Anyone receive "These Are The Voyages..." Season 2 yet?

[Harvey]

In short, the ratings numbers are real, but the interpretation is a mess. The long version is impossible for me to type on my phone. When I get internet again I can write in more detail.

 

[albion432]

In short, the ratings numbers are real, but the interpretation is a mess. The long version is impossible for me to type on my phone. When I get internet again I can write in more detail.

Thanks Harvey, I look forward to hearing more when you get the chance . . .

 

[cbspock]

Reading interviews like this...

http://trekmovie.com/2013/10/27/exclusive-interview-with-these-are-the-voyages-author-marc-cushman/

...make it pretty evident that Cushman believes the ratings weren't low and in fact were good. He is, of course, quite wrong in this belief, which isn't supported by the facts. It seems likely that Cushman saw how Trek was performing in its timeslot (at least, on the half hour), decided Trek was a hit, and worked backwards from there. Suffice it to say, this isn't a strong way to conduct research or make an argument, but I am sure it helps sell books to have a marketing hook like that. Which is not to say I believe Cushman is primarily motivated by sales -- he just a very enthusiastic fan who, unfortunately, doesn't know what he's talking about.

and you do?

-Chris

 

[cbspock]

Reading interviews like this...

http://trekmovie.com/2013/10/27/exclusive-interview-with-these-are-the-voyages-author-marc-cushman/

...make it pretty evident that Cushman believes the ratings weren't low and in fact were good. He is, of course, quite wrong in this belief, which isn't supported by the facts. It seems likely that Cushman saw how Trek was performing in its timeslot (at least, on the half hour), decided Trek was a hit, and worked backwards from there. Suffice it to say, this isn't a strong way to conduct research or make an argument, but I am sure it helps sell books to have a marketing hook like that. Which is not to say I believe Cushman is primarily motivated by sales -- he just a very enthusiastic fan who, unfortunately, doesn't know what he's talking about.

All of that said, the question I have is what do the ratings that he's printed really say then? I have both books, for every episode he lists the "share" or the percentage of the television audience watching a given program, and the number of households that equates too. If and when Star Trek has the larger numbers in each case, what does that really mean? He also laid out at least one weeks overall rankings for all network programs. Star Trek wasn't in the top ten, but it was in the top 40, ahead of other shows like Gunsmoke, Hogan's Heroes, all of Irwin Allen's sci-fi, and Mission: Impossible. He may have cherry picked that example to publish, but could you explain what these numbers really mean? Or is it the consensus he's lied and just made these numbers up? I am sincerely curious.

He is showing Trek was doing okay on its night, but overall when compared to everything else on TV it was basically in the middle. Cushman has been analyzing the show on an episode by episode night of broadcast basis, and is saying that Trek was doing okay it wasn't in the tank as was claimed in the 70s and 80s. That is all you heard back then. Trek was a ratings disaster and didn't find its audience until syndication. Which isn't exactly true either.

-Chris

 

[Harvey]

Reading interviews like this...

http://trekmovie.com/2013/10/27/exclusive-interview-with-these-are-the-voyages-author-marc-cushman/

...make it pretty evident that Cushman believes the ratings weren't low and in fact were good. He is, of course, quite wrong in this belief, which isn't supported by the facts. It seems likely that Cushman saw how Trek was performing in its timeslot (at least, on the half hour), decided Trek was a hit, and worked backwards from there. Suffice it to say, this isn't a strong way to conduct research or ake an argument, but I am sure it helps sell books to have a marketing hook like that. Which is not to say I believe Cushman is primarily motivated by sales -- he just a very enthusiastic fan who, unfortunately, doesn't know what he's talking about.

and you do?

-Chris[/QUOTE

I won't claim to be authoritative on the subject, but Cushman makes enough sloppy mistakes in his analysis that I think I have a better grasp on the subject than he does.

 

[albion432]

Thanks Harvey for getting back to this. It sounds like you're coming down somewhere in the middle between rating success and ratings failure?

Oh, one tidbit just popped into my head, I recall Majel Barrett saying something about the way they judged demographic back in the sixtys changed just after TOS was cancelled, and had they adopted those changes earlier there was no way NBC would have taken ST off the air, and that, in essence, by cancelling ST they killed the golden goose. Do her statements tip the scale one way or the other in just how popular ST may have been on NBC?

 

[BillJ]

Thanks Harvey for getting back to this. It sounds like you're coming down somewhere in the middle between rating success and ratings failure?

Oh, one tidbit just popped into my head, I recall Majel Barrett saying something about the way they judged demographic back in the sixtys changed just after TOS was cancelled, and had they adopted those changes earlier there was no way NBC would have taken ST off the air, and that, in essence, by cancelling ST they killed the golden goose. Do her statements tip the scale one way or the other in just how popular ST may have been on NBC?

I may be wrong but I though the whole demographics thing had been debunked?

 

[Harvey]

Trek finished its first season in 52nd place. In other words, not a hit, but not a flop. Like most shows at the time that rated like this, Trek was given another chance, but in a new timeslot.

Any statements about demographic information are pure spin. Demographics were measured in the '60s and were probably a factor in the show's renewal in '67 and '68.

 

[albion432]

Trek finished its first season in 52nd place. In other words, not a hit, but not a flop. Like most shows at the time that rated like this, Trek was given another chance, but in a new timeslot.

Any statements about demographic information are pure spin. Demographics were measured in the '60s and were probably a factor in the show's renewal in '67 and '68.

Is there someplace online where I can see the ranking for series back in the sixties? I'm curious to see which shows, if any, that may have ranked lower and lasted longer.

 

[Harvey]

Wikipedia lists the top 30.

For more, see this post:

Ah, here's what I was looking for (see page 56 of the PDF):

The text of the magazine calls both Mission: Impossible and Star Trek "marginal shows" among "the vast grey belt" of programs which are "neither a clear hit nor an obvious failure."

Notice how many shows renewed with new time slots for next season.

 

[cbspock]

I am almost done with volume 2, I think volume 3 will tell the tale. I am really looking forward to that book.



-Chris

 

[Warped9]

I think volume 3 will tell the tale. I am really looking forward to that book.



-Chris

Me, too.

 

[CrazyMatt]

I think volume 3 will tell the tale. I am really looking forward to that book.



-Chris

Me, too.

^

 

[cbspock]

One thing I never realized until reading these books was how messed up the production was behind the scenes. I don't think any book really delved this deep into the production especially on an episode by episode basis. This is the first time I can recall where we get to see the politics and the banter between the production people and the network. We also get additional commentary from the actors as well, compiled from their various books or new interviews. It also puts the show in context of what TV was really like in the 60s instead of focusing on "Star Trek" the legend.


-Chris

 

[CrazyMatt]

One thing that really fascinates me is how much of a cultural phenomenon Star Trek was during it's first two seasons. Just the number of newspaper and magazine articles it generated between the fall of '66 and spring of '68 prove that point.

If not for NBC's antipathy towards Gene Roddenberry (which, in fairness, GR brought upon himself to a large degree), they could have really set this show up for ratings success by moving it to a prime slot and promoting it more aggressively.

Unfortunately, once the buffer provided between the network (and studio detractors) and GR by the show's two "protectors" (Herb Solow and Lucille Ball, who both exited stage right during the second season) was removed, it was open season on Roddenberry... and thus on Star Trek itself.

 

[albion432]

Wikipedia lists the top 30.

For more, see this post:

Ah, here's what I was looking for (see page 56 of the PDF):

The text of the magazine calls both Mission: Impossible and Star Trek "marginal shows" among "the vast grey belt" of programs which are "neither a clear hit nor an obvious failure."

Notice how many shows renewed with new time slots for next season.

Thank you Harvey. This is very helpful, and a good resource to have access to.

 

[cbspock]

One thing that really fascinates me is how much of a cultural phenomenon Star Trek was during it's first two seasons. Just the number of newspaper and magazine articles it generated between the fall of '66 and spring of '68 prove that point.

If not for NBC's antipathy towards Gene Roddenberry (which, in fairness, GR brought upon himself to a large degree), they could have really set this show up for ratings success by moving it to a prime slot and promoting it more aggressively.

Unfortunately, once the buffer provided between the network (and studio detractors) and GR by the show's two "protectors" (Herb Solow and Lucille Ball, who both exited stage right during the second season) was removed, it was open season on Roddenberry... and thus on Star Trek itself.

That is another good point, I never realized how much material was out there about Star Trek during it's run on TV. I knew about the model kit and that was about it. It seems the actors like Nimoy and Shatner were in demand for appearances, the show also got a bunch of good press. If they knew what that had we probably would have seen the star trek phenomena we later got when the show hit syndication a lot earlier.

In addition to that buffer zone being eroded the changes in producers and the shortages of stories didn't help especially when some scripts or stories were approved before the network officially gave their blessing to them, like the Ultimate Computer. It also seemed like when relationships between Trek and the Network healed over something would come up to pick at old wounds unsettling the situation all over again.


-Chris

 

[Harvey]

One thing that really fascinates me is how much of a cultural phenomenon Star Trek was during it's first two seasons. Just the number of newspaper and magazine articles it generated between the fall of '66 and spring of '68 prove that point.

If not for NBC's antipathy towards Gene Roddenberry (which, in fairness, GR brought upon himself to a large degree), they could have really set this show up for ratings success by moving it to a prime slot and promoting it more aggressively.

Unfortunately, once the buffer provided between the network (and studio detractors) and GR by the show's two "protectors" (Herb Solow and Lucille Ball, who both exited stage right during the second season) was removed, it was open season on Roddenberry... and thus on Star Trek itself.

How did Star Trek's press coverage compare to other programs of the era? That seems an essential piece of information before you can evaluate the press coverage the show received as being indicative of a phenomenon.

 

[BillJ]

How did Star Trek's press coverage compare to other programs of the era? That seems an essential piece of information before you can evaluate the press coverage the show received as being indicative of a phenomenon.

I would think the other question would be: was this genuine interest or NBC pulling the strings?

 

[cbspock]

How did Star Trek's press coverage compare to other programs of the era? That seems an essential piece of information before you can evaluate the press coverage the show received as being indicative of a phenomenon.

I would think the other question would be: was this genuine interest or NBC pulling the strings?

If we go by the book it would seem NBC wasn't doing much or going out of their way to get Trek press. It does seem there was a lot of fan involvement in spreading the word through fanzines. However I think the TV interviews and industry press was coming from NBC and I think the book alludes to that much at least.


-Chris