Jay Leno is killing NBC

[marksman]

Yes, that would be brilliant of NBC to pay Conan and his staff $44 million to go away, only to fire Leno next year and be left with nobody to host The Tonight Show. I'm sure that's exactly what NBC has planned.

I would not bet against NBC doing this at this point.

[marksman]

But her audience is only one gender.

dancers?

[IndyJones1023]

That's what intellectual property (like all other property) is in a nutshell - the right to exclude others from using it. In the case of copyrights and patents, you don't actually have to be using the invention/work of authorship yourself in order to stop others from using it. For example, a copyright in an out of print book is valid and can be used to stop others from printing the book.

In the entertainment business, intellectual property makes you money. It makes no sense for NBC to own something it won't (effectively) ever be able to use.

[Turtleboy]

In the entertainment business, intellectual property makes you money. It makes no sense for NBC to own something it won't (effectively) ever be able to use.

It's not about them using it. It's about preventing Fox (or wherever Conan goes) from making money off it.

[IndyJones1023]

It's not about them using it. It's about preventing Fox (or wherever Conan goes) from making money off it.

And since Conan will just come up with other bits to make money off of, it becomes a spiteful move.

Again, I know it's the norm.

[JYoung]

Yes, that would be brilliant of NBC to pay Conan and his staff $44 million to go away, only to fire Leno next year and be left with nobody to host The Tonight Show. I'm sure that's exactly what NBC has planned.

[Jimmy Fallon]
I'm nobody?
[/Jimmy Fallon]

(I do have to say that I'm amused at how much ducking Fallon must have been doing for the last couple of weeks.)

[marksman]

[Jimmy Fallon]
I'm nobody?
[/Jimmy Fallon]

(I do have to say that I'm amused at how much ducking Fallon must have been doing for the last couple of weeks.)

Like the rookie free agent at football training camp... He does not want to be told to bring his playbook to the head of the network.

Also I am still not sure why they don't move Poker After Dark up since I think FullTilt pays for most of the production costs of that show.

[jimborst]

Remember Letterman and stupid pet tricks. NBC kept it. I can't remember why but he got to take the top ten.


Dave still has stupid pet tricks.

[terpfan1980]

The talk in the last page or two of this thread about the potential of moving Leno to days where he'd catch a primarily female audience cracks me up a bit... The irony is that, at least according to one recent article I had read about the topic (not here, elsewhere on the web), the people that are keeping Leno so 'hot' and popular in the ratings area are females in the 45 - 54 age range. That would seem to be just the group he might catch if he did move to daytime.

I can't see that he'd ever have agreed to such a move though, even if it makes a heckuva lot of sense from a ratings point of view. It's not The Tonite Show and/or it's not the 11:35 time slot and I think in the end that is exactly what he wanted to wind up with (and NBC may have enjoyed having Lenon on during the day to get some ratings from, but they also really wanted to fix the ratings problem they were having with Conan, so they still would have been -- in their minds -- bleeding viewers/ratings badly enough to need to do something to change things up).

[terpfan1980]

The I.P. (intellectual property) discussion reminds me of Stern when he went on Sirius initially. It took a good while for him to negotiate a deal that got him back the rights to his archive.

Conan will probably come up with something new and not look back, though I suppose he might really like to have Triumph available again. Perhaps he can just turn it into a Master... Dog and Comic Bear. (Though I really liked the suggestion above of using the Peacock in place of the bear.)

[lew]

Remember Letterman and stupid pet tricks. NBC kept it. I can't remember why but he got to take the top ten.


Not true. Letterman still does stupid pet tricks. NBC wanted to keep it. It turns out Letterman first did the bit on the Mary (Tyler Moore) variety show (on CBS).

Top 10 lists have been around forever.

[DevdogAZ]

Interesting article in Ad Age (http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=141629) about why the failure of the Jay Leno primetime experiment is actually a bad thing for network TV. The basic gist is that NBC took a stab at doing something different, and failed spectacularly, so it might be a while before other networks try to stick their neck out and try something else different.

[terpfan1980]

Interesting article in Ad Age (http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=141629) about why the failure of the Jay Leno primetime experiment is actually a bad thing for network TV. The basic gist is that NBC took a stab at doing something different, and failed spectacularly, so it might be a while before other networks try to stick their neck out and try something else different.

And that's bad for viewers how?

Seriously, it's a shame (at least in my opinion) that so many reality TV shows have caught on (in that great experiment). We keep getting fewer and fewer scripted shows. Fewer dramas. Fewer comedies. Less of anything that costs money.

The networks keep trying for the cheapest programming they can produce figuring that viewers will tune in no matter what. Except, well, when they won't. Such was the case with Leno's 10pm show.

Now NBC will go back to Dateline (in house news show, should be fairly inexpensive and fill one night), a few installments of L&O, Parenthood (which they'd probably argue is too expensive) and such. Dateline might cost about what a night of Leno does on any given night, but the dramas are costing NBC more with the potential of returning more viewers if they catch on. Especially compared to the fairly low ratings for Leno.

As a viewer I'm glad that Leno @ 10pm failed. Whether I might like his show or not, I'm glad it failed because I want dramas and comedies and creative materials rather than cheap talk. As some have said here previously if the objective for NBC is just to run the cheapest/most profitable programs at all times they can become ION and enjoy the results of that while their former viewers go to somewhere else, somewhere that actually does come up with creative new shows.

[DevdogAZ]

And that's bad for viewers how?

Seriously, it's a shame (at least in my opinion) that so many reality TV shows have caught on (in that great experiment). We keep getting fewer and fewer scripted shows. Fewer dramas. Fewer comedies. Less of anything that costs money.

The networks keep trying for the cheapest programming they can produce figuring that viewers will tune in no matter what. Except, well, when they won't. Such was the case with Leno's 10pm show.

Now NBC will go back to Dateline (in house news show, should be fairly inexpensive and fill one night), a few installments of L&O, Parenthood (which they'd probably argue is too expensive) and such. Dateline might cost about what a night of Leno does on any given night, but the dramas are costing NBC more with the potential of returning more viewers if they catch on. Especially compared to the fairly low ratings for Leno.

As a viewer I'm glad that Leno @ 10pm failed. Whether I might like his show or not, I'm glad it failed because I want dramas and comedies and creative materials rather than cheap talk. As some have said here previously if the objective for NBC is just to run the cheapest/most profitable programs at all times they can become ION and enjoy the results of that while their former viewers go to somewhere else, somewhere that actually does come up with creative new shows.
But the point of the article is that the landscape for the broadcast networks is changing, and the type of "innovation" that NBC attempted is going to be necessary to stay afloat. As audiences continue to fragment, advertisers will increasingly find that they can reach their desired demographic for less money on niche cable networks rather than using the traditional shotgun approach of broadcast TV. Thus, there will be less and less ad revenue for the networks and they'll have to make the corresponding changes to cut costs.

It doesn't mean that creativity goes away. There are all kinds of great, creative programs on any number of cable networks. Many people are considering this an era of renaissance in the TV industry, despite the proliferation of cheap reality shows. It simply means that big-budget scripted shows might be fewer and farther between. If that means that shows are targeted less to the masses and more directed to a specific audience, that can only be a good thing, in my opinion.

[DevdogAZ]

NBC Entertainment President Jeff Gaspin spoke today (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/445346-Gaspin_Late_Night_Scuffle_Won_t_Permanently_Hurt_Leno.php?rs sid=20065) about the change. He said that the typical Leno viewer won't care what the rabid Conan fans are saying. He also said this:
Gaspin said that O'Brien's Tonight Show was on track to lose money in 2010 -- a first for the 56-year-old franchise -- due to a confluence of factors including faltering ratings, increased competition in late-night and the downturn in advertising revenue. Nevertheless, Gaspin expects Leno to be "competitive" when he returns to face a resurgent David Letterman at CBS and increased competition from ABC's Nightline and Jimmy Kimmel Live.

He admitted that O'Brien did not have enough time to find his voice on The Tonight Show, adding "Nor do I think Jay had enough time to settle in at 10 o'clock."

"But we had no choice. And we tried to come up with a compromise that would be at least fair to all parties."

[inaka]

But I think it's pretty clear just from the way this whole thing played out that Leno wasn't interested in daytime. Do you really think that people at NBC didn't come up with that as a potential solution to this mess?
Of course, because judging by the track record of NBC Executives, they've obviously thought out everything completely and have always made the informed decision and explored all options. LOL

[Enrique]

NBC Entertainment President Jeff Gaspin spoke today (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/445346-Gaspin_Late_Night_Scuffle_Won_t_Permanently_Hurt_Leno.php?rs sid=20065) about the change. He said that the typical Leno viewer won't care what the rabid Conan fans are saying. He also said this:IMO, He's right on the dot.

[JYoung]

But the point of the article is that the landscape for the broadcast networks is changing, and the type of "innovation" that NBC attempted is going to be necessary to stay afloat. As audiences continue to fragment, advertisers will increasingly find that they can reach their desired demographic for less money on niche cable networks rather than using the traditional shotgun approach of broadcast TV. Thus, there will be less and less ad revenue for the networks and they'll have to make the corresponding changes to cut costs.

It doesn't mean that creativity goes away. There are all kinds of great, creative programs on any number of cable networks. Many people are considering this an era of renaissance in the TV industry, despite the proliferation of cheap reality shows. It simply means that big-budget scripted shows might be fewer and farther between. If that means that shows are targeted less to the masses and more directed to a specific audience, that can only be a good thing, in my opinion.

I'm glad you innovation in quotes because this really wasn't about NBC being innovative and more about them being "cheap".

[DevdogAZ]

I'm glad you innovation in quotes because this really wasn't about NBC being innovative and more about them being "cheap".
I agree. The article uses the term innovation, but I had to put it in quotes because it wasn't really that innovative. It was different, and it was perhaps necessary given the landscape of TV, but it certainly wasn't innovative.

[inaka]

The talk in the last page or two of this thread about the potential of moving Leno to days where he'd catch a primarily female audience cracks me up a bit... The irony is that, at least according to one recent article I had read about the topic (not here, elsewhere on the web), the people that are keeping Leno so 'hot' and popular in the ratings area are females in the 45 - 54 age range. That would seem to be just the group he might catch if he did move to daytime.

That was my point all along. We've all heard that he's supposedly not doing it for the money because apparently he's never spent a dime of his Tonight Show salary. His prime demographic seems perfectly suited for daytime, and if he wants to just work daily for a nationally televised show, it's a gig. And before people think daytime is peanuts by comparison, average ratings for Young & The Restless is something like 4,800,000 viewers, and Leno's primetime show averaged about that.

[netringer]

That stinks if NBC gets to keep Conan's characters and bits.

Remember that happened to Dave? He lost Larry "Bud" Melman, so he came to CBS as his real name, Calvert DeForest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_DeForest). At least Dave got to keep the Top Ten List and Stupid Pet/Human Tricks.

[terpfan1980]

I agree. The article uses the term innovation, but I had to put it in quotes because it wasn't really that innovative. It was different, and it was perhaps necessary given the landscape of TV, but it certainly wasn't innovative.

I still hold that it's only necessary if you (the networks, in this case NBC) want to complete give up on developing quality content.

The cable networks -- as you (DevdogAZ) point out above -- are doing well at competing because they are developing quality shows. The only real difference is that the cable nets can be edgier and more racy, but that doesn't mean that the traditional networks can't more than compete against them.

To borrow a line from a famous film: If you (quality) program it... the viewers will come!. NBC had, in recent years, developed pure c-r-a-p. Much like ABC just a few years back (when they were in fairly dire straights programming quality wise...), NBC had not much more than multiple nights of Howie Mandel and his models with cases. And Biggest Loser. ABC is doing relatively well now while NBC is in the tank.

NBC could spend more money to develop better programming, or they could drop the 10PM time slot into the tank in favor of much cheaper programming. They went cheap and it bit 'em hard. I'm still very happy that is the case.

Maybe NBC will realize that they need to come up with their own quality programs rather than just letting USA Network be the place people look to for a good program.

[marksman]

Interesting article in Ad Age (http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=141629) about why the failure of the Jay Leno primetime experiment is actually a bad thing for network TV. The basic gist is that NBC took a stab at doing something different, and failed spectacularly, so it might be a while before other networks try to stick their neck out and try something else different.

The networks have never been good at trying to do things different.

So I don't think it is any big loss. They have never really been innovators.

Sure Leno was a test and it was cheaper, but it had no upside. NBC puts on a couple new dramas every year, and if 1 or 2 take off they make more money than a lifetime of Lenos in Primetime. NBC tried to eliminate the risk, but also eliminated the reward. Do you think CBS makes more money with their last hour of dramas than NBC made with their Jay leno lineup or less?

I suspect it takes only one top 5 show and another top 15-20 show to make it as profitable if not more profitable.


It does bug me how awesome USA is and how much NBC sucks. They could take Burn Notice and put it on NBC and it would be their best hour long show on the network.

I can't believe Burn Notice costs a huge amount to produce. What about all these cable shows? How does AMC make Breaking Bad and Mad Men for a lot less than money than a network would pay to make them? That is one thing I don't understand. It seems to me networks either get ripped off or are fiscally irresponsible when it comes to making shows. When cable networks can successfully air dramas and make money with much smaller ratings, it doesn't make sense why the networks can't do it.

Unless it is the albatross of the affiliate model that makes shows less profitable for the big networks.

[marksman]

Wow January 21st and Conan was on track to lose money for 2010.

Gaspin should be quiet. I am actually counting on him to help fix NBC, but he needs to keep this whole mess at arms length and not be jumping into it.

[Turtleboy]

It's funny that everyone, including the OP, is talking as if the "Networks" still really matter.

[DevdogAZ]

I still hold that it's only necessary if you (the networks, in this case NBC) want to complete give up on developing quality content.

The cable networks -- as you (DevdogAZ) point out above -- are doing well at competing because they are developing quality shows. The only real difference is that the cable nets can be edgier and more racy, but that doesn't mean that the traditional networks can't more than compete against them.

To borrow a line from a famous film: If you (quality) program it... the viewers will come!. NBC had, in recent years, developed pure c-r-a-p. Much like ABC just a few years back (when they were in fairly dire straights programming quality wise...), NBC had not much more than multiple nights of Howie Mandel and his models with cases. And Biggest Loser. ABC is doing relatively well now while NBC is in the tank.

NBC could spend more money to develop better programming, or they could drop the 10PM time slot into the tank in favor of much cheaper programming. They went cheap and it bit 'em hard. I'm still very happy that is the case.

Maybe NBC will realize that they need to come up with their own quality programs rather than just letting USA Network be the place people look to for a good program.

I can't believe Burn Notice costs a huge amount to produce. What about all these cable shows? How does AMC make Breaking Bad and Mad Men for a lot less than money than a network would pay to make them? That is one thing I don't understand. It seems to me networks either get ripped off or are fiscally irresponsible when it comes to making shows. When cable networks can successfully air dramas and make money with much smaller ratings, it doesn't make sense why the networks can't do it.

Unless it is the albatross of the affiliate model that makes shows less profitable for the big networks.
That's the problem. Simply by virtue of the show being on network TV, all the actors, producers, writers, creators, etc. expect to get paid on par with a network level show. If the show were on cable, they'd be content to do the same job for less money, but because it's a network, they demand more. Thus, the networks can't produce shows on the cheap like the cable nets can, simply because they are networks.

It would work much better if the production companies that make the shows would enter into contracts where everyone would agree to work on the show for a fixed cost, regardless of where the show would be aired. Then, if the show is picked up by a network, any network could pick up any show by paying a base amount to license the show and a bonus amount based on ad revenue received. The contracts for those that work on the show could allow for everyone to be paid a portion of the ad revenue bonus. Obviously, the network shows would get larger bonuses, but the base price to produce the show wold not be so high.

With a model like that, it would be possible for a cable network to pick up a canceled network show, because there would be a built-in audience that would be big enough for a cable network, and the contracts would already be in place to produce the show for an amount that the cable net could afford.
It's funny that everyone, including the OP, is talking as if the "Networks" still really matter.
Ironic that you should say that, since you're actually the OP of this thread.

[Turtleboy]

Ironic that you should say that, since you're actually the OP of this thread.

zoom.

[DevdogAZ]

zoom.
Apparently. :o

[netringer]

It's funny that everyone, including the OP, is talking as if the "Networks" still really matter.

I was thinking it's funny that "lead-in shows" still matter. Are there really that many people in 2010 that don't have a freaking remote control that changes channels? It's not like you have to get out of your chair and go across the room to turn the click-click dial tuner.

[aindik]

It's funny that everyone, including the OP, is talking as if the "Networks" still really matter.

Apparently they do matter. NBC canceled the Leno show, which was profitable for them, because the affiliates freaked out. Apparently they still care what the affiliates think.

[terpfan1980]

That's the problem. Simply by virtue of the show being on network TV, all the actors, producers, writers, creators, etc. expect to get paid on par with a network level show. If the show were on cable, they'd be content to do the same job for less money, but because it's a network, they demand more. Thus, the networks can't produce shows on the cheap like the cable nets can, simply because they are networks.

It would work much better if the production companies that make the shows would enter into contracts where everyone would agree to work on the show for a fixed cost, regardless of where the show would be aired. Then, if the show is picked up by a network, any network could pick up any show by paying a base amount to license the show and a bonus amount based on ad revenue received. The contracts for those that work on the show could allow for everyone to be paid a portion of the ad revenue bonus. Obviously, the network shows would get larger bonuses, but the base price to produce the show wold not be so high.

With a model like that, it would be possible for a cable network to pick up a canceled network show, because there would be a built-in audience that would be big enough for a cable network, and the contracts would already be in place to produce the show for an amount that the cable net could afford.

Ironic that you should say that, since you're actually the OP of this thread.

No one is holding the network's hostage in what they pay for programming and none says you have to spend that much to get quality programs for the money the networks spend.

Granted if NBC is competing against ABC, CBS and FOX for programming they have to pay competitive prices but then again, much like sports in this country (I'm looking at you MLB!!!) it seems that only one really wanted to cut costs and go on the cheap.... in this case NBC.

NBC did push down their costs on Chuck (a darling of the fans), and FOX had pushed down costs for some of their programming as well (Dollhouse as an example if memory serves). Thus far Chuck seems to be doing ok on it's budget. Dollhouse is another story in that it never found an audience, but that's a problem for FOX not NBC.

NBC had a buzz-worthy show with Heroes and it fell apart after the first season (some would say in the first season :(). They had a 'smart' show in Studio 60 but the ratings were poor because they aired it on a night they get crushed by football and/or CSI: Bathing Beauties, uh Miami (and yeah, it bored a bunch of viewers with mixed quality in it's first several episodes). Instead of being patient they dropped Studio 60 and kept some other stuff and tried re-treads of things like Bionic Woman and Knight Rider when most people looked at the ideas of bringing back those series as being non-starters, just as most people seemed to look at Leno @ 10 x 5 as a bad idea.

Somewhere there are writers with ideas for shows that they'd love to get on a network. Perhaps NBC should start up their own Project Greenlight and develop whatever wins the contest. It can't get much worse than what they've tried up to now.

[IJustLikeTivo]

It's a little different than going to work for a corporation that specifically hires you to produce a product (code, whatever).

NBC is in a contract with Conan's company to produce a show. Not bits. The people who work the show don't work for NBC. They work for Conan's company.

And has been stated, NBC will effectively never be able to use the intellectual property they own that Conan created.

It all depends on how the contract reads. I suspect whatever content gets aired is now owned by NBC since they paid for it.

As for using it, they won't. As someone else said, they just don't want him to use it.

[IJustLikeTivo]

That's what intellectual property (like all other property) is in a nutshell - the right to exclude others from using it. In the case of copyrights and patents, you don't actually have to be using the invention/work of authorship yourself in order to stop others from using it. For example, a copyright in an out of print book is valid and can be used to stop others from printing the book.

Partially true. Copyright and patents do expire. Although copyright holders have paid off congress to the extent that now they basically never expire.

And you're correct, they do not have to be used. Trademarks OTOH, have to be used and protected to remain in force. As the Bayer and their ASPIRIN trademark so nicely demonstrate.

[IJustLikeTivo]

And that's bad for viewers how?


Much of what's on sucks that why all the off networks are doing well. Suppressing innovation means it will continue to suck.



Seriously, it's a shame (at least in my opinion) that so many reality TV shows have caught on (in that great experiment). We keep getting fewer and fewer scripted shows. Fewer dramas. Fewer comedies. Less of anything that costs money.



While I agree, that experiment succeeded on two levels, it reduced costs while generating even better ratings. For the network that's the definition of the win/win scenario.



The networks keep trying for the cheapest programming they can produce figuring that viewers will tune in no matter what. Except, well, when they won't. Such was the case with Leno's 10pm show.



From the network perspective Leno made them money. But doing so screwed the affiliates. The classic rob peter to pay paul. Peter was pissed and the whole house of cards collapsed.

[ElJay]

Triumph premiered in 1997, so I think under current copyright law he should enter public domain around 2092. See you then. ;)

[zalusky]

isn't the other big issue is the cable channels get to charge nice carriage fees which the broadcast channels don't get. Hasn't their been discussion lately that broadcast might just disappear because ads are their only revenue model.

[gastrof]

Jimmy Fallon just shared a gem-

'Dave Letterman and Conan both hosted Late Night before I did, and if I've learned one thing from them, it's that if you host Late Night, you'll never end up as host of the Tonight Show.'

[smak]

Apparently they do matter. NBC canceled the Leno show, which was profitable for them, because the affiliates freaked out. Apparently they still care what the affiliates think.

The affiliates freaked out because their 11pm news was down an average of 25% in 25-54.

As well as huge numbers like 48% in NY, 43% in LA. Those are O&O's so NBC should have been concerned as well.

The 10 stations NBC own were on track to lose something like $25 million this year, JUST during 1/2 hour of programming.

The rest about 88 million.

They had good reason to freak out.

-smak-

[smak]

I was thinking it's funny that "lead-in shows" still matter. Are there really that many people in 2010 that don't have a freaking remote control that changes channels? It's not like you have to get out of your chair and go across the room to turn the click-click dial tuner.

Maybe not from 8pm to 9pm, or 9pm to 10pm, but I certainly see why a good lead-in helps from 10pm to 11pm.

I don't really have a favorite local news I watch, and if I'm watching a 10pm show live, and the show ends, you know the news is going to come on right after the show (probably during the credits), and tease the #1 local story, and not caring what news station I watch, if it's interesting I'll watch.

-smak-

[bicker]

In the entertainment business, intellectual property makes you money. It makes no sense for NBC to own something it won't (effectively) ever be able to use.It's not about them using it. It's about preventing Fox (or wherever Conan goes) from making money off it.More precisely: It is about preventing Fox (or wherever Conan goes) from using it, the stuff NBC owns, to grab audience away from NBC.

And since Conan will just come up with other bits to make money off of, it becomes a spiteful move.Ascribing emotional characteristics to what is strictly a rational business decision is ridiculous.

[bicker]

Interesting article in Ad Age (http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=141629) about why the failure of the Jay Leno primetime experiment is actually a bad thing for network TV. The basic gist is that NBC took a stab at doing something different, and failed spectacularly, so it might be a while before other networks try to stick their neck out and try something else different.Yes, indeed, so they're going to go back to the cost-cutting that they've had success with in the past, i.e., programming specific time slots for "various programming" (meaning rebroadcasts of scripted programming presented earlier that week, something which the big networks do a lot on Saturday), programming more reality and competition shows, etc.

Thanks for the link.

[bicker]

But the point of the article is that the landscape for the broadcast networks is changing, and the type of "innovation" that NBC attempted is going to be necessary to stay afloat. As audiences continue to fragment, advertisers will increasingly find that they can reach their desired demographic for less money on niche cable networks rather than using the traditional shotgun approach of broadcast TV. Thus, there will be less and less ad revenue for the networks and they'll have to make the corresponding changes to cut costs.

It doesn't mean that creativity goes away. There are all kinds of great, creative programs on any number of cable networks. Many people are considering this an era of renaissance in the TV industry, despite the proliferation of cheap reality shows. It simply means that big-budget scripted shows might be fewer and farther between.And it also means that a lot less of the "good stuff" will be available "for free" and a lot more of the "good stuff" will be behind a "pay wall". This is a hot conversation on some other forums I participate in -- the fact that people who, for either financial reasons or technical reasons, choose to rely on over-the-air reception are going to be the big losers. Some folks in some of those threads proclaim that this trend is, in some way, "unfair". (I object, but that's another discussion...)

[bicker]

I'm glad you innovation in quotes because this really wasn't about NBC being innovative and more about them being "cheap".If you don't think that there is any need for innovation with regard to cost-cutting then you're really off-target. It is far easier to make something entertaining if you have Carte Blanche and can spend whatever you wish. Given the reality that money is tight and going to become progressively tighter over time, without any end in sight, in that regard, innovation of the sort NBC tried is exactly what you the viewer should be hoping for.

[bicker]

I still hold that it's only necessary if you (the networks, in this case NBC) want to complete give up on developing quality content.Then you're missing the big picture. Programming is a means to an end. It is not the objective in itself. Refusing to recognize broadcasters as businesses will simply leave one mystified about what's going on.

The cable networks -- as you (DevdogAZ) point out above -- are doing well at competing because they are developing quality shows.Paying their cast and crew peanuts by comparison. In another forum, we discussed this earlier in the week, how much of the "problems" that the OTA broadcasters face, going forward, could be readily resolved if all the cast and crew for television programs simply agreed to work on OTA broadcast television networks for cable network wages. I'm not sure that that would do the trick, but it surely would help reduce the cost-cutting pressure on OTA networks.

[bicker]

That's the problem. Simply by virtue of the show being on network TV, all the actors, producers, writers, creators, etc. expect to get paid on par with a network level show. If the show were on cable, they'd be content to do the same job for less money, but because it's a network, they demand more. Thus, the networks can't produce shows on the cheap like the cable nets can, simply because they are networks.And they cannot even just take Burn Notice, as inexpensive as it was to produce, and rebroadcast it on NBC, without paying cast and crew a differential.

Nothing is as simple as some would wish things to be.

It would work much better if the production companies that make the shows would enter into contracts where everyone would agree to work on the show for a fixed cost, regardless of where the show would be aired. Then, if the show is picked up by a network, any network could pick up any show by paying a base amount to license the show and a bonus amount based on ad revenue received. Don't confuse the issue with good ideas like that! :)

[bicker]

Apparently they still care what the affiliates think.Or at least care what Comcast investors think.

[bicker]

No one is holding the network's hostage in what they pay for programming
http://cdn-media.channelme.tv/media/images/000000/73/42/NzM~NzQy_large.jpg

[aindik]

The affiliates freaked out because their 11pm news was down an average of 25% in 25-54.

As well as huge numbers like 48% in NY, 43% in LA. Those are O&O's so NBC should have been concerned as well.

The 10 stations NBC own were on track to lose something like $25 million this year, JUST during 1/2 hour of programming.

The rest about 88 million.

They had good reason to freak out.

-smak-

Oh, I completely understand why the affiliates freaked out. My point was that NBC still cares what the affiliates think. And so, the idea of a "network," (a central unit that produces programming that airs on individual OTA stations across the nation) is still relevant.

[lew]

If you don't think that there is any need for innovation with regard to cost-cutting then you're really off-target. It is far easier to make something entertaining if you have Carte Blanche and can spend whatever you wish. Given the reality that money is tight and going to become progressively tighter over time, without any end in sight, in that regard, innovation of the sort NBC tried is exactly what you the viewer should be hoping for.


It's a shame NBC didn't pre-empt Leno for shows like the Apprentice (most nights) during sweeps. See what kind of ratings Leno gets during the summer against reruns. By the time the Olympics are over the TV season will be more then half over.

Leno might have been an OK idea, but maybe not 5 nights a week all year.

[DevdogAZ]

Maybe not from 8pm to 9pm, or 9pm to 10pm, but I certainly see why a good lead-in helps from 10pm to 11pm.

I don't really have a favorite local news I watch, and if I'm watching a 10pm show live, and the show ends, you know the news is going to come on right after the show (probably during the credits), and tease the #1 local story, and not caring what news station I watch, if it's interesting I'll watch.

-smak-
The #1 local story is going to be on every local affiliate, so that's not really an effective tease. What I see, more often than not, is the local affiliate teasing some wacky story that you know will only be on their station: "Coming up at 11. Why your driveway might be making you sick." That's the kind of thing that makes viewers curious and keeps them on that station just to see what the explanation for a tease like that could possibly be. Then, inevitably, the story they've teased is a 30-second blurb at the very end of the newscast and the tease horribly misrepresented the actual story.

[MickeS]

The #1 local story is going to be on every local affiliate, so that's not really an effective tease. What I see, more often than not, is the local affiliate teasing some wacky story that you know will only be on their station: "Coming up at 11. Why your driveway might be making you sick." That's the kind of thing that makes viewers curious and keeps them on that station just to see what the explanation for a tease like that could possibly be. Then, inevitably, the story they've teased is a 30-second blurb at the very end of the newscast and the tease horribly misrepresented the actual story.

I don't watch any local news anymore pretty much, but I HATED that... the tease was usually only about two sentences shorter than the actual "story".

[allan]

I don't watch any local news anymore pretty much, but I HATED that... the tease was usually only about two sentences shorter than the actual "story".

I think the last tease I bit on was LONGER than the real story. :p

[smak]

The #1 local story is going to be on every local affiliate, so that's not really an effective tease. What I see, more often than not, is the local affiliate teasing some wacky story that you know will only be on their station: "Coming up at 11. Why your driveway might be making you sick." That's the kind of thing that makes viewers curious and keeps them on that station just to see what the explanation for a tease like that could possibly be. Then, inevitably, the story they've teased is a 30-second blurb at the very end of the newscast and the tease horribly misrepresented the actual story.

Both that wacky story, and the #1 local story also being on every other affiliate gets me to not change channels. That's my point, and that's why the 11pm local news is down 25% on NBC.

I'm curious about the Southern California rain, and after watching CSI NY the newsmodel comes on and says here comes big details about the Southern California rain. Why would I switch?

-smak-

[smak]

Oh, I completely understand why the affiliates freaked out. My point was that NBC still cares what the affiliates think. And so, the idea of a "network," (a central unit that produces programming that airs on individual OTA stations across the nation) is still relevant.

Yah, I figured out I was agreeing with you halfway, but I was on a roll.

But my point was NBC said this number will make Jay Leno a success. Supposedly they hit that number, and they had to cancel the show because the affiliates were going nuts.

So why didn't they realize those numbers would make the affiliates go nuts? Seemed obvious at the time, and throughout the whole thing.

Having a strong 10 pm show as a helpful leadin to the local news is not a new concept.

-smak-

[Rob Helmerichs]

Having a strong 10 pm show as a helpful leadin to the local news is not a new concept.
But they may have seriously underestimated how important it is. I know it seems bizarre to me...I have always switched to whatever station has the news I like the most, even in the pre-DVR days when it took a little effort. I'm amazed that so many people just stay wherever they are, but obviously they do. NBC might have thought the hit their affiliates took would be within acceptable limits, but then it wasn't. (They might also not have realized that the affiliates wouldn't see taking a hit at 10:00 Central in order to boost NBC's profits as a good thing. Which would be insane, but hey, it's not like NBC has proven the poster child for sanity in this whole mess...)

[terpfan1980]

But they may have seriously underestimated how important it is. I know it seems bizarre to me...I have always switched to whatever station has the news I like the most, even in the pre-DVR days when it took a little effort. I'm amazed that so many people just stay wherever they are, but obviously they do. NBC might have thought the hit their affiliates took would be within acceptable limits, but then it wasn't. (They might also not have realized that the affiliates wouldn't see taking a hit at 10:00 Central in order to boost NBC's profits as a good thing. Which would be insane, but hey, it's not like NBC has proven the poster child for sanity in this whole mess...)

Something to remember is it doesn't have to be all that many people that aren't changing channels... just a sizable percentage of the households that are being measured by whatever flawed means Nielsen uses.

The numbers may or may not include homes with DVRs (normally they don't include them, no?) and may not truly and accurately represent the areas that are being measured but Nielsen would argue it's the best they can provide and the networks have little choice as to what measurement would otherwise be used to help them set ad rates.

If 99% of the public changes channels but only 1% of the Nielsen homes do, what numbers are really be presented to the networks and their customers?

[smak]

But they may have seriously underestimated how important it is. I know it seems bizarre to me...I have always switched to whatever station has the news I like the most, even in the pre-DVR days when it took a little effort. I'm amazed that so many people just stay wherever they are, but obviously they do. NBC might have thought the hit their affiliates took would be within acceptable limits, but then it wasn't. (They might also not have realized that the affiliates wouldn't see taking a hit at 10:00 Central in order to boost NBC's profits as a good thing. Which would be insane, but hey, it's not like NBC has proven the poster child for sanity in this whole mess...)

I, as a casual of observer of ratings, have noticed for many many years the effect that the 10pm shows have on the 11:35 shows. You'd think it would be obvious to even the dunces at NBC that it would be even more pronounced at 11pm.

-smak-

[aindik]

NBC seems to be pre-empting Leno tonight with some true crime stories show.

[Turtleboy]

NBC seems to be pre-empting Leno tonight with some true crime stories show.

I wonder why. Leno data is on the Tivo. Strange on Conan's last night.

[smak]

Weird to have a comedy show right after the telethon maybe?

-smak-

[kcarl75]

Classy last words.

[orangeboy]

Is anyone (other than me) going to cancel The Tonight Show's Season Pass?

[TriBruin]

This post was in the thread about Conan's last show, but the response is more appropriate here:

NBC is going to pay for this. They'll pay dearly.

Leno has got to eventually retire, and who's going to want to take the Tonight Show after what happened this time?

Besides, if Conan ends up in an 11:35 timeslot, he'll murder Leno.

I'll laugh if Leno still gets canned as a result.


People keep saying that Conan will kill Jay in ratings if they compete head-to-head, but what facts is this being based upon? Jay's ratings for past 17 years were an average of TWICE Conan's ratings.

When Dave moved to CBS, everyone said the same thing: "Dave's going to kick Jay's ass every night." He did, for a couple of years, and then viewers moved back to Jay. Jay's beat Dave for 10+ years.

[Turtleboy]

But who is clamoring to have Jay Leno back? Who is demanding it?

Old people not on the internet, maybe. Have fun with the Depends account, NBC.

[TriBruin]

But who is clamoring to have Jay Leno back? Who is demanding it?

Old people not on the internet, maybe. Have fun with the Depends account, NBC.

So you are saying that only old people watch Leno? Guess I need to contact the AARP and get my application going. :rolleyes:

Too bad all these so-called Coco supporters didn't actually watch the show when it counted.

[Turtleboy]

So you are saying that only old people watch Leno? Guess I need to contact the AARP and get my application going. :rolleyes:

Too bad all these so-called Coco supporters didn't actually watch the show when it counted.


On the whole, Jay's demographics are old and getting older. Indisputable fact.

[bicker]

It would be interesting for TiVo to eventually post how many folks got rid of Tonight Show Season Passes this month vs. how many folks added (back) Tonight Show Season Passes this month.

[stujac]

So you are saying that only old people watch Leno? Guess I need to contact the AARP and get my application going. :rolleyes:

Old people and rednecks. That's Jay's audience. I fall into the "old people" segment although I'm back on a Jay-boycott.

[Turtleboy]

And how are ratings measured anyway? I watched the Tonight Show with Conan all of the time. . . but never live. I wonder how many others are like me, and TiVoed or DVRed it, or watched it on the internet. I wonder how much of Leno's audience did that. I would say a lot less. Older = less using of technology.

[bicker]

Increasingly, advertisers are starting to look more closely at what the ratings mean, and that does not bode well for those of us who prefer programming preferred by viewers whom advertisers start believing are not worth trying to sell to.

[JYoung]

NBC is going to pay for this. They'll pay dearly.

Leno has got to eventually retire, and who's going to want to take the Tonight Show after what happened this time?

Besides, if Conan ends up in an 11:35 timeslot, he'll murder Leno.

I'll laugh if Leno still gets canned as a result.


This post was in the thread about Conan's last show, but the response is more appropriate here:




People keep saying that Conan will kill Jay in ratings if they compete head-to-head, but what facts is this being based upon? Jay's ratings for past 17 years were an average of TWICE Conan's ratings.

When Dave moved to CBS, everyone said the same thing: "Dave's going to kick Jay's ass every night." He did, for a couple of years, and then viewers moved back to Jay. Jay's beat Dave for 10+ years.

This guy is waiting.
http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/files/2009/02/jimmy_fallon.jpg



But who is clamoring to have Jay Leno back? Who is demanding it?

Old people not on the internet, maybe. Have fun with the Depends account, NBC.

The affiliates may have.
ANd NBC will be happy as long as the "Depends account" makes money.

[stujac]

I've never seen either of them live; since I started working early I dvr all late nite shows. In fact, I pay 16. a month to keep the cable dvr just so I can record Kimmel.

[IndyJones1023]

The entire advertising system is a sham. The Nielsen system is horribly outdated, and was never a true metric, anyway. Someday advertisers will find out we only use DVRs to do what we've always done more quickly - not watch their ads.

[JYoung]

And how are ratings measured anyway? I watched the Tonight Show with Conan all of the time. . . but never live. I wonder how many others are like me, and TiVoed or DVRed it, or watched it on the internet. I wonder how much of Leno's audience did that. I would say a lot less. Older = less using of technology.

Then I'd argue that the older, less technical viewers which you deride might be more valuable to NBC than you.
Because they watch the commercials. You don't.

[Turtleboy]

I actually often do watch ads. I'm more into TiVo for time shifting then ad avoidance. But I know I'm unusual in that regard.

[bicker]

While we're engaging in wild-ass speculation: While I agree that older viewers are less likely to (be in a position to) skip commercials, I believe that older viewers may also be substantially bifurcated, and one of the two groups of extremely little value to advertisers, because they're often unimpressed with the value that is being offered, because with the vast majority of consumer products, these days, much of the value is not a practical value but a perceived value. Sometimes, this is perceived as "not getting" the value being offered, such as for an iPod versus a Sansa.

Providence help us once advertisers learn just how little our eyes are worth to them.

[netringer]

The entire advertising system is a sham. The Nielsen system is horribly outdated, and was never a true metric, anyway. Someday advertisers will find out we only use DVRs to do what we've always done more quickly - not watch their ads.

I actaully worked at Nielsen many moons ago when they were developing the face recognition technology, which at the time was amazing for the hardware they had. AFAIK, they have it now so they know who's in front of the box. Nielsen is also getting our Tivo data.

[netringer]

Does anybody else remember what I did - during the time right before Jay took over the Tonight Show?

Jay "humbly" said that when he stepped in the show wouldn't titled "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno." It would be just "The Tonight Show."

Well, that was a broken promise.

[Langree]

I actaully worked at Nielsen many moons ago when they were developing the face recognition technology, which at the time was amazing for the hardware they had. AFAIK, they have it now so they know who's in front of the box. Nielsen is also getting our Tivo data.

Don't they only get our TiVo data if we opt in to allow it?

[IJustLikeTivo]

On the whole, Jay's demographics are old and getting older. Indisputable fact.

So are Conan's. So are everyones. People find someone they like and follow it. I think Conan's youth demo is a result of college students watching late at night. When he was still later and they were now working DVRs saved him. Then they followed to the earlier slot. It's a fact that Leno's demo would never follow later. PArt of the 10 PM strategy was to hold that older but still awake demo as they aged. Stupid idea.

[murgatroyd]

But who is clamoring to have Jay Leno back? Who is demanding it?

Old people not on the internet, maybe. Have fun with the Depends account, NBC.

These snarky comments about old people are getting pretty tiresome. How about giving it a rest?

Note that I say this as someone who is impartial on the Conan vs. Leno brouhaha. I'm not watching Leno anymore. I switched to Craig Ferguson, and I'm not going back. Not that NBC gives a rat's ass about what I watch, since I'm not in the demographic they care about.

Jan

[IJustLikeTivo]

Don't they only get our TiVo data if we opt in to allow it?

I believe anonymous data is still available for raw numbers but without any demographics. No?

[bicker]

Don't they only get our TiVo data if we opt in to allow it?Actually, it is an opt-out system.
I believe anonymous data is still available for raw numbers but without any demographics. No?I believe the specific data that advertisers would care about is anonymous, no matter what.

[netringer]

Don't they only get our TiVo data if we opt in to allow it?

No. I think they get our mostly-anonymized Tivo data if you don't opt-out of allowing it. :rolleyes:

There are some TiVo features that require opt-in. VOD?

[Turtleboy]

These snarky comments about old people are getting pretty tiresome. How about giving it a rest?

Note that I say this as someone who is no longer watching Leno. I switched to Craig Ferguson, and I'm not going back. Not that NBC gives a rat's ass about what I watch, since I'm not in the demographic they care about.

Jan

Craig isn't opposite Leno. I have two DVRs and Tivoed Tonight Show with Conan, Late Show with Dave, plus John Steward and Colbert. I didn't watch every one every night, but watched all occassionally.

And what demographic does NBC care about? I can't tell. My favorite shows are still on NBC, actually. I'll watch Thursday night from 8-9:59 live.

I don't understand what NBC did here from a business perspective. They made so many mistakes.

1) If Jay was doing well in the ratings, they never should have promised Conan the show in 5 years ago. They should have told him "Sorry, we have Jay. We love you, and you can do Late Night until Jay decides to retire, but we aren't going to force him out. We'll understand if you leave." I'm not sure Conan would have left. He had a good gig and was doing good work. He might have, he might not have.

2a) Once they made the decision, they probably should have stuck with it. Or not. If Jay was not ready to retire, and was still #1 in the ratings, they should have apologized to Conan, said "Jay's not ready to retire. We had all of these horrible stories about how we forced out Johnny Carson before he was ready to retire. True or not, we hate those stories. We're not ready to force Jay out. You can stay at 12:35 longer or you can have a pile of money to walk away. Either way, we understand."

3) Or, of they wanted to make the long term commitment to Conan, they should let Jay go. Jay may have gone to another network, but I'm not so sure he would have taken his audience with him. I think he was #1 in the ratings more out of habit then loyalty. His show was tired, his interviewing terrible, and he was just going through the motions. Their biggest mistake was once they decided to give Conan the Tonight Show at 1135 was to keep Jay around for an earlier show.

It is this that made people so angry at Jay and NBC. It was this that turned almost all of Hollywood (and the public?) except for Jay's friends Jerry Seinfeld and Paul Riser against him and NBC. I think most people have a sense of fairness. Not right vs. wrong; good vs. evil, etc. They saw giving Jay the 10pm show as unfair to Conan, unfair to the hundreds of cast and crew members of the 10pm shows that lost their jobs, and unfair to viewers who want to be entertained at 10.

Then, when Jay's 10pm "variety show," as Letterman mercilessly calls it, failed, the "solution" wasn't telling Jay to take a hike, because NBC already negotiated itself into a corner. It was moving Jay back to 11:35 but not calling it The Tonight Show. Well, a turd by any other name still smells like crap. Again, people saw this as "unfair."

4) Viewers will not flock back to Jay. First, people are creatures of habit and they're lazy. They won't even change the channel to watch the newscast they always watched b/c they were watching another show at 10. I think the people who watched Jay out of habit are gone and mostly won't be coming back. Plus, he's "damaged goods." Part of Jay's appeal was always his image as the "nice guy." Letterman's image was always as the acerbic a-hole. People liked him or didn't like him, but that's who he is. Jay, at least pretended to be the friendly, easy-going, let's all get along guy. That persona is now gone. Now, he's Charles II; he's Napoleon; he's Richard Nixon. He's a phony. And people aren't going to want to watch that.

[bicker]

Hindsight is always 20/20.

[IJustLikeTivo]

Craig isn't opposite Leno. I have two DVRs and Tivoed Tonight Show with Conan, Late Show with Dave, plus John Steward and Colbert. I didn't watch every one every night, but watched all occassionally.

And what demographic does NBC care about? I can't tell. My favorite shows are still on NBC, actually. I'll watch Thursday night from 8-9:59 live.

I don't understand what NBC did here from a business perspective. They made so many mistakes.

1) If Jay was doing well in the ratings, they never should have promised Conan the show in 5 years ago. They should have told him "Sorry, we have Jay. We love you, and you can do Late Night until Jay decides to retire, but we aren't going to force him out. We'll understand if you leave." I'm not sure Conan would have left. He had a good gig and was doing good work. He might have, he might not have.

2a) Once they made the decision, they probably should have stuck with it. Or not. If Jay was not ready to retire, and was still #1 in the ratings, they should have apologized to Conan, said "Jay's not ready to retire. We had all of these horrible stories about how we forced out Johnny Carson before he was ready to retire. True or not, we hate those stories. We're not ready to force Jay out. You can stay at 12:35 longer or you can have a pile of money to walk away. Either way, we understand."

3) Or, of they wanted to make the long term commitment to Conan, they should let Jay go. Jay may have gone to another network, but I'm not so sure he would have taken his audience with him. I think he was #1 in the ratings more out of habit then loyalty. His show was tired, his interviewing terrible, and he was just going through the motions. Their biggest mistake was once they decided to give Conan the Tonight Show at 1135 was to keep Jay around for an earlier show.

It is this that made people so angry at Jay and NBC. It was this that turned almost all of Hollywood (and the public?) except for Jay's friends Jerry Seinfeld and Paul Riser against him and NBC. I think most people have a sense of fairness. Not right vs. wrong; good vs. evil, etc. They saw giving Jay the 10pm show as unfair to Conan, unfair to the hundreds of cast and crew members of the 10pm shows that lost their jobs, and unfair to viewers who want to be entertained at 10.

Then, when Jay's 10pm "variety show," as Letterman mercilessly calls it, failed, the "solution" wasn't telling Jay to take a hike, because NBC already negotiated itself into a corner. It was moving Jay back to 11:35 but not calling it The Tonight Show. Well, a turd by any other name still smells like crap. Again, people saw this as "unfair."

4) Viewers will not flock back to Jay. First, people are creatures of habit and they're lazy. They won't even change the channel to watch the newscast they always watched b/c they were watching another show at 10. I think the people who watched Jay out of habit are gone and mostly won't be coming back. Plus, he's "damaged goods." Part of Jay's appeal was always his image as the "nice guy." Letterman's image was always as the acerbic a-hole. People liked him or didn't like him, but that's who he is. Jay, at least pretended to be the friendly, easy-going, let's all get along guy. That persona is now gone. Now, he's Charles II; he's Napoleon; he's Richard Nixon. He's a phony. And people aren't going to want to watch that.

Let's assume 1-3 are true. How did Jay have any responsibility. It's not his job to be nice to Conan at the expense of what's good for him. At the end of the day each of them made a deal but both made a deal with NBC, your issue is with them and not Jay.

As for 4. I suspect the people he lost, he never had. The people he had, he still has.

The biggest mistake they made was not publicly backing their decision. They have spent millions fixing their mess. Might that money have been better spent doing some advertising to try and improve ratings for both shows?

Conan left with his held high and a great attitude, he hates cynics and negativism, there are a lot of people in this thread who could learn from that, me included.

[pcguru83]

This is too good not to share. I was searching for a torrent of the episode from last night, and stumbled on something very interesting. It's an episode of Inside the Actors Studio back featuring Conan O'Brien from January 26, 2009. This is of course about five months before he took over The Tonight Show.

Conan says something about eleven minutes in that is truly telling about who he is as a comedian:

I was someone, and this happened in my career too, where when people first meet me I'm not grabbing them by the lapel and showing them that I'm really funny. I need to be around for a while. And this has been my whole career. I was never someone who burst into a room and said, "Take this down, because its going to be pretty funny." I had to be around for a little bit and people would pick up on my energy and then over time I could win them over. And it's really been the same thing with the Late Night Show.

Given time, I believe Conan would have built up an audience to rival that of Jay's. But he wasn't given the time. I truly believe with NBC has made a horrible, horrible long term decision. This may have been necessary for the short-term, but I think they've shot themselves in the foot.

Anyone who is a fan of Conan needs to find this episode of Inside The Actors Studio and give it a watch. It's fascinating.

[Amnesia]

Is anyone (other than me) going to cancel The Tonight Show's Season Pass?I canceled the SP when Jay left and I'll recreate it when he returns...(I have no issue with Conan, just never enjoyed his show)

[morac]

And how are ratings measured anyway? I watched the Tonight Show with Conan all of the time. . . but never live. I wonder how many others are like me, and TiVoed or DVRed it, or watched it on the internet. I wonder how much of Leno's audience did that. I would say a lot less. Older = less using of technology.

Unless you are in a Nielsen household it doesn't make a difference what you do. That's the problem with the ratings system. Nielsen does have access to TiVo's viewer data, but as far as I'm aware, they don't give it as much weight as their own data. Really the Nielsen rating system should simply go away, but that's a topic for another thread.

[DevdogAZ]

If 99% of the public changes channels but only 1% of the Nielsen homes do, what numbers are really be presented to the networks and their customers?
Sounds like someone needs to take a statistics class.
Is anyone (other than me) going to cancel The Tonight Show's Season Pass?
Since the SP is for "The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien" you might as well cancel it since that show won't be on anymore.
But who is clamoring to have Jay Leno back? Who is demanding it?
NBC executives.
And what demographic does NBC care about? I can't tell. My favorite shows are still on NBC, actually. I'll watch Thursday night from 8-9:59 live.
NBC cares about what advertisers care about, which is adults aged 18-49. The advertisers feel that people under 18 don't have disposable income and people over 49 are set in their ways and are less likely to be influenced by advertising.
I don't understand what NBC did here from a business perspective. They made so many mistakes.

1) If Jay was doing well in the ratings, they never should have promised Conan the show in 5 years ago. They should have told him "Sorry, we have Jay. We love you, and you can do Late Night until Jay decides to retire, but we aren't going to force him out. We'll understand if you leave." I'm not sure Conan would have left. He had a good gig and was doing good work. He might have, he might not have.
As Jeff Zucker said on Charlie Rose, that decision bought them five more years of the top duo in late-night TV. These shows reportedly make over $100 million in profit per year, so that was not necessarily a bad decision at the time. If Conan had gone to Fox or ABC and started a show that competed with "Tonight," it would have fragmented the viewers and eaten into NBC's profit. So while it looks like a bad decision in hindsight, it may have been a decision that helped NBC make hundreds of millions of dollars.
2a) Once they made the decision, they probably should have stuck with it. Or not. If Jay was not ready to retire, and was still #1 in the ratings, they should have apologized to Conan, said "Jay's not ready to retire. We had all of these horrible stories about how we forced out Johnny Carson before he was ready to retire. True or not, we hate those stories. We're not ready to force Jay out. You can stay at 12:35 longer or you can have a pile of money to walk away. Either way, we understand."
NBC was on the hook to pay Conan $45 million if they didn't give him The Tonight Show in 2009. And the execs at NBC truly believed that the ratings wouldn't fall significantly for Conan on The Tonight Show, and that the younger demo ratings might actually increase. These reasons, along with not wanting to have a repeat of 1992, were why they stuck with the 2004 plan to replace Leno. Perfectly rational with the information they had at the time.
3) Or, of they wanted to make the long term commitment to Conan, they should let Jay go. Jay may have gone to another network, but I'm not so sure he would have taken his audience with him. I think he was #1 in the ratings more out of habit then loyalty. His show was tired, his interviewing terrible, and he was just going through the motions. Their biggest mistake was once they decided to give Conan the Tonight Show at 1135 was to keep Jay around for an earlier show.
This was probably NBC's biggest mistake here, but at the same time, they didn't want Leno to start a show on ABC and compete directly with The Tonight Show. If you're an NBC exec in 2008, which do you choose: a) Leno going to ABC and launching a show that will compete directly with Conan and Letterman and further fragment the audience and eat into profits for flagship late-night show, or b) Leno staying with your network, doing a show in prime time (which you haven't had much recent success with anyway), and not competing directly with Conan and stealing those very profitable eyeballs? With the information available at the time, I think b was the much more logical choice.
4) Viewers will not flock back to Jay. First, people are creatures of habit and they're lazy. They won't even change the channel to watch the newscast they always watched b/c they were watching another show at 10. I think the people who watched Jay out of habit are gone and mostly won't be coming back. Plus, he's "damaged goods." Part of Jay's appeal was always his image as the "nice guy." Letterman's image was always as the acerbic a-hole. People liked him or didn't like him, but that's who he is. Jay, at least pretended to be the friendly, easy-going, let's all get along guy. That persona is now gone. Now, he's Charles II; he's Napoleon; he's Richard Nixon. He's a phony. And people aren't going to want to watch that.
I think you're placing way too much emphasis on what a few thousand vocal people on the internet say. The vast majority of late-night viewers couldn't care less about this Leno/Conan saga, and will just watch who they like, or whoever comes on after the news they're watching. I think there were a couple million people who watched Leno on a regular basis and simply stopped watching late-night TV when he went away. Will they all come back? Doubtful, but the numbers have shown that average viewers prefer Leno to Conan, so it's likely that as people begin to realize that Leno is back in that old slot, habits may drift back to what they were before. I don't expect he'll get back to his 5 million nightly viewers, but I think he'll get more than the 2.5 million viewers that Conan was getting.

[DevdogAZ]

Unless you are in a Nielsen household it doesn't make a difference what you do. That's the problem with the ratings system. Nielsen does have access to TiVo's viewer data, but as far as I'm aware, they don't give it as much weight as their own data. Really the Nielsen rating system should simply go away, but that's a topic for another thread.
While Nielsen tries very hard to make their data be as statistically accurate as possible, I think the complicated installation of their measuring hardware makes it less likely that more technologically-sophisticated households are represented. They have to take apart every single piece of electronics in your home that has a TV tuner in it and install hardware that will track the use of that tuner. They have to install a box at every TV watching location with multiple buttons each assigned to a member of the household. Each member of the household has to push the button when they enter the room to indicate that they are present, and then they have to push it again when they leave so the software doesn't count them anymore. Usually there are a couple of spare buttons to count guests who may view TV at your house but who are not members of your household. For the inconvenience of taking apart your electronics and asking you to constantly push buttons when you enter/leave a room, they pay you about $60 a month.

We were asked to be a Nielsen household about 18 months ago. I was thrilled, and consented immediately. However, when they came to do the installation, it turned out that they didn't have the ability to measure our viewing with the setup that we have. Part of their measurement methodology consists of putting some kind of sensor on the speaker wires that go to all the speakers, whether internally inside the TV, or externally in a home theater system. This sensor senses the signal going through the wires and provides some of the information necessary for their measurement. However, at our house, we have some wireless headphones that get used very regularly. This means we mute the sound going to the speakers and it gets transmitted wirelessly to the headphones. For some reason, they had no ability to measure this signal, so the measurement would be inaccurate, and they told us they couldn't use our household unless they updated their methodology or we stopped using the wireless headphones.

I'm not sure how many people have setups that make it impossible for Nielsen to install their equipment, but I'm guessing there are millions of people who don't want their electronics and home theater systems taken apart, warranties voided, etc. just to help out a statistics company. I'm guessing that the homes that are measured skew more toward those with less expensive, less sophisticated A/V setups, and toward those for whom $60/month is a big deal.

[bicker]

Equivocations about Nielsen ratings are mostly noise, IMHO. The intention is not to have a perfect reflection of how many people are watching which shows (it isn't an election!), but rather to have a tool that efficiently provides some indication about the value that advertising on a specific show may offer to an advertiser. I feel that, if anything, Nielsen ratings tend to make things look a lot rosier than is the reality, so the last thing viewers should be calling for is anything that will make ratings more accurate. That'll just hit us harder, quicker.

[murgatroyd]

Craig isn't opposite Leno.

Not on Live TV, no. But now that I've watched Craig, I don't want to watch Leno. "The Scottish Conan guy" has knocked Leno out of my Now Playing List. Conan's competition has trumped Leno. Amusing, no?

Here's a problem I see for the Live TV audience.

I saw an article with a quote from one of the actors on L&O: SVU about how her show had suffered from being moved to 9 PM. If you are watching live TV, there's a vibe associated with certain timeslots, and it's not hard to watch a show and say "this is an 8 PM show / 9 PM show / 10 PM show" etc.

There's a different sensibility with the 11:35 shows and the shows that come in the timeslot after. Craig's got a whole running gag about how he can do almost anything he wants because he's in the Late Late timeslot and no one is watching.

If Conan's sense of humor is a good fit for the Late Late Show timeslot, then it might not work to shift him to the Late Show timeslot without retooling the show. But the viewers who are used to the Late Late flavor of Conan's show might be disappointed in the retooled show, because they miss that edge.

Similarly, the people who liked Leno's thing at 11:35 might not care for the same flavor at 10 PM.

Even for those of us with DVRs, this matters because the shows on Live TV may have been built to fit a certain timeslot. Note how people are saying that The Big Bang Theory doesn't seem as good this season as it has been in previous seasons. Note also that it has been moved to a different timeslot. I don't think it belongs where it is now -- I think it was better in the earlier timeslot.

But to get back to my original point -- even if my schedule changed, and I could stay up to watch the 11:35 shows every night, I wouldn't be watching Leno now. I'd be doing something else. Watching something I've time-shifted, or downloaded, or reading a book, or something else. I've lost the taste for what Leno is doing.

Jan

[inaka]

Is anyone (other than me) going to cancel The Tonight Show's Season Pass?

Already done.

[Turtleboy]

Conan can't host a show till September. I wonder if he can be a guest. Can he go visit Letterman next week? I would guess no.

[lambertman]

Apparently there is a 3-month gag order on Conan doing any interviews.

[IJustLikeTivo]

Conan can't host a show till September. I wonder if he can be a guest. Can he go visit Letterman next week? I would guess no.

I would think yes. Host # guest. Unless they expect him to live in the Tora Bora caves with OBL for 7 months.

BTW, why 7 months? Seems like a very odd amount. Do they think that makes him wait past the beginning of the new season? Why would that matter?

[FilmCritic3000]

I would think yes. Host # guest. Unless they expect him to live in the Tora Bora caves with OBL for 7 months.

BTW, why 7 months? Seems like a very odd amount. Do they think that makes him wait past the beginning of the new season? Why would that matter?

I read an article that stated that, as terms of his settlement, Conan must wait until April before appearing on another show.

[LoadStar]

I read an article that stated that, as terms of his settlement, Conan must wait until April before appearing on another show.

And he cannot give any interviews during that interval either.

[IJustLikeTivo]

I read an article that stated that, as terms of his settlement, Conan must wait until April before appearing on another show.

I thought he said 7 months last night.

[pcguru83]

I thought he said 7 months last night.
I think he's referring to the amount of time he can appear as a guest. It is indeed 7 months (September) until he can appear back on the air in his own show.

[LoadStar]

I thought he said 7 months last night.

7 months was the amount of time the Tonight Show was on the air.

As I understand, he cannot host a show until September, cannot appear on another show in a non-hosting capacity until April, and cannot grant interviews until April.

[LoadStar]

I think he's referring to the amount of time he can appear as a guest. It is indeed 7 months (September) until he can appear back on the air in his own show.

Since when is September 7 months from January?

[dswallow]

Since when is September 7 months from January?

1/23/2010 + 7 months is 8/23/2010. Whether the agreement says "September 2010" or says "precisely 7 months from signing date" or "after 7 full months", who really knows. But for our side of the discussion, "September" is close enough in conversation, isn't it? :)

[Turtleboy]

Jay is appearing on Oprah. (http://www.seattlepi.com/tvguide/414573_tvgif23.html) It's a smart move on his behalf to help win back his middle America audience.

[cmontyburns]

It was mentioned previously today in one of these O'Brien threads, but the overnights for Conan's last Tonight Show were spectacular. Here's some detail. (http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/blockbuster-ratings-for-obriens-final-tonight)

This was his last night, of course, after a contentious parting from NBC, and his fans, many of whom had rallied around him this week, flocked to the show. In preliminary national late-night ratings, Mr. O’Brien scored a booming 7 household rating, which was almost triple the number he had been averaging for months in that measure.

More impressive was the number for 18-to-49-year-old viewers — the gold standard for NBC because advertisers seek to reach that audience. There, in overnight numbers from the country’s 25 largest cities, Mr. O’Brien hit an extraordinary rating, a 4.8.

Not only would that be by far the biggest rating in that age group for any kind of show at any time Friday night (if it holds up as a national rating and it will probably decrease only slightly), it is also a better number than almost every prime-time show that has appeared on NBC this television season.

In the current television week, only three entertainment shows on television — “American Idol” on Fox and CBS’s two Monday comedies, “Two and a Half Men” and “The Big Bang Theory” — have exceeded a 4.8 rating in that younger adult group.

Now, Conan could never keep up anything close to that, even if he had stayed at NBC. But the network may now be praying that seven months is long enough. As Time's James Poniewozik wrote this week (http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/01/21/why-conan-owes-nbc-a-thank-you):

Now, obviously the ratings are the result of publicity. Sort of. It's unlikely he would have sustained this rise had NBC had a change of heart and kept him at Tonight. On the other hand, Jay Leno has gotten just as much attention out of this fiasco, and his ratings have been mostly flat; David Letterman has been making headlines by whaling on Leno with gusto, but he hasn't gotten a similar boost.
Temporary or not, in other words, NBC has just provided a massive new sampling, an underdog-hero image and a potential future following in a valuable demo group—to a guy they're paying millions to go somewhere else. I don't know if Fox is going to offer Conan a show, but if they were interested two weeks ago, they have to be a hell of a lot more interested now. Well played, NBC.

[JYoung]

I truly believe with NBC has made a horrible, horrible long term decision. This may have been necessary for the short-term, but I think they've shot themselves in the foot.


I agree with this to a certain extent.
They may get another 4-5 good years out of Leno but after that, who'd replace him if his ratings tank or he actually does decide he wants to retire.

The only real alternative would be Jimmy Fallon. They could try Carson Daly (or someone like him) but if Fallon wants it and Lorne Michaels is still in his corner, then Fallon's got it and IMO, he'd be the one winding up killing the Tonight Show.

(Ferguson's out because he's under contract to take over Letterman's slot once Letterman retires.)

[FourFourSeven]

Conan played the last two weeks masterfully. I think he'll be the big winner long-term out of this mess. Leno ends up fine in the short-to-mid-term (got out of the 10PM disaster, got his old show back, which is all he wanted). Big loser? NBC. They managed to:

-Destroy their 10pm hour
-Hurt Leno's image, probably affecting his ratings
-Boost Conan's image and profile (he's definitely the "hot" commodity after the last two weeks)
-Pay Conan $33MM
-Send Conan, with a big ol' bow attached, to a competitor

Well played, NBC...

[dtle]

Given time, I believe Conan would have built up an audience to rival that of Jay's. But he wasn't given the time. I truly believe with NBC has made a horrible, horrible long term decision. This may have been necessary for the short-term, but I think they've shot themselves in the foot.


Once again, the long-term solution would've been losing Leno, paying $150 million, and have him compete against Conan for the foreseeable future. All in the name of HOPING Conan will build up his audience??

[marksman]

I watched Conan's last episode. I thought it was pretty good. I especially liked the defiling of the picasso with the dinosaur bones with bulaga caviar.

I realized I really enjoy Conan. I just essentially cut him and Jimmy Kimmel off because I am perpetually out of time to watch all the other stuff I record, so that stuff just seemed to get down to the bottom of the pile, ultimately knocking other stuff off before I ever got to it and rolled off itself.

I have decided that I will definitely watch Conan whereever he goes to support him against NBC, because I think they are stupid.

Some people are still wondering how NBC could have missed the impact on the affiliates. I think that is the biggest key, and why nobody has been fired over this makes the entire leadership their guilty in this situation. The lack of foresight on the impact on affiliates is totally inexcusable and indefensible. There is nothing they could say or do to defend the decision in that regard. There is no reasonable circumstance that could have happened that would have made this change good for the affiliates.

I wouldn't be surprised if the affiliates don't continue with the pressure and expect for some more changes. The affiliates said this was a bad idea from the beginning. Homeless people in New Jersey knew it was a bad idea before it happened.


I will say one thing I find out. If all the people who are upset for Conan, and protesting and everything else actually watched his show every night, he would likely still be on the air. I suspect a lot of people chanting for CoCo have not been watching him on any regular basis. As it just seems to be too widespread that it does not jibe with actual ratings.

On the whole, Jay's demographics are old and getting older. Indisputable fact.

This is one of the problems with tv and other ad driven mediums. Too many of them have built themselves up on the low hanging fruit and the most desirable demos, eschewing everything else. It is a different world though, and it might be time that tv networks, radio stations etc learn that they have to get a little deeper into their business model to continue being successful. [/quote]

There is a lot of money to be made in segments outside of, around or about the 18-54 or 18-48 or whatever demographic they want. However they have never had to worry about or really work at it, because it was raining money from the sky. Now they might have to roll up their sleeves a bit, and they don't seem ready for the job.


As for data collection, I know DirecTV collects data, I just don't know if they share/sell it with anyone. I definitely will watch whatever Conan does to influence whatever I can going forward.


I will echo the sentiments about others and their skepticism of the nielsen system. I am not really educated in the way of statistics, but I have never been able to accept the concept that you could precisely measure the viewing habits of 300 million people with a few thousand samples.

That being said I have been amazed by numbers in my business and how dependable they are even, when you think they should be random.

I can guarantee with a high degree of accuracy that if I take out an advertisement in google search on a specific keyword, that x% of people who see my ad will click it, and y% of those people will buy the product/service.

It doesn't make sense to me in theory, because I have to believe people are more random and diverse than that... but in aggregate I guess they are not.. so I guess now I have just talked myself out of my skepticism of the Nielsen numbers.

[marksman]

7 months was the amount of time the Tonight Show was on the air.

As I understand, he cannot host a show until September, cannot appear on another show in a non-hosting capacity until April, and cannot grant interviews until April.


When I heard the 7 month thing last night... it made me chuckle. Clearly it was a concession to match the amount of time on the air, which made me think this had to be one ridiculous negotiation.

I am sure NBC wanted at least 12 months, and while wanting nothing Conan's people were probably throwing out 3 months max.. and then it came down to someone saying it will be as long as he was on the air 7 months. I really wish I could find out which side offered that up first.

It is just funny to me because it makes perfect sense in a ridiculous sort of way.

[marksman]

One more thought on all this.

Given the amount of free press and media attention NBC has received for their network and their late night shows and their leno show, it makes it all the more miraculous how poorly the network is doing relatively speaking.

It looks like the managed to take little to no advantage of this massive amount of free publicity they have garnered for a good portion of the last year.

[gastrof]

And I'm sure someone else will be happy to take advantage of the publicity and ratings they could get by hiring Conan.

Conan's suggestion that someone hire both him and Andy and let Andy be the actual host of a new show (side-stepping the proviso in his departure agreement with NBC) gave me pause.

Someone should do that. They really should. Let eveyone agree Conan takes over come September, but the show starts as soon as possible.

Story is Fox is already checking out how their affilates feel about a latenight show.

And Leno was the one joking about seeing how things might be at FOX...

Skunk-headed goon...

[TriBruin]

I will say one thing I find out. If all the people who are upset for Conan, and protesting and everything else actually watched his show every night, he would likely still be on the air. I suspect a lot of people chanting for CoCo have not been watching him on any regular basis. As it just seems to be too widespread that it does not jibe with actual ratings.


^ This. If these so-called "I'm with Coco" fans would have watched the Tonight Show from the beginning, NBC would have probably let Jay walk. But Conan's ratings were well below what they were getting with Jay. So NBCs choice was go with the proven commodity (Jay) or hope that Conan finds his audience at 11:35. They went with the decision that (should) help them in the short term (but leaves them with a long term problem, but that will be someone elses problem.)

[pcguru83]

^ This. If these so-called "I'm with Coco" fans would have watched the Tonight Show from the beginning, NBC would have probably let Jay walk. But Conan's ratings were well below what they were getting with Jay. So NBCs choice was go with the proven commodity (Jay) or hope that Conan finds his audience at 11:35. They went with the decision that (should) help them in the short term (but leaves them with a long term problem, but that will be someone elses problem.)
Well I'm one of those "I'm with CoCo" fans and I DID watch from the beginning...


...on Hulu. It still concerns me a bit that perhaps he was getting more viewers than his ratings reflected, albeit from different sources. He undoubtedly has one of the youngest followings of any late night host. We go about this whole entertainment thing alot differently these days. :)

[TriBruin]

Well I'm one of those "I'm with CoCo" fans and I DID watch from the beginning...


...on Hulu. It still concerns me a bit that perhaps he was getting more viewers than his ratings reflected, albeit from different sources. He undoubtedly has one of the youngest followings of any late night host. We go about this whole entertainment thing alot differently these days. :)

That is part of the problem. Conan's audience is more likely to watch him in alternative ways (Hulu, DVR'd, Bittorrent) that count for little or nothing. Conan may have a huge following, but his audience is translating in to viewers.

[pcguru83]

That is part of the problem. Conan's audience is more likely to watch him in alternative ways (Hulu, DVR'd, Bittorrent) that count for little or nothing. Conan may have a huge following, but his audience is translating in to viewers.
Exactly. Old media has got to find a way to capitalize on all the additional ways to consume media these days. Granted, at one time NBC had a part ownership of Hulu if I recall correctly, so you'd think they'd have some way to account for those viewers. But I'm assuming those don't get lumped in with the Nielsen ratings. So to the casual observer, Conan looks like a flop, when in all actuality he could have been drawing more viewers than the raw numbers suggested. Heck, I wasn't at all a late night fan before Conan came to the Tonight Show, but I made it a point to check out almost every episode on Hulu. Up until this week I had not watched one of his shows on my TV. :) Yet, I've seen probably all but 20 of The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes. There's a disconnect there for sure.

[bicker]

Hulu viewership isn't really worth much, yet. There just isn't enough revenue generated from it for it to count as much as, say, broadcast viewership.

[MickeS]

Hulu viewership isn't really worth much, yet. There just isn't enough revenue generated from it for it to count as much as, say, broadcast viewership.

After a week of watching "ALF" on Hulu, and being bombarded with ads about the Whataburger A-1 Burger in every commercial break, I went and bought 2 of them. Doesn't that count for anything? :(

[bicker]

Practically all my friends who use Hulu use it to watch shows and that's it. None of my friends use it to decide which DVDs to buy. I think most people really just look at it as a way to watch shows.

[marksman]

After a week of watching "ALF" on Hulu, and being bombarded with ads about the Whataburger A-1 Burger in every commercial break, I went and bought 2 of them. Doesn't that count for anything? :(

There is something to be said for the online and on demand advertising.

We missed the last three episodes of this year's top chef and watched them on demand.

we say Tom Collichio drink a diet coke like 40 times. There is something to be said for the ability to repeat one message over and over. Just like me and the Diet Coke, you got that Whataburger commercial burned in your head. Heck I got it burned in my head even with the ability to fast forward on my dvr.

So there is something advertisers and networks need to look at, and that is building a stronger and perhaps more repetitive relationship to individual ads to bring the message home.

[netringer]

Not true. Letterman still does stupid pet tricks. NBC wanted to keep it. It turns out Letterman first did the bit on the Mary (Tyler Moore) variety show (on CBS).

Top 10 lists have been around forever.

Ahhhh...I'll bet Letterman did Stupid Pet Tricks on his old daytime show.

[bicker]

There is something to be said for the online and on demand advertising. We missed the last three episodes of this year's top chef and watched them on demand. we say Tom Collichio drink a diet coke like 40 times. There is something to be said for the ability to repeat one message over and over.That sort of thing does really work very well with reality and competition programming. And indeed, the extent to which product placement fits with reality and competition programming may drive broadcasters towards yet ever more such programming.

While you can put a Diet Coke in Tom Collichio's hand, you cannot expect to be able to do that with Richard Cypher.

[JYoung]

After a week of watching "ALF" on Hulu, and being bombarded with ads about the Whataburger A-1 Burger in every commercial break, I went and bought 2 of them. Doesn't that count for anything? :(

That you're susceptible to sledgehammer advertising? ;)

I have to think think Hulu doesn't translate to that many viewers and neither does bittorrent, even if the network were to actually look at bittorrnet

[morac]

Considering Hulu is contemplating going to a subscription model (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-newhulu21-2010jan21,0,1871796.story) (similar to what the NY Times plans to do), it will be more equatable to cable channels than broadcast channels.

[netringer]

Considering Hulu is contemplating going to a subscription model (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-newhulu21-2010jan21,0,1871796.story) (similar to what the NY Times plans to do), it will be more equatable to cable channels than broadcast channels.

Ahbut, Comcast and the other cablecos already have been screaming for a mechanism to allow only cable subscribers to access online content. Look for your cable company to offer "free" access to Hulu amd other streaming sites with your cable package. You just know they'll offer access for say, HBO programs only if you subscribe to HBO at home.

Comcast gets two "Wins." They kill off the competiton from online and motivate viewers to sign up for cable TV. To those of us who say we can live with OTA and downloads, the message will be "notanymore."

[MickeS]

Ahbut, Comcast and the other cablecos already have been screaming for a mechanism to allow only cable subscribers to access online content. Look for your cable company to offer "free" access to Hulu amd other streaming sites with your cable package. You just know they'll offer access for say, HBO programs only if you subscribe to HBO at home.

Comcast gets two "Wins." They kill off the competiton from online and motivate viewers to sign up for cable TV. To those of us who say we can live with OTA and downloads, the message will be "notanymore."

Yeah, I can almost guarantee this is where things are heading. :( Look at ESPN360.com for example. Not a good development, IMO.

[smak]

Once again, the long-term solution would've been losing Leno, paying $150 million, and have him compete against Conan for the foreseeable future. All in the name of HOPING Conan will build up his audience??

If they never signed Leno to the 10pm deal, there was no $150 mil to pay.

-smak-

[bicker]

Considering Hulu is contemplating going to a subscription model (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-newhulu21-2010jan21,0,1871796.story) (similar to what the NY Times plans to do)And what Newsday and Variety have already done... it will be more equatable to cable channels than broadcast channels.

They kill off the competiton from online and motivate viewers to sign up for cable TV. To those of us who say we can live with OTA and downloads, the message will be "notanymore."They don't so much as kill off the competition as they become the competition. Provision of valuable content means that there will be a price to pay for it, somehow, whether it is a stand-alone service, just charging for Internet video distribution, or a full-featured service, offering content access through a variety of means.

[Rob Helmerichs]

Mark Evanier defends Jay Leno. (http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2010_01_24.html#018420)

[JYoung]

Mark Evanier defends Jay Leno. (http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2010_01_24.html#018420)

Oh, no.
That's too rational for people.

[FilmCritic3000]

Mark Evanier defends Jay Leno. (http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2010_01_24.html#018420)

Wow, those rose-colored glasses must be glued on tight. Mark, Jerry Seinfeld, Paul Reiser, and Leno can all have a lovely commiseration luncheon together.

[DevdogAZ]

1/23/2010 + 7 months is 8/23/2010. Whether the agreement says "September 2010" or says "precisely 7 months from signing date" or "after 7 full months", who really knows. But for our side of the discussion, "September" is close enough in conversation, isn't it? :)
The date on which Conan can start hosting another show is September 1, 2010. So that's 7 months plus a week.
If they never signed Leno to the 10pm deal, there was no $150 mil to pay.

-smak-
And if they had never signed Leno to the 10 pm deal, he'd be doing an 11:35 show on ABC right now, and Conan's ratings would have been even worse than they already were (but he'd still have a job).

[Lori]

Oh, no.
That's too rational for people.

Here are my questions for you. If NBC didn't push Johnny out to make room for Jay, why did Johnny leave 4 months shy of his 30th anniversary? Why didn't he stay around *just a little longer* and go out with a grand celebration? If he left NBC and Jay Leno on such fine terms, why did he never visit the Tonight Show as a guest after his retirement? Why did he only do Letterman? Why did he send his jokes to Dave and not Jay? Why would he not continue to support the institution that he helped create? Why would he help the competition?

I believe that he was pushed out, and that the blood for that is on Jay's hands. I know, it wasn't him. It was Helen Kutchnick. But her paychecks were signed by Jay Leno.

I also believe that Jay put this little debacle in motion when he said **publically** that he would take the 11:30 slot back, "if that's what they want". That was the death knell for Conan. He was a lame duck from that moment.

Someone asked how Jay should have answered that question? How about "You know, I'm not even going to go there. The Tonight Show is Conan's show, and we're just focused on making the best show that we can at 10:00." That is a good answer. "Yeah, sure, I'd take it, you know if it were available. Wink-Wink." is not.

[Turtleboy]

Why are you (Jyoung and Rob) giving Mark Evavnier so much authority. So he's someone who worked in the industry. I can link to multiple people who worked in the industry who think Jay was a d-bag during the Carson saga, and was one now too.

[zalusky]

So frickin what. He wanted the Tonight Show back. It's like Brett Favre coming back after he retired. Are we to complain about that. They go into the playoffs and duke it out.

Jay got rehired. As Jay said it's business and in the end they gave him the deal.
Our job is to watch or not watch the show. We should not wining whether Jay said this or Conan makes silly gestures.

[Langree]

Jay is appearing on Oprah. (http://www.seattlepi.com/tvguide/414573_tvgif23.html) It's a smart move on his behalf to help win back his middle America audience.

So Conan can't speak about it for a few months, but Jay gets to run over to Oprah and "give his take".

Nice.

[Rob Helmerichs]

Why are you (Jyoung and Rob) giving Mark Evanier so much authority. So he's someone who worked in the industry. I can link to multiple people who worked in the industry who think Jay was a d-bag during the Carson saga, and was one now too.
I'm not giving him any authority, I just read his blog daily, and when he has commentary on the Leno/O'Brien fiasco, I thought people here might be interested in seeing a somewhat different (and informed) perspective. If PZ Myers (another guy whose blog I read daily) loved Conan and had something to say on the matter, I'm sure I'd be linking to that too.

Personally, I have no horse in this race. I don't really care that much about either Leno or O'Brien. I just find the whole thing interesting.

[DevdogAZ]

I appreciate the Mark Evanier links. I'd never heard of the guy, but I find his opinion on this situation to be very logical and level headed.

[IJustLikeTivo]

So Conan can't speak about it for a few months, but Jay gets to run over to Oprah and "give his take".

Nice.

Conan was paid a lot for that.... Besides the Friends of Coco will take care of it for him.

[IJustLikeTivo]

I also believe that Jay put this little debacle in motion when he said **publically** that he would take the 11:30 slot back, "if that's what they want". That was the death knell for Conan. He was a lame duck from that moment.

Someone asked how Jay should have answered that question? How about "You know, I'm not even going to go there. The Tonight Show is Conan's show, and we're just focused on making the best show that we can at 10:00." That is a good answer. "Yeah, sure, I'd take it, you know if it were available. Wink-Wink." is not.

If you watched the entire interview, he did say that essentially.

Then he was asked the second question and said what a normal guy would say.

"If you were offered a better setup than you have now, would you take it"

Most of us have faced that question. We've all been offered promotions and usually there is another candidate or the existing person isn't doing well. It's not our job to fix that, our job is to answer the question. I don't see that as backhanded. Unless, your behind helping the existing person to be found deficient. In this case, NBC had long since decided that Conan wasn't getting good ratings. Something was going to happen.

[netringer]

Conan was paid a lot for that.... Besides the Friends of Coco will take care of it for him.

NBC is hoping that the CoCo hype can't last 6 months. With the blogosphere, they'll be proven way, way wrong.

Besides, if say, Fox made a deal they could start hyping the new Conan show starting this afternoon to keep it in front of the public's consciousness.

[Lori]

Conan was paid a lot for that.... Besides the Friends of Coco will take care of it for him.

It's strange, but I'm not really a friend of Coco. I mean, I always liked Conan fine...but if I am watching anything in late night, it's always been Johnny or Dave.

I have just hated Leno for so long...like 42% of my whole life... that I am always rooting for the other guy. It's like he's the Cowboys. :) Who do you root for on Sunday in Pittsburgh? The Steelers...and whomever is playing the Cowboys. :)

Conan just happens to be playing the Cowboys.

[Lori]

I appreciate the Mark Evanier links. I'd never heard of the guy, but I find his opinion on this situation to be very logical and level headed.


His opinion is level-headed...but his credibility breaks down for me when he asserts that Carson wasn't pushed out by NBC. I'll never believe that, so his credibility is shot for me.

[Amnesia]

(...) he asserts that Carson wasn't pushed out by NBC. I'll never believe that, so his credibility is shot for me.Why won't you believe that? Do you have some inside information or are you just a Jay-hater?

[Lori]

Why won't you believe that? Do you have some inside information or are you just a Jay-hater?

I was not a Jay-hater till after the Carson thing. I used to watch Jay every Monday night and in the summers when Carson went to Wimbledon. I thought he was cute...in the cute-funny way, not the cute-hot way. His humor was...cute and he was inoffensive.

The reason I don't believe it is that I happen to believe Bill Carter's (of the New York Times and the book "the Late Shift") take on the whole thing. I believe that Johnny was in no hurry to retire, and that Jay's manager took it upon herself to push things along by humiliating Johnny in public.

As I said before, at this point, Johnny had been with the network for a lot of years...so why would he hastily announce his departure at a routine affiliate meeting, rather than discussing it with his bosses ahead of time? He did not resign in the traditional sense...he just announced in front of the affiliates that he was leaving. As I also said above, he did not wait for his 30th anniversary, which I always thought was strange. He was hurt, and mad, and he got out as quickly as he could.

If there were no hard feelings between Johnny and NBC, why did we only ever see him on Letterman after that? Johnny still got up in the morning, read the paper and wrote jokes...all through his retirement, that's what he did. Did he give the jokes to Leno? Nope, he gave them to Letterman.

These things reinforce my belief that Bill Carter is right. Johnny did not jump on his own. Jay's manager pushed him out.

So, I've been quite anti-Jay ever since.

[stujac]

I was not a Jay-hater till after the Carson thing. I used to watch Jay every Monday night and in the summers when Carson went to Wimbledon. I thought he was cute...in the cute-funny way, not the cute-hot way. His humor was...cute and he was inoffensive.

The reason I don't believe it is that I happen to believe Bill Carter's (of the New York Times and the book "the Late Shift") take on the whole thing. I believe that Johnny was in no hurry to retire, and that Jay's manager took it upon herself to push things along by humiliating Johnny in public.

As I said before, at this point, Johnny had been with the network for a lot of years...so why would he hastily announce his departure at a routine affiliate meeting, rather than discussing it with his bosses ahead of time? He did not resign in the traditional sense...he just announced in front of the affiliates that he was leaving. As I also said above, he did not wait for his 30th anniversary, which I always thought was strange. He was hurt, and mad, and he got out as quickly as he could.

If there were no hard feelings between Johnny and NBC, why did we only ever see him on Letterman after that? Johnny still got up in the morning, read the paper and wrote jokes...all through his retirement, that's what he did. Did he give the jokes to Leno? Nope, he gave them to Letterman.

These things reinforce my belief that Bill Carter is right. Johnny did not jump on his own. Jay's manager pushed him out.

So, I've been quite anti-Jay ever since.

This is exactly how I see it too. Jay was smarmy as hell for claiming he had nothing to do with it; didn't know about it; it was all the agent, etc., etc.

[JYoung]

Why are you (Jyoung and Rob) giving Mark Evavnier so much authority. So he's someone who worked in the industry. I can link to multiple people who worked in the industry who think Jay was a d-bag during the Carson saga, and was one now too.

Nobody's stopping you from linking to those people.

And I've followed Mark Evanier's work for years. That's why I put stock in his thoughts.

Even Lori's chief reference, Andy Ihnatko bows to Evanier when it comes to the Industry.

I was not a Jay-hater till after the Carson thing. I used to watch Jay every Monday night and in the summers when Carson went to Wimbledon. I thought he was cute...in the cute-funny way, not the cute-hot way. His humor was...cute and he was inoffensive.

The reason I don't believe it is that I happen to believe Bill Carter's (of the New York Times and the book "the Late Shift") take on the whole thing. I believe that Johnny was in no hurry to retire, and that Jay's manager took it upon herself to push things along by humiliating Johnny in public.

As I said before, at this point, Johnny had been with the network for a lot of years...so why would he hastily announce his departure at a routine affiliate meeting, rather than discussing it with his bosses ahead of time? He did not resign in the traditional sense...he just announced in front of the affiliates that he was leaving. As I also said above, he did not wait for his 30th anniversary, which I always thought was strange. He was hurt, and mad, and he got out as quickly as he could.


Carson's last show was May 22, 1992 which was the end of the TV season.
It's a pretty reasonable stopping point (and it was during sweeps).

I'm sure that Kushnick's story pissed him off and he reportedly vowed that he'd never help Leno.

But I don't think that Kushnick pushed him out as in forcing him to quit. NBC executives lived in absolute terror of Carson so he could have crushed Kushnick and Leno if he wanted to. My guess is he decided he didn't need to put up with this crap and it was a good time to go out while on top.

And to both you and Turtleboy, I also have no dog in this fight.
I've never been particularly a fan of either O'Brien or Leno.

I just don't see what Leno did wrong in this instance (other than producing a crappy 10 PM show).

[IJustLikeTivo]

.

These things reinforce my belief that Bill Carter is right. Johnny did not jump on his own. Jay's manager pushed him out.

So, I've been quite anti-Jay ever since.

Johnny left cause he felt humiliated. Johnny was know to be very vindictive and punished people he did not like by banning them from his show. NBC was making no money on it's highest rated show but were powerless to change it. When Helen did that nasty business about hinting that NBC wanted him out, it was wrong but NBC was thrilled that their dirty secret was out. JC got ticked out and walked. He regretted it and took out his regret on everyone he could. Regardless, NBC was now, finally making money and had no intention of going back. Did Helen push? Almost certainly, but there is no evidence that Jay did anything, then or now.

Should he have fired her? Probably, but the network did that 4 month later anyway. I'm not sure being loyal to a manager who lost her husband to cancer, a son to AIDs and was battling breast cancer is the worst thing in the world.

[Lori]

Johnny left cause he felt humiliated. Johnny was know to be very vindictive and punished people he did not like by banning them from his show. NBC was making no money on it's highest rated show but were powerless to change it. When Helen did that nasty business about hinting that NBC wanted him out, it was wrong but NBC was thrilled that their dirty secret was out. JC got ticked out and walked. He regretted it and took out his regret on everyone he could. Regardless, NBC was now, finally making money and had no intention of going back. Did Helen push? Almost certainly, but there is no evidence that Jay did anything, then or now.

Should he have fired her? Probably, but the network did that 4 month later anyway. I'm not sure being loyal to a manager who lost her husband to cancer, a son to AIDs and was battling breast cancer is the worst thing in the world.

