GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

CW President says they want viewers of 18-34...interesting

POSTED BY: JTSKIER1200R
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 22:09
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5142
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 3:49 AM

JTSKIER1200R


Here is an article on why Everwood was canceled. Notice the answer:

Still, why would you bring back a dreadful show like "One Tree Hill" — a show with ratings lower than those of "Everwood" — and give the made-in-Utah show the boot?
Because it's not just how many viewers you attract, it's who those viewers are.
" 'Everwood' also skewed much older. It was the oldest show out of either UPN or The WB," Ostroff said.
Keep in mind that The CW is aiming at viewers between the ages of 18 and 34. And that's the crowd that watches — albeit in relatively small numbers — "One Tree Hill."

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,640195726,00.html

Interesting huh? They care about the viewers age. They want those between 18 and 34. I wonder if we can use this to help Firefly?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 4:25 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Anyone have the rating and demographic results from the marathon? (or maybe we could dig up the old "demographics" thread and just send them that...)

**********************************

**********************************

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 4:42 AM

ARBAS


Oh great at 48 I fit in so well.
This is what pisses me off so much, no matter how well received, how popular, how well liked within the company a show can get trashed because the viewers don't fit some marketing profile.

There's a special hell set aside for marketing people GRRRRRRRR

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 5:21 AM

CLIOMUSE


As a 40-year-old with way more discretionary income than I had between the ages of 18 and 34, I find this amazing. Oh well, I guess the advertisers would rather sell 1,000 i-pods than a few washers and dryers.

Seriously, I remember watching the commercials during the initial run of "Firefly" and thinking that perhaps I wasn't the target audience, even though the *show* seemed to be aimed at ME!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 7:33 AM

CYBERSNARK


Man, I fit the demographic, and even I think this is stupid.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 7:58 AM

MILFORD


Wow, they're really targeting peope 18-34? Isn't that who everyone targets?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Customizeable handmade baby gifts personalized by my wife! Check them out at www.baby-bobo.com. All proceeds go towards international adoption.

Leaning into the wind that used to carry me-Stavesacre

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 9:06 AM

DUG


Yes, a lot of people target 18-34's. That's because there is a demographic bulge there, an echo of the baby boom. Between the baby boom and this echo-boom there was a demographic trough, sometimes referred to as the "baby-bust". The trough and then the echo are why schools were closing wings when I went through and now are building like crazy.

The 18-34 year demo is also the age group that buys the most stuff as they set up their lives. I may need to buy the occassional big purchase now, but a 22 year old has to buy *everything*. And they're buying it for the first time Initial purchase decisions affect ALL future buying trends. It pays to pay attention to this age group due to sheer numbers and where they are in their lives, in other words.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 9:16 AM

ONTHEDRIFT


I understand the reasons. But (even though I'm in the target demographic) I think it's crap. Since only 18-34 year olds "matter" they get decide what everyone watches on tv? I hope that one day the Nielsen system will be abandoned for a more logical, equitable way of doing things. In a world like that, Firefly would never have been cancelled.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 11:23 AM

JOLLY


Quote:

Originally posted by onthedrift:
I understand the reasons. But (even though I'm in the target demographic) I think it's crap. Since only 18-34 year olds "matter" they get decide what everyone watches on tv? I hope that one day the Nielsen system will be abandoned for a more logical, equitable way of doing things. In a world like that, Firefly would never have been cancelled.



Here's a thought exercise. If a show airs and gets good numbers for total number of viewers, but has a viewership that is split evenly across many diverse demographic group, does it get cancelled? Seems like the answer would be yes, since advertisers would have a difficult time finding a large target audience worth paying big bucks to reach. As long as advertising pays for programming, the insanity will continue.

I'm pessimistic that there will be a season 2 of Firefly, simply because I can't imagine Fox giving up the DVD rights, and I can't imagine a network picking it up solely because it anticipates a large viewership (and hence big advertising revenues), given the viewership when the show originally aired. My fantasy is that Fox will produce it for a minor network for a low fee, and then earn most of it's money on the subsequent DVD sales. I'm not sure if this model has been tried yet, but it seems like it might now be appropriate.

Of course, between movie and television rights, I suspect that there are some rather complicated negotiations that will have to happen before another series could air...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 11:24 AM

JOLLY


Oops. So that's how one ends up double posting...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 11:42 AM

BSCPANTHERFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by onthedrift:
I understand the reasons. But (even though I'm in the target demographic) I think it's crap. Since only 18-34 year olds "matter" they get decide what everyone watches on tv? I hope that one day the Nielsen system will be abandoned for a more logical, equitable way of doing things. In a world like that, Firefly would never have been cancelled.



