# Leno - Conan - NBC Saga



## cj9788

http://blogs.courant.com/roger_catlin_tv_eye/2010/01/the-10-pm-jay-leno-show-offici.html


----------



## SayWhat?

From the link:



> The NBC experiment running "The Jay Leno Show" nightly at 10 p.m. will end on Feb. 12, NBC confirmed Sunday morning.
> 
> "It has been performing at acceptable levels for networks, but it did not meet all the afilliate needs," Jeff Gaspin, chairman of NBC Universal Television Entertainment told a packed room at the TV critics winter press tour.
> 
> In moving Leno to 11:35 p.m. for a half hour version of his show, Gaspin said he is determined to keep both Conan O'Brien, who took over Leno's slot on "The Tonight Show" -- which will now move to 12:05 a.m. -- and Jimmy Fallon, who took O'Brien's spot on "Late Night" an hour later.


Has it been six months? Who was keeping track of the pool?

And who said the affiliates didn't matter?


----------



## dpeters11

And Tonight show ratings will drop even more.

Of course now the question is how to fill 5 hours of primetime?


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Can't stand Leno. Does anyone here think that Colbert can make the jump to broadcast TV?


----------



## Getteau

I'm still trying to figure out how he can do a 30 minute show. After all the commercials, he's only going to have enough time to do the monologue and then one guest/skit. 

I don't generally watch these shows, but it seems like it's going to feel rushed or just an out of place show sandwiched between the news and the Tonight show. I also agree that it's probably going to hurt the ratings for "The Tonight Show." Jay is going to steal the folks were just tuning into the Tonight show for the monologue before going to bed.


----------



## SayWhat?

dpeters11 said:


> Of course now the question is how to fill 5 hours of primetime?


According to the linked article, 'reality' shows and repeats. (Whippeeee!!)

Colbert? I'd rather see a blank screen or a test pattern.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I think that Daily Show and Colbert already do quite well on cable. I don't think they need the added pressure of going to network... 

now the only question is, how long will it take NBC to find new programming for that slot?


----------



## Herdfan

Getteau said:


> I'm still trying to figure out how he can do a 30 minute show. After all the commercials, he's only going to have enough time to do the monologue and then one guest/skit.


Which may be just perfect for some folks. I wonder how many just watched his monologue and then turned it off. Now they may stay knowing the featured guest will be on soon and not in another 35-40 minutes.


----------



## armophob

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Can't stand Leno. Does anyone here think that Colbert can make the jump to broadcast TV?


They would never allow him the freedoms he enjoys now on CC. The reason his show works is because it is not on NBC. Look at the Daily show, it was born of talent rejected by the networks.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

...and yet the networks and studios have since picked up Steve Carell, Rob Corddry and others. Hmmmm.


----------



## armophob

Stuart Sweet said:


> ...and yet the networks and studios have since picked up Steve Carell, Rob Corddry and others. Hmmmm.


True, but in scripted sitcom formats that they can understand.


----------



## phrelin

From the LA Times:


> Although Leno's weeknight 10 p.m show was performing at an acceptable level for the network, "it did not meet our affiliates' needs," Gaspin said. NBC's big affiliate groups, including broadcasters Hearst Corp. and Gannett Co., had been very vocal about how Leno's show was hurting their late local news. A movement was afoot among the groups to push Leno's show from to 11 p.m. and put local news in the 10 p.m. slot.
> 
> "This was not going to go well if that was the case," Gaspin said regarding the threat of preemptions from affiliates. NBC's audience had dropped about 30% in the three months since Leno went on at 10 p.m. The effect on the affiliates, he said, "forces them to force our hand."


That's all well and good, but exactly what outstanding programming is going to bring more than an average of 4-5 million viewers to NBC at 10 pm? These people are dreaming if they think in March they can significantly outdraw Leno's numbers against existing CBS and ABC programming to bolster the lead in to affiliates' news.

Fridays they have no chance at doing better than Leno because the audience isn't there.
Thursdays they're up against "Private Practice" and "The Mentalist."
Wednesdays they're up against "Criminal Minds" and "Ugly Betty."
Tuesday they're up against "The Good Wife" and maybe "V".
Monday they're up against "CSI: Miami" and "Castle", the latter having a lead in with the new season of "DWTS."
That 10 pm programming had better be really good! There just isn't much of a 10 pm audience to split up.


----------



## SayWhat?

> That 10 pm programming had better be really good!


Well, it won't be. We already know that. They may pull lightning out of a bottle for one night, but no more. They screwed up so bad, they might not recover at all.

The question becomes, what will the affilates do if NBC goes under? And can the affiliates look forward to a Comcast takeover of NBC or not?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

This is kinda what I figured would happen all along...

NBC desperately wanted to keep Leno, or at least prevent him from competing against Conan on the Tonight Show. Meanwhile, they also already were joined in the club of bad network TV decisions.

I also figured Leno's show would be profitable... but not entirely popular.

So here we are... NBC essentially issuing ultimatums to all their talk show hosts... It'd be funny if they all balked... but I'm sure Conan wouldn't get better money elsewhere now that the Tonight Show hasn't been doing as well with him as it had with Leno... and it may be too late for Leno to get a competing gig on another network.


----------



## Richard King

dpeters11 said:


> And Tonight show ratings will drop even more.
> 
> Of course now the question is how to fill 5 hours of primetime?


Reruns of Johnny Carson?


----------



## Doug Brott

Well, Criminal Intent could make a return to NBC vs. USA .. A couple of the other USA shows could be re-shown on NBC .. Law & Order and Law & Order: SVU can slide back into a 10 pm slot .. They could show Southland .. Oops, they let that one go already :shrug: .. I'm sure it won't actually be that hard to fill the slots. They could let Friday just wither for now with a replay of a show from earlier in the week.


----------



## RobertE

Encore presentations of Burn Notice, The Closer, Psych, Leverage & White Collar would fill out the week until the figure out what to do.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

It would be nice to see Jay move to Fox as he has "joked" on his show, then we can see how well Conan can do against Jay and Letterman. Playing around with #1 was a poor decision from the get go.


----------



## Indiana627

Doug Brott said:


> Law & Order and Law & Order can slide back into a 10 pm slot


I would think moving SVU back to Tuesdays at 10 would be a no brainer since it used to win that time slot but has gotten hammered in the Wednesday at 9 slot.


----------



## SayWhat?

> For NBC, which had promised to give Leno a full year in the 10 p.m. time slot, "It's certainly a little bit of egg on the face," Levine said.
> 
> Mediaweek analyst Marc Berman called the network's gamble on Leno "the biggest fiasco in the history of television."
> 
> "What they didn't realize was that the people who watched Leno in late night were not necessarily the same people who watched in prime time, so there was no reason to believe that his audience would follow him to prime time," Berman said.
> 
> Meanwhile, the O'Brien-helmed "Tonight" lost about half its audience "and actually really hurt late night, which is a big profit center for NBC," Berman said.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/10/jay.leno.nbc/index.html


----------



## SayWhat?

> NBC said it had given the go-ahead to pilots for six new scripted dramas and two new comedies for the 2010-2011 season starting in September. They include shows from Emmy-award winners David E. Kelley and Jerry Bruckheimer.





> NBC said its green light for next season's pilots included an updated version of the 1970s detective show "The Rockford Files," a legal drama from "L.A. Law" creator Kelley called "Kindreds" and an action thriller called "Chase" from Bruckheimer, whose successes include the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies.
> 
> Asked how NBC could mend its reputation and convince viewers to return, prime time entertainment president Angela Bromstad told reporters: "I think the only way we can do that is to return some great quality shows to the schedule."


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...RSS&feedName=entertainmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true


----------



## SayWhat?

What they need is to find a new sit-com (or 4) in the realm of Cheers, Night Court, Seinfeld, Friends, etc.


----------



## phrelin

I'd assume "SVU" should go to 10 pm rather than duke it out with "AI", "DWTS" results and "NCIS:LA". But I'm not sure given the number of 10 pm viewers available it won't lose a million viewers in the process. Reviving the plain old "L&O" on Wednesday at 10 pm would give them at least 1-2 million more than "Leno." Beyond that, back in November 2009 NBC signed a deal for a script for "Boston PD" and in fact has purchased a number of scripts. Maybe they could pay Leno to read them.

Like I said before:


phrelin said:


> Or they could pretend they're CBS and get Dick Wolf to keep producing "Law & Order", "Law & Order: SVU" and "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" and run reruns of "White Collar" and "Royal Pains" to fill out the 10 pm schedule. These shows all will have syndication revenues up the wazoo, are comparatively cheap to produce (not compared to "Leno" of course), and could attract more than 4 million viewers on NBC, except maybe Friday.


----------



## SamC

NBC has a big "to do" list.

It has to repair its relationship with its affiliates. Affiliates do matter. Some of that will be behind the scenes in the business to business relationship that we never see. But it must, and not just in the short term, invest in programming. It must make it clear that it is more equal to CBS and ABC, than it is to CW, or even to Fox. That means getting legitimate programming to flesh out a three hour primetime (four on Sundays) at least Sunday-Thursday. NBC needs hits, and not just at 10, but in shows designed for the 8 and 9 slots. It needs to figure out what it wants to do at late night (which, despite the understandable spin from NBC to divert attention from its failed venture at 10, is much less important). 

And, and this is my wild card, it needs sports. Sports build a network. Sports are constant over time, while primetime ebbs and flows. Currently NBC has the Olympics, which is only 4 1/2 weeks of programming over four year (and which pre-emts other stuff, including the profitable affiliate programming) for which it over-pays; Notre Dame football, which is not of equal popularity in all parts of the country; the NHL, which has a quite similar geographic spread; and its Sunday night NFL, which, IMHO, it does a poor job with; and a few weeks of major golf. 

I look for NBC to make lots of leagues very big offers as rights come up in the next few years. General PGA, NCAA tournament, MLB, afternoon NFL, etc.


----------



## bicker1

Carrying this over from the old thread...

In the absence of the pressure that what-could-have-been manipulation of public opinion by irate affiliates, the gamble that NBC took, was almost surely the better bet for the network, though surely not for the affiliates. The affiliates attacked hard, or some others attacked hard, still to their benefit. They fought for what was better for themselves, rather than what was better for the network, and in doing so they were doing what they were supposed to be doing, trying to push things in a direction that they believed would be to their own benefit. And they were successful. They won the battle.

Now the real question is whether or not "what comes next" is even worse for them. Business is a matter of risk. And whatever forces worked to push back at this move by the network took a big risk that, in getting the network to back-pedal on this. They could have essentially jumped out of the frying pan into the fire.

Only time will tell.


----------



## RobertE

One other option would be to give the 10-11 time slot back to the affiliates. Let them run the late news from 10-11. Thats what our Fox station does. Then put the late night talk shows from 11 on.


----------



## Marlin Guy

How can they still call Conan's gig "The Tonight Show" when it will be coming on tomorrow? :lol:


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Yeah, they said the same thing on the morning news...


----------



## trainman

Can't wait for Conan's monologue tonight. (At least it is still "tonight" for now.  )


----------



## Getteau

trainman said:


> Can't wait for Conan's monologue tonight. (At least it is still "tonight" for now.  )


I was just thinking the same thing. It's only a matter of time before Jay's show goes back to being called "The Tonight Show." Since "The Tonight Show" has always been on directly after the news, how may people are going to think Jay is back to doing "The Tonight Show" and that Conan is back to "The Late Show" or whatever his show used to be called. That's if people even tune into Conan to see whatever guests Jay doesn't steal from him.


----------



## jeffshoaf

Time to bring back Life for one of those vacated slots!


----------



## Indiana627

And Journeyman!


----------



## The Merg

Although Conan's version of The Tonight Show has lost viewership compared to Leno, I wonder how much of that has to do with the fact that the local news airings have lost viewership due to the fact that Leno is their lead-in.

- Merg


----------



## bicker1

It's not just that Conan's version of The Tonight Show has lost viewership compared to Leno -- Conan's version is losing to Letterman, while Leno's version beat Letterman. That's a pretty big switch.


----------



## Doug Brott

Indiana627 said:


> And Journeyman!


Too late for this one, but yeah .. Another poor decision.


----------



## frederic1943

Conan didn't react well to the news.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...ws%2Fentertainment+%28Text+-+Entertainment%29

.


----------



## phrelin

Oh how original can NBC get? They're exploring "Law & Order: Los Angeles" now dubbed "LOLA". For those who like predictable, formulaic police crime procedurals I have the vision of perfect broadcast TV excluding anything with a scifi bent like "Fringe" or "Medium":

*CBS*

CSI
CSI: Miami
CSI: New York
NCIS
NCIS: Los Angeles
Criminal Minds
The Mentalist
Cold Case
Numb3rs
*Fox*

Bones
*ABC*

Castle
*NBC*

Law & Order
Law & Order: SVU
Law & Order: Criminal Intent
Law & Order: Los Angeles
Golly that's only 15 hours of police procedurals.


----------



## SayWhat?

Makes me pine for Medical and Doctor shows.

I still say they need to go back to good SitComs. They could make them a bit more interesting at 10PM if you get my drift.


----------



## Link

I hope the announcement comes this week that Conan O'Brien is leaving and Jay gets the Tonight Show back followed by Jimmy Fallon and Carson Daly. I don't think a half hour Jay Leno Show with a 12:05 Tonight Show is going to work well.


----------



## SayWhat?

> "NBC said the show performed exactly as they expected it would and then canceled us. Don't confuse this when we were on at late night and performed better than expected and they canceled us. That was totally different," Leno quipped.





> O'Brien had his own zingers for NBC during his monologue Monday night.
> 
> -- "This weekend no one was seriously hurt, but a 6.5 earthquake hit California. The earthquake was so powerful that it knocked Jay Leno's show from 10:00 to 11:35."


http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/11/nbc.latenight.negotiations/index.html


----------



## SamC

The affiliate revolt was deeper than I thought. From what I have heard locally, a studio was offering a new filmed drama to NBC affiliates if they could get 30% or more to sign on for it. Other stations were contemplating doing news from 10-11:35 and then Leno at 11:35 or news from 10-11 and Leno at 11. Or moving a traditional afternoon estrogen fest like Oprah to 10. 

In other words "check your local listings". Which, as those that follow syndication ratings understand, means that the viewership of everything is really uncomparable unless you want to have a long discussion of the exact situation on the ground in 100s of markets.

And, once the local stations get a slot of time, the network will never get it back.

NBC, for all of the discussions and spin, screwed up, big time, and has a lot to do to keep itself on a par with CBS and ABC.


----------



## bicker1

The affiliates were almost surely behind all this, looking out for their own bottom-lines. (I'm amused at how some folks, so quick to jump to accuse folks of "greed", aren't accusing the affiliates of "greed" in this case. It almost seems to me as if it is only greed if they _don't_ like the ramifications.  )

Anyway, someone in another forum, this morning, really crystallized the issue for me, pointing out *why* the bad PR that the affiliates were able to stir up, in this case, was so important and why it was so critical for NBC to respond to it: While most of the time, that kind of bad PR can safely be ignored, and will just go away in time, this time NBC didn't have time to wait: NBC Universal is in the process of being acquired by Comcast, and while this kind of bad PR doesn't typically have lasting effect, in this case it could have been very readily turned into political pressure arrayed against the acquisition, thereby resulting in more onerous restrictions on the deal than otherwise. That provides a path from this bad PR directly to long-lasting negative impact on the network. That's why NBC couldn't just ignore this.


----------



## ajc68

*Conan O'Brien says no thanks to NBC move*

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100112/ap_en_ot/tv_us_leno_o_brien

He went pretty hard at NBC in his opening monologue last night too...


----------



## SayWhat?

What makes him think he has a choice?

You take the time slot they assign, or you start collecting empites alongside the freeways.


----------



## phrelin

SayWhat? said:


> What makes him think he has a choice?
> 
> You take the time slot they assign, or you start collecting empites alongside the freeways.


The rumor mill is that his other choice is Fox at 11 pm.


----------



## bicker1

SayWhat? said:


> What makes him think he has a choice?


In the law of remedy, there is a concept called "specific performance", i.e., an order that requires a party to perform a specific act, usually what is stated in a contract. There are a number of conditions where specific performance is precluded. One of those exceptions is when the act is a personal service, such as performing on stage. So they cannot make Conan do the show. All they can do is try to sue him for money damages. I think, at this point, NBC would be better off giving him lots of money to just go away quietly.

What we're seeing, here, is Conan engaging in "negotiation by media manipulation".


----------



## QuickDrop

SayWhat? said:


> What makes him think he has a choice?
> 
> You take the time slot they assign, or you start collecting empites alongside the freeways.


I think the millions that NBC have given him, plus the millions more NBC will still probably still give him for screwing around with his career, will keep O'Brien from picking up trash.

What I wonder is if this actually some kind of power play. Leno pretty much came off as the corporate yes man of late night after the the Letterman-Leno debacle following Carson leaving. NBC (ironically) screwing him out of the Tonight Show brought back some the Leno of the 1980s. O'Brien basic statement is that so far he's the only one in this situation who cares about the integrity of The Tonight Show as a decades old brand, which puts Leno back in the corporate stooge role.


----------



## Nick

I've never been thrilled with O'Brien. For an adult, he is beyond silly IMO. Let him go and restore Leno to TTS


----------



## Herdfan

This just gets crazier every day.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20100112.LA36584&show_article=1


----------



## tcusta00

That's nuts. I wonder where he'll end up.


----------



## Link

Excellent News! Now if they'll just officially announce that Jay Leno is back on the TONIGHT SHOW and put an end once and for all to the "Jay Leno Show" disaster.

NBC execs should have known better and left Jay on the Tonight Show until he was sure he wanted to retire. Conan could have stayed on Late Night or left opening the door to Jimmy Fallon.

Jay Leno, Jimmy Fallon, and Carson Daly--sounds like a great late night lineup!


----------



## Scott Kocourek

Better for Conan to enjoy the millions left on his contract sitting on the beach enjoying life than be on tv.

Welcome back to The Tonight Show Jay!!


----------



## chevyguy559

Who the heck stays up that late anyway! :lol:


----------



## Marlin Guy

chevyguy559 said:


> Who the heck stays up that late anyway! :lol:


You may want to review the manuals on those HR's listed in your signature. Apparently they can record programming for later viewing, or something crazy like that. :grin:


----------



## Sackchamp56

I have to side with Conan on this one. They made the decision they should honor it. If the new Leno show is such a disaster they should cancel it and leave everything else how it is.


----------



## drded

The real sad fact is Leno was doing as expected. The whiny affiliates were blaming the fall-off of their 11:00 newscasts on poor lead in. Did NBC bother to check how the newscasts were doing before Leno? I doubt it! If they had they may have shown some backbone. 

I think it would be great if Leno & his agents also told NBC no dice. That would really get interesting!

So, I guess it's back to Law & Order!

Dave


----------



## JM Anthony

Maybe they can get Letterman to jump ship??? I never thought Jay or Conan were that interesting. David is funnier, has more interesting shows, and even gets into trouble from time to time.

Late night went to hell in a handbasket when Johnny retired. Of course bringing him back would take a lot more than money!!

John


----------



## Sackchamp56

JM Anthony said:


> Maybe they can get Letterman to jump ship??? I never thought Jay or Conan were that interesting. David is funnier, has more interesting shows, and even gets into trouble from time to time.
> 
> Late night went to hell in a handbasket when Johnny retired. Of course bringing him back would take a lot more than money!!
> 
> John


I agree on all counts.


----------



## bicker1

The more time goes on, the more information leaks out indicating that Conan O'Brien doesn't have any contractual guarantees that his program will be broadcast at any specific time. His fans' claims, as I alluded to yesterday, all seem to emanate from an appeal to personal preference rather than from anything actually promised to him. Yesterday, several Conan fans on various blogs and message boards tried to convince all who would read why everyone involved in this should defer to Conan's presumed entitlements, some referring to TMZ as one source for the foundation of their arguments in that regard, despite other news sources saying that NBC would not be in breach of contract with the moves they're planning on making. Now even TMZ has joined the New York Times and Reuters and granting that fact.


----------



## Boston_bill

Ive been a Letterman fan since his morning show and have seen him grow into a great broadcaster. NBC should have given him the job years ago. Ive stopped watching Tonight and Late Night when Dave went to CBS. Ive never been a Conan fan so if he goes to FOX or wherever it doesnt change who I watch.


----------



## Boston_bill

drded said:


> The real sad fact is Leno was doing as expected. The whiny affiliates were blaming the fall-off of their 11:00 newscasts on poor lead in. Did NBC bother to check how the newscasts were doing before Leno? I doubt it! If they had they may have shown some backbone.
> 
> I think it would be great if Leno & his agents also told NBC no dice. That would really get interesting!
> 
> So, I guess it's back to Law & Order!
> 
> Dave


But doing as expected at 10pm is a lot more costly to NBC and the affiliates than doing poorly at 11:30p. Locals make their money on the news.


----------



## SayWhat?

I can't remember ever watching The Tonight Show after Carson left and it should have ended at that point. Leno is nothing to me. If they wanted to give him a show in that time slot, fine, but they should have named it something else.

As far as I'm concerned now, they should cut them both (Leno and O'Brien) loose and bring somebody else in. I really can't stand either of them. But for that matter, I really don't care what they do since I don't watch that time slot at all.


----------



## SamC

chevyguy559 said:


> Who the heck stays up that late anyway!


That actually is a great question.

This story is 97% about primetime. About NBC's and Leno's predicted and now come to pass total failure at 10/9c. Abject failure.

NBC's spinmasters would have you pay no attention to that. They want another replay of discussions of Jay vs. Dave, Jay vs. Conan, etc.

Who is on at 11:35 is a blip compared to what is on at 10.


----------



## BubblePuppy

JM Anthony said:


> Maybe they can get Letterman to jump ship??? I never thought Jay or Conan were that interesting. David is funnier, has more interesting shows, and even gets into trouble from time to time.
> 
> Late night went to hell in a handbasket when Johnny retired. *Of course bringing him back would take a lot more than money!!*
> 
> John


More like a act of God.  Oh...wait...Johnny Carson was the late night television god.

I didn't like Jay way back, when he would sub for JC.....I don't like him now. 
Good for Conan, telling the Peacock to go get plucked.


----------



## QuickDrop

SayWhat? said:


> I can't remember ever watching The Tonight Show after Carson left and it should have ended at that point. Leno is nothing to me. If they wanted to give him a show in that time slot, fine, but they should have named it something else.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned now, they should cut them both (Leno and O'Brien) loose and bring somebody else in. I really can't stand either of them. But for that matter, I really don't care what they do since I don't watch that time slot at all.


Though I'm no Leno fan, I don't agree with the idea that The Tonight Show should have ended with Carson. Carson may have hosted the show the longest, but it has a rich history including Jack Paar and Steve Allen. To say the Tonight Show should have ended with Carson is like saying The Today Show should have ended after Katie Couric.

My personal bias is the person who cared most about that long late night tradition, and the person Carson wanted to succeed him, ended up at another network. But Leno was very successful ratings wise and NBC shouldn't have again acted like idiots because O'Brien was getting offers from other networks.

With his public statement, O'Brien is clearly trying to position himself in the Letterman camp and not a NBC Yes Man. Going through my DVR this morning, Leno was certainly the least critical of NBC compared to everyone else in late night.


----------



## Herdfan

drded said:


> The real sad fact is Leno was doing as expected. The whiny affiliates were blaming the fall-off of their 11:00 newscasts on poor lead in. Did NBC bother to check how the newscasts were doing before Leno? I doubt it! If they had they may have shown some backbone.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/arts/television/09leno.html about half way down

WSAZ which has long dominated local news now has half the audience it had a year ago. Something had to have happened.


----------



## lflorack

I certainly have my personal biases of who I like in late night television but trying to put those aside, here's what I see:

NBC wanted to make Conan happy because they didn't want him to move to another network. On the other hand, Leno was pretty successful -- regularly winning the late night time slot. So, they didn't want to lose Leno either. NBC also had this little problem regarding the lack of sufficient quality prime-time programing AND even if they could get some, it's expensive. So in an effort to solve all three issues (some say it was bold, or stupid, etc) they moved Leno to 10pm and put Conan on Tonight at 11:30pm. Although Leno's new numbers weren't wonderful, they also weren't horrible and NBC was OK with them because this little 'fix' they put in solved their three issues. Prime-time costs, keeping Leno and keeping Conan. Or so they thought.

The 10pm prime-time slot is an important one because it feeds the local affiliates news slots at 11pm. Local affiliates make a good portion of their revenues from local newscasts -- including the 11pm news. And people like to watch dramas, comedies, etc in prime-time -- not late night fare. Again, although Leno's 10pm show met NBC's expectations with it's draw, it hurt the local affiliates. (Of course, this is a growing issue anyway because of the changing TV model that's much bigger than this discussion. BUT, this does indicate how bad broadcast TV has been affected by this change in the business/advertising model it still uses.) With increasing viewer/advertiser revenue losses by the affiliates, they threatened NBC with a revolt. So, NBC needed to make another change. 

Looking toward the future, Conan is more popular than Leno with younger viewers. However, since taking over the Tonight show from Leno, he has lost approximately 50% of the previous audience. Leno on the other hand had consistently won the late night time slot against all comers while he was there. Not wanting to lose either personality or their irate affiliates, they again came up with what they felt was a plan to solve their issues.

NBC probably thought: Moving Jay to 11:30 keeps him on the payroll gains us some ratings right now and placates the affiliates. Sliding Conan to the later slot keeps him on the payroll, keeps his fans with us and lines us up for the future. Some problems with this 'solution' are already showing up. Although Jay will probably be somewhat OK with this scenario, Conan (obviously) is not. So, how will they keep him -- and Leno too? In addition, NBC now needs to come up with an additional five hours a week of at least credible prime time shows too.

Under the overall pressure that the broadcast TV business model is under, it's my opinion that NBC really messed this up -- both times. How they handle Conan's rejection of this latest plan will be interesting to watch. Conan has a right to be upset. Leno would like to stay on the air and feels that since he was winning the ratings war when he was moved, he should continue have an opportunity too. The affiliates want better lead-in programing for their 11pm news because their overall advertising dollars are shrinking. NBC wants to change with the changing business model and continue to make money.

Everybody is in some way(s) right and NBC needs to lead a negotiation effort to make this all work -- and do it without screwing up (again).


----------



## Nick

Boston_bill said:


> Ive been a Letterman fan since his morning show and have seen him grow into a great broadcaster...


Great broadcaster? :scratch: Surely you jest. :lol:

Letterman is an overblown, no talent, low-rate hack whose tired, predictable schtick belongs in the bawdy houses of _cableville_, not on network tv.

It's past time for these network _geniuses_ to find some fresh talent and come up with new ideas for the late night slots on both networks. During the presidential campaign, Obama promised to give us "change" -- the network boobs should do the same -- clean both houses and ferret out some young, new talents who are actually funny.

Until then, I'll continue be lulled to sleep by the blood and gore of _'Forensic Files_. :eek2:


----------



## Cable Lover

NBC should bring back Knight Rider at 10 PM.


----------



## BubblePuppy

I would rather watch reruns of "My Mother the Car" than Jay Leno, but he probably owns that car also.


----------



## Boston_bill

Nick said:


> Great broadcaster? :scratch: Surely you jest. :lol:
> 
> Letterman is an overblown, no talent, low-rate hack whose tired, predictable schtick belongs in the bawdy houses of _cableville_, not on network tv.
> 
> It's past time for these network _geniuses_ to find some fresh talent and come up with new ideas for the late night slots on both networks. During the presidential campaign, Obama promised to give us "change" -- the network boobs should do the same -- clean both houses and ferret out some young, new talents who are actually funny.
> 
> Until then, I'll continue be lulled to sleep by the blood and gore of _'Forensic Files_. :eek2:


Different strokes, but you obviously have never seen the side of Letterman be serious with a political guest or journalist or his show after 9/11. Letterman had had many more memorable moments than Leno could ever hope for.


----------



## drded

The Leno-Letterman debate is akin to the Ford-Chevy debate which has been with us for years. If you like Jay, fine. If you like Dave, fine. No sense in bashing the other guys favorite.

It is interesting to note that Dave's ratings are higher on both coasts and he is an Indiana boy. Jay's ratings are stronger in the rest of the country and he is a New Jersey/Connecticut boy.

Carson was the king of late night. Those of you around at the time might remember the press wasn't kind to Johnny when he started, but he grew better and better.

Dave


----------



## dpeters11

And through all of this, who gets caught in the middle? Conan's staff. I believe he brought his staff with him, writers, etc. They all moved from NYC to LA. I hope they don't get set out on the curb.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

I see attorney's on "stand by mode" in all this.....what a mess. :eek2:


----------



## LarryFlowers

The plot has just thickened:

Leno is furious with NBC for putting him in the position of the bad guy and for their treatment of both Conan and himself... he may walk.

Leno doesn't need the Tonight Show gig... it is well known that Jay lives off the income generated by his comedy appearances around the country and in Las Vegas and has always considered ho Tonight Show money as "gravy" that can't be counted on.


----------



## BubblePuppy

LarryFlowers said:


> The plot has just thickened:
> 
> Leno is furious with NBC for putting him in the position of the bad guy and for their treatment of both Conan and himself... he may walk.
> 
> Leno doesn't need the Tonight Show gig... it is well known that Jay lives off the income generated by his comedy appearances around the country and in Las Vegas and has always considered ho Tonight Show money as "gravy" that can't be counted on.


I imagine neither of them* have* to work anymore. Unless they are as bad business men as they are tv hosts. :lol:


----------



## Herdfan

dpeters11 said:


> I hope they don't get set out on the curb.





LarryFlowers said:


> The plot has just thickened:
> 
> Leno is furious with NBC for putting him in the position of the bad guy and for their treatment of both Conan and himself... he may walk.


Conan's staff will land with him at FOX. 

Or maybe FOX will end up in a bidding war between Leno and Conan. The loser has to stay at NBC. :lol:


----------



## espnjason

Well, it looks like Conan told NBC to go pound sand when they want to revert the latenight lineup to Leno at 11:30 local time.

Its not that I like O'Brien over Leno when the opposite is true. But I'd figure that DirecTV can make another coup and place Conan on the 101 network at the same timeslot.

Instead with Conan O'Brien on the 101 network, this would be more of a freeform format without any television/movie studio restrictions, the language can be more colorful, maybe an hour-long show.

I wouldn't necessarily say that this would be along the lines of Howard Stern on Sirius, but rather the same principle with DirecTV having an in-house production of the same format and genre.

What is your take on this?


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Frankly, I hate to sound snarky but both Mr. Leno and Mr. O'Brien are doing the funniest material yet because of this. Perhaps they ought to just stay where they are and get threatened with cancellation every so often.


----------



## Marlin Guy

That's a great idea.
I don't watch Conan and I don't watch the 101, so it's a match made in heaven! :lol:


----------



## Boston_bill

dpeters11 said:


> And through all of this, who gets caught in the middle? Conan's staff. I believe he brought his staff with him, writers, etc. They all moved from NYC to LA. I hope they don't get set out on the curb.


I was wondering about this also. Letterman paid his production staff out of his own pocket ,including benifitis, during the last strike ( Im friendly with a couple of staffers and they confirmed this).
Im assuming the tech people work for NBC and the rest of the staff are employed by Conan/producton company. Be a tough position to be in to wait for Conan to start up at another network while you got bills to pay.


----------



## SayWhat?

The one-oh-what?


----------



## LarryFlowers

Letterman started his monologue with what mat be the funniest line yet...

"Once again, I did not get the Tonight Show gig!"


----------



## BubblePuppy

Stuart Sweet said:


> Frankly, I hate to sound snarky but both Mr. Leno and Mr. O'Brien are doing the funniest material yet because of this. Perhaps they ought to just stay where they are and get threatened with cancellation every so often.


I have to agree. The snippets that have been shown on the news channels have been hilarious. I just might have to start watching Conan to see how he spears NBC. Leno..I just can't get myself to watch him. I think it is his jaw....now that is one thing I don't want to see coming at me in 3DHD.:lol:


----------



## lflorack

LarryFlowers said:


> The plot has just thickened:
> 
> Leno is furious with NBC for putting him in the position of the bad guy and for their treatment of both Conan and himself... he may walk.
> 
> Leno doesn't need the Tonight Show gig... it is well known that Jay lives off the income generated by his comedy appearances around the country and in Las Vegas and has always considered ho Tonight Show money as "gravy" that can't be counted on.


Interesting. I was wondering if Leno would respond this way.


----------



## sorentodd45

SayWhat? said:


> The one-oh-what?


The 101 Network on Direct TV, it's exclusive to Direct; so Dish, Comcast, etc, doesn't have it. It's the channel that gets to show Friday Night Lights first before NBC gets a crack at it.


----------



## bicker1

On a more Conan-happy forum, the assertion is being made that the "Leno is furious..." stuff is just propaganda. (Of course, the user making that claim is the same user who refused to acknowledge that the "People of Earth" stuff was just propaganda.  )


----------



## SayWhat?

In the meantime, I'll stick to Carson reruns on the Reelz channel.


----------



## Link

I hope they stop this nonsense and get Leno back on the Tonight Show and just let Conan go. Jay should have never had to leave to begin with last year.


----------



## Doug Brott

The least shocking outcome at this point .. 

Leno to the Tonight Show (part deux)
Conan to the new Fox late night show (name TBD)
Conan to reap a nice buyout from NBC
NBC to lose more millions for spearheading this experiment to begin with.

Conan may be annoyed/unhappy, but in the end I think he'll actually do better for himself. We shall see.


----------



## pez2002

i hope conan goes to fox

im so sick of the sinfeld reruns @ 11


----------



## Pete K.

What's up with that?


