A perspective on the ratings decline

[David V]

Looking at the decline of daytime soap ratings over the years, you can see that soap viewership overall peaked during the 1970s and were actually in a steady decline ever since, with the exception perhaps of ABCD's success in the early 80s. Yet many people cite the OJ Simpson trial as the beginning of the end but was it really?

I'll only be brutally honest here, the OJ Simpson trial has merely been used as a scapegoat for the decline because:

1.Soaps had been pre-empted for various things in the years before (the Oliver North hearings in the late 80s being a prime example), yet we never hear these used as a reference point the same way OJ was. I think these are merely the scapegoat for Daytime's

2.Ratings in 2000 were down on the levels of 1990, which in turn were down on the levels of 1980. Yet even back then, did we hear anyone say they worried about the future of Daytime, or imagine soaps being in as grave a condition as they are now? Even in the latter half of the 90s, soaps were still considered a viable enough genre for three new soaps to debut (namely Port Charles, Sunset Beach and Passions). If anything, the signs that soaps would descend to where they are now probably began to appear some time before.

3.This makes one wonder, would anyone agree that the decline in both quality and ratings post-2000 has been much sharper than it was in previous decades? I'm pretty sure a look at seasonal ratings would reveal such.

[TC]

You have made some interesting points but have lost me on No.3.

Please expand/elaborate. I would like to read what you have to say.

[Im-n-a-whirl]

The ratings are dropping and dropping drastically, there is no denying that.

[Chris B]

I definitely think quality has never been as bad as it is during this decade. Before soaps would instantly can EP's and HW's who weren't working, but now (where there is no time) we're stuck with them for years, hoping they might be able to make something work. I'm sure there have been equally bad headwriters in the past, but we don't hear about them because they (thankfully) were let go in a timely manner.

We also don't have the diversity in daytime like we used to. Before the majority of soaps were good and deserved to be on air. You could watch Ryan's Hope, Edge of Night, As the World Turns, Y&R and GH and see five completely different shows with nothing in common. Now soaps have no real vision or identity and are throwing anything at the wall to see what sticks. What made the soaps successful is generally the last thing they do, usually when it's too late.

[JackPeyton]

I think its a combo of many things. The OJ Trial and other pre-emp's, more and more people joining the working world, cable tv offering more options, as well as utter crap quality.

Think about it - there are now 180 shows at any time to pick from. if soaps are crap why wopuld anyone new turn them on? why would fans keep watching? i mean.. i watch roseanna reruns for the 1000th time over Y&R. i watch the news over B&B. ive even kinda started to watch scifi channel over Days. because what they are offering and showing is much better to watch, even tho ive seen them before, than anything on soaps.

also, whenever soaps are pre-empoted for any amount of time i would assume they lose fans because they either find something else to watch or something better to do.

even in the world of dvr and tivo. soaps just are not good enough for people by the mass to watch like they once were.

when was the last time any soap had a big ratings spike? GH when Brenda came back? and even that wasnt that big of a spike. and i mean if the reuinion of Luke & Laura on GH cant get people watching again - whe how many tuned in for that wedding? - what can?

soaps seem to be one genre that when an audiance is lost - its gone. sadly.

[David V]

What I said at the start is that soaps had been pre-empted for various events for years- there's often no real way around it. Yet it's just the OJ trial that gets picked out, and not the Oliver North hearings which were also disruptive to the Daytime schedule at the time. The point is, networks, producers etc are often just looking for scapegoats for people rejecting the incompetence served up on the screen.

My point #3 was more that whilst the decline of soap audience from the late 70s (after they had peaked) to 2000 was a steady and gentle one, but the decline since 2000 (a good 5 years after OJ) seems to be a far more alarming one for the fact that since then some soaps have lost over half or more of their audience since that time.

In 1999 or so, the viewership numbers were (from recollection):

Y&R- 8 million

B&B- 5.6 million

Days- 5.4 million

GH- 4.9 million

ATWT- 4.7 million

GL- 4.6 million

AMC- 4.4 million

OLTL- 4 million

AW (cancelled that year) 3 million

PC- 2.5 million

SB- 2 million

Comparing that to today's total viewers, a show like Days has lost well over half of what it had at the start of the decade.

