NBC's is typical of the overall problem of radio & TV.

[badjef]

Was Conan that bad?
NO!

Leno was worse at first. He had 6 years for the audience to get used to him before the "batton" was tossed to him. Conan was thrown into the 11:30pm slot without having to guest host, first.

Carson was comfortable with having a fill-in. So is Rush Limbaugh for radio.

Leno, Letterman, and NBC with Russert, did not, and are not, "grooming" replacements. To just assume the audience will just accept a new face during that time when there is already one (Letterman) reveals the arrogance of the network decision makers that people will just watch everything thay put on. "Because, It's on TV" - quote George Costanza.

Radio is running into the same problem. Syndication is great but it dies not allow for growth. Where there is no farm team (local & Live) your ratings will start falling faster than the NY Mets in '09.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[SKIPPER]

some good points...

 

[LKellerIII]

Was Conan that bad?
NO!

Leno was worse at first. He had 6 years for the audience to get used to him before the "batton" was tossed to him. Conan was thrown into the 11:30pm slot without having to guest host, first.

Carson was comfortable with having a fill-in. So is Rush Limbaugh for radio.

Leno, Letterman, and NBC with Russert, did not, and are not, "grooming" replacements. To just assume the audience will just accept a new face during that time when there is already one (Letterman) reveals the arrogance of the network decision makers that people will just watch everything thay put on. "Because, It's on TV" - quote George Costanza.

Radio is running into the same problem. Syndication is great but it dies not allow for growth. Where there is no farm team (local & Live) your ratings will start falling faster than the NY Mets in '09.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

Yes...some good points, but a little flawed, as far as NBC goes. Russert was only 57, and in seemingly good health at the top of his game - why would NBC "groom a replacement?" Also, Brokaw filled in admirably, and gave Meet the Press time to re-group.

Conan was "groomed" more or less, to take over The Tonight Show, and I'm one that has said they should have given him more time to grow. I believe the mistake was to smooth over his rougher edges for the supposedly more sensitive 11:35 audience. They should have kept the edge of Late Night. Whether that mistake was Conan's - or was done because NBC demanded it, I don't know.

Of course, we all know now that they would have had to pay Leno much more money to go away, so I'm sure that had a lot to do with the final decision.

As for the fill-in question: if my memory serves, NBC stopped having subs fill in for Carson many years ago, when they figured that reruns with Carson got better ratings than a new show with a fill-in host.

 

[badjef]

Was Conan that bad?
NO!

Leno was worse at first. He had 6 years for the audience to get used to him before the "batton" was tossed to him. Conan was thrown into the 11:30pm slot without having to guest host, first.

Carson was comfortable with having a fill-in. So is Rush Limbaugh for radio.

Leno, Letterman, and NBC with Russert, did not, and are not, "grooming" replacements. To just assume the audience will just accept a new face during that time when there is already one (Letterman) reveals the arrogance of the network decision makers that people will just watch everything thay put on. "Because, It's on TV" - quote George Costanza.

Radio is running into the same problem. Syndication is great but it dies not allow for growth. Where there is no farm team (local & Live) your ratings will start falling faster than the NY Mets in '09.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

Yes...some good points, but a little flawed, as far as NBC goes. Russert was only 57, and in seemingly good health at the top of his game - why would NBC "groom a replacement?" Also, Brokaw filled in admirably, and gave Meet the Press time to re-group.

Russert's death caught NBC completely by surprise. Brokaw was ready for retirement, that's why he stepped down from "7pm."
NBC had nobody to sit in the chair! - Life ain't forever. We are all expedible.

Conan was "groomed" more or less, to take over The Tonight Show, and I'm one that has said they should have given him more time to grow.

No question

I believe the mistake was to smooth over his rougher edges for the supposedly more sensitive 11:35 audience. They should have kept the edge of Late Night. Whether that mistake was Conan's - or was done because NBC demanded it, I don't know.

That was a different audience. He was groomed as a talk show host. Not for the audience.

Of course, we all know now that they would have had to pay Leno much more money to go away, so I'm sure that had a lot to do with the final decision.

As for the fill-in question: if my memory serves, NBC stopped having subs fill in for Carson many years ago, when they figured that reruns with Carson got better ratings than a new show with a fill-in host.

NBC had a regular host with Joan Rivers until she went to start-up FOX. Leno was her replacement. The audience had 6 years to let Leno blend into THEIR schedule.

I think these are just examples of a mis-direction or a larger problem with NBC.

Here is a network that experiments with 24hr weather (Weather Plus), cancels it, then buys The Weather Channel.

