• 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 pulls in worst ratings yet

G

genius

The debut of the newsmagzine hosted by Tanika Ray(my she is everywhere these days) achieved a 1.0 rating, but then Online Nation surpassed that with only a 0.7 rating, making it the CW's lowest rated show to date, even worse than the WB's lowest rated program and making MNTV's ratings look good.

This site has the full story.
 
Honestly, who in the heck is Tanika Ray? I've never, ever heard of her ("Tanika" is a she, right?). Is this someone who they just dragged in off the street? Haven't even seen her on The Soup, which performs the admirable public service of allowing me to hear of new horrible shows/hosts without having to waste my time watching them.

Judging from the ratings, I am not alone in asking this question. Well, to paraphrase Andy Warhol, I guess everyone gets their 15 minutes of fame... :D
 
BRNout said:
Honestly, who in the heck is Tanika Ray? I've never, ever heard of her ("Tanika" is a she, right?). Is this someone who they just dragged in off the street? Haven't even seen her on The Soup, which performs the admirable public service of allowing me to hear of new horrible shows/hosts without having to waste my time watching them.

Judging from the ratings, I am not alone in asking this question. Well, to paraphrase Andy Warhol, I guess everyone gets their 15 minutes of fame... :D
Click to expand...

She's been doing the weekend version of Extra! for a few years now, and she does a lot of air work with the TV Guide Channel. Otherwise she's just some F-list celeb.
 
The solution for CW is very simple.

Air a show on CBS that has fair to moderate ratings, then tell the viewer that part two will air on CW.

Don't try it with one of the top shows though!!!!
 
Yeziknoradio said:
The solution for CW is very simple.

Air a show on CBS that has fair to moderate ratings, then tell the viewer that part two will air on CW.

Don't try it with one of the top shows though!!!!
Click to expand...

CBS tried that once with Veronica Mars back in 2005...it didn't seem to work.
 
genius said:
CBS tried that once with Veronica Mars back in 2005...it didn't seem to work.
Click to expand...

It also incurred the wrath of a number of CBS affiliates, who saw the stunt as promoting the competition. That's probably why CBS didn't try it again.
 
When they did it with Veronica Mars, I think it was on a Friday night at 9 or 10 p.m...Kind of a throwaway slot if you ask me...
 
The problem with the WB was that it had already hit it's peak back in 2001 or so. Since then into went into decline, with a only few shows (7th Heaven, Reba) pulling in decent numbers. UPN never made much of a dent anyways, but the WB was winning the key teen demo. Then the top brass decided they didn't want to be seen as such and blew up the network by the end of the 04-05 season when they came in just behind UPN.
 
If memory serves me, Veronica Mars did well on CBS. The problem was as already stated, CBS affiliates voiced concerns about cross promotion of UPN affiliates, many of which, at the time, were owned by Fox. So the idea was scrubbed. And, Veronica Mars wasn't able to keep the momentum going after that.

I think the big problem for both MNTV and CW is that (if other markets are like mine) their affiliates seem to be lower power, or no-power co-channels. Whereas Fox is really just another one of the big guys now, CW affiliates can't hold their own, while MNTV is just a programming source for second rate stations. Affiliates of both of these seem to be little more than glorified independents, and I don't see them as real networks, at least not yet.
 
BRNout said:
Honestly, who in the heck is Tanika Ray? I've never, ever heard of her ("Tanika" is a she, right?). Is this someone who they just dragged in off the street?
Click to expand...

Tanika is a she. She, previous to her Extra work, was the last host of SoapCenter (before it was finally cancelled after way too many reruns), a 30-minute show with interviews, behind-the-scenes stuff, and fluff, on SoapNet.
 
easttxtv said:
She, previous to her Extra work, was the last host of SoapCenter... on SoapNet.
Click to expand...

Is SoapNet co-owned by ABC? Cuz I'm guessing that's they only way their ESPN network would let Soap TV get away with ripping off the "SportsCenter" brand name...
 
DToTheJ said:
easttxtv said:
She, previous to her Extra work, was the last host of SoapCenter... on SoapNet.
Click to expand...

Is SoapNet co-owned by ABC? Cuz I'm guessing that's they only way their ESPN network would let Soap TV get away with ripping off the "SportsCenter" brand name...
Click to expand...

Yes, SoapNet is owned by ABC/Disney. Being a member of "the family," I'm sure that using a play on the "SportsCenter" brand was approved.
 
DToTheJ said:
Is SoapNet co-owned by ABC? Cuz I'm guessing that's they only way their ESPN network would let Soap TV get away with ripping off the "SportsCenter" brand name...
Click to expand...

Well let's be honest "SportsCenter" was not the first to use a pre-fix with Center. There was the NewsCenter station branding used back in the 70s and then of course there is "WeatherCenter" on the The Weather Channel, who are owned by Landmark.
 
gradio said:
I have the solution for everyone: The WB's comeback! No??? Am I the only one who misses that network?
Click to expand...

I thought the WB was a better network. Merging WB & UPN didn't seem right to me. Now I rarely watch WGN-TV that much during CW programming. Even my mother doesn't watch CW as much as she did when they were WB. As for my sister, all she gets where she lives is a CBS affiliate, while other channels barely reach her home, as she lives in Lafayette Indiana, and doesn't have cable or satellite to get Indianapolis stations.
 
When I heard about the merger, I really thought it was a bad idea only to be confirmed by how it was implemented.

On paper, it did look promising: UPN had key young black demos, while WB had key young white demos. Combining the two, if done right, would build a long-standing audience for years to come. HOWEVER, the first mistake was the name: CW? Even the logic behind it is dumb. Then, there's the management: Principle owner Viacom. Okay, they own MTV, VH1, Nick.....and we see how they screwed these networks over. Then, there's the other principle: The other Viacom. The "C" in CW is for CBS, the geriatric network. That doesn't suit well with young audiences. Plus, since they had CBS, they were treating UPN as the "red-headed step child" anyway, much like how Fox is treating MyNetwork TV.

Time-Warner had good branding and imaging with the WB. I think if they would have stayed with it a little while longer, they would have had a strong network. It took Fox many years (and an NFL contract) to make them a strong player in the industry. I think if Time-Warner had stronger leadership in the CW (plus a bigger budget to get better programming), then it wouldn't be in the deplorable state its in.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom