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

    • But by Dinah and Hart...Hart especially looked as if he could not tie his own shoes!  Ed, Holly, Alan, Alex Henry and Vanessa among others were not able to put Roger down....Dinah???
    • The preaching seems to end before the Barnes settle in late December, 1981. The stuff that felt overly religious (the Davidsons believing a miracle will save Lori rather than a surgeon, Jeff's miraculous recovery from a beam of light) was quickly nixed because it wasn't working. The closest thing that you get to that under the Barnes is when Dennis Fraser, the drunk driver who killed Nora and Scott, turns his life over to god. The born-again redemptions out of nowhere seem to stop fairly early into the Barnes' run. I do think Miriam's transformation was much more delicately done with her turning on her bestie Nancy because Nancy was seducing Charles, Miriam's wealthy father, so Miriam offers to testify for the Davidsons in the trial against Nancy over possession of Nora's house. In turn, Nancy repays the favor by pumping an emotionally distraught Miriam with barbituates while Miriam carries on her affair with low level thug turned political aide Norm Elliott. Miriam is used by everyone into her life and finally lands herself in the hospital becasue she has become so addicted to the pills. At the hospital, it is the friendship and kindness of the Davidsons that brings Miriam to a more peaceful place. The Davidsons ability to forgive is both appealing and, at times, dramatically limiting. In this case, the Davidsons lead Miriam to her new Mama, Ione Redlon. Now, under Vinley, Miriam is determined to reconnect with her son, Frederick, and her ex-husband, Paul.   My bigger issue with the Barnes' writing is that they write the storylines with twist endings that sorta come out of nowhere. I know the resolution to the Kate Carrouthers mystery sorta plays out like that so I am curious to see how I feel about that.  The biggest change throughout the writing teams has been the view of morality. Winsor had many characters who could be viewed purely through the lens of black and white, but others explored the shades of gray (often younger people). The brief head writerless period was much better at embracing an action doesn't make a person and there characters were much more gray or at least evil at a more local level (Nancy, in this period, only flirts with her brother-in-law where as later she is actively providing pills to Miriam to keep her addicted and away from her own father). The Barnes, for the most part, seem to embrace this level of political corruption that seems to permeate throughout the show making it clear that power (as well as money) is the root of evil. Even criminal Vince Cardello is presented as less evil than Charles Carpenter, though Carpenter's murder of a resident of his complex was rewritten to relieve Carpenter of any responsibility in the matter. Vinley's work seems more into exploring the why or delving deeper in general. Babs Farley, the hooker who is looking to reclaim her life, is such an intriguing character. She is given such meaningful monologues regretting her decisions and desperately trying to keep away from the hands of her former pimp, Ron Washington, who hasn't appeared yet. Monk and Fernandez seem to be wrongly accused of Lori's attack and there seems to be hints of racism that the show is looking to address. Marianne confronts Gil about his feelings towards God in relation to their mother's death years earlier.  There does seem to be a layer of misogyny to Vinley's work, but it's early so I'll be curious to see how this plays out. There are a lot of attacks on women (Lori is nearly raped, Babs was beaten, Nancy is on the verge of being blackmailed for sex by Tab, and the Russ / Marianne / Gil scenario has hints of toxic masculinity. It's very early so it'll be neat to see if that is maintained.  Jerry TImm lasts about a year I think (March, 1982 - March, 1983). One of the episodes on TouTube has a comment suggesting that Timm was fired by CBN because he had done something in his past that came to light. It didn't seem to be clear what that was.  I like what I've seen of Timm as Gil. He has such a presence that it covers up some of his weaker acting choices. It's unfortunate that he didn't get to play as much of the Gil - Stacey - Amber triangle as his replacement does.  
    • I believe it was Mark Arnold's family that taped all the shows. It was the same with Ariane Muneker - her mother bought a video recording machine in the 1970s, at a time when that type of technology was really expensive John Wesley Shipp's parents also taped all his shows, and has a complete library of every single episode of every soap JWS has appeared on. Same for Cynthia Watros. When the Soap Actors parents pass away, and there are all these VHS tapes in dozens of boxes, it is shame to waste all that. 
