
Originally posted by wenart25: Guys, the problem with the CW is three-fold:
They are relying on a demographic, which makes it harder to make quality programming. Catering mainly to the teen market is not going to get them anywhere. They really need to boarden their horizons and demographic if they want to bring in more viewers. And I think quality programming will do that. They need shows with an edge to them; not the crappy GG they have now. I understand that teens like that show, but in the end, one show having an impact on the teen market is not going to get them anywhere. They really have not found their identity. Huge problem right there.
Second, as I mentioned, quality programs can do a lot for them. They need to branch out with their shows; edgy shows that will attract all viewers I think will help. Simply stricking to the 18-34 demo will not help them survive.
Third, I really think another network president would do a hell of a lot for the CW. I am sorry, but Ms. Ostroff is not cutting it anymore. They also need to figure out how to "equally" promote all of their shows across the board. The CW should not be putting all of its promotion marbles into one or two shows.
At the moment, the CW is in such a mess, if things do not turn around for them in the next season, I think it will only last one more season after that. This network did have potential, but picking the wrong people to be in charge of the CW has only hampered it, not helped.
Originally posted by AmericanGothic: Different strokes....
Absolutely, but I completely agree with the point you're making. In my eyes, it's the executive favoritism, and resulting mishandling of shows, that's destroying that network.
Blaming it on the net's small but loyal viewers is a copout. It's easy to do because they're in the minority. It's especially easy to do when the audience is younger and therefore seemingly more immature. But to discount those viewers and label them the problem (instead of the problematic execs) is just as uninformed.
SHOW HH A18-49 Viewers A18-34
JUST FOR LAUGHS 3.4/5 1.4/4 5,072,000
ACCORDING TO JIM 3.3/5 1.4/3 4,908,000
CARPOOLERS 2.6/4 1.3/3 3,901,000
BOSTON LEGAL 4.9/8 1.8/5 7,249,000
BIG BROTHER 4.3/6 2.5/6 6,883,000
JERICHO 4.2/7 2.6/7 7,085,000
BIGGEST LOSER 4.6/7 2.9/7 7,399,000
AMERICAN IDOL 16.6/25 12.3/29 29,962,000
ONE TREE HILL 2.1/3 1.4/3 3,164,000 1.8/4
NIP TUCK (64 minutes) 1.8/3 1.6/4 2,714,000
DOG SHOW (USA, 182 minutes) 2.2/3 0.8/2 3,391,000
BB did pretty much as expected, but I agree with Marc that switching Jericho and BB would help Jericho while not hurting BB. They won't do it, of course, but it would be the better plan.
I'm undecided on whther the UB/GA/Lost line-up is a good idea or not. On one hand, it would solve the post-GA and post-Lost problems and make for a great Thursday night for ABC. CBS would still win in viewers, but ABC would be guaranteed a win in the demo. On the other hand, there are a lot of other days that could use a hit show. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday are all struggling. DWTS's return in March will help Monday and Tuesday, but are they just going to throw away Wednesday and Friday?
No surprise Jericho did not do well and it was expected .. My biggest surprise was CBS decision to still allow Big Brother since it got lower ratings and demos than The Unit and yet is much more hyped not only in media but on their website .
There is quality programming ie The Unit and the crud like Big Brother but CBS would have have the crud show on its schedule .. You gotta love networking choices *rolleyes* and now know why more and more are tuning out not tuning in ..
Originally posted by lopez: Why Big Brother is not a loser?
THIRD in viewers THIRD in the demo
I agree .. With all the promotions CBS does for this show it got bad ratings . The Unit did much better against AI compared to BB !! What is CBS thinking ?
