Late Show ending May 2026

[K.M. Richards]

... if big-name guests weren't a must.

Here's a hammer for you to use to nailing in those final coffin nails.

No big-name guests? There goes what little incentive the networks still have to do late night.

 

[Rusty Muck]

Here's a hammer for you to use to nailing in those final coffin nails.

No big-name guests? There goes what little incentive the networks still have to do late night.

Ask Ross Shafer how that strategy worked out for him.

 

[MarkW]

Ask Ross Shafer how that strategy worked out for him.

That short lived show was dreadful x 1000.

 

[davideduardo]

Radio chains can and do originate shows for national distribution from smaller markets like Indianapolis. That might work for TV as well if big-name guests weren't a must.

But you are talking about, mostly, "morning shows" on music stations, If they have guests, they are mostly dependent on audio. Only the bigger couple of shows like Seacrest, Bones and Charlemagne are really big enough to generate true national reach. And those three are in locations where they are accessible to the "stars" of their format.

 

[CTListener]

But you are talking about, mostly, "morning shows" on music stations, If they have guests, they are mostly dependent on audio. Only the bigger couple of shows like Seacrest, Bones and Charlemagne are really big enough to generate true national reach. And those three are in locations where they are accessible to the "stars" of their format.

True. One of our country stations up here carries Big D and Bubba in the morning. Their show originates from Dallas, unlike Bobby Bones' Nashville-based show, but they still manage to get top country stars to talk to, mainly by phone. Radio can pull that off and not look cheap easier than TV can.

 

[davideduardo]

True. One of our country stations up here carries Big D and Bubba in the morning. Their show originates from Dallas, unlike Bobby Bones' Nashville-based show, but they still manage to get top country stars to talk to, mainly by phone. Radio can pull that off and not look cheap easier than TV can.

With more and more morning shows having video and also having post-show video based music-edited-out podcasts, being in a place where the important guests can appear may become more important.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Among discussions is to eliminate the third hour of "prime" to allow local stations to move the late news to 10 PM in most time zones. I mention this as another cost-cutting move, since the production of network shows is increasing while viewership is on the decline, That is just one example of what the networks are trying to deal with as they adapt to an on-demand model.

Actually, as far as the 48 contiguous states are concerned, prime time is 7-10 pm in two time zones and 8-11 pm in two others. I remember from the Albuquerque part of my childhood that, when videotape was expensive to use, the network affiliates, who were responsible for any time-shifting they desired, taped-delayed prime time on weeknights only. Daytimes and weekends were usually taken live from the feed serving the Eastern and Central time zones.

Forget not the Mountain Time Zone!

 

[tall_guy1]

Or, maybe, just maybe, this had to do with the $40 million dollar annual loss from that show at a time when all traditional network TV is in decline?

Sure, the timing may be linked to the need to keep the ownership transaction on the move, but something had to happen here. I suspect that, now that this dam has broken, we will see more and more cuts in costs and cancellations.

Among discussions is to eliminate the third hour of "prime" to allow local stations to move the late news to 10 PM in most time zones. I mention this as another cost-cutting move, since the production of network shows is increasing while viewership is on the decline, That is just one example of what the networks are trying to deal with as they adapt to an on-demand model

Don't think that's it. I think they would've let Skydance decide that if that was the case, like with cable networks.

 

[IM42A]

Actually, as far as the 48 contiguous states are concerned, prime time is 7-10 pm in two time zones and 8-11 pm in two others. I remember from the Albuquerque part of my childhood that, when videotape was expensive to use, the network affiliates, who were responsible for any time-shifting they desired, taped-delayed prime time on weeknights only. Daytimes and weekends were usually taken live from the feed serving the Eastern and Central time zones.

Forget not the Mountain Time Zone!

The MTZ back in the day was a real hodgepodge of programming schedules, and in many cases, network affilations as well. Now they mirror the CTZ, providing as well an ETZ-like schedule for whatever tens of thousands (if that) of viewers MTZ stations would have in the neighboring western edge of the CTZ.

And as to PTZ viewers who get MTZ stations, such as in Elko County NV or (half of the year) Imperial County CA, where all stations run on a Yuma time schedule, well, the weirdness continues.

 

[davideduardo]

Don't think that's it. I think they would've let Skydance decide that if that was the case, like with cable networks.

The supposition or assumption is that Skydance wanted some of those money losing propositions "fixed" (in the same way my dog is "fixed") before the deal goes through so that all responsibility falls on the seller. Obviously, some also believe that getting approval for the deal would be easier if they made a "show of intent" to make CBS news more neutral... or less partisan at least.

But the ongoing loss of $40 million a year stands out as the "main excuse" for the deed.

 

[michael hagerty]

Two questions:

1) From which middle-school boys' P.E. locker room did this program originate?

I mean, seriously---is this what right-wing America thinks a late-night talk show is? A sloppier, smutty version of The Five?

2) How many drinks did it take for you to recover?

I'll let you know when I stop. Now ask me how many showers I've taken.

 

[michael hagerty]

Back from a day in Alameda at the California Historical Radio Society's Radio Day by the Bay (see that thread in the SF board for pictures), so just catching up:

1) IF Colbert got reckless, his staff (more than 100 people) would get hurt. Stephen Colbert paid his writing staff out of his own pocket during the strikes. He's not gonna screw them over in a fit of pique now. And---if he's going anywhere else for some other project, he's likely going to want a lot of those people (some of whom have been with him since The Colbert Report) to come along. He needs to have their backs more than anything at this point, and from everything I've ever heard about him, that'll be his priority.

2) If CBS is losing $40 million a year on a show that costs $100 million to produce and gets a $30 million tax credit, there's not really a there there for a cheaper "Late Show". Especially as revenues for the timeslot continue to decline. If they can't make money being number one in late night, the answer is to get out of late night.

 

[oldvnewschool]

Here is my take on this: Skydance is speeding up the merger sooner than later. The Late Show will probably not be the first casualty:

The Daily Show ?, Selling off Linear Cable Channels, Evening News as a whole, More Sports in the future?

Trump may have been a false flag, of sorts, for the company to make more changes because they didn't have to settle; Would the merger not have happened? No, but it would've been more difficult.

I would also imagine NBC may try to give up the 10pm hour back to the affiliates because of NBA on Tuesdays, Saturdays Big Ten Football, and Sunday Nights now as a whole.

And ABC may also get out of late night as well as this is Kimmel's last year under his current deal.

 

[gopher101media]

You just won the "nonstop sentence of the week" award.

Is your point that the show could be moved to another city? It would have to be one where guests are accessible.

Or do you mean that the show can be done in a "virtual studio" from the cheapest location possible? Would this preserve the "one on one" feel of the host and their guests?

And unless we see some accounting numbers for the show, we don't know what the major costs are. Obviously, the host and staff are a big part. Do guests have transportation and lodging paid for? What is the difference in technical staff NYC union rates vs. let's say, LA?

Having had at least a "sidebar" part in the move of a TV and radio operation off Manhattan to New Jersey, I know the costs in The City are horrendous. Even things like key staff parking are very much in the outrageous range.

It actually depends on the how the format of the show would be in the event of moving it to a cheaper city (And it does not need to be a city that requires union rates) where if it decided to do away with celebrity interviews altogether the expenses that would needed to be spent on those guests if any would be eliminated. If it had decided to make all of the celebrity interviews be virtual (With the celebrities appearing virtually from where ever he or she is at at the time) the expenses if any would be limited to the cost of Online Bandwidth.

 

[michael hagerty]

It actually depends on the how the format of the show would be in the event of moving it to a cheaper city (And it does not need to be a city that requires union rates) where if it decided to do away with celebrity interviews altogether the expenses that would needed to be spent on those guests if any would be eliminated. If it had decided to make all of the celebrity interviews be virtual (With the celebrities appearing virtually from where ever he or she is at at the time) the expenses if any would be limited to the cost of Online Bandwidth.

Okay, so what are we talking about here?

"From Fort Smith, Arkansas, it's Late Night with whoever'll work for a hundred grand. Tonight---live via Zoom---"

Who'd watch?

And as the audience numbers decline what guests are you going to get to agree to appear---even from their living room?

The thing about show business, is to get the business, you gotta put on a show. When the money dries up for that kinda show (vaudeville, big splashy prime-time variety hours), you stop doing that kind of show.

 

[K.M. Richards]

It actually depends on the how the format of the show would be in the event of moving it to a cheaper city (And it does not need to be a city that requires union rates) where if it decided to do away with celebrity interviews altogether the expenses that would needed to be spent on those guests if any would be eliminated. If it had decided to make all of the celebrity interviews be virtual (With the celebrities appearing virtually from where ever he or she is at at the time) the expenses if any would be limited to the cost of Online Bandwidth.

1. As I said before, a program without "name brand, recognizable" guests is the same as putting up color bars for an hour. You'll get the same amount of viewing.
2. A city that does not require union rates? For a network program? Can you spell "naïve"?
3. The public had enough of virtual television interviews during the pandemic.

Please go back and read Mike's post, which he posted while I was writing this. Great minds think alike.

 

[tall_guy1]

Okay, so what are we talking about here?

"From Fort Smith, Arkansas, it's Late Night with whoever'll work for a hundred grand. Tonight---live via Zoom---"

Who'd watch?

And as the audience numbers decline what guests are you going to get to agree to appear---even from their living room?

The thing about show business, is to get the business, you gotta put on a show. When the money dries up for that kinda show (vaudeville, big splashy prime-time variety hours), you stop doing that kind of show.

I don't know if TBS was making money off Conan...his ratings were always pretty bad on there after the first year or so, and he stayed on. Only in the last two years of his show did they even shorten him to a half hour.

 

[fybush]

We have seen what a stripped-down Late Show with no studio audience, no fancy set and remote guests looks like, when Colbert broadcast from home and then from an upstairs closet at the Ed Sullivan in the early months of the pandemic.

It was awful.

 

[gr8oldies]

Or anyone who's known that he'd take credit for him having a hangnail. It's no secret that Kimmel has been interested in retirement for years or that he's been wondering aloud if late night has a future. This is just a cheap attempt for Trump to take credit for what is already a likely predetermined outcome.

The thing is, CBS didn't cut Colbert loose right away and replace The Late Show with Comics Unleashed reruns. Had they done that or if ABC does that to Kimmel, then I would 100% agree with said f-word. BUT as of right now, Colbert is a lame duck host now untethered to say whatever he wants on national television for the next 10 months. It puts CBS in a sword of Damocles situation; if they cancel Colbert outright prior to next May, they make him a political martyr.

Colbert has several months of "what are they going to do, fire me?".

 

[CTListener]

Does Gutfeld have big-name guests on his show?