Members Ann_SS Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 It was only a thought. Whatever is going on with GH on SoapNet I am sure it isn't good given the network's silence. For all the boasting about AMC and OLTL's increases, SoapNet's audience is so small that it is hard to believe that it is benefiting from the re-airings in any major way. It is not surprising that SoapNet is looking for inexpensive alternative programming. I have seen the switch blamed for lower daytine ratings, but it is difficult for me to believe that Neilsen has thousands of boxes in the homes of elderly and poor people. Nielsen carefully screens the individuals in those homes they place those boxes or ask to fill out the diaries. Also, even those thousands of people are lost because of the switch, most of them not in the all so important 18-49 women demo that the advertisers prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Carolyn1980 Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 Except they're not looking to replace AMC, OLTL, or GH, because they're the most inexpensive programming they have--they cost nothing to them. And they're the two highest rated shows on SoapNet. And SoapNet is up 25% over last year. And it's now in the top 25 basic cable stations, on par with MTV, yet with more women 18-49 viewers. In other words, much as I can't stand AMC....and I'm not all that fond of OLTL, either, lol....neither one is in any danger of dying anytime soon. They're keeping a very lucrative cable net afloat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members brwnsugar33 Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 I understand what you are saying but they just sank 3 million dollars into going hd with GH and now I don't see them getting anything in return with the bad ratings they have been getting. AMC and OLTL are least expensive than GH and they are getting better ratings than GH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Carolyn1980 Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 True. Plus, OLTL is the most profitable show they have, thanks to its low cost to produce. If GH can't come out of their ratings doldrums, I would expect to see big cuts in the talent on the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ATWT_GL_fan Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 Actually the first full week of the DTV switch was not last week it was the week before and the ratings for all ABC soaps were down same with Days and Y&R the rest of cbs went up so your right about them being down cause of the DTV switch but the DTV switch was 3 weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dragonflies Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 IF AMC is doing so well on Soapnet, why are the marathons for the show shown at Midnight to 6 am Monday Mornings? Unfortunately we'll probably be stuck with Pratt for another year, let's just hope AMC makes it another year with him at the helm. The show is so disjointed, nothing makes sense day to day. Scenes like the one with Liza hugging Zach and Kendall seeing them, then nothing after that, I guess that's more of the off screen happenings Pratt is so fond of. Oye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Carolyn1980 Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 The marathons are "encore" presentations, as when other cable nets air their popular shows for second and third times in overnight hours. It's the primetime ratings on SoapNet that tell the story, and AMC and OLTL are both doing phenomenally well in that regard. And as I said before, they're "free" shows for SoapNet, so no matter how many times they air, and no matter where they air....the money from advertising is all profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hannah4321 Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 Any chance we are goingt to get Ratings tonight PLease Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chyti Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 Where does it state that they are the highest rated shows, it only states that the shows received their highest ratings big difference. It seems like soapnet is more interested in original programming then being none as the station that shows repeats. With the digital conversion I read that only 0.6 people over 55 have not converted a very small number which should no longer be used to justify the ratings drop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ann_SS Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 Just because the soaps are free to SoapNet, it does not mean that there is no cost associated with airing them. The network has to pay people and use equipment to monitor the studio, send signals, etc. Ad revenue has to cover those costs as well as make profit. Frons definitely in a recent article that one of the reasons that they were looking for alternative programming was because not enough people were watching the repeats to bring the ad revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tgilbrea69 Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 Cannot agree more. Would like ATWT to bottom out - would hate to see them go up in the ratings now - might be seen as something the writers or executive producers are doing right (which wont be the case) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cyberologist Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 That's what I'm trying to say "How can this be truthfully ascertained" if Y/R has 5 million viewers how do they get these #s when 5 million viewers don't have these boxes?" I don't have Tivo or a Neilsen box so am I being counted? I record off WinTv. I watch Y/R online most of the time. People's viewing habits have technologically superceded some box from the 50's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members remos Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 I know Neilson is the granddaddy of this stats thing, but the shows have so many other ways of assessing how many are truly watching. Perhaps rather than looking at what soaps have to change, perhaps we should be looking at different sources for information. If a company in Denmark (I think it was) can tell you who's texting the US from Iran, you know the technology exists to see who is tuning into the shows through cable or online or TiVo or any other number of ways you Americans are watching. (As a Canadian we are limited and not counted, so it's all intellectual to me.) And I find it rather difficult that we are all picking over the bones of the numbers for a technological system (appointment TV) that is itself a declining means of entertainment. Arguable I'm still learning the whys and wherefores of this whole thing - and this thread has been most helpful - but are we truly seeing bad numbers for soaps or is it bad number recording systems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chyti Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 Not everyone is being counted because it is a sampling of the population, and yes Neilsen counts internet watchers also. We are only seeing part of the ratings the part that abc or Troups purchases there are also other indepth ratings available that breaks down demographics, etc. I would like to blame the decrease in ratings numbers to the antiquated Neilsen also but the reality is that less and less viewers are tuning in over the years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ann_SS Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 Exactly. I think part of the problem is that people do not understand that Neilsen draws a representative sample of the viewing habits of the American population since no one can count everyone. The advertisers of various products are only interested in specific types of viewers. Even with Neilsen counting Internet viewers, it is clear that there are less people watching not only daytime, but prime tv as a whole. For all the complaints about Neilsen, there is no evidence that their sampling strategy is flawed or antiquated. It is also possible if Neilsen changed it sampling strategy, the soaps would lose even more viewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.