Dwarfed by the internet mania over the Dollhouse premiere, Variety snuck in a piece of glowing praise for the CW:
After jettisoning the popular but brand-busting wrestling franchise "Friday Night Smackdown" and then cutting loose its ratings-challenged Sunday lineup that was Outsourced to indie producers, the young network can focus on its core assets Monday through Thursday.
And on these nights it has zeroed in on dramatic storytelling geared toward an urban, young-female audience, with shows like "Gossip Girl," "America's Next Top Model" and "90210" helping forge an identity.
Sure, there's room for improvement in various timeslots across the week, but the move away from wrestling and comedy is a smart start. And for the first time in its three-year history, you get the sense that CW is closer to flourishing than folding.
After then covering some highlights and lowlights, Variety concludes:
Despite so-so overall ratings, CW finds itself perhaps in its strongest position to date.
There are a lot of ways to slice and dice the article. But when you throw in that "perhaps" modifying the somewhat ambiguous by nature "position", it's sort of hedging.
It is true that the CW has made gains in women 18-34, and if you take the season comparisons and start them at September 1 instead of later in the month when the Nielsen season officially began, it even has gains among the broader 18-34 demographic. But are those gains enough to offset losses among the wider 18-49 demographic? The CW PR folks would say "we're not focused on the 18-49 demographic!" and I don't blame them for saying that.
But we have to use whatever data we have available to triangulate and arrive at a conclusion around this: is CW generating more advertising revenue this year than last year? Our conclusion is no. So our conclusion is that the gains in 18-34 viewing aren't making up for lost revenue.
Making a change at a network is, as the CW would say something you build brick by brick. Rome wasn't built in a day. [Insert your favorite cliché here]. I actually agree with all of that but it's hard to arrive at the truth of things because realistically when it comes to the CW there are more questions than there are answers.
It's obvious managing partner CBS signed off on the change of focus, specifically Mondays through Wednesdays that target women 18-34. But what we lack, and will always lack is information about projections for year one, year two and year three. So it's not possible for us to know how CW is performing against any internal benchmarks or how happy CBS is with how things are going.
I have heard that the people at Warner Brothers, for example are very happy with how much they are making on 90210 even though from eyeballing it, it has been a ratings disappointment even by CW's target standards. But Warner Bros making money and the CW making money are somewhat different animals. Though especially since CBS has managed the partnership, having Warner Bros happy about anything may well be a good thing politically.
Sunday nights definitely worked out disastrously, but I'm not as much of a hardass about that that as Bill is. Bill doesn't think the media have raked the CW over the coals enough about it. I'm not aligned with Bill on that because we both agreed revenue-wise, selling the bandwidth probably was the way to go.
Let's say I own a 20,000 seat arena, and I rent it to you for 13 nights and you are to pay me $750,000 per night for the rental. Then let's say you only ever sell 8,000 seats. Is it my fault or my problem that you couldn't sell out the arena? Then let's say that you decided NOT to pay me (it was reported that MRC was behind in its payments to the CW and that CW cancelled the contract early due to nonpayment), that definitely *is* my problem, and it's definitely a bad outcome.
So perhaps CW was unwise in hindsight about who it picked as a partner, but I don't know that it should be trashed for trying it out.
Still, I'm definitely not sure that the CW isn't closer to folding than flourishing. Co-parent CBS is in a world of hurt as a business right now and this is despite somewhat of a renaissance in terms of broadcast prime-time ratings. CBS chief Les Moonves will probably need to pull a Roger Goodell and announce he is taking a pay cut. If CBS winds up cutting its dividend, which is widely being reported it may need to do just to cover some debt bills that are coming due, it's obviously a very, very harsh time for CBS. Where does the CW and what we perceive to be its losses fit into that? Is it possible that the CW could really be flourishing at the same time one of its parents is strug-guh-ling so much? In that environment can CBS really continue to fund The CW?
