Days: Ratings from 2000

[SteveFrame]

I posted part of this over in the Brian Frons thread. This is something I have been researching recently. I wanted to see if the ratings dropped any during the "Saved By The Bell Years" - the last time that Days screwed with the balance of the show. What I found is that they did - and surprisingly at a faster rate than they are now. I still firmly believe that the balance issue is the biggest problem with the show now.

In 1999, (Sorry I have not been able to find the exact months all joined) but Days was hit with the teen invasion - Jason Cook as Shawn D., Kirsten Storms as Belle, Heather Lauren Olson as Jan, Nadia Bjorlin as Chloe, Jay Kenneth Johnson as Philip and others. In 2000 they added Kyle Lowder as Brady.

These teens took over the show.

Look at what happened to the ratings at 2000 when the show started focusing on them more. Langan was made Headwriter in November 1999. Ratings stayed high at the end of 1999 but look at what happened at the start of 2000.

1/3/00 - 4.8

1/10/00 - 4.9

1/17/00 - 4.9

1/24/00 - 4.9

1/31/00 - 4.6

2/7/00 - 4.4 ***** 2 weeks and they have dropped about .5 already

2/14/00 - 4.5

2/21/00 - 4.5

2/28/00 - 4.4

3/6/00 - 4.0 ******* a total drop of .8/.9 in 2 months

3/13/00 - 4.4

3/20/00 - 4.4

3/27/00 - 4.4

4/3/00 - 4.1

4/10/00 - 4.1

4/17/00 - 4.2

4/24/00 - 4.0

5/1/00 - 4.2

5/8/00 - 4.1

5/15/00 - 4.0

5/22/00 - 4.2

5/29/00 - 4.1

6/5/00 - 3.9 ***** down a whole ratings point at this point

6/12/00 - 3.9

6/19/00 - 4.0

6/26/00 - 4.3

7/3/00 - 4.0

7/10/00 - 4.4

7/17/00 - 4.5

7/24/00 - 4.4

7/31/00 - 4.2

8/7/00 - 4.2

8/14/00 - 4.1

8/21/00 - 4.0

8/28/00 - 4.1

9/4/00 - 3.9

9/11/00 - 3.8 **** new low rating for the year

9/18/00 - 3.8

9/25/00 - 4.1

10/2/00 - 3.8

10/9/00 - 3.7 ****** another new low rating for the year

10/16/00 - 4.0

10/23/00 - 3.9

10/30/00 - 3.8

11/6/00 - 3.8

11/13/00 - 3.6 ******* another new low rating for the year

11/20/00 - 3.5 ******* lowest rating for the year

11/27/00 - 3.9

12/4/00 - 3.8

12/11/00 - 3.7

12/18/00 - 3.9

12/25/00 - 4.3

I think we are looking at a repeat of history here. Hogan has been writing one more month than Langan had at this point. The ratings hit highs in December and the start of the new year. Days had been doing mediocre since May of 1999 when they had gotten back up to 5.0 for one week under Sussman Morina. They struggled the rest of the year until December when they hit the high of 4.7 the last week of December.

Hogan brought Days back up in December, but he just like Langan he started messing with the balance and what happens. The same thing that happened under Langan. Langan had bigger drops though, but had even bigger drops in the year of 2000.

If history continues to repeat itself (and Lord please don't let it) Days could see even lower ratings that we are getting now if fans continue to be disgusted.

I know there are a lot of factors back then that aren't the same as they are now. A point back then wasn't the same as it is now, but the basic thing is still the same - the drop happened at the same rate even faster.

Many have said that Days never fell this fast before but yes they did. And it was under a new Headwriter who messed with the balance of the show.

They say you are supposed to learn from your mistakes. Days obviously hasn't.

[billyjill]

Days never learns from its mistakes. Change is always necessary but too much at once is asking for trouble.

[PhoenixRising05]

That change was over a longer period Steve. This drop has occurred in pretty much one months's time. It's not the same IMO.

