OK folks, let's not get our panties in a bunch over Guiding Light's 1.4 rating on Friday. GL was pre-empted on WCBS of New York City due to the coverage of the Crane accident. If it wasn't for the pre-emption GL would've remained at 1.7 or go up at 1.8 for the week.

Lynn Liccardo's blog today provides a delightful historical overview on the ratings.

An excerpt:

I am not sure about some of the info there.

For Richer, For Poorer had been cancelled long before 1981.

The 1977-1978 season it was in last place. ATWT was #1 that year.

1978-1979 season - ATWT dropped to 4th

1979-1980 season - ATWT dropped to 6th

1980-1981 season - ATWT was at 5th

1981-1982 season - ATWT tied for 5th with Y&R

So I am not sure where he/she gets ATWT was at the top of the ratings in 1981.

I am not sure about some of the info there.

For Richer, For Poorer had been cancelled long before 1981.

The 1977-1978 season it was in last place. ATWT was #1 that year.

1978-1979 season - ATWT dropped to 4th

1979-1980 season - ATWT dropped to 6th

1980-1981 season - ATWT was at 5th

1981-1982 season - ATWT tied for 5th with Y&R

So I am not sure where he/she gets ATWT was at the top of the ratings in 1981.

Demos?

I didn't fact check her. I think what I found more interesting was her take on the youth-grab of GH 1981, and how it changed daytime forever. We can get the specific numbers from the ratings database, if we want. Thanks all for introducing these caveats.

No way ATWT was at the top of the ratings in 1981. It began a steady decline in 1977 after 20 years at #1. GH was firmly at top, followed by AMC and OLTL in 1981. The only CBS show to begin to challenge ABC's dominance was GL around 83/84 with some very popular stories. I think it even hit #1 one week. Then, of course, Y&R began showing growth and would eventually take over the top spot. Week by week circa 1979-1983, ABC dominated the top 3 spots, with ATWT further down the rung.

From P&G

They "Claim" they are working hard to put together a quality show.

Um ok.

No way ATWT was at the top of the ratings in 1981. It began a steady decline in 1977 after 20 years at #1. GH was firmly at top, followed by AMC and OLTL in 1981. The only CBS show to begin to challenge ABC's dominance was GL around 83/84 with some very popular stories. I think it even hit #1 one week. Then, of course, Y&R began showing growth and would eventually take over the top spot. Week by week circa 1979-1983, ABC dominated the top 3 spots, with ATWT further down the rung.

If you read the actual entry, she's talking about ratings circa 1978, not 1981. MarkH did some bad editing on the part he quoted.

I don't see how the increase can be because of Zendall. Zendall was also on when the ratings were (further) in the toilet. I respectfully submit that while Zendall is obviously very appealing to some fans there are many viewers who find them - if not downright noxious - at least VERY overrated. I'm not a Zendall fan, nor am I a Zendall hater, I just find them and the rest of the sextet, boring. For me, they are the equivalent of "This has been a test of the emergency broadcast system..."

I've said before that AMC is a chimera (no pun intended) of two different shows: Sex(tet) and the City and everyone else (TnD, the Hubbards, Erica). In another place and time, one of these shows would be spun off. But that's not going to happen. So unless Frons is fired, I fully expect that a year from now we will see a whole new slew of skinny bitches and cromagnon men while the Hubbards will be living in California next door to the Santos family. And every other thread will be "X is no Kendall (real!Greenlee, Zach, or Ryan)!"

I agree with everything.

I bolded some just to mmake it stand out

I am another one of those that doesnt think whow as on one what day and what story line it was matters much to the ratings (aside from events). i think its much more simple.

people watch when theyw ant and done when they dont. nothing keeps them tuned ine evryday. thats why soaps go up and down so much week to week and day to day.

sure quality matters, and toi ane xtent whos on, but only a small extent.

Edited June 6, 200817 yr by JackPeyton

If i said i couldn't agree more with BOTH posts would anyone understand? Because i do. And idk how because they are the total opposite of each other.. but hey.. ITA with both!

Yes, they have some problems, but in general I find their scene set-ups and dialogue to be less "in your face"/over the top/less soapy and more intelligent than AMC's and OLTL's. Despite its problems, the show tries to make you think and there's a good deal of subtext. In general, I don't get that as much from AMC and OLTL. Sure, for entertainment value, AMC and OLTL beat GH by a mile, but there's a depth to GH that I don't find with AMC and OLTL. Now if they could just get their act together and diversify the canvass and use veteran actors effectively, they'd have the potential to be the best show on daytime. Again JMO.

See, I find the complete opposite and I think the continuity issues, the dropped storylines, and the scrapping of the direction of a story in the middle of it adds to my discontent with the script and dialogue writing. Not that I don't have sympathy for the poor, toiling dialogue writers over there. It can't be the easiest job in the world to write great dialogue for characters with no direction, stories with no direction or a show in general with no direction.

I find GH dialogue repetitive and somewhat forced. Because plots do not have depth it's hard for the dialogue to have depth because the character will turn around and contradict himself and it may not even take a whole day to do so, they could do it in the next scene. There are moments of brilliance mixed in with a millenia of monotony. What saves GH is the actors. They find ways to add dimensions to what they have been given. Rick Hearst is the mac daddy of getting silk from a sow's ear but from what I can see most of them do what they can to breathe life into a show that is just going through the motions behind the scenes, IMHO.

I'm one of those that firmly believe one couple does not make or break the ratings. It's funny how when ratings go up, fans of said couple will credit them, but when they go down (and said couple is on all the time), then it's someone else's fault. You can't have it both ways.

AMC's ratings going up last week was attributed to 3 reasons....

1) Proper Promotion - ABC ran promos touting this story and it worked.

2) Proper Build - You knew this was coming sooner than later, and it worked

3) Good writing & balancs

I agree, Ryan. The only thing I will add is that sometimes a show suffer when it isn't balanced and one character or couple is given too airtime. This is on the headwriter not the character(s).

I guess I'm paranoid too cuz I honestly believe sometimes that he wants his "journey to the dark side" experiment to work and I wonder if his ego will allow him to fess up that it ain't. Having Pratt move to AMC...I don't know.

That mob stuff on GH makes me ill...watching one of the latest promos with Jason, both guns blazing?...come on! Frons seemed to be trying to inject that same dark, dank, depressing crap into AMC in 06 and it sank this show. Reading the posts here and elsewhere, it seems GH fans are getting pretty sick of it over there too.

When my little friend named paranoia (also known as conspiracy theorist) kicks in, he tells me Brian Frons forced AMC and OLTL to delay the best parts of their big reveals 'til after sweeps to keep their revenues a safe distance lower than GH's.

I agree, Ryan. The only thing I will add is that sometimes a show suffer when it isn't balanced and one character or couple is given too airtime. This is on the headwriter not the character(s).

I suspect it's on the network big cheese as well. (looking askance at you know who)

I suspect it's on the network big cheese as well. (looking askance at you know who)

It's no secret Brian Frons has his pets.....

It's no secret Brian Frons has his pets.....

Yeah. But I wonder to what extent it influences airtime. I suspect heavily, and by that I mean there must have been times he's told whatever writer that there was a guaranteed saturation level for whatever character, right down to required minutes of airtime. No way of knowing for sure, and maybe I'm just paranoid