Possibly not. But by keeping her on, Jay owned her behavior. She humiliated Johnny Carson. I blame Jay for that. So, yes, that taints everything else Jay ever did, or will do. At this point, Jay could retire to minister to the sick in Calcutta and I don't think that it would change the way I feel about him.

You say that Johnny was vindictive toward those who crossed him. On the other side, Carson was also famously loyal to those close to him. If he held Jay blameless, I think that he would have remained loyal to him, and to the show. It's obvious to me--through observing his behavior for the 12 years or so that he lived after he retired--that he did not, in fact, hold that Jay was blameless. It's obvious to me that he had no time for Leno and that is telling for me.

See, I'm not a friend of Coco. I'm a friend of Carson. :)

[netringer]

Johnny left cause he felt humiliated. Johnny was know to be very vindictive and punished people he did not like by banning them from his show. NBC was making no money on it's highest rated show but were powerless to change it. When Helen did that nasty business about hinting that NBC wanted him out, it was wrong but NBC was thrilled that their dirty secret was out. ...

NBC could have done like Lyndon Johnson did with J. Edgar Hoover, announce that he had the job for life.

"Responding to reports that Johnny Carson will be retiring, NBC issued a statement, "We would like Johnny Carson to continue with The Tonight Show as long as he desires. NBC has full faith in him. Johnny is NBC's late night bedrock."

If Johnny was p*ed it was because NBC didn't say a thing.

Peter Lasally said Johnny didn't want to stick around too long like Bob Hope did. He thinks Johnny picked the time to go out on top.

[DevdogAZ]

Possibly not. But by keeping her on, Jay owned her behavior. She humiliated Johnny Carson. I blame Jay for that. So, yes, that taints everything else Jay ever did, or will do. At this point, Jay could retire to minister to the sick in Calcutta and I don't think that it would change the way I feel about him.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion of Leno. And I can see that it's got some solid basis. But this quote of yours shows that it wouldn't matter whether Leno was complicit in this whole Conan thing or not, you'd blame him anyway. So don't be surprised when your admittedly biased opinion about the whole thing is questioned and criticized by those with more objective viewpoints.

[Lori]

NBC could have done like Lyndon Johnson did with J. Edgar Hoover, announce that he had the job for life.

"Responding to reports that Johnny Carson will be retiring, NBC issued a statement, "We would like Johnny Carson to continue with The Tonight Show as long as he desires. NBC has full faith in him. Johnny is NBC's late night bedrock."

If Johnny was p*ed it was because NBC didn't say a thing.

Peter Lasally said Johnny didn't want to stick around too long like Bob Hope did. He thinks Johnny picked the time to go out on top.

Totally agree with all of this.

I just wish that he had gone out in November, after the appropriate amount of pomp and circumstance. He still would have gone out on top. But he would have gone out feeling great. And who knows? Maybe Jay doesn't have such a rocky first couple of years if he has Carson for counsel.

NBC is all about the short game. They don't think beyond their noses.

[lambertman]

Some pretty pointed pro-Jay and anti-Conan comments were found amidst a fairly droning interview Dick Ebersol did today on The Dan Patrick Show. Podcasts are up at danpatrick.com if you're interested.

[DevdogAZ]

Some pretty pointed pro-Jay and anti-Conan comments were found amidst a fairly droning interview Dick Ebersol did today on The Dan Patrick Show. Podcasts are up at danpatrick.com if you're interested.
Thanks for the tip. Even though I remain convinced that NBC didn't really have much choice in this whole matter (by virtue of having both hosts under contract and the affiliates pushing Leno out of prime-time), I still think what Ebersol said about Conan (a couple of weeks ago, haven't listened to this podcast yet) was completely uncalled for and inaccurate. There was no need for Ebersol, or anyone else at NBC to try and blame this mess on Conan. It was simply an unfortunate business decision that had to be made.

[Lori]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion of Leno. And I can see that it's got some solid basis. But this quote of yours shows that it wouldn't matter whether Leno was complicit in this whole Conan thing or not, you'd blame him anyway. So don't be surprised when your admittedly biased opinion about the whole thing is questioned and criticized by those with more objective viewpoints.

Understood. I have not tried to hide how I feel about Mr. Leno, precisely because I am so biased.

Truth be told, he probably *was* less complicit in Cocogate than he was in the original Late Night Wars. His biggest mistake here was allowing his truly ginormous ego to sign that appallingly ill-advised 10:00 contract. Ben Franklin has been dead for 250 years, and even HE knew that Jay at 10 was a bad idea. And he should not have said that he wanted 11:30 back. I know that you guys don't think that he tried to get them to fire Conan, and I believe that. That is not his style. He's sneakier than that. He probably hid in a closet, and overheard some conversation where Jeff Zucker said that they would fire Conan if only they could be sure that Leno would go back to latenight. The little cogs in his little mind started spinning...and voila! "...if I can only figure out how to let them know..."

Only half serious here. But, at the same time, that means that I'm only half-kidding. :)

[ewolfr]

Some pretty pointed pro-Jay and anti-Conan comments were found amidst a fairly droning interview Dick Ebersol did today on The Dan Patrick Show. Podcasts are up at danpatrick.com if you're interested.

I think that same thing about Ebersol when he did the NYTimes interview: He's an exec at NBC. What else is he going to do besides back the boss (Zucker)? He knows where his bread is buttered and I wouldn't expect him to say anything other than what's best for NBC lest he drag the network down even further by stating something like, "Pushing Conan out was a huge mistake Why did we do that?"

[zalusky]

You know if Johnny wanted to work some more why did he not just go to CBS like Letterman wound up doing. I am sure they would have taken him in a microsecond and he would have trounced Jay.

[DevdogAZ]

Ebersol says that all the parties involved have signed non-disparagement agreements not to talk bad about the other parties until at least September 1, 2010.

He says that the biggest mistake made in all of this was signing Conan to replace Leno in 2004. He said it was stupid of NBC to think Leno's ratings would erode. He likened it to five years ago Fox thinking that American Idol would eventually stop being #1 in the ratings, so signing a deal to replace it. Then when the time comes, AI is still #1, but they kick it off the air anyway.

[Lori]

You know if Johnny wanted to work some more why did he not just go to CBS like Letterman wound up doing. I am sure they would have taken him in a microsecond and he would have trounced Jay.

Because he was an old man, and he didn't want to start over. That is not the same as being OK with your friend's agent publicly humiliating you by calling for you to retire (so her client can have your job).

Left to his own devices, I would imagine that Carson would have worked another six months, maybe a year. That's where Helen screwed up. She just got too impatient. He would have left soon anyway...just with a lot less bad blood.

[IJustLikeTivo]

Understood. I have not tried to hide how I feel about Mr. Leno, precisely because I am so biased.

Truth be told, he probably *was* less complicit in Cocogate than he was in the original Late Night Wars. His biggest mistake here was allowing his truly ginormous ego to sign that appallingly ill-advised 10:00 contract. Ben Franklin has been dead for 250 years, and even HE knew that Jay at 10 was a bad idea. And he should not have said that he wanted 11:30 back. I know that you guys don't think that he tried to get them to fire Conan, and I believe that. That is not his style. He's sneakier than that. He probably hid in a closet, and overheard some conversation where Jeff Zucker said that they would fire Conan if only they could be sure that Leno would go back to latenight. The little cogs in his little mind started spinning...and voila! "...if I can only figure out how to let them know..."

Only half serious here. But, at the same time, that means that I'm only half-kidding. :)

Let's be honest, all these guys have ginormous egos. You would too if people paid you 30-40 million per year.

On a business level Leno at 10 made money. NO doubt about that. Did they see the affiliate problem coming? It appears not. And, regardless of how we see this in hindsight, these guys have much much more information at hand than we do. And lots more understanding of the business. I'd like to see a posting at TCF or online when Leno at 10 started saying that the affiliates were going to go nuts. If they didn't see it coming, I doubt anyone else did.

[JYoung]

NBC is all about the short game. They don't think beyond their noses.

This, I agree with 100%.

[JYoung]

I'd like to see a posting at TCF or online when Leno at 10 started saying that the affiliates were going to go nuts. If they didn't see it coming, I doubt anyone else did.

Earlier in this thread, I think (or another Leno thread), there was an article on how the Boston NBC affiliate was going ballistic over the original Leno move to 10 PM saying that it would cut into the local news revenue profits.

I think they did expect the local affiliates would take a hit ratings wise, but I suspect they didn't think it would be as bad as it turned out to be.

Also, NBC is in the "move fast" mentality most likely due to the Comcast merger.

[Lori]

Let's be honest, all these guys have ginormous egos. You would too if people paid you 30-40 million per year.

On a business level Leno at 10 made money. NO doubt about that. Did they see the affiliate problem coming? It appears not. And, regardless of how we see this in hindsight, these guys have much much more information at hand than we do. And lots more understanding of the business. I'd like to see a posting at TCF or online when Leno at 10 started saying that the affiliates were going to go nuts. If they didn't see it coming, I doubt anyone else did.

How 'bout this:



And as for the late local news - ouchy. The affiliates will be storming the castle in a hurry, I think. There's a reason Boston didn't want Jay in prime-time, and trust me, it ain't a personal grudge against Jay. They know that their news ratings will be absolutely destroyed.


http://tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7236656#post7236656

Or this:

It would send a message to NBC that its affiliates and its audience are not interested in this kind of cheaply produced filler tv in primetime, and they should concentrate on producing innovative, quality scripted programming.

The affiliates are the ones getting screwed in this deal. NBC is saving money by airing a talk show in prime time every day, so they can live with lower ratings, but do the affiliates see any of that savings? They'll take a hit in revenues without the offset in savings the network is getting, I'll bet.

http://tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7184244#post7184244

[mbklein]

Nicely predicted, LoadStar. :up:

[Rob Helmerichs]

Nicely predicted, LoadStar. :up:
Not to denigrate Load's psychic abilities, but all that means is he was reading the newspapers at the time. It was widely reported that the affiliates feared a loss in their news shows' ratings. And in fact he noted coverage of the Boston affiliate's concerns.

[IJustLikeTivo]

How 'bout this:




http://tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7236656#post7236656

This:



http://tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7184244#post7184244

Interesting. I didn't see that the first time.

It's not quite the whole story that's being argued now though. I don't think anyone expected that to have an effect on Conan's ratings to the extent some predict it has. OTOH, 10 at NBC has been week forever and Jay still got better ratings. So complicated.

Not to denigrate Load's psychic abilities, but all that means is he was reading the newspapers at the time. It was widely reported that the affiliates feared a loss in their news shows' ratings. And in fact he noted coverage of the Boston affiliate's concerns.

The real issue is that, if they had seen this possible decline, why did they discount it? Did they really think of it and ignore it or just not care? I'd love to have the minutes from the meetings where this was decided.

[IJustLikeTivo]

Nicely predicted, LoadStar. :up:

+1. I don't think I read that thread before.

[Rob Helmerichs]

The real issue is that, if they had seen this possible decline, why did they discount it? Did they really think of it and ignore it or just not care? I'd love to have the minutes from the meetings where this was decided.
Apparently, they thought the decline would be such that the affiliates would be manageable.

[morac]

NBC is hoping that the CoCo hype can't last 6 months. With the blogosphere, they'll be proven way, way wrong.

I think NBC is correct in this instance. The Internet tends to be fickle and doesn't tend to remain focuses on a single topic for very long (http://www.google.com/trends?q=conan&ctab=0&geo=us&date=all&sort=0). My prediction is that come September there will be very few, if any, friends of CoCo left. There certainly won't be any rallies.

[terpfan1980]

I think NBC is correct in this instance. The Internet tends to be fickle and doesn't tend to remain focuses on a single topic for very long (http://www.google.com/trends?q=conan&ctab=0&geo=us&date=all&sort=0). My prediction is that come September there will be very few, if any, friends of CoCo left. There certainly won't be any rallies.

That really all depends upon how quickly Conan gets signed (if he is signed) to another network and how much promotional work they do on his behalf (assuming that he can't do any promo work or make any appearances until after the non-compete period is up).

If FOX starts airing Coco is coming in another 210 days and counting commercials it'll keep him (and them) in the front of people's minds. They can certainly hold some rallies, maybe some contests for tickets to the first show, and other things that will 'go viral' and enjoy the fruits of some relatively cheap publicity.

[DevdogAZ]

I think NBC is correct in this instance. The Internet tends to be fickle and doesn't tend to remain focuses on a single topic for very long (http://www.google.com/trends?q=conan&ctab=0&geo=us&date=all&sort=0). My prediction is that come September there will be very few, if any, friends of CoCo left. There certainly won't be any rallies.
I think those who truly like Conan will follow him whereever he goes. The problem is that number is somewhere in the neighborhood of one million people. He averaged about 2.5 million viewers per night while on The Tonight Show, and you have to figure that a good percentage of those were just there out of habit or because they watched their local news on NBC. Many of those were likely Leno fans before he left Tonight and will revert back to Leno once he resumes that role.

In addition, if Conan moves to Fox, I think it will be quite a while before all Fox affiliates are mandated to carry the network's late-night show. Many of them likely have contracts to run syndicated programming, and given the current state of the economy, it's unlikely that Fox will force the affiliates to breach such contracts and/or give up lucrative local programming without some sort of transition period.

Thus, if Conan starts on Fox in September, he's unlikely to be competitive with Leno and Letterman, from a ratings perspective, for at least a year, just due to the fact that it will take a long time before his show is available to the whole country.

[terpfan1980]

Assuming Conan winds up at FOX, besides the issue with getting the FOX affiliates on board with running his show at night (which might hinge upon whether or not the network agrees to let some affil's run him at 11:30 rather than 11 which is the start of the network's window for their late night schedule) there's also the problem of getting guests on the show which might itself hinge a bit upon where they try to run the show out of (New York vs. L.A.)

And of course the other networks are going to be doing everything they can to try to keep the best guests from running off to Conan which could make things very interesting. Certainly FOX could require anyone starring in a FOX motion picture or TV show to appear primarily on their own late night show but then NBC could do the same with Universal's films and stars.

[smak]

The date on which Conan can start hosting another show is September 1, 2010. So that's 7 months plus a week.

And if they had never signed Leno to the 10 pm deal, he'd be doing an 11:35 show on ABC right now, and Conan's ratings would have been even worse than they already were (but he'd still have a job).

NBC didn't have to offer the job to Conan, and Leno didn't have to accept NBC retiring him in 5 years.

Do you see something wrong with Conan wanting to advance in his chosen profession?

That is everybody's right, in any profession.

I really don't see a problem with what Conan did. He said, he really would like to do the Tonight Show by a certain time. And if NBC said no, I'm sure he would have said ok, at the end of my next contract I may go leave.

Something that happens all the time in the industry.

What doesn't happen all the time in the industry is for a 55 year old staple of television to be moved back 1/2 hour to allow an extremely similar show to be inserted right before it, taking away all it's thunder.

-smak-

[DevdogAZ]

NBC didn't have to offer the job to Conan, and Leno didn't have to accept NBC retiring him in 5 years.

Do you see something wrong with Conan wanting to advance in his chosen profession?

That is everybody's right, in any profession.

I really don't see a problem with what Conan did. He said, he really would like to do the Tonight Show by a certain time. And if NBC said no, I'm sure he would have said ok, at the end of my next contract I may go leave.

Something that happens all the time in the industry.

What doesn't happen all the time in the industry is for a 55 year old staple of television to be moved back 1/2 hour to allow an extremely similar show to be inserted right before it, taking away all it's thunder.

-smak-
I'm not sure how what you wrote was in reply to the post of mine that you quoted.

I agree that Conan had every right to try and improve his position. There's nothing wrong with him asking for The Tonight Show gig. Like you said, he has a right to try and excel at his chosen profession.

But by that same token, there's also nothing wrong with Leno wanting to stay at the top of his chosen profession, which until 2009 was The Tonight Show. When NBC offered him the 10 pm show, that became the new pinnacle of his profession, because if a talk-show host could succeed in primetime, that would be even bigger than late night. Unfortunately for everyone involved, that experiment didn't work and it turned out to be the exact opposite of the pinnacle of Leno's profession.

So Leno still wanted to be at the top of his profession, and NBC was still paying him like a top-of-the-profession guy, and just like there was nothing wrong with Conan wanting the Tonight Show gig, there was also nothing wrong with Leno being unhappy that he was forced out of that gig.

NBC was paying two guys to be at the pinnacle of their profession, but they both had the same profession and there was only room for one guy at the top of that mountain. NBC tried to flatten the mountaintop out a little and make room for both of them, but it didn't work out, so NBC chose the one they had more confidence in.

[murgatroyd]

NBC is all about the short game. They don't think beyond their noses.

I agree, except that I would have mentioned a different body part. :p

Jan

[dswallow]

I agree, except that I would have mentioned a different body part. :p

Jan

She was being nice and giving the benefit of the doubt by mentioning their longest body part.

[Frank_M]

It's funny to me that, in the end, NBC is always the one who creates rivals to itself. And they're simply doing it again.

Say what you will, but those of us who watched Carson know he was brilliant. He had an edge, but not an ego (at least not on air) and that show was a TV legend. And NBC ruled that time slot. There was no rival.

Carson hand-picked Letterman as his replacement. He was so similar to Carson in many ways, but just younger and edgier. They let him grow in his late night spot, and if they'd just let Letterman take over... there would still, I believe, just be the Tonight Show... and no real competitor.

