Kimmel Ratings

[DavinaR]

Jimmy is sticking around another year!

Jimmy Kimmel Stays: Comedian Signs One-Year Extension With ABC

The deal will keep him as host of Jimmy Kimmel Live! until May 2027.

deadline.com

 

[Gregg.]

Jimmy is sticking around another year!

Which again makes me think, the complaints that Colbert was losing $40 million a year make no sense. If Kimmel were losing money like Colbert supposedly is, he wouldn't have gotten a new contract. Kimmel himself says this $40 million figure doesn't take into account other revenue CBS gets, such as affiliate fees.

Above, Michael Haggerty mostly agrees with much of what I said earlier. Haggerty's main point, which I agree with, is the high cost of renting and staffing the Ed Sullivan Theater. As Haggerty says, the legendary theater was part of trying to set up David Letterman as a ratings alternative to The Tonight Show back in 1993. CBS went all out for Letterman after its past late night efforts failed, so no expense was spared. But that was more than three decades ago.

And as others have explained, Kimmel does his show in more modest a theater which ABC already owned. The El Capitan Theater is on Hollywood Boulevard. That real estate, while expensive, is likely a fraction of the cost of renting a theater that takes up a whole block of Broadway from 53rd to 54th Street.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

Doesn't CBS/Paramount/Skydance own the ES theater or do they want to sell it if they do own it? Did they ever consider moving to Colbert to a smaller theater?

 

[TheBigA]

Doesn't CBS/Paramount/Skydance own the ES theater or do they want to sell it if they do own it? Did they ever consider moving to Colbert to a smaller theater?

Yes and yes. Paramount has been selling all CBS real estate. This is part of that.

It would be up to Colbert if he'd be willing to move. There are a lot of factors here, including getting out of the licensing for the show name.

It sounds like Colbert is at a point where he feels better off going somewhere else. Lots of options to make more and work less.

 

[davideduardo]

Which again makes me think, the complaints that Colbert was losing $40 million a year make no sense. If Kimmel were losing money like Colbert supposedly is, he wouldn't have gotten a new contract. Kimmel himself says this $40 million figure doesn't take into account other revenue CBS gets, such as affiliate fees.

The networks get their revenue almost entirely from advertising (this is said without taking into consideration fees for running network produced shows as reruns on other services). Stations "pay" ANC, CBS, NBC, Fox, Univision, Telemundo by ceding commercial time in the network show to the network to sell and insert themselves.

 

[Megatron]

Not surprised that Jimmy Kimmel will stay for another year, which I feel will be his last in my opinion maybe it will just be 1 year deals now.

 

[michael hagerty]

Not surprised that Jimmy Kimmel will stay for another year, which I feel will be his last in my opinion maybe it will just be 1 year deals now.

I think September's controversy renewed his energy (the whole thing was a lesson in unintended consequences). And Disney understands the optics of standing up to Sinclair, Nexstar and FCC Chairman Brendan Carr and then having Jimmy go away nine months later.

One year extensions are what you should expect anyway, given the fluid state of late night television. Audiences are declining. That said, Jimmy's still considerably ahead of where he was before all this happened, and next year we'll see how many of Colbert's almost three million viewers who aren't already watching Kimmel switch. If Jimmy goes from 2.2 million to 3.5 million viewers, that's a big deal for ABC's revenue picture.

 

[Don CT]

I think September's controversy renewed his energy (the whole thing was a lesson in unintended consequences). And Disney understands the optics of standing up to Sinclair, Nexstar and FCC Chairman Brendan Carr and then having Jimmy go away nine months later.

One year extensions are what you should expect anyway, given the fluid state of late night television. Audiences are declining. That said, Jimmy's still considerably ahead of where he was before all this happened, and next year we'll see how many of Colbert's almost three million viewers who aren't already watching Kimmel switch. If Jimmy goes from 2.2 million to 3.5 million viewers, that's a big deal for ABC's revenue picture.

I think Kimmel is happy to go year by year. He’s talked about hanging it up soon.

 

[Weiserguy]

Doesn't CBS/Paramount/Skydance own the ES theater or do they want to sell it if they do own it? Did they ever consider moving to Colbert to a smaller theater?

Yes and yes. Paramount has been selling all CBS real estate. This is part of that.

CBS bought the ES theater in 1993 after wooing Letterman over to CBS from NBC. They paid $4.5 million, which is about $10.6 million in inflation-adjusted dollars. (There are some additional costs over the years for renovations, but those should really be allocated to the Letterman or Colbert show's needs.)

If EST sells next year after Colbert wraps, is there anybody who can say with a straight face that CBS will have lost money on it? Given it's Midtown Manhattan real estate, on Broadway in the Theater District, they will make money if the thing is a teardown. (Which it won't be, since it's got landmark designation. Unless of course Trump himself buys it, since flouting the law is his version of playing craps.) Whoever buys the building (theater and office space above it) also would get air rights, and even if the theater stayed intact, those air rights would be worth many millions more.

So so don't cry for thee, Skydance/Paramount. For them this is nothing more than the opening act of a giant real estate deal. Colbert & Co. is collateral damage in the bigger picture.

 

[TheBigA]

Whoever buys the building (theater and office space above it) also would get air rights, and even if the theater stayed intact, those air rights would be worth many millions more.

There's a 12 story office building attached to it now. Lot of property besides the theater.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

The networks get their revenue almost entirely from advertising (this is said without taking into consideration fees for running network produced shows as reruns on other services). Stations "pay" ANC, CBS, NBC, Fox, Univision, Telemundo by ceding commercial time in the network show to the network to sell and insert themselves.

what about retrans fees?

 

[K.M. Richards]

what about retrans fees?

Aside from the O&O's the networks themselves do not get retransmission fees. Those go to the stations.

 

[davideduardo]

what about retrans fees?

Are you are talking about the fees paid by cable systems to local "music carry" stations? Those have nothing to do with network - station relationships.

"Must-carry TV rights are US federal regulations, enforced by the
FCC, that compel cable and satellite providers to carry local broadcast TV signals (like local news and public programming)"

 

[Mediafrog+]

Are you are talking about the fees paid by cable systems to local "music carry" stations? Those have nothing to do with network - station relationships.

"Must-carry TV rights are US federal regulations, enforced by the
FCC, that compel cable and satellite providers to carry local broadcast TV signals (like local news and public programming)"

Once again, you are confusing “must carry” with “retransmission consent”.

“Retransmission consent” involves popular OTA stations (usually network affiliates) receiving compensation from video providers, as those stations are in high demand by subscribers. Station owners leverage that popularity by allowing carriage in exchange for income paid for by surcharges on the video provider bill. This type of relationship is behind the station blackout disputes that occur from time to time when the two parties can’t agree on compensation amounts.

“Must carry” comes into play with less popular or obscure broadcast stations that invoke the rules to force carriage by video providers, without receiving compensation. Without that rule most such stations would be ignored by the providers as there is relatively little interest in them from the broad viewing audience.

You are correct that the network/affiliate relationship is a completely separate issue.

 

[davideduardo]

Once again, you are confusing “must carry” with “retransmission consent”.

I'm not confusing it at all; I was responding to nomadcowatbk. who thought local TV stations paid the major networks for their programming. When any station is subject to "must carry" the cable system must pay the provider... the station... a fee.

I have always, as a former Senior VP of Univision, seen retransmission consent (under any terms or description) as subject to "must carry" in that some stations for which "must carry" applies can require additional payment. Otherwise, as happened in some markets, the cable system would import an ABC, CBS or NBC affiliate from another market at either no fee of a lower fee.

Classic cases were cable systems back when not every market had a full ABC, CBS and NBC affiliate. The cable system would bring in a distant station that had the "missing shows".

 

[Mediafrog+]

I'm not confusing it at all; I was responding to nomadcowatbk. who thought local TV stations paid the major networks for their programming.

Local affiliates do pay the networks. Many years ago the opposite was true. Thus we have this recent story: Price: The Networks’ Robbery Of Affiliates Might Finally End

When any station is subject to "must carry" the cable system must pay the provider... the station... a fee.

Not true with every station. Some obscure stations are so desperate for exposure they demand “must carry” without any compensation. Otherwise they wouldn’t be included on the video provider.

I have always, as a former Senior VP of Univision, seen retransmission consent (under any terms or description) as subject to "must carry" in that some stations for which "must carry" applies can require additional payment.

I think we’re painting the same picture with different sized brushes.

Classic cases were cable systems back when not every market had a full ABC, CBS and NBC affiliate. The cable system would bring in a distant station that had the "missing shows".

When I was living in Austin in the early 1960s the market had only one TV station, KTBC, which was a hodgepodge of the three networks at the time. But Austin also had a primitive cable TV operator (Capital Cable) that brought in the three network affiliates from San Antonio.

Capital Cable had a miniscule subscriber base, but a large number of homes (including ours) could still receive the San Antonio stations as rooftop antennas were ubiquitous in that era.

Capital Cable later was rebranded as Austin Cablevision. The current Spectrum service is its lineal descendant, following additional name changes.

 

[TheBigA]

Local affiliates do pay the networks. Many years ago the opposite was true. Thus we have this recent story:

Then we'll see how valuable the station licenses are without network programming.

If the FCC wants to promote localism, that's a way to do it. Have stations do all local programming 24/7

 

[K.M. Richards]

Some obscure stations are so desperate for exposure they demand “must carry” without any compensation. Otherwise they wouldn’t be included on the video provider.

Here in L.A., that seems to have been the motive behind Scientology purchasing channel 22 a year ago.

 

[Don CT]

Here in L.A., that seems to have been the motive behind Scientology purchasing channel 22 a year ago.

Does it just air Tom Cruise movies all day?

 

[fybush]

There's a LOT of fog and confusion here, especially because so much has changed in the way the business works in recent years.

May I try to clarify?

"Must carry" has one very specific meaning in today's regulations. It is one of two choices that every full-power TV station has to make every three years. If a full-power TV station chooses to invoke must-carry, the cable and satellite providers within that station's DMA are required to carry that station's main (x.1) program stream, usually on a low channel number. No money changes hands in that scenario. This choice is thus usually made by stations without big 4 network affiliations.

The other half of the choice, the opposite of "must carry," is "retransmission consent." Stations that choose retrans consent give up their automatic must carry rights in exchange for the ability to negotiate with cable and satellite providers to charge them for the rights to offer NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, Univision, etc. to their customers.

Cable companies cannot cherry-pick affiliates from outside their DMA to offer to their customers except in very specific circumstances where a system has historic carriage of out-of-market signals. Each local station (or really the group owners who dominate "local" TV) now has specific contractual terms with their networks that license them to provide network content only within their own DMA.

This has all changed dramatically within the last decade or so because of an underlying economic change in how local TV operates. Local stations no longer receive compensation from their networks to carry network programming, as was the case into the 1990s. The current scheme is "reverse compensation," in which the local station pays the network for the programming.

In an environment in which local advertising sales are plummeting, how do local stations survive and profit? That's why retrans consent is so important. It has become the largest source of revenue growth for the companies that own local stations, which in turn is driving consolidation, because it stands to reason that a Nexstar or Sinclair or Gray has maximum leverage against Spectrum or Comcast when it can pull hundreds of stations off the platform at once.

How much has it changed? At least based on some recent FCC filings, the average cable bill now includes close to $20 a month in retrans for local stations, a number that was about $1 a month as recently as 2011. Consumers can't opt out of local channels and the price tag that goes with them. All they can do is switch providers (if choices are available) or dump cable/satellite. And the OTT streamers (YouTube TV, Hulu with live TV, Sling, etc) also include retrans consent fees, the only difference being that those retrans negotiations are done directly with each network on behalf of its affiliates. There's also no must carry for the OTT services.

Does that all make sense in the context of 2025? Even a knowledge base from a decade ago doesn't really help to understand the industry as it goes through the most dramatic changes of any of our lifetimes so far.