I think where i dont understand your argument though is where you seem to be suggesting that the "average" viewer couldn't stomach more than half a season of the show before they got sick or bored. That really cannot be true, not given how hugely successful it was.
It's the same with Seinfeld (in the States at least) and the likes of The Simpsons. Whether a person likes these shows or not, it would be incorrect to assume that the typical or average viewer shared their opinion because the ratings show how many people are tuning in each week and have been doing so for years.
Also it would be foolish of me to comment on whether Friends picked up an audience in the States on the back of other, established prime time shows or not. It would be foolish of me because i don't live there so what do i know? But it seems to me that this is often how American TV networks, NBC especially, do it. They often test a show in a poorer time slot and if it does well they move it to a better, more stable slot and somewhere within this process it may be paired with one of these established shows to run either just before it or just after it to help it a long the way.
This is exactly what happened with Seinfeld. Larry David has described it as being "Cheers' little brother" when Seinfeld was paired with Cheers as that show was nearing the end of its run and ultimately Seinfeld performed well in that slot and took it over when Cheers ended. If Friends did gain viewers off the back of another show then i would say that this could just as easily be because a lot of people were first introduced to it this way, not because it was a weak show but they forgot to turn the TV off or something and upped the ratings.
|