Comments on: An Open Letter to The CW's Dawn Ostroff http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/ Wed, 15 Feb 2012 03:29:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: James Moore http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-6/#comment-28499 James Moore Wed, 22 Oct 2008 03:46:33 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-28499 Given this woman is the main reason the CW's only number one show, Reba, was canceled, she can only be described by one word - MORON. Let's hope she's fired soon. Who the hell watches trash like Gossip Girl? God help us all, it's no wonder I watch reruns of I Love Lucy (and Reba), on "another" networkd Given this woman is the main reason the CW’s only number one show, Reba, was canceled, she can only be described by one word – MORON. Let’s hope she’s fired soon. Who the hell watches trash like Gossip Girl? God help us all, it’s no wonder I watch reruns of I Love Lucy (and Reba), on “another” networkd

]]> By: Anonymous http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-6/#comment-21494 Anonymous Wed, 03 Sep 2008 04:20:27 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-21494 Friday is the worst night for TV ratings, yet the CW got the best ratings with WWE Smackdown on that day of the week, and it's never shown in bars. The lesson for Dawn is to widen the target demographic. If none of the shows can compete with wrestlers in Halloween costumes it's obvious you need a wider or a new demographic. Quite simply, the teenage girl demographic is too small a group. Why they are dropping WWE is because the viewers of that are not watching the girlie stuff and vice versa. WWE draws a bigger demographic it seems. Why not go with what works? Friday is the worst night for TV ratings, yet the CW got the best ratings with WWE Smackdown on that day of the week, and it’s never shown in bars. The lesson for Dawn is to widen the target demographic. If none of the shows can compete with wrestlers in Halloween costumes it’s obvious you need a wider or a new demographic.

Quite simply, the teenage girl demographic is too small a group. Why they are dropping WWE is because the viewers of that are not watching the girlie stuff and vice versa. WWE draws a bigger demographic it seems. Why not go with what works?

]]> By: ‘Gossip Girl’ streaming back, in full » Download Movies 101 http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-6/#comment-12851 ‘Gossip Girl’ streaming back, in full » Download Movies 101 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:54:29 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-12851 [...] went BitTorrent right away, getting ad-free online episodes of “Gossip Girl” anyway. Some enterprising folks put up watchgossipgirl.net and viewgossipgirl.info — still [...] [...] went BitTorrent right away, getting ad-free online episodes of “Gossip Girl” anyway. Some enterprising folks put up watchgossipgirl.net and viewgossipgirl.info — still [...]

]]> By: juls http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-6/#comment-265756 juls Sat, 24 May 2008 16:31:54 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-265756 THIS SO RIGHT !!!!<br>"So rather than trying to control distribution, which you will never, ever be able to do, why not try to maximize it, and make as much money as you possibly can? "...and viewers care about the show so they definitely will watch it "streaming" with the ads if they knew it will make a difference about cancelling it ....!! THIS SO RIGHT !!!!
“So rather than trying to control distribution, which you will never, ever be able to do, why not try to maximize it, and make as much money as you possibly can? “…and viewers care about the show so they definitely will watch it “streaming” with the ads if they knew it will make a difference about cancelling it ….!!

]]> By: juls http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-6/#comment-13460 juls Sat, 24 May 2008 11:31:54 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-13460 THIS SO RIGHT !!!!<br>"So rather than trying to control distribution, which you will never, ever be able to do, why not try to maximize it, and make as much money as you possibly can? "...and viewers care about the show so they definitely will watch it "streaming" with the ads if they knew it will make a difference about cancelling it ....!! THIS SO RIGHT !!!!
“So rather than trying to control distribution, which you will never, ever be able to do, why not try to maximize it, and make as much money as you possibly can? “…and viewers care about the show so they definitely will watch it “streaming” with the ads if they knew it will make a difference about cancelling it ….!!

]]> By: warnerte7 http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-6/#comment-13459 warnerte7 Wed, 21 May 2008 16:07:52 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-13459 Is there a way to contact Dawn? I would like to point out to her that the number of viewers for the networks most watched shows are less then the viewership of the show she axed the first year of the CW, and that show is Everwood. I only hope that decision has helped in leading the CW to the point is now, which is close to going out of business and placing Dawn out of work. Is there a way to contact Dawn? I would like to point out to her that the number of viewers for the networks most watched shows are less then the viewership of the show she axed the first year of the CW, and that show is Everwood. I only hope that decision has helped in leading the CW to the point is now, which is close to going out of business and placing Dawn out of work.

