The CW: Paramount and Warner Bros. walk into a bar....

[MarkHB]

Serious question: can The CW survive as a broadcast network.  The longest piece I've read on what they've been up to is this one, which says the following:

 

Frequently forgotten is that when UPN and The WB merged to form The CW, another company put out a PR statement as well, as (the now) Tribune Media owned stations agreed to stay CW affiliates through September of 2016.

 

That date isn’t that far into the future anymore, and in the interim Tribune has both expressed disappointment with the ratings CW’s programming gets them and returned to original programming themselves (Salem, Manhattan). It’s not impossible to see The CW and Tribune splitting at the end of next season – or at the very least, for Tribune to aggressively negotiate what they pay to The CW downward.

 

While there are (now) only 12 CW Tribune affiliates, they cover most of the biggest metropolitan areas in the country – roughly 22% of the US population. To be clear, I would expect nearly all to all of those markets to find new affiliates for The CW (the CBS affiliates in those markets would be highly pressured to carry The CW on their digital subchannels, if nothing else). The question becomes how much of a haircut does The CW take in the transition – and how much can they survive? Given that the goalposts of even The CW’s public statements keep getting pushed back – they’ve gone from “profitable after broadcast and DVD” to “profitable after broadcast, syndication, DVD, and streaming” (I expect the next iteration to include “and loose change that falls out of actors’ pockets when they come in for casting calls”) - I’m not sure The CW can survive losing even 5-10% of their income in the process.

 

As I see it, there are two things to keep in mind.  First, The CW is, as I said, a broadcast network.  It's not a cable net that just throws a signal up on a transponder and works with Comcast and Time Warner for coverage; it actually has a system of affiliates across the country, and all of those need to make money for their owners.  DVD and streaming revenue doesn't help those folks; they need to be able to draw a sufficient audience off of the original broadcast.

 

The second thing, which I think is alluded to in the quote, is that Tribune contracted to pay a particularly large reverse compensation package to The CW when the network formed out of the ashes of The WB and UPN (I can't find the source right now but I have seen it).  I honestly don't know if they have renegotiated that downwards since the original deal, but if not, and given the overall poor performance of The CW's "W 18-34" strategy, I am sure they are going to want that significant haircut the article mentions.

[Morrigan2575]

Bringing this over from the Arrow Forum...as of last May the CEO of Tribune wasn't happy with the network.  Some of it sounds like typical CEO power plays but some if it makes sense...everyone knows the CW is just a dumping ground for CBS/WB to get DVD/Internal Sales/Syndication money

 

http://deadline.com/2014/05/tribune-ceo-says-hes-not-pleased-with-cws-performance-731112/

[Matt K]

Adding to that while Flash and Arrow do relatively well, which is why a spin off makes sense especially in light of trying to keep Tribune, the rest of the network is pretty garbage as far as the ratings are concerned.  Except for those two shows the network averages something like 0.6 but most of the shows are below that.  I have no idea what Tribune is paying but I can't imagine them being happy with that especially since Tribune still has to provide their own programing for most of the day.  

 

It's not like Fox who still provides sports programing which is big time money while otherwise only providing programing for about 2 hours a night.  It would probably be cheaper to just pick up episodes of MASH or more likely modern shows like Modern Family where Tribune would get all the profits.  

 

That said, as per the article the question then becomes whether the CW could survive without Tribune stations.  My gut says no.  Losing something around 10% of their viewer for what are already low view shows seems like a losing proposition.  That would probably mean that a 0.4 show (of which there are a lot) starts sinking lower which cannot be profitable.  Add to that that I doubt CBS is happy with how things have turned out.  As it is the network is almost exclusively WB shows (only 2 CBS shows on the entire network) and all of the CBS shows have been very poorly rated.  So I can imagine that CBS might see this as an out as co-running CW can't be that profitable for them either (if at all).  

 

CW renewing pretty much all of their shows without waiting for their new ones seems to point at them being worried that next season is their last.  Add in that they've so far only ordered 4 pilots one of which, Tales, most likely being pretty cheap since as a anthology it wouldn't require a single cast for the entire run.  Compare to Fox which in theory only runs for 2ish extra hours of programing (Sunday) and has ordered 6 drama pilots and 8 comedy pilots.  Or even last year when CW ordered 6 pilots.

