Charlie Rose

maloo  01/30/2013 06:30 AM Report

With the elections coming up Zucker knew Conan wasn't liberal enough to push Obama, and that Jay can be paid to be. Like 'the new' Letterman.

reelwatcher  01/22/2010 10:07 AM Report

Jeff Zucker is a one-man wrecking crew. Despite his imitation of a forthright businessman, he doesn't know how to make a decision. He's a control freak who can't take a calculated risk, but wants simply to 'have his cake & eat it too.' He promises stuff to everyone and then can't pull the trigger on a clear decision until everyone else makes it for him. 'Good tactician, bad strategist' is perfect. He's been promoted beyond his capability. Net result, he's alienated talent, guests and viewers and hasn't taken any sensible risks. He's just gone back to what they had before and paid off disgruntled talent at enormous expense. When will NBC realize just how badly they're being served by him? Some wunderkind.

diane_1  01/21/2010 11:56 AM Report

If it ain't broke don't fix it. Zucker broke it. There was nothing wrong with Leno at 11:35 followed by Conan in the first place. Zucker created this mess and has cost NBC a gazillion dollars, not to menton making the network look foolish. It's not Leno's fault. It's not Conan's fault. Zucker made a reckless, incompetent decision. End of story.

vauben  01/20/2010 07:07 PM Report

I would love to talk seriously with Jeff about serendipity. I can only quote John Wayne..."Daylight's Burnin'!" And maybe add that I like talking shop while riding horses. And I haven't been riding for a long, long time.

If there are primetime possibilities to be rounded up he needs a posse.

I'm not joking. Blazing trails can be fun if you're with the right group of people. And I think you can do this. Can you imagine Conan on a Shetland Pony and Leno on a Mule. With my luck, I'd get stuck cooking the grub and washing the tin cups.

BozoZenkel  01/20/2010 04:03 PM Report

Respectfully, Charlie, you had 30 minutes with the head of NBC Entertainment and you never asked the core question: Why did NBC ultimately decide they'd rather have Jay than Conan? And, if the answer is numbers, then your follow-up is, "Is this about quality television or is this about ratings?" because the two are not identical.

Funny. John Wooden was the coach at UCLA for 16 years before he won a national title. 16 years. Folks like Mr. Zucker are supposed to be smart enough to distinguish greatness from populist pap and to have the courage to be patient.

heatherlewis86  01/19/2010 09:11 PM Report

I think Jeff needs to "look" a little deeper into his perception of himself as an innovator (and preferably stop prefacing every response with the word "look"). Anyone can take risks and expound those as leadership decisions, but there's a vast difference between a visionary risk and a defensive risk. Charlie was right when he relayed the external quote about how Jeff is viewed as an expert tactician and a relatively poor strategist. I think the characterization was dead on. Jeff is probably brilliant at accounting and operations - the science side of things, so to speak. His comfort zone in the interview was clearly within the "results" side of the equation. But when it comes to the artful side of programming, Jeff is just lost, unable to see the forest through the trees. And he's currently mired in channeling defensive risk, slowly destroying the most visible portion of the network and setting a vortex of defeatism beneath the remainder.

Jeff might be right about one thing, though - some things are going to get better after this, but only because rock bottom isn't far off for a once dominant network.

Jeff might also benefit from listening to... himself. The "cultivated talent" that he's playing around with like pawns these days came from somewhere. And it wasn't from a strict focus on a quick result. Jeff rightfully besmirches the act of judging too quickly, but he has not only done that here, he hanged the wrong guy.

HenryFlagler  01/19/2010 07:04 PM Report

Bill Carter's Late Shift explains what had happened the first time NBC went through this with Jay Leno and David Letterman. It was a different set of circumstances, but the moral of the story was forgotten: You cannot make two people happy when they both want the same thing and only one person can have it. NBC today, like in 1992, had developed two stars and was trying to keep them both. It could not happen then and it cannot happen now.

The decision that was made in 2004 to replace Jay with Conan was made with the intention of not repeating the mistakes of 1992. Zucker is now claiming that decision was wrong. He is wrong. The mistake is not sticking to the decision made and trying to keep Jay Leno by giving him a new time-slot before Conan. Conan never had a chance to absorb and develop the television audience for the Tonight Show because many followed Jay to 10 PM and would not have been interested in watching another hour of similar programming. NBC created in-house competition to the Tonight Show. Zucker should not have been surprised when neither venture succeeded. Jay should have been let go and Conan should have been given an honest chance at the Tonight Show as was agreed to over five years ago.

Zucker repeatedly states this is a business decision, but the entertainment business involves talent management. On this occasion he has been a bad talent manager and a bad businessman.

JonnyQ  01/19/2010 06:04 PM Report

Oooh Charlie, you got so close at one point! Seems like a very appropriate exploratory question would have been about the affiliates when discussing the ratings. Jeff presents the situation as a sound decision at the time that just didn't work out in light of the affiliates' response -- but why didn't that enter into their initial equation? They announced they'd be happy with lower ratings for the Jay Leno Show in light of the lesser costs to produce shows -- you mean NBC never considered how this might affect those affiliate newscasts? Why not! It's such a key element in what's happening now -- lots of turmoil has resulted -- and no one thought, hey, those affiliates will be hurt at 11:00 if we bring in lower ratings at 10:00? That seems inexcusable on that level of decision-making.

oldman9  01/19/2010 05:18 PM Report

"Look, Obviously..." Look... Look...

Obviously, this guy Zucker is responsible.

Making hard business decisions as NBC does, obviously

this guy is obviously looking to save his behind. Obviously.

Well Look. How long do you give him?

Go Conan! Go Dave!

Obviously, they will win.

"Look, I'm obviously talking up my network, which will obviously can my butt after this debacle is over."

Look, Leno is has obviously become boring.

Wait and see when he goes back to late night.

Has anyone counted how many times Zucker used the words, Look. Obviously?

JillKennedy  01/19/2010 04:20 PM Report

The only chance NBC has to recover from this debacle is to fire Jeff Zucker. Even if behind the scenes, he wasn't the problem or even if the media has it wrong (doubtful) he needs to go before the brand can be rebuilt...

http://mankabros.com/onmedea/2010/01/jay_leno_and_nbc_damage_contro.html

REMant  01/19/2010 10:51 AM Report

If it is possible, I think even less of Leno and Conan, (and to be completely impartial, Letterman, too) than I do of Couric. I stopped watching those shows decades ago. People do grow up sometime, so I suppose I'd have to think with them that it was Leno who should have been eliminated to make way for a younger demographic, tho I am not sure that demographic exists, and if it does, watches David. That Leno did not provide a good lead-in to the news, which is overwhelmingly watched by older ppl, would seem to argue also, that it is Leno who should go. As I wrote the other day, I think the cable model - if it can be called that - is probably the way to salvage both broadcast TV, and the Internet as well.