Now Comcast is buying NBC. GE is realizing something otherwise there would be more of a partnership rather than majority stake sale.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[imhomerjay]

Russert's death caught NBC completely by surprise. Brokaw was ready for retirement, that's why he stepped down from "7pm."
NBC had nobody to sit in the chair! - Life ain't forever. We are all expedible.

Not following...Brokaw had a replacement when he stepped down from "7 pm" (or 6:30 or whatever you want to call it). No one to sit in the chair? Mr. Williams might disagree.

No, they didn't have someone ready for Russert, but that doesn't seem to fit what you said re: Brokaw retiring.

 

[TheBigA]

There is a huge farm team. Conan bypassed it completely when he was made host of Late Night 15 years ago. He really couldn't fill in for Leno when he had his own show to do. And once his agent got him the 11:30 gig, he was heir apparent regardless of his ability. That was where the mistake was made.

To your other point, there is no shortage of radio or TV talent available. They prepare and audition every day. There are lots of people who work specifically to train the next generation of talent. The farm system exists, but it's under the radar. If you think working the overnight shift in Boise will get you a gig in New York, you're wrong. But there is a farm system in New York City right now, if you look for it. When a gig opens up, it's "must be present to win." They're not going to seek you out when there are thousands of people right outside their door.

Those who want to be the next generation of talent need to invest in themselves. Find a coach, a consultant, and someone who can work FOR you. Yes it will cost you money. Yes there's no guarantee it will lead to work. But being talent requires that you have some to begin with, and that you can build a team that maximizes who you are. Don't expect an employer to do that for you. It's your life. Make it into something.

 

[vchimpanzee]

I still want to hear this conversation on "30 Rock".

Liz: Jack, is it true Leno's going back to 11:30?

Jack: That's right, Lemon. The affiliates couldn't deal with Leno bringing down their ratings.

Liz: But what does that mean for "TGS"?

Jack: Relax, Lemon. Leno got cut back to four nights a week when "TGS" started. Conan was four nights a week as well. You're safe. Leno was five nights at 10 only because the network wanted the same thing all five nights.

Liz: You're sure Leno won't take my slot?

Jack: As long as you keep your audience, you won't end up like Conan.

 

[bpatrick]

I've been reading that Leno has been branded a villain,
mostly on account of Letterman's monologues. Does
anyone think Letterman still holds a grudge because he
didn't get Carson's chair?

As for Brokaw's planning his retirement and naming
Brian Williams as his successor, that's certainly more
than either Peter Jennings or Dan Rather did. ABC and
CBS were brought up short by Jennings' passing and
Rather's imbroglio about George W. Bush's military record.
And I'll say it until I enter the grave: John Roberts should
have been Rather's replacement.

 

[landtuna]

Was Conan that bad?

Realizing that comedy, like beauty, is a personal preference - yes, Conan was THAT bad!

With many months to come up with a first-show opening that would define his show he bombed badly. Although he occasionally hits one out of the park most of his humor seems to be of the SNL variety. In other words, very similar to that high school play the drama club did. Childish. Not until the duel with Leno did he come up to the level expected of a first rate comedian.

Bear in mind that in competing with Leno the bar isn't set that high. He didn't have to be that good. And he wasn't.

 

[Markxxx]

Well times are different. You can't compare what happened 15 years ago to today.

There is a glut of actors, singers, and performers. To make this worse, reality TV has now allowed TV to skip actors all together.

You're really getting back to where radio was when it first opened. Anyone with any sort of an act could get on and try.

The business model has changed and actors and writers and such don't want to acknowledge this.

Should Conan be given longer? Probably not. Leno and Letterman appeal to different audiences so they can split up the take easy. Conan is more or less appealing to the same audience as Letterman. So Leno's audience left and there was less audience to split up. Less audience means less ratings.

The real problem with this was not Leno or Conan, it was the local affiliates 10/11pm newscasts.

 

[WPPCProductions]

I like Jay and Conan, I find both are entertaining a times.It's to bacd this had to happen this way,and yes todays tv is cheap tv, NBC and the other nets as we know have to cut costs to keep alive,if they don't they have to join the defunct dept with DuMont,UPN,WB.Cheap production,more over head.I know I'm sick of reality tv,but the rest of the country seems to like them.

 

[badjef]

The real problem with this was not Leno or Conan, it was the local affiliates 10/11pm newscasts.

I saw a problem with Leno's live cut-in to front sell the news. WNBC would go to the 11p anchors, so it worked. In Nashville, on WSMV, the station would cut to commercial. Even though the Nashville was 10pm, it should have not made a difference. They never realized the problem?

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[badjef]

I've been reading that Leno has been branded a villain, mostly on account of Letterman's monologues.

I wouldn’t necessarily repeat what I’ve read with regard to these situations.

Does anyone think Letterman still holds a grudge because he didn't get Carson's chair?

Nope, he's probably laughing and feels vindicated.

As for Brokaw's planning his retirement and naming Brian Williams as his successor,

He had filled in from time to time for Brokaw.

that's certainly more than either Peter Jennings or Dan Rather did. ABC and CBS were brought up short by Jennings' passing

Charlie Gibson had filled in for Jennings, just as Jennings had filled in for Frank Reynolds by 1983.

and Rather's imbroglio about George W. Bush's military record.

Rather did it to himself. And that further reinforces my point when they brought in Bob Scheifer ‘cause they had nobody else.

And I'll say it until I enter the grave: John Roberts should have been Rather's replacement.

I won't get into Middletown Firefighter Brian Williams. All, or at least most of these guys, are deserving of their jobs from a professional and personal standpoint. They have worked hard, smart, and focused. In 2 dimensions though, there has to be relatable with the audience, otherwise there has to be time for it to grow.

No matter that Jay was Carson's regular guest host, I still had a problem after Johnny retired. It took years before I accepted him. Still, neither Letterman nor Leno, nor Conan was a Carson killer, nor Arsenio - age was.

If these guys are going to continue to run reruns of their mugs, the networks shouldn’t complain when the ratings go away when they do.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[JeeperOne]

Right now, NBC is nothing more than a mere shell of its former self PERIOD

'Nuff said.....

Cheers

 

[badjef]

Right now, NBC is nothing more than a mere shell of its former self PERIOD

'Nuff said.....

Cheers

Unfortunately, they used to hide it better.
They are making it obvious, now.

My ringtone is G-E-C.

Tears..,

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[bpatrick]

As for Brokaw's planning his retirement and naming Brian Williams as his successor,

He had filled in from time to time for Brokaw.

that's certainly more than either Peter Jennings or Dan Rather did. ABC and CBS were brought up short by Jennings' passing

Charlie Gibson had filled in for Jennings, just as Jennings had filled in for Frank Reynolds by 1983.

and Rather's imbroglio about George W. Bush's military record.

Rather did it to himself. And that further reinforces my point when they brought in Bob Scheifer ‘cause they had nobody else.

The point is that neither Jennings nor Rather ever named a replacement, and in Jennings' situation, that was even after he learned of the cancer that killed him. Don't forget that Elizabeth Vargas and Bob Woodruff had a short run anchoring "World News" before Gibson took over.
Personally, I don't think either Jennings or Rather anticipated they would be forced to step down before they were ready.

 

[badjef]

The point is that neither Jennings nor Rather ever named a replacement, and in Jennings' situation, that was even after he learned of the cancer that killed him. Don't forget that Elizabeth Vargas and Bob Woodruff had a short run anchoring "World News" before Gibson took over.
Personally, I don't think either Jennings or Rather anticipated they would be forced to step down before they were ready.

Be that as it may, Jennings and Rather were not the decision makers. Only the faces they called anchors, managing editors, etc.
I think you are giving these guys more credit than they deserve.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[LKellerIII]

I don't think it's too valid to use Bob Schieffer as an example of not having a back up plan. Schieffer is a CBS veteran, and a very smart guy with a wicked sense of humor, and more than a little charisma. He was a terrific anchor, and a lot of TV critics and regular viewers thought he should have stayed on. But they wanted somebody younger, and he's actually older than Rather. Also - I don't think he really wanted the job on a permanent basis.

 

[formeraa]

But they wanted somebody younger, and he's actually older than Rather.

You're mistaken. Bob Schieffer is some 5 to 6 years YOUNGER than Dan Rather.

 

[badjef]

I don't think it's too valid to use Bob Schieffer as an example of not having a back up plan. Schieffer is a CBS veteran, and a very smart guy with a wicked sense of humor, and more than a little charisma. He was a terrific anchor, and a lot of TV critics and regular viewers thought he should have stayed on. But they wanted somebody younger, and he's actually older than Rather. Also - I don't think he really wanted the job on a permanent basis.

This misses the point.
The networks are taking people out of retirement - or at least semi-retirement - because they have nobody younger who they feel is capable of delivering the audience to the buyers. The credibility - or lack of it - is the issue with the younger guys. TV is a young man's game. Gray hair doesn't cut it in a business in 2 dimensions. Ask any actress or actor who is getting plastic surgery or hair color so that they don't look their age.

Do you think that Reagan went to the grave without having gone naturely gray or Clinton who wished to be portrayed as older by coloring his?

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!