Jump to content

ALL: January 1994 Ratings


Recommended Posts

  • Members
Posted

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...

Ratings10111993.jpg

L&L's return...

Ratings10251993.jpg

Two weeks later...

Ratings11081993.jpg

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

Ratings03161992.jpg

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members
Posted

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.... <_<

  • Members
Posted

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.

  • Members
Posted

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?

  • Members
Posted

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.

  • Members
Posted

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. :wacko:

  • Members
Posted

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.

  • 2 months later...
  • Members
Posted

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • Again, Bernau's illness impacted that. It's pretty obvious Pilon was always meant to be temporary. I read an article from that period that said he was working on both Ryan's Hope and GL at the same time. So he wasn't on contract for either show. (Maybe that explains somewhat why his performance was so low energy, because he was overworked doing two soaps). Later, they put him in the opening and in commercials for the show. That must have been because they were certain Bernau was not returning. Around that time, they approached Zaslow about being the permanent replacement for Bernau. He turned them down and suggested coming back as Roger. Pilon stayed so they could re-introduce Roger and write an exit for Alan. I'm guessing if MZ had not wanted to come back, they would have had no choice but to keep Pilon (which I don't think they wanted, or maybe Pilon wasn't interested) or send out a casting call for a new Alan. I think they wanted to avoid that because they were really determined not to let the nature of Bernau's illness to become public knowledge. At this point, they were still keepin up the fiction that he was going to return even while this stuff was happening BTS. Yeah, it seems crazy now, but people forget how stigmatized AIDS was back then. I'm convinced the idea to ask Zaslow to take the role came about so they could replace Bernau as quietly as possible. Everyone would have been so surprised it would have taken the focus off Bernau not returning. It makes a kind of twisted sense. Still, thank goodness Zazlow said no and they said yes to his suggestion to return as Roger. The way everything worked out gave GL a few more strong years. I guess it's the nature of soaps, you never know what things in real like will end up strongly impacting the show, both negatively and positively.
    • I truly do not understand why this has not happened. It's so un-Carly-like not have confronted Joss already. 
    • He definitely had it going on back in the day
    • I have long given up on logic and Mayor Laura Collins! It makes about as much sense as Luke being elected mayor over Lee Baldwin in the 80’s, maybe even less sense. She committed manslaughter as a teenager, was involved with a mobster (I guess credit for them taking Smith down), had a shoot out in her home and killed another mobster in self defense, thought she bludgeoned her stepfather to death, then was catatonic for years. Her current husband had a twin that was a serial killer, had his own breakdown that threatened lives, and most recently hid his brother for treatment and that allowed Ryan to escape and kill again. And had hook killer Esme as a houseguest and is raising her child. I don’t care for Sonny anymore but their relationship is just another thing that involves suspension of belief to watch the show. I wish someone on this show would remind these adults that they used to pull way worse stuff than this! I would love a scene where Laura is sitting with Lulu and tells her while she is not happy this is nothing compared to what she got up to when she was young, and maybe even some understanding that she would also do stupid stuff if she believed in the cause. Olivia reminding Dante that he was wild as a teen and this isn’t that. Felicia reminding Anna that they were being shot at when pretty close to Emma’s age. These characterizations are just so basic. Have some fun with the actual history of the show. That kind of wink would mean more to me than just name dropping some random fact.
    • There are no dumb questions here, we've all known each other long enough to fill in information without shaming each other.  We want you to be happy @carolineg.  Your POV as one of the few women here is vital. So, please, I hope you never feel as if any question, idea, or opinion is ever silly or stupid.  Your daily reminders about the realities of manicure and menstrual management has become a part of the personality of this thread. As for Hank, while I'm confident there's a plan in place.  It is frustrating that they announce these casting so far in advance that it is tough as an audience and wait it out until the thing happens.  I'm happy they didn't blow it the second Mike was in town, a week after meeting Liam. So, it is a slow burn. And, conveniently, he lets us know when his episodes air. 

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • I think his full name is Chadwick.  I remember, back when the previous actor was playing him, someone called him Chadwick a couple of times.  It may have been Stefano.  
    • I didn't like those two sleeping together, but I suuure liked seeing BF in them. Wiggle and all. Just sad about the waxing of the chest.   Same.
    • It’s strange. I wonder if the writers at that time had worked with him somewhere else and had a relationship? That time is murky AF to find info on. Rachel Ames in effect left the show at one point in the early 80’s and she is credited like she was there until JFP. Tristan Rogers also took various contract breaks that were not short, and websites also credit him one long stint from 1981-1992. So many people come and go in short succession in 1982-part of 1983. I know they lost a lot of viewers when Genie left, but the show somehow survived yearly at number one through like sheer force of will.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy