# It's official - Jay Leno is the Future of Television



## mreposter

According to Time Magazine, TV's future will look a lot like Jay Leno.
http://thetvaddict.com/2009/09/04/t...uture-of-television-moment-of-silence-please/

_NBC says it's facing media reality, that big audiences are getting harder to find. That the network business model is drying up as viewers turn to cable, skip ads by recording shows on DVRs or watch online. That the major networks, which once gathered tens of millions of viewers and promulgated a homogeneous national culture, are now, essentially, just big cable channels. And that they - like the automakers whose commercials once lavishly floated them - must learn to get smaller or else end up like American Buggy Whip Inc._


----------



## SayWhat?

I haven't watched Leno since he took over the Tonight Show and never will. Shows like that and all the fakeality shows are _WHY_ I don't watch network TV anymore.


----------



## cj9788

They lost me as a viewer every night at 10pm. I feel that leno will be an abysmal failure, but stranger things have happened. Carson (Johnny not Daly) proably could have gotten away with it. Hell I would at least DVR if they showed old Tonight Shows with Carson at 10pm weeknights.


----------



## armophob

If Jay Leno is the Future of Television then I think we all have Lobotomies in our future. I for one am looking forward to the cream corn and pretty colors.


----------



## Ken S

Perhaps if the networks created more quality programming they would garner the big audiences they seek. Instead they've delivered drivel and made that worse by jamming more and more commercials into those shows.

Talk and variety shows like Jay Leno's aren't the future...there were plenty of them back in the early days of TV...they just moved past them in order to get a larger audience.


----------



## mreposter

The Time magazine article (see link in TV Addict story) is well balanced and provides lots of interesting information. The author isn't shy about pointing out that NBC's lineup has gone to H*LL since Zucker took over about 5 years ago. But the article also points out that with so many cable channels now producing high quality dramas, it's difficult for the major broadcast networks to stand out.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

There's never an easy or catch-all answer... but if the cable networks can do it, surely the OTA networks can as well.

The only advantage a cable channel should have is the revenue stream from selling the channel... but USA/TNT/FX/etc are commercial channels too so clearly just that revenue stream alone isn't enough for them to survive either.

So we're back to, how can TNT/USA/etc. do it (create new scripted programming) and OTA networks are claiming they need to go for more "reality" unscripted shows to make a profit?

If TNT/USA/etc load up with crap programming they'd go under too... so they have to try and keep a good mix of syndicated + new programming to keep viewers.

OTA should by default have a larger pool of viewers to attract since OTA is free if you can get it... so they have some portion of the marketplace all to themselves where cable/satellite isn't selling to some rural customers. I expect that to make up some of the difference in the lack of per-viewer revenue that cable/satellite channels get.

So we are again back to quality of programming. Networks can do it if they want... and when they do, the viewers show up and watch. It happens every year... there is some breakaway hit that gets viewers... And some networks stay up top a while, and others on the bottom... then the cycle changes every few years as to who is doing the best.

Variety is part of the key.. so some unscripted shows are fine and will have an audience... but if you convert everything to that model, you'll screw up the balance of choice and then you're back where you started... and in 10 years we'll be hearing about how they need more scripted shows to make their coin because "reality" TV just isn't where it's at.


----------



## RunnerFL

I'm in the "Leno at 10pm will be a failure" camp.


----------



## Galaxie6411

Why or how does a show like The Shield get to run on FX where it would never have been allowed to air the same way on a network channel. Even South Park when shown on the big 3 in repeats is butchered by the censors. I think the limitations the networks have from such things are what hurts more than anything so they go the reality TV route, cheaper to make and usually no censor issues. I'd bet even BattleStar Galactica or Burn Notice couldn't air on a network channel in their original forms.


----------



## phrelin

The article also talks about how the nice folks at CBS disagree with NBC's assessment of the future and its strategy. Perhaps NBC will slowly fade into being a niche like The CW while NBCU will do fine with cable. But that leaves the affiliates with a financial problem.


----------



## rudeney

When Johnny left The Tonight Show, I defected to Letterman for many years, but after a while, I ended up watching Leno and learned to like his show. I enjoyed his monologue and skits, but when it came to the celebrity interviews, I usually shut it off. There are very few of these celerities I really want to hear talk about their lives and plugging their latest movie or cause. I would stay tuned for certain people, like Jack Hanna and some comedians and musical acts.

I am actually looking forward to the new show. I don't hold out much hope that it will be long-lived, though. It will be one of the very few things on NBC that I will watch. The other is L&O:SVU. I'm sure my wife will be watching Biggest Loser (apparently, she just can't get enough of people crying on reality shows), but that's about it.


----------



## Shades228

Stewart Vernon said:


> There's never an easy or catch-all answer... but if the cable networks can do it, surely the OTA networks can as well.
> 
> The only advantage a cable channel should have is the revenue stream from selling the channel... but USA/TNT/FX/etc are commercial channels too so clearly just that revenue stream alone isn't enough for them to survive either.
> 
> So we're back to, how can TNT/USA/etc. do it (create new scripted programming) and OTA networks are claiming they need to go for more "reality" unscripted shows to make a profit?
> 
> If TNT/USA/etc load up with crap programming they'd go under too... so they have to try and keep a good mix of syndicated + new programming to keep viewers.
> 
> OTA should by default have a larger pool of viewers to attract since OTA is free if you can get it... so they have some portion of the marketplace all to themselves where cable/satellite isn't selling to some rural customers. I expect that to make up some of the difference in the lack of per-viewer revenue that cable/satellite channels get.
> 
> So we are again back to quality of programming. Networks can do it if they want... and when they do, the viewers show up and watch. It happens every year... there is some breakaway hit that gets viewers... And some networks stay up top a while, and others on the bottom... then the cycle changes every few years as to who is doing the best.
> 
> Variety is part of the key.. so some unscripted shows are fine and will have an audience... but if you convert everything to that model, you'll screw up the balance of choice and then you're back where you started... and in 10 years we'll be hearing about how they need more scripted shows to make their coin because "reality" TV just isn't where it's at.


LIL are also paid to be broadcast though. In fact I would bet they are paid more then some of the channels you listed. I think if they're not getting revenue from HULU or their own website that is what will kill them financially. You can't give stuff for free on the internet and expect to stay in business. Look at newspapers.


----------



## Shades228

RunnerFL said:


> I'm in the "Leno at 10pm will be a failure" camp.


Leno beat Dave every week in ratings after about a year. People didn't watch it because of the name of the show. I can understand not liking him but to say that this show will flop I think is not realistic.


----------



## phrelin

The Washington Post's TV columnist Lisa de Moraes has an article today that covers some of the same ground. In the last third of the article are two paragraphs worth noting:


> NBC is now playing a different game, with new rules. That game is called Programming to Margins. NBC suits think they can win by slashing costs to rack up points with shareholders and thus declare a new form of victory in which you can win even if you haven't had a bona fide hit in years.
> 
> NBC suits know Leno's new comedy show won't attract as many viewers as the scripted dramas the other networks have scheduled at 10 p.m. weekdays: "CSI: Miami," "Private Practice," "The Mentalist," etc. They concede that this means advertisers will not pay as much for ad time on Leno's show as they will for ad time in those scripted series. The execs believe they have guaranteed their own success if only because Leno's show will cost so much less to produce. Leno recently bragged to a gathering of reporters that he can make a whole week's worth of "The Jay Leno Show" for the price of one episode of "CSI: Miami."


 Two things about this approach focusing on GE's bottom line leave me wondering.

First, NBC depends on affiliates. Just as network ad time on Leno's show will produce less revenue for NBC because of lower ratings, it will also produce less revenue for local stations. Plus, because NBC does not expect Leno to be in the top two for ratings 5 week-nights every week, that means they are offering affiliates no lead into the local news which has been a revenue generator for local stations. To make this work, NBC may discover it will have to discount the costs associated with being an NBC affiliate.

Second, just because you can produce something at a lower cost to replace a product previously offered and then sell the new cheaper product with a higher margin won't work if your new product barely appeals within a shrinking market.

In fact, there's a tendency to say Leno is competing against only two network shows each night from ABC and CBS. But that's not the whole picture. In our market, the Fox affiliate offers an hour local news show and The CW affiliate offers a 30-minute news show from our CBS affiliate. That's an option if you don't find a scripted series at 10 pm you like - watch the evening news and go to bed.

Then there's the fact that some of the cable channels will be offering popular fall/winter shows in that time slot. This nibbles away at the potential audience for Leno because if you enjoy decent scripted programming but ABC and CBS shows don't appeal, there may be something on a cable channel before you'd resort to watching Leno.

But NBC is better off with Leno then what they have programmed in many time slots over the past two years. It will be interesting to see how many people really want to watch what I call "televaudeville" five nights a week at 10 pm. Maybe there are a lot of late night show fans just waiting to add another hour or just waiting until they can get their fix much earlier so they can go to bed.


----------



## cj9788

Shades228 said:


> Leno beat Dave every week in ratings after about a year. People didn't watch it because of the name of the show. I can understand not liking him but to say that this show will flop I think is not realistic.


A prime time slot is much diffrernt than early late night (after 1130). Even the best ideas and primetime shows struggle to garner an audience and those are just one night a week. NBC is placing a lot of hope on Leno at 10pm. Could it work yeah? will it work? Maybe not. I do not know how many viewers share my opinion but prime time is for dramas and sit coms. I have never watched reality programing and was never a big fan of the variety shows. If its not a drama at 10pm thursday its nothing.


----------



## Brandon428

I think Leno will be a huge success as long as they keep it short and fresh.


----------



## MikeW

Here in Tucson, primetime starts at 7 PM. That gives us Leno at 9. 

I think the worst thing that happened to TV is the ability to insert crawls and bugs. It has to be the most annoying aspect of any network programming. Unfortunately for us, most local channels climbed on board to advertise the change-over to digital broadcasting. Now that they have the ability to run crawls, it never stops.

I have tried to watch TBS and Nick at Nite and find that I simply cannot enjoy TV in this manner anymore. I'm now watching syndicated shows on either HULU or Netflix.


----------



## SamC

I'm in the Leno will be a failure camp. The guy is just not funny and he is just not very smart. Carson, and really pretty much all of the imitators in his generation, got his own jokes and could talk reasonabably inteligently on a light subject with a celebrity. Leno, IMHO, could not tell you how a toaster works.

In the broader thing, the thrust of the article seems to be that the audience is so fractured that the concept of filmed entertainmnet on an 8-11 seven day a week, 8 months per year basis is gone. I simply disagree. NBC will begin to lose affiliates in markets where that matters, and that is about 35% of the country where it still does for various reasons, and become more like the CW or My, than ABC, CBS, and Fox. NBC is just trying to phone it in as cheaply as possible. That never works.


----------



## bicker1

Ken S said:


> Perhaps if the networks created more quality programming they would garner the big audiences they seek.


That would be nice, but there is no reason to think that that would be the case. Leno costs about 1/3 of the cost of a quality drama; there is probably no math in the universe that will make a quality drama a more profitable venture than Leno. For us drama fans, that's sad news, but denying it only fosters in us unfounded expectations, the seed of a never-ending spiral of disappointment.



Ken S said:


> Talk and variety shows like Jay Leno's aren't the future...there were plenty of them back in the early days of TV...they just moved past them in order to get a larger audience.


I think all this talk of a "larger audience" is off-target. Broadcasters are driven by their owners to deliver larger returns, not larger audience. What's really gotten in the way of that, with broadcast television, is the fact that the money simply isn't there anymore. Consumers avoid and ignore commercials, making advertising on television less valuable, resulting in advertisers paying broadcasters substantially less to present their commercials (for the first time ever), resulting in less incentive for people to invest money in making quality television programming.

Cable is clearly both the source of the problem, and the source of the answer. Cable benefits from two revenue streams, the ever-weakening commercial advertising revenue stream, and the hopefully stable and perhaps growing subscription fee revenue stream. That latter revenue stream may be the savior for us fans of quality dramas on television. TNT, USA Network, FX, etc. -- these outlets hold the future of quality drama I think, because they are not as much subject to the despoiling of the system that has brought us quality drama in the past.


----------



## harsh

phrelin said:


> Perhaps NBC will slowly fade into being a niche like The CW while NBCU will do fine with cable.


NBC faded years ago. As many have pointed out, they now have one formula (CSI) and that market is getting bored. To add insult to injury, a couple of their cable channels seem to subsist on CSI reruns.


----------



## drded

SamC said:


> I'm in the Leno will be a failure camp. The guy is just not funny and he is just not very smart. Carson, and really pretty much all of the imitators in his generation, got his own jokes and could talk reasonabably inteligently on a light subject with a celebrity. Leno, IMHO, could not tell you how a toaster works.


It would be nice if you had actually watched any of these shows before making your comments. Starting with the big radio comics of the 1940s comedians have had a stable of writers. That included Bob Hope, Steve Allen, Johnny Carson & Jay Leno.

Perhaps you should look at Leno's biography and see what he has done before just bashing him to be cool. For example, he not only can tell you how the toaster works, he can fix it if it doesn't. He's known as a good businessman, is respected for his car & motorcycle restorations, and is also respected by other comedians.

Dave


----------



## SamC

The "two revenue streams" argument does not hold water, IMHO.

Cable and DBS have to pay broadcast affiliates (the largest of which are owned and operated by the networks themselves) just like they do with "cable" channels. This has been true since the 1980s when Congress changed the law to overrule the Supreme Court's ruling in Fortnightly.

Further, of course, there is no outfit that is going to long survive without the Big Four networks. Cable and DBS pretty much have to pay up, because they have to have them. Yes, there will be the occasional incident with this or that market for a month or so, but in the end, 99.9999% of cable and DBS customers will have (and will pay for via retrans consent) the Big Four networks. While, many people are very happy with a cable system that is "missing" this or that channel. Other than the ESPNs and a few other channels, people accept that. Pick a town and look at the cable line up. It will not have some channel found on DirecTV, but many people are fine with that.

Lastly, yes, about 15% of people just get TV for free via OTA. But who are these people? Really two groups. Really "poor" people and people who really are not that interested in TV. In other words, people the least likely to have commercial skipping technologies like DVRs, and thus the people who the traditional model of "forcing" commercials upon them, still applies 100%.

The issue with NBC is found on the stock market pages. The other major networks are owned by what can be termed "media" or "entertainment" companies. Fox is the News Corporation. CBS is CBS, Inc. ABC is Disney. All are companies which are almost exclusively media companies and in all 3, the network is THE major asset of the company. NBC is 80% owned by General Electric. One of the largest companies in the world. Involved in all kinds of things for heavy manufacturing, to appliances, to being the world's largest "non-bank" lender and insurance company. NBC is a tiny drop in the GE ocean, and it want to do things as cheaply as possible. Its corporate culture is totally different from the others.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> There's never an easy or catch-all answer... but if the cable networks can do it, surely the OTA networks can as well.


Not true, and you indicated why:


Stewart Vernon said:


> The only advantage a cable channel should have is the revenue stream from selling the channel... but USA/TNT/FX/etc are commercial channels too so clearly just that revenue stream alone isn't enough for them to survive either.


So what you're saying is that they need *both* -- I won't dispute that, but that means that OTA networks *cannot* do it "as well". There is no way for them to secure a strong subscription fee revenue stream as cable networks can: 
I believe *politics* will interfere with OTA networks getting their due with regard to retransmission fees from subscription television service providers. 
Beyond that, market reality will obstruct the ability to fully capitalize on that revenue stream. 
Finally, physical reality precludes OTA networks from security that revenue stream from folks who actually rely on OTA antennas. 
Some details about these points: The fact that some folks will always be able to receive these signals for free essentially precludes avoiding devaluation of the product being offered. If it was somehow limited to a small minority, it would be different, but that's not the way a system like this works. The more OTA networks reflect the value that they deliver in retransmission fees, the more that prompts subscription service providers to increase their fees in response, and that prompts more subscribers to drop down to OTA antennas, thereby undercutting the effort to effectively charge viewers for the value being delivered, in the same way cable networks can.



Stewart Vernon said:


> So we're back to, how can TNT/USA/etc. do it (create new scripted programming) and OTA networks are claiming they need to go for more "reality" unscripted shows to make a profit?


Let's dig into this a bit more: First, TNT declared this week that *six hours of original dramas per week* was enough. LINK Let's count NBC's fall dramas: Heroes, Law and Order, Law and Order: SVU, Southland, Mercy, Trauma. Not surprisingly: six. Let's count Fox's fall dramas: Six. This is a reflection of what is justifiable based on how much we viewers are willing to contribute to the system, and how much any broadcaster can capitalize on our demand to substantiate producing content.

ABC and CBS present more, but for how long? For ABC, I wouldn't hold my breath. CBS probably will hold out longer, willing to under-perform because it is closely-held and therefore not held up to the same scrutiny.

Regardless, six is the watermark. Maybe it'll end up being five or seven or even eight, but the days are over where it is reasonable to expect any network of being able to justify ten or more original dramas in first-run at any one time. And we viewers did that. We diverted our attention to other outlets, stopped watching or caring about commercials, etc. We did it. Us.



Stewart Vernon said:


> If TNT/USA/etc load up with crap programming they'd go under too...


Arguably, they do load up with "crap" programming. The repeat shows, even their original drama, incessantly. If you don't think playing the same thing twice within two hours (as FX often does) isn't "crappier" than putting on an original reality program, that at least some people actually do enjoy, then we're not speaking the same language.



Stewart Vernon said:


> OTA should by default have a larger pool of viewers to attract since OTA is free if you can get it... so they have some portion of the marketplace all to themselves where cable/satellite isn't selling to some rural customers.


Huh? Cable started out because it served rural customers where OTA was not. If anything, cable is as strong if not stronger there. Cable and satellite essentially serves all areas, every municipality in the country, while OTA is often infeasible in certain areas. Beyond that, the advantage that OTA does have, that you are pointing out, is that it serves a greater percentage of the people who advertisers are less interested in paying for their advertising to reach: Those who cannot afford high-margin goods and services, and those who prefer to economize even if they could afford something else. There is nothing superior, for broadcasters, about the demographic of OTA viewers (except, perhaps, for antenna manufacturers ).

And again, more audience isn't the objective. More revenue is.



Stewart Vernon said:


> I expect that to make up some of the difference in the lack of per-viewer revenue that cable/satellite channels get.


It's a good question, but as it is, all the OTA networks *still* provide more quality drama programming each year than the cable networks. We focus on how good cable is, sometimes, because of how much better they are now as compared to how incredibly crappy they were before, in regard to these aspects. And we also distort our view of cable by thinking of them collectively (TNT and USA and FX) and comparing the product of that collective group against the individual accomplishments of a single OTA broadcast network (like NBC).

However, the objective facts are there for the taking. No matter how you count it, either number of original hours of quality drama programming presented at any one time, or aggregated over the entire year, each OTA broadcast network channel *still* beats every cable network. It is getting close, surely, but if the exec from TNT is to be believed, they are all heading for the same point, i.e., that magical six (or so) dramas presented at a time. Despite your claims to the contrary, OTA does not have financial advantages that would justify them doing better than cable networks, yet they still are.


----------



## bicker1

Galaxie6411 said:


> Why or how does a show like The Shield get to run on FX where it would never have been allowed to air the same way on a network channel. Even South Park when shown on the big 3 in repeats is butchered by the censors. I think the limitations the networks have from such things are what hurts more than anything...


You are absolutely correct that it is a significant factor. Like it or not, sex sells, and there is no way that shows like Saving Grace, Rescue Me, Nip/Tuck could run on broadcast OTA networks uncut. Even Mad Men might have to be edited (for subject-matter content, not nudity.) However, I don't agree that that is the overriding factor, as you've asserted. There are more than enough examples of cable shows that can be broadcast on OTA networks uncut: The Closer, Leverage, etc.

So it has some effect -- probably enough to represent enough money to make *a* difference -- but probably not enough money to make all the difference.



Galaxie6411 said:


> I'd bet even BattleStar Galactica or Burn Notice couldn't air on a network channel in their original forms.


Burn Notice I think could slide by. Fiona hasn't slipped completely out of anything she's worn.  Battlestar Galactica was violent, but no more so than The Unit.

By the same token, I doubt that Caprica's pilot episode could even be run uncut on cable.


----------



## bicker1

phrelin said:


> The article also talks about how the nice folks at CBS disagree with NBC's assessment of the future and its strategy. Perhaps NBC will slowly fade into being a niche like The CW while NBCU will do fine with cable. But that leaves the affiliates with a financial problem.


We've discussed this before. CBS is closely-held and therefore driven by priorities other than just financial. General Electric doesn't afford NBCU the luxury of such inefficiencies.

I would expect that CBS will radically change after the second of two specific men retire.


----------



## bicker1

phrelin said:


> First, NBC depends on affiliates.


Yes and perhaps NBC will become the least attractive affiliation to hold, but still more attractive than not being affiliated. NBC is focusing on what is worth focusing on, rather than on some trophy devoid of significant meaning (to their owners). And if they "succeed" under this new, investor-oriented definition of success, then expect Disney and News Corp. to stop playing the vacuous audience game as well (and their relations with Nielsen Media over the past few years indicate that they're all pretty close to that point already), and force their OTA broadcast properties to focus on what is really important.



phrelin said:


> Second, just because you can produce something at a lower cost to replace a product previously offered and then sell the new cheaper product with a higher margin won't work if your new product barely appeals within a shrinking market.


Who said anything about "barely" appeals. I think that's perhaps *wishful thinking *on the part of a lot of industry pundits who personally prefer drama to variety and such. Leno can get one-third the audience of the shows it is replacing and still be a *major *win financially. The more likely scenario, though, is that Leno will do somewhat better than half as well, and as such will be a superlative success, rivaling practically anything new introduced in the last decade. Time will tell of course, but I think we're going to be arguing, in the end, about whether Leno is a minor success, major success, or superlative success -- but note the word common to all three of those characterizations.



phrelin said:


> Then there's the fact that some of the cable channels will be offering popular fall/winter shows in that time slot.


That is typically when the cable channels have presented their programming, though they have often attempted to avoid going up against the OTA networks. Let's see if we can guess what they think about all this, from their actions. USA and TNT are only presenting *one* drama, each, this fall. FX is running their typical Fall schedule, of three hours per week. It sure doesn't look like any of them are seeing the kind of opportunity that you're asserting is there.


----------



## bicker1

SamC said:


> The "two revenue streams" argument does not hold water, IMHO. Cable and DBS have to pay broadcast affiliates (the largest of which are owned and operated by the networks themselves) just like they do with "cable" channels. This has been true since the 1980s when Congress changed the law to overrule the Supreme Court's ruling in Fortnightly.


The rule allows OTA broadcasters to demand retransmission fees, but until recently most elected the alternative, Must Carry, instead. Even where OTA broadcasters have tried to get retransmission fees, they've been opposed, with service providers very effectively painting a very nefarious picture of OTA broadcasters demanding "outrageous" sums for programming over "free" television. There is no indication that retransmission fees represent a significant portion of revenues for OTA broadcasters at this time, unlike the contribution that cable subscription fees make to the bottom-line of a cable network.

Beyond that, retransmission fees go to the local affiliate, not to the network.



SamC said:


> Further, of course, there is no outfit that is going to long survive without the Big Four networks. Cable and DBS pretty much have to pay up, because they have to have them.


Which is one of the reasons why they've been able to so readily turn public opinion against "greedy" OTA broadcasters.



SamC said:


> Lastly, yes, about 15% of people just get TV for free via OTA. But who are these people? Really two groups. Really "poor" people and people who really are not that interested in TV. In other words, people the least likely to have commercial skipping technologies like DVRs, and thus the people who the traditional model of "forcing" commercials upon them, still applies 100%.


See my explanation, above, why this is bunk.



SamC said:


> The issue with NBC is found on the stock market pages. The other major networks are owned by what can be termed "media" or "entertainment" companies. Fox is the News Corporation. CBS is CBS, Inc. ABC is Disney. All are companies which are almost exclusively media companies and in all 3, the network is THE major asset of the company. NBC is 80% owned by General Electric. One of the largest companies in the world. Involved in all kinds of things for heavy manufacturing, to appliances, to being the world's largest "non-bank" lender and insurance company. NBC is a tiny drop in the GE ocean, and it want to do things as cheaply as possible. Its corporate culture is totally different from the others.


If you don't think that Disney isn't very closely monitoring this situation, then you don't know Disney.


----------



## mreposter

phrelin said:


> Then there's the fact that some of the cable channels will be offering popular fall/winter shows in that time slot. This nibbles away at the potential audience for Leno because if you enjoy decent scripted programming but ABC and CBS shows don't appeal, there may be something on a cable channel before you'd resort to watching Leno.


Leno will probably appeal to people that just want some mindless entertainment before going to bed. It won't take much effort to watch his show.



phrelin said:


> But NBC is better off with Leno then what they have programmed in many time slots over the past two years. It will be interesting to see how many people really want to watch what I call "televaudeville" five nights a week at 10 pm. Maybe there are a lot of late night show fans just waiting to add another hour or just waiting until they can get their fix much earlier so they can go to bed.


I've thought for awhile that we're witnessing the rebirth of the old variety show. Think Ed Sullivan through Caroll Burnett. Most of the entertainment reality shows like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars fit with their mix of comedy, music, contestant profiles, etc. Leno will be doing a more traditional/old school version showcasing comedy and music acts.

The other advantage of these types of shows is that they still have a must-watch live factor. You can easily bank up a months worth of CSI's and watch them at your leisure, but last night's American Idol will be the talk of the office the next morning. If Leno books his show right, he might benefit from the same buzz. Then again, the whole thing could come across as sad and tired. We'll see in about a week.


----------



## rudeney

harsh said:


> NBC faded years ago. As many have pointed out, they now have one formula (CSI) and that market is getting bored. To add insult to injury, a couple of their cable channels seem to subsist on CSI reruns.


Uh, wrong network, Harsh. CSI is a CBS show. Maybe you meant Law & Order?


----------



## bicker1

mreposter said:


> I've thought for awhile that we're witnessing the rebirth of the old variety show. Think Ed Sullivan ...


I think one key to this will be to what extent they can get the hottest musical acts to appear. If they have a Top 20 song (according to some list, not necessarily the Hot 100) performed on the show at least once per week, then they are going to get a certain number of people tuning in just on the power of that attraction alone, and then staying for the rest of the show because "it doesn't hurt".


----------



## SamC

bicker1 said:


> The rule allows OTA broadcasters to demand retransmission fees, but until recently most elected the alternative, Must Carry, instead.


.

Relative to the Big Four network affiliates, that is simply incorrect.



> There is no indication that retransmission fees represent a significant portion of revenues for OTA broadcasters at this time.


Again, this is simply incorrect. Twenty minutes reading the 10-K of any publicly traded TV chain would help you.



> Beyond that, retransmission fees go to the local affiliate, not to the network.


And 35% of the country is served by affiliates owned by? Yes, the Big Four networks, the four largest local affiliate owning companies in the country.



> See my explanation, above, why this is bunk.


Read all your posts, you never even posted your typical mis-information on the subject.



> We've discussed this before. CBS is closely-held...


Insiders and 5% owners, according to Yahoo, represent 4% of CBS stock. It is listed on NYSE and Euronext. A "closely held corporation" strictly defined is :

An unlisted company, where no ready market exists for the trading of shares.

A more liberal defination is one where the majority of shares in a publicly traded company where the majority of shares are held by a close group.

CBS fits neither defination.


----------



## RunnerFL

Shades228 said:


> Leno beat Dave every week in ratings after about a year. People didn't watch it because of the name of the show. I can understand not liking him but to say that this show will flop I think is not realistic.


They watched him over Dave at 11:35, not 10pm. 10pm is a completely different animal. He's not up against another late night talk show anymore, he's up against real TV shows.


----------



## RunnerFL

harsh said:


> NBC faded years ago. As many have pointed out, they now have one formula (CSI) and that market is getting bored. To add insult to injury, a couple of their cable channels seem to subsist on CSI reruns.


CSI is a CBS show, not NBC. Do you mean Law & Order maybe?


----------



## SayWhat?

bicker1 said:


> I believe *politics* will interfere with OTA networks getting their due with regard to retransmission fees from subscription television service providers.
> 
> The more OTA networks reflect the value that they deliver in retransmission fees, the more that prompts subscription service providers to increase their fees in response, and that prompts more subscribers to drop down to OTA antennas, thereby undercutting the effort to effectively charge viewers for the value being delivered, in the same way cable networks can.


I never understood that bit. Why do Cable and Sat providers have to pay to carry a local station? If anything it should be the other way around; local stations should have to pay Cable and Sat providers to carry their stations.

If a viewer has ONLY Cable or Sat and no OTA antenna, the local station does not reach that viewer. Cable and Sat enables the local stations to reach more viewers, they do not take any viewers away.



bicker1 said:


> Huh? Cable started out because it served rural customers where OTA was not. If anything, cable is as strong if not stronger there. Cable and satellite essentially serves all areas, every municipality in the country, while OTA is often infeasible in certain areas.


Cable does not exist in vast areas of the country. It simply isn't economically feasible to wire every road of every county. Even Satellite doesn't serve 'all areas'. Many are blocked by terrain or vegetation. In many places OTA is the ONLY option. In others, Satellite is the only option. Cable is certainly not stronger in most rural areas than OTA or Satellite -- some possibly, not most.


----------



## SayWhat?

mreposter said:


> According to Time Magazine, TV's future will look a lot like Jay Leno.


If that's true, TV is gonna need a very talented plastic surgeon. :grin:


----------



## phrelin

mreposter said:


> I've thought for awhile that we're witnessing the rebirth of the old variety show. Think Ed Sullivan through Caroll Burnett. Most of the entertainment reality shows like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars fit with their mix of comedy, music, contestant profiles, etc. Leno will be doing a more traditional/old school version showcasing comedy and music acts.


The deviation from the model you're describing is that that most of the successful 50's - 80's televaudeville shows ran at 8 pm one night a week. At 10 pm five nights a week Leno must appeal to a different audience and an audience that on many nights has already watched AI or DWTS.



bicker1 said:


> Yes and perhaps NBC will become the least attractive affiliation to hold, but still more attractive than not being affiliated. NBC is focusing on what is worth focusing on, rather than on some trophy devoid of significant meaning (to their owners). And if they "succeed" under this new, investor-oriented definition of success, then expect Disney and News Corp. to stop playing the vacuous audience game as well (and their relations with Nielsen Media over the past few years indicate that they're all pretty close to that point already), and force their OTA broadcast properties to focus on what is really important.
> 
> Who said anything about "barely" appeals. I think that's perhaps *wishful thinking *on the part of a lot of industry pundits who personally prefer drama to variety and such. Leno can get one-third the audience of the shows it is replacing and still be a *major *win financially. The more likely scenario, though, is that Leno will do somewhat better than half as well, and as such will be a superlative success, rivaling practically anything new introduced in the last decade. Time will tell of course, but I think we're going to be arguing, in the end, about whether Leno is a minor success, major success, or superlative success -- but note the word common to all three of those characterizations.
> 
> That is typically when the cable channels have presented their programming, though they have often attempted to avoid going up against the OTA networks. Let's see if we can guess what they think about all this, from their actions. USA and TNT are only presenting *one* drama, each, this fall. FX is running their typical Fall schedule, of three hours per week. It sure doesn't look like any of them are seeing the kind of opportunity that you're asserting is there.


I don't disagree with anything you're saying. My comments begin with "Two things about this approach focusing on GE's bottom line leave me wondering." and end with "It will be interesting to see how many people really want to watch what I call "televaudeville" five nights a week at 10 pm."

GE management which includes NBC management has created lowered expectations, particularly among shareholders. If the profit line on the NBCU division known as NBC rises for two quarters because of the decision about Leno, GE management has succeeded. That doesn't mean that the Leno Show has succeeded as entertainment.

Over the next three years, the network "OTA broadcast properties" will shift to meet the ratings as the NBC-owned New York station already has by reducing news and creating locally marketable local oriented programming. If anything, they are focusing on creating a record of delivering live-eyes on ads.

NBC owns the NBC OTA stations in the following eight (out of 210) DMA's representing 25% of the nation's "TV homes":

1. New York City
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Philadelphia
5. Dallas/Fort Worth
6. San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose
9. Washington, D.C./Hagerstown, MD
16. Miami/Ft. Lauderdale

But those large population DMA's aren't affiliates. They have the resources of GE and large numbers of viewers within the DMA. In the remaining 202 DMA's representing 75% of "TV homes" somebody else owns the NBC affiliate OTA stations. Consider the situation of the affiliates in the following DMA's:

107.	Ft. Wayne
108.	Reno
109.	Youngstown
110.	Tyler-Longview
111.	Springfield-Holyoke
112.	Boise
113.	Sioux Falls(Mitchell)
114.	Lansing

In these much smaller population DMA's, even if they captured the entire 5 pm - 6 pm viewers available, the affiliate cannot deliver anything resembling the number of eyes the NBC property in New York City can guarantee advertisers as a minimum for that time slot. Nor are there the number of local businesses from which to solicit ads. So those affiliates aren't going to have the flexibility to deal effectively with the loss of advertising income from their 10 pm network show and from their 11:00 pm news show and maybe even from their 11:35 pm NBC late night show.

It's just my speculation and I'm being a "devil's advocate", but five years from now these small DMA affiliate stations may be sorry they kept their NBC affiliation. Instead, they ought to embrace the NBC "Programming to Margins" business model.

That model suggests that the smaller DMA stations drop their expensive NBC affiliation in favor of a syndicated and local programming schedule costing 20% of their network affiliation, which would allow them to retain 100% of whatever advertising revenue they can generate.

As far as I'm concerned, losing up to 50% of the "TV homes" is the long term risk NBC is taking by changing it's model from that maintained by CBS and ABC to a new model, not even to that offered by Fox (early news) which benefits the affiliates.


----------



## bicker1

SamC said:


> Relative to the Big Four network affiliates, that is simply incorrect.


You have no idea what you're talking about. It is absolutely correct.



SamC said:


> Again, this is simply incorrect. Twenty minutes reading the 10-K of any publicly traded TV chain would help you.


Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.



SamC said:


> And 35% of the country is served by affiliates owned by? Yes, the Big Four networks, the four largest local affiliate owning companies in the country.


So you're one for three; but nothing I said earlier contradicted your assertion here.



SamC said:


> Read all your posts, you never even posted your typical mis-information on the subject.


You have no idea what you're talking about.



SamC said:


> Insiders and 5% owners, according to Yahoo, represent 4% of CBS stock. It is listed on NYSE and Euronext. A "closely held corporation" strictly defined is :


Fair-enough. My terminology was not accurate. I should have written "more closely held" rather than "closely held." Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## bicker1

SayWhat? said:


> I never understood that bit. Why do Cable and Sat providers have to pay to carry a local station?


There are good arguments to be made either way, but that doesn't really matter in the context of this discussion. What matters here is (1) that Retransmission Consent is the law; and (2) One day it may represent a significant revenue stream to local affiliates.