But they drove Dave away, and now, suddenly the late night empire was split into two. Did Jay beat Dave in the ratings? Yes. But anyone who watches both shows knows that Dave is the true flag bearer for the show Carson was putting on. Jay's brand of "funny" is safe and forgettable.

But NBC, god bless them, did find someone else to groom. Conan. Again...kind of edgy, different. And they let him grow. And he was rightly in line for the Tonight Show. And if they'd let him do it.. just left him there, he would have been the gold standard again. Dave isn't going to go on forever, so soon Conan's Tonight Show would again have it all.

But now, NBC has shoved him out... and he'll create a third franchise... this time at Fox. And NBC will bring back toothless Jay for a while...and again, the brand that was the Tonight Show gets eaten away.

It's sad.

I'm a Letterman fan, and I'll watch him until he retires. But when he is done, there's no question in my mind that Conan is the future standard bearer for what late night TV was, is and should be.

And NBC could have avoided all of this. Twice.

[Amnesia]

But anyone who watches both shows knows that Dave is the true flag bearer for the show Carson was putting on. Jay's brand of "funny" is safe and forgettable.I'm not sure what you mean by that. Jay and Johnny both strike me as "safe" compared to Dave's mean-spiritedness. IMO, Jay is much more the "flag bearer". After all, his version of The Tonight Show wasn't that different from how he was as Johnny's guest host.

[Frank_M]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Jay and Johnny both strike me as "safe" compared to Dave's mean-spiritedness. IMO, Jay is much more the "flag bearer". After all, his version of The Tonight Show wasn't that different from how he was as Johnny's guest host.

Johnny had an edge. I know people have tagged Dave as "mean-spirited" but he just doesn't suffer fools... and neither did Carson.

Oh, and I agree that Jay continued to do mostly the vanilla show he did as guest host. But remember, Letterman guest hosted too... and when he did, he was tame. No one wanted to upstage Carson when they guest hosted. That's what got Joan Rivers the boot.

The difference was, when Jay and Dave had their chances to have their own show... Dave made it his own, and Jay just kept trying to play to the safe middle.

Carson didn't do that. I know when you watch old Carson shows now they might seem tame, but that's just because times have changed.

Hope that better explains what I meant. Only my opinion, of course, but thanks for letting me clarify it.

[bicker]

It's funny to me that, in the end, NBC is always the one who creates rivals to itself.I mentioned this earlier in the thread: The reason why these things happen is because a network has an embarrassment of riches. The only way to avoid such situations is to hire crappier people.

[DevdogAZ]

Carson hand-picked Letterman as his replacement. He was so similar to Carson in many ways, but just younger and edgier. They let him grow in his late night spot, and if they'd just let Letterman take over... there would still, I believe, just be the Tonight Show... and no real competitor.
This is the portion of your post that I think bears response. In 1993, CBS was happy to take whichever one of Dave or Jay didn't get the Tonight Show job. If Dave had been picked, Leno would have started his own show on CBS. There's no way to know whether the ratings battle would have turned out the same way, but to say that Dave would have been the only late-night host and CBS would have just given up on the dream and Leno would have faded into the woodwork is pretty naive, IMO.

[terpfan1980]

This is the portion of your post that I think bears response. In 1993, CBS was happy to take whichever one of Dave or Jay didn't get the Tonight Show job. If Dave had been picked, Leno would have started his own show on CBS. There's no way to know whether the ratings battle would have turned out the same way, but to say that Dave would have been the only late-night host and CBS would have just given up on the dream and Leno would have faded into the woodwork is pretty naive, IMO.

Wasn't there also some talk about FOX enterring the late night wars back then? If memory serves the late night wars were just before FOX stole the NFL from CBS as Letterman had just jumped over to CBS in time for the NFL to be gone... I remember his monologues where he had to lament that loss and somewhat question if he'd made the right decision on where to take his show.

[bicker]

Fox was presenting Arsenio Hall's show in that time slot, in 1993.

[DevdogAZ]

Wasn't there also some talk about FOX enterring the late night wars back then? If memory serves the late night wars were just before FOX stole the NFL from CBS as Letterman had just jumped over to CBS in time for the NFL to be gone... I remember his monologues where he had to lament that loss and somewhat question if he'd made the right decision on where to take his show.
For the first several years of Dave's show on CBS, he ripped on CBS because it was in the tank as far as ratings go. It wasn't until the last 7-8 years that CBS has established its ratings dominance.

[aintnosin]

Fox was presenting Arsenio Hall's show in that time slot, in 1993.Arsenio was never on Fox. He was syndicated (his show was probably on a Fox station where you were, but not in my town).

[nataylor]

Wasn't there also some talk about FOX enterring the late night wars back then? If memory serves the late night wars were just before FOX stole the NFL from CBS as Letterman had just jumped over to CBS in time for the NFL to be gone... I remember his monologues where he had to lament that loss and somewhat question if he'd made the right decision on where to take his show.

FOX's late night experiment in 1993 was the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chevy_Chase_Show]Chevy Chase Show[url].

[terpfan1980]

FOX's late night experiment in 1993 was the Chevy Chase Show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chevy_Chase_Show).

I remember Chevy Chase being there, but I think for a while back when Letterman was 'a free agent' that there was some talk he might have gone to FOX. He wound up going with CBS and has been there ever since, but I thought that there was at least some rumors of him (Letterman) possibly going to FOX.

I might be thinking of when Letterman was due for a contract renewal with CBS and was again considering other possibilities (ABC if they moved Nightline, etc.) so it's hard to tell where possibilities of Letterman on FOX ever came in...

[Frank_M]

This is the portion of your post that I think bears response. In 1993, CBS was happy to take whichever one of Dave or Jay didn't get the Tonight Show job. If Dave had been picked, Leno would have started his own show on CBS. There's no way to know whether the ratings battle would have turned out the same way, but to say that Dave would have been the only late-night host and CBS would have just given up on the dream and Leno would have faded into the woodwork is pretty naive, IMO.

I'd quibble with "naive" but you're entitled to think that. I just feel that Dave had a built-in, loyal audience. People that would follow him wherever he went. That's why he could sustain what he did at CBS. I think Jay was propped up by having the built-in audience for the Tonight Show. I think if Dave had had both things going for him, and Jay was the one who went to CBS? That Jay would have gone the way of a lot of other failed late night hosts. He just never has engendered that kind of loyalty. He's safe for all audiences. He does what he does well, but I think without "Tonight Show" in his title, he wouldn't have made it.

[stujac]

I agree with this. I also believe Dave would have never gone to Fox.

[zalusky]

For the first several years of Dave's show on CBS, he ripped on CBS because it was in the tank as far as ratings go. It wasn't until the last 7-8 years that CBS has established its ratings dominance.

Which is exactly why the lead-in argument is all BS. NBC has been in the tank for many years yet still won the late night wars against CBS.

It's possible it affected the local news because people are not seeing their teasers but I think Tonight was a destination show and people turned to it based on a comfort level and not because they were to lazy to work the remote.

[Rob Helmerichs]

More Mark Evanier (http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2010_01_26.html#018429)...

[trainman]

Arsenio was never on Fox.

He was the host of Fox's "The Late Show" for 13 weeks in mid-1987, but he was replaced by "The Wilton North Report" (for which Conan wrote). He couldn't have been made a permanent host at that point because he had already committed to filming "Coming to America."

When "The Wilton North Report" tanked, Fox brought back "The Late Show." They attempted to get Arsenio back, but he'd already signed a deal with Paramount for what premiered as the syndicated "Arsenio Hall Show" in early 1989 -- which, since Fox had canceled "The Late Show" in late 1988, ended up being carried by a good number of Fox affiliates in the same time slot.

[bicker]

That's right! The Late Show. I knew I remember Arsenio Hall on Fox.

[ElJay]

Leno on Oprah from my biased point of view:

It's obvious that he's incredibly annoyed that Conan forced himself into the spot in 2004, which is completely understandable. NBC wanted to keep Conan, who was entertaining offers from other networks at the time, and Leno felt "disrespected" by the process. Leno then went on talking about this move as if Conan was bumping him out after only 7 months or so on the job. Tons of obsession from Leno about #1 ratings. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1.

Leno evidently couldn't understand that Conan had the same ambitions that Leno once held, and didn't like that he was #1 and being forced out anyway. He wanted to be on the decline before he was replaced.

Leno said his show failed because it was a "late night talk show at 10pm." He "felt bad for his affiliates." "It was making money for the network; it wasn't making money for the affiliates." Leno said he had "no strings to pull" about replacing Conan on "The Tonight Show." He asked to be released from his contract after the 10pm show was canceled and was rejected. At that point he was asked by NBC and agreed to 11:35pm. NBC didn't know what Conan's reaction was going to be, but they thought they had a 75% chance of success.

Leno commented on Conan's letter and desire to not move his show to 12:05: "The ratings were destructive to the franchise." "It was the first time in the 60 year history of the Tonight Show that it would have lost money." "If the numbers had been there, they wouldn't have asked me, and they only asked me after Conan turned it down." (Actually no, you were ready to go to 11:35pm before Conan turned it down without any idea about what Conan was going to do.)

Leno expected to be cut down at 10pm to 2-3 days per week. He feels Conan's "Tonight Show" got to fly under the radar with bad ratings because the focus was all on Leno's 10pm show. A lot of "damage control" has to be done now at "The Tonight Show."

"I always felt I was doing the right thing. How could you do the right thing and have it go so wrong? Maybe I'm not doing the right thing. This many people are angry and upset over a television show. I had a show, my show got canceled. They weren't happy with the other guy's show, they said 'we want you to go back.' I said 'OK,' and this seemed to make a lot of people upset. Who wouldn't take that job?"

"I'm not sure what I could have done differently. Walking away is an ego decision. That's me going, 'goodbye everybody. I'm fed up with this, you all fend for yourselves. Good luck finding jobs. I'm out of here.' That's the ego decision." "They offered my old job back. The dream job."

Kimmel appearance on Leno's show was a "sucker punch." "I could have edited it but I didn't."

Leno hasn't talked to Conan. He wanted to pick up the phone but "it didn't seem appropriate." "It's not the right time, I'm not sure what I would say right now. Let some time pass and I would hope we could talk." "I felt really bad for Conan. I think it's unfair, but TV is not fair. I thought it was unfair for me." "I wasn't the reason (for Conan being pushed out). The reason was the ratings."

[Enrique]

Oprah talks to her audience after the show:

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Oprah-Debates-the-Tonight-Show-Controversy-Video

[netringer]

WGN Morning news: "What does it say when a talk show host has to go on another talk show to get his message out?"

[Amnesia]

"If the numbers had been there, they wouldn't have asked me, and they only asked me after Conan turned it down." (Actually no, you were ready to go to 11:35pm before Conan turned it down without any idea about what Conan was going to do.)What's the "no" for? He didn't say that he wasn't ready to go to 11:35. Of course he was.

[ElJay]

What's the "no" for? He didn't say that he wasn't ready to go to 11:35. Of course he was.

NBC came to Leno and said 11:35 is going to be yours again. Leno says I'll do it, but what does Conan think about that? NBC says they don't know but think there's a 75% chance that Conan will gleefully accept 12:05. Then at another point in the interview, Leno was trying to claim Conan already rejected 12:05 before he accepted going back to 11:35. I don't know why he said that when it doesn't add up at all.

[tivoboyjr]

I just read an article about the Oprah interview and didn't see the interview, but from what I've read, Jay neglected to mention that part of the reason Conan's ratings were low was because Jay's crappy show was turning people away from NBC in droves.

[ElJay]

Oprah talks to her audience after the show:

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Oprah-Debates-the-Tonight-Show-Controversy-Video

She doesn't get it either. Oprah said, "If everybody who supported Conan watched his show, this would not be an issue." The "issue" was caused by Leno's bad ratings which gave no lead-in to the news which caused the affiliate revolt. NBC wasn't letting go of Leno no matter what, so I have no clue where else she thinks Leno would have gone to after the 10pm show was canceled. Conan was getting bumped no matter what.

[marksman]

Jesus christ. People need to stop blaming Jay for what happened to Conan.

It was neither his fault nor his responsibility.

Jay should have never went on Oprah to try and defend himself. He didn't have to defend himself. As someone noted earlier this week, Leno's audience probably doesn't care about any of this and most of them will watch him again.

People chanting for Conan didn't watch Jay anyways, so who cares?

Far be it from Jay by the way to point out he has been number 1 in the ratings for years and years and years and made the network more money then Johnny Carson ever did. Far be it that be a consideration before running him out just because Conan wanted a shot.

I like Conan and I don't blame him for asking for the Tonight show, but NBC simply should have told him, "At this time Jay's ratings and performance are stellar, so there is no clear cut future where you would be guaranteed the Tonight Show. Perhaps things will change in a year or five years and we can re-evaluate then. In the meantime we love the job you are doing at 12:30 so keep up the good work."

If Conan would have left, then so be it. You can't blame Jay for Conan's ratings on the Tonight Show. Lead-ins are of secondary importance the further you get away. On top of that, Conan had a good period of time before Jay showed up and his ratings were still below par.

For the umpteenth time, both Jay and Conan reasonably tried to do what they felt was best for them and their individual careers and NBC perpetually effed it up.

[IJustLikeTivo]

She doesn't get it either. Oprah said, "If everybody who supported Conan watched his show, this would not be an issue." The "issue" was caused by Leno's bad ratings which gave no lead-in to the news which caused the affiliate revolt. NBC wasn't letting go of Leno no matter what, so I have no clue where else she thinks Leno would have gone to after the 10pm show was canceled. Conan was getting bumped no matter what.

Sorry, this is just crap. She's right and you're wrong. Everyone swears they love Conan, he can do no wrong, he can whip Chuck Norris with one hand behind his back. The fact is people didn't watch. Conan fans hate hate hate Leno, so he's not the issue. Conan fans didn't fail to watch due to Leno, they just failed to watch. Just like when you ask today who voted for kennedy in 60 the numbers come up over 75% but then it was a dead heat. People are lying. They didn't watch so Conan's ratings were crappy. Regardless of what Jay did, if Conan had the ratings, this would be over. But. He didn't.

[stalemate]

Sorry, this is just crap. She's right and you're wrong. Everyone swears they love Conan, he can do no wrong, he can whip Chuck Norris with one hand behind his back. The fact is people didn't watch. Conan fans hate hate hate Leno, so he's not the issue. Conan fans didn't fail to watch due to Leno, they just failed to watch. Just like when you ask today who voted for kennedy in 60 the numbers come up over 75% but then it was a dead heat. People are lying. They didn't watch so Conan's ratings were crappy. Regardless of what Jay did, if Conan had the ratings, this would be over. But. He didn't.I don't think ElJay was blaming Jay for Conan's ratings, I think he was blaming Jay for the affiliates losing viewers for their local news.

[zalusky]

Explain to me why Lenos ratings affected the Tonight show. For years when Leno hosted the Tonight show Leno was #1 and the 10PM ratings for NBC were in the toilet.

Why didn't Leno's ratings shrink and Lettermans ratings as CBS 10PM ratings rise.

I don't think there is a strong connection for the tonight show. I think its a destination show.

The affiliates probably suffered because nobody was watching their teaser since Leno's show was profitable but the ratings were less than the scripted dramas.

If Leno had left, I believe Conan would still have been out sooner than later if he did not get the ratings up. Especially given he probably would have had Leno in addition to Letterman as competition.

[JYoung]

I just read an article about the Oprah interview and didn't see the interview, but from what I've read, Jay neglected to mention that part of the reason Conan's ratings were low was because Jay's crappy show was turning people away from NBC in droves.

She doesn't get it either. Oprah said, "If everybody who supported Conan watched his show, this would not be an issue." The "issue" was caused by Leno's bad ratings which gave no lead-in to the news which caused the affiliate revolt. NBC wasn't letting go of Leno no matter what, so I have no clue where else she thinks Leno would have gone to after the 10pm show was canceled. Conan was getting bumped no matter what.

A lot of people don't seem to remember that O'Brien's Tonight Show ratings were poor before Leno's 10 PM debuted.

[nataylor]

A lot of people don't seem to remember that O'Brien's Tonight Show ratings were poor before Leno's 10 PM debuted.

Yeah. They gave him 67 shows to build an audience. They only gave Jay Leno about 600 to beat Letterman in the ratings.

[JYoung]

Yeah. They gave him 67 shows to build an audience. They only gave Jay Leno about 600 to beat Letterman in the ratings.

A lot of people seem to forget that Leno still had somewhat respectable ratings in those 600 shows, didn't bleed 40-50% of Carson's audience, and was still making NBC money.

O'Brien was on track to loose NBC money.

And how many episodes of Trauma aired before NBC canceled it?

[dswallow]

O'Brien was on track to loose NBC money.
Damn that loose money; people should buy a screwdriver and tighten it up.

And how many episodes of Trauma aired before NBC canceled it?

And how many more episodes aired before NBC uncanceled it and ordered 3 more episodes.

And then after that how many more episodes aired before NBC upped the order again to bring it to a total season order of 20 episodes?

:)

[Mr. Belboz]

How would Leno have done if Carson moved to 10pm?

I think the biggest thing done to Conan (and it was NBC's doing) was they put Leno on a show at 10pm.

I think there was a large fan base of Leno's that didn't care for him vacating the tonight show. I think many of them watched his 10pm show and just didn't watch Conan or anyone at 11:35pm. Some might have watched Leno at 10pm and Letterman or Nightline, or whatever after the news.

I believe that if Conan would have been the only option on NBC (no Leno 10pm show) he would have had better ratings. I don't think it would have been enough to get the late night lead, but I think his ratings would have been much better. Over time maybe he would have even been the late night leader.