[Lord Kira]

If the CW does go under, what will happen to their shows? I can see TNT picking up Supernatural for a new season, and if they're lucky The Vampire Diaries and The Originals could go to ABC Family, but what network would pick up Arrow and The Flash? The 100, Reign, Jane The Virgin, and their other shows would probably be screwed.

 

My wishlist for if The CW disappears:

1. Supernatural to TNT

2. Arrow/The Flash to Netflix

3. The 100 to Netflix (I know it's low rated, but I can dream)

4. The Vampire Diaries/The Originals/Jane the Virgin/Reign to ABC Family (I don't watch them, but let the fans be happy)

5. iZombie/The Messengers/Tales From the Darkside/Cheerleader Death Squad/ and any other 2015 show would be dead.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Lord Kira

[Rick Kitchen]

Why Netflix?  Why should people have to pay for popular series?

[CabotCove]

Hmm I wondered when CW renewed all their shows, including the mostly lowly rated. It seemed bizarre, it just seemed like they were giving up on themselves.

 

But then again they later picked up some pilots, including a spin off, bizarre indeed.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Conell

[Lord Kira]

Why Netflix?  Why should people have to pay for popular series?

Popular? The CW shows can barely be considered popular, even if you compare their ratings to cable instead of broadcast.

 

If people like a show and want it to continue, they won't care where it ends up. And on Netflix they wouldn't just be paying to watch one show, they'd be paying like $10 a month for thousands of tv shows and movies. It sounds like a good deal to me. Besides, most people already have Netflix anyway. I don't see the problem there.

[Lord Kira]

Hmm I wondered when CW renewed all their shows, including the mostly lowly rated. It seemed bizarre, it just seemed like they were giving up on themselves.

 

But then again they later picked up some pilots, including a spin off, bizarre indeed.

 

Some people on TVBTN said that all of the shows that the CW renewed were covered by the Netflix deal they made. Netflix pays a few hundred thousand dollars per episode for those shows, and that money goes straight to WB and CBS. As long as they get all of that cash, I think the studios are fine with it.

 

I also remember Deadline stating that it was an unwritten rule in the Netflix deal that Netflix wants all of the shows to have a proper ending since so many people find out about these shows by seeing them on Netflix.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Lord Kira

[CabotCove]

Some people on TVBTN said that all of the shows that the CW renewed were covered by the Netflix deal they made. Netflix pays a few hundred thousand dollars per episode for those shows, and that money goes straight to WB and CBS. As long as they get all of that cash, I think the studios are fine with it.

 

OK thanks.  That would certainly be a game changer.

[kdm07]

Why Netflix?  Why should people have to pay for popular series?

They don't have to but they may have to if the network goes under. I know that Netflix Canada has the rights to The 100 (apart from it being broadcast on the CW of course) so it's not a stretch to see Netflix picking it up completely.

 

My two cents: if the CW goes under, I'd like The 100 and Jane The Virgin to find new homes pretty please. The rest I'm neutral about.

[Morrigan2575]

I was reading comments on that TVBYTN article and, it's all so fascinating. If they're right it's an interesting situation and makes sense for why BATB got renewed, the Netflix deal ties into the renewals. I wonder if this will save HoD?

[bettername2come]

1. Supernatural to TNT

 

As much as I love the WInchesters, please just let that show die.

[Wax Lion]

I was mildly surprised by some of the renewals (Reign, BatB) but figured that was an indicator of how much money Netflix was paying for those shows... and maybe that's  enough money for The CW to be able to carry more summer shows. (The Netflix deal was a game changer, it turned around the quantity of CW programming.) I understand Netflix pays more for longer-running shows and maybe that means a show like BatB is at the point where its profitable before it airs (CBS' summer dramas now work this way) and, therefore The CW doesn't care about the ratings and doesn't need to wait for it to air.

 

But the affiliates still care about ratings and losing a major affiliate chain could really hurt. I guess it depends on how much they've shifted their business model.

