nhfarber Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I don't understand this outcry for Conan. He pushed Leno out when Leno was not ready to give up his spot and he hasn't performed well in the ratings since taking over. To me, the only mistake NBC made was promising him the job in the first place. I think that's an unfair characerization of the situation. NBC gave Conan an contractual guarantee that he would take over from Leno in 2009. This was a decision made by Leno, Conan and the network. The decision to late move Leno to a 10pm show was not Conan's doing. The biggest issue for Conan is that he has no legitimate lead in. When leno was doing the show NBC always had relatively strong shows leading into the news which lead into the Tonight show. When NBC made the decision to move Leno to 10pm it killed Conan. Leno's show at 10 has been TERRIBLE. The ratings have plummeted and it has affected the viewership of the Tonight Show. Basically because Leno is performing poorly it is hurting Conan's ratings. Let's also not forget that Conan has moved his entire family, all his staff, all his staff's families from New York to LA to do this show, and now NBC is telling him 9 months later sorry for all your trouble but it isn't working out. NBC has to be the worst run network out there right now, these guys continue to show how incompetent they are by mismanaging talent. I don't blame Conan for being pissed off at being jerked around, I hope he follows through on his threat and walks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I don't think lead-ins have anything to do with Conan's ratings. Are people really lazy enough that they won't change the channel to watch the show they prefer? Personally, I don't think Conan is a good fit for 11:30. His audience is far different than Leno's or Letterman's. He a lot whackier and off the wall. I think his style is much better suited for the later time slot. Regardless of what NBC airs at 10 PM, I think Leno would still beat Letterman, while Conan can't. As for NBC being a poorly run network, that's definitely true. Hopefully the newer ownership will turn things around. At least they listened to the fans and brought Chuck back. Hopefully they don't cancel out that good decision when renewing shows this spring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trizzak Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quebecois Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 At the time, it was a great idea. They were going to lose Conan unless they ensured he'd get The Tonight Show and Jay Leno told them he'd be ready to retire in 2009. There was a big fuss when Letterman got passed over in favor of Leno when Johnny Carson gave up The Tonight Show and Jay wanted to avoid that sort of mess. Thus, the three parties came to an agreement. NBC can be blamed for promising Conan the job and Leno can be blamed for reneging on his retirement, while Conan has only followed the deal. He has every right to leave over this, he's the one getting the short end of the stick. All that being said, I'll be thrilled to have Leno back on at 11:30. There's too much else on at 10 and I always love seeing Letterman lose in the ratings, which isn't happening with Conan. I'm doubting Leno agreed to retire completely, just that he agreed to give up the Tonight Show, which he did as scheduled. It was clear he still wanted to be on TV, and it became increasingly clear that someone would sign him, be it Fox or a cable station or whatever. NBC didn't like that so they created the 10 oclock show in order to keep him. Conan has every right to leave but he forced NBC's hand, he didn't perform up to expectations once he got the job, and these are the consequences. I think that's an unfair characerization of the situation. NBC gave Conan an contractual guarantee that he would take over from Leno in 2009. This was a decision made by Leno, Conan and the network. The decision to late move Leno to a 10pm show was not Conan's doing. The biggest issue for Conan is that he has no legitimate lead in. When leno was doing the show NBC always had relatively strong shows leading into the news which lead into the Tonight show. When NBC made the decision to move Leno to 10pm it killed Conan. Leno's show at 10 has been TERRIBLE. The ratings have plummeted and it has affected the viewership of the Tonight Show. Basically because Leno is performing poorly it is hurting Conan's ratings. Let's also not forget that Conan has moved his entire family, all his staff, all his staff's families from New York to LA to do this show, and now NBC is telling him 9 months later sorry for all your trouble but it isn't working out. NBC has to be the worst run network out there right now, these guys continue to show how incompetent they are by mismanaging talent. I don't blame Conan for being pissed off at being jerked around, I hope he follows through on his threat and walks. I don't know if I buy the lead-in excuse either. Not because I don't buy whether a lead-in matters, but because it is not like Leno has had tremendous lead-ins in recent years either. NBC has basically been a graveyard for all shows, but it is particularly dry when it comes to Dramas, which are what air at 10 oclock. Leno didn't have a lot much more to work with than Conan. And I have a tough time feeling sorry for him and his family for having to move from NY to LA. Plenty of people with normal salaries have had this happen to them, Conan probably makes in excess of 20 million dollars a year at this point, he'll survive. Probably just a matter of moving himself back to his NY home at this point, if thats what he wants. Or he can get a show on Fox and stay in LA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhfarber Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Fanpuck, you'd be hard pressed to find any news article about this that doesn't argue that having a poor lead in has severly hampered Conan's ratings. It is certainly the consensus opinion that the show that leads into you has a significant impact on your overall ratings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trizzak Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 And I have a tough time feeling sorry for him and his family for having to move from NY to LA. Plenty of people with normal salaries have had this happen to them, Conan probably makes in excess of 20 million dollars a year at this point, he'll survive. Probably just a matter of moving himself back to his NY home at this point, if thats what he wants. Or he can get a show on Fox and stay in LA. His crew and their families also moved... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 (edited) Fanpuck, you'd be hard pressed to find any news article about this that doesn't argue that having a poor lead in has severly hampered Conan's ratings. It is certainly the consensus opinion that the show that leads into you has a significant impact on your overall ratings. But who watches the news on a channel just because its the same channel they watched at 10 PM? People have favourite news crews that they prefer and watch the one they like. I would bet the majority of people aren't watching a different 11 PM news show every night based solely on what they watch at 10 PM. I mean, who determines where they watch the news or whether they watch Conan or Letterman based on what is on at 10 PM? Are people so stupid that they can't decide on their own which show they like better and want to watch? Granted, the whole lead-in thing never made sense to me. It makes sense at the beginning of each season, to get new shows publicized well. After that, though, how much effect does it really have? Who watches something at 9 just because they don't want to change the channel? Most people watch whatever they want, regardless of what is on before it. The whole lead-in thing is outdated in my opinion. Edited January 13, 2010 by Fanpuck33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhfarber Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I don't know if I buy the lead-in excuse either. Not because I don't buy whether a lead-in matters, but because it is not like Leno has had tremendous lead-ins in recent years either. NBC has basically been a graveyard for all shows, but it is particularly dry when it comes to Dramas, which are what air at 10 oclock. Leno didn't have a lot much more to work with than Conan. Here's the problem with this argument. You're arguing that the shows in recent years leading into Leno have been bad (which they have) and that it didn't negatively affect his audience. The difference is that he was already established. Jay Leno debuted in 1992 on The Tonight Show. His lead-ins at the time were: Dateline (in its first season), Law & Order (3rd season), and LA Law (7th season). Not to mention Seinfeld, Mad about you, Cheers, Wings which all aired 8-9pm on NBC. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992%E2%80%93...ision_schedule) Now let's look at what NBC has been airing during Conan's first year on the Tonight show. The Jay Leno Show at 10 we all know about, what about leading into the Jay Leno Show... Law & Order SVU, The biggest loser, Heroes, 30 Rock (the only show with any current success). The point isn't that Leno had success on the Tonight Show recently without a good lead in, because he has had the previous decade and a half to establish his viewing audience. Conan moved to a new show, at a new time and NBC didn't provide him with an opportunity to successfully build his audience as they did with Leno in 1992 by saddling him with a terrible supporting cast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhfarber Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 But who watches the news on a channel just because its the same channel they watched at 10 PM? People have favourite news crews that they prefer and watch the one they like. I would bet the majority of people aren't watching a different 11 PM news show every night based solely on what they watch at 10 PM. Granted, the whole lead-in thing never made sense to me. It makes sense at the beginning of each season, to get new shows publicized well. After that, though, how much effect does it really have? Who watches something at 9 just because they don't want to change the channel? Most people watch whatever they want, regardless of what is on before it. The whole lead-in thing is outdated in my opinion. I think, (and I'm no media expert) that the theory is that if people are tuned in to a channel for the previous program maybe they have the next show on while they are looking for something else to watch. In the case of a late night talk show maybe this means they catch the start of the monologue. If the person finds it funny they are more likely to keep watching. If they aren't already tuned into the channel they aren't being exposed to the product. Also by having someone tuned into NBC immediately prior to the show it allows the network to air promos about the upcoming episode, who the guests are, clips, etc. Anything that can get the viewer interested in sticking around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 I'm doubting Leno agreed to retire completely, just that he agreed to give up the Tonight Show, which he did as scheduled. It was clear he still wanted to be on TV, and it became increasingly clear that someone would sign him, be it Fox or a cable station or whatever. NBC didn't like that so they created the 10 oclock show in order to keep him. Did NBC gave Leno a 10 o'clock show for that reason, or was simply it cheaper than paying for 5 scripted tv shows? NBC dropped the ball on this one, and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. I, for one, support Conan's ire and decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 I think, (and I'm no media expert) that the theory is that if people are tuned in to a channel for the previous program maybe they have the next show on while they are looking for something else to watch. In the case of a late night talk show maybe this means they catch the start of the monologue. If the person finds it funny they are more likely to keep watching. If they aren't already tuned into the channel they aren't being exposed to the product. Also by having someone tuned into NBC immediately prior to the show it allows the network to air promos about the upcoming episode, who the guests are, clips, etc. Anything that can get the viewer interested in sticking around. It is very true. I studied that. It's a proven fact that a good % of the people who are not looking for a specific show will stay tuned if they like the first minutes of a show at the same channel they were previously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 (edited) Did NBC give Leno a 10 o'clock show for that reason, or was simply it cheaper than paying for 5 scripted tv shows? Both of those played a role. They didn't want to just kick Leno to the curb because he changed his mind about retiring and it gave them a cheap show that would easily turn a profit, even with low ratings. It is very true. I studied that. It's a proven fact that a good % of the people who are not looking for a specific show will stay tuned if they like the first minutes of a show at the same channel they were previously. Right, but that only goes so far. It makes sense to want strong lead-ins early in the season, but after a few weeks when people have decided what they do and do not like, the lead-in factor should be gone. If people were watching the news on NBC for years because of strong lead-ins, are people really going to switch to a new news show because NBC no longer has a strong show on at 10 PM? If people watch shows on the same network at 8 and 9, are they going to stop watching the show at 9 if the show at 8 moves or is canceled? Edited January 14, 2010 by Fanpuck33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Right, but that only goes so far. It makes sense to want strong lead-ins early in the season, but after a few weeks when people have decided what they do and do not like, the lead-in factor should be gone. If people were watching the news on NBC for years because of strong lead-ins, are people really going to switch to a new news show because NBC no longer has a strong show on at 10 PM? If people watch shows on the same network at 8 and 9, are they going to stop watching the show at 9 if the show at 8 moves or is canceled? There is a HUGE difference between : 1. News shows 2. Fiction 3. Talk shows and 4. Sport coverage (being on a sports board, I think it's pertinent to include it) Dunno how it is in english Canada or USA, but here in Québec, we have used to have 3 channels who provide daily news (now 5 with specialised news channels). SRC (the french CBC) provides internationnal + national and a bit of provincial news. TVA provides national, provincial and a few local news depending if you live near Montreal or Quebec city. TQS (now V) used to provide provincial and local news only. When looking for news feed, people usually pick the channel that fits the most their needs/demands/personnality. If you are really interested by international politic, you will tend to get your news from X channel who's covering more politics news and less local events/accidents/fires/etc. Same if you don't really care about politic, you'll go with Y channel who's covering these kind of happenings. Talking about news, there is no demand for new features, good/funny acting, dramatic endings, new characters, variety like in talk shows or fiction shows (Heros, Lost, etc). People will look for these things with other kinds of shows, but not with news shows. They'll look for professionalism and what the channel covers most. The comparison is not really good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 (edited) That's the point I'm trying to make about lead-ins not being the problem for Conan. People don't choose what news channel they watch based on what they're watching at 10 PM. People are saying Conan isn't getting a good lead-in from NBC local news because the NBC local news outlets aren't getting a good lead-in from Leno. People who are used to watching NBC news and seeing The Tonight Show advertised aren't going to suddenly stop watching NBC news because they're not into Jay Leno at 10 PM. Edited January 14, 2010 by Fanpuck33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quebecois Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 His crew and their families also moved... I do feel bad for his family, but no one has really brought this up, everyone is too busy worrying about how Conan is doing. Here's the problem with this argument. You're arguing that the shows in recent years leading into Leno have been bad (which they have) and that it didn't negatively affect his audience. The difference is that he was already established. Jay Leno debuted in 1992 on The Tonight Show. His lead-ins at the time were: Dateline (in its first season), Law & Order (3rd season), and LA Law (7th season). Not to mention Seinfeld, Mad about you, Cheers, Wings which all aired 8-9pm on NBC. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992%E2%80%93...ision_schedule) Now let's look at what NBC has been airing during Conan's first year on the Tonight show. The Jay Leno Show at 10 we all know about, what about leading into the Jay Leno Show... Law & Order SVU, The biggest loser, Heroes, 30 Rock (the only show with any current success). The point isn't that Leno had success on the Tonight Show recently without a good lead in, because he has had the previous decade and a half to establish his viewing audience. Conan moved to a new show, at a new time and NBC didn't provide him with an opportunity to successfully build his audience as they did with Leno in 1992 by saddling him with a terrible supporting cast. It's a fair counter-argument. Leno was definitely given some time to find an audience once he took over in 1992. Much more time than Conan has been given. There are two things I would say to that: 1. TV is 10 times more competitive now than it was back then. With more selection than ever, television is tougher than ever and shows are no longer given much time to "find and audience". 2. In the early 90s, even if NBC wanted to replace Leno because of poor ratings, they didn't have anyone who was ready and able to step in on short notice. Conan was just starting in Late Night and Carson wasn't coming back. With few alternatives, Leno was given a much longer leash. Fair or not, that's just how it goes. The funny thing in all of this is Leno's show at 10pm is performing about where most NBC execs would have expected. It is insanely cheap to produce a talk show and even with only 5-6 million viewers a night it would still be turning a nice profit for them. The problem is the affiliates feel their local news is suffering as a result, which to me is surprising since people tend to pick a news channel based on who they like, not who precedes them (as Fanpuck mentioned.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Could someone write a reply to my post. (if you guys can understand it cuz I kinda sucks at stating a serious opinion in english...) How is the news coverage in the USA or english Canada ?? I'd really like to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Could someone write a reply to my post. (if you guys can understand it cuz I kinda sucks at stating a serious opinion in english...) How is the news coverage in the USA or english Canada ?? I'd really like to know. News coverage in the States is either blue or red. There's no middle ground. It's either Fox and their ultra-conservatism, or CNN and their uber-libaral schtick. Canada is hit and miss all over, but far more impartial. Best news, IMO, is the BBC. Still somewhat biased, but infinitely less biased than Canada and the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhfarber Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Yah english Canada seems to be fairly polarized as well. If you're a liberal you watch CBC, if you're a conservative you watch CTV and I suppose some people still watch Global... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Colin hit it right on the head. The majority of the news in the US leans liberal, and then Fox makes up for all of them by leaning well right. What's really sad is that too many people on both sides can't see the bias when it's in their favor. There is a definite lack of objective news here. Just one more piece of evidence that the country is severely split and that both sides are more worried about their own power, instead of caring about what is best for the country and its people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quebecois Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 Late Night TV has been tremendous since this whole thing began. First time I've actually watched the shows in a while Letterman was taking some shots at Leno this week and Leno finally fired back with a doozy. Really tired of Letterman poking fun at others, as if he is on some morale high ground or something Get over it, NBC chose Leno instead of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trizzak Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 Late Night TV has been tremendous since this whole thing began. First time I've actually watched the shows in a while Letterman was taking some shots at Leno this week and Leno finally fired back with a doozy. Really tired of Letterman poking fun at others, as if he is on some morale high ground or something Get over it, NBC chose Leno instead of you. I watched a clip of Kimmel on Leno's show just tearing Leno to shreds with absolutely no retorts from Jay. It was awkward and awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 I watched a clip of Kimmel on Leno's show just tearing Leno to shreds with absolutely no retorts from Jay. It was awkward and awesome. Yeh, that was bloody brilliant. It just shows how little Leno can think of on his feet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 There were some low blows from Kimmel, taking a crack at Leno for not having kids (his wife can't have kids, from what I read). Seemed like Leno wanted to respond a few times, but maybe felt it was more important to show the jokes didn't bother him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quebecois Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 I watched a clip of Kimmel on Leno's show just tearing Leno to shreds with absolutely no retorts from Jay. It was awkward and awesome. It was a funny segment, but that had to have been scripted. I mean Jay asked him what he would like to host that he hasn't already hosted, come on. I didn't find it to be that awkward other than the part that Fanpuck mentioned, with Kimmel pointing out that Leno doesn't have any kids. Kimmel has been pretty funny in all of this mess, but it really comes across as a cheap attempt by him to become relevant in the late night scene IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trizzak Posted January 17, 2010 Share Posted January 17, 2010 It was a funny segment, but that had to have been scripted. I mean Jay asked him what he would like to host that he hasn't already hosted, come on. I didn't find it to be that awkward other than the part that Fanpuck mentioned, with Kimmel pointing out that Leno doesn't have any kids. Kimmel has been pretty funny in all of this mess, but it really comes across as a cheap attempt by him to become relevant in the late night scene IMO. Not scripted at all. You can see the wheels turning in Kimmel's head as he tries to turn every question against Leno. Also, if it was scripted, Leno would have actually had a few comebacks (and of course by "Leno" I mean his staff of writers.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.