March 31 - April 4, 2008

[marceline]

I believe DVRs are included. And is there chance that someone could post Soapnet's ratings? I'd be interested in seeing them.

[DaysFanatic777]

Hi! It's been a long time since I posted.....Just got a huge promotion with my job and they relocated me to the Atlanta Metro. I love it here!

This topic has been pure SON. This is why I watch and love this board. People here are capable of intelligent conversation, and that is rare. Most soap fans just talk about surface issues.

As far as "the death of soaps...." I think there are several factors.

1) People and times have changed. I would love to say I watch "Days" everyday, but I can't. I have responsibilities, work, and a family. I watch twice a week and lurk the net for scoops late at night. I use to watch ATWT and GL, but I paired down to Days because it's my fave, and soaps are an investment. I didn't have time or spare brain capacity to keep up with all three anymore. Most people are like me. They work during the day, and have numerous responsibilities. They simply can't watch like they did in this fast paced society. That makes a smaller audience pool for soaps to pull from.

2) Not only, as I mentioned above, are there last people to view daytime serials, but there are more networks to choose from. Cable has left the networks deplete. That goes for primetime as well. I watch a ton of cable now, and most people would say the same. From CNN election coverage to "Rock of Love 2" on VH1, folks are watching cable, and they are watching less network TV.

3) Soaps, trying to buck these trends, changed and molded themselves into gimmicky, easy to catch on to, crap fest. Soaps have dumbed themselves down to make it easier for new viewers to tune in, and they have crafted storylines to grab a persons attention, not draw the audience in. Soaps no longer cater to the longterm viewer. Instead, they cater to people flipping their remotes. The hope is a new viewer will see an over the top moment and watch. That leaves longterm viewers feeling out of touch and isolated. We no longer see characterization, family ties, romance, and suspense. All we see are cheap one shot lines, big events with no substance, and new characters who look like models with no history or substance.

Some soaps are trying to change. I know Days is better than it was three years ago, but it's porbably too little too late. Soaps, trying to survive in a fast paced world, became unrecognizeable. By trying to save themselves, they killed themselves.

[Roman]

IA with this 100 percent. You are under no obligation to watch the show you appear on.

And......when Hogan and hius staff were writing Days, some people were blasting him too.

Sometimes, it does seem like no matter what some people with bitch. In Hogan's case, it seemed to be forgotten that KC is the EP and Hogan got the complete blame for Days. Now that DH is there, it seems split between her and KC.

[marceline]

I want to take the conversation in a slightly different direction. Sometimes I wonder if the "timelessness" of soaps is working against the genre. 20, 30, 40 years is a long time to produce 250+ shows a year with any degree of integrity or cohesiveness.

I've seen a LOT of conversation here regarding General Hospital. Just to be clear, I don't watch GH and never have so this question is purely theoretical on my part. Could part of the reason GH is failing so poorly be because it is a completely different show with the same name as the old one? If ABC had simply created a new daytime drama about the mob and called it Port Charles Underworld or whatever would the show be doing better now?

Also, we keep hearing from people about vets and core but I honestly believe that reliance on the same ole, same ole is a barrier to new viewers. Note I didn't say young viewers. The genre has jumped through hoops to attract young viewers. But they need to concentrate on bringing on new audiences across all demographics.

Another thought, what if each season of a soap was looked at as a distinct chapter in the larger anthology of stories, some related, some not. That way strong characters could live on but we wouldn't be forced to endure weak ones forever. Stories would have a beginning and end, which, IMO, makes for a better story all the way around. Part of what primetime has going for it is distinct seasons. We know that a story will be resolved. Or that we will be facing a cliffhanger. Daytime not only doesn't have seasons, soap audiences have to contend with single nights that last for weeks, SORASing and reverse SORASing.

I'm just throwing it out there.

[Roman]

I have always felt that good writing trumps everything. If GH or any other show were consistantly written well, and you had a HW, EP and writing team that understood the particular audience for that show, and never would have started pandering to fan bases who only watch for their favorites, you could tell any type of story you want and the fans would stay tuned in.

But when you do what these shows have done........having network presidents pander to those same fan bases, or ruin a show to get one demo, EPs who don't have a clue as to what they are doing, and HWS who write lousy stories for their own amusment at the expense of the fans.....

You get what we have right now......crap.

[wiccachick_1]

I think Toups explained that to me once. Only DVRs in households with Nielson People Meters are included BUT I know that recording data is available from cable companies. I'm not sure why that information isn't purchased from networks for advertising revenue.

[emilyq]

I always get amused by the Soapnet question(not DVR or TIVO) as if Soapnet draws in tons of viewers. Now maybe I am naive, but I did not think it amounted to that much, soapnet is also losing viewers, and is also not available in all markets. I live in the Chicago area and Soapnet is not even an option for us nor is it for a lot of midwesterners. It certainly is another revenue source no question. But why would ratings for the same show running at a differnt time be included in the standard neilson ratings. Maybe I am missing something. Or maybe the point being there are more people still watching than we think, which is probably the case between Youtube and Soapnet. But I would think the soapnet stuff would be separate due to when they air the shows. Different advertisers, different demo than what you would pull in in the daytime.

But I don't believe that Soapnet numbers are going to substantially change anything here. he genre is losing viewers and really none of the attempts to date by any of the networks to date has had any real long term positive impact on changing that.

I will pick on ABC only because they seem to be the network suffering the most over the past year. Attempts to attract viewers using slick CGI technology, stunt casting, better writing in the cast of OLTL, return of old fan favs on AMC seems to have done nothing to improve the shows(except OLTL) and have not really significantly impacted the viewing numbers in a positive way. You get a bump(as GH did in Feb 2007 for their Sweeps story) but I think the point made earlier about how soaps really don't rely on long term viewers is dead on so the stories, casting choices, special effects are done as a means to draw in viewers hoping they might latch onto the show for a while. They the next sweeps comes along and the same cycle is repeated. This also plays into catering to specific fanbases and why some shows, especially the ABC shows, focus so heavily on a few characters whom they beleive to be the most popular rather than spreading the wealth.. They can hook in viewers with their few favs and use the rest of the cast minimally to keep costs down.

I don't see any show or network investing heavily in improvements. Y&R seems to stay status quo for the most part, slow at times but consistantly good. That applied to most of CBS. Days is the only one I see significanlty trying to make the changes people here speak about and their ratings have jumpes yes but not to what they were. Maybe that will come as viewers start to trust what the show has done again, I don't know. ANd I don't see any of the changes done by ABC in the past year having done anything positive in terms of upping viewership.

I love this conversation but the answer is not an easy one. It is obvious that none of TPTB at any network really knows what improvements/innovations would actually cause significant change for the positive.

[DaysFanatic777]

This so very true. Bad balance makes a show crap everytime. What we have are shows that get some balance at times, and then go back into the crapper the second an EP or a HW is convinced it's not working. The audience loses trust, and shrinks.

When Daytime became ratings obsessed and focused soley at getting 18-49 year old women, the genere started falling apart. Ratings were much better pre 1992, which is about the time we started hearing about the importance of ratings, demos, and such. The execs sterotype viewers, gear a show torward a specific demo, and then write shallow stories that make no sense for the sake of a quick spike.

Days did it big time in the 90's, as did GL, GH, AMC and others. They carried it over into the new millinium, and the damage is noticeable. We didn't get to the 2's overnight, daytime earned it's way there.

[P.J.]

I'm kind of surprised that Willen's last day was the least seen show of the week. I'd argue it was the best show that week.

Oh, and does anyone know how TPIR is doing compared to last year?

[SteveFrame]

I agree but the sad thing is that many of these guys volunteer to vote in teh Emmy awards and stuff at the end of the year. And they do and some of them are paid by their shows to go and vote on the panel. And yet they admit they don't even watch their fellow actors work. How can you judge something you haven't seen. Sure they are supposed to watch the tapes but if they don't care to try to keep up with what is going on during the year - why would we think they do during voting time too.

And we wonder why the Emmy awards are so screwed up. Probably most of them go in voting for who TPTB tell them to and that's it.

I understand that some do not want to keep up with their own work etc. and want to get away with it. But the thing that gets me esp. with Scott's statement is his whole seeming disdain for TV as a whole.

And Mary Beth Evans said that when she left Days she quit watching it too. IF a fan does that he is considered a disloyal fan, but many of these actors and actresses are put on pedestals and yet they are not fans of the show either.

[SteveFrame]

I have talked with a lady at Nielsen - SoapNet does not get a good rating. I have not talked to her in awhile and I am sure Days for instance has gone up some but the reason Days got moved from the 7:00/6:00 time slot according to her was that the ratings had fallen way lower than what Y&R was in that slot so they gave it back to Y&R. When Days moved to Y&R's late night timeslot the rating fell off again.

She also the Days marathon was the lowest marathon of the week. And that the movies on Sunday night average a better rating in that time slot than any soaps have done.

Night Shift got the highest ratings SoapNet has ever gotten for any show - first run or rerun and they were only in the 1.'s if remember correctly.

[SteveFrame]

No one can afford to get access to SoapNet's ratings. I checked about Nielsen access for my site SoapsWEB. The more you ask for the higher the price goes to get the ratings report each week. The SoapNet ratings report alone was quoted to me at almost 10,000 a year.

Nielsen does not just give out the ratings to anyone. You either pay for access for yourself or you find someone who pays for them and get them to share with you. The more you request - demos, stations, etc. - the higher the yearly price.

And yes DVR's are included. Here with the ratings Toups gives you get the Live Rating plus those that watch the DVR within 1 day. Nielsen also reports on those that watch the DVR up to 7 days later now. Not everyone pays for access to those.

[SteveFrame]

The problem at least for me is not the mob on GH but the fact that the show has become all about the mob.

Soaps have always been and should always be about BALANCE. And that doesn't just mean equality in presence but it means the overall structure of the show.

Soaps in the 70's and 80's (even GH under the Luke and Laura years) were never about one couple or one thing. Characters and stories supported one another. The big problem with the mob, and certain couples like Zendell, EJami/Lumi, John/Natalie, and others and even certain performers like Michael Easton and others is that the shows have become so much about them that the shows have totally gotten off balance.

Never did characters on soaps solely exist to prop other couples and characters until the last few years.

Soap opers should and always should be an ensemble thing. They are a blending of the whole canvas working together as a whole. They should have shining characters and stuff, but no one should dominate or overwhelm all the ohters. That is the way soaps were for years.

Stories rotated between characters and stuff. They told stories sometimes with small arcs here and there that went about for even years at a time and hitting so many dramatic highlights through the years.

Now they rush from point a to point b so quickly that many times they even miss story arcs. They put their key couples into these fast based plot driven stories that move them so quickly from one point to another that the couples wear out too.

For instance, Doug & Julie on Days of Our Lives met in 1970 and knew they loved one another, but they never got together until 6 years later. It was years before they even slept together. Every little beat was played up from tiemes that they only held hands to the first kiss to the first time they made love.

They bled every moment. There were lots of little stories in there that kept things interesting but the big major story was Doug & Julie. At the same time they had so many other stories going - Mickey/Maggie/Bill/Laura, Mickey's amnesia, Tom's heart problems, Susan/Greg/Eric, and many others.

The mob has taken over GH and every story comes back to it at some point. It is no longer just an umbrella story on the show it is the be all and end all of the show. To me umbrella stories are one thing but often lately they take an umbrella story and make it what the whole show is about. All balance is lost.

Edited to add:

That was my biggest problem under Hogan for example at DAys was that everything came back to the Vendetta story - even the only one other story going at the time was Touch The Sky and it was even made part of it. I like Umbrella stories a lot but not when that is what the whole show is about. You can't take and put a soap opera totally reliant on one thing. There has got to be something for all viewers. And soaps are losing that today. They either put too much confidence in one demo, one couple, or one story. Fans that don't like that story or couple or don't fit in that desired demo are screwed.

[SoapQueen89]

Thank you Roman!

[SoapQueen89]

SOAPnet doesn't have the volume of viewers like ABC, NBC, or CBS do. NS ranked the highest show they have with only a million viewers for their first episode and ended out their season with a little over 750,000. That's awesome for SOAPnet considering their original series are pulling 350,000 per episode, if that. SOAPnet is on a whole new set of standards as far as ratings are concerned.