# Jay Leno is killing NBC



## Turtleboy

http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/entry/45610/nbc-affiliates-lose-viewers-following-leno/



> Jay Lenos prime time NBC show has seen sinking ratings since the other nets began airing their new fall shows, and - as feared by local affiliates - the loss of viewers has led to reduced audiences for local news programs at 11pm in many cities.
> 
> 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 New York NBC 11pm news is FOURTH in the market, behind the Spanish language channel.


----------



## Alfer

Because his show STINKS...plain and simple.


----------



## Turtleboy

But even if it were "good" it's not a 10PM show.


----------



## betts4

Yes and many others agree.


----------



## zaknafein

Yeah, but it's cheap, and that's apparently all NBC cares about. Except in the O&O markets, the loss of local news viewers means nothing to them.

It'll take an affiliate revolt to change anything. (which, with numbers like that, is bound to happen sooner or later.


----------



## Hexerott

Alfer said:


> Because his show STINKS...plain and simple.


Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!!!!!


----------



## realityboy

I knew it would be bad, but I actually expected it to be considered a success since it is so cheap. Seems like the local affiliates were right about not wanting to show it after all. I really see them turning this hour back over to the affiliates rather than try to fill it themselves if/when the Leno show ends.


----------



## MickeS

I still watch it and like it. But I can see why local news might suffer - this show feels like an evening ender, not a lead-in, for obvious reasons. I never watch the local news anyway, though.


----------



## StacieH

Not the least bit surprised. I felt it was a bad decision from the get-go. I stopped watching the Tonight Show years ago, and haven't seen any of the new show.

I'd rather watch reruns of Law and Order at 9 p.m. than his show...


----------



## terpfan1980

Keep on tankin'

(Maybe it'll bring the value of NBCU down that much more so Comcast or Liberty Media can snap it up even cheaper...)


----------



## Turtleboy

terpfan1980 said:


> Keep on tankin'
> 
> (Maybe it'll bring the value of NBCU down that much more so Comcast or Liberty Media can snap it up even cheaper...)


I'm a little worried about Comcast. I think they want to kill Hulu. Or at least charge for it.


----------



## IndyJones1023

LOL, I knew this would happen. I don't know how executive could have thought this was a good idea.


----------



## Enrique

(In Mr.Mcmahons voice) "NBC screwed NBC". No, but really, NBC made the deal and all the blame should be on them, not Jay. 

Long before Jay, NBC was still in 3rd/4th place and was still cancelling great shows and making dumb moves.


----------



## ElJay

NBC has been and is too googly-eyed over Leno. His show has no point other than to keep him from defecting to another network and competing against Conan. The "it's cheap" philosophy will lead NBC down a path of self-destruction, but that's fine by me.


----------



## retrodog

IndyJones1023 said:


> LOL, I knew this would happen. I don't know how executive could have thought this was a good idea.


Agreed. I thought it was the biggest BS move I'd heard of in quite a while... Quitting to let Conan take over the Tonight Show and then coming back later to do a show at 10:00 (9:00 central). What a total crock. I'm glad to see them getting their butts spanked in the ratings. That time slot is reserved for the post-primetime serious and gritty stuff that they can't show at 8:00. People aren't interested in wasting that time on silly-a$$ crap like Leno. They want to watch that kind of stupid stuff later, while they're trying to fall asleep.


----------



## MickeS

retrodog said:


> People aren't interested in wasting that time on silly-a$$ crap like Leno. They want to watch that kind of stupid stuff later, while they're trying to fall asleep.


I think that's the problem here - that they DO watch it and then fall asleep.


----------



## aaronwt

But at an estimated $300 million to $500 million profit for leno, it was a good move for the network moneywise. Although not good for the affiliates with the news that follows and the lower viewers. Hopefully they will seriously consider moving the local news to 10pm and having Leno start at 10:30 or 10:35. Supposedly NBC is considering it, but nothing would probably happen until 2010.


----------



## Steveknj

MickeS said:


> I think that's the problem here - that they DO watch it and then fall asleep.


I think a show like his appeals to the senior crowd, so you are right about that!! If they wanted to go cheap, their best bet would have been to put a gritty, more adult type of reality show. As much as I hate them, it probably would have been more successful than this. Talk shows are for late night, as they are perfect for falling asleep to.

So predictions...where does NBC go from here? Cancelling their poster boy could make for some interesting scenarios, like Leno jumping to Fox for a latenight show, and Conan moving to third place.


----------



## Fish Man

I think everyone on the planet except the programming execs at NBC thought that a nightly 10:00 PM (9:00 PM central) comedy/talk/variety show staring Jay Leno was a guaranteed embarrassing disaster.

What a surprise, the entire rest of the world outside of NBC's programming planners was right! 

"Retired" should mean "retired."


----------



## MickeS

Fish Man said:


> I think everyone on the planet except the programming execs at NBC thought that a nightly 10:00 PM (9:00 PM central) comedy/talk/variety show staring Jay Leno was a guaranteed embarrassing disaster.


I read that the ratings for Leno are down 25% (41% in 18-49 demo) compared to last year's scripted NBC shows in the same time slots. I don't think that's a disaster for NBC, as I'm sure they expected lower ratings, and this show costs less. The reason NBC did this in the first place was that they were desperate and bleeding money. The alternative never seemed to be to keep 5 hours of scripted programming in this time slot, but to give it over to the affiliates like Fox does.

But for the affiliates, it seems like a problem. I don't know that a just slightly higher rated drama would make that much of a difference though, I think the main source of the problems for them is that they are NBC affiliates.


----------



## zalusky

There are hundreds of freaking channels out there now. Go watch another channel. Go get Netflix. Were you guys an NBC household or something? Do you think NBC would have put on anything decent if they did not do this. They have been in the crapper for years with no money. Perhaps the extra profit will at least let them invest in the other two hours.


----------



## YCantAngieRead

Good.


----------



## cheesesteak

Who the heck watches what ever news program comes on next? I've never understood that logic. If I've been watching the 11 pm news on channel XYZ for ten, fifteen years, I'm not going to start watching channel EFG's 11 pm news broadcast simply because my 10 pm viewing habits changed. Who is that lazy that they can't change the channel?


----------



## busyba

Fish Man said:


> "Retired" should mean "retired."


Tell that to Brett Favre.


----------



## MickeS

cheesesteak said:


> Who the heck watches what ever news program comes on next? I've never understood that logic. If I've been watching the 11 pm news on channel XYZ for ten, fifteen years, I'm not going to start watching channel EFG's 11 pm news broadcast simply because my 10 pm viewing habits changed. Who is that lazy that they can't change the channel?


I think the idea is that 1) they see the "Coming up on news at 11:" promos and are supposed to want to stay and watch it, and 2) yeah, people are lazy, which is why they try and segue into the news very quickly after the previous show.


----------



## retrodog

cheesesteak said:


> Who the heck watches what ever news program comes on next? I've never understood that logic. If I've been watching the 11 pm news on channel XYZ for ten, fifteen years, I'm not going to start watching channel EFG's 11 pm news broadcast simply because my 10 pm viewing habits changed. Who is that lazy that they can't change the channel?


Me.

I used to watch the news on our local 13 (ABC affiliate). But most of the shows I watch now are on 11 (CBS), so it kept pulling me over to 11 all the time and I've ended up watching the local and national news on 11 instead of 13.

It's not a matter of laziness. *They get to show you all their news teasers during the 10:00 (9:00 central) shows and you just end up staying there because you want to see the crap that they lied to you about.*


----------



## DevdogAZ

Fish Man said:


> "Retired" should mean "retired."


Who said anything about retirement? NBC forced it on Leno in an effort to placate Conan, but Leno never had any intention of retiring and I don't recall him ever saying so.


----------



## Fish Man

busyba said:


> Tell that to Brett Favre.


Bazinga! (Oops, wrong thread.)


----------



## Fish Man

cheesesteak said:


> Who the heck watches what ever news program comes on next? I've never understood that logic. If I've been watching the 11 pm news on channel XYZ for ten, fifteen years, I'm not going to start watching channel EFG's 11 pm news broadcast simply because my 10 pm viewing habits changed. Who is that lazy that they can't change the channel?


I completely agree with you on this.

Also, in this era of the TiVo/DVR, those of us who use them usually have a hard time remembering _what channel/network_ a given program is even on. We set our season passes for the programs we like and we watch them on our own schedule.

I even TiVo my local news broadcast, from the channel whose news I like best, and start watching it at my convenience.

However....

"Lead ins" are a big deal to networks and TV stations, and the Nielsen data still seems to indicate that "lead ins" still matter, especially to news.

Apparently, (and I'm just stating what I believe to be the TV station-think on this issue, not necessarily agreeing with it) viewers see local news as rather "generic", so they'll tend to watch the news on whatever channel they were tuned to at 11:00 (10:00 central).

Same is true of the early evening news. I know the local channels around here really battle to find strong and popular syndicated shows for late afternoon to lead into their 5:00 and/or 6:00 news broadcasts.


----------



## aindik

How long before NBC starts letting affiliates run their local news at 10 p.m. and run Leno afterward at 10:35, like the station in Boston wanted to do?


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> How long before NBC starts letting affiliates run their local news at 10 p.m. and run Leno afterward at 10:35, like the station in Boston wanted to do?


If they allow that, it will further erode Conan's ratings, and I can imagine he'd be pretty pissed about it.


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> If they allow that, it will further erode Conan's ratings, and I can imagine he'd be pretty pissed about it.


Would it further erode them? Compared to the eroding that's happening now, I mean?


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> Would it further erode them? Compared to the eroding that's happening now, I mean?


I think it would. Right now, you've got a certain number of people who are staying through the news and then watching Conan. You'd have to imagine that if it went News, Leno, Conan, there would be a decent percentage of current Conan viewers who wouldn't make it all the way to Conan.

But I see what you're saying: Conan's ratings are already so low that they probably already consist only of those who are purposely tuning into his show and don't include any spillover from the news or what was on NBC earlier that night.


----------



## Langree

There's always the off chance NBC knew this would happen, give Jay what he wants. It fails, then bye bye Jay.


----------



## sieglinde

Leno kill NBC? Hmm, imagine a termanilly ill person ready to go into a coma. NBC was already dying so this is more of a symptom than what is actually killing NBC.


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> I think it would. Right now, you've got a certain number of people who are staying through the news and then watching Conan. You'd have to imagine that if it went News, Leno, Conan, there would be a decent percentage of current Conan viewers who wouldn't make it all the way to Conan.
> 
> But I see what you're saying: Conan's ratings are already so low that they probably already consist only of those who are purposely tuning into his show and don't include any spillover from the news or what was on NBC earlier that night.


What I was saying is, for people to "stay through the news," they'd have to be watching the news. Which, according to the OP, they're already not doing.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Langree said:


> There's always the off chance NBC knew this would happen, give Jay what he wants. It fails, then bye bye Jay.


That's not very likely. NBC wasn't contractually obligated to Leno. They entered into a new contract with him to prevent him from going to a competing network. I'd be shocked if the new contract doesn't require them to pay him for at least two years' worth of work, regardless of how long he's on the air, and probably allows him to pursue other opportunities if NBC chooses to terminate. So there would be no logic to NBC intentionally trying to get rid of Leno, since he'd undoubtedly get offers from ABC and/or Fox and would go there and do further damage to NBC's late-night ratings.


aindik said:


> What I was saying is, for people to "stay through the news," they'd have to be watching the news. Which, according to the OP, they're already not doing.


Well, even though the ratings are down, it doesn't mean nobody is watching. It just means fewer are watching. And that translates into fewer people watching Conan.


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> Well, even though the ratings are down, it doesn't mean nobody is watching. It just means fewer are watching. And that translates into fewer people watching Conan.


Right. Fewer people are watching. Do you think even fewer people would watch if the shows were in reverse order, or do you think the same (lower) number of people would watch?


----------



## retrodog

sieglinde said:


> Leno kill NBC? Hmm, imagine a termanilly ill person ready to go into a coma. NBC was already dying so this is more of a symptom than what is actually killing NBC.


People never actually die of old age, in that they never put that on the death certificate for COD. They usually list some organ failure. But the organ failed because of old age.

The Leno show fiasco is just a dying organ that will cause the death of NBC, so it will be on the death certificate instead of the more general "NBC Stupidity (old age)".


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> Right. Fewer people are watching. Do you think even fewer people would watch if the shows were in reverse order, or do you think the same (lower) number of people would watch?


I think there are a certain number of people who watch the local news on their NBC affiliate, even if that number is reduced from what it was previously. Of that number, there are a certain percentage who turn the TV off after the news, a certain percentage who change the channel, and a certain percentage who keep it on the same channel and watch what's on next.

Of those that keep the TV on the same channel and watch the show that follows the news, there are a certain % who fall asleep before the next show is over, a certain % who turn the TV off after the next show is over, a certain % who change the channel after the next show is over, and a certain % who keep in on that channel and watch the second successive show that follows the news.

So regardless of how low the ratings are for the local NBC newscasts, and how low the ratings are for Conan, they can always go lower, and sticking an extra show between them will undoubtedly reduce the ratings.


----------



## wmcbrine

DevdogAZ said:


> So there would be no logic to NBC intentionally trying to get rid of Leno, since he'd undoubtedly get offers from ABC and/or Fox and would go there and do further damage to NBC's late-night ratings.


Sure, there's a logic to it: let Leno fail at NBC, then no one else will want to pick him up.


----------



## DevdogAZ

wmcbrine said:


> Sure, there's a logic to it: let Leno fail at NBC, then no one else will want to pick him up.


So you're saying that it's logical to do major damage to their own network and their affiliates in an effort to prevent the other networks from gaining an advantage? Isn't that cutting off their nose to spite their face?


----------



## Wil

DevdogAZ said:


> So you're saying that it's logical to do major damage to their own network and their affiliates in an effort to prevent the other networks from gaining an advantage? Isn't that cutting off their nose to spite their face?


Valid point. But the mix includes that NBC had no longer the expertise to develop or choose 10 pm programming with any hugely better prospect of success. So it wasn't selecting between silk purse and sow's ear, it was between two sows' ears. One a lot cheaper. Then the other factors like Leno's late night competition (plus preserving Leno in relief should Conan fall completely off the charts) weigh is and the decision makes some sense. Not saying a good decision, just an understandable one given NBC's creative/management lack of resources.


----------



## jimborst

wmcbrine said:


> Sure, there's a logic to it: let Leno fail at NBC, then no one else will want to pick him up.


I think Fox may really want him, even if he does fail at NBC. My Fox station has the news at 9 (Central time) then two office repeats, then a Seinfeld, and at 11 they have Star Trek TNG. If they were to put Leno on at 9:30 after the local news, I'm sure it would be a big ratings improvment over all the repeats.

Since he's not been mentioned here, is Kimmel getting any ratings? I know Letterman has been beating Conan but I haven't heard if Kimmel has been picking up some of the people that Conan has lost.


----------



## SorenTodd

> Also, in this era of the TiVo/DVR, those of us who use them usually have a hard time remembering _what channel/network_ a given program is even on. We set our season passes for the programs we like and we watch them on our own schedule.


I'd like to know who these ppl are (very lazy, perhaps?). Even tho I use my DVR every single day, I always know what network that my Prime Time shows air on. Even with shows I have no interest in, I know what channel they are on.

There are some shows I always watch "live", so a season pass does me no good in that situation.

With Leno and NBC, they made their bed. Now they have to sleep in it. And let's not forget, when Sunday football is over, NBC has 3 hours to fill. What garbage do they plan on giving us then?


----------



## retrodog

Wil said:


> Valid point. But the mix includes that NBC had no longer the expertise to develop or choose 10 pm programming with any hugely better prospect of success. So it wasn't selecting between silk purse and sow's ear, it was between two sows' ears. One a lot cheaper. Then the other factors like Leno's late night competition (plus preserving Leno in relief should Conan fall completely off the charts) weigh is and the decision makes some sense. Not saying a good decision, just an understandable one given NBC's creative/management lack of resources.


Yes. It makes no sense to get rid of Leno. It's not really his fault that the new show is failing. It was just a stupid idea to move him up in that time slot with essentially the same material as his Tonight Show antics.

I've never been a Leno fan (always more of a Letterman fan till last year), and I'm not going to become one now, but I can't believe that Conan is a better late night host, although I've always been an Andy Richter fan. Conan is weird, creepy, and bizarre. NBC must be operated by idiots.


----------



## Fish Man

sieglinde said:


> Leno kill NBC? Hmm, imagine a termanilly ill person ready to go into a coma. NBC was already dying so this is more of a symptom than what is actually killing NBC.


Point taken.

NBC is hastening their demise by thrashing about.

(I really don't expect NBC to completely go belly up, but they are facing hard times and it's entirely their own doing.)


----------



## 5thcrewman

Maybe NBC is angling for a government bail-out.


----------



## WhiskeyTango

DevdogAZ said:


> So you're saying that it's logical to do major damage to their own network and their affiliates in an effort to prevent the other networks from gaining an advantage? Isn't that cutting off their nose to spite their face?


That's exactly what they did though. NBC didn't want Leno to go elsewhere to they signed him. The execs there said they would wait to judge his show on a full year, when he will go up against repeats as well. They also blamed the lead-ins as being the reason Leno is getting bad ratings.



SorenTodd said:


> I'd like to know who these ppl are (very lazy, perhaps?).


I am one of those people and it has nothing to do with being lazy. Why should I bother remembering what channel a show is on when there is no point in knowing since I don't have to manually 'tune in'?


----------



## smak

The problem with Leno vs the 10pm dramas, is that the dramas build up to a big ending, where Leno starts off with his best stuff. Or I mean "best stuff"

10pm was mainly law & cop shows, and to see what happens in a Law & Order you have to watch the last few minutes.

Then when the credits roll, your local newscaster pops up and talks about the big story, and you are likely to stay if it's interesting.

This gets enough people to stay with the channel to make a difference.

Now with Leno, who cares, it's just another bit, or somebody you con't care about leading directly into news.

-smak-


----------



## IndyJones1023

Long ago when Leno took over I thought "he sucks, I ain't watching."

Now that this whole 10pm thing started up I tuned in to check it out. It indeed still sucked.

But wow. That dude has a freakish "carnival side show" face. I know he's been made fun of for his chin. But seriously - wow. It's incredibly huge!


----------



## ADent

I think the theory at the network is that Leno will lose during new shows, but win during reruns. Since most shows are 20-22 weeks anymore - that could be 30 weeks of win at a much lower cost.

If an hour of network TV is 5 million more than Jay (ER was what 12 million?), 20 weeks of 5 nights a week is 100 shows. That is 500 million savings by going with Jay - and you may win the other 30 weeks a year.

I still think Jay is a trainwreck (like everyone else).


----------



## smak

IndyJones1023 said:


> Long ago when Leno took over I thought "he sucks, I ain't watching."
> 
> Now that this whole 10pm thing started up I tuned in to check it out. It indeed still sucked.
> 
> But wow. That dude has a freakish "carnival side show" face. I know he's been made fun of for his chin. But seriously - wow. It's incredibly huge!


How do you think it is when he's 4 feet in front of me 

-smak-


----------



## smak

ADent said:


> I think the theory at the network is that Leno will lose during new shows, but win during reruns. Since most shows are 20-22 weeks anymore - that could be 30 weeks of win at a much lower cost.
> 
> If an hour of network TV is 5 million more than Jay (ER was what 12 million?), 20 weeks of 5 nights a week is 100 shows. That is 500 million savings by going with Jay - and you may win the other 30 weeks a year.
> 
> I still think Jay is a trainwreck (like everyone else).


I'm not sure he's going to be on in the summer? Have they said anything?

That is true, he'd clean up in the summer.

-smak-


----------



## Neenahboy

jimborst said:


> I think Fox may really want him, even if he does fail at NBC. My Fox station has the news at 9 (Central time) then two office repeats, then a Seinfeld, and at 11 they have Star Trek TNG. If they were to put Leno on at 9:30 after the local news, I'm sure it would be a big ratings improvment over all the repeats.
> 
> Since he's not been mentioned here, is Kimmel getting any ratings? I know Letterman has been beating Conan but I haven't heard if Kimmel has been picking up some of the people that Conan has lost.


I recall reading (might've been in EW) that Kimmel's was the only late night show that has seen gains this season.

Also, aren't the Fox affiliate news broadcasts usually an hour long?


----------



## bicker

smak said:


> I'm not sure he's going to be on in the summer? Have they said anything?


Leno will have new episodes 46 weeks per year.

I said something similar in another thread this morning: These exhortations by viewers are self-centered and myopic. You'll never understand reality that way. Is this bad for viewers? Yup, sure is. Is this bad for NBC? Probably not. And even if is badness here for NBC, there is no reason to believe that doing what some viewers in these threads want to be done would actually be better for NBC. All I see people suggesting are things that would cost more money, without any reasonable expectation that they would garner enough additional revenue to cover the additional cost that these viewers would have incurred on their behalf. Sounds more like folks are looking for a sugar daddy, rather than looking for broadcast programming.


----------



## IndyJones1023

smak said:


> How do you think it is when he's 4 feet in front of me
> 
> -smak-


I take it you attended a taping?


----------



## jimborst

Neenahboy said:


> Also, aren't the Fox affiliate news broadcasts usually an hour long?


Here, Sioux City, IA the Fox station (which is co-owned with the CBS) the news comes on at 9pm for 30 min. The Fox and CBS stations use the same weather person for all late newscasts, also I'm sure they share stories.


----------



## DevdogAZ

jimborst said:


> Here, Sioux City, IA the Fox station (which is co-owned with the CBS) the news comes on at 9pm for 30 min. The Fox and CBS stations use the same weather person for all late newscasts, also I'm sure they share stories.


The news comes on a hour earlier on all Fox affiliates. 10 pm on the coasts and 9 pm in Central and Mountain. It has nothing to do with the fact that your Fox affiliate and your CBS affiliate have joint ownership.


----------



## jimborst

DevdogAZ said:


> The news comes on a hour earlier on all Fox affiliates. 10 pm on the coasts and 9 pm in Central and Mountain. It has nothing to do with the fact that your Fox affiliate and your CBS affiliate have joint ownership.


Understood, just had a rambling kind of post. Sorry, my point that I didn't even make, was that between the two stations the may need the half hour to update everything so they can do another news show in 30 minutes.

Sorry , sometimes I should read my posts before I post them.


----------



## marksman

The whole move was a horrible one for lots of reasons that were obvious, and many more that weren't.

They are bringing down every part of the network with this move it is amazing.

I was thinking about it the other day and they hurt themselves with this from so many angles. Even just from an exposure standpoint.

Say they have 5 1 hour dramas on that get 6 million viewers in those 5 nights each. 30 million viewers. Say those are 20 million distinct people. That means you can expose other network shows to 20 million different people.

Take Leno, even if he got the same exact viewers on a nightly basis, 6 million, this may only consist of 8 or 9 million different people. In other words it is the same exact audience every night. Which means you can't leverage other shows.

There is even some thought this will trickle down to the morning show eventually as people have their tv on a different channel when they turn it on in the morning.


----------



## marksman

aaronwt said:


> But at an estimated $300 million to $500 million profit for leno, it was a good move for the network moneywise. Although not good for the affiliates with the news that follows and the lower viewers. Hopefully they will seriously consider moving the local news to 10pm and having Leno start at 10:30 or 10:35. Supposedly NBC is considering it, but nothing would probably happen until 2010.


Thats not it though. The Tonight Show has always been a huge moneymaker for them and now is in the toilet as well. They are losing in all other areas because of this move. Financially it is not turning out to be a good idea. It is a disaster.


----------



## megory

I think network TV is in for a total change. Cable affiliates and cable networks will do more and more of the new dramas. They're already overwhelmingly successful, and do it on a lower budget: Mad Men, Burn Notice, Drop Dead Diva, are a few that come to mind.


----------



## smak

IndyJones1023 said:


> I take it you attended a taping?


Vegas show...You remember Vegas. Some of us go every year. Like in December 

-smak-


----------



## IndyJones1023

I've heard about this Vegas thing!


----------



## Turtleboy

IndyJones1023 said:


> I've heard about this Vegas thing!


Yeah, a bunch of us saw Jay Leno in Vegas last year (2 years ago?). Anyway, he was awful. He was doing "Bill Clinton is horny" jokes. He hadn't updated his act in 15 years.


----------



## Jesda

Without local news, I wouldn't know what the local high school football team was up to or what the latest elderly person is whining about.

As for retirement, Jay never said he was going to, and he would be on another network if NBC didn't pounce.


----------



## dswallow

Turtleboy said:


> I'm a little worried about Comcast. I think they want to kill Hulu. Or at least charge for it.


FOX wants to charge for it. Comcast wants to include it as part of their package to differentiate its services from other combo packages.


----------



## dswallow

Hopefully NBC's disaster is providing opportunity at other networks for 10pm dramas to do much better than if the audience were more fragmented.


----------



## MickeS

marksman said:


> I was thinking about it the other day and they hurt themselves with this from so many angles. Even just from an exposure standpoint.
> 
> Say they have 5 1 hour dramas on that get 6 million viewers in those 5 nights each. 30 million viewers. Say those are 20 million distinct people. That means you can expose other network shows to 20 million different people.
> 
> Take Leno, even if he got the same exact viewers on a nightly basis, 6 million, this may only consist of 8 or 9 million different people. In other words it is the same exact audience every night. Which means you can't leverage other shows.


Do you have any basis at all for these numbers?


----------



## MickeS

marksman said:


> Thats not it though. The Tonight Show has always been a huge moneymaker for them and now is in the toilet as well. They are losing in all other areas because of this move. Financially it is not turning out to be a good idea. It is a disaster.


..and this? Any basis for this?


----------



## retrodog

Turtleboy said:


> Yeah, a bunch of us saw Jay Leno in Vegas last year (2 years ago?). Anyway, he was awful. He was doing "Bill Clinton is horny" jokes. He hadn't updated his act in 15 years.


You were supposed to be so blown away by the very fact that you got to see Jay Leno that all of this stuff wouldn't matter at all.

I think he kind of sucks. And he has for quite a while. He has some decent writers on the show... at times, but he is pretty much awful. It's probably mostly the fact that he's just skating by on his own history.


----------



## DevdogAZ

marksman said:


> Thats not it though. The Tonight Show has always been a huge moneymaker for them and now is in the toilet as well. They are losing in all other areas because of this move. Financially it is not turning out to be a good idea. It is a disaster.


But The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brian began tanking shortly after Conan took over, and has nothing to do with Jay's new show.

As for the financial aspect, we don't know what the ad rates for these shows are, or whether they've had to refund any ad revenues due to the shrinking ratings. All we know is that NBC is saving a ton of money on a nightly basis by airing Leno in place of a scripted drama. Whether that savings turns out to be an overall loss due to flagging ratings on the rest of the network's slate remains to be seen. And even if the rest of the network's shows are tanking, it would be hard for anyone to make a coherent argument that those shows are tanking due to Leno.


----------



## bicker

We actually do have some reasonably reliable insights into the ad rates for Leno, and that they've achieved the thresholds in terms of audience that they had to, and therefore that they're making profit on the whole deal. 

We don't know about Conan, but as you pointed out, that might not matter, since there is no way to divide up how much Conan's ratings have gone down between that portion that is because his show sucks versus that portion attributable to Leno leading into the local news.


----------



## GadgetFreak

TV Guide has an article entitled "Is Jay Leno killing NBC?" They must have liked your thread title!

http://www.tvguidemagazine.com/news/is-jay-leno-killing-nbc-2773.html


----------



## DevdogAZ

GadgetFreak said:


> TV Guide has an article entitled "Is Jay Leno killing NBC?" They must have liked your thread title!
> 
> http://www.tvguidemagazine.com/news/is-jay-leno-killing-nbc-2773.html





> As for late night, the belief inside NBC is that Lettermans lead over OBrien has more to do with the tsunami of publicity surrounding the CBS hosts revelation that he was blackmailed over having sex with staffers. Insiders believe if the details get more sordid, female viewers could eventually abandon Dave.


OK, that's just an example of NBC execs sticking their heads in the sand. Conan has been getting whipped by Dave in the ratings for several months, not just in the last week since Dave admitted to the affair.


----------



## SorenTodd

DevdogAZ said:


> And even if the rest of the network's shows are tanking, it would be hard for anyone to make a coherent argument that those shows are tanking due to Leno.


Exactly.

I'm just as loyal to the L&O mothership and SVU now as I was before Jay jumped over to Prime Time.

The only other NBC show I am following is Trauma. Nothing else on their mundane lineup excites me enough to tune in on a regular basis.


----------



## marksman

DevdogAZ said:


> But The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brian began tanking shortly after Conan took over, and has nothing to do with Jay's new show.
> 
> As for the financial aspect, we don't know what the ad rates for these shows are, or whether they've had to refund any ad revenues due to the shrinking ratings. All we know is that NBC is saving a ton of money on a nightly basis by airing Leno in place of a scripted drama. Whether that savings turns out to be an overall loss due to flagging ratings on the rest of the network's slate remains to be seen. And even if the rest of the network's shows are tanking, it would be hard for anyone to make a coherent argument that those shows are tanking due to Leno.


It would be fairly easy to make that argument.

They built their entire fall schedule around the fact they have Jay at 9:00/10:00. They canceled shows, they moved shows, they bought pilots, all of it predicated on Jay Leno being on the last hour of every night. They impacted their entire schedule because of this.


----------



## DevdogAZ

marksman said:


> It would be fairly easy to make that argument.
> 
> They built their entire fall schedule around the fact they have Jay at 9:00/10:00. They canceled shows, they moved shows, they bought pilots, all of it predicated on Jay Leno being on the last hour of every night. They impacted their entire schedule because of this.


Sure, they made changes to their schedule based on the fact that Leno would be taking up 5 primetime slots per week. But are the flagging ratings for Heroes due to Leno? Are the mediocre ratings for the Thursday comedies due to Leno? Is the fact that neither Trauma or Mercy have been very well accepted due to Leno? About the only thing you can possibly attribute to Leno is the fact that the ratings for SVU are off this season, but that's due to the fact that SVU had to move to a different timeslot where it now faces tougher competition and not because of Leno's ratings.

Given the relative weakness of the pilots they bought and aired, there really isn't any reason to think they'd have done any better with more available slots. NBC's development department just sucks.


----------



## MickeS

It really is amazing what has happened to NBC in the last few years. To pin it solely on Leno is to miss the big picture. He can hardly be blamed for NBC not having a single show in the top 20 (beyond football). The situation was not much better last year. Just look at shows that seemed exciting, like "Heroes" and what a disaster it turned into after Season 1. It's amazing to me how they managed to completely destroy that franchise that to me seemed almost limitless in possibilities (well, at least like it should remain in the top 20 for a while).


----------



## DevdogAZ

MickeS said:


> It really is amazing what has happened to NBC in the last few years. To pin it solely on Leno is to miss the big picture. He can hardly be blamed for NBC not having a single show in the top 20 (beyond football). The situation was not much better last year. Just look at shows that seemed exciting, like "Heroes" and what a disaster it turned into after Season 1. It's amazing to me how they managed to completely destroy that franchise that to me seemed almost limitless in possibilities (well, at least like it should remain in the top 20 for a while).


Agreed. Just 10 years ago, NBC was the king of the networks. With the demise of its dominant Thursday night comedy block, the departure (finally!) of ER, the reliance on multiple versions of L&O, high profile failures like Studio 60, the dramatic dropoff of previously good shows like Heroes, the overuse of reality shows (2-hour editions of Biggest Loser and The Apprentice) and now finally the Leno decision, NBC has simply gone in the tank. Most of it can be attributed to the network's execs, some must be blamed on the writers of the individual shows, and some of it is just bad luck or bad timing. But very little of it has to do with putting Jay Leno on at 10 pm this season.


----------



## jerrye25

I don't blame Leno for the crappy ratings of other shows. I just think that it shows how little they are even trying to develop new shows. I also think they have a quick trigger finger on cancelling shows. If you spend the money filming 12 episodes of something, why cancel it after 4? Who knows, maybe it will get a following.

For these execs nowadays, it's all about what will cost the least amount of money.


----------



## smak

One thing that also is getting hurt is the prestige of NBC.

What happens when the next football contract comes up, or the next Olympics. Maybe the NFL thinks twice about Sunday Night Football if they get an equal bid by somebody else, because NBC's ratings are in the toilet. Even if them being in the toilet doesn't mean they're losing tons of money, because of the cheapness of Leno's show.

What about the top producing talent, will they want to do pilot's for NBC seeing as how 1/3 of the schedule does not have a good demographic, and probably doesn't help promote other shows, not to mention there's no 10pm times available.

-smak-


----------



## dswallow

smak said:


> One thing that also is getting hurt is the prestige of NBC.
> 
> What happens when the next football contract comes up, or the next Olympics. Maybe the NFL thinks twice about Sunday Night Football if they get an equal bid by somebody else, because NBC's ratings are in the toilet. Even if them being in the toilet doesn't mean they're losing tons of money, because of the cheapness of Leno's show.
> 
> What about the top producing talent, will they want to do pilot's for NBC seeing as how 1/3 of the schedule does not have a good demographic, and probably doesn't help promote other shows, not to mention there's no 10pm times available.


I would pay to see the NFL move to cable 100%. I'd jump for joy that finally one could actually count on real programs starting on time.


----------



## Fish Man

marksman said:


> They built their entire fall schedule around the fact they have Jay at 9:00/10:00. They canceled shows, they moved shows, they bought pilots, all of it predicated on Jay Leno being on the last hour of every night. They impacted their entire schedule because of this.


This.



MickeS said:


> It really is amazing what has happened to NBC in the last few years. To pin it solely on Leno is to miss the big picture. He can hardly be blamed for NBC not having a single show in the top 20 (beyond football). The situation was not much better last year. Just look at shows that seemed exciting, like "Heroes" and what a disaster it turned into after Season 1. It's amazing to me how they managed to completely destroy that franchise that to me seemed almost limitless in possibilities (well, at least like it should remain in the top 20 for a while).


And this.

As I indicated in an earlier post, all of this, the decision to put a prime-time Leno show on 5 times a week, as well as many other stupid programming decisions are _symptoms_, not the cause.

It's become abundantly obvious that NBC is flailing.

The _cause_ is that the execs that program that network have lost any vision they may have once had and are flailing around cluelessly.

I lump the cancellation of "My Name is Earl" into the long list of stupid decisions on their part, but that's just me.


----------



## bicker

Holy cow! The myopic viewer hyperbole is running really thick. Why is it so difficult to accept that networks simply have different mission from the one we viewers would want them to pursue? I've never perceived a constructive purpose served by ignoring the realities of the difference between the objectives of a business and the objectives of a television viewer.

Also worthy of keeping in mind: This is the company that has given us a load of great shows on cable in recent years -- essentially, has represented the _greatest improvement_ in cable offerings of any single source.


----------



## lew

bicker said:


> Holy cow! The myopic viewer hyperbole is running really thick. Why is it so difficult to accept that networks simply have different mission from the one we viewers would want them to pursue? I've never perceived a constructive purpose served by ignoring the realities of the difference between the objectives of a business and the objectives of a television viewer.
> 
> Also worthy of keeping in mind: This is the company that has given us a load of great shows on cable in recent years -- essentially, has represented the _greatest improvement_ in cable offerings of any single source.


NBC is prepared to accept lower ratings in exchange for lower costs and original programming 40 weeks a year.

The question is if the affiliates are willing to accept the resulting hit on their local news ratings. I don't know under what circumstances an affiliate is allowed to omit airing a network show.

A related question is if NBC anticipated the drop in ratings when shows like L&O got moved to an earlier time slot. My understanding is networks are given a little extra latitude regarding adult themes when a show airs at 10p. There was an issue as to how Southland would do if it was toned down for airing prior to 10p. Also some shows do better when they're aired at 10p. Parents watch it after their kids go to bed. Not everyone has DVRs.

I doubt NBC anticipated the Tonight Show ratings go down after Conan replaced Leno.

I agree the network doesn't share our objectives but that doesn't mean Leno is a success. Pressure from the affiliates will carry a lot more weight then pressure from viewers.


----------



## IndyJones1023

bicker said:


> Why is it so difficult to accept that networks simply have different mission from the one we viewers would want them to pursue?


Doesn't it behoove a television network to attract viewers?


----------



## Jesda

IndyJones1023 said:


> Doesn't it behoove a television network to attract viewers?


The goal is to make a profit for its shareholders and owners.


----------



## IndyJones1023

Jesda said:


> The goal is to make a profit for its shareholders and owners.


And how would they do that with no viewers?


----------



## aaronwt

DevdogAZ said:


> Agreed. Just 10 years ago, NBC was the king of the networks. With the demise of its dominant Thursday night comedy block, the departure (finally!) of ER, the reliance on multiple versions of L&O, high profile failures like Studio 60, the dramatic dropoff of previously good shows like Heroes, the overuse of reality shows (2-hour editions of Biggest Loser and The Apprentice) and now finally the Leno decision, NBC has simply gone in the tank. Most of it can be attributed to the network's execs, some must be blamed on the writers of the individual shows, and some of it is just bad luck or bad timing. But very little of it has to do with putting Jay Leno on at 10 pm this season.


And then they cancel one of the better shows they have, Southland, before it even airs this season. Leaving NBC on the hook for the $9 million, the six epsiodes not aired will cost.

They might as well have at least aired the episodes to see how it does. It can't do much worse than some of the other shows NBC has this season.


----------



## Fish Man

bicker said:


> Holy cow! The myopic viewer hyperbole is running really thick. Why is it so difficult to accept that networks simply have different mission from the one we viewers would want them to pursue? I've never perceived a constructive purpose served by ignoring the realities of the difference between the objectives of a business and the objectives of a television viewer.


I think NBC's _objective_ is obvious. The question is whether they were successful in meeting their objective.

As others have pointed out, their goal is to maximize profitability and value to their shareholders.

It seems fairly obvious that they reasoned that putting on a very inexpensive show 5 nights per week, while it might not have as high a ratings as an expensive drama would have in the same time slot, would be a "net positive" thing. Specifically, the reduced advertising revenue would be offset by the lower cost in producing the show.

That reasoning is all well and good as long as they are able to estimate accurately what the ratings for that show would be, and do not overlook any undesired "ripple effects" of that decision.

I think what we're seeing here is that NBC failed to anticipate the following (at least, they failed to anticipate the _magnitude_ of the following effects):


The adverse affect on the ratings of comparatively expensive dramas and sitcoms when they were moved around in the schedule to accommodate the 10:00 Leno show 5 nights per week.
That Conan O'Brien, at 11:35 (Leno's old slot) would be beaten so badly by Letterman in the same slot on CBS. (NBC probably figured on O'Brien retaining ratings similar to Leno's in that slot. He hasn't, by a long shot.)
That Leno at 10:00 would have as poor ratings as it does.
The effect of such a weak lead-in on the local news of the affiliates.

So, based on the evidence right out there to be clearly seen, I don't think the opinion that NBC screwed up rather spectacularly on this decision is a "myopic" view at all.


----------



## That Don Guy

aindik said:


> How long before NBC starts letting affiliates run their local news at 10 p.m. and run Leno afterward at 10:35, like the station in Boston wanted to do?


18 years ago, IIRC -NBC let the then-San Francisco affiliate KRON run the NBC primetime lineup an hour early in order to have its 10 PM news compete with the Fox affiliate's long-running and ratings-leading 10 PM news (because a significant number of people have to get to bed early because they have to be at work early the next morning, especially with jobs where you have to be there when the NYSE opens at 6:30 AM local time). However, after one year, NBC realized (a) nobody who wanted to watch news at 10:00 was going to switch, and (b) too many people were forgetting that their favorite shows were on an hour earlier. (Then again, over NBC's objections, the station ran news from 10 to 10:30 and then another show - first _Wheel of Fortune_, then _Entertainment Tonight_ - from 10:30 to 11, which, among other things, resulted in Carson "celebrating" the New Year at 11:25.)

-- Don


----------



## MickeS

bicker said:


> Holy cow! The myopic viewer hyperbole is running really thick. Why is it so difficult to accept that networks simply have different mission from the one we viewers would want them to pursue?


Yeah, I agree. It's obvious that NBCs strategy is to be the lowest-rated network and incur loss after loss on scripted programming, while trying to stay afloat by airing cheap non-scripted shows that have no prestige and buzz.

They have succeeded beyond their wildest expectations, I believe.


----------



## That Don Guy

smak said:


> What happens when the next football contract comes up, or the next Olympics. Maybe the NFL thinks twice about Sunday Night Football if they get an equal bid by somebody else, because NBC's ratings are in the toilet. Even if them being in the toilet doesn't mean they're losing tons of money, because of the cheapness of Leno's show.


The NFL doesn't particularly care about a network's ratings when deciding on broadcast contracts - otherwise, explain how Fox got the NFC from CBS in 1994. However, if CBS beats out NBC for the 2014/2016 Olympics, I would not be surprised if NBC takes the money it saved and outbids CBS for the Sunday afternoon AFC rights - which would result in NBC losing the Sunday night game (there's no way the NFL lets them have both).

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL moves the Sunday night games to NFL Network in the not particularly distant future. This could seriously hurt NBC, not only because they would not have a regular season presence, but almost certainly NBC would be pulled out of the Super Bowl rotation.

(There is one wild card: what if Simon Cowell puts _The X-Factor_ on NBC?)

-- Don


----------



## bicker

lew said:


> The question is if the affiliates are willing to accept the resulting hit on their local news ratings.


True, but think about the marketplace for network affiliation. There are X local stations vying for Y network affiliations. As with other markets, the value of the offerings and the prices can vary based on supply and demand. Now, in some cases, demand is limited (few local stations, because it is a low population area), but in most cases, and generally in the most lucrative cases, supply is more limited than demand. So market forces help mitigate the risk to a network from the possibility you raise, i.e., of not having an affiliate in a lucrative market, or having to give up a lot to have a local affiliate in a lucrative market.

As with everything in business, it is a matter of weighing costs and benefits, risks and rewards.



lew said:


> I don't know under what circumstances an affiliate is allowed to omit airing a network show.


WHDH threatened to run local news instead of Leno and then recanted a week later when their lawyers pointed out to them that they're not allowed to do that.



lew said:


> A related question is if NBC anticipated the drop in ratings when shows like L&O got moved to an earlier time slot.


Indeed; we have to figure this move into the entire NBCU strategy including cable networks.



lew said:


> My understanding is networks are given a little extra latitude regarding adult themes when a show airs at 10p.


That's a myth. The Safe Harbor laws are time zone agnostic, so since 10PM Eastern Time programming airs at 9PM Central Time, there is *no* extra latitude regarding adult themes when a show airs at 10PM.



lew said:


> I doubt NBC anticipated the Tonight Show ratings go down after Conan replaced Leno.


I'm sure that they did count on ratings going down. Whether they figured that ratings would go down this much, I don't know.



lew said:


> I agree the network doesn't share our objectives but that doesn't mean Leno is a success.


Correct: The fact that Leno satisfies the network's objectives would mean Leno is a success. Leno is still on. NBC has done nothing to justify any assumptions on your part that Leno is doing anything other than satisfying the network's objectives.



lew said:


> Pressure from the affiliates will carry a lot more weight then pressure from viewers.


However, neither may trump the advantages that NBC derives from saving so much money on production costs.


----------



## bicker

IndyJones1023 said:


> Doesn't it behoove a television network to attract viewers?


Not in *ignorance *of costs versus benefits. One of the first winners of the National Quality Award ended up in dire financial straights just short time later because they took their eye off of what was really important to a business, the money, and focused solely on customer satisfaction and quality. Customer satisfaction and quality are tools for achieving profitability. When companies mistakenly make those tools objectives in themselves, they're committed a gross disservice to those that they own their fiduciary responsibility to.

Full Disclosure: I was on the team that led the company I worked for at the time to the National Quality Award just a year later. I helped foster the kind of ignorance that I'm warning people against in this thread (and many others). With all due respect to Phil Crosby (RIP), quality is not free.


----------



## bicker

IndyJones1023 said:


> And how would they do that with no viewers?


Which network has no viewers?


aaronwt said:


> And then they cancel one of the better shows they have, Southland, before it even airs this season.


What I saw of Southland sucked IMHO, and if NBC canceled these episodes before they aired means they sucked even worse.


----------



## aindik

That Don Guy said:


> The NFL doesn't particularly care about a network's ratings when deciding on broadcast contracts - otherwise, explain how Fox got the NFC from CBS in 1994.


I agree they generally don't care. When they start to care is when their own ratings suffer because the network sucks, which decreases the value of the package when they try to sell it for the next contract.



That Don Guy said:


> However, if CBS beats out NBC for the 2014/2016 Olympics, I would not be surprised if NBC takes the money it saved and outbids CBS for the Sunday afternoon AFC rights - which would result in NBC losing the Sunday night game (there's no way the NFL lets them have both).


I don't think anyone can realistically bid for the Olympics other than NBC and ABC. CBS doesn't have the cable channels needed to run three and four things at a time. Remember, they're not the same company as Viacom with the MTV networks anymore. The only cable channels CBS owns are the Showtime ones.



That Don Guy said:


> Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL moves the Sunday night games to NFL Network in the not particularly distant future. This could seriously hurt NBC, not only because they would not have a regular season presence, but almost certainly NBC would be pulled out of the Super Bowl rotation.


I don't think the NFL Network has the kind of in-home penetration to accept one of the major Sunday or Monday packages.


----------



## bicker

Fish Man said:


> I think NBC's _objective_ is obvious. The question is whether they were successful in meeting their objective.


Of course. Like I said, above, there is no basis for assuming that Leno is not not satisfying the objectives of the enterprise set forth for it. I know you want it to be considered a failure, but your wanting it to be a failure doesn't make it one. Wait until NBC says it is a failure, or does something to indicate that they feel a change is needed. Then you can put forth your conclusions in that regard.



Fish Man said:


> That reasoning is all well and good as long as they are able to estimate accurately what the ratings for that show would be, and do not overlook any undesired "ripple effects" of that decision.


Rest assured that if it isn't your full-time job to think of such things, and you thought of them, that more than enough of the folks for whom it is a full-time job also thought of it.



Fish Man said:


> I think what we're seeing here is that NBC failed to anticipate the following (at least, they failed to anticipate the _magnitude_ of the following effects):


Ridiculous assertions -- reckless aspersions actually - without any basis in fact.

Let's come by your job and take some careless pot-shots at your attempt to satisfy objectives.


----------



## ronsch

bicker said:


> I'm sure that they did count on ratings going down. Whether they figured that ratings would go down this much, I don't know.


My guess is that they were expecting the Tonight Show ratings in the all-important 18-49 demographic to go up with a younger, supposedly hipper host. That hasn't happened either....


----------



## bicker

Yeah, but that has nothing to do with putting Leno at 10PM. The genesis of the Conan decision goes back many years. You wanna ***** about that, I won't say boo, because I just don't care about late-night enough.


----------



## IndyJones1023

bicker said:


> Which network has no viewers?
> What I saw of Southland sucked IMHO, and if NBC canceled these episodes before they aired means they sucked even worse.


None right now. But you find truth in extremes.

NBC viewership is declining. Which leads to advertisers bailing, seeking out lots of viewers instead. Loss of advertisers means loss of revenue which impact profitability which hurts the stockholders which can lead to the company going under.

This is all common sense stuff.


----------



## aindik

IndyJones1023 said:


> None right now. But you find truth in extremes.
> 
> NBC viewership is declining. Which leads to advertisers bailing, seeking out lots of viewers instead. Loss of advertisers means loss of revenue which impact profitability which hurts the stockholders which can lead to the company going under.
> 
> This is all common sense stuff.


Revenue is only half of the profit equation.


----------



## DevdogAZ

smak said:


> One thing that also is getting hurt is the prestige of NBC.
> 
> What happens when the next football contract comes up, or the next Olympics. Maybe the NFL thinks twice about Sunday Night Football if they get an equal bid by somebody else, because NBC's ratings are in the toilet. Even if them being in the toilet doesn't mean they're losing tons of money, because of the cheapness of Leno's show.
> 
> What about the top producing talent, will they want to do pilot's for NBC seeing as how 1/3 of the schedule does not have a good demographic, and probably doesn't help promote other shows, not to mention there's no 10pm times available.
> 
> -smak-


Couple of responses here: First, the NFL doesn't care what network their games air on. The games are the draw, not the network they are airing on. So as long as the NFL gets their money from the network, that's what they care about. The networks use the NFL for publicity, not the other way around.

Second, most TV pilots are produced by production companies and are then pitched to the various networks. While it's true that each of the networks own their own production companies, it doesn't necessarily mean that a pilot produced by NBC's production company will end up on NBC. So it would be stupid for any actor to turn down potential work just because it might eventually air on NBC. The only way any actor would turn down work on NBC is if they're getting a better offer from one of the other networks.


Fish Man said:


> I lump the cancellation of "My Name is Earl" into the long list of stupid decisions on their part, but that's just me.


While I enjoyed "Earl" and saw every single episode, I don't think it was a bad decision to cancel it. The show had run its course and was getting stale. I was kind of relieved when it got the axe.


aaronwt said:


> And then they cancel one of the better shows they have, Southland, before it even airs this season. Leaving NBC on the hook for the $9 million, the six epsiodes not aired will cost.
> 
> They might as well have at least aired the episodes to see how it does. It can't do much worse than some of the other shows NBC has this season.


I disagree that Southland was one of the better shows NBC had, and the ratings will back up my opinion.

As to your point about whether they should have aired the episodes anyway, regardless of ratings, that's not always a cut-and-dried case. The network has already incurred the cost of production. That's a sunk cost they're not getting back either way. So now they have to make the decision solely on what will get better ratings between Southland, and whatever they choose to put on in its place (likely Dateline). For whatever reason, NBC feels that Dateline will give them better ratings, and less chance of having to refund money to advertisers, than Southland will.


----------



## IndyJones1023

aindik said:


> Revenue is only half of the profit equation.


I'll be the first to admit I'm no economist. So how do they make profit with no revenue?


----------



## bicker

IndyJones1023 said:


> None right now. But you find truth in extremes.


Uh, you find *falsehood *in exaggerations and hyperbole.



IndyJones1023 said:


> NBC viewership is declining.


*All *OTA broadcast television viewership is declining.



IndyJones1023 said:


> Which leads to advertisers bailing,


Also, advertisers bail because the value of commercial advertising, itself, even for the same given number of total viewers, is declining.

(And so on...)

There is a lot more going on than you're factoring into your analysis. For example, one of the reasons why all OTA broadcast television viewership is declining is because folks are turning to cable. Which raises this point: Recent News:


> New York, NY - October 13, 2009 - It was quite a week for Syfy. Propelled by Sanctuary, Stargate Universe and the Original Movie Megafault, Syfy was the *#3 cable entertainment network in Adults 25-54*, behind only USA and TBS, for the week ending October 11.


Guess who owns Syfy?



IndyJones1023 said:


> This is all common sense stuff.


There is indeed some common sense in all this, but I believe you've missed most of it.


----------



## aindik

IndyJones1023 said:


> I'll be the first to admit I'm no economist. So how do they make profit with no revenue?


They don't.

But they can make profit if revenue and costs are high, and they can make profit if revenue and costs are low. You don't always make more profit when revenues are highest. If you cut revenue, but you cut costs more, profit goes up.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Here's a good take on what's happening at NBC:

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

The author dissects a recent NY Times article and admits that there is one show (SVU) that has been impacted by Leno, but the rest of the supposed "failure" is simply wishful thinking by those who hate Leno. The fact is that NBC is getting higher ratings with Leno on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays than they did in the same spots last season. Tuesdays, where SVU used to be, are lower, and Thursday, where ER used to be, are also lower. But ER is gone, so there's no guarantee that whatever was put in its place would be outdrawing Leno this season. So really, of the five nights Leno is on, it's only been a poor decision on one of those nights.


----------



## IndyJones1023

bicker said:


> Uh, you find *falsehood *in exaggerations and hyperbole.


So, if they had the most viewers, that's what? Good or bad? Conversely, if they had no viewers, again, that's good or bad?



bicker said:


> There is a lot more going on than you're factoring into your analysis.


Who, whoa there, Bernanke. I'm just spitballing here. I'm not analyzing anything.


----------



## bicker

IndyJones1023 said:


> So, if they had the most viewers, that's what? Good or bad? Conversely, if they had no viewers, again, that's good or bad?


Could you please come back to discussing the reality, with the rest of us?



IndyJones1023 said:


> Who, whoa there, Bernanke. I'm just spitballing here.


I'm Mrs. Krabappel, making you clean up the spitballs, Bart.


----------



## IndyJones1023

bicker said:


> Could you please come back to discussing the reality, with the rest of us?
> 
> I'm Mrs. Krabappel, making you clean up the spitballs, Bart.


How did you come up with your screen name, anyway?


----------



## bicker

It is a family name.


----------



## wmcbrine

DevdogAZ said:


> While I enjoyed "Earl" and saw every single episode, I don't think it was a bad decision to cancel it. The show had run its course and was getting stale. I was kind of relieved when it got the axe.


I think it deserved a proper ending, like Earl finishing the list. (In fact I can't think of another way to end it properly.)


----------



## Steveknj

Wil said:


> Then the other factors like Leno's late night competition (plus preserving Leno in relief should Conan fall completely off the charts) weigh is and the decision makes some sense.


This. I wonder if NBC is hedging their bet on Conan somewhat by keeping Leno around in this capacity, and if Conan falls flat (which it looks like he might), then they already have Leno signed and they can move him back to late nights. Do you think NBC is worried about Conan jumping ship at this point? He's losing Leno's big lead to Letterman and if ABC was smart, they would put Kimmel directly opposite him now too (I personally think that Nightline has lost it's relevence now, but that's a discussion for another thread). I like Conan, but he's been a disaster for NBC at the Tonight Show. And btw, Ferguson is killing his competition at NBC now too (who's name escapes me).


----------



## lew

Some of the major cities have affiliates which are are O&O. They can complain but there isn't any reason for NBC to listen. NBC has low ratings. I'm sure cities like Boston have other stations that might be interested in affiliating with NBC. I don't think NBC has any shot of persuading a fox affiliate into changing affiliation in smaller cities.

I recall several affiliates not carrying NYPD Blue. You may know the answer, but I'm not sure if WHDH backed down because they're contractually required to carry Leno, because NBC persuaded them to give it a shot or if WHDH is required to provide some kind of notice if they're not going to carry a network show. Affiliates sometimes drop a network show so they can broadcast local sports. A few years ago WCBS carried some Yankee games during prime time.

I guess it's not due to safe harbor rules but networks seem to have different standards for shows airing at 10p EST. At least some articles suggest NBC wanted Southland toned down for an earlier time slot.

NBC renewed Southland but decided not to air any episodes. That suggests NBC's decisions aren't as perfect as you've been suggesting.

I think we can agree the shows NBC are likely to air, if they cancel Leno, aren't going to be shows like ER or West Wing. I suspect the shows they'll air will be shows that are also cheap to produce. Reality shows. Game shows.

I'm not sure about government regulations but splitting the difference may make some sense. Let the affiliates insert local news 10-10:30p. Run Leno 10:30-11:30, right before Conan. The affiliates will make money running local news in prime time. Leno will still start in prime time.



bicker said:


> True, but think about the marketplace for network affiliation. There are X local stations vying for Y network affiliations. As with other markets, the value of the offerings and the prices can vary based on supply and demand. Now, in some cases, demand is limited (few local stations, because it is a low population area), but in most cases, and generally in the most lucrative cases, supply is more limited than demand. So market forces help mitigate the risk to a network from the possibility you raise, i.e., of not having an affiliate in a lucrative market, or having to give up a lot to have a local affiliate in a lucrative market.
> 
> As with everything in business, it is a matter of weighing costs and benefits, risks and rewards.
> 
> WHDH threatened to run local news instead of Leno and then recanted a week later when their lawyers pointed out to them that they're not allowed to do that.
> 
> Indeed; we have to figure this move into the entire NBCU strategy including cable networks.
> 
> That's a myth. The Safe Harbor laws are time zone agnostic, so since 10PM Eastern Time programming airs at 9PM Central Time, there is *no* extra latitude regarding adult themes when a show airs at 10PM.
> 
> I'm sure that they did count on ratings going down. Whether they figured that ratings would go down this much, I don't know........


----------



## DevdogAZ

Steveknj said:


> This. I wonder if NBC is hedging their bet on Conan somewhat by keeping Leno around in this capacity, and if Conan falls flat (which it looks like he might), then they already have Leno signed and they can move him back to late nights. Do you think NBC is worried about Conan jumping ship at this point? He's losing Leno's bit lead to Letterman and if ABC was smart, they would put Kimmel directly opposite him now too (I personally think that Nightline has lost it's relevence now, but that's a discussion for another thread). I like Conan, but he's been a disaster for NBC at the Tonight Show. And btw, Ferguson is killing his competition at NBC now too (who's name escapes me).


Actually, Nightline is getting better ratings than Conan now: http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/0...in-total-viewers-for-15th-straight-week/29950

It's debatable whether Kimmel would be able to maintain that lead or not.


----------



## getreal

DevdogAZ said:


> I'd be shocked if the new contract doesn't require them to pay him for at least two years' worth of work, regardless of how long he's on the air, and probably allows him to pursue other opportunities if NBC chooses to terminate. So there would be no logic to NBC intentionally trying to get rid of Leno, since he'd undoubtedly get offers from ABC and/or Fox and would go there and do further damage to NBC's late-night ratings.


I don't understand that logic. If Leno's show is a failure on NBC, how will it improve by moving to another network? The entire format and cast would need to be revamped in order to create a fresh identity, as this one is stale.


----------



## That Don Guy

wmcbrine said:


> I think it deserved a proper ending, like Earl finishing the list. (In fact I can't think of another way to end it properly.)


The problem being, if he does finish the list and then another network or cable station (e.g. TBS) wants to pick up the show, they have to try some non-list gimmick - and didn't that backfire when they tried it on NBC (to the point where NBC made it a point to say, "The list is back!", when promoting the show's next (and final?) season)?

"Ending a show properly" only works when the actors and producers pretty much all agree to end the show on their terms, rather than on the network's terms.

-- Don


----------



## DevdogAZ

getreal said:


> I don't understand that logic. If Leno's show is a failure on NBC, how will it improve by moving to another network? The entire format and cast would need to be revamped in order to create a fresh identity, as this one is stale.


It's no more stale than late night shows have been for the last 50 years. If Leno jumped to ABC late night and put on the same show he did for 17 years at NBC, what would make anyone think he wouldn't get similar ratings to what he got on NBC?


----------



## DevdogAZ

wmcbrine said:


> I think it deserved a proper ending, like Earl finishing the list. (In fact I can't think of another way to end it properly.)


It would have been nice if NBC had given them a little more notice and allowed them to write a proper ending, but the fact that they didn't doesn't mean the show deserved another season.


----------



## bicker

lew said:


> You may know the answer, but I'm not sure if WHDH backed down because they're contractually required to carry Leno, because NBC persuaded them to give it a shot or if WHDH is required to provide some kind of notice if they're not going to carry a network show.


Lawyers were involved. Ed Ansin was pissed when he had to back-pedal. I think affiliates are allowed to do isolated preemptions, for special presenatations, but not simply bypass a series entirely, as Ansin wanted to do.



lew said:


> I guess it's not due to safe harbor rules but networks seem to have different standards for shows airing at 10p EST.


How I Met Your Mother regularly includes mature subject matter. House is a reprehensible person. NCIS regularly depicts the end-result of violence.

Putting NBC aside, entirely, which 10PM shows are you referring to? For each one, I'll post a program that has regularly been on at 9PM which was equally as objectionable to certain parties. We'll play this game as long as you'd like to.



lew said:


> At least some articles suggest NBC wanted Southland toned down for an earlier time slot.


Southland sucked AFAIC. I'd want it changed for 10PM... for 11PM for that matter.



lew said:


> NBC renewed Southland but decided not to air any episodes. That suggests NBC's decisions aren't as perfect as you've been suggesting.


*Red herring*. I never said anything about decisions being perfect. Please restrict your rebuttals to what I actually do write, instead of something easier to argue against.

As it is, there is no reason to believe that the Southland situation isn't 100% a Wells/WB screw-up. NBC ordered episodes. For all we know, Wells and WB delivered episodes yet-even-crappier than the crap they delivered last year.



lew said:


> I'm not sure about government regulations but splitting the difference may make some sense. Let the affiliates insert local news 10-10:30p. Run Leno 10:30-11:30, right before Conan. The affiliates will make money running local news in prime time. Leno will still start in prime time.


There are no government regulations that affect any of that. Other folks can better explain why your idea, though, isn't a good one, from NBC's standpoint.


----------



## DevdogAZ

bicker said:


> *Red herring*. I never said anything about decisions being perfect. Please restrict your rebuttals to what I actually do write, instead of something easier to argue against.
> 
> As it is, there is no reason to believe that the Southland situation isn't 100% a Wells/WB screw-up. NBC ordered episodes. For all we know, Wells and WB delivered episodes yet-even-crappier than the crap they delivered last year.


The article I posted earlier believes that this was just NBC beginning to clean up the mess that Ben Silverman made when he was there. Southland never should have been renewed, and NBC is simply correcting that mistake before it does any further damage to the network.


----------



## MickeS

getreal said:


> I don't understand that logic. *If Leno's show is a failure on NBC*, how will it improve by moving to another network? The entire format and cast would need to be revamped in order to create a fresh identity, as this one is stale.


But The Tonight Show was NOT a failure on NBC, and it's far from certain that The Jay Leno Show is one either.


----------



## Steveknj

MickeS said:


> It really is amazing what has happened to NBC in the last few years. To pin it solely on Leno is to miss the big picture. He can hardly be blamed for NBC not having a single show in the top 20 (beyond football). The situation was not much better last year.


You know, I bet you hit it right there. I bet this HUGE SNF contract has ended up hurting them a lot more than helping. That has to be a HUGE chunk of change they could be spending on development.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Steveknj said:


> You know, I bet you hit it right there. I bet this HUGE SNF contract has ended up hurting them a lot more than helping. That has to be a HUGE chunk of change they could be spending on development.


I doubt that's really hurting NBC. They're getting tons of viewers for it, and it provides them a platform to promote their other shows. It's highly unlikely that they'd get the same kind of exposure from anything else they'd put on Sunday nights. And there's no guarantee that more money spent on development would equal better shows.


----------



## Steveknj

Jesda said:


> The goal is to make a profit for its shareholders and owners.


But wouldn't their goal to be to CONTINUE to make a profit? This is the type of shortsighted thinking that has killed our economy too. They gut the network, for short term gain, meanwhile, the rest of their product suffers, and possibly to the point of no return. There's no investment in the future here. But you know what? The execs in charge figure, they will only be there for 4 or 5 years before they move on, with healthy bonuses and enough money to start their own production companies (as many of them have done). Why should THEY care if the network is in the crapper AFTER they are gone? It's not like it was in the days of Sarnoff and Paley. These guys are there for the short term and move on.


----------



## bicker

Steveknj said:


> But wouldn't their goal to be to CONTINUE to make a profit?


It is and they are. I know you'd like to have some foundation for your accusations to the contrary but you don't. You are hoping that their failure to fulfill your personal preferences would translate into some greater wrong, but that's not a reasonable implication.


----------



## Steveknj

IndyJones1023 said:


> How did you come up with your screen name, anyway?


bicker has always been a network apologist, back in the days we were arguing Chuck. But he's entitled to his opinion like the rest of us. As he said, Network viewership is down across the board, but I believe the last stat I saw is NBC's network viewership is down a bigger percentage. I'm not saying Jay Leno is killing NBC, but what I'm saying is he's a symptom of a bigger problem they are having, and this short term cost cutting is going to hurt the network in the LONG RUN. Ever here the expression you have to SPEND money to MAKE money? Well NBC is no longer doing this. Usually that's a sign that there's BIG trouble ahead. And in NBC's case, it's already here.


----------



## Steveknj

DevdogAZ said:


> Actually, Nightline is getting better ratings than Conan now: http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/0...in-total-viewers-for-15th-straight-week/29950
> 
> It's debatable whether Kimmel would be able to maintain that lead or not.


Perhaps not, but if ABC is serious about making a go of late night talk, now is the time to strike. Kimmel's audience has always tried to attract younger hipper viewers, same as Conan, so perhaps he could go after those viewers too. Actually, I think those viewers just watch The Daily Show and then stick with the Colbert Report rather than switching to the talkies


----------



## lew

bicker said:


> Lawyers were involved. Ed Ansin was pissed when he had to back-pedal. I think affiliates are allowed to do isolated preemptions, for special presenatations, but not simply bypass a series entirely, as Ansin wanted to do.
> 
> ........
> 
> Putting NBC aside, entirely, which 10PM shows are you referring to? For each one, I'll post a program that has regularly been on at 9PM which was equally as objectionable to certain parties. We'll play this game as long as you'd like to.
> 
> Southland sucked AFAIC. I'd want it changed for 10PM... for 11PM for that matter.


NBC ratings are low, across the board. Could some affiliates might conside following NBCs philosophy? Drop "expensive" NBC programs in favor of less expensive shows? Keep 100% of ad revenue. In other words decide the local station can make more money if they drop their affiliation with NBC? I don't know what it would take to air a syndicated show like Oprah in prime time. NBC may be vulnerable if enough affiliates in smaller markets complain. I'm sure NBC can find another affiliate in Boston but I doubt they want to wind up with a UHF station in smaller markets.

I don't recall any specific shows (other then NYPD Blue) but rather reading several articles which suggest shows at 10p could be more adult. Violence is accepted, the issue is more with sex. I accept your examples. This is probably a myth. I no longer watch L&O, I don't know if NBC toned it down for the earlier time slot.

I'm not sure if I even saw much more then 20 minutes of the first episode of Southland. I didn't think that much of it.

A previous poster made a good point. Wait until we see how Leno does when the other networks air re-runs.

edited to change punctuation. I'm asking if it's possible some affiliates might decide dropping NBC network affiliation might increase profits. I don't have facts, either way.


----------



## marksman

It is stupid and ignorant to look at the current situation as being some kind of wise financial move. Even if the math of income versus cost for the last hour of m-f primetime is better, the side-effects have a much more significant impact in the long-time. Not to mention other issues like a completely smaller audience for your entire network.

As I mentioned before, if Leno gets 6 million viewers a night, he probably has 9 million unique viewers a week. 5 different dramas each night even with the same ratings, would expose your network to probably 20 million people. That means exposure to advertisements for other shows, exposed to the local news shows around the country, set up for your late night show on and on.

It was not a well thought out decision and contrary to what people want to imply it is the central reason for the actual destruction of the network.

Sure they sucked and were in last place but every network has sucked and been in last place at one time or another. The way you get out of that is to try and put on shows people want to see and grow your whole audience for your NETWORK. What NBC is doing is just the opposite. They are actively reducing the audience for their network. It is a horrible strategy and it is not a matter of if but only a matter of when it will be stopped.

The whole thing started when they were afraid to lose Jay after they kicked him out for Conan. They make one ridiculous mis-step after another in what turns out was simply a way to appease their secondary late night host. It is insane.

They actually destroyed their entire network because Conan might have been upset. So yeah I guess technically it is not Jay's fault. It is Conan's fault. Conan wanted something more, they agreed to give it to him and then blew up the network trying to keep the dam from cracking. 

They would have been 100x better off if they had just let Jay go somewhere else to compete against Conan, or else they just paid Conan off and kept Jay on the Tonight show. Either one of those would have averted the complete destruction of NBC.

The network is literally one night of the Biggest Loser and one night of middle of the pack Comedies. There is nothing else on the network.

Conan never even got a shot at the tonight show because before he even took over NBC was promoting Jay being on at 10. They sabotaged their own show.


----------



## allan

aindik said:


> They don't.
> 
> But they can make profit if revenue and costs are high, and they can make profit if revenue and costs are low. You don't always make more profit when revenues are highest. If you cut revenue, but you cut costs more, profit goes up.


OTOH, if you cut costs too much, your product suffers and nobody buys it. If NBC drives enough viewers away, it won't matter how cheap their costs are.


----------



## Steveknj

DevdogAZ said:


> I doubt that's really hurting NBC. They're getting tons of viewers for it, and it provides them a platform to promote their other shows. It's highly unlikely that they'd get the same kind of exposure from anything else they'd put on Sunday nights. And there's no guarantee that more money spent on development would equal better shows.


But are they getting a fair return on their investment? Considering the money they spent on the NFL and their declining ratings, I'd say no. That would be the biggest cost cutting they could do.

But here's the thing about development. NBC has had quite a few shows that have had critical (but not financial) success. Studio 60 was critically acclaimed. So is 30 Rock and The Office, or even Chuck. Then think about the shows that are SUCCESSFUL. Mostly reality shows and the same old stuff. The fact is, NBC has TRIED to give us something a bit different, and it's been a critical success. But we as viewers want more AI, more of the same old cop shows. The only network that's had ANY real success giving us something different (not including cable) is ABC, and even THOSE shows are not getting big ratings. NBC, if they want to be successful needs to go back to basics. Sitcoms, cop shows and reality. No more Heroes, Studio 60 or anything remotely different. As much as we all complain we want something different, we end up watching the same old thing. The ratings prove it (at least the ratings as we know it now).


----------



## bicker

Steveknj said:


> bicker has always been a network apologist


Name-calling is puerile.

If you want to call me something, call me a realist.



Steveknj said:


> Usually that's a sign that there's BIG trouble ahead. And in NBC's case, it's already here.


That sounds a lot like, "The sky is falling."


----------



## DevdogAZ

lew said:


> NBC ratings are low, across the board. Could some affiliates might conside following NBCs philosophy? Drop "expensive" NBC programs in favor of less expensive shows. Keep 100% of ad revenue. In other words decide the local station can make more money if they drop their affiliation with NBC. I don't know what it would take to air a syndicated show like Oprah in prime time. NBC may be vulnerable if enough affiliates in smaller markets complain. I'm sure NBC can find another affiliate in Boston but I doubt they want to wind up with a UHF station in smaller markets.


Affiliates may not be happy, but they're not going to drop their NBC affiliation. It's not like there is something better out there. Being a broadcast network affiliate makes them one of four major networks in any local market. If they voluntarily drop that affiliation, someone else will quickly scoop it up and then they'll be fighting with the other also-ran networks for the scraps.


----------



## Steveknj

bicker said:


> It is and they are. I know you'd like to have some foundation for your accusations to the contrary but you don't. You are hoping that their failure to fulfill your personal preferences would translate into some greater wrong, but that's not a reasonable implication.


Nothing to do with personal preferences. And I admit, my TV viewing is different from the average viewer, but NBC isn't even trying to show what the average viewer seems to want. I hope their eventual goal is to save SO much money they can afford one killer show that will bring them back. But by that time, those in charge will be gone. I'm just not sure their thinking is long term.

What facts do YOU have to support your thesis? Unless you have INSIDE knowledge of what is going on at NBC, you don't have any more information than I do.


----------



## bicker

lew said:


> In other words decide the local station can make more money if they drop their affiliation with NBC.


Which ones? How so? Where's your evidence? It seems to me that that's just blowing smoke.



lew said:


> NBC may be vulnerable if enough affiliates in smaller markets complain.


Vulnerable in what way? What is your evidence that the vulnerability is not only real but practically-speaking a likely risk, given the current circumstances?



lew said:


> I'm sure NBC can find another affiliate in Boston but I doubt they want to wind up with a UHF station in smaller markets.


Huh? NBC *is* a UHF station in Boston.



lew said:


> I don't recall any specific shows (other then NYPD Blue) but rather reading several articles which suggest shows at 10p could be more adult.


As already covered, that is not the case: The Safe Harbor laws are very clear. 10PM is 10PM. Even in Chicago.



lew said:


> A previous poster made a good point. Wait until we see how Leno does when the other networks air re-runs.


TV by the Numbers summarized the whole situation very well, in nine bullet points, this week. Essentially, all the criticisms are *premature*. No one has enough data yet to defend any assertions that NBC made a mistake. That's not to say that this isn't a mistake. Rather, the only thing we can say with assurance is that it is a mistake to call it a mistake right now.


----------



## DevdogAZ

I referenced the NY Times article earlier. Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12nbc.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

And here's are a couple of very interesting quotes from that article:



> Looked at in isolation, Mr. Leno has been doing everything NBC expected of him.
> 
> His ratings, after a big first week, have leveled off to about five million viewers a night (though some nights have been much lower) with a 1.5 to 2 rating in the category NBC identifies as all-important, viewers ages 18 to 49, the group many advertisers want to reach.
> 
> Though most 10 p.m. shows with those kinds of numbers get canceled, NBC has said from the beginning that it could accept much lower ratings because of the enormous cost savings of Mr. Leno's show versus expensive hourlong scripted dramas. The network guaranteed advertisers that it would average only a 1.5 rating.


So NBC didn't expect Leno to do any better than a 1.5 rating with adults 18-49. Seems that he's meeting or beating their expectations. Perhaps cost savings is a bigger deal to the network than we wish to acknowledge.



> The rationale for the move of Mr. Leno was simple: the network could not endure his likely move to ABC, where he would have created a new late-night program and undermined the strength of "The "Tonight Show."
> 
> But NBC is justifying the move by citing both the savings Mr. Leno's show represents over expensive 10 p.m. dramas and the apparent disintegration of the 10 p.m. hour across the board. Mr. Gaspin repeated NBC's conclusion that hits cannot be established at 10 anymore, largely because the hour is dominated by viewers playing back recorded shows on digital video recorders.
> 
> "Look at how ABC is doing at 10 against Jay," Mr. Gaspin said.
> 
> Indeed, ABC's performance is certainly providing some cover for NBC's move at 10. Mr. Leno is already faring as well or better than two new ABC dramas, "The Forgotten" and "Eastwick," and he is not far behind a third, "Castle." All those shows cost three times as much or more per episode as Mr. Leno's show.
> 
> Mr. Gaspin argued that NBC is not abandoning quality drama and cited recent deals for future shows, including outbidding the other networks for a spy drama from J. J. Abrams ("Lost") and an American version of the British police classic "Prime Suspect."


So CBS was beating NBC in the 10 pm hour before and is still beating NBC now. That hasn't changed.

ABC and NBC were competing for 2nd and 3rd place in the 10 pm hour before and are still doing so now.

NBC's ratings in the 10 pm hour are actually up for three out of the five nights vs. last season.

Leno will air new shows when the other networks go to reruns.

Seems to me that most of you are being very premature with your obituaries for NBC.


----------



## bicker

Steveknj said:


> What facts do YOU have to support your thesis?


Your lack of evidence.



Steveknj said:


> Unless you have INSIDE knowledge of what is going on at NBC, you don't have any more information than I do.


Repeating myself: No one has enough data yet to defend any assertions that NBC made a mistake. That's not to say that this isn't a mistake. Rather, *the only thing we can say with assurance is that it is a mistake to call it a mistake right now*.


----------



## Steveknj

bicker said:


> Name-calling is puerile.
> 
> If you want to call me something, call me a realist.
> 
> That sounds a lot like, "The sky is falling."


I am sorry if I called you something you don't agree with, but in the threads I've seen, I've yet to see you attack NBC's strategy.

And here's a bulletin....for NBC, The Sky has already fallen. The question is, can they lift it back up.


----------



## zalusky

Random thoughts here:

1) Baby boomers are getting older and going to bed earlier - Leno appeals to the older crowd. Leno is a market moving with his main customers demographics.
2) NBC may be acquired some/all by Comcast which could change their priorities.
3) Its only been a month - I remember Leno's initial shows after Carson were a bit of a struggle and then he won the slot for over a decade.
4) Fox only has two hours primetime a night, why aren't we complaining about that?
5) There are plenty of other channels to watch. Why do you people care about this one?


----------



## aindik

allan said:


> OTOH, if you cut costs too much, your product suffers and nobody buys it. If NBC drives enough viewers away, it won't matter how cheap their costs are.


Of course. The question is whether they are driving away "enough" viewers to cause revenues to fall more than costs, or not.

I was just disputing the idea that more viewers means more profit. Sometimes it does, sometimes not. It depends on how much it costs to acquire the viewer's attention.


----------



## bicker

Steveknj said:


> I am sorry if I called you something you don't agree with, but in the threads I've seen, I've yet to see you attack NBC's strategy.


So because someone disagrees with your partisan perspective, you assume that they must be an "apologist". Holy cow. That's stunning.

I'm not going to *contradict *the point I'm making in this thread *just to make you happy*. I don't attack NBC's strategy because no one has enough data yet to defend any assertions that NBC made a mistake. That's not to say that this isn't a mistake. Rather, *the only thing we can say with assurance is that it is a mistake to call it a mistake right now*.


----------



## Steveknj

bicker said:


> Your lack of evidence.
> 
> Repeating myself: No one has enough data yet to defend any assertions that NBC made a mistake. That's not to say that this isn't a mistake. Rather, *the only thing we can say with assurance is that it is a mistake to call it a mistake right now*.


But you have the same lack of evidence I do. Mine is opinion just like yours. And I've never agreed with the fact that Leno, in and of itself is killing NBC. I can't prove that my assertations are fact, just like you can't prove they aren't and that yours are. Evidence for me is in the early ratings, and the fact that affiliates are barking and that some of the so called insiders are making these assertations. Lets not get into a p*ssing contest over this. I have NOT dismissed what you have said, but you seem to have dismissed mine based on the same lack of evidence YOU have.

All I'm trying to say is that NBC has been in trouble a long time, and I don't think gutting everything is necessarily the answer. If fewer viewers are watching your network, it decreases the odds that one of your shows can become a hit. The idea is to draw viewers in, not to turn them away. The jury is still out on this. I do agree with you there.


----------



## bicker

Steveknj said:


> But you have the same lack of evidence I do.


You are incorrect. My assertion is that you don't have enough evidence on which to base your criticism. Your lack of evidence proves my assertion.

Regardless if you're willing to just end this by each of us saying that it is possible that this is a good strategy for NBC and it is possible that this is a bad strategy for NBC, then I can go for that.


----------



## MickeS

bicker is not a network apologist. He simply believes that "corporations" as an entity always act in their own best interest. I don't think he has EVER written a post where he criticized the decisions of someone working for a corporation, be it a network or a cable company, for an action or decision. To him, they can do no wrong - even when it's obvious to everyone else that the decisions individuals working for the corporations have made huge mistakes.

To everyone else but bicker, it's pretty much obvious that Ben Silverman made some bad, if not awful, business decisions. But to bicker, those were likely just part of a brilliant scheme to make NBC less profitable.


----------



## bicker

Your comments nothing short of abusive and personal in nature. Instead of general statements about consumers in general, would you prefer I ascribe the descriptors of the nastiest traits of consumerists to you personally? Of course not. If you don't want threads to turn into flame fests, keep your comments on topic, instead of engaging in personal attacks on other posters. Attack the perspectives presented if you wish.


----------



## MickeS

bicker said:


> Your comments nothing short of abusive and personal in nature. Instead of general statements about consumers in general, would you prefer I ascribe the descriptors of the nastiest traits of consumerists to you personally? Of course not. If you don't want threads to turn into flame fests, keep your comments on topic, instead of engaging in personal attacks on other posters. Attack the perspectives presented if you wish.


"Personal attack"? Is that when I pointed out that you have never criticized a network or cable company?


----------



## bicker

I surely I have never said that they can "do no wrong" as you put it, but that's not even the point. The point is that your posting is inappropriate. *I'm* not the topic of *this *thread, nor a worth topic for *any *thread. Again, your posting is inappropriate. It does nothing other than to foster a flame-fest. You're flame baiting. That's the only effective end-result of your message. It adds nothing useful to the thread, and does add something negative to the thread.


----------



## LostCluster

NBC knew fully that Leno would, after the first-few-days burst, settle into 4th or perhaps even 5th place. And they didn't mind, because Leno is a whole lot cheaper of a show to make than a scripted drama. Because of the lower costs, it's easier to make a profit even if they get less ad money.

NBC isn't trying to be the most watched network, they want to be the most profitable.


----------



## Jesda

Steveknj said:


> But wouldn't their goal to be to CONTINUE to make a profit? This is the type of shortsighted thinking that has killed our economy too. They gut the network, for short term gain, meanwhile, the rest of their product suffers, and possibly to the point of no return. There's no investment in the future here. But you know what? The execs in charge figure, they will only be there for 4 or 5 years before they move on, with healthy bonuses and enough money to start their own production companies (as many of them have done). Why should THEY care if the network is in the crapper AFTER they are gone? It's not like it was in the days of Sarnoff and Paley. These guys are there for the short term and move on.


Sure, but when you're in a tighter financial situation, you have to reduce costs to see a future at all. NBC still has several excellent programs and allowed low-rated (at first) but high quality shows like The Office and Chuck to stay on the air and build an audience.

One profitable low-rated variety talk show isn't the end of the world, as this thread seems to be implying. If Jay had left for ABC, CBS, or Fox, NBC's situation in that timeslot might be even worse now, and producing/authorizing the filming of a new drama or comedy would turn an easily profitable 10pm into a money pit. Its hard to justify those kinds of risks to shareholders when times are tough.

NBC deserves a little more credit. They don't pump and dump shows like Fox.


----------



## Zevida

Jesda said:


> NBC deserves a little more credit. They don't pump and dump shows like Fox.


Really? What about Kings and Southland?


----------



## DevdogAZ

Jesda said:


> NBC deserves a little more credit. They don't pump and dump shows like Fox.





Zevida said:


> Really? What about Kings and Southland?


Every network does that to some extent. It's actually pretty common with mid-season replacement shows, which both Kings and Southland were. They come on in March or April, don't get great ratings, and are quietly canceled, despite the fact that there is a small core of vocal fans.


----------



## smak

A couple things I read.

Leno will cost $100 million a year.
Dramas and reruns would have cost $300 million.

Ad rates for Leno's show are running around 50-75k less then the avg 10pm show would have made. SVU made around $137k for 30 seconds, some of the other shows i'm sure were less. Leno could be as low as $50k.

$100k a minute x 16 minutes is $1.6m a day, $8m a week less.

Times that by 22 weeks, it's around $176 million less.

They think he'll get similar rates compared to the re-runs that would have aired the other weeks he's new while the old show would have been a re-run.

NBC isn't going to sell Leno on iTunes, DVD's, syndication, etc.. etc... Who knows how much money that would have been for a 10pm drama. Not a tremendous amount probably.

It'll be interesting to see. With the ratings of the past week I think they're fine. Drop 20&#37;, then I think it's a problem. 

-smak-


----------



## DevdogAZ

smak said:


> A couple things I read.
> 
> Leno will cost $100 million a year.
> Dramas and reruns would have cost $300 million.
> 
> Ad rates for Leno's show are running around 50-75k less then the avg 10pm show would have made. SVU made around $137k for 30 seconds, some of the other shows i'm sure were less. Leno could be as low as $50k.
> 
> $100k a minute x 16 minutes is $1.6m a day, $8m a week less.
> 
> Times that by 22 weeks, it's around $176 million less.
> 
> They think he'll get similar rates compared to the re-runs that would have aired the other weeks he's new while the old show would have been a re-run.
> 
> NBC isn't going to sell Leno on iTunes, DVD's, syndication, etc.. etc... Who knows how much money that would have been for a 10pm drama. Not a tremendous amount probably.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see. With the ratings of the past week I think they're fine. Drop 20%, then I think it's a problem.
> 
> -smak-


I agree with nearly everything in your post except for your calculation of the potential lost revenue. You used the ad rates for SVU, which was NBC's highest rated 10pm drama, and then extrapolated that out over the full week. The reality is that most of NBC's 10pm shows didn't get nearly the ratings of SVU, and therefore, ads during those shows didn't cost nearly as much. I'll bet the actual difference in ad revenue isn't nearly as dramatic as the calculations you threw out there.


----------



## Jesda

DevdogAZ said:


> Every network does that to some extent. It's actually pretty common with mid-season replacement shows, which both Kings and Southland were. They come on in March or April, don't get great ratings, and are quietly canceled, despite the fact that there is a small core of vocal fans.


I vaguely remember those titles.


----------



## Zevida

DevdogAZ said:


> Every network does that to some extent.


Right, that was my point. He said NBC doesn't do that, but they do. Fox gets a bad rap because they do more of the sci-fi/edgy shows popular with this crowd, but all the networks do it to all types of shows. Delay the start to mid-season, position it poorly on the schedule, underpromote, move it around on the schedule, dump it at some terrible time and burn off episodes then cancel. That is not a Fox exclusive.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Zevida said:


> Right, that was my point. He said NBC doesn't do that, but they do. Fox gets a bad rap because they do more of the sci-fi/edgy shows popular with this crowd, but all the networks do it to all types of shows. Delay the start to mid-season, position it poorly on the schedule, underpromote, move it around on the schedule, dump it at some terrible time and burn off episodes then cancel. That is not a Fox exclusive.


Right, I was agreeing with you and backing you up.


----------



## bicker

Remember that Leno will have new episodes 46 weeks in a year, while SVU will have only about 24 new episodes in a year.


----------



## dswallow

bicker said:


> Remember that Leno will have new episodes 46 weeks in a year, while SVU will have only about 24 new episodes in a year.


I'd quickly trade 46 weeks of Leno for even 1 week of SVU.


----------



## bicker

I'd trade them both for a few minutes of FlashForward -- what's your point?


----------



## Fish Man

Zevida said:


> Really? What about Kings and Southland?


Indeed.

This TV season, NBC has outdone FOX in the "pump and dump". And by that I mean, they've outdone the most outrageous "pump and dump" FOX has ever done.

I therefore re-state my assertion that the evidence we can see from the outside strongly suggests that NBC is "flailing". Canceling a strongly hyped show before the first episode ever airs is "flailing", almost by definition. It's almost impossible to explain it by anything but lack of direction.

What do I mean by "flailing"? They're stressed, and they're panicked. They're making decisions off the cuff. They're blindly throwing darts and hoping something sticks.

A corporation with a solid plan and roadmap for where they are going does not do things like this.

Corporations "flail" all the time. They get into a hole and flail for a while.

Some survive a period of "flailing", either by getting lucky (one of those "darts" might "stick") or by taking a step back and developing a clear strategy. Others don't.

Will NBC survive this? I'm guessing that they will. But that they are struggling at the moment seems clear.


----------



## aindik

bicker said:


> Remember that Leno will have new episodes 46 weeks in a year, while SVU will have only about 24 new episodes in a year.


Yeah, smak's post considered that when he said


> They think he'll get similar rates compared to the re-runs that would have aired the other weeks he's new while the old show would have been a re-run.


IOW, where x = what a new SVU gets and y = what Leno gets, then:
SVU Revenue = 22x + 24y
Leno Revenue = 46y
Lost Revenue = (22x + 24y) - 46y
Lost Revenue = 22x + 24y - 46y
Lost Revenue = 22x - 22y

Of course, as DevdogAZ says, that only accounts for one day a week. You'd need to know a value of "x" for the shows that would have been on the other four days a week.


----------



## BrandonRe

aindik said:


> Yeah, smak's post considered that when he said
> 
> IOW, where x = what a new SVU gets and y = what Leno gets, then:
> SVU Revenue = 22x + 24y
> Leno Revenue = 46y
> *Lost* Revenue = (22x + 24y) - 46y
> *Lost* Revenue = 22x + 24y - 46y
> *Lost* Revenue = 22x - 22y
> 
> Of course, as DevdogAZ says, that only accounts for one day a week. You'd need to know a value of "x" for the shows that would have been on the other four days a week.


Wait- NBC canceled Lost?!?!?! BIH, NBC!


----------



## allan

Zevida said:


> Fox gets a bad rap because they do more of the sci-fi/edgy shows popular with this crowd, but all the networks do it to all types of shows. Delay the start to mid-season, position it poorly on the schedule, underpromote, move it around on the schedule, dump it at some terrible time and burn off episodes then cancel. That is not a Fox exclusive.


True. I'd be more bothered by the loss of a great new SF type show than dumping SCI:Kansas City.


----------



## lew

bicker said:


> Remember that Leno will have new episodes 46 weeks in a year, while SVU will have only about 24 new episodes in a year.


Agreed. Some shows are produced by the network. The network makes some money with DVD sales, syndication and digital sales (I-Tune). I don't think this offsets the difference in cost but it offsets some of it.

Leno ratings are starting to drop below the advertiser guaranteed numbers.

NBC is hoping Leno will do better when the other shows air re-runs.

The original Saturday Night Live Cast was billed as the "not ready for prime time players" Johnny Carson rarely (ever?) agreed to even put an anniversary show on prime time. Maybe shows that work at late night don't work in prime time.

Leno costs a lot less then scripted shows but sometimes you get what you pay for.



> While the network says Leno's show is much cheaper to produce than scripted programming, it's unclear whether those savings can compensate for the low ratings. NBC concentrates on the ratings for 18-to-49-year-old viewers, and by that measure Leno is precariously close to the 1.5 rating the network says it has promised to advertisers. Last Monday, the show had a 1.5 rating, and on Friday it was 1.4, Nielsen said.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hAJNIGmFfSwvALcrAVuCjgDoGaSAD9BAET1O3

I don't know if the link will work. AP article hosted on Google news.


----------



## Jesda

Zevida said:


> Right, that was my point. He said NBC doesn't do that, but they do. Fox gets a bad rap because they do more of the sci-fi/edgy shows popular with this crowd, but all the networks do it to all types of shows. Delay the start to mid-season, position it poorly on the schedule, underpromote, move it around on the schedule, dump it at some terrible time and burn off episodes then cancel. That is not a Fox exclusive.


I dont remember NBC doing this very often. Even Family Guy made a gag about how Fox cancels so many shows.


----------



## bicker

lew said:


> Agreed. Some shows are produced by the network. The network makes some money with DVD sales, syndication and digital sales (I-Tune). I don't think this offsets the difference in cost but it offsets some of it.


The parent of the network can still produce shows -- they don't have to present them on their OTA network to do so. So there is no need to lose any money from that direction.



lew said:


> Leno ratings are starting to drop below the advertiser guaranteed numbers.


That's like being a little pregnant. Either NBC is paying back guarantees or not. Wait until it happens before you declare.



lew said:


> Leno costs a lot less then scripted shows but sometimes you get what you pay for.


And sometimes that's all that the distribution channel deserves.


----------



## Steveknj

Fish Man said:


> Indeed.
> 
> This TV season, NBC has outdone FOX in the "pump and dump". And by that I mean, they've outdone the most outrageous "pump and dump" FOX has ever done.
> 
> I therefore re-state my assertion that the evidence we can see from the outside strongly suggests that NBC is "flailing". Canceling a strongly hyped show before the first episode ever airs is "flailing", almost by definition. It's almost impossible to explain it by anything but lack of direction.
> 
> What do I mean by "flailing"? They're stressed, and they're panicked. They're making decisions off the cuff. They're blindly throwing darts and hoping something sticks.
> 
> A corporation with a solid plan and roadmap for where they are going does not do things like this.[/B]
> 
> Corporations "flail" all the time. They get into a hole and flail for a while.
> 
> Some survive a period of "flailing", either by getting lucky (one of those "darts" might "stick") or by taking a step back and developing a clear strategy. Others don't.
> 
> Will NBC survive this? I'm guessing that they will. But that they are struggling at the moment seems clear.


That's exactly how I see it. If their plan is to cut costs, and however it affects affiliates or lost eyeballs, then it may or may not work, but it strikes me as desperate. Hopefully this will lead to them having some revenue to pump into real programming. You know, someone pointed out that they have some real successes on their cable channels. I wonder if they just brought those over at 10PM with production costs already fixed, if they could build an audience. I would think something like Burn Notice could be real successful on a major (if you can still call NBC that) network. Use your cable outlets like "minor league baseball" Try them out there, and if they are successful, "promote" them.


----------



## 5thcrewman

dswallow said:


> I'd quickly trade 46 weeks of Leno for even 1 week of SVU.


I'd rather watch _Manimal_ reruns than Leno!


----------



## appleye1

lew said:


> NBC is prepared to accept lower ratings in exchange for lower costs and original programming 40 weeks a year.
> 
> The question is if the affiliates are willing to accept the resulting hit on their local news ratings. I don't know under what circumstances an affiliate is allowed to omit airing a network show.


Ratings for 11PM local news on NBC stations, O&O and affiliates, are down 12%.

But guess what, ratings are down on CBS stations by 12% too. And on ABC ratings are down 9%. So, according to this article, Stations On 'Leno': So Far So Good, the stations aren't too worried about Leno yet.


----------



## lew

bicker said:


> That's like being a little pregnant. Either NBC is paying back guarantees or not. Wait until it happens before you declare.


According to the AP article the ratings were below the guarantee last Friday and exactly hit the number last Monday. I don't know the exact terms before advertisers are owed compensation. The point is the ratings are starting to drop below even the low expectations NBC has for the show.

You can't be "a little pregnant". Leno's ratings could drop below the guarantee, but not often enough to bother NBC. Isn't the remedy for dropping below the guarantee generally "make good" ads? Occasionally having to give advertisers some free spots may not be the end of the world.

You hit the nail on the head. Leno will probably be on against re-runs 20+ weeks. The question is what kind of ratings will those shows generate.

All public information suggests NBC can live with the Leno's current ratings.

My memory is ABC produced Alias. Having enough episodes to syndicate, and revenue from DVD sales, motivated ABC to renew the series for a final season.
There is some question if ratings alone would have justified renewing the show. I doubt the show would have been renewed if it wasn't being aired on a network that also produced the show.

What's interesting is the first run shows on second tier networks are watchable, and sometimes good. Monk, Leverage even Legend of the Seeker are as good as some of the (probably more expensive to produce) shows on the major networks. I don't think I even watched the first episode of Southland to the first commercial break.


----------



## bicker

lew said:


> The point is the ratings are starting to drop below even the low expectations NBC has for the show.


Read this:


appleye1 said:


> But guess what, ratings are down on CBS stations by 12% too. And on ABC ratings are down 9%. So, according to this article, Stations On 'Leno': So Far So Good, the stations aren't too worried about Leno yet.


People just want to ***** about NBC. They just want to ***** about Leno. They just want to ***** about not getting what they personally would prefer. There is really very little consideration paid to maintaining perspective by folks who just want to ***** about not getting their way.



lew said:


> My memory is ABC produced Alias. Having enough episodes to syndicate, and revenue from DVD sales, motivated ABC to renew the series for a final season.


NBC Universal produces House.

See my point?



lew said:


> There is some question if ratings alone would have justified renewing the show.


The issue with Alias is that the network insisted on toning down the ongoing story-arc because they felt essentially burdening viewers with the need to watch every episode detracted from ratings. Earlier, someone accused me of never criticizing a decision made by a network, but I've criticized that network decision many times (with perfect 20/20 hindsight -- but that's the point, I don't criticize because I'm a spoiled child and don't like what they're doing -- I criticize when evidence shows that their decision was not only incorrect, but also that there was evidence that they had a reasonable amount of evidence available that indicated that the decision they were making was a mistake).


----------



## DevdogAZ

Fish Man said:


> I therefore re-state my assertion that the evidence we can see from the outside strongly suggests that NBC is "flailing". Canceling a strongly hyped show before the first episode ever airs is "flailing", almost by definition. It's almost impossible to explain it by anything but lack of direction.


While I don't necessarily disagree that NBC is "flailing," I'm curious about this "strongly hyped show" that was canceled before the first episode ever aired. What show are you talking about? Because if you're talking about Southland, you're very wrong. It aired seven episodes last spring and the ratings were atrocious. They started high, based on the ridiculous amount of promotion done by the network, but they quickly fell off a cliff after people actually watched the show. Here are the ratings in the adults 18-49 demographic:

April 9: 3.2/9 1st place in the hour (out of 3)
April 16: 3.1/9 1st place in the hour (out of 3)
April 23: 2.4/7 2nd place in the hour (out of 3)
April 30: 2.2/6 3rd place in the hour (out of 3)
May 7: 2.0/6 3rd place in the hour (out of 3)
May 14: 1.7/5 3rd place in the hour (out of 3)
May 21: 2.0/6 1st place in the hour (first night of summer, other networks were airing repeats)

The renewal decision was announced on May 1 after only the first few episodes aired, when the average rating was still high and the trend wasn't totally apparent. But by the time all seven episodes aired, it should have been clear to the network that renewing the show was a horrible decision. I don't know why they continued to produce the shows throughout the summer, but the decision to cancel the show before any episodes aired was simply a correction of a previous mistake, not a mistake by itself. I've read some opinions that seem to think Ben Silverman was making all the decisions and now that he's gone, the new team is going to have to make some hard decisions to clean up the mess he made. This was one of those decisions.

As for whether the show was "strongly hyped," here's what one of the stars had to say about the lack of promotion by NBC this fall:



> In retrospect, I saw it coming. We were two weeks away from airing and [the cancellation news] has created more press for the show than NBC has put into it on its own. They ran the first [Southland] ad  a 30-second spot  last Friday, and thats the only one that they ran. Thats not a relaunch. When you have a network that nobodys watching, it doesnt benefit you to only advertise on your network.


That doesn't sound to me like a show that was "strongly hyped." That sounds like a show that the network knew was not going to get good ratings and they were trying to figure out the easiest way to get it off their schedule.


----------



## lew

Some of us are wondering if Leno will even meet the low standards set by NBC. We wonder if NBC fully anticipated the impact Leno would have on moving L&O to an earlier time slot. Wonder if NBC anticipated Lettermen consistently beating Conan. Wonder if NBC anticipated the hit on local news.
One poster suggested local news didn't take hit due to Leno, all local news is down. Other articles give different information. I wonder if it will get to the point where one or more affiliates try to push the issue.

I'm not "*****ing" about getting my way. *I'd be shocked if either of us would be interested in watching whatever cheap programming NBC would produce to replace Leno. * Instead of Leno we'd probably wind up with one or more game shows multiple nights. You might watch local news at 10p if your local affiliate is able to offer it.

I'm not going to take the time to search but I have a different memory regarding Alias. My memory is ABC was hoping the episode airing after the superbowl could improve the mediocre ratings the show had been earning. Jumpstart the show. A decision was made to kill the SD6 plot line. To stop the continuation from one episode to the next. My memory this was done to attract viewers *and to make the show more marketable for syndication*. I think Alias was one of the first shows to regularly air a cliffhanger episode by showing the dilemma at the beginning of the show. We then see how the situation came up and how it was solved.

You didn't like the approach but it was done halfway through the second season. The show continued for 3.5 years. It's hard to attract new viewers to serial shows and some existing viewers tire of the show. Heroes may be a good example.

edited to add you started a recent thread regarding Sci-Fi programs. Alias may be another example of a Sci-Fi program that never did as well as the network hoped.

My DVR records enough shows. I don't need any shows from NBC at 10p. I'm not sure if I have a SP for any NBC show. I just deleted my SP for Heroes.



bicker said:


> Read this:
> 
> People just want to ***** about NBC. They just want to ***** about Leno. They just want to ***** about not getting what they personally would prefer. There is really very little consideration paid to maintaining perspective by folks who just want to ***** about not getting their way.
> 
> NBC Universal produces House.
> 
> See my point?
> 
> The issue with Alias is that the network insisted on toning down the ongoing story-arc because they felt essentially burdening viewers with the need to watch every episode detracted from ratings. Earlier, some cretin accused me of never criticizing a decision made by a network, but I've criticized that network decision many times (with perfect 20/20 hindsight -- but that's the point, I don't criticize because I'm a spoiled child and don't like what they're doing -- I criticize when evidence shows that their decision was not only incorrect, but also that there was evidence that they had a reasonable amount of evidence available that indicated that the decision they were making was a mistake).


----------



## That Don Guy

lew said:


> I'm not going to take the time to search but I have a different memory regarding Alias. My memory is ABC was hoping the episode airing after the superbowl could improve the mediocre ratings the show had been earning. Jumpstart the show. A decision was made to kill the SD6 plot line. To stop the continuation from one episode to the next. My memory this was done to attract viewers *and to make the show more marketable for syndication*.


Hour-long network shows don't syndicate well. For some strange reason, local stations would rather fill an hour with two shows, even if it's two episodes of the same series. (This used to be a good thing for real fans of the hour-long shows, as it meant they would be released to video almost immediately, while the comedies would have to wait for years as the syndicators wanted to be sure people watched the shows (and the ads that went with them) on TV. For whatever reason, this policy changed a few years ago, as now most network comedies release a season DVD set soon after the season ends; the one main exception seems to be _The Simpsons_, which is about eight years behind, but this is mainly because they're so busy making the current season that they can't speed up the DVD releases.)

-- Don


----------



## lew

Alias was "re-tooled" during the 2002-2003 season. At the time they thought the change would help syndication. Although hour long network shows don't syndicate well cable networks air hour long shows. NCIS is on one of the cable networks (USA?)



That Don Guy said:


> Hour-long network shows don't syndicate well. For some strange reason, local stations would rather fill an hour with two shows, even if it's two episodes of the same series. (This used to be a good thing for real fans of the hour-long shows, as it meant they would be released to video almost immediately, while the comedies would have to wait for years as the syndicators wanted to be sure people watched the shows (and the ads that went with them) on TV. For whatever reason, this policy changed a few years ago, as now most network comedies release a season DVD set soon after the season ends; the one main exception seems to be _The Simpsons_, which is about eight years behind, but this is mainly because they're so busy making the current season that they can't speed up the DVD releases.)
> 
> -- Don


----------



## That Don Guy

Jesda said:


> One profitable low-rated variety talk show isn't the end of the world, as this thread seems to be implying


_One_ isn't. The problem is, for all intents and purposes, Leno is _five_ of them.

Another thing that has changed over the years; networks are no longer capable of sustaining a regular time slot for movies, so that's two more hours of programming they each need. (Not counting when ABC airs movies on Saturday nights when it's not football season, but as nobody programs Saturday nights anyway - the closest anybody has come to including Saturday in a "fall preview" in years is when Entertainment Weekly "previewed" the DVD release of _The Love Boat_ - there's no need to come up with new programming for it.)



lew said:


> Alias was "re-tooled" during the 2002-2003 season. At the time they thought the change would help syndication. Although hour long network shows don't syndicate well cable networks air hour long shows. NCIS is on one of the cable networks (USA?)


Yes, repeats of hour-long shows do quite well on cable (nothing new about that). Maybe we're defining "syndication" differently; I don't consider an exclusive rights deal to be on a single cable network as syndication.

-- Don


----------



## lew

That Don Guy said:


> Yes, repeats of hour-long shows do quite well on cable (nothing new about that). Maybe we're defining "syndication" differently; I don't consider an exclusive rights deal to be on a single cable network as syndication.
> 
> -- Don


I agree, it's not syndication. The question is how can a production company make money selling old episodes. It looks like hour long shows wind up going to a cable network and half hour shows get syndicated. Syndication is normally exclusive to an area. I don't think you can syndicate a show and sell it to a cable network at the same time.


----------



## smak

DevdogAZ said:


> I agree with nearly everything in your post except for your calculation of the potential lost revenue. You used the ad rates for SVU, which was NBC's highest rated 10pm drama, and then extrapolated that out over the full week. The reality is that most of NBC's 10pm shows didn't get nearly the ratings of SVU, and therefore, ads during those shows didn't cost nearly as much. I'll bet the actual difference in ad revenue isn't nearly as dramatic as the calculations you threw out there.


I said the other 10pm shows were lower.

This article says that Leno's ad rates are 1/2 of what the other networks are. Which is pretty much the same figures that I said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125...od=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection?mg=com-wsj

-smak-


----------



## aindik

lew said:


> I don't think you can syndicate a show and sell it to a cable network at the same time.


Sure you can. Shows that are currently both syndicated and run on a cable network, off the top of my head:
Seinfeld
King of Queens
Everybody Loves Raymond
The Office
Lost


----------



## smak

The new Matthew Perry project went to ABC after a bidding war with NBC. A show basically with a built in green light to go to series.

Maybe ABC actually bid more than NBC, or maybe they didn't.

But this is partially what I was talking about. Some series with major stars attached, and major producers DO have a choice of what network they will go to, and with the climate at NBC, and the negative feelings that the "talent" had about NBC putting Leno 5 nights a week, why would anybody choose NBC right now?

-smak-


----------



## bicker

lew said:


> Some of us are wondering if Leno will even meet the low standards set by NBC.


I think you're being disingenuous by referring to the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric some of the other folks in this thread and other NBC/Leno-related threads have been engaging in as "wondering". You're essentially trying to hide a back-door rationalization for their obtuse exaggeration and melodramaticism behind the vagueness of your reply.



lew said:


> I'm not "*****ing" about getting my way.


At least here you switch to the word "I", but in doing so your comment no longer covers all the ground relevant to the message you were replying to.



lew said:


> I'd be shocked if either of us would be interested in watching whatever cheap programming NBC would produce to replace Leno.


What I _don't_ see you saying is that you acknowledge that there is no reason to think that the kind of programming you might be interested in watching necessarily the best approach for NBC.



lew said:


> I'm not going to take the time to search but I have a different memory regarding Alias.


That's your prerogative. The outline I provided you is absolutely what happened with Alias. In retrospect, ABC screwed up by failing to see the advance signs that serial dramas were beginning to become more acceptable to their audiences.



lew said:


> A decision was made to kill the SD6 plot line. To stop the continuation from one episode to the next. My memory this was done to attract viewers and to make the show more marketable for syndication.


That's what I said.


----------



## dswallow

smak said:


> why would anybody choose NBC right now?


Because you know the other networks won't be interested.


----------



## DevdogAZ

smak said:


> I said the other 10pm shows were lower.
> 
> This article says that Leno's ad rates are 1/2 of what the other networks are. Which is pretty much the same figures that I said.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125...od=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection?mg=com-wsj
> 
> -smak-


Right, you acknowledged that the other nights were lower, but your calculation of lost revenue used the SVU figure, which makes the loss look much larger than it really is.


----------



## smak

DevdogAZ said:


> Right, you acknowledged that the other nights were lower, but your calculation of lost revenue used the SVU figure, which makes the loss look much larger than it really is.


No, I had the lowest rate for Leno at $50k, and SVU at $137k. That's $87k difference. My figures were $50k-$75k difference.

I don't know what the other NBC 10pm dramas were at, but since the WSJ is saying that the other networks ad rates at 10pm are double Leno, that puts them at $100-$150k. Even putting NBC dramas at the low end of that, and then adding 1 night for in SVU at the high end, that's easily in my range.

My calculations used $100k a minute, which is $50k per 30 second commercial, which is at the lowest end of my scale.

-smak-


----------



## lew

I agree going with cheap programs, that should be profitable with low ratings makes sense for NBC. They're not likely to put anything in the 10p slot I'll be watching. I have enough to watch without NBC.

CBS found a format that works for them. 3 hours of CSI. 2 hours of NCIS. 1 hour of Criminal Minds (a second in the works).

NBC set Leno to be profitable with low ratings. I'm curious to see if the ratings turn out even lower then required for the experiment to work. NBC isn't looking for a new ER or West Wing to replace Leno. I agree with 99% of what your saying (in this thread).

NBC aired Merlin over the summer. I don't know the costs, ratings or availability of other BBC series. I'm sure NBC looked at those alternatives. In the beginning I watched Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Less expensive shows can get good ratings. I think NBC was a little lazy using Leno 5 nights a week.



bicker said:


> I think you're being disingenuous by referring to the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric some of the other folks in this thread and other NBC/Leno-related threads have been engaging in as "wondering". You're essentially trying to hide a back-door rationalization for their obtuse exaggeration and melodramaticism behind the vagueness of your reply.
> 
> At least here you switch to the word "I", but in doing so your comment no longer covers all the ground relevant to the message you were replying to.
> 
> What I _don't_ see you saying is that you acknowledge that there is no reason to think that the kind of programming you might be interested in watching necessarily the best approach for NBC.
> 
> That's your prerogative. The outline I provided you is absolutely what happened with Alias. In retrospect, ABC screwed up by failing to see the advance signs that serial dramas were beginning to become more acceptable to their audiences.
> 
> That's what I said.


----------



## bicker

lew said:


> NBC aired Merlin over the summer. I don't know the costs, ratings or availability of other BBC series. I'm sure NBC looked at those alternatives.


The Philanthropist was filmed primarily in South Africa. The Listener was produced by CTV (Canada).

Moving away from NBC for a second: Mental was produced in South America, by a South American subsidiary.

All three of those approaches (your Merlin example going hand-in-glove with the Listener example) represent viable cost-cutting measures for dramas.

Of course, Leno represents a fourth cost-cutting measure, and for all we know might be the most profitable of them all.


----------



## sharkster

I must be the only one, but I have to say - I was not watching NBC at 10pm AT ALL, and now I'm watching NBC every night (M-F) at 10pm now.  I'm enjoying most of the show. I don't like some of the bits that they do in the first half with some guest 'comedian' going to another site and doing some weird (not funny IMO) routine, so I ff through that but I enjoy the rest (except the first 2 minutes of applause and screaming...geez already!).


----------



## DevdogAZ

smak said:


> No, I had the lowest rate for Leno at $50k, and SVU at $137k. That's $87k difference. My figures were $50k-$75k difference.
> 
> I don't know what the other NBC 10pm dramas were at, but since the WSJ is saying that the other networks ad rates at 10pm are double Leno, that puts them at $100-$150k. Even putting NBC dramas at the low end of that, and then adding 1 night for in SVU at the high end, that's easily in my range.
> 
> My calculations used $100k a minute, which is $50k per 30 second commercial, which is at the lowest end of my scale.
> 
> -smak-


OK, I just went back and looked at your calculations and I'll admit that I misunderstood how you came up with your numbers. I now see how you derived those numbers and I agree that they are not based on the SVU numbers. Please accept my apology.


----------



## lew

bicker said:


> Of course, Leno represents a fourth cost-cutting measure, and for all we know might be the most profitable of them all.


Which is my interest in this thread. Will Leno be so bad (ratings wise) that the effect on other NBC programs negates profit generated by a low cost/low ratings Leno? Will the ratings be so low that your local affiliate is able to fight NBC and air local news at 10p?

You want lower cost "quality" programming. Try airing Nightline during prime time once or twice a week, won't help NBC.


----------



## bicker

Nightline is an ABC program. Given how ABC is doing just as much worse than last year as NBC is, that might not be a bad idea.

And, of course, Fox never even *tried* to run programming at 10PM.

Which leaves just CBS, and Les Moonves and Sumner Redstone essentially doing what they like, maybe without enough regard to what's best for other shareholders.


----------



## lew

bicker said:


> Nightline is an ABC program. Given how ABC is doing just as much worse than last year as NBC is, that might not be a bad idea.
> 
> And, of course, Fox never even *tried* to run programming at 10PM.
> 
> Which leaves just CBS, and Les Moonves and Sumner Redstone essentially doing what they like, maybe without enough regard to what's best for other shareholders.


I know Nightline is an ABC show, that's why I said it won't help NBC.
ABC is already paying the production costs for Nightline. I don't think it would cost much (any?) extra to air it during primetime. ABC can position it as increasing quality programming during primetime. People will (unfavorably) compare it with the Leno expirement if you do it 5 nights a week. It may be worth a shot 2 or 3 nights a week.

Fox affiliates run local news at 10p. That's what your affiliate wants to do. That may be a better approach.

CBS shows has shows like CSI-Miami and the Mentalist at 10p. The ratings may be high enough for the shows to be profitable. There may be enough of an audience for some scripted drama shows but not enough for 4 networks, 5 nights a week.


----------



## allan

Given the choice between Nightline & Leno, I'd pick NL. Actually, I normally watch the local news on Fox, since 10:30PM (Central Time) is a little late to stay up when I get out of bed at 5-6AM. Leno is a distant 3rd.


----------



## DevdogAZ

lew said:


> I know Nightline is an ABC show, that's why I said it won't help NBC.
> ABC is already paying the production costs for Nightline. I don't think it would cost much (any?) extra to air it during primetime. ABC can position it as increasing quality programming during primetime. People will (unfavorably) compare it with the Leno expirement if you do it 5 nights a week. It may be worth a shot 2 or 3 nights a week.


Doesn't ABC already do this one night a week with 20/20? Last Friday, it did a 1.5/5 vs. Leno's 1.4/5. Basically the same. I'm guessing that ABC is OK with those numbers on a Friday, but they wouldn't accept those numbers on the other weeknights. Apparently, NBC has decided that it's OK with those numbers on all weeknights.


allan said:


> Given the choice between Nightline & Leno, I'd pick NL. Actually, I normally watch the local news on Fox, since 10:30PM (Central Time) is a little late to stay up when I get out of bed at 5-6AM. Leno is a distant 3rd.


Interestingly, Nightline is beating Conan quite soundly so far this season, so you're not alone when you say you'd choose Nightline over one of the comedy options.


----------



## Jesda

Is Carson Daly still on the air?


----------



## DevdogAZ

Jesda said:


> Is Carson Daly still on the air?


Yep, after Jimmy Fallon at 1:35 a.m. ET/PT. It's averaging a 0.3/3 so far this season, against competition that is mostly syndicated reruns and infomercials.


----------



## smak

DevdogAZ said:


> Yep, after Jimmy Fallon at 1:35 a.m. ET/PT. It's averaging a 0.3/3 so far this season, against competition that is mostly syndicated reruns and infomercials.


...and sleep.

-smak-


----------



## aindik

smak said:


> ...and sleep.
> 
> -smak-


The 3 after the slash is a "share" (as opposed to the "rating" that appears before the slash). It's a percentage of all people watching TV at that time that are watching that show. IOW, the denominator of that fraction doesn't include people who are sleeping.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> The 3 after the slash is a "share" (as opposed to the "rating" that appears before the slash). It's a percentage of all people watching TV at that time that are watching that show. IOW, the denominator of that fraction doesn't include people who are sleeping.


You are right in that the number after the slash is the percentage. But it's inaccurate to portray the ratings numbers as a "fraction." While it's presented with a slash between the two numbers, they're two completely independent numbers. One is not a numerator and the other a denominator. It's simply 0.3 rating and 3 share.

(I'm sure you know that, aindik, but I didn't want other people who don't understand the ratings to misunderstand your post.)


----------



## marksman

I don't think ABC, CBS or NBC could just give back 5 hours of primetime a week to the affiliates. It was my recollection when Fox came into existance that their schedule was designed the way it was because a single additional hour of prime time programming would legally make them a network and force them into a bunch of additional rules, laws and regulations. Obviously a lot has changed since then, but I suspect there would still be an issue for any of the old 3 networks to drop their actual prime time schedule. 

The reality is the cost for tv shows continue to go up as the audiences continue to grow smaller. It makes no sense. TV Networks need to work on ways to make more affordable scripted programming. Unfortunately every "struggling" guild needs their piece of the pie and everyone else wants to make a ton of money&#160;so for some reason it can't be done.

I imagine someone could actually make an hour long tv show of some level of quality for only like 100k, if everyone was not trying to get the piece of the action they want. So instead we see shows costing 2 or 3 million for an hour which means unless the show is an unmitigated hit it has no shot.

Television has grown into a massive industry on the backs of businesses advertising on faith and spending more and more money for less and less. With other forms of advertising providing more accountability, it is only a matter of time before it becomes a bigger issue for television. I suspect in the next 20 years that there will be some sort of implosion in the hollywood industry as it simply can't withstand every protected class and everything they want out of it. I think movies will be better off longer, but tv will implode first. 

People need to realize this when negotiating union deals when jobs start disappearing as Networks keep reducing the number of available jobs for a lot of positions. Who cares how much you get for dvd sales when you don't have a job at all?

The current economics of tv make no sense to me. The amount companies pay to advertise seems excessive to me for relative return. 25 years ago a show with 15 million viewers would have a good chance of getting canceled. Now it is a top 5 show. I would love to see what the cost per commercial is for a top 5 show now and what was for a below average show 25 years ago. Something tells me it has way outpaced inflation and the decrease in audience size.


----------



## bicker

marksman said:


> It was my recollection when Fox came into existance that their schedule was designed the way it was because a single additional hour of prime time programming would legally make them a network and force them into a bunch of additional rules, laws and regulations.


I have never heard of such a thing. I did a Google search and couldn't find anything that sounded remotely like this.

Keep in mind that when a network broadcasts something objectionable (for example), it is each affiliate that gets cited. The government cares relatively little for the network/affiliate arrangement.



marksman said:


> Obviously a lot has changed since then, but I suspect there would still be an issue [legally] for any of the old 3 networks to drop their actual prime time schedule.


If I understood what you're asserting, here, then I disagree entirely.


----------



## lambertman

bicker said:


> I have never heard of such a thing. I did a Google search and couldn't find anything that sounded remotely like this.


I did.


----------



## MacThor

Tom Shales, WP's TV critic:



> Jay Leno is, in a way, to blame for this misfortune, because his producers want compatible shows as a "lead-in" for Jay -- nothing too depressing or grittily realistic. So Jay not only kills off five 10 pm dramas, he's now having a bad effect on 9 p.m. shows as well. It's just not worth it to have him on at 10 o'clock. He is looking like a bad bad sport.


----------



## lew

MacThor said:


> Tom Shales, WP's TV critic:


I doubt Jay has a contractual right to program the 9p time slot. Doesn't L&O air at 9p? My take is NBC would rather air shows that cost less to produce then one hour crime dramas. I'm sure The Apprentice costs less to produce then a show like CSI. Blaming Leno sure sounds better then saying NBC wants cheap programs.


----------



## David Platt

bicker said:


> Name-calling is puerile.





bicker said:


> Your comments nothing short of abusive and personal in nature. Instead of general statements about consumers in general, would you prefer I ascribe the descriptors of the nastiest traits of consumerists to you personally? Of course not. If you don't want threads to turn into flame fests, keep your comments on topic, instead of engaging in personal attacks on other posters. Attack the perspectives presented if you wish.





bicker said:


> Earlier, some cretin accused me of never criticizing a decision made by a network, but I've criticized that network decision many times .


So what's changed between the first two posts and the third?


----------



## bicker

lambertman said:


> I did.


Interesting! Y'learn something new every week!


----------



## bicker

David Platt said:


> So what's changed between the first two posts and the third?


Nothing. I'll fix my puerile remark, since it was indeed referring to a specific person.

And that's a difference that comes from maturity... the willingness to fix a mistake when you've made one, and I'm more than willing to fix a mistake when I've made one.


----------



## David Platt

bicker said:


> Nothing. I'll fix my puerile remark, since it was indeed referring to a specific person.
> 
> And that's a difference that comes from maturity... the willingness to fix a mistake when you've made one.


:up::up:


----------



## MickeS

bicker said:


> Nothing. I'll fix my puerile remark, since it was indeed referring to a specific person.
> 
> And that's a difference that comes from maturity... the willingness to fix a mistake when you've made one, and I'm more than willing to fix a mistake when I've made one.


This cretin still finds it amusing that you think I made a "personal attack" when I was putting your comments in context.

But I take it back now - you did once criticize a network.


----------



## bicker

... once that you're willing to admit.

And I suppose I could claim that calling you a cretin was putting your comments in context.


----------



## Steveknj

That Don Guy said:


> Hour-long network shows don't syndicate well. For some strange reason, local stations would rather fill an hour with two shows, even if it's two episodes of the same series. (This used to be a good thing for real fans of the hour-long shows, as it meant they would be released to video almost immediately, while the comedies would have to wait for years as the syndicators wanted to be sure people watched the shows (and the ads that went with them) on TV. For whatever reason, this policy changed a few years ago, as now most network comedies release a season DVD set soon after the season ends; the one main exception seems to be _The Simpsons_, which is about eight years behind, but this is mainly because they're so busy making the current season that they can't speed up the DVD releases.)
> 
> -- Don


I think that USED to be true about hour long shows, but have you looked at the cable channels lately? Half the schedule on networks such as A&E and USA are syndicated hour long crime dramas.


----------



## DevdogAZ

MacThor said:


> Tom Shales, WP's TV critic:


That guy has no idea what he's talking about. Show me one piece of evidence that Leno has any kind of say over what's programmed in the 9 pm hour or that he's had any input into what shows would fit well there. I suspect that Shales is trying to blame the Southland cancellation on Leno, when the reality is that the network simply needed to correct the mistake they made by renewing it in the first place. The ratings simply didn't justify the renewal.


----------



## DevdogAZ

lambertman said:


> I did.


Very interesting. Thanks for the link. Based on that, there would be no issue with Fox adding a third hour of primetime today, and it doesn't sound like there would be any issue with the networks giving back an hour to the affiliates. However, the only way they'd do that is if they weren't making enough money from that hour, and I think that day is still a ways off.


----------



## MacThor

DevdogAZ said:


> That guy has no idea what he's talking about. Show me one piece of evidence that Leno has any kind of say over what's programmed in the 9 pm hour or that he's had any input into what shows would fit well there. I suspect that Shales is trying to blame the Southland cancellation on Leno, when the reality is that the network simply needed to correct the mistake they made by renewing it in the first place. The ratings simply didn't justify the renewal.


Yes, a pulitzer-winning, 30-plus-year TV columnist with regular access to producers, programmers and operations types is much less informed than those of us on this board.


----------



## DougF

I just want to say that I think it's awesome we have so many TV programming experts on the board.


----------



## lambertman

DevdogAZ said:


> Very interesting. Thanks for the link. Based on that, there would be no issue with Fox adding a third hour of primetime today, and it doesn't sound like there would be any issue with the networks giving back an hour to the affiliates. However, the only way they'd do that is if they weren't making enough money from that hour, and I think that day is still a ways off.


I'd have to think that most of the FOX stations' newscasts would tank in the ratings if they had to move down to 11.


----------



## That Don Guy

Steveknj said:


> I think that USED to be true about hour long shows, but have you looked at the cable channels lately? Half the schedule on networks such as A&E and USA are syndicated hour long crime dramas.


I think you missed this post, especially at the bottom. Is being on one cable channel considered "syndication"?



lambertman said:


> I'd have to think that most of the FOX stations' newscasts would tank in the ratings if they had to move down to 11.


I don't know about other cities, but in San Francisco, KTVU's 10:00 news has been an institution since long before the Fox network existed, mainly because, as I think I explained earlier in this thread, a considerable number of people need to be asleep by 11 because of the commute the next day - and I have a feeling a number of other cities, especially out west, are in the same position.

KTVU has been known to throw fits if Fox has to extend its programming to 10:15 because a long-running football game caused _The Simpsons_ to start 15 minutes late. (Just about the only thing they'll tolerate going past 10 is an _American Idol_ season finale, mainly because one of the most popular broadcasts on TV and the viewers who watch the whole thing then have to choose between the news and an "in progress" episode of something on another channel, but delaying it because of _American Idol_ running past 10 is different from delaying it because _American Dad_ runs past 10.)

-- Don


----------



## bicker

bicker said:


> lew said:
> 
> 
> 
> NBC aired Merlin over the summer. I don't know the costs, ratings or availability of other BBC series. I'm sure NBC looked at those alternatives.
> 
> 
> 
> The Philanthropist was filmed primarily in South Africa. The Listener was produced by CTV (Canada).
> 
> Moving away from NBC for a second: Mental was produced in South America, by a South American subsidiary.
> 
> All three of those approaches (your Merlin example going hand-in-glove with the Listener example) represent viable cost-cutting measures for dramas.
> 
> Of course, Leno represents a fourth cost-cutting measure, and for all we know might be the most profitable of them all.
Click to expand...

Time news release:

http://www.thetvremote.com/abc-gives-13-episode-order-to-the-gates/



> Production on the series is slated to begin in early to mid-2010, *with South America among the locations considered for the shoot*.


----------



## DevdogAZ

MacThor said:


> Yes, a pulitzer-winning, 30-plus-year TV columnist with regular access to producers, programmers and operations types is much less informed than those of us on this board.


If he's citing any kind of source, I'd love to see a link. What you posted sounded like speculation on the part of the columnist, and since I've read lots of other stories dealing with this issue and not a single one has mentioned anything about Leno having a say in what's programmed before him, I'm going to remain skeptical about this until I see some more evidence or see a source cited.


----------



## MacThor

DevdogAZ said:


> If he's citing any kind of source, I'd love to see a link. What you posted sounded like speculation on the part of the columnist, and since I've read lots of other stories dealing with this issue and not a single one has mentioned anything about Leno having a say in what's programmed before him, I'm going to remain skeptical about this until I see some more evidence or see a source cited.


Then you should ask him. Be sure to lead with, "You have no idea what you're talking about..."


----------



## DevdogAZ

MacThor said:


> Then you should ask him. Be sure to lead with, "You have no idea what you're talking about..."


Given all the articles that have come out recently bashing Leno and NBC, with their authors clearly disapproving of NBC's decision to put Leno on at 10 and eliminate four or five dramas that could have been shown, I find it very odd that this is the first time I've seen anyone pointing the finger at Leno or his camp for directing what could be on the air before him. Sounds like sour grapes on the part of the source and/or the reporter.

This all goes back to the Southland thing. I'm sure some disgruntled actor or producer in Hollywood is trying to blame the cancellation on Leno. However, as I've clearly laid out previously in this thread, the ratings simply didn't justify the renewal of that show and it should be no surprise to anyone that it was axed.


----------



## trainman

That Don Guy said:


> KTVU has been known to throw fits if Fox has to extend its programming to 10:15 because a long-running football game caused _The Simpsons_ to start 15 minutes late.


Are you maybe thinking of _baseball_ games on _weeknights_ (in which case it would be the baseball game itself running into the 10:00 time slot)? That's happened a few times due to rain delays and/or extra innings.

It would have to be an extraordinary event that would cause "The Simpsons" to start late on KTVU due to a Sunday afternoon football game not finishing in time -- they're usually over at least 3 hours before "The Simpsons" is scheduled to start.


----------



## smak

DevdogAZ said:


> Given all the articles that have come out recently bashing Leno and NBC, with their authors clearly disapproving of NBC's decision to put Leno on at 10 and eliminate four or five dramas that could have been shown, I find it very odd that this is the first time I've seen anyone pointing the finger at Leno or his camp for directing what could be on the air before him. Sounds like sour grapes on the part of the source and/or the reporter.
> 
> This all goes back to the Southland thing. I'm sure some disgruntled actor or producer in Hollywood is trying to blame the cancellation on Leno. However, as I've clearly laid out previously in this thread, the ratings simply didn't justify the renewal of that show and it should be no surprise to anyone that it was axed.


If you take NBC's bottom line out of it, and us viewers probably couldn't care less about NBC's bottom line, it's a very bad thing for fans of good television.

Why wouldn't there be a bunch of articles coming out that clearly disapprove?

Maybe a business week reporter might approve, but why would a TV critic?

-smak-


----------



## bicker

I think that's the point: The criticisms referred to did not (only) say "This is bad for viewers" -- those criticisms asserted that the decisions being made were bad *for NBC*. Like you said, those with a viewer perspective "couldn't care less" about such things. What we're seeing, therefore, is a lot of critics trying to make their perspective of "this is bad for fans..." sound more important than it really is. Just saying that that "fans will have fewer choices that they favor" isn't weighty enough -- because the critics hate what is happening (and I use the word "hate" deliberately), they want to be able to *condemn* the actions being taken, and they cannot do that by putting forward the only unassailable assertions they have, that they *don't like* the result of the decisions being made.


----------



## Bob Coxner

DevdogAZ said:


> That guy has no idea what he's talking about. Show me one piece of evidence that Leno has any kind of say over what's programmed in the 9 pm hour or that he's had any input into what shows would fit well there. I suspect that Shales is trying to blame the Southland cancellation on Leno, when the reality is that the network simply needed to correct the mistake they made by renewing it in the first place. The ratings simply didn't justify the renewal.


Late night hosts are always *****ing about leadins. Letterman complained for years that the weak 10pm CBS shows led to weak local news which hurt his ratings. I'm sure there's nothing contractual giving Leno power but I'm also sure it was one of his verbal demands during contract negotiations.


----------



## DevdogAZ

smak said:


> If you take NBC's bottom line out of it, and us viewers probably couldn't care less about NBC's bottom line, it's a very bad thing for fans of good television.
> 
> Why wouldn't there be a bunch of articles coming out that clearly disapprove?
> 
> Maybe a business week reporter might approve, but why would a TV critic?
> 
> -smak-


Of course there are articles where the writer clearly disapproves. That was my point. There are all these writers out there crucifying NBC and Leno for the decisions they've made, and clearly they have animosity toward Leno because of this decision, yet Shales is the first one I've seen say anything about the alleged fact that Leno has been making demands about what kinds of shows can be programmed at 9 pm. I'm thinking if there were any truth to that rumor, or if the rumor were even very widespread, there would be dozens of journalists writing about it, because they all seem very anxious for any chance they can find to denigrate Leno. I just don't think that if there were any truth to it, that we'd only be reading about it in one publication.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Not sure how much the third quarter numbers were affected by the Leno/Conan decision, if at all, but I just read in this article discussing the potential sale of NBC Universal by GE that:


> In the just-ended third quarter, NBC turned in one of GE's strongest divisional performances, recording 13 percent profit growth.


So it seems that despite the low ratings for NBC proper, the NBC division of GE is doing rather well. I presume that includes the cable channels, any movies they've released, as well as theme parks, etc.


----------



## marksman

DevdogAZ said:


> Not sure how much the third quarter numbers were affected by the Leno/Conan decision, if at all, but I just read in this article discussing the potential sale of NBC Universal by GE that:
> 
> So it seems that despite the low ratings for NBC proper, the NBC division of GE is doing rather well. I presume that includes the cable channels, any movies they've released, as well as theme parks, etc.


Apparently 35%-40% of their 3rd quarter profit came from them selling their share of the A&E Channel.

Cable Networks were up 11% in profit for 3rd quarter.. and NBC profits were up 4% excluding olympic coverage last year.


----------



## DevdogAZ

marksman said:


> Apparently 35%-40% of their 3rd quarter profit came from them selling their share of the A&E Channel.
> 
> Cable Networks were up 11% in profit for 3rd quarter.. and NBC profits were up 4% excluding olympic coverage last year.


Cool, thanks.


----------



## DianaMo

*Jay Leno Hints At Return To 11:30?*
http://www.wgntv.com/news/nationworld/sns-viral-leno-time-story,0,5429628.htmlstory

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/11/0...ngs-affiliates-and-moving-back-to-1130p/32248

*Jay Leno Talks Back: An Exclusive Interview With B&C*
Leno opens up on bad press, David Lettermans situation and his feelings about leavingand even returningto 11:35.

By Ben Grossman -- Broadcasting & Cable, 11/2/2009 2:00:00 AM
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ar..._Exclusive_Interview_With_B_C.php?rssid=20065


----------



## terpfan1980

DianaMo said:


> *Jay Leno Hints At Return To 11:30?*
> http://www.wgntv.com/news/nationworld/sns-viral-leno-time-story,0,5429628.htmlstory
> 
> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/11/0...ngs-affiliates-and-moving-back-to-1130p/32248
> 
> *Jay Leno Talks Back: An Exclusive Interview With B&C*
> Leno opens up on bad press, David Lettermans situation and his feelings about leavingand even returningto 11:35.
> 
> By Ben Grossman -- Broadcasting & Cable, 11/2/2009 2:00:00 AM
> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ar..._Exclusive_Interview_With_B_C.php?rssid=20065


Leno is wishing for the return, but I doubt that NBC would really make that move. Like it or not, they've opted to put Conan into that slot and they aren't likely to bump him (and pay whatever penalty would be involved).

He might be making these comments just to keep NBC on notice that if they don't want to keep him he might jump elsewhere, but his choices are pretty limited there too (unless FOX starts falling all over themselves to get back into the late night business).


----------



## realityboy

Sounds like he's just tired of taking the blame for NBC's programming decisions. He has to know that there is no way that they'll bump Conan from The Tonight Show.

I think FOX or ABC would take him if NBC ever decides to let him go.


----------



## terpfan1980

realityboy said:


> Sounds like he's just tired of taking the blame for NBC's programming decisions. He has to know that there is no way that they'll bump Conan from The Tonight Show.
> 
> I think FOX or ABC would take him if NBC ever decides to let him go.


Yet again, I doubt that ABC would make the move. They'd potentially be bumping Jimmy Kimmel around on the schedule. Not that Kimmel has that big of an audience, but what audience he has is fairly loyal.

FOX makes the most sense if they decided they wanted to program late night.


----------



## realityboy

Nightline would be a bigger problem for ABC than Kimmel. It's not a perfect fit, but I think they would try to make it work if the opportunity presented itself.

FOX tried to get back in the late night game before. If Spike Feresten had been successful, it would have went to weeknights eventually. Perhaps they have the same plans for Wanda Sykes.


----------



## hyimted

i *love* leno  think he's a great celebrity and all around nice guy  and i've said as much in that other leno thread. but i stopped recording this show long ago. i gave it my best try  really i did  i even watched segments that i could tell were gonna be stupid. but  it was just PAINFUL.

oh well  hopefully he gets something different rolling  cuz ya know  he needs the money.


----------



## YCantAngieRead

I thought it was incredibly tacky of him to just casually mention he'd take his old spot back. Thanks for the support, Leno. - Conan


----------



## dtle

hyimted said:


> i *love* leno  think he's a great celebrity and all around nice guy  and i've said as much in that other leno thread. *but i stopped recording this show long ago. * i gave it my best try  really i did  i even watched segments that i could tell were gonna be stupid. but  it was just PAINFUL.


To the bolded comment: I think that's the point of the show. They weren't making any money from expensive shows that were getting Tivo'd, so they decided to put on a cheap show and not cared about DVRs.

In the interview, Jay said that his show will make $300 million for a 1.5 rating every night.


----------



## DevdogAZ

YCantAngieRead said:


> I thought it was incredibly tacky of him to just casually mention he'd take his old spot back. Thanks for the support, Leno. - Conan


That's not really the way it happened. If you read the whole article, the reporter was really pressing him and Jay was very gracious to Conan and to NBC for the most part. He was asked if he regretted anything about the decision, and he said he would have preferred to stay at 11:30, but didn't blame anyone for it. He was then asked if he'd take the old spot back:


> *Do you want to go back to 11:35?*
> 
> If it were offered to me, would I take it? If that's what they wanted to do, sure. That would be fine if they wanted to.
> 
> *Would you rather do that than this?*
> 
> I don't know.Would I take it? I guess. But it's not my decision to make; it's really not. I don't know. Something makes me think we might be OK here for a while. It depends how long you're here; by that time I could be 61-62, I don't know. Personally, I think Conan is doing fine. He's beating Dave in the demo, maybe not in the popular one right now because Dave has a lot of other things going that have people watching for whatever reason, so I think that's not really a fair thing. It's a little too early to tell.


Throughout the whole interview, Jay was very complementary of Conan and very self-deprecating. I don't think there was anything tacky about what Jay said.


----------



## marksman

dtle said:


> In the interview, Jay said that his show will make $300 million for a 1.5 rating every night.


Did he mention how such a tiny rating would significantly shrink the overall viewership of the network, especially since the same few people watch his show over and over meaning they have reduced their ability to market their own network programs on shows due to a much smaller overall audience?

Before they might have 30 million people in a given week at the last slot. 25 million unique viewers. You got a new shot you want to promote, run a commercial across the week and hit 25 million potential viewers.

Have jay leno with 2 million viewers, 90% which are always the same people and the same campaign hits like 3 million people.


----------



## Turtleboy

I don't like Jay. 

But I do sort of respect the fact that he wants to work. Even when the show isn't on, he goes out and does standup. Dave and Conan and Jimmy Fallon don't do that. Jay love working.

NBC made a mistake.

A few years back they saw that Conan's contract was expiring. NBC was afraid that he would jump to Fox or ABC and go on at 11:30, so they gave him the Tonight Show. But Jay really wasn't ready to retire. He wanted to still work. Now he was going to go to Fox or ABC at 11:30. So NBC came up with this stupid 10pm Jay Leno show.

They never should have taken the Tonight Show away from Jay. Conan might not have jumped. Or he may have. That's life. But NBC tried to have it both ways, and lost.


----------



## pjenkins

Jimmy Fallon does standup, in fact he mentioned on the show with Rosie that he was doing a gig with a friend...


----------



## Turtleboy

pjenkins said:


> Jimmy Fallon does standup, in fact he mentioned on the show with Rosie that he was doing a gig with a friend...


Jay Leno is out almost every single weekend doing it.

On the other hand, we actually saw him in Las Vegas. Most of his jokes were about 10 years old and about Bill Clinton. He did ask Smak what Smak did for a living though. Interestingly, I had no idea.


----------



## trainman

I don't think Conan's _ever_ done standup, per se -- his background is as a comedy writer, with a little bit of improv training (with the Groundlings in L.A.) early in his career. His monologues are the closest he gets, but they're structured and paced differently than a standup act would be.


----------



## smak

Turtleboy said:


> Jay Leno is out almost every single weekend doing it.
> 
> On the other hand, we actually saw him in Las Vegas. Most of his jokes were about 10 years old and about Bill Clinton. He did ask Smak what Smak did for a living though. Interestingly, I had no idea.


I don't know where else he goes besides Vegas, but taking a private plane Friday at 6pm to Vegas, and doing 15 year old jokes for 90 minutes, and then flying back isn't really "standup".

Standup would be doing the Laugh Factory in Cleveland, or Chuckles in Oklahoma City.

Jay Mohr is an example of a guy who has "made it", and yet still does these types of gigs.

-smak-


----------



## balboa dave

smak said:


> I don't know where else he goes besides Vegas, but taking a private plane Friday at 6pm to Vegas, and doing 15 year old jokes for 90 minutes, and then flying back isn't really "standup".
> 
> Standup would be doing the Laugh Factory in Cleveland, or Chuckles in Oklahoma City.
> 
> Jay Mohr is an example of a guy who has "made it", and yet still does these types of gigs.
> 
> -smak-


You mean like Leno's regular Sunday gig at the Comedy and Magic Club in Redondo Beach? He's been doing around 46 shows a year for the last 18 years or so.


----------



## Mike10

Jay does comedy shows at casinos all over north america

I saw him in Vancouver last year


----------



## DevdogAZ

Leno did some very well publicized free shows this past summer in some of the more economically-depressed areas of the country.

Whether you like his comedy or not, whether you think his show is stupid or not, you have to admit that Jay is one of the most down-to-earth, personable celebrities in the entertainment world.


----------



## 5thcrewman

I always figgered Jay Leno would be a big hit at the 'Chuckle' Hut!


----------



## zalusky

I am amazed he has the bandwidth to do 5 shows a week, do the comedy clubs, vegas, Popular Mechanics columns, Jays Garage, and sit with his writers plus whatever else I am missing.


----------



## Turtleboy

zalusky said:


> I am amazed he has the bandwidth to do 5 shows a week, do the comedy clubs, vegas, Popular Mechanics columns, Jays Garage, and sit with his writers plus whatever else I am missing.


When we saw him last year in Vegas, his act was old and stale. It was made up of Tonight Show Monologues from 10-15 years ago. He was making jokes about Bill Clinton being horny.


----------



## jsmeeker

and VCRs flashing 12:00 and his parents being recommended "Basic Instinct"

Jay seems like a decent guy and all.. but oy... That act was old.


----------



## pjenkins

Turtleboy said:


> He was making jokes about Bill Clinton being horny.


that's still the case I"m sure


----------



## zalusky

Turtleboy said:


> When we saw him last year in Vegas, his act was old and stale. It was made up of Tonight Show Monologues from 10-15 years ago. He was making jokes about Bill Clinton being horny.


I am just talking about the time involved with all these activities not about their quality.


----------



## ellinj

jsmeeker said:


> and VCRs flashing 12:00 and his parents being recommended "Basic Instinct"
> 
> Jay seems like a decent guy and all.. but oy... That act was old.


While I agree that 50-60% of the act was old, I don't think it was ALL 10-15years old. There was some current stuff in there. I think I heard the vcr bit about 10years ago when I saw him in RI.

Personally I think they should do a 2-3night/week deal on [email protected]


----------



## smak

ellinj said:


> While I agree that 50-60% of the act was old, I don't think it was ALL 10-15years old. There was some current stuff in there. I think I heard the vcr bit about 10years ago when I saw him in RI.
> 
> Personally I think they should do a 2-3night/week deal on [email protected]


This is what will happen. NBC will find some great 10pm type pilot, and they'll buy it, and there goes one of Jay's days, and so on and so on.

-smak-


----------



## bicker

For now, they'll just present the program at 9PM.


----------



## lew

bicker said:


> For now, they'll just present the program at 9PM.


I'm sure Comcast (if the sale goes through) will re-think the Leno show for the season that begins in 9/2010. The question is what kind of ratings will Leno get in December when the other networks are airing reruns.


----------



## bicker

I'm sure whoever owns NBCU would rethink everything every year, but I suspect that they're going to keep Leno working through at least May 2011.


----------



## marksman

So I noticed today that Jay Leno will not be on tomorrow. They are going 1 hour with the Presidential Address and two hours with The Biggest Loser.

Seems very interesting. Sweeps are over... Why couldn't they push Biggest loser back and put some filler in? ABC is not carrying the presidential address and others are giving up only 30 minutes.

Seems like an "excuse" to not have Jay on, and I suspect more and more excuses will show up in the future. What is additionally weird is they have been beating their drum about how well Jay will do when repeats start (Not up against repeats really but like Victoria Secret's one off and maybe the Forgotten), but still. Seems an odd move given everything they have said.


----------



## Steveknj

marksman said:


> So I noticed today that Jay Leno will not be on tomorrow. They are going 1 hour with the Presidential Address and two hours with The Biggest Loser.
> 
> Seems very interesting. Sweeps are over... Why couldn't they push Biggest loser back and put some filler in? ABC is not carrying the presidential address and others are giving up only 30 minutes.
> 
> Seems like an "excuse" to not have Jay on, and I suspect more and more excuses will show up in the future. What is additionally weird is they have been beating their drum about how well Jay will do when repeats start (Not up against repeats really but like Victoria Secret's one off and maybe the Forgotten), but still. Seems an odd move given everything they have said.


Lowest rated show gets the short straw in this case. Probably easier to reschedule a show like Leno than to start mucking around with taped series. Did they originally have 2 hours of Biggest Loser scheduled for tonight?


----------



## DevdogAZ

Biggest Loser is one of NBC's highest rated shows and being a reality show where contestants are kicked off every week, there are a specific number of episodes that have to be shown in a specific timeframe. They don't want to get to Christmas and have one episode left to air in the new year. They want to wrap it up as scheduled. It seems pretty easy to bump Leno for one day, even though Tuesdays has been Leno's best rated show with the lead-in it gets from Biggest Loser.


----------



## marksman

Wonder how NBC is feeling these days? Leno in the tank. Tonight Show has worst November Sweeps since 1993.

Well at least Jay leno's show is cheap right?


----------



## MickeS

I think they are feeling "What the hell were we thinking when we insisted on hiring Conan?" 

In retrospect, that really shook up the entire line-up... interesting how things turned out.


----------



## LoadStar

How bad are the ratings for Fallon's show?


----------



## lambertman

Generally, Ferguson and Fallon have been tying in the demo at 0.5.


----------



## Turtleboy

MickeS said:


> I think they are feeling "What the hell were we thinking when we insisted on hiring Conan?"
> 
> In retrospect, that really shook up the entire line-up... interesting how things turned out.


Having Conan replace Jay for the Tonight Show was a mistake. A few years back they were afraid that Conan was going to jump to another network at 1130 when his contract was up.

Whether he would have or wouldn't have is unknown, and even more so, is whether he would have sucked a lot of viewers from the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

But once they made the decision they should have stuck with it, and let Jay go. Jay would have gone to another network at 1130pm.

NBC couldn't have both Jay and Conan at 1130. They should have made a single decision and stuck with it.

What they have now, is crap and the worst of all worlds.


----------



## marksman

I agree they should have picked one or another.

The funny thing is they tried not to repeat the letterman mistake again, so they made an even bigger mistake.

They were so afraid to lose Conan they screwed the pooch. I enjoy Conan, but he was never Letterman. 

What they should have done is kept Jay once they realized he did not want to retire and pay the 50 million or whatever to buy Conan off. That would have gotten them much further.

Instead they seemed to pile bad decision on top of bad decision, all in the name of not repeating a previously bad decision.

The weird thing is they said wait until re-runs. When do those come in the summer? Yes lots of shows have been in re-runs, but even as we hit this shallow holiday season there are 1 or 2 new shows on some network or cable channel most nights at the same time as Leno, with new episodes.

I am now thinking that NBC will use the Winter Olympics as some sort of escape hatch, and we could see major changes as soon as right after the end of the olympics.


----------



## LoadStar

marksman said:


> I am now thinking that NBC will use the Winter Olympics as some sort of escape hatch, and we could see major changes as soon as right after the end of the olympics.


Doubt it. Nothing fundamentally has changed - the same people are in the same positions making the same decisions. I see them riding out the season, then doing marginal changes next season, much as what the networks did following the WGA strike, until Comcast takes over.

There are too many people there at NBC that seem to be convinced what they are doing is somehow working, despite evidence to the contrary.


----------



## DevdogAZ

It has nothing to do with whether or not they think they're doing the right thing. They simply don't have anything else in the pipeline to put in that slot. They're stuck with Leno at 10 pm for at least the rest of this season. And given that the Comcast deal likely won't be finalized until after next season starts, they may be unwilling to make any big changes before that, which would mean a second season of Leno.


----------



## Turtleboy

DevdogAZ said:


> It has nothing to do with whether or not they think they're doing the right thing. They simply don't have anything else in the pipeline to put in that slot. They're stuck with Leno at 10 pm for at least the rest of this season. And given that the Comcast deal likely won't be finalized until after next season starts, they may be unwilling to make any big changes before that, which would mean a second season of Leno.


I think they could drum up some reality TV that as crappy as it would be, could do better than Leno.

And there must be replacement shows lying around somewhere. They could even be truly experimental in trying things.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Turtleboy said:


> I think they could drum up some reality TV that as crappy as it would be, could do better than Leno.
> 
> And there must be replacement shows lying around somewhere. They could even be truly experimental in trying things.


I'll grant you that it would be possible. But I maintain that it is highly unlikely. Especially since reality shows wouldn't do well at 10 pm, so they'd have to move things around, and they really only have a couple of shows on their roster that would work at 10 pm.


----------



## getreal

Turtleboy said:


> I think they could drum up some reality TV that as crappy as it would be, could do better than Leno.
> 
> And there must be replacement shows lying around somewhere. They could even be truly experimental in trying things.


Great idea!

How about "Who Wants To Be A Talk Show Host", where each episode (it really should only be once a week, though) features a different host with a completely new set and format.

It would be nice to see sketch comedy/variety shows like from the 70s ... a la Carol Burnett, Smothers Brothers, Laugh-In, etc.


----------



## LoadStar

I'd be curious to see how sweet a deal Leno managed to get himself. I bet his agent probably got him a 2 or 3 season guarantee, minimum. As in, he gets paid for the full season orders, whether or not NBC reduces the order or cancels it outright.

If that's the case, then even if they come up with reality TV that does better than Leno, they'd still be better off keeping Leno on the air... the cost of the reality TV show combined with the penalty clause to Leno would likely be higher than the cost of just keeping Leno on the air.


----------



## DancnDude

getreal said:


> Great idea!
> 
> How about "Who Wants To Be A Talk Show Host", where each episode (it really should only be once a week, though) features a different host with a completely new set and format.
> 
> It would be nice to see sketch comedy/variety shows like from the 70s ... a la Carol Burnett, Smothers Brothers, Laugh-In, etc.


Bring back the Muppet Show!


----------



## bicker

LoadStar said:


> I'd be curious to see how sweet a deal Leno managed to get himself. I bet his agent probably got him a 2 or 3 season guarantee, minimum.


It's public knowledge that he's got a 2 season guarantee.


----------



## rockislandmike

MickeS said:


> I think the idea is that 1) they see the "Coming up on news at 11:" promos and are supposed to want to stay and watch it, and 2) yeah, people are lazy, which is why they try and segue into the news very quickly after the previous show.


People are very "sticky", a term in the broadcasting industry, both in terms of television, radio, and almost anything in fact. That's why people always talk about good lead-ins, because even during prime-time, people are more likely to just stay on one channel all evening if they have no major impetus to.

It also works in real life. After being merged to one lane, watch how many people in front of you stay in the lane, versus going back to the other lane - which is why I *always* move to the other lane.


----------



## aintnosin

I seem to remember that Jay didn't start to beat Dave at 11:30 until the "Hugh Grant incident."

Lesson: Jay needs to book Tiger Woods... Now.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aintnosin said:


> I seem to remember that Jay didn't start to beat Dave at 11:30 until the "Hugh Grant incident."
> 
> Lesson: Jay needs to book Tiger Woods... Now.


Solid point. That would be a huge "get." Although, IIRC, Hugh Grant was already booked on the Tonight Show when the incident came to light, and he simply didn't cancel the appearance.

No way Tiger goes on TV to do any of these shows when he's demanding privacy.


----------



## LoadStar

aintnosin said:


> I seem to remember that Jay didn't start to beat Dave at 11:30 until the "Hugh Grant incident."
> 
> Lesson: Jay needs to book Tiger Woods... Now.


He got Kanye after the VMAs (well, already had him booked before the incident, much like with Hugh Grant). Not big enough of a "get"?


----------



## aintnosin

DevdogAZ said:


> No way Tiger goes on TV to do any of these shows when he's demanding privacy.


I know, but it's about the only thing that can prop up Leno's ratings. So Jay is basically dog meat, a show waiting for the network to figure out a way out of Leno's contract.


----------



## marksman

LoadStar said:


> Doubt it. Nothing fundamentally has changed - the same people are in the same positions making the same decisions. I see them riding out the season, then doing marginal changes next season, much as what the networks did following the WGA strike, until Comcast takes over.
> 
> There are too many people there at NBC that seem to be convinced what they are doing is somehow working, despite evidence to the contrary.


I don't know. Wasn't silvermen kicked out in July after this was all in place. Gaspin is in charge of the Entertainment Division now and might have a different take on things. I thought he came over from USA, so he would not have been involved in the Leno thing at all.

By July it was already well in place.

As for replacements, they have to have a couple projects potentially available to them. There are always projects out there that might be viable. They also can go back to abusing Dateline 3 nights a week. That takes care of the bulk of the problem and allows them some more flexibility in moving some shows to 9/10 as well.

If this Leno thing lasts for 2 years, NBC will be a mess. Gaspin has been responsible for running the NBC Universal owned Cable channels, and they have been doing extremely well, especially compared to NBC. So I don't expect him to just sit there and do nothing... at least I hope it is not his plan.


----------



## DevdogAZ

marksman said:


> I don't know. Wasn't silvermen kicked out in July after this was all in place. Gaspin is in charge of the Entertainment Division now and might have a different take on things. I thought he came over from USA, so he would not have been involved in the Leno thing at all.
> 
> By July it was already well in place.
> 
> As for replacements, they have to have a couple projects potentially available to them. There are always projects out there that might be viable. They also can go back to abusing Dateline 3 nights a week. That takes care of the bulk of the problem and allows them some more flexibility in moving some shows to 9/10 as well.
> 
> If this Leno thing lasts for 2 years, NBC will be a mess. Gaspin has been responsible for running the NBC Universal owned Cable channels, and they have been doing extremely well, especially compared to NBC. So I don't expect him to just sit there and do nothing... at least I hope it is not his plan.


I think nobody has been wanting to rock the boat because of the Comcast deal and because the theory that Leno would rate better when the competition was in reruns. Once we get through January and they've had a chance to see how he does when he's the only new program on, and now that the Comcast deal is in place, perhaps we'll see some movement. But I still say that they have nothing better to replace him with, and they can't conjure content out of thin air.


----------



## Turtleboy

But Jay getting a big guest screws Conan. The big gets are supposed to be on the Tonight Show and not a competing show an hour earlier.


----------



## LoadStar

marksman said:


> I don't know. Wasn't silvermen kicked out in July after this was all in place. Gaspin is in charge of the Entertainment Division now and might have a different take on things. I thought he came over from USA, so he would not have been involved in the Leno thing at all.


I don't know that Silverman had much to do with the Leno nonsense. That was all Zucker, and Zucker is still in charge at NBC.


----------



## Steveknj

Turtleboy said:


> But Jay getting a big guest screws Conan. The big gets are supposed to be on the Tonight Show and not a competing show an hour earlier.


I think part of this problem is that they moved Conan out to California. If they had kept him in NYC, he might have been able to get the guests that Leno wasn't going to (not to mention take some away from Letterman).


----------



## marksman

I don't know.

This Variety article back from the time when Silverman left seems to indicate he was heavily involved with the Jay Leno thing.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118006519.html?categoryid=14&cs=1

Also since Gaspin also works for Zuckerman but USA, for example, does not suck like NBC does, I would have to question how much Zuckerman has to do specifically with the programming of any of the channels.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Steveknj said:


> I think part of this problem is that they moved Conan out to California. If they had kept him in NYC, he might have been able to get the guests that Leno wasn't going to (not to mention take some away from Letterman).


Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. As much as Jimmy Kimmel may have preferred it, you can't have both major network late night shows originating from the same city. The way it works now, you have stars that live/work in NYC or are on promo tours in NYC. They do Letterman and maybe Fallon. Stars that live/work in LA or are on promo tours in LA do Conan and maybe Ferguson and Kimmel. If both major shows were in NY, you'd miss out on all the stars that live/work in LA, and you'd end up with conflicts where an actor is only in NYC for one day, which show does he do? Or if he's there for two days, he does the competing shows on back-to-back nights, which is also awkward. Having the two shows on opposite coasts makes way more sense.


----------



## Steveknj

DevdogAZ said:


> Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. As much as Jimmy Kimmel may have preferred it, you can't have both major network late night shows originating from the same city. The way it works now, you have stars that live/work in NYC or are on promo tours in NYC. They do Letterman and maybe Fallon. Stars that live/work in LA or are on promo tours in LA do Conan and maybe Ferguson and Kimmel. If both major shows were in NY, you'd miss out on all the stars that live/work in LA, and you'd end up with conflicts where an actor is only in NYC for one day, which show does he do? Or if he's there for two days, he does the competing shows on back-to-back nights, which is also awkward. Having the two shows on opposite coasts makes way more sense.


All true, if you didn't through Leno into the mix. Now you have two shows on NBC fighting for the same guests. It hurts BOTH shows. What you described is exactly my point about moving Conan to the coast, which NBC show does the guest go on? The one in prime time (with potentially more viewers) or the one late night (with less viewers, but a more traditional time slot)? And if you think about it, a celebrity could do Leno in Primetime and then Kimmel latenight covering both timeslots. This pretty much KILLS Conan.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Steveknj said:


> All true, if you didn't through Leno into the mix. Now you have two shows on NBC fighting for the same guests. It hurts BOTH shows. What you described is exactly my point about moving Conan to the coast, which NBC show does the guest go on? The one in prime time (with potentially more viewers) or the one late night (with less viewers, but a more traditional time slot)? And if you think about it, a celebrity could do Leno in Primetime and then Kimmel latenight covering both timeslots. This pretty much KILLS Conan.


But the point is that Conan and Leno aren't supposed to be considered competitors. Conan and Letterman are competitors. For one of the network late night shows to not have a presence in SoCal would be a horrible decision.

But based on what you're saying, maybe they should have moved Leno to NYC, to steal guests from Dave. That would have been interesting to see. However, that never would have happened. There are more guests in LA and Jay isn't at a point in his career to pack up and move.


----------



## DianaMo

I'm surprised the Leno show never re-aired their "All McCartney" show...even during the writer's strike.

</hint>


----------



## marksman

Seems leno show is doing a little better against all re-runs.

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/leno-improves-against-reruns----slightly_1126514

Well maybe not as well in DFW market where I live:

http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2009/dec/01/jay-leno-vs-reruns-still-bust-dallas-fort-worth-ra/

All this seems to be from a few weeks ago. Anyone else have more rating info against reruns. I know this was their big rallying cry that wait until the re-runs.

Living in DFW it seems insane to me that Fox4 news draws double the audience in 18-49 as another Network program.


----------



## dswallow

marksman said:


> Seems leno show is doing a little better against all re-runs.
> 
> http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/leno-improves-against-reruns----slightly_1126514
> 
> Well maybe not as well in DFW market where I live:
> 
> http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2009/dec/01/jay-leno-vs-reruns-still-bust-dallas-fort-worth-ra/
> 
> All this seems to be from a few weeks ago. Anyone else have more rating info against reruns. I know this was their big rallying cry that wait until the re-runs.
> 
> Living in DFW it seems insane to me that Fox4 news draws double the audience in 18-49 as another Network program.


And we also really don't know how well the 5 scripted drama's NBC could have been showing in place of Leno would do in reruns instead of Leno, too.


----------



## smak

dswallow said:


> And we also really don't know how well the 5 scripted drama's NBC could have been showing in place of Leno would do in reruns instead of Leno, too.


And with advertising on Hulu, and with DVD sales, etc...

I guess they did the numbers and think it'll work out.

Also, Leno might do better against reruns, but maybe the summer show that they would have had in that timeslot would have done well too.

I fugure the ratings of a normal 10pm show, plus whatever they put on during the summer would beat Leno's ratings overall, but would be way more expensive to produce.

Also, Christmas time is where the networks put on reruns. But during the summer there's a lot of original programming. Especially on the cable networks.

-smak-


----------



## LoadStar

dswallow said:


> And we also really don't know how well the 5 scripted drama's NBC could have been showing in place of Leno would do in reruns instead of Leno, too.


We also don't know how well The Tonight Show would do by itself, without the influence of the Jay Leno Show. All we do know is that overall, the ratings for the Tonight Show are down considerably from those when the Tonight Show (with Jay Leno) was running without "competition" from an earlier running talk show.

I wonder if NBC factored that into their calculations, that the presence of the Jay Leno Show would have a depressing effect upon the ratings for The Tonight Show.

(I'll grant that the flagging ratings for The Tonight Show are not solely attributed to The Jay Leno Show pulling audience away... some, possibly even most, can be attributed to Conan O'Brien himself.)


----------



## marksman

dswallow said:


> And we also really don't know how well the 5 scripted drama's NBC could have been showing in place of Leno would do in reruns instead of Leno, too.


Yeah but the cost of re-running a show is probably less than a new leno show (although I don't know this for a fact)... and it seems a lot of reruns from other networks do better than Leno, so one could assume if NBC didn't suck at picking shows they could potentially do it as well.


----------



## smak

marksman said:


> Yeah but the cost of re-running a show is probably less than a new leno show (although I don't know this for a fact)... and it seems a lot of reruns from other networks do better than Leno, so one could assume if NBC didn't suck at picking shows they could potentially do it as well.


Part of the cost of a new leno show is Leno's (at least) 35 million salary.

You could probably add up all the salaries on those 5 shows and not hit 35 million.

I think they did the math and said that if we get a certain rating we will make a certain profit.

They probably did it based on the previous years horrible numbers, and said man, Jay is so much cheaper overall, it's gotta be a good idea.

I doubt they figured out everything though. Like having to pass on a show that turns out to be a huge hit, because they have no place to put it.

-smak-


----------



## aindik

smak said:


> Part of the cost of a new leno show is Leno's (at least) 35 million salary.
> 
> You could probably add up all the salaries on those 5 shows and not hit 35 million.


Does he make that much? I thought it was in the 20s with ratings-based incentives built in (which I can't imagine he's hitting).

In any event, it doesn't matter, by itself, how much he makes versus how much actors on 5 dramas would make. What matters is how much NBC pays for his show versus how much NBC pays for other shows.

According to this article from the time the Leno show was announced, the per episode cost of an average hour long drama is $3 million (what the network pays to the studio that produces the drama). The per episode cost of the Jay Leno Show is $400k.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE54S0AA20090529

That's $15 million per week of new drama, versus $2 million a week for Leno. How many weeks should we assume they'll buy in a year? If we say 30 weeks of drama versus 48 weeks of Leno, with reruns (which I assume are "free") in the remaining weeks, that's a cost of $450 million for dramas versus $96 million for Leno.

If we assume the dramas made $45 million in profit for the network, a 10% margin, that means they billed $495 in revenue. All Leno has to do is bill $142 million in revenue to do better for the network in terms of profit. (Yes, I'm doing a lot of assuming. And yes, that is without considering the drag on the ratings in the rest of the day, to the extent that drag exists).



smak said:


> I think they did the math and said that if we get a certain rating we will make a certain profit.
> 
> They probably did it based on the previous years horrible numbers, and said man, Jay is so much cheaper overall, it's gotta be a good idea.
> 
> I doubt they figured out everything though. Like having to pass on a show that turns out to be a huge hit, because they have no place to put it.
> 
> -smak-


Even with only 10 hours a week of non-Leno prime time programming instead of 15 (not including weekends), they have plenty of places on the schedule where they can stick a hit show. They still have things that could stand to be replaced.


----------



## DevdogAZ

And I think we've seen articles talking about how ads on Leno's show are selling for about half what ads on other 10pm dramas are selling for. So it should be fairly easy for NBC to sell $150 million in ads on Leno vs. selling over $400 million in ads on a drama. From a pure profit standpoint, it seems like a no brainer.

Now whether it does long-term damage to the network, that's a completely different story. I'm willing to bet that the suits at NBC really thought that there was an appetite for something different in the 10pm slot and that this show would surprise the naysayers. That simply hasn't happened.


----------



## SorenTodd

According to an interview on KNX 1070 radio (Los Angeles), Leno's show will be pulled after the Olympics are over.

http://www.knx1070.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4299108


----------



## MickeS

SorenTodd said:


> According to an interview on KNX 1070 radio (Los Angeles), Leno's show will be pulled after the Olympics are over.


Who was the interview with?


----------



## Steveknj

SorenTodd said:


> According to an interview on KNX 1070 radio (Los Angeles), Leno's show will be pulled after the Olympics are over.


In interview with who?


----------



## aindik

Steveknj said:


> In interview with who?


Someone from FTVLive.com.


----------



## LoadStar

SorenTodd said:


> According to an interview on KNX 1070 radio (Los Angeles), Leno's show will be pulled after the Olympics are over.
> 
> http://www.knx1070.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4299108


NBC denies the rumor:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/01/07/is-the-jay-leno-show-really-canceled/37958


> Jay Leno is one of the most compelling entertainers in the world today. As we have said all along, Jays show has performed exactly as we anticipated on the network. It has, however, presented some issues for our affiliates. Both Jay and the show are committed to working closely with them to find ways to improve the performance.


Additionally, quotes from Angela Bromstad, primetime entertainment president, indicate that they are moving towards scheduling a fall season that includes Leno's show:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/12/3...ntinue-into-the-2010-11-season-probably/37396


> Lenos one-hour show takes up five hours of the weeknight schedule, allowing Bromstad to focus on the remaining 10 hours from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m., she said.
> 
> We have so many holes that we have to essentially rebuild the schedule, Bromstad said. Not having the additional five hours has certainly relieved some of the pressure.


----------



## marksman

Steveknj said:


> In interview with who?


probably an interview with me because I suggested that might might a possibility earlier in the thread. 

Not sure that I would be instilled with confidence with a programmer who is relieved they don't have to worry about programming 5 more hours because they are locked down tight with the awesomeness of Leno.

I also don't get the affiliate comments. There is nothing they can really do to fix that problem except to get rido of Leno. Everyone knew it would be a problem for the affiliates when they did it, except for NBC management, apparently... so it is not a surprise. I don't think have Jay do local news promos is going to win the affiliates over.

I am sure if NBC has a magic trick to deliver an audience with a crappy lead in and they have been hiding it all these years, some people will be pissed.


----------



## aindik

marksman said:


> probably an interview with me because I suggested that might might a possibility earlier in the thread.
> 
> Not sure that I would be instilled with confidence with a programmer who is relieved they don't have to worry about programming 5 more hours because they are locked down tight with the awesomeness of Leno.
> 
> I also don't get the affiliate comments. There is nothing they can really do to fix that problem except to get rido of Leno. Everyone knew it would be a problem for the affiliates when they did it, except for NBC management, apparently... so it is not a surprise. I don't think have Jay do local news promos is going to win the affiliates over.
> 
> I am sure if NBC has a magic trick to deliver an audience with a crappy lead in and they have been hiding it all these years, some people will be pissed.


One way to help the affiliates is to say that, from now on, prime time ends at 10:00 and late nite starts at 10:35 with Leno, followed by Conan at 11:35.


----------



## morac

My local paper had a best and worst of 2009 feature last week. They rated the Jay Leno Show as the worst TV show of 2009.


----------



## Savafan1

TMZ has a different version, that the 10pm show is going away because he is moving back to 11:30: http://www.tmz.com/2010/01/07/jay-leno-nbc-conan-obrien-tonight-show/


----------



## whitson77

Savafan1 said:


> TMZ has a different version, that the 10pm show is going away because he is moving back to 11:30: http://www.tmz.com/2010/01/07/jay-leno-nbc-conan-obrien-tonight-show/


I believe TMZ has it correct. Which is too bad IMO. I don't really watch late night TV much, but when I do I find Conan a million times better than Leno.


----------



## scooterboy

If they kick Conan to the curb, I hope his contract requires them to pay him through the nose.


----------



## Alfer

I had to laugh at this NBC kiss ass comment:



> "Jay Leno is one of the most compelling entertainers in the world today," NBC representative Rebecca Marks said


Really...?


----------



## terpfan1980

scooterboy said:


> If they kick Conan to the curb, I hope his contract requires them to pay him through the nose.


While I would hope he'd get to walk with a ton of NBCU/Comcast's money, I'd also hope that perhaps he'd make a run right on over to FOX where maybe they'd give him a show in the 11pm time slot where he'd kick Leno and Letterman's tails so badly we'd be talking about for years to come :up:

(I like Letterman, but he's getting to the cranky old guy stage and really is no where near as good as he used to be. As to Leno, I wish he'd just leave the airwaves already. He's well past any entertaining point for me.)


----------



## LoadStar

What if they swapped The Tonight Show and The Jay Leno Show? 

Conan's Tonight Show is the more "dynamic" of the two shows and probably in some ways a better fit for a prime-time entertainment show. Leno's show, even in it's current form, is the show better fit for turning on before tuning out, so would probably work in late night even still.

I think Conan would have to tweak his show even more than he did when it moved from "Late Night" - but I think Conan is the more flexible of the hosts and probably has a more flexible audience. Conan could definitely be promoted as a show that would keep people watching to the end to see what he is going to do next... which would hopefully keep people tuned in to the late local news. In contrast, Leno's show, to be blunt, generally attracts an older audience looking for something familiar, something safe, and that's something Jay doles out in spades.

The only question is whether that older audience would want to continue staying up after the late local news to watch Jay's show.


----------



## MickeS

I watched both the Leno and Conan shows up until end of November. Haven't watched either one since then, for some reason (and no other talk show either). Maybe I'm the one killing NBC?


----------



## TheMerk

I watched Leno for the first time on Tuesday night (after The Biggest Loser.) When I say I watched for the first time, I mean it: I never, that I can recall, watched a single episode of his Tonight Show.

Holy crap, it was awful, self serving and, I thought, some of the jokes were borderline racist.

Give me Dave, Conan and Craig. Although, I must confess, I haven't watched Conan's Tonight Show since the 1st week...


----------



## JYoung

terpfan1980 said:


> While I would hope he'd get to walk with a ton of NBCU/Comcast's money, I'd also hope that perhaps he'd make a run right on over to FOX where maybe they'd give him a show in the 11pm time slot where he'd kick Leno and Letterman's tails so badly we'd be talking about for years to come :up:
> 
> (I like Letterman, but he's getting to the cranky old guy stage and really is no where near as good as he used to be. As to Leno, I wish he'd just leave the airwaves already. He's well past any entertaining point for me.)





LoadStar said:


> What if they swapped The Tonight Show and The Jay Leno Show?
> 
> Conan's Tonight Show is the more "dynamic" of the two shows and probably in some ways a better fit for a prime-time entertainment show. Leno's show, even in it's current form, is the show better fit for turning on before tuning out, so would probably work in late night even still.
> 
> I think Conan would have to tweak his show even more than he did when it moved from "Late Night" - but I think Conan is the more flexible of the hosts and probably has a more flexible audience. Conan could definitely be promoted as a show that would keep people watching to the end to see what he is going to do next... which would hopefully keep people tuned in to the late local news. In contrast, Leno's show, to be blunt, generally attracts an older audience looking for something familiar, something safe, and that's something Jay doles out in spades.
> 
> The only question is whether that older audience would want to continue staying up after the late local news to watch Jay's show.


Neither of these will happen as long as Conan's ratings are lower than Leno's tenure on the Tonight Show.
I think O'Brien is now getting the same ratings he got for his 12:30 show.


----------



## sonnik

If there's any validity to TMZ's remarks about Conan being out (which I'm still doubting at this point) ...

I'm Sure Fox would love to be able to give its affiliates someone like him (Conan) at 11pm (after most Fox affiliates have completed an hour-long local block, primarily news). People could switch over from TDS, Colbert, and go right to Conan. Conan would corner the late night audience that would care less about local news. (Sorry, scratch my remarks about TDS/Colbert ... I based that on my local time zone).

I'm not sure what the demos are for Conan, but Conan's demos have to be more appealing than Leno.


----------



## brianric

terpfan1980 said:


> While I would hope he'd get to walk with a ton of NBCU/Comcast's money, I'd also hope that perhaps he'd make a run right on over to FOX where maybe they'd give him a show in the 11pm time slot where he'd kick Leno and Letterman's tails so badly we'd be talking about for years to come :up:


O'Brien's ratings are half of what Leno had, and Letterman is on par with O'Brien with the younger viewing audience that NBC said was its primary target for late night TV, according to the Washington Post.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tvblog/2010/01/leno-headed-back-to-late-night.html?hpid=artslot


----------



## Dan203

I watched one episode of the new Leno show in a hotel while I was on vacation. I didn't care for it so I never set up a SP when I got home. Conan's Tonight Show is OK. It's pretty much the exact same show he use to do, just with a few more jokes up front and better guests. (probably more to do with the show shooting in LA then anything else)

Back when Jay was on The Tonight Show I watched the monologue portion almost every night. The rest of the show I could do without, but Jay is so much better then Conan at coming up with jokes about current news and events. I think Conan is better at interacting with the guests, but like I said that part of the show I could take or leave anyway.

Whatever they do here I don't really care. I don't watch Jay's new show, and while I do record Conan I usually only watch the Friday night episode because there is no Daily Show or Colbert Report on. They could both go away forever and I probably wouldn't really notice.

Dan


----------



## Kamakzie

Kind of a low blow to Conan if they dump him. I to would laugh if Fox picked up Conan.


----------



## scottjf8

Alfer said:


> I had to laugh at this NBC kiss ass comment:
> 
> Really...?


Me, along with Turtleboy, smak, ellinj, and smeek saw him do Stand Up in Vegas last year. It was so bad.


----------



## Dan203

I saw him do stand up like 4-5 years ago and it was a lot of fun. It was a lot like his monologue where he made a lot of jokes about current news/events. To each their own I guess.

Dan


----------



## FilmCritic3000

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.c...considering-reinstating-leno-on-tonight-show/

If NBC does this, it's the stupidest, crappiest, most idiotic idea since Jay Leno took over from Carson.

If it does indeed happen, I sincerely hope Conan has the last laugh. And here I thought once Ben Silverman was gone, NBC was finally going to turn the corner. Silly me - the stupidity known as Jeff Zucker is still the top suit until the ink dries on Comcast's NBC Universal takeover.


----------



## FilmCritic3000

UPDATE:

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/update-nbc-plans-leno-at-1130-conan-at-12/

So they're planning to have Leno do a show from 11:35-12:05, _The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien from 12:05-1:05_, and _Late Night with Jimmy Fallon_ from 1:05-2:05.

NBC - Where Cluelessness Reigns Supreme!


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

morac said:


> My local paper had a best and worst of 2009 feature last week. They rated the Jay Leno Show as the worst TV show of 2009.


Not even close to being true but it's a better story that way. There is a lot of true garbage out there that gets no viewers.


----------



## Bierboy

Lotsa stories swirling, inlcuding Leno possibly going back to 11:30 p.m. (EST)...maybe being cut down to a half hour with Conan to follow....blah blah....

Being reported by TV-By-The-Numbers  according to TMZ.


----------



## Turtleboy

Come on. It was the very first thread on the forum which you started a new thread.


----------



## Bierboy

Turtleboy said:


> Come on. It was the very first thread on the forum which you started a new thread.


Come on nothing...it deserved its own thread. The other thread is old and says nothing (in the title) about the move back to late night.


----------



## FilmCritic3000

Update #2:

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/n...ing-to-jay-leno-show-due-to-affiliate-issues/


----------



## Turtleboy

NBC created this problem by trying to have it both ways. They should have stuck with Jay to begin with, but when they didn't, that was that. They should have let him go. It will remain a disaster until one of them gets the boot. And getting rid of Conan and bringing back Jay makes both NBC and Jay look terrible.


----------



## Neenahboy

I didn't think it was possible, but NBC's in a worse late night position now than six months ago.

They can't show Conan the door (and thus, they can't reinstate Leno in _The Tonight Show_) because it would trigger a $50M financial penalty to him. Or rather, they could, but they probably don't want to.

They've proven that they won't bid Leno adieu because he'd jump to ABC or Fox to complement Kimmel or Wanda Sykes.

And they'll have a hell of a time making themselves credible in the scripted drama space again when they go that route (they've supposedly told agents to bring them as much drama development as possible for fall) even with the Abrams and Bruckheimer projects in production.

If they really want to save late night, they'll release Conan and move Jay back to 11:30 as host of _Tonight_. If they want to be cost effective, they'll scale Jay back to once or twice a week and keep Conan on _Tonight_. And if they want to be clueless idiots, they'll move Leno to late night in a half-hour format as discussed above and slide Conan back 30 minutes for an hour show.

I must say, though, I'm quite enjoying the beginning of the end for NBC.


----------



## FilmCritic3000

Neenahboy said:


> I didn't think it was possible, but NBC's in a worse late night position now than six months ago.
> 
> They can't show Conan the door (and thus, they can't reinstate Leno in _The Tonight Show_) because it would trigger a $50M financial penalty to him. Or rather, they could, but they probably don't want to.
> 
> They've proven that they won't bid Leno adieu because he'd jump to ABC or Fox to complement Kimmel or Wanda Sykes.
> 
> And they'll have a hell of a time making themselves credible in the scripted drama space again when they go that route (they've supposedly told agents to bring them as much drama development as possible for fall) even with the Abrams and Bruckheimer projects in production.
> 
> If they really want to save late night, they'll release Conan and move Jay back to 11:30 as host of _Tonight_. If they want to be cost effective, they'll scale Jay back to once or twice a week and keep Conan on _Tonight_. And if they want to be clueless idiots, they'll move Leno to late night in a half-hour format as discussed above and slide Conan back 30 minutes for an hour show.
> 
> I must say, though, I'm quite enjoying the beginning of the end for NBC.


And all of this is moot, I believe, for when Comcast officially takes over NBC Universal, I suspect they'll devise a plan of their own. Then again, I'm sure Brian Roberts and his team are more than likely involved in the decision-making process already.


----------



## Turtleboy

I wouldn't be surprised if the endgame involves some sort of online distribution. Not of Leno, because his fans are mostly _alter kakers_, but for Conan.


----------



## Neenahboy

Leno's anti-NBC monologue on tonight's show, as reported by Deadline:



> Happy birthday to Katie Couric, it's her birthday today. She left NBC for another network. I have to give her call to see how that is working out. As you may have heard, there is a rumor floating around that we were cancelled. I heard it coming in this morning on the radio. So far no one has said anything to me. But, Kev, if we did get cancelled, it will give us time to do some traveling. I understand that Fox is beautiful this time of year.
> 
> I don't think there is any truth to the rumors. See, it's always been my experience that NBC only cancels you when you're in first place. So we are fine. We are OK...
> 
> [Later, Leno inserted this comment after a joke.] You know what happened? NBC found four guns in my locker. I was suspended. [Kevin says, "I'm glad they didn't find them in my locker."] We will keep following this story....
> 
> [Later, Leno returns to NBC yet again.] The Justice Department announced they will conduct an anti-trust review of Comcast's proposed deal to merge with NBC. An anti-trust review. Which is the relationship i have with NBC. Anti-trust. Hey Kev, what does NBC stand for? Never believe your contract."


----------



## Einselen

Bierboy said:


> Come on nothing...it deserved its own thread. The other thread is old and says nothing (in the title) about the move back to late night.


Agreed. I wouldn't know about this news as I ignored the other thread as I thought it was all talk about Leno and his "new" show.


----------



## MikeAndrews

> what does NBC stand for? Never believe your contract."


Now Leno is recycling jokes he told at the press conference when NBC announced he won The Tonight Show over Letterman.

It's even in the "Late Shift" movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116835/


----------



## FilmCritic3000

netringer said:


> Now Leno is recycling jokes he told at the press conference when NBC announced he won The Tonight Show over Letterman.
> 
> It's even in the "Late Shift" movie.
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116835/


Yep. But then again, that's Leno in a nutshell.


----------



## Turtleboy

As Jay Eff Ate said, we saw Leno in Vegas last year. He was doing Bill Clinton is horny jokes. In 2008.


----------



## Kablemodem

I'm sure Bill Clinton was still horny in 2008.


----------



## ElJay

So if Leno does go back to 11:35, what goes in at 10pm? Reruns of USA Network shows? 

I feel bad for Conan. He has been screwed since the transition and it seems he will continue to be until Leno gets a clue and goes away.


----------



## stalemate

Einselen said:


> Agreed. I wouldn't know about this news as I ignored the other thread as I thought it was all talk about Leno and his "new" show.


Same here.


----------



## LoadStar

ElJay said:


> So if Leno does go back to 11:35, what goes in at 10pm? Reruns of USA Network shows?


The best of what they have now (a.k.a. "best of the worst") combined with all the new pilots that they are ordering.


----------



## YCantAngieRead

ElJay said:


> So if Leno does go back to 11:35, what goes in at 10pm? Reruns of USA Network shows?
> 
> I feel bad for Conan. He has been screwed since the transition and it seems he will continue to be until Leno gets a clue and goes away.


USA Network shows do pretty good. That might be a better move.


----------



## pcguru83

Ugh, this sucks. I love Conan at 11:30pm. Here's hoping they boot Leno, not Conan. I'm not holding my breath though...


----------



## DevdogAZ

pcguru83 said:


> Ugh, this sucks. I love Conan at 11:30pm. Here's hoping they boot Leno, not Conan. I'm not holding my breath though...


Problem is, Conan's ratings are horrible when compared with Leno's before the switch. Conan isn't even beating Nightline in total viewers.

NBC is in a no-win situation here. They either pay a huge buyout to Conan, pay a huge buyout to Leno, or keep both shows on the air and continue to suffer in the ratings. And they don't have the content to fill the 10 pm slot right now, so even if they were to make a move after the Olympics, they'd have to fill that slot with reality, Dateline, and perhaps one or two scripted shows. It just doesn't make sense for NBC to make any drastic moves this season.


----------



## pcguru83

DevdogAZ said:


> Problem is, Conan's ratings are horrible when compared with Leno's before the switch. Conan isn't even beating Nightline in total viewers.


One could argue that Conan's ratings are so poor because of the number of lost viewers from Leno's show in the "middle". I mean, who stays up to watch _two_ late night shows?

My guess is that Conan's ratings would be much improved if there was programming at 10pm that lead into Conan. But unfortunately, I bet we'll never get to see if this is the case.

Based on what we think we know, NBC is seriously screwing over Conan.


----------



## stalemate

Conan is *so* much better.


----------



## DevdogAZ

ElJay said:


> So if Leno does go back to 11:35, what goes in at 10pm? Reruns of USA Network shows?
> 
> I feel bad for Conan. He has been screwed since the transition and it seems he will continue to be until Leno gets a clue and goes away.


I would feel bad for Conan if his show were any good. But I watched it religiously for the first several months just to see if I could get used to it, and I just never could. Conan's got that strange habit of having to pantomime his jokes after he finishes telling them. It's like a nervous tick or something. Some might find it funny or endearing, but I'll bet the average viewer doesn't like it and I'd be willing to bet that's one of the big reasons his show has lost the ratings lead he had when he took over from Leno.


----------



## DevdogAZ

pcguru83 said:


> One could argue that Conan's ratings are so poor because of the number of lost viewers from Leno's show in the "middle". I mean, who stays up to watch _two_ late night shows?
> 
> My guess is that Conan's ratings would be much improved if there was programming at 10pm that lead into Conan. But unfortunately, I bet we'll never get to see if this is the case.
> 
> Based on what we think we know, NBC is seriously screwing over Conan.


I don't really think that's the case. If Conan's show were good, people would watch. But it's just not. The shows are 90 minutes apart and attract different demographics and target different viewers. There's simply no evidence to show that viewers are avoiding Conan because they've already had their fix of late-night comedy from Leno. It's more likely that the people who enjoyed Leno on The Tonight Show just haven't warmed up to Conan because his style of comedy is too different.


stalemate said:


> Conan is *so* much better.


As a Leno fan, I'll admit that his new show sucks and he's not been very good since he moved to 10pm. But Conan is definitely NOT better. He's quirkier. He's good at acting out his jokes after the punchline. But he's not better.


----------



## jimborst

I just seen a tweet from Letterman (or a writer) that said "I hope everything works out for #Conan" so I had to come here to see what the news was, but maybe no one really knows yet.


----------



## stalemate

DevdogAZ said:


> As a Leno fan, I'll admit that his new show sucks and he's not been very good since he moved to 10pm. But Conan is definitely NOT better. He's quirkier. He's good at acting out his jokes after the punchline. But he's not better.


I'm a Leno fan too but I still think Conan is better.


----------



## MrGreg

DevdogAZ said:


> Conan's got that strange habit of having to pantomime his jokes after he finishes telling them. It's like a nervous tick or something. Some might find it funny or endearing, but I'll bet the average viewer doesn't like it and I'd be willing to bet that's one of the big reasons his show has lost the ratings lead he had when he took over from Leno.


Yeah, I guess people like Jay's habit of repeating each punchline 3 times a lot more. </sarcasm>


----------



## Dan203

I actually think the 1/2 hour Leno with Conan following is a good idea. It may not be "fair" to either host, but I think it will result in the best ratings for both shows. Like I said before I really only ever watched Jay's monologue anyway, so a 1/2 hour is fine there. Plus I think Conan following Colbert, instead of competing with him, will actually help his ratings. The Daily Show, Colbert and Conan all appeal to the same basic demographic. They compliment each other well. They even did a few crossover bits with all 3 hosts back when Conan was in NYC.

Dan


----------



## FilmCritic3000

NBC to Conan O'Brien: The Choice Is Yours

http://www.tmz.com/2010/01/08/conan-obrien-jay-leno-nbc-tonight-show/


----------



## FilmCritic3000

NBC to Conan O'Brien: The Choice Is Yours

http://www.tmz.com/2010/01/08/conan-obrien-jay-leno-nbc-tonight-show/


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

One hopes that if this happens, as it sounds like it will, at least one or two of the "restored" hours will be "real" TV and not reality TV...


----------



## disco

If I was Conan, I'd leave for ABC or FOX. Screw this. Leno is the Favre of television: he said he was retiring from "The Tonight Show", so they gave the show to Conan. Then he said he didn't want to retire, so NBC gave him the 10p show. He sucked in ratings, so now they want to take the 11:35p slot from Conan and give it back to Leno.

Byeee....Conan should move to ABC or FOX, go head to head against Leno & Letterman. He may not beat Leno in ratings, but he can at least take SOME of his viewers away so Leno's second to Letterman.


----------



## disco

If I was Conan, I'd leave for ABC or FOX. Screw this. Leno is the Favre of television: he said he was retiring from "The Tonight Show", so they gave the show to Conan. Then he said he didn't want to retire, so NBC gave him the 10p show. He sucked in ratings, so now they want to take the 11:35p slot from Conan and give it back to Leno.

Byeee....Conan should move to ABC or FOX, go head to head against Leno & Letterman. He may not beat Leno in ratings, but he can at least take SOME of his viewers away so Leno's second to Letterman.


----------



## Turtleboy

I think anyone who has read _The Late Shift_ isn't surprised by this at all. Leno is one ambitious throat-cutting, backstabbing, S.O.B. He convinced NBC to screw over Letterman, and now Conan.

This time, there isn't even the pretense of "Oh, it wasn't me. I'm the nice guy that everyone loves. It was Helen Kushnick."


----------



## ElJay

I'm hoping Conan jumps ship and goes somewhere he's wanted. After this failed experiment I don't know why NBC is still clinging on to Leno as they are. They kept him on because they didn't want the competition, but now he's proving to be a joke in regards to ratings. I don't think he's going to improve that much on another network.



DevdogAZ said:


> Conan's got that strange habit of having to pantomime his jokes after he finishes telling them.


He did that fairly regularly on his 12:37 show, but not to the extent I saw him doing it on "The Tonight Show." I wonder if Andy wasn't there if he'd do it less often. I think half of it is him acting silly with Andy. It's better when Conan saves it up for a Larry King or Schwarzenegger joke instead of doing it after nearly everything in the monologue.


----------



## 5thcrewman

I just had a brainstorm as to what Leno should do. 

-Steal yet another idea from Stern, move to 'satellite' network. 

MSNBC could use a 'Red Eye' competitor and Jay could still do his 'Clinton is horny/McCain is old' crap.


----------



## 5thcrewman

Put Leno on MSNBC to compete with 'Red Eye' and he can still do his Clinton is horny jokes,


----------



## FilmCritic3000

Turtleboy said:


> I think anyone who has read _The Late Shift_ isn't surprised by this at all. Leno is one ambitious throat-cutting, backstabbing, S.O.B. He convinced NBC to screw over Letterman, and now Conan.
> 
> This time, there isn't even the pretense of "Oh, it wasn't me. I'm the nice guy that everyone loves. It was Helen Kushnick."


You're exactly right, Turtleboy.

And as a side note, _The Late Shift_ is a really fantastic book, chock full of in-depth details (did you know CBS attempted to get Leno to do a late night show in 1990 by gifting him with a priceless motorcycle?) of the late night landscape back in the day, starting with how _The Tonight Show_ was created, how the 12:30 slot started on NBC, into Letterman's morning show, how Conan got his start with _King of the Hill_/_The Office_ (U.S.)/_Parks & Recreation_ creator Greg Daniels on HBO's _Not Necessarily The News_ (which I loved) and FOX's _The Wilton-North Report_, the people that attempted to take down Carson with their own late night talk shows (Alan Thicke, Joan Rivers, Pat Sajak, Arsenio Hall to name a few), and so much more.

I lost my copy a little while ago but _The Late Shift_ is a book that's like comfort food to me, in that it's immensely and compulsively re-readable.


----------



## DancnDude

disco said:


> If I was Conan, I'd leave for ABC or FOX. Screw this. Leno is the Favre of television: he said he was retiring from "The Tonight Show", so they gave the show to Conan. Then he said he didn't want to retire, so NBC gave him the 10p show. He sucked in ratings, so now they want to take the 11:35p slot from Conan and give it back to Leno.


This just isn't right. Leno did NOT want to retire. NBC renewed Conan's contract and told him he'd get the Tonight Show spot so he wouldn't leave the network. So Leno was forced out. But then NBC decided they wanted to keep Leno as well so they made the deal to put him on at 10. Almost all of this was NBC's fault to begin with.


----------



## DevdogAZ

DancnDude said:


> This just isn't right. Leno did NOT want to retire. NBC renewed Conan's contract and told him he'd get the Tonight Show spot so he wouldn't leave the network. So Leno was forced out. But then NBC decided they wanted to keep Leno as well so they made the deal to put him on at 10. Almost all of this was NBC's fault to begin with.


Agreed. NBC tried to have their cake and eat it too, and it bit them in the ass. You can't fault Leno for not wanting to be kicked to the curb when his show is #1 and he's in his prime.


Turtleboy said:


> I think anyone who has read _The Late Shift_ isn't surprised by this at all. Leno is one ambitious throat-cutting, backstabbing, S.O.B. He convinced NBC to screw over Letterman, and now Conan.
> 
> This time, there isn't even the pretense of "Oh, it wasn't me. I'm the nice guy that everyone loves. It was Helen Kushnick."


That may have been the case in 1993. But I don't think you can say that this time Leno convinced NBC to screw over Conan. NBC simply made a mistake. They thought Leno would be ready to retire and when the time actually got here, he wasn't. Leno would have had the option to go to ABC or FOX, and NBC wanted nothing to do with that, so they gave him a primetime show. I'm not sure how you can turn "Leno was a ratings powerhouse and wasn't ready to retire" into "Leno convinced NBC to screw over Conan."


----------



## Steveknj

Turtleboy said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if the endgame involves some sort of online distribution. Not of Leno, because his fans are mostly _alter kakers_, but for Conan.


_alter kakers_ :up:


----------



## Steveknj

YCantAngieRead said:


> USA Network shows do pretty good. That might be a better move.


Actually, I think Burn Notice or In Plain Sight would work well in that timeslot. They are a bit different than the normal 10PM fare, and they might draw in some new viewers to USA once everything is sorted out at NBC.


----------



## bicker

I mentioned this in another forum this morning: Someone was reacting to these rumors as if they were true, and then projecting beyond that that the result would be lots more scripted programming choice at 10PM. I countered with my own baseless speculation:

Monday 10PM - Dateline
Tuesday 10PM - L&O: SVU (with a new game show or reality show taking the Wednesday 9PM slot)
Wednesday 10PM - Burn Notice from last year (more firmly establishing a precedent for the reverse commute, from cable to over-the-air broadcast)
Thursday 10PM - Dateline
Friday 10PM - rerun of this week's Mercy
Dateline four nights a week... it could happen. Heck, the current Friday Dateline could be a rerun of Thursday's broadcast.


----------



## Steveknj

bicker said:


> I mentioned this in another forum this morning: Someone was reacting to these rumors as if they were true, and then projecting beyond that that the result would be lots more scripted programming choice at 10PM. I countered with my own baseless speculation:
> 
> Monday 10PM - Dateline
> Tuesday 10PM - L&O: SVU (with a new game show or reality show taking the Wednesday 9PM slot)
> Wednesday 10PM - Burn Notice from last year (more firmly establishing a precedent for the reverse commute, from cable to over-the-air broadcast)
> Thursday 10PM - Dateline
> Friday 10PM - rerun of this week's Mercy
> Dateline four nights a week... it could happen. Heck, the current Friday Dateline could be a rerun of Thursday's broadcast.


With the caveat that I don't know what Dateline's ratings have been, but I'm assuming not very good, if the intent here is to fix the issues with the affiliates, how is replacing Leno with Dateline going to help? I think a lot depends on how much, if any, input Comcast has. They may be more willing to cross platform cable content on OTA broadcasts


----------



## disco

DancnDude said:


> This just isn't right. Leno did NOT want to retire. NBC renewed Conan's contract and told him he'd get the Tonight Show spot so he wouldn't leave the network. So Leno was forced out. But then NBC decided they wanted to keep Leno as well so they made the deal to put him on at 10. Almost all of this was NBC's fault to begin with.


Stories that I've read say Leno's last contract stipulated that the Tonight Show would move to Conan's hands in 2009. If he didn't like the contract, he didn't have to sign. I don't see how he was "forced out". He didn't HAVE to sign the contract as it was written.


----------



## Turtleboy

DevdogAZ said:


> Agreed. NBC tried to have their cake and eat it too, and it bit them in the ass. You can't fault Leno for not wanting to be kicked to the curb when his show is #1 and he's in his prime.
> 
> That may have been the case in 1993. But I don't think you can say that this time Leno convinced NBC to screw over Conan. NBC simply made a mistake. They thought Leno would be ready to retire and when the time actually got here, he wasn't. Leno would have had the option to go to ABC or FOX, and NBC wanted nothing to do with that, so they gave him a primetime show. I'm not sure how you can turn "Leno was a ratings powerhouse and wasn't ready to retire" into "Leno convinced NBC to screw over Conan."


I sort of agree. The original mistake was giving Conan the show when they did. But NBC really compounded it by the ridiculous schedule this year. They should have just sucked it up and let Jay go play for the Jets or the Vikings.


----------



## sean67854

Since Comcast now owns NBC, essentially making it a "cable" channel, what are the chances that time slot will just be filled with paid programming?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

sean67854 said:


> Since Comcast now owns NBC, essentially making it a "cable" channel, what are the chances that time slot will just be filled with paid programming?


Zero. That would effectively kill the affiliates' news shows, and they'd have affiliates bailing left and right. Why be an NBC station if NBC is going to kill your big money-maker?

NBC needs ratings at 9:00 (Central). Their big Leno gamble flopped, so whatever they do to replace it has to provide the kind of ratings that will let their affiliates' news shows recover.


----------



## DancnDude

disco said:


> Stories that I've read say Leno's last contract stipulated that the Tonight Show would move to Conan's hands in 2009. If he didn't like the contract, he didn't have to sign. I don't see how he was "forced out". He didn't HAVE to sign the contract as it was written.


He was forced out because they already promised Conan the Tonight Show gig before Leno's contract was up. Sure, Leno didn't have to sign the new contract, but he was given the door to TTS without any discussion with the network....they decided for him that he was leaving the show. It's not like he told them he wanted to retire. Not anything like Favre.


----------



## tootal2

I dont see how his ratings could be down. I record his show every night. I hope he does not quit.


----------



## MikeAndrews

tootal2 said:


> I dont see how his ratings could be down. I record his show every night. I hope he does not quit.


Recording alone doesn't count. Ya gotta watch it, too.


----------



## zalusky

BTW Trauma which was essentially cancelled last fall is now filming again in San Francisco.


----------



## DevdogAZ

sean67854 said:


> Since Comcast now owns NBC, essentially making it a "cable" channel, what are the chances that time slot will just be filled with paid programming?


The merger won't be final until it's approved by the Justice Department, which might not be until later this year.

And even when it is approved, NBC won't be a "cable" channel. It will still be one of the Big Four broadcast networks and Comcast will have to treat it that way if it wants to maintain that status. Besides, what cable channels put on Paid Programming during prime time? I know lots of them have it on during the day or in the middle of the night, but if they're running infomercials at 10 pm, they might as well not even ben on the air.


----------



## YCantAngieRead

disco said:


> If I was Conan, I'd leave for ABC or FOX. Screw this. Leno is the Favre of television: he said he was retiring from "The Tonight Show", so they gave the show to Conan. Then he said he didn't want to retire, so NBC gave him the 10p show. He sucked in ratings, so now they want to take the 11:35p slot from Conan and give it back to Leno.
> 
> Byeee....Conan should move to ABC or FOX, go head to head against Leno & Letterman. He may not beat Leno in ratings, but he can at least take SOME of his viewers away so Leno's second to Letterman.


Yeah, this. I hope wherever he goes he's wildly successful. He's really getting the shaft in this.


----------



## aindik

Turtleboy said:


> I sort of agree. The original mistake was giving Conan the show when they did. But NBC really compounded it by the ridiculous schedule this year. They should have just sucked it up and let Jay go play for the Jets or the Vikings.


If they could let him go play for the Jets, they would. But they don't want him playing for the Vikings. (The Packers wouldn't let Farve play for the Vikings either. That's where he wanted to go last year, but he had to wait until his contract was up to go there).

I don't think there's a Jets in this analogy.


----------



## bicker

Steveknj said:


> With the caveat that I don't know what Dateline's ratings have been, but I'm assuming not very good, if the intent here is to fix the issues with the affiliates, how is replacing Leno with Dateline going to help?


It probably won't, but truly "fixing" the affiliates issues is likely more expensive than it is worth. The network is perhaps being driven to do something, but there may not be anything the network can (from a feasibility and effectiveness standpoint) and should (from a financial standpoint) do.


----------



## aindik

Steveknj said:


> I think a lot depends on how much, if any, input Comcast has.


If this is anything like Sirius and XM, Comcast will have zero input until the merger closes.

Any role for Comcast in the operations of NBCU before the merger closes will a) anger regulators by effectively implementing the merger before they approve it, and b) possibly anger GE shareholders, who will not like having to live with decisions Comcast made, for Comcast's benefit, if the government rejects the merger.


----------



## Legion

Sux for Conan. He moved his whole staff to CA for this show.

Conan should of called Dave for some advice on NBC and taking them at their word.


----------



## marksman

DancnDude said:


> He was forced out because they already promised Conan the Tonight Show gig before Leno's contract was up. Sure, Leno didn't have to sign the new contract, but he was given the door to TTS without any discussion with the network....they decided for him that he was leaving the show. It's not like he told them he wanted to retire. Not anything like Favre.


Well, Jay original said okay, as he guessed he would be okay with retiring, but then when the time came, he did not want to actually retire. Which is exactly like Favre. Favre said he wanted to retire but he didn't want to when the time came and the Packers kicked him out anyways.


----------



## marksman

The old thread is Leno is Killing NBC.

Not How awesome is leno's new show.

Funny thing is this move will continue to kill NBC.

They are so stupid. Would they stop demanding and running off people who want to make them money?

The implicitly destroyed their network because they did not want to repeat with Conan what happened with Letterman. Yet in their own uniquely idiotic way they have managed to do just that.

If I were comcast taking over NBC, when they get control , I would suggest firing anyone who still works at NBC who has been there at any time during the last 5 or so years.


----------



## aindik

We read for months, if not years, that Conan had an "11:35 or $45 million" clause in his contract. Was that not true? Were they myopic enough that the clause says "The Tonight Show," and not "11:35"?


----------



## ElJay

marksman said:


> Well, Jay original said okay, as he guessed he would be okay with retiring, but then when the time came, he did not want to actually retire. Which is exactly like Favre. Favre said he wanted to retire but he didn't want to when the time came and the Packers kicked him out anyways.


Yeah, I can't really see this situation as Leno being "forced out." They gave him, what, five years notice, and then they gave him a new show in primetime! Now Leno's apparently on the way to forcing Conan out, or at the very least screwing him over (my show first!!) a second time. How about putting Leno on cable or after Carson? That seems like a good spot for him.


----------



## aindik

ElJay said:


> Yeah, I can't really see this situation as Leno being "forced out." They gave him, what, five years notice, and then they gave him a new show in primetime! Now Leno's apparently on the way to forcing Conan out, or at the very least screwing him over (my show first!!) a second time. How about putting Leno on cable or after Carson? That seems like a good spot for him.


His audience, to whom the gentleman from Florida colorfully referred as _alter kakers_, will not find him either on cable or at 2 a.m.


----------



## sonnik

NBC's problem is that they're really good at letting their talent grow, they believe in on-air personalities. 

They do this with their news divisions (think Chuck Todd - Senior White House Reporter - you may have not even known who he was a few years ago). Katie Couric from Today become a candidate for an anchor position (albeit at another network).

They do it with late night. They gave the keys to 12:30 to Lorne Michaels a few years ago. Conan (writer on SNL) was a Lorne pick, Fallon (from SNL) was a Lorne pick. Conan had some loyal followers at 12:30.

Now, in terms of ratings - Carson/Letterman had no real (talk/comedy) competition for many years. Arsenio Hall was probably the most competition that Carson ever saw. Letterman saw essentially no competition at 12:30. Now, ABC has stood by Kimmel and he has a following. CBS has a valid late night establishment now. Prior to the mid 90's, cable didn't really have any original content. Now we have Comedy Central with decent size audiences also with a stake (in some markets).

Fast forward to 2008. Dave and Jay are getting to that age where they might start considering retiring. If Dave retires first, CBS has a replacement at 11:30 who is then "more established" whenever NBC puts Conan in at 11:30 - if Jay retires second. However, if Jay "retires" first - they can reestablish a Tonight Show lead, as we don't really know who CBS would put in at 11:30 when Dave retired. This of course would let CBS have a lead for a few years, but Conan in this role may let NBC have the 18-49 demo.

In 2008 - Conan's contract would surely be up for renewal soon. If you were NBC, would you risk letting Conan shop around? If he went to Fox in 2008, for example, Conan would be the senior kid on the block whenever Jay and Dave did retire. 

At the same time, you can't let Jay shop around for a new job either. He's still a great asset with 25-54. NBC, Jay, and O'Brien were all probably aware of this, and they all agreed to it.

Now, in 2010 - the 10pm debacle. Jay took the challenge. It didn't work. While this move wasn't Jay's idea, he agreed to it - he agreed to the money. I personally think he's acting a little disrespectable here. His effort failed, and he started campaigning for 11:30 back. (See the Broadcasting and Cable article from a few months ago. He made comments about being willing to take 11:30 back if it was offered to him, which was out of line, in my opinion).

NBC is still in the same position, they can't let the talent go anywhere else. That's why we are hearing the 11:35/12:05 situation being proposed. 

Now, if I were NBC - I'd get out of this habit of thinking Jay is gold. Honestly, I don't think he'll have the longevity that Carson did. Not in this world of television. I was a teenager and watched Carson, he was the most entertaining thing around in that timeslot.

Do you think teenagers, 20-somethings, and 30-somethings (probably those who go to see movies, buy DVDs, looking to buy a new car - and thus sought by advertisers) are going to stick around for the next few years and watch Jay grow old at 11:35, when they have so many new options coming to them every year? I'm in my 30's now. I think Leno is a good comedian, but I'm tired of him as a "host" of a show in this format. 

Conan may not be everyone's comedy cup of tea, but I think he's your best candidate for the future of 11:30. I like Kimmel, Ferguson as well. I don't think Ferguson can have mass-appeal at 11:30, unfortunately. As much as I love TDS/Colbert, I don't see them having mass apeal on a broadcast network either. Hell, even NBC issued a press release recently that Conan prevailed in 18-49 in the 4th quarter. (Letterman had 25-54). 

My point is that if you try to name someone you can bank on at 11:30, the list is very small and getting smaller (and Leno's name should be purged off that list as well).


----------



## JYoung

ElJay said:


> I'm hoping Conan jumps ship and goes somewhere he's wanted. After this failed experiment I don't know why NBC is still clinging on to Leno as they are. They kept him on because they didn't want the competition, but now he's proving to be a joke in regards to ratings. I don't think he's going to improve that much on another network.


Leno's ratings for the 10 PM slot suck because they're the same numbers he was getting at the 11:35 time slot, which was beating Letterman.

If Leno went to another network in a post news time slot, there's little reason to think he wouldn't get similar ratings as before his move to 10 PM. Which would still be beating Letterman and he'd probably kill O'Brien.

(That said, if ABC picked him up, does Jimmy Kimmel become a liability?)


----------



## terpfan1980

sonnik said:


> Now, in 2010 - the 10pm debacle. Jay took the challenge. It didn't work. While this move wasn't Jay's idea, he agreed to it - he agreed to the money. I personally think he's acting a little disrespectable here. His effort failed, and he started campaigning for 11:30 back. (See the Broadcasting and Cable article from a few months ago. He made comments about being willing to take 11:30 back if it was offered to him, which was out of line, in my opinion).


I agree with almost all of what you've written though I would say that Leno's comments about potentially moving back to 11:30 may have been what the network wanted him to say just as much as what he wanted to say.

I've said before, I am not a fan of Leno. I don't find him that funny, and I really don't care for his interview skills. I preferred Letterman and used to watch him instead though through his own actions (scandal) and other things along the way (politics mostly), I've grown to not really care for him now either. Anyway, Leno was somewhat between a rock and hard place in the interview you mention. If he pretends he doesn't care about his audience -- including the ones that apparently want him back at 11:35 rather than at 10pm -- then the audience realizes it and starts ignoring him. He answered in probably the best way he could in saying that if he was asked to move back he'd do it. The wording was probably more along the lines of gib back prz!, but again if he didn't say something along those lines he essentially gives up completely and casts aside any hope of helping himself *and the network*.


----------



## terpfan1980

JYoung said:


> Leno's ratings for the 10 PM slot suck because they're the same numbers he was getting at the 11:35 time slot, which was beating Letterman.
> 
> If Leno went to another network in a post news time slot, there's little reason to think he wouldn't get similar ratings as before his move to 10 PM. Which would still be beating Letterman and he'd probably kill O'Brien.
> 
> (That said, if ABC picked him up, does Jimmy Kimmel become a liability?)


Sadly NBCU is being stupid in looking at Conan's ratings here too though. The ratings for everything on NBC post 10pm (east) are down. They aren't seeing that Leno is there digging the hole in the bottom of the sinking ship. Conan's ratings being down as just as much, if not more, to do with having a poor lead in at 10pm that isn't leaving an audience there at 11pm (for local news) which isn't leaving an audience at 11:35pm.

If NBCU really wanted to find out how Conan is doing they should be leaving his show along and reprogramming some must see TV for the 10pm slot.  Think Heroes in it's first season, or Lost, or Desperate Housewives, or other compelling product. Without good product in the earlier time slots they've got nothing to get people to stick around through the rest of the night. One of the few nights they actually do get people to stick around for is when they air 2 hours of Biggest Loser, but that doesn't happen often, no?

NBC ordered something like 18 pilots for next season. They now have to go back and fill the 10pm hour with quality product. Good luck with getting viewers to return once they do. (Though with the Olympics coming they'll be able to promo the bejeezus out of any moves they make, including putting Leno back in late night, etc.)


----------



## Alfer

Jay just needs to go away and play with his cars...he's WAY past his prime.


----------



## MikeAndrews

aindik said:


> We read for months, if not years, that Conan had an "11:35 or $45 million" clause in his contract. Was that not true? Were they myopic enough that the clause says "The Tonight Show," and not "11:35"?


Also in "The Late Shift:" Dave hated agents and negotiated his own contract. He had a "Tonight Show or $1 million" clause in his NBC contract. Then Michael Ovitz told him that $1M was haircut money to NBC.


----------



## bicker

terpfan1980 said:


> Good luck with getting viewers to return once they do.


The vast majority of viewers generally don't take things so personally, and will evaluate the programs offered on their own merits.


----------



## Einselen

NBC = Never believe (your) contract


----------



## DevdogAZ

ElJay said:


> Yeah, I can't really see this situation as Leno being "forced out." They gave him, what, five years notice, and then they gave him a new show in primetime! Now Leno's apparently on the way to forcing Conan out, or at the very least screwing him over (my show first!!) a second time. How about putting Leno on cable or after Carson? That seems like a good spot for him.


Here's what happened. Jay was told by NBC that in order to get Conan to agree to extend his contract, they had to promise him the Tonight Show by 2009. At that point (approximately 2004-5), Jay accepted the deal and likely figured he could get used to the idea of retiring by 2009. Nobody said he liked that situation, but he was a team player and agreed to it.

Fast forward to fall of 2008. NBC is promoting the final season of Leno on the Tonight Show and making preparations for Conan to take over. Leno realizes that he still loves his job and the audience still loves him. Just because his contract as host of the Tonight Show is ending doesn't mean he has to ride off into the sunset. He realizes he's got other options, and that ABC or FOX would love to have him host a late night show for them. NBC didn't want that competition, so they offered him the 10pm slot, in a bid to keep Leno, save money, do some counterprogramming, etc.

Those of you who hate Leno seem to think that he did something wrong by wanting to continue to work when his Tonight Show contract was over. I simply don't understand that position. He has every right to want to keep working, and NBC was scared to death of him working for someone else. Should Leno have refused the 10pm that NBC offered? Should he have asked NBC to put him on cable so he wouldn't conflict with Conan? The answer is no. Leno did nothing wrong here other than wanting to continue working. The mistakes were made by NBC in wanting to have the best of both worlds. They took a shot, it didn't work, and now they've got a massive mess to clean up. But I simply don't understand how you blame Leno for any of this.


----------



## IndyJones1023

I don't hate Leno. I just don't see how anyone thinks he's funny.


----------



## terpfan1980

terpfan1980 said:


> ... NBC ordered something like 18 pilots for next season. They now have to go back and fill the 10pm hour with quality product. Good luck with getting viewers to return once they do. (Though with the Olympics coming they'll be able to promo the bejeezus out of any moves they make, including putting Leno back in late night, etc.)





bicker said:


> The vast majority of viewers generally don't take things so personally, and will evaluate the programs offered on their own merits.


It's not about taking things personally, it's about not having a good base of viewers there to show promo's to to even get 'em interested in the new product.

Having a successful programming slate leads itself to continued success. During the shows that people are watching you can air promos -- either as standalone commercials, or as (TBS/TNT style) pop-ups that are shown during other programs. Either way you can, in theory at least, hit a lot of potential viewers with news that you have new programming coming their way, perhaps even programs they may like (especially if your marketing/promo area is good at their game and puts on an ad for a testosterone laden program during another testosterone laden program).

On the other hand, if the current slate of programming has no viewers, or should I say few viewers, then there's not going to be a lot of gain for future programming out of airing promos during that programming which is already on. That leads NBC to having to use other methods to heavily promote their schedule -- print ads, radio ads, etc. Considering how the newspaper and other print businesses have been doing, the chances of hitting potential viewers there aren't that high either, no? And radio has to compete with internet radio, satellite radio, iTunes/MP3s and other media that might never expose viewers to the promos either, so yeah, again, good luck (to NBC) with getting viewers to return.

Certainly if they can get some truly buzz-worthy programming they might have a chance at getting viewers back but their luck on getting truly buzz-worthy programming hasn't been so hot lately (which is part of why they were so eager, or at least so cooperative in handing off 5 hours per week to Leno).


----------



## terpfan1980

IndyJones1023 said:


> I don't hate Leno. I just don't see how anyone thinks he's funny.


To be correct, this is where I stand with him. I just don't find him entertaining. A few snickers perhaps, but not enough to make him worth tuning in for or even leaving on the TV if I happened to be parked on NBC for some other reason. And lately, honestly, NBC has given me few reasons to park on their local affiliate's channel.

Heroes got to be such a mess as to be unwatchable for me. I don't care for Biggest Loser, and I don't care for their Thursday night block of comedies and such (The Office is ok, I am enjoying the repeats of it that are airing in syndication, but I don't go out of my way at all to see any new episodes of it. Can't stand 30 Rock), and don't really know what else they're even airing -- except Football.

That's why I say they'll have a difficult time winning back viewers. They have to find programming that becomes so must see that viewers will come to them. I wish I could say that Chuck is such a program as I really like it and do go out of my way to see it, but that is about all that NBC has to offer *me* at this point.

Leno moving back to 11:35 does nothing to get me to watch that block and in fact makes me not want to tune in until Conan is on. I suppose having Conan come on at midnight might not be bad as I can then watch the Daily Show and Colbert and flip the channel but many times once I've parked on Comedy Central I'm not bothering to change the channel.


----------



## bicker

terpfan1980 said:


> It's not about taking things personally, it's about not having a good base of viewers there to show promo's to to even get 'em interested in the new product.


Let's see... where can NBC put their promos? NBC, Telemundo (many of their viewers do understand English), USA Network, Syfy, MSNBC, CNBC, etc. Would it be better if more folks were watching NBC now? Sure. However, the situation isn't nearly as dire as you're making it sound.



terpfan1980 said:


> Having a successful programming slate leads itself to continued success.


As we saw with Must See Thursdays. 

The point is that things change over time, in both directions.

And I'm still not convinced that the best way forward, for *any* of the OTA broadcast networks, are along the path you seem to be laying out. I said almost a year ago that I think cable will eventually supplant OTA as the best place to place scripted series in first run. What some seem to be resisting is the possibility that the reruns of cable programs, reality shows, and sports, may be the most profitable path forward for OTA, in general.


----------



## bicker

marksman said:


> If I were comcast taking over NBC, when they get control , I would suggest firing anyone who still works at NBC who has been there at any time during the last 5 or so years.


.. because it is always best to make capricious and arbitrary business decisions, instead of actually thinking and trying to figure out what would really be best.


----------



## SorenTodd

I have nothing against Mr. Leno, I just don't find him all that funny. More specifically, he's not "funny" to me in the way that Jim Parsons from Big Bang is funny. I realize I'm comparing scripted comedy to unscripted, but still.

NBC's best bet is that plan where Jay gets 1/2 hour, followed by Conan. But let's just hope they have some decent dramas for that 10 pm hour. Otherwise, the affils will be whining again about a lead-in with only 5 million viewers.


----------



## Einselen

SorenTodd said:


> I have nothing against Mr. Leno, I just don't find him all that funny. More specifically, he's not "funny" to me in the way that Jim Parsons from Big Bang is funny. I realize I'm comparing scripted comedy to unscripted, but still.


Leno is scripted. You are comparing scripted sitcom vs. scripted stand up/variety though. Well besides the little side comments during interviews.


----------



## Alfer

Einselen said:


> NBC = Never believe (your) contract


Hey...at least give Leno credit for that quip...



> In another quip, Leno asked: "What does NBC stand for? Never believe your contract."


----------



## Einselen

Alfer said:


> Hey...at least give Leno credit for that quip...


Admittedly I didn't hear Leno say that. Maybe I read it here in this thread but I haven't read any articles linked in here or read any other articles about the whole Leno situation.


----------



## MikeAndrews

Einselen said:


> Admittedly I didn't hear Leno say that. Maybe I read it here in this thread but I haven't read any articles linked in here or read any other articles about the whole Leno situation.


http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7707726#post7707726


----------



## Einselen

netringer said:


> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7707726#post7707726


I left that thread after day 1. I guess Leno is the only one who can come up with that witty acronym.


----------



## 5thcrewman

aindik said:


> If they could let him go play for the Jets, they would. But they don't want him playing for the Vikings. (The Packers wouldn't let Farve play for the Vikings either. That's where he wanted to go last year, but he had to wait until his contract was up to go there).
> 
> I don't think there's a Jets in this analogy.


MSNBC


----------



## Neenahboy

aindik said:


> We read for months, if not years, that Conan had an "11:35 or $45 million" clause in his contract. Was that not true? Were they myopic enough that the clause says "The Tonight Show," and not "11:35"?


NBC has the contractual right to start Conan as late as 12:05 without penalty.


----------



## aindik

Neenahboy said:


> NBC has the contractual right to start Conan as late as 12:05 without penalty.


Interesting. Is that something we always knew?


----------



## ElJay

DevdogAZ said:


> Jay was told by NBC that in order to get Conan to agree to extend his contract, they had to promise him the Tonight Show by 2009. At that point (approximately 2004-5), Jay accepted the deal and likely figured he could get used to the idea of retiring by 2009. Nobody said he liked that situation, but he was a team player and agreed to it.
> ...
> Should Leno have refused the 10pm that NBC offered? Should he have asked NBC to put him on cable so he wouldn't conflict with Conan? The answer is no. Leno did nothing wrong here other than wanting to continue working.


OK, I'll say they're both at fault. NBC was stupid for being afraid of the competition and Leno is at fault for accepting the 10pm show. The latter decision was a huge middle finger to Conan and The Tonight Show as the institution it is. Maybe Leno figured Conan deserved it for being cunning in his own negotiations to get The Tonight Show? Leno had the show for more than a decade and is plenty stale, so I thought it seemed like a smart transition. It's not like Conan didn't put his time in and earn it.

However, the biggest fault does fall on NBC. This decision to offer Leno this show has not only wiped out their 10pm timeslot, but also screwed all programming that comes after it. When they were railroading down with their "it's cheap; we're OK with lower ratings" mantra, I don't think they expected the bleeding to last past 10:59:59pm. Now these rumors show they will possibly have a hole at 10:00pm plus who knows what at 11:35. From #1 in late night to quite a mess in a year, ultimately to satisfy the ego of Jay Leno and NBC's misplaced horror about the idea of having to compete against him.


----------



## bicker

ElJay said:


> NBC was stupid for being afraid of the competition


Proof? It sure is easy to second-guess people after-the-fact, without any chance of having to justify your criticisms of their decisions. Specifically: What makes you think that Leno on Fox or ABC, at 11:30 pm, wouldn't seriously damage The Tonight Show's ratings and profits?



ElJay said:


> and Leno is at fault for accepting the 10pm show.


What specific tenets of his personal goals and aspirations, and/or of his personal beliefs and values, were undercut by his decision? (I think you're evaluating his decision based on your own personal criteria, rather than judging him, as is proper, based on his own chosen criteria.)



ElJay said:


> When they were railroading down with their "it's cheap; we're OK with lower ratings" mantra, I don't think they expected the bleeding to last past 10:59:59pm.


What made you think that? We all were talking about it, and they're much smarter than we are, when it comes to this business. I believe that a reasonable person would readily acknowledge that they knew that there would be an impact on the affiliates.

My guess is that the *only* surprise for NBC in *all* this is *just* the measures that some affiliates might be taking to try to undercut the network, in retribution for the negative impact on NBC's actions in this regard.


----------



## DevdogAZ

ElJay said:


> OK, I'll say they're both at fault. NBC was stupid for being afraid of the competition and Leno is at fault for accepting the 10pm show. The latter decision was a huge middle finger to Conan and The Tonight Show as the institution it is. Maybe Leno figured Conan deserved it for being cunning in his own negotiations to get The Tonight Show? Leno had the show for more than a decade and is plenty stale, so I thought it seemed like a smart transition. It's not like Conan didn't put his time in and earn it.
> 
> However, the biggest fault does fall on NBC. This decision to offer Leno this show has not only wiped out their 10pm timeslot, but also screwed all programming that comes after it. When they were railroading down with their "it's cheap; we're OK with lower ratings" mantra, I don't think they expected the bleeding to last past 10:59:59pm. Now these rumors show they will possibly have a hole at 10:00pm plus who knows what at 11:35. From #1 in late night to quite a mess in a year, ultimately to satisfy the ego of Jay Leno and NBC's misplaced horror about the idea of having to compete against him.


Once again, please provide any evidence that NBC was trying to satisfy Leno's ego or that their fear of having to compete against him was misplaced. You may not like Leno. That's fine. But your post reads as if it's based on your biased opinion, not on the facts. You claim Leno's show was stale. However, the facts are that he dominated the ratings for 16 straight years and showed no signs of slowing down when NBC pushed him to the curb.

Your post talks about satisfying Leno's ego, but does it really require a huge ego to want to simply keep doing a job you love, even if you have to do it at a different time or for a different employer?

You talk about NBC's "misplaced horror" at the idea of competing against Leno. We'll never know for sure, since the Leno brand has now been significantly tainted, but I think it's a fairly safe assumption that had Leno left NBC last spring and started a competing late-night show on ABC or FOX, he'd have decimated both Conan and Letterman in the ratings. There's nothing to indicate his viewers wouldn't have simply switched channels and kept watching him.

You claim that Leno accepting the 10pm slot was a huge middle finger to Conan and the institution of The Tonight Show. In hindsight, it turns out Leno's show appears to have damaged TTS. But what comedian wouldn't have jumped at the chance to host his own show in prime time? Put yourself in his shoes. Would you turn down a chance to host a primetime show five nights a week and make millions of dollars a year? Why should he have been scared to be a pioneer? What if NBC had offered the same deal to Carson in 1975. Do you really think he'd have turned it down?

You claim Conan put in his time and earned a shot at The Tonight Show. Since when is that position automatically given to someone after putting in a certain amount of time at Late Night? Don't you think Leno earned the right to go out on his own terms, just like Carson did?

Once again, I understand the experiment didn't work. Everyone involved has egg on their face. But I simply can't understand those that want to place the blame on Leno. Would you really have done anything differently in his shoes?


----------



## Cainebj

I'm am more interested in hearing what NBC is going to do with the additional 5 hours of 10 pm programming?

If it is true this is all going to happen immediately after the Olympics - that's right around the corner...

Betcha they are kicking themselves over letting go Southland and Medium now


----------



## marksman

bicker said:


> .. because it is always best to make capricious and arbitrary business decisions, instead of actually thinking and trying to figure out what would really be best.


That would be thinking things through. Have you been paying attention to what NBC has managed to accomplish lately?

I would say you could start with what would be best be pretty much nothing they have been trying, so you would be fairly safe jettisoning them all.

I am not even using Hyperbole. NBC has failed on a monumental level. Which is even more surprising because their cable channels group consists of some very strong channels.

So yeah it might be extreme to kick them all out since some of them just got there... but anyone who was actively there and involved in the decisions that lead them to this point would be free to walk. I would not have much trouble living with that as a business decision.


----------



## ovr8ted

I have a suggestion for NBC:

Monday 10PM - Who cares, its Monday, we are all tired from work.

Tuesday 10PM - Create another mindless H-E-R-E C-O-M-E-S T-H-E J-O-K-E show.

Wednesday 10PM - Bring back Arrested Development!

Thursday 10PM - Bring back Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles!

Friday 10PM - Bring back Firefly!

Just a few thoughts


----------



## Einselen

I love how the canceled shows are Fox.


----------



## Lori

Part of the reason that Conan is suffering is that he is directly competing with Jay for guests, something that they never had to deal with when Jay was in Cali and Conan was in NY. Now, Jay is more likely to book a-list stars...why would they do Conan after?


----------



## FilmCritic3000

IndyJones1023 said:


> I don't hate Leno. I just don't see how anyone thinks he's funny.


This. :up:


----------



## Roadblock

DevdogAZ said:


> As a Leno fan, I'll admit that his new show sucks and he's not been very good since he moved to 10pm. But Conan is definitely NOT better. He's quirkier. He's good at acting out his jokes after the punchline. But he's not better.


Better at what? Being funny? He's 10,000x better.


----------



## smak

Turtleboy said:


> I think anyone who has read _The Late Shift_ isn't surprised by this at all. Leno is one ambitious throat-cutting, backstabbing, S.O.B. He convinced NBC to screw over Letterman, and now Conan.
> 
> This time, there isn't even the pretense of "Oh, it wasn't me. I'm the nice guy that everyone loves. It was Helen Kushnick."


It's funny, even the actor who played Letterman in the late shift is 50x better than the actor who played Jay.

He's one of my favorites!

-smak-


----------



## smak

Turtleboy said:


> I think anyone who has read _The Late Shift_ isn't surprised by this at all. Leno is one ambitious throat-cutting, backstabbing, S.O.B. He convinced NBC to screw over Letterman, and now Conan.
> 
> This time, there isn't even the pretense of "Oh, it wasn't me. I'm the nice guy that everyone loves. It was Helen Kushnick."


And he really screwed over Carson.

If Leno gets 11:30 back, I probably won't believe the aw shucks I go where they tell me which he normally does.

-smak-


----------



## smak

disco said:


> If I was Conan, I'd leave for ABC or FOX. Screw this. Leno is the Favre of television: he said he was retiring from "The Tonight Show", so they gave the show to Conan. Then he said he didn't want to retire, so NBC gave him the 10p show. He sucked in ratings, so now they want to take the 11:35p slot from Conan and give it back to Leno.
> 
> Byeee....Conan should move to ABC or FOX, go head to head against Leno & Letterman. He may not beat Leno in ratings, but he can at least take SOME of his viewers away so Leno's second to Letterman.


This would be worse than the "Favre of TV". It would have been like Favre coming back to the Packers and screwing with Aaron Rodgers, who this year was a top 3 QB.

-smak-


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Lori said:


> Part of the reason that Conan is suffering is that he is directly competing with Jay for guests, something that they never had to deal with when Jay was in Cali and Conan was in NY. Now, Jay is more likely to book a-list stars...why would they do Conan after?


I don't think that's the problem. Amy Adams has been on Regis, Jimmy Fallon, Letterman, and a dozen other programs this week for her new movie. If they're gonna be on the shows, the more the merrier. I suspect the issue is that Conan has a more NY sensibility whereas Jay is classic west coast after all these years.

NBC is chasing the money. Ratings wise, Conan is costing them too much money in lost share points. It better to move Leno back and re-program the 10PM slot. They can steal lots of content from their USA network which is a hit generating machine and put that in the 10 PM slots.


----------



## dswallow

They should move Leno to a subchannel. Make use of digital TV properly.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Turtleboy said:


> I think anyone who has read _The Late Shift_ isn't surprised by this at all. Leno is one ambitious throat-cutting, backstabbing, S.O.B. He convinced NBC to screw over Letterman, and now Conan.
> 
> This time, there isn't even the pretense of "Oh, it wasn't me. I'm the nice guy that everyone loves. It was Helen Kushnick."


Come on, read the whole book not just the stuff that reinforces your prejudice. Neither Leno NOR Letterman covered themselves with Glory.

Both of them clearly wanted the slot, the primary difference is that Jay worked behind the scene whereas Dave tried to influence it from the front.

In the end, NBC made the call that clearly was correct given that Leno won the ratings war handily for years.

Now, having said that, I can't imagine what dumbass asked Jay to retire and then the same or another dumbass came up with the 10PM stupidity.


----------



## ElJay

DevdogAZ said:


> Once again, please provide any evidence that NBC was trying to satisfy Leno's ego or that their fear of having to compete against him was misplaced. You may not like Leno. That's fine. But your post reads as if it's based on your biased opinion, not on the facts. You claim Leno's show was stale. However, the facts are that he dominated the ratings for 16 straight years and showed no signs of slowing down when NBC pushed him to the curb.


Of course my posts are my own biased opinion. I never meant to assert otherwise. You, bicker, et al are free to disagree with my opinion. It seems the move to 10pm has not expanded the audience for stale comedy to a point of being self-sustaining for a prime time slot. In addition it has kneecapped any potential success of Conan's Tonight Show with its massive suckage.


----------



## marksman

dswallow said:


> They should move Leno to a subchannel. Make use of digital TV properly.


I refuse to make a joke about people being able to find 5-1.


----------



## marksman

DevdogAZ said:


> Once again, I understand the experiment didn't work. Everyone involved has egg on their face. But I simply can't understand those that want to place the blame on Leno. Would you really have done anything differently in his shoes?


I am not a fan of Leno's show but I agree. I would not place any plame for the destruction of NBC on Leno's lap. He was simply the catalyst and focal point of what caused it all to go astray.

Jay seemingly went along with the plan 5 years ago, because what other choice did he have? He loved doing the Tonight Show and figured he would get to do it at least 5 more years and he could worry about beyond that later.

I think without a doubt in my mind Jay Leno would have gone on happily doing the Tonight Show in its normal timeslot until he dropped dead or decided to stop. I never saw any indication that Jay ever wanted anything else. The 10:00pm thing was NBC begging Jay to stay and not go somewhere else when they realized Jay really did not want to retire like they told him he wanted to do 5 years ago.

I don't blame Conan either. He wanted a chance at the Tonight Show and negotiated a deal. I just hope his payoff and contract are guaranteed for the full length and not just for 6 months and NBC gets out of paying him 45 million or whatever.

NBC 100% screwed this up because they wanted to avoid losing Conan like they lost Letterman. Miraculously they will potentially now lose Conan anyways, but also cost them potentially a billion dollars or more in the process. It is really amazing and breathtaking how they managed to do all of this.

They could have just told Conan, we appreciate that you want to be the Tonight Show host, but Jay is doing well and as long as he wants to stay there he will have the job. I am sorry if that is a problem for you, but we would love for you to continue at your current slot.

If Conan decided he deserved the earlier slot, then he obviously could have left when his contract was up and gone somewhere else. Jimmy Fallon would have likely still filled in for Conan, and now Conan would likely be on another network losing to both Jay and Dave, with all of them getting a smaller piece of the pie, most likely.

Instead they blew up their entire primetime schedule, jettisioned shows, offered Conan and huge payment if they don't give him the tonight show, killed all their affiliates in their late night newscasts and seriously damaged the Tonight Show franchise.

Two very different paths to get to the same exact spot. If they could only make a tv show as exciting as their scheduling and programming choices. Perhaps that should be an idea for a new show for them.


----------



## smak

We can blame Jay for putting on a bad show that barely anybody liked or watched can't we?

-smak-


----------



## Turtleboy

I think there is an unwritten rule about guests appearing on both shows within a certain period of time though.


----------



## bicker

marksman said:


> That would be thinking things through. Have you been paying attention to what NBC has managed to accomplish lately?


Yes, taking risks. Introducing great shows onto USA and Syfy. Working to find out where the industry is going to be, not tomorrow, but ten years from now.

You cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs.



marksman said:


> NBC has failed on a monumental level. Which is even more surprising because their cable channels group consists of some very strong channels.


So now I'll ask you... have you been "thinking things through"? Because you clearly have all the facts to make some projections about possibilities that would have prevented you from posting the ridiculous suggestion you made earlier. Just put together the data in front of you, and you should realize your error.


----------



## FilmCritic3000

bicker said:


> Yes, taking risks. Introducing great shows onto USA and Syfy. Working to find out where the industry is going to be, not tomorrow, but ten years from now.
> 
> You cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs.
> 
> So now I'll ask you... have you been "thinking things through"? Because you clearly have all the facts to make some projections about possibilities that would have prevented you from posting the ridiculous suggestion you made earlier. Just put together the data in front of you, and you should realize your error.


Hmmm...I guess I'm looking at all the wrong data. You know, the actual data that definitively states that NBC has been in fourth place for *years* now.


----------



## bicker

You *are *looking at the wrong data.

Here: http://www.ge.com/investors/index.html

Some insights from Business 101, which perhaps you missed: NBC is a service provided by a division. All that matters is the performance of the division.


----------



## lew

bicker said:


> What made you think that? We all were talking about it, and they're much smarter than we are, when it comes to this business. I believe that a reasonable person would readily acknowledge that they knew that there would be an impact on the affiliates.
> 
> My guess is that the *only* surprise for NBC in *all* this is *just* the measures that some affiliates might be taking to try to undercut the network, in retribution for the negative impact on NBC's actions in this regard.


At least a month ago NBC owed sponsors givebacks due to Leno ratings on 11 nights. I'm sure that number has increased. A reasonable person would acknowledge the ratings were dipping below the low number NBC had hoped for.

NBC isn't as smart as you claim if they thought the affiliates would accept the effect of low ratings on their local news. The first clue should have been having to threaten the Boston affiliate into carrying Leno.


----------



## RayChuang88

I think this entire debacle will end up costing NBC Universal President Jeff Zucker his job--especially with the NBC affiliates grumbling about the low ratings of _The Jay Leno Show_ hurting the ratings of the 11 pm ET/PT / 10 pm CT/MT late night broadcasts on these affiliates! 

And this on top of rumors that NBC Universal may end up losing money *BIG TIME* with the Winter Olympics coverage next month--a loss that could also cost NBC Sports President Dick Ebersol his job.

It may sound far-fetched, but the possibility of re-awarding the US television contract for the 2012 Summer Olympics is quite real, because NBC Universal is starting to really bleed money in light of the problems I mentioned above, and they may have second thoughts about committing US$2 billion to the 2012 Summer Olympics coverage. In short, the coverage could literally land in the hands of Disney's ESPN subsidiary, the only group that could handle the logistics of Olympics coverage outside of NBC Universal.


----------



## bicker

lew said:


> The first clue should have been having to threaten the Boston affiliate into carrying Leno.


Nah, that's noise. The owner of the affiliate here is a bozo.


----------



## dswallow

marksman said:


> Jay seemingly went along with the plan 5 years ago, because what other choice did he have? He loved doing the Tonight Show and figured he would get to do it at least 5 more years and he could worry about beyond that later.


Sounds about as smart as people who went for 5/1 ARMs.


----------



## MikeAndrews

smak said:


> It's funny, even the actor who played Letterman in the late shift is 50x better than the actor who played Jay.
> 
> He's one of my favorites!


I agree. I really like The Late Shift movie and have watched it many times. It was directed by Betty Thomas of Second City and Hill Street Blues.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116835/

John Michael Higgins (Dave) has been a member of Christopher Guest's movie improv ensemble and has done a good job.

You saw Daniel Roebuck in the two Fugitive movies and on some TV shows (NCIS?) I think he got the job primarily because he has a long face to make the Leno makeup work. I think he did a decent job but it was a little wooden.

Kathie Bates as helen Kushnik did her usual outstanding job and stole the movie. Also Bob Balaban as Warren Littlefield.

Not for nuttin'.. I saw John Kapelos (Morton) as that year's cast star at Second City in the same cast with Richard Kind and Lance Kinsey.



IJustLikeTivo said:


> Come on, read the whole book not just the stuff that reinforces your prejudice. Neither Leno NOR Letterman covered themselves with Glory.
> 
> Both of them clearly wanted the slot, the primary difference is that Jay worked behind the scene whereas Dave tried to influence it from the front.
> 
> In the end, NBC made the call that clearly was correct given that Leno won the ratings war handily for years.
> 
> ...


The movie shows that Dave never strongly said he wanted the Tonight Show NOW even though he had a clause in his contract. NBC was truly surprised when he fought for it.

Leno's rating were better for a long time - and only after Leno had on Hugh Grant with "What were you thinking" - because CBS had worthless lead in shows and they had a very small portion of clearance - affiliates carrying the show. The affiliates were making bucks with their own programming in the slot, then they claimed Letterman was too raunchy for their markets. If you adjusted Letterman's ratings for the number of markets he was on he smoked Leno.


----------



## MikeAndrews

> ...Conan lists the rumors he's heard about his late-night future. "NBC is going to throw me and Jay in a pit with sharpened sticks. The one who crawls out gets to leave NBC," he quipped. "That is an appealing proposition."
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/09/conan-skewers-nbc-in-mono_n_417221.html


Conan is gonna set sail. NBC will lose him just like they lost Dave, and they'll have Jay Leno back with lousier ratings that drop continously as his viewers die of old age. Conan will keep his portion of Leno's former viewers and Dave will do fine.

Watch for Conan and NBC to negotiate a cheaper poison pill price and set the last day for Conan.

What's amazing is how this is deja vu all over again for NBC, and they learned nothing from the last time but maybe it's a Kobiashi Maru scenario.


----------



## Wil

netringer said:


> You saw Daniel Roebuck in the two Fugitive movies and on some TV shows (NCIS?)


... and parts of him on Hugo in Lost.


----------



## aindik

smak said:


> We can blame Jay for putting on a bad show that barely anybody liked or watched can't we?
> 
> -smak-


Isn't he getting the same number of viewers at 10:00 as he got at 11:35?


----------



## TheMerk

Wil said:


> ... and parts of him on Hugo in Lost.


OMG you're right. He played Doc Arzt.


----------



## DevdogAZ

netringer said:


> What's amazing is how this is deja vu all over again for NBC, and they learned nothing from the last time but maybe it's a Kobiashi Maru scenario.


What is it you think they should have learned from the last time? Are you saying that choosing the guy who dominated the ratings for 16 years was the wrong decision? If so, I think that's a pretty subjective opinion. From a financial standpoint, NBC definitely made the right decision in 1992.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Turtleboy said:


> I think there is an unwritten rule about guests appearing on both shows within a certain period of time though.


I doubt it. Guests go on these shows to promote a project, usually an upcoming film, TV show or book. Why should the guests be prevented from promoting their project to the highest number of people just because a single network has two different shows that serve roughly the same purpose? There are often celebs on The Today Show promoting their projects. Are those celebs then prevented from appearing on Leno or Conan, since they've already plugged their project on NBC's airwaves?


----------



## Turtleboy

There is an unwritten rule between the shows.

Prove me wrong with a guest that appeared on both Leno and Conan within a very short period of time. They're both in L.A. so it's not like it would be difficult.


----------



## Test

Turtleboy said:


> There is an unwritten rule between the shows.
> 
> Prove me wrong with a guest that appeared on both Leno and Conan within a very short period of time. They're both in L.A. so it's not like it would be difficult.


You're right and I remembered seeing something about Conan getting first pick of a list guests...I'll try to find the link

edit: that was easy

http://digg.com/television/NBC_Execs_to_Leno_Conan_Gets_First_Dibs_on_A_List_Guests


----------



## marksman

bicker said:


> You *are *looking at the wrong data.
> 
> Here: http://www.ge.com/investors/index.html
> 
> Some insights from Business 101, which perhaps you missed: NBC is a service provided by a division. All that matters is the performance of the division.


Most of the success of Nbc Universal these days comes from the cable channels. NBC has had minor increases in profits with significant decreases in revenue, while also killing all their affiliates.

You can think that is a good idea or good business, but most people even in a business 101 class would not.


----------



## marksman

DevdogAZ said:


> What is it you think they should have learned from the last time? Are you saying that choosing the guy who dominated the ratings for 16 years was the wrong decision? If so, I think that's a pretty subjective opinion. From a financial standpoint, NBC definitely made the right decision in 1992.


Perhaps.

It is impossible to say that Letterman would not have been equally as succesful in the Tonight SHow gig as Leno was even if he did end up competing with him. First of all there is no guarantee Leno would have went on to compete against him with someone else. He was not an established talk show host at the time, and the Tonight Show history and audience was there and a foundation for Jay to build on.

If NBC closed the tonight show down and Leno started on Fox at the same time Dave went to CBS, it is not a given that Leno would have beaten Dave the same way he did.


----------



## bicker

marksman said:


> Most of the success of Nbc Universal these days comes from the cable channels.


Perhaps even deliberately at the expense of its OTA network. Who knows?



marksman said:


> You can think that is a good idea or good business, but most people even in a business 101 class would not.


That's why they have four years to gain an education, and then many years of experience in industry before their thinking is considered worthy of deference.


----------



## MikeAndrews

DevdogAZ said:


> What is it you think they should have learned from the last time? Are you saying that choosing the guy who dominated the ratings for 16 years was the wrong decision? If so, I think that's a pretty subjective opinion. From a financial standpoint, NBC definitely made the right decision in 1992.


Kobashi Maru - the unwinnable scenario. That's what I meant.

Where its the same is NBC dissing the hipper young guy in favor of the one the suits like for playing along. They'll keep Jay and the older demographic snd the advertisers will follow Conan.


----------



## mrdazzo7

I just read that if they move Jay back to 11:35, his show will be a half-hour of mostly his monologue. I'm really not understanding the undying devotion NBC seems to have for him. I have nothing against him, I think he's fine, but he's a late night host--this whole five-nights-a-week prime time thing was a horrible idea from jump street. And now, after years of waiting, Conan's gonna get pushed back with what, seven, eight months of air time? I personally can't stand conan but if that was me I'd bounce. It's a huge slap in the face in favor of someone who clearly doesn't have the viewership. 

Would people really tune into a show of just Jay Leno and no guests? a half hour show equates to about 22 minutes of show time, so even if he has a guest, how long can they chat for? I guess the format would have to be like Chelsey Handler's show on E, but her interviews from what I've seen are very brief. And i don't think Jay Leno is funny enough to survive on his monologue.


----------



## TheMerk

mrdazzo7 said:


> I just read that if they move Jay back to 11:35, his show will be a half-hour of mostly his monologue. I'm really not understanding the undying devotion NBC seems to have for him. I have nothing against him, I think he's fine, but he's a late night host--this whole five-nights-a-week prime time thing was a horrible idea from jump street. And now, after years of waiting, Conan's gonna get pushed back with what, seven, eight months of air time? I personally can't stand conan but if that was me I'd bounce. It's a huge slap in the face in favor of someone who clearly doesn't have the viewership.
> 
> Would people really tune into a show of just Jay Leno and no guests? a half hour show equates to about 22 minutes of show time, so even if he has a guest, how long can they chat for? I guess the format would have to be like Chelsey Handler's show on E, but her interviews from what I've seen are very brief. And i don't think Jay Leno is funny enough to survive on his monologue.


Offering Leno a half hour show at 11:35 and pushing Conan back to 12:05 is NBC's way to get Conan to quit, without having to fire him.


----------



## mrdazzo7

TheMerk said:


> Offering Leno a half hour show at 11:35 and pushing Conan back to 12:05 is NBC's way to get Conan to quit, without having to fire him.


Why though? I thought he was doing ok with the Tonight Show... Was it not performing? I still don't get the point of investing in someone for that long only to force them out months later. Give the guy a year to build an audience in that slot.


----------



## Turtleboy

mrdazzo7 said:


> Why though? I thought he was doing ok with the Tonight Show... Was it not performing? I still don't get the point of investing in someone for that long only to force them out months later. Give the guy a year to build an audience in that slot.


Yeah, I don't know why they're looking to give Conan, not Jay, the boot. Bringing Jay back to 1130, as damaged goods, isn't going to save things.


----------



## terpfan1980

Turtleboy said:


> Yeah, I don't know why they're looking to give Conan, not Jay, the boot. Bringing Jay back to 1130, as damaged goods, isn't going to save things.


It would likely save the 10pm time slot, but other than that, yeah, probably not going to do all that much in the long term. Leno's hard core fans are still not going to stick around for Conan, and the hard core haters aren't gonna be happy that Leno is back at 11:35 (making Conan slide that much later, if they are fans of Conan).

Sadly, if they do push Leno back to 11:35 and then push Conan back it's still not gonna tell them whether or not Conan is really the problem or not, especially if Leno doesn't bring much audience to his own later show.


----------



## TheMerk

mrdazzo7 said:


> Why though? I thought he was doing ok with the Tonight Show... Was it not performing? I still don't get the point of investing in someone for that long only to force them out months later. Give the guy a year to build an audience in that slot.


But NBC doesn't have the luxury of waiting a few years, they're hemorrhaging viewers and the affiliates are pissed.

NBC could cancel Leno's 10pm show, and put dramas back in there, but there would be a very real possibility that Leno would go do an 11:35 show on Fox or ABC. Leno Has the ability to attract viewers at 11:35, that has been proven.

This is why they're offering Leno a 30 min show at 11:35: to make Conan quit.

If NBC's ultimatum forces Conan to quit and go to another net, it's a risk they're willing to take. They're betting that Leno would at least be #2 at 11:35, with Conan taking 3rd on another network.


----------



## JimSpence

I haven't kept up with this thread, but I wondered if NBC could have Jay and Conan share the 11:35 time slot on alternating nights. 

And, what dramas would NBC put in the 10PM slot? 
More L & O's


----------



## aaronwt

TheMerk said:


> I watched Leno for the first time on Tuesday night (after The Biggest Loser.) When I say I watched for the first time, I mean it: I never, that I can recall, watched a single episode of his Tonight Show.
> 
> Holy crap, it was awful, self serving and, I thought, some of the jokes were borderline racist.
> 
> ..............................


Not as bad as The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien.


----------



## smak

aindik said:


> Isn't he getting the same number of viewers at 10:00 as he got at 11:35?


Yes, but he needed more. Otherwise they wouldn't be having the problems they are having, especially with the affiliates.

You can't just do the same show at 10 that you do at 11:30.

-smak-


----------



## smak

JimSpence said:


> I haven't kept up with this thread, but I wondered if NBC could have Jay and Conan share the 11:35 time slot on alternating nights.
> 
> And, what dramas would NBC put in the 10PM slot?
> More L & O's


NBC just ordered a Bruckheimer show and a David E Kelley show as well as two others. More than one probably destined for 10pm.

-smak-


----------



## marksman

NBC has a massive slate of pilots scheduled. I think the number I saw was like 22.

I saw it in an article where they talked about picking up the pilot for a new Adam Corolla project, which is different from the pilot CBS passed on last year.

If you think they might keep 4 sitcoms on Thursday, keep the weight loss show, with Leno in place they would have 9 hours to schedule, AFTER sunday night football ended, if they canceled Law and Order and Law and Order SVU.

If they kept both of those and during football season, they would have 4 hours to program a week. 22 pilots seems like a lot to fill potentially only 4 hours.

Of course I am guessing that the weight loss show and Sunday Night football are the only two shows on the schedule with any security. I suspect the rest of the scheduled 16 hours will all be up for grabs come next year.


----------



## DevdogAZ

mrdazzo7 said:


> I just read that if they move Jay back to 11:35, his show will be a half-hour of mostly his monologue. I'm really not understanding the undying devotion NBC seems to have for him. I have nothing against him, I think he's fine, but he's a late night host--this whole five-nights-a-week prime time thing was a horrible idea from jump street. And now, after years of waiting, Conan's gonna get pushed back with what, seven, eight months of air time? I personally can't stand conan but if that was me I'd bounce. It's a huge slap in the face in favor of someone who clearly doesn't have the viewership.
> 
> Would people really tune into a show of just Jay Leno and no guests? a half hour show equates to about 22 minutes of show time, so even if he has a guest, how long can they chat for? I guess the format would have to be like Chelsey Handler's show on E, but her interviews from what I've seen are very brief. And i don't think Jay Leno is funny enough to survive on his monologue.


The point is that NBC has given huge contractual guarantees to both Leno and Conan, so if they cancel either show outright, they'll have to pay a gigantic buyout clause. Rumors are that Conan's buyout is in the $40-50 million range, and I suspect Leno's is similar. By putting Jay at 11:35 and Conan at 12:05, they're once again trying to have their cake and eat it too, which is what got them into this mess in the first place.


marksman said:


> If you think they might keep 4 sitcoms on Thursday, keep the weight loss show, with Leno in place they would have 9 hours to schedule, AFTER sunday night football ended, if they canceled Law and Order and Law and Order SVU.
> 
> If they kept both of those and during football season, they would have 4 hours to program a week. 22 pilots seems like a lot to fill potentially only 4 hours.
> 
> Of course I am guessing that the weight loss show and Sunday Night football are the only two shows on the schedule with any security. I suspect the rest of the scheduled 16 hours will all be up for grabs come next year.


