I've heard that "loses $40 million a year" quote a few times but have a hard time believing it. Where was it attributed?
Matt Belloni at Puck broke the story initially, quoting sources inside CBS, while calling the premise into question.
The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal both confirmed the figure with multiple people in a position to know at CBS, independent of Belloni and of each other.
CBS’s decision to end its long-running “Late Show” franchise touched off a firestorm—and is a grim sign for a challenged television format.
web.archive.org
Beyond that, Colbert has made reference to it on-air multiple times, usually as a set-up to a joke that $16 million of it was actually the
60 Minutes settlement, so it's really only $24 million.
Jimmy Kimmel, prior to his three-air-day pause, went on the record in Variety and suggested that the only way Colbert's show was losing $40 million a year is if they were only counting advertising revenue, which is not what networks do. Essential pull-quote:
"I just want to say that the idea that
Stephen Colbert‘s show was losing $40 million a year is beyond nonsensical. These alleged insiders who supposedly analyze the budgets of the shows — I don’t know who they are, but I do know they don’t know what they’re talking about. They seem to only be focused on advertising revenue and have completely forgotten about affiliate fees, which number in the hundreds of millions — probably in total billions — and you must allocate a certain percentage of those fees to late-night shows. It really is surprising how little the media seems to know about how the media works."
Emmy-nominated Jimmy Kimmel calls $40M Colbert loss reports "nonsensical" and explains why he's voting for the late night host.
variety.com
I think it was a rumor some CBS person said off the record when the network wanted to end Colbert for political reasons. After all, CBS didn't want to look like it was kowtowing once again, ending a show that was #1 in its time slot, so frame it as a cost decision, not capitulation.
Most people believe it was a cover story---Paramount wanted to get the Skydance deal done and eliminating a thorn in Trump's side would likely speed that along at the regulatory level.
That does not mean it can't be a cover story with a kernel or more of truth.
Why would CBS have a late night show losing that much money and do nothing about it until the whole Trump thing became a problem? It wasn't like the show was profitable until recently and then it fell off a cliff.
Again, as Kimmel points out, it's all in how you run the numbers. Also, there's evidence that
Late Show was undergoing cost cuts---the most prominent of which was the departure of Jon Batiste as bandleader three years ago. Louis Cato is talented, but has nowhere near the profile Batiste had (Emmys, Grammys and Oscars).
Also, every "Colbert Questionaire" and "Rescue Dog Rescue" milks more content out of a single guest booking and wife Evie's appearances have become more frequent.
I heard a quote that Johnny Carson brought in a quarter of the NBC Television Network's revenue during his heyday. Today's late night shows aren't anywhere near as profitable as they once were but I can't believe they are actually losing money.
Even adjusted for inflation, Johnny's budget was nothing compared to Colbert's.
Tonight taped three nights a week, on a set at NBC Burbank in studio 1 that also was also used for taping other shows at other hours of the day including game shows, Bob Hope's specials and Tom Snyder's first season of
Tomorrow.
That's use of an existing facility, not rental of a Broadway theater for one show 160 nights a year.
The Ed Sullivan is a cost CBS was willing to take on when they hired David Letterman 33 years ago. They didn't have an equivalent of 30 Rock in New York, so they had to find one and the idea of connecting with a bit of CBS history (Sullivan) was compelling.
Why does everyone except Fox still have a big budget 11:35 show?
Tonight (Fallon)'s costs are lower. They shoot it in an existing studio at 30 Rock.
Kimmel's, too. His set is in a building Disney bought five years before he started his show.
Why did Seth Myers get to slim down some costs but is still on the air at 12:35?
The budget for Seth (again, shot in a studio NBC has owned since 1933) is a fraction of even Fallon's. Some of the crew is shared with
SNL. He had to ditch the band entirely.
Beyond that---Lorne Michaels is in charge of NBC late night programming. He'll protect Seth and Fallon. When Lorne retires or dies, the network will be making decisions and they may make very different ones.
Why did James Corden claim it was HE who wanted to end his 12:35 CBS show, not the network?
Y'know how, most times when someone gets canned, they say something about "to spend more time with family?"
Some people are okay with "they canned me." Some aren't. Some networks feel it's better for their image at that moment for it to be the talent's idea, or "by mutual agreement" or even "taking a hiatus while we work on new and exciting concepts as we continue our valued business relationship."
When Steve Allen started the late night variety and comedy show concept, he didn't have a staff of 100 as Colbert reportedly has. He probably shared some drafty Manhattan side street theater with several other shows.
It was the Hudson Theater on 44th, two doors off Broadway, but NBC had owned it outright since 1950, buying it for a show called
Broadway Open House.
NBC sold it in '62, since between 30 Rock and Burbank, they had more than enough space.
I'm sure the networks can still have late night comedy and chatter that will turn a profit for a few years more, if they did it frugally.
How frugally and how much of it would the audience notice? The thing about show business is that you've gotta put on a show to get the business.
latenighter.com