[StevieM]

I think there are several factors:

1) A stigma attached to soap viewership.

2) Increased competition from Cable and the internet.

3) Fans became bored with the old format. Rape, adultery, bed-hopping....not as exciting today as it was in the past.

4) Irresponsible writing. Some writers have contempt for their audience. Others treat the show like their own personal plaything.

5) Burn out--characters, families, couples just got burnt out. And breaking a couple up or introducing a new family member wasn't always plausible either.

I'll think of some more later.

Steve

[ChiTownBoi03]

I have to agree that it seems the quality (at least on the shows I watch) started turning me off towards the end of the 90s/00s. This definitely is not a good decade for soaps, and it shows. It has to be hard though to sustain a show over time and keep it fresh, you know change with the times. I think there's two main reasons for the ratings decline since then. One is nowadays, there just seems to be more to do, seemingly leaving little reason to set aside busy schedules for a soap. You have broadband internet, cable, more people in the workforce etc. With the same stories and couples, not to mention writers, being rotated on these shows, people aren't gonna invest their time. We've seen kidnappings, love triangles, demonic possessions, clones, aliens, people in cages, affairs...it's all pretty much been covered. Now we're thinking "ok, now what?"

Of course, network primetime TV is like that too. No new ideas, just new creative approaches to the same idea. But honestly, Nielsen's for them have declined as well, not just for soaps. There are still things that can be done to rejuvenate soaps to make them new and fresh, yet follow the same formula. I haven't seen dealing with obesity heavily featured yet, or chronic fatigue syndrome, or maybe someone going through the process of a sex change(taking the hormones, the whole gamut) and having to deal with societal and family pressures. And if it's sensationalism you want, have a villian drive their enemy insane by giving them a drug that induces sleep paralysis(saw a Dateline special on it, its deep)while also exploring the effects of that. These are dramatic examples, but the original point is that they need to do these types of things, things that are different. I haven't seen any of those instances on a soap, and given the stigma, they make it seem like we should just only expect "love in the afternoon." Well, apparently, those days are over. Been there, done that. Now, people want realism sprinkled with fresh twists to keep our fickle minds from turning the channel. Recycling the same stories, *the exact same way* with the same hack writers is not gonna sustain the genre.

The other reason for the decline, I speculate, could be the fact that we know too much. Instead of "Oh, I can't stand what Carly is doing" it is "Oh, I can't stand what the writers are making Carly do." We are all in the behind-the-scenes. Granted, not everyone reads the mags or follows updates on the net, but for those who do its a habit. My mother is pushing 60 and she reads the mags. Now she's all like "ugh those writers get on my nerves." What?? We also have way-too-detailed previews on what is going to happen which gives it all away. I remember back even as early as 99 when Y&R rarely gave any previews or insight into what is gonna happen. I remember getting those SOD's and the previews were so vague, you just *had* to watch. "Nikki makes a decision" - "Mary Jo does the unthinkable" - "Jack has a plan." I think DAYS would sometimes do it under JER back then, especially during that Kristen/Susan story. I had no idea that stuff at Susan's wedding would happen(her teeth flying across the patio) until the NBC promos 2 days before. I hear Grey's Anatomy is tight-lipped on previews, and it seems to be effective. Nowadays, you get full spreads on what is going to happen. Personally, I go spoiler-free because I have no reason to watch if I already expect it to happen.

With that said, it seems like the damage has been done at this point. I mean, there were 3 soaps battling for last place last week. That...doesn't seem too good. I guess only time will tell how far the execs will go to keep it alive, but just my two cents on the matter.

[Khan]

I think what hurt soaps more than anything was the sudden importance on plot over character. In order for any show to succeed, you have to have identifiable characters who are strong, unique, and larger-than-life. After all, it isn't stories fans remember fondly, but the characters.

