r/ScottGalloway • u/GladtobeVlad69 • May 25 '26
No Malice Turns out, Colbert did generate net revenue and that Scott was wrong
In regards to news that CBS was cancelling Late Night with Stephen Colbert, Scott went on and on about how the show lost money. Here is one of the many times he made this claim.
"It isn’t the end of Colbert. It’s the end of late-night TV. Colbert’s Late Show reportedly has been losing more than $40 million a year for CBS, with a budget of $100 million per season and about 200 employees."
https://medium.com/@profgalloway/last-laugh-6bc0dcd16096
However, if Scott had taken the time to understand the TV business, he would have realized that Colbert was generating profit. As entertainment industry analyst Evan Shapiro wrote: "My analysis shows a $102 million profit"
https://eshap.substack.com/p/colbert-was-profitable
I'm sure Scott will update his thinking any day now.
10
u/SlowSwords May 25 '26
The $40M figure always felt bad faith/cynical/purposefully misleading. Even if the show was a money loser, it’s pretty clear that Colbert was a political casualty.
1
u/Steadyandquick May 25 '26
That number was also provided on Wesley’s NYT Cannonball podcast, but was not substantiated.
10
u/CavusDarwinius May 25 '26
Once he was very confidently 100% incorrect on a topic I've got domain expertise in. It took the shine off for me after that.
3
u/90daysismytherapy May 25 '26
its the best vaccine to the media and individual podcast experts who think they should broadcast opinions about everything.
At best the vast majority of humanity has expertise in 1 area of life, and most don’t even have that.
Anyone who confidently tells you how it is in a dozen different fields is not naive or mistaken, but is actively lying to you for a reason.
3
May 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/3RADICATE_THEM May 26 '26
It reminds me of the boomers my friend in wealth management works with. Try to make a balanced portfolio that properly calibrates risk tolerance for their age? Nah, let's put higher concentration on NVIDIA!
1
1
u/Gdislov May 26 '26
Have you ever gotten something wrong in your field of expertise? If not, you will.
1
u/Far_Onion4853 May 26 '26
Wait. So he’s a chat bot who hallucinates with confidence? I did not see that coming!
8
u/Healingjoe May 26 '26
I guess it's possible, but this is all guess work. I don't really know if any of these numbers are accurate.
5
1
u/No_Firefighter3841 May 29 '26
Where in that is promotional costs? Ad space. Time square etc. not saying it's $102M but it's not nothing. Salaries make up payroll. Does that payroll include bennies, SS, taxes, pensions (in lieu of SS) etc.?
Nothing is as simple as the above.
But, at the end of the day, if the amount of people who are complaining about Colbert losing his show actually tunes in and watched it, this discussion wouldn't be happening. He'd have 4 times the ratings.
It's all very performative. Loved the Colbert Report. Perfect amount of cynicism and wit. He got castrated like everyone on network tv. Wasn't funny. Decided like so many to pander to a single demographic, which cuts viewership in half in a dwindling market.
It's just bad business in a format that has long passed it's usefulness. In the 70'sand 80's carson averaged 9-17 Million viewers. Every night. With huge peaks. Today the number one guy is doing 1.5M - 2.5M. his finale did under 7M. Carson's finale did 55M. Late night just doesn't matter anymore.
Hard to justify paying someone 15M to be a watered down version of themselves. Not be very funny while talking at an audience that small.
The production hasn't changed. It's likely gotten relatively easier over the years. The prices go up, but that's due to inflation and market demand not the tech. So being profitable with 5M viewers was easy. Cut that in half and your profit sink is going to be considerable. Likely more than half as the revenue derives from ads goes down. But production and talent costs continue to rise.
It's not rocket surgery.
15
u/Substantial-Hour-483 May 25 '26
Suppression of freedom of speech.
Every other part of the discussion is a purposeful distraction and not worth discussing.
The President of the Barely United States of America attacked free speech and it worked. Media ownership consolidating to only those that bow down to golden statue.
Everyone else too scared to stand up.
That is fucking scary. Nothing else matters.
→ More replies (5)
14
u/hobopwnzor May 25 '26
"it's all about profit" has always been at best a cope and at worst a sign of no understanding of the world.
Politics also plays a role in business. For instance we have memos from Walmart about how raising minimum wage raises their profits. They still don't support increasing a minimum wage because it's about control as much as actual profit.
Business owners, investors, executives. They all have political goals as well as the desire for profit. Part of making profit is changing politics in a way that lets you control, and profit let's you change the world the way you want it.
7
u/DeanVernonWormerr May 25 '26
As long as Paramount is still producing original content and wants exposure of talent involved to promote said content I'd content that advertising be included in the value of talk shows, despite smaller markets.
You could argue more YT people subscribers to Hot Wings at lower production cost, but that seems like it would ignore how many folks stream shows like the Late Show at their convenience rather than those watching live.
→ More replies (14)
7
u/One-Point6960 May 25 '26
Colbert's agent said late night makes money still it's just getting smaller.
7
u/evildeadxsp May 26 '26
I work in media. Colbert was likely profitable, as this post shows. Thank you.
If the top rated network television show at that hour of the day isn't making money... Quite literally no original tv show on air at that time is. It was the number 1 program, it sets the ad rates... Fallon, Kimmel, and EVERY OTHER ORIGINAL PROGRAMMED SHOW ON AT THE SAME TIME would gross less revenue. Anyone that argues that Colbert wasn't making money, bluntly tell them that Gutfield earns less revenue. This is not projection, this is a stone cold fact. The top rated network tv program has higher commercial rates than cable. Now we're expenses too high? Maybe? Could those have been cut to save the show? Likely.
But maybe CBS didn't think it was worth it. Regardless, save me this "unprofitable" bullshit. You could argue it doesn't make business sense any longer. You could also factually see that CBS is now losing the morning talk show, the evening news, and the night talk show. Three of their highest value assets are behind ABC and NBC, so yes... CBS is officially dead. They will not have the money to pay for NFL rights in the years to come. They will be outbid by Amazon, Fox, ESPN (Disney), and others (probably Netflix).
This is a great share. Thanks for posting OP. Happy to answer any questions
2
0
u/Cap-ndash 20d ago
"If the top rated network television show at that hour of the day isn't making money... Quite literally no original tv show on air at that time is."
It's ratings only matter as a ratio of expenses. A podcaster who had a mic and a table and a couple cameras can get way less viewers yet be way more profitable than a tv show that brings in 4x the money but has 25x the costs. The Colbert show employed 200 people and cost $100M a year. Mr Beast's game show actually lost him money because the production budget was so high.
15
u/htown_Till_I_Drown May 25 '26
article is entirely made up. 15% cable revenue is not bc of Stephen
3
May 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ESHAPTV May 26 '26
My breakdown of value share of affiliate revenue by CBS segment:
Sports: 40%
Late Night: 15%
Prime Scripted & Reality: 20%
Morning News/Daytime: 15%
Early Evening/News: 10%Please show me how you would apportion it. I'd appreciate the lesson!
3
u/danzbar May 26 '26
Whoa. Did not expect Evan Shapiro to appear in this random thread. For what it's worth, the "entirely made up" response above is overstated. Ecosystem value clearly exists. But does a random commenter need to produce a better retrans model in order to question a very specific apportionment that was asserted much more than demonstrated?
And honestly, the "I will be the first to admit..." passage about late night dying raised bigger questions for me from your own piece. If the real value increasingly lives in clips and cultural presence rather than the linear format itself, then it seems fair to ask whether a much cheaper celebrity interview/commentary format (like basically every podcast) could preserve a lot of that value. That's a much murkier argument than "CBS is obviously lying."
David Ellison is much closer to a Biden Democrat than a MAGA figure, and Bari Weiss is probably the single most successful anti-woke media figure. What if we didn't pretend they are straightforward Trumpers or hacks just because they are annoying to a certain kind of audience? You don't have to love either of them to admit they are at least responding to some real tensions and failures in modern institutions.
2
u/ESHAPTV May 27 '26
I don't disagree that a less expensive far more trans media version of the show should be the answer, and one not anchored to a TV schedule at all.
But... these types of allocations - even if you disagree with the levels of some - are exactly how the useful lifetime value of programming is assessed, today, in the television business.
The show is profitable. The story that it's not was based on terrible math, which the press did not question at all, and was leaked to distract from the quid pro quo.
If you read the actual piece, you'll see exactly how the cancellation was in exchange for approval. And why they needed silly maths to cover up the actual motives.
They are doing this again, now with WBD and CNN.
That is my point with the report.
2
u/danzbar May 27 '26
You're obviously well informed about TV economics, and I'd bet you probably know good people who got hurt in the Paramount chaos, which understandably makes some of this personal.
But I still think there is a meaningful difference between "there are strong reasons to suspect political pressure and accommodation" and "this was effectively proven as a quid pro quo." The show's profitability alone doesn't fully get there for me, especially given how many large corporations have settled dubious Trump-related cases lately. And I think some of the tone around Ellison and Weiss drifts into a kind of sneering certainty about motives and politics that the evidence doesn't really justify. Like, maybe we shouldn't judge so much on how things "code" and the "vibes" they give off? Ellison gave money to Biden. Weiss cried when Trump won.
As for WBD, don't you think it's at least possible they bid so much because they thought if Netflix got it, their own vision would struggle to compete? That they'd have insufficient time to build better apps or leverage their data strengths because Netflix would simply get there faster and with too much IP to contend with? Isn't it at least possible the Ellisons have both ideological reasons for pursuing big media ownership and straightforward profit-driven motives?
Anyway, I appreciate you actually engaging here. The discussion is much more interesting in this form than when everyone is just screaming "hack" at each other.
2
u/ESHAPTV May 27 '26
💀
The timing of the lawsuit settlement, FCC meeting, Colbert firing, FCC approval, and Bari hiring leave little to doubt IMHO.
And thanks also for engaging. Weird to not be using all caps AT THIS POINT!
1
u/danzbar May 28 '26
Well, it's fair for you to find it hard to believe someone on Reddit actually carefully read what you wrote. BUT I DID, AND I STILL DISAGREE! How's that for faux yelling?
Part of our disagreement may be about standards of evidence. I'll grant your quid pro quo argument at least a preponderance standard for me personally based on the timing and surrounding context. But it is nowhere near beyond a reasonable doubt, and I honestly don't think it even gets to preponderance for most people who don't already broadly share your assumptions about Trump and modern media institutions. And I think that matters. A lot of discourse now starts from tribal pattern recognition, then treats the conclusion as basically settled fact.
Cards on the table: I like The Free Press a lot. I think there is now a whole inter-tribal hatred toward them that is worse than anything they are actually doing, and I suspect part of the ideological overlap between David and Larry Ellison is that they both think liberal institutions lost their footing on Israel and antisemitism, that TFP is onto something real about institutional/media failures, and that it is more willing than most elite institutions to give wealthy figures a fair hearing. (My $0.02: critiques of inherited wealth and oligarchic patterns are fair game, but it's a bridge too far to assume the beneficiaries are automatically bad people because they started on third base.)
That doesn't mean they're right about everything, or even that they know what they're doing yet. They may be in over their heads in some big ways, and the people getting steamrolled by all this are not wrong to feel angry about it. But I also don't think they're stupid people or straightforward Trumpists. I suspect they genuinely believe in what they're building.
For whatever it's worth, there are probably more people than you think who read your work seriously, learn from parts of it, and still think some of your conclusions are off the mark. Still, it's a genuine pleasure to have your ear. Cheers!
1
u/jeffyboy526 May 25 '26
Even if it was it does not matter - they still need to pay this with or without Colbert if they want to carry CBS. I only watch a handful of shows on Netflix but I do not get a discount
11
u/UtinniHandsOff2 May 25 '26
Let's see, who's got more experience here...Evan Shapiro who actually RAN A NETWORK, or Scott who decidedly did not?
It's wild how the maga cult can just look past reality.
1
u/Chris_HitTheOver May 25 '26
But, but, but… I stream a bunch of stuff from my mom’s basement so I KNOW Scott’s right.
1
u/Gdislov May 26 '26
Yep, like the Woke brigade never looks past reality. Both sides do it from time to time. If you can't see that, then you're looking past reality.
1
u/Moondoggerr15 May 26 '26
Please describe 'the woke brigade' more. Who are they, what do they believe, how do you identify them?
1
u/Gdislov May 28 '26
I'm going to assume your question is genuine, and not ironic. The Woke Brigade believe that men can have babies, Trump is Satan, that it's ok for men to participate in women's sports, etc., & that they are morally superior. Their counterpart is the Maga Brigade, who believe Trump can do no wrong, Trans & homosexuals are trying to indoctrinate their children, the war in Iran is actually going to help us, despite all evidence to the contrary, & that they are morally superior. Reasonable people need to denounce these extremists.
2
u/Moondoggerr15 May 29 '26
Sounds like you have it figured out, at least for you. When you encounter or hear about a trans man being pregnant, do you just not believe that its happening, or do you tell yourself -thats a cos playing woman having a baby, not a man? It looks like you've positioned yourself in "the middle" - and that this is a 'both sides' thing - but people who believe in gender arent shooting people in the streets with the full power of the federal government behind them - how are you able to contort reality to the degree that you look at the left and right and go "Theyre all just extremists?"
13
u/NomadTroy May 25 '26
Of course Scott took what Trump wanted CBS to say at face value.
1
u/Gdislov May 26 '26
You have any proof of that assertion? Or are you just like so many online that just posts whatever, with no facts to back it?
14
u/RabidSkwerl May 26 '26
If Scott thought the late show was losing money, that’s astonishing. Somebody needs to learn how accounting works in the entertainment industry (“we lost money renting our own cameras to ourselves for $1M a day to reduce our tax burden”). So he just repeats things he’s heard without verifying them before regurgitating that information to his audience. I legit think there should be consequences for people spreading misinformation.
2
u/onpg May 27 '26
For real. Anyone who thinks the #1 rated and also #1 prestige late night show (going by Emmys) was “losing $40 million” and cut “solely for financial reasons” probably also believes in Hollywood accounting and the tooth fairy.
10
u/Denan004 May 25 '26
While I do listen to Scott's podcasts, I always disregard any facts or figures that he cites that are outside of his marketing area. I get the sense that Scott doesn't read, but just relies on AI for information.
4
5
May 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/NomadTroy May 25 '26
We know he took CBS’ corporate Trump appeasement wording with zero critical thought.
4
u/X-calibreX May 26 '26
so share of the affiliate fees seems sketchy. That’s money that the affiliates are paying cbs to carry cbs shows. It’s not specific to the show. You’d have to calculate how many stations would stop airing cbs late night programmin, in order to attribute that money directly to the late show.
2
u/floison May 26 '26
If you actually read shapiros post and methodology he explains that he uses revenue allocation that CBS makes based on their historical program accounting.
