| QUOTE (goth willow fan @ Jan 29 2006, 10:45 AM) |
| I suppose it depends how damaging their direct competion was to both Networks, if a shows main competition was on the other they may not suffer ratings wise, if however it was Fox, ABC or CBS then they would still have a problem. |
| QUOTE (goth willow fan @ Jan 29 2006, 02:04 AM) |
| Though couldn't they come up with a better name? :ermm: |
| QUOTE |
| The CW Deprograms Cult The CW--the fledgling network cobbled together from the remains of UPN and The WB--has pulled the plug on Cult, the former WB supernatural fantasy series from Farscape creator Rockne S. O'Bannon, according to The Hollywood Reporter. |
| QUOTE |
| 'Buffy' Fight May Have Slain Two Networks on the Edge Last week, when the money-losing WB and UPN networks announced that they were pulling the plug to form a single new broadcast network, many television veterans traced the roots of the decision back five years, when a fight over the fate of "Buffy" drove what would prove to be a fatal stake through the WB's heart. The show, produced by 20th Century Fox Television, was a runaway hit with teenage girls. But in early 2001, the WB balked when Fox executives demanded $44 million to license a single season. That fall, the show shifted to UPN, and with it went the WB's identity as the go-to destination for young viewers. Now, as CBS Corp. and Time Warner Inc. develop the CW, their new jointly owned network, what killed the WB and UPN is a hot topic in the offices of TV executives all over town. In the end, many agree, the WB's loss of "Buffy" ・which breathed new life into the struggling UPN ・set in motion a pitched battle for the coveted youth market that would eventually doom both networks. "It came down to two very large and very well-funded media companies trying to take one seat at the table," said Warner Bros. Television Group President Bruce Rosenblum, who was put in charge of the WB network last year. "Rather than battling the network business, we were battling each other." Rosenblum is particularly interested in what went wrong because it is now up to him and CBS Paramount Network Television Entertainment Group President Nancy Tellem to make things right. The two will oversee the CW network, which is scheduled to launch in September. CBS will control the CW's programming, marketing and research functions. Time Warner's former WB employees will run the CW's business operations. One company executive said about a third of the nearly 300 WB and UPN employees would lose their jobs in the consolidation. But Tellem and Rosenblum said no such decision had been made. The cautionary tale of the little networks that couldn't begins in the early 1990s. That is when the relaxation of federal rules allowed broadcasters for the first time to own the content they aired. This gave such longtime TV production juggernauts as Warner Bros. and Paramount the chance to get into the network game. Ironically, the brass at both companies talked about w**king together to build a single network. Instead each company aligned with a separate, powerful independent TV station group ・Paramount with Chris-Craft Industries and Warner Bros. with Chicago-based Tribune Co. Both Chris-Craft and Tribune, which now publishes the Los Angeles Times, wanted their local stations ・not each other's ・to form the backbone of the new network. Ultimately, that meant they formed two networks. In Los Angeles, Tribune's KTLA Channel 5 became the WB affiliate and Chris-Craft's KCOP Channel 13 became the local UPN affiliate. (Fox later outbid Viacom Inc. to acquire the Chris-Craft stations, but still aired the UPN programming.) Both networks scrambled to recruit affiliate TV stations throughout the country, and both launched within days of each other in January 1995. The WB started with just two nights a week of prime-time programming, including such shows as "The Wayans Brothers" and "Muscle," a soap set in a Manhattan gym. "Sister, Sister," a sitcom about teenage twins separated at birth and reunited in their early teens, developed a loyal following. "The WB was moving in the right direction for quite a while," said Richard Greenfield, media analyst for the brokerage firm, Pali Capital Inc. Meanwhile, UPN ・United Paramount Network ・had three nights of programming. When it rolled out "Star Trek: Voyager" to eye-popping ratings, it took the early lead in head-to-head competition. But UPN had trouble defining a clear identity. In 1998, it faltered when it unsuccessfully tried to expand to five nights a week. In 1999, it had success with professional wrestling's "Smackdown!" but still was a network without a cohesive strategy. As it grew, the WB consistently marketed itself as a youth-oriented network and gained traction with such signature dramas as "Dawson's Creek," "7th Heaven" and "Buffy." "The WB had some very good years," said Steve Grubbs, chief executive of ad-buying firm PHD North America. "They always knew who they were." Not so UPN. "Every one or two years, they would come up with some new strategy," said Steve Sternberg, research director for the ad-buying giant Magna Global USA. "First they were going for men, then it was the middle of America, then it was African Americans. Then they finally got a hit with 'America's Next Top Model,' so then they decided to go after young women." In 2000, then-Viacom President Mel Karmazin told investors that UPN's future was far from certain. It had become too much of a money pit. "If we can't make it profitable, we don't need it," Karmazin had announced. Viacom's "hail Mary" pass to try to save the ailing network came in 2001, when UPN agreed to pay about $50 million a season for the rights to "Buffy," $10 million more than the WB had offered to keep the show. Then, in 2002, UPN got something it never had: a charismatic leader who hated more than anything to lose. Leslie Moonves, who had engineered the successful turnaround of CBS, was asked by Viacom Chairman Sumner Redstone to fix UPN. Moonves took the challenge seriously, cutting costs by consolidating some of UPN's operations with those of CBS, including marketing, research and publicity. He recruited a veteran programming executive from the Lifetime cable channel, and then encouraged top producers and other Hollywood talent, who had long turned up their noses at the "Smackdown!" network, to change course and bring their business there. "Finally, UPN had some direction," Sternberg said. "Buffy" didn't sustain the high ratings on UPN that it had enjoyed on the WB. Still, its arrival marked a turning point. "That show represented what this network could be," said UPN President Dawn Ostroff, the former Lifetime executive whom Moonves tapped to run the network in 2002. (Ostroff will become entertainment president at the new CW). "It signified where we could get to, and the kind of audience that we could attract: young, female and cutting edge." If that sounds familiar, it was. That same demographic formed the WB's core audience. The move of "Buffy" to UPN wasn't all bad for the WB, which was nearing profitability. No longer having to pay the high license fees for "Buffy" helped it achieve its financial goals. Not only that, the WB replaced "Buffy" with "Gilmore Girls," which is now one of the network's most successful shows. But, if nothing else, "Buffy" kept UPN alive long enough for Moonves to take the reins. And once he did, the race was truly on. It didn't help that the WB has failed to launch a big hit in the last three years, industry veterans said, and suffered through falling ratings. The WB and UPN weren't just battling each other, of course. With each passing year, the media landscape was becoming more and more fragmented. There are more than 200 television channels, including several successful cable outlets, such as MTV and ESPN, that have tapped lucrative niche audiences, as well as other entertainment options such as video games, DVDs and the Internet. Television and advertising executives say that, in the end, two networks vying for the same audience just didn't w**k. There weren't enough popular shows to attract the number of eyeballs needed to lure advertisers willing to pay hefty ad rates. During their 11 years, UPN lost more than $1 billion and the WB lost about $700 million. Last week, Moonves confidently predicted that the CW would be profitable in its first year. The companies plan to pick their most popular shows to form a more mighty prime-time lineup. The strategy is to launch with 30 hours of programming a week, including 13 hours in prime time to cover six nights a week. Will the CW be able to tackle and solve the problems that doomed its two network forebears? Some analysts are skeptical. "The most significant risk is that the two organizations encounter problems integrating their management, sales and creative staffs or that CBS and Time Warner are unable to agree on future strategic decisions for the CW," Merrill Lynch media analyst Jessica Reif Cohen wrote last week in a research report. CBS' Tellem, who will serve on the board overseeing the CW, said such risks were minimal because the executives in charge had known one another for nearly two decades. Her relationship with Rosenblum goes back to 1986, when they joined Moonves at Lorimar Television, which later became part of Warner Bros. Television. Tellem said executives went into the deal with their eyes open. The agreements structuring the new network call for binding arbitration if disputes arise. Shows developed at either Warner Bros. or CBS would become a co-production, with the two companies sharing the costs and the profit. "We are very clear on what our objectives are," Tellem said. "We were trying to be very honest and build into the deal provisions that support the goals of the network." They know they've got their w**k cut out for them, particularly when it comes to shaping the new network's identity. Some executives at rival companies are already referring to the CW by the name Moonves jokingly said he had rejected: the WC. In some ways, the story of the new network echoes a plot line that will be familiar to fans of one of the WB's earliest success stories: "Sister, Sister," the show about the teenage twins who were separated and then reunited. Could the CW be the network equivalent of "Sister, Sister"? It could do worse: That show lasted five seasons. Thanks latimes.com |
| QUOTE (smellyphagor @ Feb 4 2006, 04:57 PM) |
| Also interesting, and in a way predictable, that quality had nothing to do with usefullness to the networks- Gilmore Girls being more profitable than Buffy. Will we see really good 20 odd episode long really good US drama again? |
| QUOTE (TV Yank @ Feb 5 2006, 09:20 PM) | ||
Alot of critics and viewers would consider GILMORE GIRLS a superb show and find some solace that it is doing well enuf in the ratings to stay alive on a "netlet". |
| QUOTE |
| From Rockymountainnews.com - By Dusty Saunders - 2006-07-21 Sink-or-swim team - WB, UPN pool efforts as CW to stay afloat in TV world HOLLYWOOD - Can a "new" broadcast network, created from two failing operations, survive in today痴 multichannel, digital world? That痴 the question being debated here as the CW Network prepares to launch in September with a combination of programming from the WB and UPN. The CW even hopes to lure the 18-to-34 demographic - the same audience the two networks have competed for since premiering in 1995. The CW, an alliance between CBS Corp. and Warner Bros. Television (hence the "C" and "W" in its name), was announced last January. The merger took the media community by surprise, even though initial negotiations started around Thanksgiving, according to CBS Chairman Les Moonves. Many experts have adopted a wait-and-see attitude about the viability of the merger. But nearly everyone agrees that the CW has a better chance of success than the WB and UPN, both of which faced increasing losses owing to declining audiences and soaring production costs. In the past 11 years UPN has reported losses of more than $1 billion, while the WB lost around $700 million. The WB turned a profit in only two years; UPN never had a profitable year. The networks, unable to launch a major hit during the past four seasons, were simply battling one another for a small segment of the total audience. Ironically, executives from both networks talked in the early 90s about w**king together to build a single network. But both went their corporate ways: Paramount and Chris Craft Industries starting UPN and Warner Bros. and the Tribune Co. launching the WB. One "showbiz" theory has Buffy, the Vampire Slayer as a major "villain" in the scenario, being partially responsible for the "slaying" of the two networks. The cult series, produced by 20th Century Fox, initially was on the WB and it became a major hit. But in early 2001 the WB balked when Fox demanded $44 million annually to license the show to the network. So that fall Buffy moved to UPN, taking with her the WB痴 identity as go-to-outlet for young viewers, particularly women. But the move, the theory goes, hurt both networks because Buffy痴 departure meant a loss of fans for the WB. And while the show attracted viewers to UPN, the audience growth wasn稚 enough to justify the high price the network paid. The challenge ahead When the two networks were launched in 1995, the broadcasting landscape had a decidedly different look. "No one 11 years ago realized there would be 250 channels and all these distribution platforms," said Jay Sures, a partner of United Talent Agency, which places actors in TV programming and movies. "Everything from cell phones, the Internet, iPods and digital recording devices." The technological evolution in media has drawn many viewers away from traditional television outlets and schedules. And niche cable channels such as ESPN and MTV have produced loyal viewers who don稚 scan the schedules. Even with all the changes, Moonves, a major architect of the deal, remains confident that the CW can find an audience. "This (merger) is much better than keeping UPN the way it was. (CBS-Viacom had been operating UPN since 2002). I think there痴 a strong possibility the CW can show a profit during its first season." Some might suggest the lack