[Toups]

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

Numbers are based on Live+Same Day ratings

Ratings for the week October 19-23, 2009

(Compared to Last Week/Compared to Last Year)


Total Viewers
1. Y&R 5,054,000 (-253,000/+65,000)
2. B&B 3,241,000 (-250,000/-279,000)
3. DAYS 3,002,000 (-37,000/+346,000)
4. AMC 2,670,000 (+68,000/-73,000)
5. GH 2,565,000 (-15,000/-62,000)
6. OLTL 2,492,000 (-75,000/-147,000)
7. ATWT 2,447,000 (-103,000/-296,000)


HH
1. Y&R 3.7/13 (-.1/same)
2. B&B 2.4/8 (-.1/-.3)
3. DAYS 2.2/7 (same/+.2)
4. AMC 2.0/7 (same/-.1)
5. GH 1.9/6 (same/-.2)
5. OLTL 1.9/6 (same/-.1)
7. ATWT 1.8/6 (same/-.3)


Women 18-49 Viewers
1. Y&R 1,140,000 (-80,000/+89,000)
2. DAYS 867,000 (-44,000/-66,000)
3. GH 843,000 (-47,000/-19,000)
4, AMC 735,000 (+14,000/-131,000)
5. OLTL 710,000 (-64,000/-108,000)
6. B&B 707,000 (-41,000/-67,000)
7. ATWT 592,000 (+22,000/-120,000)


Women 18-49 Rating
1. Y&R 1.7/11 (-.1/+.1)
2. DAYS 1.3/8 (-.1/-.1)
2. GH 1.3/8 (same/same)
4. B&B 1.1/7 (same/-.1)
4. AMC 1.1/7 (same/-.2)
4. OLTL 1.1/7 (-.1/-.1)
7. ATWT 0.9/6 (same/-.2)


Girls 12-17 Viewers
1. OLTL 44,000 (-6,000/+19,000)
2. GH 43,000 (+3,000/+31,000)
3. Y&R 38,000 (same/-4,000)
4. DAYS 27,000 (-6,000/-23,000)
5. AMC 25,000 (+5,000/-4,000)
6. B&B 18,000 (+1,000/-8,000)
7. ATWT 17,000 (-4,000/-19,000)


Women 18-34 Rating
1. Y&R 1.2/8 (same/+.3)
2. DAYS 1.0/6 (+.1/-.2)
3. AMC 0.9/6 (same/same)
3. GH 0.9/6 (same/same)
5. OLTL 0.8/5 (-.1/-.1)
6. B&B 0.7/5 (same/+.1)
7. ATWT 0.6/4 (+.1/+.1)


Men 18+ Viewers
1. Y&R 1,211,000 (-69,000/-46,000)
2. B&B 701,000 (-103,000/-36,000)
3. DAYS 605,000 (-27,000/+72,000)
4. AMC 545,000 (+52,000/+34,000)
5. ATWT 524,000 (-23,000/-20,000)
6. GH 482,000 (+4,000/+47,000)
7. OLTL 467,000 (+11,000/+6,000)

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

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

[B]AMC[/B]
Monday: 2.0/2,751,000
Tuesday: 2.0/2,690,000
Wednesday: 2.0/2,598,000
Thursday: 2.0/2,613,000
Friday: 2.0/2,699,000

[B]ATWT[/B]
Monday: 1.7/2,298,000
Tuesday: 1.8/2,459,000
Wednesday: 1.7/2,287,000
Thursday: 1.8/2,474,000
Friday: 1.9/2,717,000

[B]B&B[/B]
Monday: 2.4/3,283,000
Tuesday: 2.5/3,280,000
Wednesday: 2.2/2,962,000
Thursday: 2.5/3,378,000
Friday: 2.3/3,301,000

[B]DAYS[/B]
Monday: 2,4/3,257,000
Tuesday: 2.3/3,076,000
Wednesday: 2.1/2,897,000
Thursday: 2.0/2,706,000
Friday: 2.3/3,073,000

[B]GH[/B]
Monday: 1.9/2,727,000
Tuesday: 2.0/2,628,000
Wednesday: 1.9/2,539,000
Thursday: 1.9/2,518,000
Friday: 1.9/2,413,000

[B]OLTL[/B]
Monday: 2.0/2,823,000
Tuesday: 1.9/2,461,000
Wednesday: 1.9/2,385,000
Thursday: 1.8/2,340,000
Friday: 1.9/2,449,000

[B]Y&R[/B]
Monday: 3.8/5,059,000
Tuesday: 3.7/4,922,000
Wednesday: 3.7/4,961,000
Thursday: 3.7/5,169,000
Friday: 3.6/5,169,000

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

For the SEASON September 21, 2009 through October 25, 2009

HH
1. Y&R 3.8
2. B&B 2.4
3. DAYS 2.3
4. GH 2.1
5. AMC 2.0
6. OLTL 1.9
7. ATWT 1.8

Women 18-49 Rating
1. Y&R 1.8
2. DAYS 1.4
2. GH 1.4
4. OLTL 1.2
5. AMC 1.1
5. B&B 1.1
7. ATWT 0.9

[Ann_SS]

EricMontreal22, on 29 October 2009 - 11:57 PM, said:

It would have definetly slowed, but the amount of women who were deciding (or having to) work instead of staying at home didn't stop right come the 80s--it's steadily increased including now.

Exactly. The number of women entering the workplace has steadily increased. There are more women working outside the home now than ever before. Even in this hard economy, women are more likely to keep their jobs because they get paid less. The soaps' real problem is the socio-demographic shift that has taken away its 18-49 women audience. Nothing can reverse this which is why the soaps will eventually be cancelled for cheaper daytime programming.

[EricMontreal22]

Ann_SS, on 30 October 2009 - 07:46 AM, said:

Exactly. The number of women entering the workplace has steadily increased. There are more women working outside the home now than ever before. Even in this hard economy, women are more likely to keep their jobs because they get paid less. The soaps' real problem is the socio-demographic shift that has taken away its 18-49 women audience. Nothing can reverse this which is why the soaps will eventually be cancelled for cheaper daytime programming.

Well said. I love the way some people speak where they make it sound like suddenly around 1970 there was a ten year period where women all entered the workforce and then it stopped and stuck to how it's been in 1980 or so.

Anyway, your postmademe think--if you read soap books in thelate 70s and early 80s there was a lot of talk about how soaps were now not just for women, people like Agnes Nixon would point out in interviews how 30-40% of AMC viewers at that time were male, etc, and several books I have from that time point out that the stigma about men watching soaps was fading and in another decade or so that would probably all be gone and it would be seen truly as a medium for both genders. Yet that never happened. The stigma about a (straight) guy watching a soap still definetly exists and if anything the stigma has now started up stronger with women watching too.

In LaGuardia's book Soap World (from 79or so I thik) there's a whole chapter where he talks about how during rhe 70s soaps came of age, peopel were starting to recognize them for their talent and writing, it was less of a stigma to be a soap actor, etc, and he had proposed scenarios about how soaps would grow in even the next ten years with Barbra Streisand tellign her agent she wanted a lead on a soap, soaps being seen by the leading playwrights as a much mroe satisfying medium for them, male and female (tasteful) nudity being accepted, etc, etc It all reads as beyond silly now

This post has been edited by EricMontreal22: 30 October 2009 - 07:04 AM

[CarlD2]

I don't think there's a stigma with soaps now.

The problem isn't a stigma so much as a, "Who cares?" "Is that still on?"

The soaps have made themselves irrelevant by catering almost exclusively to a subsection of viewers and then showcasing crappy stories and bad actors in attempts to cater to that market. Most of whom weren't that interested in vapid teens or twentysomethings with killer abs and deadlier line readings.

If soaps hadn't destroyed so much of what made them special in attempts to get a new audience, they would have more support now. You don't have to have a big audience to be relevant.

[marceline]

CarlD2, on 30 October 2009 - 03:14 PM, said:

I don't think there's a stigma with soaps now.

