[Toups]

If you're going to copy/paste, please link. Thank you.

Numbers are based on Live+Same Day ratings

Ratings for the week June 22-26, 2009

(Compared to Last Week/Compared to Last Year)

Total Viewers
1. Y&R 4,977,000 (+208,000/+75,000)
2. B&B 3,217,000 (+75,000/-277,000)
3. DAYS 2,847,000 (+257,000/+275,000)
4. OLTL 2,412,000 (-122,000/-179,000)
5. GH 2,391,000 (-34,000/-411,000)
6. AMC 2,286,000 (-143,000/-222,000)
7. ATWT 2,165,000 (-67,000/-407,000) <--------- new low (Previous low: 2,209,000 for June 8-12, 2009)
8. GL 1,873,000 (+51,000/-239,000)


HH
1. Y&R 3.5/11 (+.1/-.1)
2. B&B 2.3/7 (same/-.2)
3. DAYS 2.1/6 (+.1/+.2)
4. OLTL 1.8/6 (same/-.2) <------ ties low (Last time: 1.8/6 for June 15-19, 2009)
5. AMC 1.7/5 (-.1/-.2) <-------- new low (Previous low: 1.8/6 for June 15-19, 2009)
5. GH 1.7/5 (-.1/-.4) <--------- new low (Previous low: 1.8/5 for June 15-19, 2009)
7. ATWT 1.6/5 (same/-.3) <------ ties low (Last time: 1.6/5 for June 15-19, 2009)
8. GL 1.4/4 (+.1/-.1)


Women 18-49 Viewers
1. Y&R 1,069,000 (+46,000/+45,000)
2. DAYS 831,000 (+77,000/+82,000)
3. GH 751,000 (-3,000/-234,000)
4. B&B 706,000 (+67,000/-73,000)
5. OLTL 698,000 (-51,000/-161,000)
6. AMC 623,000 (-45,000/-149,000)
7. ATWT 465,000 (-35,000/-175,000)
8. GL 402,000 (+2,000/-162,000)


Women 18-49 Rating
1. Y&R 1.6/11 (+.1/same)
2. DAYS 1.3/8 (+.2/+.2)
3. GH 1.1/7 (same/-.4) <-------- ties low (Last time: 1.1/7 for June 15-19, 2009)
3. OLTL 1.1/7 (same/-.2)
3. B&B 1.1/7 (+.1/-.1)
6. AMC 0.9/6 (-.1/-.3) <--------- new low (Previous low: 1.0/6 for June 15-19, 2009)
7. ATWT 0.7/4 (-.1/-.3) <-------- ties low (Last time: 0.7/5 for June 8-12, 2009)
8. GL 0.6/4 (same/-.3) <--------- ties low (Last time: 0.6/4 for June 15-19, 2009)


Girls 12-17 Viewers
1. Y&R 61,000 (+9,000/+10,000)
2. OLTL 55,000 (-15,000/-11,000)
3. GH 47,000 (-14,000/+5,000)
4. B&B 44,000 (+8,000/+18,000)
5. DAYS 40,000 (-3,000/-16,000)
6. GL 34,000 (same/+7,000)
7. ATWT 31,000 (-6,000/-13,000)
8. AMC 28,000 (-6,000/-12,000)


Women 18-34 Rating
1. DAYS 1.0/6 (+.1/same)
2. Y&R 0.9/6 (-.1/+.1)
3. GH 0.8/5 (same/-.4)
3. OLTL 0.8/5 (same/-.2)
5. AMC 0.7/4 (same/-.1)
6. B&B 0.5/3 (-.1/-.2)
7. ATWT 0.3/2 (-.2/-.3) <--------- new low (Previous low: 0.4/3 for June 8-12, 2009)
8. GL 0.2/1 (-.1/-.2) <----------- new low (Previous low: 0.3/2 for June 15-19, 2009)


Men 18+ Viewers
1. Y&R 1,061,000 (-4,000/-130,000)
2. B&B 642,000 (+9,000/-118,000)
3. DAYS 554,000 (+96,000/-7,000)
4. AMC 415,000 (-74,000/+22,000)
5. ATWT 407,000 (+4,000/-137,000)
6. GH 385,000 (-23,000/-79,000)
7. GL 380,000 (+32,000/-78,000)
8. OLTL 373,000 (-86,000/same)

-------------------------------------

[B]Day-To-Day Ratings - HH/Total Viewers[/B]

[B]AMC[/B]
Monday: 1.8/2,526,000
Tuesday: 1.7/2,271,000 (President Obama pre-emption; only aired for 31 min on the east coast)
Wednesday: 1.7/2,256,000
Thursday: 1.6/2,139,000
Friday: 1.6/2,232,000

[B]ATWT[/B]
Monday: 1.6/2,327,000
Tuesday: 1.5/2,038,000
Wednesday: 1.7/2,328,000
Thursday: 1.6/2,162,000
Friday: 1.6/1,970,000

[B]B&B[/B]
Monday: 2.4/3,444,000
Tuesday: 2.1/2,909,000
Wednesday: 2.4/3,263,000
Thursday: 2.4/3,290,000
Friday: 2.4/3,181,000

[B]DAYS[/B]
Monday: 1.9/2,569,000 (did not count: Golf pre-emptions; only aired for 21 mins on the east coast)
Tuesday: 1.9/2,556,000 (President Obama pre-emption; only aired for 31 mins on the east coast)
Wednesday: 2.1/2,984,000
Thursday: 2.0/2,815,000
Friday: 2.1/2,891,000

[B]GH[/B]
Monday: 1.7/2,424,000
Tuesday: 1.9/2,517,000
Wednesday: 1.8/2,459,000
Thursday: 1.7/2,237,000)
Friday: 1.7/2,319,000)

[B]GL[/B]
Monday: 1.3/1,856,000
Tuesday: 1.3/1,676,000
Wednesday: 1.5/2,138,000
Thursday: 1.3/1,843,000
Friday: 1.4/1,853,000

[B]OLTL[/B]
Monday: 1.8/2,508,000
Tuesday: 1.8/2,415,000
Wednesday: 1.7/2,358,000
Thursday: 1.7/2,302,000
Friday: 1.8/2,476,000

[B]Y&R[/B]
Monday: 3.4/4,858,000
Tuesday: 1.9/2,664,000 (President Obama pre-emption; only aired for 1 min on the east coast)
Wednesday: 3.5/5,041,000
Thursday: 3.5/4,927,000
Friday: 3.6/5,120,000

----------------------

For the SEASON September 22, 2008 through June 28, 2009

HH
1. Y&R 3.8
2. B&B 2.6
3. DAYS 2.2
3. GH 2.2
5. AMC 2.0
5. ATWT 2.0
5. OLTL 2.0
8. GL 1.6

Women 18-49 Rating
1. Y&R 1.8
2. DAYS 1.5
2. GH 1.5
4. OLTL 1.2
4. B&B 1.2
4. AMC 1.2
7. ATWT 1.0
8. GL 0.8

[CarlD2]

I think what they did with Katherine/Jill and with Phillip were about trying to "fix" what many fans saw as problems. I never had a big problem with Katherine/Jill being related because I feared Jill would be further isolated if they were unrelated, and unfortunately, that seems to be happening. I think the big problem is they don't think about what they will do with a story once it happens. There should have been more effort to show the complicated relationship between Katherine and Jill. There should not have been silly stories where Jill lost her money and had to go back to filing nails.

It's tempting for me to believe today's budget problems mean soaps no longer know how to tell stories, but I still don't think that is an excuse for Y&R. Paul Rauch should know how to tell stories. The problem is they have three headwriters who don't know how to tell them. Sheffer never has. Hamner didn't know how at PC. Remember when we found out right before or right after that awful DV Bordisso left the show that he was Scott's father?

[Ann_SS]

SteveFrame, on 08 July 2009 - 10:25 PM, said:

It's the same with the Luke/Laura thing. I hate that Luke cheated too, but come on folks I have seen the best of men fall by the wayside and give in to temptation. It happens.

As one of the sex therapists said one time:

Women need a reason to have sex, men just need a place.

I'm not saying that it is right for men to stray from their marriage vows because it's not, but it is just easier for men to do it. And Luke never was the most faithful person in the first place. Laura wasn't presumed dead long before he slept with Holly and got her pregnant. Then he was presumed dead and she married Robert. He came back and couldn't believe the new love of his life had deserted him.

I don't know much about the fan reaction to the Hubbard stories, but your wider point seems to be that fans influence story direction, something which never happens on GH and certainly has not happened with the Luke/Teethan story. Guza and Phelps do exactly what they want, they always have. The Teethan/Luke story has not been abandoned or dropped due to the complaints of the Luke and Laura fans. Maybe online or vocal soap fan attitudes has some impact the direction on other soaps, but it does not on GH. Besides Geary was happy for the attention that he has not gotten in years. Guza and Phelps stayed the course and were probably pleased with the publicity.

Anyway, Teethan as Luke's son is a minor sin compared to the other huge sins destroying GH. The show is a mess. It has become "All Sonny's Children." The break from the mob is over and it back full force with Sonny and Jason leading the way. Spinelli as "romantic lead" is starting to suck up airtime again. The tortuous Nikolas/NotEmily/Teethan story winds on. I was enjoying the hospital mystery, but then Spinelli got involved. Now I ff and mute most of the show.

I am not a fan of vocal soap fans online and offline banging the drum, but I refuse to place any blame for the state of these soaps on them. The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the poor storytelling and lack of vision of the headwriters and EPs.

[SteveFrame]

The lack of vision and direction is write and part of it is that they do listen to fans in many cases.

That is just like MAB letting her desire to please fans dictate stories that she wasn't ready to tell. And so fast at that. I mean even in telling one of them she has to go and rewrite stuff she wrote herself. It is so stupid. It is so convoluted you have to keep a notepad nearby to keep up with all the loopholes and stuff to understand it all.

When a writer has to work hard to sell a story by having this one or that one explain it to the audience. And the audience has to suspend reasoning then it's a bad story.

I think it was William J. Bell once who said he hardly ever read fan mail. Douglas Marland had listening to the fans in his rules, but he has also said that he didn't let that dictate what he wrote.

I would a whole lot rather have writers who are committed to the stories they want to tell rather than writers who waiver back and forth with things - never making any committment at all. Perfect examples are HOgan with the Lumi/Ejami stuff on Days and now Sheffer/Bell/Hamner with the Phick/Shick stuff. And so many others.

If a writer is not committed to doing a story and waivers, why in the world does he think fans are going to commit to it?

I know some on her accuse of being too nostalgic about soaps. I don't want soaps to be just like the old. I want them to have good stories using the history of the show and combine it with what is modern and the new approaches.

I also want writers who are committed to their stories, and writers who care about what they are telling. Irna Phillips had her problems but she was so committed to not putting false info out there that she kept a doctor and a lawyer on retainer at all times. Agnes Nixon did the same thing I am told. And Agnes Nixon epsecially worked to propel daytime forward, to give it credibility - today's writers are destroying any credibility the genre ever had.

I used to say that out of all the shows that Y&R held on to it's integrity. I guess I should be thankful they held on to it as long as they did, but I'm not. To me the show esp. with this Phillip story lost any integrity it ever had. It kept it's integrity and remained different than the other shows and when all the other shows blended into one mess and became just alike Y&R rose to the top.

I think the Phillip story is definitely a jump the shark moment for Y&R, and I think they will pay for it eventually.

[remos]

CSF, on 07 July 2009 - 10:41 AM, said:

I don't think ABC wants out. I think they want to be the last network with soaps though.

I have been thinking this recently too. I was at the check-out yesterday and looked at a recent SOD (I believe) and it was still talking about Days' cancellation - even when they are one of the only shows truly building right now. CBS looks like it's got no real love for ATWT and are just going to try stealing GH's alumni for a bit to see if that does anything (it won't 'cause they aren't the first to play that game), and it's hard to tell what their attitude is to the Bell shows. But ABC doesn't seem interested in replacing with reality shows or games, and they are the ones who took the initiative with Soap Net. I think all the ABC shows are the safest of the lot if for no other reason than ABCD won't say Uncle.

[Carolyn1980]

remos, on 09 July 2009 - 01:05 PM, said:

I have been thinking this recently too. I was at the check-out yesterday and looked at a recent SOD (I believe) and it was still talking about Days' cancellation - even when they are one of the only shows truly building right now. CBS looks like it's got no real love for ATWT and are just going to try stealing GH's alumni for a bit to see if that does anything (it won't 'cause they aren't the first to play that game), and it's hard to tell what their attitude is to the Bell shows. But ABC doesn't seem interested in replacing with reality shows or games, and they are the ones who took the initiative with Soap Net. I think all the ABC shows are the safest of the lot if for no other reason than ABCD won't say Uncle.

I don't think DAYS has to worry right now. I agree that ABC wants to be the last net standing with their soaps, and I think when they do cancel their soaps, all three will go together...UNLESS...and this is where it gets interesting. I could really see a scenario now where ABC tries to steal DAYS from NBC (which is doing much better than the ABC soaps right now), and dumps AMC (or even attempts to move AMC permanently to Soapnet in a "parred down" way, sort of an experiment).

DAYS (and Y&R) are both distributed by SONY, and SONY already has a relationship with ABC through their rebroadcast deals for the shows on Soapnet. ABC could easily make an attractive offer for DAYS (or even Y&R for that matter) that would enable the show to move to ABC Daytime. Heck, ABC could even offer SONY a financial stake in the growing Soapnet cable network. That's actually a common thing for cable networks; Lifetime is quite succesful, and ABC just entered into a deal with NBC/Universal where NBC now has a stake in Lifetime (and other nets, like the History Channel).

[Ann_SS]

SteveFrame, Guza is committed to his stories and they blow chunks so that isn't always good. I don't think that there is one way to be a good headwriter. I think everyone can have their own process. It is fine to change a story if isn't working. Marland and Bell did that all the time. What is boils down to is that a good headwriter must have a vision and the talent as a storyteller to share that vision in a compelling and entertaining way. If good storytelling exists, then network interference, unhappy fans and bad actors are not huge obstacles. The fans although always critical would be watching a soap that they find entertaiing and the ratings would be steady. A good storyteller would never give weak actors stories beyond their abilities. The network would continue to interfere, but would give the headwriter more leeway if the fans are happy and the ratings are steady.

This post has been edited by Ann_SS: 09 July 2009 - 12:15 PM

[Ann_SS]

Carolyn1980, on 09 July 2009 - 01:12 PM, said:

I don't think DAYS has to worry right now. I agree that ABC wants to be the last net standing with their soaps, and I think when they do cancel their soaps, all three will go together...UNLESS...and this is where it gets interesting. I could really see a scenario now where ABC tries to steal DAYS from NBC (which is doing much better than the ABC soaps right now), and dumps AMC (or even attempts to move AMC permanently to Soapnet in a "parred down" way, sort of an experiment).

DAYS (and Y&R) are both distributed by SONY, and SONY already has a relationship with ABC through their rebroadcast deals for the shows on Soapnet. ABC could easily make an attractive offer for DAYS (or even Y&R for that matter) that would enable the show to move to ABC Daytime. Heck, ABC could even offer SONY a financial stake in the growing Soapnet cable network. That's actually a common thing for cable networks; Lifetime is quite succesful, and ABC just entered into a deal with NBC/Universal where NBC now has a stake in Lifetime (and other nets, like the History Channel).

There is no way that I see this scenario happening. Also, this idea that ABC will hold on to the soaps or buy new ones to replace their old ones even as they lose millions of dollars is pure soap fan fiction.

This post has been edited by Ann_SS: 09 July 2009 - 12:28 PM

[Carolyn1980]

Ann_SS, on 09 July 2009 - 01:28 PM, said:

There is no way that I see this scenario happening. Also, this idea that ABC will hold on to the soaps or buy new ones to replace their old ones even as they lose millions of dollars is pure soap fan fiction.

Why couldn't ABC offer to give SONY a financial stake in SOAPnet (which had one of the largest increases in viewers over the past year, and continues to grow), and have part of the deal be a move for Y&R and DAYS to ABC Daytime?

If they could make the numbers work, they would do it.

I don't think it's "likely" to happen....but it certainly is an interesting possibility, and something ABC might want to explore as their own shows tumble.

ETA: ABC is not losing money on their soaps right now. They're not making as much money as they did in the past, but they're not losing money.

This post has been edited by Carolyn1980: 09 July 2009 - 12:32 PM