Jimmy Kimmel's move to 11:30

[Galaxy]

What does everyone think about Jimmy's half-hour bump to 11:30 to take on the other two stalwarts head-on?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Better than expected numbers for the first week had to be encouraging for those behind the show but I suspect Kimmel's public take on the move is the right one. He's basically said there isn't a "King of Late Night" since Johnny Carson retired & there'd never be another one.

One of the analysts I saw phrased it pretty well, this isn't about now, it's about 5 years from now (i.e. after Leno & Letterman retire).

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

One of the analysts I saw phrased it pretty well, this isn't about now, it's about 5 years from now (i.e. after Leno & Letterman retire).

+1.

[Galaxy]

I've also liked Jimmy, and I like it more that he hasn't changed a thing.

He also took another shot at Leno in the media as well.

[stevew]

I'll watch the funny Kimmel taped shorts but I can safely say I will never watch any of the late night shows ever again.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Better than expected numbers for the first week had to be encouraging for those behind the show but I suspect Kimmel's public take on the move is the right one. He's basically said there isn't a "King of Late Night" since Johnny Carson retired & there'd never be another one.

Agree on all counts. The numbers for the first week are pretty strong. The overall viewers are actually lower than Nightline's season-to-date numbers, but Kimmel is blowing away Nightline in the demo. If he can hold on to that demo number, it won't matter if he eventually settles into No. 3 in total viewers. Nightline is doing almost exactly the same numbers as Kimmel was for the season to date in the later time slot -- Nightline actually outperformed Kimmel's average by a tenth of a point, but that's probably due to the lead in. If this isn't just a look-in audience, it's been a good switch.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

One of the analysts I saw phrased it pretty well, this isn't about now, it's about 5 years from now (i.e. after Leno & Letterman retire).

I agree in the sense that this is what ABC needs to do to keep Kimmel from jumping to NBC or CBS to takeover from Leno or Letterman. I think it's going to be impossible for Kimmel to match the total viewers that Nightline was drawing, but he may be able to offset that loss with a better performance in the 18-49 demo.

NBC might be happy with Jimmy Fallon, but I don't think he's got the weight to take over from Leno. CBS has the same problem with Craig Ferguson, maybe worse. I don't think there was any doubt before this switch that CBS and NBC would target Kimmel to be their next late night guy. But if Kimmel already has 11:30, no reason to move.

[kcchief19]

Interesting numbers from today's

In Late-Night Metered Markets Monday night:
* In Nielsen's 56 metered markets, household results were:
"The Tonight Show with Jay Leno," 2.2/6 with an encore telecast;
"Late Show with David Letterman," 2.2/6 with an encore;
"Jimmy Kimmel Live," 2.0/5 with an encore.

I don't normally see the metered-only markets, but I assume those typically favor Letterman slightly and now probably Kimmel a bit. But while NBC says all three were in repeats, I'm not sure that's true -- the late night lineups show Letterman in repeats this week but not Leno and Kimmel.

Even assuming all were in repeats, Are we seeing a Conan Effect here? After a strong start, Kimmel is already tied with Leno in the 18-49 and fallen to third place in total viewers. His numbers last week were identical in the demo to Nightline's season-to-date numbers but with almost a million fewer overall viewers.

A week ago it looked like a good move for ABC, trading overall viewers for improvements in the demo. Now the move looks like they are holding the demo but losing overall viewers. Where will the slide end?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

A week ago it looked like a good move for ABC, trading overall viewers for improvements in the demo. Now the move looks like they are holding the demo but losing overall viewers. Where will the slide end?

His schtick probably has a pretty short leash with viewers past 49. A little of him goes a pretty long way with me & I tend to be about one demographic cell beyond my chronological age.

[Matthean]

I still look at it from a long term point of view. He just needs to stick around and once the other guys step down he's ahead of them. If somebody replaces Leno and starts beating him, that's bad.

[kcchief19]

Here's the latest weekly late night ratings:
Tonight Show 0.8 rating, 3 share 18-49; 3.5 million viewers

Late Show 0.7 rating, 3 share 18-49; 3.2 million viewers
Kimmel Live 0.7 rating, 3 share 18-49; 2.7 million viewers
Nightline 0.4 rating, 2 share 18-49; 1.7 million viewers

Compare that to the season to date numbers before the switch:
Tonight 0.8 rating, 3 share 18-49; 3.5 million viewers

Late Show 0.7 rating, 3 share 18-49; 3.2 million viewers Kimmel Live 0.5 rating, 2 share 18-49; 1.9 million

Nightline,” 0.9 rating 3 share 18-49; 3.9 million viewers

Couple of interesting notes:

Not sure if it's a one-week aberration, but there were significantly fewer viewers in the comparable week to 2012. There were 11.4 million viewers last year and 9.4 million last week. ABC accounts for a loss of 1.5 million viewers, Leno lost 400k and Letterman lost 100k.

After some fluctuations in the first couple of weeks, Leno and Letterman have virtually exactly where they were a month ago. The Kimmel tasting appears over, and everyone is going back home.

It's not the worst-case scenario, but now both shows are under performing versus the old lineup. Kimmel's first half hour number is certainly better than a 0.7 and 2.7 million, but it's certainly not matching Nightline's previous numbers. I don't have the half-hour numbers, but I'd bet ABC was winning the half hour or tied at 11:30, Kimmel was winning or tied at 12:00 and tied or slightly behind at 12:30. Now they are losing at 11:30 and 12:00 and tied at 12:30.

The cable shows are all identical to where they were as well post-switch. Conan and Colbert had the exact same ratings as they did one year ago, Adult Swim was up 100k viewers.

I agree, this is a five-year move, not a one-year move. I doubt that ABC will be as itchy as NBC was with Conan and Leno. However, it's worth nothing that Conan NEVER had an 18-49 demo rating as low as Kimmel did last week. On the one hand it's expecting a lot of Kimmel to face to late-night legends. But at the same time, if he can't get younger demos against two guys in their 60s, what's he going to do when NBC and CBS get younger competition?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Couple of interesting notes:The cable shows are all identical to where they were as well post-switch. Conan and Colbert had the exact same ratings as they did one year ago, Adult Swim was up 100k viewers.

I'll just quote this snippet and reference the other parts/comments that caught my eye.

What I noticed was that the rating/viewers were down y2y but the shares (rounded anyway) were consistent. Unless it's so late that I'm having a mental math (or logic) failure here, that means that the problem is that the number of viewers of anything in the timeslot shrank; i.e. they didn't go to another show so much as they just went to another medium entirely, or went to bed earlier, or went somewhere.

That's a trend that I don't know if any host - past or present, living/dead/still unborn - is going to change.

I'm an admittedly very aytpical TV viewer but in the past week I've watched less than 3 hours of actual TV, and every bit of that was channel surfing while trying to go to sleep several hours earlier than usual ... prompted by having gotten a working remote back in the bedroom + being unusually drained by a miserable week with work. Under normal conditions I likely would have watched 0-1 hours of TV all week.

5 years ago I would have watched probably 2-5 hours per night, albeit crime procedural reruns on late night cable, but TV viewing nevertheless. Instead of that, I've seen probably 8 hours or more of reruns on Netflix, passive viewing because my son was watching down here in The Cave but it would still count as viewing as much as anything I was doing five years ago.

What I'm getting at is that I'm not at all sure we might not see numbers very similar to these if the whole Leno 10p thing had never happened.

[RainMaker]

Late night TV for me is clearing off what's on my DVR or pounding through a TV series on Netflix or Amazon. I rarely channel surf these days.

[timmynausea]

I've followed TV ratings off and on over the past few years. There are a couple of things to keep in mind when looking at these numbers:

1. Over the last several years, all the networks really care about is the 18-49 demographic. (CBS was the last that claimed to still value total audience numbers equally or almost as much, but that seems to be over.) That demo is what advertisers pay a premium for. So Kimmel is basically in a dead heat with Letterman and Leno in the only metric that really matters.

2. This move was probably step 1 in a conscious phasing out of Nightline. Chances are Nightline is more expensive to produce than a late night talk show, so even if Kimmel has slightly worse ratings, his show could be more profitable.

NBC had already tanked badly by the time they tried the Leno at 10 pm thing. They'd quickly dropped from many years in a row as the top rated network to a very distant 4th by the mid-2000s. The Jeff Zucker years (2000-2010) didn't produce any new hits outside of a couple of reality or game shows like Fear Factor, the Apprentice and Deal or No Deal, two of which flamed out quickly and the Apprentice has hung in there, though it's steadily declined. I guess you could count Sunday Night Football. In any case, it was their inability to produce a hit show in that era that led to them trying the Leno thing out of desperation.

And actually, with the fall season of the Voice and Revolution taking off to go along with Sunday Night Football, NBC is number 1 so far this season in the 18-49 cumulative numbers. Plus they are the only network to increase their season to date numbers from last year so far.

2012-2013 Season: NBC Leads Among Adults 18-49, While CBS is Number 1 With Total Viewers Through Week 17 Ending January 20, 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What I'm getting at is that I'm not at all sure we might not see numbers very similar to these if the whole Leno 10p thing had never happened.

I noticed the overall numbers declining as well. Granted in only looking at a one-week snapshot, but there were more than 2 million viewers gone from late night shows. Most of that drop was from Nightline and Leno, but there are still viewers unaccounted for.

But if you look at the longer trend over 4-5 years, there is a sharp drop in viewers. Letterman is down around 600k, Leno twice that and ABC is trending toward topping Leno's loss.

I think the changes in late night definitely changed some habits. It looks like some Leno viewers found something better while he was gone and never came back. Nightline viewers are doing that too. They aren't necessarily going to other shows -- they maybe hitting the DVR, on demand and streaming.

There are also more choices than there were four years ago they may be picking up some viewers. TV By the Numbers oddly doesn't include Handler, Bravo and a few other late night choices.

I think you could absolutely be right -- viewers leaving is a long term trend and may have nothing to do with Conan-Leno.

[Logan]

What about the impact Twitter has on these types of shows, or at least the monologue specifically? Something happens during the day and it's already been mocked to death by the time 11:35 rolls around.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

There are also more choices than there were four years ago they may be picking up some viewers. TV By the Numbers oddly doesn't include Handler, Bravo and a few other late night choices.

Cable overnights are less reliable and slower to come out IIRC. (24 hrs slower maybe?)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

What about the impact Twitter has on these types of shows, or at least the monologue specifically? Something happens during the day and it's already been mocked to death by the time 11:35 rolls around.

Eh, I dunno how much that would impact. I mean, the theory for these guys is that they're funnier than the general population. So unless they're burning their own material on their own Twitter then it shouldn't kill the monologues too much I don't think.

[kcchief19]

Grab your popcorn ... rumors are swirling that at the May upfronts NBC will announce Leno is retiring and the 2013-14 season will be his last. The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon will debut in summer 2014.

According to the reports, NBC is worried that long term Jimmy Kimmel is a threat and wants to get Fallon in the chair before Kimmel picks up momentum.

Based on the ratings, that's faulty analysis. Kimmel hasn't picked up any momentum yet, and so far the move has at best been a wash. Ratings-wise, ABC was doing better with Nightline and Kimmel in their original slots.

And unless Leno takes another job, something crazy like going to CNN or something bizarre, he's always going to be in the background if Fallon's numbers tank.

This could be a huge winner for Letterman. If he's able to pick up some of the older audience from Leno and Fallon and Kimmel split up the younger demos, Dave might be able to go out on top in total viewers -- and might actually hold his own in the demo.

Funny thing is, if Leno goes and it's Letterman, Kimmel and Fallon in late night, that will be the best late night competition in TV history ... at a time when fewer people are watching late night talk shows in TV history.

[cartman]

There are also rumors that Letterman might retire after the 2013-14 season, and CBS might go after Fallon.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by cartman

There are also rumors that Letterman might retire after the 2013-14 season, and CBS might go after Fallon.

They should consider going after Louis CK.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by stevew

They should consider going after Louis CK.

I see what you did there

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by cartman

There are also rumors that Letterman might retire after the 2013-14 season, and CBS might go after Fallon.

Wouldn't surprise me in either case, which is why this may be a pre-emptive move by NBC. Of course, that's why they did the same thing with Conan. From what I've read, it sounds like Fallon is on a year-to-year renewal, so it wouldn't be hard for CBS to pop him free. Ferguson is not a natural successor for Letterman, so they will have to replace him from the outside.

Letterman's contract is up in 2014, and passing up Carson's years on the air has clearly been a priority for him. I would imagine outlasting Leno would also be appealing to him, so I could see him waiting for Leno to leave.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I see what you did there

They'd probably just give the job to Jerry Seinfeld.

[rowech]

I know this is sacrilege but NBC should get Chelsea Handler for the Tonight Show. Make a splash.

[stevew]

Chelsea already has a history of not getting ratings on NBC

[kcchief19]

I like Handler but I wouldn't have the guts to give her 11:30. I'd be tempted to give her 12:30 and see what happens. During the last year her show has experimented more with guest hosts that makes you wonder if they are looking for someone to fill the slot if she moves elsewhere.

Yes, her track record and her entourages track record is less than impressive. Although Whitney Cummings is co-creator of Two Broke Girls, proving shows she doesn't appear in do much better than when she's the star.

[Matthean]

‘Tonight’ Show Expected to Return to New York, With Fallon - NYTimes.com

[kcchief19]

In general I think it's a good move. Fallon is comfortable in NYC, and not being in Hollywood isn't the barrier it was 30 years ago in terms of getting big name guests. NYC is definitely a better "character" than Hollywood, so it should be a good fit.

It puts you a little bit more head-to-head against Letterman for guests and material, so it might have some high-risk, high-reward element to it.

Really odd to see the Leno-NBC relationship deteriorating. Not sure Leno has an option. At this point, does Fox really want to invest in the Leno business if he and NBC have an ugly break up? It sure looks like Leno isn't going to go quietly.

[Galaxy]

Kind of strange that it wasn't too long ago that NBC fired Conan after such a short go at it, moved Leno back, and now they're moving Leno out for Fallon, and moving the show to New York.

[chrisj]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

In general I think it's a good move. Fallon is comfortable in NYC, and not being in Hollywood isn't the barrier it was 30 years ago in terms of getting big name guests. NYC is definitely a better "character" than Hollywood, so it should be a good fit.

I always wondered if part of Conan's problem was not being in NYC because he seemed uncomfortable. Fallon staying there is good.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by chrisj

I always wondered if part of Conan's problem was not being in NYC because he seemed uncomfortable. Fallon staying there is good.

I wonder the same thing. I've always felt like there were two problems with Conan's Tonight Show. The first was that he completely taken out of his element -- instead of being in NYC with his friends and supporters, now he was in Burbank doing a completely different show surrounded by people he didn't know. NBC is known for its sharp division between NYC and Burbank, and I imagine the Burbank crowd was pretty pro-Leno and not terribly supportive. Second is that he was just ill-suited for the time slot. His style didn't really fit with the earlier time slot, and he had trouble adjusting.

Letterman didn't have that problem. When he moved to 11:30, he changed his show greatly. He threw away a lot of the cheap bits and gags and went for more broad-based jokes and big-name stars. Letterman still gets mileage from being in NYC, but in the early years at CBS, he milled his neighbors, Broadway and the city for tons of great material. Wouldn't be the same show in Hollywood.

I think Fallon has a chance. He will need to make some changes to his show, but staying in NYC where he is comfortable and surrounded by friends will help.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I wonder the same thing. I've always felt like there were two problems with Conan's Tonight Show. The first was that he completely taken out of his element -- instead of being in NYC with his friends and supporters, now he was in Burbank doing a completely different show surrounded by people he didn't know. NBC is known for its sharp division between NYC and Burbank, and I imagine the Burbank crowd was pretty pro-Leno and not terribly supportive. Second is that he was just ill-suited for the time slot. His style didn't really fit with the earlier time slot, and he had trouble adjusting.

Letterman didn't have that problem. When he moved to 11:30, he changed his show greatly. He threw away a lot of the cheap bits and gags and went for more broad-based jokes and big-name stars. Letterman still gets mileage from being in NYC, but in the early years at CBS, he milled his neighbors, Broadway and the city for tons of great material. Wouldn't be the same show in Hollywood.

I think Fallon has a chance. He will need to make some changes to his show, but staying in NYC where he is comfortable and surrounded by friends will help.

Do you think if the show was set in a more active, centralized location in L.A. that it would help at all? Kimmel's studio is right in the heart of Hollywood.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Do you think if the show was set in a more active, centralized location in L.A. that it would help at all? Kimmel's studio is right in the heart of Hollywood.

Not sure, but I know that Kimmel's wide open, open bar, stocked with hot girls green room is often cited as one of the reasons the show was able to overcome the growing pains that came with Kimmel starting out as a host. Supposedly even when the show wasn't a draw, the green room was for potential guests.

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I wonder the same thing. I've always felt like there were two problems with Conan's Tonight Show. The first was that he completely taken out of his element -- instead of being in NYC with his friends and supporters, now he was in Burbank doing a completely different show surrounded by people he didn't know.

is that true at all though? conan moved his entire staff to los angeles from ny (presumably most are still with him at tbs).

also, he was a writer for a long time before he was a late night host, so its not like he was never in la before.

that said, as has been pointed out before, networks are fighting over a dying animal here. late night tv is just not must see tv on any level for younger generations. fallon does well, but mostly virally. which is really the best way to watch those late night shows.

i dont think i'd be going out on a limb to say leno's ratings now will EASILY beat fallon once the novelty of the new show wears off. fallons audience just isnt going to watch every night at 1130, like an older generation used to watching leno for years is.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Pyser

is that true at all though? conan moved his entire staff to los angeles from ny (presumably most are still with him at tbs).

I'm talking more about the network, not about the his staff. One of the problems NBC has had for 20 years is the deep divide between the NY and Burbank studios. Everybody loved Conan at 30 Rock and had his back. Leno was the king of Burbank. When things started going south, none of the executives in Burbank were supportive of him and were actively orchestrating Leno's return. I think if Conan had been doing the show in NYC where his NBC political base was, it would have been easier.

There's a huge difference between 11:30 and 12:30. You're the poster boy of the network. I think Conan thought he could simply do his show at 11:30, just with a bigger budget. Contrast that with Letterman's move to CBS. He revamped his show in a lot of ways, some small and some big. I don't think Conan made any adjustments, and I don't think he understood what he had to do to make it work.

Good example -- Leno was the king of affiliate relations. He was always going out on the road to make appearances and glad handle the affiliates because he knew if the affiliates were on his side, he had a wedge against the network. Conan made a visit to the local affiliate here, and while everybody said he was funny, they also said it was clear he didn't want to be there doing the glad handling.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Do you think if the show was set in a more active, centralized location in L.A. that it would help at all? Kimmel's studio is right in the heart of Hollywood.

I think Kimmel's studio setup is smart. That's a lot different than NBC's studios in Burbank. The crowds Kimmel gets are more like Letterman crowds than Leno.

That said, I think NYC is a better setting TV shows. There's just more energy, more characters and more excitement. Kimmel is better at "found comedy" than Leno and it shows, but I think there is more found comedy in NYC than LA.

[DeToxRox]

Conan could have stayed in NY if he pushed for it but wanted to do the Tonight Show that Carson did which meant moving to Burbank.

[cartman]

It is official now. Leno to retire next spring, and Fallon is taking his place.

NBC Confirms Fallon Will Succeed Leno - NYTimes.com

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

That said, I think NYC is a better setting TV shows. There's just more energy, more characters and more excitement. Kimmel is better at "found comedy" than Leno and it shows, but I think there is more found comedy in NYC than LA.

Hmm ... I wonder if this speaks to what various (potential) audiences want from that time slot.

I'm not a big fan of any of the late night/overnight shows, but what I want most is something that bears at least some resemblance to the Carson era. And that seems to come much more from the West Coast than the East Coast IMO. The guests have more glitz, less grit ... or something like that. And that was part of the appeal that Johnny had I think, the show simply felt "bigger" to me than anything (from either coast) now. Maybe my own aging accounts for some of that but I don't believe it's all of it.

I think the last time I actively enjoyed a NYC-taped show (IIRC) was Tom Snyder.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by cartman

It is official now. Leno to retire next spring, and Fallon is taking his place.

NBC Confirms Fallon Will Succeed Leno - NYTimes.com

I like Jimmy Fallon, and he certainly has his funny bits, but I don't find him overly funny-and I'm am the generation that is his target market.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hmm ... I wonder if this speaks to what various (potential) audiences want from that time slot.

I'm not a big fan of any of the late night/overnight shows, but what I want most is something that bears at least some resemblance to the Carson era. And that seems to come much more from the West Coast than the East Coast IMO. The guests have more glitz, less grit ... or something like that. And that was part of the appeal that Johnny had I think, the show simply felt "bigger" to me than anything (from either coast) now. Maybe my own aging accounts for some of that but I don't believe it's all of it.

I think the last time I actively enjoyed a NYC-taped show (IIRC) was Tom Snyder.

You've probably hit on the head why Leno eventually won the war with Letterman. Even NBC executives over the last 20 years will tell you that Letterman is funnier and a better TV host than Leno. It's just that Leno has a more broad based appeal and isn't as polarizing. Letterman probably won the first few years after his move to CBS simply because during that period of time, Dave was the less polarizing of the two because Leno was damaged goods. Once the stink of the first "Late Night War" wore off, Leno one.

I think that glitz is largely a level playing field these days. Carson's move to California was all about getting more A-list Hollywood guests. With today's travel, you could almost do the show from any major city. Letterman, Fallon and Conan trend toward less glitz because there audiences appreciate "grittier" guests.

[kcchief19]

Interesting note from Wikipedia ...

No. of episodes 2,000 (before Carson)
4,531 (under Carson)
4,429 (under Leno)
146 (under O'Brien)
Total: 11,106

If those numbers are right (it's Wikipedia, after all), Leno would be on pace to eclipse Carson for total number of shows by next February. How is that possible? He will have had the show for about nine years less.

Granted, Leno took fewer vacations and continued doing five shows a week, whereas Carson cut back to four later in his career. I'm also assuming this number includes Leno "guest host" totals before Carson left. If that's the case, I wouldn't be surprised if some pro-Carson, anti-Leno types claim that Leno didn't really pass Carson.

I would have figured that given Carson did six or seven nights a week into mid-'70s and didn't really curtail the schedule until his last 10-12 years, I'm still surprised Leno is able to catch him in fewer years.

[molson]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Interesting note from Wikipedia ...

No. of episodes 2,000 (before Carson)
4,531 (under Carson)
4,429 (under Leno)
146 (under O'Brien)
Total: 11,106

If those numbers are right (it's Wikipedia, after all), Leno would be on pace to eclipse Carson for total number of shows by next February. How is that possible? He will have had the show for about nine years less.

Granted, Leno took fewer vacations and continued doing five shows a week, whereas Carson cut back to four later in his career. I'm also assuming this number includes Leno "guest host" totals before Carson left. If that's the case, I wouldn't be surprised if some pro-Carson, anti-Leno types claim that Leno didn't really pass Carson.

I would have figured that given Carson did six or seven nights a week into mid-'70s and didn't really curtail the schedule until his last 10-12 years, I'm still surprised Leno is able to catch him in fewer years.

Carson had a ton of guest hosts fill in for him. Saw this on wikipedia breaking down just the top 8 fill-ins for Carson:

Joey Bishop (177 times, mostly in the 1960s)
Joan Rivers (93, during the 1970s and 1980s)
John Davidson (87)
Bob Newhart (87)
David Brenner (70)
McLean Stevenson (58)
Jerry Lewis (52, mostly in the 1960s)
David Letterman (51)

That's close to 700 right there.

[kcchief19]

That's one thing that's largely gone. Other than when Dave was out for extended periods following heart surgery and the shingles, the guest host is gone. At one time they rarely ran reruns and used guest hosts when Carson was on vacation and when he went to four shows a week. I guess the extra vacation time Carson took added up.

Almost surprised Letterman's Tonight host totals weren't higher. That was the first time I saw Letterman, and he was great.

[kcchief19]

ABC is touting Kimmel's win over Leno in the 18-49 last week ...

TV Ratings: Jimmy Kimmel Slighty Tops Jay Leno for the Week - Yahoo! TV

... but you have to take it with a huge grain of salt. Kimmel's numbers on NBA playoff game nights were more than double his usual ratings, and Leno's numbers were down on hockey overrun nights.

There is one interesting trend I've noticed over the last few weeks and months. Leno has been the usual machine -- 3.6 million, 0.9 in the demo virtually every single week. That's true before and after Kimmel launched. Almost no effect.

Kimmel has been pretty stable, settling into the 2.6 million. His demo number has been pretty stable, if not picking up a bit. He's been consistently at 0.7, the occasional 0.8 and then this week's 0.9.

But Letterman has been taking the hit. He was pulling around 3.2 million, 0.7 in the demo. When Kimmel first launched, he was usually tying Kimmel in the demo, beating him in overall viewers. Dave's numbers are trending down. He's now averaging 3 million viewers for the season, and that's largely due to putting up sub 3 million numbers the last few months. Now he's gone to losing to Kimmel in the demo, and barely edging him in the overall totals.

The dream scenario for Dave is that Fallon puts up Kimmel-esque numbers, retaining 90% of the Leno demo but shedding about a million viewers, Dave picks up 0.1 in the demo and rebounds to 3.2 million viewers again. I wouldn't be surprised if at the rate viewers are disappearing from network late night, Kimmel, Letterman and Fallon all end up with 2.6 million, 0.7 in the demo every single night and nobody wins.

[Matthean]

Kimmel and Letterman would have the most crossover audience. I don't see Leno's fans making the jump.

[Galaxy]

Leno is just terrible. Seriously...how do people find him funny or interesting anymore?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Leno is just terrible. Seriously...how do people find him funny or interesting anymore?

Neither of those is a huge requirement really.

Looking at the latest numbers probably tells the story here

Leno = 1.08m viewers age 18-49 but 3.7m total viewers. Over 2/3rds of his audience is over 50 (let's figure that <18 ain't a big part of the timeslot audience)

Late night, following the 11p news, you don't have to be all that funny or interesting, but you probably have to be comfortable or at least easy to watch. And that's Leno's niche.

Actually, given the timeslot, being too interesting could actually be a negative, most of those watching are trying to wind down to go to sleep.

[kcchief19]

Thought it would be interesting for an early update on the late night scenario post-Olympics. Below are fast overnight ratings for Tuesday night followed by season-to-date numbers thru December for the old Big 3.

2/25/13
Fallon: 5.636 million viewers, 4.0/10 and 1.7/8 in 18-49
Letterman: 2.75 million viewers, 2.3/6 and 0.5/2 in 18-49
Kimmel: 1.927 million viewers, 1.7/4 and 0.6/3 in 18-49

Season to date thru December:
Leno: 4.3 million viewers, 0.9/4 in 18-49
Letterman: 3.1 million viewers 0.6/3 in 18-49
Kimmel: 2.6 million viewers 0.7/3 in 18-49

Not sure we can make any definitive conclusions yet. I'm not sure Fallon is actually putting much of a dent in the 18-49 race. He's taking a tenth of a rating from both Letterman and Kimmel, but one would think they will both pick up that tenth in the weeks to come as the ratings cool. Question is how many people who were not watching the broadcast nets stick around. The old Big 3 accounted for a 10 share of 18-49, and now they are getting a 13 share. Most of Fallon's increase is due to people who were watching something else before.

Question is where does the slide end. Conan posted a 1.5 18-49 rating in week two in 2009. Hard to compare five years later and time frames -- Conan was in June, Fallon is in February sweeps following the Olympics. Fallon should stay above Conan's trajectory though.

Total viewer numbers is more interesting. Only 300,000 more viewers than the season to date numbers. Probably a statistical aberration from overnights vs. finals and one night. All three had much higher numbers on Monday.

I'm not as bullish on my earlier prediction that we reach a point where the Fallon wins 18-49 and Letterman eventually regains total viewers. I think the most likely scenario is Letterman remains about the same, Kimmel drops a bit to Fallon and Fallon comes in at about 75% of Leno's numbers, with the remaining Leno viewers finding an episode of The Golden Girls or something.

[stevew]

One would think that Kimmel should theoretically get a pretty nice spread of guests now that he's the only game in LA.

I believe Pete Holmes came back this week. He had some nice scripted stuff last time around.