
The honeymoon is over. A year after NBC Universal employees were greeted with gift boxes on the day the Comcast-NBCU merger became official, some of them are getting pink slips.
The latest case that has been getting a lot of attention since Nikki Finke broke the story last night, is the “downsizing” at NBC’s The Tonight Show, in which 20 staffers lost their jobs and host Jay Leno took what is being described by sources as a “tremendous” pay cut to “save as many people’s jobs as he could”.
Related: ‘The Tonight Show’ Lays Off 20 Staffers And Host Jay Leno Takes Pay Cut To Save Jobs
This is the latest in a string of layoffs and budget-trimming at NBC. Insiders say that virtually every department of the network has been affected by the wave of company-wide cost-cutting, which started in January. In February, NBC’s marketing and PR departments shed about 10 employees each in downsizing, including a 26-year veteran, EVP and creative director of marketing Jim Vescera. There have been cuts among NBC programming executives too, including the quiet departure of VP drama Lourdes Diaz a couple of months ago.
The move resembles the now infamous NBC 2.0 plan implemented by Steve Burke’s predecessor Jeff Zucker in 2006. But while NBC Universal at the time announced the cuts beforehand, setting a goal of $750 million in savings that included reducing NBC’s work force by 5%, the cost-cutting under the new Comcast leadership is being done quietly, often under the disguise of corporate restructuring.
With help from Sunday Night Football and the Super Bowl, NBC finally emerged from the bottom of the ratings last season to squeak past ABC for third place among adults 18-49. But the network continues to be a sore spot on Comcast’s balance sheet, with its ratings weakness again listed by Comcast as partially responsible for NBCUniversal’s soft financial performance during the most recent quarter.
In addition to trimming personnel and budgets of departments and existing shows, the network also is expected to spend less on development this season after forking around $40 million on scripts last year when it drove the prices up with aggressive bidding for what was described as one the wildest buying seasons in recent memory. So far, it has ordered an off-cycle pilot, the Jerry Bruckheimer-produced drama The Secret Lives Of Husbands And Wives, and has handed out put pilot commitments to a Cleopatra drama produced by Lorenzo Di Bonaventura and a Rand Ravich drama. The network also is close to landing the new Michael J. Fox comedy with a major commitment.
TV Editor Nellie Andreeva - tip her here.


Hmm. Economy’s in the toilet and NBC’s supposed to keep spending like mad? Hollywood’s not Congress.
I’m all for anyone making whatever the market will bear, and I have no troubles with folks who make millions.
But news anchors?
I get the job’s very public, very visible, but audience has been draining away from network news for years, now, shifting to the Internet, cable news, and other outlets.
So at a time when the audience is smaller than ever… why in the world are today’s news anchors paid more than ever? Especially morning-show hosts?
It takes the focus off reporting the news and on the celebrity-value of the anchor. I don’t agree with at least half of what Aaron Sorkin writes, and he’s incredibly one-sided, but I’d love to see him do an episode of Newsroom that focuses on that. Unfortunately, real news anchors making that much make it possible for Sorkin to write shows that make the news game seem glamorous, rather than a duty. Talented writer, though.
The big difference between the cost-cutting measures employed by Comcast is that at least they’re not destroying the network schedule in the process.
And yes, putting five hours of Leno in the prime time spot per week did indeed reduce NBC’s “major network” status.
The thing here is, though, that everyone in Hollywood wants to be paid more than ever, even though consumers are proving they are taking advantage of having more channels than ever… and more entertainment OPTIONS than ever…. thus fragmenting the audience.
Sure, the Thursday night comedies struggle to get a 3.0 in the Neilsens (a shamefully outdated rating system to begin with), but so do most networks.
But I think the cable success of mini-series like HATFIELDS AND MCCOYS on History Channel shows that one can still draw audiences with the right idea, done well.
Also, I think the networks need to keep evolving how they program shows.
Don’t get me wrong, there are shows where I love all 22 episodes in a season and some where I wish they would order more like 30 in a season.
But there are other shows that I think could be far more successful if booked from the start as limited-run shows. More of a BBC type model.
I mean, the BBC version of THE OFFICE had, what? Two seasons of maybe six or seven episodes each? And even the worst episode was better than most of the NBC version episodes.
The trouble is that series that last forever get more and more expensive to produce; a BBC-style approach would improve on that, because if you run a seven-episode story and then it’s done, and it’s popular, those actors could be asked back for another series of episodes, or move on to other projects more quickly.
I’m sure Hugh Laurie enjoyed doing 150+ episodes of HOUSE because he got huge pay bumps along the way. No BBC show would ever cost as much as HOUSE, because they’d cancel it before it ever got that out of control.
That’s how a long-running show like DOCTOR WHO has survived; bring a cast in when they’re affordable. Then, when they get popular enough that you’d have to jack their rates up considerably to keep ‘em, boom… the Doctor regenerates and you have a new, lower-paid actor in the role, or a new set of companions joining him.
Not that any other show could use the DOCTOR WHO solution, but why not take more of a “Novel for television” approach and set of from the start to tell a complete story in a smaller number of episodes?
I mean… COMMUNITY is a greatly funny show, but most community colleges only give out two-year associates degrees… it’s now entering season four. Personally, I think the show could have ended on Season 2 and been stronger for it.
Let the cast move on to the next thing…
…Just ramblings… don’t take much of this too seriously.
Putting Jay Leno in prime-time three years ago was not a bad idea.
What was a bad idea was the show they put him in.
NBC should instead have given Leno a traditional-format, big-budget, once-a-week hour-long comedy/variety show.
Had NBC done that, it would have been a huge hit (and about to enter it’s fourth year), Conan would still be on “Tonight”, and the network’s fortunes in prime-time might be better than they are.
We’ll agree to disagree.
Replacing five hours of real programming with five hours of Leno was a huge mistake and it could be argued NBC is still recovering from the loss of credibility.
A one-hour variety show would have been a better idea.
Five prime time hours, though … and transparently admitting it was a cost-cutting measure … did more damage to NBC than all of their reality shows combined.
So I guess all those “Kabletown” jokes on 30 Rock weren’t so far off the mark! Of course Comcast was going to tighten the reins. Anything that smells of bloat is going to be getting MAJOR surgery. Good thing for Leno his ratings are OK or Comcast might have just canceled the show altogether.
This is funny. NBC is owned by General Electric. Jeffrey R. Immelt, is not only the CEO of GE but is also Obama’s Job Czar, and not even HE could keep layoffs out of the businesses he oversees?
Leno is a jerk and should be fired. I’m leno bashing right now! I bet Conan is sitting there at TBS going “thank God i’m not working for them anymore” NBC..Now Budget Conscious!!! Comcast probably sucks anyhow.