Bye Bye Leno

Tools    





Stop talking in this thread. I'm tired of seeing "Bye Bye Leno" keep popping up. So Leno is leaving? Get over it.



I can see what Will is saying here, Yoda. NBC wanted Leno to retire and have Conan take over the Tonight Show. At the time this decision was made, Leno did not want to retire. Taking these things as true, the facts do seem to indicate that NBC wanted to get rid of Leno back then. If they didn't want to get rid of him, they wouldn't have forced him out of the Tonight Show when it was clear that he did not want to retire. How is anything that you are saying contradicting these facts? Perhaps this is an issue of semantics rather than an actual disagreement, or perhaps you both like arguing a little too much If what you are saying is that NBC never had an axe to grind against Leno and didn't wanted to get rid of him at all costs, than I agree with that, but the facts, both then and now, indicate that NBC wanted to move on from Leno. How is this not consistent with wanting to get rid of him? I do agree that when they brought him back and bought Conan out of his contract, their plans changed, but this current plan seems to indicate that they have reverted back to their previous position.

On the other hand Will, Yoda has read an entire book on this, so perhaps he knows more details about this whole matter than you and I do. Presumably this book was well-researched, and if you don't have facts that contradict it, than why continue to argue about it?

I am curious though Yoda, why did you choose to read an entire book on this matter? I can think of a lot more worthy topics to devote my time to. Since you seem to really enjoy discussing things of substance, that are usually more relevant and public policy oriented, I am somewhat surprised by your interest in something that by comparison is rather trivial.



I can see what Will is saying here, Yoda. NBC wanted Leno to retire and have Conan take over the Tonight Show. At the time this decision was made, Leno did not want to retire. Taking these things as true, the facts do seem to indicate that NBC wanted to get rid of Leno back then. If they didn't want to get rid of him, they wouldn't have forced him out of the Tonight Show when it was clear that he did not want to retire. How is anything that you are saying contradicting these facts?
The facts aren't under dispute. The question is about motivation. Obviously, a plan was put in place wherein Leno would retire. The question is, did they do this because they had to (to both keep Conan from bolting and keep Leno happy), or did they do it because they actively wanted to get rid of Leno, and this let them do it? Seems to me it's clearly the former, given all the reasons listed: the long lead time, his consistent success, and all the actions taken when push ultimately came to shove.

Perhaps this is an issue of semantics rather than an actual disagreement, or perhaps you both like arguing a little too much If what you are saying is that NBC never had an axe to grind against Leno and didn't wanted to get rid of him at all costs, than I agree with that, but the facts, both then and now, indicate that NBC wanted to move on from Leno. How is this not consistent with wanting to get rid of him? I do agree that when they brought him back and bought Conan out of his contract, their plans changed, but this current plan seems to indicate that they have reverted back to their previous position.
I think it's needlessly complicated to think they wanted to ditch him, then didn't and paid a ton to keep him, and now they do again. Isn't it simpler, and more consistent with all their actions during this period, to simply conclude that they didn't want to get rid of him, but were forced into an awkward balancing act? The alternative is thinking they changed their mind back and forth at the cost of tens of millions of dollars and were looking to ditch a guy who was making them tons of money. And remember, for all the talk about him being old and ripe for retirement, this process started almost 10 years ago.

I am curious though Yoda, why did you choose to read an entire book on this matter? I can think of a lot more worthy topics to devote my time to. Since you seem to really enjoy discussing things of substance, that are usually more relevant and public policy oriented, I am somewhat surprised by your interest in something that by comparison is rather trivial.
If I only read policy papers and watched C-SPAN, I'd burn out pretty quick. Ditto for classic literature. But I also have a very strong desire to simply know a lot about whatever's going on, when I can, and for better or worse this kind of stuff is a big part of the public consciousness. And, much less specifically, I've just sort of concluded that it's a good idea in general to indulge one's curiosity, and I was curious about this. I've lost track of the number of things that seemed to have no pragmatic significance when I first started thinking about them, but ended up leading to something else.

Heck, I read a book about traffic patterns a couple of months ago.



Okay. I think I understand what you are saying now. What you are saying is that the reason that NBC hatched the plan to have Leno retire was that they were afraid of Conan bolting to another network, and they didn't want to have him competing against "The Tonight Show." What they did is to push off retiring Leno as long as they could, while still promising Conan that he eventually would be his successor, which took away the incentive for Conan to bolt to another network. What Will is saying is that this plan is evidence that NBC always wanted to get rid of Leno, and that that was the rationale for the succession plan. What you are saying is that the original plan wasn't primarily motivated by getting rid of Leno, but by keeping Conan, and the plan they came up with was the best way they could think to do that. Is this a fair reading of your and Will's arguments?

If all of this is true, what I don't understand is why would NBC want Leno to retire, either then or now? Leno is number one in the ratings now, and he was then. Even if Conan were to bolt to another network, Conan never had the audience that Leno did, so what evidence was there that Conan was a real threat to Leno? Isn't the same thing true with Fallon and Kimmel now? Leno is number one. Why would NBC want to get rid of someone who is making them number one in late night on the basis of a theoretical concern that sometime in the future someone could challenge him? This makes even less sense when you factor in that the very people that they are concerned about posing a threat to Leno in the future are currently competing against him now, and losing to him in the ratings. From the book you read and your own analysis, can you explain this?



I can't speak for will, but yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, and it's what I understand will's position to be. If Conan had been willing to stay at 12:30 another five years without demanding a legal commitment, I think they would've been just fine with that.

As for the rest: yeah, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, either. I think they were motivated by the fear of losing Conan, even though it would've been better to just let him go. That and image, which seems to play a far larger role in the late night firmament than is entirely rational. There's a big identity politics thing going on with this circle of hosts. And I've heard it suggested that the primary difference between CBS and NBC is that CBS doesn't really care how hip something is perceived to be, it just focuses on results. I think maybe NBC has occasionally tried to hit home runs with wild programming decisions when it'd be better to try to string a few singles together.

I honestly don't know what I'd have done in NBC's shoes. They got a lot of grief for how they handled stuff, and understandably so, but I don't think they had any good options. If anything, they were a victim of their own success in late night. The only really unforced error I thought they made was abandoning the new setup so quickly.



And another thing, why are people so upset at Jay Leno? Isn't it true that Jay Leno didn't really want to retire in 2009, or did he change his mind on that later on? If you never really wanted to retire and you were forced out to make room for someone else, and your successor fails to succeed in the position, and NBC offers you the job again, which you never wanted to relinquish in the first place, and you take it, why are you the bad guy?



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
It's a good general rule that the amount of evidence you have should not be inversely proportional to the length of the post. Case in point: that last post could've been a lot shorter if you'd just say "why no, I actually do not have any competing evidence which contradicts what you've provided. How about another five paragraphs of my own speculation, instead?"

The New York Times and the book I keep mentioning both contradict your take about the 2004 deals. Unless you're a sleuth Hollywood reporter, I'm not sure why you would feel comfortable just flat-out contradicting them.

So given the evidence, it seems to me there are two ways to go here. And feel free to use this as a summary for the whole discussion: either both these sources are wrong, and they gave Leno an extra-long lead time even though they wanted to get rid of him, and then turned right back to him when things went south even though they wanted to get rid of him, and they dropped $35 million to avoid losing him even though they wanted to get rid of him...or maybe they just didn't want to get rid of him.
Nothing you cite contradicts what I said. It was preliminary talk, no firm deals. Do you really think Fox had decided to do a late nigh show with Conan if he was available because they were simply talking to his people? That is not true. That is not what reports at the time said. There was different competing opinions at Fox and the word then was the guy that mattered, Murdoch, was very skeptical they should go down that road a third time when the talk show circuit was now so busy with ABC and CBS already in it. The way it works is first you preliminary negotiate, but it doesn't get serious unless you get a greenlight to press forward. They didn't have that at that stage. Murdoch would have needed a lot of convincing. The first time it was just FOX against NBC, and the second time also against the briefly popular syndicated Arsenio Hall. The preliminary negotiations was not made by the party who would make the final decison to go to production. If you actually read about what was going on back then it is very unlikely a formal deal would have been made at Fox to go with a late night show. They do that to see what their options are and to have it available after vetting it out.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula



As you may recall, your objection was that NBC had no reason to worry about losing Conan. The cite contradicts that, by suggesting that NBC was worried. Obviously the offers weren't firm yet: he still had a year under contract. They were standard, early overtures, but based on multiple sources they were enough to convince NBC that they had to appease Conan to keep him around. That's the point.

You are free to speculate, sans any significant evidence, as to how likely any of these counterfactuals might have been. The only relevant part is that NBC was worried about them, which in turn explains the half measure they ultimately resorted to in a way perfectly consistent with their desire to keep Leno around.



And another thing, why are people so upset at Jay Leno? Isn't it true that Jay Leno didn't really want to retire in 2009, or did he change his mind on that later on? If you never really wanted to retire and you were forced out to make room for someone else, and your successor fails to succeed in the position, and NBC offers you the job again, which you never wanted to relinquish in the first place, and you take it, why are you the bad guy?
Yeah, he gets a bum rap. I don't love the guy or anything, but people have always exaggerated the difference in quality between his show and Dave's, or anyone else's. Less so at times, I admit, because Letterman did some pretty great stuff in his earlier years. But it hasn't been like that for a long time now. I've often said that I could probably take a random assortment of monologue jokes and fans of either show would have a hard time consistently matching each joke to the host who said it. It's increasingly an image thing.

Anyway, I think lots of his critics would suggest that he had a more active role in what went down than his supporters believe. I dunno if that's true or not, but I do find the whole thing to be far more dramatic than is necessary. And it probably doesn't help that so many people think he swiped The Tonight Show from Dave in the first place. Very easy to assume the same sort of thing happened here.



Didn't Leno take a substantial pay cut to keep members of his staff from getting fired? That seems like a pretty great guy to me. I always have a hard time reconciling Leno's reputation, which is often pretty bad, with actual facts I learn about the guy, which seem to be pretty good, and make him look like a stand-up guy to me.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Okay. I think I understand what you are saying now. What you are saying is that the reason that NBC hatched the plan to have Leno retire was that they were afraid of Conan bolting to another network, and they didn't want to have him competing against "The Tonight Show." What they did is to push off retiring Leno as long as they could, while still promising Conan that he eventually would be his successor, which took away the incentive for Conan to bolt to another network. What Will is saying is that this plan is evidence that NBC always wanted to get rid of Leno, and that that was the rationale for the succession plan. What you are saying is that the original plan wasn't primarily motivated by getting rid of Leno, but by keeping Conan, and the plan they came up with was the best way they could think to do that. Is this a fair reading of your and Will's arguments?

If all of this is true, what I don't understand is why would NBC want Leno to retire, either then or now? Leno is number one in the ratings now, and he was then. Even if Conan were to bolt to another network, Conan never had the audience that Leno did, so what evidence was there that Conan was a real threat to Leno? Isn't the same thing true with Fallon and Kimmel now? Leno is number one. Why would NBC want to get rid of someone who is making them number one in late night on the basis of a theoretical concern that sometime in the future someone could challenge him? This makes even less sense when you factor in that the very people that they are concerned about posing a threat to Leno in the future are currently competing against him now, and losing to him in the ratings. From the book you read and your own analysis, can you explain this?
I think NBC's orignal plan was for Leno to go away at the magic age of 65, which was when Carson retired. It is very clear they were concerned Leno's audience was older than Letterman's even though it was larger. CBS looks at the Letterman Show differently. They see it as The Letterman Show. They are not going to drop it unless the ratings tank and it is no longer profitable. NBC sees Tonight as their long standing legacy show, which began in the fifties with Steve Allen, was dropped for a few years when they gave Allen a prime time variety show, then revived with Jack Parr, then taken over by Carson when Parr retired. The hosts are expendable. Leno in a much more competitive late show circuit was expendable. They didn't want a host who wasn't doing well with younger viewers long term. CBS, all they care about, hey, we finally got a late night show that is competitive against Tonight. We are not going to fool around with this unless the bottom falls out. They tried in the past to go against Carson and failed.



But younger viewers are not sitting at home watching TV at 11:30 at night. Viewers in their twenties and thirties are out at bars and clubs, not sitting at home patiently waiting for late night. The whole idea that the late-night audience should capture the "younger viewers" is a bit nonsensical, since the natural audience for this type of program is not younger viewers, but middle aged and older viewers, who are far more likely to be consistent and reliable viewers of this type of programming. Leno does great with this demographic, so why replace him to satisfy an unrealistic hope that someone else will be able to get younger viewers to stay home to watch late night?