-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Jay Leno and Conan- National TV
- Thread starter radioray
- Start date
radioray said:Oh yeah, the cheap route is always best. Cut cut cut the expenses on talent. You know, like NBC did with Jay Leno.
Huh? NBC gave Jay a raise when he was moved to 10 PM.
Jay at 10 wasn't done to save money. It was done to keep him at NBC. The only other solution might have been to put him in daytime. Ask Letterman about being in daytime.
TheBigA said:Jay at 10 wasn't done to save money. It was done to keep him at NBC. The only other solution might have been to put him in daytime. Ask Letterman about being in daytime.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. What NBC paid Leno was/is chump change compared to the cost of prime time dramas that he replaced. The move was designed specifically to save NBC money - and to keep Jay from moving to another network - like Fox - after NBC essentially pushed him out of the Tonight Show.
NBC is guilty of trying to lock up both Jay & Conan, and thought that they could save a bunch of money without losing too badly in the ratings. Unfortunately, both Jay and Conan tanked, and the current situation is directly attributable to the affiliates screaming because their late news was being killed by having Leno as a lead-in.
SirRoxalot said:What NBC paid Leno was/is chump change compared to the cost of prime time dramas that he replaced.
But most of those prime time dramas weren't delivering ratings either. We're talking a network that was last place in the ratings. So if big expensive dramas weren't delivering ratings, why not try something else?
Once again, they didn't scrimp on the host's salary, the set, the guests, or anything in doing that show. Jay got more money than any of the actors on any of those dramas. To call it a cheap way out stretches the definition of cheap. The fact that they're willing to pay Conan $30 million to fix the problem also isn't cheap.
No one criticizes the cheaper reality shows like Survivor and Idol, as long as they deliver audience. But it wasn't the budget of the show that didn't deliver here. It was the show itself, and perhaps the decision to air it at 10 instead of 8. THAT would have been the best move...a nightly 8PM variety show, then comedy, drama, news, and Conan. Quick! Call NBC!
TheBigA said:SirRoxalot said:What NBC paid Leno was/is chump change compared to the cost of prime time dramas that he replaced.
But most of those prime time dramas weren't delivering ratings either. We're talking a network that was last place in the ratings. So if big expensive dramas weren't delivering ratings, why not try something else?
Once again, they didn't scrimp on the host's salary, the set, the guests, or anything in doing that show. Jay got more money than any of the actors on any of those dramas. To call it a cheap way out stretches the definition of cheap. The fact that they're willing to pay Conan $30 million to fix the problem also isn't cheap.
No one criticizes the cheaper reality shows like Survivor and Idol, as long as they deliver audience. But it wasn't the budget of the show that didn't deliver here. It was the show itself, and perhaps the decision to air it at 10 instead of 8. THAT would have been the best move...a nightly 8PM variety show, then comedy, drama, news, and Conan. Quick! Call NBC!
NBC's intentions were the same as a radio station with poor ratings: Don't invest in making the quality better, but instead, cut, cut, cut, so you can make money by saving money. The only problem with that philosophy--as demonstrated by broadcast radio, is that you can only cut and save so much---and at that point, you may have compromised the quality of your product so much that you do irreparable harm and lose BIG TIME in the long run.
Also, as a matter of history, Letterman's ratings in the latter part of his brief daytime career, specifically the early fall of 1980, showed considerable gains. The show had even won a daytime Emmy, yet was already cancelled. This is why NBC kept him around on the payroll for 16 months until he started the Late Night show in Feb of 1982.
jerry367 said:NBC's intentions were the same as a radio station with poor ratings: Don't invest in making the quality better, but instead, cut, cut, cut, so you can make money by saving money.
BS. The most popular shows on TV now are the reality shows that cost the least. Investing in "quality," as you put it, doesn't lead to ratings. NBC had invested millions in long form dramas and all but one were failures. At the same time, overall network TV ratings are declining as a result of increased competitition, and there was no amount of money NBC could have spent that will change that trend.
As I said, the goal was simple: Keep Jay Leno from getting hired by another network. As I also said, the mistake they made was putting him on at 10 instead of 8. I think that would have worked better.
TheBigA said:jerry367 said:NBC's intentions were the same as a radio station with poor ratings: Don't invest in making the quality better, but instead, cut, cut, cut, so you can make money by saving money.
BS. The most popular shows on TV now are the reality shows that cost the least. Investing in "quality," as you put it, doesn't lead to ratings. NBC had invested millions in long form dramas and all but one were failures. At the same time, overall network TV ratings are declining as a result of increased competitition, and there was no amount of money NBC could have spent that will change that trend.
As I said, the goal was simple: Keep Jay Leno from getting hired by another network. As I also said, the mistake they made was putting him on at 10 instead of 8. I think that would have worked better.
BS? Really? Where have you been? There were numerous off-the-record sources within the NBC-Universal universe who said as much: Typical primetime fare is very expensive compared to a Leno show. (now pay attention to this next part) EVEN if the numbers are lower, the difference in production cost is big enough that it more than compensates for lost revenue. Same dumb attitude in radio: A race to the bottom.
The only thing NBC did not count on, was the affiliate backlash---which has been severe.
And if you think that the Leno show would have done better at 8 o'clock, then you are either misguided or haven't seen it. Behaviorally speaking, people are much more inclined to endure interview shows as the night progresses. An 8 o'clock Leno show, especially considering the competition (American Idol anyone?), would have been more of a black hole than the 10 o'clock version.
I don't know what your professional credentials are, but stick to radio, as TV programming is clearly not your forte.
jerry367 said:There were numerous off-the-record sources within the NBC-Universal universe who said as much: Typical primetime fare is very expensive compared to a Leno show.
You ignored the rest of my post, which said that the expensive shows don't necessarily get ratings. In fact, the lesson of the last few years is that cheap reality shows get better numbers than expensive scripted dramas. But typically, those reality shows air earlier in the evening.
Leno is cheaper than typical prime time fare, but so is American Idol and Dancing With the Stars. Those latter two shows are among the highest rated in network TV. Simply because something is cheap is no reason to think it won't be successful. And as I said, spending lots of money on filmed dramas was not working for NBC.
You also ignored the rest of what those sources said: NBC didn't want to lose Leno. They made this change to keep him. Nothing else was going to work. They still don't, and are willing to spend $40 million paying off Conan to keep him. That's not a cheap solution, if you ask me.
The criticism here shouldn't be on NBC, but the affiliates, who want a short term solution to their 11PM problem. They don't care about late night. The fact is that five nights of "Law & Order" won't do a whole lot better than 5 nights of Leno, and it will take time to build an audience for new dramas. That's not really what they want, but they don't want Leno either.
jerry367 said:Same dumb attitude in radio: A race to the bottom.
There is no relationship between spending lots of money on airstaff at a music station and improving ratings. In fact, the easiest way for a low rated station to make a big jump is to pick a catchy slogan, fine tune the music mix, fire the air talent, and cut back on commercials. Less talk, more music. It's a sure-fire way to improve sagging ratings.
In the meantime, I know of no station that spent lots of money on DJs and went to the top.
jerry367 said:Behaviorally speaking, people are much more inclined to endure interview shows as the night progresses.
The original intent was not to be an interview show, but rather a variety show. Interview shows at 10 PM, like 20/20, are ratings death, and everyone knows it. Jay’s strength is his monologue, everyone knows it, and the show goes downhill from there. Just like the ratings. The idea of a half-hour Leno show with just a monologue and comedy was a better idea than the current format with an interview segment. People DON’T endure interview shows. They turn them off. The same rule can apply to chatty radio DJs who think listeners tune in to hear them. They don’t.
The days of late night television shows like Jay Leno,COnan , Letterman, etc... may be numbered ... People find them boring.. the humor is even worse than most situation comedies which by the way are nearly extinct.
Television is going to have to constantly re-invent themselves with shows that involves the viewers. It's just gotten too boring .
Television is going to have to constantly re-invent themselves with shows that involves the viewers. It's just gotten too boring .
Dude, the fact that Leno was moved to 10pm AS A COST CUTTING MOVE is absolutely no secret. The thought is, yeah, revenues will go down but so will expenses so we will win out in the end. But they ignored it would really tick off affiliates needing a solid intro to their nightly 11/10pm news which is their big cash cow.
There was really no threat of him going to another network. NO network of not was offering him 10pm (9 central) and if someone like Fox had offered more money NBC could have just decided to match (or not) without cutting an hour of prime time programming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/arts/television/12leno.html?_r=1
Mr. Leno’s show could reduce prime-time costs in the 10 p.m. hour by as much as 80 percent — if he succeeds. While NBC has resisted disclosing what its scale for that success will be, Mr. Gaspin put a firm number on it. “We believe a mid-1 rating is viable for us,” he said, narrowing that specifically to a rating of 1.5 in the audience group that NBC bases all its advertising sales on: adult viewers between the ages of 18 and 49.
It’s a modest number, representing only about two million viewers in that demographic category. By comparison, almost no 10 p.m. drama on last season averaged a number that low. Some in that vicinity, like “Eli Stone” and “Cupid” on ABC (both averaged a 1.7 rating among viewers 18 to 49) and “The Philanthropist” on NBC (a 1.5) had something in common: they were canceled. Mr. Leno’s show will cost far less than any of those, but if he averages only a 1.5 rating, he is not likely to beat much rival programming at 10 p.m.
Competitors will surely accuse NBC of setting the bar as low as possible. But the idea is untried, so any estimate is guesswork.
=======
Another article emphasizing the cost-cutting reasons for the move.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/business/media/01leno.html
If successful, “The Jay Leno Show” at 10 p.m. could reshape prime time by leading other networks to move to less expensive shows, pushing more programming to cable and rewriting the financial underpinnings of entertainment production.
If it fails — as skeptics, including many rival network executives, predict — then NBC will be left scrambling to find fill five prime-time hours a week.
Prime time has “looked pretty much the same” for decades, said Robert Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University. Pitting a low-cost talk format like Mr. Leno’s show against the typically expensive dramas at 10 p.m., he said, “is the biggest sign yet that we’re really, finally entering a whole new ballgame.”
There was really no threat of him going to another network. NO network of not was offering him 10pm (9 central) and if someone like Fox had offered more money NBC could have just decided to match (or not) without cutting an hour of prime time programming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/arts/television/12leno.html?_r=1
Mr. Leno’s show could reduce prime-time costs in the 10 p.m. hour by as much as 80 percent — if he succeeds. While NBC has resisted disclosing what its scale for that success will be, Mr. Gaspin put a firm number on it. “We believe a mid-1 rating is viable for us,” he said, narrowing that specifically to a rating of 1.5 in the audience group that NBC bases all its advertising sales on: adult viewers between the ages of 18 and 49.
It’s a modest number, representing only about two million viewers in that demographic category. By comparison, almost no 10 p.m. drama on last season averaged a number that low. Some in that vicinity, like “Eli Stone” and “Cupid” on ABC (both averaged a 1.7 rating among viewers 18 to 49) and “The Philanthropist” on NBC (a 1.5) had something in common: they were canceled. Mr. Leno’s show will cost far less than any of those, but if he averages only a 1.5 rating, he is not likely to beat much rival programming at 10 p.m.
Competitors will surely accuse NBC of setting the bar as low as possible. But the idea is untried, so any estimate is guesswork.
=======
Another article emphasizing the cost-cutting reasons for the move.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/business/media/01leno.html
If successful, “The Jay Leno Show” at 10 p.m. could reshape prime time by leading other networks to move to less expensive shows, pushing more programming to cable and rewriting the financial underpinnings of entertainment production.
If it fails — as skeptics, including many rival network executives, predict — then NBC will be left scrambling to find fill five prime-time hours a week.
Prime time has “looked pretty much the same” for decades, said Robert Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University. Pitting a low-cost talk format like Mr. Leno’s show against the typically expensive dramas at 10 p.m., he said, “is the biggest sign yet that we’re really, finally entering a whole new ballgame.”
A variety type show like Carol Burnett, Smothers Brothers could hold its own at the 10 PM time slot-- but Leno's program was just terrible. I tried very hard to watch it one night but couldn't take the inane humor.. it was just horrible.. I truly believe the only reason those late night talk shows survive is that the people watching them are semi-conscious .. half awake almost asleep..
I use to watch Letterman after work (years ago) and it seemed reasonable but then again oftentimes, I use to fall asleep while watching the program .. .. that's probably why people have a tendency to also watch informercials at night... viewers can't tell their being snookered when they're about to enter lala land.. fall asleep.
I use to watch Letterman after work (years ago) and it seemed reasonable but then again oftentimes, I use to fall asleep while watching the program .. .. that's probably why people have a tendency to also watch informercials at night... viewers can't tell their being snookered when they're about to enter lala land.. fall asleep.
radioray said:There was really no threat of him going to another network. NO network of not was offering him 10pm (9 central)
That's why they came up with the 10 PM idea. How would you like to be NBC launching a show with Conan, and you're going up against Jay Leno at 11:30 on ABC? The ONLY thing NBC had to offer was 10 PM. That way, any other offer seemed small.
But believe what you want to believe. Now NBC is forced to go back to paying lots of money for dramas at 10 PM, and none of them will get the ratings they'll need to make money, and the affiliates will STILL be angry. Spending lots of money is not going to fix the 11PM problem. But with the new Comcast deal, perhaps they can make that money back through the cable channels. Costs are going to have to be cut, and it will be the new reality, regardless of what happens here. It's one thing to spend 80% more money for a filmed drama, but if it doesn't bring in any more viewers, it's money down the drain. That is the reality now with network TV. There is no amount of money they can spend that will force people to watch, because they have too many other choices, and quality is simply not the draw it once was.
I think you guys are all too focused on the money-saving aspect of this, maybe because you see parallels with radio. But the fact is that the TV networks will spend billions of dollars IF it gets returns. Look how NBC spent for the rights to the Olympics, and they'll pre-empt weeks of programming to make that money back. So spending money WHEN THERE'S A CHANCE FOR RETURN is not an issue.
But spending money for the sake of spending money is a waste. TV is not a charity. Regardless of what NBC ran at 10PM, the affiliates were going to complain. This gave them a convenient reason to complain, but they will find out very quickly that neither Jay Leno nor the lack of money spent was the real issue.
But spending money for the sake of spending money is a waste. TV is not a charity. Regardless of what NBC ran at 10PM, the affiliates were going to complain. This gave them a convenient reason to complain, but they will find out very quickly that neither Jay Leno nor the lack of money spent was the real issue.
How's this for a wild idea? I suspect that a large percentage of Leno's audience is in the upper age group demographic. That's polite for "older." Most of Conan's audience is in the lower age group demo.
It may also be true that a large percentage of the people who actually watch local news tend to be older.
When Leno was on after the news, his fans stayed tuned in through the news, weather and sports, enduring it all so they could watch the monolog, then, fall asleep, maybe even with the TV still turned on.
Because these same people don't really relate to Conan, they had nothing to stay up for. If the local news didn't grab them in the first story or two, I'll bet that many tuned out. I'd also wager that another group of viewers goes away when the weather is over.
With Leno in the spot before the news, itis probable that quite a few viewers fell asleep during his show and never made it to the news. I know I've done it. I'm not sure why NBC or their affiliates should be surprised at this, but it seems they are. It makes good fodder for newsgroups like this.
It may also be true that a large percentage of the people who actually watch local news tend to be older.
When Leno was on after the news, his fans stayed tuned in through the news, weather and sports, enduring it all so they could watch the monolog, then, fall asleep, maybe even with the TV still turned on.
Because these same people don't really relate to Conan, they had nothing to stay up for. If the local news didn't grab them in the first story or two, I'll bet that many tuned out. I'd also wager that another group of viewers goes away when the weather is over.
With Leno in the spot before the news, itis probable that quite a few viewers fell asleep during his show and never made it to the news. I know I've done it. I'm not sure why NBC or their affiliates should be surprised at this, but it seems they are. It makes good fodder for newsgroups like this.
SirRoxalot said:TheBigA said:Jay at 10 wasn't done to save money. It was done to keep him at NBC. The only other solution might have been to put him in daytime. Ask Letterman about being in daytime.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. What NBC paid Leno was/is chump change compared to the cost of prime time dramas that he replaced. The move was designed specifically to save NBC money - and to keep Jay from moving to another network - like Fox - after NBC essentially pushed him out of the Tonight Show.
NBC is guilty of trying to lock up both Jay & Conan, and thought that they could save a bunch of money without losing too badly in the ratings. Unfortunately, both Jay and Conan tanked, and the current situation is directly attributable to the affiliates screaming because their late news was being killed by having Leno as a lead-in.
Sir Rox alot is right.Even if Jay recieved a raise it was still cheaper to have a variety show than pay for scripted shows. So yes, NBC put Jay on at 10 to save money.Well at the time anyway.
Jay addressed the story on his show Monday. He went into detail about how the goal was to keep him from leaving NBC. The fact that it was cheaper than dramas was a bonus, not the primary motivation. They would have kept the dramas at 10 if (1) They were getting good numbers, and (2) If there was another way to keep Jay. They were not simply looking for a way to replace expensive programming with cheaper shows.
But as I keep saying, the cost of the shows doesn't matter. Results matter. The dramas were sucking at 10 PM too, and when they return, you'll see that spending lots of money is no solution.
But as I keep saying, the cost of the shows doesn't matter. Results matter. The dramas were sucking at 10 PM too, and when they return, you'll see that spending lots of money is no solution.
NBC executives badly misread their prime time audience.
They assumed that the prime time audience was the same as the 11:30 PM audience, that Jay's audience would gladly move their viewing habits up to prime time to watch him and that prime time viewers would warm up to "The Tonight Show" format.
They lost on all counts. Years from now this will be a textbook example of how NOT to program a network.
c5
They assumed that the prime time audience was the same as the 11:30 PM audience, that Jay's audience would gladly move their viewing habits up to prime time to watch him and that prime time viewers would warm up to "The Tonight Show" format.
They lost on all counts. Years from now this will be a textbook example of how NOT to program a network.
c5
Keep in mind that NBC had given Jay numerous prime time specials, and they did well. NBC has also run numerous Saturday Night Live specials during prime time. This was not completely untried territory.
But if we are to believe that the public can only handle talent in the day-part we're most accustomed, it doesn't give much hope to radio DJs who aspire to move from nights to morning drive.
But if we are to believe that the public can only handle talent in the day-part we're most accustomed, it doesn't give much hope to radio DJs who aspire to move from nights to morning drive.
I
imhomerjay
Guest
TheBigA said:[They made this change to keep him. Nothing else was going to work. They still don't, and are willing to spend $40 million paying off Conan to keep him. That's not a cheap solution, if you ask me.
That suggests that if CBS were faced with losing Letterman because they'd promised Late Show to Craig, that they would have ditched shows like CSI Miami, Good Wife and CSI NY, all solid performers at 10, to, keep Dave. Not going to happen.
It's not an either-or situation. It's well documented that the Leno show was far cheaper than a slate of five dramas (and for the most part, scripted fare, not reality, dominates that slot; the wildly popular "reality" or competition shows do well in the earlier slots). They had a cost problem, and they had a competition problem. Trying to kill two birds with one stone failed this time.
Just because Leno isn't cheap the way many of us think of the term, it still cost far less. His salary was bigger than any one actor, but, seriously, factor in the full ensemble casts (and guests) and the higher production costs over five different dramas that only produce 22 shows a year and there's no question which is less expensive.
Remember the days when you would/had to watch one of 3, 4 or 5 channels (NBC included), so you stuck with the local news after the 10pm drama, followed by the late night program. Those days are gone. Time shifting will soon be the new norm, on screen guides are already the norm- so its easy to see what else is on other channels.
Network programmers have to STOP programming like this is 1963, or 1983, or 1993- for that matter. These old methods of programming will be their ultimate demise, unless they plan on appealing solely to older demos.
The affiliates were right to complain that "the Jay Leno Show" was a weak lead-in for their local newscasts, but they're just treading water until this antiquated system collapses in on itself anyway. Ten years from now, the idea of this kind of "broadcasting" will seem quaint.
Network programmers have to STOP programming like this is 1963, or 1983, or 1993- for that matter. These old methods of programming will be their ultimate demise, unless they plan on appealing solely to older demos.
The affiliates were right to complain that "the Jay Leno Show" was a weak lead-in for their local newscasts, but they're just treading water until this antiquated system collapses in on itself anyway. Ten years from now, the idea of this kind of "broadcasting" will seem quaint.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.