VCR, TiVo, DVR, whatever means of recording. I just think that most people who record shows are previous viewers, not people who are new to soaps and just randomly decide to start recording them while they are at work, school, etc...

That's true of most shows that are recorded. Most people are only likely to record something if they have previous experience with it, unless it's something that is just beginning. I don't think a lot of shows get random viewers to record them.

As for the time frame not matching up of vcrs/more people working and falling ratings, i think it goes back to the how people start watching soaps thing. again, i think most people watch soaps because of mom&dad/babysitters/etc, and if more mom entered the workforce in the 80's, the babysitters watched mtv, then the young ones are not exposed to soaps, and when they get older they have mtv and other cable networks, why would they tune into a soap?

They would tune into a soap because it gives them something nothing else does. A lot of people grew up watching MTV and soaps. Soaps still had good ratings during the years that MTV was most influential.

Many people did start watching soaps when they are at home for a holiday, or with a babysitter, or because their mother watched, but there are also other factors. Remember how many people started watching soaps because they were popular at college, or because they were just being so heavily talked about. GH got a lot of new fans because the show gained a reputation of surprising people and entertaining them and appealing to them with stories and characters they could not find anywhere else. A lot of people who watched GH in the early 80s, and also tried other soaps, had likely never watched soaps before.

If you watch GH now you are just going to get something the Sopranos did better.

Just to be clear here, i am not saying cable is the main reason soaps ratings ahve fallen, however i do think it has played a huge role in it.

Cable has played a role but I think cable's importance is also quite overstated. I don't think it has ever been a powerhouse -- even now, many of their biggest shows are lucky to get at a strong level, and you have networks like HBO which you would think are riding high getting upset with Netflix for making their shows available. A lot of people only get certain cable channels and a lot of those channels are very repetitive and they rerun the same things a million times a day.

I think if cable took away soap viewers it took away viewers who had had enough of soaps anyway.

The problem is who does a soap appeal to? I can't recommend a soap to anyone today. They are only interested in catering to insecure, straight, white, middle-aged men, self-loathing women, and perhaps some type of teen demo.

When soaps actually tried to appeal to people they had more of a chance. They have squeezed themselves out of the market.

Edited September 2, 201015 yr by CarlD2

The problem is who does a soap appeal to? I can't recommend a soap to anyone today. They are only interested in catering to insecure, straight, white, middle-aged men, self-loathing women, and perhaps some type of teen demo.

+1.

Jeanne Cooper - Katherine Chancellor Sterling Y&R

"I'd forget about competing with talk shows. The freakishness of the talk shows is what pulls people in, and soaps feel they have to compete. This must change.

"Soaps need to bring back romance. it has been proven that blatant sex on daytime does not attract viewers. soaps also need to strive for balance;viewers need-and want-to see different types of people of different ages interacting in all different ways. That's real;that's what life is all about. We need to return to the original formula that made daytime successful-which is telling stories people can relate to.

"Daytime also needs to specifically train young writers in the genre. it is a highly specialized kind of writing. Not everyone can do it, and writing alone just isn't enough. These writers have to master the craft of it."

Ken Corday exec producer DOOL

"I would like every producer and headwriter to look to their social conscience, and try to balance their shows with not only titillating entertainment but also a positive reinforced message that love does conquer all and that good does triumph over evil. There needs to be something for everyone , and soaps need to achieve the right balance between aesthetic entertainment and social value.

"Next, I think the genre needs to stay true to its form if it's going to remain ongoing and successful. Our roots are in Dickens and Shakespeare and emotional familial storytelling.We're not primetime TV and we're not MTV. People want more than sound bite storytelling.

"I think actors should sign contracts for four to seven years as opposed to 18 months to three years. In primetime, actors are forced to decide whether the show is one they're going to hang their hat on, and it needs to be true of daytime as well. If you want to be on a soap, then commit to it. I don't think soaps should be seen as a springboard to a primetime career. Daytime provides actors with a very secure, financially stable career in and of itself.

"Daytime actors should also lose the 'outs' in their contracts . Even though its great for actors to be able to get out there and do other things, it makes it very difficult in terms of production, especially if the character is involved in a front burner storyline."

Thanks again for posting this stuff, I know it takes time and effort.

Ha ha, I'm guessing that Corday does not feel that way now about "outs." There's a good chance that Allison Sweeney hosting The Biggest Loser helped give DAYS a brief ratings boost or at least gave NBC less reason to cancel the show.

We can thank Gloria Loring for getting those in place 25 years ago.

I do agree with him that it would be nice if daytime was about good triumphing.

I agree 100% with Jeanne Cooper.

Considering the cast turnover on Days over the years, Corday's words ring hollow-how many actors have been dumped part way through 3 year contracts?

