There is not a more glaring example of why the media in general is completely out to lunch than the Jay Leno Show on NBC.
This is NOT a comment on Leno's show at all. As always, Jay is doing a great show and the people who contribute are hilarious. That is not the point of this writing at all.
The late nigh format works when you have a lower audience to sample it. Many viewers drop off after the 11PM, so Letterman, Conan and the like were always fighting over an audience that was much smaller than House, Seinfeld or Survivor was gunning for. This is all common knowledge, just setting the table here.
When Leno debuted, the ratings bombed. Bigtime. He had a decent week last week, barely edging out a repeat episode of "Ugly Betty". Apparently when there is nothing on, Leno's ratings go from terrible to mediocre. But NBC execs touted the upside: We are saving a ton of money! NYT:
But NBC is justifying the move by citing both the savings Mr. Leno’s show represents over expensive 10 p.m. dramas.Um... what? Time:
Really, these are two ways of saying the same thing. Leno at 10 was always a business device more than anything, a restructuring plan with a monologue, a cost-cutting measure for whom traditionally "poor" performance was acceptible, and to an extent expected. And it's delivered that.Okay. When people talk about "corporate culture" this is what they mean. You get so comfortable in your office and tuned in to only your day to day existence that you forget that your job is actually producing a product. I have seen it happen at a station (and sadly participated a bit), I understand its easy to get caught up. Media companies especially have been guilty of that (some... not all). It doesn't matter... AT ALL how much money you are saving. Do advertisers give a rip if we are cutting costs? Does the audience feel better if the overalll production is saving money? Of course not!! So why is that EVER a concern? Seems like we should be concerned about what the advertisers and audience think because without them there ceases to be a reason for media to exist.
Remember: WHY DO WE EXIST? We are trying to attract the biggest audience, and then sell advertising to that audience. We thrive when the audience is huge, and fail when the audience dwindles. The reason old media is getting THROTTLED in the new century is they fail to see the big picture, Yes, the internet has been a game changer as far as media goes. The advent of satellite radio , portable MP3 players have saturated the market. It is harder now. But why has not one of these old media (by which I mean Television, Radio, and Newspapers) looked at this as a challenge? Why are we throwing our hands in the air?
We are getting close to the "Inside Music Media" disaster scenario. There is more competition out there. So that means now is the time to actually invest in creative programming. We have to develop programming that you can't get anywhere else.
Remember: Why do we exist? Why did we put up the transmitter in the first place? Is is to be a fiscally sound company? Well we haven't really made investments in programming in the last decade. How did that go?
