dagblog - Comments for "Conan, Leno, and the Recession"

You've put a lot of thought

Nebton — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:24:43 +0000

In reply to Measuring value is difficult,

You've put a lot of thought into it, and I applaud you for it. Ultimately what you're failing to factor in, however, is that what I want is the only thing that matters, although I can be convinced that what I want later is something to be considered into addition to what I want now. As for tricking me into watch the evening news, (a) I don't want to watch the evening news, and (b) I'm watching Leno on Hulu, so that trick won't hunt anyway.

Being serious for a second (which can be difficult for me), I do wonder how much the networks factor in internet-only viewers. We might not be that big of a demographic right now, but our numbers are growing. As for durability, I've watched a few of the "classic" SNL episodes on-line, and they really bear out your point. I used to love the Dana Carvey skits or the Eddie Murphy skits, but they haven't really held up as well as I would have thought.

Measuring value is difficult,

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:42:41 +0000

In reply to Although I won't argue with

Measuring value is difficult, and that's why there are lots of different theories about how to measure it. Your measure, that what you like is valuable to you and what you don't is not, makes sense. But for NBC, it only makes sense when examined on a mass scale. From their own economic persepctive, what's valuable is what millions and millions of people want to watch, which turns out not to be Leno, so much.

An episode of E.R. was more valuable than an episode of Leno, because a much, much larger audience watched E.R. That was valuable in that it allowed the network to make more ad money, and alos valuable because it helped affiliates' 11 pm news shows. (E.R.'s massive audience created spillover value from people who just didn't bother to change the channel.)

Now, what would be valuable to me, as an individual, would be to see live Shakespeare in prime time. That's much more valuable, in my humble opinion, than, say, The Ghost Whisperer. But since there are millions more people who want to watch The Ghost Whisperer than Liev Schrieber playing Henry V live from Central Park, the silly show about the psychic has more market value.

The other measure I was using was durability, and reuse value, which is trickier. Reality shows sometimes have even more immediate ratings value than scripted drama. American Idol has bigger ratings than 30 Rock. Survivor gets better ratings than Lost. But reality shows, game shows, and talk shows don't maintain their economic value as well. They don't draw repeat audiences well, and are nearly impossible to syndicate or repackage as DVDs. American Idol will win its night, but basically that's it; all of its value was captured up front, and it's not worth much after that. 30 Rock is designed to stand up to repeated viewings, to be syndicated first on cable and then on local stations, and to be sold as DVDs. Lost can be sold over and over while Survivor can't.

Leno's show is designed to be disposable, not durable. It's meant to be watched once, or even halfway through, and then dumped. (The halfway-through model is actually probably a big reason that Leno's formula did badly in prime time. Late-night shows are designed to lose big chunks of their audience in the middle, as those people go to sleep, and so the shows are designed with the best material in the first fifteen or twenty minutes and lame guests at the end. But that model is actively destructive if you're leading in to the the eleven o'clock news.) When I say Leno's show isn't valuable, I mean it's a disposable low-cost product, a paper napkin instead of a cloth napkin.

Although I won't argue with

Nebton — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:54:21 +0000

In reply to Conan, Leno, and the Recession

Although I won't argue with your logic, measuring value is a little difficult. For me personally, I'd much rather have five hours of Leno than whatever he replaced. (Of course, I do all of my viewing on-line, and not during the targeted time-slot. I don't even have a TV anymore, but that's not to say I don't watch "TV".) Sure, you could argue on some objective measurement such as ratings or advertising dollars, but you can't disagree that what really matters is what I want to see.

You make a great point about

Tony H. — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:45:14 +0000

In reply to Conan, Leno, and the Recession

You make a great point about resale value of a show, particularly ability to plug in reruns and sell dvd sets about dramas and not Jay's talk format. My big beef with the whole situation is ratings. It's clear that NBC has little regard for the toes of the people they step on in order to save some face, albeit that face will have a few serious black eyes. How can NBC claim that the affiliates' complaints about ratings are what is ultimately forcing Leno back into his old timeslot? What if his ratings were to continue to be bad? Would they then be obligated to make a move so as not to hurt Jimmy Fallon's lead-in? (who, by the way, was totally non-committal on his show this week, refusing to take sides, and playing the ultimate fanboy with his "just happy to have a job" statement). And where does that leave Carson Daly in the whole mix? He's hosted a show that few people have really cared about in the 7 years it's been on the air, but it fills a half hour of programming. By canceling Jay outright and replacing him with some drama, couldn't NBC ostensibly "make up" for the "losses" they are realizing with Conan in the Tonight Show timeslot (which, I think, are grossly exaggerated)? If NBC is placing all their hopes on one make-or-break timeslot, they are in for a world of hurt. By letting their affiliates call the shots, they are admitting their own defeat and totally killing any respectability their network programming may have had. The days of network programming as the Law of the Land are too far gone.

Thanks for the kind words. I

Doctor Cleveland — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:16:04 +0000

In reply to Really thoughtful piece. I do

Thanks for the kind words.

I don't buy that local newscasts were losing viewers to the internet and blaming it on Leno; the losses to the internet are real, but they're a slow and gradual bleed, and many of the CBS local newscasts (but only CBS newscasts) had sudden, dramatic drops in ratings, sometimes drops of fifty percent, tightly correlated to Leno's move to ten. That's no accident.

But really, my argument is not about whether or not Leno would have pulled his ratings up in another year, or about whether the Leno experiment would have "succeeded" given time. Even if it had "succeeded" in Zucker's terms, the success still would have been employing fewer entertainers and making less original programming. Making five more hours a week of talk show, which is low-intensity, essentially one-off programming, isn't the same as producing five hours of prime time dramas. Zucker's idea is a bigger version of something all the networks are doing, filling more of prime time with cheap, essentially throwaway programming like reality shows and game shows. But that strategy is about shrinking the production side of their businesses, not growing it.

Really thoughtful piece. I do

Anonymous — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:54:00 +0000

In reply to Conan, Leno, and the Recession

Really thoughtful piece. I do take issue, though, with what I think is an assumption as your basis of depart--your argument doesn't rest on it, but it is the illustration you use. You assume that putting Leno on prime time was a failure. Another piece critical of NBC, written from a marketing perspective, insists that moving Leno to prime time was an experiment, but that it wasn't given enough time (or a well enough thought-out strategy) to actually test whether or not it would work. Plus, I don't think the time slot is as important as execs are used to thinking it is, and as it actually used to be: "Reports say that Leno didn’t do “well” at 10pm… By whose standards? The local affiliates are the ones who are complaining because they aren’t getting the lead-in to their evening news programs. (In looking at the numbers, I wonder if they are controlling for all the people who might be leaving broadcast television and getting their news online?)" Anyway, the post is worth checking out: http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2010/01/11/john-tantillos-brand-winner-an... Another piece that's pretty good--by a Conan fan but critical of Conan's performance on the late night time slot: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-13/good-riddance/...