I've never been bought by the whole "threat of cancellation" story for 1967. It sounds quite dramatic until you consider that they were given 26 weeks to raise the ratings - six months worth of episodes. To me, that sounds like a pretty leisurely timeframe for a situation apparently so drastic. It's waaaaaaaaay more notice than the show had when eventually was yanked in 1971.
People also overlook the fact that the show had already been renewed from its initial six month order in 1966 - that in itself suggests that it was doing acceptable business. I tend to think that DS was it was renewed, just with more stringent expectations than before - not the outright make-or-break situation it's since been painted as.
Leisurely for today maybe, but I might have been a different story in 1966, I tend to agree with you there. I don't pretend to know much about how daytime TV at that time was judged/rated by the networks, but I am sure it was more economical to renew with a mandate to raise the viewership than ax it unceremoniously and start from scratch on something else.
Whether the show was facing cancellation or not, it is indisputable (as far as these things can be indisputable) that the vampire character was to be brought on temporarily, and that Mr. Frid understood that to be the case. That this general plan of events remained in place for some time is borne out by the letters JoeyTrom mentions Frid writing in the summer (approximately three months after he started the show) that the character would be axed by September (and later, that this would happen in November). The temporary nature of the character (even if the exact time allotted increased) is more germaine to the question of how much effort would have gone into creating the character than whether the series itself faced cancellation. I guess I don't know enough about how the television industry works (or worked during this time, or how ABC handled things), but I don't see why the show might not have been given a six-month lease to see if ratings would improve.
**********
Re: my earlier "Character by Committee" post ... I forgot to mention Robert Costello's having supplied the name "Barnabas" to the character.
When all this evidence is weighed in, it really looks like the character of Barnabas Collins was developed as a collaborative effort. That a character as interesting as Barnabas Collins came about as a committee effort truly surprises me -- I would have expected just the opposite: one fell swoop of inspiration, with one creative mind responsible.
While it appears that Art Wallace deserves credit to some degree, his statement "I created Barnabas Collins" implies (at least to me) that he was the sole originator and developer of the character and doesn't suggest collaborative effort. Why he would have said this if it wasn't the case (and it hardly seems possible given the other testimonies adduced here) leaves room for speculation. I would suggest the possibility that his involvement had been forgotten, that he was exasperated by that, and that he perhaps exaggerated his role in the course of this particular interview as a result of the lack of recognition. That's truly speculation.
