Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Yes,they need an investigation into the Colbert firing.$40 million in losses per year?

Posted on 7/22/25 at 10:46 am
Posted by RD Dawg
Atlanta
Member since Sep 2012
28070 posts
Posted on 7/22/25 at 10:46 am
Who in the hell at Paramount greenlights a show that losses this much money that's nothing more than a daily platform for DNC propaganda?

I'd be incredibly pissed if I was a shareholder at Paramount.
Posted by Paladin1
Dallas
Member since Oct 2019
116 posts
Posted on 7/22/25 at 10:54 am to
AND the question is - Why did it take this long to fire this malcontent, progressive, leftist? This show has been a dumpster fire for a few years…
Posted by TigerAxeOK
Where I lay my head is home.
Member since Dec 2016
35017 posts
Posted on 7/22/25 at 11:01 am to
The man who was once the poster child of success at Comedy Central, turned into a $40M/year loss at XiBS.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you more tangible evidence of the negative effects of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Posted by RolltidePA
North Carolina
Member since Dec 2010
4984 posts
Posted on 7/22/25 at 11:09 am to
USAID isn't making up the gap for them anymore, so the show's gotta go!
Posted by Viator106
Downtown Broussard, La.
Member since May 2020
510 posts
Posted on 7/22/25 at 11:10 am to
How much of that $40 million was covered by USAID?
Posted by rob0710
LA
Member since Oct 2004
890 posts
Posted on 7/22/25 at 11:14 am to
quote:

The man who was once the poster child of success at Comedy Central, turned into a $40M/year loss at XiBS.


They've lied so much through the years, Idk it that is true anymore. How far back do the lies go?
Posted by BHS78
Member since May 2017
3357 posts
Posted on 7/22/25 at 11:21 am to
WNBA would want a raise.
Posted by captainFid
Never apologize to barbarism
Member since Dec 2014
8995 posts
Posted on 7/22/25 at 11:36 am to
quote:

Who in the hell at Paramount greenlights a show that losses this much money that's nothing more than a daily platform for DNC propaganda?

I'd be incredibly pissed if I was a shareholder at Paramount.



We'll it's my understanding - 10 years ago, it was a bank market. Now, it is heavily competitive (with other expensive shows and liberal hosts) fighting for the same, but dropping, progressive market share. Add to this, ad revenue is down bigly. Some have wondered if that ad revenue isn't tied to USAID.

Regardless, my brother has been hoping for this day for a long time - whoever it is footing the bill is walking.

And I ABSOLUTELY love it.

Hope it happens to Stewart, Kimmel, and others who have become so overtly political over the years. I mean imagine, you are a show in NY City and you've had Elizibeth Warren on live, almost a dozen and a half times.
Posted by Robin Masters
Birmingham
Member since Jul 2010
34825 posts
Posted on 7/22/25 at 11:41 am to
I think you’re on to something. There is definitely some shenanigans afoot which need to be investigated. I thought it was strange why so many leftists shills were melting down about the cancellation . They are circling the wagons and framing the narrative as a defensive posture.
Posted by idlewatcher
Planet Arium
Member since Jan 2012
91799 posts
Posted on 7/22/25 at 11:41 am to
quote:

AND the question is - Why did it take this long to fire this malcontent, progressive, leftist? This show has been a dumpster fire for a few years…



Who are you to tell them how to run their business?
Posted by beaux duke
Member since Oct 2023
2863 posts
Posted on 7/22/25 at 11:44 am to
quote:

A company freely choosing how to spend its own money is no longer OK if it's used to subvert the will of real Americans.

Posted by teke184
Zachary, LA
Member since Jan 2007
103077 posts
Posted on 7/22/25 at 11:56 am to
Certain shows are considered a loss leader for various reasons.


I’m sure that ABC takes a hit on Kimmel but that, in turn, the corporate synergy of using Kimmel as a spotlight for a bunch of their shows which do make money, such as Bachelor and Bachelorette, help generate publicity which offsets some losses.

Trying to get that kind of visibility without having your own late night show may end up being a problem for them, which is why they may accept SOME level of loss for late night.
Posted by tigeraddict
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2007
14328 posts
Posted on 7/22/25 at 12:07 pm to
Wonder how much DOGE helping to cancel large governmental “subscriptions” with the media has caused them to look at profit numbers.

Government was subsidizing the woke media to keep woke commendations in the air/in print.
Posted by RolltidePA
North Carolina
Member since Dec 2010
4984 posts
Posted on 7/22/25 at 1:01 pm to
quote:

Certain shows are considered a loss leader for various reasons.


I’m sure that ABC takes a hit on Kimmel but that, in turn, the corporate synergy of using Kimmel as a spotlight for a bunch of their shows which do make money, such as Bachelor and Bachelorette, help generate publicity which offsets some losses.

Trying to get that kind of visibility without having your own late night show may end up being a problem for them, which is why they may accept SOME level of loss for late night.


Paramount posted a $6.1 billion loss for 2024 a 900+% increase in net loss over 2023. 2025 is looking equally as gloomy for them. Losing $50 million isn't in the cards anymore for a Paramount owned company, even if you're positioning it as a loss-leader.

With the viewership of Colbert stalling out around 2.2 million viewers with a downward trend, you can't keep committing resources. This is especially true when your loss leader is losing so much that it's taking a significant bite out of the profits of your shows that are earning money.
Posted by captainFid
Never apologize to barbarism
Member since Dec 2014
8995 posts
Posted on 7/22/25 at 1:19 pm to


If I could just get some of these (bad) actors to cry for me...
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram