I wish that these two networks were still around because in all honesty, the CW has been floundering from the very get so. This is odd because when I first heard about the creation of the CW, I assumed that it would be a stronger version of two seperate networks. Meanwhile MyNetworkTV has been a non-entity.

There's a book called Season Finale: The Unexpected Rise and Fall of The WB and UPN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season_Finale:_The_Unexpected_Rise_and_Fall_of_The_WB_and_UPN), which I really want to read if I can find it.

This is what Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WB_Television_Network#2003-2006:_Decline) says about the WB's decline:
2003-2006: Decline

Despite some early success, the network struggled to shift its focus from the female 12-24 demographic to the more broad 12-34 range. In 2005, The WB abandoned its trademark mascot, Michigan J. Frog, as the network's iconic emblem. David Janollari, The WB's President of Entertainment, explained in July 2005 at the network's summer 2005 press tour that the animated character "perpetuated the young-teen feel of the network, and that is not the image we want to put to our audience."

Still, the move did not seem to help the network. The period from 2003 to 2005 produced only three viable new series, One Tree Hill, Beauty and the Geek, and Supernatural (all of which have since moved to successor network The CW), and even still their ratings paled in comparison to the ratings peaks of Dawson's Creek, which had signed off in 2003. Ratings dropped for shows like Angel (which was canceled in 2004), and the network failed to launch new hit shows to take their places.

Although The WB's well-known inability to launch successful comedy series was nothing new (Reba being the sole exception), this period saw the network struggling to establish new dramas as well. High-profile failures included Birds of Prey (inspired by the Batman mythos), Tarzan, Jack & Bobby, The Mountain, Jerry Bruckheimer's Just Legal, Marta Kauffman's Related, and the Rebecca Romijn vehicle Pepper Dennis.

During the 2004-2005 season, The WB finished behind rival UPN for the first time in several years, and fell even further behind in the fall of 2005. Both networks fell behind the Spanish language network Univision in the overall 18-34 demographic.

It was estimated in 2005 that The WB was viewable by 91.66% of all households, reaching 90,282,480 houses in the United States. The WB was carried by 177 VHF and UHF stations in the U.S., counting both owned and operated and affiliated stations (the owned and operated stations were not actually operated by Warner Bros. or Time Warner; instead, Tribune owned and operated these stations, thus its stake in the network). The WB could also be seen in smaller markets on cable-only stations, many of these through The WB 100+ Station Group - available to TV markets below the number 100 in viewership as determined by Nielsen in a packaged format, with a master schedule; the addition of local advertisements and news were at the discretion of the local distributor, often a local television station or cable television provider.

That article explained things pretty well. I think UPN also struggled with ratings at the time of the merger I thought Veronica Mars was the best show they had at time. That book does sound interesting.

I should rely consider geting that book. Sounds like a good book.

i have the book its a very interesting read

Like I said, I haven't read the Season Finale book, but here's an idea of what may have happened to the WB:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08011/848291-42.stm

"Season Finale" suggests many reasons for the demise of The WB: Kellner's departure, the lack of owned and operated stations, a failure to develop many new hits after 2002, the failure of vertical integration between the network and its studio, Time-Warner's decision to merge with America Online and allowing "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to move from The WB to UPN for its last two seasons.

Daniels, now entertainment president at Lifetime, said in a phone interview this week the primary cause for the network's death was a lack of fervency within Time-Warner to build it into a long-lasting entity. She recalled her job in comedy development at Fox prior to the launch of The WB and the investments Fox impresario Rupert Murdoch made (buying stations, landing the rights to the NFL).

"He made some huge investments in programming, and he said, I'm going to spend money, and I'm going to do this, I'm going to build this network," Daniels said. "Nobody did that at Warner Bros., and it's why I left the network [in 2001]. I didn't see that happening. After [executives] Bob Daly and Terry Semel left Warner Bros., it just wasn't the same. Nobody was saying, 'We're going to make this network work.' If you don't have that, forget it. That's what killed it."

Meanwhile, here's perhaps a vague idea on Wikipedia about what happened to UPN:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPN#2001-2006

During the later years of the network's life, UPN's desired demographic was a not-too-profitable demographic; young women and African Americans thanks to the success of Buffy, Veronica Mars, America's Next Top Model and Everybody Hates Chris, unlike the earlier years in which its audience was largely young adult males. This was seen as a contributing factor in the network's decision to drop the Star Trek franchise, and also why it contemplated not renewing its contract with World Wrestling Entertainment, though Friday Night SmackDown! was renewed in 2006 for another two seasons.

I also brought this subject up over on toonzone.net (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=235136) and here's an interesting theory (http://forums.toonzone.net/showpost.php?p=3365772&postcount=12) that I was given:
I don't need a book I know what killed The WB.

Indifference. Warner Bros. was growing tired of running a broadcast network,Their lineup was lackluster with only a few highlights, Smallville, Reba, 7th Heaven, and Gillmore Girls. Only Supernatural had the kind of feedback that could justify its existence. Warner Bros. was having more success on cable television and other networks. They're content makers, and they're pretty good at making content. Instead of giving up or continuing to trek on, they aligned with a competing network, UPN, which had carriage problems of its own and was also on the brink of extinction. So, during the fall of 2005 all the way to the January 2006 announcement, the two networks held secret meetings and forged a partnership that would have the structure and format of The WB with UPN's management, which was more committed to the network than the management of The WB, who really didn't care.

What killed UPN?

Fox.

Fox owned the flagship UPN networks in the major markets of the country and they largely bought them so they could kill the network. When they bought the networks, they could have killed UPN like that, but Fox signed an agreement to keep those channels UPN affiliates until August 31, 2006. Fox had no intention of renewing the contract and began shopping a daily strip of American versions of Spanish telenovellas in the summer of 2005 to launch in fall 2006.

Now, obviously the general media saw no reason to pay any attention to that little detail because, let's face it, the syndication market is dead in this country. Why would a major company like Fox commit to a nightly two-hour strip of first-run dramas unless they had a slot for them in the first place, namely the slots that would have in the soon-to-be former UPN affiliates in the major markets?

The executives at UPN were wondering about their options, including shutting down the network altogether, but they found solace in The WB, who were growing indifferent with the network's lagging direction and wanted to be more of a content-provider. And they kept those meetings private until the public announcement of the merger between the two networks.

Fox feigned surprise and shock to the mainstream media (which they own a significant chunk of) and claimed that UPN was taken from under them when in fact Fox were going to get rid of UPN first. They just never got the chance. They wanted a Fox 2-like channel, but instead launched My Network TV which has a lineup originally comprised of . . . those telenovellas that were going to launch anyway that fall.

