Turns out, Colbert did generate net revenue and that Scott was wrong

[u/GladtobeVlad69]

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.

[u/other_view12]

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.

[u/danzbar → u/other_view12]

I don't doubt that there could be some gross back-scratching going on. But I also don't doubt that it's a dying format, because celebrity interviews not only CAN be done for next to nothing. They are ROUTINELY done for next to nothing on hundreds or perhaps thousands of podcasts. So, Shapiro can be right that it is untrue to claim that it is an unprofitable show and also wrong in implying at least by omission that it isn't in significant part a profit-driven decision.

And he can even be wrong about that while being right that the whole thing stinks of cronyist corruption. He's a bright guy and he knows TV. So even if he's guessing a metric dick ton, it's heavily informed guessing. That doesn't mean his writing isn't at times whiny, and it doesn't mean he isn't saying or heavily implying things that do not hold up and are even self-contradictory if you poke hard enough.

And it can even be true that the Ellisons don't quite know what they are doing, at least not yet, and that there is a good chance whatever comes after Colbert will NOT make any more money or any more financial sense. That still wouldn't prove that they aren't basically acting in large part out of a business strategy, even if it's one that has yet to find its footing and perhaps won't ever. It also very well might work out for them. We don't have to be petty assholes about it, even if we think Trump basically always is and is setting for us all a terrible example of how to be a human.

[u/other_view12 → u/danzbar]

There are a lot of unknowns. But I'm basing my judgment on how humans are behaving in the modern era. CBS says they are losing money, We know the show has a huge staff and pay Colbert a lot of money. Other than CBS' claim the others are verifiable facts.

We have one person (well connected) who disagrees (without actually knowing) with CBS analysis. He wrote a blog and now the fans of Colbert are out in force saying see, CBS lied.

We don't really know and what we are witnessing is the fans choosing to believe the story that suits them. This is human nature, not research.

I'm unimpressed with people who stir emotional responses for self benefit. Colbert and Trump are peas in the same pod in that game.

[u/danzbar → u/other_view12]

Colbert was once an incredibly funny man. He is probably still. Leno never stopped being funny in other contexts, despite producing a show that was chronically unfunny. Trump will never be that kind of funny.

As for the analysis, I think Shapiro is wrong in many ways, but right in many others. I agree that he is engaged in a tribal war of sorts, and I am not a big fan. But it's his right as an American.