Y&R: To what do you attribute LML's higher ratings?

[y&r_fan]

I am mystified as to why even though 95% of viewers think the show is better now, LML got better ratings. LML averaged a 4.0, while MAB struggles for a 3.7. It just doesn't add up. The show is better now than it has been in years. So why do you think LML did so well ratings-wise, despite the fact that almost everyone complained about bad writing?

[Y&RWorldTurner]

LML's ratings leveled off too, in the beginning of her tenure, the show was getting 4.3's and 4.5's even, by the end it was just 4.0.

Ratings are not going up, they were bound to fall, especially in this daytime climate. Also, every year, household counts rise, which in turns lowers the household ratings for the shows.

The show may be better now, but with the trend daytime ratings have taken over the past decade, they were bound to go down.

NO soap is rising or consistently rising, those days are long gone and we're now stuck with what we have, and the quality of these shows isn't the only reason why.

[Cat]

I think people left during LML's tenure and are never coming back. Troll destroyed their trust in the show to treat them with consideration. William J. Bell listened actively to his audience and acted accordingly... even Alden and Smith would react to viewer dismay over something. LML didn't.

I think it took a few months for MAB to establish herself and the tone of the show again. Some ideas worked but some (Sabrina -- who was growing on me) had to be jettisoned. But to do that, they had to work on a story to get her off the show and that build-up took time, too. Not saying that's a bad thing -- far from it. I appreciated the time spent laying down those SLs and following them through. However, I'm sure people lost patience by then.

I do hold out hope to the idea that "write for them and they will come." Y&R feels, on the whole, satisfying and, dare I say, comforting to watch right now. I feel like history and vets are being respected and, as I result, my appreciation of the show is being respected. I don't know whether ANY soap will hit 4.0 again -- unless Y&R follows the Canadian approach to screening which is once at 12.30pm and then again at, say, 5 or 6pm. The viewers aren't at him in the day... but they are usually at home come early evening. I know I like to put on a little TV while I'm preparing dinner or getting ready to go out.

[Sylph]

This is not on topic, but I'm starting to think Kay Alden is the same as Lynn Latham if not worse. Lynn at least did something different and wrote all types of shows, Kay Alden just keeps writing material that is worse from her previous. She's not a writer, she might be good as a co-ordinator.

And you people know that I'm Lynn Latham's no. 1 anti-fan ever since the beginning.

[Sylph]

There's a simple property in maths that says:

(a1 + a2 + ... + an) : (b1 + b2 + ... + bn) = a1 : b1 = a2 : b2 = ... = an : bn

[MarkH]

So, I totally support the premise that daytime is on a general decline trajectory, and this across the board.

In general, we must expect falling ratings. The mark of a writer these days is whether they are able to accomplish a rate of decline that is slower than the average, or if they are able (even briefly) to stop the decline trajectory. Note, on this latter score, the idea is not that the show won't continue to fall...but that it might get a brief reprieve from falling. That is the modern definition of success.

This is all because decline, on average, has NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with what is on screen. It has to do with working women, fractured families, multiple cable options, change in social tastes...it is a long story.

In this context, I continue to be astounded that people do not give LML her due.

I agree that she was ultimately bad for the show, and by falling into a disorganized and plot-driven state, she lost the promise that she (helped by Smith/Alden/Scott etc.) had at the beginning. Still, she got two huge bumps, and that is worth noting.

Now, if you analyze it further, you see that the bumps were generally gradual and incremental. But, ultimately, they were artificial..driven by two 'events' (that mined history/legacy characters) but ultimately did more harm to the show than good: John's death and Pheila.

I disagree that viewers tuned out en masse due to LML. It is true that she was back on a decline trajectory at the end of her run...but NOT steeper than the other shows.

Interestingly, right after she left, in the early JG:MAB era, the decline suddenly DID get much steeper.

I believe the reason for that is Sabrina. While I personally liked her, amongst the older women viewers I conversed with (that is the modal population at ratsc), the reaction was universal DISGUST. I literally mean tune-out-level DISGUST. People could not tolerate Victor getting another young babe, and all the frou-frou French, and they simply clicked off. It is unfortunate that Ana/Tyra have lately induced similar levels of disgust.

Disgust is the proximal cause of tune-out rates that exceed the general falling moving average.

As you have noted...the Jack Peyton axiom tells us that once viewers leave, they do not come back. That is a trans-genre phenomenon, but it means that writers have to be VERY careful to avoid disgust.

For MAB, it means that despite the very real rebuilding going on, it will likely not pay off in returned or new viewers...only a slower rate of decline. THE ONE EXCEPTION to this--as we saw with Sudden Impact--would be if there were PROMOTION. Regular, daily, off-network (e.g., E!, Bravo!) and out-of-daypart (primetime, during the football games) and non-TV (esp. banner ads...print is dead) advertising. If they would commit to a six month period of this, and back it up with stellar storytelling (I believe they are currently close to that), we would see a return of lapsed viewers...and I think numbers could STABILIZE around 4.8 or so for a while. Unfortunately, without that promotional investment, we will stay in the low fours.

[Dan]

Agreed completely. Especially, with your more subtle comment about a six month committment. The thing about ratings is that a large bump in either direction over a week or a few week period is NOT necessarily positive or negative, nor does it necessarily have anything to do with the content of the shows themselves. The larger picture, as Mark said, is a fairly smooth downward turn. It goes to reason then, that the only thing that will raise the ratings is NOT some stunt that will raise ratings over the short term, but a longterm period (minimum of 6 months) of stellar, *consistent* storytelling (edit: I feel the need to add consistently GOOD), which is something daytime has not been able to muster for almost a decade. Add some needed promotion (people won't come solely if you build it. They need to know about it first.) over a wide swath of the Y&R audience demos and you have it made. Too bad no one has tried it yet.

[Darlotto99]

don't care how high the ratings went when LML was in charge the show sucked and good riddance to that poor excuse of a writer! may she never have a job in daytime again I despise that woman so much she came in and fired everyone who helped make the show #1. slowly but surely MAB and Sheffer are restoring what the Y&R used to be and bring back some of the old guard

[MoTheGreat]

When LML was writing she still had YR old writers with her. when she start to fire them & hire people she knows that when you start seeing her rating slips.

So I'll credit the old writers that she had on then her.

[Y&RWorldTurner]

That's not entirely true. At the end of Jack F. Smith's run, Y&R was pulling in some 3.9's in the dailies and 4.0's overall. When Latham initially joined, the ratings actually went up.

[MarkH]

This is gospel truth!

That said, I'll give Mo some credit. I do think the best (early) days of LML's Y&R were largely due to Smith/Alden/Scott/Foster, etc.... all of whom were able to use her new energy and still make Y&R connected with how it used to be...AND logical. Only later, when LML had total power, did the cyclone fall apart.

[DaytimeFan]

LML's ratings absolutely went up...for a time. The spike LML enjoyed was brought on because she was very different, she was plot driven and for a couple of months, those plots got people interested...then the plots fell apart and drove viewers away. Then the ratings crashed back down to earth. The fact is that ratings are trending downward.

LML was the queen of inconsistency, then the queen of hack job writing. She's just...an evil bitch from hell who destroyed Y&R.

[Reddi]

Sorry, I think the show is awful now. It began to decline during the strike... under LML i couldn't wait to tune in each day. I know many online fans said she was terrible, and I was disappointed in the conclusion of the carmen mesta story.. but other than that, I really really liked her stuff. I don't think 95% of viewers do like it better now... the online community is not indicative of overall viewers (and the ratings reflect this).

[Y&RWorldTurner]

Didn't you start watching during LML's tenure, which could explain why you see the show differently from other fans who've watched longer. You also liked Daivd Chow, a character most longtime fans couldn't stand.

If ratings reflected quality, then why are the most critically acclaimed show the lowest rated ones? Ratings and generally accepted quality do not correlate.

[y&r_fan]

Why don't you just go and start an "I hate Kay Alden" thread?

The show is MUCH better now, but I certainly didn't think LML was that bad. In fact, I used to defend her. But that was before I saw the second half of 2007. And even then, I was able to take comfort in the fact that her writing wasn't anywhere near as bad as what Brad Bell had been doing to B&B for the past several years.

LML really dropped the ball with David. At first he showed promise, when he was out to get Dru, but then he just became pathetic.