]]> By: Nate http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-6/#comment-10983 Nate Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:11:17 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-10983 The CW really needs to encourages its affiliates to push their HD channels onto cable systems alot more than they are now. I do not watch the CW more than I have to because the analog signal from the station I watch it on through cable is horrible, and Sinclair wants money to put HD channels on cable systems. They want more money for what is a network without much compelling programming, and it doesn't do anything but annoy cable systems for 15 hours of network a week, then 10 year-old reruns the rest of the time. I think to an extent depending on digital subchannels in many markets instead of offering the network to existing stations also shot CW in the foot. They can't air HD through subchannels at all, the network ends up on a sub-200 channel on cable systems with a shopping channel or a very old show leading into the CW instead of high-quality reruns, and unless they're lucky, don't get carried on the dishes. They thought way too much of their image in branding the network before they got to thinking about how the network was carried, and without Gilmore Girls and Veronica Mars has pretty much lost any tanglible link to the WB and UPN. Also, it's never a good sign when one of the CW partners brings back the old WB as a streaming service. I won't be surprised if TheWB.com lasts much longer than the CW does. The CW really needs to encourages its affiliates to push their HD channels onto cable systems alot more than they are now. I do not watch the CW more than I have to because the analog signal from the station I watch it on through cable is horrible, and Sinclair wants money to put HD channels on cable systems. They want more money for what is a network without much compelling programming, and it doesn’t do anything but annoy cable systems for 15 hours of network a week, then 10 year-old reruns the rest of the time.

I think to an extent depending on digital subchannels in many markets instead of offering the network to existing stations also shot CW in the foot. They can’t air HD through subchannels at all, the network ends up on a sub-200 channel on cable systems with a shopping channel or a very old show leading into the CW instead of high-quality reruns, and unless they’re lucky, don’t get carried on the dishes. They thought way too much of their image in branding the network before they got to thinking about how the network was carried, and without Gilmore Girls and Veronica Mars has pretty much lost any tanglible link to the WB and UPN.

Also, it’s never a good sign when one of the CW partners brings back the old WB as a streaming service. I won’t be surprised if TheWB.com lasts much longer than the CW does.

]]> By: Nate http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-307306 Nate Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:11:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307306 The CW really needs to encourages its affiliates to push their HD channels onto cable systems alot more than they are now. I do not watch the CW more than I have to because the analog signal from the station I watch it on through cable is horrible, and Sinclair wants money to put HD channels on cable systems. They want more money for what is a network without much compelling programming, and it doesn't do anything but annoy cable systems for 15 hours of network a week, then 10 year-old reruns the rest of the time. I think to an extent depending on digital subchannels in many markets instead of offering the network to existing stations also shot CW in the foot. They can't air HD through subchannels at all, the network ends up on a sub-200 channel on cable systems with a shopping channel or a very old show leading into the CW instead of high-quality reruns, and unless they're lucky, don't get carried on the dishes. They thought way too much of their image in branding the network before they got to thinking about how the network was carried, and without Gilmore Girls and Veronica Mars has pretty much lost any tanglible link to the WB and UPN. Also, it's never a good sign when one of the CW partners brings back the old WB as a streaming service. I won't be surprised if TheWB.com lasts much longer than the CW does. The CW really needs to encourages its affiliates to push their HD channels onto cable systems alot more than they are now. I do not watch the CW more than I have to because the analog signal from the station I watch it on through cable is horrible, and Sinclair wants money to put HD channels on cable systems. They want more money for what is a network without much compelling programming, and it doesn’t do anything but annoy cable systems for 15 hours of network a week, then 10 year-old reruns the rest of the time.

I think to an extent depending on digital subchannels in many markets instead of offering the network to existing stations also shot CW in the foot. They can’t air HD through subchannels at all, the network ends up on a sub-200 channel on cable systems with a shopping channel or a very old show leading into the CW instead of high-quality reruns, and unless they’re lucky, don’t get carried on the dishes. They thought way too much of their image in branding the network before they got to thinking about how the network was carried, and without Gilmore Girls and Veronica Mars has pretty much lost any tanglible link to the WB and UPN.

Also, it’s never a good sign when one of the CW partners brings back the old WB as a streaming service. I won’t be surprised if TheWB.com lasts much longer than the CW does.

]]> By: Nate http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-307307 Nate Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:11:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307307 The CW really needs to encourages its affiliates to push their HD channels onto cable systems alot more than they are now. I do not watch the CW more than I have to because the analog signal from the station I watch it on through cable is horrible, and Sinclair wants money to put HD channels on cable systems. They want more money for what is a network without much compelling programming, and it doesn't do anything but annoy cable systems for 15 hours of network a week, then 10 year-old reruns the rest of the time. I think to an extent depending on digital subchannels in many markets instead of offering the network to existing stations also shot CW in the foot. They can't air HD through subchannels at all, the network ends up on a sub-200 channel on cable systems with a shopping channel or a very old show leading into the CW instead of high-quality reruns, and unless they're lucky, don't get carried on the dishes. They thought way too much of their image in branding the network before they got to thinking about how the network was carried, and without Gilmore Girls and Veronica Mars has pretty much lost any tanglible link to the WB and UPN. Also, it's never a good sign when one of the CW partners brings back the old WB as a streaming service. I won't be surprised if TheWB.com lasts much longer than the CW does. The CW really needs to encourages its affiliates to push their HD channels onto cable systems alot more than they are now. I do not watch the CW more than I have to because the analog signal from the station I watch it on through cable is horrible, and Sinclair wants money to put HD channels on cable systems. They want more money for what is a network without much compelling programming, and it doesn’t do anything but annoy cable systems for 15 hours of network a week, then 10 year-old reruns the rest of the time.