----------



## phrelin

According to People Magazine, Conan may not be back after his pre-scheduled hiatus for the program starting on Jan. 25.:grin:


----------



## SayWhat?

If they were smart, they'd both bail.

What does ABC run in that slot? Niteline still?


----------



## jerry downing

With all this, David Letterman is the happiest man in the world.


----------



## phrelin

This all reminds me of the history of the "Tonight Show" beginning with the 1957 debacle. As a few of us remember, the initial show in the early '50's was hosted by Steve Allen. Allen was joined by Ernie Kovacs in 1956 "to allow" Allen to focus more on his Sunday night show. Then the show disappeared in early 1957 when NBC ordered Allen to make his Sunday show more competitive with "Ed Sullivan." NBC turned the time slot into something called "Tonight! America After Dark" which was unpopular and the affiliates started showing old movies or something. So in mid 1957, NBC restored the "Tonight Show" with Jack Paar hosting.

Then, of course, we had Paar walking off the show in 1960 in a dispute with the censors over a joke about a "WC" (water closet meaning toilet). He came back a month later, but then Paar said he couldn't handle the workload in 1962, so NBC put "The Jack Paar Program" in a Friday prime time slot. They hired Johnny Carson who was then under contract with ABC which wouldn't release him, so they filled with guest hosts for a few months until Carson took over.

As George Santayana said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."


----------



## hdtvfan0001

jerry downing said:


> With all this, David Letterman is the happiest man in the world.


Of course....he has *no* "issues" to deal with...hmmm...


----------



## joshjr

phrelin said:


> According to People Magazine, Conan may not be back after his pre-scheduled hiatus for the program starting on Jan. 25.:grin:


Sounds good to me. I cant stand him anyway.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

I really don't care for Conan at all....but honestly...the way this is all coming down is pretty sad for all parties involved.


----------



## phrelin

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I really don't care for Conan at all....but honestly...the way this is all coming down is pretty sad for all parties involved.


Not really my cup of tea either, but he and his whole crew moved to LA from NY based on the contract. I'd be really PO'd too.


----------



## QuickDrop

Stuart Sweet said:


> Frankly, I hate to sound snarky but both Mr. Leno and Mr. O'Brien are doing the funniest material yet because of this. Perhaps they ought to just stay where they are and get threatened with cancellation every so often.


I'm not really sure that is the case. After a very rocky first couple weeks when he initially switched, Conan found his groove again and his Tonight Show was as usually entertaining as his previous Late Night show, which was really reviled when it first started until it gained a footing. The big problem for Conan is that Leno's 10 PM show usually gets the first crack at high profile guests, so even an hour early the show seems like it's still at 12:30.

Conan has been great this past week on the topic, as have Letterman and Ferguson (which only gives free publicity to NBC.) Since Conan has sent out his statement on the integrity of The Tonight Show though, Leno has largely backed off, likely knowing that it doesn't matter how funny others are on the topic, he just has to wait it out and he'll get the job back he wants.

It's somewhat surprising how quickly everyone seems to have switched the gags from being anti-NBC to anti-Leno. Jimmy Kimmel was on Leno's show tonight and basically attacked Leno to his face. Media and television critics, who have always preferred Letterman to Leno, are back to their Leno bashing. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...010011103593.html?hpid=features1&hpv=national)

It's really a shame. Back in the 80s, even when he began shilling for Doritos, Leno was always one of the best guests on the old Late Night show with Letterman. Even now, when he's outside of the NBC environment, he still comes across as intelligent and willing to offend. But on The Tonight Show he just comes across as a schlock master, willing to do anything for a laugh without any real personality to guide him. His best bits are making fun of typos and highly editing footage to show how dumb the "man on the street" is.

If Leno bolted, and took a couple years to rebuild his critical reputation and find his comic voice again, and then started a new talk show brand somewhere else I believe it will breathe new life in him creatively. Unfortunately, it increasingly appears that Leno doesn't care about again being viewed as NBC's puppet as long as he can keep "Tonight Show" by his name.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Stuart Sweet said:


> Frankly, I hate to sound snarky but both Mr. Leno and Mr. O'Brien are doing the funniest material yet because of this. Perhaps they ought to just stay where they are and get threatened with cancellation every so often.


Saw that last night myself....while this is all some serious business...both of them seem to at least enjoy having some fun with it along the way.

Especially surprised to see just how far Conan was working it for laughs last night.


----------



## bicker1

One thing that is overlooked in all this finger-pointing though is that one of the original objectives for the Jay Leno Show remains completely ignored, and that objective is not going away. I'm speaking of the imperative to reduce the cost of programming on the network. The Jay Leno Show replaced three hours of very high-priced scripted programming (plus two hours of cheap filler) with five hours of much more cost-effective variety programming, representing a significant reduction in cost, and higher profits for the network. Even with all of this, that result was achieved. Putting Leno back into late-night and putting scripted dramas back into the 10PM reverses the cost and profit gains that the network enjoyed. 

The objective for cost-reduction and profit enhancement aren't just going to go away. They are a reflection of inevitable changes in the industry, which also aren't going to go away. Somehow, NBC (and eventually ABC as well) will have to find a way to accomplish this without it being turned back by a big PR blow-up like this. 

They've done it before. I mentioned earlier in the thread how the networks successfully stopped putting the first run of expensive scripted programming on Saturday nights, and how they've successfully replaced a lot of expensive scripted programming with much less expensive reality programming. The real question, now, given that filling the 10PM hour with variety every night was pushed-back, is what will the networks do to address the cost and profit imperatives, instead? I suspect that the end-result of this could very-well end up being worse for viewers than Leno at 10PM would have been.


----------



## SayWhat?

^^^^^ What this proves is that the networks aren't as all important and powerful as they'd like to think they are The local stations still have a say in what happens.


----------



## Nick

...as does the [strike]viewer[/strike], er, Nielsen. :sure:


----------



## lflorack

SayWhat? said:


> ^^^^^ What this proves is that the networks aren't as all important and powerful as they'd like to think they are The local stations still have a say in what happens.


Of course this is certainly true. However, having the local affiliates force the networks back into costly dramas which are possibly good for viewers initially, is almost certainly disastrous for the overall bottom line of everyone involved.

It's not just that the old broadcast/business model has to change, it's that it has *already* changed and the networks, local affiliates, producers, advertisers and viewers need to know it and adjust to it too.


----------



## phrelin

Depending on whose numbers you use, around 15% of households don't use cable, telecom TV or satellite. And, of course, nearly 100% of homes could use cable, telecom TV, and/or satellite and most that couldn't don't get OTA.

The clue in this information is that "off-the-air" is a 1958 technology business model. There aren't a lot of electronic technology businesses around that are using a 50-year-old business model because they wouldn't have survived. Just ask The Phone Company.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

bicker1 said:


> One thing that is overlooked in all this finger-pointing though is that one of the original objectives for the Jay Leno Show remains completely ignored, and that objective is not going away. I'm speaking of the imperative to reduce the cost of programming on the network. The Jay Leno Show replaced three hours of very high-priced scripted programming (plus two hours of cheap filler) with five hours of much more cost-effective variety programming, representing a significant reduction in cost, and higher profits for the network. Even with all of this, that result was achieved. Putting Leno back into late-night and putting scripted dramas back into the 10PM reverses the cost and profit gains that the network enjoyed.
> 
> The objective for cost-reduction and profit enhancement aren't just going to go away. They are a reflection of inevitable changes in the industry, which also aren't going to go away. Somehow, NBC (and eventually ABC as well) will have to find a way to accomplish this without it being turned back by a big PR blow-up like this.
> 
> They've done it before. I mentioned earlier in the thread how the networks successfully stopped putting the first run of expensive scripted programming on Saturday nights, and how they've successfully replaced a lot of expensive scripted programming with much less expensive reality programming. The real question, now, given that filling the 10PM hour with variety every night was pushed-back, is what will the networks do to address the cost and profit imperatives, instead? I suspect that the end-result of this could very-well end up being worse for viewers than Leno at 10PM would have been.


Your point is well made but the impact to the affiliates was totally unexpected. I've heard that the 11:00PM news on KNBC - a flagship station if there ever was one - dropped over 25 points in the ratings after Leno started. If your ratings are so bad that it threatens your affiliate agreements, you have to do something.

The other point: CBS, ABC, and Fox manage to produce programming in the 10pm hour without going bankrupt.


----------



## QuickDrop

Stuart Sweet said:


> Your point is well made but the impact to the affiliates was totally unexpected. I've heard that the 11:00PM news on KNBC - a flagship station if there ever was one - dropped over 25 points in the ratings after Leno started. If your ratings are so bad that it threatens your affiliate agreements, you have to do something.
> 
> The other point: CBS, ABC, and Fox manage to produce programming in the 10pm hour without going bankrupt.


NBC's whole business/marketing strategy seems to have crashed over this. During their losing ways, NBC has emphasized the cheapness of their programming and their 18-34 demo as proof of their success. Apparently decent programming and total audience actually still matters in terms of success.

It funny to see current NBC executives now bash O'Brien over ratings (which they completely undercut by putting on another talk show an hour and a half earlier on the same freaking lot), when they've been responsible for running a former #1 network completely into the ground.

BTW: Fox doesn't have a 10 PM time slot.


----------



## phrelin

Stuart Sweet said:


> The other point: CBS, ABC, and Fox manage to produce programming in the 10pm hour without going bankrupt.


Well, Fox not so much, nor The CW.

The problem is that typically the audience for 10 pm is about 30% smaller than the previous two hours and CBS and ABC currently control around 80% of that audience. There isn't enough potential audience there for an expensive scripted series on NBC to pull more than 10-12 million because that's more than half the total audience available and frankly CBS and ABC right now leave breadcrumbs. Fox and The CW (and it's predecessors) never considered 10 pm a viable market worth competing in.

IMHO NBC should throw in the towel and give 10 pm to its affiliates following the Fox model. They should then offer the Tonight Show an hour earlier. Again, IMHO over a period of time on some nights that could cause ratings problems for CBS in particular as folks decide to watch news at 10 pm and some of the newly viable "Tonight Show," getting to bed a little earlier.

As you know, I'm never short on opinions.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Something hinted at, but never directly said...

There is no way to estimate accurately how Leno having the 10pm show has kept Conan from doing better at 11:30.

When Carson retired and Leno took over... Carson didn't do another show. He went home.

So the Carson audience was split between Leno and Letterman... with Letterman bringing his own Late Night audience with him to some degree.

When Conan replaced Leno... Conan brought his Late Night audience, but had to not only compete with Letterman BUT also still compete with Leno being on more than an hour earlier than him still and getting good guests.

IF Leno had gone home, as Carson did... there's a good possibility that the Tonight Show might have retained more of its core audience because they didn't have another alternative like they had grown accustomed to.

Essentially, if you were a Leno fan... you still got Leno every night! No need to stay up for Conan unless you were doing that before.

So, Conan was undercut from the beginning no matter how good he might perform.

So for NBC to now want to reverse things and go back to the way things somewhat were... not only might not work the way they want it, BUT they are ruffling some feathers again.

Meanwhile... I still maintain that networks making poor decisions is a much worse problem than the cost of scripted programming.. Yes, those cost more than a variety or reality show... but a well scripted/cast program can find an audience AND allow for merchandise tie-ins that are more fruitful.

Ex... Leno wasn't going to be able to release season DVD sets that make the studio more money later. So they save money now at the expense of future income. If they run Law & Order at a higher up-front cost... later they get to sell season DVDs of the show to that audience.


----------



## Herdfan

Stuart Sweet said:


> and Fox manage to produce programming in the 10pm hour without going bankrupt.


My FOX station airs an hour-long newscast at 10. And according to the guide data, the NY & LA affiliates do as well.


----------



## bicker1

Stuart Sweet said:


> Your point is well made but the impact to the affiliates was totally unexpected.


I disagree. We amateurs on the Internet were discussing it before September, so there is no question that the experts at the network knew. There is no reason to think that that impact was not factored in. The only thing that wasn't factored in was the effect of PR pressure and how the Comcast acquisition would make PR a lot more important.



Stuart Sweet said:


> I've heard that the 11:00PM news on KNBC - a flagship station if there ever was one - dropped over 25 points in the ratings after Leno started. If your ratings are so bad that it threatens your affiliate agreements, you have to do something.


NBC was never in any danger of losing KNBC -- they own it. And we'll never know whether there was ever any real danger of NBC not being able to find a willing affiliate in the vast majority of the country. Switching affiliations isn't a catastrophe, assuming that that would have been necessary in some places. Again, the Comcast acquisition put all of this in much tighter focus than it would have been otherwise.



Stuart Sweet said:


> The other point: CBS, ABC,* and Fox *manage to produce programming in the 10pm hour without going bankrupt.


Thanks for proving my point: Fox doesn't present programming at 10PM. There may not be enough audience for even three networks presenting programming at that time. Maybe two networks is enough.

Again, that was the whole point of this.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I think you misunderstood the spirit of my post, but thank you for paying such complete attention to the letter of it.


----------



## bicker1

No, the point was clear, but hopefully so was mine. Money is what makes things happen, and if the money isn't there, then the programming can't be either. And there is no reason to think that there is enough money to justify what would have to be spent to put on as much programming as you're suggesting should be presented.


----------



## QuickDrop

Stewart Vernon said:


> Something hinted at, but never directly said...
> 
> There is no way to estimate accurately how Leno having the 10pm show has kept Conan from doing better at 11:30.
> 
> When Carson retired and Leno took over... Carson didn't do another show. He went home.
> 
> So the Carson audience was split between Leno and Letterman... with Letterman bringing his own Late Night audience with him to some degree.
> 
> When Conan replaced Leno... Conan brought his Late Night audience, but had to not only compete with Letterman BUT also still compete with Leno being on more than an hour earlier than him still and getting good guests.
> 
> IF Leno had gone home, as Carson did... there's a good possibility that the Tonight Show might have retained more of its core audience because they didn't have another alternative like they had grown accustomed to.
> 
> Essentially, if you were a Leno fan... you still got Leno every night! No need to stay up for Conan unless you were doing that before.
> 
> So, Conan was undercut from the beginning no matter how good he might perform.
> 
> So for NBC to now want to reverse things and go back to the way things somewhat were... not only might not work the way they want it, BUT they are ruffling some feathers again.
> 
> Meanwhile... I still maintain that networks making poor decisions is a much worse problem than the cost of scripted programming.. Yes, those cost more than a variety or reality show... but a well scripted/cast program can find an audience AND allow for merchandise tie-ins that are more fruitful.
> 
> Ex... Leno wasn't going to be able to release season DVD sets that make the studio more money later. So they save money now at the expense of future income. If they run Law & Order at a higher up-front cost... later they get to sell season DVDs of the show to that audience.


+1 For most of his time at CBS, Letterman came in second to Leno, yet he gave CBS something they never had before, a respectable late night showing. So much so that the time slot following him, The Late Late Show, has already gone through three hosts while still remaining a fixture. Before CBS couldn't compete in 1 timeslot, now they have strong showings in two, without ever being the outright Late Night champs.

It should also be noted that both Letterman and O'Brien immediately stood up for themselves when NBC treated them unfairly (and in both instances NBC claimed to want to keep both hosts around.) When Leno was treated unfairly, he remained loyal to the bosses and stuck around, in the process directly undermining the success of the person who replaced him and allowing him to get his old job back. Leno could easily have left for FOX or possibly ABC. won his time slot, and be "king" without screwing a lot of people who moved across country out of jobs. After two dust ups, Leno has completely sealed his fate as a NBC Yes man, who has no dignity in his quest for recognition. It's sad because in reality Leno seems like a decent guy, but he's also a famous hoarder when it comes to money and there seems that there is no level he will not stoop to come out on top.


----------



## phrelin

The folks at MediaBuyerPlanner have put together a pretty good summary of the situation including talk that NBC will let Conan go to Fox.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

Stewart Vernon said:


> There is no way to estimate accurately how Leno having the 10pm show has kept Conan from doing better at 11:30.
> 
> When Carson retired and Leno took over... Carson didn't do another show. He went home.
> 
> So the Carson audience was split between Leno and Letterman... with Letterman bringing his own Late Night audience with him to some degree.
> 
> When Conan replaced Leno... Conan brought his Late Night audience, but had to not only compete with Letterman BUT also still compete with Leno being on more than an hour earlier than him still and getting good guests.
> 
> IF Leno had gone home, as Carson did... there's a good possibility that the Tonight Show might have retained more of its core audience because they didn't have another alternative like they had grown accustomed to.
> 
> Essentially, if you were a Leno fan... you still got Leno every night! No need to stay up for Conan unless you were doing that before.
> 
> So, Conan was undercut from the beginning no matter how good he might perform.
> 
> So for NBC to now want to reverse things and go back to the way things somewhat were... not only might not work the way they want it, BUT they are ruffling some feathers again.


The only problem with this thoery is there are a lot of people who would have started watching Letterman or quit watching all together if Leno didn't have his show.

I have to believe that Conan's audience and Leno's audience don't overlap.

I know when Leno's show was not on I watched a little Letterman and watched Conan for about a week, I could tolerate Letterman but never could understand the whole Conan touching himself. He is just not at the same level as Leno or Letterman.

