[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 26-30, 2009

(Compared to Last Week/Compared to Last Year)


Total Viewers
1. Y&R 5,002,000 (-52,000/+298,000)
2. B&B 3,277,000 (+36,000/-67,000)
3. DAYS 2,959,000 (-43,000/+252,000)
4. GH 2,728,000 (+163,000/-181,000)
5. AMC 2,722,000 (+52,000/+141,000)
6. OLTL 2,520,000 (+28,000/-121,000)
7. ATWT 2,507,000 (+60,000/+37,000)


HH
1. Y&R 3.6/12 (-.1/+.2)
2. B&B 2.4/8 (same/-.1)
3. DAYS 2.2/7 (same/+.2)
4. AMC 2.1/7 (+.1/+.1)
4. GH 2.1/6 (+.2/-.1)
6. OLTL 1.9/6 (same/-.1)
7. ATWT 1.8/6 (same/same)


Women 18-49 Viewers
1. Y&R 1,107,000 (-33,000/+120,000)
2. GH 919,000 (+76,000/-64,000)
3. DAYS 899,000 (+32,000/+66,000)
4. AMC 738,000 (+3,000/-33,000)
5. OLTL 727,000 (+17,000/-115,000)
6. B&B 684,000 (-23,000/-5,000)
7. ATWT 598,000 (+6,000/-10,000)


Women 18-49 Rating
1. Y&R 1.7/11 (same/+.2)
2. GH 1.4/8 (+.1/-.1)
2. DAYS 1.4/8 (+.1/+.1)
4. AMC 1.1/7 (same/-.1)
4. OLTL 1.1/7 (same/-.2)
6. B&B 1.0/6 (-.1/same) <----- ties low rating (Last time: October 5-9, 2009)
7. ATWT 0.9/6 (same/same)


Girls 12-17 Viewers
1. GH 43,000 (same/-1,000)
2. DAYS 30,000 (+3,000/-2,000)
3. OLTL 23,000 (-21,000/-18,000)
4. Y&R 20,000 (-18,000/-21,000)
5. B&B 19,000 (+1,000/+2,000)
6. AMC 13,000 (-12,000/-23,000)
7. ATWT 10,000 (-7,000/-13,000)


Women 18-34 Rating
1. Y&R 1.2/7 (same/+.3)
2. GH 1.0/6 (+.1/-.1)
2. DAYS 1.0/6 (same/-.1)
4. AMC 0.9/6 (same/+.1)
5. OLTL 0.8/5 (same/same)
6. B&B 0.6/4 (-.1/same)
7. ATWT 0.5/3 (-.1/same)


Men 18+ Viewers
1. Y&R 1,263,000 (+52,000/+102,000)
2. B&B 737,000 (+36,000/+5,000)
3. DAYS 611,000 (+6,000/+6,000)
4. ATWT 548,000 (+24,000/+74,000)
5. AMC 504,000 (-41,000/-1,000)
6. GH 483,000 (+1,000/-19,000)
7. OLTL 439,000 (-28,000/-19,000)

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

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

[B]AMC[/B]
Monday: 2.2/2,876,000
Tuesday: 2.1/2,706,000
Wednesday: 2.1/2,673,000
Thursday: 1.9/2,644,000
Friday: 2.0/2,711,000

[B]ATWT[/B]
Monday: 1.8/2,410,000
Tuesday: 1.9/2,612,000
Wednesday: 1.9/2,627,000
Thursday: 1.8/2,497,000
Friday: 1.8/2,389,000

[B]B&B[/B]
Monday: 2,2/3,060,000
Tuesday: 2.5/3,494,000
Wednesday: 2.4/3,499,000
Thursday: 2.3/3,172,000
Friday: 2.3/3,162,000

[B]DAYS[/B]
Monday: 2.2/2,926,000
Tuesday: 2.2/3,025,000
Wednesday: 2.2/2,956,000
Thursday: 2.3/3,106,000
Friday: 2.0/2,781,000

[B]GH[/B]
Monday: 2.1/2,737,000
Tuesday: 2.0/2,682,000
Wednesday: 2.1/2,759,000
Thursday: 2.0/2,639,000
Friday: 2.1/2,821,000

[B]OLTL[/B]
Monday: 2.1/2,756,000
Tuesday: 1.9/2,436,000
Wednesday: 2.0/2,453,000
Thursday: 1.8/2,528,000
Friday: 1.8/2,425,000

[B]Y&R[/B]
Monday: 3.6/4,924,000
Tuesday: 3.8/5,292,000
Wednesday: 3.5/5,041,000
Thursday: 3.6/4,874,000
Friday: 3.5/4,880,000

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

For the SEASON September 21, 2009 through November 1, 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 1.5
2. GH 1.5
4. OLTL 1.2
5. AMC 1.1
5. B&B 1.1
7. ATWT 0.9

[CarlD2]

JaneAusten, on 05 November 2009 - 06:52 PM, said:

I didn't mean to put the burden on Carly but I do think it's added interest and drama and hopefully turns out to be a decent storyline for all.

And JJ I'm sorry. I know many are excited about his return but he's been gone 10 years. I remember all the accollades when Sarah Brown was returning and she was gone for 10 years and nothing. Granted she returned as someone new but there was actually a ratings drop when she returned and it never did spike back.

And I do think Greg Vaughan, despite many calling him unLucky and not Lucky, was hugely popular. Many who didnt watch when JJ was on only know Greg as Lucky. I like JJ but I personally am sick and tired of all the hype, like he is Jesus Christ coming to "back to the old GH" to save it.

Oh no I didn't think you were putting a burden on her. I do think that her return has helped the ratings in the past few weeks. I know some have felt her return was underwhelming but I think that some of it has been very old school soap, and a lot of people miss that. And it ties directly into giving new story to viable actors who need new material, like Peter Reckell. I'm sure that those who were lapsed viewers, when they watch the show again, they see Maggie, or they see Bo, and there's still something familiar. When a lapsed viewer tunes back into GH, what do they see? A lot of bad writing and nasty characters.

I also think having him return in the middle of this Niz story may have been a mistake, because lapsed viewers are going to see Liz fantasizing about getting rogered on a roulette table with the bloated guy once known as Nikolas. Not exactly a great tonic for their positive memories of L&L2, is it?

And I think there's enough to also get to new viewers who may have tuned in just to see Crystal. I know some fans of an actor will only want to watch their scenes, but I think DAYS right now has some other stuff which is at least watchable.

What really impresses me is that she didn't get a lot of promo. I mean she got interviews and some web stuff but I don't even remember that much TV stuff. It didn't seem to be the big event of JJ's return.

Quote

And do many people really find GH offensive?

I think they do, yes. They got very negative publicity for shooting Michael in the head. Outside of the press, I think a lot of longtime viewers have been demoralized by the constant misogyny, the destruction of everyone on the show who is not a mobster or a mob apologist, and the overall crappy, unsatisfying storytelling.

This post has been edited by CarlD2: 05 November 2009 - 07:03 PM

[Ann_SS]

I'm not convinced that most of GH's viewers find it offensive. I talk to a couple of people who watch GH regularly and never come online. They love Sonny, Jason, and Carly and think they are swell. They don't find the mob or its violence offensive because it is just tv. I think they are more like the 2 million of people who tune every day than the people who complain about the show online including me.

[CarlD2]

Ann_SS, on 05 November 2009 - 07:10 PM, said:

I'm not convinced that most of GH's viewers find it offensive. I talk to a couple of people who watch GH regularly and never come online. They love Sonny, Jason, and Carly and think they are swell. They don't find the mob or its violence offensive because it is just tv. I think they are more like the 2 million of people who tune every day than the people who complain about the show online including me.

I think a lot of those who watch now are OK with it, but I think lapsed viewers may not be; that's who GH was aiming for with the return of JJ.

Beyond the mob worship, the show has also gleefully taken a hatchet to the Spencer family and to the legacy of Luke and Laura. I wonder how many who loved Lucky were hesitant to return for that reason.

[JaneAusten]

CarlD2, on 05 November 2009 - 07:01 PM, said:

Oh no I didn't think you were putting a burden on her. I do think that her return has helped the ratings in the past few weeks. I know some have felt her return was underwhelming but I think that some of it has been very old school soap, and a lot of people miss that. And it ties directly into giving new story to viable actors who need new material, like Peter Reckell. I'm sure that those who were lapsed viewers, when they watch the show again, they see Maggie, or they see Bo, and there's still something familiar. When a lapsed viewer tunes back into GH, what do they see? A lot of bad writing and nasty characters.

I also think having him return in the middle of this Niz story may have been a mistake, because lapsed viewers are going to see Liz fantasizing about getting rogered on a roulette table with the bloated guy once known as Nikolas. Not exactly a great tonic for their positive memories of L&L2, is it?

And I think there's enough to also get to new viewers who may have tuned in just to see Crystal. I know some fans of an actor will only want to watch their scenes, but I think DAYS right now has some other stuff which is at least watchable.

What really impresses me is that she didn't get a lot of promo. I mean she got interviews and some web stuff but I don't even remember that much TV stuff. It didn't seem to be the big event of JJ's return.

I actually never considered JJ's return in that sense. This Niz storyline is comtemptible to begin with and IA dropping JJ's Lucky into the middle of it and still having Liz fantasizing about Prince Bloat has to turn off a lot of lapsed LL2 fans who loved old school Lucky and Liz. I'm actually wondering why bring JJ back. With the lack of respect GV's Lucky got they could have easily done Nik and Liz but I do recall the backlash of Liz and Jason because of what happend to GVs Lucky so maybe they felt they could do it better with JJ who knows. I actually expected things to shift a bit with JJ back but it apparently hasn't and isn't happening. That's GH. Use the bait of Old school LL2 and then dump on that fanbase.

And for Days, I love Carly and Vivian's return. I haven't found it lackluster but I didn't expect a big splash like GH did for JJ and SBr when they returned. You're right. Days is just back to decent storytelling and I am actually interested because it adds an additional level of angst to Bo and Hope's current story also. I loved Carly, Vivian and I love seeing Maggie and Victor and Stefano of course all used a lot on the current canvas. I think it's one of the best things Days did was to bring these vets back to the forefront.

[JaneAusten]

Ann_SS, on 05 November 2009 - 07:10 PM, said:

I'm not convinced that most of GH's viewers find it offensive. I talk to a couple of people who watch GH regularly and never come online. They love Sonny, Jason, and Carly and think they are swell. They don't find the mob or its violence offensive because it is just tv. I think they are more like the 2 million of people who tune every day than the people who complain about the show online including me.

Oh I think you are correct but I also think those viewers who are gone aren't returning just because JJ is back. Lucky and the Spencers have gotten gutted for years on this show now. And JJ returning isn't changing that. PLus I am skeptical because JJ won't disclose how long his contract is which makes me think it's not long term and Lucky may eventually die at the end of his run.

CarlD2, on 05 November 2009 - 07:13 PM, said:

I think a lot of those who watch now are OK with it, but I think lapsed viewers may not be; that's who GH was aiming for with the return of JJ.

I always thought that GH didn't want those old viewers back. JJ was on over 10 years ago. GH wants all the "old folks" back?

[Ann_SS]

JaneAusten, on 05 November 2009 - 07:21 PM, said:

Oh I think you are correct but I also think those viewers who are gone aren't returning just because JJ is back. Lucky and the Spencers have gotten gutted for years on this show now. And JJ returning isn't changing that. PLus I am skeptical because JJ won't disclose how long his contract is which makes me think it's not long term and Lucky may eventually die at the end of his run.

I don't think that any actor's return can bring in sustained ratings.

ABC's new policy is that actor not talk about their contracts so JJ is probably abiding by that. LW did spill on Twitter that she just re-upped for 4 years.

[CarlD2]

JaneAusten, on 05 November 2009 - 07:22 PM, said:

I always thought that GH didn't want those old viewers back. JJ was on over 10 years ago. GH wants all the "old folks" back?

I think they make an exception with JJ because Guza loved writing for him, or did at one time. Through him they may have hoped to bring some lapsed viewers back. I'm sure the ratings loss this year must have concerned them.

[JaneAusten]

CarlD2, on 05 November 2009 - 07:32 PM, said:

I think they make an exception with JJ because Guza loved writing for him, or did at one time. Through him they may have hoped to bring some lapsed viewers back. I'm sure the ratings loss this year must have concerned them.

I don't see them writing Lucky different than GV's Lucky just more scenes and dialogue. Of course this could change when Lucky supposedly ... Well I won't spill it but there is another death coming and Lucky's involved.

[pisces33]

These aren't the ratings from last week, are they? I am confused.

[JaneAusten]

pisces33, on 05 November 2009 - 08:06 PM, said:

These aren't the ratings from last week, are they? I am confused.

No but the Days Press Release that was posted was for last week.

[marceline]

Ann_SS, on 05 November 2009 - 07:10 PM, said:

I'm not convinced that most of GH's viewers find it offensive. I talk to a couple of people who watch GH regularly and never come online. They love Sonny, Jason, and Carly and think they are swell. They don't find the mob or its violence offensive because it is just tv. I think they are more like the 2 million of people who tune every day than the people who complain about the show online including me.

I think the mob gives GH a definite identity at a time when soaps have become increasingly homogeneous and that appeals to offliners. GH is the "mob" soap not just on ABC but in the genre. I think that's good. What other soaps have such a strong identity? OLTL is the "gay" soap. But all the other soaps that had something unique are gone. Passions was the "supernatural" soap and GL was the "soap that looked like it was shot in your cousin's backyard" (It's a shame PC isn't around to be the "vampire" soap because I bet it would be kicking ass.) The rest of them are fairly interchangeable.

[CarlD2]

marceline, on 05 November 2009 - 08:30 PM, said:

I think the mob gives GH a definite identity at a time when soaps have become increasingly homogeneous and that appeals to offliners. GH is the "mob" soap not just on ABC but in the genre. I think that's good. What other soaps have such a strong identity?

That identity only attracts a certain audience, which has been narrowing. They've lost somewhere around 500,000 viewers in the past year, haven't they?

If this big Claudia reveal couldn't get the numbers up I'm not sure how much of a mob presence is still drawing viewers.

[JaneAusten]

marceline, on 05 November 2009 - 08:30 PM, said:

I think the mob gives GH a definite identity at a time when soaps have become increasingly homogeneous and that appeals to offliners. GH is the "mob" soap not just on ABC but in the genre. I think that's good. What other soaps have such a strong identity? OLTL is the "gay" soap. But all the other soaps that had something unique are gone. Passions was the "supernatural" soap and GL was the "soap that looked like it was shot in your cousin's backyard" (It's a shame PC isn't around to be the "vampire" soap because I bet it would be kicking ass.) The rest of them are fairly interchangeable.

I guess if targeting a specialized niche is what you want then you are correct. But it then no longer becomes appealing to the main stream just a segment of the audience interested in that. Perhaps that's fine and coincides more with the selective/niche type of programming you see on cable TV

I see Days being in the mainstream category along with Y&R and neither seem to be hurting but perhaps ABC is satisfied with this niche and figures that's why they may have more longevity than some of the others. But mob centric programming has really been off the trend for sometime. So as the fascination with mob television dwindles(Would The Sopranos still be popular) will their audience continue to erode.

I think at the time GH really started heavily focusing on the mob, Scorcese films were hip, there was The Sopranos ever Wiseguy at one time that were all trendy and popular. That popularity is no longer and perhaps thats why the audience has dwindled.

This post has been edited by JaneAusten: 05 November 2009 - 08:47 PM

[shawn Perez]

JaneAusten, on 05 November 2009 - 03:33 PM, said:

Days has been over 3 million viewers the past few weeks while GH has been at 2.5. I'd be shocked if GH gained 500K viewers in one week.

i dunno but we just found out that GH added a new writer to join the writing staff this week. Dave Ryan who wrote wednsday episode. the guy got rave reviews from diffrent magazine sites for that one episode. Everyone was copvering up claudia's death and the aftermath of buring her. it was some pretty intense material.

This post has been edited by shawn Perez: 05 November 2009 - 08:49 PM

[Ann_SS]

Being a mob soap cannot save GH. I don't think that having an identity can save any soap. Women are not at home during the day and when they are home, there are tons of other shows to watch. They are watching something else and I'm betting it is Law & Order reruns. I know I watch Law & Order reruns over GH a lot of the time. Law & Order has better acting and writing, plus I get to see the bad guy get locked up.

[JaneAusten]

shawn Perez, on 05 November 2009 - 08:48 PM, said:

i dunno but we just found out that GH added a new writer to join the writing staff this week. Dave Ryan who wrote wednsday episode. the guy got rave reviews from diffrent magazine sites for that one episode. Everyone was copvering up claudia's death and the aftermath of buring her. it was some pretty intense material.

GH's script writers have never been the issue IMO although it's still anti female writing. It's the storylines that suck. I found today to be pretty dull, Yesterday was pretty sick. The only thing that saves any of this story was Sarah Brown. She kicked it into high gear the past couple of weeks and saved GH's arse if you ask me. She deserves 100 percent credit for any bump they might have gotten. All the rest of the actors and actresses were bad to mediocre. KeMo I have no idea what the heck she was doing this past week. LLC is naturally a poor actress, and LW didn't wow me but she was the best of the actresses aside from Sarah. Mo, Steve, Ingo all stunk. BB and DZ were not bad and the kid who plays Michael was pretty decent.

This post has been edited by JaneAusten: 05 November 2009 - 09:00 PM

[marceline]

Quote

I guess if targeting a specialized niche is what you want then you are correct. But it then no longer becomes appealing to the main stream just a segment of the audience interested in that. Perhaps that's fine and coincides more with the selective/niche type of programming you see on cable TV

There is no "mainstream" anymore. The closest thing to mainstream we see now are the procedurals like CSI, L&O and the others. Those shows aren't so much mainstream as generic. A "perp", a "vic" some violence, some sex, a graphic autopsy and a cop/agent who ends up Taking It Personally.

Daytime might benefit from more "niche" shows. Niche shows have been good to cable. A niche show that serves its audience like a True Blood or The L Word or Battlestar Gallactica do a lot of good for their individual networks.

Quote

Being a mob soap cannot save GH. I don't think that having an identity can save any soap. Women are not at home during the day and when they are home, there are tons of other shows to watch. They are watching something else and I'm betting it is Law & Order reruns. I know I watch Law & Order reruns over GH a lot of the time. Law & Order has better acting and writing, plus I get to see the bad guy get locked up.

Nothing can "save" these current shows. Nothing. Not James Franco, not a mass gay wedding, not Miss Kitty. Soaps can't compete with daily showings of L&O or ER but perhaps they can LEARN from them.

This post has been edited by marceline: 05 November 2009 - 09:15 PM

[CarlD2]

marceline, on 05 November 2009 - 09:09 PM, said:

There is no "mainstream" anymore. The closest thing to mainstream we see now are the procedurals like CSI, L&O and the others. Those shows aren't so much mainstream as generic. A "perp", a "vic" some violence, some sex, a graphic autopsy and a cop/agent who ends up Taking It Personally.

Daytime might benefit from more "niche" shows. Niche shows have been good to cable. A niche show that serves its audience like a True Blood or The L Word or Battlestar Gallactica do a lot of good for their individual networks.

The problem with some of those shows is they are a niche of a niche of a niche. They have very specialized audiences, and even then, The L Word seemed to lose favor with a lot of fans quickly. They benefit from lower expectations of being on cable.

I don't know if things are that non-mainstream now. You have a few shows that get endless media attention (The Hills, Jon and Kate, Real Housewives). They live on the media attention even as some of their actual ratings are small. They can afford small ratings because they are on cable networks. And you have other shows that get tons of media hype and attention, like Grey's, which are as predictable as any other medical drama or soap ever on TV.

I'm not sure if soaps aren't going to be able to live based on that attention. Passions got tons of media attention and was prized as a niche show, and still couldn't survive. PC got tons of praise for moving to a niche format, and still couldn't survive.

I think soaps need identities of being watchable entertainment with stories that can get you hooked. That's probably the only way for them to get viewers and keep them. The stunts eventually falter. That's why GH has fallen in the ratings, and now barely ties OLTL, a show that has always and will always be seen as of much less value to ABC.

[marceline]

Quote

The problem with some of those shows is they are a niche of a niche of a niche. They have very specialized audiences, and even then, The L Word seemed to lose favor with a lot of fans quickly. They benefit from lower expectations of being on cable.

A niche of a niche of a niche. A specialized audience. They lose favor with a lot of fans quickly. Lower expectations.

You just described soaps.

This post has been edited by marceline: 06 November 2009 - 07:18 AM

[shawn Perez]

JaneAusten, on 05 November 2009 - 05:58 PM, said:

GH's script writers have never been the issue IMO although it's still anti female writing. It's the storylines that suck. I found today to be pretty dull, Yesterday was pretty sick. The only thing that saves any of this story was Sarah Brown. She kicked it into high gear the past couple of weeks and saved GH's arse if you ask me. She deserves 100 percent credit for any bump they might have gotten. All the rest of the actors and actresses were bad to mediocre. KeMo I have no idea what the heck she was doing this past week. LLC is naturally a poor actress, and LW didn't wow me but she was the best of the actresses aside from Sarah. Mo, Steve, Ingo all stunk. BB and DZ were not bad and the kid who plays Michael was pretty decent.

you wanna talk about Dull. today i watched DOOL and the acting was straight horrible, why was carly screaming at a dead ghost like that? overacting much? besides GH is known for having a fantastic cast so all this hate on the actors performances is shellow because you hate the fact that GH isn't you're cup of tea. SJB as great as she is. did not make up a percentage of why people we're interested with the show. that's like saying the reason why DOOL is high up on viewership is because most of the actors on that soap are ex-passion stars. it's easy to argue that fact. passion was cancelled so the fans we're probably curious to watch there favorites on another soap. it wouldn't be that hard to garner 500-000 gains from just hiring a few actors from a soap and then writing them exactly the same way as if they never left. Ethan.ie" Brady" Theresa.ie"Adriena". Luis.ie"Rafe"...you get my point?

This post has been edited by shawn Perez: 05 November 2009 - 09:27 PM