Jay Leno sucks

[Imran Siddiqui]

Leno only got to where he was ratings wise because he possessed the tradition laden "Tonight Show" and people were willing to watch.

The fact that Letterman was beating Leno in the ratings initially and lost ground slowly over time makes this theory of yours complete nonsense. Leno won because his humor appeals to a wider audience.

How many years did it take? And that includes the factor of a Tonight Show backing. Leno would have been canceled far before he could match a Tonight Show Letterman.

[Kuciwalker]

Imran, that makes no sense at all as a response to Drake's point.

[KrazyHorse]

I had no idea these shows were aired so late. 12am? How do people get up at 7 and go to work after watching them?

We're not *****-ass Russians who need 8 hours of beauty sleep.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, that makes no sense at all as a response to Drake's point.

What I'm saying is that Leno, regardless of his humor's appeal, would not have gotten a chance to take a ratings lead if he didn't have the Tonight Show cushion. Remember, it took a number of years for Leno to match Letterman's numbers. Originally Leno's ratings were crap. Imagine how much worse they would have been if he didn't have the "Tonight Show" banner behind him. He would have been canned far before he could make up the difference.

And in that case, Letterman would have been the only show in town.

[OzzyKP]

NBC are serial idiots. If they had handed the keys to Letterman instead of Leno back in the early 90s, this would all be moot.

As far as I'm concerned, Leno and Conan can rot in whatever timeframe they end up in. I feel sorry for Fallon, who has breathed a little fresh life into things. But none of them can touch Craig Ferguson, the best thing that's happened to late night TV since Letterman in the late 70s.

Ferguson

Leno & Conan both blow. I don't care what time their shows are.

[-Jrabbit]

Ferguson

Leno & Conan both blow. I don't care what time their shows are.

This.

[Kuciwalker]

What I'm saying is that Leno, regardless of his humor's appeal, would not have gotten a chance to take a ratings lead if he didn't have the Tonight Show cushion. Remember, it took a number of years for Leno to match Letterman's numbers. Originally Leno's ratings were crap. Imagine how much worse they would have been if he didn't have the "Tonight Show" banner behind him. He would have been canned far before he could make up the difference.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

If there were a dominant brand effect, you would see his numbers starting out HIGHER and declining to a stable level.

This was Drake's point which you completely failed to understand.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You aren't getting it. With CBS, Leno's numbers would be even lower, increasing his potential for cancellation (NBC was toying with the idea early in Leno's tenure).

[Kuciwalker]

Okay, you're just an idiot.

You have set forward hypotheses (Leno is inherently worse than Letterman, and he got a significant and dominant bump in ratings from inheriting the already-popular Tonight Show).

Drake and I have pointed out that your hypotheses ARE REPUDIATED BY THE EVIDENCE.

Then you continue to extrapolate based on them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you think he would have had the same initial ratings if he was the one who went to CBS and had to start a new late night franchise? Really? ****.

[Kuciwalker]

you're entering slowwhand territory here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Funny because you are the one who can't see the obvious fact here.

[Kitschum]

Letterman's was always a darker show whenever I watched these types of shows. Watch none of them now. Cuts into masturbation time.

The fact that Letterman was beating Leno in the ratings initially and lost ground slowly over time makes this theory of yours complete nonsense. Leno won because his humor appeals to a wider audience.

More star quality for guests in and around Las Angeles.

[Drake Tungsten]

Letterman has better access to guests in and around New York. I don't think the Tonight Show has a major advantage in this department.

[-Jrabbit]

Different variety and quality of guest in those two markets. LA is distinctly much more show-biz oriented, New York more cosmopolitan and diverse (easier access to Europe, DC, news resources, etc.). I agree that neither market has an inherent edge.

The tricky bit for the networks is translating those varying guest/talent pools (and the different hosts) into ratings.