So it seems highly unlikely that these are flourishing times for The CW. Still, I hope it is actually true. I hope the CW does flourish, that it is back next year, that there is more Gossip Girl (and Supernatural!) and I even hope Privileged gets renewed. Bill has it already cancelled, but I figure in the wacky world CW exists in, Privileged has to at least be on the bubble. In fact, if I had any sales chops at all, I'd be busy cutting a $200,000 sponsorship deal with the CW while Bill is on vacation and he would return to "TVbytheNumbers, brought to you by Gossip Girl (and SUPERNATURAL!)"
Sure, it's pure fantasy, but is it really any more fantastical than the notion that these could perhaps be the best of times for The CW? I doubt it, but it's kind of fun to think about.
Talk about bad reporting (and bad writing) that article is crap. The numbers are entirely off too. The article claims that the 18-34 demo wasn’t at a loss compared to last year, but your graphs show that to be wrong. I’m not sure how GOSSIP GIRL on Mondays getting 2.3M on average and a 1.3 lately is better than than the 3.2M and 1.6 that show was pulling last year (the article claims it’s doing better now). They also fail to mention that ANTM has gone from 5M viewers and 2.5s (beating FOX and CBS in the demo in Fall 2007!) to just over 3M viewers and 2.0s.
In fact that article is so horribly researched it makes one wonder if that was a PR push from CW. Every show at the CW is down compared to 2007/2008 numbers except for SUPERNATURAL.
There is no doubt that Warners was happy with 90210 but the key word there is WAS. Warners made the push for 90210 to be moved to a later time slot. Warners isn’t as happy overall as they were say in October. They’ve started to put pressure on Moonves. Moonves has started to put pressure on Dawn.
Meanwhile the “brand,” of the CW is based on the networks weaknesses vs its strengths.
Nick, the Variety numbers are comparing S-T-D based on adjusted 9/1/07, 9/1/08 season start dates and they (CW) have shared some of those numbers with us, and I believe they are accurate.
I understand why CW wants to do that because of the way they started early this year, but unfortunately it’s not anything we can calculate ourselves (at least not without doing an enormous amount of work) for the weekly and s-t-d year over year comparisons.
I wouldn’t say flourishing but i do see the CW as in someway stronger for the future.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/nielsen-network-tv-ratings-season-to-date
Don’t you use STD numbers there? It sure shows that the 18-34 is down as well as total viewers (by over 20%).
Sorry, but I’m not buying that load from Variety. Every show of theirs that I can look at I see a huge downturn compared to just last season from their “Brand,” aimed shows. Only an idiot would even try and spin the huge losses for CW. I understand the stance that SMACKDOWN! wasn’t their demo. I however also understand that the CW is not making more money this year than last year.
If Dawn had chosen the entire 18-34 demographic (much like the WB did before) I feel the network could have been much more successful. The loss of SMACKDOWN! is a drag on the network.
so cw is done with sunday permanently? the cw just needs to order lots of new shows, they only had 1 midseason show Reaper, and they did not even want to renew it, you have spend money to make money, they should definitely order Smallville and OTH for 13 episodes for midseason to plug in failed shows , keeps their options open
Nick, hopefully the third time is the charm (first try was in the post, second was in my comment above) with explaining this.
The link you point to is based on the Nielsen season which began 9/22. The CW (and Variety) is using season comparisons as if the season started on 9/1/08 rather than 9/22/08.
they might also be using only first run episodes, but I didn’t confirm that with variety. my conclusion is definitely that overall viewing is down, 18-49 viewing is down and revenue is down.
Really i thought CW was a good network when they had Friday Night Smackdown that was averaging over 4 million viewers and then they had their shows like TOP MODEL, Gossip Girl, One Tree Hill SMALLVILLE SUPERNATURAL. I really think once they lost Smackdown that they lost their #1 show.
carl, Sundays will be back next Fall with new CW programming. As for SMALLVILLE if the decision was made today, it would not be back next season. Welling has yet to sign on for another season.
They (see Dawn) may not have wanted to renew REAPER but it’s likely their best bet against AMERICAN IDOL because it’s a strong male demo show (and get this, males don’t watch AMERICAN IDOL) so while the numbers likely won’t compare to last season they should at least equal or improve on the numbers 90210 was getting. 90210 should easily do better than PRIVILEGED was doing.
Robert, ah ok I got ya. So today they’re likely telling the truth. So you send out that info to whomever you hope will take the bite and make you the PR that you’re doing better when in reality you’re not. Surprise, surprise Variety bit!
GOSSIP GIRL premiered extremely well, and we know 90210 came out like a hit. Even PRIVILEGED had better numbers at the start. So that is still skewing the overalls, and Bill (I take it he does the STD comparison) isn’t counting some of those because they happened before 9/22.
Ok, that makes sense. It’s dirty, but makes sense. We know the truth though, that numbers are down even for their prize shows. Meanwhile their “Leper Thursday,” night is their strongest night of the season and growing stronger. They lost their number 3 show (which this season would be what their 2nd best show?) because it didn’t “fit,” in their supposed “Brand,” and they’re making less money.
I don’t see how CBS can foot the bill. I’ve heard rumblings that something could happen. Perhaps Warners will buy controlling stake in the venture…
So the real S-T-D is down by 20%, but if you adjust the dates by a few weeks they are up? That’s a big shift.
with CW’s focus on women 18-34, I don’t think the real shift is down, but up. with overall 18-34 it’s down if you use the Nielsen 9/22 date but up if you use 9/1. Sure, it’s to CW’s advantage that way to look at it, but since their focus is 18-34, I don’t really fault them.
if you looked at overall viewers (or 18-49), even starting on 9/1 they would be down. CW PR certainly doesn’t look at overall viewers or 18-34, and nor should they. Should Variety have examined it? I leave that up to people who actually pay to subscribe to Variety
It sounds like a desperate attempt for Dawn Ostroff to save her job actually. It’s really sad to think that the one show that will likely save her job is Reaper. You know, the show she didn’t want to renew. As much as I want to see her go, I’ll still watch Reaper. The show’s success means more to me.
90210 was started with the hopes that it would generate enough revenue and buzz where they could afford to program year round. That is so not happening. If any of the corporate parents are happy, it’s because diminished ratings have happened along with diminished costs, so the bottom line isn’t all that bad. This network’s “brand” is a joke. Once Smallville and Supernatural go, this network jettisons half its viewers. They’ve already lost enough with Smackdown leaving. No new show will make up that loss, especially a Melrose Place reboot.
Nick C is right. They should have focused on the entire 18-34 demographic, not just women. Thanks to ABC Family and other cable outlets, the saturation point for women in that demographic is too great. MyNetworkTV just abandoned their original programming, thus their focus on 18-34 men. The CW should be jumping at the chance to win those viewers.
Is there any chance that in the future, CBS will get rid of the CW but incorporate some of their top banner shows onto their own network? With the real money of CBS advertising behind it, perhaps these shows could become legit hits, CBS could raise their demo numbers, and the stress of an extra network channel would disappear!
Grady, there was some Internet swirl going on early last year where some fans were trying to get a Sci-Fi lineup for CBS on Saturday nights. These were fans of course that were fed up with The CW pretending their Thursday nights didn’t exist, so they wanted Smallville, Supernatural and Moonlight all paired together. They figured lower ratings for CBS with hipper original programming on a dead night would be a good idea.
Matt Roush of TV Guide actually took on that rumor, spelling out that those shows don’t fit the brand of the network. That is why The CW (and UPN) was created by CBS. They wanted an alternate outlet for programming that wouldn’t make CBS’ high standards. Heck, Moonlight drew 8 million and was cancelled. Lord knows none of The CW shows could come close.
Of course when UPN and The CW was created, cable was not nearly as much a threat. It anything, CBS or Warner Brothers have their own cable outlets for these shows.
Robert, I find it hard to believe that 18-34 female demo is “up.” Their top shows from last season are down in the numbers overall. Am I to believe that the 18-34 female demo has risen while all their other numbers have dropped? That’s just hard to believe. Take GOSSIP GIRL for instance. 3.5 Million overall down to 2.3 overall, and I’m supposed to believe the 18-34 female demo rose on that show? It’s hard to believe.
