Byron Allen gets the Colbert timeslot

[michael hagerty]

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.

And---again---Kimmel and Colbert share an agent.

For those who don't know, high-powered agents like James Dixon make it their business to know the financials involved so they can perform the best negotiation for their clients. They don't fly blind. And they share that information with their clients so their clients are on the same page.

 

[umfan]

My breath shall not be held.

Good, because you likely couldn't handle doing so, even for a short time.

Since no one else will offer any objective information into this, I will do so.

The main point of contention here is Kimel's assertion that Colbert's show could not have been losing anything close to what CBS claimed. He offered nothing to support this, not even a basic rundown of the finances of his own show. Yet, for whatever reason, his assertion, per many on this thread, should be taken at face value even though he has a motive for not wanting it thought that late night shows, like his own, are big money losers.

CBS Says Late-Night Deal With Byron Allen Will Generate $15 Million in Profit

How to make big, well, some bucks in late night? According to CBS, the trick is to cancel your traditional show and lease the time to someone else. The Paramount Skydance broadcast outlet, which has b...

www.yahoo.com

"All the networks have had to grapple with how to handle late night programs, which remain a staple of American culture and conversation, but no longer draw the crowds they once did when Johnny Carson, Letterman and Jay Leno held sway. Ad spending on late night television shows fell to $209 million in 2025, according to Guideline, down from $519.7 million in 2017 — a drop of nearly 60%. "The Late Show" accounted for 27% of all spending on late-night TV shows in 2025, according to the company's data, and 29% of all spending so far in 2026. "

Even if we were to assume that Colbert's show got an equal third of the total ad spend, which would be less than $70M, it's hardly a stretch, given Colbert's salary and the large crew requirements that the show cost $110M annually to produce. More likely is that CBS got less than that $70M. The cratering of ad revenue in that space makes a big annual loss very probable. Kimmel doesn't challenge that the show was losing money. Why would CBS continue to bear this expense? It's not even a loss leader because it didn't help other shows.

"With this 'time buy' model, we have shifted an hour that was losing roughly $40 million annually to $15 million in profit — a $55 million swing."

Say the loss was $25M instead of $40M, it's still a substantial loss, with no real return. The move erases that and provides positive cash flow. A logical business reason to make such a move.

Considering the cratering of revenue, the lack of any objective information from Kimmel, or anyone else to support his assertion, and the objective information I've provided here, it's clear Kimmel was talking out of the part of his anatomy that sits on the toilet.

 

[umfan]

And---again---Kimmel and Colbert share an agent.

For those who don't know, high-powered agents like James Dixon make it their business to know the financials involved so they can perform the best negotiation for their clients. They don't fly blind. And they share that information with their clients so their clients are on the same page.

Sure. Now share that information and you will have proven your point. No need to comment further until you are ready to do so. I've more than held up my end on this. Dixon and Kimmel have a vested interest in countering that narrative that late night shows bleed money. Simply suggesting that what they say on this topic should be taken at face value is absurd.

 

[michael hagerty]

Sure. Now share that information and you will have proven your point.

What you and I have in common---beyond being (I assume) carbon-based life forms---is that neither of us can provide irrefutable facts on this matter. I've quoted Kimmel directly, provided links to where he's said it and given background as to how he would have the knowledge.

You, on the other hand, are making derogatory and defamatory accusations about Kimmel---that he "gets to sit in a chair and not concern himself with the business of staffing and funding his show", and that his statements about the Colbert situation are an "outright lie". Those are the comments that require a defense backed up with facts.

 

[Don CT]

Has CBS or ABC ever released itemized reports on how much each late show costs to produce. CBS should back up their claims with how much money they were losing by actually showing us the raw numbers.

 

[TheBigA]

Has CBS or ABC ever released itemized reports on how much each late show costs to produce. CBS should back up their claims with how much money they were losing by actually showing us the raw numbers.

CBS itself never publicly claimed the show was losing $40 million. That was reported by unnamed "sources."

Contextualizing claim Colbert's 'Late Show' was losing CBS $40M annually

We tracked down the apparent origin of the claim: reports by Puck and the New York Post.

www.snopes.com

Snopes says:

• In July 2025, as some critics of CBS's decision to cancel "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" questioned the network's motives, social media posts claimed the popular late-night show was losing at least $40 million per year.
• The claim appeared to stem from reports published by a media outlet called Puck and the New York Post on July 18. However, Snopes could not corroborate the reporting because it relied on information from anonymous sources.

Companies don't have to lose money to cancel a show. The contract was up, and they didn't renew. The reasons really don't matter. It's not the kind of thing you can sue over or nave any rights to. This isn't like reality TV where the public gets to vote on something.

 

[Don CT]

CBS itself never publicly claimed the show was losing money. That was reported by unnamed "sources."

Contextualizing claim Colbert's 'Late Show' was losing CBS $40M annually

We tracked down the apparent origin of the claim: reports by Puck and the New York Post.

www.snopes.com

Snopes says:



Companies don't have to lose money to cancel a show. The contract was up, and they didn't renew. The reasons really don't matter. It's not the kind of thing you can sue over or nave any rights to. This isn't like reality TV where the public gets to vote on something.

I don’t think it was financial at all. Or even a contract dispute. It was all the administration.

 

[TheBigA]

I don’t think it was financial at all. Or even a contract dispute. It was all the administration.

The decision was made before the Ellisons were running the company.

If the Ellisons were so tight with the government, they really shouldn't have had to do anything to get approval.

They didn't have to cancel any shows or sign any promises to get WBD.

 

[ted chittenden]

The decision was made before the Ellisons were running the company.

If the Ellisons were so tight with the government, they really shouldn't have had to do anything to get approval.

They didn't have to cancel any shows or sign any promises to get WBD.

What your analysis is missing is the behavior of both the U.S. president and his FCC chairman in all of this. Donald Trump wanted CBS to remove Stephen Colbert's show removed along with CBS changing its standards for "60 Minutes" and was willing to file a court case against the Tiffany network to get his way. While many legal experts argued that CBS' chances of winning against the Trump Administration over these issues were excellent, the network opted for a settlement that appears to have included both changes at "60 Minutes" and the cancelling of the Stephen Colbert show. And the Ellisons, who were in the middle of purchasing CBS when all of this came out, were suspected to be the people who engineered the settlement in order to appease the president of the United States. The big problem with appeasement of people like President Trump is that they are never satisfied with what offerings you give them and continue to demand more because they believe they can get it.

This is why it is *so* important for ABC not to compromise with the president or his FCC chair regarding Kimmel (which is discussed on another thread). The current U.S. president has (apparently) made it policy to sue people and organizations *not* for the hope of winning the case but rather to put fear in others who would publicly criticize, or make fun of, the president of the United States or his allies and associates.

 

[TheBigA]

What your analysis is missing is the behavior of both the U.S. president and his FCC chairman in all of this.

The history of my posts on this board says otherwise.

Shari Redstone did a lot of unnecessary things to sell the company. It's all on her.