My best try at a data point is that Lisp was #4 on the TIOBE index back in the 1980s. Now it's on the fringe. I assert that people had been exposed to Lisp, it was widely used. It became less and less popular. It's not that industry didn't know Lisp; they knew it and turned away from it.
Of course, the big flaw in my argument is the growth of the industry. A huge number of new people came in. Did they know Lisp, even at a college level? Maybe, maybe not.
My counter-argument to that is that industry knew Lisp, even if the new programmers didn't. If industry wanted them to learn Lisp, it could have made knowing it a job requirement, or trained people.
Unlikely, given that TIOBE the company wasn't founded until 2000, and the TIOBE index is based on web search engine results, and there weren't any web search engines, or a web for them to search, in the 1980s.
But I remembered wrong. They list Lisp as #2 in 1988.
Another interesting offer was MacScheme.
LeLisp had a Mac version and it was used to implement an interface builder, which was demoed to Steve Jobs, who then hired the developer to create a version for NeXT.
Both Symbolics and TI delivered Lisp Machine boards for the Mac II.
Procyon developed a Common Lisp with UI for both Macs and PCs.
ExperCommon Lisp was another Lisp for Macs.
XLisp had Mac version.
On the PC there were numerous Lisp implementations.
My personal hunch is that lisp was just too expensive when most industry took off. In near every way. C compilers being basically free is a ridiculous advantage. Yes, there are free lisp implementations today. However, early mover advantage is working against them, now.
My personal hunch about the experiment (based on nothing more than my intuition) is that people think differently, and that Lisp's syntax is a good match for how some people think, but not for how the majority of programmers think. But as I said, that's just my current intuition. My intuition a year ago, for example, was different...
I would be interested in studies on this. Most I ever see is posturing and assertions with little to no evidence. Frustrating, because I think both sides have valid points. And I fully believe there is a learning curve both ways. I suspect they both converge on total ability. I am genuinely interested in ideas on how that could be explored.