• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

CW DOWN 25% VS. 2010

gregg75

gregg75

I always thought The WB was the better of the two networks. When the merger was announced, I figured UPN would essentially be taking over the programming of this network, even though it was part owned by Warner Brothers. Quality over the years has confirmed this, that UPN essentially took over The WB and renamed the combined entity "The CW".

One has to wonder how many more years this "network" can stick around. Although, from what I hear, the DVD sales do quite well. I just wonder where the quality shows went? The WB used to have some great shows, and cult classics. Buffy, Dawsons Creek (I didn't watch it myself, but it did well for them), Wayans Brothers, heck the entire Wednesday Night comedy block, with a few exceptions, and the list goes on.

We merge the two networks, and they perform WORSE than they did as separate networks. The one good thing they had going for it, which was Smackdown, they let go so they could appeal to a female audience. Working well for you, isn't it CW?

Of course, CBS has no interest in turning the ship around, because it would only hurt the mothership.
 
mnradiofan said:
I always thought The WB was the better of the two networks. When the merger was announced, I figured UPN would essentially be taking over the programming of this network, even though it was part owned by Warner Brothers. Quality over the years has confirmed this, that UPN essentially took over The WB and renamed the combined entity "The CW".

One has to wonder how many more years this "network" can stick around. Although, from what I hear, the DVD sales do quite well. I just wonder where the quality shows went? The WB used to have some great shows, and cult classics. Buffy, Dawsons Creek (I didn't watch it myself, but it did well for them), Wayans Brothers, heck the entire Wednesday Night comedy block, with a few exceptions, and the list goes on.

We merge the two networks, and they perform WORSE than they did as separate networks. The one good thing they had going for it, which was Smackdown, they let go so they could appeal to a female audience. Working well for you, isn't it CW?

Of course, CBS has no interest in turning the ship around, because it would only hurt the mothership.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is the other way around, the CW has became the WB, part deux. If it was UPN running it then it would be more shows with people of color with lead roles rather than them being a 'token' that is an occasional plot device every few episodes. Yes, CBS figureheads are running things there but they are doing the same thing that brought down the WB in its latter years.
 
My DMA(Johnstown/Altoona) has no CW OTA so its either cable or satellite. Lucky for me I get WPCW HD QAM with my internet service. I enjoy the programming. They air a steeler call in show nightly that is good. :)
 
mnradiofan said:
Of course, CBS has no interest in turning the ship around, because it would only hurt the mothership.
Click to expand...

Other than the yearly infomercial featuring models strutting in lingerie that last aired this past Tuesday, how is CBS trying to attract young female viewers (CW's core audience)? Wouldn't the original programs on CBS-owned Showtime be more of a threat to the main TV network than what The CW airs?
 
You make fair points, but the bottom line as always will be, "Is it making any money." Then comes, "Is it making enough money."

TV stations seem to like the idea of having some sort of branding, even if it's only the MY TV brand attached to it.

I read a book regarding the history of UPN and the WB and interestingly enough the WB was always stronger but UPN had better ratings as they had overall stronger affiliates, right up till the last years.

Unfortunately neither network was really strong enough to survive on their own. So combining them was a good idea. The book suggests that the failure of them was they were unable to provide a niche for themselves. The WB also had to deal with the AOL merger with bordered on, and often included, outright fraudulent accounting practices to make them seem more profitable then they were. Add to this Ted Turner's hostility toward Warner when he sold out. He didn't actually hurt them but he was shuffled out and put aside. He could've been a good asset to the company.

UPN was put in the bad position of being the "also ran" to CBS eventually.

The "hit" shows both network had were more akin to the 80s, first run syndicated shows than a real network hit. This doesn't mean they were not good, or profitable (some were, some weren't). After all "Mama's Family" held it's own for a long time, even in reruns and was not "network quality" so to speak.

Will it survive? Who knows, but as long as there's no reason to put it out of its misery, there's no point to abandon it. After all it's not like a huge amount of time is being allocated to the CW, just a few hours a day. And not even all days anymore
 
Mark said:
Will it survive? Who knows, but as long as there's no reason to put it out of its misery, there's no point to abandon it. After all it's not like a huge amount of time is being allocated to the CW, just a few hours a day. And not even all days anymore
Click to expand...

For WGN-TV, anyday there's sports programming in primetime (Saturdays & Sundays excluded), they're usually forced to farm out those sports programs to WCIU, because they must commit to airing CW programming. I believe deep down, WGN-TV would rather be an independent station, but with them being part of Tribune (Tribune has a stake in the CW network), they have to be a CW affiliate. If the CW does go under, I hope WGN-TV goes independent.
 
Dave said:
Mark said:
Will it survive? Who knows, but as long as there's no reason to put it out of its misery, there's no point to abandon it. After all it's not like a huge amount of time is being allocated to the CW, just a few hours a day. And not even all days anymore
Click to expand...

For WGN-TV, anyday there's sports programming in primetime (Saturdays & Sundays excluded), they're usually forced to farm out those sports programs to WCIU, because they must commit to airing CW programming. I believe deep down, WGN-TV would rather be an independent station, but with them being part of Tribune (Tribune has a stake in the CW network), they have to be a CW affiliate. If the CW does go under, I hope WGN-TV goes independent.
Click to expand...

Tribune's CW stations seem to play down the CW brandings.
 