I think they sent a boy to do a man's job.


----------



## QuickDrop

scottandregan said:


> The only problem with this thoery is there are a lot of people who would have started watching Letterman or quit watching all together if Leno didn't have his show.
> 
> I have to believe that Conan's audience and Leno's audience don't overlap.
> 
> I know when Leno's show was not on I watched a little Letterman and watched Conan for about a week, I could tolerate Letterman but never could understand the whole Conan touching himself. He is just not at the same level as Leno or Letterman.
> 
> I think they sent a boy to do a man's job.


A lot of this is about booking guests. 11:30 shows, especially in LA, will almost always get better guests than programs that air later. The Jay Leno Show basically took that advantage away from the Tonight Show. Leno was doing essentially the same show in the same city, at the same network. Unless a star was really concerned about the creative talent put out of work by "The Jay Leno Show," it's easy to understand why many would view The Jay Leno show as a preferable one stop at NBC to the Tonight Show. Conan was never given a fair chance on NBC as the premiere talk show on the network.

Personally I think Conan did a very respectably job at his post. Leno's monologue always seemed to have an advantage over Letterman's ant-monologue, but O'Brien's monologue actually seemed to be just as good as Leno's and often better. His "boyishness" out shined Leno's easy stodginess. Though he can be incredibly salacious Leno rarely does anything that make audience feel uncomfortable. Letterman, O'Brien, Kimmel, and Ferguson all follow their own comic muse and respect their audience to follow them. Leno only gives people what he thinks they want and it comes across as lowest common denominator television.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Yep... that's part of what drove Arsenio Hall's show under back in the day. When Leno took over the Tonight Show and was battling against the CBS-Letterman... Leno's people were trying to get guests on "exclusive" agreements so they wouldn't appear on other shows.

Arsenio had found a niche, but was no longer able to get top tier guests even if he wanted to pursue them.

Flash forward... Leno can book the same guests he used to get for the Tonight Show at 10pm. Now what's Conan going to do at 11:35?

Between Leno booking at 10pm and Letterman at 11:35, Conan is almost back to where he started on Late Night all those years ago when it was hard for him to score top tier talent night after night.

IF, however, Leno was not around... those guests would have to go somewhere.

True, Leno fans might not crossover with Conan... BUT Tonight Show fans who tried Leno because they lost Carson and already weren't watching Letterman gave Leno a chance to win them over in the familiar timeslot/channel they'd grown accustomed to with Carson.

I expect more new people would have tried Conan IF they didn't have their familiar Leno show to watch at an earlier time.

Granted, Conan still has to keep those viewers... but when they know they can still get their Leno fix, they don't have any incentive to try Conan at all.

Think of your job... and how weird it would be if your boss retired and you were promoted to head of the department... BUT your company asked your old boss to stay around as a consultant and encouraged your employees to seek his advice. It'd be really hard for you to get your management style rolled out to the team when the old boss is still around every day telling people different stuff.


----------



## SamC

The spin power of the NBC is amazing to me.

97% of this story should be about what NBC did at 10. It failed, totally. So much so that it spawned an affiliate revolt in only a few months.

But, NBC has successfully distracted both 1000s of internet posters, and more importantly, the media media (that is to say the media that covers the media) in a Dave vs. Conan vs. Dave vs. whoever sideshow.

It really does not matter what happens to comics like Conan or Leno. 

This is about 10.

Now, there are two viewpoints. And, the truth, as it often is, is somewhere in the middle.

The first view is the "sky is falling" idea that NBC "cannot afford" to produce filmed dramas anymore, and that, eventually "Jay Leno is the future of TV". Well, no. Network TV remains a virtual liscense to print money and if General Electric or Comcast want to sign their FCC permits on the back and send them my way, I will be glad to take them off their hands.

The second is NBC is just "cheep". That it wants to be more akin to the CW than to CBS. And there is plenty of evidence for that. NBC does do things on the cheep. But the affiliates revolt shows that if you want to be the CW, then its CW level stations (i.e. the lowest in the market, UHFs, rimshots, sidebands, non-news producers, LMAs, etc) that you will be on. NBC cannot afford to be that cheep.

The reality is in the middle. Fox affilites (and in the largest markets, with some competition from others) can do news at 10, but all of the stations in a market cannot make that work. There simply is not the demand for news at 10 from 5 or 6 stations. And the "big 3" affiliates want a legitimat lead in and follow on to their super-profitable 11 news. But the market, given the growth of "cable" is split in a way that is very different from previous decades.

NBC has to produce filmed dramas at 10, as do ABC and CBS. The problem with the networks, all of them, is the same as with the airlines and the auto makers. They were used to making so much money that they could afford to be inefficient and lazy about costs. They could pay "stars" $500K/week. They could pay dolly grips $100K/year.

Can you make a car better and more cheeply than GM? Ask Hyundai. Can you run an airline that controls labor costs? Ask Southwest. Can you run retail with a customer first watch on prices? Ask Wal-Mart.

Can you produce a good "network quality" show at 10 at a price that the current market can afford? Paying "stars" (people that no one heard of until the network made them) less? Paying writers, producers, and directors (who are going to do exactly what else for a living) far less? Paying the blue collar guild workers behind the scenes far far less? 

Yes. 

It is the future of television.


----------



## bicker1

SamC said:


> The reality is in the middle.


Yes exactly. NBC can "afford" a lot, so the first view is wrong. NBC is spending a lot, so the second view is wrong. The crux of the issue is that NBC is supposed to spend only as much as best serves its owners' interests. They have a moral obligation to society to comply with the law, and to present news and information, and to present educational programming. No reasonable person questions that they satisfy those obligations. However, beyond those obligations, their overriding obligation is to best serve the interests of their owners, and there is no corresponding obligation to viewers. Viewers are, putting it quite *grossly* (so there can be less confusion), tools by which broadcasters work to serve their owners' best interests. The contract with viewers, therefore, is for viewers to be used as tools, and in return benefit from the incentive that the broadcasters offer to get the viewers to participate in the system (i.e., the programming).

Many people blinded by their own personal viewers' perspective, are either unable or unwilling to accept that.

In this first half of your message, you indicated that the truth is typically somewhere in the middle of things. In the second half of your message, you've posted one extreme:


SamC said:


> Can you produce a good "network quality" show at 10 at a price that the current market can afford? Paying "stars" (people that no one heard of until the network made them) less? Paying writers, producers, and directors (who are going to do exactly what else for a living) far less? Paying the blue collar guild workers behind the scenes far far less?
> 
> Yes.


Not in this country. Remember, we're not all of the same mind (to be clear, I agree with you, but others don't), and there are enough people who place worker rights over the best interests of any one industry or its consumers to preclude what you suggest. There are enough people willing to let television die entirely, if it comes to that, than grant the concessions that you're suggesting, thereby allowing broadcasters and production companies to effectively collude to reduce compensation to workers.

You paint a pretty picture. The reality is quite different. We cannot just wipe unions off the face of the map because some of us want to.



SamC said:


> It is the future of television.


As I indicated earlier, in the second half of your message, you've posted one extreme. In my rebuttal, I've alluded to the other extreme, the unionist perspective. Note that there might actually be other perspectives that support that, or a similar "other" extreme. There are a whole host of forces arrayed against your pretty picture. However, as you said in the first half of your message, the truth is typically somewhere in the middle of things. What the reality is going to be is a mixture of the effects of many things: Crappier programming, due to lower production value, more cost-cutting, etc. There will also be a boost from the bottom, with broadcasters sourcing content from other countries.

Some viewers will consider this lesser programming, but I suspect that that will be solely a reflection of their extreme bias. The Fox drama, Mental, was made outside the United States, with cast and crew paid based on foreign pay-scales. It wasn't the best show ever on television. It actually sucked in several ways. However, it, along with many similar foreign programs, demonstrates how part of the pretty picture you painted could actually come true, just with the compromise imposed of the programming being foreign sourced. Other examples of recent shows that were, at least in some significant way, divorced from the excessive compensation problems plaguing the US entertainment production industry, include The Philanthropist, The Listener, Durham County, and Flashpoint. These shows were all, at least in part, produced for foreign audiences. And that's not to mention programs produced for the United States audiences, but made abroad, in New Zealand or Vancouver.

I'm just waiting, though, for the other shoe to drop, with unionists in the United States calling for boycotts of such programs, once they become more common.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

SamC said:


> The spin power of the NBC is amazing to me.
> 
> 97% of this story should be about what NBC did at 10. It failed, totally. So much so that it spawned an affiliate revolt in only a few months.


Actually, more like *50%*.

*The other half *is how the Tonight Show ratings took a major nosedive off a cliff when Conan took the reins....another major failure.

Letterman's ratings. in the mean time, benefited.

Once you lose viewers like that, whether they went to Lettermen or just gave up altogether, its a tough road back to get them to return.

In the mean time - this morning they all appear to be close to a Conan bye-bye exit strategy.


----------



## SWORDFISH

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually, more like *50%*.
> 
> *The other half *is how the Tonight Show ratings took a major nosedive off a cliff when Conan took the reins....another major failure.
> 
> Letterman's ratings. in the mean time, benefited.
> .................................


And *the "other" other half* (according to Conan's camp):

Leno's ratings were so bad, local news ratings suffered. Since the local news is the lead in for The Tonight Show, Conan's ratings suffered as well. Thus what NBC did at 10pm caused poor ratings for The Tonight Show.

So it becomes a version of the Chicken vs Egg argument.

SF


----------



## phrelin

I have the oddest observation - Conan has loosened up and has been much more effective interviewing guests in the past few days. Had he been more like this, we would have watched him more frequently.


----------



## SayWhat?

> Conan O'Brien's ratings are soaring as he nears a bitter exit from NBC's "Tonight" show, his ridicule of his network executives apparently resonating in a country filled with the unemployed.
> 
> His ratings Friday were 50 percent higher than they've been this season, and he beat CBS' David Letterman, according to a preliminary Nielsen Co. estimate based on large markets. In the 18-to-49-year-old demographic that NBC relies on to set advertising prices, O'Brien even beat Jay Leno's prime-time show.


http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=9578484


----------



## SamC

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually, more like *50%*.


No, not really.

If you add the three 10:00 networks together you get about an 15 rating in aggregate. If you add in the local news that is on most Fox stations and all of the various "cable" channels you get to about a 25 or so.

That is what they are fighting over. And it leads into local news. In my market, and I think we are pretty typical, the three local newses and the old rerun on Fox, added together are about a 12 in aggregate.

The 11:35 shows, added together, get about a 9 rating. The 12:35 shows add up to barely a 1.

The "pie" at 10 is far larger. Further the harm to the 11 news is being caused by Leno at 10.

If Leno had just retired, and NBC had not tried this "future of television" idea at 10, and O'Brien's ratings were exactly where they are, it would be a non-story. NBC would have stuck it out, as it did when Dave was dominating Jay after Johnny retired, and it might have made a change in two or three years. You certainly would not have affiliates, 60 year affiliates, looking the network suits in the face and saying "him or us" and "you simply do not know what you are doing." Which is what is going on.

The story, from the business of television side, here, is at 10. NBC made a mistake that has damaged its relationship with its affiliates, and with the public of proportions that cannot really be overstated.


----------



## bicker1

I think that's wishful thinking.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Breaking News...

DBSTalk is now in negotiations with Comcast (Due to Comcast's purchase of NBC) to replace bicker1 with JLeno in all discussion threads starting Feb 1st.

Many users have complained that bicker1's posts have hurt the readability of posts that follow him... and DBSTalk has been listening.


----------



## bicker1

I can imagine, "Ack! He's making me think! Think about something other than what's good for myself! Ayaiyai!"


----------



## Supramom2000

Stewart Vernon said:


> Breaking News...
> 
> DBSTalk is now in negotiations with Comcast (Due to Comcast's purchase of NBC) to replace bicker1 with JLeno in all discussion threads starting Feb 1st.
> 
> Many users have complained that bicker1's posts have hurt the readability of posts that follow him... and DBSTalk has been listening.


Thanks Stewart!! I needed that laugh.:lol:


----------



## BobbySteelz

haven't seen much about what will be filling leno's spot, but i certainly wouldnt be disappointed with episodes of psych, maybe even a new one or two after the 1/27 premiere...i'd certainly watch


----------



## Supramom2000

BobbySteelz said:


> haven't seen much about what will be filling leno's spot, but i certainly wouldnt be disappointed with episodes of psych, maybe even a new one or two after the 1/27 premiere...i'd certainly watch


Being discussed here:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=171159


----------



## Link

I'm so glad Jay is returning. It isn't often you see someone who left return, but he never should have been forced to exit to begin with when the Tonight Show was #1.

I refused to watch Conan as Tonight Show host since it started but during his final week, I have been watching and his comedy and material just isn't the traditional Tonight Show format and I don't care for it at all. NBC should have left things alone.

I'm glad Jay will be back on where he belongs.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I have a hard time believing Jay was "forced" to do anything. I really don't watch any of the late night shows anymore, so I can't vote from that perspective of indifference...

But I believe he signed the contract to pass the torch to Conan 5+ years ago because he thought he would be done by then. No way he signs that kind of deal without there being something in it for Jay.

NBC also tried too hard to keep Jay from competing on another network, with the end result they killed their own ratings for Conan in the process... Part of me hopes the Tonight Show ratings continue to go into the toilet with Jay back in the slot as a result. NBC deserves that to happen frankly after jerking both Jay and Conan around.

Jay too deserves a failure for rocking the boat one too many times.

I'd like to see Conan do well somewhere... but I don't think there's room for a 3rd 11:35pm nightly show really... so I hope he gets a good settlement.

What's lost in this are all the people on "team Conan" who won't get the payoff when the Conan show is gone... so if Conan doesn't get another similar gig, a lot of other people who will be out of work will have gotten hit in the crossfire.


----------



## phrelin

I hope Conan is able to make it work on Fox at 11:00 or 11:30. Old farts like me will still be inclined to watch Letterman's monologue, but since I record them all to selectively watch interviews I hope Conan can take the live younger audience to another network.


----------



## QuickDrop

Stewart Vernon said:


> I have a hard time believing Jay was "forced" to do anything. I really don't watch any of the late night shows anymore, so I can't vote from that perspective of indifference...
> 
> But I believe he signed the contract to pass the torch to Conan 5+ years ago because he thought he would be done by then. No way he signs that kind of deal without there being something in it for Jay.
> 
> NBC also tried too hard to keep Jay from competing on another network, with the end result they killed their own ratings for Conan in the process... Part of me hopes the Tonight Show ratings continue to go into the toilet with Jay back in the slot as a result. NBC deserves that to happen frankly after jerking both Jay and Conan around.
> 
> Jay too deserves a failure for rocking the boat one too many times.
> 
> I'd like to see Conan do well somewhere... but I don't think there's room for a 3rd 11:35pm nightly show really... so I hope he gets a good settlement.
> 
> What's lost in this are all the people on "team Conan" who won't get the payoff when the Conan show is gone... so if Conan doesn't get another similar gig, a lot of other people who will be out of work will have gotten hit in the crossfire.


I think Leno was essentially forced out originally, but I agree that his agreeing to stay at the network not once, but twice (the 10 PM that he claims he didn't think would work and the proposed 30 minute show that wouldn't have enabled him to do his show at all) completely undercut the chance for Conan to eventually succeed. So far Letterman seems to have done the best editorial on Leno's phony "I don't know anything about lawyers and agents" nonsense:

http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/01/20/david-letterman-jay-leno-conan-obrien/


----------



## SamC

The whole "we put Leno at 10 because we has to push him out at 11:30 for Conan " line is just part of the NBC spin. Reality? NBC saw it could replace Leno with this O'Brien character for LESS MONEY and then NBC saw it could replace proper primetime entertainment programming with Leno for LESS MONEY. 

NBC is the kid who taped together some straws and dixie cups early one morning for his science project and thought he could get a C- and ended up with an F and is now trying to explain that it really was a model of the universe and the teacher just did not understand how smart he really is.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> I have a hard time believing Jay was "forced" to do anything.


That sort of rhetoric is just a reflection of how folks, trying to prosecute their own personal perspective, are doing so by trying to emotionalize the issue, rather than dealing with the reality as it is, IMHO. This is a business. Everyone has a variety of obligations and responsibilities. Often, circumstances alone result in a single entity's obligations and responsibilities diverging _from each other_ resulting in a situation where they need to make decisions weighing the relative impact on all their obligations and responsibilities, and assessing which decision will have the best _overall_ impact, in full recognition that that may sub-optimize some of them. No doubt that the folks who find themselves in the "sub-optimized" quarter are going to be upset and/or frustrated, and try to cast the reasonable decisions made as evil in some way.



Stewart Vernon said:


> But I believe he signed the contract to pass the torch to Conan 5+ years ago because he thought he would be done by then.


Y'know, it doesn't matter, but actually, that isn't what he signed the contract for. He signed the contract to do the Tonight Show for a period of time. Period. He never promised to go quietly into the night.

