Jay Leno is killing NBC [Text View]

Turtleboy

10-08-2009, 11:09 PM

http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/entry/45610/nbc-affiliates-lose-viewers-following-leno/

Jay Leno’s prime time NBC show has seen sinking ratings since the other nets began airing their new fall shows, and - as feared by local affiliates - the loss of viewers has led to reduced audiences for local news programs at 11pm in many cities.

In cities including Nielsen’s top five markets - New York, Chicago, Philly, Los Angeles, and Dallas - the late news on NBC affiliates has lost tens of thousands of viewers. The 11pm news on NBC’s Los Angeles station fell 30% in ratings compared with the same week last year, while Philly lost 32% and Dallas lost 33%.

The New York NBC 11pm news is FOURTH in the market, behind the Spanish language channel.

Alfer

10-08-2009, 11:10 PM

Because his show STINKS...plain and simple.

Turtleboy

10-08-2009, 11:11 PM

But even if it were "good" it's not a 10PM show.

betts4

10-08-2009, 11:21 PM

Yes and many others agree.

zaknafein

10-08-2009, 11:23 PM

Yeah, but it's cheap, and that's apparently all NBC cares about. Except in the O&O markets, the loss of local news viewers means nothing to them.

It'll take an affiliate revolt to change anything. (which, with numbers like that, is bound to happen sooner or later.

Hexerott

10-09-2009, 12:08 AM

Because his show STINKS...plain and simple.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!!!!!

realityboy

10-09-2009, 01:26 AM

I knew it would be bad, but I actually expected it to be considered a success since it is so cheap. Seems like the local affiliates were right about not wanting to show it after all. I really see them turning this hour back over to the affiliates rather than try to fill it themselves if/when the Leno show ends.

MickeS

10-09-2009, 01:43 AM

I still watch it and like it. But I can see why local news might suffer - this show feels like an evening ender, not a lead-in, for obvious reasons. I never watch the local news anyway, though.

StacieH

10-09-2009, 08:15 AM

Not the least bit surprised. I felt it was a bad decision from the get-go. I stopped watching the Tonight Show years ago, and haven't seen any of the new show.

I'd rather watch reruns of Law and Order at 9 p.m. than his show...

terpfan1980

10-09-2009, 08:35 AM

Keep on tankin'

(Maybe it'll bring the value of NBCU down that much more so Comcast or Liberty Media can snap it up even cheaper...)

Turtleboy

10-09-2009, 08:40 AM

Keep on tankin'

(Maybe it'll bring the value of NBCU down that much more so Comcast or Liberty Media can snap it up even cheaper...)

I'm a little worried about Comcast. I think they want to kill Hulu. Or at least charge for it.

IndyJones1023

10-09-2009, 08:46 AM

LOL, I knew this would happen. I don't know how executive could have thought this was a good idea.

Enrique

10-09-2009, 09:32 AM

(In Mr.Mcmahons voice) "NBC screwed NBC". No, but really, NBC made the deal and all the blame should be on them, not Jay.

Long before Jay, NBC was still in 3rd/4th place and was still cancelling great shows and making dumb moves.

ElJay

10-09-2009, 09:57 AM

NBC has been and is too googly-eyed over Leno. His show has no point other than to keep him from defecting to another network and competing against Conan. The "it's cheap" philosophy will lead NBC down a path of self-destruction, but that's fine by me.

retrodog

10-09-2009, 10:13 AM

LOL, I knew this would happen. I don't know how executive could have thought this was a good idea.

Agreed. I thought it was the biggest BS move I'd heard of in quite a while... Quitting to let Conan take over the Tonight Show and then coming back later to do a show at 10:00 (9:00 central). What a total crock. I'm glad to see them getting their butts spanked in the ratings. That time slot is reserved for the post-primetime serious and gritty stuff that they can't show at 8:00. People aren't interested in wasting that time on silly-a$$ crap like Leno. They want to watch that kind of stupid stuff later, while they're trying to fall asleep. :D

MickeS

10-09-2009, 10:15 AM

People aren't interested in wasting that time on silly-a$$ crap like Leno. They want to watch that kind of stupid stuff later, while they're trying to fall asleep. :D

I think that's the problem here - that they DO watch it and then fall asleep. :)

aaronwt

10-09-2009, 10:24 AM

Steveknj

10-09-2009, 10:32 AM

I think that's the problem here - that they DO watch it and then fall asleep. :)

I think a show like his appeals to the senior crowd, so you are right about that!! If they wanted to go cheap, their best bet would have been to put a gritty, more adult type of reality show. As much as I hate them, it probably would have been more successful than this. Talk shows are for late night, as they are perfect for falling asleep to.

So predictions...where does NBC go from here? Cancelling their poster boy could make for some interesting scenarios, like Leno jumping to Fox for a latenight show, and Conan moving to third place.

Fish Man

10-09-2009, 10:47 AM

I think everyone on the planet except the programming execs at NBC thought that a nightly 10:00 PM (9:00 PM central) comedy/talk/variety show staring Jay Leno was a guaranteed embarrassing disaster.

What a surprise, the entire rest of the world outside of NBC's programming planners was right! :rolleyes:

"Retired" should mean "retired."

MickeS

10-09-2009, 11:59 AM

I think everyone on the planet except the programming execs at NBC thought that a nightly 10:00 PM (9:00 PM central) comedy/talk/variety show staring Jay Leno was a guaranteed embarrassing disaster.

I read that the ratings for Leno are down 25% (41% in 18-49 demo) (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2009/10/08/2009-10-08_jay_leno.html) compared to last year's scripted NBC shows in the same time slots. I don't think that's a disaster for NBC, as I'm sure they expected lower ratings, and this show costs less. The reason NBC did this in the first place was that they were desperate and bleeding money. The alternative never seemed to be to keep 5 hours of scripted programming in this time slot, but to give it over to the affiliates like Fox does.

But for the affiliates, it seems like a problem. I don't know that a just slightly higher rated drama would make that much of a difference though, I think the main source of the problems for them is that they are NBC affiliates. ;)

zalusky

10-09-2009, 11:59 AM

There are hundreds of freaking channels out there now. Go watch another channel. Go get Netflix. Were you guys an NBC household or something? Do you think NBC would have put on anything decent if they did not do this. They have been in the crapper for years with no money. Perhaps the extra profit will at least let them invest in the other two hours.

YCantAngieRead

10-09-2009, 12:13 PM

Good.

cheesesteak

10-09-2009, 12:16 PM

busyba

10-09-2009, 12:17 PM

"Retired" should mean "retired."

Tell that to Brett Favre. :p

MickeS

10-09-2009, 12:23 PM

retrodog

10-09-2009, 12:32 PM

DevdogAZ

10-09-2009, 12:38 PM

"Retired" should mean "retired."
Who said anything about retirement? NBC forced it on Leno in an effort to placate Conan, but Leno never had any intention of retiring and I don't recall him ever saying so.

Fish Man

10-09-2009, 01:10 PM

Tell that to Brett Favre. :p

Bazinga! (Oops, wrong thread.)

Fish Man

10-09-2009, 01:16 PM

Who the heck watches what ever news program comes on next? I've never understood that logic. If I've been watching the 11 pm news on channel XYZ for ten, fifteen years, I'm not going to start watching channel EFG's 11 pm news broadcast simply because my 10 pm viewing habits changed. Who is that lazy that they can't change the channel?

I completely agree with you on this.

Also, in this era of the TiVo/DVR, those of us who use them usually have a hard time remembering what channel/network a given program is even on. We set our season passes for the programs we like and we watch them on our own schedule.

I even TiVo my local news broadcast, from the channel whose news I like best, and start watching it at my convenience.

However....

"Lead ins" are a big deal to networks and TV stations, and the Nielsen data still seems to indicate that "lead ins" still matter, especially to news.

Apparently, (and I'm just stating what I believe to be the TV station-think on this issue, not necessarily agreeing with it) viewers see local news as rather "generic", so they'll tend to watch the news on whatever channel they were tuned to at 11:00 (10:00 central).

Same is true of the early evening news. I know the local channels around here really battle to find strong and popular syndicated shows for late afternoon to lead into their 5:00 and/or 6:00 news broadcasts.

aindik

10-09-2009, 01:50 PM

How long before NBC starts letting affiliates run their local news at 10 p.m. and run Leno afterward at 10:35, like the station in Boston wanted to do?

DevdogAZ

10-09-2009, 02:14 PM

How long before NBC starts letting affiliates run their local news at 10 p.m. and run Leno afterward at 10:35, like the station in Boston wanted to do?
If they allow that, it will further erode Conan's ratings, and I can imagine he'd be pretty pissed about it.

aindik

10-09-2009, 02:17 PM

If they allow that, it will further erode Conan's ratings, and I can imagine he'd be pretty pissed about it.

Would it further erode them? Compared to the eroding that's happening now, I mean?

DevdogAZ

10-09-2009, 02:19 PM

Would it further erode them? Compared to the eroding that's happening now, I mean?
I think it would. Right now, you've got a certain number of people who are staying through the news and then watching Conan. You'd have to imagine that if it went News, Leno, Conan, there would be a decent percentage of current Conan viewers who wouldn't make it all the way to Conan.

But I see what you're saying: Conan's ratings are already so low that they probably already consist only of those who are purposely tuning into his show and don't include any spillover from the news or what was on NBC earlier that night.

Langree

10-09-2009, 02:24 PM

There's always the off chance NBC knew this would happen, give Jay what he wants. It fails, then bye bye Jay.

sieglinde

10-09-2009, 02:26 PM

Leno kill NBC? Hmm, imagine a termanilly ill person ready to go into a coma. NBC was already dying so this is more of a symptom than what is actually killing NBC.

aindik

10-09-2009, 02:26 PM

I think it would. Right now, you've got a certain number of people who are staying through the news and then watching Conan. You'd have to imagine that if it went News, Leno, Conan, there would be a decent percentage of current Conan viewers who wouldn't make it all the way to Conan.

But I see what you're saying: Conan's ratings are already so low that they probably already consist only of those who are purposely tuning into his show and don't include any spillover from the news or what was on NBC earlier that night.

What I was saying is, for people to "stay through the news," they'd have to be watching the news. Which, according to the OP, they're already not doing.

DevdogAZ

10-09-2009, 02:51 PM

There's always the off chance NBC knew this would happen, give Jay what he wants. It fails, then bye bye Jay.
That's not very likely. NBC wasn't contractually obligated to Leno. They entered into a new contract with him to prevent him from going to a competing network. I'd be shocked if the new contract doesn't require them to pay him for at least two years' worth of work, regardless of how long he's on the air, and probably allows him to pursue other opportunities if NBC chooses to terminate. So there would be no logic to NBC intentionally trying to get rid of Leno, since he'd undoubtedly get offers from ABC and/or Fox and would go there and do further damage to NBC's late-night ratings.
What I was saying is, for people to "stay through the news," they'd have to be watching the news. Which, according to the OP, they're already not doing.
Well, even though the ratings are down, it doesn't mean nobody is watching. It just means fewer are watching. And that translates into fewer people watching Conan.

aindik

10-09-2009, 03:00 PM

Well, even though the ratings are down, it doesn't mean nobody is watching. It just means fewer are watching. And that translates into fewer people watching Conan.

Right. Fewer people are watching. Do you think even fewer people would watch if the shows were in reverse order, or do you think the same (lower) number of people would watch?

retrodog

10-09-2009, 03:03 PM

Leno kill NBC? Hmm, imagine a termanilly ill person ready to go into a coma. NBC was already dying so this is more of a symptom than what is actually killing NBC.People never actually die of old age, in that they never put that on the death certificate for COD. They usually list some organ failure. But the organ failed because of old age.

The Leno show fiasco is just a dying organ that will cause the death of NBC, so it will be on the death certificate instead of the more general "NBC Stupidity (old age)". :D

DevdogAZ

10-09-2009, 03:11 PM

Right. Fewer people are watching. Do you think even fewer people would watch if the shows were in reverse order, or do you think the same (lower) number of people would watch?
I think there are a certain number of people who watch the local news on their NBC affiliate, even if that number is reduced from what it was previously. Of that number, there are a certain percentage who turn the TV off after the news, a certain percentage who change the channel, and a certain percentage who keep it on the same channel and watch what's on next.

Of those that keep the TV on the same channel and watch the show that follows the news, there are a certain % who fall asleep before the next show is over, a certain % who turn the TV off after the next show is over, a certain % who change the channel after the next show is over, and a certain % who keep in on that channel and watch the second successive show that follows the news.

So regardless of how low the ratings are for the local NBC newscasts, and how low the ratings are for Conan, they can always go lower, and sticking an extra show between them will undoubtedly reduce the ratings.

wmcbrine

10-09-2009, 03:15 PM

So there would be no logic to NBC intentionally trying to get rid of Leno, since he'd undoubtedly get offers from ABC and/or Fox and would go there and do further damage to NBC's late-night ratings.Sure, there's a logic to it: let Leno fail at NBC, then no one else will want to pick him up.

DevdogAZ

10-09-2009, 03:21 PM

Sure, there's a logic to it: let Leno fail at NBC, then no one else will want to pick him up.
So you're saying that it's logical to do major damage to their own network and their affiliates in an effort to prevent the other networks from gaining an advantage? Isn't that cutting off their nose to spite their face?

Wil

10-09-2009, 03:33 PM

So you're saying that it's logical to do major damage to their own network and their affiliates in an effort to prevent the other networks from gaining an advantage? Isn't that cutting off their nose to spite their face?Valid point. But the mix includes that NBC had no longer the expertise to develop or choose 10 pm programming with any hugely better prospect of success. So it wasn't selecting between silk purse and sow's ear, it was between two sows' ears. One a lot cheaper. Then the other factors like Leno's late night competition (plus preserving Leno in relief should Conan fall completely off the charts) weigh is and the decision makes some sense. Not saying a good decision, just an understandable one given NBC's creative/management lack of resources.

jimborst

10-09-2009, 03:42 PM

Sure, there's a logic to it: let Leno fail at NBC, then no one else will want to pick him up.

I think Fox may really want him, even if he does fail at NBC. My Fox station has the news at 9 (Central time) then two office repeats, then a Seinfeld, and at 11 they have Star Trek TNG. If they were to put Leno on at 9:30 after the local news, I'm sure it would be a big ratings improvment over all the repeats.

Since he's not been mentioned here, is Kimmel getting any ratings? I know Letterman has been beating Conan but I haven't heard if Kimmel has been picking up some of the people that Conan has lost.

SorenTodd

10-09-2009, 03:51 PM

Also, in this era of the TiVo/DVR, those of us who use them usually have a hard time remembering what channel/network a given program is even on. We set our season passes for the programs we like and we watch them on our own schedule.

I'd like to know who these ppl are (very lazy, perhaps?). Even tho I use my DVR every single day, I always know what network that my Prime Time shows air on. Even with shows I have no interest in, I know what channel they are on.

There are some shows I always watch "live", so a season pass does me no good in that situation.

With Leno and NBC, they made their bed. Now they have to sleep in it. And let's not forget, when Sunday football is over, NBC has 3 hours to fill. What garbage do they plan on giving us then?

retrodog

10-09-2009, 03:53 PM

Valid point. But the mix includes that NBC had no longer the expertise to develop or choose 10 pm programming with any hugely better prospect of success. So it wasn't selecting between silk purse and sow's ear, it was between two sows' ears. One a lot cheaper. Then the other factors like Leno's late night competition (plus preserving Leno in relief should Conan fall completely off the charts) weigh is and the decision makes some sense. Not saying a good decision, just an understandable one given NBC's creative/management lack of resources.

Yes. It makes no sense to get rid of Leno. It's not really his fault that the new show is failing. It was just a stupid idea to move him up in that time slot with essentially the same material as his Tonight Show antics.

I've never been a Leno fan (always more of a Letterman fan till last year), and I'm not going to become one now, but I can't believe that Conan is a better late night host, although I've always been an Andy Richter fan. Conan is weird, creepy, and bizarre. NBC must be operated by idiots.

Fish Man

10-09-2009, 04:43 PM

Leno kill NBC? Hmm, imagine a termanilly ill person ready to go into a coma. NBC was already dying so this is more of a symptom than what is actually killing NBC.

Point taken.

NBC is hastening their demise by thrashing about.

(I really don't expect NBC to completely go belly up, but they are facing hard times and it's entirely their own doing.)

5thcrewman

10-09-2009, 05:16 PM

Maybe NBC is angling for a government bail-out.

WhiskeyTango

10-09-2009, 07:36 PM

So you're saying that it's logical to do major damage to their own network and their affiliates in an effort to prevent the other networks from gaining an advantage? Isn't that cutting off their nose to spite their face?

That's exactly what they did though. NBC didn't want Leno to go elsewhere to they signed him. The execs there said they would wait to judge his show on a full year, when he will go up against repeats as well. They also blamed the lead-ins as being the reason Leno is getting bad ratings.

I'd like to know who these ppl are (very lazy, perhaps?).

I am one of those people and it has nothing to do with being lazy. Why should I bother remembering what channel a show is on when there is no point in knowing since I don't have to manually 'tune in'?

smak

10-09-2009, 09:57 PM

The problem with Leno vs the 10pm dramas, is that the dramas build up to a big ending, where Leno starts off with his best stuff. Or I mean "best stuff"

10pm was mainly law & cop shows, and to see what happens in a Law & Order you have to watch the last few minutes.

Then when the credits roll, your local newscaster pops up and talks about the big story, and you are likely to stay if it's interesting.

This gets enough people to stay with the channel to make a difference.

Now with Leno, who cares, it's just another bit, or somebody you con't care about leading directly into news.

-smak-

IndyJones1023

10-09-2009, 10:02 PM

Long ago when Leno took over I thought "he sucks, I ain't watching."

Now that this whole 10pm thing started up I tuned in to check it out. It indeed still sucked.

But wow. That dude has a freakish "carnival side show" face. I know he's been made fun of for his chin. But seriously - wow. It's incredibly huge!

ADent

10-10-2009, 02:55 AM

I think the theory at the network is that Leno will lose during new shows, but win during reruns. Since most shows are 20-22 weeks anymore - that could be 30 weeks of win at a much lower cost.

If an hour of network TV is 5 million more than Jay (ER was what 12 million?), 20 weeks of 5 nights a week is 100 shows. That is 500 million savings by going with Jay - and you may win the other 30 weeks a year.

I still think Jay is a trainwreck (like everyone else).

smak

10-10-2009, 04:09 AM

smak

10-10-2009, 04:10 AM

Neenahboy

10-10-2009, 04:38 AM

I think Fox may really want him, even if he does fail at NBC. My Fox station has the news at 9 (Central time) then two office repeats, then a Seinfeld, and at 11 they have Star Trek TNG. If they were to put Leno on at 9:30 after the local news, I'm sure it would be a big ratings improvment over all the repeats.

Since he's not been mentioned here, is Kimmel getting any ratings? I know Letterman has been beating Conan but I haven't heard if Kimmel has been picking up some of the people that Conan has lost.

I recall reading (might've been in EW) that Kimmel's was the only late night show that has seen gains this season.

Also, aren't the Fox affiliate news broadcasts usually an hour long?

bicker

10-10-2009, 07:45 AM

I'm not sure he's going to be on in the summer? Have they said anything?Leno will have new episodes 46 weeks per year.

I said something similar in another thread this morning: These exhortations by viewers are self-centered and myopic. You'll never understand reality that way. Is this bad for viewers? Yup, sure is. Is this bad for NBC? Probably not. And even if is badness here for NBC, there is no reason to believe that doing what some viewers in these threads want to be done would actually be better for NBC. All I see people suggesting are things that would cost more money, without any reasonable expectation that they would garner enough additional revenue to cover the additional cost that these viewers would have incurred on their behalf. Sounds more like folks are looking for a sugar daddy, rather than looking for broadcast programming.

IndyJones1023

10-10-2009, 08:08 AM

How do you think it is when he's 4 feet in front of me :)

-smak-

I take it you attended a taping?

jimborst

10-10-2009, 01:47 PM

Also, aren't the Fox affiliate news broadcasts usually an hour long?

Here, Sioux City, IA the Fox station (which is co-owned with the CBS) the news comes on at 9pm for 30 min. The Fox and CBS stations use the same weather person for all late newscasts, also I'm sure they share stories.

DevdogAZ

10-10-2009, 04:00 PM

Here, Sioux City, IA the Fox station (which is co-owned with the CBS) the news comes on at 9pm for 30 min. The Fox and CBS stations use the same weather person for all late newscasts, also I'm sure they share stories.
The news comes on a hour earlier on all Fox affiliates. 10 pm on the coasts and 9 pm in Central and Mountain. It has nothing to do with the fact that your Fox affiliate and your CBS affiliate have joint ownership.

jimborst

10-10-2009, 04:46 PM

The news comes on a hour earlier on all Fox affiliates. 10 pm on the coasts and 9 pm in Central and Mountain. It has nothing to do with the fact that your Fox affiliate and your CBS affiliate have joint ownership.

Understood, just had a rambling kind of post. Sorry, my point that I didn't even make, was that between the two stations the may need the half hour to update everything so they can do another news show in 30 minutes.

Sorry , sometimes I should read my posts before I post them.:D

marksman

10-10-2009, 06:46 PM

The whole move was a horrible one for lots of reasons that were obvious, and many more that weren't.

They are bringing down every part of the network with this move it is amazing.

I was thinking about it the other day and they hurt themselves with this from so many angles. Even just from an exposure standpoint.

Say they have 5 1 hour dramas on that get 6 million viewers in those 5 nights each. 30 million viewers. Say those are 20 million distinct people. That means you can expose other network shows to 20 million different people.

Take Leno, even if he got the same exact viewers on a nightly basis, 6 million, this may only consist of 8 or 9 million different people. In other words it is the same exact audience every night. Which means you can't leverage other shows.

There is even some thought this will trickle down to the morning show eventually as people have their tv on a different channel when they turn it on in the morning.

marksman

10-10-2009, 06:48 PM

But at an estimated $300 million to $500 million profit for leno, it was a good move for the network moneywise. Although not good for the affiliates with the news that follows and the lower viewers. Hopefully they will seriously consider moving the local news to 10pm and having Leno start at 10:30 or 10:35. Supposedly NBC is considering it, but nothing would probably happen until 2010.

Thats not it though. The Tonight Show has always been a huge moneymaker for them and now is in the toilet as well. They are losing in all other areas because of this move. Financially it is not turning out to be a good idea. It is a disaster.

megory

10-10-2009, 07:02 PM

I think network TV is in for a total change. Cable affiliates and cable networks will do more and more of the new dramas. They're already overwhelmingly successful, and do it on a lower budget: Mad Men, Burn Notice, Drop Dead Diva, are a few that come to mind.

smak

10-11-2009, 02:07 AM

I take it you attended a taping?

Vegas show...You remember Vegas. Some of us go every year. Like in December ;)

-smak-

IndyJones1023

10-11-2009, 08:24 AM

I've heard about this Vegas thing!

Turtleboy

10-11-2009, 08:26 AM

I've heard about this Vegas thing!

Yeah, a bunch of us saw Jay Leno in Vegas last year (2 years ago?). Anyway, he was awful. He was doing "Bill Clinton is horny" jokes. He hadn't updated his act in 15 years.

Jesda

10-11-2009, 08:43 AM

Without local news, I wouldn't know what the local high school football team was up to or what the latest elderly person is whining about.

As for retirement, Jay never said he was going to, and he would be on another network if NBC didn't pounce.

dswallow

10-11-2009, 10:44 PM

I'm a little worried about Comcast. I think they want to kill Hulu. Or at least charge for it.

FOX wants to charge for it. Comcast wants to include it as part of their package to differentiate its services from other combo packages.

dswallow

10-11-2009, 10:44 PM

Hopefully NBC's disaster is providing opportunity at other networks for 10pm dramas to do much better than if the audience were more fragmented.

MickeS

10-11-2009, 11:21 PM

I was thinking about it the other day and they hurt themselves with this from so many angles. Even just from an exposure standpoint.

Say they have 5 1 hour dramas on that get 6 million viewers in those 5 nights each. 30 million viewers. Say those are 20 million distinct people. That means you can expose other network shows to 20 million different people.

Take Leno, even if he got the same exact viewers on a nightly basis, 6 million, this may only consist of 8 or 9 million different people. In other words it is the same exact audience every night. Which means you can't leverage other shows.

Do you have any basis at all for these numbers?

MickeS

10-11-2009, 11:22 PM

retrodog

10-12-2009, 10:23 AM

Yeah, a bunch of us saw Jay Leno in Vegas last year (2 years ago?). Anyway, he was awful. He was doing "Bill Clinton is horny" jokes. He hadn't updated his act in 15 years.

You were supposed to be so blown away by the very fact that you got to see Jay Leno that all of this stuff wouldn't matter at all.

I think he kind of sucks. And he has for quite a while. He has some decent writers on the show... at times, but he is pretty much awful. It's probably mostly the fact that he's just skating by on his own history.

DevdogAZ

10-12-2009, 12:52 PM

Thats not it though. The Tonight Show has always been a huge moneymaker for them and now is in the toilet as well. They are losing in all other areas because of this move. Financially it is not turning out to be a good idea. It is a disaster.
But The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brian began tanking shortly after Conan took over, and has nothing to do with Jay's new show.

As for the financial aspect, we don't know what the ad rates for these shows are, or whether they've had to refund any ad revenues due to the shrinking ratings. All we know is that NBC is saving a ton of money on a nightly basis by airing Leno in place of a scripted drama. Whether that savings turns out to be an overall loss due to flagging ratings on the rest of the network's slate remains to be seen. And even if the rest of the network's shows are tanking, it would be hard for anyone to make a coherent argument that those shows are tanking due to Leno.

bicker

10-12-2009, 01:26 PM

We actually do have some reasonably reliable insights into the ad rates for Leno, and that they've achieved the thresholds in terms of audience that they had to, and therefore that they're making profit on the whole deal.

We don't know about Conan, but as you pointed out, that might not matter, since there is no way to divide up how much Conan's ratings have gone down between that portion that is because his show sucks versus that portion attributable to Leno leading into the local news.

GadgetFreak

10-12-2009, 03:51 PM

TV Guide has an article entitled "Is Jay Leno killing NBC?" They must have liked your thread title!

http://www.tvguidemagazine.com/news/is-jay-leno-killing-nbc-2773.html

DevdogAZ

10-12-2009, 04:10 PM

TV Guide has an article entitled "Is Jay Leno killing NBC?" They must have liked your thread title!

http://www.tvguidemagazine.com/news/is-jay-leno-killing-nbc-2773.html
As for late night, the belief inside NBC is that Letterman’s lead over O’Brien has more to do with the tsunami of publicity surrounding the CBS host’s revelation that he was blackmailed over having sex with staffers. Insiders believe if the details get more sordid, female viewers could eventually abandon Dave.
OK, that's just an example of NBC execs sticking their heads in the sand. Conan has been getting whipped by Dave in the ratings for several months, not just in the last week since Dave admitted to the affair.

SorenTodd

10-12-2009, 05:19 PM

And even if the rest of the network's shows are tanking, it would be hard for anyone to make a coherent argument that those shows are tanking due to Leno.

Exactly.

I'm just as loyal to the L&O mothership and SVU now as I was before Jay jumped over to Prime Time.

The only other NBC show I am following is Trauma. Nothing else on their mundane lineup excites me enough to tune in on a regular basis.

marksman

10-12-2009, 05:25 PM

But The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brian began tanking shortly after Conan took over, and has nothing to do with Jay's new show.

As for the financial aspect, we don't know what the ad rates for these shows are, or whether they've had to refund any ad revenues due to the shrinking ratings. All we know is that NBC is saving a ton of money on a nightly basis by airing Leno in place of a scripted drama. Whether that savings turns out to be an overall loss due to flagging ratings on the rest of the network's slate remains to be seen. And even if the rest of the network's shows are tanking, it would be hard for anyone to make a coherent argument that those shows are tanking due to Leno.

It would be fairly easy to make that argument.

They built their entire fall schedule around the fact they have Jay at 9:00/10:00. They canceled shows, they moved shows, they bought pilots, all of it predicated on Jay Leno being on the last hour of every night. They impacted their entire schedule because of this.

DevdogAZ

10-12-2009, 05:44 PM

It would be fairly easy to make that argument.

They built their entire fall schedule around the fact they have Jay at 9:00/10:00. They canceled shows, they moved shows, they bought pilots, all of it predicated on Jay Leno being on the last hour of every night. They impacted their entire schedule because of this.
Sure, they made changes to their schedule based on the fact that Leno would be taking up 5 primetime slots per week. But are the flagging ratings for Heroes due to Leno? Are the mediocre ratings for the Thursday comedies due to Leno? Is the fact that neither Trauma or Mercy have been very well accepted due to Leno? About the only thing you can possibly attribute to Leno is the fact that the ratings for SVU are off this season, but that's due to the fact that SVU had to move to a different timeslot where it now faces tougher competition and not because of Leno's ratings.

Given the relative weakness of the pilots they bought and aired, there really isn't any reason to think they'd have done any better with more available slots. NBC's development department just sucks.

MickeS

10-12-2009, 06:03 PM

DevdogAZ

10-12-2009, 06:38 PM

It really is amazing what has happened to NBC in the last few years. To pin it solely on Leno is to miss the big picture. He can hardly be blamed for NBC not having a single show in the top 20 (beyond football). The situation was not much better last year. Just look at shows that seemed exciting, like "Heroes" and what a disaster it turned into after Season 1. It's amazing to me how they managed to completely destroy that franchise that to me seemed almost limitless in possibilities (well, at least like it should remain in the top 20 for a while).
Agreed. Just 10 years ago, NBC was the king of the networks. With the demise of its dominant Thursday night comedy block, the departure (finally!) of ER, the reliance on multiple versions of L&O, high profile failures like Studio 60, the dramatic dropoff of previously good shows like Heroes, the overuse of reality shows (2-hour editions of Biggest Loser and The Apprentice) and now finally the Leno decision, NBC has simply gone in the tank. Most of it can be attributed to the network's execs, some must be blamed on the writers of the individual shows, and some of it is just bad luck or bad timing. But very little of it has to do with putting Jay Leno on at 10 pm this season.

jerrye25

10-12-2009, 06:42 PM

I don't blame Leno for the crappy ratings of other shows. I just think that it shows how little they are even trying to develop new shows. I also think they have a quick trigger finger on cancelling shows. If you spend the money filming 12 episodes of something, why cancel it after 4? Who knows, maybe it will get a following.

For these execs nowadays, it's all about what will cost the least amount of money.

smak

10-12-2009, 08:42 PM

dswallow

10-12-2009, 11:36 PM

Fish Man

10-13-2009, 08:49 AM

They built their entire fall schedule around the fact they have Jay at 9:00/10:00. They canceled shows, they moved shows, they bought pilots, all of it predicated on Jay Leno being on the last hour of every night. They impacted their entire schedule because of this.

This.

It really is amazing what has happened to NBC in the last few years. To pin it solely on Leno is to miss the big picture. He can hardly be blamed for NBC not having a single show in the top 20 (beyond football). The situation was not much better last year. Just look at shows that seemed exciting, like "Heroes" and what a disaster it turned into after Season 1. It's amazing to me how they managed to completely destroy that franchise that to me seemed almost limitless in possibilities (well, at least like it should remain in the top 20 for a while).

And this.

As I indicated in an earlier post, all of this, the decision to put a prime-time Leno show on 5 times a week, as well as many other stupid programming decisions are symptoms, not the cause.

It's become abundantly obvious that NBC is flailing.

The cause is that the execs that program that network have lost any vision they may have once had and are flailing around cluelessly.

I lump the cancellation of "My Name is Earl" into the long list of stupid decisions on their part, but that's just me.

bicker

10-13-2009, 09:03 AM

lew

10-13-2009, 10:29 AM

Holy cow! The myopic viewer hyperbole is running really thick. Why is it so difficult to accept that networks simply have different mission from the one we viewers would want them to pursue? I've never perceived a constructive purpose served by ignoring the realities of the difference between the objectives of a business and the objectives of a television viewer.

Also worthy of keeping in mind: This is the company that has given us a load of great shows on cable in recent years -- essentially, has represented the greatest improvement in cable offerings of any single source.

NBC is prepared to accept lower ratings in exchange for lower costs and original programming 40 weeks a year.

The question is if the affiliates are willing to accept the resulting hit on their local news ratings. I don't know under what circumstances an affiliate is allowed to omit airing a network show.

A related question is if NBC anticipated the drop in ratings when shows like L&O got moved to an earlier time slot. My understanding is networks are given a little extra latitude regarding adult themes when a show airs at 10p. There was an issue as to how Southland would do if it was toned down for airing prior to 10p. Also some shows do better when they're aired at 10p. Parents watch it after their kids go to bed. Not everyone has DVRs.

I doubt NBC anticipated the Tonight Show ratings go down after Conan replaced Leno.

I agree the network doesn't share our objectives but that doesn't mean Leno is a success. Pressure from the affiliates will carry a lot more weight then pressure from viewers.

