Of course, if the fix is in in the government and the courts ...
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Byron Allen gets the Colbert timeslot
- Thread starter michael hagerty
- Start date
Are you guys under the impression they base their guest pool on who’s in the neighborhood? The studios fly the stars wherever they need to be to do promotion for their projects.
didn't Carson move to Burbank for better access to guests?
Yeah, in 1972---54 years ago. A lot has changed. Studio PR has evolved. So has the theory of booking guests. It's no longer "Bob Hope hasn't been on in a while and he lives just up the street. Why don't we see if he can drop by?"
Being in L.A. hasn't hurt Jimmy Kimmel's ability to book big movie, TV and music stars, and being in New York didn't hurt Stephen Colbert's. Tom Hanks knows where to go to get on a private jet at LAX or Burbank, and if he's promoting a movie, the studio picks up the tab.
There's no real disadvantage to doing late night in New York and the only disadvantage to L.A. is if you're booking stars currently appearing on Broadway. The schedule really doesn't accomodate travel. So Colbert had an advantage with those folks, and so do Fallon and Seth.
Last edited:
Which brings to mind, now that CBS has canceled both of its late night talk shows and replaced them with canned comedy, where will the big movie stars go to promote their work? Kimmel and Fallon.
Who owns CBS? Paramount. What business is Paramount in? The movie business. They also just bought Warner Brothers, who also is in te movie business. Talk about bad synergy. Disney would never have been so short sighted. When they have a movie to promote, they use every tool in the chest, including ESPN.
As I've been saying, David Ellison has to think about how this looks to the creative people he needs to make his movie studios successful. So far, if I'm a top creative person, all this bad press doesn't make me very interested in Paramount.
Who owns CBS? Paramount. What business is Paramount in? The movie business. They also just bought Warner Brothers, who also is in te movie business. Talk about bad synergy. Disney would never have been so short sighted. When they have a movie to promote, they use every tool in the chest, including ESPN.
As I've been saying, David Ellison has to think about how this looks to the creative people he needs to make his movie studios successful. So far, if I'm a top creative person, all this bad press doesn't make me very interested in Paramount.
Jimmy lacks the skills to make any kind of informed assessment in that regard. I doubt he even understands how much his show is losing. On top of his lack of "knowledge and expertise" in this regard, he has a bias that wants to portray late night talk shows as somehow being economically viable because he has a stake in their continued presence. This even further undermines any opinion he has in this regard.
His statement was flat out absurd as he lacked any information needed to make such an assessment. Posting it was utter foolishness.
Suggesting that Jimmy Kimmel, whose production company deals directly with ABC on the finances for Jimmy Kimmel Live and has for 23 years, "lacks the skills to make any kind of informed assessment" and that he "lacks any information needed to make such an assessment", is utter foolishness.
Your antipathy toward late-night hosts critical of Donald Trump has caused you to make some of the least-informed comments about late night with breathtaking confidence on this board.
I'm somewhat amused by certain self-professed experts in a wealth of topics beyond their field doubting Kimmel has similar knowledge and experience beyond that involved in being a (quite successful) host. I mean...hypothetically, someone who bankrupted multiple casinos among myriad other businesses lacks the acumen to lead the U.S. government, but sure, it's Kimmel who lacks knowledge of his own business.
Consider my breath taken.
Byron Allen hosts and owns Comics Unleashed and owns stations and networks, and evidently has the financing available to buy more.
The only question at this point is really this. Can Byron bring the late night ratings down so low that affiliate noise on the effect it is having on local 11pm news (and beyond) that CBS can't justify the paycheck they are getting to air the show?
One would hope they would have the dignity to say yes. But if they had that dignity I'd be watching a new episode of Colbert tonight.
One would hope they would have the dignity to say yes. But if they had that dignity I'd be watching a new episode of Colbert tonight.
It's worth noting that Kimmel actually IS one of us - as Lance will gladly tell you, way back in the days when Jimmy was a young radio host, he had an account here. (And he's welcome back any time.)
Seriously, though, you don't get very far in 2026 if you're "only" talent, especially in a role as prominent as Kimmel's. You HAVE to know the business backwards and forwards, especially if you have a significant piece of it at stake.
Seriously, though, you don't get very far in 2026 if you're "only" talent, especially in a role as prominent as Kimmel's. You HAVE to know the business backwards and forwards, especially if you have a significant piece of it at stake.
Yes, and that was about a half-century ago!
I first worked as a consultant for an LA station in 1972 and spent lots of time in the market. And over the years I did occasional work until returning full time 35 years ago. The biggest changes have been in the last 15 years due to the accelerating flight of the “non-Hispanic white” population. That brings with it a change in overall tastes in everything from food to music.
His actions on and off the air in recent years have been almost entirely “”us against them” red is bad, blue is good stuff. Throwing away half the potential audience when the other two OTA TV webs are doing the same sure does not make sense to me.
When I did one of the two major news talk stations in Puerto Rico, our editorial position and talk hosts were chosen to reflect the Statehood party and movement. When, later, I was given the “other” news talker, I reinforced its image as being pro-Commonwealth. Each of the underlying political parties represents just under half of the electorate. Both stations are in the top 10 in Nielsen
It is not an indication of good business sense to be one of three operations all using “Red is bad” as their cornerstone for everything else.
I have no “antipathy” towards any of the three such hosts. I just find them to use lots of exaggeration and occasional untruths (Kirk’s assassin was MAGA). That means that, in a generalization, much of what they say a most of the guests are unappealing to half the nation. And that is certainly not good business, so when I generalize by saying that there is no balance I mean that at least one of the three is settling for the smallest of thee slices of Blue while leaving 100% oF the Red unserved.
A non-political example: the Emmis FM in Buenos Aires (metro 21 million) was last out of 7 AC stations that played English music. We moved to local rock, where there was no station playing it exclusively, and we went from last out of over 30 full market signals to #1 with over a 20 share and 26 years later, it is still top 4 or 5.
Dare I ask if you feel the same about Gutfeld, flipping red and blue? (I mean, I already know, but...)
You're assuming that half of the audience agrees with everything the president does. Bad assumption.
You're also assuming his show is political. It isn't. He occasionally makes a few jokes about the president and moves on. It hasn't affected his ratings.
I don’t understand what you refer to with “flipping”.
Hard-core MAGA is a third of the population at best. Despite his supposed "landslide victory" (it wasn't), there's no overwhelming mandate for Trump's policies. Is Jimmy supposed to be doing "Biden is old hur dur dur" jokes?
That is why i say “potential.” No show is going to be entirely in sync with the viewpoints of every viewer. However, in talk shows, people will gravitate towards the content that comes closest to matching as often as possible, their own perspectives.
It is political enough to be characterized as favoring or being pro Democrat. And the selection of guests and their comments furthers this impression. It only takes a drop of poison to make a whole pitcher of punch very deadly.
The real problem is we have a president who ignores what half of actual taxpayers believe. He is turning the 250th birthday of the country into a personal political rally, paid for with taxpayer money. Shouldn't someone be concerned about that?
It's characterized that way by the government, which should have no input in what entertainers say or do. The selection of the guests is based on entertainers who have product to promote. They happen to live in a very blue city, so they share a general view. But their purpose is to promote their entertainment product.