• by P.J. Bednarski , Staff Writer @pjbtweet, January 12, 2016

It makes sense, I think.  A report from Bloomberg says Time Warner and CBS have discussed starting a paid streaming service to carry the CW network, which they jointly own. CW is a network that has two essentials for this phase of streaming’s history: It appeals to young viewers and it is not hugely viewed, at least not compared to the other broadcast networks.

So why not do it? Not to get all historical on you, but you could easily make the claim that streaming is this era’s equivalent to UHF channels, those upper numbered stations that invariably are lightly viewed and are also invariably made popular by young viewers.

It’s not hard to believe a shift to streaming would be a good move 

Right now, CW is supported by advertising to a slice of viewers that may seem too small for hard-core television advertisers, and by piddly carriage fees paid by  cable and satellite operators. In the big picture, CW is no big deal for either Time Warner or CBS, but online its audience could be formidable.

The WB and UPN, which more or less combined to become CW, pushed the idea of alternative networks in the 1990s and made shows like “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” a big hit with teens, as “Gilmore Girls” did later on CW and as “Jane the Virgin” and “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” and its newly-minted Golden Globe winner Rachel Bloom do now.

Going way back, UHF channels are where today’s boomers found cartoons and wrestling. For younger viewers, online viewing is pretty much where it’s at--in this context, it’s UHF without the funny antenna.

Bloomberg says selling CW online is “inevitable” and that insiders are talking about a subscription price between $2-$4 a month. And Bloomberg says, while CW is contemplating its streaming service, it may stay as an over-the-air service with a strong, new  streaming presence at the same time.

If nothing else, the news service says, the threat of streaming might induce Tribune Media, a big CW affiliate in 13 major markets, to increase the fees it would be willing to pay to keep the CW as an exclusively over-the-air service.

The Tribune contract with CW ends this year, as do contracts Time Warner has with Netflix and Hulu. But CW reruns are syndicated, too, and that may make a new CW online service a problem, too.

Even this early in 2016, it appears major streaming players are nervously or shrewdly sizing up their alternative realities. 

The good question is, how many pay services can be added before they begin cancelling each other out. YouTube Red, Vessel and the new Seeso from NBC are all niche services, like CW would be.

But they’re all aimed, to varying degrees, at young audiences that, theoretically have a more limited budget for content. Today, the Website Endgadget, in fact, questions whether a pay CW has enough heft for kids to care, and suggests the CW would be better off to keep its streaming presence as it is on Hulu and the CW’s own cheeky site, Seed, where content can be monetized the old fashioned way--by advertising. Seed even has its own online-only series, which puts it ahead of what most networks offer online.

pj@mediapost.com