WB Network Cuts Jobs as It Faces Losses, Falling Ratings
Just Me
By Meg James, Times Staff Writer
The ratings-starved WB television network gave pink slips Friday to nearly
two dozen employees, bringing to about 40 the number of people at the
network who have lost their jobs during the last month.
The layoffs come at an uncertain time for the 11-year-old Burbank-based
network. The WB has said it will lose about $35 million this year. Its
partners - Time Warner Inc., which owns 78%, and Tribune Co., which owns the
remaining 22% - have not reached a long-term agreement to replace the deal
expiring next fall.
In addition, the WB's ratings are down 12% this season compared with a year
ago in its target demographic of viewers 18 to 34 years old.
WB executives said the layoffs were part of a broader effort to trim
expenses for all of Warner Bros.' operations. Last month, Warner Bros.
confirmed that it had eliminated about 300 jobs, in part because of slowing
growth in DVD sales and a softening TV syndication market.
Executives said the WB action was not a commentary on the network's
long-term prospects. Much of the job cuts came in marketing and the Kids'
WB! children's programming unit.
The WB would not specify exactly how many jobs were lost. After the cuts, it
is expected to employ 220 to 240 people.
In an e-mail to employees, WB Chairman Garth Ancier described the layoffs as
"painful and heartbreaking."
"Some months ago, The WB - like every other division of Warner Bros. - was
asked to do a top-to-bottom analysis of our business," Ancier wrote. "The
objective, in our constantly changing media marketplace, was to attempt to
harness the opportunities provided by new technologies and distribution
platforms, while managing our costs."
Time Warner executives maintain that the WB remains strategically important
because it provides an alternative outlet to networks owned by competitors
for Warner Bros.-produced shows.
Chicago-based Tribune, owner of the Los Angeles Times, also has said it
remains committed to the WB. The two companies this year agreed to a
one-year contract extension that expires in September 2006.
The job cuts follow the disappointing launch of several new shows.
The WB spent millions of dollars promoting "Supernatural" and "Related," but
neither has emerged as a hit. The drama "Just Legal" starring Don Johnson
flopped.
To save costs, the WB last month trimmed its orders for episodes of
established shows, including "What I Like About You" and "One Tree Hill."
Broadcast networks and TV stations face additional challenges as consumers
turn to the Internet, iPods, video games and cable channels for their news
and entertainment.
Advertisers this year shifted dollars from the networks to other media such
as the Internet. Further clouding the outlook for TV is the increasing use
of digital video recorders, which allow users to zip through commercials.
Separately, CBS executives on Friday confirmed that about 25 employees of
its Spelling Television unit were being laid off. Spelling Television has
two shows on the WB network, "Charmed" and "7th Heaven."
Source:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/valley/la-fi-wb10dec10,1,4026495.story?coll=la-editions-valley
I predict that The WB will cease operations as a broadcast network at the
end of the 2007-08 season, if it makes it that long. It'll probably morph
into cable and/or web distribution for Warner Bros. produced shows.
I would also believe that layoffs at The WB and Spelling mean the end of
"Charmed". The WB will want as many in house shows as possible to keep
costs down and "Charmed" must be getting up there in price.
record...@gmail.com
Just Me wrote:
> The drama "Just Legal" starring Don Johnson flopped.
It wasn't on long enough to flop. It was murdered.
Just Me
news:101220051149049775%r...@hellvision.com...
> In article <SN2dnSRH--a...@adelphia.com>, Just Me
> <us...@dilligaf.com> wrote:
>
>> I predict that The WB will cease operations as a broadcast network at the
>> end of the 2007-08 season, if it makes it that long. It'll probably
>> morph
>> into cable and/or web distribution for Warner Bros. produced shows.
>
> WB.
UPN is part of the great CBS/Viacom empire, which is relatively healthy. On
the other hand, Warner Bros. is on very shaky ground financially. Also UPN
has recent shows that are hits ("America's Next Top Model", "Everybody Hates
Chris") or have the buzz factor ("Veronica Mars"). The WB hasn't had a hit
since "One Tree Hill" a couple of years ago, and now that's struggling in
the ratings. The WB has never managed to evolve into a more mature network.
They just kept making the same basic shows over and over, catering to vapid
young people, and now it's coming back to bite 'em in the ass big time.
D a v i d T a n n y
>WB Network Cuts Jobs as It Faces Losses, Falling Ratings
>By Meg James, Times Staff Writer
one reason...no NFL on the WB.
akj...@excite.com
wrote:
>In article <SN2dnSRH--a...@adelphia.com>, Just Me
><us...@dilligaf.com> wrote:
>
>> I predict that The WB will cease operations as a broadcast network at the
>> end of the 2007-08 season, if it makes it that long. It'll probably morph
>> into cable and/or web distribution for Warner Bros. produced shows.
>
>I'd like to know how UPN has managed to avoid going under before the
>WB. And what's going to happen to WB affiliates if they do die. They
>can't just go independent; the age of the independent TV station is
>over. On the plus side, if they're struggling, now is the time to shut
>down, rather than after an expensive FCC-mandated switch to HDTV.
Where did you learn the FCC will mandate HDTV?
There is no mandate for HDTV and there will never be one.
Rich
wrote:
>In article <SN2dnSRH--a...@adelphia.com>, Just Me
><us...@dilligaf.com> wrote:
>
>> I predict that The WB will cease operations as a broadcast network at the
>> end of the 2007-08 season, if it makes it that long. It'll probably morph
>> into cable and/or web distribution for Warner Bros. produced shows.
>
>I'd like to know how UPN has managed to avoid going under before the
>WB. And what's going to happen to WB affiliates if they do die. They
>can't just go independent; the age of the independent TV station is
>over. On the plus side, if they're struggling, now is the time to shut
>down, rather than after an expensive FCC-mandated switch to HDTV.
If it hadn't been for resistence by the greedy big three networks and
cable companies, that switch would have happened many years ago.
