Byron Allen gets the Colbert timeslot

[AbrahamJSimpson]

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.

"Almost entirely" is a deliberate exaggeration. Kimmel took many a shot at Biden. Right now, Biden isn't president. There isn't an election for president, so there is no other candidate to take jabs at, but that doesn't stop him from attacking the current Democratic leaders like Chuck Schumer. "Almost" is a convenient weasel word, however, as one of my professors once called it.

Fallon is the closest to the old Carson model, but Johnny was a half century ago. We aren't there now. He's not doing the same things Kimmel is, but again, that's a deliberate exaggeration (a nice way of saying a lie.)

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

These stories make for good nostalgia but don't apply here and now. There are about 260 million voting age individuals in the U.S. Democratic registrations are around 45 million, Republican registrations around 40 million. Just today, CNN reported a pool finding political independents hit their highest registration in about a decade, and just a smidge off their all time high. In no way does either political party in the US today represent "just under half" of the electorate even with the most generous mathematical calculations.

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.

Newsmax. Fox News. Salem. One America News.

I'm assuming all of them have bad business sense since they, among others, but let's just go with those, are far more "blue is bad" all day, every day vs....what, an hour of late night TV that only spends a part of the show on monologue before moving on to guests.

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).

Was that said with a straight face? They use lots of exaggeration? (Oh, and the podcaster dude's killer was precisely what Kimmel said.)

That means that, in a generalization, much of what they say a most of the guests are unappealing to half the nation.

There isn't a meaningful audience for those who don't take a stand.

And that is certainly not good business,

Standing up to defend the country is good business. Pretending this is still 1986? Not so much.

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.

This can't be serious. "Red" has plenty of round-the-clock media with no actual balance. SNL mocks anyone and everyone - they played on Biden's gaffes just as much as they do to Trump, except Biden is gone and mostly irrelevant, so of course the focus now is on the administration. But rest assured, when the democratic candidates begin to shake out for 2028, they'll be mocked plenty.

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.

We're not there, this isn't then. There have been seismic shifts in this country and in views on politics. Maybe Byron Allen can show there is some huge, untapped audience for down-the-middle, bland comedy. So far...the results sure don't look that way.

 

[CTListener]

We're not there, this isn't then. There have been seismic shifts in this country and in views on politics. Maybe Byron Allen can show there is some huge, untapped audience for down-the-middle, bland comedy. So far...the results sure don't look that way.

That's what gets my goat the most about David's posts: his citations of his radio success stories in Argentina or Ecuador as if they're in any way relevant to U.S. radio.

 

[secondchoice]

As a public corporation, there is considerable risk in claiming income and loss that cannot be proven or displayed. If CBS executives make a statement, it has to generally be within the realm of reality, or there are all kinds of legal ramifications, none of which are pleasant.

Unfortunately the new biggest shareholders got the results they want. Why let the truth get in the way.

If the economics were that bad why weren't there major changes three or four years ago? I seriously doubt you can go from profitable to losing $40 million in a year.

Why did they offer him a new contract last year? Dropping the Friday tapings didn't to anything to recover the fixed costs. I was surprised when I saw how small the NBC Tonight show studio was. The Ed Sullivan most likely is very expensive and they should have found more economical settings years ago. ABC ditched Times Square.

I wish they would have just told the truth that the approval from the Trump Administration wouldn't happen unless we get rid of any non Trump believers. And if you don't have our political views you can't work here. It the privilege of ownership.

 

[davideduardo]

"Almost entirely" is a deliberate exaggeration. Kimmel took many a shot at Biden. Right now, Biden isn't president. There isn't an election for president, so there is no other candidate to take jabs at, but that doesn't stop him from attacking the current Democratic leaders like Chuck Schumer. "Almost" is a convenient weasel word, however, as one of my professors once called it.

Again, I clearly stated that it only takes a small amount of polarized content two flavor, a whole program or station. I have watched enough of all of the late night shows, both recently, and in recent years, to know that the overwhelming flavor comes from the strongest “spice“ that is added to the content recipe.

These stories make for good nostalgia but don't apply here and now. There are about 260 million voting age individuals in the U.S. Democratic registrations are around 45 million, Republican registrations around 40 million. Just today, CNN reported a pool finding political independents hit their highest registration in about a decade, and just a smidge off their all time high. In no way does either political party in the US today represent "just under half" of the electorate even with the most generous mathematical calculations.

But the best test of polarization is based on the actual election results. I know many conservatives who are registered as “independent“ because they do not want to be discoverable online as being Republicans if they live in more progressive states or cities. Years ago, meaning “before the pandemic”, I was registered as a Republican and got lots of emails and regular mails trying to make me “see the light“ and drop my horrible way of thinking by crossing over to the blue side of thinking. At that point, I became frightened about the possibility of more than just verbal attacks and changed my registration to “independent“.

Newsmax. Fox News. Salem. One America News.

Except for Fox, the others are very limited in reach, often being on poor technical facilities like the Salem affiliates. No comparison to ABC NBC CBS, MS- immigration whatever and CNN.

I'm assuming all of them have bad business sense since they, among others, but let's just go with those, are far more "blue is bad" all day, every day vs....what, an hour of late night TV that only spends a part of the show on monologue before moving on to guests.

In this discussion, we were talking only about the three over the air real time, traditional television networks. There are plenty of opportunities in cable only channels (most don’t get impressive “carry” lists) and streams, but the three networks all have the same orientation.

Was that said with a straight face? They use lots of exaggeration? (Oh, and the podcaster dude's killer was precisely what Kimmel said.)

I saw, as most of us did, the repeat of that segment over and over. And I agree that there was a tone to the comment. But I believe the tone was “can’t you see that this guy was a crazy MAGA character?“

There isn't a meaningful audience for those who don't take a stand.

Again, going back to the prior hosts as far back as the 60s, he hosts did not take a stand or need to take a stand.

Standing up to defend the country is good business. Pretending this is still 1986? Not so much.

You are assuming that you know what defending the country is. In fact, different people will have different perspectives.

We're not there, this isn't then. There have been seismic shifts in this country and in views on politics. Maybe Byron Allen can show there is some huge, untapped audience for down-the-middle, bland comedy. So far...the results sure don't look that way.

Byron Allen does not need to get the same kind of results that they “comedy” shows require. He is using cheap programming to get a moderate level of audience… if he is successful… for which he can charge a moderate level for advertising and make a decent profit. CBS on the other hand is apparently quite happy to receive a guaranteed payment against zero expenses instead of a considerable loss and high expenses and overhead. With the huge decline in over the air television viewing, Byron Allen’s theory may turn out to be very smart. But just like new primetimetelevision shows on those networks, some work and some don’t and there is no way of knowing in advance which will win, and which will lose

 

[davideduardo]

That's what gets my goat the most about David's posts: his citations of his radio success stories in Argentina or Ecuador as if they're in any way relevant to U.S. radio.

Any evaluation of competitive radio success and failure is relevant. There is no difference in the way I programmed in Perú or Panamá or Santo Domingo than in Miami or LA or Houston. Ratings are essentially designed to give the same metrics. Formats are structured to secure the best time spent listening. Music is selected and scheduled using Selector or MusicMaster. Ad agencies buy radio, using the same metrics and systems. Stations are licensed in fairly similar manners and with similar powers.

There is nothing I did in Chile that was not using the same thought process and techniques as I might use in Denver or Chicago.

My most extensive success stories are, in fact, in Puerto Rico, U.S.A. Their, I was responsible for six or seven number one stations over a period of roughly 50 years. The techniques and practices we used our surprisingly similar whether in 2015 or 1970 sure, there were little changes based on evolving ratings, methodologies and the rise in the 70s of FM, but in every other aspect, the techniques and practices have been based on the simple theory that if you find out what people want to hear and give it to them, they will listen.

 

[TheBigA]

Again, going back to the prior hosts as far back as the 60s, he hosts did not take a stand or need to take a stand.

Do you remember Dick Cavett? He certainly took a political stand. No question where he was.

BTW Carson didn't ignore Watergate or the hearings. He made mention of them in his monologue, and one study even suggested that Carson's mentions of Watergate adversely affected Nixon's polls at the time.

We first estimate a model of Nixon’s Gallup approval ratings from February 1972 to August 1974 and controlling for national policy “mood,” the monthly number of “Watergate” mentions in The New York Times, monthly unemployment, and quarterly GDP. The punchline: A one-unit increase in Carson’s mentioning the Watergate scandal in some way lowered Nixon’s Gallup rating by 1.4 points over the time series. Lacking statistical significance, however, is the number of New York Times mentions. This may be partially due to the paper’s largest upward swing occurring just after Nixon’s Gallup rating began its winter 1973 slide. Using “skeptical” Bayesian priors in separate models, however, we can undermine Carson’s influence to the point the New York Times mentions are causal (and Carson’s mentions are not). This will satisfy critics who can’t accept that a television comedian could affect public opinion. But, taken in total, the models suggest a good case for Carson influencing Nixon’s approval, even if one wants to give the news media most of the credit.

So to say that late night hosts didn't take a stand in political issues is false.

 

[secondchoice]

Since 1970, hasn't the late night hosts always took shots at the President? And usually managed to take aim at Congress occasionally too.

 

[kevtronics]

Years ago, meaning "before the pandemic", I was registered as a Republican and got lots of emails and regular mails trying to make me "see the light" and drop my horrible way of thinking by crossing over to the blue side of thinking. At that point, I became frightened about the possibility of more than just verbal attacks and changed my registration to "independent".

Receiving a few nasty e-mails is in no way comparable to minorities, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ people in red states literally being in fear of their lives and physical freedom at the hands of white Christian nationalists and ICE agents.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Again, I clearly stated that it only takes a small amount of polarized content two flavor, a whole program or station.

Stating it doesn't make it true.

I have watched enough of all of the late night shows, both recently, and in recent years, to know that the overwhelming flavor comes from the strongest “spice“ that is added to the content recipe.

So just a couple of jokes makes the program one sided. Which would mean since the shows took shots at Biden, that they are, in fact, rightward leaning. You don't get to have it only one way. If it's one or two jokes that somehow determines what you are for all eternity, then that's how it works.

OR

Shows take shots at figures in the news that are recognizable. That are still in the news. Who is that right now?

But the best test of polarization is based on the actual election results.

Which show we are deeply, deeply polarized.

I know many conservatives who are registered as “independent“ because they do not want to be discoverable online as being Republicans if they live in more progressive states or cities.

Suuuurrrrrreeeeeee.

Years ago, meaning “before the pandemic”, I was registered as a Republican and got lots of emails and regular mails trying to make me “see the light“ and drop my horrible way of thinking by crossing over to the blue side of thinking. At that point, I became frightened about the possibility of more than just verbal attacks and changed my registration to “independent“.

So you were "frightened" about something that didn't actually happen. That's all well and good, but as is said so often, you are not representative of everyone. Your circle of like-minded individuals is similarly not like everyone, nor is mine. Anecdotes are not statistically valid data points.

Except for Fox, the others are very limited in reach, often being on poor technical facilities like the Salem affiliates. No comparison to ABC NBC CBS, MS- immigration whatever and CNN.

When it's convenient, the networks are dying, dead, just one part of a much larger pool of content. Also when it's convenient, they are the behemoths and it's not fair to compare anyone else to them. Because the Internet apparently has no reach.

In this discussion, we were talking only about the three over the air real time, traditional television networks. There are plenty of opportunities in cable only channels (most don’t get impressive “carry” lists) and streams, but the three networks all have the same orientation.

YOU may be talking about that because it allegedly supports some false view that there isn't a plethora of content available at viewers' fingertips.

I saw, as most of us did, the repeat of that segment over and over. And I agree that there was a tone to the comment. But I believe the tone was “can’t you see that this guy was a crazy MAGA character?“

Again, YOU may believe that. Great. Plenty of us saw it as a rebuke of the rush to pain the alleged perpetrator as a left-wing loon right out of the gate, when in fact he was part of a very not-left family and had plenty of not-left digital footprints.

Again, going back to the prior hosts as far back as the 60s, he hosts did not take a stand or need to take a stand.

Some did. Some did not. It's also irrelevant because this is not the '60s. It's 60 years past the 60s. Things have changed. People have changed. Audiences have changed.

You are assuming that you know what defending the country is. In fact, different people will have different perspectives.

I do know what it is and I will do so until my final days on this mortal coil.

Byron Allen does not need to get the same kind of results that they “comedy” shows require. He is using cheap programming to get a moderate level of audience

Moderate may be doing some heavy lifting here given the data points so far. But nowhere was it said he had to get the same results. Changing to things that weren't said seems to be a common theme. The statement was that maybe he will find a large, heretofore untapped audience for what he's doing. But that so far, that's not how it's looking.

CBS on the other hand is apparently quite happy to receive a guaranteed payment against zero expenses instead of a considerable loss and high expenses and overhead.

Or they wanted to get a deal done and want to stay on the good side of a certain someone.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....

With the huge decline in over the air television viewing, Byron Allen’s theory may turn out to be very smart. But just like new primetimetelevision shows on those networks, some work and some don’t and there is no way of knowing in advance which will win, and which will lose

So now we're back to the huge decline, which is of course true. But viewership of content hasn't declined. It's spread out. Which means there a multitude of sources available for whatever content people desire, be it a more traditional talk/variety show at night, pure politics, sports, movies or whatever. No audience is being left without alternatives.

 

[michael hagerty]

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?

Again---it's pure profit for the network. As for the affiliates---I'm unaware of any data that shows what follows a newscast has an effect on the newscast itself. Lead-in, sure. Lead-out, no. So what's at stake here is however many local commercial minutes are in the 25 minutes between 11:35 and midnight.

I'm guessing it's four---five, tops. So if---just for illustration, because there's a wide range of spot pricing between market 1 and market 200-something----KPIX in San Francisco was getting $100 for a minute during Colbert and can only get $25 for one during Comics Unleashed, that's 75 bucks per minute lost times five---or $375 a day.

That works out to $97,500 a year in lost revenue, which ain't nothin', but also isn't catastrophic. I think the current ownership of CBS is going to be much more interested in what it makes than what its affilates do...and I expect they're already working out their exit strategy from OTA television for the medium to long term.

 

[davideduardo]

Do you remember Dick Cavett? He certainly took a political stand. No question where he was.

BTW Carson didn't ignore Watergate or the hearings. He made mention of them in his monologue, and one study even suggested that Carson's mentions of Watergate adversely affected Nixon's polls at the time.



So to say that late night hosts didn't take a stand in political issues is false.

My point is that occurrences such as those that you mentioned were rare and based on extremely “huge“ news items or events. Today it seems like every show… and just about every quarter hour in every show… has something politically themed in its content.

 

[davideduardo]

I'm guessing it's four---five, tops. So if---just for illustration, because there's a wide range of spot pricing between market 1 and market 200-something----KPIX in San Francisco was getting $100 for a minute during Colbert and can only get $25 for one during Comics Unleashed, that's 75 bucks per minute lost times five---or $375 a day.

That works out to $97,500 a year in lost revenue, which ain't nothin', but also isn't catastrophic. I think the current ownership of CBS is going to be much more interested in what it makes than what its affilates do...and I expect they're already working out their exit strategy from OTA television for the medium to long term.

Those numbers are based on an estimation that those minutes after each station's late news are actually sold for money. Actually, in the present state of local television, most of those late, after the news, segments are tossed in as part of cheap packages that are not show specific. With the decline in local business for over the Air television, it is likely that little or no actual revenue will be lost as those package spots can simply be rescheduled into other hours instead of Ad Council PSAs.

 

[TheBigA]

My point is that occurrences such as those that you mentioned were rare and based on extremely “huge“ news items or events. Today it seems like every show… and just about every quarter hour in every show… has something politically themed in its content.

It wasn't rare. Comedians made political jokes all the time. Ever hear of George Carlin? How about Mort Sahl? How about Vaughn Meader. He recorded an album called The First Family lampooning John F. Kennedy. The point is it happened before, and the president didn't go after Johnny Carson or Dick Cavett. Did he? Try to at least acknowledge that this president is responding in ways even Nixon didn't. Late night hosts didn't ignore political issues.

Meanwhile on the radio, almost every talk show is political, and every political show isn't just conservative, but rabidly anti-democrat. It's not that blue is bad, but that blue is illegal, needs to be arrested, and prevented from voting. That was not the case in the 60s or 70s. None of those radio stations are being investigated by the FCC. There are no concerns about the public interest or equal time.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Since 1970, hasn't the late night hosts always took shots at the President? And usually managed to take aim at Congress occasionally too.

Absolutely. Major congressional leaders get their share but let’s be honest, whoever occupies the White House and the opposition candidate when one is determined get the most barbs.

And if you’re going to self proclaim yourself as the greatest ever, the most powerful, the whatever else, you should darn well expect to get plenty of those barbs too. The same person who constantly berates others doesn’t get a pass on being berated just as hard.

 

[ted chittenden]

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.

Regarding your last paragraph, NPR (which is a news network, not a late night TV comedy show) has indicated on multiple occasions that it has tried multiple times to get people from this Administration to counter the claims made by Administration critics with limited success at best. One thing that is very clear is that President Trump does not take criticism very well as what happened on his interview with "Meet The Press," demonstrates, and I suspect that many in this Administration are echoing his behaviors in dealing with members of the press or critics (which he often assumes to be one and the same). As @TheBigA pointed out in another thread, the U.S. president is supposed to serve all Americans, not just those who elected him.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

My point is that occurrences such as those that you mentioned were rare and based on extremely “huge“ news items or events. Today it seems like every show… and just about every quarter hour in every show… has something politically themed in its content.

It doesn’t seem like that because it’s not remotely true. Kimmel and Fallon comprise two shows. Three when Colbert was in the mix. Toss in The View too, despite having a conservative commentator. Apparently their shots don’t count as “poisoning the recipe” or whatever the food analogy was supposed to be.

This excuse for a president prides himself on the unprecedented. That comes with increased scrutiny. Biden didn’t attract the same volume perhaps because he was generally boring (in the best not having to worry about the future of the world way) as hell.

 

[TheBigA]

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.

I just checked some recent guest lists for Jimmy Kimmel:

Tonight’s guests on Jimmy Kimmel Live! include Tim Allen, Jack Quaid, with Olivia Rodrigo performing.

Tim Allen is a big supporter of the president.

Tim Allen identifies as fiscally conservative and emotionally liberal, with a nuanced, independent approach to politics that occasionally aligns with Republican ideals and selectively admires Donald Trump.