[SteveFrame]

PHoenix in 2000 they dropped a total of .5 in 2 weeks. Look on Jan 24 they were at 4.9. 2 weeks later on Feb. 7 they dropped to 4.4. Thats .5 - a half of a rating point in 2 weeks. Don't tell me it is not the same and this happened quicker. It did not. Facts don't lie.

And all this stuff is posted at Jason47's website too. He has the ratings posted there too.

ON Jan 17, 2006 Days was at 2.7. They have dropped about .1 point to the low of 2.1 last week (for March 5-9). It took them 7 weeks this year to drop to the low of only .6. Back in 200 they dropped .5 in 2 weeks.

BTW I used the week of Jan 17 because that is the week that Kevin Reilly made his statement about the show not lasting past 2009.

Here are the ratings for this year.

Jan 15-19 - 2.7 - week of the statement. Kenny posted it on SON on Jan 17th.

Jan 22-26 - 2.5

Jan 29 - Feb 2 - 2.6

Feb 5-9 - 2.5

Feb 12-16 - 2.5

Feb 19-23 - 2.4

Feb 26 - Mar 2 - 2.3

Mar 5 - 9 - 2.1

So even in a month they have only dropped .4 - still does not equal the drop they took in 2000.

[PhoenixRising05]

That drop in 2000 could also be attributed to the usual drops many soaps take after the holidays. Bach then, January as a whole was always good for the soaps and we didn't see dropoffs until later on.

I don't blame balance for the dropoff in 2000. The balance wasn't that bad until summer 2001. Yeah the teens had lots of airtime but Lexie/Abe had big story early on in 2000 as the baby story was being built. The "Terror in the Skies" story was beginning at that point as Doug, Julie, Alice, Lili, Bo, Shawn, Marlena, John, Eric, Greta, etc all went to look for Hope. The vets were front and center at that time. Victor was even present in story as he had Nicole, Sami, Austin, etc all under his roof and he was also involved with Vivian, Kate, and Nicholas.

The balance was good at the time of that .5 drop and that is why I attribute that drop to the traditional after holidays drop. Days had a good January that year with the Princess Gina climax and the search for Hope.

Also, since the balance was so good back then and the ratings still declined, it kind of proves balance doesn't always have an affect on ratings. Things happening does. I remember that week that Days dropped not much happened after a long month or so of nonstop action and drama. Days always had higher ratings in Dec and Jan so showing that .5 drop means nothing. That is traditional. After March 2000 when Hope was found, the show became rather dull. Nothing happened until June when Hope had her baby so that is why the ratings dropped in April and May. It then went up in summer because Days always does better in summer no matter what they offer. The Fall saw declines as it typically does but that was also when Garden of Eden began and the show was also boring at that time too. The show has a few exciting periods in the Fall but not much. It never really had anything big happen in Fall of 2000 until Christmas with BOPE's wedding. 2000 was a pretty boring year as a whole with the exception of January, half of February, and March.

The only comparison between 2000 and what Days is going through now is that in both years Days had long periods where little happened story-wise and all we had was lots of buildup (like we have been having now since the end of Jan). What you posted supports my point that if things happen, the ratings come. The balance in 2000 was pretty good, as was the first half of 2001. The second half of 2001 was the problem. Even with the balance at times, Days fell so I just don't think that balance is the big issue. The lack of events and things happening along with the cancellation comment are far bigger issues IMO.

[aMLCproduction]

i agree this drop this time is the fastest ever. it has been nothing but total declines. I really would love to know what Ken Korday thinks when he sees these numbers. I bet he has high blood presuure. Lord Knows I would. I bet they feel so stupid now after everyone pimped his coming tenure at days and now look at the shape of the show.

[SteveFrame]

From Jason's Site. Here are your Top 20 Performers for 2000. Yes the big 4 were still featured alot, but the teens and younger crowd were the biggies that year.

