1.)they get the clothes for free from the designers — great promo fro THEM
2.)the clubs almost certainly let them in for free and probably pick up the tab. It generates buzz for the clubs

That said, I do wish they’d invest 1/10th of the effort and 50% of the money they *do* put into promoting Gossip Girl on shows like Supernatural.

If Gossip Girl is a hit, then so is every other show on the CW network with better ratings (Smallville, Supernatural, Reaper, ANTM), as well as all the shows on other networks with better ratings – look at Mikey’s post. It’s not even number one amongst teens, let along viewers 18-49. Not even close.

41st among teens

166th among adults 18-49

189th among all viewers

If Gossip Girl is a hit show, is there anything that ISN’T a hit show?

I’ve come to expect mass media outlets like New York magazine to use the term “hit show” liberally, whether the numbers justify it or not. But TV Week is a TRADE publication for crying out loud! You would think they’d be sophisticated enough to see through the hype.

Gossip Girl has become an interesting case study in PR. How much buzz can you generate out of thin air for a show that virtually nobody is watching?

If a tree doesn’t fall in a forest, can it make a sound?

I’ve come to expect mass media outlets like New York magazine to use the term “hit show” liberally, whether the numbers justify it or not. But TV Week is a TRADE publication for crying out loud! You would think they’d be sophisticated enough to see through the hype.

Gossip Girl has become an interesting case study in PR. How much buzz can you generate out of thin air for a show that virtually nobody is watching?

If a tree doesn’t fall in a forest, can it make a sound?

I’ve come to expect mass media outlets like New York magazine to use the term “hit show” liberally, whether the numbers justify it or not. But TV Week is a TRADE publication for crying out loud! You would think they’d be sophisticated enough to see through the hype.

Gossip Girl has become an interesting case study in PR. How much buzz can you generate out of thin air for a show that virtually nobody is watching?

If a tree doesn’t fall in a forest, can it make a sound?

The CW’s aggressive targeting of their “demo” audience is just plain annoying, if not an outright lie. My favorite was an article where they were claiming that tons of people were watching Gossip Girl, but they couldn’t track them so they were working with Neilsen. Ooookay . . . you know what? They are going to find that their numbers don’t change – the same people who watch it live are the same people who go online for it. It’s not a whole bunch of new viewers. And how come Nielsen had no problem tracking the 6 million young viewers the WB used to get before Les Moonves and his brown nosed companion Dawn Ostroff got ahold of the network?

Please. The CW is like viewers of canceled TV shows who blame the ratings system. I don’t see other networks complaining . . .

The CW’s aggressive targeting of their “demo” audience is just plain annoying, if not an outright lie. My favorite was an article where they were claiming that tons of people were watching Gossip Girl, but they couldn’t track them so they were working with Neilsen. Ooookay . . . you know what? They are going to find that their numbers don’t change – the same people who watch it live are the same people who go online for it. It’s not a whole bunch of new viewers. And how come Nielsen had no problem tracking the 6 million young viewers the WB used to get before Les Moonves and his brown nosed companion Dawn Ostroff got ahold of the network?

Please. The CW is like viewers of canceled TV shows who blame the ratings system. I don’t see other networks complaining . . .

The CW’s aggressive targeting of their “demo” audience is just plain annoying, if not an outright lie. My favorite was an article where they were claiming that tons of people were watching Gossip Girl, but they couldn’t track them so they were working with Neilsen. Ooookay . . . you know what? They are going to find that their numbers don’t change – the same people who watch it live are the same people who go online for it. It’s not a whole bunch of new viewers. And how come Nielsen had no problem tracking the 6 million young viewers the WB used to get before Les Moonves and his brown nosed companion Dawn Ostroff got ahold of the network?

Please. The CW is like viewers of canceled TV shows who blame the ratings system. I don’t see other networks complaining . . .

If this is indeed true, I think their biggest mistake is not necessarily how little they promote, but that they don’t promote smart. They don’t spend their money wisely and make their dollars stretch. If what they want is young women, then I think they should promote their shows in places that are both relatively cheap to advertise and are also seen by a lot of young women, such as university periodicals, magazines that are read by young women, myspace, facebook, etc. (at least, I would think that these places would be relatively cheap places to advertise – I don’t know for sure…). I know that they do promote shows on university campuses because there’s a “Reaper” poster as an official advertisement that I think the local affiliate paid for on the wall of the laundry room for the dorms at school. But it hasn’t been changed since last August and it’s not exactly compelling. If they had put a “Supernatural” poster up instead or in addition to the “Reaper” poster, there probably would have been an instant skyrocket in the number of girls addicted to the show in the dorms. ‘Cause really, the guys in “Reaper”? Um… no… I would never turn on my tv just for them. The Winchester brothers though? Yes, thank you, every day! LOL! Plus, if they put more of their dollars into low-cost advertising, then hopefully they would also have enough money to support their “veteran” shows.

If this is indeed true, I think their biggest mistake is not necessarily how little they promote, but that they don’t promote smart. They don’t spend their money wisely and make their dollars stretch. If what they want is young women, then I think they should promote their shows in places that are both relatively cheap to advertise and are also seen by a lot of young women, such as university periodicals, magazines that are read by young women, myspace, facebook, etc. (at least, I would think that these places would be relatively cheap places to advertise – I don’t know for sure…). I know that they do promote shows on university campuses because there’s a “Reaper” poster as an official advertisement that I think the local affiliate paid for on the wall of the laundry room for the dorms at school. But it hasn’t been changed since last August and it’s not exactly compelling. If they had put a “Supernatural” poster up instead or in addition to the “Reaper” poster, there probably would have been an instant skyrocket in the number of girls addicted to the show in the dorms. ‘Cause really, the guys in “Reaper”? Um… no… I would never turn on my tv just for them. The Winchester brothers though? Yes, thank you, every day! LOL! Plus, if they put more of their dollars into low-cost advertising, then hopefully they would also have enough money to support their “veteran” shows.

If this is indeed true, I think their biggest mistake is not necessarily how little they promote, but that they don’t promote smart. They don’t spend their money wisely and make their dollars stretch. If what they want is young women, then I think they should promote their shows in places that are both relatively cheap to advertise and are also seen by a lot of young women, such as university periodicals, magazines that are read by young women, myspace, facebook, etc. (at least, I would think that these places would be relatively cheap places to advertise – I don’t know for sure…). I know that they do promote shows on university campuses because there’s a “Reaper” poster as an official advertisement that I think the local affiliate paid for on the wall of the laundry room for the dorms at school. But it hasn’t been changed since last August and it’s not exactly compelling. If they had put a “Supernatural” poster up instead or in addition to the “Reaper” poster, there probably would have been an instant skyrocket in the number of girls addicted to the show in the dorms. ‘Cause really, the guys in “Reaper”? Um… no… I would never turn on my tv just for them. The Winchester brothers though? Yes, thank you, every day! LOL! Plus, if they put more of their dollars into low-cost advertising, then hopefully they would also have enough money to support their “veteran” shows.

I think to some extent that has to be the objective for the GG PR efforts. Although we are TV numbers nuts, we *know* almost no one else is, so the ratings for GG are pretty much unknown to the vast majority of viewers.

I agree with you that the CW has programmed itself into a corner with its stated objectives to attract almost exclusively young women and its relative failure to do so. If you target a relatively small market and miss it, you end up with very little.

Make no mistake though, the CW doesn’t face a technical reach ceiling. They certainly reach more of the US than any cable channel.

I think to some extent that has to be the objective for the GG PR efforts. Although we are TV numbers nuts, we *know* almost no one else is, so the ratings for GG are pretty much unknown to the vast majority of viewers.

I agree with you that the CW has programmed itself into a corner with its stated objectives to attract almost exclusively young women and its relative failure to do so. If you target a relatively small market and miss it, you end up with very little.

Make no mistake though, the CW doesn’t face a technical reach ceiling. They certainly reach more of the US than any cable channel.

I think to some extent that has to be the objective for the GG PR efforts. Although we are TV numbers nuts, we *know* almost no one else is, so the ratings for GG are pretty much unknown to the vast majority of viewers.

I agree with you that the CW has programmed itself into a corner with its stated objectives to attract almost exclusively young women and its relative failure to do so. If you target a relatively small market and miss it, you end up with very little.

Make no mistake though, the CW doesn’t face a technical reach ceiling. They certainly reach more of the US than any cable channel.

Does anyone else think that by the CW “PRing” the heck out of Gossip Girl might be their attempt to make people think that so many people are watching GG, why don’t I watch it too? (or at least check it out). If so, if GG’s ratings don’t increase next season, will their bid at this end?

Also… I feel like the CW is operating under some sort of glass ceiling. Regardless of the 5th network’s programming, it seems as though there are never big ratings for any of their shows. I think that all of the PR that goes out for Gossip Girl may prove this. No matter what’s on CW, people just don’t think it’s worth watching.

Does anyone else think that by the CW “PRing” the heck out of Gossip Girl might be their attempt to make people think that so many people are watching GG, why don’t I watch it too? (or at least check it out). If so, if GG’s ratings don’t increase next season, will their bid at this end?

Also… I feel like the CW is operating under some sort of glass ceiling. Regardless of the 5th network’s programming, it seems as though there are never big ratings for any of their shows. I think that all of the PR that goes out for Gossip Girl may prove this. No matter what’s on CW, people just don’t think it’s worth watching.

Does anyone else think that by the CW “PRing” the heck out of Gossip Girl might be their attempt to make people think that so many people are watching GG, why don’t I watch it too? (or at least check it out). If so, if GG’s ratings don’t increase next season, will their bid at this end?

Also… I feel like the CW is operating under some sort of glass ceiling. Regardless of the 5th network’s programming, it seems as though there are never big ratings for any of their shows. I think that all of the PR that goes out for Gossip Girl may prove this. No matter what’s on CW, people just don’t think it’s worth watching.