This is definitely one possibility. To paraphrase Mr Howell on Gilligan’s Island, “Message shows don’t make money.”
My point is it was not the fault of these shows. 36 episodes of a serial show where no one dies is repetitive. It was supposed to be that way because it was only once a week viewing and not binging, video or youtube. The british shows had a different arc and different needs of the audience and the company. I was always grateful to be in the US and not the UK myself, from what I know about the BBC.
You’re just not talking about american tv of the 20th century here. Our needs are irrelevant.
How come? Because of the licence fee?
To paraphrase Homer Simpson: “Drugs. The solution to all of life’s problems!” 
Because of the variety, and choice. We could see lots of British shows too.
Oh. You know we have a lot more than the BBC though, right? Have done for decades.
As I understand it, there was a lot of criticism at the time over the “Rural Purge,” as Silverman/CBS cancelled a number of shows which were still popular, and were still getting good ratings, even if they may have been past their prime, and in the case of The Andy Griffith Show/Mayberry R.F.D., was a continuation of a show after the original stars had left.
On the other hand, it opened up room on the CBS schedule for other shows, some of which became classics, including All in the Family, MASH, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, and The Bob Newhart Show.
That was a well established sitcom strategy, hence the use of the leads first name. They appeared as foils for eccentric characters. I give Andy credit for the quality in his show just as much as Knotts who was great obviously. And more than Nabors.
In other words, quantity as opposed to quality.
I suppose there’s a rationale for this. After all, not every British series is a gem. On the other hand, I’m not sure being inundated with crap is preferable to having it offered to you piecemeal.
OK I’m old.
We’ve had more than the BBC since the 50s. Don’t think you’re that old!
It’s just because British shows tend to have one writer, or a pair of writers that always work together, rather than a team of writers, so it’s just more difficult for them to create long seasons. Both approaches have their pluses and minuses IMO.
It does take a good actor to play such a role without being eclipsed by others, definitely. Which is why it was important for Andy not to be the funniest guy on the block. He was the island of calm in the middle of a sea of absurdity.
Well you try to avoid the crap. Lots of UK tv in the US in the 60s.
UK tv was more intelligent. I get it. And I find old tv mostly unbearable. But to be the actual audience back then, I was fully there. And I didn’t want to be in England.
Think about the fantastic themes of shows in the 60s. It was very robust musically. To be honest that is the main reason to want to see any of the shows now. They make other eras seem anemic. I fade out after the theme song and credits though.
Wife and I watched Network recently, for the first time. Awful. Each major character was given at least one canned speech to deliver as if on a stage. They should have dimmed the lights and put a spotlight on the speaker. I’ve seen soaps that were more real.
I feel sorry for writers who are locked into trying to grind out a quality script every week from September through April or May. (Usually, they fail.)
I can understand how they can burn out completely after a few years.
There used to be this thing called Black Comedy. That was before we started living in it and not being able to discern it. From reality as it happens.
Anecdotally: didn’t all the english stars of the 60s love the american tv choices, hours of operation, and general fanfare?
How long has the UK had all night broadcasting? I really thought it was limited.
Some of these shows were still doing decently in the ratings. The problem was that the wrong demographics (older people) enjoyed these shows and advertisers wanted CBS to switch to programs younger people would watch.