Overall for the network I’m sure those 18-34 Females are up when you add in those extra weeks. GOSSIP GIRL did well and 90210 came out of the gates looking like a huge hit. Last season 90210 didn’t exist and horrible shows like CW NOW couldn’t have been bringing in big female demos.
God, just remembering Dawn pitching CW NOW reminds me why she should have been canned last year…
CBS may sell its controlling stake in the CW, which would change that network drastically. It may also just shut down.
From what I see (although I am just looking at Wikipedia), this season Gossip Girl only dipped below 3 million once before January, while last season only the premiere attracted more than 3 million.
Admittedly, the numbers have not been good since the new year, especially the last couple of weeks. But I would say overall viewership is definitely up (2.6 mil to 3.1 mil if Wikipedia is to be believed).
I’ll bet the Tuesday 90210/Privileged combo is higher in 18-34 women than the Beauty & The Geek/Reaper combo it replaced from Fall 2007. And while Sundays were a black hole this year for CW, it’s not like they were getting major contributions from Sundays in 2007.
Also, it seems that the timing of this article makes sense with respect to when the CW might statistically overtake last year’s STD women 18-34. They have to be doing better right now than they were during the strike (right?), which could have just put them over the top, Friday Night Smackdown be damned.
All that said, it’s still sad to see their numbers next to Univision most days.
TGA, you’re right. I seem to have drank the Dawn Koolaid. I was convinced that GOSSIP GIRL was a hit last season, and looking at the numbers it was right in line with REAPER! (minus the premier). Wow. That’s just scary.
I knew that GOSSIP GIRL thrived during September (averaging about 3.5M viewers) but it has steadily dropped since October, and is now hovering around 2.2M viewers total. A loss of 1.3M viewers just from September.
With those early numbers and 90210 they can sure spin it like they’re doing better, but what they’re averaging NOW is what really matters.
Nick C
While I can’t provide 18-34 results for the months of Jan-half of April, I can provide viewers and 18-49 demos and for example in January last year Gossip Girl (and I am so not a fan) strongest performance was a 2.270 million and 1.0 in adults 18-49. While this year its had (in January an episode hit 2.958 1.3 1.8, and one hit 2.852 1.3 1.9. Thats a tremendous increase over last year. Even after the added competition of House and the Disney show, Gossip Girl has bested those Jn numbers with 2.311 1.1 1.6.
While you might find in questionable to brag about these gains in the 18-34 and using a non standard ratings season for the comparison it is exceptionally common to do just that. Last year they also started the season early, and if you use their start up time, it also shows a increase (though less of one) with this year. As for common months expect the viewer total, adults 18-49 and 18-34 to increase as for the months of February, March and half of April the scripted shows of the CW where for the most part airing reruns due to the writers strike.
That is one of the reasons that CBS has been bragging about its increase year o year (Because they were heavily in reruns already and stayed that way until mid April).
Of course all of them should show improve in the year to year comparisons. And if they don’t, it highlights how poor of a season they truly are having.
In truth the only show that the CW truly has room to brag about in year to year comparisons. It’s up no matter how you compare it (episode to episode, week to week) in total viewers, adults 18-34 and adults 18-49, and adults 25-54. I an unaware of any scripted network show that can make that claim.
Mark Wood, I already stated that I made a mistake. I was believing the CW hype that GOSSIP GIRL was a hit last year (it wasn’t). The show has been on a mostly steady decline since October. It hasn’t done better than a 1.5 in the demo since November and the last two episodes pulled 1.1s.
The CW can brag about GOSSIP GIRL all they want, but the truth is it started its decline in October. No matter how you look at it the show has declined in every aspect. It had an extremely strong September/early October. That is inflating the numbers making it look like more of a success than it really is.
If you’re looking for a show on the CW that can actually claim growth in every demo compared to last season that would be SUPERNATURAL. It hasn’t been on the decline at all. It has been so steady that it is now the 3rd most watched show on the CW STD in overall viewers.
I feel pretty stupid to have been brainwashed by the CW PR to think that GOSSIP GIRL was a hit last season.
One other thing to keep in mind with the Variety numbers is that not only were they based on an adjusted season start time, most of the numbers cited were comparisons of the Mon-Thur period only.