To give you a better idea of what I'm talking about, come 1994, the show Friends (https://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/screenwriter/2016/01/20/why-i-hate-friends/) made its debut on NBC. And you can argue that that show's success convinced advertisers to never associate themselves with something as decidedly downmarket and non-aspirational as Roseanne for the foreseeable future.

Roseanne attempted to depict a real-life blue collar family unit, possibly as a counterblast to the lavish soap operas which were past their peak at this time, as the general public got weary of the romance and machinations of the rich. I rarely watched Friends, but wasn't the humour based around the latest doings of the singles brigade? Roseanne might have lasted but for the plastic surgery and toupee props which detached the series from its roots and therefore its core support.

The obvious and short answer is yes. The show was revived and it's still thriving (minus Roseanne) today with the spin-off, The Conners.

Also..."downmarket and non-aspirational"? Says who? It was aspirational because it showed a blue collar family who didn't have it all together. I can't think of another show that had done this before. I think it was actually successful because it was a refreshing take on middle America, one that people had never seen before portrayed on TV. This show had nothing to do with Friends (minus a reference that Roseanne made later in the series) and its success. It was popular because it was the antithesis of Friends.