I think to an extent depending on digital subchannels in many markets instead of offering the network to existing stations also shot CW in the foot. They can’t air HD through subchannels at all, the network ends up on a sub-200 channel on cable systems with a shopping channel or a very old show leading into the CW instead of high-quality reruns, and unless they’re lucky, don’t get carried on the dishes. They thought way too much of their image in branding the network before they got to thinking about how the network was carried, and without Gilmore Girls and Veronica Mars has pretty much lost any tanglible link to the WB and UPN.

Also, it’s never a good sign when one of the CW partners brings back the old WB as a streaming service. I won’t be surprised if TheWB.com lasts much longer than the CW does.

]]> By: Nate http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-307308 Nate Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:11:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307308 The CW really needs to encourages its affiliates to push their HD channels onto cable systems alot more than they are now. I do not watch the CW more than I have to because the analog signal from the station I watch it on through cable is horrible, and Sinclair wants money to put HD channels on cable systems. They want more money for what is a network without much compelling programming, and it doesn't do anything but annoy cable systems for 15 hours of network a week, then 10 year-old reruns the rest of the time. I think to an extent depending on digital subchannels in many markets instead of offering the network to existing stations also shot CW in the foot. They can't air HD through subchannels at all, the network ends up on a sub-200 channel on cable systems with a shopping channel or a very old show leading into the CW instead of high-quality reruns, and unless they're lucky, don't get carried on the dishes. They thought way too much of their image in branding the network before they got to thinking about how the network was carried, and without Gilmore Girls and Veronica Mars has pretty much lost any tanglible link to the WB and UPN. Also, it's never a good sign when one of the CW partners brings back the old WB as a streaming service. I won't be surprised if TheWB.com lasts much longer than the CW does. The CW really needs to encourages its affiliates to push their HD channels onto cable systems alot more than they are now. I do not watch the CW more than I have to because the analog signal from the station I watch it on through cable is horrible, and Sinclair wants money to put HD channels on cable systems. They want more money for what is a network without much compelling programming, and it doesn’t do anything but annoy cable systems for 15 hours of network a week, then 10 year-old reruns the rest of the time.

I think to an extent depending on digital subchannels in many markets instead of offering the network to existing stations also shot CW in the foot. They can’t air HD through subchannels at all, the network ends up on a sub-200 channel on cable systems with a shopping channel or a very old show leading into the CW instead of high-quality reruns, and unless they’re lucky, don’t get carried on the dishes. They thought way too much of their image in branding the network before they got to thinking about how the network was carried, and without Gilmore Girls and Veronica Mars has pretty much lost any tanglible link to the WB and UPN.

Also, it’s never a good sign when one of the CW partners brings back the old WB as a streaming service. I won’t be surprised if TheWB.com lasts much longer than the CW does.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-10980 Robert Seidman Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:14:20 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-10980 Apparently, no. You have to remember the scale is pretty small for CW shows. So, I can see advertisers willing to pay for 2.5 million viewers where a high percentage were in the target demo vs. 4 million where they weren't. If it was the difference between 2 million and 8 million total viewers, I think your logic is probably sound. The CW let one of its highest rated shows Friday Night smackdown get away. It routinely does better than 4 million viewers but apparently most of them are middle aged men like me ;) Apparently, no. You have to remember the scale is pretty small for CW shows. So, I can see advertisers willing to pay for 2.5 million viewers where a high percentage were in the target demo vs. 4 million where they weren’t.

If it was the difference between 2 million and 8 million total viewers, I think your logic is probably sound. The CW let one of its highest rated shows Friday Night smackdown get away. It routinely does better than 4 million viewers but apparently most of them are middle aged men like me ;)

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-307303 Robert Seidman Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:14:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307303 Apparently, no. You have to remember the scale is pretty small for CW shows. So, I can see advertisers willing to pay for 2.5 million viewers where a high percentage were in the target demo vs. 4 million where they weren't. If it was the difference between 2 million and 8 million total viewers, I think your logic is probably sound. The CW let one of its highest rated shows Friday Night smackdown get away. It routinely does better than 4 million viewers but apparently most of them are middle aged men like me ;) Apparently, no. You have to remember the scale is pretty small for CW shows. So, I can see advertisers willing to pay for 2.5 million viewers where a high percentage were in the target demo vs. 4 million where they weren’t.

