May 5-9, 2008

[Southofnowhere]

What in the heck happend on Thursday on ATWT to cause them to get that very nice bump?

[Jess]

Mark, those are really very nice graphs. Look at the change in the slope beginning at about 1994. It went from a gentle downward slope to a nose-dive. That really tells the story. Thank you.

[Southofnowhere]

So OJ is Gulity of killing soaps?

[MarkH]

There is no question that the 1994 Jess points out coincides with the OJ trial.

But if you look at the summary graph (linked here again) , there are other big dips and valleys. 1961-62 (Berlin Wall), 1964 (Kennedy assassinated), 1968-69 (MLK and RFK assassinated; Vietnam and the Summer of 69), 1973 (Watergate). In each of those eras, pre-emptions caused huge dips, but viewership rebounded TO SOME POINT.

Now, if you look at the 90s, around the OJ trial, there is no doubt an accelerated decline slope.

But see--here's the thing. All these dips and valleys are just that: dips and valleys. The deeper story is told in following the TRAJECTORY from the mid 1950s.

Look at the STEEP decline slope from 1952-1960. Now, that isn't really a meaningful decline, I don't think. Here, we see more and more TVs coming on line, a growth of choices (even over just 3-4 channels), and so the ratings look like they're in free fall. After 1960, there is a more consistent trajectory that follows from that point forward.

If you smooth over the dips and valleys (literally, print out the figure, and use a ruler to draw a line from 1960 to 2008) what you'll see is a STRAIGHT LINE. It is the same straight line, more or less, now, that it was in 1960! That is meaningful. It means that the "process" that initiated the decline slope in 1960 is very likely the SAME process that continues the decline slope now.

OJ, in that sense, may have caused a short term steepening of the decline slope, but he had no discernible long-term effect beyond the slope that was already in place since 1960.

How can this be? Well, if you think about it, the factors that lead to declining soap viewership (and to declining general TV viewership) are the same now as they were in 1960. It's just that the process is "further along" now. What are those factors?

- more women working out of house during the daytime

- more TVs...less intergenerational watching

- more entertainment options beyond soaps (initially more networks and channels...now, internet, DVR, etc.)

- cultural devaluation of soaps as "uncool" or "low quality" or "unworthy" (remember, even 'soap opera' was meant as a perjorative...it's just that we've all appropriated it as a good thing--in much the same way as GLBT community members have appropriated "queer")

When you add this all together, you can see that by 1960 (and possibly as early as the mid 50s...when soaps were at their height), they were already on a relentless death trajectory. The slope was always the same.

It's just that now, we're in the "end times". At this point the viewership is low enough, and profitability is low enough, that we FEEL it and KNOW it, based on the crap we see on the screen. But we're at the point of low viewership/profit because we were always destined to come here.

I consider myself, as a male, a proud feminist and a devotee to equality across many different lines. BUT, that said, there is little doubt that feminism, and the movement of the family out of the "house" and out of the nuclear family construct, a process that soaps began to parallel very early on, is the process that has killed the genre.

[Darcy]

All the soaps except GH got their highest ratings or tied their highest rating on Thursday (and some got much higher). IMO, in general it's more of a daily thing than any thing going on particularly on any soap.

[marceline]

So to go off on a tangent. Do you really think the genre is dead? I can think of a lot of forms of entertainment that have been declared dead until something happened to revive them.

Sitcoms were dead. Then came The Cosby Show. They "died" again. Then came Friends.

Sci-fi was dead. Or at least as uncool as soaps until Buffy the Vampire Slayer made it if not cool then at least lucrative. And now Battlestar Galactica is a pretty popular show. And one can easily call Lost a sci-fi show (and a soap.)

Broadway was dead until RENT. And again until Spring Awakening

Movie musicals until Moulin Rouge, then Chicago, Dreamgirls, Hairspray, etc...

My point is I'm getting my ass kicked in another thread for suggesting that nostalgia is killing soaps but I really believe that. And I stick by that. Is it possible that the genre can survive even if these particular shows don't? The concept of the serial drama is thriving in primetime and in other countries and I know that there's a lot of factors involved in making a successful show. But I really believe that the genre doesn't have to die but this version of it has to.

[koos]

Nostalgia is totally killing soaps. While I love to see old flashbacks of Bo and Hope from the '80s on Days, or whatever character/show, it's apparent that the flashback should NOT be the highlight of the episode, and it usually IS. Instead of referencing classic moments or even re-airing them, or trying to draw parallels with "new" (read: rehashed) moments that aren't new at all, they should be concentrating on creating classic moments for the 21st century. Nostalgia and an attempt to re-do the past is what's been ruining jazz music, too.

[MarkH]

Yeah, you're right. When I say the genre is dying or dead, I mean THESE shows IN THE DAYTIME on commercial networks, blah blah blah. You're absolutely right. I mean,t he serial format is EVERYWHERE now...I love The Office, and that is as much of a soap as it can be--within a beautiful odd comedy. I love Brothers and Sisters, and that is totally a soap. I really do thing the daily-string format of daytime soaps as they existed on radio and on TV since the 1950s is dead.

Your other point about "nostalgia killing the soaps" is also completely true. But let me parse that a bit (in the way I have been thinking about it).

When LML first came to Y&R (my show) I loved it. She energized the show, goosed up the plots, improved the dialog and pacing. Eventually, LML went south (absolute power corrupts absolutely)--she lost track of history, character, and story momentum.

But here is my point: There were oodles of detractors from LML's FIRST DAY. And many of the detractors had some variant of "she hadn't earned her place in the Bell hierarchy" and "she wasn't consistent with Bell storytelling" and so forth. In other words, those who immediately rejected LML rejected her PRECISELY because she dared to innovate--and because she might not appreciate all the conventions of the soap to that date.

Yet, shockingly, when LML left, and the flower shots returned (and the jewelry and the fireplaces and the instrumental music...) I rejoiced as much as anyone. When a BELL was writing the show again, I was ecstatic. And that's when I realized that the current soaps ONLY survive on the fumes of nostalgia.

Soaps are comfort food...they are the warm tattered blankets left over from our childhoods. They are not attracting new viewers, and the old viewers reject every little microcosm of change. (I'm not saying that's always true here on SON...where there are a lot of progressive people...but more generally it is true). So, we're trying to preserve those blankets until they finally fall apart. In that context, you don't want to change or alter the blanket.

In primetime, my favorite network (until "Tell Me That You Love Me") was HBO. Why? Because it innovated and pushed the envelope. No nostalgia at all. I used to fantasize that daytime would be like that, but Kay Alden said it right at MIT when she said "daytime is not an avant garde medium". It's not. I lives on nostalgia.

The "future of the serial format" will indeed happen...but our 8 remaining, surviving shows....they won't be part of that future. And I'm okay with that.

The soap universe is littered with the skeletons of dead soaps that lived their lives and went away. "Secret Storm", "Edge of Night", "Young Dr. Malone".... Our eight shows will soon join that heap. And then DAYTIME, as we loved it, WILL be dead. That will create time and space for an evolution of the serial form.

Building on this, here's another statistical perspective.

This figure is based on a "survival analysis" of the soaps' lifetimes (all soaps in America since the 1950s). To make a very long story short, in the whole history of soaps, only 50% lived as long as 4 seasons. That means any soap with more than 4 seasons has already outlived the majority of other soaps. One might also say, such a soap is "living on borrowed time".

There are lots of ways to interpret this figure, and I'm really over-simplifying here. But one way to think about it is that the typical "shelf life" or "relevance" of soaps is less than half a decade. Another way to think about it is "this is a brutal business", and only the hardiest survive.

In that context, it is remarkable that our shows have been on for 30+, 40+ and 50+ years. We have been given such a gift...for them to have so outlived their many compatriots. Those other old soaps had fans who loved them...who lamented the loss of their programs. Some of us have been fortunate to enjoy our daytime addictions for almost half a century.

So, as I'm emotionally preparing myself to let them go (let go of the nostalgia), I'm doing so with gratitude, and with--yes--a little excitement to see the next iteration of the serial format.

[Jess]

Mark! I love your survival analysis and also your overall analysis of the future of soaps. It really is excellent. I am so impressed and I don't impress easily.

I think soaps are dead in their current format. I think there will be some form of daytime drama, but it won't be in its current format.

However, listen to Mark. His approach is scientific and very logical. This is interesting to me.

[juppiter]

As was said above, sitcoms were dead until The Cosby Show...

Game shows were dead until Who Wants to Be a Millionaire...

etc.

But there is one genre that died without coming back: westerns. Soaps could go down that path.

[MarkH]

Oh, that is a GREAT one!

Do you think Westerns REALLY died? Or do you think action shows, like Alias or 24, became the inheritors of the "lone hero saves the day amongst a small community of compatriots" genre?

Because if you believe (as I do) that "24" is a modern Western, then I think that tells the tale of the soap of the future: Looks nothing like it used to, but the evolved genre continues.

[DaytimeFan]

I wouldn't really consider Westerns and Soap Operas as a parallel.

Sitcoms, Game Shows, Soap Operas all have their own unique narrative structure. Westerns do not: they have a beginning, a middle and an end. Westerns are action movies, I can't think of anything about the Western narrative structure/style that is different from an action/popcorn movie. Westerns burnt themselves out because they stopped being relevant because they harkened to an era that audiences just don't care about.

Soap Operas will endure, not in their present form, but they will survive. Soap Operas used to be about people, emotions, interaction: timeless parts of the human experience. The open ended narrative is simply too useful, it's too good, it's too free not to be used.

I think American soaps are the dinosaurs of melodrama. The UK never bothered with 'daytime'...Latin America went with Telenovelas (which, I think, are the future without question) and other countries like Canada, Germany and France imported their soaps at a rock bottom price from the States...'Daytime' as the institution we know, will be gone in under 25 years...it's a dinosaur that never bothered to evolve because it CANNOT evolve without dying first.

Like MarkH said so perfectly (I was an LML detractor from day one and MarkH nailed down exactly why I was):

"When LML first came to Y&R (my show) I loved it. She energized the show, goosed up the plots, improved the dialog and pacing. Eventually, LML went south (absolute power corrupts absolutely)--she lost track of history, character, and story momentum.

But here is my point: There were oodles of detractors from LML's FIRST DAY. And many of the detractors had some variant of "she hadn't earned her place in the Bell hierarchy" and "she wasn't consistent with Bell storytelling" and so forth. In other words, those who immediately rejected LML rejected her PRECISELY because she dared to innovate--and because she might not appreciate all the conventions of the soap to that date.

Yet, shockingly, when LML left, and the flower shots returned (and the jewelry and the fireplaces and the instrumental music...) I rejoiced as much as anyone. When a BELL was writing the show again, I was ecstatic. And that's when I realized that the current soaps ONLY survive on the fumes of nostalgia.

Soaps are comfort food...they are the warm tattered blankets left over from our childhoods. They are not attracting new viewers, and the old viewers reject every little microcosm of change. (I'm not saying that's always true here on SON...where there are a lot of progressive people...but more generally it is true). So, we're trying to preserve those blankets until they finally fall apart. In that context, you don't want to change or alter the blanket."

[marceline]

Wasn't Deadwood a popular western? That's an honest question on my part because I've never seen it. I certainly remember a lot of buzz around the show.

[MarkH]

One of my favorite shows. BUT NOTHING like Gunsmoke. "Got that, ya f*ckin' hopplehead!". (Quoting the show, not being mean).

[marceline]

Looks like I'm going to have to put this one in my queue.