NBC has already announced that they'll be bringing the original L&O back, and I'd be shocked if they didn't keep SVU, since it's their best performing drama. We also don't know how Parenthood is going to perform. For all we know, it will be a hit this spring and that will be one less hole they have to fill.


----------



## MikeAndrews

> Carson's gone, but they're still making mistakes at NBC, especially around "Tonight," and only making a bad joke worse.
> 
> First in trying to keep Conan O'Brien from leaving, then in trying to keep Jay Leno from leaving and now in trying to keep affiliates burned by those first two moves from open rebellion, Carson's old network has found it can't wriggle out of its straitjacket. Forget about the shackles, the locked trunk and swimming to the surface.
> 
> ... if NBC can't talk Leno and O'Brien into going along with some kind of face-saving compromise, the already costly mistakes of moving Leno to prime time to accommodate O'Brien's move to "Tonight" will cost the company millions more in contractual penalties.
> 
> ...
> 
> Where did everything start to unravel? One could argue it was when Leno was named over David Letterman to host "Tonight" after Carson left in 1992. That's because Letterman's defection enabled CBS to establish a viable late-night franchise while Leno learned the job.
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-sun-biz-phil-rosenthal-0110jan10,0,7155168.column


At this point GE is real happy the check from Comcast cleared.


----------



## morac

netringer said:


> At this point GE is real happy the check from Comcast cleared.


GE does still technically own 49% of NBCU.


----------



## bicker

TheMerk said:


> But NBC doesn't have the luxury of waiting a few years


What I find most mind-numbing about this thread is how some folks make pronouncements without any semblance of foundation for them. Picking on this one... What evidence do you have that the end is near? When in the past has an substantially similar broadcaster been in a substantially similar circumstance and led to the conclusion you pronounce? THEN: Even if there was such an occasion (there hasn't been), where are the other instances, that also led to the same conclusion, that show that such a conclusion is reasonably expected to be inevitable in such a scenario.

Enough is enough, already. If you don't like what you see, you are allowed to say you don't *like* it. Give yourself some credit, and some credence, and believe that saying you don't like it, when that is indeed the issue, is enough. You don't need to make up inferences of doom, when the facts don't support it.

Think about, for a second, UPN and the WB. NBC is not in such bad shape as either of those were. Yet, not even those networks died! They still substantially live on, for all intents and purposes that affect viewers, in the CW. And yes, maybe -- just maybe -- the CW will cease to exist at some point. But not yet. And NBC is stronger that the CW. We are so far away from your pronouncement of doom that it is ridiculous. And even beyond that, the road is not a one way.



TheMerk said:


> NBC could cancel Leno's 10pm show, and put dramas back in there, but there would be a very real possibility that Leno would go do an 11:35 show on Fox or ABC. Leno Has the ability to attract viewers at 11:35, that has been proven.
> 
> This is why they're offering Leno a 30 min show at 11:35: to make Conan quit.
> 
> If NBC's ultimatum forces Conan to quit and go to another net, it's a risk they're willing to take. They're betting that Leno would at least be #2 at 11:35, with Conan taking 3rd on another network.


I totally agree with all this.


----------



## aindik

netringer said:


> At this point GE is real happy the check from Comcast cleared.


The merger is not done. Lots of regulatory hurdles to clear first.


----------



## IndyJones1023

I hope the merger fails. I just see it as a bad thing.


----------



## Langree

IndyJones1023 said:


> I hope the merger fails. I just see it as a bad thing.


I agree.

If Comcast runs the network the way they run their cable company, I forsee a bunch of Burn in Hell Comcast threads.


----------



## bicker

aindik said:


> The merger is not done. Lots of regulatory hurdles to clear first.


True. So the check hasn't cleared yet. By the same token, I don't know of any significantly-credible sources that believe that the end-result of the regulatory hurdles will be anything _other _than approval with conditions.


----------



## bicker

Langree said:


> If Comcast runs the network the way they run their cable company, I forsee a bunch of Burn in Hell Comcast threads.


And the threads equally as vacuous as the current BiH Comcast threads.

Will this be bad for viewers? Yes. We need to get over it.

It's not always just all about us.


----------



## Langree

bicker said:


> And the threads equally as vacuous as the current BiH Comcast threads.
> 
> Will this be bad for viewers? Yes. We need to get over it.
> 
> It's not always just all about us.


But without viewers a network loses money, so to some extent it is about us.


----------



## jerrye25

Just saw this on Alyssa Milano's twitter (yes...I follow her)

http://www.thrfeed.com/2010/01/nbc-press-tour-executive-session-live-blog.html


----------



## MickeS

So they want to keep Leno, Conan and Jimmy Fallon on... sounds like we'll just go back to how things were a year ago... with a "late late night" with Fallon.


----------



## bicker

Langree said:


> But without viewers a network loses money


That's a false dichotomy. The choice isn't between a specific number of viewers and "without viewers". This is a parametric scenario, a nuance that generally speaking anyone who is talking about a _company_ (specifically) "burning in hell" is simply not thinking clearly or deeply enough to appreciate. That was the point of the message you replied to.



Langree said:


> so to some extent it is about us.


But only to some extent, and even more specifically, in the case of an over-the-air broadcast network, it is about how much our viewership is worth in terms of advertising dollars and retransmission fees.

However, it was all irrelevant in this case. It all came down the politics of manipulation of public opinion, and the pressure PR considerations can have on business decisions.


----------



## Langree

bicker said:


> That's a false dichotomy. The choice isn't between a specific number of viewers and "without viewers". This is a parametric scenario, a nuance that generally speaking anyone who is talking about a _company_ (specifically) "burning in hell" is simply not thinking clearly or deeply enough to appreciate. That was the point of the message you replied to.
> 
> But only to some extent, and even more specifically, in the case of an over-the-air broadcast network, it is about how much our viewership is worth in terms of advertising dollars and retransmission fees.


But if the viewers aren't watching, ad dollars go away.

or as in this case, the affiliates threatening not to air network content. Why? because they were losing viewers and ad $$. That would mean no rebroadcast $$ from those affiliates. It may have started with a few but I'm betting it would have had a domino affect in no time.

If you think the amount of viewers doesn't play into this, you don't understand how ratings and viewership play into ad cost and revenue on both a local and network level.


----------



## Michael S

The nightmare is over anyway. Jay to end next month.

Jay to end next month


----------



## Turtleboy

Michael S said:


> The nightmare is over anyway. Jay to end next month.
> 
> Jay to end next month


Not yet. Does Conan bend over and take it?


----------



## ElJay

This proposal of giving Leno a half hour slot at 11:35 seems to be NBC solidifying the failure of The Tonight Show. No live viewer who wants to watch Conan is going to suffer through a half hour of a Jay Leno monologue.


----------



## LoadStar

Turtleboy said:


> Not yet. Does Conan bend over and take it?


Doesn't sound like he has a choice. Either he bends over, or he walks. Those seem to be his options.


----------



## Michael S

Turtleboy said:


> Not yet. Does Conan bend over and take it?


I hope not. Jay should get nothing out this. Hes used all his chances already its time for NBC to move on.


----------



## bicker

Langree said:


> That's a false dichotomy.
> 
> 
> 
> But if the viewers aren't watching, ad dollars go away.
Click to expand...

That's a false dichotomy. The choice isn't between a specific number of viewers watching and "viewers aren't watching". (And so on...) That was the point of the message you replied to.



Langree said:


> or as in this case, the affiliates threatening not to air network content.


An empty threat, as it was shown to be in WHDH's case.



Langree said:


> ... but I'm betting it would have had a domino affect in no time.


One of the interesting things about going to a casino is that it is really fun putting your money on the 36-to-1 bet. Sure, you'll almost always lose, but if you ever win, heck, that'll be some party. Business is also a matter of risk, but unlike in the casino, there are fiduciary responsibilities involved. That means, yes, take risks, but take reasonable risks, and measured risks.

Your bet is interesting for you; in the absence of the pressure that what-could-have-been manipulation of public opinion by irate affiliates, the other bet, the bet that NBC took, was almost surely the better bet. The affiliates attacked hard. 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, the affiliates, were successful. They won the battle.

Now the real question is whether or not "what comes next" is even worse for them. Again, 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.



Langree said:


> If you think the amount of viewers doesn't play into this, you don't understand how ratings and viewership play into ad cost and revenue on both a local and network level.


One thing you'll discover about me, if you pay attention: I understand the business side of this industry extremely well. The nuances in my messages, that you have repeatedly ignored, are essential aspects that you really need to understand, if you are to understand business, yourself.


----------



## terpfan1980

bicker said:


> One thing you'll discover about me, if you pay attention: I understand the business side of this industry extremely well. The nuances in my messages, that you have repeatedly ignored, are essential aspects that you really need to understand, if you are to understand business, yourself.


The thing to understand about Bicker, is that much like another member or two here, the pompous and intelligently looking words just spew from someone that likes to argue and see themselves write.

Back into the /ignore list where you belong.


----------



## Langree

bicker said:


> That's a false dichotomy. The choice isn't between a specific number of viewers watching and "viewers aren't watching". (And so on...) That was the point of the message you replied to.
> 
> An empty threat, as it was shown to be in WHDH's case.
> 
> One of the interesting things about going to a casino is that it is really fun putting your money on the 36-to-1 bet. Sure, you'll almost always lose, but if you ever win, heck, that'll be some party. Business is also a matter of risk, but unlike in the casino, there are fiduciary responsibilities involved. That means, yes, take risks, but take reasonable risks, and measured risks.
> 
> Your bet is interesting for you; in the absence of the pressure that what-could-have-been manipulation of public opinion by irate affiliates, the other bet, the bet that NBC took, was almost surely the better bet. The affiliates attacked hard. 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, the affiliates, were successful. They won the battle.
> 
> Now the real question is whether or not "what comes next" is even worse for them. Again, 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.
> 
> One thing you'll discover about me, if you pay attention: I understand the business side of this industry extremely well. The nuances in my messages, that you have repeatedly ignored, are essential aspects that you really need to understand, if you are to understand business, yourself.


I understand more then you think. Really. You go ahead and keep telling yourself that viewership doesn't play into ad revenue. You'd be wrong.


----------



## bicker

terpfan1980 said:


> The thing to understand about Bicker, is that much like another member or two here, the pompous and intelligently looking words just spew from someone that likes to argue and see themselves write.


Or rather, I actually know what I'm talking about, and it runs contrary to what you like to read. And that by posting a message that is nothing other than a personal attack, you mistakenly think you do something other than highlight your own nature.



terpfan1980 said:


> Back into the /ignore list where you belong.


Yeah, right.


----------



## bicker

Langree said:


> I understand more then you think. Really. You go ahead and keep telling yourself that viewership doesn't play into ad revenue. You'd be wrong.


In never said that. Go back and actually read the messages I posted, rather than just reacting to them. Yes, they support a business perspective, which clearly rubs you the wrong way, but nothing is served by responding to them in ignorance of what they actually say.

If you just want simplistic, _one-sided _arguments, I hear blogs are great.


----------



## Langree

bicker said:


> In never said that. Go back and actually read the messages I posted, rather than just reacting to them. Yes, they support a business perspective, which clearly rubs you the wrong way, but nothing is served by responding to them in ignorance of what they actually say.


Ok, then tell me what you're actually trying to say, because all you've managed to bluster is "false dichotomy" without really responding.



> Your bet is interesting for you; in the absence of the pressure that what-could-have-been manipulation of public opinion by irate affiliates, the other bet, the bet that NBC took, was almost surely the better bet. The affiliates attacked hard. 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, the affiliates, were successful. They won the battle.


Why would it be better for the Network to keep Leno?


----------



## Bierboy

NBC announces Leno moving back to late night.


----------



## bicker

Langree said:


> Ok, then tell me what you're actually trying to say, because all you've managed to bluster is "false dichotomy" without really responding.


"Bluster"? WTF. Geez: Go look up "dichotomy" if you don't know what it means. And if you do know what it means, then you know your comment, here, is ridiculous.

Anyway: You kept on trying to defend what you were saying by basing your argument on viewers not watching -- an absolute. That's unreasonable. I pointed that out to you. Twice. You ignored it, instead of acknowledging it. Perhaps instead of understanding it, I can't tell.

The reason why NBC put Leno at 10PM was that Leno costs a lot less than scripted dramas. A lot less. *They knew from the beginning that they would get fewer viewers and that there would be consequent negative impact on affiliates as well*. It was still worth it for NBC. Even as things have worked out, it was almost surely a win for NBC.

Your false dichotomy specifically failed to recognize that it was possible to have fewer viewers, rather than no viewers.

All indications are that NBC is bowing to pressure, ostensibly from their affiliates or on their affiliates behalf.



Langree said:


> Why would it be better for the Network to keep Leno?


What is the context of your question. At this point, the network still has Leno.


----------



## MikeAndrews

Bierboy said:


> NBC announces Leno moving back to late night.


Conan's gonna set sail but NBC will only announce that Jimmy Fallon will start at 12:05.


----------



## lambertman

netringer said:


> Conan's gonna set sail but NBC will only announce that Jimmy Fallon will start at 12:05.


The two options on the table are:

1) Jay Show 11:35; Tonight/Conan 12:05; Fallon 1:05
or
2) Conan leaves; Tonight/Leno 11:35; Fallon 12:35


----------



## MikeAndrews

lambertman said:


> The two options on the table are:
> 
> 1) Jay Show 11:35; Tonight/Conan 12:05; Fallon 1:05
> or
> 2) Conan leaves; Tonight/Leno 11:35; Fallon 12:35


Yeah. I did figure when Conan goes they'll just give Leno the hour.

Dave called Johnny Carson for advice on what to do. Maybe Conan will call Dave (his competiton!)


----------



## Langree

bicker said:


> What is the context of your question. At this point, the network still has Leno.


Now you're being dense, I'll spell it out for you, why would keeping leno at 10:00pm have been better for the network? Beyond "it's cheap to air".

Apparently your knowledge of how this business works is solely on paper, spend some time with station managers then get back to me.


----------



## Turtleboy

netringer said:


> Yeah. I did figure when Conan goes they'll just give Leno the hour.
> 
> Dave called Johnny Carson for advice on what to do. Maybe Conan will call Dave (his competiton!)


Dave to Conan, "Jay Leno stabbed you in the back and NBC screwed you over the Tonight Show. Wait, your surprised?"


----------



## bicker

Langree said:


> Now you're being dense, I'll spell it out for you, why would keeping leno at 10:00pm have been better for the network? Beyond "it's cheap to air".


You essentially answered your own question.



Langree said:


> Apparently your knowledge of how this business works is solely on paper, spend some time with station managers then get back to me.


Station managers? Gosh, talk about "dense". I can see why your perspective is so heavily affiliate-biased -- why you are having such a hard time seeing the network's point-of-view.


----------



## Langree

bicker said:


> You essentially answered your own question.
> 
> Station managers? Gosh, talk about "dense". I can see why your perspective is so heavily affiliate-biased -- why you are having such a hard time seeing the network's point-of-view.


Without affiliates to air their shows there would be no network. There is a reason they gave into the affiliates. You're the one not getting it.

One affiliate threatens, no biggie. 20,30,40 in major markets complain. You get their attention.


----------



## pcguru83

Interesting article on Conan's options:

Conan O'Brien Mulls Jump To New Network

It's interesting (but not surprising I suppose) that he apparently has already had talks with other networks, namely Fox. I sure hope Conan finds a place where he can fit again--I really like the current format/content of the current The Tonight Show.


----------



## Amnesia

Turtleboy said:


> Dave to Conan, "Jay Leno stabbed you in the back and NBC screwed you over the Tonight Show. Wait, your surprised?"


What did Jay do to Conan?


----------



## marksman

I actually think Conan would be better off being on a new network where he could essentially mold his show.

I think moving into the Tonight Show spot he had all kinds of boundaries both real and perceived and expectations, both real and perceived, of what the show should be.

If he went somewhere else, I think he would likely shift back to a different place.

To be honest though, I have not watched much of him on the TS. I like Conan and Jimmy Kimmel a lot, but I just can't find the time to ever watch them. I would have season passes scrolling off all the time. Eventually I canned Conan, and now I am about to jettison Jimmy, just because I never watch them.


I am really shocked about NBC dropping Leno.  I am also really shocked that they would potentially use the hiatus of the Olympics to start getting things done. Who would have ever thunk it.

I think someone on these forums might have even suggested Leno was done with the olympics a little while back.

I still don't understand why people who do this stuff for a living missed fundamental issues that most lay people knew would be a problem. I assume the affiliates said, "We are going to run reruns of CSI Miami to build a bigger lead in for our Nightly News".


----------



## marksman

bicker said:


> Perhaps even deliberately at the expense of its OTA network. Who knows?


It could have been. Certainly seems like some of the shows on USA for example could have potentially done well on NBC.

One of the advantage the cable networks have though, and one thing USA is very good at, for example, is beating shows into the ground. When Burn Notice first came on, they would run a new episode like 30 times a week. It was after being exposed to the first 3 episodes like 5 times one weekend on a trip in a hotel room where I became a fan of the show.

The problem is the networks don't really have that luxury. Unless they eventually give up the affiliate set up and become cable only networks. I think that might have been part of NBC's overall strategy with the Leno move.

They were doing well on their cable channels with a certain style that they could not duplicate on NBC. So they decided to try and take NBC in a totally different direction because of the limitations they had in place.

And that still may be the right answer for them ultimately. This try just wasn't it.


----------



## TheMerk

marksman said:


> I assume the affiliates said, "We are going to run reruns of CSI Miami to build a bigger lead in for our Nightly News".


I know first hand of a top 40 affiliate that told NBC they would simply start their local news at 10pm, and either run it clear through until 11:35, or do news from 10-11 and an extended sports news segment from 11-11:35.


----------



## Adam1115

So what happens to Jay's ratings if Conan goes against him at the same time? That can't be good...


----------



## Amnesia

Adam1115 said:


> So what happens to Jay's ratings if Conan goes against him at the same time? That can't be good...


Having Conan against him didn't seem to bother Dave---why should it bother Jay when head-to-head, Jay beat out Dave on a regular basis?

I would think Conan would steal more viewers from Letterman than Leno...


----------



## mrdbdigital

Replacement programming for 10 PM spot at NBC: Law & Order: SRU (Special Ratings Unit)


----------



## Adam1115

Amnesia said:


> Having Conan against him didn't seem to bother Dave---why should it bother Jay when head-to-head, Jay beat out Dave on a regular basis?
> 
> I would think Conan would steal more viewers from Letterman than Leno...


Well increasing the competition from 2 shows to 3 is bound to affect ratings......


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

mrdbdigital said:


> Replacement programming for 10 PM spot at NBC: Law & Order: SRU (Special Ratings Unit)


They could always move L&O:CI back to NBC, although if they've been paying the talent cable rates, it'll end up costing them a lot more...


----------



## JYoung

lambertman said:


> The two options on the table are:
> 
> 1) Jay Show 11:35; Tonight/Conan 12:05; Fallon 1:05
> or
> 2) Conan leaves; Tonight/Leno 11:35; Fallon 12:35


Can't they just get rid of Fallon and plug Carson Daly in?



Adam1115 said:


> Well increasing the competition from 2 shows to 3 is bound to affect ratings......


I suspect that those watching Leno will stick with Leno (except those few that won't stay up). Most of those watching O'Brien will probably jump to his show. The issue would be those that are watching both shows which I suspect is a small amount.


----------



## Adam1115

JYoung said:


> I suspect that those watching Leno will stick with Leno (except those few that won't stay up). Most of those watching O'Brien will probably jump to his show. The issue would be those that are watching both shows which I suspect is a small amount.


Presumably they're hoping to get the ratings back to the way they were. I assume, since Leno's ratings suck now, that he lost viewers to Conan. If he only keeps his current viewers, moving it back to the old time won't help...


----------



## JYoung

Adam1115 said:


> Presumably they're hoping to get the ratings back to the way they were. I assume, since Leno's ratings suck now, that he lost viewers to Conan. If he only keeps his current viewers, moving it back to the old time won't help...


Leno's getting the same numbers at 10 PM that he did at 11:30 PM.
Of course, the numbers aren't very good for 10 PM.

O'Brien was the one who bled viewers from the 11:30 slot.


----------



## aaronwt

Either way viewership is declining. in the interview with Jeff Gaspin, he said they gave up nine tenths of a point in the 10PM hour. Where did those viewers go when the other networks also dropped one tenth each in the 10PM hour?

The TV viewing landscape is changing rapidly and the networks have not been able to adjust. Things are probably going to get worse overall for all the networks.


----------



## aindik

Langree said:


> Without affiliates to air their shows there would be no network. There is a reason they gave into the affiliates. You're the one not getting it.
> 
> One affiliate threatens, no biggie. 20,30,40 in major markets complain. You get their attention.


Of course "without affiliates" there is no network. But the choice isn't between affiliates that are always happy, and no affiliates at all. There's a huge middle that you're ignoring.

Just like the choice isn't between gangbuster ratings and "no viewers." There's a huge in between.

BTW, "the network" and "the affiliates" are one and the same in these 10 cities:
NBC New York (WNBC)
NBC Los Angeles (KNBC)
NBC Chicago (WMAQ)
NBC Philadelphia (WCAU)
NBC Bay Area (KNTV)
NBC Dallas/Fort Worth (KXAS)
NBC Washington (WRC)
NBC Miami (WTVJ)
NBC San Diego (KNSD)
NBC Connecticut (WVIT)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

JYoung said:


> Leno's getting the same numbers at 10 PM that he did at 11:30 PM.
> Of course, the numbers aren't very good for 10 PM.


Although NBC was still making money off the deal (since the cost of the Leno show is so much less than an hour of scripted drama, or even reality television). It was the affiliates who were suffering (losing as much as half their news audience, which is where they make much of their money), and apparently they were the ones who forced this move.


----------



## smak

aindik said:


> Of course "without affiliates" there is no network. But the choice isn't between affiliates that are always happy, and no affiliates at all. There's a huge middle that you're ignoring.
> 
> Just like the choice isn't between gangbuster ratings and "no viewers." There's a huge in between.
> 
> BTW, "the network" and "the affiliates" are one and the same in these 10 cities:
> NBC New York (WNBC)
> NBC Los Angeles (KNBC)
> NBC Chicago (WMAQ)
> NBC Philadelphia (WCAU)
> NBC Bay Area (KNTV)
> NBC Dallas/Fort Worth (KXAS)
> NBC Washington (WRC)
> NBC Miami (WTVJ)
> NBC San Diego (KNSD)
> NBC Connecticut (WVIT)


It seems like NBC doesn't think there's a middle either, since they bailed from Leno so quickly, and want to put him after the local news where he can't do as much harm.

Earlier in the thread people were talking about SEASONS for NBC to dump Leno at 10pm, and now he's gone after 4 months.

-smak-


----------



## smak

bicker said:


> You essentially answered your own question.
> 
> Station managers? Gosh, talk about "dense". I can see why your perspective is so heavily affiliate-biased -- why you are having such a hard time seeing the network's point-of-view.


If the answer to why it's better for the network to keep Leno on at 10pm is that it's cheaper to air, then why he is gone?

-smak-


----------



## aindik

smak said:


> If the answer to why it's better for the network to keep Leno on at 10pm is that it's cheaper to air, then why he is gone?
> 
> -smak-


Because the affiliates raised holy hell. The network itself was happy with the difference between network advertising revenue during Leno's show and the amount Leno's show cost to make (as compared to the difference between network advertising revenue during scripted shows and the amount scripted shows cost to make). But the hit on the local side, at 11 p.m., annoyed the affiliates, to the point where they were considering "doing something" about it (e.g., possibly not airing the Leno show and daring NBC to sue them).

What was interesting was that NBC is down 0.9 points in the ratings from last year at 10 p.m., but CBS, ABC, and Fox are down, too (0.1 points each). IOW, the people no longer watching NBC are not going over to the other OTA networks.


----------



## MikeAndrews

What d'ya think?










http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-talk-late-night-stockjan10,0,1661780.htmlstory

Craig should be more to Best Show side. Nudge Dave a little more that way, too.


----------



## YCantAngieRead

netringer said:


> Craig should be more to Best Show side. Nudge Dave a little more that way, too.


That (the Craig part) was my first thought, too. He puts on a fantastic show.


----------



## lambertman

Chelsea Handler should be so far to the left that she's off my screen entirely.


----------



## 5thcrewman

Give Jay a 5 minute show at 11:35pm - like those Wimbledon updates they do.


----------



## IndyJones1023

You people have to be kidding about Craig Ferguson. He sucks.

I like him so I tuned in. After a few week, I found him to be INCREDIBLY repetitive. He uses the same joke, and variations on the same, over and over and over and over and over again. It's coma-inducing.

Combined with the fact that he talks over his guest and makes the interview as much about him as about them and he lost me as a viewer.


----------



## lambertman

As you said about "Community", it took Craig a while to settle in. His interviewing might still lack, but his monologues are fantastic.


----------



## IndyJones1023

I still occasionally watch Craig. His monologues are the same as they ever were. He hasn't settled in. He's still repeating his same old jokes. :down:


----------



## aaronwt

netringer said:


> What d'ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-talk-late-night-stockjan10,0,1661780.htmlstory
> 
> Craig should be more to Best Show side. Nudge Dave a little more that way, too.


And move Leno to the right and Conan to the left.


----------



## YCantAngieRead

IndyJones1023 said:


> I still occasionally watch Craig. His monologues are the same as they ever were. He hasn't settled in. He's still repeating his same old jokes. :down:


Each to his own, I guess. Maybe I don't watch it enough, but I always find his monologues fresh and funny, and his interviews more personable than most.

And I can't stand Leno, but lots of people like him, so I'm willing to concede my taste may not be exactly mainstream.


----------



## tem

Leno sucks. Always has. Always will
Craig rulez. Started watching him a lot more in the last 4-6 months (unemployment will do that)
Dave is the King.

So there.


----------



## murgatroyd

YCantAngieRead said:


> Each to his own, I guess. Maybe I don't watch it enough, but I always find his monologues fresh and funny, and his interviews more personable than most.


I'm with you, Angie.

You aren't going to see this (or this) on The Tonight Show.

Jan


----------



## JYoung

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Although NBC was still making money off the deal (since the cost of the Leno show is so much less than an hour of scripted drama, or even reality television). It was the affiliates who were suffering (losing as much as half their news audience, which is where they make much of their money), and apparently they were the ones who forced this move.


True.
Everything I've read and seen indicates that while Leno's ratings are lower then they thought they would be, it wasn't in the red since Leno's show is relatively cheap to produce.

What took everyone by surprise though, was the bleeding of viewers from the following news shows and the Tonight Show.
(I'm guessing that The Late Show lost viewers too but I haven't seen anything on Fallon's numbers.)


----------



## Einselen

Leno's ratings were actually above what NBC expected but like others said the shows after had the Leno Effect and affiliates were getting a huge drop off and of course that didn't make the affiliates happy.


----------



## hyimted

obviously, to each their own .... but letterman should be lower-left. i can't stand that guy ... i have no clue how he's been so successful for so long.


----------



## DevdogAZ

ElJay said:


> This proposal of giving Leno a half hour slot at 11:35 seems to be NBC solidifying the failure of The Tonight Show. No live viewer who wants to watch Conan is going to suffer through a half hour of a Jay Leno monologue.


But that's the point. Not enough live viewers are watching Conan right now. I'd be willing to bet that when Leno moves to 11:35, NBC's ratings for that time slot go up almost immediately. 


netringer said:


> What d'ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-talk-late-night-stockjan10,0,1661780.htmlstory
> 
> Craig should be more to Best Show side. Nudge Dave a little more that way, too.


I think it's unfairly critical of Leno, and overrates Letterman, just like every other ranking by TV journalists in this country.


----------



## jimborst

I have always been a big Letterman fan, but since my DVR kept cutting the end off I extended the end time and started getting the beginning monologue from Craig Ferguson. I have now set up a whole season pass for his show, I actually think he may be funnier than my hero David Letterman. I think that Dave has gotten too political lately. Craig can be a little childish at times (puppets) but otherwise I am really liking his show.


----------



## bicker

Langree said:


> Without affiliates to air their shows there would be no network.


Most folks complaining about NBC these days express their fear that what you're saying is *not* true. They're rightfully afraid that OTA television will become a home solely for news, sports, weather, reality shows, game shows and home shopping. You must have missed the memo.



Langree said:


> There is a reason they gave into the affiliates.


I told you: Public pressure. *It has happened before*. The New York Times wrote about the original deal between NBC, Leno and O'Brien, in 2004, that, "One of the main inspirations for concluding the deal this early was NBC's conviction that it could not go through the painful and at times embarrassing process that attended the last decision to turn over the host job on 'Tonight.'" The manipulation of public opinion always has impact, in these dealings.

Or does that bit of history go back "before your time"? Gosh you make me feel old.


Langree said:


> You're the one not getting it.


Bull. See above.


----------



## bicker

bicker said:


> *Public pressure*. It has happened before. The New York Times wrote about the original deal between NBC, Leno and O'Brien, in 2004, that, "One of the main inspirations for concluding the deal this early was NBC's conviction that it could not go through the painful and at times embarrassing process that attended the last decision to turn over the host job on 'Tonight.'" The manipulation of public opinion always has impact, in these dealings.





smak said:


> If the answer to why it's better for the network to keep Leno on at 10pm is that it's cheaper to air, then why he is gone?


See above.


----------



## bicker

Amnesia said:


> What did Jay do to Conan?


Ostensibly, Leno was part of the promise made to O'Brien that he'd "get" the Tonight Show. He can reasonably feel that pulling it from him in less than a year is a stab-in-the-back. It isn't like a scripted drama, where the die is almost always cast after a few episodes.


----------



## bicker

marksman said:


> It could have been. Certainly seems like some of the shows on USA for example could have potentially done well on NBC.


Monk for sure. Burn Notice pretty likely.



marksman said:


> One of the advantage the cable networks have though, and one thing USA is very good at, for example, is beating shows into the ground. When Burn Notice first came on, they would run a new episode like 30 times a week. It was after being exposed to the first 3 episodes like 5 times one weekend on a trip in a hotel room where I became a fan of the show.


Perhaps the OTA networks need to take a cue from this. They already have, of course, using Saturday nights for rebroadcasting scripted dramas from earlier in the week, but why not go further? Essentially, the networks are programming some time slots as if its do-or-die. Not everyone has four-tuner DVRs. So why not _promise to_ present shows that are in highly-competitive time slots twice a week in prime time, as a matter of course, instead of just scheduling Saturday night seemingly on a whim? I think it is clear that there is still going to be some more loss of hours of scripted drama on OTA networks in the years to come: I would sure prefer that those hours get replaced with reruns of scripted dramas that I had to skip, because they were on up against too many other good scripted dramas, than to have those hours replaced with more news magazines.



marksman said:


> The problem is the networks don't really have that luxury. Unless they eventually give up the affiliate set up and become cable only networks.


Whoa... roll back. Why not? Sure the network cannot rerun these shows at 2am, but they can, at least, rerun them elsewhere in prime time, like I suggested. Also, I see no reason why the networks cannot allow their affiliates to carry an overnight feed, with more reruns.

Uh-uh... I think that the OTA networks can do many of the things you're claiming that they can't do. They just need to be a little inventive about how to do it.



marksman said:


> I think that might have been part of NBC's overall strategy with the Leno move.


I wonder if Leno is actually cheaper than having to pay more to rerun scripted dramas more often. Not sure.



marksman said:


> They were doing well on their cable channels with a certain style that they could not duplicate on NBC. So they decided to try and take NBC in a totally different direction because of the limitations they had in place. And that still may be the right answer for them ultimately. This try just wasn't it.


Well, I don't think you can say that this "wasn't the right ..." "... certain style". Rather, the change was opposed, and the opposition won. That says nothing about whether or not it was the right direction _for the network_ aside from the opposition from the affiliates. It seems clear that a big change coming, a change that a lot of people are going to oppose. There is probably no such thing as a major change that people won't oppose. So in the end, the future will be determined by the first reasonable change (as this one was) for which the opposition falters. It sure seems like a horribly random way to find a way forward, but that's a reflection of the reality of human nature.


----------



## bicker

JYoung said:


> What took everyone by surprise though, was the bleeding of viewers from the following news shows and the Tonight Show.


I don't think many people were surprised that they bled viewers -- surely no one in the business was. Perhaps it was a little more loss than anticipated, but it was well-understood, going into this, that the affiliates' late local news was going to bear the brunt of Leno at 10PM. Some affiliates opposed this from the start. (Others kept quite perhaps because they recognized that a suckier situation as an affiliate is still better than not being an affiliate.)


----------



## Amnesia

bicker said:


> Ostensibly, Leno was part of the promise made to O'Brien that he'd "get" the Tonight Show. He can reasonably feel that pulling it from him in less than a year is a stab-in-the-back.


You make it sound like Leno was the one going to NBC and arranging the move back to 11:30. That's not what happened. Leno didn't "pull it from him". NBC pulled it from him.

What did you want Leno to do when NBC came to him with the idea of moving back to late night? Say that he wouldn't do it?


----------



## bicker

Hey: I'm just explaining what O'Brien could be thinking. I didn't say I agreed with him. From O'Brien's perspective, when NBC came to Leno saying that the pressure from the affiliates is too intense, Leno could have said, "Well okay: Give me $5M for a non-compete clause, and I'll go away quietly." Now, if I was Leno, I wouldn't do that, but the point is that he could. Instead, Leno and NBC essentially "conspired" (again, I'm describing what is a possible and reasonable perception on the part of O'Brien) to bump him (O'Brien) back out to late-late.


----------



## mrdbdigital

I'm not sure that NBC's affiliates are interested in any additional programming from the network (such as late night reruns). That would cut into their local syndicated and paid programming time, and I'll bet they make more money from local programming than from airing network content, at least in the larger markets.


----------



## bicker

So make it optional, like I suggested. They've got o/o in some of the larger markets anyway.


----------



## aindik

bicker said:


> So make it optional, like I suggested. They've got o/o in some of the larger markets anyway.


If Thursday at 9 is an important time slot, they want to make sure as many people as possible are watching on Thursday at 9. Rerunning the show that's on Thursday at 9 on Saturday at 10, regularly every week, invites people not to watch it on Thursday.


----------



## bicker

Perhaps, but then the logical conclusion is that it is utterly unreasonable to expect good television except when loads of people are willing to watch. And that we're essentially on a spiral that will invariably lead to less and less good television.

And I can't say that that's not the case.


----------



## JYoung

Einselen said:


> Leno's ratings were actually above what NBC expected but like others said the shows after had the Leno Effect and affiliates were getting a huge drop off and of course that didn't make the affiliates happy.


I'm not sure I buy that statement.
If that was the case, NBC wouldn't have been saying, "Just wait until Leno's up against reruns. He'll have new content while they'll have old stuff" when talking about Leno's low (for Primetime) ratings.


----------



## Einselen

JYoung said:


> I'm not sure I buy that statement.
> If that was the case, NBC wouldn't have been saying, "Just wait until Leno's up against reruns. He'll have new content while they'll have old stuff" when talking about Leno's low (for Primetime) ratings.


Here are some quotes and numbers for you to show the to NBC Leno was "successful" in the ratings.



> At a 1.8 rating among the young adult viewers that NBC seeks - a prescription for cancellation for a network drama - Mr. Leno "would be a home run," said Jeff Zucker, the NBC Universal chief executive who engineered the Leno move.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/business/media/01leno.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

As of Nov he had an average rating of 1.98. Thus by Zucker that is considered a home run.



> Overall through 11/1/09: 1.98 adults 18-49 rating, 6.594m avg. viewers


http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/11/04/how-did-nbc-do-at-10pm-weekdays-before-the-jay-leno-show/32641


----------



## JYoung

Einselen said:


> Here are some quotes and numbers for you to show the to NBC Leno was "successful" in the ratings.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/business/media/01leno.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
> 
> As of Nov he had an average rating of 1.98. Thus by Zucker that is considered a home run.
> 
> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/11/04/how-did-nbc-do-at-10pm-weekdays-before-the-jay-leno-show/32641


I'm not saying that Zucker didn't say it.
I'm saying that I'm not sure that NBC would really be happy with the 1.8 rating.


----------



## DevdogAZ

bicker said:


> Hey: I'm just explaining what O'Brien could be thinking. I didn't say I agreed with him. From O'Brien's perspective, when NBC came to Leno saying that the pressure from the affiliates is too intense, Leno could have said, "Well okay: Give me $5M for a non-compete clause, and I'll go away quietly." Now, if I was Leno, I wouldn't do that, but the point is that he could. Instead, Leno and NBC essentially "conspired" (again, I'm describing what is a possible and reasonable perception on the part of O'Brien) to bump him (O'Brien) back out to late-late.


But that's not how it worked. Leno has a two-year on air commitment in his contract. That means that if NBC forces him off the air before the end of two years, they have to pay him a penalty. And I'm guessing that the penalty is in the $25-50 million range, not $5. The same is true of Conan. The rumors are that he has a $40-50 million buyout in his contract if NBC cans him before a certain period.

So NBC is stuck. If they get rid of either one, they have to shell out big bucks. If they get rid of either one, they could potentially face some additional competition from FOX in that late night timeslot. That's why the NBC execs are trying to split the baby by suggesting that Leno move back to 11:35 but only for half an hour. That's their way of trying to salvage the situation rather than paying out a big buyout or having either of them jump to FOX.


----------



## Einselen

JYoung said:


> I'm not saying that Zucker didn't say it.
> I'm saying that I'm not sure that NBC would really be happy with the 1.8 rating.


Why not? They were not doing it for huge ratings as the cost of the show was so small. A 1.5 rating would make NBC $300 million. The Tonight show had a rating of 1.3 to 1.5. The rule of thumb is 2.5 for Dramas/Scripted shows to stay on air (again due to cost to produce). A scripted show would cost about $3 million an episode where Leno is about $350,000 to $400,000 an episode saving $13 million a week without NBC having to beat its competitors.


----------



## Einselen

DevdogAZ said:


> But that's not how it worked. Leno has a two-year on air commitment in his contract. That means that if NBC forces him off the air before the end of two years, they have to pay him a penalty. And I'm guessing that the penalty is in the $25-50 million range, not $5. The same is true of Conan. The rumors are that he has a $40-50 million buyout in his contract if NBC cans him before a certain period.
> 
> So NBC is stuck. If they get rid of either one, they have to shell out big bucks. If they get rid of either one, they could potentially face some additional competition from FOX in that late night timeslot. That's why the NBC execs are trying to split the baby by suggesting that Leno move back to 11:35 but only for half an hour. That's their way of trying to salvage the situation rather than paying out a big buyout or having either of them jump to FOX.


Also interesting tidbit is Conan's contract has a clause that his show could be pushed back to start at 12:05 and that is mainly for sports runovers but it looks like NBC may be trying to use this as a loophole in Conan's contract.


----------



## bicker

Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with the idea that O'Brien has a legitimate beef. 

As it is, though, NBC does have a plan forward that satisfies their contractual obligations, with all three (Leno, O'Brien, and Fallon). They're not "stuck". Rather, anyone who doesn't like the plan forward is "stuck".


----------



## Test

Amnesia said:


> You make it sound like Leno was the one going to NBC and arranging the move back to 11:30. That's not what happened. Leno didn't "pull it from him". NBC pulled it from him.
> 
> What did you want Leno to do when NBC came to him with the idea of moving back to late night? Say that he wouldn't do it?


Before all this came out didn't Leno say this in some interview about the situation? Leno: If NBC was willing to put me back to my old time slot I would be willing to go.
OOOOR something like that?

Couldn't that be taken as Leno fishing for his old job?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

Einselen said:


> Why not? They were not doing it for huge ratings as the cost of the show was so small. A 1.5 rating would make NBC $300 million. The Tonight show had a rating of 1.3 to 1.5. The rule of thumb is 2.5 for Dramas/Scripted shows to stay on air (again due to cost to produce). A scripted show would cost about $3 million an episode where Leno is about $350,000 to $400,000 an episode saving $13 million a week without NBC having to beat its competitors.


But once again, the problem wasn't with NBC; the problem was with the affiliates. Some local news shows lost half their audience. NBC can't afford to have affiliates going out of business because NBC can't provide prime time network-level eyeballs.

I don't know what their original plan was to not bleed viewers at 10:00 Central, but whatever it was, it failed miserably, and apparently the decision to push Leno out of prime time was the direct result of a threatened affiliate revolt.


----------



## morac

According to TMZ, Conan has a 5 year $20 million a year contract and that NBC will be in breach of contract if they move The Tonight Show to 12:05 AM. If true, that means Conan will get (at least) $80 million no matter what he does (walks, stays or moves to a different network).


----------



## bicker

morac said:


> According to TMZ, Conan has a 5 year $20 million a year contract and that NBC will be in breach of contract if they move The Tonight Show to 12:05 AM.


I think they're mistaken. FWIR, the breach is if they move Conan *past* 12:05 am -- not *to* 12:05 am.


----------



## DevdogAZ

bicker said:


> I think they're mistaken. FWIR, the breach is if they move Conan *past* 12:05 am -- not *to* 12:05 am.


Despite the JFK/Playboy thing a couple weeks ago, I trust TMZ's sources more than I trust the opinions of random people in this thread, so if TMZ is telling us that the 12:05 loophole in Conan's contract doesn't really exist, I'm going to believe them until I hear otherwise.


----------



## bicker

You trust TMZ? Ooooooo kay.... <backing away slowly>


----------



## MikeAndrews

> The peacock ruffled Conan O'Brien's feathers -- and now he's ready to fly the coop.
> 
> The "Tonight Show" host feels like the redheaded stepchild of late-night TV after NBC's abrupt decision to cancel Jay Leno's 10 p.m. experiment after just five months -- and return the car-loving comic to O'Brien's coveted 11:35 p.m. slot.
> 
> "This level of sh- - -iness was not expected," one source said.
> 
> "He's done a great job for NBC. He moved his entire staff, he moved his family to LA. And five months later, they repay him like this?"
> 
> As it stands now, the source said, "Conan would be happier somewhere else."...
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/just_call_him_conan_flyin_ThND8Mdv5MI5Pv8udof1LJ


What did I tell ya?

Hey, NBC, you get to keep "the old fossil," as Helen Kushnik called Johnny.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Test said:


> Before all this came out didn't Leno say this in some interview about the situation? Leno: If NBC was willing to put me back to my old time slot I would be willing to go.
> OOOOR something like that?
> 
> Couldn't that be taken as Leno fishing for his old job?


Yes, Leno did an interview with _Broadcasting & Cable_ in November and basically said that if NBC asked him to go back to that slot, he would do so. The statement was made in the context of him claiming to be a team player, and that's why he agreed to leave that slot in the first place, why he agreed to the 10pm show, and why he'd go back to 11:35 if that's what they asked him to do. I don't think it was any kind of stab in the back to Conan, since it wasn't really a well-kept secret that Leno never wanted to leave The Tonight Show in the first place.

Those who want to find a reason to blame Leno (there seem to be many of those) will use that comment as some kind of slight against Conan. But the reality is that NBC didn't really treat either of them very well, and Leno has every right to look out for his own career. He shouldn't be expected to ride off into the sunset just because NBC wants him to.


----------



## DevdogAZ

bicker said:


> You trust TMZ? Ooooooo kay.... <backing away slowly>


I'm not saying they're infallible. I'll gladly change my opinion if I hear something more credible claiming the other is true. But as it stands right now, everything I've seen about the 12:05 loophole is rumor, and now TMZ has people saying it's not true. Based solely on the circumstances, I tend to believe the TMZ sources in this case, because that explanation makes more sense.


----------



## bicker

The New York Times is going with this:


> The network has a plan in the works to restore Jay Leno to his old spot at 11:35 each weeknight for a half-hour, while pushing the man who replaced him, Conan O'Brien, to a starting time of 12:05 a.m. Mr. O'Brien would then have a full hour.
> 
> ...
> 
> The exact terms of Mr. O'Brien's contract are not known, but he is rumored to have built into the deal he made five years ago to stay at NBC a guarantee that he would host "The Tonight Show" or NBC would owe a penalty of as much as $45 million. If his show continues to be called "The Tonight Show," NBC may not be in breach of his contract, which could compel Mr. O'Brien to stay at NBC even if another network makes him an offer.


I realize who you believe will be a matter of personal preference, but even on matters regarding the entertainment industry, I'll put more stock in the New York Times than in TMZ.


----------



## JYoung

Einselen said:


> Why not? They were not doing it for huge ratings as the cost of the show was so small. A 1.5 rating would make NBC $300 million. The Tonight show had a rating of 1.3 to 1.5. The rule of thumb is 2.5 for Dramas/Scripted shows to stay on air (again due to cost to produce). A scripted show would cost about $3 million an episode where Leno is about $350,000 to $400,000 an episode saving $13 million a week without NBC having to beat its competitors.


In addition to what Rob said, I don't really think NBC wanted to get a 1.8 or less. I think they expected better.
Sure it makes them money, but a 2.5 or a 3.0 would make even more.


----------



## Wil

bicker said:


> The New York Times is going with this:I realize who[m] you believe will be a matter of personal preference, but even on matters regarding the entertainment industry, I'll put more stock in the New York Times than in TMZ.


A little better than nothing is better than nothing, agreed.


----------



## bicker

A 3.0 might have gotten them to move Conan into prime time too.


----------



## aindik

bicker said:


> The New York Times is going with this:I realize who you believe will be a matter of personal preference, but even on matters regarding the entertainment industry, I'll put more stock in the New York Times than in TMZ.


I don't think Conan's lawyers would have let pass a contract provision that lets NBC put "The Tonight Show" anywhere they want in the schedule (which is what your quote from CBS says), but you never know.

If they were allowed to put "the Tonight Show" on at 12:35 without triggering a huge payout, why didn't they just do that in the first place once they realized they wanted to keep Leno?

The only reason they moved Leno out of the 11:35 slot in the first place is because they had a contract with Conan that made them do it. Now, we don't know exactly what the contract says, but I can't imagine it would let them air "The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien" at 12:35. Because if it did, that's what they would have done all along.


----------



## aindik

JYoung said:


> In addition to what Rob said, I don't really think NBC wanted to get a 1.8 or less. I think they expected better.
> Sure it makes them money, but a 2.5 or a 3.0 would make even more.


Of course it would, but at what cost?

Some math. Let's assume Leno costs $2 million a week to produce. Let's also assume dramas cost $15 million a week to produce. Let's finally assume that NBC would buy 30 weeks of dramas or 48 weeks of Leno. Let's assume these prices include the right to run reruns free.

Leno costs $2 million X 48 = $96 million a year. Dramas cost $15 million X 30 = $450 million a year.

They can afford a lot lower revenues from Leno and still come out way ahead.


----------



## bicker

aindik said:


> I don't think Conan's lawyers would have let pass a contract provision that lets NBC put "The Tonight Show" anywhere they want in the schedule (which is what your quote from CBS says), but you never know.


Well, *wait*. The New York Times quote does *NOT* say that NBC is allowed to put the Tonight Show anywhere they want. It doesn't say that they can't, but that is not the same as what you claimed. They specifically are talking about *12:05*. I was very deliberate in quoting that earlier portion of the article, so as to *not *take their later comment out of context.


----------



## aindik

bicker said:


> Well, *wait*. The New York Times quote does *NOT* say that NBC is allowed to put the Tonight Show anywhere they want. It doesn't say that they can't, but that is not the same as what you claimed. They specifically are talking about *12:05*. I was very deliberate in quoting that earlier portion of the article, so as to *not *take their later comment out of context.


Well, without a link I can't evaluate the context. My interpretation of what you posted is that they are talking about the 12:05 thing as a current proposal, not as a term of Conan's contract. The only thing they say about the contract is a that the clause would let them get away with it so long as his show is still called The Tonight Show. It doesn't mention a 12:05 contract term.


----------



## bicker

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/business/media/08leno.html

It doesn't mention a 12:05 contract term, specifically, but it mentioned 12:05 *and* mentions that NBC might not be in breach. Again, that logical implication is more credible to me than anything TMZ says.


----------



## aindik

bicker said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/business/media/08leno.html
> 
> It doesn't mention a 12:05 contract term, specifically, but it mentioned 12:05 *and* mentions that NBC might not be in breach. Again, that logical implication is more credible to me than anything TMZ says.


TMZ actually cites a source that says prior rumors of the 12:05 loophole are incorrect. The NYT doesn't say anything about a time slot provision. All it says is that if the show's called The Tonight Show, NBC is not in breach. Your inference that the sentence is limited to a 12:05 or earlier start time is an inference. It's not something the NYT says.

Also, the NYT article is from last Thursday, while TMZ's report is from yesterday.


----------



## bicker

Time will tell.


----------



## sonnik

netringer said:


> Hey, NBC, you get to keep "the old fossil," as Helen Kushnik called Johnny.


Ditto. However, I may be one of the few here, but I have the opinion where O'Brien is more like Carson (at least in his style of hosting _Tonight_). Mainly, I like having Andy on the couch and the "More to Come" bumps that Jay never had.

I wouldn't be shocked if there's some contract discussion over "What is the definition of _The Tonight Show_?" Meaning Conan's camp could argue that scheduling is a portion of "The Tonight Show". If NBC were to schedule it at 3am, would it still be "The Tonight Show?". Probably not. 30 minutes may seem negligible, but where is the legal threshold?

However, I don't think it would likely come to that - as I think NBC would rather placate Jay and give him the full hour.

NBC is screwed financially either way on Conan's contract (based on what I'm reading); it doesn't sound like they can pay him and force him to sit him on the bench.


----------



## JYoung

aindik said:


> Of course it would, but at what cost?
> 
> Some math. Let's assume Leno costs $2 million a week to produce. Let's also assume dramas cost $15 million a week to produce. Let's finally assume that NBC would buy 30 weeks of dramas or 48 weeks of Leno. Let's assume these prices include the right to run reruns free.
> 
> Leno costs $2 million X 48 = $96 million a year. Dramas cost $15 million X 30 = $450 million a year.
> 
> They can afford a lot lower revenues from Leno and still come out way ahead.



Huh?

I agreed to this.
I just don't think that NBC thought that they'd actually get as low as a 1.8.

I'm reminded of this conversation I saw with a Paramount executive years back when someone asked him why they kept making all those Friday the 13th films.
His response was while the critics pummel them, they're cheap to make and turn a nice profit.
But he was embarrassed to say that.


----------



## DeDondeEs

If I were Conan I would be pretty peeved. He and his staff all uprooted from NY and moved out to LA. Leno's had his chance, its time for him to move on. Unless before this all went down there was some sort of verbal understanding that if Leno's ratings didn't do well that this is what would happen. Although it does not seem like that happened, even though anyone with half a brain would see Leno's show crashing and burning.


----------



## Amnesia

DeDondeEs said:


> Leno's had his chance, its time for him to move on.


You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Tonight Show with Jay Leno regularly trounced Letterman in the ratings, while the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien is a constant runner-up.

Why again is it time for *Jay* to move on?


----------



## vertigo235

the thing is, Jay probably wouldn't have a problem with moving on and competing wth them on another network , NBC is the one that doesn't want this to happen, they are trying to have it all


----------



## pcguru83

Amnesia said:


> You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Tonight Show with Jay Leno regularly trounced Letterman in the ratings, while the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien is a constant runner-up.
> 
> Why again is it time for *Jay* to move on?


I still maintain that if Conan wasn't competing with another talk show host _on the same network_, that his ratings would improve.


----------



## DeDondeEs

Amnesia said:


> You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Tonight Show with Jay Leno regularly trounced Letterman in the ratings, while the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien is a constant runner-up.
> 
> Why again is it time for *Jay* to move on?


Because *Jay* said that he was retiring from the Tonight Show, and Conan was named as the successor... It's Conan's turn.

Its not like Jay created the Tonight show, he was just the next one to carry the torch. He passed the torch onto Conan, now he wants it back?


----------



## sonnik

pcguru83 said:


> I still maintain that if Conan wasn't competing with another talk show host _on the same network_, that his ratings would improve.


I agree. If we can agree that Jay is hurting local news, then we can assume that the "wounded" local news doesn't give Conan a good lead in.

There's also a lot of options now, someone who didn't like Conan in 1993 may like him if they were able to give him a second chance. However, the environment doesn't compel them to do so.


----------



## trainman

sonnik said:


> Mainly, I like having Andy on the couch...


It's only been the last few weeks that he's been sitting on the couch for the guest interviews -- and way overdue, in my opinion. (For one thing, it _really_ looked weird when he'd be on the couch for "In the Year 3000" and then go back to the podium for the rest of the show.)


----------



## DevdogAZ

bicker said:


> The New York Times is going with this:I realize who you believe will be a matter of personal preference, but even on matters regarding the entertainment industry, I'll put more stock in the New York Times than in TMZ.


It's not a question of believing one over the other. The two reports are about totally different things and don't contradict one another. It's entirely possible that the contract language is being interpreted by NBC to mean that they can slap the name "The Tonight Show" on any show at any time and that will satisfy the contract (what the NYT implies) and that there is not a specific contractual clause allowing NBC to start the show anytime between 11:35 and 12:05 (what the TMZ report says).


----------



## ElJay

Amnesia said:


> You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Tonight Show with Jay Leno regularly trounced Letterman in the ratings, while the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien is a constant runner-up.
> 
> Why again is it time for *Jay* to move on?


Jay Leno at the Tonight Show wasn't relying on Jay Leno at 10pm to provide a lead-in audience, so it's not a fair comparison. NBC was actually trying to compete in that 10pm time slot when Leno was on the air at 11:35pm. So far we've seen Conan's ratings in the summer and Conan with Leno frightening everybody off at 10pm.


----------



## DevdogAZ

If the TMZ report is to be believed, what would happen if Conan jumped ship to FOX and negotiated some kind of deal where FOX only had to pay him $1 million per year for the next 4.5 years. Then NBC would have to pay him $19 million per year during that same time period, and FOX would essentially get to launch a competitive show for relatively little expense.


----------



## DevdogAZ

DeDondeEs said:


> If I were Conan I would be pretty peeved. He and his staff all uprooted from NY and moved out to LA. Leno's had his chance, its time for him to move on. Unless before this all went down there was some sort of verbal understanding that if Leno's ratings didn't do well that this is what would happen. Although it does not seem like that happened, even though anyone with half a brain would see Leno's show crashing and burning.


Jay has every right to continue working as long as someone will continue paying him to do so. In this case, NBC is paying him a crapload of money to continue working, and they'd have to pay out a big buyout if they kicked Leno to the curb. So let's be serious here. Do you really expect Jay to "move on" when NBC is paying him an 8-figure salary to stay? Would you walk away from that?


DeDondeEs said:


> Because *Jay* said that he was retiring from the Tonight Show, and Conan was named as the successor... It's Conan's turn.
> 
> Its not like Jay created the Tonight show, he was just the next one to carry the torch. He passed the torch onto Conan, now he wants it back?


Leno was pushed off The Tonight Show. He didn't want to leave. He accepted the 10 pm slot rather than go to another network. Now NBC is trying to fulfill their contractual relationship with Leno, while still appeasing their affiliates. The only way to do that is to put Leno back at 11:35 and hope that Conan accepts the demotion to 12:05 for a couple of years while Leno finishes out his contract.

Let's be objective here. The past is done. The contracts are in place. We can all agree that NBC made mistakes to get to this point. But what do you realistically expect NBC to do now that they're in this situation? As I see it, here are the options:
1. Let Leno go, pay his likely $30-50 million buyout clause, Conan keeps The Tonight Show at 11:35, take the chance that Leno goes to FOX or ABC and competes with The Tonight Show.
2. Let Conan go, pay his reported $40+ million buyout clause, move Leno back to The Tonight Show at 11:35, take the chance that Conan goes to FOX and competes with The Tonight Show.
3. Try to find airtime for both hosts to keep from having to pay a buyout clause and to keep from letting the talent go start a competing show.

None of these options is ideal, and if NBC could go back in time knowing what they know now, they'd make a different decision. But that's in the past and they have to deal with the current situation as it stands. What would you do if you were an NBC exec?


----------



## DevdogAZ

And as long as we're playing "What Would You Do?" put yourself in Conan's shoes. NBC has just built a brand new studio and offices for you. You've just moved your entire staff from NYC to LA. You have a contractual guaranty from NBC, so you'll be taken care of financially no matter what you do. But if you decides to leave NBC and go to FOX, it would probably be September before a new show would start, if that soon. Can your staff afford to be unemployed for the next 8 months in LA, hoping that you'll be able to find a place for them all in your new FOX show?

On the flipside, you continue working at NBC. Nothing changes on a day-to-day basis. Everyone keeps their jobs. You stay in the brand new studio. The only difference is that your taped show is now aired 30 minutes later by the network. The network eases the pressure on you to get good ratings, because they know they screwed up the situation and that you're not on a level playing field.

Seems like a pretty easy decision to me.


----------



## Amnesia

DeDondeEs said:


> Because *Jay* said that he was retiring from the Tonight Show, and Conan was named as the successor...


My understanding of the situation was that *NBC* said that Jay was retiring and Jay simply went along with it. Do you believe otherwise? Do you think it was *Jay* who went to NBC and said "I'm done with _The Tonight Show_?"


DeDondeEs said:


> He passed the torch onto Conan, now he wants it back?


Again, he always wanted "the torch". NBC took it from him and gave it to Conan. Now NBC realizes that it was a mistake and NBC is thinking about giving it back to him. Jay's simply a NBC employee---he's said many times that he'll do the show that NBC wants when they want, but that his preference is for late night.


----------



## Einselen

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But once again, the problem wasn't with NBC; the problem was with the affiliates. Some local news shows lost half their audience. NBC can't afford to have affiliates going out of business because NBC can't provide prime time network-level eyeballs.
> 
> I don't know what their original plan was to not bleed viewers at 10:00 Central, but whatever it was, it failed miserably, and apparently the decision to push Leno out of prime time was the direct result of a threatened affiliate revolt.


Oh I know and understand. I am just saying why they probably thought Leno at 1.8 was still a stellar performance. I guess they figured people like "their" news people and will tune back into them even if they were not watching Leno the hour before but it seems they were wrong as Leno was causing a major bleed out effect.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

Einselen said:


> Oh I know and understand. I am just saying why they probably thought Leno at 1.8 was still a stellar performance. I guess they figured people like "their" news people and will tune back into them even if they were not watching Leno the hour before but it seems they were wrong as Leno was causing a major bleed out effect.


Which surprises me a little bit, but then I'm not a normal person. It would never occur to me to just stay on whatever channel I'm on to watch the news; even in pre-DVR days I would switch to the station whose news shows I liked the most. But apparently there are vast numbers of people who do just watch "whatever's on."


----------



## mrdbdigital

DevdogAZ said:


> Can your staff afford to be unemployed for the next 8 months in LA, hoping that you'll be able to find a place for them all in your new FOX show?


At the network contract level, I would think that if Conan jumps to Fox, his new contract with Fox would take care of his staff during the transition. Conan would probably require that as one of the conditions for him to jump from NBC to Fox. I certainly would.

Didn't Letterman's deal with CBS require that they take care of his NBC staff as well?


----------



## bicker

DeDondeEs said:


> Because *Jay* said that he was retiring from the Tonight Show, and Conan was named as the successor... It's Conan's turn.


You aren't really that naive are you?


----------



## USAFSSO

NBC is to Leno as Coke-a-Cola is to New Coke.


----------



## DeDondeEs

bicker said:


> You aren't really that naive are you?


So NBC wanted to move the lower rated Conan to a better spot to displace the better rated Leno?

Leno just seems like a control freak to me. I remember reading an interview a while back where he said that he would never use guest hosts while he was on vacation, because he didn't want happening to him what he did to Johnny Carson. Leno kept guest hosting the Tonight Show and gradually drove Carson out and taking the spot that Letterman should have gotten.

I think Leno thought that he would do well at the 10pm slot, and he initiated the shuffle and he's blaming management. To think that Leno is "just an NBC employee" and at the whims of NBC management is naive. I think Jay is dumb as a fox.


----------



## 5thcrewman

Can they still call it 'The Tonight Show' if it starts at 12:05am?


----------



## IndyJones1023

Is his show new tonight?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

IndyJones1023 said:


> Is his show new tonight?


Does it matter?


----------



## IndyJones1023

Well, we're almost half way thru his show (I'm watching from a hotel room), and I've laughed once. At headlines. A joke he didn't even write. Not even a joke, really. And that's the funniest thing on his show.

He's taking lots of pot shots at NBC, though.


----------



## IndyJones1023

Wow, Bill Cosby just cut him to the quick.


----------



## marksman

DevdogAZ said:


> If the TMZ report is to be believed, what would happen if Conan jumped ship to FOX and negotiated some kind of deal where FOX only had to pay him $1 million per year for the next 4.5 years. Then NBC would have to pay him $19 million per year during that same time period, and FOX would essentially get to launch a competitive show for relatively little expense.


For some reason I would love to see that happen, regardless of if Conan was successful or not.

But I feel bad thinking to enjoy that, because nobody responsible will ultimately be there and pay the price of the mistakes that caused this all to happen in the first place.

They let Lettermen go for free. They didn't want to repeat that so now Conan may go for 19 million a year? I know I sound like a broken record, but I am so fascinated by this whole thing and how it ever managed to happen.


----------



## marksman

aindik said:


> If they were allowed to put "the Tonight Show" on at 12:35 without triggering a huge payout, why didn't they just do that in the first place once they realized they wanted to keep Leno?
> 
> The only reason they moved Leno out of the 11:35 slot in the first place is because they had a contract with Conan that made them do it. Now, we don't know exactly what the contract says, but I can't imagine it would let them air "The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien" at 12:35. Because if it did, that's what they would have done all along.


I am going to agree with all of this. I doubt many people have seen Conan's actual contract. So all the speculation is probably just that. The handful of people who have seen it, probably are not discussing it outside a small group.

Regardless, we have to remember how this all came about. NBC was so anxious to not lose Conan, that when Conan started seriously grumbling about wanting to have a shot to move up, or he would consider moving out, NBC came up with the idea of giving him the Tonight Show in 5 years. They ran it past Jay, and Jay seemingly shrugged his shoulders and said whatever, probably trying to convince himself he would be done in 5 more years.

However when it got closer, Jay realized there was no chance he would just retire, and NBC started freaking out that Jay would now go somewhere else and compete with them. Their plan all along was to have Conan on the Tonight Show and Jay to essentially retire. I am not sure why they would have thought Jay would ever want to retire, but somehow they managed to convince themselves he would.

So as this whole issue came up, it seems that putting on Leno for 30 minutes first and then having Conan on would have been what they would have done, if it was possible with Conan's contract. I suspect they even talked to Conan about it at the time and he was not interested. So I am guessing based on what we have seen so far, that they probably don't contractually have the room to do this, and it will require Conan's coopoeration to pull off.

Who knows though. Perhaps NBC can throw even more money at Conan and get it to work out.

I think NBC should have realized it probably never made sense to try and keep both of them and went with their best shot. will be interesting to see how it ultimately works out, but it does seem like whomever remains will still potentially have some hard feelings with the network.


----------



## marksman

I just read one of those TMZ links and I don't understand the third option they outline in one of them where Conan moves back and re-negotiates for less money.

Why on earth would Conan ever accept that? He can get more money leaving and doing nothing or leaving and doing something else. Why would staying, being moved and taking a pay cut ever be an option for him?


----------



## marksman

aaronwt said:


> Either way viewership is declining. in the interview with Jeff Gaspin, he said they gave up nine tenths of a point in the 10PM hour. Where did those viewers go when the other networks also dropped one tenth each in the 10PM hour?
> 
> The TV viewing landscape is changing rapidly and the networks have not been able to adjust. Things are probably going to get worse overall for all the networks.


The Cable networks have been doing an awesome job in programming that last hour of primetime. A significant percentage of cable shows are aired in that 10pm/(9pm for us real people) time slot. You can get almost a regularly weekly schedule of different shows every night at that time. They networks have continued to lose massive audiences. When does it stop?

I think the networks have so many disadvantages now that they can't even overcome them and some major things will eventually change. In a few years it will probably not even make any sense for several of the networks to be actual national networks.


----------



## marksman

Conan told NBC he wanted to get a shot at the Tonight Show. If he had no chance of doing it, then he was likely going to go look for a deal elsewhere. NBC came up with a stupid plan that they could keep Conan happy by giving him a deal to host the Tonight Show in 5 years. They guessed, incorrectly, that Jay would be happy with retiring then, and they could keep Conan happy as well.

They didn't necessarily want Conan to replace Leno. They just did not want to loose Conan like they lost Letterman. They came up with this silly solution, which they thought would accomplish their goals.

I suspect Leno shrugged his shoulders and agreed with it at the time, being quite non-committal about retiring, but being encouraging enough the NBC execs went ahead with their dumb plan.

5 years later Leno goes, umm yeah, I don't think I really will be retiring, so maybe I could just keep doing the Tonight Show? Too late. NBC already got themselves in a mess with Conan, so then they come up with the deal for Jay at 10.

Jay would have been happy if NBC had left him alone to continue doing the Tonight Show and never doing anything else. All he ever wanted to do was the Tonight Show and he never stopped wanting to do it.


----------



## Zevida

This whole thing is just a bummer. If NBC hadn't done this whole Leno experiment, then shows like Southland and Kings might have been given half a chance to develop and stay on the air.

....
..
.....

Nah, probably not. They'd still have treated them like crap, but it's fun to blame everything on Leno.


----------



## appleye1

Zevida said:


> Nah, probably not. They'd still have treated them like crap, but it's fun to blame everything on Leno.


LOL! So true...so true.


----------



## bicker

DeDondeEs said:


> bicker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DeDondeEs said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Conan's turn.
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't really that naive are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <total irrelevancy>
Click to expand...

Uh, could you please _try_ to _comprehend _messages that you reply to?



DeDondeEs said:


> Leno just seems like a control freak to me.


True or false, that doesn't matter. There is no such thing as "turns" in real life.



DeDondeEs said:


> I think Leno thought that he would do well at the 10pm slot, and he initiated the shuffle and he's blaming management.


Then you simply don't know what you're talking about.



DeDondeEs said:


> To think that Leno is "just an NBC employee" and at the whims of NBC management is naive.


I agree, but I'm very amused that you're making pronouncements about naivete, given your own penchant for it.



DeDondeEs said:


> I think Jay is dumb as a fox.


And now you utterly contradict yourself. Chatting with you feels like chatting with a dart board.


----------



## bicker

marksman said:


> They came up with this silly solution, which they thought would accomplish their goals.


I doubt any other approach would have had any better chance of accomplishing those goals. Short of turning back time and trying something different, there is no way to know whether or not what NBC tried was or was not the best possible approach to the situation. This is perhaps the hardest lesson of life: Sometimes there simply is no perfect answer. Sometimes all there are are a few unknowns to choose from, and the challenge is to guess which one that in the end would turn out to be the least bad.



marksman said:


> I suspect Leno shrugged his shoulders and agreed with it at the time, being quite non-committal about retiring, but being encouraging enough the NBC execs went ahead with their dumb plan.


I suspect that that is just 20/20 hindsight and your projection of your own personal bias regarding the end-result. It is just as likely that the reality is something quite different; indeed there are a number of different possibilities, all equally-likely, and I would bet that the reality is not nearly so prejudicial against anyone as the vitriol and condemnation that seems to be on everyone's lips these days (for just about everything, not just this).


----------



## bicker

Zevida said:


> This whole thing is just a bummer. If NBC hadn't done this whole Leno experiment, then shows like Southland and Kings might have been given half a chance to develop and stay on the air.


Southland, maybe. I'm not convinced that Southland was good enough to warrant even the consideration that TNT gave it. It is "high quality" but the #1 rated show on television is American Idol, so "high quality", in quotation marks like that, is simply not the smartest objective to set for a responsible business.

And Kings -- no way. I liked the show, for reasons that made it utterly inadequate for television.



Zevida said:


> Nah, probably not. They'd still have treated them like crap, but it's fun to blame everything on Leno.


Hehe... yeah, there sure is a lot of that going on... people getting their fun from throwing mud at public figures.


----------



## bicker

Westly-C on AVS Forum finally pieced together the entire situation for me, this morning: 

The Jay Leno Show has been performing pretty close to expectations, in just about every way. So what's happening is not any type of reflection of failure to achieve objectives. Instead, it has been clear that the show has been canceled due to the bad PR that folks who don't like the idea of Jay Leno at 10PM every night have been able to inspire. The most likely parties were the affiliates -- they have been, as anticipated since the announcement of Jay Leno at 10PM, the most significantly adversely affected, with the ratings for the late local news, in many markets, really being harmed. 

What Westly-C pointed out was why it is so important to take this action, to quash this bad PR that people who don't like Jay Leno at 10PM have been able to create: As you probably know, Comcast is in the process of acquiring NBC Universal from GE. The bad PR could be readily turned into political pressure to impose more draconian restrictions on the acquisition than otherwise. That impact would so significant and so long-lasting, that it trumps practically any short-term considerations that would otherwise justify ignoring the bad PR.


----------



## Bierboy

All that....plus the fact that the show just sucks....


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

Zevida said:


> Nah, probably not. They'd still have treated them like crap, but it's fun to blame everything on Leno.


I know what you mean. I have a former tenant who is taking me to conciliation court for the return of his security deposit even though he owes more in rent than the amount of the deposit. It made me really mad that he could be so stupid. But when I blamed it on Leno, I felt much better.


----------



## Amnesia

Bierboy said:


> All that....plus the fact that the show just sucks....


I assume that you were one of the people who didn't like _The Tonight Show with Jay Leno_? You may not have liked it, but you must admit that it beat the competition...


----------



## lambertman

I think it's fair to say that "The Jay Leno Show" is worse than "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" ever was. The young comedian bits and "10 at 10" are turrbl.

It was a bad formula: five nights a week in prime time with the promise of doing something different, only when you have that much TV to put out there's no time to come up with things that are both different and good. Oh, and fewer celebrity interviews, which is exactly how these shows can do five shows per week to begin with. Even Daily Show has an interview per night with less than half the airtime per week.

And they're built to bleed viewers through the night (monologue, bit, big guest, small guest, musical act, with lots of commercials in the second half)... and you put that in front of your affiliates' cash cow news??


----------



## DeDondeEs

bicker said:


> Uh, could you please _try_ to _comprehend _messages that you reply to?
> 
> True or false, that doesn't matter. There is no such thing as "turns" in real life.
> 
> Then you simply don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> I agree, but I'm very amused that you're making pronouncements about naivete, given your own penchant for it.
> 
> And now you utterly contradict yourself. Chatting with you feels like chatting with a dart board.


Hey I was wondering who the troll was on the TV Talk board, I think I found him. Or are you Jay Leno?


----------



## bicker

Seems to me that you're the troll, just replying to messages without any concern about actually understanding what they're saying, first.


----------



## DeDondeEs

bicker said:


> Seems to me that you're the troll, just replying to messages without any concern about actually understanding what they're saying, first.


I was just simply giving my opinion on what I thought was going on behind the scenes. Yes my opinion was different from the prevailing opinion. But that is what is going on here, people prognosticating about what happened. Unless that is we have NBC executives posting in here?


----------



## bicker

I agree that we'd all be better off if either (1) no one prognosticated or projected at all, and instead waiting until reality arrived; or (2) prognostication and projection was fully balanced, with each possibility equally represented.


----------



## lew

aindik said:


> Of course it would, but at what cost?
> 
> Some math. Let's assume Leno costs $2 million a week to produce. Let's also assume dramas cost $15 million a week to produce. Let's finally assume that NBC would buy 30 weeks of dramas or 48 weeks of Leno. Let's assume these prices include the right to run reruns free.
> 
> Leno costs $2 million X 48 = $96 million a year. Dramas cost $15 million X 30 = $450 million a year.
> 
> They can afford a lot lower revenues from Leno and still come out way ahead.


The alternative to Leno was probably more reality shows, Dateline and game shows.

NBC owed advertisers "give backs" for at least 11 episodes of Leno. Ratings were lower then the guarantee. Kind of like getting a F instead of a D.

Bicker is probably right. Getting approval of the Comcast merger would have made it difficult for NBC to go after affiliates that wanted to drop Leno in favor of local programming. That's probably what motivated NBC to drop Leno next month. Otherwise it would have made sense to keep the Leno show through the summer. That would give NBC more time to come up with programming. I suspect Leno would do (a little) better during the summer against re-runs.


----------



## bicker

lew said:


> The alternative to Leno was probably more reality shows, Dateline and game shows.


Well, we're going to have the chance to find out, eh? 

I'm still holding out for the reverse commute (i.e., a routine rebroadcasting of shows that were first-run on cable).



lew said:


> NBC owed advertisers "give backs" for at least 11 episodes of Leno. Ratings were lower then the guarantee. Kind of like getting a F instead of a D.


Actually, it is more like getting a Fail instead of a *Pass*, but that doesn't support your point as well. 



lew said:


> Bicker is probably right. Getting approval of the Comcast merger would have made it difficult for NBC to go after affiliates that wanted to drop Leno in favor of local programming.


To be fair, it wasn't _my _thought... I just recognized how important it was and brought it into this thread.


----------



## ewolfr

CoCo doesn't want to follow Leno at 12:05:

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.c...-says-he-wont-do-tonight-show-following-leno/


----------



## Amnesia

Why would he release such a statement to the public while he is (presumably) still in negotiations with NBC?


----------



## aindik

Amnesia said:


> Why would he release such a statement to the public while he is (presumably) still in negotiations with NBC?


NBC asked him if he will move to 12:05. Today, he said "no." The idea that him saying "no" is going to stay a secret is ridiculous. So he releases it so his version of "no" gets out before anyone can spin it.

Also interesting that he doesn't take a public position on what his contract does or doesn't require NBC to give him.


----------



## ElJay

:up::up: Conan


----------



## bicker

Amnesia said:


> Why would he release such a statement to the public while he is (presumably) still in negotiations with NBC?


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


----------



## lew

bicker said:


> I'm still holding out for the reverse commute (i.e., a routine rebroadcasting of shows that were first-run on cable).
> 
> Actually, it is more like getting a Fail instead of a *Pass*, but that doesn't support your point as well.
> 
> To be fair, it wasn't _my _thought... I just recognized how important it was and brought it into this thread.


What is the budget for shows like White Collar, Leverage and Monk? I wonder if there is a source of lower budget shows. My memory is NBC said no to Monk.I don't remember what kind of ratings NBC got with Merlin (BBC show).

Dexter didn't get great ratings when it was run during the writers strike. I can't see shows first broadcast on basic cable stations getting good ratings. Cable networks rerun the shows multiple times. I don't think there is much of an audience left.

Ratings higher then projected would have allowed NBC to increase the cost of commercials on Leno. My memory is that might be the first few days of the show. I'll give that a grade of A or B. I'd grade ratings slightly above the guarantee a C or D. Everytime the rating was below the guarantee, I'd give the show a F grade.

The number of givebacks suggest the show wasn't even up to the low standards set by NBC.


----------



## bicker

lew said:


> What is the budget for shows like White Collar, Leverage and Monk?


Lower. I read, all the time, how the cast members on L&O: CI would get a lot more money if the show was moved back to NBC (for example).



lew said:


> Dexter didn't get great ratings when it was run during the writers strike.


Dexter needed to be on premium cable, because it relies a bit too much on visceral thrill (read: nudity, excessive gore, etc.) which would not be permitted on broadcast.



lew said:


> I can't see shows first broadcast on basic cable stations getting good ratings.


I can. The key is that "good" ratings will be in relation to how much it costs to run reruns, such as in syndication.



lew said:


> Cable networks rerun the shows multiple times. I don't think there is much of an audience left.


The folks who rely on OTA. If there aren't that many, then there is no need to present any scripted programming via OTA... just present it all on cable, charge higher subscription fees to pay for them, and be done with it.



lew said:


> The number of givebacks suggest the show wasn't even up to the low standards set by NBC.


On the days that they had to give givebacks. It was up to those reasonable standards on the days that they didn't have to give givebacks.


----------



## DevdogAZ

There's some good information in this NY Times article regarding Conan's contract and how each side is interpreting it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/business/media/12conan.html

Basically, it's just as I predicted yesterday. NBC is taking the position that because the show will still be called "The Tonight Show," even at 12:05, that it would not be in breach of the contract, and that there is no specific timeframe spelled out in the contract. Conan's reps are taking the stand that "The Tonight Show" is at 11:35, and bumping it back would no longer be the same show.

An NBC exec claims that Conan's $45 million penalty for not getting to do The Tonight Show is no longer in effect, since Conan was in fact given the opportunity to do the show. He also said that Conan's salary is much closer to $10 million per year than the $20 million previously reported.


----------



## FilmCritic3000

Conan Declares War With NBC:

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/conan-obrien-resigning-tonight-show/



> Last Thursday, NBC executives told me they intended to move the Tonight Show to 12:05 to accommodate the Jay Leno Show at 11:35. For 60 years the Tonight Show has aired immediately following the late local news. I sincerely believe that delaying the Tonight Show into the next day to accommodate another comedy program will seriously damage what I consider to be the greatest franchise in the history of broadcasting. The Tonight Show at 12:05 simply isn't the Tonight Show. Also, if I accept this move I will be knocking the Late Night show, which I inherited from David Letterman and passed on to Jimmy Fallon, out of its long-held time slot. That would hurt the other NBC franchise that I love, and it would be unfair to Jimmy.
> 
> So it has come to this: I cannot express in words how much I enjoy
> hosting this program and what an enormous personal disappointment it is for me to consider losing it. My staff and I have worked unbelievably hard and we are very proud of our contribution to the legacy of The Tonight Show. But I cannot participate in what I honestly believe is itdestruction. Some people will make the argument that with DVRs and the Internet a time slot doesn't matter. But with the Tonight Show, I believe nothing could matter more.


----------



## FilmCritic3000

Conan Declares War With NBC:

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/conan-obrien-resigning-tonight-show/



> Last Thursday, NBC executives told me they intended to move the Tonight Show to 12:05 to accommodate the Jay Leno Show at 11:35. For 60 years the Tonight Show has aired immediately following the late local news. I sincerely believe that delaying the Tonight Show into the next day to accommodate another comedy program will seriously damage what I consider to be the greatest franchise in the history of broadcasting. The Tonight Show at 12:05 simply isn't the Tonight Show. Also, if I accept this move I will be knocking the Late Night show, which I inherited from David Letterman and passed on to Jimmy Fallon, out of its long-held time slot. That would hurt the other NBC franchise that I love, and it would be unfair to Jimmy.
> 
> So it has come to this: I cannot express in words how much I enjoy
> hosting this program and what an enormous personal disappointment it is for me to consider losing it. My staff and I have worked unbelievably hard and we are very proud of our contribution to the legacy of The Tonight Show. But I cannot participate in what I honestly believe is itdestruction. Some people will make the argument that with DVRs and the Internet a time slot doesn't matter. But with the Tonight Show, I believe nothing could matter more.


----------



## bicker

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/business/media/12conan.html

NBC wouldn't say that moving O'Brien to 12:05 am isn't a breach of contract (i.e., they wouldn't say anything in regard to that) unless there was a pretty legitimate case to be made that it isn't.

I also note how O'Brien is reacting from an emotional standpoint, not really making any strong statements about contracts or legalities.


----------



## modnar

Good for Conan - both in making this decision and making it public. NBC has been absolutely ridiculous about this since it started back in 2003 or 2004 (or whenever).


----------



## DevdogAZ

As posted in the other thread (isn't it about time we merged these?):



DevdogAZ said:


> There's some good information in this NY Times article regarding Conan's contract and how each side is interpreting it.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/business/media/12conan.html
> 
> Basically, it's just as I predicted yesterday. NBC is taking the position that because the show will still be called "The Tonight Show," even at 12:05, that it would not be in breach of the contract, and that there is no specific timeframe spelled out in the contract. Conan's reps are taking the stand that "The Tonight Show" is at 11:35, and bumping it back would no longer be the same show.
> 
> An NBC exec claims that Conan's $45 million penalty for not getting to do The Tonight Show is no longer in effect, since Conan was in fact given the opportunity to do the show. He also said that Conan's salary is much closer to $10 million per year than the $20 million previously reported.


----------



## 5thcrewman

*CoCo No GoGo to twelve-oh five*


----------



## 5thcrewman

*CoCo No GoGo to twelve-oh five*


----------



## Kamakzie

I'm not a big fan of Conan at all but I commend him on telling NBC to blank off!


----------



## DancnDude

I like how Conan ends his letter:


Conan said:


> Have a great day and, for the record, I am truly sorry about my hair;
> it's always been that way.


----------



## sonnik

'Atta boy, Conan.

I posted this elsewhere, but - the last guy who got fed up with NBC's handling of the Tonight Show (and thus left the network) is doing pretty well. 

See you on Fox, Conan.


----------



## MickeS

I agree completely with Conan.

And NBC is just screwing this up more and more.


----------



## DevdogAZ

I believe that NBC truly believed that Conan would cave and their 11:35/12:05 plan would work out. Now that they're possibly faced with losing Conan, what do you think they should do? If Conan walks, they just reinstally Jay as the host of The Tonight Show, but he's probably only there for another 5-10 years. If they jettison Jay and keep Conan, he's probably there for 15-20 years. Does NBC want to just put this issue to bed right now and not have to revisit it for another decade plus, or do they want to go through another transition in the relatively near future when Jay really is ready to retire?


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> I believe that NBC truly believed that Conan would cave and their 11:35/12:05 plan would work out. Now that they're possibly faced with losing Conan, what do you think they should do? If Conan walks, they just reinstally Jay as the host of The Tonight Show, but he's probably only there for another 5-10 years. If they jettison Jay and keep Conan, he's probably there for 15-20 years. Does NBC want to just put this issue to bed right now and not have to revisit it for another decade plus, or do they want to go through another transition in the relatively near future when Jay really is ready to retire?


The one major factor in that decision is, how much severance do they owe each one when they leave.

Let Conan go? Maybe. Let him go AND pay him $45 million? No.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> The one major factor in that decision is, how much severance do they owe each one when they leave.
> 
> Let Conan go? Maybe. Let him go AND pay him $45 million? No.


According to the NYT article I linked above, NBC believes that the $45 million clause no longer applies, because Conan was in fact given The Tonight Show as promised. There would certainly be some buyout amount, but I doubt it's nearly that large.


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> According to the NYT article I linked above, NBC believes that the $45 million clause no longer applies, because Conan was in fact given The Tonight Show as promised. There would certainly be some buyout amount, but I doubt it's nearly that large.


I'm sure Conan believes differently.

Conan says he won't do "The Tonight Show" at 12:05, because it's not "The Tonight Show" unless it's on right after the late local news. NBC _could_ give Leno back "The Tonight Show" and schedule "The Conan O'Brien Show" at 12:05. They're not suggesting that, and Conan is not agreeing to do that, for some reason. IMO, that reason has to be that there is an interpretation of Conan's contract that subjects NBC to some liability if Conan doesn't get to host The Tonight Show.


----------



## ElJay

NBC loves Leno so much, I think he's is going to air at 11:35. Conan will be his competitor starting next fall. NBC offering Leno the 10pm show was a bad enough way to water down "The Tonight Show," now they're offering him 11:35pm as a fallback? That won't help "The Tonight Show." It seems like the ultimate insult and a sign that they don't want Conan anymore. NBC didn't want to choose between Leno or Conan last year but it seems now they're going to have to.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

aindik said:


> I'm sure Conan believes differently.
> 
> Conan says he won't do "The Tonight Show" at 12:05, because it's not "The Tonight Show" unless it's on right after the late local news.


That's an interesting interpretation, but I have a hard time believing it would hold up in court in a breach-of-contract trial...


----------



## Turtleboy

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That's an interesting interpretation, but I have a hard time believing it would hold up in court in a breach-of-contract trial...


Does The Tonight Show have to begin Tonight or can it begin tomorrow?


----------



## aindik

Turtleboy said:


> Does The Tonight Show have to begin Tonight or can it begin tomorrow?


"Late Night" begins in the morning.

And it's still Tonight in the middle of the country. The show would start at 11:05 CT and MT.

As for it holding up in court, I think there's a serious issue about what the meeting of the minds was, if the contract says "the Tonight Show." Could NBC have just slapped "The Tonight Show" name on the 12:35 show Conan was already hosting? Would that have fulfilled NBC's contractual duties?

(Of course, we don't really know what the contract says, so to that extent we're all speculating).


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

Turtleboy said:


> Does The Tonight Show have to begin Tonight or can it begin tomorrow?


Seems to me that "tonight" lasts all night. "We'll meet tonight at 2:00 AM." It's only "morning" when you're looking back on it ("2:00 AM this morning").


----------



## DUDE_NJX

Why won't Leno just f'n retire already?


----------



## aindik

I also think Conan and his representatives chose "immediately following the late local news," as their definition, rather than a specific time, to preserve the right to object if NBC decided that the Tonight Show would start at 11:35 as always, but now following the Jay Leno Show at 10:35, which follows the local news, now at 10 instead of 11.


----------



## MickeS

Everyone should just have primetime from 7 PM -10 PM like here. The tonight show starts at 10:35 PM here.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> I'm sure Conan believes differently.
> 
> Conan says he won't do "The Tonight Show" at 12:05, because it's not "The Tonight Show" unless it's on right after the late local news. NBC _could_ give Leno back "The Tonight Show" and schedule "The Conan O'Brien Show" at 12:05. They're not suggesting that, and Conan is not agreeing to do that, for some reason. IMO, that reason has to be that there is an interpretation of Conan's contract that subjects NBC to some liability if Conan doesn't get to host The Tonight Show.


According to that article that I linked, Conan's contract specifically states that he gets to host "The Tonight Show" but doesn't place any specific time restrictions on when "The Tonight Show" has to air. That's why NBC feels justified in doing what they're proposing.


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> According to that article that I linked, Conan's contract specifically states that he gets to host "The Tonight Show" but doesn't place any specific time restrictions on when "The Tonight Show" has to air. That's why NBC feels justified in doing what they're proposing.


The article does say that. I find that surprising.

I'm wondering why they didn't just change the name of "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" to "The Jay Leno Show," and change "Late Night with Conan O'Brien" to "The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien" last June, and not move anyone's time slot? If their contract allows them to do that, why didn't they?

And why, today, are they proposing a half-hour Leno show instead of an hour?


----------



## sonnik

trainman said:


> It's only been the last few weeks that he's been sitting on the couch for the guest interviews -- and way overdue, in my opinion. (For one thing, it _really_ looked weird when he'd be on the couch for "In the Year 3000" and then go back to the podium for the rest of the show.)


Agreed. In fact, I recall one of the "Tonight Show" old timers (Newhart, Tony Bennet, or someone like that - I forget who) pointing out that he missed the guy on the couch. I noticed the Andy change shortly thereafter.


----------



## Turtleboy

aindik said:


> The article does say that. I find that surprising.
> 
> I'm wondering why they didn't just change the name of "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" to "The Jay Leno Show," and change "Late Night with Conan O'Brien" to "The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien" last June, and not move anyone's time slot? If their contract allows them to do that, why didn't they?


Because they would have been laughed off of the face of the earth. No one would have accepted it -- viewers, affiliates, advertisers. As ridiculous as they look now, that would have made them look 10x worse.



> And why, today, are they proposing a half-hour Leno show instead of an hour?


Attempt at compromise.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> The article does say that. I find that surprising.
> 
> I'm wondering why they didn't just change the name of "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" to "The Jay Leno Show," and change "Late Night with Conan O'Brien" to "The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien" last June, and not move anyone's time slot? If their contract allows them to do that, why didn't they?
> 
> And why, today, are they proposing a half-hour Leno show instead of an hour?


Just speculation, but I think a year ago, NBC truly believed that Conan would come in and not miss a beat as far as ratings go, and perhaps even improve on Leno's ratings. So they had no incentive to play the semantics games with Conan, and it probably never even occurred to them. Everyone knew that Conan was taking over TTS in 2009, and they lived up to that.

FF to today. Now that both hosts have floundered and NBC is in a tight spot, they are reading the contract more carefully to see what they can get away with. They know that Conan would walk if he had to go back to 12:35, regardless of whether the contract allows it. They don't want to lose Conan, but he's not nearly as valuable as he was a year ago. They know Leno will be a team player if they suggest he shorten his show to 30 minutes. So they propose a "splitting the baby" solution that presents the least problems for NBC.

If Conan plays hardball and walks, it sounds like NBC will take the position that they fulfilled their end of the contract and that he'd be in breach. So what it really boils down to is how much Fox is willing to offer for Conan to move over there, and that will determine how much NBC and Conan will settle for.


----------



## aindik

Fox needs to watch out for tortious interference, too.


----------



## cmontyburns

That's one hell of a statement that Conan released. Passionate, funny, respectful -- and yet direct, pointed, and stern. Odd though it feels to say, I am proud of him.


----------



## smak

I am so in love with Conan right now.

-smak-


----------



## aintnosin

DevdogAZ said:


> I believe that NBC truly believed that Conan would cave and their 11:35/12:05 plan would work out. Now that they're possibly faced with losing Conan, what do you think they should do? If Conan walks, they just reinstally Jay as the host of The Tonight Show, but he's probably only there for another 5-10 years. If they jettison Jay and keep Conan, he's probably there for 15-20 years. Does NBC want to just put this issue to bed right now and not have to revisit it for another decade plus, or do they want to go through another transition in the relatively near future when Jay really is ready to retire?


What NBC should have done is take the Jay Leno Show off the air for "retooling" and take a few weeks to see how The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien would fare without Leno dragging down the affiliates' 11pm rating and competing for guests.

If they go back to the damaged goods that is Jay Leno, he's got a shelf life of five years, maybe ten, and NBC doesn't have a viable replacement if they burn O'Brien. If they let Leno go, he may be a competitor, but it will probably be with a network without a tradition at 11:30. (ABC or Fox) and he's only a problem for a few years. If Conan goes to ABC or Fox, NBC could be faced with finding a replacement for Leno who can compete with a Conan O'Brien who has established a presence at 11:30 and has a 5-year head start.


----------



## Magnolia88

I love Conan's statement too.

His people say he was up all night drafting it. I will definitely be watching tonight to see what he says.

The NYT says that the interwebs overwhelmingly support Conan, which is no surprise. I'm with Coco. Heh.


----------



## aintnosin

bicker said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/business/media/12conan.html
> 
> NBC wouldn't say that moving O'Brien to 12:05 am isn't a breach of contract (i.e., they wouldn't say anything in regard to that) unless there was a pretty legitimate case to be made that it isn't.


Right, and O.J. Simpson wouldn't say he was innocent unless he really was. Of course, NBC is going to say, publicly, that the law is on their side.

O'Brien's people could make the case that, since The Tonight Show has been aired at 11:30 (or at least after the local news) for about 50 years now, that implies that giving him the show is an implied promise to air the show in the same timeslot it has traditionally occupied.


----------



## Hansky

aintnosin said:


> O'Brien's people could make the case that, since The Tonight Show has been aired at 11:30 (or at least after the local news) for about 50 years now, that implies that giving him the show is an implied promise to air the show in the same timeslot it has traditionally occupied.


Multi-million dollar contracts negotiated, no doubt, by many lawyers, don't typically come down to such implications.


----------



## Ment

I'm enjoying Leno and Conan eviscerate their network night after night. What other job is there that allow you to throw your boss under the bus like that. Usually I watch only if they have guests that I like. Are the ratings better since this FUBAR?


----------



## aindik

Hansky said:


> Multi-million dollar contracts negotiated, no doubt, by many lawyers, don't typically come down to such implications.


More often than you think. If the contracts were always iron clad and crystal clear, there wouldn't be litigation.

On that subject:
http://thevertexblog.com/cortex/conan-should-blame-his-lawyers-not-nbc


----------



## TiVo'Brien

5thcrewman said:


> *CoCo No GoGo to twelve-oh five*


 :up:


----------



## smak

bicker said:


> Westly-C on AVS Forum finally pieced together the entire situation for me, this morning:
> 
> The Jay Leno Show has been performing pretty close to expectations, in just about every way.


If NBC says that x is the number we need for Leno to be succesful, and Leno hits x, and a lot of affiliates are upset, and think of bailing, then x really wasn't the correct number.

Did they not remember their non o&o affiliates? Did they not remember that the 10pm show is pretty important to the numbers of the 11pm local news?

-smak-


----------



## marksman

bicker said:


> Westly-C on AVS Forum finally pieced together the entire situation for me, this morning:
> 
> The Jay Leno Show has been performing pretty close to expectations, in just about every way. So what's happening is not any type of reflection of failure to achieve objectives. Instead, it has been clear that the show has been canceled due to the bad PR that folks who don't like the idea of Jay Leno at 10PM every night have been able to inspire.


Actually the reality is reasonable people their goals were stupid from the beginning and even if they met their goals they were going to fail.

The problem with affiliates and lead ins was obvious even to a dummy like me. How can people who do this for a living not think that was going to be a problem?

The whole thing was poorly constructed and poorly thought out. Who cares if they met their goals? Their goals still equaled complete failure, which has come to pass.

Has nothing to do with "Bad PR". Has to do with bad results, predicated on decisions that guaranteed you would get nothing but bad results.

Aim Low Shoot Lower must have been the motto at NBC when they cooked up this scheme.

You can't blame the Affiliates going nuts on bad pr. They don't care about PR they care about money. They were losing a lot of money because of this move, and they told NBC that this would be the case to begin with, and NBC seemingly did not care.

Find me a single non nbc-owned nbc affiliate who said before this happened that they expected this change to be good for their station.

This will go down as one of the biggest programming blunders in the history of television, if not the biggest. It wasn't like someone took a risk and failed. They set out on a path that had no chance of success.


----------



## TiVo'Brien

I just bought a Conan Tonight Show t-shirt. Just in case.


----------



## Hansky

aindik said:


> More often than you think.


Unlikely.



> If the contracts were always iron clad and crystal clear, there wouldn't be litigation.


That does not change, or respond to, my point. If the lawyers who represented the parties wanted to define the Tonight Show as the show that bears that name, and airs at 11:30 pm, they could have done so. Maybe they did? I have no idea. If they didn't, they didn't and it is highly unlikely any Judge would fill in a term like that. Two basic principles apply to all contracts -- If they can interpreted with simple language, there is no need to go further, and if a party wanted to include a provision they should have done so.

Edited to add -- I just read the article. That sums it up nicely.

The other issue is his damages. Would he sue for payments under the contract? That presumably he would still be receiving? Unless there is some kind of kicker based on ratings or similar factor, he is entitled to his paycheck.


----------



## steve614

bicker said:


> I'm still holding out for the reverse commute (i.e., a routine rebroadcasting of shows that were first-run on cable).


I would welcome this. It could be a win-win. The costs would be low (the show is already produced) and it would be good for people who use OTA only.



bicker said:


> The folks who rely on OTA. If there aren't that many, then there is no need to present any scripted programming via OTA... just present it all on cable, charge higher subscription fees to pay for them, and be done with it.


Yeah, I believe there are a lot more OTA only users than most people think.


bicker said:


> What we're seeing, here, is "negotiation by media manipulation".


Heh, the cable companies and networks do it, _why not_ individuals?


----------



## DevdogAZ

marksman said:


> Actually the reality is reasonable people their goals were stupid from the beginning and even if they met their goals they were going to fail.
> 
> The problem with affiliates and lead ins was obvious even to a dummy like me. How can people who do this for a living not think that was going to be a problem?
> 
> The whole thing was poorly constructed and poorly thought out. Who cares if they met their goals? Their goals still equaled complete failure, which has come to pass.
> 
> Has nothing to do with "Bad PR". Has to do with bad results, predicated on decisions that guaranteed you would get nothing but bad results.
> 
> Aim Low Shoot Lower must have been the motto at NBC when they cooked up this scheme.
> 
> You can't blame the Affiliates going nuts on bad pr. They don't care about PR they care about money. They were losing a lot of money because of this move, and they told NBC that this would be the case to begin with, and NBC seemingly did not care.
> 
> Find me a single non nbc-owned nbc affiliate who said before this happened that they expected this change to be good for their station.
> 
> This will go down as one of the biggest programming blunders in the history of television, if not the biggest. It wasn't like someone took a risk and failed. They set out on a path that had no chance of success.


I think you missed the point of the post you replied to. You can claim it was a failure all you want, but the reality is that without the regulatory approval of the Comcast merger looming, NBC likely would have fought the affiliates and ensured that Leno stayed on for at least a year. They couldn't be in a public fight with dozens of affiliates at the same time they're asking the Justice Department to approve their proposed merger with Comcast, and they didn't want to risk the deal being shot down, or stricter measures being imposed simply because of the bad PR they would have from the affiliate fight. So they decided to back down rather than dig in their heels. In any other year, under any other circumstances, I don't think NBC would have been nearly as willing to cave.


----------



## smak

bicker said:


> I also note how O'Brien is reacting from an emotional standpoint, not really making any strong statements about contracts or legalities.


And that's to his credit. Whether he gets some big chunk of money because he's not doing 11:35 anymore doesn't seem to matter to him.

The Tonight Show to him is 11:30. If they want to stick him at midnight and call it the Tonight Show he's saying that's not The Tonight Show, and isn't what he was promised, and he doesn't want it.

-smak-


----------



## Turtleboy

BTW, Letterman was awesome last night. (1/11/09). He did quite a few jokes about it. He even did his Leno impersonation. Paul was funny too. It's obvious that both Dave and Paul are still very bitter. But bitterness is what makes Dave funny.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aintnosin said:


> What NBC should have done is take the Jay Leno Show off the air for "retooling" and take a few weeks to see how The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien would fare without Leno dragging down the affiliates' 11pm rating and competing for guests.
> 
> If they go back to the damaged goods that is Jay Leno, he's got a shelf life of five years, maybe ten, and NBC doesn't have a viable replacement if they burn O'Brien. If they let Leno go, he may be a competitor, but it will probably be with a network without a tradition at 11:30. (ABC or Fox) and he's only a problem for a few years. If Conan goes to ABC or Fox, NBC could be faced with finding a replacement for Leno who can compete with a Conan O'Brien who has established a presence at 11:30 and has a 5-year head start.


The problem is, Conan is being hurt by the lack of viewers on NBC at 10 pm and for the 11 pm local newscasts. That problem isn't going away the second they take Leno off the air. In fact, it likely gets worse before it gets better, because NBC doesn't have anything to fill the 10 pm timeslot with. So simply pulling Leno to see how Conan does wouldn't tell them anything. They wouldn't be able to get any kind of true reading on how well Conan would do without Leno until next October or November, and only then if they actually develop some decent 10 pm dramas this pilot season.


----------



## JYoung

aintnosin said:


> What NBC should have done is take the Jay Leno Show off the air for "retooling" and take a few weeks to see how The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien would fare without Leno dragging down the affiliates' 11pm rating and competing for guests.
> 
> If they go back to the damaged goods that is Jay Leno, he's got a shelf life of five years, maybe ten, and NBC doesn't have a viable replacement if they burn O'Brien. If they let Leno go, he may be a competitor, but it will probably be with a network without a tradition at 11:30. (ABC or Fox) and he's only a problem for a few years. If Conan goes to ABC or Fox, NBC could be faced with finding a replacement for Leno who can compete with a Conan O'Brien who has established a presence at 11:30 and has a 5-year head start.


NBC may well be thinking, "We've still got Jimmy Fallon. We can plug him in when Jay's ready to go".

I personally think that it would be a suck move but considering the decisions NBC has already made...

And in the meantime, Carson Daly has all but disappeared.


----------



## bicker

aintnosin said:


> Right, and O.J. Simpson wouldn't say he was innocent unless he really was.


That's a ridiculous perversion.

NBC is not O. J. Simpson.

NBC is not going to lie about the contract that they have with O'Brien.

Get a grip.


----------



## bicker

smak said:


> If NBC says that x is the number we need for Leno to be succesful, and Leno hits x, and a lot of affiliates are upset, and think of bailing, then x really wasn't the correct number.


Let's try that logic on for size:

If my wife and I say that $X is how much we need to retire, and we hit $X, and my children are upset that we didn't make enough to leave them more money when we die, then $X wasn't the correct number.

Ridiculous.

The affiliates are *different* companies. They are not the same company. Different.



smak said:


> Did they not remember their non o&o affiliates?


They were trying to find a way to better live up to their fiduciary responsibility to *their* owners -- *not* a different company's owners.


----------



## bicker

marksman said:


> Actually the reality is reasonable people their goals were stupid from the beginning and even if they met their goals they were going to fail.


No: Their goals were aimed to satisfy their owners, not the owners of other companies.

This turn of events means that they *still *have to come up with *some other way* -- a way that will piss their affiliates (and/or whiny viewers) off probably just as much if not more -- to do better for their owners, reflecting how much they need to cut costs to keep this investment still worthwhile.



marksman said:


> The problem with affiliates and lead ins was obvious even to a dummy like me.


It was even obvious to them. They spoke about it -- not in a gross and perverse manner, as perhaps you might have wanted them to -- but they did acknowledge that there would be impact on the affiliates.



marksman said:


> How can people who do this for a living not think that was going to be a problem?


How can they have thought that not programming first-run original series on Saturday nights was not going to be a problem?

Guess what! It ended up that it wasn't a problem, because no one successfully made a big deal about it.

There is no way to know what will or won't make it through the gauntlet in advance.



marksman said:


> The whole thing was poorly constructed and poorly thought out.


It was well-constructed and well thought-out. Not everything that is done well succeeds.



marksman said:


> Who cares if they met their goals?


Their owners, the folks to whom they owe overriding consideration.



marksman said:


> Their goals still equaled complete failure, which has come to pass.


No... failure is the result, and what you're using to justify your self-defining and therefore vacuous criticisms of their efforts.



marksman said:


> Has nothing to do with "Bad PR".


It has everything to do with bad PR.


----------



## smak

bicker said:


> Let's try that logic on for size:
> 
> If my wife and I say that $X is how much we need to retire, and we hit $X, and my children are upset that we didn't make enough to leave them more money when we die, then $X wasn't the correct number.
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> The affiliates are *different* companies. They are not the same company. Different.
> 
> They were trying to find a way to better live up to their fiduciary responsibility to *their* owners -- *not* a different company's owners.


Right, all those totally different companies who are the only way that 95% of the TV markets in the country get to see NBC programming.

Let's just forget about and ignore them. That seems like a recipe for disaster.

Like the disaster we saw this week.

Your analogy is horrible. NBC isn't dead, it's living. And the affiliates have power that your kids could never have, unless your kids have the power to kill you.

Look back at the thread. Most people were right, and you were wrong. Get over it. Look at the first post. The whole point of this thread was that affiliates were pissed off because of steep declines in the news ratings. Some people saw this coming 3 months ago.

Stinks that you didn't, but dems da breaks.

-smak-


----------



## terpfan1980

aintnosin said:


> What NBC should have done is take the Jay Leno Show off the air for "retooling" and take a few weeks to see how The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien would fare without Leno dragging down the affiliates' 11pm rating and competing for guests.
> 
> If they go back to the damaged goods that is Jay Leno, he's got a shelf life of five years, maybe ten, and NBC doesn't have a viable replacement if they burn O'Brien. If they let Leno go, he may be a competitor, but it will probably be with a network without a tradition at 11:30. (ABC or Fox) and he's only a problem for a few years. If Conan goes to ABC or Fox, NBC could be faced with finding a replacement for Leno who can compete with a Conan O'Brien who has established a presence at 11:30 and has a 5-year head start.


THIS ^^^ Absolutely this.

This has been about the best example of how to make every wrong decision you can possibly make. It makes the whole New Coke vs. Classic Coke look like just a small dot in the history books.

If they wanted the chance to bring Leno back then do as suggested here ^ and put Leno on the shelf for a bit and see just what happened with the Tonite show.

If they really had to play Solomon here and split the difference then they perhaps should have considered (and probably should have done this all along) having Leno get back ONE night per week in the original Tonite show slot and have Conan take care of the other nites. Push it to two nites if they absolutely had to with a ton of cross promotion between both hosts. That would have given both hosts a chance to ease into their new roles, and would have given viewers a chance to get used to things. If Leno absolutely beat the bejeezus out of Conan's numbers then they'd have had perfect justification to let him go. On the other hand if Leno's numbers started falling, and even if they didn't, they could ease him out of the job.


----------



## bicker

smak said:


> Right, all those totally different companies who are the only way where 95% of the TV markets in the country get to see NBC programming.


Who didn't like the fact that they weren't getting new programming to present on Saturdays either. *But they weren't able to exploit PR that time, so they had to accept that cost-cutting*.

They also weren't able to exploit PR when the networks increased commercial time per hour from 14 to 16 minutes. And from 12 to 14, 10 to 12, 8 to 10, etc.

Nor when the networks reduced series orders from 38 to 28 to 26 to 24 to 22, etc.



smak said:


> That seems like a recipe for disaster.


And a whole night of reruns isn't?



smak said:


> Your analogy is horrible.


No, it's actually great. If it was identical circumstances it would be a tautology, instead of an analogy.



smak said:


> Do your children get to pull the plug on you if you don't save enough money for them?


Actually, they do, but that's another story.



smak said:


> Dude, look back at the thread. Most people were right, and you were wrong.


About what, specifically? I suspect you don't even remember what I said earlier in the thread. Regardless, I'm talking about right now and how wrong you are right now.


----------



## smak

No, i did read the other thread, and you were basically saying there was no way to tell whether NBC was happy with the ratings or not. And whether or not we like the situation or not, the only people who matter are the people at NBC.

Now, the only thing that matters is that it's over. It doesn't matter the reason, but the fact is all the problems noted in the other thread have come to fruition.

Everybody in the other thread who said this was a horrible decision by NBC, that it would have disastrous results, and hugely bad side effects that would echo across the entire network have been proven right.

-smak-


----------



## Turtleboy

Check out the Letterman videos.

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/david-letterman-on-nbc-late-night-mess/


----------



## orangeboy

Turtleboy said:


> Check out the Letterman videos.
> 
> http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/david-letterman-on-nbc-late-night-mess/


Love it!


----------



## jk5598224

Someone else mentioned the same, but why can't they get rid of Leno altogether. Leno couldn't be around tonight show for another 5-10 years? What then.


----------



## JimSpence

Leave Coman where he is and then Jay could take them on in the same time slot on either Fox or even ABC (pushing Kimmel to 12:35).


----------



## Amnesia

jk5598224 said:


> Someone else mentioned the same, but why can't they get rid of Leno altogether. Leno couldn't be around tonight show for another 5-10 years? What then.


But why get rid of Leno instead of Conan?

When it was Jay vs. Dave, Jay won. When it was Conan vs. Dave, Dave won.
Why would NBC get rid of Jay? Yes, yes---the playing fields weren't exactly level, but still---it seems clear that Jay is the host who has proven he could beat Dave.

Sure, perhaps Jay won't be around after 10 years or so, but at least they'd have some time to deal with that problem. What if they got rid of Jay and Conan continued to flounder in the ratings? What would be their option in the spring or fall of *this* year?


----------



## morac

http://tv.gawker.com/5445941/conan-...jay-leno-updated-so-do-letterman-and-ferguson

So who's funnier Conan, Dave or Craig?


----------



## Wil

morac said:


> So who's funnier Conan, Dave or Craig?


bicker


----------



## mattack

Gee, will Bill Carter write a book about *this* late night fiasco?

Conan is being screwed over.. but I actually feel a tiny bit sad for Leno since he looks like the bad guy. Though I *don't* watch the entire show, I will actually give him a bit of credit -- the 10pm show was *NOT* an exact copy of the tonight show. It was different, it was trying to do sort of a cross between an old variety show and a talk show.

and this is from someone who's way more of a Letterman fan than Leno.. (When the *previous* late show war went on, I sort of *wanted* Leno to win, since I realized they'd BOTH be on the air, and previously to him winning the Tonight Show, I used to think Leno could be hilarious.. in fact, many of Leno's appearances on Late Night were very very funny.)


----------



## MickeS

Turtleboy said:


> Check out the Letterman videos.
> 
> http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/david-letterman-on-nbc-late-night-mess/


Dave is a bitter old man, but I guess he feels he should stand up for his friend Conan. And it probably feels good to get back at Jay after having lost in the ratings for over a decade.


----------



## gastrof

JimSpence said:


> Leave Coman where he is and then Jay could take them on in the same time slot on either Fox or even ABC (pushing Kimmel to 12:35).


The other day ABC was reported as saying they don't want Jay or Conan. 'We're happy with what we currently have'.


----------



## marksman

Would be interesting to like give Jay one night a week of Conan's show and have conan do 4 nights or something, and or create like a 2 hour show for Jay like on Saturday. Since Saturday primetime is just reruns.


----------



## marksman

gastrof said:


> The other day ABC was reported as saying they don't want Jay or Conan. 'We're happy with what we currently have'.


I think Jimmy Kimmel was really sweating before they came up with this plan to keep Leno around last time.


----------



## gastrof

MickeS said:


> Everyone should just have primetime from 7 PM -10 PM like here. The tonight show starts at 10:35 PM here.


If the East Coast had prime time from 7 to 10, you'd get prime time from 6 to 9.


----------



## marksman

Bicker... you seem to have a really problem with logic.

Seriously. You have no idea what you are talking about.

By your weird logic, you and your wife would tell your children, we are going to pay for all your college and give you each 5 million dollars when we die.

We are going to put away $100 a week.

Now come the end of your life you put away $100 a week, so you "met your goal." Yet you completely failed.

Literally EVERYONE in the United States knew this was going to fail except for you and the NBC executives.


----------



## MickeS

gastrof said:


> If the East Coast had prime time from 7 to 10, you'd get prime time from 6 to 9.


Why?


----------



## MickeS

marksman said:


> Would be interesting to like give Jay one night a week of Conan's show and have conan do 4 nights or something, and or create like a 2 hour show for Jay like on Saturday. Since Saturday primetime is just reruns.


I would love a prime-time Saturday night variety show with good guests and performances. I'm a sucker for them. I think the current Jay Leno Show format would work well with that.

Not that I think it will happen though.


----------



## marksman

Jimmy Kimmel did his whole show tonight as Jay Leno.


----------



## Test

www.woot.com is with Coco

http://www.sirmikeofmitchell.com/imwithcoco/


----------



## gastrof

MickeS said:


> Why?


Time zones. Central, for example, gets the same feed as the East Coast. The clocks just read different, that's all.

Otherwise the networks would have to send the Continental U.S. four different feeds, which I'm sure they'd love to hear someone suggest.


----------



## MickeS

gastrof said:


> Time zones. Central, for example, gets the same feed as the East Coast. The clocks just read different, that's all.
> 
> Otherwise the networks would have to send the Continental U.S. four different feeds, which I'm sure they'd love to hear someone suggest.


I'm in Mountain time zone (Pacific +1). In summer, since we don't have DST, we are on the same time as Pacific. Our prime time is always 7 - 10 no matter what.


----------



## bicker

marksman said:


> Bicker... you seem to have a really problem with logic.


No, not at all. You simply disagree with a business perspective. As a consumer with your mind firmly locked in consumer mode, that's not surprising.



marksman said:


> Seriously. You have no idea what you are talking about.


No: You have no idea what I'm talking about. Or rather, you probably do, but refuse to acknowledge it.



marksman said:


> Literally EVERYONE in the United States knew this was going to fail except for you and the NBC executives.


Your comment is utterly self-centered and myopic.


----------



## Ment

marksman said:


> Jimmy Kimmel did his whole show tonight as Jay Leno.


He's just another Ho but with MPD. Conan was on a roll to-night (he's the pretty one  ).


----------



## bicker

aindik said:


> Also interesting that he doesn't take a public position on what his contract does or doesn't require NBC to give him.


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


----------



## fmowry

marksman said:


> Jimmy Kimmel did his whole show tonight as Jay Leno.







Frank


----------



## realityboy

bicker said:


> Who didn't like the fact that they weren't getting new programming to present on Saturdays either. *But they weren't able to exploit PR that time, so they had to accept that cost-cutting*.
> 
> They also weren't able to exploit PR when the networks increased commercial time per hour from 14 to 16 minutes. And from 12 to 14, 10 to 12, 8 to 10, etc.
> 
> Nor when the networks reduced series orders from 38 to 28 to 26 to 24 to 22, etc.


They accepted those cost cutting measures because they didn't have a significant impact on their profit margins. Plus, those happened on all of the major networks so they didn't undercut the affiliates ability to compete. The affiliates are important to the network even if they are different companies. It's generally a mutually beneficial arrangement.

I blame them more so than NBC for the current failure. (The PR mess from trying to fix the failure is NBC's fault.)

NBC-"So affiliates were going to cut costs and get lower ratings every night, is that cool with you?"

Affiliates-"That sounds ok..."

3 months later

Affiliates-"Hey, NBC, these ratings aren't very good..."

NBC-"Right, we told you that they would be lower, but that we would save money..."

Affiliates-"But this is affecting us more than we thought it would."

NBC-"OK, these are the ratings that we promised. Shouldn't you have known what effect they would have on you?"

Affiliates then proceed to pout and threaten to stop showing Leno at 10pm even though it was getting the ratings that were promised.


----------



## bicker

realityboy said:


> They accepted those cost cutting measures because


... they didn't have sufficient leverage to push the issue.



realityboy said:


> Plus, those happened on all of the major networks


... but not all at once... _just like this_.



realityboy said:


> The affiliates are important to the network even if they are different companies.


Important: Yes. However, the demands of the affiliates are not *overriding* considerations.



realityboy said:


> It's generally a mutually beneficial arrangement.


If you're looking at it from above. From inside, it is more like a strategic alliance.


----------



## MikeAndrews

aindik said:


> More often than you think. If the contracts were always iron clad and crystal clear, there wouldn't be litigation.


Conan and NBC will settle for some fraction of the $40M or whatever he's owed under his contract.

Conan will want to shorten any non-compete term that there's in there, too. As with Dave, NBC might want to keep the Tonight Show as is long enough to not have to refund money from advertisers, although the time change would hit that anyway.


----------



## Turtleboy




----------



## pcguru83

Good summary of the jabs all the late night hosts took last night. They seem to be overwhelmingly supporting Conan.

http://watching-tv.ew.com/2010/01/13/conan-obrien-letterman-jay-leno-kimmel-american-idol/


----------



## TiVo'Brien

pcguru83 said:


> Good summary of the jabs all the late night hosts took last night. They seem to be overwhelmingly supporting Conan.
> 
> http://watching-tv.ew.com/2010/01/13/conan-obrien-letterman-jay-leno-kimmel-american-idol/


:up:

Jay should go to Fox and that would fix everything.


----------



## bicker

Wouldn't it be great if all _bloggers _made their bias so clear?


----------



## Amnesia

pcguru83 said:


> They seem to be overwhelmingly supporting Conan.


Conan vs. NBC, sure. Dave seems to be the only one taking cracks at Leno...


----------



## pcguru83

Amnesia said:


> Conan vs. NBC, sure. Dave seems to be the only one taking cracks at Leno...


Not really. Kimmel did his whole monologue dressed up as Leno (and doing his horrible Leno voice the whole time).


----------



## FilmCritic3000

You stay classy, Jeff Zucker.

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time...-moment-of-jeff-zucker-related-schadenfreude/



> Too small to pursue his fantasy of playing football for the Miami Dolphins, Zucker took to writing local sports stories for The Miami Herald. He continued his writing career as an undergraduate at Harvard University, where he covered sports for The Harvard Crimson. He later became president of the publication. It was at Harvard that Zucker first met Conan O'Brien, now an NBC late-night host, who worked for humor magazine the Harvard Lampoon. As a prank, O'Brien's staff stole all the Crimson issues one day before they could be delivered. Zucker called the cops. "My first meeting with Jeff Zucker was in handcuffs, with a Cambridge police officer reading me my rights," says O'Brien.


----------



## FilmCritic3000

You stay classy, Jeff Zucker.

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time...-moment-of-jeff-zucker-related-schadenfreude/



> Too small to pursue his fantasy of playing football for the Miami Dolphins, Zucker took to writing local sports stories for The Miami Herald. He continued his writing career as an undergraduate at Harvard University, where he covered sports for The Harvard Crimson. He later became president of the publication. It was at Harvard that Zucker first met Conan O'Brien, now an NBC late-night host, who worked for humor magazine the Harvard Lampoon. As a prank, O'Brien's staff stole all the Crimson issues one day before they could be delivered. Zucker called the cops. "My first meeting with Jeff Zucker was in handcuffs, with a Cambridge police officer reading me my rights," says O'Brien.


----------



## ElJay

TMZ is saying Leno has 10pm in his contract but Conan's just says "The Tonight Show"

http://www.tmz.com/2010/01/13/conan-obrien-jay-leno-the-tonight-show-nbc-contract-time-period/



> As for Conan's legal position, his claim is a lot more tenuous than first reported to us. We're told Conan is arguing -- given the history of "The Tonight Show" -- there is an "implied" guarantee the show would begin at 11:35. Our sources say Conan's people met with NBC execs yesterday afternoon ... presumably to negotiate a settlement and an out.


----------



## DavidTigerFan

TiVo'Brien said:


> :up:
> 
> Jay should go to Fox and that would fix everything.


That's what NBC was trying to avoid. Jay would destroy Conan if he were put head to head. I'm not sure what would happen though since most fox stations air their news at 10pm.


----------



## bicker

ElJay said:


> TMZ is saying Leno has 10pm in his contract but Conan's just says "The Tonight Show"
> 
> http://www.tmz.com/2010/01/13/conan-obrien-jay-leno-the-tonight-show-nbc-contract-time-period/


It took them long enough.

This is clearly the reason why, yesterday, NBC was talking in tangible terms, while Conan was trying to emotionally influence public opinion. It was trivial to see the difference between the two tactics, and with sufficient perspective it wasn't hard to tell what the contract actually specified. This was what I was trying to get aintnosin to understand yesterday, but he simply refused to acknowledge it.


----------



## DeDondeEs

Jimmy "Leno" Kimmel was pretty funny last night:






If one of these guys could move to Fox they could have a 11pm slot. The Fox News around here at least is from 10-11pm. That slot would be ideal because then its not too late, and they are going up against the local news on the other networks, and the Daily Show / Colbert Report on cable.

I can't stand the local news anyway, it is just a summary of all of the horrible things that happened during the day, who needs that before bed?


----------



## Bierboy

DavidTigerFan said:


> ....Jay would destroy Conan if he were put head to head.....


I don't buy that...they appeal to two TOTALLY different audiences (IMO) and there's more than enough to go around....
My 26 year old son would watch Conan anytime, but never watch Leno.


----------



## aindik

If it wasn't for the fact that Fox, the rest of the time, targets younger viewers than NBC does, Leno on Fox at 11 p.m. would make a lot of sense. Earlier start time (for his older audience) and not acting as a lead-in for any other show.


----------



## DeDondeEs

IMO I think Conan has better writing, but he is awkward on camera and when interviewing (which he often uses to his advantage). Leno is more polished and does good interviews, but his jokes are corny. On Leno the band playing that horn/bass/drum rimshot type thing after every joke gets old, like a laugh track. I know they do that on Conan too but it just doesn't seem as obnoxious.

One person who must be loving this is Letterman, this has totally taken the spotlight off of him from those flings he had with employees.


----------



## bicker

So they should hire O'Brien to write for Leno.


----------



## realityboy

bicker said:


> If you're looking at it from above. From inside, it is more like a strategic alliance.


I agree with this. I'm not sure that I get the practical difference between a mutually beneficial arrangement and your description of it as a strategic alliance. Usually their goals line up. Sometimes they don't. It's not like either one has any motive other than profit. I'm looking at it from inside a local affiliate since I happen to work at one. (Not an NBC affiliate.)

I still say that the other changes that you mentioned were not as harmful to their bottom line as this one turned out to be.


----------



## bicker

realityboy said:


> I'm not sure that I get the practical difference between a mutually beneficial arrangement and your description of it as a strategic alliance.


CBS and Warner Brothers have a "mutually-beneficial arrangement" in the CW. The United States and Pakistan have a strategic alliance with regard to Al Qaeda.



realityboy said:


> It's not like either one has any motive other than profit.


The difference is that networks and affiliates don't split a single source of profit. They each run their own businesses, and arrive at their own bottom-lines independently.


----------



## realityboy

bicker said:


> CBS and Warner Brothers have a "mutually-beneficial arrangement" in the CW. The United States and Pakistan have a strategic alliance with regard to Al Qaeda.
> 
> The difference is that networks and affiliates don't split a single source of profit. They each run their own businesses, and arrive at their own bottom-lines independently.


I know the profits come from different places. That's why their goals don't always align. I just said that. I don't disagree with you on that point, and the first point is a minor semantic thing. It's not like the contracts with the affiliates actually say either of the phrases that we're using. I actually reluctantly agree with you on most of your points in these 2 threads.


----------



## MickeS

Why did Kimmel do his show as Leno? What's his beef in all of this?


----------



## Amnesia

MickeS said:


> Why did Kimmel do his show as Leno? What's his beef in all of this?


Late night hosts are not supposed to do jokes because they have a "beef". They're supposed to do them to amuse their audience...


----------



## DevdogAZ

DavidTigerFan said:


> That's what NBC was trying to avoid. Jay would destroy Conan if he were put head to head. I'm not sure what would happen though since most fox stations air their news at 10pm.


According to Fox president Kevin Reilly, Fox has the rights in their affiliate agreements to put on a late-night show at 11:00 pm and force the affiliates to carry it. However, he said that they wouldn't be so cavalier about it, because the affiliates have just come through a difficult business cycle and most make quite a bit of money airing syndicated reruns in that slot. So it Fox could make it work for Conan if they want to, but it might be a little painful for Fox affiliates.


----------



## DevdogAZ

jk5598224 said:


> Someone else mentioned the same, but why can't they get rid of Leno altogether. Leno couldn't be around tonight show for another 5-10 years? What then.


NBC doesn't want to get rid of either one. They would have to pay a big penalty if they fire either one of them, and either one could go and compete against them on another network. As for why they appear to be favoring Leno over Conan, I'm guessing that after seeing Conan do The Tonight Show for seven months and seeing that the ratings weren't nearly what they expected, the bloom is off the rose. He's not nearly the hot commodity that he was this time last year. Maybe they've decided that keeping a known quantity (Leno) is better than keeping a project (Conan).


gastrof said:


> Time zones. Central, for example, gets the same feed as the East Coast. The clocks just read different, that's all.
> 
> Otherwise the networks would have to send the Continental U.S. four different feeds, which I'm sure they'd love to hear someone suggest.


They already send three different feeds. What's the big deal if they send a fourth? Or maybe the affiliates in the Mountain time zone just record the Eastern feed and play it back at the appropriate time, in which case the affiliates in the Central time zone could do that too. Either way, it seems like a pretty minor technical hurdle.


----------



## terpfan1980

DevdogAZ said:


> According to Fox president Kevin Reilly, Fox has the rights in their affiliate agreements to put on a late-night show at 11:00 pm and force the affiliates to carry it. However, he said that they wouldn't be so cavalier about it, because the affiliates have just come through a difficult business cycle and most make quite a bit of money airing syndicated reruns in that slot. So it Fox could make it work for Conan if they want to, but it might be a little painful for Fox affiliates.


In theory it would seem that FOX could make a ton of money getting Conan and running a show at 11 p.m., basically doing at 11 what NBC had wanted to do at 10 p.m. with Leno -- cheap programming aimed at a late night audience. Even if they have to spend $50 million per year for Conan and/or all of the people behind the show, they should be able to sell ad time for far more than that.

The question would then be whether or not they'd get enough of an audience to keep affiliates happy with their share of the ad revenue that would come through.

There's a lot of potential benefit for FOX in running a show with either Leno or Conan though (more likely Conan than Leno since it seems that NBC just can't quit Leno), cross promotion of other programs on the network, cross promotion of FOX and partner films, etc.


----------



## DevdogAZ

terpfan1980 said:


> In theory it would seem that FOX could make a ton of money getting Conan and running a show at 11 p.m., basically doing at 11 what NBC had wanted to do at 10 p.m. with Leno -- cheap programming aimed at a late night audience. Even if they have to spend $50 million per year for Conan and/or all of the people behind the show, they should be able to sell ad time for far more than that.
> 
> The question would then be whether or not they'd get enough of an audience to keep affiliates happy with their share of the ad revenue that would come through.
> 
> There's a lot of potential benefit for FOX in running a show with either Leno or Conan though (more likely Conan than Leno since it seems that NBC just can't quit Leno), cross promotion of other programs on the network, cross promotion of FOX and partner films, etc.


According to Reilly, the affiliates won't have a choice if that's what Fox decides to do. It's already a clause in their affiliate contracts. And without an impending regulatory review, like the Comcast/NBCU deal, the Fox affiliates wouldn't have the same clout that the NBC affiliates did.

One source I read said that it would likely cost $70 million for Fox to get a late night show up and running, and taking the numbers fromt the Leno 10 pm show show and cutting back by 25%, it would likely cost another $70 million per year to operate the show. Could they make that back in ad revenue? Probably. But it's not a slam dunk. Since Leno left TTS, the overall audience for network late night shows has shrunk dramatically. There is increased competition from cable (Stewart, Colbert, Chelsea, Lopez). Fox's show would be competing against Leno and Letterman. The economic climate for starting a new show and selling that new ad time is not favorable. There are a lot of factors for Fox to consider before jumping into this decision.


----------



## MickeS

Amnesia said:


> Late night hosts are not supposed to do jokes because they have a "beef". They're supposed to do them to amuse their audience...


Yeah, I know that. But getting dressed up as Leno and making fun of him is a little more than just "doing jokes", which is why I was wondering if there's some sort of history between the two of them.


----------



## Bierboy

According to Popeater.


----------



## DevdogAZ

MickeS said:


> Yeah, I know that. But getting dressed up as Leno and making fun of him is a little more than just "doing jokes", which is why I was wondering if there's some sort of history between the two of them.


I don't think he was making fun of Leno personally as much as he was simply making fun of the fact that Leno (because of NBC's poor decisions) is essentially taking over Conan's timeslot. So his joke was that Leno is taking over all late-night TV timeslots, even his timeslot on ABC (which apparently stands for "Always Bump Conan").


----------



## cmontyburns

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think ht was making fun of Leno personally as much as he was simply making fun of the fact that Leno (because of NBC's poor decisions) is essentially taking over Conan's timeslot. So his joke was that Leno is taking over all late-night TV timeslots, even his timeslot on ABC (which apparently stands for "Always Bump Conan").


I think that's right, but that there also is some subtext. Not anti-Leno -- at least, mostly not -- but pro-Conan. If you're a late-night talkshow host, you're in a very small fraternity. From what I've read, behind the scenes most of them have quietly felt that NBC has been treating O'Brien badly for years. Skits like Kimmel's are a way of showing solidarity with Conan, as NBC sticks it to him one more time.


----------



## pcguru83

Great, now a third thread to follow. 

Good riddance Jay! Welcome back Conan!


----------



## DevdogAZ

I'll believe it when I see some official sources, not just a "TV insider."

But can't we merge all these Leno/Conan threads? It seems that we've got the same discussion (with many identical posts) going on in three different threads.


----------



## Enrique

I hope they both walk, NBC don't deserve any of them.

BIH NBC.


----------



## cmontyburns

Amnesia said:


> But why get rid of Leno instead of Conan?


Time magazine's James Poniewozik deals with that question, adroitly I think, in a blog post today. His summation:



> The bottom line is that Jay is certainly the better short-term pick. Long-term, Conan has more upside and more downside. And that may be what does him in. NBC has very likely decided to get out of the risk-taking business.


Hard to argue with that.


----------



## ToddNeedsTiVo

Never understood the whole silly prime time difference among the time zones. One feed simultaneously provides programming to both Eastern and Central from 8-11pm and 7-10pm local, respectively. Then another feed an hour later for Mountain, 7-10 local. Then yet another feed, TWO hours later, so that Pacific has its prime time from 8-11 local.

Weird.


----------



## fmowry

DevdogAZ said:


> I'll believe it when I see some official sources, not just a "TV insider."
> 
> But can't we merge all these Leno/Conan threads? It seems that we've got the same discussion (with many identical posts) going on in three different threads.


Post your request in the other two threads. 

Frank


----------



## smak

bicker said:


> It took them long enough.
> 
> This is clearly the reason why, yesterday, NBC was talking in tangible terms, while Conan was trying to emotionally influence public opinion. It was trivial to see the difference between the two tactics, and with sufficient perspective it wasn't hard to tell what the contract actually specified. This was what I was trying to get aintnosin to understand yesterday, but he simply refused to acknowledge it.


Conan releasing his statement was a "tactic" that his people advised against.

You don't think it's possible that Conan actually believes what he says, that The Tonight Show at 12:05 isn't The Tonight Show he had wanted to host forever, and he doesn't want any part of it.

This could lose Conan money in the end. There's no automatic place that he's going to end up like Dave had. FOX is not a slam dunk for him either.

I think there's a pretty big difference in 11:35 and 12:05. The Tonight Show is most famous for it's opening monologue where the host makes jokes about the days events. Having a show preceding it basically ruins the whole concept of the show.

-smak-


----------



## Enrique

pcguru83 said:


> Great, now a third thread to follow.
> 
> Good riddance Jay! Welcome back Conan!


Welcome back Conan? According to the link ""Now that Conan has made it clear he is leaving the troubled network,"

If Jay does walk why would just that fact make Conan stay? I think they would be pretty dumb of him(Seeing as NBC has basically told him your worth nothing to us).

If his does stay when/if Jay walks then he would be pretty much NBC's Ho


----------



## JYoung

MickeS said:


> Yeah, I know that. But getting dressed up as Leno and making fun of him is a little more than just "doing jokes", which is why I was wondering if there's some sort of history between the two of them.


They share custody of Adam Carolla.


----------



## uncdrew

Could Johnny Carson come back?


Please...


----------



## bicker

smak said:


> Conan releasing his statement was a "tactic" that his people advised against.


An assertion by Conan's camp that could itself be a tactic.



smak said:


> You don't think it's possible that Conan actually believes what he says


Ditto, substituting "Leno" for "Conan". It *all* works *both* ways. That was the point, all along.



smak said:


> This could lose Conan money in the end.


Or gain Conan money in the end. That's why it is called risk.


----------



## pcguru83

Enrique said:


> Welcome back Conan? According to the link ""Now that Conan has made it clear he is leaving the troubled network,"
> 
> If Jay does walk why would just that fact make Conan stay? I think they would be pretty dumb of him(Seeing as NBC has basically told him your worth nothing to us).
> 
> If his does stay when/if Jay walks then he would be pretty much NBC's Ho


I got the impression from Conan's statement that he was simply leaving if his show was moved to 12:05a. He even mentions still being in active negotiations with NBC. Granted, those probably didn't include an option of him staying given that the Leno plan looked to be a done deal, but that may change if Leno leaves.


----------



## Amnesia

ToddNeedsTiVo said:


> Never understood the whole silly prime time difference among the time zones.


What would you prefer? That prime-time is 8-11 Eastern and 5-8 Pacific? Most people in California aren't home by 5pm. Can they reasonable be expected to start watching TV then?

And what happens at 8PM Pacific? Local news? Then late night?


----------



## aintnosin

bicker said:


> NBC is not going to lie about the contract that they have with O'Brien.


Not in court... That's perjury. We're talking media spin here. Of course, they're going to lie if it benefits them. Boy are you naive.


----------



## DevdogAZ

cmontyburns said:


> Time magazine's James Poniewozik deals with that question, adroitly I think, in a blog post today. His summation:
> 
> Hard to argue with that.


Thanks for posting that. It's a good, objective article.


----------



## Amnesia

cmontyburns said:


> From what I've read, behind the scenes most of them have quietly felt that NBC has been treating O'Brien badly for years.


"for years"? How did they treat O'Brien badly before announcing Leno's 10PM show?


----------



## DevdogAZ

uncdrew said:


> Could Johnny Carson come back?
> 
> Please...


Weekend at Johnny's?


----------



## bicker

aintnosin said:


> Not in court... That's perjury. We're talking media spin here. Of course, they're going to lie if it benefits them.


They're not going to lie about something like that, where they can be so readily proven as liars (while and individual would do that, equivocating the meaning of words).



aintnosin said:


> Boy are you naive.


Yet another pointless personal attack. Imagine that. I guess we should take that as a good measure of how little merit there in what you post, since you cannot seem to utter a single point without revealing puerile behavior.


----------



## bicker

Amnesia said:


> What would you prefer?


Personally, I would prefer it if prime time was 7PM-10PM in every time zone. For what it is worth.


----------



## dilbert27

Enrique said:


> I hope they both walk, NBC don't deserve any of them.
> 
> BIH NBC.


If that was to happen wonder what they would they do then Tonight show with Jimmy Fallon?


----------



## Kamakzie

LOL


----------



## aintnosin

bicker said:


> They're not going to lie about something like that, where they can be so readily proven as liars (while and individual would do that, equivocating the meaning of words).


Both sides in a legal dispute are always go to say, in the media, that the law is on their side and they expect to prevails. If contracts were cut and dried, we wouldn't need courts to sort these things out.

So both sides claim to be in right (because it's stupid to publicly admit your wrong until the case is decided and often long after that), but usually only one is.

Another way to look at it: NBC pays lawyers to interpret their contracts in a manner most favorable to them. If the lawyers publicly said, "Well, Conan's case is stronger than ours. We have to put him on at 11:30 or pay him a gazillion dollars," they wouldn't be lawyers for very long.


----------



## morac

bicker said:


> Personally, I would prefer it if prime time was 7PM-10PM in every time zone. For what it is worth.


With my TiVo, prime time is whenever I want it to be.


----------



## LoadStar

uncdrew said:


> Could Johnny Carson come back?
> 
> Please...


We would need another thread to discuss that.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aintnosin said:


> Both sides in a legal dispute are always go to say, in the media, that the law is on their side and they expect to prevails. If contracts were cut and dried, we wouldn't need courts to sort these things out.
> 
> So both sides claim to be in right (because it's stupid to publicly admit your wrong until the case is decided and often long after that), but usually only one is.
> 
> Another way to look at it: NBC pays lawyers to interpret their contracts in a manner most favorable to them. If the lawyers publicly said, "Well, Conan's case is stronger than ours. We have to put him on at 11:30 or pay him a gazillion dollars," they wouldn't be lawyers for very long.


Of course both sides are going to spin. That's expected. But you can usually read between the lines. What bicker is saying, and what I agree with, is that NBC has given specifics, saying that the contract specifically gives Conan the right to host a show called "The Tonight Show" but doesn't specify what time said show would be aired. Conversely, Conan issued his statement, which seems to appeal to people's emotional side, when it says that "The Tonight Show" has always been at 11:35 and it just wouldn't be the same show at 12:05. Nothing specific about the contract, just the way he feels it should be.

If you read into both of those statements, you can clearly see that NBC has stated the specifics of the contract (and they're not going to lie about those specifics) and that Conan is taking the position that the specifics should be interpreted a different way.

Both sides have a point, and that's what they pay their lawyers for, but in NBC's position, they can't say, "The contract says X" when it's so easy to prove that the contract doesn't say X. If NBC wanted to lie in that situation, they simply wouldn't give specifics, and would instead say something like, "Mr. O'Brien is under contractual obligations to the network" without specifying what those obligations are.


----------



## DevdogAZ

morac said:


> With my TiVo, prime time is whenever I want it to be.


As long as it's later than 8 pm. Living in NJ, you can't have prime time from 7 to 10. Unless it's last night's prime time.


----------



## gossamer88

DevdogAZ said:


> Weekend at Johnny's?


LOL!


----------



## sonnik

I choose not to believe that article. I'm basing that on the fact that it seems to be a lot of rumor. If Jay was so concerned about Conan's well being, he wouldn't have made his remarks in the B&C Interview.



> *Do you want to go back to 11:35? *
> 
> If it were offered to me, would I take it? If that's what they wanted to do, sure. That would be fine if they wanted to.


----------



## bicker

DevdogAZ said:


> What bicker is saying, and what I agree with, is that NBC has given specifics, saying that the contract specifically gives Conan the right to host a show called "The Tonight Show" but doesn't specify what time said show would be aired. Conversely, Conan issued his statement, which seems to appeal to people's emotional side ... but in NBC's position, they can't say, "The contract says X" when it's so easy to prove that the contract doesn't say X.


Yes, that is precisely the point I had made.


----------



## ToddNeedsTiVo

bicker said:


> Personally, I would prefer it if prime time was 7PM-10PM in every time zone. For what it is worth.


That's my opinion as well. But, I know the lifestyle on the coasts is such that it's not as practical for prime time to begin at 7 there.

However, visiting family in Florida right now, I hate having the 8-11 version of prime time.

And I really miss having TiVo access!


----------



## bicker

morac said:


> With my TiVo, prime time is whenever I want it to be.


Yes, true, but I interact quite often with other people, poor souls who haven't seen the Light, and so it would be better for them, and therefore better for me helping them, if prime time was 7PM-10PM everywhere.


----------



## morac

DevdogAZ said:


> As long as it's later than 8 pm. Living in NJ, you can't have prime time from 7 to 10. Unless it's last night's prime time.


The point of my post is that while prime TV watching time may continue to be 7 to 10 or 8 to 11, people may not be watching shows that are actually airing during that time period.

Prime Time is basically something the networks came up with in order to charge advertisers more since more people watch during prime time than at other times. With the increased usage of DVRs "prime time" has less meaning than it used to.

Speaking of "prime time", since Jay is moving back to 11:35 (ET/PT), doesn't that mean that NBC won't be able to charge advertisers as much since Jay will no longer be in prime time?


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> Of course both sides are going to spin. That's expected. But you can usually read between the lines. What bicker is saying, and what I agree with, is that NBC has given specifics, saying that the contract specifically gives Conan the right to host a show called "The Tonight Show" but doesn't specify what time said show would be aired. Conversely, Conan issued his statement, which seems to appeal to people's emotional side, when it says that "The Tonight Show" has always been at 11:35 and it just wouldn't be the same show at 12:05. Nothing specific about the contract, just the way he feels it should be.


He's not just "appealing to people's emotional side." Both sides are arguing about what words in a contract mean.

The parties are setting up an argument about the correct definition of the phrase "The Tonight Show" as it is used in that contract. Conan is appealing to extrinsic evidence to inform the definition of that term.

Conan's argument is that the parties, when they were negotiating the contract, both knew what "The Tonight Show" was. His argument is that it would have been absurd for Conan to demand, and for both Conan AND NBC to spend so much time, energy and money negotiating, over a show called "The Tonight Show" if all that meant was just slapping that name on any show at any time of the day or night. IOW, he's arguing that that's not what either of the parties intended when they negotiated the agreement.

You are free to disagree with it. There are legitimate arguments on the other side, too. But Conan's is a perfectly legitimate legal argument. It's not completely emotional.


----------



## Fool Me Twice

uncdrew said:


> Could Johnny Carson come back?
> 
> Please...


With Jimmy Stewart as guest.


----------



## cmontyburns

Amnesia said:


> "for years"? How did they treat O'Brien badly before announcing Leno's 10PM show?


I can't remember which blog post it was -- probably either Sepinwall or Poniewozik -- but they ran down a list of arguably disrespectful treatment, dating all the way back to NBC openly considering replacing O'Brien within his first few months of hosting _Late Night_.


----------



## bicker

No: Conan is the *only *one trying to make a semantic and emotional argument about what "The Tonight Show" means. NBC is saying that there are parameters in the contract that refer to what time the program can be scheduled to air -- objective measures.


----------



## aindik

bicker said:


> No: Conan is the *only *one trying to make a semantic and emotional argument about what "The Tonight Show" means. NBC is saying that there are parameters in the contract that refer to what time the program can be scheduled to air -- objective measures.


I thought the current position is that there are _no_ time slot parameters in the contract and all it says is "The Tonight Show." Obviously if he specifically agreed that he could be on at 12:05, that's different.


----------



## Kamakzie

uncdrew said:


> Could Johnny Carson come back?
> 
> Please...


Tales of the Late Night with Johnny Crypt keeper!


----------



## NJChris

uncdrew said:


> Could Johnny Carson come back?
> 
> Please...


 Neither Leno or Conan have his class and talent.


----------



## timckelley

Do I understand correctly that if the contract makes no guarantees, implied or explicit, on when the show has to air, that if Conan refuses to do a 12:05 show, that he's in breach of contract? Can he refuse in that situation? And if he can, what are the consequences of "breach of contract"?


----------



## ToddNeedsTiVo

I wish we could hear the late Mr. Carson's opinion about this whole mess.


----------



## Amnesia

timckelley said:


> Can he refuse in that situation? And if he can, what are the consequences of "breach of contract"?


Of course he can refuse...but then he'd be in breach of contract. Given the situation, I would assume that NBC would just let him go, with no further monetary obligations on either side.


----------



## timckelley

Really? So in fact, his end of the contract is not enforced, and for practical purposes doesn't exist? I bet NBC's end would not be so easily escaped. This doesn't seem right to me.


----------



## smak

bicker said:


> Ditto, substituting "Leno" for "Conan". It *all* works *both* ways. That was the point, all along.


How can you substitute Leno for Conan. We have no idea what Leno thinks, because he hasn't said anything.

Taking a guess, would you say moving Leno to 11:35 is something Leno would like, or dislike?

We already have Conan on record saying he dislikes the idea of 12:05.

-smak-


----------



## marksman

aindik said:


> He's not just "appealing to people's emotional side." Both sides are arguing about what words in a contract mean.
> 
> The parties are setting up an argument about the correct definition of the phrase "The Tonight Show" as it is used in that contract. Conan is appealing to extrinsic evidence to inform the definition of that term.
> 
> Conan's argument is that the parties, when they were negotiating the contract, both knew what "The Tonight Show" was. His argument is that it would have been absurd for Conan to demand, and for both Conan AND NBC to spend so much time, energy and money negotiating, over a show called "The Tonight Show" if all that meant was just slapping that name on any show at any time of the day or night. IOW, he's arguing that that's not what either of the parties intended when they negotiated the agreement.
> 
> You are free to disagree with it. There are legitimate arguments on the other side, too. But Conan's is a perfectly legitimate legal argument. It's not completely emotional.


I think people are making arguments that there is no evidence to support.

It is highly unlikely that the contract specifically states "The Tonight Show, which can air any time NBC chooses", as Conan would have not agreed to that contract.

So it seems the most likely case is the situation is undefined, and thus Conan does have a good basis for a legal argument in disputing that a moved show would not be the tonight show. I just find it incredibly unlikely that Conan's lawyers would have accepted a contract that specifically detailed what was meant by "Tonight Show" and defined anything but what the "Tonight Show" has traditionally been.

Given Conan had most of the leverage at the time of the contract negotiation, seems pretty much impossible to believe. Who knows. I do know I have not seen anything to support any specific definition by either side, which means both sides have a case, and ultimately if they don't settle a court would decide what is meant by Tonight Show.


----------



## marksman

bicker said:


> No: Conan is the *only *one trying to make a semantic and emotional argument about what "The Tonight Show" means. NBC is saying that there are parameters in the contract that refer to what time the program can be scheduled to air -- objective measures.


Please substantiate where someone from NBC has specifically said the contract clearly outlines what times they can air the Tonight Show, and that those times are not the times the Tonight Show is traditionally aired.

Clearly I have missed this piece of information. So please link to it.


----------



## smak

DevdogAZ said:


> Conversely, Conan issued his statement, which seems to appeal to people's emotional side, when it says that "The Tonight Show" has always been at 11:35 and it just wouldn't be the same show at 12:05. Nothing specific about the contract, just the way he feels it should be.


This is not only Conan's emotional side, but plain common sense to, I would guess, a giant majority of the country.

Don't count out what the public feels about the whole mess as part of the equation.

As far as I remember, the whole "Late Shift" dirty laundry was aired long after the whole mess happened 15 years ago.

Now we seem to be getting that type of stuff in real time.

-smak-


----------



## ElJay

smak said:


> Taking a guess, would you say moving Leno to 11:35 is something Leno would like, or dislike?


Leno said in B&C a few months ago that he was open to moving back to 11:35. TMZ reports his contract specifically states 10pm, so they'd have to negotiate something new with him. (Who knows whether or not they know what they're talking about.)



> _Do you want to go back to 11:35?_
> 
> If it were offered to me, would I take it? If that's what they wanted to do, sure. That would be fine if they wanted to.


----------



## timckelley

I do hope that Conan wins, because I think he's funnier than Leno, but I just wonder what happens if the contract is legally determined to allow NBC to move the tonight show to 12:05. I guess they can force Conan to comply, or as a poster suggested, let him quit his contract, and they replace him.


----------



## getreal

timckelley said:


> I do hope that Conan wins, because I think he's funnier than Leno, but I just wonder what happens if the contract is legally determined to allow NBC to move the tonight show to 12:05. I guess they can force Conan to comply, or as a poster suggested, let him quit his contract, and they replace him.


Anything starting after midnight would be "The Tomorrow Show".


----------



## getreal

I suggest reruns of Carson's "The Tonight Show" rather than giving it to Faillon Fallon.


----------



## Zevida

ToddNeedsTiVo said:


> However, visiting family in Florida right now, I hate having the 8-11 version of prime time.


Growing up on the east coast and now living in the central time zone I cannot get used to prime time starting at 7pm. It is just bizarre, weird and wrong.

I do wish I lived on pacific time for Sunday Night Football though!


----------



## Amnesia

timckelley said:


> I bet NBC's end would not be so easily escaped. This doesn't seem right to me.


Again, I'm just making assumptions, but I would imagine that NBC wouldn't see the point in trying to get some kind of monetary concession out of Conan, especially if Conan leaving gives them their ideal situation (Jay back at _The Tonight Show_) instead of having Conan around and having to figure out what to do with him...


----------



## aindik

getreal said:


> Anything starting after midnight would be "The Tomorrow Show".


On the other side of that:
a) It would start at 11:05 in half the country (measured by land mass - much less than half measured by population).
b) More than half of the current "Tonight" show airs in the morning.
c) The show Conan hosted for 16 years was called "Late Night." It aired entirely in the morning.


----------



## sonnik

getreal said:


> I suggest reruns of Carson's "The Tonight Show" rather than giving it to Faillon Fallon.


If you get Reelz channel (I know that it's on DirecTV) - they do offer "Carson's Comedy Classics" from time to time. (Not the infomercial for buying DVDs, but the actual syndicated "Best of" episodes, which mostly have content from the 80's).


----------



## marksman

Here is a good post on the Huffington Post about what has happened to NBC and how all this ties in (And just for you Bicker, why the profit at all costs have destroyed their network):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chez-pazienza/nbc-and-zucker-the-downwa_b_421130.html


----------



## bicker

aindik said:


> I thought the current position is that there are _no_ time slot parameters in the contract and all it says is "The Tonight Show."


Nope, that is not the "current position"



aindik said:


> Obviously if he specifically agreed that he could be on at 12:05, that's different.


That's what people have been trying to tell you. The condition was reported to have been put in that way to provide NBC the kind of flexibility it would need.


----------



## bicker

marksman said:


> Clearly I have missed this piece of information. So please link to it.





> NBC's contract with O'Brien reportedly allows the network to move "Tonight" to 12:05 a.m. EST but no later, at the risk of substantial financial penalties. With a two-year contract said to be valued at about $28 million per year, O'Brien would have to think hard about walking away.


[Source: Associated Press.]
http://www.idahostatesman.com/entertainment/story/1035107.html


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> He's not just "appealing to people's emotional side." Both sides are arguing about what words in a contract mean.
> 
> The parties are setting up an argument about the correct definition of the phrase "The Tonight Show" as it is used in that contract. Conan is appealing to extrinsic evidence to inform the definition of that term.
> 
> Conan's argument is that the parties, when they were negotiating the contract, both knew what "The Tonight Show" was. His argument is that it would have been absurd for Conan to demand, and for both Conan AND NBC to spend so much time, energy and money negotiating, over a show called "The Tonight Show" if all that meant was just slapping that name on any show at any time of the day or night. IOW, he's arguing that that's not what either of the parties intended when they negotiated the agreement.
> 
> You are free to disagree with it. There are legitimate arguments on the other side, too. But Conan's is a perfectly legitimate legal argument. It's not completely emotional.


I think you missed my point and focused entirely on the word "emotional" in my post. My point was that NBC is talking specifics, and Conan is arguing about interpretation. The parol evidence rule will dictate that the actual written contract, as signed by the parties, is what governs. Since it appears that the contract doesn't specify a specific timeslot for "The Tonight Show," NBC's argument is that moving the show back 30 minutes and still calling it by the same name fulfills the contract. Given the parol evidence rule, that seems like a much easier argument than what Conan is trying to say, which is that we should incorporate all kinds of extrinsic evidence to determine what is meant by "The Tonight Show."


timckelley said:


> Really? So in fact, his end of the contract is not enforced, and for practical purposes doesn't exist? I bet NBC's end would not be so easily escaped. This doesn't seem right to me.


NBC would likely just let him walk to avoid the PR nightmare. Not only are people pissed about this whole thing, and it's likely going to hurt NBC, it would get much worse if NBC then sued Conan for millions of dollars. In the court of public opinion, an employee suing a giant corporation is hailed, while a corporation suing an employee is vilified. Thus, NBC is not likely to sue Conan for walking away.


----------



## MikeAndrews

It gets mo' fun yet!



> Sources close to former 'Tonight Show' host Jay Leno tell me he is furious with the way NBC has treated him and Conan O'Brien and is considering walking away from the entire mess with his head held high. "Now that Conan has made it clear he is leaving the troubled network, Jay is considering doing the same.
> 
> http://www.popeater.com/2010/01/13/jay-leno-leaving-nbc/?pimped


Well...maybe NBC can hire Craig Kilborn to host the Tonight Show to achieve the total suckage they so richly deserve.

"Enough of my talking about me. What do you think about me?"

The Comcast buyout deal is cancelled in 3,2,1...


----------



## DevdogAZ

bicker said:


> Nope, that is not the "current position"
> 
> That's what people have been trying to tell you. The condition was reported to have been put in that way to provide NBC the kind of flexibility it would need.


Bicker, I think you're mistaken here. The story has evolved. NBC's original position was that it could move The Tonight Show to 12:05. The early speculation was that this would be allowed because there was a specific clause in the contract allowing that. However, the story then changed when NBC confirmed that there was no language in the contract specifying timeslot at all. Thus, NBC's interpretation is that, as long as the show is called "The Tonight Show," it fulfills the technical definition of the contract. Conan's interpretation is that "The Tonight Show" has always immediately followed the late local news at 11:35 pm, so anything other than that would not meet the historic definition of "The Tonight Show."

It think it's been a couple of days since anyone claimed there was a 12:05 clause in the contract.


----------



## bicker

DevdogAZ said:


> Bicker, I think you're mistaken here. The story has evolved. NBC's original position was that it could move The Tonight Show to 12:05. The early speculation was that this would be allowed because there was a specific clause in the contract allowing that. However, the story then changed when NBC confirmed that there was no language in the contract specifying timeslot at all.


Someone should tell the Associated Press to update their news article. Since I've now provided a link, could you now please provide a link showing that they've deliberately contradicted that earlier statement?

Regardless, at least now Marksman has the source information which he wanted.


----------



## DevdogAZ

sonnik said:


> I choose not to believe that article. I'm basing that on the fact that it seems to be a lot of rumor. If Jay was so concerned about Conan's well being, he wouldn't have made his remarks in the B&C Interview.


As I've said before, I don't see that comment as him stabbing Conan in the back. He was simply stating the truth, that he would have preferred to stay at 11:35 and that if NBC asked him to go back there, he would do so. His comment was saying, "I want NBC to screw over Conan." His comment was simply stating that "If NBC makes the decision to move me back to 11:35, for whatever reason, I would accept that."

However, because of the way NBC has handled this mess, making Leno look like the bad guy, he's justifiably pissed. NBC is simply trying to avoid paying the buyout clause to either host, and they're favoring Leno because of his historically stronger ratings. But that shouldn't be viewed as something that Leno is doing wrong.


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> I think you missed my point and focused entirely on the word "emotional" in my post. My point was that NBC is talking specifics, and Conan is arguing about interpretation.


I disagree. Neither is talking about specifics and both are arguing about interpretation. NBC is saying "The Tonight Show" means any show on NBC with that name. Conan is saying "The Tonight Show" is a show on NBC that's on immediately after the late local news. AFAWK, the contract doesn't define the term - it just uses the term. Both sides are arguing about what the term means.



DevdogAZ said:


> The parol evidence rule will dictate that the actual written contract, as signed by the parties, is what governs. Since it appears that the contract doesn't specify a specific timeslot for "The Tonight Show," NBC's argument is that moving the show back 30 minutes and still calling it by the same name fulfills the contract. Given the parol evidence rule, that seems like a much easier argument than what Conan is trying to say, which is that we should incorporate all kinds of extrinsic evidence to determine what is meant by "The Tonight Show."


The applicability of the parol evidence rule often turns on whether a term of the contract is ambiguous. Would you say the term "The Tonight Show," all by itself, is ambiguous or unambiguous? I think Conan has a good argument that the term is ambiguous.


----------



## Amnesia

netringer said:


> "Plus, what happens when Jay does return to the 11:35 slot if his audience doesn't immediately follow? How can he possibly trust the same network that canceled Conan after only seven months?"


Why does Jay need to trust NBC? Unlike Conan, he's not being asked to change anything whatsoever. If Jay moves back to _The Tonight Show_ and it fails, he just walks away. He certainly doesn't need the money...


----------



## morac

netringer said:


> The Comcast buyout deal is cancelled in 3,2,1...


Not likely. Comcast doesn't really even want NBC (the channel), it simply wants all the cable networks that are part of NBC-U.


----------



## bicker

Yup, this will (and this is what GE is worried about) only reduce the price of the acquisition.


----------



## DevdogAZ

bicker said:


> Someone should tell the Associated Press to update their news article. Since I've now provided a link, could you now please provide a link showing that they've deliberately contradicted that earlier statement?
> 
> Regardless, at least now Marksman has the source information which he wanted.


That's a story dated last Saturday, and it states:


> NBC's contract with O'Brien _*reportedly*_ allows the network to move "Tonight" to 12:05 a.m. EST but no later, at the risk of substantial financial penalties.


(emphasis mine)

As I said, the story has evolved since then, and now the prevailing reports are that reports of the 12:05 clause were incorrect, but that NBC was relying on the lack of any time slot language in the contract to justify its move.

Edit: I posted the NY Times article from Tuesday in post #134 of this thread. The relevant portion of that article states:


> Despite the fact that Mr. O'Brien is being ejected from the 11:35 p.m. time period he was given in June and pushed to after midnight to make room for Jay Leno, NBC executives are expressing confidence that the network has not breached Mr. O'Brien's contract.
> 
> The reason? The contract, NBC is arguing, guaranteed Mr. O'Brien would be installed as host of "The Tonight Show" - and unlike many other deals for late-night stars, Mr. O'Brien's contract contains no specific language about the time period the show would occupy, NBC executives said. NBC has said Mr. O'Brien's relocated show would be called "The Tonight Show."


----------



## MikeAndrews

pcguru83 said:


> Great, now a third thread to follow.
> 
> Good riddance Jay! Welcome back Conan!


And a smeek.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7719373#post7719373

Mods! Merge threads please!


----------



## aindik

Another vote for merging the threads.


----------



## Wil

DevdogAZ said:


> "The Tonight Show" has always immediately followed the late local news at 11:35 pm


The Tonight Show has in its history been scheduled at Eastern time 11:15, 11:30 and 11:35 (and a period of time when it started at 11:15 and then AGAIN at 11:30 for a pickup audience in areas where local news ran a half hour. There may have been other starting times. But it has never been regularly scheduled to start the next morning.

Contrary to what has been widely reported, it has been "The Tonight Show" since the early 1950s. Promos and title cards have referred to it as other things, e.g. The Jack Paar Show, The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, etc., but the actual name of the show was The Tonight Show.


----------



## Rocketslc

Maybe Letterman will finally get the Tonight Show.




Yeah this is probably a smeek from one of the many threads


----------



## DevdogAZ

morac said:


> Speaking of "prime time", since Jay is moving back to 11:35 (ET/PT), doesn't that mean that NBC won't be able to charge advertisers as much since Jay will no longer be in prime time?


Advertisers do not buy ads by show, they buy ads based on timeslot. So any ads purchased for the 10 pm slot that Leno is vacating will then air during whatever NBC replaces Leno with. The ads won't follow Leno's show to 11:35. Similarly, the ads purchased for Conan's show at 11:35 will now be shown during Leno's new show.


----------



## smak

DevdogAZ said:


> I think you missed my point and focused entirely on the word "emotional" in my post. My point was that NBC is talking specifics, and Conan is arguing about interpretation. The parol evidence rule will dictate that the actual written contract, as signed by the parties, is what governs. Since it appears that the contract doesn't specify a specific timeslot for "The Tonight Show," NBC's argument is that moving the show back 30 minutes and still calling it by the same name fulfills the contract. Given the parol evidence rule, that seems like a much easier argument than what Conan is trying to say, which is that we should incorporate all kinds of extrinsic evidence to determine what is meant by "The Tonight Show."


Conan's legal team will argue interpretation for contract negotiations.

Conan, the talent, doesn't need any interpretation. To him Tonight Show = 11:30 and nothing else.

-smak-


----------



## Hansky

aindik said:


> The applicability of the parol evidence rule often turns on whether a term of the contract is ambiguous. Would you say the term "The Tonight Show," all by itself, is ambiguous or unambiguous? I think Conan has a good argument that the term is ambiguous.


Good theory. The thousands of shows produced in the last 50+ years should be defined in part by the days and times they aired. Maybe the actors can scream breach of contract when a show is move? Ridiculous. There is very little chance the show is not defined in any contracts at issue.


----------



## DevdogAZ

smak said:


> Conan's legal team will argue interpretation for contract negotiations.
> 
> Conan, the talent, doesn't need any interpretation. To him Tonight Show = 11:30 and nothing else.
> 
> -smak-


Of course that's Conan's personal opinion. But unfortunately the situation has progressed past the point where his personal opinion is relevant.


----------



## smak

DevdogAZ said:


> Of course that's Conan's personal opinion. But unfortunately the situation has progressed past the point where his personal opinion is relevant.


Relevant for any kind of monetary compensation based on his contract, maybe not.

Relevant for whether he will ever do a 12:05 show on NBC, absolutely 100%.

-smak-


----------



## aindik

Hansky said:


> Good theory. The thousands of shows produced in the last 50+ years should be defined in part by the days and times they aired.


Good logic. Because one show is defined in part by its time slot, every show is.



Hansky said:


> Maybe the actors can scream breach of contract when a show is move? Ridiculous.


Do the actors have clauses in their contract guaranteeing them that the show will air? I bet not.



Hansky said:


> There is very little chance the show is not defined in any contracts at issue.


Since we don't have copies of the contract, we're obviously left to speculate about that.


----------



## smak

DevdogAZ said:


> Advertisers do not buy ads by show, they buy ads based on timeslot.


Say what?

-smak-


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> Of course that's Conan's personal opinion. But unfortunately the situation has progressed past the point where his personal opinion is relevant.


He's one of the parties to the contract. What the parties had in mind when the contract was signed is relevant. (What he has in mind now is not so relevant).


----------



## DevdogAZ

smak said:


> Say what?
> 
> -smak-


OK, let me clarify. Advertisers buy ads by the show and timeslot, but the way I understand it to work is that if the show is moved to a different timeslot, the purchased ads don't follow it. They stay with the timeslot. Networks don't return ad buys when a show is canceled or pre-empted. They simply use those same ads purchased for that slot. Based on the ratings, they figure out later whether they provided enough eyeballs to their advertisers or whether they'll have to refund any money.

Of course, this is just the way I've always understood it to work. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Can we agree that NBC and Conan are going to settle this thing one way or another long before this issue ever gets in front of a judge, so the legal rules for contract interpretation are unlikely to ever come into play?


----------



## Hansky

aindik said:


> Good logic. Because one show is defined in part by its time slot, every show is.


Since you raise the issue of what parties believe - parties in the business of television - surely you would know that half century of history and many thousands of contract would be relevant? Apparently you do not.



> Do the actors have clauses in their contract guaranteeing them that the show will air? I bet not.


This is relevant to the definition of the show? The parties know how to include provisions that require the show be aired, but the miss the boat on the time it is aired? This really helps the theory that a court would add something that is not there.



> Since we don't have copies of the contract, we're obviously left to speculate about that.


No kidding.


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> Can we agree that NBC and Conan are going to settle this thing one way or another long before this issue ever gets in front of a judge, so the legal rules for contract interpretation are unlikely to ever come into play?


It won't actually get to court, no. But legal arguments that each party would/could have made in court almost always make their way into settlement negotiations.


----------



## DLL66

David Letterman is sitting back and laughing his butt off at this situation and relieved that he isn't in this mess again.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> It won't actually get to court, no. But legal arguments that each party would/could have made in court almost always make their way into settlement negotiations.


Of course they do. And the strength of those arguments will play a large part in determining how the settlement negotiations proceed. My comment was merely pointing out that because this will never be debated in public and decided by a court of law, we'll never get any kind of concrete resolution as to how it would have played out. Therefore, it's pointless to continue speculating. We (think) we all understand each party's position, and we have our opinions of how the contract (as we understand it) should be interpreted. Further speculation on those points will be pointless unless NBC and Conan can't work out a deal and a lawsuit is filed.


----------



## smak

DevdogAZ said:


> OK, let me clarify. Advertisers buy ads by the show and timeslot, but the way I understand it to work is that if the show is moved to a different timeslot, the purchased ads don't follow it. They stay with the timeslot. Networks don't return ad buys when a show is canceled or pre-empted. They simply use those same ads purchased for that slot. Based on the ratings, they figure out later whether they provided enough eyeballs to their advertisers or whether they'll have to refund any money.
> 
> Of course, this is just the way I've always understood it to work. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected.


Ok, that's better. 

I think it depends on what moves into that timeslot.

To make up an extreme, if Lipstick Jungle takes over 24's timeslot, there are certain ads that are going to be incompatible with that show.

Even if the ratings are exactly the same, the types of viewers could be totally different.

Take movie ads. The latest RomCom is going to target Grey's Anatomy, The Bachelor, etc...and aren't going to want their ads on Fringe or Heroes. Even if the shows get the exact same ratings.

-smak-


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> Of course they do. And the strength of those arguments will play a large part in determining how the settlement negotiations proceed. My comment was merely pointing out that because this will never be debated in public and decided by a court of law, we'll never get any kind of concrete resolution as to how it would have played out. Therefore, it's pointless to continue speculating. We (think) we all understand each party's position, and we have our opinions of how the contract (as we understand it) should be interpreted. Further speculation on those points will be pointless unless NBC and Conan can't work out a deal and a lawsuit is filed.


If we didn't talk about things despite their being pointless, we wouldn't be here.


----------



## Turtleboy

Can we assume that there is probably confidential binding arbitration?


----------



## aindik

smak said:


> Ok, that's better.
> 
> I think it depends on what moves into that timeslot.
> 
> To make up an extreme, if Lipstick Jungle takes over 24's timeslot, there are certain ads that are going to be incompatible with that show.
> 
> Even if the ratings are exactly the same, the types of viewers could be totally different.
> 
> Take movie ads. The latest RomCom is going to target Grey's Anatomy, The Bachelor, etc...and aren't going to want their ads on Fringe or Heroes. Even if the shows get the exact same ratings.
> 
> -smak-


The advertisers don't buy on overall ratings. The overall ratings are for show. They buy on age and gender demographics. Whether the new show does or doesn't deliver the old show's ratings is a question of the in-demo ratings, not the overall ratings.

By that measure, Lipstick Jungle and 24 will never have the same ratings.


----------



## smak

Turtleboy said:


> Can we assume that there is probably confidential binding arbitration?


That has no chance of remaining confidential.

-smak-


----------



## smak

aindik said:


> The advertisers don't buy on overall ratings. The overall ratings are for show. They buy on age and gender demographics. Whether the new show does or doesn't deliver the old show's ratings is a question of the in-demo ratings, not the overall ratings.
> 
> By that measure, Lipstick Jungle and 24 will never have the same ratings.


Yah, that's what I said.

-smak-


----------



## MikeAndrews

cmontyburns said:


> Time magazine's James Poniewozik deals with that question, adroitly I think, in a blog post today. His summation:
> 
> Hard to argue with that.


One factor with Dave vs. Jay was which was the loyal company man, and Jay won that hands down. He probably still does. Like it was then, that means the suits like Jay more whether the audience does or not.


----------



## aindik

Turtleboy said:


> Can we assume that there is probably confidential binding arbitration?


I don't think we can safely assume that.


----------



## Win Joy Jr

And, given its track record, does anyone believe a thing that NBC says?


----------



## daveak

netringer said:


> Onr factor with Dave vs. Jay was which was the loyal company man, and Jay won that hands down. He probably still does. Like it was then, that means the suits like Jay more whether the audience does or not.


Jay may be the loyal company man, but he is not sounding quite so loyal right now... though I love his digs at NBC.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

Win Joy Jr said:


> And, given its track record, does anyone believe a thing that NBC says?


Then again, given Conan's track record, he was probably just joking.


----------



## DeDondeEs

I can't believe how much attention this topic is getting, 3 threads, and man there are some passionate posts, and heavy legal debates in those threads. Perhaps they should air these behind the scenes debates/negotiations on NBC as a reality show so they can get some ratings.....


----------



## MikeAndrews

DeDondeEs said:


> I can't believe how much attention this topic is getting, 3 threads, and man there are some passionate posts, and heavy legal debates in those threads. Perhaps they should air these behind the scenes debates/negotiations on NBC as a reality show so they can get some ratings.....


Have Bill Carter adapt "The Late Shift" (Volume 1 and Volume 2) into a series.


----------



## ToddNeedsTiVo

netringer said:


> Have Bill Carter adapt "The Late Shift" (Volume 1 and Volume 2) into a series.


...and air it at 10pm on NBC...I hear they have open time in their schedule.


----------



## cmontyburns

netringer said:


> One factor with Dave vs. Jay was which was the loyal company man, and Jay won that hands down. He probably still does. Like it was then, that means the suits like Jay more whether the audience does or not.


I don't know that I agree with that. Part of the reason this mess has occurred is that Leno is holding NBC hostage, saying, essentially (and not unreasonably), if you don't keep me here, I'll go elsewhere and compete against you. NBC obviously was much more willing to call O'Brien's bluff (before he'd even made it) than Leno's, betting (perhaps) that Conan would be a good soldier and accept the de facto demotion.

Why? As Alan Sepinwall writes:



> Conan has always been a good soldier for NBC. He didn't complain when there were rumors the network wanted to replace him with Greg Kinnear only months into his role as neophyte host of "Late Night."
> 
> He never angled, either in public or private, to take Jay Leno's job on "The Tonight Show" (as compared to the way Jay's camp worked to nudge Johnny Carson out of the chair in the '90s).
> 
> When NBC offered him "Tonight" five years in the future back in 2004, he agreed to wait patiently for the gig.
> 
> He didn't object when NBC started to realize they had made a mistake in getting rid of Leno and came up with a plan to put Jay in primetime five nights a week, even if "The Jay Leno Show" would undermine the primacy of Conan's "Tonight."
> 
> And ever since news broke late last week that NBC realized Jay-in-primetime was an even bigger fiasco, and that they wanted to move Jay back to 11:35, and push Conan's "Tonight" to 12:05, Conan remained quiet.


Not to mention the numerous special appearances that O'Brien did on behalf of the network, at press tour and other events.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

getreal said:


> Anything starting after midnight would be "The Tomorrow Show".


Which used to follow the tonight show. I could just as easily make the argument that since the majority of the tonight show airs after midnight, it was always misnamed. It used to air 11:30-1 AM and now airs 11:35 to 12:35. Either way more after than before midnight.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Turtleboy said:


> Can we assume that there is probably confidential binding arbitration?





aindik said:


> I don't think we can safely assume that.


Agreed. We never put arbitration provisions into any of our contracts, and always advise our clients against using them. It's conceivable that the same mindset exists at NBC or at William Morris Endeavor.


----------



## marksman

How is that Leno holding NBC hostage?

They are the pea-brains who decided to early retire Jay, so Conan could get the Tonight Show. Then got all flustered when Jay did not want to retire.

Wanting to work for a living is not really holding someone hostage. Especially not after they canceled your show.

Neither Conan or Leno are to blame in this whole thing. All the responsibility lays at the feet of the NBC executives.


----------



## marksman

DevdogAZ said:


> OK, let me clarify. Advertisers buy ads by the show and timeslot, but the way I understand it to work is that if the show is moved to a different timeslot, the purchased ads don't follow it. They stay with the timeslot. Networks don't return ad buys when a show is canceled or pre-empted. They simply use those same ads purchased for that slot. Based on the ratings, they figure out later whether they provided enough eyeballs to their advertisers or whether they'll have to refund any money.
> 
> Of course, this is just the way I've always understood it to work. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected.


That is the way the network wants it to work.

That is not always the way the advertiser wants it to work. Depending on the advertiser and the show, they may ask for a refund and to pull their commercials, they may let it ride with the new show and suffer adjustments.

TV is weird though, and you are right you essentially by time slots. That is why sweeps used to be so weird and the networks would put on all these lavish special events. They would use these sweeps ratings to set ad prices when they went back to their normal shows. It never made the least bit of sense from the standpoint of the advertisers.

I would say in general though, even though you buy based on time primarily, you also are potentially being sold a potential show, and I think in most cases if a show got canceled the advertiser would be able to pull their ads from being run. I don't know of many businesses that would agree to an ad spend contract that didn't allow for that.


----------



## marksman

DeDondeEs said:


> I can't believe how much attention this topic is getting, 3 threads, and man there are some passionate posts, and heavy legal debates in those threads. Perhaps they should air these behind the scenes debates/negotiations on NBC as a reality show so they can get some ratings.....


What did leno say the other night?

NBC wanted to bring drama back to 10:00pm, and they did it.

The one thing I will give NBC credit for is even with their network in the toilet they have managed to garner themselves a massive amount of press for themselves in all of this. On top of that they have managed to work in that things will be changing AFTER the WINTER OLYMPICS on NBC in FEBRUARY.

So if someone dreamed all this up as a marketing stunt, hats off to them.  Given their schedule they couldn't buy this much coverage with 10 years worth of ad revenue.


----------



## ADent

From my understanding Jay has 10pm in his contract - and is sitting on a bundle of his own cash. So he could walk and take NBC's money, and if the contract doesn't let him do that he can just walk and live off his big stash of cash.

Conan has said he is walking - but did he send a letter to NBC quitting? The letter I read was not a resignation letter, but more of negotiation letter. 

Conan would be much better off at 12:05 and waiting out Jay another 6 months then quitting and walking away from that money. Unless he can get another 10:35 slot from ABC, he may be pulling a McLain Stevenson here.

As a viewer I would rather see 32 weeks of Conan and 20 weeks of Jay than all the reruns - but I think that would confuse a lot of people.


----------



## aindik

ADent said:


> Conan has said he is walking - but did he send a letter to NBC quitting? The letter I read was not a resignation letter, but more of negotiation letter.


He said he wasn't going to do the Tonight Show at 12:05. He didn't say that he won't do a show at 12:05 (though, he did make reference to not wanting to bump Jimmy Fallon from 12:35).

His letter technically left open the possibility of working at 12:05, but not on "The Tonight Show" (and, of course, because NBC won't let him host "The Tonight Show," NBC owes him the oft-mentioned pile of money).


----------



## cmontyburns

marksman said:


> How is that Leno holding NBC hostage?
> 
> They are the pea-brains who decided to early retire Jay, so Conan could get the Tonight Show. Then got all flustered when Jay did not want to retire.
> 
> Wanting to work for a living is not really holding someone hostage. Especially not after they canceled your show.


Leno has been needling NBC about replacing him on the Tonight Show -- a situation Leno _agreed_ to -- since before the transition happened. He's been letting NBC know he has them over a barrel for a long time, regardless of what he agreed to do. Not, as I said before, that this is an unreasonable position for him to take.


----------



## MickeS

They should just have Gordon "Alf" Shumway take over The Tonight Show. We already know he can do it: http://www.hulu.com/watch/36695/alf-tonight-tonight



And he knows about NBC and ratings too: http://www.hulu.com/watch/25944/alf-prime-time#s-p5-n2-so-i0



> The Tanners become a TV-ratings family and ALF decides to rig the system so that his favorite program becomes a hit.


They even had a guy playing Brandon Tartikoff on that episode... couldn't help thinking of the current situation at NBC.


----------



## smak

Speaking of Conan's lawyers "messing up" by not putting 11:35 in the contract.

Didn't Leno's lawyers mess up by not guaranteeing him a much longer run at 10 pm.

NBC seems to be the ones that always wants to have their cake and eat it too. Why didn't Leno ask for a guarantee of 1 year. Or 18 months.

Makes you think...

-smak-


----------



## smak

marksman said:


> I would say in general though, even though you buy based on time primarily, you also are potentially being sold a potential show, and I think in most cases if a show got canceled the advertiser would be able to pull their ads from being run. I don't know of many businesses that would agree to an ad spend contract that didn't allow for that.


I think initial ad rates heavily favor the "timeslot" aspect of it, and as a show gets more popular and has longevity, it veers away from that and tends to be based on the show itself.

-smak-


----------



## smak

ADent said:


> From my understanding Jay has 10pm in his contract - and is sitting on a bundle of his own cash. So he could walk and take NBC's money, and if the contract doesn't let him do that he can just walk and live off his big stash of cash.
> 
> Conan has said he is walking - but did he send a letter to NBC quitting? The letter I read was not a resignation letter, but more of negotiation letter.
> 
> Conan would be much better off at 12:05 and waiting out Jay another 6 months then quitting and walking away from that money. Unless he can get another 10:35 slot from ABC, he may be pulling a McLain Stevenson here.
> 
> As a viewer I would rather see 32 weeks of Conan and 20 weeks of Jay than all the reruns - but I think that would confuse a lot of people.


Conan's going to go to 12:05 and again wait for Jay to leave 11:35? I really doubt that.

I don't think it's a negotiation letter, I think it's an ultimatum letter. NBC has nothing to negotiate with.

-smak-


----------



## aindik

smak said:


> Speaking of Conan's lawyers "messing up" by not putting 11:35 in the contract.
> 
> Didn't Leno's lawyers mess up by not guaranteeing him a much longer run at 10 pm.
> 
> NBC seems to be the ones that always wants to have their cake and eat it too. Why didn't Leno ask for a guarantee of 1 year. Or 18 months.
> 
> Makes you think...
> 
> -smak-


I read that Leno has an on-air guarantee in his contract, though not specifically at 10 p.m. He didn't really want to be at 10 p.m. anyway. He wanted to stay at/go back to 11:30.


----------



## gastrof

smak said:


> Speaking of Conan's lawyers "messing up" by not putting 11:35 in the contract...


Isn't Conan now saying that the contract _does_ say, tho', that the Tonight Show is to air "after the local news"?

Sounds like 11:35pm to me.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

Well, it could be argued that 12:05 _is _after the local news...


----------



## JLucPicard

aindik said:


> He said he wasn't going to do the Tonight Show at 12:05. He didn't say that he won't do a show at 12:05 (though, he did make reference to not wanting to bump Jimmy Fallon from 12:35).
> 
> His letter technically left open the possibility of working at 12:05, but not on "The Tonight Show" (and, of course, because NBC won't let him host "The Tonight Show," NBC owes him the oft-mentioned pile of money).


I understand that all of this is in reference to time slots/demographics/lead-ins, etc., but it always cracks me up to see things stated this way because in reality, he would still be "working" at the same time he does everyday - sometime in the afternoon! 

And if anything good comes of all this, hopefully it will be getting rid of Carson Daly all together. Not that I watched his stuff on purpose, but the whole "sitting at the computer when Jimmy Fallon ends" thing. Can't stand that guy.


----------



## aindik

gastrof said:


> Isn't Conan now saying that the contract _does_ say, tho', that the Tonight Show is to air "after the local news"?
> 
> Sounds like 11:35pm to me.


He says that's what "The Tonight Show" is. He didn't say that the contract actually _says_ that that's what "The Tonight Show" is.


----------



## JYoung

JLucPicard said:


> And if anything good comes of all this, hopefully it will be getting rid of Carson Daly all together. Not that I watched his stuff on purpose, but the whole "sitting at the computer when Jimmy Fallon ends" thing. Can't stand that guy.


I feel the same way about Jimmy Fallon.
I watched his show last night because Ringo Starr was on it and Fallon was just embarrassingly bad.
It's sad when Ringo Starr is funnier than you are.


----------



## freeze12

Get rid of all the boring talk show morons!!


----------



## JYoung

smak said:


> Speaking of Conan's lawyers "messing up" by not putting 11:35 in the contract.
> 
> Didn't Leno's lawyers mess up by not guaranteeing him a much longer run at 10 pm.
> 
> NBC seems to be the ones that always wants to have their cake and eat it too. Why didn't Leno ask for a guarantee of 1 year. Or 18 months.
> 
> Makes you think...
> 
> -smak-





aindik said:


> I read that Leno has an on-air guarantee in his contract, though not specifically at 10 p.m. He didn't really want to be at 10 p.m. anyway. He wanted to stay at/go back to 11:30.


I thought that the scuttlebutt was that Leno had a "Play or Pay" clause for two years.


----------



## dtle

All these "BIH NBC" and second-guessing, BUT...

What would you have done given the situation a year ago:
a) Leno ending his contract but still wanted to work, either keep him or he moves to a rival network
b) Conan is owed alot of money if he didn't get The Tonight Show, and probably would move to a rival network.

I really don't blame them for trying to keep both, and save some money in the process.


----------



## DevdogAZ

smak said:


> Speaking of Conan's lawyers "messing up" by not putting 11:35 in the contract.
> 
> Didn't Leno's lawyers mess up by not guaranteeing him a much longer run at 10 pm.
> 
> NBC seems to be the ones that always wants to have their cake and eat it too. Why didn't Leno ask for a guarantee of 1 year. Or 18 months.
> 
> Makes you think...
> 
> -smak-





JYoung said:


> I thought that the scuttlebutt was that Leno had a "Play or Pay" clause for two years.


This. That's why NBC is offering Leno the 11:35 slot, because if they can him outright, they have to pay him a pile of cash. Leno will renegotiate his contract if they put him at 11:35, but not if they put him at 12:35 or somewhere else.

(Can't we merge these threads? I feel like I keep having the same conversation over and over again.)


----------



## smak

aindik said:


> I read that Leno has an on-air guarantee in his contract, though not specifically at 10 p.m. He didn't really want to be at 10 p.m. anyway. He wanted to stay at/go back to 11:30.


That's where the "makes you think" came from.

-smak-


----------



## fmowry

Conan invited Howard Stern to be a guest. It'll be interesting to see if he accepts. He's seriously considering it even though he's been loyal to Letterman for quite some time.

I just hear a clip of Rosie O'Donell's show on Sirius. She really ripped Leno. It seems like a lot of comedians are hammering Jay.

Frank


----------



## ElJay

I thought Conan really dumped on Jay last night. Paraphrasing: You can dream to do anything and accomplish it as long as Jay Leno doesn't want to do it too. 

Later on with Andy he did a hilarious look way back to a Tonight Show clip from August 2009, "when Barack Obama was president" and people were concerned about global warming and health care reform. 

Kenneth the Page also came by to do a tour of the former location of The Tonight Show. Conan insisted he wasn't gone yet but these last few shows really do have a sort of "farewell and good luck" vibe to them.


----------



## TiVo'Brien

If Conan goes to Fox, I wonder if he'd be able to take the show's recurring skits with him, i.e. Twitter Tracker, In the Year 3000, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, etc. Is that stuff the property of NBC?


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

smak said:


> Speaking of Conan's lawyers "messing up" by not putting 11:35 in the contract.
> 
> Didn't Leno's lawyers mess up by not guaranteeing him a much longer run at 10 pm.
> 
> NBC seems to be the ones that always wants to have their cake and eat it too. Why didn't Leno ask for a guarantee of 1 year. Or 18 months.
> 
> Makes you think...
> 
> -smak-


I think his lawyers did something smarter, they got him guaranteed pay. I believe it's a play or pay deal. Take him off, he still gets the money.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

ElJay said:


> I thought Conan really dumped on Jay last night. Paraphrasing: You can dream to do anything and accomplish it as long as Jay Leno doesn't want to do it too.


That just makes Conan look bad. Jay did nothing to him, NBC screwed him over. Jay left ( wasn't happy but he left ) and was happy to go back to doing standup like he has done every weekend throughout his tonight show gig ( hardest working man in the business for sure ) and NBC drove a money truck up and begged him to come back. Who wouldn't accept that offer.

Bear in mind that Leno is long past caring about money. He said long ago that he makes all he needs just doing standup and he has never touched his TV money, it just goes in the bank. He did it cause he likes to work.

It does now appear that even Leno, who hates change, is fed up with NBC and may walk away too. Nice move NBC...


----------



## pcguru83

TiVo'Brien said:


> If Conan goes to Fox, I wonder if he'd be able to take the show's recurring skits with him, i.e. Twitter Tracker, In the Year 3000, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, etc. Is that stuff the property of NBC?


If it's the property of anyone, my guess is it would be the property of Conaco (Conan's production company who all his staff are employees of).


----------



## FilmCritic3000

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43630

Apparently Fallon's going on Lamo's show for his [email protected] segment, whatever that is.

And here's Fallon's non-take on the late night wars...

http://watching-tv.ew.com/2010/01/14/conan-obrien-david-letterman-jimmy-fallon/


----------



## FilmCritic3000

BTW, I just ordered one of these.

http://imwithcoco.myshopify.com/products/im-with-coco


----------



## FilmCritic3000

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43630

Apparently Fallon's going on Lamo's show for his [email protected] segment, whatever that is.

And here's Fallon's non-take on the late night wars...

http://watching-tv.ew.com/2010/01/14/conan-obrien-david-letterman-jimmy-fallon/


----------



## FilmCritic3000

BTW, I just ordered one of these.

http://imwithcoco.myshopify.com/products/im-with-coco


----------



## ElJay

IJustLikeTivo said:


> That just makes Conan look bad. Jay did nothing to him, NBC screwed him over. Jay left ( wasn't happy but he left ) and was happy to go back to doing standup like he has done every weekend throughout his tonight show gig ( hardest working man in the business for sure ) and NBC drove a money truck up and begged him to come back. Who wouldn't accept that offer.
> 
> Bear in mind that Leno is long past caring about money.


Leno did nothing? I think if he did nothing he'd be on the stand-up circuit telling his Clinton jokes instead of accepting the 10pm show that kicked off this current problem. Even that would be all fine and dandy if Leno said no thanks to moving back to 11:35 during these current shenanigans and decided to head off to the stand-up circuit next month. Instead he seems perfectly ready to displace Conan from his current position. I guess Leno figures this is OK since he feels Conan pushed him out to begin with, even though Leno agreed to this succession plan in 2004.


----------



## Amnesia

FilmCritic3000 said:


> Apparently Fallon's going on Lamo's show for his [email protected] segment, whatever that is.


"Lamo"? Really?
What---are you 5 years old?



ElJay said:


> Leno did nothing?


So you think what Leno did wrong was to accept a job that offered to him (show @10)? And then he compounded the problem by being willing to do a show at 11:35? Wow---he's evil! He must be stopped!


----------



## bicker

smak said:


> NBC seems to be the ones that always wants to have their cake and eat it too.


Everyone does. All the time. In all things having to do with business. Leno, O'Brien, NBC, etc., all want the best arrangement that they can negotiate. And so should you.


----------



## bicker

DevdogAZ said:


> Can we agree that NBC and Conan are going to settle this thing one way or another long before this issue ever gets in front of a judge, so the legal rules for contract interpretation are unlikely to ever come into play?


Well, they'll still come into play, since they reflect what would govern the course of last resort.


----------



## Langree

IJustLikeTivo said:


> NBC drove a money truck up and begged him to come back. Who wouldn't accept that offer.
> 
> Bear in mind that Leno is long past caring about money.


So... he does care.

If he really wanted to do what's fair and right he'd admit he tried and failed, leave Conan to the Tonight Show and walk away.

After all it's not about the money.

I wonder what Carson would think of this mess.


----------



## FilmCritic3000

Amnesia said:


> "Lamo"? Really?
> What---are you 5 years old?


No, but that's the demo Leno's "comedy" appeals to.


----------



## Hoffer

Zevida said:


> Growing up on the east coast and now living in the central time zone I cannot get used to prime time starting at 7pm. It is just bizarre, weird and wrong.
> 
> I do wish I lived on pacific time for Sunday Night Football though!


See, I'm just the opposite. The idea of the 9:00 pm central show coming on at 10:00 pm seems way weird to me. I rarely stay up past 10:30. To have to stay up until 11:00 to watch a primetime show seems way late to me. So, I never watch any of these late night shows live. I haven't seen Jay Leno in a hundred years.

I also think it would be cool to be on pacific time. Monday Night Football ending before my bedtime would be pretty cool. I went to a MNF game in Tampa once like 10 years ago. The game didn't get over until like midnight or something. That was frickin crazy!!


----------



## aindik

IJustLikeTivo said:


> That just makes Conan look bad. Jay did nothing to him, NBC screwed him over. Jay left ( wasn't happy but he left ) and was happy to go back to doing standup like he has done every weekend throughout his tonight show gig ( hardest working man in the business for sure ) and NBC drove a money truck up and begged him to come back. Who wouldn't accept that offer.


He left, but he wasn't going to just go do standup. He was going to go do a late night show on another network. He agreed to give up the Tonight Show. He didn't agree to retire from television.


----------



## dilbert27

I cannot belive I am about to say this but I wonder if NBC considered taking a note from Fox and letting their stations have the 10:00 slot for their news and then move Jay to 10:35 and then leave Cohan at 11:35 this would solve the problems the stations had with Jay being the lead in for their news and also would solve the problem of having to move CoCo and the tonight show.


----------



## JYoung

FilmCritic3000 said:


> http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43630
> 
> Apparently Fallon's going on Lamo's show for his [email protected] segment, whatever that is.


That story has been updated to say it's Jimmy _Kimmel_ that will appear on Leno's.


----------



## aindik

dilbert27 said:


> I cannot belive I am about to say this but I wonder if NBC considered taking a note from Fox and letting their stations have the 10:00 slot for their news and then move Jay to 10:35 and then leave Cohan at 11:35 this would solve the problems the stations had with Jay being the lead in for their news and also would solve the problem of having to move CoCo and the tonight show.


I suggested that, too, way back when affiliates first started complaining about local news ratings. But I think Conan would object to that. His issue isn't that he's on after midnight. His issue is that he's on second rather than first.


----------



## JYoung

Langree said:


> So... he does care.
> 
> If he really wanted to do what's fair and right he'd admit he tried and failed, leave Conan to the Tonight Show and walk away.
> 
> After all it's not about the money.


By your reasoning, Conan should also walk away because he's failing in doing the Tonight Show.


----------



## Turtleboy

I think the threat of Jay going to another network really wasn't real. CBS has Letterman. ABC has Nightline/Kimmel --the only thing left is Fox.

Currently, Fox only broadcasts from 8-10, and the affiliates have the valuable 10pm news slot and usually syndicated shows thereafter. I don't think Fox would have ever really wanted Jay. 

First, he wouldn't get any decent carryings by the stations for years.

Second, a Network like CBS and NBC has to fill the time. Fox would be adding the time which would be a major undertaking, and every time they tried (Chevy Chase), it's been a failure. 

Third, Leno is well beyond Fox's demographic.

The original sin was NBC's in offering Conan the Tonight Show 5 years ago. They wre afraid that Conan was going to leave then. They told him, stick around 5 years and you'll get the Tonight Show. Jay agreed to it. He could have said no, but he didn't. Five years later Jay decides he doesn't want to retire. NBC should have told him too effing bad -- go to Fox or whereever. 

But they didn't. Jay forced them into this BS. He's at fault, and NBC's at fault.


----------



## terpfan1980

IJustLikeTivo said:


> That just makes Conan look bad. Jay did nothing to him, NBC screwed him over. Jay left ( wasn't happy but he left ) and was happy to go back to doing standup like he has done every weekend throughout his tonight show gig ( hardest working man in the business for sure ) and NBC drove a money truck up and begged him to come back. Who wouldn't accept that offer.
> 
> Bear in mind that Leno is long past caring about money. He said long ago that he makes all he needs just doing standup and he has never touched his TV money, it just goes in the bank. He did it cause he likes to work.
> 
> It does now appear that even Leno, who hates change, is fed up with NBC and may walk away too. Nice move NBC...





ElJay said:


> Leno did nothing? I think if he did nothing he'd be on the stand-up circuit telling his Clinton jokes instead of accepting the 10pm show that kicked off this current problem. Even that would be all fine and dandy if Leno said no thanks to moving back to 11:35 during these current shenanigans and decided to head off to the stand-up circuit next month. Instead he seems perfectly ready to displace Conan from his current position. I guess Leno figures this is OK since he feels Conan pushed him out to begin with, even though Leno agreed to this succession plan in 2004.


I call B.S. on this too (as ElJay has). Jay was every bit the guy that pushed out Carson at the end of his run and now the same thing has happened to him but he's *NOT* just retiring quietly like Carson did. (That would be because Carson had 10x the class that Leno did all along. He left the network and never complained, threatened, or otherwise did anything that would damage The Tonite Show.)


----------



## JYoung

FilmCritic3000 said:


> http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43630
> 
> Apparently Fallon's going on Lamo's show for his [email protected] segment, whatever that is.
> 
> And here's Fallon's non-take on the late night wars...
> 
> http://watching-tv.ew.com/2010/01/14/conan-obrien-david-letterman-jimmy-fallon/


http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7720304#post7720304



Turtleboy said:


> I think the threat of Jay going to another network really wasn't real. CBS has Letterman. ABC has Nightline/Kimmel --the only thing left is Fox.
> 
> Currently, Fox only broadcasts from 8-10, and the affiliates have the valuable 10pm news slot and usually syndicated shows thereafter. I don't think Fox would have ever really wanted Jay.
> 
> First, he wouldn't get any decent carryings by the stations for years.
> 
> Second, a Network like CBS and NBC has to fill the time. Fox would be adding the time which would be a major undertaking, and every time they tried (Chevy Chase), it's been a failure.
> 
> Third, Leno is well beyond Fox's demographic.


You forgot about Joan Rivers and Arsenio Hall.
Stll, Fox may want to give it another go. They can book Hall, Chase, Alan Thicke, Dennis Miller, or Jonthon Brandmeir to follow him.

ABC could also cancel Nightline and push back Kimmel 30 minutes.
I don't know what Nightline's ratings are but I suspect it's a distant third. Leno would probably perform much better.



Turtleboy said:


> The original sin was NBC's in offering Conan the Tonight Show 5 years ago. They wre afraid that Conan was going to leave then. They told him, stick around 5 years and you'll get the Tonight Show. Jay agreed to it. He could have said no, but he didn't. Five years later Jay decides he doesn't want to retire. NBC should have told him too effing bad -- go to Fox or whereever.
> 
> But they didn't. Jay forced them into this BS. He's at fault, and NBC's at fault.


Leno didn't force them into anything. NBC went into this with their eyes wide open.


----------



## aindik

Turtleboy said:


> I think the threat of Jay going to another network really wasn't real. CBS has Letterman. ABC has Nightline/Kimmel --the only thing left is Fox.


I think he very easily could have gone to ABC or Fox.



Turtleboy said:


> Currently, Fox only broadcasts from 8-10, and the affiliates have the valuable 10pm news slot and usually syndicated shows thereafter. I don't think Fox would have ever really wanted Jay.
> 
> First, he wouldn't get any decent carryings by the stations for years.


You mean the affiliates wouldn't take his show? I don't think they have much of a choice, at least according to Fox executive Kevin Reilly's recent statements about Conan. According to him, Fox always reserves the right to take 11p to midnight back from the affiliates.



Turtleboy said:


> Second, a Network like CBS and NBC has to fill the time. Fox would be adding the time which would be a major undertaking, and every time they tried (Chevy Chase), it's been a failure.


Chevy Chase (and Magic Johnson) are not proven late night hosts like Leno is.



Turtleboy said:


> Third, Leno is well beyond Fox's demographic.


This is true, but I think the, as you said, _alter kakers_, would have preferred news at 10 and Leno at 11. Even better if they could start Leno at 10:30. TV networks don't have to go after the same demographics at all times of day.


----------



## Langree

JYoung said:


> By your reasoning, Conan should also walk away because he's failing in doing the Tonight Show.


But he's not stepping on other people to get what he wants, you act like Leno is to be held harmless in this. Maybe initially he was. But his actions now show nothing but selfishness in his motives, screw how it affects these other people.


----------



## JYoung

fmowry said:


> Conan invited Howard Stern to be a guest. It'll be interesting to see if he accepts. He's seriously considering it even though he's been loyal to Letterman for quite some time.


BTW, what's the over/under on John Melendez crawling back to Stern now?


----------



## JYoung

Langree said:


> But he's not stepping on other people to get what he wants, you act like Leno is to be held harmless in this. Maybe initially he was. But his actions now show nothing but selfishness in his motives, screw how it affects these other people.


You make it sound like if Leno walked away now, O'Brien's ratings would zoom past Leno's old one.
I don't think that O'Brien ever beat Leno's Tonight Show ratings.

And how is Leno being selfish in wanting to work?


----------



## lew

Turtleboy said:


> Currently, Fox only broadcasts from 8-10, and the affiliates have the valuable 10pm news slot and usually syndicated shows thereafter. I don't think Fox would have ever really wanted Jay.
> 
> First, he wouldn't get any decent carryings by the stations for years.


This was addressed in several articles. Fox has O&O stations in major markets. Fox's contract with the affiliates gives Fox the right to make them carry a late night show.

That said Fox may decide syndicated shows are more profitable for the O&O stations and for the affiliates then a late night show. It's not clear if Fox wanted Jay or if they want Conan.


----------



## pcguru83

JYoung said:


> You make it sound like if Leno walked away now, O'Brien's ratings would zoom past Leno's old one.
> I don't think that O'Brien ever beat Leno's Tonight Show ratings.
> 
> And how is Leno being selfish in wanting to work?


I've posted this several times now in various threads, and still believe it to be true--Conan was presented a very unique scenario. Never before had a late night host had to compete with a similar show _on the same network, only an hour and a half before_.

There is no doubt in my mind that Conan lost a good number of lead-in viewers. Heck, if the nightly news was hemorrhaging viewers, what makes you think the program that _follows _the nightly news was any different?

I maintain that we never saw an accurate picture of Conan's ratings potential on The Tonight Show.


----------



## JYoung

pcguru83 said:


> I've posted this several times now in various threads, and still believe it to be true--Conan was presented a very unique scenario. Never before had a late night host had to compete with a similar show _on the same network, only an hour and a half before_.
> 
> There is no doubt in my mind that Conan lost a good number of lead-in viewers. Heck, if the nightly news was hemorrhaging viewers, what makes you think the program that _follows _the nightly news was any different?
> 
> I maintain that we never saw an accurate picture of Conan's ratings potential on The Tonight Show.


Conan was getting beat by Letterman back in August of 2009.



> With O'Brien, it has become a home for young viewers, and preciously few others. He's a particular hit among men up to age 34, and is winning among the 18-to-49-year-old demographic that NBC uses as the basis for its ad sales. Yet the show has lost 2 million viewers in a year: Jay Leno's "Tonight" averaged 4.6 million viewers each night during the last week of July 2008; a year later, O'Brien had 2.6 million.


Now at the time, O'Brien may have been winning in the 18 to 49 demographic but down 2 million viewers in a year is definitely a cause for concern.


----------



## DevdogAZ

ElJay said:


> Leno did nothing? I think if he did nothing he'd be on the stand-up circuit telling his Clinton jokes instead of accepting the 10pm show that kicked off this current problem. Even that would be all fine and dandy if Leno said no thanks to moving back to 11:35 during these current shenanigans and decided to head off to the stand-up circuit next month. Instead he seems perfectly ready to displace Conan from his current position. I guess Leno figures this is OK since he feels Conan pushed him out to begin with, even though Leno agreed to this succession plan in 2004.


Leno is under contract to NBC, wherein they have guaranteed that he'll have a show on the air for two years or they have to pay him a big termination fee. NBC canceled Leno's show due to affiliate pressure. They don't want to pay the termination fee. So what options do they have? The only viable one is the only one Leno would accept - moving back to 11:35. I'd love to hear someone suggest another reasonable alternative (Hint: it's not reasonable to suggest that Jay simply walk away, or that NBC pay his termination fee).


dilbert27 said:


> I cannot belive I am about to say this but I wonder if NBC considered taking a note from Fox and letting their stations have the 10:00 slot for their news and then move Jay to 10:35 and then leave Cohan at 11:35 this would solve the problems the stations had with Jay being the lead in for their news and also would solve the problem of having to move CoCo and the tonight show.


That's never going to happen. NBC makes its money selling ads on prime time TV shows. Why would they want to give up a timeslot in prime time in exchange for a time slot in late night where the ads bring in less revenue?

Also, as other's have pointed out, Conan would be just as furious as he is now if NBC moved Leno's show right before his, even if they didn't move Conan's show at all.


pcguru83 said:


> I've posted this several times now in various threads, and still believe it to be true--Conan was presented a very unique scenario. Never before had a late night host had to compete with a similar show _on the same network, only an hour and a half before_.
> 
> There is no doubt in my mind that Conan lost a good number of lead-in viewers. Heck, if the nightly news was hemorrhaging viewers, what makes you think the program that _follows _the nightly news was any different?
> 
> I maintain that we never saw an accurate picture of Conan's ratings potential on The Tonight Show.


There's definitely some logic to the idea that Leno's show likely siphoned off viewers from Conan's show, either because people watched Leno and didn't want to watch another late-night show, or because they didn't watch Leno, didn't watch their local NBC affiliate news, and therefore weren't on NBC when Conan's show aired.

But you can't deny the fact that Conan's ratings had plummeted to less than half of what Jay's ratings had been long before Leno's show ever started. If you look at the chart at TVbythenumbers.com, you'll see that from the beginning of June to mid-July, Conan's ratings dropped like a stone. People tried him out and many didn't like him.

So while it may be true that Conan was never allowed to reach his full potential, we do know that during the three+ months that he aired without Leno's show, his ratings suffered tremendously.


----------



## pjenkins

no clue if it's real: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/nbc-ceos-voicemails-for-c_n_422005.html


----------



## gastrof

This means, of course, that NBC must be destroyed for their inadequacies and replaced by a revival of the Dupont network.

There, Conan shall reign supreme.


----------



## DevdogAZ

pjenkins said:


> no clue if it's real: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/nbc-ceos-voicemails-for-c_n_422005.html


It's a bit done by FunnyorDie.com. Funny, but not real.


----------



## DevdogAZ

JYoung said:


> That story has been updated to say it's Jimmy _Kimmel_ that will appear on Leno's.


Now that's something I'll definitely watch.


----------



## FilmCritic3000

*NBC Universal President Jeff Zucker Threatens To Ice Conan: "I'll Keep You Off The Air For 3 1/2 Years"*

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/j...onan-ill-keep-you-off-the-air-for-3-12-years/


----------



## FilmCritic3000

*NBC Universal President Jeff Zucker Threatens To Ice Conan: "I'll Keep You Off The Air For 3 1/2 Years"*

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/j...onan-ill-keep-you-off-the-air-for-3-12-years/


----------



## ElJay

Amnesia said:


> So you think what Leno did wrong was to accept a job that offered to him (show @10)? And then he compounded the problem by being willing to do a show at 11:35? Wow---he's evil! He must be stopped!


Bottom line is that NBC was in fear that Leno would compete against them (from where I don't know) so they tried to keep everybody. Leno chose to accept the 10pm show and still come on before Conan. That has failed, now NBC says it_ still_ wants Leno before Conan, and Leno says alright! I could understand the short-sightedness of the 10pm move, but this idea of moving "The Tonight Show" to 12:05, along with Leno's compliance in it, is nothing but "evil."


----------



## DevdogAZ

I guess it depends on what kind of non-compete clause is in Conan's current contract, and what California laws are regarding such non-compete clauses. In Arizona, which I am familiar with, I don't think they'd be able to get away with 3.5 years, but one to two years might be considered reasonable.


----------



## DevdogAZ

ElJay said:


> Bottom line is that NBC was in fear that Leno would compete against them (from where I don't know) so they tried to keep everybody. Leno chose to accept the 10pm show and still come on before Conan. That has failed, now NBC says it_ still_ wants Leno before Conan, and Leno says alright! I could understand the short-sightedness of the 10pm move, but this idea of moving "The Tonight Show" to 12:05, along with Leno's compliance in it, is nothing but "evil."


And your opinion is nothing but hatred of Leno. Please answer the question I posed earlier in response to you. Provide what you believe is a reasonable solution to this problem. Should NBC agree to pay Leno a contract buyout that some outlets are reporting to be as high as $80 million? Should Leno agree to give up that money and just walk away, out of the goodness of his heart? Should NBC agree to pay Conan a large buyout clause and let him go compete with them? Basically, there's no answer to any of these questions that is reasonable, yet fits in with your anti-Leno bias. So you simply resort to calling him "evil" without any facts to back it up.


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> And your opinion is nothing but hatred of Leno. Please answer the question I posed earlier in response to you. Provide what you believe is a reasonable solution to this problem. Should NBC agree to pay Leno a contract buyout that some outlets are reporting to be as high as $80 million? Should Leno agree to give up that money and just walk away, out of the goodness of his heart? Should NBC agree to pay Conan a large buyout clause and let him go compete with them? Basically, there's no answer to any of these questions that is reasonable, yet fits in with your anti-Leno bias. So you simply resort to calling him "evil" without any facts to back it up.


Give Leno the fourth hour of the Today show. Put him on the air live (in the east coast) from 10a-11a.


----------



## 5thcrewman

gastrof said:


> This means, of course, that NBC must be destroyed for their inadequacies and replaced by a revival of the Dupont network.
> 
> There, Conan shall reign supreme.


It's the Du*M*ont network!


----------



## gastrof

FilmCritic3000 said:


> *NBC Universal President Jeff Zucker Threatens To Ice Conan: "I'll Keep You Off The Air For 3 1/2 Years"*
> 
> http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/j...onan-ill-keep-you-off-the-air-for-3-12-years/


This could well blow up in NBC's face. The "I'm with Coco" people are real.

Let's face it. Leno, on air, agreed to pass the baton to Conan several years ago.

When the time approached, he got cold feet, and instead of going along with what he'd agreed to, he started grumbling and talking about going elsewhere if he had to leave NBC.

They gave him 10PM to keep him. It didn't work ratings-wise, and now they're sticking it to Conan. People don't like it when corporate America does that to people.

Even people who like Jay will remember this, and it's gonna make bad blood between NBC and the viewers they so desperately want to keep/regain.


----------



## ElJay

DevdogAZ said:


> And your opinion is nothing but hatred of Leno. Please answer the question I posed earlier in response to you. Provide what you believe is a reasonable solution to this problem.
> 
> So you simply resort to calling him "evil" without any facts to back it up.


As I've said before on this topic, I'm expressing my opinion, which is at least 99% of the discussion on this forum and especially this thread. I don't need a solution since I am not Jeff Zucker. I expect NBC will let Conan go to greener pastures and move Leno back to 11:35 like they apparently are dreaming for. Then I hope Conan whoops his ass over on Fox.


----------



## FilmCritic3000

gastrof said:


> This could well blow up in NBC's face. The "I'm with Coco" people are real.


Indeed they are.

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/more-support-for-team-conan-vs-nbc/



> There are plans for a protest rally in front of NBC studios in Burbank tomorrow for the whole "I'M WITH COCO" campaign.


----------



## bicker

gastrof said:


> This could well blow up in NBC's face.


That's assuming (1) that it is the truth instead just a rumor started by someone who isn't an official source of official NBC information; and (2) that NBC actually does do what someone is claiming that they threatened. Even then, it only, as you said, "COULD" blow up in their face. It might just be forgotten by the vast majority just a few months down the road.



gastrof said:


> Let's face it. Leno, on air, agreed to pass the baton to Conan several years ago.


Let's face it. Conan O'Brien failed to achieve Leno's Tonight Show ratings, and as a result lost the yet-even utterly vacuous (because it wasn't based on any explicit promises) claim he might have had.

NBC must do what is best for their owners, within the context of the legal obligations that they've made. Period. There is *no other* legitimate foundation, whatsoever, for any decisions that they may make in this regard. We can disagree about what will actually be best for their owners, but there is no defense for asserting that some other criteria applies.

And has been the case, all along, since before 2004, since back before Carson left, there is not necessarily any perfect answer; it may simply be a matter of choosing among a set of answers, each one of which represents a compromise with regard to one or more considerations.


----------



## bicker

FilmCritic3000 said:


> *NBC Universal President Jeff Zucker Threatens To Ice Conan: "I'll Keep You Off The Air For 3 1/2 Years"*
> 
> http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/j...onan-ill-keep-you-off-the-air-for-3-12-years/


So claims Nikki Finke. I have seen no objective first-hand corroboration of that claim.


----------



## bicker

DevdogAZ said:


> I guess it depends on what kind of non-compete clause is in Conan's current contract, and what California laws are regarding such non-compete clauses. In Arizona, which I am familiar with, I don't think they'd be able to get away with 3.5 years, but one to two years might be considered reasonable.


Of course, state laws vary, but we can rest assured that state laws in CA, if they've ever thought about it in these terms, tend to favor the entertainment industry.

Beyond that, most state laws prohibit such conditions from preventing workers from making a reasonable living -- only Conan's mother would find that he couldn't make a reasonable living making public appearances instead of starring in a television show.


----------



## aindik

bicker said:


> Of course, state laws vary, but we can rest assured that state laws in CA, if they've ever thought about it in these terms, tend to favor the entertainment industry.


Don't rest too assured. California is one of the most anti-non-compete-agreement states in the union. Especially in an employment context (as opposed to in the context of a sale of a business).

http://siegler.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/noncompete-agreements-in-california/

That said, we have no idea whether Conan's contract contains a choice of law clause that chooses the law of a different state (say, New York, where NBC is headquartered and where Conan lived when he signed the contract).

I also don't know to what extent courts in California (if that's where this ends up) will enforce the choice of law clause that requires them to enforce contracts that are "against public policy" in California, and whether non-compete agreements of this type fall into that category.


----------



## JYoung

FilmCritic3000 said:


> Indeed they are.
> 
> http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/more-support-for-team-conan-vs-nbc/


I'm sure that Zucker and company are quaking in their boots.


----------



## YCantAngieRead

A related question.

Does anyone remember how Jay did in his first seven months at the helm of the Tonight Show?

I've been wondering that for a few days but I am too lazy to spend the time Googling to find out.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> Give Leno the fourth hour of the Today show. Put him on the air live (in the east coast) from 10a-11a.


While I don't think those are options that Leno would agree to (remember, his contract says 10 pm, so he'd have to agree to any modification), I'm glad to see someone actually being realistic about this.

The fact of the matter is, I don't think there is any solution that NBC can pose that would be acceptable to Leno *and* let NBC keep their money, other than putting Leno back at 11:35. And since NBC doesn't want to pay the buyout to Leno, they're going to do what they need to do to prevent that.


gastrof said:


> This could well blow up in NBC's face. The "I'm with Coco" people are real.
> 
> Let's face it. Leno, on air, agreed to pass the baton to Conan several years ago.
> 
> When the time approached, he got cold feet, and instead of going along with what he'd agreed to, he started grumbling and talking about going elsewhere if he had to leave NBC.
> 
> They gave him 10PM to keep him. It didn't work ratings-wise, and now they're sticking it to Conan. People don't like it when corporate America does that to people.
> 
> Even people who like Jay will remember this, and it's gonna make bad blood between NBC and the viewers they so desperately want to keep/regain.


I agree that people don't like what's happening, and the perception will always be that Conan got screwed. The problem I have is with people claiming that it's Leno doing the screwing. I've asked multiple times what people expected Leno to do. The haters seem to believe that it would have been noble of him to take some kind of moral high road and simply retire when NBC said he should. That's simply not realistic or reasonable. Leno loves to work. He gets paid a ton of money to work. He was at the top of his profession and #1 in the ratings. NBC made a huge miscalculation in 2004 when they decided to push Leno out the door, and NBC tried to correct that mistake in 2008 when they announced that they were giving Leno a 10 pm show. That decision was yet another miscalculation by NBC, which has compounded the problem.

Here are the relevant time periods where people think Leno did something wrong. Please tell me what he realistically should have done differently:

2004: NBC promises Conan The Tonight Show in 2009 and tells Leno they won't be renewing his contract after that. Leno reluctantly agrees. What other choice did he have? Should he have fought NBC and forced them to give him a contract extension at that point? Is there another realistic alternative?

2008: Realizing that Leno's stint on The Tonight Show is soon ending, that Leno is still tops in the ratings, and that Leno has no desire to stop being a late-night TV host, even if it's on another network, NBC comes up with the "brilliant" plan to give Leno a new show in prime time and they offer to pay Leno $30-40 million per year. What should Leno have done in that situation? Should he have refused that offer and gone to another network to compete directly with The Tonight Show (for likely much less money)? Should he have refused that offer and gone on the road to do stand up (for significantly less money)? Should he have simply retired, despite the fact that someone was willing to pay him $30+ million per year to do something he loves? Is there another realistic alternative?

2010: Faced with a threatened affiliate revolt, NBC has no choice but to cancel Leno's 10 pm show. However, because of the contract they gave Leno, if they don't keep him on the air at 10 pm, they have to pay him a massive amount of money (reportedly as high as $80 million). Because Leno was guaranteed a specific timeslot, and NBC is no longer fulfilling their end of the contract, Leno can either sue NBC, or he can agree to a modification. He has the leverage here, and can decide what modification he agrees with. NBC isn't going to put him after Conan, when Leno has proven to be more popular in the ratings. NBC isn't going to put him on The Today Show, since that would be a waste of Leno's talent and he likely wouldn't agree to it. So NBC proposes a compromise, where Leno gives up half his show (drops to 30 minutes) and it airs at 11:35, bumping Conan back by 30 minutes. Leno agrees to this, because it keeps him on the air and it prevents NBC from having to pay him a huge buyout (remember, he'd rather tell jokes on late-night TV than get the money). Should Leno have refused NBC's proposal and spent the next few years in litigation over the buyout clause? Should Leno have offered to do a show after Conan's, despite the fact that viewers prefer Leno? Is there another realistic alternative?

I'd love to hear the realistic, reasonable opinions of some of the Leno haters in response to these real-world scenarios.


----------



## BrandonRe

DevdogAZ said:


> Leno is under contract to NBC, wherein they have guaranteed that he'll have a show on the air for two years or they have to pay him a big termination fee. NBC canceled Leno's show due to affiliate pressure. They don't want to pay the termination fee. So what options do they have? The only viable one is the only one Leno would accept - moving back to 11:35. I'd love to hear someone suggest another reasonable alternative (Hint: it's not reasonable to suggest that Jay simply walk away, or that NBC pay his termination fee).


How about moving Leno's show to 12:35 to follow the existing shows?


----------



## DevdogAZ

YCantAngieRead said:


> A related question.
> 
> Does anyone remember how Jay did in his first seven months at the helm of the Tonight Show?
> 
> I've been wondering that for a few days but I am too lazy to spend the time Googling to find out.


I don't think the raw numbers will matter, because the landscape was vastly different in 1992, with little late-night competition from cable or even other broadcast networks. However, the fact is that Leno's numbers dropped after he took over from Carson, and they dropped again when Letterman's show started on CBS. It wasn't until 2.5-3 years after starting that Leno's ratings surpassed Lettermans.

Should NBC give Conan more time to find an audience? Absolutely. I think Conan is getting royally screwed here. But NBC is in the unenviable position of having two different late-night hosts under guaranteed contracts, neither of which wants to air behind the other. So NBC has to decide which one they think will get the best ratings today (or on March 1, when this new plan takes effect). Unfortunately for the "I'm with CoCo" crowd, Leno is going to get better ratings in the near term, and since that's all the longer that these execs can expect to keep their jobs, that's all they're worried about.


----------



## DevdogAZ

BrandonRe said:


> How about moving Leno's show to 12:35 to follow the existing shows?


Again, thanks for posing a reasonable suggestion. However, I don't think Leno would agree to air after Conan, and I don't think NBC would propose that, because Leno has proven that he gets more viewers in the 11:35 time slot. NBC has two hosts under guaranteed contracts, each of whom will only agree to air at 11:35. NBC has to decide which one is going to make them the most money. That's Leno.


----------



## YCantAngieRead

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think the raw numbers will matter, because the landscape was vastly different in 1992, with little late-night competition from cable or even other broadcast networks. However, the fact is that Leno's numbers dropped after he took over from Carson, and they dropped again when Letterman's show started on CBS. It wasn't until 2.5-3 years after starting that Leno's ratings surpassed Lettermans.
> 
> Should NBC give Conan more time to find an audience? Absolutely. I think Conan is getting royally screwed here. But NBC is in the unenviable position of having two different late-night hosts under guaranteed contracts, neither of which wants to air behind the other. So NBC has to decide which one they think will get the best ratings today (or on March 1, when this new plan takes effect). Unfortunately for the "I'm with CoCo" crowd, Leno is going to get better ratings in the near term, and since that's all the longer that these execs can expect to keep their jobs, that's all they're worried about.


That's a good point about the numbers. Still, I was idly wondering how long it really took Leno to find a stride. I was in college at the time and late-night TV wasn't exactly high on my priorities.


----------



## gastrof

bicker said:


> ...Let's face it. Conan O'Brien failed to achieve Leno's Tonight Show ratings...


Did Conan have the lead-in strength Leno had?

Would Leno have done as well in the same situation?

Your whole argument falls apart, and so there's nothing else to reply to.


----------



## timckelley

Give Conan the Tonight Show at the time it's supposed to air, and fire Leno from NBC, paying whatever contract penalties go with that. If Leno gets a job with Fox, so be it.

This is what will happen in my fantasy world, but somehow I doubt this is what will happen.


----------



## bicker

gastrof said:


> Let's face it. Conan O'Brien failed to achieve Leno's Tonight Show ratings...
> 
> 
> 
> Did Conan have the lead-in strength Leno had? Would Leno have done as well in the same situation? Your whole argument falls apart, and so there's nothing else to reply to.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. I wrote a statement you couldn't refute, so instead you decided to post sound bites that were irrelevant to the actual words that you were replying to, in a vain attempt to avoid the reality of what I wrote.

All that matters in business is results. Not excuses.

Welcome to the real world.



JYoung said:


> Your counter falls apart when you scroll back to the previous discussions of Conan's ratings.
> 
> In _August_ of 2009, O'Brien had 2 million _less_ viewers than Leno had in August of 2008.


That too.


----------



## DevdogAZ

timckelley said:


> Give Conan the Tonight Show at the time it's supposed to air, and fire Leno from NBC, paying whatever contract penalties go with that. If Leno gets a job with Fox, so be it.


That's a reasonable solution, although one that NBC apparently doesn't consider realistic. Why fire a host who has proven he can get great ratings at 11:35 and pay him $80 million, when you could instead put him at 11:35 and improve your ratings.

This would be a lot cleaner if NBC would just pick one and pay the other one off. But from a business standpoint, why shouldn't they try to compromise and get the best possible deal from both hosts?

BTW, thanks to the mods for merging the threads. It was getting a little out of hand.


----------



## JYoung

gastrof said:


> Did Conan have the lead-in strength Leno had?
> 
> Would Leno have done as well in the same situation?
> 
> Your whole argument falls apart, and so there's nothing else to reply to.


Your counter falls apart when you scroll back to the previous discussions of Conan's ratings.

In _August_ of 2009, O'Brien had 2 million _less_ viewers than Leno had in August of 2008.


----------



## pcguru83

JYoung said:


> Your counter falls apart when you scroll back to the previous discussions of Conan's ratings.
> 
> In _August_ of 2009, O'Brien had 2 million _less_ viewers than Leno had in August of 2008.


It's still not an accurate comparison. You can't compare the ratings of someone who has been in place for less than 3 months with a guy who had been in place for 10+ years. To expect Conan to come in and not skip a beat from Jay's stellar ratings is absurd and not realistic.


----------



## disco

JYoung said:


> Your counter falls apart when you scroll back to the previous discussions of Conan's ratings.
> 
> In _August_ of 2009, O'Brien had 2 million _less_ viewers than Leno had in August of 2008.


But how many viewers did Leno have in his first seven months of hosting The Tonight Show? IIRC, he failed to beat Letterman in ratings for 2-3 YEARS. And that was with killer lead-ins like ER.


----------



## pcguru83

disco said:


> But how many viewers did Leno have in his first seven months of hosting The Tonight Show? IIRC, he failed to beat Letterman in ratings for 2-3 YEARS. And that was with killer lead-ins like ER.


Yes, exactly this too.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

ElJay said:


> Leno did nothing? I think if he did nothing he'd be on the stand-up circuit telling his Clinton jokes instead of accepting the 10pm show that kicked off this current problem. Even that would be all fine and dandy if Leno said no thanks to moving back to 11:35 during these current shenanigans and decided to head off to the stand-up circuit next month. Instead he seems perfectly ready to displace Conan from his current position. I guess Leno figures this is OK since he feels Conan pushed him out to begin with, even though Leno agreed to this succession plan in 2004.


Please, are you really this naive?

Jay did not ask for the 10 O'clock show. NBC offered it.

He did not ask to be moved to 11:35. He said, as would any sane person, that if the slot were open, he would be happy to take it. So would Letterman, Craig Kilborn, Jimmy Fallon.... If Leno initiated any of the moves NBC made in the last 6-7 years, I've never seen it. Saying you'ld take it is no the same as asking. I think he did actively try to get the Tonight show but I think he was more interested in beating letterman than in actively moving against Johnny. Again, that move was made by NBC.

Every moronic thing done her was done by NBC for NBC.


----------



## JohnB1000

I'm finding this all very interesting  How about a compromise (sorry if this is a smeek) keep the show on 52 weeks a year (no reruns) and give them half the year each, alternating weeks or similar or give them certain nights of the week. 

I guess, as said, NBC wants to do whatever bring the highest ratings so those plans might not work.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Langree said:


> So... he does care.
> 
> If he really wanted to do what's fair and right he'd admit he tried and failed, leave Conan to the Tonight Show and walk away.
> 
> After all it's not about the money.
> 
> I wonder what Carson would think of this mess.


What does fair have to do with this? As long as he behaves ethically, he can do what he wants. He hasn't actively tried to shaft anyone but once the knife is in Conan's back, Leno can't extract it. He's under no obligation to fall on his sword to make Conan feel better. All that does is make both of them lose their jobs.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

aindik said:


> He left, but he wasn't going to just go do standup. He was going to go do a late night show on another network. He agreed to give up the Tonight Show. He didn't agree to retire from television.


He left after they asked him to. To my knowledge, he was never in serious negotiations to do another show thought I imagine NBC was plenty worried. I mean, isn't that pretty much why they came up with the idiotic 10 PM thing in the first place? Personally, I think NBC was and is worried about something that isn't going to happen. ABC and CBS are fine with their late night offerings and Fox isn't really in a strong position to add one.


----------



## JYoung

pcguru83 said:


> It's still not an accurate comparison. You can't compare the ratings of someone who has been in place for less than 3 months with a guy who had been in place for 10+ years. To expect Conan to come in and not skip a beat from Jay's stellar ratings is absurd and not realistic.





disco said:


> But how many viewers did Leno have in his first seven months of hosting The Tonight Show? IIRC, he failed to beat Letterman in ratings for 2-3 YEARS. And that was with killer lead-ins like ER.


As DevdogAZ pointed, things were much different in 1992 with NBC willing to look more to the long term.
That does not appear to be the case now.

Plus, I don't think that Leno hemorrhaged over 40% of Carson's audience.


----------



## bicker

IJustLikeTivo said:


> What does fair have to do with this? As long as he behaves ethically, he can do what he wants. He hasn't actively tried to shaft anyone but once the knife is in Conan's back, Leno can't extract it. He's under no obligation to fall on his sword to make Conan feel better. All that does is make both of them lose their jobs.


Yes, very true. People are trying to impose their own personal preferences on Leno, on O'Brien, and/or on NBC, and none of that makes any sense whatsoever. This is business. What matters are the contracts, and that each party makes the decisions that are best for themselves long-term.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Turtleboy said:


> The original sin was NBC's in offering Conan the Tonight Show 5 years ago. They wre afraid that Conan was going to leave then. They told him, stick around 5 years and you'll get the Tonight Show. Jay agreed to it. He could have said no, but he didn't. Five years later Jay decides he doesn't want to retire. NBC should have told him too effing bad -- go to Fox or whereever.
> 
> But they didn't. Jay forced them into this BS. He's at fault, and NBC's at fault.


I agree that NBC is at fault but how is Jay in your scenario? He was willing to leave but he was under no obligation to retire. So deciding he was willing to continue working is what he's at fault for, correct?

OK, let's take that. He could move to cable, fox, etc. He never had serious discussions with anyone. Why? Easy, cause the numnuts at NBC got nervous and OFFERED HIM a new show. He never asked for it, nor did he initiate that discussion. NBC did. Sorry, NBC is the only party at fault here. They made all the stupid decisions and ultimately, they're the one who will really pay the price.


----------



## ElJay

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Please, are you really this naive?
> 
> Jay did not ask for the 10 O'clock show. NBC offered it.


Nah, Leno said I don't want to retire and I'm going to compete against you guys at another network. NBC then said we want to keep everybody and here we are.


----------



## Steveknj

bicker said:


> Yes, very true. People are trying to impose their own personal preferences on Leno, on O'Brien, and/or on NBC, and none of that makes any sense whatsoever. This is business. What matters are the contracts, and that each party makes the decisions that are best for themselves long-term.


People impose their personal preferences everytime they turn on (or off) one of these shows.  Personal preferences are what are driving this business.


----------



## JohnB1000

I enjoyed Letterman's little joke when he was running through all the changes and said "Leno goes to 11:30, Conan gets all made and leaves and comes to CBS to replace me" It was the look on his face that sold it


----------



## DevdogAZ

JYoung said:


> As DevdogAZ pointed, things were much different in 1992 with NBC willing to look more to the long term.
> That does not appear to be the case now.
> 
> Plus, I don't think that Leno hemorrhaged over 40% of Carson's audience.


To be fair to the "I'm with CoCo" crowd, NBC *should* be willing to look more to the long term. Unfortunately, due to their poor decision making in 2004 and 2008, they are now stuck with guaranteed contracts for two different premiere late night hosts, and they can't both air at the same time. So one either has to air behind the other, or one has to leave NBC. If NBC could go back in time and do things differently, I'm sure they'd like to give Conan several years to find his footing. However, that's not the reality of this situation, and so it doesn't reall matter whether NBC gave Leno a longer leash in the early 90s. NBC wasn't facing the same difficult situation then.


----------



## bicker

Steveknj said:


> People impose their personal preferences everytime they turn on (or off) one of these shows.


And that's really the correct avenue for imposing one's personal preferences -- not with regard to the decisions other people make, but rather with regard to the decision you yourself make.


----------



## bicker

DevdogAZ said:


> To be fair to the "I'm with CoCo" crowd, NBC *should* be willing to look more to the long term.


Who's to say that Conan O'Brien is "long-term"? Someone completely apart from everyone we've been talking about may be the best path forward. Regardless, NBC, itself, cannot look further forward than the acquisition, because its current obligations will effectively end at that point. All efforts must be focused on making the NBCU asset worth as much to Comcast as possible, and then let Comcast assert its own priorities once it takes over. That's the only responsible course of action in this scenario.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

FilmCritic3000 said:


> Indeed they are.
> 
> http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/more-support-for-team-conan-vs-nbc/


So, all the unemployed actors who show up will become never employed actors. Smooth.


----------



## Test

JYoung said:


> Plus, I don't think that Leno hemorrhaged over 40% of Carson's audience.


Different circumstances, Carson didn't take most of his audience to an earlier "tonight show" at 10pm. He retired and left his audience with his old program.


----------



## JYoung

DevdogAZ said:


> To be fair to the "I'm with CoCo" crowd, NBC *should* be willing to look more to the long term. Unfortunately, due to their poor decision making in 2004 and 2008, they are now stuck with guaranteed contracts for two different premiere late night hosts, and they can't both air at the same time. So one either has to air behind the other, or one has to leave NBC. If NBC could go back in time and do things differently, I'm sure they'd like to give Conan several years to find his footing. However, that's not the reality of this situation, and so it doesn't reall matter whether NBC gave Leno a longer leash in the early 90s. NBC wasn't facing the same difficult situation then.


It's not like O'Brien was a novice either.
After all, he'd been doing Late Night for 16 years so he'd had plenty of practice doing a late night talk show.

I have no dog in this fight as I rarely watch either show and have no particular loyalty to any late night host.
And I find it highly amusing how emotional and irrational some posters are being about this fiasco.

But I agree with you that NBC is not thinking "long term".

IMO, NBC got themselves into this mess because they are and have been much more focused on the short term than the long term for a while.
I suspect a lot of this had to do with improving their bottom line to make themselves look more attractive to Comcast.


----------



## JYoung

Test said:


> Different circumstances, Carson didn't take most of his audience to an earlier "tonight show" at 10pm. He retired and left his audience with his old program.


Except that August of 2009 was _before_ Leno's 10 PM show started airing.


----------



## aindik

Trade Leno and America's Got Talent to Fox for House, Lie to Me and a procedural drama to be named later.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

gastrof said:


> Did Conan have the lead-in strength Leno had?
> 
> Would Leno have done as well in the same situation?
> 
> Your whole argument falls apart, and so there's nothing else to reply to.


Conan had the same lead in as Leno for 3.5 months before the Jay Leno show started. His ratings were always lower.


----------



## DavidTigerFan

Someone leaked (NBC Pres) Jeff Zucker's voicemails to Conan!


----------



## aindik

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Conan had the same lead in as Leno for 3.5 months before the Jay Leno show started. His ratings were always lower.


In August of 2008, Leno had been on the air in that time slot for 16 years. In August of 2009, Conan had been on for two months.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

ElJay said:


> Nah, Leno said I don't want to retire and I'm going to compete against you guys at another network. NBC then said we want to keep everybody and here we are.


So, how is that Jay's problem? He never said he would retire from television, he just agreed to leave the tonight show. NBC unwisely assumed that meant he would leave TV altogether.


----------



## Steveknj

bicker said:


> And that's really the correct avenue for imposing one's personal preferences -- not with regard to the decisions other people make, but rather with regard to the decision you yourself make.


Then thousands of lobbyists would be out of work, wouldn't they? I think people have the right to be vocal of their opinions both by not watching and by voicing their opinions so others listen. Vocal outpouring of opinions led to saving shows that otherwise would have been cancelled. Those same opinions have the right to help decide if a show SHOULD be cancelled. It's up to the network to either listen or not. Opinons influence other's decisions in a free society, don't they? SHOULDN'T they?


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

aindik said:


> In August of 2008, Leno had been on the air in that time slot for 16 years. In August of 2009, Conan had been on for two months.


So? Conan had been on NBC for 16 years before he started. When Jay started, he had zero permanent hosting time. Conan is the most prepared host in the history of late night. In August, he has the same lead as Leno had and came nowhere near the same ratings. NBC let Conan build an audience the first time cause he was making didly squat in salary. They paid him just a bit more this time.


----------



## timckelley

Oh well, I guess if Leno is killing NBC (according to this thread title), might as well finish the job. Let NBC finish dieing, and something will rise from the ashes, I assume.


----------



## Steveknj

JYoung said:


> But I agree with you that NBC is not thinking "long term".
> 
> IMO, NBC got themselves into this mess because they are and have been much more focused on the short term than the long term for a while.
> I suspect a lot of this had to do with improving their bottom line to make themselves look more attractive to Comcast.


Corporate America doesn't think long term much anymore...why should NBC be any different?


----------



## JYoung

Steveknj said:


> Vocal outpouring of opinions led to saving shows that otherwise would have been cancelled. Those same opinions have the right to help decide if a show SHOULD be cancelled. It's up to the network to either listen or not.


In all honesty, fan protests that actually saved a show from being cancelled are the exception as opposed to the rule.


----------



## TiVo'Brien

I think the thing that started this whole ball rolling was back in 2002(?) Jay publicly saying something to the effect "When I'm 50-something my wife wants me to retire so we can spend more time together so that's what I'm going to do." That led NBC to start to groom Conan as Jay's replacement. Jay changed his mind now and that's what screwed up everything.


----------



## timckelley

TiVo'Brien said:


> I think the thing that started this whole ball rolling was back in 2002(?) Jay publicly saying something to the effect "When I'm 50-something my wife wants me to retire so we can spend more time together so that's what I'm going to do." That led NBC to start to groom Conan as Jay's replacement. Jay changed his mind now and that's what screwed up everything.


In other words, he pulled a Brett Favre.


----------



## getreal

timckelley said:


> Oh well, I guess if Leno is killing NBC (according to this thread title), might as well finish the job. Let NBC finish dieing, and something will rise from the ashes, I assume.


The Phoenix* Network™.
I just called it here first.
Mark your calendars.

_* NOTE: "Phoenix" refers to the mythical bird who rose from the ashes -- NOT the city in Arizona._


----------



## bicker

Steveknj said:


> Then thousands of lobbyists would be out of work, wouldn't they?


Are you saying that you're a lobbyist?



Steveknj said:


> I think people have the right to be vocal of their opinions ... by voicing their opinions so others listen.


As much as others have the right to be vocal about their disagreement about the validity of the foundation of those opinions.

However, not watching a show because of feelings with regard to the principle we talked about earlier, is unassailable, by comparison.


----------



## getreal

TiVo'Brien said:


> I think the thing that started this whole ball rolling was back in 2002(?) Jay publicly saying something to the effect "When I'm 50-something ...


Considering the fact that Leno was already 52 in 2002, it seems odd that he would be projecting to some future time by saying "when I'm 50-something".


----------



## DevdogAZ

getreal said:


> Considering the fact that Leno was already 52 in 2002, it seems odd that he would be projecting to some future time by saying "when I'm 50-something".


I think TiVo'Brien's quote was simply paraphrased, meaning that Leno didn't say "fifty-something" he said some actual age for how old he'd be in 2009. Whether that's true or not, or whether Leno gave up his right to change his mind are different stories, but I don't think it makes sense to get into the "fifty-something" comment. That was just TiVo'Brien's way of representing what Leno allegedly said.

However, I would like to see some kind of evidence that Leno ever made such a comment. I know he's joked about that since being told by NBC that he'd be done in 2009, but I don't know that he ever actively told NBC that he'd like to retire at any specific point.


----------



## aaronwt

timckelley said:


> Give Conan the Tonight Show at the time it's supposed to air, and fire Leno from NBC, paying whatever contract penalties go with that. If Leno gets a job with Fox, so be it.
> 
> This is what will happen in my fantasy world, but somehow I doubt this is what will happen.


Mine would have Conan leaving and giving the Tonight show back to Leno. 
I can't stand the Tonight Show since Conan took over.


----------



## Fassade

DevdogAZ said:


> However, I would like to see some kind of evidence that Leno ever made such a comment. I know he's joked about that since being told by NBC that he'd be done in 2009, but I don't know that he ever actively told NBC that he'd like to retire at any specific point.


I think everybody is referring to this 2004 announcement, the original of which I cannot find, but there are excerpts quoted in this 2004 CNN article:



> In 2009, I'll be 59 years old and will have had this dream job for 17 years," Leno said in NBC's written statement. "I felt that the timing was right to plan for my successor and there is no one more qualified than Conan."
> 
> "Plus, I promised Mavis (his wife) I would take her out for dinner before I turned 60"


There is no mention there Leno said he was going to _retire from television or show business_ in 2009, just that he would be handing over the reins of The Tonight Show at that time.


----------



## TiVo'Brien

Fassade said:


> I think everybody is referring to this 2004 announcement, the original of which I cannot find, but there are excerpts quoted in this 2004 CNN article:
> 
> There is no mention there Leno said he was going to _retire from television or show business_ in 2009, just that he would be handing over the reins of The Tonight Show at that time.


Yes, that's the one. Thank you.

And for the record, 59 ~ 50-something.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

TiVo'Brien said:


> Yes, that's the one. Thank you.
> 
> And for the record, 59 ~ 50-something.


More like 50-just by the skin of my teeth-something.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Fassade said:


> I think everybody is referring to this 2004 announcement, the original of which I cannot find, but there are excerpts quoted in this 2004 CNN article:
> 
> There is no mention there Leno said he was going to _retire from television or show business_ in 2009, just that he would be handing over the reins of The Tonight Show at that time.


That article is announcing the fact that NBC had just signed a contract with Conan to replace Leno in 2009, and Leno had been told his contract would not be renewed after 2009. Leno was playing the good soldier in his comments to the press. I don't think we can read into that comment that he truly wanted to retire or that NBC made the decision based on Leno's wishes.

And how about this ironic quote from that article:



> The early announcement avoids a replay of the early 1990s, when the retirement of veteran host Johnny Carson touched off a behind-the-scenes battle between Leno and then- "Late Night" host David Letterman over who would be Carson's successor.


----------



## bicker

Ironic indeed... the reality is that the attempt to avoid a media circus, itself, was probably foolish... that regardless of what was done, that a media circus was inescapable. People must have a circus, or they will create one.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Wow, some people are really pissed.


----------



## smak

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think the raw numbers will matter, because the landscape was vastly different in 1992, with little late-night competition from cable or even other broadcast networks. However, the fact is that Leno's numbers dropped after he took over from Carson, and they dropped again when Letterman's show started on CBS. It wasn't until 2.5-3 years after starting that Leno's ratings surpassed Lettermans.
> 
> Should NBC give Conan more time to find an audience? Absolutely. I think Conan is getting royally screwed here. But NBC is in the unenviable position of having two different late-night hosts under guaranteed contracts, neither of which wants to air behind the other. So NBC has to decide which one they think will get the best ratings today (or on March 1, when this new plan takes effect). Unfortunately for the "I'm with CoCo" crowd, Leno is going to get better ratings in the near term, and since that's all the longer that these execs can expect to keep their jobs, that's all they're worried about.


So the other day when Leno joked about Conan saying he got 7 months, where Leno said that's great, I got only 4 months, he was kinda fibbing, no?

-smak-


----------



## smak

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Please, are you really this naive?
> 
> Jay did not ask for the 10 O'clock show. NBC offered it.
> 
> He did not ask to be moved to 11:35. He said, as would any sane person, that if the slot were open, he would be happy to take it.


No, any sane person would have said that somebody else currently has that slot, and ended it there.

-smak-


----------



## MickeS

smak said:


> No, any sane person would have said that somebody else currently has that slot, and ended it there.
> 
> -smak-


Is that what Conan should have said back in 2004? As far as I know, Jay had not indicated he was leaving when Conan accepted the job. Conan knew he would be taking Jay's job in 2009.

Saying "no, someone else already has that job" if you want it _and are offered it_ seems asinine.


----------



## marksman

dtle said:


> All these "BIH NBC" and second-guessing, BUT...
> 
> What would you have done given the situation a year ago:
> a) Leno ending his contract but still wanted to work, either keep him or he moves to a rival network
> b) Conan is owed alot of money if he didn't get The Tonight Show, and probably would move to a rival network.
> 
> I really don't blame them for trying to keep both, and save some money in the process.


I wouldn't have promised Conan the Tonight Show 5+ years ago, and essentially force Jay Leno to retire against his will.

If Conan was going to walk with no guarantee of the Tonight Show, it would have sucked, but it would have been what it was... Certainly would have been much better for NBC than what they had happen.

Things went wrong long before a year ago. Jay never really agreed to retire. it was more like, Jay will you be done in 5 years? And he said, "I guess so maybe."

It would have been different if Jay came to you on his own and said, "I want to retire in 5 more years, so let us go out with a bang." Then you locked up Conan to move to take over.

That is not what happened. Conan said he wanted to be given the Tonight Show at some point or he was going to leave. They essentially retired Jay in 5 years to make it possible and they got what they got.


----------



## marksman

ElJay said:


> Leno did nothing? I think if he did nothing he'd be on the stand-up circuit telling his Clinton jokes instead of accepting the 10pm show that kicked off this current problem. Even that would be all fine and dandy if Leno said no thanks to moving back to 11:35 during these current shenanigans and decided to head off to the stand-up circuit next month. Instead he seems perfectly ready to displace Conan from his current position. I guess Leno figures this is OK since he feels Conan pushed him out to begin with, even though Leno agreed to this succession plan in 2004.


How can you blame Leno for accepting a 5 night a week primetime tv show worth 10s of millions of dollars?

That is the point, Leno did not do anything wrong. If you think accepting a job to work on TV is doing something wrong, that is absurd. Jay never instigated any of this. He never wanted to leave the Tonight Show, he never begged anyone for anything. NBC essentially threw themselves at him because when they realized he wasn't going to retire they knew he would go somewhere else. Jay just wants to do a show. How does that equate to him doing anything wrong.

Same with Conan. Conan just wanted to progress his career. He wanted a shot at the Tonight Show. If NBC was not going to give him that shot, then he would try to get an earlier timeslot somewhere else. He was trying to improve is career. Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with what either Conan or Jay have done so far.


----------



## MickeS

marksman said:


> That is not what happened. Conan said he wanted to be given the Tonight Show at some point or he was going to leave. They essentially retired Jay in 5 years to make it possible and they got what they got.


The funny thing is that NBC didn't even have the balls to follow through on retiring him. They could easily have kicked him to the curb a year ago, but chose not to.


----------



## 3D

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, it could be argued that 12:05 _is _after the local news...


That might be true at 11:59 p.m. I'd say that 12:05 a.m. is without a doubt before the local news. 



DevdogAZ said:


> While I don't think those are options that Leno would agree to (remember, his contract says 10 pm, so he'd have to agree to any modification), I'm glad to see someone actually being realistic about this.
> 
> The fact of the matter is...


For space constraints, not gonna requote the whole shebang, but I agree with everything you said in this post.



JYoung said:


> As DevdogAZ pointed, things were much different in 1992 with NBC willing to look more to the long term.
> That does not appear to be the case now.


Ironically, in 2004, NBC decided to forgo much of the benefit of that long term thinking by prematurely engaging in more long term thinking. Hindsight is 20/20, but even someone outside the industry such as myself could see back in 2004 that they were pushing Leno out the door at least five years too soon. If Conan had left in 2004, bfd, they would have had ten years to groom another replacement in either the Late Night slot or by starting to bring in guest hosts from time to time.



ElJay said:


> Nah, Leno said I don't want to retire and I'm going to compete against you guys at another network. NBC then said we want to keep everybody and here we are.


For the record before I begin, I am not a fan of Jay Leno's comedy and can't remember the last time I watched more than a minute or two of his show in passing. Let's pretend for a minute that Jay Leno is the hotshot salesman in a typical office. He's been the best salesman the company's got for close to a decade and has earned the right to the best territory. One day in 2004, his boss tells him thanks for doing such great work. We've got high hopes for this kid Conan down the hall. We're afraid he'll leave for greener pastures if we don't at least give him a guarantee that he'll get your territories at some point in the near future, so we're promising him your job in five years. You love your job and, at the time, any other job you're going to find pales in comparison. You could obviously quit for reasons of pride, but can anyone really blame you for continuing to quietly work at the job you love for as long as they'll have you? Put yourself in that salesman's shoes when the five years are up, you're still the top salesman in the company, and they still want to force you out. There still aren't any better jobs out there, but now you don't have a choice but to leave. Is it really so wrong to say, F you. I've kept quiet for five years because I didn't really have a choice if I wanted to keep doing the job I love, but now you can all go to hell while I beat the pants off of your young hotshot by taking my act to another company. In the real world, most people would be high fiving that guy.


----------



## smak

MickeS said:


> Is that what Conan should have said back in 2004? As far as I know, Jay had not indicated he was leaving when Conan accepted the job. Conan knew he would be taking Jay's job in 2009.
> 
> Saying "no, someone else already has that job" if you want it _and are offered it_ seems asinine.


So you think that it's good sport to openly talk about what you would do if one of your colleagues is fired, because that's pretty much the only way the job would have come open.

Is that the kind of thing you would do?

-smak-


----------



## smak

marksman said:


> How can you blame Leno for accepting a 5 night a week primetime tv show worth 10s of millions of dollars?
> 
> That is the point, Leno did not do anything wrong. If you think accepting a job to work on TV is doing something wrong, that is absurd. Jay never instigated any of this. He never wanted to leave the Tonight Show, he never begged anyone for anything. NBC essentially threw themselves at him because when they realized he wasn't going to retire they knew he would go somewhere else. Jay just wants to do a show. How does that equate to him doing anything wrong.
> 
> Same with Conan. Conan just wanted to progress his career. He wanted a shot at the Tonight Show. If NBC was not going to give him that shot, then he would try to get an earlier timeslot somewhere else. He was trying to improve is career. Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Nothing wrong with what either Conan or Jay have done so far.


Most people don't get to fail up.

-smak-


----------



## marksman

Langree said:


> So... he does care.
> 
> If he really wanted to do what's fair and right he'd admit he tried and failed, leave Conan to the Tonight Show and walk away.
> 
> After all it's not about the money.
> 
> I wonder what Carson would think of this mess.


Leno wants to do a tv show. He doesn't seem to care about the money. All he wanted to do was to keep doing the Tonight Show and make tons of money for the network and be left alone.

The network took that away from him, and he still just wanted to do a tv show... when they knew that, they threw this primetime gig at him. He did it because he wants to do a tv show. That is what he wants to do.

Same thing now, potentially if he moves back. He just wants to do a tv show and be left alone. I am not a Leno fan, but people are being ridiculous trying to blame Jay for any of this.

All Jay wanted to do was do a tv show. I bet Jay never once demanded anything from NBC in this who debacle, other than to be able to do a show.

Let us go back in time to the Letterman/Leno/Carson Saga. Lets change what happened, and instead of Jay and Dave fighting it out, instead Dave demands he get the tonight show in 3 years, and NBC essentially retires Johnny without his consent. How well would that have worked out?


----------



## MickeS

smak said:


> So you think that it's good sport to openly talk about what you would do if one of your colleagues is fired, because that's pretty much the only way the job would have come open.
> 
> Is that the kind of thing you would do?


If I worked with Steve and someone else at work asked me "Would you be willing to take Steve's job if he is fired?"... and I was interested in that job... yeah, I'd say "Yeah, I'd be open to that, if I was offered it."

I don't know what's so bad about that.


----------



## marksman

Turtleboy said:


> I think the threat of Jay going to another network really wasn't real. CBS has Letterman. ABC has Nightline/Kimmel --the only thing left is Fox.
> 
> Currently, Fox only broadcasts from 8-10, and the affiliates have the valuable 10pm news slot and usually syndicated shows thereafter. I don't think Fox would have ever really wanted Jay.
> 
> First, he wouldn't get any decent carryings by the stations for years.


Actually from recent information, Fox has the rights to run a late night show on all the fox affiliates. However they realize it has been a tough time and would be careful with messing with the affiliates. However, if they did put a late night show on, they would pretty much have full coverage from affiliates.


----------



## pcguru83

It's being reported that January 22nd will be Conan's last night.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20336890,00.html


----------



## timckelley




----------



## MickeS

pcguru83 said:


> It's being reported that January 22nd will be Conan's last night.
> 
> http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20336890,00.html


That's just sad if that's the case. The whole thing is idiotic and sad on so many levels.


----------



## smak

MickeS said:


> If I worked with Steve and someone else at work asked me "Would you be willing to take Steve's job if he is fired?"... and I was interested in that job... yeah, I'd say "Yeah, I'd be open to that, if I was offered it."
> 
> I don't know what's so bad about that.


That's at work. And probably not right in front of Steve.

My objection is because it was in public.

Obviously if the NBC bosses came to Leno and said it, he's not going to say I can't talk about it because Conan has the job.

I just feel it's bad sport to talk about somebody elses job in public.

-smak-


----------



## getreal

smak said:


> Most people don't get to fail up.


 Yeah ... unless you're in Entertainment or the Financial industry.


----------



## marksman

bicker said:


> Of course, state laws vary, but we can rest assured that state laws in CA, if they've ever thought about it in these terms, tend to favor the entertainment industry.
> 
> Beyond that, most state laws prohibit such conditions from preventing workers from making a reasonable living -- only Conan's mother would find that he couldn't make a reasonable living making public appearances instead of starring in a television show.


I just talked to someone who had a lot of experience with non-competes in california, and back then they were essentially illegal. If Conan gave up any buyout or payouts, who should be likely to be able to go work somewhere else when he wants without consequence.

The laws could have changed since then... but that is how it was then. The thing is with non-compete stuff you can't contract your way out of it without consideration. So NBC would unlikely to be able to ice Conan without paying him a lot of money. There is little chance they could keep him from working without paying him. I also suspect he could refuse payment, and be free to work somewhere else as well... but not entirely sure on that.

I just think NBC is being stupid here, and they are pissing a lot of people off. Their network sucks. It consists of a weight loss show and some mediocrely rated sitcoms on Thursday night. They should be focused on fixing their sucky network and not on fighting with Conan or Jay. The funny thing is the people in charge, who are going to lose their jobs, can't do the right thing because they feel if they do the right thing they will lose their job. The thing is they don't realize they are going to lose their job anyways, so they should do the right thing, and be on their way.


----------



## Adam1115

So the tonight show with Jay Leno is back? Sweet!


----------



## Fassade

3D said:


> Let's pretend for a minute that Jay Leno is the hotshot salesman in a typical office. He's been the best salesman the company's got for close to a decade and has earned the right to the best territory.


I like your analogy because it makes me think of Alec Baldwin walking into a room of talk show hosts and telling Jimmy Fallon to PUT...THAT COFFEE...DOWN!


----------



## marksman

bicker said:


> Ridiculous. I wrote a statement you couldn't refute, so instead you decided to post sound bites that were irrelevant to the actual words that you were replying to, in a vain attempt to avoid the reality of what I wrote.
> 
> All that matters in business is results. Not excuses.
> 
> Welcome to the real world.
> 
> That too.


Do you ever say anything in these discussions that is not illogical.

To answer the question in the middle, no Leno did not have the same horrible lead-in problem that Conan got... So he had a much better chance to succeed.

NBC's ratings for lead-ins went down from when Leno was on the air until Conan was on the air because Leno was the lead in.

NBC, in their stupid mindset, which you are the only one who shares with them, didn't worry about all the horrible side effects that low ratings caused their network and other programs.

Instead they acted like they were in the first day of junior business class (much like your posts here bicker), and said, money money money for the one show is all that matters.

Not that you kill lead ins for affiliates and your own night time shows. Not that you significantly shrink the total viewing audience of your entire network which means you have only a fraction of the same audience to advertise you other programs.

There were all kinds of side issues that have cost NBC way more money then they netted on the tonight show for making this mistake and again even 11 year olds knew it would happen. The only ones who did not understand it, and seemingly still don't understand it are the NBC execs and Bicker.

In real business Bicker, you actually have to give consideration to a wide range of factors and impacts on your business. Any even small change can sometimes have large and often times unforeseen (or in this case easily foreseen) effects on the rest of your business. You don't make decisions in a bubble. You don't just do +/- for each show for revenue and expense, because network tv is much more complicated than that. Not so complicated though, that everyone else could have avoided this problem except for NBC execs and you.


----------



## 3D

Fassade said:


> I like your analogy because it makes me think of Alec Baldwin walking into a room of talk show hosts and telling Jimmy Fallon to PUT...THAT COFFEE...DOWN!


ABC baby, ABC


----------



## timckelley

Hmmm... So Conan is quitting then. Any chance that Leno won't take the job, and they'll have nobody to do the Tonight Show?


----------



## timckelley

Also, I wonder if Conan will go to another network, or if his current contract will stop him from doing that.


----------



## Johnny Dancing

TiVo'Brien said:


> If Conan goes to Fox, I wonder if he'd be able to take the show's recurring skits with him, i.e. Twitter Tracker, In the Year 3000, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, etc. Is that stuff the property of NBC?


My thoughts..


Conan can't go to FOX, Sarah Palin has that slot pegged already.

Letterman's break down of the situation is the only one that I can understand: http://bit.ly/8xSVAQ

So glad that Leno @10 failed - not that I hate Leno, but perhaps it will force ABC to produce some real TV shows during that hour.


----------



## bicker

marksman said:


> Do you ever say anything in these discussions that is not illogical.


Everything I say is logical. That's your big problem with what I wrote. You think that your own personal preferences is "logic". How myopic. Get over yourself. 


marksman said:


> In real business Bicker, you actually have to give consideration to a wide range of factors and impacts on your business.


Something which you clearly have no idea how to do.


----------



## JYoung

timckelley said:


> Hmmm... So Conan is quitting then. Any chance that Leno won't take the job, and they'll have nobody to do the Tonight Show?


(Jimmy Fallon's ears perk up)

Although I wonder if Letterman would take it back if offered?


----------



## ElJay

Letterman seems very settled at CBS in NYC. No reason to jump off of that gravy train into chaos at NBC. 

I feel quite bad for Conan's staff that did the cross country move with the expectation of having a job for a decade or two. I hope he has them covered somehow. That overall story of taking a new job only to be downsized a few months later unfortunately is not unique in this job market.


----------



## pcguru83

NBC is apparently leaking like a sieve today:

Leno and NBC Strike 1 Hour 'Tonight' Deal

Not that this comes as a surprise, but sure seems the writing is on the wall for Conan. How depressing. I've never been into late night talk shows at all, but I really loved Conan on The Tonight Show. I watched more of Conan in the last 7 months than I've watched in the entire 26 years of my life.


----------



## timckelley

I wonder exactly what's next in Conan's future.


----------



## jimborst

Johnny Dancing said:


> My thoughts..
> 
> 
> Conan can't go to FOX, Sarah Palin has that slot pegged already.


Umm, Palin is on Fox News not the Fox Network.


----------



## marksman

I am going to try and find it, but I found a weird google search for ratings history of the tonight show and it actually shows you the ratings by decades and you can drill down to years, and to months. They link to stories for each period.

So you can actually go back read stories when Jay took over in May of 1992 and new stories before and after that.

Just seeing something interesting. Apparently Carson over the years had gotten a bigger and bigger piece of the profits of the Tonight Show. I guess as a part owner. So much so that they say NBC's actual revenue as the ratings dwindled was essentially zero. So they were happy to bring Leno in, because they again owned 100% of the show.

I would note that even though Leno's ratings did not drop off from Carson (in fact looking at the weird google graph it seems like they went up slightly), I think if you compared the lead-in from the last primetime hour that he had then or at any time of his career compared to what Conan had this year it would not be close.

I don't think Leno ever had a an audience lead in as relatively small as Conan had this year, and that is part of the reason why this whole thing was a horrible idea.

Here is the google link for the history of the tonight show ratings

Which I have to admit is one of the coolest things I have ever found on google, and I don't even know how I found it.


----------



## marksman

pcguru83 said:


> NBC is apparently leaking like a sieve today:
> 
> Leno and NBC Strike 1 Hour 'Tonight' Deal
> 
> Not that this comes as a surprise, but sure seems the writing is on the wall for Conan. How depressing. I've never been into late night talk shows at all, but I really loved Conan on The Tonight Show. I watched more of Conan in the last 7 months than I've watched in the entire 26 years of my life.


Well that is half of the right thing to do.

The other thing is to allow Conan to go somewhere else without fighting him.


----------



## bicker

Info about the post-Olympics schedule is also beginning to come out.

UPDATED: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=20100114nbc01


----------



## Amnesia

marksman said:


> Here is the google link for the history of the tonight show ratings


That graph is number of stories, right? It's not the actual ratings.


----------



## DevdogAZ

smak said:


> So the other day when Leno joked about Conan saying he got 7 months, where Leno said that's great, I got only 4 months, he was kinda fibbing, no?
> 
> -smak-


Not fibbing, but talking about two totally different things. Leno's 4 month reference was to his 10 pm show, not his beginnings on The Tonight Show in 1992.


smak said:


> Most people don't get to fail up.
> 
> -smak-


Who's failing up (other than Lane Kiffin)? Leno's ratings were gangbusters when he last hosted at 11:35. There's no reason to believe he won't be able to recapture a significant portion of that audience if/when he goes back to that timeslot. Just because NBC's idea didn't work in prime time doesn't mean Leno failed and is now tainted. He's still a great late-night host and comedian.


----------



## Jeeters

Interesting article here offering insider info on what's been going down between Conan's reps and NBC's reps. Poor Conan.


----------



## zalusky

You know it's too bad. I really think the alternating week solution would have been brilliant.
1) No reruns -ever.
2) Leno can go to Vegas or whatever and do his stand up on his off weeks. Same with Conan.
3) Both fans get their man and they can appeal to both young and old.
4) Better competition against letterman and keeping the talent.
5) The tonight show retains it's one hour thing at 11:35
6) 10PM is back to normal.
7) Both hosts can claim the tonight show
8) Conan has time to improve his ratings and possibly take over in the future.

It's not gonna happen now but what do you guys think?

If they got past the egos


----------



## DevdogAZ

pcguru83 said:


> It's being reported that January 22nd will be Conan's last night.
> 
> http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20336890,00.html


That's too bad. I wish he could have at least continued until the Olympics started, but I guess that's only a two-week difference, and one of those weeks was already going to be a hiatus, so it didn't really make sense for them all to come back from vacation for one more week of show. I wonder if NBC will start Leno on The Tonight Show earlier than March 1 now, or if they'll just air re-runs for those two weeks.


----------



## DevdogAZ

zalusky said:


> You know it's too bad. I really think the alternating week solution would have been brilliant.
> 1) No reruns -ever.
> 2) Leno can go to Vegas or whatever and do his stand up on his off weeks. Same with Conan.
> 3) Both fans get their man and they can appeal to both young and old.
> 4) Better competition against letterman and keeping the talent.
> 5) The tonight show retains it's one hour thing at 11:35
> 6) 10PM is back to normal.
> 7) Both hosts can claim the tonight show
> 8) Conan has time to improve his ratings and possibly take over in the future.
> 
> It's not gonna happen now but what do you guys think?
> 
> If they got past the egos


I don't think it would work at all. People want to be able to tune into a show and have a good sense for what it's going to be. As the saying went about Johnny Carson's show, millions of people wanted to end the day being "tucked in by Johnny." There's some comfort to knowing who will be on TV as you're going to bed. I think viewers would find it unnerving if sometimes they tuned in and it was Conan, and sometimes they tuned in and it was Leno. Instead of capturing both demographics and increasing the overall audience, I think that instead they'd turn people away who didn't want to deal with not knowing who would be on when, and it would ultimately be a huge bonus for Letterman.


----------



## timckelley

zalusky said:


> It's not gonna happen now but what do you guys think?


That Zuckerman needs to be punished.


----------



## MickeS

timckelley said:


> That Zuckerman needs to be punished.












What did she ever do?


----------



## MickeS

I'm guessing Conan is happy now at least - "The Tonight Show" remains at 11:35 PM, like he wanted.


----------



## zalusky

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think it would work at all. People want to be able to tune into a show and have a good sense for what it's going to be. As the saying went about Johnny Carson's show, millions of people wanted to end the day being "tucked in by Johnny." There's some comfort to knowing who will be on TV as you're going to bed. I think viewers would find it unnerving if sometimes they tuned in and it was Conan, and sometimes they tuned in and it was Leno. Instead of capturing both demographics and increasing the overall audience, I think that instead they'd turn people away who didn't want to deal with not knowing who would be on when, and it would ultimately be a huge bonus for Letterman.


If it was alternating weeks you would know or Mondays and Fridays.
Carson did that the last few years with Jay on Fridays. So it's been done before.


----------



## getreal

Having alternating hosts would mean paying two full salaries for exactly half the work. Not a great business model. Surprised NBC hadn't thought of it already.


----------



## DevdogAZ

getreal said:


> Having alternating hosts would mean paying two full salaries for exactly half the work. Not a great business model. Surprised NBC hadn't thought of it already.


That's what they were going to do when they proposed Leno at 11:35 and Conan at 12:05. Now they're likely just going to pay one to go away, so they'll essentially be paying both of them for a little while yet.


----------



## TheMerk

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think it would work at all. People want to be able to tune into a show and have a good sense for what it's going to be. As the saying went about Johnny Carson's show, millions of people wanted to end the day being "tucked in by Johnny." There's some comfort to knowing who will be on TV as you're going to bed. I think viewers would find it unnerving if sometimes they tuned in and it was Conan, and sometimes they tuned in and it was Leno. Instead of capturing both demographics and increasing the overall audience, I think that instead they'd turn people away who didn't want to deal with not knowing who would be on when, and it would ultimately be a huge bonus for Letterman.


While I don't agree with the idea of switching one week Jay, one week Conan, I don't think the basic premise of your reasoning holds water. Johnny had MANY guest hosts, and the Tonight Show did just fine. Sure, people wanted to see Johnny, but enough people kept tuning in even when he had guest hosts.


----------



## DevdogAZ

So I wonder if Leno moves to Conan's brand-new studio. Seems like there was some talk on here last summer that Leno's digs in Burbank had actually been sold and NBC was just leasing back that one soundstage, but that most of their west coast operations were consolidated at Universal Studios where Conan's show is shot. 

If Leno doesn't move, I wonder if they'll make many changes to his set for the move to 11:35. If he does move to Conan's studio, I wonder if they'll leave it the same or change it up.


----------



## DevdogAZ

TheMerk said:


> While I don't agree with the idea of switching one week Jay, one week Conan, I don't think the basic premise of your reasoning holds water. Johnny had MANY guest hosts, and the Tonight Show did just fine. Sure, people wanted to see Johnny, but enough people kept tuning in even when he had guest hosts.


I don't think you can really compare it to Carson, though. He was really the only one doing late-night comedy, so people just got comfortable turning on NBC after the news. If it turned out that Johnny wasn't there that night, people didn't really have any other choice for a late-night comedy talk show. Today, that's not the case. If they like Conan but tune in and find Leno, they might switch to Letterman. Maybe they'll forget to go back and check if Conan is there the next week. I just don't see that working at all.


----------



## zalusky

TheMerk said:


> While I don't agree with the idea of switching one week Jay, one week Conan, I don't think the basic premise of your reasoning holds water. Johnny had MANY guest hosts, and the Tonight Show did just fine. Sure, people wanted to see Johnny, but enough people kept tuning in even when he had guest hosts.


Johnny did have many guest hosts for a while but in the last few years Jay was the permanent guest host.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tonight_Show



> Jay Leno; first run (19922009)
> Main article: The Tonight Show with Jay Leno
> First Lady Laura Bush and Jay Leno
> 
> Johnny Carson retired on May 22, 1992, and was replaced by Jay Leno amid controversy. David Letterman not only wanted to move into that earlier time slot from his late night spot after The Tonight Show, but was considered by Carson and others as the natural successor[3] (despite Leno having been Carson's permanent guest host for several years).[4] Letterman, having had his heart set on the earlier time slot, left NBC and joined CBS. Late Show with David Letterman, airing in the same slot, has been competing head to head against The Tonight Show ever since.[5] After Leno's run as host of The Tonight Show, Conan O'Brien took over as host.


----------



## DancnDude

I would imagine they would move into Conan's studio and at least have to redesign the band's area since Kevin and his band is significantly different than Max's.


----------



## smak

DevdogAZ said:


> Not fibbing, but talking about two totally different things. Leno's 4 month reference was to his 10 pm show, not his beginnings on The Tonight Show in 1992.
> 
> Who's failing up (other than Lane Kiffin)? Leno's ratings were gangbusters when he last hosted at 11:35. There's no reason to believe he won't be able to recapture a significant portion of that audience if/when he goes back to that timeslot. Just because NBC's idea didn't work in prime time doesn't mean Leno failed and is now tainted. He's still a great late-night host and comedian.


Jay didn't have to agree to retire in the first place. He didn't have to agree to come back, and agree to 10pm. It was his show at 10pm, and it failed.

Are you saying that doing that kind of show at 10pm was always destined to fail, or does the content of the show have something to do with it?

Don't get me wrong, 99% of this is NBC's fault. I don't fault Jay for wanting to come back, and don't fault him for taking the 10pm show when offered.

But it did fail, and when a show fails, it's usually on the creators of the show.

-smak-


----------



## DevdogAZ

smak said:


> Jay didn't have to agree to retire in the first place. He didn't have to agree to come back, and agree to 10pm. It was his show at 10pm, and it failed.
> 
> Are you saying that doing that kind of show at 10pm was always destined to fail, or does the content of the show have something to do it.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, 99% of this is NBC's fault. I don't fault Jay for wanting to come back, and don't fault him for taking the 10pm show when offered.
> 
> But it did fail, and that's on him.
> 
> -smak-


I don't know if a talk/comedy show would work at 10 pm, if things were done differently, or if it was destined to fail no matter what. Doesn't really matter.

Let me make my point by citing a similar example. Nick Saban was a great college football coach and won a national championship at LSU. He then decided he wanted a new challenge and decided to take the Miami Dolphins head coaching job in the NFL. He didn't stay there very long, and didn't have much success, but he was able to get another premiere head coaching gig in college even though he had essentially "failed" in the NFL. He just won another national championship with Alabama. The fact that his methods didn't work in the NFL didn't diminish his abilities as a college coach.

Similarly, Leno was a great late-night host. Things didn't work out for him in prime time, but that shouldn't diminish his abilities as a late-night host. The audiences are different at 10 pm and at 11:35, and apparently his schtick works in the later slot where it didn't really work in the earlier slot.


----------



## TiVo'Brien

Does this thread not show up in the TV Talk index for anyone else? I don't see this thead listed there.


----------



## Bill McNeal

My solution was to move Leno's show to 10:30pm, after local news gets the lead-in from 9PM prime-time. Both retain their hourlong shows.

I'm assuming this hasn't been implemented because affiliates want to stay on at 11pm. Of course, they could care less about Jay or Conan since the news makes more money for them.

The only failing-up I see here is Zucker. But given the current situation, NBC has to follow the money; Jay simply had better ratings than Conan. Conan didn't have as much time as Leno as Tonight Show host, and had bad lead-ins. But he's had 17 years to prepare, vs. Leno's none when he started. Also, Conan's 3-4 months of regular 10pm lead-ins weren't great.

I prefer Jay's show to Conan's. Although I wouldn't have minded shortening of his show to 30 mins (14 min monologue, 10 minute Headlines/Jaywalking/All-Stars, 6 commercials), since I don't care for segments like [email protected] or JMZ. Interestingly enough, Conan's hailed as having a lower average viewer age, but actually draws the same number of 18-49 viewers as Jay did, the difference being Jay had more older viewers to boost his overall rating. Conan's humor is nichely sophomoric, and Jay's is vanilla. But vanilla, like Jay, is the most popular year after year.

Bottom line is that Jay took one for the team in 2004 and was gracious in handing it over to Conan, even having him as his final guest. Conan's unwilling to return the favor by starting the show 30 minutes later so they can coexist. His "franchise destruction" argument is meaningless when his supposedly younger following have DVRs; we should still be able to find him even with a 30-minute bump. Regardless, his $20 million+ buyout should help salve his wounds until he gets another show that we won't watch.


----------



## smak

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't know if a talk/comedy show would work at 10 pm, if things were done differently, or if it was destined to fail no matter what. Doesn't really matter.
> 
> Let me make my point by citing a similar example. Nick Saban was a great college football coach and won a national championship at LSU. He then decided he wanted a new challenge and decided to take the Miami Dolphins head coaching job in the NFL. He didn't stay there very long, and didn't have much success, but he was able to get another premiere head coaching gig in college even though he had essentially "failed" in the NFL. He just won another national championship with Alabama. The fact that his methods didn't work in the NFL didn't diminish his abilities as a college coach.
> 
> Similarly, Leno was a great late-night host. Things didn't work out for him in prime time, but that shouldn't diminish his abilities as a late-night host. The audiences are different at 10 pm and at 11:35, and apparently his schtick works in the later slot where it didn't really work in the earlier slot.


But note in your example that Nick Saban didn't get his LSU job back.

I know he wasn's still working for the same company, but still it probably never even occurred to him.

-smak-


----------



## morac

TiVo'Brien said:


> Does this thread not show up in the TV Talk index for anyone else? I don't see this thead listed there.


A few of the threads were merged into one, so now there's only the "Jay Leno is killing NBC" thread which is at the top.


----------



## TiVo'Brien

morac said:


> A few of the threads were merged into one, so now there's only the "Jay Leno is killing NBC" thread which is at the top.


Not for me. 

For me this thread is missing from the index. Weird.


----------



## marksman

smak said:


> Jay didn't have to agree to retire in the first place. He didn't have to agree to come back, and agree to 10pm. It was his show at 10pm, and it failed.
> 
> Are you saying that doing that kind of show at 10pm was always destined to fail, or does the content of the show have something to do with it?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, 99% of this is NBC's fault. I don't fault Jay for wanting to come back, and don't fault him for taking the 10pm show when offered.
> 
> But it did fail, and when a show fails, it's usually on the creators of the show.
> 
> -smak-


I don't think Jay ever agreed to retire. He just went along with it. He knew they were going to give the gig to Conan. What did he care. It was five years away. He knew if he still wanted to do something he could get a job somewhere else.

NBC wanted him to retire. I doubt Jay told them: 
"Don't worry about it. Sounds good to me, I am tired of doing tv and never want to do tv any longer once the 5 years is up."

He didn't have to agree to come back. He agreed to "come back" because NBC offered him a ton of money and a five night a week prime time show. If your intention had always been to continue doing tv, which there is no evidence this was not always his intention, seems silly to pass on such a lucrative offer.

So it failed at 10pm. He doesn't care. NBC was on the hook to him for a lot of money and now he gets back the show he never wanted to leave in the first place, and probably ends up with more money out of the deal.

I think that kind of show was destined to fail. I think they felt with the way some British and Australian networks have success with prime time talk shows, it might work here... but it didn't, and it is not surprising.

I think the college football analogy made is a perfect one. Everyone knows Jay is very successful and makes a lot of money with the Tonight Show, so he can go back to doing that. Just because he tried something that was significantly enough different to make it hard to carry over, and failed does not mean he still can't go back to doing that.

In an another way, take a succesful comic who goes into tv or movies. They could fail at doing that, but then they could go back to doing comedies and be as succesful as ever. Perhaps Jay even picked up some new fans at the earlier time who did not see him before.

His biggest concern now is that this whole fiasco did a lot of damage to NBC as a whole, and thus it is quite possible because of a number of factors his audience will be smaller when he goes back on the air.

Although I suspect with the hype, it will be big initially.


----------



## JohnB1000

They would not be paying all the money for half the work since the show has so many reruns now. More like all the money for .8 of the work


----------



## DevdogAZ

Bill McNeal said:


> My solution was to move Leno's show to 10:30pm, after local news gets the lead-in from 9PM prime-time. Both retain their hourlong shows.
> 
> I'm assuming this hasn't been implemented because affiliates want to stay on at 11pm. Of course, they could care less about Jay or Conan since the news makes more money for them.


This hasn't been done because NBC doesn't want to trade an hour of prime time, and its associated ad revenues, for an hour of late night, with its lower revenues. 


TiVo'Brien said:


> Does this thread not show up in the TV Talk index for anyone else? I don't see this thead listed there.


What "index" are you talking about? I see the thread on the front page of the Now Playing forum. Since I'm subscribed, I see it on my UserCP page. But I'm not sure what this "index" is that's being talked about. Is it something different than those two things I just mentioned?


----------



## smak

marksman said:


> I think the college football analogy made is a perfect one. Everyone knows Jay is very successful and makes a lot of money with the Tonight Show, so he can go back to doing that. Just because he tried something that was significantly enough different to make it hard to carry over, and failed does not mean he still can't go back to doing that.


Saban was very succesful at LSU. Why didn't he go back to doing that?

-smak-


----------



## DevdogAZ

smak said:


> Saban was very succesful at LSU. Why didn't he go back to doing that?
> 
> -smak-


LSU didn't offer him the job. In this case, NBC did offer Leno his old job back.

But you're missing the point of the analogy. There are lots of details that are not exactly the same, that's why it's only an analogy. The point was that Saban's failure in the NFL didn't change the fact that he was still a great college coach. He didn't "fail up" as you put it. He simply went back to doing whathe was previously successful at.

Similarly, Leno was a successful late-night host. He failed as a prime-time host. No reason to suspect he won't be able to recapture his previous success as a late-night host.


----------



## mrdbdigital

Maybe Time Warner will step in and offer Conan a late night show on TNT. They seem to be wanting to attract a "younger, more trendy" audience with their programming. Time Warner has the deep pockets to swing a deal, and I'm sure they would enjoy doing it to spite Comcast. Conan and his staff could all move to Atlanta! 

You heard it here first, from an ex-TBS staffer.


----------



## TiVo'Brien

TiVo'Brien said:


> Not for me.
> 
> For me this thread is missing from the index. Weird.


Problem solved. I put the original, pre-merge thead on ignore a few months ago.

D'oh!


----------



## JYoung

DevdogAZ said:


> So I wonder if Leno moves to Conan's brand-new studio. Seems like there was some talk on here last summer that Leno's digs in Burbank had actually been sold and NBC was just leasing back that one soundstage, but that most of their west coast operations were consolidated at Universal Studios where Conan's show is shot.
> 
> If Leno doesn't move, I wonder if they'll make many changes to his set for the move to 11:35. If he does move to Conan's studio, I wonder if they'll leave it the same or change it up.


You are correct in that NBC/Universal sold off the old Burbank studio and West Coast Headquarters to consolidate at Universal.
NBC is currently renting the space for Leno's studio from the current owner.

As for the studio change, I had a similar thought myself. Not sure if they'd stay at 3000 Alameda or move to Universal.


----------



## jk5598224

After continuing to read this thread, I STILLL don't understand why they don't fire or suspend Leno, and give Conan a chance. I would imagine his ratings are hurt by Leno, then the news, THEN Conan. Who on earth would want to watch over two hours of a talk show (or more) a night with the news in between....

Also can''t believe they haven't fired Zucker yet. He seems to be sitting pretty still....


----------



## smak

JYoung said:


> You are correct in that NBC/Universal sold off the old Burbank studio and West Coast Headquarters to consolidate at Universal.
> NBC is currently renting the space for Leno's studio from the current owner.
> 
> As for the studio change, I had a similar thought myself. Not sure if they'd stay at 3000 Alameda or move to Universal.


Weren't they planning on building a brand new studio off of Lankershim? Near the subway?

-smak-


----------



## Michael S

I think until they get this mess straightened out no one should get The Tonight Show. They should just show old Johnny Carson reruns instead.


----------



## marksman

Michael S said:


> I think until they get this mess straightened out no one should get The Tonight Show. They should just show old Johnny Carson reruns instead.


Funny thing is there are not many shows that are available of the early tonight show because they used to tape them, and then to save money re-use the tapes to record other stuff later on.

I was wondering earlier why some cable network or something hadn't run like all the tonight shows or something, but I think a lot of the old shows are not even available.


----------



## Amnesia

jk5598224 said:


> After continuing to read this thread, I STILLL don't understand why they don't fire or suspend Leno, and give Conan a chance.


Again: if they have a choice between Leno (who has proven he can beat Letterman head-to-head) and Conan (who, at best, has not proven that) why would they go with Conan?

This is business. It's not about giving people "chances"...


----------



## Michael S

marksman said:


> Funny thing is there are not many shows that are available of the early tonight show because they used to tape them, and then to save money re-use the tapes to record other stuff later on.
> 
> I was wondering earlier why some cable network or something hadn't run like all the tonight shows or something, but I think a lot of the old shows are not even available.


I think Bravo or CNBC one of them use to show old Carson way back then. I know that Reelz Channel does Carson Comedy Classics at 6pm cst.


----------



## terpfan1980

Not that I'm wishing this, but I think it would be incredibly ironic if Leno was struck ill soon after he gets the show back leaving no proven talent to be the host of The Tonite Show (assuming NBC lets Conan leave).

To get back more into the spirit of the discussion something that the Leno lovers and/or defenders are missing is that while Leno had been winning against Letterman *both* Leno and Letterman have been getting older along with their audiences. NBC may find themselves looking back with hindsight and cursing the day that they again choose to go with their man and keep Leno as they get back some ratings but then find themselves with the problem of the audience aging away on them.

Finally, there's no guarantee that the Leno audience even sticks around if he does go back to 11:35. Yeah, yeah, I know they were there before and that some percentage stuck with him in the 10pm time frame, but that audience was slowly but surely dropping as well. If he was left on the air at 10pm it's possible he'd have driven all but the most diehard of fans away from himself and NBC. (Some would say that had already been happening). While Conan wasn't picking up any audience himself, and was probably dropping back down near his core numbers, as has been pointed out by some here he had a pretty weak line-up ahead of him. NBC was broken long before they tried to put Conan in at 11:35 and without a healthy prime time line-up it wasn't very likely Conan was going to be able to draw in new fans. Yeah, he probably lost Leno viewers who didn't care for his style and weren't willing to give the young whipper-snapper a chance, but eventually they might come back. (They may come back for Leno now, but as some come back the Coco fans are likely to be leaving and following their guy elsewhere.)


----------



## kmccbf

My wife just "discovered" Leno. She always falls asleep before the tonight show came on and didn't want to Tivo just to see if she might like it. I tend to watch the earlier show more as well, just because she likes it. I like the tonight show format better though. 

But I think that Conan would do well with the tonight show if he re-vamps it a bit, like Leno did and make it more his own. Personally, I would rather see Leno do a prime time weekend show.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

I was having a discussion over dinner IRL and one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the folks really getting a raw deal are Conan's staff. Many of them uprooted, sold houses, bought new ones, moved kids, kit and kaboodle and now they're out of work. That my friends is a considerably nasty deal. Whatever happens Conan and Jay both have more money than they need and will get more in some fashion, but the staffs of both shows are worse off and Conan's the worse of the two. Crappy outcome for being loyal to their boss.


----------



## Amnesia

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Crappy outcome for being loyal to their boss.


Yes. But who's to blame? NBC for wanting Conan to move timeslots ("not giving him a chance") or Conan for refusing to move and thereby pretty much ensuring his own ouster?


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Amnesia said:


> Yes. But who's to blame? NBC for wanting Conan to move timeslots ("not giving him a chance") or Conan for refusing to move and thereby pretty much ensuring his own ouster?


I make no claim about it in my post but I said what I think earlier. Regardless a crappy way to start a year.


----------



## MickeS

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I was having a discussion over dinner IRL and one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the folks really getting a raw deal are Conan's staff. Many of them uprooted, sold houses, bought new ones, moved kids, kit and kaboodle and now they're out of work. That my friends is a considerably nasty deal. Whatever happens Conan and Jay both have more money than they need and will get more in some fashion, but the staffs of both shows are worse off and Conan's the worse of the two. Crappy outcome for being loyal to their boss.


I agree. But maybe they were behind Conan in all of this too.

Looking at it from the outside, I have to say it seems a little dumb for Conan to be so adamant about the 11:35 spot...


----------



## mrdbdigital

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I was having a discussion over dinner IRL and one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the folks really getting a raw deal are Conan's staff. Many of them uprooted, sold houses, bought new ones, moved kids, kit and kaboodle and now they're out of work. That my friends is a considerably nasty deal. Whatever happens Conan and Jay both have more money than they need and will get more in some fashion, but the staffs of both shows are worse off and Conan's the worse of the two. Crappy outcome for being loyal to their boss.


Not at all unusual in the television industry. I think Conan will take care of them, if he is a man of honor.

And it was mentioned earlier in the thread, where I mentioned that if Conan moved to a new network, he would probably make it a condition of his employment that the new network take care of his staff. That's also fairly common at these levels.


----------



## Neenahboy

mrdbdigital said:


> Maybe Time Warner will step in and offer Conan a late night show on TNT. They seem to be wanting to attract a "younger, more trendy" audience with their programming. Time Warner has the deep pockets to swing a deal, and I'm sure they would enjoy doing it to spite Comcast. Conan and his staff could all move to Atlanta!
> 
> You heard it here first, from an ex-TBS staffer.


Never gonna happen.

They've gone to great pains to ensure that TBS is thought of as "very funny" and TNT as a channel that "knows drama." There's no way they would change that dynamic, and there's also no way they'd give him TBS and cannibalize Lopez Tonight.


----------



## mrdbdigital

Neenahboy said:


> Never gonna happen.
> 
> They've gone to great pains to ensure that TBS is thought of as "very funny" and TNT as a channel that "knows drama." There's no way they would change that dynamic, and there's also no way they'd give him TBS and cannibalize Lopez Tonight.


Naw, they wouldn't pass up a chance to be able to air Conan in "Stretch-O-Vision". 

They have some executives at the Turner networks that are about as flakey as Zucker at NBC. You never know what they might do. They don't consider TBS and TNT to be in competition since they program them completely differently. There's no over riding reason why TNT couldn't air a late night comedy block if they wanted to.


----------



## mrdazzo7

Wait is Jay Leno's show moving to 11:35, or is he actually resuming control of "The Tonight Show" itself.... confused...


----------



## Turtleboy

mrdazzo7 said:


> Wait is Jay Leno's show moving to 11:35, or is he actually resuming control of "The Tonight Show" itself.... confused...


Nothing has officially been announced yet, but it looks like he's taking the Tonight Show back.


----------



## mrdbdigital

mrdazzo7 said:


> Wait is Jay Leno's show moving to 11:35, or is he actually resuming control of "The Tonight Show" itself.... confused...


They are reporting here: http://www.tmz.com/2010/01/14/jay-leno-conan-obrien-nbc-the-tonight-show/ that Leno is re-taking The Tonight Show at 11:35PM.


----------



## Langree

I think Kimmel is slamming Jay on the 10 @ 10.


----------



## mattack

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think you can really compare it to Carson, though. He was really the only one doing late-night comedy, so people just got comfortable turning on NBC after the news.


Is that true? I'm not old enough, but I thought some other comedians (including previous hosts of the Tonight Show) tried going against Johnny way back when.. (i.e. 60s)

Also, a tangential question. Was Letterman the first post-TS talk show? (Oh wait, there was the Tomorrow show, which IMDB says started in 1973.. Was that the first?)


----------



## LoadStar

Langree said:


> I think Kimmel is slamming Jay on the 10 @ 10.


Yeah, that was a bit uncomfortable. Not only was he doing so directly in front of Jay, he wasn't being very funny.

Of course, the satellite thing didn't help, because that added in a delay, And as you know, half of comedy is

timing.


----------



## Langree

LoadStar said:


> Yeah, that was a bit uncomfortable. Not only was he doing so directly in front of Jay, he wasn't being very funny.
> 
> Of course, the satellite thing didn't help, because that added in a delay, And as you know, half of comedy is
> 
> timing.


I liked it and it took balls for Kimmel to do it.


----------



## marksman

Kimmel is a big fan of Jay and very friendly with him. They know each other fairly well. Any making fun of certainly was not likely meant with the intent to harm.

I actually taped Leno tonight because Kimmel was on there. Heck Jimmy did his whole show as Jay the other night. From everything I have heard though, Jimmy is a big fan of Jay, and likes him a lot.


----------



## Neenahboy

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/sfv/clt/1551463643.html


----------



## Langree

Neenahboy said:


> http://losangeles.craigslist.org/sfv/clt/1551463643.html


just saw that.. awesome!


----------



## DVC California

Found this clip of Letterman dropping in on Conan's 3rd Anniversary at Late Nite. Kinda prophetic.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TalkVid#p/u/148/-VEiCeMSZP4


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> This hasn't been done because NBC doesn't want to trade an hour of prime time, and its associated ad revenues, for an hour of late night, with its lower revenues.


By putting Jay Leno on at 10 p.m., that's exactly what they decided they wanted to do.

Ad revenue in prime time isn't higher because it's prime time. It's higher because more people are watching. When more people aren't watching (because you're showing a late night show getting late night ratings), you make the same money you make in late night.

Jay Leno drawing Jay Leno numbers is going to generate Jay Leno revenue, no matter when he's on.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> By putting Jay Leno on at 10 p.m., that's exactly what they decided they wanted to do.
> 
> Ad revenue in prime time isn't higher because it's prime time. It's higher because more people are watching. When more people aren't watching (because you're showing a late night show getting late night ratings), you make the same money you make in late night.
> 
> Jay Leno drawing Jay Leno numbers is going to generate Jay Leno revenue, no matter when he's on.


That's apparent now, but a year ago NBC apparently thought it was a good move. Either way, I don't think they anticipated that ad revenues for a prime time show would be as low as a late night show (and I'm not sure they were).


----------



## MickeS

I just noticed that Jay had better ratings than his lead-in "Heroes" did on Monday.


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> That's apparent now, but a year ago NBC apparently thought it was a good move. Either way, I don't think they anticipated that ad revenues for a prime time show would be as low as a late night show (and I'm not sure they were).


I'm not talking about the results. I'm talking about the decision at the time. Back then, the decision they made was to put a late night show in prime time, and then predict that it would get late night ratings.


----------



## smak

Jay to Conan on his ratings spike the few days leading up to the day he loses his dream job.

"You're welcome"

-smak-


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> I'm not talking about the results. I'm talking about the decision at the time. Back then, the decision they made was to put a late night show in prime time, and then predict that it would get late night ratings.


I still don't believe that they really thought the show would get the 1.5 ratings they claim they were OK with. I think the people who made this decision really thought they had a genius idea on their hands and that there was some pent up demand for something other than crime procedural and soap operas at 10 pm. I don't think the people who ultimately made that decision honestly thought the ratings would be so low. If they did, I don't think they'd have made that decision.


----------



## JYoung

MickeS said:


> I just noticed that Jay had better ratings than his lead-in "Heroes" did on Monday.


I believe that's more indicative of how poorly Heroes is doing, not how well Leno is.

Apparently, Heroes' ratings dropped like a concrete block on Jupiter this week.


----------



## MickeS

JYoung said:


> I believe that's more indicative of how poorly Heroes is doing, not how well Leno is.
> 
> Apparently, Heroes' ratings dropped like a concrete block on Jupiter this week.


Oh, I agree. But just to put it into perspective - while Leno's ratings are low, it's not like he's miles behind everything else in prime time every night, which is almost the impression one gets while reading about it. Leno has also beaten ABCs "the forgotten" several times, IIRC.


----------



## aindik

Kimmel on Leno's show:


> Leno asked him to describe the best prank he ever pulled. Kimmel answered: "I told a guy that five years from now, I'm going to give you my show. Then when the five years came, I took it back almost instantly."


http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/01/jimmy_kimmel_represents_team_c.html#ixzz0cf5DE91M


----------



## MickeS

I watched that [email protected] interview with Kimmel. Leno seemed pretty good-natured about the whole thing. I didn't think it was as described in the blurb above. Certainly, Jay would have expected it, based on Kimmel last night.


----------



## smak

MickeS said:


> Oh, I agree. But just to put it into perspective - while Leno's ratings are low, it's not like he's miles behind everything else in prime time every night, which is almost the impression one gets while reading about it. Leno has also beaten ABCs "the forgotten" several times, IIRC.


Yah, but a lot of basic cable stuff has beaten him as well.

I don't think he'd get the same advertising dollars another show would get even with the same overall ratings, because of the demographics.

-smak-


----------



## marksman

MickeS said:


> I watched that [email protected] interview with Kimmel. Leno seemed pretty good-natured about the whole thing. I didn't think it was as described in the blurb above. Certainly, Jay would have expected it, based on Kimmel last night.


Yeah I just watched it. Didn't seem mean spirited at all. Jimmy is just very direct and won't beat around the bush, even about touchy subjects. So he laid it into Jay a bit.

I do think the satellite aspect threw off the timing a bit, but I don't think it was bad, nor do I think Jay was upset about it.


----------



## marksman

JYoung said:


> I believe that's more indicative of how poorly Heroes is doing, not how well Leno is.
> 
> Apparently, Heroes' ratings dropped like a concrete block on Jupiter this week.


This is one of the side-effects of going for a smaller audience to essentially make the same or smaller profit, and I have said it all along. Advertising to your own viewers is worth a lot to a network. By repeating the same show 5 nights a week you reduce the overall viewerbase of the network substantially.

I suspect 85% of leno's audience is the same people every night. That would not be the same of 5 different dramas, even if they had the same ratings. This means less overall exposure not only for advertisers, but for your own in house advertising.

All of a sudden running promos of a show like Heroes, is now reaching a much smaller audience.


----------



## JYoung

smak said:


> Weren't they planning on building a brand new studio off of Lankershim? Near the subway?
> 
> -smak-


You are correct. Right next to/over the Metro Station.
IIRC, they are supposed to be new studios for KNBC NEWS.


----------



## Michelle5150

marksman said:


> Kimmel is a big fan of Jay and very friendly with him. They know each other fairly well. Any making fun of certainly was not likely meant with the intent to harm.
> 
> I actually taped Leno tonight because Kimmel was on there. Heck Jimmy did his whole show as Jay the other night. From everything I have heard though, Jimmy is a big fan of Jay, and likes him a lot.


Jimmy Kimmel is a HUGE Letterman fan. Has been his whole life according to Adam Carolla (_who talked about it recently._) I don't know how much Jimmy likes or dislikes Leno, but there's no question that he's a much bigger fan of Dave.

I'm certain that his [email protected] answers were a bit of a ***** slap to Leno. Light-hearted perhaps, and all in good fun, but still meant to sting a bit.


----------



## ewolfr

Neenahboy said:


> http://losangeles.craigslist.org/sfv/clt/1551463643.html


Since it got flagged already here is the text of the ad:

http://gawker.com/5448803/did-nbc-remove-conans-tonight-show-craigslist-ad


----------



## Mike10

Michelle5150 said:


> Jimmy Kimmel is a HUGE Letterman fan. Has been his whole life according to Adam Carolla (_who talked about it recently._) I don't know how much Jimmy likes or dislikes Leno, but there's no question that he's a much bigger fan of Dave.
> 
> I'm certain that his [email protected] answers were a bit of a ***** slap to Leno. Light-hearted perhaps, and all in good fun, but still meant to sting a bit.


Apparently Jimmy and Jay have become really good friends


----------



## aaronwt

marksman said:


> This is one of the side-effects of going for a smaller audience to essentially make the same or smaller profit, and I have said it all along. Advertising to your own viewers is worth a lot to a network. By repeating the same show 5 nights a week you reduce the overall viewerbase of the network substantially.
> 
> I suspect 85% of leno's audience is the same people every night. That would not be the same of 5 different dramas, even if they had the same ratings. This means less overall exposure not only for advertisers, but for your own in house advertising.
> 
> All of a sudden running promos of a show like Heroes, is now reaching a much smaller audience.


But that is by no means the reason Heroes ratings are in the crapper. 
I'm surprised that Heroes hasn't been canceled yet. I certainly don't expect it to return next year.


----------



## terpfan1980

aaronwt said:


> But that is by no means the reason Heroes ratings are in the crapper.
> I'm surprised that Heroes hasn't been canceled yet. I certainly don't expect it to return next year.


I'm probably smeeking, but it should be noted that IIRC there was news that Heroes was already picked up for next year (which surprised me too).


----------



## Amnesia

terpfan1980 said:


> IIRC there was news that Heroes was already picked up for next year


I don't think so.

Here's information posted on The Futon Critic 10 January from the TCA Winter Press Tour:
"Heroes" creator Tim Kring is currently pitching the network his ideas for a fifth season. Production however has already been completed on season four so a definitive conclusion won't be possible if it is canceled.​That definitely sounds like no decision had been made as of a week ago.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Michelle5150 said:


> Jimmy Kimmel is a HUGE Letterman fan. Has been his whole life according to Adam Carolla (_who talked about it recently._) I don't know how much Jimmy likes or dislikes Leno, but there's no question that he's a much bigger fan of Dave.
> 
> I'm certain that his [email protected] answers were a bit of a ***** slap to Leno. Light-hearted perhaps, and all in good fun, but still meant to sting a bit.


That's true. Adam says that Jimmy had a Late Night jacket when he was a teenager and it was his most prized possession, and that Jimmy was furious when Adam was asked to be a guest on The Late Show before Jimmy was.

But I still didn't think the comments Jimmy made were mean spirited. They were like a roast, where you tweak the guest of honor, and it might hit a little close to home, but it's not meant to make anyone mad. I can't imagine that Jay didn't expect exactly what happened.


----------



## Amnesia

Leno seemed a little upset to me---his smile looked very strained...


----------



## 5thcrewman

Amnesia said:


> Leno seemed a little upset to me---his smile looked very strained...


You would too- with Zucker's head up your ass!


----------



## DevdogAZ

According to theNY Times via TVbythenumbers, NBC is going scorched earth and blaming this whole thing on Conan's failure.



> Dick Ebersol, chairman of NBC Universal Sports, said the reason for Mr. Leno's return to NBC's late-night roster after a short stint in prime time this season was a simple one: disappointing ratings for Conan O'Brien's "Tonight Show."
> 
> Referring to the pointed jokes made this week by Mr. O'Brien and David Letterman of CBS, Mr. Ebersol said it was "chicken-hearted and gutless to blame a guy you couldn't beat in the ratings."
> 
> He added that "what this is really all about is an astounding failure by Conan."


Now I'm as big of Leno supporter as there is, but even I think that's weak and chicken[bleep] by NBC. This whole mess is NBC's fault, plain and simple, and they wouldn't be dealing with it right now if Leno's ratings hadn't been so bad as to stir up an affiliate revolt. Conan's numbers might not have been great, but absent the Leno failure in prime time, NBC would have left him alone for a while. I sure hope it turns out those quotes by Dick Ebersol are falsely attributed, because that's just unconscionable in my book.


----------



## JYoung

Ebersol's obviously backing Zucker as he knows what side his bread is buttered on.

I do have to agree that O'Brien is getting the shaft here.


----------



## marksman

Why NBC is full of massive dicks.

Why are they all attacking Conan... what a bunch of tools.


----------



## marksman

I think some of you are not aware how Jimmy treats his friends.


----------



## terpfan1980

marksman said:


> Why NBC is full of massive dicks.
> 
> Why are they all attacking Conan... what a bunch of tools.


See above. They're going scorched Earth hoping to damage Coco before he jumps ship over to a competitor.

I really, really hope he does jump and that Leno *NEVER* regains his former audience. I'd love to see Conan come out as the #1 guy in late night. :up:

As to NBC, were it not for Chuck they'd be dead to me after flushing Conan.


----------



## timckelley

Law and Order: SVC is the only show I regularly/consistently watch from NBC. But since I have TiVo, I don't watch any of the commercials, so I guess NBC isn't making any money off of me.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Another interesting quote from the NY Times article:



> Mr. Ebersol said Mr. Leno had not pushed for any of the changes, not the original decision to guarantee Mr. O'Brien the show five years in advance, nor the plan to put Mr. Leno in prime time.
> 
> "Jeff and I are big boys," Mr. Ebersol said, referring to Mr. Zucker. "When we do something big in the public forum and it doesn't succeed, we know we'll be the butt of criticism. But you don't personally attack someone who hasn't done anything." In this case, he added, "we bet on the wrong guy."


Whether we can actually take Ebersol at his word is a different story, but if so, this seems to support the argument that Leno had nothing to do with the poor decisions NBC has made to get into this mess and shouldn't be blamed for the current situation (other than the failure of his prime time show).


----------



## Langree

DevdogAZ said:


> Another interesting quote from the NY Times article:
> 
> Whether we can actually take Ebersol at his word is a different story, but if so, this seems to support the argument that Leno had nothing to do with the poor decisions NBC has made to get into this mess and shouldn't be blamed for the current situation (other than the failure of his prime time show).


Or while trying to damage Conan they are going full tilt damage control on Jay. Which is my bet.


----------



## MikeAndrews

terpfan1980 said:


> See above. They're going scorched Earth hoping to damage Coco before he jumps ship over to a competitor.
> 
> I really, really hope he does jump and that Leno *NEVER* regains his former audience. I'd love to see Conan come out as the #1 guy in late night. :up:...


Remember I'm he one who predicted that Conan was gonna walk? Dave is going to absolutely SMOKE Jay in the ratings when Jay gets back on 11:35. If Conan gets on Fox he'll help with the effort. Then we can see who NBC will blame when Jay's ratings are too small to measure. Comcast is gonna clean house of all these NBC execs and give nice golden parachutes.

You know, us TiVo guys could remove NBC from our favorites and they'd soon know that.


----------



## terpfan1980

Langree said:


> Or while trying to damage Conan they are going full tilt damage control on Jay. Which is my bet.


I think that's a pretty intuitive look at things. At this point NBC (and it's brass) really needs to keep the team Coco folks from hating on Jay Leno for what's gone down, even if he was behind it all along or at the very least complicit in what's gone down. That said, I really doubt their efforts are going to amount to much as the team Coco folks are likely going to carry one heckuva grudge against NBC/Leno for some time to come.


----------



## JYoung

terpfan1980 said:


> I think that's a pretty intuitive look at things. At this point NBC (and it's brass) really needs to keep the team Coco folks from hating on Jay Leno for what's gone down, even if he was behind it all along or at the very least complicit in what's gone down. That said, I really doubt their efforts are going to amount to much as the team Coco folks are likely going to carry one heckuva grudge against NBC/Leno for some time to come.


I think you seriously overestimate the power of the "Team Coco" folks.


----------



## terpfan1980

JYoung said:


> I think you seriously overestimate the power of the "Team Coco" folks.


No, as I don't expect that anything the Team Coco folks do will change the minds of anyone at NBC and I don't expect they'll make that big a difference in Leno's ratings (assuming he takes back Tonite which is what appears will happen), but it'll make a little difference as there will be a core of Conan folks that won't support NBC/The Tonite Show thanks to this mess.

I would *hope* that it would make a big difference and really blow up in NBC's face, but I don't expect that it will.


----------



## MickeS

netringer said:


> Dave is going to absolutely SMOKE Jay in the ratings when Jay gets back on 11:35.


Why? Did Dave's show get better?


----------



## jilter

Whatever it is, it is great entertainment right now.
They could not have paid enough to get writers to write anything this good.
I enjoyed this page from tv.Gawker.com ...lots of great clips in one spot.

Jeff Zucker is definitely going down big time, and it sounds like deservedly so.


----------



## MikeAndrews

MickeS said:


> Why? Did Dave's show get better?


Yeah. Dave because is the one who didn't get caught up in this SNAFU.

BTW, I thought the word was that Jay and Dave were still friends going back to when they both were on the stand-up comedy circuits. Guess not.

"The Late Shift" had Jay visiting Dave's office backstage right before he took over Tonight as Bob Morton says so Jay can hear, "We confirmed Marlon Brando(?) for Monday." And Jay says, You a*!"


----------



## Amnesia

netringer said:


> "The Late Shift" had Jay visiting Dave's office backstage right before he took over (...)


Oh, well then I guess it *must* be true...


----------



## marksman

I doubt many people on Team Coco watched Leno to begin with...

I have always been a Conan fan, but I am not on "Team Coco". I think NBC screwed both of them around. I will not watch Jay's show, because I never did. Conan is one of the late night shows that I will still sometimes watch, along with JKL. Really though, I don't watch any of them anymore regularly. If Conan goes somewhere else, I will occasionally watch him there, because he is entertaining.

I think Letterman used to be the best thing ever 20+ years ago. Now I could no more enjoy his show than I enjoy watching Leno. However I have no ill feelings towards any of them, and I will certainly try to punish NBC when I can, but I didn't watch Leno before and won't now.

I don't any of this will impact Leno's ratings. I think he will get a bump when he goes back on, then his ratings will settle in slightly down from where they were when he left, because networks continue to lose audiences.

If Conan ends up against him, then that is more erosion.

I think NBC has now done the right thing by Jay putting him back in the Tonight Show where he wanted to be. Sure Conan wanted to be there too, and I feel bad for him, but at least NBC needs to let him pursue other opportunities and stop bashing him the press.

NBC seems to be filled with petulant children for execs. I really wonder what the Comcast people are thinking about all this.


----------



## TriBruin

netringer said:


> Yeah. Dave because is the one who didn't get caught up in this SNAFU.
> 
> BTW, I thought the word was that Jay and Dave were still friends going back to when they both were on the stand-up comedy circuits. Guess not.
> 
> "The Late Shift" had Jay visiting Dave's office backstage right before he took over Tonight as Bob Morton says so Jay can hear, "We confirmed Marlon Brando(?) for Monday." And Jay says, You a*!"


So you think that a large group of former Jay viewers will defect to Dave? I highly doubt it.


----------



## smak

JYoung said:


> I think you seriously overestimate the power of the "Team Coco" folks.


There are the "Team Coco" folks and then everybody else. I think both mostly think Conan got screwed.

Whether that means anything in the long run, we'll find out.

When your name is in the title of the show, it's not a good idea to have the public not like you.

And I think a lot of people with regards to Leno are saying, "again?"

-smak-


----------



## lambertman

Amnesia said:


> Oh, well then I guess it *must* be true...


Has Jay ever denied it?


----------



## smak

Amnesia said:


> Oh, well then I guess it *must* be true...


When most everything else in the book has been confirmed by all parties, why would you doubt it?

-smak-


----------



## bicker

It doesn't make sense to assume that the total audience at 10PM is big enough to sustain three major broadcast networks, plus all the other new diversions that have been introduced over the past decade. This return of the 10PM slot to scripted programming is almost surely temporary IMHO -- there is a reason why they tried to put Leno there, and what has happened has not eliminated the original reason why this was tried in the first place.


----------



## busyba

All I know is I'm looking forward to the made-for-HBO movie about all of this that is going to come out in a few years. 

The main questions are: will they get the same guys who played Jay and Dave in The Late Shift (Daniel Roebuck and John Michael Higgins) to reprise their roles and who will play Conan?


----------



## aindik

busyba said:


> All I know is I'm looking forward to the made-for-HBO movie about all of this that is going to come out in a few years.
> 
> The main questions are: will they get the same guys who played Jay and Dave in The Late Shift (Daniel Roebuck and John Michael Higgins) to reprise their roles and who will play Conan?


See the first Craig Ferguson clip here:
http://tv.gawker.com/5446744/late-n...ne-else-turns-on-nbc-all-the-clips-you-missed


----------



## busyba

aindik said:


> See the first Craig Ferguson clip here:
> http://tv.gawker.com/5446744/late-n...ne-else-turns-on-nbc-all-the-clips-you-missed


Heh, that's great. 

NBC should tell Jay and Conan to both take a hike and poach Craig from CBS for their 11:30 slot.


----------



## 5thcrewman

bicker said:


> ... This return of the 10PM slot to scripted programming is almost surely temporary IMHO -- there is a reason why they tried to put Leno there, and what has happened has not eliminated the original reason why this was tried in the first place.


Greed.

Everyone else is able to make money at 10. 
NBC wanted to try and make more.


----------



## smak

Hmmm, Conan to get a large payout with no non compete clause?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...nans-exit-confirmed/?cid=sexybeast:mainpromo1

Seems like that contract wasn't as straightforward as people thought.

-smak-


----------



## TiVo'Brien

smak said:


> Hmmm, Conan to get a large payout with no non compete clause?
> 
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...nans-exit-confirmed/?cid=sexybeast:mainpromo1
> 
> Seems like that contract wasn't as straightforward as people thought.
> 
> -smak-


I really hope Conan's staff gets a slice of the NBC going-away pie, too. Realistically, Conan probably already has a chunk of money in the bank, unlike many of the lesser-paid people I would imagine.


----------



## bicker

5thcrewman said:


> Greed.


That's silly. Just because people want to make the best return on their investments doesn't mean it is greed.



5thcrewman said:


> Everyone else is able to make money at 10.


That's not true as categorically applied as you implied. Fox and CW gives 10PM to their affiliates. That might be the best thing for NBC to do as well. It doesn't make sense to assume that the total audience at 10PM is big enough to sustain three major broadcast networks, plus all the other *new *diversions that have been introduced over the past decade.



5thcrewman said:


> NBC wanted to try and make more.


And there is no reason to think that they will stop trying to best serve their owners' best long-term financial interests.


----------



## aindik

smak said:


> Hmmm, Conan to get a large payout with no non compete clause?
> 
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...nans-exit-confirmed/?cid=sexybeast:mainpromo1
> 
> Seems like that contract wasn't as straightforward as people thought.
> 
> -smak-


To be fair, that article doesn't say that there won't be a non-compete clause. Just that it won't last as long as his original contract is.

Which is fine with Conan, because Fox couldn't get him on the air all that quickly anyway.


----------



## terpfan1980

smak said:


> Hmmm, Conan to get a large payout with no non compete clause?
> 
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...nans-exit-confirmed/?cid=sexybeast:mainpromo1
> 
> Seems like that contract wasn't as straightforward as people thought.
> 
> -smak-


I read that information earlier and found it interesting. I'm still curious of whether or not he is giving up some of the large payout to avoid the non-compete (which is what I expected he might have to do) or if NBC's suits and lawyers screwed up that badly in writing the contract. Either way, if he's able to leave and go elsewhere and compete then good for him. While I have hopes it happens and he goes to FOX (and takes his production team with him), I know it's going to take a while before anything really happens.


----------



## aindik

Hulu has a compilation of 22 clips from Leno, Conan and Jimmy Kimmel over the past few days related to this mess, including the entire "Kimmel as Leno" show.

http://www.hulu.com/collections/360/120431


----------



## 5thcrewman

bicker said:


> That's silly. Just because people want to make the best return on their investments doesn't mean it is greed.
> 
> That's not true as categorically applied as you implied. Fox and CW gives 10PM to their affiliates. That might be the best thing for NBC to do as well. It doesn't make sense to assume that the total audience at 10PM is big enough to sustain three major broadcast networks, plus all the other *new *diversions that have been introduced over the past decade.
> 
> And there is no reason to think that they will stop trying to best serve their owners' best long-term financial interests.


I should have been clearer in that I was refering to the 'Big 3' at 10pm.
Fox and CW are not an issue at 10 and the West Coast doesn't need to watch USA or TNT at 10pm. (Their shows are already in the DVR by 8pm PST)


----------



## smak

terpfan1980 said:


> I read that information earlier and found it interesting. I'm still curious of whether or not he is giving up some of the large payout to avoid the non-compete (which is what I expected he might have to do) or if NBC's suits and lawyers screwed up that badly in writing the contract. Either way, if he's able to leave and go elsewhere and compete then good for him. While I have hopes it happens and he goes to FOX (and takes his production team with him), I know it's going to take a while before anything really happens.


I would think so. But I don't think he can reasonably get another show going for about a year. So if say the non compete were 2 years, that would be 1 year of salary, at what, 10-15 million? Maybe more if he gets to own his show, so I would think he would give up part of his buyout.

That is if NBC can realistically assert a non compete clause, which we don't know they can.

-smak-


----------



## daveak

Neenahboy said:


> http://losangeles.craigslist.org/sfv/clt/1551463643.html


I went ahead and made an offer. I will let you all know if I get the show.


----------



## jimborst

I think it took Dave 6 months to move from NBC to CBS, I think Conan could do about the same, if Fox would let him.


----------



## terpfan1980

jimborst said:


> I think it took Dave 6 months to move from NBC to CBS, I think Conan could do about the same, if Fox would let him.


Yeah, if FOX wants Conan I'd be guessing they won't have a show for him up and running until Fall 2010, but of course that would give them and him plenty of time to promote the bejeezus out of the show (and would also give the affiliates plenty of time to adjust to/accept the idea of losing the hour or so of syndicated programming in the time slot). FOX *should* be able to work out a deal with Conan and the affiliates that would make everyone happy (mostly by giving up a lot of the potential profits for the ad time and instead letting the affiliates have most of the revenue for the first year or two as the show ramps up). Something like a co-op deal between the net and the affiliates that lets everyone share in the potential profits and yet puts most of the risk squarely on the network for the costs of getting the show up and running.

Like others have said here though, I'm not sure I'd bet that FOX really wants to jump into latenight again (or try to again), but then again if they really think that Conan can bring them an audience without having to spend too much to get it, they'd be foolish if they didn't at least try to take advantage of the gift that would seem to be available to them.


----------



## busyba

terpfan1980 said:


> (and would also give the affiliates plenty of time to adjust to/accept the idea of losing the hour or so of syndicated programming in the time slot). FOX *should* be able to work out a deal with Conan and the affiliates that would make everyone happy


IIRC, elsewhere in this thread somebody mentioned that the partnership agreement that Fox has with its affiliates already has language in it that says the network can choose to use the late night slot for network programming if it wants to. It's just that Fox hasn't exercized that option yet.


----------



## terpfan1980

busyba said:


> IIRC, elsewhere in this thread somebody mentioned that the partnership agreement that Fox has with its affiliates already has language in it that says the network can choose to use the late night slot for network programming if it wants to. It's just that Fox hasn't exercized that option yet.


Just because they can exercise the option and run roughshod over the affiliates doesn't mean that it wouldn't be smart to work with the affiliates first and give them the heads up on what's coming as well as perhaps offer them something to keep them happy and onboard with the plans of the mothership. If FOX works with the affil's rather than just tellin' 'em what they have to do they'd get more cooperation and hopefully get a better result from it.


----------



## MickeS

I know nothing about it, but I imagine a lot of affiliates make a rather comfy profit off of Family Guy, Simpsons, Seinfeld etc reruns in the late night slots. I would think it would be a rather risky proposition to put Conan in that slot. Not that they couldn't give it a shot, and it might earn them some prestige I suppose. Maybe it would even help their local news some.


----------



## marksman

busyba said:


> IIRC, elsewhere in this thread somebody mentioned that the partnership agreement that Fox has with its affiliates already has language in it that says the network can choose to use the late night slot for network programming if it wants to. It's just that Fox hasn't exercized that option yet.


Yeah that was me and that info was in an article where they had interviewed Kevin Reilly at Fox. He was the one that was making comments about Conan, that people were getting suspicious about.

He did also say along the lines though, it has been a tough time for our affiliates lately, so we obviously would not want to do anything that would hurt them. Or to that effect.

I think it was more of a dig at NBC, though, then necessarily saying they would not bring Conan in if they could strike the right deal. Speculation has been even if ABC or Fox did bring in Conan, it would take at least a year for a show to be put together.


----------



## marksman

aindik said:


> To be fair, that article doesn't say that there won't be a non-compete clause. Just that it won't last as long as his original contract is.
> 
> Which is fine with Conan, because Fox couldn't get him on the air all that quickly anyway.


Yeah but regardless of what the contract says, you can't have a no-compete clause without consideration.

You can't just say, "You can't compete for 4 years because we say so." That is not a valid contract, no matter how many times both parties sign it.

There would have to be consideration given to make it valid.

As for that article, the interesting part to me is the knucklehead NBC execs still had to be dragged kicking and screaming to let go of their most recent dumb idea of thinking they could force conan to move 30 minutes back and everything would be fine.

So at the end of the day they will have Leno doing the tonight show and Conan somewhere else. Which is exactly what would have happened 6 years ago if they just told Conan, sorry. But, they would not have managed to decimate the network in the process. So I guess this way to the same end result was more fun?


----------



## marksman

bicker said:


> And there is no reason to think that they will stop trying to best serve their owners' best long-term financial interests.


Well this whole folly certainly did that, and again everyone except you and the NBC execs knew that from the word go.

They lost money and harmed their network to a serious degree and it is going to take a lot of work to dig it out and get back to where they were and then also to make up the money they lost.

Genius plan you have supported.


----------



## DevdogAZ

smak said:


> Hmmm, Conan to get a large payout with no non compete clause?
> 
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...nans-exit-confirmed/?cid=sexybeast:mainpromo1
> 
> Seems like that contract wasn't as straightforward as people thought.
> 
> -smak-


I don't think you can infer that from the story, or from the fact that NBC is paying off Conan. I'm one of the ones that was pretty adamant that, based on the information we had, NBC had the legal right to force Conan to move to 12:05 and that his refusal to do so was a breach of contract. However, I was also fairly sure this would end up with NBC paying Conan to walk away rather than forcing him to work against his will or suing him for breach. It just makes way more sense from a business and PR standpoint to simply end this deal and let everyone go their own way, and the only way Conan and his staff can justify that is to accept a settlement.


----------



## DevdogAZ

marksman said:


> Yeah but regardless of what the contract says, you can't have a no-compete clause without consideration.
> 
> You can't just say, "You can't compete for 4 years because we say so." That is not a valid contract, no matter how many times both parties sign it.
> 
> There would have to be consideration given to make it valid.


Sure, but I don't think the consideration for the non-compete has to be something in addition to the consideration for the rest of the employment contract. Usually, the non-compete clause is part of the employment contract, and the wages the employee earns are the consideration. There doesn't have to be something additional when the employee terminates employment in order to activate the non-compete portion of the contract.


----------



## aindik

busyba said:


> IIRC, elsewhere in this thread somebody mentioned that the partnership agreement that Fox has with its affiliates already has language in it that says the network can choose to use the late night slot for network programming if it wants to. It's just that Fox hasn't exercized that option yet.


I'd imagine NBC has a similar agreement with its affiliates - that they have to run whatever NBC puts on at 10 p.m. We see how that worked out.

As others have said, sometimes it makes long term business sense to not exercise all of your rights.


----------



## Turtleboy

I would suspect that Fox's contract with its affiliates may be subject to the already existing contracts. I know that syndication deals can last 2-3 years. So even if Fox brought in Conan, you'd still have 2 more years of Friends/Home Improvement.


----------



## Langree

marksman said:


> Well this whole folly certainly did that, and again everyone except you and the NBC execs knew that from the word go.
> 
> They lost money and harmed their network to a serious degree and it is going to take a lot of work to dig it out and get back to where they were and then also to make up the money they lost.
> 
> Genius plan you have supported.


But remember, Bicker knows business.


----------



## morac

Someone posted a link on twitter to this NY Times article from 1992 with Jay complaining that he might get replaced by Dave. The decide by date was the same, but with a different outcome.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/23/arts/jay-leno-criticizes-nbc-on-tonight-cliffhanger.html


----------



## aindik

Turtleboy said:


> I would suspect that Fox's contract with its affiliates may be subject to the already existing contracts. I know that syndication deals can last 2-3 years. So even if Fox brought in Conan, you'd still have 2 more years of Friends/Home Improvement.


I would guess the syndication agreements give the stations lots of leeway as to time slot.

Sometimes (at least in radio, might be in TV, too) the syndicators don't even care if you run the show, as long as you pay the fee and run the syndicator's commercials.


----------



## MickeS

marksman said:


> So at the end of the day they will have Leno doing the tonight show and Conan somewhere else. Which is exactly what would have happened 6 years ago if they just told Conan, sorry. But, they would not have managed to decimate the network in the process. So I guess this way to the same end result was more fun?


I agree about the end result regarding "The Tonight Show" and Conan and Jay, but this didn't "decimate the network". Lots of other programming decisions took care of that in the last 3-4 years.


----------



## realityboy

aindik said:


> I would guess the syndication agreements give the stations lots of leeway as to time slot.
> 
> Sometimes (at least in radio, might be in TV, too) the syndicators don't even care if you run the show, as long as you pay the fee and run the syndicator's commercials.


Depends on the show, but yes, I know a few of the shows have no problem with their commercials airing without the shows. I imagine that if FOX can get a late night show off the ground, that they would start it on the O&O affiliates as soon as possible and give the other affiliates time to rearrange things before making it mandatory.


----------



## brianric

netringer said:


> Dave is going to absolutely SMOKE Jay in the ratings when Jay gets back on 11:35. If Conan gets on Fox he'll help with the effort. Then we can see who NBC will blame when Jay's ratings are too small to measure. :


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAHHAAHAHH
AAHHAAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
AHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHH

Okay I'm done. Whooo my heart.. OH boy I'm feeling dizzy. Let me calm down a bit..


----------



## marksman

MickeS said:


> I agree about the end result regarding "The Tonight Show" and Conan and Jay, but this didn't "decimate the network". Lots of other programming decisions took care of that in the last 3-4 years.


No this was the big blow that really did it in. Would have been much easier to recover before this happened.

They shrunk their total network audience significantly, and in this age where networks are pretty bad at picking shows they now have to fill even more time.

Fortunately they might get lucky with the guy they moved over from USA and such, and maybe he can find some good shows to put on there.

I agree the network was a mess with bad programming decisions, but this move has made it twice as difficult for them to recover and will likely take substantially longer as well.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

marksman said:


> You can't just say, "You can't compete for 4 years because we say so." That is not a valid contract, no matter how many times both parties sign it.


Absent coercion, why not. If they ask him to sign and he does why isn't that valid. Now, you're gonna say there was no consideration but that doesn't always mean money.



aindik said:


> I would guess the syndication agreements give the stations lots of leeway as to time slot.
> 
> Sometimes (at least in radio, might be in TV, too) the syndicators don't even care if you run the show, as long as you pay the fee and run the syndicator's commercials.


Guess? So, basicaly, you're really just stating an opinion. That's fine just be clear that there are no facts involved.

We all have no facts about what anyone's contract really said and the web sites aren't reliable. We'll really know only when they are fully negotiated and they announce the results.


----------



## aindik

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Guess? So, basicaly, you're really just stating an opinion. That's fine just be clear that there are no facts involved.


Less stating an opinion, more guessing at what the facts are. I think the word "guess" made that clear enough.



IJustLikeTivo said:


> We all have no facts about what anyone's contract really said and the web sites aren't reliable. We'll really know only when they are fully negotiated and they announce the results.


Even then, we won't know. Conan's contract is how many years ago and we still don't know what it says.


----------



## smak

MickeS said:


> I agree about the end result regarding "The Tonight Show" and Conan and Jay, but this didn't "decimate the network". Lots of other programming decisions took care of that in the last 3-4 years.


They just cancelled over 25% of their primetime programming.

That's pretty darn bad.

They are pretty lucky that the Olympics is going to take up 2 of the weeks that they would have been scrambling.

-smak-


----------



## Amnesia

smak said:


> They are pretty lucky that the Olympics is going to take up 2 of the weeks that they would have been scrambling.


That's no coincidence.


----------



## packerfan

Here is a clip of Jimmy on Jay's show. It clearly shows who the most talented guy on late night is.


----------



## smak

Amnesia said:


> That's no coincidence.


Yes, I believe you are mostly correct. I don't know what they do if there is no Olympics though? All the negotiating came after they killed Jay at 10pm, so I don't see what they do differently. And I don't see Conan staying past next week.

It happened because of it's own momentum. They were going to want to keep Jay on the air, and Conan wasn't going to do 12:05. I don't see any other result.

-smak-


----------



## marksman

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Absent coercion, why not. If they ask him to sign and he does why isn't that valid. Now, you're gonna say there was no consideration but that doesn't always mean money.


I know what consideration is and that is why I bought it up.

What other consideration would they have provided him in this case that would have him agree to a non-compete.

Please come up with some examples that might be valid in these circumstances.

The reason why it is isn't valid is because there is no apparent consideration.

If I write a contract that says, "I just liketivo agrees to give me $500,000 a year for 10 years because I like money." and I get you to sign it, you would have a relatively easy time breaking that contract, unless I could prove you actually did something or gave me something for that money.

In this case you would be offering me consideration and I would be offering you nothing. It is not legally binding.

So certainly you could still pay me $500,000 a year for 10 years, if you wanted to, but you would not be legally required to do so.

By the way if you want I can email the papers over for your signature.


----------



## aindik

In exchange for the non-compete, Conan also gets a pile of cash, and he gets a release from any claims NBC may have against him for breaching his prior contract (he also gives NBC a release). That's consideration both ways.


----------



## Turtleboy

Plus a peppercorn.


----------



## smak

Another big question is whether we will see Brian Williams on the first episode of Conan's new show...

-smak-


----------



## Turtleboy

I wonder what they will do on SNL tomorrow. Lorne Michaels is obviously a big Conan and Jimmy Fallon backer.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

aindik said:


> Less stating an opinion, more guessing at what the facts are. I think the word "guess" made that clear enough.
> 
> Even then, we won't know. Conan's contract is how many years ago and we still don't know what it says.


Whatever. Your guess, appears to be what others would call an opinion. To me a guess implies that you have a basis for your speculation and I see none.


----------



## gastrof

I hope whatever cash he gets, Conan manages a bit of generosity.

He wasn't the only one who uprooted his entire life and moved to the other side of the continent for a seven month show. 

I hope for the sake of his band, the bit players, and anyone else he bought with him, FOX or "whoever" (if anyone) is willing to take on a package deal.


Completely different thought-
I wonder who'll be willing to take on the Tonight Show the next time Jay claiims he's retiring?


----------



## JohnB1000

IJustLikeTivo said:


> . To me a guess implies that you have a basis for your speculation and I see none.


What a strange statement. A guess doesn't imply any basis for speculation, it's just a guess. If someone asks me a question and I have no idea of the answer but need to provide one then I guess.

Dictionary definition:

1 : to form an opinion of from little or no evidence
2 : believe, suppose <I guess you're right>
3 : to arrive at a correct conclusion about by conjecture, chance, or intuition <guess the answer>


----------



## marksman

gastrof said:


> Completely different thought-
> I wonder who'll be willing to take on the Tonight Show the next time Jay claiims he's retiring?


Not how I think things went down.

Conan likely said to NBC: "I want to get my shot at the Tonight Show. If it is not coming soon, then I am going to have to pursue other opportunities."

NBC Says: "Hmm well Okay. Jay will probably be ready to retire, so what if we give you a deal that you get the show in 5 years?"

Conan: "Okay."

====

NBC: "So Jay you think you will be ready to retire in 5 years, won't you be ready to retire in 5 years?"

Jay: [Shrugs his shoulders] :"I guess so I don't know."

NBC:"Good deal. So we have signed a contract with Conan that he will take over the Tonight Show in 5 years. So you will be free to retire then!"

That is more along the lines of how I suspect it went down.

4 years were up, and then we might have gotten:

NBC: "So Jay, it has been a good run. Get planned for your final shows and then you can retire and spend more time with your cars."

Jay: "Ah okay. I guess. I would like to keep doing the show, but maybe I can do something somewhere else?"

NBC: "What? What do you mean? You told us you were going to retire, so you have to retire!"

Jay: "I never said I was going to retire, I just figured things would end up where they ended up. I would like to continue doing the show I have done for 19 years and made you a lot of money, but if you don't need me that is fine."

NBC: "No No No Jay. Frick! You told us you were retiring. This is not good. Hmm... [dateline, medium, law and order] Umm Jay.. what if we gave you a show in Primetime?"

Jay: "What do you mean like a special?"

NBC :"No. Five nights a week, 52 weeks a year at 10:00pm. A whole new show, we will call it... we will call it.. 'THE JAY LENO SHOW"

Jay: "Sounds interesting. So would I get a new studio? Also if you guys trip out, I am going to need some sort of guarantee. How about if you guys don't keep me on the air you have to give me... hmmm. [what is a good number for a joke?] 80 million dollars."

NBC :"Done! New studio, 10pm 5 nights a week and if we take you off the air or move you we will give you 80 million dollars! Thanks Jay you are great."

Jay: "When can I start my show?"


----------



## DevdogAZ

smak said:


> Yes, I believe you are mostly correct. I don't know what they do if there is no Olympics though? All the negotiating came after they killed Jay at 10pm, so I don't see what they do differently. And I don't see Conan staying past next week.
> 
> It happened because of it's own momentum. They were going to want to keep Jay on the air, and Conan wasn't going to do 12:05. I don't see any other result.
> 
> -smak-


They've already announced what will be filling the 10 pm slot after the Olympics.

Monday: Law & Order
Tuesday: Parenthood
Wednesday: Law & Order: SVU
Thursday: The Marriage Ref
Friday: Dateline

(I don't think they've announced yet what they'll do in the three slots previously filled by L&O, SVU and Dateline.)


----------



## Knives of Ice

will be the greatest television ever if howard stern does accepts Conan's invitation and does the tonight show next week. we'll finally hear some REAL talk from Conan if he does.


----------



## Test

gastrof said:


> Completely different thought-
> I wonder who'll be willing to take on the Tonight Show the next time Jay claiims he's retiring?


Carson was on for 30 years. Maybe Leno would want to be on at least that long, maybe longer? So I see it as sometime after 2022 we have a rehash of Late Night War I. Jimmy Fallon is ready to take over, but NBC snubs him for some hot new comic so he moves over to CBS. Rinse and repeat


----------



## dswallow

DevdogAZ said:


> They've already announced what will be filling the 10 pm slot after the Olympics.
> 
> Monday: Law & Order
> Tuesday: Parenthood
> Wednesday: Law & Order: SVU
> Thursday: The Marriage Ref
> Friday: Dateline
> 
> (I don't think they've announced yet what they'll do in the three slots previously filled by L&O, SVU and Dateline.)


I think we're all waiting to hear the announcement of what NBC will put there that will actually draw viewers to the programming; this stuff is just retreads of the same crap that put NBC underwater to begin with.


----------



## gastrof

Test said:


> Carson was on for 30 years. Maybe Leno would want to be on at least that long, maybe longer? So I see it as sometime after 2022 we have a rehash of Late Night War I. Jimmy Fallon is ready to take over, but NBC snubs him for some hot new comic so he moves over to CBS. Rinse and repeat


To be honest, back when Jay said he would be turning over the show to Conan in so many years, I thought to myself "That's too soon... You've barely made it yours."

In that sense it'd sort of be good if Jay takes the Tonight Show back, but still, Conan's getting treated very badly.

Did anyone hear what Ebersol had the nerve to say? The whole thing has always hinged on JAY'S bad ratings, but he tried to say this was due to Conan's ratings. Talk about trying to rewrite history! He's trying to do it while it's still happening, and everyone KNOWS what he's saying isn't true.

What a class act.


----------



## bicker

5thcrewman said:


> I should have been clearer in that I was refering to the 'Big 3' at 10pm.


Well, okay, but why "Big 3" -- what is so magical about the number '3'? Putting aside, for a minute, that in calling them the "Big 3" you're ignoring the fact that Fox was the #1 network last year... Given all the new diversions that have been introduced over the past decade, including, but by no means limited to, cable networks introducing original series that happen to be broadcast at 10PM Eastern, there is a good reason to assume that a time slot that used to be a decent time slot for 3 big over-the-air broadcast networks may now only really have room for 2 of them.

Just this winter:

*Monday 10PM*
- Damages (FX)
- Secret Diary of a Call Girl and State of the Union (SHO)
- Men of a Certain Age (TNT)
- Greek (ABC Family)
... not to mention Kell on Earth, Motor City Motors, Anthony Bourdain

*Tuesday 10PM*
- Southland (TNT)
- White Collar (USA)
... not to mention Maneaters, Life after People

*Wednesday 10PM*
- Nip/Tuck (FX)
- Being Erica (Soapnet)
- Leverage (TNT)
- Psych (USA)
... not to mention Lawman, South Park, Launch My Line, Spectacle

*Thursday 10PM*
- Archer (FX)
- Burn Notice (USA)
... not to mention Real Housewives, Project Runway, Jersey Shore

*Friday 10PM*
- Spartacus: Blood and Sand (Starz)
- Sanctuary (Syfy)
... not to mention The Soup, Real Time

Almost none of this competition existed ten years ago. Yes, folks can watch these shows at other times during the week, but they could also watch them during these times, when the premiere each week, and that, the fact that this is the time slot within which these shows premiere each week, draws a lot of audience away from the over-the-air networks. Surely when there are three or four completely new scripted drama options to choose from, that is going to naturally cut-into the audience that used to be split between the "Big 3", totally apart from (before) anything that the "Big 3" might do, themselves.


----------



## bicker

marksman said:


> Well this whole folly certainly did that, and again everyone except you and the NBC execs knew that from the word go.


Y'know, if you think you're so smart, then perhaps you should show them how much better you are than they are.

I think you're peddling a whole bunch of hot air. It sure is easy to sit back and take pot-shots, and childish personal attacks, at folks, but you never have to prove the worth of your curmudgeony. It is very clear that you wouldn't know a good business decision if it hit you in the face, because your comments make it so clear that you are utterly blinded by your viewer perspective. I sure hope that you don't run any company my retirement investments are invested in.

Get over yourself.



Langree said:


> But remember, Bicker knows business.


I actually do, which is why I spent a career advising successful companies, and Marksman did what? Bupkis I suspect.

Anyone who thinks that cost-cutting at broadcast networks is over is smokin' something... and clearly knows nothing about the business.


----------



## bicker

Test said:


> Carson was on for 30 years.


Folks need to ask themselves a very important question about this: How much money was NBC making in those last few years of Carson's reign. The answer is almost surely a lot less than you think, and that was a major consideration in all of this. However, because it was a business consideration, some blow-hards will clearly try to ignore such a consideration, refusing to acknowledge yet-another business reality.



Test said:


> So I see it as sometime after 2022 we have a rehash of Late Night War I.


Something akin to this will happen *whenever* a network has been excessively successful attracting the best talent. The only way to avoid this kind of thing is to be sure that you only hire one person who is going to be aiming for the top. Ridiculous.


----------



## bicker

dswallow said:


> I think we're all waiting to hear the announcement of what NBC will put there that will actually draw viewers to the programming; this stuff is just retreads of the same crap that put NBC underwater to begin with.


Which really highlights my point, though, to be fair, an argument could be made that this is all that NBC could fill the gaps with on short notice. The real test will be next fall. Will the total number of scripted hours go up by at least three (to bring it back up to 2008-2009 levels) or will it end up with something less than that, a reflection of the going-to-happen-no-matter-what cost-reduction which I've been referring to and Marksman been ridiculously trying to convince us is not in the best interests of the enterprise.


----------



## betts4

bicker said:


> Well, okay, but why "Big 3" -- what is so magical about the number '3'? Putting aside, for a minute, that in calling them the "Big 3" you're ignoring the fact that Fox was the #1 network last year...


I agree. I don't think there has been a "big 3" in a couple/few years. The big 3 is an 80's term. We need to update the tv lingo for those execs. Big 5? abc, nbc, cbs, fox, usa/tnt/hbo/sho, ? USA has quite a few really good rated shows. And keeps bringing more out.


----------



## bicker

I could even accept the idea of a "Big 4", but that still includes Fox, again the #1, and Fox leaves 10PM for its affiliates. The development of so many new distractions for us at 10PM means that, with regard to over-the-air broadcast, we need to think of this as a game of Musical Chairs. There used to be three chairs, but now there are two chairs left, and the music has stopped. CBS clearly has both butt cheeks on a chair. Some would claim that ABC does as well, and that NBC is the network that was left without a chair.


----------



## lew

Johnny Carson (Carson Productions) owned the show and made most of the profits. NBC didn't give Leno ownership of the show. I'm sure, near the end, NBC wasn't making a lot of money from the show. That was probably a factor.

When Johnny started late night viewers didn't have a lot of alternatives. For something like the first half of Johnny's run viewers didn't even have VCRs. You watched Johnny, a movie or you watched nothing.



bicker said:


> Folks need to ask themselves a very important question about this: How much money was NBC making in those last few years of Carson's reign. The answer is almost surely a lot less than you think, and that was a major consideration in all of this. However, because it was a business consideration, some blow-hards will clearly try to ignore such a consideration, refusing to acknowledge yet-another business reality.
> 
> Something akin to this will happen *whenever* a network has been excessively successful attracting the best talent. The only way to avoid this kind of thing is to be sure that you only hire one person who is going to be aiming for the top. Ridiculous.


----------



## bicker

lew said:


> Johnny Carson (Carson Productions) owned the show and made most of the profits.


Think about: How did that come about?

(Lew: I'm sure you know I'm being rhetorical. Most of us do know the answer to that question, just like most of us know that there were good reasons for practically everything NBC has done, and practically everything all the networks do, even though so many posters are trying to hard to deny that broadcasting is far harder of a business than they'll ever be willing to admit, because admitting it would spoil the jollies they get from casting reckless aspersions when they don't like something.)


----------



## DevdogAZ

bicker said:


> I could even accept the idea of a "Big 4", but that still includes Fox, again the #1,* and Fox leaves 10PM for its affiliates*. The development of so many new distractions for us at 10PM means that, with regard to over-the-air broadcast, we need to think of this as a game of Musical Chairs. There used to be three chairs, but now there are two chairs left, and the music has stopped. CBS clearly has both butt cheeks on a chair. Some would claim that ABC does as well, and that NBC is the network that was left without a chair.


In your previous rundown of all the "distractions" on other networks keeping people from watching dramas on the Big 3, I think you failed to account for the fact that the number of viewers watching local news on their Fox affiliate probably dwarfs the rest of the non-broadcast competition in that timeslot. The local Fox affiliates do very well with their news broadcasts because there is a huge segment of the population that doesn't like to stay up late enough to catch the news on the Big 3.


----------



## LoadStar

DevdogAZ said:


> In your previous rundown of all the "distractions" on other networks keeping people from watching dramas on the Big 3, I think you failed to account for the fact that the number of viewers watching local news on their Fox affiliate probably dwarfs the rest of the non-broadcast competition in that timeslot. The local Fox affiliates do very well with their news broadcasts because there is a huge segment of the population that doesn't like to stay up late enough to catch the news on the Big 3.


And in fact, I recall at least one instance when FOX wanted to begin programming the 10:00 hour, and the affiliates revolted. By showing local programming (news or other) the affiliate can keep the entire ad proceeds for the hour. By giving it back to the network, they only get part of it.


----------



## bicker

DevdogAZ said:


> In your previous rundown of all the "distractions" on other networks keeping people from watching dramas on the Big 3, I think you failed to account for the fact that the number of viewers watching local news on their Fox affiliate probably dwarfs the rest of the non-broadcast competition in that timeslot.


Great point! And good reason for NBC to consider giving 10PM back to the affiliates, in return for other considerations.


----------



## Adam1115

DevdogAZ said:


> According to Fox president Kevin Reilly, Fox has the rights in their affiliate agreements to put on a late-night show at 11:00 pm and force the affiliates to carry it. However, he said that they wouldn't be so cavalier about it, because the affiliates have just come through a difficult business cycle and most make quite a bit of money airing syndicated reruns in that slot. So it Fox could make it work for Conan if they want to, but it might be a little painful for Fox affiliates.


Quoted for those saying Fox couldn't do a late show if they chose.


----------



## terpfan1980

Adam1115 said:


> Quoted *Smeeked* for those saying Fox couldn't do a late show if they chose.


FYP


----------



## marksman

bicker said:


> Think about: How did that come about?
> 
> (Lew: I'm sure you know I'm being rhetorical. Most of us do know the answer to that question, just like most of us know that there were good reasons for practically everything NBC has done,


By most of us, you mean only you, right?

You are the only person before or after who has defended what NBC did as being anywhere close to intelligent or being a good business move.

I don't know if your dad is Jeff Zucker or what... but there is something off with you and your fanatical defense of this silliness.


----------



## marksman

dswallow said:


> I think we're all waiting to hear the announcement of what NBC will put there that will actually draw viewers to the programming; this stuff is just retreads of the same crap that put NBC underwater to begin with.


Actually Parenthood likes like it could be a very good show.

It certainly has good production and a ridiculously amazing cast.


----------



## marksman

bicker said:


> Y'know, if you think you're so smart, then perhaps you should show them how much better you are than they are.
> 
> I think you're peddling a whole bunch of hot air. It sure is easy to sit back and take pot-shots, and childish personal attacks, at folks, but you never have to prove the worth of your curmudgeony. It is very clear that you wouldn't know a good business decision if it hit you in the face, because your comments make it so clear that you are utterly blinded by your viewer perspective. I sure hope that you don't run any company my retirement investments are invested in.
> 
> Get over yourself.
> 
> I actually do, which is why I spent a career advising successful companies, and Marksman did what? Bupkis I suspect.
> 
> Anyone who thinks that cost-cutting at broadcast networks is over is smokin' something... and clearly knows nothing about the business.


I am not going to get into a resume contest. I will say just one thing. I run businesses, I don't advise them. I wish I could get a list of your "clients" and advise them against using you.

You supported one of the dumbest business decisions of the 21st century, and even after it fell apart you still support it.

Small children knew this was a horrible business decision before it took place. Everyone in the world knows it is a bad decision in hindsight except for you.

You have proven your simpleton level of knowledge of business by things you say here. Direct profit is the only concern. A middle-school business basics student knows actual business is more complex than that. Your business acumen displayed here would not be enough to make a lemonade stand in the summer profitable.

Look at what I have said on these forums since this started. I was 100% correct from the beginning about why it was a bad idea and why it would never last. Heck I specifically called this would all end with the upcoming olympics a month ago.

So please tell me why I should care what you say or think about this when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, and no actual perception or understanding what makes for good business or good business decisions.

I am not a tv executive so I don't have that experience, but neither do you. However this move was fundamentally broken from the get go. It didn't take an insider's knowledge to see why it would fail and why it did fail. That is why it is all the worse. Most people knew it would not work. People who knew nothing about business or tv knew it wouldn't work. Why did'nt you. Why don't you?

Just because a network needs to be profitable does not mean it can forsake other key factors of their business, like their relationships with their affiliates or their total network audience, which is so important when promoting new shows and building older shows and keeping your entire audience up.

NBC once canceled the #4 show on tv for having too low of ratings. There is more to the game than just a short-term bottom line. You can't just run a business for the today and ignore all the other factors. That is what differentiates someone who should not be running a business from someone who should.

I would love to have heard your business advice to NBC on this. "Good Job guys. You guys are great. You are right on. Screw the affiliates. Make all the money you can right now. That is all that matters. Tomorrow we all may be dead!"


----------



## bicker

marksman said:


> By most of us, you mean only you, right?


No, I wrote "most of us" so I meant "most of us".



marksman said:


> You are the only person before or after who has defended what NBC did as being anywhere close to intelligent or being a good business move.


I'm the only person in this thread, perhaps, but that's a reflection of how few pro-business people care enough about forums like this to participate in them and have a thick-enough skin to put up with childish behavior like yours.

Also, no one claimed that it was a brilliant innovation. That's another reflection of your blind consumerism trying to justify your criticisms. I'll state it simply so even you can understand it: Scripted television costs more than it is worth broadcasters to broadcast. That must be fixed, even if you don't like it.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

bicker said:


> .
> 
> Also, no one claimed that it was a brilliant innovation. That's another reflection of your blind consumerism trying to justify your criticisms. I'll state it simply so even you can understand it: Scripted television costs more than it is worth broadcasters to broadcast. That must be fixed, even if you don't like it.


So, how do you fix it? Aside from ratings, what has changed to make scripted TV so expensive?

Why is there still lots of scripted stuff on other networks? Heck, USA and TNT and makings truck loads of scripted stuff. Are they losing money?

I think the main advantage all the non networks have is the ability to instantly re-purpose or rerun their shows. The networks pay a fortune and run it once each week and perhaps once later. How do they either increase the revenue or decrease the costs?


----------



## GadgetFreak

bicker said:


> Great point! And good reason for NBC to consider giving 10PM back to the affiliates, in return for other considerations.


Interesting. Wonder if they seriously considered that? Instead of their plan of Jay at 11:30 followed by Conan at 12:05, what if local news were 10-11, followed by Jay at 11:00 with no change to the timing of Tonight Show?

Would the considerations from the affiliates allow the network to make up what they lose in the 10-11pm hour?


----------



## gastrof

When Jay's show was first announced, our local NBC station wasn't going to run it, but was going to do news, from ten to eleven thirty-five.

NBC got its way, but look what's ended up happening.

Our local station might well jump at the chance to run news at ten and then get Jay and Conan after that.

I mean, CW and FOX stations have long done their news at 10pm. Why not NBC stations too?

The only thing about the "Jay at 11:35 followed by Conan/Tonight at 12:05" that bugged me was HOW could Jay do a show for only 30 minutes? What good is that?


----------



## gastrof

Eh. The news just said Conan and NBC are near to a deal on him leaving, getting a huge chunk of cash, AND being free to move to another network.

Who else here is afraid he'll end up opening car dealerships and grocery stores?


----------



## DevdogAZ

terpfan1980 said:


> FYP


I don't see how quoting something qualifies as a smeek.  Isn't the fact that he's acknowledging something posted previously the very antithesis of a smeek?


----------



## gastrof

bicker said:


> Y'know, if you think you're so smart, then perhaps you should show them how much better you are than they are.
> 
> I think you're peddling a whole bunch of hot air. It sure is easy to sit back and take pot-shots, and childish personal attacks, at folks, but you never have to prove the worth of your curmudgeony. It is very clear that you wouldn't know a good business decision if it hit you in the face, because your comments make it so clear that you are utterly blinded by your viewer perspective. I sure hope that you don't run any company my retirement investments are invested in.
> 
> Get over yourself.
> 
> I actually do, which is why I spent a career advising successful companies, and Marksman did what? Bupkis I suspect.
> 
> Anyone who thinks that cost-cutting at broadcast networks is over is smokin' something... and clearly knows nothing about the business.





marksman said:


> I am not going to get into a resume contest. I will say just one thing. I run businesses, I don't advise them. I wish I could get a list of your "clients" and advise them against using you.
> 
> You supported one of the dumbest business decisions of the 21st century, and even after it fell apart you still support it.
> 
> Small children knew this was a horrible business decision before it took place. Everyone in the world knows it is a bad decision in hindsight except for you.
> 
> You have proven your simpleton level of knowledge of business by things you say here. Direct profit is the only concern. A middle-school business basics student knows actual business is more complex than that. Your business acumen displayed here would not be enough to make a lemonade stand in the summer profitable.
> 
> Look at what I have said on these forums since this started. I was 100% correct from the beginning about why it was a bad idea and why it would never last. Heck I specifically called this would all end with the upcoming olympics a month ago.
> 
> So please tell me why I should care what you say or think about this when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, and no actual perception or understanding what makes for good business or good business decisions.
> 
> I am not a tv executive so I don't have that experience, but neither do you. However this move was fundamentally broken from the get go. It didn't take an insider's knowledge to see why it would fail and why it did fail. That is why it is all the worse. Most people knew it would not work. People who knew nothing about business or tv knew it wouldn't work. Why did'nt you. Why don't you?
> 
> Just because a network needs to be profitable does not mean it can forsake other key factors of their business, like their relationships with their affiliates or their total network audience, which is so important when promoting new shows and building older shows and keeping your entire audience up.
> 
> NBC once canceled the #4 show on tv for having too low of ratings. There is more to the game than just a short-term bottom line. You can't just run a business for the today and ignore all the other factors. That is what differentiates someone who should not be running a business from someone who should.
> 
> I would love to have heard your business advice to NBC on this. "Good Job guys. You guys are great. You are right on. Screw the affiliates. Make all the money you can right now. That is all that matters. Tomorrow we all may be dead!"


----------



## bicker

IJustLikeTivo said:


> So, how do you fix it?


We were just talking about this in a thread on AVS Forum. NetworkTV posted a very good treatise (in the thread "The End of FREE Broadcast TV?" in case folks want to seek it out). The bottom-line is that there doesn't necessarily need to be a way to "fix it". Not everything can be fixed. He made reference to how we (well, more likely, our parents, or perhaps grandparents) used to all sit around radios for entertainment, among other things. Each type of entertainment has its day; sometimes a type of entertainment is long-lasting, sometimes not; sometimes a type of entertainment falls into the background, sometimes one drops out of existence entirely.



IJustLikeTivo said:


> Aside from ratings, what has changed to make scripted TV so expensive?


On the left, you have each of the crafts, including directors and actors, collect themselves together to negotiation arrangements that seek to protect and enhance the stream of money devoted to their craft. On the right, you have a billion new ways for people to invest the money that they used to invest solely in producing television shows, and every dollar invested always competes with every other way that dollar can be invested. Just like competition for consumer purchases drives down the money in a consumer market, competition for investment capital drives up the money in an investment market.

So the cost increases are coming from both sides.



IJustLikeTivo said:


> Why is there still lots of scripted stuff on other networks?


Fox doesn't have more "scripted stuff" than NBC, and ABC doesn't have that much more. CBS is more closely-held, and its largest stockholders are great fans of the medium, and as long as they're alive and in charge, CBS will always resist the natural forces in the industry.



IJustLikeTivo said:


> Heck, USA and TNT and makings truck loads of scripted stuff. Are they losing money?


USA and TNT are able to pay their cast and crew less (see above, after "On the left", for why NBC cannot do this), and both networks have two revenue streams, so going forward it is possible that they will end up being a more reliable source of revenue than NBC.

Also note that USA is run by the same people who run NBC. They're strategically deciding how much money to put toward programming on USA versus NBC. (See above, after "On the right", for more info on this.) It is focused on what's best long-term for their owners, not necessarily what is best for you, right now today.



IJustLikeTivo said:


> How do they either increase the revenue or decrease the costs?


I have posted this idea several times:



> I envision the networks moving to a multi-channel distribution model, eventually:
> 
> 1) Every show we see now on Broadcast Network XXC will appear first, in (say) April, on Premium Network XXA, uncut, uninterrupted, and with no commercial bugs or overlays. At the same time, it would be available via Pay Per View, and via Premium Network XXA's On Demand service. Perhaps at the same time, or shortly thereafter, the episodes will become available for streaming download from Netflix or other pay-for-streaming services, or perhaps even on quickly-pressed DVDs.
> 
> 2) Then, in July, the episodes will be rebroadcast on Cable Network XXB. This time, they'll have commercials inserted, and perhaps some content removed. There maybe station identification bugs, and perhaps even overlays used to advertise other Cable Network XXB programming. These same versions of the episodes will be available on Cable Network XXB's On Demand service, while the uncut versions remain available, perhaps rerun in wee hours on Premium Network XXA, as well as through Netflix or other pay-for-streaming services.
> 
> 3) Then, in October, these same episodes will start their broadcast run on Broadcast Network XXC. They will again have commercials inserted, just like when they were broadcast on Cable Network XXB, but in addition, they will have a significant amount of product and service advertising overlay -- perhaps as much as half of the program will have advertising for some product or service, either on a strip on the bottom, left or right. (It will move around from one spot to another during the episode.) The episodes, complete with product and service advertising overlays, will also become available on On Demand service Broadcast Network XXC makes available to cable companies, and on their websites (or through Hulu, perhaps).
> 
> I don't see any reason why (say) Heroes shouldn't be presented on a premium channel first, then a few months later on cable, and then a few months later on broadcast. It seems to me that this approach makes programming available in a variety of formats (i.e., with a variety of different levels of advertising invasiveness), and timeliness -- just pick which one you feel is worth it to you. I think this would offer the cable networks far more "original" programming to present (so it would be good for them) and I think it is a good arrangement for the premium networks as well. They would have to make room for a lot more episodic programming, but I think there is a lot of advantage to be had, offering the uncut and uninterrupted non-commercial versions, three months in advance.


It is impractical, for several reasons, but does at least cover most of the bases with regard to the "On the right" point I made earlier.


----------



## lambertman

marksman said:


> NBC once canceled the #4 show on tv for having too low of ratings.


Refresh my memory?


----------



## bicker

GadgetFreak said:


> Interesting. Wonder if they seriously considered that?


As long as they can make more money with 10PM than without it, they won't give 10PM to the affiliates. The key goes back to what I said earlier, which some folks seem to be incapable of understanding: There is a natural balance, between how much it costs broadcasters to provide programming and how much it is worth it to broadcasters to present programming. That natural balance isn't at all affected by the fact that bad PR pushed their Leno at 10PM effort back. They're going to find a way to fulfill the objective, which that effort was working toward, some other way. And with that other method employed, and most likely not pushed-back (because it is rare when opponents have the kind of opportunity afforded them, which having this Leno at 10PM change happen at the same time as the Comcast acquisition, did), they'll achieve that necessary balance, and there won't be a good reason to give the affiliates 10PM.

However, that doesn't preclude it from happening. It could be that viewers are worth a lot less than they used to be worth, and so perhaps only warrant two hours of prime time programming per night. I just think that there is a bit more distance between how much they currently pay for programming and how much less they could pay for programming, for that hour, before it reaches the point where viewers really are not worth it anymore.



GadgetFreak said:


> Would the considerations from the affiliates allow the network to make up what they lose in the 10-11pm hour?


My guess is that the affiliates likely would be okay with the change, in smaller markets at least.


----------



## Langree

bicker said:


> Also note that USA is run by the same people who run NBC. They're strategically deciding how much money to put toward programming on USA versus NBC. (See above, after "On the right", for more info on this.) It is focused on what's best long-term for their owners, not necessarily what is best for you, right now today.


Do we know this for a fact?

Just because they are under the same umbrella doesn't mean they don't keep programming and budgets for each seperate.

My quick search shows Jeff Wachtel as head of Original programming at USA and Bill McGoldrick as Sr. VP of same.

NBC has Jeff Gaspin (who used to helm the the network's cable properties. interestingly enough)

Check out this article from when Gaspin took over:

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...ramming_ben_silverman_out_jeff_gaspin_in.html

I found this part interesting, now looking at how it's ended.



> For instance, Gaspin cites the move this fall to 10 p.m. for Jay Leno, whose nightly comedy show will provide an alternative to rivals' dramas at a lower cost.
> 
> Success, he said, also requires viewers to be connected not only on TV but online and via cell phones.
> 
> "You can't just get a viewer to watch your network," he said. "You have to engage them and keep them a long time.


----------



## bicker

Langree said:


> Do we know this for a fact? Just because they are under the same umbrella doesn't mean they don't keep programming and budgets for each seperate.


That's true, but we do know that NBC does not report P&L to investors, while NBCU does.


----------



## Langree

bicker said:


> That's true, but we do know that NBC does not report P&L to investors, while NBCU does.


and?

NBC/CNBC/USA ad nauseum still probably keep their own records seperate in house, an invester p&l is just a pooling together of all that information.


----------



## bicker

As an investor, I'm going to take action vis a vis my investments based on the *public *information available, not internal information for which I have no exposure. Internal data is good for managers to base bonuses and promotions (and terminations) -- the business is run as business units, each with its own P&L.


----------



## Turtleboy

Jay Leno in his own words. Watch the whole clip

http://tv.gawker.com/5450086/jay-lenos-shocking-2004-indian-giving-promise-to-conan-obrien


----------



## marksman

lambertman said:


> Refresh my memory?


The Single Guy


----------



## marksman

Turtleboy said:


> Jay Leno in his own words. Watch the whole clip
> 
> http://tv.gawker.com/5450086/jay-lenos-shocking-2004-indian-giving-promise-to-conan-obrien


That is bogus. What did Jay do in the past month to hurt Conan?

NBC is the one who did it, not Jay. I am not sure why people want to lay any of the blame on Jay. Jay had his show canceled before Conan had anything done to him. Then in order to try and not have to pay Jay 80 million the NBC geniuses that Bicker has all the trading cards for, decided to come up with a kookoo plan to try and keep them both on the air.

NBC could have paid Jay to walk, but they made another deal with them. Jay always wanted to be on the air. He was kicked off the Tonight Show in the first place because Conan wanted it. Conan got him kicked off th Tonight Show. I am not sure why Jay should feel bad when Conan refuses to do the show any longer to take the job back. Jay never wanted to leave the job.

He made that announcement because he was being a good sport, but it was clear it was never what he wanted.

Conan told NBC back then, give me the tonight show or I am probably leaving when my contract is over. Conan got NBC to retire Jay early. I don't fault Conan for that move, and I don't fault Jay for taking the Tonight Show back now. I doubt Jay demanded the Tonight Show back, which is what Conan essentially did 5 years ago.

Both guys did what was right for them. As I have said before, I am a Conan fan, and don't care much about Leno and his show. However, I keep seeing people trying to put him at fault or paint him with an evil brush and I don't see it.


----------



## bicker

marksman said:


> Both guys did what was right for them.


Everyone did. As they should.


----------



## timckelley

My wife thinks that Leno should have turned down NBC's offer to put him back into the tonight now, saying that it should be Conan as was originally promised.


----------



## LoadStar

marksman said:


> Conan told NBC back then, give me the tonight show or I am probably leaving when my contract is over. Conan got NBC to retire Jay early. I don't fault Conan for that move, and I don't fault Jay for taking the Tonight Show back now. I doubt Jay demanded the Tonight Show back, which is what Conan essentially did 5 years ago.


You state that Conan forced the issue, and "forced Jay to retire early." I honestly don't see that at all, and I've never seen anything out there that would back that statement up. Jay announced that he was retiring, WAY before it was announced that Conan would get The Tonight Show. And frankly, at that point, Conan was perfectly happy doing Late Night. He was getting very good press, he was nominated for academy awards yearly (and in fact won one in 2007). Did he want something bigger such as The Tonight Show? Sure, but force the issue? I don't think so.

It seems many people see Jay Leno as a Brett Favre type of individual... he announced his retirement, then right when it came that time, he suddenly became wishy-washy and decided he wanted to still do TV... but by that point, he had already announced he was retiring, and they had already set Aaron Rodgers up as his replacement. Erm. I mean Conan O'Brien. 'Scuse me.

Once Jay had decided he wanted to still do TV, he was well and prepared to walk to another network. In fact, as I understand, discussions were well underway with ABC to bump Nightline and set Jay up with a show there. NBC, in order to lock him up and prevent him from walking, gave him the 10:00 show. Do I fault either NBC or Jay for that? Not really, other than that NBC should have thought through the whole scenario and all the possible repercussions (including that to The Tonight Show) a little more thoroughly.

I think that people partially blame Jay for the current mess for the same reason that they blame him when he "un-retired." They think that his un-retiring caused The Tonight Show to lose ratings, and his wanting to stay "un-retired" forced NBC to try and find a different place in the schedule for him - at the expense of The Tonight Show.

I don't think the current mess is really Jay's fault, other than perhaps that things might have been much easier had he just retired (or walked) like he said he would in the first place. The mess right now is strictly NBC's fault - they could have just canceled The Jay Leno Show and left The Tonight Show alone for a while longer to see what would happen, but they didn't. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They (and when I say they, it really does seem to be purely Zucker) really screwed the pooch on this one.


----------



## Turtleboy

It's funny. They were trying to avoid a repeat of the last scenario, when they lost Letterman. Five years ago if Conan was saying that he was going to walk unless they gave him 1130 (which I don't really think he did), they should have said Goodbye. Once they made the decision, if Jay said he was going to walk unless they gave him something, they should have said goodbye.

It's NBC's fault, but I do blame Jay too. He really is coming off like Brett Farvre.


----------



## bicker

Turtleboy said:


> It's funny. They were trying to avoid a repeat of the last scenario, when they lost Letterman.


The only way to avoid these situation is to hire crappier talent.


----------



## lew

bicker said:


> The only way to avoid these situation is to hire crappier talent.


Carson had a variety of guest hosts who, at one time, were regarding as the heir apparent. I'm thinking of people like David Brenner. NBC had no reason to "lock up" them up. As time went on a different group of younger performers were considered the heir apparent. What's different is there are more other places for those people to get shows.

Carson never cared when other networks started late night shows with performers like Joey Bishop, Dick Cavett etc. Those shows never did well in the ratings and never lasted.

I don't know how well Conan would have done against Leno and Lettermen. NBC might have been better off letting Conan walk. I never understood making a comittment to "retire" a successful host like Leno years in advance.


----------



## getreal

LoadStar said:


> ... Conan was perfectly happy doing Late Night. He was getting very good press, he was nominated for *academy awards* yearly *(and in fact won one in 2007)*.



Did he win for playing Gollum? No ... that wasn't him.


----------



## LoadStar

getreal said:


> Did he win for playing Gollum? No ... that wasn't him.


Sorry, I meant Emmy award. My bad. I get all those award shows mixed up.


----------



## marksman

Turtleboy said:


> It's funny. They were trying to avoid a repeat of the last scenario, when they lost Letterman. Five years ago if Conan was saying that he was going to walk unless they gave him 1130 (which I don't really think he did), they should have said Goodbye.


You don't think Conan's desire for the Tonight Show gig was the impetus for this?

You think NBC just went to Conan when he was in the middle of a contract, hey we would love to have you take over the Tonight Show in 5 years?

Is that what you think happened?

I know NBC is stupid beyond all comprehension but to believe they took theinitiative on this debacle would take it up another magnitude in bad decision making.

Quickly checking here is a Quick NPR Blog about the situation back then and it states that :



> when NBC suggested handing off The Tonight Show to Conan O'Brien in 2009 (as an enticement to Conan, who was reportedly getting other offers), he agreed that 2009 was a good end date.


I don't think Jay was under any kind of legal or moral obligation to retire when he "agreed" to do so back 2004. As I have mentioned it was likely very non-committal and whatever on Jay's part. He probably didn't care, maybe it sounded like a good idea. However NBC had to sense things and play accordingly. They obviously totally mis-read Jay. It is not like Jay came to them and said he wanted to retire. In that case if Jay backed out, I would feel like he had some responsibility. NBC came to Jay and essentially ask/told him to retire in 5 years.


----------



## Turtleboy

Nice misreading and misunderstanding of what I said.


----------



## hapdrastic

I liked Seth Meyer's marriage analogy about this situation on Weekend Update. First thing that made me see it from Jay's side at all. Although I still think he should have just sucked it up and retired like he said he would.


----------



## JYoung

LoadStar said:


> You state that Conan forced the issue, and "forced Jay to retire early." I honestly don't see that at all, and I've never seen anything out there that would back that statement up. Jay announced that he was retiring, WAY before it was announced that Conan would get The Tonight Show. And frankly, at that point, Conan was perfectly happy doing Late Night. He was getting very good press, he was nominated for academy awards yearly (and in fact won one in 2007). Did he want something bigger such as The Tonight Show? Sure, but force the issue? I don't think so.
> 
> It seems many people see Jay Leno as a Brett Favre type of individual... he announced his retirement, then right when it came that time, he suddenly became wishy-washy and decided he wanted to still do TV... but by that point, he had already announced he was retiring, and they had already set Aaron Rodgers up as his replacement. Erm. I mean Conan O'Brien. 'Scuse me.





Turtleboy said:


> It's NBC's fault, but I do blame Jay too. He really is coming off like Brett Farvre.


When did Leno say he was retiring from television?
Everyone keeps saying that but I never heard or read him saying that.

Even in the clip Turtleboy linked to, Jay said he was handing the Tonight Show to O'Brien he very much says that he is *not* quitting show business.
(And BTW, The Tonight Show is not Leno's to give. It did and still belongs to NBC.)

So none of this should have been a surprise to the NBC executives and yet here we are.


----------



## TheMerk

JYoung said:


> (And BTW, The Tonight Show is not Leno's to give. It did and still belongs to NBC.)


This is an important point. Letterman owns his show, and Conan will probably end up owning the rights to his. Frankly, it seems a much better situation to be in.


----------



## MikeAndrews

My prediction #2 (remember who said Conan will walk): Conan will be guest on The Late Show with David Letterman the week after his last Tonight Show.

And it's not beyond the realm of the possible that Conan takes over The Late Show when Dave retires, if Craig Ferguson doesn't want it.


----------



## marksman

Turtleboy said:


> Nice misreading and misunderstanding of what I said.


You said you didn't think Conan said he was going to walk unless he got the Tonight Show.

How did I misunderstand you?



Turtleboy said:


> If Conan was saying that he was going to walk unless they gave him 1130 *(which I don't really think he did)*,


I read it again, and it still reads to me that you are saying you don't believe Conan said he would walk away unless they gave him the 11:30 timeslot. Which I assume you are referring to the Tonight Show.

So I responded to you saying you don't think he did something, yet I misunderstood you. So please clarify.

I agree with you that if Conan did ask for timeslot they should have said sorry Charlie... We agree on all that. I was taking exception to your idea that he didn't actually ask for that, and pointed out a article from 5 years ago that seemed to support the idea that Conan was indeed shopping around or entertaining other offers.

I have to believe even if someone else approached Conan, that when NBC talked to him he was the first one to bring up the idea of the Tonight Show. I could be 100% wrong on that... but I have a pretty good feeling I am not.


----------



## ElJay

JYoung said:


> When did Leno say he was retiring from television?
> Everyone keeps saying that but I never heard or read him saying that.
> 
> Even in the clip Turtleboy linked to, Jay said he was handing the Tonight Show to O'Brien he very much says that he is *not* quitting show business.
> (And BTW, The Tonight Show is not Leno's to give. It did and still belongs to NBC.)


"Show business" could mean just about anything. Game show host, talk radio, a stand-up tour, hosting the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade on NBC. I don't think anybody figured in 2004 that it meant he'd just move up an hour and a half, perform the same show, and still let Conan follow him. It seems in the five years that followed the 2004 announcement, Leno's desire to remain in "show business" truly meant nothing other than having his face on a regularly scheduled TV broadcast. This of course frightened NBC with the idea of possibly competing against Leno and the rest is history (or soon to be history).

Leno said recently on his show that he was "fired" from the Tonight Show. The clip Turtleboy gave us certainly shows that's not the case when the transition was drawn up in 2004.


----------



## pendragn

ElJay said:


> Leno said recently on his show that he was "fired" from the Tonight Show. The clip Turtleboy gave us certainly shows that's not the case when the transition was drawn up in 2004.


It might be my memory playing tricks on me, but I absolutely remember Jay getting the boot in 2004 so that NBC could keep Conan by giving him Jay's job. I don't remember it being Jay's idea, or Jay saying he would retire. I remember him getting pushed out.

I could certainly be proved wrong by articles from the era, but that's not how I remember it.

tk


----------



## morac

hapdrastic said:


> I liked Seth Meyer's marriage analogy about this situation on Weekend Update. First thing that made me see it from Jay's side at all. Although I still think he should have just sucked it up and retired like he said he would.


It was a fairly good analogy. For anyone who missed it, it's the 2nd video on this page.

SNL's skit take on it (the first video) was bad.


----------



## Turtleboy

pendragn said:


> It might be my memory playing tricks on me, but I absolutely remember Jay getting the boot in 2004 so that NBC could keep Conan by giving him Jay's job. I don't remember it being Jay's idea, or Jay saying he would retire. I remember him getting pushed out.
> 
> I could certainly be proved wrong by articles from the era, but that's not how I remember it.
> 
> tk


Check out the video I posted upthread. Of course that was Jay putting the spin on things.

Edit: Here is the link so you don't have to go searching. http://tv.gawker.com/5450086/jay-lenos-shocking-2004-indian-giving-promise-to-conan-obrien


----------



## pendragn

Turtleboy said:


> Check out the video I posted upthread. Of course that was Jay putting the spin on things.


I'm sitting in a hotel bar right now and can't hear anything. I'll watch it when I get back to my room.

tk


----------



## JYoung

ElJay said:


> "Show business" could mean just about anything. Game show host, talk radio, a stand-up tour, hosting the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade on NBC. I don't think anybody figured in 2004 that it meant he'd just move up an hour and a half, perform the same show, and still let Conan follow him. It seems in the five years that followed the 2004 announcement, Leno's desire to remain in "show business" truly meant nothing other than having his face on a regularly scheduled TV broadcast. This of course frightened NBC with the idea of possibly competing against Leno and the rest is history (or soon to be history).


I realize that you hate Leno but please look at this objectively.
Leno never said he was retiring.
Just that he was "giving" The Tonight Show to O'Brien.
End of story there.

It's not his fault that the NBC executives were so short sighted, they assumed that one of the hardest working men on show business, well known for how much he wants to work, would just go away and never be heard from again at the age of 59.

And unless Leno put a gun to Jeff Zucker's head and forced him to give Leno five hours of Primetime, that's not Leno's fault either.



ElJay said:


> Leno said recently on his show that he was "fired" from the Tonight Show. The clip Turtleboy gave us certainly shows that's not the case when the transition was drawn up in 2004.


Please, that was part of a joke he told during his monologue. He exaggerated the circumstances for comedic effect.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

There's a very interesting discussion of this whole mess by Mark Evanier, a longtime industry insider (he started out writing sitcoms; now he mostly does animation) who has always had an interest in the behind-the-scenes politics of talk shows. He is pretty sympathetic towards Leno, whom he (mostly) thinks is getting a bad rap on this.


----------



## JYoung

Rob Helmerichs said:


> There's a very interesting discussion of this whole mess by Mark Evanier, a longtime industry insider (he started out writing sitcoms; now he mostly does animation) who has always had an interest in the behind-the-scenes politics of talk shows. He is pretty sympathetic towards Leno, whom he (mostly) thinks is getting a bad rap on this.


Thanks.
I've always considered Evanier a pretty smart guy and I'm still waiting for the Groo the Wanderer movie from him and Aragones


----------



## terpfan1980

Rob Helmerichs said:


> There's a very interesting discussion of this whole mess by Mark Evanier, a longtime industry insider (he started out writing sitcoms; now he mostly does animation) who has always had an interest in the behind-the-scenes politics of talk shows. He is pretty sympathetic towards Leno, whom he (mostly) thinks is getting a bad rap on this.


I'd give Leno a pass but for one thing... he was most definitely there benefiting when Carson was pushed out and make no mistake, Carson was pushed out. Now years later he was being pushed out and yet he didn't want to go.

I'd swear that I read somewhere that Leno had made comment about potentially retiring or at least seeing the end of the line for his time on TTS back in 2004. Something about that in 2009 he'd be 59 and his wife and he might spend more time together before he turned 60.

Regardless, he stirred up the pot a bit in his comments about going back to TTS if asked (which gave hope to the suits at NBC that they could bring him back and push Conan aside if they choose to) and to be fair, it shouldn't have taken a genius to recognize that 5 nites a week in the 10pm hour wasn't a good idea no matter how much Leno wanted to be on the tube. He could have countered NBC's nutty idea for 5 nites of Leno with a suggestion that perhaps one or two nights a week would be best. Figure one night a week of Leno (in say a Carol Burnett style), at least one night a week of Dateline (hey, air a few more to catch a preditor episodes, they always get people to tune in) and that would have left 3 nights to program for, assuming you don't run two hours of Biggest Loser or something like that.

I said it earlier, and some others have said the same, Carson left and did it with class. Leno didn't want to leave and didn't leave. Because he was still there anyone that didn't care for Conan and didn't want to go along for the ride on the 'new' Conan O'Brien TTS didn't have to. They got to have Leno and then just bailed on the network if they even bothered to watch Leno at all. If Leno wasn't there at all, if he'd taken the Carson approach and just gone off the air except for some occassional specials or something like that, then in all likelyhood no one would be giving him any thought as a villian here and more people would have been sympathetic towards him.

As things stand Conan is getting royally screwed. Leno is getting partly screwed because he's gonna be seen as a villian by some and they may well abandon TTS because of it. The core Leno audience will get older and less profitable and NBC will ask themselves a few years from now if they really made the right decision on who to keep. At that point it's too late and they may wish that they still had the demos that Conan had (and may have at that point, if he gets a new gig).


----------



## murgatroyd

Great piece, Rob. Thanks for posting the link.

Jan


----------



## JYoung

terpfan1980 said:


> I'd give Leno a pass but for one thing... he was most definitely there benefiting when Carson was pushed out and make no mistake, Carson was pushed out. Now years later he was being pushed out and yet he didn't want to go.


Do you have any proof that Carson was pushed out?

Because Mark Evanier disagrees with you:



Mark Evanier said:


> I have never, by the way, believed the claim that anything Leno or his people did "forced" Carson out. Johnny was the most powerful star in the history of network television and the execs then at NBC lived in absolute terror of him. I can't buy the assertion that when Jay's manager planted one basically-true story in the tabloids  the rumor that some there felt it was time for J.C. to go  Carson felt shoved out the door and left against his will. I think he just realized, with his impeccable timing, that if he didn't leave soon, he might not leave on top.


----------



## terpfan1980

JYoung said:


> Do you have any proof that Carson was pushed out?
> 
> Because Mark Evanier disagrees with you:


There's little proof that Carson was pushed out because he was too classy to ever make a fuss about giving up the show. I seem to recall a few words along the way (from him or others close to him) that he wasn't looking to retire but I don't have anything specific at this time.


----------



## RayChuang88

Based on Evanier's comments, I personally thought that Carson was going to officially announce his retirement anyway even if that infamous story Helen Kushnick "planted" in the _New York Post_ in 1991 had never happened--Carson knew that 30 years hosting _The Tonight Show_, though it made him *VERY* rich, was starting to be a major drag on his personal life and he wanted a quiet retirement.

As such, NBC should have by 1990 made deals with both Leno and Letterman that 1) Leno gets _The Tonight Show_ hosting gig once Carson retires and 2) Letterman gets a substantial raise to stay at _Late Night with David Letterman_. But NBC created a PR fiasco that ended up pitting Leno against Letterman, and once Letterman signed up super-agent Mike Ovitz (then the head of Creative Artists Agency) in 1990, it was only a matter of time before Letterman ended up on another network or in syndication on a late night talk show.

Personally, NBC should have given Jay Leno a "golden parachute" to retire from the network altogether. That way:

1) Leno get a nice lump-sum payment for his many years as guest host and main host of _The Tonight Show_.

2) Leno could devote full-time to live comedy performances, which with his name recognition could garner him US$200,000 per week in salary.

3) O'Brien, without the specter of Leno hanging over him, will find time to hone his "style" to make _The Tonight Show_ better.


----------



## bicker

How much of your own money would you have paid Leno to agree to never have a television show of his own, again?


----------



## LoadStar

Rob Helmerichs said:


> There's a very interesting discussion of this whole mess by Mark Evanier, a longtime industry insider (he started out writing sitcoms; now he mostly does animation) who has always had an interest in the behind-the-scenes politics of talk shows. He is pretty sympathetic towards Leno, whom he (mostly) thinks is getting a bad rap on this.


Good read, and it's more or less what I thought all along. In a nutshell: this situation is all Zucked up. Jeff Zucker doesn't appear to deserve to run a Quik-E-Mart, let alone a major broadcast network.


----------



## RayChuang88

bicker said:


> How much of your own money would you have paid Leno to agree to never have a television show of his own, again?


I'd say around US$50 million for a one-time lump-sum payment as a "golden parachute" to retire from NBC. We're forgetting that Leno already _has_ a second very lucrative job doing stand-up comedy shows--a job that could earn Leno at least US$200,000 per week at any large venue in the USA. Leno's fortune earned from hosting _The Tonight Show_ from 1992 to 2009 will keep him in very comfortable retirement even if Leno quits show business altogether.

I do think given these financial circumstances, Leno should go back to his first love--stand-up comedy--and make a very nice and comfortable living doing it. And Leno should show off part of his substantial automotive collection as a rotating exhibit at the Petersen Automotive Museum in Los Angeles, too.


----------



## zalusky

RayChuang88 said:


> I'd say around US$50 million for a one-time lump-sum payment as a "golden parachute" to retire from NBC. We're forgetting that Leno already _has_ a second very lucrative job doing stand-up comedy shows--a job that could earn Leno at least US$200,000 per week at any large venue in the USA. Leno's fortune earned from hosting _The Tonight Show_ from 1992 to 2009 will keep him in very comfortable retirement even if Leno quits show business altogether.
> 
> I do think given these financial circumstances, Leno should go back to his first love--stand-up comedy--and make a very nice and comfortable living doing it.


Problem is Leno has never spent a dime of his Tonight show money. It's all in the bank. So I don't think money is very persuasive. He want's to be in front of a large audience telling jokes. I also don't think it's about him helping other comics getting a springboard because he hasn't done that the way carson use to do it. IE have them come out and do some standup.

They mostly come out and do bits but thats different then doing straight standup.


----------



## RayChuang88

zalusky said:


> Problem is Leno has never spent a dime of his Tonight show money. It's all in the bank. So I don't think money is very persuasive. He want's to be in front of a large audience telling jokes.


Hence my suggestion that Leno go back to his first love: stand-up comedy. US$200,000 per week is a very conservative estimate of his potential earnings, and I'm sure a lot of casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City would *LOVE* to pay him US$500,000 or more per week to headline a show.

Leno, like Johnny Carson late in his career, is starting to reach a point that hosting _The Tonight Show_ is starting to drag on his personal life. If I were Leno, I would have long time ago negotiated a buyout and returned to doing stand-up comedy with a very comfortable income anyway.


----------



## Amnesia

RayChuang88 said:


> Leno, like Johnny Carson late in his career, is starting to reach a point that hosting _The Tonight Show_ is starting to drag on his personal life.


If Leno agreed with you, I don't see that he would go back to hosting a talk show.

Since he has shown repeated willingness to do so, he doesn't seem to agree that it's "a drag"...


----------



## Fassade

terpfan1980 said:


> I'd swear that I read somewhere that Leno had made comment about potentially retiring or at least seeing the end of the line for his time on TTS back in 2004. Something about that in 2009 he'd be 59 and his wife and he might spend more time together before he turned 60.


I posted it a few pages back in this thread; reposting the link here, but not the quote.

It was part of an NBC press announcement regarding the switch, not something that came beforehand. Leno talks about Conan as his successor on the Tonight Show, and Conan thanks Jay for his support. In short, everybody says the right things for a press release, nobody specifically mentions retirement, and 5 years later we have a mess


----------



## bicker

Yeah, I know I'd take $50M, but *no one* thinks my jokes are funny. I'm not sure $50M would be worth it to NBC, but I suspect even more strongly that Leno doesn't care enough about the money, and like previous poster said, you'd have to spend much bigger money to get him to give up performing for a million people _each night._


----------



## JYoung

terpfan1980 said:


> There's little proof that Carson was pushed out because he was too classy to ever make a fuss about giving up the show. I seem to recall a few words along the way (from him or others close to him) that he wasn't looking to retire but I don't have anything specific at this time.


I honestly find it hard to believe that Leno (and Kushnick) pushed the mighty Carson out.
Carson could have crushed them anytime he wanted to.


----------



## Amnesia

During tonight's show, Jay gave his point of view on what happened...I would type it all out, but I'm sure that there will be plenty of clips floating around tomorrow...


----------



## vertigo235

Amnesia said:


> During tonight's show, Jay gave his point of view on what happened...I would type it all out, but I'm sure that there will be plenty of clips floating around tomorrow...


http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=452589&gt1=28103


----------



## marksman

RayChuang88 said:


> Personally, NBC should have given Jay Leno a "golden parachute" to retire from the network altogether. That way:
> 
> 1) Leno get a nice lump-sum payment for his many years as guest host and main host of _The Tonight Show_.
> 
> 2) Leno could devote full-time to live comedy performances, which with his name recognition could garner him US$200,000 per week in salary.
> 
> 3) O'Brien, without the specter of Leno hanging over him, will find time to hone his "style" to make _The Tonight Show_ better.


I suspect Leno would have never agreed to a golden parachute. I suspect as I have said multiple times, he just sort of shrugged his shoulders and said okay/whatever to NBC when they told him he was retiring. He figured something would work out there or somewhere else. He probably didn't feel like he would want to retire in 5 years, but maybe he would... so whatever.

I think if NBC offered Jay money to retire he would have simply refused it. Obviously it would have been a mitigating factor, but there is one thing that seems pretty clear about Jay. He loves cars, and the only thing he might love more than cars is hosting a tv talk show every day he can.


----------



## michad

Fassade said:


> I posted it a few pages back in this thread; reposting the link here, but not the quote.
> 
> It was part of an NBC press announcement regarding the switch, not something that came beforehand. Leno talks about Conan as his successor on the Tonight Show, and Conan thanks Jay for his support. In short, everybody says the right things for a press release, nobody specifically mentions retirement, and 5 years later we have a mess


Here's where he says it all http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6d1caacad1/jay-s-2004-announcement

When I took this show over, boy there was a lot of animosity between me and Dave, and whos gonna get it, and quite frankly, a lot of, what I thought, well good friendships were permanently damaged. And I dont want to see anybody ever have to go through that again. Because, you know this show is like a dynasty, you hold it, and then you hand it off to the next person. And I dont wanna see all the fighting and all the whos better and nasty things back and forth in the press, so right now, here it is, Conan, its yours, see you in 5 years buddy. Clear enough?


----------



## marksman

This is something I agree with from the What Went Wrong article:



> As I'll explain, I don't think he did that...or at least, Jay did less to get Conan fired than Conan's people did to get Jay fired.


For people wanting to hate on Jay, I suspect an analysis would place blame on Conan/Conan's camp and starting this whole thing in the first place, more than it would be on Jay ending up back there.

Like I have said though, I don't blame either one of them. I think they both were doing what they felt was best for them and their careers. It is not their job or responsibility to make sure the network does not screw someone else over.



> Me, I'm going to guess that the revived Tonight Show with Jay Leno will do less well than the old one...that is, unless they do a helluva makeover on it. If it's only as good as his 10 PM show, it'll probably still improve somewhat on the numbers Conan was getting before the current controversy gave him a little boost...but not enough to justify losing O'Brien.


I also suspect that will be true as well. I think with Jay back on the Tonight Show he will ultimately see his ratings lower than when he left. They will certainly be up when he first comes back, but after settling in, I think they will be off a noticeable amount from where they were.. but still better than what Conan has been doing.

I would love to know what percentage of people who watched Jay at 10:00pm also watched Conan at 11:30pm.

That Mark Evanier article is a good read, and seems pretty much on point all through it. I think he sums up very well how none of this needed to happen for NBC to accomplish their goals, at pretty much all phases of the process.


----------



## marksman

michad said:


> Here's where he says it all http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6d1caacad1/jay-s-2004-announcement
> 
> "When I took this show over, boy there was a lot of animosity between me and Dave, and who's gonna get it, and quite frankly, a lot of, what I thought, well good friendships were permanently damaged. And I don't want to see anybody ever have to go through that again. Because, you know this show is like a dynasty, you hold it, and then you hand it off to the next person. And I don't wanna see all the fighting and all the 'who's better' and nasty things back and forth in the press, so right now, here it is, Conan, it's yours, see you in 5 years buddy. Clear enough?"


I don't get the point though?

Jay did graciously step aside. NBC then offered him a 10:00pm show and he took it. Then NBC fired Conan.

How did Jay not keep his word?

Jay could have insisted 12-18 months ago that he was not going to leave and he was going to keep the Tonight Show. I suspect NBC would have let him do so.

Instead Jay stepped aside, as he said he would. He didn't say he was going to step away from television and retire. He said he would step aside and let Conan have his shot. Jay is not the arbiter of when and how Conan got his shot at the Tonight Show. That is again, NBC.


----------



## terpfan1980

marksman said:


> I don't get the point though?
> 
> Jay did graciously step aside. NBC then offered him a 10:00pm show and he took it. Then NBC fired Conan.
> 
> *How did Jay not keep his word?*
> 
> Jay could have insisted 12-18 months ago that he was not going to leave and he was going to keep the Tonight Show. I suspect NBC would have let him do so.
> 
> Instead Jay stepped aside, as he said he would. He didn't say he was going to step away from television and retire. He said he would step aside and let Conan have his shot. Jay is not the arbiter of when and how Conan got his shot at the Tonight Show. That is again, NBC.


Jay didn't truly keep his word because he was going to leave NBC and go elsewhere and do a show. Be that ABC, FOX or wherever. NBC got wind of it and decided to keep him (via non-compete clauses and via offering him a show at 10pm nightly).

If NBC wanted to go with their 10pm Leno experiment they might actually have gotten away with it if they reduced the number of episodes per week (as I suggested before) and/or if they'd have waited for a more reasonable period of time before bringing Leno back -- especially if they were going to continue with the plan for 5 nights a week of Leno. In other words if they'd have waited at least a year or so before bringing Leno back they'd have given Conan a real chance to find an audience and they'd have left no choice for the Leno viewers like they did as was... no way to watch Leno and then abandon the network after that. If you wanted an NBC late night product you'd have to go with TTS or go elsewhere. The viewers might have run off to other networks, but then again some of that is dependent upon the guests that Conan could get (and without competition from Leno the quality of the guests on TTS would have been better) and some of it would have depended upon Conan's performance and people warming up to him or deciding that they just can't take him no matter what.

Knowing that Leno was coming back after such a short period of time away let people abandon Conan while waiting for their beloved Jay to return. Despite Ebersol's comments blasting Conan he really wasn't given adequate support or even a fair chance.


----------



## Neenahboy

Conan's latest Craigslist entry. 

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/sfv/cas/1558679241.html

Text in case the link goes bye-bye:



> - Tall, slender redhead available for nighttime recreation.
> 
> - 64, completely ripped, VERY Caucasian.
> 
> - Drapes match the carpet.
> 
> - Currently homeless, must meet at your place.
> 
> - Can go a whole hour (with scheduled breaks every 7-10 minutes).
> 
> - Fatties welcome.
> 
> - Not afraid to take two people at once, and then a musical guest.
> 
> - NOTE: If you want me to perform after midnight, it'll cost you!


----------



## dtle

Rob Helmerichs said:


> There's a very interesting discussion of this whole mess by Mark Evanier, a longtime industry insider (he started out writing sitcoms; now he mostly does animation) who has always had an interest in the behind-the-scenes politics of talk shows. He is pretty sympathetic towards Leno, whom he (mostly) thinks is getting a bad rap on this.


Moral of the story: Don't develop more than one talented guy for late night. Eventually, the other talented guy would want the coveted 11:30 slot and is willing to go anywhere else to get it.


----------



## JYoung

terpfan1980 said:


> Jay didn't truly keep his word because he was going to leave NBC and go elsewhere and do a show. Be that ABC, FOX or wherever. NBC got wind of it and decided to keep him (via non-compete clauses and via offering him a show at 10pm nightly).


I'm still not seeing how this is not keeping his word. Even in the announcement linked earlier, Leno said he wasn't quitting show business.



terpfan1980 said:


> Knowing that Leno was coming back after such a short period of time away let people abandon Conan while waiting for their beloved Jay to return. Despite Ebersol's comments blasting Conan he really wasn't given adequate support or even a fair chance.


While I agree NBC screwed O'Brien, his Tonight Show ratings were low before Leno's show started up.
O'Brien wasn't abandoned as much as he never developed enough of an audience in the earlier time slot in the first place.



dtle said:


> Moral of the story: Don't develop more than one talented guy for late night. Eventually, the other talented guy would want the coveted 11:30 slot and is willing to go anywhere else to get it.


With Fallon, I don't think they have any worries there as far as talent goes.


----------



## gastrof

But did the ratings for the Tonight Show drop when Conan took over, or did they stay about where they were?


----------



## scottjf8

Watching Jay's show tonight - he told his version of the story. Very interesting.


----------



## Fassade

scottjf8 said:


> Watching Jay's show tonight - he told his version of the story. Very interesting.


Assuming this is what you saw, Jay's POV is available on Hulu already (just under 4 and a half minutes)


----------



## scottjf8

Fassade said:


> Assuming this is what you saw, Jay's POV is available on Hulu already (just under 4 and a half minutes)


yah that's it. I'm on the west coast, so I just saw it on the JL Show.


----------



## mbklein

marksman said:


> Jay did graciously step aside. NBC then offered him a 10:00pm show and he took it. Then NBC fired Conan.


NBC didn't fire Conan. NBC decided to keep Conan, but move his show. If Jay didn't want to be on NBC any more, Conan would most likely still be hosting _The Tonight Show_ in the 11:30 timeslot. Unless you think Jeff Zucker is some kind of evil genius who can see into men's souls, NBC's moves were all geared toward keeping Jay off another network, not about getting rid of Conan.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Turtleboy said:


> Jay Leno in his own words. Watch the whole clip
> 
> http://tv.gawker.com/5450086/jay-lenos-shocking-2004-indian-giving-promise-to-conan-obrien


And he did exactly as he said he would. He graciously gave The Tonight Show to Conan in 2009.


LoadStar said:


> You state that Conan forced the issue, and "forced Jay to retire early." I honestly don't see that at all, and I've never seen anything out there that would back that statement up. Jay announced that he was retiring, WAY before it was announced that Conan would get The Tonight Show. And frankly, at that point, Conan was perfectly happy doing Late Night. He was getting very good press, he was nominated for academy awards yearly (and in fact won one in 2007). Did he want something bigger such as The Tonight Show? Sure, but force the issue? I don't think so.


I've never seen anything to back up that position. In fact, I don't even think that position is defensible with all the information that's out there. It's pretty well established that Conan was getting offers to leave NBC, but that The Tonight Show was what he always wanted, so he agreed to stay at NBC for five more years if he could then get TTS. 


hapdrastic said:


> I liked Seth Meyer's marriage analogy about this situation on Weekend Update. First thing that made me see it from Jay's side at all. Although I still think he should have just sucked it up and retired like he said he would.


Once again, Leno never said he'd retire. He just said he'd give up The Tonight Show, and he did exactly that.


RayChuang88 said:


> Personally, NBC should have given Jay Leno a "golden parachute" to retire from the network altogether. That way:
> 
> 1) Leno get a nice lump-sum payment for his many years as guest host and main host of _The Tonight Show_.
> 
> 2) Leno could devote full-time to live comedy performances, which with his name recognition could garner him US$200,000 per week in salary.
> 
> 3) O'Brien, without the specter of Leno hanging over him, will find time to hone his "style" to make _The Tonight Show_ better.


Two problems with your plan - First, NBC had the option just this past week to pay Leno a big lump-sum to go away, and they didn't want to do that. Whether they couldn't afford it, or wanted him back, that's obviously not something NBC is willing to do. Second, Leno doesn't care about the money. 


terpfan1980 said:


> Jay didn't truly keep his word because he was going to leave NBC and go elsewhere and do a show.


Leno never said he was leaving the network. He simply said he was leaving The Tonight Show (because NBC was making him do it), and he did exactly that.


gastrof said:


> But did the ratings for the Tonight Show drop when Conan took over, or did they stay about where they were?


They dropped like a rock. Check out this chart from TVbythenumbers.com:










Leno had a 2.3 in viewers 18-49 when he left. Conan's first week he had a 2.3 rating. By the second week, he was in the 1.5 range, and by late August, before Leno's show ever came on the air, Conan had settled into the 1.1 range. A better measurement is that for Leno's final season on The Tonight Show, his average was a 1.4 with about 5 million viewers. In the week before this whole storm broke, Conan had a 1.0 with about 2.5 million viewers. That's a loss of half the viewers, and a significant drop off in the desirable demographic.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

Mark Evanier has more to say...


----------



## ElJay

AP sums up Leno's talk from last night:



> Leno gave his audience a history lesson, or what alternately might have seemed a skillfully timed effort to repair any damage to Leno's trademark heart-of-gold image before the deal is made official, as soon as Tuesday.
> ...
> With a plan in place for Leno to leave "Tonight" in May 2009, before his NBC contract ended, he would be prevented from starting at another network for at least a year, Leno said. He asked to be freed but NBC refused, instead suggesting that Leno could do well with a prime-time show that the network acknowledged would get "killed" against first-run episodes of shows like CBS' "CSI" but could get traction against summer reruns.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34930548/


As we knew already, this all stems from NBC being afraid of competing against Leno.



> Leno, in explaining events from his standpoint, also said Monday that he had told NBC he'd return to the "Tonight" slot only after Conan O'Brien rejected the network's plan to put both men on in late night.


That's an interesting way to frame it. Leno will go to 11:35 only if Conan O'Brien rejects going to 12:05? "Yeah, I'll go back to 11:35, just find a way to push Conan out please."


----------



## Amnesia

ElJay said:


> "Yeah, I'll go back to 11:35, just find a way to push Conan out please."


Where are you getting that? What would make you suggest that Leno ever expressed a desire to push Conan out?


----------



## JYoung

Amnesia said:


> Where are you getting that? What would make you suggest that Leno ever expressed a desire to push Conan out?


ElJay just can't see Leno as anything other than an evil genius who sits in a big chair, his face in shadow, who plots to ruin O'Brien's career as he cackles gleefully and strokes a white cat in his lap.

Of course, ElJay conveniently forgets that the original plan was Leno at 11:35 and O'Brien at 12:05, which O'Brien balked at and decided to walk over.


----------



## MickeS

mbklein said:


> NBC didn't fire Conan. NBC decided to keep Conan, but move his show. *If Jay didn't want to be on NBC any more, Conan would most likely still be hosting The Tonight Show in the 11:30 timeslot.* Unless you think Jeff Zucker is some kind of evil genius who can see into men's souls, *NBC's moves were all geared toward keeping Jay off another network*, not about getting rid of Conan.


The bolded parts contradict eachother. By all accounts, Jay DIDN'T necessarily want to be on NBC anymore. But it didn't matter to NBC, they wanted to keep him, and were willing to push The Tonight Show back half an hour to make it so.


----------



## vertigo235

Jay said last night that he just wanted I work. But NBC wouldn't release him from his contract. So unless he wanted to wait his contract out. He couldn't leave NBC.


----------



## DevdogAZ

The interesting thing about Jay's version of the story, which I don't think we've discussed yet (because nobody knew this until last night), is that Jay asked to be let out of his contract when he left The Tonight Show, and NBC refused. He again asked to be let out of his contract in the last couple of weeks, and again NBC refused. I think Leno would love to take his act and his staff and go to another network and stick it to NBC. But since they won't release him from his contract, and won't pay him to remain idle, and he wants to continue working, his only choice is to do what NBC tells him to do, which is do a show at 11:35 once the Olympics end.


----------



## marksman

mbklein said:


> NBC didn't fire Conan. NBC decided to keep Conan, but move his show. If Jay didn't want to be on NBC any more, Conan would most likely still be hosting _The Tonight Show_ in the 11:30 timeslot. Unless you think Jeff Zucker is some kind of evil genius who can see into men's souls, NBC's moves were all geared toward keeping Jay off another network, not about getting rid of Conan.


Well I think you could argue what has happened to Conan. I think Conan would view it as him being fired from the Tonight Show. Especially now that Jay has it.

Sure NBC's take is different, but I have tended to avoided siding with NBC in this whole mess because they have proven themselves to be incapable of doing a single thing right in the whole mess.

I take that back.. I guess they got the net effect of Losing Conan, and having Leno on the Tonight Show, while keeping Conan for 5 more years.

5 years ago, they could have let Conan go and had accomplished the same thing. So I guess if having Conan on at 12:35 for 5 years was worth everything that has happened to the network now, then maybe it was worth it. Something tells me it is not likely.


----------



## Doggie Bear

mbklein said:


> NBC didn't fire Conan. NBC decided to keep Conan, but move his show. If Jay didn't want to be on NBC any more, Conan would most likely still be hosting _The Tonight Show_ in the 11:30 timeslot. Unless you think Jeff Zucker is some kind of evil genius who can see into men's souls, NBC's moves were all geared toward keeping Jay off another network, not about getting rid of Conan.


Without getting into the specifics of what exactly happened, I just want to point out that there's a concept in employment law known as "constructive discharge" where an employer unreasonably makes life so miserable and intolerable for an employee that the employee quits. If the employee then sues the employer for employment discrimination (or breach of contract, if the employee had an employment contract), it is not a defense to say that the employer did not fire the employee.

Of course, whether NBC in fact constructively discharged Conan is a different question and one I'm not speaking to.


----------



## MickeS

DevdogAZ said:


> The interesting thing about Jay's version of the story, which I don't think we've discussed yet (because nobody knew this until last night), is that Jay asked to be let out of his contract when he left The Tonight Show, and NBC refused. He again asked to be let out of his contract in the last couple of weeks, and again NBC refused. I think Leno would love to take his act and his staff and go to another network and stick it to NBC. But since they won't release him from his contract, and won't pay him to remain idle, and he wants to continue working, his only choice is to do what NBC tells him to do, which is do a show at 11:35 once the Olympics end.


Of course, Jay could have taken a vacation from TV for a year or so, and everything would have been OK, according to his version. Obviously, that's not what he wished to do.


----------



## stalemate

I'm sure this has been covered but I am being lazy. When is Conan's last episode of The Tonight Show?


----------



## DevdogAZ

stalemate said:


> I'm sure this has been covered but I am being lazy. When is Conan's last episode of The Tonight Show?


This Friday, Jan. 22. NBC's original plan was to keep the status quo until the Winter Olympics started, or until Feb. 12. He was already planning to be off the air the week of Jan 25, so it didn't really make sense for them all to come back for two weeks, so they chose Jan. 22 to end it all.


----------



## marksman

terpfan1980 said:


> Jay didn't truly keep his word because he was going to leave NBC and go elsewhere and do a show. Be that ABC, FOX or wherever. NBC got wind of it and decided to keep him (via non-compete clauses and via offering him a show at 10pm nightly).


He said that the Tonight Show was a torch, and he was passing it to Conan and he was going to step aside. He did EXACTLY that. He even asked to be let out of his contract with NBC. Jay never said he was retiring from Entertainment. He said he was stepping aside and letting Conan move into the Tonight Show. If Jay did not want to do that, he certainly could have caused it not to happen at all.

Jay wanting to move on after leaving the Tonight Show is not him not keeping his word.

Why would Jay be under an obligation to just disappear because Conan was taking over the Tonight Show?

In terms of how NBC handled it. Certainly they could of done it differently to give everyone a better chance. I suspect holding back Jay was an option but one they chose not to do because they realized there was a real chance that Conan would fail relative to Jay and they would all lose their jobs over that. That is why I think they rushed to force Jay on at 10:00pm. This way even if Conan failed, they could say yeah but it was all part of our master plan to reinvent Prime time. These guys were programming scared.

As that Mark Evanaire (sorry forgot his name), pointed out. Network Programmers are not long term thinkers because they are always on the verge of being fired. Holding Leno back would not have done them any good, because they started to worry about Conan on the Tonight Show. In the 5 years in between Leno did not really fall off. As Mark E also said, Zucker made the decision 5 years ago thinking he probably would not be around in 5 years so who cared anyways.

That is kind of the point of the whole thing though. There are 100 ways NBC could have managed this better, and it almost seems like they made the wrong choice every single time. Which is pretty hard to do.


----------



## bicker

Doggie Bear said:


> Of course, whether NBC in fact constructively discharged Conan is a different question and one I'm not speaking to.


Conan's final NBC paycheck, endorsed by Conan, would almost surely disqualify him for protection under those provisions of law.


----------



## Adam1115

MickeS said:


> Of course, Jay could have taken a vacation from TV for a year or so, and everything would have been OK, according to his version. Obviously, that's not what he wished to do.


Why do you assume NBC was willing to pay him to do nothing? Leno was still under contract. That means they either let him go work somewhere else, or he still works there.

I don't think 'sit on your ass and collect a paycheck, then go to another network in a year' was one of the options...


----------



## MickeS

Adam1115 said:


> Why do you assume NBC was willing to pay him to do nothing? Leno was still under contract. That means they either let him go work somewhere else, or he still works there.
> 
> I don't think 'sit on your ass and collect a paycheck, then go to another network in a year' was one of the options...


Good point.


----------



## marksman

Also how are all these changes going to effect Poker After Dark?

That is the only NBC late night show I watch with any regularity any more anyways.


----------



## DevdogAZ

marksman said:


> In terms of how NBC handled it. Certainly they could of done it differently to give everyone a better chance. I suspect holding back Jay was an option but one they chose not to do because they realized there was a real chance that Conan would fail relative to Jay and they would all lose their jobs over that. That is why I think they rushed to force Jay on at 10:00pm. This way even if Conan failed, they could say yeah but it was all part of our master plan to reinvent Prime time. These guys were programming scared.


The problem is, Leno wanted to work. He was under contract to NBC. NBC wouldn't let him out of his contract. So they had to put him on the air or pay him a big chunk of cash. There was never really an option to hold Leno back for a year so Conan could find his way.

Putting Leno on the air was the obvious choice, because not only would it mean that they wouldn't have to pay a contract penalty, but because they would be able to make a tidy profit in the 10 pm hour.

Also, I don't think there was any thought at NBC that Conan's ratings would be so poor. They'd been enamored with him for several years, to the point that they kicked out a top-rated guy in Conan's favor. So I don't think there was ever any thought by the NBC execs that Conan might fail. That he did, and that they had no plan to fix it, is evidence of that.


----------



## aindik

Leno was under contract, but I'm not sure for how long. Also, he signed a new contract when he was moved to 10:00. Maybe under his old contract NBC didn't have the right to move him to 10:00. Perhaps they only had the right to demand that he a) do the 11:35 Tonight Show and/or b) not work on any other network.


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> The problem is, Leno wanted to work. He was under contract to NBC. NBC wouldn't let him out of his contract. So they had to put him on the air or pay him a big chunk of cash. There was never really an option to hold Leno back for a year so Conan could find his way.


They gave Conan a contract that promised him the Tonight Show by June of 2009 but then signed Jay Leno to a contract that lasted longer than June of 2009? What for, other than to keep him on ice after Conan started, and to pay for that icing?

Unless Leno's contract, lasting past 2009, was signed before Conan's was signed in 2004. If so, then NBC knew when it signed Conan's contract that it would have to either pay Leno to not work or put him on the air somewhere.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> Leno was under contract, but I'm not sure for how long. Also, he signed a new contract when he was moved to 10:00. Maybe under his old contract NBC didn't have the right to move him to 10:00. Perhaps they only had the right to demand that he a) do the 11:35 Tonight Show and/or b) not work on any other network.





aindik said:


> They gave Conan a contract that promised him the Tonight Show by June of 2009 but then signed Jay Leno to a contract that lasted longer than June of 2009? What for, other than to keep him on ice after Conan started, and to pay for that icing?
> 
> Unless Leno's contract, lasting past 2009, was signed before Conan's was signed in 2004. If so, then NBC knew when it signed Conan's contract that it would have to either pay Leno to not work or put him on the air somewhere.


From the way Jay explained it last night, it sounded like Jay's contract went until the end of 2009, even though he gave up the show in May 2009. We don't know when that contract was signed, but if I had to guess, that's the contract that was in force in 2004 when NBC told Leno he'd be done in 2009. The timing of the actual transition probably wasn't finalized until later.

So NBC had three options, as I see it:

1. Let Leno out of his contract early so he could go find another job elsewhere.
2. Pay Leno to sit around and do nothing until his contract ended, at which point Leno would be able to sign with another network, but would still probably take six months to get a show off the ground.
3. Extend Leno's contract and give him a different show to host.

Jay asked for #1 but was denied by NBC. NBC obviously didn't want to do #2, so they went ahead and did #3.


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> From the way Jay explained it last night, it sounded like Jay's contract went until the end of 2009, even though he gave up the show in May 2009.
> 
> So NBC had three options, as I see it:
> 
> 1. Let Leno out of his contract early so he could go find another job elsewhere.
> 2. Pay Leno to sit around and do nothing until his contract ended, at which point Leno would be able to sign with another network, but would still probably take six months to get a show off the ground.
> 3. Extend Leno's contract and give him a different show to host.
> 
> Jay asked for #1 but was denied by NBC. NBC obviously didn't want to do #2, so they went ahead and did #3.


If they signed Jay to a contract expiring in December 2009, with full knowledge that he would be leaving the Tonight Show in May of 2009, what did they think was going to happen for the period in between?

I don't think it's so obvious that they didn't want to do 2. I think 2 is fully what they intended to do when they signed the deal.

What's more, if Jay wanted to pass the NBC late night torch to Conan as he said, he could have allowed, even demanded, that 2 happen. Instead, he went for 3.


----------



## marksman

I think they could have done it if they had the balls to do it. They are the ones that somehow ended up given them both contracts while only one had a show. How did that manage to happen in the first place?

If they knew 5 years ago that Conan was going to take over, how did Leno still have a contract? And yes they could have sat him for a while and paid him, if they really wanted to give things a chance. They chose not to... 

Blowing up your entire primetime schedule because you don't want to pay Jay's salary for doing nothing for one year seems like a pretty bad trade-off.

I do think as it got closer to reality the NBC execs did worry about Conan and what they did. As that Mark E. guy noted, they likely expected Leno might have been falling off at this point and the transition would make sense. The reality is there was really not much difference from 5 years ago, comparatively speaking.

I do agree with you that they jumped in, but it was potentially part of their strategy in keeping Jay around to have as a fallback if Conan failed. As you noted, that is part of the problem though. Conan never got a fair chance. Jay's shadow was over-bearing the whole time, and not because of Jay.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> If they signed Jay to a contract expiring in December 2009, with full knowledge that he would be leaving the Tonight Show in May of 2009, what did they think was going to happen for the period in between?
> 
> I don't think it's so obvious that they didn't want to do 2. I think 2 is fully what they intended to do when they signed the deal.


I just edited my previous post to respond to yours. I think it's pretty clear that Leno's contract that ended on December 31, 2009 was signed before NBC told Leno that Conan would be taking over in 2009. I'm guessing that's part of the reason NBC chose that date. I can't imagine that they'd tell Leno he was being forced off the show in 2009 but he only had a contract through 2007, so that there was a contract extension signed after the retirement notice. I doubt Leno would have agreed to stay with NBC if his contract expired any time between the 2004 announcment of Conan taking over in 2009 and that takeover.


----------



## aindik

marksman said:


> Blowing up your entire primetime schedule because you don't want to pay Jay's salary for doing nothing for one year seems like a pretty bad trade-off.


Even worse is that it wasn't even a year. It was the 7 months from June through December, 2009.


----------



## Amnesia

DevdogAZ said:


> (...) they chose Jan. 22 to end it all.


Has this been officially stated? I've seen numerous media stories quoting "high-level NBC execs", but I don't recall seeing anything official. Is it even official that Jay will be taking back _Tonight_? Or that Conan is no more?


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> I just edited my previous post to respond to yours. I think it's pretty clear that Leno's contract that ended on December 31, 2009 was signed before NBC told Leno that Conan would be taking over in 2009. I'm guessing that's part of the reason NBC chose that date. I can't imagine that they'd tell Leno he was being forced off the show in 2009 but he only had a contract through 2007, so that there was a contract extension signed after the retirement notice. I doubt Leno would have agreed to stay with NBC if his contract expired any time between the 2004 announcment of Conan taking over in 2009 and that takeover.


I'm wondering why they signed Jay through the end of 2009 but guaranteed Conan the Tonight Show by June. If it all happened at the same time, then the only logical explanation is that they did it explicitly to build in some time for Leno to sit on the shelf before he can get on TV somewhere else.

EDIT: And there probably isn't anything in Jay's contract, or most anyone else's contract, that says they can't negotiate with another network during the term of the contract, about what will happen after the contract expires. It happens all the time. Howard Stern announced in 2004 that he would begin on Sirius in January of 2006. There was no breach of his CBS contract by his negotiating with Sirius, so long as he didn't appear on their air until after the contract expired. And he started with Sirius right after his traditional three week Christmas vacation.

So, even with Jay's contract expiring in December, he could have signed a contract with Fox in April and done everything with them to prepare for the show other than appear on the air. Which means he could have launched his Fox show the day after his NBC contract expired.


----------



## DevdogAZ

marksman said:


> Blowing up your entire primetime schedule because you don't want to pay Jay's salary for doing nothing for one year seems like a pretty bad trade-off.


Except that's not what happened. NBC didn't really have much for the 10 pm slot, and they were not as profitable as they wanted to be, and they still had Leno under contract. So they tried to kill three birds with one stone. From a purely financial standpoint, it wasn't a bad decision. They made a lot more money off The Jay Leno Show than they would have from scripted drama. However, the collateral damage they did to the affiliates and the network reputation probably outweigh any financial benefits of the decision. But in fall of 2008 when the decision was made, it wasn't made just to keep from paying Leno not to work. It was made to try and shore up the profitability of the network.


Amnesia said:


> Has this been officially stated? I've seen numerous media stories quoting "high-level NBC execs", but I don't recall seeing anything official. Is it even official that Jay will be taking back _Tonight_? Or that Conan is no more?


After seeing your question, I've looked and found multiple stories stating that Jan. 22 is the "likely" end date, but I guess there's been nothing official. I thought what I read previously was official but I guess it's not.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> I'm wondering why they signed Jay through the end of 2009 but guaranteed Conan the Tonight Show by June. If it all happened at the same time, then the only logical explanation is that they did it explicitly to build in some time for Leno to sit on the shelf before he can get on TV somewhere else.
> 
> EDIT: And there probably isn't anything in Jay's contract, or most anyone else's contract, that says they can't negotiate with another network during the term of the contract, about what will happen after the contract expires. It happens all the time. Howard Stern announced in 2004 that he would begin on Sirius in January of 2006. There was no breach of his CBS contract by his negotiating with Sirius, so long as he didn't appear on their air until after the contract expired. And he started with Sirius right after his traditional three week Christmas vacation.
> 
> So, even with Jay's contract expiring in December, he could have signed a contract with Fox in April and done everything with them to prepare for the show other than appear on the air. Which means he could have launched his Fox show the day after his NBC contract expired.


I'm guessing that the timing of the transition from Leno to Conan was decided long after the contracts were already in place. They probably decided that ending Jay's show at the end of the traditional TV season made the most sense, rather than having Leno start his show in Fall 2009 only to end it a couple months later.

True, Leno probably could have negotiated with another network while he was still under contract at NBC. But it's unlikely that another network would be willing to blow up their own late-night schedules mid-season. I imagine there are probably contracts and such with other shows that run for the duration of the regular TV season. It simply would have made more sense for all involved if Leno's new show on ABC or Fox started in fall 2010.


----------



## Turtleboy

It seems like Conan's biggest mistake was not making Lorne Michaels a producer of The Tonight Show. Everyone needs to have protection.


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm guessing that the timing of the transition from Leno to Conan was decided long after the contracts were already in place. They probably decided that ending Jay's show at the end of the traditional TV season made the most sense, rather than having Leno start his show in Fall 2009 only to end it a couple months later.


I think the timing of the transition was very explicit in Conan's contract. I suppose it's possible that it just says "2009," but I thought I read that it explicitly said June.



DevdogAZ said:


> True, Leno probably could have negotiated with another network while he was still under contract at NBC. But it's unlikely that another network would be willing to blow up their own late-night schedules mid-season. I imagine there are probably contracts and such with other shows that run for the duration of the regular TV season. It simply would have made more sense for all involved if Leno's new show on ABC or Fox started in fall 2010.


Fox didn't (and still doesn't) have a late night schedule to blow up. Though, their affiliates do, so that's probably a factor. I think Fox could have announced to the affiliates in April or May that they were launching the Jay Leno Show at 11 p.m. starting January 4.


----------



## Turtleboy

I don't think Fox would have ever wanted Jay Leno. His demographics skew old.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> I think the timing of the transition was very explicit in Conan's contract. I suppose it's possible that it just says "2009," but I thought I read that it explicitly said June.


I think you're missing my point. I think Leno's contract that ran through December 2009 was already in place when they signed Conan's deal that gave him TTS in 2009. At that point, it was just trying to figure out the best time of year to make the switch, and the end of the TV season made the most sense, despite Leno's contract.


aindik said:


> Fox didn't (and still doesn't) have a late night schedule to blow up. Though, their affiliates do, so that's probably a factor. I think Fox could have announced to the affiliates in April or May that they were launching the Jay Leno Show at 11 p.m. starting January 4.


Anything is possible. I'm just saying that it's unlikely that anything would have happened before Fall 2010, which coincides with what Leno said in his explanation last night.


----------



## ElJay

JYoung said:


> Of course, ElJay conveniently forgets that the original plan was Leno at 11:35 and O'Brien at 12:05, which O'Brien balked at and decided to walk over.


The original plan was Conan at 11:35 and Leno goes bye bye. I don't know why Leno could not have sat around for another three or four months until his NBC contract expired. He already waited from May to the fall to start the "Jay Leno Show."


----------



## marksman

DevdogAZ said:


> I think you're missing my point. I think Leno's contract that ran through December 2009 was already in place when they signed Conan's deal that gave him TTS in 2009. At that point, it was just trying to figure out the best time of year to make the switch, and the end of the TV season made the most sense, despite Leno's contract.


If that is the case then, aren't you assuming that Leno is sitting out and getting paid?

They all had to know this overlap existed. What did they assume was going to happen?


----------



## DevdogAZ

ElJay said:


> The original plan was Conan at 11:35 and Leno goes bye bye. I don't know why Leno could not have sat around for another three or four months until his NBC contract expired. He already waited from May to the fall to start the "Jay Leno Show."





marksman said:


> If that is the case then, aren't you assuming that Leno is sitting out and getting paid?
> 
> They all had to know this overlap existed. What did they assume was going to happen?


As Leno explained last night, NBC didn't think he'd be able to maintain his #1 ratings for the entire five years, and thought he'd be ready to retire when he turned the show over. As it became apparent in the fall of 2008 that not only was Leno's popularity as high as ever, but that Leno intended to continue working, even if that meant going to another network, NBC made the decision to keep Leno around and give him a new show. The point is that Leno didn't make the decision, NBC did. NBC could have told him, "Tough beans, Jay. We're paying you your salary until the end of 2009 and we don't want you to do anything but stay off our airwaves." But they didn't say that. They offered Jay a raise, a new challenge, and a chance to stay on the air doing what he loves to do.

NBC could have done a lot of things differently and we might not be discussing this right now. But the fact is that they did offer Leno a new contract and a new show, so the point is moot about whether they could have kept him on ice for the remainder of his contract.


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> As Leno explained last night, NBC didn't think he'd be able to maintain his #1 ratings for the entire five years, and thought he'd be ready to retire when he turned the show over. As it became apparent in the fall of 2008 that not only was Leno's popularity as high as ever, but that Leno intended to continue working, even if that meant going to another network, NBC made the decision to keep Leno around and give him a new show. The point is that Leno didn't make the decision, NBC did. NBC could have told him, "Tough beans, Jay. We're paying you your salary until the end of 2009 and we don't want you to do anything but stay off our airwaves." But they didn't say that. They offered Jay a raise, a new challenge, and a chance to stay on the air doing what he loves to do.
> 
> NBC could have done a lot of things differently and we might not be discussing this right now. But the fact is that they did offer Leno a new contract and a new show, so the point is moot about whether they could have kept him on ice for the remainder of his contract.


They offered him a new contract. He didn't have to take it.


----------



## MickeS

marksman said:


> Blowing up your entire primetime schedule because you don't want to pay Jay's salary for doing nothing for one year seems like a pretty bad trade-off.


They didn't blow up the primetime schedule because of that. They blew it up because they kept losing money on it. Last year, it seemed more likely that they would go to 2 hours of primetime than keep doing 5 hours of expensive, low-rated drama. Or at most, just plug the schedule with even more inexpensive, low-rated docusoap junk. for NBC, it probably seemed like a win-win situation to get Jay into primetime.


----------



## bicker

Do keep in mind that Leno at 10PM only bumped 3 hours of scripted programming, not 5.


----------



## vertigo235

MickeS said:


> Of course, Jay could have taken a vacation from TV for a year or so, and everything would have been OK, according to his version. Obviously, that's not what he wished to do.


You're not thinking about the big picture, what about Jay's staff? Jay also seems to be looking out for his staff too.

Sure a year off is easily doable for Jay, but what about his staff? I'm not saying that his staff would be out on the streets, but they may get jobs elsewhere and Jay would lose valuable members of his staff, etc.


----------



## vertigo235

aindik said:


> They offered him a new contract. He didn't have to take it.


But why wouldn't he take it?


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> They offered him a new contract. He didn't have to take it.


Do you think that's realistic? They offered Leno a new challenge: a prime-time comedy/talk show and offered to pay him nearly $50 million per year to do it. In addition, they allowed him to keep his entire staff and stay in roughly the same location. Everything Leno wanted was contained in this offer.

Could he have turned it down? Sure. But why? So he could try and negotiate for a show at a different network that would have almost certainly kept him off the air for a year, would not have guaranteed him as much money, and would have meant much of his staff would have had to go looking for jobs?


----------



## aindik

Here's an article from 2004 that reports on Jay's new contract, for the Tonight Show through 2009 for $27 million a year.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,605847,00.html

The article says Conan wasn't signed past 2005 yet as of the date of that article.

So we now know that they knew Leno was signed through 2009 when they signed Conan. If they also knew, when they signed Conan, that they were going to do the transition at the end of a TV season, then had to have known, when they signed Conan, that they were going to pay Jay $15.75 million while he sat out for 7 months.

Jay could have done that. Sat out for 7 months, collect $15.75 million of NBC's money, and launch a new show on another network in January if a network would have him. That would have been in fulfilling his commitment to step aside in 2009 to avoid "what happened last time." Instead, he signs on to do a show that both upstages Conan on a nightly basis and kills his ratings lead-in. And now he swoops in to take back the 11:35 slot, instead of, again, sitting on the sidelines and collecting a pile of money and letting Conan do the show he handed off 7 months ago.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> Here's an article from 2004 that reports on Jay's new contract, for the Tonight Show through 2009 for $27 million a year.
> 
> http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,605847,00.html
> 
> The article says Conan wasn't signed past 2005 yet as of the date of that article.
> 
> So we now know that they knew Leno was signed through 2009 when they signed Conan. If they also knew, when they signed Conan, that they were going to do the transition at the end of a TV season, then had to have known, when they signed Conan, that they were going to pay Jay $15.75 million while he sat out for 7 months.
> 
> Jay could have done that. Sat out for 7 months, collect $15.75 million of NBC's money, and launch a new show on another network in January if a network would have him. That would have been in fulfilling his commitment to step aside in 2009 to avoid "what happened last time." Instead, he signs on to do a show that both upstages Conan on a nightly basis and kills his ratings lead-in. And now he swoops in to take back the 11:35 slot, instead of, again, sitting on the sidelines and collecting a pile of money and letting Conan do the show he handed off 7 months ago.


Feel free to rewrite history in a way that villifies Leno if you want, but the truth remains that NBC is the entity making the decisions here. Leno, being under contract at all relevant points, is simply doing what he's being asked by his employers, in an effort to continue doing what he loves to do and keep his staff of 175 people gainfully employed.

And to claim that Leno should have turned down NBC's offer of the 10 pm show and the money that goes with it, in some kind of show of respect to Conan, is simply unrealistic. Jay isn't in it for NBC or for Conan. He's in it for himself, his staff, and his show. If NBC is willing to pay him $40+ million per year, he would be insane not to accept that deal just because Conan is taking over his old timeslot.


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> Feel free to rewrite history in a way the villifies Leno if you want, but the truth remains that NBC is the entity making the decisions here. Leno, being under contract at all relevant points, is simply doing what he's being asked by his employers, in an effort to continue doing what he loves to do and keep his staff of 175 people gainfully employed.


He was under contract until the end of 2009. The decision to extend his contract beyond that was his to make.

Is there a law that prevents Jay from paying his staff to sit out while he does? If he's going to go to another network to do a show, he could certainly demand that the new network pay his staff during any layoff (in exchange for less money for himself). Many of them, of not most, would actually have to be working on the new show long before it got on the air anyway.

What happened to his staff between May and September of 2009? I'm assuming somebody paid them.


----------



## vertigo235

aindik said:


> Instead, he signs on to do a show that both upstages Conan on a nightly basis and kills his ratings lead-in. And now he swoops in to take back the 11:35 slot, instead of, again, sitting on the sidelines and collecting a pile of money and letting Conan do the show he handed off 7 months ago.


OK, first I'll start by saying that I like Conan a lot, and I really hate what's happening to him. I will watch him if he ends up on another network.

But I have to ask you, WHY do you think Leno OWES anything to Conan?

If your boss comes to you and says that they want to give you a raise and promote you, are you going to turn down that job simply because it's going to "upstage" someone else? Also remember, Jay has OTHER people that work for him, do you think they would be OK with sitting around for 7 months and doing nothing, collecting NO cash?


----------



## MickeS

aindik said:


> Jay could have done that. Sat out for 7 months, collect $15.75 million of NBC's money, and launch a new show on another network in January if a network would have him. *That would have been in fulfilling his commitment to step aside in 2009 to avoid "what happened last time." Instead, he signs on to do a show that both upstages Conan on a nightly basis and kills his ratings lead-in.* And now he swoops in to take back the 11:35 slot, instead of, again, sitting on the sidelines and collecting a pile of money and letting Conan do the show he handed off 7 months ago.


If Jay had been offered a talk show on another channel, it would surely have been at the 11:35 PM time. If he had accepted that, and assuming it would have had close to the ratings of his previous show, people would have said that Jay was now upstaging Conan and taking the ratings (and thus devaluing the Tonight Show heritage, history, value etc) from him.


----------



## aindik

vertigo235 said:


> If your boss comes to you and says that they want to give you a raise and promote you, are you going to turn down that job simply because it's going to "upstage" someone else?


That depends. Did I say five years ago that that's what I was going to do? Am I 60 years old? Did I earn anywhere near $27 million a year for the last 4 years?

He owes it to Conan to do that because that's what he said he was going to do.


----------



## timckelley

When asked to do a 30 minute show, preempting the Tonight Show, my wife thinks that at that point, he should have told his boss he'll get back with them, and then she thinks Leno should have called Conan to see if he's fine with a 30 minute delay of the Tonight Show, considering that he'd previously agreed to hand off the torch (implying that the Tonight Show dynasty needs to be kept intact).

Assuming Conan would not have been fine with it, she thinks Leno should have called his bosses and declined the deal, saying that the Tonight Show needs to continue at it's normal time slot with Conan at the helm.

I agree with my wife that this sounds nice, though I can see where it would take a pretty big man to do this. However, it would have gone a long way towards making the public admire Leno.


----------



## aindik

MickeS said:


> If Jay had been offered a talk show on another channel, it would surely have been at the 11:35 PM time.


If it was Fox, it would have been 11 p.m., but your point mostly still stands.



MickeS said:


> If he had accepted that, and assuming it would have had close to the ratings of his previous show, people would have said that Jay was now upstaging Conan and taking the ratings (and thus devaluing the Tonight Show heritage, history, value etc) from him.


I don't think him competing against Conan from another network would have been out of bounds. He said he was going to step aside and give Conan the Tonight Show and the role of premiere NBC comedy/variety host, and he would have done that.

What ended up happening was different. He said he would hand NBC over to Conan and then he really didn't.


----------



## Adam1115

aindik said:


> Here's an article from 2004 that reports on Jay's new contract, for the Tonight Show through 2009 for $27 million a year.
> 
> http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,605847,00.html
> 
> The article says Conan wasn't signed past 2005 yet as of the date of that article.
> 
> So we now know that they knew Leno was signed through 2009 when they signed Conan. If they also knew, when they signed Conan, that they were going to do the transition at the end of a TV season, then had to have known, when they signed Conan, that they were going to pay Jay $15.75 million while he sat out for 7 months.
> 
> Jay could have done that. Sat out for 7 months, collect $15.75 million of NBC's money, and launch a new show on another network in January if a network would have him. That would have been in fulfilling his commitment to step aside in 2009 to avoid "what happened last time." Instead, he signs on to do a show that both upstages Conan on a nightly basis and kills his ratings lead-in. And now he swoops in to take back the 11:35 slot, instead of, again, sitting on the sidelines and collecting a pile of money and letting Conan do the show he handed off 7 months ago.


I don't get your point. Jay could've sat out for 7 months and then left to go to another network. NBC knew this and DIDN'T WANT HIM TO LEAVE, so they offered him a gig and a lot of money.

If your company hired someone new to replace you and you were going to leave, and they offered you a crapton of money to stay and a new position, wouldn't you take it???


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> He was under contract until the end of 2009. The decision to extend his contract beyond that was his to make.
> 
> Is there a law that prevents Jay from paying his staff to sit out while he does? If he's going to go to another network to do a show, he could certainly demand that the new network pay his staff during any layoff (in exchange for less money for himself). Many of them, of not most, would actually have to be working on the new show long before it got on the air anyway.
> 
> What happened to his staff between May and September of 2009? I'm assuming somebody paid them.


So you're saying that instead of taking $40+ million from NBC to stay on the air, keep his people employed, and continue doing what he loved, Leno should have turned down that offer, taken money out of his own pocket to pay his staff, and sit on the sidelines for 8-15 months, all in the hopes that they'd eventually find a home on another network?

That sounds completely unrealistic to me, and outside of pure Leno hatred, I can't see how any sane person would expect Leno to make that decision.


----------



## aindik

Adam1115 said:


> If your company hired someone new to replace you and you were going to leave, and they offered you a crapton of money to stay and a new position, wouldn't you take it???


Did I get on the air publicly and say I was going to leave? If so, I probably would leave. Especially if I was in my 60s, had no kids and had just finished 4 years of banking $27 million a year.


----------



## vertigo235

aindik said:


> That depends. Did I say five years ago that that's what I was going to do? Am I 60 years old? Did I earn anywhere near $27 million a year for the last 4 years?
> 
> He owes it to Conan to do that because that's what he said he was going to do.


You know what.

Maybe we should review EXACTLY what he said he was going to do. Anyone have some references? Quotes?

How about this, your boss just told you that in 5 years they are going to give your job to someone else, now tell us what are YOU going to do in exactly 5 years. Lets check back in in 5 years and see how that goes for you.

I don't think Leno had a choice 5 years ago, he was under contract, I doubt he could even talk to other networks, etc about possible things to do if he wanted to. NBC told him that Conan was going to be taking over the Tonight Show, Jay didn't have ANY say in it, so he said OK, Conan can take over the tonight show. I don't recall Jay saying anything about what he was going to do with himself.


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> So you're saying that instead of taking $40+ million from NBC to stay on the air, keep his people employed, and continue doing what he loved, Leno should have turned down that offer, taken money out of his own pocket to pay his staff, and sit on the sidelines for 8-15 months, all in the hopes that they'd eventually find a home on another network?
> 
> That sounds completely unrealistic to me, and outside of pure Leno hatred, I can't see how any sane person would expect Leno to make that decision.


No. He should have worked out a deal with another network in advance, ready to jump on the air over there the day his NBC contract expired, with all his staff coming with him.

I think this idea that Leno took his whole staff from the Tonight Show to the Jay Leno Show is a bit of revisionist history. I remember reading at the time that everybody had to apply for their jobs again. I certainly don't see John Melendez on the new show.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> I don't think him competing against Conan from another network would have been out of bounds. He said he was going to step aside and give Conan the Tonight Show *and the role of premiere NBC comedy/variety host*, and he would have done that.
> 
> What ended up happening was different. He said he would *hand NBC over* to Conan and then he really didn't.


Now you're letting your bias against Leno allow you to read way too much into the original 2004 announcement. At no time did Leno ever agree that Conan would become NBC's "premiere comedy/variety host," nor did he agree that he would "hand NBC over" to Conan. He simply agreed that he'd leave The Tonight Show and give it to Conan. He did exactly that.

In 2004, nobody could have envisioned that NBC would be in a poor enough financial position, or that the NBC execs would be crazy enough, to predict that NBC would create a new position within the network that upstaged Conan. But that's what happened. And to expect that Leno should have turned it down because of some obligation to Conan is insane.


----------



## aindik

vertigo235 said:


> You know what.
> 
> Maybe we should review EXACTLY what he said he was going to do. Anyone have some references? Quotes?
> 
> How about this, your boss just told you that in 5 years they are going to give your job to someone else, now tell us what are YOU going to do in exactly 5 years. Lets check back in in 5 years and see how that goes for you.
> 
> I don't think Leno had a choice 5 years ago, he was under contract, I doubt he could even talk to other networks, etc about possible things to do if he wanted to. NBC told him that Conan was going to be taking over the Tonight Show, Jay didn't have ANY say in it, so he said OK, Conan can take over the tonight show. I don't recall Jay saying anything about what he was going to do with himself.


What prohibited him from talking to other networks about a show, so long as that show didn't start until after 2009? Nobody is going to talk to him about 2010 in 2005, but they probably would talk to him about 2010 in 2008.

Turtleboy posted the video from 2004 about what Jay said he was going to do in 5 years.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> No. He should have worked out a deal with another network in advance, ready to jump on the air over there the day his NBC contract expired, with all his staff coming with him.
> 
> I think this idea that Leno took his whole staff from the Tonight Show to the Jay Leno Show is a bit of revisionist history. I remember reading at the time that everybody had to apply for their jobs again. I certainly don't see John Melendez on the new show.


OK, I hate to do this, but . Really, that's all you've got? Some of his staff didn't get to keep their jobs? Of course there will be minor changes. No reason he should have to keep every single person around, if that person isn't working out. But the fact remains that his show employs 175 people, and they'd have all been out of a job if he didn't accept NBC's offer. Could he have worked something out with another network? Sure. But why would he bother doing that, when NBC was offering him something better than he could have ever hoped for from another network, and something that didn't require him sitting on the sidelines for a year?


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> OK, I hate to do this, but . Really, that's all you've got? Some of his staff didn't get to keep their jobs? Of course there will be minor changes. No reason he should have to keep every single person around, if that person isn't working out. But the fact remains that his show employs 175 people, and they'd have all been out of a job if he didn't accept NBC's offer. Could he have worked something out with another network? Sure. But why would he bother doing that, when NBC was offering him something better than he could have ever hoped for from another network, and something that didn't require him sitting on the sidelines for a year?


Because it's what he said he was going to do.


----------



## Amnesia

aindik said:


> Because it's what he said he was going to do.


As said before, no it's not. He said he would turn over _The Tonight Show_. He did that.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> Because it's what he said he was going to do.


When? Where? You're extrapolating his agreement to leave The Tonight Show into some global prohibition from him continuing to work on NBC after May 2009. Those are two totally different things, and he never agreed he'd stop working, whether at NBC or anywhere else. He only agreed that he'd leave TTS and give it to Conan, which is exactly what he did.

And even if he had made some explicit statement in 2004, since when do we not allow people to change their minds?

Bottom line: Leno owes nothing to Conan. Conan should have no expectations of Leno. NBC simply made decisions that they thought were best for their network and those decisions turned out to be poor. But you've got to have some kind of major block on your logical reasoning ability (hatred of Leno) if you honestly think Leno should have turned down a massive raise in the hopes that he could negotiate a new deal with another network, all to spare Conan's feelings.


----------



## timckelley

But didn't Leno owe it to Conan to not torpedo his show by accepting an 11:30 pm deal with NBC?


----------



## aindik

Amnesia said:


> As said before, no it's not. He said he would turn over _The Tonight Show_. He did that.


To take his entire show and move it so that it airs an hour before the Tonight Show every night is to at least partially undo his having given it away.


----------



## 5thcrewman

Will Howard Stern still get copyright money from Leno for the bits he stole?

He must be paying it since the ripoff is so blatant.


----------



## bicker

timckelley said:


> But didn't Leno owe it to Conan to ...?


No.


----------



## DancnDude

timckelley said:


> But didn't Leno owe it to Conan to not torpedo his show by accepting an 11:30 pm deal with NBC?


The way I understand it is that Jay didn't sign on for 11:30 until after Conan decided to leave.

Jay said he'd do 11:30 if Conan agreed to be pushed back 30 minutes (which the network told him was almost certain). Conan didn't agree to that. Conan decides to leave. NBC needs a new host and asks Jay to come back. Jay's under contact so if he wants to work, he's gotta take the job back.


----------



## vertigo235

I think it's interesting how people seem to take a serious interest in Jay Leno and Conan Obrien and what is owed to them etc. 

Nobody seems to care about the actors, etc when a TV show is canceled. It's all about the show. Much more matter of fact. 

So who else is totally pissed about what they are doing to move Lost to Tuesday nights at 9? Can you believe Matthew Fox did that to Jim Belushi?! What a jerk that Matthew Fox is.

Yeeesh


----------



## timckelley

I'm confused. Did the network tell Leno at the time of the 11:30 offer for the "Jay Leno" show, that Conan had agreed to the delay of the "Tonight Show"? If the did, then yes, it's NBC's fault for lying to Leno. Though once Leno exposed the lie, he could have retracted his acceptance of the spot. The lie would have been obvious once Conan published his speech about refusing to delay the "Tonight Show".

If the network did not tell Leno that Conan had agreed, then I suppose, like my wife said, Leno could have had a talk with Conan before accepting the deal, since he had already told Conan he was passing the torch.


----------



## vertigo235

timckelley said:


> If the network did not tell Leno that Conan had agreed, then I suppose, like my wife said, Leno could have had a talk with Conan before accepting the deal, since he had already told Conan he was passing the torch.


So Leno works for Conan? They are best pals?

Come on, Leno said he was "passing the torch" because he had no choice, it wasn't HIS decision. He simply said it because he was putting on a good face for the audience.

Should he have stood up on his desk and said, "This is all BS! I am being screwed out of my job and I will spend the next 5 years being a complete jerk!"


----------



## DevdogAZ

timckelley said:


> But didn't Leno owe it to Conan to not torpedo his show by accepting an 11:30 pm deal with NBC?


No. Nothing owed to Conan.


timckelley said:


> I'm confused. Did the network tell Leno at the time of the 11:30 offer for the "Jay Leno" show, that Conan had agreed to the delay of the "Tonight Show"? If the did, then yes, it's NBC's fault for lying to Leno. Though once Leno exposed the lie, he could have retracted his acceptance of the spot. The lie would have been obvious once Conan published his speech about refusing to delay the "Tonight Show".
> 
> If the network did not tell Leno that Conan had agreed, then I suppose, like my wife said, Leno could have had a talk with Conan before accepting the deal, since he had already told Conan he was passing the torch.


NBC cancelled The Jay Leno Show at 10 pm and asked Leno if he'd agree to do a half hour at 11:35, bumping back Conan's show by 30 minutes. Leno asked if Conan would be OK with this, and the NBC execs assured him that Conan would agree to it.

FF a couple of days and Conan doesn't agree to it. Leno looks like a jerk. But the fact is that the network asked Leno to move his show there, and either he agrees and continues to get paid and keep people employed, or he resists and then there is a major contract dispute between Leno and NBC. Why would Leno want to be off the air and involved in a contract dispute when he could be on the air telling jokes and getting paid instead?


----------



## JYoung

aindik said:


> I think this idea that Leno took his whole staff from the Tonight Show to the Jay Leno Show is a bit of revisionist history. I remember reading at the time that everybody had to apply for their jobs again. I certainly don't see John Melendez on the new show.


Melendez is currently a staff writer on "The Jay Leno Show



timckelley said:


> But didn't Leno owe it to Conan to not torpedo his show by accepting an 11:30 pm deal with NBC?


According to Leno, he was told by NBC that O'Brien was ok with it.


----------



## aindik

JYoung said:


> Melendez is currently a staff writer on "The Jay Leno Show
> 
> According to Leno, he was told by NBC that O'Brien was ok with it.


He was told by NBC that NBC thought Conan would agree to it. That's not the same thing as being told he did agree with it, or that he would be or was OK with it.


----------



## stalemate

DevdogAZ said:


> This Friday, Jan. 22. NBC's original plan was to keep the status quo until the Winter Olympics started, or until Feb. 12. He was already planning to be off the air the week of Jan 25, so it didn't really make sense for them all to come back for two weeks, so they chose Jan. 22 to end it all.


Thanks. It makes me sad. I did a photo a day blog last year and one of my pics of the day was Leno's last night on the tonight show. Whoops, not so fast.


----------



## Turtleboy

Once again, Letterman was great last night. He hates Jay so much.

http://www.cbs.com/late_night/late_show/video/?pid=fEGKBXV9Lkwb5MGNaSOepd1N0RD5GsY1&nrd=1


----------



## timckelley

Well then once Conan voiced his displeasure, I supposed Leno could have outted NBC as a bunch of liars who told them Conan was in agreement, and that his acceptance of the deal was based on this lie.

OTOH, I'm just now thinking: Did Leno's contract with the "Jay Leno" bind him to doing the show, even if the show were moved to 11:30? If so, then I guess the whole thing was out of Leno's hands from the start to the finish. NBC wouldn't have needed his okay to do the deal.


----------



## JYoung

aindik said:


> He was told by NBC that NBC thought Conan would agree to it. That's not the same thing as being told he did agree with it, or that he would be or was OK with it.


Rewatching that Leno's segment, his recollection was "Yes, he'll go for it, almost guaranteed he will".

On the other hand, Leno is being told by his bosses that this is what they want to do.
Exactly why should he say "No"?


----------



## DevdogAZ

Jeff Zucker was on Charlie Rose last night. Watch it here.

Fascinating interview, regardless which side you take in this fight.


----------



## DevdogAZ

timckelley said:


> Well then once Conan voiced his displeasure, I supposed Leno could have outted NBC as a bunch of liars who told them Conan was in agreement, and that his acceptance of the deal was based on this lie.
> 
> OTOH, I'm just now thinking: Did Leno's contract with the "Jay Leno" bind him to doing the show, even if the show were moved to 11:30? If so, then I guess the whole thing was out of Leno's hands from the start to the finish. NBC wouldn't have needed his okay to do the deal.


According to reports, Leno's contract guaranteed him two years at the 10 pm timeslot. Therefore, if NBC wants to move him to 11:35, Leno has to agree with it or NBC is in breach of that guarantee.

Leno had two choices here: 
1. He could either agree to the move and keep himself and his staff working.
2. He could refuse the move and then there is a contract dispute between him and NBC, where they refuse to pay his penalty and Leno wants to work, all the while, the staff is unemployed.

Seems like a pretty obvious choice to me.


----------



## JYoung

Turtleboy said:


> Once again, Letterman was great last night. He hates Jay so much.
> 
> http://www.cbs.com/late_night/late_show/video/?pid=fEGKBXV9Lkwb5MGNaSOepd1N0RD5GsY1&nrd=1


While I agree that was very funny, Letterman isn't exactly on the high ground here himself.

Don't forget that the reason he went to CBS was because NBC wouldn't boot a (somewhat) struggling Leno from the Tonight Show in 1992 and give it to him.


----------



## marksman

By accident I just caught a story by the local NBC channel on the issue, and they said that latest word on Conan's negotiating leaving is he is trying to get severance for all his staff... but that seems to be the current sticking point.


----------



## MikeAndrews

5thcrewman said:


> Will Howard Stern still get copyright money from Leno for the bits he stole?
> 
> He must be paying it since the ripoff is so blatant.


For Stern to complain about stealing from him has to be in the dictionary under "irony," although his usual MO is to claim the guy he ripped off stole it from him.

Item: Does Stern still use a cheap Radio Shack bullhorn in the studio? Stern stole that from Steve Dahl.


----------



## steve614

DevdogAZ said:


> Jeff Zucker was on Charlie Rose last night. Watch it here.
> 
> Fascinating interview, regardless which side you take in this fight.


I saw this last night and finally put name to face.
He doesn't look like someone who should be in charge of ''entertainment''.
No wonder NBC is in the toilet.


----------



## DevdogAZ

marksman said:


> By accident I just caught a story by the local NBC channel on the issue, and they said that latest word on Conan's negotiating leaving is he is trying to get severance for all his staff... but that seems to be the current sticking point.


Good for Conan. I expected he'd be able to work something out where his staff doesn't get left out in the cold, and I applaud him for sticking to his guns to make sure those people get taken care of.


----------



## Adam1115

aindik said:


> Did I get on the air publicly and say I was going to leave? If so, I probably would leave. Especially if I was in my 60s, had no kids and had just finished 4 years of banking $27 million a year.


Say you did. Say you publicly said "I'm going to going to leave my job title for the good of the company." Then you left your job and told your boss you were going to get a job for a competitor.

And he said "You know what? We don't want you to leave. How about if we give you a huge raise and give you a new job."

What would be wrong with taking it?

Then if the guy that took your job sucked at it and he came back and said "It's not working out with your replacement, we want you back at your old job or we'll have to let you go." Why wouldn't you take your job back?

What does age or how much he makes have to do with anything? So what, he's 60 and made a lot of money. He's got a marketable skill. He should just retire even if he doesn't want to for the good of late night TV? He just wants to work. What's wrong with that? It's NBC who wants to either keep him or have him crawl into a hole and never be on TV again.


----------



## 3D

aindik said:


> He was told by NBC that NBC thought Conan would agree to it. That's not the same thing as being told he did agree with it, or that he would be or was OK with it.


You really do seem to be holding Leno to an unrealistically high standard that I'm not sure you'd hold someone to in everyday life. Riddle me this: Isn't it just as wrong that five years ago, when Conan was offered the Tonight Show in 2009, he didn't say "Wait a second, you guys just signed Jay Leno to a five year deal, which he might never have signed if he knew you were gonna do this. I'm going to decline your offer because it's unfair to Jay, who's been doing really well for you guys." Of course we wouldn't expect Conan to turn down his shot at the Tonight Show out of respect for Jay, even though Leno had been giving him great lead in numbers that probably didn't hurt his eventual success. Why the heck should Jay Leno be concerned with Conan's well being? There's two words in show business, and neither of them are "personal."


----------



## inaka

*Conan & Leno settle the score...LOL
*
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/38406562d8/conan-rally-late-night-street-fight


----------



## busyba

JYoung said:


> While I agree that was very funny, Letterman isn't exactly on the high ground here himself.
> 
> Don't forget that the reason he went to CBS was because NBC wouldn't boot a (somewhat) struggling Leno from the Tonight Show in 1992 and give it to him.


IIRC, he went to CBS because NBC gave the show to Leno in the first place.


----------



## inaka

DevdogAZ said:


> No. Nothing owed to Conan.
> 
> NBC cancelled The Jay Leno Show at 10 pm and asked Leno if he'd agree to do a half hour at 11:35, bumping back Conan's show by 30 minutes. * Leno asked if Conan would be OK with this, and the NBC execs assured him that Conan would agree to it.*


This sounds like total b.s. from Leno.

Jay was going back to 11:35pm regardless of whether Conan agreed to it or not. If Conan's approval was some sort of mitigating factor, Leno could have called Conan directly before agreeing to the deal, or waited until Conan was on board before agreeing to the deal. It's pretty clear that Leno is spinning this into the typical "aww shucks I'm caught in the middle" scenario when he's not.

When NBC execs pitched the idea to Leno to move back to 11:35pm, the conversation probably went more along the lines of:

Leno: "How's Conan taking it...is he pissed?"

NBC: "He's not happy, but we're working on it. So are you in?"

Leno: (in his squeaky mouse voice) "Yeah, sure guys."

Only an idiot would assume that Conan would have no problem and accept moving an institution like The Tonight Show to a new time slot that isn't even "tonight" at all.


----------



## JYoung

busyba said:


> IIRC, he went to CBS because NBC gave the show to Leno in the first place.


Mark Evanier's recollection.



Mark Evanier said:


> Later, after Carson was out and Leno was in for a while, there was another big decision to be made. David Letterman wanted The Tonight Show and threatened to leave NBC if they didn't shove Jay aside and turn it over. The network actually made a kind of half-assed decision to do that but Dave didn't accept their terms and instead went to CBS. Was it a mistake for them to not kick Leno out then, even though his ratings were quite decent, and bring in Dave? I don't think so. Imagine this scenario: They boot Jay and that leads to a situation not unlike what we're currently seeing with Conan, with people rallying behind a guy who seems to have been unfairly fired, just because someone else wants to be the star of The Tonight Show.





inaka said:


> This sounds like total b.s. from Leno.
> 
> Jay was going back to 11:35pm regardless of whether Conan agreed to it or not. If Conan's approval was some sort of mitigating factor, Leno could have called Conan directly before agreeing to the deal, or waited until Conan was on board before agreeing to the deal. It's pretty clear that Leno is spinning this into the typical "aww shucks I'm caught in the middle" scenario when he's not.
> 
> When NBC execs pitched the idea to Leno to move back to 11:35pm, the conversation probably went more along the lines of:
> 
> Leno: "How's Conan taking it...is he pissed?"
> 
> NBC: "He's not happy, but we're working on it. So are you in?"
> 
> Leno: (in his squeaky mouse voice) "Yeah, sure guys."
> 
> Only an idiot would assume that Conan would have no problem and accept moving an institution like The Tonight Show to a new time slot that isn't even "tonight" at all.


Even if this were the case, if your boss comes to you and says "Chris doesn't seem to be able to handle your old shift, we want you to go back to it", do you tell your boss "not until I check with Chris first?"

I doubt it.


----------



## Amnesia

aindik said:


> Is there a law that prevents Jay from paying his staff to sit out while he does? If he's going to go to another network to do a show, he could certainly demand that the new network pay his staff during any layoff (in exchange for less money for himself).


The latest word is that Conan's separation talks have bogged down over his demand that NBC pay his staff $12M in severance.

However, from your above comment, I must assume that you think that Conan should pay his staff out of his own large separation fee, correct?


----------



## inaka

JYoung said:


> Even if this were the case, if your boss comes to you and says "Chris doesn't seem to be able to handle your old shift, we want you to go back to it", do you tell your boss "not until I check with Chris first?"
> 
> I doubt it.


Leno has said many times that he has never spent a dime of his tonight show salary. The guy still does Vegas stand up and tours like crazy. So equating this to a real world situation is highly dubious. Most of us actually need the money we work for daily.

If money wasn't even the object, and Leno handed over something he considered the crown jewel of a television franchise in 2009 (like Leno said in 2004 when he announced Conan was taking over in 5 years), I think the better question is how could Leno even allow NBC to move the Tonight Show at all until 12:05am. He said it himself in 2004 that The Tonight Show was an institution. For him to sit back and agree to a scenario where NBC execs would damage the pinnacle of late night franchises, that shows this isn't just Mr. "aww shucks" Leno being a good guy as he tries to portray.


----------



## Amnesia

inaka said:


> For him to sit back and agree to a scenario where NBC execs would damage the pinnacle of late night franchises, that shows this isn't just Mr. "aww shucks" Leno being a good guy as he tries to portray.


Are you talking about NBC giving the show to Conan in the first place or their proposal to push it back to 12:05 on the east coast?

I think it's unclear that Leno considered either of those things as damaging to _The Tonight Show_...


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

marksman said:


> By accident I just caught a story by the local NBC channel on the issue, and they said that latest word on Conan's negotiating leaving is he is trying to get severance for all his staff... but that seems to be the current sticking point.


Leno said he has 175 people working. If Conan is similar 40 million split 175 ways is pretty good severance. Last time I was laid off, I got , lemee see now. Oh yeah, Squat.


----------



## DevdogAZ

busyba said:


> IIRC, he went to CBS because NBC gave the show to Leno in the first place.


Leno got The Tonight Show in 1992. In 1993, when Letterman's contract for Late Night was up, he tried to get NBC to fire Leno and give the show to Letterman. NBC refused, Letterman went to CBS and the rest is history.


inaka said:


> This sounds like total b.s. from Leno.
> 
> Jay was going back to 11:35pm regardless of whether Conan agreed to it or not. If Conan's approval was some sort of mitigating factor, Leno could have called Conan directly before agreeing to the deal, or waited until Conan was on board before agreeing to the deal. It's pretty clear that Leno is spinning this into the typical "aww shucks I'm caught in the middle" scenario when he's not.
> 
> When NBC execs pitched the idea to Leno to move back to 11:35pm, the conversation probably went more along the lines of:
> 
> Leno: "How's Conan taking it...is he pissed?"
> 
> NBC: "He's not happy, but we're working on it. So are you in?"
> 
> Leno: (in his squeaky mouse voice) "Yeah, sure guys."
> 
> Only an idiot would assume that Conan would have no problem and accept moving an institution like The Tonight Show to a new time slot that isn't even "tonight" at all.


I'm sure there was some Leno spin in there. I'm sure he was trying to make himself not look like the bad guy. But the truth of the matter is that whatever Jay's response was to NBC's request for him to move to 11:35, it was going to turn out the same. NBC was convinced that moving Leno back to 11:35 and Conan to 12:05 was a good plan. They thought Conan would be able to build a stronger following by having Leno as a direct lead in, and that this would be a win-win for everyone. Whether Leno really believed that Conan was on board, or whether the exec who told that to Leno really believed it doesn't really matter.

NBC had Leno and Conan under contract. Of the two, Leno had proven to get better ratings at 11:35. Therefore, if forced to choose between the two, NBC was going to choose Leno. They wanted to try and keep both on the air, but if they could only keep one, they decided it should be Leno. So whether Jay agreed, or said I'm going to wait for Conan to approve it, or simply said no - the result would have ended up the same. NBC would have eventually arrived at the same decision, and Leno's desire to work and keep his staff employed would have trumped any obligation he felt not to step on Conan's toes.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Adam1115 said:


> Then if the guy that took your job sucked at it and he came back and said "It's not working out with your replacement, we want you back at your old job or we'll have to let you go." Why wouldn't you take your job back?


Which has happened to me. I told them I would consult at 3X my previous rate and they took it.


----------



## inaka

Amnesia said:


> Are you talking about NBC giving the show to Conan in the first place or their proposal to push it back to 12:05 on the east coast?


Pushing the Tonight Show to after midnight, not giving it to Conan in the first place.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

busyba said:


> IIRC, he went to CBS because NBC gave the show to Leno in the first place.


No, for a while they were back to back. Dave walked later when they were renegotiating his deal.


----------



## JYoung

inaka said:


> Leno has said many times that he has never spent a dime of his tonight show salary. The guy still does Vegas stand up and tours like crazy. So equating this to a real world situation is highly dubious. Most of us actually need the money we work for daily.


While Leno doesn't need to work for the money (I figure he's got to have at least 100 million in the bank), he appears to have a need to work for his own personal reasons.
I suspect that he goes crazy if he isn't working so while he may not have to same need for money, he still has a need to work. I've met (and worked with) people like that before.



inaka said:


> If money wasn't even the object, and Leno handed over something he considered the crown jewel of a television franchise in 2009 (like Leno said in 2004 when he announced Conan was taking over in 5 years), I think the better question is how could Leno even allow NBC to move the Tonight Show at all until 12:05am. He said it himself in 2004 that The Tonight Show was an institution. For him to sit back and agree to a scenario where NBC execs would damage the pinnacle of late night franchises, that shows this isn't just Mr. "aww shucks" Leno being a good guy as he tries to portray.


Or he's just being a good employee.
He can call the Tonight Show an institution but since NBC owns it and he doesn't, they can do whatever they want with it.

Leno wants to work and NBC is giving him a job. Sure, they're screwing O'Brien too but that's entirely on NBC.

And it's not like O'Brien's going to be forced into the poorhouse either.


----------



## Amnesia

inaka said:


> Pushing the Tonight Show to after midnight, not giving it to Conan in the first place.


Conan clearly thought that would be damaging and NBC (pretty) clearly did not.

I'm not sure why you seem to assume that Jay felt it would be damaging...


----------



## inaka

DevdogAZ said:


> Whether Leno really believed that Conan was on board, or whether the exec who told that to Leno really believed it doesn't really matter.
> 
> NBC had Leno and Conan under contract. Of the two, Leno had proven to get better ratings at 11:35.


I think it definitely matters whether Conan was on-board or not. If he's not it changes the options and scenarios completely. It's smart business because now Leno may be going up against Conan on Fox in the same time slot.

I also think that's false to say how Leno had proven ratings at 11:35pm. Leno was getting beaten daily in the ratings by Letterman until the infamous Hugh Grant appearance on Leno. Leno started on hosting The Tonight Show on May 25, 1992. Hugh Grant appeared on The Tonight Show on July 10, _*1995*_. Three years later.

On top of that, Leno's dud of a primetime show had horrible ratings, and was a poor lead-in to local news, resulting in a ratings drops for local affiliates. This is turn also resulted in a poor lead-in for Conan's Tonight Show.

The fact is that it took time for Leno to become number one. He wasn't number one from the start. He was given three years to build his brand. Conan wasn't given anything close to that and Leno's primetime disaster of a show didn't help.


----------



## inaka

Amnesia said:


> Conan clearly thought that would be damaging and NBC (pretty) clearly did not.
> 
> *I'm not sure why you seem to assume that Jay felt it would be damaging...*


Jay didn't. That's the issue. In 2004, Jay spoke of The Tonight Show as if it was the crown jewel of late night institutions of television. It was. Johnny Carson was an icon, and the show he helped craft was an American institution, etc.

For someone like Jay to participate in a scenario where this iconic television show would be dramatically changed (pushing it until the next am after midnight), all so he could have a 30 min show in front of Conan, seems odd that he would agree to that at face value knowing The Tonight Show would no longer ever be the same. As you said, Conan clearly thought that this would be damaging to The Tonight Show franchise, but Jay signed on to the deal without even confirming if the actual host of The Tonight Show was on board with the plan.


----------



## DevdogAZ

inaka said:


> I think it definitely matters whether Conan was on-board or not. If he's not it changes the options and scenarios completely. It's smart business because now Leno may be going up against Conan on Fox in the same time slot.
> 
> I also think that's false to say how Leno had proven ratings at 11:35pm. Leno was getting beaten daily in the ratings by Letterman until the infamous Hugh Grant appearance on Leno. Leno started on hosting The Tonight Show on May 25, 1992. Hugh Grant appeared on The Tonight Show on July 10, _*1995*_. Three years later.
> 
> On top of that, Leno's dud of a primetime show had horrible ratings, and was a poor lead-in to local news, resulting in a ratings drops for local affiliates. This is turn also resulted in a poor lead-in for Conan's Tonight Show.
> 
> The fact is that it took time for Leno to become number one. He wasn't number one from the start. He was given three years to build his brand. Conan wasn't given anything close to that and Leno's primetime disaster of a show didn't help.


You're preaching to the choir. Of course it would have made more sense to keep Conan on the air and see if he could build an audience, just like Leno was allowed to do in the 90s. Unfortunately, NBC's poor decisions left them with two hosts under contract and Conan's refusal to allow The Tonight Show to move back by 30 minutes left NBC with only one timeslot in which to put those two hosts. Faced with that situation, NBC obviously felt that keeping Leno and letting Conan go was the right move from a business standpoint.

There are arguments to be made for and against both hosts. I'm sure the decision wasn't easy. But unfortunately for Conan, he came up on the short end of that list of pros and cons, and now he's going to be out and looking for a new job.


----------



## DevdogAZ

inaka said:


> Jay didn't. That's the issue. In 2004, Jay spoke of The Tonight Show as if it was the crown jewel of late night institutions of television. It was. Johnny Carson was an icon, and the show he helped craft was an American institution, etc.
> 
> For someone like Jay to participate in a scenario where this iconic television show would be dramatically changed (pushing it until the next am after midnight), all so he could have a 30 min show in front of Conan, seems odd that he would agree to that at face value knowing The Tonight Show would no longer ever be the same. As you said, Conan clearly thought that this would be damaging to The Tonight Show franchise, but Jay signed on to the deal without even confirming if the actual host of The Tonight Show was on board with the plan.


Once again, you're not understanding the contractual issues at play. Leno was under contract to NBC. NBC wasn't about to pay him a reported $80 million to go away. Leno wasn't going to accept a show at 12:35, following Conan. Therefore, NBC really didn't have much choice. They either have to fire Conan and give TTS back to Leno, or they have to try a compromise to keep both hosts on the air.

At that point, they're not worried about damaging any legacy. In the grand scheme of things, this would be pretty minor, since it would likely only last 18 months (until Leno's guaranteed two years was up). Also, it's entirely possible that with Leno having a condensed show, he could deliver a bigger audience to Conan, thus strengthening Conan's numbers for fall 2011 when Conan would likely move back to 11:35.

However, as we all know, Conan refused to accept the compromise, and that forced NBC to choose one or the other. NBC chose Leno. Whether Leno accepted the deal before or after Conan expressed his displeasure, it would have worked out this way no matter what, because as of right now, the execs at NBC who are making this decision feel that Leno can make the network more money at 11:35 than Conan can. That's the bottom line.


----------



## JYoung

inaka said:


> I also think that's false to say how Leno had proven ratings at 11:35pm. Leno was getting beaten daily in the ratings by Letterman until the infamous Hugh Grant appearance on Leno. Leno started on hosting The Tonight Show on May 25, 1992. Hugh Grant appeared on The Tonight Show on July 10, _*1995*_. Three years later.


Letterman started on CBS on August 30, 1993.
While Leno's ratings weren't the stellar Carson ratings, he was still pummeling Arsenio Hall and he hadn't lost 40-50% of Carson's audience like O'Brien did this summer.
Letterman did beat him for two years but once Leno overtook him, he remained on top unti May of 2009.



inaka said:


> On top of that, Leno's dud of a primetime show had horrible ratings, and was a poor lead-in to local news, resulting in a ratings drops for local affiliates. This is turn also resulted in a poor lead-in for Conan's Tonight Show.


Unfortunately, O'Brien's ratings were poor through the summer before Leno's 10 PM show came on the air.
Certainly, Leno's lack of lead in didn't help but the ratings damage was already done before Leno arrived back on the air.



inaka said:


> The fact is that it took time for Leno to become number one. He wasn't number one from the start. He was given three years to build his brand. Conan wasn't given anything close to that and Leno's primetime disaster of a show didn't help.


I absolutely agree that Leno was given more time and it's unfair to O'Brien to yank him at this point. It is possible that O'Brien could have grown the audience.
The problem, Leno's already proven he can win the 11:30 time slot so that's who NBC decided to back.

If it were up to me, I'd probably give Leno some hours on Friday and/or Saturday night and leave O'Brien on the Tonight Show.
But I'm not Jeff Zucker and he won't take my calls.



inaka said:


> Jay didn't. That's the issue. In 2004, Jay spoke of The Tonight Show as if it was the crown jewel of late night institutions of television. It was. Johnny Carson was an icon, and the show he helped craft was an American institution, etc.
> 
> For someone like Jay to participate in a scenario where this iconic television show would be dramatically changed (pushing it until the next am after midnight), all so he could have a 30 min show in front of Conan, seems odd that he would agree to that at face value knowing The Tonight Show would no longer ever be the same. As you said, Conan clearly thought that this would be damaging to The Tonight Show franchise, but Jay signed on to the deal without even confirming if the actual host of The Tonight Show was on board with the plan.


Do you honestly believe that O'Brien walked "to protect the Institution of the Tonight Show"?
No, he walked because he just got kicked in the face by NBC (and I can't say I blame him).

None of this is about protecting the "Institution of the Tonight Show". It's a story about how two men basically want the same (or similar) job and the crappy way their employer is handling the whole situation.


----------



## smak

JYoung said:


> Mark Evanier's recollection.
> 
> Even if this were the case, if your boss comes to you and says "Chris doesn't seem to be able to handle your old shift, we want you to go back to it", do you tell your boss "not until I check with Chris first?"
> 
> I doubt it.


That's not the reason they wanted to stick Leno at 11:35. It's because he was under contract and didn't have any place to put him.

-smak-


----------



## TiVo'Brien

I wonder if the rumored $40 million payoff goes to Conan personally, or to Conaco _Productions_?


----------



## JYoung

smak said:


> That's not the reason they wanted to stick Leno at 11:35. It's because he was under contract and didn't have any place to put him.
> 
> -smak-


It's not the only reason.
They also want him there because he delivered better ratings than O'Brien in the past.
And they're scared to death that Leno would go to another network and pummel O'Brien in the ratings.


----------



## morac

If Conan was smart, he would have taken the 12:05 AM shot. Jay isn't a spring chicken. It might take another 5 years, but at some point he will retire. Then Conan could have been moved back to 11:35 PM. 

At this point Conan has nothing and when Jay retires, NBC has nothing. In the long run, the only winner is Jay.


----------



## Turtleboy

morac said:


> If Conan was smart, he would have taken the 12:05 AM shot. Jay isn't a spring chicken.  It might take another 5 years, but at some point he will retire. Then Conan could have been moved back to 11:35 PM.
> 
> At this point Conan has nothing and when Jay retires, NBC has nothing. In the long run, the only winner is Jay.


I think Jay's goal is to be on the air longer than Johnny, which is 11 years.


----------



## marksman

Amnesia said:


> Conan clearly thought that would be damaging and NBC (pretty) clearly did not.
> 
> I'm not sure why you seem to assume that Jay felt it would be damaging...


That is interesting. I wonder what Jay would have said if they reversed the offer and gave him the hour after the half hour.

I suspect Jay might have done it. I don't think he had the same issues with the sanctity of the Tonight Show as Conan proclaimed. I am not sure Conan does either, I think he was pretty pissed off and upset in general at that time.


----------



## MikeAndrews

JYoung said:


> Mark Evanier's recollection.
> 
> ....


Per "The Late Shift" The "half-assed offer" NBC gave Dave was he would have the Tonight Show after Jay had it for 2(?) years. Peter Lassaly wisely advised Dave to turn the deal down. They suspected that NBC could wait for Jay to get great numbers and then refuse to give Dave the show. When Dave called Johnny he said if it was him, he'd walk.


----------



## inaka

morac said:


> In the long run, the only winner is Jay.


Everyone is assuming that Jay will pick right back up and obtain the ratings he had when he left The Tonight Show. I have a feeling this won't happen, after the initial week he comes back to the show and the novelty wears off.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.


----------



## terpfan1980

morac said:


> If Conan was smart, he would have taken the 12:05 AM shot. Jay isn't a spring chicken. It might take another 5 years, but at some point he will retire. Then Conan could have been moved back to 11:35 PM.
> 
> At this point Conan has nothing and when Jay retires, NBC has nothing. In the *long* short run, the only winner is Jay.


FYP, at least from what I'm guessing will happen....

In the short run Jay may win for a bit, but in the long run a lot is going to depend up on Conan does and/or where he goes. If he goes to FOX and gets a show at 11pm (10pm central) then he may yet wind up doing much better than some people think.

NBC may win in the short run too, but in a very short-sighted way. They had the foresight about 5 years ago to recognize that Jay was getting older as was his audience. They saw Conan as younger, hipper and they bet that over those years Jay Leno would lose some audience. He didn't lose as much as they thought, but he did have and continues to have (if he can keep it) an audience that is older and somewhat less desirable in the key demographics.

If Leno's audience doesn't return, or doesn't return in the numbers that NBC hopes for than all NBC will have done is put a band-aid on their current late night problem. They lost a lot of audience for The Tonite Show and they blame Conan for that, but they have to look in the mirror too.

Where Conan lands can make a heck of lot of difference and, not to be morbid or predict health problems or the like, if there were to be any sort of health issues for Leno that pushed him off the air for an extended period he could lose more of his audience while some unproven talent comes in and hosts the show while he's away.

Conan is still younger, he still attracts a younger audience, and if the FOX schedule is reasonably strong (assuming he went there) he could potentially do well and make things really interesting in the longer term.


----------



## marksman

Dave Letterman: "Chemical Zucker"


----------



## smak

morac said:


> If Conan was smart, he would have taken the 12:05 AM shot. Jay isn't a spring chicken. It might take another 5 years, but at some point he will retire. Then Conan could have been moved back to 11:35 PM.
> 
> At this point Conan has nothing and when Jay retires, NBC has nothing. In the long run, the only winner is Jay.


Conan has nothing except for $40 million and the chance to go anywhere at anytime.

-smak-


----------



## smak

terpfan1980 said:


> NBC may win in the short run too, but in a very short-sighted way. They had the foresight about 5 years ago to recognize that Jay was getting older as was his audience. They saw Conan as younger, hipper and they bet that over those years Jay Leno would lose some audience. He didn't lose as much as they thought, but he did have and continues to have (if he can keep it) an audience that is older and somewhat less desirable in the key demographics.


You are correct. I don't know how anybody could think this is good for the long run. Replacing a 46 year old with a guy who's 60 in 2 months is good for the long run how?

And we're not even factoring in Conan doing another show at 11:35.

Now Conan could be in 3rd place, but despite bragging rights that's less viewers for everybody, and less money.

Nobody wins with a 3rd show at 11:35.

And Conan has a much better chance of getting that 3rd show than Jay would have.

-smak-


----------



## Seattle

Here is a video that explains the whole Leno/Conan issue.


----------



## murgatroyd

inaka said:


> Everyone is assuming that Jay will pick right back up and obtain the ratings he had when he left The Tonight Show. I have a feeling this won't happen, after the initial week he comes back to the show and the novelty wears off.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.


I won't be back.

Due to the wonders of TiVo, I'm watching Craig Ferguson. I don't really care about watching Leno again.

Jan


----------



## JYoung

morac said:


> If Conan was smart, he would have taken the 12:05 AM shot. Jay isn't a spring chicken. It might take another 5 years, but at some point he will retire. Then Conan could have been moved back to 11:35 PM.
> 
> At this point Conan has nothing and when Jay retires, NBC has nothing. In the long run, the only winner is Jay.


[Jimmy Fallon]
But what about me???????
[/Jimmy Fallon]



smak said:


> Conan has nothing except for $40 million and the chance to go anywhere at anytime.
> 
> -smak-


O'Brien can always go to Fox.
Perhaps as a writer for The Simpsons


----------



## MickeS

smak said:


> Conan has nothing except for $40 million and the *chance to go anywhere at anytime*.


What makes you think that? He's not exactly a ratings powerhouse - he's likely be 3rd if up against Jay and Dave, and right now I don't really see a lot of channels clamoring for more late night talk shows.


----------



## gastrof

While I think the arrangement would have STUNK, I can't help but wonder if maybe Conan should have taken the 12:05 show.

How many more years will Jay be wanting to stay on the air, especially with a 30 minute show? Eventually, that 30 minute show between 11:35 and 12:05 would have been gone.

There's no way that, at that point, NBC wouldn't have moved the Tonight Show back to 11:35.

Wouldn't the only real loser have been Carson Daly, since I'm guessing his show would have been dumped because of Leno being on the earlier end with a new 30 min show?


----------



## JYoung

netringer said:


> Per "The Late Shift" The "half-assed offer" NBC gave Dave was he would have the Tonight Show after Jay had it for 2(?) years. Peter Lassaly wisely advised Dave to turn the deal down. They suspected that NBC could wait for Jay to get great numbers and then refuse to give Dave the show. When Dave called Johnny he said if it was him, he'd walk.


(Slight derailment here)
That brings up another thought.
It's been generally accepted that Carson felt that Letterman should have gotten the Tonight Show instead of Leno.

If Carson really felt that way, why didn't he crush the 1991 Leno deal in the first place?


----------



## smak

MickeS said:


> What makes you think that? He's not exactly a ratings powerhouse - he's likely be 3rd if up against Jay and Dave, and right now I don't really see a lot of channels clamoring for more late night talk shows.


Late night shows are worth hundreds of millions to networks. That's why Leno & Letterman makes what they make, 25-30 million a year? More I think.

But I more meant Conan is free to do what he wants with no non-compete clause.

-smak-


----------



## smak

Turtleboy said:


> Once again, Letterman was great last night. He hates Jay so much.
> 
> http://www.cbs.com/late_night/late_show/video/?pid=fEGKBXV9Lkwb5MGNaSOepd1N0RD5GsY1&nrd=1


The funniest part to me is that Dave keeps on calling Jay's 10pm show a variety show over and over again, which I think is a big insult for Dave, but kind of an unnoticable one.

-smak-


----------



## Turtleboy

smak said:


> The funniest part to me is that Dave keeps on calling Jay's 10pm show a variety show over and over again, which I think is a big insult for Dave, but kind of an unnoticable one.
> 
> -smak-


Yes, I noticed that. Sonny and Cher did a variety show.


----------



## Amnesia

Turtleboy said:


> I think Jay's goal is to be on the air longer than Johnny, which is 11 years.


Johnny was the host for 30 years (1962-1992).


----------



## Turtleboy

Amnesia said:


> Johnny was the host for 30 years (1962-1992).


And Jay has been host for 19 years. 19 + 11 = 30. Sorry, if I was unclear, I meant 11 _more_ years.


----------



## IndyJones1023

Turtleboy said:


> I think Jay's goal is to be on the air longer than Johnny, which is 11 years.


Johnny hosted the Tonight Show a lot longer than 11 years.


----------



## Turtleboy

IndyJones1023 said:


> Johnny hosted the Tonight Show a lot longer than 11 years.


Ah. My mistake.


----------



## Amnesia

Turtleboy said:


> And Jay has been host for 19 years.


Jay was the host for 17 years (1992-2009).


----------



## Turtleboy

Sigh.


----------



## MikeAndrews

JYoung said:


> (Slight derailment here)
> That brings up another thought.
> It's been generally accepted that Carson felt that Letterman should have gotten the Tonight Show instead of Leno.
> 
> If Carson really felt that way, why didn't he crush the 1991 Leno deal in the first place?


It's not on the historical record that Johnny stepped in. There was an NBC west coast vs. east coast battle, but the west coast was the Jay Leno team. You know we don't even hear that Johnny had much to do with Jay being the permanent guest host. I remember that Fred DeCordova and NBC were behind that.


----------



## DevdogAZ

gastrof said:


> While I think the arrangement would have STUNK, I can't help but wonder if maybe Conan should have taken the 12:05 show.
> 
> How many more years will Jay be wanting to stay on the air, especially with a 30 minute show? Eventually, that 30 minute show between 11:35 and 12:05 would have been gone.
> 
> There's no way that, at that point, NBC wouldn't have moved the Tonight Show back to 11:35.
> 
> Wouldn't the only real loser have been Carson Daly, since I'm guessing his show would have been dumped because of Leno being on the earlier end with a new 30 min show?


Unless the new setup was getting blockbuster ratings, I suspect it would have only lasted until Leno's two year on-air guarantee was up (approx. 18 more months). I can see why Conan didn't accept it, as it was definitely a slap in the face, but stepping back and considering all the options, it probably would have been the best thing for him.


----------



## DevdogAZ

To answer the previous question about whether it's official that this Friday is Conan's last show, he opened his show on Tuesday night by saying, "Hi, I'm Conan O'Brien and I'm three days away from the biggest drinking binge the world has ever seen." And then Andy made some comment about, "Why not? You've got nothing else planned." So I think it's pretty clear that this Friday is the end, whether it's been officially announced or not.


----------



## MickeS

DevdogAZ said:


> Unless the new setup was getting blockbuster ratings, I suspect it would have only lasted until Leno's two year on-air guarantee was up (approx. 18 more months). I can see why Conan didn't accept it, as it was definitely a slap in the face, but stepping back and considering all the options, it probably would have been the best thing for him.





netringer said:


> It's not on the historical record that Johnny stepped in. There was an NBC west coast vs. east coast battle, but the west coast was the Jay Leno team. You knwow we don't even hear that Johnny had much to do with Jay being the permanent guest host. I remember that Fred DeCordova and NBC were behind that.


Maybe Carson simply was tired of the whole thing and didn't give a damn.


----------



## DevdogAZ

MickeS said:


> Maybe Carson simply was tired of the whole thing and didn't give a damn.


 Huh? What did my post have to do with Carson? I was talking about the setup where Leno would do a 30 minute show and Conan would then do The Tonight Show at 12:05. I'm guessing that would have been a temporary schedule, just until NBC fulfilled their two-year on-air guarantee to Leno.


----------



## JYoung

netringer said:


> It's not on the historical record that Johnny stepped in. There was an NBC west coast vs. east coast battle, but the west coast was the Jay Leno team. You knwow we don't even hear that Johnny had much to do with Jay being the permanent guest host. I remember that Fred DeCordova and NBC were behind that.


Yeah, my point is he didn't and he could have.


----------



## MickeS

DevdogAZ said:


> Huh? What did my post have to do with Carson? I was talking about the setup where Leno would do a 30 minute show and Conan would then do The Tonight Show at 12:05. I'm guessing that would have been a temporary schedule, just until NBC fulfilled their two-year on-air guarantee to Leno.


Sorry, quoted the wrong post. I meant to quote netringer's post right above yours.


----------



## DevdogAZ

MickeS said:


> Sorry, quoted the wrong post. I meant to quote netringer's post right above yours.


Ah, gotcha. Much less confusing now.


----------



## DevdogAZ

According to today's NY Post, NBC's decision on which host to keep was made easier because of their contracts. 


> The decision to let O'Brien walk apparently came down to who was cheaper to let go.
> 
> Leno has an ironclad, "brilliantly written" agreement that guarantees his production company a staggering $150 million if NBC Universal axes his flailing primetime show, an insider said.
> 
> That deal was news to O'Brien until Monday night, when Leno referred to it in his monologue.


If that's true, and it's only costing them $40 million to get rid of Conan, then it was a no-brainer decision for NBC.


----------



## IndyJones1023

DevdogAZ said:


> If that's true, and it's only costing them $40 million to get rid of Conan, then it was a no-brainer decision for NBC.


That's been NBC's problem from the beginning - no brains.


----------



## DancnDude

Wow $150 million......that's some new info there. Crazy. No wonder NBC would do anything to keep Leno around.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Actually, I doubt that number is accurate. I'd bet that it's closer to $80 million, which would be in line with the two-year on-air guarantee and the approximately $40 million salary that Leno has. But either way, if it's cheaper to keep Leno, and he's proven that he can get higher ratings in that 11:35 slot, it's a pretty easy decision for NBC.


----------



## mbklein

Easy decision now, stupid decision back at contract time.


----------



## DevdogAZ

mbklein said:


> Easy decision now, stupid decision back at contract time.


At which contract time? In 2004, when NBC decided that Leno would be finished at TTS in 2009? Or in 2008, when NBC gave Leno a new deal with an on-air guarantee?


----------



## smak

Jesus, it's like NBC thought they were selling water to people in the Sahara Desert.

Leno's show was always a risk, a big risk, and to guarantee him $150 million was ridiculous, unless they decided to make it a backdoor way to get Leno back to 11:35.

Which is my guess.

-smak-


----------



## aindik

smak said:


> Jesus, it's like NBC thought they were selling water to people in the Sahara Desert.
> 
> Leno's show was always a risk, a big risk, and to guarantee him $150 million was ridiculous, unless they decided to make it a backdoor way to get Leno back to 11:35.
> 
> Which is my guess.
> 
> -smak-


They only guaranteed him $150 million if they took him off the air. The amount they'd pay him to be on the air is, I think, less than half of that.

Leno basically said that if you want me to do a job, I'll do it for $x (I think x is something like $30 million a year for two years). If you want this to be a two year non-compete, that'll cost you $150 million.

He also said on the air that he asked to be let out of his contract and NBC said no. So, they always have the option of saying "yes" to that request (and can reasonably bank on Jay asking for a release if they took him off the air). They can negotiate a release (IOW, letting him go work elsewhere) in exchange for a lower payout. Which is what they're doing now with Conan.


----------



## mbklein

DevdogAZ said:


> At which contract time? In 2004, when NBC decided that Leno would be finished at TTS in 2009? Or in 2008, when NBC gave Leno a new deal with an on-air guarantee?


The latter.


----------



## DevdogAZ

mbklein said:


> The latter.


I can agree with that. NBC should have realized that the prospect of a late-night talk show in prime time was risky at best, and should not have given such an exorbitant guarantee. However, the flipside of that is that Leno's attorneys likely realized that it was a very risky proposition and didn't want their client yanked from the air and prevented from going to work elsewhere unless NBC was willing to cough up a trainload of cash.

I think what can be read into this is that Leno simply wanted a guarantee that he'd be able to continue working, no matter what, and they agreed to such an exorbitantly high number so that NBC wouldn't have any choice but to keep him on the air rather than pay him off.


----------



## marksman

Maybe Conan needs to hire Jay's management/agent/lawyers and have them work out his next deal, wherever it may be.

I know everyone likes to talk about how powerful Conan's agents are, but it seems like Jay got the better deal.


----------



## aindik

marksman said:


> Maybe Conan needs to hire Jay's management/agent/lawyers and have them work out his next deal, wherever it may be.
> 
> I know everyone likes to talk about how powerful Conan's agents are, but it seems like Jay got the better deal.


What's funny is Jay has no agent. I'm sure he has lawyers evaluating the contracts and advising him, but he does his own negotiating.


----------



## marksman

MickeS said:


> Maybe Carson simply was tired of the whole thing and didn't give a damn.


This seems most likely. He wanted to leave, and he was no longer going to own the show, so it is likely he could give two flips about it.

It is nice that he worked on it and made it an institution but that does not necessarily mean he personally held it in some high regard or something that needed to be put up a pedestal and protected. At the end of the day it was a tv show.

That is what is so funny about this. The Tonight Show is just a tv show. It is clear that a lot of talk-show hosts place more value on it than it is actually worth. With that though, NBC still managed to overpay everyone, when they should have been able to leverage the desires to have this particular show over anything else.


----------



## smak

aindik said:


> They only guaranteed him $150 million if they took him off the air. The amount they'd pay him to be on the air is, I think, less than half of that.
> 
> Leno basically said that if you want me to do a job, I'll do it for $x (I think x is something like $30 million a year for two years). If you want this to be a two year non-compete, that'll cost you $150 million.
> 
> He also said on the air that he asked to be let out of his contract and NBC said no. So, they always have the option of saying "yes" to that request (and can reasonably bank on Jay asking for a release if they took him off the air). They can negotiate a release (IOW, letting him go work elsewhere) in exchange for a lower payout. Which is what they're doing now with Conan.


Yes, but giving somebody a 2 year committment, or pay them $150 million, for a show as risky, and that has the potential to flame out is extremely stupid.

When you do that you either think it's a 100% sure no brainer success (which I don't think is possible), or you always have the idea in the back of your head that you can move him to 11:35.

Obviously NBC isn't paying anybody $150 million. So they had to know if 10:00 pm was a failure they'd move him to 11:35. I sincerely doubt this was just something they came up with 2 weeks ago.

They either thought that Conan would just move to 12:05 or they didn't care what Conan thought.

-smak-


----------



## aindik

smak said:


> Yes, but giving somebody a 2 year committment, or pay them $150 million, for a show as risky, and that has the potential to flame out is extremely stupid.
> 
> When you do that you either think it's a 100% sure no brainer success (which I don't think is possible), or you always have the idea in the back of your head that you can move him to 11:35.
> 
> They either thought that Conan would just move to 12:05 or they didn't care what Conan thought.
> 
> -smak-


I think alternative c is on the table: take Leno off the air and agree to let him work for another network instead of paying him (or, in exchange for having to pay him less).


----------



## dswallow

Ignoring the debacle itself, the whole point of the move in the first place was to save money.

This is not saving money.


----------



## DevdogAZ

dswallow said:


> Ignoring the debacle itself, the whole point of the move in the first place was to save money.
> 
> This is not saving money.


Actually, they probably did make a pretty tidy profit on Leno's show over the four months it was on, but the payout to Conan and his staff probably wipes out a good chunk of it.


----------



## aindik

They were paying Leno and Conan. Now they are still paying Leno and Conan. The question is whether they are paying more with Conan's severance than they'd pay him to work there, or less.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> They were paying Leno and Conan. Now they are still paying Leno and Conan. The question is whether they are paying more with Conan's severance than they'd pay him to work there, or less.


But they're also realizing less ad revenue (or will be after Feb 12) because those hosts will only have one hour's worth of shows vs. two.


----------



## Adam1115

Is it certain that Conan will get a payout?

NBC didn't fire him, they wanted to move his show. He refused to accept the schedule change. Doesn't that mean he's quitting?

I could see NBC making that argument.


----------



## Amnesia

Well, the deal details apparently haven't been finalized (or at least made public), but there's been a lot of discussion in the press about Conan's payout and no denial from any side.


----------



## bicker

It will be immaterial once they cut the check. :whistling:


----------



## aindik

Adam1115 said:


> Is it certain that Conan will get a payout?
> 
> NBC didn't fire him, they wanted to move his show. He refused to accept the schedule change. Doesn't that mean he's quitting?
> 
> I could see NBC making that argument.


He had a time slot guarantee. (Although The level of specificity of that guarantee in his contract is something that none of us actually know).


----------



## DevdogAZ

Adam1115 said:


> Is it certain that Conan will get a payout?
> 
> NBC didn't fire him, they wanted to move his show. He refused to accept the schedule change. Doesn't that mean he's quitting?
> 
> I could see NBC making that argument.


If either side actually wanted to litigate this issue, that's probably the stance NBC would take. 
However, NBC is the one that doesn't have room for Conan on their schedule and made the decision to put Leno in Conan's timeslot. Also, NBC really wouldn't stand to gain anything by suing Conan for breach. They'd just look stupid, damage their reputation even further, and incur millions in attorneys' fees for the privilege. For these and many other reasons, NBC isn't interested in having this issue dealt with in public in a court of law, and they're willing to pay a lot of money to simply have it resolved and put it behind them.


----------



## gastrof

Does anyone here think Conan actually has a chance to get another show? Is the FOX thing a real possibility? Didn't FOX say not long ago they weren't interested in having a late night show, no matter who the host was?

I wonder how the legality would work if NBC had offered to let the two of them split the Tonight Show? Each one doing the show every other night?


----------



## calitivo

gastrof said:


> Does anyone here think Conan actually has a chance to get another show? Is the FOX thing a real possibility? Didn't FOX say not long ago they weren't interested in having a late night show, no matter who the host was?


FOX corporate absolutely wants a late night show, but their affiliates don't necessarily because they make good money off cheap reruns at night as counter programming to what the big 3 do. And FOX never had any leverage with them because they didn't have a big name to put in that slot. The amount of money that NBC supposedly makes off late night is huge and they're in last place. FOX's demo is younger (I think) with more popular programming than NBC. If Conan goes to FOX, you will see him popping up everywhere on American Idol, NFL Sunday and other sports coverage, etc.

I think Conan either goes to FOX at 11 or 12 or Comedy Central where they put him behind Stewart/Colbert at 12 or move those guys up an hour and put Conan at 11.


----------



## smak

I've read a few places that Conan's success in the ratings the last 2 weeks has helped his FOX cause. I'm convinced that if he pulls off an entertaining show someplace else, he'll do well, because I think he'll get a lot of people to tune in early, and if he can do a good show, a lot will stay.

Maybe he'll get rid of the constrictions, he obviously felt in doing the Tonight Show, with his own show.

-smak-


----------



## bicker

FWIR, the Fox thing is pretty speculative. As late as last week, folks were still talking about it as just Fox messing with NBC. Worst case, for him, I could readily see Conan ending up on cable, though, paid an order of magnitude less than what he was being paid at NBC.


----------



## FilmCritic3000

http://www.avclub.com/articles/all-over-but-the-last-two-shows-conan-obrien-signs,37329/



> The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Conan O'Brien has signed a deal that will seal his exit from NBC and (for now) the late-night talk show host game. That story's behind a subscriber-only wall, but MSNBC has the details, drawing from the Journal piece. So, pardon the report on the report on the report, but here's what we know of the deal now, which will probably be officially announced later today: O'Brien will walk away with $32 million. His staff, reportedly the final sticking point of the negotiations, will be given a total of $12 million. There is also apparently a non-disparagement clause included in the agreement, although its boundaries remain unclear (and will undoubtedly be pushed to their limit).
> 
> Thus, over 16 years and nearly 3000 episodes after he started, O'Brien ends his tenure hosting a talk show on NBC. His next move remains uncertain. Presumably he'll land somewhere that will treat him with more respect.


----------



## ElJay

"non-disparagement clause" 

haha, good luck enforcing that.


----------



## terpfan1980

ElJay said:


> "non-disparagement clause"
> 
> haha, good luck enforcing that.


He was already having some fun with that...



> "I can't say anything bad about NBC... but it doesn't say I can't *sing* anything bad about them....
> 
> { quick note on harmonica type thing... }
> _Morons... Incompetent Morons..._"


----------



## TiVo'Brien

ElJay said:


> "non-disparagement clause"
> 
> haha, good luck enforcing that.


I loved the comparison between the pro-Conan rallies and the pro-NBC rally. Then they repeated the pro-NBC shot at the very end of the show - a jackass walking alone in the desert. :up:


----------



## Turtleboy

There's a google backdoor to all WSJ subscriber stories.

http://news.google.com/news/search?...en&q=conan+o'brien+source:wall_street_journal


----------



## nataylor

Artie Lange predicts Conan's future: 




It's a rather prophetic clip from a November, 2008 Late Night.


----------



## dilbert27

NEW YORK (AP) -- NBC said Thursday it has reached a $45 million deal with Conan O'Brien for his exit from the "Tonight" show, allowing Jay Leno to return to the late-night program he hosted for 17 years.

Full Story: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TV_LENO_OBRIEN?SITE=MAFAL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


----------



## timckelley

I think, IIRC, 33M is for him, and 12M is for his staff. Anybody know how many people are in his staff?


----------



## aindik

timckelley said:


> I think, IIRC, 33M is for him, and 12M is for his staff. Anybody know how many people are in his staff?


The article said about 200 people.


----------



## timckelley

So, an average of 60K per staff member. I guess that's a pretty good bonus.


----------



## aindik

timckelley said:


> So, an average of 60K per staff member. I guess that's a pretty good bonus.


Especially if we assume the can be back working for a Conan show by September if they want to be. Though perhaps we can't assume that.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

aindik said:


> Especially if we assume the can be back working for a Conan show by September if they want to be. Though perhaps we can't assume that.


I think it's highly unlikely he can find a place for a network show. He can try a syndication deal but that would be much less money.


----------



## dilbert27

*And in the Year 3000*










*Jay Leno will still be hosting the Tonight Show*​


----------



## FilmCritic3000

aindik said:


> Especially if we assume the can be back working for a Conan show by September if they want to be. Though perhaps we can't assume that.


Methinks Kevin Reilly (formerly NBC Entertainment President - 2004-2007; currently FOX Entertainment President) and Peter Rice (formerly of Fox Searchlight Pictures, currently FOX President) will be having conversations with Conan this week.

Here's Kevin Reilly discussing the possibility of Conan having a late night show on FOX at the Television Critics Association press tour on January 11th.

http://www.thrfeed.com/2010/01/reilly-conan-not-damaged-goods-video.html

I'm sure there are hurdles to jump, but I have a feeling they'll all be leapt over and Conan will have a show on FOX this autumn, IMHO.


----------



## scooterboy

timckelley said:


> So, an average of 60K per staff member. I guess that's a pretty good bonus.


I don't think so. If I had moved across the country as a member of Conan's staff only to later be dumped, I'd expect a lot more than 60K.

It would nice if Conan volunteered 8M of _his_ "bonus" to bring it up to $100K each.


----------



## TiVo'Brien

scooterboy said:


> I don't think so. If I had moved across the country as a member of Conan's staff only to later be dumped, I'd expect a lot more than 60K.
> 
> It would nice if Conan volunteered 8M of _his_ "bonus" to bring it up to $100K each.


That's what I was thinking. Many of them probably spent in anticipation of this being a longer term gig. After taxes $60k ain't that much in California. I wonder how many staffers got crap for their house/condo in the NY/NJ housing market back in spring '09. Hopefully they'll all land on their feet this fall.


----------



## timckelley

scooterboy said:


> I don't think so. If I had moved across the country as a member of Conan's staff only to later be dumped, I'd expect a lot more than 60K.
> 
> It would nice if Conan volunteered 8M of _his_ "bonus" to bring it up to $100K each.


Well Conan did say he cares more that his staff be taken care of than himself, and that for himself, he just wants to be able to afford to feed his family. Therefore, I assume he will be volunteering this 8M as you outline.


----------



## MikeAndrews

timckelley said:


> I think, IIRC, 33M is for him, and 12M is for his staff. Anybody know how many people are in his staff?





aindik said:


> The article said about 200 people.





timckelley said:


> So, an average of 60K per staff member. I guess that's a pretty good bonus.





scooterboy said:


> I don't think so. If I had moved across the country as a member of Conan's staff only to later be dumped, I'd expect a lot more than 60K.
> 
> It would nice if Conan volunteered 8M of _his_ "bonus" to bring it up to $100K each.


The word I heard is Conan _is_ pitching in part of his $35M to the staff severance pool.

Methinks that Max Weinberg would do fine without the severance. He has a kick-ass side job (actually Conan was the side job.)


----------



## ElJay

When I imagine a settlement pie being drained by the people at the top like Andy, Max, and Mike Sweeney, a $12 million pot seems pretty small. Especially for a staff that just relocated 3000 miles and expected a gig for a decade and a half plus. That's good news to hear Conan will augment it with some of his own money.



> His final show will be Friday, with Tom Hanks scheduled to appear as well as Will Ferrell - the first guest O'Brien welcomed as "Tonight" host last June - and musical guest Neil Young.
> 
> Leno will return to "Tonight" on March 1.
> 
> "In the end, Conan was appreciative of the steps NBC made to take care of his staff and crew, and decided to supplement the severance they were getting out of his own pocket," his manager, Gavin Polone, told The Wall Street Journal. "Now he just wants to get back on the air as quickly as possible."
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34970662/ns/entertainment-television/


----------



## TiVoJedi

Does Conan pay tax on his severance that he donates to his staff?

Also without a late show he and Andy could do 
"Conan and Andy Richter Control the Universe". I miss Andy's old show, but they wouldn't be as crispy in hell (FOX) if they can bring Conan over in some capacity for a show on their network (just don't cancel it after 7 months)


----------



## DevdogAZ

ElJay said:


> When I imagine a settlement pie being drained by the people at the top like Andy, Max, and Mike Sweeney, a $12 million pot seems pretty small. Especially for a staff that just relocated 3000 miles and expected a gig for a decade and a half plus. That's good news to hear Conan will augment it with some of his own money.


That was going to be my point. The people at the top will get much, much more than $60k, leaving probably less than $30k-40k for the rest of the staff.

And if Conan is planning to kick in some of his own money into the staff severance pool, I'd think that he'd want the actual deal to reflect that, so he won't be taxed on money that he's giving away. It might look good from a PR standpoint for him to accept a $33 million settlement and then publicly give away several million of it, but from a financial standpoint, it would make far more sense for him to tell NBC to simply give him less and give his staff more.


----------



## Amnesia

aindik said:


> The article said about 200 people.


And how many of those people moved across the country? Not very many, I assume. Why would a cameraman relocate? Or a stagehand? Or a gaffer? One camera job is pretty much like another I would think.

Now his writers, the directors, people like that I can see moving...


----------



## DevdogAZ

Amnesia said:


> And how many of those people moved across the country? Not very many, I assume. Why would a cameraman relocate? Or a stagehand? Or a gaffer? One camera job is pretty much like another I would think.
> 
> Now his writers, the directors, people like that I can see moving...


That's a good point. The number of people that relocated is probably in the 30-50 range, and they'll probably get a much bigger piece of the pie than the regular union stagehands and camera people.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Next question: What does NBC do with that brand new studio? Does Leno move into it starting March 1? Does Leno stay at his current studio and NBC just keeps the studio for when Leno retires? Does Universal Studios put some kind of attraction in that studio?


----------



## bicker

TiVoJedi said:


> Does Conan pay tax on his severance that he donates to his staff?


I'm not sure, but I think that unless they're careful, that money is going to be taxable twice, first as income to O'Brien, and then again as a gift to his staff members.


----------



## zalusky

I wonder how many staffers have houses that are under water.


----------



## DevdogAZ

zalusky said:


> I wonder how many staffers have houses that are under water.


If they bought in 2009 and had to put down at least 10%, it's unlikely they're upside-down now. The market has been pretty stagnant for the last year, but hasn't really gone down too much.


----------



## lew

bicker said:


> I'm not sure, but I think that unless they're careful, that money is going to be taxable twice, first as income to O'Brien, and then again as a gift to his staff members.


Won't the money be paid to Conan's production company? Won't the production company get a tax decution when the the money is paid to the staffers as compensation? Severance pay? Bonus?

Conan paid staff members during the writers strike. I'm sure his attorney's/accountants know what they're doing.


----------



## bicker

lew said:


> Won't the money be paid to Conan's production company?


Dunno, but that would indeed bypass some of the double-taxation, as the production company can write some of it off as business expense. I thought I read something about Conan kicking in some of his own money though, and that's where they would probably have to get very creative to avoid the double-taxation.


----------



## aindik

There is no reason for Conan to actually "kick in his own money." All he has to do is tell NBC to change the contract so that it's $24 million for him and $20 million for the staff, instead of $32 million for him and $12 million for the staff. NBC doesn't care. $44 million is $44 million.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> There is no reason for Conan to actually "kick in his own money." All he has to do is tell NBC to change the contract so that it's $24 million for him and $20 million for the staff, instead of $32 million for him and $12 million for the staff. NBC doesn't care. $44 million is $44 million.


Exactly my point. So either Conan isn't kicking in any of his own money to the staff, or he's purposely taking it for himself and then publicly giving it to his staff to make himself look more sympathetic.


----------



## stujac

DevdogAZ said:


> That's a good point. The number of people that relocated is probably in the 30-50 range, and they'll probably get a much bigger piece of the pie than the regular union stagehands and camera people.


This may have been addressed already but I would bet that the people who relocated had monetary assistance to do so. When my company asked me to relocate from SF to LA in 89 they refunded all closing costs on the sale of my house and gave me a nice little chunk of change to make the move. Ended up costing me nothing.


----------



## MikeAndrews

aindik said:


> There is no reason for Conan to actually "kick in his own money." All he has to do is tell NBC to change the contract so that it's $24 million for him and $20 million for the staff, instead of $32 million for him and $12 million for the staff. NBC doesn't care. $44 million is $44 million.


There could be reasons. Top of my head, if Conan is a personal corporation and the some of the staff are his employees, giving them a taste of the $32M is tax deductible to the corp.


----------



## aindik

netringer said:


> There could be reasons. Top of my head, if Conan is a personal corporation and the some of the staff are his employees, giving them a taste of the $32M is tax deductible to the corp.


A) the corp never having the income in the first place, and B) the corp having the income and then deducting it, are the same for tax purposes. A might be better.


----------



## JYoung

zalusky said:


> I wonder how many staffers have houses that are under water.





DevdogAZ said:


> If they bought in 2009 and had to put down at least 10%, it's unlikely they're upside-down now. The market has been pretty stagnant for the last year, but hasn't really gone down too much.


With the current weather in Southern California, some of those houses may literally be under water.


----------



## marksman

Well I hope that 12 million is enough for his staff to find new jobs or wait on Conan. I don't know how many people that covers.

Sounds like ultimately Conan gave up a chunk of his own money to get that done, though, I suspect.

I suspect Kevin Reilly will be talking to Conan's people today.

edit: I missed the part about Conan kicking in more after the fact. That is good.

People are too worried about taxes. You guys have no idea how they are employeed or who pays what to whom. I am sure it is fairly trivial for Conan to expand their severance packages without some kind of additional tax issues. The money flow is likely the same as it always has been. Most of those people likely get paid by the production company who makes the show. They will get a severance from the same. NBC is committing 12 million to that, which will go to the production company, and Conan the rest. It is not going to be a problem worth worrying about.


----------



## scooterboy

stujac said:


> This may have been addressed already but I would bet that the people who relocated had monetary assistance to do so.


Probably true, but if it was me I'd still want a good amount of compensation just for the trouble of uprooting my family and leaving my home, only to be out of a job 7 months later.

I'm glad to hear Conan is (somehow) giving them more than the 12M. And as stated before, that doesn't hurt him in the PR department either.


----------



## Amnesia

scooterboy said:


> if it was me I'd still want a good amount of compensation just for the trouble of uprooting my family and leaving my home, only to be out of a job 7 months later.


Of course you'd want it. Everybody wants it. But that doesn't mean you should get it. Unless you have a contract, then there was never any guarantee that your job would last more than 1 month. For example, you could have been fired.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Another question I have: With Conan's show ending tomorrow and Leno's new show not starting until March 1, what does NBC show in that timeslot for the three weeks before the Olympics starts? Reruns of Conan's Tonight Show? Reruns of Leno's Tonight Show? Reruns of Leno's 10 pm show? Reruns of Carson? Something else entirely?


----------



## Amnesia

I think reruns of Conan, but I can't find an official reference...


----------



## DianaMo

NBC should've left things as they are until after the Olympics.


----------



## DevdogAZ

I just found this quote in an article I was reading. It's what Conan said on the air in December 2008, the night it was announced that Leno was getting a 10 pm show:


> "Let's talk about this on a serious note for just one moment, I've had many people calling me today saying, "What is all this? "What's happening?" Jay Leno is going to be going in at 10:00 on NBC. I wanted to make something very clear here on the show this evening. I've known about this for a while. I've talked a lot about this with Jay. I am thrilled. I am absolutely thrilled that Jay is staying at NBC. He has been my lead-in on this program for 16 seasons. He is a fantastic lead-in. He is a huge part of my success. I am indebted to Jay Leno. And I love the idea that that relationship is going to continue. He is going to be my lead-in continuing, I hope, for a long, long time. So congratulations to Jay Leno. (APPLAUSE) This is a happy ending. It's very nice. We're thrilled for him and we're thrilled for everybody at the Tonight Show. Also I've talked it over with my producer and that means I can keep doing my Jay Leno impression."


Conan played nice with Jay, just like Jay played nice in 2004 when it was announced that Conan was taking over in 2009. Does anyone really believe Conan was happy about it? Of course not. So why does everyone place so much stock in the fact that Leno appeared to be happy in 2004 when announcing that Conan was taking over his slot? It's all just an act to look good on the air and seem like a nice guy.


----------



## TiVo'Brien

DevdogAZ said:


> I just found this quote in an article I was reading. It's what Conan said on the air in December 2008, the night it was announced that Leno was getting a 10 pm show:
> 
> Conan played nice with Jay, just like Jay played nice in 2004 when it was announced that Conan was taking over in 2009. Does anyone really believe Conan was happy about it? Of course not. So why does everyone place so much stock in the fact that Leno appeared to be happy in 2004 when announcing that Conan was taking over his slot? It's all just an act to look good on the air and seem like a nice guy.


You should probably qualify that with an "I think" or "It seems to me". I mean, how can you really know that for sure? You've sounded rather cynical throughout this thread. :down:


----------



## DevdogAZ

TiVo'Brien said:


> You should probably qualify that with an "I think" or "It seems to me". I mean, how can you really know that for sure? You've sounded rather cynical throughout this thread. :down:


What part of what I wrote do you not agree with? Do you think Conan really was happy that Jay would be doing a talk show 90 minutes before his new show?

I'm simply trying to point out to all the people in this thread who slammed Leno for saying in 2004 that he would be leaving the show, that what he was saying in 2004 was just on-air niceties, just like what Conan said in 2008.


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> What part of what I wrote do you not agree with? Do you think Conan really was happy that Jay would be doing a talk show 90 minutes before his new show?
> 
> I'm simply trying to point out to all the people in this thread who slammed Leno for saying in 2004 that he would be leaving the show, that what he was saying in 2004 was just on-air niceties, just like what Conan said in 2008.


Conan said something Jay is doing is good, when he really thought it was bad. He's just lying about his opinion on something. Jay, OTOH, actually agreed to do something.


----------



## DevdogAZ

The article on TVbythenumbers.com, which appears to be pulled from several sources, has some interesting information that hasn't been posted in this thread yet:



> - O'Brien will be able to to begin working for another network beginning September 1
> 
> - NBC retains the rights to bits and characters Conan created
> 
> The deal got held up as Conan tried to negotiate better severance - and apparently particularly the non-union workers without long term contracts got "much better" deals than NBC typically pays
> 
> Conan will supplement the severances out of his own pocket.
> 
> Others under contract, including Andy Richter and Max Weinberg with contracts will negotiate their own deals.
> 
> O'Brien also agreed to a short window (duration unknown) where he can't give any media interviews or speak ill of NBC publicly. NBC also will be silent on the topic during that period. Conan can mock NBC in his next gig but NBC can sue him for defamation if it chooses.


With the green light to begin working elsewhere as of September 1, it will be interesting to see if Fox can get a show in place that quickly. And with Max, Andy and some of the other top people that have contracts having to negotiate their own settlements, that will free up a larger chunk of the staff severance pool for the other workers.


----------



## Amnesia

aindik said:


> Jay, OTOH, actually agreed to do something.


Yup---and he did exactly as he agreed.


----------



## zalusky

aindik said:


> Conan said something Jay is doing is good, when he really thought it was bad. He's just lying about his opinion on something. Jay, OTOH, actually agreed to do something.


You could say that about Brett Favre too but it seems to be working for him.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> Conan said something Jay is doing is good, when he really thought it was bad. He's just lying about his opinion on something. Jay, OTOH, actually agreed to do something.


And he did what he agreed to do. But that wasn't my point. People in this thread seemed to point to Leno's comments in 2004 as some kind of proof that Leno was in agreement with the decision NBC made to kick him to the curb in 2009. I'm simply trying to point out that simply because he said something nice on the air doesn't mean that's the way he really felt about it, just like what Conan said on the air wasn't the way he really felt.


----------



## lew

DevdogAZ said:


> And if Conan is planning to kick in some of his own money into the staff severance pool, I'd think that he'd want the actual deal to reflect that, so he won't be taxed on money that he's giving away. It might look good from a PR standpoint for him to accept a $33 million settlement and then publicly give away several million of it, but from a financial standpoint, it would make far more sense for him to tell NBC to simply give him less and give his staff more.





bicker said:


> Dunno, but that would indeed bypass some of the double-taxation, as the production company can write some of it off as business expense. I thought I read something about Conan kicking in some of his own money though, and that's where they would probably have to get very creative to avoid the double-taxation.





DevdogAZ said:


> Exactly my point. So either Conan isn't kicking in any of his own money to the staff, or he's purposely taking it for himself and then publicly giving it to his staff to make himself look more sympathetic.


Conaco (Conan's production company) "produces" the tonight show. I doubt NBC is paying Conan directly. There shouldn't be an issue if Conaco uses some of the money to pay staff instead of paying Conan. It's semantics but Conan is kicking in his own money if money that NBC paid to Conaco, to compenste Conan, is paid to staff members. Shouldn't be a tax issue, a corporation can deduct pay.



DianaMo said:


> NBC should've left things as they are until after the Olympics.


Re-runs are scheduled for next week. Probably not worth it to keep Conan on for another week or two.

I think NBC should have delayed the decision. Pre-empt Leno during sweeps for shows like the Apprentice. See how well Leno did against summer reruns.


----------



## TiVo'Brien

DevdogAZ said:


> ........ Do you think Conan really was happy that Jay would be doing a talk show 90 minutes before his new show?.....


The gist I took away from it was that so long as Conan was still getting Johnny Carson's old chair, he was still happy. Maybe I'm a naive idealist, and maybe you're reading the situation as it is, and not as this Conan fan wants it to be, but I don't think Conan was ever going to depend on Jay's audience as a lead-in to his show. Conan (and NBC) had to know that Conan would only keep so many of Jay's demographic. They're two different audiences, and Conan must know that and not really care what show Jay got.

Having said that, I do acknowledge that given the American demographic, Jay's humor casts a wider net than Conan's.


----------



## MikeAndrews

Amnesia said:


> I think reruns of Conan, but I can't find an official reference...


I'd imagine after 12:35 tomorrow, NBC will be nothing but "_Canon?_ WHO?"


----------



## DianaMo

*Jay Leno Is the Future of TV. Seriously*
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1920038,00.html

Cover photo
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20090914,00.html


----------



## terpfan1980

netringer said:


> I'd imagine after 12:35 tonight, NBC will be nothing but "Canon, WHO?"


Two problems with that comment ^^

It would be after tomorrow night and it's CONAN, not Canon.


----------



## DevdogAZ

TiVo'Brien said:


> The gist I took away from it was that so long as Conan was still getting Johnny Carson's old chair, he was still happy. Maybe I'm a naive idealist, and maybe you're reading the situation as it is, and not as this Conan fan wants it to be, but I don't think Conan was ever going to depend on Jay's audience as a lead-in to his show. Conan (and NBC) had to know that Conan would only keep so many of Jay's demographic. They're two different audiences, and Conan must know that and not really care what show Jay got.
> 
> Having said that, I do acknowledge that given the American demographic, Jay's humor casts a wider net than Conan's.


I don't think it's as much about lead-in and demographics as it is about Conan thinking all along that he was going to become NBC's top late-night comedy host and finally be out from under the shadow of Leno, and then suddenly finding out that not only was Leno not leaving, but he was getting a raise and a more high-profile show, thus casting an even bigger shadow over Conan. It was basically NBC pulling the rug out from underneath him. He played nice about it, but privately he must have been seething.


----------



## MikeAndrews

I wonder if Conan's off-the-air embargo is just for hosting a show or if he coudl be on Late Night as a guest Monday.

CBS might not be too keen to plug a coming competitor.


----------



## MikeAndrews

terpfan1980 said:


> It would be after tomorrow night and it's CONAN, not Canon.


Canon? The barbarian? You mean that Arnold Shwartzenegger movie?

Doesn't ring a bell.


----------



## mrdbdigital

Something to keep in mind in discussions about Conan's staff: Staff and crew loosing their jobs when a show is canceled or otherwise stops production is the norm in the television industry. Happens all the time throughout the country. 

I think Conan is showing he is a man of honor by looking out for his staff and providing for them in his final payout from NBC. A big severance package like they are getting is not the norm in this industry, by a long shot.


----------



## JYoung

mrdbdigital said:


> Something to keep in mind in discussions about Conan's staff: Staff and crew loosing their jobs when a show is canceled or otherwise stops production is the norm in the television industry. Happens all the time throughout the country.
> 
> I think Conan is showing he is a man of honor by looking out for his staff and providing for them in his final payout from NBC. A big severance package like they are getting is not the norm in this industry, by a long shot.


I'd also be curious as to whom exactly is getting the additional severance money.

Richter and Weinberg? The staff writers?
The grips, gaffers, and the cue card holder?


----------



## nataylor

That stinks if NBC gets to keep Conan's characters and bits.


----------



## Amnesia

JYoung said:


> The grips, gaffers, and the cue card holder?


I think I saw that it was for non-union employees. That would seem to exclude the above workers...


----------



## DianaMo

*NBC, Conan O'Brien Reach Deal for 'Tonight Show' Exit*
Widely anticipated news paves way for Jay Leno to return to late night

By Marisa Guthrie -- Broadcasting & Cable, 1/21/2010 9:06:00 AM



> "NBC is like a guy with two girlfriends who doesn't know which one he's going to marry," said Leno. "And the longer you wait, the madder they both get."


http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ar..._O_Brien_Reach_Deal_for_Tonight_Show_Exit.php


----------



## ElJay

NBC keeping the bits isn't necessarily a bad thing. My favorite ones were from the Late Night show and were gone long ago anyway, such as the old-time NBC radio crooner and the "no reason to live" guy. ("Where's my choo-choo?!") 

I do hope a new show could tilt back more onto (new) comedy bits instead of a double segment with a guest. That would give them more time to utilize jokes including Max and the band or the hilarious bit players like Brian McCann. All of these angles have been marginalized on "The Tonight Show."


----------



## bicker

nataylor said:


> That stinks if NBC gets to keep Conan's characters and bits.


I'm sure my boss will keep all of the creative stuff I thought up while working for him, when we part company, amicably or otherwise.


----------



## nataylor

I'll miss Triumph.


----------



## IndyJones1023

bicker said:


> I'm sure my boss will keep all of the creative stuff I thought up while working for him, when we part company, amicably or otherwise.


That's a bit different. I can't imagine another comic doing Conan's same bits to the same amount of (or any, for that matter) laughter.


----------



## Langree

bicker said:


> I'm sure my boss will keep all of the creative stuff I thought up while working for him, when we part company, amicably or otherwise.


Not the same, does NBC have a use for the masterbating bear? I think they just hold on to the intelectual property to give a big FU to departing talent. (Not just NBC is guilty of this)


----------



## bicker

Take my word for it... No one can imagine another person doing my "same bits" either.


----------



## MickeS

IndyJones1023 said:


> That's a bit different. I can't imagine another comic doing Conan's same bits to the same amount of (or any, for that matter) laughter.


Obviously they just want to make sure Conan doesn't get to do them either.


----------



## IndyJones1023

MickeS said:


> Obviously they just want to make sure Conan doesn't get to do them either.


Exactly. And that's petty. I know it's the industry norm, it's also spiteful.


----------



## DevdogAZ

nataylor said:


> I'll miss Triumph.





Langree said:


> Not the same, does NBC have a use for the masterbating bear? I think they just hold on to the intelectual property to give a big FU to departing talent. (Not just NBC is guilty of this)


I liked Conan's joke the other night where he said, "Don't we live in a wonderful country, when a cigar-smoking dog puppet and a masturbating bear are considered intellectual property?"


----------



## inaka

Sorry if this has been covered, but since Jay and Conan were both under contract, did NBC ever float the idea of moving Jay Leno to _*daytime*_ talk in a syndication deal similar to Oprah's with ABC?

I remember growing up and watching Mike Douglas and Merv Griffin so I could see that it has at least the potential of being an idea on the table. Also, Oprah is ending her show in 2011, so there will be a void in daytime in the near future.


----------



## TiVo'Brien

Langree said:


> Not the same, does NBC have a use for the masterbating bear? I think they just hold on to the intelectual property to give a big FU to departing talent. (Not just NBC is guilty of this)


Conan should now substitute a peacock for the bear.


----------



## DevdogAZ

inaka said:


> Sorry if this has been covered, but since Jay and Conan were both under contract, did NBC ever float the idea of moving Jay Leno to _*daytime*_ talk in a syndication deal similar to Oprah's with ABC?
> 
> I remember growing up and watching Mike Douglas and Merv Griffin so I could see that it has at least the potential of being an idea on the table. Also, Oprah is ending her show in 2011, so there will be a void in daytime in the near future.


Leno was guaranteed two years on the air at 10 pm. He would have to approve any changes to that deal. He approved going back to 11:35, but he wouldn't be interested in a daytime show. He apparently likes the format and the audiences that come with late night, and wouldn't be interested in the types of female-centric topics that are necessary to make a daytime show successful.


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> Leno was guaranteed two years on the air at 10 pm. He would have to approve any changes to that deal. He approved going back to 11:35, but he wouldn't be interested in a daytime show. He apparently likes the format and the audiences that come with late night, and wouldn't be interested in the types of female-centric topics that are necessary to make a daytime show successful.


I don't know. Ellen DeGeneres is essentially doing a late night style talk show in the middle of the day, and it seems to be working.


----------



## TiVo'Brien

According to the NY Times, Leno will keep his current studio. I wonder Fox would be able to lease Conan's current stage/studio? Would NBC be interested in recouping the money they laid out for it?


----------



## IndyJones1023

aindik said:


> I don't know. Ellen DeGeneres is essentially doing a late night style talk show in the middle of the day, and it seems to be working.


But her audience is only one gender.


----------



## DevdogAZ

aindik said:


> I don't know. Ellen DeGeneres is essentially doing a late night style talk show in the middle of the day, and it seems to be working.


Never seen her show. But traditionally, the feel and look of daytime shows are lighter, perkier, more geared towards women, etc.


----------



## Victory Vegas

they will just fire Jay next year.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Victory Vegas said:


> they will just fire Jay next year.


Yes, that would be brilliant of NBC to pay Conan and his staff $44 million to go away, only to fire Leno next year and be left with nobody to host The Tonight Show. I'm sure that's exactly what NBC has planned.


----------



## nataylor

Victory Vegas said:


> they will just fire Jay next year.


Now that'd be hilarious, if his ratings don't bounce back at all.


----------



## zalusky

nataylor said:


> That stinks if NBC gets to keep Conan's characters and bits.


Remember Letterman and stupid pet tricks. NBC kept it. I can't remember why but he got to take the top ten.


----------



## inaka

DevdogAZ said:


> Leno was guaranteed two years on the air at 10 pm. He would have to approve any changes to that deal. He approved going back to 11:35, *but he wouldn't be interested in a daytime show.* He apparently likes the format and the audiences that come with late night, and wouldn't be interested in the types of female-centric topics that are necessary to make a daytime show successful.


Was this something Leno actually said, or are you just assuming he wouldn't be interested?

Again, I'm not talking doing a Maury show, but rather a Mike Douglas, Merv or even an Ellen type daytime talk show. Again, with the void of Oprah in 2011, there's going to be a shakeup in daytime anyway.


----------



## mbklein

zalusky said:


> Remember Letterman and stupid pet tricks. NBC kept it. I can't remember why but he got to take the top ten.


Probably because people had been compiling top ten lists for a long time before it became a "bit" -- even on late-night TV -- so it's not trademarkable. Letterman was the first person to turn it into a regular, central feature of the show, but it's still a pretty generic concept.

What stops anyone else from doing it? Nothing, except the fact that there's no way to do it without looking like you're ripping off Letterman's bit.



> The human animal differs from the lesser primates in his passion for lists of "Ten Best". ~ H. Allen Smith (1906-1976), American writer


----------



## Turtleboy

zalusky said:


> Remember Letterman and stupid pet tricks. NBC kept it. I can't remember why but he got to take the top ten.


NBC hinted that they were going to keep the Top 10 for Late Night with Conan O'Brien. Conan said something to the extent of, "Hey, I don't want to do Dave's bits." It made NBC look silly.


----------



## DevdogAZ

inaka said:


> Was this something Leno actually said, or are you just assuming he wouldn't be interested?
> 
> Again, I'm not talking doing a Maury show, but rather a Mike Douglas, Merv or even an Ellen type daytime talk show. Again, with the void of Oprah in 2011, there's going to be a shakeup in daytime anyway.


I read something about it in this article dated December 2008, when it was announced that Leno was moving his show to 10 pm.

But I think it's pretty clear just from the way this whole thing played out that Leno wasn't interested in daytime. Do you really think that people at NBC didn't come up with that as a potential solution to this mess? I'm certain they threw every conceivable idea against the wall (daytime, weekends, specials, hosting a reality show, etc.) and the only thing he was interested in was a late-night style talk show.


----------



## JYoung

DevdogAZ said:


> Leno was guaranteed two years on the air at 10 pm. He would have to approve any changes to that deal. He approved going back to 11:35, but he wouldn't be interested in a daytime show. He apparently likes the format and the audiences that come with late night, and wouldn't be interested in the types of female-centric topics that are necessary to make a daytime show successful.


Which raises another question.
Is that two years still effect or will he have his term on the Tonight Show extended to say four or five years?



inaka said:


> Again, I'm not talking doing a Maury show, but rather a Mike Douglas, Merv or even an Ellen type daytime talk show. Again, with the void of Oprah in 2011, there's going to be a shakeup in daytime anyway.


There is a shakeup going on in daytime television right now.
Soap Operas seem to be on the way out.
With more people working (and working longer hours) and less "Stay at home" parents, viewership is down.

IIRC, Mike and Merv were on at 3 and 4 in the afternoon.
(I think, I was more interested in watching cartoons at that age.)
Who's home watching at those times now?

For what they'd have to pay Leno and company, I'm not sure how much profit there would be.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

nataylor said:


> That stinks if NBC gets to keep Conan's characters and bits.


Why wouldn't they? Unless Conan negotiated rights to that stuff separately, it normally accrues to the employer. Just like software written by employees. IBM used to have a clause that gave them right to stuff done after hours.


----------



## IndyJones1023

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Why wouldn't they? Unless Conan negotiated rights to that stuff separately, it normally accrues to the employer. Just like software written by employees. IBM used to have a clause that gave them right to stuff done after hours.


It's a little different than going to work for a corporation that specifically hires you to produce a product (code, whatever).

NBC is in a contract with Conan's company to produce a show. Not bits. The people who work the show don't work for NBC. They work for Conan's company.

And has been stated, NBC will effectively never be able to use the intellectual property they own that Conan created.


----------



## DevdogAZ

JYoung said:


> Which raises another question.
> Is that two years still effect or will he have his term on the Tonight Show extended to say four or five years?


That's a good question. Perhaps as part of this whole shakeup, he got a new contract for a longer period of time. Given that money isn't the driving force for Leno, I'm sure he'd be happy to renegotiate his deal to provide for less money per year but for a longer guaranteed period of time. And since there's really nobody knocking down the door trying to get The Tonight Show hosting gig anymore, there's no reason for NBC not to give him a longer-term deal.


----------



## aindik

IndyJones1023 said:


> NBC is in a contract with Conan's company to produce a show. Not bits. The people who work the show don't work for NBC. They work for Conan's company.


The Tonight Show is a joint production of Conaco (a company owned by Conan O'Brien) and Universal Media Studios (a company owned by NBC Universal).

Late Night with Conan O'Brien was a joint production of those two along with Broadway Video (a company owned by Lorne Michaels).



IndyJones1023 said:


> And has been stated, NBC will effectively never be able to use the intellectual property they own that Conan created.


That's what intellectual property (like all other property) is in a nutshell - the right to exclude others from using it. In the case of copyrights and patents, you don't actually have to be using the invention/work of authorship yourself in order to stop others from using it. For example, a copyright in an out of print book is valid and can be used to stop others from printing the book.


----------



## marksman

DevdogAZ said:


> Yes, that would be brilliant of NBC to pay Conan and his staff $44 million to go away, only to fire Leno next year and be left with nobody to host The Tonight Show. I'm sure that's exactly what NBC has planned.


I would not bet against NBC doing this at this point.


----------



## marksman

IndyJones1023 said:


> But her audience is only one gender.


dancers?


----------



## IndyJones1023

aindik said:


> That's what intellectual property (like all other property) is in a nutshell - the right to exclude others from using it. In the case of copyrights and patents, you don't actually have to be using the invention/work of authorship yourself in order to stop others from using it. For example, a copyright in an out of print book is valid and can be used to stop others from printing the book.


In the entertainment business, intellectual property makes you money. It makes no sense for NBC to own something it won't (effectively) ever be able to use.


----------



## Turtleboy

IndyJones1023 said:


> In the entertainment business, intellectual property makes you money. It makes no sense for NBC to own something it won't (effectively) ever be able to use.


It's not about them using it. It's about preventing Fox (or wherever Conan goes) from making money off it.


----------



## IndyJones1023

Turtleboy said:


> It's not about them using it. It's about preventing Fox (or wherever Conan goes) from making money off it.


And since Conan will just come up with other bits to make money off of, it becomes a spiteful move.

Again, I know it's the norm.


----------



## JYoung

DevdogAZ said:


> Yes, that would be brilliant of NBC to pay Conan and his staff $44 million to go away, only to fire Leno next year and be left with nobody to host The Tonight Show. I'm sure that's exactly what NBC has planned.


[Jimmy Fallon]
I'm nobody?
[/Jimmy Fallon]

(I do have to say that I'm amused at how much ducking Fallon must have been doing for the last couple of weeks.)


----------



## marksman

JYoung said:


> [Jimmy Fallon]
> I'm nobody?
> [/Jimmy Fallon]
> 
> (I do have to say that I'm amused at how much ducking Fallon must have been doing for the last couple of weeks.)


Like the rookie free agent at football training camp... He does not want to be told to bring his playbook to the head of the network.

Also I am still not sure why they don't move Poker After Dark up since I think FullTilt pays for most of the production costs of that show.


----------



## jimborst

zalusky said:


> Remember Letterman and stupid pet tricks. NBC kept it. I can't remember why but he got to take the top ten.


Dave still has stupid pet tricks.


----------



## terpfan1980

The talk in the last page or two of this thread about the potential of moving Leno to days where he'd catch a primarily female audience cracks me up a bit... The irony is that, at least according to one recent article I had read about the topic (not here, elsewhere on the web), the people that are keeping Leno so 'hot' and popular in the ratings area are females in the 45 - 54 age range. That would seem to be just the group he might catch if he did move to daytime.

I can't see that he'd ever have agreed to such a move though, even if it makes a heckuva lot of sense from a ratings point of view. It's not The Tonite Show and/or it's not the 11:35 time slot and I think in the end that is exactly what he wanted to wind up with (and NBC may have enjoyed having Lenon on during the day to get some ratings from, but they also really wanted to fix the ratings problem they were having with Conan, so they still would have been -- in their minds -- bleeding viewers/ratings badly enough to need to do something to change things up).


----------



## terpfan1980

The I.P. (intellectual property) discussion reminds me of Stern when he went on Sirius initially. It took a good while for him to negotiate a deal that got him back the rights to his archive.

Conan will probably come up with something new and not look back, though I suppose he might really like to have Triumph available again. Perhaps he can just turn it into a Master... Dog and Comic Bear. (Though I really liked the suggestion above of using the Peacock in place of the bear.)


----------



## lew

zalusky said:


> Remember Letterman and stupid pet tricks. NBC kept it. I can't remember why but he got to take the top ten.


Not true. Letterman still does stupid pet tricks. NBC wanted to keep it. It turns out Letterman first did the bit on the Mary (Tyler Moore) variety show (on CBS).

Top 10 lists have been around forever.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Interesting article in Ad Age about why the failure of the Jay Leno primetime experiment is actually a bad thing for network TV. The basic gist is that NBC took a stab at doing something different, and failed spectacularly, so it might be a while before other networks try to stick their neck out and try something else different.


----------



## terpfan1980

DevdogAZ said:


> Interesting article in Ad Age about why the failure of the Jay Leno primetime experiment is actually a bad thing for network TV. The basic gist is that NBC took a stab at doing something different, and failed spectacularly, so it might be a while before other networks try to stick their neck out and try something else different.


And that's bad for viewers how?

Seriously, it's a shame (at least in my opinion) that so many reality TV shows have caught on (in that great experiment). We keep getting fewer and fewer scripted shows. Fewer dramas. Fewer comedies. Less of anything that costs money.

The networks keep trying for the cheapest programming they can produce figuring that viewers will tune in no matter what. Except, well, when they won't. Such was the case with Leno's 10pm show.

Now NBC will go back to Dateline (in house news show, should be fairly inexpensive and fill one night), a few installments of L&O, Parenthood (which they'd probably argue is too expensive) and such. Dateline might cost about what a night of Leno does on any given night, but the dramas are costing NBC more with the potential of returning more viewers if they catch on. Especially compared to the fairly low ratings for Leno.

As a viewer I'm glad that Leno @ 10pm failed. Whether I might like his show or not, I'm glad it failed because I want dramas and comedies and creative materials rather than cheap talk. As some have said here previously if the objective for NBC is just to run the cheapest/most profitable programs at all times they can become ION and enjoy the results of that while their former viewers go to somewhere else, somewhere that actually does come up with creative new shows.


----------



## DevdogAZ

terpfan1980 said:


> And that's bad for viewers how?
> 
> Seriously, it's a shame (at least in my opinion) that so many reality TV shows have caught on (in that great experiment). We keep getting fewer and fewer scripted shows. Fewer dramas. Fewer comedies. Less of anything that costs money.
> 
> The networks keep trying for the cheapest programming they can produce figuring that viewers will tune in no matter what. Except, well, when they won't. Such was the case with Leno's 10pm show.
> 
> Now NBC will go back to Dateline (in house news show, should be fairly inexpensive and fill one night), a few installments of L&O, Parenthood (which they'd probably argue is too expensive) and such. Dateline might cost about what a night of Leno does on any given night, but the dramas are costing NBC more with the potential of returning more viewers if they catch on. Especially compared to the fairly low ratings for Leno.
> 
> As a viewer I'm glad that Leno @ 10pm failed. Whether I might like his show or not, I'm glad it failed because I want dramas and comedies and creative materials rather than cheap talk. As some have said here previously if the objective for NBC is just to run the cheapest/most profitable programs at all times they can become ION and enjoy the results of that while their former viewers go to somewhere else, somewhere that actually does come up with creative new shows.


But the point of the article is that the landscape for the broadcast networks is changing, and the type of "innovation" that NBC attempted is going to be necessary to stay afloat. As audiences continue to fragment, advertisers will increasingly find that they can reach their desired demographic for less money on niche cable networks rather than using the traditional shotgun approach of broadcast TV. Thus, there will be less and less ad revenue for the networks and they'll have to make the corresponding changes to cut costs.

It doesn't mean that creativity goes away. There are all kinds of great, creative programs on any number of cable networks. Many people are considering this an era of renaissance in the TV industry, despite the proliferation of cheap reality shows. It simply means that big-budget scripted shows might be fewer and farther between. If that means that shows are targeted less to the masses and more directed to a specific audience, that can only be a good thing, in my opinion.


----------



## DevdogAZ

NBC Entertainment President Jeff Gaspin spoke today about the change. He said that the typical Leno viewer won't care what the rabid Conan fans are saying. He also said this:


> Gaspin said that O'Brien's Tonight Show was on track to lose money in 2010 -- a first for the 56-year-old franchise -- due to a confluence of factors including faltering ratings, increased competition in late-night and the downturn in advertising revenue. Nevertheless, Gaspin expects Leno to be "competitive" when he returns to face a resurgent David Letterman at CBS and increased competition from ABC's Nightline and Jimmy Kimmel Live.
> 
> He admitted that O'Brien did not have enough time to find his voice on The Tonight Show, adding "Nor do I think Jay had enough time to settle in at 10 o'clock."
> 
> "But we had no choice. And we tried to come up with a compromise that would be at least fair to all parties."


----------



## inaka

DevdogAZ said:


> But I think it's pretty clear just from the way this whole thing played out that Leno wasn't interested in daytime. Do you really think that people at NBC didn't come up with that as a potential solution to this mess?


Of course, because judging by the track record of NBC Executives, they've obviously thought out everything completely and have always made the informed decision and explored all options. LOL


----------



## Enrique

DevdogAZ said:


> NBC Entertainment President Jeff Gaspin spoke today about the change. He said that the typical Leno viewer won't care what the rabid Conan fans are saying. He also said this:


IMO, He's right on the dot.


----------



## JYoung

DevdogAZ said:


> But the point of the article is that the landscape for the broadcast networks is changing, and the type of "innovation" that NBC attempted is going to be necessary to stay afloat. As audiences continue to fragment, advertisers will increasingly find that they can reach their desired demographic for less money on niche cable networks rather than using the traditional shotgun approach of broadcast TV. Thus, there will be less and less ad revenue for the networks and they'll have to make the corresponding changes to cut costs.
> 
> It doesn't mean that creativity goes away. There are all kinds of great, creative programs on any number of cable networks. Many people are considering this an era of renaissance in the TV industry, despite the proliferation of cheap reality shows. It simply means that big-budget scripted shows might be fewer and farther between. If that means that shows are targeted less to the masses and more directed to a specific audience, that can only be a good thing, in my opinion.


I'm glad you _innovation_ in quotes because this really wasn't about NBC being innovative and more about them being "cheap".


----------



## DevdogAZ

JYoung said:


> I'm glad you _innovation_ in quotes because this really wasn't about NBC being innovative and more about them being "cheap".


I agree. The article uses the term innovation, but I had to put it in quotes because it wasn't really that innovative. It was different, and it was perhaps necessary given the landscape of TV, but it certainly wasn't innovative.


----------



## inaka

terpfan1980 said:


> The talk in the last page or two of this thread about the potential of moving Leno to days where he'd catch a primarily female audience cracks me up a bit... The irony is that, at least according to one recent article I had read about the topic (not here, elsewhere on the web), the people that are keeping Leno so 'hot' and popular in the ratings area are females in the 45 - 54 age range. That would seem to be just the group he might catch if he did move to daytime.


That was my point all along. We've all heard that he's supposedly not doing it for the money because apparently he's never spent a dime of his Tonight Show salary. His prime demographic seems perfectly suited for daytime, and if he wants to just work daily for a nationally televised show, it's a gig. And before people think daytime is peanuts by comparison, average ratings for Young & The Restless is something like 4,800,000 viewers, and Leno's _primetime_ show averaged about that.


----------



## MikeAndrews

nataylor said:


> That stinks if NBC gets to keep Conan's characters and bits.


Remember that happened to Dave? He lost Larry "Bud" Melman, so he came to CBS as his real name, Calvert DeForest. At least Dave got to keep the Top Ten List and Stupid Pet/Human Tricks.


----------



## terpfan1980

DevdogAZ said:


> I agree. The article uses the term innovation, but I had to put it in quotes because it wasn't really that innovative. It was different, and it was perhaps necessary given the landscape of TV, but it certainly wasn't innovative.


I still hold that it's only necessary if you (the networks, in this case NBC) want to complete give up on developing quality content.

The cable networks -- as you (DevdogAZ) point out above -- are doing well at competing *because* they are developing quality shows. The only real difference is that the cable nets can be edgier and more racy, but that doesn't mean that the traditional networks can't more than compete against them.

To borrow a line from a famous film: *If you (quality) program it... the viewers will come!*. NBC had, in recent years, developed pure c-r-a-p. Much like ABC just a few years back (when they were in fairly dire straights programming quality wise...), NBC had not much more than multiple nights of Howie Mandel and his models with cases. And Biggest Loser. ABC is doing relatively well now while NBC is in the tank.

NBC could spend more money to develop better programming, or they could drop the 10PM time slot into the tank in favor of much cheaper programming. They went cheap and it bit 'em hard. I'm still very happy that is the case.

Maybe NBC will realize that they need to come up with their own quality programs rather than just letting USA Network be the place people look to for a good program.


----------



## marksman

DevdogAZ said:


> Interesting article in Ad Age about why the failure of the Jay Leno primetime experiment is actually a bad thing for network TV. The basic gist is that NBC took a stab at doing something different, and failed spectacularly, so it might be a while before other networks try to stick their neck out and try something else different.


The networks have never been good at trying to do things different.

So I don't think it is any big loss. They have never really been innovators.

Sure Leno was a test and it was cheaper, but it had no upside. NBC puts on a couple new dramas every year, and if 1 or 2 take off they make more money than a lifetime of Lenos in Primetime. NBC tried to eliminate the risk, but also eliminated the reward. Do you think CBS makes more money with their last hour of dramas than NBC made with their Jay leno lineup or less?

I suspect it takes only one top 5 show and another top 15-20 show to make it as profitable if not more profitable.

It does bug me how awesome USA is and how much NBC sucks. They could take Burn Notice and put it on NBC and it would be their best hour long show on the network.

I can't believe Burn Notice costs a huge amount to produce. What about all these cable shows? How does AMC make Breaking Bad and Mad Men for a lot less than money than a network would pay to make them? That is one thing I don't understand. It seems to me networks either get ripped off or are fiscally irresponsible when it comes to making shows. When cable networks can successfully air dramas and make money with much smaller ratings, it doesn't make sense why the networks can't do it.

Unless it is the albatross of the affiliate model that makes shows less profitable for the big networks.


----------



## marksman

Wow January 21st and Conan was on track to lose money for 2010.

Gaspin should be quiet. I am actually counting on him to help fix NBC, but he needs to keep this whole mess at arms length and not be jumping into it.


----------



## Turtleboy

It's funny that everyone, including the OP, is talking as if the "Networks" still really matter.


----------



## DevdogAZ

terpfan1980 said:


> I still hold that it's only necessary if you (the networks, in this case NBC) want to complete give up on developing quality content.
> 
> The cable networks -- as you (DevdogAZ) point out above -- are doing well at competing *because* they are developing quality shows. The only real difference is that the cable nets can be edgier and more racy, but that doesn't mean that the traditional networks can't more than compete against them.
> 
> To borrow a line from a famous film: *If you (quality) program it... the viewers will come!*. NBC had, in recent years, developed pure c-r-a-p. Much like ABC just a few years back (when they were in fairly dire straights programming quality wise...), NBC had not much more than multiple nights of Howie Mandel and his models with cases. And Biggest Loser. ABC is doing relatively well now while NBC is in the tank.
> 
> NBC could spend more money to develop better programming, or they could drop the 10PM time slot into the tank in favor of much cheaper programming. They went cheap and it bit 'em hard. I'm still very happy that is the case.
> 
> Maybe NBC will realize that they need to come up with their own quality programs rather than just letting USA Network be the place people look to for a good program.





marksman said:


> I can't believe Burn Notice costs a huge amount to produce. What about all these cable shows? How does AMC make Breaking Bad and Mad Men for a lot less than money than a network would pay to make them? That is one thing I don't understand. It seems to me networks either get ripped off or are fiscally irresponsible when it comes to making shows. When cable networks can successfully air dramas and make money with much smaller ratings, it doesn't make sense why the networks can't do it.
> 
> Unless it is the albatross of the affiliate model that makes shows less profitable for the big networks.


That's the problem. Simply by virtue of the show being on network TV, all the actors, producers, writers, creators, etc. expect to get paid on par with a network level show. If the show were on cable, they'd be content to do the same job for less money, but because it's a network, they demand more. Thus, the networks can't produce shows on the cheap like the cable nets can, simply because they are networks.

It would work much better if the production companies that make the shows would enter into contracts where everyone would agree to work on the show for a fixed cost, regardless of where the show would be aired. Then, if the show is picked up by a network, any network could pick up any show by paying a base amount to license the show and a bonus amount based on ad revenue received. The contracts for those that work on the show could allow for everyone to be paid a portion of the ad revenue bonus. Obviously, the network shows would get larger bonuses, but the base price to produce the show wold not be so high.

With a model like that, it would be possible for a cable network to pick up a canceled network show, because there would be a built-in audience that would be big enough for a cable network, and the contracts would already be in place to produce the show for an amount that the cable net could afford.


Turtleboy said:


> It's funny that everyone, including the OP, is talking as if the "Networks" still really matter.


Ironic that you should say that, since you're actually the OP of this thread.


----------



## Turtleboy

DevdogAZ said:


> Ironic that you should say that, since you're actually the OP of this thread.


zoom.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Turtleboy said:


> zoom.


Apparently.


----------



## MikeAndrews

Turtleboy said:


> It's funny that everyone, including the OP, is talking as if the "Networks" still really matter.


I was thinking it's funny that "lead-in shows" still matter. Are there really that many people in 2010 that don't have a freaking _remote control that changes channels?_ It's not like you have to get out of your chair and go across the room to turn the click-click dial tuner.


----------



## aindik

Turtleboy said:


> It's funny that everyone, including the OP, is talking as if the "Networks" still really matter.


Apparently they do matter. NBC canceled the Leno show, which was profitable for them, because the affiliates freaked out. Apparently they still care what the affiliates think.


----------



## terpfan1980

DevdogAZ said:


> That's the problem. Simply by virtue of the show being on network TV, all the actors, producers, writers, creators, etc. expect to get paid on par with a network level show. If the show were on cable, they'd be content to do the same job for less money, but because it's a network, they demand more. Thus, the networks can't produce shows on the cheap like the cable nets can, simply because they are networks.
> 
> It would work much better if the production companies that make the shows would enter into contracts where everyone would agree to work on the show for a fixed cost, regardless of where the show would be aired. Then, if the show is picked up by a network, any network could pick up any show by paying a base amount to license the show and a bonus amount based on ad revenue received. The contracts for those that work on the show could allow for everyone to be paid a portion of the ad revenue bonus. Obviously, the network shows would get larger bonuses, but the base price to produce the show wold not be so high.
> 
> With a model like that, it would be possible for a cable network to pick up a canceled network show, because there would be a built-in audience that would be big enough for a cable network, and the contracts would already be in place to produce the show for an amount that the cable net could afford.
> 
> Ironic that you should say that, since you're actually the OP of this thread.


No one is holding the network's hostage in what they pay for programming and none says you have to spend that much to get quality programs for the money the networks spend.

Granted if NBC is competing against ABC, CBS and FOX for programming they have to pay competitive prices but then again, much like sports in this country (I'm looking at you MLB!!!) it seems that only one really wanted to cut costs and go on the cheap.... in this case NBC.

NBC did push down their costs on Chuck (a darling of the fans), and FOX had pushed down costs for some of their programming as well (Dollhouse as an example if memory serves). Thus far Chuck seems to be doing ok on it's budget. Dollhouse is another story in that it never found an audience, but that's a problem for FOX not NBC.

NBC had a buzz-worthy show with Heroes and it fell apart after the first season (some would say in the first season ). They had a 'smart' show in Studio 60 but the ratings were poor because they aired it on a night they get crushed by football and/or CSI: Bathing Beauties, uh Miami (and yeah, it bored a bunch of viewers with mixed quality in it's first several episodes). Instead of being patient they dropped Studio 60 and kept some other stuff and tried re-treads of things like Bionic Woman and Knight Rider when most people looked at the ideas of bringing back those series as being non-starters, just as most people seemed to look at Leno @ 10 x 5 as a bad idea.

Somewhere there are writers with ideas for shows that they'd love to get on a network. Perhaps NBC should start up their own Project Greenlight and develop whatever wins the contest. It can't get much worse than what they've tried up to now.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

IndyJones1023 said:


> It's a little different than going to work for a corporation that specifically hires you to produce a product (code, whatever).
> 
> NBC is in a contract with Conan's company to produce a show. Not bits. The people who work the show don't work for NBC. They work for Conan's company.
> 
> And has been stated, NBC will effectively never be able to use the intellectual property they own that Conan created.


It all depends on how the contract reads. I suspect whatever content gets aired is now owned by NBC since they paid for it.

As for using it, they won't. As someone else said, they just don't want him to use it.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

aindik said:


> That's what intellectual property (like all other property) is in a nutshell - the right to exclude others from using it. In the case of copyrights and patents, you don't actually have to be using the invention/work of authorship yourself in order to stop others from using it. For example, a copyright in an out of print book is valid and can be used to stop others from printing the book.


Partially true. Copyright and patents do expire. Although copyright holders have paid off congress to the extent that now they basically never expire.

And you're correct, they do not have to be used. Trademarks OTOH, have to be used and protected to remain in force. As the Bayer and their ASPIRIN trademark so nicely demonstrate.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

terpfan1980 said:


> And that's bad for viewers how?


Much of what's on sucks that why all the off networks are doing well. Suppressing innovation means it will continue to suck.



terpfan1980 said:


> Seriously, it's a shame (at least in my opinion) that so many reality TV shows have caught on (in that great experiment). We keep getting fewer and fewer scripted shows. Fewer dramas. Fewer comedies. Less of anything that costs money.


While I agree, that experiment succeeded on two levels, it reduced costs while generating even better ratings. For the network that's the definition of the win/win scenario.



terpfan1980 said:


> The networks keep trying for the cheapest programming they can produce figuring that viewers will tune in no matter what. Except, well, when they won't. Such was the case with Leno's 10pm show.


From the network perspective Leno made them money. But doing so screwed the affiliates. The classic rob peter to pay paul. Peter was pissed and the whole house of cards collapsed.


----------



## ElJay

Triumph premiered in 1997, so I think under current copyright law he should enter public domain around 2092. See you then.


----------



## zalusky

isn't the other big issue is the cable channels get to charge nice carriage fees which the broadcast channels don't get. Hasn't their been discussion lately that broadcast might just disappear because ads are their only revenue model.


----------



## gastrof

Jimmy Fallon just shared a gem-

'Dave Letterman and Conan both hosted Late Night before I did, and if I've learned one thing from them, it's that if you host Late Night, you'll never end up as host of the Tonight Show.'


----------



## smak

aindik said:


> Apparently they do matter. NBC canceled the Leno show, which was profitable for them, because the affiliates freaked out. Apparently they still care what the affiliates think.


The affiliates freaked out because their 11pm news was down an average of 25% in 25-54.

As well as huge numbers like 48% in NY, 43% in LA. Those are O&O's so NBC should have been concerned as well.

The 10 stations NBC own were on track to lose something like $25 million this year, JUST during 1/2 hour of programming.

The rest about 88 million.

They had good reason to freak out.

-smak-


----------



## smak

netringer said:


> I was thinking it's funny that "lead-in shows" still matter. Are there really that many people in 2010 that don't have a freaking _remote control that changes channels?_ It's not like you have to get out of your chair and go across the room to turn the click-click dial tuner.


Maybe not from 8pm to 9pm, or 9pm to 10pm, but I certainly see why a good lead-in helps from 10pm to 11pm.

I don't really have a favorite local news I watch, and if I'm watching a 10pm show live, and the show ends, you know the news is going to come on right after the show (probably during the credits), and tease the #1 local story, and not caring what news station I watch, if it's interesting I'll watch.

-smak-


----------



## bicker

Turtleboy said:


> IndyJones1023 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the entertainment business, intellectual property makes you money. It makes no sense for NBC to own something it won't (effectively) ever be able to use.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about them using it. It's about preventing Fox (or wherever Conan goes) from making money off it.
Click to expand...

More precisely: It is about preventing Fox (or wherever Conan goes) from using it, the stuff NBC owns, to grab audience away from NBC.



IndyJones1023 said:


> And since Conan will just come up with other bits to make money off of, it becomes a spiteful move.


Ascribing emotional characteristics to what is strictly a rational business decision is ridiculous.


----------



## bicker

DevdogAZ said:


> Interesting article in Ad Age about why the failure of the Jay Leno primetime experiment is actually a bad thing for network TV. The basic gist is that NBC took a stab at doing something different, and failed spectacularly, so it might be a while before other networks try to stick their neck out and try something else different.


Yes, indeed, so they're going to go back to the cost-cutting that they've had success with in the past, i.e., programming specific time slots for "various programming" (meaning rebroadcasts of scripted programming presented earlier that week, something which the big networks do a lot on Saturday), programming more reality and competition shows, etc.

Thanks for the link.


----------



## bicker

DevdogAZ said:


> But the point of the article is that the landscape for the broadcast networks is changing, and the type of "innovation" that NBC attempted is going to be necessary to stay afloat. As audiences continue to fragment, advertisers will increasingly find that they can reach their desired demographic for less money on niche cable networks rather than using the traditional shotgun approach of broadcast TV. Thus, there will be less and less ad revenue for the networks and they'll have to make the corresponding changes to cut costs.
> 
> It doesn't mean that creativity goes away. There are all kinds of great, creative programs on any number of cable networks. Many people are considering this an era of renaissance in the TV industry, despite the proliferation of cheap reality shows. It simply means that big-budget scripted shows might be fewer and farther between.


And it also means that a lot less of the "good stuff" will be available "for free" and a lot more of the "good stuff" will be behind a "pay wall". This is a hot conversation on some other forums I participate in -- the fact that people who, for either financial reasons or technical reasons, choose to rely on over-the-air reception are going to be the big losers. Some folks in some of those threads proclaim that this trend is, in some way, "unfair". (I object, but that's another discussion...)


----------



## bicker

JYoung said:


> I'm glad you _innovation_ in quotes because this really wasn't about NBC being innovative and more about them being "cheap".


If you don't think that there is any need for innovation with regard to cost-cutting then you're really off-target. It is far easier to make something entertaining if you have Carte Blanche and can spend whatever you wish. Given the reality that money is tight and going to become progressively tighter over time, without any end in sight, in that regard, innovation of the sort NBC tried is exactly what you the viewer should be hoping for.


----------



## bicker

terpfan1980 said:


> I still hold that it's only necessary if you (the networks, in this case NBC) want to complete give up on developing quality content.


Then you're missing the big picture. Programming is a means to an end. It is not the objective in itself. Refusing to recognize broadcasters as businesses will simply leave one mystified about what's going on.



terpfan1980 said:


> The cable networks -- as you (DevdogAZ) point out above -- are doing well at competing *because* they are developing quality shows.


Paying their cast and crew peanuts by comparison. In another forum, we discussed this earlier in the week, how much of the "problems" that the OTA broadcasters face, going forward, could be readily resolved if all the cast and crew for television programs simply agreed to work on OTA broadcast television networks for cable network wages. I'm not sure that that would do the trick, but it surely would help reduce the cost-cutting pressure on OTA networks.


----------



## bicker

DevdogAZ said:


> That's the problem. Simply by virtue of the show being on network TV, all the actors, producers, writers, creators, etc. expect to get paid on par with a network level show. If the show were on cable, they'd be content to do the same job for less money, but because it's a network, they demand more. Thus, the networks can't produce shows on the cheap like the cable nets can, simply because they are networks.


And they cannot even just take Burn Notice, as inexpensive as it was to produce, and rebroadcast it on NBC, without paying cast and crew a differential.

Nothing is as simple as some would wish things to be.



DevdogAZ said:


> It would work much better if the production companies that make the shows would enter into contracts where everyone would agree to work on the show for a fixed cost, regardless of where the show would be aired. Then, if the show is picked up by a network, any network could pick up any show by paying a base amount to license the show and a bonus amount based on ad revenue received.


Don't confuse the issue with good ideas like that!


----------



## bicker

aindik said:


> Apparently they still care what the affiliates think.


Or at least care what Comcast investors think.


----------



## bicker

terpfan1980 said:


> No one is holding the network's hostage in what they pay for programming


----------



## aindik

smak said:


> The affiliates freaked out because their 11pm news was down an average of 25% in 25-54.
> 
> As well as huge numbers like 48% in NY, 43% in LA. Those are O&O's so NBC should have been concerned as well.
> 
> The 10 stations NBC own were on track to lose something like $25 million this year, JUST during 1/2 hour of programming.
> 
> The rest about 88 million.
> 
> They had good reason to freak out.
> 
> -smak-


Oh, I completely understand why the affiliates freaked out. My point was that NBC still cares what the affiliates think. And so, the idea of a "network," (a central unit that produces programming that airs on individual OTA stations across the nation) is still relevant.


----------



## lew

bicker said:


> If you don't think that there is any need for innovation with regard to cost-cutting then you're really off-target. It is far easier to make something entertaining if you have Carte Blanche and can spend whatever you wish. Given the reality that money is tight and going to become progressively tighter over time, without any end in sight, in that regard, innovation of the sort NBC tried is exactly what you the viewer should be hoping for.


It's a shame NBC didn't pre-empt Leno for shows like the Apprentice (most nights) during sweeps. See what kind of ratings Leno gets during the summer against reruns. By the time the Olympics are over the TV season will be more then half over.

Leno might have been an OK idea, but maybe not 5 nights a week all year.


----------



## DevdogAZ

smak said:


> Maybe not from 8pm to 9pm, or 9pm to 10pm, but I certainly see why a good lead-in helps from 10pm to 11pm.
> 
> I don't really have a favorite local news I watch, and if I'm watching a 10pm show live, and the show ends, you know the news is going to come on right after the show (probably during the credits), and tease the #1 local story, and not caring what news station I watch, if it's interesting I'll watch.
> 
> -smak-


The #1 local story is going to be on every local affiliate, so that's not really an effective tease. What I see, more often than not, is the local affiliate teasing some wacky story that you know will only be on their station: "Coming up at 11. Why your driveway might be making you sick." That's the kind of thing that makes viewers curious and keeps them on that station just to see what the explanation for a tease like that could possibly be. Then, inevitably, the story they've teased is a 30-second blurb at the very end of the newscast and the tease horribly misrepresented the actual story.


----------



## MickeS

DevdogAZ said:


> The #1 local story is going to be on every local affiliate, so that's not really an effective tease. What I see, more often than not, is the local affiliate teasing some wacky story that you know will only be on their station: "Coming up at 11. Why your driveway might be making you sick." That's the kind of thing that makes viewers curious and keeps them on that station just to see what the explanation for a tease like that could possibly be. *Then, inevitably, the story they've teased is a 30-second blurb at the very end of the newscast and the tease horribly misrepresented the actual story.*


I don't watch any local news anymore pretty much, but I HATED that... the tease was usually only about two sentences shorter than the actual "story".


----------



## allan

MickeS said:


> I don't watch any local news anymore pretty much, but I HATED that... the tease was usually only about two sentences shorter than the actual "story".


I think the last tease I bit on was LONGER than the real story.


----------



## smak

DevdogAZ said:


> The #1 local story is going to be on every local affiliate, so that's not really an effective tease. What I see, more often than not, is the local affiliate teasing some wacky story that you know will only be on their station: "Coming up at 11. Why your driveway might be making you sick." That's the kind of thing that makes viewers curious and keeps them on that station just to see what the explanation for a tease like that could possibly be. Then, inevitably, the story they've teased is a 30-second blurb at the very end of the newscast and the tease horribly misrepresented the actual story.


Both that wacky story, and the #1 local story also being on every other affiliate gets me to not change channels. That's my point, and that's why the 11pm local news is down 25% on NBC.

I'm curious about the Southern California rain, and after watching CSI NY the newsmodel comes on and says here comes big details about the Southern California rain. Why would I switch?

-smak-


----------



## smak

aindik said:


> Oh, I completely understand why the affiliates freaked out. My point was that NBC still cares what the affiliates think. And so, the idea of a "network," (a central unit that produces programming that airs on individual OTA stations across the nation) is still relevant.


Yah, I figured out I was agreeing with you halfway, but I was on a roll.

But my point was NBC said this number will make Jay Leno a success. Supposedly they hit that number, and they had to cancel the show because the affiliates were going nuts.

So why didn't they realize those numbers would make the affiliates go nuts? Seemed obvious at the time, and throughout the whole thing.

Having a strong 10 pm show as a helpful leadin to the local news is not a new concept.

-smak-


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

smak said:


> Having a strong 10 pm show as a helpful leadin to the local news is not a new concept.


But they may have seriously underestimated how important it is. I know it seems bizarre to me...I have always switched to whatever station has the news I like the most, even in the pre-DVR days when it took a little effort. I'm amazed that so many people just stay wherever they are, but obviously they do. NBC might have thought the hit their affiliates took would be within acceptable limits, but then it wasn't. (They might also not have realized that the affiliates wouldn't see taking a hit at 10:00 Central in order to boost NBC's profits as a good thing. Which would be insane, but hey, it's not like NBC has proven the poster child for sanity in this whole mess...)


----------



## terpfan1980

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But they may have seriously underestimated how important it is. I know it seems bizarre to me...I have always switched to whatever station has the news I like the most, even in the pre-DVR days when it took a little effort. I'm amazed that so many people just stay wherever they are, but obviously they do. NBC might have thought the hit their affiliates took would be within acceptable limits, but then it wasn't. (They might also not have realized that the affiliates wouldn't see taking a hit at 10:00 Central in order to boost NBC's profits as a good thing. Which would be insane, but hey, it's not like NBC has proven the poster child for sanity in this whole mess...)


Something to remember is it doesn't have to be all that many people that aren't changing channels... just a sizable percentage of the households that are being measured by whatever flawed means Nielsen uses.

The numbers may or may not include homes with DVRs (normally they don't include them, no?) and may not truly and accurately represent the areas that are being measured but Nielsen would argue it's the best they can provide and the networks have little choice as to what measurement would otherwise be used to help them set ad rates.

If 99% of the public changes channels but only 1% of the Nielsen homes do, what numbers are really be presented to the networks and their customers?


----------



## smak

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But they may have seriously underestimated how important it is. I know it seems bizarre to me...I have always switched to whatever station has the news I like the most, even in the pre-DVR days when it took a little effort. I'm amazed that so many people just stay wherever they are, but obviously they do. NBC might have thought the hit their affiliates took would be within acceptable limits, but then it wasn't. (They might also not have realized that the affiliates wouldn't see taking a hit at 10:00 Central in order to boost NBC's profits as a good thing. Which would be insane, but hey, it's not like NBC has proven the poster child for sanity in this whole mess...)


I, as a casual of observer of ratings, have noticed for many many years the effect that the 10pm shows have on the *11:35 shows*. You'd think it would be obvious to even the dunces at NBC that it would be even more pronounced at 11pm.

-smak-


----------



## aindik

NBC seems to be pre-empting Leno tonight with some true crime stories show.


----------



## Turtleboy

aindik said:


> NBC seems to be pre-empting Leno tonight with some true crime stories show.


I wonder why. Leno data is on the Tivo. Strange on Conan's last night.


----------



## smak

Weird to have a comedy show right after the telethon maybe?

-smak-


----------



## kcarl75

Classy last words.


----------



## orangeboy

Is anyone (other than me) going to cancel The Tonight Show's Season Pass?


----------



## TriBruin

This post was in the thread about Conan's last show, but the response is more appropriate here:



gastrof said:


> NBC is going to pay for this. They'll pay dearly.
> 
> Leno has got to eventually retire, and who's going to want to take the Tonight Show after what happened this time?
> 
> Besides, if Conan ends up in an 11:35 timeslot, he'll murder Leno.
> 
> I'll laugh if Leno still gets canned as a result.


People keep saying that Conan will kill Jay in ratings if they compete head-to-head, but what facts is this being based upon? Jay's ratings for past 17 years were an average of TWICE Conan's ratings.

When Dave moved to CBS, everyone said the same thing: "Dave's going to kick Jay's ass every night." He did, for a couple of years, and then viewers moved back to Jay. Jay's beat Dave for 10+ years.


----------



## Turtleboy

But who is clamoring to have Jay Leno back? Who is demanding it?

Old people not on the internet, maybe. Have fun with the Depends account, NBC.


----------



## TriBruin

Turtleboy said:


> But who is clamoring to have Jay Leno back? Who is demanding it?
> 
> Old people not on the internet, maybe. Have fun with the Depends account, NBC.


So you are saying that only old people watch Leno? Guess I need to contact the AARP and get my application going. 

Too bad all these so-called Coco supporters didn't actually watch the show when it counted.


----------



## Turtleboy

TriBruin said:


> So you are saying that only old people watch Leno? Guess I need to contact the AARP and get my application going.
> 
> Too bad all these so-called Coco supporters didn't actually watch the show when it counted.


On the whole, Jay's demographics are old and getting older. Indisputable fact.


----------



## bicker

It would be interesting for TiVo to eventually post how many folks got rid of Tonight Show Season Passes this month vs. how many folks added (back) Tonight Show Season Passes this month.


----------



## stujac

TriBruin said:


> So you are saying that only old people watch Leno? Guess I need to contact the AARP and get my application going.


Old people and ********. That's Jay's audience. I fall into the "old people" segment although I'm back on a Jay-boycott.


----------



## Turtleboy

And how are ratings measured anyway? I watched the Tonight Show with Conan all of the time. . . but never live. I wonder how many others are like me, and TiVoed or DVRed it, or watched it on the internet. I wonder how much of Leno's audience did that. I would say a lot less. Older = less using of technology.


----------



## bicker

Increasingly, advertisers are starting to look more closely at what the ratings mean, and that does not bode well for those of us who prefer programming preferred by viewers whom advertisers start believing are not worth trying to sell to.


----------



## JYoung

gastrof said:


> NBC is going to pay for this. They'll pay dearly.
> 
> Leno has got to eventually retire, and who's going to want to take the Tonight Show after what happened this time?
> 
> Besides, if Conan ends up in an 11:35 timeslot, he'll murder Leno.
> 
> I'll laugh if Leno still gets canned as a result.





TriBruin said:


> This post was in the thread about Conan's last show, but the response is more appropriate here:
> 
> People keep saying that Conan will kill Jay in ratings if they compete head-to-head, but what facts is this being based upon? Jay's ratings for past 17 years were an average of TWICE Conan's ratings.
> 
> When Dave moved to CBS, everyone said the same thing: "Dave's going to kick Jay's ass every night." He did, for a couple of years, and then viewers moved back to Jay. Jay's beat Dave for 10+ years.


This guy is waiting.











Turtleboy said:


> But who is clamoring to have Jay Leno back? Who is demanding it?
> 
> Old people not on the internet, maybe. Have fun with the Depends account, NBC.


The affiliates may have.
ANd NBC will be happy as long as the "Depends account" makes money.


----------



## stujac

I've never seen either of them live; since I started working early I dvr all late nite shows. In fact, I pay 16. a month to keep the cable dvr just so I can record Kimmel.


----------



## IndyJones1023

The entire advertising system is a sham. The Nielsen system is horribly outdated, and was never a true metric, anyway. Someday advertisers will find out we only use DVRs to do what we've always done more quickly - not watch their ads.


----------



## JYoung

Turtleboy said:


> And how are ratings measured anyway? I watched the Tonight Show with Conan all of the time. . . but never live. I wonder how many others are like me, and TiVoed or DVRed it, or watched it on the internet. I wonder how much of Leno's audience did that. I would say a lot less. Older = less using of technology.


Then I'd argue that the older, less technical viewers which you deride might be more valuable to NBC than you.
Because they watch the commercials. You don't.


----------



## Turtleboy

I actually often do watch ads. I'm more into TiVo for time shifting then ad avoidance. But I know I'm unusual in that regard.


----------



## bicker

While we're engaging in wild-ass speculation: While I agree that older viewers are less likely to (be in a position to) skip commercials, I believe that older viewers may also be substantially bifurcated, and one of the two groups of extremely little value to advertisers, because they're often unimpressed with the value that is being offered, because with the vast majority of consumer products, these days, much of the value is not a practical value but a perceived value. Sometimes, this is perceived as "not getting" the value being offered, such as for an iPod versus a Sansa.

Providence help us once advertisers learn just how little our eyes are worth to them.


----------



## MikeAndrews

IndyJones1023 said:


> The entire advertising system is a sham. The Nielsen system is horribly outdated, and was never a true metric, anyway. Someday advertisers will find out we only use DVRs to do what we've always done more quickly - not watch their ads.


I actaully worked at Nielsen many moons ago when they were developing the face recognition technology, which at the time was amazing for the hardware they had. AFAIK, they have it now so they know who's in front of the box. Nielsen is also getting our Tivo data.


----------



## MikeAndrews

Does anybody else remember what I did - during the time right before Jay took over the Tonight Show?

Jay "humbly" said that when he stepped in the show wouldn't titled "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno." It would be just "The Tonight Show."

Well, that was a broken promise.


----------



## Langree

netringer said:


> I actaully worked at Nielsen many moons ago when they were developing the face recognition technology, which at the time was amazing for the hardware they had. AFAIK, they have it now so they know who's in front of the box. Nielsen is also getting our Tivo data.


Don't they only get our TiVo data if we opt in to allow it?


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Turtleboy said:


> On the whole, Jay's demographics are old and getting older. Indisputable fact.


So are Conan's. So are everyones. People find someone they like and follow it. I think Conan's youth demo is a result of college students watching late at night. When he was still later and they were now working DVRs saved him. Then they followed to the earlier slot. It's a fact that Leno's demo would never follow later. PArt of the 10 PM strategy was to hold that older but still awake demo as they aged. Stupid idea.


----------



## murgatroyd

Turtleboy said:


> But who is clamoring to have Jay Leno back? Who is demanding it?
> 
> Old people not on the internet, maybe. Have fun with the Depends account, NBC.


These snarky comments about old people are getting pretty tiresome. How about giving it a rest?

Note that I say this as someone who is impartial on the Conan vs. Leno brouhaha. I'm not watching Leno anymore. I switched to Craig Ferguson, and I'm not going back. Not that NBC gives a rat's ass about what I watch, since I'm not in the demographic they care about.

Jan


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Langree said:


> Don't they only get our TiVo data if we opt in to allow it?


I believe anonymous data is still available for raw numbers but without any demographics. No?


----------



## bicker

Langree said:


> Don't they only get our TiVo data if we opt in to allow it?


Actually, it is an opt-out system.


IJustLikeTivo said:


> I believe anonymous data is still available for raw numbers but without any demographics. No?


I believe the specific data that advertisers would care about is anonymous, no matter what.


----------



## MikeAndrews

Langree said:


> Don't they only get our TiVo data if we opt in to allow it?


No. I think they get our mostly-anonymized Tivo data if you don't opt-_out_ of allowing it. 

There are some TiVo features that require opt-in. VOD?


----------



## Turtleboy

murgatroyd said:


> These snarky comments about old people are getting pretty tiresome. How about giving it a rest?
> 
> Note that I say this as someone who is no longer watching Leno. I switched to Craig Ferguson, and I'm not going back. Not that NBC gives a rat's ass about what I watch, since I'm not in the demographic they care about.
> 
> Jan


Craig isn't opposite Leno. I have two DVRs and Tivoed Tonight Show with Conan, Late Show with Dave, plus John Steward and Colbert. I didn't watch every one every night, but watched all occassionally.

And what demographic does NBC care about? I can't tell. My favorite shows are still on NBC, actually. I'll watch Thursday night from 8-9:59 live.

I don't understand what NBC did here from a business perspective. They made so many mistakes.

1) If Jay was doing well in the ratings, they never should have promised Conan the show in 5 years ago. They should have told him "Sorry, we have Jay. We love you, and you can do Late Night until Jay decides to retire, but we aren't going to force him out. We'll understand if you leave." I'm not sure Conan would have left. He had a good gig and was doing good work. He might have, he might not have.

2a) Once they made the decision, they probably should have stuck with it. Or not. If Jay was not ready to retire, and was still #1 in the ratings, they should have apologized to Conan, said "Jay's not ready to retire. We had all of these horrible stories about how we forced out Johnny Carson before he was ready to retire. True or not, we hate those stories. We're not ready to force Jay out. You can stay at 12:35 longer or you can have a pile of money to walk away. Either way, we understand."

3) Or, of they wanted to make the long term commitment to Conan, they should let Jay go. Jay may have gone to another network, but I'm not so sure he would have taken his audience with him. I think he was #1 in the ratings more out of habit then loyalty. His show was tired, his interviewing terrible, and he was just going through the motions. Their biggest mistake was once they decided to give Conan the Tonight Show at 1135 was to keep Jay around for an earlier show.

It is *this* that made people so angry at Jay and NBC. It was this that turned almost all of Hollywood (and the public?) except for Jay's friends Jerry Seinfeld and Paul Riser against him and NBC. I think most people have a sense of _fairness_. Not right vs. wrong; good vs. evil, etc. They saw giving Jay the 10pm show as unfair to Conan, unfair to the hundreds of cast and crew members of the 10pm shows that lost their jobs, and unfair to viewers who want to be entertained at 10.

Then, when Jay's 10pm "variety show," as Letterman mercilessly calls it, failed, the "solution" wasn't telling Jay to take a hike, because NBC already negotiated itself into a corner. It was moving Jay back to 11:35 but not calling it The Tonight Show. Well, a turd by any other name still smells like crap. Again, people saw this as "unfair."

4) Viewers will not flock back to Jay. First, people are creatures of habit and they're lazy. They won't even change the channel to watch the newscast they always watched b/c they were watching another show at 10. I think the people who watched Jay out of habit are gone and mostly won't be coming back. Plus, he's "damaged goods." Part of Jay's appeal was always his image as the "nice guy." Letterman's image was always as the acerbic a-hole. People liked him or didn't like him, but that's who he is. Jay, at least pretended to be the friendly, easy-going, let's all get along guy. That persona is now gone. Now, he's Charles II; he's Napoleon; he's Richard Nixon. He's a phony. And people aren't going to want to watch that.


----------



## bicker

Hindsight is always 20/20.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Turtleboy said:


> Craig isn't opposite Leno. I have two DVRs and Tivoed Tonight Show with Conan, Late Show with Dave, plus John Steward and Colbert. I didn't watch every one every night, but watched all occassionally.
> 
> And what demographic does NBC care about? I can't tell. My favorite shows are still on NBC, actually. I'll watch Thursday night from 8-9:59 live.
> 
> I don't understand what NBC did here from a business perspective. They made so many mistakes.
> 
> 1) If Jay was doing well in the ratings, they never should have promised Conan the show in 5 years ago. They should have told him "Sorry, we have Jay. We love you, and you can do Late Night until Jay decides to retire, but we aren't going to force him out. We'll understand if you leave." I'm not sure Conan would have left. He had a good gig and was doing good work. He might have, he might not have.
> 
> 2a) Once they made the decision, they probably should have stuck with it. Or not. If Jay was not ready to retire, and was still #1 in the ratings, they should have apologized to Conan, said "Jay's not ready to retire. We had all of these horrible stories about how we forced out Johnny Carson before he was ready to retire. True or not, we hate those stories. We're not ready to force Jay out. You can stay at 12:35 longer or you can have a pile of money to walk away. Either way, we understand."
> 
> 3) Or, of they wanted to make the long term commitment to Conan, they should let Jay go. Jay may have gone to another network, but I'm not so sure he would have taken his audience with him. I think he was #1 in the ratings more out of habit then loyalty. His show was tired, his interviewing terrible, and he was just going through the motions. Their biggest mistake was once they decided to give Conan the Tonight Show at 1135 was to keep Jay around for an earlier show.
> 
> It is *this* that made people so angry at Jay and NBC. It was this that turned almost all of Hollywood (and the public?) except for Jay's friends Jerry Seinfeld and Paul Riser against him and NBC. I think most people have a sense of _fairness_. Not right vs. wrong; good vs. evil, etc. They saw giving Jay the 10pm show as unfair to Conan, unfair to the hundreds of cast and crew members of the 10pm shows that lost their jobs, and unfair to viewers who want to be entertained at 10.
> 
> Then, when Jay's 10pm "variety show," as Letterman mercilessly calls it, failed, the "solution" wasn't telling Jay to take a hike, because NBC already negotiated itself into a corner. It was moving Jay back to 11:35 but not calling it The Tonight Show. Well, a turd by any other name still smells like crap. Again, people saw this as "unfair."
> 
> 4) Viewers will not flock back to Jay. First, people are creatures of habit and they're lazy. They won't even change the channel to watch the newscast they always watched b/c they were watching another show at 10. I think the people who watched Jay out of habit are gone and mostly won't be coming back. Plus, he's "damaged goods." Part of Jay's appeal was always his image as the "nice guy." Letterman's image was always as the acerbic a-hole. People liked him or didn't like him, but that's who he is. Jay, at least pretended to be the friendly, easy-going, let's all get along guy. That persona is now gone. Now, he's Charles II; he's Napoleon; he's Richard Nixon. He's a phony. And people aren't going to want to watch that.


Let's assume 1-3 are true. How did Jay have any responsibility. It's not his job to be nice to Conan at the expense of what's good for him. At the end of the day each of them made a deal but both made a deal with NBC, your issue is with them and not Jay.

As for 4. I suspect the people he lost, he never had. The people he had, he still has.

The biggest mistake they made was not publicly backing their decision. They have spent millions fixing their mess. Might that money have been better spent doing some advertising to try and improve ratings for both shows?

Conan left with his held high and a great attitude, he hates cynics and negativism, there are a lot of people in this thread who could learn from that, me included.


----------



## pcguru83

This is too good not to share. I was searching for a torrent of the episode from last night, and stumbled on something very interesting. It's an episode of Inside the Actors Studio back featuring Conan O'Brien from January 26, 2009. This is of course about five months before he took over The Tonight Show.

Conan says something about eleven minutes in that is truly telling about who he is as a comedian:



Conan O'Brien said:


> I was someone, and this happened in my career too, where when people first meet me I'm not grabbing them by the lapel and showing them that I'm really funny. I need to be around for a while. And this has been my whole career. I was never someone who burst into a room and said, "Take this down, because its going to be pretty funny." I had to be around for a little bit and people would pick up on my energy and then over time I could win them over. And it's really been the same thing with the Late Night Show.


Given time, I believe Conan would have built up an audience to rival that of Jay's. But he wasn't given the time. I truly believe with NBC has made a horrible, horrible long term decision. This may have been necessary for the short-term, but I think they've shot themselves in the foot.

Anyone who is a fan of Conan needs to find this episode of Inside The Actors Studio and give it a watch. It's fascinating.


----------



## Amnesia

orangeboy said:


> Is anyone (other than me) going to cancel The Tonight Show's Season Pass?


I canceled the SP when Jay left and I'll recreate it when he returns...(I have no issue with Conan, just never enjoyed his show)


----------



## morac

Turtleboy said:


> And how are ratings measured anyway? I watched the Tonight Show with Conan all of the time. . . but never live. I wonder how many others are like me, and TiVoed or DVRed it, or watched it on the internet. I wonder how much of Leno's audience did that. I would say a lot less. Older = less using of technology.


Unless you are in a Nielsen household it doesn't make a difference what you do. That's the problem with the ratings system. Nielsen does have access to TiVo's viewer data, but as far as I'm aware, they don't give it as much weight as their own data. Really the Nielsen rating system should simply go away, but that's a topic for another thread.


----------



## DevdogAZ

terpfan1980 said:


> If 99% of the public changes channels but only 1% of the Nielsen homes do, what numbers are really be presented to the networks and their customers?


Sounds like someone needs to take a statistics class.


orangeboy said:


> Is anyone (other than me) going to cancel The Tonight Show's Season Pass?


Since the SP is for "The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien" you might as well cancel it since that show won't be on anymore.


Turtleboy said:


> But who is clamoring to have Jay Leno back? Who is demanding it?


NBC executives.


Turtleboy said:


> And what demographic does NBC care about? I can't tell. My favorite shows are still on NBC, actually. I'll watch Thursday night from 8-9:59 live.


NBC cares about what advertisers care about, which is adults aged 18-49. The advertisers feel that people under 18 don't have disposable income and people over 49 are set in their ways and are less likely to be influenced by advertising.


Turtleboy said:


> I don't understand what NBC did here from a business perspective. They made so many mistakes.
> 
> 1) If Jay was doing well in the ratings, they never should have promised Conan the show in 5 years ago. They should have told him "Sorry, we have Jay. We love you, and you can do Late Night until Jay decides to retire, but we aren't going to force him out. We'll understand if you leave." I'm not sure Conan would have left. He had a good gig and was doing good work. He might have, he might not have.


As Jeff Zucker said on Charlie Rose, that decision bought them five more years of the top duo in late-night TV. These shows reportedly make over $100 million in profit per year, so that was not necessarily a bad decision at the time. If Conan had gone to Fox or ABC and started a show that competed with "Tonight," it would have fragmented the viewers and eaten into NBC's profit. So while it looks like a bad decision in hindsight, it may have been a decision that helped NBC make hundreds of millions of dollars.


Turtleboy said:


> 2a) Once they made the decision, they probably should have stuck with it. Or not. If Jay was not ready to retire, and was still #1 in the ratings, they should have apologized to Conan, said "Jay's not ready to retire. We had all of these horrible stories about how we forced out Johnny Carson before he was ready to retire. True or not, we hate those stories. We're not ready to force Jay out. You can stay at 12:35 longer or you can have a pile of money to walk away. Either way, we understand."


NBC was on the hook to pay Conan $45 million if they didn't give him The Tonight Show in 2009. And the execs at NBC truly believed that the ratings wouldn't fall significantly for Conan on The Tonight Show, and that the younger demo ratings might actually increase. These reasons, along with not wanting to have a repeat of 1992, were why they stuck with the 2004 plan to replace Leno. Perfectly rational with the information they had at the time.


Turtleboy said:


> 3) Or, of they wanted to make the long term commitment to Conan, they should let Jay go. Jay may have gone to another network, but I'm not so sure he would have taken his audience with him. I think he was #1 in the ratings more out of habit then loyalty. His show was tired, his interviewing terrible, and he was just going through the motions. Their biggest mistake was once they decided to give Conan the Tonight Show at 1135 was to keep Jay around for an earlier show.


This was probably NBC's biggest mistake here, but at the same time, they didn't want Leno to start a show on ABC and compete directly with The Tonight Show. If you're an NBC exec in 2008, which do you choose: a) Leno going to ABC and launching a show that will compete directly with Conan and Letterman and further fragment the audience and eat into profits for flagship late-night show, or b) Leno staying with your network, doing a show in prime time (which you haven't had much recent success with anyway), and not competing directly with Conan and stealing those very profitable eyeballs? With the information available at the time, I think b was the much more logical choice.


Turtleboy said:


> 4) Viewers will not flock back to Jay. First, people are creatures of habit and they're lazy. They won't even change the channel to watch the newscast they always watched b/c they were watching another show at 10. I think the people who watched Jay out of habit are gone and mostly won't be coming back. Plus, he's "damaged goods." Part of Jay's appeal was always his image as the "nice guy." Letterman's image was always as the acerbic a-hole. People liked him or didn't like him, but that's who he is. Jay, at least pretended to be the friendly, easy-going, let's all get along guy. That persona is now gone. Now, he's Charles II; he's Napoleon; he's Richard Nixon. He's a phony. And people aren't going to want to watch that.


I think you're placing way too much emphasis on what a few thousand vocal people on the internet say. The vast majority of late-night viewers couldn't care less about this Leno/Conan saga, and will just watch who they like, or whoever comes on after the news they're watching. I think there were a couple million people who watched Leno on a regular basis and simply stopped watching late-night TV when he went away. Will they all come back? Doubtful, but the numbers have shown that average viewers prefer Leno to Conan, so it's likely that as people begin to realize that Leno is back in that old slot, habits may drift back to what they were before. I don't expect he'll get back to his 5 million nightly viewers, but I think he'll get more than the 2.5 million viewers that Conan was getting.


----------



## DevdogAZ

morac said:


> Unless you are in a Nielsen household it doesn't make a difference what you do. That's the problem with the ratings system. Nielsen does have access to TiVo's viewer data, but as far as I'm aware, they don't give it as much weight as their own data. Really the Nielsen rating system should simply go away, but that's a topic for another thread.


While Nielsen tries very hard to make their data be as statistically accurate as possible, I think the complicated installation of their measuring hardware makes it less likely that more technologically-sophisticated households are represented. They have to take apart every single piece of electronics in your home that has a TV tuner in it and install hardware that will track the use of that tuner. They have to install a box at every TV watching location with multiple buttons each assigned to a member of the household. Each member of the household has to push the button when they enter the room to indicate that they are present, and then they have to push it again when they leave so the software doesn't count them anymore. Usually there are a couple of spare buttons to count guests who may view TV at your house but who are not members of your household. For the inconvenience of taking apart your electronics and asking you to constantly push buttons when you enter/leave a room, they pay you about $60 a month.

We were asked to be a Nielsen household about 18 months ago. I was thrilled, and consented immediately. However, when they came to do the installation, it turned out that they didn't have the ability to measure our viewing with the setup that we have. Part of their measurement methodology consists of putting some kind of sensor on the speaker wires that go to all the speakers, whether internally inside the TV, or externally in a home theater system. This sensor senses the signal going through the wires and provides some of the information necessary for their measurement. However, at our house, we have some wireless headphones that get used very regularly. This means we mute the sound going to the speakers and it gets transmitted wirelessly to the headphones. For some reason, they had no ability to measure this signal, so the measurement would be inaccurate, and they told us they couldn't use our household unless they updated their methodology or we stopped using the wireless headphones.

I'm not sure how many people have setups that make it impossible for Nielsen to install their equipment, but I'm guessing there are millions of people who don't want their electronics and home theater systems taken apart, warranties voided, etc. just to help out a statistics company. I'm guessing that the homes that are measured skew more toward those with less expensive, less sophisticated A/V setups, and toward those for whom $60/month is a big deal.


----------



## bicker

Equivocations about Nielsen ratings are mostly noise, IMHO. The intention is not to have a perfect reflection of how many people are watching which shows (it isn't an election!), but rather to have a tool that efficiently provides some indication about the value that advertising on a specific show may offer to an advertiser. I feel that, if anything, Nielsen ratings tend to make things look a lot rosier than is the reality, so the last thing viewers should be calling for is anything that will make ratings more accurate. That'll just hit us harder, quicker.


----------



## murgatroyd

Turtleboy said:


> Craig isn't opposite Leno.


Not on Live TV, no. But now that I've watched Craig, I don't want to watch Leno. "The Scottish Conan guy" has knocked Leno out of my Now Playing List. Conan's competition has trumped Leno. Amusing, no?

Here's a problem I see for the Live TV audience.

I saw an article with a quote from one of the actors on L&O: SVU about how her show had suffered from being moved to 9 PM. If you are watching live TV, there's a vibe associated with certain timeslots, and it's not hard to watch a show and say "this is an 8 PM show / 9 PM show / 10 PM show" etc.

There's a different sensibility with the 11:35 shows and the shows that come in the timeslot after. Craig's got a whole running gag about how he can do almost anything he wants because he's in the Late Late timeslot and no one is watching.

If Conan's sense of humor is a good fit for the Late Late Show timeslot, then it might not work to shift him to the Late Show timeslot without retooling the show. But the viewers who are used to the Late Late flavor of Conan's show might be disappointed in the retooled show, because they miss that edge.

Similarly, the people who liked Leno's thing at 11:35 might not care for the same flavor at 10 PM.

Even for those of us with DVRs, this matters because the shows on Live TV may have been built to fit a certain timeslot. Note how people are saying that The Big Bang Theory doesn't seem as good this season as it has been in previous seasons. Note also that it has been moved to a different timeslot. I don't think it belongs where it is now -- I think it was better in the earlier timeslot.

But to get back to my original point -- even if my schedule changed, and I could stay up to watch the 11:35 shows every night, I wouldn't be watching Leno now. I'd be doing something else. Watching something I've time-shifted, or downloaded, or reading a book, or something else. I've lost the taste for what Leno is doing.

Jan


----------



## inaka

orangeboy said:


> Is anyone (other than me) going to cancel The Tonight Show's Season Pass?


Already done.


----------



## Turtleboy

Conan can't host a show till September. I wonder if he can be a guest. Can he go visit Letterman next week? I would guess no.


----------



## lambertman

Apparently there is a 3-month gag order on Conan doing any interviews.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Turtleboy said:


> Conan can't host a show till September. I wonder if he can be a guest. Can he go visit Letterman next week? I would guess no.


I would think yes. Host # guest. Unless they expect him to live in the Tora Bora caves with OBL for 7 months.

BTW, why 7 months? Seems like a very odd amount. Do they think that makes him wait past the beginning of the new season? Why would that matter?


----------



## FilmCritic3000

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I would think yes. Host # guest. Unless they expect him to live in the Tora Bora caves with OBL for 7 months.
> 
> BTW, why 7 months? Seems like a very odd amount. Do they think that makes him wait past the beginning of the new season? Why would that matter?


I read an article that stated that, as terms of his settlement, Conan must wait until April before appearing on another show.


----------



## LoadStar

FilmCritic3000 said:


> I read an article that stated that, as terms of his settlement, Conan must wait until April before appearing on another show.


And he cannot give any interviews during that interval either.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

FilmCritic3000 said:


> I read an article that stated that, as terms of his settlement, Conan must wait until April before appearing on another show.


I thought he said 7 months last night.


----------



## pcguru83

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I thought he said 7 months last night.


I think he's referring to the amount of time he can appear as a guest. It is indeed 7 months (September) until he can appear back on the air in his own show.


----------



## LoadStar

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I thought he said 7 months last night.


7 months was the amount of time the Tonight Show was on the air.

As I understand, he cannot host a show until September, cannot appear on another show in a non-hosting capacity until April, and cannot grant interviews until April.


----------



## LoadStar

pcguru83 said:


> I think he's referring to the amount of time he can appear as a guest. It is indeed 7 months (September) until he can appear back on the air in his own show.


Since when is September 7 months from January?


----------



## dswallow

LoadStar said:


> Since when is September 7 months from January?


1/23/2010 + 7 months is 8/23/2010. Whether the agreement says "September 2010" or says "precisely 7 months from signing date" or "after 7 full months", who really knows. But for our side of the discussion, "September" is close enough in conversation, isn't it?


----------



## Turtleboy

Jay is appearing on Oprah. It's a smart move on his behalf to help win back his middle America audience.


----------



## cmontyburns

It was mentioned previously today in one of these O'Brien threads, but the overnights for Conan's last Tonight Show were spectacular. Here's some detail.



> This was his last night, of course, after a contentious parting from NBC, and his fans, many of whom had rallied around him this week, flocked to the show. In preliminary national late-night ratings, Mr. O'Brien scored a booming 7 household rating, which was almost triple the number he had been averaging for months in that measure.
> 
> More impressive was the number for 18-to-49-year-old viewers - the gold standard for NBC because advertisers seek to reach that audience. There, in overnight numbers from the country's 25 largest cities, Mr. O'Brien hit an extraordinary rating, a 4.8.
> 
> Not only would that be by far the biggest rating in that age group for any kind of show at any time Friday night (if it holds up as a national rating and it will probably decrease only slightly), it is also a better number than almost every prime-time show that has appeared on NBC this television season.
> 
> In the current television week, only three entertainment shows on television - "American Idol" on Fox and CBS's two Monday comedies, "Two and a Half Men" and "The Big Bang Theory" - have exceeded a 4.8 rating in that younger adult group.


Now, Conan could never keep up anything close to that, even if he had stayed at NBC. But the network may now be praying that seven months is long enough. As Time's James Poniewozik wrote this week:



> Now, obviously the ratings are the result of publicity. Sort of. It's unlikely he would have sustained this rise had NBC had a change of heart and kept him at Tonight. On the other hand, Jay Leno has gotten just as much attention out of this fiasco, and his ratings have been mostly flat; David Letterman has been making headlines by whaling on Leno with gusto, but he hasn't gotten a similar boost.
> Temporary or not, in other words, NBC has just provided a massive new sampling, an underdog-hero image and a potential future following in a valuable demo group-to a guy they're paying millions to go somewhere else. I don't know if Fox is going to offer Conan a show, but if they were interested two weeks ago, they have to be a hell of a lot more interested now. Well played, NBC.


----------



## JYoung

pcguru83 said:


> I truly believe with NBC has made a horrible, horrible long term decision. This may have been necessary for the short-term, but I think they've shot themselves in the foot.


I agree with this to a certain extent.
They may get another 4-5 good years out of Leno but after that, who'd replace him if his ratings tank or he actually does decide he wants to retire.

The only real alternative would be Jimmy Fallon. They could try Carson Daly (or someone like him) but if Fallon wants it and Lorne Michaels is still in his corner, then Fallon's got it and IMO, he'd be the one winding up killing the Tonight Show.

(Ferguson's out because he's under contract to take over Letterman's slot once Letterman retires.)


----------



## FourFourSeven

Conan played the last two weeks masterfully. I think he'll be the big winner long-term out of this mess. Leno ends up fine in the short-to-mid-term (got out of the 10PM disaster, got his old show back, which is all he wanted). Big loser? NBC. They managed to:

-Destroy their 10pm hour
-Hurt Leno's image, probably affecting his ratings
-Boost Conan's image and profile (he's definitely the "hot" commodity after the last two weeks)
-Pay Conan $33MM
-Send Conan, with a big ol' bow attached, to a competitor

Well played, NBC...


----------



## dtle

pcguru83 said:


> Given time, I believe Conan would have built up an audience to rival that of Jay's. But he wasn't given the time. I truly believe with NBC has made a horrible, horrible long term decision. This may have been necessary for the short-term, but I think they've shot themselves in the foot.


Once again, the long-term solution would've been losing Leno, paying $150 million, and have him compete against Conan for the foreseeable future. All in the name of HOPING Conan will build up his audience??


----------



## marksman

I watched Conan's last episode. I thought it was pretty good. I especially liked the defiling of the picasso with the dinosaur bones with bulaga caviar.

I realized I really enjoy Conan. I just essentially cut him and Jimmy Kimmel off because I am perpetually out of time to watch all the other stuff I record, so that stuff just seemed to get down to the bottom of the pile, ultimately knocking other stuff off before I ever got to it and rolled off itself.

I have decided that I will definitely watch Conan whereever he goes to support him against NBC, because I think they are stupid.

Some people are still wondering how NBC could have missed the impact on the affiliates. I think that is the biggest key, and why nobody has been fired over this makes the entire leadership their guilty in this situation. The lack of foresight on the impact on affiliates is totally inexcusable and indefensible. There is nothing they could say or do to defend the decision in that regard. There is no reasonable circumstance that could have happened that would have made this change good for the affiliates.

I wouldn't be surprised if the affiliates don't continue with the pressure and expect for some more changes. The affiliates said this was a bad idea from the beginning. Homeless people in New Jersey knew it was a bad idea before it happened.

I will say one thing I find out. If all the people who are upset for Conan, and protesting and everything else actually watched his show every night, he would likely still be on the air. I suspect a lot of people chanting for CoCo have not been watching him on any regular basis. As it just seems to be too widespread that it does not jibe with actual ratings.



Turtleboy said:


> On the whole, Jay's demographics are old and getting older. Indisputable fact.


This is one of the problems with tv and other ad driven mediums. Too many of them have built themselves up on the low hanging fruit and the most desirable demos, eschewing everything else. It is a different world though, and it might be time that tv networks, radio stations etc learn that they have to get a little deeper into their business model to continue being successful. [/quote]

There is a lot of money to be made in segments outside of, around or about the 18-54 or 18-48 or whatever demographic they want. However they have never had to worry about or really work at it, because it was raining money from the sky. Now they might have to roll up their sleeves a bit, and they don't seem ready for the job.

As for data collection, I know DirecTV collects data, I just don't know if they share/sell it with anyone. I definitely will watch whatever Conan does to influence whatever I can going forward.

I will echo the sentiments about others and their skepticism of the nielsen system. I am not really educated in the way of statistics, but I have never been able to accept the concept that you could precisely measure the viewing habits of 300 million people with a few thousand samples.

That being said I have been amazed by numbers in my business and how dependable they are even, when you think they should be random.

I can guarantee with a high degree of accuracy that if I take out an advertisement in google search on a specific keyword, that x% of people who see my ad will click it, and y% of those people will buy the product/service.

It doesn't make sense to me in theory, because I have to believe people are more random and diverse than that... but in aggregate I guess they are not.. so I guess now I have just talked myself out of my skepticism of the Nielsen numbers.


----------



## marksman

LoadStar said:


> 7 months was the amount of time the Tonight Show was on the air.
> 
> As I understand, he cannot host a show until September, cannot appear on another show in a non-hosting capacity until April, and cannot grant interviews until April.


When I heard the 7 month thing last night... it made me chuckle. Clearly it was a concession to match the amount of time on the air, which made me think this had to be one ridiculous negotiation.

I am sure NBC wanted at least 12 months, and while wanting nothing Conan's people were probably throwing out 3 months max.. and then it came down to someone saying it will be as long as he was on the air 7 months. I really wish I could find out which side offered that up first.

It is just funny to me because it makes perfect sense in a ridiculous sort of way.


----------



## marksman

One more thought on all this.

Given the amount of free press and media attention NBC has received for their network and their late night shows and their leno show, it makes it all the more miraculous how poorly the network is doing relatively speaking.

It looks like the managed to take little to no advantage of this massive amount of free publicity they have garnered for a good portion of the last year.


----------



## gastrof

And I'm sure someone else will be happy to take advantage of the publicity and ratings they could get by hiring Conan. 

Conan's suggestion that someone hire both him and Andy and let Andy be the actual host of a new show (side-stepping the proviso in his departure agreement with NBC) gave me pause.

Someone should do that. They really should. Let eveyone agree Conan takes over come September, but the show starts as soon as possible.

Story is Fox is already checking out how their affilates feel about a latenight show.

And Leno was the one joking about seeing how things might be at FOX...

Skunk-headed goon...


----------



## TriBruin

marksman said:


> I will say one thing I find out. If all the people who are upset for Conan, and protesting and everything else actually watched his show every night, he would likely still be on the air. I suspect a lot of people chanting for CoCo have not been watching him on any regular basis. As it just seems to be too widespread that it does not jibe with actual ratings.


^ This. If these so-called "I'm with Coco" fans would have watched the Tonight Show from the beginning, NBC would have probably let Jay walk. But Conan's ratings were well below what they were getting with Jay. So NBCs choice was go with the proven commodity (Jay) or hope that Conan finds his audience at 11:35. They went with the decision that (should) help them in the short term (but leaves them with a long term problem, but that will be someone elses problem.)


----------



## pcguru83

TriBruin said:


> ^ This. If these so-called "I'm with Coco" fans would have watched the Tonight Show from the beginning, NBC would have probably let Jay walk. But Conan's ratings were well below what they were getting with Jay. So NBCs choice was go with the proven commodity (Jay) or hope that Conan finds his audience at 11:35. They went with the decision that (should) help them in the short term (but leaves them with a long term problem, but that will be someone elses problem.)


Well I'm one of those "I'm with CoCo" fans and I DID watch from the beginning...

...on Hulu. It still concerns me a bit that perhaps he was getting more viewers than his ratings reflected, albeit from different sources. He undoubtedly has one of the youngest followings of any late night host. We go about this whole entertainment thing alot differently these days.


----------



## TriBruin

pcguru83 said:


> Well I'm one of those "I'm with CoCo" fans and I DID watch from the beginning...
> 
> ...on Hulu. It still concerns me a bit that perhaps he was getting more viewers than his ratings reflected, albeit from different sources. He undoubtedly has one of the youngest followings of any late night host. We go about this whole entertainment thing alot differently these days.


That is part of the problem. Conan's audience is more likely to watch him in alternative ways (Hulu, DVR'd, Bittorrent) that count for little or nothing. Conan may have a huge following, but his audience is translating in to viewers.


----------



## pcguru83

TriBruin said:


> That is part of the problem. Conan's audience is more likely to watch him in alternative ways (Hulu, DVR'd, Bittorrent) that count for little or nothing. Conan may have a huge following, but his audience is translating in to viewers.


Exactly. Old media has got to find a way to capitalize on all the additional ways to consume media these days. Granted, at one time NBC had a part ownership of Hulu if I recall correctly, so you'd think they'd have some way to account for those viewers. But I'm assuming those don't get lumped in with the Nielsen ratings. So to the casual observer, Conan looks like a flop, when in all actuality he _could_ have been drawing more viewers than the raw numbers suggested. Heck, I wasn't at all a late night fan before Conan came to the Tonight Show, but I made it a point to check out almost every episode on Hulu. Up until this week I had not watched one of his shows on my TV.  Yet, I've seen probably all but 20 of The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes. There's a disconnect there for sure.


----------



## bicker

Hulu viewership isn't really worth much, yet. There just isn't enough revenue generated from it for it to count as much as, say, broadcast viewership.


----------



## MickeS

bicker said:


> Hulu viewership isn't really worth much, yet. There just isn't enough revenue generated from it for it to count as much as, say, broadcast viewership.


After a week of watching "ALF" on Hulu, and being bombarded with ads about the Whataburger A-1 Burger in every commercial break, I went and bought 2 of them. Doesn't that count for anything?


----------



## bicker

Practically all my friends who use Hulu use it to watch shows and that's it. None of my friends use it to decide which DVDs to buy. I think most people really just look at it as a way to watch shows.


----------



## marksman

MickeS said:


> After a week of watching "ALF" on Hulu, and being bombarded with ads about the Whataburger A-1 Burger in every commercial break, I went and bought 2 of them. Doesn't that count for anything?


There is something to be said for the online and on demand advertising.

We missed the last three episodes of this year's top chef and watched them on demand.

we say Tom Collichio drink a diet coke like 40 times. There is something to be said for the ability to repeat one message over and over. Just like me and the Diet Coke, you got that Whataburger commercial burned in your head. Heck I got it burned in my head even with the ability to fast forward on my dvr.

So there is something advertisers and networks need to look at, and that is building a stronger and perhaps more repetitive relationship to individual ads to bring the message home.


----------



## MikeAndrews

lew said:


> Not true. Letterman still does stupid pet tricks. NBC wanted to keep it. It turns out Letterman first did the bit on the Mary (Tyler Moore) variety show (on CBS).
> 
> Top 10 lists have been around forever.


Ahhhh...I'll bet Letterman did Stupid Pet Tricks on his old daytime show.


----------



## bicker

marksman said:


> There is something to be said for the online and on demand advertising. We missed the last three episodes of this year's top chef and watched them on demand. we say Tom Collichio drink a diet coke like 40 times. There is something to be said for the ability to repeat one message over and over.


That sort of thing does really work very well with reality and competition programming. And indeed, the extent to which product placement fits with reality and competition programming may drive broadcasters towards yet ever more such programming.

While you can put a Diet Coke in Tom Collichio's hand, you cannot expect to be able to do that with Richard Cypher.


----------



## JYoung

MickeS said:


> After a week of watching "ALF" on Hulu, and being bombarded with ads about the Whataburger A-1 Burger in every commercial break, I went and bought 2 of them. Doesn't that count for anything?


That you're susceptible to sledgehammer advertising? 

I have to think think Hulu doesn't translate to that many viewers and neither does bittorrent, even if the network were to actually look at bittorrnet


----------



## morac

Considering Hulu is contemplating going to a subscription model (similar to what the NY Times plans to do), it will be more equatable to cable channels than broadcast channels.


----------



## MikeAndrews

morac said:


> Considering Hulu is contemplating going to a subscription model (similar to what the NY Times plans to do), it will be more equatable to cable channels than broadcast channels.


Ahbut, Comcast and the other cablecos already have been screaming for a mechanism to allow only cable subscribers to access online content. Look for your cable company to offer "free" access to Hulu amd other streaming sites with your cable package. You just know they'll offer access for say, HBO programs only if you subscribe to HBO at home.

Comcast gets two "Wins." They kill off the competiton from online and motivate viewers to sign up for cable TV. To those of us who say we can live with OTA and downloads, the message will be "notanymore."


----------



## MickeS

netringer said:


> Ahbut, Comcast and the other cablecos already have been screaming for a mechanism to allow only cable subscribers to access online content. Look for your cable company to offer "free" access to Hulu amd other streaming sites with your cable package. You just know they'll offer access for say, HBO programs only if you subscribe to HBO at home.
> 
> Comcast gets two "Wins." They kill off the competiton from online and motivate viewers to sign up for cable TV. To those of us who say we can live with OTA and downloads, the message will be "notanymore."


Yeah, I can almost guarantee this is where things are heading.  Look at ESPN360.com for example. Not a good development, IMO.


----------



## smak

dtle said:


> Once again, the long-term solution would've been losing Leno, paying $150 million, and have him compete against Conan for the foreseeable future. All in the name of HOPING Conan will build up his audience??


If they never signed Leno to the 10pm deal, there was no $150 mil to pay.

-smak-


----------



## bicker

morac said:


> Considering Hulu is contemplating going to a subscription model (similar to what the NY Times plans to do)


And what Newsday and Variety have already done...


morac said:


> it will be more equatable to cable channels than broadcast channels.





netringer said:


> They kill off the competiton from online and motivate viewers to sign up for cable TV. To those of us who say we can live with OTA and downloads, the message will be "notanymore."


They don't so much as kill off the competition as they become the competition. Provision of valuable content means that there will be a price to pay for it, somehow, whether it is a stand-alone service, just charging for Internet video distribution, or a full-featured service, offering content access through a variety of means.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

Mark Evanier defends Jay Leno.


----------



## JYoung

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Mark Evanier defends Jay Leno.


Oh, no.
That's too rational for people.


----------



## FilmCritic3000

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Mark Evanier defends Jay Leno.


Wow, those rose-colored glasses must be glued on tight. Mark, Jerry Seinfeld, Paul Reiser, and Leno can all have a lovely commiseration luncheon together.


----------



## DevdogAZ

dswallow said:


> 1/23/2010 + 7 months is 8/23/2010. Whether the agreement says "September 2010" or says "precisely 7 months from signing date" or "after 7 full months", who really knows. But for our side of the discussion, "September" is close enough in conversation, isn't it?


The date on which Conan can start hosting another show is September 1, 2010. So that's 7 months plus a week. 


smak said:


> If they never signed Leno to the 10pm deal, there was no $150 mil to pay.
> 
> -smak-


And if they had never signed Leno to the 10 pm deal, he'd be doing an 11:35 show on ABC right now, and Conan's ratings would have been even worse than they already were (but he'd still have a job).


----------



## Lori

JYoung said:


> Oh, no.
> That's too rational for people.


Here are my questions for you. If NBC didn't push Johnny out to make room for Jay, why did Johnny leave 4 months shy of his 30th anniversary? Why didn't he stay around *just a little longer* and go out with a grand celebration? If he left NBC and Jay Leno on such fine terms, why did he never visit the Tonight Show as a guest after his retirement? Why did he only do Letterman? Why did he send his jokes to Dave and not Jay? Why would he not continue to support the institution that he helped create? Why would he help the competition?

I believe that he was pushed out, and that the blood for that is on Jay's hands. I know, it wasn't him. It was Helen Kutchnick. But her paychecks were signed by Jay Leno.

I also believe that Jay put this little debacle in motion when he said **publically** that he would take the 11:30 slot back, "if that's what they want". That was the death knell for Conan. He was a lame duck from that moment.

Someone asked how Jay should have answered that question? How about "You know, I'm not even going to go there. The Tonight Show is Conan's show, and we're just focused on making the best show that we can at 10:00." That is a good answer. "Yeah, sure, I'd take it, you know if it were available. Wink-Wink." is not.


----------



## Turtleboy

Why are you (Jyoung and Rob) giving Mark Evavnier so much authority. So he's someone who worked in the industry. I can link to multiple people who worked in the industry who think Jay was a d-bag during the Carson saga, and was one now too.


----------



## zalusky

So frickin what. He wanted the Tonight Show back. It's like Brett Favre coming back after he retired. Are we to complain about that. They go into the playoffs and duke it out.

Jay got rehired. As Jay said it's business and in the end they gave him the deal.
Our job is to watch or not watch the show. We should not wining whether Jay said this or Conan makes silly gestures.


----------



## Langree

Turtleboy said:


> Jay is appearing on Oprah. It's a smart move on his behalf to help win back his middle America audience.


So Conan can't speak about it for a few months, but Jay gets to run over to Oprah and "give his take".

Nice.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

Turtleboy said:


> Why are you (Jyoung and Rob) giving Mark Evanier so much authority. So he's someone who worked in the industry. I can link to multiple people who worked in the industry who think Jay was a d-bag during the Carson saga, and was one now too.


I'm not giving him any authority, I just read his blog daily, and when he has commentary on the Leno/O'Brien fiasco, I thought people here might be interested in seeing a somewhat different (and informed) perspective. If PZ Myers (another guy whose blog I read daily) loved Conan and had something to say on the matter, I'm sure I'd be linking to that too.

Personally, I have no horse in this race. I don't really care that much about either Leno or O'Brien. I just find the whole thing interesting.


----------



## DevdogAZ

I appreciate the Mark Evanier links. I'd never heard of the guy, but I find his opinion on this situation to be very logical and level headed.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Langree said:


> So Conan can't speak about it for a few months, but Jay gets to run over to Oprah and "give his take".
> 
> Nice.


Conan was paid a lot for that.... Besides the Friends of Coco will take care of it for him.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Lori said:


> I also believe that Jay put this little debacle in motion when he said **publically** that he would take the 11:30 slot back, "if that's what they want". That was the death knell for Conan. He was a lame duck from that moment.
> 
> Someone asked how Jay should have answered that question? How about *"You know, I'm not even going to go there. The Tonight Show is Conan's show, and we're just focused on making the best show that we can at 10:00." *That is a good answer. "Yeah, sure, I'd take it, you know if it were available. Wink-Wink." is not.


If you watched the entire interview, he did say that essentially.

Then he was asked the second question and said what a normal guy would say.

"If you were offered a better setup than you have now, would you take it"

Most of us have faced that question. We've all been offered promotions and usually there is another candidate or the existing person isn't doing well. It's not our job to fix that, our job is to answer the question. I don't see that as backhanded. Unless, your behind helping the existing person to be found deficient. In this case, NBC had long since decided that Conan wasn't getting good ratings. Something was going to happen.


----------



## MikeAndrews

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Conan was paid a lot for that.... Besides the Friends of Coco will take care of it for him.


NBC is hoping that the CoCo hype can't last 6 months. With the blogosphere, they'll be proven way, way wrong.

Besides, if say, Fox made a deal they could start hyping the new Conan show starting this afternoon to keep it in front of the public's consciousness.


----------



## Lori

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Conan was paid a lot for that.... Besides the Friends of Coco will take care of it for him.


It's strange, but I'm not really a friend of Coco. I mean, I always liked Conan fine...but if I am watching anything in late night, it's always been Johnny or Dave.

I have just hated Leno for so long...like 42% of my whole life... that I am always rooting for the other guy. It's like he's the Cowboys.  Who do you root for on Sunday in Pittsburgh? The Steelers...and whomever is playing the Cowboys. 

Conan just happens to be playing the Cowboys.


----------



## Lori

DevdogAZ said:


> I appreciate the Mark Evanier links. I'd never heard of the guy, but I find his opinion on this situation to be very logical and level headed.


His opinion is level-headed...but his credibility breaks down for me when he asserts that Carson wasn't pushed out by NBC. I'll never believe that, so his credibility is shot for me.


----------



## Amnesia

Lori said:


> (...) he asserts that Carson wasn't pushed out by NBC. I'll never believe that, so his credibility is shot for me.


Why won't you believe that? Do you have some inside information or are you just a Jay-hater?


----------



## Lori

Amnesia said:


> Why won't you believe that? Do you have some inside information or are you just a Jay-hater?


I was not a Jay-hater till after the Carson thing. I used to watch Jay every Monday night and in the summers when Carson went to Wimbledon. I thought he was cute...in the cute-funny way, not the cute-hot way. His humor was...cute and he was inoffensive.

The reason I don't believe it is that I happen to believe Bill Carter's (of the New York Times and the book "the Late Shift") take on the whole thing. I believe that Johnny was in no hurry to retire, and that Jay's manager took it upon herself to push things along by humiliating Johnny in public.

As I said before, at this point, Johnny had been with the network for a lot of years...so why would he hastily announce his departure at a routine affiliate meeting, rather than discussing it with his bosses ahead of time? He did not resign in the traditional sense...he just announced in front of the affiliates that he was leaving. As I also said above, he did not wait for his 30th anniversary, which I always thought was strange. He was hurt, and mad, and he got out as quickly as he could.

If there were no hard feelings between Johnny and NBC, why did we only ever see him on Letterman after that? Johnny still got up in the morning, read the paper and wrote jokes...all through his retirement, that's what he did. Did he give the jokes to Leno? Nope, he gave them to Letterman.

These things reinforce my belief that Bill Carter is right. Johnny did not jump on his own. Jay's manager pushed him out.

So, I've been quite anti-Jay ever since.


----------



## stujac

Lori said:


> I was not a Jay-hater till after the Carson thing. I used to watch Jay every Monday night and in the summers when Carson went to Wimbledon. I thought he was cute...in the cute-funny way, not the cute-hot way. His humor was...cute and he was inoffensive.
> 
> The reason I don't believe it is that I happen to believe Bill Carter's (of the New York Times and the book "the Late Shift") take on the whole thing. I believe that Johnny was in no hurry to retire, and that Jay's manager took it upon herself to push things along by humiliating Johnny in public.
> 
> As I said before, at this point, Johnny had been with the network for a lot of years...so why would he hastily announce his departure at a routine affiliate meeting, rather than discussing it with his bosses ahead of time? He did not resign in the traditional sense...he just announced in front of the affiliates that he was leaving. As I also said above, he did not wait for his 30th anniversary, which I always thought was strange. He was hurt, and mad, and he got out as quickly as he could.
> 
> If there were no hard feelings between Johnny and NBC, why did we only ever see him on Letterman after that? Johnny still got up in the morning, read the paper and wrote jokes...all through his retirement, that's what he did. Did he give the jokes to Leno? Nope, he gave them to Letterman.
> 
> These things reinforce my belief that Bill Carter is right. Johnny did not jump on his own. Jay's manager pushed him out.
> 
> So, I've been quite anti-Jay ever since.


This is exactly how I see it too. Jay was smarmy as hell for claiming he had nothing to do with it; didn't know about it; it was all the agent, etc., etc.


----------



## JYoung

Turtleboy said:


> Why are you (Jyoung and Rob) giving Mark Evavnier so much authority. So he's someone who worked in the industry. I can link to multiple people who worked in the industry who think Jay was a d-bag during the Carson saga, and was one now too.


Nobody's stopping you from linking to those people.

And I've followed Mark Evanier's work for years. That's why I put stock in his thoughts.

Even Lori's chief reference, Andy Ihnatko bows to Evanier when it comes to the Industry.



Lori said:


> I was not a Jay-hater till after the Carson thing. I used to watch Jay every Monday night and in the summers when Carson went to Wimbledon. I thought he was cute...in the cute-funny way, not the cute-hot way. His humor was...cute and he was inoffensive.
> 
> The reason I don't believe it is that I happen to believe Bill Carter's (of the New York Times and the book "the Late Shift") take on the whole thing. I believe that Johnny was in no hurry to retire, and that Jay's manager took it upon herself to push things along by humiliating Johnny in public.
> 
> As I said before, at this point, Johnny had been with the network for a lot of years...so why would he hastily announce his departure at a routine affiliate meeting, rather than discussing it with his bosses ahead of time? He did not resign in the traditional sense...he just announced in front of the affiliates that he was leaving. As I also said above, he did not wait for his 30th anniversary, which I always thought was strange. He was hurt, and mad, and he got out as quickly as he could.


Carson's last show was May 22, 1992 which was the end of the TV season.
It's a pretty reasonable stopping point (and it was during sweeps).

I'm sure that Kushnick's story pissed him off and he reportedly vowed that he'd never help Leno.

But I don't think that Kushnick pushed him out as in forcing him to quit. NBC executives lived in absolute terror of Carson so he could have crushed Kushnick and Leno if he wanted to. My guess is he decided he didn't need to put up with this crap and it was a good time to go out while on top.

And to both you and Turtleboy, I also have no dog in this fight.
I've never been particularly a fan of either O'Brien or Leno.

I just don't see what Leno did wrong in this instance (other than producing a crappy 10 PM show).


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Lori said:


> .
> 
> These things reinforce my belief that Bill Carter is right. Johnny did not jump on his own. Jay's manager pushed him out.
> 
> So, I've been quite anti-Jay ever since.


Johnny left cause he felt humiliated. Johnny was know to be very vindictive and punished people he did not like by banning them from his show. NBC was making no money on it's highest rated show but were powerless to change it. When Helen did that nasty business about hinting that NBC wanted him out, it was wrong but NBC was thrilled that their dirty secret was out. JC got ticked out and walked. He regretted it and took out his regret on everyone he could. Regardless, NBC was now, finally making money and had no intention of going back. Did Helen push? Almost certainly, but there is no evidence that Jay did anything, then or now.

Should he have fired her? Probably, but the network did that 4 month later anyway. I'm not sure being loyal to a manager who lost her husband to cancer, a son to AIDs and was battling breast cancer is the worst thing in the world.


----------



## Lori

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Johnny left cause he felt humiliated. Johnny was know to be very vindictive and punished people he did not like by banning them from his show. NBC was making no money on it's highest rated show but were powerless to change it. When Helen did that nasty business about hinting that NBC wanted him out, it was wrong but NBC was thrilled that their dirty secret was out. JC got ticked out and walked. He regretted it and took out his regret on everyone he could. Regardless, NBC was now, finally making money and had no intention of going back. Did Helen push? Almost certainly, but there is no evidence that Jay did anything, then or now.
> 
> Should he have fired her? Probably, but the network did that 4 month later anyway. I'm not sure being loyal to a manager who lost her husband to cancer, a son to AIDs and was battling breast cancer is the worst thing in the world.


Possibly not. But by keeping her on, Jay owned her behavior. She humiliated Johnny Carson. I blame Jay for that. So, yes, that taints everything else Jay ever did, or will do. At this point, Jay could retire to minister to the sick in Calcutta and I don't think that it would change the way I feel about him.

You say that Johnny was vindictive toward those who crossed him. On the other side, Carson was also famously loyal to those close to him. If he held Jay blameless, I think that he would have remained loyal to him, and to the show. It's obvious to me--through observing his behavior for the 12 years or so that he lived after he retired--that he did not, in fact, hold that Jay was blameless. It's obvious to me that he had no time for Leno and that is telling for me.

See, I'm not a friend of Coco. I'm a friend of Carson.


----------



## MikeAndrews

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Johnny left cause he felt humiliated. Johnny was know to be very vindictive and punished people he did not like by banning them from his show. NBC was making no money on it's highest rated show but were powerless to change it. When Helen did that nasty business about hinting that NBC wanted him out, it was wrong but NBC was thrilled that their dirty secret was out. ...


NBC could have done like Lyndon Johnson did with J. Edgar Hoover, announce that he had the job for life.

"Responding to reports that Johnny Carson will be retiring, NBC issued a statement, "We would like Johnny Carson to continue with The Tonight Show as long as he desires. NBC has full faith in him. Johnny is NBC's late night bedrock."

If Johnny was p*ed it was because NBC didn't say a thing.

Peter Lasally said Johnny didn't want to stick around too long like Bob Hope did. He thinks Johnny picked the time to go out on top.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Lori said:


> Possibly not. But by keeping her on, Jay owned her behavior. She humiliated Johnny Carson. I blame Jay for that. So, yes, that taints everything else Jay ever did, or will do. At this point, Jay could retire to minister to the sick in Calcutta and I don't think that it would change the way I feel about him.


You are certainly entitled to your opinion of Leno. And I can see that it's got some solid basis. But this quote of yours shows that it wouldn't matter whether Leno was complicit in this whole Conan thing or not, you'd blame him anyway. So don't be surprised when your admittedly biased opinion about the whole thing is questioned and criticized by those with more objective viewpoints.


----------



## Lori

netringer said:


> NBC could have done like Lyndon Johnson did with J. Edgar Hoover, announce that he had the job for life.
> 
> "Responding to reports that Johnny Carson will be retiring, NBC issued a statement, "We would like Johnny Carson to continue with The Tonight Show as long as he desires. NBC has full faith in him. Johnny is NBC's late night bedrock."
> 
> If Johnny was p*ed it was because NBC didn't say a thing.
> 
> Peter Lasally said Johnny didn't want to stick around too long like Bob Hope did. He thinks Johnny picked the time to go out on top.


Totally agree with all of this.

I just wish that he had gone out in November, after the appropriate amount of pomp and circumstance. He still would have gone out on top. But he would have gone out feeling great. And who knows? Maybe Jay doesn't have such a rocky first couple of years if he has Carson for counsel.

NBC is all about the short game. They don't think beyond their noses.


----------



## lambertman

Some pretty pointed pro-Jay and anti-Conan comments were found amidst a fairly droning interview Dick Ebersol did today on The Dan Patrick Show. Podcasts are up at danpatrick.com if you're interested.


----------



## DevdogAZ

lambertman said:


> Some pretty pointed pro-Jay and anti-Conan comments were found amidst a fairly droning interview Dick Ebersol did today on The Dan Patrick Show. Podcasts are up at danpatrick.com if you're interested.


Thanks for the tip. Even though I remain convinced that NBC didn't really have much choice in this whole matter (by virtue of having both hosts under contract and the affiliates pushing Leno out of prime-time), I still think what Ebersol said about Conan (a couple of weeks ago, haven't listened to this podcast yet) was completely uncalled for and inaccurate. There was no need for Ebersol, or anyone else at NBC to try and blame this mess on Conan. It was simply an unfortunate business decision that had to be made.


----------



## Lori

DevdogAZ said:


> You are certainly entitled to your opinion of Leno. And I can see that it's got some solid basis. But this quote of yours shows that it wouldn't matter whether Leno was complicit in this whole Conan thing or not, you'd blame him anyway. So don't be surprised when your admittedly biased opinion about the whole thing is questioned and criticized by those with more objective viewpoints.


Understood. I have not tried to hide how I feel about Mr. Leno, precisely because I am so biased.

Truth be told, he probably *was* less complicit in Cocogate than he was in the original Late Night Wars. His biggest mistake here was allowing his truly ginormous ego to sign that appallingly ill-advised 10:00 contract. Ben Franklin has been dead for 250 years, and even HE knew that Jay at 10 was a bad idea. And he should not have said that he wanted 11:30 back. I know that you guys don't think that he tried to get them to fire Conan, and I believe that. That is not his style. He's sneakier than that. He probably hid in a closet, and overheard some conversation where Jeff Zucker said that they would fire Conan if only they could be sure that Leno would go back to latenight. The little cogs in his little mind started spinning...and voila! "...if I can only figure out how to let them know..."

Only half serious here. But, at the same time, that means that I'm only half-kidding.


----------



## ewolfr

lambertman said:


> Some pretty pointed pro-Jay and anti-Conan comments were found amidst a fairly droning interview Dick Ebersol did today on The Dan Patrick Show. Podcasts are up at danpatrick.com if you're interested.


I think that same thing about Ebersol when he did the NYTimes interview: He's an exec at NBC. What else is he going to do besides back the boss (Zucker)? He knows where his bread is buttered and I wouldn't expect him to say anything other than what's best for NBC lest he drag the network down even further by stating something like, "Pushing Conan out was a huge mistake Why did we do that?"


----------



## zalusky

You know if Johnny wanted to work some more why did he not just go to CBS like Letterman wound up doing. I am sure they would have taken him in a microsecond and he would have trounced Jay.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Ebersol says that all the parties involved have signed non-disparagement agreements not to talk bad about the other parties until at least September 1, 2010.

He says that the biggest mistake made in all of this was signing Conan to replace Leno in 2004. He said it was stupid of NBC to think Leno's ratings would erode. He likened it to five years ago Fox thinking that American Idol would eventually stop being #1 in the ratings, so signing a deal to replace it. Then when the time comes, AI is still #1, but they kick it off the air anyway.


----------



## Lori

zalusky said:


> You know if Johnny wanted to work some more why did he not just go to CBS like Letterman wound up doing. I am sure they would have taken him in a microsecond and he would have trounced Jay.


Because he was an old man, and he didn't want to start over. That is not the same as being OK with your friend's agent publicly humiliating you by calling for you to retire (so her client can have your job).

Left to his own devices, I would imagine that Carson would have worked another six months, maybe a year. That's where Helen screwed up. She just got too impatient. He would have left soon anyway...just with a lot less bad blood.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Lori said:


> Understood. I have not tried to hide how I feel about Mr. Leno, precisely because I am so biased.
> 
> Truth be told, he probably *was* less complicit in Cocogate than he was in the original Late Night Wars. His biggest mistake here was allowing his truly ginormous ego to sign that appallingly ill-advised 10:00 contract. Ben Franklin has been dead for 250 years, and even HE knew that Jay at 10 was a bad idea. And he should not have said that he wanted 11:30 back. I know that you guys don't think that he tried to get them to fire Conan, and I believe that. That is not his style. He's sneakier than that. He probably hid in a closet, and overheard some conversation where Jeff Zucker said that they would fire Conan if only they could be sure that Leno would go back to latenight. The little cogs in his little mind started spinning...and voila! "...if I can only figure out how to let them know..."
> 
> Only half serious here. But, at the same time, that means that I'm only half-kidding.


Let's be honest, all these guys have ginormous egos. You would too if people paid you 30-40 million per year.

On a business level Leno at 10 made money. NO doubt about that. Did they see the affiliate problem coming? It appears not. And, regardless of how we see this in hindsight, these guys have much much more information at hand than we do. And lots more understanding of the business. I'd like to see a posting at TCF or online when Leno at 10 started saying that the affiliates were going to go nuts. If they didn't see it coming, I doubt anyone else did.


----------



## JYoung

Lori said:


> NBC is all about the short game. They don't think beyond their noses.


*This,* I agree with 100%.


----------



## JYoung

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I'd like to see a posting at TCF or online when Leno at 10 started saying that the affiliates were going to go nuts. If they didn't see it coming, I doubt anyone else did.


Earlier in this thread, I think (or another Leno thread), there was an article on how the Boston NBC affiliate was going ballistic over the original Leno move to 10 PM saying that it would cut into the local news revenue profits.

I think they did expect the local affiliates would take a hit ratings wise, but I suspect they didn't think it would be as bad as it turned out to be.

Also, NBC is in the "move fast" mentality most likely due to the Comcast merger.


----------



## Lori

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Let's be honest, all these guys have ginormous egos. You would too if people paid you 30-40 million per year.
> 
> On a business level Leno at 10 made money. NO doubt about that. Did they see the affiliate problem coming? It appears not. And, regardless of how we see this in hindsight, these guys have much much more information at hand than we do. And lots more understanding of the business. I'd like to see a posting at TCF or online when Leno at 10 started saying that the affiliates were going to go nuts. If they didn't see it coming, I doubt anyone else did.


How 'bout this:



LoadStar said:


> And as for the late local news - ouchy. The affiliates will be storming the castle in a hurry, I think. There's a reason Boston didn't want Jay in prime-time, and trust me, it ain't a personal grudge against Jay. They know that their news ratings will be absolutely destroyed.


http://tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7236656#post7236656

Or this:



anom said:


> It would send a message to NBC that its affiliates and its audience are not interested in this kind of cheaply produced filler tv in primetime, and they should concentrate on producing innovative, quality scripted programming.
> 
> The affiliates are the ones getting screwed in this deal. NBC is saving money by airing a talk show in prime time every day, so they can live with lower ratings, but do the affiliates see any of that savings? They'll take a hit in revenues without the offset in savings the network is getting, I'll bet.


http://tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7184244#post7184244


----------



## mbklein

Nicely predicted, LoadStar. :up:


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

mbklein said:


> Nicely predicted, LoadStar. :up:


Not to denigrate Load's psychic abilities, but all that means is he was reading the newspapers at the time. It was widely reported that the affiliates feared a loss in their news shows' ratings. And in fact he noted coverage of the Boston affiliate's concerns.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Lori said:


> How 'bout this:
> 
> http://tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7236656#post7236656
> 
> This:
> 
> http://tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7184244#post7184244


Interesting. I didn't see that the first time.

It's not quite the whole story that's being argued now though. I don't think anyone expected that to have an effect on Conan's ratings to the extent some predict it has. OTOH, 10 at NBC has been week forever and Jay still got better ratings. So complicated.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> Not to denigrate Load's psychic abilities, but all that means is he was reading the newspapers at the time. It was widely reported that the affiliates feared a loss in their news shows' ratings. And in fact he noted coverage of the Boston affiliate's concerns.


The real issue is that, if they had seen this possible decline, why did they discount it? Did they really think of it and ignore it or just not care? I'd love to have the minutes from the meetings where this was decided.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

mbklein said:


> Nicely predicted, LoadStar. :up:


+1. I don't think I read that thread before.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

IJustLikeTivo said:


> The real issue is that, if they had seen this possible decline, why did they discount it? Did they really think of it and ignore it or just not care? I'd love to have the minutes from the meetings where this was decided.


Apparently, they thought the decline would be such that the affiliates would be manageable.


----------



## morac

netringer said:


> NBC is hoping that the CoCo hype can't last 6 months. With the blogosphere, they'll be proven way, way wrong.


I think NBC is correct in this instance. The Internet tends to be fickle and doesn't tend to remain focuses on a single topic for very long. My prediction is that come September there will be very few, if any, friends of CoCo left. There certainly won't be any rallies.


----------



## terpfan1980

morac said:


> I think NBC is correct in this instance. The Internet tends to be fickle and doesn't tend to remain focuses on a single topic for very long. My prediction is that come September there will be very few, if any, friends of CoCo left. There certainly won't be any rallies.


That really all depends upon how quickly Conan gets signed (if he is signed) to another network and how much promotional work they do on his behalf (assuming that he can't do any promo work or make any appearances until after the non-compete period is up).

If FOX starts airing Coco is coming in another 210 days and counting commercials it'll keep him (and them) in the front of people's minds. They can certainly hold some rallies, maybe some contests for tickets to the first show, and other things that will 'go viral' and enjoy the fruits of some relatively cheap publicity.


----------



## DevdogAZ

morac said:


> I think NBC is correct in this instance. The Internet tends to be fickle and doesn't tend to remain focuses on a single topic for very long. My prediction is that come September there will be very few, if any, friends of CoCo left. There certainly won't be any rallies.


I think those who truly like Conan will follow him whereever he goes. The problem is that number is somewhere in the neighborhood of one million people. He averaged about 2.5 million viewers per night while on The Tonight Show, and you have to figure that a good percentage of those were just there out of habit or because they watched their local news on NBC. Many of those were likely Leno fans before he left Tonight and will revert back to Leno once he resumes that role.

In addition, if Conan moves to Fox, I think it will be quite a while before all Fox affiliates are mandated to carry the network's late-night show. Many of them likely have contracts to run syndicated programming, and given the current state of the economy, it's unlikely that Fox will force the affiliates to breach such contracts and/or give up lucrative local programming without some sort of transition period.

Thus, if Conan starts on Fox in September, he's unlikely to be competitive with Leno and Letterman, from a ratings perspective, for at least a year, just due to the fact that it will take a long time before his show is available to the whole country.


----------



## terpfan1980

Assuming Conan winds up at FOX, besides the issue with getting the FOX affiliates on board with running his show at night (which might hinge upon whether or not the network agrees to let some affil's run him at 11:30 rather than 11 which is the start of the network's window for their late night schedule) there's also the problem of getting guests on the show which might itself hinge a bit upon where they try to run the show out of (New York vs. L.A.)

And of course the other networks are going to be doing everything they can to try to keep the best guests from running off to Conan which could make things very interesting. Certainly FOX could require anyone starring in a FOX motion picture or TV show to appear primarily on their own late night show but then NBC could do the same with Universal's films and stars.


----------



## smak

DevdogAZ said:


> The date on which Conan can start hosting another show is September 1, 2010. So that's 7 months plus a week.
> 
> And if they had never signed Leno to the 10 pm deal, he'd be doing an 11:35 show on ABC right now, and Conan's ratings would have been even worse than they already were (but he'd still have a job).


NBC didn't have to offer the job to Conan, and Leno didn't have to accept NBC retiring him in 5 years.

Do you see something wrong with Conan wanting to advance in his chosen profession?

That is everybody's right, in any profession.

I really don't see a problem with what Conan did. He said, he really would like to do the Tonight Show by a certain time. And if NBC said no, I'm sure he would have said ok, at the end of my next contract I may go leave.

Something that happens all the time in the industry.

What doesn't happen all the time in the industry is for a 55 year old staple of television to be moved back 1/2 hour to allow an extremely similar show to be inserted right before it, taking away all it's thunder.

-smak-


----------



## DevdogAZ

smak said:


> NBC didn't have to offer the job to Conan, and Leno didn't have to accept NBC retiring him in 5 years.
> 
> Do you see something wrong with Conan wanting to advance in his chosen profession?
> 
> That is everybody's right, in any profession.
> 
> I really don't see a problem with what Conan did. He said, he really would like to do the Tonight Show by a certain time. And if NBC said no, I'm sure he would have said ok, at the end of my next contract I may go leave.
> 
> Something that happens all the time in the industry.
> 
> What doesn't happen all the time in the industry is for a 55 year old staple of television to be moved back 1/2 hour to allow an extremely similar show to be inserted right before it, taking away all it's thunder.
> 
> -smak-


I'm not sure how what you wrote was in reply to the post of mine that you quoted.

I agree that Conan had every right to try and improve his position. There's nothing wrong with him asking for The Tonight Show gig. Like you said, he has a right to try and excel at his chosen profession.

But by that same token, there's also nothing wrong with Leno wanting to stay at the top of his chosen profession, which until 2009 was The Tonight Show. When NBC offered him the 10 pm show, that became the new pinnacle of his profession, because if a talk-show host could succeed in primetime, that would be even bigger than late night. Unfortunately for everyone involved, that experiment didn't work and it turned out to be the exact opposite of the pinnacle of Leno's profession.

So Leno still wanted to be at the top of his profession, and NBC was still paying him like a top-of-the-profession guy, and just like there was nothing wrong with Conan wanting the Tonight Show gig, there was also nothing wrong with Leno being unhappy that he was forced out of that gig.

NBC was paying two guys to be at the pinnacle of their profession, but they both had the same profession and there was only room for one guy at the top of that mountain. NBC tried to flatten the mountaintop out a little and make room for both of them, but it didn't work out, so NBC chose the one they had more confidence in.


----------



## murgatroyd

Lori said:


> NBC is all about the short game. They don't think beyond their noses.


I agree, except that I would have mentioned a different body part. 

Jan


----------



## dswallow

murgatroyd said:


> I agree, except that I would have mentioned a different body part.
> 
> Jan


She was being nice and giving the benefit of the doubt by mentioning their longest body part.


----------



## Frank_M

It's funny to me that, in the end, NBC is always the one who creates rivals to itself. And they're simply doing it again.

Say what you will, but those of us who watched Carson know he was brilliant. He had an edge, but not an ego (at least not on air) and that show was a TV legend. And NBC ruled that time slot. There was no rival.

Carson hand-picked Letterman as his replacement. He was so similar to Carson in many ways, but just younger and edgier. They let him grow in his late night spot, and if they'd just let Letterman take over... there would still, I believe, just be the Tonight Show... and no real competitor.

But they drove Dave away, and now, suddenly the late night empire was split into two. Did Jay beat Dave in the ratings? Yes. But anyone who watches both shows knows that Dave is the true flag bearer for the show Carson was putting on. Jay's brand of "funny" is safe and forgettable.

But NBC, god bless them, did find someone else to groom. Conan. Again...kind of edgy, different. And they let him grow. And he was rightly in line for the Tonight Show. And if they'd let him do it.. just left him there, he would have been the gold standard again. Dave isn't going to go on forever, so soon Conan's Tonight Show would again have it all.

But now, NBC has shoved him out... and he'll create a third franchise... this time at Fox. And NBC will bring back toothless Jay for a while...and again, the brand that was the Tonight Show gets eaten away.

It's sad.

I'm a Letterman fan, and I'll watch him until he retires. But when he is done, there's no question in my mind that Conan is the future standard bearer for what late night TV was, is and should be.

And NBC could have avoided all of this. Twice.


----------



## Amnesia

Frank_M said:


> But anyone who watches both shows knows that Dave is the true flag bearer for the show Carson was putting on. Jay's brand of "funny" is safe and forgettable.


I'm not sure what you mean by that. Jay and Johnny both strike me as "safe" compared to Dave's mean-spiritedness. IMO, Jay is much more the "flag bearer". After all, his version of _The Tonight Show_ wasn't that different from how he was as Johnny's guest host.


----------



## Frank_M

Amnesia said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by that. Jay and Johnny both strike me as "safe" compared to Dave's mean-spiritedness. IMO, Jay is much more the "flag bearer". After all, his version of _The Tonight Show_ wasn't that different from how he was as Johnny's guest host.


Johnny had an edge. I know people have tagged Dave as "mean-spirited" but he just doesn't suffer fools... and neither did Carson.

Oh, and I agree that Jay continued to do mostly the vanilla show he did as guest host. But remember, Letterman guest hosted too... and when he did, he was tame. No one wanted to upstage Carson when they guest hosted. That's what got Joan Rivers the boot.

The difference was, when Jay and Dave had their chances to have their own show... Dave made it his own, and Jay just kept trying to play to the safe middle.

Carson didn't do that. I know when you watch old Carson shows now they might seem tame, but that's just because times have changed.

Hope that better explains what I meant. Only my opinion, of course, but thanks for letting me clarify it.


----------



## bicker

Frank_M said:


> It's funny to me that, in the end, NBC is always the one who creates rivals to itself.


I mentioned this earlier in the thread: The reason why these things happen is because a network has an *embarrassment of riches*. The only way to avoid such situations is to hire crappier people.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Frank_M said:


> Carson hand-picked Letterman as his replacement. He was so similar to Carson in many ways, but just younger and edgier. They let him grow in his late night spot, and if they'd just let Letterman take over... there would still, I believe, just be the Tonight Show... and no real competitor.


This is the portion of your post that I think bears response. In 1993, CBS was happy to take whichever one of Dave or Jay didn't get the Tonight Show job. If Dave had been picked, Leno would have started his own show on CBS. There's no way to know whether the ratings battle would have turned out the same way, but to say that Dave would have been the only late-night host and CBS would have just given up on the dream and Leno would have faded into the woodwork is pretty naive, IMO.


----------



## terpfan1980

DevdogAZ said:


> This is the portion of your post that I think bears response. In 1993, CBS was happy to take whichever one of Dave or Jay didn't get the Tonight Show job. If Dave had been picked, Leno would have started his own show on CBS. There's no way to know whether the ratings battle would have turned out the same way, but to say that Dave would have been the only late-night host and CBS would have just given up on the dream and Leno would have faded into the woodwork is pretty naive, IMO.


Wasn't there also some talk about FOX enterring the late night wars back then? If memory serves the late night wars were just before FOX stole the NFL from CBS as Letterman had just jumped over to CBS in time for the NFL to be gone... I remember his monologues where he had to lament that loss and somewhat question if he'd made the right decision on where to take his show.


----------



## bicker

Fox was presenting Arsenio Hall's show in that time slot, in 1993.


----------



## DevdogAZ

terpfan1980 said:


> Wasn't there also some talk about FOX enterring the late night wars back then? If memory serves the late night wars were just before FOX stole the NFL from CBS as Letterman had just jumped over to CBS in time for the NFL to be gone... I remember his monologues where he had to lament that loss and somewhat question if he'd made the right decision on where to take his show.


For the first several years of Dave's show on CBS, he ripped on CBS because it was in the tank as far as ratings go. It wasn't until the last 7-8 years that CBS has established its ratings dominance.


----------



## aintnosin

bicker said:


> Fox was presenting Arsenio Hall's show in that time slot, in 1993.


Arsenio was never on Fox. He was syndicated (his show was probably on a Fox station where you were, but not in my town).


----------



## nataylor

terpfan1980 said:


> Wasn't there also some talk about FOX enterring the late night wars back then? If memory serves the late night wars were just before FOX stole the NFL from CBS as Letterman had just jumped over to CBS in time for the NFL to be gone... I remember his monologues where he had to lament that loss and somewhat question if he'd made the right decision on where to take his show.


FOX's late night experiment in 1993 was the Chevy Chase Show[url].


----------



## terpfan1980

nataylor said:


> FOX's late night experiment in 1993 was the Chevy Chase Show.


I remember Chevy Chase being there, but I think for a while back when Letterman was 'a free agent' that there was some talk he might have gone to FOX. He wound up going with CBS and has been there ever since, but I thought that there was at least some rumors of him (Letterman) possibly going to FOX.

I might be thinking of when Letterman was due for a contract renewal with CBS and was again considering other possibilities (ABC if they moved Nightline, etc.) so it's hard to tell where possibilities of Letterman on FOX ever came in...


----------



## Frank_M

DevdogAZ said:


> This is the portion of your post that I think bears response. In 1993, CBS was happy to take whichever one of Dave or Jay didn't get the Tonight Show job. If Dave had been picked, Leno would have started his own show on CBS. There's no way to know whether the ratings battle would have turned out the same way, but to say that Dave would have been the only late-night host and CBS would have just given up on the dream and Leno would have faded into the woodwork is pretty naive, IMO.


I'd quibble with "naive" but you're entitled to think that. I just feel that Dave had a built-in, loyal audience. People that would follow him wherever he went. That's why he could sustain what he did at CBS. I think Jay was propped up by having the built-in audience for the Tonight Show. I think if Dave had had both things going for him, and Jay was the one who went to CBS? That Jay would have gone the way of a lot of other failed late night hosts. He just never has engendered that kind of loyalty. He's safe for all audiences. He does what he does well, but I think without "Tonight Show" in his title, he wouldn't have made it.


----------



## stujac

I agree with this. I also believe Dave would have never gone to Fox.


----------



## zalusky

DevdogAZ said:


> For the first several years of Dave's show on CBS, he ripped on CBS because it was in the tank as far as ratings go. It wasn't until the last 7-8 years that CBS has established its ratings dominance.


Which is exactly why the lead-in argument is all BS. NBC has been in the tank for many years yet still won the late night wars against CBS.

It's possible it affected the local news because people are not seeing their teasers but I think Tonight was a destination show and people turned to it based on a comfort level and not because they were to lazy to work the remote.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

More Mark Evanier...


----------



## trainman

aintnosin said:


> Arsenio was never on Fox.


He was the host of Fox's "The Late Show" for 13 weeks in mid-1987, but he was replaced by "The Wilton North Report" (for which Conan wrote). He couldn't have been made a permanent host at that point because he had already committed to filming "Coming to America."

When "The Wilton North Report" tanked, Fox brought back "The Late Show." They attempted to get Arsenio back, but he'd already signed a deal with Paramount for what premiered as the syndicated "Arsenio Hall Show" in early 1989 -- which, since Fox had canceled "The Late Show" in late 1988, ended up being carried by a good number of Fox affiliates in the same time slot.


----------



## bicker

That's right! The Late Show. I knew I remember Arsenio Hall on Fox.


----------



## ElJay

Leno on Oprah from my biased point of view:

It's obvious that he's incredibly annoyed that Conan forced himself into the spot in 2004, which is completely understandable. NBC wanted to keep Conan, who was entertaining offers from other networks at the time, and Leno felt "disrespected" by the process. Leno then went on talking about this move as if Conan was bumping him out after only 7 months or so on the job. Tons of obsession from Leno about #1 ratings. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. #1. 

Leno evidently couldn't understand that Conan had the same ambitions that Leno once held, and didn't like that he was #1 and being forced out anyway. He wanted to be on the decline before he was replaced.

Leno said his show failed because it was a "late night talk show at 10pm." He "felt bad for his affiliates." "It was making money for the network; it wasn't making money for the affiliates." Leno said he had "no strings to pull" about replacing Conan on "The Tonight Show." He asked to be released from his contract after the 10pm show was canceled and was rejected. At that point he was asked by NBC and agreed to 11:35pm. NBC didn't know what Conan's reaction was going to be, but they thought they had a 75% chance of success.

Leno commented on Conan's letter and desire to not move his show to 12:05: "The ratings were destructive to the franchise." "It was the first time in the 60 year history of the Tonight Show that it would have lost money." "If the numbers had been there, they wouldn't have asked me, and they only asked me after Conan turned it down." (Actually no, you were ready to go to 11:35pm before Conan turned it down without any idea about what Conan was going to do.)

Leno expected to be cut down at 10pm to 2-3 days per week. He feels Conan's "Tonight Show" got to fly under the radar with bad ratings because the focus was all on Leno's 10pm show. A lot of "damage control" has to be done now at "The Tonight Show." 

"I always felt I was doing the right thing. How could you do the right thing and have it go so wrong? Maybe I'm not doing the right thing. This many people are angry and upset over a television show. I had a show, my show got canceled. They weren't happy with the other guy's show, they said 'we want you to go back.' I said 'OK,' and this seemed to make a lot of people upset. Who wouldn't take that job?"

"I'm not sure what I could have done differently. Walking away is an ego decision. That's me going, 'goodbye everybody. I'm fed up with this, you all fend for yourselves. Good luck finding jobs. I'm out of here.' That's the ego decision." "They offered my old job back. The dream job." 

Kimmel appearance on Leno's show was a "sucker punch." "I could have edited it but I didn't." 

Leno hasn't talked to Conan. He wanted to pick up the phone but "it didn't seem appropriate." "It's not the right time, I'm not sure what I would say right now. Let some time pass and I would hope we could talk." "I felt really bad for Conan. I think it's unfair, but TV is not fair. I thought it was unfair for me." "I wasn't the reason (for Conan being pushed out). The reason was the ratings."


----------



## Enrique

Oprah talks to her audience after the show:

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Oprah-Debates-the-Tonight-Show-Controversy-Video


----------



## MikeAndrews

WGN Morning news: "What does it say when a talk show host has to go on another talk show to get his message out?"


----------



## Amnesia

ElJay said:


> "If the numbers had been there, they wouldn't have asked me, and they only asked me after Conan turned it down." (*Actually no*, you were ready to go to 11:35pm before Conan turned it down without any idea about what Conan was going to do.)


What's the "no" for? He didn't say that he wasn't ready to go to 11:35. Of course he was.


----------



## ElJay

Amnesia said:


> What's the "no" for? He didn't say that he wasn't ready to go to 11:35. Of course he was.


NBC came to Leno and said 11:35 is going to be yours again. Leno says I'll do it, but what does Conan think about that? NBC says they don't know but think there's a 75% chance that Conan will gleefully accept 12:05. Then at another point in the interview, Leno was trying to claim Conan already rejected 12:05 before he accepted going back to 11:35. I don't know why he said that when it doesn't add up at all.


----------



## tivoboyjr

I just read an article about the Oprah interview and didn't see the interview, but from what I've read, Jay neglected to mention that part of the reason Conan's ratings were low was because Jay's crappy show was turning people away from NBC in droves.


----------



## ElJay

Enrique said:


> Oprah talks to her audience after the show:
> 
> http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Oprah-Debates-the-Tonight-Show-Controversy-Video


She doesn't get it either. Oprah said, "If everybody who supported Conan watched his show, this would not be an issue." The "issue" was caused by Leno's bad ratings which gave no lead-in to the news which caused the affiliate revolt. NBC wasn't letting go of Leno no matter what, so I have no clue where else she thinks Leno would have gone to after the 10pm show was canceled. Conan was getting bumped no matter what.


----------



## marksman

Jesus christ. People need to stop blaming Jay for what happened to Conan.

It was neither his fault nor his responsibility.

Jay should have never went on Oprah to try and defend himself. He didn't have to defend himself. As someone noted earlier this week, Leno's audience probably doesn't care about any of this and most of them will watch him again.

People chanting for Conan didn't watch Jay anyways, so who cares?

Far be it from Jay by the way to point out he has been number 1 in the ratings for years and years and years and made the network more money then Johnny Carson ever did. Far be it that be a consideration before running him out just because Conan wanted a shot.

I like Conan and I don't blame him for asking for the Tonight show, but NBC simply should have told him, "At this time Jay's ratings and performance are stellar, so there is no clear cut future where you would be guaranteed the Tonight Show. Perhaps things will change in a year or five years and we can re-evaluate then. In the meantime we love the job you are doing at 12:30 so keep up the good work."

If Conan would have left, then so be it. You can't blame Jay for Conan's ratings on the Tonight Show. Lead-ins are of secondary importance the further you get away. On top of that, Conan had a good period of time before Jay showed up and his ratings were still below par.

For the umpteenth time, both Jay and Conan reasonably tried to do what they felt was best for them and their individual careers and NBC perpetually effed it up.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

ElJay said:


> She doesn't get it either. Oprah said, "If everybody who supported Conan watched his show, this would not be an issue." The "issue" was caused by Leno's bad ratings which gave no lead-in to the news which caused the affiliate revolt. NBC wasn't letting go of Leno no matter what, so I have no clue where else she thinks Leno would have gone to after the 10pm show was canceled. Conan was getting bumped no matter what.


Sorry, this is just crap. She's right and you're wrong. Everyone swears they love Conan, he can do no wrong, he can whip Chuck Norris with one hand behind his back. The fact is people didn't watch. Conan fans hate hate hate Leno, so he's not the issue. Conan fans didn't fail to watch due to Leno, they just failed to watch. Just like when you ask today who voted for kennedy in 60 the numbers come up over 75% but then it was a dead heat. People are lying. They didn't watch so Conan's ratings were crappy. Regardless of what Jay did, if Conan had the ratings, this would be over. But. He didn't.


----------



## stalemate

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Sorry, this is just crap. She's right and you're wrong. Everyone swears they love Conan, he can do no wrong, he can whip Chuck Norris with one hand behind his back. The fact is people didn't watch. Conan fans hate hate hate Leno, so he's not the issue. Conan fans didn't fail to watch due to Leno, they just failed to watch. Just like when you ask today who voted for kennedy in 60 the numbers come up over 75% but then it was a dead heat. People are lying. They didn't watch so Conan's ratings were crappy. Regardless of what Jay did, if Conan had the ratings, this would be over. But. He didn't.


I don't think ElJay was blaming Jay for Conan's ratings, I think he was blaming Jay for the affiliates losing viewers for their local news.


----------



## zalusky

Explain to me why Lenos ratings affected the Tonight show. For years when Leno hosted the Tonight show Leno was #1 and the 10PM ratings for NBC were in the toilet.

Why didn't Leno's ratings shrink and Lettermans ratings as CBS 10PM ratings rise.

I don't think there is a strong connection for the tonight show. I think its a destination show.

The affiliates probably suffered because nobody was watching their teaser since Leno's show was profitable but the ratings were less than the scripted dramas.

If Leno had left, I believe Conan would still have been out sooner than later if he did not get the ratings up. Especially given he probably would have had Leno in addition to Letterman as competition.


----------



## JYoung

tivoboyjr said:


> I just read an article about the Oprah interview and didn't see the interview, but from what I've read, Jay neglected to mention that part of the reason Conan's ratings were low was because Jay's crappy show was turning people away from NBC in droves.





ElJay said:


> She doesn't get it either. Oprah said, "If everybody who supported Conan watched his show, this would not be an issue." The "issue" was caused by Leno's bad ratings which gave no lead-in to the news which caused the affiliate revolt. NBC wasn't letting go of Leno no matter what, so I have no clue where else she thinks Leno would have gone to after the 10pm show was canceled. Conan was getting bumped no matter what.


A lot of people don't seem to remember that O'Brien's Tonight Show ratings were poor before Leno's 10 PM debuted.


----------



## nataylor

JYoung said:


> A lot of people don't seem to remember that O'Brien's Tonight Show ratings were poor before Leno's 10 PM debuted.


Yeah. They gave him 67 shows to build an audience. They only gave Jay Leno about 600 to beat Letterman in the ratings.


----------



## JYoung

nataylor said:


> Yeah. They gave him 67 shows to build an audience. They only gave Jay Leno about 600 to beat Letterman in the ratings.


A lot of people seem to forget that Leno still had somewhat respectable ratings in those 600 shows, didn't bleed 40-50% of Carson's audience, and was still making NBC money.

O'Brien was on track to loose NBC money.

And how many episodes of Trauma aired before NBC canceled it?


----------



## dswallow

JYoung said:


> O'Brien was on track to loose NBC money.


Damn that loose money; people should buy a screwdriver and tighten it up.



JYoung said:


> And how many episodes of Trauma aired before NBC canceled it?


And how many more episodes aired before NBC uncanceled it and ordered 3 more episodes.

And then after that how many more episodes aired before NBC upped the order again to bring it to a total season order of 20 episodes?


----------



## Mr. Belboz

How would Leno have done if Carson moved to 10pm? 

I think the biggest thing done to Conan (and it was NBC's doing) was they put Leno on a show at 10pm.

I think there was a large fan base of Leno's that didn't care for him vacating the tonight show. I think many of them watched his 10pm show and just didn't watch Conan or anyone at 11:35pm. Some might have watched Leno at 10pm and Letterman or Nightline, or whatever after the news.

I believe that if Conan would have been the only option on NBC (no Leno 10pm show) he would have had better ratings. I don't think it would have been enough to get the late night lead, but I think his ratings would have been much better. Over time maybe he would have even been the late night leader.

I prefer Conan myself, but I think NBC should have let him walk 5 years ago. But if your going to go with Conan, commit to him fully. Which they didn't do. NBC got greedy and Conan paid the price for it.

Just my opinion.


----------



## marksman

nataylor said:


> Yeah. They gave him 67 shows to build an audience. They only gave Jay Leno about 600 to beat Letterman in the ratings.


Flip that around and coming from the same Late Night show, how many shows did CBS have to give David Letterman before he beat Leno?


----------



## smak

zalusky said:


> Explain to me why Lenos ratings affected the Tonight show. For years when Leno hosted the Tonight show Leno was #1 and the 10PM ratings for NBC were in the toilet.


This was a whole different kind of toilet.

Cable shows beat Jay at 10pm. Wrestling beats Jay. Pawn Stars beat Jay. Teen Mom beats Jay!!

A Dateline REPEAT last Friday beat the last 14 weeks of Leno on Friday.

It's not just the lead-in, it's the fact that it's a very similar show as well.

-smak-


----------



## JYoung

Mr. Belboz said:


> How would Leno have done if Carson moved to 10pm?
> 
> I think the biggest thing done to Conan (and it was NBC's doing) was they put Leno on a show at 10pm.
> 
> I think there was a large fan base of Leno's that didn't care for him vacating the tonight show. I think many of them watched his 10pm show and just didn't watch Conan or anyone at 11:35pm. Some might have watched Leno at 10pm and Letterman or Nightline, or whatever after the news.
> 
> I believe that if Conan would have been the only option on NBC (no Leno 10pm show) he would have had better ratings. I don't think it would have been enough to get the late night lead, but I think his ratings would have been much better. Over time maybe he would have even been the late night leader.


But how do you explain O'Brien's poor ratings from May through August of 2009, before Leno's 10 PM show aired?



Mr. Belboz said:


> But if your going to go with Conan, commit to him fully. Which they didn't do. NBC got greedy and Conan paid the price for it.
> 
> Just my opinion.


I actually agree with this.
But imagine how bad things would have been had O'Brien's ratings not grown.


----------



## Turtleboy

Jyoung,

You've said in the past (giving credit where it was due) that Jay Leno is the Olive Garden of comedians.

I think that was an excellent point and I agree.

That's all.


----------



## DevdogAZ

ElJay said:


> NBC came to Leno and said 11:35 is going to be yours again. Leno says I'll do it, but what does Conan think about that? NBC says they don't know but think there's a 75% chance that Conan will gleefully accept 12:05. Then at another point in the interview, Leno was trying to claim Conan already rejected 12:05 before he accepted going back to 11:35. I don't know why he said that when it doesn't add up at all.


That's not what he said. He said that they didn't offer The Tonight Show, and he didn't accept The Tonight Show until Conan had rejected it. The previous plan with 11:35 and 12:05 didn't involve Jay taking back The Tonight Show. It's a subtle distinction, but it's a big difference, and that's why what he says is accurate.


----------



## bicker

marksman said:


> People need to stop blaming Jay for what happened to Conan.


It's broader than that: People need to stop defaulting to blaming others when something happens that they don't like.


----------



## Mr. Belboz

Upset Leno fans who didn't want to turn to Conan, and they knew Leno was coming back at 10pm.

I think if Carson had a 10pm show when he left the tonight show, I think Leno suffers in ratings also.



JYoung said:


> But how do you explain O'Brien's poor ratings from May through August of 2009, before Leno's 10 PM show aired?


----------



## pjenkins

His Oprah performance was pathetic. What a sad, sad little man.


----------



## TiVo'Brien

What was it Jay said near the end - that he could have taken the 1 or 2 year buyout, but didn't?


----------



## ElJay

JYoung said:


> O'Brien was on track to loose NBC money.


So in other words, Conan was performing on par with just about everything else at NBC.


----------



## Jesda

All losses from Leno and Conan are made up for by Chris Hansen.


----------



## ElJay

DevdogAZ said:


> That's not what he said. He said that they didn't offer The Tonight Show, and he didn't accept The Tonight Show until Conan had rejected it. The previous plan with 11:35 and 12:05 didn't involve Jay taking back The Tonight Show. It's a subtle distinction, but it's a big difference, and that's why what he says is accurate.


Where did I say "The Tonight Show?" I said 11:35pm was going to be Leno's. Did he take back "The Tonight Show" before Conan bowed out? Of course not, but he did take back 11:35. No matter the name of the show, it involved Conan following Jay again, in addition to being unfair to Fallon in the process by bumping him back to about 1:07am. Conan saw both "The Tonight Show" plus the "Late Night" franchise he built up for a decade and a half being weakened by Leno butting in at 11:35.


----------



## JYoung

Mr. Belboz said:


> Upset Leno fans who didn't want to turn to Conan, and they knew Leno was coming back at 10pm.


Sounds to me like they wouldn't have watch O'Brien anyways.


----------



## zalusky

Mr. Belboz said:


> Upset Leno fans who didn't want to turn to Conan, and they knew Leno was coming back at 10pm.
> 
> I think if Carson had a 10pm show when he left the tonight show, I think Leno suffers in ratings also.


If Leno had left he probably would have gone to another network and possibly would have gone head to head with Conan and Dave and it would have worse for Conan. He was not going to quit and go wash his cars.


----------



## Mr. Belboz

No doubt.

I think NBC should have just let Conan go 5 years ago if he didn't want to stay at 12:35. But they got greedy.

Conan got his shot, but with the setup NBC gave him, he was destined to fail.

But hey for three weeks or so he was ahead of Letterman. Remember after a week or so NBC proclaimed him the late night king!

Leno definitely had an easier transition than Conan. People were already watching Leno on the Tonight show for awhile as a guest host. So it wasn't a big leap when Carson left.



zalusky said:


> If Leno had left he probably would have gone to another network and possibly would have gone head to head with Conan and Dave and it would have worse for Conan. He was not going to quit and go wash his cars.


----------



## MikeAndrews

pjenkins said:


> His Oprah performance was pathetic. What a sad, sad little man.


Oprah nailed Jay with a few questions:

Jay - "I have 175 people working here...."
....
"Did you consider negotiating a buyout with NBC that would have gotten your staff 90 days of pay like Conan did?"
Jay - "No."

.....

"Did you ever consider that your 10 PM show was costing the jobs of a lot of people who could have worked on shows scheduled in that time slot?"

Jay - "That only came up after I had the show."

Mr. Everyman.

Who will Jay blame when his comeback Tonight Show ratings are never, "#1" "#1" "#1?"

You watch. Dave will retire in a few years and Jay will be #4 behind The Late Show with Craig Ferguson, The Conan O'Brien Show, and syndicated Family Guy reruns.


----------



## MikeAndrews

marksman said:


> Flip that around and coming from the same Late Night show, how many shows did CBS have to give David Letterman before he beat Leno?


Dave beat Leno every night until Leno had Hugh Grant and "What were you thinking?" and Dave didn't have the clearance with CBS affliates carry him at the time.


----------



## DevdogAZ

TiVo'Brien said:


> What was it Jay said near the end - that he could have taken the 1 or 2 year buyout, but didn't?


It's possible that Leno could have refused NBC's offer to move to 11:35 and then NBC would have had to negotiate some kind of buyout with Leno. But I'm sure that never entered Leno's mind, because NBC offered him something that to him is better than $1 billion. They offered him back his dream job. 


ElJay said:


> Where did I say "The Tonight Show?" I said 11:35pm was going to be Leno's. Did he take back "The Tonight Show" before Conan bowed out? Of course not, but he did take back 11:35. No matter the name of the show, it involved Conan following Jay again, in addition to being unfair to Fallon in the process by bumping him back to about 1:07am. Conan saw both "The Tonight Show" plus the "Late Night" franchise he built up for a decade and a half being weakened by Leno butting in at 11:35.


But the way you're trying to paint his comments is completely out of context. You're trying to claim that Leno told a lie, or stated something inaccurately, when he said that NBC didn't offer it to him until after Conan had alread rejected it. He wasn't talking about 11:35, he was talking about The Tonight Show, so there was nothing inaccurate about what he said.


----------



## Kamakzie

I think Conan got the shaft but lets face it Leno wasn't going to come out of this looking like the good guy which is a bit unfair. NBC is the bad guy in this whole ordeal and some big wig should get fired over this fiasco.


----------



## ElJay

DevdogAZ said:


> But the way you're trying to paint his comments is completely out of context. You're trying to claim that Leno told a lie, or stated something inaccurately, when he said that NBC didn't offer it to him until after Conan had alread rejected it. He wasn't talking about 11:35, he was talking about The Tonight Show, so there was nothing inaccurate about what he said.


I thought Leno was talking about 11:35 at that point, and I guess I'm not going to go back and rewatch the interview to clarify what "it" is. NBC came and said you're doing a show at 11:35 and we think Conan will be OK with the move to 12:05. Leno said OK. Conan said goodbye. There was never a question that Conan's 12:05 show was going to be something other than "The Tonight Show," so I don't know where the confusion comes from.


----------



## aindik

smak said:


> A Dateline REPEAT last Friday beat the last 14 weeks of Leno on Friday.


To be fair, there might have been a higher than normal tune in factor that night because it was Conan's last night and people might have thought Jay was going to be on. He was still in the TiVo guide data as the Dateline show was airing.


----------



## zalusky

I swear I feel like I am on a stock message board where people say things hoping its going to affect the stock price and sell short.

The bottom line is we will see who wins come fall.
The second bottom line is people did not show up for Conan. You make all the excuses you want about lead in and people watching Jay instead but those are bogus excuses. If they liked Conan they should have showed up. Just like the lady on Oprah that was on Conan's side but she did not watch the show.

It's not going to get easier. There are more distractions. The 18-34 is shrinking away from traditional late night.

I myself have no allegiance. I watch whatever 10PM show, I always flip to ABC news and then check the guests on all the shows and make my decision. There has never been a lead in issue. Leno was doing fine when 10PM was owned by CBS. The only real issue is the affiliates want to get their new teasers in.

I also think a psychological reason for a lot of this is people are tired of hearing about somebody getting fired. Given the economy of the last two years and are sticking up for Conan on that basis.


----------



## morac

I find it ironic that NBC is in talks with Conaco (Conan's production company) to possibly pick up a series produced by Conaco.


----------



## aintnosin

morac said:


> I find it ironic that NBC is in talks with Conaco (Conan's production company) to possibly pick up a series produced by Conaco.


It would be even more ironic if the show was picked up for 10pm.


----------



## tivoboyjr

I will admit that I'm not a Jay fan, and I do like Conan (thought I still prefer Dave) but I never really watched Conan on the Tonight Show until his last week.

The reason I didn't watch had more to do with Jay than Conan, though. I assumed that Conan wouldn't be able to do the edgy, funny show he'd done in late night and he would be forced to do a watered-down version to appeal to Jay's viewers. From what I saw of Conan's Tonight Show, that was pretty much the case. I did watch Conan's final week and that seemed more like the old Conan.

If Conan goes to Fox or wherever he ends up and can do his kind of show, I think he'll be fine and could very well beat both Jay and Dave in the ratings. This whole thing worked to Conan's advantage and Jay has definitely taken a hit. (And I realize Dave's show is very watered-down from what it used to be, but I still prefer it to the other stuff.)


----------



## DevdogAZ

aintnosin said:


> It would be even more ironic if the show was picked up for 10pm.


Given the subject matter of the show, I'd say that if it does get picked up, 10 pm is very likely.


----------



## marksman

Tivoboyjr makes a good point. Ramping up to Conan going to the Tonight Show there was extensive talk about how he was going to have to tone down the show to be friendly for the earlier timeslot. I think this turned some people off, as they did not expect to get the same show they got before with Conan.

So some of the audience may have been predisposed to just not care. I watched the first week of the show, so I don't think I saw enough of it to make a judgment on whether or not it was less edgier than the old show, but that could have been part of the problem.

This almost strikes me like the sitcom actor who leaves the series early to go make movies. Why not just ride it out? Conan could have established a massive legacy at 12:30 and made a ton of money. I know people want to advance and move up, but when you are sitting on a gold mine, sometimes it is good enough to just sit on that gold mine until someone tells you to move. Not to go out and look for a bigger gold mine to sit on.

I think Conan will end up somewhere else, obviously.


----------



## tivoboyjr

NBC unwittingly created a situation where both Jay and Conan would fail. If nothing had changed, they'd both still be thriving in their time slots. If Conan had left, at least Jay would still be doing well. Now NBC is left with Jay Damaged-Goods Leno and a lot of bad feelings from viewers, affiliates, etc.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

tivoboyjr said:


> NBC unwittingly created a situation where both Jay and Conan would fail. If nothing had changed, they'd both still be thriving in their time slots. If Conan had left, at least Jay would still be doing well. Now NBC is left with Jay Damaged-Goods Leno and a lot of bad feelings from viewers, affiliates, etc.


People have short memories. Once jay is back, all will be forgiven. Look at all the hollywood scumbags who are now making movies and no one even remembers what they did.


----------



## tivoboyjr

IJustLikeTivo said:


> People have short memories. Once jay is back, all will be forgiven. Look at all the hollywood scumbags who are now making movies and no one even remembers what they did.


I don't think it's a case of people not watching him because he's a scumbag. I just think he's never going to get back to where he was. People will still watch, but not as many. But I could be wrong about that. There may also be some celebs who will think Jay's a weasel and won't do his show, but that will probably only last until they have a movie/album/book/show to promote. To me the bigger issue is that some viewers have bailed on him and probably won't come back.


----------



## Magnolia88

I couldn't sit through five minutes of Leno's interview on Oprah, but I've read enough to know I didn't miss much.

I couldn't stand him before, can't stand him now, and this interview reminds me some of why. I don't "blame" him for the mess, I blame NBC, but his behavior and comments are just so smarmy and disingenuous, which is how he always seems to me.

TV Barn recaps the whole interview: *Dissecting the O-Jay Interview, Lie by Lie*


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Magnolia88 said:


> I couldn't sit through five minutes of Leno's interview on Oprah, but I've read enough to know I didn't miss much.
> 
> I couldn't stand him before, can't stand him now, and this interview reminds me some of why. I don't "blame" him for the mess, I blame NBC, but his behavior and comments are just so smarmy and disingenuous, which is how he always seems to me.
> 
> TV Barn recaps the whole interview: *Dissecting the O-Jay Interview, Lie by Lie*


Not a dissection so much as character assassination. I can spin every single phrase he uses against Jay in favor as well. If you decide going in as you did that Jay is a smarmy weasel, amazingly, you think while watching that he is indeed a smarmy weasel. Same here. This 'critic' is a hack. Nothing he said is 'factual', it's all opinion.


----------



## marksman

I just read to the analysis of the first part and it doesn't make any sense. Jay said he was always number one and never entertained that he would be asked to step down or feel like he would need to leave as long as he remained number 1. I think that is a pretty sane and rational perspective.

Jay was shocked that they were going to give Conan the Tonight Show while Jay was still number one. He was not shocked that Conan might want to do the Tonight Show. Yet that is what that stupid Kansas City writer implied. I can't even read any more because clearly it is written by an idiot.

I can't for a second believe the rest of his article is any less stupid.


----------



## cmontyburns

Aaron Barnhart is a pretty well-respected critic, actually.

My go-to critic for all of this has been Time's James Poniewozik. Of the Leno visit to Oprah, he writes:



> Leno's decision to go on Oprah still puzzles me. Yes, there was a lot of acrimony over Conan O'Brien's Tonight Show ouster, but the most intense ire came from people who were never going to watch Jay in the first place. You could have thought just as badly of Jay already for how he got the Tonight Show over David Letterman, if you cared. Most of America didn't.
> If that's true, then going on Oprah simply raises a question before a mass audience-Is Jay Leno a good guy and should I still watch him?-that they otherwise would never have pondered in the first place. Suddenly people who would have been perfectly happy to watch you tell some jokes and go to bed are wondering if you're James Frey.


It's a good summation, and worth a read.


----------



## marksman

He may be a well respected critic, but all I know is he is fairly dumb and not a very good writer... beyond that I have no further understanding of him.

I only have one incredibly dumb thing to go by, but it is so dumb I couldn't possible think it would be worthwhile following up on it.

Seems like he got the "brilliant" line about Claude Raines and just had to shoe-horn it in the article as soon as possible so he just made stuff up.

Fortunately I am not a critic so I don't feel any obligation to finish out his article before I judge him. I suggest he learn to start strong, instead of start wrong.


----------



## calitivo

Are there any comedians or TV critics who are defending or think Leno is actually funny? Doesn't seem like it. Kimmel's fake Leno show was perfection.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

cmontyburns said:


> Aaron Barnhart is a pretty well-respected critic, actually.
> 
> My go-to critic for all of this has been Time's James Poniewozik. Of the Leno visit to Oprah, he writes:
> 
> It's a good summation, and worth a read.


They are TV critics. There job is to analyze what gets on, not the reasons. They clearly don't know directly what any of the main characters in this drama actually think, they have no direct insights on NBCs business practices. So, absent specific knowledge, they are giving us their personal, not professional opinions of this. They did not review the shows or discuss the shows content. They are giving us their opinions which, in this case, are no more informed that anyone here.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

calitivo said:


> Are there any comedians or TV critics who are defending or think Leno is actually funny? Doesn't seem like it. Kimmel's fake Leno show was perfection.


1. Comedians aren't generally in the business of choosing sides when it can hurt their career. 
2. In the TV game the only opinion that really matters is what the general public likes. I don't care what Dave, Jimmy, Conan, Craig and Jay think of each other. They are competitors they aren't necessarily supposed to hug and kiss. At best there is probably some professional opinion of how well they each do their jobs but that is mostly an academic question. I suspect they'd all say they know people much funnier who just didn't happen to make it big.


----------



## ramosraymond54

Tsk,tsk. Jay Leno used to be my favorite talk show host. Then they moved him to another time slot and I wasn't able to follow. Pity...


----------



## cmontyburns

IJustLikeTivo said:


> They are TV critics. There job is to analyze what gets on, not the reasons. They clearly don't know directly what any of the main characters in this drama actually think, they have no direct insights on NBCs business practices. So, absent specific knowledge, they are giving us their personal, not professional opinions of this. They did not review the shows or discuss the shows content. They are giving us their opinions which, in this case, are no more informed that anyone here.


What's your point? I never claimed the piece I linked to was anything other than interesting (to me, at least) analysis. Take it or leave it.


----------



## Lori

IJustLikeTivo said:


> People have short memories. Once jay is back, all will be forgiven. Look at all the hollywood scumbags who are now making movies and no one even remembers what they did.


Not forgotten by everyone.

However, you have a point. People who like Jay will likely still like him. People who hate him, well, that they hate him more can't hurt him. It's not like we can not watch harder or something.


----------



## Turtleboy

It's like if the local Olive Garden were temporarily shut down because the health department found vermin. After it is reopened, some people won't go there because they remember the vermin and are hesitant to go back. Some will say, "hey, who cares what happened in the past. I loves me some Olive Garden."

Me? Roaches or not, I think the OG is boring, uninteresting, unoffensive, uninspiring, mediocrity. I didn't go before the roaches, and I won't go once it's reopened.


----------



## zalusky

Lot's of variables coming up:
1) How many that watched Jay on Tonight before regularly will stop watching. The ones that did not like him weren't measured and he was able to make number 1.
2) Will his new set be less sterile than the prime time set?
3) Will NBC be able to get him better guests. He admitted the other networks sort of blackballed him because he was competing in prime time.
4) Will his bits get better than the lame racetrack?
5) The impact of Conan at 11PM. Will he be able to compete head to head with both Jay and Dave beyond the passionate viewership that failed to maintain ratings.


----------



## gossamer88

I just can't wait to see if Stuttering John will be his "new" announcer.


----------



## smak

gossamer88 said:


> I just can't wait to see if Stuttering John will be his "new" announcer.


I heard that Robin & Fred are looking for L.A. real estate.

-smak-


----------



## JYoung

cmontyburns said:


> Aaron Barnhart is a pretty well-respected critic, actually.


He is?
I'll tell you, I couldn't even make it past point two because:
a) I thought it was so badly written
b) he is twisting everything to extremes to make it "Leno's fault". I don't think he's being objective one bit.



cmontyburns said:


> My go-to critic for all of this has been Time's James Poniewozik. Of the Leno visit to Oprah, he writes:


Poniewozik writes better and seems to be more objective.


----------



## Turtleboy

Wasn't Poniewozik the one who put Jay Leno on the cover of Time calling him "The Future of TV?"

(Yes, I know Time's editors did).


----------



## marksman

smak said:


> I heard that Robin & Fred are looking for L.A. real estate.
> 
> -smak-


I know this is off topic but this thread seems to be winding down, so does that mean anything specifically? I don't listen to Howard much any more and besides knowing his contract ends in the future I don't know much else. Is there something specific this relates to?


----------



## cmontyburns

Turtleboy said:


> Wasn't Poniewozik the one who put Jay Leno on the cover of Time calling him "The Future of TV?"
> 
> (Yes, I know Time's editors did).


He wrote that piece, yes, although of course not the headline (or the cover placement). He avoided conclusions on whether Leno in primetime was a good idea or bad, and whether it would succeed or fail -- only that it would prove incredibly significant.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

cmontyburns said:


> What's your point? I never claimed the piece I linked to was anything other than interesting (to me, at least) analysis. Take it or leave it.


I'm saying it's not analysis, it's opinion. He has no new information, he's just looking at contemporary reports and the show and giving us his personal, not professional, opinion.


----------



## smak

marksman said:


> I know this is off topic but this thread seems to be winding down, so does that mean anything specifically? I don't listen to Howard much any more and besides knowing his contract ends in the future I don't know much else. Is there something specific this relates to?


It was just a joke about going to the well again to choose a new announcer.

-smak-


----------



## Sandi Shores

zalusky said:


> Lot's of variables coming up:
> 1) How many that watched Jay on Tonight before regularly will stop watching. The ones that did not like him weren't measured and he was able to make number 1.


This was me, I always watched Leno unless Letterman had stupid pet tricks or something cool I wanted to see, but Leno was my default, always.

Now, I see Leno in a new light and I can't stand the sight of him. I just don't want to contribute to his ratings.

I LOVE "headlines" and "jaywalking", but all this nonsense has ruined it for me, I can't find humor in anything related to him anymore because the man just turned out to be a whiney bish that wanted a shiney back that was taken away from him.

I never cared for Conan's humor, my kids have always watched him but not me, but I do respect him as a person and see him as the wronged party in all this.

Conan was never given a fair shake in this, Leno was on at 10 doing a very similar show that was a total failure and was killing the affiliates ratings following his show, maybe if NBC had put a real show in that time slot both the affiliate programming and Conan's show would have done better.

My 2c anyway....


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Sandi Shores said:


> My 2c anyway....


Sounds more like your 2 loonies.


----------



## Sandi Shores

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Sounds more like your 2 loonies.


Took me a minute to figure out wth you were talking about 

Reminds me I need to change that info, I'm moving back to California in a couple weeks, I swear I am going to kiss the ground once I pass the border back into the states.

Loonies, twonies.. It's all pretty and colorful monopoly money up here, I miss my dead presidents.


----------



## Langree

saw the interview, I agree with articles I read that said it might have been better if jay hadn't done it. In some ways he made himself look worse.


----------



## marksman

Langree said:


> saw the interview, I agree with articles I read that said it might have been better if jay hadn't done it. In some ways he made himself look worse.


Yeah I didn't see it, but I don't think he needed to do it. As has been mentioned a lot, most of his audience/fans were not likely upset by anything that happened.

10s of millions of people weighed in with opinions on this whole mater while only a few million actually watched both shows combined.

He would have been better off just proceeding quietly and not trying to explain or defend himself.


----------



## Turtleboy

Langree said:


> saw the interview, I agree with articles I read that said it might have been better if jay hadn't done it. In some ways he made himself look worse.


Did you see Oprah's conversation with her crowd afterwards? Jay's crowd isn't the elderly. They're the people who watch Oprah during the day.

Oprah in the afternoon. Olive Garden for dinner. Then Jay Leno at night.


----------



## jsmeeker

lol

Olive Garden for dinner.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Turtleboy said:


> Did you see Oprah's conversation with her crowd afterwards? Jay's crowd isn't the elderly. They're the people who watch Oprah during the day.
> 
> Oprah in the afternoon. Olive Garden for dinner. Then Jay Leno at night.


TB, always the iconoclast. Hates the #1 talk show, one of the biggest restaurants and the most popular late night host of the last 15 years.


----------



## Langree

IJustLikeTivo said:


> TB, always the iconoclast. Hates the #1 talk show, one of the biggest restaurants and the most popular late night host of the last 15 years.


So you're saying he has good tastes compared to the masses.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Langree said:


> So you're saying he has good tastes compared to the masses.


I have no doubt that this would be his interpretation...


----------



## Turtleboy

IJustLikeTivo said:


> TB, always the iconoclast. Hates the #1 talk show, one of the biggest restaurants and the most popular late night host of the last 15 years.


But I don't hate the #1 golfer, who may be the #1 athlete, in the world.


----------



## jsmeeker

you gotta get over that $100 you (we) dropped to see Jay. It's $100. That was a hand of black jack.


----------



## Marco

Turtleboy said:


> But I don't hate the #1 golfer, who may be the #1 athlete, in the world.


"athlete"

that's not how you spell "p***yhound"


----------



## marksman

Jay Leno is a restaurant?


----------



## DevdogAZ

I don't disagree with those that think Leno's interview with Oprah might have done more damage than good. But I think that is only because people who dislike Leno have spun the interview and some of Leno's responses to match up with their perceptions of the whole situation. Leno could have given a much better performance than he did on Oprah, but I don't think what he said made him look as bad as it's being made out to be in the press.


----------



## MickeS

jsmeeker said:


> you gotta get over that $100 you (we) dropped to see Jay. It's $100. That was a hand of black jack.


TB is the Alfer of the Jay Leno threads.


----------



## MickeS

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't disagree with those that think Leno's interview with Oprah might have done more damage than good. But I think that is only because people who dislike Leno have spun the interview and some of Leno's responses to match up with their perceptions of the whole situation. Leno could have given a much better performance than he did on Oprah, but I don't think what he said made him look as bad as it's being made out to be in the press.


I doubt anything he said changed anyone's opinion of him enough to have an impact on his overall viewership.


----------



## smak

IJustLikeTivo said:


> TB, always the iconoclast. Hates the #1 talk show, one of the biggest restaurants and the most popular late night host of the last 15 years.


The movie that made the most money in 2009 was Transformers 2. McDonald's is much bigger than Olive Garden.

Still want to test that theory?

-smak-


----------



## DevdogAZ

zalusky said:


> Lot's of variables coming up:
> 1) How many that watched Jay on Tonight before regularly will stop watching. The ones that did not like him weren't measured and he was able to make number 1.
> 2) Will his new set be less sterile than the prime time set?
> 3) Will NBC be able to get him better guests. He admitted the other networks sort of blackballed him because he was competing in prime time.
> 4) *Will his bits get better than the lame racetrack?*
> 5) The impact of Conan at 11PM. Will he be able to compete head to head with both Jay and Dave beyond the passionate viewership that failed to maintain ratings.


I was excited about the racetrack idea when I first read about it last summer. But it turned out to be really stupid. I'm not sure what they could do to fix it (maybe an aerial shot of the car on the course so you could actually see what was going on?) but it definitely didn't work the way it was executed.


MickeS said:


> I doubt anything he said changed anyone's opinion of him enough to have an impact on his overall viewership.


But that was my point. I don't think he actually said anything like that either. But I've read plenty of TV critic articles spinning what he said to fit in with their disdain for Leno, that I wonder if the interview will have a net negative effect, just based solely on people who never saw it but who read biased accounts of it after the fact.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Turtleboy said:


> But I don't hate the #1 golfer, who may be the #1 athlete, in the world.


FWIW, I don't hate him, I just don't like or admire him. Not the same. Close but not quite.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

smak said:


> The movie that made the most money in 2009 was Transformers 2. McDonald's is much bigger than Olive Garden.
> 
> Still want to test that theory?
> 
> -smak-


It was the #1 talk show, not movie. ONE of, not THE biggest restaurants. It's all about reading comprehension. So yes, I'll stick with that.


----------



## JYoung

smak said:


> The movie that made the most money in 2009 was Transformers 2. McDonald's is much bigger than Olive Garden.
> 
> Still want to test that theory?
> 
> -smak-


Turtleboy wouldn't be caught dead in McDonalds.


----------



## Turtleboy

JYoung said:


> Turtleboy wouldn't be caught dead in McDonalds.


I LOVE McDonalds.


----------



## terpfan1980

JYoung said:


> Turtleboy wouldn't be caught dead in McDonalds.





Turtleboy said:


> I LOVE McDonalds.


But if you're gonna die you'll drag yourself to Olive Garden first (so they can be blamed for it), right?


----------



## Langree

terpfan1980 said:


> But if you're gonna die you'll drag yourself to Olive Garden first (so they can be blamed for it), right?


I keep an OG to go bag with me at all times just for this possibility.


----------



## gastrof

The only thing Leno has that I'd really miss by not watching would be "Headlines".

It's the only thing that got me to watch on Monday nights (or Tuesdays, on the rare occasion it wasn't done on a Monday).

Half the time, I shut him off once HLs is over.

My only concern with Conan getting an 11pm show is that he won't be fully up against Leno, and people might still watch the last half hour of Leno once Conan is over.

Maybe O'Brien will take a page from the older Carson Tonight Show, and go 90 minutes.


----------



## morac

Does Leno appearing in a Superbowl ad for The Late Show (along with Oprah and Letterman) count as killing NBC?


----------



## ElJay

I think it should have been Conan there instead of Leno. But then Dave couldn't have done his whiny Leno voice. Then again Conan's departure terms probably precluded any such appearance.


----------



## cheesegod

gastrof said:


> My only concern with Conan getting an 11pm show is that he won't be fully up against Leno, and people might still watch the last half hour of Leno once Conan is over.
> 
> Maybe O'Brien will take a page from the older Carson Tonight Show, and go 90 minutes.


Most likely what would happen is Conan's ratings would drop off after the first 30 minutes as everyone turns to either Letterman or Leno. The only time Conan would beat either of them with that last half an hour is when he a big guest on.

Most people watch late night talk shows for the comedy in the beginning and then turn it off.


----------



## marksman

It was so amazingly awesome to see leno in a commercial for David Letterman on the super bowl.

Geez NBC sucks so bad. Leno must have really reamed them in the renegotiation.


----------



## dtle

Why do I get the feeling there's going to be tit-for-tat? As in Letterman will be in a Leno commercial when he comes back to 11:30.


----------



## zalusky

If you consider the fact that Oprah is ABC affiliated currently in many places. You had all three networks represented.


----------



## Fassade

This was posted in the Super Bowl Ads thread, but the NY Times has the story of the Letterman Super Bowl Spot.

Summary:

Letterman's idea
Oprah agreed immediately
Leno agreed, but had to get approval from NBC brass
Zucker gaver permission
They shot it quickly and in secret.


----------



## daveak

Fassade said:


> [*]Zucker gaver permission
> [/LIST]


I do not think Jeff Zucker has a record of making good decisions for NBC. How have things been going for them?


----------



## DevdogAZ

Fassade said:


> This was posted in the Super Bowl Ads thread, but the NY Times has the story of the Letterman Super Bowl Spot.
> 
> Summary:
> 
> Letterman's idea
> Oprah agreed immediately
> Leno agreed, but had to get approval from NBC brass
> Zucker gaver permission
> They shot it quickly and in secret.


The thing I find most surprising about the whole story is that Leno flew to NYC on the NBC corporate jet. So basically NBC paid a buttload of money in jet fuel in order to help Dave Letterman promote his own show on CBS.

I guess they figured that anything funny involving both Jay and Dave would be good for both shows, and that right now, they'll take any kind of good Leno publicity they can get.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

DevdogAZ said:


> I guess they figured that anything funny involving both Jay and Dave would be good for both shows, and that right now, they'll take any kind of good Leno publicity they can get.


They probably also figured that at this point anything that casts NBC and Leno in a positive light (i.e., having a sense of humor) is a good thing.


----------



## Jesda

I'm getting my tuxedo pressed for Olive Garden this weekend. I made reservations six months ago and I STILL have to slip the host a benjamin just to get a table, if he's in a good mood.

[OG sucks balls.]


----------



## TiVo'Brien

DevdogAZ said:


> The thing I find most surprising about the whole story is that Leno flew to NYC on the NBC corporate jet. So basically NBC paid a buttload of money in jet fuel in order to help Dave Letterman promote his own show on CBS.
> 
> I guess they figured that anything funny involving both Jay and Dave would be good for both shows, and that right now, they'll take any kind of good Leno publicity they can get.


Me thinks there's a quid pro quo coming next month when Dave appears in some kind of promo spot for Jay's return to The Tonight Show.


----------



## Langree

TiVo'Brien said:


> Me thinks there's a quid pro quo coming next month when Dave appears in some kind of promo spot for Jay's return to The Tonight Show.


Doubt it, this was a one shot for the Superbowl.


----------



## MickeS

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2...in-eubanks-will-leave-jay-lenos-tonight-show/

Bandleader Kevin Eubanks Will Leave Jay Lenos Tonight Show



> The changes keep coming for NBC in late night. The latest: Kevin Eubanks, the longtime bandleader for Jay Leno, is leaving that partnership.
> 
> Mr. Eubanks has told colleagues on the show that he will definitely leave his post as leader of what will be a reconstituted Tonight Show band (after its brief run as the Prime Time Band on Mr. Lenos 10 p.m. weeknight show) after an interim transition period starting March 1.


Too bad, IMO, I really enjoyed Kev's interaction with Jay. Hopefully he'll change his mind.


----------



## marksman

Maybe they can hire Cleto of Jimmy Kimmel to take the spot since he did a good laughing impersonation of him.


----------



## DevdogAZ

No big loss, IMO. There's not shortage of talented, charismatic musicians in LA that would kill to have a daily gig that pays what this job pays.


----------



## JYoung

Maybe John Melendez can be the new bandleader?


----------



## Langree

I'm curious as to why the departure, the timing is interesting with everything that has gone on.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

MickeS said:


> http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2...in-eubanks-will-leave-jay-lenos-tonight-show/
> 
> Bandleader Kevin Eubanks Will Leave Jay Lenos Tonight Show
> 
> Too bad, IMO, I really enjoyed Kev's interaction with Jay. Hopefully he'll change his mind.


I wonder why?


----------



## DevdogAZ

If it was a Kevin Eubanks decision, I'm not sure why he'd make that decision now. But if it was a Leno/NBC decision, I think it makes perfect sense. Kevin's been there a long time. The show is getting stale. People complained that there wasn't anything different when the show moved to primetime. So replacing the band leader and changing that dynamic could go a long way to changing people's perceptions that the show is old and stale.


----------



## MikeAndrews

DevdogAZ said:


> If it was a Kevin Eubanks decision, I'm not sure why he'd make that decision now. But if it was a Leno/NBC decision, I think it makes perfect sense. Kevin's been there a long time. The show is getting stale. People complained that there wasn't anything different when the show moved to primetime. So replacing the band leader and changing that dynamic could go a long way to changing people's perceptions that the show is old and stale.


Changing the host would do a better job of changing perceptions, but the suits at NBC haven't proven to be the sharpest tacks in the box.


----------



## DevdogAZ

netringer said:


> Changing the host would do a better job of changing perceptions, but the suits at NBC haven't proven to be the sharpest tacks in the box.


Well obviously they're not going to do that. They've already tried that and it didn't work. While you (and many others) may not like Leno's brand of safe comedy, he's proven for almost two decades that people do enjoy watching him. For that reason, NBC is willing to pay him tens of millions of dollars per year.


----------



## 5thcrewman

I hope they don't get Max Weinberg for Jay's Tonight Show


----------



## FilmCritic3000

There are unsubstantiated rumors that Darius Rucker, lead singer of Hootie and the Blowfish, will replace Kevin Eubanks.


----------



## DevdogAZ

FilmCritic3000 said:


> There are unsubstantiated rumors that Darius Rucker, lead singer of Hootie and the Blowfish, will replace Kevin Eubanks.


I guess that country music career isn't working out, eh?


----------



## terpfan1980

FilmCritic3000 said:


> There are unsubstantiated rumors that Darius Rucker, lead singer of Hootie and the Blowfish, will replace Kevin Eubanks.





DevdogAZ said:


> I guess that country music career isn't working out, eh?


haha. Except, well, he won one of the major awards this past year and is touring through the summer, so it would seem that his country music career is doing just fine.

As to the rest of the rumor, who knows...


----------



## Amnesia

Touring is supposedly why Kevin wants to leave...


----------



## stiffi

He needs a band. What Jimmy Fallon (or whomever is producing) did with the Roots is just pure genious. No need for fake chemistry, just bring the whole band!


----------



## MickeS

FilmCritic3000 said:


> There are unsubstantiated rumors that Darius Rucker, lead singer of Hootie and the Blowfish, will replace Kevin Eubanks.


I would be amazed if that happened, since Rucker's own career is in full swing right now. Doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Roadblock

DevdogAZ said:


> While you (and many others) may not like Leno's brand of safe comedy, he's proven for almost two decades that people do enjoy watching him.


I hate people.


----------



## marksman

Amnesia said:


> Touring is supposedly why Kevin wants to leave...


Was the same reason why Conan could not hire Max Weinberg back in 94.


----------



## aintnosin

marksman said:


> Was the same reason why Conan could not hire Max Weinberg back in 94.


Max Weinberg has been with Conan since 1993. At the time, the E Street Band was "on hiatus" until 1999.


----------



## marksman

Yeah and Max has left the show many times to go touring.

Touring is kind of a lame excuse. I am sure if he wanted to go touring every year he could work it out.

I have heard, by the way, that Kevin Eubanks is a big racist.

I think I heard Adam Carolla talking about it on one of his podcasts with someone else.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

marksman said:


> Yeah and Max has left the show many times to go touring.
> 
> Touring is kind of a lame excuse. I am sure if he wanted to go touring every year he could work it out.
> 
> I have heard, by the way, that Kevin Eubanks is a big racist.
> 
> I think I heard Adam Carolla talking about it on one of his podcasts with someone else.


"I have heard"? Why say something like that unless you know it personally? Not cool in my book, even if it was/is true.


----------



## DUDE_NJX

At least one of Conan's band members was open about his racism. :up:


----------



## Turtleboy

I don't see any conspiracy here. Kevin's had the job for 17 years. He wants to do something else.


----------



## stujac

Anyone think he might have a reason to be a racist? Not saying that he is but if he is, I understand.


----------



## Langree

stujac said:


> Anyone think he might have a reason to be a racist? Not saying that he is but if he is, I understand.


What possible reason could there be that would excuse being racist?


----------



## stujac

Ummm. Let me think?? Are you serious with that question? I think not.


----------



## Langree

stujac said:


> Ummm. Let me think?? Are you serious with that question? I think not.


Yes I am, verbalize your reasoning. Don't dodge the question.


----------



## stujac

This is my opinion and mine only; others may share this opinion but this comes from my 55 years experience living on this earth and in this country. I never, ever question why a black man might be racist; I see examples of racism directed towards black men virtually every day. For instance, I live in a township in which driving while black is apparently illegal. While my township is about 80&#37; white the vehicles you see pulled over the side of the road are driven by about 80% black men. Just sayin..maybe different where you live but I doubt it. Cabs that won't pick up black men; employers who won't hire black men when a white man is available....on and on....If you don't get it, I don't care.


----------



## Langree

stujac said:


> This is my opinion and mine only; others may share this opinion but this comes from my 55 years experience living on this earth and in this country. I never, ever question why a black man might be racist; I see examples of racism directed towards black men virtually every day. For instance, I live in a township in which driving while black is apparently illegal. While my township is about 80% white the vehicles you see pulled over the side of the road are driven by about 80% black men. Just sayin..maybe different where you live but I doubt it. Cabs that won't pick up black men; employers who won't hire black men when a white man is available....on and on....If you don't get it, I don't care.


So black people get a free pass at being racist because of white racist. But of course the white racist is in the wrong.

Umm, ok.

Fight racism with racism! That'll show em!


----------



## getreal

stujac said:


> ... the vehicles you see pulled over the side of the road are driven by about 80% black men.


How can you tell if a guy is 80% black?


p.s. that was a joke.


----------



## stujac

I can but only 80&#37; of the time.


----------



## stujac

Langree said:


> So black people get a free pass at being racist because of white racist. But of course the white racist is in the wrong.
> 
> Umm, ok.
> 
> Fight racism with racism! That'll show em!


Never said that but you would know that if you read the post. I said I understand why certain people develop racism. I said I see signs of it all the time. I said I never, ever question why a person who suffered from racism becomes racist himself (or herself). Not advocating, just trying to understand.


----------



## Generic

> # Bio I had a show. Then I had a different show. Now I have a Twitter account.


Conan is back....on Twitter.

http://twitter.com/ConanOBrien


----------



## mbklein

Generic said:


> Conan is back....on Twitter.
> 
> http://twitter.com/ConanOBrien





ConanOBrien said:


> Today I interviewed a squirrel in my backyard and then threw to commercial. Somebody help me.


:up:


----------



## DUDE_NJX

That dude is getting 1000 new followers each minute. Wild.


----------



## marksman

3 black grandparents and 1 white one gets you to 75&#37;, so I guess if you did enough research you could come up with someone who was 80% black.


----------



## marksman

IJustLikeTivo said:


> "I have heard"? Why say something like that unless you know it personally? Not cool in my book, even if it was/is true.


Because I heard one or more people say it publicly who actually have met the guy multiple times and talked about it.

Why would we say anything about anyone by that standard?

I specifically told you where I thought I heard it. It is not like I made it up, or I heard it from a guy at the quickie mart.

Adam also says Jay Leno is a really nice and genuine guy, but I guess I should not say that either.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

marksman said:


> Because I heard one or more people say it publicly who actually have met the guy multiple times and talked about it.
> 
> Why would we say anything about anyone by that standard?
> 
> I specifically told you where I thought I heard it. It is not like I made it up, or I heard it from a guy at the quickie mart.
> 
> Adam also says Jay Leno is a really nice and genuine guy, but I guess I should not say that either.


In legal terms it called hearsay and it's not allowed. I heard from a guy who heard from a girl who heard from her girlfriends manicurist.... If YOU experienced it, fine, say it. But something that incendiary should be just accepted as something you hear. That's my way of thinking, you're not bound by it but it usually works pretty well.


----------



## TiVo'Brien

Generic said:


> Conan is back....on Twitter.
> 
> http://twitter.com/ConanOBrien


Love his bio 



> I had a show. Then I had a different show. Now I have a Twitter account.


----------



## marksman

IJustLikeTivo said:


> In legal terms it called hearsay and it's not allowed.




Newspapers and tv news shows and channels are in big trouble.



> I heard from a guy who heard from a girl who heard from her girlfriends manicurist.... If YOU experienced it, fine, say it. But something that incendiary should be just accepted as something you hear. That's my way of thinking, you're not bound by it but it usually works pretty well.


I heard it from multiple people who I deem credible... so I am not terribly concerned.

I didn't say he was a racist. I said I heard several people claim he is a racist. That is a fact.


----------



## Doggie Bear

IJustLikeTivo said:


> In legal terms it called hearsay and it's not allowed. I heard from a guy who heard from a girl who heard from her girlfriends manicurist.... If YOU experienced it, fine, say it. But something that incendiary should be just accepted as something you hear. That's my way of thinking, you're not bound by it but it usually works pretty well.


Well, actually, the rules against hearsay are riddled with all kinds of exceptions, so in fact it's not uncommon for hearsay to be admitted in trials.

Also, the American legal system is nearly unique in even having a default rule against hearsay. Most other countries with Western legal systems do not have a general rule against hearsay.

That said, the notion that inflammatory assertions are more reliable if the person can attest to having heard it directly is pretty much good common sense.


----------



## wmcbrine

marksman said:


> Newspapers and tv news shows and channels are in big trouble.


What he means is that it wouldn't be admissable as evidence in a court of law. Which.. you know... this isn't.


----------



## Langree

wmcbrine said:


> What he means is that it wouldn't be admissable as evidence in a court of law. Which.. you know... this isn't.


I object!


----------



## Wil

Langree said:


> So black people get a free pass at being racist because of white racist. But of course the white racist is in the wrong.


Why do you say it's wrong? If white racism is expressed in certain illegal actions, it's the actions that are illegal, not the racism itself*. And white racists may have come to feel uncomfortable in certain politically correct circles today, but white and black racists are completely free to hate all they want.

Personally I generally can't stand people with IQs between 105 and 125 (though some of my best friends are mediocre). So sue me. You can't. Racism and other biases are fine; just not certain actions.

* admittedly, "hate crime" legislation blurs the line, though as far as I know the actions covered would already be illegal in themselves. I don't believe in "hate crime" laws and I think there are constitutional objections that will ultimately prevail.


----------



## gossamer88

Heads up he's back tonight.

And don't forget to watch CBSs The Early Show. Howard Stern will be on ready to rip Leno a new (another) one!


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Doggie Bear said:


> That said, the notion that inflammatory assertions are more reliable if the person can attest to having heard it directly is pretty much good common sense.


Which was my point. The statement without factual basis is inherently inflammatory. It may, in fact, be absolutely true but why say it unless you're certain that you're correct. It's one thing to say, "he's a nice guy" cause no one is really hurt if you're wrong. But, you can't take back something like "he's a racist" if you're wrong.

This is why the right to free speech does not include the right to call fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Now, back to the original topic.

Did anyone see last night's show. I have it on Tivo but haven't see it yet.

I was wondering if they said anything about the whole controversy.


----------



## Langree

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Now, back to the original topic.
> 
> Did anyone see last night's show. I have it on Tivo but haven't see it yet.
> 
> I was wondering if they said anything about the whole controversy.


Nope, in fact with one visual gag I think the punchline was intended to be O'Brien, but they made it Leno.


----------



## LoadStar

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I was wondering if they said anything about the whole controversy.


I haven't either, but from what I understand, no. They (Leno/The Tonight Show/NBC) appear to be happy pretending Conan's show never existed... to the point that Leno made a comment about Sarah Palin and her upcoming appearance on The Tonight Show being "the first time in late night." Of course, she appeared on Conan's "Tonight Show."


----------



## Michelle5150

LoadStar said:


> Of course, she appeared on Conan's "Tonight Show."


I caught that too, but just chalked it up to different definitions of "_being on._" She wasn't a "_guest_" on Conan, she just came out to poke fun at Shatner. I assume she'll sit down with Leno.


----------



## gossamer88

I thought the Wizard of Oz bit was funny. And I like how he has Stuttering John in it but no longer the announcer.


----------



## MickeS

LoadStar said:


> I haven't either, but from what I understand, no. They (Leno/The Tonight Show/NBC) appear to be happy pretending Conan's show never existed... to the point that Leno made a comment about Sarah Palin and her upcoming appearance on The Tonight Show being "the first time in late night." Of course, she appeared on Conan's "Tonight Show."


She wasn't a scheduled, announced guest though.


----------



## DevdogAZ

I thought it was pretty good. Basically back to being like his old Tonight Show. I thought the bit about finding the desk was pretty good (doing segments from people's living rooms, with real celeb guests was great). Jamie Foxx was really energetic.

There was one joke where they were talking about someone not really liking Jay (can't remember the joke or who they were talking about) and I thought the obvious punchline would be that he was on Team CoCo. But instead Jay said something like, "I guess he's a Letterman guy." Other than that, nothing in the show made me think about Conan at all.

The set is largely the same as his 10 pm set, with a few cosmetic changes.


----------



## Kamakzie

MickeS said:


> She wasn't a scheduled, announced guest though.


When will she be a guest on Letterman?


----------



## DevdogAZ

Kamakzie said:


> When will she be a guest on Letterman?


Interesting that the two main guests tonight on Leno and Letterman are the two likely front runners for the GOP Presidential Race in 2012. Palin is on Leno and Mitt Romney is on Letterman.


----------



## DancnDude

Who was band leader? Or is Kevin still around for awhile?


----------



## MickeS

DancnDude said:


> Who was band leader? Or is Kevin still around for awhile?


Still Kevin.

I like the new set. The show was as it's always been pretty much. I enjoyed it.


----------



## Turtleboy

Howard Stern on the Early Show talking about it.


----------



## dilbert27

gossamer88 said:


> I thought the Wizard of Oz bit was funny. And I like how he has Stuttering John in it but no longer the announcer.


For those that missed it.

http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/video/clips/cold-opening/1205734/


----------



## JYoung

Turtleboy said:


> Howard Stern on the Early Show talking about it.


Howard, as usual, has a flawed analysis of the situation.

Btw, according to the Futon Critic, Leno beat Letterman last night.

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings.aspx?id=monday



> In late-night metered market results, NBC's "Leno" (4.2/10) beat out CBS's "Letterman" (3.3/8) and ABC's "Nightline" (3.9/9). Rounding out the night then were "Ferguson" (1.7/6) on CBS, "Kimmel" (2.5/8) on ABC and the premiere of "Fallon" (2.3/8) and "Daly" (1.3/6) on NBC and .


We'll see if he maintains those numbers, I'd expect some drop off.


----------



## Alfer

JYoung said:


> Howard, as usual, has a flawed analysis of the situation.
> 
> Btw, according to the Futon Critic, Leno beat Letterman last night.
> 
> http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings.aspx?id=monday
> 
> We'll see if he maintains those numbers, I'd expect some drop off.


Of course he's gonna beat out the competition on night number 1...everyone wants to see how he deals with the change and what he has to say and if the show is a train wreck like his prime time show....sort of like how people slow down to look at a wreck on the side of the road...they can't help but look for a few seconds.

My guess is they leave in droves and Letterman ends up beating him more often.


----------



## Turtleboy

JYoung said:


> Howard, as usual, has a flawed analysis of the situation.


What do you disagree with?


----------



## Kamakzie

Stern warning Conan in December '06


----------



## JYoung

Turtleboy said:


> What do you disagree with?


Leno forcing Carson and O'Brien out.
On how Leno should have just quit.
Leno fired from NBC.

Basically everything that was already argued previously in this thread.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Clearly Stern hates Leno and his bias will color his opinions.

Adam Carolla has a mature outlook on the whole concept of "stealing jokes." He frequently talks about how there is some comedy that, based on the situation, the subject, the sense of humor of the comedian, etc., can be originated simultaneously by multiple people.  The types of jokes they do on these late-night monologues are the very easiest, most obvious kind of comedy. It's inevitable that someone in NY and someone in LA, when reading about the same event in the newspaper, may come up with nearly identical jokes.


----------



## aindik

DevdogAZ said:


> Clearly Stern hates Leno and his bias will color his opinions.
> 
> Adam Carolla has a mature outlook on the whole concept of "stealing jokes." He frequently talks about how there is some comedy that, based on the situation, the subject, the sense of humor of the comedian, etc., can be originated simultaneously by multiple people. The types of jokes they do on these late-night monologues are the very easiest, most obvious kind of comedy. It's inevitable that someone in NY and someone in LA, when reading about the same event in the newspaper, may come up with nearly identical jokes.


Stern didn't say Leno stole Stern's jokes. He said Leno stole entire bits. Then again, Stern thinks everything anyone has done in broadcasting was stolen from him.

(Also, Leno "stole" a member of Stern's staff, though that's not something Stern mentioned on the Early Show).


----------



## MickeS

Why is Stern talking about this (or rather, why would we want to hear him talk about it)? Does he have some connection to the whole mess?


----------



## Turtleboy

MickeS said:


> Why is Stern talking about this (or rather, why would we want to hear him talk about it)? Does he have some connection to the whole mess?


Because CBS wanted to have a big name come on to bash Leno and defend Letterman.

Is it true that NBC Today Show chose this morning to run a story on Letterman's affairs?


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

aindik said:


> Stern didn't say Leno stole Stern's jokes. He said Leno stole entire bits. Then again, Stern thinks everything anyone has done in broadcasting was stolen from him.
> 
> (Also, Leno "stole" a member of Stern's staff, though that's not something Stern mentioned on the Early Show).


Fortunately no one stole his Air Florida bit.... Bitter man, that Stern. Not sure if there is enough money to make him happy.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

MickeS said:


> Why is Stern talking about this (or rather, why would we want to hear him talk about it)? Does he have some connection to the whole mess?


As the center of the Media universe, he thinks it all rotates around him.


----------



## Turtleboy

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Fortunately no one stole his Air Florida bit.... Bitter man, that Stern. Not sure if there is enough money to make him happy.


Seriously?

Sometimes I really can't tell if you are being serious or if you're just Alfering. I listen to Howard every day. You really believe that he is bitter?

Over what, exactly?


----------



## Magnolia88

MickeS said:


> Why is Stern talking about this (or rather, why would we want to hear him talk about it)? Does he have some connection to the whole mess?


He really hates Jay Leno, and likes to talk about how much he hates Jay Leno.

He's been saying that for years, long before this latest Leno story. This just gives him more to talk about, when he talks about how much he hates Jay Leno.


----------



## gossamer88

Exactly, he's been trashing Leno for a long time now. CBS was just using Stern to trash him some more.


----------



## JLucPicard

JYoung said:


> Btw, according to the Futon Critic, Leno beat Letterman last night.
> 
> http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings.aspx?id=monday


By the way, at the top of that linked page it reads


> PLEASE DO NOT COPY OR REPRODUCE THIS INFORMATION TO OTHER WEB SITES, FORUMS, NEWSGROUPS, ETC.


As to the ratings, Letterman also got beat by _Nightline_??? I never even hear anything about that show anymore.

Also, what is meant by 'premiere of "Fallon"'? Hasn't that been on for quite some time now?


----------



## super dave

Really, Howard has been trashing Jay? I listen every morning and haven't heard a peep about this............


----------



## DevdogAZ

JLucPicard said:


> As to the ratings, Letterman also got beat by _Nightline_??? I never even hear anything about that show anymore.
> 
> Also, what is meant by 'premiere of "Fallon"'? Hasn't that been on for quite some time now?


Ever since Leno left last May, and Conan's initial numbers dropped off a cliff, Nightline's ratings have been surprisingly competitive with the other late-night programs.

As for the "premiere of Fallon," you're reading from the section of the page that is discussing the ratings from one year ago. Last night was Fallon's one-year anniversary.

Edit: And now that I look at that page, I see that the numbers JYoung posted above were also from one year ago. Last night's numbers were actually much better for Leno and much worse for Letterman:



> In the metered market houshold ratings between 11:30p-12:30a Jay Leno's return to The Tonight Show dominated Leterman and Late Show. Leno had a 5.4/14 (household rating/share) to Letterman's 3.0/8.
> 
> "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" (1.6 rating in adults 18-49) led the time period over CBS's "Late Show with David Letterman" (1.1) and ABC's "Nightline (1.3) in fast national "live plus same day" ratings from Nielsen Media Research.
> 
> In total viewers in the fast nationals, "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" (6.6 million) ranked #1 among the major networks in the time period over "Late Show" (3.8 million) and "Nightline" (4.1 million).


----------



## JYoung

DevdogAZ said:


> Edit: And now that I look at that page, I see that the numbers JYoung posted above were also from one year ago. Last night's numbers were actually much better for Leno and much worse for Letterman:


Crap, I was just skimming that page for the Chuck ratings and I saw "Late Night" at the bottom and jumped down there for the Tonight Show ratings without seeing the last year blurb.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Turtleboy said:


> Seriously?
> 
> Sometimes I really can't tell if you are being serious or if you're just Alfering. I listen to Howard every day. You really believe that he is bitter?
> 
> Over what, exactly?


He spews hate. That sounds bitter to me. If he hated coco would that make you agree? As for the alfer comment don't be stupid. That's nothing like the same thing. But you love to stir things up nearly as much so why would I be surprised.


----------



## Fofer

IJustLikeTivo said:


> That sounds bitter to me.


Pot, meet kettle


----------



## SteveInNC

Anyone noticed how the band is now a lot smaller? The key recognizable people are still there (Smitty, etc.), but it seems that a lot of them are gone. Wasn't the horn section much bigger in the previous incarnation?

FYI, Leno will be on next week's edition of Top Gear too (BBCA). Since we get these long after their original BBC airing, I assume that this was filmed before the recent unpleasantness.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Fofer said:


> Pot, meet kettle


You really shouldn't talk. Compared to you I'm Mary Poppins and Little Miss Sunshine rolled into one.


----------



## JLucPicard

DevdogAZ said:


> As for the "premiere of Fallon," you're reading from the section of the page that is discussing the ratings from one year ago. Last night was Fallon's one-year anniversary.


You're right. When I saw "premiere of Fallan" last night, I scrolled up to the top of the page to see the dateline (or whatever that's called) and saw March 1, 2010. Skipped right past the midsection partition that points to 'a year ago'.


----------



## Fofer

IJustLikeTivo said:


> You really shouldn't talk. Compared to you I'm Mary Poppins and Little Miss Sunshine rolled into one.


LOL - yeah, because that's exactly how people who know me describe me... "bitter." Uh huh, yeah, that's it.


----------



## JYoung

Turtleboy said:


> Because CBS wanted to have a big name come on to bash Leno and defend Letterman.
> 
> Is it true that NBC Today Show chose this morning to run a story on Letterman's affairs?


I have no idea what the Today Show did but what CBS did with the Early Show left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

Stern was brought on specifically to bash Leno and to give them "plausible deniability" but really, how would they not know what Stern would say about Leno?


----------



## ElJay

Alright, the clock is ticking. Nine months to go for Jay "#1" Leno.



> Letterman ends Lenos brief winning streak
> Mondays Late Show takes coveted 18-49 and 25-54 demographic groups
> 
> Monday's "Late Show with David Letterman" beat "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" in adults 18-49 and adults 25-54, the demographic groups that matter most to advertisers. That's according to preliminary fast national Nielsen data just released.
> 
> Leno still eked out a win in total viewers, drawing 4.36 million vs. Letterman's 4.19 million.
> ...
> But Monday, NBC's primetime average took a big hit, with "Trauma" tanking and "Law & Order" slipping below Leno Monday averages. The lower lead-in resulted in the Leno loss.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35789739/ns/entertainment-television/


So the lead-in matters? That's a new idea.


----------



## marksman

I suspect Howard has always been bitter about Late Night hosts in general since he certainly has always felt that he would do a better job than any of them and destroy the world if only the right people would listen to him and let him do whatever he wanted.

I don't agree with his assessment of himself although I have enjoyed him over the years.. but I think it would be fair to perceive that Howard Stern might be bitter towards Late Night TV hosts in general.


----------



## Turtleboy

JYoung said:


> Stern was brought on specifically to bash Leno and to give them "plausible deniability" but really, how would they not know what Stern would say about Leno?


Oh, I agree 100% and I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. Howard was talking about it a week in advance about that's what they were asking him to do.

It was actually very interesting to me listening to the show on that day, and hearing the CBS grew coming into the studio and setting up and then the post-mortem.

What's even more interesting is how Howard changes his persona when he's being interviewed, whether by CBS News or Letterman or Conan. He doesn't really act like that when he's on the air on his own show. I think that's because on his show, he has 4-5 hours every day to say what he wants to say, so he'll take his time. But in the CBS segment, he has to cram 3 hours into 3 minutes and goes nuts.

Strangely, it gives people a mistaken impression of what his show is like.


----------



## Kablemodem

marksman said:


> I suspect Howard has always been bitter about Late Night hosts in general since he certainly has always felt that he would do a better job than any of them and destroy the world if only the right people would listen to him and let him do whatever he wanted.
> 
> I don't agree with his assessment of himself although I have enjoyed him over the years.. but I think it would be fair to perceive that Howard Stern might be bitter towards Late Night TV hosts in general.


Howard Stern loves David Letterman. He hates Jay Leno because he feels Jay has stolen lots of his material and ideas, is not innovative, and is not funny.


----------



## TriBruin

Kablemodem said:


> Howard Stern loves David Letterman. He hates Jay Leno because he feels Jay has stolen lots of his material and ideas, *is not innovative, and is not funny*.


Conincidently I feel the same way about Howard.


----------



## JYoung

Kablemodem said:


> Howard Stern loves David Letterman. He hates Jay Leno because he feels Jay has stolen lots of his material and ideas, is not innovative, and is not funny.


so you're saying that Howard = Turtleboy?


----------



## pigonthewing

JYoung said:


> so you're saying that Howard = Turtleboy?


Yes. Any two people who agree, even if only about one thing, are entirely synonymous and, in fact, downright interchangeable.


----------



## JYoung

pigonthewing said:


> Yes. Any two people who agree, even if only about one thing, are entirely synonymous and, in fact, downright interchangeable.


Just like every post I make is absolutely serious.


----------



## Fofer

Well, they are both Jewish and opinionated. It's their height that separates them, I'd say.


----------



## Langree

Fofer said:


> Well, they are both Jewish and opinionated. It's their height that separates them, I'd say.


and the hair, TB would look really odd with hair like Howard's.


----------



## brianric

TriBruin said:


> Conincidently I feel the same way about Howard.


Ditto


----------



## inaka

Magnolia88 said:


> He really hates Jay Leno, and likes to talk about how much he hates Jay Leno.
> 
> He's been saying that for years, long before this latest Leno story. This just gives him more to talk about, when he talks about how much he hates Jay Leno.





gossamer88 said:


> Exactly, he's been trashing Leno for a long time now. CBS was just using Stern to trash him some more.


You guys speak about this as if it's a bad thing.


----------



## Magnolia88

inaka said:


> You guys speak about this as if it's a bad thing.


Hah. I _love_ it when Howard comes on Letterman and then basically says, "Let me talk about how much I hate Jay Leno." I think it's hilarious. Dave shakes his head and pretends to look sheepish, but he lets Howard go off on Leno and doesn't disagree. At some point, he might say "now, Howard . . ." but that's about it.

I've watched a little of Jay since his return because I tivo when I like the guests, but man, he has not improved one iota in his interviewing skills. He is so appallingly bad that it's nearly unwatchable imho. He just doesn't seem to listen to the guest at all, and just goes for the cheap joke, at the guest's expense, every time. He insults them, belittles them, and then giggles as if his little dig is sooo funny, while they look embarrassed and smile/grimace uncomfortably. Man, I really cannot stand him, at least as an interviewer. His interview with Lindsey Vonn was downright offensive, making a sleazy "joke" by asking her if her husband was her "coach" in the bedroom.


----------



## marksman

Kablemodem said:


> Howard Stern loves David Letterman. He hates Jay Leno because he feels Jay has stolen lots of his material and ideas, is not innovative, and is not funny.


He loves letterman but he still resents him.


----------



## inaka

Tickets went on sale this morning for the Conan tour:
http://teamcoco.com/

I got tix for the Friday 4/23 show in SF.
Should be fun. :up:


----------



## aindik

inaka said:


> Tickets went on sale this morning for the Conan tour:
> http://teamcoco.com/
> 
> I got tix for the Friday 4/23 show in SF.
> Should be fun. :up:


$125 for seats in Atlantic City. Sheesh.


----------



## inaka

aindik said:


> $125 for seats in Atlantic City. Sheesh.


Well it *is* at the Borgata.

Cheap seats are only $39.50 in SF.


----------



## pigonthewing

inaka said:


> ...only $39.50...


Same here, but then ticketmaster wants their f'n $10, which is just ridiculous.


----------



## JYoung

inaka said:


> Tickets went on sale this morning for the Conan tour:
> http://teamcoco.com/
> 
> I got tix for the Friday 4/23 show in SF.
> Should be fun. :up:





> April 24: Gibson Amphitheater in Universal City, Calif.


That's gotta smart.


----------



## DevdogAZ

JYoung said:


> That's gotta smart.


I know the Gibson Amphitheater is on the Universal property, but how close is it to Stage One where Conan shot his show? (Or in other words, where is Stage One on the Universal lot? My Google skills are failing me.)


----------



## Kablemodem

DevdogAZ said:


> I know the Gibson Amphitheater is on the Universal property, but how close is it to Stage One where Conan shot his show? (Or in other words, where is Stage One on the Universal lot? My Google skills are failing me.)


It's nowhere near San Francisco.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Kablemodem said:


> It's nowhere near San Francisco.


Ummmmm, OK. Thanks.


----------



## JYoung

DevdogAZ said:


> I know the Gibson Amphitheater is on the Universal property, but how close is it to Stage One where Conan shot his show? (Or in other words, where is Stage One on the Universal lot? My Google skills are failing me.)


I'm not exactly sure but I _thiiiiiiiiiinnnnkkkkk_ it was on the bottom of the hill or near it.
Gibson Amphitheater is on the top of the hill and he'd probably have to go past his old studio to get there.


----------



## DevdogAZ

JYoung said:


> I'm not exactly sure but I _thiiiiiiiiiinnnnkkkkk_ it was on the bottom of the hill or near it.
> Gibson Amphitheater is on the top of the hill and he'd probably have to go past his old studio to get there.


I would have thought there would be all kinds of Panaramio pictures on Google Earth, but I couldn't find any.

I remember seeing a time-lapse video of the construction of the new studio building once, but can't find that either.


----------



## JYoung

DevdogAZ said:


> I would have thought there would be all kinds of Panaramio pictures on Google Earth, but I couldn't find any.
> 
> I remember seeing a time-lapse video of the construction of the new studio building once, but can't find that either.


I don't know.
I haven't been over to Universal for a couple of years but I'm pretty sure that the studio would be in an area they don't allow the riff raff to go to.
Away from Citywalk, the Gibson, the Tour, and the hotel

Although come to think of it, has O'Brien actually done any stand up before?
I want to say no.....


----------



## smak

While he probably could get there by going past his old studio, I think it'd be a lot easier to just go up the hill to get backstage at Gibson.

-smak-


----------



## trainman

JYoung said:


> Although come to think of it, has O'Brien actually done any stand up before?
> I want to say no.....


Just his monologues. Before he became the host of "Late Night," his background was primarily in writing, but he'd had some improv performance classes with The Groundlings, and had gotten to do a little bit of acting in sketches on "SNL."


----------



## JYoung

trainman said:


> Just his monologues. Before he became the host of "Late Night," his background was primarily in writing, but he'd had some improv performance classes with The Groundlings, and had gotten to do a little bit of acting in sketches on "SNL."


Ok, yeah. Now I remember.
When O'Brien first took over for Letterman and had that rocky beginning, I remember that some of the criticism of him was that he really didn't have any experience performing in front of an audience. That he was primarily a writer.

Supporters would point out that he was in the Groundlings (with Lisa Kudrow?).


----------



## DevdogAZ

JYoung said:


> I don't know.
> I haven't been over to Universal for a couple of years but I'm pretty sure that the studio would be in an area they don't allow the riff raff to go to.
> Away from Citywalk, the Gibson, the Tour, and the hotel


Well I don't think you could just wander around down there, but given that he had live audiences every day, who clearly had to wait in line outside the studio, and the fact that the studio tram tour revised its route to go right past the studio, you'd think there would at least be Panoramio pictures on Google Earth pegging the general location.


----------



## ewolfr

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-conan17-2010mar17,0,540516.story

Fox discusses deal with Conan O'Brien
The network may have a viable plan to bring the comedian back to late night, sources say.

and the not-so-surprising part that money can cure just about any ill in the business world:



> O'Brien's team also is working to secure a soundstage for a new show and could use the same facility on the Universal lot that NBC spent nearly $50 million to refurbish for O'Brien to take over "The Tonight Show" in June. The soundstage -- the home of the Jack Benny show -- is large enough to accommodate skits, a band and a studio audience -- and is close to Lankershim Boulevard, making it easy to manage crowds who come to the show.
> 
> NBC Universal has said it would lease the space to O'Brien, despite the tensions that exploded when O'Brien refused to accept NBC's shift of the "Tonight Show" to make room for Leno's return to late night.


----------



## marksman

That would be really funny if he is back in the same space but on Fox. WTH.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Wait a second, I thought they built a brand new studio for Conan. I remember seeing a video of time-lapse photos of the construction, from raw dirt to completion. I've read many stories about the new construction. So what's this about "refurbish" and Jack Benny?


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

marksman said:


> That would be really funny if he is back in the same space but on Fox. WTH.


Would this mean that Fox doesn't have to burn in hell now?

Back to the present. How have Jay's ratings been since he came back?


----------



## TiVo'Brien

ewolfr said:


> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-conan17-2010mar17,0,540516.story
> 
> Fox discusses deal with Conan O'Brien
> The network may have a viable plan to bring the comedian back to late night, sources say.
> 
> and the not-so-surprising part that money can cure just about any ill in the business world:


This makes sense from a business perspective for everyone involved.


----------



## terpfan1980

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Would this mean that Fox doesn't have to burn in hell now?
> 
> Back to the present. How have Jay's ratings been since he came back?


Started strong but losing ground as time has progressed. He was beating Letterman easily in the first few days, but was tied with him about a week in from what I had seen, with more importance now on who his guests are, or who the competitions guests are.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

terpfan1980 said:


> Started strong but losing ground as time has progressed. He was beating Letterman easily in the first few days, but was tied with him about a week in from what I had seen, with more importance now on who his guests are, or who the competitions guests are.


That would still be a large improvement from the previous 6 months, no?


----------



## inaka

IJustLikeTivo said:


> That would still be a large improvement from the previous 6 months, no?


I guess just one viewer is an improvement over being cancelled if you want to look at it that way.


----------



## ewolfr

Andy Richter was co-host on Live with Regis and Kelly while Regis was out on vacation last week. He had quite a bit to say during the host chat, he must not be under an NDA like Conan is until September. If you want to see it go here: http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/regisandkelly/host_chat.html and then scroll down and click on March 9.


----------



## aindik

ewolfr said:


> Andy Richter was co-host on Live with Regis and Kelly while Regis was out on vacation last week. He had quite a bit to say during the host chat, he must not be under an NDA like Conan is until September. If you want to see it go here: http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/regisandkelly/host_chat.html and then scroll down and click on March 9.


He must also not be under a non-compete.


----------



## aintnosin

aindik said:


> He must also not be under a non-compete.


Morning shows are not considered competition to late night shows.


----------



## JYoung

terpfan1980 said:


> Started strong but losing ground as time has progressed. He was beating Letterman easily in the first few days, but was tied with him about a week in from what I had seen, with more importance now on who his guests are, or who the competitions guests are.


Not quite.
Last week, Leno won three of the nights, Letterman won one (the day his blackmailer was in court), and they tied one night, according to TV By The Numbers.
And Leno won on Monday and Tuesday of this week as well.
(I don't remember who was on Leno Monday but Letterman had Jennifer Anniston on Monday, plugging her new movie.)

What does surprise me is that Nightline is right in there for the most part, being a very competitive third.



IJustLikeTivo said:


> That would still be a large improvement from the previous 6 months, no?


http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/03/17/leno-wins-again-in-tuesday-preliminary-numbers/45301

Look at comment #3.
IIRC, O'Brien was getting about 2 to 2.1 million viewers in August of 2009.
The blogger is projecting about 4.3 million households.


----------



## aindik

aintnosin said:


> Morning shows are not considered competition to late night shows.


Why would one think his non-compete would be limited to things that compete against late night shows? I'd expect it to encompass the full scope of things that compete against NBC.

Do you think Conan O'Brien could take over a seat on the View before September and not get sued? I'd bet against it.


----------



## DevdogAZ

I remember reading that Andy wasn't covered under the blanket deal that Conan negotiated for his staff, and that Andy had to negotiate his own severance deal. Given the fact that he's not the same caliber of star that Conan is and that he surely didn't get mega-millions to walk away, he probably doesn't have the same restrictions.


----------



## JYoung

ewolfr said:


> Andy Richter was co-host on Live with Regis and Kelly while Regis was out on vacation last week. He had quite a bit to say during the host chat, he must not be under an NDA like Conan is until September. If you want to see it go here: http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/regisandkelly/host_chat.html and then scroll down and click on March 9.


I see that Richter has selective memory recall.
Quite honestly, I expected better from him.


----------



## Fofer

How so?


----------



## MickeS

Fofer said:


> How so?


For example, the complete fabrication that Conan's ratings were "pretty good" over the summer and then took a dive in the fall when Jay's show started.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

JYoung said:


> I see that Richter has selective memory recall.
> Quite honestly, I expected better from him.


Partisan for sure but it's his view, how could it be otherwise?


----------



## JYoung

MickeS said:


> For example, the complete fabrication that Conan's ratings were "pretty good" over the summer and then took a dive in the fall when Jay's show started.





IJustLikeTivo said:


> Partisan for sure but it's his view, how could it be otherwise?


See above. Saying that their ratings were "pretty good" until Leno's isn't just partisan, it's a lie.

There were other things too that Richter said that I thought were blame deflection.

I don't expect Richter to come out and say "We were making a show that America didn't want to to watch", but he could have been classier about it.


----------



## Roadblock

JYoung said:


> See above. Saying that their ratings were "pretty good" until Leno's isn't just partisan, it's a lie.
> 
> There were other things too that Richter said that I thought were blame deflection.
> 
> I don't expect Richter to come out and say "We were making a show that America didn't want to to watch", but he could have been classier about it.


"Pretty good" is a subjective phrase. At least he's not a thief.


----------



## MickeS

Roadblock said:


> "Pretty good" is a subjective phrase.


Not really, but even if we can pretend that, claiming that the decline happened when Leno's prime time show started is NOT subjective. Conan's ratings were consistently lower than Jay's at the same time period the year before.


----------



## modnar

ewolfr said:


> Andy Richter was co-host on Live with Regis and Kelly while Regis was out on vacation last week. He had quite a bit to say during the host chat, he must not be under an NDA like Conan is until September. If you want to see it go here: http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/regisandkelly/host_chat.html and then scroll down and click on March 9.


Here's a direct link:
http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/bu...485602001&bclid=51729771001&bctid=71013658001


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

JYoung said:


> See above. Saying that their ratings were "pretty good" until Leno's isn't just partisan, it's a lie.
> 
> There were other things too that Richter said that I thought were blame deflection.
> 
> I don't expect Richter to come out and say "We were making a show that America didn't want to to watch", but he could have been classier about it.


I dislike saying he lied. I think he believes that. My guess is that like most on air talent he has very little knowledge of the day to day issues like that.


----------



## Roadblock

MickeS said:


> Conan's ratings were consistently lower than Jay's at the same time period the year before.


And how is that not to be expected? It's a new host. Surely you are aware that Jay's numbers were a big drop from Carson's at first?

Jay's primetime show numbers were great though huh? Do you really think Jay's terrible primetime show had no effect on Conan's numbers?


----------



## Andrew_S

Despite all this discussion, Jay's still not funny. Right?


----------



## Fofer

Right.


----------



## IndyJones1023

Not that I've seen.


----------



## JYoung

Roadblock said:


> And how is that not to be expected? It's a new host. Surely you are aware that Jay's numbers were a big drop from Carson's at first?
> 
> Jay's primetime show numbers were great though huh? Do you really think Jay's terrible primetime show had no effect on Conan's numbers?


You know that this has already been hashed out ad nauseum previously in this thread.


----------



## DavidTigerFan

lol....


----------



## marksman

So I heard a rumor that NBC is considering picking up 24?

Is this Jay Leno's fault?


----------



## MickeS

marksman said:


> So I heard a rumor that NBC is considering picking up 24?
> 
> Is this Jay Leno's fault?


I think that depends on whether it will kill NBC or not.


----------



## Nonyaz

Leno seems to be trying way to hard the last few shows especially the 3/24 one, most of his monologue jokes bombed and the Toyota skit was cringe worthy. If he keeps this up, the slow but steady letterman will overcome him. Not that it will matter, NBC will keep him on regardless, just interesting to see him get flustered trying to keep his lead.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo

Nonyaz said:


> Leno seems to be trying way to hard the last few shows especially the 3/24 one, most of his monologue jokes bombed and the Toyota skit was cringe worthy. If he keeps this up, the slow but steady letterman will overcome him. Not that it will matter, NBC will keep him on regardless, just interesting to see him get flustered trying to keep his lead.


They all have good and bad days. Even JC had some gigantic bombs otherwise the whole tea for two dance would never have happened.

Letterman has his fair share of gags that fall flat as a pancake too.

It will take time for it to shake out. Jay may never completely recover his audience. Some moved on when Coco was on, and won't come back. Give it a few months and we'll figure out what the core ratings really are.


----------



## Roadblock

Slash from Guns & Roses was on the Tonight Show last night and wore an I'm with Coco pin:

http://thegamerzzone.com/2010/04/07/slash-wears-im-with-coco-pin-during-tonight-show-performance/


----------



## morac

According to an article over at the Examiner, Leno's Tonight Show ratings have dropped below what Conan's were. The article state he's actually losing to repeats of Letterman now.


----------



## WhiskeyTango

I think it's just NBC is killing NBC. They lost $223 million on the Olympics and they consider that a win because they expected to lose $250 million.


----------



## stujac

No, I think it's just Dave whipping his butt.


----------



## MickeS

morac said:


> According to an article over at the Examiner, Leno's Tonight Show ratings have dropped below what Conan's were. The article state he's actually losing to repeats of Letterman now.


That's a rather selective reading of the numbers... Leno is #1 in all demos and has the highest overall number of viewers on average. There were a few nights where he lost in the important 18-49 demographic. But to say that his ratings "fall below Conan's" is simply not true overall. However, Jay has IIRC raised the average viewer age quite a bit. Conan drew the younger demo very well, but not much else.


----------



## JYoung

MickeS said:


> That's a rather selective reading of the numbers... Leno is #1 in all demos and has the highest overall number of viewers on average. There were a few nights where he lost in the important 18-49 demographic. But to say that his ratings "fall below Conan's" is simply not true overall. However, Jay has IIRC raised the average viewer age quite a bit. Conan drew the younger demo very well, but not much else.


The author's bias is pretty obvious in that blog as well.
TV By the Numbers has some better charts for comparison.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/22/jay-lenos-tonight-showdips-beats-letterman-repeats/49436

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/22/leno-following-conans-tonight-show-ratings-trajectory/49502

Leno has lost ground and is barely doing better than O'Brien did.
The interesting thing to me though was this.

Looking at the ratings trend, I realized that the problem for O'Brien wasn't so much Leno as it was Letterman.

For the first three months O'Brien's ratings slid to low but ok (or "pretty good" as Andy Richter says) ratings but he was beating Letterman consistently. Letterman was duking it out with Nightline and occasionally getting beat by Nightline.

Then when the blackmail scandal hit, Letterman's numbers jumped, vaulting him past O'Brien.
And enough of those viewers were now staying with Letterman to the point where O'Brien's numbers were sliding lower and loosing to Letterman more often than not.

And that's when NBC panicked.

Leno's definitely taken a ratings hit by all of this and I'm doubtful that he'll ever recover.

But if he beats Letterman and Nightline consistently enough, NBC will probably stand by him.


----------



## ElJay

morac said:


> According to an article over at the Examiner, Leno's Tonight Show ratings have dropped below what Conan's were. The article state he's actually losing to repeats of Letterman now.


I don't think Leno's ratings matter much anymore. As we know, the problem with Leno at 10pm was the affiliates revolting that they had no lead-in to their news. I assume what the affiliates earn from local ad sales during The Tonight Show is a piddling compared to the 11pm news revenue. I think Leno is going to have the show now for as long as he wants it, though it's looking like he may lose the bragging rights of being a dominant #1 that his ego seems to cherish so much.


----------



## MickeS

Agreed. The problem was never really Conan's ratings. Even though they were lower than Jay's I think they would have been fine... if NBC hadn't been waffling so much over the whole thing.


----------



## terpfan1980

JYoung said:


> ... Looking at the ratings trend, I realized that the problem for O'Brien wasn't so much Leno as it was Letterman.
> 
> ... Then when the blackmail scandal hit, Letterman's numbers jumped, vaulting him past O'Brien... And enough of those viewers were now staying with Letterman to the point where O'Brien's numbers were sliding lower and loosing to Letterman more often than not.


Interesting point and probably a great catch. It's impossible to know if Conan would have done ok if NBC hadn't put Leno in that 10pm slot, but certainly having your prime competition drum up an audience thanks to a big scandal didn't help him.

If Letterman continues to hold back Leno it's probably well deserved no matter how creepy some may find Letterman. If it hadn't been for someone else with a very notorious scandal appearing on Leno's show way back when, he probably never would have gotten the audience that he did. So, perhaps it's all a big bit of karma.


----------



## marksman

I didn't know Conan was actually beating Letterman in 18-49 before Leno's primetime show came on.

Jesus NBC....

The biggest issue is people are creatures of habit. NBC has messed around with this stuff so much in a short period of time that they kicked out all kinds of watchers who were doing so out of habit and gave them enough time to come up with a new habit.

Who knows where or why... 

Like Khonani told Jack, sometimes you got to make the tough decision.


----------



## JYoung

ElJay said:


> I don't think Leno's ratings matter much anymore. As we know, the problem with Leno at 10pm was the affiliates revolting that they had no lead-in to their news. I assume what the affiliates earn from local ad sales during The Tonight Show is a piddling compared to the 11pm news revenue. I think Leno is going to have the show now for as long as he wants it, though it's looking like he may lose the bragging rights of being a dominant #1 that his ego seems to cherish so much.


Being #1 also allows for higher advertising rates.
That's why NBC has been crowing about Leno beating Letterman for seven weeks out of seven.



terpfan1980 said:


> Interesting point and probably a great catch. It's impossible to know if Conan would have done ok if NBC hadn't put Leno in that 10pm slot, but certainly having your prime competition drum up an audience thanks to a big scandal didn't help him.
> 
> If Letterman continues to hold back Leno it's probably well deserved no matter how creepy some may find Letterman. If it hadn't been for someone else with a very notorious scandal appearing on Leno's show way back when, he probably never would have gotten the audience that he did. So, perhaps it's all a big bit of karma.


I do think O'Brien lost enough viewers to Letterman to where he wasn't going to make NBC money and I think that they panicked. His 18-49 was falling.

I also think what happens with Letterman's ratings going forward will be dependent with what happens to his blackmailer.

Last time I checked, Letterman only beat Leno one night since Leno returned.
That was the day his blackmailer appeared in court.
(Both Letterman and Leno lost to Nightline when Nightline did a special on the Healthcare Reform bill the day before it's vote.)

If Letterman is truly slated to retire in 2012, and his blackmailer goes to trial instead of taking a plea bargain within that time period, it may be enough to vault him over Leno and allow him to retire on top.

Otherwise, I suspect that Leno will continue to beat Letterman by slim margins until one of them retires.
The next month will be key in determining that, I think.

And I really do think the Leno effect on O'Brien's show was overblown.
Leno hasn't had that much of a better 10 PM lead in than O'Brien did.

Original Law & Order has plummeted to less than Leno Show levels pulling a 1.6 to 1.8.

Parenthood is doing about 2.9 so that's a marked improvement and at least is beating V.

Law & Order: Special Victims pulled a 2.5 this week.

Marriage Ref pulled a 1.9 which is right around Leno levels.

And Dateline has never been a ratings champ.

It looks like NBC managed to not only severely damage their late night lineup with this fiasco, but their entire primetime lineup as well.


----------



## getreal

Leno's reputation has been tainted by the NBC fiasco, but I predict another (perhaps temporary) boost to the Tonight Show ratings when Eubanks is replaced. They will want to milk that opportunity as much as possible. 

Is there any word about replacements? Will it be JUST Kevin, or the whole band leaving?

It will be weird not to hear Eubanks' Mr. Magoo-like cackling laugh at Leno's inanity.


----------



## Kamakzie

getreal said:


> Is there any word about replacements?


Ricky Miner from American Idol is taking his spot.


----------



## getreal

Kamakzie said:


> Ricky Miner from American Idol is taking his spot.


Has that been confirmed? I've never heard'o'da'bum. Google, here I come ...

ETA: Okay, so I was only 11 days behind the times.

Obviously, I'm not watching Leno. I drop in on bits from time to time, but not regularly.


----------



## Enrique

getreal said:


> Obviously, I'm not watching Leno. I drop in on bits from time to time, but not regularly.


I watch Leno every night and I don't remember him saying anything about who would replace Kevin.


----------



## Kamakzie

http://www.popeater.com/2010/04/14/kevin-eubanks-replacement/


----------



## inaka

getreal said:


> Leno's reputation has been tainted by the NBC fiasco, but I predict another (perhaps temporary) boost to the Tonight Show ratings when Eubanks is replaced. They will want to milk that opportunity as much as possible.


I predict it won't make a boost in Leno's ratings at all.


----------



## terpfan1980

getreal said:


> Leno's reputation has been tainted by the NBC fiasco, but I predict another (perhaps temporary) boost to the Tonight Show ratings when Eubanks is replaced. They will want to milk that opportunity as much as possible.
> 
> Is there any word about replacements? Will it be JUST Kevin, or the whole band leaving?
> 
> It will be weird not to hear Eubanks' Mr. Magoo-like cackling laugh at Leno's inanity.





Enrique said:


> I watch Leno every night and I don't remember him saying anything about who would replace Kevin.





inaka said:


> I predict it won't make a boost in Leno's ratings at all.


I didn't read the info at the link up there, nor have I heard/read anything about who will replace Kevin Eubanks, but I think *inaka* is correct, unless he's (Leno's) getting U2 or Greenday or someone like that it won't make a bit of difference, at least not beyond a few days of curiousity (if that).


----------



## DevdogAZ

inaka said:


> I predict it won't make a boost in Leno's ratings at all.


Agreed. Nobody watches The Tonight Show for the band leader, but some people do enjoy the interaction between Jay and Kevin (just like a lot of people can't stand the interaction between Dave and Paul Shafer). If anything, I think it might hurt Leno's ratings a little, as it will take a while for Jay to develop a good repoire with Ricky Minor.


----------



## MickeS

I think it will boost Jay's ratings by 1: Ricky Minor will want to see himself on TV that first evening.


----------



## FilmCritic3000

I just picked this up at Borders (it streets today) before I went into work. I thoroughly loved Bill Carter's book _The Late Shift_, which is an endlessly readable (I've re-read it dozens of times) account of the early '90s late night wars but so much more as well, really digging into the beginnings of Carson, Letterman, and Leno.

But I digress.

I can't wait to devour this book and I'll let everyone know what I think after I've read it.


----------



## Turtleboy

I'm almost finished with the book. I have a little bit more sympathy for Jay -- although I still think he should have told NBC to go eff themselves when they told him they were taking the show away five years ago.

But the real pinheads are Jeff Zucker and his crew.


----------



## LoadStar

Turtleboy said:


> But the real pinheads are Jeff Zucker and his crew.


Of that, I don't think there can be any argument... except perhaps from Zucker and his crew, of course.


----------



## cmontyburns

What a disaster. Recently Leno has been pulling lower numbers in the demo than Conan did, and last week he lost to Letterman in both the demo and in total viewers.


----------



## morac

cmontyburns said:


> What a disaster. Recently Leno has been pulling lower numbers in the demo than Conan did, and last week he lost to Letterman in both the demo and in total viewers.


And The Daily Show beat both Leno and Letterman in October.


----------



## Turtleboy

Ok, I finished it. It wasn't as good as _The Late Shift_, but that's because the underlying story wasn't as interesting.

I'll wait till some other people read it before commenting further.


----------



## Enrique

cmontyburns said:


> What a disaster. Recently Leno has been pulling lower numbers in the demo than Conan did, and last week he lost to Letterman in both the demo and in total viewers.


I think it has nothing to do with Leno, but the loss of Kevin. Leno and Kevin both made the show for me, I stopped watching after Kevin left.


----------



## Neenahboy

Turtleboy said:


> Ok, I finished it. It wasn't as good as _The Late Shift_, but that's because the underlying story wasn't as interesting.
> 
> I'll wait till some other people read it before commenting further.


I'm about 150 pages in and liking it quite a bit. The accounts of behind-the-scenes dealings at NBC have proven enlightening, but I also appreciate that he fleshed out the late night landscape for us. For example, I had no idea that Jon Stewart's talks with ABC prior to the Kimmel offer were so advanced.


----------



## Turtleboy

One thing about Jay is that he has nothing in his life other than getting up and telling jokes, and collecting cars. He doesn't take vacations. If it were up to him, the Tonight Show would run 52 weeks a year. When the show is dark, he's off in Vegas or Boise, or wherever every single night telling jokes. He doesn't travel with his wife. It's like she barely even exists.

The only thing that matters to him is getting up and telling jokes. 

I don't know if it's admirable or sad.


----------



## Langree

Turtleboy said:


> One thing about Jay is that he has nothing in his life other than getting up and telling jokes, and collecting cars. He doesn't take vacations. If it were up to him, the Tonight Show would run 52 weeks a year. When the show is dark, he's off in Vegas or Boise, or wherever every single night telling jokes. He doesn't travel with his wife. It's like she barely even exists.
> 
> The only thing that matters to him is getting up and telling jokes.
> 
> I don't know if it's admirable or sad.


My vote is sad.


----------



## FilmCritic3000

Turtleboy said:


> Ok, I finished it. It wasn't as good as _The Late Shift_, but that's because the underlying story wasn't as interesting.
> 
> I'll wait till some other people read it before commenting further.


I agree re: not as interesting as _The Late Shift_ but I chalk that up to the news not being as readily available to us as it was when Bill Carter's previous book was published. Still, I found this new one to be just as fascinating reading about the machinations of NBC and the fly-on-the-wall stuff was terrific as well.


----------



## Turtleboy

Jeff Zucker didn't come off as a bad person. Sure, he screwed up. He shouldn't have offered Conan the Tonight Show in 2005, and once he did, he should have let Jay go. If what he tried worked, he would have been seen as a genius.

And when Jay was told that he had to give up the Tonight Show, he should have told them to go to hell. Like Letterman says, he should have gone to ABC for Fox or wherever and tried to beat the Tonight Show.

The biggest point I think I got from the whole thing is that everyone needs to get a grip. It's just a job and just a TV show. It's not the "Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson" anymore. It's just the 1135 show on NBC, which is no different than the 1135 show on any other channel, no matter how romanticized it is.


----------



## jsmeeker

Turtleboy said:


> One thing about Jay is that he has nothing in his life other than getting up and telling jokes, and collecting cars. He doesn't take vacations. If it were up to him, the Tonight Show would run 52 weeks a year. When the show is dark, he's off in Vegas or Boise, or wherever every single night telling jokes. He doesn't travel with his wife. It's like she barely even exists.
> 
> The only thing that matters to him is getting up and telling jokes.
> 
> I don't know if it's admirable or sad.


If he really likes telling Bill Clinton and VCRs flashing 12:00 jokes, then I guess it's not sad.


----------



## JYoung

Enrique said:


> I think it has nothing to do with Leno, but the loss of Kevin. Leno and Kevin both made the show for me, I stopped watching after Kevin left.


I would think that the number of fans that stopped watching because the band leader left is a drop in the bucket of the number of fans who were already out of the habit of watching The Tonight Show by the time Jay Leno came back.

Leno's rating plummeted before Eubanks left.



Turtleboy said:


> Jeff Zucker didn't come off as a bad person. Sure, he screwed up. He shouldn't have offered Conan the Tonight Show in 2005, and once he did, he should have let Jay go. If what he tried worked, he would have been seen as a genius.


I don't see how it would have worked long term.
Zucker admitted that they weren't programming for ratings anymore and I think that ratings erosion would have happened across the entire NBC lineup even if Leno's 10 PM show continued to be profitable.


----------



## Turtleboy

In hindsight, it didn't work and couldn't of worked. But there are a lot of things that have been great successes that no one thought would work. 

What I also found interesting was all of the backchannel communications between the shows. They all watch each other, and if someone does a joke that they don't like, they'll call each other and complain. 

As I said far earlier in the thread, and as Smeek alluded to just now, I was actually a fan of Jay Leno's -- until I saw him in concert. When we saw him in May of 2009 (2008?) in Las Vegas, I was really disappointed that his entire act consisted of jokes that seem to have come from his 1994 monologues. Bill Clinton is horny. Mom can't use a VCR. It was very hacky.


----------



## jcondon

Link to Conan's first guest tonight. Weird choice but, well it is Conan.

http://www.tmz.com/person/conan-obrien/

I hope he buries Leno.


----------



## loubob57

jcondon said:


> I hope he buries Leno.


Not gonna happen.

Leno is having W as a guest tonight. He does have a book to plug.


----------



## terpfan1980

jcondon said:


> Link to Conan's first guest tonight. Weird choice but, well it is Conan.
> 
> http://www.tmz.com/person/conan-obrien/
> 
> I hope he buries Leno.





loubob57 said:


> Not gonna happen.
> 
> Leno is having W as a guest tonight. He does have a book to plug.


He may not take it for now, but over time I don't expect Leno will be able to keep his ratings up, especially not in the key demos. Having Coco on earlier gives him a nice head start and if the guests are interesting, it should help his new show be very competitive.


----------



## JYoung

jcondon said:


> Link to Conan's first guest tonight. Weird choice but, well it is Conan.
> 
> http://www.tmz.com/person/conan-obrien/
> 
> I hope he buries Leno.





loubob57 said:


> Not gonna happen.
> 
> Leno is having W as a guest tonight. He does have a book to plug.





terpfan1980 said:


> He may not take it for now, but over time I don't expect Leno will be able to keep his ratings up, especially not in the key demos. Having Coco on earlier gives him a nice head start and if the guests are interesting, it should help his new show be very competitive.


Not sure I agree as I think that those who would watch O'Brien over Leno are already not watching Leno due to the fiasco.

I think that if O'Brien is going to take viewers, it's going to come mostly from Letterman, and Stewart.


----------



## DevdogAZ

Turtleboy said:


> And when Jay was told that he had to give up the Tonight Show, he should have told them to go to hell. Like Letterman says, he should have gone to ABC for Fox or wherever and tried to beat the Tonight Show.


This is my only problem with your analysis here. Sure, it would have been great if Leno told NBC to eff off and went to a competing network just to spite them. But at the time, NBC was offering him more money to move to 10 pm than anyone else. And the move to 10 pm had the potential to be a groundbreaking development in the world of televised comedy. That it turned out to be a major disaster sucks for everyone involved, but I don't think we can really fault Leno for the choice to stick around at NBC given the information he had at the time and the amount of money they were offering him to stay.


jcondon said:


> Link to Conan's first guest tonight. Weird choice but, well it is Conan.
> 
> http://www.tmz.com/person/conan-obrien/
> 
> I hope he buries Leno.


I noticed on my guide data that Conan has Tom Hanks tomorrow night. I'm kind of surprised that both Conan and Hanks couldn't shift some things around to get Tom Hanks as the inaugural guest rather than Seth Rogen, since Hanks is a much, much bigger name.


terpfan1980 said:


> He may not take it for now, but over time I don't expect Leno will be able to keep his ratings up, especially not in the key demos. Having Coco on earlier gives him a nice head start and if the guests are interesting, it should help his new show be very competitive.


The weird thing about Conan being on cable is that he's not necessarily on earlier than Leno/Letterman. Here in Arizona, we get Leno and Letterman at 10:35. Kimmel starts at 11:05. Conan's show won't start (at least on our local cable provider) until midnight. It will have later airings at 2 or 3 am, but the first showing for Cox customers in the Phoenix metro area will be at midnight.


----------



## BK89

I have not watched Leno since the Conan fiasco, even when one of my world champ SF Giants, Brian Wilson, was on last week. I just could not bring myself to sit through Leno...


----------



## trainman

DevdogAZ said:


> The weird thing about Conan being on cable is that he's not necessarily on earlier than Leno/Letterman.


On the other hand, since I have satellite, Conan will be on a lot earlier than the others for me. Leno and Letterman at 11:35, Kimmel at 12:05, Conan at 8:00 (in addition to Stewart/Colbert).


----------



## DevdogAZ

trainman said:


> On the other hand, since I have satellite, Conan will be on a lot earlier than the others for me. Leno and Letterman at 11:35, Kimmel at 12:05, Conan at 8:00 (in addition to Stewart/Colbert).


Do you have both east and west coast feeds or does your provider only provide you the east coast feed?


----------



## smak

DevdogAZ said:


> This is my only problem with your analysis here. Sure, it would have been great if Leno told NBC to eff off and went to a competing network just to spite them. But at the time, NBC was offering him more money to move to 10 pm than anyone else. And the move to 10 pm had the potential to be a groundbreaking development in the world of televised comedy. That it turned out to be a major disaster sucks for everyone involved, but I don't think we can really fault Leno for the choice to stick around at NBC given the information he had at the time and the amount of money they were offering him to stay.


Turtleboy is saying that Leno should have told NBC to eff off, 6 years ago, when they said in 5 years we're replacing you.

-smak-


----------



## smak

JYoung said:


> Not sure I agree as I think that those who would watch O'Brien over Leno are already not watching Leno due to the fiasco.
> 
> I think that if O'Brien is going to take viewers, it's going to come mostly from Letterman, and Stewart.


This isn't good for anybody, except Conan if he does well for TBS.

Leno will probably strengthen his lead, but he will lose viewers. Maybe not as much as Letterman will, but if you lose 200,000 viewers, it's losing 200,000 viewers. Isn't much consolation to the NBC that Dave loses 400,000, except for being #1, but I'm not sure the bragging rights are better than the viewers.

-smak-


----------



## Turtleboy

Another interesting point in the book is that Conan will be on more TVs tonight on TBS than he would have been if he went to Fox, even though TBS is cable and Fox is broadcast. 

That's because many Fox channels are locked into long term contracts to show syndicated Seinfeld or the Office. TBS is on almost 100&#37; of basic cable systems.


----------



## DevdogAZ

smak said:


> Turtleboy is saying that Leno should have told NBC to eff off, 6 years ago, when they said in 5 years we're replacing you.
> 
> -smak-


Hindsight makes that an easy call, but at the time I don't think it was so cut and dried. In 2004, Leno was 54 (I think), had just signed a new contract that would pay him an additional $100+ million over the next five years, and he was then told that at the end of that contract, he'd be replaced. Knowing what he knew at the time, it made more sense to stick with NBC, toe the company line, and continue collecting huge checks.

Sure, he could have been a dick at the time and told NBC that he won't leave until he's ready and that Conan can pry that desk from his cold, dead ass, but what would that have served? Maybe NBC sides with Leno and Conan leaves. Maybe NBC sides with Conan and Leno leaves. Maybe they work out some slightly different succession plan that Leno helps negotiate. But ultimately, knowing what Leno knew at the time, there was no reason to force the issue like that. For all he knew, he might have been happy to give up the show at age 59. In 2004, he had no way of knowing that in 2009 he'd still have #1 ratings and that telling jokes on TV everyday was still the only thing he wanted to do with his life.


----------



## Waldorf

loubob57 said:


> Not gonna happen.
> 
> Leno is having W as a guest tonight. He does have a book to plug.


Inquiring minds want to know... what were the ratings with Conan/Rogan vs Leno/W?

As far as I can find, Conan pulled in around 4.2 million viewers vs Leno's 3.5 million.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sho...grabs-42-million-viewers-in-tbs-premiere.html


----------



## DevdogAZ

Waldorf said:


> Inquiring minds want to know... what were the ratings with Conan/Rogan vs Leno/W?
> 
> As far as I can find, Conan pulled in around 4.2 million viewers vs Leno's 3.5 million.
> 
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sho...grabs-42-million-viewers-in-tbs-premiere.html


And the 18-49 ratings were an even bigger difference. Conan got a 2.5 rating while Leno got a 0.8. (Leno has been averaging about a 0.9-1.0 over the last couple months.)


----------



## ElJay

It will be interesting to see how long Leno hangs around in 2nd or 3rd place. He talked a lot about how he was always "number one" after he was removed from the spot. It's looking increasingly likely that he won't have this "number one" excuse for hanging around anymore.


----------



## DevdogAZ

ElJay said:


> It will be interesting to see how long Leno hangs around in 2nd or 3rd place. He talked a lot about how he was always "number one" after he was removed from the spot. It's looking increasingly likely that he won't have this "number one" excuse for hanging around anymore.


Based on what? He's still been #1 ever since he came back (although with lower ratings and smaller margins between him and Letterman). Just because Conan beats him on Conan's premiere night doesn't mean Conan's ratings are going to stay that high. I'll be shocked if Conan doesn't fall down to a 0.8 or lower after a couple of weeks.

And if you're refering to The Daily Show's ratings in October, those numbers were highly manipulated to get the result Comedy Central wanted in their press release. If you just take the straight ratings, Leno is still the #1 rated late-night show.


----------



## trainman

DevdogAZ said:


> Do you have both east and west coast feeds or does your provider only provide you the east coast feed?


The answer will be the same for everyone who has DirecTV or Dish Network: they both carry only East Coast feeds of most channels. On DirecTV, the exceptions are a handful of the premium movie channels, plus the main kids' channels (Disney, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network), for which they carry both East and West feeds.


----------



## LoadStar

DevdogAZ said:


> Do you have both east and west coast feeds or does your provider only provide you the east coast feed?


I'm not sure that TBS has a east/west feed. Based on a quick web search, they apparently had one at one point, but I think they may have discontinued it.

They're referring to the 1:00 AM ET broadcast on the "east coast" feed as the west coast broadcast.

Edit: I guess they do have a west coast feed (based on this forum post). I guess since neither DTV nor Dish use it, they're still rebroadcasting the show at 1 AM ET for west coast viewers who only get the east coast feed.

Edit again: apparently the west coast HD is very new. It started in June of this year. Looks like the west coast SD feed started in 2003.


----------



## DevdogAZ

All I know is that whatever feed my cable provider has shows the first airing of Conan at midnight. If it were the East Coast feed, we should be getting the show at 9 pm.


----------



## cmontyburns

DevdogAZ said:


> And the 18-49 ratings were an even bigger difference. Conan got a 2.5 rating while Leno got a 0.8. (Leno has been averaging about a 0.9-1.0 over the last couple months.)


And in 18-34 the disparity is even worse: 2.45 million for Conan, 350,000 for Jay.


----------



## USAFSSO

Why do premier night numbers even matter. The first night is always going to be big. Especially when you want to see what he says about the NBC fiasco. Give it a few weeks.

But, for Diretv viewers, it wont affect it much. I get it a 9pm, and again at 11.


----------



## dswallow

USAFSSO said:


> Why do premier night numbers even matter. The first night is always going to be big. Especially when you want to see what he says about the NBC fiasco. Give it a few weeks.
> 
> But, for Diretv viewers, it wont affect it much. I get it a 9pm, and again at 11.


If premiere night flopped, that would mean something.


----------



## smak

2.8 million Tuesday
2.7 million Wednesday

1.4 rating 18-49 vs Leno's 1.1 on Wednesday.

-smak-


----------