If it was the difference between 2 million and 8 million total viewers, I think your logic is probably sound. The CW let one of its highest rated shows Friday Night smackdown get away. It routinely does better than 4 million viewers but apparently most of them are middle aged men like me ;)

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-307304 Robert Seidman Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:14:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307304 Apparently, no. You have to remember the scale is pretty small for CW shows. So, I can see advertisers willing to pay for 2.5 million viewers where a high percentage were in the target demo vs. 4 million where they weren't. If it was the difference between 2 million and 8 million total viewers, I think your logic is probably sound. The CW let one of its highest rated shows Friday Night smackdown get away. It routinely does better than 4 million viewers but apparently most of them are middle aged men like me ;) Apparently, no. You have to remember the scale is pretty small for CW shows. So, I can see advertisers willing to pay for 2.5 million viewers where a high percentage were in the target demo vs. 4 million where they weren’t.

If it was the difference between 2 million and 8 million total viewers, I think your logic is probably sound. The CW let one of its highest rated shows Friday Night smackdown get away. It routinely does better than 4 million viewers but apparently most of them are middle aged men like me ;)

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-307305 Robert Seidman Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:14:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307305 Apparently, no. You have to remember the scale is pretty small for CW shows. So, I can see advertisers willing to pay for 2.5 million viewers where a high percentage were in the target demo vs. 4 million where they weren't. If it was the difference between 2 million and 8 million total viewers, I think your logic is probably sound. The CW let one of its highest rated shows Friday Night smackdown get away. It routinely does better than 4 million viewers but apparently most of them are middle aged men like me ;) Apparently, no. You have to remember the scale is pretty small for CW shows. So, I can see advertisers willing to pay for 2.5 million viewers where a high percentage were in the target demo vs. 4 million where they weren’t.

If it was the difference between 2 million and 8 million total viewers, I think your logic is probably sound. The CW let one of its highest rated shows Friday Night smackdown get away. It routinely does better than 4 million viewers but apparently most of them are middle aged men like me ;)

]]> By: Sam http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-10978 Sam Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:05:17 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-10978 Still, wouldn't advertisers pay more for about double the viewers than for that demographic with half the viewers? Still, wouldn’t advertisers pay more for about double the viewers than for that demographic with half the viewers?

]]> By: Sam http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-307300 Sam Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:05:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307300 Still, wouldn't advertisers pay more for about double the viewers than for that demographic with half the viewers? Still, wouldn’t advertisers pay more for about double the viewers than for that demographic with half the viewers?

]]> By: Sam http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-307301 Sam Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:05:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307301 Still, wouldn't advertisers pay more for about double the viewers than for that demographic with half the viewers? Still, wouldn’t advertisers pay more for about double the viewers than for that demographic with half the viewers?

]]> By: Sam http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-307302 Sam Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:05:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307302 Still, wouldn't advertisers pay more for about double the viewers than for that demographic with half the viewers? Still, wouldn’t advertisers pay more for about double the viewers than for that demographic with half the viewers?

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-10974 Robert Seidman Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:48:59 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-10974 Sam, reportedly advertisers are willing to pay much more for certain demographics, young women being one of them. Sam, reportedly advertisers are willing to pay much more for certain demographics, young women being one of them.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-307238 Robert Seidman Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:48:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307238 Sam, reportedly advertisers are willing to pay much more for certain demographics, young women being one of them. Sam, reportedly advertisers are willing to pay much more for certain demographics, young women being one of them.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-307239 Robert Seidman Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:48:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307239 Sam, reportedly advertisers are willing to pay much more for certain demographics, young women being one of them. Sam, reportedly advertisers are willing to pay much more for certain demographics, young women being one of them.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-307240 Robert Seidman Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:48:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307240 Sam, reportedly advertisers are willing to pay much more for certain demographics, young women being one of them. Sam, reportedly advertisers are willing to pay much more for certain demographics, young women being one of them.

]]> By: Sam http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-10971 Sam Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:35:02 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-10971 Personally, I don't understand the mentality of only aiming for young women at all. Would someone explain to me why it is a good idea to aim for a single target audience while passing up and getting rid of current opportunities that get you more viewers and higher ratings (the highest on the network for WWE) just because it doesn't appeal to that target audience? How can this possibly help the CW? It just seems like a terrible idea. If anyone would care to explain to me why this idea is more financially and logically sound, I'd be willing to listen. Personally, I don’t understand the mentality of only aiming for young women at all. Would someone explain to me why it is a good idea to aim for a single target audience while passing up and getting rid of current opportunities that get you more viewers and higher ratings (the highest on the network for WWE) just because it doesn’t appeal to that target audience? How can this possibly help the CW? It just seems like a terrible idea. If anyone would care to explain to me why this idea is more financially and logically sound, I’d be willing to listen.

