I'm always reminding myself that the goal is to sell soap to housewives in Peoria. That is an important lens through which I observe everything.

OK, this will sound fake, but it totally opens my eyes.

However, as usual, I have some questions:

1. Does this mean housewives in Peoria have a lower IQ and like dumb television?

2. To which age group does a typical housewife in Peoria belong? Or the majority of housewives in Peoria?

3. Does this also mean these women wouldn't accept a bit of intelligence and realistic, fresh dialogue? What kind of stories are not their stories?

4. Have housewives ever been soaps' largest audience? And can soaps at the same time please a woman English literature professor and a housewife at the same time? Or is that mutually exclusive?

And so on.

And Sylph...? If it's any consolation at all, I'm sorry I accused you of being Vincent Lechowick. Really.

Oh, Khan, don't worry about it! Enjoy life!

I take the answers below, more or less, from Irna Phillips. Really, I'm talking about those essays about early radio soaps...but I really don't think the story has changed.

1. Does this mean housewives in Peoria have a lower IQ and like dumb television?

No, but it does mean [ A. ] risk-averse television; controversial storytelling that turns off some viewers is anathema to advertiser support for home-and-hearth products, and [ B. ] unchallenging television. On this latter, I use Lost or Heroes as current counter-examples. Viewers have to pay attention. That doesn't work when, on Tuesdays and Thursdays you take the children to playdates and on Wednesdays you watch while ironing. That means you need much repetition, fairly slow progress, lots of expository dialogue...

2. To which age group does a typical housewife in Peoria belong? Or the majority of housewives in Peoria?

I assume is is the 18-34 or 18-49 Peorian housewife who is most coveted.

3. Does this also mean these women wouldn't accept a bit of intelligence and realistic, fresh dialogue? What kind of stories are not their stories?

I believe it is not what these women can or would accept. I believe that the shows are programmed to fit into those lifestyles where viewing is both habitual and habitually distracted.

The challenging (fresh, realistic) stuff must be reserved for primetime or rented DVDs or whatever...when the kids are asleep or away.

Yes, I am aware at this point that I'm being both stereotypical and a bit out of date...but I truly believe that this is the programming philosophy, still.

4. Have housewives ever been soaps' largest audience? And can soaps at the same time please a woman English literature professor and a housewife at the same time? Or is that mutually exclusive?

If the programming philosophy is to reach the largest number, then the housewives (or whover is at home during the days) greatly outnumber the English literature professor. While the professor may watch, the programming is not designed for her, at all. The sparks of "freshness" we observe sometimes on soaps are almost accidental...they occur when smart, educated writers/producers/actors, yearning to transcend their genres, manage to slip something in.

While SON has all manner of disdain for the ATWT Nuke story, it played out the way it did -- in large measure -- because of the desire not to lose those housewives in Peoria and their presumed desires. Those seeking more greatness in that story need to look outside of daytime, and outside of commercial television. to find it. Fortunately, there are many options outside of daytime.

In the scheme of restaurants, soaps are Boston Market. If you want something more exquisite, you dine someplace else.

And so on.

Edited April 26, 200916 yr by MarkH

Wow. That is all very depressing, disheartening, dispiriting... But true. And it goes on to show how after all these years — it's stuck. The time machine got broken and we haven't evolved. We are catering to a demographic that does not exist. Or which won't exist in a matter of years.

Yet as much as it's "risk-averse TV", it still managed to pioneer and incorporate a whole lot of firsts: issues, stories and TV techniques.

LoL, the self-pity continues...

LoL, the self-pity continues...

Self-pity = "Self-pity is a psychological state of mind of an individual in perceived adverse situations who has not accepted the situation and does not have the confidence nor ability to cope with it."

I'm curious. Where do you see [ a ] non-acceptance, and [ b ] non-coping?

I'm wondering if your word-choice is off, or if you're seeing something from that definition above that I'm not. I am sincerely interested.

nevermind...

Edited April 26, 200916 yr by detroitpiston

Wow. That is all very depressing, disheartening, dispiriting... But true. And it goes on to show how after all these years — it's stuck. The time machine got broken and we haven't evolved. We are catering to a demographic that does not exist. Or which won't exist in a matter of years.

Yet as much as it's "risk-averse TV", it still managed to pioneer and incorporate a whole lot of firsts: issues, stories and TV techniques.

The demo exists. But not in large numbers. And the other at-home demo is retirees, more or less. But the networks seem not to want to acknowledge that.

So, you're absolutely right about programming for a shrinking demo...and THAT (not whose storyling aired this week, or which head-writer is in charge) is why the ratings are where they are. It is about timeslot and available audience.

I think there is plenty of room for risky TV, and we see it all over the place. Just NOT in daily soap operas in the US. It seems to me that is not where we should be looking for it either, given the demographic realities of the form.

LMAO at DP and MTS! They want to stay away from these "fights" yet all they do is light the fire!

LMAO at DP and MTS! They want to stay away from these "fights" yet all they do is light the fire!

lol, you're right. I'm just gonna edit my post and stay out of it from now on.

Edited April 26, 200916 yr by detroitpiston

LMAO at DP and MTS! They want to stay away from these "fights" yet all they do is light the fire!

You're right, I did intentionally light the fire, but like you said, "you don't have to respond."

I don't know why the "Y&R haters" think that they're being vilified, or that there opinions don't matter, because if you re-read this thread nobody stated that. This whole "woe its me" act is confusing. You hate the show, that's fine, but that doesn't mean others can't enjoy it. I've seen post saying that moila is a one trick poney, well from what I've read, the same can be applied to nearly everyone in this thread.

No silly smiley faces, high English literature, or witty remarks from me - I'm just going to back off now.

You know what, I don't hate Y&R. I just find it excruciatingly boring and overrated.

You know what, I don't hate Y&R. I just find it excruciatingly boring and overrated.

BINGO DETROIT!

MTSROCKS- I AM ACCEPTING ANY AND ALL DONATIONS TO MY SELF-PITY FUND. If you are the same MTSROCKS from another board, you pulled the same s-it there when someone was not enjoying Y&R..

Did these people even read the subject of this thread? You have 17+ pages of Y&R raving per week!

Keep this going, please. I will more than happily respond.

Again, why is Y&R the only show we are not allowed to bitch about, even when someone starts a thread specifically to that end?

Because there will be a whole lot other "think tank" threads, all coming to theatres near you, showcasing how I, and many others are, actually either Vincent Lechowick or some frustrated, unemployed writer... And where I will be begrudging people & their feelings, doubt their sincerity and spend all my time here bitching about people who like something I don't.

A lofty goal, to be sure. I'm sure it beats filing for unemployment.

And at this point, I can't imagine what nasty little charge you get out of it that you haven't already. How many hypothetical threads can you start in which you bludgeon hapless posters half to death with your hambone dime store sociological analysis, your thesaurus and your persecution complex, until they apologize to you for existing and/or watching soaps that you don't like? Because that's what you really enjoy; posing a "question" and then explaining to overly accommodating people how they're wrong, they don't get it, they shouldn't have spoken to you that way and you don't like their tone. You enjoy seeing how much they will apologize. After all, they're all just hausfraus on a soap forum, right? You're nothing like them. You're just visiting. You can leave any time you want!

Your junior high social experiments are very tiresome. You no longer talk about soaps anymore; they are simply the stalking horse for your latest filibuster session about yourself and people you don't like who aren't necessarily as cynical as you. (Though apparently, I am.) You're slipping, and it's very obvious. That's why I stay on you. If you're not going to talk about soaps, and you're just going to talk about people who watch them and how they annoy you, then get off the board.

Just like I predicted... :lol:

Did these people even read the subject of this thread? You have 17+ pages of Y&R raving per week!

I honestly thought the Y&R thread was for discussion, and I have not perceived any raving--certainly not in the last week, but not generally. Here are some quotes from JUST the last week. I'm also deliberately selecting quotes from persons who generally like Y&R. Does this really constitute raving? Really?

To me--from a series of show lovers--this seems awfully "fair and balanced to me". I wonder if people actually read the Y&R threads they deride as simplemindedly acolytically uncritical??

Source

I really hate how we've been led to believe that Tyra is Dru's replacement. It's such a slap in the face.

Source

I hate this couple. I can't remember when was the last time I could care less about it.

Source

Why does Billy love Mac so much? She's not sexy, interesting or anything really. She's certainly no match for Chloe. Chloe and Mac have ZERO enemy-chemistry. Speaking of Chloe, does Chloe, the suffering mother, do it for you all? Cause she seems dilluted and whiny now.

Source

Highly anticipated? Miraculously? A standout show? I'm like one of Casiello's biggest fans but even I have to say COME ON!! LOL I guess Nelson's called "The Straw" for a reason.

Source

Now, here's a question. Ana today.... could this child's acting have BEEN more wooden? The scene where they walked in on Neil and Karen's hysteria, and this girl just deadpans... "It's all my fault", she didn't show any remorse in her eyes, face, in her voice.... she probabaly convey's more emotion when she goes the the Burger King and orders a whopper

Source

I have to be honest - both Ana and Cane needed acting coaches today. ...Definitely the two weak points for me as well.

Source

I'm already over the mournful Billy/Mac lokks....Can we move away from criminal activities as the basis of plots?...The backburnering of Nikki,Paul,JT,Victoria,Heather,Colleen and the Winters is not good storytelling.All of these characters could have been more involved in the story....Can we have a mention of how Casey is doing?

Source

Yeah. This one was weaker. They even had A-players on, like Morrow and Stafford and Case and Bregman and Leblanc...but it was a weaker show. I'd be fine with this being another "adaggio"...softer...pause...but the episode just seemed stalled.

Monday's show was so strong (shockingly, given that it had some of the show's weakest characters front and center) that I think most anything would have paled by contrast.

Again, why is Y&R the only show we are not allowed to bitch about, even when someone starts a thread specifically to that end?

Not meaning to be difficult, but could you point me to a single post in this thread where someone said something that even connotes "you are not allowed to bitch about Y&R"? I really read every word.

Where--in what sentence--anywhere--anyone--in this thread was that uttered? I'm genuinely interested in where this perception is coming from.