What possessed ABC to place Spenser for Hire as the Sunday @8 show?

I know they had to counterprogram MSW and Family Ties but a low rating series that had not done anything special in it's first season? Odd, especially as a lead in to Dolly.

And ABC wasted the movie on Thurs night. There were some strong titles there that would have performed better elsewhere.

They should have thrown O'Hara @8 and Hotel @9 and hoped for the best.

Full House looked like a flop at this point.

NBC was obliterating the competition on Sat night.

But their  hour long shows JJ Starbuck, Year in the Life, Crime Story ,Rags to Riches and Private Eye all failed.

Everything on CBS was declining-soaps, comedies , dramas and the newbies like Tour of Duty and Wiseguy had not flourished.

Apart from Sunday night their highest rated show was Dallas-yikes!

I can say Moonlighting S4 was atrocious. I'm not surprised the ratings started to tank then. And no, it was NOT because David/Maddie got together a season earlier: The fallout was just executed as sloppily, stupidly, and horribly as humanly possible. 

1 hour ago, Paul Raven said:

And ABC wasted the movie on Thurs night. 

ABC Thursday had been a dead zone since 1982/83.

1 hour ago, Paul Raven said:

Full House looked like a flop at this point.

Full House started slow but it showed growth two seasons later with the launch of TGIF.

1 hour ago, Paul Raven said:

Everything on CBS was declining-soaps, comedies , dramas and the newbies like Tour of Duty and Wiseguy had not flourished.

Apart from Sunday night their highest rated show was Dallas-yikes!

CBS primetime scripted line up was not looking good heading into 1987/88. Murder, She Wrote still a hit. Dallas, Newhart, Kate & Allie, Falcon Crest, Knots Landing, Simon & Simon; Magnum, P.I.; Cagney & Lacey were aging. The Equalizer not a hit. Only returning new drama Houston Knights. Returning new comedies Designing Women, My Sister Sam, The Cavanaughs. 1987/88 CBS ended Magnum, P.I; Cagney & Lacey, Houston Knights, My Sister Sam, the new dramas that returned were Beauty and the Beast, Jake and the Fatman, Tour of Duty, Wiseguy, and the only new comedy to return was Coming of Age.

12 hours ago, kalbir said:

CBS primetime scripted line up was not looking good heading into 1987/88. Murder, She Wrote still a hit. Dallas, Newhart, Kate & Allie, Falcon Crest, Knots Landing, Simon & Simon; Magnum, P.I.; Cagney & Lacey were aging. The Equalizer not a hit. Only returning new drama Houston Knights. Returning new comedies Designing Women, My Sister Sam, The Cavanaughs. 1987/88 CBS ended Magnum, P.I; Cagney & Lacey, Houston Knights, My Sister Sam, the new dramas that returned were Beauty and the Beast, Jake and the Fatman, Tour of Duty, Wiseguy, and the only new comedy to return was Coming of Age.

If we've said it once, we've said it a million times: if not for MSW and Angela Lansbury, CBS would've been TOAST.

8 hours ago, Khan said:

If we've said it once, we've said it a million times: if not for MSW and Angela Lansbury, CBS would've been TOAST.

It cannot be emphasized enough that Angela Lansbury carried CBS primetime on her back through some pretty awful years from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s.

A couple of 1986 articles re primetime soaps tanking that I don't think have been posted here before. I've quoted them in case the links end up having paywalls.

PRIME-TIME TV SERIALS LOSE EDGE - The New York Times

Quote

To the executives who assembled ABC's current program schedule with the hope that the network's ratings slide could be stemmed, ''The Colbys'' must have seemed irresistible.

''The Colbys'' is a spinoff of the prime-time soap opera ''Dynasty,'' the campy, hugely successful program that was last season's top-rated series. ''Dynasty'' was a bright spot on an ABC schedule of programs that slipped to third place in the prime-time ratings competition.

But ''The Colbys'' has struggled for an audience this season, and other prime-time network serials are performing below par. And the view in the television industry is that, after eight years as the hottest program genre on television, the prime-time soap opera is nearing its end.