I'll say failure to either:

1. acquire The Wonder Years (remember, the networks launched in 1995, two years after the show was canceled) and continue it where ABC left off

2. work closely with the Parents Television Council and keep shows clean and family friendly

I'll say failure to either:

1. acquire The Wonder Years (remember, the networks launched in 1995, two years after the show was canceled) and continue it where ABC left off

2. work closely with the Parents Television Council and keep shows clean and family friendly
No.

I'll say failure to either:

1. acquire The Wonder Years (remember, the networks launched in 1995, two years after the show was canceled) and continue it where ABC left off

2. work closely with the Parents Television Council and keep shows clean and family friendly

Didn't Wonder Years finish in 1994 and was there actually talk of continuing it after the 6th season? Anyways, this wasn't really the type of show for UPN.

I'll say failure to either:

1. acquire The Wonder Years (remember, the networks launched in 1995, two years after the show was canceled) and continue it where ABC left off

2. work closely with the Parents Television Council and keep shows clean and family friendly

Didn't Wonder Years finish in 1993 and was there actually talk of continuing it after the 6th season? Anyways, this wasn't really the type of show for UPN.

Didn't Wonder Years finish in 1993 and was there actually talk of continuing it after the 6th season? Anyways, this wasn't really the type of show for UPN.

Lets stay on topic please! I don't want to to turn into a Wonder Years discussion!:wave:

what i think killed The WB was the fact that they lacked making new hits.They moved to family friendly shows from teen shows.If they stayed with Teen audience then The WB may still be around.

UPN...UPN was doomed to fail.

What should have happened was The WB buying UPN and merging them together and keeping The WB.Also hiring a new president that goes back to teen audience.If they did that,The WB may have lived...UPN won`t.

Oh and before the arguements spew.

Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Angel MADE THE WB.Dawson`s Creek did nothing but made Holmes and Jackson stars.

I actually have that book and it's well worth a read. i bought it about a year ago at Christmas. It should be available at most chain bookstores like Barnes & Noble or Borders... It's a great book.

Basically my take on WB and UPN is this---they were both competing for very small, fragmented audiences and neither one was having much success---they had never turned a profit ever and by the end whatever had made WB special was gone---they got lazy and stopped taking risks on new ideas and people moved on... I think that it's sad because the WB was a great network and i miss it to this day. I even used to watch some UPN shows in the day, Moesha is one of my all time favorite shows.

Moesha wasn`t a well knowed show.It was just a good comedy.

Yes both networks had small audiences...but made big impacts on US Television.

The WB changed many genres in TV.The vampire genre was brought to life by Buffy And Angel,the two shows that carried The WB.Dawson`s Creek and Felicity brought new life into the teen genre and Charmed as well.

Yes The WB comedies were just dumb and unfunny(Bar What I Like About You)but The WB`s dramas were some of the best in Television History.

They canceled a lot of African-American situation comedies and that led to a decline in their minority audience.

I've have just been told in discussion on another forum (elsewhere) is that what really killed or seriously impaired the WB is the fact that they didn't own any stations (as I previously mentioned). I believe that Tribune owned all of the major WB stations, not Time Warner/Warner Bros. Owned-and-operated TV stations provide an important source of income. This is what likely helped kill the old DuMont network because the FCC only allowed them to own about three stations. The book also notes that the WB during its final years, tried to re-create its previous successes with series that directly imitated earlier hits.

Meanwhile, the problem with UPN (according to the book) was that network executives were constantly angry that Paramount gave them failed pilots. They in the process reserved shows with a higher of success to be shown to the other networks. For example, UPN allegedly passed on American Idol.

I never liked UPN. There just wasn't really anything appealing about their programming to me.

However, WB did have some great shows. They still had the edge right up until the end. It was just overall a good network....UPN just seemed sort of 'low budget' in presentation, etc to me.

Here's what I saw from UPN and WB....

1995-6, some stations played stuff from UPN and WB. This was true to many affiliates and WUAB (which had both UPN and WB) would play stuff that was on UPN and WB.

1996-7, it was basically the same as 1995-6 seasons. I still think today that WB would've been better if they didn't **** with it.

1997-8, some stations gave up either UPN or WB. At this point, The WB was going down and WBNX (The CW Affiliate) picked-up The WB.

1998-2006, both stations went into decline, but I saw more strengths on The WB than UPN.

2006-, When the CW came...most of the shows were gone with the wind.

They canceled a lot of African-American situation comedies and that led to a decline in their minority audience.


i don't think that was the problem at all. UPN had a plethora of miniroty based sitcoms throughout it's run, including "Girlfriends" and "Everybody hates Chris" and none of them did anything to improve ratings at all... on the WB the african-american sitcoms provided a bit of inital diversity that got people interested in sampeling the network but ultimately proved to provide no long-term viability for the network. UPN's problem was they never developed a unique identity to set them apart from other networks, the WB early on became the teen network with shows aimed at young people but UPN was always looking to define itself, it's early dramas did nothing to help it find an audience and the Star Trek audience didn't watch other UPN shows... pretty soon they were a mix of shows like Moesha, Clueless and Girlfriends with wrestling, Everybody hates chris and so on... The WB ended up being so well defined that they got stuck trying to recreate earlier hits and forgot about taking chances on new things.

i don't think that was the problem at all. UPN had a plethora of minority based sitcoms throughout it's run, including "Girlfriends" and "Everybody hates Chris" and none of them did anything to improve ratings at all... on the WB the African-american sitcoms provided a bit of initial diversity that got people interested in sampling the network but ultimately proved to provide no long-term viability for the network. UPN's problem was they never developed a unique identity to set them apart from other networks, the WB early on became the teen network with shows aimed at young people but UPN was always looking to define itself, it's early dramas did nothing to help it find an audience and the Star Trek audience didn't watch other UPN shows... pretty soon they were a mix of shows like Moesha, Clueless and Girlfriends with wrestling, Everybody hates Chris and so on... The WB ended up being so well defined that they got stuck trying to recreate earlier hits and forgot about taking chances on new things.

Then again, all that the CW seems to be made up know is either, remakes of 1990s era FOX shows (Melrose Place and 90210), sleazy soap operas about pretty young rich people (e.g. Gossip Girl and the aforementioned FOX remakes), or reality shows geared towards young females (e.g. America's Next Top Model). So I don't necessarily think that not having a unique identity (as long as you still have "something for everybody" and a sense of versatility/variety) is a totally bad thing.

I never liked UPN. There just wasn't really anything appealing about their programming to me.

However, WB did have some great shows. They still had the edge right up until the end. It was just overall a good network....UPN just seemed sort of 'low budget' in presentation, etc to me.
The only good shows on UPN were Buffy and Roswell and they both came from the WB. :lol:

The only good shows on UPN were Buffy and Roswell and they both came from the WB. :lol:
Star Trek: Voyager and Moesha were also on UPN if I'm not mistaken. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Star Trek: Voyager and Moesha were also on UPN if I'm not mistaken. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

yes they were on UPN early in it's run. But Moesha was cancelled in 2001 and Voyager never expanded it's audience beyond the rabid star trek fanbase and did little to help boost UPN's overall ratings success.

