I went to see the Johnny Carson show while in New York with the US Navy in the 1960s. They gave sailors free tickets, and I was an avid viewer of Carson. Late night shows are an American tradition that spanned from 1954 to tomorrow. Things change.
The whammies are upon us. Whammies aren't the Emmys. They are the fickle death hammer of Thor. In the current era of media streaming, the movie theater is fighting what may be a losing battle, and it tells us a lot about the future. People want convenience (since the year 2000 when it became possible). They want to be able to watch anything they want to watch whenever they want it. And increasingly people want their shows in new length formats.
When I produced STL Comedy in 2014, I put the show in several formats. We recorded the material for an hour show (44 minutes). These went to Pay Per View (PPV). I created half-hour shows from these plus individual skit shows. These all went on our TV website and to other websites that featured comedy, so people could have their choice. We learned "No" is a common choice, especially the absolute choice in networks.
We featured nine different kinds of comedy, but skit comedy is typically about sex, so I tried to keep it clean for a world-wide audience. We thought "bigly." "Bigly" seems to be a new word that is about to make it into the dictionary, probably under pressure so people who use it don't seem stupid. I also included the other writers and actors in choosing the skits and who was to be in them.
STL Comedy was the most successful independent production in St. Louis, the film capital of the world because Missouri rivals Georgia in its tax incentives for making movies. (NOT.) On STL Comedy, we lost less money than anyone. That puts us in the pro league where one or two of out four new pilots make it to broadcast TV, as I saw behind the scenes in focus groups on TV pilots. I feel good about that. Broke, but what’s a few measly dollars.
The point is that creating comedy is complex, and we also have to recognize that it evolves. Some of the stuff that was funny in 2014 is no longer amusing. For example, we had a skit in which a white super villain chained a black super hero. The laugh line in 2014 was there are no black superheroes. All that has changed.
Another example, the “roasts,” popular from the 1970s through around 2019, and popular at the White House Correspondents' Dinner which traditionally includes roasts of politicians, especially the sitting president. The president, whose name shall not be mentioned for fear of retribution—you know it might be Ronald Dickens because I’m not really up on that kind of thing—criticized the comedians until the Dinner canceled them. Roasts waned, but recently have made a return in the media. My wife roasts me everyday, and I have to like it, so maybe the president should too.
In the current political atmosphere, bullying others is okay, but making fun of the person doing the bullying, like Brazil’s imprisoned former President, Jair Bolsonaro and other criminals, is forbidden in the US. It’s not law, but forbidding it seems to work. The new standard is we should not make fun of downtrodden people or call them bad because it might hurt their feelings and make them feel “less than.”
We shouldn’t call military people who get shot, “losers.” We shouldn’t tell Zelinsky he doesn’t hold the right cards. Zelinsky was a publicly respected and well-liked comedian before coming to the presidency, not in my opinion (IMO) like some realtor with a habitual liking for bankruptcy, so how would he know which cards are the wrong ones? You know, we should all accept failure. It took Edison over 1000 tries to make the light bulb, he just didn’t file bankruptcy. And he did it without AI.
Well, not making people feel “less than” is reasonable. We shouldn’t hurt anyone’s feelings or make them feel “less than.” But the screw should turn both ways.
Comedy is in the eye of the beholder. So much of comedy is in the vein of Don Rickles, who was a master at roasting others. It could be very funny, although it didn’t amuse me. I laugh at myself (self-deprecating). Things change. Self-deprecating use in professional comedy has evolved, with audiences valuing personal, introspective stories over constant, shallow self-criticism. Maybe I’m a shallow person? My wife wants to divorce me over my sense of humor.
Comedians have to test the audience continuously, even from audience to audience, to see if they are still there. By there, I mean receptive to certain kinds of comedy. If there is no there, there, they have to shift gears.
One of the things that might be helpful is to understand that most people have the same values. Young, old, Republican, Democrat, their values are very similar. Look up the studies. It's how to achive those values that is the difference. And that might be better fodder for comedy. "They want to do what! What could possibly go wrong?"
All this talk about change brings me to the current unnatural disaster, something common with President, General, World King, Ronald Dickens, who met Charles Dickens during his term in office. Ronald Dickens took Dickens’ name because he liked it. It’s kind of what he does. And in my opinion scares the dickens out of people so they cow tow to his every whim. IMO he believes in free speech for him, however if you use free speech to criticize him in comedy, he’ll pull the network license, because he is hugely big and powerful.
The recent departure and subsequent return of Jimmy Kimmel to his late-night show because of the kerfuffle for even mentioning a certain thing, the thing that “shall not be mentioned” for fear of stirring up hostile feelings, is not an uncommon debacle. Many TV shows have failed to be displayed in certain areas of the US because they were deemed too controversial.
