During the glory years of NBC’s “Tonight Show,” all the top stars of CBS and ABC were interviewed by Johnny Carson. NBC welcomed ‘em with open arms. I always thought that was weird, because even as a kid, I understood that NBC had ‘em on for one reason: They were big-name guests that would be good for NBC’s late-night ratings.
But I also knew that those CBS and ABC stars were going on NBC to promote their own shows — and the only way that worked was if NBC’s audience would switch the dial when their show was on the air. And in the days before VCRs, TV watching was an either-or phenomenon: If you’re watching one channel, you weren’t watching the other.
So every time a CBS or ABC star appeared on NBC’s “Tonight Show,” someone was losing net viewers.
Yet the practice continued unabated. Still exists today, even though the combined late-night numbers of Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, and Jimmy Fallon are a tiny sliver of Carson’s share, and VCRs/on-demand have altered the either-or conundrum.
My best guess on why NBC allowed it: Johnny Carson was such a big name, he “normalized” the practice of inviting CBS and ABC stars. It almost certainly wasn’t in the best interest of NBC’s corporate masters: At the time, NBC had a monopoly on late-night entertainment; they could’ve turned the “Tonight Show” into an infomercial for all-things NBC.
But what Johnny wanted, Johnny received. If he wanted to chat with Tom Selleck, star of “Magnum P.I.” on CBS, that’s what was gonna happen.
Even if it was a loss-leader for the network!
Loss-leaders are commonplace in the entertainment world. Colloquially, it refers to the business practice of offering at least one product and/or service at a loss — usually to grab the customer’s attention — and then you make back your money by up-selling the customer other things. So if you opened a new diner in your city, you might run a promotion where you sell pancakes (or whatever) for 99 cents for a limited time, in the hopes of enticing new customers.
Sometimes it works. Other times, it has the opposite effect: You’ve inadvertently “trained” your audience to perceive your pancakes as only being worth 99 cents. Entrepreneurs must tread carefully, lest they devalue their business in a rebate doom-cycle.
But when you’re the product, you don’t care about that risk! Exposure is its own reward. And for that reason, the #1 goal for EVERYONE in entertainment is to be a loss-leader for a big, powerful, deep-pocketed entertainment company.
‘Cause that’s where you can REALLY make your nut. (Ca-ching!)
An example today is World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE): They recently signed streaming deals with Netflix and ESPN. And Netflix and ESPN almost certainly overpaid for WWE (or at least paid more than the revenue WWE represents) because WWE fans are young and loyal; they spend money on entertainment; and there’s added value in monetizing that fanbase.
These platforms are making a gamble: Once WWE fans see all the other cool programs on Netflix and ESPN, maybe we’ll get ‘em to spend even more money!
It’s why the NFL makes a fortune selling its game rights: NBC, CBS, ESPN, and FOX will gladly overpay for games, because they can upsell NFL fans all the other shows they air. They’re paying a premium for this privilege.
About 20 years ago, Sirius, an upstart satellite radio company, hired Howard Stern to be its loss-leader. They overpaid for Stern, using his audience as its building block.
Similarly, 30 years ago, CBS hired David Letterman as its loss-leader. They overpaid for Letterman, luring him away from NBC, hoping to use him to build a Carsonesque late-night franchise that CBS owned and operated. When Letterman retired, they pivoted to Stephen Colbert.
Weirdly, over the past month, both CBS and Sirius (now Sirius/XM) announced they’ll be jettisoning their current loss-leaders. Colbert’s show was costing CBS a good $40 million a year; Sirius/XM was paying $120 million annually for the rights to “The Howard Stern Show” — with an audience, allegedly, of just 125,000 people.
That’s the trouble with loss-leaders: Eventually, you’ve gotta pull the plug. It doesn’t work if you don’t.
And when you do, the math doesn’t always pan out as you had hoped.
PRedictions: On Sept. 23, Kamala Harris will release her tell-all book, “107 Days.” And I can tell you exactly what she’ll do, because Harris is an uncreative thinker who relies on consultants, and I know what her PR consultants are gonna tell her:
First, she’ll leak a few juicy excerpts to her sycophants in the media. (Probably the New York Times or the Washington Post.) Then she’ll make a handful of (calculated) media rounds — primarily liberal outlets, but maybe a Joe Rogan or a Theo Von (to gin up controversy). And they’ll prioritize two or three storylines, probably relating to her female/minority status, and see if that could be the basis of a 2028 presidential run.
Kamala’s goal, of course, is to be perceived as an inspirational hero to millions of young women. (Or maybe as the victim of MAGA’s cruel misogyny. That’d work, too.) Her fear is being ignored: Nobody buys her book, nobody watches her interviews, nobody cares what she has to say.
Honestly?
The latter is far more probable.
PRojections: This was a good week for Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Cal.). He wants to be president, but can’t run on his record as governor. As we noted:
Instead, the opposite is true: If his record as governor is the #1 issue, Newsom will go down in flames… just like most of downtown Los Angeles.
California is a complete and total disaster. From wildfires to crime to public defecation, nobody in Flyover Country wants their state to be California-ized. Nobody walks around their city and says, “Gee, if only we were more like California. Then everyone would be happy.”
Especially not in the states with an oversized importance in the Democratic primaries, such as Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina! In those places, “Turning us into California” is seen as an apocalyptic threat, not a Beach Boys-esque promise of good times, warm weather, and California Girls.
This is actually Newsom’s second pivot. Originally, he tried to rebrand himself as a free-thinking pragmatist who could go toe-to-toe with the leaders of MAGA, and launched an off-hours podcast with guests like Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon, Michael Savage, and Newt Gingrich.
But that’s not what his base wanted. They’re not seeking a MAGA whisperer; they want a MAGA slayer.
The liberal backlash was intense.
Which is why Newsom recast himself yet again: Now, he’s the architect of the Democratic resistance, promising to out-gerrymander Texas. It’s an identity much more aligned with the current ethos of his party.
Should the Democrats win the House in the midterms, you can bet your bottom dollar that Newsom will be first in line to claim credit.
PRaise: To the DOGE staffer affectionately known as “Big Balls.” He’s a bona fide, honest-to-God hero:
A few days ago, a gang of about a dozen young men tried to assault a woman in her car at night in DC.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 5, 2025
A @Doge team member saw what was happening, ran to defend her and was severely beaten to the point of concussion, but he saved her.
It is time to federalize DC. pic.twitter.com/RPHKj7J3ti
Ex-DOGE staffer nicknamed ‘Big Balls’ left bloodied after savage DC carjacking attempt by 10 juveniles https://t.co/8eeBskyQV3 pic.twitter.com/lptDo5hHVI
— New York Post (@nypost) August 6, 2025
And he also made history by being inadvertently responsible for more double entendres than anyone since Congressman Dick Swett: Media outlets ‘round the world were running headlines about Big Balls, jacking, and beating.
Knowing what we do about Elon Musk’s sense of humor, I’ll betcha he’s tickled pink.
PRedators: Speaking of Musk, techies worldwide were thrilled by the unveiling of ChatGPT 5. Early reviews are very mixed; some users were demanding (and received) the return of their previous chatbots. According to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, ChatGPT 5 was a “legitimate PhD-level expert in anything, any area you need.”
I’m putting this in the “PRedator” section because it’s unclear where this will end. But if you think liberals were highly motivated to censor what you’re allowed to see, hear, and read on TV, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Because, whoever controls AI, will control how people think. And that’s infinitely more valuable than controlling what they see.
It cuts out the middle man.
In my world of PR, we’re already seeing mass disruptions from the AI revolution. With fewer consumers turning to Google for answers — and more turning to ChatGPT — the tactics for propaganda are changing.
Manipulating chatbots has become a major priority.
As an example, chatbots seem to rank opinion polls very highly — even when the polls are biased and unscientific. So if you sell soap (or whatever), posting a few pseudo “polls” on low-ranked blogs about how great you are could be enough to sway a chatbot’s answer when someone asks, “What’s the best soap to buy?”
And if it works with soap, it’ll work with political issues. Same exact process.
Same exact manipulation.
