1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Megyn Kelly Today" is not off to such a wonderful start

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by LongTimeListener, Sep 28, 2017.

  1. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    If I pay $450,000 for a Dodge Neon, it doesn't mean the car was worth that much. It just means I was stupid for paying that much.
    sgreenwell, exmediahack and Stoney like this.
  2. LanceyHoward

    LanceyHoward Well-Known Member

    I disagree with those who say that a television anchor is not worth that much money. If you have an established star who dominates the ratings of a morning show or as an evening anchor you pay the money. But you do not pay yhat money to someone and try to build a show around him/her. Their are other talented, cheaper men and women who you can hire.
  3. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    I think mostly they pay because they don't want to lose an audience or they hope an anchor will bring an audience with them.

    So if you figured you would "be" Megyn Kelly for a Halloween party......?
  4. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    To me it's simply a case of WAR, anchor style.

    What are Today's ratings (w/Hoda Kotb) now vs. before (w/Matt Lauer)

    Last week averages:
    Total Viewers: ABC: 4,026,000 / NBC: 3,932,000
    Age 25-54 viewers: ABC: 1,238,000 / NBC: 1,354,000

    Averages exactly one year ago:
    Total Viewers: ABC: 4,269,000 / NBC: 4,150,000
    Age 25-54 viewers: ABC: 1,368,000 / NBC: 1,456,000

    Today was +218,000 w/Lauer in total viewers vs. Kotb, but ABC was also +243,000 for that week, meaning that ratings as a whole have declined, and Today's decline cannot be attributed to one anchor on one network. Thus, what was the justification for Lauer's $25 million salary, when Kotb (at $7 million) doesn't seem to have done anything to negatively affect ratings?
  5. LanceyHoward

    LanceyHoward Well-Known Member

    Lauer signed that contract in 2012. Today had been the number One show in total viewers and the 25-54 age bracket for his tenure through 2012. The costs of producing Good Morning America and Today are similar, anchor salaries aside. So the increased revenues that higher advertising rates bring dropped almost entirely to the bottom line.

    I don't have any idea why Today had higher ratings and more importantly, higher viewership in the 25-54 age bracket. I suspect that ABC, NBC and especially CBS, which has long struggled in that time slot, don't know exactly why Today was number one either. But the anchor is the most visible part of the show. Not signing the anchor talent of a top-rated, nationally televised two hour long show. Why take the risk of letting the anchor go and try out cheaper talent when you already likely have the most profitable show?
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2018
  6. exmediahack

    exmediahack Well-Known Member

    Lancey is spot on.

    The morning newscasts have SO much ad inventory for 2 hours. Plus a third hour for NBC. That’s why a $10 million anchor doesn’t kill the bottom line.

    Let me go to the local level. I’m in a mid-market. I anchor 4 hours a day. Only 90 minutes of those get really high ratings. The rest is just filler.

    On the WAR comparison, they could easily fire me and bring in someone at half the salary. If they want to be super cheap and risk a 44 share. I’m not the reason we have great ratings but I certainly haven’t F’d it up, either.

    The newscasts I am on pull in 57% of our news ratings. Evenings are only 43%. Yet those anchors make $30k-$50k more a year than I do. Only because, as with me, management is too hesitant to screw with a top rated newsroom.

    If we pull in $10M in advertising a year, what’s paying an anchor $40k more than you should? Chicken feed.
    Donny in his element likes this.
  7. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    The Today Show was an established hit show before Matt Lauer was born. Exmedia's post is very enlightening, but I'm not sure the Today Show is a useful basis for examination of anchor salaries. The problem with Megan Kelly for NBC is totally on them. They gave her a freight train full of cash without really having an idea of what they wanted her to do. Was she supposed to be Barbara Walters? The perky weather girl? Who knows? It was pretty apparent she didn't.
    sgreenwell likes this.
  8. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    "I'm fired up about Halloween costumes!"

    Jesus Christ, is that what's on morning television? And people watch that garbage?

    What is wrong with us?
  9. exmediahack

    exmediahack Well-Known Member

    Morning TV after 9 am is garbage.

    I do super early AM. It’s primarily last night’s news, weather, anything of note today and, on occasion, European terrorism.

    Huge audience. Not an engaged audience as they’re getting families ready for the day. But they’re still there.
    Vombatus and poindexter like this.
  10. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

    Us? I don't watch that shit. Any of it.
  11. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    They were negotiating against themselves.
  12. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    CBS has been far more hurt by Charlie Rose's firing than NBC has by Lauer's.

    Lauer was overrated for years.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page