CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

THE SITUATION COMEDY

A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in

Mass Communication

by

Daniel Patrick Enright

January 1986 The Thesis of Daniel Enright is approved:

Donald Wood '

California State University, Northridge

ii Dedication

For Toni, The source of my love, my joy, and my inspiration.

"Grow old along with me! The best is yet to be . II

Robert Browning

iii Acknowledgements

Many people are to acknowledged for their contribu­ tions to this project. Without their assistance, this thesis could never have been completed.

I thank Dr. Kenneth Portno~ the chairman of my committee, for his valuable insight, his interest in this study, and his efficiency in dealing with problems that arose.

I thank my other committee members, Dr. Donald Wood and Dr. John Schulteis, for their guidance in the develop- ment of this project. I also thank Dr. Ants Leps for his continual encouragement throughout my graduate studies.

For his tremendous assistance in the statistical analysis of the survey, I thank Dr. James Fleming.

Many people participated in the survey pilot studies and gave constructive feedback which resulted in the final survey. Of these people, I would like to single out Dr.

Donald Wood, Professor Jack Petry, Dr. Valerie Dull,

Judith Likavec, and Arlene Hansen for special appreciation.

I also thank my family and friends for their continuous support, and my wife, Toni Stromar Enright, for her_object­ ive criticism and remarkable editing skills.

Finally, I thank all the respondents who, by choosing to participate in this study, made this entire thesis possible.

iv Table of Contents

Page

Acknowledgements .... . iv List of Tables .... . vii Abstract ...... viii Purpose of Study. X

Introduction. 1

Review of Literature...... 4 Theses and Dissertations ...... 4 Books...... 9 Periodicals. 14

Definitions of Terms. . .. 17 Situation Comedy ...... 17 The Comedy-Variety Show .... . 22 The Crossover Drama .. 23 A. C. Nielsen Batings .. 24

A Historical Review of the Situation Comedy 25 Off-Network Sitcoms ...... 40 Summary. 45

Network Program Dev~lopment . 48 Pi lots ...... 51 Tried-and-True Type Shows ... 52 Spin-offs...... 53 Breakthrough Shows . . . . . 54 Pilot Testing...... 56 Network Research Departments 59 Summary...... 60

Methodology . 62 Survey Development 66

Survey Results and Discussion 69 Part I Results . 72 Part II Results ..... 85 Part III Results . 88

Conclusions . 96 Limitations of the Study 99 Suggestions for Further Research . 100

Bibliography. 102

Appendix. . . 113 Cover Letter . 114 Survey . . 115 Response Letters . 120

v Central Tendency/Dispersion Tests--Part I. . 126 Frequency Distribution--Part I . 130 Pearson Correlation--Part I...... 139 Mean Scores--Part II ...... 140 Rankings--Part II...... 141 Favorite Situation Comedies---Part III . . . . . 142 Best Current Situation Comedies--Part III. . . . 143

vi List of Tables

Page

1. Definition of Quality, Ranking of Importance. 83

2. Central Tendency/Dispersion Tests, Analysis of Variance--Part I, Questions 1-11 . . 126

3. Frequency Distribution--Part I, Question 12 . 130

4. Pearson Correlation--Part I, Questions 1-11 . 139

5. Mean Score~--Part II, Matrix. 140

6. Rankings--Part II, Matrix . 141

7. Favorite Situation Comedies--Part III, Question 1 142

8. Best Current Situation Comedies--Part III Question 2. 143

vii ABSTRACT

THE SITUATION COMEDY

A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

by

Daniel Enright

Master of Arts in Mass Communication

From a population of 113 television writers and producers, critics, and network programing executives, a sample of 59 responded to a survey designed to predict variables needed in order to create successful situation comedies. The survey also attempted to pinpoint salient variables needed in order to produce successful situation comedies which were also quality programs.

In terms of internal factors contributing to a show's success, the significant findings of this study showed that Casting was the most important variable, with

Writina, Concept of Show, Character Identification, and

Chemistry (in that order) also being ranked as important.

In considering external factors which greatly in­ fluence a show's chances for success it was noted that

viii the "lead-in" (the program immediately preceding a show), makes a big difference to a show's ratings, pilot tests are very imprecise, and successful sitcoms can be written about any ethnic type and about people from all socio­ economic levels.

Participants defined quality programing by intuition,

reviewers, and awards such as Emmys. When creating

sitcoms that would prove to be quality programing as well as successful, the three most important variables

to consider are Casting, Writing, and Chemistry. To

create truly quality programs, however, one must give

great consideration to all program elements.

The participants' "All-Time Favorite Situation Comedy" was The Mary Tyler Moore Show, and The Cosby Show was

considered "The Best Situation Comedy on Television Today."

These shows are the standards by which the industry judges

their present programs.

ix Purpose of Study

Television is the most pervasive form of mass media in our society today and the situation comedy has been one of the major genres of that medium. In the 1983-1984 television season, however, not one situation comedy was in the Nielsen top ten rated shows for the year. This was the first time, since ratings began being taken by

A. C. Nielsen in 1950, that situation comedies were missing from the list of most popular :tated network programs (Gunther, 1984, p. 6). A dramatic turn of events has taken place in two years, with as many as six sitcoms appearing in the weekly top ten Nielsen ratings in the

first weeks of the 1985-1986 television season. The current popularity of sitcoms has been led by The Cosby

Show, a show that has regularly been the highest rated program on television.

These facts point out how difficult it has always been to predict success in television programing and how unstable a particular programing genre can be. This

thesis looks at this problem specifically in terms of

the situation comedy. Through a survey of: 1) pro­

fessionals who have made outstanding and innovative

contributions to television comedy, 2) individuals

responsible for programing the networks, and 3) critics who analyze television programing, this thesis will

attempt to formulate variables needed to produce success-

X ful sitcoms. The data collected regarding situation comedy will aid producers, writers, and programers involved in the future creation and programing of sitcoms thus providing a greater chance of success for these programs.

Since not all successful sitcoms are viewed as quality shows, the survey conducted in conjunction with this thesis will also examine the aspect of ''quality" in television sitcoms to determine common variables found in shows which the survey participants agree are quality programs. This may provide the producer or programer more opportunity to create and produce quality programing without having to sacrifice a product's chances for success.

This analysis will be enhanced by the review of literature and a historical review of the situation comedy.

xi Introduction

In 1961, FCC Chairman Newton Minow stated that television was a vast wasteland in terms of its pro­ graming. While most of the situation comedies could easily be classified as part of the wasteland, there have been exceptions from the earliest days of television that show the genre as a unique art form which has proved to be provocative, complex, entertaining, and powerful in terms of its structure and impact. It· is also the last regularly scheduled comedic form on prime time network television today. The comedy-variety show, once a staple for TV audiences in the fifties and sixties, has com­ pletely vanished. The last one to be in the Nielsen top ten was The Sonny & Cher Hour in 1973 (Steinberg, 1980, p. 173). Saturday Night Live (SNL) survives, but does so because of its 11:30 p.m. time slot. The networks have attempted other comedic formats recently, but with not much success. The New Show, an off-beat sketch comedy show, similar to SNL, was produced in the 1983-1984 season, aired in prime time, and quickly dropped because it was consistently in the bottom fifteen rated shows.

The same was true of Michael Nesmith's Television Parts which failed to attract a sufficient audience during the summer of 1985. CBS's new half hour anthology series for

Fall, 1985, George Burns' Comedy Week, is currently struggling to find an audience.

1 Some observers have contended that the situation comedy was the cause of the demise of the comedy-variety show, and that the sitcom was taking that same route itself (Grote, 1983, p. 9). The latest Nielsen ratings point out, however, that audiences are again watching sitcoms and that this comedic form seems assured of a future on television.

The purpose of this thesis is to discover how to more readily create and program successful situation comedies. At the time of the original proposal of this analysis, it was this researcher's opinion that there was a distinct possibility that situation comedies would die out as did the comedy~variety shows of the past and that there would be no regularly scheduled comedic programing offered by the three networks. Critics had written about the grave condition of sitcoms, after such highly ac­ claimed programs such as Taxi, Barney Miller, and M*A*S*H left the airways (Turner, 1984, pp. 5-8).

The prediction of the sitcom's demise has proven to be premature as is noted by the current Nielsen ratings.

Despite the renewed popularity of the situation comedy, the purpose of this thesis remains unchanged. Acknow­ ledging how precarious the future of a program or genre is, dramatizes the importance of analyzing the factors needed to create a successful show. As limiting as situation comedies can be in terms of their structure and comedic styles, they currently represent the last comedic form on prime time network television and their value is too great not to merit study. Review of Literature

Theses and Dissertations

There have been very few studies done on the situ- ation comedy. Interestingly, all of the studies which this researcher was able to locate were done within the last nine years (1976 was the year of the most dated study). This leads one to theorize that until recently, this form of television entertainment was not considered a subject worthy of review, or possibly, that the sitcom itself changed to express new ideas and contain new meaning which warranted investigation.

Dr. Lawrence Dale Thompson's Trends and Issues in

Commercial Prime Time Television--An Analysis of Network

Programming, 1966-1976, stated that "no study had been conducted that examined overall trends in programming.

The lack of information was attributed to the lack of serious programming research" (Thompson, 1977, p. 5782-A).

Thompson classified all prime time programs into eight major groups by the overall theme of the program for the ten-year period. By analyzing the programs in sum and by network, he concluded that the networks were leaning toward non-violent programing. CBS tended to emphasize situation comedies, ABC had slanted its programing toward young adults and teens, and NBC stressed action/adventure series. The results had shown that while all three net­ works were attempting to gain the highest Nielsen ratings,

4 5

they had different philosophies as to what the public would like.

Two studies dealt with sex roles in television sit­ coms. The first, entitled Androgony and Sex Role Per­ ception in Television Situation Comedies, examined changing attitudes about what was and what was not "sex appropriate" behavior in situation comedies. It concluded

that "socially appropriate behavior was an important component in the creation and maintenance of the per­

sonalities of most television characters" (Whetmore,

1976, p. 1283-A). The second study, An Interoretive

Communication Study of Images and Roles of_j:!omen in

Selected Situation Comedies From 1950 to 1975, analyzed

social and personal characteristics and behavior in

leading female characters in five different situation

comedies. Three comic types became evident: the clown,

the co~edian, and the wit. Women's images were consis-

tently stereotypical. The author, Diana Meehan, Ph.D.,

stated that "Beginning with Lucy Ricardo and continuing

through Edith Bunker, women were portrayed as domestic

and immature" (Meehan, 1979, P• 1735-·A).

Television Comedy Studies: Creation and Production

of "The Mary Tyler Jl.1:oore Show," "All in the Family," and

M*A*S*~," a 1978 dissertation by Saundre McMillan, Ph.D.,

discussed the trend "of the early 1970s, as television

serial comedy moved from a dependence on 'situation' for

evoking humor to believable characterization and signifi- 6

r-~ant social comment" (McMillan, 1978, p, 1850). Dr.

McMillan attempted to analyze the success of the three

shows and concluded that it was because of the quality

and originality displayed in each sitcom.

In Situation Comedy and the Structure of Tel~visiqg~­

A Structural Analysis, Brooks Robards, Ph.D. examined the

close ties that situation comedy has to radio as opposed

to film, and established three precepts inherent to tele­

vision structure. "Rather that compressing time, tele~

vision fragments it. Changes occur gradually and mimic

real life as when Lucy becomes pregnant in 'I Love Lucy.'

Technical experimentation in the sixties, illustrated

by 'HcHale's Navy,' led to a temporary dissolution of

exploitation of serial chronology. 'All in the Family'

heralded a return to capitalizing on serial chronology

by extending action as well as character over time"

(Robards, 1982, p. 2483-A).

One study that was indirectly linked to the sitcom

was The Development of the Television Variety Show as

a Major Program Genre at the National Broadcasting Compan~

1946-1956 (Mayerle, 1983). The dissertation, written by

Judine Mayerle, Ph.D. traces the variety show as it

originated at NBC and evolved through a series of programs.

It concluded by stating that NBC had to begin to tailor

its programing for a mass audience if the network was

to survive. The significance of this work, in relation

to studies done on situation comedies, is that it showed 7

NBC's belief in the variety show while CBS relied heavily

on the situation comedy. As the variety show's popularity

waned, CBS became the Nielsen ratings leader and remained

the top network for the next twenty years.

Another indirectly related work was Eileen Lois

Becker's thesis, The Network Television Decision-Making

Process~ A Descriptive Examination of the Process Within

the Framework of Prime Time Made-for-TV Movies. This

descriptive study relied on interviews with programing

executives at the three major networks to determine what

approach was used in picking programs. While the frame- work of the made-for-TV movie was used to illustrate the

process, presumably the methodology could be used for any

other program format including the sitcom. Becker's

research "revealed that the network decision-making

process is sequential and ongoing, subject to certain

constraints--the influence of ratings, demographics,

advertisers, economics, and consumerism . II (Becker,

1976, p. 126). The study concluded that:

The decision makers appear to draw on past experience, which they define as past successful programming, so that instead of exploring new programming vistas, they will create a property based on a tried and true format, give it a new twist and label it innovative, creative programming. The irony is that a concept can not be too inno­ vative because it will scare away the audience and the advertisers. It must be innovative within a commercially successful format because advertising rates are computed in relation to the individual program's ratings as well as the network's quarterly average and its rank in relation to the other networks- Ideally, a program should reach the 18-49 age group, the primary consumer target audience. (p. 127)

These results relate directly to the analysis of trends within the situation comedy. Since one of the factors

that determine whether a program is part of the fall

network schedule is the popularity of recent programs,

the decision-making process is an important step in the

creation of programing trends.

Robert Brown Wright's thesis, Television Comedy: A

Descriptive Study (Wright, 1976) is nothing more than a

historical overview of comedy on television, with an

emphasis on personalities that shaped the medium. The

study chronicled major stars and programs and was limited

in its information pertaining to the situation comedy.

Appendix A, which listed television comedy series, con-

tained misinformation regarding names, dates, and longevity

of shows.

An extremely complex dissertation, Sitcom: A Survey

and Findings of Analysis of the Television Situation

Comedy (Taflinger, 1980) examined the sitcom in terms

of Neo-Aristotelian Drama and in relation to the five

elements of comedy. Through examining a random sample

of forty-one sitcoms from 1950-1978, author Richard Francis

Taflinger, Ph.D., developed a set of criteria which de-

scribed the sitcom in the various forms it assumes. This 9

r~lassification and pigeon-holing of shows in terms of

action, character, thought, diction, music, and spectacle

facilitates the process of identifying trends in terms of

what types of situation comedies were programed and when.

Books

There are a vast number of books devoted to the sub­

ject of television. What is unusual, however, is that

very few of them address the subject of the situation

comedy specifically. Many books must be scanned for one

or two references or a chapter pertaining to the develop­

ment or analysis of a particular show. The large percen­

tage of books that do report on sitcoms do so mainly from

a historical perspective.

Vince Terrace's The Complete Encyclopedia of Tele­

vision Programs, Volumes 1 and 2 (Terrace, 1976) are a

valuable collection which lists and gives synopses of

every prime time program aired from 1947 to 1976. They

are an accurate reference set which also classifies pro­

grams as to their type, the network on which they aired,

the length of program, the duration of the program's run,

cast members, and music composer.

Probably the most complete chronology of the sitcom

genre is The Great TV Sitcom Book, by Rick Mitz (Mitz,

1980). This book gives descriptions of all situation

comedies aired from 1949 to 1979. It proceeds from year

to year, listing "front runner" shows and then "also rans," 10

!a--collection of the less significant shows of that year.

I I ' A sitcom anthology, Mitz's work is packed with over 400

pages of trivia from Mama to WKRP in Cincinnati.

Watching TV, Four Decades of American Television, by

Harry Castleman and Walter J. Podrazik, (Castleman &

Podrazik, 1982) is another good historical source which

describes the main thrust of each television season from

1944 to 1980. For instance, one chapter entitled "CBS

+ RFD = $$$" discusses CBS winning big ratings with their

collection of rural hits such as The Andy Griffith Show,

The Real McCoys, and The Beverly Hillbillies.

Shulman and Youman's How Sweet It Was (Shulman &

Youman, 1966) is another broad look at television programs,

divided into different chapters according to program for-

mat. Written in 1966, it is very outdated and the infor-

mation listed has been given second place to the pictures.

TV: The Most Popular Art, by Horace Newcomb (Newcomb,

1974), is a more critical look at the medium, yet it only

devotes one chapter to the situation comedy, in which the

author describes the key elements that define a sitcom.

Three books in which Newcomb served as editor are the

three editions of Television: The Critical View. They

contain a selection of insightful essays on different

aspects of television. Again, however, one finds that

few chapters are concerned with TV comedy. "It's Not So

Much, 'You've Come A Long Way, Baby' As 'You're Gonna

Make It After All,'" in Newcomb's second edition, (Newcomb, 11

1979), written by Carol Traynor Williams, discusses The

Mary Tyler Moore Show in terms of the women's movement, deepening interpersonal relationships, and the humanizing of the stereotypical characters of situation comedy.

Newcomb's third edition of Television~ The Critical

View (Newcomb, 1982) contains two excellent articles.

Richard Corliss's "Happy Days Are Here Again" paralleled the events on sitcoms with the events of the day, and explained how the genre was finally brought into the real world in the early 1970s with shows such as All in the

Family and The Mary,Tyler Moore Show. "The Fonz, Laverne,

Shirley, and the Great American Class Struggle," by Robert

Sklar, illustrated the working class values found in shows like Laverne & Shirley with the message being that "working class people are more decent human beings than the well­ to-do" p. 80).

Television, edited by Barry G. Cole (Cole, 1970), is another hodgepodge collection of articles, one of which analyzed the laugh track and its effects, and another that concerned itself with TV comedy censorship, a prob­ lem that began in the 1950s and still affects the genre.

One chapter from Michael J. Arlen's The View from

Highway 1 examined the hold that Norman Lear had on the

American public with six of his shows, and speculated that "Lear depends neither on jokes or funny stories or even on the family, but on the new contemporary conscious­ ness of 'media'" (Arlen, 1974, p. 64). This re-emphasizes 12

j-c~rliss's parallel of the sitcom with the real world during

, the 1970s. Author Mick Eaton's article, "Television Situation

comedy," from Popular Television and Film (Bennett, Boyd­

Bowman, Mercerf & Woollacott, 1981), discussed The George

Burns & Gracie Allen Show, and how that program evolved

throughout its eight year run during the 1950s.

Television: The Creative Experience, edited by Bluem

and Manwell (Bluem & Manwell, 1971), contained an article

originally published in Television Quarterly in 1963. The

article, "Comedy on Television: A Dialogue,'' was a dis­

cussion on television comedy with Carl Reiner and Sheldon

Leonard (noted at that time for their creation of The Dick

Van Dyke Show) . The dialogue is important not only because

it meticulously described the sitcom at that time, but

also because of its insightful predictions for future TV

comedy.

Fry and Allen's Make 'Em Laugh: Life Studies of

Comedy Writers (Fry & Allen, 1975) contained several

interviews with various comedy writers, the most notable

being Norman Lear. The section on Lear displayed how

much of his material evolved from his own family environ­

ment.

Another compilation of works entitled TV Guide: The

First 25 Years, was edited by Jay Harris and the editors

of TV Guide (Harris, 1978). These articles were originally

published in TV Guide between 1953, the year of the maga- 13

zine's inception, and 1978 and mirrored the events of the tube. Eight articles dealt with the subject of the situ­ ation comedy and offered fresh comments on trends of the day. The articles became more complex through the years with the audience's increasing sophistication, and as the medium itself began to grow and mature.

Demographic Vistas, by David Marc (Marc, 1984), is a gripping analysis of television in American culture which delves into many programing formats in its quest to com­ prehend the purpose of this medium. Called "a wonderful synthesis of history and criticism," by Daniel Czitrom, author of Media and the American Mind, the book asks and answers the question, "How can we make intelligent sense of the world of 'The Honeymooners' and 'Green Acres,'

Milton Berle and Johnny Carson, 'Dragnet' and 'Hill Street

Blues'"? Its importance in any television study is not only in its material, as in the chapter on the situation comedy of Paul Henning, but also in its validation of television as an art form, in need of careful examination.

David Grote's The End of Comedy: The Sit-Com and the

Comedic Tradition (Grote, 1983), is one of the two books devoted entirely to this television format (the other being Rick Mitz's The Great TV Sitcom Book). The hypothe­ sis of this work was that the sitcom is a unique, rela­ tively new dramatic form and has never accepted or used the principles, formulas, characters, or social functions of traditional Western comedy. In establishing itself as 14

a valid entertainment form, its popularity has had a diverse effect on all traditional comedic forms.

In terms of trend analysis, very few books have lent themselves to the study of television. TV Facts, by

Colsbett S. Steinberg (Steinberg, 1980), was a myriad of

Nielsen ratings and definitions which explained the pro­ cess of gathering data and the results of thirty years of audience research. TV Guide Almanac, compiled and edited by Craig T. Horback, Peter G~ Horback, and the editors of

TV Guide, discussed the need for television ratings (Her­ back & Horback, 1980). Both books were invaluable in terms of charting the popularity of the situation comedy in general, and specifically, the emergence of sitcom types such as the domestic comedy (Father Knows Best) or the social comedy (All in the Family) .

Periodicals

Not surprisingly, the majority of literature that was applicable to this analysis was found in a review of the periodical literature. This appeared to also be the case in the dissertations and books that were concerned with_either historical or critical views of television programing. While magazines have written about the situation comedy since the early 1950s, the subject has been neglected in most books pertaining to television.

TV Guide, the front runner TV publication in terms of popularity, was an excellent periodical source, con- Q • 15

' taining well written, well researched articles devoted

exclusively to situation comedy. As early as May, 1953,

an article entitled "Who's Killing TV Comedy?" (Powell,

1953, May 29, p. 10) ran, and during the same year, the

publication included "Why So Many Situation Comedies?"

in an October issue (1953, October 23, pp. 19-21). Along

with reporting program changes as in "CBS's Eye Focuses

on Situation Comedy for Season Ahead" (Doan, 1970, Decem­

ber 19, p. A-1), articles written dealing with censorship

and TV trends were also presented. "We Regret That 'Maude'

Will Not Be Seen" (Nicholas, 1973, March 3, pp. 6-8) dis­

cussed the implications of showing an abortion episode of

Maude in states where, at that time, abortion was illegal.

"What Happened, Pussycat?" (Shaw, 1978, September 23 &

30, pp. 26-29, pp. 33-38) delved into the crumbling of

the MTM sitcom empire. Additionally, many recent stories

published in TV Guide initially raised the questions

asked by this thesis regarding the viability of the sitcom

as a program format today.

Time, Newsweek and to a lesser extent, U. S. News &

World Report have continually reported on television.

Mainly in the form of series reviews, these publications

have on occasion written in-depth commentaries specifi­

cally on the situation comedy and its ramifications in

sociological terms. A recent Time article entitled

"Unhappy Days for the Sitcom" (Zoglin, 1984, June 4, p.

76), acknowledged the end of an era with the passing of 16

Happy Days and One Day at a Time, two sitcoms that had originated during the 1970s "Golden Age of Television

Situation Comedy."

In terms of more critical analysis, publications such as Commentary, New York Times, Los Angeles Times,

Theatre Arts, and Television Quarterly were helpful sources of information. Life presented many analytical looks at television programing, the most thorough being "The Crap

Shoot for Half a Billion: In the Life-or-Death Ratings

Game, Fred Silverman Rolls the Dice for CBS" (Thompson,

1971, September 10, pp. 47-51).

Electronic Media and Broadcasting presented up-to-the­ minute media information in their weekly publications. The less analytical of the two, Electronic Media, nevertheless, is a constant source of programing news. Interviews with the top programing executives from ABC, CBS, and NBC, discussing their fall program strategies, appeared in

Electronic Media during August and September, 1984.

Broadcasting also follows network programing decisions carefully and gives topics the coverage that other publi­ cations cannot because of limited time and space.

The review of literature regarding the situation comedy, including theses, books and periodicals, while far from extensive, has laid the ground work for an in­ vestigation of what was once known as television's most durable program format: the situation comedy. Definitions

Situation Comedy

There are many ways of describing and defining a

situation comedy, commonly known as a "sitcom." Writer-

producer Parke Levy noted that the sitcom was "a small

hunk of life exaggerated for comic purposes. If you play

it realistically, it comes out drama because very little

in life itself is funny. People want a mirror held up to

life, but at an angle so that it's humorous" (Mitz, 1980,

p. 3) •

What a sitcom is, is one of the many television pro-

grams, originally shown during prime time, that usually

has certain similar characteristics. The word "usually"

is always used when defining this program type because,

historically, there have been a few programs which have

deviated from the standard sitcom format, and yet, have

been universally referred to as situation comedies. The

evolution of television over the past thirty or more

years has also brought changes to the genre, but sur-

prisingly, the basic structure has remained incredibly

-1 l durable.

The average sitcom is twenty-four minutes in length

(thirty minutes including commercials) . It usually begins

with opening credits follmved by a commercial break, then

the show, then another commercial break, then more show,

final commercials and a tag ending with closing credits.

17 18

A form of representational programing, the sitcom employs a stock group of actors who create roles in which they will appear from week to week. Each show has a star or stars around which the show revolves. The supporting characters either bring about conflict or help the star to deal with conflict. A third group of players are used as set dressing. They bring an air of realism to a scene and rarely have anything to do with the plot.

This family of characters usually interacts in one or two standard settings where the action takes place.

For example, on The Mary Tyler Moore Show, most of the scenes took place in the WJM Newsroom or in Mary's apart­ ment. Occasionally, the action would venture out to

Rhoda's apartment or to a restaurant setting.

Horace Newcomb describes the "situation" in sitcoms as ". . simply the broad outline of events, the special funny thing that is happening this week to a special set of characters. The characters will appear at the same time the following week in another funny situation which will be entirely nondependent on what happens tonight"

(Newcomb, 1974, p. 12). The "comedy" hopefully will come out of the situation. This is exactly the opposite of a comic doing a monologue, that being the total source of the humor.

The laughs are an important part of every comedy.

The sitcom is meant to be funny and most shows are aided by either a laugh track, an audience who viewed the pro- 19

gram and whose responses have been taped, or possibly a combination of the two. Traditionally, comedy relies on group response and it has been felt that the laugh track enables a sole viewer to become a part of the euphoric experience. It also may help the indecisive TV watcher decide when something is funny.

All sitcoms can also be viewed non-sequentially and still make sense. No one episode of any series, however, can stand completely on its own, as a play does. Seeing just one episode of M*A*S*H may be a thoroughly enjoyable experience, but without a more collective experience of watching the show weekly, the viewer will perhaps not understand the subtle nuances such as "why that man is walking around in a dress." The sitcom is developed to be viewed regularly. The beginning episode of a series usually attempts to give the audience some exposition, but a considerable amount of background is filtered in as the episodes progress.

It is important to understand the difference between a sitcom's basic format and its weekly situations. The format is the rarely changing set of circumstances that enable the conflict, complications, and confusion to continue from week to week. I Love Lucy had as its format a Cuban bandleader whose zany wife has an insatiable need to get into show business and will try anything, always against the husband's wishes, to become a star. In

Three's Company, two girls and a guy decide to share a 20

great apartment for financial reasons. Family Ties is the story of two parents from the sixties trying to raise their children of the eighties.

The similarity in all sitcoms is that once their for- mat has been established, it rarely changes. The shows are primarily plotLess. The situation for the week will cause conflict, and hopefully be humorous, but an ever- lasting change in terms of character development and format is rare. The characters begin each week's show where they were at the beginning of last week's show.

Lucy will always be struggling to break into show business and no matter how many humanizing lessons Alex is taught in Family Ties, he will always be the young Republican more interested in finance and banking than in his parents' more liberal ways. Author David Grote emphasized this point by stating:

The basic plot of the television situation comedy is a circle rather than a line. In the traditional basic comedy plot, some characters, usually a boy and a girl, start at point A and want to get somewhere else, usually in bed together, at point B. No matter how many twists and turns, no matter what the con­ fusions, at. the end of the play the characters have moved from A to B. In the usual situation comedy, how­ ever, the character is at point A and does not want to get to any­ where else, no matter how much he protests that he does not like where he is. When something or someone threatens to shove him over to point B, he somehow manages to avoid the move and gets back safely to 21

point A (Grote, 1983, p. 66).

The point is that the sitcom is an unending art form

(unless it gets canceled) and therefore, must never re­ solve its major sources of conflict.

The best way to acquaint one with what is and what is not a sitcom is by giving examples. The Dick Van Dyke

Show, Barney Miller, All in the Family, Leave It to Beaver, and Sargeant Bilko are all examples of situation comedies.

Shows such as The Carol Burnett Show, Red Skelton, Laugh­

In, Your Show of Shows, and Saturday Night Live are exam­ ples of sketch comedy or comedy-variety shows and are not considered sitcoms. A hazy area begins when you discuss

The Jackie Gleason Show. The show itself was a comedy­ variety program with comedy sketches, choreographed dan­ cers, and musical guests. One of the recurring sketches, however, was about a bus driver named Ralph Kramden, who lived with his wife, Alice, in a two-room flat in Brooklyn.

This sketch became a sitcom when Gleason made it into a half hour series entitled The Honeymooners.

Some programs, such as The George Burns & Gracie

Allen Show, are considered sitcoms even thought they used both presentational and representational styles of comedy within their show. The two stars appeared as themselves, and although they had a set format, at times George would step out of the situation and discuss the problem with the audience. Q . 22

~-I When considering the genre of the situation comedy, one must take into account the different "types" of sit-

corns that have emerged throughout the years. This more

specific classification process will be included in the

historical and analytical chapters of this thesis.

The Comedy-Variety Show

The comedy-variety show contains many unrelated

comedic segments, woven together by the star, cast of

regulars, and possibly a guest star. This format was

made popular in the late 1940s with Milton Berle in The

Texaco Star Theatre.

The segments in the comedy-variety show are usually

different comedy sketches, each about five minutes long.

These sketches are all complete mini-conflict skits with

a beginning, middle, and end. Some of these segments are

not skits, but rather, musical or dance numbers. As some

of the programs began to emphasize music more than comedy,

they were often referred to as musical-variety shows.

The best recent example of a prime time comedy-

variety series is The Carol Burnett Show. An ensemble

cast would perform a number of humorous sketches, inter-

spersed with musical and/or dance numbers. Often, char-

acters from some segments became quite popular and were

brought back in later episodes. The skits involving

Eunice, Mama, and Ed appeared for several seasons. These

skits were used years later for the basis of the sitcom 23

Mama's Family.

Comedy-variety programs were usually sixty or ninety minutes in length. Saturday Night Live, the only show in this genre still on the air, is perhaps more sophisticated than the programs of a generation ago, but follows the same format. The show has the excitement of a live pro- duction, but also employs film inserts. These elements, however, actually originated in the comedy-variety shows of the 1950s, such as Your Show of Shows and The Ernie

Kovacs Show.

The Crossover Drama

As situation comedies began dealing with significant social issues during the 1970s, television's dramatic shows began to gradually lighten up. Programs such as

Lou Grant (produced by MTM, a company known for its situ- ation comedies) , incorporated humor within their drama, adding another dimension to the story lines, thus re- sulting in a more realistic presentatlon./. This trend has continued in most of today's dramatic programing, and is very evident in shows such as Magnum, P. I., Remington

Steele, and Moonlighting. Although these shows rely on humor to add warmth and dimension to characters, they are still primarily dramatic shows. Their characters and the formats in which they exist do not compare to those in situation comedy. 24 r- A. C. Nielsen Ratings

The ratings, set up by the A. C. Nielsen Company in

1950, are an attempt to illustrate a television program's

popularity. "Nielsen's national sample for the NT!

[National Television Index] and NAC [National Audience

Composition] are selected using national census data and

involve a prodecure known as 'multistage area probability

sampling,' which insures that the sample reflects actual

population distributions" (Wimmer & Dominick, 1983, p.

274). The sample includes 1,170 households, each having

a box that records what has been watched and at what times.

The results are used by the networks to determine adver-

tising prices for commercial time, and are a major factor

in the decisions regarding the cancellation or renewal of programs.

This study will use the Nielsen Seasonal Averages

/ for the years 1950-1984. These list the top-rated series

for the season by their average Nielsen rating for the

year. It is not a compilation of the highest rated epi-

sodes for that year, but a list of the programs that

consistently performed well over the course of a parti-

cular television season (September-April). This rating

system is being used in this thesis because it is relied

upon within the television industry. l A Historical Review of the Situation Comedy

George Burns: Gracie, what do you think of television? Gracie Allen: I think it's wonderful--I hardly ever watch radio anymore. (Mitz, 1980, p. 33)

Television was publicly introduced at the New York

World's Fair of 1939. A newspaperman for the New York

Times reported on the phenomenon. "The problem with

television is that the people must sit and keep their

eyes glued on a screen; the average American family hasn't

time for it. Therefore, the showmen are convinced that

for this reason, if for no other, television will never

be a serious competitor of broadcasting" (Newcomb, 1974,

p. 2). Few could have predicted that forty-five years

later, the American public would be sitting in front of

that screen, on the average, for~wenty-eight hours and

twenty-two minutes a week (1983 Nielsen Report on Tele-

vision) .

Television threatened radio with its presence,

stealing its programing and forcing radio to adapt in

order to survive. Included in the shows which left

Marconi's airways, in favor of the big box with the

little nine inch screen, were none other than the situ-

ation comedies.

In 1929, ~o~Il_~ ___An_g~ had its initial broadcast

and became radio's first comedy series. This was the

beginning of situation comedy, the shows one could tune

25 26

into week after week to hear the same beloved cast involved in yet another peculiar set of hilarious circumstances.

The shows, such as Amos 'n' Andy, Fibber McGee and Molly, and Lu~~nd Abn~r became radio programing staples and the film industry quickly adapted the format for some of their serials. The Andy Hardy films as well as the Ma & Pa

Kettle movies were simply two-hour sitcoms with the epi-­ sodes coming out only once a year. After World War II, television production slowly began. The new medium's first sitcom was Mary Kay and Johnny (1947-1950) and starred Mary Kay and Johnny Sterns playing themselves, young New York newlyweds. Johnny worked in a bank and

Mary Kay, his pretty yet crazy wife, stayed home in their

Greenwich Village apartment (Mitz, 1980, p. 9).

The first major television season for the sitcom was

1949-1950, and it ushered in tw~ programs which both.dealt with minority families adjusting to life in the United

States: The Goldbergs and Mama. Gertrude Berg's creation of the Jewish family living in the Bronx, with herself playing its matriarch, Molly Goldberg, had run on radio since 1932 (Mitz, 1980, p. 13). Mama, based on the film

I Remember Mama, was the story of a transplanted Nor­ wegian family, living in San Francisco at the turn of the century. Both shows were high on old country values and common sense. In Mama's case, it became the forerunner of domestic comedies that would later reappear, as with

Father Knows Best. In this case, however, ~1ama knew best. 27

~· The following season continued with more radio trans­

! plants, the most important being Amos 'n' Andy and The I George Burns & Gracie Allen Show. Amos 'n' Andy and ' Beulah, a show about a Black maid holding her white family

together, which also premiered in 1950, were the tube's

first Black sitcoms. It was eighteen years before another

Black sitcom would be aired. Amo~~Andy had run for

years ori radio (using the two white creators of the show

as its stars). The show on television, however, was

blacklisted by the NAACP because of its depiction of

Blacks, and although the program had a large audience,

was canceled in 1953. It became only one of three shows

to get the ax because of the unified protests of certain

organizations.

Burns and Allen began in television simply by bringing

their radio characters to a set with a television camera

to record them. Gracie played "the innocent," with "a

logic of her own, causing confusion and comedy by misunder-

standings" (Eaton, 1981, p. 28). It was a character Gracie

had perfected in vaudeville, and George Burns was the per-

feet straight man. The show was two-thirds domestic sitcom

ang one-third vaudeville monologues. At the conclusion of

each "situation," Burns and Allen would appear in front of

the curtains and perform one of their old routines (Eaton,

1981, p. 31). They would end the show with Burns's in-

structions to Gracie: "Say good night Gracie." Gracie:

"Good night." 28

The fascinating thing about Burns and Allen's show was its evolution. They continued in the characters they had played for thirty years, but dropped some of their

"young newlywed type material and acknowledged that they indeed had children who were full-grown. They also began creating more complex situations and began to use the technology of the medium. As David Grote has stated in his book, The End of Comedy:

They [also] built a complete series of overlapping layers within each episode, which has rarely been matched even in the most complex feature films or avant­ garde novels. A typical episode illus­ trates the point.

Gracie needed some money, as wives in fifties comedies often did, and George did not particularly want to give it to her. As the show began, they both ap­ peared on their front porch and did a routine directly to the camera audience. Then they went into the living room and began a "normal" sitcom scene. Next, we cut to George sitting upstairs in his office watching Gracie's plot on his own TV, which he turns off to turn to tell us his plan to thwart her. Then we cut to Gracie, who is now watching George on her TV, and she explains her plan to us. When everything is solved, the cur­ tain falls and George and Gracie appear to do their final routine in front of the curtain for the studio audience. Thus, at one point we have a film audi­ ence watching a "live" audience watch a real man and wife on a stage playing an imaginary man and wife at home, where he watched her watch him on their tele­ vision sets.

And even more important, all these layers had to be understood by the home viewing audience before the plot of the episode could make any sense .... no 29

sitcom in today's television makes even a minimal attempt to \vork in such a com­ plex manner. Whatever sophistication such series have, it is social rather than structural or artistic sophisti- cation. (Grote, 1983, pp. 158-159)

In 1951, Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz teamed together in a sitcom that would forever alter situation comedies.

I Love Lucy, the story of a Cuban bandleader, Ricky

Ricardo, and his inexhaustably mischievous wife, Lucy, quickly became the most popular show on the air and re- mained either number one or two in the ratings for its entire five season run (Steinberg, 1980, pp. 68-69).

Before the show even premiered on CBS, it was dif- ferent from any other previous television project. Where- as all TV was done live from New York, shot on kineoscope,

I Love L~ was to be produced in California on film, because its stars lived in California and did not want to relocate. The episodes, completed in advance of their air dates, would be shipped throughout the country to each

CBS affiliate. Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz, whose newly formed company, Desilu, produced the show, planned to film each episode in sequence, using three cameras to capture different shots. The film would then be edited to create the final product. Although the show's potential sponsor, Philip Morris Tobacco Company, protested the costs of film, Desi Arnaz won out by taking a cut in salary for both his wife and himself. "I was among the first to believe that film was the answer to telecasting. If a 30

~~h;,., can't leave a studio, its action is limited by how

I 1 long it takes an actor to change his clothes or to get I 1 from one spot to another. So you compromise. It's tough

enough to have to write a show every week without having

somebody say, 'You can't do that because it will require

an exterior shot'" (Wright, 1976, p. 27).

The use of film which many shows began to copy,

greatly improved the quality of the picture and it allowed

' the episode to be re-broadcast, creating the concept of

reruns. The three-camera technique was also adapted by

many sitcoms as an efficiency measure, saving both time

and money.

I Love Lucy was innovative not only because of the

unorthodox way in which it was produced. It was also

well written and executed by a brilliant ensemble with

Ball at its head. "Says Lucille Ball, 'We had wonderful

writers. They wrote understandable comedy that you could

follow even if you didn't know the language. . The

believability of all our unbelievable situations is what

made it funny'" (Mitz, 1980, p. 48).

Desi Arnaz commented, "If it's good, people ·will

watch it. We were lucky. We got in first with a basically

good idea and we had the advantage of having one of the

great comediennes of all time, Lucille Ball" (Jenkins,

1955, p. 13).

Head writer Jess Oppenheimer, at the height of the

show's success added, "Too many shows go all out for the 31

laugh, line after line with no time given over to character development. We'll go a whole ten minutes with­ out a laugh" (Jenkins, 1955, p. 14). People came to care about the Ricardos and their best friends, the Mertzes, and became so involved with the development of the situ­ ation that a laugh a minute was not needed. The audiences stayed until the program was voluntarily taken off in the spring of 1957. It remains running, however, in reruns even today, thirty-five years after its debut on network television.

With the phenomenon of ~-~oye Lucy came a glut of sitcoms, all trying to match I Love Luc~'s chemistry and success. The networks began filling every free half-hour with a sitcom (TV Guide, October 23, 1953, p. 21). The once popular comedy-variety shows began to fade as it became impossible to appear fresh week after week with sixty minutes of new sketch material. The vaudeville stars who had carried these shows, such as Milton Berle and Jimmy Durante, were dropped due to poor ratings. At the same time, the training grounds for young comics-­ vaudeville and burlesque--were gone, making it difficult to find new comic stars. Sitcoms appeared to be a more durable format than the comedy-variety shows, They did not need stand-up comedians, only comedic actors who did not have to be funny every second.

The comedy-variety format continued on the networks, but it was clear that they would never again dominate 32

time programing. Although Red Skelton, Jackie

Gleason, and Carol Burnett all had long running comedy­ variety shows, by the late sixties and early seventies, most of these types of shows starred singers who attempted sketch humor. The programs became more musical-variety with programs that starred Glen Campbell, Donnie & Marie osmond, and Barbara Mandrell. In the mid-seventies and early eighties, the nation discovered a new set of comic geniuses from such shows as Saturday Night Live and SCTV.

As these performers became popular in late night time slots, most opted to continue their careers in the lucra­ tive field of motion pictures instead of the more restric­ tive environment of prime time television. By 1981, prime time television had seen the last of its musical-comedy­ variety shows and there are no plans, in the foreseeable future, of bringing them back (Grant Tinker interview,

ATAS, November 14, 1984).

The situation comedy, which had quickly become a television staple in the 1950s, began to diversify its form. I Love Lucy became known as an action comedy, or

"actcom,'' where the action, mainly physical, was the show's focal point. In 1954, there emerged a type of sitcom which was actually a throwback to the first sitcoms. This was the domestic comedy, or "domcom," where most everything was centered around the home and the plots were concerned with the family. Children played an important part in domcoms for it was usually their problems that made up 33

r-the conflict in the weekly episodes. Father Knows Best ! fit this style of show, and for nine years Jim Anderson

dispensed advice to his three children (Betty, Bud, and

Kathy), as well as to his wife, Margaret. Shows like

this, or ones that followed, as did Leave It to Beaver

and The Donna Reed Show, were funny, but not in the manner

of I Love Lucy. They tended to evoke a smile as opposed

to a guffaw, and usually ended with a moral lesson being

learned (accompanied by violin music). The shmvs were

quite popular and as the sixties arrived, they continued,

but with a slight variation; they became one-parent domes-

tic comedies such as r-1y Three Sons, The Andy Griffih Show,

Bachelor Father, amd The Ghost and Mrs. Muir.

In 1957, the "rural comedy" was born with a show

called The Real McCoys. Grandpappy Amos and his clan had

moved from West Virginia to California in search of rich

farming land. This was the first show to extol the vir-

tues of country living (similar to Mama and The Goldbergs

extolling old country values). This theme continued in

The Andy Griffith Show in 1960, and in the comedies of

Paul Henning. Henning, a writer on The George Burns &

Gracie Allen Show as well as The Bob Cummings Show, wanted

a chance to write about the people, of his childhood, from

Missouri. He did it with The Beverly Hillbillies, Petti-

coat Junction, and Green Acres, and created a "corn em-

pire."

The Beverly Hillbillies, an amazing, almost overnight 34

~uccess when it first ran in 1962, was non-stop farce with

I many of the structural complexities the The George Burns & I' Gracie Allen Show contained. The show was about the Clam-

pett family, Okies from the hills who strike oil, settle

, with their millions in Beverly Hills, and show those smart

city folk what life is really about. After nine years,

The Beverly Hillbillies and the other rural comedies were

canceled because of their demographics, not their ratings.

While the shows were still popular, their audiences were

either too old or too young, and not the 18-49 age group

which advertisers look for.

The Dick Van Dyke Show premiered in 1961 and became

what many consider to be one of the finest situation

comedies ever produced. Created by Carl Reiner, it was

partially based on his earlier experiences as an actor/

writer on Your Show of Shows with Sid Caesar. This show

was the story of Rob Petrie, an up-and-coming comedy writer

for "The Allan Brady Show." Rob was married to Laura, and

they lived in New Rochelle with their son, Ritchie. Sally

Rogers and Buddy Sorrell were Rob's co-workers at the

office where much of the action took place. The show

realistically explored the relationship between a husband

and wife, something rarely done on television, and showed

Rob as one of television's first intelligent, sensitive

husbands whose vulnerability brought about much of the

show's humor. Carl Reiner believed his show was a "char-

acter comedy" as opposed to a "situation comedy." "~e 35

~-i~ughs don't originate with the situations in which they

! find themselves, but in the kind of people they are" j (Bluem & Manuell, 1961, p. 96). The characters on the

show were about as three-dimensional as any television

had yet seen.

Many of the 1960s sitcoms were ones that relied on

"gimmicks" for their humor. The "spooky and ooky" The

Addams Family and The Munsters were sitcoms featuring

vampires and Frankenstein-type characters, uncles that

, slept on beds of nails, or leading ladies who cut the

heads off roses. These misfits were the sane ones, trying

to fit into a world gone askew. My Favorite Martian became

the first of the shows featuring characters with super-

natural powers, and was quickly followed by Bewitched.

Programs like HcHale's Navy and Hogan's Heroes swapped the

nuclear family for a surrogate one and then placed the men

in the South Pacific and in a POW camp, respectively. One

of the few programs to attempt satire was Get Smart, a

Mel Brooks/Buck Henry show that spoofed the secret agent

craze as glorified in the James Bond films as well as in

The Man From U.N.C.L.E. and its spin-off, The Girl From

U.N.C.L.E. (an interesting note was that while he was a

man, she was a girl) .

By the end of the decade, the sitcom appeared worn

out, and out of step with the real world. It was the time

of Vietnam, civil rights protests, hippies, and protests

in general. 36

Meanwhile, back at the home, Mr. & Mrs. America ignored warnings from all the ships at sea and watched pallid, placid, plastic sitcoms whose concerns were relevant only to the Doris Day dreams of a generation before--the generation most televiewers wanted to flash back to permanent!~ America was still moving at a fifties snail's pace and Nielsen's ~op Ten were basically tired-blood incar­ nations of shows that had been on the air an average of 9.3 years. (Newcomb, 1979, p. 64)

There had been exception~in terms of variety shows

with The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour and somewhat with

Laugh-In, but nothing socially relevant was being present-

ed in sitcoms.

The years 1970 and 1971 were turning points for

television comedy with the premieres of The Mary Tyler

Moore Show and All in the Family. Both shows were impor-

tant, but for different reasons. The Mary Tyler Moore

Show showed that a career woman could be unmarried, have

relationships and be happy at thirty. It also showed that

-- a surrogate family could not only be formed amongst

workers, but that the bonds within that "family" could be

as strong as a nuclear family, The Mary Tyler Moore Show

quickly became the prototype of the sophisticated comedy,

known for its wit and subtle humor. Programs that

followed in this vein included The Bob Newhart Show, Rhoda, and ----·Taxi The episodes of Mary and the gang down at the WJM newsroom also always made a point of stressing

the dignity of each character. Buffoonish Ted and catty 37

ls~e Ann were still human beings. I A~l__in__ the Family brought back the lower middle class ! with the Bunker family, and its creator, Norman Lear, used

every chance he could to explore cultural taboos through 1 humor. The opening episode had the following disclaimer: "The prograci you are about to see is All in the Family. It

seeks to throw a humorous spotlight on our frailties,

prejudices and concerns. By making them a source of laugh-

:ter we hope to show--in a mature fashion--just how absurd

:they are" (Harris, 1978, p. 183). The plots which unfolded

in the Bunker household between Archie, Edith, Mike, and

Gloria included homosexuality, rape, interracial blood

transfusions, and a miscarriage, as well as the continual

arguments between conservative Archie and his liberal son-

in-law Mike. Lear began a sitcom empire with spin-off after

spin-off. In 1974, five of the top twelve shows in the

nation were produced by Norman Lear. They were: All in

~n~ Son. Good Times, The Jeffersons, and Sanford and Son

all revolved around black families and proved that realistic

portrayals of blacks, both rich and poor, could be very

popular on network TV. 1974 also ushered in Chico and the

Man, television's first Hispanic sitcom. Freddie Prinze's

Chico was pitted against the Man, Jack Albertson, as a

young Hispanic who enters the life of an old, ornery owner

of a garage in East Los Angeles. 38

~- ! Whereas most of America loved the progressive, social-

1 !lY' and politically conscious sitcoms of Norman Lear, writer

Michael J. Arlen wrote, " . . anger as stage business runs through nearly all Lear comedies. . . despite their fits of problem-solving and self-awareness, they (the characters) return each week to the same unserial starting point .

(and that Lear was) exploiting topicality for a few laughs"

. (Arlen, 1974, pp. 58-60).

The social comedies of the seventies can be classified

;into two factions. In the shows of Norman Lear, the conflict usually came from characters with two different points of view about a topical theme. A second type of show emerged where the situation in which the program existed was a major, continual conflict. This was compound- ed by the interpersonal conflicts which the characters also had to contend with. Barney Miller and M*A*S*H were two such shows, using humor to soften the edges of a rough world. Both had excellent writing, fine ensemble casts, and continually dealt with the problems of crime and war.

By the mid-1970s, Happy Days and Laverne & Shirley premiered, two sitcoms that were throwbacks to simpler times. Happy Days centered around the typical American family, growing older in the fifties. Laverne & Shirley, also set in the fifties, dealt with two girls who worked in a brewery. The shows were interesting in that they mixed slapstick with sentiment. The character of Shirley

Feenie was sort of a cross between Lucy Ricardo and Mary 39

!Richards.,- Gary Marshall, the creator of both shows, ! explained his sitcom theory in The Great TV Sitcom Book:

You need about twenty-one million people to make a hit. So we figured you get seven million with laughs, and anoth~r seven million with warmth and heart and nice and crying a little, and the third seven million with interesting and intelligence and fascinating and things you don't see any other place--that's the hardest seven million. Some people think you can get it all with just laughs--and then they go off the air. (Mitz, 1980, p. 10)

The 1980s began with the social and humanistic comedies of the 1970s being canceled and replaced with sitcoms that relied hea~ily on sexual innuendos for their

laughs. Richard Corliss, of Time magazine, wrote "Goodbye,

Golden Age of TV Comedy; hello, Little Annie Fanny, smutcom is upon us" (Corliss, 1980, November 3, p .. 100). Shm·lS

like It's A Living, Too Close for Comfort, and Ladies Man seemed to exemplify his point. But there was also Bosom

Buddies, the story of two guys who dress up as women to stay

in a women's residential hotel. As odd as it sounds, critics thought of it as a witty comedy that also relied on

slapstick.

~-~e~~~' a well written show in the same vein as The

Hary Tyl~J; Moore Show, premiered in 1982. Most of the action takes place in a bar in Boston, and focuses on the employees and the patrons. Because of NBC's belief in the

show and because it attracted the right demographics, Cheers 40 r·-- \remained on the air despite mediocre ratings. This year,

!now! in its fourth season, it has consistently been rated

in the top twenty shows. Grant Tinker, NBC's Chairman,

stated his feelings regarding the quick cancellation of

shows, in the November 5, 1984 issue of Broadcasting.

"We do not like--having attracted the good, creative people--to just throw cold water on them by quickly jerking their shows off the schedule before they really had a

chance" (1984, November 4, p. 32).

Brandon Tartikoff helped devise the format for Buff_alo

Bil~, a program which lasted one season. The show, about

an egocentric, insincere talk show host in Buffalo, New

York, was a departure frpm anything seen in sitcoms before.

Bill, played by Dabney Coleman, was a totally unlikable

character, and although his personality caused much of the

show's biting, sarcastic, dry humor, the viewers would not

accept him.

After the cancellation of many of the top sitcoms of

the seventies, the genre continued to exist, but no shows qualified as hits. The fall 1984 season finally changed

that with the creation of The Cosby Show, of which Cosby

said, "I want to show a family with kids like I never see,

except at home" (Gunther, 1984, p. 6).

Off-Network Sitcoms

At the same time that the networks' sitcoms were

floundering in the early 1980s, sitcoms began finding new 41

~laces to exist. With the emergence of cable channels and

I i :the rise in the number of independent television stations I :in recent years, a tremendous need for additional and more

diversified programing has been realized. Rising syndica-

tion costs of successful network shows encouraged programers

to look elsewhere for programing and have given producers

the opportunity to create original programing for distribu-

tors other than ABC, CBS, or NBC. Current comedies, such

as Family Ties and Cheers are coiilP.landing as much as $75 .. 000

,per episode from each station buying them for future syndi-

cation. "For our stations alone they were getting (a total

of) $300,000," states Ro~ert Bennett, president of Metro-

media Boradcasting, whose seven big-city stations include

Los Angeles' independent KTTV, Channel 11. "At that point,

I said, 'Hey this is crazy. For $300,000 to $350,000, we

can produce TV ourselves'" (Gendel, 1985, March 4, p. 9).

The supply of network series which are candidates for

syndication has also dropped as situation comedies fell on

hard times. A series usually must have about 100 episodes

before it can be syndicated and most of the sitcoms of late

have been canceled before being able to accumulate a signi-

ficant number of episodes. "Only eight sitcoms are expected

to enter syndication between now and 1990, down from about

22 half-hour shows in the last five years. They are: Gimme

a Break, Facts of Life, Silver Spoons, Cheers, Family Ties,

Newhart, Webster, and The Cosby Show'' (Gendel, 1985, March

4, p. 9). 42

These factors have led producers to package deals by­ passing all three networks. When ABC canceled Too Close for comfort in 1983, producer Donald L.Taffner continued to create new episodes, co-subsidized and distributed by Metro­ media, to several independent stations. A sitcom, It's a

Living, which was canceled in 1981 after only one season, is currently being resurrected with new episodes. A similar fate awaits What's Happening!! which aired on ABC from 1976 to 1979. After a six-year absence, What's Happeninq!L is itaping new episodes under the title What's Happening Now!!

Aside from old series that are being redone, new programs are also being produced for independents and for cable. Brothers, a homosexual themed comedy has been run­ ning on Showtime for a year and a half and new episodes continue to be created. After its run on Showtime, it will have enough shows to be syndicated on commercial television and compete with the reruns of popular network sitcoms. It also will have the advantage of having been seen by a rela­ tively small percentage of the population.

A sitcom entitled Steambath, for a time ran on Show­ time, but has since been canceled. It, like Brothers, dealt with adult themes.

Another example of a show with a target audience was the recently canceled Still the Beaver. When the networks rejected the show, The Disney Channel purchased it to add to their growing number of original programs, all with the family in mind. After one season, however, the show was 43

~anceled in favor of less expensive The Adventures of Ozzie I 1and Harriet reruns. In August of 1984, five television station groups--

Taft Broadcasting, Storer Communications, Hetromedia Inc~,

Hearst Corp., and Gannet Co.--formed the New Program Group to develop new programing. Since that time, their first series, a sitcom about a girl robot entitled Small Wonder has begun to air over independent stations. Mr. Dick Block, executive vice president of Metromedia Broadcasting and one

,of NPG's members states: 11 0ur purpose is twofold. We want to get control of our destiny and ensure a flow of product •

. . • we can't continue to go on paying those windfall pro- fits such as occur three or four years down the pike when these off-network series appear in syndication .. (Gelman,

1985, January 24, p. 5). Eventually, as with producers of network hits, off-network producers want their shows to go into syndication.

In an attempt to follow suit, Ted Turner is also beginning to create his own sitcoms. Five are planned over the next five years. 11 The shows fit the mold Turner Broad- casting is attempting to create: light-hearted comedies with broad audience appeal. Says Arther Annecharico, who creates for TBS, 'We want to go for the joke, for the light comedy. We just try to create something easy to understand, easy to like' .. (Tedesco, 1985, September 2, p. 8).

As the Fall 1985 season begins, USA Network is pre- miering its first original sitcom, _Ch~c_]s__~t_Qu_~, with Don 44

~dams as a supermarket manager. HBO premieres 1~~~-Ten,

I ia show about a professional football team, and Showtime is already airing Washingtoon, a political satire. Finally,

Larry Gelbert's United States will begin airing on Arts and

Entertainment Network. The program, the first few episodes having originally aired on NBC in 1980, will now have a complete run.

The new sitcoms in production for cable channels and for the independents mark, for the first time, a competition with the network's comedy programing. The sitcoms produced outside of ABC, CBS, and NBC are nearing the number of sit- corns the networks themselves p~oduce. As of now, however, their influence on the marketplace has been hard to define.

They are dispersed over such a wide range of channels and stations that, although they are an eventual threat to the networks' stability, they are not as yet a collective or creative force that can compete against the network sitcoms.

Chuck Wolfertz, Eastern sales manager for Victory Television

(which syndicates shows from MTM), states, "My feeling is, if the networks, with all the talent they have behind them, can't produce successful half-hour sitcoms, I doubt if any- one else will be much more successful" (Gendel, 1985, March

4, p. 9).

The next few years will reveal the direction of this

"new" sitcom. Much will depend on whether independents and affiliates will purchase these shows when they are finally syndicated. This will be the determining factor as to what 45

impact the cable and originally syndicated sitcom will have on the network's bill of fare.

Some of the BBC serials have emerged on PBS. Many, such as To The Manner Born, constitute a new type of situ­ ation comedy. The entire series is planned out in advance so that when the limited amount of episodes are viewed in sequence, they become similar to a mini-series, with a beginning, middle, and end. The shows are not designed to run forever as American sitcoms are, and therefore do not have the syndication value of a successful American series.

Hence, viewers in the United States can only see these

limited comedies on PBS, which does not attempt to padlock

its audiences to the set every night at eight to see the unending adventures of Jack Tripper and his roommates on

Three's CompaJ:!Y. U.S. audiences have, however, savored the thirty-nine episodes of The Honeymooners for years without

losing enthusiam for Ralph, Alice, Ed, and Trixie. Perhaps one never tires of a true work of art.

Summary

I Love Lucy, in 1951, established the sitcom as a viable programing format. Its success brought about an avalanche of shows which tried to copy it. The domestic

sitcom caught on big in the mid-fifties when shows such as

Father Knows Best showed "not so typical" American families working out their problems in an atmosphere of warmth and

understanding. The rural sitcoms of the early 1960's, most 46

notably The Beverly Hillbillies, mocked what was becoming the American way of life, in favor of the old values of country living. The 1960s also presented a hodge-podge of shows. The supernatural power of martians, witches, and genies became the comic element in some sitcoms and the settings of desert islands or POW camps were the focus of others. By

1969, the genre was outdated and lethargic.

The Mary TylerMoore Show and All in the Family began a "golden age of situation comedies," bringing their shows into the real world. It \vas what. Archie said and what Hary became that made them so important. Lear continued making socially relevant shows like Maude and Good Times, and MTM

Productions continued their type of programs with The Bob

Newhart Show, Rhoda, and WKRP in Cincinnati. Many other highly acclaimed shows, like M*A*S*H, Barney Miller, and

Taxi, premiered during the seventies.

Garry Marshall's Happy Days and Laverne & Shirley proved that domestic comedy could be crossbred with physical comedy. By the late seventies, everything was out of the closet and the new series began to exploit taboos in the name of humor. The early eighties saw the sitcom's popu- larity dwindle. While a few dinosaurs from the seventies hung on, few new shows survived. By the mid-eighties, how- ever, a resurgence of the genre was seen with The Cosby

Show, a show focusing on family situations with the Hux- 47

f~table household with Cosby as its head, leading the pack.

At the same time network sitcoms were once again flourish­

ing, original sitcoms began being produced for independent

stations and cable networks. The off-network sitcoms have

given life to previously canceled shows and have allowed

sitcoms to be created with specific audiences in mind. Network Program Development

In any discussion or analysis involving network programing, it is useful to understand existing programing methods established and exercised by ABC, CBS, and NBC.

This study deals directly with variables which attribute to a situation comedy's success, and therefore the need to look at current network practices is imperative. The results of this analysis have a direct relationship on the networks' mode of operations and might encourage pro­ gramers to take a closer look at the process of program selection.

There are various ways by which shows are scheduled by the networks. In interviews with David Neuman, Asso­ ciate of Comedy Development at NBC, Bill Allen, CBS Direc­ tor of Program Development-Comedy, and Ellen Franklin,

Director of Current Comedy at ABC, all three networks profess to be open-minded in choosing shows, not relying on formulas or set patterns to arrive at their fall schedules. Because there are no clear cut, scientific formulas to determine what audiences will watch, many methods are employed in the selection of programs.

Todd Gitlin's book Inside Prime Time, notes that there is no pattern to television planning. When inter­ viewing network executives, producers, and writers regard­ ing how decisions were made about what was put on the air,

Gitlin states, "There was one initial response that I

48 49 ° .

so frequently it amused me at first, and later I

came to expect it. It was usually said with a smile. 'If

you figure it out, please let me know'; or 'I've been in

this business x years, and I don't understand it'" (Git-

1 in, 19 8 5, p. 21) •

Scott Siegler, one-time CBS vice-president of Comedy

Development, was quoted as saying, "There are so many

variables in programing that even when you've reached a

pretty general consensus about a genre not working or a

kind of attitude not working, you can never quite be sure

that that rule applies" (Gitlin, 1985, p. 23). This has

certainly been true with the situation comedy. On the

! skids during the 1983-1984 television season, this genre

has made a healthy comeback in just one year.

As long as networks remain in the precarious position

of attempting to predict audiences' viewing habits, methods

will be used to test ideas and pilots. The ideas come from

one of two sources, the first being the development depart­

ments of the networks themselves. Hill Street Blues, for

instance, began at NBC as "Let's do Barney Miller out­

doors." These ideas are then given to producers, studios,

and production companies which in turn hire writers to

create characters, a full concept, and a script. Various

drafts are written with differing amounts of input from

the network, depending on which network and depending upon

who is producing the script. David Neuman of NBC states,

"If we're working with someone experiences like Steven 50

r- 1 Spielberg, we are going to commit to x number of episodes.

If we're working with someone less experienced, the more

traditional plan is to decide whether to make a pilot and

whether the pilot will go to series" (Neuman, 1985, July

26, interview}.

The second source of story ideas is writers and pro-

ducers who pitch ideas to the networks. "The networks

agree on concept, set of characters, and preliminary ideas.

we react to the first draft and rewrites and decide whether

to make it into a pilot. We're involved in all aspects on

the pilot, but in the spring, the top executives decide

ultimately what will be put on the air" (Newman, 19 85,

July 26, interview) . The top executives who do finally

decide what will and will not be seen are a very small

select group indeed. Regarding prime time viewing, ulti-

mately Brandon Tartikoff makes the final decisions at NBC,

Brandon Stoddard is Mr. Tartikoff's counterpart at ABC, and

Mr. B. Donald Grant has this same power at CBS.

ABC, up until 1984, had a very "intimate relationship"

with all of its producers, states Ellen Franklin. "We had

approval right of every step of the production process:

creative team, story lines, episodes. We saw all rough

cuts, went to rehearsals, and if we didn't like the way

something was staged, we asked to have it changed. We

acted as an objective third eye" (Franklin, 1985, August

30, interview). ABC had long held the reputation of being

involved in all aspects of the shows it scheduled no matter 51

r :who the writers, producers or actors were. Even a success-

ful show such as Happy Days had continual network involve-

ment (some may say "interference"} throughout the decade

that it remained on the air. Having plummeted from the

top rated network in the late 1970s and early 1980s to

third place, behind CBS and NBC, has made ABC reevaluate

their programing procedures. "ABC management has now made

the decision that maybe our shows aren't attracting the

same numbers (as other networks) because they are too simi-

lar to each other because we are the same group of people

visiting all the series, all asking for the same types of

changes. We also thought we could lure big name producers

back to ABC if we said 'You' I 1 have free reign, we vJon' t

interfere'" (Franklin, 1985, August 30, interview). In-

terestingly, NBC, the network which has the reputation for

giving its producers the most creative freedom, has re-

cently been winning weekly Nielsen ratings. They threaten

to succeed CBS as the network with the highest rated pro-

grams.

Pilots

After a concept has been decided on, a network will

then have a pilot made. In preparation for the 1985-1986

television season, eighty series pilots were ordered as

of March, 1985, by the three networks. NBC had requested

thirty-five pilots, ABC had ordered thirty-one, and eight-

een were developed by CBS. Of these eighty-five pilots, 52

r~pproximately thirty have become shows. The eighty pilots

represented a total investment of about $100 million (Mer- 1 migas, 1985, March 7, p. 18).

Tried-and-Tru_§_'£_~_hows

The reasons for deciding on an idea which ultimately

becomes a pilot are numerous. While the networks insist

that they try not to duplicate shows, it is often scHd that

there is less risk involved in going with "tried-and-true"

type shows. All three networks are currently planning

family-style comedy and drama. "Spurred by the success of

NBC's The Cosby Show and Highway to Heaven, it appears that

domestic life--which had its heyday on the small screen of

the 1950s--will again become fashionable next season"

(Mermigas, 1985, March 14, p. 4).

Therefore, since The Cosby Show is successful, many

feel that there is a good chance that a "Cosby type" show will also be popular. The 1978 hit film Animal House im-

pelled each network to include an "Animal House type" sit-

com in their schedules (all of which failed, incidentially).

Program executives do look at what has succeeded and do

attempt to replicate it. All one has to do is look at the

history of television to discover that networks have al-

ways believed that nothing succeeds like success in its

constant rate to duplicate past programs. The antics of

Lucille Ball and Gracie Allen paved the way for the comedy

of Marie Wilson, Gale Storm, Eve Arden, Joan Davis, and 53

Spring Byington in the fifties. The warmth and human­

ity of Father Knows Bes~ helped shows like Leave it to

Beaver, My Three Sons, and The Donna Reed Show reach the

airways. When a show such as My Favorite Martian used

television technology to its fullest with its use of

"magic" and succeeded, it did not take a genius to realize

that shows such as Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie would

follow. Many of these "copy cat" shows succeeded but many

have failed. It is often said that there are no new ideas,

no original plots, and that everything has already been

done before. It is more the execution of a concept than

; the concept itself that creates a successful program.

: Spin-offs

Spinning off a popular character from one show to

·create his or her own series is a method of attempting to

decrease the risk of failure when selecting a programing

schedule. This eliminates the unknown factor of whether

the audience will accept this particular character week

after week. The widely held belief is that if Rhoda is

such a hit on The Mary Tyler Moore Show, she'll be even

a bigger hit on Rhoda. Many spin-offs do prove to be

successful shows. The cases in point include t'!?-U_de, Rhoda,

Good Times, LaVerne & Shirley, and The Jefferson~.

On the other hand, one must account for shows such

as Phyllis, Flo, and AfterMASH, all of which failed, even

though their characters had been popular on other shows. 54

~~ the case of AfterMASH, as with many other spin-offs, Iinevitable comparisons were made to the original. People missed Hawkeye and Hot Lips. The sequel also became bogged

down in seriousness in its attempt to realistically depict

life in a veteran's hospital in Post-Korean War Middle

America. Finally, scheduling AfterMASH against the very

popular A-Team made attracting and keeping an audience 1 even more difficult. AfterMASH reminded the networks that 1 I ! spin-offs can often be "spin-outs" in the ratings. I

Some ideas which made their way up the ladder to

become pilots which were eventually selected to become

·shows, survived this process simply because a network

executive believed very strongly in them. There may be

a multitude of reasons why an executive is behind a

project. They may intuitively believe that audiences

desire a show such as this, they may believe in the pro-

ducers, the stars, the writing, or in cases of comedy,

they just think it is funny.

When All in the Family premiered in January, 1971, it

went completely against the format of the popular shows

of that time which included Mayberry, R.F.D., Here's Lucy,

Green Acres, and The Beverly Hilbillies. Former CBS

President Bob Wood believed that while his network was

still number one, its shows were not attracting the right

demographics. "The wrinkles were beginning to show on the 55

face of the CBS network. It was becoming an aged, or

network" (Gitlin, 1985, p. 206~ Wood wanted pro­

grams that would attract a young. more urban audience, and

• his programing executive Fred Silverman had the show,

All in the Family. Bud Yorkin, co-producer (along with

Norman Lear) and director of the show, explained how

timing was involved in the show•s success. "Coming out of

the sixties, the climate was right, the kids were letting

it all hang out, the kids didn't want to see Doris Day:

'Quit jerking us off and give us something real'" (Gitlin,

1985, p. 211).

Every time a somewhat unique program gets on the air,

it is bucking the trend and has been scheduled despite the

fact that it is different. This is because enough people,

or the right people, believed strongly about the program.

One example was the sitcom Buffalo Bill, a show revolving

around a very unlikable talk show host. Brandon Tartikoff

wanted Buffalo Bill on the air. While the critics loved

the show, it received poor ratings and was dropped. In

early 1984 CBS also premiered a program which was thought

to be very unique, ~~~_§!_ __ A~J-J-_~_. The show is about two divorced women with children who decide to pool their

resources and share an apartment. Although one woman

becomes the breadwinner and the other the homemaker, both

are realistically portrayed as intelligent, responsible

adults. "Traditional audience research said that even 56

1e viewers would not accept strong, independent women,"

id Harvey Shephard, senior vice-president for programing

"I hope we're overcoming that notion" (Lague,

p. 154). The ratings have proven the research to be

and Kate & Allie has become very successful.

A more recent example, The Golden Girls, a new sitcom

older women living in Miami, began as an idea at NBC.

now part of the fall schedule for the 1985-86

It is rare that a network, very aware of needing large ratings and specific demographics, would program a show about senior citizens, let alone be the ones who

the concept. NBC feels, however, that as The Cos~

is colorless, Jh~~ol~~n~~~l~ will prove to be age-

A network relies on the instincts of its programing

and a pilot may succeed to the airways because execu­ tives believe the show is "good" and that people will watch it. Testing is done, however, for the majority of pro­ grams, once they reach the pilot stage.

Pilot Testing

All three networks test pilots. At CBS, "Every pilot is tested, and some 80 percent of all series sell through pilots (the remainder get on the air through special com­ mitments to producers, actors, or writers)" (Gitlin, 1985, p. 33). People are recruited by CBS at Farmer's Market in

Los Angeles and Rockefeller Center in New York to preview 57

They watch a show in a conference room with seats equipped with electronic buttons. If they like what they see on the screen, they push a green button and keep it pushed until they dislike what they are viewing, at which time they push a red button. After the program ends, the audience fills out lengthy questionnaires concerning all aspects of the show.

ABC uses Preview House to test its pilots. Here, in a 400-seat theatre, people fill out questionnaires which pinpoint demographic factors as well as personal habits.

The audience is then shown a Mr. Magoo cartoon to judge their responses against other Preview House audiences.

Each seat has a switch with a five choice selection: Very

Dull, Dull, Fair, Good, and Very Good. The audience indi­ cates their opinion with the switch, and then fills out more questionnaires at the show's end.

NBC tests its pilots by renting unused cable channels in areas where cable is used by large portions of the popu­ lation. Prior to a cablecast, cable subscribers are ran­ domly called and informed about the show. After the pilot has aired, these people are re-contacted and asked their opinions about the show, its characters, and believability.

Each testing concept has been criticized in terms of its methodology. The samples are rarely randomly drawn and often are too small to be significant. Preview House presents the problem of having its audience members influ­ encing each other in terms of their reactions to a show. 58

viewers can participate without any verification

ever having watch the pilot.

Many shows do get on the air although they have tested

"In the case of All in the Family, it is a well

fact that the results of the testing were very poor.

NBC's philosophy has been to program a show that management

sees and recognizes as a piece of quality work. That was

the case with Hill Street Blues and, more recently, with

Miami Vice" (Neuman, 1985, July 26, interview). Most

shows which end up on the air have tested poorly, however,

simply because only a small percentage of pilots yield

high results. This is partially due to a built-in pre-

judice in the testing process.

"There is an inherent bias in pilot testing and that

:is that it compares pilots to existing TV shows," explains

• Ellen Franklin.

The questions do that on purpose. We need a benchmark and there is an inter­ nal bias against shows with brand new formats. The classic story, shows that broke barriers when they came along, All in the Famil_y, to some extent Happy Day~, and certainly Hill Street Blues did not test all that well in pilot form. There are two reasons why shows do not test well. First of all, the genre may have looked a little new, but also, and it's very possible, the pilots themselves weren't all that great and what made low testing shows great series was that as they developed, the producers and writers figured out 'l.vhat was working. Pilot testing is an important tool but it doesn't predict anything. It tells you how much people liked the pilot. (Franklin, 1985, August 30, interview) 59

Still, the network's testing processes remain and are i usually used as a guide for network ~xecutives. Barbara

corday, head of Columbia Television, has stated, "I have

never seen a case where testing has substantially changed

anybody's mind. I think when it goes along with the gen-

eral thinking, it's terrific" ( Git 1 in, 1 9 8 5, p. 4 5) .

CBS's Bill Allen adds, "We do rely on research for feed-

back but, also, sometimes research provides the opportunity

, to understand how to improve a show" (Allen, 1985, June

; 20, interview). For example, testing will often show that I characters are undefined and that the plot is confusing.

This information can result in rewrites and a more cohesive

final pilot.

Aside from pilot testing, the research departments at

each network also provide their programing departments with

input and information on ratings, demographics, general

trends, and increasing strengths. Testing current shows

is always being done, as is gathering information about

specific episodes, character development, and how audiences

react to changes in their favorite programs. Many of these

data are accumulated through weekly phone surveys. "ABC's

research department doesn't attempt to predict the future,

but will try to give us the atmosphere of the future, par-

ticularly in demographic changes in the population. A good

example of where we ignored this information was when ABC 60

in 1976, at a time when a great percentage of

had teenagers. We went from third place to first

by putting programing on at eight o'clock that was

oriented. The kids turned on the set at eight o'clock

the TV stayed there. Those kids are now grown, and

less than half of the TV homes have kids in them. We can't just program with kids in mind. We learned our lesson and got badly burned by not being aware of that trend" (Franklin, 1985, August 30, interview).

Summary

In the spring of each year, the networks view their pilots, analyze their data, and plan their fall schedules.

Sometimes a specific time period must be filled and a cer­ tain type of show is needed for that slot, possibly to make it compatible with its lead-in. Various shows will be programed because of prior commitments to producers and actors, while other shows may be considered "fresh, inno­ vative" programs which the networks intuitively believe in, or consider "prestigious." Some new shows will simply be rip-offs of last year's successes. Each network professes to look at what works with a very open-minded approach and has tremendous resistance to trying to quantify or attempting to impose rigid rules on what is and is not going to work. The pilot testings are the only numbers a network uses, and even these data are taken with a grain of salt. The network research departments also continually 61

on-air shows and closely study changes in a.udience demographics. Methodology

Predicting future success in television programing involves a review of factors attributing to past and pre­ sent successes, being aware of programing practices at the three networks, and having an awareness, through research, of audience changes in terms of such factors as taste, demographics, politics, and economics. With the above in mind, this researcher devised a survey in an attempt to quantify common factors needed in order to create success-· ful shows. Information regarding audience trends, a very complex component of programing, was not considered in the development of the survey. The review of literature and the Nielsen ratings were the main source of information for statistics regarding the popularity of shows. Insight into network programing methodology was obtained through inter­ views with programing executives at each network.

The participants surveyed were from three distinct groups: Network programers, television critics and ana­ lysts, and writers and producers. The sample of programers consisted of twenty-three individuals who develop and pro­ gram comedy shows at ABC, CBS, and NBC. The second group, a sample of thirty critics and analysts, included tele­ vision critics from newspapers and magazines throughout the country, as well as writers whose works are considered valuable contributions to the field of television program­ ing. The sample of sixty writers/producers was the largest

62

- ~------____ ....____ ------~ ~ __... ______63

group which participated in the survey. A representative

(producer or writer) of every situation comedy on the air

the surveys were sent out (Summer, 1985}, or

that was in development for the Fall 1985 Season was sent

Additionally, this researcher also attempted to

include any individuals whose names came up repeatedly in

the review of the literature. These producers and writers

consisted of persons working in this area of television

during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, as well as the 1980s.

A cover letter, copy of the survey, and self-addressed

stamped envelope {see Appendix) was sent to each respondent

on June 17, 1985- Follow up postcards were sent out two weeks later. A second mailing of surveys was distributed

:July 7, 1985, followed by a phone contact, or attempted

contact, two weeks later. A third and final mailing of

surveys was done on August 20, 1985.

In Part I of the survey. a five-point semantic dif­

ferential scale, ranging from "agree" to "disagree," was

used to elicit the participants' opinions of eleven state­ ments. The statements dealt with the structure of sitcoms,

characterizations, scheduling, pilot testing, advertisers' consideration, established producers versus new producers, network commitment to comedy programing, and finally, a

statement relating commercial success v7ith a show's quality.

The statements were used to try to determine what, if

anything, could enhance a show's possibilities for success.

The statements were derived from an extensive review of the 64

literature, most notably from Todd Gitlin's Jnside Prime

By surveying the respondents, it could be determined

how the industry actually operated and how important each

statement was in terms of producing and programing situ­

ation comedies.

As well as attempting to determine success factors,

the survey asked its participants to define "quality" in

terms of programing. Given a list of nine variables, they

were asked to rate any which they felt were measurements

1 of quality. Variables thought to be measurements of qual­

ity were to be rated in descending order of importance, 1

being most important 1 2 being of lesser importance, and so

on. The variable "other'' was included in which one could

present his or her own personal indication of "quality.''

Since the term "quality" is a subjective one, it was con­

ceived that the participants be the ones to define it.

The rating scale was one of two ways in which the survey

attempted to pinpoint the use of the term.

Part II of the survey contained a grid listing fifteen

successful situation comedies (in terms of ratings, longe·­

vity, and popularity in syndication). Each show had been

one of the top ten rated programs in the A. C. Nielsen

Seasonal Averages for at least four years, had a broadcast

run of at least ten years, or had had tremendous success

in syndication. The only exceptions were Cheers and The

Cosby Show, which were included so there would be some

representation of shows currently on the air. Listed 65

across the top of the grid was a set of nine variables

that may or may not have contributed to the success of a

particular show. The variables were selected through an

analysis of the literature, the interviews conducted, and

also the pilot studies of the survey. By utilizing these

:sources, the variables derived were casting, character

identification, timing, concept of show, themes, writing, i i believability and originality, pathos, and chemistry. The

original list was too lengthy. Certain variables were

eliminated as unnecessary or combined with other variables.

For example, anything related to acting, ensemble work, or

comedic abilities was brought under the broader title of

"casting." Participants were asked to rate each variable's

importance to each show's success. A 1-5 scale was used

for this purpose, 1 being the most important and 5 being

the least important. Three "other" blanks were included

for participants to add other variables which they felt

attributed to the shows' success. Finally, each respondent

was asked to rate the consistent quality of each program

using the 1-5 rating~ 1 indicating exceptional quality,

through 5, indicating no quality.

The purpose of the grid was to attempt to identify

those characteristics which contributed most to the success

of a given show, thereby enabling the researcher to isolate

the essential variables needed to produce a successful

show. Rating each show's quality made it possible to

create a subgroup of "successful shows that are also con- 66 r- 1 sidered quality programs." This allowed for defining I :quality programs with examples and enabled the researcher

to compile the m~st important variables which contributed

to the success of "quality programs."

By utilizing this information, a producer or programer

would be better able to create and program shows that con-

tained those variables which had proven to be responsible

for the success of shows in the past. The industry would

also have the option of looking for shows with those essen-

tial variables, thereby enhancing and upgrading television

programing while continuing to make a profit.

The third part of the survey asked three open-ended

short-answer questions. Respondents were asked to reveal

their favorite sitcom of all time and their opinions of

the two best sitcoms currently on television, and their

opinion regarding the future of situation comedy. These

questions were used in an attempt to discover what shows

had worked and why. The last question was included in an

attempt to gain insight into the very often unpredictable

business of television programing.

Survey Development

The development of the survey was aided by three

pilot studies. Questions were formulated in search of two

specific types of variables which were to be considered:

elements outside of the program itself that may or may not

have had an effect on a show's success (scheduling, network 67

~~esearch), and elements within a program (cast, writing,

J concept, etc.) The first type of variable questions used

J semantic differential scales. Information regarding vari-

ables within the program was obtained through the use of a

grid. Participants rated the importance of eighteen vari-

ables in relationship to the success of thirty shows.

Finally, they rated the quality of each show.

The thirty sitcoms were selected in terms of their i popularity. Popularity was determined by two factors: i the number of years a program remained on the air, and the

number of years a program was in the top ten A. C. Nielsen

Seasonal Average Ratings. In order to compile a list con-

taining only thirty sitcoms, only programs which had been

on the air for at least seven years, or had been in the top

ten Nielsen Ratings for at least four years were included.

The first pilot study was done with a sample con-

sisting of professional men and women who did not work in

the television industry. This sample was selected to as-

certain whether the survey could be understood by lay per-

sons, to verify the assumption that professionals in the

field would have no problems in comprehending it. The

second study's sample was a group of Mass Co~~unication

professors and graduate students, The final study's sam-

ple consisted of television writers, individuals experi-

enced in survey research, and additional Mass Communication

graduate students. Many discussions were held between the

researcher and Dr. Donald Wood, a professor at California

------~-----~ -~------~ 68 r- l state University at Northridge, and also with Dr Valerie Dull, a social psychologist with a background in survey

research.

Many alterations came from the pilot studies and dis-

cussions. Each question had to be validated as to its

importance. Many items were eliminated or changed. Ori-

ginally, the survey was much too long, some questions were

posed in such a way that possibly two things were being

asked, and bias appeared in some of the phraseology. The

.grid, as previously described, had to be drastically re-

· duced to contain only fifteen shows and nine variables.

Other criteria were included in determining the fifteen

shows. Certain shows which were popular in syndication

(although they may not have had long runs), such as The

Honeymooners, were added to the list because of the value

of syndication to a producer, as well as their importance

to the genre. The list also had to be a cross section of

every major type of sitcom created and represent shows from

every era in television comedy. Ultimately, each show

represented a specific time and style in comedy, as well

as having proven to be successful (longevity, ratings, or

syndication) . Survey Results and Discussion

Problems occurred in the gathering of survey results. surveys sent to many writers and producers had to be sent to their publicists or agents who, in turn, forwarded the surveys. Contact, therefore, could not be made directly with certain individuals and the only information which could be obtained was "yes, it was forwarded." Phone con­ tacts also proved to be a difficult method of follow-up because, in general, the television industry is a very insulated one and often one deals solely with secretaries,

After three mailings, 48 percent of the programers had returned surveys (11 out of 23), 53 percent of the critics had returned surveys (16 out of 30), and 53 percent of the producers and writers returned their surveys {32 out of 60). Thirteen percent of the programers and 5 percent of the producers and writers responded by writing and stating that they did not believe in rating variables quantifiably in order to create successful shows. This led, however, to some inte~views which have been included in the chapter entitled Network Program Development. Com­ bining each of the three sub-groups into one sample brought the rate of survey return to 52 percent (59 out of 113).

Research methodology texts generally report a valid rate of return to be 50 percent. Obviously, the validity of the findings increases as the rate of return increases.

While there may be some question regarding the statistical

69 70

r 'validity of this particular project, the findings of the

survey are for descriptive purposes and not to be inferred

to a larger population. Labovitz and Hagedorn (1971, p.

52), Meyers and Grossen (1974, p. 177), and Black and

Champion (1976, p 389) all conclude that response rates

from the general public of approximately thirty percent

are realistic. Researchers Babbie (1973, p. 165), Bailey

(1978, p. 136), Orenstein and Phillips (1978, p. 229),

Machmias and Machmias (1976, p. 107), and Kidder (1981,

p. 150) all concur that a fifty percent rate of return is

expected and is "adequate" in mail surveys.

Researcher Larry L. Leslie states, "If the population

is rather homogeneous and if responses between waves do

not differ, and if the sample is highly representative,

then a very high response rate is probably not necessary"

(Orlich, 1972, p. 97).

Regarding samples which are divided into sub-groups

as is the case in this project, Borg and Gall add, "In

causal-comparative and experimental research, it is desir-

able to have a minimum of 15 cases in each group to be

compared" (Borg & Gall, 1983, p. 257).

Finally, the significance of the nonrespondents must

be analyzed. "Larry L. Leslie (1972) conducted a thorough

study of nonresponse bias and concluded that~ ( 1) when

surveying populations with a common group identity (e.g.,

parents from one school, teachers in a school district),

response differences between respondents, nonrespondents, 71

and late respondents are unlikely" (Orlich, 1972, p 99).

This information strengthens this researcher's belief that

in this study, the nonrespondents of each sub-group would

have responded similarly to those who completed the survey.

Results Because of the small sample size and because many

respondents completed only portions of Part II of the sur­

vey (matrix of sitcoms and variables), the survey findings

are discussed in terms of percents, means, and evolving

. patterns for descriptive purposes only. An Analysis of

Variance was performed qn Statements 1-12 to determine

the similarity of responses between the three groups of

participants. The results of the ANOVA showed no signifi­

cant difference between the scores of the three groups

except in Statements 8 and 9. Therefore, the data from

these two statements will be discussed in terms of indi­

vidual findings for each group as will any statements

that showed a disparity in responses. The rest of the

survey will address the participants as one group. A

Frequency Distribution was performed for Statement 12,

which called for the ranking of variables which may or

may not measure quality. A Pearson Correlation was com­

puted for Part I to determine significant relationships

between Statements 1 through 12. 72

Part I 1. The format and structure within a successful sitcom should not change or evolve because of the possibility of losing the show's audience. (Examples: Lucy was always trying to get into show business, when one kid gets too big on a show, the family often adopts another smaller child).

10.2% 8.5% 15.3% 17% 49% 1 2 3 4 5 Agree Disagree Mean = 3.85 A definitive majority of 49 percent of the partici- pants wholly disagreed with the first statement on the

survey. The next highest response on the semantic dif-

ferential scale, 17 percent, was the fourth space. This

indicates that a large majority of the participants be-

lieves that shows can evolve and still keep their audi-

ences. This belief allows producers and writers an oppor-

tunity for a broader range of possibilities when dealing

with themes, character development, and the introduction

of nev1 characters, settings, and formats.

2. Situation comedies with upper or lower class charac­ ters, or ones of an ethnic minority, have less chance of succeeding because the show must draw their audi­ ences from vast White Middle America.

6.9% 5.2% 8.5% 22.4% 57% 1 2 3 4 5 Agree Disagree Mean = 4.17

Fifty seven percent of the respondents disagreed with

Statement 2 and some participants cited programs such as 73 rAll in the Family, and The Honeymooners as examples to

. prove their point, As in Statement 1, the second highest

percentage of responses fell into the fourth space on the

scale, indicating a similar strong disagreement to State-

ment 2.

3. All sitcoms need some characters that are likable and that ca:eture the concern and interest of th_~----'~mdie_nc~.

69% -----13.8% 12% 1. 7% -----3.5% 1 2 3 4 5 Agree Disagree f.1ean = 1. 4

Only 3.5 percent of the respondents disagreed while

69 percent agreed with this statement. In order for audi~

ences to return to a sitcom week after week, it appears

that it is important for some of the characters to be

likable and ident1fiable. Even characters that are buf-

foons, disagreeable, or continually sarcastic appear to

have some positive qualities. Archie Bunker, a narrow-

minded bigot, still had some redeeming characteristics.

It is interesting to note, however, that in daytime and

prime time soaps, this rule does not apply. Villains

flourish and are often the shows' most popular characters.

4 A sitcom should reflect the times,_ .t>.~_.S.9_f!:tempora~ ~~~~~eed across a broad audience because the :eublic's tastes for comedy change as the economical, social, and political climates chang~.

_17.!...~!­ 33% 25% 7% ___ _!]_. 5% Agree Disagree Mean = 2.62 74

Participants in the survey were very divided on State­ ment 4. There was more of a tendency to agree than dis­ agree considering the results in spaces 2, 3, and 4, how­ ever, 17.5 percent responded by totally agreeing and the same percentage entirely disagreed with the statement. sheldon Leonard has stated, "When you ask what is the best kind of television comedy you raise the questions: What is the nation's interest? What do people want and need from their comedy? That's what the best kind of comedy vli 11 be" ( B 1 uem and Man ue 11 , 1 9 6 3 , p. 9 4) •

Many of the sitcoms, especially in the 1970s, re­ flected the political atmosphere and the changing morality of that time and were very successful. Other shows that have been very apolitical, nonconfrontive, or have lacked realism, such as Our Miss Brooks, Bewitched, and Petticoat

Junction, have still succeeded.

From the data, one can conclude that all comedy shows do not have to reflect the times, or that in certain peri­ ods in our history an escape from reality was the prevalent feeling and that programing reflected the times by re­ flecting that feeling.

Although several types of sitcoms have proven to be able to coexist successfully, programing does appear to develop in trends. The sitcom genre has seen specific evolutions during the last thirty-five years. These changes were possibly caused when one extremely popular program brought about many similar shows. I Love Luc_y 75

lbegat many copycat programs that never dealt with social

' I or political issues. The domestic comedies that followed

1 centered on the real, everyday conflicts concerning speci- ! fie members of the family. Many popular programs of the

1960s escaped into fantasy with shows like The Beverly

Hillbillies, The Munsters, Get Smart, and I Dream of

Jeannie. The success of All in the Family and The Mary

, Tyler Moore Show in the early 1970s almost demanded that

all sitcoms confront reality. They demonstrated a politi-

1 cal and/or a sociological awareness regarding minorities,

.women, the family, and the workplace. The escapism exper-

ienced in the early 1950s was brought back to television

due to a nostalgia for that era, and shows like Happy Days

and Laverne and Shirley proved to be quite successful.

The next strong imprint made by sitcoms has been the

recent The Cosby ~~ow, which reflects a point of view

(albeit updated) similar to Father Knows Best, a program

that premiered twenty years earlier.

5. The simplest precept of scheduling is that th~__ "lead­ in," the show immeidately preceding, makes a big dif­ ference to a show's ratings.

57% 30.4% 7% 3.6% 2% 1 2 3 4 5 Agree Disagree Mean = 1.68

There are many aspects involved in scheduling pro-

grams, such as night of the week, time, and opposing 76

competition in that time slot. In limiting these to just

one statement, 57 percent of the participants agreed that

the "lead-in" makes a big difference to a show's ratings.

Thirty percent of the participants felt almost as strongly,

answering the statement by checking the second space. This

information can, at times, prove futile to producers and writers because it is the network which decides when a program will air.

Lending credence to the participants' opinions of this

issue is the case of Family Ties. By looking at the

Nielsen ratings, one can see how much better this show has

done since The Cosby Show became its "lead-in." The same has been said about many programs. In the 1950s, December

Bride was fortunate enough to have I Love Lucy as its

lead-in. All in the Family was a lead-in for _';['h~ Jet_t_~~

s<;>ns 1 Laverne & ~.h}:.J.=:l~.Y. followed !f~_ _!)_?t_y~, -~axi initially came on after Three's Company, and the current Newhart was

lucky enough to follow M*A*S*H when it premiered. When

The Golden Girl~ debuted in September, 1985, it immediately

began outperforming its lead-in, Th~ Facts of Life. The

show was well publicized which may account for its initial

success. Its consistently high ratings, however, indicate

that some shows will make it with or without the benefit of

a strong lead-in.

Just as some programs become successful without a

healthy lead-in, the industry has also shown that programs

can remain on the air in spite of strong competition. 77

While Magnum, P.I. is not garnering the ratings it once did, its audience is sufficient enough to ensure the show's renewal, even though it is up against the current most popular program on television, The CosbjL Show,

6. The tests done by networks to predict a pilot's success are very imprecise instruments and should take a back seat to other factors (producers' track records, programers' intuition, ~!=-c.__ )_ whe_p. det~_~if!_:!:p._q a show's abilities to capture a sufficient audience.

56.1% 22.8% 10.5% 8.8% 1. 8% 1 2 3 4 5 Agree Disagree Mean = 1 81

An overwhelming 56 1 percent agreed with this state~ ment and continuous declining percentages were recorded for the subsequent spaces. Only one participant, a programer, was in complete disagreement with the statement. This signifies that as a group, programers, as well as pro- ducers, writers, and critics agree on the lack of impor- tance of these tests. The bias of pilot testing has al- ready been discussed in the chapter entitled Network

Program Development. It is interesting to note that the programers who actually use pilot testing acknowledge its imprecision, yet it is still used at each of the three networks.

7. Advertisers' attitudes should be taken into account in decidino ~hether_to put a show on the air. 78

5.2% 8.6% 6.9% 19.0% 60.3% 1 2 3 4 5 Agree Disagree Mean= 4.3

A strong 60.3 percent of those surveyed disagreed with this statement and only 5.2 percent agreed. This reflects a change in advertiser program involvement which was prevalent in the early days of television. Advertisers can easily be matched with shows that appeal to their consumers. On the occasion that an advertiser may back out of a particular show due to content, it is rare that there is not a number of advertisers willing to fill that commercial spot.

8. Jurning _to ~oi]._ucers whQ_ have___ 5?:}r~~ createg__ hit shows increases·-·------·------a network's chances for additional hits.

Critics 12.5% 25.0% 50.0% 0.0% 12.5% Pgmrs 54.5% 9.1% 27.3% 9.1% 0.0% Wr/Prs 56.3% 21.9% 9.4% 6.3% 6.3% Total 20.396 5.1% 44.1% ------23.7% ------6.8% 1 2 3 4 5 Agree Disagree Mean= 2.17

As a total group, 44.1 percent agreed with Statement

8, with 20.3 percent checking space 2, indicating some agreement A large percentage, 23.7 percent, however, showed an unwillingness to agree or disagree by selecting space 3. By looking at the data, critics differed signifi- cantly in their responses from those of the other two 79

groups with an F Ratio of 3. 22 and an F Probability of .04

(a probability level of .05 was used). Over 50 percent of those who selected the middle space were critics, and this was by far the most popular choice for them. While produc- ers, writers, and programers tend to believe that success-

ful producers continue to be successful, critics as a group do not necessarily believe or disbelieve this state- ment.

9 Turninq__t_~_2roducers who l!_~y~--·~~}rE?_?....2Y___sr~ted__ _!li t s~~~ decreases a network's chances of finding shows with originality and energy.

Critics 6.3% 18.8% 44.0% 12.5% 18.8% Pgmrs 9.1% 0.0% 27.3% 9.1% 54.5% Wr/Prs -----6.3% ----3.2% 6.3% ----·-21-9% 62.5% 6.8% Total ------6.8% ----- _?_9_~-~.! ------17. 0% 1_~---l~ 1 2 3 4 5 Agree Disagree l4ean = 3.83 A large percentage of participants, 49.1 percent,

felt that already being a successful producer had no relationship to one's ability to create new programs that are original and energetic. Through an Analysis of Var-

iance, however, one again sees a significant difference of response on the part of critics, with an F Ratio of

4.778 and an F Probability of .012. The majority of the two groups, writers'producers and programers, disagreed with Statement 9, while the group of critics were divided

among the five choices. Fifty percent of the critics chose

space 3, again showing indecision on their part with 80

regards to this statement. This may be explained by the theory that Statements 8 and 9 apply more to producers/ writers and programers than it does to critics. Critics may not follow producers' track records and, on the aver­ age, may look solely at the product.

In performing a Pearson Correlation on the statements in Part I, it was noted that a significant relationship existed between Statements 8 and 9 with a correlation of

-.2636 (+1 indicating a perfect positive correlation, 0 indicating no correlation, and -1 indicating a perfect negative correlation) . This negative correlation indicates that as participants (mainly the two groups of writers/ producers and programers) strongly agreed with Statement

8, they strongly disagreed with Statement 9. In retro­ spect, this researcher realized that these results and the correlation were predictable, at least as far as the writ­ ers/producers group was concerned. The producers and writers who participated in this study are successful and therefore, one would expect them to answer that 1) suc­ cessful producers do increase a network's chances for hit

shows, and 2) successful producers do not decrease a net­ work's chances for shows with originality and energy.

The redeeming factor of the data from Statements 8

and 9 is that programers (a more objective sample) answered

similarly to the writer/producer group. Fifty-five per­

cent of all programers agreed with Statement 8 and the

same percentage disagreed with Statement 9. This added 81

some validity to the results.

The point of these-two statements was to contrast successful producers and writers with new talent, and to analyze the need for originality and experimentation in this genre. Most breakthrough shows began when someone took a chance on either a new person or a new concept.

The results from these statements indicate that networks believe that they need not take these risks in order to grow or succeed.

10. Which of the three networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) is currently the most committed to comedy programi~?

5.4% 3.6% 91% 1 3 5 ABC CBS NBC Mean = 4.73

NBC was, overwhelmingly, considered the network most committed to comedy programing as of Summer, 1985 when this survey was conducted. A total of 91 percent of the participants selected NBC over the other two networks, and programers from all three networks chose NBC. This fact is very important to writers and producers who pitch ideas to each network. The recent success of NBC's Thurs- day night comedy line-up has caused the other networks to take a serious second look at comedy programing. Some cable channels and independent stations are beginning to program original comedy series, expanding the marketplace even further for writers and producers. 82

11. The commercial success of a series _j._5;___ strongly related to its quality.

19% 17.2% 15.5% 19% 29.3% 1 2 3 4 5 Agree Disagree Mean = 3. 27 Statement 11 had the greatest disparity of answers.

It is obvious that the participants, as a group, had no unanimous opinion as to whether commercial success is related to quality. The respondents to this statement indicated that one cannot assume anything about the relationship between a show's commercial success and its quality (or lack of quality).

12. What measures can one use to best judge which shows are quality programs? Rate all that you feel apply in descending order or importance (1 being most important).

television reviewers Nielsen Ratings the amount of media attention a show generates loyalty of fans academic analysis awards such as Emmy Awards longevity network research other

A frequency distribution was performed on the data collected for Question 12. The findings show, in per- centages, the breakdown of responses for each variable by the number of respondents who rated each variable.

The results are illustrated in the following table. 83

TABLE 1

RANKING OF IMPORTANCE most least VARIABLES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

other 93.3 6.7

reviet.vers 28.9 18.4 15.8 10.5 15.8 5.3 5.3 -- awards 26.2 28.6 19.0 11.9 4.8 2.4 7. 1 loyalty of fans 20 20 22.9 11.4 14.3 8.6 2.9 academic analysis 15.6 21.9 6.3 3.1 18.8 9.4 6.3 15.6 3. 1 media attention 8.6 17.1 17.1 20 22.9 8.6 5.7

ratinqs 3.4 6.9 3.4 20.7'10.3 24.1 20.7 10.3

longevitv 2.9 11.4 11.4 17.1 11.4 17.1 14.3 14.3 network research 0 0 16.1 3.2 3.2 9.7 25.8 38.7 3.2

Since the participants only rated variables which they felt defined quality, many variables were rated less often than others (or not at all) and the percentages shown are the Adjusted Frequency Percentages. The Appendix lists the complete breakdown of responses, including "blank" or missing responses.

The percentages for each variable indicate the vari- able's importance as a measurement to judge quality pro- grams. The variable "other" was given a 1 by 93.3 percent of the respondents who rated that variable, and also re- ceived more 1 ratings than any other variable. As partici- pants rated "other," they wrote their own definition of a measurement for quality. Most answers were similar. They included: instinct, one's own opinion, intuition, one's 84

perspective, individual viewer's heart and intellect, and subjective judgment. Other comments were: analytical skills, professional training, peers, and writing and exe­ cution of concept.

In looking at only the programers who completed

Question 12, it is important to note that 55.5 percent of them rated "other" as being most important, while only 31 percent of the respondents in the other two groups felt similarly. This illustrates that the people who actually schedule the programs believe in their own subjective judgment over any other factor in defining quality.

The second highest rated variable, television re­ viewers, was given a 1 by 28.9 percent of the respondents who rated that variable. Not one programer rated this variable a 1 and one would expect reviewers to rate them­ selves highly. Of the critics rating this variable, only

40.7 percent rated themselves as being a measure used to determine quality programing.

The third highest rated variable, awards such as Emmy

Awards, was given a 1 by 26.2 percent of the respondents who rated that variable. No critics, however, rated this variable as being of primary importance.

In a total count, showing the exact number or partici­ pants who selected a variable, these rankings remain the same. The results allow one to use at least the three highest rated variables as ways in which the industry defines quality. By using these variables (intuition, 85

television reviewers, awards such as Emrnys) in television programing, one can attempt to scientifically produce or program a show which may be considered "quality." A prob­ lem arises in the category "other" in which instinct was the most common response. By having a large majority who rated this variable as being of utmost importance deter­ mines the definition through very unscientific terms: subjective judgment. Only when one incorporates this aspect of the definition with the variables of awards and television reviewers, can one approach a more objective understanding of the word "quality" (in terms of television programing) •

It is also important for one to consider variables which were given very few, if any, ratings of 1. These include Nielsen Ratings, longevity and network research.

The findings on these variables enables one to state that these factors are not considered to be measurements of quality.

Part II

Part II of the survey consisted of a matrix listing fifteen successful programs and factors that may or may not need to be included when analyzing a show's success. Many participants only rated certain variables for certain shows, which caused a number of matrixes to be returned incomplete. Because of this problem, each variable's importance to each program's success had to be determined 86

only by the number of respondents who had rated a specific variable for a specific show. The results of the data are displayed in the Appendix in terms of means and overall rankings, which were based on the means for each square of the matrix.

In terms of which variables were most important in contributing to the success of the fifteen shows, "casting" proved to be the most important in nine out of fifteen shows and the second most important in three additional shows. "Writing" was rated as the most important variable in M*A*S*H, and as the second most important variable in three more shows. "Timing" was considered to be the most important contributor to the success of Happy Days, and was deemed the second most important factor in three other shows. "Concept of show," not surprisingly, was considered the most important variable in both The Beverly Hillbillies and Bewitched, shows whose concept, as opposed to other factors, gave them long runs. "Character Identification" was rated The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet's most im- portant variable, and second most important variable to two other shows. "Chemistry" was considered the second most influential variable in three shows.

After rating each variable for each show, respondents J were asked to rate each show's overall consistent quality.

The four shows which participants rated highest as pro- grams with overall consistent quality and the variables considered most important to their success were: 87

Th~Mary Tyler Moore Show--casting, writing, chemistry All in the Family--casting, timing, chemistry The Dick Van Dyke Show--casting, writing, chemistry ~*A*S*H--writing, chemistry. casting

The variables "casting" and "chemistry" were ranked among the top three in importance for all four programs, and

"writing" was also cited in three of the four cases. These results emphasize the importance of these variables when one is attempting to create a quality show.

In programs that were considered of high quality, most variables were rated a low number, or very important, to the show's success. For instance~ the means for eight out of nine variables for The Mary Tyler Moor~ Show totaled less than a 2. This demonstrates how important each vari- able was in the success for that show. Only "pathos" had a mean greater than 2 (2.32). In contrast, programs that had only one or two factors which participants felt con- tributed to a show's success, were usually programs that were not considered to be of.exceptional quality. Be-· witch~d, for instance, was ranked as being a program with little quality, with a mean of 3.56. Only one variable,

"concept of show," stood out as contributing to the success of the program. In discussing which variables were most important to a show-"s success, one needs also to look at variables con- sidered least important to a show's success. The variables

"pathos" and "themes" were not thought of as having much value to any shows, in relation to the ratings of the other 88

variables. "Pathos" scored last (out of nine variables) in eight programs and eighth in three more shows Appar- ently those warm moments one has long observed on sitcoms, such as when Gloria would sit on Archie's lap for a father­ daughter talk, or when Opie would learn a boyhood lesson from Andy, were not as vital to the success of those shows as many other factors were. The lack of importance attrib­ uted to "themes" indicates that the situation itself was not necessarily of much consequence, but rather, how it was executed. This brings to mind a widely held opinion in this industry: There are only seven basic plots and all drama is a variation of these basic ideas.

In summation, "casting" can be thought of as the most important factor to consider when developing or scheduling a sitcom which one hopes will be successful. The impor- · tance of casting is re-emphasized in the next section, when discussing the data from Part III of the survey. "Writing" and "timing" are also major variables to consider, as well as "concept of show," "character identification," and

"chemistry." To ensure quality, however, one needs to be aware of how valuable each variable is to a program's standard of excellence.

Part III

Part III of the survey gave industry professionals the opportunity to discuss their feelings about the future of situation comedy, add any additional comments regarding the 89 ' .

genre, discuss their own favorite sitcom, and give their opinion of the best of today's sitcoms.

1 Wh~t_ __l_5;_y_o_u r __ fa VQ_!"_i.:__t_~--~i_!:___l!_~j;.j._g_l!__ <;::_g~~-~_y __o_:t3.l-_l_t_~p~---~-1!..9.: why?

A complete list of participant's favorite sitcoms can be found in the Appendix. The top six rated sitcoms with number and percentage of votes are as follows;

The Mary Tyler Moore Show 20.05% ( 12) H*A*S*H 12.28% ( 7) I Love Lucy 8.77% ( 5) The Honeymooners 8.77% {5) The Dick Van Dyke Show 8-77% {5) All in the Family 8 77% (5)

Analyzing programs that have had the greatest influ- ence on people working within the television industry is very insightful. Of the shows which garnered the most votes, two were from the 1950s (J Love Lucy and The Honey- mooners), only one was from the 1960s (The Dick Van Dyke

Show), and three were programs from the 1970s (Jhe Mary

_'f'y_ler Moore___ ~_hg_~, ~-~A*S*J!, and Al~ in the Family). These programs are the standards by which the industry judges its present and future accomplishments. While producers may not be attempting to create another JUl __i.l! the Family.or

The Honeymooners, perhaps they are trying to develop pro- grams that have the realistic human characters and those with whom an audience can truly identify. Programers,

likewise 1 may not be programing a second M*A*S*H 1 but possibly a show that has great writing and an ensemble cast that really relates to and interacts with each other, 90

as was the case on M*A*S*H.

In observing the responses of each group to Question

1, one must note the disparity between programers and cri- tics regarding M*A*S*H and The Mary Tyler Moore Show. As a group, critics considered M*A*S*H their favorite program

(33 percent), while The Mary ~L~r Mo9re Show ranked fourth along with six other shows. On the other hand, programers as well as writers/producers considered The Mary Tyler

Moore Show their favorite show (26 percent). Programers also failed to even include M*A*S*H on their list.

The brief comments written about the overall favorite shows were:

The Mary Tyler Moore Show: intelligent~ great cast~ writing; honest; real~ funny characters; ensem­ ble effort; freshness of character; interesting female leads~ themes of characters and not of situations~ and exceptional, emotional writing.

M*A*S*H: great writing; several themes at once; comedy working with tragedy~ vivid, intelligent, believable characters~ variety of humor types~ broke new ground~ made audience feel.

I Love Lucy: casting~ characterizations~ physical comedy~ timeless appeal; making the unbelievable seem believable.

The Honeymooners: identifiable (the underdog); consistently funny; characters to care about~ humor developing from character; cast.

The Dick Van Dyke Show: Carl Reiner set a standard never equalled nor understood~ brilliant comedy about simple, believable, everyday things in life~ humor carne from characters; great ensemble.

All in the Family: funny~ mirrored realistic human characters~ casting. 91

2. What do you feel, are the best two situation comedies on television today and ¥Thy~

The top five rated sitcoms with number and percentage

of votes are as follows:

The Cosby Show 36.56% ( 3 4) Cheers 29.03% (27) Family Ties 12.90% (12) Newhart 9.68% (9) Kate & Allie 5.38% (5)

The Cosby Show was considered the best sitcom on tele- vision today by a majority of participants from each group.

Cheers was consistently second. The five highest rated

shows illustrate what is successful on television today.

These programs have performed well in the ratings. Each

show has also received favorable reviews and four out of

the five were nominated for "best show" in the 1984-1985

Emmy Awards (Newhart was not nominated) (Pryor, 1985,

August 12, p. 85). These results indicate that in comedy

programing today, shows which are considered "quality

programs" (according to the results of Survey Question 12

in Part I), are also proving to be television's most sue-

cessful situation comedies.

The brief comments written about the best sitcoms on

television today were:

The Cosby Show: Bill Cosby; well-executed; honest; lovable characters.

Cheers: literate; well-written; good ensemble; very funny.

Family Ties: Michael J. Fox; casting; relatable; acting; writing. 92

Newhart: dry sense of humor; well acted; Middle America.

Kate & Allie: casting; writing; honest, real yet funny characters; relatable.

3. What do you see as the future of situation comedy?

Some of the most interesting data came from responses to Question 3. Almost two-thirds (62 percent) of the par- ticipants had optimistic feelings regarding the sitcom's future. The words most often used were healthy, bright, and stable. Participants believed that there would be more character and less situation, hopefully the sitcom was on the way up, and the public would always tune to quality sitcoms, although there were far too few good shows. Many felt that funny is always funny, and that comedy will always appeal to the masses.

Th~ remaining respondents also offered introspective observations regarding the genre's future. Among them were: --if we can stop imitating each other and if networks encourage more experiments, it will go on forever.

--if stars and writers are put together, the sitcom will not go the way of the western.

--hopefully, made-for-cable sitcoms will bring new subject matter to the genre (i.e. Brothers).

--sitcoms will always be around because of the pro­ fitibility in syndication.

--Cosby's success is like a revival of the early 1970s with Sanford and Son, except it would be nice to break out of the stranglehold of the family structure.

--more ensembles and a return to the family. 93

--bleak, if Cosby's show is any indication.

--bleak, unless MTM comes back strong with new shows.

--sitcoms are becoming increasingly yuppified, narrow in spectrum, white collar and middle class.

--growing and communicating more, no limits to its future.

--moving towards more real, less gimmicks.

--cyclical, from reality to broad.

--the future will be just more of the same.

--more relying on research and ratings, less inde­ pendent thinking.

--must insist on funny people rather than pretty people.

\ --it will continue with a "2-tier" set of offerings. A thin layer of excellence--high quality programs, supported by undistinguished industry competence The second layer will be quite strong.

The participants' responses reflect a wide variety of

conflicting opinions. As positive as the majority of the

respondents were, the data collected also revealed the

problems which face this genre. The industry as a whole

needs to seriously consider these points of view in order

to increase stability and to add excellence to this pro-

graming format.

Any additional comments you would care to include regarding situation comedy would be_greatly appre­ ciated.

Few participants of the survey had any additional

co~~ents to share (possibly because of the length of the

survey). The comments which were received, however, were

analytical, insightful, and carried great weight because 94

they reflect upon the many years of experience of the

respondents. Each statement seemed to represent the sali-

ent point of each participant's attitude regarding situa-

tion comedy.

The responses are as follows:

--Physical comedy is very underrated by critics and academics.

--Sitcoms should be made into continuing stories a la Dynasty. (This concept was explored in the sitcom Soap).

--Successful shows must have a combination of ingre­ dients: l)concept~ 2)cast~ 3)execution~ 4)direction; and 5)timelessness.

--Success comes from characterization, not concept. \ --Most memorable shows are based on rich diversity of human characters.

--Casting and chemistry, along with good writing, make a successful show.

--Comedy is based more on character and less on situation.

--The best thing would be a shorter season with fewer episodes.

--Making even bad sitcoms is extremely difficult, so don't be so quick to judge.

--Just because an idea/concept is funny doesn't mean it will be attractive to a buyer. Scheduling is a huge factor.

--Networks must encourage good writing rather than silliness (most don't know the difference).

--Any form of escapism, especially anything that makes us laugh, should be treasured.

--Comedians make the show. More attention must be paid to funny people. 95

--The best comedy these days is to be found in hybrid shows that combine humor as a part of an ongoing experience like Remington Steele, Magnum, P.~, and best of all, t4oonlightin__g_.

\. 0 •

Conclusion

This thesis was done in an attempt to extract opinions

regarding situation comedy development which were shared by

experts who work in or write about this programing genre.

By obtaining the views of programers from every network,

writers and producers from every major production company,

and critics from around the country, specific statements

were formulated concerning two elusive, non-specific terms:

"success" and "quality."

During the data gathering process, this researcher

discovered that success in television programing depends

' on many factors, both elements within a sho\'7 and outside

forces affecting it. The most important internal variable

of a show, imperative to its success, proved to be casting.

The need for likable, identifiable characters, and serious

consideration of a program's writing, concept, and chemis­

try, were also deemed valuable. The external forces found

to play a major part of a show's success included a net­

work's decision on purchasing an idea, pilot, and show,

where a show is placed on a programing schedule, and pos­

sibly even the mood of the country when a program airs.

Networks, through their research departments, attempt

to understand America's programing needs. Writers and

producers, however, have their own ideas of what will sell

and must convince networks that their "idea" will succeed.

Critics remain as an objective advisor, attempting to

96 97

discern for the masses, what is and what is not worth

viewing. Interestingly, they usually agreed with producers,

writers, and programers on the elements needed to Qreate

successful and high quality shows.

There was a general consensus by participants on most

items of the survey. An overall feeling derived from the

study was an open-minded one, that situation comedies could

be very flexible in terms of concept, structure, topicality,

and even choice of producers and still be successful. A

show's original concept is important, because through its

characters and their relationships conflict can be contin­

ually and humorously re-introduced week after week. The \ execution of this concept, however, ultimately becomes the

essential factor in determining success, i.e. the casting,

writing, and chemistry. In other words, while the original

idea is important, what one does with it is of far more

consequence.

When defining quality, the majority of participants

believed one's own intuition was the best way to pinpoint

excellence. Combining this factor with the opinions of

television reviewers and with awards {the other most highly

rated variables), one can establish three specific criteria

for judging quality programing.

One can also determine variables of consequence in

shows of high quality by reviewing the results of the

matrix of successful sitcoms. Participants were asked to

rate the overall consistent quality of each show. By 98

observing which variables were important to the success of those shows considered to be of exceptional merit, one can determine variables needed in order to produce similar programs. Respondents thus have created a definition for quality, as well as isolating variables which directly relate to the production of shows of exceptional quality.

Certain aspects of the survey results are applicable to certain populations. Producers and writers have no control over what is programed, scheduled, what the com­ petition will be, or how heavily the network will promote a show. They do, however, have considerable control over their product itself, which means they have a degree of control over both success and quality. Producers and writers are also aware that if they have an idea for a comedy program, it would be more advantageous to present it to NBC before another network.

The results of the data collected allow programers to review the opinions of other programers as well as those of writer/producers and critics to have a more com­ prehensive understanding of why shows succeed. By allowing producers and writers creative freedom, programers can then take a show which, according to the desirable vari­ ables identified in this thesis, indicates a good potential for success and help it succeed.

The current television season (1985-1986) has shown what can happen when writers and producers write and pro­ duce, and programers program. The sitcom is thriving. 99

Most of the shows that are highly successful are also considered to be quality programs. It is interesting that all are very dissimilar from each other.

Less than two years ago, situation comedy was thought to be a genre near demise. Although it is now more popular than it has been in eight years, the stability of the genre remains in question. With a better understanding of what is needed in order to create successful shows (from the points of view of writer/producers, programers, and cri- tics) a more stable programing genre could be established.

Finally, a more analytical understanding of successful, quality situation comedies can only bring about more programs of worth and merit that do succeed.

Limitations of Study

The limited size of the population sample responding and the fact that many respondents only partially completed

Part II of the survey (Matrix of Successful Shows and

Variables) were restricting factors in the statistical evaluation of the data collected. This made it necessary to discuss findings in terms of means and percentages.

The results of the Analysis of Variance of Part I justi- fied discussing the data for the entire survey in terms of one group (instead of making distinctions for the three separate groups of respondents) . More complete survey results, however, may have allowed this researcher to discover levels of significance in the three groups' 100

answers to the Matrix of Successful Shows and Variables.

This possibly could have increased one's knowledge of the

critics' views, as opposed to those who make a living writing, producing, or programing shows.

The information obtained from this survey is for

descriptive purposes and should not be inferred to a

larger population. It attempts to explain what exists at

the moment. The findings relate specifically to writers,

producers, and programers. It is only useful to critics

in that it is an insightful look at what variables the

three groups feel are important to the success of shows,

and the relationship between success and quality in situ­

ation comedy programing.

Suggestions for Further Research

There is very little academic research to be found

of the subject of situation comedy. Because of this fact,

this thesis could be considered a first step to the re­

searcher who wants to analyze this genre from many dif­

ferent points of view. Studies similar to this one could

be done with larger samples, different populations, or as

a longitudinal study correlating with this project in an

attempt to measure the reliability of these findings.

Future updated similar studies may also indicate that the

method of network programing and the attitudes of writers

and producers, programers, and critics have changed since

1985. Historical analyses of the sitcom genre may also 101

shed new light on what is to come in this programing format. Examining trends of the past enables a researcher to make reasonable hypotheses regarding the future.

For persons interested in other programing formats on television, the design of this study could serve in the analysis of other television genres including the western, the detective show, anthologies, murder mysteries, hospital shows, police programs, movies-of-the-week, and even mini-series.

Future studies regarding television programing in terms of any genre will have to seriously consider the growing impact of cable television, pay television, and the increasing amount of original programing becoming available to independent television stations. Bibliography

Books

Arlen, M.J. (1974). The Vie\v From Highway 1. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Babbie, E. R. (1973). Survey Research Methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Bailey, K.D. (1978). Methods of Social Research. New York: Free Press.

Bennett, T., Boyd-Bo\Vffian, S., Mercer, C., & Woollacott, J. (Eds.). (1981). Popular Television and Film. New York: BFI Publishing.

Black, J.A., and Champion, D.J. (1976). Methods and Issues in Sociial Research. New York: Wiley.

Bluem, A.W., & Manvell, R. (Eds.). (1961). Television: The Creative Experience. New York: Hastings House.

Burns, G., & Lindsay, C. H. ( 1955). I Love Her, That's Whyt New York: Simon and Schuster.

Burr, L. (1979). Two for the Show. New York: Julian Messner.

Castleman, H., & Podrazik, W.J. (1982). Watching TV: Four Decades of American Television. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cole, B.G. (Ed.). (1970). Television: A Selection of Reading from TV guide Magazine. New York: The Free Press.

Fry, W.F., M.D., & Allen, M., Ph.D. (1975). Make 'em Laugh: Life Studies of Comedy Writers. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.

Gitlin, T. (1983). Inside Prime Time. New York: Pantheon Books.

Grote, D. (1983). The End of Comedy: The Sit-Com and the Comedic Tradition. Hamden, CT: Archon Books.

Harris, J.S. (Ed.). (1978). TV Guide: The First 25 Years. New York: Triangle Publications.

102 103 0 •

Horback, C.T., & Horback, P.G. (Eds.). (1980). TV Guide Alamanac. New York: Ballantine Books.

Kidder, L.H. (1981). Selltiz, Wrightsman and Cook's Research Methods in Social Relations (4th Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Kish, L. (1965). Survey Sampling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kratochwill, T.R. (Ed.). (1978). Single Subject Re­ search: Straategies for Evaluating Change. New York: Academic Press.

Labovitz, S., and Hagedorn, R. (1971). Introduction to Social Research. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lewis, M., & Lewis, M.B. (1979). Prime Time. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher.

Marc, D. (1984). Demographic Vistas: Television in American Culture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Meyers, L.S., and Grossen, N.E. (1974). Behavioral Re­ search: Theory, Procedure, and Design. San Fran­ cisco: W.H. Freeman.

Mitz, R. (1980). The Great TV Sitcom Book. New York: Richard Marek Publishers. Nachmias, D., and Nachmias, c. (1976). Research Methods in the Social Sciences. New York: St. Martins.

Newcomb, H. (1974). TV: The Most Popular Art. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Newcomb, H. (Ed.) (1979). Television: The Critical View (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ne\vcomb, H. (Ed.). (1982). Television: The Critical View (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Orenstein, A., and Phillips, W.R.F. (1978). Understanding Social Research: An Introduction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Orlich, D.C. (1978). Designing Sensible Surveys. Pleasantville, NY: Redgrave Publishing Company.

Shulman, A., & Youman, R. (1966). How Sweet It Was. New York: Shorecrest. 104

Singer, B., & Spilerman, S. (1976). Some Methodological Issues in the Analysis of Longitudinal Surveys. Madison, WI: University of Madison.

Steinberg, C.S. (1980). TV Facts. New York: Facts on File.

Sudman, S. (1976). Applied Sampling. Nev.r York: Academic Press.

Terrace, V. (1976). The Complete Encyclopedia of Tele­ vision Programs 1947-1976: Vol. 1. Cranbury, NJ: A.S. Barnes.

Terrace, V. (1976). The Complete Encyclopedia of Tele­ vision Programs 1947-1976: Vol. 2. Cranbury, NJ: A.S. Barnes.

Wimmer, R.D., & Dominick, J.R. (1983). Mass media re­ search: An Introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Periodicals

Alternative programing. (1984, September 22). TV Guide, p. 25.

A truly unsentimental cad. (1983, July 11). Time, p.12.

Barthel, J. (1971, Septmeber 10). "How I learned to stop struggling and learned to tolerate the tube." Life, pp. 57-61.

Blum, D. (1978, October 25). The kind of the tube. The New Republic, pp. 12-14.

Burgheim, R. (1970, September 28). The new season: Perspiring with revelance. Time, p. 66.

Can the laughter. (1957, February 18). Time, pp. 38-39.

Clarke, G. (1985, May 13). How sweet it is again. Time, p. 83.

Cocks, J. (1982, December 6). Long reach and shortfall. Time, p. 7 8.

Compton, N. (1969, July). TV Comedy. Commentary, pp. 18-21. 105

Coppola, J. (1958, December 12). Comedy on television. Commonweal, pp. 287-289.

Cops and comedy. (1973, April 16). Time, p. 72.

Corliss, R. (1985, September 16). Coming up from nowhere. Time, pp. 64-67.

Corliss, R. (1980, November 3). The bodies in question. Time, p. 100.

Corliss, R. ( 1 9 8 2 , May 2 4 ) . R.I.P. the honest laugh. Time, pp. 7 2-73.

Corlliss, R. (1983, September 26). And "Mister Ed" begat "Mr. Smith." Time, pp. 66-67.

'Cosby' wins top honors in critics poll. ( 1 9 8 5 , Apr i 1 4) . Electronic media, p.4.

Cyclops. (1972, April 4). Black sit-com, but too tame. Life, p. 20.

Cyclops. (1973, January 29). MTM and her all-star team. Newsweek, pp. 60-61.

Cyclops. (1973, April 23). Mashed morality. Ne,vsweek, p. 53.

DeBlois, F. (1961, February 18). Situation comedies review TV Guide, p. 27.

Doan, R.K. (1970, December 19). CBS's eye focuses on situation comedy for season ahead. TV Guide, p. A-1.

Doan, R.K. (1971, October 30). CBS puts it chips on comedy basis for upcoming pilots. TV Guide, P. A-3.

Doan, R.K. (1974, July 6). Networks curtail comedies after court decision. TV Guide, p. A-1.

Downbeat start for new tv season. (1984, October 1). Broadcasting, p. 43.

Egan, J. (1981, July 20). The fall of super Fred. New York, pp. 42-25.

Emerson, G. (1982, July). Why Barney Miller lasted so long. Vogue, p.48.

Everyman at sea. (1963, March 11). Newsweek, p. 89.

Fall previe·w·. (1985, September 14). TV Guide. 106

Fall preview. (1984, September 8). TV Guide.

Females are funny. (1953, April 24). TV Guide, pp. 8-9.

Friedman, M.J. (1976, May 5). TV comedies are really a scream. TV Guide, pp. 4-6.

Fun with the Nazis. (1965, November 1). Newsweek, p. 64.

Gelman, M. (1984, May 10). Disney leaves it to 'Beaver'. Electronic Media, pp. 3, 23.

Gelman, M. (1984, June 7). Pay cable services showing new enthusiasm for series. Electronic Media, p. 18.

Gelman, M. (1985, January 24). New Program Group OK's original productions. Electronic Media, p. 5.

Gendel, M. (1984, December 21). Just \vhat is wrong with television today? Los Angeles Times, part 4, pp. 1, 26.

Gendel, M. (1985, March 4). TV syndicators' brave new world. Los Angeles Times, part 6, pp. 1, 9.

Gendel, M. (1985, May 17). New shows advised to go their own ways. Los Angeles Times, part 4, pp. 1, 17.

Goldstein, P. (1985, January 23). 'Sara' at the starting block. Los Angeles Times, part 4, pp. 1, 9.

Greenfield, J. (1980, May 24). Situation comedies: Are they getting better -- or worse? TV Guide, pp. 4-8.

Greenfield, J. (1980, May 31). Social comment is out-­ taboo subjects are in. TV Guide, pp. 30-32.

Gunther, M. (1984, July 22). Viewpoint. Los Angeles Television Times, p. 6.

Half-hour sitcom is first offering from Metromedia's new program group. (1984, September 17). Broadcasting, p. 94.

Hall, J. (1984, May 14). With NBC still rated no. 3, Grant Tinker ponders his own decisions -- and the audience's. People Weekly, pp. 107-108.

Hudson, P. (1971, October 25). Kids are fed up with baloney. Senior Scholastic, pp. 7, 22. 107

Jenkins, D. (1955, December 10). Still in the driver's seat. TV Guide, pp. 13-15.

Kasindorf, M. (1973, June 24). Archie & Maude & Fred & Norman & Alan. New York Times Magazine, pp. 12-16.

Knight, B. (1981, July 1). The Silverman era in review. Variety. pp. 41-42.

Lague, L. (1984, May 7). Real women make a tv comeback thanks to Susan Saint James and Jane Curtin in "Kate & Allie." People Weekly, pp. 154-157.

MacKenzie, K. (1953, August). Situation comedy or situation wanted? Theatre Arts, pp. 90-91.

MacKenzie, R. (1984, September 29). Review [Review of "Kate & Allie"]. TV Guide, p. 48.

MacKenzie, R. (1984, November 24). Review [Review of "E/R"] • TV Guide, p. 56.

MacKenzie, R. (1985, January 12). Review [Review of "Charles In Charge"]. TV Guide, p. 40.

Margulies, L. (1984, October 5). ABC moves to remedy low ratings. Los Angeles Times, part 4, p. 4.

Margulies, L. (1984, October 6). Why ABC yanked 3 series. Los Angeles Times, part 5, pp. 1, 14.

Margulies, L. (1984, October 25). There's no afterlife for "After M*A*S*H". Los Angeles Times, part 6, p. 11.

Margulies, L. (1984, November 5). ABC moves to remedy lo"Vl ratings. Los Angeles Times, part 4, p. l.

Margulies, L. (1985, January 16). NBC playing musical chairs with comedies. Los Angeles Times, part 4, p. 10.

Margulies, L. (1985, April 24). Tartikoff leads NBC out of wilderness. Los Angeles Times, part 6, pp. 1, 9.

Margulies, L. (1985, May 7). Wholesale changes due in ABC programing. Los Angeles Times, part 6, pp. 1, 12.

Margulies, L. (1985, May 8). "Jeffersons" out of CBS lineup. Los Angeles Times, part 6, pp. 1, 9. 108

Margulies, L. (1985, May 21). "Hail to the Chief" goes to a quiet death on ABC. Los Angeles Times, part 6, pp. 1, 10.

Mermigas, D. (1984, April 26). CBS wins prime time season Electronic Media, p. 36.

Mermigas, D. (1984, August 23). CBS' Grant believes success creates trends. Electronic ~iledia, pp. 1, 20, 22.

Mermigas, D. (1984, August 30) ..Erlicht's aim: More diverse ABC shows. Electronic Media, pp. 1, 20, 22.

Mermigas, D. (1984, September 6). Tartikoff sees end of NBC's ratings trouble. Electronic Media, pp. 1, 18, 22.

Mermigas, D. {1985, March 7). Networks spend $100 Million on pilots. Electronic Media, pp. 18, 34.

Mermigas, D. (1985, March 7). Big 3 setting up end­ of season artillery. Electronic Media, p. 19.

Mermigas, D. (1985, March 14). Family programs make comeback. Electronic Media, PP • 41 3 2 •

Mermigas, D. (1985, August 19). Networks assembling replacement series. Electronic Media, p. 21.

~-iermigas, D. (1985, May 9). Nehvorks do fall patchwork. Electronic Media, pp. 2, 35.

Mermigas, D. (1985, May 16). Networks rediscover anthology TV series. Electronic Media, pp. 3, 12, 16.

Miller, J., & Steigerwald, B. (1984, December 16). Why is TV so rotten? Los Angeles Times, Calendar, pp. 4-6.

NBC scores high in week 1. (1984, October 11). Electro- nic Media, p. 32.

New study located TV family in dream world. (1985, August 30). Los Angeles Times, p. 19.

New tv season: Sitcoms are out, drama is in. (1984, June 4) . U.S. News & World Report, p. 86.

Nicholas, D. (1973, March 3). We regret that "Maude" will not be seen. TV Guide, pp. 6-8. 109

No time for comedy. (1954, July 2}. TV Guide, pp. 18-19.

Orth, M., & Kasindork, M. (1977, March 7}. The candy store. Newsweek, pp. 74-75.

Powell, R. (1953, May 29}. Who's killing tv comedy? TV Guide, p. 10.

Programing. (1984, December 31}. Broadcasting, pp. 80-82

Pryor, J. (1984, October 11}. Staying Power. Electronic Media, p. 18.

Pryor, J. (1984, November 1}. CBS pulls 'After M*A*S*H,' puts 'Dreams' on hold. Electronic Media, p. 4.

Pryor, J. (1985, January 17}. NBC plans to reinforce weak spots. Electronic Media, pp. 14, 30.

Pryor, J. (1985, May 16). Hollywood's hot ne\v 'J:V produ­ cers. Electronic Media, p. 26.

Rabinowitz, D. (1975, October). Watching the sit-coms. Commentary, pp. 69-71.

Richmond, R. (1984, October 25). An autopsy on 'After M*A*S*H': why it failed. L.A. Daily News, Life section, p. 25.

Rosenberg, H. (1985, January 24}. 'Webster': a primer on sex abuse. Los Angeles Times, part 6, PP • l 1 11. Rosenberg, H. (1985, February 22}. TV takes the fun out of funny. Los Angeles Times, part 6, pp. l, 2 0.

Rosenberg, H. (1985, September 9}. Sitcom-itis rampant on cable television. Los Angeles Times, part 6, p. 10

Same old new season. (1967, September 4}. Newsweek, p. 77.

Season to date: HUT's down again. (1984, December 3}. Broadcasting, p. 39.

Sharbutt, J. (1985, May 2}. Revived NBC sets 6 new fall series. Los Angeles Times, part 6, pp. 1, 11.

Sharbutt, J. (1985, May 15}. Cosby needles ABC in talk to NBC affiliates. Los Angeles Times, part 6, p. 9. Q ' 110

Shaw, D. (1978, September 23). What happened pussycat? TV Guide, pp. 26-29.

Shaw, D. (197R, September 30). Give a little, take a little. TV Guide, pp. 33-38.

Smith, c. (1984, December 16). TV's good and bad old days. Los Angeles Times, Calendar, p. 2.

Stone, M. ( 19 83, February 7) • TV: We deserve better. U.S. News and World Report, p. 84.

Talbert, B. (1985, June 30). You chose these memorable shows. Detroit Free Press, part 3, p. 1.

Tartikoff, B. (1985, September 7). My years of living dangerously. TV Guide, pp. 2-4.

Taylor, c. (1985, February 8). Gleason joins preview of 'The Honeymooners'. Los Angeles Times, part 6, p. 27.

Tedesco, R. (1985, September 2). TBS creating stockpile of half-hour comedies. ElectroniG media, p. 8.

The corn is green. (1962, December 3). News-v.reek, p. 70.

The durable ones. (1957, June 24). Newsweek, p. 94.

The full tv season: enter laughing. (1979, September 3). u.s. NeWs and World Report, pp. 50-52.

The tube and the bottle. ( 19 7 3, September 2 3) . Ne\vS'Vleek, pp. 65-66.

The world of TV programing. (1984, October 22). Broadcasting, pp. 54-81.

The best and worst by the numbers. (1985, June 29). TV GUIDE, pp. 12-13.

Thompson, T. (1971, September 10). The crap shoot for half a billion: In the life-or-death ratings game, Fred Silverman rolls the dice for CBS. Life, pp. 47-51.

Toperoff, S. (1982, December 4). Archie Bunker and "Laverne & Shirley" classics? Absolument! TV Guide,. pp. 37-3 9.

Turan, K. (1985, April 27). When an 'ugly runt' upstages the stars-- and the storylines go sour ... TV Guide, pp. 12-15. 111

Turner, R. (1984, July 21). The grave condition of tv comedy. TV Guide, pp. 5-8.

Waters, H.F. (1983, May 16). The kid in tv's hot seat. Newsweek, pp. 81-82.

Waters, H.F., Martin, A.R., & Kasindorf, M. (1976, February 16). Why is tv so bad? Newsweeks, pp. 72-75.

What's ahead for television. (1971, May 31). Newsweek, pp. 72-75.

Whitney, D. (1981, September 5). "The Brady Brides" meet "The Beverly Hillbillies" on "Gilligan's Island." TV Guide, pp. 18-19.

Why favorites faded. (1956, May 28). Newsweek, pp . 1 0 0-1 0 4 .

Why so many situation comedies? (1953, October 23). TV Guide, pp. 19-21.

Zoglin, R. ( 1 9 8 4 , June 4) . Unhappy days for the sitcom. Time, p. 7 6.

Theses and Dissertations

Becker, E.L. (1976). The network television decision­ Making process: A descriptive examination of the process within the framework of prime time made-for­ tv movies. Unpublished master's thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.

Brooks, R., Ph.D. (1982). Situation comedy and the structure of television: A structural analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 2483-A.

~iayerle, J., Ph.D. (1983). The development of the tele­ vision variety shmv as a major program genre at the National Broadcasting Company: 1946-1956. Disserta­ tion Abstracts International, !!, 3195-A.

McMillan, S., Ph.D. (1978). Television comedy studies: Creation and production of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" "All in the Family," and "M*A*S*H." Dissertation Abstracts International, !l, 450-A.

Meehan, D. M., Ph.D. (1979). An interpretive communica­ tion study of images and roles of women in selected situation comedies form 1950-1975. Dissertation Abstracts International, iQ, 1735-A. 112

Taflinger, R.F. (1980). Sitcom: A survey and findings of the television situation comedy. Unpublished dissertation, Washington State University, Washington.

Thompson, L.D., Ph.D. (1977). Trends and issues in commercial prime time television -- An analysis of network programming, 1966-1976. Dissertation Abstracts International, ~' 5782-A.

Whetmore, E.J., Ph. D. (1976). Adrogyny and sex role perception in television situation comedies. Dissertation Abstracts International, 11, 1283-A.

Wright, R.B. (1976). Television comedy: A descriptive study. Unpublished master's thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.

Intervie\vs

Allen, Bill. CBS Director of Program Development. 1985, June 25.

Carsey, Marcia. Executive Producer, The Cosby Show. 1985, August 21.

Franklin, Ellen. ABC Direct, current comedy. 1985, August 30.

Neuman, David. NBC Associate, Comedy D~velopment. 1985, August 8.

Tinker, Grant. Chairman of NBC. "ATAS Evening with Grant Tinker." 1984, November 14. Appendix

113 114

COVER LETTER

950 N. Martel Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90046 (213) 876-9147 June 17, 1985

I am a graduate student working on my thesis, r.~y topic being the situation comedy. Enclosed is a survey being sent out to network programers, writers, producers, and media critics. The data gathered from this survey will be used as a predictor for judging a successful situation comedy and to define common factors involved in creating successful sitcoms which are also quality programs.

I ask you to please participate in this study. The entire survey should take only twenty minutes and a copy of the results will be sent to you. I have enclosed a stamped, se 1 f-addressed envelope for your convenience.

Thank you, in advance, for your tir.1e and consideration. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Daniel Enright

Enc. 115

1.

PART I With the following questions, put a ( v' ) on one of the

five lines (from agree to disagree) .

1. The format and structure within a successful sitcom should not change or evolve because of the possibility of losing the show's audience (Examples: Lucy was always trying to get into show business, when one kid gets too big on a show, the family cften adopts another small child) .

Agree Disagree

2. Situation comedies with upper or lower class characters, or ones of an ethnic minority, have less chance of succeeding because the shows must draw their audiences from vast White Middle America.

Agree Disagree

3. All sitcoms need characters that are likable and that capture the concern and interest of the audience.

Agree Disagree

4. A sitcom should reflect the times, be contemporary, to succeed across a broad audience because the public's tastes for comedy change as the economical, social, and political climates change.

5. The simplest precept of scheduling is that the "lead-in," the show immediately preceding, makes a big difference to a show's ratings.

Agree Disagree

6. The tests done by networks to predict a pilot's success are very imprecise instruments and should take a back seat to other factors (producers' track records, programers' intuition, etc.) when determining a show's abilities to capture a sufficient audience.

Agree Disagree

7. Advertisers' attitudes should be taken into account in deciding whether to put a show on the air.

Agree Disagree 116

2.

8. Turning to producers who have already created hit shows increases a network's chances for additional hits.

Agree Disagree

9. Turning to producers who have already created hit shows decreases a network's chances of finding shows with original­ ity and energy.

Agree Disagree 10. Which of the three networks {ABC, CBS, NBC) is currently the most committed to comedy programing?

ABC C3S NBC

11. The commercial success of a series is strongly related to its quality.

Agree Disagree

12. What measures can one use to best judge which shows are quality programs? Rate all that you feel apply in descend­ ing order of importance (1 being the most important).

television reviewers Nielsen Ratings the amount of media attention a show generates loyalty of fans academic analysis awards such as Ernmy Awards longevity network research other: 117

3.

PART II The following list contains fifteen successful situation comedies (in terms of ratings, longevity, or popularity in syndication) . They are representative of most types of shows that have emerged over the past thirty-five years. Many of the shows listed are also credited as shmvs that took the sitcom in new directions and \>/hose basic premises have been frequently duplicated. They include examples of domestic comedies, action comedies, ethnic comedies, social comedies, and a "gimmick" shmv.

Across the top of the page is a list of factors that may or may not be included when analyzing a show's success.

DIRECTIONS

On a scale from 1-5 (1 being the most important and 5 beinq the least important), rate each variable's importance to each show's success. More than one variable can be given the same rating (1-5). If you are unfamiliar with a given show, please cross out the name of the program and proceed to the next title. Three blanks are marked

"other,w for any variables which you feel contributed to a show' s success and have not been inc 1 uded. Lastly, you are asked to make a judgment regarding the o•Terall quality of each show using the 1-5 scale (1 being of exceptional quality and 5 being of no quality). I , ~ oiJEi...,""' ~qff IZio,Q tfo 1 = Most lMport~nt ;;; ~" :; oiJ ~ .... g ..., 5 • l.e~st ll'lpnrtant cJ 0:.7;; ( ) ~ Ye-•r of S'low's Debut ..., ~ {}/' ..., ...., () 0 f:-..1!~ :f ff I/ ,J{ oO'"' ,______--+--1 I r..ove Lucy (1951) -~---+--~---+--~ ------t---1 -+-~-- 'l"hc Adventures of Ozzic & Harriet (1952! 1------+ 1--+--~-----l--1--- "l'he Honeymooners (1955) ------l--+- t--+---~---1----+ --t--+---1--- The Andy Griffith Show __ll~60l ----1--+-- 1 1 1-----+ l--1---f----·-· · The Dick Van Dyke Show l---lt96tL__ ----+ . 1 1 1--+--···---··-···-··---·--·-·------· 'fhe Heverly llillbillles ( 1962) ----+---f---· --4·---·--1-·--·- ·-----··· Bewitched (1964) 1------f--1--+ --f-- 'fhe Mary Tyler Moore Show ( 1970)

All in the Family (197 1 ) ~anford and Son (1971) I I I "t---t··--t-1--1--.-~--~--·---·

- +-----+-1---1---+- ~---1-··--··1- ... ------·----- M*A*S*II (1972) ., __., .. ,_ ------t-----i--t----i--t----i-- ______llappy Oays (1973) ------· ---+-+--+--+-+---+--+--- ... Three's Company (1977) ---~------l--f---1---+----+---1·-·-+--- Cheers (1982) ------·------+-----j--j-----l----1---l--~----~---1----- ·---+ .... ·- The Cosby Show (1984)

~ ~ I)) 119

PART III Open-ended, Short Answer Questions

1. What is your favorite situation comedy of all tine and why?

2. What do you feel, are t.\'le best two situation comedies Jn television today and why?

3. What do you see as the future of situation comedy?

Any additional comments you would care to include regarding situation comedy would be greatly appreciated.

Please include your name and/or your area of expertise in the field of television. This will enable differentia­ tions to be made between the opinions of media critics, producers, writers, and programers. Individual opinions will be kept confidential and the data collected will be used for a thesis being done as a partial requirement of the Mass Commmunication Master's. Program at California State University - Northridge.

Name Title 120

RESPONSE LETTER

950 N. Martel Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90046 {213) 876-9147 June 17, 1985

I am a graduate student working on my thesis, my topic being the situation comedy. Enclosed is a survey being sent out to network programers, writers, producers, and media critics. The data gathered from this survey will be used as a predictor for judging a successful situation comedy and to define common factors involved in creating successful sitcoms which are also quality programs. I ask you to please participate in this study. The entire survey should take only twenty minutes and a copy of the results will be sent to you. I have enclosed a stamped, self-addressed envelope for your convenience. Thank you, in advance, for your time and consideration. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely,

Daniel Enright

Enc. w~.U- --j w~td.. u& ~ ~l1

f.. dr~ ·1- 6-el~ ~y /'-- I L erY' c&--f,~ Lj~ (CA.- 1~ ere~ h ~"f:..- ,,.,y""~lv~d.. t- c fh,()-r- fo-ri~Y.I ~ fru ( O-f-;f 121

RESPONSE LETTER

fl"~ EMBASSY ~&; TELEVISION

June 24, 1985

Mr. Daniel Enright 950 N. Martel Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90046

Dear Mr. Enright:

I received your survey concerning common factors in successful situation comedies, and I sincerely attempted to answer it. However, I found the very effort fundamentally at odds with my personal belief that there are no common factors, and that there should not be. Thus, I was unable to respond to your survey, and for that I apologize.

Very truly yours,

Enclosure

1438 NORTH GOWER AVENUE. LOS ANGELES. CA 90028 (213} 460-7200 122

RESPONSE LETTER

l,...... · : / r __ _~ . /c·v(\ r . '\" {;wo _Lvv\-"li"l'1 (P 123

RESPONSE LETTER

Mr. Daniel Enright:

Enclosed is the copy of your survey. I'm sorry that my time schedule does not permit me to do this for you. 124 (l '

Columbia Pictures Teledsion August 8, 1985

RESPONSE LETTER

Mr. Daniel Enright 950 N. Martel Avenue Los Angeles, Ca. 90046

Dear Mr. Enright:

I understand that you are doing your thesis, and I have tremendous sympathy. However, it is impossible for me to take the time to fill out your lengthy questionaire at this time.

If you would like to try Mr. Rich Heller, Sr. Vice President, Comedy Development, perhaps he would be able to help you out.

Best of luck!

Sincerely,

Columbia Plaza. Burbank. California 91505 818-954-2933 125

RESPONSE LETTER

July 31, 1985

Mr. Daniel Enright 950 N. Martel Avenue IDs Angeles, california 90046

Dear Mr. Enright:

Your letter was forwarded fran the William r-brris Agency.

is constantly travelling, praroti.ng the necessary financing to maintain the His correspondence from around the coun­ try is enormous and the requests for his response and assis­ tance are many. Consequently, he is not able to answer your many questions at present.

In addition he feels that, since you have sent your material to numerous people, you should have a good sampling of the ~rld of situation caredy.

Sincerely,

Secretary to

\ \ 126

TABLE 2 Survey Results

Part I (Questions 1-9, 11)

Tests of Central Tendencr[Diseersion

GROUP COUNT MEAN MODE MEDIAN STANDARD STANDARD DEVIATION ERROR

1. Critics 16 3.38 3 3 1. 31 .328 Programers 11 4.09 5 5 1. 30 .392 Writer/Producers 32 4.13 5 5 1. 34 . 237

Total 59 3.92 5 4 1. 34 .175

Analysis of Variance

SOURCE D.F. SUM OF MEAN F RATIO F PROB. SQUARES SQUARES

Between Groups 2 6.42 3.21 1. 831 .1698 Within Groups 56 98.16 1. 75

Total 58 104.58

Tests of Central Tendency[ Dispersion

GROUP COUNT MEAN MODE MEDIAN STANDARD STANDARD DEVIATION ERROR

2. Critics 16 4.06 4/5 4 1. 29 .322 Programers 11 4.09 5 5 1. 45 .436 Writer/Producers 32 4.41 5 5 1. 01 .179

Total 59 4.25 5 5 1.17 .152

Analysis of Variance

SOURCE D.F. SUM OF MEAN F RATIO F PROB. SQUARES SQUARES

Between Groups 2 1. 62 . 81 .585 .5604 Within Groups 56 77.57 1. 39

Total 58 79.19

Tests of Central Tendency/Diseersion

GROUP COUNT MEAN MODE HEDIAN STANDARD STANDARD DEVIATION ERROR

3. Critics 16 1.13 1 1 .342 .085 Programers 11 1. 27 1 1 .647 .195 Writer/Producers 32 1. 78 1 1 1.157 .205

Total 59 1. 51 1 .954 .124

Analysis of Variance

SOURCE D. F. SUM OF MEAN F RATIO F PROij. SQUARES SQUARES

Between Groups 2 5.35 2.67 3. 157 .0':.02 Within Groups 56 47.40 .84

Totals 58 52.75 127

Survey Res1;11ts

Part I (Questions .1-9, 11)

Tests of Central TendencyLDispersion

GROUP COUNT MEAN MODE MEDIAN STANDARD STANDARD DEVIATION ERROR

4. Critics 16 2.69 2 2 1. 49 .373 Programers 11 2.36 1 2 1. 36 • 411 Writer/Producers 31 3.06 2 3 1. 24 .222

Total 58 2.83 2 2 1."34 . 1'76

Analvsis of Variance

SOURCE D.F. SUM OF MEAN F RATIO F PROB. SQUARES SQUARES

Between Groups 2 4.42 2.21 1. 243 .2966 Within Groups 55 97.85 1. 78

Total 57 102.28

Tests of Central ~endencv/Disoersion

GROUP COUNT MEAN MODE MEDIAN STANDARD STANDARD DEVIA'!'ION ERROR

5. Critics 16 1. 75 1 2 . 68 .171 Prograr.1ers 11 1. 82 1 1 1. 40 .423 Writer/Producers 31 1. 45 1 1 .768 .138

Total 58 1. 60 1 1 .897 .118

Anal :isis of Variance

SOURCE D. F. SUM OF MEAN F RATIO F PROS. SQUARES SQUARES

Between Groups 2 1. 57 .78 .972 .3849 Within Groups 55 44.31 .80

Total 57 45.88

Tests of Central Tendencv/DisEersion

GROUP COUNT MEAN MODE MEDIAN STANDARD STANDARD DEVIATION ERROR

6. Critics 15 1. 73 2 2 .704 .182 Programers 11 2 1 1 1.549 .467 Writer/Producers 32 1. 81 1. 1 1. 17 6 .208

Total 58 1. 83 1 1 1. 142 . 15

Analysis of Variance

SOURCE D. F. SUM OF MEAN F RATIO F PROB. SQUARES SQUARES Between Groups 2 .47 . 23 .174 .8406 Within Groups 55 73.81 1. 34

Total 58 74.28 128

Survey Results

Part I (Questions 1-9, 11)

Tests of Central TendencyLDisEersion

GROUP COUNT MEAN MODE MEDIAN STANDARD S'!'ANDARD DEVIATION ERROR

7. Critics 16 4.31 5 5 1. 35 .338 Programers 11 4.64 5 5 .67 .203 Writer/Producers 32 4.09 5 5 1. 33 .235

Total 59 4.25 5 5 1. 24 .161

Analysis of Variance

SOURCE D.F. SUM OF MEAN F RATIO F PROB. SQUARES SQUARES

Between Groups 2 2.48 1. 24 .802 .4533 Within Groups 56 86.70 1. 55

Total 58 89.19

Tests of Central TendencvLDisEersion

GROUP COUNT MEAN MODE MEDIAN STANDARD S'!'ANDARD DEVIATION ERROR

8. Critics 16 2.75 3 3 1. 28 .319 Programers 11 1. 91 1 2 1.14 .343 Writer/Producers 32 1. 84 1 1 1. 84 .216

Total 59 2.17 1 2 1. 27 .166

Analysis of Variance

SOURCE D. F. SUM OF MEAN F RATIO F PROB. SQUARES SQUARES

Between Groups 2 9.26 4.63 3.32 .0434 Within Groups 56 78.13 1. 40

Total 58 87.39 129

Survey Results

Part I (Questions 1-9, 11)

Tests of Central TendencyLDiseersion

GROUP COUNT MEAN MODE MEDIAN STANDARD STANDARD DEVIATION ERROR

9. Critics 16 3.19 3 3 1.17 .292 Programers 11 4.00 5 5 1.34 .405 Writer/Producers 32 4.31 5 5 1.15 .203

Total 59 3.95 5 5 1. 27 .165

Analysis of Variance

SOURCE D.F. SUM OF MEAN F RATIO F PROB. SQUARES SQUARES

Between Groups 2 13.54 6.77 4.78 .0121 Within Groups 56 79.31 1. 42

Total 58 92.85

Tests of Central ·rendency/DisEersion

GROUP COUNT MEAN MODE MEDIAN STANDARD STANDARD DEVIATION ERROR

11. Critics 15 3.40 5 3 1. 45 .375 Programers 11 2.91 1/5 3 1. 64 .495 Writer/Producers 32 3.31 5 4 1. 47 .260

Total 58 3.26 5 3 1. 48 .195

Analysis of Variance

SOURCE D.F: SUM OF MEAN F RATIO F PROB. SQUARES SQUARES

Between Groups 2 1. 74 .87 .387 .6809 Within Groups 55 123.38 2.24

Total 57 125.12 TABLE 3

··--- FR~Q!!_ENCY DISTRIBUTI:Q~-----·- __ S'fTeOM SURVE-Y

FILE NON~ ME CCRE~TION D~TE = 85/10/30,)

QUAL1 TELEVISION REVIEWERS ------·------·-··--·------·--··-- ·-·--·----

REL~TIVE ADJUSTED CUM -ABSDLU fE .... FREa------FREQ -· --- FREtr- CAJEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ

l. ll ----r1t>6 - 2a-;-'1 .::a.y

2. 7 11.9 18.4 47.4 ------·------3. 6 10.2 15.8 63.2 ... 4"- 6";8 to-;·:5---7-s;/- ::;. b 10.2 15,8 89.5 ------· ------b. 2 3.4 5.3 94 .• 7

/t -::-- 3.4 ::..J T

BLANK 21 35.6 MISSING ------~------·--~- --- .... -- TOT~L 59 100.0 100.0

MEAN 3.026 STD ERR .303 MEDIAN 2.667 MODE 1.000 STD DEV 1.867 V~RI~NCE 3.486 -~URl'Ol:ftS • ~;!-----SKEWNESS---. 565 · ---· MNOE:-- --~-----6 ;·OOO - MINIMUM 1.000 MAXIMUM 7,000 SUM 115,000 C,V, PCT 61,693 ,95 C,I, 2,413 TO 3,640 ------·-- VALID CASES 38 MISSING CASES 21

...... w 0 SITCOM SURVEY

-----F Itt::-·--- NONI'IME ---( CREI'IflOtr DI'ITE-=--8:51"!0/30",-y-----

---out'lr.z-NIELSEN RATING-s-

RELI'IHVE t\D-JUS"T:£0 CIJt:\ ·------· ----- ~---- ____ .. ___ ---·-- --·---. I'IEISOt:UT£--· F"REa---FREo---- FREeT CiHEGOR~ U\i!EL COilE FREQ CPCT> 1. 1 1. 7 3.4 3.4

---z.- ... 3. 4 0,-c;-- ·- -·-1 (1.-:)-

3. 1 1.7 3.4 13.8

4. 6 10.2 20.7 34.5 ··--··s.------3- ---- s.1 1o.s-----4or.tt-

6. 7 11.9 24.1 69.0

7. 6 10.2 20.7 89.7

------·---·---- -·--·-----a-;------;>---,_-~. 1o.:s-- -rocr;o- BLI'INK 30 so.8 MISSING TOTt'IL 59 100.0 100.0 ----·------MEr\N 5.345 STD ERR .348 HEDII'IN 5.714 MO[IE 6:000 STD DEV 1.876 VI'IRII'INCE "3• 520 ----111rl

f-> w f->

""' SITCOM SURVEY

---JFF-'lJ..: E--NONt'IME--tef

---aurrt:s--MIIDIA-A'P'fEN'fWN-----

I ---FiEt:l'IIIVE--All~JtJSTED·-- ··· CtJ11-' ABSOLUTE FREQ FREO FREQ I CATEGORY LABEL CODE FRED ( f'CT> ! ------· ------·----·· ------·--· .. ------~ 1. 3 5.1 8.6 !3,6

------~_,-.-;,-----o 1 o. 2 t7 .1 z5t·r

3. 6 10.2. 17.1 42.9 ------4. 7 11.9 20.0 62.9

------'------:5. a 13.6 22 • .,---a~. I

Ot 3 5.1 8,6 94,3 I ------··· ------a. 2 3.4 5.7 100.0 !

-----·-·-·--. ------BLI\Ntr ___ 2~ ------40. T--MISSING--

TOTt'IL 59 100.0 100.0

ME:t'IN 3.857 STD ERR .302 HEDit'\N 3.857 MODE 5.000 SHI [lEV 1.785 Vt'\RIANCE 3.185 KURTOSIS -.030 SKEWNESS .392 RANGE 7.000 MINIMUM 1.000 MAXIMUM a.ooo SUM 135.000 c-;v-;--f'C·r-----4'6-;-z6a-----.;">'~ ·· c~-r-. 3>244' o-·-----;r,-47(}

Vt'\LHI Ct'ISES 35 HISSING Ct'\SES 24 ------·-

t-1' w N SITCOM SURVEY FILE NONnME

RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ ' ---- - Cr'lfEOOR'I' L1~BEL------eO[tE -- FREQ· ------( f'C'f'")·- · --·-( PCT r·-- --- ( f'CO

1. 7 11.9 20.0 20.0 ------2. 7 11.9 20.0 40.0

.lt s------ra·.6--- -- 22;

4. 4 6.8 11.4 74.3 s. 5 8.5 14.3 88.6 ----o--.-----]----::;-.t-·--··--·-a-.6--·--r?.-t-

7. 1 1.7 2.9 100.• 0 BLANK 24 40.7 MISSING

1o·r"c----~, too-; o----loo·,--rr----

---ME-1\I't---'" -:!-;"111 Sftr-ERR .291 HE[r!I\N .:.93a- MODE 3.000 STD DEV 1.723 VARIANCE 2.970 KURTOSIS -, 7 63 SKEWNESS , 450 RANGE 6 • 000 --- ttftHHUI't---bOO&--·--HnlHHUM------.. -- ·7.606--- SUM------utoOOo-- c.v. f'CT 54,338 .95 C.I. 2.579 TO 3,763

----Wrt.-tEt-enSES----35 ---ttl SS I NO" CI"'SEs----z.o------· .... w w --==sr-rcoH- stJFiOE:i' --·--- ··---·------· -~==------·----

F!LE NONAME

OUAL5 ACADEMIC ANALYSIS RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUH ABSOLUTE FREQ FREO FREQ --·----·CI'II"EGORY-t:.ABEt.------CO[tE--FREQ----tPCT)"--tF"C~--(f'CT)

1. 5 a.5 15.6 15.6

2. 7 11.9 21.9 ---·-----·- 37.5 3. 2 3.4 6.3 43.8

4o 1 1.7 :!"". l "tbo'1

s. 6 .10.2 18.8 65.6 - 6. 3 5.1 9.4 75.0

---· ------• ... lt4 6~----fttt3-

a. 5 a.5 15.6 96.9.

9. 1 1.7 3.1 100,0

£1t:I'INK 27 4:J.-a--M!SSING"

TOT I'lL 59 100.0 100.0

MEAN 4,375 STD ERR .462 MEDIAN 4.667 ----MODE--·-- ... , ()()0-----snt-·[IEI;I---·-- -- 2-; o tZ-·--Vt'lf'<"li'INCE .~-.-82-J- KlJF:TOS IS -1,365 SKEWNESS , 186 RANGE 8, 000 MINIMUM 1.000 MAXIMUM 9.000 SUM 140,000 ----e·.v-.-· Per·-- - ti9. 7oJ------, 95-c-.-I.---· ---3.433 ------·--·ro------5-,'~~17-·

VALID CASES 32 MISSING CASES 27

I-" w .J:>, I I SITCOM SURVEY I ----- ·------~--- ·------····--··------.. -----·---·-····-··---- ·----1 FILE NON~ME

RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ~BSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ ----·t:fl fEGORv- LI'IBEL:-· ·· " · -·· · ·-- --CO[tE-·-FREa-----tf'CT-r··- - ·( f'C f r·---- tF·en-

1. 11 18.6 ~6.2 26.2 ------2. 12 20.3 28.6 54.8

------~3-. ·- a ----t-:s-.-~--·-1 <7; o·-·--n; e-- "'· 5 a.s 11.9 85.7 5. 2 3.4 4.8 90.5

------·--· ------.---··· -: -·----· ----o-.-----·1-----to-?'"" z-; ..-·---92-;.,.....,

7. 3 5.1 7.1 100.• 0 ------·------·· ------. ···------BLANK 17 28.8 MISSING

TOTAL 59 100,0 100.0

MEAN 2.762 SHt ERR .268 MEDIAN 2,333 MODE 2,000 SfD [tEV 1.736 VARIANCE 3.015 KURTOSIS , 649 SKEWNESS 1, 120 RANGE 6, 000 ---· -MttfiMUM·-· ··----r-;ooo--- --··-MAXIMUM""-----· 7~000 ·-·--·--·suw---·------!Hi;-ooo···· c.v. PCT 62,870 ,95 C,I, 2.221 TO 3.303

.'----VI'Itt~·er'\SEs---ot2 Ml SS I No-CI'ISE:s---1 ?--

...... w U1 s-I'rcmi ·:s·o,:.;ve:v- ~ -·----...--~ ..... -··------·- --- - ... ~. __ ...... -,

FILE NONAME

REL~TIVE ~DJUSTED CUM l'l£iSOt.Ule--FR~tt-~--pR£Q--I''f"'"Etr CnTEGORY LABEL CO[IE FREil ( PCT)

----·------t-. 1 1 • T------:ti' 2 • .,....-:

2. 4 6.8 11.4 14.3

3. 4 6.8 11.4 25.7

4o 6 lOo.o! 17t! "t..!o'f

s. 4 6.8 11.4 54.3

6. 6 10.2 17.1 71.4

I' i:J l:lo;) t~t;r---a~"

a. 5 8.5 14.3 100.0 --~· -----·------· BLnNK 24 40.7 MISSING ------TOTi'iC '59 ruo-;-o oo-;o--

----MEI'IN 5 .~---l:tr(t-ff

---VI'ItfEt-et'ls~s-----'3::r--~trt_:_~'1llNt! G.~$~:--"- .. _z~_-_.---

..... w 0'1 ---·srrtorrstJRiTEY--~=--- ·------, I FILE NONI'IHE

OUALB NETWORK RESEARCH

RELATIVE ADJUSTE£1 CUM' ABSOLUTE FREQ FfiEQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ CPCT> CPCT> CPCT)

~--·--~ a.:s 10.1 to.r-

4. 1 1. 7 3.2 19.4

5. 1 1. 7 3.2 22.6

~:>.----· -:s------~.1 '7.-;-- 3..lt3

7. 8 13.6 25.8 58.1

a. 12 20.3 38.7 96.8 ___...,-,----r---:-----n,..------'3-;.,; 1 oo-;-o------BLANK 28 47.5 MISSING TOTAL 59 100.0 100,0 ------·------MEAN 6,548 STD ERR .337 MEDIAN 7.188 MODE a.ooo STD DEV 1,877 VARIANCE 3.523 ---tttJRffi~U S "" , 17 1 SKEWNESS -':l;-03:5 RI\NG~-----o;-oo-o- MINIMUM 3,000 MAXIMUM 9,000 SUM 203,000 C,V, PCT 28,661 ,95 C, I, 5,860 TO 7.237

VAL[[I CASES 31 MISSING CASES ;!8

I-' w -..J SITCOM SURVEY

---nI:E"- -NONAH~CREf'l TION" Dt'\T~-==-- S:5"Tl-o/3o-tJ

OUI\L

------·------~Et~TIVE "~JtlSTED Ctl~- ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ i CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ .~:~.~! __

6 • 7 1 ooor

BLANK 44 74.6 HISSING -----"------____ ..;.;-;;;_;------TOTAL 59 100,0 100.0 ------MEAN 1.133 STD ERR .133 MEDIAN 1.071 MODE 1.000 STD DEV .516 VARIANCE .267 ----KUFHOSI s---t ~ooo------sKEWNEss-·----·-- :l, S7:s-----R"f'INGe:------y; ouo-:-·· MINIMUM 1.000 MAXIMUM 3.000 SUM 17.000 ----C,V, F'CT 45.565 ,95 C.I, .847 . TO 1.419 VALl [I CASES 15 HISSING CASES 44

...... w ()) TABLE 4

SITCOH SURVEY 85/10/JO, 08.58.54, f'fl(il' 17

FILE NONf\1'\E (CFiEI\1 ION [11\TE • 65/10/JO, I

·---~~------~- ·--~·;>·t: fl·fi"S··o·N- .. Co·fl!r"E·t:"l'l y··t·o·w· c-aE·F'·f' ... l' c--r·-e: K"o1S-..--..-'"·-··-..---··.:-~ ... _._._.

------tnl1tc----nz n:s 04 a:::s----·-ot.·----·~--na 09 oto·-----o11·

01 1,0000 .3546 -.0196 -.0392 .12~2 ,0670 -.1007 -.3064 .0177 -.0346 -.1401 ,.-----··------c -o, ...c-··::;9r-·c ---·::;9r--r·--58l ·r·-···::;aJ ..... c-- 5a,-c- 59J·c·-·-5n--.--59l c· ·:;:u -c 58) j P"***'** f• .003 P• .441 P• .385 P• o175 P• ,309 P• ,224 P• ,009 P• ,447 P• .403 P• .141 >- • .~4·6--r;uooo----=ooan • .!3sa--..:;o9oT·---;-l:n~ooz::·- =;:?o:'iY -. oroR·--=·;o986 ·--·- ~,t3Y:! ... - ( 59) ( 0) ( 59) ( 58) ( 58) ( 58) ( 59) ( 59) ( 59) ( ::;:~) ( 58) P• .OOJ P•****** P• .256 P• ,OJ6 P• ,249 P~ ,178 P• ,493 P• ,059 P• ,457 P• ,241 P• .149

OJ -.0196 -.0871 t.oooo .1661 -.0225 -.205::; .2679 -.0079 -.1783 -.ozJa .o~'' 591 c 59> < o> c 581 c 58> c 581 < 59> < 591 c 59> < 531 < :.u> ------~-=--;,·4tt__,.,--.-2:::1't>__,..,.n:nrt--,..-;-ro&-r.or--o~:s:s--~&1 ,... .o2o-.....---.-..?ll'f'W--,oae-·-,..,--.-4:sr--r,. .. · •418 ·-----·----

04 -.0392 .2388 .1661 1.0000 -.0311 -.0932 -.0272 .0633 .0973 -.1048 -. ;.!:~04 ·--· --r--·5tn·· -t --·--::;t:u · ·-c .. ----:~al -c- -- .. o,-·- t- -- .. 5:1'> -·-r--·-s'Tl ----c---:stiJ .. ··- r·- ·--·:sar--r-·-~a~·--· ::22) ··-·· ( :07) pc .385 P= .036 P• .106 P•****** P• ,409 P= .245 P• .420 P• .319 P• ,234 f'E .230 r·,. .o~.o

UOJ .1~--;-o90T -.o.:2t» -.oJti t.oooo·--=;o~'64 .o-x tv .oo..:6 -.u ..r~s---·-=·;oa3s- - ...... 0.1~.,. < 581 < 581 c 581 c 57> c O> c 571 c 58> c 58> c 581 < 5:.!1 c ::.n P• .175 P• ,249 P• ,433 P• ,409 P•****** P• .339 P• .465 P• ,492 P• ,428 P• ,2/8 P• ,393

06 ,0670 .1232 -.2055 -.0932 -.0564 1.0000 -.0689 .0244 .0563 .1~~2 -.111~ ( 58) ( 58) ( 58) ( 57) ( 57> ( 0) ( 58) ( 58) ( 58) ( t.3) ( 51) ------..,,..--;-:ro.,-p=--.17g-p-;r--o1JOr-p-....--;-;r..-:rro.--;-n....,-.:n:.-n..--v•--.-3o-4'-'P"' •12a P• • 3.!7 -p:..-··-;oa4- I"" .... ~o:::s- ·

07 -.1007 .0022 .2679 -.0272 .0119 -.06H9 1.0000 .1988 -.2114 .1934 -.0841 ~-·--- . :59) - \ - ::;9 ,---t·-- -:s,.r .. , .. --':!eJ·- ~·--· -·':!aJ T -~er-r---·- o,·- ·---·:s9r- -·t--·· :S9 > ( ···- ~3J •( :Ill) P= I 22-4 f'• ,493 p~ ,020 P• .420 P= ,46~ r~ ,304 P•****** ~a .066 P• ·054 P~ ,UBl f': I :!~.5

----n..------o-c:,-.3mo.s-.r--·--;-;!o:s9---=oo~--;v.s33---. oozo---;o2H~ 9aa--r;·oooo---=-;-;?~--; 0917-· -· - · -. 04~•' ( 59) ( ::09) ( 59) ( 58) ( 58) ( 58) ( 59) ( 0) ( 5~) ( :>J) ( ::0111 P~ .009 P~ .059 P• .4/6 P• .319 P• ,492 P• .428 P• .066 P•****** 9• .022 P• .2~7 P• .367

09 .0111 -.o144 -.1783 ,o97J -.024::. .o563 -.2114 -.2636 1.oooo .0160 -.o9:!.~ 591 ( 5'i) ( 59) ( 58) ( .58) ( 58) ( 59) ( 59) ( 0) ( (i3) ( ~·Ill ------p..--;-Hr--p... --;~::;7·--p-:-;uaa--p~..--,..---;-428 -,.~-~~·p.---. o5'4-p;;--;un-'P•'1:'J'flf**- f'• -~ ut 1-- P'= • :o~:s

010 -·. 0346 -.0986 -.0238 -.1048 -.08:!5 .1922 .1934 -.0917 .:!160 t.ouoo · .oll~ll ------·---·----r-- .. 5:sl --c· :13> ---c- -53r· c--·- 52l r·-- ·521 ·- ·c ... - ·:s:n- ·c ... --·:~3>- ( 53) .~ .. -- '!i3) -·· <. OJ C ~:""> P= .403 P= .:::!-41 P• .433 f'= .230 P• .278 P~ .084 P• ,083 P• .~::;, f'• • 011 f·~**"'*"'"' f•. • :·1.11

-·-.. -orr------; 14or ----.. .-1392 ------;o277 ----·, 2%04 ---;.. ;0369 ---- -=·;-r rrz-·~a 41·---.-o457---=-;-o923-- ,~~otPa· - t .()0~.10 ( 58) ( 58) ( 58) < 57> < 57> ( 57> < ~9> < 58) ( ~lO ( ~::) ( ()) P= .147 P= .149 P3 .418 P~ ,050 pa .393 P- .205 P• ,265 fa ,367 P~ .24~ P= .268 f·~••n•• .... w 1..0 1 TABLE 5 I .... / I ~\ Ill 'OJ li1 ..., § ~b! §~§ ~ .... -:1< -~ ""'c,O ,g .j.J ;:; .!j ~ .... Survey Results c.; Ill 1:1, lf1 <.J .j.J!J P2rt I I .... g..,§·... ~ .!:': '() 0 ~;;; Mean Scores " '·If·...,..., <.J~!l.c::t: QJ ~ ~:...... CJ 0 ~ f!Jfff oo"""' ------' -- I J.ove I.ucy (1951) 1.0512.1512.6412.8312.6112.1613.8313.7411.431 I 11.45 1------1- +----1 -4---+-----4----- 'l'he 1\dventures of Ozzie & j2.12 1.911 2.02 2.88 2.58 3.33 2.77 3.12 2.21 3.23 r llarrlet (1952) --r-- . 4______··- __ _ I-The llon~ymooners (19551---t 1.04 1.78 2.42 2.45 2.26 1.96 2.43 2.44-·-'--- 1.52 ---- ___1.51 .. ______The Andy Gr~rr~~n-~- ... ~now-- 1.59 1.98 2.45 2.33 2.5 2.45 2.19 2.26 2.11 2.44 I-_(!_96Q! --+ +----+----f +-----·-- •· ---_ .. The Die. k Van Dyke Show 1.98~.43 12.04 1.93 r1.551 11. 39 r--091!_!1__ . --t.oo-- I I The Beverly Hillbillies 3.32 2.28 1.47 3.42 4.:?5 2.40 3.26 (196?~'------~---~---+-- -1---t--r-, -·--- ~-witched (1964) 2. 41 3. 22 2. 42 ~0 2. 94 2. 91 ~ 70 -~~ 2. 83 =1= 3.56 I The Mary 'l'ylcr Moore Show 1.11 1.51 1.75 1.93 1.75 1.24 1.62 2.32 1.25 1.16 ( 1970)

~-~-~e _=_runt!! (1971) 1.25-~~_32- -~~ ~~8 1~ 1~ 2.05 ~~- --- ~~ Sanford and Son (1971) 1.43 2.97 2.06 2.62 2.81 2.72 2.97 3.49 2.40 3.39 -- 1--t--+--t--- l---t----1---~--1--1·------·M*I\*S*II (1972) fl. 4=-t:~~~~_j_~~~~J~J ~~~1~~.J 1- 751~:--~~------1. 40 ~~~~py Days ( 1973) I_1~. 22 Lt~j!_:B'> j ~..::_~-~ ~.:!.~J:~--~2__(2. 7 ~J:.:_~:J_ ___ J______J! :~~-

_'l·h~~~-=(~-~~any_~:~----- 2~E··~'-"I1.9Rf...:~~~-B"__ 3_:_~_:. 4.11 f~----· -----[~:..~ Cheers (1982) 1.50 2.08 2.45 2.19 2.37 1.46 1.23 2.66 1.62 1.70 -··------· -----·· ------··------·---·------·------· ·-···----- ·rhe Cm;hy Show (1984) 1.0411.~912.31 i2.5812.2512.14]1.7412.46l1.77 1. 64

...... ~ 0 I .;. TABLE 6 7 '"f I t5:U stJ.& ~ .!f ~ ... Survey Results ~ Part II ~ ~ uo;;;;,. -- g.. ~. 0 ..., Rankin~s (Bases on Me~n Scores) :::.e. Col' f J ,, ff ,---, oo"""';:::Jo . -~-

I J.ove Lucy (1951) 1 3 6 7 5 4 9 8 2 5 ---- ~ 1---+-----·--- The Adventures of Ozzie I L 3 I 1 I 2 I 7 ~~j 6 I 8 I 4 J J I 11 f-- llarriet (1952) -- ·---~--!----+·- . . .. ____ --·-- 'l'hc Honeymooners (1955) 1 3 6 9 5 4_j_7 8 2 6 ~ ~--4---~ -- -~-,-----t-- The Andy Griffith Show 1 2 7 6 9 7 4 5 3 9 (1960) I I --1---\- -1 1 5 The ( ~~~~ 1 va:_~vke Show I I I 8 I 6 I 7 t-=----1 4 I 9 1. 3 +--- _j ___ j ___~ __ The Bevf!rly llillbilliea 2 7 3 1 5 6 8 9 4 12 r--~62) Bewitched (1964) 2 7 3 8 9 4 14

;he Mary •ryter Moore Show r 1 t=8 ~- 2tl5.~-;·-~---l--~--1 - -~~------. ·--6t-- - --i---~~--- All ln the Family (1971) I 1 4 2 j 8 5 7 9 3 2 1-- 4 f. ------1-1------1----·----·------:·"'"'" ... "'" 11971~-t~~t~_l_!__ 3 13 M*A*S*Il (1972) _J~ B 9 5 I 7 I 1 4 I 6 2 4 --3-~~ 9 1 8 1----1---·-r-~o tappy D~ys (1973) 2 6 r;--r-5 · ~------+-- ·--+--1----~----1---1---1·-- ... _____ ·----- 'l'hree's Company (1977) 1d 6 15 ·----·------· .. ··------·- --- . ------· 3 5±±7 4 Cheers (19821 3 5 ±I itj 8 ------·-···------·------· ·-- ---·- --~---·__: ____ _:__ --~---· --~-- 9 ----4···

The Cn~by Show (1984) 2 7 9 6 5 3 8 4 7 ... ----·--· ...... L--'----'----'-----1---.L----'

...... c:...... TABLE 7

Survey Results Part III (Question I)

1. favorite Situation Comedy, 1950-1985 Percentages/Count

Programers ( I 0) Critics ( I 5) Writers/Producers (32) Total (57)

The Mary Tyler Moore Show 40% (4) M*A*S*H 33% (5) The Mary Tyler Moore Show 22% (7) The Mary Tyler Moore Show 21% (12) I Love Lucy 20% (2) The Honeymooners 13% (2) The Honeymooners - 9% (3) M*A*S*H 12% (7) Dobie Gillis 10% (I) Buffalo Bill 13% ( 2) The Dick Van Dyke Show 9% (3) I Love Lucy 9% (5) The Dick Van Dyke Show 10% (I) I Love Lucy 7% (I) All in the Family 9% (3) The Honeymooners 9% (5) All in the Family 10% (I) Topper 7% (I) I Love Lucy 6% (2) The Dick Van Dyke Show 9% (5) Barney Miller 10% _(I) The Dick Van Dyke Show 7% (I) He & She 6% (2) All in the Family 9% (5)

The Mary Tyler Moore Show 7% (I) M*A*S*H 6% (2) He & She 4% (2) ! All in the Family 7% (I) My Little Margie 3% (I) Barney Miller 4% (2) The Bob Newhart Show 7% (I) Sergeant Bilka 3% (I) Buffalo Bill 4% (2) Leave it to Beaver 3% (I) My Little Margie 2% (I) My World & Helcome to It 3% (I) Topper 2% (I) Happy Days 3% (I) Sergeant Bilka 2% (I) Barney Miller 3% (I) Leave it to .Beaver 2% (I) Soap 3% (I) Dobie Gillis 2% (I) Taxi 3% (I) My World & Welcome to It 2% (I) Cheers 3% (I) The Bob Newhart Show 2% (I) Family Ties 3% (I) Happy Days 2% (I) Soap 2% (I) Taxi 2% (I) Cheers 2% (I) Family Ties 2% (I)

L--.______------·- -

1-"

N"'" TABLE 8

Survey Results Part III (Question 2)

2. Best Situation Comedy on Television Today (Prior to September, 198S) Percentages/Count

Programers Critics Writers/Producers To't a 1

The Cosby Show 47% (9) The Cosby Show 39% (9) The Cosby Show 33% (17) The Cosby Show 37% (34) Cheers 2 I% (4) Cheers 30% (7) Cheers 31% (16) Cheers 29% (27) II% (2) 13% (3) (8) Family Ties Newhart Family Ties 16% Family Ties 13% c12> 1 Newhart II% (2) Family Ties 9% (2) Newhart 8% (4) Newhart 10% (9) I Kate & Allie 5% (I) Kate & Allie 4% (I) Kate & Allie 6% (3) Kate & Allie 5% (5) Who's the Boss? 5% (I) Hail to the Chief 4% (I) Who's the Boss? 4% (2) Who's the Boss? 3% (3) Brothers 2% ( I) Brothers 1% (I) Hail to the Chief 1% (I)

.... ~ w