Jump to content

April 6-10, 2009


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

All that work that was supposed to go into making soaps more essential, more viable, more able to explain the complexities of the people, went to advertisers and executive control... ultimately, when the Internet did hit, they had an inferior product that was not essential enough that they could compete with online. The guys who are running soaps over the last 10 years have to be singular in the manner in which they destroyed their own industry.... they had contempt for their own product. I don't think the internet , reality tv, or cable's superiority beat daytime. The ratings reflect that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

But how do you explain the fact that primetime fell at the same rate? And that the rest of the daypart (game shows, talk shows, etc.) fell at comparable or faster rates in the last year?

That does not support your contention that the "guys who are running soaps" had anything to do with it, or that the effect is related to the last ten years.

In fact, if you look carefully, you'll see that the CBS soaps have been on a linear decline trajectory since at least the 1960s.

I respectfully submit that the "guys who are running soaps" had very little to do with it. This is systemic, and has relatively little to do with daytime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, I do think prime time can argue options, but I don't think daytime can. There are more shows in primetime compared to daytime, and more shows in primetime now compared to 20+years ago. Of course they're going to share what's in their pot. In regards to primetime, I believe these trends are systematic of any industry/business.

But then I look at daytime, a genre that ceases to renew itself and continues to recycle anything available to them, and I have a hard time believing that the people in positions of power had any love for the genre beyond the obvious. Perhaps I could believe otherwise if we had seen new soaps in the past 10 years, but what have we seen absent Passions.

Perhaps this seems irrational, but I think most soaps are viewed by the execs as the stuff that goes around the ads. Beyond the interference by people like Frons, they've treated them as such, and because of the fear of losing advertisement dollar, they let the quality of work slip, and called it a necessary evil. But I believe these things were taking place prior to what we're seeing today, even when the so-called "good writing" was on.

The viewers started hating the shows for that, and the networks knew their work was inferior. They allowed the internet to sweep in and cite better material. They were okay with cable telling better stories. I mean "Facebook is the new soap"? That's embarrassing.

You're right, it wasn't that one executive or that one writer. But it's because of that I think we're more willing to look at charts and numbers because we don't know who started this downhill slide. I think the charts and numbers are comforting. We see them and say, "this was inevitable."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hey Mark,

I agree with you in large part. I do think that soaps are dying under their on weight. However, I do blame "guys who are running soaps" to some degree because the guys (and gals) running soaps have had so little vision. Daytime, in many if not all respects, is much the same format it was 20, 30, 40 years ago. I would argue it is not that much different than when soaps began on radio.

As one poster said, daytime now is little more than something wrapped around the ads. Truthfully, I think that has always been the case to some degree. Daytime at one time bankrolled primetime.

Anyway, I think the future of "soaps" as we know it has been known for some time. I think since the early 90s, we have seen it coming. Yet none of those in charge of soaps ever made an effort to change. Daytime continued to hold on to those who said don't blame the fan or there's nothing wrong with a show that has been on for 40 years or if daytime just went back to its roots everything would be fine.

I don't agree with that. It's probably time to cancel many of those soaps and bring something new back in its place. I admit --- and to many of the self-appointed soap expert's displeasure --- that I admired GL for at least trying something different. Unfortunately it just tinkered around the edges. Yes, GL has been cancelled, but really GL is no worse than much that is still on air.

My big disappointment with CBS and GL is that the network didn't take the show out of its misery years ago and second, that it is not bringing something on to replace GL. Primetime cancels and replaces. That is a pretty good model for daytime too.

By the way, if you get a chance, read the book "The Big Sort." It has nothing to do with soap operas or television, but it is really an interesting book. It talks about how we as a society or sorting into neighborhood and communities just like ourselves. It has some pretty interesting insights into what this means for a country that arguably is built on pluralism.

Take care folks and bye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If someone is talking about soap viewership in general, every network has been on a downward trend since the 1960s. CBS launched Y&R in 1974, so that's not entirely true. B&B is the only successful launch of a soap since the early 1980's. I don't agree with people that count Santa Barbara, because it never reached ratings status or longevity of other long-running shows. It may have hit the demo sweet spot but was never near the HH rating of other shows.

There is no replacement for an orginal, which is what Guiding Light is. And if it needs to be put out of its misery, there are about 4 or 5 other shows that will probably be right behind GL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually, my last analysis suggests they are:

ATWT

DOOL

AMC

OLTL

Surprisingly, on ratings trajectories, I'm not yet prepared to predict cancellations for

GH

B&B

Y&R

Now, trust me, that last three shocked me. I also know that GH dropped to the bottom of the ABC demo...but still, based on a ten-year trend, this bottom three feels like it will survive a few more years. The issue is that their ratings declines are expected to level off (that is already what has happened for Y&R, this past year).

We'll see....

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

    • I agree. For now. I am sure in a year's time...a new family (or old) will start to appear on the show. 
    • There's some irony in Philip being forgiven, because it forces everyone to admit that Victor was wrong to change his will.  Everyone, eventually including Xander, (I presume), seems to think it was wrong for Victor to divide his estate in Xander's favor.  I appreciated Stephanie forgiving Philip, because she's got no skin in that game.  But, Belle's line about Philip missing Xander because he misses Bo did not ring true.  I think Philip would be sad if Bo dies, but I think he's more concerned currently about Xander. I am enjoying this EJ mystery so much that I am hereby taking a vow not to read spoilers.  I am also vowing — for the last time — to stop harping on this, but: the concept of a “sepsis treatment” remains absurd. Hospitals prevent sepsis through vigilant infection control; once sepsis sets in, it causes multiple organ failures. Treatment involves supporting each failing organ individually. The notion that a single medication could magically reverse organ failure is medically laughable. However, I like the contrast of Kim going through cancer, which is incurable in their universe.  Kayla's comment on the health of both of her siblings was both heartbreaking and an interesting twist.  MBE is also totally underrated.  She is carrying the weight of so many stories.   And, I like the use of Kayla as an audience surrogate.  She's arguably the most "real" person in Salem. Kayla isn't psychic, she wasn't SORASed, she's not a billionaire, and she doesn't have a bionic eye.  So, I enjoy that we get her perspective of the nuttiness that surrounds her. However, I don't get what gives her the authority to turn down EJ's offer.  I understand that they need a hospital figurehead to show us scenes of the competition to buy the hospital.  But, unless the entire administration has been let go, the Chief of Staff wouldn't make those choices.
    • But why worry about something that might not happen? Right now, most things revolve around the Duprees. We have no idea if or how long that will continue. For now, it's working.
    • The Duprees not having any staff is a bugbear for me. They've included the background staff at the Country Club but no one at the Dupree home. Even just an extra bringing in a tray of food/drinks or responding to a request from Anita would suffice.
    • Shut up, Dante and Lois.  I actually don't mind this particular soap trope, but in the context of this storyline, it just feels forced and unnecessary. If anything, this Dante/Gio tension needed to begin months ago. Plus, this storyline, in general, isn't doing Lois any favors either.  Emma comforting Gio was really sweet though. It's definitely time for the two of them to have their first kiss. And, Joss playing Secret Agent Barbie will just never work.
    • Note to makeup - Smitty’s eyebrows, bad clamshell look.  

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Okay I can buy that when Brook Lynn was a teen.  Now she knows the child is a boy one would think she'd be slightly suspicious.  Then again, Gio looks nothing like either of them so maybe not lol.
    • I've been behind & just got caught up & the last 3 days were amazing!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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