Fans, why did the ratings slide?

[Warped9]

This is something of a companion thread to "Fans, why do you like..." I just don't want to derail that thread and risk it getting too far afield because I'm finding it informative.

But as devoted fans: After TNG's peak in the early '90s why couldn't TNG reverse the slipping ratings? Why do you think the ratings slide continued downward and never reversed?

Was the mainstream audience turning its back and why?

 

[ChristopherPike]

Not to seek to derail this thread...

But I presume you are planning to start a thread on why The Original Series was never a big success, during those original NBC broadcasts?

I recognise how you hold Star Trek to a higher standard than any of its spin-offs, but this latest round of topics per series does seem to carry more of a bias.

 

[Warped9]

Not to seek to derail this thread...

But I presume you are planning to start a thread on why The Original Series was never a big success, during those original NBC broadcasts?

I recognise how you hold Star Trek to a higher standard than any of its spin-offs, but this latest round of topics per series does seem to carry more of a bias.

Fair enough. I was just trying to think how to reword the question there.

As I mentioned I'm writing up something of a retrospective for the franchise. I have my own thoughts on all this stuff, but thats only my perspective. As in many things I suspect there's always more than one or two reasons why something is popular or conversely unsuccessful. In fairness I want to offer up other views. It isn't sufficient to simply say, "It tanked because it sucked." You have to at least try to be more articulate and specific as to why something worked or not.

 

[LaBarre]

Not to seek to derail this thread...

But I presume you are planning to start a thread on why The Original Series was never a big success, during those original NBC broadcasts?

I recognise how you hold Star Trek to a higher standard than any of its spin-offs, but this latest round of topics per series does seem to carry more of a bias.

We all know that the most successful series ever on any study you might care to mention was ST:TNG so what's to be gained by this?

God help me I know I'll get responses along the lines of "well if you don't care you don't need to post" messages, but seriously guys - is it too much to ask people who are truly interested in the TNG thread to concentrate on TNG rather than this drivel?

And why is it that this is considered an acceptable topic in the TNG thread?

 

[ChristopherPike]

Fair enough. I was just trying to think how to reword the question there.

Hey, it's your project and I admire your obvious love for the Original. But you already have so many persuasive arguments why its a superior show, without rubbing our faces in it. A run of 18 years on television from TNG to ENT clearly had something going for it, despite the non-stop slide for more than a decade. Only event programming gets the same kind of ratings that were around in the 60's. Televisions in most peoples homes are treated like wallpaper, ignored amidst the wealth of other choices around and Executives generally see more value in small numbers of loyal audiences than they used to. Which is why Enterprise was kept on the air to low numbers of 2.5 million (give or take PVRs and VCRs, which despite being in record numbers went uncounted). We're living in the multi-channel age, where any number of niche programming can have a channel all to itself.

Perhaps somebody can correct me here, but TNG remained wildly popular beyond its seventh season, until Insurrection proved a disappointment and that began filtering down to audiences slowly leaving the TV shows too.

 

[Warped9]

^^ I feel you're alluding to some hidden motive on my part and you're wrong. I can see why people can be drawn to other incarnatiuons of Trek even if I may not agree with them. But I feel I'm being fair in reflecting those views even if I don't agree.

So can we get back to subject at hand?

 

[LaBarre]

^^ I feel you're alluding to some hidden motive on my part and you're wrong. I can see why people can be drawn to other incarnatiuons of Trek even if I may not agree with them. But I feel I'm being fair in reflecting those views even if I don't agree.

So can we get back to subject at hand?

Which is?

 

[Warped9]

^^ The subject at hand is the initially posted question: after TNG's peak in the early '90s why did the ratings slide?

- was it quality?
- was it lost interest?
- was it competition?

It could be several of many reasons. The question is asking for fans' opinions.

 

[Whoa Nellie]

But as devoted fans: After TNG's peak in the early '90s why couldn't TNG reverse the slipping ratings? Why do you think the ratings slide continued downward and never reversed?