[AnalyzeAndCritique]

I've been hearing since Dawn O left about how the CW wants to appeal to a wider demographic than the tween and teen girls. Most of their programming was directed at the girls who wanted to date the male stars and have access to the female's closets.  

 

However, since Dawn O's departure, I haven't seen a shift to draw a larger audience. Yes, the CW is airing comic book shows, but they really are just tween soaps with superpowers. The underlying drama is still the intellectually anorexic drivel it has always been. 

 

These days I am watching Hart of Dixie's swan song. I stopped HOD cold turkey when Wade cheated on Zoe because it was ridiculous. I only returned because I knew they had ten episodes to wrap it all up. I'm hoping for fun and frivolous to end the show.

 

I watched Arrow up until 3.01. Sara took a nose dive off a roof and into the dumpster and I began separating myself. I was hoping Arrow would be fun like The Avengers or Iron Man. Even Arrow ticked off entirely too many boxes on the CW checklist of brain cell killing crap. The show gave the lead a romantic history only conceivable in a village of two dozen with six people being under the age of 55. The show didn't learn and has continued to swim in the shallow end of the pool. Leather and abs don't make up for the complete crapfest the show is.

 

I was loyal to SPN for years, but they are on a path in which we've been there and done that. At least SPN didn't completely cave to Dawn O's demands for love interests back in the day. I don't know if they did once Kripke left. I personally thought SPN had enough to draw attention without needing mostly naked girls. The actors were head and shoulders talented compared to the rest of the network's talent. The premise was interesting. The writing was always decent, but dipped its toes in to the "good" waters more often than not. I think it is part of the reason it has lasted so long.

 

Nikita was an enjoyable run. However, every time they cut to the underground bunker where Nikita and Alex were running around in skin tight dresses and six inch heels I laughed. If ever there was a good reason to wear jeans and shoes with a good tread it would be when you are a quarter mile underground. 

 

Most of the other shows on the network are completely interchangeable. Switch around the cast's names and faces and its still the same thing. One Tree Hill, Gossip Girl, Melrose Place, etc embodied the motto  "pretty people, pretty messed up." If the show was losing ground, take some clothes off a few of the actors and create some buzz. usually this was done by increasing the drama in a love triangle when two of the parties threw down in a fit of passion. 

 

Perhaps the only way for the CW to overcome its reputation is to die and be resurrected with a completely new identity. A fresh start with a clean slate. This time they can stop taking turns with the love triangle story lines. If the CW is relying on Arrow, The Flash, and its newly announced addition to turn things around, they need to bring in some adults to contribute in the creative process for these shows. They might claim to be different, but AK, MG, and Co are cut from the same cloth the CW has been modeling for years.

[methodwriter85]

The CW just got overshadowed real quick by ABC Family, which had its monster hit The Secret Life of An American Teenager and really built themselves from there. I think for whatever reasons, ABC Family just resonated more with the teenagers of the late 2000's, and The CW just had never been able to get there despite  a few successes like The Vampire Diaries, the Flash, and Arrow. (Gossip Girl was more of a boutique hit, and 90210 was just a total joke that was only allowed to last as long as it did to get syndication.)

 

I just remember thinking that the WB had such amazing advertising that really made you feel like these actors were larger than life and total idols, like the Oh, What A Night promo from 2000. The CW has never done anything approaching that.

Edited March 5, 2015 by methodwriter85

[Lord Kira]

The CW just got overshadowed real quick by ABC Family, which had its monster hit The Secret Life of An American Teenager and really built themselves from there. I think for whatever reasons, ABC Family just resonated more with the teenagers of the late 2000's, and The CW just had never been able to get there despite  a few successes like The Vampire Diaries, the Flash, and Arrow. (Gossip Girl was more of a boutique hit, and 90210 was just a total joke that was only allowed to last as long as it did to get syndication.)

 

 

I never understood why Dawn Ostroff clung to that female demo so hard despite ABC Family having a stranglehold on that audience. Especially when the sci-fi/fantasy shows on The CW were doing better and had both males and females watching. Instead she tried to kill Smallville and Supernatual by sending them to Fridays, and instead had The CW focus on targeting girls only.

 

Despite her best efforts Smallville and Supernatural survived. And she lost her preferred target demo to ABC Family.

 

When the sci-fi/fantasy shows were doing good, I just don't get why she'd try to kill them. Why wold she actively try to hurt her own network? As the current line-up of shows proves, there is room for all genres on the network. Sci-Fi, Action, Romance, Period drama, teen drama, horror, etc. 

 

Personally, I'm glad things ended up the way they did. I watch more shows on The CW than I do any other network. Plus, it has better sci-fi shows than Sci-Fi (sorry, Syfy) the past 5 years. For those reasons alone I want The CW to be around for a long time.

[Matt K]

I never understood why Dawn Ostroff clung to that female demo so hard despite ABC Family having a stranglehold on that audience. Especially when the sci-fi/fantasy shows on The CW were doing better and had both males and females watching. Instead she tried to kill Smallville and Supernatual by sending them to Fridays, and instead had The CW focus on targeting girls only.

After she killed off Reaper I never watched a CW show again until Arrow and I was pretty gun shy about that as well (waiting like a month for word of mouth before checking it out).

[methodwriter85]

It is ridiculous when you think that the CW launched exactly two teen romance dramas that lasted long enough for syndication- Gossip Girl and 90210. And neither were that popular, although Gossip Girl had at least some critical acclaim/buzz, while 90210 was pretty much a laughing stock the whole way through. Anything else they tried to launch just failed.

 

I think there were two factors at work here- the first was that ABC Family's Secret Life (and later, Pretty Little Liars) juggernaut was hard to crack. The second was that teenager taste had changed- kids were more interested in supernatural romance type stuff, not rich kid dramas. They did eventually reach for this with the Vampire Diaries, Beauty and the Beast, and The Secret Circle, although I really think they should have tried going harder for it. They should have tried for stuff like Teen Wolf.

 

The CW does seem to realize that they're stronger with genre shows- it seems like that's the bulk of what's on the network now.

Edited March 6, 2015 by methodwriter85

[Matt K]

Also to be fair, CW is a broadcast network while ABC Family is cable.  It's actually quite possible that CW is in less houses of that target demo than ABCF and since ABCF is cable it can get away with lesser ratings/more alternative viewings.

[Wax Lion]

I think when both networks were airing teen dramas, ABC Family used to beat The CW in the ratings. I think some of it is the advantage of cable, ABCF can air marathons to get people addicted to a show and can be a big deal proramming just three days a week. It's also likely they have a better reach.

 

However, I think ABCF was also much more in touch with its audience. The CW's shows, even when Gossip Girl was trolling the FRC by quoting them in their ads, tended to prefer titillation over actually pushing the envelope and challenging the common wisdom. ABCF shows were very focused on diversity. Gay characters weren't just common, they weren't relegated to the background and they had active love lives. On The CW gay characters were rare and weren't seen often when they did exist. (Even when 90210 struck a chord with a gay character the show seemed to panic and wrote him out.) Racial diversity was quickly taken for granted on ABCF while the CW teen dramas long seemed to worry about making it clear the white characters weren't going to lose their prominence. ABCF is still unique with a drama highlighting a disabled subcutlure (while also being racially diverse and dealing with economic struggles) in Switched at Birth.

 

There's also the attitude to parents. The original 90210 changed the way TV depicted teens because it didn't focus on having parents around as a guiding figure and that was decades ago, instead the teens were often independent with little involvement from their parents. The CW's teen dramas followed that model while ABCF's shows turned that around by making parental characters very prominent but just as complex as the teen characters (instead of making them just guiding figures in the teen characters' lives). Secret Circle started that way but then it suddenly shifted a few episodes in and became unwatchable.

 

I'm just trying to lay out how ABCF long felt like it was a step ahead of understanding the Tumblr generation's interests while The CW's teen dramas seemed like it was more concerned about their parents' disapproving.

 

Sci-fi fits The CW much better but I'd say Jane the Virgin shows that they've finally learned from ABCF. It's a show where being a parent doesn't make you someone who always has the right advice for your children but the parent-child bond is important even when its screwed up. It's also very comfortable with racial and sexual diversity.

