>>217346610
A

>>217346610
what do the numbers mean?

G

>>217346639
L

Every late night show is just a copy of all the other ones.
The genre is dead because they all have to wear the same face now. No mean spirited jokes of any kind.

Q

>No mean spirited jokes of any kind.
Unless it's about Trump

>>217346610
kek

>be unfunny politislop
>lose
Needs to happen more.

*

>Colbert ending
>Meyers less popular than Fallon

That just leaves Kimmel as the only one propping up the talk show genre which is a sign that shit isn't gonna last

>>217346650
laughs per minute

>>217346659
sry I meant to give you a (you)
>>217346680

When you keep verbally assaulting the majority of the country, and the leader of it, people are going to stop watching.

The Tonight Show has to be losing NBC millions and millions of dollars a year now. That show probably employees 150-200 people. They all get a good salary. They pay Fallon's drunk ass millions. They pay for celebrities to travel first class and stay in nice hotels. It all adds up, and they're not getting a good return on their investment. I would expect both his show and Kimmel's to get canceled before 2026 is over.

Drumpf made people not watch! This is fascism!

>>217346610
Buy the dip!

>>217346659
They also have no interesting celebrities to interview.

>>217346610
Ruined SNL too with his constant laughing, now they all do it.

Kimmel has ZERO talent, and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that's possible. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC.

File: unprofitable.png (245 KB, 1024x590)

245 KB PNG

how would you turn these numbers around?

>>217346610
cable is dead
should have let people a la carte their channels instead of pushing people towards streaming
now streaming is balkanized and it takes juggling half a dozen subscriptions to watch what you will
of course, the writing was on the wall for cable

>>217346610
Is this in millions or the "share" number?

>>217346956
it's a broadcast channel

Could (you) make a talk show work if you were the executive producer and had complete creative control? You get to pick
>the network
>the host
>the band
>the guests
>the content
Do you think you could come up with a talk show that could do well in 2026 or is it really a dead genre?

There was a time when there were literally 10 of these things a day spread over different channels. I still don't understand who the FUCK watched all this stuff

>>217347606
I used to watch Conan O'Brien at 1235 every night when I was young. It was hilarious in the mid 90s to early 2000s

>>217347032
Culture doesn't exist anymore.
Everything is a rehash, remake, cover band, meme, mockery, political shit, whatever

>>217346610
G

>>217347032
The role these shows fill is "don't be lonely simulator". The studio audience makes you feel like you're part of a happy and excited crowd. A live band makes it lively. Topical jokes makes you feel like you're up on the news and pop culture. Getting to see attractive and charming celebrities made you closer to them.

I think younger audiences are more savvy and these needs are fulfilled elsewhere. People can piss around online to feel social. These shows aren't actually live and younger viewers can sense that (so it feels likes participatory or like an event). We can get our celebrity access online, along with the news and pop culture. This also makes celeb sightings and interviews less interesting.

Basically I think the format is dead unless someone does an actual live show. Kimmel started out live but didn't want the schedule and guests probably hated it.

Also they were only ever infomercials for Hollywood products.

>>217347032
Yes
>The network: Netflix (alternatively HBO if it has to be a broadcast station)
>The host: A charismatic dude with a huge cock like Michael Fassbender, or similar
>The band: Carpenter Brut & Kavinsky team up for synth wave madness
>The guests: only hot starlets, a mix of still hot legends and up and comers with great bodies of work
>The content: sex sex sex. Full nudity, real sex acts. The hot starlets are dressed like complete sluts. They do gameshow segments like who can make fassbender cum and comparing tit size and shape. The interviews leading up to the acts talk about their favorite positions, wildest sex stories they have, talking about how they first lost their virginity at 12 with some 35 year old producer and fassbender is stroking it the whole time nodding and saying how hot that must have been.

>>217348142
Anon just jerk one off already

>>217347993
>I think younger audiences are more savvy
They instead watch people eating chicken covered in sauce with fake heat ratings to the point the older versions of the show have hotter shit than the current version.
Yeah savvy.

>>217346650
The number, I presume, is millions of people watching.
Post-near-cancellation the show had millions of viewers. Now it's back to 130,000.
It shows that this show wasn't really just canned because Kimmel doesn't like Trump. This type of show doesn't do well anymore

>>217346954
Revive USAID and interest-free loans for being a faggot

>>217346610
And he has the highest ratings. Also, you're now aware that all Late Night shows "ratings" are not representative of reality because most people tune out after the monologue and only like 30k people are still watching by the musical guest.
The only reason they're still on the air is because they're just ads for other shit anyway.

>Talk shows were kept alive over the past decade by just going full DRUMPF
>People aren't as interested in le orange clown memes anymore

They know their meal ticket is fucked once people stop caring about them standing on their soap box calling him a Nazi

>>217348369
Yeah, they'd rather see celebrities in pain than a pre-produced interview.

File: file.png (1.58 MB, 1440x951)

1.58 MB PNG

They just don't make late night shows like they used to.

>>217347032
just rotate through literal who hosts instead of paying one guy millions. Talk shows can theoretically be dirt cheap

>>217346954
more diversity
more hamfisted one-sided politics
more DEI hires in the writing room
less charismatic and funny hosts

>>217348550
Craig charming the pants off of female guests is a big void in pop culture.
It seems like there's not one actual Man on TV, just extremely safe, unsexual dorks. Oh and they all happen to be white. Seems intentional to me.

>>217346842
They make millions in ad revenue, until that stops happening they don't give a fuck.

>>217346610
People want politically relevant talk shows, they just don’t want gay faggots like Colbert doing it. Kimmel probably walks the balance the best but he’s an untalented charisma suck. Fallon is just bleh and he has been doing the same thing for a decade plus at this point.

>>217346610
1.54 millions is a really bad fucking number for a late night show especially on free tv, it really is only boomer fuck and late millennials who still watch this shit

>>217348582
>writer's room
It's one guy sat at a desk talking about current events and then having a ten minute conversation with some overpaid whore. Podcasters with exponentially more viewers do this shit on their own with a walmart camera and a mic from temu.

>>217348757
>they just don’t want gay faggots like Colbert doing it
he has the most popular show though. he's not being cancelled because he has the lowest ratings.

>>217348777
>boomer fuck and late millennials
forgetting the whole of gen X just to shit on millennials (who watch people eat spicy wings on youtube instead of this shit)

>>217348811
Colbert is easily the most talented and entertaining of the lot, which is why his ratings are the best.
You are right about Kimmel being very uncharismatic, thoughever.

>>217346842
>Kimmel's
If think they're worried about the optics of that cuz of the Trump thing. He deserves it regardless.

>>217348777
Milennials are in bed when this shit comes on, and the ones who aren't in bed are up trying to salvage time losing sleep and aren't watching this shit because they know they can just watch it on youtube later. It's boomers and GEN X that watch this shit.

>>217346954
Why does the cost keep increasing? If they're making less revenue, shouldn't they be cutting their budget? Do these media conglomerates not know the fundamental basics of how to run a business?

>>217349190
Money laundering, probably

>>217346610
>genre's draw is mellow, inoffensive, mildly funny pop culture material that anyone can fall asleep to; when they punch, they punch left, right, and center and keep it reasonable
>companies decide that they're going to use it to make people fall asleep to cringe partisan political propaganda and earn applause from Karens
>genre completely loses relevancy

>>217348369
It sucks getting old, huh?

>>217346976
>broadcast
As if anyone actually uses an antenna to get three or four free channels these days.

>>217349422
You actually get a lot more than that through an antenna. It's kind of crazy what you get between that and shit like samsung+ and other free shit. If we had that shit in the 80s/90s almost no one would have ever paid for cable lol.

File: 0f33eee8-7870-49a9-b673-8(...).gif (871 KB, 376x304)

871 KB GIF

>>217349190
Inflation, presumably. Nothing here indicates the figures are cost-adjusted. Money printer go brrrr.

>>217346650
shots of whiskey taken backstage

>>217349927
That's irrelevant. If the cost figures aren't inflation adjusted then neither are the revenue figures. The fact is that if your business is hemorrhaging more and more money every year, you would be insane not to cut costs. Why would anyone ever invest in a company with a profit & loss chart that looks like that?

>>217346659
Greg Gutfield’s show is doing great in ratings

>>217346842
the tonight show will continue and jimmy kimmel will continue having employment until lorne michaels finally retires

>>217350158
His show took the right approach. Make it a cheap operation with a relaxed vibe where the viewer can hang out. Makes more sense than whatever stuffy programming is on the other cable news channels at the time.