Try being a gen-xer. All we got for years was stuff aimed at the boomer generation, and now we get totally skipped for the nextwave. That's OK, though. It just means that I am that much more cynical towards ANY advertising. If only Dudley Moore's "Crazy People" could happen in real life...

So who is he?
He's my husband.
Well who in the damn galaxy ain't!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 12:21 PM

ONTHEDRIFT


I have to wonder just how susceptible to advertising the majority of my generation is. I don't consider myself influenced much (especially by television adverts) at all. However... I'm beginning to wonder if there are quite a few ad lemmings in my generation. For instance my younger brother (19) buys Axe body spray. He bought it without smelling it, solely on the heinous ads. (For those of you who haven't seen them, they depict women who basically MUST HAVE SEX IMMEDIATELY with ANYONE who has sprayed Axe abundantly on themselves. Apparently women can't help but succumb to the suddenly sexy dude and transform into a complete horndog.--Ewww.) The body spray smells like a combination of bug spray, antifreeze, and ass. I know that gets me hot. And there are other stories of peers being sucked into ridiculous marketing campaigns and ads. So, lemmings? Is that why 18-34 IS the target demographic? And rant over...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 12:38 PM

ONTHEDRIFT


Quote:

Originally posted by jolly:
Here's a thought exercise. If a show airs and gets good numbers for total number of viewers, but has a viewership that is split evenly across many diverse demographic group, does it get cancelled? Seems like the answer would be yes, since advertisers would have a difficult time finding a large target audience worth paying big bucks to reach. As long as advertising pays for programming, the insanity will continue.



Seems like the link at the beginning of the thread proves that jolly. CW abandoned a show with better ratings for a show with mediocre ratings but a younger audience. Yeah. And you're right the insanity will continue while advertising pays for programming. I think that's why I've run across "pay-per-view/audience funded" scenarios on the web before, simply to get away from the (imminent) cancellation risk that most shows run, due to ratings/ advertising revenues decisions from the PTBs.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 12:58 PM

SIMONWHO


Quote:

Originally stated by Bill Hicks:
By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself. No, no, no it's just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day, they'll take root - I don't know. You try, you do what you can. Kill yourself. Seriously though, if you are, do. Aaah, no really, there's no rationalisation for what you do and you are Satan's little helpers, Okay - kill yourself - seriously. You are the ruiner of all things good, seriously.

No this is not a joke, you're going, "there's going to be a joke coming," there's no f***ing joke coming. You are Satan's spawn filling the world with bile and garbage. You are f***ed and you are f***ing us. Kill yourself. It's the only way to save your f***ing soul, kill yourself. Planting seeds. I know all the marketing people are going, "he's doing a joke”... there's no joke here whatsoever. Suck a tail-pipe, f***ing hang yourself, borrow a gun from a friend - I don't care how you do it. Rid the world of your evil f***ing machinations. I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now too, "Oh, you know what Bill's doing, he's going for that anti-marketing dollar. That's a good market, he's very smart." Oh man, I am not doing that. You f***ing evil scumbags! "Ooh, you know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar. That's a big dollar. A lot of people are feeling that indignation. We've done research - huge market. He's doing a good thing." Godammit, I'm not doing that, you scum-bags! Quit putting a godamm dollar sign on every f***ing thing on this planet!

"Ooh, the anger dollar. Huge. Huge in times of recession. Giant market, Bill's very bright to do that." God, I'm just caught in a f***ing web! "Ooh the trapped dollar, big dollar, huge dollar. Good market - look at our research. We see that many people feel trapped. If we play to that and then separate them into the trapped dollar..." How do you live like that? And I bet you sleep like f***ing babies at night, don't you?"



What he said.

Check out my Serenity Auctions for Equality Now, including DVDs and Posters signed by all 9 BDHs + Joss!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&item=1400121002
83

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&item=1400120938
86

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&item=1400121031
71

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 1:04 PM

TROGMAN


You know, I was trying to my thoughts on this topic, and the above post pretty much sums it up. Massive group manipulation and mind control.

*************************

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 1:19 PM

GRRRARG


I wonder if this is why Firefly was on Fox and not the WB ('fresh from the frog' - the all-time worst advertising slogan, ever.) Buffy and Angel were young shows - Firefly was more adult - no teenagers fighting the forces of evil and whining about highschool. Smallville, for instance. Oh, Clark, you just saved my life from that half cow/half Freshman, yet I despise you for not telling me your dark, dark secrets. Kiss me....

Still, Fox? Their target demographic seems to the the people who a recurrent guests on The Jerry Springer Show. I'm surprised the Scifi Channel didnt just pounce on Firefly, since they've had so many winning shows since Farscape.
The New Battlestar Galactica. The Cylons are all evil Playboy centerfolds...right.



"Don't put your trust in revolutions. They always come around again. That's why they're called revolutions. People die, and nothing changes." -Terry Pratchett "Night Watch"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 3:46 PM

LISSA37


Quote:

Originally posted by jtskier1200r:
Here is an article on why Everwood was canceled. Notice the answer:

Still, why would you bring back a dreadful show like "One Tree Hill" — a show with ratings lower than those of "Everwood" — and give the made-in-Utah show the boot?
Because it's not just how many viewers you attract, it's who those viewers are.
" 'Everwood' also skewed much older. It was the oldest show out of either UPN or The WB," Ostroff said.
Keep in mind that The CW is aiming at viewers between the ages of 18 and 34. And that's the crowd that watches — albeit in relatively small numbers — "One Tree Hill."

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,640195726,00.html

Interesting huh? They care about the viewers age. They want those between 18 and 34. I wonder if we can use this to help Firefly?



For the record, if I start to sound angry, this is NOT directed at you or anyone else on here. It's out of anger at the CW.

First of all, let me say that Dawn Ostroff is an idiot.

Now that we have that out of the way... Everwood did NOT skew much older. Total crap. It had a diverse group of fans across a vast range of ages, from about 16 to 50s. Yes, that's out of the range dear Ms. Ostroff and her precious CW ask for, but it also includes that range. It does NOT only skew much older. (By the way, Jolly is absolutely right about diverse demographics, at least as far as I've seen with The CW's creation.)

And, if you all want CW's help... just ONE episode with extremely high numbers of viewers can get us in. 7th Heaven was brought back from the dead -- yes, the dead: it was cancelled with a rather lengthy "Countdown To Good-bye" advertisement scheme, even -- and will air on the CW next year. Why? Because it's finale had 7 million viewers. (Proof lies within the interview quoted on this page: http://talk.thewb.com/viewtopic.php?topic=712785&forum=1&30) Gee, Ostroff, did you ever think they just wanted to see it go? How many of them are coming back next year, I'd like to know? I'll tell you this much: all of Everwood's 4,000,000 dedicated viewers -- including those of us within her precious little demographic of 18-34 -- would be back if she hadn't taken our show away.

So, my advice with CW?

We should get an episode of Firefly to air and find 7,000,000 18- to 34-year-olds to tune in and watch it.

*deep breath*

All ranting and CW-hating aside... I would be thrilled if they brought back Firefly. But, do I think it'll happen? Nope, sorry, I don't. The CW just isn't good enough for Firefly and I wouldn't expect them to see it's greatness. If they did, I'd be stunned. They have their agenda and they're sticking to it... and I just don't see Firefly on it, unfortunately. :(

*****
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar!" - Wash

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 5:42 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Quote:

Originally posted by jolly:
Quote:

I'm pessimistic that there will be a season 2 of Firefly, simply because I can't imagine Fox giving up the DVD rights.


I'm sorry, but I'm a little tired of hearing this. Fox owns only the episodes that have been made and are on DVD. They gave Joss Whedon permission to market it elsewhere when he left the network, which is how Serenity got made in the first place. Joss (or, possibly, Universal) owns the rights now, dong ma? Fox has nothing to do with anything except the current DVD's and cannot forbid anyone from making more Firefly.

[]

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 7:57 PM

JOLLY


Quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:

Originally posted by jolly:
Quote:

I'm pessimistic that there will be a season 2 of Firefly, simply because I can't imagine Fox giving up the DVD rights.


I'm sorry, but I'm a little tired of hearing this. Fox owns only the episodes that have been made and are on DVD. They gave Joss Whedon permission to market it elsewhere when he left the network, which is how Serenity got made in the first place. Joss (or, possibly, Universal) owns the rights now, dong ma? Fox has nothing to do with anything except the current DVD's and cannot forbid anyone from making more Firefly.