IndyJones1023

10-13-2009, 10:32 AM

Why is it so difficult to accept that networks simply have different mission from the one we viewers would want them to pursue?

Doesn't it behoove a television network to attract viewers?

Jesda

10-13-2009, 10:47 AM

Doesn't it behoove a television network to attract viewers?

The goal is to make a profit for its shareholders and owners.

IndyJones1023

10-13-2009, 10:51 AM

The goal is to make a profit for its shareholders and owners.

And how would they do that with no viewers?

aaronwt

10-13-2009, 11:06 AM

Agreed. Just 10 years ago, NBC was the king of the networks. With the demise of its dominant Thursday night comedy block, the departure (finally!) of ER, the reliance on multiple versions of L&O, high profile failures like Studio 60, the dramatic dropoff of previously good shows like Heroes, the overuse of reality shows (2-hour editions of Biggest Loser and The Apprentice) and now finally the Leno decision, NBC has simply gone in the tank. Most of it can be attributed to the network's execs, some must be blamed on the writers of the individual shows, and some of it is just bad luck or bad timing. But very little of it has to do with putting Jay Leno on at 10 pm this season.

And then they cancel one of the better shows they have, Southland, before it even airs this season. Leaving NBC on the hook for the $9 million, the six epsiodes not aired will cost.

They might as well have at least aired the episodes to see how it does. It can't do much worse than some of the other shows NBC has this season.

Fish Man

10-13-2009, 11:26 AM

Holy cow! The myopic viewer hyperbole is running really thick. Why is it so difficult to accept that networks simply have different mission from the one we viewers would want them to pursue? I've never perceived a constructive purpose served by ignoring the realities of the difference between the objectives of a business and the objectives of a television viewer.

I think NBC's objective is obvious. The question is whether they were successful in meeting their objective.

As others have pointed out, their goal is to maximize profitability and value to their shareholders.

It seems fairly obvious that they reasoned that putting on a very inexpensive show 5 nights per week, while it might not have as high a ratings as an expensive drama would have in the same time slot, would be a "net positive" thing. Specifically, the reduced advertising revenue would be offset by the lower cost in producing the show.

That reasoning is all well and good as long as they are able to estimate accurately what the ratings for that show would be, and do not overlook any undesired "ripple effects" of that decision.

I think what we're seeing here is that NBC failed to anticipate the following (at least, they failed to anticipate the magnitude of the following effects):

The adverse affect on the ratings of comparatively expensive dramas and sitcoms when they were moved around in the schedule to accommodate the 10:00 Leno show 5 nights per week.
That Conan O'Brien, at 11:35 (Leno's old slot) would be beaten so badly by Letterman in the same slot on CBS. (NBC probably figured on O'Brien retaining ratings similar to Leno's in that slot. He hasn't, by a long shot.)
That Leno at 10:00 would have as poor ratings as it does.
The effect of such a weak lead-in on the local news of the affiliates.

So, based on the evidence right out there to be clearly seen, I don't think the opinion that NBC screwed up rather spectacularly on this decision is a "myopic" view at all.

That Don Guy

10-13-2009, 12:13 PM

How long before NBC starts letting affiliates run their local news at 10 p.m. and run Leno afterward at 10:35, like the station in Boston wanted to do?
18 years ago, IIRC -NBC let the then-San Francisco affiliate KRON run the NBC primetime lineup an hour early in order to have its 10 PM news compete with the Fox affiliate's long-running and ratings-leading 10 PM news (because a significant number of people have to get to bed early because they have to be at work early the next morning, especially with jobs where you have to be there when the NYSE opens at 6:30 AM local time). However, after one year, NBC realized (a) nobody who wanted to watch news at 10:00 was going to switch, and (b) too many people were forgetting that their favorite shows were on an hour earlier. (Then again, over NBC's objections, the station ran news from 10 to 10:30 and then another show - first Wheel of Fortune, then Entertainment Tonight - from 10:30 to 11, which, among other things, resulted in Carson "celebrating" the New Year at 11:25.)

-- Don

MickeS

10-13-2009, 12:24 PM

Holy cow! The myopic viewer hyperbole is running really thick. Why is it so difficult to accept that networks simply have different mission from the one we viewers would want them to pursue?

Yeah, I agree. It's obvious that NBCs strategy is to be the lowest-rated network and incur loss after loss on scripted programming, while trying to stay afloat by airing cheap non-scripted shows that have no prestige and buzz.

They have succeeded beyond their wildest expectations, I believe. :D

That Don Guy

10-13-2009, 12:26 PM

What happens when the next football contract comes up, or the next Olympics. Maybe the NFL thinks twice about Sunday Night Football if they get an equal bid by somebody else, because NBC's ratings are in the toilet. Even if them being in the toilet doesn't mean they're losing tons of money, because of the cheapness of Leno's show.
The NFL doesn't particularly care about a network's ratings when deciding on broadcast contracts - otherwise, explain how Fox got the NFC from CBS in 1994. However, if CBS beats out NBC for the 2014/2016 Olympics, I would not be surprised if NBC takes the money it saved and outbids CBS for the Sunday afternoon AFC rights - which would result in NBC losing the Sunday night game (there's no way the NFL lets them have both).

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL moves the Sunday night games to NFL Network in the not particularly distant future. This could seriously hurt NBC, not only because they would not have a regular season presence, but almost certainly NBC would be pulled out of the Super Bowl rotation.

(There is one wild card: what if Simon Cowell puts The X-Factor on NBC?)

-- Don

bicker

10-13-2009, 12:26 PM

The question is if the affiliates are willing to accept the resulting hit on their local news ratings.True, but think about the marketplace for network affiliation. There are X local stations vying for Y network affiliations. As with other markets, the value of the offerings and the prices can vary based on supply and demand. Now, in some cases, demand is limited (few local stations, because it is a low population area), but in most cases, and generally in the most lucrative cases, supply is more limited than demand. So market forces help mitigate the risk to a network from the possibility you raise, i.e., of not having an affiliate in a lucrative market, or having to give up a lot to have a local affiliate in a lucrative market.

As with everything in business, it is a matter of weighing costs and benefits, risks and rewards.

I don't know under what circumstances an affiliate is allowed to omit airing a network show.WHDH threatened to run local news instead of Leno and then recanted a week later when their lawyers pointed out to them that they're not allowed to do that.

A related question is if NBC anticipated the drop in ratings when shows like L&O got moved to an earlier time slot.Indeed; we have to figure this move into the entire NBCU strategy including cable networks.

My understanding is networks are given a little extra latitude regarding adult themes when a show airs at 10p.That's a myth. The Safe Harbor laws are time zone agnostic, so since 10PM Eastern Time programming airs at 9PM Central Time, there is no extra latitude regarding adult themes when a show airs at 10PM.

I doubt NBC anticipated the Tonight Show ratings go down after Conan replaced Leno.I'm sure that they did count on ratings going down. Whether they figured that ratings would go down this much, I don't know.

I agree the network doesn't share our objectives but that doesn't mean Leno is a success.Correct: The fact that Leno satisfies the network's objectives would mean Leno is a success. Leno is still on. NBC has done nothing to justify any assumptions on your part that Leno is doing anything other than satisfying the network's objectives.

Pressure from the affiliates will carry a lot more weight then pressure from viewers.However, neither may trump the advantages that NBC derives from saving so much money on production costs.

bicker

10-13-2009, 12:33 PM

Doesn't it behoove a television network to attract viewers?Not in ignorance of costs versus benefits. One of the first winners of the National Quality Award ended up in dire financial straights just short time later because they took their eye off of what was really important to a business, the money, and focused solely on customer satisfaction and quality. Customer satisfaction and quality are tools for achieving profitability. When companies mistakenly make those tools objectives in themselves, they're committed a gross disservice to those that they own their fiduciary responsibility to.

Full Disclosure: I was on the team that led the company I worked for at the time to the National Quality Award just a year later. I helped foster the kind of ignorance that I'm warning people against in this thread (and many others). With all due respect to Phil Crosby (RIP), quality is not free.

bicker

10-13-2009, 12:36 PM

And how would they do that with no viewers?Which network has no viewers?
And then they cancel one of the better shows they have, Southland, before it even airs this season.What I saw of Southland sucked IMHO, and if NBC canceled these episodes before they aired means they sucked even worse.

aindik

10-13-2009, 12:39 PM

The NFL doesn't particularly care about a network's ratings when deciding on broadcast contracts - otherwise, explain how Fox got the NFC from CBS in 1994.

I agree they generally don't care. When they start to care is when their own ratings suffer because the network sucks, which decreases the value of the package when they try to sell it for the next contract.

However, if CBS beats out NBC for the 2014/2016 Olympics, I would not be surprised if NBC takes the money it saved and outbids CBS for the Sunday afternoon AFC rights - which would result in NBC losing the Sunday night game (there's no way the NFL lets them have both).

I don't think anyone can realistically bid for the Olympics other than NBC and ABC. CBS doesn't have the cable channels needed to run three and four things at a time. Remember, they're not the same company as Viacom with the MTV networks anymore. The only cable channels CBS owns are the Showtime ones.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL moves the Sunday night games to NFL Network in the not particularly distant future. This could seriously hurt NBC, not only because they would not have a regular season presence, but almost certainly NBC would be pulled out of the Super Bowl rotation.

I don't think the NFL Network has the kind of in-home penetration to accept one of the major Sunday or Monday packages.

bicker

10-13-2009, 12:40 PM

I think NBC's objective is obvious. The question is whether they were successful in meeting their objective.Of course. Like I said, above, there is no basis for assuming that Leno is not not satisfying the objectives of the enterprise set forth for it. I know you want it to be considered a failure, but your wanting it to be a failure doesn't make it one. Wait until NBC says it is a failure, or does something to indicate that they feel a change is needed. Then you can put forth your conclusions in that regard.

That reasoning is all well and good as long as they are able to estimate accurately what the ratings for that show would be, and do not overlook any undesired "ripple effects" of that decision.Rest assured that if it isn't your full-time job to think of such things, and you thought of them, that more than enough of the folks for whom it is a full-time job also thought of it.

I think what we're seeing here is that NBC failed to anticipate the following (at least, they failed to anticipate the magnitude of the following effects):Ridiculous assertions -- reckless aspersions actually - without any basis in fact.

Let's come by your job and take some careless pot-shots at your attempt to satisfy objectives. :)

ronsch

10-13-2009, 12:45 PM

I'm sure that they did count on ratings going down. Whether they figured that ratings would go down this much, I don't know.

My guess is that they were expecting the Tonight Show ratings in the all-important 18-49 demographic to go up with a younger, supposedly hipper host. That hasn't happened either....

bicker

10-13-2009, 12:50 PM

Yeah, but that has nothing to do with putting Leno at 10PM. The genesis of the Conan decision goes back many years. You wanna bitch about that, I won't say boo, because I just don't care about late-night enough.

IndyJones1023

10-13-2009, 01:10 PM

Which network has no viewers?
What I saw of Southland sucked IMHO, and if NBC canceled these episodes before they aired means they sucked even worse.

None right now. But you find truth in extremes.

NBC viewership is declining. Which leads to advertisers bailing, seeking out lots of viewers instead. Loss of advertisers means loss of revenue which impact profitability which hurts the stockholders which can lead to the company going under.

This is all common sense stuff.

aindik

10-13-2009, 01:12 PM

None right now. But you find truth in extremes.

NBC viewership is declining. Which leads to advertisers bailing, seeking out lots of viewers instead. Loss of advertisers means loss of revenue which impact profitability which hurts the stockholders which can lead to the company going under.

This is all common sense stuff.

Revenue is only half of the profit equation.

DevdogAZ

10-13-2009, 01:14 PM

One thing that also is getting hurt is the prestige of NBC.

What happens when the next football contract comes up, or the next Olympics. Maybe the NFL thinks twice about Sunday Night Football if they get an equal bid by somebody else, because NBC's ratings are in the toilet. Even if them being in the toilet doesn't mean they're losing tons of money, because of the cheapness of Leno's show.

What about the top producing talent, will they want to do pilot's for NBC seeing as how 1/3 of the schedule does not have a good demographic, and probably doesn't help promote other shows, not to mention there's no 10pm times available.

-smak-
Couple of responses here: First, the NFL doesn't care what network their games air on. The games are the draw, not the network they are airing on. So as long as the NFL gets their money from the network, that's what they care about. The networks use the NFL for publicity, not the other way around.

Second, most TV pilots are produced by production companies and are then pitched to the various networks. While it's true that each of the networks own their own production companies, it doesn't necessarily mean that a pilot produced by NBC's production company will end up on NBC. So it would be stupid for any actor to turn down potential work just because it might eventually air on NBC. The only way any actor would turn down work on NBC is if they're getting a better offer from one of the other networks.
I lump the cancellation of "My Name is Earl" into the long list of stupid decisions on their part, but that's just me.
While I enjoyed "Earl" and saw every single episode, I don't think it was a bad decision to cancel it. The show had run its course and was getting stale. I was kind of relieved when it got the axe.
And then they cancel one of the better shows they have, Southland, before it even airs this season. Leaving NBC on the hook for the $9 million, the six epsiodes not aired will cost.

They might as well have at least aired the episodes to see how it does. It can't do much worse than some of the other shows NBC has this season.
I disagree that Southland was one of the better shows NBC had, and the ratings will back up my opinion.

As to your point about whether they should have aired the episodes anyway, regardless of ratings, that's not always a cut-and-dried case. The network has already incurred the cost of production. That's a sunk cost they're not getting back either way. So now they have to make the decision solely on what will get better ratings between Southland, and whatever they choose to put on in its place (likely Dateline). For whatever reason, NBC feels that Dateline will give them better ratings, and less chance of having to refund money to advertisers, than Southland will.

IndyJones1023

10-13-2009, 01:17 PM

Revenue is only half of the profit equation.

I'll be the first to admit I'm no economist. So how do they make profit with no revenue?

bicker

10-13-2009, 01:18 PM

None right now. But you find truth in extremes.Uh, you find falsehood in exaggerations and hyperbole.

NBC viewership is declining.All OTA broadcast television viewership is declining.

Which leads to advertisers bailing,Also, advertisers bail because the value of commercial advertising, itself, even for the same given number of total viewers, is declining.

(And so on...)

There is a lot more going on than you're factoring into your analysis. For example, one of the reasons why all OTA broadcast television viewership is declining is because folks are turning to cable. Which raises this point: Recent News:New York, NY – October 13, 2009 – It was quite a week for Syfy. Propelled by Sanctuary, Stargate Universe and the Original Movie Megafault, Syfy was the #3 cable entertainment network in Adults 25-54, behind only USA and TBS, for the week ending October 11.Guess who owns Syfy?

This is all common sense stuff.There is indeed some common sense in all this, but I believe you've missed most of it.

aindik

10-13-2009, 01:21 PM

I'll be the first to admit I'm no economist. So how do they make profit with no revenue?

They don't.

But they can make profit if revenue and costs are high, and they can make profit if revenue and costs are low. You don't always make more profit when revenues are highest. If you cut revenue, but you cut costs more, profit goes up.

DevdogAZ

10-13-2009, 01:22 PM

Here's a good take on what's happening at NBC:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/11/ny-times-is-the-jay-leno-show-hazardous-to-nbcs-health/30166

The author dissects a recent NY Times article and admits that there is one show (SVU) that has been impacted by Leno, but the rest of the supposed "failure" is simply wishful thinking by those who hate Leno. The fact is that NBC is getting higher ratings with Leno on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays than they did in the same spots last season. Tuesdays, where SVU used to be, are lower, and Thursday, where ER used to be, are also lower. But ER is gone, so there's no guarantee that whatever was put in its place would be outdrawing Leno this season. So really, of the five nights Leno is on, it's only been a poor decision on one of those nights.

IndyJones1023

10-13-2009, 01:23 PM

Uh, you find falsehood in exaggerations and hyperbole.

So, if they had the most viewers, that's what? Good or bad? Conversely, if they had no viewers, again, that's good or bad?

There is a lot more going on than you're factoring into your analysis.

Who, whoa there, Bernanke. I'm just spitballing here. I'm not analyzing anything.

bicker

10-13-2009, 01:25 PM

So, if they had the most viewers, that's what? Good or bad? Conversely, if they had no viewers, again, that's good or bad?Could you please come back to discussing the reality, with the rest of us?

Who, whoa there, Bernanke. I'm just spitballing here.I'm Mrs. Krabappel, making you clean up the spitballs, Bart.

IndyJones1023

10-13-2009, 01:28 PM

Could you please come back to discussing the reality, with the rest of us?

I'm Mrs. Krabappel, making you clean up the spitballs, Bart.

