We wrote earlier about both how CW has taken to using sex to promote the “relaunch” of Gossip Girl on this coming Monday April 21 by implying the F in OMFG with its TV ad campaign.
Now CW is using the Internet to promote the show in a way that might seem very strange, but probably isn’t. They’re using the Internet by discontinuing free web streaming of Gossip Girl from the CW’s website. It’s probably not that strange if you think of it as what it really is: a way to promote something by creating the illusion of interest and demand where there actually isn’t any.
Gossip Girl is no ratings juggernaut. In its last original episode before it was impacted by the writer’s strike it pulled but 2.27 million live plus same day DVR viewers and when a week’s worth of DVR viewing was thrown in, it rose to 2.57 million. That week, it did experience the highest percentage increase over live viewing via DVR viewing of any show in broadcast (27.4%).
That week the only other good news was that that almost 63% of its viewers were in the 18-49 demo, and 43% were in the 18-34 demo. A big portion of the remainder was probably all teenagers under the age of 18, which is also a good demographic with advertisers. We don’t get gender data, but we are certain this show skews heavily female, which is a good thing if you’re advertising products targeted at young women.
But any way you slice it under 3 million for a show which was promoted heavily and at the start of the season reportedly carried the highest 30 second ad spot of any CW show…sucks.
I don’t want to hear about iTunes. It just doesn’t take that many downloads to make it to the “most downloaded” shows list on iTunes. If a million people (or even a quater million) were downloading the show every week, we’d be pummeled with press releases.
The stunt to remove the streaming from the website was as much Hollywood shenanigans as Kobe Bryant jumping over a moving Aston Martin. I don’t have a lot of experience with the inner workings of Hollywood, but I’m altogether familiar with how spinning numbers works. There are a couple of rules:
1. If the numbers stink, you give the appearance of them not stinking by any means you can that doesn’t actually involve disclosing any numbers
2. If the numbers are even remotely good, you put whatever positive spin on them and you do it over and over and over again. NBC is masterful with this, at times taking numbers that could only by the slimmest of margins could be seen as even remotely OK, and prettying them up.
If there were even a million people a week downloading off the Internet instead of watching it on TV, CW would be putting out press releases every stinking week. I therefore conclude it’s nowhere near a million. Moreover, stopping the free streaming on the web won’t likely increase the number of people who watch on TV. People watch on the web so they can watch it if they missed it on TV or just so they can watch whenever they want. With those people, for the most part, if you make it inconvenient? They just won’t watch at all.
At its best, GG drew 3.5 million live plus same day DVR viewers with its pilot. After that, it never saw 3 million viewers again and its performance was worse than Supernatural, which with almost no promotion whatsoever cleared 3 million viewers seven times so far.
I’ve written elsewhere that if we’re to believe published numbers regarding the cost of 30 second ad spots that I understand the CW’s desire to make GG a success. It seems, for example, that Grey’s Anatomy gets a healthy premium for having only a million and a half or so more 18-34 year old women than Desperate Housewives. But the sex and Internet moves reek of desperation, and shows that are doing well don’t act desperate.
Neither sex or blocking Internet web streaming will probably save Gossip Girl (though the CW announced in early March it was picking up GG for a second season), Dawn Ostroff or perhaps even the CW itself. Having one of its stars show up naked on the Internet would probably be better promotion. But since the CW is already going down the road most frequently traveled, they might as well just ask Britney or Paris to guest star, that has been known to bump a shows ratings.
Here’s one of the OMFG promos, courtesy of YouTube:
Like I said, CW doesn’t make it to fall.
Like I said, CW doesn't make it to fall.
Gossip Girl has already been renewed! I’m feeling OK about Fall ‘08. Fall ‘09 though? Who knows
Gossip Girl has already been renewed! I'm feeling OK about Fall '08. Fall '09 though? Who knows
The CW may not be streaming the post-strike episodes on their website, in order to create some sort of limited opportunity feel for the Monday night broadcast and thus increase the ratings, but if you miss it then, you can still catch it on Sunday night with their early evening “Easy View” replay. This gives you a second shot, which seems to partially defeat the purpose of pulling them from the web in the first place.
At any rate, I would love to find out some real numbers on iTunes episode downloads and streaming views at the network websites. Because, if it was anywhere near a million, I agree, we would be hearing about it all day, every day.
The CW may not be streaming the post-strike episodes on their website, in order to create some sort of limited opportunity feel for the Monday night broadcast and thus increase the ratings, but if you miss it then, you can still catch it on Sunday night with their early evening “Easy View” replay. This gives you a second shot, which seems to partially defeat the purpose of pulling them from the web in the first place.
