Is there an over-under for Craigyferg replacing Dave if and when? (And what's an over-under anyway?)
On Jul 13, 12:54 pm, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Tom Wolper <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Mark J. <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The AP's David Bauder paints a bleak portrait of the future of the > > > late-night talk show as we know it (i.e., desk-and-sofa/band/sidekick/ > > > monologue), as Leno, Letterman, Fallon, Ferguson and Lopez are all > > > down in the numbers and sinking: > > >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/13/latenight-tv-ratings-fadi_n_... > > > > The hopeful signs come from ABC's Kimmel (traditional format) and E!'s > > > Chelsea Handler (non-traditional format)--"Nightline"'s also up and > > > the COM faux newsmen's numbers are flat. > > > Stories like this bug me because they are about the business of TV and > > there's next to no relevant business information in them. (SNIP) > > > Bauder isn't coming to any conclusion in his article either. We know > > that the late night shows are moneymakers, and just not the leader in > > the time period, just by seeing CBS keep its hands off the Late Show > > for so many years. We also know that the ratings have been in decline > > for years. The decline of the first 3 months of the year might have > > been sharper than the long term trend, but it's part of the long term > > trend. The real question is what the red line is for ratings - where a > > rating under the red line means the show is unsustainable. (SNIP) > > Excellent points. > > I need someone to check the math here. Bauder writes: "Back at NBC, Leno > averaged 4 million viewers a night during April, May and June. That's a full > 1 million viewers lost to NBC compared to the same three months in 2009. > Letterman wasn't necessarily the beneficiary, since his audience of 3.3 > million people was off 7 percent from 2009." But doesn't this mean that Leno > lost 20% of his viewers (5M to 4M) while Dave lost 7%? That seems like a > pretty big difference. If the narrative is "late night talk shows are > bleeding viewers" then it seems that one of them has a hemorrhage and the > other has a cut finger. > > One way to tell this story is that NBC was originally correct - the late > night shows need younger hosts to fight the erosion in their ratings. I > think Carson was 67 when he retired from the Tonight Show - Leno is 60 and > Dave is 63. They are not that old, but television is much more sensitive to > young viewers than it used to be. The most interesting thing in the article > to me was this: "Nielsen said the median age of a Letterman viewer was 55. > Leno's audience used to be younger, but is now 56." Both of these show's > audiences is aging, and Leno's is aging faster than Dave's (presumably that > is the effect of pissing off Team Coco). The two shows with the "old" hosts > are losing audience, while many of the shows with younger audiences are not > (TDS and CR are stable, Kimmel and Handler are up). I don't know that the > lesson here is that the late night talk show is obsolete. > > I used to think there was no way Jon Stewart would ever do a late night show > on CBS, since has such a great gig already, but now I think that if Dave > decides to leave in the next 3-5 years Stewart very well might do it. As > good as he is, it seems to me he is getting a little tired of it lately > (though I guess they have been working overtime on their book, so maybe it > is just that). I don't see CBS ever kicking Dave out, and he still makes > them a lot of money, more probably than anyone else could, but he may be > ready to go on his own soon.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