Now the money is spread far more thinly due to competition so the
switch will cost even more in real terms. Much like how 10 years ago
the theatres could have switched to digital film projection, now they
have less money, and they are facing being forced or falling behind.
-Rich
hunt...@earthlink.net
shows if they have patience and don't panic. I've heard women at work
chatting about "Related", so I think it may have some below-radar buzz.
Sean O'Hara
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:49:04 GMT, Roy Knable <r...@hellvision.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to know how UPN has managed to avoid going under
>> before the WB. And what's going to happen to WB affiliates if
>> they do die. They can't just go independent; the age of the
>> independent TV station is over. On the plus side, if they're
>> struggling, now is the time to shut down, rather than after an
>> expensive FCC-mandated switch to HDTV.
>
> If it hadn't been for resistence by the greedy big three networks
> and cable companies, that switch would have happened many years
> ago.
No, that's digital TV. HDTV is hampered by the fact that the sets
are incredibly expensive, you can't (yet) by HD media, and the
programming available over the air and on cable is limited to
non-existent.
There is no mandate for anyone to switch to HDTV at any point in the
foreseeable future.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
A celebrity is one known to many persons he is glad he doesn't know.
-H.L. Mencken
Benjamin Elliott
>> end of the 2007-08 season, if it makes it that long. It'll probably
>> morph
>> into cable and/or web distribution for Warner Bros. produced shows.
>
> WB. And what's going to happen to WB affiliates if they do die. They
> can't just go independent; the age of the independent TV station is
> over. On the plus side, if they're struggling, now is the time to shut
> down, rather than after an expensive FCC-mandated switch to HDTV.
Well, in nearly all the small markets WB is cable only, so those would just
lose a cable channel. In bigger markets, the other 5 networks would swoop in
where one or more of them can improve their market reach by switching to a
WB channel (in most cases it'd be UPN, occasionally FOX, less the others).
The people behind PAX/i could try to go for the others - odds are
Univision/Telefutura, Telemundo, and Azteca America have cash ready to grab
a bunch. A few markets actually would get independent stations. And the
religious broadcasters will probably get a few new additions. Very few, if
any full power stations would actually go off the air - a few low power
stations might.
Note - if UPN were to die instead of the WB, the same thing would happen.
If WB dies, it'll be annoying, because they've (since about 1997) put out a
better product than UPN. Had they been merged in 1995 we might actually have
a good quality 5th network by now.
Benjamin F. Elliott
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thisweekindoctorwho
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/torchwood
Taylor
Just Me wrote:
I would give it a little longer to linger as a last attempt scramble to
do _something_ for the "netlet" and predict a kill date and a large
reconvert to idependent (yaaaaaay) local stations between 2009 and 2011.
UPN would want some KEY newly indpendent stations like WGN-TV9 in
Chicago and (the mighty) KTLA-TV5 in Los Angeles. Oh, and KWGN-TV2 in
Denver and ((((god))), (the mighty) WPIX-TV11 in New York; fuck WWOR-TV9
in (crappy) Newark.
Taylor
Roy Knable wrote:
> In article <SN2dnSRH--a...@adelphia.com>, Just Me
> <us...@dilligaf.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I predict that The WB will cease operations as a broadcast network at the
>>end of the 2007-08 season, if it makes it that long. It'll probably morph
>>into cable and/or web distribution for Warner Bros. produced shows.
>
>
> I'd like to know how UPN has managed to avoid going under before the
> WB. And what's going to happen to WB affiliates if they do die. They
> can't just go independent; the age of the independent TV station is
> over. On the plus side, if they're struggling, now is the time to shut
> down, rather than after an expensive FCC-mandated switch to HDTV.
I would say UPN would go cherrypicking but looking at their financial
outlook, would it be worth it to get the best affiliates for a netlet
that's just as much at death's door? You're right about independent age
being long gone forever. What's a station to do during primetime? Run
movies 8-10? Use to be that way for WSBK-TV38 in Boston, but that was
back in the early-'90s. I can't see that pulling in much numbers during
primetime. Primetime reruns of their syndicated sitcoms ('Seinfeld',
'Friends', 'Everybody Loves Raymond'?). It's not like Pax can swoop in
and buy the good ones because what's he got? Nothing. Even MORE worse
than UPN and WB.
Let me use this space to do some clear thinking about British televison.
The BBC has BBC1 and BBC2, etc. Would the FCC let the 4 majors (ABC,
CBS, NBC and Fox) buy them and make them a time-shifting network
affiliate? Call it "ABC2". Reruns of 'Desperate Housewives' Tuesdays at
8PM (where KTLA-TV5 in Los Angeles use to air WB programming).
Taylor
Oh, I'm soooooooooooo sure the NFL would slum it! lol
>
>
Taylor
Taylor
Benjamin Elliott wrote:
Ah, but if Telemundo/Univision/TV Azteca America or a religious swoop
in, which they could, that would leave the lower-transmitting (usually
higher channel number) very vulnerable. Example a channel 65 that was a
Univision swooping in on a once-WB station channel 17 would make the
people at channel 17 very happy, but what do the folks at channel 65 do
w/ just a license and no programming?
weather...@yahoo.com
UPN has cultivated that audience, while the WB has not. Correct me if
I'm wrong, but the WB's shows seem almost "whiter" than those of the
big three networks.
Three years back, the WB had a decent (and somewhat innovative) sitcom
about an Hispanic family called "Greetings From Tuscon." They had no
idea how to market it, and killed it after one season. This is the
audience they should have been cultivating. "Greetings" might not have
been Great Art, but it was as good (or bad) as many of the other
sitcoms they kept on the air. If "George Lopez" could find an
audience, this show could have, but it seemed they were only looking
for their next "Dawson's Creek" -- and "One Tree Hill." ain't it.
Taylor
weather...@yahoo.com wrote:
You're right... WB has dropped all their ethnic sitcoms and hasn't been
bothered to create a drama for core minorities. Maybe that should show
the network where they went wrong. Of course, if they reinstated their
black sitcoms, they'd be chipping away viewers from UPN but also, VICE
VERSA!