]]> By: Sam http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-307277 Sam Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:35:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307277 Personally, I don't understand the mentality of only aiming for young women at all. Would someone explain to me why it is a good idea to aim for a single target audience while passing up and getting rid of current opportunities that get you more viewers and higher ratings (the highest on the network for WWE) just because it doesn't appeal to that target audience? How can this possibly help the CW? It just seems like a terrible idea. If anyone would care to explain to me why this idea is more financially and logically sound, I'd be willing to listen. Personally, I don’t understand the mentality of only aiming for young women at all. Would someone explain to me why it is a good idea to aim for a single target audience while passing up and getting rid of current opportunities that get you more viewers and higher ratings (the highest on the network for WWE) just because it doesn’t appeal to that target audience? How can this possibly help the CW? It just seems like a terrible idea. If anyone would care to explain to me why this idea is more financially and logically sound, I’d be willing to listen.

]]> By: Sam http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-307278 Sam Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:35:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307278 Personally, I don't understand the mentality of only aiming for young women at all. Would someone explain to me why it is a good idea to aim for a single target audience while passing up and getting rid of current opportunities that get you more viewers and higher ratings (the highest on the network for WWE) just because it doesn't appeal to that target audience? How can this possibly help the CW? It just seems like a terrible idea. If anyone would care to explain to me why this idea is more financially and logically sound, I'd be willing to listen. Personally, I don’t understand the mentality of only aiming for young women at all. Would someone explain to me why it is a good idea to aim for a single target audience while passing up and getting rid of current opportunities that get you more viewers and higher ratings (the highest on the network for WWE) just because it doesn’t appeal to that target audience? How can this possibly help the CW? It just seems like a terrible idea. If anyone would care to explain to me why this idea is more financially and logically sound, I’d be willing to listen.

]]> By: Sam http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-307279 Sam Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:35:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307279 Personally, I don't understand the mentality of only aiming for young women at all. Would someone explain to me why it is a good idea to aim for a single target audience while passing up and getting rid of current opportunities that get you more viewers and higher ratings (the highest on the network for WWE) just because it doesn't appeal to that target audience? How can this possibly help the CW? It just seems like a terrible idea. If anyone would care to explain to me why this idea is more financially and logically sound, I'd be willing to listen. Personally, I don’t understand the mentality of only aiming for young women at all. Would someone explain to me why it is a good idea to aim for a single target audience while passing up and getting rid of current opportunities that get you more viewers and higher ratings (the highest on the network for WWE) just because it doesn’t appeal to that target audience? How can this possibly help the CW? It just seems like a terrible idea. If anyone would care to explain to me why this idea is more financially and logically sound, I’d be willing to listen.

]]> By: josh http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-5/#comment-10889 josh Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:11:31 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-10889 I live in the UK and just thought you might like to know that it gets around 300,000 viwers on digital only channel ITV2... thats below the slot average. I live in the UK and just thought you might like to know that it gets around 300,000 viwers on digital only channel ITV2… thats below the slot average.

]]> By: josh http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-307235 josh Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:11:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307235 I live in the UK and just thought you might like to know that it gets around 300,000 viwers on digital only channel ITV2... thats below the slot average. I live in the UK and just thought you might like to know that it gets around 300,000 viwers on digital only channel ITV2… thats below the slot average.

]]> By: josh http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-307236 josh Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:11:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307236 I live in the UK and just thought you might like to know that it gets around 300,000 viwers on digital only channel ITV2... thats below the slot average. I live in the UK and just thought you might like to know that it gets around 300,000 viwers on digital only channel ITV2… thats below the slot average.

]]> By: josh http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-307237 josh Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:11:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307237 I live in the UK and just thought you might like to know that it gets around 300,000 viwers on digital only channel ITV2... thats below the slot average. I live in the UK and just thought you might like to know that it gets around 300,000 viwers on digital only channel ITV2… thats below the slot average.

]]> By: David M. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-10858 David M. Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:36:23 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-10858 Reaper. Reaper. Reaper. Gossip Girl? Gag. Reaper. Reaper.
Reaper.
Reaper.

Gossip Girl? Gag.

Reaper.

]]> By: David M. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-307268 David M. Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:36:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307268 Reaper. Reaper. Reaper. Gossip Girl? Gag. Reaper. Reaper.
Reaper.
Reaper.

Gossip Girl? Gag.

Reaper.

]]> By: David M. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-307269 David M. Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:36:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307269 Reaper. Reaper. Reaper. Gossip Girl? Gag. Reaper. Reaper.
Reaper.
Reaper.

Gossip Girl? Gag.

Reaper.

]]> By: David M. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-307270 David M. Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:36:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307270 Reaper. Reaper. Reaper. Gossip Girl? Gag. Reaper. Reaper.
Reaper.
Reaper.

Gossip Girl? Gag.

Reaper.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-10839 Robert Seidman Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:45:05 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-10839 Angie, I don't buy into the hype of itunes numbers or CW's streaming. I do buy into the possibility (rather than the certainty) that more people may be streaming/downloading the show via means that can't be tracked by the CW because it's not happening on iTunes or CW's site. Angie, I don’t buy into the hype of itunes numbers or CW’s streaming. I do buy into the possibility (rather than the certainty) that more people may be streaming/downloading the show via means that can’t be tracked by the CW because it’s not happening on iTunes or CW’s site.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-307274 Robert Seidman Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:45:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307274 Angie, I don't buy into the hype of itunes numbers or CW's streaming. I do buy into the possibility (rather than the certainty) that more people may be streaming/downloading the show via means that can't be tracked by the CW because it's not happening on iTunes or CW's site. Angie, I don’t buy into the hype of itunes numbers or CW’s streaming. I do buy into the possibility (rather than the certainty) that more people may be streaming/downloading the show via means that can’t be tracked by the CW because it’s not happening on iTunes or CW’s site.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-307275 Robert Seidman Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:45:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307275 Angie, I don't buy into the hype of itunes numbers or CW's streaming. I do buy into the possibility (rather than the certainty) that more people may be streaming/downloading the show via means that can't be tracked by the CW because it's not happening on iTunes or CW's site. Angie, I don’t buy into the hype of itunes numbers or CW’s streaming. I do buy into the possibility (rather than the certainty) that more people may be streaming/downloading the show via means that can’t be tracked by the CW because it’s not happening on iTunes or CW’s site.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-307276 Robert Seidman Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:45:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307276 Angie, I don't buy into the hype of itunes numbers or CW's streaming. I do buy into the possibility (rather than the certainty) that more people may be streaming/downloading the show via means that can't be tracked by the CW because it's not happening on iTunes or CW's site. Angie, I don’t buy into the hype of itunes numbers or CW’s streaming. I do buy into the possibility (rather than the certainty) that more people may be streaming/downloading the show via means that can’t be tracked by the CW because it’s not happening on iTunes or CW’s site.

]]> By: Angie http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-10837 Angie Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:38:53 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-10837 Oh, Robert. I am disheartened by this open letter. It sounds like you have partially bought into the the fake hype that the CW has been spouting over Gossip Girl. If the internet numbers are so great, why haven't they ever provided them? Because they aren't significant. They can't say that Gossip Girl is a ratings grabber, so they're claiming it's an internet sensation, and it's a great lie because they aren't providing numbers. We have to take their word for it. You think I believe what they say? No way. I am so sick of being beat over the head with this show by the CW. I would not watch it for all the tea in China. And I am smack in the middle of their target demo. Oh, Robert. I am disheartened by this open letter. It sounds like you have partially bought into the the fake hype that the CW has been spouting over Gossip Girl. If the internet numbers are so great, why haven’t they ever provided them? Because they aren’t significant. They can’t say that Gossip Girl is a ratings grabber, so they’re claiming it’s an internet sensation, and it’s a great lie because they aren’t providing numbers. We have to take their word for it. You think I believe what they say? No way.

I am so sick of being beat over the head with this show by the CW. I would not watch it for all the tea in China. And I am smack in the middle of their target demo.

]]> By: Angie http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-307271 Angie Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:38:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307271 Oh, Robert. I am disheartened by this open letter. It sounds like you have partially bought into the the fake hype that the CW has been spouting over Gossip Girl. If the internet numbers are so great, why haven't they ever provided them? Because they aren't significant. They can't say that Gossip Girl is a ratings grabber, so they're claiming it's an internet sensation, and it's a great lie because they aren't providing numbers. We have to take their word for it. You think I believe what they say? No way. I am so sick of being beat over the head with this show by the CW. I would not watch it for all the tea in China. And I am smack in the middle of their target demo. Oh, Robert. I am disheartened by this open letter. It sounds like you have partially bought into the the fake hype that the CW has been spouting over Gossip Girl. If the internet numbers are so great, why haven’t they ever provided them? Because they aren’t significant. They can’t say that Gossip Girl is a ratings grabber, so they’re claiming it’s an internet sensation, and it’s a great lie because they aren’t providing numbers. We have to take their word for it. You think I believe what they say? No way.

I am so sick of being beat over the head with this show by the CW. I would not watch it for all the tea in China. And I am smack in the middle of their target demo.

]]> By: Angie http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-307272 Angie Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:38:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307272 Oh, Robert. I am disheartened by this open letter. It sounds like you have partially bought into the the fake hype that the CW has been spouting over Gossip Girl. If the internet numbers are so great, why haven't they ever provided them? Because they aren't significant. They can't say that Gossip Girl is a ratings grabber, so they're claiming it's an internet sensation, and it's a great lie because they aren't providing numbers. We have to take their word for it. You think I believe what they say? No way. I am so sick of being beat over the head with this show by the CW. I would not watch it for all the tea in China. And I am smack in the middle of their target demo. Oh, Robert. I am disheartened by this open letter. It sounds like you have partially bought into the the fake hype that the CW has been spouting over Gossip Girl. If the internet numbers are so great, why haven’t they ever provided them? Because they aren’t significant. They can’t say that Gossip Girl is a ratings grabber, so they’re claiming it’s an internet sensation, and it’s a great lie because they aren’t providing numbers. We have to take their word for it. You think I believe what they say? No way.