1. 158 Jason Cook (Shawn Brady)

2. 155 Kristian Alfonso (152 as Hope Brady/18 as Gina Von Amberg)

*. 155 Kirsten Storms (Belle Black)

4. 148 Drake Hogestyn (John Black)

5. 146 Nadia Bjorlin (Chloe Lane)

6. 139 Alison Sweeney (Sami Brady)

7. 138 Matt Cedeno (Brandon Walker)

8. 137 Peter Reckell (Bo Brady)

9. 134 Deidre Hall (Marlena Black)

10. 132 Arianne Zuker (Nicole Roberts)

11. 123 Jay Johnson (Philip Kiriakis)

12. 119 Renee Jones (Lexie Carver)

13. 111 Julianne Morris (Greta Von Amberg)

14. 106 Farah Fath (Mimi Lockhart)

15. 103 Joseph Mascolo (Stefano DiMera)

16. 100 John Aniston (Victor Kiriakis)

17. 98 Lauren Koslow (Kate Roberts)

18. 97 Jensen Ackles (Eric Brady)

19. 96 James Reynolds (Abe Carver)

20. 90 Bryan Dattilo (Lucas Roberts)

those in bold were with the show less than 2 years - many of them less than 1 year.

And Phoenix, the summer wasn't too good that year. Only July was half way decent compared to what they had been getting.

And no I agree with you that the balance is not as bad as it is now, but it is pretty equal to it. Basically Bo/Hope take the place of Steve/Kayla as one of the big super couples as many still consider them being one.

EJ of course is the Stefano but has a lot more appearances now than Stefano did that year.

The only other thing is you have 2 of the big super couples active that year instead of 1.

And of course Sami is still there.

I still say looking at that the balance issues are still a big problem. I agree that stories and lack of action have a lot to do with it too, but balance is even a bigger issue. You can have bad stories and people will still tune in for the connection.

There have only been 2 times that I have ever lost a connection to Days. It was in 2000 when all these newbies started dominating the air time and now in 2007. The show felt weird back then, and it feels weird again.

[SteveFrame]

Here are 2001's Episode Rankings (and yes it was worse):

1..Kirsten Storms (Belle Black)...190

2..Nadia Bjorlin (Chloe Lane)...189

3..Jay Johnson (Philip Kiriakis)...167

4..Jason Cook (Shawn Brady)...164

5..Kyle Lowder (Brady Black)...148

6..Kristian Alfonso (Hope Brady/Gina Von Amberg)...136

7..Renee Jones (Lexie Carver)...133

8..Drake Hogestyn (John Black)...126

9..Melissa Reeves (Jennifer Horton)...117

10..Farah Fath (Mimi Lockhart)...114

11..Arianne Zuker (Nicole Walker)...111

12..Peter Reckell (Bo Brady)...104

13..Deidre Hall (Marlena Evans Black)...103

14..Matthew Ashford (Jack Deveraux)...100

15..John Aniston (Victor Kiriakis)...99

16..Julianne Morris (Greta Von Amberg)...94

17..Matt Cedeno (Brandon Walker)...93

18..Lauren Koslow (Kate Roberts)...92

*..Alison Sweeney (Sami Brady)...92

20..Heather Olson (Jan Spears)...90

The ratings were also worse.

They started out 2001 at only 4.1 but were in the 3's the rest of the month and Spring. Occassionally in the Summer they got to the 4's again, but spent the majority of the years in the 3's even down to a 3.3.

[PhoenixRising05]

That is for the year Steve. You cited the .5 drop in the early part of 2000 and during that time the vets were on alot. That drop was basically a result of a long period of gains and good ratings (a traditional holiday drop) and a result of very little happening during that time as things were building up a bit. The balance was off in summer 2000 but, other then that, things weren't too bad. The worst was summer 2001. If you want to compare summer 2001 to now, that's different but even then the ratings didn't go down in that summer. They went down in the aftermath of 9/11, like other soaps did.

I see it differently but we'll see what happens in the weeks ahead.

[SteveFrame]

Phoenix, 9/11 was in 2001 - not 2000. So the drop around 9/11 had nothing to do with that. In 2000 Days have only 5 preemptions that year. The normal and one for elections. That's from Jason's site too. I didn't have that in my stuff.

I know these rankings are for the year and I know that those newbies got the majority of those during the summer, but they didn't get all of them during the summer. All those newbies were still featured a lot the rest of the year.

It still had the feel of so many new faces that year as it does this year.

All of these newbies started the downfall for Days ratings and one that they have never recovered from.

And as I said I not saying that there are not factors that don't make the 2 completely comparable. But one the statement was made that Days has never had a time where they have fallen that much that fast, but yes they did. I remembered it but wanted to research it first. And they fell quicker because of balance issues and story issues.

I am not saying it was not a combination of both issues because it was just like it is today.

Also it was said that the the drop was quicker this time, but I showed it wasn't. Back then it took only 2 weeks for the .5 drop and only 6 weeks for the .9 drop.

The cause has been attributed by some to the annoucement this time but it occurred at the same time that the stories got bad and the balance got off. If the announcement had that big of affect on it then the drop would have been a lot quicker but it wasn't. In the first 4 weeks of the announcement the ratings even went up 1 week. Only on the 5th week, 6th week, and 7th week after the announcement did the show dropped steadily.

I am not saying the annoucement had no affect at all, but the balance issue and stories issue has more influence just like it did in 2000.

And I can guarantee you 100% that if Hogan can get his act together as well as Corday - restore the balance and kick the stories in gear you will see the ratings go back up, but at this point after some of the fans who got lured back got disappointed again - it is going to be a slow build. I feel they will have a harder time getting back to the 2.7 from December than it took to get back there this time.

Hopefully they can get back there. Days never got back to the 4.9 that he got Days too early in his tenure. Let's just hope Hogan has better luck.

[PhoenixRising05]

Steve...you are still missing the point. That big .5 drop you cited in the early part of 2000 was a traditional after holidays drop. The show was riding a ratings high then. Those kinds of drops as January closes out were common. Yes, there were quite a few new faces but there were many in 1998 too. The balance was not a issue at all in early 2000. Even Shelle back then were only on because they were a part of the search for Hope story. The teens didn't start getting heavy airtime until summer 2000 and beyond that. Therefore, that .5 drop you mentioned is not similar to this. Days has seen many of those kinds of drops after a long period of highs and lots of action. What we just witnessed this year is something that has never been seen. I mean, the show dropped in everything like a rock. That is in no way similar to 2000 or even 2001.

I only brought up 9/11 because it pertains to summer 2001, the only time I think the balance was worst then this right now. It should also be noted that the balance was messed up that whole summer and the ratings never saw a sharp decline until after 9/11, like most of the soaps did.

As I said, we'll see. If the numbers start going up when the balance improves, fine. But I am one who thinks the numbers can improve as long as things happen regardless of who is on. Whatever the case, the balance is slowly getting better so we may see if your balance argument has merit.

[SteveFrame]

I am not missing the point. The point I have made all along was that the problems are due to story (bad stories) and lack of balance. That has been my point from Day One when the ratings started to fall.

You and I agree on one thing - the people will tune in no matter who is on - but if the stories are bad they will only tune in most likely for characters they know and love.

I said at the start of this that: "there are a lot of factors back then that aren't the same as they are now". I stated that right off, but the basic premise is the same.

There were a lot of new characters & new faces on Days at the time. And I agree with you that the show slowed way down that year and the stories got very stagnant and boring for awhile. And people tuned out.

My point is that they tuned out even faster then than they did now. And my point was proven. It was a combination of all the new faces and the bad stories.

As I said I have said that from Day One. Back then Langan wrote some boring stories. I remember the show being very stagnant then. It was not long after that when I quit. All the new faces were there and the stories were just not that good. I didn't even see any of the summer except for 1 or 2 episodes because I was already tired of them and lost the connection with Days. I didn't start back watching Days full time until Brash/Cwikley came on. I fell in love with the show then.

