"Lilith"
dcccd.edu> wrote in message
news:jsk034p7pp7tpebu0ak7d24b05gihaab9e@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 06:31:57 -0400, "KalElFan"
>
yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>>>"Super-Menace"
arctic.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:180520080309464948%%fortress@arctic.com.invalid...
>>>>> In article <698ojvF308qhtU1@
mid.individual.net>, KalElFan
>>>
yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, a Wall Street Journal article this week says that
>>>> the gig may be up for The CW if next season doesn't show
>>>> much better results. It says that at least one of the partners
>>>> (CBS and Warner Bros.) is displeased with the results and
>>>> ready to bail.
>>>>
>>>> It didn't need to specify that the partner ready to bail is
>>>> Warners. The CBS side (Moonves and Ostroff) has been
>>>> running The CW for the last two seasons and will again next.
>>>> 90210 is a sequel to a show produced by CBS/Spelling.
>>>> Warner Bros. produces Smallville and Supernatural, both
>>>> male-targeted. Warners is reportedly taking a bath on a
>>>> reduced license fee on Smallville, to get The CW to run
>>>> season 8. Warners also recently announced a revival of
>>>> The WB network on the web. Time Warner is also in the
>>>> middle of an asset fire sale of sorts, under pressure to deal
>>>> with a declining stock price.
>>>>
>>>> It all adds up to Warners already having one foot out The
>>>> CW door. So what of Smallville and any follow-ups in
>>>> the superhero genre, like a Metropolis or Justice League
>>>> or Supergirl series?
>>>
>>>
>>> A couple of things here. Historically it's been CBS that bails on
>>> expensive experiments such as The CW. I think it was CBS that
>>> helped sink the merged network. When you start by destroying
>>> whatever brand recognition the property had as The WB by
>>> substituting a big, meaningless nothing of a name like "The CW"
>>> in its place, the mass audience will not react well. It's even worse
>>> when you consider that the new name was a sop to corporate ego.
>>
>>Don't disagree with any of that except to say that The CW remains
>>a potentially better deal for the CBS side. They've been running it
>>and can use it to milk the 90210 franchise this season. If Warners
>>bails they may choose to rebrand it as CBS-2, a la ESPN-2, and
>>re-air female-skewing shows in some timeslots.
>
> To paraphrase Dr. Phil, "How would that work out for ya?" Quite
> seriously, I don't think I've tuned into a CBS show in the last five
> years. I have no idea what they have on and I guess that's why I
> don't see myself watching CBS-2 in any predictable future.
Jericho and Shark were the only CBS shows I watched and now
those are cancelled. Neither would fit The CW target demo but
other things on CBS's schedule might. They could probably have
a second showing of How I Met Your Mother and one of CBS's
other comedies and draw more with that on Sunday night, for
example, than what they've been drawing there the last couple of
years. They've farmed Sunday out to MRC this season but who
knows how long that'll last.
Assuming a hypothetical CBS-2 broadened its target market to
include men, there's lots more that would fit. CBS itself gets very
decent ratings for reruns of procedurals. Reruns of just about any
CBS show would probably draw about as well on The CW as
what they're airing now. Yes, it'd make The CW, or CBS-2 if
that's what it becomes, a second-run cable channel but that's
what many cable channels are. As part of a package deal with
several partners, a show like Jericho might become more viable
with a viewing window on a CBS-2.