Mark said:
I read a book regarding the history of UPN and the WB and interestingly enough the WB was always stronger but UPN had better ratings as they had overall stronger affiliates, right up till the last years.
Click to expand...



Mark -- By chance, do you know the name of the book you referenced about the merger of WB and UPN? I'd like to read it.
 
Mark said:
I read a book regarding the history of UPN and the WB and interestingly enough the WB was always stronger but UPN had better ratings as they had overall stronger affiliates, right up till the last years.
Click to expand...

I always thought the Tribune stations (WPIX, KTLA, WGN) were traditionally stronger stations than the old Chris-Craft group (WWOR, KCOP), so The WB had stronger stations in the top three markets than UPN did. Chris-Craft did have powerhouse independent stations in Minneapolis and Portland, OR that affiliated with UPN though (both are now FOX affiliates). The WB eventually took on stronger UPN stations (the Sinclair station group switching over, for example) as the '90s came to an end, leaving UPN to affiliate with low-power stations in some cities (Las Vegas and Cincinnati come to mind).
 
nomadcowatbk said:
milwaukee_dave said:
Mark said:
I read a book regarding the history of UPN and the WB and interestingly enough the WB was always stronger but UPN had better ratings as they had overall stronger affiliates, right up till the last years.
Click to expand...



Mark -- By chance, do you know the name of the book you referenced about the merger of WB and UPN? I'd like to read it.
Click to expand...

I think it was Season Finale

http://www.amazon.com/Season-Finale-Unexpected-Rise-Fall/dp/0061340995
Click to expand...


Thanks for the info!
 
Eric Stein said:
Mark said:
I read a book regarding the history of UPN and the WB and interestingly enough the WB was always stronger but UPN had better ratings as they had overall stronger affiliates, right up till the last years.
Click to expand...

I always thought the Tribune stations (WPIX, KTLA, WGN) were traditionally stronger stations than the old Chris-Craft group (WWOR, KCOP), so The WB had stronger stations in the top three markets than UPN did. Chris-Craft did have powerhouse independent stations in Minneapolis and Portland, OR that affiliated with UPN though (both are now FOX affiliates). The WB eventually took on stronger UPN stations (the Sinclair station group switching over, for example) as the '90s came to an end, leaving UPN to affiliate with low-power stations in some cities (Las Vegas and Cincinnati come to mind).
Click to expand...

KTLA has always been stronger than KCOP even as independent. When Fox took over KCOP it just went downhill.
 
wdb2003 said:
Eric Stein said:
Mark said:
I read a book regarding the history of UPN and the WB and interestingly enough the WB was always stronger but UPN had better ratings as they had overall stronger affiliates, right up till the last years.
Click to expand...

I always thought the Tribune stations (WPIX, KTLA, WGN) were traditionally stronger stations than the old Chris-Craft group (WWOR, KCOP), so The WB had stronger stations in the top three markets than UPN did. Chris-Craft did have powerhouse independent stations in Minneapolis and Portland, OR that affiliated with UPN though (both are now FOX affiliates). The WB eventually took on stronger UPN stations (the Sinclair station group switching over, for example) as the '90s came to an end, leaving UPN to affiliate with low-power stations in some cities (Las Vegas and Cincinnati come to mind).
Click to expand...

KTLA has always been stronger than KCOP even as independent. When Fox took over KCOP it just went downhill.
Click to expand...

Yeah, other cities like Birmingham with WTTO and Atlanta with WATL winding up as the WB affiliate after long stunts of being first successful independents than FOX affiliates (and in the case of WATL, a FOX O&O from 1993-95). The WB had overall stronger stations but it's network stunted its own growth when they started to let UPN dominate on diverse and strong sitcoms in the end and relying exclusively on dramas strictly.
 
wdb2003 said:
Eric Stein said:
Mark said:
I read a book regarding the history of UPN and the WB and interestingly enough the WB was always stronger but UPN had better ratings as they had overall stronger affiliates, right up till the last years.
Click to expand...

I always thought the Tribune stations (WPIX, KTLA, WGN) were traditionally stronger stations than the old Chris-Craft group (WWOR, KCOP), so The WB had stronger stations in the top three markets than UPN did. Chris-Craft did have powerhouse independent stations in Minneapolis and Portland, OR that affiliated with UPN though (both are now FOX affiliates). The WB eventually took on stronger UPN stations (the Sinclair station group switching over, for example) as the '90s came to an end, leaving UPN to affiliate with low-power stations in some cities (Las Vegas and Cincinnati come to mind).
Click to expand...

KTLA has always been stronger than KCOP even as independent. When Fox took over KCOP it just went downhill.
Click to expand...

I've read that Channel 13 did some innovative programming in the dawn of the TV era of live TV. Jim Hawthorne, Betty White, Leonard Nimoy, and Regis Philbin were four later stars that passed through the station. But in the 60s under Chris Craft, it was a laughably pathetic station - the worst pickings of off-network sitcom reruns, the lowest rent cartoons, travelogs in prime-time, no news department, and possibly the worst Grade C and D movies ever shown.

Some will argue that during the 60s, KHJ-TV (RKO General) was the worst station in the LA market, but at least Channel 9 had some good movie packages, not to mention the affiliation with KHJ radio, LA's top radio station during that era.

From the mid 50s well into the 70s, KTLA and KTTV were vastly superior to the other 2 indys.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom