NBC said to be building new Tonight Show studio at 30 Rock

[nomadcowatbk]

I can't believe there is so much discussion about a show that draws, at best, 3M per night and most of those are either outside the demo or asleep.

Because it's a franchise that has been around for close to 60 years and has a rich history.

young viewers don't care about a rich history, but where will Leno's geezer audience go, will they go to Letterman or just die?

 

[Fenway1912]

I can't believe there is so much discussion about a show that draws, at best, 3M per night and most of those are either outside the demo or asleep.

Because it's a franchise that has been around for close to 60 years and has a rich history.

young viewers don't care about a rich history, but where will Leno's geezer audience go, will they go to Letterman or just die?

The networks could not care less

 

[FredLeonard]

Leno's demos are geriatric. Some are Letterman's for that matter. And now Kimmel has entered the game. Comcast figures they can't give Kimmel more time to establish himself with money demo viewers.

The Daily Mail reports NBC is getting a major tax break from New York to move the Tonight Show back to New York.

SNL needs 8-H because the show uses multiple sets and 8-H is big enough to accommodate them. They don't remove the set after one skit and put in a new one. 8-H was built to hold an entire symphony orchestra. During the era of live television, it housed live TV drama (requiring multiple sets). The Tonight Show does not need that much space. It's a desk and chair show.

Fallon is currently in 6-B. Jack Parr and Johnny Carson both did the Tonight Show from 6-B

Tonight Show hosts who move to Prime Time don't last long. Jack Parr was gone in two years. Steve Allen in three. Johnny was smart to stay put. The last successful prime time comedy-variety show was Carol Burnett, which ended in 1978.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

I can't believe there is so much discussion about a show that draws, at best, 3M per night and most of those are either outside the demo or asleep.

Because it's a franchise that has been around for close to 60 years and has a rich history.

young viewers don't care about a rich history, but where will Leno's geezer audience go, will they go to Letterman or just die?

The networks could not care less

Does CBS think they'll get a some loyal geezer Leno viewers?

 

[nomadcowatbk]

Leno's demos are geriatric. Some are Letterman's for that matter. And now Kimmel has entered the game. Comcast figures they can't give Kimmel more time to establish himself with money demo viewers.

Adult Swim outrages any network late night show and even Conan on a sister station with young men. But anyone over 49 is dead to advertisers based on outdated research. They'll never be a godlike late night host like Carson again. Letterman might dominate with older viewers while the Jimmys fight for younger viewers. Maybe Arsenio can actually come back?

 

[nomadcowatbk]

Leno's demos are geriatric. Some are Letterman's for that matter. And now Kimmel has entered the game. Comcast figures they can't give Kimmel more time to establish himself with money demo viewers.

Most live TV viewers are probably geriatric, at least to advertisers. Appointment TV is dead.

 

[KeithE4]

Leno's demos are geriatric. Some are Letterman's for that matter. And now Kimmel has entered the game. Comcast figures they can't give Kimmel more time to establish himself with money demo viewers.

Most live TV viewers are probably geriatric, at least to advertisers. Appointment TV is dead.

I hope you're not including sports in that statement. Other than that, you're right.

 

[TheBigA]

Most live TV viewers are probably geriatric, at least to advertisers. Appointment TV is dead.

Huh? If that's true, then why this focus on Kimmel and Fallon?

The truth is that the shows are popular with younger audiences. That's why the motivation to replace Leno.

However, one of the side aspects of this (and you used the qualification "live TV viewers") is that younger audiences are not always watching in real time. But they do watch, and they watch longer and watch with more attention than older viewers. They were raised on TV. So the issue is how to monetize that younger audience, because the potential is great.

 

[mnradiofan]

Leno's demos are geriatric. Some are Letterman's for that matter. And now Kimmel has entered the game. Comcast figures they can't give Kimmel more time to establish himself with money demo viewers.

Most live TV viewers are probably geriatric, at least to advertisers. Appointment TV is dead.

I hope you're not including sports in that statement. Other than that, you're right.

With a DVR, I no longer HAVE to watch live sports, and personally I choose not to because of all the commercials in the broadcasts. I'm not saying the majority do that yet, but I'm sure time-shifting sports, even by a few hours, is on the rise.

 

[KeithE4]

With a DVR, I no longer HAVE to watch live sports, and personally I choose not to because of all the commercials in the broadcasts. I'm not saying the majority do that yet, but I'm sure time-shifting sports, even by a few hours, is on the rise.

Taping/DVRing entertainment shows is no big deal, but sports is still best viewed live unless one really doesn't care if he/she hears the final score before seeing the game.

 

[Markxxx]

When I read things like this, the cynic in me always thinks premeditated media hype. ;D

 

[LKellerIII]

With a DVR, I no longer HAVE to watch live sports, and personally I choose not to because of all the commercials in the broadcasts. I'm not saying the majority do that yet, but I'm sure time-shifting sports, even by a few hours, is on the rise.

Taping/DVRing entertainment shows is no big deal, but sports is still best viewed live unless one really doesn't care if he/she hears the final score before seeing the game.

You probably know this already, but you don't have to wait until the game is over to start watching on a DVR. Just start about 45 minutes into the game, fast-forward thru the commercials, and you're likely to catch up with the live game before the end.

