The CW

[Scott Fybush]

At 12:21 PM 1/25/2006, Garrett Wollman wrote:
><<On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:14:39 -0500, "rogerkirk" 
><rogerkirk@mail.ttlc.net> said:
>
> > Given the speed with which companies acquire and divest each other,
> > naming the network after the combined companies is neither memorable
> > nor useful.
>
>Well, it "worked" for The WB (Warner Brothers) and UPN (United &
>Paramount) for a decade.  Never mind the fact that Paramount is once
>again not co-owned with the network that bears its name, and United if
>it still exists at all is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fox Television
>Stations, Inc.
>
>Given Tribune's involvement, they could have called it "The CWT", but
>that might not be good for the market image....

I'm somewhat inclined to believe, given the apparent speed with which 
this deal was made and the impressive secrecy in which it was 
shrouded until about 24 hours ago, that by the time the new network 
hits the airwaves this fall it may have a better name.

For its sake, I would certainly *hope* that "The CW" turns out to be 
something interim.

(Recall, by the way, that UPN came very close, a year or two ago, to 
dropping the United "U" from its name and becoming simply the 
"Paramount Network." Those plans were ditched, I think, as the 
CBS/Viacom split approached and Paramount ended up being divorced 
from UPN. I don't think United even exists as a subsidiary anymore - 
IIRC, the former United/Chris-Craft stations are now licensed to FTS itself.)

I'm partial to "Overmyer Network" as a name for the new entity, myself...

s