Byron Allen gets the Colbert timeslot

[umfan]

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.

Oh, I'm so hurt.

Jimmy basically gets to sit in a chair and not concern himself with the business of staffing and funding his show. He further has no direct information on the finances of the CBS show, so I absolutely stand by my comment. Kimmel has zero idea of what the finances of the Late Show were. For him to declare otherwise is an outright lie.

 

[michael hagerty]

Oh, I'm so hurt.

Jimmy basically gets to sit in a chair and not concern himself with the business of staffing and funding his show. He further has no direct information on the finances of the CBS show, so I absolutely stand by my comment. Kimmel has zero idea of what the finances of the Late Show were. For him to declare otherwise is an outright lie.

I've seen doubling down before, but damn.

That is breathtaking confidence with literally nothing to back it up.

It's your credibility. Shred it at your own discretion.

 

[umfan]

I've seen doubling down before, but damn.

That is breathtaking confidence with literally nothing to back it up.

The inability to back it up was Kimmel's ill informed comment with you dying on the hill to defend the indefensible.

 

[michael hagerty]

The inability to back it up was Kimmel's ill informed comment with you dying on the hill to defend the indefensible.

Tell me, apart from your opinion, how you know Kimmel's comment was ill-informed. More to the point, defend your comment that Jimmy "basically gets to sit in a chair and not concern himself with the business of staffing and funding his show." Support that with facts and I'll apologize publicly and concede the point.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Wait, you’re seriously suggesting the hosts who have clearly established a friendly competitive relationship supportive of each other have no insights into the broader business. That…cannot be a serious take.

Nor, from earlier in this thread, is that “none of the big three networks” — which yet again ignores the well established Fox News and endlessly promoted One America, Mews Max etc—have a “conservative view.” Two still have a fact-based view. Sometimes facts aren’t to the liking of the administration. The same networks pointing out, in remarkably restrained terms, issues with the current regime were, two years ago, repeatedly leading their programs with negative Biden stories. The third used to be in that mold, but is now in full “we salute you” mode to the fascists.

 

[michael hagerty]

Wait, you’re seriously suggesting the hosts who have clearly established a friendly competitive relationship supportive of each other have no insights into the broader business.

I was gonna save this, but what the hell.

Colbert and Kimmel also have the same agent, James Dixon (he represents Jon Stewart, too).

 

[ted chittenden]

It took less than three years from the 1965 start of the draft for Vietnam protest songs to make their way on to Top 40 playlists, which would certainly jibe with your timeline of American popular opinion. We went from Sgt. Barry Sadler's big hit "Ballad of The Green Berets" and Pat Boone's lesser-known, but pro-war (or at least anti-draft dodger) "Wish You Were Here, Little Buddy" in 1966 to the Animals' "Sky Pilot" and Donovan's "Hurdy Gurdy Man." By 1969, just four years in, Top 40 radio was very much anti-war in its sound -- "Sweet Cherry Wine" and "Bad Moon Rising" -- followed in 1970 by Edwin Starr's snarling "War." None of these songs would have been the AM hits they were if the war was receiving anything close to majority support.

Keep in mind that top-40 radio was heavily playing even then to a younger audience whose members were praying that their number wouldn't be picked in the draft lottery. There was a lot more support for the Vietnam War among older people who were no longer qualified for the draft. The fact that antiwar songs were popular on both the radio and the record charts (and they were all great songs by the way) *only* signaled how younger audiences felt about the war and not necessarily how their parents and teachers felt about the same war.

 

[fybush]

Everyone here is entitled to an opinion, of course, but it defies any sort of sense to suggest that Kimmel is just "a guy who sits in a chair."

There's a very long history of entertainers who are also shrewd businesspeople, and it predates television itself - go back more than a century to Fairbanks and Pickford and the formation of United Artists for one very good example, or Desi and Lucy a generation later, or Carson or Letterman another few generations afterward.

You don't spend 23 years both hosting and owning one of the premiere late-night franchises on a major network without developing a pretty deep understanding of exactly how the business works. Does Kimmel have access to the precise numbers that Ellison does? Probably not. Does he have a very good ability to figure out what those numbers are, based on his own dealings with Disney and his behind-the-scenes ties to Colbert (through a shared agent, etc.?) Absolutely, and it's just ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

 

[TheBigA]

In fact earlier this year, Kimmel himself was hit with a cut in his show's budget:

‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ to Cut Back Music Bookings to Twice a Week (Exclusive)

The move is the latest blow in a late night ecosystem that's been cutting down on musical guests over the past several years.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

So he knows about budgets and how they impact his program. Meanwhile Comics Unleashed has no musical guests. Just comedians.

 

[Weiserguy]

So he knows about budgets and how they impact his program. Meanwhile Comics Unleashed has no musical guests. Just comedians.

The nature of Comics Unleashed, and the comedians who appear on the show, makes me wonder if it's a pay-for-play arrangement. Is it a way for an up-and-coming comedian to raise his or her profile a bit in exchange for a payment to Byron Allen's company? If it is, I'm not suggesting it's wrong or illegal, just so long as it's disclosed somewhere in the show (such as the closing credits). But that's a very different model than the traditional late night programs, where guests get paid at least scale.

 

[TheBigA]

But that's a very different model than the traditional late night programs, where guests get paid at least scale.

The reason they get paid is because the union requires it.

 

[Weiserguy]

The reason they get paid is because the union requires it.

That's why it's called scale. However, in the greater scheme of things, after you've factored in all the salaries, licensing costs, overhead, graphics, etc., etc., the talent fees paid to guests on these shows is a rounding error in their production budgets.

 

[michael hagerty]

The nature of Comics Unleashed, and the comedians who appear on the show, makes me wonder if it's a pay-for-play arrangement. Is it a way for an up-and-coming comedian to raise his or her profile a bit in exchange for a payment to Byron Allen's company? If it is, I'm not suggesting it's wrong or illegal, just so long as it's disclosed somewhere in the show (such as the closing credits). But that's a very different model than the traditional late night programs, where guests get paid at least scale.

My understanding is that Byron pays the guests SAG-AFTRA scale. That's not a lot of money---I believe it's under $500 for a five-minute shot, less than $1,000 for six-to-fifteen minutes on camera, and under $1,500 for sixteen to thirty minutes.

If he has four guests and pays them for the whole show, that's less than $6,000, and Byron only does 132 new episodes a year, making his talent costs (not counting himself) somewhere between $750,000 and $800,000 a season. Cheap.

 

[TexasTom]

I've seen doubling down before, but damn.

That is breathtaking confidence with literally nothing to back it up.

It's your credibility. Shred it at your own discretion.

I'd say that the particular person (UMFAN) that you're debating with doesn't really have much credibility to shred, at least when it comes to this particular subject. It's clear that he just hates both Kimmel and Colbert.

As a side note, it seems to me that Kimmel didn't start out as an especially political host. The "feud" between Kimmel and Matt Damon was more his style. But Trump's attempt to repeal the ACA during his first term hit a sensitive subject for Kimmel (due to the health issues of Kimmel's son) and when Kimmel spoke about it Trump reacted in the way that he so often does. If Trump had just let it go, that probably would have been the end of it, but Trump is incapable of doing that -- so in the end it is really the way that Trump overreacted that has led to the continued conflict with Kimmel.

In other words, like so many of Trump's problems, his conflict with Kimmel is largely one of Trump's own creation. But it is also clear that after years of this, Kimmel really and truly despises Donald Trump. The absolute contempt that Kimmel now feels for Trump comes through pretty clearly. Aside from that, I'd say that Kimmel probably gets some extra joy out of needling Trump because he knows that Trump will react badly -- again, a problem that Trump has created for himself.

 

[michael hagerty]

I'd say that the particular person (UMFAN) that you're debating with doesn't really have much credibility to shred, at least when it comes to this particular subject. It's clear that he just hates both Kimmel and Colbert.

As a side note, it seems to me that Kimmel didn't start out as an especially political host. The "feud" between Kimmel and Matt Damon was more his style. But Trump's attempt to repeal the ACA during his first term hit a sensitive subject for Kimmel (due to the health issues of Kimmel's son) and when Kimmel spoke about it Trump reacted in the way that he so often does. If Trump had just let it go, that probably would have been the end of it, but Trump is incapable of doing that -- so in the end it is really the way that Trump overreacted that has led to the continued conflict with Kimmel.

In other words, like so many of Trump's problems, his conflict with Kimmel is largely one of Trump's own creation. But it is also clear that after years of this, Kimmel really and truly despises Donald Trump.

Kimmel frames it a bit differently in an interview with Vulture three weeks ago. Essential pull-quote:

“I feel sorry for him (Trump). “He obviously didn’t get hugged a lot.”

(His remarks about the president came as he discussed his longstanding friendship and professional relationship with comedian Adam Carolla, a frequent supporter of Trump and the policies of his second administration.)

“I love Adam, and he loves me, and I’ve just decided that if I could change his mind, I would try to do that, but I don’t think I can. I don’t think fighting with him helps.”

"Trump is “different. I don’t love him, but I don’t hate him, either.”

https://www.vulture.com/article/jimmy-kimmel-profile-donald-trump-late-night-suspension.html

I'd say that Kimmel probably gets some extra joy out of needling Trump because he knows that Trump will react badly -- again, a problem that Trump has created for himself.

It's schoolyard psychology 101---if you react poorly to jokes about you, you'll get more jokes. You've made it fun.

And yeah, Jimmy is getting some joy out of it. He's begun his two-month summer vacation, and among his fill-in hosts:

‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ Reveals Summer Guest Hosts Including Rosie O’Donnell As Matt Damon Crashes Show In A Trojan Horse

Jimmy Kimmel announced Trump nemesis Rosie O'Donnell will be among the guest hosts filling in for him during his summer break on 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!'

deadline.com

 

[vw86]

As a side note, it seems to me that Kimmel didn't start out as an especially political host. The "feud" between Kimmel and Matt Damon was more his style.

OT, but Thursday was Jimmy's last show before his summer hiatus where he brings in guest hosts. Matt showed up and it was a great bit.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

Rosie O'donnell and Oprah got a lot of bashing on The Man Show, along with other womanosphere stars of the late 90s/early 2000s

 

[umfan]

Tell me, apart from your opinion, how you know Kimmel's comment was ill-informed. More to the point, defend your comment that Jimmy "basically gets to sit in a chair and not concern himself with the business of staffing and funding his show." Support that with facts and I'll apologize publicly and concede the point.

Support to me how Kimmel somehow had inside information into CBS finances to make his ill informed comments. It was your sharing and support of that absurdity which led to this dialogue. As Kimmel has not supported his contention, I'm on solid ground in taking away that he's doing nothing but pontificating, without facts or logic as he often does. Support with facts that he had this closely held information and I'll concede the point.

 

[vw86]

Kimmel does not have inside information into CBS finances. No one here is suggesting he does.

Picture it this way in radio terms: Kimmel is a heritage morning host on an iHeart morning show in a Top 5 market. Colbert is a heritage host on an Audacy station in the same market on a similar format. Both clusters have similar ratings. Both shows have similar budgets.

Kimmel isn't going to know Colbert's finances line by line. But there are going to be some major similarities.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Support to me how Kimmel somehow had inside information into CBS finances to make his ill informed comments.

So you assume them to be ill-informed based on your own lack of knowledge about what kind of knowledge someone doing the same type of program, for years, and who is plugged into the industry would have. That….is one way to go about things. But in this case, I’m far more inclined to believe someone in the business has better knowledge than you might possess about the topic.

It was your sharing and support of that absurdity which led to this dialogue.

Actually no….but sure. If that feels good.

As Kimmel has not supported his contention, I'm on solid ground in taking away that he's doing nothing but pontificating, without facts or logic as he often does.

That isn’t how it works.

Support with facts that he had this closely held information and I'll concede the point.

Support with facts that someone who does the same thing, and is well connected in the industry, does not have good insights and I’ll concede the point.

My breath shall not be held.