Gary Seven - Why try create new series when current one is struggling.

[Drone]

I'm skeptical of those claims about Paley. If he hated the series so much, why did CBS even pick up the pilot?

A Google search turns up several accounts similar to this one, but if Paley wanted the series killed as soon as the ratings dipped, how did it survive for three seasons? Figures on Wikipedia indicate the show finished in 32nd, 35th, and 33rd place during its first, second, and third seasons, but the sources cited are not strong, and the information I have pegs its overall performance during 1966-67 year as a significantly lower 44th. CBS didn't have any problem cancelling Mr. Terrific, which ranked 36th that year, but somehow it renewed Lost in Space, a show William Paley supposedly despised? I don't buy it.

In January of 1966, 7.4% of television households had color sets. By November of 1967, 19.3% of television households had color sets. Since these figures were from December of 1966, the percentage of television owning households with color televisions was somewhere between these two figures. The point being, at the time those ratings were taken, something like 85-90% of television households were watching on black and white televisions. At that time, color television viewership was a niche audience of highly educated, urban, and upper income households -- in other words, Star Trek's key demographic (outside of young children).

I'm not necessarily denying the veracity of the lower figure for the second season, but I would only say that it appears in that same account that you have linked to, in which you dispute the characterization given to Paley's supposed convictions. If you find that contention suspect, why give credence to the ratings citation, unless you have found it elsewhere, as you describe it as "the information that I have". If there is another, more authoritative source for that figure, would you kindly identify it? I would also say that the narrative that is presented in that piece for the attitude of Paley and CBS brass seems substantial and cogently presented, not a skimpy set of vague and plausibly unqualified statements. Now, as I've learned here, readers of the Cushman opus might find certain aspects, if not a preponderance of it, to be similarly presented with a persuasive veneer, at least until they've been clued into the reality of its bonafides. I won't claim the ability to make the same absolute judgment about this LIS wiki, but I recognize as factual from a number of other sources, including some that convincingly quote production team members, a number of the anecdotes concerning the early development path of the series and details of its effects workings. Do you find a general factual fault in the Wiki, other than your sense of the improbability of what it states about the boardroom's attitude about the program?

 

[Harvey]

If you find that contention suspect, why give credence to the ratings citation, unless you have found it elsewhere, as you describe it as "the information that I have". If there is another, more authoritative source for that figure, would you kindly identify it?

The figure I quoted is from the August 1967 issue of Television Magazine (which can be downloaded and read in full here). Returning to that source, I now realize that it also contains Lost in Space's ranking in the ratings from the 1965-66 season -- the show was 35th.

Do you find a general factual fault in the Wiki, other than your sense of the improbability of what it states about the boardroom's attitude about the program?

I can't speak to the veracity of the Lost in Space Wiki one way or another -- I pulled it up with a Google search after reading your comments, and in general know very little about the production history of Lost in Space itself. I've only seen 2-3 episodes of the series, and that was at least ten years ago.

The passage from that page which leads me to be suspect is this: "He [William Paley] made it clear to his executives that if the show [Lost in Space] didn't deliver an audience, it was to be instantly destroyed." While it appears that Lost in Space had some initial success in the ratings (of the shows that were introduced during the 1965-66 season, Weekly Variety reported that it was the 4th best rated newcomer in its December 8, 1965 issue), by the end of its freshmen season, Lost in Space's average rating placed it outside of the top thirty (it was 35th). The following season, the show's ratings dropped nine places (to 44th). And yet, the show was renewed, not destroyed. None of that appears to be the behavior of a network ready to ax a show if the audience wasn't there (unlike Star Trek, there was no prestige value to Lost in Space, either).

 

[Drone]

Thanks for providing a solid backup to that information, as well as the additional diminished figure. That definitely puts a different light on the Wiki's contention that LIS was the master of its domain through January '66, but regained its equilibrium. Perhaps, that statement can still be validly maintained, but clearly the show didn't return to any kind of clearly dominant stature during the remainder of the season.

I also very much appreciate your reminding me of a very good source that will prove quite valuable in some queries I have on other programs from the same era. Thanks again!

 

[Harvey]

I also very much appreciate your reminding me of a very good source that will prove quite valuable in some queries I have on other programs from the same era. Thanks again!

The entirety of that site -- http://www.americanradiohistory.com/ -- is truly a treasure trove. I was first turned on to it after following some of the citations on Television Obscurities (which is also great).