Prior to the 1990s, with a few exceptions, most networks when promoting their shows wouldn't advertise what would properly turn out to be the final episode of the season of a show except for usually indicating that its a new episode. Sitcoms in particular were subject to this as well as most non-serial programming. I feel this was done to persuade viewers to keep watching into reruns, and many local TV sections didn't mention that episode as being the last until the fall. In the 1970s and '80s, when there was very little summer replacement programming, reruns of course were the norm at the Big Three and PBS, so perhaps "hiding" the fact that future episodes will be repeats won't alienate their audiences?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Why didn't the networks usually advertise season finales for many of their primetime shows until the 1990s?
- Thread starter pannoni1
- Start date
they thought season finales would hurt syndication
No, not so. Shows don't go into syndication right after a season is over... today they go to the subscription channels and services. Then, they go into syndication. And, usually, a show never makes it to syndication unless it has the magic 4 to 5 season 100 episode number finished with decent ratings.
Syndication looks at the success of the show, and evaluates how many people did not see it as well as how many will like seeing it again. They also look at whether the episodes stand on their own or have to be seen in sequence. They also look at the ages of the live-and-video recorder audience to see if, years later, the shows will attract a salable demo. Those, and other factors, determine the price.
And today, many shows will not go into syndication until much later as the networks and producers have their own subscription on-demand services where they can make more money.
viewing patterns/habits change over time.
1990’s? Try 1980’s. Definitely had a lot to do with the rise of more serialized storytelling from primetime soaps like Dallas, Dynasty, and Knots Landing, and regular dramas with story arcs like Hill Street Blues, L.A Law, thirtysomething. Sitcoms such as Cheers, Family Ties, Golden Girls etc has their own story arcs as well. Before that most shows were pretty episodic and self contained overall.
Shows like Golden Girls and Frasier do well in syndication for two reasons. One, I don't think either of these really changed their “arc” much. The principle characters didn’t change much. Two, they were brilliantly written. It is when sitcoms try to change all the basics they fail.
Last edited:
You can easily find examples both of traditional style shows come and go quickly, and those that upend the formula that lasted quite some time. There isn’t a one size fits all recipe for success.
I agree, but I am referring to syndication success. Name me a strong syndicated sitcom today that upended the formula. I'm not sure there is not one, I just can't think of one.
I don't know of any sitcom that would be viable in syndication today. The ones I am aware of would be first run on Network TV and then later have a rebroadcast on TV streaming outlets. I know there was a recent case of a sitcom that did well initially on Network TV then had some success in syndication and its reboot had some success on Netflix. I mean Full House and its related show Fuller House.
- Status