I've always thought that there was vocabulary problem at work here, in that we tend to use the same words--bomb, flop, disaster--to describe both
commercial and artistic failures, which are very different concepts. With the result that we often end up talking past each other.
Granted, there are plenty of shows that fail on both levels, and there may even be a causal link sometimes, but they aren't the same thing --and it can get confusing when we throw the terms around interchangeably.
Just because something bombed doesn't mean it sucked, and vise versa.
(There's also the understandable human tendency to conflate our individual opinions with the general audiences', as when we assume that because we and our like-minded friends all disliked something, it must
have bombed at the box office, right?)