On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Steve Rhodes <srho...@gmail.com> wrote: > And an interview from before everything happened with Conan's head writer > Mike Sweeney > http://wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=3868
Decent interview. During my brief trist with Late Night in LA ten years ago, the two I worked closest to were Mike Sweeney and then head writer Robert Smigel (a.k.a. Triumph). Sweeney was the one I went to when I asked to join Conan's Tonight Show as a writer's assistant. My mom is glad they didn't hire me, since I'd be unemployed now. But I would be unemployed with a healthy severance (and having "The Tonight Show" writer's room on a resume would have been nice), so who is to say what is better. -- Kevin M. (RPCV)
> Decent interview. During my brief trist with Late Night in LA ten > years ago, the two I worked closest to were Mike Sweeney and then head > writer Robert Smigel (a.k.a. Triumph). Sweeney was the one I went to > when I asked to join Conan's Tonight Show as a writer's assistant. My > mom is glad they didn't hire me, since I'd be unemployed now. But I > would be unemployed with a healthy severance (and having "The Tonight > Show" writer's room on a resume would have been nice), so who is to > say what is better.
And I now realize that I saw Mike Sweeney at a They Might Be Giants show at the Largo in L.A. on Saturday night (between the opening act and the TMBG performance, sitting on a bench outside the auditorium, with what appeared to be a wife and kids). Sadly, I didn't recognize him beyond "hmm, that guy with the gray hair looks oddly familiar for some reason" -- I'm really, really bad at recognizing people "out of context."
This is a pretty good article too. I am a little disappointed there doesn't seem to be much real consideration of going to cable (basic or premium).
Two points about the excerpt I paste below:
1. Is there anyway of estimating what the average demo rating is for Fox affiliates currently for the 11:00 hour? Would I have to look at local ratings in every market, or does Fox somehow summarize those for all of their affiliates somewhere? I would like to start thinking of what a reasonable number for Coco would be - presumably higher than Seinfeld reruns, but still significantly lower than Leno or Dave.
2. I can tell already that I am doomed to walk the streets for the next 25 years mumbling incoherently that the zucker never really expected a 1.5 rating for Leno. I will never, ever believe that. The 1.5 was a low-ball number, always meant to be used to brag at how well Leno was overperforming when he turned in 1.8 (averaged over first and re-run competition weeks). I do not believe NBC was making money on the JLS with a 1.5 rating (all things considered) and I do not believe that even the zuckers who run NBC are stupid enough to intentionally run a program that broke even for them, and cost their affiliates significant dollars. The explanation for the apparent paradox of how NBC could say on the one hand that 1.5 is what they expected, and on the other that 1.5 was killing the affiliates, is that NBC is run by liars - they never expected a 1.5.
has anyone seen my shopping cart?...
*************
"The network also needs to figure out how to school both affiliates and the media about what success means for Conan on Fox.
NBC did a masterful job setting a low bar for "The Jay Leno Show," telegraphing months ahead of time that it expected ratings for the series to be tiny relative to scripted fare. But it said that would be OK, given the money it would save.
What NBC never anticipated -- at least not publicly -- was how bad Jay ratings would hurt affiliates. Or how the 10 p.m. strategy made it harder for the network to develop much-needed new scripted hits since it had fewer primetime at-bats.
Fox ought to be transparent about its ratings expectations, the cost of production for the Conan show and how it plans to make a profit. That way, if the numbers aren't so hot in the beginning, there won't be a drumbeat of stories declaring the series a disappointment (or worse)."
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:03 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Is there anyway of estimating what the average demo rating is for Fox > affiliates currently for the 11:00 hour? Would I have to look at local > ratings in every market, or does Fox somehow summarize those for all of > their affiliates somewhere? I would like to start thinking of what a > reasonable number for Coco would be - presumably higher than Seinfeld > reruns, but still significantly lower than Leno or Dave.
Nelsen should be able to come up with that number. It would be in their database as they survey every station and they could filter it down to Fox stations at 11 PM. All you would have to do is buy it from them and you certainly cannot afford to do so. And nobody who can afford it (like Fox) will necessarily publicize it if they buy those numbers.
> 2. I can tell already that I am doomed to walk the streets for the next 25 > years mumbling incoherently that the zucker never really expected a 1.5 > rating for Leno. I will never, ever believe that. The 1.5 was a low-ball > number, always meant to be used to brag at how well Leno was overperforming > when he turned in 1.8 (averaged over first and re-run competition weeks). I > do not believe NBC was making money on the JLS with a 1.5 rating (all things > considered) and I do not believe that even the zuckers who run NBC are > stupid enough to intentionally run a program that broke even for them, and > cost their affiliates significant dollars. The explanation for the apparent > paradox of how NBC could say on the one hand that 1.5 is what they expected, > and on the other that 1.5 was killing the affiliates, is that NBC is run by > liars - they never expected a 1.5.
I wouldn't try to figure out what NBC executives were thinking going by their press releases. Beside keeping both Jay and Conan from defecting, I think the 10 o'clock show was a response to a large drop in ad revenue due to the recession. They were trying to ride out the slump with cheap programming for two years (the duration of Jay's contract) and then, if revenue picked up they could have the Jay/Conan showdown, and if it didn't their competitors would have to slash costs and NBC would have a two year head start. As in any business the real world doesn't conform to your plans and affiliate pressure forced the showdown early.
To know if the JLS was actually making money with a 1.5 target demo rating, you have to know how the company does its accounting. As with all Hollywood accounting, good luck with that.
Because our market is as f to the ucked up as chocolate covered broccoli, it is hard to gauge any meaningful data from from our Nielson book. The Fox here runs Family guys at 10:35, and Star Trek NG at 11. When it does show up on the book, which is rare, it is a 1, but so is about everything here late night. I doubt we have run a paid spot (except the occasional PI) beyond 11:35pm in years.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Tom Wolper <twol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:03 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1. Is there anyway of estimating what the average demo rating is for Fox > > affiliates currently for the 11:00 hour? Would I have to look at local > > ratings in every market, or does Fox somehow summarize those for all of > > their affiliates somewhere? I would like to start thinking of what a > > reasonable number for Coco would be - presumably higher than Seinfeld > > reruns, but still significantly lower than Leno or Dave.
> Nelsen should be able to come up with that number. It would be in > their database as they survey every station and they could filter it > down to Fox stations at 11 PM. All you would have to do is buy it from > them and you certainly cannot afford to do so. And nobody who can > afford it (like Fox) will necessarily publicize it if they buy those > numbers.
> > 2. I can tell already that I am doomed to walk the streets for the next > 25 > > years mumbling incoherently that the zucker never really expected a 1.5 > > rating for Leno. I will never, ever believe that. The 1.5 was a low-ball > > number, always meant to be used to brag at how well Leno was > overperforming > > when he turned in 1.8 (averaged over first and re-run competition weeks). > I > > do not believe NBC was making money on the JLS with a 1.5 rating (all > things > > considered) and I do not believe that even the zuckers who run NBC are > > stupid enough to intentionally run a program that broke even for them, > and > > cost their affiliates significant dollars. The explanation for the > apparent > > paradox of how NBC could say on the one hand that 1.5 is what they > expected, > > and on the other that 1.5 was killing the affiliates, is that NBC is run > by > > liars - they never expected a 1.5.
> I wouldn't try to figure out what NBC executives were thinking going > by their press releases. Beside keeping both Jay and Conan from > defecting, I think the 10 o'clock show was a response to a large drop > in ad revenue due to the recession. They were trying to ride out the > slump with cheap programming for two years (the duration of Jay's > contract) and then, if revenue picked up they could have the Jay/Conan > showdown, and if it didn't their competitors would have to slash costs > and NBC would have a two year head start. As in any business the real > world doesn't conform to your plans and affiliate pressure forced the > showdown early.
> To know if the JLS was actually making money with a 1.5 target demo > rating, you have to know how the company does its accounting. As with > all Hollywood accounting, good luck with that.
> Tom
> -- > 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 tvornottv@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > tvornottv-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
jeffrey marousek wrote: > I doubt we have run a paid spot (except the occasional PI) > beyond 11:35pm in years.
Do you fill the local ad time in "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon" et al. with PSAs, promos, and such, or do you just go back to the still-with-the-band-playing that's on the network feed?
Yes, PSA's and promos. If we cut back to the band, that means some yahoo did not program the correct times in the automation...which happens more frequently than I care to admit.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Jim Ellwanger <train...@ellwanger.tv> wrote: > jeffrey marousek wrote: > > I doubt we have run a paid spot (except the occasional PI) > > beyond 11:35pm in years.
> Do you fill the local ad time in "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon" et al. > with PSAs, promos, and such, or do you just go back to the > still-with-the-band-playing that's on the network feed?
> -- > 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 tvornottv@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > tvornottv-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
|