At any rate, I would love to find out some real numbers on iTunes episode downloads and streaming views at the network websites. Because, if it was anywhere near a million, I agree, we would be hearing about it all day, every day.
And what a boneheaded move (a shocked for the CW) for them to put it at 8 without a lead-in.
And what a boneheaded move (a shocked for the CW) for them to put it at 8 without a lead-in.
I think Monday at 8 is fine… I’ve never watched the show but something tells me that CW doesn’t exactly have a show to provide it with a lead-in. Personally I think CW would increase ratings if their network channel (over here it’s channel 11) were changed to 3 or 6, more people would likely surf over it when looking through the other major networks
I think Monday at 8 is fine… I've never watched the show but something tells me that CW doesn't exactly have a show to provide it with a lead-in. Personally I think CW would increase ratings if their network channel (over here it's channel 11) were changed to 3 or 6, more people would likely surf over it when looking through the other major networks
Peter, channel position is surprisingly powerful, but usually very difficult to change.
That said, a few cable networks regularly exceed the CW’s primetime average viewership, and many more are close behind it, and they usually have *much* worse channel positions.
Not to mention Univision, which is crushing the CW this season, likely has a worse channel position than the CW in most markets.
Peter, channel position is surprisingly powerful, but usually very difficult to change.
That said, a few cable networks regularly exceed the CW's primetime average viewership, and many more are close behind it, and they usually have *much* worse channel positions.
Not to mention Univision, which is crushing the CW this season, likely has a worse channel position than the CW in most markets.
One Tree Hill does decently, at least by CW standards. It should’ve been put on before Gossip Girl, not after.
One Tree Hill does decently, at least by CW standards. It should've been put on before Gossip Girl, not after.
I read somewhere that the CW is actually good for CBS and the WB because it’s negative numbers allow for a tax write-off they wouldn’t otherwise get (it’s considered a capital loss). The question is: how much of a write-off is too much?
I give it one more year, and then I think teh network will fold. The WB is already looking to restart their own online streaming network-they recognize the meteor heading their way and are getting away! Which is really sad considering how many people enjoyed the WB at one time. It was a recognized brand and they did attempt to have quality, or at the very least, entertaining shows. The CW is only making trash.
The WB made a huge error allowing their brand to be erased and handing over 100% operating control to Les Moonves. The man has the creativity of a gnat! Farmer Wants a Wife? Crowned? Girlicious? What the hell kind of a line-up is that? Not too many people are willing to watch that kind of crap when they can watch a dozen other higher quality programs on other stations.
I made this comparison the other day on a Supernatural board, and I stand by it: Les Moonves is Caligula and Dawn Ostroff is his horse. Which makes CW a bad version of Rome. And we all know how that ended.
One year.
I read somewhere that the CW is actually good for CBS and the WB because it's negative numbers allow for a tax write-off they wouldn't otherwise get (it's considered a capital loss). The question is: how much of a write-off is too much?
I give it one more year, and then I think teh network will fold. The WB is already looking to restart their own online streaming network-they recognize the meteor heading their way and are getting away! Which is really sad considering how many people enjoyed the WB at one time. It was a recognized brand and they did attempt to have quality, or at the very least, entertaining shows. The CW is only making trash.
The WB made a huge error allowing their brand to be erased and handing over 100% operating control to Les Moonves. The man has the creativity of a gnat! Farmer Wants a Wife? Crowned? Girlicious? What the hell kind of a line-up is that? Not too many people are willing to watch that kind of crap when they can watch a dozen other higher quality programs on other stations.
I made this comparison the other day on a Supernatural board, and I stand by it: Les Moonves is Caligula and Dawn Ostroff is his horse. Which makes CW a bad version of Rome. And we all know how that ended.
One year.
When it gets under 3 million viewers on Monday they will say it will take a week for the ratings to go up because of it. Then when it gets under 3 million the following Monday they will say that between the original and encore airing it did over 3 million.
Then they will turn streaming back on. It seems easier to just fire Dawn Ostroff, but maybe Angie (above) is correct that CBS likes the write off. If that’s the case does Dawn get a nice bonus?
When it gets under 3 million viewers on Monday they will say it will take a week for the ratings to go up because of it. Then when it gets under 3 million the following Monday they will say that between the original and encore airing it did over 3 million.
Then they will turn streaming back on. It seems easier to just fire Dawn Ostroff, but maybe Angie (above) is correct that CBS likes the write off. If that's the case does Dawn get a nice bonus?