The problem isn't a stigma so much as a, "Who cares?" "Is that still on?"

I guess it depends on how one defines "stigma." Are soaps on par with porn? No. But IMO, they are considered on the same level as game shows and judge shows. The people who watch those shows don't see a stigma. The ones who don't, do.

[CarlD2]

marceline, on 30 October 2009 - 04:37 PM, said:

I guess it depends on how one defines "stigma." Are soaps on par with porn? No. But IMO, they are considered on the same level as game shows and judge shows. The people who watch those shows don't see a stigma. The ones who don't, do.

I don't see it as a stigma so much as people just not caring. Soaps used to be a joke for people on a cultural level. As the Stomach Turns. Now, soaps are seen as more of something of the past.

[DAYS]

Toups, could you please add Women 50+ ratings including viewers please. Thanks

[EricMontreal22]

CarlD2, on 30 October 2009 - 03:14 PM, said:

I don't think there's a stigma with soaps now.

The problem isn't a stigma so much as a, "Who cares?" "Is that still on?"

Among the people I know--mainly around my age (23-33) there definetly is still a stigma, even among my gay friends. Sure after a few drinks other peopel will admit thatthey loved Days in high school or whatever, but it's not something most people I know admit easily. And actually with many of them there's prob more acceptance that one watches porn lol

And SNL already had two soap parodies this year alone (yes with organ music). I dunno, I disagree with you Carl

[CarlD2]

SNL is a badly dated show -- that they use organ music says it all. They also think a white man in blackface is great comedy. If not for Tina Fey and her Sarah Palin impression, that would be the same "Is that still on?" that soaps get.

I don't mean to generalize, I just think soaps are past the point where it's some big shame; they're not important enough now to warrant shame.

[JackPeyton]

it just depends om who you hang with. im 22, and most of my friends are 21-28 and straight guys or lesbians and if they watch soaps we talk about them as if "did you hear so and sos new song".

[EricMontreal22]

How many of your straight male friends talk that way about soaps regularly? (Just curious--not trying to sound snarky at all)

[Ann_SS]

There is a stigma to watching soaps. Hell, I'm embarrassed that I watch this crap sometimes.

[Jonathan]

Ann_SS, on 30 October 2009 - 04:46 AM, said:

Exactly. The number of women entering the workplace has steadily increased. There are more women working outside the home now than ever before. Even in this hard economy, women are more likely to keep their jobs because they get paid less. The soaps' real problem is the socio-demographic shift that has taken away its 18-49 women audience. Nothing can reverse this which is why the soaps will eventually be cancelled for cheaper daytime programming.

The networks and advertisers need to start selling to the other demos like men and older viewers. They have money too and there's quite a few of them at home during the day.

This post has been edited by Jonathan: 31 October 2009 - 10:43 AM

[marceline]

Ann_SS, on 31 October 2009 - 10:02 AM, said:

There is a stigma to watching soaps. Hell, I'm embarrassed that I watch this crap sometimes.

I know that's right. I remember the looks I got when I let it slip that I watched soaps back when I was watching them. I got less static when I told people I went to sci-fi conventions.

[JackPeyton]

EricMontreal22, on 31 October 2009 - 04:33 AM, said:

How many of your straight male friends talk that way about soaps regularly? (Just curious--not trying to sound snarky at all)

quite a few of them.

at first they wont admit it but when me and a friend get going they always chime in. lol.

some have always watched or started in collegte or summers or whatever, but like my best friends all watch days when they can so they know what the hell im talking about.

Ann_SS, on 31 October 2009 - 07:02 AM, said:

There is a stigma to watching soaps. Hell, I'm embarrassed that I watch this crap sometimes.

really? i never have been.

[MarkH]

Jonathan, on 31 October 2009 - 11:42 AM, said:

The networks and advertisers need to start selling to the other demos like men and older viewers. They have money too and there's quite a few of them at home during the day.

That's not the point.

They don't run ads to "sell" to us--not in an immediate time frame.

They run ads to shape brand recognition and develop brand perceptions.

People my age don't buy Tide because of ads. We buy Tide because of many years of experience with the product. The young group buys Tide because mom used it, or because of coupons...or because a lifetime of ads has shaped their preferences, so when they finally buy their own Tide...all those years of commercials worked.

That's the logic. The malleability of preference...which becomes LESS malleable...is the reason for the focus on the young female demo.

There is more (and I'll be the first to admit I don't totally know the scientific basis of some of these assumptions): Older (folks outside of the demo) adults may have more disposable $$...but they're tighter with it. Retirement savings, college savings, mortgages, credit cards....and a growing understanding of all of the demands on their wallet...makes them more likely to be value shoppers. That gives ads less room to work.

The ads that are targeted at older adults, like drug ads, are more focused at shaping preference ("Ask your doctor about Viagra"), but for many of those products, they work because someone else (the insurance company) actually has to foot the bill. Even on the senior-citizens networks like GSN...when they advertise the Hoverround, it is to elders who will then ask Medicare to pay for it.

You don't advertise to midlife and older adults to SPEND money. They will...but it is the younger age group that has more malleable preferences, and is more willing to actually shell out from the credit card.

To be clear: I don't assert that all of the above is true, but it is a part of the thinking that has built this demo preference.

[marceline]

So I've been thinking about the question of the Friday dropoff of ratings and I'm wondering, could it be DVR related?

These ratings only count live + same day viewings. Is it possible that as the week goes on the "same-day" viewings decrease because people are waiting until the weekend to watch?

Just a thought.

[Ann_SS]

I think the Friday drop off is because more people go out and run errands to prepare for the weekend. I really do not think that the weekly and daily fluctuations are due to external events not related to show content.

[chyti]

MarkH, on 31 October 2009 - 11:55 AM, said:

That's not the point.

They don't run ads to "sell" to us--not in an immediate time frame.

They run ads to shape brand recognition and develop brand perceptions.

People my age don't buy Tide because of ads. We buy Tide because of many years of experience with the product. The young group buys Tide because mom used it, or because of coupons...or because a lifetime of ads has shaped their preferences, so when they finally buy their own Tide...all those years of commercials worked.

That's the logic. The malleability of preference...which becomes LESS malleable...is the reason for the focus on the young female demo.

There is more (and I'll be the first to admit I don't totally know the scientific basis of some of these assumptions): Older (folks outside of the demo) adults may have more disposable $$...but they're tighter with it. Retirement savings, college savings, mortgages, credit cards....and a growing understanding of all of the demands on their wallet...makes them more likely to be value shoppers. That gives ads less room to work.

The ads that are targeted at older adults, like drug ads, are more focused at shaping preference ("Ask your doctor about Viagra"), but for many of those products, they work because someone else (the insurance company) actually has to foot the bill. Even on the senior-citizens networks like GSN...when they advertise the Hoverround, it is to elders who will then ask Medicare to pay for it.

You don't advertise to midlife and older adults to SPEND money. They will...but it is the younger age group that has more malleable preferences, and is more willing to actually shell out from the credit card.

To be clear: I don't assert that all of the above is true, but it is a part of the thinking that has built this demo preference.

This is so true my parents and older relatives have there brand and they don't falter, I do tend to purchase what I grew up on to an extent sometimes I catch a sale. It is true that the younger demo is most likely to try new brands and products faster than older ad watchers

[chyti]

marceline, on 01 November 2009 - 09:21 AM, said:

So I've been thinking about the question of the Friday dropoff of ratings and I'm wondering, could it be DVR related?

These ratings only count live + same day viewings. Is it possible that as the week goes on the "same-day" viewings decrease because people are waiting until the weekend to watch?

Just a thought.

Ann_SS, on 01 November 2009 - 07:49 PM, said:

I think the Friday drop off is because more people go out and run errands to prepare for the weekend. I really do not think that the weekly and daily fluctuations are due to external events not related to show content.

It could be a little of both viewers waiting to watch over the weekend and viewers just becoming less interested as the week goes by. Yet I notice that the ratings basically stay the same from wednesday on.