SayWhat? said:


> Cable does not exist in vast areas of the country.


Of course it does (I think your problem is that you haven't defined what you mean by "vast"), and cable and satellite together serve every municipality in the country.



SayWhat? said:


> In many places OTA is the ONLY option. In others, Satellite is the only option. Cable is certainly not stronger in most rural areas than OTA or Satellite -- some possibly, not most.


Okay... but... so?


----------



## bicker1

phrelin said:


> That doesn't mean that the Leno Show has succeeded as entertainment.


That's easy to write, because those words have no specific meaning, so effectively you can write them without them actually having to defend the assertion. 

Success always depends on the criteria. In business, what matters is money. That's an objective measure. For viewers, entertainment value is strictly subjective, and therefore there is no way to objectively assert whether something "succeeds" as entertainment; we really can only make that decision each one of us for ourselves.



phrelin said:


> Over the next three years, the network "OTA broadcast properties" will shift to meet the ratings as the NBC-owned New York station already has by reducing news and creating locally marketable local oriented programming. If anything, they are focusing on creating a record of delivering live-eyes on ads.


Absolutely, and there is nothing wrong with making a service offering that reflects the intersection of what viewers are willing to watch and what serves the best interests of the investors.



phrelin said:


> As far as I'm concerned, losing up to 50% of the "TV homes" is the long term risk NBC is taking by changing it's model from that maintained by CBS and ABC to a new model, not even to that offered by Fox (early news) which benefits the affiliates.


The 50% number is ridiculous IMHO. I'd guess the reality is closer to 12%-15%, and, as such, doesn't necessarily affect whether or not this is the best strategy for NBC.


----------



## SamC

Gray Television Annual Report:

"Our operating revenues are derived primarily from broadcast and internet advertising, and from other sources such as production of commercials and tower rentals and from retransmission consent fees."

Sinclair Broadcasting Annual Report:

" Additionally, other types of revenue and their approximate percentages of 2008 net broadcast revenues from continuing operations were retransmission consent (8.4%)..."

Belo Annual Report:

"Approximately 4.5 percent of total television station revenues were derived from retransmission fees in 2008."

Hearst Annual Report:

"Retransmission Revenue was $21.6M..."

You really need to brush up. This is a serious board, not some "tis-taint" sports or video game discussion board.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

This discussion is interesting on a couple of levels.

In the DBS forums the addition of LiLs to cable/satellite for any local market is greeted with cheers... and many folks switch providers based upon whether or not their locals are available.

So to argue that no one is watching OTA and that those networks are a thing of the past seems odd to me given the importance of LiLs from customers AND from the cable/satellite customers who recognize they need those locals to attract customers in a given market.

Now, NBC in this case seems to be making some sweeping statements/changes about the state of things... but NBC has been on the bottom for a while now... so logic says they do need to change BUT simultaneously should not be considered success experts since thus far what they have tried has not worked.

If Leno keeps any of his audience, this might be a win for NBC... because they had a lot of failing shows anyway... so a cheaper Leno show to produce that keeps any of his Tonight Show audience might very well do better for them than anything else they could come up with.

But NBC can't become reality TV for prime time every night of the week. That'd be a surefire way to lose.

Somehow CBS is managing to be on top and they have a lot of scripted shows... so it can be done.

The main difference now vs 25 years ago is all the competition of quality programming on other channels. That does pose a problem as we all have more choices than ever before.

But ultimately that just means the network has to do better if they want to keep viewers. Nothing grander than that. Kind of like in "Field of Dreams" where "if you build it they will come"... if networks make it, the viewers will come.


----------



## bicker1

SamC said:


> Gray Television Annual Report: ...
> Sinclair Broadcasting Annual Report: ...
> Belo Annual Report: ...
> Hearst Annual Report: ...


GE? Disney? CBS? News Corp.? The issue we were discussing was how much of an OTA broadcast network's revenues come from retransmission fees, as compared to advertising revenues, and in the context of comparing retransmission fees to cable network subscription revenues. Do keep up with the conversation please.



Stewart Vernon said:


> So to argue that no one is watching OTA and that those networks are a thing of the past seems odd to me given the importance of LiLs from customers AND from the cable/satellite customers who recognize they need those locals to attract customers in a given market.


I don't recall anyone really talking about that. As I said before, no one really cares about the size of the audience. What's big news is how advertising revenues are poised to fall after the recent, abominable, up-front season.


----------



## SayWhat?

bicker1 said:


> As I said before, no one really cares about the size of the audience. What's big news is how advertising revenues are poised to fall after the recent, abominable, up-front season.


Sure they do. That's why Neilsen exists. Smaller audience share = lower ad rates = lower ad revenue.


----------



## cj9788

Hey broadcast network tv accounts for 90% of what I and my wife watch. Sure we turn to cable for some shows, BSG, Monk, Burn Notice, ect. But the Big 4 will be number one for shows. At least for now. Network tv is F-ing up with all the reality bullsh!t and now Leno 5 nights a week in Primetime. If they want to keep the viewers they need to go back to sit coms and dramas that people want to watch. They kill good shows with crappy scheduling and do not give them more than a season or 2 to get a following. I still look forward to the fall season of new shows it is just more crap year after year though. In an effort to save money they rely on reality crap to fill the schedule. Those shows have a small following but come on how many Bachlor failures do they need befor they move on. Survior is down and as I read Big Brother is down as well. Why dont they see the writing on the wall for shows like that? FOX has a hit with American Idol but I always saw that as a Star Search devoted to singers and to fill the show out thwy show the auditions. In fact I really only watch Idol to see those Stupid Fcks who think they can sing try out. Once they goto hollywood I am watching something else.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

I for one cannot wait for Leno to start up next week. I realize he is no longer competing for the late night ratings, but when he was removed I gave Conan a shot and I must be missing something because I could go entire episodes without laughing. 
Just as I did with The Tonight Show, I will DVR it every night and watch it the next day when I get home from work. It maybe the only NBC show that I watch. One week to go... I hope his show is successful.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bicker1 said:


> I don't recall anyone really talking about that. As I said before, no one really cares about the size of the audience. What's big news is how advertising revenues are poised to fall after the recent, abominable, up-front season.


Sure they do... that's how NBC determined they were in last place... by ratings... and by size of audience... which in turn means it is harder for NBC to charge as much as they want for advertising, if the advertisers think less eyes are on NBC than other networks.

So size of audience is very much a part of any discussion involving advertising revenue.


----------



## mreposter

phrelin said:


> The deviation from the model you're describing is that that most of the successful 50's - 80's televaudeville shows ran at 8 pm one night a week. At 10 pm five nights a week Leno must appeal to a different audience and an audience that on many nights has already watched AI or DWTS.


Yeah, I'd agree, doing a music/comedy variety show at 10pm/9CST is a big risk, with little or no precedent. People may not want to watch more of this sort of thing after sitting through American Idol, Dancing, etc at 8. But it does work nicely as counter-programming to the heavier dramas on CBS and ABC.

Another aspect of this that hasn't be brought up yet is the lack of any future revenues a show like this will have. No Season One Boxed DVD set... No syndicating reruns or selling off old episodes to cable, little to no Internet value. About the only alternative revenue stream might be selling off highlights to radio. Jay Leno's show might be cheap, but his revenue stream will also be very shallow.


----------



## cj9788

More scripted shows More scripted shows More scripted shows More scripted shows More scripted shows More scripted shows More scripted shows More scripted shows More scripted shows More scripted shows More scripted shows More scripted shows More scripted shows More scripted shows More scripted shows More scripted shows More scripted shows More scripted shows More scripted shows More scripted shows

My impression of a broken record.


----------



## SamC

bicker1 said:


> The issue we were discussing was how much of an OTA broadcast network's revenues come from retransmission fees.


Actually, no. We were discussing retransmission fees. You made the incorrect statement that most stations do not charge retrans fees, but rather opt for must carry. This was in incorrect statement. Most "Big Four" affiliates, I would say almost every single one, charges a retrans fee; must carry is used to force cable to carry niche programming like Ion, religious broadcaster, infomercial stations, etc. You did not know what you were talking about, and pretty much just inserted yourself into a converstation to disagree with everyone, but post no facts, just you base statements that you seem to pull out of thin air. I took the time to call you on it.


----------



## mreposter

More bad news for Leno over at Deadline Hollywood Daily

_Meanwhile, I can tell you that Leno is telling pals NBC has not given his Jay Leno Show even one fresh or significant idea for the new show. "Not one idea," Leno has confided. The result is that the Jay Leno Show will be identical to Jay's familiar format except in chronology: monologue, comics doing filmed segments, guest interviews, then end with those those lame Jaywalking and All-Stars bits._


----------



## phrelin

mreposter said:


> More bad news for Leno over at Deadline Hollywood Daily
> 
> _Meanwhile, I can tell you that Leno is telling pals NBC has not given his Jay Leno Show even one fresh or significant idea for the new show. "Not one idea," Leno has confided. The result is that the Jay Leno Show will be identical to Jay's familiar format except in chronology: monologue, comics doing filmed segments, guest interviews, then end with those those lame Jaywalking and All-Stars bits._


Well, if he does "headlines" and a few timely interviews of people we're interested in, we'll probably watch those on the DVR. I'm almost ready to dump the Conan timer off the DVR (I really tried, but he can't seem to do an interesting interview) so Leno will probably replace it.


----------



## rudeney

mreposter said:


> More bad news for Leno over at Deadline Hollywood Daily
> 
> _Meanwhile, I can tell you that Leno is telling pals NBC has not given his Jay Leno Show even one fresh or significant idea for the new show. "Not one idea," Leno has confided. The result is that the Jay Leno Show will be identical to Jay's familiar format except in chronology: monologue, comics doing filmed segments, guest interviews, then end with those those lame Jaywalking and All-Stars bits._


Actually, I always like Jaywalking. I hate that I'll have to sit through the boring "celebrity" chit-chat to get to it, though.


----------



## herkulease

My problem with NBC and in general the TV networks today is that they demand instant success. NBC in particular still seems stuck in their must see TV mindset. If a show doesn't come out to 10+ rating point its in a crapper. NBC in particular can't be too choosy with shows. They need to be like fox during the 80s. They were committed to shows even though ratings weren't huge and build a following. People have little interesting in watch shows on a network if there's a tendency to yank shows so fast. 

Plus they recycle stories. NBC replace ER with two hospital/health related shows in Trauma and Mercy. Ok lets cut out teh doctors and replace them with paramedics and nurses. We now know how the patients gets to the hospitals and what the nurses do after the doctor leaves. Such interesting stuff. CBS has their own medical show with some transplant doctors. ABC are has their doctor show.


----------



## bicker1

SamC said:


> Actually, no. We were discussing retransmission fees. You made the incorrect statement that most stations do not charge retrans fees, but rather opt for must carry.


No I didn't. You're simply not reading what you're replying to, or deliberately choosing to argue against something easier to argue against rather what was actually said. This is what I wrote:
There is no indication that retransmission fees represent a significant portion of revenues for OTA broadcasters at this time, unlike the contribution that cable subscription fees make to the bottom-line of a cable network.​So now it is your job, if your intent is to rebut what I said, to show that retransmission fees represent a significant portion of revenues for OTA broadcasters at this time, *in the same way *that cable subscription fees contribute to the bottom-line of a cable network. Your earlier quotes were somewhat useful in proving my point. The fact that you didn't realize that you were proving my point pretty much proves you didn't read what you were replying to.


----------



## bicker1

herkulease said:


> My problem with NBC and in general the TV networks today is that they demand instant success.


Investors generally do. There is practically no patience in the United States for poor performance, even in the relatively short-term, and even if there is some rhetorical argument about how doing something may have some long-term benefit. Without definitive, irrefutable proof that doing something actually will deliver more long-term benefit than a different approach that includes serving the short-term view as well, nothing has a snowball's chance in hell of being fostered by any Western economy.


----------



## TBlazer07

Dontcha have a DVR? 


rudeney said:


> I hate that I'll have to sit through the boring "celebrity" chit-chat to get to it, though.


----------



## rudeney

TBlazer07 said:


> Dontcha have a DVR?


But of course!  Actually, I am used to watching Jay at 10:35pm CST when I am going to bed, and thus I usually watch the show live. I guess with it on in prime time, I'll record it, and then save it for bedtime.


----------



## jadebox

MikeW said:


> I think the worst thing that happened to TV is the ability to insert crawls and bugs. It has to be the most annoying aspect of any network programming. Unfortunately for us, most local channels climbed on board to advertise the change-over to digital broadcasting. Now that they have the ability to run crawls, it never stops.


My wife and I attempted to watch the first episode of a new series the other night, but had to turn it off because they were covering the screen with garbage throught the entire program. It was so annoying that we'll never know if we would have liked the show or not. I wonder how many other viewers the network lost because of that foolishness.

We find our selves using Netflix more now because we can't stand all the "bugs" and other crap displayed during the shows on network and cable channels. It's almost like they don't want us to watch.

Isn't it ironic that just as we make the switch to HD, they are littering the picture with this junk?

-- Roger


----------



## bicker1

We haven't seen the end of bugs. As much as some people hate 'em, they offer a very lucrative channel for additional revenues. I've only seen two commercial products advertised via overlays, but its going to become commonplace not too far in the future, mark my words. And as much as some segment of the public will hate it and swear off television as a result, I suspect that subset can be written off as the folks who probably wouldn't have made that many purchasing decisions based principally on the commercials they paid attention to.


----------



## SayWhat?

> The bar is set low for Leno's ratings, as NBC's prime-time performance has been poor in recent years. "NBC's in fourth place," Leno said. "You can't do any worse."
> 
> Robert Thompson, a professor of TV and pop culture at Syracuse University, said Leno does not have to beat his 10 p.m. network competition in ratings to be successful.
> 
> "Leno five days a week is an awful lot cheaper to make than five days of scripted programming at 10 o'clock, so even if Leno only performs moderately, I think NBC will probably call it a roaring success," Thompson said.
> 
> Other broadcast networks may follow NBC's move.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/11/jay.leno/index.html


----------



## Shades228

cj9788 said:


> A prime time slot is much diffrernt than early late night (after 1130). Even the best ideas and primetime shows struggle to garner an audience and those are just one night a week. NBC is placing a lot of hope on Leno at 10pm. Could it work yeah? will it work? Maybe not. I do not know how many viewers share my opinion but prime time is for dramas and sit coms. I have never watched reality programing and was never a big fan of the variety shows. If its not a drama at 10pm thursday its nothing.


With DVR's now what is prime time? Before it used to be when people spent time watching TV because that's when it was the best and that's when people sat around. Culture has changed a lot since this was established and this could be a good move by NBC. If people really like Leno they might record it at the minimum and therefor still gain some ratings that way.


----------



## Shades228

SayWhat? said:


> Sure they do. That's why Neilsen exists. Smaller audience share = lower ad rates = lower ad revenue.


Neilsen is in for a major change soon I am thinking. They can't keep using live eye balls as the dominate metric as more people move to DVR and online. Sure live eye balls are important because they have to watch the commercials, in theory, but if they don't make some changes soon people are going to start to move away from them. I would keep an eye on what Google starts coming up with for tracking.

Jay Leno is proven to be successful. Will he get the same ratings at the 10pm as he did later? No but he will get some. If this moves even some of the viewers over from other shows that are on the bubble, the mentalist, it's a win for them. In reality this is less risk then starting a new drama that may tank after 4 shows but costs much much more. This could allow them to put more money into other shows and produce some higher quality shows in the 8-10 time frames to help them out.


----------



## bicker1

They're pegging a Leno success at 1/2 of the ratings of other 10PM network shows. That's actually a little surprising, since they could have set the bar at 1/4 of the ratings of other 10PM shows, or even lower, and still made more money than other 10PM shows. If they make that 1/2 threshold, they'll be making money like there's no tomorrow.


----------



## mreposter

The 1/2 threshold may be what NBC thinks it can get away with as regards the affiliates. If Leno's lower audience draw does much damage to the local 11pm news, you could see an affiliate riot on your hands. 

Leno is a survivor and he knows how to play the game, but if his show ends up tainted as a loser hated by the local stations, he may also end up with problems booking the guests he needs. 

I'm still in the "yes, this is going to work" camp, but it's clearly a big gamble for everyone involved.


----------



## bicker1

And the real magic is that if it isn't successful, they can just try something else, including going back to putting dramas and news magazines, back into the 10PM slot.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bicker1 said:


> They're pegging a Leno success at 1/2 of the ratings of other 10PM network shows. That's actually a little surprising, since they could have set the bar at 1/4 of the ratings of other 10PM shows, or even lower, and still made more money than other 10PM shows. If they make that 1/2 threshold, they'll be making money like there's no tomorrow.


This is a good example of what I've said before about OTA networks needing to rethink their expectations.

As you say here, NBC is setting the "success" bar higher than they need to profit-wise... so they could end up with a profitable show that they still consider a failure, solely based upon their decision to set the bar higher than they had to.


----------



## phrelin

TV Week's _Open Mic_ by Tom Petner posted a discussion on August 24 about the affiliate issue entitled With the New TV Season Almost Upon Us, the Biggest Issue for All Stations With Newcasts is How the Leno Move Will Affect Them. Here Are the Concerns-and the Strategies-Stations of All Affiliations Are Discussing. I'm in the camp that says this will be a loser for NBC affiliates. I see three things happening:

Much of the already lower total 10 pm time slot "live" audience that watched series TV will continue to watch ABC and CBS with most of the the "Law & Order" franchise fans moving to other networks at 10 pm, which will doubly hurt NBC affiliates.
The "live" audience that already watches the 10 pm Fox news (or in our DMA the CBS 5 Eyewitness News on The CW affiliate) will continue to do so which will have no effect on NBC affiliates.
A high percentage of late night TV fans will record Leno for later viewing of pieces they want to see (which is what we will do and currently do with Letterman and Conan) (a) for convenience and (b) because these shows are at least 40% commercials; this will eliminate the possibility of the show being a live lead to local news, but then again many of us record everything so we had no live lead to local news.
Leno initially may be profitable based on the current rating systems, but once "eyes on commercials" rating systems really take hold in 2010-11, that profitability will depend on Leno sitting there with a box of Depends or whatever, which may be fine for NBC but won't work for affiliates inserting there own commercials.
Then again, I don't think NBC cares about their affiliates.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> so they could end up with a profitable show that they still consider a failure, solely based upon their decision to set the bar higher than they had to.


Yes, but look at it in context: *Half *the ratings of other shows.


----------



## BAHitman

Anybosy expect that an affiliate will preempt Leno for the local news, then run it at 10:30-11:30? 

OUr ABC affiliate does that with Kimmel, instead of running it at 12:05 (after niteline) they show some rerun, then run Kimmel an hour later


----------



## phrelin

BAHitman said:


> Anybosy expect that an affiliate will preempt Leno for the local news, then run it at 10:30-11:30?


That would be interesting, but it would run Leno right into Conan.


----------



## bicker1

BAHitman said:


> Anybosy expect that an affiliate will preempt Leno for the local news, then run it at 10:30-11:30?


Our local Boston NBC affiliate stated their intention to do so, followed by a retraction when NBC pointed out that that violates the affiliate agreement.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bicker1 said:


> Yes, but look at it in context: *Half *the ratings of other shows.


Yes... but if NBC doesn't make that number, they will consider the show a failure even if it is profitable. That seems like a problem waiting to happen in my opinion... when they are already setting themselves up for a perceived failure even with a profit margin that is pretty wide.

It would not surprise me in the least to see this show do better than expected and be profitable, BUT still not make NBC's arbitrary line in the sand... and then they decide to cancel it because it "failed".


----------



## phrelin

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yes... but if NBC doesn't make that number, they will consider the show a failure even if it is profitable. That seems like a problem waiting to happen in my opinion... when they are already setting themselves up for a perceived failure even with a profit margin that is pretty wide.
> 
> It would not surprise me in the least to see this show do better than expected and be profitable, BUT still not make NBC's arbitrary line in the sand... and then they decide to cancel it because it "failed".


The problem for them is that leaves one alternative - give the hour to the affiliates.

Otherwise they have to find someone not of the GE type to restructure a 3-hour prime time schedule and admit they didn't know what they were doing. I don't see that happening as NBCU becomes cable oriented.


----------



## dreadlk

Who ever decided to switch out Leno and put on Conan should be fired  If Conan was planning on leaving, they should have just let him, especially when Leno changed his mind and wanted to stay.

Watching Conan is like watching somebody slowly humiliate themselves every single night.
My guess is that they soon realized what a disaster Conan's show was and this new prime time Leno is just a temporary thing till they can shift him back to 11:30 and finaly put Conan out of his misery.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

dreadlk said:


> Who ever decided to switch out Leno and put on Conan should be fired  If Conan was planning on leaving, they should have just let him, especially when Leno changed his mind and wanted to stay.
> 
> Watching Conan is like watching somebody slowly humiliate themselves every single night.
> My guess is that they soon realized what a disaster Conan's show was and this new prime time Leno is just a temporary thing till they can shift him back to 11:30 and finaly put Conan out of his misery.


Not exactly possible.

Last time around after the Letterman/Leno fiasco and the mess that caused... NBC decided a few years ago not to repeat the past mistake... so they simultaneously announced a Leno retirement date AND Conan upgrade at that time.

Unfortunately, when the time came, Leno wasn't ready to go... but they couldn't back out of the Conan contract (even if they wanted to let Conan go) without paying some coin to do so...

In hindsight, the mistake made was in trying not to repeat the past problems, they instead opted for a new problem that required a forced-retirement of Leno without regard to whether or not he'd actually want to go when the time came.

Optimally, they should have set Conan as the go-to guy BUT not drew the line in the sand firmly for Leno to retire until he was ready... but I suppose that could have problems as well if Conan threatened to leave before Leno was ready to go.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

phrelin said:


> The problem for them is that leaves one alternative - give the hour to the affiliates.
> 
> Otherwise they have to find someone not of the GE type to restructure a 3-hour prime time schedule and admit they didn't know what they were doing. I don't see that happening as NBCU becomes cable oriented.


The way things have been going at NBC... I actually wouldn't be surprised if they did give the 10pm slot back to the affiliates if the Leno show "fails".

I don't think Leno will fail though... at least not conventionally. He might "fail" if NBC has set the bar too high.


----------



## SayWhat?

I wonder how many affiliates will consider jumping ship?


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yes... but if NBC doesn't make that number, they will consider the show a failure even if it is profitable.


Perhaps, or they'll spin it another way. What they're doing now is getting them something -- they are not underselling the series and that is worth something in terms of the front-end.



Stewart Vernon said:


> That seems like a problem waiting to happen in my opinion...


Why? How is this any different from The Mentalist charging three times as much. It still is setting up a number, that if not met will result in the Mentalist being considered a failure even if it is profitable at a lower number (and it would be).



Stewart Vernon said:


> when they are already setting themselves up for a perceived failure even with a profit margin that is pretty wide.


That assertion has no basis in the reality as far as I can see.

It is important to remember that price *affects* demand, but not in a linear manner. (After all, if the price affected demand in a linear manner, the iPod would have been a failure.)



Stewart Vernon said:


> It would not surprise me in the least to see this show do better than expected and be profitable, BUT still not make NBC's arbitrary line in the sand... and then they decide to cancel it because it "failed".


Because they figure that there is a better approach overall for their business. The fact is that they could put dramas, or news magazines, in those time slots. By putting Jay Leno there they are putting forward a vision for the future. If Jay Leno doesn't achieve a certain amount of success above "more profit than a drama", then there is the possibility that NBC could lose more than just today's money, if they let it continue overly-long with that middling performance. This action, on NBC's part, that you're condemning, is actually showing that NBC is totally on top of all the things that so many other of its critics have been whining about, vis a vis Leno's impact on local news at 11, on Conan, on affiliation itself. NBC evidently _does_ see the Big Picture, despite those whiners' rantings, and has a very good idea of how much better Leno needs to do than simply "more profitable than a drama" in order to justify making such a big change to the kind of programming that they present at 10PM.


----------



## bicker1

phrelin said:


> The problem for them is that leaves one alternative - give the hour to the affiliates.
> 
> Otherwise they have to find someone not of the GE type to restructure a 3-hour prime time schedule and admit they didn't know what they were doing. I don't see that happening as NBCU becomes cable oriented.


Yes, but in your comment is another answer. Fill the 10PM hour with reruns of USA and Syfy series that they haven't sold into syndication yet. I hope I don't need to remind folks that I speculated almost a year ago that long-term I see shows *starting *on cable networks and then getting *rebroadcast *in primetime on OTA broadcast networks, as part of a comprehensive change in how programming gets distributed.


----------



## bicker1

dreadlk said:


> If Conan was planning on leaving, they should have just let him, especially when Leno changed his mind and wanted to stay.


I believe there were millions of dollars in penalties that made such a decision foolish.


----------



## bicker1

SayWhat? said:


> I wonder how many affiliates will consider jumping ship?


It'll all come down to, "Where will they go?" Maybe some will find themselves stealing the affiliation of the local CBS or ABC affiliate, but that's just a shell game. For the vast majority of viewers, there is enough value in being the NBC affiliate that some broadcaster will want to be it, and that'll be enough to get NBC into every cable system, which is where the eyes-of-value are anyway.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bicker1 said:


> I hope I don't need to remind folks that I speculated almost a year ago that long-term I see shows *starting *on cable networks and then getting *rebroadcast *in primetime on OTA broadcast networks, as part of a comprehensive change in how programming gets distributed.


Interesting... except that it was more than a few years ago when the networks actually already tried this!

Monk premiered on USA, but ABC was airing them (Saturday nights I believe) about a season behind. I think they might have made it through 2 seasons before they decided to stop.

Battlestar Galactica premiered on SciFi (the mini series) around 6 years or so ago... and NBC re-aired that mini, and in HD too, a couple of times about a year later.

I also remember seeing Psych and some more BSG back during the writers' strike.

So it was probably easy to speculate on something that had already happened


----------



## bicker1

Yeah, but my outline was much more comprehensive. : )


----------



## phrelin

USA's "Monk" was on ABC in 2002. From this Variety September 14, 2002, article:


> ABC has made a last-minute addition to its fall lineup: The hit USA Network drama "Monk." Following a successful summer experiment, Alphabet will make repeats of "Monk" a regular part of the net's sked for two months, starting Sept. 26. Skein will air Thursdays at 8 p.m.-- opposite "Friends" and "Survivor"-- as a lead-in to ABC's much-hyped reality/drama hybrid "Push, Nevada."
> 
> Following "Monk's" successful bow on USA, ABC execs approached the cabler about repurposing the skein, which stars Tony Shalhoub, on ABC over four weeks in August. Alphabet execs were encouraged by the skein's solid perf in a Tuesday at 9 p.m. slot despite very little advance promotion and monster competish from Fox's red-hot "American Idol."


Now what the heck was "Push, Nevada"? Anyway, NBC then did the same thing during the writers strike. From a December 18, 2007 Zap2It article:


> NBC is turning to its cable sibling USA to help fill out its midseason schedule.
> 
> The broadcast network will repurpose episodes of USA's popular shows "Monk" and "Psych" on Sunday nights beginning in March....


I still think the affiliates are missing the boat. They should be pushing NBCU to give them the rights to broadcast on subchannels OTA feeds of cable channels where they could insert local commercials. I think there would be a reasonable audience of OTA homes interested in USA, Bravo, and maybe even Syfy. NBCU has an NBC affiliate and a Telemundo affiliate in most large urban areas that would permit at least two additional HD subchannel signals to be broadcast. That would be in the affiliates' interest instead of having cable shows shifted to prime time NBC so the network can save money even if it accepts lower audience numbers which kills the affiliates.

In fact, if local stations collectively could compete with cable and satellite....


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The weird thing about Monk also was... Back when ABC tried it out, ABC was airing in HD (or at least widescreen anyway)... while USA had not yet launched its HD channel. And yet people just didn't care enough for Monk to watch apparently on ABC.

Then again, it could be that the Monk fans had already seen the shows and weren't willing to re-watch them.

On the flip side of this... I remember a year or two ago when SciFi was re-airing some NBC shows later in the week. I think Heroes Season 1, for instance, would air on NBC on Monday then the same episode would re-air on SciFi that Friday.

I never heard how that experiment worked, but it seems to have stopped.

I did notice last season, though... that episodes of House on FOX would re-air on USA sometimes 1-2 weeks after the OTA debut.

Seems like there ought to be a market the other way around. The same argument that holds for reality = cheaper than scripted... should work here as already scripted = even cheaper than reality... so they should be able to re-purpose some cable-created shows for OTA networks.


----------



## mreposter

What if NBC were to give affiliates the 10pm slot for local news and then shifted Leno to 10:30? It might make the affiliates happy and might help solve the Conan problem at 11:30. 

phrelin - I'm surprised more local's haven't launched 24-hour real news services on a subchannel. I've seen a few that do rather wimpy weather or run some 30 minute news show in a loop for 3-4 hours at a time, but it seems like only affiliates in the largest markets have gotten serious about serving their markets this way.


----------



## SayWhat?

^^^^ First, I think they want Leno to be in PrimeTime, not after the news when most people turn the set off and go to bed. (Not like most here, but like most of what the audience used to be.)

Second, the trend seems to be away from 24 hour real news. Note what Headline News has become as well as Fox News and MSNBC. They're more Springer-esque talk shows than anything else.

I'm opposed to the same, relatively current shows being run across multiple channels in the same season. Was it really to anyone's advantage to have Warehouse 13 on a dozen channels in the same few days?

It's one thing for older reruns in syndication to be all over the dial, but I just can't see it for current shows.


----------



## mreposter

Longer-term, many cable channels may find themselves in a bit of a bind when the supply of old network dramas and comedies dries up.


----------



## SayWhat?

Well, they've got 40 years of programming to choose from if they'd stop running the same stuff over and over again.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> Seems like there ought to be a market the other way around.


I agree completely.... With its heavier reliance on a subscriber-based revenue stream, it seems to me that they should be working to make people want cable more, make it worth more than OTA.


----------



## trainman

phrelin said:


> Now what the heck was "Push, Nevada"?


Heh...I remember it very well from my closed-captioning career. I liked it, but obviously, not enough of the rest of America did.

It was your standard outsider-investigates-strange-goings-on-in-small-town drama. Variety called it a "reality/drama hybrid" because there was a viewer contest associated with it, in which there were to have been clues to a puzzle embedded in each of the first 13 episodes, and one person would win $1 million for figuring out the solution to the puzzle. The show got canceled after 7 episodes, but the remaining clues were shown during a "Monday Night Football" game, and the $1 million was given away.

There's a pretty good summary on Wikipedia.


----------



## phrelin

An article today in the _Washington Post_ has this headline Expect a Lot Of Collateral Damage if Leno Bombs. It covers the affiliate situation fairly well and ends with:


> Sensitive to its stations' concerns, NBC has tried to structure Leno's program in an affiliate-friendly way, says Willi, the programming strategist. For example, Leno will do his popular "Tonight Show" bits -- "Jaywalking" and "Headlines," among others -- in the last portion of the show to maximize the audience just before the news starts. The network will then forgo the usual commercial break between programs, "streaming" right into the news in an attempt to keep viewers around.
> 
> Yet NBC's bold experiment in low-cost entertainment has already shown signs of weakness. During the preseason advertising sales period known as the "upfronts" last spring, NBC was unable to sell ad time on Leno's show at the prices it normally commands for scripted programs. Instead, in an indication of diminished expectations, advertisers bought time at the low end of the prime-time scale, at rates similar to that of "Dateline NBC" and other magazine-style shows, TV executives said.


----------



## mreposter

"Willi, the programming strategist" - oh, now that made me burst out laughing... I often consult "Willi" when picking programs to watch. 

But the big question for tonight: Will Leno manage to beat a repeat of CSI Miami and that much buzzed-about special on PBS, "Note By Note: The Making of Steinway L1037!"


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Tonight should be interesting...

On the one hand, he is going up against Monday Night Football... on the other hand, it is a Raiders game...


----------



## Pete K.

NBC gave Jack Parr a prime time show in the early 60's to keep him from jumping networks. It was a success. Of course as my kid is so fond of saying, "That was then, and this is now."


----------



## SayWhat?

> at rates similar to that of "Dateline NBC" and other magazine-style shows,


Isn't that exactly what it is?


----------



## phrelin

I don't know that tonight's premier is going to be much an indicator of potential unless it bombs.

On the other hand, next week is the general broadcast networks season premier. CBS is offering essentially the same lineup as last year and ABC running the season premier of "Dancing with the Stars" from 8 to 10:01 pm and the season premier of "Castle" at 10:01. Fox has the season premier of "House" from 8 to 10.

Against that lineup NBC is offering the season premier of "Heroes" to lead into "Leno." It's a problem for NBC as on last spring's sweeps first Monday April 27 "Heroes" was #4. Here's what happened then:








At 10 pm, "Medium" on NBC outscored "Heroes" at 9 pm but still had 25% of the viewers. ABC led into "Castle" with the dud "Surviving Suburbia" and still pulled 30%.

When you look at those numbers you have to wonder what NBC has in mind for "Leno." Just how many viewers who watched "CSI: Miami", "Castle", and "Medium" in May will choose to watch "Leno" instead of "CSI:Miami" or "Castle" both of which are police procedurals, different from but also like "Medium." I just don't see "CSI: Miami" and "Castle" viewers shifting in droves to "Leno," but I can see "Medium" viewers shifting to "CSI: Miami" or "Castle."

The wildcard in all this is ESPN's Monday night football which typically will pull in 6-10 million of the viewers in the chart above depending a bit on timing since it doesn't affect West Coast prime time (Next Monday is Colts v Dophins). Remember, the critical numbers are "live." Anyone want to guess how many of Jay Leno fans are football fans? Maybe tonights ratings will give us a hint. In two large metro areas, the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego the CBS stations are carrying the football game, in addition to ESPN across the rest of the nation. (Otherwise, Leno's up against a "CSI Miaimi" rerun and ABC running the movie "Dreamgirls" to kill the night with cheap.)


----------



## Stewart Vernon

That's another aspect that I've brought up before.

We don't want to see 50 CSI and 50 Law & Order and 30 Teen-angst-Vampire shows on if one or two succeed...

But, if you claim to know your audience... is the Leno audience the CSI audience? I don't know. At 11:30pm, you didn't have to choose between Leno & CSI. Leno wins over Letterman based on personal preference of those who want to watch the late night format.

But Leno vs CSI? Only time will tell.

I'm not the hugest Leno fan... but I'm not a hater either. That said, I wouldn't ever choose his format show over a scripted drama. Given the choice, I'd DVR his show and watch later... so until they start counting those DVRed views later in their ratings, they wouldn't ever count me.

Tonight, I'll watch MNF no contest. Next week I'll have to start DVRing other new shows while I'm watching MNF. The rest of the week is more open except for the Thursday night college games.


----------



## mreposter

phrelin - those are some thought-provoking numbers, but to assume that Leno is only competing for viewers with CSI and Castle is mistake. There's a huge percentage of the audience at 10pm not watching ABC/CBS. You already mentioned MNF on ESPN and reading those numbers it looks like about half the audience is somewhere else. 

More and more of what's on the nets at 10pm is police procedural/mystery oriented. Leno offers counter-programming to that with light comedy and musical entertainment. Even the major cable channels like TNT and FX are doing heavy dramas at 10. Will Leno's mainstream comedy/variety act work at 10? Maybe, maybe not, but at least he's offering an alternative to what most channels are showing. 

Who knows, maybe the tens of millions of viewers who would normally watch the Golden Girls marathon on WE will suddenly switch over to Leno


----------



## phrelin

I haven't watched it yet as it's still recording here on the West Coast. But here's what USA Today had to say about it:


> Because without Kanye West, and his conveniently timed controversy from the MTV Video Music Awards, NBC's Jay Leno Show premiere Monday would have been even more of a cut-rate, snooze-inducing, rehashed bore. If Leno's desire is to help fans get to sleep earlier, desire satisfied.


 And the Hollywood Reporter review ends with:


> Yet, "Jay Leno" remains the network equivalent of pulling punches. A show echoing late-night's established paradigm of monologue/funny segment/interviews/band/goodnight would be too staid for the primetime hour, where networks traditionally have installed their edgiest innovations. But five nights a week of "Jay Leno" presents a too-high risk factor to deviate too far from the norm -- and what's left is an unsettled sense that they're throwing things on the wall to see what sticks.


In other words, it's "The Early Tonight Show with Jay Leno." Only he isn't competing against other late night fare. But the ratings will probably be ok because of the Kanye West thing. We'll see.


----------



## mreposter

Ouch, the press and most of Hollywood seem to have the long knives out for Jay. Yeah, the show was pretty much the same as his old late night act, but some of the humor was a bit more edgy, except for the tired Headlines bit at the end. The new set is kinda cool. The Kanye West "interview" was embarrassing.


----------



## SayWhat?

> But even if tonight's game only averaged 12.5 million like last year's first Monday Night Football contest there still could've been as many as 25 million to 30 million watching the tail end of the game. I'd guess closer to 20 million, but even then, that's 20 million who weren't flipping over to Jay Leno at 10pm. Sure, not all of them were going to flip over, and some, like me, were on the west coast where it wasn't an issue anyway. But some who might otherwise have tuned to Leno&#8230;didn't.
> 
> If 6 million people who might have tuned to Leno just to catch the first ten minutes, that alone would lower The Jay Leno Show's hourly average by a million viewers. I'm not suggesting the game cost Leno that many viewers, that's just an easy example of the math. I will see if I can get some stats on the ESPN numbers from 10p-10:12pm (or at least 10p-10:15) to see if we can get a better idea of the potential impact.
> 
> Sadly we never see 15 minute detail for the preliminary overnight reports, so we will have to get a feel for how many people tuned in for the first ten minutes of The Jay Leno show and then tuned out from the 30 minute detail. Whatever the number who tuned in for the first 10 minutes or so, it's lower than it might have been had the Monday Night Football game gone differently.


http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/09/14/patriots-win-bills-and-jay-leno-lose/27124


----------



## SayWhat?

> -The Reality:
> 
> Five hours of Jay Leno in primetime is both unprecedented and extremely dangerous. This is five hours per week (or 23 percent of the schedule), after all. And, yes, it could be a major catastrophe. But since NBC is in a desperate situation and the viewers already now Jay's shtick, this could be a risk worth taking. While the success of the show will, of course, fall heavily on the caliber of guests (President Obama&#8230;are you available again?), airing out of The Biggest Loser makes Tuesday the best bet. And because The Tonight Show with Jay Leno always skewed older than CBS' competing The Late Show with David Letterman, chances are there will be a lot of grey in the mix on NBC next season. That said, since when does NBC care about viewers over 50? Isn't this the network that initially shunned them?
> 
> Expect significant initial sampling for The Jay Leno Show tonight.
> 
> -Chance of Survival for The Jay Leno Show (Based on a scale of 1-1 to 10-1):
> 4-1


http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/content...wsletters/e3iae72e8591af4baf7f4cf5b902cdd32f4


----------



## bicker1

mreposter said:


> ... most of Hollywood seem to have the long knives out for Jay ...


Sure, a lot of them see their own fortunes falling if his rises.


----------



## SayWhat?

> It became immediately clear last night from Leno's anemic opening monologue that he's going to need all the help he can get.
> 
> Well, maybe not need - his NBC deal says he's going to be with us now, five nights a week, 40-plus weeks a year, for the next two years, *whether anyone actually watches him or not.*





> But it took inaugural guest Jerry Seinfeld to bring the funny, about a half an hour in, joining Jay side-by-side on a pair of comfy chairs, Strombo style, as the only apparent derivation from the look and content of Leno's old Tonight Show.
> 
> A fact even longtime pal Seinfeld couldn't resist taking a shot at. "I'm just trying to grasp what really is going on here," he deadpanned, recalling the spectacle of just three months back when Leno vacated his 11:30 slot. *"You know," Seinfeld cracked, "in the '90s when we quit a show, we actually left."*





> Tears were fought back, the stammering got even more incoherent, and Leno managed to alienate even the millions of viewers who up to that point were happy to see him back.
> 
> If this keeps up, 10 o'clock is going to turn into a very lonely hour for Jay Leno.


http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/695747


----------



## gphvid

Zucker has been killing NBC since being hired there. And he's secure with the fact that the head of GE *loves* him. And Zucker is responsible for that Ben Silverman fiasco as well.

Time to resign, Jeff. You did a wierd "branding" thing that changed a favorite channel's name to something that rhymes with syphillus in foreign countries, and you have brought NBC to being merely a cable channel instead of a broadcast network.

Might as well go out the technical gate near the freeway instead of the Bob Hope Drive gate so no one sees you.


----------



## SayWhat?

> NBC has repeatedly defended the Leno-to-10 move by pointing to research they conducted that said viewers want more comedy at 10. (Never mind that they didn't bother to ask anyone what kind of comedy they wanted, or if they had Jay's brand in mind.) But the one moment people will talk about, and remember, from "The Jay Leno Show" debut was one of the least comic of Jay's career. It's going to get NBC some water cooler talk, and a lot of website hits, but it's not going to work as a signature "This is why Jay is awesome" clip like I think they were hoping.


http://www.nj.com/entertainment/tv/index.ssf/2009/09/the_jay_leno_show_thoughts_on.html



> It seemed like an awfully dull debut for something so widely anticipated. It will get huge ratings, given the weak competition and massive publicity campaign, as well as the gift of Kanye West. Will the numbers hold up over time? It's finally almost time to find out.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2009/09/so_how_was_jay_lenos_first_sho.html


----------



## phrelin

Just in - Leno pulled a whopping 17.7 million viewers and did well in the demo. See TV by the Numbers and Programming Insider.


----------



## Fontano

We watched it, and live. 
We didn't even realize that Kanye was on until the opening credits for the show.

I have given Conan a shot many times over, and we just can't get into it.
We will DVR Jay, and use it once again as our late night relaxing show before bed time.

With a DVR, I don't care if it is on at 11:30 or 9:00, doesn't mater to me, as typically I won't be watching it live.

Yes, it is formulated, hit and miss on the pre-produced stuff.
I honestly think Jay was at his best, when he was writing his own material during the writer's strike. It was a bit more cutting, raw, and didn't over think the ramifications of the comments. I wish we could get a tad bit more of that.


----------



## cdc101

Fontano said:


> We watched it, and live.
> We didn't even realize that Kanye was on until the opening credits for the show.
> 
> I have given Conan a shot many times over, and we just can't get into it.
> We will DVR Jay, and use it once again as our late night relaxing show before bed time.
> 
> With a DVR, I don't care if it is on at 11:30 or 9:00, doesn't mater to me, as typically I won't be watching it live.
> 
> Yes, it is formulated, hit and miss on the pre-produced stuff.
> I honestly think Jay was at his best, when he was writing his own material during the writer's strike. It was a bit more cutting, raw, and didn't over think the ramifications of the comments. I wish we could get a tad bit more of that.


Great idea...The Tonight Show has always been our 'in bed' tv until we shut our eyes. I'll record Jay and watch him in place of Conan!

Genius! My wife will be happy too.


----------



## davemayo

I thought Jay looked disheveled and unprepared. I watched the Tonight Show fairly regularly and last night was a far cry from that. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that it was the first show. Hope it gets better.


----------



## Sixto

Personal opinion: I thought that if Jay just did the exact same show as the Tonight Show, then he might be fine. For many, recording at 11:30pm or 10pm makes no difference. And for many, they might even prefer 10pm because they could watch "live" before heading to bed. This is all for the audience that liked Jay.

But ... I did watch last night, and it just didn't seem to go very well. He looked nervous, the Kanye thing was weird, he looked awkward with Jerry in those chairs. It just didn't seem to go that well.


----------



## Nick

*FROM TVSpy*


> One could forgive the average viewer for tuning into NBC on Monday at 10/9C and wondering why 'The Tonight Show' was on. Sure, NBC spent a reported $10 million marketing Jay Leno's move to primetime and, sure, the 'The Jay Leno Show' has certainly been the most talked about programming decision of the new TV season, but after all of the commercials and all of the industry speculation, not much has changed to Leno's familiar television presence.
> 
> As Leno worked in his new, couch-less studio with comedy patriarch Jerry Seinfeld and controversial rapper-producer Kanye West, the show scored a big opening night rating. In the early metered market numbers, the premiere scored a 12.1 household rating and a 19 share. It's a solid start to be sure, especially considering that Leno's farewell episode of 'The Tonight Show' pulled a 7.9 household rating. The real test will obviously be in the next few weeks when networks debut their primetime lineups and the show works to sustain the initial viewer interest.


*http://tvspy.com/*


----------



## cdc101

To me...the interviews looked strange because I'm used to seeing him do it from behind his desk as opposed to the Oprah style of 'in the chairs'.

Jay...Bring back your desk!


----------



## dreadlk

IMO it looked like Jay was trying to tell us that this is the tonight show, it's just on a bit earlier.

I think Jay and NBC are just waiting for suffiecently low numbers from Conan to just boot him out and put Jay back at his normal time after all how could it possibly be helping Conan to have a show that is exactly like his on TV just before he goes on. Who the heck is watching both, and if your a tonight show fan your gonna try out Leno first then switch off when Conan comes on.


----------



## phrelin

Two observations. Naturally he was nervous as NBC made him seem like the weight of thousands of network and affiliate employees was embedded in his back. Six months from now, few will remember that.

If he had pulled 10-11 million, I'd have doubts. But I think he'll be able to hold a weekly average 4+ million "live+same day" on a regular basis and that will make him a success. What's startling about that 17.7 million number is that the "overnight" total network viewers at 10 pm on Monday August 24 was 16.48 million. So if he can hold 6± million, even NBC is a big winner. And the DVR "same day" numbers will count some for advertisers.


----------



## rudeney

My wife and I watched it live and while we have always liked Jay (and Kevin Eubanks) we just didn't feel that the show was that great. Truly, I wish they had just left it as was and moved it to the earlier slot. It was just too strange with a different set, different music, jumbled schedule, and no desk.


----------



## Sixto

rudeney said:


> My wife and I watched it live and while we have always liked Jay (and Kevin Eubanks) we just didn't feel that the show was that great. Truly, I wish they had just left it as was and moved it to the earlier slot. It was just too strange with a different set, different music, jumbled schedule, and no desk.


Agree 100%.


----------



## phrelin

Muted NBC press release on ratings for The Jay Leno Show premiere
Boy, talk about being cautious, there's no horn blowing in this press release. I'm not pasting it in here as it's long and completely statistical, without a single "attaboy" for Jay.


----------



## Sackchamp56

I thought it was actually funny. The fake Obama interview was pur tv gold. "Buy a dime" good stuff. The Cheater parody was pretty funny. The car wash bit was lame.


----------



## phrelin

Sackchamp56 said:


> I thought it was actually funny. The fake Obama interview was pur tv gold. "Buy a dime" good stuff. The Cheater parody was pretty funny. The car wash bit was lame.


Well, we watched our recording of last night's premier tonight even though we generally never watched the whole Tonight Show.

We thought it wasn't bad at all. Can't figure what the critics found so bad about it. Yeah, I hate to see 5 primetime hours disappear into a "Tonight Show" spinoff, but I don't see that anyone can fault Leno for doing what he does. Some things appeal to one person and not others. But there was a good cross section of Leno there. Frankly, I thought his monologue was a bit above average.

In our opinion he interviews better than Conan by a mile, and I thought the question to Kanye about what his mother would have thought was spot on and stopped Kanye dead because he had to deal with emotion relative to his mother. That's interviewing.

The chair thing will take some getting used to, but Ellen makes it work well.

All-in-all, I think he'll hold a 4+ million audience. But I've been wrong before. We'll treat it like we have always treated his show. Record it. Watch guests we're interested in and watch Headlines and a couple of other segments we enjoy.


----------



## Nick

Irony of ironies, on my Comcast EPG all the late night shows -- Letterman, Kimmel, Fallon, even Ferguson are listed as "Comedy" -- except one. After NBC spends some ten million bucks to promote it -- the Leno Show's genre is listed as "Other."

Sad, but true! :lol:


----------



## Jhon69

It's not taking long for Jay to get back in the groove last night's show with Robin Williams was great!.


----------



## phrelin

Jhon69 said:


> It's not taking long for Jay to get back in the groove last night's show with Robin Williams was great!.


Can't wait to see it.

His ratings are doing pretty well according to TV by the Numbers:


> ...The Jay Leno Show delivered NBC's highest 18-49 and total-viewer results in the time period since the August 2008 Summer Olympic Games.
> 
> NBC: The Jay Leno Show (3.4/10, 13.12M)
> CBS: CSI: NY (R) (1.9/5, 7.50)
> ABC: Primetime: Family Secrets (1.4/4, 3.98)


Of course, next Wednesday he'll be up against the premier of ABC's "Eastwick" and CBS' season premier of "CSI:NY" both with a full lineup of premiers leading in. Leno's lead in shows will be the premier of "Mercy" followed by the season premier of "Law & Order: SVU".


----------



## phrelin

If NBC was honest about what it needed for Leno to be a winner, so far this week its a winner:

Monday - "Leno" 5.67 million viewers and a 1.8/ 5 among adults 18-49
Tuesday - "Leno" 6.77 million viewers and a 2.4/ 7 among adults 18-49

9/29/08 - "Life" (season premier) 7.40 million and a 3.0/ 7 among adults 18-49
9/30/08 - "Law & Order: SVU" 10.02 million and a 3.7/11 among adults 18-49

Leno's numbers are comparable to last May's sweeps week as I noted the post above and NBC has "Law & Order: SVU" premiering tonight at 9 pm where it likely will hold most of its regular audience.

He could drop by another million and be successful based on the bar NBC publically set for his show.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Based on the cost of the show, lower ratings are easier to sustain, but it seems to me that if it continues losing audience week-over-week then it will be hard to call it a winner.


----------



## phrelin

Stuart Sweet said:


> Based on the cost of the show, lower ratings are easier to sustain, but it seems to me that if it continues losing audience week-over-week then it will be hard to call it a winner.


This week's ratings are up against season premiers on ABC and CBS. While I expect the 10 pm total audience to shrink, I'd be surprised to see Leno below 5 million very often based on these numbers. But we'll see.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

The e-mail blast I get each morning says that Leno's ratings this week are down from last week. I tend to trust you more, but would you be able to post some more details?


----------



## phrelin

Stuart Sweet said:


> The e-mail blast I get each morning says that Leno's ratings this week are down from last week. I tend to trust you more, but would you be able to post some more details?


Oh they are down as last week he premiered. No one expected him to hold last week's numbers. The numbers pundits are dismissing these numbers forgetting that NBC frequently had comparable numbers in this time slot and even other time slots with expensive programming.

Yes, CBS pulled 13.72 million, but ABC's "The Forgotten" only pulled 9.53 million & 2.6/7 (coming off of "DWTS" 9:30 16.28 million & 3.9/10) compared to Leno's 6.77 million & 2.4/7 which makes "The Forgotten" potentially a financial loser and Leno a financial winner if they continue with those numbers.

Based on his first nights, as I noted:


phrelin said:


> ...I think he'll be able to hold a weekly average 4+ million "live+same day" on a regular basis and that will make him a success. What's startling about that 17.7 million number is that the "overnight" total network viewers at 10 pm on Monday August 24 was 16.48 million. So if he can hold 6± million, even NBC is a big winner. And the DVR "same day" numbers will count some for advertisers.


I'll stick by that until I hear NBC withdraw their initial explanation about bottom line.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Thanks, I misunderstood.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Another problem, and one I've not seen anyone mention, Leno has is being on every night can work against you.

Leno isn't a serial drama where if you miss an episode you can't watch again... so once folks get used to him, it will be an easier choice to watch your favorite non-NBC show some nights and just "forget" about Leno altogether.

That's frankly how I watch the late night incarnations of Conan, Ferguson, Letterman, and back in the day Carson... I'd watch every night for a few weeks... then most nights for a month... then slowly taper off because it's pretty much the same thing over and over... until after a while of not watching, then I'll hear a special guest is going to be on and then I'll start the cycle again.


----------



## mreposter

I'm guessing NBC will be fairly patient with Leno. Yes, his ratings will probably suffer for the next month or two as people sample all the new shows and new episodes of favorites. But eventually several of the new shows will be rejected by audiences and repeats will start popping up. Leno is going to be running new shows 46 weeks out of the year so his ratings need to be judged over the longer haul.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

mreposter said:


> I'm guessing NBC will be fairly patient with Leno. Yes, his ratings will probably suffer for the next month or two as people sample all the new shows and new episodes of favorites. But eventually several of the new shows will be rejected by audiences and repeats will start popping up. Leno is going to be running new shows 46 weeks out of the year so his ratings need to be judged over the longer haul.


I believe your assessment is a very solid one.

While networks have a finger on the "trigger button" to jettison new shows....this one will be allowed to gain an audience.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> because it's pretty much the same thing over and over...


And over.

And over.

You see one, you've seen them all.

Letterman. Leno. O'Brien. What's his name. So and so. The other guy.

An intro. Some skits. Some music. Some talk. Loads of ads.

All the same. Which is why I haven't watched any of them in at least 15 years.


----------



## bicker1

That hasn't put a damper on late-night. I don't know but perhaps there is some other species of human that watches television after 11pm; I suspect not, so there is good reason to believe that some people, at least (and remember, Leno doesn't need it to be that many people) won't mind the segments of the show becoming "familiar".

I've kind-of starting thinking beyond this (what I consider) silly issue of whether variety can work five nights a week in prime time, and am beginning to wonder how long it will take for other networks to realize that they need to follow-suit. Indeed, at this point, with these numbers, against other networks' serial series premieres, it seems clear that Leno is a success. The only thing that can kill Leno now is cannibalization of the audience, i.e., another network doing essentially the same thing, splitting the interest, and thereby making it such that neither show is successful.

I think it is funny that the scripted programming fans' *best *hope for the future is another network taking away another five hours of prime time for another variety show (or shows).


----------



## mreposter

Several of the reality/competition shows are already run multiple times a week. American Idol (starts in January?) is usually on 2-3 times a week and that Dancing thing was on twice this week. These shows could easily fit in the same "variety show" category as Leno. Rather than going directly after Leno at 10, a network might strip in a set of reality/competition shows at 8pm, comedies at 9 and drama at 10.


----------



## bicker1

Absolutely, but I do think that regardless of when competing variety shows are placed, they'll steal interest from Leno, and a three way fight for that audience could end up really being a bloodbath.


----------



## phrelin

I was surprised today at the ratings. If there was a night I expected Leno to head below 4 million it was last night with the season premiers of "Grey's Anatomy" and "The Mentalist." Instead the overnights were:

ABC Grey's Anatomy - 16.52 million, 6.7/18 18-49
CBS The Mentalist - 14.33 million, 3.4/9 18-49
NBC The Jay Leno Show - 4.99 million, 1.7/5 18-49

It looks like there's a hard core 5 million Leno Show viewers, but they are mostly over 50. That would be about the best they could hope for with a scripted show against next week's premier of "Private Practice" and the next episode of "The Mentalist."

Wednesday he pulled 6.430 million and Tuesday 7.197 million.

My guess is Leno will typically be viewed by 5-7 million. On April 30, 2009 against a "Criminal Minds" _rerun_ and the "Private Practice" season finale, "Southland" pulled 6.875 million. If NBC was being honest about what they needed, this is a big win for them and not bad for their affiliate news shows.


----------



## bicker1

And that's going to go down like cod liver oil for the folks who were hoping and praying for justification for their condemnations of NBC. It is becoming clearer and clearer that NBC made a great decision.

I suggest folks who hate this development start praying for another network to follow suit, because it seems increasingly obvious to me that Leno is going to last four or five years, at least, unless his audience is undercut by a strong and significant direct competitor in the same genre.


----------



## AntAltMike

But even if Leno can make money for NBC with low numbers, the affiliate doesn't share in that profit. Perhaps the network will have to give the affiliate another minute of the commercials to make it work for them.


----------



## bicker1

The network just has to make it worth enough for at least one station in each local market to want to affiliate with the network.


----------



## mreposter

Thinking long-term, it may be possible for Leno to continue to pull an average 5 million viewers a night far out into the future. On the other hand, 3 years from now those expensive dramas on ABC and CBS won't be pulling in 10 million viewers, they'll probably be pulling in 6 or 7 million, less when you average in repeats. The longer out you look, the better Leno's position is likely to be.

Back in 2006-7 shows like CSI were averaging 20 million viewers a week. Last season it was more like 16 million for the top dramas.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Of course on the downside... Leno repeats will probably not draw much of an audience at all... and is unlikely to ever see reruns in syndication... and they can't package seasons of Leno on DVD/Blu ray to sell after the summer either.


----------



## pfp

I could see a headlines or jaywalking DVD at some point.


----------



## bicker1

Leno is only taking six weeks off.


----------



## mreposter

Stewart Vernon said:


> Of course on the downside... Leno repeats will probably not draw much of an audience at all... and is unlikely to ever see reruns in syndication... and they can't package seasons of Leno on DVD/Blu ray to sell after the summer either.


Yeah, that's a significant downside compared to dramas and comedies. There might be some revenue potential from internet streaming and from clips for radio. Does Letterman get any money when his Top Ten lists are on radio is that considered more of a promo/ad piece?


----------



## bicker1

How many people watch Leno 5 nights a week? If folks watch Leno 2-3 nights a week, then there is a good chance, if reruns aren't kept on the original night of broadcast, that reruns will be "new to you".


----------



## phrelin

Well whatever is going to happen, NBC might as well fine two more Leno types. Last night's ratings:

"Heroes" - 5.82 million, 2.5/6
"Trauma" (season premiere) - 6.93 million, 2.3/6
"The Jay Leno Show" - 5.64 million,	1.8/5


----------



## bicker1

Yeah, who would have thought that Leno would ever have retained such a great percentage of its lead-in?!?!?


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> Yeah, who would have thought that Leno would ever have retained such a great percentage of its lead-in?!?!?


:lol:

Great observation!


----------



## rudeney

Leno is getting better. The lighting, camera work, and even Jay seem better this week. Maybe it's just taken them some time to work out the kinks. Still, I miss the original music and set (i.e. the desk). I can live with the jumbled order of things, and in fact, I kind of like the comedians that Jay has on the show. It seems (thankfully) that they have not toned down the "adult" humor at all. I'm probably going to end up watching at least 3 show a week. I do record it so I can see the monologue.


----------



## Ken S

Should we start a pool on when NBC gives up on this mess? If the ratings get any lower NBC might start showing the NHL rather than Leno.


----------



## phrelin

Ken S said:


> Should we start a pool on when NBC gives up on this mess? If the ratings get any lower NBC might start showing the NHL rather than Leno.


I hate to tell you this, but Wednesday's ratings were as follows:

CSI: NY - 2.9/8 demo, 11.96 million
Eastwick - 1.8/5 demo,	5.28 million
Leno Show - 1.7/5 demo, 5.74 million

Last year in the Wednesday time slot on October 8 NBC was showing the very costly "Lipstick Jungle" with 1.9/5 demo, 4.69 million. ABC was not doing so well with the costly "Dirty Sexy Money." But "CSI: NY" was doing just fine.

This year "Leno" pulled nearly the same demo rating as "Eastwick" and more total viewers. NBC is making money on "Leno" and ABC is losing money on "Eastwick."

This doesn't make me happy as I'm a fan of scripted shows. But if NBC told us the truth that in the ratings they only had to do as well as last year to make far more money on "Leno," so far they've won.


----------



## redfiver

rudeney said:


> Leno is getting better. The lighting, camera work, and even Jay seem better this week. Maybe it's just taken them some time to work out the kinks. Still, I miss the original music and set (i.e. the desk). I can live with the jumbled order of things, and in fact, I kind of like the comedians that Jay has on the show. It seems (thankfully) that they have not toned down the "adult" humor at all. I'm probably going to end up watching at least 3 show a week. I do record it so I can see the monologue.


Getting better? It's the same exact crew as before. If they didn't already know how to do it, how have they 'learned'? If you like the show, great. But it's a horrible idea to put Leno at 10 (he was tops at 11:30.. why mess with it!).

I think as soon as NBC/Universal is spun off/Sold, the Leno show will be axed along with Jeff Zucker for making poor decisions. The once great NBC network is dying.. and not slowly.. quickly. It's sad as our local NBC news is probably the best around, but is suffering in ratings because of the poor lead in Leno provides.


----------



## bicker1

phrelin said:


> This year "Leno" pulled nearly the same demo rating as "Eastwick" and more total viewers. NBC is making money on "Leno" and ABC is losing money on "Eastwick."


This is unshakable fact, and as you indicated, very distressing for viewers, because it essentially declares that viewers are not making it worthwhile for networks to present dramas at 10PM anymore. While ABC's lack of performance is bewildering, given that they're only splitting the audience for dramas _two_ ways, there is little doubt that splitting the anemic audience _three _ways is ill-advised.

The replacement for Leno isn't more drama; it's either more reruns, Dateline NBC, or turning the hour over to the affiliates for local news, and running Conan at 11:05.



redfiver said:


> I think as soon as NBC/Universal is spun off/Sold, the Leno show will be axed along with Jeff Zucker for making poor decisions.


Emotionally satisfying to type, I'm sure, but doubtful. And even if it was to pass, what the new company would put in that place would probably upset you _even more_. (See above.)



redfiver said:


> The once great NBC network is dying..


Ridiculous, overly-emotionalized hyperbole. You'd be closer if you'd have said that _over-the-air broadcasting_ is "dying". The fact is that we have many new diversions, and our engagement in those new diversions are taking the lifeblood away from broadcast, just like Amazon.com and its ilk took the lifeblood away from Woolworth and its ilk.


----------



## Ken S

Here's the problem for Leno and NBC. http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/entry/45610/nbc-affiliates-lose-viewers-following-leno/

My guess is that won't be allowed to go on for very long. The late news is the big moneymaker for the affiliates.



phrelin said:


> I hate to tell you this, but Wednesday's ratings were as follows:
> 
> CSI: NY - 2.9/8 demo, 11.96 million
> Eastwick - 1.8/5 demo,	5.28 million
> Leno Show - 1.7/5 demo, 5.74 million
> 
> Last year in the Wednesday time slot on October 8 NBC was showing the very costly "Lipstick Jungle" with 1.9/5 demo, 4.69 million. ABC was not doing so well with the costly "Dirty Sexy Money." But "CSI: NY" was doing just fine.
> 
> This year "Leno" pulled nearly the same demo rating as "Eastwick" and more total viewers. NBC is making money on "Leno" and ABC is losing money on "Eastwick."
> 
> This doesn't make me happy as I'm a fan of scripted shows. But if NBC told us the truth that in the ratings they only had to do as well as last year to make far more money on "Leno," so far they've won.


----------



## bicker1

Ken S said:


> Here's the problem for Leno and NBC. http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/entry/45610/nbc-affiliates-lose-viewers-following-leno/


Of course, that just lends credence to my earlier suggestion (in bold):


bicker1 said:


> The replacement for Leno isn't more drama; it's either more reruns, Dateline NBC, *or turning the hour over to the affiliates for local news*, and running Conan at 11:05.





Ken S said:


> My guess is that won't be allowed to go on for very long. The late news is the big moneymaker for the affiliates.


The affiliates are not in charge at this point. Unless they're willing to give up their affiliation (and have some other station in their DMA take it over), they're going to have to stick this out as long as the network chooses to, and that will be greatly influenced by whether or not it is a net-win for the network.

There are indications that Leno has a two year contract. I wouldn't be surprised if they let it go that long, or at least through the end of the first year.


----------



## Ken S

bicker1 said:


> Of course, that just lends credence to my earlier suggestion (in bold):
> 
> The affiliates are not in charge at this point. Unless they're willing to give up their affiliation (and have some other station in their DMA take it over), they're going to have to stick this out as long as the network chooses to, and that will be greatly influenced by whether or not it is a net-win for the network.
> 
> There are indications that Leno has a two year contract. I wouldn't be surprised if they let it go that long, or at least through the end of the first year.


I think it might make it through one season...but if the ratings stay low and the affiliates news ratings continue to suffer...they'll find some face saving way of moving Jay out. With the Olympics coming next year on NBC the affiliates won't want to jump without good reason.


----------



## phrelin

Ken S said:


> Here's the problem for Leno and NBC. http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/entry/45610/nbc-affiliates-lose-viewers-following-leno/
> 
> My guess is that won't be allowed to go on for very long. The late news is the big moneymaker for the affiliates.


That MediaBuyerPlanner article is somewhat misleading because it is incomplete. It says:


> In cities including Nielsen's top five markets - New York, Chicago, Philly, Los Angeles, and Dallas - the late news on NBC affiliates has lost tens of thousands of viewers. The 11pm news on NBC's Los Angeles station fell 30% in ratings compared with the same week last year, while Philly lost 32% and Dallas lost 33%.


The NBC broadcast stations in those cities are not affiliates but stations owned by NBC as is Washington, D.C. also discussed.

In New York, the NBC station eliminated the 5 pm news replacing it with a locally created program called "LX New York" described as "a lifestyle show covering topics of local interest, including fashion, gossip and food."

This was done in the context of launching a digital subchannel "New York Non-Stop" providing entertainment and lifestyle features with news updates every 15 minutes. The local news is still offered on the NBC "network" subchannel for an hour at 6 pm and 35 minutes at 11 pm. But they are obviously "throw away' public service minutes.

Assuming it works, this is the model NBC intends for its owned stations as they can sell local and national advertising "cross-platform" since they also set up a strong web presence.

If this gamble works for NBC, and it might, in addition to the major city stations listed above they own the stations in the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, Miami-Fort Lauderdale, San Diego, and New Britain-Hartford-New Haven DMA's all of which totals to about 27% of the TV households in the nation.

They don't own, for instance, the Topeka, Kansas, affiliate which represents 175,940 Nielsen TV homes which split among the networks leaves virtually no money to support cross-platform local programming.

After reading a large number of interviews of Jeff Zucker 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 there is something you need to know about that TV station - it has gone digital. Over-the-airwaves local TV stations are now broadcasting as many as four digital channels.


All this is still in the development phase and we don't know how it's going to fall out. But I can assure the advertising buyers that they are in a fog about media platforms that won't clear up for another three years.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I wouldn't say OTA networks are dying, yet... I think more accurately satellite/cable-only channels have been getting better and with more original (scripted and non-scripted) options on those channels to compete directly with OTA, of course the viewership is being divided.

Now... OTA networks will have to adapt to this new model and recognize (instead of burying their head in the sand and thinking only of the big 3/4 networks) the new model and change their expectations and programming accordingly... or, then people could be right and OTA as we know it could come to an end.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> Now... OTA networks will have to adapt to this new model and recognize (instead of burying their head in the sand and thinking only of the big 3/4 networks) the new model and change their expectations and programming accordingly...


i.e., cheap.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I wouldn't say they have to go cheap to be profitable. As I've said before, the networks have to learn to adapt to the new levels of what is good. Going cheap is not a good long-term strategy for any company in any market.


----------



## Henry

Stewart Vernon said:


> I wouldn't say OTA networks are dying, yet... I think more accurately satellite/cable-only channels have been getting better and with more original (scripted and non-scripted) options on those channels to compete directly with OTA, of course the viewership is being divided.
> 
> Now... OTA networks will have to adapt to this new model and recognize (instead of burying their head in the sand and thinking only of the big 3/4 networks) the new model and change their expectations and programming accordingly... or, then people could be right and OTA as we know it could come to an end.


I have to agree.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> I wouldn't say they have to go cheap to be profitable.


However, that's just your hope.



Stewart Vernon said:


> As I've said before, the networks have to learn to adapt to the new levels of what is good.


I don't think that "what is good" _itself_ really changed.



Stewart Vernon said:


> Going cheap is not a good long-term strategy for any company in any market.


There is no reason to believer that there is any long-term strategy that would meet all chosen standards of a "good long-term strategy". Given the ascendancy of competition from cable, Internet, and other diversions, all the viable strategies might fall into _someone's_ category of "bad long-term strategies" -- either yours due to content concern, or someone else's due to ROI concerns.

Broadcasters could very well be doing the best, *overall*, that _can be done_, even though what they're doing some folks choose to consider bad.


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> Broadcasters could very well be doing the best, *overall*, that _can be done_, even though what they're doing some folks choose to consider bad.


I agree. It appears that for the general audience we have developing here:

*CBS:* Its strong traditional three-hour six-night broadcast offerings in all categories are not focused on the demo and is pulling the largest audience for its own profits and for its affiliates (but has been systematically divesting itself from affiliate ownership); its Showtime premium channels group offers movies and occasional experiments in scripted series; and it has belatedly bought its way into a strong on-line presence.
*News Corp:* Through Fox, MyNetworkTV and FX, the orientation appears to be two hours six nights of edgy, demo oriented and young male oriented dramas, comedies, and reality shows, with a number of successes in the ratings plus an on-line presence with network/Hulu offerings; Fox owns 27 broadcast stations in 18 DMA's; in 2008 Fox Television Stations and NBC Local Media entered into a partnership that will allow Fox-owned stations and NBC-owned stations to pool their news resources which will affect Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Dallas/Fort Worth and Washington, D.C.,; in 2009 Fox made a similar arrangement with E.W. Scripps Company affecting Detroit, Phoenix and Tampa/St. Petersburg; also in 2009, its station in Boston announced a video-sharing agreement with the CBS-owned station, where the stations will share video for general market news, along with a helicopter for traffic reports and breaking news. 
*NBCU:* It appears to be focusing on national cross-platform offerings with a number of strong cable channels and a significant on-line effort, while creating a broadcast station "affiliate" model with (1) a reduced two-hour prime time, (2) a reduced "affiliate" news effort, (3) a local oriented broadcast sub-channel creating a local audience for advertising, and (4) a strong local channel web presence.
*Disney/ABC:* Not surprisingly, a strong "family" oriented cable offering with the broadcast network six-day three hour prime time heavily soapy and dramedy, a description that seems to apply to its big reality shows - "Dancing with the Stars" and "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" - as well as its medical shows "Grey's Anatomy" and "Private Practice", its crime procedurals "Castle" and "the forgotten", and its family sitcom lineup; Disney has a strong on-line presence for its target audience of kids and ABC has web site/Hulu offerings.
*The CW:* As we all know, its target is "younger audiences" with its four-night two-hour prime time and related web site; since it's owned equally by CBS and Time-Warner, one can almost see a pattern here with CBS offering a more general and dominating broadcast network plus a premium cable group of channels while Time-Warner owns the Turner cable channels and the premium HBO group of cable channels. I really could see a profitable merger possibility since the "C" is for CBS and the "W" is for Warner.


----------



## bicker1

phrelin said:


> It appears that for the general audience we have developing here:
> *CBS:*


I still contend that CBS is greatly affected by how closely-held the company is... that that essentially grants the network the ability to sub-optimize profits, in a manner that is simply not possible with networks owned by something closer to the general public.


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> I still contend that CBS is greatly affected by how closely-held the company is... that that essentially grants the network the ability to sub-optimize profits, in a manner that is simply not possible with networks owned by something closer to the general public.


When you look at the styles of the four players, you can't help but notice that the apparent broader organization goals (other than profit) and management structures seem to parallel the developing TV model. Hopefully, this is a case where we'll see that competition works even in a heavily (and frequently stupidly) regulated environment.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I don't know how this keeps being misunderstood, but I'll plant the flag one more time.

When there were just 3 big networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) then being in 3rd place was bad... but now there are 200+ channels competing for the same eyes as ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW, MyNetwork, PBS, and other random independent OTA channels.

IF the networks continue to gauge their ratings by the old days of being the "only game in town" and expect those kinds of ratings bonanzas... then they will be increasingly disappointed in the future AND soon no show will last a whole season, much less a 2nd season.

This is what I mean when I say the networks need to readjust their expectations. The days of dividing the TV-viewers by 3 stations are long gone... and the sooner the networks and advertisers adjust to that reality, the sooner we can get past the knee-jerk programming changes that happen when they don't get a bajillion viewers for every OTA program they have.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bicker1 said:


> However, that's just your hope.


No. It is actually fact to say "They do not have to go cheap to be profitable".

IF they did have to go cheap to be profitable, then there would never be any quality, and everything would just get cheaper and cheaper.

Clearly it is possible to have quality and profit, otherwise nothing would ever improve... so to say that is only my "opinion" or hope is simply not true.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Circling back to the original post....

I'm still trying to get used to the new format, which to me seems like 50% "old Leno" and 50% "new Leno".

It will be interesting to see if the ratings hold up over some time...say....6 months - to see if the new format takes hold with the general viewing audience.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> No. It is actually fact to say "They do not have to go cheap to be profitable".


We'll have to agree to disagree about that the assertion that that statement is a fact, at least with regard to the long-term view.



Stewart Vernon said:


> IF they did have to go cheap to be profitable, then there would never be any quality, and everything would just get cheaper and cheaper.


Have you looked around at the mass-market lately? Whether it is television, or what you buy at Wal-Mart, or economy airlines, etc., the trend is undeniable.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bicker1 said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree about that the assertion that that statement is a fact, at least with regard to the long-term view.
> 
> Have you looked around at the mass-market lately? Whether it is television, or what you buy at Wal-Mart, or economy airlines, etc., the trend is undeniable.


So you're saying my HDTV is not better than my SDTV from 1980? Seems to me some profit is still being made with improved quality.


----------



## bicker1

Yet, the SDTV that I purchased in 1981 is still working. I'll be lucky if the HDTV I bought in 2006 will be working a few years from now. 

I think you're confusing "features" with "quality" -- or more precisely, we should be talking about "reliability" (and the lack thereof, due to cheapness) rather than "quality".


----------



## rudeney

bicker1 said:


> Stewart Vernon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It is actually fact to say "They do not have to go cheap to be profitable".
> 
> IF they did have to go cheap to be profitable, then there would never be any quality, and everything would just get cheaper and cheaper.
> 
> Clearly it is possible to have quality and profit, otherwise nothing would ever improve... so to say that is only my "opinion" or hope is simply not true.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you looked around at the mass-market lately? Whether it is television, or what you buy at Wal-Mart, or economy airlines, etc., the trend is undeniable.
Click to expand...

Yes, there may be a trend in making a profit based on providing "cheap" products and services, yet there are still many companies making nice profits selling high-end products and services. Just because what you see everyday is WalMart and McDonald's doesn't mean those are the only games in town.


----------



## rudeney

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Circling back to the original post....
> 
> I'm still trying to get used to the new format, which to me seems like 50% "old Leno" and 50% "new Leno".
> 
> It will be interesting to see if the ratings hold up over some time...say....6 months - to see if the new format takes hold with the general viewing audience.


Yes, getting back on topic, I do enjoy and watch the new show for the same reasons I enjoyed the old one - the monologues and comedy skits (e.g. Jay Walking). I never cared much for the celebrity interviews and still don't.


----------



## phrelin

rudeney said:


> Yes, getting back on topic, I do enjoy and watch the new show for the same reasons I enjoyed the old one - the monologues and comedy skits (e.g. Jay Walking). I never cared much for the celebrity interviews and still don't.


And except for Mondays Headlines, we basically watch it when there's a celebrity interview we want to see, skipping past the ads. monologue and skits...well, sometimes we watch Jay Walking. My problem is that the new rearranged order required some getting used to. Pretty much what we did before and unfortunately we think Conan is a poor interviewer.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> So you're saying my HDTV is not better than my SDTV from 1980?


I'm staying that *my* HDTV isn't a more reliable electronic device than *my *1981 SDTV. That's the reality of it.



Stewart Vernon said:


> Seems to me some profit is still being made with improved quality.


NBC is making more profit with cheaper programming. They just *are*.



rudeney said:


> Just because what you see everyday is WalMart and McDonald's doesn't mean those are the only games in town.


However, that's the way things are trending.


----------



## phrelin

Speaking of NBC, it's interesting how they have chosen not to put anything scripted opposite USA's final season of "Monk" leading into the new series "White Collar" which are at 9 and 10 pm EST.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I think I've figured it out... If bicker says it, it is a fact... but if I say it, it is opinion 

But seriously... I do see a lot of companies (worked for one even) that does skimp in order to increase profit. It absolutely IS a disturbing trend, and I recognize it is becoming more pervasive all over the place.

BUT, I maintain that is not the only way to make a profit. There is absolutely still a place to make a profit on a quality product. Yes it costs more, but people are usually willing to pay more for actual quality.

Yes, there's a market for cheap in some areas where I want the most bang for my buck... but there is also a market for smartly-priced high-quality.

Keep in mind... just because it costs more doesn't mean it is made better... and just because it costs less doesn't mean it is made worse!

So on the TV front... good TV can be just as profitable as bad TV.

And as for the topic... Is Jay Leno a bad show? No. He has an audience, and for them it is a good show. Is it the way of the future for TV? I certainly hope not. We want and need variety, not eighty bajillion copies of the same idea. If Jay is good at what he does, cool... but I don't want the same kind of show every night on every channel. Even his fans would get tired of that.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

phrelin said:


> Speaking of NBC, it's interesting how they have chosen not to put anything scripted opposite USA's final season of "Monk" leading into the new series "White Collar" which are at 9 and 10 pm EST.


At least in part, I think they might figure Law & Order fans could be Monk fans (I am, for example)... so it makes sense to not schedule them against each other on Friday.


----------



## bicker1

phrelin said:


> Speaking of NBC, it's interesting how they have chosen not to put anything scripted opposite USA's final season of "Monk" leading into the new series "White Collar" which are at 9 and 10 pm EST.


And do keep in mind that FX and TNT do tend to present their dramas at 10PM as well.



Stewart Vernon said:


> I think I've figured it out... If bicker says it, it is a fact... but if I say it, it is opinion
> 
> But seriously... I do see a lot of companies (worked for one even) that does skimp in order to increase profit. It absolutely IS a disturbing trend, and I recognize it is becoming more pervasive all over the place.


Hint: If you plan on ratifying everything I said, it is probably best to start your message in some other manner. 



Stewart Vernon said:


> BUT, I maintain that is not the only way to make a profit.


No one said it was. However, it is also critical to keep in mind that for-profit companies are not responsible for making "a" profit; they're responsible for making the best financial decisions for their owners -- i.e., the "most" profit.



Stewart Vernon said:


> So on the TV front... good TV can be just as profitable as bad TV.


You _keep _saying that as if you've proved it; you haven't.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bicker1 said:


> You _keep _saying that as if you've proved it; you haven't.


You're operating under a false premise... You are assuming you have already proven your position (which you haven't).

You have taken the position that cheap is the best way to profit... I have taken the position counter to that, which is that cheap is not the best way to profit.

In that scenario, yours is the case that must be proven. My "proof" is all over the satellites with lots of non-cheap programming that turn a profit for their creators. IF your position were correct, we wouldn't get things like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, because we all know those could have been made much cheaper... and if cheap = the best profit, surely those would have been done on the cheap, right?


----------



## rudeney

bicker1 said:


> rudeney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there may be a trend in making a profit based on providing "cheap" products and services, yet there are still many companies making nice profits selling high-end products and services. Just because what you see everyday is WalMart and McDonald's doesn't mean those are the only games in town.
> 
> 
> 
> However, that's the way things are trending.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. Just because that is what _you_ see and those are the companies that _you_ choose to deal with does not make it so. There are plenty of companies making very nice profits selling better products and services to those who want, need and are willing to pay the price for quality.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> good TV can be just as profitable as bad TV.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that as if you've proved it; you haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're operating under a false premise... You are assuming you have already proven your position (which you haven't).
Click to expand...

Uh in this context all I'm saying is that you haven't proven your position. I'm not basing the statement you replied to on anything else, nor is any other proof necessary.

I think your problem is that you think, when someone says something isn't the most profitable way of doing things, that they're saying that it isn't a profitable way. It is a very common consumerist mistake, assuming that "any" profit is the same as "the most" profit. They're different. The objective for a for-profit business is "the most" profit.



Stewart Vernon said:


> You have taken the position that cheap is the best way to profit...


And the numbers for the Jay Leno show prove that, definitively.


----------



## bicker1

rudeney said:


> There are plenty of companies making very nice profits selling better products and services to those who want, need and are willing to pay the price for quality.


So why don't you (that's the generalized "you") patronize those television networks, and let the Wal-Mart networks provide their cheap wares in peace? What justification do people have for essentially demanding that all outlets must necessary service them, and them alone?

I'll answer my own question: The complainers realize the truth of what I was saying, and recognize that it essentially leads to a situation where there are substantially fewer choices serving their preference, perhaps none. The whole argument stems strictly from the *fear *that what these networks are doing is *right* (for them) and will result in ubiquitous suckiness for viewers, while still serving the best financial interests of the owners of the enterprise.

Otherwise, let it go -- I'd like to see you try: Let NBC be what it will be, without criticizing it for not serving your personal preferences.


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> Otherwise, let it go -- I'd like to see you try: Let NBC be what it will be, without criticizing it for not serving your personal preferences.


Actually, I've taken a broader view - the company is NBC Universal (NBCU). Their broadcast arm has moved away from serving me well. On the other hand, USA and SciFi have offerings that effectively filled in some of the gaps. Of course, I have to pay for them as part of a package which supplement advertising revenues. But that's life.

And they developed Hulu which is the on line source for content from NBC, Fox, and ABC.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bicker1 said:


> And the numbers for the Jay Leno show prove that, definitively.


Sorry, but no. All the numbers for Jay Leno prove is that it is successful for Jay Leno. That's all. You cannot extrapolate the numbers for one successful cheap show and say ALL shows would be profitable if they were similarly on-the-cheap.

All I've ever said to counter your position is that going cheap isn't the only way to make a profit... and that history has shown us already that good shows can cost money AND be profitable... and in fact some can be very profitable.

Your position of "cheap is the best way to the most profit" is simply unprovable... so there's no reason for me to have to prove the opposite because the opposite must be true when your position cannot be.

Again, history is littered with successful and profitable shows that did cost more money to produce than a cheap show. Your opinion might be shared by many companies that are trying to skim costs to increase short-term profits... but in the long run that will not continue to work. IF all TV became such a venture, then people would watch less TV and do other things... and then the only way to bring them back would be spending more for higher quality and the cycle would begin anew.


----------



## bicker1

phrelin said:


> heir broadcast arm has moved away from serving me well. On the other hand, USA and SciFi have offerings that effectively filled in some of the gaps.


Between Royal Pains, In Plain Sight, Psych, and Burn Notice, that puts NBCU in a spot _superior to _ABC, in our home.



phrelin said:
 

> Of course, I have to pay for them as part of a package which supplement advertising revenues. But that's life.


Even more so ... it might be the _future _of drama on television.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> Sorry, but no. All the numbers for Jay Leno prove is that it is successful for Jay Leno. That's all. You cannot extrapolate the numbers for one successful cheap show and say ALL shows would be profitable if they were similarly on-the-cheap.


Sure you can. Survivor, Amazing Race, American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, etc. Occum's Razor says that this much evidence can only be trumped by evidence to the contrary. That's what I'm waiting to see you post.


----------



## rudeney

bicker1 said:


> So why don't you (that's the generalized "you") patronize those television networks, and let the Wal-Mart networks provide their cheap wares in peace? What justification do people have for essentially demanding that all outlets must necessary service them, and them alone?
> 
> I'll answer my own question: The complainers realize the truth of what I was saying, and recognize that it essentially leads to a situation where there are substantially fewer choices serving their preference, perhaps none. The whole argument stems strictly from the *fear *that what these networks are doing is *right* (for them) and will result in ubiquitous suckiness for viewers, while still serving the best financial interests of the owners of the enterprise.
> 
> Otherwise, let it go -- I'd like to see you try: Let NBC be what it will be, without criticizing it for not serving your personal preferences.


Ironically, I'm not criticizing NBC.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bicker1 said:


> Sure you can. Survivor, Amazing Race, American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, etc. Occum's Razor says that this much evidence can only be trumped by evidence to the contrary. That's what I'm waiting to see you post.


Sorry, but that's fail #2. You're trying to "prove" that the only way to make the best profit is to go cheap. The evidence to the contrary is all over the tube. IF what you suggest is true, then the only programs on TV right now would be as you describe. Fortunately for me, there's lots of proof all over the tube of scripted dramas, comedies, and even sci-fi that continue to be made and tried each year.

In order for your hypothesis to be true, we would already have seen the end of scripted TV long ago.

You're trying to prove "all" and you haven't done that yet, because your suggested type of programming isn't all that is available. My proof needs only be that there is one scripted show on TV... and since there are many, my case proves itself. Where is your proof that the only way to make the most profit is to go cheaply? Not "a" way, but the only way, as you have been asserting.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> In order for your hypothesis to be true, we would already have seen the end of scripted TV long ago.


That is not the case. In order for my hypothesis to be true, we would already have seen a strong up-tick in less expensive television programming, and a decrease in more expensive programming.

Remarkably, that has indeed the case.



Stewart Vernon said:


> You're trying to prove "all"


No I'm not.

Jay Leno-like programming is the future of over-the-air broadcast television. I'm sorry that that upsets folks.


----------



## IndyMichael

I hope Conan's ratings slide to the point Leno goes back to the Tonight Show and shows return to the 10pm slot on NBC. Until then I'll continue to dvr Leno and replay it at 11:30 that night, or the next morning.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bicker1 said:


> Jay Leno-like programming is the future of over-the-air broadcast television. I'm sorry that that upsets folks.


Doubtful. If anything, Leno-like programming is an echo of the PAST of OTA broadcast television. That's how TV started, and they moved away from it as the sole type of programming because they learned in order to keep viewers they needed to provide variety.

I predict one of two scenarios:

1. OTA remains as competitive as any other commercial channel on satellite by continuing to provide a variety of all types of programming to reach the widest audience.

or

2. They continue to go even cheaper and stop spending money for new Leno-like... and really go on the cheap and just pay for syndicated programming (which would be cheaper than Leno)... and then they die a slow death of obscurity as people tune them out.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> Doubtful. If anything, Leno-like programming is an echo of the PAST of OTA broadcast television. That's how TV started...


It makes sense that the medium will return to its less expensive roots, when it becomes no longer the premiere source for entertainment programming. Radio, today, is back to being all news, talk and pre-recorded music -- no more radio dramas; no more live performances by orchestras and opera singers.



Stewart Vernon said:


> I predict one of two scenarios:
> 
> 1. OTA remains as competitive as any other commercial channel on satellite by continuing to provide a variety of all types of programming to reach the widest audience.
> 
> or
> 
> 2. They continue to go even cheaper and stop spending money for new Leno-like... and really go on the cheap and just pay for syndicated programming (which would be cheaper than Leno)... and then they die a slow death of obscurity as people tune them out.


I don't see your #2 as being necessarily inconsistent with what I've said. I think it is an extreme view... I think my radio example is a better model. It hasn't sunk as low as would be the analog to your extreme #2 example.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bicker1,

I think you and I actually agree about the direction OTA TV seems to be heading. I think we just disagree that it has to be that way.

Now, the suits at the network might believe it has to... and then perception=reality, so they can make it happen if they want to... but I continue to hope the lightbulb will turn on and they will realize that there are other ways to turn a profit too.

I see too many "me too" kind of reactions... just like when ER was successful and then lots of medical drama copies popped up all over the place... If Leno succeeds, someone will inevitably conclude "Leno is the future" and stop trying to do other things.

But... Leno > Crap most assuredly true... while Leno > Scripted is not a proven scenario. I'm sure Leno is better/more profit than lots of scripted TV... but that shouldn't mean give up trying to make good scripted TV altogether. I hope anyway.

Next thing you know, we will get "Survivor: The Movie"


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> I think you and I actually agree about the direction OTA TV seems to be heading. I think we just disagree that it has to be that way.


Perhaps, but let's push that a bit: Do you agree that in any give-and-take situation, if one side has no incentive to move, then they won't move? I think most people would agree with that. So please help me understand the source of your optimism in this regard: What is the motivation for networks to remake themselves as in your optimistic vision, and more importantly, what has *changed* to bring about those specific motivating factors that clearly, because of where the industry has been heading, haven't had any impact up until now?



Stewart Vernon said:


> Now, the suits at the network might believe it has to... and then perception=reality, so they can make it happen if they want to... but I continue to hope the lightbulb will turn on and they will realize that there are other ways to turn a profit too.


I think you're being grievously unfair in your appraisal of the business acumen of the folks at the networks. It's not just one or two networks you're complaining about here: Remember, Fox has never put anything on at 10PM. Neither has CW. And don't put it past ABC to start down this path... they're looking very seriously at it. And you cannot deny the existence of CBS's Survivor and Amazing Race. And so on. This isn't just a couple of network execs having a few too many martinis and going off-track. They practically all agree with each other and effectively disagree with your perspective. They're not idiots. They're not following the leader... they're thoughtful, accomplished, intelligent professionals with expertise and experience in this business that put practically all of us in third position.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that they can't make some profit some other way, and I doubt that they would say that either. However, in business the objective is not "some profit". Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to make decisions in the best financial interests of their owners. It's the nature of corporations: People invest to safeguard their retirements, pay for college, etc., their own concerns. For good or ill, they're generally not in it for the subject-matter of the companies they invest in. Indeed, many of the most well-regarded financial advisers talk about _diversifying_ your portfolio -- owning pieces of many different kinds of companies. There is no way anyone can be expected to care about each and every one of those industries on the industry's own proprietary merits. Again, for good or ill, people invest to make money to safeguard their own financial future. You can even object to the concept of capitalism and investing and corporations and fiduciary responsibilities... object all you want... but that doesn't make the reality of these things go away. It doesn't mean the people who disagree with you are in any way making the wrong decisions. They're simply holding to different perspectives than you are, and you can both be reasonable even though your perspectives are diametrically oppositional.

Again, getting back to the point: The obligation these people have is to make the most profit, not just enough profit to satisfy your personal feelings about how much profit should be made by the companies that serve you.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> I see too many "me too" kind of reactions... just like when ER was successful and then lots of medical drama copies popped up all over the place... If Leno succeeds, someone will inevitably conclude "Leno is the future" and stop trying to do other things.


Like it or not, the best way of predicting what viewers will like is looking at what they like. Every so often, people allow something new into their hearts and minds, but generally, people are sheep and just resonate with the familiar. The reality is that the networks do both. If the networks didn't try new things, then we wouldn't have seen them try Leno at 10PM every night. You simply don't like the innovation that they tried this time. Just like, I suspect, lots of people in this thread didn't like when the first dance reality show was introduced, or when Who Wants to be a Millionaire was introduced, and so on. You don't see the innovations that you don't like. And we also see people saying things like "Why can't the new shows be more like ER?" (That's from Showbiz forum on Delphi, this morning.) People who don't like the new shows because they're not just like the old shows.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I agree they seem to be headed in one direction... I see nothing right now that says they won't continue to do so... But I hope they realize the mistake in doing so.

There's no reason to go towards 100% unscripted TV any more than there is reason to go 100% scripted. TV history has shown that variety of programming usually is the best path to get the most viewers.

Either they will eventually realize this and scale back and stick to a variety of programming OR they will go all the way down the path and pigeon-hole themselves as non-scripted TV only... and at that point I believe they would fail as a channel.

Since they want the "most profit" they should want the "most viewers"... and as we've speculated on other subjects... having too narrow a genre doesn't seem to be a way to maximum profit.

Consider... the argument that Syfy is trying to increase profit by diversifying programming should be just as true to an OTA network. An OTA network that goes to 100% non-scripted has become too narrow a niche to gain the most profit by the most viewers.


----------



## bicker1

It won't be a "mistake" until there is a better way to make more profit, though. That was my earlier point. I do agree with you that they they will not get rid of scripted programming, entirely. What we're seeing is a reduction, not an elimination (at least so far), and more critically, a reduction in the budgets for the scripted programming that is slotted in, which would result in a commensurate reduction in production values, etc.

However, keep in mind that over-the-air broadcasters aren't "pigeon-holing" themselves, by doing this, especially with regard to NBC Universal -- they have a bevvy of cable networks. They manage their entire set of networks, over-the-air and cable, as a portfolio. De-emphasizing scripted programming over-the-air while boosting scripted programming on cable is *strategy*, not "pigeon-holing".

Your implication that "most viewers" means "most profit" is indefensible. Cost of programming matters. "Most viewers" means "most revenue", *NOT* "most profit". Big difference.

I do resonate with your point about "having too narrow a genre" -- let's bring *that *part of the discussion over to all the Syfy threads.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

That brings up a question... I wonder how much of the viewing public knows how many channels NBC/Universal owns?

We know... but I wonder if the general public knows.

IF the majority of viewers know that the NBC/Universal family includes NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, UniversalHD, Syfy, USA, etc... then they have some flexibility that they wouldn't have IF viewers viewed those channels as competition.

For example... since I know NBC/Universal runs all those... any time I see a good show on ANY of that family of channels, it reflects well to me on all of them. So if I like a show on Syfy, then I'll give a show on USA a chance because I know it comes from the same network family.


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> Your implication that "most viewers" means "most profit" is indefensible. Cost of programming matters. "Most viewers" means "most revenue", *NOT* "most profit". Big difference.


Based on all the ad biz newsletters I get, it's even more narrow than "most viewers" means "most revenue." The highest prices are still paid for "the demo", viewers 18-49, with premiums placed by many advertisers for such narrow groups as males 18-29. That can skew the profitability of a show. I guess certain companies like Pfizer and Eli Lilly balance that out a little looking for us old guys.:sure:


----------



## bicker1

phrelin said:


> Based on all the ad biz newsletters I get, it's even more narrow than "most viewers" means "most revenue."


Yes I actually had a phrase in my reply about demographics as well, but took it out just to try to keep my reply simpler and more direct. You're absolutely on-target of course.


----------



## BenJF3

Stewart Vernon said:


> That brings up a question... I wonder how much of the viewing public knows how many channels NBC/Universal owns?
> 
> We know... but I wonder if the general public knows.
> 
> IF the majority of viewers know that the NBC/Universal family includes NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, UniversalHD, Syfy, USA, etc... then they have some flexibility that they wouldn't have IF viewers viewed those channels as competition.
> 
> For example... since I know NBC/Universal runs all those... any time I see a good show on ANY of that family of channels, it reflects well to me on all of them. So if I like a show on Syfy, then I'll give a show on USA a chance because I know it comes from the same network family.


Not quite for me. I like USA and SyFy, but MSNBC I never bother with. I honestly tried, but the liberal bias is sooooo bad that after a week, I gave up.


----------



## bicker1

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/11/ny-times-is-the-jay-leno-show-hazardous-to-nbcs-health/30166


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Regarding the linked article... I tend to agree that IF Leno is losing ratings do to competition on the other networks, he might very well gain those viewers when the other networks go to repeat cycles. That just makes sense.

I'm not a huge fan, but I'm most likely to try Jay's show when there's nothing else on that I'd prefer to watch... so if NBC decides to stick with their decision long-term, it might very well be peaks and valleys for his show, but he's on every night M-F so they have lots of opportunities to get viewers.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> That brings up a question... I wonder how much of the viewing public knows how many channels NBC/Universal owns?
> 
> For example... since I know NBC/Universal runs all those... any time I see a good show on ANY of that family of channels, it reflects well to me on all of them. So if I like a show on Syfy, then I'll give a show on USA a chance because I know it comes from the same network family.


For the most part, I don't know or care who owns or operates which channels/networks. I watch a program for the program itself. I don't care which channel it's on or what other programs are on the channel. I refuse to allow FAUX News on my TV screen, but that doesn't stop me from watching a program on Fox Movie Channel or FX.


----------



## bicker1

I'm kind of surprised that he's beating ABC in ratings a couple of times a week. That's impressive.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bicker1 said:


> I'm kind of surprised that he's beating ABC in ratings a couple of times a week. That's impressive.


I wonder if any of the ABC loss in ratings also is related to their forced 2nd "HD" sub-channel in many markets.

In my market, for example... the local ABC now runs two 720p subchannels + 1 SD subchannel... and the main ABC "HD" really looks bad... so much so that I don't watch anything on ABC that I don't have to anymore.


----------



## Ken S

bicker1 said:


> I'm kind of surprised that he's beating ABC in ratings a couple of times a week. That's impressive.


I can't think of the last show that I watched on ABC.


----------



## Ken S

Stewart Vernon said:


> I wonder if any of the ABC loss in ratings also is related to their forced 2nd "HD" sub-channel in many markets.
> 
> In my market, for example... the local ABC now runs two 720p subchannels + 1 SD subchannel... and the main ABC "HD" really looks bad... so much so that I don't watch anything on ABC that I don't have to anymore.


I would bet that has almost no effect. If shows are good people will watch them. I'll take a well-written show in SD over drivel in 1080p any day.


----------



## mreposter

I'm not sure Jay should be blamed for poor ratings for shows in the 9pm slot. There's early evidence that he is hurting the local 11pm newscasts on most affiliates, but the 8pm and 9pm hours on NBC were already in trouble before Jay showed up at 10. There's plenty of history of TV network ratings cycles. It wasn't so long ago that ABC was in the dumpers then shows like Lost and Housewives turned things around. 

NBC has been on a downward spiral for several years and many of their key shows have been on the schedule for a long time. It's not easy for a network to come out of the fourth-place slot and with increasing cable competition it's even harder than it was 10 years ago.


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> I'm kind of surprised that he's beating ABC in ratings a couple of times a week. That's impressive.


Well, "Castle" on Monday and "Private Practice" on Thursday are sufficiently ahead of "Leno". But "the forgotten" on Tuesday and "20/20" on Friday are barely ahead of ""Leno".

And then there's "Eastwick" on Wednesday which actually had a smaller audience then "Leno". I thought ABC would have learned by now that a soapy drama experiment on weeknights...well, maybe there's nothing they can put up against "CSI:NY" right now but they might as well run another "20/20" at substantially less cost then "Eastwick".


----------



## bicker1

And The Forgotten, for that matter.


----------



## phrelin

From an LA Times article headlined Jay Leno's new time slot wreaks havoc for NBC affiliates:


> Baltimore may be called Charm City, but for WBAL -- the local television station that carries NBC's "The Jay Leno Show" -- there isn't much to smile about lately.
> 
> Usually, WBAL is in a neck-and-neck race for viewers against arch rival WJZ. But since NBC debuted "The Jay Leno Show" in prime time five weeks ago, the station's 11 p.m. newscast -- where silver-haired Rod Daniels' 25-year run as anchor is the longest in Baltimore history -- has been shellacked in the ratings. Now WBAL is a distant second.
> 
> Call it the Leno effect....


Of course they're still ahead of the ABC affiliate....


----------



## trainman

phrelin said:


> Of course they're still ahead of the ABC affiliate....


Baltimore's fun because they've had two big affiliation swaps over the years: in 1981, WBAL switched from NBC to CBS and WMAR switched from CBS to NBC, and then in 1995, there was a 3-way swap in which WBAL switched back to NBC, WMAR switched from NBC to ABC, and WJZ switched from ABC to CBS.

I doubt there'd be another big major-network switch like that, since WJZ is owned by CBS, and WMAR's ownership (Scripps) has a big long-term affiliation contract with ABC. WBAL's decision is basically whether they're better off _with_ or _without_ NBC.


----------



## phrelin

From an article in _MediaBuyerPlanner_:


> Ad rates for the show range from $48,803 (Friday nights) to $65,678 (Tuesday nights) for a :30 spot, compared to as much as $146,679 for the same hour last year, according to AdAge. The lower end of the pricing spectrum is half of what CBS has been getting for rookie drama The Good Wife, and a quarter a :30 spot during Grey's Anatomy, writes MSNBC.
> 
> Leno's prime time experiment could also be hurting the rest of NBC's schedule. Take, for example, Law & Order: SVU. The show, at 10pm, was a time slot winner. This season, it's finishing last at 9pm. And whereas last year SVU commanded $146,679 for a :30 spot, this year it's pulling an average of $101,632.


The article has a lot of interesting statistics about the 10 pm hour most derived from this Bloomberg article:


> The results show competitors have struggled to attract the TV homes NBC surrendered when the network replaced its 10 p.m. dramas. While some shows including ABC's "Private Practice" have added viewers, most of the 1.82 million young adults NBC lost have scattered -- to the hundreds of cable channels available, or to the Web, or they are watching programs on digital-video recorders.
> 
> "ABC and CBS didn't really pounce on the Leno move," said Don Seaman, head of TV research at MPG North America, a New York-based media buyer whose clients include McDonald's Corp., Sears Holding Corp. and Carnival Cruise Lines. "I was kind of surprised that they didn't go in with some blood in the water and say, 'Well, let's put this puppy down.'"
> 
> Cable audience data show similar trends, with nightly viewing at 10 p.m. by 18-to-49-year-olds flat or down four out of five nights, according to the Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau in New York, which used data from Nielsen.
> 
> "10 o'clock really has become a victim of more drastic fragmentation than anything else," Seaman said in an interview.


So it appears that if Leno is, indeed, the future of television, then television's 10 pm time slot future isn't very bright.


----------



## SayWhat?

From CNN Money's Dumbest moments in business 2009:



> There was no starker sign of this surrender than putting former late-night king Jay Leno in primetime at 10 p.m. ET Monday through Friday. Viewers gave up too, slipping 18% year over year, as ad sales took further hits.
> 
> Many in the industry said the debacle was the last straw in General Electric's decision to sell Comcast a majority stake in NBC Universal. Alas, the cable operator seemed a lot more interested in the company's cable networks than five nights of Jay.


http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/fortune/0912/gallery.dumbest_moments_2009.fortune/19.html


----------



## phrelin

November sweeps results are in for local stations and the stations' managers are not happy campers. From Broadcasting & Cable this morning


> :November's results were "a little scary" for KVBC Las Vegas General Manager Lisa Howfield, who saw the station's 10-to-11 p.m. hour drop from a 6.4 household rating and 10 share last November to a 3.3 rating/5 share-a 48.4% free fall. The Sunbelt Communications-owned station had a happier tale to tell in late news, which only fell 11.6% year-over-year.
> 
> ...While dozens of NBC affiliates remain market leaders despite their most recent primetime setbacks, the competition is, in numerous cases, making up ground. WPRI Providence, for one, celebrated its first late-news win since 1993, taking the title from longtime leader WJAR. The CBS affiliate grew its late-news household ratings 20% in November, says President/General Manager Jay Howell, while NBC affiliate WJAR reported a 33% ratings drop.
> 
> ...CBS affiliates in particular benefiting from the network's string of hits at 10 p.m., such as "The Mentalist" and "The Good Wife." WBNS Columbus, for one, gained two household share points in late news, while NBC affiliate WCMH lost three.... WCCO Minneapolis was up 20% November to November at 9 p.m. (Leno's time slot in the market), while NBC affiliate KARE slid 44%. WCCO was also the only station in the market to gain in late news (8%), while KARE dropped 25%.


----------



## SayWhat?

> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - CBS entertainment chief Nina Tassler said on Saturday that the No. 1 U.S. television network had reaped advertising benefits from rival NBC's decision to move comedian Jay Leno to prime time in place of scripted drama.
> 
> Television | Media
> 
> Tassler said the 2009-10 TV season overall showed that scripted drama and comedy still had a place on network television and that NBC's experiment with the Leno show had failed.
> 
> "We have to realize that ABC, Fox and CBS all fared very well during this experimental phase for NBC," said Tassler, whose CBS Corp network is the most-watched in the United States with the hit crime franchises "CSI" and "NCIS" and top comedy "Two and a Half Men."


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6070BE20100109


----------



## SayWhat?

Not eaxctly pulling any punches .....



> With the entertainment industry transfixed by the Jay Leno/Conan O'Brien mess, CBS' programming chief said NBC's handling of its talk show hosts has hurt the TV industry.
> 
> "A lot of people really saw this as having a pretty negative impact on our business," CBS entertainment president Nina Tassler said this morning at the opening session of the Television Critics Assn. press tour in Pasadena.
> 
> =========
> 
> But Tassler sees damage already done, because backing off big-budget dramas has meant many Hollywood professionals lost jobs.
> 
> "The unfortunate thing is that our creative community was to some degree somewhat bruised by this," Tassler told reporters. "A lot of people were put out of work." An NBC spokeswoman declined to comment.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2010/01/tca-press-tour-cbs-tassler-leno-bruised.html


----------



## bicker1

It is official: NBC will be pulling Leno from prime time. More details to follow, of course.

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.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Probably fair to close this old thread and continue things here:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=170924


----------

