On the cognitive neuroscience of soap watching

[MarkH]

While away at a conference this week, I had the opportunity to talk to a neuroscientist who does a lot of work on media consumption (television, video games). It came to pass that he revealed that 1-2 years ago he consulted with NBC on Days of Our Lives (which he called "the best show in the world", by the way). He was hired by the network research office in Burbank. The show producers are somewhat less willing to hear research feedback, although he asserted "these soaps are different from movies or cable; they exist solely to sell ads, so the producers are actually fairly open to shaping their messages to maximize that the ads meet their target".

This researcher has fashioned a career in trying to identify the sweet spot in which entertainment consumers "lose themselves" in their entertainment. ("Calgon Take Me Away"). In the psychological literature, this state of "losing yourself" is called "Flow". When you are in flow, you are unlikely to change the channel or do other tasks.

Another important point here is that achieving flow is pretty closely related to addiction. The classic gambling or sex addict persists in those activities, in part, to maintain a high-or-chronic state of flow. This helps shut the rest of the world out.

Summary: This scientist was hired, in part, to help figure out how to get people ADDICTED to Days, using cognitive neuroscience principles.

As part of their research, they did things like do functional magnetic resonance imaging while a representative sample of Days viewers actually watched the show. They found otu what kinds of scenes/characters most caused the brain to "light up"--especially in the "reward system" areas (e.g., the parts of the brain that make you feel good).

There are two particularly interesting set of findings he shared, and they explain A LOT.

1. The highest states of flow were achieved when viewers watched BAD CHARACTERS (villains) doing "MORALLY BAD THINGS". That was the point where most viewers were most "locked into" the story and least likely to stay away.

This helps explain, I believe, why some shows may have been really pushing their villains to the forefront, and writing dark stories.

2. Despite my own assertions that day-to-day fluctuations in ratings are fairly random, the scientist disputed this. He was actually able to develop a mathematical model that PERFECTLY predicted day-to-day fluctuations in ratings.

I asked how this could work, and he said (something I have heard here) that many people make viewing choices based on characters and stories that will be on on a given day. This is why shows spend so much time pushing spoilers to the magazines, TV Guides, "when to watch" features, etc.

In other words, even though I personally think spoilers are the anti-christ (but lack discipline not to view them), they apparently directly predict viewership.

When is viewership the highest? Again...when bad people are shown doing bad things.

Seriously.

This goes SUCH a long way to explaining to me what Y&R is so dark these days, and why GH has all-mob all the time. I think these shows are being very driiven by this research.

And, as a researcher, I can't say that's a bad thing. As a viewer, of course, this not what I want to see...all bad, all the time.

[DRW50]

Mark, this is fascinating, and does fit Y&R. As for GH, I would point out that the show does not see the main mobsters as bad people, and neither do a lot of the viewers.

[Sylph]

Remember that Boston Legal episode on how a mother sued a video game company because she claimed the game killed her son? Or James Bond's Tomorrow Never Dies, where a media magnate wants to cause a war via media companies he owns? This is nothing new, but I'm glad you brought it to the general public. I am most interested in this mathematical model.

[NorrthCafe]

Thanks, Mark. I've always believe that fans made choices based on spoilers. The BnB is almost a perfect model for that. BTW, daytime writers really don't understand that model, it seems. They seem to not get the difference between 'bad' characters and 'good' characters doing bad things, on occasion. It's one of the reasons BnB writers could never sell Brooke and Nick to the audience (and why Ridge and Taylor led to a back-burnered relationship for the most part). As for Brooke and Nick, their constant betrayal of Bridget made them objectionable to fans. To make things worse by having Bridget support them and stand up for them weeks/months after losing her baby with Nick? YIKES! The week of their 'scarytale' wedding - highlighted in prime time no less, lost more than 600,000 viewers from the highest rated episode that week. Ridge trying to stop Brooke from marrying nick garnered higher ratings. I knew I wasn't going to watch the wedding, and tuned the BnB out that day). Fans on almost every board talk about which days will be their 'tune out' days.

GH? Too much of what should be a good thing. Bad characters who do bad things... ALL.THE.TIME. It's just more than I can bear and it doesn't matter if the 'bad things' they do are supposed to be 'heroic' (that idiotic idea that Sonny and Jason are 'good mobsters'. My eye.

[Ann_SS]

Interesting. Got to admit that I am highly skeptical. I would have to read his report/article.

[EricMontreal22]

I still love when Agnes Nixon says she doesn't write good or bad characters per se (though I might argue that point when it comes to characters liek Ray Gardner) but prefers to write essentially good people who do the wrong, or bad things, but for good reasons (if often only in their head) this makes for far more interesting drama.

[DRW50]

The other problem with the bad people doing bad things school of writing is that if a bad character becomes popular, then the show awkwardly tries to redeem them. Another problem is that the soaps now believe if a "good" character does something bad, then viewers won't care, since he's "good".

Now on Y&R, they are very awkwardly trying to make people like Adam, after most of the year being spent with him terrorizing vulnerable women and using and discarding people at random.

[Ann_SS]

I think that we have more than enough evidence that widely promoted stunts bring in the audience. Yet we have seen over and over again that the audience never stays.

I do believe is that people will watch and get more interested in a story when it looks like bad guy will be caught, but as CarlD2 pointed out, since almost every bad character is redeemed so there has got to be viewer fatigue.

Really, I simply think that the soaps are played out and the audience is done. I know that I am. I am no longer glued to the soaps. I don't even bother to record any more. I watch when I can. I'll check out scenes on YT if someone says that something good happened, but otherwise, if I miss episode no problem.

[DRW50]

I think a lot of people are tired of what has become of today's soaps. With rehab effort, regime changes, better advertising and network guidance, or just scrapping the soaps and making new ones, things could change.

With today's recessions and all the problems in the world, there should be an audience for soaps, as there was during the Depression. If soaps could do something besides make people feel dirty or sick, then they might get viewers back.

[NorrthCafe]

That's just what I was thinking when you mentioned Adam, above. What I think of when I see him is him burning a fetus in the fireplace and leaving no evidence of it, must less being emotionally and morally capable of doing so. When Ashley (Ash... UGH) finds out her baby is dead, there will be nothing for her to say good-bye to... How can THAT guy be redeemed?

[DRW50]

That's the biggest sickness. They have Adam yank out a few tears and hear the voice of some woman who isn't even Hope, and expect us to feel sorry for him. That's the biggest problem with soaps now, they assume all viewers sympathize with these awful men and their violence against women. It's a pity party for them. Like with OLTL, I always got the feeling that we were supposed to pity Todd throughout Tarty and the aftermath. That the others were an afterthought, extensions of him.

When soaps have genuinely good guys, heroic characters, they are often dismissed as "boring" and "self-righteous" and told they need more layers, but I do think there's an audience out there for this type of guy. As dull as Galen Gering may be as an actor, I do think he's helped DAYS with their numbers.

[MarkH]

You know, I knew about the Bond story. I think what surprises me is not that this idea is around, but that predictive neuroscience has gotten to the point that the networks are asking consultants to help them adjust the characters and stories to maximize addiction.

That actually sounds like work I'd love to do! . As for the model...(more below)

If I understand the research as it was described to me, it would behoove the soaps to step away from "grey" characters, and focus more on the white hats and the black hats.

The research makes perfect sense to me when I think of Sheila Carter's first reign on Y&R, or Abby Cunningham on KL. Those were bad people (yet, still, strangely relatable). And every bad act kept me tuning in.

Well, as I understand it, SOME of his consulting work has been published in leading media psychology journal within the last few years. I think it is the 'ratings prediction' part (i.e., mathematical time series model)...but I'm not sure. I'll be looking. Since these data emerged out of a private consulting arrangement deal with NBC, my guess is that most of it will never be available to us.

Well, but I'd argue that -- especially in the early years when Agnes was writing her -- Erica was a "bad" person doing "bad" things. (Of course, it is more complicated than that, but in those early years, we didn't get much in terms of Erica's motivation beyond daddy abandonment). And the audience tuned in, in large measure, to see her doing her stuff.

This "appeal of the villain" does make a lot of sense to me...especially, I think, when the villain is not purely villainous (i.e., their motivations are somewhat understood, and there is some hope for redemption).

Well, but don't you find it interesting that watching good people make good choices apparently isn't as compelling.

=====

I will comment one thing more about the methodology: The research was apparently done with a population of current DOOL viewers (I am guessing viewers who were in the sweet-spot demographic of 18-49). Well, that ignores the population of potential/future DOOL viewers. Thus this research is aimed at keeping current viewers, not gaining new ones.

Also, since the study was fairly recent, it seems to me that the population of younger soap viewers may have different motivations/interests. In other words, this delight in watching the villain may not be what used to keep the audience tuned in, but now (for younger/desirable viewers) it is.

When I look at the reality shows that are big hits (Big Brother, Survivor, The Hills, even "Meet the Lamas") it's largely about people plotting/conspiring, making mistakes.

[DRW50]

Soaps aren't about good people making good choices. They never have been. Soaps, ideally, should be about flawed people who are influenced by their mistakes or the mistakes of others. People who generally strive for what they see as a better future. Then some villains could be on the sidelines.

Even if it gets more of a response, I don't believe that soaps becoming about bad people doing bad things helps a show. If it did, then after months on end of Adam, MJ, and Deacon, the ratings for Y&R would be higher.

[Sylph]

That is precisely what happened in the Boston Legal episode: the aforementioned company hired a guy just like the one you met to pump up the addictiveness of the game. A boy played it to his death. Then the mother sued them.

[jfung79]

Thank you for making these qualifications, because that's what I was just going to point out. The research was on "Days" viewers, who are used to the "Days" good guy/bad guy style. The research is not applicable to soap viewers as a whole. For a long time in the 90s, Days had a distinctive niche in its storytelling of not having gray characters, just good/evil.

Each soap can addict viewers for different reasons. The soaps are not all the same, even now.