Dialogue: Dawn Ostroff, CW Entertainment president
By Kimberly Nordyke

April 15, 2008

The Hollywood Reporter: What were you focusing on in developing your 2008-09 slate?
Dawn Ostroff: We really wanted projects that would fit our brand. We're skewing obviously to 18-34, but particularly toward young women in that demo. We wanted projects that would really stand out both in terms of titles, like "90210," and also in terms of theme. We're looking for a show to really break out.

THR: How did the "90210" spinoff come about?
Ostroff: What happened was somebody mentioned the idea of us developing it, and when we really thought about it, two things came to mind: One was that the show already had a known brand. We thought it could break out in terms of being able to attract viewers who had watched the show as well as bring in new viewers, a young group that hadn't seen it when it was originally on the air (on Fox). This would be their version of "90210." In addition, it really did fit what we are trying to do with the network. When you look at what "90210" did years ago, that kind of show took a little while to catch on, but it had a loyal fan base. We've been consistently seeing that with our shows. "90210" could be paired with "Gossip Girl" for a great night of television, or it could be a show that starts a night for us. Either way, it would work.

THR: You've ordered only three pilots so far. Why is that?
Ostroff: We decided to do (fewer pilots before the upfront) because of the (WGA) strike. We decided to make some now and then some after we get back in May. We'll probably wind up making the same amount of pilots, just at different times. We didn't want to rush into anything.

THR: In what other ways did the writers strike affect CW?
Ostroff: It allowed us to go into development all year long. We're taking pitches now and will make pilots later than May. It allows us to have a larger pool of talent, and instead of everybody making pilots at one time of the year, spreading it out makes more sense particularly for us. It's really good to develop all year round.

THR: Your ratings also were affected by the strike. Do you expect viewers to return?
Ostroff: It's definitely going to be challenging to get the word out that there are new episodes on. But once viewers hear about it, they'll be excited about coming to see their favorite show and new episodes.


THR: You recently eliminated your comedy division. What are your plans in that arena?
Ostroff: We are looking at a couple of shows seriously that have yet to shoot. At the same time, we're developing some comedy but specifically for our needs -- toward young women. We're really looking for a show that's loud and makes a lot of noise. It's harder to get that with comedy these days.

THR: You will have holes in your schedule with the departure of "Girlfriends" and Friday's "WWE SmackDown!" How do you plan to fill those?
Ostroff: Until we make our schedule, I don't know. I'll look at the pilots we have and then work it out.

THR: Are you going to stick with unscripted programming on Friday nights?
Ostroff: We could go a lot of different ways.

THR: Have you made a decision yet on freshmen"Aliens in America" or "Reaper"?
Ostroff: There's been no decision.



Links referenced within this article


Find this article at:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/tel...fdbe27bbe93a30f7ffac

Well I agree that they need a breakout show. I actually think they need a breakout season with many shows going over 4 million, but one show is a start. I still don't understand the 18 to 34 only female focus. Lifetime and Oxygen are going after the same audience and two will lose out. Males watch TV too. With this focus, Reaper is really a long shot now. I would have asked what they were on to greenlight Styledome but sadly that question wasn't asked. Comedy toward young women? What? Again, men like comedy too. Why cut out half of your audience?

quote:

Originally posted by WlcmBlueBloodWorstEnemy:
Well I agree that they need a breakout show. I actually think they need a breakout season with many shows going over 4 million, but one show is a start. I still don't understand the 18 to 34 only female focus. Lifetime and Oxygen are going after the same audience and two will lose out. Males watch TV too. With this focus, Reaper is really a long shot now. I would have asked what they were on to greenlight Styledome but sadly that question wasn't asked. Comedy toward young women? What? Again, men like comedy too. Why cut out half of your audience?

I don't understand the 'alienate an audience in order to gain an audience' strategy either.

Has Dawn never heard of The O.C.? They should have picked it up when they had the opportunity too. It could have gone on for a season or 2.

She could have just held up a sign that said 'no comment' since she didn't answer any of the questions.

Side note: if she is looking for a young comedian with a tie-in to the CW, she should cast Amis Jenkins from this season's ANTM cast.

