Oh, Jess, I'm sorry if I offended you!!! It was just a test because I hoped you were a mathematician so that we could discuss this mathematically. Just that!

I'm really sorry if I hurt you!

I apologize too Sylph. I pissed something that happened on another thread and decided I am just going to fight back all the time now.

As far as math, no. So much of any type academic research now though is surveys and statistics. That is where my background comes from.

Okay...here's a question just to pass the time until the ratings get the ball rolling here and I'm being serious.

Payola: (definition for dictionary.com)

pay·o·la

n.

Bribery of an influential person in exchange for the promotion of a product or service, such that of disc jockeys for the promotion of records.

A bribe or a number of bribes given to an influential person in exchange for a promotion of a product or service

Do you think that the fan campaigns where producers, network executives, actors, or media writers receive gifts of value should be considered payola in order to promote a specific storyline, couple, or character? I understand sending in postcards and that sort of thing but I recently watched a youtube clip where Becky Herbst (and I am NOT singling her out by any means whatsoever. It's just the example I happened to see.) showed off a bracelet that was sent by a certain faction of her fans and I remember thinking how strange it was. I could see where receiving gifts of a certain monetary value by a faction of her fans might influence her support for one pairing over another. It could influence storylines and ultimately affect the careers of not only the actor involved but other actors on the show. Similarly if Guza, Phelps, or we could expand it to other shows like The Bears or Carruthers et al. were receiving similar treatment, could that actually be considered payola?

This is just for the sake of the argument guys. I'm not trying to "start nothing where there wouldn't be nothing".... I'm just curious what your take on it might be.

I think it would be payola if it went to an elected official. I don't think actors have that much say in things. I think it would have to be a pretty big gift for it to influence network heads because I bet, but don't know, that they get paid well. You hear about things like Frons going on golfing trips with actors and stuff, I wonder about that. I've noticed lately on these shows that they will make a point of showing cast members using a particular computer brand or cell phone or something. I think they do that as a reward to advertisers and stuff.

One other thing on Neilsens and then I'll go away. I've wondered if there is a margin of error and if so why it isn't reported. It seems like since it is a sample of the population that there would be some margin of error. The reason I mention this is that all these .1 drops or increases don't seem like they would be that big a deal, you maybe just survey error. Really they rank soaps 1-8, with the exception of those at the very top, it would seem that all of them are really pretty much tied.

I apologize too Sylph. I pissed something that happened on another thread and decided I am just going to fight back all the time now.

As far as math, no. So much of any type academic research now though is surveys and statistics. That is where my background comes from.

I think it would be payola if it went to an elected official. I don't think actors have that much say in things. I think it would have to be a pretty big gift for it to influence network heads because I bet, but don't know, that they get paid well. You hear about things like Frons going on golfing trips with actors and stuff, I wonder about that. I've noticed lately on these shows that they will make a point of showing cast members using a particular computer brand or cell phone or something. I think they do that as a reward to advertisers and stuff.

Well, payola sort of originated from a practice that used to exist on the radio. DJ's would receive payment to play a certain song on their playlist but they would not present it as a paid service but that it just happened to be on their playlist all of the sudden. So the payoffs went to the DJ's. Now I know that fans aren't exactly a record company which is where this originated but if the gifts were frequent enough and actually influenced what we saw on our screen, then concievably it COULD be considered payola to some extent. I'll use a past couple for example. If Lucy and Kevin fans were constantly sending gifts of value like jewelry for Lynn Herring, she could reward "Luvin" fans by gushing about the Luvin pairing at every opportunity. If Guza was sent let's say hockey tickets (I have no idea if Guza likes hockey but let's go with it) or even better hockey season tickets from the Luvin fans, he may feel more inclined to write for them but it would be presented onscreen like Guza just wanted to write this story for no particular reason. Now Guza lost interest in telling the Lotty (Lucy and Scotty) story he was going to tell and actually wrote Scotty out of the show because he didn't have any other story planned for him. The Luvin payola negatively affected Kin Shriner and he might have a good case that the payola has had a negative effect on his career.

All of the above is completely hypothetical but do you see what I'm saying?

Okay...here's a question just to pass the time until the ratings get the ball rolling here and I'm being serious.

Payola: (definition for dictionary.com)

pay·o·la

n.

Bribery of an influential person in exchange for the promotion of a product or service, such that of disc jockeys for the promotion of records.

A bribe or a number of bribes given to an influential person in exchange for a promotion of a product or service

Do you think that the fan campaigns where producers, network executives, actors, or media writers receive gifts of value should be considered payola in order to promote a specific storyline, couple, or character? I understand sending in postcards and that sort of thing but I recently watched a youtube clip where Becky Herbst (and I am NOT singling her out by any means whatsoever. It's just the example I happened to see.) showed off a bracelet that was sent by a certain faction of her fans and I remember thinking how strange it was. I could see where receiving gifts of a certain monetary value by a faction of her fans might influence her support for one pairing over another. It could influence storylines and ultimately affect the careers of not only the actor involved but other actors on the show. Similarly if Guza, Phelps, or we could expand it to other shows like The Bears or Carruthers et al. were receiving similar treatment, could that actually be considered payola?

This is just for the sake of the argument guys. I'm not trying to "start nothing where there wouldn't be nothing".... I'm just curious what your take on it might be.

I spent a few years working radio promotion so I'm pretty familiar with how payola works. The big difference is that fans are the consumers of a product who are trying to influence how that product is produced. That's vastly different than a record rep trying to get their songs into heavy rotation which directly results in profit to the record company. I think it would be very difficult for a writer or actor to benefit enough from any fan campaign to make it worth their while to make the kind of serious waves it would take to influence a show. It would be more likely that a sponsor could unduly influence what we see.

I spent a few years working radio promotion so I'm pretty familiar with how payola works. The big difference is that fans are the consumers of a product who are trying to influence how that product is produced. That's vastly different than a record rep trying to get their songs into heavy rotation which directly results in profit to the record company. I think it would be very difficult for a writer or actor to benefit enough from any fan campaign to make it worth their while to make the kind of serious waves it would take to influence a show. It would be more likely that a sponsor could unduly influence what we see.

Yeah, my first degree is in journalism and I interned at a radio station but that was loooooong after the payola situation was a non-issue except for the fact that we had very well documented guidelines for what was acceptable or not acceptable to be received at the radio station and by whom. I just tossed out the hypothetical (and trust me, I've been a part of some campaigns so I'm guilty as sin if it could be ethically challenged in any way) because there is a point where there is a negative effect as a whole.

The online community may be a minority of soap viewers but it seems that we can influence the show as a whole because the nature of the online fan is to be very vocal and we often organize and become a "machine" for our cause but I'm not exactly sure it's to the benefit of the show in general.

Hey all. I have a Ph.D. too. Which I mention only because....

I think this is why Goutman is right. What an odd, rarefied group this is. Seems like most of the commenters here have degrees...many advanced degrees. There is also, I'd say, at least a 50% male population here at SON.

None of these things represent the typical soap viewer. Many here have also given their ages in their 20s and 30s...again, certainly not the typical soap viewer.

So, in that sense, I'd agree with Goutman (another thread) that we are a very very very small fraction of the viewing audience.

But, now, I'd put on a different hat: Demographically (most under 49 years, educated), it seems to me we are a DESIRABLE demographic. Said with a hint of elitism: Please us, and you please the kind of audience that watches shows that attract top advertiser dollars.

I really think it is very foolish to ignore a segment of your audience because they are small. As an EP, you should pay special attention to an audience that represents the kind of audience you want.

I feel so snobbish after writing that, but I don't mean it in a snobbish sense.

Hey all. I have a Ph.D. too. Which I mention only because....

I think this is why Goutman is right. What an odd, rarefied group this is. Seems like most of the commenters here have degrees...many advanced degrees. There is also, I'd say, at least a 50% male population here at SON.

None of these things represent the typical soap viewer. Many here have also given their ages in their 20s and 30s...again, certainly not the typical soap viewer.

So, in that sense, I'd agree with Goutman (another thread) that we are a very very very small fraction of the viewing audience.

But, now, I'd put on a different hat: Demographically (most under 49 years, educated), it seems to me we are a DESIRABLE demographic. Said with a hint of elitism: Please us, and you please the kind of audience that watches shows that attract top advertiser dollars.

I really think it is very foolish to ignore a segment of your audience because they are small. As an EP, you should pay special attention to an audience that represents the kind of audience you want.

I feel so snobbish after writing that, but I don't mean it in a snobbish sense.

Actually, since you're a male, you don't matter at all in daytime. They don't care whether you watch or not, since they never sell ads directed toward a male audience during soaps, only women. Sadly, they only care about women from 18-49, and girls 12-17. That's it. If you're not one of them, you don't matter.

(BTW, the ABC Press Release shows ABC in third place in 18-49 this week....Y&R first at 1.7, GH tied for 2nd with DAYS at 1.4, B&B 4th at 1.3, and OLTL 5th at 1.2)

Edited May 15, 200817 yr by Carolyn1980

Hey all. I have a Ph.D. too. Which I mention only because....

I think this is why Goutman is right. What an odd, rarefied group this is. Seems like most of the commenters here have degrees...many advanced degrees. There is also, I'd say, at least a 50% male population here at SON.

None of these things represent the typical soap viewer. Many here have also given their ages in their 20s and 30s...again, certainly not the typical soap viewer.

So, in that sense, I'd agree with Goutman (another thread) that we are a very very very small fraction of the viewing audience.

But, now, I'd put on a different hat: Demographically (most under 49 years, educated), it seems to me we are a DESIRABLE demographic. Said with a hint of elitism: Please us, and you please the kind of audience that watches shows that attract top advertiser dollars.

I really think it is very foolish to ignore a segment of your audience because they are small. As an EP, you should pay special attention to an audience that represents the kind of audience you want.

I feel so snobbish after writing that, but I don't mean it in a snobbish sense.

Hmmm, you make me feel special. :lol: I agree that this particular board is not representative. I think on average people here are a little higher educated than a lot of soap viewers (but perhaps that is a stereotype). It certainly appears to be much much younger. You can look at the ratings for most shows and see that the mean soap viewer is over 50. The median is probably even higher. I think the board also has posters who are much better informed on the history and inside workings of soaps. I think there are regular posters here that are students of soap operas and soap opera writing. I dare say (and again it may be a stereotype) that the average soap viewer doesn't know who writes their shows or recognize when writers change.

Actually, since you're a male, you don't matter at all in daytime. They don't care whether you watch or not, since they never sell ads directed toward a male audience during soaps, only women. Sadly, they only care about women from 18-49, and girls 12-17. That's it. If you're not one of them, you don't matter.

(BTW, the ABC Press Release shows ABC in third place in 18-49 this week....Y&R first at 1.7, GH tied for 2nd with DAYS at 1.4, B&B 4th at 1.3, and OLTL 5th at 1.2)

I can't wait to see if Y&R continued its low trend.

Males don't count...I realized that. I have realized that if I ever write a complaint letter to the networks or production houses, I should identify myself as a 27 year old woman with a college degree.

(BTW, the ABC Press Release shows ABC in third place in 18-49 this week....Y&R first at 1.7, GH tied for 2nd with DAYS at 1.4, B&B 4th at 1.3, and OLTL 5th at 1.2)

Those are horrible numbers for all the soaps in the 18-49 demo. I bet there were some nasty falls across the board in total viewers and households last week...

That graphic is the best evidence that content is not the cause for declining ratings. The #1 show and ABC's last place show both have almost the exact same trend.

I think there are regular posters here that are students of soap operas and soap opera writing. I dare say (and again it may be a stereotype) that the average soap viewer doesn't know who writes their shows or recognize when writers change.

I don't think that's a stereotype. I think most people posting on any message board about any show is, by their nature, a more involved, engaged viewer. People post on message boards because they're involved. You want to see people get REALLY involved? Visit a Lost board, any Lost board. I watch the show and listen to the occasional podcast from the creators, but the level of detail that most Lost posters observe boggles my freaking mind.

But I agree the average viewer doesn't care who's writing. All they know is when they don't like the show anymore.

Edited May 15, 200817 yr by marceline

That recent dip for Y&R is really quite something..you know how much I love your charts Sylph. I literally live for them :-).

Edited May 15, 200817 yr by MarkH

Here I am hoping for an AMC rise!

That graphic is the best evidence that content is not the cause for declining ratings. The #1 show and ABC's last place show both have almost the exact same trend.

EXCEPT...and I realize these are small effects...compare Y&R's recent dip with OLTL. OLTL seems to be fluctuating around its' moving average...where as Y&R seems to be enjoying a small "shift" (only .1 or .2...but still) that is moving its' average to a new lower level.

Only time will tell of course...but I am very worried for Y&R.

But Sylph's graph--if he were to put all the soaps on from the 1950s (yes, I have an outdated version of such a graph) would show what you assert: The trend is industry-wide, and always has been.

My figure is not as nice as Sylph's and it is outdated, but here is what I found (thanks to Toups' data archive). By the way, that missing data in the middle...does anyone have it?

With the small exception of GH in the early 80s, and Y&R in the early 90s, the general viewership trend has been consistently down since the late 1960s or early 1970s. Even these temporary peaks did not in any way restore the soaps' general viewership to where they had been before. Statistically, these are all parallel lines. And the story it tells is this: a downward trend, monotonic since the 1970s, that is industry wide. The stuff we all squawk about here (myself included) are random fluctuations around a moving average. Honestly, it is meaningless (albeit fun) for us to parse the week by week trends. The story is in the year by year trends (shown here). If declining viewership is due to bad writing, how do you explain the 70s and 80s? You know the real reason: working women, increasing TV options, less multi-generational viewing, and the general decline of TV viewership.

But, now, follow the monotonic trend into the future. Just project those lines. What do you see? I see the death of soaps by 2020 or earlier. I just don't see how it can be avoided. Decline has been SO unabated for so many decades...there is no way to make the cost model work.