How did you come up with your screen name, anyway?

bicker

10-13-2009, 01:29 PM

It is a family name.

wmcbrine

10-13-2009, 01:33 PM

While I enjoyed "Earl" and saw every single episode, I don't think it was a bad decision to cancel it. The show had run its course and was getting stale. I was kind of relieved when it got the axe.I think it deserved a proper ending, like Earl finishing the list. (In fact I can't think of another way to end it properly.)

Steveknj

10-13-2009, 01:33 PM

Then the other factors like Leno's late night competition (plus preserving Leno in relief should Conan fall completely off the charts) weigh is and the decision makes some sense.

This. I wonder if NBC is hedging their bet on Conan somewhat by keeping Leno around in this capacity, and if Conan falls flat (which it looks like he might), then they already have Leno signed and they can move him back to late nights. Do you think NBC is worried about Conan jumping ship at this point? He's losing Leno's big lead to Letterman and if ABC was smart, they would put Kimmel directly opposite him now too (I personally think that Nightline has lost it's relevence now, but that's a discussion for another thread). I like Conan, but he's been a disaster for NBC at the Tonight Show. And btw, Ferguson is killing his competition at NBC now too (who's name escapes me).

lew

10-13-2009, 01:34 PM

Some of the major cities have affiliates which are are O&O. They can complain but there isn't any reason for NBC to listen. NBC has low ratings. I'm sure cities like Boston have other stations that might be interested in affiliating with NBC. I don't think NBC has any shot of persuading a fox affiliate into changing affiliation in smaller cities.

I recall several affiliates not carrying NYPD Blue. You may know the answer, but I'm not sure if WHDH backed down because they're contractually required to carry Leno, because NBC persuaded them to give it a shot or if WHDH is required to provide some kind of notice if they're not going to carry a network show. Affiliates sometimes drop a network show so they can broadcast local sports. A few years ago WCBS carried some Yankee games during prime time.

I guess it's not due to safe harbor rules but networks seem to have different standards for shows airing at 10p EST. At least some articles suggest NBC wanted Southland toned down for an earlier time slot.

NBC renewed Southland but decided not to air any episodes. That suggests NBC's decisions aren't as perfect as you've been suggesting.

I think we can agree the shows NBC are likely to air, if they cancel Leno, aren't going to be shows like ER or West Wing. I suspect the shows they'll air will be shows that are also cheap to produce. Reality shows. Game shows.

I'm not sure about government regulations but splitting the difference may make some sense. Let the affiliates insert local news 10-10:30p. Run Leno 10:30-11:30, right before Conan. The affiliates will make money running local news in prime time. Leno will still start in prime time.

True, but think about the marketplace for network affiliation. There are X local stations vying for Y network affiliations. As with other markets, the value of the offerings and the prices can vary based on supply and demand. Now, in some cases, demand is limited (few local stations, because it is a low population area), but in most cases, and generally in the most lucrative cases, supply is more limited than demand. So market forces help mitigate the risk to a network from the possibility you raise, i.e., of not having an affiliate in a lucrative market, or having to give up a lot to have a local affiliate in a lucrative market.

As with everything in business, it is a matter of weighing costs and benefits, risks and rewards.

WHDH threatened to run local news instead of Leno and then recanted a week later when their lawyers pointed out to them that they're not allowed to do that.

Indeed; we have to figure this move into the entire NBCU strategy including cable networks.

That's a myth. The Safe Harbor laws are time zone agnostic, so since 10PM Eastern Time programming airs at 9PM Central Time, there is no extra latitude regarding adult themes when a show airs at 10PM.

I'm sure that they did count on ratings going down. Whether they figured that ratings would go down this much, I don't know........

DevdogAZ

10-13-2009, 01:36 PM

This. I wonder if NBC is hedging their bet on Conan somewhat by keeping Leno around in this capacity, and if Conan falls flat (which it looks like he might), then they already have Leno signed and they can move him back to late nights. Do you think NBC is worried about Conan jumping ship at this point? He's losing Leno's bit lead to Letterman and if ABC was smart, they would put Kimmel directly opposite him now too (I personally think that Nightline has lost it's relevence now, but that's a discussion for another thread). I like Conan, but he's been a disaster for NBC at the Tonight Show. And btw, Ferguson is killing his competition at NBC now too (who's name escapes me).
Actually, Nightline is getting better ratings than Conan now: http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/08/nightline-bests-tonight-show-in-total-viewers-for-15th-straight-week/29950

It's debatable whether Kimmel would be able to maintain that lead or not.

getreal

10-13-2009, 01:40 PM

I'd be shocked if the new contract doesn't require them to pay him for at least two years' worth of work, regardless of how long he's on the air, and probably allows him to pursue other opportunities if NBC chooses to terminate. So there would be no logic to NBC intentionally trying to get rid of Leno, since he'd undoubtedly get offers from ABC and/or Fox and would go there and do further damage to NBC's late-night ratings.

I don't understand that logic. If Leno's show is a failure on NBC, how will it improve by moving to another network? The entire format and cast would need to be revamped in order to create a fresh identity, as this one is stale.

That Don Guy

10-13-2009, 01:40 PM

I think it deserved a proper ending, like Earl finishing the list. (In fact I can't think of another way to end it properly.)
The problem being, if he does finish the list and then another network or cable station (e.g. TBS) wants to pick up the show, they have to try some non-list gimmick - and didn't that backfire when they tried it on NBC (to the point where NBC made it a point to say, "The list is back!", when promoting the show's next (and final?) season)?

"Ending a show properly" only works when the actors and producers pretty much all agree to end the show on their terms, rather than on the network's terms.

-- Don

DevdogAZ

10-13-2009, 01:45 PM

I don't understand that logic. If Leno's show is a failure on NBC, how will it improve by moving to another network? The entire format and cast would need to be revamped in order to create a fresh identity, as this one is stale.
It's no more stale than late night shows have been for the last 50 years. If Leno jumped to ABC late night and put on the same show he did for 17 years at NBC, what would make anyone think he wouldn't get similar ratings to what he got on NBC?

DevdogAZ

10-13-2009, 01:46 PM

I think it deserved a proper ending, like Earl finishing the list. (In fact I can't think of another way to end it properly.)
It would have been nice if NBC had given them a little more notice and allowed them to write a proper ending, but the fact that they didn't doesn't mean the show deserved another season.

bicker

10-13-2009, 01:49 PM

You may know the answer, but I'm not sure if WHDH backed down because they're contractually required to carry Leno, because NBC persuaded them to give it a shot or if WHDH is required to provide some kind of notice if they're not going to carry a network show.Lawyers were involved. Ed Ansin was pissed when he had to back-pedal. I think affiliates are allowed to do isolated preemptions, for special presenatations, but not simply bypass a series entirely, as Ansin wanted to do.

I guess it's not due to safe harbor rules but networks seem to have different standards for shows airing at 10p EST.How I Met Your Mother regularly includes mature subject matter. House is a reprehensible person. NCIS regularly depicts the end-result of violence.

Putting NBC aside, entirely, which 10PM shows are you referring to? For each one, I'll post a program that has regularly been on at 9PM which was equally as objectionable to certain parties. We'll play this game as long as you'd like to.

At least some articles suggest NBC wanted Southland toned down for an earlier time slot.Southland sucked AFAIC. I'd want it changed for 10PM... for 11PM for that matter.

NBC renewed Southland but decided not to air any episodes. That suggests NBC's decisions aren't as perfect as you've been suggesting.Red herring. I never said anything about decisions being perfect. Please restrict your rebuttals to what I actually do write, instead of something easier to argue against.

As it is, there is no reason to believe that the Southland situation isn't 100% a Wells/WB screw-up. NBC ordered episodes. For all we know, Wells and WB delivered episodes yet-even-crappier than the crap they delivered last year.

I'm not sure about government regulations but splitting the difference may make some sense. Let the affiliates insert local news 10-10:30p. Run Leno 10:30-11:30, right before Conan. The affiliates will make money running local news in prime time. Leno will still start in prime time.There are no government regulations that affect any of that. Other folks can better explain why your idea, though, isn't a good one, from NBC's standpoint.

DevdogAZ

10-13-2009, 01:53 PM

Red herring. I never said anything about decisions being perfect. Please restrict your rebuttals to what I actually do write, instead of something easier to argue against.

As it is, there is no reason to believe that the Southland situation isn't 100% a Wells/WB screw-up. NBC ordered episodes. For all we know, Wells and WB delivered episodes yet-even-crappier than the crap they delivered last year.

The article I posted earlier believes that this was just NBC beginning to clean up the mess that Ben Silverman made when he was there. Southland never should have been renewed, and NBC is simply correcting that mistake before it does any further damage to the network.

MickeS

10-13-2009, 02:08 PM

I don't understand that logic. If Leno's show is a failure on NBC, how will it improve by moving to another network? The entire format and cast would need to be revamped in order to create a fresh identity, as this one is stale.

But The Tonight Show was NOT a failure on NBC, and it's far from certain that The Jay Leno Show is one either.

Steveknj

10-13-2009, 02:11 PM

It really is amazing what has happened to NBC in the last few years. To pin it solely on Leno is to miss the big picture. He can hardly be blamed for NBC not having a single show in the top 20 (beyond football). The situation was not much better last year.

You know, I bet you hit it right there. I bet this HUGE SNF contract has ended up hurting them a lot more than helping. That has to be a HUGE chunk of change they could be spending on development.

DevdogAZ

10-13-2009, 02:14 PM

You know, I bet you hit it right there. I bet this HUGE SNF contract has ended up hurting them a lot more than helping. That has to be a HUGE chunk of change they could be spending on development.
I doubt that's really hurting NBC. They're getting tons of viewers for it, and it provides them a platform to promote their other shows. It's highly unlikely that they'd get the same kind of exposure from anything else they'd put on Sunday nights. And there's no guarantee that more money spent on development would equal better shows.

Steveknj

10-13-2009, 02:24 PM

The goal is to make a profit for its shareholders and owners.

But wouldn't their goal to be to CONTINUE to make a profit? This is the type of shortsighted thinking that has killed our economy too. They gut the network, for short term gain, meanwhile, the rest of their product suffers, and possibly to the point of no return. There's no investment in the future here. But you know what? The execs in charge figure, they will only be there for 4 or 5 years before they move on, with healthy bonuses and enough money to start their own production companies (as many of them have done). Why should THEY care if the network is in the crapper AFTER they are gone? It's not like it was in the days of Sarnoff and Paley. These guys are there for the short term and move on.

bicker

10-13-2009, 02:32 PM

But wouldn't their goal to be to CONTINUE to make a profit? It is and they are. I know you'd like to have some foundation for your accusations to the contrary but you don't. You are hoping that their failure to fulfill your personal preferences would translate into some greater wrong, but that's not a reasonable implication.

Steveknj

10-13-2009, 02:39 PM

How did you come up with your screen name, anyway?

bicker has always been a network apologist, back in the days we were arguing Chuck. But he's entitled to his opinion like the rest of us. As he said, Network viewership is down across the board, but I believe the last stat I saw is NBC's network viewership is down a bigger percentage. I'm not saying Jay Leno is killing NBC, but what I'm saying is he's a symptom of a bigger problem they are having, and this short term cost cutting is going to hurt the network in the LONG RUN. Ever here the expression you have to SPEND money to MAKE money? Well NBC is no longer doing this. Usually that's a sign that there's BIG trouble ahead. And in NBC's case, it's already here.

Steveknj

10-13-2009, 02:42 PM

Actually, Nightline is getting better ratings than Conan now: http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/08/nightline-bests-tonight-show-in-total-viewers-for-15th-straight-week/29950

It's debatable whether Kimmel would be able to maintain that lead or not.

Perhaps not, but if ABC is serious about making a go of late night talk, now is the time to strike. Kimmel's audience has always tried to attract younger hipper viewers, same as Conan, so perhaps he could go after those viewers too. Actually, I think those viewers just watch The Daily Show and then stick with the Colbert Report rather than switching to the talkies :)

lew

10-13-2009, 02:42 PM

Lawyers were involved. Ed Ansin was pissed when he had to back-pedal. I think affiliates are allowed to do isolated preemptions, for special presenatations, but not simply bypass a series entirely, as Ansin wanted to do.

........

Putting NBC aside, entirely, which 10PM shows are you referring to? For each one, I'll post a program that has regularly been on at 9PM which was equally as objectionable to certain parties. We'll play this game as long as you'd like to.

Southland sucked AFAIC. I'd want it changed for 10PM... for 11PM for that matter.

NBC ratings are low, across the board. Could some affiliates might conside following NBCs philosophy? Drop "expensive" NBC programs in favor of less expensive shows? Keep 100% of ad revenue. In other words decide the local station can make more money if they drop their affiliation with NBC? I don't know what it would take to air a syndicated show like Oprah in prime time. NBC may be vulnerable if enough affiliates in smaller markets complain. I'm sure NBC can find another affiliate in Boston but I doubt they want to wind up with a UHF station in smaller markets.

I don't recall any specific shows (other then NYPD Blue) but rather reading several articles which suggest shows at 10p could be more adult. Violence is accepted, the issue is more with sex. I accept your examples. This is probably a myth. I no longer watch L&O, I don't know if NBC toned it down for the earlier time slot.

I'm not sure if I even saw much more then 20 minutes of the first episode of Southland. I didn't think that much of it.

A previous poster made a good point. Wait until we see how Leno does when the other networks air re-runs.

edited to change punctuation. I'm asking if it's possible some affiliates might decide dropping NBC network affiliation might increase profits. I don't have facts, either way.

marksman

10-13-2009, 02:45 PM

It is stupid and ignorant to look at the current situation as being some kind of wise financial move. Even if the math of income versus cost for the last hour of m-f primetime is better, the side-effects have a much more significant impact in the long-time. Not to mention other issues like a completely smaller audience for your entire network.

As I mentioned before, if Leno gets 6 million viewers a night, he probably has 9 million unique viewers a week. 5 different dramas each night even with the same ratings, would expose your network to probably 20 million people. That means exposure to advertisements for other shows, exposed to the local news shows around the country, set up for your late night show on and on.

It was not a well thought out decision and contrary to what people want to imply it is the central reason for the actual destruction of the network.

Sure they sucked and were in last place but every network has sucked and been in last place at one time or another. The way you get out of that is to try and put on shows people want to see and grow your whole audience for your NETWORK. What NBC is doing is just the opposite. They are actively reducing the audience for their network. It is a horrible strategy and it is not a matter of if but only a matter of when it will be stopped.

The whole thing started when they were afraid to lose Jay after they kicked him out for Conan. They make one ridiculous mis-step after another in what turns out was simply a way to appease their secondary late night host. It is insane.

They actually destroyed their entire network because Conan might have been upset. So yeah I guess technically it is not Jay's fault. It is Conan's fault. Conan wanted something more, they agreed to give it to him and then blew up the network trying to keep the dam from cracking.

They would have been 100x better off if they had just let Jay go somewhere else to compete against Conan, or else they just paid Conan off and kept Jay on the Tonight show. Either one of those would have averted the complete destruction of NBC.

The network is literally one night of the Biggest Loser and one night of middle of the pack Comedies. There is nothing else on the network.

Conan never even got a shot at the tonight show because before he even took over NBC was promoting Jay being on at 10. They sabotaged their own show.

allan

10-13-2009, 02:46 PM

They don't.

But they can make profit if revenue and costs are high, and they can make profit if revenue and costs are low. You don't always make more profit when revenues are highest. If you cut revenue, but you cut costs more, profit goes up.

OTOH, if you cut costs too much, your product suffers and nobody buys it. If NBC drives enough viewers away, it won't matter how cheap their costs are.

Steveknj

10-13-2009, 02:50 PM

I doubt that's really hurting NBC. They're getting tons of viewers for it, and it provides them a platform to promote their other shows. It's highly unlikely that they'd get the same kind of exposure from anything else they'd put on Sunday nights. And there's no guarantee that more money spent on development would equal better shows.

But are they getting a fair return on their investment? Considering the money they spent on the NFL and their declining ratings, I'd say no. That would be the biggest cost cutting they could do.

But here's the thing about development. NBC has had quite a few shows that have had critical (but not financial) success. Studio 60 was critically acclaimed. So is 30 Rock and The Office, or even Chuck. Then think about the shows that are SUCCESSFUL. Mostly reality shows and the same old stuff. The fact is, NBC has TRIED to give us something a bit different, and it's been a critical success. But we as viewers want more AI, more of the same old cop shows. The only network that's had ANY real success giving us something different (not including cable) is ABC, and even THOSE shows are not getting big ratings. NBC, if they want to be successful needs to go back to basics. Sitcoms, cop shows and reality. No more Heroes, Studio 60 or anything remotely different. As much as we all complain we want something different, we end up watching the same old thing. The ratings prove it (at least the ratings as we know it now).

bicker

10-13-2009, 02:52 PM

bicker has always been a network apologistName-calling is puerile.

If you want to call me something, call me a realist.

Usually that's a sign that there's BIG trouble ahead. And in NBC's case, it's already here.That sounds a lot like, "The sky is falling."

DevdogAZ

10-13-2009, 02:54 PM

NBC ratings are low, across the board. Could some affiliates might conside following NBCs philosophy? Drop "expensive" NBC programs in favor of less expensive shows. Keep 100% of ad revenue. In other words decide the local station can make more money if they drop their affiliation with NBC. I don't know what it would take to air a syndicated show like Oprah in prime time. NBC may be vulnerable if enough affiliates in smaller markets complain. I'm sure NBC can find another affiliate in Boston but I doubt they want to wind up with a UHF station in smaller markets.
Affiliates may not be happy, but they're not going to drop their NBC affiliation. It's not like there is something better out there. Being a broadcast network affiliate makes them one of four major networks in any local market. If they voluntarily drop that affiliation, someone else will quickly scoop it up and then they'll be fighting with the other also-ran networks for the scraps.

Steveknj

10-13-2009, 02:55 PM

It is and they are. I know you'd like to have some foundation for your accusations to the contrary but you don't. You are hoping that their failure to fulfill your personal preferences would translate into some greater wrong, but that's not a reasonable implication.

Nothing to do with personal preferences. And I admit, my TV viewing is different from the average viewer, but NBC isn't even trying to show what the average viewer seems to want. I hope their eventual goal is to save SO much money they can afford one killer show that will bring them back. But by that time, those in charge will be gone. I'm just not sure their thinking is long term.

What facts do YOU have to support your thesis? Unless you have INSIDE knowledge of what is going on at NBC, you don't have any more information than I do.

bicker

10-13-2009, 02:58 PM

In other words decide the local station can make more money if they drop their affiliation with NBC.Which ones? How so? Where's your evidence? It seems to me that that's just blowing smoke.

NBC may be vulnerable if enough affiliates in smaller markets complain.Vulnerable in what way? What is your evidence that the vulnerability is not only real but practically-speaking a likely risk, given the current circumstances?

I'm sure NBC can find another affiliate in Boston but I doubt they want to wind up with a UHF station in smaller markets.Huh? NBC is a UHF station in Boston.

I don't recall any specific shows (other then NYPD Blue) but rather reading several articles which suggest shows at 10p could be more adult.As already covered, that is not the case: The Safe Harbor laws are very clear. 10PM is 10PM. Even in Chicago.

A previous poster made a good point. Wait until we see how Leno does when the other networks air re-runs.TV by the Numbers summarized the whole situation very well, in nine bullet points, this week. Essentially, all the criticisms are premature. No one has enough data yet to defend any assertions that NBC made a mistake. That's not to say that this isn't a mistake. Rather, the only thing we can say with assurance is that it is a mistake to call it a mistake right now.

DevdogAZ

10-13-2009, 02:59 PM

I referenced the NY Times article earlier. Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12nbc.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

And here's are a couple of very interesting quotes from that article:

Looked at in isolation, Mr. Leno has been doing everything NBC expected of him.

His ratings, after a big first week, have leveled off to about five million viewers a night (though some nights have been much lower) with a 1.5 to 2 rating in the category NBC identifies as all-important, viewers ages 18 to 49, the group many advertisers want to reach.

Though most 10 p.m. shows with those kinds of numbers get canceled, NBC has said from the beginning that it could accept much lower ratings because of the enormous cost savings of Mr. Leno’s show versus expensive hourlong scripted dramas. The network guaranteed advertisers that it would average only a 1.5 rating.
So NBC didn't expect Leno to do any better than a 1.5 rating with adults 18-49. Seems that he's meeting or beating their expectations. Perhaps cost savings is a bigger deal to the network than we wish to acknowledge.

The rationale for the move of Mr. Leno was simple: the network could not endure his likely move to ABC, where he would have created a new late-night program and undermined the strength of “The “Tonight Show.”

But NBC is justifying the move by citing both the savings Mr. Leno’s show represents over expensive 10 p.m. dramas and the apparent disintegration of the 10 p.m. hour across the board. Mr. Gaspin repeated NBC’s conclusion that hits cannot be established at 10 anymore, largely because the hour is dominated by viewers playing back recorded shows on digital video recorders.

“Look at how ABC is doing at 10 against Jay,” Mr. Gaspin said.

Indeed, ABC’s performance is certainly providing some cover for NBC’s move at 10. Mr. Leno is already faring as well or better than two new ABC dramas, “The Forgotten” and “Eastwick,” and he is not far behind a third, “Castle.” All those shows cost three times as much or more per episode as Mr. Leno’s show.

Mr. Gaspin argued that NBC is not abandoning quality drama and cited recent deals for future shows, including outbidding the other networks for a spy drama from J. J. Abrams (“Lost”) and an American version of the British police classic “Prime Suspect.”
So CBS was beating NBC in the 10 pm hour before and is still beating NBC now. That hasn't changed.

ABC and NBC were competing for 2nd and 3rd place in the 10 pm hour before and are still doing so now.

NBC's ratings in the 10 pm hour are actually up for three out of the five nights vs. last season.

Leno will air new shows when the other networks go to reruns.

Seems to me that most of you are being very premature with your obituaries for NBC.

bicker

10-13-2009, 03:00 PM

What facts do YOU have to support your thesis?Your lack of evidence.

Unless you have INSIDE knowledge of what is going on at NBC, you don't have any more information than I do.Repeating myself: No one has enough data yet to defend any assertions that NBC made a mistake. That's not to say that this isn't a mistake. Rather, the only thing we can say with assurance is that it is a mistake to call it a mistake right now.

Steveknj

10-13-2009, 03:02 PM

Name-calling is puerile.

If you want to call me something, call me a realist.

That sounds a lot like, "The sky is falling."

I am sorry if I called you something you don't agree with, but in the threads I've seen, I've yet to see you attack NBC's strategy.

And here's a bulletin....for NBC, The Sky has already fallen. The question is, can they lift it back up.

zalusky

10-13-2009, 03:03 PM

Random thoughts here:

1) Baby boomers are getting older and going to bed earlier - Leno appeals to the older crowd. Leno is a market moving with his main customers demographics.
2) NBC may be acquired some/all by Comcast which could change their priorities.
3) Its only been a month - I remember Leno's initial shows after Carson were a bit of a struggle and then he won the slot for over a decade.
4) Fox only has two hours primetime a night, why aren't we complaining about that?
5) There are plenty of other channels to watch. Why do you people care about this one?

aindik

10-13-2009, 03:08 PM

OTOH, if you cut costs too much, your product suffers and nobody buys it. If NBC drives enough viewers away, it won't matter how cheap their costs are.

Of course. The question is whether they are driving away "enough" viewers to cause revenues to fall more than costs, or not.

I was just disputing the idea that more viewers means more profit. Sometimes it does, sometimes not. It depends on how much it costs to acquire the viewer's attention.

bicker

10-13-2009, 03:13 PM

I am sorry if I called you something you don't agree with, but in the threads I've seen, I've yet to see you attack NBC's strategy.So because someone disagrees with your partisan perspective, you assume that they must be an "apologist". Holy cow. That's stunning.

I'm not going to contradict the point I'm making in this thread just to make you happy. I don't attack NBC's strategy because no one has enough data yet to defend any assertions that NBC made a mistake. That's not to say that this isn't a mistake. Rather, the only thing we can say with assurance is that it is a mistake to call it a mistake right now.

Steveknj

10-13-2009, 03:15 PM

Your lack of evidence.

Repeating myself: No one has enough data yet to defend any assertions that NBC made a mistake. That's not to say that this isn't a mistake. Rather, the only thing we can say with assurance is that it is a mistake to call it a mistake right now.

But you have the same lack of evidence I do. Mine is opinion just like yours. And I've never agreed with the fact that Leno, in and of itself is killing NBC. I can't prove that my assertations are fact, just like you can't prove they aren't and that yours are. Evidence for me is in the early ratings, and the fact that affiliates are barking and that some of the so called insiders are making these assertations. Lets not get into a p*ssing contest over this. I have NOT dismissed what you have said, but you seem to have dismissed mine based on the same lack of evidence YOU have.

All I'm trying to say is that NBC has been in trouble a long time, and I don't think gutting everything is necessarily the answer. If fewer viewers are watching your network, it decreases the odds that one of your shows can become a hit. The idea is to draw viewers in, not to turn them away. The jury is still out on this. I do agree with you there.

bicker

10-13-2009, 03:21 PM

But you have the same lack of evidence I do.You are incorrect. My assertion is that you don't have enough evidence on which to base your criticism. Your lack of evidence proves my assertion.

Regardless if you're willing to just end this by each of us saying that it is possible that this is a good strategy for NBC and it is possible that this is a bad strategy for NBC, then I can go for that.

MickeS

10-13-2009, 03:38 PM

bicker is not a network apologist. He simply believes that "corporations" as an entity always act in their own best interest. I don't think he has EVER written a post where he criticized the decisions of someone working for a corporation, be it a network or a cable company, for an action or decision. To him, they can do no wrong - even when it's obvious to everyone else that the decisions individuals working for the corporations have made huge mistakes.

To everyone else but bicker, it's pretty much obvious that Ben Silverman made some bad, if not awful, business decisions. But to bicker, those were likely just part of a brilliant scheme to make NBC less profitable.

bicker

10-13-2009, 03:42 PM

Your comments nothing short of abusive and personal in nature. Instead of general statements about consumers in general, would you prefer I ascribe the descriptors of the nastiest traits of consumerists to you personally? Of course not. If you don't want threads to turn into flame fests, keep your comments on topic, instead of engaging in personal attacks on other posters. Attack the perspectives presented if you wish.

MickeS

10-13-2009, 03:44 PM

bicker

10-13-2009, 03:48 PM

I surely I have never said that they can "do no wrong" as you put it, but that's not even the point. The point is that your posting is inappropriate. I'm not the topic of this thread, nor a worth topic for any thread. Again, your posting is inappropriate. It does nothing other than to foster a flame-fest. You're flame baiting. That's the only effective end-result of your message. It adds nothing useful to the thread, and does add something negative to the thread.

LostCluster

10-13-2009, 06:32 PM

NBC knew fully that Leno would, after the first-few-days burst, settle into 4th or perhaps even 5th place. And they didn't mind, because Leno is a whole lot cheaper of a show to make than a scripted drama. Because of the lower costs, it's easier to make a profit even if they get less ad money.

NBC isn't trying to be the most watched network, they want to be the most profitable.

Jesda

10-13-2009, 07:42 PM

But wouldn't their goal to be to CONTINUE to make a profit? This is the type of shortsighted thinking that has killed our economy too. They gut the network, for short term gain, meanwhile, the rest of their product suffers, and possibly to the point of no return. There's no investment in the future here. But you know what? The execs in charge figure, they will only be there for 4 or 5 years before they move on, with healthy bonuses and enough money to start their own production companies (as many of them have done). Why should THEY care if the network is in the crapper AFTER they are gone? It's not like it was in the days of Sarnoff and Paley. These guys are there for the short term and move on.

Sure, but when you're in a tighter financial situation, you have to reduce costs to see a future at all. NBC still has several excellent programs and allowed low-rated (at first) but high quality shows like The Office and Chuck to stay on the air and build an audience.

One profitable low-rated variety talk show isn't the end of the world, as this thread seems to be implying. If Jay had left for ABC, CBS, or Fox, NBC's situation in that timeslot might be even worse now, and producing/authorizing the filming of a new drama or comedy would turn an easily profitable 10pm into a money pit. Its hard to justify those kinds of risks to shareholders when times are tough.

NBC deserves a little more credit. They don't pump and dump shows like Fox.

Zevida

10-13-2009, 07:45 PM

NBC deserves a little more credit. They don't pump and dump shows like Fox.

Really? What about Kings and Southland?

DevdogAZ

10-13-2009, 07:49 PM

NBC deserves a little more credit. They don't pump and dump shows like Fox.

Really? What about Kings and Southland?
Every network does that to some extent. It's actually pretty common with mid-season replacement shows, which both Kings and Southland were. They come on in March or April, don't get great ratings, and are quietly canceled, despite the fact that there is a small core of vocal fans.

smak

10-13-2009, 09:27 PM

DevdogAZ

10-13-2009, 09:42 PM

A couple things I read.

Leno will cost $100 million a year.
Dramas and reruns would have cost $300 million.

Ad rates for Leno's show are running around 50-75k less then the avg 10pm show would have made. SVU made around $137k for 30 seconds, some of the other shows i'm sure were less. Leno could be as low as $50k.

$100k a minute x 16 minutes is $1.6m a day, $8m a week less.

Times that by 22 weeks, it's around $176 million less.

They think he'll get similar rates compared to the re-runs that would have aired the other weeks he's new while the old show would have been a re-run.

NBC isn't going to sell Leno on iTunes, DVD's, syndication, etc.. etc... Who knows how much money that would have been for a 10pm drama. Not a tremendous amount probably.

It'll be interesting to see. With the ratings of the past week I think they're fine. Drop 20%, then I think it's a problem.

-smak-
I agree with nearly everything in your post except for your calculation of the potential lost revenue. You used the ad rates for SVU, which was NBC's highest rated 10pm drama, and then extrapolated that out over the full week. The reality is that most of NBC's 10pm shows didn't get nearly the ratings of SVU, and therefore, ads during those shows didn't cost nearly as much. I'll bet the actual difference in ad revenue isn't nearly as dramatic as the calculations you threw out there.

Jesda

10-13-2009, 10:18 PM

Every network does that to some extent. It's actually pretty common with mid-season replacement shows, which both Kings and Southland were. They come on in March or April, don't get great ratings, and are quietly canceled, despite the fact that there is a small core of vocal fans.

I vaguely remember those titles.

Zevida

10-13-2009, 10:23 PM

Every network does that to some extent.

Right, that was my point. He said NBC doesn't do that, but they do. Fox gets a bad rap because they do more of the sci-fi/edgy shows popular with this crowd, but all the networks do it to all types of shows. Delay the start to mid-season, position it poorly on the schedule, underpromote, move it around on the schedule, dump it at some terrible time and burn off episodes then cancel. That is not a Fox exclusive.

DevdogAZ

10-13-2009, 11:33 PM

Right, that was my point. He said NBC doesn't do that, but they do. Fox gets a bad rap because they do more of the sci-fi/edgy shows popular with this crowd, but all the networks do it to all types of shows. Delay the start to mid-season, position it poorly on the schedule, underpromote, move it around on the schedule, dump it at some terrible time and burn off episodes then cancel. That is not a Fox exclusive.
Right, I was agreeing with you and backing you up.

bicker

10-14-2009, 12:19 AM

Remember that Leno will have new episodes 46 weeks in a year, while SVU will have only about 24 new episodes in a year.

dswallow

10-14-2009, 12:29 AM

Remember that Leno will have new episodes 46 weeks in a year, while SVU will have only about 24 new episodes in a year.

I'd quickly trade 46 weeks of Leno for even 1 week of SVU. :)

bicker

10-14-2009, 05:39 AM

I'd trade them both for a few minutes of FlashForward -- what's your point? :)

Fish Man

10-14-2009, 09:37 AM

Really? What about Kings and Southland?

Indeed.

This TV season, NBC has outdone FOX in the "pump and dump". And by that I mean, they've outdone the most outrageous "pump and dump" FOX has ever done.

I therefore re-state my assertion that the evidence we can see from the outside strongly suggests that NBC is "flailing". Canceling a strongly hyped show before the first episode ever airs is "flailing", almost by definition. It's almost impossible to explain it by anything but lack of direction.

What do I mean by "flailing"? They're stressed, and they're panicked. They're making decisions off the cuff. They're blindly throwing darts and hoping something sticks.

A corporation with a solid plan and roadmap for where they are going does not do things like this.

Corporations "flail" all the time. They get into a hole and flail for a while.

Some survive a period of "flailing", either by getting lucky (one of those "darts" might "stick") or by taking a step back and developing a clear strategy. Others don't.

Will NBC survive this? I'm guessing that they will. But that they are struggling at the moment seems clear.

aindik

10-14-2009, 10:23 AM

Remember that Leno will have new episodes 46 weeks in a year, while SVU will have only about 24 new episodes in a year.

Yeah, smak's post considered that when he said
They think he'll get similar rates compared to the re-runs that would have aired the other weeks he's new while the old show would have been a re-run.

IOW, where x = what a new SVU gets and y = what Leno gets, then:
SVU Revenue = 22x + 24y
Leno Revenue = 46y
Lost Revenue = (22x + 24y) - 46y
Lost Revenue = 22x + 24y - 46y
Lost Revenue = 22x - 22y

Of course, as DevdogAZ says, that only accounts for one day a week. You'd need to know a value of "x" for the shows that would have been on the other four days a week.

BrandonRe

10-14-2009, 10:27 AM

Yeah, smak's post considered that when he said

IOW, where x = what a new SVU gets and y = what Leno gets, then:
SVU Revenue = 22x + 24y
Leno Revenue = 46y
Lost Revenue = (22x + 24y) - 46y
Lost Revenue = 22x + 24y - 46y
Lost Revenue = 22x - 22y

Of course, as DevdogAZ says, that only accounts for one day a week. You'd need to know a value of "x" for the shows that would have been on the other four days a week.

Wait- NBC canceled Lost?!?!?! BIH, NBC!

allan

10-14-2009, 10:34 AM

Fox gets a bad rap because they do more of the sci-fi/edgy shows popular with this crowd, but all the networks do it to all types of shows. Delay the start to mid-season, position it poorly on the schedule, underpromote, move it around on the schedule, dump it at some terrible time and burn off episodes then cancel. That is not a Fox exclusive.

True. I'd be more bothered by the loss of a great new SF type show than dumping SCI:Kansas City. :)

lew

10-14-2009, 11:06 AM

Remember that Leno will have new episodes 46 weeks in a year, while SVU will have only about 24 new episodes in a year.

Agreed. Some shows are produced by the network. The network makes some money with DVD sales, syndication and digital sales (I-Tune). I don't think this offsets the difference in cost but it offsets some of it.

Leno ratings are starting to drop below the advertiser guaranteed numbers.

NBC is hoping Leno will do better when the other shows air re-runs.

The original Saturday Night Live Cast was billed as the "not ready for prime time players" Johnny Carson rarely (ever?) agreed to even put an anniversary show on prime time. Maybe shows that work at late night don't work in prime time.

Leno costs a lot less then scripted shows but sometimes you get what you pay for.

While the network says Leno's show is much cheaper to produce than scripted programming, it's unclear whether those savings can compensate for the low ratings. NBC concentrates on the ratings for 18-to-49-year-old viewers, and by that measure Leno is precariously close to the 1.5 rating the network says it has promised to advertisers. Last Monday, the show had a 1.5 rating, and on Friday it was 1.4, Nielsen said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hAJNIGmFfSwvALcrAVuCjgDoGaSAD9BAET1O3

I don't know if the link will work. AP article hosted on Google news.

Jesda

10-14-2009, 11:12 AM

bicker

10-14-2009, 11:13 AM

Agreed. Some shows are produced by the network. The network makes some money with DVD sales, syndication and digital sales (I-Tune). I don't think this offsets the difference in cost but it offsets some of it.The parent of the network can still produce shows -- they don't have to present them on their OTA network to do so. So there is no need to lose any money from that direction.

Leno ratings are starting to drop below the advertiser guaranteed numbers.That's like being a little pregnant. Either NBC is paying back guarantees or not. Wait until it happens before you declare.

Leno costs a lot less then scripted shows but sometimes you get what you pay for.And sometimes that's all that the distribution channel deserves.

Steveknj

10-14-2009, 11:46 AM

Indeed.

This TV season, NBC has outdone FOX in the "pump and dump". And by that I mean, they've outdone the most outrageous "pump and dump" FOX has ever done.

I therefore re-state my assertion that the evidence we can see from the outside strongly suggests that NBC is "flailing". Canceling a strongly hyped show before the first episode ever airs is "flailing", almost by definition. It's almost impossible to explain it by anything but lack of direction.

What do I mean by "flailing"? They're stressed, and they're panicked. They're making decisions off the cuff. They're blindly throwing darts and hoping something sticks.

A corporation with a solid plan and roadmap for where they are going does not do things like this.[/B]

Corporations "flail" all the time. They get into a hole and flail for a while.

Some survive a period of "flailing", either by getting lucky (one of those "darts" might "stick") or by taking a step back and developing a clear strategy. Others don't.

Will NBC survive this? I'm guessing that they will. But that they are struggling at the moment seems clear.

That's exactly how I see it. If their plan is to cut costs, and however it affects affiliates or lost eyeballs, then it may or may not work, but it strikes me as desperate. Hopefully this will lead to them having some revenue to pump into real programming. You know, someone pointed out that they have some real successes on their cable channels. I wonder if they just brought those over at 10PM with production costs already fixed, if they could build an audience. I would think something like Burn Notice could be real successful on a major (if you can still call NBC that) network. Use your cable outlets like "minor league baseball" Try them out there, and if they are successful, "promote" them.

5thcrewman

10-14-2009, 11:48 AM

I'd quickly trade 46 weeks of Leno for even 1 week of SVU. :)

I'd rather watch Manimal reruns than Leno!

appleye1

10-14-2009, 12:15 PM

NBC is prepared to accept lower ratings in exchange for lower costs and original programming 40 weeks a year.

The question is if the affiliates are willing to accept the resulting hit on their local news ratings. I don't know under what circumstances an affiliate is allowed to omit airing a network show.Ratings for 11PM local news on NBC stations, O&O and affiliates, are down 12%.

But guess what, ratings are down on CBS stations by 12% too. And on ABC ratings are down 9%. So, according to this article, Stations On 'Leno': So Far So Good (http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/2009/10/14/daily.2/), the stations aren't too worried about Leno yet.

lew

10-14-2009, 12:25 PM

That's like being a little pregnant. Either NBC is paying back guarantees or not. Wait until it happens before you declare.

According to the AP article the ratings were below the guarantee last Friday and exactly hit the number last Monday. I don't know the exact terms before advertisers are owed compensation. The point is the ratings are starting to drop below even the low expectations NBC has for the show.

You can't be "a little pregnant". Leno's ratings could drop below the guarantee, but not often enough to bother NBC. Isn't the remedy for dropping below the guarantee generally "make good" ads? Occasionally having to give advertisers some free spots may not be the end of the world.

You hit the nail on the head. Leno will probably be on against re-runs 20+ weeks. The question is what kind of ratings will those shows generate.

All public information suggests NBC can live with the Leno's current ratings.

My memory is ABC produced Alias. Having enough episodes to syndicate, and revenue from DVD sales, motivated ABC to renew the series for a final season.
There is some question if ratings alone would have justified renewing the show. I doubt the show would have been renewed if it wasn't being aired on a network that also produced the show.

What's interesting is the first run shows on second tier networks are watchable, and sometimes good. Monk, Leverage even Legend of the Seeker are as good as some of the (probably more expensive to produce) shows on the major networks. I don't think I even watched the first episode of Southland to the first commercial break.

bicker

10-14-2009, 12:46 PM

The point is the ratings are starting to drop below even the low expectations NBC has for the show.Read this:
But guess what, ratings are down on CBS stations by 12% too. And on ABC ratings are down 9%. So, according to this article, Stations On 'Leno': So Far So Good (http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/2009/10/14/daily.2/), the stations aren't too worried about Leno yet.

People just want to bitch about NBC. They just want to bitch about Leno. They just want to bitch about not getting what they personally would prefer. There is really very little consideration paid to maintaining perspective by folks who just want to bitch about not getting their way.

My memory is ABC produced Alias. Having enough episodes to syndicate, and revenue from DVD sales, motivated ABC to renew the series for a final season.NBC Universal produces House.

See my point?

There is some question if ratings alone would have justified renewing the show.The issue with Alias is that the network insisted on toning down the ongoing story-arc because they felt essentially burdening viewers with the need to watch every episode detracted from ratings. Earlier, someone accused me of never criticizing a decision made by a network, but I've criticized that network decision many times (with perfect 20/20 hindsight -- but that's the point, I don't criticize because I'm a spoiled child and don't like what they're doing -- I criticize when evidence shows that their decision was not only incorrect, but also that there was evidence that they had a reasonable amount of evidence available that indicated that the decision they were making was a mistake).

DevdogAZ

10-14-2009, 01:15 PM

I therefore re-state my assertion that the evidence we can see from the outside strongly suggests that NBC is "flailing". Canceling a strongly hyped show before the first episode ever airs is "flailing", almost by definition. It's almost impossible to explain it by anything but lack of direction.

While I don't necessarily disagree that NBC is "flailing," I'm curious about this "strongly hyped show" that was canceled before the first episode ever aired. What show are you talking about? Because if you're talking about Southland, you're very wrong. It aired seven episodes last spring and the ratings were atrocious. They started high, based on the ridiculous amount of promotion done by the network, but they quickly fell off a cliff after people actually watched the show. Here are the ratings in the adults 18-49 demographic:

April 9: 3.2/9 1st place in the hour (out of 3)
April 16: 3.1/9 1st place in the hour (out of 3)
April 23: 2.4/7 2nd place in the hour (out of 3)
April 30: 2.2/6 3rd place in the hour (out of 3)
May 7: 2.0/6 3rd place in the hour (out of 3)
May 14: 1.7/5 3rd place in the hour (out of 3)
May 21: 2.0/6 1st place in the hour (first night of summer, other networks were airing repeats)

The renewal decision was announced on May 1 after only the first few episodes aired, when the average rating was still high and the trend wasn't totally apparent. But by the time all seven episodes aired, it should have been clear to the network that renewing the show was a horrible decision. I don't know why they continued to produce the shows throughout the summer, but the decision to cancel the show before any episodes aired was simply a correction of a previous mistake, not a mistake by itself. I've read some opinions that seem to think Ben Silverman was making all the decisions and now that he's gone, the new team is going to have to make some hard decisions to clean up the mess he made. This was one of those decisions.

As for whether the show was "strongly hyped," here's what one of the stars had to say (http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/10/09/southland-star-on-shows-axing-im-pissed-off/) about the lack of promotion by NBC this fall:

In retrospect, I saw it coming. We were two weeks away from airing and [the cancellation news] has created more press for the show than NBC has put into it on its own. They ran the first [Southland] ad — a 30-second spot — last Friday, and that’s the only one that they ran. That’s not a relaunch. When you have a network that nobody’s watching, it doesn’t benefit you to only advertise on your network.

That doesn't sound to me like a show that was "strongly hyped." That sounds like a show that the network knew was not going to get good ratings and they were trying to figure out the easiest way to get it off their schedule.

lew

10-14-2009, 01:21 PM

Some of us are wondering if Leno will even meet the low standards set by NBC. We wonder if NBC fully anticipated the impact Leno would have on moving L&O to an earlier time slot. Wonder if NBC anticipated Lettermen consistently beating Conan. Wonder if NBC anticipated the hit on local news.
One poster suggested local news didn't take hit due to Leno, all local news is down. Other articles give different information. I wonder if it will get to the point where one or more affiliates try to push the issue.

I'm not "bitching" about getting my way. I'd be shocked if either of us would be interested in watching whatever cheap programming NBC would produce to replace Leno. Instead of Leno we'd probably wind up with one or more game shows multiple nights. You might watch local news at 10p if your local affiliate is able to offer it.

I'm not going to take the time to search but I have a different memory regarding Alias. My memory is ABC was hoping the episode airing after the superbowl could improve the mediocre ratings the show had been earning. Jumpstart the show. A decision was made to kill the SD6 plot line. To stop the continuation from one episode to the next. My memory this was done to attract viewers and to make the show more marketable for syndication. I think Alias was one of the first shows to regularly air a cliffhanger episode by showing the dilemma at the beginning of the show. We then see how the situation came up and how it was solved.

You didn't like the approach but it was done halfway through the second season. The show continued for 3.5 years. It's hard to attract new viewers to serial shows and some existing viewers tire of the show. Heroes may be a good example.

edited to add you started a recent thread regarding Sci-Fi programs. Alias may be another example of a Sci-Fi program that never did as well as the network hoped.

My DVR records enough shows. I don't need any shows from NBC at 10p. I'm not sure if I have a SP for any NBC show. I just deleted my SP for Heroes.

Read this:

People just want to bitch about NBC. They just want to bitch about Leno. They just want to bitch about not getting what they personally would prefer. There is really very little consideration paid to maintaining perspective by folks who just want to bitch about not getting their way.

NBC Universal produces House.

See my point?

The issue with Alias is that the network insisted on toning down the ongoing story-arc because they felt essentially burdening viewers with the need to watch every episode detracted from ratings. Earlier, some cretin accused me of never criticizing a decision made by a network, but I've criticized that network decision many times (with perfect 20/20 hindsight -- but that's the point, I don't criticize because I'm a spoiled child and don't like what they're doing -- I criticize when evidence shows that their decision was not only incorrect, but also that there was evidence that they had a reasonable amount of evidence available that indicated that the decision they were making was a mistake).

That Don Guy

10-14-2009, 02:25 PM

I'm not going to take the time to search but I have a different memory regarding Alias. My memory is ABC was hoping the episode airing after the superbowl could improve the mediocre ratings the show had been earning. Jumpstart the show. A decision was made to kill the SD6 plot line. To stop the continuation from one episode to the next. My memory this was done to attract viewers and to make the show more marketable for syndication.
Hour-long network shows don't syndicate well. For some strange reason, local stations would rather fill an hour with two shows, even if it's two episodes of the same series. (This used to be a good thing for real fans of the hour-long shows, as it meant they would be released to video almost immediately, while the comedies would have to wait for years as the syndicators wanted to be sure people watched the shows (and the ads that went with them) on TV. For whatever reason, this policy changed a few years ago, as now most network comedies release a season DVD set soon after the season ends; the one main exception seems to be The Simpsons, which is about eight years behind, but this is mainly because they're so busy making the current season that they can't speed up the DVD releases.)

-- Don

lew

10-14-2009, 02:55 PM

Alias was "re-tooled" during the 2002-2003 season. At the time they thought the change would help syndication. Although hour long network shows don't syndicate well cable networks air hour long shows. NCIS is on one of the cable networks (USA?)

Hour-long network shows don't syndicate well. For some strange reason, local stations would rather fill an hour with two shows, even if it's two episodes of the same series. (This used to be a good thing for real fans of the hour-long shows, as it meant they would be released to video almost immediately, while the comedies would have to wait for years as the syndicators wanted to be sure people watched the shows (and the ads that went with them) on TV. For whatever reason, this policy changed a few years ago, as now most network comedies release a season DVD set soon after the season ends; the one main exception seems to be The Simpsons, which is about eight years behind, but this is mainly because they're so busy making the current season that they can't speed up the DVD releases.)

-- Don

That Don Guy

10-14-2009, 03:24 PM

One profitable low-rated variety talk show isn't the end of the world, as this thread seems to be implying
One isn't. The problem is, for all intents and purposes, Leno is five of them.

Another thing that has changed over the years; networks are no longer capable of sustaining a regular time slot for movies, so that's two more hours of programming they each need. (Not counting when ABC airs movies on Saturday nights when it's not football season, but as nobody programs Saturday nights anyway - the closest anybody has come to including Saturday in a "fall preview" in years is when Entertainment Weekly "previewed" the DVD release of The Love Boat - there's no need to come up with new programming for it.)

Alias was "re-tooled" during the 2002-2003 season. At the time they thought the change would help syndication. Although hour long network shows don't syndicate well cable networks air hour long shows. NCIS is on one of the cable networks (USA?)
Yes, repeats of hour-long shows do quite well on cable (nothing new about that). Maybe we're defining "syndication" differently; I don't consider an exclusive rights deal to be on a single cable network as syndication.

-- Don

lew

10-14-2009, 03:36 PM

Yes, repeats of hour-long shows do quite well on cable (nothing new about that). Maybe we're defining "syndication" differently; I don't consider an exclusive rights deal to be on a single cable network as syndication.

-- Don

I agree, it's not syndication. The question is how can a production company make money selling old episodes. It looks like hour long shows wind up going to a cable network and half hour shows get syndicated. Syndication is normally exclusive to an area. I don't think you can syndicate a show and sell it to a cable network at the same time.

smak

10-14-2009, 03:59 PM

I agree with nearly everything in your post except for your calculation of the potential lost revenue. You used the ad rates for SVU, which was NBC's highest rated 10pm drama, and then extrapolated that out over the full week. The reality is that most of NBC's 10pm shows didn't get nearly the ratings of SVU, and therefore, ads during those shows didn't cost nearly as much. I'll bet the actual difference in ad revenue isn't nearly as dramatic as the calculations you threw out there.

I said the other 10pm shows were lower.

This article says that Leno's ad rates are 1/2 of what the other networks are. Which is pretty much the same figures that I said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125262696948501475.html#mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollectio n?mg=com-wsj

-smak-

aindik

10-14-2009, 04:01 PM

I don't think you can syndicate a show and sell it to a cable network at the same time.

Sure you can. Shows that are currently both syndicated and run on a cable network, off the top of my head:
Seinfeld
King of Queens
Everybody Loves Raymond
The Office
Lost

smak

10-14-2009, 04:15 PM

The new Matthew Perry project went to ABC after a bidding war with NBC. A show basically with a built in green light to go to series.

Maybe ABC actually bid more than NBC, or maybe they didn't.

But this is partially what I was talking about. Some series with major stars attached, and major producers DO have a choice of what network they will go to, and with the climate at NBC, and the negative feelings that the "talent" had about NBC putting Leno 5 nights a week, why would anybody choose NBC right now?

-smak-

bicker

10-14-2009, 04:20 PM

Some of us are wondering if Leno will even meet the low standards set by NBC.I think you're being disingenuous by referring to the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric some of the other folks in this thread and other NBC/Leno-related threads have been engaging in as "wondering". You're essentially trying to hide a back-door rationalization for their obtuse exaggeration and melodramaticism behind the vagueness of your reply.

I'm not "bitching" about getting my way.At least here you switch to the word "I", but in doing so your comment no longer covers all the ground relevant to the message you were replying to.

I'd be shocked if either of us would be interested in watching whatever cheap programming NBC would produce to replace Leno.What I don't see you saying is that you acknowledge that there is no reason to think that the kind of programming you might be interested in watching necessarily the best approach for NBC.

I'm not going to take the time to search but I have a different memory regarding Alias.That's your prerogative. The outline I provided you is absolutely what happened with Alias. In retrospect, ABC screwed up by failing to see the advance signs that serial dramas were beginning to become more acceptable to their audiences.

A decision was made to kill the SD6 plot line. To stop the continuation from one episode to the next. My memory this was done to attract viewers and to make the show more marketable for syndication.That's what I said.

dswallow

10-14-2009, 04:20 PM

why would anybody choose NBC right now?

Because you know the other networks won't be interested. :)

DevdogAZ

10-14-2009, 04:22 PM

I said the other 10pm shows were lower.

This article says that Leno's ad rates are 1/2 of what the other networks are. Which is pretty much the same figures that I said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125262696948501475.html#mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollectio n?mg=com-wsj

-smak-
Right, you acknowledged that the other nights were lower, but your calculation of lost revenue used the SVU figure, which makes the loss look much larger than it really is.

smak

10-14-2009, 04:34 PM

Right, you acknowledged that the other nights were lower, but your calculation of lost revenue used the SVU figure, which makes the loss look much larger than it really is.

No, I had the lowest rate for Leno at $50k, and SVU at $137k. That's $87k difference. My figures were $50k-$75k difference.

I don't know what the other NBC 10pm dramas were at, but since the WSJ is saying that the other networks ad rates at 10pm are double Leno, that puts them at $100-$150k. Even putting NBC dramas at the low end of that, and then adding 1 night for in SVU at the high end, that's easily in my range.

My calculations used $100k a minute, which is $50k per 30 second commercial, which is at the lowest end of my scale.

-smak-

lew

10-14-2009, 04:43 PM

I agree going with cheap programs, that should be profitable with low ratings makes sense for NBC. They're not likely to put anything in the 10p slot I'll be watching. I have enough to watch without NBC.

CBS found a format that works for them. 3 hours of CSI. 2 hours of NCIS. 1 hour of Criminal Minds (a second in the works).

NBC set Leno to be profitable with low ratings. I'm curious to see if the ratings turn out even lower then required for the experiment to work. NBC isn't looking for a new ER or West Wing to replace Leno. I agree with 99% of what your saying (in this thread).

NBC aired Merlin over the summer. I don't know the costs, ratings or availability of other BBC series. I'm sure NBC looked at those alternatives. In the beginning I watched Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Less expensive shows can get good ratings. I think NBC was a little lazy using Leno 5 nights a week.

I think you're being disingenuous by referring to the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric some of the other folks in this thread and other NBC/Leno-related threads have been engaging in as "wondering". You're essentially trying to hide a back-door rationalization for their obtuse exaggeration and melodramaticism behind the vagueness of your reply.

At least here you switch to the word "I", but in doing so your comment no longer covers all the ground relevant to the message you were replying to.

What I don't see you saying is that you acknowledge that there is no reason to think that the kind of programming you might be interested in watching necessarily the best approach for NBC.

That's your prerogative. The outline I provided you is absolutely what happened with Alias. In retrospect, ABC screwed up by failing to see the advance signs that serial dramas were beginning to become more acceptable to their audiences.

That's what I said.

bicker

10-14-2009, 04:52 PM

NBC aired Merlin over the summer. I don't know the costs, ratings or availability of other BBC series. I'm sure NBC looked at those alternatives. The Philanthropist was filmed primarily in South Africa. The Listener was produced by CTV (Canada).

Moving away from NBC for a second: Mental was produced in South America, by a South American subsidiary.

All three of those approaches (your Merlin example going hand-in-glove with the Listener example) represent viable cost-cutting measures for dramas.

Of course, Leno represents a fourth cost-cutting measure, and for all we know might be the most profitable of them all.

sharkster

10-14-2009, 05:04 PM

I must be the only one, but I have to say - I was not watching NBC at 10pm AT ALL, and now I'm watching NBC every night (M-F) at 10pm now. :) I'm enjoying most of the show. I don't like some of the bits that they do in the first half with some guest 'comedian' going to another site and doing some weird (not funny IMO) routine, so I ff through that but I enjoy the rest (except the first 2 minutes of applause and screaming...geez already!).

DevdogAZ

10-14-2009, 05:04 PM

No, I had the lowest rate for Leno at $50k, and SVU at $137k. That's $87k difference. My figures were $50k-$75k difference.

I don't know what the other NBC 10pm dramas were at, but since the WSJ is saying that the other networks ad rates at 10pm are double Leno, that puts them at $100-$150k. Even putting NBC dramas at the low end of that, and then adding 1 night for in SVU at the high end, that's easily in my range.

My calculations used $100k a minute, which is $50k per 30 second commercial, which is at the lowest end of my scale.

-smak-
OK, I just went back and looked at your calculations and I'll admit that I misunderstood how you came up with your numbers. I now see how you derived those numbers and I agree that they are not based on the SVU numbers. Please accept my apology.

lew

10-14-2009, 05:07 PM

Of course, Leno represents a fourth cost-cutting measure, and for all we know might be the most profitable of them all.

Which is my interest in this thread. Will Leno be so bad (ratings wise) that the effect on other NBC programs negates profit generated by a low cost/low ratings Leno? Will the ratings be so low that your local affiliate is able to fight NBC and air local news at 10p?

You want lower cost "quality" programming. Try airing Nightline during prime time once or twice a week, won't help NBC.

bicker

10-14-2009, 05:13 PM

lew

10-14-2009, 05:22 PM

Nightline is an ABC program. Given how ABC is doing just as much worse than last year as NBC is, that might not be a bad idea.

And, of course, Fox never even tried to run programming at 10PM.

Which leaves just CBS, and Les Moonves and Sumner Redstone essentially doing what they like, maybe without enough regard to what's best for other shareholders.

I know Nightline is an ABC show, that's why I said it won't help NBC.
ABC is already paying the production costs for Nightline. I don't think it would cost much (any?) extra to air it during primetime. ABC can position it as increasing quality programming during primetime. People will (unfavorably) compare it with the Leno expirement if you do it 5 nights a week. It may be worth a shot 2 or 3 nights a week.

Fox affiliates run local news at 10p. That's what your affiliate wants to do. That may be a better approach.

CBS shows has shows like CSI-Miami and the Mentalist at 10p. The ratings may be high enough for the shows to be profitable. There may be enough of an audience for some scripted drama shows but not enough for 4 networks, 5 nights a week.

allan

10-14-2009, 05:41 PM

Given the choice between Nightline & Leno, I'd pick NL. Actually, I normally watch the local news on Fox, since 10:30PM (Central Time) is a little late to stay up when I get out of bed at 5-6AM. Leno is a distant 3rd.

DevdogAZ

10-14-2009, 06:27 PM

I know Nightline is an ABC show, that's why I said it won't help NBC.
ABC is already paying the production costs for Nightline. I don't think it would cost much (any?) extra to air it during primetime. ABC can position it as increasing quality programming during primetime. People will (unfavorably) compare it with the Leno expirement if you do it 5 nights a week. It may be worth a shot 2 or 3 nights a week.
Doesn't ABC already do this one night a week with 20/20? Last Friday, it did a 1.5/5 vs. Leno's 1.4/5. Basically the same. I'm guessing that ABC is OK with those numbers on a Friday, but they wouldn't accept those numbers on the other weeknights. Apparently, NBC has decided that it's OK with those numbers on all weeknights.
Given the choice between Nightline & Leno, I'd pick NL. Actually, I normally watch the local news on Fox, since 10:30PM (Central Time) is a little late to stay up when I get out of bed at 5-6AM. Leno is a distant 3rd.
Interestingly, Nightline is beating Conan quite soundly so far this season, so you're not alone when you say you'd choose Nightline over one of the comedy options.

Jesda

10-14-2009, 06:42 PM

Is Carson Daly still on the air?

DevdogAZ

10-14-2009, 06:49 PM

Is Carson Daly still on the air?
Yep, after Jimmy Fallon at 1:35 a.m. ET/PT. It's averaging a 0.3/3 so far this season, against competition that is mostly syndicated reruns and infomercials.

smak

10-14-2009, 08:08 PM

Yep, after Jimmy Fallon at 1:35 a.m. ET/PT. It's averaging a 0.3/3 so far this season, against competition that is mostly syndicated reruns and infomercials.

...and sleep.

-smak-

aindik

10-14-2009, 08:11 PM

...and sleep.

-smak-

The 3 after the slash is a "share" (as opposed to the "rating" that appears before the slash). It's a percentage of all people watching TV at that time that are watching that show. IOW, the denominator of that fraction doesn't include people who are sleeping.

DevdogAZ

10-14-2009, 08:33 PM

The 3 after the slash is a "share" (as opposed to the "rating" that appears before the slash). It's a percentage of all people watching TV at that time that are watching that show. IOW, the denominator of that fraction doesn't include people who are sleeping.
You are right in that the number after the slash is the percentage. But it's inaccurate to portray the ratings numbers as a "fraction." While it's presented with a slash between the two numbers, they're two completely independent numbers. One is not a numerator and the other a denominator. It's simply 0.3 rating and 3 share.

(I'm sure you know that, aindik, but I didn't want other people who don't understand the ratings to misunderstand your post.)

marksman

10-14-2009, 10:21 PM

I don't think ABC, CBS or NBC could just give back 5 hours of primetime a week to the affiliates. It was my recollection when Fox came into existance that their schedule was designed the way it was because a single additional hour of prime time programming would legally make them a network and force them into a bunch of additional rules, laws and regulations. Obviously a lot has changed since then, but I suspect there would still be an issue for any of the old 3 networks to drop their actual prime time schedule.

The reality is the cost for tv shows continue to go up as the audiences continue to grow smaller. It makes no sense. TV Networks need to work on ways to make more affordable scripted programming. Unfortunately every "struggling" guild needs their piece of the pie and everyone else wants to make a ton of money so for some reason it can't be done.

I imagine someone could actually make an hour long tv show of some level of quality for only like 100k, if everyone was not trying to get the piece of the action they want. So instead we see shows costing 2 or 3 million for an hour which means unless the show is an unmitigated hit it has no shot.

Television has grown into a massive industry on the backs of businesses advertising on faith and spending more and more money for less and less. With other forms of advertising providing more accountability, it is only a matter of time before it becomes a bigger issue for television. I suspect in the next 20 years that there will be some sort of implosion in the hollywood industry as it simply can't withstand every protected class and everything they want out of it. I think movies will be better off longer, but tv will implode first.

People need to realize this when negotiating union deals when jobs start disappearing as Networks keep reducing the number of available jobs for a lot of positions. Who cares how much you get for dvd sales when you don't have a job at all?

The current economics of tv make no sense to me. The amount companies pay to advertise seems excessive to me for relative return. 25 years ago a show with 15 million viewers would have a good chance of getting canceled. Now it is a top 5 show. I would love to see what the cost per commercial is for a top 5 show now and what was for a below average show 25 years ago. Something tells me it has way outpaced inflation and the decrease in audience size.

bicker

10-15-2009, 06:54 AM

It was my recollection when Fox came into existance that their schedule was designed the way it was because a single additional hour of prime time programming would legally make them a network and force them into a bunch of additional rules, laws and regulations.I have never heard of such a thing. I did a Google search and couldn't find anything that sounded remotely like this.

Keep in mind that when a network broadcasts something objectionable (for example), it is each affiliate that gets cited. The government cares relatively little for the network/affiliate arrangement.

Obviously a lot has changed since then, but I suspect there would still be an issue [legally] for any of the old 3 networks to drop their actual prime time schedule. If I understood what you're asserting, here, then I disagree entirely.

lambertman

10-15-2009, 08:25 AM

I have never heard of such a thing. I did a Google search and couldn't find anything that sounded remotely like this.

I did. (http://books.google.com/books?id=zjHg5j0CsEoC&pg=RA1-PA224&lpg=RA1-PA224&dq=fox+network+primetime+restrictions&source=bl&ots=DKR5gPEqZ2&sig=FAvDr3liu_U19YiDknO5EsHDtjw&hl=en&ei=RRTXSsSHGIPL8Qaoy9TtCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAwQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

MacThor

10-15-2009, 10:00 AM

Tom Shales, WP's TV critic:

Jay Leno is, in a way, to blame for this misfortune, because his producers want compatible shows as a "lead-in" for Jay -- nothing too depressing or grittily realistic. So Jay not only kills off five 10 pm dramas, he's now having a bad effect on 9 p.m. shows as well. It's just not worth it to have him on at 10 o'clock. He is looking like a bad bad sport.

lew

10-15-2009, 10:25 AM

Tom Shales, WP's TV critic:

I doubt Jay has a contractual right to program the 9p time slot. Doesn't L&O air at 9p? My take is NBC would rather air shows that cost less to produce then one hour crime dramas. I'm sure The Apprentice costs less to produce then a show like CSI. Blaming Leno sure sounds better then saying NBC wants cheap programs.

David Platt

10-15-2009, 10:31 AM

Name-calling is puerile.

Your comments nothing short of abusive and personal in nature. Instead of general statements about consumers in general, would you prefer I ascribe the descriptors of the nastiest traits of consumerists to you personally? Of course not. If you don't want threads to turn into flame fests, keep your comments on topic, instead of engaging in personal attacks on other posters. Attack the perspectives presented if you wish.

Earlier, some cretin accused me of never criticizing a decision made by a network, but I've criticized that network decision many times .

So what's changed between the first two posts and the third?

bicker

10-15-2009, 10:53 AM

bicker

10-15-2009, 10:54 AM

So what's changed between the first two posts and the third?Nothing. I'll fix my puerile remark, since it was indeed referring to a specific person.

And that's a difference that comes from maturity... the willingness to fix a mistake when you've made one, and I'm more than willing to fix a mistake when I've made one.

David Platt

10-15-2009, 11:01 AM

MickeS

10-15-2009, 11:42 AM

Nothing. I'll fix my puerile remark, since it was indeed referring to a specific person.

And that's a difference that comes from maturity... the willingness to fix a mistake when you've made one, and I'm more than willing to fix a mistake when I've made one.

This cretin still finds it amusing that you think I made a "personal attack" when I was putting your comments in context.

But I take it back now - you did once criticize a network. :)

bicker

10-15-2009, 11:51 AM

... once that you're willing to admit.

And I suppose I could claim that calling you a cretin was putting your comments in context. :rolleyes:

Steveknj

10-15-2009, 12:09 PM

Hour-long network shows don't syndicate well. For some strange reason, local stations would rather fill an hour with two shows, even if it's two episodes of the same series. (This used to be a good thing for real fans of the hour-long shows, as it meant they would be released to video almost immediately, while the comedies would have to wait for years as the syndicators wanted to be sure people watched the shows (and the ads that went with them) on TV. For whatever reason, this policy changed a few years ago, as now most network comedies release a season DVD set soon after the season ends; the one main exception seems to be The Simpsons, which is about eight years behind, but this is mainly because they're so busy making the current season that they can't speed up the DVD releases.)

-- Don

I think that USED to be true about hour long shows, but have you looked at the cable channels lately? Half the schedule on networks such as A&E and USA are syndicated hour long crime dramas.

DevdogAZ

10-15-2009, 01:35 PM

Tom Shales, WP's TV critic:
That guy has no idea what he's talking about. Show me one piece of evidence that Leno has any kind of say over what's programmed in the 9 pm hour or that he's had any input into what shows would fit well there. I suspect that Shales is trying to blame the Southland cancellation on Leno, when the reality is that the network simply needed to correct the mistake they made by renewing it in the first place. The ratings simply didn't justify the renewal.

DevdogAZ

10-15-2009, 01:37 PM

I did. (http://books.google.com/books?id=zjHg5j0CsEoC&pg=RA1-PA224&lpg=RA1-PA224&dq=fox+network+primetime+restrictions&source=bl&ots=DKR5gPEqZ2&sig=FAvDr3liu_U19YiDknO5EsHDtjw&hl=en&ei=RRTXSsSHGIPL8Qaoy9TtCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAwQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=&f=false)
Very interesting. Thanks for the link. Based on that, there would be no issue with Fox adding a third hour of primetime today, and it doesn't sound like there would be any issue with the networks giving back an hour to the affiliates. However, the only way they'd do that is if they weren't making enough money from that hour, and I think that day is still a ways off.

MacThor

10-15-2009, 02:19 PM

That guy has no idea what he's talking about. Show me one piece of evidence that Leno has any kind of say over what's programmed in the 9 pm hour or that he's had any input into what shows would fit well there. I suspect that Shales is trying to blame the Southland cancellation on Leno, when the reality is that the network simply needed to correct the mistake they made by renewing it in the first place. The ratings simply didn't justify the renewal.

Yes, a pulitzer-winning, 30-plus-year TV columnist with regular access to producers, programmers and operations types is much less informed than those of us on this board.

DougF

10-15-2009, 02:28 PM

I just want to say that I think it's awesome we have so many TV programming experts on the board.

lambertman

10-15-2009, 02:30 PM

Very interesting. Thanks for the link. Based on that, there would be no issue with Fox adding a third hour of primetime today, and it doesn't sound like there would be any issue with the networks giving back an hour to the affiliates. However, the only way they'd do that is if they weren't making enough money from that hour, and I think that day is still a ways off.

I'd have to think that most of the FOX stations' newscasts would tank in the ratings if they had to move down to 11.

That Don Guy

10-15-2009, 02:58 PM

I think that USED to be true about hour long shows, but have you looked at the cable channels lately? Half the schedule on networks such as A&E and USA are syndicated hour long crime dramas.

I think you missed this post (http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7549960#post7549960), especially at the bottom. Is being on one cable channel considered "syndication"?

I'd have to think that most of the FOX stations' newscasts would tank in the ratings if they had to move down to 11.
I don't know about other cities, but in San Francisco, KTVU's 10:00 news has been an institution since long before the Fox network existed, mainly because, as I think I explained earlier in this thread, a considerable number of people need to be asleep by 11 because of the commute the next day - and I have a feeling a number of other cities, especially out west, are in the same position.

KTVU has been known to throw fits if Fox has to extend its programming to 10:15 because a long-running football game caused The Simpsons to start 15 minutes late. (Just about the only thing they'll tolerate going past 10 is an American Idol season finale, mainly because one of the most popular broadcasts on TV and the viewers who watch the whole thing then have to choose between the news and an "in progress" episode of something on another channel, but delaying it because of American Idol running past 10 is different from delaying it because American Dad runs past 10.)

-- Don

bicker

10-15-2009, 03:23 PM

DevdogAZ

10-15-2009, 04:14 PM

Yes, a pulitzer-winning, 30-plus-year TV columnist with regular access to producers, programmers and operations types is much less informed than those of us on this board.
If he's citing any kind of source, I'd love to see a link. What you posted sounded like speculation on the part of the columnist, and since I've read lots of other stories dealing with this issue and not a single one has mentioned anything about Leno having a say in what's programmed before him, I'm going to remain skeptical about this until I see some more evidence or see a source cited.

MacThor

10-15-2009, 04:18 PM

If he's citing any kind of source, I'd love to see a link. What you posted sounded like speculation on the part of the columnist, and since I've read lots of other stories dealing with this issue and not a single one has mentioned anything about Leno having a say in what's programmed before him, I'm going to remain skeptical about this until I see some more evidence or see a source cited.

Then you should ask him. Be sure to lead with, "You have no idea what you're talking about..."

DevdogAZ

10-15-2009, 04:49 PM

Then you should ask him. Be sure to lead with, "You have no idea what you're talking about..."
Given all the articles that have come out recently bashing Leno and NBC, with their authors clearly disapproving of NBC's decision to put Leno on at 10 and eliminate four or five dramas that could have been shown, I find it very odd that this is the first time I've seen anyone pointing the finger at Leno or his camp for directing what could be on the air before him. Sounds like sour grapes on the part of the source and/or the reporter.

This all goes back to the Southland thing. I'm sure some disgruntled actor or producer in Hollywood is trying to blame the cancellation on Leno. However, as I've clearly laid out previously in this thread, the ratings simply didn't justify the renewal of that show and it should be no surprise to anyone that it was axed.

trainman

10-15-2009, 05:49 PM

KTVU has been known to throw fits if Fox has to extend its programming to 10:15 because a long-running football game caused The Simpsons to start 15 minutes late.

Are you maybe thinking of baseball games on weeknights (in which case it would be the baseball game itself running into the 10:00 time slot)? That's happened a few times due to rain delays and/or extra innings.

It would have to be an extraordinary event that would cause "The Simpsons" to start late on KTVU due to a Sunday afternoon football game not finishing in time -- they're usually over at least 3 hours before "The Simpsons" is scheduled to start.

smak

10-15-2009, 09:05 PM

Given all the articles that have come out recently bashing Leno and NBC, with their authors clearly disapproving of NBC's decision to put Leno on at 10 and eliminate four or five dramas that could have been shown, I find it very odd that this is the first time I've seen anyone pointing the finger at Leno or his camp for directing what could be on the air before him. Sounds like sour grapes on the part of the source and/or the reporter.

This all goes back to the Southland thing. I'm sure some disgruntled actor or producer in Hollywood is trying to blame the cancellation on Leno. However, as I've clearly laid out previously in this thread, the ratings simply didn't justify the renewal of that show and it should be no surprise to anyone that it was axed.

If you take NBC's bottom line out of it, and us viewers probably couldn't care less about NBC's bottom line, it's a very bad thing for fans of good television.

Why wouldn't there be a bunch of articles coming out that clearly disapprove?

Maybe a business week reporter might approve, but why would a TV critic?

-smak-

bicker

10-16-2009, 05:37 AM

I think that's the point: The criticisms referred to did not (only) say "This is bad for viewers" -- those criticisms asserted that the decisions being made were bad for NBC. Like you said, those with a viewer perspective "couldn't care less" about such things. What we're seeing, therefore, is a lot of critics trying to make their perspective of "this is bad for fans..." sound more important than it really is. Just saying that that "fans will have fewer choices that they favor" isn't weighty enough -- because the critics hate what is happening (and I use the word "hate" deliberately), they want to be able to condemn the actions being taken, and they cannot do that by putting forward the only unassailable assertions they have, that they don't like the result of the decisions being made.

Bob Coxner

10-16-2009, 09:43 AM

That guy has no idea what he's talking about. Show me one piece of evidence that Leno has any kind of say over what's programmed in the 9 pm hour or that he's had any input into what shows would fit well there. I suspect that Shales is trying to blame the Southland cancellation on Leno, when the reality is that the network simply needed to correct the mistake they made by renewing it in the first place. The ratings simply didn't justify the renewal.

Late night hosts are always bitching about leadins. Letterman complained for years that the weak 10pm CBS shows led to weak local news which hurt his ratings. I'm sure there's nothing contractual giving Leno power but I'm also sure it was one of his verbal demands during contract negotiations.

DevdogAZ

10-16-2009, 01:05 PM

If you take NBC's bottom line out of it, and us viewers probably couldn't care less about NBC's bottom line, it's a very bad thing for fans of good television.

Why wouldn't there be a bunch of articles coming out that clearly disapprove?

Maybe a business week reporter might approve, but why would a TV critic?

-smak-
Of course there are articles where the writer clearly disapproves. That was my point. There are all these writers out there crucifying NBC and Leno for the decisions they've made, and clearly they have animosity toward Leno because of this decision, yet Shales is the first one I've seen say anything about the alleged fact that Leno has been making demands about what kinds of shows can be programmed at 9 pm. I'm thinking if there were any truth to that rumor, or if the rumor were even very widespread, there would be dozens of journalists writing about it, because they all seem very anxious for any chance they can find to denigrate Leno. I just don't think that if there were any truth to it, that we'd only be reading about it in one publication.

DevdogAZ

10-16-2009, 02:28 PM

Not sure how much the third quarter numbers were affected by the Leno/Conan decision, if at all, but I just read in this article discussing the potential sale of NBC Universal by GE (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091016/media_nm/us_nbc_1) that:
In the just-ended third quarter, NBC turned in one of GE's strongest divisional performances, recording 13 percent profit growth.
So it seems that despite the low ratings for NBC proper, the NBC division of GE is doing rather well. I presume that includes the cable channels, any movies they've released, as well as theme parks, etc.

marksman

10-16-2009, 03:03 PM

Not sure how much the third quarter numbers were affected by the Leno/Conan decision, if at all, but I just read in this article discussing the potential sale of NBC Universal by GE (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091016/media_nm/us_nbc_1) that:

So it seems that despite the low ratings for NBC proper, the NBC division of GE is doing rather well. I presume that includes the cable channels, any movies they've released, as well as theme parks, etc.

Apparently 35%-40% of their 3rd quarter profit came from them selling their share of the A&E Channel.

Cable Networks were up 11% in profit for 3rd quarter.. and NBC profits were up 4% excluding olympic coverage last year.

DevdogAZ

10-16-2009, 03:16 PM

Apparently 35%-40% of their 3rd quarter profit came from them selling their share of the A&E Channel.

Cable Networks were up 11% in profit for 3rd quarter.. and NBC profits were up 4% excluding olympic coverage last year.
Cool, thanks.

DianaMo

11-03-2009, 04:54 PM

terpfan1980

11-03-2009, 04:56 PM

Jay Leno Hints At Return To 11:30?
http://www.wgntv.com/news/nationworld/sns-viral-leno-time-story,0,5429628.htmlstory

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/11/02/jay-leno-speaks-on-ratings-affiliates-and-moving-back-to-1130p/32248

Jay Leno Talks Back: An Exclusive Interview With B&C
Leno opens up on bad press, David Letterman’s situation and his feelings about leaving—and even returning—to 11:35.

By Ben Grossman -- Broadcasting & Cable, 11/2/2009 2:00:00 AM
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/366971-Jay_Leno_Talks_Back_An_Exclusive_Interview_With_B_C.php?rssi d=20065

Leno is wishing for the return, but I doubt that NBC would really make that move. Like it or not, they've opted to put Conan into that slot and they aren't likely to bump him (and pay whatever penalty would be involved).

He might be making these comments just to keep NBC on notice that if they don't want to keep him he might jump elsewhere, but his choices are pretty limited there too (unless FOX starts falling all over themselves to get back into the late night business).

realityboy

11-03-2009, 05:00 PM

terpfan1980

11-03-2009, 05:04 PM

Sounds like he's just tired of taking the blame for NBC's programming decisions. He has to know that there is no way that they'll bump Conan from The Tonight Show.

I think FOX or ABC would take him if NBC ever decides to let him go.

Yet again, I doubt that ABC would make the move. They'd potentially be bumping Jimmy Kimmel around on the schedule. Not that Kimmel has that big of an audience, but what audience he has is fairly loyal.

FOX makes the most sense if they decided they wanted to program late night.

realityboy

11-03-2009, 05:27 PM

Nightline would be a bigger problem for ABC than Kimmel. It's not a perfect fit, but I think they would try to make it work if the opportunity presented itself.

FOX tried to get back in the late night game before. If Spike Feresten had been successful, it would have went to weeknights eventually. Perhaps they have the same plans for Wanda Sykes.

hyimted

11-03-2009, 06:56 PM

YCantAngieRead

11-03-2009, 09:32 PM

I thought it was incredibly tacky of him to just casually mention he'd take his old spot back. Thanks for the support, Leno. - Conan

dtle

11-07-2009, 12:00 AM

i *love* leno … think he's a great celebrity and all around nice guy … and i've said as much in that other leno thread. but i stopped recording this show long ago. i gave it my best try … really i did … i even watched segments that i could tell were gonna be stupid. but … it was just PAINFUL.

To the bolded comment: I think that's the point of the show. They weren't making any money from expensive shows that were getting Tivo'd, so they decided to put on a cheap show and not cared about DVRs.

In the interview, Jay said that his show will make $300 million for a 1.5 rating every night.

DevdogAZ

11-07-2009, 12:20 PM

I thought it was incredibly tacky of him to just casually mention he'd take his old spot back. Thanks for the support, Leno. - Conan
That's not really the way it happened. If you read the whole article (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/366971-Jay_Leno_Talks_Back_An_Exclusive_Interview_With_B_C.php?rssi d=20065), the reporter was really pressing him and Jay was very gracious to Conan and to NBC for the most part. He was asked if he regretted anything about the decision, and he said he would have preferred to stay at 11:30, but didn't blame anyone for it. He was then asked if he'd take the old spot back:
Do you want to go back to 11:35?

If it were offered to me, would I take it? If that's what they wanted to do, sure. That would be fine if they wanted to.

Would you rather do that than this?

I don't know….Would I take it? I guess. But it's not my decision to make; it's really not. I don't know. Something makes me think we might be OK here for a while. It depends how long you're here; by that time I could be 61-62, I don't know. Personally, I think Conan is doing fine. He's beating Dave in the demo, maybe not in the popular one right now because Dave has a lot of other things going that have people watching for whatever reason, so I think that's not really a fair thing. It's a little too early to tell.
Throughout the whole interview, Jay was very complementary of Conan and very self-deprecating. I don't think there was anything tacky about what Jay said.

marksman

11-07-2009, 01:40 PM

In the interview, Jay said that his show will make $300 million for a 1.5 rating every night.

Did he mention how such a tiny rating would significantly shrink the overall viewership of the network, especially since the same few people watch his show over and over meaning they have reduced their ability to market their own network programs on shows due to a much smaller overall audience?

Before they might have 30 million people in a given week at the last slot. 25 million unique viewers. You got a new shot you want to promote, run a commercial across the week and hit 25 million potential viewers.

Have jay leno with 2 million viewers, 90% which are always the same people and the same campaign hits like 3 million people.

Turtleboy

11-07-2009, 02:12 PM

I don't like Jay.

But I do sort of respect the fact that he wants to work. Even when the show isn't on, he goes out and does standup. Dave and Conan and Jimmy Fallon don't do that. Jay love working.

NBC made a mistake.

A few years back they saw that Conan's contract was expiring. NBC was afraid that he would jump to Fox or ABC and go on at 11:30, so they gave him the Tonight Show. But Jay really wasn't ready to retire. He wanted to still work. Now he was going to go to Fox or ABC at 11:30. So NBC came up with this stupid 10pm Jay Leno show.

They never should have taken the Tonight Show away from Jay. Conan might not have jumped. Or he may have. That's life. But NBC tried to have it both ways, and lost.

pjenkins

11-07-2009, 02:26 PM

Jimmy Fallon does standup, in fact he mentioned on the show with Rosie that he was doing a gig with a friend...

Turtleboy

11-07-2009, 03:04 PM

Jimmy Fallon does standup, in fact he mentioned on the show with Rosie that he was doing a gig with a friend...

Jay Leno is out almost every single weekend doing it.

On the other hand, we actually saw him in Las Vegas. Most of his jokes were about 10 years old and about Bill Clinton. He did ask Smak what Smak did for a living though. Interestingly, I had no idea.

trainman

11-08-2009, 12:26 AM

I don't think Conan's ever done standup, per se -- his background is as a comedy writer, with a little bit of improv training (with the Groundlings in L.A.) early in his career. His monologues are the closest he gets, but they're structured and paced differently than a standup act would be.

smak

11-08-2009, 02:16 AM

Jay Leno is out almost every single weekend doing it.

On the other hand, we actually saw him in Las Vegas. Most of his jokes were about 10 years old and about Bill Clinton. He did ask Smak what Smak did for a living though. Interestingly, I had no idea.

I don't know where else he goes besides Vegas, but taking a private plane Friday at 6pm to Vegas, and doing 15 year old jokes for 90 minutes, and then flying back isn't really "standup".

Standup would be doing the Laugh Factory in Cleveland, or Chuckles in Oklahoma City.

Jay Mohr is an example of a guy who has "made it", and yet still does these types of gigs.

-smak-