In the year 2000, television remained the primary source of entertainment in people's daily lives. Streaming services were nonexistent, and even the internet was still in its early stages. Naturally, TV show ratings were at their peak.
The success of a TV show was primarily measured by two sets of numbers.
First, *viewership*—this literally refers to the number of people in North America's population of 300 million who watched the show. At that time, 10 million viewers was the benchmark for success.
Second, *ratings*—this specifically refers to the percentage of viewers within the key demographic of 18 to 49-year-olds. Unlike viewership, ratings are expressed as a percentage.
For instance, if there were 100 million people aged 18 to 49 in North America, a 1% rating would indicate that 1 million people in this key demographic watched the show. At the time, a 3.0 rating (or 3%) was the baseline for a popular show. Advertisers naturally preferred higher ratings because it meant more attention from the consumer base, making them more willing to sponsor the show.
But how should one correctly interpret these ratings?
A simple comparison is the most straightforward. Let's take the 2012-2013 TV season as an example and compare three well-known shows.
- **"The Big Bang Theory"**: 5.5 rating, 17 million viewers.
- **"New Girl"**: 2.2 rating, 4.3 million viewers.
- **"Elementary"**: 2.2 rating, 10.8 million viewers.
How do these shows stack up against each other?
In 2012-2013, the 18-49 age group in North America numbered 126.54 million, which serves as a basic reference.
Thus, the ratings can be interpreted as follows:
- *The Big Bang Theory*: 6.95 million viewers in the 18-49 demographic (126.54 million x 5.5%). With a total viewership of 17 million, this means around 10 million viewers were outside this key demographic.
The conclusion? This is a show that appeals to all age groups, making it a true nationwide favorite.
Similarly,
- *New Girl*: 2.78 million viewers in the 18-49 demographic, with only 1.53 million viewers in other age groups. This is a typical youth-oriented show.
- *Elementary*: Also 2.78 million viewers in the 18-49 demographic, but with an additional 8.05 million viewers in other age groups, leading to its label as a "senior show," with CBS humorously nicknamed the "senior network."
Thus, the success and evaluation of a show depend on many factors. However, for public networks where "advertising is life," ratings are crucial. Therefore, even though "Elementary" had more total viewers, "New Girl" was always more easily renewed.
Now, let's refocus on "Friends."
By 2000, the peak of "Friends" came in February 1996, when an episode aired right after the Super Bowl. It drew 52 million viewers and achieved a 28.2 rating.
That was an unattainable height.
Over the past two years, the ratings for "Friends" had gradually declined. Its appeal to new viewers was waning, though its loyal audience remained strong.
For the sixth season, the peak came with the first episode, as everyone was curious about the aftermath between Ross and Rachel. It garnered 27 million viewers and an impressive 15.0 rating.
This once again proved that "Ross and Rachel" were still the most potent ratings draw for "Friends," which is why the writers kept revisiting their storyline.
However, after that, the ratings began to gradually decline.
To be clear, the show was far from a failure—far from it. The viewership consistently stayed between 20 and 23 million, with ratings hovering around 10.0. It remained firmly in the top tier of ratings, but by "Friends" standards, the performance was less than satisfying.
Judging by both ratings and viewership, "Friends" was a show with broad appeal, beloved by both young and old. In terms of pure numbers, shows like "Everybody Loves Raymond," "Seinfeld," and "Frasier" could compete, even outperforming "Friends" in weekly ratings. But when it came to broad appeal and influence across all demographics, "Friends" was in the lead, and that was the show's greatest strength.
**It's for this reason that NBC had higher expectations for "Friends." Likewise, David Klein harbored greater ambitions for the show's future.**
The performance of the sixth season wasn't exactly stellar. If they wanted to break the pay structure, they needed better results.
Chandler and Monica's storyline in the season finale was David Klein's first ace in the hole, but he knew it wasn't enough.
For some time, David Klein had been pondering a solution. Then, by a stroke of luck, an unexpected opportunity presented itself—Anson.
On one hand, there was Anson's inherent charisma; on the other, Marta had positioned Anson within Ross and Rachel's storyline. Additionally, Anson's performance on set had impressed. These factors collided in a perfect storm.
David Klein had an idea. Since they had already brought Anson into the fold, why not fully capitalize on this unexpected opportunity?
If Anson could become a breakout star, and if ratings and viewership could rebound, David Klein could prove one thing about "Friends":
The show still had vitality, still had the power to create stars.
It wasn't just the charm of the six main cast members. Even an unknown newcomer could gain attention and become a talking point through the platform that "Friends" provided. The show's influence on the key demographic remained strong.
NBC needed to see this. "Friends" not only had consistent viewership but also retained the capacity for explosive impact, with far-reaching influence.
Likewise, advertisers should see this. If Anson could become a star, their products could also easily gain massive attention.
This was the biggest advantage "Friends" had over other comedies. Why, when other shows had better reviews, higher ratings, and more Emmy Awards, was "Friends" still the show everyone talked about?
David Klein needed to remind NBC of this and prove it again.
Undoubtedly, he knew that numbers were the most powerful bargaining chip. The problem was, viewership and ratings couldn't be manipulated, but media hype could be. So, he planned to tackle this from both angles, seizing the opportunity to control the narrative as much as possible.
A plan began to take shape in David Klein's mind.
Of course, the plan might not succeed. But even if it didn't, they had nothing to lose. After all, Anson was just a newcomer, so there was no collateral damage. Besides, they could always rely on the double-header of episodes 24 and 25 to open negotiations.
This was merely the icing on the cake.
But what if it worked?
The report in the "Los Angeles Times" was just a small step, a gesture orchestrated by David Klein with minimal effort.
But he didn't rush into a full-scale media blitz. It was only the "Los Angeles Times" for now.
He still needed to see the numbers before he could proceed with the plan.