Comments on: Another Open Letter to the CW's Dawn Ostroff

By: Bill Gorman

Bill Gorman — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:23:26 +0000

Dave, one of the things we constantly get back to on the site is that regardless of all the new media kool aid being drunk out there, TODAY people still overwhelmingly prefer to watch video on their TELEVISIONS.

Some choose other methods for the reasons Robert explained, and I’m certain that they will gain share vs. watching on a television in the future, but today the numbers are tiny.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:08:50 +0000

Dave, it’s really hard to get the 40″ HD set on to planes and subways. As for watching online, I think the draw there is that you get to watch when you want to watch, which comes in handy especially if you don’t have a DVR or didn’t record something and then want to watch it.

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:00:41 +0000

I just don’t understand why someone would prefer to watch tv shows on an iPhone or online instead of watching it on 40″ plus flat panel HDTV.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:14:24 +0000

I completely dispute the contention that most people aren’t getting their television from the television, even in this demographic. All the data points to this: most people (again, even in this age demographic) get their television from television.

While there are a lot of us (Bill and I among them) heavily using DVR, watching shows online or on our iPhones — it’s not anywhere near most people, not even among younger people. That is not to say it won’t get there someday, only that someday isn’t here just yet.

By: Shane

Shane — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:09:35 +0000

The problem with catering to the 12-34 and 18-34 demographic is that most of these women actually don’t get their programming from the television anymore. This can be said of so many other television shows. Also, the college campus issue is another one.

I never thought of the CW to be a good idea in the first place–it just capitalizes on the issue of launching a nationwide affiliate-network today rather than simply a cable net. ABCFamily’s success in catering to the exact demographic that The CW is devoted to wholly comes with the fact that most 12-34 and 18-34 women don’t watch broadcast anymore, but rather cable or online. And also, because of DVRs, most of them don’t watch the premiere anymore.

CW is just trying to spin the #s in their favor like ANY other broadcast or cable network would and it’s not such a good approach because the numbers SUCK bad all around. Give The CW another, what, two years, and I believe it will fold and all of its entities will head into oblivion or the world of cable.

Broadcast nets are becoming something of the past as a whole anyways…

By: Kathryn

Kathryn — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 04:40:47 +0000

I agree with Valerie. CW isn’t just going after the 18-34 demo, it’s creating and promoting shows that, really, no one past 22 can stand and little else. Once a person enters the real world, all the high school drama just seems silly. It’s also somewhat insulting to assume viewers can’t like a show if the actor/actress are even just a little older than they are. There can be shows that appeal to the 18-34 demo as well as older viewers. Supernatural and Smallville are two examples of shows that female viewers 18-49 like. Moonlight could have been another. Instead, CW insists on driving away the audience that actually watches TV and not even picking up the younger crowd they are aiming for.

By: cesarrr

cesarrr — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:57:58 +0000

I think that the CW should air repeats of their shows in the afternoon, or in the early evening (5 to 6pm) on weekdays. That way their shows get more exposure, not just at night between 8 to 10pm. THAT’S WHY SOME SHOWS ON CABLE ARE SO POPULAR. I have to say that the only 3 good shows that the CW has are GOSSIP GIRL, REAPER, TOP MODEL. The other ones suck.

SMALLVILLE used to be so good, until 2003, 2004. I HATE the show now. They added more action/sci-fi elements. I hate that super-hero team crap. Too bad they decided to take this direction.

By: Josh

Josh — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:42:27 +0000

I like all the shows on the CW (some more then others) but i really cant see the ratings improving! they should go back to the days where they bought other shows when they got axed! *Moonlight lol

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:03:33 +0000

CW is run by snobs. They were too good for Smackdown and that was there first or second most watched show. I can imagine My Network TV eventually being about equal with the CW in ratings.

By: Valerie

Valerie — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:55:27 +0000

I will never understand the CW’s myopia. I understand wanting to have certain shows that target a desirable demo. But to ONLY want that, and to treat every other show on your network as disposable garbage if it doesn’t appeal to that demo just seems like bad business. Imagine how much better the CW’s rep and cred would be if it was making a point of targeting their monday nights of GG and OTH for the teen girls!, but then also taking the time to promote the solid, dependable Smallville and Supernatural on thursday for a broader audience? Why cut your own throat, and live and die with only a miniscule percentage of a singular demographic? Dawn may have some of her desired teens devoted to the CW. But I know for a fact she’s done a good job of alienating a lot of viewers with her approach as well.

Just remember, the WB had shows that had crazy buzz, i.e. Buffy, Angel, Dawsons Creek, Felicity…and it still crashed and burned. Buzz doesn’t equal ratings, and won’t pay the bills.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:32:38 +0000

Robert,
With the numbers that Veronica Mars had…how would she have faired against the numbers of the crappys shows on the CW currently?

Thanks for the help,
Rachel

By: Nick

Nick — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:25:09 +0000

CW has a few good shows, supernatural, reaper, and smallville. For a reason i dont understand they keep making scripted versions of mtv reality shows, and this isnt working, you would think she would try to change or even reinvent the CW image because it needs a serious makeover;)

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:21:49 +0000

Josh in fairness CW did mention One Tree Hill in its press release about Monday night’s shows. It mentioned GG more, but called OTH the perfect companion to GG. They showed OTH in a tie in 18-34 year old females and a slight edge to GG among 12-34 year old females. But did note the slightly more viewers for OTH

By: Laura

Laura — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:09:44 +0000

I only watch the CW for Supernatural! I do watch Reaper because it is on the same network as SPN. I’ve never watched GG or 90210 as they are a little too young for me.

By: Josh

Josh — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:09:36 +0000

I think the same as you Julie.. No matter how ‘bad’ a show is, if its your number 1 show then you dont axe it!!

Also.. No one has mentioned ONE TREE HILL at all on this page! One Tree Hill did better in all the demo’s then gossip girl but the CW dont even mention it!

By: Julia

Julia — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:29:38 +0000

GRD, you’re not going to kill your top rated scripted show, no matter how small those ratings are in comparison to a real network. It’s still #1 on CW.

By: GRD

GRD — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:26:48 +0000

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: “Smallville” sucks. It’s sucked for years now. If I had that moldy old thing on my network, I wouldn’t promote it, I’d try to hide it. (Actually, I wouldn’t have it on because I’d have killed it at the end of season 4 if I were the WB.) Just because it does a microscopic bit better than the microscopic ratings of the rest of the network doesn’t mean it’s any good.

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:54:38 +0000

Jacob, CW needs viewers. They can only go on demos for so long. They need eyeballs actually watching. That’s what I meant.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:47:03 +0000

Setting fashion trends might pay the network if the fashions worn in the show are resulting in significant “product placement” revenue. Whether they are or aren’t I have no idea, but it’s not a far-fetched notion that CW is being paid something for setting fashion trends.

By: Bill Gorman

Bill Gorman — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:42:28 +0000

Alyssa, being hot is great if that results in viewers for the show because thats what pays the network, setting fashion trends does not pay the network.

But we’re talking about a show that, on a good day, draws 3 million viewers.

And even in its target demo, will be hard pressed to keep up once its facing all new competition.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:39:14 +0000

I’m not offended. It’s definitely true that were Bill to write such a post, he’d have said the same thing in 1/3rd of the words I didn’t take the time to write it that way and I totally get that long posts on blogs are kind of annoying. I thought it was funny honestly because Bill is perhaps even harder on the CW than I am. Plus, I actually have seen every episode of Supernatural and I’m pretty sure Bill hasn’t seen a single episode.

Alyssa, we don’t get access to the financial data and there are a lot of aspects involved with making money besides advertising (DVDs, repeats, potential syndication). On an advertising basis for first run epsiodes alone, I think it’s very possible that the show loses money — though I doubt it would be significant losses or significant profits on that basis. It will be interesting to see where the Fall Ad Age 30 second ad spots costs estimates by show come in…

By: Alyssa

Alyssa — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:33:32 +0000

Bill – It’s very hot as far as the fashion industry goes, starting trends and influencing what women are wearing. You think the that’s profitless for the network?

And okay, Robert, you have me there, it was 23 million streams not downloads.

Do people honestly believe that the CW backs Gossip Girl without any sort of return?

