wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

okaydo said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

okaydo said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I read that only 20% of tv viewing is network broadcast. My guess is the late show is no longer profitable

---

Yeah but Colbert still got the best viewership out of all of these shows. Hard to see this decision as anything other than political.

---

Colbert had 2.5 million viewers. That ain't great, but it's still 2.5 million educated viewers that viewers clamor for.

And only CBS is canceling late-night shows. They decided to stop programming the 12:30 am timeslot and have given it to a reruns of a guy who's so old he performed on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show in the 70s.

---

The important number is profitability, not the 2.5M

---

Yeah, but they didn't try to do things to make The Late Show more profitable. They didn't cut the staff. Hell, they could've moved to a smaller venue. They didn't try to have Colbert do product placement and advertiser tie-ins, which Kimmel and Fallon do.

---

So then it's not Colbert who was chit-canned, but his business management unit.

---

A. lot of profitability is what you can sell adverting for which is why guys like Carson used to veer towards the middle when possible to get not only bigger audiences, but also a greater advertising revenue. demand.https://hbr.org/2018/06/how-liberals-and-conservatives-shop-differently

The other issue is that relative to other forms of entrainment, late night shows require large staffs, expensive sets, live audiences, and often feature high-profile guests that make demands like cars, drivers, 5 star hotels, meals, etc. When a comedian/host can just make a podcast, all this other stuff just doesn't have long term viability. The view that entertainment business is biased against a liberal is rich and not credible. It is biased toward making money however.

---

Yeah, so, like I said, the business management side of it got fired. Because it's their role to make sure profitability happens.

---

I suggest why guys like Carson (add Leno, etc.) moved to the middle and that the long run trends show the format makes no financial sense from a cost perspective, and you fire back with the management side got fired. Brilliant. Anyone see the disconnect?

---

Who's responsibility is it to make sure that the show is put together in a way that can be profitable?
Lots of budgetary pieces to that.

But go ahead, tell me I'm disconnected.

---

Can your understanding of basic business concepts be anymore dense?

The host won't move the show to the middle to max revenue. How is that in the control of financial management?

Late night cost structure, which is mostly out of the control of the show's management, make the format of these shows not viable against podcasts, and that is for everyone, not just Colbert. Exactly what part of the budgetary process do you change to make the format viable when young audiences instead watch inexpensive to produce podcasts?

Earth to Tom, a basic feature of competitive business is that those with lower revenues and higher costs don't survive. I mean several people here want all networks to continue losing money for some reason lost on me (even money losing pubic broadcasting isn't getting subsidized any more), but no one is blaming the Colbert's financial management team for the show's termination.

Everyone, including the late night hosts, agree that late night is dying and losing money, and then you come in and can't understand why Colbert's management team screwed the pooch. UFB.

---

I'm glad to serve as your dog to kick, because I presume it makes you feel better.
But, I've got news for you. I'm a fair bit more intelligent than you think I am. So guess what - I'm not wounded by your cuts of me. Instead, I'm actually entertained!

Now, I do know a fair bit about you, so I'll resist the temptation at personal insults that float above my head. That would be unkind. Just know that I appreciate you, and am enjoying my own laughter right now!

Like many things you and I squabble about, going back and forth on these basic issues seems silly. We both know the basics.

There was someone above Colbert who was capable of running the show differently. Everyone has a boss.

Maybe Okaydo knows who.

Big C said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

okaydo said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

okaydo said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I read that only 20% of tv viewing is network broadcast. My guess is the late show is no longer profitable

---

Yeah but Colbert still got the best viewership out of all of these shows. Hard to see this decision as anything other than political.

---

Colbert had 2.5 million viewers. That ain't great, but it's still 2.5 million educated viewers that viewers clamor for.

And only CBS is canceling late-night shows. They decided to stop programming the 12:30 am timeslot and have given it to a reruns of a guy who's so old he performed on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show in the 70s.

---

The important number is profitability, not the 2.5M

---

Yeah, but they didn't try to do things to make The Late Show more profitable. They didn't cut the staff. Hell, they could've moved to a smaller venue. They didn't try to have Colbert do product placement and advertiser tie-ins, which Kimmel and Fallon do.

---

So then it's not Colbert who was chit-canned, but his business management unit.

---

A. lot of profitability is what you can sell adverting for which is why guys like Carson used to veer towards the middle when possible to get not only bigger audiences, but also a greater advertising revenue. demand.https://hbr.org/2018/06/how-liberals-and-conservatives-shop-differently

The other issue is that relative to other forms of entrainment, late night shows require large staffs, expensive sets, live audiences, and often feature high-profile guests that make demands like cars, drivers, 5 star hotels, meals, etc. When a comedian/host can just make a podcast, all this other stuff just doesn't have long term viability. The view that entertainment business is biased against a liberal is rich and not credible. It is biased toward making money however.

---

Yeah, so, like I said, the business management side of it got fired. Because it's their role to make sure profitability happens.

---

I suggest why guys like Carson (add Leno, etc.) moved to the middle and that the long run trends show the format makes no financial sense from a cost perspective, and you fire back with the management side got fired. Brilliant. Anyone see the disconnect?

---

Who's responsibility is it to make sure that the show is put together in a way that can be profitable?
Lots of budgetary pieces to that.

But go ahead, tell me I'm disconnected.

---

Can your understanding of basic business concepts be anymore dense?

The host won't move the show to the middle to max revenue. How is that in the control of financial management?

Late night cost structure, which is mostly out of the control of the show's management, make the format of these shows not viable against podcasts, and that is for everyone, not just Colbert. Exactly what part of the budgetary process do you change to make the format viable when young audiences instead watch inexpensive to produce podcasts?

Earth to Tom, a basic feature of competitive business is that those with lower revenues and higher costs don't survive. I mean several people here want all networks to continue losing money for some reason lost on me (even money losing pubic broadcasting isn't getting subsidized any more), but no one is blaming the Colbert's financial management team for the show's termination.

Everyone, including the late night hosts, agree that late night is dying and losing money, and then you come in and can't understand why Colbert's management team screwed the pooch. UFB.

---

I'm glad to serve as your dog to kick, because I presume it makes you feel better.
But, I've got news for you. I'm a fair bit more intelligent than you think I am. So guess what - I'm not wounded by your cuts of me. Instead, I'm actually entertained!

Now, I do know a fair bit about you, so I'll resist the temptation at personal insults that float above my head. That would be unkind. Just know that I appreciate you, and am enjoying my own laughter right now!

Like many things you and I squabble about, going back and forth on these basic issues seems silly. We both know the basics.

There was someone above Colbert who was capable of running the show differently. Everyone has a boss.

Maybe Okaydo knows who.

---

concordtom, since this is a low-traffic day in a low-traffic month, I'll confess something similar, but please keep it a secret:

I'm a fair bit more intelligent than people think I am, too! My intelligence is of the type that's extremely hard to detect. I have spent my life since about the age of two fooling my parents, teachers, psychologists (there were many), employers... and now my wife and kids!

Maybe I've spent the past 60 years laying traps for people. Or maybe not. All y'all will never know. Nor will I.

---

Oh, I KNOW you are a sharp one, Big C.
You display it in many ways.

There are many different forms of intelligence, and yours shine through.
No joke.

I'll get back, however, to the root of the issue. Since it's a low traffic day.

Back during Trump 1, as he was tearing apart America with all his diverse divisive hate speech, I predicted that if Trump didn't watch out, he was going to end up like past leaders of a similar ilk: Hitler, Mussolini, Hussein, Qaddafi… I showed photos of those tyrants, how they ended up. It was a warning about his reckless behavior.

Did I seek shock value by including the actual raw grotesque images? Yes I did. Because that's how serious murder is. But in these cases, it wasn't just a quiet murder like when a prisoner is killed in his jail cell to silence him. This was massive national uprising, war, revolution. A tearing apart of the body in the streets.

And that level of hatred and destruction should give folks something to think about, because it's all incredibly damaging!

Unfortunately, wife couldn't stand to read the perspective. So he wrongly interpreted my warnings as actual calls for violence to the mods and had the posts removed and me banned. Then rubbed my nose in it.

And he can do that, because he's a man of largesse, shall we say. He has influence.

I'm provocative. I say bold things.
Sometimes people don't like that.
He's sometimes pompous. Sometimes people don't like that.

But I say this in closing.

I was right!




And, everyone needs something to vent at here on BI, right? That's why we come. So, keep kicking, Wife. You're an alright guy, underneath it all. I'll be your damn dirty dog.

(Big C…. You don't kick. You are too smart for that. But it therefore begs the question, why are you here?)

This has been a "full circle" post. Multiple full circles.

PS: my warning still stands.
About tanks, uprisings, violence, and Trump's own lifespan.
History repeats itself. The musical impulses are not hard to pick up on, if one bothers.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The host won't move the show to the middle to max revenue.

---

People keep saying this, but the historical truth is that Colbert's ratings improved when he made the show more explicitly political. I watched the early days of his CBS run; trying to be "middle" wasn't working for him.

---

You continually seem to be conflating ad revenue with ratings. The show's ad revenue plummeted according to the ad tracking firm Guideline, as mentioned by numerous articles covering the cancellation.

Let me try this another way. Non-major golf has terrible ratings, and yet has very high ad revenue. You need to look at these things from a financial standpoint and not what you like to watch. I watch Marr a lot, and believe me his days on TV are numbered. It won't be because he is political (which is why I like the show, and I find him funny), it will be financial.

---

I thought I made it clear that I don't watch Colbert anymore, so this isn't really about what I like to watch.

There are two different arguments going on here:

1. That Colbert's show was only canceled for financial reasons and not because of politics. I would disagree with this in part (I think the politics of the Trump era are at least a contributing factor), but will concede that pretty much all broadcast TV has this issue and that will probably eventually lead to all of these late-night shows going away.

2. That Colbert could have improved his "revenue" by changing his content, tacking more towards the political "middle," being more funny, etc. Except this seems to be disproved by his show's history, where it seemed to be more popular the more explicitly left-wing political it was. These arguments seem contradictory to me. Are you sure this part isn't just you coming at this from a standpoint of what YOU like to watch? Seems more likely that the financial problems are more that he had the most popular show in his slot, therefore he commanded more money during his run, and therefore CBS didn't want to pay that anymore.

NVBear78 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I read that only 20% of tv viewing is network broadcast. My guess is the late show is no longer profitable

---

Yeah but Colbert still got the best viewership out of all of these shows. Hard to see this decision as anything other than political.

---

Was the show making money? Everything I have read says the show staffing and costs were very high, plus a huge salary to Kolbert and minimal remaining viewers with even fewer from key demographics.

Sounds like the decision was financial with some political nuance as well based mainly on Colbert being a threat to the hoped for sale…

---

We've been over this in the rest of the thread already, but in short: no, probably not making money anymore, but Hollywood accounting is fuzzy and other shows that are seemingly doing worse have managed to survive longer. So there is a larger question of why Colbert didn't.

Big C said:

---

ct, you made me stop and think for a moment: Why am I here? Okay, here's why...

Back in the last 15-18 years of the 20th century, my Cal alum buddies and I would meet at Northside La Vals once a week or so and shoot the breeze. We talked a lot about Cal Football and Basketball and, since it we all came from different parts of the Bay and it was before digital info, we would actually bring the sports sections from our local papers to compare notes (Chron, Ex, Trib, Times).

We would also talk about politics and current events. See where I'm going with this?

Gradually, my buddies started having families and couldn't make it as often. I was like the last one to bite the bullet. We all still get together, but more like ten times a year, instead of fifty.

The BI gang sort of fills in the gap now! In a way, it's better: I don't have to drive 1/2 hour to get here, I can eat and drink whatever I want and there are more buddies, which gives the group a wider perspective. (None of my old buddies ever voted for Trump, or hardly even the GOP at all, so it's mildly interesting to me to hear the perspective of why an educated person would think like that.)

I can honestly say that nobody here particularly ticks me off. There was one guy, but he got banned several years ago (no, not BearForce2, who I am fine with. Same with the late helltopay1. Cal88? He's my guy. movielover? okay, maybe a little, but he's okay. Plus, he's a bot, anyway. And, he's our bot! Chapman comes here once a month and calls us losers? Don't care; love that dude! Besides, if I don't like an opinion expressed here, I can trash it, as long as I trash the post and not the poster.)

So that's why I'm here from 30-60 minutes most days: to talk about Cal Football and Basketball and some other stuff with people who may not always agree, but at least are coming in with some sort of Cal perspective.

I'm here because it's fun. It's easy and it's fun.

---

Good post
Put that in your profile or bio page, if there is one.

tequila4kapp said:

---

i will trade CBS bringing back Colbert if ABC ****cans The View.

---

Joy Behar just announced that The View is going on hiatus pic.twitter.com/5jAumpy8HC

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 24, 2025

Are you a prophet?

http://hetrumpedus.com/

The Trump Administration is literally out there saying they are getting involved in private media decisions and "reasonable moderates" are on this board wasting everybody's time trying to pretend it isn't happening.

BearNIt said:

---

The fearless leader must be so angry he doesn't need his orange makeup.

---

It seems like Colbert is angry for getting canceled but no one cares.

JUST IN: Stephen Colbert has accused CBS of *FIRING* him because the network surrendered to Trump.

He has called on New Yorkers to join him in protesting CBS.

A truly massive crowd showed up. 🤣pic.twitter.com/tKEN0q9LR3

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) July 28, 2025

"I DEMAND TO BE PAID 40 MEELION SCHMOLIONS!!!!"

Sir, but you aren't funny and nobody watches you

"BLASTED TRUMP DID THIS!"

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The host won't move the show to the middle to max revenue.

---

People keep saying this, but the historical truth is that Colbert's ratings improved when he made the show more explicitly political. I watched the early days of his CBS run; trying to be "middle" wasn't working for him.

---

You continually seem to be conflating ad revenue with ratings. The show's ad revenue plummeted according to the ad tracking firm Guideline, as mentioned by numerous articles covering the cancellation.

Let me try this another way. Non-major golf has terrible ratings, and yet has very high ad revenue. You need to look at these things from a financial standpoint and not what you like to watch. I watch Marr a lot, and believe me his days on TV are numbered. It won't be because he is political (which is why I like the show, and I find him funny), it will be financial.

---

I thought I made it clear that I don't watch Colbert anymore, so this isn't really about what I like to watch.

There are two different arguments going on here:

1. That Colbert's show was only canceled for financial reasons and not because of politics. I would disagree with this in part (I think the politics of the Trump era are at least a contributing factor), but will concede that pretty much all broadcast TV has this issue and that will probably eventually lead to all of these late-night shows going away.

2. That Colbert could have improved his "revenue" by changing his content, tacking more towards the political "middle," being more funny, etc. Except this seems to be disproved by his show's history, where it seemed to be more popular the more explicitly left-wing political it was. These arguments seem contradictory to me. Are you sure this part isn't just you coming at this from a standpoint of what YOU like to watch? Seems more likely that the financial problems are more that he had the most popular show in his slot, therefore he commanded more money during his run, and therefore CBS didn't want to pay that anymore.

---

This reasoned comment is worthy of a response, and the wait was I wanted to talk to a friend in The Business, and get his thoughts.

Regarding number 1: I think Colbert's show was "cancelled" (it just wasn't renewed) for financial reasons, but the timing of the cancelation announcement is just too convenient to be ignored. You are correct that has a political element to it, and it should be rather apparent that the timing is related to the merger. Anyone who is not a former weatherman can figure out that the reason that Colbert's is continuing on well after the announcement is because Colbert and his Co-Producers have a contract, which CBS did not want to breach, and have to pay some hefty damages. You are also correct that you probably won't see any late night shows being renewed in the future. The question remains why publicly announce not renewing Colbert's show now, and the answer seems obvious.

Regarding number 2: AI tells me the demographics are bad, predominantly old, white, liberal, somewhat upper class men. A shrinking demographic, between death and people becoming more conservative as they get older. There are easier and cheaper ways to reach these dinosaurs than buying time for Colbert's show, and there are many late night shows trying to appeal to the same demographics.

While older folks have more buying power, typically they tend to spend less and not buy many products that younger audiences do buy with some frequency, especially families. Like it or not advertisers prioritize younger audiences, believing they are more open to trying new products and developing brand loyalty, leading to a longer lifetime value for brands. Some advertisers worry that campaigns aimed at older demographics might alienate younger viewers, though this is less of an issue with Colbert given his shows demographics. So late night shows already have one strike against them.

Then there is the overly political element, where advertisers weigh the potential benefits of reach with ratings against the risks of associating their brand with highly contentious topics, particularly in an increasingly fragmented and polarized political landscape. They don't want their brand negatively associated with the content or views expressed on such shows, potentially damaging brand image or alienating some potion of potential customers. Jan Leno sorta discussed this (though badly). But the numbers to the extent they are known by an independent marketing agency that is The Industry standard are that Colbert's ad revenue continues to decrease materially (as mentioned in my prior post).

This is in response to the crowd saying why didn't they just cut costs?

You guys can't have it both way. Budget and production are controlled by four people who are now whining that "cancellation" had to do with mergers, politics, or whatever: executive producers Colbert, Stewart, Putcell and Cato. They knew the show was cratering money, they knew their ad revenue had fallen significantly, they knew the format was the same, and yet they chose not to make budget cuts or change the format. And they apparently made the decision to move the content left, and found the ad revenue went down further. I guess they just assumed the network would continue to subsidize their losses because [fill in excuse]?

Leave you with a joke from my friend:

Pretend you have to write a joke for a 5 year old. No sex, no politics, no edge. Now you are a writer for the Jay Leno show.

The word salads have gotten worse. She’s toast.

pic.twitter.com/yWuzQbU61L

— Link Lauren (@itslinklauren) August 1, 2025

Kamala was back on Colbert last night.

I am sure that was hilariously funny, very entertaining and helpful to ratings.

Forget about Colbert being canceled. Howard Stern has been canceled!

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Forget about Colbert being canceled. Howard Stern has been canceled!

---

Last year, Howard Stern said he "hated" anyone who voted for Donald Trump and demanded they stop listening to his Radio Show.

Yesterday, it was announced that SiriusXM has CANCELED 'The Howard Stern Show' after his Ratings plummeted.

Howard Stern FAFO.

Colbert's ratings are up after cancellation numbers. So why is this bad news (hint: numbers went down for viewers under fifty)?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.aol.com/stephen-colbert-show-ratings-revealed-153659267.html&ved=2ahUKEwih9bfT6IOPAxWKJ0QIHZpKNIgQlO8DKAB6BAguEAE&usg=AOvVaw2AmeC1pBqiVzi8m6uufQNR

Nobody is cancelling South Park no matter how pointed their attacks on Trump- and they are viscious .

Trump understands ratings

The big difference between South Park and Colbert is that the South Park episodes can continue to be sold after their original air date. Hard to do that with talk shows.

Plus Paramount- the same company that cancelled Colbert just shelled out 1.5 billion for exclusive streaming deal with South Park founders

Anarchistbear said:

---

Nobody is cancelling South Park no matter how pointed their attacks on Trump- and they are viscious .

Trump understands ratings

---

South Park has very different demographics as well. Colbert's viewers continue to skew even older with the show's cancellation bump.

so some surprises:

Myers was renewed to 2028. He had said publicly some time ago that he didn't think he would be renewed due to industry economics.

Fallon was renewed thought 2028.

Kimmel didn't think he would be renewed and said so some time ago. I'm not sure what being renewed though 2025 means here in August 2025.

Stewart was renewed through 2025 and he said he was told not to get to conformable. Not sure if that was intended as a joke.

Maher was renewed through 2026

Cohen was renewed through 2028

Tamoron Hall through 2026

Drew Barrymore was the only CBS "late night" show to be renewed.

After Midnight on CBS was cancelled.

Business terms for renewals was not discussed (are shows/stars charging networks less money? )

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.justjared.com/2025/08/13/talk-show-cancellations-renewals-in-2025-2-late-night-shows-canceled-several-renewed-for-more-seasons/&ved=2ahUKEwjYlfGt24mPAxU3MEQIHfdRIjwQFnoECBoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0t5tbVS_p431aZ31evNkNF