I prefer Conan myself, but I think NBC should have let him walk 5 years ago. But if your going to go with Conan, commit to him fully. Which they didn't do. NBC got greedy and Conan paid the price for it.

Just my opinion.

[marksman]

Yeah. They gave him 67 shows to build an audience. They only gave Jay Leno about 600 to beat Letterman in the ratings.

Flip that around and coming from the same Late Night show, how many shows did CBS have to give David Letterman before he beat Leno?

[smak]

Explain to me why Lenos ratings affected the Tonight show. For years when Leno hosted the Tonight show Leno was #1 and the 10PM ratings for NBC were in the toilet.



This was a whole different kind of toilet.

Cable shows beat Jay at 10pm. Wrestling beats Jay. Pawn Stars beat Jay. Teen Mom beats Jay!!

A Dateline REPEAT last Friday beat the last 14 weeks of Leno on Friday.

It's not just the lead-in, it's the fact that it's a very similar show as well.

-smak-

[JYoung]

How would Leno have done if Carson moved to 10pm?

I think the biggest thing done to Conan (and it was NBC's doing) was they put Leno on a show at 10pm.

I think there was a large fan base of Leno's that didn't care for him vacating the tonight show. I think many of them watched his 10pm show and just didn't watch Conan or anyone at 11:35pm. Some might have watched Leno at 10pm and Letterman or Nightline, or whatever after the news.

I believe that if Conan would have been the only option on NBC (no Leno 10pm show) he would have had better ratings. I don't think it would have been enough to get the late night lead, but I think his ratings would have been much better. Over time maybe he would have even been the late night leader.


But how do you explain O'Brien's poor ratings from May through August of 2009, before Leno's 10 PM show aired?

But if your going to go with Conan, commit to him fully. Which they didn't do. NBC got greedy and Conan paid the price for it.

Just my opinion.

I actually agree with this.
But imagine how bad things would have been had O'Brien's ratings not grown.

[Turtleboy]

Jyoung,

You've said in the past (giving credit where it was due) that Jay Leno is the Olive Garden of comedians.

I think that was an excellent point and I agree.

That's all.

[DevdogAZ]

NBC came to Leno and said 11:35 is going to be yours again. Leno says I'll do it, but what does Conan think about that? NBC says they don't know but think there's a 75% chance that Conan will gleefully accept 12:05. Then at another point in the interview, Leno was trying to claim Conan already rejected 12:05 before he accepted going back to 11:35. I don't know why he said that when it doesn't add up at all.
That's not what he said. He said that they didn't offer The Tonight Show, and he didn't accept The Tonight Show until Conan had rejected it. The previous plan with 11:35 and 12:05 didn't involve Jay taking back The Tonight Show. It's a subtle distinction, but it's a big difference, and that's why what he says is accurate.

[bicker]

People need to stop blaming Jay for what happened to Conan.It's broader than that: People need to stop defaulting to blaming others when something happens that they don't like.

[Mr. Belboz]

Upset Leno fans who didn't want to turn to Conan, and they knew Leno was coming back at 10pm.

I think if Carson had a 10pm show when he left the tonight show, I think Leno suffers in ratings also.

But how do you explain O'Brien's poor ratings from May through August of 2009, before Leno's 10 PM show aired?

[pjenkins]

His Oprah performance was pathetic. What a sad, sad little man.

[TiVo'Brien]

What was it Jay said near the end - that he could have taken the 1 or 2 year buyout, but didn't?

[ElJay]

O'Brien was on track to loose NBC money.

So in other words, Conan was performing on par with just about everything else at NBC.

[Jesda]

All losses from Leno and Conan are made up for by Chris Hansen.

[ElJay]

That's not what he said. He said that they didn't offer The Tonight Show, and he didn't accept The Tonight Show until Conan had rejected it. The previous plan with 11:35 and 12:05 didn't involve Jay taking back The Tonight Show. It's a subtle distinction, but it's a big difference, and that's why what he says is accurate.

Where did I say "The Tonight Show?" I said 11:35pm was going to be Leno's. Did he take back "The Tonight Show" before Conan bowed out? Of course not, but he did take back 11:35. No matter the name of the show, it involved Conan following Jay again, in addition to being unfair to Fallon in the process by bumping him back to about 1:07am. Conan saw both "The Tonight Show" plus the "Late Night" franchise he built up for a decade and a half being weakened by Leno butting in at 11:35.

[JYoung]

Upset Leno fans who didn't want to turn to Conan, and they knew Leno was coming back at 10pm.



Sounds to me like they wouldn't have watch O'Brien anyways.

[zalusky]

Upset Leno fans who didn't want to turn to Conan, and they knew Leno was coming back at 10pm.

I think if Carson had a 10pm show when he left the tonight show, I think Leno suffers in ratings also.

If Leno had left he probably would have gone to another network and possibly would have gone head to head with Conan and Dave and it would have worse for Conan. He was not going to quit and go wash his cars.

[Mr. Belboz]

No doubt.

I think NBC should have just let Conan go 5 years ago if he didn't want to stay at 12:35. But they got greedy.

Conan got his shot, but with the setup NBC gave him, he was destined to fail.

But hey for three weeks or so he was ahead of Letterman. Remember after a week or so NBC proclaimed him the late night king!

Leno definitely had an easier transition than Conan. People were already watching Leno on the Tonight show for awhile as a guest host. So it wasn't a big leap when Carson left.


If Leno had left he probably would have gone to another network and possibly would have gone head to head with Conan and Dave and it would have worse for Conan. He was not going to quit and go wash his cars.

[netringer]

His Oprah performance was pathetic. What a sad, sad little man.

Oprah nailed Jay with a few questions:

Jay - "I have 175 people working here...."
....
"Did you consider negotiating a buyout with NBC that would have gotten your staff 90 days of pay like Conan did?"
Jay - "No."

.....

"Did you ever consider that your 10 PM show was costing the jobs of a lot of people who could have worked on shows scheduled in that time slot?"

Jay - "That only came up after I had the show."



Mr. Everyman.


Who will Jay blame when his comeback Tonight Show ratings are never, "#1" "#1" "#1?"

You watch. Dave will retire in a few years and Jay will be #4 behind The Late Show with Craig Ferguson, The Conan O'Brien Show, and syndicated Family Guy reruns.

[netringer]

Flip that around and coming from the same Late Night show, how many shows did CBS have to give David Letterman before he beat Leno?

Dave beat Leno every night until Leno had Hugh Grant and "What were you thinking?" and Dave didn't have the clearance with CBS affliates carry him at the time.

[DevdogAZ]

What was it Jay said near the end - that he could have taken the 1 or 2 year buyout, but didn't?
It's possible that Leno could have refused NBC's offer to move to 11:35 and then NBC would have had to negotiate some kind of buyout with Leno. But I'm sure that never entered Leno's mind, because NBC offered him something that to him is better than $1 billion. They offered him back his dream job.
Where did I say "The Tonight Show?" I said 11:35pm was going to be Leno's. Did he take back "The Tonight Show" before Conan bowed out? Of course not, but he did take back 11:35. No matter the name of the show, it involved Conan following Jay again, in addition to being unfair to Fallon in the process by bumping him back to about 1:07am. Conan saw both "The Tonight Show" plus the "Late Night" franchise he built up for a decade and a half being weakened by Leno butting in at 11:35.
But the way you're trying to paint his comments is completely out of context. You're trying to claim that Leno told a lie, or stated something inaccurately, when he said that NBC didn't offer it to him until after Conan had alread rejected it. He wasn't talking about 11:35, he was talking about The Tonight Show, so there was nothing inaccurate about what he said.

[Kamakzie]

I think Conan got the shaft but lets face it Leno wasn't going to come out of this looking like the good guy which is a bit unfair. NBC is the bad guy in this whole ordeal and some big wig should get fired over this fiasco.

[ElJay]

But the way you're trying to paint his comments is completely out of context. You're trying to claim that Leno told a lie, or stated something inaccurately, when he said that NBC didn't offer it to him until after Conan had alread rejected it. He wasn't talking about 11:35, he was talking about The Tonight Show, so there was nothing inaccurate about what he said.

I thought Leno was talking about 11:35 at that point, and I guess I'm not going to go back and rewatch the interview to clarify what "it" is. NBC came and said you're doing a show at 11:35 and we think Conan will be OK with the move to 12:05. Leno said OK. Conan said goodbye. There was never a question that Conan's 12:05 show was going to be something other than "The Tonight Show," so I don't know where the confusion comes from.

[aindik]

A Dateline REPEAT last Friday beat the last 14 weeks of Leno on Friday.

To be fair, there might have been a higher than normal tune in factor that night because it was Conan's last night and people might have thought Jay was going to be on. He was still in the TiVo guide data as the Dateline show was airing.

[zalusky]

I swear I feel like I am on a stock message board where people say things hoping its going to affect the stock price and sell short.

The bottom line is we will see who wins come fall.
The second bottom line is people did not show up for Conan. You make all the excuses you want about lead in and people watching Jay instead but those are bogus excuses. If they liked Conan they should have showed up. Just like the lady on Oprah that was on Conan's side but she did not watch the show.

It's not going to get easier. There are more distractions. The 18-34 is shrinking away from traditional late night.

I myself have no allegiance. I watch whatever 10PM show, I always flip to ABC news and then check the guests on all the shows and make my decision. There has never been a lead in issue. Leno was doing fine when 10PM was owned by CBS. The only real issue is the affiliates want to get their new teasers in.

I also think a psychological reason for a lot of this is people are tired of hearing about somebody getting fired. Given the economy of the last two years and are sticking up for Conan on that basis.

[morac]

I find it ironic that NBC is in talks with Conaco (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/27/entertainment/main6146970.shtml) (Conan's production company) to possibly pick up a series produced by Conaco.

[aintnosin]

I find it ironic that NBC is in talks with Conaco (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/27/entertainment/main6146970.shtml) (Conan's production company) to possibly pick up a series produced by Conaco.
It would be even more ironic if the show was picked up for 10pm.

[tivoboyjr]

I will admit that I'm not a Jay fan, and I do like Conan (thought I still prefer Dave) but I never really watched Conan on the Tonight Show until his last week.

The reason I didn't watch had more to do with Jay than Conan, though. I assumed that Conan wouldn't be able to do the edgy, funny show he'd done in late night and he would be forced to do a watered-down version to appeal to Jay's viewers. From what I saw of Conan's Tonight Show, that was pretty much the case. I did watch Conan's final week and that seemed more like the old Conan.

If Conan goes to Fox or wherever he ends up and can do his kind of show, I think he'll be fine and could very well beat both Jay and Dave in the ratings. This whole thing worked to Conan's advantage and Jay has definitely taken a hit. (And I realize Dave's show is very watered-down from what it used to be, but I still prefer it to the other stuff.)

[DevdogAZ]

It would be even more ironic if the show was picked up for 10pm.
Given the subject matter of the show, I'd say that if it does get picked up, 10 pm is very likely.

[marksman]

Tivoboyjr makes a good point. Ramping up to Conan going to the Tonight Show there was extensive talk about how he was going to have to tone down the show to be friendly for the earlier timeslot. I think this turned some people off, as they did not expect to get the same show they got before with Conan.

So some of the audience may have been predisposed to just not care. I watched the first week of the show, so I don't think I saw enough of it to make a judgment on whether or not it was less edgier than the old show, but that could have been part of the problem.

This almost strikes me like the sitcom actor who leaves the series early to go make movies. Why not just ride it out? Conan could have established a massive legacy at 12:30 and made a ton of money. I know people want to advance and move up, but when you are sitting on a gold mine, sometimes it is good enough to just sit on that gold mine until someone tells you to move. Not to go out and look for a bigger gold mine to sit on.

I think Conan will end up somewhere else, obviously.

[tivoboyjr]

NBC unwittingly created a situation where both Jay and Conan would fail. If nothing had changed, they'd both still be thriving in their time slots. If Conan had left, at least Jay would still be doing well. Now NBC is left with Jay Damaged-Goods Leno and a lot of bad feelings from viewers, affiliates, etc.

[IJustLikeTivo]

NBC unwittingly created a situation where both Jay and Conan would fail. If nothing had changed, they'd both still be thriving in their time slots. If Conan had left, at least Jay would still be doing well. Now NBC is left with Jay Damaged-Goods Leno and a lot of bad feelings from viewers, affiliates, etc.

People have short memories. Once jay is back, all will be forgiven. Look at all the hollywood scumbags who are now making movies and no one even remembers what they did.

[tivoboyjr]

People have short memories. Once jay is back, all will be forgiven. Look at all the hollywood scumbags who are now making movies and no one even remembers what they did.

I don't think it's a case of people not watching him because he's a scumbag. I just think he's never going to get back to where he was. People will still watch, but not as many. But I could be wrong about that. There may also be some celebs who will think Jay's a weasel and won't do his show, but that will probably only last until they have a movie/album/book/show to promote. To me the bigger issue is that some viewers have bailed on him and probably won't come back.

[Magnolia88]

I couldn't sit through five minutes of Leno's interview on Oprah, but I've read enough to know I didn't miss much.

I couldn't stand him before, can't stand him now, and this interview reminds me some of why. I don't "blame" him for the mess, I blame NBC, but his behavior and comments are just so smarmy and disingenuous, which is how he always seems to me.

TV Barn recaps the whole interview: Dissecting the O-Jay Interview, Lie by Lie (http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2010/01/oprahjay.html)

[IJustLikeTivo]

I couldn't sit through five minutes of Leno's interview on Oprah, but I've read enough to know I didn't miss much.

I couldn't stand him before, can't stand him now, and this interview reminds me some of why. I don't "blame" him for the mess, I blame NBC, but his behavior and comments are just so smarmy and disingenuous, which is how he always seems to me.

TV Barn recaps the whole interview: Dissecting the O-Jay Interview, Lie by Lie (http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2010/01/oprahjay.html)

Not a dissection so much as character assassination. I can spin every single phrase he uses against Jay in favor as well. If you decide going in as you did that Jay is a smarmy weasel, amazingly, you think while watching that he is indeed a smarmy weasel. Same here. This 'critic' is a hack. Nothing he said is 'factual', it's all opinion.

[marksman]

I just read to the analysis of the first part and it doesn't make any sense. Jay said he was always number one and never entertained that he would be asked to step down or feel like he would need to leave as long as he remained number 1. I think that is a pretty sane and rational perspective.

Jay was shocked that they were going to give Conan the Tonight Show while Jay was still number one. He was not shocked that Conan might want to do the Tonight Show. Yet that is what that stupid Kansas City writer implied. I can't even read any more because clearly it is written by an idiot.

I can't for a second believe the rest of his article is any less stupid.

[cmontyburns]

Aaron Barnhart is a pretty well-respected critic, actually.

My go-to critic for all of this has been Time's James Poniewozik. Of the Leno visit to Oprah, he writes (http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/01/28/leno-takes-his-case-to-the-oprah-nation):

Leno's decision to go on Oprah still puzzles me. Yes, there was a lot of acrimony over Conan O'Brien's Tonight Show ouster, but the most intense ire came from people who were never going to watch Jay in the first place. You could have thought just as badly of Jay already for how he got the Tonight Show over David Letterman, if you cared. Most of America didn't.
If that's true, then going on Oprah simply raises a question before a mass audience—Is Jay Leno a good guy and should I still watch him?—that they otherwise would never have pondered in the first place. Suddenly people who would have been perfectly happy to watch you tell some jokes and go to bed are wondering if you're James Frey.

It's a good summation, and worth a read.

[marksman]

He may be a well respected critic, but all I know is he is fairly dumb and not a very good writer... beyond that I have no further understanding of him.

I only have one incredibly dumb thing to go by, but it is so dumb I couldn't possible think it would be worthwhile following up on it.

Seems like he got the "brilliant" line about Claude Raines and just had to shoe-horn it in the article as soon as possible so he just made stuff up.

Fortunately I am not a critic so I don't feel any obligation to finish out his article before I judge him. I suggest he learn to start strong, instead of start wrong.

[calitivo]

Are there any comedians or TV critics who are defending or think Leno is actually funny? Doesn't seem like it. Kimmel's fake Leno show was perfection.

[IJustLikeTivo]

Aaron Barnhart is a pretty well-respected critic, actually.

My go-to critic for all of this has been Time's James Poniewozik. Of the Leno visit to Oprah, he writes (http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/01/28/leno-takes-his-case-to-the-oprah-nation):



It's a good summation, and worth a read.

They are TV critics. There job is to analyze what gets on, not the reasons. They clearly don't know directly what any of the main characters in this drama actually think, they have no direct insights on NBCs business practices. So, absent specific knowledge, they are giving us their personal, not professional opinions of this. They did not review the shows or discuss the shows content. They are giving us their opinions which, in this case, are no more informed that anyone here.

[IJustLikeTivo]

Are there any comedians or TV critics who are defending or think Leno is actually funny? Doesn't seem like it. Kimmel's fake Leno show was perfection.

1. Comedians aren't generally in the business of choosing sides when it can hurt their career.
2. In the TV game the only opinion that really matters is what the general public likes. I don't care what Dave, Jimmy, Conan, Craig and Jay think of each other. They are competitors they aren't necessarily supposed to hug and kiss. At best there is probably some professional opinion of how well they each do their jobs but that is mostly an academic question. I suspect they'd all say they know people much funnier who just didn't happen to make it big.

[ramosraymond54]

Tsk,tsk. Jay Leno used to be my favorite talk show host. Then they moved him to another time slot and I wasn't able to follow. Pity...