Benjamin Elliott
news:IkLmf.5740$PX2.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Ah, but if Telemundo/Univision/TV Azteca America or a religious swoop in,
> which they could, that would leave the lower-transmitting (usually higher
> channel number) very vulnerable. Example a channel 65 that was a Univision
> swooping in on a once-WB station channel 17 would make the people at
> channel 17 very happy, but what do the folks at channel 65 do w/ just a
> license and no programming?
In most markets, that's no problem. NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, WB, UPN, PAX,
Univision, Telemundo, Telefutura, Azteca America. That's before we get to
Daystar and a couple of other religious broadcasters. How many markets have
full power stations for all 11 of those networks? Even in New York City,
Azteca America is on 2 low power stations, without a full power signal, so
if a network died and musical network chairs began the station left without
programming could pick up Azteca if they weren't willing to be an
independent. And while I haven't checked lately I don't think New York City
has Daystar, so even the low power stations could have programming.
Now, stations might have programming that's less attractive than what they
used to offer. But there's enough programming to cover just about everyone
even with one network gone.
Rob Jensen
<bfel...@verizon.net> wrote:
>If WB dies, it'll be annoying, because they've (since about 1997) put out a
>better product than UPN. Had they been merged in 1995 we might actually have
>a good quality 5th network by now.
We actually do have a good-quality 5th network and *have* since 1995
-- it's called the WB. (UPN isn't a network, it's a collection of
random shows in search of a marketing plan.) What we *don't* have is
a 5th network that has anything but (modest) ratings that are
partially cannibalized from the 6th network.
Since the comatose UPN's corporate parents are killing it from neglect
anyway, they'd might as well pull the plug on it so that the actual
network, the WB, can live.
-- Rob
--
LORELAI: In the movie, only boy hobbits travel to Mount
Doom, but that's only because the girls went to do something
even more dangerous.
GIRL: What?
LORELAI: Have you ever heard of a Brazilian Bikini Wax?
Rob Jensen
wrote:
>Let me use this space to do some clear thinking about British televison.
>The BBC has BBC1 and BBC2, etc. Would the FCC let the 4 majors (ABC,
>CBS, NBC and Fox) buy them and make them a time-shifting network
>affiliate? Call it "ABC2". Reruns of 'Desperate Housewives' Tuesdays at
>8PM (where KTLA-TV5 in Los Angeles use to air WB programming).
This would not ever happen. Viacom had a hard enough time acquiring
the exemption from the FCC's one-network-per-corporation rule when Fox
bought UPN's original majority partner, Chris-Craft and Viacom was
forced to buy Chris-Craft's share of UPN out. Sony buying UPN from
Paramount is more likely to happen than that scenario (and that's not
bloody likely at all.)
Time-shifting is going to remain the domain of the networks' and
studios' corporate siblings on basic cable. Unless the affiliates
finally give in and start allowing the networks to do late-night and
weekend-afternoon time-shifting (the latter like the WB already does
with its EasyView repeats on Sundays.) The affiliates are the *only*
reason that the Big Four networks don't already do that.
Rob Jensen
wrote:
>I predict that The WB will cease operations as a broadcast network at the
>end of the 2007-08 season, if it makes it that long. It'll probably morph
>into cable and/or web distribution for Warner Bros. produced shows.
That's what TNT and TBS are for -- and they do that badly.
>I would also believe that layoffs at The WB and Spelling mean the end of
>"Charmed". The WB will want as many in house shows as possible to keep
>costs down and "Charmed" must be getting up there in price.
Meh. While I do think that Spelling's layoffs portend that Charmed is
likely going to be cancelled in May, I don't think that the WB will be
going away period. I think what's likely going to happen is that the
WB is going to stop programming Sundays entirely except as an EasyView
block of repeats of the previous week's programs.
Warner Brothers studios is one of the largest producers of probably
the *most* diverse selection of programming *if* one includes the
programming on the WB network -- and the Frog produces fairly
consistent, dependable ratings overall, with the biggest array of WB
studio-produced shows that have made the transition to DVDs.
Contrast that with UPN, which, unlike the WB, is redundant as a
network (in the shadow of corporate sibling CBS) and which, unlike the
WB, has no identity whatsoever. UPN's one critical hit drama,
Veronica Mars, would easily fit in on the WB, which is certainly no
coincidence given that Warner studio produces it. UPN's one critical
hit sitcom, Everybody Hates Chris, belongs on CBS's Monday night
family sitcom bloc. And its one other ratings-getter, WWE Smackdown,
belongs on basic cable network USA. UPN has *nothing* else going for
it -- and it *already* programs only five two-hour nights a week to
the WB's six (well, currently ten hours over six nights, given the
WB's current inability to program the Sunday 9pm and Wednesday 9pm
timeslots due to ABC's sophomore powerhouses, Desperate Housewives and
Lost. UPN closing up shop and porting Veronica Mars to a better home
on the WB would solve one of those timeslot issues. The WB cancelling
Charmed at the end of this season after a great run and making Sundays
EasyView night would solve the other.
Really, the CW has been all along since the almost simultaneous
launches of UPN and the WB that the US airwaves in the longterm could
only support the addition of one of the two little nets, but not both
(and that either one would have been stronger had the other one not
come into existence. But both have huge conglomerates behind them
that could keep them going forever as, at the least, loss-leaders, if
they really want to. So IMO, it's more a question of which of the two
companies is going to blink first -- Viacom or Warners?
