LENO NBC Primetime - 10:00pm MON-FRI (Part 2)

NBC offered him sunday and LENO asked for a workweek.

Did NBC affiliates threaten revolt over Jay or Conan?

Including NBC owned affiliates, the network was indirectly losing more money on Jay and his lead-ins than Conan's show. Having Jay/Conan on back to back would also be a huge money loser.

NBC wanted and hired guesthosts on Fridays to boost ratings in 1992. Jay refused.

Jay has changed his story(speech from 2 weeks ago to Oprah) about the order of events regarding his show getting cancelled/Conan flipping out at moving/Jay being reinstated.

Bottom line WAS numbers. To break Jay 10pm contract cost $100mil. To Break Conan's cost $30-40m.

IMO, Conan's future will be more lucrative on FOX than Jay's future will be at NBC.

 

Ugh. I keep telling myself to stay away from this thread, but I can't!

 

That's one of our fundamental disagreements. I don't think it is remotely plausible that Conan's ratings in the summer were affected by viewers' knowledge that the Leno Show was coming in September. That makes no sense to me. People don't make their viewing decisions tonight based on what's going to be on in two or three months. If I'm hungry today but I know a great new restaurant is opening in two weeks, I'm still going to eat now. I'm not going to starve myself until the new place opens. If I felt like watching a talk show in July I would watch Conan or Dave, even if I preferred Leno.

I think Conan's ratings in the summer were based on nothing except Conan's show and what people thought of it at the time. 2.5 million people liked it, the rest chose other things. Given that premise, I don't see how Leno's show had much effect on Conan, either due to poor lead-in or to diminishing returns, since Conan's viewership was roughly the same before and after Leno's show premiered. If Leno's pseudo Tonight was causing viewers to reject the real Tonight, then why didn't Conan's ratings drop in September?

Sorry dude. Sometimes I'm limited in the time I have to respond to your, uh, rather lengthy posts. I try to hit the salient points where we differ, but if I've missed something point it out to me.

 

TV ratings have traditionally always been higher in fall over summer months. Vacations, being out in the sun rather than staying inside. etc. New prime time shows vs. reruns.

Ratings for the news shows before Conan in the fall were down 30% because of Leno.

 

http://tv.gawker.com/5458843/jay-le...prah-comes-off-as-a-lying-victimized-cry+baby

Clips of Oprah interviewing Leno.

 

I reviewed the guest lists for the episodes of each show (up until the end of the year, 2009). These assertions that guests, especially 'A' list guests, would choose one show or the other but would not appear on both, and that guests would choose Leno over Conan, and therefore Leno deprived Conan of noteworthy guests that directly, negatively affected Conan's ratings are false. In a quick tally, I counted 34 guests that appeared on both shows, including film actors whom I presume appeared to promote their recent movies releases, including Jame Foxx, Megan Fox, John C. Reilly, Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, Gerald Butler, Quinton Tarantino, Taylor Lauton, Sandra Bullock, John Travolta, Ewan McGregor, etc.

IMO, a comparison of the guest lists of both shows gives Conan the decided advantage - not Leno. And based upon the guest lists, I would guess that guests who did make a deliberate choice to appear only on one programme, on balance, decidely choose Conan over Leno. I also understand that it's been publically acknowldged that both ABC and CBS prohibited their primetime actors from appearing on Leno, but had no objections to appearances on Conan's show. This accusation that Leno had a de facto monoploy or first claim over guests or a general advantage over the selection of guests to Conan's detrament is not true.

 

Wow, good reporting -- where did you go to find all the guest lists? Anyway, in my own defense, I was basing most of my argument in that area on hypotheticals, not known (to me) facts, and on Jay's 2008 claim that he knew he WOULD be competing for guests with Conan. I was aware the ABC and CBS were threatening to withhold their stars from Leno's show in protest, but I wasn't actually tracking whether they went through with it or not.

In any case, if all your info is accurate, it would seem that Jay LOST the booking war this time around -- but, as Johnny Carson told Dave long ago, these shows are "all about the guy behind the desk." I've never been a big believer in guests making a huge impact on ratings, unless it's the President or a star's first post-scandal appearance. I'm totally willing to accept that Conan's low ratings were indicative of the public's slow acceptance of Conan -- I'm just claiming that other forces were at work too, forces Jay didn't have to deal with in 1992.

Thanks for clearing up the "guest factor"!

 

Which was a main factor in Conan's viewership being as low as it was.

Evan

 

All but one of the guests you mention fall into either of two categories:

1. They appeared on The Tonight Show With Conan O'Brien during the summer, prior to the debut of The Jay Leno Show.

2. They appeared on Leno first and later appeared on Conan. That doesn't shut Conan out entirely, but it still gives Leno the advantage.

The exception is Megan Fox, who was on Conan's show in September and Leno's in November.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_Tonight_Show_with_Conan_O'Brien_episodes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_Jay_Leno_Show_episodes

 

But I say once again: Conan's viewership level did not change significantly in September, when Leno debuted and affiliates' 11 pm news ratings nosedived as a result. How do you account for this? If poor lead-ins from Leno and the news were a major factor in Conan's ratings, then why were his ratings essentially the same in the summer when he was not getting the poor lead-in from Leno and the news?

 

I take back everything I said two posts ago...

 

Here's an interesting deconstruction of the Oprah interview, for those with the stamina to plow through it...

http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2010/01/oprahjay.html

 

Conan had 3 guests anight and Leno usually had one. Plus the summer months.

The list of stars that ONLY appeared on Leno and not Conan is what i'm interested in. I'm pretty sure this includes Jay-Z, Kanye West and Lady Gaga.

 

Here are some interesting tidbits from that article:

and

 

So True.....

But, then NBC, allowing that, should have gone the distance with Conan.

But when you've made as many mis-steps as NBC seems prone to do...
What did you really expect them to do --- The Right Thing ? ? ?

I ask, Where is the Track Record for That ? ? ? ?

 

I did a quick comparison of Leno's guest list and Conan's post-September guests. It does appear that in cases where a guest appeared on both shows, Leno generally had the advantage in booking them first (11 guests to 4). Here's the list I came up with, though I'm sure I missed a couple at least:

On Leno first:
Michael Moore: Leno 9/15 Conan 10/1
Jamie Foxx: Leno 9/5 Conan 10/12
John C. Riley: Leno 10/13 Conan 10/15
Ewan McGregor: Leno 10/27 Conan 11/2
Howie Mandel: Leno 11/10 Conan 12/7
John Travolta: Leno 12/2 Conan 12/3
Wanda Sykes: Leno 10/7 and 11/5 conan 12/16
Tyler Lautner: Leno 11/16 Conan 11/23
Drew Barrymore: Leno 9/18 Conan 9/28
Christina Applegate: Leno 12/15 Conan 12/21
Pee Wee Herman: Leno 9/22 Conan 11/26

On Conan first:
Kathy Griffin: Leno 11/9, Conan 10/26
Sandra Bullock: Leno 11/11 Conan 9/3
Megan Fox: Leno 11/26 Conan 9/17
Kelsey Grammer: Leno 12/4 Conan 11/9

I do think that guests are not a huge factor in ratings, unless there's something unusual about them (ie, Hugh Grant). As Sean said, it's the guy behind the desk that matters. Still, whatever advantage having a guest first provides clearly went to Leno most of the time.

 

I don't think Sandra Bullock should count, since The Jay Leno Show didn't begin until September 14.

She actually appeared twice on Leno (November 11 and January 12) but not at all on Conan once Leno premiered.

 

One of the stronger points from team leno.

Best explanation I can derive is TV ratings for all show should all go up in the fall compared to summer. Leno undercut out the upswing windfall Conan should have received.

 

As I've said, I don't think it's fair or sensible to blame Conan's initial low viewership rate (established in the summer) on Leno in any way. I think that is entirely his own fault, a result of his overall appeal to audiences, the initial shows he put on the air, whatever. However, I think it's fair to speculate that with a stronger primetime lead-in, Conan's Tonight might have seen some slow, gradual growth in its viewership over time (how much and where it would have topped out is debatable). Leno's show likely prevented that and caused the show's viewership to stagnate where it was.

 

www.tv.com

http://www.tv.com/the-jay-leno-show-/show/77316/episode.html?tag=page_nav;episode

http://www.tv.com/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien/show/75634/episode.html?tag=page_nav;episode

Sean, you must turn from the dark side.

Re. the guest issue

Firstly, someone earlier pointed out that Conan had three guests per show while 10 0'clock Leno only one. Leno's show had one 'sit down interview' guest, but in addition had musical guests, guests on a video screen via satellite (10@10 segment) and comedians who did stand-up routines and comedy 'bits' live in studio and in videoed segments (e.g. Adam Carollo and Arsenio Hall did a few of these). In reality, Leno as a rule would have two or three guests on every show (not just the one sit-down interview guest), sometimes more.

If I understand the guest issue from a few pages ago correctly, the proposition was that (i) guests would not appear on both shows; and (ii) given the choice they would choose 10 o'clock Leno over Conan's 11:35 "Tonight Show". Thus Leno had a 'first claim' advantage to Conan's detriment and this was a significant factor on Conan's poor ratings.

Well, guests did appear on both shows - the assertion that they did not is incorrect.

As for guests who appeared only on one show - in a quick tally of the guests on both shows, from September 1st to December 30th (not including re-runs), I counted 90 guests that appeared on Leno, but not on Conan; and 198 guests that appeared on Conan, but not Leno. From some of the names I saw, I suspect that Leno was having a difficult time booking guests and ended up with many people who would have never been considered for Conan's show. Someone mentioned that Lady Gaga and Kanaye West (with Rhianna and Jay-Z) appeared only on Leno (to Conan's disadvantage), but Leno not Conan was saddled with (I presume network ordered) appearances by the contestants of "The Biggest Loser" - one by one on individual shows. Advantage Conan. There is no way of telling for certain why a guest appeared only on one show and not the other, but if anyone is in doubt who had the overall best guests just look over the guest-list for each show. IMO, Conan definitively came out on top. The choice of guests and whether they appeared on Leno was not a factor in Conan's poor ratings.

Some of the guests that appeared only on Conan's show include: Jennifer Connelly, Kate Beckinsale, Dennis Quaid, Antonio Banderas, Charlize Theron, Jennifer Aniston, Aaron Eckhart, Ricky Gervais, India Arie, Brad Paisley, Seth MacFarlane, Ellen Page, Edward Norton, Kristen Bell, Jason Bateman, Selena Gomez, Lady Antebellum, Jessica Biel, Reese Witherspoon, Kristen Stewart, Judd Apatow, Carrie Underwood, 50 Cent, Nicole Kidman, Leona Lewis, Eva Mendes, Rachel McAdams, Ben Stiller, and Norah Jones. Would someone tell me again how he was at a disadvantage in booking decent guests?

Re ABC & CBS Leno show ban: I believe this was reported in one of the show business trade publications ('Variety'?) that both ABC and CBS had prohibited the actors whom appear on their shows from appearing on the Leno show, although appearances on Conan were allowed. Julia Louis-Dreyfus appeared on Leno's show on September 29th and (someone correct me if my memory is wrong), Jay said something to the effect that he was surprised she showed up because of CBS' ban. She replied that she had been told not to appear, but that since he was her friend she did. I don't believe anyone else from any ABC or CBS show ever appeared on Leno's 10 o'clock show. Whereas, in a quick persual of Conan's guest-lists from September 1st to the end of the year, I recognised seven names from CBS and ABC (Courteney Cox, Rebecca Romijn, Christian Slater, Chris O'Donnell, Patrick Harris, Jim Parsons, Zach Braff). This ban was clearly to Conan's advantage.

 

First of all let me state that I don’t care who hosts “The Tonight Show” – O’Brien, Leno or even Letterman. It could be Kate Gosslin or Gary Busey for all I care. (Hmmm … that Gary Busey hosted show actually sounds interesting.) As for the first two past, present and future hosts, based upon what I know of each of them (and I make no pretense of ‘knowing’ them personally just because they appear on the tv screen in my home), they both seem to be decent people and in their own individual ways talented. I am particularly unconvinced that Jay Leno is evil incarnate, despite the assertions as such by O’Brien’s grief strictened loyalists. Frankly, the more pro-Conan/ anti Leno comments I read, the more I am convinced that Conan was the wrong choice to host "The Tonight Show", that his poor ratings are his responsibility and that Leno is totally unblameworthy. It would be refreshing to hear from Conan's more ardent fans that while they love him, think he's a great guy and very talented, his appeal is limited and not enough people share their admiration for him. His stint as host failed because he did not attract enough viewers - no one else is to blame. I find that the qualities in Conan that his fans find most appealing are exactly the same ones that others (in much greater numbers) find unattractive. He was the wrong man for the job. I'm finding the whole "if not for Leno, Conan would have been a great success as host" tiresome and am coming to the conclusion that Conan's fans never met an excuse they didn't like. (All this is from someone who doesn't particualarly favour or disfavour either of them.) And I'm certain what could happen in another six months (or even a year) for him to attract the other 2.5 million consistent daily viewers that the show needs to draw. The presumption that he could attract the number of viewers needed and expected was faulty. He's battling with Letterman for the 18-49 demographic, the audience segment he was suppose to deliver without effort. Some nights "Nightline" beats him for that demographic. A demographic Leno attracted in greater numbers up until his last show. Conan was hosting a similar show for 17 years, was given three months to prepare for "The Tonight Show", performed it for seven months - over 130 episodes - and his argument is "if only I had more time I could get it right". The ratings point-of-no-return to catch up to Letterman, let alone overtake him, sailed by a while ago.

As well, I don't buy into the assertion that NBC's low primetime ratings, especially of Leno’s 10-11 time-slot adversely affected the viewership of the O’Brien hosted “Tonight Show” at 11:35. (The theory is that a strong primetime audience rating will continue to flow to the local news on the same channel and them onward to the late night show on the same channel.) Several years ago, when asked why he was losing the ratings battle with Leno’s “Tonight Show”, David Letterman complained (several times) that CBS’ then poor ratings performance in the primetime schedule was to blame, especially in the 10-11 slot, while NBC had a very strong primetime lead-in to “The Tonight Show”, thus explaining his second place finish to Leno’s victory each night. If only CBS had better programming with larger audiences in primetime to be delivered to his late night show, he argued, he would beat Leno. A few years pass, CBS compiles a winning schedule of primetime ratings, and … Letterman’s ratings do not change. He remains consistently in second place to Leno. If this theory was correct, the network with the best performing 10-11 slot each night would win the 11:35 talk show ratings – it just does not work that way. Viewers are primarily attracted to a late night talk show because of the host. They know how to operate the channel selction button on a remote control. If someone really likes Conan but was watching CBS or ABC from 10-11, they will tune in NBC at 11:35. Whether Leno had a primetime show is immaterial. If someone likes Conan, they'll tune into his show. The problem was there was more people who did not like enough and tuned in elsewhere.

 

The post above should have read:

And I'm uncertain what could happen in another six months (or even a year) for him to attract the other 2.5 million consistent daily viewers that the show needs to draw.

 

A question to the Jay fans and Jay loyalists.

Why was Conan the "wrong choice" for the Tonight Show? What about his humor and style is too "quirky" for mainstream audiences when quirky has over the years BECOME MAINSTREAM? I know TV execs are 'supposed to be short sighted, but I still maintain giving Conan the Tonight Show was a bold and far-sighted move that WOULD have paid off for NBC in the long run if Jay hadn't broken his promise. Someone else pointed out that once upon a time, Dave Letterman was considered too edgy and quirky for a mainstream audience. While he consistently came in 2nd, he still drew a sizable audience and has made a lot of money for CBS. The same could have happened for Conan IF HE HAD BEEN GIVEN THE SAME CHANCE THAT JAY WAS GIVEN IN THE EARLY 90's!

Because he's considered "odd", Conan was treated like the 2nd tier show. Even after getting the "big show", he was still treated like the 2nd tier guy. The Jay fans have never answered Sean Murdock's question of what would Jay and Helen Muchnick have done if Johnny went on NBC's prime time schedule with what was essentially the Tonight Show? Muchnick would have had a *hitfit and raised all kinds of holy hell before the first episode of such a show would have aired!

Once upon a time, Jay and Dave were considered to be ideal draws for the 18-49 demo - the reason why they were both given the 11:35 time slot.

 

The excuse that NBC did not provide him with enough time to cultivate a sizeable and competitive audience - not like the two years they allowed Leno to recover from poor ratings when he began hosting "The Tonight Show". If only Conan had more time, the show would be successful.

First of all, Leno ratings never experienced the empty depths in ratings Conan's plunge as host did. And if you want to make the argument that generally all television viewing has declined in general (in total numbers) since Leno's first two years - then in comparison to the competition (i.e. Letterman on CBS) Leno's ratings never fell behind as far proportionately than Conan's has.

Conan had more experience hosting a talk show when he took over "The Tonight Show" than Leno had when he assumed the host's chair. In addition, Conan and his production team was given over three months to prepare for the show. Conan did not have to/ should have had to experience the sharp learning curve at 11:35 that Leno did. And even after 17 years as the 12:35 host, he was still particularly unadept at the basic talk-host duties such as the opening stand-up monologue and interviewing skills.

Conan also had 17 years to develop a loyal following he would bring to "The Tonight Show" as a ratings foundation, especially the 18-49 demo. Unfortunately, Conan's ratings in his 12:35 slot had declined steadily, for a total loss of about 20-25%, from 2004 to 2009. (That's proportionately more than the general decline in television viewing can account for.) He attracted an audience of about 1.9 million on a good night towards the end of his run (at 12:35). He didn't deliver the 18-49 demo to "the Tonight Show" in the numbers expected, which was considered essential and was the basis of his selection to succeed Leno. Leno attracted more people in that age group than Conan did. Conan, instead of 'owning' the 18-49 demo has had to battle Letterman and "Nightline/ Kimmel" and Colbert for it.

As for his style of comedy, it was probably too close to Letterman's and Colbert's. With Leno and Letterman people had a clear choice and more people preferred Leno. If you liked one, you probably do not like the other and would not tune into other's show as an alternative. With Conan, people who like him also like Letterman (and Colbert). Unfortunately more people like Letterman better. At the height of his poularity at 12:35 Conan attracted 2.25 - 2.5 million viewers. That was very similar to the numbers when his ratings settled at "The Tonight Show". There is nothing to suggest that his appeal can attract on a consistent daily basis viewers in greater numbers than that.

Another argument is that Letterman will eventually retire (some predict by September 2012 - over two years from now) and Conan will face a neophyte replacement host and thus grab the ratings title - that Conan was NBC's investment in the future. There's absolutely no certainty that Conan would beat Letterman's (as yet unknown) replacement. In the meantime his ratings performance could irreparably damage "The Tonight Show". Another thing about Leno's two year 'probation period' - the show was always profitable even when he placed second to Letterman. "The Tonight Show" has been the network's single highest or second place revenue generator for decades. With Conan's drastically lower ratings NBC faced a drastic decline in revenue. Something NBC in current financial condition probably was not looking to endure for another year or two. the rumour was that under Conan's ratings "the Tonight Show" face to operate at a loss for the first time in its history.

Despite knowing from the start that he would need a probation period to build an audience at 11:35, O’Brien failed to negotiate such a clause in his contract that would guarantee a minimum number of broadcasts to do that. For such a bright guy (and presumably an employer of a small army of well paid management, lawyers and business advisors) that was a foolish and costly omission. That responsibility lies with him.

 

I can't say I have any interest in seeing anyone from The Biggest Loser, but was Leno actually "saddled" with those bookings?

The Biggest Loser is NBC's highest rated show, and I imagine they ran commercials during that show urging viewers to "stay tuned for Jay!" to see the contestants interviewed.