CBS cancels The Late Show

[TheBigA]

If I’m CBS I’m giving him what he wants to host late nights. He’s on the left, but doesn’t mind grilling those on the left. Plus, I think he has the most intelligent conversations with those who he does and doesn’t agree with.

He's not an entertainer anymore. They need an entertainer, not a pontificator.

One, he’s under contract with HBO for 3 years.

If Paramount buys WBD, he'll be working for the same company.

 

[vw86]

Likewise, I don’t like him and never have. His entire tone is the opposite of conciliatory, and invites contrarian responses

 

[Mark Roberts]

The difference is that Reagan could take a joke and so (mostly) could his staff.

Reagan by then had also been a two-term governor of California, which meant he had to develop a thick skin if he didn't have one already. He could handle being challenged.

 

[Mark Roberts]

He's not an entertainer anymore. They need an entertainer, not a pontificator.

It's hard to say what CBS needs in that slot. They still have some time to figure it out...and whatever results will definitely be cheaper to produce, so don't get your hopes up...or decide to let the affiliates figure it out. That said, Maher seems to specialize in being an equal-opportunity provocateur and irritant. That's a niche market at best.

 

[michael hagerty]

Reagan by then had also been a two-term governor of California, which meant he had to develop a thick skin if he didn't have one already. He could handle being challenged.

Exactly. If Trump could take a joke, half of this wouldn't be an issue. But Trump wants to use the power of his office---and powers not belonging to his office---to punish those he thinks have been "nasty" to him. And that's when it gets to be a serious issue of abuse of power.

 

[michael hagerty]

It's hard to say what CBS needs in that slot. They still have some time to figure it out...and whatever results will definitely be cheaper to produce, so don't get your hopes up...or decide to let the affiliates figure it out. That said, Maher seems to specialize in being an equal-opportunity provocateur and irritant. That's a niche market at best.

They are not going to do talk.

Late night-talk is dying. CBS just euthanized a patient (Late Show) instead of letting it die of natural causes.

I think Fallon, Kimmel and Seth are the last people to host that type of show in their timeslots.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Jon Stewart has better commentary each week.

Stewart's comparison last week of Trump and his terrified enablers to Anthony Fremont and the townspeople whom he terrified in that famous Twilight Zone episode was brilliant and on the nose, even when Stewart broke the fourth wall as he often does. But he and his staff have a week to come up with those things. Colbert, on the weeks that he's working, has to produce such material four days a week. It's just going to be different: there will be more hits and there will be more misses.

It's hard to begrudge Colbert for taking a week off every month but I don't think that helps the show. That, too, might have been a cost-saving move.

 

[Larry]

It's hard to say what CBS needs in that slot. They still have some time to figure it out...and whatever results will definitely be cheaper to produce, so don't get your hopes up...or decide to let the affiliates figure it out.

Heck, CBS could put same day repeats of Beyond The Gates (or something else) on at 11:30 (of 11:35 PM)

 

[Weiserguy]

Stewart's comparison last week of Trump and his terrified enablers to Anthony Fremont and the townspeople whom he terrified in that famous Twilight Zone episode was brilliant and on the nose, even when Stewart broke the fourth wall as he often does. But he and his staff have a week to come up with those things. Colbert, on the weeks that he's working, has to produce such material four days a week. It's just going to be different: there will be more hits and there will be more misses.

It's hard to begrudge Colbert for taking a week off every month but I don't think that helps the show. That, too, might have been a cost-saving move.

But it's not just him. Kimmel took the whole summer off, with many of those weeks guest hosted (and a few repeat weeks even on those). Meyers had a noticeably thin schedule last season, with what seemed like a 50% new-to-rerun ratio. Two weeks on, two weeks off. (Occasionally even three-week stretches of reruns.) Fallon's Tonight Show was a little better but not majorly. So that's one way the networks seem to be milking more showings from fewer budget dollars, though undoubtedly at the cost of reduced viewership during repeat weeks. I can see re-watching monologues because the jokes can still be funny the second time you hear them, but why would anyone re-watch some insipid celebrity interview or beer pong game or man-on-the-street-is-an-idiot bit when it probably wasn't very amusing or interesting even the first time?

 

[tall_guy1]

It's hard to say what CBS needs in that slot. They still have some time to figure it out...and whatever results will definitely be cheaper to produce, so don't get your hopes up...or decide to let the affiliates figure it out. That said, Maher seems to specialize in being an equal-opportunity provocateur and irritant. That's a niche market at best.

I don't think so. He has a very particular point of view. This isn't personal politics, its just me watching the segments for years, but a super right wing Democrat who blames anything to the left of him in the base and in Hollywood for the Democrats loss, but who also doesn't like Republicans either. But to me, its not enjoyable to watch, but some beg to differ.

 

[Rusty Muck]

Heck, CBS could put same day repeats of Beyond The Gates (or something else) on at 11:30 (of 11:35 PM)

...assuming they don't just hand the time slot back to the affiliates. 48 Hours is (at least currently) syndicated externally otherwise that would be cheap, easy filler on the network line.

 

[TheBigA]

...assuming they don't just hand the time slot back to the affiliates.

That's very unlikely. That's like turning down millions of dollars.

The budgets for late night shows have gotten out of hand, but that's no reason to give up on a daypart. Paramount is in the content creation business, and I'm sure they have something they can run that costs less than Colbert.

 

[Weiserguy]

That's very unlikely. That's like turning down millions of dollars.

The budgets for late night shows have gotten out of hand, but that's no reason to give up on a daypart. Paramount is in the content creation business, and I'm sure they have something they can run that costs less than Colbert.

Hang on ... I need to repost what I wrote yesterday in #31:

Was the show making money five years ago? Ten years ago? (Hint: if it wasn't, it would never have made it to its tenth anniversary.) Was Letterman's show making money for 22 years? He was also leasing the Ed Sullivan bldg. The problem isn't the cost of that lease (unless CBS raised the price astronomically recently) or the amount of staff, it's that the advertising market for network TV has virtually collapsed. I agree the show's likely losing money, but call balls and strikes fairly. Colbert doesn't sell the ad time on his show, that's CBS. If they can't sell enough ads -- and the OTA end product doesn't support that assumption -- or they can't get their price and have to cut deals to fill the time, that's also not Colbert's making. Not when they're trying to sell the top-rated late night show.

Maybe, ya think, maybe they should rethink the strategy of giving away the product on Youtube? Out here in California, I get to watch Stephen's (and the Jimmy's, and Seth's) monologues hours before they air on the local stations. What's my incentive to stay up past midnight to watch it OTA?

CBS wants to blame Colbert's headcount and budget for them losing money on their First Place show. No. Find a mirror and stare into it until you discover where the problem actually lies.

This is like training a dog to protect your home and family and then shooting it because it went after an intruder. Colbert did what they hired him to do. The whole staff and crew did. Before you shitcan them all, ask what you (CBS/Paramount) are doing wrong.

Unless of course, the real motivation was appeasing the folks who are sense-of-humor challenged.

 

[TheBigA]

Colbert did what they hired him to do. The whole staff and crew did. Before you shitcan them all, ask what you (CBS/Paramount) are doing wrong.

They didn't fire him. They chose not to renew his contract. It's happening to a lot of radio people too for the same reason. The contract pays more than what they make. The ad budgets have changed. There isn't a whole lot the company can do when the ad market drops. They don't control it.

Advertisers Are Leaving Cable TV Networks Putting Disney, Paramount, Comcast, & Warner Bros. Discovery in a Tough Spot | Cord Cutters News

In a significant shift within the U.S. advertising industry, broadcast and cable television ad spending is projected to decline sharply in 2025, while connected TV (CTV) advertising continues its rapid ascent. According to a recent report from research firm eMarketer, traditional TV ad spending...

cordcuttersnews.com

According to a recent report from research firm eMarketer, traditional TV ad spending, encompassing both broadcast and cable, is expected to drop by 15.5% this year, totaling $49.94 billion.

 

[Rusty Muck]

That's very unlikely. That's like turning down millions of dollars.

The budgets for late night shows have gotten out of hand, but that's no reason to give up on a daypart. Paramount is in the content creation business, and I'm sure they have something they can run that costs less than Colbert.

They could let Byron Allen time-buy two full hours of Comics Unleashed reruns instead of one hour. (As the late Norm Macdonald once said, "Comics Unleashed? Oh you couldn't be more leashed.")

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

we all know it was a cancelation (contract not renewed) and not firing in the traditional “take your box and go” sense, but come on. “Fired” is a commonly used term for several scenarios. It doesn’t really change the underlying issues.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Hang on ... I need to repost what I wrote yesterday in #31:

CBS wants to blame Colbert's headcount and budget for them losing money on their First Place show. No. Find a mirror and stare into it until you discover where the problem actually lies.

This is like training a dog to protect your home and family and then shooting it because it went after an intruder. Colbert did what they hired him to do. The whole staff and crew did. Before you shitcan them all, ask what you (CBS/Paramount) are doing wrong.

Unless of course, the real motivation was appeasing the folks who are sense-of-humor challenged.

Multiple things can be true at the same time. It could be a sales problem and a cost problem and a political problem all at once.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

can HBO afford the Ed Sullivan theater and Colbert's 200 person staff?

 

[Mark Roberts]

They are not going to do talk.

Late night-talk is dying. CBS just euthanized a patient (Late Show) instead of letting it die of natural causes.

Unless the new lord of the manor brings over...Gutfeld.

I think Fallon, Kimmel and Seth are the last people to host that type of show in their timeslots.

Possibly they get a bit more time as the field thins out but, yep, I suspect that's likely.

 

[tall_guy1]

Surprised Samantha Bee never found a new home after her TBS cancellation...was just a once a week show. I would have thought somewhere like Peacock would pick her up.