I'm personally not a huge sports fan, but I do this all the time with non-sports programming - just start a 30 minute show 7 or 8 minutes late, or a 60 minute show about 15 minutes late.

And I'm one of those "geezers" posters above are referring to - but like most baby boomers, I'm computer literate, so it's not hard fo figure out how to operate a DVR. Anbyody that could figure out how to program a VHS or Beta video recorder in the 80s can certainly use a DVR seamlessly.

 

[FredLeonard]

With a DVR, I no longer HAVE to watch live sports, and personally I choose not to because of all the commercials in the broadcasts. I'm not saying the majority do that yet, but I'm sure time-shifting sports, even by a few hours, is on the rise.

Taping/DVRing entertainment shows is no big deal, but sports is still best viewed live unless one really doesn't care if he/she hears the final score before seeing the game.

You probably know this already, but you don't have to wait until the game is over to start watching on a DVR. Just start about 45 minutes into the game, fast-forward thru the commercials, and you're likely to catch up with the live game before the end.

I'm personally not a huge sports fan, but I do this all the time with non-sports programming - just start a 30 minute show 7 or 8 minutes late, or a 60 minute show about 15 minutes late.

And I'm one of those "geezers" posters above are referring to - but like most baby boomers, I'm computer literate, so it's not hard fo figure out how to operate a DVR. Anbyody that could figure out how to program a VHS or Beta video recorder in the 80s can certainly use a DVR seamlessly.

That's true. In fact, I start watching football games an hour or so late. I use the 30-second skip between plays and fast forward through half-time and all commercial time-outs. If the game is sort of dull, I fast forward until it looks like somebody might score.

Sometimes I do watch a game after the fact. You can avoid hearing scores.

I don't watch late night TV live. I usually crash before then. I watch Letterman in the morning, rather than the TV morning shows.

 

[editthis]

"The news comes as the New York Post quotes Steve Pruett, the head of Fox's affiliate board who represents most of the network's affiliate stations, as saying he'd like to see Jay launch a new late-night show on Fox in the 11 p.m. time slot."

Maybe a place for Jay to go afterall...

 

[TheBigA]

"The news comes as the New York Post quotes Steve Pruett, the head of Fox's affiliate board who represents most of the network's affiliate stations, as saying he'd like to see Jay launch a new late-night show on Fox in the 11 p.m. time slot."

Maybe a place for Jay to go afterall...

The question Jay has to ask himself is he willing to work for less money. Because if he goes someplace else, especially Fox, that's what they'll want. The dollars just don't work, especially on Fox, for a show with his kind of budget and staff. Even at NBC, he's seen his staff cut. It would be smaller anyplace else.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

Leno leads in all categories, so if the rumors are true about giving Fallon the slot, particularly because some executive was miffed about a monolouge, it would be a foolish decision on NBCs part.

At least NBC would be doing something they're very good at. They have become experts in foolish decision-making. ;D

And the Leno/Conan debacle is living proof. NBC has a legacy for stubbing its corporate toe. I hear the suits having been showing for corporate meetings wearing company issue steel-toed boots. Meanwhile, Leno, once again, takes one on the chin.

And straying toward other posts, I'm not so sure about Letterman being the pied piper of the "geezer" market. Given his history of political slights against the Right, along with his red-carpet treatment of leggy, pouty lipped girly stars and peach-fuzz-faced bohemian male entertainers, why would Letterman appeal to geezers?

 

[nomadcowatbk]

Leno leads in all categories, so if the rumors are true about giving Fallon the slot, particularly because some executive was miffed about a monolouge, it would be a foolish decision on NBCs part.

At least NBC would be doing something they're very good at. They have become experts in foolish decision-making. ;D
[/quote

And straying toward other posts, I'm not so sure about Letterman being the pied piper of the "geezer" market. Given his history of political slights against the Right, along with his red-carpet treatment of leggy, pouty lipped girly stars and peach-fuzz-faced bohemian male entertainers, why would Letterman appeal to geezers?

cause he is a geezer, geezers want to keep up with latest trends of their grandkids and celebs they've never heard of

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

And straying toward other posts, I'm not so sure about Letterman being the pied piper of the "geezer" market. Given his history of political slights against the Right, along with his red-carpet treatment of leggy, pouty lipped girly stars and peach-fuzz-faced bohemian male entertainers, why would Letterman appeal to geezers?

cause he is a geezer, geezers want to keep up with latest trends of their grandkids and celebs they've never heard of

You know, you may be on to something. Maybe we're witnessing the branding of a new viewer demo, the "Letterman closet-geezer".

 

[editthis]

And now this....Late Night with Seth Meyers?

http://tvline.com/2013/03/22/late-night-with-seth-meyers-replace-jimmy-fallon/

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

Some Fox stations (like WFXT-25 in my hometown of Boston) have expanded their 10 P.M. (Eastern) late evening local newscasts to 90 minutes, so it now runs from 10 to 11:30.

So if Jay Leno were to go to Fox for an 11 P.M. (ET/PT) talk show (or Fox launching any other network show running at 11 P.M. Monday-through-Friday), they would have to convince at least a few stations (including a couple of O&O's, like WFXT) to give up a half-hour of late local news at 11.