Well, Viacom has *huge* identity problems from top to bottom -- forget
about UPN's own identity problems for a second, the boss of Viacom has
a rather schizophrenic vision of what to do with the whole company. So
maybe Redstone sticks with UPN just out of the sheer stupidity of not
caring enough one way or the other. Add to that that Paramount's
catalog of titles is relatively shallow outside of the CSI franchise
(which is in the early stages of overexposure), the Star Trek
franchise (which is dead), a few Spelling properties and a bunch of
lower-yield mid-70's comedies -- Paramount might have something there
if they had a credible plan for marketing their DVDs, but Paramount's
home video division has been in disarray for *ages.*
Warner Brothers, by contrast, has one of the largest libraries of
current *and* past series, a more-than-credible marketing plan that
exploits the synergy between the various platforms, particularly their
broadcast-to-DVD model for television. And they've got many shows on
virtually all of the major networks, broadcast *and* cable. That
depth in their library and their ability to launch new shows anywhere
would seem to make the WB network more expendable to them than UPN is
to its network -- or, at least, redundant in a horizontal way to UPN's
vertical redundancy (metaphorically speaking), but the WB network's
ability to convert WB-produced shows into DVDs makes it nearly as
important to Warners' overall plans as HBO's ability to do the same
is.
So IMO what we're going to see over the next few years is UPN and the
WB start to compete for affiliates. It might get heated, but at some
point, somebody's going to point out (for the zillionth time) that
Viacom's owning two networks is something of a violation of the FCC's
one-network-per-corporation rule and demand that the rule finally get
enforced. Probably around the time of the mandated conversion to
HDTV. Viacom will then decide that UPN is more trouble than it's
worth and fold it, possibly after an attempt to sell it to Warners,
seeing as how Warners won't be blinking and ditching the WB any time
soon anyway.
Rob Jensen
wrote:
There's one problem with that theory -- the black sitcoms of formerly
the WB and now UPN have largely sucked. Not because they're black,
but because their production values at all levels are generally so low
that they're unwatchable. Basically, they're as unwatchable as ABC's
own shitcoms of all the variety of ethnicities (not counting George
Lopez, which bucks the trend by not sucking), so the WB going back to
the days of unmitigated crap like The Wayans Brothers would be a
*huge* step backward for the network, not to mention continuing the
unfortunate and inexcusable practice of making diversity in television
synonymous with crap.
Taylor
Rob Jensen wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:17:57 GMT, "Benjamin Elliott"
> <bfel...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>If WB dies, it'll be annoying, because they've (since about 1997) put out a
>>better product than UPN. Had they been merged in 1995 we might actually have
>>a good quality 5th network by now.
>
>
> We actually do have a good-quality 5th network and *have* since 1995
> -- it's called the WB. (UPN isn't a network, it's a collection of
> random shows in search of a marketing plan.) What we *don't* have is
> a 5th network that has anything but (modest) ratings that are
> partially cannibalized from the 6th network.
Oh, c'mon, that's SO judgemental. One could say the same thing from fans
of UPN about The WB.
Taylor
Rob Jensen wrote:
About UPN being nothing to it (the network): Did you happen to catch
that one very interesting article David posted about hated underdogs and
the success they've had flying under the raddar (America's Funniest Home
Videos, Yes, Dear?, Girlfriends)? UPN has 'Girlfriends' and it's closing
in on a major milestone and has been on the air for forever though, you
never give it (the series) a second thought. Of course what does that
get you in the long-run? A low-key mediocre syndication deal for local
stations (notice the fizzle of The Hughleys) and cable... usually niche
ones like BET.
Now that I think of it, UPN and The WB's "black sitcoms" have totally
bombed out in syndication. Shows like: Malcolm & Eddie, The Wayans
Bros., The Hughleys, The Steve Harvey Show
In the long-run, they do limited numbers on the network and don't have
much of a viable shelf-life in syndication. Um... so, I guess you're
right what you're saying. In the end, the hits (hits being defined as a
long cycle of running after leaving network via cable, local and DVD)
doesn't seem to make it worth having the networks on the air.
Taylor
Rob Jensen wrote:
Here's a partial list of UPN/WB sitcoms that weren't short-lived and
where are they today? Sitting on a shelf or in limited local or cable
reruns:
minimum of 3 years:
- Sister, Sister (ABC/WB)
- The Parent 'Hood (WB)
- The Wayans Bros. (WB)
- Unhappily Ever After (WB)
- The Steve Harvey Show (WB)
- Malcolm & Eddie (UPN)
- Moesha (UPN)
- The Jamie Foxx Show (WB)
- Smart Guy (ABC/WB) not even 2
- In The House (NBC/UPN)
- Clueless (ABC/UPN)
- For Your Love (WB)
- The Parkers (UPN)
- Girlfriends (UPN)
- Sabrina The Teenage Witch (ABC/WB)
- One On One (UPN)
- Half & Half (UPN)
- What I Like About You (WB)
- Reba
You'll see the above-mentioned sitcoms here and there (yeah, I know,
Sister Sister and Smart Guy on Disney Channel; The Steve Harvey Show
still popular late-nights on Atlanta's WUPA), but it's not like the
world's clammering for a DVD release of these shows and *a lot* of them
bombed out in syndication....... The Parent 'Hood doing soooooooo bad,
TBS uses it as filler programming at 5am!!!
Jude H.Cormier
"Benjamin Elliott" <bfel...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%PPmf.16717$7r6.8026@trnddc07...
>
> In most markets, that's no problem. NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, WB, UPN, PAX,
> Univision, Telemundo, Telefutura, Azteca America. That's before we get to
> Daystar and a couple of other religious broadcasters. How many markets
> have full power stations for all 11 of those networks? Even in New York
> City, Azteca America is on 2 low power stations, without a full power
> signal, so if a network died and musical network chairs began the station
> left without programming could pick up Azteca if they weren't willing to
> be an independent. And while I haven't checked lately I don't think New
> York City has Daystar, so even the low power stations could have
> programming.
>
> Now, stations might have programming that's less attractive than what they
> used to offer. But there's enough programming to cover just about everyone
> even with one network gone.
>
Plenty of old TV shows just sitting in vaults that an independent station
could brand itself as "Retro-vision" and easily gain a following.
Jude H.Cormier
I think Sabrina is the exception to the rule you stated.
