the Leno Effect on affiliates

[TAFKA wacowx]

Originally Posted by Pro

NBC would have had to put on at least four new dramas (or reality shows) at 10 PM. That's a LOT of untested shows to go up against the CSI's and such.

Yet it's also 4-5 opportunities for fresh shows that MIGHT in fact, pull in viewers. By putting, what is essentially the same show in a slot 5 nights a week you eliminate the possibility of something different becoming a success.

I agree with you that the news product should be able to stand on its own and attract viewers dispite a poor lead-in, but 'untested shows' find viewers and become successes year-in and year-out.

[Roy Hobbs]

I'm still pondering why Matt would be watching Charlie's Angels.

[Pro]

Originally Posted by TAFKA wacowx

Yet it's also 4-5 opportunities for fresh shows that MIGHT in fact, pull in viewers.

The key word is "might". But you forgot to mention what the cost would be. NBC was spending hundreds of millions of dollars for failed show after failed show. How long could they - or anyone - continue to do that? Especially in this economy. And this had been going on for years.

It's easy to spend someone else's money, isn't it?

Originally Posted by TAFKA wacowx

I agree with you that the news product should be able to stand on its own and attract viewers dispite a poor lead-in, but 'untested shows' find viewers and become successes year-in and year-out.

Not on NBC they haven't. Not at 10PM (the most expensive time period) in the past several seasons, anyway.

[Clever Login Name]

Originally Posted by Roy Hobbs

I'm still pondering why Matt would be watching Charlie's Angels.

For the fashions?

[TVMattNYC]

Originally Posted by Roy Hobbs

I'm still pondering why Matt would be watching Charlie's Angels.

The inner lesbian in me always wanted to be Sabrina Duncan!

[News Is Broken]

Wait.... gay guys have an inner lesbian? WTF?

[Pro]

Back on-topic. Leno's take on the situation:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...w_With_B_C.php

[wx or not]

One unanswered question I would have posed: Why did he move out of 11:35? He made it originally sound (in 2007) as if he was being gracious to Conan, saying he would step aside in 2009.

[Pro]

Originally Posted by wx or not

One unanswered question I would have posed: Why did he move out of 11:35? He made it originally sound (in 2007) as if he was being gracious to Conan, saying he would step aside in 2009.

He didn't have a choice. NBC told him in 2005 (I believe) that when his contract ended in 2009, it would not be renewed. NBC signed him to a new deal to do 10 PM only when it became obvious that either ABC or Fox would snatch him up as soon as his previous NBC deal allowed.

When Leno made that remark in 2007, he didn't want to be seen as the "bad guy" in the situation. He didn't want to seem bitter. But when ABC and Fox made public statements saying they'd be interested in talking to Leno, Leno responded in kind (since his NBC contract prohibited any direct negotiations with competitors until it expired).

As Leno said when he announced his 10 PM deal: "The stories about me going to ABC were just rumors started by a disgruntled NBC employee - Me!"

[TAFKA wacowx]

Originally Posted by Pro

NBC signed him to a new deal to do 10 PM only when it became obvious that either ABC or Fox would snatch him up as soon as his previous NBC deal allowed.

Well what did NBC think he was going to do? Retire?

Think about this: you fail to sign somebody for an extension to his or her contract, then somehow you just realize he might go to a competitor and you quickly resign him to another inhouse gig? Strange.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Jay Leno is not funny.

This post has been brought to you by Another Snide.

[Pro]

Originally Posted by TAFKA wacowx

Well what did NBC think he was going to do? Retire?

Think about this: you fail to sign somebody for an extension to his or her contract, then somehow you just realize he might go to a competitor and you quickly resign him to another inhouse gig? Strange.

The "experts" at NBC were sure that Leno's numbers would go down as the years passed. Especially the all-important 18-35 demo. They saw O'Brien as the salvation; HE'D keep the Tonight Show's younger demos, and even improve them. That's what NBC thought. And O'Brien was being courted by ABC and Fox in 2005 (his contract with NBC was expiring). By 2009, they were sure Leno's numbers would slip. If he went to another network, he'd be "damaged goods" - or so NBC thought in 2005. NBC wasn't so sure Jay would even WANT to stay on television - he was a stand-up comedy guy and could make almost as much money on national comedy concert tours. After all, Jay's pal Jerry Seinfeld gave up the number one show in prime-time in order to do extremely lucrative tours and other projects.

Well, we all know what happened....Leno's numbers increased during the four year "interim". The critics, who had been knocking him for years, were coming over to his side. And Leno let it be known that he wanted to stay in television. He still loved doing a late-night talk/comedy show. In this interview, linked above, Leno said, in effect, that if he had his way, he'd still be doing The Tonight Show.

I read in earlier interviews that Jay had to be convinced by NBC to do the 10 PM show. He was skeptical, at first. He was mentally prepared to slide over to 11:35 on ABC or Fox for the Fall of 2008. NBC had to talk him into taking their 10 PM offer. They were desperate tp keep BOTH Leno and O'Brien. And since they were already having the sh!t kicked out of them at 10 PM.......

[Sultanosurf]

It ain't about Leno, it's about network commitment to original programming. Shows like "ER" are expensive as hell to produce, with nets and their production partners hoping to earn dough back in syndication. NBC and their parent company did a bad job developing new shows while leaning on "Law & Order" ad nauseum. They also left the door open for other nets to grab one of their big tickets - sitcoms.

Say what you want about Ed Ansin, but he was right, and the affiliates aren't just nervous, they're screaming. "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" or other stunt programming rarely has legs, as NBC is finding with Leno. And don't think this is all about lead-in. Nobody's brought up the considerable revenue lost when a local station can't sell time on a competitive show at 10-11...

[Pro]

OK, let's look at what NBC would have probably have run had they NOT put Leno on at 10:

Monday: Medium
Tuesday: Biggest Loser? new drama? new reality show?
Wednesday: Law and Order.
Thursday: Southland (?).
Friday: Dateline.

Is that what the affiliates are so upset about? That these "winners" weren't leading in to their late local news? Meanwhile, Leno would be on ABC locked in a tight race with Letterman at 11:35 - with O'Brien battling cable for the rest.

[Kace]

Speaking of cable, George Lopez debuts on TBS this month.

[Sultanosurf]

Originally Posted by Pro

OK, let's look at what NBC would have probably have run had they NOT put Leno on at 10

They'd still have better numbers than they do now. Which is the whole point.

Originally Posted by Roy Hobbs

I once was introduced to Jaclyn Smith while she was shooting "Angels" on a casino floor in South Lake Tahoe (Sahara?). Absolutely the most beautiful woman I've ever met, still. Flawless. And I'd also met Fawcett. But there's no way I dreamed Smith had the above kind of... er... décolletage...

Wow.

[Pro]

Originally Posted by Sultanosurf

They'd still have better numbers than they do now. Which is the whole point.

I thought the whole point of ANY business was to make a profit. As much profit as you can. And NBC profits more - financially - with Leno at 10 than the other shows they could have put in the slot.

[Sultanosurf]

Originally Posted by Pro

I thought the whole point of ANY business was to make a profit. As much profit as you can. And NBC profits more - financially - with Leno at 10 than the other shows they could have put in the slot.

C'mon, Pro. Get real. I could give you some long-winded answer, but you're bright enough to realize the statement above is just absurd on so many fronts.

Leno was an OK stopgap, but if you've got a remote in your hand and the choice is something new or Leno again, something new's gonna win. Strips just have limited appeal. Maybe it'll be a new owner, or maybe NBC saved some dough and bought some time to reload, but the public's already voting with their remotes, and the returns just aren't the type that sustain the network model.

[i'm in touch, so you be in touch]

Originally Posted by Pro

I thought the whole point of ANY business was to make a profit. As much profit as you can. And NBC profits more - financially - with Leno at 10 than the other shows they could have put in the slot.

Do you honestly think NBC can make more with a cheap talk show than a quality-produced, network-owned drama? The talk show is a one-shot deal. A great drama offers the potential for:
- foreign distribution
- syndication
- DVD sales
- spinoffs featuring all of the above.

I think a great drama has more potential as a revenue driver than a cheap talk show.

[Jane Craig]

The odds are strongly against creating a great drama, so the cost/benefit analysis is problematic. And NBC is on the block -- long-range consequences mean little, if anything, to current management.

While I deplore the move in principle, when you look through their lens (cut costs to the bone, maximize ROI, don't worry about late news or late fringe -- in fact, worry about nothing but the current balance sheet) it makes a warped sort of sense. Too bad the show is terminally lame -- won't do much better vs. reruns either, I'm guessing.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Originally Posted by Jane Craig

The odds are strongly against creating a great drama, so the cost/benefit analysis is problematic.

Look everybody, it's a woman trying to talk about finances! How cute!

[horseshoe island]

I would re-examine this claim that the network is making so much more money on these lower costs that its ultimately profitable. You're not factoring in the loss of #1 late nights from this move, which used to be a big cash cow for NBC.

If they had any smarts left, they'd put Leno back on the Tonight Show, let the floundering Conan go to another network (please), and get some creative dramas in that 10:00...you'll never have the next huge hit if you never try. Remember how a throwaway show called "Dallas" became such a huge sensation?

[Jane Craig]

I'd much rather see a decent drama as well. But if you are a network that doesn't care about quality or about the future, just short-term profit and keeping costs low, you're not going to make the investment in a "maybe" and will settle for the certainty of a profitable turkey.

It's sad, but that's their reality. And if they want to bail from that reality, their other option is to cut an hour of prime altogether and put NBC on the FOX schedule.

[Pro]

Originally Posted by Sultanosurf

the returns just aren't the type that sustain the network model.

. The network model circa 1950-2000 perhaps. This is a new era. Do you realize how much money NBC lost trying to program 10 PM in the past few years?

Originally Posted by i'm in touch, so you be in touch

Do you honestly think NBC can make more with a cheap talk show than a quality-produced, network-owned drama?

Yep, if the show tanks - as so many of NBC's 10 PM dramas have over the past few years.

Originally Posted by i'm in touch, so you be in touch

A great drama offers the potential for:
- foreign distribution
- syndication
- DVD sales
- spinoffs featuring all of the above.

.

And all of that happens if the show is a hit. NBC hasn't had any 10 PM hit dramas in a long, long time. Besides all of those "potentials" you list goes to the studio, not to the network. I realize that on a few occasions, NBC-U is both the studio AND the distributor. But that's taking even more of a risk. That hasn't worked out well for them recently, has it?

Originally Posted by Sultanosurf

If they had any smarts left, they'd put Leno back on the Tonight Show, let the floundering Conan go to another network (please), and get some creative dramas in that 10:00...you'll never have the next huge hit if you never try. Remember how a throwaway show called "Dallas" became such a huge sensation?

.

If NBC did that, they'd owe O'Brien a HUGE amount of money. Maybe as much as 30, 40 or 50 million dollars. They have a long term deal with him (remember, O'Brien had leverage in 2005).

And for every Dallas, I'd daresay that at least 10 prime time dramas sunk in their first season. And cost just as much to make. Remember "Studio 60"? The profits just aren't there anymore to subsidize those kinds of chances. This isn't the 1970's.

Originally Posted by horseshoe island

their other option is to cut an hour of prime altogether and put NBC on the FOX schedule.

NBC won't ever give that hour up. They've had it for 50+ years. Fox never had it to begin with. It is one way they were able to sign up affiliates; by giving them an hour or prime time. They (Fox) never had plans for that hour, anyway. They knew how expensive it would be to program it.

[i'm in touch, so you be in touch]

How are networks like TNT, USA and Lifetime producing hour-long dramas? They have to have even smaller budgets, but they get the job done and the series seem to flourish there, even with big-name talent. NBC was in a panic because they wanted to get rid of Jay, while not losing him to another network. So they kept him and dumped their 10pm dramas. Big mistake. Let Jay go and start developing some series based on characters and content, not the stars who will appear in them.