As a side-note (because there was no such agreement) note such contractual clauses are typically considered exculpatory without consideration, and therefore stricken as a matter of law. In other words, there would have to be payment made for the period of vocational dormancy to justify such an tenet. There is no indication of any such provisions in Leno's contract.



Stewart Vernon said:


> NBC also tried too hard to keep Jay from competing on another network


What does that even mean? Attracting assets that foster your own ratings is considered to be a good thing. If you believe, as they did, that Leno would have gone to Fox (and while Fox might have been screwing around about giving O'Brien a show, they wouldn't have been screwing around if it was Leno that they were getting), and that that would have essentially put NBC in third place in late-night, then doing what they did to preclude that was absolutely essential -- not "trying too hard".



Stewart Vernon said:


> with the end result they killed their own ratings for Conan in the process...


That's not clear. O'Brien is an acquired taste. There is no reason to think he ever really could have carried the Tonight Show.


----------



## BubblePuppy

Conan is getting 32 million to leave NBC, his staff is getting 12 million. I wish I got just half or even a quarter of that amount to leave a job.


----------



## spartanstew

Link said:


> I'm so glad Jay is returning.


So, you're the one.


----------



## dpeters11

BubblePuppy said:


> Conan is getting 32 million to leave NBC, his staff is getting 12 million. I wish I got just half or even a quarter of that amount to leave a job.


I think he was going to pay his staff while they were off the air as well, the $12 million is being called a supplement to what he was paying. Hopefully all that will get them through September.


----------



## BJM

Personally, I'd like to see CBS/Letterman hire O'Brien as the eventual successor to "Late Night." I admit I was never a fan of Leno but I don't think Fox is a secure place for late night TV. I don't even watch "Late Night" regularly but having watched Letterman go from morning show host, I'd say O'Brien's sensibilities are much closer to Letterman's than Leno's.


----------



## BubblePuppy

dpeters11 said:


> I think he was going to pay his staff while they were off the air as well, the $12 million is being called a supplement to what he was paying.* Hopefully all that will get them through September*.


I know that I go through 12 million in 8 months, my wife keeps yelling at me to learn how to budget.


----------



## pfp

spartanstew said:


> So, you're the one.


I'm the other.


----------



## pfp

BubblePuppy said:


> I know that I go through 12 million in 8 months, my wife keeps yelling at me to learn how to budget.


Well i believe it's been said that he has something like 200 staff so that 12M divided equally is only (yeah, only ) 60K each. Should still be workable for 8 months.


----------



## BubblePuppy

pfp said:


> Well i believe it's been said that he has something like 200 staff so that 12M divided equally is only (yeah, only ) 60K each. Should still be workable for 8 months.


Plus Conan is going to shell out $$$$ out of his pocket for his staff. That should put a dent in his 32million.


----------



## Wire Paladin

It's nothing personal, it's just business. Conan does look a little like Meg Ryan.

BTW the comparison of Obama's presidency to the Late Night circus last night on the Daily Show was priceless.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bicker1 said:


> That sort of rhetoric is just a reflection of how folks, trying to prosecute their own personal perspective, are doing so by trying to emotionalize the issue, rather than dealing with the reality as it is, IMHO.


That doesn't apply to me, as I have no horse in the race. I don't watch any of the late night programs with any kind of regularity... so I'm not part of the demographic they count or "lose" when their ratings fluctuate.



bicker1 said:


> Y'know, it doesn't matter, but actually, that isn't what he signed the contract for.


You don't know what he signed the contract for any more than I or anyone else does. Your speculation is no more valid than anyone else unless you are part of the Leno inner circle of knowledge.



bicker1 said:


> He signed the contract to do the Tonight Show for a period of time. Period. He never promised to go quietly into the night.


Actually... he did promise exactly that! On air! Jay Leno very clearly and concisely approx 5 years ago when the deal was done... said on air that he was going to pass the torch to Conan and did not want a repeat of what had happened in the past with him a Letterman.

So whatever else you may or may not believe... Jay Leno very much promised to go quietly into the night in a very public manner some 5 years ago.



bicker1 said:


> That's not clear. O'Brien is an acquired taste. There is no reason to think he ever really could have carried the Tonight Show.


We will never know, though, because NBC assured we would never know.

I've said before... IF Johnny Carson had went to a new show instead of retiring... I doubt Jay Leno would have had the success he had.

Conan had to contend with the "ghost of Jay" because all the fans of Jay could now watch him at 10pm and never be tempted to try Conan at 11:35... meanwhile, people who were turned off by Jay at 10pm bailed on their NBC local news and in turn Conan as well.

On all fronts, Conan's Tonight Show was sabotaged by NBC before giving it a chance at all. Not only that, but Leno had failed in the ratings to Letterman for at least the first year or two back in the day... so no telling what might have happened if Conan was allowed to go for a couple of years.

No matter how you slice it... NBC buggered this one up good and nobody wins.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> That doesn't apply to me, as I have no horse in the race. I don't watch any of the late night programs with any kind of regularity... so I'm not part of the demographic they count or "lose" when their ratings fluctuate.


You misread what you replied to. You said, "I have a hard time believing Jay was 'forced' to do anything." My comment was in agreement with yours, in reference to those saying that Jay was "forced"....



Stewart Vernon said:


> You don't know what he signed the contract for any more than I or anyone else does.


I know contract law -- however, regardless, as I said, it doesn't matter either way. No sense in arguing about it.



Stewart Vernon said:


> Actually... he did promise exactly that! On air! Jay Leno very clearly and concisely approx 5 years ago when the deal was done... said on air that he was going to pass the torch to Conan and did not want a repeat of what had happened in the past with him a Letterman.


He did pass the torch to O'Brien. He gave up the Tonight Show. Conan O'Brien took it over. Leno did what he said he was going to do.



Stewart Vernon said:


> So whatever else you may or may not believe... Jay Leno very much promised to go quietly into the night in a very public manner some 5 years ago.


He did not say that he would go quietly into the night. You just wrote what he did say. You are essentially contradicting your own statement.



Stewart Vernon said:


> We will never know, though, because NBC assured we would never know.


NBC gave him a chance. He failed. You may have wanted him to have more time. It wasn't your call.



Stewart Vernon said:


> No matter how you slice it... NBC buggered this one up good and nobody wins.


I'm sure it makes anti-NBC people feel better to think that. However, I think such a conclusion ignores very important realities.


----------



## phrelin

Apparently Conan's team is going to get something around $12 million while he gets $33 million. Of course, I don't know how much the guy who handles the teleprompter is going to get, but it sounds like a fair deal.

As I noted above, every time there was a transition in the "Tonight Show" beginning in the 1950's NBC seems to bungle it particularly from a PR standpoint. But NBC is still here.


----------



## jerry downing

Stewart Vernon said:


> That doesn't apply to me, as I have no horse in the race. I don't watch any of the late night programs with any kind of regularity... so I'm not part of the demographic they count or "lose" when their ratings fluctuate.
> 
> You don't know what he signed the contract for any more than I or anyone else does. Your speculation is no more valid than anyone else unless you are part of the Leno inner circle of knowledge.
> 
> Actually... he did promise exactly that! On air! Jay Leno very clearly and concisely approx 5 years ago when the deal was done... said on air that he was going to pass the torch to Conan and did not want a repeat of what had happened in the past with him a Letterman.
> 
> So whatever else you may or may not believe... Jay Leno very much promised to go quietly into the night in a very public manner some 5 years ago.
> 
> We will never know, though, because NBC assured we would never know.
> 
> I've said before... IF Johnny Carson had went to a new show instead of retiring... I doubt Jay Leno would have had the success he had.
> 
> Conan had to contend with the "ghost of Jay" because all the fans of Jay could now watch him at 10pm and never be tempted to try Conan at 11:35... meanwhile, people who were turned off by Jay at 10pm bailed on their NBC local news and in turn Conan as well.
> 
> On all fronts, Conan's Tonight Show was sabotaged by NBC before giving it a chance at all. Not only that, but Leno had failed in the ratings to Letterman for at least the first year or two back in the day... so no telling what might have happened if Conan was allowed to go for a couple of years.
> 
> No matter how you slice it... NBC buggered this one up good and nobody wins.


Ah! Somebody DID win. His name is David Letterman.


----------



## AntAltMike

Stewart Vernon said:


> ...Leno had failed in the ratings to Letterman for at least the first year or two back in the day... so no telling what might have happened if Conan was allowed to go for a couple of years..


As memory serves me, Leno did not overtake Letterman until NBC's lead in programming had built up a gigantic 10-11 PM rating advantage.


----------



## QuickDrop

AntAltMike said:


> As memory serves me, Leno did not overtake Letterman until NBC's lead in programming had built up a gigantic 10-11 PM rating advantage.


It took a couple of years before Leno completely took the reign from Letterman. A lot of people like to point to the Hugh Grant interview as the turning point. Unlike the definite undercutting Leno sticking around did to O'Brien, I don't buy many of the excuses for Letterman usual second place finish to Leno. I think Letterman is far better at his job than Leno. Most media and television critics tend to agree. But I don't feel like it's out of line that more viewers prefer Leno, with or without the help of lead-ins. People have different tastes and what is "the best" is not always the most popular.


----------



## drded

As Jay himself explained the other night, he was prepared to leave Tonight. NBC offered him the 10 o'clock spot to keep him from going somewhere else. As he said, he was brought up to take work when it was available, so he did. People are blaming him for screwing up Conan's success, but it isn't true. Conan stumbled from the very beginning, before Jay even had his show on the air. Conan is an acquired taste and America wasn't making him the hit Leno was.

Not liking Leno is one thing, blaming him for everything that went down is not factual. As several posters have said, it is a business. If Conan had garnered good ratings from the start there wouldn't have been any discussions about Tonight Show changes. With half the ratings, revenue was down and NBC had a problem to fix. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you stay with Conan while losing millions each month hoping his ratings would climb? Would you think about bringing back the guy who had it before to bring the ratings back up? Would you do something else?

Dave


----------



## The Merg

I think I figured out what caused this whole problem. After Leno gave up the show to Conan, Conan didn't yell "No backsies!" That could've prevented all this hullabaloo. 

- Merg


----------



## QuickDrop

drded said:


> As Jay himself explained the other night, he was prepared to leave Tonight. NBC offered him the 10 o'clock spot to keep him from going somewhere else. As he said, he was brought up to take work when it was available, so he did. People are blaming him for screwing up Conan's success, but it isn't true. Conan stumbled from the very beginning, before Jay even had his show on the air. Conan is an acquired taste and America wasn't making him the hit Leno was.
> 
> Not liking Leno is one thing, blaming him for everything that went down is not factual. As several posters have said, it is a business. If Conan had garnered good ratings from the start there wouldn't have been any discussions about Tonight Show changes. With half the ratings, revenue was down and NBC had a problem to fix. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you stay with Conan while losing millions each month hoping his ratings would climb? Would you think about bringing back the guy who had it before to bring the ratings back up? Would you do something else?
> 
> Dave


Jay Leno's speech the other night is the one thing that convinced me that he is an utter fraud. Letterman always made comments to that effect, but I assumed it was sour grapes on his part.

The Tonight Show is meant to be the pinnacle of NBC's late night line-up. To have a talk show air an hour earlier, hosted by the previous host, on the same network, at the same studio, in the same city, completely undercut the ability for O'Brien's Tonight Show to be seen by potential guests as the must-do talk show on NBC.

Jay Leno, in his speech, acting like he just got off a bus from Kansas and not understanding "big city ways" is ludicrous. The link to Letterman's commentary in my previous post perfectly elucidates the conniving way Leno uses his "nice guy" image.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I had grown tired of Conan myself... but I've also grown tired of Letterman... and I never liked Jay Leno. I miss Johnny Carson, but even when he was on I didn't watch every night of the week.

Still... I hope Tonight show ratings continue to be low after they put Leno back... not because I have a grudge against Leno or root for Conan... but because NBC needs to have some bad results to (hopefully) help them learn something.

They either:

1. Should have kept Leno in the first place, and never promised the show to Conan. Allowed Conan to leave and go elsewhere if he wanted when his Late Night contract was up.

or

2. Stuck to the deal with Conan and let Jay Leno out of his contract, so he could have pursued another show on another network if he so chose.

I don't like Leno... but I don't blame him for taking the job back. I just wish he'd be more honest about it and say what I'm sure is true... that he didn't really want to leave in the first place. As for Conan, he shouldn't be too surprised given how NBC has a poor track record in the Late Night host-treatment scenario.


----------



## phrelin

Stewart Vernon said:


> I miss Johnny Carson, but even when he was on I didn't watch every night of the week.


Me too. Maybe they could run old shows with Johnny....:grin:


----------



## SayWhat?

I wish they'd drop the whole talk/variety show format.


----------



## trainman

phrelin said:


> Of course, I don't know how much the guy who handles the teleprompter is going to get, but it sounds like a fair deal.


They don't (usually) use teleprompters on the late-night talk shows -- only cue cards.

One thing that might be surprising is that they sometimes use cue cards for the benefit of the _guests_ during the interviews -- more so with comedian types who are using the host's interview questions as a way to lead into prepared material.


----------



## Link

People seem to forget that it was NBC that made Jay Leno leave the Tonight Show--it wasn't his choice. He didn't decide to retire--they made him give up the Tonight Show for Conan in 2009, but didn't want him going to another network so gave him the primetime show. Now they realize it was a big mistake and are putting Jay back where he was. Hopefully this time if the ratings are good, they'll let him decide when he's ready to go and not the other day around. I knew from day one, Conan would not work on the Tonight Show.


----------



## phrelin

OK. I did a Google archive news search to confirm what I thought I remembered from the time and this from September 2004 is an example of what I came up with:


> "In 2009, I'll be 59 years old and will have had this dream job for 17 years," Leno said. "When I signed my new contract, I felt that the timing was right to plan for my successor, and there is no one more qualified than Conan. Plus, I promised [my wife] Mavis I would take her out for dinner before I turned 60."
> 
> This solves a subtle issue for NBC because O'Brien has reportedly been bored with his current time slot and is ready for a change.


Then comes 2006 when we started hearing this:


> WILL LENO RETIRE? It's still an open question, apparently. Reports continue to circulate that, having been forced to agree to step down in 2009 by NBC (which feared losing Conan O'Brien), workaholic Leno has been rethinking that decision.
> 
> Oh, he won't be hosting "Tonight." But rumor is he's been talking to ABC and Fox.


Then we have this from June 2007:


> The announcement that he would step down in 2009 came as more than a bit of a surprise, given Leno's workaholism. And with that in mind, it's no surprise that he might not be retiring after all.
> 
> There are two scenarios for how this might work out. Leno is still raking in the cash for NBC, so one theory is that NBC will renege on its deal with O'Brien and pay him off under the terms of their 2004 deal - reportedly to the tune of $40 million....
> 
> Or Leno could go to another network and compete with O'Brien. ABC might be interested. Fox is definitely interested, as reported by the New York Post (which shares ownership with Fox).
> 
> Whereas Letterman had sympathy going with him when he went to CBS after getting blindsided by NBC, Leno would look petulant if he "retires" from NBC only to move to ABC or Fox.
> 
> Whatever happens, O'Brien will land on his feet. He either gets "The Tonight Show" or he gets $40 million and a job at either ABC or Fox....


This last article does note the history:


> Well, we're two years away, and it's looking more and more as if there's going to be more rancor. And friendships, if they exist, will be damaged.
> 
> Let's be clear about this. Leno's then-manager not only plotted against and double-crossed David Letterman (who had boosted Leno's career by making him a frequent guest on "Late Night"), but she plotted against Johnny Carson himself. Carson's sudden announcement of his retirement (made without forewarning his NBC bosses) was at least in part because he was tired of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering on behalf of Leno, who was the permanent guest host of "Tonight" at the time.
> 
> Not surprisingly, Letterman wasn't pleased. Neither was Carson. And Leno has no one to blame but himself for all the rancor.
> 
> So if NBC forced the 2009 retirement on him, well, what goes around comes around.


----------



## QuickDrop

Link said:


> People seem to forget that it was NBC that made Jay Leno leave the Tonight Show--it wasn't his choice. He didn't decide to retire--they made him give up the Tonight Show for Conan in 2009, but didn't want him going to another network so gave him the primetime show. Now they realize it was a big mistake and are putting Jay back where he was. Hopefully this time if the ratings are good, they'll let him decide when he's ready to go and not the other day around. I knew from day one, Conan would not work on the Tonight Show.


I don't think people forgot it. (It should also be pointed out that probably because of the deal O'Brien agreed to continue to host Late Night for five years instead of going elsewhere.) As Letterman said, Leno should have left NBC and competed against his old show, not undercut it to get his old job back. The one thing we don't know for sure is how much NBC would have now had to pay Leno to settle his contract if they chose to keep O'Brien on the Tonight Show instead. Reports have been upwards of $100 million.

The first two minutes of this clip also kinda sums it up:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e5...l-appearance-on-late-night-with-conan-o-brien


----------



## trdrjeff

Bottom line is Conan lost ratings and was losing money. No ratings no show...


