What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[HVC]

You have more important things to worry about like a a shady cabal of pedophile celebrities  and politicians run by a dead guy.

[Neil]

Trump managed to get Colbert cancelled.

I don't know if that was all Trump, although it certainly didn't help.  They were paying him a fortune, and late night TV viewship has been in the process of collapsing for years.  Although the first Trump administration was good for late-night shows, they're way back down again. 

In short, cancelling Colbert was probably a sound decision just on business terms, even if it's annoying to take the platform of somebody who is poking the eye of the worst person we know. 

[viper37]

Trump managed to get Colbert cancelled.

I don't know if that was all Trump, although it certainly didn't help.  They were paying him a fortune, and late night TV viewship has been in the process of collapsing for years.  Although the first Trump administration was good for late-night shows, they're way back down again. 

In short, cancelling Colbert was probably a sound decision just on business terms, even if it's annoying to take the platform of somebody who is poking the eye of the worst person we know. 

They said in their statement to him that it wasn't related to performance...

[viper37]

Jeep maker Stellantis says it will lose $2.7 billion due partly to tariffs

They gave 1M$ for Trump inauguration party.  Sound investment! 

[frunk]

TV viewership in general is in a long term decline, and the only major cost of late night shows is the headline talent.  They are amongst the cheapest shows to produce outside of that.

They also translate well to social media clips, unlike a lot of other TV shows.  So sure, it's probably less profitable than it was a decade ago but so is almost every other show on TV.  If this is strictly a monetary decision it's saying that network TV is pretty close to dead.

[HVC]

They've been making shit for years. Lost 70% of net profit year over year from 2023 to 2024. A net profit loss of some 14 Billion. Blaming tariffs seems like a nice easy excuse for a CEO

[HVC]

TV viewership in general is in a long term decline, and the only major cost of late night shows is the headline talent.  They are amongst the cheapest shows to produce outside of that.

They also translate well to social media clips, unlike a lot of other TV shows.  So sure, it's probably less profitable than it was a decade ago but so is almost every other show on TV.  If this is strictly a monetary decision it's saying that network TV is pretty close to dead.

If CBS is to be believed, it costs them 100 million a year to produce, and they lost 40 million. Take that for what it's worth. Even then some of those costs aren't going away, they still own the studio and what not, for example.

[Neil]

TV viewership in general is in a long term decline, and the only major cost of late night shows is the headline talent.  They are amongst the cheapest shows to produce outside of that.

They also translate well to social media clips, unlike a lot of other TV shows.  So sure, it's probably less profitable than it was a decade ago but so is almost every other show on TV.  If this is strictly a monetary decision it's saying that network TV is pretty close to dead.

They don't really care about social media clips, or if they do, they do a terrible job of it.  Most of Colbert's clips are 100-200k views on YouTube, although I will admit that those that are going after the administration do better. 

The costs (apart from Colbert himself) are low, but so are the returns.  We'll see what they do with the space.  They could make more money with a bikini girls throwing drinks on each other contest island show.

[The Minsky Moment]

One of the key roles of the late night shows is promoting Hollywood releases.  CBS just merged with a big studio and the first move is to axe one your biggest cross-promotional platforms?

[HVC]

One of the key roles of the late night shows is promoting Hollywood releases.  CBS just merged with a big studio and the first move is to axe one your biggest cross-promotional platforms?

You can do that cheaper on YouTube. Hell, if the earlier number of 2.5 views per episode I found was accurate there are YouTube channels geared to that audience  that exceed those numbers for far less then 100 million a year in costs.

Not saying the late show didn't have social value, like newsprint and other "dying" media, just that at a cost benefit analysis at a corporate level cheap wins.

[The Minsky Moment]

You can do that cheaper on YouTube.

Sure if you want to put your corporate balls into the google vise.  It's an odd approach for a corporation whose portfolio is heavy with cable channels and a legacy prestige network. 

[Norgy]

Trump managed to get Colbert cancelled.

I don't know if that was all Trump, although it certainly didn't help.  They were paying him a fortune, and late night TV viewship has been in the process of collapsing for years.  Although the first Trump administration was good for late-night shows, they're way back down again. 

In short, cancelling Colbert was probably a sound decision just on business terms, even if it's annoying to take the platform of somebody who is poking the eye of the worst person we know. 

I was slightly facetious, obviously. However, in my opinion, this is media ownership at its worst, rolling over on its back under pressure. I think most people knew this "Democracy dies in blahblah" by the WaPo was just BS as long as Bezos owns it. And the concentration of media ownership is worrying almost all over the Western world.

[HVC]

You can do that cheaper on YouTube.

Sure if you want to put your corporate balls into the google vise.  It's an odd approach for a corporation whose portfolio is heavy with cable channels and a legacy prestige network. 

Fair enough, there are significant risks. But if the banking industry has taught us anything is that future considerations for American corporations or low on the agenda. That's the future CEOs problem, I want my bonus today

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I am surprised more Americans don't put America as the top threat.

they couldn't find it on the map

[Sheilbh]

TV viewership in general is in a long term decline, and the only major cost of late night shows is the headline talent.  They are amongst the cheapest shows to produce outside of that.

They also translate well to social media clips, unlike a lot of other TV shows.  So sure, it's probably less profitable than it was a decade ago but so is almost every other show on TV.  If this is strictly a monetary decision it's saying that network TV is pretty close to dead.

That might be true anyway - I saw a thing from when Colbert took over that the average age of the audience was 60 and part of the hope was that he could bring in a younger audience.

The average age now is 68. Can't imagine that's an attractive demographic for advertisers - or even Hollywood studios. And I'd add I think he's got a significantly smaller subscriber base on YouTube (who are also changing the way their algorithm works apparently to emphasise "shorts" ).

Not sure about the US but I think linear TV viewership in the UK has halved in the last decade with the steepest fall among young people. Even if lots of people still watch, say, BBC content they stream it through iPlayer.

I don't disagree about it being relatively cheap and useful for cross-marketing. Everywhere else in the world has aspired to and admired the US late night shows - but I think it's been really difficult to recreate them because outside the US there's just not enough celebrity star power to sustain it nightly. I also feel their cultural relevance/pull has declined over the years outside the US which maybe reflects all these trends. So I wonder if where it goes is younger host, more "clippable" sections and maybe fewer nights?