[home] [news]  [episode guide] [album guide] [collector's corner] [FAQ] [people & places] [brush with velvet] [gallery] [downloads] [store]

The Partridge Family Bulletin Board Forum Index
The Partridge Family Bulletin Board
C'mon, Get Happy!
 
[FAQ] [Search] [Memberlist] [Usergroups] [Register] [Profile] [Log in to check your private messages] [Log in

Some Observations!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Partridge Family Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Talk About The Show!
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
KathySTL
Official Partridge-in-Training
Official Partridge-in-Training


Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 843
Location: St. Louis, MO

PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Right. A network programmer isn't going to sit in his office and say to himself, "Hey! This show's ratings are going down. Let's kill it! Hmmm -- where can we kill it. I know! Let's put it up against All In The Family! That'll be a really cool bloodbath!"



Even though that is pretty much what UPN did with Star Trek: Enterprise last year. They shoved it in a corner just to get their syndicated 100, and let it die.

Of course, UPN is well, UPN. Sad
_________________
Kathy in St. Louis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Greely Winger
The Newest Partridge!
The Newest Partridge!


Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Posts: 1093
Location: With my wife

PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

UPN Twisted Evil
Being a Star Trek fan (trekkie...trekker),I looked foward to seeing
Enterprise. Sad to hear that, even though people watched the show, it was not enough to keep it on the air.
I didn't think you could kill a show until I saw UPN move Enterprise to Friday nights.
I don't think they were trying to kill PF when the moved it against AITF.
I think they were trying to broaden their audience appeal (attract all ages)
Just my opinion, but maybe they brought in RS to appeal to the Grandparents? Who knows? Confused

Darryl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JoeySoCal
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I doubt they cast little Segall to appeal to grandparents since the demo the networks go after --even back then -- was the 18-49 age range. Smile
It's simply been a common practice as far back as I can remember when a show -- usually sitcom -- starts to either "sag" ratings-wise and/or start to run out of plot ideas with the mainstay "core" cast: have the matriarch pop out a baby or add a cute kid to the cast: Lucy had Little Ricky, Wilma Flintstone had Pebbles in the 3rd season; in the next, Betty & Barney adopted Bamm-Bamm; when Rudy on Cosby started to get big, along came Raven-Symon
Back to top
Skizzy Fleameyer
Shirley's Assistant
Shirley's Assistant


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 583
Location: NLX 590

PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 3:24 am    Post subject: Throwing in the Towel Reply with quote

Guys, come on, turn on your way back machine. What you are saying makes no sense at all. Now I am not saying this to take away from "TPF".
After all, that is why I am here. Could I have the wrong information regarding "TPF" and the inner workings of Season 4? Sure. But I can almost stake my paycheck on what kind of network practice was going on at the time. I am sure I am NOT the only one who has heard this before. I am also not trying to take away from any of the writers creditentials. All I am saying is that If Season 4 was able to compete with "All In The Family" it would have....dont you think? Make me understand why someone would put a musical sitcom up against a social sitcom. Especially since it was tackling such important issues at the time like, racism, war, singles living together....... did "TPF" challenge these issues? In a round about way....sure.
But head on like "AITF"...no way. I will admit I do not know what took place in the war room of "TPF". but as far as what networks did to kill off a show....I will stand by that. If there is a way for me to find that issue of TV Guide, I will pull that information up. I will see if I can find it. I will say again, how does it make sense to put a #16 rated show up against a #1 rated show and expect it to do well? Look at the numbers...did "TPF" make a dent in "AITF"? I don't think so. Otherwise, wouldn't there have been a 5th Season without DC? Don't you think that they would have thought they had a chance against "AITF" and went for one more? I mean when a TV show has to pull rabbits out of a hat (Next Door Ricky)...what is that saying about where they stand? Who was that suppose to pull in when "AITF" was pulling in the target audience for it's time slot? I stand by what I believe...on the economics alone. I do not believe the programming of the time slot where "TPF" ended up that final season was in their control. And yes, I do believe that it was at the discretion of some ABC programmer. Let me ask this....what replaced "TPF" in it's Friday time slot?
If it was already a proven home for "TPF"...why move it? Even with the knowledge of DC's emminent departure? Why not ride out the original timeslot?
Other than that...I am sure Season 4 of "TPF" holds it's own against any of it's previous Seasons. But to put it up against "All In The Family".....don't think so. Other than that, someone needs to explain to me how "TPF" was to compete in that arena?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Scott
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 3962
Location: San Pueblo, CA

PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought I did. Twice. Laughing Laughing The Partridge Family and All In The Family had different viewing demographics. That's why ABC moved it to Saturdays. It wasn't to kill the show. I am SO confused why you think that makes any sense whatsoever. :?

I'm basing my information on a real good understanding of how the industry works -- since I've worked in it for quite some time. That, and having interviewed many of the producers involved in the series. I'm not just pulling info out of a hat. Laughing Laughing But if you have some article in a TV Guide that explains why networks would purposfully spend millions of dollars in order to kill a show, I'd love to hear it.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
PJ
Mayor of San Pueblo


Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Posts: 1812

PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Skizzy, counter-programming is very common. Networks don't take a gamble like this with hugely popular programs (i.e., Seinfeld, Friends), but they do take this risk with programs that need an audience boost. Happens all the time. They were banking on PF taking its core audience with them, and attracting new viewers who didn't like AITF.

There might have been another factor in play as well. They knew that PF would be ending, and may have wanted to launch a new program in that Friday night slot in an attempt to rebuild audiences on the night that they used to "own" (like NBC used to own Thursdays). Just a guess on my part though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Scott
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 3962
Location: San Pueblo, CA

PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, networks do take gambles with popular shows by moving them to a new night. NBC moved "Frasier" from Thursdays to Tuesdays in the hopes of building a comedy block on that night. It was a huge gamble that paid off, but the ratings did decline. "Smallville" and "One Tree Hill" on the WB (although not a ratings powerhouse in the same vein as "Friends" but it's one of the most popular shows the WB has on it's schedule) are moving to Thursdays because NBC is no longer the reining champ on that night. None of these shows were moved in order to kill them. They were moved in order to secure higher ratings on a night that was floundering.

Also, certain nights of the week are worth more in terms of advertising dollars than others. Sundays and Thursdays are MUCH more expensive than a Saturday night. One of the reasons Enterprise was moved is because the ratings expectations on a Friday aren't as high as other nights. There are less viewers tuned into a TV on a Friday night. So, you don't expect as high a rating and therefore the advertisers don't expect as high a return. It's all economics. :D

Another thought: The Partridge Family, while very popular, was never a ratings powerhouse like a "Friends" or "Seinfeld". Also, the demographic for the show wasn't the 18-49 year olds that advertisers crave.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JoeySoCal
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TPF may not have been a Nielsen ratings powerhouse, but being in the Top Twenty at its peak (2nd & 3rd seasons) was not exactly unimpressive either, especially if you consider how young its demographic skewed. Cool
Back to top
Scott
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 3962
Location: San Pueblo, CA

PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Silly rabbit -- I wasn't insulting the show. I was just expressing another reason why there may not have been a lot of interest in renewing the show for a fifth season. Don't forget this same year, The Brady Bunch was also cancelled. Both shows had just run their course with a young, growing up, fickle audience. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
PJ
Mayor of San Pueblo


Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Posts: 1812

PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I took Joey to mean that even in season 3 it ranked in the top 20, and therefore wasn't likely to be sent off to Saturday night for intentional slaughter. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JoeySoCal
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, I know you weren't, Scott -- like PJ said, actually -- and when you think about it, all the more reason that that is possibly why ABC thought it might actually do okay against AITF: its ratings were still high when it was moved -- they didn't decline until after. I would think the "sacrificial lamb" scenario more plausible if indeed the ratings were already in the toilet when it was rescheduled, but they weren't. Very Happy
Back to top
Greely Winger
The Newest Partridge!
The Newest Partridge!


Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Posts: 1093
Location: With my wife

PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is what I recall about Enterprise. It started off with great ratings for the pilot, but naturally went down in the ratings by middle of the 1st season (like most Star Trek shows). Never did have spectacular ratings.
Sure it went up and down as far as ratings the 1st 2 seasons.
By the end of season two they needed something to attract viewers, so the came up with a seson-long arc.
By the end of the 3rd season, the ratings were barely enough to get it renewed. The production costs were cut, you think perhaps that is another reason for moving it to Friday night?
This 'killing a show' theory doesn't make sense to me.
Studios aren't in the habit of throwing away money.
If a show has a fan-base, and the show's time-slot is moved, The fans will find it. Wink

Darryl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
PJ
Mayor of San Pueblo


Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Posts: 1812

PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This 'killing a show' theory doesn't make sense to me.


Like Scott said above, some nights have higher viewership than others, and networks schedule the best performing shows on those nights so as to maximize ad revenue. If Enterprise wasn't pulling in numbers expected for a given night, they'd have to move it to less expensive real estate (e.g., Friday night). The fans, like you said, will follow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaF63
Reuben's Client
Reuben's Client


Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Posts: 320

PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edit

Last edited by LisaF63 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:19 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
umbrellaman
Danny's Accountant
Danny's Accountant


Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 156
Location: Upper Peninsula of Michigan

PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

While I don't think a network intentionally sets out to kill a show, I do wonder about some of their programming strategies, which I do think in some cases hurt a show. During the last season of Northern Exposure, which was pretty much a mess with the writers trying to figure out what to do after Rob Morrow left the show mid-season, I seem to remember the final handful of episodes being shown on 2 or 3 different nights, although they may have already decided to cancel the show by that point, but it was very confusing to find it. I know I've also heard from fans of Once And Again that that was another show that got moved around a lot. I can understand moving a show to another timeslot, but sometimes it seems they don't always give it very much time to perform.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Partridge Family Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Talk About The Show! All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


"gethappy" phpBB template © 2005 www.cmongethappy.com
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group