# NBC may reduce programming to 2 hours a night



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

According to several reports including NBC Could Give Third Hour Of Nightly Primetime Back To Local Affiliates it appears that the network is seriously considering becoming the first of the big three to cut back its programming offered to affiliates. They would move from the big three that now includes ABC and CBS joining Fox and The CW.

This is not a real surprise as Comcast-owned NBCU is focusing on their streamer Peacock. But it is the first to recognize the changes in public discussion.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

And they'd move that hours worth to their streaming service so they could make more money


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

As far as I concerned--they can move all of it


----------



## bills976 (Jun 30, 2002)

CTJon said:


> And they'd move that hours worth to their streaming service so they could make more money


Bingo. I said this in the Days of our Lives thread - they want people over on Peacock. Days moved over there because the audience is fiercely loyal and skews old, so it's likely to yield new subs that they can use to make Wall Street happy.

Primetime programming costs money. News is cheap, particularly local news when they can essentially re-air the 10pm news at 11pm. Why not give the hour back to the local affiliates who can air political ads for 20 minutes in between weather segments and "news" that's not much more than social media fluff?

I suspect we're gonna see a lot more of this with Peacock/NBC, Paramount+/CBS, and Disney+/ABC. The risk they run though is if they water the network programming down, cable/satellite/streaming providers are a lot more likely to forego signing retransmission deals with all these local affiliates. The saving grace there is perhaps live sports.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

More ammo for the Peacock pea shooter.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

bills976 said:


> Primetime programming costs money. News is cheap, particularly local news when they can essentially re-air the 10pm news at 11pm.


Hopefully the networks are getting a good return on investment for those primetime broadcast programs. The ratings are still fairly high for OTA broadcast networks. The top 100 shows for last year (2021-22) started with football (Sunday/Monday/Thursday night) with Paramount's Yellowstone in 5th place ... One has to scroll down to 51st place to find a program not aired on broadcast (other than football). Ads sell better in popular programming. Having less popular programming devalues the network.

I wonder what will happen to the three hour blocks (Chicago night) and the late night shows (still air at 11:35 after viewers have gone away for well over an hour?). There are some days where the third hour seems like filler but I am not looking forward to losing time slots.

Fallon an hour earlier may work. It would put Meyers head to head with Kimmel and Colbert. The "hour of cheap news" may end up being NBC overnight programming.


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

James Long said:


> I wonder what will happen to the three hour blocks (Chicago night) and the late night shows (still air at 11:35 after viewers have gone away for well over an hour?). There are some days where the third hour seems like filler but I am not looking forward to losing time slots.
> 
> Fallon an hour earlier may work. It would put Meyers head to head with Kimmel and Colbert. The "hour of cheap news" may end up being NBC overnight programming.


NBC did just that few years ago, I enjoyed it as Im not a late night person...But it was short lived with Jay Leno?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

One of NBC's biggest mistakes, in my opinion, was the mess they caused with Leno and Conan.
They forced themselves into the 10pm Leno hour ... which failed.

Giving the hour of primetime back to the affiliates isn't filling it with something else.
I believe the affiliates want an hour of high rated quality programming - not an hour to fill.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

Isn't this kind of where TV is going?

The younger generation has absolutely no concept of "I have to be home by 8 to watch whatever show." Everything is streamed, watch when you want to.

I mean, if you really think about it - news and sports are the only TV shows that need to be broadcast at a specific time. (And those can be streamed to, but "breaking news" is only breaking if it's reported when the event happens or when news outlets first learn of it. And sporting events have a starting time.)

Of course, Internet access isn't quite universal enough to really incorporate all of that, but it's getting there.

I could very easily see a future where there really is no ABC, CBS, NBC like we think of now. All the TV shows they produce would drop on their respective streaming platforms once a week for viewers to watch whenever they want.

Again, sure, there's people that still depend on linear TV for their shows. But that generation is getting older and older. I'm not suggesting that linear TV will go away next year, but in 20 years? I think it could happen.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

evotz said:


> The younger generation has absolutely no concept of "I have to be home by 8 to watch whatever show."


Their parents solved that 20 years ago with the DVR. Older parents had VCRs to tape shows so they wouldn't need to fit the network schedules.

"Water cooler" shows still need to be watched the same night - or avoid the discussion the next day. The Internet has provided a national water cooler where people need to be careful to avoid spoilers.

Stream only programming seems to go after the "binge by yourself (or with friends)" crowd. The "with friends" part can get touchy if someone watches ahead of their friends. Spoilers! There are a few streaming programs that have a "must see tonight" following. With others the water cooler talk is "moderated" to avoid spoiling the show for someone who is a few episodes behind.

