http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2008/07/cw-there-is-no.html

The show sounds a bit like the movie April Fool's Day.

Side note: this article quotes Dawn Ostroff directly as stating that there is no deadline for CW to make or break. So, since it is official, there is no more need for mindless claims of an approaching 'D-Day'.

I take everything she and all the other execs say with a grain of salt. Plus, I don't think she's all that in charge anymore. Tassler and Moonves are likely still calling all the shots.

I'm looking forward to Mr. Sam Raimi's '13.

I hope The CW finds a way to pair it up with Reaper (perhaps as inter-season replacements on Tuesdays).

“We’ll do anything for attention at the CW,” Ostroff said.

I'm a little confused why its 13 teens competing in the show. The last synopsis of 13 had people of all ages playing. Why the emphasis on under 20? Most viewers are not going to want to see spoiled brats stuck in the woods. A wider age group would bring in a larger audience. Even ANTM and FWAW allows mid-20s people to compete. If they are targeting 18 to 34, why not let people in their 30s compete?

Also, debuting in the fall? Where? The only place it would have room is Fridays if the get rid of the ANTM encore. It seems like they are just dumping it somewhere and I wouldn't expect high ratings especially paired with two urban comedies that don't have a flow with the series.

quote:

Originally posted by WlcmDoNotDisturb90210:
If they are targeting 18 to 34, why not let people in their 30s compete?

My guess is: if you are trying to scare people with Blair Witch style stunts, it isn't going to work on 30 year olds.

quote:

Also, debuting in the fall? Where? The only place it would have room is Fridays if the get rid of the ANTM encore.

More than likely, 13 AND Reaper will be both shows used to fill in for something that fails or they will be held until mid-december when ANTM ends and the scripted shows are going into repeats.

quote:

Originally posted by Justin:
“We’ll do anything for attention at the CW,” Ostroff said.

Nice that you are acknowledging her sense of humor. She was clearly doing a good job with the TCA people.

Aaron Barnhardt of tvbarn.com sums up Dopestroff's presentation real nicely.

http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2008/07/cw-chief-smackd.html

Aaron Barnhardt sounds like a whiny baby with very little clue. Does he actually believe that the network owes him a detailed financial release on their scedule costs/plans? Worse yet, like many of the other non-thinking people that comment on the subject, he seems to believe that 'ratings numbers' are the 'ultimate goal' rather than 'profit'. How could someone 'professional' really be that clueless?

Barnhardt may be whiny but the fact that she won't even say who's paying for what tells me Cdub didn't get all that great of a deal or is having a very difficult time "sorting it all out" because its "very complicated". Secondly, don't higher ratings typically mean higher profits? I may be wrong, but do we even know if the CW was making a profit on Smackdown? If they were, even just a small profit, imo it would be better for the net to keep that than to throw out more shows that will ultimatley lead to more loss. Ostroff like ususal, sounded like someone who was completely unable to run a TV network, which is what people were saying since she was at UPN when Top Model repeats were scheduled on Tuesdays.

quote:

Originally posted by mushu_jj:
Barnhardt may be whiny but the fact that she won't even say who's paying for what tells me Cdub didn't get all that great of a deal or is having a very difficult time "sorting it all out" because its "very complicated".

Also, it is none of the press's business, really. MRC is a private company and if they don't want to release press statements every day, they are under no obligation to do so.

The deal, as far as I have heard speculated:
1. Upfront money was paid to CW to lease the 5pm-10pm Sunday block.
2. Sale of advertising was left to a later issue because MRC needed to see how fast they could get an infrestructure in place.
3. At this point, it looks like CW sales staff will handle this Falls advertising with a share of costs/gross with MRC that is in addition to the upfront money that was paid to lease the space.

quote:

Secondly, don't higher ratings typically mean higher profits?

No. Not at all. You should know this by now just from paying attention to posts in this forum. For example: looking at last Fall's advertising spot costs, Smackdown was the second cheapest show on all of television to advertise on. Only Online Nation brought in less money. Smackdown (27K/spot) brought in about half what the Sunday encore ANTM airing brought in (50K), for example. Advertiser pay more for people they want to reach. Advertisers were not interested in reaching the 2-17male that Smackdown is weighed towards.

quote:

I may be wrong, but do we even know if the CW was making a profit on Smackdown?

They were making a profit under the old deal. Smackdown wanted an increased license fee for renewal. CW determined that it was not in their interest to pay that increased fee, so likely, they determined that they would not be able to make money under the new deal Smackdown demanded.

quote:

If they were, even just a small profit, imo it would be better for the net to keep that than to throw out more shows that will ultimatley lead to more loss.

What 'more shows'? CW traded off having Smackdown control Friday night for having MRC control Sunday night. CW went from having 2 hours of programming they don't have to deal with to having 5 hours of programming they don't have to deal with. 5 hours of guaranteed income is better than 2 hours of guaranteed income. The bad side for CW is that they don't get much direct benefit/income if Sunday shows take off, so theyir upside is limited. Still, CW can get a side benefit of additional viewers being aware of the network and watching other network shows....something that they were not getting from Smackdown.

quote:

Ostroff like ususal, sounded like someone who was completely unable to run a TV network, which is what people were saying since she was at UPN when Top Model repeats were scheduled on Tuesdays.

You remain clueless.

Since the Aaron Barnhardt article mentioned the now defunct, and apparently awesome, WB and UPN networks, I just have to say... sorry the best of the WB and UPN is so 2 seasons ago. Those networks are dead. The WB/UPN shows will all at least be in their 4th seasons. The CW at least appears to realize that it is no longer about that. The critics who chose to still whine about it are just wasting everybody's time.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: NYHunter,

I'm fine with the WB/UPN stuff going away but I guess that would mean Top Model should be going to then, right? The fact of the matter is that the highest rated stuff on the CW is still left over from the WB and UPN. Those shows are Top Model and now Smallville since Smackdown will be leaving. I don't know which shows they made more money off of this past year but I'm assuming it was likely Top Model and Smallville at the top with perhaps One Tree Hill and Supernatural coming in third and fourth. Its also possible that they made money on nothing and therefore the deal with Smackdown was the only thing bringing in actual cash. I really don't know and I don't think anyone else does either. I honestly don't care anymore. One Tree Hill was so over the top this year that I'm not sure I can stomach another year. Gossip Girl has been a fun summer show but I stil lack the commitment to this as I did the OC, which I still think was a better show, and I'm not really sure people my age actually care about a 90210 spinoff. Maybe they do, but me thinks this may actually skew old, which would be a big no no and therefore almost ensure cancellation because all that matters to the execs here is 18-34.

I wasn't arguing that all the WB/UPN have to go away. I don't watch Top Model but would the CW have any significant amount of money without it?

In my opinion it's up to Gossip Girl and Reaper to gain viewers and for 90210 (and the other shows) to do well. But, the real question might be what's in development for next season?

instead of wasting our time with top model reapeats why not put 13 in the fall sep-dec. then put reaper jan-may. theyre wasting time with reruns..