Jump to content

August 4-8 2008


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

1945-1964 = Baby Boom

I was born in 1965, so who knows what that means.

[britney Spears]Not a Boomer, not yet a boomlet[/End Britney Spears]

But JP is right. With his erudition, cultural references, firm sense of taste...our Sylph often comes across as one far older than his chronological years.

Which only goes to show (that was kind of DonnaB's point), "Age ain't nuthin' but a number". And with that being the case, one wonders again if the disastrous Madison Avenue narrow demographic focus still has meaning. It may once (these tales that the young are more malleable in brand tastes), but I'd love to know if research continues to affirm that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I wouldn't say they have no competition, just no other soap competition, they could still be up against a Regis and Kelly, or gameshow, or some of those horrible talk shows people have abandoned soaps for. That's what they're doing poorly against. In our Market they're up against GH and Dr Phil and that windbag usually trounces both soaps (not to mention the Maury show on CW and some other chatfest on Fox)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm confused a little, GL is up in total viewers but down in all the demo's but the really odd thing to me is looking at the daily numbers how is it that GL could have a 1.7 rating with 2,695,000 viewers but GH gets only 2,604,000 and that's a 2.0 rating? Even the monday airing got a 2.3 for GH and a 1.7 for GL with only a difference of 171,000 viewers between the two? What is each ratings point worth in this case or how do they determine that rating point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

ITA and if GL was to be at 3pm EST across the nation same as GH their ratings would be much higher. Here is what the ratings could've been with the same number of viewers if aired at 3pm EST by sampling the other shows:

Guiding Light

Monday: 1.7/2,695,000------------->2.1

Tuesday: 1.7/2,214,000------------>1.8

Wednesday: 1.6/2,283,000-------->1.8

Thursday: 1.6/2,135,000----------->1.7

Friday: 1.6/2,188,000--------------->1.7

Total: 1.6----------------------------->1.8

General Hospital

Monday: 2.3/2,866,000

Tuesday: 2.1/2,556,000

Wednesday: 2.1/2,586,000

Thursday: 2.0/2,604,000

Friday: 2.1/2,730,000

It is obvious the ratings system is distorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

More than once people from the outside have shown that that's bunk (the demos as hard & fast desirables) and at least twice people from the inside have shown it!

Certainly some advertisers want to target, but that's much more than just one age group. And, only some advertisers want to narrowly target.

And, the bottom line problem is who has money to spend & whether or not you can get brand loyalty out of young'uns, any more than you can anyone else. Yes, Boomers, and those older than us grew up with brand loyalty in our parents' households - but there were fewer brands & even fewer products. Boomers are simply not stuck in ruts about products. We were the first group to ever have been courted by marketers & we never really stopped being available to being courted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am absolutely a Baby Boomer. I was born in 1951 & I look & think younger than many people 20 years younger than me. :lol: I like life. I'm not nearly done. So, my baby brother was born in 1964, does that make him an Echo Boomer? He & I are very close & we have long affected each other's tastes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Mark, I would have put you in the 20-something group because of some of your ideas for soaps. You must be in research or some type of science. You are very dispassionate -- scientific -- when you discuss the future of daytime.

60 Minutes did a piece on the 18-49 demographic focus by networks a few years ago. It seems the focus is more network-based than Madison Avenue based.

Donna, yes I have heard that people are living longer and working longer too. Being 52, I'm glad. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Whew! That 1.7 for AMC's Friday is ugly! I don't think I've ever seen a single day that low for AMC before. Can't say I'm surprised with the quality lately though.

Not too bad in demos for AMC!

Does anyone know what Pratt did for GH ratings? Did they rise or fall when he was at their writing healm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Mark? MarkH? LOL, I never took him for young unless you mean young thinking & acting. Of course, I never thought of him as dispassionate about soaps either.

That is verrry interesting about soaps because the idea of the younger demo was begun at an advertising agency. Then, of course, everyone piles on. Maybe it's the networks that won't budge now. If anyone is slow to change around here, they are!!

Glad to stir (or shake) some more Baby Boomers out!! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I posted an explanation about this before but here goes again. It just means that more people were watching TV when GL was on than when GH was on. As an example, Say that when GL was on, there were 5 million people in the country watching TV during that time. And of that 5 million, about 1.7% were watching GL. That would amount to about 85,000 viewers. Conversely, say that when GH is on, only 4 million people in the country are watching TV. And of that 4 million, 2.1% were watching GH. That would tabulate to about 84,000 viewers for GH. There was a larger percentage of the viewing audience watching GH but the pool of viewers at that time was much smaller than during the time that GL was on. So as you see, although GL had a lower rating, there were more people overall watching TV during the time it was on the air resulting in a larger amount of viewers than GH.

Of course, this is a simplify example because there are a lot more people than in my example watching TV at any given point in time but you can extrapolate to see how the numbers are arrived at. Hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Please register in order to view this content

    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • It sure was!  With respect, how does that make sense?  These men are young, I don't see that. 
    • I hope this played better than it sounds, because I'm imagining two separate scenes (the attack by Arnie, and later Charles getting shot). In my mind, it should have been a fluid single sequence. I wonder if or how often "bastard" was uttered in this scene. Fare thee well, Christopher Reeve. I've said it before, but pop culture's gain was daytime's definite loss. Imagine seeing HIM day after day, year after year, decade after decade, conceivably until they stopped producing soaps in NYC.   Well, that answers my "bastard" question. Good lord, the roads of Rosehill are packed with high-strung drivers and/or pedestrians. More sequences that I hope played better than they sound.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I think Ben had already left while under Marland and only returned briefly to reconcile with Eve. The whole thing confuses me as I thought for a long time that Eve left the show to go be with him and that was when they reconciled, but it seems like he returned, they got back together, then he left and maybe they were still together until she left to join him? I have no idea.  It does seem like the interim writers were using some characters like Justin and Helena who were quickly dumped under Kobe/Long, which is a shame. Helena is one of those characters who likely always had a shelf life but Rose Alaio was such a vibrant screen presence, if Kobe/Long had just been patient, she likely would have fit in well in the Reva era.
    • Also, the lawsuit story was not the right story to bring Naomi and Bill into a court battle since those types of lawsuits are usually resolved via settlements.
    • I know that Sara did eventually become Carrie's therapist, but I was curious if the show had her make comments regarding Carrie's stunts of making it seem as though Justin was cheating on Jackie.  Given that Justin cheated on Sara with both Jackie and Brandy, I wondered if it was wise of her to counsel Carrie given the conflict of interest involved. @DRW50I think once Adam/Sara end up married.. Marland didn't see any reason to explore Sara's personal life after the actor playing Adam was released.  I know that Sara lasts until at least Christmas 1982 on the show.. but I don't think she ended up staying on for very long into 1983. The period between Marland quitting and Pam Long starting was the perfect time to clean house on characters that had outgrown their usefulness  (i.e. Ben, Evie, Sara, Jennifer, Morgan).. and tying up stories started by Marland that were too complex (Mona Enright, Mark/Jennifer/Amanda triangle).
    • Unpopular opinion:  The focus on the soap opera tropes over the mysteries and crimes was partly what did the show in.  Also, featuring characters not involved in the legal, police, and criminal elements also hurt the show and took away what made it unique. Featuring characters like Jody, Raven, Sky, etc hurt the show long term.  The show ABCified starting in 1976/1977 and then went through a youthification period starting in 1981.  
    • I feel like the lawsuit storyline was resolved quickly because the show didn’t want to spring for more sets.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy