Jay Leno to stay with NBC; New 10 PM show

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I think with Leno it's not really a case of who likes his show, it's a case of who dislikes everything else. I can't see myself ever saying "gotta remember to watch the Leno show tonight", but I can see flipping through the guide and thinking "good God these shows all suck tonight... guess I'll watch some Leno while I do my taxes". Seems to me he'll just be the default "nothing good is on" show every night.

Seems like this is more and more the route television is going. I don't profess to know much about the advertising/ratings/audience game, but I DO know what I enjoy watching (dogs on tricycles playing volleyball would be great fun). I am beyond tired of reality tv shows and do not watch any of them. I prefer certain dramas and comedies (scripted), and sports of course. There was a time when I enjoyed Conan, but his bit is old now, as is Leno's and Letterman's.

There is more and more "nothing" on tv, so we just have it on for background noise while we play FOF or something.

*shrugs*

[Greyroofoo]

Anyone know how much people watch Conan (or any other show for that matter) online via sites like Hulu?

I want to watch to Conan on tv but ever since the local NBC station switched to digital I can't get the signal anymore. So I'm forced to get my Conan online.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

There is more and more "nothing" on tv, so we just have it on for background noise while we play FOF or something.

If the research is even remotely accurate, I'm an extreme example.

Nielsen's Three Screen Report tracks TV + online video + mobile video consumption as a primary purpose but it also includes data on internet + TV multitasking, which about 57% currently report doing, with an average of about 2.5 hours per month.

I'm an extreme apparently, I do more than that most days & anywhere from double to triple that on any given Saturday during college football season. But for me that makes perfect sense, I haven't found more than an hour or two of TV per month so engaging that I watch it without multitasking something in at least a decade.

[kcchief19]

Business Item

Interesting article that touches on the issue of how Leno is affecting the affiliates. There have been a number of articles about how Leno has been performing well enough to make money for NBC since the show is so cheap, with the argument being that if Leno only costs 1/3 of a scripted drama to make and draws half the ratings, it's a win for NBC ...

Unless the affiliates take a bath on their late local news ratings. We'll get a better picture next month when we get November sweeps. That might be when the locals go into meltdown mode. Leno is now down to about 5.6 million viewers per night and might sink a bit more. That might be more pronounced in November during sweeps month when the other networks will be going after Leno aggressively.

I don't know if the happy face NBC is putting on is real or an act. It seems at some point that saying Leno is an economic success will rub the affiliates the wrong way if they are losing money on their biggest cash cow, late local news.

What can the affiliates do? Not sure. Would syndicated programming draw better than Leno? Probably not. But would syndicate programming pull in just as much an audience as Leno and make the affiliates more money? Quite possibly. NBC is touting Leno as an economic success for them -- it would be ironic if the affiliates bailed on Leno so they could make more money for themselves.

I still think NBC makes more money with Leno at 11:30, probably more so now with Letterman's troubles. Dave has done everything he can to let Conan back in the ratings war and in recent weeks Letterman has been doing even better, including beating Conan in the demo.

[Pyser]

why would a scandal help conan? seems to me id want to see the guy in the scandal, not another random person making fun of him...

[ISiddiqui]

An interesting article, also touching on what kcchief said a few weeks ago about affiliates:

Is the Jay Leno Experiment Imploding? - The Atlantic Business Channel

This Bloomberg story leads with bad news for the Jay Leno Show, but in the fragmented world of digital television and cable TV, even the network "winners" are treading water. Here are the hard numbers for the 18-49 demographic at 10PM:

-- NBC has lost 1.8 million viewers in the with the Jay Leno experiment (down 45%)
-- CBS has lost 162,000
-- ABC has gained 245,000

Worse, NBC's 10PM advertising rates are down as much as 70 percent:

Advertising rates for Leno range from $48,803 to $65,678 for a 30-second spot, according to Advertising Age. Last year, NBC was able to secure as much as $146,679 at 10 p.m., the trade publication said on Oct. 26.

GE (which owns NBC) is pleading with Leno critics to hold off judgment until next summer, when NBC would seemingly have an advantage over other networks' re-runs. Leno will be new 46 weeks per year, whereas nighttime dramas only produce 22 yearly episodes.

The Leno experiment isn't completely nonsensical for the network. NBC can withstand the lower ad rates because the show is so much cheaper to produce than the costly annual 10PM drama lottery, where NBC spends enormous sums of money of hour-long dramas that aren't guaranteed to run more than a few weeks. But for nationwide local NBC affiliates, the Leno experiment is already turning into "the Leno effect." Smaller Leno audiences lead to smaller local news audiences and bigger revenue headaches for affiliates. The LA Times reports that

NBC affiliates may not be able to tolerate the financial pain that Leno is causing to their late-night news programs -- and may be forced to consider their own program alternative for the 10 p.m. hour.

For now, the "let's wait until the CBS reruns" argument is working to stave off a mass affiliate revolt.

More broadly, NBC's Leno experiment is a fascinating harbinger of things to come. Fragmented TV audiences, especially in the 10PM slot, are a Catch-22 for networks. Keep the current hour-long-drama model, and they risk lose money. Or ditch the model for something with lower expectations and lower overhead, and they risk losing affiliate support. TIME magazine called Jay Leno the future of television. Everybody who works is television is probably hoping TIME magazine is wrong.

[Greyroofoo]

Methinks it would've been a good idea to debut the Leno experiment in the Spring.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

An interesting article, also touching on what kcchief said a few weeks ago about affiliates:

Is the Jay Leno Experiment Imploding? - The Atlantic Business Channel

It almost looks like those numbers may be skewing nationally because of (?) some large market shifts (I'd bet that NY & LA are getting killed) but the mileage is going to vary market by market.

Yeah, Atlanta's weird, I've covered that ad nauseum in this thread & others but it's also a Top 10 sized DMA. And here, Leno is about even or some nights up vs last year and so is the local news that follows.

Thing is, the NBC affiliate here is an afterthought for late news, finishing 4th of 4 some nights & rarely if ever better than 3rd but that's something that started well before the 10pm switch to Leno. Last night for example the Leno 18-49 was flat vs same night one year ago (for My Own Worst Enemy) and the 11p local news was up over 50% for the first quarter-hour vs same night last year & up 33% for the whole half hour. And while it isn't always that good, that's not at all unusual, I've seen it be an even more dramatic improvement.

But that's where the sorry state of affairs for the local affiliate news comes into play, we're talking about the difference between a 0.9 last year & a 1.2 this year.

The bigger drop-off locally has been with 1135p, where Conan now runs 4th in the market at times, trailing not only Nightline & Letterman but also TMZ on the Fox affiliate. The 1.2 same night last year was a 0.5 last night, including a 0.0 in the final quarter hour. Again, a below average case but not by that much either.

While Atlanta is weird, it's also not entirely unique either, so it isn't a case where every affiliate is actually being hurt by the move in the way that the article seems to try to suggest.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Methinks it would've been a good idea to debut the Leno experiment in the Spring.

I've been wondering the same thing. Even if Leno debuted in the summer so he had a chance to put up some big numbers and give the affiliates optimism that he could clober reruns, I think that would have helped. Frankly Leno hasn't given any reason to think that his summer numbers will be any higher than they are now. He's not seeing any ratings surge against reruns now, and obviously TV view numbers are lower in the summer. He's settled into some very consistent numbers.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yeah, Atlanta's weird, I've covered that ad nauseum in this thread & others but it's also a Top 10 sized DMA. And here, Leno is about even or some nights up vs last year and so is the local news that follows.

Thing is, the NBC affiliate here is an afterthought for late news, finishing 4th of 4 some nights & rarely if ever better than 3rd but that's something that started well before the 10pm switch to Leno. Last night for example the Leno 18-49 was flat vs same night one year ago (for My Own Worst Enemy) and the 11p local news was up over 50% for the first quarter-hour vs same night last year & up 33% for the whole half hour. And while it isn't always that good, that's not at all unusual, I've seen it be an even more dramatic improvement.

Yeah, I can see that in markets where NBC late local news was already fourth that NBC that Leno wouldn't really hurt them that much. And NBC did have some disasters in the 10 pm time slot, like My Own Worst Enemy. Of course if the numbers are five nights of that without an ER-sized bounce to boost the numbers, that won't help much.

I'll be interested to see the November sweeps for local markets. The KC NBC affiliate was starting to make inroads after years in 4th or 5th and had moved into third, sometimes finishing second on good nights. My guess is that they may slide back into fourth behind the Fox affiliate.

[kcchief19]

Dola, I thought Leno's recent interview when he said he would be willing to go back to the Tonight Show was not what NBC wanted to hear. I don't think they want affiliates believing that is an option. It completely undermines Conan.

Frankly that doesn't surprise me. I know a lot of people love Leno and say that he'll do anything to promote his show to the affiliates but I've never seen that as Leno being out to support the network -- I think that was self-preservation. I think from hiding in the office eavesdropping on NBC exec meetings and letting Helen Kushnick do her stuff, Leno has a history of doing what's best for him. It's just a coincidence that sometimes what's best for him is best for the network and the affiliates.

[kcchief19]

Jay Leno losing his audience to DVR machines - Yahoo! News

Interesting article that essentially notes that the "lost" viewers who have vanished from NBC in the 10 pm time slot from last year haven't gone to other networks but have gone to DVRs. NBC has lost 1.8 ratings points of viewers and DVR viewing during the 10 pm hour is up 1.4 ratings points.

I'm not completely sold on that theory. I think DVR viewing would be up on its own as the format grows. Maybe half of NBC's lost audience has gone to the DVR but I think the rest have scattered.

Another side note is that USA has announced it's juggling its lineup starting in January. White Collar (great show by the way) is moving to 10 pm Tuesday, Psych is moving to 10 pm Wednesday and Burn Notice to 10 pm Thursday. All will compete head to head with Leno. Demographically, the audience are not similar. I don't think USA is counter programming Leno. But USA is in the same big happy family with NBC/Universal.

Obviously I've believed for a long time that USA has a stable of shows that demographically could outperform Leno and anything else NBC has aired at 10 pm lately. Is this a tryout of that theory? I firmly believe those three shows and In Plain Site would be four nights of solid performers at 10 pm for NBC, and I think they would outperform Leno in both overall viewers and the demo.

Scratch that. They already outperform Leno in the demo. They are neck-and-neck in overall viewers. Put those shows on NBC at 10 pm and they easily outperform Leno.

[ISiddiqui]

Well regardless of DVR viewing rising as the format grows, I think the lack of options at 10 PM allows for people to watch other shows during that time.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Another side note is that USA has announced it's juggling its lineup starting in January. White Collar (great show by the way) is moving to 10 pm Tuesday, Psych is moving to 10 pm Wednesday and Burn Notice to 10 pm Thursday. All will compete head to head with Leno. Demographically, the audience are not similar. I don't think USA is counter programming Leno. But USA is in the same big happy family with NBC/Universal.

I think the Psych move makes sense. One of the big draws is that it was paired with Monk -so you would have a Monk-Psych 2 hours on Friday nights. With Monk ending next week, they probably weren't sure whether viewers would necessarily stick around.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Put those shows on NBC at 10 pm and they easily outperform Leno.

I disagree. They'd tank just like virtually anything else quirky, well-written, or remotely interesting does on network TV that isn't a police procedural or a nighttime soap (which don't necessarily have to be any of the above).

First thing that happens is the minute you move them to the network the production cost will rise, as the salary demands still climb with the cachet of network vs cable. Secondly, and at this point more importantly perhaps, is the number of viewers who will watch on cable but not on networks. Not so much out of any ingrained prejudice against the networks but rather from a combination of habit & the typical channel organization on satellite & cable. There's already more viewers on combined cable networks than combined broadcast networks, they're closer to landing on another cable network when surfing than they are to a broadcast network.

In this instance you can take me as sort of an example of what I'm talking about. I really like Burn Notice, I love Bruce, I like the writing, I enjoy the occasionally witty reparte. I also rarely see an episode except by accident, as I simply don't do appointment viewing, my life just isn't that organized. And that's not all that unusual among cable viewers, who often (as you pointed out) catch one of the 15 airings of a show. Take that opportunity away, the habit declines, and so do the peak numbers because once the habit is broken it isn't easy to get it restored.

The one show in the group I've always thought might be able to break through to the network is In Plain Sight. I think the lead character & the backstory is just more accessible & appealing to the typical network viewer than any of the others & that it could at least run around a 2 for them.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, "Burn Notice", "Psych", or even "Monk" likely would face the same fate as other quirky dramas on the networks that get canceled after 1 or 2 seasons. Shows like "Firefly", "Pushing Daisies", etc, would find a long shelf life on a cable network (well, if their production costs were less).

[Jon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I disagree. They'd tank just like virtually anything else quirky, well-written, or remotely interesting does on network TV that isn't a police procedural or a nighttime soap (which don't necessarily have to be any of the above).

I think Jon is right here. If I remember right, they tried Monk on ABC a few years ago and it didn't perform well ratings wise, so they stopped it. Same thing with NBC last year or so--they tried it with the hopes of moving Monk and Psych to prime time, but the ratings weren't there.

[RainMaker]

I think Jon is correct too. Those shows have more of a niche audience and don't cater to the general demographics that network TV pulls in.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Jon

I think Jon is right here. If I remember right, they tried Monk on ABC a few years ago and it didn't perform well ratings wise, so they stopped it. Same thing with NBC last year or so--they tried it with the hopes of moving Monk and Psych to prime time, but the ratings weren't there.

The efforts ABC and NBC made with airing cable shows on network TV were laughable. ABC was airing episodes of Monk a week or two after they aired on USA. NBC did the same thing with Top Chef and Project Runway during the summer -- airing reruns a week after the original showing. Last year NBC did give Monk and Psych a run on Sundays -- with episodes that were more than a year old. That wasn't an experiment, it was two cheap networks trying to temporarily fill some holes with cheap programming.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I disagree. They'd tank just like virtually anything else quirky, well-written, or remotely interesting does on network TV that isn't a police procedural or a nighttime soap (which don't necessarily have to be any of the above).

Not every quirky, well-written or remotely interesting show fails. The problem is that the current network programming model gives you about a 1 in 100 chance or worse of success. For every Seinfeld that breaks through there are 99 shows that can't find their audience before they are cancelled, they get bounced around in time slots or they can't even make it to air because NBC is down to about 8 hours of scripted programming a week.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

First thing that happens is the minute you move them to the network the production cost will rise, as the salary demands still climb with the cachet of network vs cable.

As far as production costs go, that's completely overrated and it's simply a bad business decision by the networks. Some of the highest rated TV shows (read: reality) have the lowest production values. Viewers don't care if you shoot in Vancouver or use non-union Canadian labor if the show is good. People are already watching these shows without much production values. Aside from Burn Notice which occassional blows shit up, Monk, Psych, White Collar and others don't have snazzy graphics and special effects.

As for salary demands, that happens on cable too. Monk axed Bitty Schram for asking for a raise and you'll be sure it will be a while before another USA star demands a raise. Do you think Tony Shaloub would want twice as much money for a show on NBC drawing 6 million than he's paid on a USA show drawing 5 million? Unlikely. He'd probably draw a salary commensurate with the ratings.

USA has also perfected a formula for producing shows with quality C-list or no-list stars. Debra Messing was probably the biggest star they've tried a show with and I think they learned their lesson their. Tony Shaloub was a known name but he had never been a leading man. You don't have to have Mark Harmon to make a show. You can get good cheap talent.

You don't have to treat every show like The West Wing, which started out with a huge budget for actors and then got worse. If you start with Friends-level talent and make them stars with big ratings, I think a network will be willing to pay for that.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Secondly, and at this point more importantly perhaps, is the number of viewers who will watch on cable but not on networks. Not so much out of any ingrained prejudice against the networks but rather from a combination of habit & the typical channel organization on satellite & cable. There's already more viewers on combined cable networks than combined broadcast networks, they're closer to landing on another cable network when surfing than they are to a broadcast network.

I definitely disagree. I think the viewers who already watch shows on cable are more likely to watch a network show than someone who watches network TV is to sample cable. Cable is building its audience from the bottom, not the top. It's new viewers who are more willing to watch cable, whereas older viewers believe that network TV "means" better quality. And while cable has a large share of viewers, I'd wager that network TV still commands the market share on viewers watching original scripted shows. Cable viewers are more likely to be watching sports, reality shows, reruns, kids programming, etc. than they are to be watching scripted shows. Last week, Monk was the highest-rated scripted show on cable and it drew almost 6 million.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In this instance you can take me as sort of an example of what I'm talking about. I really like Burn Notice, I love Bruce, I like the writing, I enjoy the occasionally witty reparte. I also rarely see an episode except by accident, as I simply don't do appointment viewing, my life just isn't that organized. And that's not all that unusual among cable viewers, who often (as you pointed out) catch one of the 15 airings of a show. Take that opportunity away, the habit declines, and so do the peak numbers because once the habit is broken it isn't easy to get it restored.

I agree to an extent. However, cable scripted shows are pretty consistent as far as their ratings go -- Monk draws 6 million viewers a week, so I think that "appointment viewing" is the bulk of the audience. If Monk moved to 10 pm Friday on NBC, do you really think fewer viewers would watch than more? I think you would bump the audience at least 15% due to the additional exposure. I think "exclusivity" would also boost the audience. Last I read it wasn't uncommon for a show like Monk to add 25-50% to its total one-time viewing audience through additional airings. People know that if it's on NBC, you record it if you don't want to miss it. The fact that American Idol is only on once a week doesn't seem to hurt it. That could very well add another 15%. If Monk were able to draw 8 million viewers on NBC, it would be a hit.

I'll agree that my beliefs on this are "outside the box." But I think that there is something wrong with the current network formula for developing shows. Launching a new show in network prime time is like taking a kid straight form college and plunking him into the middle of the Yankees lineup. 1 in 100 times it might work but it's a recipe for disaster.

Why not launch a show out of the limelight on USA (or Bravo or Syfy or any other Univeral network), let them build an audience and then move them to prime time after a season or two? I firmly believe that approach would work, and it would lead to better shows.

[sterlingice]

I think you've been trumpeting this "cable as a minor leagues" (oh, yeah, the baseball cliches will start flowing here in a bit) for a year or two now and it's definitely an interesting one that is outside of normal thinking but has the chance to really work.

It also has the chance to completely backfire, which is why it won't be done unless someone is really desperate: I don't think, say, NBC could rate much worse as a network but you'd kill off the shows on USA and maybe new interest on USA as "they'll just move this to NBC in a year or two if it's good, anyways". However, in a DVR world, I think you can get away with moving stuff a little more freely than even 5 years ago (Futurama says "hi!").

I'm trying to think of how you'd program this, tho, thinking nuts and bolts:

If you were a show on (lets use the NBC/USA example again) USA- how many more viewers do you get for a drama if you make the jump to NBC after your second season? I think there would be some reluctant viewers as the network people would be jumping in partways into a series. So you have to address that problem. But let's get back to that in a second.

If you can keep similar times (i.e. USA counterprograms NBC- their strongest shows go where NBC's weakest are and NBC execs decide which shows to "call up"), I don't think you lose many viewers. If Pysch goes from 9pm Friday on USA to 9pm Friday NBC, then you should be just fine, provided you advertise.

But you know those slots aren't going to line up well. What happens when you have a dog of a show on USA at the same time as something hyped on NBC that flops- basically, you need a SS (Monday at 9, let's say) but you have no SS or even a 2B who could play SS (your lineup on Monday is crap). Do you just move in a new NBC show next season- a decent possibility? Do you move one of your other shows on USA to that day for next season, prep'ing them for the move to USA the season after? That's not a bad call, but what if they lose a bunch of their audience on USA to that meddling? Actually, I think this is more promising, not less promising- the more I think about it.

But back to what I consider a bigger problem- when to make the jump? A lot of USA/SyFy (I cringe when I type that)/etc gets higher ratings because first runs are when networks are in reruns. Do I want to see the CSI I've already seen or a new Psych? A lot of people will make that run to cable. However, if it's new CSI vs new Psych- how badly does Psych lose? I waited on addressing the previous problem because it dovetails with (or even worse, compounds) this one. Do those shows perform as well when up against real MLB pitching or do they just look good in spring training and against other September callups? I can't answer that one- there are too many moving parts and you'd just have to do it to find out.

Those attempts to put reruns of Monk on the networks during the writers strike were a joke. They could have had some useful data for the future and it would have been totally excusable (say, if Monk ran at 9pm Friday on USA, they could have still shown it then for the viewers who do it as appointment viewing but show it on NBC on, say, Wednesday- 2 days earlier- and see if people would watch).

And, if they play in the winter and summer when the networks are off, as opposed to spring and fall sweeps seasons- how can you catch up? If I were a network, I'd consider, as a trial, just pulling up one or two giant cable hits (which, admittedly, have lower viewership than all but the worst rated network shows) after their first year. Show their reruns all summer long and into the early fall to get network viewers acclimated to the show if they haven't been watching it and then you can start with season 2 with your network audience caught up. However, you can't do that if your first run show ends in late summer. So, there's that difficulty.

There are some big hurdles, but I think a creative program director could make this work. Hell, give me a 1 week paid job as a network consultant where I wouldn't have to work and could lay this all out in front of me and I could probably come up with a 90% optimal solution (then again, I think a lot of network programming execs aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed and are like students cramming the night before finals for something that would have been easy if they had been actually putting in work all year long).

SI

[Maple Leafs]

So Time.com (and others) are saying NBC is dumping the Leno show. No confirmation.

Meanwhile, TMZ.com says they're actually moving Jay back to 11:30 and possibly dumping Conan altogether.

Hmm...

[molson]

Letterman's gotta be loving all this.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Meanwhile, TMZ.com says they're actually moving Jay back to 11:30 and possibly dumping Conan altogether.

I'm not sure you can rely on the trashpress for something like this.

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I'm not sure you can rely on the trashpress for something like this.

uh...what does tmz EVER get wrong?

[Young Drachma]

NBC Denies Rumor of ‘Leno’ Cancellation - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Pyser

uh...what does tmz EVER get wrong?

Yeah. I'm sure they're not 100% accurate but when it comes to entertainment news they've been way out ahead of other media. They're even cited as a legit source in mainstream press now.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I just wanted to say trashpress again.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

NBC Denies Rumor of ‘Leno’ Cancellation - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com

Yeah, even TMZ changed their wording within a couple of hours, now basically matching NBC's official statement.

[DeToxRox]

I saw something on CNN where Leno would take 11:35 - 12:05, then Conan would take 12:05 - 1:05 and Fallon 1:05 - 2:05.

Seems odd, but at this point it might be NBC's best option.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

[Galaxy]

Looking back, I think NBC should of never put Leno on in the first place. It took a lot away from Conan and his slot.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Looking back, I think NBC should of never put Leno on in the first place. It took a lot away from Conan and his slot.

Looking back, NBC should never have backed themselves into a contractual corner with Conan in the first place.

[sooner333]

This whole thing seemed like the "coach-in-waiting" deal going on in college football. A disaster.

[larrymcg421]

Looking back, NBC should have never allowed Helen Kushnick to push them around. They should have called her bluff, let Leno walk to CBS and picked Letterman. Leno's CBS show would have been cancelled within a year, and NBC would have completely owned late night. CBS doesn't attempt another talk show in late night for a long time.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Looking back, NBC should never have backed themselves into a contractual corner with Conan in the first place.

It was Leno or Conan when they made the decision, right?

I read that FOX may be interested in Conan if he leaves.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Looking back, NBC should have never allowed Helen Kushnick to push them around. They should have called her bluff, let Leno walk to CBS and picked Letterman. Leno's CBS show would have been cancelled within a year, and NBC would have completely owned late night. CBS doesn't attempt another talk show in late night for a long time.

Hard to say. But I think it's naive to blame Kushnick for all the manipulation behind the scenes. Leno is her passive-aggressive equal and I think was probably the brains behind the whole thing.

He campaigned for the Tonight Show for years. He's gotten credit for being the "nice guy" and shaking the hands for the affiliates but I still don't think he did all of that because he's a "nice guy." I think he did it because he's a master politician and he knows how to kiss ass.

What I find amazing is how many people buy the "nice guy" story. This is a guy who stabbed Letterman in the back when it was Letterman who made his career. Carson hated Leno and wouldn't have him on the show -- Letterman made Leno on a star. No comic appeared on Late Night more than Leno. And let's not forget Leno hiding in a closet and eaves dropping on the NBC meetings to try and manipulate the situation.

Even the last few months has been more of the same. Leno did the interview saying he wished he'd stayed with Tonight and would like to go back, forcing NBC to deal with that. Now NBC is talking about giving him EXACTLY what he wants and he does that passive-aggressive monologue on Thursday to try and make people feel sorry for him and think NBC is jerking him along -- when Leno is the one who has been jerking NBC along for months.

[kcchief19]

TMZ is reporting NBC has told Conan to take midnight after Leno at 11:30 or walk. If I'm Conan, I think I walk. There appears to be interest from Fox, and I think they would pay to get Conan. That would be a battle royale: Letterman vs. Leno vs. Conan vs. Nightline. Any want to handicap that race?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

TMZ is reporting NBC has told Conan to take midnight after Leno at 11:30 or walk. If I'm Conan, I think I walk. There appears to be interest from Fox, and I think they would pay to get Conan. That would be a battle royale: Letterman vs. Leno vs. Conan vs. Nightline. Any want to handicap that race?

Sure
Nightline, Leno, Letterman, Conan

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

and I think they would pay to get Conan.

But would they pay him $28m now that he's flopped?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But would they pay him $28m now that he's flopped?

Won't NBC have to pay him something like $45 million if he leaves?

[JonInMiddleGA]

My initial reaction (as well as my second & third reaction) was that this was all smoke and that there's no way NBC could be dumb enough to undo a move that's actually been a bottom line success for them. And then reality struck:
It's Comcast making decisions now.

And there's literally nothing on earth too stupid for Comcrap to consider (ever do the math on their NHL deal?)

[kcchief19]

I wish I could find this article I read earlier this week about that very topic. The gist of the article was that this was essentially a Comcast-inspired move because Comcast wants NBC to be a successful network while GE was fine with NBC being a loss leader for the rest of NBC Universal.

I don't know if I can argue that this move has been a bottom line success for NBC. Has NBC made more money? Possibly. The net on Leno's show might very well be more than what NBC was netting at 10 p.m. From everything I've heard the Tonight Show is losing revenue but perhaps the net is close to even.

But you can't judge the bottom line by two hours out of the day. Leno is leading to huge ratings drops for the affiliates in prime and 10 pm. There was an affiliate in this article quot as saying their 10 pm ratings were down 48% with Leno and local news down 15%. NBC affiliates across the country are having double-digit losses for their late local news. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the local NBC affiliate in KC was charging 80% less for Leno than they were for "Medium" a year ago in the same time slot. Conan's prices are down too. For the affiliates, this has been a costly disaster.

[Young Drachma]

As long as the name of Conan's show has "The Tonight Show" in it, they're not breaking their contract with him. I imagine if he turns down their offer, they're not obligated to pay him, because they're effectively letting him out and a chance to be a free agent early. No one else would pay him what they'd pay him for breaking that deal, but...they're hedging that he can't compete with Leno on even turf and most certainly not Letterman.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sure
Nightline, Leno, Letterman, Conan

Pretty close to my thoughts. I don't think Leno comes back and gets his 5 million a night. Conan would peel off and keep a couple of million. Letterman would certainly slide from his 4.2 million he's drawing now, but probably not much further down than 3-3.5 million. Leno would draw some back from Nightline, and I'm assuming Leno wins back some from wherever they've gone.

I think Nightline, Leno and Letterman would all end up some where around 3.5 million with Nightline probably winning a plurality of the time and Leno and Letterman winning enough to keep people happy. Conan would draw his 2-2.5 million and make Fox happy.

Even as much of a Letterman homer that I am, I'm completely stunned at his ratings since October. He flat out crushed Conan the last three months. In the fourth quarter they tied in 18-49. Conan only won the 18-34 demo. Total viewers was 4.2 million to 2.5 million. That's the widest margin Dave has beat the tonight by since 1994.

I'll admit I thought Dave would emerge from the scandal eventually but I didn't think he would skate by unscathed. His numbers aren't Leno numbers but they are far and away better than anything Dave has put up in years.

And it's not like Letterman won the quarter with big audiences in October with people tuning in to see what was going on. His weekly audience last week was larger than his numbers in the 4th quarter as a whole.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

There was an affiliate in this article quot as saying their 10 pm ratings were down 48% with Leno and local news down 15%.

And if anyone bothered to get the quotes (and could actually get affiliates to admit it) there are also those who have ratings up by double digits with Leno over the unwatched crap it replaced on a lot of nights. Leno isn't killing NBC, having crap shows all over the lineup that nobody gives a damn about has killed NBC. And having 119 cable options continues to dilute broadcast, not just NBC. And cutting local newsrooms all over the country closer & closer to the bone ain't helped anybody's ratings either.

Here's a pretty good take on that line of thought in case you're interested, one of the few I've seen willing to talk about it. As the writer says As a fan, I would certainly prefer more scripted, but given that NBC was already a disaster, being a disaster that at least managed costs (and also kept Jay Leno from going to a rival network) made some sense. He goes on to point out that there's no real reason to believe that there's suddenly going to be a wave of 10pm launch hits on NBC because {gasp} unless you're CBS & it's NCIS:LA pretty much no one is finding 10p hits anymore.

For the affiliates, this has been a costly disaster.

And for the network's bottom line, that's largely a big "so what?". They've only got 10 O&O's left, only 4 or 5 in major markets, and they're so devalued (with or without Leno) that being stuck with them was reportedly the last big sticking point to getting the deal done with Comcast. I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe there's a major batch of affiliate agreement expirations coming up and in the majority of markets any switches that did happen would be negligible (since cable & digital have rendered channel position largely meaningless).

To be sure, if Leno moves back to late night there will be great celebration among the "hurrah for scripted TV" crowd. But with ABC likely to reduce scripted by at least two hours by next season & NBC likely to replace at least part of Leno with another hour of Biggest Loser and another hour or two of reality shows, the net change will be ... zero.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But would they pay him $28m now that he's flopped?

Yes. Most likely he'll be looking at ownership of his own show at Fox, which would likely net him more than NBC with even moderate success. The question will be can he have moderate success.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

The question will be can he have moderate success.

The answer probably depends upon what constitutes "moderate success" (in Fox's opinion).

[molson]

NBC did announce their "new plan" today - though I'm sure they'll screw something up somehow.

"Gaspin said the new plan is for Leno to take over a shortened "Tonight Show," with O'Brien moving back to "Late Night" at midnight and Fallon hosting a new show at 1 a.m."

Interesting that Leno would get the "Tonight Show".

Hopefully this will eventually entail Conan doing a show from NYC again, whether at NBC or FOX.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/0...nbc/index.html

[JonInMiddleGA]

Mistake #1 : thinking Conan could handle Tonight
Mistake #2 : caving to the affiliates who have virtually zero leverage
Mistake #3 : thinking this will matter much in the long run either way, NBC will be refocused into a cable network anyway, and given they now are controlled by the most inept management in the history of management nothing they do will make any of it particularly better.

[Young Drachma]

I wonder if this means that Conan will bolt. Maybe he feels like the NBC money makes it worthwhile to just hang out for a bit.