CW Prez Explains Decision to Drop "SmackDown"

[tmc1982]

CW NETWORK PRESIDENT EXPLAINS WHY THEY ARE DROPPING SMACKDOWN

The New York Daily News has an article online about CW’s decision to drop WWE to favour a younger female demographic with more shows aimed at them. Dawn Ostroff, entertainment president of CW said that the network loves the low-rated "Gossip Girl" as it gets a great buzz, much of it from the Internet rather than traditional TV airings, with the right people, who are women 18 to 34. This caused them to drop one of their top rated shows SmackDown because it attracts the wrong people (men).

"There was virtually no flow between the audience that watched WWE and anything else on CW," she said. "We decided the most important criterion is branding the network."

Who wants to bet that the CW will fold by this time next year?

[Drillbit Taylor]

Didn't they also loose America's Next top model?

[Gopher Mod]

Jul 25, 2008 0:40:55 GMT -5 Drillbit Taylor said:

Didn't they also loose America's Next top model?

Not yet they haven't, Piper.

Once they do, though, they'll sink faster than Ion and wind up from a solid 5th place in the ratings to dead.

BTW, I already read this article, and Dawn Ostroff is doing the wrong thing. I thought that television was all about the ratings, not things that get "good internet buzz" and do horribly where it counts the most. Ms. Ostroff and the rest of the CW are shooting themselves in the foot by taking SmackDown off their airwaves and pushing their comedies to where SmackDown is (come October and MyNetwork TV's overtaking of SD!).

[tmc1982]

Jul 25, 2008 1:15:05 GMT -5 Gopher Mod said:

Jul 25, 2008 0:40:55 GMT -5 Drillbit Taylor said:

Didn't they also loose America's Next top model?

Not yet they haven't, Piper.

Once they do, though, they'll sink faster than Ion and wind up from a solid 5th place in the ratings to dead.

BTW, I already read this article, and Dawn Ostroff is doing the wrong thing. I thought that television was all about the ratings, not things that get "good internet buzz" and do horribly where it counts the most. Ms. Ostroff and the rest of the CW are shooting themselves in the foot by taking SmackDown off their airwaves and pushing their comedies to where SmackDown is (come October and MyNetwork TV's overtaking of SD!).

An Open Letter to The CW’s Dawn Ostroff

Les Moonves as James Dolan, Dawn Ostroff as Isiah Thomas?

Report: MTV boss may replace The CW boss

[Spyke the Pacers Fan]

*This time next year*

"Anyone remember the CW?"

"Didn't they show Smackdown?"

"Yeah, what an odd network. It was dead air except for Friday's between 8-10 PM."

"It's not called 'dead air,' it's called 'America's Next Top Model.'"

[Dynamic Dude Johnny]

they have added the the new Beverly hills 90210 sequel/reimagining to atratct women in that age bracket as well.

[wrestlecrapcrap]

I can see where they are coming from.

If they want to target a younger female demo, they don't want their most popular show to be a wrestling programme. As they said, it doesn't help with branding.

Now they can focus on who they want to target. It's nice that we have a bunch of television execs on the forum though, who seemingly all know the considerations of the job so well.

[eJm]

Jul 25, 2008 4:15:53 GMT -5 wrestlecrapcrap said:

I can see where they are coming from.

If they want to target a younger female demo, they don't want their most popular show to be a wrestling programme. As they said, it doesn't help with branding.

Now they can focus on who they want to target. It's nice that we have a bunch of television execs on the forum though, who seemingly all know the considerations of the job so well.

That's fine if you're a diddy cable network that specialises in these things.

For a Network television station, that's very bad.

As I have said in this situation and will say until the end of time, if they were worried about Smackdown only attracting a male demographic with nothing going to their other shows, then you accomidate that audience as well as thier own.

Also, I agree with Phil. Television is about ratings. Always has been, always will be. So why get rid of one of two shows people actually watch on your network?

[wrestlecrapcrap]

Jul 25, 2008 4:22:58 GMT -5 eJm said:

Jul 25, 2008 4:15:53 GMT -5 wrestlecrapcrap said:

I can see where they are coming from.

If they want to target a younger female demo, they don't want their most popular show to be a wrestling programme. As they said, it doesn't help with branding.

Now they can focus on who they want to target. It's nice that we have a bunch of television execs on the forum though, who seemingly all know the considerations of the job so well.

That's fine if you're a diddy cable network that specialises in these things.

For a Network television station, that's very bad.

As I have said in this situation and will say until the end of time, if they were worried about Smackdown only attracting a male demographic with nothing going to their other shows, then you accomidate that audience as well as thier own.

Also, I agree with Phil. Television is about ratings. Always has been, always will be. So why get rid of one of two shows people actually watch on your network?

I don't know. I'm not a TV exec.

I just think it's funny though, how people are so sure this is wrong as if the consideration that Smackdown is a ratings draw hasn't even crossed the mind of the people at the CW. Of course it has. The know exactly how good Smackdown is, and they've decided against it. If they don't want wrestling on their network that's their decision. We don't know their business objectives.

[eJm]

Jul 25, 2008 4:27:39 GMT -5 wrestlecrapcrap said:

Jul 25, 2008 4:22:58 GMT -5 eJm said:

That's fine if you're a diddy cable network that specialises in these things.

For a Network television station, that's very bad.

As I have said in this situation and will say until the end of time, if they were worried about Smackdown only attracting a male demographic with nothing going to their other shows, then you accomidate that audience as well as thier own.

Also, I agree with Phil. Television is about ratings. Always has been, always will be. So why get rid of one of two shows people actually watch on your network?

I don't know. I'm not a TV exec.

I just think it's funny though, how people are so sure this is wrong as if the consideration that Smackdown is a ratings draw hasn't even crossed the mind of the people at the CW. Of course it has. The know exactly how good Smackdown is, and they've decided against it. If they don't want wrestling on their network that's their decision. We don't know their business objectives.

If the CW didn't want Smackdown on their network, they would have went to the WWE when they first formed and said 'You know what, Vince, we don't want Smackdown on this newly formed network. We want out of our contract.' But they didn't.

It's their decision, but they're losing a big demographic by doing it. I find it cowardice on their part. Like I said, if they had a problem with Smackdown attracting a male audience, make room on your network for male targeted programmes, advertise them on Smackdown and then people will watch. Don't isolate your audience who could potentially watch your network.

There is a reason thier shows aren't the big hits they expected them to be compared to the other networks and their only big hits have been America's Next Top Model and Smackdown.

[wrestlecrapcrap]

Jul 25, 2008 4:37:06 GMT -5 eJm said:

Jul 25, 2008 4:27:39 GMT -5 wrestlecrapcrap said:

I don't know. I'm not a TV exec.

I just think it's funny though, how people are so sure this is wrong as if the consideration that Smackdown is a ratings draw hasn't even crossed the mind of the people at the CW. Of course it has. The know exactly how good Smackdown is, and they've decided against it. If they don't want wrestling on their network that's their decision. We don't know their business objectives.

If the CW didn't want Smackdown on their network, they would have went to the WWE when they first formed and said 'You know what, Vince, we don't want Smackdown on this newly formed network. We want out of our contract.' But they didn't.

It's their decision, but they're losing a big demographic by doing it. I find it cowardice on their part. Like I said, if they had a problem with Smackdown attracting a male audience, make room on your network for male targeted programmes, advertise them on Smackdown and then people will watch. Don't isolate your audience who could potentially watch your network.

There is a reason thier shows aren't the big hits they expected them to be compared to the other networks and their only big hits have been America's Next Top Model and Smackdown.

When they started with Smackdown, they did want it. Now, they don't. Their objectives changed, or they decided upon a different way to acheive them.

I still think you're underselling the network. They do know what they are doing. It's not without good reason. They know all about isolating audiences, gaining audiences, targetting specific audiences etc etc etc.

It's just important to be consistent. It's like if WWE wanted to target kids but was still putting on skits like Mae Young giving birth to a hand or other such 'muck' because they didn't want to 'isolated their audience'. Only it would be negative for both, the adults aren't going to want to watch something that's targetted towards kids and the kids aren't going to watch something that's got what their parents would perceive as filth on the programme.

If CW want to target younger women (I don't know why, perhaps their parent company views CW as the women network, and has other networks to target the other demos) then it's for a reason. There's good reason why they want to target the people they do. And to do that, they need to be consistent with the product they are offering. If it's got something like wrestling as their highest rated show, it's going to make CW look like a male orientated network.

If they don't want to look like a male orientated network, it's also for good reason. As I said, I don't really know why because I'm not a TV exec, but I know for a fact that the consideration of SD's ratings will have crossed their mind, but they will have decided against it based on their knowledge and experience in the industry.

[EJS]

Jul 25, 2008 4:37:06 GMT -5 eJm said:

if they had a problem with Smackdown attracting a male audience, make room on your network for male targeted programmes, advertise them on Smackdown and then people will watch.

Do you really want another The Mullets?

[MikeTX]

IIRC they kicked that sitcom "Reba" off of their network shortly after they merged, even though it also got better ratings than almost anything else on there. It was the show's demographic (starring country singer Reba McEntire and probably appealing to middle-aged Southerners) that they wanted to distance themselves from. Sounds like pigeon-holing to me, but I guess time will tell.

[Derk!]

I'm just glad Smackdown is coming to regular TV. CW is only on cable here (as was UPN.)

[Rocket N. Nine]

I figured it would be, "We don't like ratings."

[Legion]

It doesnt matter to me either way but surely it's better for SD and WWE to go to a network that wants them then stay on a network that is obviously shifting focus to women?

This woman obviously has an idea of what she wants for her network and has convinced people. Im guessing it will be longer than a year for them to go under as dont they also have Smallville, Reaper and Supernatural, which are all pretty popular?

[Bravo Echo November]

Stupid move, CW will sink if it only appeals to one audience. Do you think CBS, NBC, FOX, and ABC only target one audience? No, that is why they are successful.

With Smackdown gone, the only show I'll watch on CW is Reaper and that thing ALMOST got cancelled. I wonder then how long Smallville and Supernatural will last since CW only targets women.

[Legion]

Smallville has Tom Welling and Supernatural has those two generic blokes whose names escape me. I think those shows target the ladies just fine......

[tap]

I can't help but find some amusement in the fact that CW are taking programming advice from "TV smarks" (for want of a better term) instead of what's actually drawing people to their network.

I mean, insert "Batista" or "Cena" for Smackdown and "Steive Richards" or "Matt Hardy" for "Gossip Girl" and you'd have the exact same internet discussions of why WWE pushes some guys over others.

Not that I agree with that analogy, I'm just attempting to draw a correlation here.

[Gopher Mod]

Jul 25, 2008 2:16:24 GMT -5 tmc1982 said:

Jul 25, 2008 1:15:05 GMT -5 Gopher Mod said:

Not yet they haven't, Piper.

Once they do, though, they'll sink faster than Ion and wind up from a solid 5th place in the ratings to dead.

BTW, I already read this article, and Dawn Ostroff is doing the wrong thing. I thought that television was all about the ratings, not things that get "good internet buzz" and do horribly where it counts the most. Ms. Ostroff and the rest of the CW are shooting themselves in the foot by taking SmackDown off their airwaves and pushing their comedies to where SmackDown is (come October and MyNetwork TV's overtaking of SD!).

An Open Letter to The CW’s Dawn Ostroff

Les Moonves as James Dolan, Dawn Ostroff as Isiah Thomas?

Report: MTV boss may replace The CW boss

I dunno how this tied in, but two of those three articles are from Sigmafan, Remote Control Mark on these boards (or, as I know him, one Robert Q. Seidelman). Good find, and if Mr. Seidelman reads this before tomorrow, I would like to contact him about it.