13 hours ago, Neil Johnson said:

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe AW ever got higher than number 9 after 1979.  It may have risen to number 8 briefly at one point, but I can't verify that.  Still, number 9 or number 8 in the ratings for 20 years, is not going to be considered a success by anybody.   So all the things they tried - hijinks and comedy, crime drama, over the top foolishness, dozens of new characters in and out, etc. - even though some fans enjoyed it, the ratings did not go up.  So none of it worked.   

Popularity does not necessarily correlate with quality. There are a lot of other factors that get people tuning in and sticking with a serial. Writing is only part of the equation. Sometimes the hook is as shallow as finding an actor attractive. And fortunately or unfortunately, being popular already is one of the things that attracts viewers, which increases word of mouth, which sustains or improves ratings. 

How many times did AW try a prime time special to attract attention? Stunts drive publicity, but how do you convert that to daytime viewing?  

31 minutes ago, Xanthe said:

Popularity does not necessarily correlate with quality. There are a lot of other factors that get people tuning in and sticking with a serial. Writing is only part of the equation. Sometimes the hook is as shallow as finding an actor attractive. And fortunately or unfortunately, being popular already is one of the things that attracts viewers, which increases word of mouth, which sustains or improves ratings. 

How many times did AW try a prime time special to attract attention? Stunts drive publicity, but how do you convert that to daytime viewing?  

Very true.  It is odd that AW once it dipped in the ratings in 79 it could never climb its way back.  So many soaps like GH were even on the verge of being cancelled in around this time and they climbed and raped the ratings due to the great Gloria Monty.  DOOL ratings were not even as good as AW in the 70's and they managed to skyrocket.  AW just never got that pizzaz again for many years stories just were not good.  They tried the GH antics and even the DOOL crap in the 90's but it was never a success.  I don't understand how it even lasted as long as it did and most likely younger viewers knew the reputation as the show not being popular and did not tune in.  In 1988 when Lemay returned and the show seemed to have some decent quality again and i thought that the ratings would change but that did not happen.  Frankly from 1981-1987, I thought the show was awful.  I watched it still not faithfully because I had watched all my life.  In 1988, I watched it because I became interested again but but the end of 25th anniversary it just moved in the direction again away from the main families.  Its odd the P&G would not let anyone buy the rights of the show. I cant imagine ABC wanting to pick it up on their network.  ABC soaps were at the top of the pack but who knows maybe they could have done some magic that NBC and P&G could not.

I often wonder about the peripatetic nature of the daytime audience. 

Most of us either grew up in, or had relatives in, households that defined themselves as NBC fans, or CBS folks.  But, 1979 saw an upsurge in OLTL with the Marco Dane trial.  So, I question how many of those people were new viewers, and what percent were converts from AW during it's 90 minute experiment that never returned?

My mother and her friends were Another World fans, but as they went back to the workplace, and their kids became more attracted to the action of GH, and the love stories of AMC, I found myself going back and forth between AW and OLTL over the years. 

So, I agree that quality does not always correlate with popularity, but I still don't know how many just stop the habit of watching soaps when the quality dips and how many actually switch to other shows.  I would guess that answer changed with the number of options as cable TV grew in popularity in the 80s, because in 1979 if you didn't want to see what was going on in Bay City, there were limited alternatives.

Edited February 10, 20232 yr by j swift

Unlike GH (Luke & Laura, Robert & Holly, Frisco & Felicia) and DAYS (Roman & Marlena, Bo & Hope, Patch & Kayla), AW never had a "super couple" in the 80's that attracted the press like other shows. Yes, they had  couples like Catlin & Sally, Cass & Kathleen, Jake & Marley, but they never hit the level of "super couple" that pulled in viewers just to watch them.

One can blame writing, behind the scenes turnovers, et all.  

You can say that Mac & Rachel were the shows super couple, and I wouldn't argue that. However, they weren't the young, flashier demographic that NBC wanted. 

29 minutes ago, denzo30 said:

Very true.  It is odd that AW once it dipped in the ratings in 79 it could never climb its way back.  So many soaps like GH were even on the verge of being cancelled in around this time and they climbed and raped the ratings due to the great Gloria Monty.  DOOL ratings were not even as good as AW in the 70's and they managed to skyrocket.  AW just never got that pizzaz again for many years stories just were not good.  They tried the GH antics and even the DOOL crap in the 90's but it was never a success.  I don't understand how it even lasted as long as it did and most likely younger viewers knew the reputation as the show not being popular and did not tune in.  In 1988 when Lemay returned and the show seemed to have some decent quality again and i thought that the ratings would change but that did not happen.  Frankly from 1981-1987, I thought the show was awful.  I watched it still not faithfully because I had watched all my life.  In 1988, I watched it because I became interested again but but the end of 25th anniversary it just moved in the direction again away from the main families.  Its odd the P&G would not let anyone buy the rights of the show. I cant imagine ABC wanting to pick it up on their network.  ABC soaps were at the top of the pack but who knows maybe they could have done some magic that NBC and P&G could not.

To be fair Doug Marland's writing was also part of the Renaissance that GH experienced. Personally I found plenty of quality in AW even when they were in decline in ratings & rankings. The 90 minute show was a blow & it had to be gotten over. Pete left & they had to find their way to some other writing. Doug died & they were blown away for awhile. (As ATWT was blown away when Marland died.) Meanwhile there was this conflict between network & sponsor. I think of that old adage that a house divided cannot stand. If NBC wanted to cancel the show, let's say, as of 1988 & they pulled the plug in 1999, then that means P&G kept the show alive for 11 years. I believe at the end they were exhausted of fighting. (I think later they were exhausted with fighting with CBS when they cancelled ATWT & GL.) 

I would imagine that Angela Shapiro had ideas about how to package & promote AW. I never thought NBC did a good job of promoting AW. Maybe someone else could have. 

1 hour ago, denzo30 said:

don't also classify Alice either as the Frame family.  It was great how the Matthews family was more or less reunited

No, I never thought of Alice as a Frame either. She was a Matthews!

Edited February 10, 20232 yr by Tonksadora
promote

2 hours ago, j swift said:

I often wonder about the peripatetic nature of the daytime audience. 

Most of us either grew up in, or had relatives in, households that defined themselves as NBC fans, or CBS folks.  But, 1979 saw an upsurge in OLTL with the Marco Dane trial.  So, I question how many of those people were new viewers, and what percent were converts from AW during it's 90 minute experiment that never returned?

My mother and her friends were Another World fans, but as they went back to the workplace, and their kids became more attracted to the action of GH, and the love stories of AMC, I found myself going back and forth between AW and OLTL over the years. 

So, I agree that quality does not always correlate with popularity, but I still don't know how many just stop the habit of watching soaps when the quality dips and how many actually switch to other shows.  I would guess that answer changed with the number of options as cable TV grew in popularity in the 80s, because in 1979 if you didn't want to see what was going on in Bay City, there were limited alternatives.

Yes and the baffling part of AW in 1979 is was one of top rated soaps and then suddenly within a few months it is rankings at #8.  What could possibly have happened?  Lemay was still writing at this time and the 90 minute debacle came months later.  I mentioned before that other soaps became more intriguing with mystery and sexy character so many people turned the channel but I would think that would take a year if not longer for fans to go to another network or show.  Lemay knew even though he wont admit it that is writing style was not set for the younger 80 generation and left.  Im sure the 90 minute extension was also the smoking gun..

2 hours ago, Melroser said:

Unlike GH (Luke & Laura, Robert & Holly, Frisco & Felicia) and DAYS (Roman & Marlena, Bo & Hope, Patch & Kayla), AW never had a "super couple" in the 80's that attracted the press like other shows. Yes, they had  couples like Catlin & Sally, Cass & Kathleen, Jake & Marley, but they never hit the level of "super couple" that pulled in viewers just to watch them.

One can blame writing, behind the scenes turnovers, et all.  

You can say that Mac & Rachel were the shows super couple, and I wouldn't argue that. However, they weren't the young, flashier demographic that NBC wanted. 

Totally, I feel like AW never really attracted very attractive actors either.  Not trying to sound disrespectful but the other networks and shows bought on very handsome actors and smoking actress's.  Hey, sex sells even back in the day when sex was still hidden.  AW cast in the 80's were kind of drabby.  One would think that I don't like the show cuz I critisize it but I loved mainly what I saw in the 70's and the attempts to try and relive that type of writing and cast.  

10 minutes ago, denzo30 said:

Yes and the baffling part of AW in 1979 is was one of top rated soaps and then suddenly within a few months it is rankings at #8.  What could possibly have happened?  Lemay was still writing at this time and the 90 minute debacle came months later.

Mar. 1979 AW to 90 min. show. Aug. 1980 AW reverts back to 1 hr. show. Lemay left some weeks after the 90 min. start. 

15 hours ago, Tonksadora said:

Actually this is the first anyone's said anything to me about not using Wikipedia. Just to set the record straight. 

I agree.  If there is an issue with using Wikipedia, then let it be known.  I also dont understand why Wikipedia is a problem on this site.  Most of what you read on Wiki is accurate and I pretty sure the ratings Donna posted are accurate. Not trying to disagree with people but lets be a bit more rational and kinder with comments that admin or people think is not appropriate. 

59 minutes ago, denzo30 said:

Yes and the baffling part of AW in 1979 is was one of top rated soaps and then suddenly within a few months it is rankings at #8.  What could possibly have happened? 

Didn't all the P&G soaps tank around that same era?

Ratings data from that time is hard to come by.

From Jan to August 78 AW ranked #2 of all soaps with a 8.3/28 rating.

GL had a 7.5/27 to rank #5

GH had a 7.2/25 to rank #6

Keep in mind this is the average for those 8 months. What was happening during those months was not only GH growing week by week but GL also gaining as the 1 hr format bedded in.

By Nov 78

GL # 1 8.3/30

GH #7 7.1/25

AW #8 6.6 /22

So AW had lost almost two rating points from its average. The above figures are just a snapshot and it being Nov GL might have got a boost from a sweeps storyline.

So the AW fall was due to stronger competition,from both GL and GH, weaker lead-in and AW itself failing to follow up the Sven storyline which coincided with its last big ratings.

Wow! That's a big drop for AW.  I was never a fan of the show. 

All of my family members were CBS viewers. I remember visiting my cousins who were the odd ones and watch AW....😂. I remember the rest of the extended family laughing at them for being fans of the show. 

Eddie Drueding has reuploaded more episodes. This time from late 1987.  

 

1 hour ago, victoria foxton said:

Eddie Drueding has reuploaded more episodes. This time from late 1987.  

 

At this point in time Cass must be the imposter Rex Allingham, correct? It's hard to tell because he seems so Cass-like.

I don't think I liked anything that was going on at this point, with the possible exception of the glimpse of poor sad Adam.

@Xanthe You are correct. As wonky as 1987 was. I'll take it over 95-99.

5 hours ago, Soapsuds said:

Wow! That's a big drop for AW.  I was never a fan of the show. 

All of my family members were CBS viewers. I remember visiting my cousins who were the odd ones and watch AW....😂. I remember the rest of the extended family laughing at them for being fans of the show. 

Well, that is just incredibly crass! I've never put much stock in any of the people who made fun of the actors on AMC, OLTL and Y&R, much less the fans. What's wrong with people?!

52 minutes ago, victoria foxton said:

@Xanthe You are correct. As wonky as 1987 was. I'll take it over 95-99.

Well, of course, there was the awful 6 months of Michael Malone & the nightmare that was Jordan Stark and Lumina. But except for a year we always had the wonder that was Carl & Rachel. But, don'[t get me started on Jensen Buchanan taking advantage. You've been warned. She cost the show as much unnecessary money as Jill did.