Sesame Street Letter/Number Guide: Season 2

ssetta

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
2,252
Reaction score
100
There might have been some other pattern. If you look at the Big Bird at Camp shows from 1982, the numbers that sponsored the 5 shows in order were 2, 3, 8, 4, and 5. I don't know how they decided.
 

ISNorden

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
1,290
Reaction score
53
Actually, I believe that the listing of D, M, and 2 (the sponsors of 1091) as the sponsors of 1092 was a faux pas on behalf of CTW back when the episode originally aired. You'll notice that the same SS/CTW sign stills (I forget who was holding the SS sign, but the Count was holding the CTW sign) are used as in 1091 as well, so I can infer that CTW accidentally used the 1091 announcement and closing cards twice. How, I dunno.

I am guessing the actual sponsors were D, N, and 3, or maybe M, N, and 3. I'm not sure.

Yes indeed, the sponsor announcement and CTW sign for Episode 1092 accidentally repeated the ones intended for #1091. The actual sponsors for #1092 are M/N/3; how the producers never caught such a huge mistake, I'll never know.
 
Last edited:

ISNorden

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
1,290
Reaction score
53
Also, the fact that during all these years (although it changed finally at some point) that the number sponsor was never "1" and never higher than "12" partially helps to explain the fact debated in another post about why all those series (Pinball Number Count, etc) never went higher than 12 and never did a 1 segment. However, it still doesn't explain why those were the limits for the number sponsors. I can understand having a stopping point, but did they decide that children didn't need to know about 1?


Greg

I'm guessing that the curriculum advisors thought counting to 1 felt silly and pointless; if only one of something exists, the number is fairly obvious (ask any kindergartner who has trouble sharing a toy or a snack!). If I'd been an adult on the curriculum committee back then, I would have taught the number 1 differently: 1 is most important as a starting point, a home base, a building block for making bigger numbers.
 

YellowYahooey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2019
Messages
659
Reaction score
133
Yes indeed, the sponsor announcement and CTW sign for Episode 1092 accidentally repeated the ones intended for #1091. The actual sponsors for #1092 are M/N/3; how the producers never caught such a huge mistake, I'll never know.
A similar incident occurred on a repeat of "The Amazing Mumford makes Sesame Street Disappear". The original and repeat airings had the sponsors D, S and 6 announced and displayed on screen, when the repeat really had the sponsors J, Z and 4. I do remember this bizarre occurrence from a Canadian broadcast of the repeat way back in late 1979 or very early 1980.
 

YellowYahooey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2019
Messages
659
Reaction score
133
Quick Lesson in Mathematics

For episodes 276 to 1055, the number featured can be determined as follows:

(step 1) Subtract 16 from the episode number, then divide by 130. This is the season number (starting with zero).

(step 2) To find the season-opening episode number, multiply the number obtained in (step 1) by 130 and add 16.

(step 3) Subtract the season-opening number (step 2) from the episode number. Divide by 11. The number sponsoring that show: the remainder plus 2.

Example: #871 (a Noggin ep. from the 75-76 season; Q-Y-11)

(871-16)/130 = 6 [6+1969=1975]

6 * 130 + 16 = 796

871-796=75

75/11=6 r 9

9+2=11

Also verified for the 76-77 Noggin eps. 1037 (E-F-3) and 1041 (K-Z-7).

The 77-78 Hawaii eps. make less sense. The number on 1090 should have been 3, according to this rule.

I know that since (at least) the 86-87 season, letters and numbers were purely random, with no pattern at all.
I am trying out this math equation with the Season 13 premiere, but I cannot seem to get the result, which should be 12.

I know there should be an equation, as there were strings of consecutive episodes with ascending numbers (reverting back to as early as 2, after 12).

I am thinking that, from 1986-87 season onward, randomization of sponsored numbers was likely computer-generated, it seems.

I actually wonder if an episode's fresh sponsored letter has a calculation as well? Traditionally, if a sponsored letter is used for two days straight, that letter on the first of the episodes would be the majority letter (more segments than the other sponsored letter), and if that same letter is used on the next episode, it is designated the minority letter (traditionally two segments max for that letter in the latter case).

The first couple of months of episodes in Season 16 (excluding reruns) had pairs of consecutive letters, but as per Unpaved episode from late-February 1985, it appeared that pairs of non-consecutive letters started to become the norms again. It's like reliving the first many weeks of Season 11, and I was never a fan of constant pairs of consecutive letter sponsors. I love variety.
 
Last edited:

YellowYahooey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2019
Messages
659
Reaction score
133
There might have been some other pattern. If you look at the Big Bird at Camp shows from 1982, the numbers that sponsored the 5 shows in order were 2, 3, 8, 4, and 5. I don't know how they decided.
I do know that the first five shows of Season 15 had the sponsored numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. I remember this from my vivid memory, though I am aware that Muppet Wiki does not rely on memories as reliable sources. It would be interesting to find out why they skipped the number 6 in that week.
 

YellowYahooey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2019
Messages
659
Reaction score
133
Step #2 is incorrect, as per Microsoft Excel. The correct equation should be:

step 2: 276+((9-2)*130

Steps 1 and 3 are fine.

The person who posted such equation was probably unaware about Season 2 having 145 episodes instead of 130.

I'm going to try to figure out the equation for the sponsors used in at least the early 1980s seasons, and maybe determine if there is an equation for selecting the sponsored letters per show, assuming A -= 1, B ÷ 2, C = 3, etc.

I would like to ask, was the reason for randomizing sponsored numbers due to generating results higher than 12, and no segments for 13 to 20 were produced by 1986-87 season, and prompted the CTW to produce segments for numbers 13 through 20 so that they could return to the equation?
 

YellowYahooey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2019
Messages
659
Reaction score
133
I rechecked the math just now. It's not accurate. Someone must have relied on pen and paper when the post was made way back in 2003 and obviously miscalculated.
 
Top