"With friends" has also expanded to watching content as part of a video chat. Multiple people watching the same content together as if it were some business meeting. You may not need to be home by 8 but you do need to match your friend's schedules.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> I wonder what will happen to the three hour blocks (Chicago night) and the late night shows (still air at 11:35 after viewers have gone away for well over an hour?). There are some days where the third hour seems like filler but I am not looking forward to losing time slots.


They've currently slotted in _America's Got Talent_ in front of _Chicago Fire_ and _Chicago P.D._ so I suppose the groundwork has been laid. _Chicago Med_ (the third element of the One Chicago trio) isn't currently being run but it has been renewed for Fall 2022.


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

James Long said:


> ... Older parents had VCRs to tape shows so they wouldn't need to fit the network schedules.


Hey, that's ME, except I'd more likely be their grandparent. We bought our first RCA VCR because my wife could NOT miss Dallas which conflicted with our Friday night couples bowling league.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Fox has always ended prime time at 10 PM. Giving that hour back to locals and putting the late show on at 11 seems like a promising idea for NBC.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

billsharpe said:


> Fox has always ended prime time at 10 PM. Giving that hour back to locals and putting the late show on at 11 seems like a promising idea for NBC.


I'm assuming we're talking about Eastern Time here. For me here in the Central Timezone, 10PM would be 11PM Eastern. 10PM is when the local news comes on. That's when all of the big three local affiliates air their local news. I can't see the local NBC affiliate being ready to cede that time slot - when they compete with all of the other local news stations - for a return to NBC late night programming.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

If you remember the Jay Leno fiasco, NBC ended it because the affiliates were on the verge of revolt. The late news (11, 10 C&M) makes BIG money for networks. 

In this deal NBC will either ask its affiliates to do news at 10, where it would compete with established news on Fox and CW in most markets, and then start its unfunny Tonight Show at 10:30/9:30 C&M. Or find something to show for an hour (what?) and then stay on pattern. 

Neither works for local stations.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 18, 2005)

This is the beginning of "let's move all our expensive programming to a paid streaming service and leave the low budget stuff for OTA".


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Mike Lang said:


> This is the beginning of "let's move all our expensive programming to a paid streaming service and leave the low budget stuff for OTA".


And after awhile the 4 major network streaming services will cost $50 per month so to have all 4 you will be right back to paying $200 per month. 🤣


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> And after awhile the 4 major network streaming services will cost $50 per month so to have all 4 you will be right back to paying $200 per month. 🤣


Yep. Remember when we warned you that a la carte was anti-consumer? 

$200? They haven’t even carved out sports that most people care about to streaming yet. $200 will be the good ole days. Try $500 on for size. 

The cable bundle. Protecting the consumer.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Streaming, the service that lured customers with molasses to get them to sign up and now feeds them sulfur to keep what they want.


----------



## tjpsnj (Jan 2, 2015)

I think we will see more failure or worse like this content elimination. Streaming has ruined movies as the budget was eliminated by the high costs. No income from streaming. 
Same thing is about to happen to the NFL. What used to be a national pastime is quickly going to be a thing of the past. Many games are only available to be streamed. No way to DVR and no way to fast forward commercials. Eliminating the ability to fast forward eliminates me as a viewer. I do not think I am alone.


----------



## orubin (Apr 30, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> And after awhile the 4 major network streaming services will cost $50 per month so to have all 4 you will be right back to paying $200 per month. 🤣


When I worked for Pacific Bell in the 90's when they were doing digital cable, I was screaming at the top of my lungs that an a la carte method would cost the consumers 3 to 5 times what they are paying now. The "cable" model works because they distribute you monthly payment among the hundreds of channels. While each gets a small amount from you, millions of subscribers adds up and you get a lot of channels. See you what, other you don't, but that mix is different for so many people. Tiers were added to help pay for more expensive channels. When that model goes away, which streaming kind of does, then single channels will need to charge $10 a month or more to keep afloat. So that $80/month basic cable bill that got you 70 channels will now buy you 5 to 7 channels. And most of the less popular channels will just die for lack of funding. You know, the ones that fill up streaming services with content. 

Yes, streaming will take over, but I agree, expect your viewing costs per month to go through the roof. You are already seeing it where you need Paramount+, Disney+, Netflix, Prime, and maybe Hulu just to get a decent cross section of programming.


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

orubin said:


> When I worked for Pacific Bell in the 90's when they were doing digital cable, I was screaming at the top of my lungs that an a la carte method would cost the consumers 3 to 5 times what they are paying now. The "cable" model works because they distribute you monthly payment among the hundreds of channels. While each gets a small amount from you, millions of subscribers adds up and you get a lot of channels. See you what, other you don't, but that mix is different for so many people. Tiers were added to help pay for more expensive channels. When that model goes away, which streaming kind of does, then single channels will need to charge $10 a month or more to keep afloat. So that $80/month basic cable bill that got you 70 channels will now buy you 5 to 7 channels. And most of the less popular channels will just die for lack of funding. You know, the ones that fill up streaming services with content.
> 
> Yes, streaming will take over, but I agree, expect your viewing costs per month to go through the roof. You are already seeing it where you need Paramount+, Disney+, Netflix, Prime, and maybe Hulu just to get a decent cross section of programming.


Very good points and explanation, and it works on many levels in the country....Just like group insurance...Thats why its a blend of socialism, take those prices and spread it amongst the masses!....Now if people could just understand the simplicity of it all? lol...sure they will!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tjpsnj said:


> Streaming has ruined movies as the budget was eliminated by the high costs.


Streaming hasn't had much impact on movies. This move to a two-hour Prime Time will put an end to playing movies on broadcast TV given that there are not many movies that will fit in two hours with commercials (without severe editing and upping the playback frame rate).


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

I haven't watched an NBC show other than Notre Dame football in the last few years. I am not interested in their reality programming at all.


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

evotz said:


> I'm assuming we're talking about Eastern Time here. For me here in the Central Timezone, 10PM would be 11PM Eastern. 10PM is when the local news comes on. That's when all of the big three local affiliates air their local news. I can't see the local NBC affiliate being ready to cede that time slot - when they compete with all of the other local news stations - for a return to NBC late night programming.


Running Jimmy Fallon at 10:00 Central would be a trade-off for getting to run an hour of local news from 9:00-10:00 Central, when they would presumably have higher ratings than at 10:00 (the number of viewers declines the later in the evening it gets, as people go to bed) and would get to sell all the commercial time.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

orubin said:


> When I worked for Pacific Bell in the 90's when they were doing digital cable, I was screaming at the top of my lungs that an a la carte method would cost the consumers 3 to 5 times what they are paying now. The "cable" model works because they distribute you monthly payment among the hundreds of channels. While each gets a small amount from you, millions of subscribers adds up and you get a lot of channels. See you what, other you don't, but that mix is different for so many people. Tiers were added to help pay for more expensive channels. When that model goes away, which streaming kind of does, then single channels will need to charge $10 a month or more to keep afloat. So that $80/month basic cable bill that got you 70 channels will now buy you 5 to 7 channels. And most of the less popular channels will just die for lack of funding. You know, the ones that fill up streaming services with content.
> 
> Yes, streaming will take over, but I agree, expect your viewing costs per month to go through the roof. You are already seeing it where you need Paramount+, Disney+, Netflix, Prime, and maybe Hulu just to get a decent cross section of programming.


But what should of happened as main / sports basic package split as prices when up and when forced RSN fees started to show up. Say Tiers of basic tv and sports side by side. And not BS like the comcast sports pack that has an few non sports channels in it that other systems had in the basic packages.

In other markers they did have some la carte for an time like in canada with theme packs and now an la carte system.

In the UK, AUS, NZ and others sports is not part of the basic package.

For some la carte system is better then Paramount+, Disney+, Netflix, Prime, and maybe Hulu. To get
ONE BILL
ONE set of multi stream / muiltbox rules.
All in the same UI / app / menu / guide.
ONE box hooked to each TV.


----------



## miro (Jan 14, 2012)

orubin said:


> When I worked for Pacific Bell in the 90's when they were doing digital cable, I was screaming at the top of my lungs that an a la carte method would cost the consumers 3 to 5 times what they are paying now. The "cable" model works because they distribute you monthly payment among the hundreds of channels. While each gets a small amount from you, millions of subscribers adds up and you get a lot of channels. See you what, other you don't, but that mix is different for so many people. Tiers were added to help pay for more expensive channels. When that model goes away, which streaming kind of does, then single channels will need to charge $10 a month or more to keep afloat. So that $80/month basic cable bill that got you 70 channels will now buy you 5 to 7 channels. And most of the less popular channels will just die for lack of funding. You know, the ones that fill up streaming services with content.
> 
> Yes, streaming will take over, but I agree, expect your viewing costs per month to go through the roof. You are already seeing it where you need Paramount+, Disney+, Netflix, Prime, and maybe Hulu just to get a decent cross section of programming.


flawed argument. Nobody watches 70 channels, unless they have no life. On average people watch 12 channels. That supposed basic tier for $80 is more like $120 with taxes and equipment. Or $10 per channel, assuming the 12 channel average

Today Charter is currently quoting me 1st year $138.79 before taxes tv/internet with no equipment/dvr, as a new customer. In a year it jumps to $193.79/month, _before_ taxes! Including a $21/month for broadcast stations (lol). There is nothing on TV I need so bad as to waste $220 a month on, except my husband who tends to insist on football season. Assuming the average viewing of 12 channels that's ~$17 per channel, or twelve subscriptions at $17 each which makes the streamers a much better value

Now, if I'm willing to play the internet discount game, I can get an even better value with internet, Netflix and Hulu ad free for about $55-$60 a month


----------