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:29:09 +0000

I do agree about the numbers not being good and i’m sorry if i offended you about your posts. Although i seem to be defending CW, the only shows i watch on it are – Reaper, Smallville & Supernatural, not exactly cw-esque shows. I think they appeal to a whole different audience to what CW markets towards theses days|-)

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:24:11 +0000

Paul, we have a difference of opinion. If CW was targeting the wide television audience *and* had those kind of numbers among 18-34 year olds, I would agree with you that the numbers are good. But since it only targets 18-34/12-34 females, I do not view the numbers as doing “really good”.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:20:49 +0000

I will bookmark it
& CW do really good in their key demos so i don’t know why you seem to pick on Dawn.
I know it seems impossible for CW to reach the viewership heights of the big 4 networks but so far their fall schedule has been strong compared to last season when Gossip Girl was tanking at this point.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:19:37 +0000

Alyssa, there are no downloads available via CW’s site, only streaming and the number of streams without minutes is fairly worthless. They also did not designate in the EW story whether these were clips or episodes. Typically average streaming times across the broader Internet are under 3 minutes, but things like the Olympics did bump up over 9 minutes. I’m sure Bill is right that CW loved that article though!

By: Bill Gorman

Bill Gorman — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:14:45 +0000

Alyssa, I’m sure the CW is loving it. It does keep the meme of “Gossip Girl, so hot, even if no one watches it” alive.

By: Alyssa

Alyssa — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:12:24 +0000

Entertainment Weekly stated that there were 23 million downloads of Gossip Girl off the CW’s website.

The CW does well for its target audience. Gossip Girl is it’s savior because of the influence it has on its viewers. Chuck Bass wears a scarf made out of old ties from J.Press that was acutally struggling to be sold… the show airs and this $175 scarf is officially out of stock. You can purchase it on ebay for a crazy amount of money.

At Fashion Week here in NYC, guess who was invited Prada, Diane von Furstenberg, Tommy Hilfiger, Jason Wu and countless other designers… the Gossip Girl cast. These people want us to see these kids at their events in their clothes. The windows at Bendels have a Gossip Girl motif.

This may not matter to Nielsen number people, but I bet you the CW is loving it.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:08:16 +0000

Barry, as a fan of the show I’m actually just happy CW airs Supernatural at all. If you’re going to target young women, putting Supernatural on Thursdays as a token for the male audience actually makes some sense strategically since nothing it aired would make much of a dent among 18-34 year old women (Grey’s Anatomy has historically very thoroughly dominated in that demo).

By: Jacob

Jacob — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:06:56 +0000

Well Barry, Gossip Girl actually did better than Supernatural and Smallville, in the women 18-34 demo! Which is the demo where the CW seeks its audience… so the CW actually did promote shows that did better!

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:48:07 +0000

Maybe if Dawn promoted and buzzed about the shows that did better last season, like, say, SUPERNATURAL and SMALLVILLE, those ratings would be even higher. Heck, even Reaper’s season average for last year was a bit higher than Gossip Girl. Guess which one was almost cancelled and then banished to mid season?. These are shows that did better than Dawn’s soap operas last year, and that was with hardly any promotion. Going after one demo isn’t going to work, Dawn.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:40:58 +0000

Holly, if you deliberately exclude ~80%+ of the market (88% are excluded from women 18-34, but if you include 12-17 year old females they also target, the exclusion shrinks a little) I think the bar in the demos you do target is by default set pretty high.

By: Holly

Holly — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:33:41 +0000

I agree with a lot of what you’ve said here. However, aren’t you setting the bar a little high with the 20% benchmark?

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:31:25 +0000

Obviously trying, but not obviously succeeding. The expectations around ABC Family are so vastly different than that of an alleged broadcast network. 90210 crushes Mad Men on AMC? It’s supposed to. If Mad Men ever beat Gossip Girl that would be interesting to write about (for me) because that’s *not* supposed to happen.

BTW, throught the magic of technology and the Internet it is possible for you to read only posts by Bill and ignore mine completely if it suits you. I certainly won’t lose any sleep over it. Just bookmark:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/author/gorman

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:18:56 +0000

I personally think you are being cheeky writing that, Dawn is obviously trying to boost ratings for the CW, ABC family has one killer show at the moment and it’s closest to that is Greek, which pulls in 1.6 million viewers, why not pick on ABC family because Secret Life pulled in 4.2 million viewers one night and it’s lead-out Greek with a brand new episode pulled 1.6 million, that’s an erosion of 2.6 million. At least CW shows are consistent. Why are your posts always the most dull? Bills are 100 times better and all you write is garbage trying to get at Dawn Ostroff. Get a life:@