Members Sylph Posted January 13, 2010 Members Share Posted January 13, 2010 No, I don't think it's a condemnation at all. It's a matter-of-fact: people just having a zillion choices and being not really all that interested in any of them. I also didn't see them putting down viewers. If anything, their thiking follows a straight line: hosts are dull, thus people are switching channels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted January 13, 2010 Members Share Posted January 13, 2010 The "attention span of a hummingbird" seemed like a putdown to me. I don't think that people fleeing late night talk shows is the problem. I actually think viewers have been relatively patient, considering some of the poor quality of that genre over the past 15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JaneAusten Posted January 13, 2010 Author Members Share Posted January 13, 2010 I have no skin in the Leno/Conan game although I think Conan is being screwed(I've always preferred Letterman more in the early days on NBC) but this is a classic. I give Letterman props for this. NBC is looking to launch another L&O aren't they? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msC3uu4KZbg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted January 13, 2010 Members Share Posted January 13, 2010 It's "free" (advertiser-supported) TV that relies on HUGE numbers of eyeballs to make it profitable without subscriber fees and access to spinoff revenues (e.g., if you buy the show--don't own the show). This'll all be fixed when (as Fox began to claw with Time-Warner over the holidays) the networks begin to lose the affiliates (the most retrogressive, outdated, horrible distribution system known to man...every affiliate gets a "voice" that detracts from the relationship between the audience and the network), and become (like TBS and USANetwork, etc.) a subscriber-subsidized service that also runs ads. When that happens, the tyranny of the "largest number of eyeballs" goes away...voters vote with their cable/satellite subscriptions, rather than their (often poorly sampled) "ratings". There is still jeopardy. The big cable networks do fine, but the majority seem to struggle for viewers (hence, the constant shifts in brand identity--Cartoon Network not showing cartoons, TVLand not showing classic TV, Soapnet not showing soaps)...so it remains essential to stay one of the "big few" that show premium content. They also need to figure out how to plug the hole of online streaming, bittorrenting, etc. Maybe said better: Find a way to effectively monetize them while not cannibalizing the mothership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted January 13, 2010 Members Share Posted January 13, 2010 I don't know if they "cannibalize" the mothership. The networks and the showrunners do that. Tim Kring has done more to "cannibalize" Heroes than fans ever could. My guess is they are a very small fraction of viewers. I would also guess many of them watch online because they can't watch the TV version, for one reason or another. And I think some of these people, at least the ones who watch the online streaming on the official websites, and some of those who watch through torrents, might still buy DVDs and things like that. If they are cut off that way, they are less likely to buy anything related to the show. I think these types of viewers are just a scapegoat for the real lack of quality and the desperate need to cater to viewers who aren't interested in watching a lot of TV. Ratings for shows can go up, and often do, when the show makes an effort to improve, as long as it's done in time. Or ratings for a new, quality show can be good, at least some of the time. These networks struggle in part because they are so generic. Lifetime lost most of what people wanted to see on their network and thus they are falling fast. Soapnet still struggles to break even because all they can come up with is D-list knockoffs of reality shows that don't even get a million viewers. Yet this is seen as great because it does better than soap reruns from decades ago. They're also half-assed. If they had guts and just changed their network names, like TNN did when it became Spike, they would be better off in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bellcurve Posted January 13, 2010 Members Share Posted January 13, 2010 Oh this was great, Jane! Great! And Jay Leno's quip about Letterman was so tacky and unnecessary. But typical, considering he's such a greedy, arrogant pig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sylph Posted January 13, 2010 Members Share Posted January 13, 2010 No. They didn't say Carl D., you're a stupid id!ot with the attention span of a hummingbird. They said people are flooded with TV-viewing choices, tonnes of job-related issues and problems in real life. All that considered, people today don't really have patience for a lot of stuff on TV. Especially when it's bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sylph Posted January 13, 2010 Members Share Posted January 13, 2010 LOL at that clip! But... I really wonder what will happen with Letterman's ratings if Jay Leno gets The Tonight Show back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sylph Posted January 13, 2010 Members Share Posted January 13, 2010 From Nikki Finke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JaneAusten Posted January 13, 2010 Author Members Share Posted January 13, 2010 IMO this and NBC actions with LateNight over the past so many years has now damaged the Tonight Show franchise/brand almost beyond repair. Can they get it back? It's been such a clusterfeck. I'm not sure how much that brand even meant anymore with Carson gone. What was impressive about Conan's statement was he really didn't make it about him. He showed respect maybe not to NBC(they don't deserve it) but to the legacy Carson left with the Tonight Show. That's something not one person at NBC or Leno have mentioned at all. I wonder if anyone at NBC or Leno even get it or even care. It exemplifies almost an era gone past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sylph Posted January 13, 2010 Members Share Posted January 13, 2010 http://www.observer.com/2010/media/bright-spot-leno-debacle-failure-nbcs-cynical-strategy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JaneAusten Posted January 13, 2010 Author Members Share Posted January 13, 2010 Speaking from experience, General Electric is a terrible company to work for. This all sounds like a Jack Welch business practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bellcurve Posted January 13, 2010 Members Share Posted January 13, 2010 If the negative publicity continues, David Letterman will continue to beat The Tonight Show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bellcurve Posted January 14, 2010 Members Share Posted January 14, 2010 Conan Tonight(per TWoP and other sources): "Hosting “The Tonight Show” has been the fulfillment of a lifelong dream for me – and I just want to say to the kids out there watching: You can do anything you want in life. Unless Jay Leno wants to do it too." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted January 14, 2010 Members Share Posted January 14, 2010 I was reading a Reuters article and it seems like we're already getting the media spin about how this will all turn out to be a success for NBC. No matter what happens with the ratings, it was all so pointless and so ugly playing out in the public eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.