http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117988805.html

CW faces D-Day in fall

Third season is key for broadcaster
By MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

Two years ago, stars and execs gathered on Warner Bros.' Burbank backlot to celebrate the launch of the CW.

Gallons of confetti showered over the crowd, guests chugged Spartan-hued cocktails, Tyra probably talked about Tyra and the Blue Men Group hopped on stage to ... wait, what were the Blue Men Group doing there anyway? No matter. The mood was meant to be festive, and everyone put on a good face as the lever was pulled -- ceremonially launching the CW as the fifth broadcast network.

Yet it all felt a bit forced, and the smiles and cheers appeared to hide more panic and uncertainty.

Now, after two seasons, the net's future is very much up in the air. It has farmed out its Sunday night to Media Rights Council, it's parting ways with top-rated wrestling franchise "Smackdown," and will be counting on an update of "Beverly Hills, 90210" to provide some much-needed buzz.

It hasn't been for lack of trying for CW, a network born out of the failure of weblets UPN and the WB. After a bumpy first transitional year, Dawn Ostroff and company developed a strong, critic-approved slate of series last season like "Reaper" and "Aliens in America," as well as "Gossip Girl."

But viewers still didn't show up (although many seem to be watching "Gossip Girl" somewhere, just not on TVs hooked up to Nielsen meters).

With a much-talked about "90210" redux and another adaptation of a popular teen book series ("Surviving the Filthy Rich"), does this fall's lineup rep the last, best hope for the CW -- at least as we now know it?

Not helping matters: Sam Zell and his Tribune braintrust haven't been effusive in their praise for the network. Zell's crew is even starting to encroach on primetime, beginning with instigating the deal for MRC's Sunday night programming block.

Tribune is the CW's top affil, and although the netlet could fill that void (and already has in San Diego, where the CW lucked out and scored a VHF station after Tribune dumped the CW for Fox), it would rep a massive headache.

And although it was indeed time for CW to part ways with wrestling -- it didn't fit with the net's core aud of young femmes -- the grapplefest still gave some Nielsen heft to the netlet's weekly averages.

The good news for the net: Despite all the talk, nothing's going to happen in the immediate future. CBS owns a boatload of affils, after all, and needs to program them somehow. Plus, CW is already a lean, mean operation, and isn't hemorrhaging money the way its predecessors were.

Meanwhile, CW's new take on "90210" could open big, thanks to built-in awareness and nostalgic looky-loos (not to mention fans of Joe E. Tata, whose Nat character will still serve up wisdom and apple pie at the Peach Pit). And "Gossip Girl" may yet turn its buzz and pop culture status into actual ratings.

But if things are still looking dim come January, the pressure may build for co-owners Time-Warner and CBS to do something drastic. (Bringing the CW completely inside CBS? Informing affils that the network is going cable-only, save the CBS stations? Exec shuffles? "Girlicious" reunion?) Before they do, perhaps they ought to consider a few tweaks:

Blow up the brand. The name "CW" was concocted out of CBS and Warner Bros.' first initials. Really. America's top creative minds live in Hollywood, and that's the best anyone could come up with? Young viewers aren't flocking to destinations that scream Big Media these days. MySpace, Facebook and Google may be behemoths now, but they earned street cred by launching with scrappy, independent brands. A TV network geared toward that generation needs to do the same thing.

Change the way shows are programmed. No more scheduling as usual. How about a weeklong, 10-hour marathon of "Gossip Girl"? What about making "America's Next Top Model" more immediate and interactive? How about some live shows, events or vignettes that tap into what's going on at this very second?

Get music savvy. No, that doesn't mean another "American Idol" rip-off. And while "Gossip Girl" boasts a cool soundtrack, it's not a show about music. Take a cue from "Hannah Montana," "High School Musical" and yes, that "Idol" show: It's about music being a part of life, not just about people trying to be a part of music. The network could use a show that can be a springboard for a music phenomenon and spin off into several platforms -- but all leading back to the CW.

Find some heart. In sexing things up with saucy shows like "Gossip" or going the irreverent route with shows like "Reaper," CW hasn't balanced things out with something a bit more earnest. The WB had "7th Heaven," which quietly performed better than its sexier fare --but "Dawson's Creek" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" packed a lot of emotion as well. Fox had "90210," where the kids brought in a homeless veteran every Thanksgiving, or something like that. (Producers for the new "90210" have promised to cut the corn, but that's what made the show so endearing.)