To say that primetime performers commit for long term is true but they do get many months off between seasons to rest or do other things, whereas soaps pretty much demand year round commitment.

As for the 'outs', performers have always been complaining that they mean little. They have to be approved by the producers and producers need to be given many weeks notice, which actors are often unable to do as if they pick up a primetime guest spot often there are only a few weeks notice available.

I guess outs depend on whether you keep them in the network (I think Loring's contract guaranteed her several appearances on NBC primetime shows) and if the network likes you. Rebecca Budig did a lot of stuff in her first run at AMC, although I think some of that may have been within the Disney franchise.

That's true about the contracts. I remember in the 90s when they used to big up the fact that Drake Hogestyn signed a 4 year contract. I'm sure that it did help Ken Corday feel more confident in Hogestyn but ultimately Hogestyn was still let go eventually.

I have a similar article to this one from a 94 SOD if you'd like to see it (if you haven't already read it). If you don't want your thread crowded I could wait and post another thread for it sometime.

The problem is who does a soap appeal to? I can't recommend a soap to anyone today. They are only interested in catering to insecure, straight, white, middle-aged men, self-loathing women, and perhaps some type of teen demo.

I can't think of one soap that is interested in straight middle aged men. That is the demographic for the news, golf and tennis. We see this by the types of commercials and the fact that middle aged men tend not to be home at 1 pm. When TV wants to attract middle aged men they show Tiger Woods.

I could not recommend any soap to a non-soap watcher either.

I can't think of one soap that is interested in straight middle aged men.

GH and Y&R. GH is all about tough, aging mobsters and the hot women who love them and will do anything for them. Y&R is all about smirking, sneering tough guys who go through women like tissues, who like to get into fights, who stomp on weak men, and who always win.

I know several guys who are straight and middle aged or older and they watch Y&R because of characters like Victor.

GH and Y&R. GH is all about tough, aging mobsters and the hot women who love them and will do anything for them. Y&R is all about smirking, sneering tough guys who go through women like tissues, who like to get into fights, who stomp on weak men, and who always win.

I know several guys who are straight and middle aged or older and they watch Y&R because of characters like Victor.

Forget you the longtime soap watcher for a moment and your perceptions about the soap. You are the head of CBS. Are you saying your plan in hiring Eric Braden and some Bell by marriage is you want to grab 45 year old men? And you really think the way to zero in on men is to have a show about romantically tortured and brooding mobsters on the one hand, and a neverending parade of pregnancies on the other? This makes no sense. This is like saying what drew men to the Godfather was the relationship between Michael and Kay.

Wouldn't it make more sense if you want to attract men to just show another sport event? They don't even preempt soaps for the major golf tournements, and that is the bread and butter, sure fire way to zero in on the white mieddle aged male viewer with money to spend. Just look at the commercials that get shown during soaps. Which of these products are aimed at middle aged men? As always, you follow the money, and that tells you what show is aimed at what demographic.

Wouldn't it make more sense if you want to attract men to just show another sport event?

I don't think that all the people running the soap division care about bringing in older men, but I think that those in charge of Y&R and GH, the writers and producers, only work within in that mindset. They write for what they want, what turns them on. They don't care about strong women, or romance, or families, or interesting relationships. They just want to bring their own delusions of being another David Chase or some tough guy.

They would be better off in another genre. Look at Stephen Cannell. I would never say he was a great writer for women but I still loved Wiseguy, because the show really wasn't about women and never pretended to be.

How various writers, producers and actors would change daytime,of they could.

Megan McTavish Headwriter GL

"I would figure out a way for there to be more money available for us to spend. if we had more monry, we could train more writers, pay set designers what they're truly worth...And it would allow us to do some really wonderful things in terms of production. The effect across the board would be tremendous".

Translation: What vets can I kill off in the next story?

Felicia Minei Behr Exec Producer AMC

"I'd get rid of VCR's! We've found it increasingly difficult to keep the audience interested in those emotional scenes that build. They are crucial to daytime. They're our building blocks. Yet,if the audience has taped the show and they perceive in the first 10 seconds of a scene that there's no 'action' taking place, they zip past it. Then when we get to the crux of the story,they're asking,'What's going on? I don't understand. What was that about?'because they haven't taken the time to watch the scenes we've so crefully built leading to that denouement".

I always laugh at people who think the solution is to force people to watch these shows the way they want them to be watched. Maybe it's get rid of VCR/DVDs or eliminate spoilers, there's this contingent that thinks that viewers serve the shows or can be trained. Until the people running soaps realize that the audience sets the agenda, this genre is doomed.

Edited September 5, 201015 yr by marceline