From Flower Vase to Film Emperor in Hollywood

In 2000, television was still the main source of entertainment in people's daily lives. Forget streaming media; even the internet was in its early stages. Naturally, television programs were at their peak in terms of viewership.

The data used to measure the success of a TV series primarily consists of two sets of numbers.

First, the total number of viewers.

This refers to the number of people in North America (with its population of 300 million) who watched the show. At the time, ten million was the benchmark for measuring excellence.

Second, the ratings.

This specifically refers to the proportion of viewers from the 18-to-49-year-old demographic, which is the main consumer group. This data isn't a specific number but a percentage.

Assuming that there were 100 million people in North America aged 18 to 49, the rating would be a percentage, such as 1% or 2%, representing one million or two million viewers from the main consumer group, respectively.

Currently, a 3.0 (or 3%) rating is considered the baseline for a popular show. For advertisers, the higher this number, the better, as it represents greater attention from the consumer group, making them more willing to increase sponsorship.

So, how should viewership data be interpreted correctly?

The simplest way is to use examples. Let's take the 2012-2013 broadcast season and compare three well-known shows.

“The Big Bang Theory”: rating 5.5, total viewers 17 million.

“New Girl”: rating 2.2, total viewers 4.3 million.

“Elementary”: rating 2.2, total viewers 10.8 million.

How do these three shows compare?

In 2012-2013, the number of people aged 18 to 49 was 126.54 million. This is a basic reference value.

Therefore, the viewership numbers can be interpreted as follows.

“The Big Bang Theory”: the number of viewers aged 18 to 49 was “120.6 million multiplied by 5.5%,” which equals 6.95 million. The total viewership was 17 million, so after subtracting 6.95 million, the number of viewers in other age groups is about 10 million.

The difference between the two numbers isn't significant.

Conclusion: This is a show that appeals to all age groups, a true comedy for everyone.

Similarly.

“New Girl”: the number of viewers aged 18 to 49 was 2.78 million, but the number of viewers in other age groups was only 1.53 million. This is a typical youth drama favored by young people.

“Elementary”: the number of viewers aged 18 to 49 was also 2.78 million, but the number of viewers in other age groups was 8.05 million. This is why the show was called a "show for old people," and CBS, the network that aired the show, was jokingly called the "old people's channel."

In conclusion.

Measuring and judging the success of a TV series requires considering many factors, but for public networks where "advertising is life," the importance of ratings is self-evident. So, even though “Elementary” had higher total viewership, “New Girl” was always renewed more easily.

Now, let's return to “Friends.”

Up to 2000, the peak for “Friends” came during the Super Bowl in February 1996. The episode that aired after this top event saw viewership soar to 52 million, with a rating of 28.2.

That was an unattainable height.

Over the past two years, “Friends”' viewership had clearly declined. Its appeal to new viewers was decreasing, but its loyal audience remained steadfast.

Judging by ratings and total viewers, “Friends” was a typical comedy for all ages. If purely discussing numbers, shows like “Everybody Loves Raymond,” “Seinfeld,” and “Frasier” could compete, and even beat “Friends” in weekly viewership. However, in terms of its advantage across all age groups and its influence on the national audience, “Friends” was at the forefront, and that was the show's greatest weapon.

It was precisely because of this that NBC had higher expectations for “Friends”; similarly, David Crane had more ambition for the show's future—

The performance of the sixth season wasn't top-notch, and if they wanted to break the salary structure, they needed a better performance.

Chandler and Monica's finale was David Crane's first trump card, but it wasn't enough. He knew that clearly.

For some time, David Crane had been thinking about solutions, and then, coincidentally, an unexpected opportunity presented itself—

Anson.

Partly it was Anson's own charm, partly it was Marta's placement of Anson in Ross and Rachel's relationship arc, and also Anson's performance on set. Different factors collided together.

David Crane had an idea: since they had already gone along with using Anson, why not take the opportunity to fully utilize this accident?

If Anson could become a sensation, if the ratings and total viewers could rebound, then David Crane could prove “Friends”' ability:

The show was still full of vitality and could still create stars.

Not only relying on the charm of the six regular cast members, but also a newcomer actor could also gain attention and become a topic through the “Friends” platform. The show's influence on the main consumer group still existed.

NBC should see this: “Friends” not only had stable viewership, but also had explosive potential, and its influence was particularly far-reaching.

Similarly, advertisers should also see this: if Anson could become a sensation, their products could also easily gain huge attention.

This was “Friends”' greatest trump card compared to other comedies. Why were other shows' reviews and viewership sometimes better, and they won more Emmy Awards, but everyone on the street was talking about “Friends”?

David Crane needed to remind NBC of this, and prove it again.

Undoubtedly, he knew clearly that at any time, numbers were the most powerful bargaining chip, but the problem was that viewership and ratings couldn't be manipulated, but media momentum could. So, he could take a two-pronged approach and seize this opportunity to control the situation as much as possible.

A plan took shape in David Crane's mind.

Of course, the plan might not succeed, but even so they had nothing to lose. Anyway, Anson was just a newcomer, with no collateral damage; and they could always rely on the season finale two-episode broadcast of the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth episodes to open up the situation, becoming the main bargaining chip.

This was just icing on the cake.

But, what if it succeeded?

The “Los Angeles Times” report was just a small step, from David Crane's hand, with minimal effort.

But David Crane didn't lose his composure and rush to deploy it fully. It was just the “Los Angeles Times” for now.

He still needed to see the numbers to continue the plan.