Ratings Are Relative

Regarding Paul Brownfield’s “Gee, With ‘Friends’ Like This . . .” (May 19), commenting on the “hammock” time slot between “Friends” and “Will & Grace”:

It would seem that success in ratings is in the eye of the network.

I worked on the first season of “The Single Guy,” 1994-95, and we all followed the ratings assiduously. At that time, the time slot was between “Friends” and “Seinfeld.” At that time, the NBC execs felt that the show wasn’t, in the parlance of the network, “ ‘must-seeish’ enough.” The ratings ranking rarely dropped below sixth during any given week.

While this isn’t first or second, most of the other networks for which I’ve indirectly worked would have been thrilled with that ranking. Another show on which I’ve worked, “Charmed,” for the WB, would be a phenomenon with ratings like that, far outstripping anything else on their network, but they continue to renew the show even though it rates at best in the low 60s and more often in the 90s.

So maybe those shows in their cushy time slot with its built-in audience aren’t as bad as NBC says. So they aren’t Starbucks. So what? Maybe they’re just Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf.

SUZAN LOWITZ

Los Angeles

*

Brownfield’s commentary circumvents the real issue behind the demise of comedies in the 8:30 Thursday night slot: bad shows. In fact, those poorly written, nondescript, cliche-driven, so-called comedies are the Starbucks of sitcoms--each one is the same.

If NBC wants a neighboring show to succeed, it needs to find an innovative idea to complement the same audience/customers. It wouldn’t make sense to build two coffeehouses next to each other. Give “Inside Schwartz” a chance to prove itself before the grave is dug.

ROB WEISSKIRCH

Brea