In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« The Biz
Post Mortem: The WB and UPN
Sarah Michelle Gellar by Richard Cartwright/FOX
It seems like a more innocent time, when a haircut could rock an entire network. But that's what happened when Felicity star Keri Russell's trademark curly locks were shorn during a summer hiatus in 1999. The early WB fave was never the same after that follicle debacle. Susanne Daniels, who was the creative executive behind many of the network's early successes, and Variety deputy editor Cynthia Littleton have recounted the wild ride of the short-lived six network era in Season Finale: The Unexpected Rise and Fall of the WB and UPN (Harper Books).
When reading the story, it's hard to believe two over-the-air broadcast networks were launched only a dozen years before we made a habit out of watching TV on our computers. Both UPN and the WB (which merged to become the CW last year) were born out of their studio-owners' fear that once the government allowed the established networks to produce their own series, they would be shut out of prime time. That never happened. But the youth-oriented approach that the networks took in trying to outflank their competitors helped reshape the TV landscape. Daniels (now programming chief at Lifetime) and Littleton recently talked with the Biz about the slice of broadcast history they revisit in the book, which hits stores on October 16.
TVGuide.com: What's striking about this story today is that these were two new networks that were in search of a brand. Can you imagine that happening today?
Susanne Daniels: No. Since I've been in cable the last two years, not when you look at the specificity of a HGTV — networks are so brand specific. I can't imagine that happening today.
Cynthia Littleton: Or the idea of people going around fighting over affiliates in Topeka, Kansas or Louisville, Kentucky.
TVGuide.com: What ultimately defined these networks?
Daniels: We did have a conscious strategy to go younger, because at that time, Fox, where I had just come from, was trying to go older in reaction to acquiring the New World station group (which switched their affiliations from CBS to Fox). Once that happened, we saw [News Corp. chairman] Rupert Murdoch pushing Fox to put shows on the air with Henry Winkler and George Carlin, which they did. We knew where he had had success getting Fox on the map, with [younger-skewing shows such as] 21 Jump Street and The Simpsons.
Littleton: The big difference between the WB and UPN was that while the WB was a network in search of a strategy for a long time, it was not a network in search of a leader — it had a very clear leader in Jamie Kellner, who had a lot of faith in his team and they very expressly said just like their Fox experience they were going to throw some things at the wall and see what stuck. They were not afraid to experiment. At UPN, you had infighting and bickering and backstabbing from before the thing got on the air, and you see the damage that it did. For most of its run, UPN was in search of a leadership and a brand identity and I think you could say arguably it only got to it late in life when it had the backing of [CBS chairman] Leslie Moonves, who put in Dawn Ostroff. She had the backing of her boss and wasn’t looking over her shoulder in terms of whether she was going to get fired next month.
TVGuide.com: The WB seemed to be onto something in terms of how to tap into a small but passionate audience. It proved that hit shows didn't have to have monstrous ratings to have a rabid following that could sustain them.
Littleton: I think it's pretty clear that it was the Little WB That Could — Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dawson's Creek, Felicity — these shows had outsized influence beyond the kind of audiences they were bringing in on a weekly basis. These are the shows that everybody wanted on their magazine covers. These are the shows that journalists were talking about. I think the arrival of UPN and the WB right after two of the last big honking broadcast TV hits — Friends and ER — I don't think that timing is inconsequential. ER and Friends were the end of big tent hits and UPN and WB paved the way for what we see now to the nth degree with the Fine Living Channel — the total nichefication of the marketplace.
TVGuide.com: But it wasn't WB's intent to be a niche network.
Daniels: No, definitely not. Having just come from Fox where I was meeting with Murdoch and hearing talk about going broad and taking advantage of those new stations — it certainly wasn't the intent to be as aggressively broad as Fox. The feeling was we would not be the new Fox, but we would not be as niche as cable.
TVGuide.com: So Susanne, I'm not sure we get a true sense in the book of how pissed you were when Felicity star Keri Russell cut her hair. That scene in the book seemed a little understated.
Daniels: When Cynthia and I interviewed various people about it, everybody had different accounts of the experience. There was my recollection, which differed from [show creator] J.J. Abrams' and [WB programming exec] Jordan Levin's. I just recall getting an infuriating phone call saying she cut her hair and we don’t know what to do and we're not sure how to handle this. We didn't know whether to put extensions on. I strongly disagreed with Keri and her management and ultimately J.J. — who wanted to make Keri happy — because I wanted the long hair back. But they wanted to go with the shorter hair. I always felt it had a negative impact on the ratings.
TVGuide.com: When the WB wouldn't pay Fox Studio enough money to keep Buffy the Vampire Slayer and it went to UPN for its final two seasons, did that sort of cut the heart out of the WB?
Daniels: It was a seminal moment where I felt incredibly strongly that our brand had been compromised and diluted, and I didn't know whether we'd ever get it back and recover.
