It’s the bottom line

Butsch’s article was interesting as it spoke to the portrayals of economic class within sitcoms. The focus of his study looks at the rational for class stereotypes and particularly the way the working class man is portrayed as what he calls the ‘Buffoon’. Examining 40 years of television sitcoms he identified two distinct types of TV families which fall in to the category of either working class or middle class. From 1946 - 1990 he found an underrepresentation of working class families/occupations i.e. Flintstones.

The working class male in such sitcoms follows a very generic character outline which paints a picture of someone who is not all that bright, lacking in responsibility and immature. This generic male character is always partnered with a wife who is grounded, smart and sensible. A more current example of this dynamic would the sitcom, Kings of Queens.

During the 1980’s there was an over representation of middle class professional characters i.e. The Cosby show. Also present was the idea of the domestic – home maker; the man as the bread-winner and the woman taking care of the home. i.e. The Simpsons, The Brady Bunch and I love Lucy. Widespread affluence was also exaggerated in TV land at this time as many sitcoms had a maid or butler for example, Mr. Belvedere and The Nanny.

Butsch & Glennon interviewed many media producers, writers and executives and he was able to conclude that the stereotypes identified were simply a ‘formula’ which developed over time. Media corporations are concerned with their bottom line and therefore stick to what they know and what has been proven successful. They are often under time restraints and find it easier to ‘type cast’ and create a ‘cookie cutter character’ which they can easily cast for. The second factor that networks have to take into account is that programming must suit advertising and the needs of the advertisers. I was not aware how much advertising controls and determines ‘regularly’ programmed sitcoms. I was conscious of advertising control for things like the super bowl or major events as it is evident how advertising and the programming are designed to work with one another. For example the super bowl caters to a male demographic so we see advertising for things like beer, cars and electronics. It was interesting to note that programming is also dictated in this way on a smaller scale for day-to-day programming. Lastly, program decisions are based on target market and/or audience; as the objective is to reach and appeal to the appropriate consumer.

There was a shift in the 90’s to more of a singles oriented shows, dysfunctional families and reality TV shows along with more culturally diverse programs. This was a shift which deviated from the regular formulas of the networks. This innovation and new style of sitcoms were introduced in an effort to boost ratings which was successful. The only thing that motivated the networks’ to be innovative was a decline in ratings. Once the networks felt confident about their ratings, they reverted back to sitcoms which fit their formula and once again resorted to ‘good old faithful’. Ultimately it seems the networks are concerned solely with making a profit which requires the least amount of time and risk.

Butsch & Glennon's study concluded that 'class' stereotypes in sitcoms were not a conscious decision but were rather; embedded in the conception process of the creator/writer and is reflective of the creator’s culture. In my opinion, the networks will continue to use their ‘formula – of the working class Buffoon’ is not a true reflection of society by any means nor are the characters depicted fairly. However; from an entertainment perspective something about the working class buffoon formula is effective. The formula works, whether we agree with the stereotypes or not it success is evident in audience ratings as well as networks bottom line. So if it's not broke, why fix it!

Lindsey Bastarache