September 8-12, 2008

[allatwitter]

Isn't that subjective? Who decides what's a quality product? What some see in one program others may not.

[Pine Charles]

Yeah.

Here are the ratings from my 1992 SOD where GL is tied for 3rd:

Week of June 29, 1992

1. YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS 8.4

2. ALL MY CHILDREN 6.9

3. AS THE WORLD TURNS 5.6

3. GUIDING LIGHT 5.6

5. BOLD AND THE BEAUTIFUL 5.5

6. GENERAL HOSPITAL 5.3

6. ONE LIFE TO LIVE 5.3

8. DAYS OF OUR LIVES 4.7

9. ANOTHER WORLD 3.8

10. SANTA BARBARA 2.9

11. LOVING 2.7

[Soapsuds]

I had forgotten about Genie Francis return to GH. I am positive thats why the show got a nice bump.

As someone else pointed out what might be quality to you might not be quality show for me.

And Goutman...ugh...the [!@#$%^&*] hack is a moron!! He has lost all common sense on how to run a soap. If this isnt evidence the [!@#$%^&*] needs to be fired I dont know what is. If he cant produce 5 quality shows a week he should just quit and let someone more capable to run and improve ATWT.

[MarkH]

Exactly. It is precisely this inherent subjectivity that explains why--given individual differences--this variable is unlikely to be the determinant of weekly fluctuations in ratings.

So, for me, Y&R tends to have both highest quality and highest ratings. But I still do not believe that "quality" is what drives the ratings. I think the ratings owes itself to (a) historically developed base audience; ( stability of the canvas in terms of vets/sets; © storytelling that, for whatever reason, appeals to a larger # of viewers (note...I am not saying "quality"...but "appeal"); (d) favorable timeslot ("lunchbreak"), and so forth.

Now, recent ratings spikes seem to be due to increases in promotion and viral marketing. Again (although I personally feel Sudden Impact had decent "quality"), I think what drove the ratings was more promotion-and-sensationalism-and-vets front and center.

I personally mean to cast no aspersions on the quality of any show. I simply say that quality (however measured) is not a meaningful determinant of ratings.

I suspect Nelson Branco's comments about GL also apply to ATWT: P&G is unwilling to make the new investments that a new HW/EP would require.

And, honestly, I would be highly frustrated with ATWT if I were a regular viewer. But in this modern era, don't you believe that you are better off with the "evil you know"? P&G is NOT going to pony up for anyone stronger than Goutman/Passanante at this point. You'll get, instead, Lucky Gold. And you know it is true!

[Jess]

I agree with just about everything you said Mark. Quality is totally subjective though. I don't think viewers watch a soap and say hmmmm, that is original soap, the kind we grew up with. I think they watch if they enjoy it and don't otherwise. It's entertainment for the majority of people. I think among soaps, and really as entertainment, Young and the Restless is very good. Beyond that one show, in my opinion, it is just comparing one soap opera to another and asking which of the Titanics will float the longest.

Where I continue to agree with you is it is time to start trying something different (I think it's you. :lol: )

I respect GL for trying what it did, but the genre is dying and it was just one more attempt to change the little thing rather than the formula. It's very sad that they let this shows go on until they are just a shadow of themselves. I truly believe that the thinking that soap operas have to stay on television 40 years or more is misguided. I would have been very happy if NBC had just cancelled Passions and brought in a new soap. Honestly a nine-year run is pretty good. I say the same thing about PC. I would have liked to have seen the network cancel and replace. It could have started a nice trend that when soaps get bad, they get cancelled and daytime gets a replacement show -- just like night time.

[MarkH]

Yes, we agree totally...every word you wrote here. I love the Titanic reference.