Where's the drama that has viewers emotionally invested week after week? We're talking orphans, or single moms, or troubled teens. Don't think today's Gen Y will stomach it? Check out what they're watching on ABC Family, Nick and Disney.

Such shows, by the way, would help promote more "co-viewing" -- getting teens and their parents in the same room -- and please affils like Tribune, which would then be handed a few more older eyeballs for their 10 p.m. newscasts.

Get back into the comedy game. The young adults raised on Nick and Disney sitcoms are ready for something a bit more high-brow. Here's a chance to be the network that owns the family comedy mantle -- something ABC gave up long ago, and no one else picked up. You'd also again broaden out, adding a few more younger and older viewers to the mix. Meanwhile, where's the irreverent, alternative comedy? The animation?

It's hard not to feel sympathetic to the CW's woes. The netlet launched right after programs started migrating online, changing forever how young viewers -- CW's aud -- views their shows. What's more, when the WB and UPN launched, the web was an infant, cable wasn't producing much original fare, videogames were still mostly the domain of the geek set and cell phones were the size of a Subway hoagie -- and weren't yet a teen accessory.

These days, young viewers -- juggling all those distractions, and more -- don't even know what a "broadcast network" is. If it really wants to the survive, CW -- or whatever it rebrands as (even "SeeDub" would work) -- needs to stop acting like one.

That was a really interesting article. I agree with a lot of the suggestions he made for the network. If the CW can't successfully launch 90210 this fall, I don't think they will ever be able to be successfull.

You can't start a free broadcast network and program for a niche audience. You can't do it. Period. It WILL. NOT. WORK.

quote:

Originally posted by himymfan22:
That was a really interesting article. I agree with a lot of the suggestions he made for the network. If the CW can't successfully launch 90210 this fall, I don't think they will ever be able to be successfull.

90210 is going to need to get an average of about 5 million to make up the loss of Smackdown. Weren't people predicting 6 million for Gossip Girl? I think the CW is doomed. I only hope that the network's whipping boy SuperNatural can find life on another network.

I've said it before & I'll say it again. CW's probs are:

1.) Ostroff. Her goofy business decisions alone account for much of the train wreck that the CW now is. If they're paying her $5 a week, they're overpaying her. Her consistent dumping of higher-rated shows for lower-rated ones is almost beyong comprehension. Here lies 90% of CW's probs.

2.) Mosta the other 10% lies with the fact that they're trying for a demo, young females, that already has lotsta choose from on all the major nets & a few dozen netlets & hundreds of local fare. Trying to survive by catering almost exclusively to this one demo simply WILL NOT WORK. They are NEVER gonna attract a large # of young female viewers; there's simply too much competition.

3.) The whole operation started out as very 2nd-class, & has gone downhill ever since. They just don't ACT as if they wanna keep our viewership by their cheap promos, nor do they appear they're trying to lure viewers away from their competirion. In short, THEY DON'T APPEAR TO BE TRYING VERY HARD to do what's necessary to survive in a very competitive venue.

C'mon, CW, get yer act together! Even groddy MyNet is outdoing you! They had enuff sense to dump what wasn't working insteada continuing to throw good money after bad. While some of their stuff(Meet My Folx reruns, for instance) is garbage, it didn't take'em long to pick up a show(Smackdown) with a proven fanbase of around 5 million, that you stupidly dumped because mosta those 5 meg were from the wrong demo. VIEWERS ARE VIEWERS, and you, CW, need MORE VIEWERS, simple as that, male, female, young, old! Otherwise, you'll soon join the Dumont net, Nashville, Net, & Trio in TV Underworld.

quote:

Originally posted by Ginger:
I only hope that the network's whipping boy SuperNatural can find life on another network.

'whipping boy'? CW has given Supernatural the leadout from their #1 scripted show. How is that 'whipping boy' status?

quote:

Originally posted by robycop3:
C'mon, CW, get yer act together! Even groddy MyNet is outdoing you!

You do not seem to understand what 'outdoing' means. MNTV has not been 'outdoing' CW at anything.

quote:

They had enuff sense to dump what wasn't working insteada continuing to throw good money after bad. While some of their stuff(Meet My Folx reruns, for instance) is garbage, it didn't take'em long to pick up a show(Smackdown) with a proven fanbase of around 5 million, that you stupidly dumped because mosta those 5 meg were from the wrong demo. VIEWERS ARE VIEWERS, and you, CW, need MORE VIEWERS, simple as that, male, female, young, old!