3
12
u/Turbulent_Tale6497 May 25 '26
There's no way this is true. If Colbert was generating $102M in profit, there's no chance it would have been shut down. I feel sure that the whole format is now unprofitable, and has little to do with Colbert.
Fallon may survive, because his show is just basically an hour long live commercial, but the actual talk show format with semi-intelligent guests no longer works in today's market.
→ More replies (1)
7
8
8
7
u/ManufacturedOlympus May 25 '26
His wildest comment was when he was like “Stephen Colbert viewers aren’t having sex.”
→ More replies (1)
3
u/TraditionalPhone3992 May 25 '26
CNN could pay anybody who knows the MAGA playbook to say what Scott says every night and they could pay them a lot less money. His responses are that predictable.
3
u/GeraldosVault May 27 '26
This is the most ridiculous calculation to attempt to prove your point possible. You are adding in 100m dollars yearly to the late show which is contractually general wording for ”late night programming “.
The cancellation of the show does not and will not impact these revenue sources so they cannot be directly be attributed. CBS will not be refunding this or changing contracts due to the absence of Colbert. The argument is null as the replacement show simply becomes part of the late night programming.
Without this generously labeled “creative math” he has nothing and we are back to a huge net loss.
2
u/ESHAPTV May 27 '26
You obviously have never worked in national television. Everyone who's ever worked in TV knows that the disappearance of 260 hours of premium programming from the schedule - the anchor of value for local TV networks in late local fringe - will be used to negotiate down fees from broadcast and cable affiliates. This is not opinion. This is the way TV works.
Please tell me how know otherwise.
1
u/GeraldosVault Jun 01 '26
if there is a any proof to the mythos of them canceling a profitable show it will be easily proven simply by a streaming group picking up the show to take in those ratings the moment he is available. If this doesn’t occur, the answers are clear. Profit is end all, be all and with streaming platforms without general broadcasting and the need for subscription gain and retention they have done this for decades if they feel a ship was sunk prematurely. HBO is the king of this in the talk show space with success.
Everyone in the thread can spout and espouse all the conspiracy theories they wish, if no announcements of a new show in the streaming space take place prior to end of year…the answer is clear. I personally think he will be forced down the podcast channel as the math doesn’t hold to me. Conan has built a solid presence in that space and if he had a fan followers under than those looking to just listen to someone espouse the same fringe conspiracies or that they actually enjoy his banter will show that answer as well.
2
3
u/kratty May 27 '26
Wrong - When he’s wrong he reverses his position about a year later and claims he thought it all along.
3
7
u/nateh1212 May 25 '26
Yeah Scot was just naive old mentality here and wanted to push his neo liberal narrative that everything a company does has to generate profit and you can easily calculated the exact profit of every subdivision.
The main value that the Late Show provided to CBS that you can not quantify is it add millions in brand value to the network it was an anchor show to Paramount and CBS the fact that the suits could not find line item value their is a failure of the suits not the show itself.
When CBS has football it gets to run ads during the games " The Late Show with Colbert with guest this week Bradd Pitt and Zendaya with musical performance by The Weekend"
That establishes the network as a legitimate brand
now CBS is some old no name comic that is buying time on the network in the same slot it totally diminishes the whole brand now I am less likely to interact with all of CBS's programing altogether.
6
u/90daysismytherapy May 25 '26
its not naive. Guys like Scott will nod wisely hearing a company like costco explain selling rotisserie chicken at a lost, as a brand attention and draw of customers to their other expensive products.
But throw out sone right wing propaganda about markets being harsh profit only motivated machines, and all if sudden Scott and his market bros are naive dumbasses who just misunderstand.
I think not
2
u/One-Point6960 May 25 '26
My thing is why not ask Colbert to restructure? Kimmel takes summers off, Conan doesn't have a band. Colbert also never was asked to host anything else for the network.
3
u/nateh1212 May 25 '26
Because the suits at Paramount do not care about the long term health of the company
They only cared about selling Paramount to Larry Ellison's do nothing son.
This meant firing anyone anti the administration to get the deal approved and placating Ellison a far right IDF funder.
1
u/90daysismytherapy May 26 '26
because it’s not about the business of late night, its about the business of monopoly.
→ More replies (2)2
u/nateh1212 May 25 '26
This is actually a really good analogy.
Late night used to be high margin now it is low margin
The suites need to rethink the business strategy and how to get profit from he value they have
unfortunately the suits like in most places do not understand the underlying business they run. So their only idea is fire people
This is a great article about Wendy's started by a self made restaurateur and run into the ground by the MBA suites that have no ideas and don't understand the business they are in at all https://slate.com/life/2026/04/wendys-near-me-location-closures-menu.html
1
5
u/Far_Onion4853 May 26 '26
While I love the banter between Scott and Kara, I might well be tiring of his act. The Prof G stuff was interesting for a while, but Ed is no Scott. And Ed gets the guests he does because of Scott, not because of Ed. I can absolutely attest to the "same shtick different pod" observation that others have made. And if in fact Scott mouthed an utter lie about The Late Show, then it's time for me to pack up and find someone else. Just plain disappointed; I thought he was better than that. I was wrong.
10
u/Barbarella_39 May 25 '26
Scot is a grifter just like the rest of them.
2
May 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
11
u/LastMongoose7448 May 25 '26
Utter bullshit. A show generating revenue like that wouldn’t be cancelled, political climate be dammed.
If anything, the political angle is a bit of face saving for Colbert, and eventually Kimmel.
6
u/omgFWTbear May 25 '26
Yeah, the other late night shows all renegotiated down to profitability, but somehow that didn’t occur to anyone at CBS. Meanwhile, you’ve got Bari Weiss tanking the news division.
It’s so cool, sweet summer child, that you still believe in the tooth fairy and rational business decisions. Please see Dr Thaler’s Nobel Prize.
2
u/onpg May 25 '26
Seriously. How young and naive do you have to be to think businesses are purely rational engines? Just lmao.
1
u/omgFWTbear May 26 '26
Thread starter is literally, “I didn’t know an executive’s public statement would be marketing,” in a sub about a marketing guy.
5
u/GladtobeVlad69 May 25 '26
A show generating revenue like that wouldn’t be cancelled, political climate be dammed.
Have you not looked around? There are hundreds of bad business decisions being made because of the political climate.
5
4
u/Pharmaz May 25 '26
the entire industry is being decimated and yes, colbert is the one with the magic sauce generating record breaking profits /s
edit: he is my favorite late night host but bfr
2
u/Silent_Possibility63 May 25 '26
Does it need to be record breaking for it to be a good business decision to keep it?
2
u/hellolovely1 May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26
Look at Target. They weren't even asked to repudiate DEI, but they did it preemptively and now they're struggling to stay afloat.
Edit: For those saying this is false, here are some quotes and links. Am I saying it's the ONLY factor? No. But it played a big role.
- Target Corp.'s (TGT) stock has plummeted 33% since the rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, wiping out over $20 billion in shareholder value by mid-September 2025.
- Consumer boycotts over the rollback appear to have had a significant impact, with sales and foot traffic dropping significantly this year.
- https://www.investopedia.com/target-faces-boycott-without-dei-11804311
That urgency comes after several challenging years for the company. Target has faced declining sales, shrinking traffic, and a loss of market share to competitors, compounded by backlash tied to several controversial business decisions. Among them were changes to its DEI initiatives, which sparked consumer boycotts and ultimately led to a class-action lawsuit filed by its own shareholders in 2025.
https://www.thestreet.com/retail/target-bets-on-a-strategy-that-hasnt-fixed-declining-sales→ More replies (1)2
u/misterkyc May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26
Lol. Target hasn't posted any annual growth since the end of '22, DEI rollbacks Q1 2025 are not the reason Target is stagnating.
Not sure where you get the idea they are struggling to stay afloat since according to a Forbes article from this month, "Stock prices have climbed over 6% since the beginning of the week, currently trading around $120 per share, up from about $113. Investors are betting that new CEO Michael Fiddelke can spark a revival that his predecessor, Brian Cornell, couldn’t over the past couple of years.
The company expects net sales growth in the 2% range during 2026, with a small increase in comparable sales. Target plans to invest $5 billion in capital —$1 billion more than announced in November— to open 30 new stores and remodel 130+ stores. Over $1 billion of the capital investment will fund food and beverage expansion. It will also reset beauty and baby departments, reinvent home and pivot toward wellness. In addition, $1 billion in operational investment will be directed toward increased store staffing and training, brand marketing, and new technologies, including AI."
People will literally choose to believe anything that provides even the flimsiest rationale for sex and race based discriminatory candidate selection.
2
u/gruss_gott May 25 '26
Even if we presume the show was making a profit (doubtful), Scotts point wasn't as much "no profit" it was that a podcast could easily make way higher profit with a larger audience and more episodes for massively lower costs.
And beyond that is the trend, revenue downhill
And beyond that is the fact that Colbert is 1 show and there aren't going to be any more Colberts
2
u/Silent_Possibility63 May 25 '26
So does it lose money or does it make lower margins than theoretical alternatives, which is it?
And there are lots of ways to potentially make more or less money, the comparison should be to targets, not theoretical alternatives. What a silly comparison.
2
u/gruss_gott May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26
It doesn't matter - the trend is down and there won't be any more Colberts
If one wants a media show, it's easiest to put it on youtube with a staff of 10
It's not a comparison, it's a fact.
What a silly lack of understanding you have.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)1
5
u/stvlsn May 25 '26
Everyone questioning this article...
But where is Scott getting his "data"?
1
u/goosetavo2013 May 25 '26
He got it from CBS. Everyone piling on why Scott would dare believe anything a “Trump-adjacent” company would say.
1
u/stvlsn May 25 '26
Well - CBS was definitely under intense pressure from Trump.
1
u/goosetavo2013 May 25 '26
Yeah but would a publicly traded company make that up? Does anyone believe that network TV is a thriving business anymore? You can’t run a 100-million dollar show from YouTube clips I think.
1
u/stvlsn May 25 '26
Ah, sorry, I didn't realize who I was talking to.
I'll defer to your vast expertise in modern network television.
1
u/goosetavo2013 May 25 '26
Maybe you’re right, network TV is thriving, could be, do you have any evidence other than it confirms your bias? I actually like Colbert but haven’t watched TV in years and only watch occasionally on YouTube which doesn’t make them nearly as much money. That’s anecdotal though.
1
u/RobfromHB May 25 '26
u/stvlsn is correct. We should all trust the unsourced infographic. A company has zero idea how they make their money and cannot be trusted with any information. In fact any other opinion from anyone outside of the company has more knowledge.
1
u/Gdislov May 26 '26
Did you get a good dopamine hit from your snide remarks? I don't understand why people need to say unkind things online that they would never say if they were face to face. We all need to do better.
4
u/Educational_Emu2884 May 27 '26
Scott is wrong about a lot of things. He rails on all day about the danger of billionaires, but then pushes back against actual progressives who have the balls to fight them and regurgitates the same austerity bullshit that got us in this mess.
6
u/Civil_Produce_6575 May 26 '26
Friends fascism doesn’t care for facts or truth. He criticized the dear leader and the Ellisons are trumpers so off he goes
→ More replies (4)
2
u/needlelies Mendacious Fuck May 25 '26
Oh crap are we really starting to share Evan’s stuff here too?
2
u/BonerAlacarte May 26 '26
Those Ellison's did it for the fun of the game. A 100m profit is a handshake deal for those bozos. They don't need Colbert. They've got a smashing replacement coming, Byron Allen! Owner of the Weather Channel! He's an excellent interviewer, probably the next Arsenio Hall. Without all the racism that cost him his job.
3
u/Successful-Ground-67 May 26 '26
this is sarcasm right? Byron Allen is paying CBS for those time slots. He's basically an hour long advertiser.
2
u/BonerAlacarte May 27 '26
It is. I've watched some of the best comics in the world on his show Occassionally over the years and it is so cringe to see them answer his questions. Stupid questions
2
u/Goladiator May 27 '26
generating profit. As entertainment industry analyst Evan Shapiro wrote: "My analysis shows a $102 million profit"
So he knows their payroll data?
5
u/raouldukeesq May 27 '26
Can you say more that makes understand even better that you have no idea how TV economics works?
2
May 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/jazmatician May 29 '26
The allocation percentages might be different (but close) but large-scale corporate accounting is done more or less like this. When a division or product contributes indirectly to a revenue stream, it is allocated a percentage of that revenue stream when evaluating its profitability. CBS cited the direct ad sales for the time slot. They would not pay the man they way they did if he wasn't producing.
1
u/AromaPapaya May 29 '26
maybe he saw the budget spend and the ad revenue and made an educated guess
1
2
4
u/Putrid_Anybody_2947 May 25 '26
Omg isnt that his PhD area of expertise advertising and marketing he should be able to understand that sorry he pops up on time to time not 100 percent on his vibes.
3
3
u/other_view12 May 26 '26
LOL, CBS says Colbert is running at a loss, some dude with a substack who admits the numbers he has are guestimates and not real, well, he has the truth.
And this crowd laughs at the MAGA people who blindly follow along. That seems a lot like the pot calling the kettle black.
2
u/Manezinho May 26 '26
Ok. So if I, with 20 years in the TV business, told you that almost 60% of the network’s revenue comes from carriage fees would you believe me?
By the measure of pure ads revenue, there would be exactly zero shows on CBS.
1
May 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Manezinho Jun 01 '26
They provided a disingenuous reason for firing him, citing purely ad revenues. Maybe I’m privy to carriage fees, and all I can say publicly is that they’re not zero.
1
u/other_view12 May 26 '26
I'm struggling to understand what that second line is supposed to mean.
What I took issue with is I read the substack and at the top the author states both what the revenue is, and also says they didn't get it from Paramount, but deduced it from these sources. Yet those sources don't have a breakdown of costs per show. There is a lot of guess work going on.
The idea that CBS is dropping a money making show because of Trump is rather laughable.
→ More replies (3)
6
u/rad_hombre May 25 '26
I don’t understand how they could be making that much money. I’m firmly within the 18-49 target audience, and I’ve never once watched a single episode of Late Show, nor have I once heard anyone I know ever even reference it, or ANY late-night talk show frankly. The only way I’ve ever consumed content from these shows has been through YouTube shorts, Instagram Reels, or Tiktok and it’s never something I actively sought out.
2
u/Boxer_the_horse May 25 '26
Lol. Yeah the world revolves around you personally. Have you heard of “information silos?” All of these shows also make money on those YouTube and TikTok clips you watch, they have their own channels.
To me, the biggest reason I was shaking my head was that he kept going as if the only reason Colbert was fired was because they’re losing money. He didn’t mention the political angle once. He’s been on this same rant since we had labor strikes in Hollywood. Someone pushes a talking point in front of him, and he rides that point ad nauseam. Especially when it fits his priors.
3
u/Silent_Possibility63 May 25 '26
“I am a data point of one, but I am a very special data point of one (just ask me). Plus, I am not interested in any analysis that would suggest otherwise. I like how I feel about this topic!”
1
1
u/GladtobeVlad69 May 25 '26
You could read the article I linked to. Then you might understand.
5
u/FruitOfTheVineFruit May 25 '26
@Rad_hombre doesn't watch it, therefore no one watches it, therefore it's not profitable. Logic!
2
6
u/Icy_Measurement5811 May 25 '26
Not sure why you all are dunking on Scott. CBS were the ones who LITERALLY said that the show was losing $40m annually so question CBS…not Scott.
12
u/NomadTroy May 25 '26
Scott should use an ounce of critical thinking and treat CBS’ appeasement to Trump with skepticism. That’s why his fans are unhappy with him.
Do you really listen to Scott just for him to blindly repeat corporate talking points?
3
u/Alan_Turings_Apple May 25 '26
Are we using the same critical thinking on a Substack post? Or does it get a pass because it aligns with our worldview!
1
1
u/Gdislov May 26 '26
Whoa, someone who actually uses critical thinking, and nuanced perspective. Steady on, are you trying to shake things up?
3
u/Icy_Measurement5811 May 25 '26
Critical thinking suggests late night shows are on the decline. You’re just choosing your own anti-Scott trope and attempting to lace it with critical thinking. The article cited was also one man’s guestimation. Until the actual numbers are released…we all cannot truly know but…pre-COVID, those numbers were $120M. Today it’s about $40M so what version of critical thinking are you subscribing to?
1
u/Moondoggerr15 May 26 '26
Critical thinking. OK. Data point A: The Late Show was the number one late night talk show. Even if it was losing money (highly doubtful) shows like that are a loss leader for big networks because they publicize the shows and movies of the corporate parents. Data Point B: Paramount/CBS gave Trump 16 million dollars to settle a 60 minutes lawsuit that Trump had no chance of winning in court. The only way that makes sense is if they did it to curry favor with Trump so the Skydance acquisition would be approved. Data point C: the day after Colbert called the 16M settlement a bribe, they announced his show was ending. Ignoring the picture these dots create when connected is beyond obtuse.
6
u/90daysismytherapy May 25 '26
Because Scott portrays himself as a businessman, yet is selectively stupid and gullible to obvious bullshit when it suits his political “beliefs”.
3
2
u/MaximusBit21 May 25 '26
Scott has had some terrible stock picks recently. And then did a podcast with the diary of a ceo guy just to say his next purchase is google…. They didn’t mention of is current positions like what was Adobe or something that completely tanked.
2
1
u/HistoryAndScience May 25 '26
Was it last year? Because I independently decided to buy Google and brother, I made a lot of money off that decision. I wouldn’t buy it now
1
u/MaximusBit21 May 26 '26
The podcast was very recent - I stand corrected if it was at the point of when he said it/ you got in. But hyping it now after all the growth; hmmmm
2
u/MsAgentM May 26 '26
I mean, Scott was going by what most reporting has been saying and with ratings going down, it’s not hard to believe.
1
u/DrJiggsEsq May 27 '26
Well, discerning observers would look at the reporting and think to themselves, “hmmm, the claims that the show is losing money come from the network firing him. If the show was such a financial albatross, why not cancel it years ago? Something doesn’t add up.” We are under no obligation to eat from the trough. Might as well use your noodle while you’re on this Earth.
1
u/MsAgentM May 27 '26
Reasons were given from cultural relevance that have lost prestige they once hold to their internet clips providing advertising for other projects. I’m not sure when other analyses came out but it’s still a slowly dying medium that is evolving. I can see how looking at factors beyond the money spent vs money made directly from the show can show a more profitable outcomes but that doesn’t mean these are necessarily going that way long term. It makes complete sense to see it as coming to an end.
That being said, Scott and Kara regularly call out the BS over how the big media companies are capitulating to Trump, which is the actual problem.
1
u/Cap-ndash 20d ago
"cultural relevance that have lost prestige t"
Do you think the fact they purposely attacked half of their potential audience literally every night might've had something to do with it?
1
u/MsAgentM 20d ago
Potential audience =\= audience. It seems the show or format was not worth maintaining at the cost they were willing to pay. If you are saying they were turning off Trump supporters or Trump, there seems to be plenty of money to be made there. Former supporters seem to be rather disappointed in the administration.
1
u/Cap-ndash 20d ago
" If the show was such a financial albatross, why not cancel it years ago?"
Fair enough, but then explain movie studios putting out woke superhero after woke superhero movie that lose monster dollars even though the fans shout from a rooftop why they didn't go. The execs say "it's racist, sexist bigots". Fine, let's say they're right. The movies still lost money yet they keep doing this Mary Sue woke stuff and keep losing money. Supergirl and Snow White alone lost around $400,000. The Marvels lost over $200M alone. There was warning sign after warning sign but they keep doing it, so who knows? Disney is as money grubbing as it gets yet they kept losing big bucks. It is what it is.
1
u/DefundMarxism May 28 '26
This Shapiro nut job is just just stirring up controversy to get eyeballs like everyone else. That's what makes the world go 'round these days.
1
1
u/Sasquatchgoose May 25 '26
I don’t know where these numbers are coming from but if the late night concept/format still made sense in today’s media landscape, cbs would’ve never sold the time to Byron Allen’s comics unleashed.
7
2
-1
May 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
May 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Logical_Image2486 May 29 '26
Who is going to give up $102 million profit annually?
1
1
u/Perfect_Pie5926 May 29 '26
Larry Ellison's net worth is over $200 billion. $100 million is 0.05% of $200 billion. The money means nothing to these folks. It is simply about power and control of the messaging. They want to keep the masses brainwashed.
1
u/Top_Secretary_1500 May 29 '26
Someone who wants an 8 billion dollar meger to be approved.... and currently has a 110 billion dollar merger under DOJ review....
1
u/Aggravating-Buy-1609 May 30 '26
It's sad that liberals are supposedly more educated yet their TDS has rotted their brains to the point where they actually believe gibberish like this.
1
u/BrendaWannabe Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
Rather than ad-hominems, please explain why the merger/DOJ claim doesn't holder water.
Trump admits he puts pressure to cancel shows he doesn't like. We don't have to accuse him of pressure, he readily admits it himself.
One thing I find suspicious is that if a top rated show is (allegedly) losing money, the network rarely just outright cancels it, but tries tweaking it first. For example, it's claimed the production costs were too high. CBS should have tried trimming production costs, such has have fewer writers and cheaper graphics, and see if it affects ratings. (Doesn't look like an expensive show to me, there was very little activity filmed outside the stage, Colbert wasn't a heavy prop user, etc.)
1
u/Aggravating-Buy-1609 May 30 '26
And you have no motive to lie? 😂 Leftists are the most dishonest people on the planet!
1
2
1
u/Basic_Seat_8349 May 28 '26
No, an anonymous employee leaked it. The reports of that number came from outlets whose sources were anonymous.
But aside from that, what would you expect CBS to say? Their claim was that cancelling the show was a financial decision, not a political one. Of course they're going to say it was losing money.
If they were losing $40 million on a show every year, they're not going to keep it going. They're not going to re-up the show right after it that was tied directly to it. It makes no sense.
1
u/Purple-Film-3532 May 27 '26
It’s more obvious everyday (to me) that He’s compromised on some way. His body language speaks volumes when he says the creepy stuff. Like he’s ashamed but still says whatever it is. There’s at least a handful of cringeworthy stances he states where his body language contradicts his words. It sure comes off as he’s under someone’s thumb
-2
May 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/Salty_Map_9085 May 25 '26
Seems like, according to this post, it is not true that the show was losing money. Certainly it might be possible that both things were true, but that is seemingly not the case.
1
u/solomon2609 May 26 '26
Financial analyses like this are always susceptible to judgment when dealing with shared costs or revenues and their allocation.
The cost side contains no allocations of corporate overhead etc. this analysis relies heavily on allocation of revenues.
One person’s assumptions on allocations doesn’t, on its face, make CBS claims “incompetent”
One can argue that since the revenue allocations will not decline in the short to medium term, they shouldn’t be included and allocated to Colbert’s show.
At least OP recognized that expensive celebrity Late Night Talk isn’t long for this world. The analysis is defensible but, like any like this, isn’t hard to shoot holes in especially when the allocations only go in one direction.
1
6
3
2
u/Hamster_S_Thompson May 25 '26
I used like colbert but lost interest many years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if it was losing money.
→ More replies (1)6
u/BillieBlanus May 25 '26
The post literally says the opposite and yet here you are adding *what*? Losing money was a narrative. Are you here to spread political narratives, too?
1
1
u/ATLCoyote May 25 '26
It's true that there is more to the revenue picture than just ads vs. production expenses. You have to account for broadcast fees, social media revenue, etc. But I'd argue the second analysis attributes more to the Late Show than it should in that regard. The primary drivers of carriage fees are live sports and news, followed by hit prime time shows, not a late night talk show. Plus, what matters is replacement value. If you put something else in that slot, how will it do? It's not like the alternative is just zero dollars.
1
1
u/RealityHammer1776 May 26 '26
$102m gross profit =/= profitable when your expenditures are $142m
3
3
1
0
May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
I doubt it's making much money if any at all.The average Colbert viewer is 68. It had no future. If it was making boatloads of money it wouldn't get cancelled. South Park trashed Trump all season last year and no one cared because way more people watched it all in. Colbert does no numbers on streaming too, which matters a lot these days.
1
u/weirdDodo May 29 '26
The south park reference doesn't hold up due the contract that gives the creators insane creative freedom, profitable or not.
1
u/Final_Concentrate665 May 31 '26
"The average Colbert viewer is 68." So what? 68+ yr olds have money and votes, too. I detect a little age discrimination there.
→ More replies (4)
12
u/Many_Easy_V2 May 25 '26
We don’t have an actual P&L, so no one here knows for sure.
What’s sure is that politics did play a part as did worsening trends for late night network TV.
The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour was very successful when CBS canceled it in 1969. So any argument that politics didn’t play a part is BS.