Leno moves nightly to primetime

Yes.  But one that would be an excellent trend to continue.  Scripted TV needs to prove it can hold its own where ever possible.

I partially retract my earlier remark about Castle. The 'bump' I commented on may be more a result of a couple-of-minute DWTS overrun than anything else. Castle's numbers dropped in the second half hour and the program skews old. That has been ongoing and is likely to worsen when Castle has to follow The Bachelor.

This would be the case if the airwaves were unregulated, but the advertiser-driven focus is made more complex by FCC mandates which require that broadcast networks provide certain services to their viewers in exchange for a license to use the public's airwaves. Networks make their money off appealing to advertisers, but they are essentially renting their platform from us, the public.
Part of it derives from the macro state of network programming today. NBC has made bad choices for so long that their schedule is in tatters. They have very few shows to use as anchors to launch new shows, and they have very little fertile space in which to nuture existing programming. It took them a long time to get into this state, and it'll take them a long time to get out of it. Part of the reason I think launching the Jay Leno Show was shortsided is because, while it helps the network's bottomline in the near term, it essentially blocks NBC from ever returning to #1 again. You can't be the top network of television with only 10 hours of primetime a week. The 10:00 hour is one of the key things that keeps CBS dominant over FOX most nights in overall viewers.

"House" is the number one show on television, but it's also helped by being on the number one network. The success of "House" will help "Lie to Me" grow when it premieres next week,  which will in turn help the affiliates' local news broadcasts. Most of NBC's surviving "hits" date back to Kevin Reilly's tenure at NBC. When NBC dumped him for the disasterous Silverman, FOX swooped him up and he's worked his magic on a much bigger stage.

Quote:
Yes, you can be.  Fox arguably is/does, at least if you're just counting scripted programming. 

CBS might have comparable audience to Fox, but they spend far more to accomplish that feat.  It's good thing, for CBS' execs, that the company is far more closely-held.

CBS does a way better job of horizontal marketing of their scripted programming across multiple platforms and making money off of it, and they develop more of their own programming.  This makes scripted programming far more valuable to CBS then NBC, true.

I'm sure NBC would love if they hadn't passed on house (which is an NBC/Universal production airing on Fox) but that's decision making for you :)

CBS made the same mistake with Medium, clearly shown by their taking the show as sloppy seconds when NBC released their hold on it.

PeeWee Herman, 20 years past relevancy, making a plate at a salad bar. This is what Leno has come to? This is what NBC is betting its future on?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3ic1a340c9e2d852e5c71c767e50baa19c

You can quibble about it, but money is money.  Even if that number is inflated, there is still enough money to be made to make this change worthwhile to NBC.

But not because it is a lot of money: Rather strictly because the costs are too high, and the benefits are too low, for scripted programming. 

I can look forward to learning more about salad bars from once-forgotten stars!

I read that too. To me, the big question in all this is how it's going to affect NBC's ad rates. If over time, Leno ends up delivering (on average) the same kind of numbers he was delivering at 11:35 p.m., are media buyers going to pay a premium to NBC for that same audience delivery just because it comes an earlier hour? I think not. Granted, the program can be produced for a lot less money than a scripted drama, but if NBC has to drop its drawers on rate, it may wind up being only slightly better than a wash on paper. Plus, there is virtually no residual revenue to be derived from syndication or home video rights.

How this impacts affiliates is potentially even more devastating. In a small to medium sized market where an affiliate (back in the salad days of ER) may have been able to get $800-$1,000 for a local :30 second spot, they now could have to settle for as little as $75-$150 for that same ad. If an affiliate relies on that 10-11 p.m. ad revenue to help make its annual operating budget, the situation could get dire pretty quickly. How does the network make this revenue loss up to the affiliate? With more local avails? If so, where does that inventory come from? If it's a giveback from the network, then that's less ad money going to NBC. If they add more (or longer) commercial breaks to the show, that may further affect Jay's ability to compete.

I have a feeling repercussions of this "experiment" will be felt in ways NBC never counted on...and for years to come.

I think it is ridiculous to assume that NBC hasn't though of all the implications and possibilities that we viewers bandy about online.  They're not idiots, despite some of the self-serving but essentially baseless protestations to the contrary. 

One minor problem with this:   Tuesday night Letterman pulled a 4.0.. and Conan pulled a 2.0.  So, while they "make" $300M on Leno at 9, they lose money they were making when the tonight show was pulling 5.1 share..

One other problem... affiliates are finding their local news casts now have nearly worthless advertising rates.  NBCU doesn't have to figure that into their national in/out, but local affiliates do, and if they aren't an NBCU owned affiliate (numerous) it's kind of bad.

 

Promoting how well they will do on Leno short sells the impact this entire change makes elsewhere.  It also isn't a fair example because it says "here's how much profit we will make: $300M!"  But it doesn't say "because scripted at a higher # was break even, $0 total gross after advertising revenue"

In fact, in week-after-week, "The Tonight Show" is down over 60% in ratings. and the Late Show is down over 50%. 

Surprisingly, juts because you have a position of authority in a company doesn't make you a genious or all of your decisions correct.

But, on the good news front, I can now buy ad space during the NBC Nightly News local cast at less then I can pay TimeWarner for generic cable advertising.  That's a first.  

Not to turn this into a pissing contest, but if this remark is directed at me, then I take some offense to it. I do not feel my post is "...baseless protestations to the contrary" as you put it. I am not a media buyer, but I work in media and as part of my position, I do have to place a TV buy 3 or 4 times each year. I know for a fact that in Fall 2008, I was paying $75 a pop to the local NBC affiliate (not an O&O) for a :30 second avail in the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. This is when Jay was getting comparable (or better) numbers than he currently is at 10 p.m. There is no way I can cost-justify spending much more than that for Jay at 10 p.m. unless there is an exponential spike in audience delivery. So far, that isn't happening. My corporate supervisors would have my head. And I do not think my situation is unique either, especially for anyone who works in a smaller market. As Matt succinctly points out, "...just because you have a position of authority in a company doesn't make you a genius or all of your decisions correct." And I completely agree with him when he says that "...Promoting how well they (NBC) will do on Leno short sells the impact this entire change makes elsewhere."

If the nightly local news ad rates are now down the toilet, is it necessarily Leno's fault? Or might it be Conan's fault? Are Leno fans turning off the TV after watching Leno now that they don't have to stay up so late? Or are they switching over to The Daily Show which also starts at eleven and may have more merit in content than the local news?

Conan fans would most likely never watch the local news, preferring to watch The Daily Show and record The Colbert Report for later viewing.

The way I see it, it may all come down to old vs young. Older people are more inclined to watch live broadcasts, while young people will be more inclined to record or download their favourite shows and watch them at their convenience. Do the Nielsen ratings even take this into consideration at all?

Age of viewers is definitely part of what is reported.  Then advertisers can use that information as they see fit, based on who they believe their advertisements will prompt to buy their products and services.  

In the end, do keep in mind that ratings are falling, precipitously, overall.  People are simply watching less television (a recent study showed a remarkable spike in Internet activity, just as one example of where attention previously aimed at television is clearly moving to), and spreading their television watching over a larger number of channels.  So attributing any decreases to solely one factor is ridiculous.  

Francois-

 

Your argument would be good except that other local markets aren't reporting a steep drop in the nightly news, or at least aren't reflected it in ad value.

And, while everyone talks up the daily show, there are a large group of people, in that "young parent" group and "local sports fan" group and "local weather" group who like seeing that content.  Hell, the internet won't tell me anything about elementary school closings until a fair clip later then the local news.

While you may be right, it could be conan's fault, that still makes it NBC's fault.


Here's what happened:

They went from a weighted average 2.6 Share at 10PM to a hoped for 1.6.
They went from a 5 share for Tonight Show to a 2.
And a 3.1 Share for 12:30 to a 1.6 share.

How "profitable" a single show is to the network doesn't mean everything.. it may be paper profitable, true.  Hell, they could run an infomercial and be wicked profitable to the network.  

But the profit the show generates has to be gaged against what it made.
 

I'll take for example, Law & Order SVU last year, a 10PM slot show.
Let's say the ratings were "eh" but looking at Wiki and some google, it did about a 3.5share.. slightly over double what Leno gets.

So, let's say cost figured in it made the network a profit of $20M.  So, that's one night a week.  NBC also had two nights a week last year of airing "Dateline".  "Dateline", a news program, is CHEAPER then Leno to produce.  And, it gained slightly higher ratings (slightly, roughly the same right now)  Dateline also had the perk of accomplishing the goal of meeting NBC's FCC Licensing requirements.  So, NBC will still end up running Dateline here and there, it will now just drop into a timespot taken away from higher rating programming.

You add all of those things up, you see where the profit/loss for them last year was, and THEN you take Jay's $300M profit on the show.  You probably make SOME money, but it's not as though you're $300M ahead of last year.  And if The Tonight Show and Fallon continue to tank, the profitability made on that one show quickly gets swallowed up.  If Vivendi thought that suddenly an extra $300M in over the line profit was being added in, I don't know if they'd be as quick to ramp up this sell of their 20% stake.

Ratings in general are down as more choices are out there.  But NBC cannot be leading the pack in a super-fast bullet run to the floor while their competition holds / gains ground off their losses.

You assume more rational and long-term thinking than may actually be present in a large company*. NBC may have thought this through with a forward looking business plan. Or they may have simply said, "We need cheaper shows with decent ratings to survive the next 12 months. Call Leno!"


And I'm still hoping someone can explain to me the salad bar "gag" with Leno and PeeWee Herman. It's like they set up a joke and forgot the punchline.

* Large companies act like idiots routinely; definitely from a longer-term, looking perspective and sometimes from an it's-obvious-to-the-peons perspective. They demonstrably do not consider the long term repurcussions of their actions; or at least don't care because short-term incentives are too large.(Lehman Brothers and AIG, who clearly didn't think through "all the implications and possibilities" of their business plans) And I think it's not uncommon to be driven by internal power struggles as much as reasoned planning. (GM devolving Saturn from a game-changer to a normal auto shop due to attacks frgom other GM businesses.)

* People posting online act like idiots an order of magnitude or two more often than large companies.

Brian:

I don't know what's up with the need to insult people, but I haven't seen anyone here say something that is completely unsupportable through current widely available data or anecdotal evidence.  While I prefer the empirical evidence as a means to justify my claims, I haven't seen anyone say something, including yourself that cannot be reasonably argued.

So, it'd probably be good to knock of the ad hominems.

It is strange to see you write that given that my comments directly mirrored your own, just with a different, indeterminate set of people as the target.  You have a double-standard: The people you want to insult, it is okay to insult them, but the people you like, it isn't okay to insult them.  

I think you should take your advice to heart: Recognize and acknowledge that large companies don't regularly act like idiots.  Recognize and acknowledge that the needs of consumerists need to be balanced with the needs of investors, and the needs of taxpayers, and the needs of employees, and the needs of communities, etc.  The extremism you've put forward against the networks is the root of the problem.

 
I think you may be reading something into what I'm saying.  All of us here, in every thread, criticize and chastise television programs which we don't like, we comment when a show seems to be going downhill.  That is the nature of being a consumer.  And, you can disagree with everything we think.  And, you've been a good advocate of the point of view of the network, though it's one many here disagree with.

But no one in this thread, to my following, has ever referred to you personally in negative tones or used ad hominem directed against you.  We've addressed an argument we don't agree with.

As far as insulting NBC, we don't have to, media buyers are doing that for us.  Law & Order SVU went down from a 3.8/share last year to a 2.6 last night.  If it was losing money at 10PM with a 3.8, then I don't see how it's doing any better where it is now.

But while I chastise NBC for what I feel is a short sighted plan that in the longterm hurts - far more then if they just ran Dateline 3 nights a week and some reality program 2 (JMHO),

As is pointed out above, large business make errors.  We make errors.  Everyone makes errors.  But the expression of what we think about the judgement of a company is something everyone can voice their own thoughts about. 

But no one on this side of the argument is calling individuals who we know here as anything for expressing their opinion.  I'm glad you have your opinion.  I just think you're wrong.   And I say this not as someone who hates the networks.  Hell, I have GE stock, I hope they do well.

I'm saying this not as someone crabby and bitchy about my viewpoint.

 

I believe companies don't regularly act like idiots.  I think in the bevy of programming available on cable and networks, you're seeing several networks who are being absolute genious in their programming choices and making splashes which have helped them be far more profitable.  Bravo has turned cheap reality shows into drama that draws advertisers and eyeballs, while putting forward reality-game shows that get big (for cable) ratings.  SyFy has been the king of developing incredibly cheap serialized drama like "Warehouse 13" and "Eureka" both of which, per episode, are less then $1M, which is breakthrough dollar range for their worth.

There are several networks even under the Universal header that are trying unique things and making a go at it. 

I just don't buy into NBC's strategy.  Sorry.  But that doesn't make me a self centered idiot.  And it doesn't mean I'm not thinking of it as an investment strategy, or how the network can see it.  
 

Zucker made it clear last year that he thinks NBC is done "trying to be #1" and he wants to be profitable on the ground.  And that's fine.  Only time will tell longterm how this plays out.  But if NBC finds things going the same direction - Jay profitable while the Tonight Show loses ground and it's previous network programming has big drops in rating #s while other networks see ratings hold steady, then I don't know how he can call it a "success", from any measuring stick.

Indeed. But you seem to consistently assume a level of skill and rational behavior in large companies in general and of NBC in particular that (in my experience) isn't necessarily warranted.

Quote:

I don't agree, though, that blatant and unchecked consumerism is necessarily a good thing.  No perspective ever deserves an unrebutted soap-box.  Such destructive constructs inextricably lead to some folks getting the idea that such a one-sided perspective should actually prevail.  It justifies, in the minds of folks who lose sight of the balance, assumptions and unfounded expectations, which themselves drive even more and deeper levels of disappointment and dissatisfaction.  I see nothing positive coming out of such a thing.

Quote:

I appreciate that.

Quote:

As have I.  I suspect your negative reaction to what I've written makes you think you've seen ad hominem attacks from me.  You're mistaken.  I've responded in-kind -- exactly mirroring the context of the comments being responded to.  

Quote:

Many of the assertions here project the message that everything a consumer doesn't like is something that a large business did wrong.  That extremism is ridiculous (literally).  Expect that each time you assert that someone else has made a mistake, that there is someone who disagrees, and that their perspective is worthy of being presented to directly counter your own.

Quote:

Ditto.

Quote:
I disagree.  In my experience, including twenty years effectively comparing consumers' opinions about what is best for a business versus the business' opinions about what is best for the business, I can say with confidence that the percentage of times that the consumers were right and the businesses were wrong was remarkably small.  Consumers tend to be maniacally focused on their own concerns, and very rarely have the professionalism, expertise, experience, insights, research data, and inclination to think about what's really best for the investors of a company... even consumers who are themselves investors and claim to have such perspective.  Now, it's been ten years since I retired from that business, but if anything consumers have gotten more myopic, more self-motivated, more innately fearful and antagonistic towards large companies.  People claim good reasons, but not objective reasons.  They base their assertions on faulty assumptions, and on selected realms of consideration.  

Do large businesses make mistakes?  Occasionally, yes.  More often, though, what consumerists choose to call "mistakes" are simply reasonable gambles that don't pan out.  That's another indicator of the innate bias the colors the vast majority of curmudgeony.  However, let's grant that very occasionally large businesses make mistakes: Are there occasions where consumers actually foresaw a correct decision?  Almost never.  That's not to say some curmudgeon might not have actually suggested an approach that might, coincidentally, have worked better, but that's not the same as making a better decision.  That's simply rolling the dice and coming up with a winning roll.  So effectively, the curmudgeons are claiming primacy because they put their chips on the right spot on the craps table, claiming that that was something other than different luck.

And it is all pointless.  That's the really funny thing.  It is pointless.  What the consumers really are saying is that they wish something was different.  They want something.  They have a desire.  They prefer something.  They project that as a better business decision for the business simply to make it seem more important than it really is, implicitly saying that their own wishes, wants, desires, preferences are meaningless, worthless, etc.  The projection of one's preference over the business decision of professionals actually tasked with the responsibility for making the best decisions for a business is most often just a reflection of a feeling of inferiority by the curmudgeon, so often the case that it is relatively safe making that assumption in practically all cases.

Consumers should be consumers.  They should wish, they should want, they should desire, they should prefer. 

I saw the clip of Pee Wee on Leno. Everybody seemed to hate it.  I'm in the minority since it was good to see Pee Wee these days.  Yeah, he's a little creepy but that adds to his odd appeal.  I'm a Pee Wee fan from way back, when I saw that special he did on HBO in the early 80s, and probably saw him in the odd movie now and then even before that.  It's a good act he had going.

Not sure about the new leno show because I didn't really watch the old one.  Haha!  He seemed personable with Pee Wee.  He did good letting Pee Wee get the laughs.  ...I didn't see the salad bar thing mentioned above.  It wasn't included in the clip I saw.  Sounds very "Lettermen"...or maybe daytime talk show material. 

This where I diverge. I perceive that business consistently make mistakes. However the game is to be the least unsuccessful company in the marketplace (which is different from not making mistakes and being the most successful).

But I may be cynically colored from my own particular non-consumer driven sector.

(as for consumers knowing less than the businesses they criticize, I can believe that.)


I also caught the Green Car Challenge, I think it was. Middle aged men driving a Ford Focus slowly around a track while ping-pong balls are shot at them. The idea was funny. The execution was funny for the first 30 seconds, but then it dragged out for 10 more minutes. It's stuff I can enjoy in the background while getting ready for bed and don't want to bring up an NCIS or L&O on Tivo. It's not that it's good TV; it's amusing background noise. I don't want to root against Leno per se; but I hate seeing potentially great scripted TV killed for this.

The caught that challenge later.  Made me think of "Top Gear".. I'd love to see that in the US, but not without Clarkson.  It just wouldn't be the same.

NBC had a bad night in the ratings on Thursday. It's 8-10 comedy block is in free-fall mode with The Office being the only program to draw more than 7 million 18-49 viewers to the network (good for third place) the entire night. Leno scored a 1.7/5 rating/share (4.99 million viewers) compared to Grey's Anatomy 6.7/18 (16.52 million viewers) and The Mentalist 3.4/9 (14.33 million viewers.) No matter you how you spin it or slice it, to only deliver a 1.7 Thursday night at 10 p.m. (aka the number one place a network has to promote its shows all week) is flat-out not good. The ironic thing is that if this keeps up, the Jay Leno Show may wind up being one of the only bright spots on NBC's schedule.

You know, over the summer, in June, NBC pulled the impossible as "Kings" scored a 0.0/0 Share, Nielson "unmeasurable"   Damn the CW for cancelling "This Beautiful Life" which had a chance to be only the second major network show to pull off that feat.  I'm very interested in NBC's #s tonight....

If NBC was being honest about what they needed, pulling a 1.7 versus that competition is a big win for them and not bad for their affiliate news shows.  I know that that is going to go down like cod liver oil for the folks who were hoping and praying for justification for their condemnations of NBC. It is becoming clearer and clearer that NBC made a great decision.

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