What is this woman doing? Is she sleeping with Les on the side ala Julie Chenbot to stick around? No plans at all, whatsoever. Reaper is perhaps a goner.

quote:

Originally posted by mushu_jj:
What is this woman doing? Is she sleeping with Les on the side ala Julie Chenbot to stick around? No plans at all, whatsoever. Reaper is perhaps a goner.

Thanks for the laugh. She was the wrong person from the start when this network formed.

What kind of programmer gets rid of Smackdown, one of their (very few) top shows, without having a plan?...Oh, wait. Dawn.

It's as if she just plans to throw the schedule together at last minute, which only results in idiotic programming decisions (like what we've witnessed these last two seasons).

quote:

Originally posted by mushu_jj:
What is this woman doing? Is she sleeping with Les on the side ala Julie Chenbot to stick around? No plans at all, whatsoever. Reaper is perhaps a goner.

I don't Think. Next Week Reaper return and a hope get better numbers...

quote:

Originally posted by AmericanGothic:
What kind of programmer gets rid of Smackdown, one of their (very few) top shows, without having a plan?...Oh, wait. Dawn.

You have to think about it in terms of the actual chain of events, though. Smackdown was up for renewal and the producers demanded more money for a licensing fee. Instead of asking for part of the ad sales that they generated, they wanted a set fee up front with CW having to find a way to sell the ad space. That fee was determined to be too high for the show to be worth it to renew. The CW was not willing to make Smackdown a 'loss leader (lose money just to air it) since Smackdown did not generate a bunch of eyeballs to their other shows. MNTV was willing to make the show a 'loss leader', though we still don't know if MNTV paid what Smackdown wanted from CW or if they paid a lesser amount. Either way, it made sense to MNTV to bring on Smackdown as a loss leader since Smackdown does generate (low income) male eyeballs that would increase viewership for their similiar oriented shows (Jail, Street Patrol, and they are hoping, Under One Roof).

quote:

Originally posted by Seth Plate:

quote:

Originally posted by mushu_jj:
What is this woman doing? Is she sleeping with Les on the side ala Julie Chenbot to stick around? No plans at all, whatsoever. Reaper is perhaps a goner.

I don't Think. Next Week Reaper return and a hope get better numbers...

Better numbers? It does as well as Gossip Girl and better than every comedy and all but one reality show.

quote:

THR: Your ratings also were affected by the strike. Do you expect viewers to return?
Ostroff: It's definitely going to be challenging to get the word out that there are new episodes on. But once viewers hear about it, they'll be excited about coming to see their favorite show and new episodes.

What viewers? They never had any.

You know, Dawn is a real idiot.

What kind of professional and convincing answer is "I don't know"? Really, I agree with obveeus, she did not really answer a single question.

quote:

Originally posted by Obveeus:
She could have just held up a sign that said 'no comment' since she didn't answer any of the questions.

She probably could have also held up a sign that read, 'no budget', since there doesn't seem to be very much that The CW is investing in going forward...exiting kidsWB and contracting that out, cancelling it's number one show WWE Smackdown (moving over to MyNetworkTV), and closing down its comedy development department.

I wonder if the recent affiliate defection in California isn't an early warning signal of something coming..."Iceberg right ahead, Ms. Ostroff!.

"Hard a starboard", comes the reply.

The delusion begins with her claiming a "brand" among women 18-34. This may be what she thinks of when she thinks of her net. But this association does not exist with the public.

The targeting of particularly an age demo but also a gender demo is that it is the marketing world's version of "people pleasing," which as we know generally meets with a 'thanks for kissing up to me but I either don't want what you have or don't know you exist' response.

It puts age or gender content before entertainment content. You can almost see the wheels turning with this 90210 project as first the assumption is made that this former hit is either some sort of enduring cultural icon or that it is so original that audiences are dying for a redo, when in fact neither may be true. I think it is worth noting that 90210 only recently released any DVD's, and by the way, did not result in FOX becoming some sort of female slanting net with a load of similar programming over the long run.

She is essentially taking a cable net approach which overlooks the fact that these nets will take priority over the CW for those (few?) who are aggressively seeking out this programming, as cable nets as a whole carry the brand of "niche" programming. Also look at the mighty struggles of some of these nets some of whom are barely visible, have different economics than the CW would be involved in, and some of the most successful were bailed out by larger corporate buyers.