See the chart. Labine was not the big decliner. It had all happened earlier...during the regimes of Nixon, and later Marland, Falken Smith, Long and others.

Mark, most people are talking GH, not GL.

Mark, most people are talking GH, not GL.

Yup, but I was finishing up from something upthread.

GH is the same deal. Actually, GH is the most interesting show in some ways, because since the early 90s it seems to be the "canary in the coal mine". If you compare GH (blue line) to the average ratings of soaps (green line--current survivors on the air at the time), they are pretty much neck-in-neck for GH's entire run since the early 90s.

The figure below isn't the greatest, but it shows several things. First, GL (yellow dots/line) was close to the bottom of the ratings from 1980 on. Second, its rate of decline is quite comparable to other soaps. There is nothing remarkable about its rate of decline; thus, it would be difficult to pin that decline on any one writing/producing regime. I'll try to find a clearer picture.

ETA: This is a more historical and slightly less busy (no dots) perspective. What you can see is that the precipitous drop occurred in the 1960s through the early 1970s. It was in that period that GL (again yellow) got to the bottom of the pack (of the current soaps...I didn't plot cancelled shows), and then declined at a rate comparable to all other soaps. In some way, GL was made vulnerable in the 60s/70s, probably by the debut of newer and "more exciting" shows. This is why I repudiate all blame placed on Ellen Wheeler. The fate was written 40 years ago.

There is nothing like statistical data to draw a clear picture. Thanks for this.

There is nothing like statistical data to draw a clear picture. Thanks for this.

Oh, others are giving me the business for my "pie charts". But I'm glad you don't mind my obsession . (Smiley--another thing I get the business for--but it is sincere).

A few years later, Marlena wrote a column about the Gloria Monty-trained viewers who gave up on GH during the Labine era because it was completely alien to their idea of what GH was supposed to be. Perhaps this was the reason for the drop.

Marlena may be onto something there. We should consider that more women may have entered the work and more younger women were attending college in the mid-90s. Monty's attempt to revamp GH failed miserably in her second stint so even she could not keep up with changing social conditions.

The writing was high quality writing, IMO. Some stories might have worked better than others though. But there was humour, romance, social issues, and a variety of other elements that came into play during this era of GH. GH had a real sense of community again, something I felt it always lakced under Monty. I also felt characters were clearly defined and their motivations were understandable.

GH under the Labines was as close to Marland's ATWT as any show had ever come. It was GH's second golden era, IMO. The strong friendships like Kevin and Mac, Felicia and Lucy, and Luke and Lucy anchored the show. I loved how everyone was connected to each other's lives. Sigmund, Foster, and Annabelle brought many warmhearted and funny moments. Monica's cancer story gave us, Emily who was a wonderful addition. I loved every second of Lucky and Emily's adventures. Lois was a breath of fresh air to helped shake up the Qs, but was also Sonny's good friend. The younger set comprised of AJ, Jason, Keesha, and Brenda rallied around Robin and Stone who already had the support and love of Kevin, Alan, Sonny, Luke, Laura, Lucy, Felicia and Mac so when Robin tested positive and Stone died, it was devastating for everyone in the cast. GH will never recapture those days.

Edited June 17, 200916 yr by Ann_SS

GH under the Labines was as close to Marland's ATWT as any show had ever come. It was GH's second golden era, IMO. The strong friendships like Kevin and Mac, Felicia and Lucy, and Luke and Lucy anchored the show. I loved how everyone was connected to each other's lives. Sigmund, Foster, and Annabelle brought many warmhearted and funny moments. Monica's cancer story gave us, Emily who was a wonderful addition. I loved every second of Lucky and Emily's adventures. Lois was a breath of fresh air to helped shake up the Qs, but was also Sonny's good friend. The younger set comprised of AJ, Jason, Keesha, and Brenda rallied around Robin and Stone who already had the support and love of Kevin, Alan, Sonny, Luke, Laura, Lucy, Felicia and Mac so when Robin tested positive and Stone died, it was devastating for everyone in the cast. GH will never recapture those days.

Great. Now I'm depressed all over again.

I don't know about Monty-trained GH fans leaving in the Labine era. I watched during both times. I enjoyed the Monty-era stuff but I was also younger then and fickle. I also easily surfed away from GH to GL or Days or ATWT during that time if GH. By the time Labine came around I was out of college and appreciated GH having more depth. It was the only soap I stuck with once I was in the work world and watching multiple soaps became too time consuming.

Thank you for the charts, MarkH.

Edited June 17, 200916 yr by Mary Beth

Okay, I think this plot is a bit clearer. The blue line is Guiding Light. The green line is the average of all soaps in each season (restricting the numbers only to those of our 8 surviving soaps that were on in each year). The figure shows:

- GL's decline was nothing special. You can see how it is perfectly parallel for the most part to the average of all soaps

- GL, and all soaps, had an essentially linear decline (in HH rating, which I know is a flawed measure, but it is what I have) since at least the mid-60s. There is nothing special about OJ, the 90s, etc.

- I have listed the headwriting regimes to the right. I defy you to find a regime that is associated with PARTICULAR decline. This is just a general attrition of viewers that transcended all regimes.

- There is one interesting "change point". Prior to about 1970, GL was above the mean of other soaps. (Many of the other 8 survivors were debuting during this period, so some of that was that the other soaps were not established). In the 70s, GL was performing like an 'average' soap...the blue line and the green line are pretty overlapping.

- Beginning in about the mid-1970s, GL dipped below average in ratings, and widened its gap below the average until about the mid-late 80s. During this period, GL declined faster than the average soap. Not HUGELY faster...but faster.

- The gap that put GL at the bottom of the soap ratings rankings, then, was in place by the late 80s. No matter how terrific the writing regimes were after that, GL's fate was sealed by the late 1980s. (By 'fate sealed' I mean "bottom of the heap in a declining genre").

- Headwriters who presided over GL's faster-than-average decline in the 1970s/1980s were Marland, Falken Smith, Browne/Palumbo, Culliton and Long. Earlier back, Agnes Nixon presided over one of the all-time-worst declines for this show.

Let us not put these gods and goddesses on our pedestals, I guess.

Good point Carl. I'm surprised that you included Marland in there too as one of the HW's during the decline. I think we also have to look at the genre itself during the times of these declines not just the material that was airing. Your explaination for the decline in the 60s in understandable. But I wonder, could one say that the glory days of GH, in the early 80s also contributed to the decline under Marland? I know one can't pin point one exact reason, but do you think that could be a factor too?

If not for the improvements the Dobsons and Marland made to the show, there's a good chance GL may have gone the way of SFT -- canned by CBS in the early 80s because they felt the show was, in the words of Schmering, "a dinosaur." Considering how huge the ABC soaps were in the late 70s and the early 80s, I think GL's decline at that time has to be seen in a very different context than in other eras.

Interesting. Thanks again Carl for all your hard work and the insight.

If not for the improvements the Dobsons and Marland made to the show, there's a good chance GL may have gone the way of SFT -- canned by CBS in the early 80s because they felt the show was, in the words of Schmering, "a dinosaur." Considering how huge the ABC soaps were in the late 70s and the early 80s, I think GL's decline at that time has to be seen in a very different context than in other eras.

That's fair. If GH moved the average up (or higher than it would have been), GL would look lower for that reason alone.

I don't really thing GH siphoned viewers away from other soaps, do you? I think it was more about creating a new audience.

I do think it took away some viewers, because both CBS and NBC lost heavy amounts of viewers at this time. I think ABC soaps, GH, but to a lesser degree AMC and OLTL as well, were seen as more of the way of the future, and some people lost interest in the more traditional favorites.

The OJ Simpson trial was often to blame for the decline in the mid-90s. Many state that due to so much preemption, viewers just tuned out, but I don't know how much of that I believe. Though, it's still a contributing factor.

The OJ Simpson trial was often to blame for the decline in the mid-90s. Many state that due to so much preemption, viewers just tuned out, but I don't know how much of that I believe. Though, it's still a contributing factor.

it is why my grandma quit.

it is why my grandma quit.

So that could be the contributing factor as to what drove away many longtime fans.

So that could be the contributing factor as to what drove away many longtime fans.

The data really doesn't bear that out. OJ did not affect decline trends...not in any meaningful away.

The sole exception may be Y&R, which seemed to be holding on (stable ratings) in the early/mid 80s...and then plummeted with a slope equal-to or greater-than the other soaps.