That February 2000 was when we lost Vivian too. She was fired along with Ivan.

As I said there are just a lot of similarities between the 2, and that year early on and this year early on are the only 2 times in my years of watching Days that I have ever felt this way about Days. It is a feeling that I don't like.

As to the 9/11 argument in 2001. Days saw it's lowest rating at the time long before 9/11. They hit the 3.3 first on May 7, 2001, then again on July 2, 2001, and again on November 5, 2001. They spent a lot of the summer in the 3's that year.

And I will say that the little sub-topic is suppposed to say "the last time they messed with balance & had boring stories" I just now noticed it doesn't say that. Either I mistyped or the title was too long. I probably mistyped. I do that when I go too fast.

[KMan101]

Are we really arguing about this?

Phoenix, you love DAYS and will always support it, obviously no matter what. I don't mean anything by this but all we're going to do is argue and argue and argue because you guys aren't going to see each other's points.

[Days4Life]

ITA. The months of the teen invasion I taped every day and watched the episode in about 5 minutes. Right now I'm still watching but find myself doing other things and not really paying attention. I'm very close to going back to taping, in which case I will probably wear out my FF button.

[SteveFrame]

KMan I didn't mean to appear to be arguing - just bouncing ideas off one another in the discussion.

I see all of PR's points and have admitted that some of the factors are not the same but the basic premise is the same and because of that can be compared and conclusions drawn.

In seeing some of PR's points though some are not supported by fact. He said that Days did not take a sharp ratings decline until after 9/11 even though the balance was bad in 2001. That was simply not true.

From the end of May to the first week of July Days saw it's lowest ratings ever in 2001. They set a new low record and matched it in that time frame. Even in the weeks after 9/11 they only matched it once.

They picked back up to the lower 4's for a little while that summer but only to a 4.2. Right after 9/11 they stayed in the 3.7-3.9 range for quite awhile.

Yes all soaps did see a sharp decline as well as days in the months after 9/11, but Days was already hurting and things didn't get as bad as they did for other soaps at first.

What I hate is that people think if you say anything about Days that is not 100% positive you are tearing the show down. I am not tearing the show down. I am trying to look at the ratings drop and see why it is happening and make Hogan & Corday look at it. Saying it is all the fault of the statement is not looking at what is causing the problems. It is not just the balance because other shows and other times in Days past show that people will tune in if the story is exciting enough - no matter who is on. But the balance is a big issue esp. when the stories are as stale and stagnant as they are now.

The start of 2000 should have still been a big time for Days - just as PR said himself the balance was not as bad as it is now but it was still bad with all the new faces on the show. But the big 4 were still there, but they were in boring very stagnant stories. Those 2 factors together brought Days down fast.

My intention is not to say to Hogan & Corday that this is not your fault - this is because of what Reilly said. They do not need to get the impression that they have no blame in this because this lies fully at the feet of both of them. If they don't see that then changes are not going to be made.

And they can't get the impression that just by putting Bo/Hope, Marlena on in a scene they want them in is not the key to the balance problem either. They need to be in scenes that they are key in or needed to be in. Just having them on does not solve the problem.

It's the same problem that all the fans of ATWT have been talking about for these last few months. Simply putting Nancy (Helen Wagner) on does not solve the problems. They put her on to prop Katie all the time who is not related to her. They brag well we used Helen Wagner so many times in the last few months. Not once was she with family or the people she should have been with. The balance problem still wasn't fixed.

The balance was and is still off on Days. The vets are being seen some and the big 4 but they are still not in the scenes they should be in. They are merely props to the characters that Hogan or Corday now love, and the way they are being used is destroying one key ingredient that has always been a part of Days - family.

Days has an island feel to so much of it these Days which does not help with the detached feeling that many viewers are feeling. It is the same feeling that many of us had back in 2000 and 2001.

Sure this group of newbies and under 30 crowd are better as far as talent, and sure the day to day writing is better, but what good is it if it causes fans to feel detached from the show.