When Not to Trust the Feedback

Part of the “Seinfeld” folklore includes early network research that concluded the show had little chance of succeeding--a document its producers later delighted in framing. Yet if that represents the “Mona Lisa” of focus group misfires, the exhibit would also rightfully feature one of today’s biggest hits: “Everybody Loves Raymond.”

Research from the popular CBS sitcom’s first season found that not everyone loved “Raymond.” In fact, focus groups dismissed the stories as “too thin” and “not current” and the title character as “weak,” said his wife Debra “lacks charisma” and called the supporting characters “dumb and/or annoying,” with one respondent labeling Frank, as played by Peter Boyle, “very sour.”

For producers who have seen projects live and die by such comments, the 1996 reports obtained by The Times offer insight into research’s limitations in identifying a potential hit--in this case, a show that started slowly ratings-wise but blossomed into TV’s second-most-watched comedy, preparing to head into its seventh season and conservatively expected to generate more than $500 million in revenue.

Introduced in September 1996, “Raymond” was almost the afterthought of a scheduling strategy by then-third-place CBS built around bankable TV stars, which included bringing Bill Cosby back to prime time as well as “Cheers” alumni Ted Danson and Rhea Perlman in the short-lived “Ink” and “Pearl,” respectively.

By contrast, “Raymond” featured an unknown lead in stand-up comic Ray Romano and a first-time “show runner,” or series creator-executive producer, in Phil Rosenthal. The biggest name affixed was David Letterman, whose company is one of the producers.

CBS executives liked the prototype, and initial testing yielded promising results. So the network took a relatively low-risk gamble by scheduling the program Fridays--when overall TV viewing levels ebb.

“We got their worst time slot and just squeaked onto the air,” Rosenthal said.

As the fall TV season progressed, however, ratings for “Raymond” were disappointing, falling off from CBS’ “Dave’s World” and trailing both ABC’s “Boy Meets World” and NBC’s “Unsolved Mysteries” in its time period.

During those months, CBS continued to test episodes that posted “average” or “below average” scores among groups evenly divided between two dozen men and women, who viewed and rated episodes at ASI Research in North Hollywood.

“People said the show’s story and jokes were ‘predictable,’ ‘something you’ve seen or heard before’ and ‘nothing fresh or new,’ ” read an Oct. 3, 1996, evaluation report. “Viewers wanted the show to be more ‘up-to-date’ and ‘current,’ like ‘Seinfeld’ or ‘Roseanne.’ ”

Rosenthal recalls sitting in on one research session, watching the discussion from behind one-way glass. “I remember this one guy, who said, ‘This guy’s the worst wimp; I can’t stand these kinds of wimpy shows ... and I wouldn’t watch this show unless my wife forced me,’ ” he said.

That December, CBS executives were presented a “diagnostic analysis” of negative focus group reactions to “Raymond,” suggesting, among other things, that the program wasn’t topical enough and viewers didn’t know how to categorize it. “If it is to be a family show, people often question ‘where are the kids?’ and ‘why aren’t the kids shown more?’ ” the report noted.

CBS Television President Leslie Moonves, then beginning his first full season at the network, said executives were pleased with the show’s quality but frustrated by the ratings, which “didn’t move” on Friday. The attitude, he said, was, “If the show is as good as we think it is, why isn’t it improving like a tenth of a rating point every week? Just show me a little tick--that it’s heading in the right direction.”

Although Rosenthal said he received little prodding to alter the show, he does recall stating that his intention was to produce a classic, traditional comedy and being told by one executive the words missing from that description were “hip” and “edgy.”

“There was some network interference, where they were trying to steer the show in a certain direction, but I stuck to my guns,” he said, adding of being hip or edgy, “Those are just not my values.”

With some of its more-heralded programs struggling, CBS decided to give “Raymond” a trial run on Monday nights, where the stakes--and expectations--would be higher. Before that move occurred in March, Rosenthal said, Moonves told him, “I love the show, but if you don’t perform here, I can’t do anything for you.”

Ratings for “Raymond” spiked upward in the new time slot, and the show officially shifted to Mondays that spring. During the recently completed TV season, the series averaged 20 million viewers--the fifth-most-watched prime-time program and behind only “Friends” among comedies.

In hindsight, some of the criticisms registered by focus groups have actually been assets. Unlike “Murphy Brown,” for example, an earlier CBS hit that mostly fizzled when the reruns were sold into syndication, “Raymond” has prospered in that arena--in part because Rosenthal avoided topical references, wanting to emulate the timeless quality of a show like “The Honeymooners.”

“ ‘Murphy Brown’ might have been a terrific show, but those jokes were sometimes dated before it went on the air,” he said.

“This is a show that is going to be relatable 20 years from now,” Moonves added.

Had the Monday test not gone well, “Raymond’s” prospects of a second year would have depended on the perceived appeal of newer comedies that CBS developed. So what role, ultimately, does focus group research play? “It is one tool, but only one,” Moonves said, noting that executives look for extremes--either particularly high scores or those that say, “This show is never gonna make it.”

Of course, some producers contend that that formula highlights an inherent flaw in the process, since groundbreaking programs that take creative chances often alienate a segment of the audience. To Rosenthal, who never saw the diagnostic appraisal of “Raymond,” it’s a reminder of how misleading such analysis can be.

“I’ve said to the heads of the networks, ‘Have you ever tested the testing?’ ” he said, citing the high failure rate of new programs despite the research. “I say that they should go with their gut a little more, but maybe they’re afraid to, because then you’re on the line.”

Moonves acknowledged that networks are always searching for the next instant home run and that CBS, then trying to claw out of the ratings cellar, may have felt more latitude to stick with a series that took time to clear the bases. “It’s easier when you’re in last place to go with some hunches and your gut,” he said, adding, “Once it took off Mondays, it was, ‘Whew, one less time period to worry about.’ ”