''The shows are aging, they're getting tired,'' said Joel Segal, executive vice president in charge of television for Ted Bates Advertising. ''Serials are not hot. My guess is that we won't see as much in the way of serials next season.''

It is a widely held view. M. Donald Grant, president of CBS Entertainment and the man who started the serial trend by putting ''Dallas'' on the air in 1978, says that CBS has informed Hollywood's production community that the network is no longer interested in nighttime soaps.

''There are just too many of them on the air,'' Mr. Grant said in a telephone interview. ''It's my hunch, instinctively, that this particular cycle is over.''

Dominated TV Last Year

If so, it will be a sudden and somewhat surprising end for a programming genre that dominated network television just last year. ABC's ''Dynasty,'' the story of the wealthy but uneasy lives of the Carrington clan of Denver, not only became the top-rated series but also led a group of serials that were the most popular shows among advertising's favorite audience - young women.

According to Mr. Segal, ''Dynasty'' rated No. 1 among women 18 to 49 years old, followed by CBS's ''Dallas.'' The other CBS nighttime soaps, ''Knots Landing'' and ''Falcon Crest,'' were rated fifth and 11th among young women.

But this season, the top three shows among women are NBC's Thursday night comedies - ''The Cosby Show,'' ''Family Ties'' and ''Cheers.'' ''Dynasty'' has slipped to No. 4; ''Dallas'' and ''Knots Landing'' are tied for 10th, and ''Falcon Crest'' has slipped to 27th.

Most of the serials have slipped among the general audience as well. Last week, for example, ''Dynasty'' ranked 18th in the A. C. Nielsen ratings, and its offspring, ''The Colbys,'' which has to compete with NBC's popular Thursday night lineup, ranked 54th among 69 network prime time shows.

CBS's ''Dallas'' and ''Falcon Crest'' have both faltered slightly in the ratings as well. Only CBS's ''Knots Landing'' has remained steady.

Brandon Stoddard, president of ABC Entertainment, blames bad scripts for the decline of ''Dynasty.'' He recently said that new plots will be infused into the series.

Tough Competition Cited

And Ted Harbert, vice president of program planning and scheduling at ABC, maintains that the weak showing of ''The Colbys'' is misleading because the NBC shows it competes against are so popular. He said the show may need a year or more to find an audience.

But Mr. Grant of CBS thinks that nighttime audiences have just had too much of the serial form, which requires more consistent viewer loyalty than the successful daytime soap operas usually command.

Mr. Grant noted that one of the problems with prime-time soap operas is that they do not fare well when the networks repeat episodes, a fact that has prompted CBS to replace its serials in the rerun season, from May to September. ''We're in a 52-week-a-year business,'' Mr. Grant said. ''We have to attract audiences in the repeat season as well.''

None of the three networks have a prime-time serial in development for next season's schedule.

Bill Crosedale, vice president for television for Batten Barton Durstine & Osborn, the advertising agency, says he thinks that part of the decline in serials' ratings may be caused by viewers videotaping the shows and watching them later.

But Mr. Crosedale said the more likely explanation was viewer fatigue. ''There's just a certain commitment that viewers have to make to a continuing serial, watching it on the same day, week in, week out,'' he said. ''How many hours a week can you commit to this programming?''

SOAPS NO LONGER CLEANING UP WITH NIGHTTIME VIEWERS – Chicago Tribune

Quote

On Feb. 26, viewers of night-time soap operas–make that prime-time serials–drew up in front of their sets in anticipation of one of the most heralded confrontations since the time six years ago when Bing Crosby`s little girl plugged J.R.

This time, though, instead of a blood bath, it was to be a mud fight, as Alexis Carrington Colby Dexter (Joan Collins) squared off against Krystle Carrington (Linda Evans) at a land-dedication ceremony on ”Dynasty.” As it turned out, though, the two exchanged not blows, but words, Alexis hissing at Krystle, ”You stupid bitch–look what you`ve done to this outfit,” and Krystle hissing back, ”I`ve never seen you looking better.”

Not a great moment in television history, perhaps–or, perhaps, it was a great moment in television history–but the hype was just one more attempt to pull ”Dynasty” out of this season`s troubling Nielsen-numbers tumble.

