Exactly so. But the cost to produce those shows keep going up: Kimmel et al get raises with every new contract extension that they sign, the salaries of the production staffs keep going up, etc.
Even if the “cost per impression” for an ad also increases over time with inflation, the declines in net viewership that those shows are seeing, and the particularly steep declines in viewership among younger viewers (for which the networks can charge higher rates for ads, as most advertisers want younger audiences) are undoubtedly not being offset by inflation on ad rates, meaning that a show which was actually profitable for the network five or ten years ago isn’t any more.
This doesn’t have anything to do with advertising.
It is entirely about the FCC, Trump, and the US Government writ large telling broadcasters that the Feds will come down on them like a ton of bricks if their shows keep saying mean things about Republicans and Trump. That’s why these firings are coming right after a mean statement or right before a big government approval of something for the parent company.
It does when I’m having a conversation with @Fear_Itself about the impact that advertisers do (or don’t) have on these shows. In short, the shows aren’t nearly as attractive to advertisers as they used to be, and advertisers aren’t going to care very much if ABC replaces Kimmel with re-runs of Celebrity Jeopardy!, or whatever.
Let’s say Kimmel/Colbert/Fallon all go away. That’s 5 million pairs of eyeballs. Markets being fractured as they are these days, where are advertisers going to make that up? Even at decreased value, that’s still a lot in one place. Now it’s dispersed, who knows how long it will take to recoup it? That’s why I said advertisers should be worried.
They’ll watch something else, be it a network show, or something streaming. Some of them will stay on whatever crap the networks put on in the place of those talk shows; others will watch some cable channel, a streaming show, whatever. It’ll all come out in the wash.
(Also, just FWIW, 5 million viewers is just 2% of U.S. adults.)
As far as shows? Probably nothing specific in late night; advertisers might shift dollars to prime time, or see what else on late night picks up the audience that the networks lose when the talk shows go away.
As I noted, all three of those shows way underperform in younger viewers; many advertisers might put money into shows and networks where they can get that audience more easily.
Edit: as per the link I shared in post 50, the three shows – combined – have an average audience of viewers ages 18-49 (the most valuable audience to many advertisers) of only 596,000; that’s only about 0.5% of that age group.
Where the rates are already much higher. More ad dollars chasing the same prime time shows drives rates even higher. Still sounds suboptimal for advertisers.
Meh, maybe. These are small audiences to start with, even though I know you feel that 5 million is a lot of people – and it is, until you start talking about a national population, at which point, it’s a very small proportion.
And, frankly, all linear TV is struggling with viewership losses, as more people, especially younger viewers, cut the cord, and only watch streaming TV. A lot of advertising dollars are already moving out of broadcast and cable, and into digital.
If the administration will threaten the licences/corporate affairs of media companies that have programming which is less than full throated support of the administration … what are the prospects for networks that host opposition advertising in an election campaign?
What you mean is that it’s not a first amendment issue. It’s absolutely a “free speech” issue if corporate power silences people, as free speech is a concept that is beyond the first amendment.
But it’s also a first amendment issue, as Colbert and Kimmel were cancelled primarily due to the wishes of a dictator, and you know it. CBS cancelled Colbert because Trump runs the executive branch as a grift and a mafia protection racket. Shame if your $30 billion dollar merger should get rejected because you didn’t fire one of my critics and install a monitor who will ensure that your network doesn’t avoid criticising me in the future…
Kimmel was even more blatant when the FCC chair started making threats of pulling licenses for affiliates who air Kimmel.
You are either ignorant of these facts or you are operating in bad faith. If Obama did this, there’s no way you would be claiming that this wasn’t a first amendment issue because it was corporations pulling the trigger at the government behest.
It’s telling that Trump campaigns as basically a standup comedy tour, and so goes after rival comedians. That’s his level, settled into after the last bankruptcy.
“The power of stockholders”–you have identified the fatal flaw of capitalism, the prime fiduciary responsibility of corporations to seek their stockholders’ profits to the exclusion of any other goal, moral, social, patriotic, humane, fair, decent, or ethical. Even legal, in cases where legality is open for discussion. Corporations are, by design, monsters and enemies of the people, at least those people who don’t hold stock in individual corporations. Operating without a moral compass, corporations–which are essential to a capitalist system–can and will destroy our civilization.
Nobody has been silenced. Kimmel and Colbert can continue to say whatever they like for as long as they like. There is no constitutional guarantee that corporations have to fund it.
A corporation can certainly fire someone who works for them for saying offensive things, or things that ownership doesn’t like; you are right that the First Amendment doesn’t prevent it.
But what we’re seeing here is that the corporations are taking these actions under pressure from the Federal government, and that is a First Amendment issue. The President literally said, “Kimmel is next to go” after Colbert’s show was cancelled.
And if the government bans someone from speaking in town square, well, that’s just fine, because they can always invite people over to their own houses. Yes, I already know you’re going to say “but it’s not the government!”, except it is. The government is using its influence on these corporations. You know it, but you won’t acknowledge it. You’re making a lawyer’s case for something that you probably know is wrong.