Actually, viewers are not viewers. Networks do not have as their 'goal' to win the viewer number from Nielsen. The goal of the networks is to make money. Because the real issue is money, all viewers are not of the same value. To make money (stay in business), you have to have the viewers that the sponsors want and will pay for (and will pay more than your shows cost). The vast majority of sponsors looking towards CW were very clear that they did NOT want Smackdown.

MNTV has a much more male oriented audience (shows like Jail, for example) so they will have a better ability to attract sponsors across Smackdown and their other broadcast nights. Will it make them money by signing on Smackdown as a 'loss leader'? Time will tell. Rumors regarding this season's Upfronts have put MNTV's take at something like 20% of CW's. MNTV has to hope that the extra viewers coming in from Smackdown watch their other shows as well and keep watching those other shows long term so that MNTV will eventually be able to ask for more money from advertisers.

I believe that people (i.e. bloggers) have been writing about the demise of CW ever since it was born. I agree that the CW isn't going anywhere - at least not for a while and certainly isn't likely to fold after this season. Remember that we are talking about hugh conglomerates (CBS and Time Warner) who have deep pockets and will not be too keen on admitting failure by shuttering the CW to soon.

The biggest problem that the CW has - in my opinion - is how it was formed. When it only debuted two original series (the long defunct "Runaway" and the little comedy that could, "The Game"), it relied too heavily on series left over from the ashes of WB and UPN. Did we really need another season of "Seventh Heaven"? The fact that the CW started with so many returning series could have given viewers the impression that it wasn't really a "new" network and therefore not worth their time.

Lastly, as the article mentioned, the CW has the ability to produce buzz worthy shows (i.e. "Gossip Girl", "Reaper", "Aliens in America") that critics enjoy. However, the CW seems to stumble when it comes to getting eyeballs to watch them. If the CW can continue in the first department (buzz) and improve in the second department (viewers), it should be enough to ensure its survival.

The launch left such a sourer taste in so many people's mouths. That first season, it was like they were being cheap in some areas to ensure they made money (which they ended up not doing anyway if I recall correctly). There was about zilch in midseason stuff aside from their "burnoff" of Reba (a disaster that no one even tried to avoid or make good from) and the Pussy Cat Dolls. You are correct Jay in that no one needed another season of 7th Heaven, especially after they dumped it on Sunday, trimmed to the cast to unrecognizble street urchins, and didn't even have the dignity to allow the original cast to return for the series finale. Then there's the whole thing about buzz and getting people to watch on the TV. Simply put: my generation (the 18-34 year olds they're catering too) don't watch TV live. We watch it delayed on DVR, recorded in some other way, or online. Pulling eps of Gossip Girl was stupid. It brought over no new viewers to the live airings because they just found the eps elsewhere later on. That's what I'm doing this summer. They're better off having the eps available online quickly after they air and making money themselves on it.

Finally, while it seemed like the CW was making a statement in keeping comedy around last year by sacrificing the higher rated 7th Heaven for the comedies who they knew would return another year, it now appears that they have given up on that idea too. If I were them, I would keep a close eye on Everybody Hates Chris's syndicated ratings. I think it could really click with the Nick at Nite crowd and if so, they best start promoting the crap out of the new eps on Nick. They have an opportunity to get people back interested in the show. Just look at what happened with George Lopez! That's now a top 5 syndicated comedy and ABC dumped it for MASSIVE flop Cavemen.

quote:

Originally posted by mushu_jj:
I would keep a close eye on Everybody Hates Chris's syndicated ratings. I think it could really click with the Nick at Nite crowd and if so, they best start promoting the crap out of the new eps on Nick. They have an opportunity to get people back interested in the show. Just look at what happened with George Lopez! That's now a top 5 syndicated comedy and ABC dumped it for MASSIVE flop Cavemen.

Don't feel bad for George Lopez. I am sure he will find another job. In fact, he would be perfect for a movie like Beverly Hills Chihuahua.

As for Everybody Hates Chris on Nick at Night, Thursday's final cable ratings for sitcoms looks like (thanks Douglas):

NAN      Family Matters 8:30     1,586,000      0.3/1      0.3/1
TBS      Bill Engvall Show       1,978,000      0.8/3      0.8/2
TBS      My Boys                 1,541,000      0.7/2      0.8/2

When old garbage reruns can pull around the same number of viewers as first run 'darling' series being built up by their cable networks, it has to really discourage everyone involved from even trying to create first run programming.

I should've made myself clearer. I don't think Chris should go to Nick at Nite. I just think CW should advertise for their original eps of Chris on Nick at Nite.

As for GLo, I'm sure he'll be fine too. ABC's loss.