Re: The CW -- Expected Average Viewership vs. The WB and UPN?
- From: "KalElFan" <KalElFan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:11:24 -0400
"Casey McDonald's Guidance Counsellor, Ian J. Ball"
<ijball***SPAM-No***@mac.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ijball***SPAM-No***-9418F3.16220017072006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <i4tnb2tannakjnraaurdf8e17pt0g12mal@xxxxxxx>,
William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My best guesstimate is that the CW as a whole will show at a minimum a
13-15% increase over what the WB and UPN individually (not collectively)
got this year.
That would take them from 3.5 to just over 4 million.
What we're having here is a disagreement on what the bar
is. I was asking about how much higher the bar would be
set, but we're getting bogged down in what the bar is. So
I'll try this.
Let's say, just so we can conceptualize this, that every single
returning show on The CW got exactly the same numbers
of viewers for each episode this season as it did last season.
The CW would of course trumpet the big increase in average
viewership of The CW, compared to average viewership of
the old WB and UPN. And if you're following here, you know
that CONCEPTUALLY, all of that increase -- ALL OF IT -- is
the dropping of the lower-rated shows because of the merger.
NONE of it would reflect any underlying increase in strength
of the network itself.
Not that The CW wouldn't be better off. It would be, but one
could look at that picture and question "well, what's going to
happen as these more proven, stronger shows run their
course, and The CW has to roll the dice on new ones?" The
network has shown no evidence at all of stronger affiliates
able to use that strength to increase viewership.
Since our objective out here isn't to concoct ways The CW
can look better, I'm suggesting the real test should be how
much better the existing shows do. That will be the best
measure of how much stronger The CW is. Say for example
existing shows go DOWN 10%! I suspect there's still an
increase over the combined average of The WB/UPN, but
in actuality it's an even WEAKER network. It won't even allow
its existing shows to keep up, and the only reason it "increased"
anything is because it cancelled the lowest-rated shows.
Anyway, thanks for the responses but I think the answer is (i)
none of us really know and can't even agree on what the bar
should be, let alone how much it should be raised; and (ii) the
deck is stacked in favor of The CW being able to tout SOMETHING,
simply because it didn't merge all its shows or a random sample
of its shows, but the highest-rated shows. So of course it's
bound to have an increase over the combined average last
year. God forbid it didn't have at least that to tout, because it'd
be one of the biggest debacles in TV industry history: merge
a network and harm even your best shows!
.
- References:
- The CW -- Expected Average Viewership vs. The WB and UPN?
- From: KalElFan
- Re: The CW -- Expected Average Viewership vs. The WB and UPN?
- From: WQ
- Re: The CW -- Expected Average Viewership vs. The WB and UPN?
- From: William George Ferguson
- Re: The CW -- Expected Average Viewership vs. The WB and UPN?
- From: Casey McDonald's Guidance Counsellor, Ian J. Ball
- The CW -- Expected Average Viewership vs. The WB and UPN?
- Prev by Date: Re: Few more pilots online
- Next by Date: Most Mediocre Show Currently on the Air
- Previous by thread: Re: The CW -- Expected Average Viewership vs. The WB and UPN?
- Next by thread: Re: The CW -- Expected Average Viewership vs. The WB and UPN?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