of new programming - only two series on the CW fall schedule are debuts - could be a deterrent to attracting viewers. Moonves counters that familiarity will be important. "We have to get established with programming viewers are familiar with. Later, we can insert a lineup featuring more new shows." Don稚 expect the proposed lineup to disappear from the air quickly if ratings don稚 start with a bang. The CW has production contracts of varying lengths with producers of its current series, so canceling those contracts would be financial suicide for the fledgling network. Brian Lowry, veteran Variety television critic, concurs that the success of the CW depends a lot on controlling costs. "The network can稚 spend a lot of money right now on creating a new schedule," said Lowry, who added that "viewers are not going to be fooled, they値l understand the CW is really not a new network. "Still, the mix-and-match philosophy of taking popular programs from both networks could draw viewers, particularly in the young demographic. There痴 reason for optimism." Under terms of the merger, CBS controls the CW痴 programming, marketing and research functions, while former WB employees oversee the network痴 business operations. Dawn Ostroff, who was president of UPN, is in charge of programming while John Matta, Warner Brothers chief operating officer, handles business operations. "The fact that the network has one brand and aims at one constituency is a decided plus," says Tim Spengler, an executive vice president and broadcasting expert for Initiative, a global communications company. "Network television is all about content and creation. The network has good series like Veronica Mars and Gilmore Girls to build upon." A big key: how the advertising market responds as the season goes along. So far, the amount of "upfront" advertising dollars committed to the CW for this season is just more than $625 million, according to a Dow Jones report. Last year the WB brought home roughly $675 million and UPN secured $375 million. Moving forward The merger has produced one negative result locally and nationally. Approximately 100 employees of the two former networks in Denver have lost their jobs at UPN and WB2. The merger also means one less place for Hollywood producers, writers and actors to shop a new series. And dozens of stations in cities across the country who were aligned with one of the networks are now scrambling to find prime-time programming. In Denver, the CW lineup will be on WB2, which will undergo a name change in mid-September. "We値l be known as CW2, a logical identification," says Jim Zerwekh, the station痴 vice president and general manager. Zerwekh points out another thing that might lead to success for the new network. Before, many WB series only produced 17 episodes a season, compared with the 20-plus shows aired on the other networks. "This meant we were airing reruns in key parts of the season. We致e been assured that CW producers are filming a full season of shows." KTVD-Channel 20, Denver痴 UPN affiliate, should be in better shape than many WB2 or UPN affiliates, because of its recent sale to Gannett Broadcasting, owner of 9News. The company is putting together a prime-time lineup that includes a daily local 9 p.m. news, produced by 9News, and two series from the new MyNetworkTV studio. The merger has produced some criticism from organizations that claim minority programming will be diminished, since several black-oriented series on UPN didn稚 make the cut for the CW. Ostroff claims the CW痴 long- range strategy includes a concerted effort to program to a multicultural audience while striving to reach viewers through a highly interactive Web site that includes a section called the CW Lab. Noting that the CW will be seen initially in 93 percent of the country, Ostroff says such coverage eventually should spell success. But she wouldn稚 predict the CW initially would have more viewers than the combination of the WB and UPN. "I think that ultimately we値l wind up with more viewers than either network had," she says. "It痴 going to take a while to get everybody into the house and to communicate that there痴 a channel where viewers can find their favorite shows." The TV landscape Here痴 a look at network prime-time viewership for the 2005-2006 season, according to A.C. Nielsen Research. Figures show the average weekly prime-time audience for each network. Overall viewing CBS: 12.6 million ABC: 10.7 million Fox: 10 million NBC: 9.7 million WB: 3.12 million UPN: 3.1 million Viewership in the 18-34 demographic Fox: 2.5 million ABC: 2.1 million CBS: 1.74 million NBC: 1.72 million UPN: 940,000 WB: 910,000 NOTE: Fox has seven hours less of weekly prime-time shows than the big three; WB and UPN currently