June 23-27, 2008

[MarkH]

Steve Frame really gets it. There are larger contextual things driving these ratings.

Jess says "ratings equate to viewer enjoyment". I do not think so. I mean, clearly that is a part of the formula...but I think only a part.

Ratings equate to promotion, to what else is on in the lineup, and to HABIT. Some people will watch their show everyday, even when they are not enjoying it, because they know or hope it will get better, or because their favorite characters are on.

When we talk about quality or even enjoyability...but then see it fails to show up in the ratings...some people act surprised. But it doesn't work this way.

Soap watching is a habit for most loyal viewers, and the habit exists independent of day to day quality. It is only if a show maintains excellent quality over a long haul that you may help people develop the habit...because they know the show is good and it will pay off. Quality and enjoyability DO matter, but only in the LONG haul.

It is here that I think we may see a generational divide. I think older viewers may be more likely to watch out of habit. I think younger viewers have less patience and less history with the show...and they are somewhat more likely to watch based on what is currently happening. I still think--even with young viewers--that this weekly variation in quality or enjoyability is not a huge factor, because the weekly variations in ratings are quite small.

The ratings trends from year to year tell us that more and more people are "getting out of the habit". That is the real story. So, if executives want to strengthen the shows, they have to stop thinking about stunt casting and short term story arcs. They have to think about how to get people in the habit, and then keep them trapped in the habit.

[EricMontreal22]

Well and Moment had the shock factor. I bet it woulda been a mild hit at first regardless of timeslot, because it was just in such shocking poor taste, but that wears out super quick (I also think it was a mistake to then place it in the most family oriented spot of 8pm when no parents in their right minds would let their kids watch that).

AMC was already doing better than both those soaps by then though--when they were ired. But I get your point and I think there's a lot of truth to it. I wonder if the remote control and people easily and quickly flipping between channels dissipated this--and of course more choice. It always struck me as partly lazy people who would just leave the tv on to one channel because they couldn't be bothered flipping to see what else was on.

I agree. One thing that I think can't be argued about Ron C's storytelling is that he DOES have a LOT of stories on the go on the canvas--with more planned, I worry almost too many. This seems unheard of in modern soaps but if you watch any early 80s episode, or even early 90s episode of many fo the better shows, it was common. Some stories are bigger, some smaller, and ideally they all interconnect on some level but they involve different characters, tones, etc. You look at OLTL and you can single out nearly any character, contract or recurring, and know where that character stands rigth now. Who they're mad at, what they're doing in their life work wise, interacting with--even underused ones liek Renee and Carlotta.

I look at my beloved AMC and you really can't do that--I have NO idea what Opal does with her life for instance.

ANd I also agree with the mention of habit. Now more than ever people often feel guilty about watching soaps because it's an hour of their lives they "should be doing something productive with". I think it's less commont han ever for someone to leave one soap and decide to try out a new one.

[GHJunkie4Life]

If ratings are due to people just watching out of "habit" then why are they decreasing across the board for ALL soaps? If it were this unbreakable habit that some people claim they are then shouldn't the ratings be roughly the same week to week?

I then reflect what people are enjoying. I happen to enjoy GH and ATWT right now and I'm trying to get back into Y&R. And bottom line is that the ratings really don't bother me one way or another. It doesn't affect my bottom line. I doubt GH or ATWT will just up and die anytime soon.

Even though I find GL more boring than baseball itself I still hope it does okay for its fans and the people who may actually be watching it because they get some enjoyment from it. Other than Passions no soap deserves to go off air IMO.

[rhinohide]

I haven't read the entire thread, but I doubt anybody said soap watching is an unbreakable habit. To the contrary, I think it's a habit that once broken, is not missed all that much and there is little recidivism. Once people give up on soaps (not just switch from one soap to another, but break the habit entirely) it's almost impossible to draw them back. And that's the problem.

[RalphOrtiz]

Apparently, some habits are easy to break....watching soaps (or any television program) is one of them. The audiences are dwindling across the boards - even with die-hard fans who've watched these shows out of 'habit'.

[EricMontreal22]

No one said it was an unbreakable habit, indeed we were saying it was a habit that was becoming common to break and didn't lend people to move on to a competing show when done but just give up.

[Ann_SS]

Trying to associate the daily ratings with specific stories simply does not work. Other than being effected by holidays, I'm willing to bet that the daily ratings are random.

[MarkH]

The way to explain this is smoking. Social forces (public health messages, public disdain for smoking, smoking prohibition laws, and rising taxes) worked together to inform people that smoking was a habit that should be broken. Consequently, you see a trend of smoking decline ACROSS ALL SMOKING BRANDS. Because it reflects a so-called "secular trend".

So, the same thing is true for soaps--and I find this illustrative with regards to the deeper problem we are seeing with the genre. Soap across-the-board trends are JUST LIKE cigarette trends. Which means, for decades now, people have been abandoning the habit.

We have speculated elsewhere about why, and that is multi-causal...working women, less intergenerational viewing, abandonment of TV for new media, etc.

Another way to say this is that "soaps have gone out of fashion". And when we say that, it means that quality and satisfaction are kind of irrelevant. I can make a very well made set of flared jeans (i.e, wide at the boot). I can make them excellently, and the people who wear them can be very satisfied with them....but if they are out of fashion, sales will dwindle to zero.

The "out of fashion" indictment is serious...because that is not easily repaired. WHY did soaps go out of fashion? WHAT FACTORS became unappealing?

To me, that is a fascinating question. We know the serial format, per se, is alive and well. Most primetime drama and comedy now follows the serial format, and "dramatic elements" (serious stories, no laugh track) even characterize the sitcoms. So is it the daily thing that is killing the soaps? (Probably in large measure).

But I really suspect it is two other things: (a) the conceptualization of soaps as "grandma's stories", the inability of people to get past that, and the ( from-the-beginning stigmatization of these shows as melodramatic and unworthy of thinking viewers (hence, the perjorative term "soap opera" that drips with disdain). The soaps beget eye rolls from most normal thinking people. They will not get past their biases.

So, what we're left with (and I don't think this board is typical) is a viewer base of aged viewers that got "hooked" DESPITE stigma...and they stayed hooked...but they're dying off. And mostly their descendants can't stop holding their noses long enough to try and get hooked...or if they do, they find the high concept nonsense to silly to captivate their interest.

Soaps = paisley

Soaps = lava lamps

Soaps = avocado appliances

Soaps = lace doilies

So maybe it is not just people getting out of the habit, as I asserted before. Maybe it is also the fact that people who got in before the habit became TOO uncool are dying off, and nobody younger is willing to "disgrace" themself and get into these aged melodramas?

EXACTLY!

Yes..and what is more is that we don't have a "replacement generation" of people who will contemplate picking up the habit. For them, the thought of watching a soap is odious.

A regular correspondent of mine at a usenet newsgroup talks about how she loved her soaps, and started watching with her parents. She said when her kids were at home, they always had the shows on (because she watched them). They would roll their eyes--especially as they got older--but they might even get interested for brief periods of time. But once they grew and left home, they never had an interest in picking them up again. Indeed, they only ever talk about the soaps now with disdain.

I think there are analogies to this in music. Young fans of hip hop often have NO INTEREST in their parents' rock and roll. It is "uncool". They use the rejection of their parents' music as a way of individuating themselves and establishing identity. The parents (and their music) were uncool, which renders the kids (and their music) cool. If you can't think of rock music as uncool, think of "country and western" or "big band" or "disco" or "folk".

For each of those genres, there are young fans who will REFUSE to listen or sample, because the very idea of those genres is uncool.

Now, if you repackage disco and give it a new name ("house" or "techno" or whatever), suddenly it can become cool again. But it has to be different and completely relabelled for a younger generation to endorse it. It is not just a relabelling. It is a reinvention.

You know those "music of your life" radio stations? Young people don't listen to them. They are old people stations...and when enough of the old people die, suddenly the format changes. Instead of the music of the "40s-50s-60s" it becomes "60s-70s-80s". Now, soaps are the "music of your life" for people who, on average, are in their fifties. New generations don't want to listen to that music...they want their own life music.

It is not just the soaps. As we have discussed elsewhere, nostalgia brands across the tuner are changing: Nick at Night/TVLand, GSN, AMC...all of them have had significant format changes because their core audiences are dying off/advertisers don't like their aged demos/their numbers are shrinking.

Soaps are the same. They are a nostalgia brand, and a habit from a bygone era. Not cool...like disco. Those who still make them are a little like KC and the Sunshine Band...they still make their rent with small town fairs, but they'll never be a relevant hit again. Those who still watch them (me! you!) are relics from a bygone era, who value yesterday's entertainment. That makes us quaint but--and I say this with enormous sadness--it does not make us meaningful consumers of the future. Future consumers have moved on. Tastes in entertainment have changed.

[Sylph]

That's not true, is it? Consider how many shows were developed after the success of Lost, and they all got cancelled! People are just oversaturated with the serials and they don't need all those serialised dramas where they have to follow multiple complicated and convoluted stories over many, many episodes.

For many TV viewers, that is too much. And have in mind that serials were never, at least these recent ones, in the top three most watched.

[MarkH]

I suspect you know a lot more about this than I.

But I think serials are alive and well. All the recent hits on the now-faded HBO were serials. All the current hits on the now-hot Showtime are serials. Most of the sci fi genre shows that hit are serials. Heroes, specifically, is a serial. Fox Network's big drama (not its' biggest, though), 24, is a serial. American Idol is a serial (and I realize this is stretching the definition--but the success of all those weekly reality shows with eliminations shows there IS an audience for shows that require a regular commitment).

Almost no hit movie gets away without a sequel or a trilogy...especially in the action domain.

Don't even start on things like the Harry Potter books series, or most mystery/detective franchises, or the hot new Stephanie Meyer series for young adults. I emphasize this because the kids CAN embrace serials...just not grandmothers' stories.

So, I can't vouch for whether the serial is the MOST popular format, but it is sure up there.

[Sylph]

Have you read this New York Times piece?

The fact that there are serials doesn't mean that they're successful - even Lost, which started the whole trend, has been bleeding viewers ever since its inception. Heroes ratings plummetted in the second season, but mostly because of inconsistent and all-over-the-place storytelling.

I mean, if you look at it the way you do, you would rightfully conclude that today everything is dramatized: the news, the newspaper articles, video games, just take a pic.

And as for Harry Potter and the like: you know the drill - Hollywood will keep making sequels as long as they can milk money from them.

[MarkH]

I think I had read that, but not recently. I look forward to rereading.

But I think your quote "Hollywood will keep making sequels as long as they can milk money from them" ignores the obvious underlying assumption: Audiences COME BACK.

And Harry Potter, as a direct example, is not just "sequels"...this was a planned serial in 7 parts. There was an ENORMOUS appetite for this in books, audiobooks, films, DVD rentals, and TV broadcast ratings. Given that it was the young-reader audience that drove this market, I believe it confirms BOTH an appetite (or at least not a distaste) for the serial format, and that this appetite exists even in the up-and-coming market.

So what about Lost? Well, the initial 16-million viewer (or whatever) success of the show was a bit surprising for a "genre" show. So, some loss is normal just given the kind of show it is. Also, the serial appreciation of the show may have been harmed by the interrruptions...in the early seasons we'd see 3 or 5 shows, and then there would be a break. In the recent seasons we had planned "mini-seasons" and then the "WGA strike" (which harmed viewership ACROSS THE BOARD). So what is more important for Lost is to judge the PROPORTIONAL loss of viewers, and whether that loss exceeds that of primetime in general, or the typical trend for aging shows. Only then can we really judge whether there is something special going on, and whether that is in fact due to the [serial/i] nature of Lost.

Still, it raises the question of whether even WEEKLY serials are too much of a commitment to request from the modern audience. Did Harry Potter work because the audience got years to rest between episodes (allowing the hunger to build)? Maybe... I point again to American Idol, though. That has a huge (but shrinking) viewer base that returns weekly. So I think when tension and compelling cliffhangers are adequate, viewers WILL return for regular doses.

The question now is how to take the unpredictable and must-see nature of a show like AI, and convert it into scripted drama.

[Sylph]

Yes, they do come back. But in smaller numbers.

Harry Potter is not a good example, really. Because it has an end.

Same for Lost: Lindelof and Cuse remained with show on the condition that after a particular number of seasons, the show will end. That was crucial.

[Sylph]

And another thing: I am a big fan of serials, but if I were to pitch a show with serialised format, hearing the word serial, the network executives wouldn't want to hear anything about it. It would really had to be high concept or something previously unheard of.

[MarkH]

Okay, so this is a true peril of the serial format. All repeated human behavior (exercise, research study participation, church attendance) is characterized by attrition, or dropout. So, any entertainment requiring ongoing commitment will always experience a loss of audience at each recurrence. That is true for ALL continuing television, although I imagine it is more acute for serials that require a high level of narrative commitment.

Yes, I think the "end" turns out to be important for the modern audience. First, it bounds their commitment...they know that if commitment is painful, it will have an end. Second, it assures them that unanswered questions will be answered, and don't just reflect incompetence by narrative creators.

I believe the absence of an "end" may be, in the modern era, a problem for audiences of daytime serials.

But I guess, in the end, I'm a bit confused by your perspective here. Are you arguing that because serials experience attrition, we should do away with serials?