OK, thanks for clearing that up.

One thing that made me about the WB/UPN merger was that Everwood didn't make it on to the CW and 7th Heaven was given an 11th season. I liked 7th Heaven in the early seasons but in the later seasons it got more annoying. I thought Everwood had better acting and writing.

The WB`s golden years were 1997-2004...in Advertising Wise.They gave us kick ass promos.

1999`s Faces was great.
2000`s What A Night was better
2001`s Generations was just as good
2002`s Who Do You Love was also good
2003`s Piano one was good too.

I know what killed UPN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPN

Shows that almost aired on UPN

According to Simon Cowell's biography and Bill Carter's book Desperate Networks, UPN was offered American Idol before FOX and turned it down.

As part of the contract for picking up Buffy the Vampire Slayer, UPN was obligated to pick up Angel if it were cancelled by The WB while UPN was still airing Buffy. However, Angel was axed by The WB the year after Buffy went off UPN. Despite a large fan campaign, UPN declined to pick up the show.

Firefly was offered to UPN after being cancelled, but was declined.

Malcolm in the Middle was originally developed for UPN before being picked up by FOX.

One thing that made me about the WB/UPN merger was that Everwood didn't make it on to the CW and 7th Heaven was given an 11th season. I liked 7th Heaven in the early seasons but in the later seasons it got more annoying. I thought Everwood had better acting and writing.

Supposedly, the CW brought back 7th Heaven on the strength of the ratings for the initial series finale on the WB.:crazy: If Dawn Ostroff was running a network back in 1983, then she would've been persuaded to bring back M*A*S*H for one more season based on the ratings (to this day, I think the biggest viewership in TV history) for their series finale.

I know what killed UPN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPN


to be fair though, a lot of networks pass on shows that later become big hits. ABC alone passed on "American Idol", "Survivor", "The Apprentice" and "Friends".

NBC passed on "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives".

CBS passed on "Medium" and "Dancing With The Stars".

so you see, it's not just the small networks that have done this.

Supposedly, the CW brought back 7th Heaven on the strength of the ratings for the initial series finale on the WB.:crazy: If Dawn Ostroff was running a network back in 1983, then she would've been persuaded to bring back M*A*S*H for one more season based on the ratings (to this day, I think the biggest viewership in TV history) for their series finale.

That was a dumb reason. Series finales tend to get higher ratings. I bet a lot of the people who watched the 7th Heaven finale on the WB had probably stopped watching years before and they just wanted to see how everything ended. The CW should have never brought back 7th Heaven. The show had run it's course and had 10 seasons.

to be fair though, a lot of networks pass on shows that later become big hits. ABC alone passed on "American Idol", "Survivor", "The Apprentice" and "Friends".

NBC passed on "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives".

CBS passed on "Medium" and "Dancing With The Stars".

so you see, it's not just the small networks that have done this.

That must hurt so bad for those networks. Although they can all be happy that they have something that the other networks wished they never passed up.

That was a dumb reason. Series finales tend to get higher ratings. I bet a lot of the people who watched the 7th Heaven finale on the WB had probably stopped watching years before and they just wanted to see how everything ended. The CW should have never brought back 7th Heaven. The show had run it's course and had 10 seasons.
Yea I was one of them. After it got renewed ,I didn't watch it again. I refuse to watch 2 series finales for the same show.

Yea I was one of them. After it got renewed ,I didn't watch it again. I refuse to watch 2 series finales for the same show.

You must not be a Scrubs fan, then. It's had about 4 :lol:

You must not be a Scrubs fan, then. It's had about 4 :lol:thats for sure:lol:

its a shame none of The WB shows didn`t get Emmys.Buffy came close a couple of times.

I have that book- quite a read.

i want that book as well...but im in UK so i can`t get it.Is it any good.What do they discuss.

The WB had problem on their own comedies when they get messed-up and discontinued in the wrong time. They got replaced by most UPN comedies during the merge. The UPN dramas were kind of low-ranked, some of them didn't survive the merge.

yes they were on UPN early in it's run. But Moesha was cancelled in 2001 and Voyager never expanded it's audience beyond the rabid star trek fanbase and did little to help boost UPN's overall ratings success.

I'm not a big Voyager fan but I do think it was UPN's highest rated show.

Two things really hurt the CW:
--They only broadcast in prime time. They can't use morning shows/late night talk/sports to promote their lineup.
--Almost all their shows appeal mainly to the under 25 crowd. That age group is more likely to torrent/Netflix shows than older viewers, and is more into social media and gaming anyway.

I never really watched The WB or UPN that much. The only show I ever watched on both networks was "Buffy". As far as CW, I only watch the daytime court shows (Judge Mathis & People's Court). My local MyNetworkTV station airs "Wheel of Fortune" and that's the only show I watch on it.

to be fair though, a lot of networks pass on shows that later become big hits. ABC alone passed on "American Idol", "Survivor", "The Apprentice" and "Friends".

NBC passed on "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives".

CBS passed on "Medium" and "Dancing With The Stars".

so you see, it's not just the small networks that have done this.

Plus, ABC passed on CSI and The Cosby Show

http://officialfan.proboards.com/thread/489227/seperated-fox-wb-upn

Why was the Fox network a success and the WB and UPN failed? Did Fox do anything particular better or correctly that UPN and the WB did wrong. Was it just timing, was it luck?

FOX was first to the game, and they grabbed syndicated stations for their network that insured they were in ALL the big markets.

I believe WB and UPN's biggest problems was that they didn't get into all the markets that they wanted, and they were forming their networks at the same times, which resulted in more fighting over stations which probably backfired in a few other areas.

And of course, that Rupert Murdoch money and well-established media presence that was behind it since day one.

FOX had The Simpsons which broke through the pop culture/mainstream and became a high rated series, Bart Got an F had 33 million viewers, the next episode Simpson and Delilah got 29 million. If you look at WB and UPN's shows that define them, it's probably Dawson's Creek and maybe Voyager. Then in the mid-90s, FOX got the NFL which pretty much secured them. Probably most of all, Rupert Murdoch wanted it to compete with the big 3 networks and was willing to pay for it. I don't think Paramount or Warner Bros were nearly as committed. Another underrated aspect was FOX having more black shows like New York Undercover, Martin and Living Single. They appealed to a different demographic than the big 3. Some good luck, UPN turned down American Idol and it on FOX became a huge hit.

Besides timing and many, I think their biggest problem was each other. When Fox went on the air, they were the only network in time. When UPN and the WB at the same time, they split whatever audience that desired a 5th network. Paramount, Time Warner and whoever else was involved in ownership, should have saw this coming, and merged like they eventually did, by the time they did it was 12 years too late.

UPN and WB also suffered due to not having sports (UPN briefly had the XFL (With Craig DeGeorge on commentary!) but that was about it).