Not that the ABC Wednesday night show has been the only soap opera to experience a ratings dropoff that is disturbing to network executives, advertisers and viewers. In late November, for the first time since January of 1983, neither of the Big D`s–”Dallas” and ”Dynasty”–finished in A.C. Nielsen`s national top 10. As of this writing, the latest weekly tally showed that although CBS` ”Dallas” had made the 10th spot, ”Dynasty” had been clocked in 15th. In fact, in the first 23 weeks of this season, ”Dynasty” has finished out of the top 10 nine times and ”Dallas” has missed it on eight occasions. And CBS` ”Knots Landing,” said to be the currently hottest soap, has made the Big Bracket only twice since its fall opener.

At the end of the 1983-`84 season, the soaps were hulking around like prime-time television`s 900-pound gorillas. ”Dallas” had finished No. 1, ”Dynasty” No. 3 (behind ”60 Minutes”), CBS` ”Falcon Crest” No. 7 and ”Knots Landing” No. 9. And at the start of 1984-`85, ”Dallas” was consistently finishing No. 1 or 2, and ”Dynasty” somewhere in the top three, although by February of `85 ”The Cosby Show” had put what has proved to be a lock on first place.

A while back, Brandon Tartikoff, president of the entertainment division at NBC, the only network that has eschewed this particular genre, observed that the era of prime-time soaps is ending and that the audience is ”tired of the superficial, glittery, back-stabbing characters in these shows.”

Addressing some 80 TV critics during their January sojourn to Los Angeles, Brandon Stoddard, the new president of ABC Entertainment, started off by saying, ”The most important thing that you`ll be hearing in the next three days–let`s get it on the table–is what`s happening to `Dynasty.` We think a number of mistakes have been made.

”The two areas we`ve been working on right now are the Moldavia story and the kidnaping,” he went on, referring to the serial`s much-publicized coup in a fictitious European country and the subsequent attic-stashing of key character Krystle Carrington–plot developments that, since Stoddard`s remarks, have been curtailed.

In what seems to be a continuing circle-the-wagons mentality, executives of third-place-in-the-Nielsens ABC declined to be interviewed for this article. However, David Poltrack, vice president for research at CBS, concedes, ”I don`t see any of these shows returning to their original height. Because during their peak, when `Dallas` and `Dynasty` were fighting for No. 1, they were the lead story in the consumer press, like People magazine. Now, sitting in positions that are down a little, they can`t be expected to generate the same kind of promotional excitement. So unless they get a megastar to play a role, or build a particularly intricate plot or kill off one of their characters in a traumatic fashion, I don`t see them moving up by any significant level.”

”The primary thing to remember is that these shows have been on for quite some time,” says Harvey Shephard, CBS senior vice president for programming. ”Every television show reaches a point where it experiences audience decline, usually after five or seven years. When a show with key individuals has been on for so many years, you sort of run into dry spells as far as storytelling avenues are concerned. There are only so many stories about the oil or wine industries. Another factor is that, to a large degree, they`ve been effectively counterprogrammed, like `Miami Vice` going up against `Falcon Crest.` The soaps do play strongly to women–particularly those over, say, 35–while `Miami Vice` clearly is going for a younger audience.

”But the shows still do very well. `Knots Landing` consistently wins its time period (9 p.m. Thursdays); I think it`s the only one that hasn`t experienced an audience decline. I think too much has been made of the erosion. Basically, it`s a way of getting headlines.”

”There`s probably nothing surprising about the ratings trend,” says Mike White, media director of Needham Harper Worldwide Inc. advertising agency. ”Virtually everything comes and goes–comedies, westerns. We use up television programs so fast. With the soaps, you probably get tired of watching the same casts of characters going through basically the same kinds of problems. Or maybe it`s the whole titillation thing, which was one of the reasons for their success. Titillation that is continual isn`t titillating anymore; it`s boring. These shows also lose their believability. They get more and more bizarre, and after a while you say, `I don`t need this.”`

”Like any other program trend, the soap opera is in a bit of trouble,” agrees Chris Geist, an associate professor at the Center for the Study of Popular Culture at Bowling Green University in Ohio. ”Part of the problem is that there`s just so much farther you can go with the form. There aren`t many intimacies and tricks you can pull. This season, in fact, the audiences rebelled against some of them–particularly the `Dynasty` audience. They want intrigue among the characters, like Alexis and Krystle, which is more appealing than fantastic plots, plane crashes, revolutions. And sometimes when you look back over those gimmicks, you`ll see that the characters are forced to act out of character, which always upsets the audience. We`ve already seen nuances in J.R. Ewing, and if J.R. is forced to act unlike J.R., it doesn`t work.

”I think producers sometimes lose track of the fact that they have a literate audience out there–literate, that is, in terms of television. We know when a series is second-rate. `Flamingo Road` (NBC, 1981-`82) is a perfect example. This year, `The Colbys` (ABC) is having the same problem; it`s derivative.”

Besides repetition and derivation, the serials experience problems particular to the form. ”One economic factor is that the soaps don`t do well in repeat episodes,” White says. ”That`s what keeps them from proliferating, because they`re basically one-shots.” Consequently, down the road–`Flamingo` or otherwise–syndication, normally a great profitmaker for television programs, is ”often a soft spot” for the soaps, according to Earl Hamner, creator and executive producer of ”Falcon Crest.”

For a newcomer unaccustomed to the prime-time (or any-time) serials and assigned to pop in cold for several weeks–soaptus interruptus, as it were–the viewing revealed that scenes periodically switch from the home bases of Denver, Dallas, northern and southern California to such spots as Hawaii, Australia and Monte Carlo; that such personally-past-prime-time performers as Cesar Romero and Ruth Roman are in demand for guest appearances; and that some of the regulars nip back and forth between shows (in an apparent ratings push, Diahann Carroll was required to sing ”I`ve Got You Under My Skin” on ”Dynasty” and ”Come Rain or Come Shine” on ”The Colbys”) and some (like the once-supposed-dead Fallon Carrington Colby) even change faces.

As to recent plot maneuverings, there has been a wine-shipment hijacking and a vineyard-sale sting (”Falcon Crest”), an abduction during a Colombian emerald-mine expedition (”Dallas”), a paternity hearing, suspicious oil spill and equally suspicious suicide (”The Colbys”) and a water-reclamation scam (”Knots Landing”). And we`re not even talking about the wife pulling an elephant gun on the husband (”The Colbys”), the sleazy reporter posing as a nanny (”Dynasty”) and the sleazy reporter posing as a saxophone player (”Knots Landing”).

Hamner says that the demise of the soaps–at least his own–has been prematurely reported. ”I can only speak for `Falcon Crest,` but I do not think its death is imminent. We have been told to go ahead with the `bible` (story line) for next season and to start setting directors, which is a healthy sign of life.

”In `Miami Vice,` we`re up against the steamroller of all time, yet we`ve been able to maintain a very decent audience. We still get 30, 33 shares (percentage of those TVs in use), which is damn good. In general, we are also kind of tied to the apron strings of `Dallas` because we inherit the audience from their timeslot.

”But when you spot the ratings going down, you examine it and see what you can do. For instance, later this month we`ll be introducing a new character, which I think will raise the temperature a bit: The daughter of Chao Li, the major domo at Falcon Crest, who arrives from Communist China and gets involved in an uncharacteristically uncomplicated love story. Then, too, since we have superb actors, we can more fully explore their characters` emotions. Now, most of the time, I will admit, we explore them on the bed, but our shows aren`t totally written from the groin.”

CBS` Poltrack is cautiously optimistic about the next few seasons. ”The soaps may slip a little, but I don`t see them dropping beneath the acceptable level of performance–about a 17 rating. Which `The Colbys` is just about making. Perhaps they chose to spin it off at an inopportune time–`Dynasty` itself was struggling–and they also put it against `Cheers` and `Simon & Simon.`

”`Knots Landing` is the show that`s really holding up strong. The characters are right out of middle-class America and are a little more believable than those in the bigger-than-life fantasies. `Dynasty,` with the whole Moldavian thing, may have stretched the fantasy a little too far, and the readjustment of the whole protagonist-antagonist relationship on `Dallas` since the death of Bobby Ewing is perhaps its particular problem. There really hasn`t emerged a counterpart to J.R. with the power of Bobby, which is critical to the show. `Falcon Crest,` from the qualitative point of view, probably has gotten inherently stronger this season. And it`s lost only two rating points since last year despite being up against `Miami Vice.”`

As for new night-time soaps, none is on drawing boards for the fall season. ”You have to look at where you`d put one,” Poltrack says.