    • Personally, I felt that the deletion of the original music from the girls' slumber party episode, and the axing of REM's Losing My Religion from the ep featuring Brenda and Dylan breaking up, were the most painful. The changes really damaged those episodes. I dropped the DVDs after season two, but I've been told by other viewers who kept going that tunes from all the seasons continued being replaced, and the situation only got worse as the DVD releases progressed. Yes, penny-pinching from those in charge was the principle issue, but I wonder how much better the DVDs would have sold if such poor choices had not been made in the name of cost cutting. On the other hand, when Time-Life put out the Vietnam-war era classic China Beach, they dug deep into their pockets and ended up clearing the rights to a whopping 268 (!!!) of the original tracks. This represented 96% of the total. TPTB said that when they were not given permission to use a few of the remaining pieces, they substituted different singers' versions of the exact same songs, in order to preserve the show's integrity as much as possible. The CB set was expensive as heck, to be sure, but to me it was worth it.
    • Oh I knew it was common (I did not realize Muenker's channel was gone - I'm glad I saved all those videos). I just didn't realize it was the case with the rape episode.  I never really felt like she dominated the show in her second stint either, although I can see where she probably did. I can feel it more in some of her first run, because the show was much different before she came in and suddenly a woman we'd seen for a year was [!@#$%^&*] and marrying an entire family.  In that sense Reva is more like Babe than Erica Kane. One of the more infamous AMC lines was, "Babe is love." You just know HB would have said that line about Reva at some point.
    • I disagree; if this were Chris Clenshaw, then I would be worried. But it's a new producer coming in to clearly create the canvas they want to create, and I'm okay with that. Re-introducing characters to shake things up and possibly take some other ones out of the canvas. It'll be interesting to see the finished product.
    • I am ready for our first full week in what feels like a while! They worked Sweeps month!
    • Beyond the Gates: A The Bold and the Beautiful: F Coronation Street: B Days of Our Lives: B- EastEnders: A+ Emmerdale: A- Hollyoaks: B+ General Hospital: C Neighbours: C+ The Young and the Restless: F For me, Beyond the Gates, EastEnders, and Emmerdale led the pack during Sweeps month, with Coronation Street and Days of Our Lives following. General Hospital and Neighbours sit in the middle with what I'd call a "take it or leave it" kind of Sweeps month, and the Bell soaps bombed (per usual).
    • Actors doing this is pretty common. I used to work for a company that produced a very successful sitcom back in the 70s. Actors who were guest stars on the show would ask to be provided tapes of their episodes. I assume they do it for a variety of reasons, i.e. to create a reel of their best work. I know of some soap actors who have uploaded saved work to YT. One is Ariana Muenker, who played Christine Valere on GL. She was uploading scenes from her many soap roles a few months back. Unfortunately, it looks like either she or YT took the channel down. Sharon Gabet and Mark Arnold help the EON YT channel by providing saved episodes. Along with EON eps, Arnold shared a guest stint he did on GL. Those episodes are really interesting because they involve the introduction of Nola's character, which was tied to the Roger storyline. When he came back after faking his death, he hid out at the boarding house. Nola being a snoop figured out something was fishy with him. She ended up helping the police. Very worth seeking out. I don't think anyone else has those episodes.  Makes you wonder if there's more out there than we know of because actors don't want to be bothered to run a YT channel. Can't blame them because it's a lot of trouble, but if only... I agree. While Lucci definitely used her fame from the show to build her brand and get work outside of AMC, Erica was always part of an ensemble. Yeah, she got a couple of whacky stories (like the "unabortion") but she never took over to the detriment of other actors and stories.
    • It must have been sometime in the early 80's. VI said he first heard about Marj Dusay's talent from CH. Hickland worked with her on Capitol.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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