The influence of political opinion
Like we didn’t already cover this.
These points raise the questions: are TV shows too subject to political opinion, and is the market evolving?
Are shows too subject to political opinion? On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, maybe we need to understand the political mood in the country and back off. People are very sensitive to their identity being under attack. They will fight to the death to preserve their identity. There is no need to throw gasoline on the polarization fire. TV comedians should understand their role in this and act accordingly. NO! I didn’t mean make it worse.
While political roasting gets viewers, which get ratings, which gets money, which keeps their high paying jobs, maybe it’s time to change the distribution model and change the kinds of comedy late night is using so it is less disruptive of society.
At some point you retire. Steve Allen, Jack Parr, Johnny Carson, Jon Stewart … they all retired. Wait, the ghost of Jon Stewart is back on the air, so maybe there is an afterlife for comedians. Maybe you can just slowly wind down, slack off some, keep your audience, find some new audience, and keep doing what you enjoy. Being a lovely person. (You only roast the people you really like.)
To that end
TV late night shows are slipping in viewers even faster than other network programming. Streaming, and other length formats, are taking over. While late night has an older audience, younger audiences prefer short-form videos, and they watch late-night TV sketches on YouTube. If you want to be in the market, my first principle as a former marketing manager is “be where they are looking.”
Short-form videos typically range from a few seconds to a couple of minutes, designed to quickly capture and hold viewers' attention on social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts. These videos often use a hook, strong visuals, text overlays, and music to deliver a clear, focused message, making them ideal for conveying information, entertaining, and connecting with audiences in the current digital landscape.
They also like getting their news from these same sources. Long shows are out for these generations. It’s not so much their attention span as it is the competition for eyes. They are constantly attracted to the next flashy thing, so short is effective. Personally, I can’t learn this.
I propose a new model, which maybe Jon Stewart already did, but he died, didn’t he, and we only see his ghost now, and you’re funnier when you’re dead, and ghosts can’t sue?
In 2005, Stewart’s production studio, Busboy, reached a major financing agreement with Comedy Central. This deal gave the network a "first-look" opportunity for any of Busboy's projects.
Just like Lucile Ball did in the 1950s. Your very own studio. In Cuba with Ricky.
Comedy Central has an updated schedule consistent with newer viewers. As of late 2025, The Daily Show airs Monday through Thursday and features a unique format with two tiers of hosts. Longtime host Jon Stewart covers Monday nights, while a rotating cast of correspondents hosts the show from Tuesday through Thursday. This is exactly what I would recommend.
Not on every night? Even the show isn’t on every day. Well, it’s Comedy Central and they do wild and crazy things.
You stream it. Streaming isn’t regulated like the TV networks. IMO, President, General, World King, Ronald Dickens, can’t pull your license to exist to make millions. Well, no one actually makes millions streaming … yet … maybe they do. Nobody makes me know everything. (Okay, Comedy Central can't count, so they don't reveal their numbers.)
Different great figures in late night hosting, from their own studios (bedroom computers with cameras, or better because they need room for guests and skits and zany writers for last minute edits), host on different nights of the week. Republicans can feature FOX News commentators and Liberals feature MSNBC. Give them credit; people say everything they say is hilarious. Did I just say that. Don’t get the wrong idea, I’m an independent and I don’t even watch FOX or MSNBC. I only know them because YouTube sticks them in my face and I unwittingly wander in before I realize what I’ve done. They’re not completely bad.
Don’t get the wrong idea about bedroom cameras. Sex isn’t funny. Oh, wait, I did an entire series on the premise sex is funny. But I couldn’t sell my cast on, I Want My Virginity Back, featuring a woman with a garment partially wrapped around her fleeing, screaming from a bedroom door.
Okay, so you split the average salary of $15 million, between the primary and secondary hosts, which they use for their pay and to finance their studios and writers, who now have to time to produce better material. You include real news on your new company production with hungry independent reporters and fact checking to create short, factual, explainer segments so you get some credibility and a brand that gets frequent views. Could work. You can send me a million dollars for the idea, because last time I saved American Idol with a new format, I not only didn’t get any credit, The Voice used it. Okay, probably 50 other producers invented it, too.
How the Model Could Work for news
This hybrid model would be a strategic move that leverages the strengths of independent journalism to solve a key problem for talk and comedy shows: the high cost and declining relevance of traditional news.