[Faulkner]

I've always found the following quote about British soaps particularly instructive about the fall of American soaps. We've all seen how plot-driven soaps have become, but once you get involved with that game, each story has to be bigger and more unbelievable (and in ABC's case, darker and more depressing), which, in turn, makes the viewer jaded and incredulous. At the end of the day, simple, relatable stories about character without all the bells and whistles would have sufficed:

http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/drama/soapinflation.htm

[YRBB]

I agree with all the points that you guys are making. It's really a combination of many things. But isn't one of those things the fact that most of the soaps are OLD?

Apart from B&B, the youngest soap is what? 34?

Most of the soaps have been going on for over 40 years, sporting the same characters, families. How much can you possibly come up with before it's all been done? Combine that with lousy and horrid writers, and all the other reasons given.

[Cyberologist]

1. Daytime dramas can be viable imo esp in this media driven age of IPODS, downloads, TIVO and utube etc.. I for one have serious issues with their lack of diversity. "For the most part" you tune into daytime you see basically rich white Americans as top tier characters (lead roles).

In my case, AA actors are used as bit daytime players leads to give the "appearance of a diverse cast" (and how many are behind the scenes as writers, directors etc). That' their answer to lack of diversity on most of these shows....AA, Asian extras. On GH where is Lainey /Kelly? They have a fanbase and a pretty good one from what I can tell on most boards but on the Scary"Town ABCD board they aren't even mentioned. They have lost and alienated the majority of their loyal AA audience who were serious traditional soap watchers. I got into them because of my grandmother, aunts...etc I recall them in black and white....Soaps do not reflect the society as we live in today.

If you tell me, in press releases, that you are only interested in your 18-34 year old audience that alienates me. A prime example is soap net which is all white, young programming. I was so excited when it first came out and had it the first day it aired; now, I would've dumped it, but it comes w/my cable pkg...yes there is more competitive programming but a good show is a good show...and I will find it on my satallite dish, like I find the international stations and everything else. Besides imo this genre of storytelling is dear to our hearts we won't abandon it if its good. Its like they want the genre to die in order to replace the slots with other programming....do they want them to survive is my question.

Back in the day, there were different classes ethnicities portrayed... I see now that Vicki working in a diner on OLTL has brought in the "real" world instead of just the "reel" ultra rich eg Buchanans/Chandlers/Newmans etc. Not that this class of the top 1% of America don't exist and should be excluded but what about "everyday" people? These characters should also be in lead roles too. I don't see the Vegas (OLTL) unless they are on propping duty usually a Buchanan girl or some newbie du Jour w/the "it" factor many of them can't act. ....they have the Balsoms who I guess aren't as rich but?

These kinds of things are a congruent of forces eg that has created a perfect storm to cause a dwindling audience. They are dying for various reasons but unless they diversify --- imo they are doomed. I stopped watching (for the most part) because of this and many of my friends have bailed as well....

Using excellent actors "of all age" in a meaningful way". Life does not consist of only 18 - 34 yr olds. Its like many soaps are saying to thier longtime viewers "you don't matter we just want young pretty (white) people"...Baby boomers have re-defined this...I was so glad to see Vicki up front and center where she belongs instead of propping her daughters or taking some young newbie to school in a Erika S. acting lesson 101. Seeing Bruno on IWBASS ticked off my young neices who are young and pretty...they think he' horrible in his arrogant views...re: age, and looks..why can't all age groups compete for a role? They ask.....Why this chosen group? They watch OLTL for Dorian, Evangeline, Marcie and Roxy. They don't care for Starr and the HighSchool Musical I and II crew. When they want to see this they know where to go...eg How many center tweens on Y&R?

2. I don't know much about NBC daytime bc I don't watch it. I'm down to only Y&R and GH, I use to record them all

now I don't record any. One network has a "formula" driven soap with "pimping/pairing driven" storylines. This is their method of story telling instead of the "drama" guiding the pair they put characters in a pairing [sometimes before they've aired their in a poll]. I watched this genre before the new for me silly highschool mnemonics attached to pairings. Its like characters are not defined outside a pairing which bores me since I don't count anyway, just saying.... If you split most of them up, they spend ridiculous airtime until they are re-attached ....a few on the canvas have been on over a decade but imo has no story outside their pairing. Also repetitive immature dialog. How many times do you have to say the same thing. I want to scream... I got it. I got it! Now lets move on stop beating me over the head w/stupid dialog. Storylines drag on and on and morph into another one. Its the same deal as taught in third grade, stories have a beginning, middle, and an end..know when to fold em' and move on.

3. "Corporations" gone are the warm and fuzzy days of eg Nixon, Monty, Bell etc these are corporate run soaps, with cookie cutter young cocky arrogant hot-shot executives for the "most" part. One corporation's head of daytime is coming across to me like a back in the day studio head...This is a unique genre that is a part of the fabric of American daytime, and they just don't get it....bringing them up to the 21st (hi tech era) of today and that is a good thing. I love all the hi-tech downloads and this and that but some of the foundation must remain.

4. These soaps write women horribly "for the most part" what gets me is "many" of these eg breakdown, script, continuity writers even HW are women. I really don't think they know what we "want to see" nor do they care...its their "training method of story telling" that turns me off on one network.

5. The OJ Simpson trial is a weak point imo and frankly I'm sick of hearing this; as said how many times have soaps been pre-empted over the decades eg funerals, 911, etc.. OJ is just another one... This point doesn't hold up for me. Besides it shouldn't have been pre-empted for OJ so it was their fault. Yes, what he was accused of is important. However I wasn't interested in the "chase" it ticked me off and interrupted my programming...I also agree with cutting-edge storylines. It can be the same story but its in the "how" you tell the same story that makes it interesting for me.

There' more but this is the gist of it.

[RuAsRuAnAu]

July 1994 Household Ratings Average

Y&R 8.8; AMC 6.9; DOOL 6.6 (July '94 Primetime Special: 8.5 million); GH 5.8; OLTL 5.3; ATWT 5.3; B&B 5.2; GL 4.9; Another World 3.6; Loving 2.6

1995 Viewer Average

Y&R- 7.155 million viewers (WJ Bell/Scott); AMC- 5.891 (McTavish/Nixon/Broderick/Behr); GH- 5.343 (C. Labine/Riche); B&B- 5.247 (B. Bell/WJ Bell); OLTL- 5.152 (Malone/Griffith/Bedsow Horgan); DOOL- 5.056 (JE Reilly/Corday/Langan); ATWT- 4.865 (JL Packer/Wolf/R. Culliton/Caso/Valente); GL- 4.198 (S. Anderson/D. Anderson/McTavish/JFP/Laibson); AW- lower than 3.9 million

[quartermainefan]

Hi,

I don't think quality is the issue at all with regard to soaps falling ratings. Lets face it, even at it's height, GH had imbecile russian superspies trying to conquer the world and not able to even battle perky Felicia Jones and plucky Holly Scorpio successfully. They've always been sort of stupid to one degree or another. Erica Kane was the world's most famous model at 5'0 tall.

Women work these days. Who is home at 11-3 in the afternoon? The answer is not as many people as there used to be. I also think that soap writing has had to compete with the new generation of people who were trained to like quick scenes, no silence, and resolve things quickly. That doesn't work well for soaps because everything is glossed over.

500 channels. When there were 3 networks and 8 local stations, each network got more people obviously. Now it isn't unreasonable people might watch CNN or TCM along with watching CBS and NBC.

soaps need to change their time slots. The networks put on all this reality television, well why not run DOOL every M/W/Fr at 8 pm instead of The World's Most Overweight Supernannies?

That would immediately solve DOOL's ratings. In any event one network should be bold and try it as an experiment with one show. The networks are slow to realize their economic model is becoming no longer viable.

[NeoAngelicLiz]

Good Post and I whole heartedly agre...

Soaps have been declining for ages now and ALL soaps have lost viewers...