Because TV was ready for expansion. People couldn't afford cable but they did want more choice. Fox with some luck and good programming found its way into that spot. While the WB and UPN didn't really have the good programming thing down.

Married with Children redefined the TV sitcom and grabbed a lot of attention. Until this show caught on the smart money actually was on Fox folding. The Bundy's got the public's attention and relatively cheap but quality programming like The Tracy Ullman Show, In Living Color, etc kept the attention.

FOX also pre-dates the WB and UPN by about 10 years which gave them a head start.

I'll add one more major aspect. FOX landing the rights to Sunday afternoon NFL games and the Super Bowl every three years was massive.

I was always surprised why the WB and UPN never really got there just due as far as ratings go. I thought UPN would when they acquired Smackdown!! in 1999. Remember, the WWF at the time was red hot and I'm surprised it didn't overlap into more of there shows.

A year before, Dawson's Creek debuted. I remember when it debuted, EVERYBODY was talking about in my high school. I was a sophomore at the time and not only was everybody talking about the show but they were also talking about Katie Holmes. Again, a little surprised that shows didn't get the rub from popular shows like Dawson's Creek, 7th Heaven or even The Gilmore Girls.

Man I remember back when both networks started, I belive UPN launched it with Star Trek Deep Space Nine even but when it came to sitcoms both networks had a bunch of stinkers I think UPN moreso.

There was Platypus Man, The Mullets, Homeboys In Outerspace and the WB had the habit with sitcoms with first names like Cleghorne with Ellen Cleghorne of SNL fame and Kirk! starring obviously Kirk Cameron.

Even Jason Bateman after a long absence was back with a sitcom starring the very unfunny comedian Harland Williams.

Deep Space Nine was in first-run syndication like The Next Generation. The UPN Star Treks were Voyager and Enterprise.

I read that UPN's highest viewership was the premiere episode of Star Trek: Voyager (which was actually UPN's first telecast), with 21,300,000 viewers, and the WB's highest viewership was the episode of 7th Heaven that aired on 8 February 1999 (titled "In Praise of Women") with 12,500,000 viewers. I wonder what the current CW network's highest viewership ever was?

a narrowcaster can't work on broadcast TV like on cable

I think that the biggest reason, aside from money is simply that WB and UPN were not seen in enough homes. They didn't ever reach enough big markets and simply never gained enough traction in-terms of stations... They were basically cast from whatever was left after FOX was founded. They never became big enough to get taken seriously.

I think that the biggest reason, aside from money is simply that WB and UPN were not seen in enough homes. They didn't ever reach enough big markets and simply never gained enough traction in-terms of stations... They were basically cast from whatever was left after FOX was founded. They never became big enough to get taken seriously.
yet the CW would love to have ratings like they had. I have no idea how that network stays alive.

only show I remembering watching on upn is seven days it was one show i would watch after i got out of high school. it about this guy who's in a mentally intuition in that gets a second chance he goes into this top secret place were the military are working on spear that will let you traveler back in time were something bad would happen then they have a spear that you can travel back in time only seven days to stop it. so he would get into the ball go back in time for seven days. kind of stupid i enjoyed it i always thought that the guy who played frank would made good gambit in x-men. you can check it out on you tube at : http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=seven+days+tv+series+full+episodes&sm=1

yet the CW would love to have ratings like they had. I have no idea how that network stays alive.

the netflix deal, and the CW affiliates have nothing else to air that would get any higher ratings

there just wasn't enough room for 2 netlets

Two things really hurt the CW:
--They only broadcast in prime time. They can't use morning shows/late night talk/sports to promote their lineup.
--Almost all their shows appeal mainly to the under 25 crowd. That age group is more likely to torrent/Netflix shows than older viewers, and is more into social media and gaming anyway.

The CW also has to compete w/ ABC Family and dare I say, MTV for the under 25 crowd. They perhaps don't have enough programming that seriously makes it stand out among the pack so to speak.

As far as why WB and UPN struggled in the ratings, didnt the WB and UPN have affiliates in alll the major markets? I know they did out of New York but its hard to believe that if they had major affiliates that they could struggle.

To answer the original question, I don't know. But I do know
Video Killed The Radio Star (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwuy4hHO3YQ).:) :cool:

As far as why WB and UPN struggled in the ratings, didnt the WB and UPN have affiliates in alll the major markets? I know they did out of New York but its hard to believe that if they had major affiliates that they could struggle.

I think that was true. And if I'm not mistaken, it was normal for UPN and/or WB's affiliates to preempt regular programming in favor of local sports broadcasts like Major League Baseball.

I read that UPN's highest viewership was the premiere episode of Star Trek: Voyager (which was actually UPN's first telecast), with 21,300,000 viewers, and the WB's highest viewership was the episode of 7th Heaven that aired on 8 February 1999 (titled "In Praise of Women") with 12,500,000 viewers. I wonder what the current CW network's highest viewership ever was?

Voyager premiered with 14.6 million, not 21.3 million viewers, I have USA Today article from that week.

I think that was true. And if I'm not mistaken, it was normal for UPN and/or WB's affiliates to preempt regular programming in favor of local sports broadcasts like Major League Baseball.

they had affiliates, but the problem is that they were usually smaller stations which already have low-viewership to start with... They basically got whatever was left-over after FOX was created... It was mainly independent stations and very few (if any) were owned by the WB or UPN.

i know many people in some parts of the country never even got these networks, a lot of people didn't get them because the stations they were on didn't transmit unless you had a cable subscription... they just couldn't get the station over the air.

That's correct: Fox picked up the best remaining affiliate stations in the 1980s-1990s. By the time UPN and the WB launched in 1995, the pickings were very slim: stations that had lower-grade signals and higher channel frequencies, stations that had been dropped by the Big Four for having weak signals or for preempting network programming on a regular basis, or (in WB's case) "stations" that were actually cable-only.

When Fox launched in 1986, they struggled: their stations had crappy signals and people had to infamously, as Married with Children joked, 'assume Fox network viewing positions' with tin foil and coat hangers in order to get a good signal. Billionaire Rupert Murdock spent millions building his network and making it stronger: improving crappy UHF stations and finding distinctive shows. Despite this, as late as 1994, Fox was still losing money. Fox's bold bid for NFL football, outbidding CBS, cemented the fourth network's position as a major player: 12 CBS affiliates defected to Fox. This was the first time a smaller network had ever wooed affiliates away from the Big Three. Ever.

By the time WB/UPN launched, the remaining independent stations were mostly third-tier stations the big networks didn't want. And because WB/UPN were competing for the same audience, that strategy worked against both of them. The WB did have some success: they were getting 4-8 million viewers regularly in the 1998-2000 seasons. UPN managed some similar numbers, but never made a profit, and lost 2 billion dollars in 10 years.

One other factor, rarely mentioned, was the launch of the Pax network in 1998. Pax siphoned off up to 3 million viewers per night from other networks in 1998. And while the loss of a few million viewers couldn't make a significant dent in one of the Big Four, it didn't help WB or UPN. UPN was even unaired in a few markets that had Pax stations. If Pax hadn't existed, those stations would almost certainly have affiliated with UPN.

It wasn't all bad: both the WB and UPN had shows that are remembered fondly. Quality television, much of it Sci-Fi, that the Big Four scorned. Programs I enjoyed. And The WB was profitable for a few years, before viewing trends gradually shifted to cable.

The WB was the only one of the two netlets to make a profit, but it took many years before they did so... UPN however, never made a profit...


I think that had UPN never existed that the WB may have ended up staying on the air for a long time.

The WB was the only one of the two netlets to make a profit, but it took many years before they did so... UPN however, never made a profit...


I think that had UPN never existed that the WB may have ended up staying on the air for a long time.

WB Network and UPN were loss leaders for WB and Paramount to get their shows rejected by the big 4 into syndication, none of the big TV producers wanted their major projects on them, CW is basically a loss leader for Netflix dealers, there just wasn't enough audience for 2 netlets even 15 years ago, how many shows on those channels lasted over 100 episodes

WB Network and UPN were loss leaders for WB and Paramount to get their shows rejected by the big 4 into syndication, none of the big TV producers wanted their major projects on them, CW is basically a loss leader for Netflix dealers, there just wasn't enough audience for 2 netlets even 15 years ago, how many shows on those channels lasted over 100 episodes


Yes, both networks lost a massive amount of money for their corporate parents; but I wouldn't go as far as saying that no producer wanted their projects on those networks. In fact just the opposite. Once the WB hit with teen viewers, it was getting pitched numerous projects from all major studios. It suddenly became a good thing to have your show on The WB because it meant that teen viewers might watch it. I can't say the same of UPN which never made a creative dent with the industry.

Yes, both networks lost a massive amount of money for their corporate parents; but I wouldn't go as far as saying that no producer wanted their projects on those networks. In fact just the opposite. Once the WB hit with teen viewers, it was getting pitched numerous projects from all major studios. It suddenly became a good thing to have your show on The WB because it meant that teen viewers might watch it. I can't say the same of UPN which never made a creative dent with the industry.

WB never got any traction with teen boys, one night of urban sitcoms made UPN the "black" network

This is kind of off-topic, but I still consider this a very fun find:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/this-promo-for-the-wb-from-2000-will-blow-your-mind

Starring Sarah Michelle Gellar, Keri Russell, David Boreanaz, Katie Holmes, Katherine Heigl, Kate Bosworth, Ian Somerhalder, Alyssa Milano, Jamie Foxx, Michele Williams, James Van Der Beek, Scott Foley, Shannen Doherty, Joshua Jackson and Melissa Joan Hart.
Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/tv-tattle#QeM0jHaxKsBThcjF.99

I should rely consider geting that book. Sounds like a good book.
Even though the WB is still around there's nothing on there I like except a re-run like Friends or Two and a Half men.

the WB is still around

What? :confused:

WB Network and UPN were loss leaders for WB and Paramount to get their shows rejected by the big 4 into syndication, none of the big TV producers wanted their major projects on them, CW is basically a loss leader for Netflix dealers, there just wasn't enough audience for 2 netlets even 15 years ago, how many shows on those channels lasted over 100 episodes

What about Buffy and Dawson's Creek? They were huge hits and the Gilmore Girls and 7th Heaven are still playing on cable today.

What about Buffy and Dawson's Creek? They were huge hits and the Gilmore Girls and 7th Heaven are still playing on cable today.Plus Reba has aired on several channels.

What? :confused:
My reaction, too! LOL!

http://www.radiodiscussions.com/showthread.php?669623-Why-China-s-Richest-Man-Could-Buy-Time-Warner&p=5993198&viewfull=1#post5993198

;)

It completely passed my mind until today regarding the 20th anniversary's of the birth's of both networks this past January (better late than never):
The WB 20th anniversary: Ranking all 32 of the network's dramas from worst to best (http://www.zap2it.com/blogs/the_wb_turns_20_the_32_dramas_ranked_from_worst_to_best-2015-01)

20th Anniversary of The WB (http://www.tvobscurities.com/2015/01/20th-anniversary-of-the-wb/)

20th Anniversary of UPN (http://www.tvobscurities.com/2015/01/20th-anniversary-of-upn/)

Top 10 shows you forgot aired on UPN (http://www.zap2it.com/blogs/top_10_shows_you_forgot_aired_on_upn-2015-01)

20 Years Later, A Ranking of the 20 Best Shows in CW History (http://www.bdcwire.com/best-cw-shows/)

Thanks for the links!!

UPN and WB died off because they were crappy networks with cast off TV programming that the major four networks did not want.

Also, their demographic was poorer, non white and urban. The majority of the country did not like or want to watch these shows. These were "black shows" and had a niche audience. Sort of like BET with a bigger budget.

Swear I am not racist.....but having a network (or any business) who only caters to 15% of the public isn't going to make it. Probably not a bad plan on paper, but did not work in reality.

The black comedies of UPN talk about satanic info, but do not have creative difference problems.

The white comedies of WB do not talk about satanic info, but have creative difference problems.

Satanic info is considered classified and classified is considered to last more than one season.

Creative difference is the opposite because it will lead you to an automatic doom right before and during the first season finale, which is more troublesome.

UPN and WB died off because they were crappy networks with cast off TV programming that the major four networks did not want.

Also, their demographic was poorer, non white and urban. The majority of the country did not like or want to watch these shows. These were "black shows" and had a niche audience. Sort of like BET with a bigger budget.

Swear I am not racist.....but having a network (or any business) who only caters to 15% of the public isn't going to make it. Probably not a bad plan on paper, but did not work in reality.

I don't understand or see much of a problem w/ UPN wanting to cater to a more urban, minority audience/demographic. I see it as them wanting to go after a specific audience that maybe the larger networks were ignoring or casting aside. I mean, you might as well play to your "strengths". I don't think it's as bad or "backwards" thinking as Dawn Ostroff trying to exclusively pander to a young, female demographic at the CW.

I don't understand or see much of a problem w/ UPN wanting to cater to a more urban, minority audience/demographic. I see it as them wanting to go after a specific audience that maybe the larger networks were ignoring or casting aside. I mean, you might as well play to your "strengths". I don't think it's as bad or "backwards" thinking as Dawn Ostroff trying to exclusively pander to a young, female demographic at the CW.
Exactly. It would have been suicidal for the "mini-nets" to try to compete directly with the networks because they simply didn't have the resources to do that. They had to go with underserved demographics to have any hope of success.

So you think young female demographic audiences cause the worst disadvantages in TV history?

Yes, both networks lost a massive amount of money for their corporate parents; but I wouldn't go as far as saying that no producer wanted their projects on those networks. In fact just the opposite. Once the WB hit with teen viewers, it was getting pitched numerous projects from all major studios. It suddenly became a good thing to have your show on The WB because it meant that teen viewers might watch it. I can't say the same of UPN which never made a creative dent with the industry.

Both The WB and UPN for better or worse, had their "specialties". The WB seemed to have its niche in teen melodramas (or as MADtv (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH6OUmsPA0I) joked shows about "Pretty White Kids With Problems (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TeenDrama?from=Main.PrettyWhiteKidsWithProblems)") while UPN's main specialty was sitcoms w/ mostly African American actors. The WB always seemed to be more sophisticated or higher-brow than UPN. UPN never really had anything else to stand-on outside of the arguably decaying Star Trek (Voyager and Enterprise) franchise, WWE Smackdown (which because it was a pro wrestling show, naturally didn't get a lot of desirable advertisers despite the otherwise high ratings), and the aforementioned black sitcoms. Many of UPN's shows if I'm not mistaken, otherwise didn't last too long.

Two things really hurt the CW:
--They only broadcast in prime time. They can't use morning shows/late night talk/sports to promote their lineup.
--Almost all their shows appeal mainly to the under 25 crowd. That age group is more likely to torrent/Netflix shows than older viewers, and is more into social media and gaming anyway.

The CW seems smaller scale than both The WB and UPN. What I mean is that The CW doesn't have any half hour sitcoms (at least not since its initial season), they don't program on Sundays (again, they did do that for like their first two seasons, but they have since given the time back to the affiliates) like The WB, and many of the shows that The CW does have seem to always follow the same formula (http://airlockalpha.com/node/9861/how-to-write-sci-fi-for-the-cw.html) (does making them virtually interchangeable). If you don't believe me:
The CW: Expectations vs. Reality (http://www.btchflcks.com/2013/12/the-cw-expectations-vs-reality.html#.VToHVPD-7TI)

4 Shows The CW Network Should Absolutely Make Next (http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-shows-cw-network-should-absolutely-make-next/)

How To Write Sci-Fi For The CW (http://airlockalpha.com/node/9861/how-to-write-sci-fi-for-the-cw.html)

The CW Formula; or, How I Will Eventually Take Over Television! (https://freshtakesrealtalk.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/the-cw-formula-or-how-i-will-eventually-take-over-television/)

Thinking Too Hard - The CW Effect (http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/trollcasts/thinking-too-hard/e/the-cw-effect-17799227)

Both The WB and UPN for better or worse, had their "specialties". The WB seemed to have its niche in teen melodramas (or as MADtv (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH6OUmsPA0I) joked shows about "Pretty White Kids With Problems (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TeenDrama?from=Main.PrettyWhiteKidsWithProblems)") while UPN's main specialty was sitcoms w/ mostly African American actors. The WB always seemed to be more sophisticated or higher-brow than UPN. UPN never really had anything else to stand-on outside of the arguably decaying Star Trek (Voyager and Enterprise) franchise, WWE Smackdown (which because it was a pro wrestling show, naturally didn't get a lot of desirable advertisers despite the otherwise high ratings), and the aforementioned black sitcoms. Many of UPN's shows if I'm not mistaken, otherwise didn't last too long.

Those UPN black comedies last longer than UPN dramas and WB white comedies. But not quite to WB dramas yet.

UPN black comedies offset all creative differences but they talk about all satanic info in a classified way, which is convincing enough.

How Well Do You Remember The WB? (http://www.buzzfeed.com/iramadison/oh-what-a-night#.bb5DOq10J)

Good points made, and I'll have to find that book, maybe in digital form. Yes, both networks had their share of black sitcoms, but I think there was still a fair balance.

WB had The Steve Harvey Show and The Wayans Bros., but also aired shows like Buffy and Dawson's Creek. UPN had Voyager then Enterprise to balance out Moesha and Girlfriends.

That said, in the late-90s/early-2000s, there was a lot of controversy about prime time not having enough minority shows, and it seems like a lot of them were on WB or UPN. In all fairness, there weren't too many shows for the younger crowd (black or non-black) on the Big 4, in general. WB and UPN filled that void for minorities and younger viewers.

So you're saying that younger crowd networks, like UPN and WB, aren't publicize enough as the Big 4, is that true, bgva?

So you're saying that younger crowd networks, like UPN and WB, aren't publicize enough as the Big 4, is that true, bgva?In my area at least the WB and UPN weren't available over-the-air even though they were called broadcast stations, you had to have cable to get them. This was for their entire existence. The CW, which they merged into, became available over the air but not right away.

So you're saying that younger crowd networks, like UPN and WB, aren't publicize enough as the Big 4, is that true, bgva?
I didn't quite say that, but it's got some truth to it. It was stated somewhere upthread that UPN and WB got the shows that the Big 4 networks didn't want. I think for that reason, a lot of their shows weren't taken too seriously. Not being available everywhere in the country hurt too, kinda like FOX's early years.

It's been close to a decade since the CW was formed. I think if the two networks remain separate (at least the WB), there's a chance they gain a little more legitimacy.

The only show on UPN I watched was Star Trek Voyager.

I didn't quite say that, but it's got some truth to it. It was stated somewhere upthread that UPN and WB got the shows that the Big 4 networks didn't want. I think for that reason, a lot of their shows weren't taken too seriously. Not being available everywhere in the country hurt too, kinda like FOX's early years.

It's been close to a decade since the CW was formed. I think if the two networks remain separate (at least the WB), there's a chance they gain a little more legitimacy.


I agree, and I think The WB was pretty close to becoming seen as a legit network if it had continued down the same path. When they announced the merger, The WB had finally for the first time actually turned a profit and was projected to do the same the following quarter.

I personally think that the WB was a good network. I thought it was always better than UPN, IMO. I mean besides Smackdown, where's the UPN show that was watercooler talk? I couldnt think of one. On the WB you at least had Buffy and Dawson's Creek.

I personally think that the WB was a good network. I thought it was always better than UPN, IMO. I mean besides Smackdown, where's the UPN show that was watercooler talk? I couldnt think of one. On the WB you at least had Buffy and Dawson's Creek.


Well, I think initially it was "Star Trek: Voyager", which at the time was a significant hit. After that their biggest hits, although far from watercooler shows were "Moesha", "Girlfriends" and "The Parkers".

The CW Network killed UPN and WB in September 2006!!!

I actually have that book and it's well worth a read. i bought it about a year ago at Christmas. It should be available at most chain bookstores like Barnes & Noble or Borders... It's a great book.

Basically my take on WB and UPN is this---they were both competing for very small, fragmented audiences and neither one was having much success---they had never turned a profit ever and by the end whatever had made WB special was gone---they got lazy and stopped taking risks on new ideas and people moved on... I think that it's sad because the WB was a great network and i miss it to this day. I even used to watch some UPN shows in the day, Moesha is one of my all time favorite shows.

The merger made CW far weaker than either of the previous networks, as The WB targeted the younger generation and UPN largely targeted a more "urban" audience. From the time of the merger.

I think a big problem with the CW is that they stopped even trying to do comedy. They totally abandoned the genre in favor of nothing but dramas, sci-fi and superheroes.

The merger made CW far weaker than either of the previous networks, as The WB targeted the younger generation and UPN largely targeted a more "urban" audience. From the time of the merger

The younger generation of the WB does not talk about hell, but had creative difference problems which they cannot solve on time and that can lead to deaths.

The urban do talk about hell, but doesn't have any problems on creative differences in order to solve on time and that's why most of the urban got renewed beyond their first season and then replace all WB younger generations when the merge approached.

I think a big problem with the CW is that they stopped even trying to do comedy. They totally abandoned the genre in favor of nothing but dramas, sci-fi and superheroes.

The WB/CW comedies had the worst problems when getting axed too soon. It turns out that these WB/CW comedies have creative difference problems that could not get solved on time and there was something wrong with that former WB network Jamie Kellner.

UPN and WB died off because they were crappy networks with cast off TV programming that the major four networks did not want.

Also, their demographic was poorer, non white and urban. The majority of the country did not like or want to watch these shows. These were "black shows" and had a niche audience. Sort of like BET with a bigger budget.

Swear I am not racist.....but having a network (or any business) who only caters to 15% of the public isn't going to make it. Probably not a bad plan on paper, but did not work in reality.

Even back then, I felt that the WB was a better organized network and had more going for it. Really all that UPN had was Star Trek and the black centric sitcoms (and to a lesser extent, SmackDown). What really hurt UPN in particular is that Paramount meddled (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ScrewedByTheNetwork/LiveActionTV) to make sure UPN's New York area station, WWOR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWOR-TV#UPN_affiliation), never carried UPN over its national superstation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWOR_EMI_Service) feed. In contrast to this, The WB, was quite happy to let WGN's superstation feed carry the network until 1999, when they had enough good local carriage and had established their viewership much better than UPN ever did.

I think a big problem with the CW is that they stopped even trying to do comedy. They totally abandoned the genre in favor of nothing but dramas, sci-fi and superheroes.

http://www.refinery29.com/2016/09/124823/black-sitcoms-90s-tv-shows-cancelled

Upon the launch of The CW (that's C for CBS, W for Warner Bros) in 2006, CBS CEO Leslie Moonves promised in a press release: "The CW is going to be a real competitor, a destination for young audiences, diverse audiences, and a real favorite with advertisers." Apparently that meant a network full of shows featuring mostly white casts. While a few UPN shows, like Girlfriends and Everybody Hates Chris, trickled over to The CW, by 2008, every show that had gotten its start on UPN had officially ended.

After UPN closed up shop, One on One creator Eunetta Boone told Entertainment Weekly: "I wouldn’t say because of the merger that Black sitcoms are dead... But they’re definitely dormant." A full 10 years later, and Black sitcoms are still dormant. An entire decade has passed without any other networks making an effort to fill the hole left behind by the disappearance of family-friendly Black series.

The elephant in the room, screen clutter, killed both of them. I remember tuning into UPN and not only getting their logo constantly on the screen, but the word "PRIME" right under it, as if I also needed to be constantly told that it was prime time. (Did UPN even HAVE anything on outside of prime time hours?) The last time I saw a WB show, it had "ALL NEW" next to the logo. I suppose waiting for a rerun would have let me watch it with less crap on the screen. Now of course CW stands for Can't Watch.

I'm quite sure that I posted this two part video that details the history of UPN:
eVwcD66KUSY

eo4KcHhtrPk

Since I started this thread, I have come across discussions about the rise and fall of UPN elsewhere. One issue that was made of note is that UPN was never really able to get a significant enough market or reputation to become bigger that what they were. In other words, they could never really shake off a reputation of being a low rent network for lesser, sometimes trashy or stereotypical shows. The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeffier, Homeboys in Outer Space, The Mullets, Shasta McNasty, and reality shows like Chains of Love are perfect examples of this.

This was despite the fact that they managed to get a respectable amount of African-American centered sitcoms and had some interesting shows that other networks wouldn't try. By the time that actual critical darlings like Veronica Mars started showing up on UPN, it was too little and too late.

Imagine if UPN had shows right from the start that were able to give them the needed attention and momentum to the point where profitable shows eventually took root on it? Fox quite obviously had that with Married...with Children and The Simpsons during its early years. Even though they may have been perceived as being a tad bit "trashy" when compared to what the "Big Three" networks had to offer at the time, those two shows none the less, had a "boldness" (shows like MWC redefined the TV sitcom and grabbed a lot of attention) about them that allowed them to get over the hump so to speak.

Of course, what also probably helped in Fox's case was that they had Rupert Murdoch's money and well-established media presence that was behind it since day one. Murdoch simply put, wanted it to compete with the "Big 3" networks and was willing to pay for it. On the contrary, were Paramount or Warner Bros were nearly as committed as Fox? Maybe they tried way too hard to be everything to too many different people. They unlike Fox, played it safe and produced nothing innovative to define themselves.

With UPN, what they really had going for themselves in terms of "breakout" (at least from a pop culture/mainstream sense) or "must see" event shows were Star Trek: Voyager and SmackDown. Voyager was of course, connected to a legacy franchise that launched the network and SmackDown was the only program that did consistently good numbers (even though it was really a niche audience for the network). And I'm not entirely sure that even Star Trek (either Voyager (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1600&bih=757&sxsrf=ALeKk00JGEsjvebmTwS6_uCMzsZX7LFUOw%3A1589356039324&ei=B6a7XresE9DAsQXg5rqQDA&q=trekbbs+upn+star+trek+voyager+site%3Awww.trekbbs.com&oq=trekbbs+upn+star+trek+voyager+site%3Awww.trekbbs.com&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQA1DWIFiANWDHNmgAcAB4AIABvQOIAZQakgEKMC4xNS4zLjAuMZgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXo&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwj3y5TRrLDpAhVQYKwKHWCzDsIQ4dUDCAw&uact=5) or Enterprise (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1600&bih=757&sxsrf=ALeKk006JXVHfglZw0cmQ_E2NP8DbqHKUA%3A1589356049549&ei=Eaa7XtzsIJL-sAWt7ITACw&q=trekbbs+upn+star+trek+enterprise+site%3Awww.trekbbs.com&oq=trekbbs+upn+star+trek+enterprise+site%3Awww.trekbbs.com&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQA1DqmQFYmKUBYNGpAWgAcAB4AIABjwOIAYwVkgEHMC43LjUuMZgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXo&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwicuYTWrLDpAhUSP6wKHS02AbgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5)) could truly or seriously elevate UPN in the end.

What really hurt UPN in particular is that Paramount meddled (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ScrewedByTheNetwork/LiveActionTV) to make sure UPN's New York area station, WWOR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWOR-TV#UPN_affiliation), never carried UPN over its national superstation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWOR_EMI_Service) feed. In contrast to this, The WB, was quite happy to let WGN's superstation feed carry the network until 1999, when they had enough good local carriage and had established their viewership much better than UPN ever did.

That was a stupid decision on the part of UPN not allowing the national feed of WWOR to carry their network.

Recalling the rise and fall of black shows on UPN (https://theundefeated.com/features/on-tv-a-fledgling-upn-tried-to-follow-nbc-and-fox-with-black-programming/)

"By the time 1998 rolled around, black TV shows with black leads telling black stories were no longer as plentiful as they had been earlier in the decade," says Kelley L. Carter. "The Cosby Show aired its last original episode in April 1992. A Different World reached that mark in July 1993 and The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air stopped in May 1996. The heyday of black appointment television had faded away. NBC tried to maintain the glory with In The House, starring LL Cool J, who, like Will Smith before him, was banking on an established musical fan base to carry over into his newfound acting career. But after two seasons, the series was canceled in 1996. UPN, which was launched in 1995, was happy to try and pick up both the show and the mantle." UPN tried to copy successful black and multiracial shows on other networks like Living Single, In Living Color, New York Undercover and Martin. "We nicknamed it, ‘You Pick a Negro Network.’ That was the nickname," recalls Debbie Allen, who co-starred with LL Cool J on In the House. "They told us that they were just doing all kinds of black shows. I guess they were trying to follow Fox’s shoes. Fox had become a big TV network, starting black programming, and they were doing the same thing, but they were putting on some really pretty bad shows. And I remember one of my actors from A Different World got cast in the show. She said, ‘Ma, don’t you watch it, don’t you dare watch it! I’m telling you now, don’t you watch it!’" But the period of black programming on UPN didn't last long as the network sought to appeal to white viewers. "If you offer a night, or if you offer a couple of nights of shows filled with black stars who don’t get much play in mainstream Hollywood and were stars of their own shows, then black people will show up and watch. You then have an automatic audience that you can build on,” says NPR TV critic Eric Deggans. “Unfortunately, the way that cycle used to work is that these networks would get their early audience with these shows and then slowly start to focus their broadcast networks away from black viewers. Because they wanted the greater [advertising dollars] that came from shows that appealed to white viewers." By 2006, UPN was shut down and merged with The WB to form The CW, which focused on appealing to young white female viewers.

"I remember one of my actors from A Different World got cast in the show. She said, ‘Ma, don’t you watch it, don’t you dare watch it! I’m telling you now, don’t you watch it!’"

I wonder who that was and what the show was.

I wonder who that was and what the show was.
That's too easy. Darryl M Bell (Ron Johnson from A Different World). The tv show was- Homeboys In Outer Space.

Recalling the rise and fall of black shows on UPN (https://theundefeated.com/features/on-tv-a-fledgling-upn-tried-to-follow-nbc-and-fox-with-black-programming/)

"By the time 1998 rolled around, black TV shows with black leads telling black stories were no longer as plentiful as they had been earlier in the decade," says Kelley L. Carter. "The Cosby Show aired its last original episode in April 1992. A Different World reached that mark in July 1993 and The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air stopped in May 1996. The heyday of black appointment television had faded away. NBC tried to maintain the glory with In The House, starring LL Cool J, who, like Will Smith before him, was banking on an established musical fan base to carry over into his newfound acting career. But after two seasons, the series was canceled in 1996. UPN, which was launched in 1995, was happy to try and pick up both the show and the mantle." UPN tried to copy successful black and multiracial shows on other networks like Living Single, In Living Color, New York Undercover and Martin. "We nicknamed it, ‘You Pick a Negro Network.’ That was the nickname," recalls Debbie Allen, who co-starred with LL Cool J on In the House. "They told us that they were just doing all kinds of black shows. I guess they were trying to follow Fox’s shoes. Fox had become a big TV network, starting black programming, and they were doing the same thing, but they were putting on some really pretty bad shows. And I remember one of my actors from A Different World got cast in the show. She said, ‘Ma, don’t you watch it, don’t you dare watch it! I’m telling you now, don’t you watch it!’" But the period of black programming on UPN didn't last long as the network sought to appeal to white viewers. "If you offer a night, or if you offer a couple of nights of shows filled with black stars who don’t get much play in mainstream Hollywood and were stars of their own shows, then black people will show up and watch. You then have an automatic audience that you can build on,” says NPR TV critic Eric Deggans. “Unfortunately, the way that cycle used to work is that these networks would get their early audience with these shows and then slowly start to focus their broadcast networks away from black viewers. Because they wanted the greater [advertising dollars] that came from shows that appealed to white viewers." By 2006, UPN was shut down and merged with The WB to form The CW, which focused on appealing to young white female viewers.
Facts...they tried to build up with an African American audience then left them in the dust programming wise after a few years.

That's too easy. Darryl M Bell (Ron Johnson from A Different World). The tv show was- Homeboys In Outer Space.

Only if Debbie Allen misspoke or the article had a typo. The article said "She said..."

Only if Debbie Allen misspoke or the article had a typo. The article said "She said..."
You're correct. Going back and re reading the post Debbie Allen is talking bout one of her Different World actors got cast in the show (In The House) and it was a female (she said). :nod:props:

The CW always keeps their shows running longer than average when compared to FOX, NBC, ABC and CBS. The CW I believe, knows that they would be better off catering to niche fanbases because they can't afford to lose any type of viewership which keeps them afloat. While The WB and UPN also had lower viewerships, they also had too many shows they picked-up and cancelled. This naturally, made them go over-budget and resulted in the merger.

VmCjcLwKOx4

The story of what happened to UPN --- how the network started and what made it fall apart.

dtjCCodIvYs

The UPN network would bring a series of black sitcoms and actors to the forefront but just as a void looked to have finally been taken care of, the network disappeared.

2CWwBv0-lH4

Good Bad Flicks revisits the first batch of cancelled shows from UPN.

g-8CHgCesCA

Let’s discuss UPN and the downfall of black sitcoms.

Yq12w_0_6CY

There's also a sound warning from 8:27-8:39!

6x-kFcB-wTI

It is the history of entertainment that you build on the backs of black people and then you turn on them the moment you become successful. This is also true of the Fox network when it was launched. It's the most frustrating thing.

Hey if the links that are supposed to be there aren't there I will get them there in the next couple of days.

okepqJANzuE

UPN Unleashed: Celebrating Black Excellence on the Small Screen! 🌟✨ Top Iconic Black Shows That Defined UPN TV Network! 📺🔥A deep dive into the rise and eventual downfall of UPN. What worked and what led the demise of the network?