B]



Universal licensed the rights to make two more movies. As far as I know, Fox still has the television rights. My understanding was that no further television could be done until either Universal exercised its movie rights or they expired. I'd be more than interested in seeing something official that contradicted my understanding; I'm more than happy to admit that its mostly just an impression that I've forged from browsing the internet.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 8:03 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


In "Done the Impossible" Joss says that he went in and asked for the rights because he wanted to shop it elsewhere. They said yes, and that was the last interaction he had with them. So they do not own the television rights; they gave them back. This is straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

**********************************

**********************************

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 8:08 PM

JOLLY


I did a quick google. Here's where I got my impression from:

http://whedonesque.com/comments/7187


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 8:14 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


And it says:
Quote:


Now, Universal owns the rights to Firefly and they also own Sci-Fi. As you may know Sci-Fi will be running the original episodes of the TV series soon, if they are not already. You guys don't really realize how much your feedback matters. Writing the companies doesn't always work, but if the series does well and folks make noise, it does make an impact. Sci-Fi could very easily call up Universal and ask for new episodes to the series.


All else on there is fan speculation.
I'm going to take what Joss himself said as fact unless he says otherwise. He got the rights to make more Firefly back, sold them to Universal, Universal owns them now and Sci-Fi owns the rights to play the episodes that were already made (which Fox does still own) on cable.
So Universal owns the rights. Fox is not involved with saying yay or nay to new episodes anymore (thank you merciful Buddha!)
What this might mean, though, is that CW would not be able to pick it up if Universal now has the rights. We just have to keep poking Sci-Fi and Universal for a sequel and/or miniseries/actual series/tv movie

**********************************

**********************************

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 8:22 PM

JOLLY


And if you read down the page:

Quote:

Yes, the problem with this article is the person quoted doesn't actually understand the rights issue. 20th C.Fox still hold the TV rights. Sci-fi (owned by NBC/Universal) have licensed cable-only rights for previously produced episodes only.


The CW rumors also came off a media source. I don't see any reason to view the linked source as official, other than wishful thinking...

Anyhow, if there is money to be made off the property, there is always the chance of a future show.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 8:24 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


I did read down the page. As I stated everything else is fan speculation; posts in response to an article. The person posting that is not an insider, but a fan.
Again, I will take what Joss himself has said to be fact until he says otherwise.
I have to go order my own copy of "Done the Impossible" so I can watch that again... I just got to see the shiny preview at my local screening. They had it on loop before they started Serenity. So shiny!

**********************************

**********************************

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 8:36 PM

GUYWHOWANTSAFIREFLYOFHISOWN


Quote:

Originally posted by Arbas:
Oh great at 48 I fit in so well.
This is what pisses me off so much, no matter how well received, how popular, how well liked within the company a show can get trashed because the viewers don't fit some marketing profile.

There's a special hell set aside for marketing people GRRRRRRRR



I fit in great too, being 16.



http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/llama.php
-try it out, I dare you

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature

I'm so into Firefly, my butt glows in the dark.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 9:50 PM

JOLLY


Quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Again, I will take what Joss himself has said to be fact until he says otherwise.
I have to go order my own copy of "Done the Impossible" so I can watch that again... I just got to see the shiny preview at my local screening. They had it on loop before they started Serenity. So shiny!



I haven't seen "Done the Impossible", so I can't comment. I'll simply state that it's true that what I've mentioned is based on fan speculation and leave it at that...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 10:09 PM

ARBAS


Whatever the outcome it's good to know the rights are held by Joss :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Fan-Made ‘Green Lantern’ Trailer Receives Nathan Fillion’s Endorsement
Fri, December 20, 2024 18:31 - 9 posts
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Fri, December 20, 2024 17:58 - 5 posts
Why Firefly deserved to die
Wed, December 18, 2024 16:34 - 99 posts
Where are the Extraterrestrial Civilizations
Tue, December 17, 2024 08:58 - 56 posts
What if... Firefly had been British?
Tue, December 17, 2024 08:40 - 44 posts
Shiny New Year 2025 — Philadelphia, PA
Sun, December 15, 2024 15:25 - 2 posts
Joss was right... Mandarin is the language of the future...
Fri, December 13, 2024 20:35 - 36 posts
James Earl Jones, commanding actor who voiced Darth Vader, dies at 93
Thu, December 12, 2024 09:17 - 6 posts
What's wrong with Star Trek Voyager, and Enterprise?
Thu, December 12, 2024 09:14 - 30 posts
WE WAITED 18 YEARS FOR A REBOOT AND DISNEY IS GOING TO DO IT...AND THEN STERILIZE COMPANIONS???!
Tue, December 10, 2024 14:25 - 95 posts
Host the 2025 Browncoat Ball! - Request for Proposals
Mon, December 2, 2024 00:22 - 4 posts
Is Joss Whedon finished as a film maker, is his future destiny to be some muttering version of Brigitte Bardot, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Charlie Sheen, Danny Glover?
Sun, November 24, 2024 06:15 - 13 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL