Media Curmudgeon

« SpotRunner | Main | Downloading Local TV Newscasts »

January 31, 2006

The CW

The trade press and media pundits don't like the name for the new network that combines CBS-owned UPN and Time Warner's The WB television networks--The CW. I'd like to know what's wrong with it? My father's initials, my initials, and three of my sons' initials are CW. Naturally, I love name.

Of the four remaining terrestrial television networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, one is named after the beginning of the alphabet song and another after an animal. So, why can't the new network be named after a person? There's a trend in radio to call stations after a person's first name, such a Bob, or Alice, or, the newest one, Jack. I live in New York and bus signs promote the new CBS station, Jack-FM, which uses the slogan, "playing what we want."

As of today (1/31/06) there are 35 Jack-FM stations in the country. It's a licensed format that originally began in Canada, I believe (many of the current Jack-FM formatted stations are in Canada). The format is automated (no live announcers) and use the same weird graphic. I understand the format has been relatively successful in Los Angeles--understandable because LA is full of very weird people--but not so successful yet in New York, where I and far fewer weird people live. I checked the CBS Radio Web site to try to find what CBS stations were programming the Jack-FM format and found that about six percent of its 180 radio stations were using it and several of them were using the Alice format.

As a sidebar, I wonder how the august CBS feels about a request for feedback that its Los Angeles station, Jack-FM, has on its Web site. It's asking for listeners to vote on "What theme day would you like to see introduced at your work place?" The choices are: "Sexual Harassment Mondays," "No Underwear Tuesday," "Office Equipment Abuse Wednesdays," "Supply Theft Thursdays," and "Fried Chicken Fridays." I suppose people will vote only once for No Underwear Tuesday (my favorite) because it’s the only day that's singular, or maybe it's because (my suspicion) that radio program directors can't spell. At any rate, there are enough choices there to offend just about everyone. Perhaps The CW network will pick up on some of those themes and sink to new depths of television programming.

So if CBS Radio can use people's names for its some of its radio stations, why can't it use a person's name for its new television network? The CW could stand for Charles Warner (the Warner part makes perfect sense because that's half the name of the parent company), and it could be called Charlie. That would be cool; Charlie implies having a good time. But maybe Charlie is a little too long. So, how about just calling it Chas--shorter and hipper than Charlie? Thus, you'd have ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and Chas. Cool. Different. Unique. "See 'Veronica Mars' on Chas tonight at nine o'clock"--a youth oriented double entendre promo that would work, I think.

But aside from the brilliant initial naming of the network, was it a good idea to combine CBS's UPN with Time Warner's The WB? CBS's CEO Les Moonves and Warner Brothers' Barry Meyer, the chairman of Warner Brothers Entertainment, have been good pals for years and they were able to keep this deal amazingly quiet in Hollywood. They are also two very smart guys, so here's why I think they made the deal to combine UPN and the WB television networks.

1. It makes sense in terms of costs. Both UPN and The WB were losing money. Some analysts estimate the two have lost about $2 billion combined since they have launched (according to the Wall Street Journal 1/25/06), and The CW is projected to be profitable its first year. Costs will also be lower because many redundant administrative and development costs and high-salaried executives can be eliminated. So, Moonves and Meyer stopped the bleeding and reduced costs.

2. It makes sense in terms of revenue. There is not enough advertising to support six networks; therefore, by reducing total prime time inventory in the 2006 upfront, prices are likely to go up (the upfront will start this May and The CW will start programming in September). Also, by combining only the best programs from the two networks, the average ratings of The CW will be higher, which will also mean more dollars. Furthermore, because many former WB and UPN affiliates, which will now become independents, they will have a lot of prime time to fill, CBS's Paramount Television and Warner Brothers Television will be able to sell more syndicated programming.

3. It makes sense in terms of content. The CW will be able to program 13 hours of prime time more effectively than 26 hours, and development costs can be invested in projects that have a higher probability of success (there aren't enough star-quality performers, directors, and concepts to make hits on six networks).

4. It makes sense in terms of strategy. There are two ways to win a race--run faster than your competitors or make your competitors run slower. Fox is on the ascendancy and some experts are predicting it might even take the number-one spot from CBS. The Tribune company owns 22.5 percent of The WB, which it is giving up in return for carrying The CW on many of its stations (and paying The CW's fees) and, thus leaving several Fox-owned stations, such as WWOR in New York, without a network.

Therefore, this move potentially hurts the Fox stations and, thus, the Fox network and is a distraction for the Fox stations. Roger Ailes is in the process of re-positioning the Fox owned-TV stations, and The CW can only be a distraction for him. Any time competitors can distract the Ailes juggernaut, it's a good strategic move.

Ailes and Fox are positioning the situation as an opportunity, which it probably is in the long run, but an opportunity can push other projects off the track somewhat. Also, it is common knowledge that the Fox stations' "sibling division 20th Century Fox Television is developing a large slate of English-language soap operas modeled after Spanish-language telenovelas. The soaps were originally intended to run later at night or in the early evening, but it is now likely that News Corp. will slap them in prime time for fall," according to the 1/26/06 Wall Street Journal. Slapping them up early may hurt these telenovelas.

Of the four reasons why CBS and Warner Brothers made the deal, I think number one (cut costs) and number four (hurting Fox) might have weighed heavier on Moonves' thinking than reasons number two and three.

Posted by Charles Warner at January 31, 2006 12:34 AM

Comments

Ted Doyle at February 4, 2006 10:17 AM writes:

Post a comment