[methodwriter85]

I think that's a pretty great sum-up as to why ABC Family has captured the teen demo a lot better. Although I think The O.C. on Fox and the Gilmore Girls on the WB were really leaders in "making the parents more complex and just as hot as their kids" parent treatement. I kind of feel bad for Lori Loughlin, who clearly thought that the parents on nu90210 were going to get the O.C. parental treatment, and instead were given the original recipe treatment instead.

 

Another really good example of how out-of-touch The CW was the failed reboot of Melrose Place. The concept basically sold itself- sexy young adults who all live in a hip apartment complex and sleep with each other- it should have been a hit. The problem was that they made it too complicated with the murder mystery of someone who was already supposed to be dead, and the clunky inclusion of the original show's characters. (Daphne Zuniga actually had to tell them what Jo's occupation is- that's how lazy those writers were.) And the characters they had were just so boring and bland. That they tried to spice it up with getting a 50-year old Heather Locklear doing Amanda Woodward again says it all.

Edited March 7, 2015 by methodwriter85

[Lord Kira]

Does anyone remember a few months ago when Nielsen and the big networks made a big stink about Netflix and how Nielsen found a way to gauge the ratings (excluding what is watched on mobile devices)? What ever became of that? Do they post the Netflix ratings anywhere?

 

I would love to see how well CW shows do, given that their Nielsen broadcast ratings are the lowest of the networks but are among the most popular online.

[Actionmage]

methodwriter85, thanks for the link! I only really watched Buffy and Angel, but the "watch our shows" spots were fun and in keeping with what the network wanted to send out to audiences. It was like a party invite, not begging or acting like it's known to be the best thing since the wheel.

 

The "come have fun with us!" vibe was cool and I think that the CW is close to that vibe in the network promos, but it's not quite to the fun party vibe of those linked. (Not that WB couldn't do "pretentiously solemn and dirge-y" when it wanted to, as well.)

[Just Here]

Last week, ADWEEK posted an interview with the CW's President, Mark Pedowitz, giving some insights on how the network's advertising fortunes has improved this season, in part thanks to The Flash and Jane the Virgin.  Also, it discusses the network's changes in demographics, both in terms of age and gender.
 

The CW audience is now almost 45 percent male. What shows are most responsible for adding men?
It's The Flash, Arrow, The 100 and Supernatural.

 

You've mentioned that your affiliates are happier that you now have an older audience, which is something The CW seemed to actively fight against for years.
We're still the youngest network, but unfortunately things became very niche. And by broadening out the 18 to 34, meaning willing to take people older, younger, whatever that was, it enabled us to grow. Because of that, the sales team and the success of Flash, then Arrow and then now Jane [the Virgin], the sales team is getting responses from advertisers they have not seen in years and that we never had before. It's still having that core of advertisers in play and who we reach out to. So it's been great.
 
What kind of new advertisers are coming on board?
We've been getting far more financial services than we ever had. We're getting far more automotive than we've had. And we're back on the quick service restaurant business. So it's changed a lot of those dynamics.

 

 

Edit: CW just posted their schedule for next season.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Just Here

[methodwriter85]

The CW has to be glad for the Flash's success. They just might live to see another year after all.

 

Aside from ABC Family basically having the teen demographic, the truth is that the teen demographic itself, at least for the U.S., is expected to stay flat or decline for awhile.

Edited May 23, 2015 by methodwriter85

[Actionmage]

In checking out the new show, Vixen, on CW Seed*, I noticed that they had Almost Human and the 90s version of The Flash as well! SO I think I know how I'm going to waste some time this weekend.

 

*For those who don't know, it's the section of their website where very short web series episodes are. There is also every Drew Carey and Aisha Tyler- hosted Whose Line Is It Anyway? episodes. There were a couple that looked like fun and there were a couple I wasn't sure about, but I might try anyway.  I need to set some time aside, it won't be a huge time sink.

