Should ABC move Kimmel and Nightline back to their original slots?

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/...new-time-slot-may-seal-fate-of-nightline.html

I found this article that stated that Kimmel, back in his 12 a.m. slot, had 1.8 million, while Nightline had 3.9 million in its 11:35 slot. Kimmel recently averaged 1.7 in his 11:30 slot, while Nightline is considerably down. Should these shuffle back?

tall_guy1 said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/...new-time-slot-may-seal-fate-of-nightline.html

I found this article that stated that Kimmel, back in his 12 a.m. slot, had 1.8 million, while Nightline had 3.9 million in its 11:35 slot. Kimmel recently averaged 1.7 in his 11:30 slot, while Nightline is considerably down. Should these shuffle back?

Click to expand...

Well, that link is from 2012. I'm not sure there is any relevance to it today. It would also be worthy to look at what was happening in the news to make Nightline a ratings leader back then. 2012 was a Presidential Election year, with Mitt Romney eventually nominated to take on incumbent Obama. There was Hurricane Sandy that hit the NE, but other than those two events, not a lot of news.

It should also be noted that three comedy network talk shows at 11:30/10:30 are not the norm historically. Yes, we all remember Leno vs. Letterman, but over the past 60 years, there rarely has been a 3-way competition that was remotely close.

Whether all three of the late night shows can survive today is anyone's guess. I don't have a favorite at this point, unlike my younger years where I knew who I liked pure and simple. That may be part of the problem today.

But to your question, no that is not really an option IMO. First, Kimmel would probably not look kindly to being demoted, and would likely get a big contract exit deal that would hurt ABC, (not knowing specifics on his contract). On the plus side, as we approach another Presidential Election in just a year or so (yes, the campaigning will begin that soon!) Nightline perhaps could be a ratings winner once again. Lots of unknowns here, but a good question posed.

As a viewer, I disliked the move intensely, but fully understand it and would not consider making a swap now. It was good business strategy.

A lot of the success of Nightline was the fact that it was built around a single anchor, speaking to newsmakers. Once the show format changed, with multiple hosts, and feature reporting, it became more of what you see on the cable news channels and other places. To me, it really doesn't matter what time it's on, because if that's really what I want, it's available 24/7 someplace else.

TheBigA said:

A lot of the success of Nightline was the fact that it was built around a single anchor, speaking to newsmakers. Once the show format changed, with multiple hosts, and feature reporting, it became more of what you see on the cable news channels and other places. To me, it really doesn't matter what time it's on, because if that's really what I want, it's available 24/7 someplace else.

Click to expand...

Exactly. it's worth remembering the history of Nightline. It started as a nightly report in 1978 or 79, anchored by Ted Koppel - about the Iran hostage crisis, after the fall of the Shah. In fact, I think the original title was America Held Hostage...the Nightline brand came later. At the time, it was a smart move by ABC, which really had nothing much going in late night. Their biggest hit had been Dick Cavett, who always trailed Carson in the ratings, and his show had ended a couple of years previous, in any case.

In my opinion, the show went to hell after Koppel left - perhaps not because he left, but because they decided to tinker with the format.

Besides, from what I gathered at the time the two shows switched time slots, it was because ABC felt Kimmel was at a disadvantage by starting a 25 minutes after The Tonight Show and Late Night. It's Kimmel's show that gets all the buzz, gets quoted, and portions streamed on the internet the next day - not Nightline, which is more or less an anachronism in our 24/7 news world.

I love that Kimmel's at 11:06PM here in Yakima. I can watch late night TV with Kimmel and Guillermo and laugh, before I go to bed. I don't have to wait for Colbert or Fallon.

If I remember right about the Kimmel move to 11:35pm, it also came with a new contract for Kimmel and his staff/company. At this point, ABC has invested a lot in Jimmy Kimmel Live, and it'll just be foolish to move back to 12:05am, and besides Nightline, it's ABC's longest-running late night program (its 16th anniversary is in three months).

kenrayc said:

All one sided fake liberal crap, FOX needs a late night talk show to counter it

Click to expand...

Fox keeps politics in one place: FNC.

Just turn on the radio. No liberals allowed.

TheBigA said:

Fox keeps politics in one place: FNC.

Just turn on the radio. No liberals allowed.

Click to expand...

Sinclair would be more likely to create a satirical -- or outright political -- late-night show with a far-right slant, but doesn't have stations in enough markets to have it come anywhere close to the viewership of the network's late shows, or their appeal to advertisers.

CTListener said:

Sinclair would be more likely to create a satirical -- or outright political -- late-night show with a far-right slant

Click to expand...

They really haven't looked to challenge the networks. If they do a late show, they'd keep it on the internet, and not on one of their owned stations. There's a reason why Fox hasn't done it.

kenrayc said:

I think Kimmel should be cancelled, along with all other LIBTARD late night talk shows, Colvert, Meyers, and all the rest, late night, tv turned into a fkin circus, same goes for SNL.

Click to expand...

So....TV should only reflect what you want to see? Shouldn't, just spitballing here, the market decide what stays and what goes?

CTListener said:

Sinclair would be more likely to create a satirical -- or outright political -- late-night show with a far-right slant, but doesn't have stations in enough markets to have it come anywhere close to the viewership of the network's late shows, or their appeal to advertisers.

Click to expand...

If Sinclair was really going to do a late night show they would have to do the show on a "rumored network". Yes this proposed right wing network that Sinclair's PR people has mentioned goes back to the failed Tribune deal and now the rumors of this proposed network is at play again with the recent talks of Sinclair wanting to get the Cox owned stations and the Fox Sports Regional Networks from Fox and Disney.

RadioPatrol said:

If Sinclair was really going to do a late night show they would have to do the show on a "rumored network".

Click to expand...

So far, the only commitment I've seen they've made to any kind of "network" is the digital kind, not broadcast.

Sinclair has lots of long term commitments to existing broadcast networks.

AbrahamJSimpson said:

So....TV should only reflect what you want to see? Shouldn't, just spitballing here, the market decide what stays and what goes?

Click to expand...

Truly. I refuse to be one of those 'libtards' who complains about Fox News and talk radio. Conservatives can have what they want. But popular talk hosts pretend to be liberal. Get used to it. Dennis Miller was an exception with his HBO show, but if memory serves, he didn't go full right-wing until after that show, and where did he go? Talk radio, of course. But I'm struggling to think of other popular right-wing hosts. Even Johnny Carson, who worked hard to satirize everybody on the political spectrum - was clearly liberal, though I recall that his running satires of Reagan were gentle and respectful.

Please remember that prior to CBS, Colbert played a pretend right-wing host on The Colbert Report. His CBS show was struggling in the ratings until the producers decided to let him trash Trump all he wanted.

LKellerIII said:

Please remember that prior to CBS, Colbert played a pretend right-wing host on The Colbert Report. His CBS show was struggling in the ratings until the producers decided to let him trash Trump all he wanted.

Click to expand...

Correct. The thing most non-broadcasters forget is that the major markets that bring the networks their ratings are mainly blue cities. Especially LA and NY, where those shows are based. So these shows are getting better ratings doing this than they'd get going the other way. I think Fox and Sinclair understand that, which is why they haven't launched a night show with a righty host.

TheBigA said:

Correct. The thing most non-broadcasters forget is that the major markets that bring the networks their ratings are mainly blue cities. Especially LA and NY, where those shows are based. So these shows are getting better ratings doing this than they'd get going the other way. I think Fox and Sinclair understand that, which is why they haven't launched a night show with a righty host.

Click to expand...

Surprisingly, Jimmy Fallon who is the least partisan and least angry of all the late night talk show host has the highest demo ratings, which means more money for NBC.

A Lot of people watch clips of these late night shows on the internet or they DVR them so it probably wouldn't hurt to much if a network were moved one of these shows back to later time slots for news programs were viewers are most likely to watch live.

bobjim45 said:

Surprisingly, Jimmy Fallon who is the least partisan and least angry of all the late night talk show host has the highest demo ratings, which means more money for NBC.

A Lot of people watch clips of these late night shows on the internet or they DVR them so it probably wouldn't hurt to much if a network were moved one of these shows back to later time slots for news programs were viewers are most likely to watch live.

Click to expand...

It would hurt. There’s a reason Kimmel moved up, and that Conan wanted nothing to do with starting at midnight. The DVR and internet viewing is all well and good, but the proverbial bread and butter remains “live” airing. That’s where the largest share of ad money is placed. The more the audience is cut, the less cash you bring in.

AbrahamJSimpson said:

The DVR and internet viewing is all well and good, but the proverbial bread and butter remains “live” airing. That’s where the largest share of ad money is placed. The more the audience is cut, the less cash you bring in.

Click to expand...

Exactly, no one wants to encourage delayed viewing because they know people will skip the ads. Also, the viewing has to occur within 3 days of the actual show to count as a view in the ratings. So anything they can do to keep live viewers is good.

Kimmel is more aggressive than the others in promoting live views, with tie-ins to major ABC prime time events, such as the Academy Awards or Super Bowl. I doubt that ABC would want to lose that kind of synergy.

LKellerIII said:

Even Johnny Carson, who worked hard to satirize everybody on the political spectrum - was clearly liberal, though I recall that his running satires of Reagan were gentle and respectful.

Click to expand...

I remember reading once where Carson was quoted as saying that he didn't get too political on either side because he could risk losing half his audience. Even Leno and Letterman (until his later years) didn't go too extreme. And although I really don't watch much of the current late night shows I can see where Fallon is the least political.

TheBigA said:

Correct. The thing most non-broadcasters forget is that the major markets that bring the networks their ratings are mainly blue cities. Especially LA and NY, where those shows are based. So these shows are getting better ratings doing this than they'd get going the other way. I think Fox and Sinclair understand that, which is why they haven't launched a night show with a righty host.

Click to expand...

Pardon my didacticism, but the urban/rural divide is crucial to understanding modern America - especially entertainment and how it intersects with politics. After the '16 election, and still in my mourning phase, I did my own research on how cities voted. There are very FEW "red" cities. Even in red states, Hillary Clinton won the vote in cities by a comfortable margin. She won Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and most others. She got 63% of the vote in Miami. What happened to all those supposedly conservative Cuban-Americans? HRC got 56% in San Diego, which used to be called "a red city in a blue state." I don't pretend that my research was exhaustive, but the largest Trump city I could find was Des Moines, and their population is only 217,000, so it's just barely a city.

So for the most part, American cities are liberal, rural areas conservative, and suburban areas can break either way. Right or wrong, the entertainment industry caters to the cities