”Wednesday, Thursday and Friday nights are covered, people don`t stay home every Saturday night and on Sundays and Mondays you have an established pattern of mini-series and major films that pull people away. For example, when CBS had `Emerald Point N.A.S.` on Monday nights, NBC had one big movie after another. So Tuesday is the only night that has the potential.”

”There`s definitely a prejudice against this type of show,” adds Hamner. ”At this point, I wouldn`t take one to the networks.”

 

Great articles @kalbir Thanks for posting'

A number of factors at play-the natural aging of any series plus the fact that the soaps are tied to certain characters and it gets harder to find new stories to tell. Viewers had a different expectation to watching a soap than say Magnum PI.

The stories themselves like Moldavia and the Emerald mine were just not that good. 

They probably would have done better with more 'realistic' stories but they started to chase publicity and sensation.

Exactly the same issues daytime faced when they turned to plot orientated stories and continually focused on the same characters.

Falcon Crest should have been tried a different night and Dallas moved back to 10pm.

ABC did that with Dynasty and it did OK.

The Colbys should never been scheduled for 9pm Thursday and Dynasty was sent there to fail.

The height of Dallas mania. The strike delayed the new season so the hype was even greater.

19 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

Great articles @kalbir Thanks for posting'

You're welcome @Paul Raven

19 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

A number of factors at play-the natural aging of any series plus the fact that the soaps are tied to certain characters and it gets harder to find new stories to tell. Viewers had a different expectation to watching a soap than say Magnum PI.

The stories themselves like Moldavia and the Emerald mine were just not that good. 

They probably would have done better with more 'realistic' stories but they started to chase publicity and sensation.

1984/85 the primetime soaps pulled out all the stops to out-do each other and that also played a part in them tanking during 1985/86.

19 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

Falcon Crest should have been tried a different night and Dallas moved back to 10pm.

CBS had bigger things to worry about: too many one season and done shows leaving them with lots of space to fill, lack of success with sitcoms.

19 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

The Colbys should never been scheduled for 9pm Thursday

1984/85 Simon & Simon weakened a bit and Cheers showed growth so maybe ABC thought The Colbys would be good counterprogramming. As we all know, 1985/86 Cheers took off and clobbered Simon & Simon, thus The Colbys was pretty much DOA once it was regularly scheduled Thursday 9 pm.

A bit late to the party but those were fascinating reads @kalbir! Thanks for sharing. 

 

On 10/13/2025 at 1:47 AM, Paul Raven said:

A number of factors at play-the natural aging of any series plus the fact that the soaps are tied to certain characters and it gets harder to find new stories to tell. Viewers had a different expectation to watching a soap than say Magnum PI.

The stories themselves like Moldavia and the Emerald mine were just not that good. 

They probably would have done better with more 'realistic' stories but they started to chase publicity and sensation.

Exactly the same issues daytime faced when they turned to plot orientated stories and continually focused on the same characters.

Falcon Crest should have been tried a different night and Dallas moved back to 10pm.

ABC did that with Dynasty and it did OK.

The Colbys should never been scheduled for 9pm Thursday and Dynasty was sent there to fail.

Great points especially on the increased sensationalism and comparison to what doomed the daytime soaps as well.

Dallas and Falcon Crest could’ve been made more grounded easily; I’m not so sure grounding Dynasty would’ve ever worked. Alexis and Krystle getting into a catfight over a parking spot at K-Mart?

Not sure where  Falcon Crest would’ve moved to by this point. By this point keeping the Dallas-FC Friday night double bill going had become essential. Maybe FC could’ve moved to Tuesday nights at 10 or get thrown on Saturday nights at 10?
 

Of course the new hotness Miami Vice would become the new coldness the following season and LA Law ended up moving as FC stabilized. Poor Earl though I wonder if he knew his time coming to a close? He mentioned Li-Ying who I enjoyed but her run ended up so short. 

As kalbir pointed out CBS was having other issues at this point. Notably so many aging hits, while impatiently trying to build a whole new Wednesday night lineup out of a movie night failed miserably except for the Equalizer. 
 

On 10/13/2025 at 9:19 PM, kalbir said:

1984/85 Simon & Simon weakened a bit and Cheers showed growth so maybe ABC thought The Colbys would be good counterprogramming. As we all know, 1985/86 Cheers took off and clobbered Simon & Simon, thus The Colbys was pretty much DOA once it was regularly scheduled Thursday 9 pm.

Cheers’ history and its ratings has always intrigued me, mainly because the show went through a couple different eras and iterations. The lower rated Coach and Sam/Diane years are held in higher regard; the Harrelson/Alley years, which were more popular at the time, haven’t aged as well or aren’t seen at the same level these days.

CBS moving Knots Landing up to 9/8 in the fall of 86 was a chance at counter programming that backfired as well before settling on that weird schedule of Simon & Simon at 8:30/7:30, Designing Women at 9:30/8:30 and Knots at 10/9. 
 

On a final note interesting choice words there by Brandon Tartikoff; towards the end of his run at NBC L.A. Law had become the same way and would be its eventual downfall as well. 

36 minutes ago, soapfan770 said:

A bit late to the party but those were fascinating reads @kalbir! Thanks for sharing. 

You're welcome @soapfan770

36 minutes ago, soapfan770 said:

Of course the new hotness Miami Vice would become the new coldness the following season and LA Law ended up moving as FC stabilized.

NBC got too overconfident and they messed up Friday in 1986/87 with the move of Miami Vice to 9 pm head-to-head with Dallas. L.A. Law did not do the job at Friday 10 pm that NBC wanted it to (clobber Falcon Crest) so L.A. Law got moved to Thursday 10 pm where it ended up further weakening Knots Landing. It will forever not be funny that L.A. Law first Thursday episode was Jeanne Cooper first appearance as Gladys Becker. I see what you did there NBC, you're not fooling me.

36 minutes ago, soapfan770 said:

CBS moving Knots Landing up to 9/8 in the fall of 86 was a chance at counter programming that backfired as well before settling on that weird schedule of Simon & Simon at 8:30/7:30, Designing Women at 9:30/8:30 and Knots at 10/9. 

CBS messed up Thursday in 1986/87. 8 pm Simon & Simon was DOA head-to-head with The Cosby Show and CBS thought 9 pm Knots Landing would finish off The Colbys but it was instead weakened by Cheers. Eventually Simon & Simon moved back to 9 pm and Knots Landing moved back to 10 pm but the damage was already done. 

 

 

 

Luckily Knots survived that move to 9pm. The thing was they had already tried Knots at 9pm in 81/82. It did OK at 9pm following Magnum but was losing a lot of the lead in. Magnum was hitting the Top 10 and Knots was in the 20's and 30's.

So why they would try again a few seasons later? Well  we know the cupboard was pretty bare at that time.

CBS Friday also suffered by the lack of a stronger 8pm show that might have helped Dallas. They let Dukes of Hazzard play there too long. Once a show drops it's time to move it, or drop it. Dukes had weak competition and still faltered. CBS should have tried something there while they had the chance.

Dukes fell from #6 in 81/82 to #30 in 82/83 and CBS did nothing.

Detective in the House which took over would have little appeal to the Dukes audience.

13 hours ago, soapfan770 said:

Cheers’ history and its ratings has always intrigued me, mainly because the show went through a couple different eras and iterations. The lower rated Coach and Sam/Diane years are held in higher regard; the Harrelson/Alley years, which were more popular at the time, haven’t aged as well or aren’t seen at the same level these days.

I think that might be because the first five seasons tend to be in the same vein as "Taxi".  Characters are more layered and lend themselves more to pathos.  By contrast, the latter seasons are more farcical, with characters being flattened out and reduced to one or two, easily identifiable traits that lend themselves better to gags.

Of course, there will always be that contingent of fans who prefer the latter seasons for the simple fact that they find Diane to be the most annoying creature alive, lol.