Comments on: Variety Magazine: Huh!? The CW Fleeced You, Too? http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/06/08/variety-magazine-huh-the-cw-fleeced-you-too/4067/ Wed, 15 Feb 2012 04:36:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/06/08/variety-magazine-huh-the-cw-fleeced-you-too/4067/comment-page-1/#comment-258735 Robert Seidman Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:11:05 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4067#comment-258735 Good info, Dumont, thank you. I hadn't been paying enough attention to realize they'd outsourced some of the other dayparts as well. <br><br>My guess as to why the CW is being cryptic is pretty simple: when the news isn't great, if you can spin it in any way that doesn't look bad or at least confuses people so they're not sure whether the news is good, bad or indifferent -- do that. But it's just a guess and one that applies everywhere and not just at the CW. <br><br>ABC has been particularly cryptic too. On the one hand not including sports it's allegedly charging 9% more this year and sold 3% more of its inventory than last year, but on the other hand, revenue is only up ~4%. I can't make the numbers add up, and I think that's exactly how they like it ;-) Good info, Dumont, thank you. I hadn't been paying enough attention to realize they'd outsourced some of the other dayparts as well.

My guess as to why the CW is being cryptic is pretty simple: when the news isn't great, if you can spin it in any way that doesn't look bad or at least confuses people so they're not sure whether the news is good, bad or indifferent — do that. But it's just a guess and one that applies everywhere and not just at the CW.

ABC has been particularly cryptic too. On the one hand not including sports it's allegedly charging 9% more this year and sold 3% more of its inventory than last year, but on the other hand, revenue is only up ~4%. I can't make the numbers add up, and I think that's exactly how they like it ;-)

]]> By: dumont http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/06/08/variety-magazine-huh-the-cw-fleeced-you-too/4067/comment-page-1/#comment-258736 dumont Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:03:40 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4067#comment-258736 I've read all the reporting on The CW's upfront dollar total, and I have a theory that the $600-620 million figure last year also included CW daytime (All of Us/What I Like/Reba*2) and Saturday am kidsWB, both of which have now been outsourced like the MRC deal (CW daytime to Warner Television, Saturday am to 4kids).<br><br>If so, the gap between last year and this year would be the result of the outsourcing of Sunday prime (3 hours), Sunday Easyview (2 hours), daytime (10 hours) and kidvid (5 hours).<br><br>I'm don't know why The CW has been so cryptic about explaining the difference year-to-year. I've read all the reporting on The CW's upfront dollar total, and I have a theory that the $600-620 million figure last year also included CW daytime (All of Us/What I Like/Reba*2) and Saturday am kidsWB, both of which have now been outsourced like the MRC deal (CW daytime to Warner Television, Saturday am to 4kids).

If so, the gap between last year and this year would be the result of the outsourcing of Sunday prime (3 hours), Sunday Easyview (2 hours), daytime (10 hours) and kidvid (5 hours).

I'm don't know why The CW has been so cryptic about explaining the difference year-to-year.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/06/08/variety-magazine-huh-the-cw-fleeced-you-too/4067/comment-page-1/#comment-15052 Robert Seidman Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:11:05 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4067#comment-15052 Good info, Dumont, thank you. I hadn't been paying enough attention to realize they'd outsourced some of the other dayparts as well. <br><br>My guess as to why the CW is being cryptic is pretty simple: when the news isn't great, if you can spin it in any way that doesn't look bad or at least confuses people so they're not sure whether the news is good, bad or indifferent -- do that. But it's just a guess and one that applies everywhere and not just at the CW. <br><br>ABC has been particularly cryptic too. On the one hand not including sports it's allegedly charging 9% more this year and sold 3% more of its inventory than last year, but on the other hand, revenue is only up ~4%. I can't make the numbers add up, and I think that's exactly how they like it ;-) Good info, Dumont, thank you. I hadn't been paying enough attention to realize they'd outsourced some of the other dayparts as well.

My guess as to why the CW is being cryptic is pretty simple: when the news isn't great, if you can spin it in any way that doesn't look bad or at least confuses people so they're not sure whether the news is good, bad or indifferent — do that. But it's just a guess and one that applies everywhere and not just at the CW.

ABC has been particularly cryptic too. On the one hand not including sports it's allegedly charging 9% more this year and sold 3% more of its inventory than last year, but on the other hand, revenue is only up ~4%. I can't make the numbers add up, and I think that's exactly how they like it ;-)

]]> By: dumont http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/06/08/variety-magazine-huh-the-cw-fleeced-you-too/4067/comment-page-1/#comment-15051 dumont Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:03:40 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4067#comment-15051 I've read all the reporting on The CW's upfront dollar total, and I have a theory that the $600-620 million figure last year also included CW daytime (All of Us/What I Like/Reba*2) and Saturday am kidsWB, both of which have now been outsourced like the MRC deal (CW daytime to Warner Television, Saturday am to 4kids).<br><br>If so, the gap between last year and this year would be the result of the outsourcing of Sunday prime (3 hours), Sunday Easyview (2 hours), daytime (10 hours) and kidvid (5 hours).<br><br>I'm don't know why The CW has been so cryptic about explaining the difference year-to-year. I've read all the reporting on The CW's upfront dollar total, and I have a theory that the $600-620 million figure last year also included CW daytime (All of Us/What I Like/Reba*2) and Saturday am kidsWB, both of which have now been outsourced like the MRC deal (CW daytime to Warner Television, Saturday am to 4kids).

If so, the gap between last year and this year would be the result of the outsourcing of Sunday prime (3 hours), Sunday Easyview (2 hours), daytime (10 hours) and kidvid (5 hours).

I'm don't know why The CW has been so cryptic about explaining the difference year-to-year.

]]> By: moraliste http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/06/08/variety-magazine-huh-the-cw-fleeced-you-too/4067/comment-page-1/#comment-14376 moraliste Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:20:23 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4067#comment-14376 I am so used to spin from all the mainstream media outlets that no whopper would surprise me. Speaking as an outsider, I have not seen such a frenzy of spurious cup half full, happy talk since the disastrous AOL-Time Warner merger. These half-truths and new improved media PR blitzes ( the movies are the same; look at the hallelulahs over mediocre summer numbers for Sex in the City - after the first two nights - and Apetow comedies) smack of desperation and arrogance both. I am so used to spin from all the mainstream media outlets that no whopper would surprise me. Speaking as an outsider, I have not seen such a frenzy of spurious cup half full, happy talk since the disastrous AOL-Time Warner merger. These half-truths and new improved media PR blitzes ( the movies are the same; look at the hallelulahs over mediocre summer numbers for Sex in the City – after the first two nights – and Apetow comedies) smack of desperation and arrogance both.

]]> By: Bill Gorman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/06/08/variety-magazine-huh-the-cw-fleeced-you-too/4067/comment-page-1/#comment-14375 Bill Gorman Mon, 09 Jun 2008 05:01:27 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4067#comment-14375 I think Variety is so in the tank for the industry that it is often unable to do more than parrot their PR line directly. I think Variety is so in the tank for the industry that it is often unable to do more than parrot their PR line directly.

]]>