I am so sick of being beat over the head with this show by the CW. I would not watch it for all the tea in China. And I am smack in the middle of their target demo.

]]> By: Angie http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-307273 Angie Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:38:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307273 Oh, Robert. I am disheartened by this open letter. It sounds like you have partially bought into the the fake hype that the CW has been spouting over Gossip Girl. If the internet numbers are so great, why haven't they ever provided them? Because they aren't significant. They can't say that Gossip Girl is a ratings grabber, so they're claiming it's an internet sensation, and it's a great lie because they aren't providing numbers. We have to take their word for it. You think I believe what they say? No way. I am so sick of being beat over the head with this show by the CW. I would not watch it for all the tea in China. And I am smack in the middle of their target demo. Oh, Robert. I am disheartened by this open letter. It sounds like you have partially bought into the the fake hype that the CW has been spouting over Gossip Girl. If the internet numbers are so great, why haven’t they ever provided them? Because they aren’t significant. They can’t say that Gossip Girl is a ratings grabber, so they’re claiming it’s an internet sensation, and it’s a great lie because they aren’t providing numbers. We have to take their word for it. You think I believe what they say? No way.

I am so sick of being beat over the head with this show by the CW. I would not watch it for all the tea in China. And I am smack in the middle of their target demo.

]]> By: ctal1999 http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-10802 ctal1999 Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:26:24 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-10802 Unfortunately, I'm afraid that you're right on that. However, that doesn't argue against the wisdom of the idea, though it may reflect on the wisdom of Mr. Moonves, et al. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that you’re right on that. However, that doesn’t argue against the wisdom of the idea, though it may reflect on the wisdom of Mr. Moonves, et al.

]]> By: ctal1999 http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-307285 ctal1999 Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:26:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307285 Unfortunately, I'm afraid that you're right on that. However, that doesn't argue against the wisdom of the idea, though it may reflect on the wisdom of Mr. Moonves, et al. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that you’re right on that. However, that doesn’t argue against the wisdom of the idea, though it may reflect on the wisdom of Mr. Moonves, et al.

]]> By: ctal1999 http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-307286 ctal1999 Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:26:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307286 Unfortunately, I'm afraid that you're right on that. However, that doesn't argue against the wisdom of the idea, though it may reflect on the wisdom of Mr. Moonves, et al. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that you’re right on that. However, that doesn’t argue against the wisdom of the idea, though it may reflect on the wisdom of Mr. Moonves, et al.

]]> By: ctal1999 http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-307287 ctal1999 Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:26:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307287 Unfortunately, I'm afraid that you're right on that. However, that doesn't argue against the wisdom of the idea, though it may reflect on the wisdom of Mr. Moonves, et al. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that you’re right on that. However, that doesn’t argue against the wisdom of the idea, though it may reflect on the wisdom of Mr. Moonves, et al.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-4/#comment-10800 Robert Seidman Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:05:36 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-10800 I have no doubt Jericho would be one of the top shows on the CW if they aired it there. I also have no doubt that if the San Francisco Giants brought Barry Bonds back, he'd be the team's most productive hitter. But I also have no doubt about this: neither will happen. Barry Bonds will play on no team run by Peter McGowan, and Jericho will air on no network where Les Moonves is the ultimate boss. I have no doubt Jericho would be one of the top shows on the CW if they aired it there. I also have no doubt that if the San Francisco Giants brought Barry Bonds back, he’d be the team’s most productive hitter.

But I also have no doubt about this: neither will happen. Barry Bonds will play on no team run by Peter McGowan, and Jericho will air on no network where Les Moonves is the ultimate boss.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-3/#comment-307267 Robert Seidman Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:05:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307267 I have no doubt Jericho would be one of the top shows on the CW if they aired it there. I also have no doubt that if the San Francisco Giants brought Barry Bonds back, he'd be the team's most productive hitter. But I also have no doubt about this: neither will happen. Barry Bonds will play on no team run by Peter McGowan, and Jericho will air on no network where Les Moonves is the ultimate boss. I have no doubt Jericho would be one of the top shows on the CW if they aired it there. I also have no doubt that if the San Francisco Giants brought Barry Bonds back, he’d be the team’s most productive hitter.

But I also have no doubt about this: neither will happen. Barry Bonds will play on no team run by Peter McGowan, and Jericho will air on no network where Les Moonves is the ultimate boss.

]]> By: ctal1999 http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-3/#comment-10797 ctal1999 Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:22:39 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-10797 Robert, I have to disagree with you about the potential for Jericho on the CW. Granted, it's not a perfect fit with the overall concept they based the network around, but I think we can agree that, as concepts go, this one has had limited success. I think that Dave is correct. The rabid fans of Jericho WOULD follow it to any network, and pairing it with Supernatural or Reaper would almost surely add some Jericho fans to those audiences as well. I don't think that you thought through the ad situation either. Admittedly, the CW has aimed at the "young and hip" demo, as it used to be called, and Gossip Girl fits right in. Still, by that logic, they have no business touching a show like Supernatural (even though the girlies may watch to drool over Sam and Dean), because the focus is off. Where's the designer fashion? The young romance (with the attendant mad texting on the latest Verizon phone or IM chatter on the new, cool Mac?). If the only ad pool they go after is mated to a show format, the CW would have to get classic car dealers, Time-Warner classic rock collections and...well...purveyors of demon hunting supplies. In truth, there are advertisers spending money with the CW right now who'd love to spend more to get their messages in front of the Jericho bunch. In addition, there are probably some old Jericho advertisers who've never spent a dime with the CW (but would if they could follow Jericho to the network). Robert, I have to disagree with you about the potential for Jericho on the CW. Granted, it’s not a perfect fit with the overall concept they based the network around, but I think we can agree that, as concepts go, this one has had limited success. I think that Dave is correct. The rabid fans of Jericho WOULD follow it to any network, and pairing it with Supernatural or Reaper would almost surely add some Jericho fans to those audiences as well. I don’t think that you thought through the ad situation either. Admittedly, the CW has aimed at the “young and hip” demo, as it used to be called, and Gossip Girl fits right in. Still, by that logic, they have no business touching a show like Supernatural (even though the girlies may watch to drool over Sam and Dean), because the focus is off. Where’s the designer fashion? The young romance (with the attendant mad texting on the latest Verizon phone or IM chatter on the new, cool Mac?). If the only ad pool they go after is mated to a show format, the CW would have to get classic car dealers, Time-Warner classic rock collections and…well…purveyors of demon hunting supplies. In truth, there are advertisers spending money with the CW right now who’d love to spend more to get their messages in front of the Jericho bunch. In addition, there are probably some old Jericho advertisers who’ve never spent a dime with the CW (but would if they could follow Jericho to the network).

]]> By: ctal1999 http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514/comment-page-3/#comment-307294 ctal1999 Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:22:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/25/an-open-letter-to-the-cws-dawn-ostroff/3514#comment-307294 Robert, I have to disagree with you about the potential for Jericho on the CW. Granted, it's not a perfect fit with the overall concept they based the network around, but I think we can agree that, as concepts go, this one has had limited success. I think that Dave is correct. The rabid fans of Jericho WOULD follow it to any network, and pairing it with Supernatural or Reaper would almost surely add some Jericho fans to those audiences as well. I don't think that you thought through the ad situation either. Admittedly, the CW has aimed at the "young and hip" demo, as it used to be called, and Gossip Girl fits right in. Still, by that logic, they have no business touching a show like Supernatural (even though the girlies may watch to drool over Sam and Dean), because the focus is off. Where's the designer fashion? The young romance (with the attendant mad texting on the latest Verizon phone or IM chatter on the new, cool Mac?). If the only ad pool they go after is mated to a show format, the CW would have to get classic car dealers, Time-Warner classic rock collections and...well...purveyors of demon hunting supplies. In truth, there are advertisers spending money with the CW right now who'd love to spend more to get their messages in front of the Jericho bunch. In addition, there are probably some old Jericho advertisers who've never spent a dime with the CW (but would if they could follow Jericho to the network). Robert, I have to disagree with you about the potential for Jericho on the CW. Granted, it’s not a perfect fit with the overall concept they based the network around, but I think we can agree that, as concepts go, this one has had limited success. I think that Dave is correct. The rabid fans of Jericho WOULD follow it to any network, and pairing it with Supernatural or Reaper would almost surely add some Jericho fans to those audiences as well. I don’t think that you thought through the ad situation either. Admittedly, the CW has aimed at the “young and hip” demo, as it used to be called, and Gossip Girl fits right in. Still, by that logic, they have no business touching a show like Supernatural (even though the girlies may watch to drool over Sam and Dean), because the focus is off. Where’s the designer fashion? The young romance (with the attendant mad texting on the latest Verizon phone or IM chatter on the new, cool Mac?). If the only ad pool they go after is mated to a show format, the CW would have to get classic car dealers, Time-Warner classic rock collections and…well…purveyors of demon hunting supplies. In truth, there are advertisers spending money with the CW right now who’d love to spend more to get their messages in front of the Jericho bunch. In addition, there are probably some old Jericho advertisers who’ve never spent a dime with the CW (but would if they could follow Jericho to the network).

]]>