Do you have some reference for this because I honestly don't recall a slide in ratings for TNG during its initial run. I would think that if TNG had had a steady downward slide in the ratings Paramount would not have made the TNG movies, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. Studios don't usually make spinoffs from failed series that are slipping in the ratings. Remember, it took several decades for TNG to come about and only after TOS had spent those decades gaining popularity in syndication and success with the movies.

Perhaps somebody can correct me here, but TNG remained wildly popular beyond its seventh season, until Insurrection proved a disappointment and that began filtering down to audiences slowly leaving the TV shows too.

That's the way I remember it as well. IIRC, the TNG series actually went out on a high note. In fact, during the finale season it became the first syndicated television show to ever be nominated for an Emmy in the Best Dramatic Series category.

Warmest Wishes,
Whoa Nellie

 

[Too Much Fun]

IIRC, the TNG series actually went out on a high note. In fact, during the finale season it became the first syndicated television show to ever be nominated for an Emmy in the Best Dramatic Series category.

Warmest Wishes,
Whoa Nellie

Yeah, but that wasn't because of quality. That was just sort of a pat on the back for being successful enough to have a seventh season after the Emmy voters were too snobby to show them love for the previous, far superior seasons (3-6 at least). It happens all the time. It's like a director winning an Oscar for one of his lesser films while his earlier ones were ignored because those better ones he made when he was younger were too edgy and gritty for the dinosaurs who vote.

But to get back on topic, I don't think there ever was a ratings slide. I read a very thorough book on the history of TNG and it confirms that the ratings were strong even at the end. I think it ended more because the cast was exhausted, the studio wanted movies, and (although they won't necessarily admit it) the quality of the show was way down in the seventh season. Aside from a few brilliant exceptions, I thought it was the worst season since season 1.

 

[Whoa Nellie]

I don't think there ever was a ratings slide. I read a very thorough book on the history of TNG and it confirms that the ratings were strong even at the end.

That pretty much matches up with what I remember.

I must admit I'm always somewhat bemused by the 'decline of the Trek' threads. When I was a kid (back in the 70s) I remember my mom (my mom hates trek; my dad loves it) used to refer to TOS as 'that stupid show you and your father watch.' Star Trek is now over 40 years old and spans five television series and eleven full-length theatrical releases. Name one show in any genre that can match that.

Warmest Wishes,
Whoa Nellie

 

[blueziggy]

i could be wrong here but i think the OP data isnt correct. this is from Treknation:

First off, here's a rundown of the approximate number of homes tuned into Trek every year since TNG premiered in 1987 (these numbers compensate for the changes in the Nielsen system):

• Fall 1987 - Spring 1988: 8.55 Million
• Fall 1988 - Spring 1989: 9.14 Million
• Fall 1989 - Spring 1990: 9.77 Million
• Fall 1990 - Spring 1991: 10.58 Million
• Fall 1991 - Spring 1992: 11.50 Million
• Fall 1992 - Spring 1993: 10.83 Million
• Fall 1993 - Spring 1994: 9.78 Million

actually seems like TNG held viewership steady throughout the course of its run.

 

[Falcor5]

^^ The subject at hand is the initially posted question: after TNG's peak in the early '90s why did the ratings slide?

- was it quality?
- was it lost interest?
- was it competition?

It could be several of many reasons. The question is asking for fans' opinions.

Could you provide a link to the ratings for all 7 seasons. Its hard to give opinions with out the ratings being in front of us.

 

[Warped9]

i could be wrong here but i think the OP data isnt correct. this is from Treknation:

First off, here's a rundown of the approximate number of homes tuned into Trek every year since TNG premiered in 1987 (these numbers compensate for the changes in the Nielsen system):

• Fall 1987 - Spring 1988: 8.55 Million
• Fall 1988 - Spring 1989: 9.14 Million
• Fall 1989 - Spring 1990: 9.77 Million
• Fall 1990 - Spring 1991: 10.58 Million
• Fall 1991 - Spring 1992: 11.50 Million
• Fall 1992 - Spring 1993: 10.83 Million
• Fall 1993 - Spring 1994: 9.78 Million

actually seems like TNG held viewership steady throughout the course of its run.

Can we get this verified? Because if this is so then my initial notion about this wrong.

The buzz over TNG appeared to peak in the early '90s and then seemed to taper off. I was under the impression this was reflected in ratings.

 

[blueziggy]

i could be wrong here but i think the OP data isnt correct. this is from Treknation:

First off, here's a rundown of the approximate number of homes tuned into Trek every year since TNG premiered in 1987 (these numbers compensate for the changes in the Nielsen system):

• Fall 1987 - Spring 1988: 8.55 Million
• Fall 1988 - Spring 1989: 9.14 Million
• Fall 1989 - Spring 1990: 9.77 Million
• Fall 1990 - Spring 1991: 10.58 Million
• Fall 1991 - Spring 1992: 11.50 Million
• Fall 1992 - Spring 1993: 10.83 Million
• Fall 1993 - Spring 1994: 9.78 Million

actually seems like TNG held viewership steady throughout the course of its run.

Can we get this verified? Because if this is so then my initial notion about this wrong.

The buzz over TNG appeared to peak in the early '90s and then seemed to taper off. I was under the impression this was reflected in ratings.

http://www.treknation.com/articles/ratings_history.shtml

 

[Warped9]

^^ That's not verification. You're citing the same source.

 

[Michael]

This was posted by Dennis once (IIRC). I don't know where he got it, though.

 

[blueziggy]

from Wikipedia:

The Next Generation (1987–1994)
Main article: Star Trek: The Next Generation
Star Trek: The Next Generation, also known as "TNG", is set approximately 70 years after The Original Series. It features a new starship, the Enterprise-D, and a new crew led by Captain Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) and Commander William Riker (Jonathan Frakes). The series introduced alien races new to the Federation as crew members, including Deanna Troi, a half-Betazoid counselor played by Marina Sirtis, and Worf as the first Klingon officer in Starfleet, played by Michael Dorn. It also featured Gates McFadden as Dr. Beverly Crusher, LeVar Burton as chief engineer Geordi La Forge, and the android Data portrayed by Brent Spiner. The show premiered on September 28, 1987 and ran for seven seasons, ending on May 23, 1994.[14] Unlike the previous television outings, the program was syndicated instead of airing on network television. It had the highest ratings of any of the Star Trek series and was the #1 syndicated show during the last few years of its original run, allowing it to act as a springboard for ideas in other series. Many relationships and races introduced in TNG became the basis of episodes in DS9 and Voyager. [15] It was nominated for an Emmy for Best Dramatic Series during its final season. It also received a Peabody Award for Outstanding Television Programming for the episode "The Big Goodbye".[16]

i also do love that you are checking for confirmation of what i have found yet never once have you stated where your data about the "ratings slide" came from.

 

[LaBarre]

First off, you say:

But as devoted fans: After TNG's peak in the early '90s why couldn't TNG reverse the slipping ratings? Why do you think the ratings slide continued downward and never reversed?

Was the mainstream audience turning its back and why?

And then, when brought to book, you respond:

^^ The subject at hand is the initially posted question: after TNG's peak in the early '90s why did the ratings slide?

- was it quality?
- was it lost interest?
- was it competition?

It could be several of many reasons. The question is asking for fans' opinions.

Then, when some kind poster tries to put you out of your misery by providing the relevant ratings, you declare yourself unsatisfied with the result.

What is it, pray tell, that we can provide to satisfy you - that you yourself with a good heart seem unable to discover for yourself - so as to thereby save all of us more bother?

 

[Warped9]

This was posted by Dennis once (IIRC). I don't know where he got it, though.

Interesting. I had not seen this before.