TheMisterManGuy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,370
In the past few years, two of the major broadcast networks in the US had their ownership completely shaken up as a result of corporate buyouts and mergers. In 2019, Disney purchased nearly all of the film and tv assets of 21st Century Fox, resulting in the FOX Broadcasting Company and Fox's news and sports divisions joining the new Fox Corporation.
And late last year, NextStar Media Group acquired a majority stake in The CW from previous owners, Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Global. The CW launched in 2006 as a merger of Time Warner's WB and CBS' UPN, which were both launched in the mid-90s, while FOX was established in the mid-80s.
FOX, WB, and UPN were unique from the big 3 US broadcast networks (CBS, ABC, and NBC) in that they were relatively new startups tied to major movie studios (20th Century Fox, Warner Bros., and Paramount) that targeted a younger audience.
Yet FOX was able to survive all this time as a major network alongside the big three, while WB and UPN were forced together into a much smaller network in comparison. How come FOX survived all this time and remained relatively popular, while WB and UPN fell by the wayside?
I think it really comes down to programing and audience. The WB in the late 90s and 2000s was known for its various teen-focused dramas such as Buffy, Dawson's Creek, Smallville, Gilmore Girls, and One Tree Hill, while UPN was known for its African-American sitcoms and WWE Smack Down! However, the two channels struggled to break out of those respective niches.
The WB became a bit too much of a one trick pony with its over-reliance on teen dramas, resulting in the network's image of being dominated by Pretty White Kids with Problems, offering little else for anybody over 30. While outside Wrestling and its sitcoms, most of UPN's shows were garbage, which gave that network the image of being a dumping ground for shows the other networks didn't want. UPN didn't start getting actual hits until towards the end of its life with America's Next Top Model, Veronica Mars, and Everybody Hates Chris.
FOX however, managed to keep its lineup varied and interesting to people of all ages and tastes throughout the years, It had sitcoms, reality shows, shows for teens, dramas, adult cartoons, game shows, and of course, getting the rights to NFL in 1994, which cemented its status among the major networks. There were lowpoints, such as when they get too trigger happy with cancelling fan-favorite shows (Firefly, Futurama, etc.). But in its peak eras, FOX had shows everybody watched. Classic Simpsons, In Living Color, Married... With Children, MadTV, Beverly Hills 90210, Party of Five, X-Files, The O.C., American Idol, House, Glee, Family Guy, Malcom in the Middle, That '70s Show, and others.
Compared to The WB, FOX knew how to get shows with equal appeal to both teenagers, as well as the 18-49 demo, and for the most part, had a larger range of quality shows compared to most of UPN's life.
Basically, I think its a matter of FOX being an actual TV network with young appeal compared to the niche focus of WB and UPN.
And late last year, NextStar Media Group acquired a majority stake in The CW from previous owners, Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Global. The CW launched in 2006 as a merger of Time Warner's WB and CBS' UPN, which were both launched in the mid-90s, while FOX was established in the mid-80s.
FOX, WB, and UPN were unique from the big 3 US broadcast networks (CBS, ABC, and NBC) in that they were relatively new startups tied to major movie studios (20th Century Fox, Warner Bros., and Paramount) that targeted a younger audience.
Yet FOX was able to survive all this time as a major network alongside the big three, while WB and UPN were forced together into a much smaller network in comparison. How come FOX survived all this time and remained relatively popular, while WB and UPN fell by the wayside?
I think it really comes down to programing and audience. The WB in the late 90s and 2000s was known for its various teen-focused dramas such as Buffy, Dawson's Creek, Smallville, Gilmore Girls, and One Tree Hill, while UPN was known for its African-American sitcoms and WWE Smack Down! However, the two channels struggled to break out of those respective niches.
The WB became a bit too much of a one trick pony with its over-reliance on teen dramas, resulting in the network's image of being dominated by Pretty White Kids with Problems, offering little else for anybody over 30. While outside Wrestling and its sitcoms, most of UPN's shows were garbage, which gave that network the image of being a dumping ground for shows the other networks didn't want. UPN didn't start getting actual hits until towards the end of its life with America's Next Top Model, Veronica Mars, and Everybody Hates Chris.
FOX however, managed to keep its lineup varied and interesting to people of all ages and tastes throughout the years, It had sitcoms, reality shows, shows for teens, dramas, adult cartoons, game shows, and of course, getting the rights to NFL in 1994, which cemented its status among the major networks. There were lowpoints, such as when they get too trigger happy with cancelling fan-favorite shows (Firefly, Futurama, etc.). But in its peak eras, FOX had shows everybody watched. Classic Simpsons, In Living Color, Married... With Children, MadTV, Beverly Hills 90210, Party of Five, X-Files, The O.C., American Idol, House, Glee, Family Guy, Malcom in the Middle, That '70s Show, and others.
Compared to The WB, FOX knew how to get shows with equal appeal to both teenagers, as well as the 18-49 demo, and for the most part, had a larger range of quality shows compared to most of UPN's life.
Basically, I think its a matter of FOX being an actual TV network with young appeal compared to the niche focus of WB and UPN.