Littleton: From a network perspective it signaled so much to the industry, and unfortunately not a lot of it positive, because the WB was still very much on the upswing at that time. The kind of thing big networks do is shell out money to keep their big hits or their signature shows. The fact that the WB didn't had agents, producers and writers in town questioning whether the network was really going to be in the big leagues. It was not beneficial to the WB's reputation in the creative community.
TVGuide.com: The reviews for the new shows on the CW were as good as any notices for the best of the WB. Why aren't they clicking in the ratings? Is the distribution system not up to the task?
Daniels: I do not think it's the distribution system. Jamie Kellner used to say ad nauseum, 'If you build it, they will come.' If you build a great show, they will be there for it. It used to drive me crazy. I would say 'That's not true, we need the distribution, we need the marketing.' At the end of the day, the essence of what he said remains true. I know the new CW shows got great notices. I like some of the shows a lot. It may have something to do with the distribution and marketing, but I will always believe it has something to do with the show as well.
Littleton: I'm surprised that Reaper didn't open stronger. I know there's second-guessing at the CW going on right now about whether they should have opened in the thick of premiere week. Maybe they should have gone a little later or a little earlier. They have Tribune Broadcasting stations in key markets, but the stars have to align — it's either the right time on the right channel in the time slot on the right night for a show, or it's not.
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Oct 5, 2007 6:13 PM
|
OH Keri's disaster of '99 
I never expected the CW to just double its ratings just because there was one less network, it takes time in this crowded market. But the network is missing that "signature" show.
I think the CW is aiming to put all their resources into a few projects because they have only 3 shows in development.
|
|
Oct 5, 2007 7:08 PM
|
I think it's ridiculous they're still blaming the ratings on a hairuct.
How about the fact that the show moved from its cushy post-Buffy slot on Tuesday nights to the lead off position on Sunday nights between seasons? I'm guessing that probably had a lot more to do with it. And I think they know it too. Otherwise they would have done a "very special episode" where Felicity got hair extensions.
|
|
Oct 5, 2007 9:41 PM
|
|
The CW has a lack of recognition problem. I can't ever recall which channel it is. Old WB or old UPN? I stumbled on The Reaper and love it. Tried to recommend, and no one had heard of it or couldn't remember the premise. Did they do a good job of promoting at the CW in a very crowded premier season? No.
|
|
Oct 5, 2007 9:49 PM
|
|
the cw needs to drop its slimer colors if wants to be taken seriously it looks like a kiddy network
|
|
Oct 5, 2007 9:59 PM
|
[quote]TVGuide.com: The reviews for the new shows on the CW were as good as any notices for the best of the WB. Why aren't they clicking in the ratings? Is the distribution system not up to the task?[/quote]
It's not the distribution system. It's not that Buffy left for UPN (although when it happened there was lots of talk on fansites wondering if Angel would be canceled in retaliation. And then it was). When Angel was canceled in 2004, viewers of the WB (heck, even Tribune Broadcasting & it's affiliates were furious) spoke out on websites and in forums about how they had stopped watching anything on the WB and would never again. Well, it really happened. In the fall of 2004 the WB found it lost about half of it viewership across the board. There are still many people who won't watch anything on the CW (the only show I watch on CW is Everybody Hates Chris only because I got started with it while it was on UPN). I know people who like Supernatural but will only watch it on DVD. As many a fan has said, "Screw me once shame on you. Screw me twice- I'm not giving you the chance".
|
|
Oct 6, 2007 2:54 AM
|
^^^^ That's a good story and all, but I highly doubt that there are enough people who are still boycotting a network that doesn't exist anymore - after 4 years - for that to be showing up in the The CW's ratings.
I think the ratings decline is the same as is happening for all the networks. The simple fact is that most shows get lesser ratings than they did a few years ago. Only the megahits overcome the downtrend - that's the American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, and Grey's Anatomy kind.
I think technology is giving people too many other options. Both in terms of the nichefication of cable TV and the many options available on the internet and elsewhere (there is probably 10 or 20 times as much new content posted on the web every week than is broadcast on television). Networks simply have to find new ways to bring in revenue or they are going to die. Actors aren't getting any cheaper, and viewers are diminishing; that's a recipe for bankruptcy if you don't find new ways to make money.
|
|
Oct 7, 2007 9:21 AM
|
Living up here in the Great White North, I'm lucky enough to get two CW affiliates - one east coast, one west - which allow me to fit shows from the 5th network into my viewing schedule. But I've always wondered if the CW (and the WB & UPN before it) was available in all markets in the US. If it's not a network that can be picked up in every major city in the country, that would definitely have an impact on the ratings.
Interestingly, very few WB or UPN shows were ever picked up by Canadian networks - with a few noteable exceptions (Buffy, Dawson's, Smallville) and the ones that were often not picked up by nationwide networks but by organizations like CITY-TV or the former VR group (owned by CITY) which didn't have full nation coverage. Shows I really enjoyed like Popular were never aired on Canadian nets ... and others, ie: Charmed, were relegated to ridiculous timeslots - like 5 pm on a Sunday afternoon! It's good to see that now we've got new shows like Gossip Girl being aired by CTV (if not in the same timeslot as south of the border) so that Canadian viewers have options that aren't of the CSI brand.
The other thing I've always found interesting is that the WB, UPN and now CW seem to have the most "word of mouth" shows of any network. The shows that all the critics talk about and loyal chat-roomers and message-boarders are always into seem to be on the smallest of the networks ... so why isn't all that buzz turning into big-butt ratings? This article touches on that ... but I'd like someone to further explore it!
Why was Veronica Mars THE most talked-about show on TV for three seasons ... but never watched by more than 3-million viewers or so? Why DIDN'T Reaper open stronger? Why is Supernatural an internet fave - but losing half of its Smallville lead-in?
I definitely think that CW's lack of exposure has a lot to do with this ... I'm sure if you asked 10 random people on the street, you might find that 3 of them had even heard of the CW. And that needs to be fixed! CBS needs to step up and get more of its CW shows some exposure - either with ad spots during CSI & Survivor - or by slipping newbie CW shows like Reaper & Gossip Girl into otherwise rerun-filled slots for more attention.
I think some of the BEST shows on TV in the past decade have been on the WB, UPN & CW (Buffy, Angel, Gilmore Girls, Veronica Mars) - and while they've definitely had some absolute stinkers (Tarzan ... and what the hell was that Batgirl show a couple of years ago?), what network hasn't!
I don't think it's enough to say 'if you build it, they will come.' You have to build it ... promote it ... and most of all ... believe in it!
|
|
Oct 7, 2007 10:42 AM
|
|
I have never found a show on UPN that I enjoy but I can not believe that in that interview they did not mention Charmed or Reba those are the only two reasons I ever turned on the WB! Since there gone its like NBC no use for them at all!
|
|
Oct 7, 2007 1:11 PM
|
I remember reading an interview with Joss Whedon awhile back saying that the day they had a cake on the set to celebrate the 100th episode of Angel was the worst day of his life. He was still trying to negotiate to stay on the WB and the very execs who were making his life miserable were smiling and smoozing with the cast and crew.
I remember that whole BTVS and Angel (cancelled a year leter) fiasco left a bad taste in viewers mouths, and in the mouths of advertisers and affiliates. Here were two ground breaking shows that MADE the WB being kicked to the curb for what was it? A new version of Dark Shadows, and some other long forgotten shows.
Felicity's haircut still gets the blame for WB's scheduling debacle, and let's not even get started on 7th Heaven's last minute renewal, or the lame Star Trek franchise called Enterprise on UPN.
The WB, and then WB/UPN=CW had a chance to keep new viewers (if they had just found a way to keep Everwood and Gilmore Girls), and garner new ones via promotion of new shows like The Reaper. I love the Reaper, but would have never known about it if it had not been for Matt Roush and Mike Ausiello's Upfront Blogs.
After I was blinded by the limegreen CW logo, I could not watch that station unless I heard something juicy like The Reaper was on. And that is the only thing I watch on CW. When they kill off the show I will stop watching.
I do not care if it is WB, UPN or CW - they need to stop blaming shows, cast/crew, affiliates, etc. They need to step up and say hey, we are a work in progress and we are striving to get you better quality shows - and do it.
Or they need to get rid of the network.
|
|
Oct 7, 2007 3:40 PM
|
these shows had outsized influence beyond the kind of audiences they were bringing in on a weekly basis. These are the shows that everybody wanted on their magazine covers. These are the shows that journalists were talking about.
And what did all that talk and exposure get them? The networks are gone and the CW is struggling to find new hits. While the networks did create new stars, they were unable to sustain any momentum. Ultimately, they have themselves to blame.
|
|
Oct 8, 2007 12:00 AM
|
If you're going to talk about what made the WB a success, why not start with the show that debuted the same year as its network - 7th Heaven. That show was actually around longer then the WB by one year. 
|
|
Oct 8, 2007 1:48 AM
|
hmm. interesting interview. i might have to get that book.
I can't believe that someone getting a haircut would be a reason for a show losing ratings. I mean, is america really that superficial? I never watched the show, so I can't really comment on quality or anything like that, but if that's true, what does it say about the country we live in? Whatever it is, it's NOT good.
|
|
Oct 8, 2007 5:47 PM
|
|
Maybe it was the writing, but the show did get bad the season she cut her hair. I got bored, and stopped watching.
|
|
Oct 8, 2007 10:25 PM
|
I know a lot of people who stopped watching when she cut her hair, myself included. It wasn't a conscious decision by any means (for me at least) but I just didn't like it and it gave me one more reason to stop watching. The vibe was off and I found myself less interested.
I came back the next season.
Whether you agree with them or not, I find it interesting to hear their take on things. And despite all their failures, I'm grateful for the handful of shows such as Everwood that would have otherwise never existed if these fledgling networks never existed.
|
|
Oct 18, 2007 10:24 AM
|
|
|