 

PS: Vixen started strongly, in my opinion. Granted, the episodes are about five minutes or so, but the upside is practically no filler! This might be the best way for, not just potential comic book characters, but for actual CW-owned properties to get a try out. Five minutes to a half hour/ six episodes. There is surely some feedback. Work with what is popular.  Isn't that what Amazon is doing?

Edited August 28, 2015 by Actionmage

[MarkHB]

From this interview with Rick Haskins, CW EVP for Marketing and Digital Programs:

For a show like The Flash, what percentage of the shows total viewers would you say mostly watch the show when it airs vs. some other way?

 

About 77 percent of our viewership is time-delayed, which is VOD, DVR and digital. The CW is the most time-delayed network of any broadcast network. That’s based on some TV research that came out last week.

 

It's an interesting read for a lot of reasons, as it talks both about the network and the digital platform.

[Lord Kira]

The CW In Talks With Tribune As Network Faces Affiliate & Streaming Renewals

[ennui]

For those who don't know, it's the section of their website where very short web series episodes are. There is also every Drew Carey and Aisha Tyler- hosted Whose Line Is It Anyway? episodes. There were a couple that looked like fun and there were a couple I wasn't sure about, but I might try anyway.  I need to set some time aside, it won't be a huge time sink.

I watch WLIIA twice weekly (one is a repeat), and Penn & Teller's Fool Us. Love P&T.

Sometimes I want to simply be entertained ... or entertained simply ... something like that.

[methodwriter85]

I really liked The 100...I haven't been able to catch it as much, but it is a great.

 

And the fact that it basically took the One True Pairing and turned it around to something else entirely was amazing to watch, because teen dramas like never do that.

[methodwriter85]

With the news that ABC Family is about to rebrand itself as Freeform, I wonder if the CW will also do some rebranding, or if they're good that things seem to have stabilized.

 

I watched Grosse Pointe (the WB tv series spoofing old-style teen dramas) and it was kind of funny to realize that those shows don't really exist anymore- the straight-forward teen drama about angsty white beautiful teens (who all looked 25) who lived in beautiful houses in tony neighborhoods. (Or were poor, but still somehow lived in beautiful houses and running around in an endless supply of tank tops and low-rider jeans.) Vampire Diaries comes close, but it's got that supernatural element to it.

 

It still kind of exists in some form- but usually with some added diversity and some kind of high-concept.

[MarkHB]

Variety ran a big story this week on how happy they are, so I don't think they'll be looking for a rebranding.

 

Since the 2011-12 season, the network has grown viewership by 27% among all viewers, and 13% in the 18-49 demographic. Accomplishing all that while going from 220 hours of original programming five years ago to more than 300 hours today — in an ever more competitive television landscape — means that speculation about the network’s viability has at long last been quieted.

 

“If there was any idea that the CW was going to go away, I think that’s been dispelled,” says Brad Adgate, senior vice president of research at Horizon Media.

[methodwriter85]

I do think that the CW has figured out their niche and what works for them.

 

Interesting though that ABC Family is kind of going through some things now- it makes sense, though. Their biggest flagship show, Pretty Little Liars, is nearing its end and the ratings are slipping, and nothing has really stepped up as the big show that everybody's talking about on their network.

 

Anyway, so basically the Vampire Diaries/Supernatural kept this network afloat, and Arrow basically saved it?

 

I liked the reference to Emily Owens being their lightbulb moment. I also wonder if the failure of The Carrie Diaries and the cancellation of Nu90210 also fed into said lightbulb moment.

Edited October 20, 2015 by methodwriter85

[Matt K]

Cw must be in pretty bad shape if they've essentially given up on (i.e. canceled) iZombie considering it being one of their better rated shows.  Plus the fact that they only had budget for one new show this year (which bombed even by CW standards). 

[giovannif7]

Not sure the CW has given up on iZombie yet. According to TVLine, they just ordered an additional 6 episodes (along with another 5 for fellow ratings underperformer Crazy Ex-Girlfriend)

[Matt K]

Not sure the CW has given up on iZombie yet. According to TVLine, they just ordered an additional 6 episodes (along with another 5 for fellow ratings underperformer Crazy Ex-Girlfriend)

Anything less than the full back 9 (22 episodes for a Fall show) is essentially canceling the show (except for limited series).  https://twitter.com/TVGrimReaper/status/668902518370336769

 

Now the CW is odd, so it might just mean that they're hedging their bets but for all intent and purposes the show is, at the moment, most likely not getting another season. I mean they gave the same order for Ex GF and that's certainly canceled based on its ratings.

 

Add in the fact that the CW could only afford 1.5 new shows this season so likely they don't have enough spackle to cover seamingly 6 weeks.  Plus the CW is supposed to be all about syndicating CBS and WB shows, so anything less than a full order hints that it's not a show CW cares about not making it to syndication. 

 

And of course these aren't CBS shows which are required even if they're doing poorly, even by CW standards.

The fact that iZombie is most likely wrapping up, despite being at least at the CW average if not slightly better, seems to hint that the CW's outlook isn't looking that great.  Consider they only launched 1.5 new shows this season (Legends is 0.5 since it shares production costs with Arrow and Flash) and looking to next season they seemingly will have 2+ slots to fill. 

 

My guess is CW is setting up for the Tribune deal not going through (which seems likely considering how low CW's revenue is) and figuring on one more season with it's current crop to push towards some sort of syndication deal.  Now there are some issues with that considering the Mid-season shows would be well short even with another season.  That said, it's been theorized that CBS's hold up with releasing their Mid-season schedule had something to do with the issues at CW.  It's possible that perhaps CW is completely cutting it's losses (as best as possible) and perhaps trying to finagle a deal to get at least The Flash another season considering it does "real network" level ratings.  Now this is all speculation but it would make some sense.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Matt K

[Actionmage]

I don't know if anyone else has seen this, but I'll link to it:

 

http://deadline.com/2016/03/tribune-media-asset-sales-affect-cw-affiliation-negotiations-1201714771/

 

 

The part about WGNA? On the affiliate I get, there are not only ads ( which make more sense to me now), but iirc, some programming that is WGNA-based? ( The Pinkertons?) 

 

Is it possible that if Liguori is able to buy airwave spectrum, it's for The CW/ The CW and WGNA? ( As opposed to just WGNA.)

 

The article seemed tepid  in that at the top of it, there was a "these two will come up with a plan; types of companies like these always do!"  Then you get the "It's rare that [retransmission] negotiations aren't successful" quote.  I felt there was an unwritten 'cross your fingers' in there, but that could just be me.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Actionmage

[UniqBlue69]

The CW Renews ALL 11 Series For Next Season, Including Veterans ‘Supernatural’ & ‘The Vampire Diaries’

[Matt K]

The CW Renews ALL 11 Series For Next Season, Including Veterans ‘Supernatural’ & ‘The Vampire Diaries’

That doesn't seem like good new for the CW.  Essentially either they have no new programs next season or if they do they have to push some of these shows to summer which also seems unlikely given CW's financial situation.  

 

My guess is they're expecting Tribune to drop them and they renewed all the shows to save costs while they wrap up the network.  But who knows.  

[Actionmage]

The renewal of the CW’s entire current lineup does not mean that the network will pick up fewer new series. This season, it is introducing three freshmen, Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, Legends of Tomorrow and Containment, and it will likely add a similar number of new scripted series next season, as many as two on the fall schedule. Some of the renewed shows will be for midseason and/or summer, and not all of them are geeting full-season 22-episode orders.

 

[italics mine]

 

Maybe they will bring one or two of their CW Seed shows up for a midseason or summer run.  ( As much as I'd enjoy a Vixen show, I think that one of the others like Play It Again, Dick or Backpackers ( again) might be more practical.)

 

Then again, I want to take the company at their word; that they aren't lying to buy time and to not completely scare away viewers.

 

Since Liguori is taking WGN America from "just" a superstation to a broadcast net or wanting to do so), would any of these shows end up there? ( If The CW doesn't make it?) I would think that Liguori wouldn't be content to just have reruns and Cubs games if he was a real live network. Four original shows doesn't cut it currently. (Or could it?)  Bringing proven shows with followings would be good, in that it brings eyeballs.

 

I am hoping that The CW is just having a period of adjustment and that we can keep enjoying the shows we enjoy.

[MarkHB]

Mark Pedowitz is continuing as CW President.  The article also mentions that negotiations with the Tribune stations are ongoing.

[Trini]

I wonder if the 10th anniversary of the network was a factor in the across-the-board renewals?

[memememe76]

Except for Supernatural and Crazy Ex Girlfriend, I am going to watch every show on the network's fall lineup. 

[paulvdb]

For me it's everything except Supernatural and the two new shows. Their only new show I have some interest in was Riverdale but that's been held for midseason.

[Just Here]

Regarding the Tribune Media negotiations, all Tribune affiliates will stay with the CW, except WGN, which is going "independent."  CW Press Release:

Quote

The CW Network and Tribune Media Company (NYSE: TRCO) have reached new long-term affiliation agreements for 12 of Tribune’s currently affiliated CW stations across the country. The markets renewed cover 25 percent of the U.S. and serve more than 28 million households.                                                                    

The stations extending their affiliation agreements with The CW include WPIX-TV in New York, KTLA in Los Angeles, KDAF in Dallas, WDCW in Washington, DC, KIAH in Houston, WSFL-TV in Miami, KWGN-TV in Denver, KPLR-TV in St. Louis, KRCW-TV in Portland, WCCT-TV in Hartford, WGNT in Norfolk and WNOL-TV in New Orleans. Separately, The CW and Tribune Broadcasting announced that the local Chicago CW affiliation will move from Tribune Broadcasting to Fox Entertainment Group and WGN-TV/Chicago will become an independent station, featuring local news, live sports and syndicated programming during primetime, beginning September 2016. 

The new Chicago affiliate will be WPWR-TV (currently branded "My50Chicago"), effective September 1st. (CW Press Release)

[MarkHB]

14 hours ago, paulvdb said:

For me it's everything except Supernatural and the two new shows. Their only new show I have some interest in was Riverdale but that's been held for midseason.

In  my case, I'll be watching Supergirl, Flash, Legends, and Riverdale when it comes along.  I've never been much of an Arrow fan and the rest of the lineup doesn't interest me at all.

[shapeshifter]

5 hours ago, Just Here said:

Regarding the Tribune Media negotiations, all Tribune affiliates will stay with the CW, except WGN, which is going "independent."  CW Press Release:

The new Chicago affiliate will be WPWR-TV (currently branded "My50Chicago"), effective September 1st. (CW Press Release)

Does this mean My50Chicago will no longer have its current lineup (like reruns of The Closer)? Will My50 show what's currently on CW??

[kdm07]

On 5/23/2016 at 6:31 PM, MarkHB said:

In  my case, I'll be watching Supergirl, Flash, Legends, and Riverdale when it comes along.  I've never been much of an Arrow fan and the rest of the lineup doesn't interest me at all.

What a difference a year makes. Of their proposed line up, I'll only be watching Jane The Virgin, Legends and Supergirl (maybe). In my opinion: The 100 fell off a cliff in terms of quality this past season and I can't see it coming back from that, Arrow has never recovered from Sara Lance's death and I never watched the rest of the CW line up.

I'm still trying to figure out if the renewal of all their shows is good or bad news. I do know that there were rumours of the CW ending their Netflix deal to start up their own subscription platform which I don't think is a good idea, if the rumours are true,

Edited June 6, 2016 by kdm07

[MarkHB]

I don't know if there would be a big draw for a standalone CW platform, but I could see them a) going on CBS All Access, b) starting a standalone Warner Bros. platform (think of their existing TV and movie catalogs, and then remember that WB is in with Time-Warner, including the Turner networks, and that they also own the classic MGM movie library), or c) doing (b) and the CBS-produced shows like BatB going to All Access (i.e., no actual "CW" streaming but parceling out to the parent producing studios).

[pivot]

I have to wonder who is willing to shell out money for CBS All Access. The other networks are free with ads and CBS wants people to pay a monthly fee for their small catalog? Especially when almost all of their shows are in syndication and can be streamed on another channel for free (with cable subscription).