----------



## drded

Plus, when you are a star and somebody dangles multiple millions in front of you, are you going to run, run run! Hardly, you are going to take the work and the money.

A lot of people are saying Leno should have done this or should have done that. Monday morning quarterbacks get paid what they are worth, and all the Monday morning quarterbacks have not walked in Leno's shoes.

The easily verifiable facts are NBC brass told the host of the #1 rated Tonight Show that the new up and comer Conan Obrien was talking of leaving and he would have to quit. That is where the beginning of the NBC management blunders started. To blame Leno is rather unfair. As the previous poster nicely said, no ratings...no show. If Conan had gotten good ratings none of this drama would have played out and Leno probably would have just been paid off after his show was canceled.

Dave


----------



## QuickDrop

drded said:


> To blame Leno is rather unfair. As the previous poster nicely said, no ratings...no show. If Conan had gotten good ratings none of this drama would have played out and Leno probably would have just been paid off after his show was canceled.


So I guess, when Leno was losing to Letterman those first two years, NBC should have cancel him then? (And Leno didn't even have to follow Carson at 10 PM.) As far as ratings go, whether it was sincere or not NBC was promoting Conan demographics "wins" most weeks. Apparently, more advertisers also thought NBC should keep Conan over Leno:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/01/2...nk-nbc-should-have-kept-conan-over-leno/40501

As far as the idea that there is Monday morning quarterbacking going on, the Norm MacDonald link I provided, in which he essentially said all this stuff, was from when Conan was still hosting Late Night. (I believe Howard Stern also made an appearance on that show where he essentially said the same about Leno.) Long before now, media and television critics have talked about how disastrous Leno at 10 would be. And again, refer back to Letterman's comments about that's the Jay I know.

Jay Leno, rightly or wrongly, has long been perceived as someone he puts on a "nice guy" image while passive aggressively working to undermind other people. (Another link: http://www.popeater.com/2010/01/27/why-jay-leno-and-david-letterman-hate-each-other/) His latest behavior only confirms that stereotype, but the criticism is not new or something made after the fact.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I also contend that Leno didn't have to sign the 2004 contract that handed the show to Conan in 2009!

Leno could simply have played out his existing contract back in 2004 and then went to another network then... BUT instead he signed the new deal, agreed to Conan taking over, and then proceeded to do everything he could to back out of the deal behind the scenes.

NBC is still to blame for the ruckus, because in this scenario they should be the "parent" to Leno's "child"... but NBC clearly is an enabler in these scenarios.


----------



## bicker1

You speak of them as if they're human -- they're not, and not supposed to be. They're supposed to be companies, operating as slaves to the collective, consensus discretion of their owners. And none of the pundits have provided a shred of evidence that, given what was known in 2004, that the "correct" decision (presumably, kick Conan to the curb and stick with Leno indefinitely) could have been clearly determined from the definitive facts available at that time. Heck, even with allegedly 20/20 hindsight, none of them have enough proof to show that there *was any* "correct" decision to be made. What this whole ruckus seems to me is just different sides trying to justify their personal preferences by trying to draw an implication from the current reality back to how doing what they wanted would have resulted in something better. First, they cannot prove such assertions, and second, they are relying on information that did not exist in 2004, and assertions that it was reasonable foreseeable are as unsupported by the available facts as the assertions themselves.

The only "problem" I see in this whole situation is those (hopefully) few people in Hollywood who feel the need to have their pound of flesh, to ascribe blame, to cast aspersions, or to disparage other people who disagree with them.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The problem I see is that both NBC and Jay Leno asserted back in 2004 that they did NOT want to repeat what happened last time around... and then both NBC and Leno proceeded to exactly attempt just that!

I can't say what was the right or wrong decision by going back in time for certain... but I can question what NBC and Leno have said publicly now vs back in 2004, and either they were lying then or are lying now.


----------



## jeffshoaf

Just because there isn't an apparent better option when a decision is made doesn't mean that the decision wasn't a mistake!


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> You speak of them as if they're human -- they're not, and not supposed to be. They're supposed to be companies, operating as slaves to the collective, consensus discretion of their owners. And none of the pundits have provided a shred of evidence that, given what was known in 2004, that the "correct" decision (presumably, kick Conan to the curb and stick with Leno indefinitely) could have been clearly determined from the definitive facts available at that time. Heck, even with allegedly 20/20 hindsight, none of them have enough proof to show that there *was any* "correct" decision to be made. What this whole ruckus seems to me is just different sides trying to justify their personal preferences by trying to draw an implication from the current reality back to how doing what they wanted would have resulted in something better. First, they cannot prove such assertions, and second, they are relying on information that did not exist in 2004, and assertions that it was reasonable foreseeable are as unsupported by the available facts as the assertions themselves.
> 
> The only "problem" I see in this whole situation is those (hopefully) few people in Hollywood who feel the need to have their pound of flesh, to ascribe blame, to cast aspersions, or to disparage other people who disagree with them.


Your take is dryly correct in the absence of any context other than that of a GE shareholder (which I am), but there is something else going on here that IMHO is more important and stirs more emotion.

The economic model for TV broadcast channels was firmly established by 1958 protected by licenses to use "the public's airwaves" issued by a federal government regulatory system heavily influenced by NBC's David Sarnoff. That model was firmly entrenched during the entire time Johnny Carson hosted "The Tonight Show."

TV was already changing in Carson's last decade during which GE bought RCA and NBC with it. But nobody predicted that 15 years after Leno took over, NBC would be moribund with "The Tonight Show" being one of its few competitive bright spots and that NBCU's financial well-being would be dependent on cable channels.

So here we are, over 5 decades into the era of commercially successful TV during which "The Tonight Show" has been a success despite NBC's mishandling of the transitions and the hosts - Steve Allen to Jack Paar to Johnny Carson to Jay Leno to Conan O'Brien.

This time we all know that NBC has a major problem, that this kerfluffle is mixed into a general failure of NBC measured by _Sarnoff's Law_ - the value of a broadcast network is proportional to the number of viewers.

We also know that in the past while networks including NBC have had their ups and downs as measured by that standard, technology and the federal government effectively restricted competition creating a "safe zone" for ABC, CBS and NBC.

We also know that the largest cable TV company in the nation, Comcast, is about to buy controlling interest in NBCU. We know that as a cable TV company, it has no inherent stake in broadcast TV despite whatever reassurances it may offer the FCC. In fact, Comcast is focused on creating multiple "wired" and "wireless" options for its 23 million subscribers unrelated to, and likely destructive of, the broadcast TV model.

In that context, it is disturbing at many levels that the NBC broadcast network is being operated in a hamfisted, incompetent manner. NBC television's survival has been dependent upon both its relationship to its viewers (the American general public) and its relationship with the federal government (the regulatory agencies authorized by Americans to protect the interests of the American general public).

I don't agree that the broadcast network companies and their broadcast network affiliated TV stations are exclusively "supposed to be companies, operating as slaves to the collective, consensus discretion of their owners." If and when the FCC revokes all their broadcast licenses and sells them to the highest bidder in an "all sales are final" auction to help pay down the national debt, then the winners can operate the new TV stations at the discretion of their owners and broadcast porn in the open for all I care.

But until that happens, what NBC does deserves to be discussed and critiqued freely by the American general public.


----------



## bicker1

jeffshoaf said:


> Just because there isn't an apparent better option when a decision is made doesn't mean that the decision wasn't a mistake!


Actually, it does mean precisely that. The word mistake implies error, not merely sub-optimization. If you want, you can legitimately call the decisions "accidents" since that implies negative results without the bias of implied error.



phrelin said:


> Your take is dryly correct


This is really critical: As you indicated...


phrelin said:


> ... there is something else going on here that IMHO is more important and stirs more *emotion*.


Emotion has primacy in matters of the heart, in matters of personal preference -- not in the evaluation of "error" in business decision-making, as alluded to above.

Also: Did you decide not to marry that girlfriend from college because she made "errors"? Or did your emotions simply drive you to conclude that your personal interests would be best served by pursuing another love?

In the matter of business decisions, emotion doesn't clarify; it does the opposite, i.e., it obscures.



phrelin said:


> In that context, it is disturbing at many levels that the NBC broadcast network is being operated in a hamfisted, incompetent manner.


That's nothing but self-serving rhetoric... you're trying to make a point, that NBC made errors, by saying that NBC makes errors. That's not proof... it's bombast without merit.

To prove what you're trying to prove here you'd have to show that a significant number of others, placed in the same circumstances, routinely make different decisions and end up with better results. If you have such evidence, please do present it, because it would be very pertinent.



phrelin said:


> I don't agree that the broadcast network companies and their broadcast network affiliated TV stations are exclusively "supposed to be companies, operating as slaves to the collective, consensus discretion of their owners."


You're taking that comment out of context. It was specifically presented in the context of the arguably ridiculous comment made earlier ascribing human characteristics to a company. The point I was making is that no one should be thinking of the company as a person. It's a slave. Nothing more. It doesn't have emotions (see above), but rather does what its owners drive it to do.

There is no question that the affiliates (not the network) are subject to FCC regulations, requiring them operate in the public interest, but given that some television stations broadcast home shopping 22/7, no NBC affiliate is in any danger of approaching anywhere close to failing to satisfy its obligations to the public interest, even though it sure seems like you're trying to insinuate that.



phrelin said:


> But until that happens, what NBC does deserves to be discussed and critiqued freely by the American general public.


The NBC network "deserves" to be critiqued no more or less so than any other business, and with the proviso that critiques with as little merit as those I've objected to "deserve" to be rebutted. Such perspectives do not "deserve" an unrebutted soap-box.


----------



## QuickDrop

bicker1 said:


> You're taking that comment out of context. It was specifically presented in the context of the arguably ridiculous comment made earlier ascribing human characteristics to a company. The point I was making is that no one should be thinking of the company as a person. It's a slave. Nothing more. It doesn't have emotions (see above), but rather does what its owners drive it to do.


You make a company sound like it's some robot, which is just as absurd as treating it like a person. When people say "NBC" in these threads, aren't they just using it as shorthand for the people who actually run the company? In media, the people who are making the decisions, such as Jeff Zucker, are the ones taking the heat. Here, "NBC" is just shorthand for the people in charge of the company. To explain that NBC is technically a company and not a person is overly pedantic and is something everyone else accepts at face value without the need for explanation.


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> The NBC network "deserves" to be critiqued no more or less so than any other business, and with the proviso that critiques with as little merit as those I've objected to "deserve" to be rebutted. Such perspectives do not "deserve" an unrebutted soap-box.


Fortunately, we don't have to worry about that here.:sure:

I think you're wrong about emotions. My fear is that the broadcast channel NBC will be gone by the end of the decade. I have familial ties to NBC that go back to the Golden Age of Radio, so for me it would be sad. Not Earth shattering, but sad.

Finally, the decisions surrounding Leno were poorly made. From out of the box, affiliates objected, one in a major market saying they would refuse to carry the 10 pm show. But the NBC suits went ahead threatening the affiliate. Then the NBC suits reversed themselves. But apparently they had to order episodes to fill out the schedule, including additional episodes of "Law and Order" which they had canceled. They look like bumbling idiots and if it walks like a duck....


----------



## jeffshoaf

bicker1 said:


> Actually, it does mean precisely that. The word mistake implies error, not merely sub-optimization. If you want, you can legitimately call the decisions "accidents" since that implies negative results without the bias of implied error.


Sorry, I don't think this mess was a "sub-optimzation" - I think it was a mistake, with all of it's implications of error. By your definition, no decision could ever be a mistake.

"Accident" implies an unplanned event; while the results of this mistake may not have been planned, the event itself was planned.

Yeah, I know... Since this is my opinion, it isn't valid - at least not in your opinion! :nono2:


----------



## bicker1

QuickDrop said:


> Here, "NBC" is just shorthand for the people in charge of the company.


Then critics should name them, specifically, so it is clear that they're making a personal attack on an individual. At least that way what they're saying is clear. As it is, people in charge of companies work for the owners, not the customers... customers seem to never cease forgetting that.



QuickDrop said:


> To explain that NBC is technically a company and not a person is overly pedantic and is something everyone else accepts at face value without the need for explanation.


That's bull. Some people personify issues because they find it personally satisfying. It's disingenuous and counter-productive to understanding the reality. That's why I point out the error when I do.



phrelin said:


> Fortunately, we don't have to worry about that here.


I do my best, but sometimes the smoke gets quite thick.



phrelin said:


> I think you're wrong about emotions. My fear is that the broadcast channel NBC will be gone by the end of the decade. *I have familial ties* to NBC that go back to the Golden Age of Radio, so for me it would be sad. Not Earth shattering, but sad.


So basically what you're saying is that I'm correct about emotions. Nothing you've said there has anything to do what is best for the company -- it is all about what's best for you.



phrelin said:


> Finally, the decisions surrounding Leno were poorly made.


And I'll just repeat what I've said before: When have decisions, under the same circumstances been made better? I call "bull" to whatever suggesting you make, because this was a comparatively unique situation, which has never been resolved without conflict. People will always find fault because they want things to go the way they want them to go, rather than the way they actually went. Again: Labeling that "error" is ridiculous. It's is. That's it.



phrelin said:


> From out of the box, affiliates objected, one in a major market saying they would refuse to carry the 10 pm show. But the NBC suits went ahead threatening the affiliate. Then the NBC suits reversed themselves.


And now you're being disingenuous, making it sound like nothing else happened to change the environment within which the decisions had effect. Neglecting to mention that NBCU is now in the process of being acquired by Comcast, with all the regulatory rigmarole that involves, is deceptive, I hope you'd agree.


----------



## bicker1

jeffshoaf said:


> Sorry, I don't think this mess was a "sub-optimzation" - I think it was a mistake, with all of it's implications of error. By your definition, no decision could ever be a mistake.


That's ridiculous. Of course there are mistakes. The point is that just because you don't like something doesn't make that a mistake. You want to call it an error, for your own purposes, but if you were honorably inclined towards serving the objectives that the decision-makers were obligated to serve, and knew nothing more than what they knew at the time, then you would as likely have made the same decision... the exact same decision. You wouldn't be so biased by your personal preferences, nor by your mistaken impression that there surely must be a clearly correct approach in every circumstance when in reality that's not always the case.



jeffshoaf said:


> "Accident" implies an unplanned event


The fact that the affiliates had leverage, given to them due to the Comcast acquisition, was indeed an unplanned event.

It seems that every time you post something, it turns out to be a clear and convincing support for what I'm saying. Thanks.


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> And now you're being disingenuous, making it sound like nothing else happened to change the environment within which the decisions had effect. Neglecting to mention that NBCU is now in the process of being acquired by Comcast, with all the regulatory rigmarole that involves, is deceptive, I hope you'd agree.


I think I said:


phrelin said:


> We also know that the largest cable TV company in the nation, Comcast, is about to buy controlling interest in NBCU. We know that as a cable TV company, it has no inherent stake in broadcast TV despite whatever reassurances it may offer the FCC. In fact, Comcast is focused on creating multiple "wired" and "wireless" options for its 23 million subscribers unrelated to, and likely destructive of, the broadcast TV model.


Finally, as this is relatively fruitless debate, my problem with NBC management is the decision-making process involved in the Leno situation, at least how it appears to have proceeded. Yeah, it is what it is at this point. But my feelings require me to ask "why?" And those feelings are based on this post from above (emphasis added):


phrelin said:


> This all reminds me of the history of the "Tonight Show" beginning with the 1957 debacle. As a few of us remember, the initial show in the early '50's was hosted by Steve Allen. Allen was joined by Ernie Kovacs in 1956 "to allow" Allen to focus more on his Sunday night show. Then the show disappeared in early 1957 when NBC ordered Allen to make his Sunday show more competitive with "Ed Sullivan." NBC turned the time slot into something called "Tonight! America After Dark" which was unpopular and the affiliates started showing old movies or something. So in mid 1957, NBC restored the "Tonight Show" with Jack Paar hosting.
> 
> Then, of course, we had Paar walking off the show in 1960 in a dispute with the censors over a joke about a "WC" (water closet meaning toilet). He came back a month later, but then Paar said he couldn't handle the workload in 1962, so NBC put "The Jack Paar Program" in a Friday prime time slot. They hired Johnny Carson who was then under contract with ABC which wouldn't release him, so they filled with guest hosts for a few months until Carson took over.
> 
> _*As George Santayana said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."*_


You don't have to be as old as me to be aware of NBC's history of kerfluffles in the management of one of its otherwise most successful shows.

Leno will survive and so will the show. He interviews folks well and some of the comedy is pretty good. So we'll watch parts of some of the shows just like we always have. (But I do miss Carson.)

And maybe NBC will end up with better management after the Comcast deal is closed. Who knows?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

I suspect we'll all know "the rest of the story" on the Leno / O'Brien saga this fall.

By then....Leno will have been back for several months in his "old" slot, and O'Brien will likely have surfaced in his new "location".

Furthermore, once we get to the ratings at year end....who knows....maybe both will be survivors somehow.


