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.

If there was something better out there believe me the networks would be using it. First and foremost the Neilsen is a business and it would be in their best interest to stay in touch with technology and use it to benefit them the most. Secondly if they was so antiquated and flawed, not to say that they are perfect another company would have no problem beating them at the game as of today they are the only ones because it is not as easy as it looks and yes there are other companies trying to do what they do.

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.

They are indeed the top shows on Soapnet. Soapnet is interested in original programming, but not to replace these two shows in primetime. They are successful, and make money....and continue to rise in the ratings. They don't need to replace them.

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.

There is much less cost associated with airing a "free" show than one they actually have to pay $$$ for.

As for Frons' comment, it's directed at the multiple airings, since they don't garner as many viewers as the primetime showings.

They shouldn't and they didn't.

Yep on "they shouldn't." The few I watch deserve the "they didn't."

I can't figure out the multiquote function, but in response to cyberologist, I think a lot of people felt REG was treated shabbily and left with her. I felt Forbes March was treated shabbily and left with him. Dan G. was really treated shabbily too.

Regarding, SoapNet, it doesn't seem like 469,000 viewers watching a show is very much. I wonder how many viewers it takes to support a Cable channel. If OLTL and AMC are the network's big performers and they aren't registering even a half a million viewers, it must not take much.

First of all, I seriously doubt OLTL and AMC are "free" to Soapnet. Even though they are both part of ABC Daytime under Frons' administration, they are separate profit centers so I am sure there is some transfer of funds and there is some "expense" involved.

I think the shows are so bad, it takes very little to finally convince a viewer to tune out. Most of us are hanging in there out of loyalty and a faint hope that things will improve, not because we're being entertained. So the departure or reduced air time for a beloved character/couple makes it really easy to just stop hanging on.

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?

This is a great post.

The Neilsen system is still founded on good principles (random and representative sampling, using a sample size large enough to produce small confidence intervals/margins of error). With regard to the Neilsens, there are many flaws (most related to the technology of assessment, and sometimes related to representativeness), but the core principle remains an excellent one.

The problem, as you note, relates to both the data collection method and the interpretations (e.g., your "appointment television" point--which still makes some sense because recorders are more likely to FF--but even live viewers are likely to go to the bathroom etc. during commercials; the higher value of selected demographics).

There are rapidly emerging viewer count systems -- some owned by Neilsen -- aimed at counting viewers in the new media as you suggest.

Tivo, in the US, is using its ability to measure what subscribers are viewing as a 'ratings' service in selected markets. The problem with Tivo is that it is still only a selective subset of the audience. Also, even Tivo has the "people meter" problem -- knowing exactly who is in the room and watching.

Several services now claim to provide counts of streaming views. The problem is that the services offer widely varying estimates.

So, the technology and sampling are still in flux, but the industry is moving in your direction.

I can fully see the advertiser-supported services wanting to go to 100% streaming, since then viewers CANNOT FF (and it is hard to capture or copy). I personally cannot wait until the "broadcast"/"cablecast" networks as we know them are gone.

^^ I'd settle for ABC and other broadcasters who put their episodes on the line to remove the international barriers. Just think the audience they could have if they were accessible world wide any time of the day or night. I don't know the legalities of it all, but I'm sure if there was a purchase aspect ($1 a show/month - significant but nominal and accountable) that could get around the border. It's annoying that as a 30 year fan living outside the US there is no way of knowing what I represent and US soaps are not just watched in the US market, nor are advertiser's products just sold to Americans.

*PO'd because she doesn't have a DVR and has to pick up her kids from daycamp at 3 PM for the rest of the month...*

Regarding, SoapNet, it doesn't seem like 469,000 viewers watching a show is very much. I wonder how many viewers it takes to support a Cable channel. If OLTL and AMC are the network's big performers and they aren't registering even a half a million viewers, it must not take much.

Unless SoapNet becomes a part of basic cable like USA, Lifetime, TNT, etc... I don't see how its number mean much. Its ratings are a specific subset of a specific subset. Of course I could see how advertisers might want to appeal to people who are still willing and able to pay for that tier of cable.

But maybe I'm generalizing. SoapNet isn't part of basic cable for providers available to me. Are there others getting it? Or is it cheap enough to add that it doesn't matter?

Unless SoapNet becomes a part of basic cable like USA, Lifetime, TNT, etc... I don't see how its number mean much. Its ratings are a specific subset of a specific subset. Of course I could see how advertisers might want to appeal to people who are still willing and able to pay for that tier of cable.

But maybe I'm generalizing. SoapNet isn't part of basic cable for providers available to me. Are there others getting it? Or is it cheap enough to add that it doesn't matter?

marceline, SoapNet is available through basic cable from many providers. It is on a more expensive tier on some systems, but not all. It is among the top 25 basic cable networks, regardless of tier.

SoapNet is part of the paid digital package where I live. SoapNet's audience is tiny that I find all the boasting about increases in its press releases ridiculous.

Edited July 3, 200916 yr by Ann_SS

SoapNet is part of the paid digital package where I live. SoapNet's audience is tiny that I find all the boasting about increases in its press releases ridiculous.

Two facts about Soapnet:

No. 1 basic cable network in frequency of viewing among women 18-49.

No. 1 basic cable network in average minutes viewed among women 18-49.

This includes USA, TNT, TBS, and all the other basic cable networks. They all fall behind SoapNet in these two areas.

marceline, SoapNet is available through basic cable from many providers. It is on a more expensive tier on some systems, but not all. It is among the top 25 basic cable networks, regardless of tier.

Really? For me it's on that specialty tier that I would never consider getting with stuff like the Bollywood cooking channel.

In that case, I wonder what the ad rates are for SN compared to ABC.

Really? For me it's on that specialty tier that I would never consider getting with stuff like the Bollywood cooking channel.

In that case, I wonder what the ad rates are for SN compared to ABC.

Many of their ads are definitely "POS" ads. (Point of sale, not piece of sh!t. LOL!) Call now and get this free gift kinda stuff. So it can't be very much in ad revenue.

does anyone Know how any of the soaps did?

Two facts about Soapnet:

No. 1 basic cable network in frequency of viewing among women 18-49.

No. 1 basic cable network in average minutes viewed among women 18-49.

This includes USA, TNT, TBS, and all the other basic cable networks. They all fall behind SoapNet in these two areas.

SoapNet is not on basic cable network across all the country so its ratings cannot be compared to networks like USA, etc. Also, those stats that you quoted seem parsed. What are the actual SoapNet ratings in that women 18-49 demo compared to the basic cable networks?

Edited July 3, 200916 yr by Ann_SS