There was quite a stir this week when Stephen Colbert revealed that CBS had decided to cancel “The Late Show.”
The media reaction felt almost apocalyptic.
But, really, is Colbert’s departure that surprising?
Did we, I mean, did anyone, expect a blockbuster from a show that has struggled for a while?
Back when airships went the way of the dodo in 1937, did people really think they’d miss them?
“What does it mean when there are no more silent movies?”
Honestly, the end of “The Late Show” seemed like an inevitability, much like these cyclical fades into obscurity.
And Colbert isn’t the only one facing this fate. It looks like a grim future is looming over late-night television in general. The seasoned host might be ignoring the signs.
The show, originally created as a way to fill airtime back in the 1950s, now just can’t justify its hefty expenses.
Reports indicate that Colbert’s show lost around $40 million to $50 million annually. Some outlets softened this figure to simply “tens of millions.”
It’s tricky to pin the blame solely on any one factor.
Yes, “The Late Show” often led its competitors, averaging about 2.42 million viewers in the first quarter. However, only a mere 9% of that audience fell in the coveted 18-49 age range that advertisers are so eager to reach.
This is an issue, as it means a lack of ad revenue. Young audiences just aren’t tuning in.
But why is that, really?
Well, they have platforms like YouTube and TikTok at their fingertips.
Even this week’s odd plot twist, where an astronomer named Andy Byron was somehow involved in a moment at a Coldplay concert, can feel stale next to the rapid pace of social media chatter.
Fifteen years ago, people were in stitches over David Letterman and Conan O’Brien’s antics. But now, social media has outpaced Colbert, Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel, and Seth Meyers.
The various formats have evolved, but the traditional 11:30 PM slots with commercials on old-school networks can’t compete with the nimble, sharp content available online.
Can having big-name guests save a show struggling in the ratings?
It seems like a stretch. Those brief interviews don’t hold the same charm anymore. A-list celebrities are practically everywhere, making the promotional appearances feel rather dull.
This is why podcasts like “Good Hang” and “Rascalchurista” are taking off—they offer a genuine look at big names in a much more relaxed setting.
Feeling the shift, even top-tier talent seems to be opting for the podcast route over traditional TV.
There’s a lot of talk about how rising political tensions contribute to the struggles of late-night programs. Certainly, they create challenges, but they aren’t the sole issue.
Think about it. Younger generations often perceive the hosts as leaning too far left.
The reality is that the traditional format of monologues and desk segments is losing its appeal.
We’ve seen shows like “A Late Late Show with James Corden” take hits, and now CBS’s notable show is facing the same chopping block. Shows like NBC’s “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” and “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” aren’t exactly thriving, either.
I recognize that politically charged cable shows like “The Daily Show” and “Gutfeld!” are holding their own, but they are a different breed altogether.
So, who exactly benefits now in this shifting landscape?
This week, the major headline in late-night talk was actually about an interview with a 16-year-old done by David Retterman.
Aside from Colbert’s exit, that seems to be the most significant news coming from the late-night scene lately.
You may recall Joaquin Phoenix apologizing for an awkward interview with the first “Late Show” host, David Letterman, back in 2009. It’s intriguing how that interaction still garners more interest than what new talent can offer.
Maybe it explains why there’s a growing list suggesting reasons for late-night shows to fade away, with some even calling for Letterman’s return.
But really, would it even matter?
No one’s paying attention to them anymore.
