conan quits

[barbelith]

It's funny how Conan had poor ratings because of a show that started 90 minutes before him, but Leno had poor ratings because he sucked. I wonder how many of you are scrambling to blame whatever was on at 8:30pm...

 

[karamazov80]

https://www.variety.com/article/VR1118013455.html?categoryid=1043&cs=1

Following the November sweeps, it was clear that the show's 10 p.m. lead-in ratings have crippled the Peacock's owned and affiliated stations' late newscast ratings. (Such an impact had been predicted, yet still stung for stations.)

https://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/81056372.html

Both shows have drawn poor ratings, and many NBC affiliates have
complained that viewership for their 11 p.m. newscasts have
plummeted because Leno's 10 p.m. show is such a weak lead-in.

The change is occurring because local affiliates are not getting viewers because of Leno. Before Leno moved, this problem did not exist as the lead-in was sufficient to keep news ratings high. Just as the news cast suffers due to lead-ins, so does Conan. No one watches Leno, so no one stays to watch the news, so no one stays to watch Conan. Previous to this, local news was benefiting from strong lead-ins, which in turn benefited Leno. Take Leno out, replace him with a real lead-in, and then evaluate Conan's ability to draw a crowd. Otherwise, you have no argument to make.

 

[barbelith]

The change is occurring because local affiliates are not getting viewers because of Leno.

There are a few problems with this, but the big one is that we're supposed to accept that viewers have no agency but in fact are locked into the prime time schedule from 10pm onward. But this forces us to ask two questions:

• Do we recognize this behavior in ourselves? That is, do we all watch late night talk completely at random based on what's happened at 10pm on a given night, or do we specifically follow Conan as a personality no matter what we were watching at 10pm?

• If we accept the "zero agency" argument and pretend the viewer is a slave to the schedule, why does nobody extend this paradigm to Leno and claim his ratings were impacted by terrible programing 90 minutes earlier?

The answers, obviously, are "we tune in specifically" and "because that would be silly," respectively. Now as it happens I believe in a small degree of scheduling inertia, but I think it's been wildly overblown by fans who can't accept that Conan bears any culpability and feel the need to assign blame elsewhere. But the fact of the matter is that Conan failed to draw in viewers. At the end of the day, that's what we're left with. People didn't want to tune in to watch him. The people blaming Leno are actually casting Conan in an even worse light (because there's nothing wrong with being a cult personality better suited to the late late show): they're saying Conan just needed indifferent viewers.

As a fan that's a brilliant gambit, because we never have to face the possibility that our favorite canceled shows simply failed to draw their own audience.

 

[LChinoz]

Unless you're 12 years old and genuinely lack historical context, now it's clear you're arguing just to argue.

Way to dodge my point. Only someone really young would call Jay Leno the "most beloved late night host in TV history." Historical context is really important here...Jack Paar, Steve Allen, ever here of them? How about Johnny Carson? You may be too young to remember who these people are but they > Leno.

Leno clearly got high enough ratings in the context to be considered worth backing. Conan didn't. It's a business.

No he didn't. It's not about backing. This is what you do not seem to get. Leno was the only choice back then. His horrid ratings for 2 years made NBC second guess their choice, but they had no one else. They had to stick with him, and once Hugh Grant's scandal and appearance, Leno finally beat Dave. Conan got no such chance because Leno was busy being the Bret Favre of Late Night. Again, some historical context would be helpful.

Leno had local programming right before him. So did Conan.

As I told you numerous times, there is something known as a lead-in. With Late Night TV, networks look at the 10pm prime time show as the lead-in, not the local news. No offense, as it is fun discussing Avatar with you, but honestly this is not as fun because you have no idea how the television industry works. I have worked at a TV station for years. Some things do not make sense with TV, but it's just how they are. And if you think this situation is common and part of the "business" you'd be wrong. Sure shows are canceled, but NBC's solution to try and keep Conan and Jay was incredibly flawed and, quite frankly, as uncommon as a Late Night talk show in prime time. I could give you a hundred reasons why, with respect to the television business and more specifically with the Tonight Show, Conan was treated unfairly.

 

[LChinoz]

There are a few problems with this, but the big one is that we're supposed to accept that viewers have no agency but in fact are locked into the prime time schedule from 10pm onward. But this forces us to ask two questions:

• Do we recognize this behavior in ourselves? That is, do we all watch late night talk completely at random based on what's happened at 10pm on a given night, or do we specifically follow Conan as a personality no matter what we were watching at 10pm?

• If we accept the "zero agency" argument and pretend the viewer is a slave to the schedule, why does nobody extend this paradigm to Leno and claim his ratings were impacted by terrible programing 90 minutes earlier?

First of all, you are missing the argument entirely. The idea of lead-ins does not mean that every show before a struggling one has the same, terrible ratings. It is "pool" oriented. For example, let's say NBC's program at 8pm is Chuck. For arguments sake, Chuck has 11mil viewers. At 9pm is Dateline. Okay, some people do not like Dateline so they decide to change the channel. They are no longer in the pool. Dateline has 9mil viewers. 10pm's Jay Leno show causes another 4mil to change the channel. The pool keeps getting smaller. Does this have anything to do with Chuck? Yes, as a larger pool to begin with means a larger segment of people watching the show after the lead-in. By the time the local news comes on, NBC affiliates' see their news ratings drop because of the tiny 5mil pool. Compare the same 10pm time slot with a show such as CSI, whose pool is significantly larger due to strong lead-ins. By the time the Tonight Show comes on the pool is down to 3mil. Networks work to keep eyes from 7pm to 2am. This is the primary goal of stations, to not have any viewers stray. This is impossible, but strong lead-ins can do wonders for the viewer pool. By the same token, Leno had strong lead-ins during his time at The Tonight Show, and because of this, his pool helped Conan a lot when he was doing Late Night. So Conan owes a lot of his success to Leno at 11:35, but Leno owes a lot of it to the prime time lead-in. Even Leno would probably tell you that. Conan owes a lot of his rating blunders to, yes, Leno's bad ratings.

Secondly, are they saying Leno's bad ratings were due to the programming before him? No. Should they? To an extent yes.

The people blaming Leno are actually casting Conan in an even worse light (because there's nothing wrong with being a cult personality better suited to the late late show): they're saying Conan just needed indifferent viewers.

POP QUIZ: Do you think a network would be happy or unhappy with indifferent viewers? Keep in mind how many indifferent viewers exist.

 

[barbelith]

Way to dodge my point.

No, I'm quote serious. Nobody who knows what they're talking about would question the legend Carson had become by the end of his run, and eclipsing Jack Paar was a big part of that. Carson transformed late night and its relationship to the audience. You're absolutely right that historical context is important.

No he didn't. It's not about backing. This is what you do not seem to get. Leno was the only choice back then. His horrid ratings for 2 years made NBC second guess their choice, but they had no one else.

What you don't seem to get is it was never a zero sum equation. The choice wasn't Leno or dead air. Leno was the obvious choice for continuing The Tonight Show format at the time because he was the regular guest host for program. I don't even like Leno, but I would have ran with him, too. And the contemporary NBC brass did choose to back him until he found a significant audience for reasons relevant to the contemporary television business. We're in a different environment now, and current NBC brass is responding to different cues. Perhaps the same thing would have happened if Conan had replaced Carson; perhaps not.

As I told you numerous times, there is something known as a lead-in.

This argument continues to fail as the sole explanation. The lead-in to The Tonight Show is programmed by local affiliates; usually local news. No doubt you'll be blaming Chuck for Leno's low ratings. What? You're not? He just sucks, and people would rather watch something else? But that doesn't apply to Conan. How interesting.

What's that? You don't watch late night based on what channel you tune into at 10pm either? I guess there must be a special exemption.

No offense, as it is fun discussing Avatar with you, but honestly this is not as fun because you have no idea how the television industry works.

aka I don't subscribe to some whiny affiliates' perspective. Few do in my building, but then again I'm not really interested in whipping out the rulers about our jobs, and your guys probably think we're ignorant flash as much as ours think you're ignorant yokels. But just for the record, it's not NBC who pays my bills and I dislike Leno.

I don't disagree the entire situation could have been handled better, but it's moronic to pretend Conan doesn't shoulder any of the blame for his own show's ratings. If people wanted to watch him, they would. Simple as that. What you're essentially doing is complaining that Leno enjoyed some indifferent viewers who aren't leaving their TVs on during Conan to pump up his numbers with indifference.

Are we really surprised that a cult personality (my second favorite late show host after Ferguson, incidentally) couldn't hold on to the full Tonight Show audience with a masturbating bear? It's all Leno's fault for being on 90 minutes earlier? Really?!

 

[barbelith]

The idea of lead-ins does not mean that every show before a struggling one has the same, terrible ratings.

I understand the idea of a lead-in. I also think it's almost completely overblown by affiliates who still think people watch TV the way they did in 1980. How often do you personally watch a broadcast network's entire prime time schedule, and do you watch a specific late night show or whatever happens to be on the channel you're on at the time?

Or let me guess, you're a special exception.

 

[pixletwin]

How often do you personally watch a broadcast network's entire prime time schedule, and do you watch a specific late night show

not since 1996.

 

[DPrime]

Barbelith: You're wrong, wrong, WRONG!

Case closed.

 

[rw23]

What all this means is, Conan got hosed and Leno's a ******...end of story!

 

[LChinoz]

No, I'm quote serious. Nobody who knows what they're talking about would question the legend Carson had become by the end of his run, and eclipsing Jack Paar was a big part of that. Carson transformed late night and its relationship to the audience. You're absolutely right that historical context is important.

I agree.

What you don't seem to get is it was never a zero sum equation. The choice wasn't Leno or dead air. Leno was the obvious choice for continuing The Tonight Show format at the time because he was the regular guest host for program. I don't even like Leno, but I would have ran with him, too. And the contemporary NBC brass did choose to back him until he found a significant audience for reasons relevant to the contemporary television business. We're in a different environment now, and current NBC brass is responding to different cues. Perhaps the same thing would have happened if Conan had replaced Carson; perhaps not.

I don't want to get into it too much but the obvious choice was not Leno. A guest host is one thing, but David Letterman was not only Carson's pick, but also had hosted Late Night after Carson (which Conan took over) since 1982. You can find out how Jay got the gig instead of Leno, but it is a story that still causes much debate.

This argument continues to fail as the sole explanation. The lead-in to The Tonight Show is programmed by local affiliates; usually local news. No doubt you'll be blaming Chuck for Leno's low ratings. What? You're not? He just sucks, and people would rather watch something else? But that doesn't apply to Conan. How interesting.

What's that? You don't watch late night based on what channel you tune into at 10pm either? I guess there must be a special exemption.

Look at my post before yours, Chuck is partially to blame, as is Leno. Too bad you didn't read it before you posted.

aka I don't subscribe to some whiny affiliates' perspective. Few do in my building, but then again I'm not really interested in whipping out the rulers about our jobs, and your guys probably think we're ignorant flash as much as ours think you're ignorant yokels. But just for the record, it's not NBC who pays my bills and I dislike Leno.

Not subscribing to it doesn't make it not so. I can say personally I do not pigeon hole our viewers, in fact I respect each one of them. However, TV is just like any other medium that must be learned through experience and nothing else. I hope you were not offended by my comment about not knowing the business.

I don't disagree Conan the entire situation could have been handled better, but it's moronic to pretend Conan doesn't should any of the blame for his own show's ratings. If people wanted to watch him, they would. Simple as that. What you're essentially doing is complaining that Leno enjoyed some indifferent viewers who aren't leaving their TVs on during Conan to pump up his numbers with indifference.

Conan is partly to blame as well. Never said he wasn't, just that his audience watches his show differently, and many factors hurt ratings.

Are we really surprised that a cult personality (my second favorite late show host after Ferguson, incidentally) couldn't hold on to the full Tonight Show audience with a masturbating bear? It's all Leno's fault for being on 90 minutes earlier? Really?!

No, it's not all Leno's fault. To say Leno had nothing to do with it would be just as ridiculous.

 

[barbelith]

I don't want to get into it too much but the obvious choice was not Leno. A guest host is one thing, but David Letterman was not only Carson's pick, but also had hosted Late Night after Carson (which Conan took over) since 1982. You can find out how Jay got the gig instead of Leno, but it is a story that still causes much debate.

I remember the hubbub at the time, but as much as I enjoy Letterman I don't think he would have been the right choice in the long run for multiple reasons. It's worth remembering who the Tonight Show audience was - and to be honest I think this is a huge part of the reason Conan failed. He was never going to appeal to middle America. NBC forgot who the audience was. But I agree this sort of armchair quarterbacking can be argued forever.

Too bad you didn't read it before you posted.

That's what happens when you reply to posts sequentially!

Not subscribing to it doesn't make it not so.

Neither does claiming it.

Conan is partly to blame as well.

No, it's not all Leno's fault.

Holy cow, I think we're done here!

 

[LChinoz]

Okie dokie.

In any case, I am gonna miss Coco.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhKTUPBvqSc

See you in September.

 

[ronskimomo]

I'm with team CoCo!!!