----------



## bicker1

phrelin said:


> But my *feelings *require me to ask "why?"


Do you have children? If so, have you ever had one ask you "why?" about something for which the question "why?" was really not relevant -- something for which no answer would apply? I respect, though, that such questions are often driven by *feelings* rather than rational inquiry. "Why couldn't the veterinarian make Rover better?" That question comes from someplace deep inside, not from the rational brain, and we really don't expect any answer is going to make our child feel better about losing their constant canine companion.



phrelin said:


> And those feelings are based on this post from above: ... "As George Santayana said: 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'"


If NBC continues to hire the best talent in the business, then yes, they're going to continue to have situations where two great talents both want the same job, and there will be a sticky situation as the network determines how to try to determine how to extract the best from (and deprive their competitors from stealing away) the assets that NBC itself worked so hard to find and cultivate. Again, the only way to avoid this situation is to hire crappier talent.

George Santayana also said, "Life is not a spectacle or a feast; it is a predicament," and, "Periods of tranquility are seldom prolific of creative achievement. Mankind has to be stirred up." By this he means that not everything has a neat and easy answer, that life itself is a never-ending challenge. Where you don't see situations like this one that NBC just got through, you see the lack of life, the lack of vitality, the lack of advancement. It is only through risk and conflict that we can achieve something better than the lifeless status quo.

_[BTW, if you're in Eastern Mass., and would like to participate in a small-group, spiritual discussion themed around George Santayana's perspectives on skepticism, please let me know: I'll be leading the session in early March, and would need to get permission from other members of my group to invite outsiders.]_



phrelin said:


> You don't have to be as old as me to be aware of NBC's history of kerfluffles in the management of one of its otherwise most successful shows.


You also don't have to be that old to be aware that the other networks would have been *fortunate *to have such problems. Again, what you're referring to is the natural result of NBC having an embarrassment of riches, that its competitors were never blessed with.



phrelin said:


> And maybe NBC will end up with better management after the Comcast deal is closed. Who knows?


"If you expect perfection from other people, your whole life is a series of disappointments, grumbling and complaints." - Bruce Barton


----------



## Stewart Vernon

As confusing as anything to me is... that they appear (at least by my EPG) to be running Conan repeats every night, while still running new Leno at 10pm.

Why would NBC not already be running Leno in the 11:35 timeslot? They already kicked Conan to the Curb, and the 10pm Leno show is already a failure.... it seems to me they'd be better off running Leno's current show at 11:35 until they move him officially back to the Tonight Show digs... then run repeats of any other NBC show (one of the Law & Orders, or something from Universal or something) at the 10pm slot.

I'm confused at why they would let Conan go "early" and then not make any changes to what they are airing each night.


----------



## jeffshoaf

bicker1 said:


> It seems that every time you post something, it turns out to be a clear and convincing support for what I'm saying. Thanks.


Nope.. It's clear that regardless of what anyone says, you're either going to twist it around to match your point of view, insist that others' viewpoints and opinions are invalid due to being from a personal or emotional perspective, or use semantics to try to invalidate others' postings.

It's also obvious that you're going to insist that corporations can do no wrong and/or should not be held accountable for their decisions even when those decisions are proven to be incorrect.


----------



## jeffshoaf

bicker1 said:


> That's ridiculous. Of course there are mistakes. The point is that just because you don't like something doesn't make that a mistake. You want to call it an error, for your own purposes, but if you were honorably inclined towards serving the objectives that the decision-makers were obligated to serve, and knew nothing more than what they knew at the time, then you would as likely have made the same decision... the exact same decision. You wouldn't be so biased by your personal preferences, nor by your mistaken impression that there surely must be a clearly correct approach in every circumstance when in reality that's not always the case.


You don't know my personal preferences and I never said that there is a clearly correct approach in every circumstance. I said that a decision could be a mistake even when it appears that it's the best decision under the circumstances. Based on the complete change in direction NBC is taking regarding the Leno/Conan fiasco, it's pretty obvious that the original decision to put Leno on at 10:00 PM and have Conan take over the Tonight Show was a mistake. It has nothing to do with my personal preferences since I don't watch either of them - I would choose Letterman over either of them and I wouldn't get upset if he were to be canceled since I don't watch him with any regularity.

Besides that, just because an opinion is based on personal preferences or biases does not make it incorrect.



> The fact that the affiliates had leverage, given to them due to the Comcast acquisition, was indeed an unplanned event.


The affiliates had leverage even before the uncompleted Comcast acquisition (an argument could be made that the Comcast gives the affiliates less leverage, but that's a different topic). As someone else posted, the very nature of "free" broadcast TV and the licenses granting the affiliates use of the public bandwidth gives the affiliates leverage.


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> _[BTW, if you're in Eastern Mass., and would like to participate in a small-group, spiritual discussion themed around George Santayana's perspectives on skepticism, please let me know: I'll be leading the session in early March, and would need to get permission from other members of my group to invite outsiders.]_


That sounds stimulating. But I'm in Mendocino County, California, and don't travel much any more. If it weren't for forums like this, my interaction with people who have a variety of views would be very limited.


> Do you have children? If so, have you ever had one ask you "why?" about something for which the question "why?" was really not relevant -- something for which no answer would apply? I respect, though, that such questions are often driven by feelings rather than rational inquiry.


My question "Why?" to NBC execs is really a much longer question that is in the class of "You dropped your iPod in the pool again? Why?" It isn't an inquiry, more of a suggestion to explore why the lessons of past bad experiences didn't overcome the distractions and overconfidence.

I always felt that the GE management training program did a pretty good job of teaching decision-making using information from a "big picture" point of view while focusing on a specific problem. We'll never know if the original decision to move Conan into the "Tonight Show" host chair would ultimately proved to have been a good decision in the long run. In the context of a changing environment and the need to appeal to an audience with a 21st Century focus, at the time it seemed to me to be a good decision.

For whatever reason, it seemed to me that someone lost sight of the big picture and started worrying too much about Leno going somewhere else. Because I'm not privy to the inner workings at NBC's executive offices, I don't know how this happened but I think it was second guessing a well-thought-out decision.

In 2007 I wrote in my blog "Yes, that ad supported NBC channel you watch now may degenerate into only news, sports, and televaudeville." But I didn't anticipate the change would start in the 10 pm slot with Leno. "American Idol" is an 8 pm show and that was what I was thinking about, not Leno. Still, in April I wrote: "Co-chairman of NBC Entertainment and Universal Media Studios Ben Silverman says it will be far more of a comedy show than The Tonight Show." I don't think Silverman's understanding is what happened, but he's out now.

As I noted in that April post: "After it became apparent that under Ben Silverman tenure as head of programming the network's ratings crashed, in January 2009 Zucker brought in Angela Bromstad to be NBC's chief programmer of dramas and comedies."

So we'll see what happens next fall after she's had sufficient time to rebuild under a 3-hour prime time schedule. This article has given me some hope.


----------



## SledgeHammer

I don't see what the hub-bub is about. The ratings are the bottom line. 

Leno's ratings @ 11:35pm (which were awesome for the 11:35pm time slot) EQUALED his ratings at 10pm (which were not awesome for the 10:00pm time slot).

Conan got better ratings @ 11:35pm then he did at 12:35pm. Obviously because of the better time slot and the better name value of the show. HOWEVER, his ratings were HALF of what Jay was banging. He was also getting pwned by Letterman on a nightly basis while Jay was pwning Letterman on a nightly basis for the past 12yrs or whatever.

I personally don't find Conan's humor at all funny. Hes a guy in his 30 - 40's acting like hes still a frat boy. I'm 34 by the way. Maybe if I was 20 I'd find Conan funnier, but...

Bottom line is:

1) Conan's ratings @ 11:35pm weren't there
2) Jay's ratings @ 10pm weren't there.
3) 10pm to 2am worth of talk shows didn't work

They offered to move Conan back 30mins and he cried and took his ball and went home.

Personally, I'll agree that you don't want to move the Tonight Show around, cuz the name/time value is there.

Conan came off like a cry baby.

I'm pretty sure that if Jay moving back to 11:35pm delivers Conan ratings, he won't be around in 7 months either.

But I have a feeling that Jay will return to dominating fairly rapidly .

Yeah, we'll see Conan again in the fall. Probably on FOX or whatever going up against Leno and Letterman @ 11:35pm.

And I'm pretty sure he'll get cancelled in 7 months or less going up against the 2 kings.

Conan seems to have a very inflated self-worth that he has hasn't earned yet.


----------



## raoul5788

SledgeHammer said:


> I don't see what the hub-bub is about. The ratings are the bottom line.
> 
> Leno's ratings @ 11:35pm (which were awesome for the 11:35pm time slot) EQUALED his ratings at 10pm (which were not awesome for the 10:00pm time slot).
> 
> Conan got better ratings @ 11:35pm then he did at 12:35pm. Obviously because of the better time slot and the better name value of the show. HOWEVER, his ratings were HALF of what Jay was banging. He was also getting pwned by Letterman on a nightly basis while Jay was pwning Letterman on a nightly basis for the past 12yrs or whatever.
> 
> I personally don't find Conan's humor at all funny. Hes a guy in his 30 - 40's acting like hes still a frat boy. I'm 34 by the way. Maybe if I was 20 I'd find Conan funnier, but...
> 
> Bottom line is:
> 
> 1) Conan's ratings @ 11:35pm weren't there
> 2) Jay's ratings @ 10pm weren't there.
> 3) 10pm to 2am worth of talk shows didn't work
> 
> They offered to move Conan back 30mins and he cried and took his ball and went home.
> 
> Personally, I'll agree that you don't want to move the Tonight Show around, cuz the name/time value is there.
> 
> Conan came off like a cry baby.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that if Jay moving back to 11:35pm delivers Conan ratings, he won't be around in 7 months either.
> 
> But I have a feeling that Jay will return to dominating fairly rapidly .
> 
> Yeah, we'll see Conan again in the fall. Probably on FOX or whatever going up against Leno and Letterman @ 11:35pm.
> 
> And I'm pretty sure he'll get cancelled in 7 months or less going up against the 2 kings.
> 
> Conan seems to have a very inflated self-worth that he has hasn't earned yet.


I don't think Conan came off as a cry baby in the least. I saw him as standing up for himself. I saw Leno as being the baby. He agreed originally to give up his spot to Conan, in fact, he endorsed him for it. Now he wants it back. Who is the baby here? JMHO, of course.


----------



## SledgeHammer

raoul5788 said:


> I don't think Conan came off as a cry baby in the least. I saw him as standing up for himself. I saw Leno as being the baby. He agreed originally to give up his spot to Conan, in fact, he endorsed him for it. Now he wants it back. Who is the baby here? JMHO, of course.


Yeah, Conan stood up for himself, but he still failed @ 11:35pm.

Leno did *NOT* agree to give up The Tonight Show.

NBC *fired* him 4 or 5 yrs ago or whenever that was, cuz they were afraid of Conan jumping ship and needed something to keep him @ NBC. Jay was being a professional / team player when he endorsed Conan. Jay wanted to go to FOX @ 11:35pm after the firing, but instead NBC gave him the 10pm slot to keep him at NBC.

The whole "I'm gonna retire" thing was a cover for the firing, cuz again, Jay was being professional and didn't want to screw Conan or the Tonight Show.

BTW, this is well known fact now. That Jay was fired / told to step down 4 or 5 years ago to keep Conan @ NBC.

Also, he didn't *take* his show back... The new setup didn't work and NBC wanted to keep everybody at NBC but Conan middle-fingered them. So they said fine and gave the show back to Jay.

Anybody who still thinks Jay "retired" and then changed his mind and forcibly took the Tonight Show back needs to get the facts straight .


----------



## bicker1

jeffshoaf said:


> Nope.. It's clear that regardless of what anyone says, you're either going to twist it around to match your point of view, insist that others' viewpoints and opinions are invalid due to being from a personal or emotional perspective, or use semantics to try to invalidate others' postings.


Given that we disagree, it would be idiocy to expect me to see you post something and say, "Well golly, everything I believe is wrong." _I disagree with you._ Everything you say, therefore, in support of the position I disagree with, will be incorrect as far as I am concern. If you expect anything different, then you don't understand the fundamental nature of disagreement.

If you post something that _supports _what I believe is fact, even if you didn't intend to support my position, then I will highlight that, because perhaps it will help you understand better why I believe I'm correct and you're incorrect. Using the bits of truth that I can count on you accepting, because you yourself expressed them, is a great tool for making my point, because half the challenge is obviated by the fact that you yourself is the source of the fact I'm highlighting.



jeffshoaf said:


> It's also obvious that you're going to insist that corporations can do no wrong and/or should not be held accountable for their decisions even when those decisions are proven to be incorrect.


That's incredibly self-serving yet still vacuous. You haven't proven anything about the decisions. You continue to lamely claim that the negative results imply that the decisions were in error, despite how clearly and comprehensively I explained that that's not logical. I know you want NBC to be cast in some ridiculously malevolent light, but don't expect an unrebutted soap-box for the unsupported (and admittedly, unsupportable) assertions you're making.


----------



## bicker1

jeffshoaf said:


> You don't know my personal preferences


They're painfully evident from your rhetoric.



jeffshoaf said:


> and I never said that there is a clearly correct approach in every circumstance.


I appreciate you granting that point.



jeffshoaf said:


> I said that a decision could be a mistake even when it appears that it's the best decision under the circumstances.


Why cannot you admit that you cannot know whether this specific decision was a mistake, given the circumstances?



jeffshoaf said:


> Based on the complete change in direction NBC is taking regarding the Leno/Conan fiasco, it's pretty obvious that the original decision to put Leno on at 10:00 PM and have Conan take over the Tonight Show was a mistake.


Again; your logic fails. I seriously hope you don't need me to diagram the logic out to show you that you are engaging in fallacy.



jeffshoaf said:


> It has nothing to do with my personal preferences since I don't watch either of them


The personal preference could stem from simple animosity toward NBC, its managers, and/or business in general. Given that you're insisting on what you're insisting, consistently without your rhetoric constituting a logical argument, I can only conclude that there is some manner of personal preference driving you to support the position you're supporting.



jeffshoaf said:


> Besides that, just because an opinion is based on personal preferences or biases does not make it incorrect.


Opinions aren't correct or incorrect. They're just preferences.



jeffshoaf said:


> The affiliates had leverage even before the uncompleted Comcast acquisition (an argument could be made that the Comcast gives the affiliates less leverage, but that's a different topic).


First, the affiliates didn't have the leverage that the Comcast acquisition gives them. Your assertion that the acquisition actually reduces the leverage that the affiliates have in this context is so ridiculous that I would consider it nothing but trolling at this point.



jeffshoaf said:


> As someone else posted, the very nature of "free" broadcast TV and the licenses granting the affiliates use of the public bandwidth gives the affiliates leverage.


Something which they had and would have *regardless *of the acquisition. The acquisition provides the affiliates additional leverage.


----------



## bicker1

phrelin said:


> My question "Why?" to NBC execs is really a much longer question that is in the class of "You dropped your iPod in the pool again? Why?" It isn't an inquiry, more of a suggestion to explore why the lessons of past bad experiences didn't overcome the distractions and overconfidence.


Why, though, are you unwilling to accept that great *advantages *can lead to difficult choices? Why do you insist on believing that only bad choices lead to difficult choices?



phrelin said:


> We'll never know if the original decision to move Conan into the "Tonight Show" host chair would ultimately proved to have been a good decision in the long run.


More importantly, there was absolutely no way to know it back then.

And *this *is why this is an important discussion: If you don't allow people to take risks that don't pay off, the result will invariably be dreary stagnation. And by insisting that failure implies that mistakes were made, that's exactly what some folks (Jeff, in particular, in this thread) are doing.


----------



## drded

After reading pages and pages all I can say is bicker1 is a screen name well chosen.

Dave


----------



## jeffshoaf

drded said:


> After reading pages and pages all I can say is bicker1 is a screen name well chosen.
> 
> Dave


I asserted that before, but it turns out that it's based on his actual surname.

I keep telling myself that I will never respond to him again, but I keep letting myself get dragged back in. He will probably see that as me agreeing that he has a superior command of logic and a deeper understanding of the world and everything in than I do, even though it's because it's pointless to debate him - he seems to be more intent on repeating his assertions over and over and over without even considering that he could be mistaken. If we took a poll here and the vast majority of posters disagreed with his position, he would state that the vote was not valid since it was basically a popularity contest and that all the voters' votes were invalid since the votes were based on opinion and personal preferences. He might even flog the voters for feeling entitled to vote since they obviously had not properly researched the subject - after all, if they had researched the subject, they could not fail to logically reach the same conclusion as he.


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> Why, though, are you unwilling to accept that great *advantages *can lead to difficult choices? Why do you insist on believing that only bad choices lead to difficult choices?
> 
> More importantly, there was absolutely no way to know it back then.
> 
> And *this *is why this is an important discussion: If you don't allow people to take risks that don't pay off, the result will invariably be dreary stagnation. And by insisting that failure implies that mistakes were made, that's exactly what some folks (Jeff, in particular, in this thread) are doing.


I don't know where you get the idea that I don't know that advantages can lead to difficult choices. Life is full of difficult choices.

It's my belief that one must have to have successes to make the toiling worthwhile. To only fail would be a sad way to live. IMHO the wisdom that comes from failure is found in understanding what failed leading to better decision-making processes which might lead to success.

In the end, the failures in the Tonight Show kerfluffles have been the inability to manage competing very large egos. Maybe when Leno retires next time, NBC will have found a management method for this problem - that would be a surprising success assuming I live to see it.


----------



## jeffshoaf

bicker1 said:


> And *this *is why this is an important discussion: If you don't allow people to take risks that don't pay off, the result will invariably be dreary stagnation. And by insisting that failure implies that mistakes were made, that's exactly what some folks (Jeff, in particular, in this thread) are doing.


You're making the assumption that fear of making a mistake will prevent people from taking risks. I don't see how that is any more likely than the fear of failure would prevent the same people from taking risks.

If we do not admit that there were mistakes, how do we learn and not make the same mistake again? If a decision leads to failure and the decision was not a mistake, what prevents us from making the same decision in similar circumstances? Or are we to assume that the same decision in a similar circumstance will lead to a different result?

Do you believe that executives should not be held accountable for their decisions that fail? How about front-line employees?

I agree that businesses and employees have to take prudent risks, but I also believe that they have to be held accountable for the failures. By refusing to call a decision leading to failure a "mistake," we run the risk of freeing people from taking responsibility for their decisions.

It seems that you're just playing semantic games; do you believe that calling the decision that lead to a "mistake" will prevent others from taking risks? If so, that just seems silly (yes, in my opinion), similar to companies insisting that they have "issues" instead of "problems."

No, I don't believe that someone should be fired for making a mistake; of course, if I made a mistake that cost my employer to lose 30 or 40 million dollars, I'd expect to be fired!


----------



## jeffshoaf

bicker1 said:


> They're painfully evident from your rhetoric.
> 
> I appreciate you granting that point.
> 
> Why cannot you admit that you cannot know whether this specific decision was a mistake, given the circumstances?
> 
> Again; your logic fails. I seriously hope you don't need me to diagram the logic out to show you that you are engaging in fallacy.
> 
> The personal preference could stem from simple animosity toward NBC, its managers, and/or business in general. Given that you're insisting on what you're insisting, consistently without your rhetoric constituting a logical argument, I can only conclude that there is some manner of personal preference driving you to support the position you're supporting.
> 
> Opinions aren't correct or incorrect. They're just preferences.
> 
> First, the affiliates didn't have the leverage that the Comcast acquisition gives them. Your assertion that the acquisition actually reduces the leverage that the affiliates have in this context is so ridiculous that I would consider it nothing but trolling at this point.
> 
> Something which they had and would have *regardless *of the acquisition. The acquisition provides the affiliates additional leverage.


You know, I've just re-read this three times. You accuse me of not being logical and not proving my statements, but you do nothing to prove yours - you basically say "nuh-uh" every time I say "uh-huh."

To answer one specific point, I see the Comcast acquisition as reducing the leverage of the affiliates simply because Comcast has an alternative distribution channel for NBC's offerings - Comcast doesn't need the affiliates.

So, how does the Comcast acquisition give the affiliates additional leverage?

Speaking of trolling, I can't see your opinion of my saying that the decision that lead to the current Leno/Conan fiasco as a mistake as a sign that I have a personal preference in the matter as anything but trolling. The same goes for your description of my postings as "rhetoric."

Why don't you post a logic chart demonstrating how this decision wasn't a mistake? Why can't you admit that the decision was a mistake?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

WOW...this thread has sure turned into a ton of DRAMA concerning two basically COMEDY shows and COMEDIANS. :eek2:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

_Friendly reminder time... this thread is not about the posters on the forum... but rather about Leno, Conan, and NBC. Please refrain from insulting each other._


----------



## bicker1

jeffshoaf said:


> he seems to be more intent on repeating his assertions over and over and over without even considering that he could be mistaken.


Pot, kettle, black.



jeffshoaf said:


> If we took a poll here and the vast majority of posters disagreed with his position, he would state that the vote was not valid since it was basically a popularity contest and that all the voters' votes were invalid since the votes were based on opinion and personal preferences.


More self-serving clap-trap: Are you really suggesting that the reality, which is what I'm presenting, should be a reflection of what most people _like,_ instead of the actuality? Utterly ridiculous.

There are a lot of *fans *here, people who choose to see things through a viewer's bias. I'm perhaps one of a few who are willing and able to present the balanced perspective, including both the viewers' perspective and the business' perspective. You aren't justified in expecting other people to do so; each person can decide for themselves whether they want to be biased or balanced... you don't get to dictate that for others.

Your continued personal attacks on me just show how desperate you are to defend your baseless assertions. I'll ask you to please stop and just focus on the subject-matter issues, but I get the impression that such a request will fall on deaf ears.


----------



## jeffshoaf

bicker1 said:


> Pot, kettle, black.
> 
> More self-serving clap-trap: Are you really suggesting that the reality, which is what I'm presenting, should be a reflection of what most people _like,_ instead of the actuality? Utterly ridiculous.
> 
> There are a lot of *fans *here, people who choose to see things through a viewer's bias. I'm perhaps one of a few who are willing and able to present the balanced perspective, including both the viewers' perspective and the business' perspective. You aren't justified in expecting other people to do so; each person can decide for themselves whether they want to be biased or balanced... you don't get to dictate that for others.
> 
> Your continued personal attacks on me just show how desperate you are to defend your baseless assertions. I'll ask you to please stop and just focus on the subject-matter issues, but I get the impression that such a request will fall on deaf ears.


Thank you for proving my point.


----------



## bicker1

phrelin said:


> I don't know where you get the idea that I don't know that advantages can lead to difficult choices. Life is full of difficult choices.


Great, thanks for clarifying. We agree on this totally.



phrelin said:


> It's my belief that one must have to have successes to make the toiling worthwhile. To only fail would be a sad way to live. IMHO the wisdom that comes from failure is found in understanding what failed leading to better decision-making processes which might lead to success.


The only problem with what you've said here is that again you're insisting that "failure" requires that the decision-making process had a flaw. What you've said, again, does not allow for the possibility of failure being a natural consequence of risk. It make take many years, but eventually the best business leaders learn that not everything is deterministic.



phrelin said:


> In the end, the failures in the Tonight Show kerfluffles have been the inability to manage competing very large egos.


Which broadcast network has done better? What makes you think that there is better to be done, given the specific circumstances we're talking about?



phrelin said:


> Maybe when Leno retires next time, NBC will have found a management method for this problem - that would be a surprising success assuming I live to see it.


And again maybe there isn't one. And so the next time NBC has two fantastic assets (while the best of its competitors have either zero or one) we'll have the same arguments.


----------



## longrider

I guess some people didn't read this post:



Stewart Vernon said:


> _Friendly reminder time... this thread is not about the posters on the forum... but rather about Leno, Conan, and NBC. Please refrain from insulting each other._


----------



## jeffshoaf

Stewart Vernon said:


> _Friendly reminder time... this thread is not about the posters on the forum... but rather about Leno, Conan, and NBC. Please refrain from insulting each other._


I apologize if my postings have offended or insulted anyone; I just find it difficult to not respond when someone tells me my personal opinion is worthless because it's personal and/or my opinion. :nono2: I also find it a bit silly when any one person claims to be the sole arbitrator of logic and fair mindedness and refuse to even consider that other's posts may have merit.

I also apologize if this posting has inadvertently drifted back into a insult territory. I'm going to try to step back into lurker mode on this thread as it's obvious that I am as unlikely to convince certain other posters to agree with me as they are to convince me to agree with them.


----------



## bicker1

jeffshoaf said:


> You're making the assumption that fear of making a mistake will prevent people from taking risks.


How could I be making an assumption that I disagree with the premise of? 



jeffshoaf said:


> If we do not admit that there were mistakes, how do we learn and not make the same mistake again?


If you want to do this logically, instead of just based on your personal feelings, then start by finding correct decision, then the evidence showing that it was the correct decision, and by contrast the decision made was explicitly incorrect. Then finally prove that you're not relying on any information that was not available at the time the decision was made.



jeffshoaf said:


> Do you believe that executives should not be held accountable for their decisions that fail?


First: You're being vague by using the term "held accountable". Given the adversarial approach you've taken to my messages, so far, I see that as a way for you to dodge responsibility for having said anything, since you can redefine what that term means any time you want to escape being "held accountable" for making that statement. Second: One of the companies I owned stock did very badly last year. Your rhetoric implies that the executives should be "held accountable" for the decisions that they made that led to last year's poor results. I suspect you have heard about an overall downturn in the economy last year. A significant loss would be considered normal, last year, so regardless of what you might have meant by "held accountable" it wouldn't make sense to do it to executives to companies just because they did poorly last year. Executives should be "held accountable" if they make wrong decisions. If you want to know what a wrong decision is, see what I wrote, above, where I talked about alternative decisions and evidence and such... those nasty little factual things.



jeffshoaf said:


> How about front-line employees?


A manager who holds a front-line employee "accountable" for doing their job, even if it has negative results, is an idiot. That's not the first time I've said it... I've had occasion to say that to CEOs, in the past, on delivering the results of my assessments of their companies.



jeffshoaf said:


> By refusing to call a decision leading to failure a "mistake," we run the risk of freeing people from taking responsibility for their decisions.


And people wonder why so many companies are so screwed up. Dr. W. Edwards Deming taught that moving the goal-posts drives a company to ruin. That was over fifty years ago. Some lessons never seem to make it to everyone. If you want to understand business, you're going to have to open your mind and understand the possibility that good decisions could lead to bad results.



jeffshoaf said:


> It seems that you're just playing semantic games


Not at all. I used to do this for a living, teaching CEOs and other executives the right way to run successful businesses. Of course, they take such discussions seriously, as learning experiences, so the message gets across much more easily. By the same token, now that I'm no longer doing it for money, I don't care as much if I'm successful at getting the message across or not.


----------



## bicker1

jeffshoaf said:


> You know, I've just re-read this three times. You accuse me of not being logical and not proving my statements, but you do nothing to prove yours - you basically say "nuh-uh" every time I say "uh-huh."


How to explain this... Okay, I put a toy car in front of you, and then ask you if there is a car in front of you. You say, yes, and you prove it by showing me the car. Now, let's say I didn't put the car there, and then ask you if there is a car in front of you. You say, no. How do you prove that? You show me that the car isn't there... you just point out the lack of the car. There is nothing physical to point to, when what you're proving is the absence of something.



jeffshoaf said:


> To answer one specific point, I see the Comcast acquisition as reducing the leverage of the affiliates simply because Comcast has an alternative distribution channel for NBC's offerings - Comcast doesn't need the affiliates.


That's a reason why the affiliates would have less leverage once NBCU belongs to Comcast. I'm not sure if I agree, but it doesn't matter because NBCU belongs to GE right now. GE needs to make sure that regulators don't make the deal so incredibly toxic that Comcast pulls out. What would prompt the regulators to do so? Affiliates complaining about how they're put-upon. That's why the affiliates suddenly got a lot more leverage due to the Comcast acquisition.

So, how does the Comcast acquisition give the affiliates additional leverage?



jeffshoaf said:


> The same goes for your description of my postings as "rhetoric."


Rhetoric is one of the three ancient arts of discourse. My contention is that what you're writing doesn't logically make sense. I doubt you're engaging in dialectics, so that leave rhetoric. I wouldn't read that word in a negative manner, except for the fact that I'm saying that there are logical fallacies in what you're writing, and very clearly, that's about what you're writing, not you personally.



jeffshoaf said:


> Why don't you post a logic chart demonstrating how this decision wasn't a mistake?


Because there is not enough information to support any assertion about whether the decision was a mistake or not. All we can say is whether we *like *the decision or not.



jeffshoaf said:


> Why can't you admit that the decision was a mistake?


There is nothing to "admit" -- you haven't supported your contention.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> _Friendly reminder time... this thread is not about the posters on the forum... but rather about Leno, Conan, and NBC. Please refrain from insulting each other._


I have done my darnedest to avoid any personal comments, but one or two may have slipped through, especially given the extent to which I have been attacked personally with impunity; for such personal comments I have made that slipped through, I do apologize.

My points have been aimed specifically at the issue of the decisions that NBC has made, and the nature of complaining itself, which is relevant since criticism has fed on itself to make this situation seem like something it is not.


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> I have done my darnedest to avoid any personal comments, but one or two may have slipped through, especially given the extent to which I have been attacked personally with impunity; for such personal comments I have made that slipped through, I do apologize.


I have no problem with your debate style.


> My points have been aimed specifically at the issue of the decisions that NBC has made, and the nature of complaining itself, which is relevant since criticism has fed on itself to make this situation seem like something it is not.


I'll always reserve my right as an American to complain about things that I can't do anything about. The interwebs have even made it fun.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I'm giving this thread a little more time, but let me be clear, it's on life support. There's nothing new to report, things seem to have settled, and in the meantime, this seems to have turned into "everyone vs. bicker1." I'm willing to see if there's any reason to continue this thread but I'm not sure there is.


----------



## SayWhat?

Parting shot.....

As far as I'm concerned, NBC should dump them both, drop the concept and either follow WGN's lead in running classic TV reruns or run something like "In Concert" the way ABC did years ago.


Adios.


----------



## trainman

Stewart Vernon said:


> As confusing as anything to me is... that they appear (at least by my EPG) to be running Conan repeats every night, while still running new Leno at 10pm.
> 
> Why would NBC not already be running Leno in the 11:35 timeslot? They already kicked Conan to the Curb, and the 10pm Leno show is already a failure.... it seems to me they'd be better off running Leno's current show at 11:35 until they move him officially back to the Tonight Show digs... then run repeats of any other NBC show (one of the Law & Orders, or something from Universal or something) at the 10pm slot.
> 
> I'm confused at why they would let Conan go "early" and then not make any changes to what they are airing each night.


Just since I don't think anyone's responded to this yet...

The Olympics are going to preempt both the 10:00 and 11:35 time slots for two full weeks later this months. The thinking on NBC's part seems to be that the break gives them a "fresh start" for their programming when it starts back up in March -- and, of course, they get to run promos aplenty for "The _New_ Tonight Show with Jay Leno" (in addition to the new 10:00 lineup) during the Olympics.


----------



## pfp

The one thing I'm curious to see is which studio they use and if it will be remodeled. I suspect it will Jay's in Burbank.


----------



## QuickDrop

SledgeHammer said:


> NBC *fired* him 4 or 5 yrs ago or whenever that was, cuz they were afraid of Conan jumping ship and needed something to keep him @ NBC. Jay was being a professional / team player when he endorsed Conan. Jay wanted to go to FOX @ 11:35pm after the firing, but instead NBC gave him the 10pm slot to keep him at NBC.
> 
> Anybody who still thinks Jay "retired" and then changed his mind and forcibly took the Tonight Show back needs to get the facts straight .


Does anyone think Jay Leno "retired" and changed his mind? It seems that most people who are against Leno believe he knew taking 10 PM would hurt Tonight Show ratings. It was Leno's 10 PM show that affiliates force NBC's hand at. If Leno was at another network or if his contract was different, do you think NBC would have attempted to screw around with either the Tonight Show time slot or O'Brien as host?

If Leno wanted to got to Fox, why didn't he? After all, he's a man who claims not to spend any of the many he makes from hosting television programs. There have been three people essentially screwed over by "NBC" (The quotes are necessary because apparently some people can't deduce that when we talk about a television network most people understand we are talking about the people who run the network.) when it comes to the Tonight Show. Letterman, Leno, and O'Brien. (Four, depending on whether you believe Carson was "forced" out.") NBC wanted to keep all three. Of all of them, only Leno stayed/didn't take an active stand in the matter. (Carson, to my knowledge, never appeared on NBC again. He did do a couple cameos on Letterman's CBS program.)

The attacks on Leno are exactly because he is a company man. Some people are okay with that. It seems like every other late night talk show host in the industry is not. In this case, it really is just a matter of taste and personal morality.



Stuart Sweet said:


> I'm giving this thread a little more time, but let me be clear, it's on life support. There's nothing new to report, things seem to have settled, and in the meantime, this seems to have turned into "everyone vs. bicker1." I'm willing to see if there's any reason to continue this thread but I'm not sure there is.


I suggest you fold this thread into a new thread entitled something like "The Late Night Wars." People will probably want to talk about Letterman vs Leno. And assuming O'Brien takes another gig in the fall, what they feel about that. Not to mention the possibility that some journalist will do a Late Shift 2 type of book. All of these discussions will be connected to what NBC, Leno, and O'Brien have done recently. One "Late Night" thread is probably preferably to either closing down arguments or new threads essentially about the same topic.


----------



## Nick

I vote for closing.

I've long tired of this circular discussion. Redundancy, perhaps even _rigor mortis_, is starting to set in.


----------