Lower Production Costs: Instead of maintaining an expensive, on-site news division, you could work with a network of independent reporters. Their content, often produced with a lean budget, could be licensed or commissioned at a fraction of the cost of a traditional newsroom. This allows you to have a high-quality news component without the high overhead.
Increased Credibility and Trust: A major trend in media is the declining public trust in traditional news outlets. In contrast, many audiences, particularly younger ones, are increasingly turning to independent reporters for content they perceive as more authentic and trustworthy. This could give your channel a significant competitive advantage.
Unique Content and Niche Appeal: Independent reporters often focus on in-depth, nuanced stories that get overlooked by major news outlets. This could provide a unique and compelling content mix for your platform that sets you apart from your competitors.
Advantages
Financial Efficiency: The cost to produce a news website can be as low as $54 per month, and while streaming content is more expensive, it would still be far cheaper than a traditional news division. You could license content from a network of independent reporters, which is a growing market.
Audience Loyalty: Independent journalists build a direct, personal relationship with their audience. By including them in your channel's mix, you can leverage their loyal following to build your own, creating a community around the content.
Disadvantages
Risk of Bias: While independent reporters are often seen as more trustworthy, they are also highly susceptible to personal bias or a specific political viewpoint. A streaming service that mixes comedy with news and opinion would need to navigate this carefully to avoid alienating a large segment of the audience.
Lack of Standardization: Independent content can vary widely in quality and style. It would require a skilled editorial team to curate and present the content in a way that feels cohesive and professional, which would add to your operational costs.
Monetization Challenges: While there are many ways to monetize news content (ads, subscriptions, donations), the vast majority of consumers still expect news to be free. The challenge would be to convert these viewers into paying subscribers or to generate enough ad revenue to justify the costs.
In summary, this model is a very interesting concept that aligns with a number of current trends in media. It could be a highly profitable and effective business model, but it would require a careful strategy to manage the risks and a skilled team to execute it.
Comedy time – how it could work
Okay, I know news isn’t comedy. That’s not news to me. So here are the facts vomited out by my AI friend who knows more than me, but I’m smarter because, following the highly successful René Descartes model, “I think therefore I am … smarter.”
1. Audience Trends and Viewing Habits
The audience for late-night comedy has been in a steep decline, mirroring the broader trend in broadcast television.
Overall TV Viewership: In May 2025, streaming viewership surpassed broadcast and cable combined for the first time, accounting for 44.8% of total TV usage. Over the last four years, broadcast TV viewership has declined by 21%.
Late-Night Ratings: The most-watched late-night shows have seen their linear viewership drop by 70-80% since 2015. For example, a show that once had an average of 2.4 million viewers in 2015 now has an audience of around 1.77 million.
The Streaming Shift: More people are watching clips and full episodes on demand via platforms like YouTube than are watching the live broadcasts. This is particularly true for younger audiences, who are the most coveted demographic for advertisers. A recent survey found that only about one-quarter of Americans watch a late-night show at least monthly.
2. Financials and Profitability
The decline in audience has directly impacted the financial viability of late-night shows.
Production Costs: These shows have massive budgets. A host's salary can be between $15 million and $16 million annually, and the total budget for a show can reach $100 million per year.
Ad Revenue: Ad revenue for late-night television has fallen dramatically, from over $400 million in 2018 to just over $220 million in 2024.
Unprofitability: Analysts have concluded that most late-night shows became unprofitable in 2023. This is because production costs have remained high while the ad revenue generated by a shrinking audience is no longer enough to cover expenses. The show's value as a promotional vehicle for other network programming is a key factor in keeping them on the air.
3. Content and Format
The content mix of a successful late-night show is a long-established formula.
The Classic Structure: Most shows follow a similar format: a humorous monologue about the day's news, celebrity interviews, comedy sketches or recurring bits, and a musical guest.
The Role of the Host: The personality of the host is the central and most important element of the show. Their perspective and style shape the entire format and content.
4. A Potential New Business Model
A new business model could be created to adapt to this changing landscape. By creating an independent streaming show, a host could: Reduce Costs: Operate with a much smaller budget than a traditional network show. Diversify Revenue: Generate revenue through a mix of ads, subscriptions, and pay-per-view (PPV) events, which is a more resilient model. License Content: License the show's content back to traditional networks to reach a wider audience and secure a stable source of revenue.
Conclusion: This model is a high-risk, high-reward strategy that takes advantage of the weaknesses in the traditional media model and the opportunities in the streaming market. It's a plausible path forward for a host with a known brand and a dedicated following.
I apologize for not including humor in this paper. It’s not funny. Although I am because I think I am. So anyway, make it happen. And stop being so polarizing. It’s not funny in this polarized climate.