DISQUS

Tolockadoor · 11 months ago

I'll say as an avid TV watcher, that one of the results (reasons?) of the decline of viewership is inconsistent weekly programming. Does anyone remember when everyone would gather at the TV on Thursdays for Cheers and Seinfeld and Friends? Now you can try to regularly watch a show for a week or two, then there's a break for a couple of weeks, then a couple of more shows, then another indeterminate break, then the show is on a few more times before May. It appears to the uninformed (me) that if one of the networks is having one of its "Big" programs on (The football game tonite, for example), the other networks decide not to compete and show Brady Bunch re-runs. I honestly don't know what's going on with actors and actresses salaries, but it seems the networks aren't generating enough revenue to pay them adequately. But then there's the melon...

Rob Long · 11 months ago

Of course, these days, it really is impossible to figure out how the
audience moves (or if it moves at all) or where it is. You still need
to make sure your programming is everywhere, all the time.

Tolockadoor · 11 months ago

Don't rating agencies tell you this sort of thing? Perhaps I naive about the technology.

Ed Lilly · 11 months ago

Interesting idea. But would the "right" audience start the evening w/ Leno and then stick around for the subsequent shows? Maybe. I guess Leno has enough broad, general appeal, kind of like Carson in his day. Which makes me wonder if such an approach could have worked w/ Carson were he in his prime now instead of gone w/ Leno now in his place.

Scott I · 11 months ago

I can't help but think that the whole Leno thing was simply a defensive move to prevent him from going to ABC and kicking Conan's ass at 11:30. I really don't think Zucker thought it through as much as you have here. In addition, I'm pretty sure they offered Leno a variety type show at 8 (although most likely only once a week) and he turned them down. But I doubt he would have taken the 8PM hour anyway as it would lay the success or failure of the ENTIRE schedule at his feet. Or at least NBC could spin it that way.

Rob Long · 11 months ago

Wait. You mean a network executive made a decision based entirely on
fear?

Hmmmm. There's a faint ring of truth to that.

But I guess my point is, if TV is returning to its basic, original
identity (spectacle, games, a smattering of highbrow stuff) then a
daily middle-of-the-road variety show would be a smart way to support
and promote that night's programming.

But your alternate take -- they didn't think it through, they were
terrified of the competition -- has a lot to recommend it.

Scott I · 11 months ago

I think NBC actually tried this a month or so ago with Rosie O'Donnell and it was an unmitigated disaster. Maybe some formats should simply be left for dead. To that end, variety shows were basically televised vaudeville, and were made possible by the hundreds of acts touring around the country before television.

Even by the late 60's there were still enough of those acts to keep Ed Sullivan going until he died. But the variety shows morphed into talk shows that didn't require acts, just talking celebs. And vaudeville? Well actually, it is still with us, albeit in a different form. It's called YouTube. And no, I don't think "The YouTube Variety Hour" is a good idea.

Scott I · 11 months ago

P.S. I have no idea why I wrote a dissertation on the history of variety shows and their relationship to vaudeville to someone who already knows it.

Rob Long · 11 months ago

But it's always nice to hear. Sort of like why I like to watch
History Channel shows on World War II. It's dramatic to watch
Hitler's tanks rolling into Poland. But I like knowing how it all
turns out in the end.

Rob Long · 11 months ago

I'm not sure I disagree. But if audience flow is dead (and it is) then
I don't see why an aggressive and forward-thinking network wouldn't
experiment with putting something broad and up-to-the minute (ie.
something that isn't easily timeshifted) up front.

But I may have answered my own question with the words "forward-
thinking."

Meman · 10 months ago

You obviously wouldn't make it as a network executive. You don't understand that the most valuable times of the night are from 8 until 10, when the audience is building and peaking. The 10 p.m. slot is when the audience is dropping.

Plus the fact that Leno's content is totally inappropriate for 8 p.m.--if you think his show is family friendly then you must have a really odd family.

Your logic on this is completely off and just rambling about a subject you know little about.

Rob Long · 10 months ago

Hmmmm.

Well, let's work backwards.

Leno is family-friendly, of course. That's part of his middle-of-the-
road appeal. Sure, some of the jokes he makes at 11:30PM will be a
shade more adult than the ones he can make in prime-time, but that's
sort of a stupid point. He simply won't make those jokes in prime-
time. Rique material isn't his thing anyway. He's famous for being a
clean comedian. He's insanely rich because he's so moderate and
tame. The idea that there's a fixed and inflexible feature to "Leno's
content" is just wrong -- the guy performs in front of a variety of
audiences almost 350 days a year -- not just on TV but in personal
appearances. Ever wonder how he can afford all of those fancy cars?
Because audiences like him. A lot. And all kinds of audiences.

And you're wrong about the time slots, too. The 10PM timeslot is when
audiences are dropping? Really? Maybe in overall households, but not
in key demos, which is why you'll find shows like CSI and Law & Order
and Without a Trace on during that hour. The 10PM slot can be
lucrative, just as the 9PM slot can be.

My point about moving Leno to 8PM was to harness his broad audience
appeal as a promotional platform for the rest of NBC's prime-time
lineup. The Leno show, whatever it ends up being, will be pretty
cheap to produce, and rather than stick him at the end of the night to
promote the local news and Conan, why not front-load his show, and use
it to promote the 9-11PM offerings?

You're confused, I think, about the television business in 2009.
There are no "most valuable times of the night" anymore. Networks are
trying to build patchwork patterns from dayparts that no longer
deliver any kind of audience flow. My guess is that you're not in the
entertainment business or you'd know that.

Gail · 5 months ago

Great blog with keen insight...observation: I love that men (especially those of a certain era) tend to call it a "clicker" rather than a remote...when it truly did "click".

Rob Long · 5 months ago

Thanks! And yes, I do still call it the "clicker," although I hate to
think I'm that old. I call it the "clicker" because that's the effect
it has on my brain. It clicks it off as I surf around.