Keep in mind, this was back when SOD published every 2 weeks instead of every week, so we see ratings progression of every other week unfortunately.

Two weeks before L&L's return...

L&L's return...

Two weeks later...

Okay, this next one is from March 16th, 1992. First of all, it looks like a real lull for soaps at this point, ratings-wise. Secondly, this must've been right when Soap Opera Digest started listing the actual ratings numbers, complete with with bars... the bars are so poorly spaced! B&B's 5.0 is actually *longer* than GL's 5.1 right above it! lol

Sigh....I have this magazine. It's from the SOD mags before they put out actual ratings numbers. ATWT at #2.

So sad.

I wasn't watching ATWT at this point, but I was watching GL, it seems like such a long time ago when the P&G soaps weren't at the bottom of the pack....

So sad.

I wasn't watching ATWT at this point, but I was watching GL, it seems like such a long time ago when the P&G soaps weren't at the bottom of the pack....

This is why ATWT was #2 back in July in 1991. Featured were the Carolyn Crawford murder...Lily and Holden's wedding..and LOTS of vets!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrLTfjc6Xlk

Loving was last with a 3.3. These days, that number is damn near impossible to get

The ratings are much better then, but not exactly comparable to today. For instance, LOVING's 3.3 rating in 1993 is equivalent to a 2.6 household rating today. And AMC's rating of 9.3 for that week in 1981 when GH was airing the Luke/Laura wedding is actually only equivalent to a 5.9 household rating today. Why?

Because each ratings point is actually a percent of the total households in the US. For instance, Y&R's 3.4 rating last week means 3.4% of US TV households watched the program, on average, each day last week. Since the number of US TV households increases each year, one ratings point (or percent) is worth more each year. In 1981, a 1.0 was equivalent to 729,000 households. You can see in the SOD ratings snaps that in 1993, it was worth 959,000. Today, each point is worth 1,149,000 households. And it'll be updated again at the start of the new fall season, as it is every year.

Your maths is a bit wrong.

Your maths is a bit wrong.

How so?

First you took a rating point, multiplied it by the equivalent of households and then converted that number of households back to ratings point according to today's equivalent in households, right?

First you took a rating point, multiplied it by the equivalent of households and then converted that number of households back to ratings point according to today's equivalent in households, right?

Yeah....although, btw, if you're referring to my LOVING 3.3/2.6 equivalent, it's not my math that was wrong, it was the figure I used (959,000), lol.....since a ratings point was worth even less than that in 1993, that 3.3 is worth even less than a 2.6 today

To compare any ratings from the past to today, multiply the rating (say 3.3) times the number of households each ratings point was worth back then (say 942,000), and then divide by what a ratings point is worth today (1,149,0000.

Why didn't you do it the other way around, i.e. multiplied the past rating point by today's equivalent? A percentage is a percentage, one of it's main functions is comparison. When you say France has a 57% budget deficit, you don't go converting that to euros, then dollars, then calculating how much of a percantage of the whole US budget deficit that is.

That's wrong.

You go the other way around. France's 57% is the same as US 57% because those are %.

Nielsen f*cks things up by giving the equivalent, I don't know why they do it.

Why didn't you do it the other way around, i.e. multiplied the past rating point by today's equivalent? A percentage is a percentage, one of it's main functions is comparison. When you say France has a 57% budget deficit, you don't go converting that to euros, then dollars, then calculating how much of a percantage of the whole US budget deficit that is.

That's wrong.

You go the other way around. France's 57% is the same as US 57% because those are %.

Nielsen f*cks things up by giving the equivalent, I don't know why they do it.

I did it that way because it's a more accurate comparison of actual hard numbers. I "get" that it's a big deal to get say a 20.0 rating back then, since it represented 20% of households, a big chunk....but I'd argue that a 20.0 rating is a bigger deal now not just because it's worth more households, but also because there's much more competition today.

The fact is, a 1.0 rating in 1981 was worth 729,000 households, and today a 1.0 is worth 1,149,000 households. Yes, they're both 1%...but today it's 1% of a much bigger pie, with many more choices.

Look at it this way...doing it your way, let's say there are only 1000 TV households in 1948, and 900 of them watch Meet the Press on Sunday morning, one of only two choices they have. That's a 90.0 rating. Would you say that's the best rating ever? I wouldn't, lol.

Edited June 6, 201015 yr by Carolyn1980

I heard that in late 1980s when DAYS was at #1 for nine weeks because of Steve and Kayla. http://www.welovesoaps.net/2010/03/flashback-stephen-nicholsdays-hits-1.html

I wonder how well the Ratings with Bo & Hope's wedding, They're even more popular than Steve and Kayla.

sorry for my english.

Just to slightly update this topic, though its been a while LOL!, but here are the ratings from July 19-23, 1993:

Y&R-8.6

AMC-7.5

OLTL-6.2

B&B-6.2

ATWT-6.0

GH-6.0

GL-5.4

DOOL-5.2

AW-3.1

LOV-2.9

Edited August 28, 201015 yr by yr9190