In an Ad Age article about the increasingly fractured late night viewership landscape comes this nifty graphic above with estimates of the advertising revenue across the late night shows.
Note that Late Night's ad revenues are estimated to have been above The Tonight Show's in 2008, even before NBC did it's best to commit late night suicide.
Props to E!'s Chelsea Lately, nearly the ad revenue of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report and headed up, while Colbert is headed down.
you’re so influenced by the pretty graphics. Lookist!
the primary reason I didn’t post this myself is because the only thing really interesting in the piece was the chart, which they did not attempt to quantify in any way.
The article doesn’t reference the revenue dollars, doesn’t talk about how the estimates were done (presumably they sampled buyers for average rates as they do with the upfronts) or bother trying to explain how Letterman made more money even when Leno was crushing him in total viewers and beating him in the demos.
“Nifty” holds no sway with me when it doesn’t even bother trying to account for the numbers.
That said, I would take any lack of protest from NBC (or Comedy Central) in the coming week as a tacit admission that it’s in the neighborhood of being correct.
you’re so influenced by the pretty graphics. Lookist!
the primary reason I didn’t post this myself is because the only thing really interesting in the piece was the chart, which they did not attempt to quantify in any way.
The article doesn’t reference the revenue dollars, doesn’t talk about how the estimates were done (presumably they sampled buyers for average rates as they do with the upfronts) or bother trying to explain how Letterman made more money even when Leno was crushing him in total viewers and beating him in the demos.
“Nifty” holds no sway with me when it doesn’t even bother trying to account for the numbers.
That said, I would take any lack of protest from NBC (or Comedy Central) in the coming week as a tacit admission that it’s in the neighborhood of being correct.
you’re so influenced by the pretty graphics. Lookist!
the primary reason I didn’t post this myself is because the only thing really interesting in the piece was the chart, which they did not attempt to quantify in any way.
The article doesn’t reference the revenue dollars, doesn’t talk about how the estimates were done (presumably they sampled buyers for average rates as they do with the upfronts) or bother trying to explain how Letterman made more money even when Leno was crushing him in total viewers and beating him in the demos.
“Nifty” holds no sway with me when it doesn’t even bother trying to account for the numbers.
That said, I would take any lack of protest from NBC (or Comedy Central) in the coming week as a tacit admission that it’s in the neighborhood of being correct.
you’re so influenced by the pretty graphics. Lookist!
the primary reason I didn’t post this myself is because the only thing really interesting in the piece was the chart, which they did not attempt to quantify in any way.
The article doesn’t reference the revenue dollars, doesn’t talk about how the estimates were done (presumably they sampled buyers for average rates as they do with the upfronts) or bother trying to explain how Letterman made more money even when Leno was crushing him in total viewers and beating him in the demos.
“Nifty” holds no sway with me when it doesn’t even bother trying to account for the numbers.
That said, I would take any lack of protest from NBC (or Comedy Central) in the coming week as a tacit admission that it’s in the neighborhood of being correct.
you’re so influenced by the pretty graphics. Lookist!
the primary reason I didn’t post this myself is because the only thing really interesting in the piece was the chart, which they did not attempt to quantify in any way.
The article doesn’t reference the revenue dollars, doesn’t talk about how the estimates were done (presumably they sampled buyers for average rates as they do with the upfronts) or bother trying to explain how Letterman made more money even when Leno was crushing him in total viewers and beating him in the demos.
“Nifty” holds no sway with me when it doesn’t even bother trying to account for the numbers.
That said, I would take any lack of protest from NBC (or Comedy Central) in the coming week as a tacit admission that it’s in the neighborhood of being correct.
Couple things:
Chelsea Lately is 5 nights a week, Colbert Report is 4 nights a week. She also comes on at 11 not 11:30. Colbert also was up in 08 because of the election. I don’t think you can fairly say its headed down as if its a trend, the ratings are pretty constant.
So while they estimate she has nearly the same ad revenue, that would make logical sense.
Couple things:
Chelsea Lately is 5 nights a week, Colbert Report is 4 nights a week. She also comes on at 11 not 11:30. Colbert also was up in 08 because of the election. I don’t think you can fairly say its headed down as if its a trend, the ratings are pretty constant.
So while they estimate she has nearly the same ad revenue, that would make logical sense.
Couple things:
Chelsea Lately is 5 nights a week, Colbert Report is 4 nights a week. She also comes on at 11 not 11:30. Colbert also was up in 08 because of the election. I don’t think you can fairly say its headed down as if its a trend, the ratings are pretty constant.
So while they estimate she has nearly the same ad revenue, that would make logical sense.
Couple things:
Chelsea Lately is 5 nights a week, Colbert Report is 4 nights a week. She also comes on at 11 not 11:30. Colbert also was up in 08 because of the election. I don’t think you can fairly say its headed down as if its a trend, the ratings are pretty constant.
So while they estimate she has nearly the same ad revenue, that would make logical sense.
Couple things:
Chelsea Lately is 5 nights a week, Colbert Report is 4 nights a week. She also comes on at 11 not 11:30. Colbert also was up in 08 because of the election. I don’t think you can fairly say its headed down as if its a trend, the ratings are pretty constant.
So while they estimate she has nearly the same ad revenue, that would make logical sense.
Who doesn’t like to look at pretty things?
I guess I’m not in the debunking mood tonight. Perhaps I’m still on a high after finding the excellent three guys in a leaky boat picture for this post.
Who doesn’t like to look at pretty things?
I guess I’m not in the debunking mood tonight. Perhaps I’m still on a high after finding the excellent three guys in a leaky boat picture for this post.
Who doesn’t like to look at pretty things?
I guess I’m not in the debunking mood tonight. Perhaps I’m still on a high after finding the excellent three guys in a leaky boat picture for this post.
Who doesn’t like to look at pretty things?
I guess I’m not in the debunking mood tonight. Perhaps I’m still on a high after finding the excellent three guys in a leaky boat picture for this post.
Who doesn’t like to look at pretty things?
I guess I’m not in the debunking mood tonight. Perhaps I’m still on a high after finding the excellent three guys in a leaky boat picture for this post.
Surprised that Kimmel is so high in the list.
Surprised that Kimmel is so high in the list.
Surprised that Kimmel is so high in the list.
Surprised that Kimmel is so high in the list.
I wasn’t suggesting that it was something requiring debunking. The chart could be accurate, but if it is for the 2008 results, whatever the reasons Letterman > Leno is more interesting than the story or the chart.