Jude H.Cormier
>
> Now that I think of it, UPN and The WB's "black sitcoms" have totally
> bombed out in syndication. Shows like: Malcolm & Eddie, The Wayans Bros.,
> The Hughleys, The Steve Harvey Show
>
Fresh Prince of Bel-Air"?
In any case, if WB or UPN were to die, do you think viewers would
automatically migrate to one of the other 4-5 nets?
Anthony Dean
>>
>
> I also take issue with your saying HDTV sets are "incredibly
> expensive." Lots of people are buying 30" and larger LCD TVs that can
> handle 720p and cost as little as $800. LCD and DLP projectors that can
> produce much larger images are even less expensive. Samsung has an HDTV
> tuner that adds $139 more. Not bargain basement, but hardly incredibly
> expensive. 32" CRT televisions cost a lot more than that 15 years ago.
That's still quite expensive to me, especially when one is used to seeing
CRT TVs on sale for several hundred dollars tops. Coughing up a week or
two's paycheck just for a TV still isn't cheap for most Americans (who
aren't home theater enthusiasts and just want a cheap/affordable TV)...
For me, I have a 20" TV set, and don't plan to be interested in HDTV
unless there's either a set of comparable size to my current one and/or it
costs around $200; spending hundreds of dollars just to watch "Simpsons"
reruns or the news isn't worth it to me...
Anthony
--
To reply, replace "cbs" with "sbc".
My weblog: http://adean.blogspot.com
Rich
wrote:
>In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful Rich declared:
>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:49:04 GMT, Roy Knable <r...@hellvision.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to know how UPN has managed to avoid going under
>>> before the WB. And what's going to happen to WB affiliates if
>>> they do die. They can't just go independent; the age of the
>>> independent TV station is over. On the plus side, if they're
>>> struggling, now is the time to shut down, rather than after an
>>> expensive FCC-mandated switch to HDTV.
>>
>> If it hadn't been for resistence by the greedy big three networks
>> and cable companies, that switch would have happened many years
>> ago.
>
>No, that's digital TV. HDTV is hampered by the fact that the sets
>are incredibly expensive, you can't (yet) by HD media, and the
>programming available over the air and on cable is limited to
>non-existent.
>
>There is no mandate for anyone to switch to HDTV at any point in the
>foreseeable future.
It's good there is no media available. All the better to
differentiate television broadcasts from DVD or other video formats.
-Rich
Rob Jensen
wrote:
>You'll see the above-mentioned sitcoms here and there (yeah, I know,
>Sister Sister and Smart Guy on Disney Channel; The Steve Harvey Show
>still popular late-nights on Atlanta's WUPA), but it's not like the
>world's clammering for a DVD release of these shows and *a lot* of them
>bombed out in syndication....... The Parent 'Hood doing soooooooo bad,
>TBS uses it as filler programming at 5am!!!
Thanks for proving my point. Very few of the sitcoms listed were
worth carrying for even the little amount of time they were carried.
And Sabrina's lasting for seven years would be a complete mystery if
it weren't wank material for teenagers who couldn't buy MJH's issue of
Maxim. The reason that most of the shitcoms on that list didn't last
all that long and when they have lasted to syndication-level, haven't
syndicated well, is that they are generaly extremely low quality,
regardless of who their target audiences are.
Rob Jensen
wrote:
>Oh, c'mon, that's SO judgemental. One could say the same thing from fans
>of UPN about The WB.
"fans of UPN?!"
Since when?
bwah-ha-ha-ha!
Rob Jensen
<jh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Taylor" <taylor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:XqSmf.5$El....@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>
>> Now that I think of it, UPN and The WB's "black sitcoms" have totally
>> bombed out in syndication. Shows like: Malcolm & Eddie, The Wayans Bros.,
>> The Hughleys, The Steve Harvey Show
>>
>What was the last "black sitcom" to have a mainstream popular appeal? "The
>Fresh Prince of Bel-Air"?
My Wife & Kids, which was on ABC -- a modest success for ABC that it
somewhat mysteriously dumped in favor of the instant trainwreck of a
shitcom known as Freddie.
>In any case, if WB or UPN were to die, do you think viewers would
>automatically migrate to one of the other 4-5 nets?
IMO, it would depend on which of the three following options the
affiliates of the dead network (likely UPN) adopted:
1) affiliation with the surviving netlet (likely the WB)
2) going independent
3) affiliating with another conglomerate's misguided attempt to start
a sixth network (if, say, Sony were stupid enough to try to start a
network)
Discarding the unlikely option #3, the affiliate shakeout would be
some combination of #1 and #2, with the percentage skewing heavily in
favor of option #1.
IIRC, UPN actually has more affiliates than the WB due to UPN getting
a couple-month head start on signing up affiliates, and some of the
WB's affiliates are actually UPN stations that carry the WB's
programming on other nights or late-night. IMO, given how badly UPN
uses its affiliate advantage compared to the WB, it would go something
like this:
* If UPN survived (which isn't the likely scenario), its ratings would
probably stay pretty much the same because 1) it has more affiliates
and 2) its programming largely sucks. UPN has expanded as much as
it's ever going to get. More WB-only affiliates would go back to
being independents under such a scenario than would become UPN
affiliates due to the number of WB affiliates that were already UPN
affiliates to begin with.
* When UPN finally dies, the WB will pick up its affiliates that were
primarily UPN affiliates to begin with. It picks up UPN-only
affiliates in areas that it formerly had no affiliates (mainly Red
State rural areas). The WB's shows finally get telecast uniformly
across all parts of the country in their regular timeslots, resulting
in increased ratings and perhaps a slight but notable decrease in
FOX's ratings among shows with similar demographics. IMO the WB's
ratings would probably increase to within 75% or so of FOX's slightly
decreased averages. I might be wrong about a strengthened WB's
ratings affecting FOX's that much, but in any case, nu!WB's ratings
wouldn't be as simple as current!WB ratings + current!UPN ratings due
to the nature of WB and UPN sharing some local affiliates.
More speculatively, this might prompt FOX to finally go to programming
original scripted shows at 10pm weeknights with more FX-like content
in those timeslots in an effort to program more aggressively and
competitively with controversial (for broadcast networks) content
that would automatically get a lot of press.
David B
> Just Me wrote:
> > The drama "Just Legal" starring Don Johnson flopped.
>
> It wasn't on long enough to flop. It was murdered.
It was DOA from the start.
Jude H.Cormier
I asked:
>What was the last "black sitcom" to have a mainstream popular appeal? "The
>>Fresh Prince of Bel-Air"?
>
> My Wife & Kids, which was on ABC -- a modest success for ABC that it
> somewhat mysteriously dumped in favor of the instant trainwreck of a
> shitcom known as Freddie.
Hmmmmmmm, that's borderline at best. I think Fresh Prince was actually a
top 20 show at one point, was it not?
(snipping your excellent analysis on the prospective death of UPN)
> More speculatively, this might prompt FOX to finally go to programming
> original scripted shows at 10pm weeknights with more FX-like content
> in those timeslots in an effort to program more aggressively and
> competitively with controversial (for broadcast networks) content
> that would automatically get a lot of press.
>
I always wondered why FOX has never bothered programming 10pm (9 pm for my
area).
Jude H.Cormier
"Rob Jensen" <Shut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:vd5pp1ta415tmo1nc...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 04:52:00 -0500, Taylor <taylor...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>You'll see the above-mentioned sitcoms here and there (yeah, I know,
>>Sister Sister and Smart Guy on Disney Channel; The Steve Harvey Show
>>still popular late-nights on Atlanta's WUPA), but it's not like the
>>world's clammering for a DVD release of these shows and *a lot* of them
>>bombed out in syndication....... The Parent 'Hood doing soooooooo bad,
>>TBS uses it as filler programming at 5am!!!
>
> Thanks for proving my point. Very few of the sitcoms listed were
> worth carrying for even the little amount of time they were carried.
> And Sabrina's lasting for seven years would be a complete mystery if
> it weren't wank material for teenagers who couldn't buy MJH's issue of
> Maxim. The reason that most of the shitcoms on that list didn't last
> all that long and when they have lasted to syndication-level, haven't
> syndicated well, is that they are generaly extremely low quality,
> regardless of who their target audiences are.
>
top"
Just like a lot of old shows from the '50s, '60s, (and even '70s and
'80s)-was what crap then, is still crap today.
None of these shows will be "evergreens" in the rerun market, save for the
niche cable outlet that needs cheap filler programming.
Erin Woodbridge's Bestest Friend, Ian J. Ball
David B <both...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hard to say - in the end, its 2-3 episodes did better in the ratings
than "Related" has. It's an open question whether JL would have
continued to draw that viewership, but it did at the start.
Ian (The ultimate mistake was putting JL after "7th Heaven" in the
first place - The WB should have put "Related" after "Heaven" from the
start, and probably put JL after OTH.)
--
"I did *NOT* have sex with Gil Kurvers!" - Erin Woodbridge
(on numerous occasions), "Edgemont"
Taylor
Jude H.Cormier wrote:
And look at it's run-- ABC "teen years with aunts" run successful. WB
"college years" horrible. It owes all it's credit to the competitor it
shouldn't even BE on this list.
Now that I've done UPN/WB sitcoms in terms of "success" (local, cable
syndication and DVD sales), now let's do UPN/WB dramas. Once again, a
show that's been on the air for a minimum of 3 years being (((a)))
benchmark (meaning: not TOO short-lived):
- Star Trek: Voyager (UPN)
- 7th Heaven (WB)
- Buffy The Vampire Slayer (WB/UPN)
- Felicity (WB)
- Dawson's Creek (WB)
- Charmed (WB)
- Angel (WB)
- Roswell (WB)
- Gilmore Girls (WB)
- Smallville (WB)
- Everwood (WB)
What can be said about the differences between UPN and WB? UPN does
success in comedies and WB does success in dramas.
Taylor
Jude H.Cormier wrote:
That's very much true since a lot of black sitcoms went to die on the
netlets (The Hughleys, In The House, etc.). Mainstream would be Fresh
Prince. ABC's My Wife & Kids had a pretty strong start, not a lot of
popularity, but a strong ratings support and just quietly slipped away
into oblivion.
Rob Jensen
<jh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> More speculatively, this might prompt FOX to finally go to programming
>> original scripted shows at 10pm weeknights with more FX-like content
>> in those timeslots in an effort to program more aggressively and
>> competitively with controversial (for broadcast networks) content
>> that would automatically get a lot of press.
>>
>I always wondered why FOX has never bothered programming 10pm (9 pm for my
>area).
For the same reason that both UPN and The WB both also don't program
the 10pm slot -- arcane tax-dodge purposes. Wm. Ferguson could
probably explain it more comprehensively, but there's a threshold of
the number of hours of prime-time programming below which a network
technically isn't classified as an actual network for whatever
purposes these three nets are dodging with their reduced hours. By
programming the 10pm slots, Fox would finally throw off this
technicality, which IMO is probably the strongest reason that they
haven't done it yet and might not ever do so, but they'd have to
embrace it in order to be able to air the more adult-oriented fare in
these late timeslots ("pre-purposing" original episodes of an
insane-as-ever Nip/Tuck a week before they air on FX, for example.)
Taylor
Rob Jensen wrote:
Your last scenario meaning a lot of Fox station's 10 O'Clock News being
shifted to 11PM and competing w/ the big 3's newscasts which means more
competition in multiple venues. Not necessarily a bad thing. It sucks
for those enjoy a 10PM newscast and then go straight to bed, but makes
those sucking 10PM newsteams do better to compete.
John Gilmer
>
> They'll enforce digital conversion but not necessarily HDTV.
I was under the impression that over the air HDTV was "digital." And
"digital" over the air was HDTV.
Jude H.Cormier
>
> Now that I've done UPN/WB sitcoms in terms of "success" (local, cable
> syndication and DVD sales), now let's do UPN/WB dramas. Once again, a show
> that's been on the air for a minimum of 3 years being (((a))) benchmark
> (meaning: not TOO short-lived):
>
> - Star Trek: Voyager (UPN)
> - 7th Heaven (WB)
> - Buffy The Vampire Slayer (WB/UPN)
> - Felicity (WB)
> - Dawson's Creek (WB)
> - Charmed (WB)
> - Angel (WB)
> - Roswell (WB)
> - Gilmore Girls (WB)
> - Smallville (WB)
> - Everwood (WB)
>
> What can be said about the differences between UPN and WB? UPN does
> success in comedies and WB does success in dramas.
Dramas have never fared well in broadcast syndication in terms of being
"strippable". Weekend syndication perhaps.
It has been at least since the mid 80s since I've seen dramas on local
stations in weekday or late night syndication.
Jude H.Cormier
I asked:
>>I always wondered why FOX has never bothered programming 10pm (9 pm for my
>>area).
Rob replied:
> For the same reason that both UPN and The WB both also don't program
> the 10pm slot -- arcane tax-dodge purposes. Wm. Ferguson could
> probably explain it more comprehensively, but there's a threshold of
> the number of hours of prime-time programming below which a network
> technically isn't classified as an actual network for whatever
> purposes these three nets are dodging with their reduced hours. By
> programming the 10pm slots, Fox would finally throw off this
> technicality, which IMO is probably the strongest reason that they
> haven't done it yet and might not ever do so, but they'd have to
> embrace it in order to be able to air the more adult-oriented fare in
> these late timeslots ("pre-purposing" original episodes of an
> insane-as-ever Nip/Tuck a week before they air on FX, for example.)
>
> -- Rob
Fox needs to get over it and start doing this.
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>
As far as I know, that's not the reason, and certainly wasn't the reason
they started. There is a certain minimum of programming necessary to be
considered a 'network'. UPN is the one that comes closest to not
qualifying, and, if I remember right, would fall below the threshold if
they stopped programming on Friday (which is no longer an issue, though
it was for most of their history).
The reason is that the local affiliates are very resistant to giving up
the 10-11 block because many of them do early local newscasts that are
very lucrative for the station. That's also why the WB went to early
evening on Sunday rather than to Saturday when they expanded their
programming a couple of years ago. The locals make more money on their
sports and movie packages on Saturday than they would on the WB
programming (however, the locals are very happy with the Sunday 'Early
View', because it generates more advertising revenue than the movies and
infomercials most of them were running in that time period).
As for the 'network status', one of the requirements is that a network is
a collection of independent stations which subscribe to the programming.
PAX never qualified as a network since it has no affiliates, just
stations owned and operated by Pax Communications.
--
... and my sister is a vampire slayer, her best friend is a witch who
went bonkers and tried to destroy the world, um, I actually used to be
a little ball of energy until about two years ago when some monks
changed the past and made me Buffy's sister and for some reason, a big
klepto. My best friends are Leticia Jones, who moved to San Diego
because this town is evil, and a floppy eared demon named Clem.
(Dawn's fantasy of her intro speech in "Lessons", from the shooting script)
Rob Jensen
<jh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Dramas have never fared well in broadcast syndication in terms of being
>"strippable". Weekend syndication perhaps.
>It has been at least since the mid 80s since I've seen dramas on local
>stations in weekday or late night syndication.
That's not so much that one-hour shows couldn't be strippable on
broadcast channels as much as it's a function of the viewing
audience's preferences for half-hour shows of all stripes in the
news/commute hours of the early morning and late afternoon. One hour
shows do well in between these two rush-hour periods and believe it or
not, Little House on the Prairie still thrives in syndication among
all the soaps and daytime talk shows, particularly in the Red States.
The reality, though, isn't that one-hour shows don't syndicate well,
it's just that they've moved to the various basic cable channels,
which do air them at all hours of the day. There's also a lot more
one-hour dramas that are syndicatable these days than sitcoms, due to
the low quality of most sitcoms produced in the last decade, which is
why the most popular syndie-run sitcoms (Seinfeld, The Simpsons, King
of the Hill, Friends, Home Improvement) commonly get aired in
two-episode blocks.
Even so, IMO, Buffy, Smallville, Gg and others -- even more serialized
shows like Alias -- would fare well in syndication in the 3pm/4pm and
maybe even 5pm daily slots if the local programmers weren't so
mindlessly dug into their "must be a half-hour to air in
late-afternoon" mentality.
OTOH, these programmers locking the one-hour shows out of the
late-afternoon "prime-time of syndication" hours may also be one of
the great reasons why the DVD sets of these series sell so well -- we
know that the local channels aren't going to show them, so we're going
to buy the DVDs.
Rob Jensen
<wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>As far as I know, that's not the reason, and certainly wasn't the reason
>they started. There is a certain minimum of programming necessary to be
>considered a 'network'. UPN is the one that comes closest to not
>qualifying, and, if I remember right, would fall below the threshold if
>they stopped programming on Friday (which is no longer an issue, though
>it was for most of their history).
>
>The reason is that the local affiliates are very resistant to giving up
>the 10-11 block because many of them do early local newscasts that are
>very lucrative for the station. That's also why the WB went to early
>evening on Sunday rather than to Saturday when they expanded their
>programming a couple of years ago. The locals make more money on their
>sports and movie packages on Saturday than they would on the WB
>programming (however, the locals are very happy with the Sunday 'Early
>View', because it generates more advertising revenue than the movies and
>infomercials most of them were running in that time period).
>
>As for the 'network status', one of the requirements is that a network is
>a collection of independent stations which subscribe to the programming.
>PAX never qualified as a network since it has no affiliates, just
>stations owned and operated by Pax Communications.
Wm., you're right about the local affiliates having that pull in
wanting the 10-11 block to themselves for these reasons, but
technically speaking, UPN, the WB and Fox all still technically fall
under the minimum programming hours as a direct consequence of their
not programming the minimum number of original programming hours per
week. (IIRC, the minimum is 16 hours of original primetime
programming or thereabouts per week). The
what-doesn't-qualify-as-a-network-for-tax-dodge purposes is what I've
always read in the various columns and magazines as being the primary
reason that FOX has never gone to programming the 10pm hour while the
newscast angle merely reinforces it.. IIRC, the tax/regulation
situation supposedly actually makes it better for them to not qualify
technically as networks than if they did qualify as networks., so the
locals wanting to keep the 10pm slot for news in that case reinforces
the nets' own arcane reasons for programming at a 2/3rds or less
schedule..
Tony Calguire
All HDTV is digital, but not all digital TV will be HD. There are
something like 18 different quality levels of digital TV that
broadcasters can choose to use-- various combinations of resolutions,
aspect ratios, and interlaced/progressive scanning.
The lowest quality DTV signal is called 480i. This is roughly
equivalent to our present analog picture, although I've heard it looks a
little better, like a DVD. There's also 480p, which looks like a
pregressive-scan DVD. One digital TV station can broadcast 5 different
programs at the same time in the 480i format.
Some networks are using 720p as their highest quality of HDTV. The
progressive scanning supposedly makes sports look better, and these
stations can transmit one additional program in 480i right alongside the
720p.
1080i is the highest quality possible with the new HDTV standard. A
digital TV station can only broadcast one program at a time when using
the 1080i format.
Jude H.Cormier
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:24:50 -0600, "Jude H.Cormier"
> <jh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Dramas have never fared well in broadcast syndication in terms of being
>>"strippable". Weekend syndication perhaps.
>>It has been at least since the mid 80s since I've seen dramas on local
>>stations in weekday or late night syndication.
>
> That's not so much that one-hour shows couldn't be strippable on
> broadcast channels as much as it's a function of the viewing
> audience's preferences for half-hour shows of all stripes in the
> news/commute hours of the early morning and late afternoon. One hour
> shows do well in between these two rush-hour periods and believe it or
> not, Little House on the Prairie still thrives in syndication among
> all the soaps and daytime talk shows, particularly in the Red States.
I haven't seen LFotP in broadcast syndication in my area since the '80s.
I've gotten my fix from TBS and now, Hallmark (TV Land doesn't count :P)
> The reality, though, isn't that one-hour shows don't syndicate well,
> it's just that they've moved to the various basic cable channels,
> which do air them at all hours of the day. There's also a lot more
> one-hour dramas that are syndicatable these days than sitcoms, due to
> the low quality of most sitcoms produced in the last decade, which is
> why the most popular syndie-run sitcoms (Seinfeld, The Simpsons, King
> of the Hill, Friends, Home Improvement) commonly get aired in
> two-episode blocks.
>
> Even so, IMO, Buffy, Smallville, Gg and others -- even more serialized
> shows like Alias -- would fare well in syndication in the 3pm/4pm and
> maybe even 5pm daily slots if the local programmers weren't so
> mindlessly dug into their "must be a half-hour to air in
> late-afternoon" mentality.
>
> OTOH, these programmers locking the one-hour shows out of the
> late-afternoon "prime-time of syndication" hours may also be one of
> the great reasons why the DVD sets of these series sell so well -- we
> know that the local channels aren't going to show them, so we're going
> to buy the DVDs.
>
> -- Rob
Excellent analyis there, Rob!
now, if only the talk shows and court shows would fall out of favor, we
could see stuff again on the local stations
Jude H.Cormier
"William George Ferguson" <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:8oprp15rpjr4hrn78...@4ax.com...
>> As for the 'network status', one of the requirements is that a network is
> a collection of independent stations which subscribe to the programming.
> PAX never qualified as a network since it has no affiliates, just
> stations owned and operated by Pax Communications.
>
>
seriously falter, they switched over to Urban America Television.
Whyzmaster954
>
> 2) going independent
>
I would hate to see UPN or WB go out of buisness, but with the rising
of competition from cable, to iPods, to DVD sales, I personally felt
that the networks and the studios brought this whole demise on
themselves. Therefore, who ever's with me on all the former UPN and WB
stations would go indepenent let me hear your POV!
Rob Jensen
wrote:
Independent generally means scraping the bottom of the barrell in
terms of programming -- ie: the cheapest, oldest, most-rerun-to-death
off-net tv series and movies. And since the original syndicated
scripted series took its last gasps two years ago with the death of
Mutant X and the move of Andromeda to Skiffy for its last season, the
prospects for Independent channels is actually far worse than it used
to be, before the days of even the WB and UPN's combined predecessor,
PTEN, syndicator of Babylon 5.
Taylor
Rob Jensen wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2005 11:36:10 -0800, "Whyzmaster954" <Boston...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>2) going independent
>>>
>>
>>I would hate to see UPN or WB go out of buisness, but with the rising
>>of competition from cable, to iPods, to DVD sales, I personally felt
>>that the networks and the studios brought this whole demise on
>>themselves. Therefore, who ever's with me on all the former UPN and WB
>>stations would go indepenent let me hear your POV!
>
>
> Independent generally means scraping the bottom of the barrell in
> terms of programming -- ie: the cheapest, oldest, most-rerun-to-death
> off-net tv series and movies. And since the original syndicated
> scripted series took its last gasps two years ago with the death of
> Mutant X and the move of Andromeda to Skiffy for its last season, the
> prospects for Independent channels is actually far worse than it used
> to be, before the days of even the WB and UPN's combined predecessor,
> PTEN, syndicator of Babylon 5.
>
That's true. There's slim pickings when it comes to made-for-syndication
programming. It could be that the mediocre success of The WB and UPN
hurt syndie programs or people just got tired it. There's NOTHING worth
noting these days.