Pages

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Matt's Thoughts on Late Night

The topic of late night TV is a really interesting one for me, since I spent some of my summertime on vacation staying up late to watch late night TV just because I could.  I would like to give myself some well-earned praise and say I am a terrific late night TV watcher.  I could stay up to watch the second half of a Craig Ferguson show, even though I could just as easily go to bed.  I would wager money that I have seen Ferguson's predecessor Craig Kilborn do the "5 Questions" segment hundreds of times.  My credentials are really first-rate here.

But my conclusions are this:
  • Late night TV shows depend on having a reliable core audience.  Think Leno and Letterman and their respective over 50 crowds.  Stewart and Colbert with their college-educated liberal-leaning viewers.  And Handler and her "Sex and the City" enthusiasts.
  • If a show doesn't have a locked-in audience that has routinely watched the program for decades like Letterman and Leno, then it has to really appeal to that niche audience.  Stewart, Colbert, Handler all have little niche factors and pet subjects.  Jimmy Kimmel has a "Man Show" flavor, and Jimmy Fallon has built his show by catching the pulse of a younger crowd with video segments, "Saved by the Bell" references, social media build-ins, and an overall slightly fresh take on a late night show.
  • If you are not a routine viewer of these shows (and I put myself in this category) you can probably enjoy any of them, but you will probably also enjoy a sitcom repeat or any other generic alternative.
My own media diet is pretty full already and I just don't need late night TV.  Bill Simmon's podcast on late night TV (which is the source of nearly every view I have on this subject) had a great point that DVRs are a significant factor in the decline of late night viewership.  I know that I usually use the hours from 10pm on to get caught up on my favorite recorded shows before ever thinking to flip channels and see what late night TV has to offer.  Even at my work, people will ask me regularly if I saw a segment on Colbert the night before, but I always think, "how does this guy have the time to watch this?"  I think that the late night programs have to count among your favorite shows to compete for your time and attention when it could be so much more appealing to watch some great on-demand or recorded shows, the next DVD in your Netflix queue, a favorite show on Hulu, or whatever other media option comes first for you.

The Simmon's podcast also points out another aspect in that certain shows have responded to this competition for time and attention while others shows haven't.  One positive response has been to do a shorter show.  Could Colbert entertain me for an hour every night?  Surely, yes.  But he is probably better off doing 15 minutes of "A" material and one interview than piling on extra interviews, some so-so segments and an extended monologue a la the old hands Leno and Letterman.  This leads to his doing a show that leaves people talking about it the next day, rather than just doing the show night after night as people wind down before bed.  The other successful route is to do the standard show, but have some really edgy or standout segments.  This seems to me to be how Kimmel and Fallon have been able to do strong network shows even as relative latecomers in an increasing competitive field that is meanwhile losing its mainstream appeal.  If you are not doing a tight show that never really lets up, or some buzzy pieces that will get replayed on Hulu, YouTube, and other new media, then you are going to suffer mightily.  And that, in summary, is why I have yet to mention my old favorite, Conan.  Even after having to jump networks, it still feels like that show (which is also limited by its network, lead-ins, guest bookings, etc.) is aspiring to do the same old late night show.  As they say, it is not ready for prime time.  Or in this case, the late night talk show field of today.

No comments:

Post a Comment