have only 13 hours of weekly programming and don稚 program at all on Saturday night. On the air The CW Network will reach 93% of the country痴 broadcast viewers when it launches in September. In Denver, it will be carried on WB2. Here痴 a look, by percentage, of where the station can be found across the rest of the country: 60% of the stations carrying the CW Network will be old WB affiliates 28% of the stations carrying the CW Network will be old UPN affiliates 12% of the stations carrying the CW Network will be on different stations entirely Long-shot bet? Is the advertising community worried about the CW Network? The "upfront" advertising dollars committed so far might suggest as much. According to a Dow Jones report, the CW has secured just more than $625 million in ad deals for this season. Last year the WB brought home roughly $675 million and UPN secured $375 million. Premieres The CW Network will launch Sept. 20 with America痴 Next Top Model. Other premiere dates: Sept. 25: 7th Heaven and the new Runaway Sept. 26: Gilmore Girls Sept. 27: One Tree Hill Sept. 28: Smallville and Supernatural Oct. 1: Everybody Hates Chris, All of Us, Girlfriends and the new The Game Oct. 3: Veronica Mars Here痴 the prime-time lineup: Sunday 6 p.m.: Everybody Hates Chris (currently on UPN) 6:30 p.m. All of Us (UPN) 7 p.m.:Girl Friends (UPN) 8 p.m.: America痴 Next Top Model (UPN), a rerun of Wednesday痴 hour Monday 7 p.m.: 7th Heaven (WB) 8 p.m.: Runaway Tuesday 7 p.m.: Gilmore Girls (WB) 8p.m.: Veronica Mars (UPN) Wednesday 7 p.m.: America痴 Next Top Model 8 p.m.: One Tree Hill Thursday 7 p.m.: Smallville 8 p.m.: Supernatural Friday 7 p.m.: Friday Night Smackdown (UPN), two hours. |
| QUOTE |
| From Reuters.com - WB relaunches as online video network Time Warner Inc痴 Warner Bros Television Group will relaunch the WB Network as an online video site offering original programming alongside reruns of shows such as "Friends" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to court a new generation of viewers. TheWB.com targets 16-to-34-years-old viewers with new shows developed by writer and producer Josh Schwartz, known for "Gossip Girl" "The O.C." and "Terminator 4" director McG. The launch comes as media companies struggle to court a new generation of viewers, who spend as much time watching television as they do sending text messages on cellphones and watching online videos. Schwartz痴 "Gossip Girl," for instance, has failed to generate big ratings for the CW Network, but has attracted a loyal following online. The CW Network, which once streamed full episodes of the show on the Internet, decided recently to pull it off the Internet to boost TV viewership. Schwartz is developing a new show for TheWB.com that "takes viewers to the front of the line and behind the soundboard of a fictional Hollywood rock club," Warner Bros said in a statement. TheWb.com will also be distributed by Comcast Corp痴 video-on-demand service and its online entertainment site Fancast.com. The new site will also be available on Time Warner痴 AOL. |
| QUOTE |
| From Whedon.info TheWB.com detailed Warner Brothers is launching online arm with full episodes of shows such as Gilmore Girls, Everwood. The WB is back, baby ! The defunct television network is getting revived online in the form of TheWB.com, where it will stream old shows from its library as well as original content from some big-name television producers, Warner Bros. Television Group announced. First hinted at over a month ago, the new online enterprise will play home to some of television痴 most beloved teen-aimed shows, including Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Gilmore Girls, and Veronica Mars. The episodes will be free and ad-supported, and will mainly target women in the prized 16-to-34-year-old group. Other shows mentioned by Warner Bros. to stream online include Friends, Smallville, The O.C., Everwood, Roswell, The Wayans Bros., All of Us, and One Tree Hill. In addition to streaming these shows online, Warner Bros. is partnering with cable operator Comcast to stream the aforementioned shows on Fancast.com and through its on-demand service. Original content is also headed to the Web site, and it isn稚 film school grads uploading their student projects. Producers McG and Josh Schwartz (Chuck, Gossip Girl, The O.C.) are putting together a handful of projects for the site, as are half a dozen other television veterans. TheWB.com will also曜ust like every other Web site out there擁ncorporate a social networking element, allowing fans to chat each other up about how awesome Tom Welling looks or whatever else is on their minds. A beta version of the site is scheduled to open in early May. The company did not reveal how it will distribute beta invites. |