October 11-15, 2010

[TeamEric]

GH spiked way up in February for the heavily promoted Sonny shot Dante, proving there's a large pool of its former viewers still able to be lured back. It's that pool Frons was counting to return with all his VM/Brenda hype. But so far there's no real sign she's luring back former viewers.

AMC proved with all the anniversary promo and increased ratings, it can attract back former viewers in large numbers. The problem appears those viewers skewered far older and merely wound up replacing many younger female viewers. Their demos fell as a result. The question is can AMC retain the older viewers while attracting back former younger viewers. Their demos haven't moved much even when they spike up HHs.

OLTL appears the last stable soap with wild swings in ratings. One week it can be up HUGE then crash right back down. It appears their viewers are the most fickle.

[DRW50]

True, but you can do most of that other stuff too and watch soaps. I lost interest in soaps for most of the last decade anyway, it was only the last year or two I was interested again, mostly because of Youtube, and boards like SON, more than a lot of current stuff.

There was also the ratings spike under Pratt, for whatever reason, although I think that was leveling off by the time he left.

[Jess]

You know there was some data and analysis. There were also the usual fights.

I forgot who it was that did a survival analysis of soaps. It was really quite good! I think it really involved high-level statistics

I still believe a lot of these weekly ups and downs in the rating are within the margins of error. It has turned into a slow decay. I think a couple of years ago, the bottom fell out and since that point it has been more of a consistent and steady decline in soap viewership.

OK, I'm done with nostalgia.

You guys take care until the next time

[marceline]

Noooo! Stay! LOL!

I remember after I joined the board and finally got the nerve to start posting, I mentioned that even though I wasn't a statistician IMO the numbers from a holiday week should be considered "anomalous." You popped in and told me that you were impressed with my terminology. I'll admit it, I preened.

MarkH and Sylph used to do the survival analyses and I think we could use more of that now. We need people who understand concepts like "margin of error" or "sampling methodology." Damn, I'd give anything for one of those graphs right now.

[J.W.S]

IMHO, Y&R Will Remain #1 But Where The Rest Fall Could Be A Week to Week Thing. I Mean AMC, GH, OLTL Hover between 1.8-2.0 Each Week Where B&B Has Been a 2.2 of late average and Days Goes Between 1.8-2.0 so B&B could be over taken in the #2 spot by the ABC & NBC shows any week now

Hell shows were canceled 10-15 years ago with the ratings YR Gets

[Sylph]

I would do those all the time except that I have deleted a file in which I kept the ratings.

And now I just don't have the time to collected them all up again...

But Mark surely does have it all.

[EricMontreal22]

Word. It's definitely true that soaps aren't handlign this decline in viewers well, the quality is undeniably lesser, and I think a large part of that is a desperate but misguided attempt to gain new viewers--going about it in the wrong way.

It's been mentioned before, but stands to be re-iterated, that except for event television (Idol at its peak, etc), network primetime tv has seen percentage wise *almost* as huge a decline as soaps--something people seem to forget. This despite most critics thinking we just passed through a peak of a golden age in scripted television.

I do think that the way soaps are told needs to be changed--but I have no easy ideas about how to do this (most of tha half assed attempts haven't done any significant good). I said it in the previous thread, but in the 70s several major soap writers have said that they wrote and plotted the stories with the expectation, rule even, that the majority of viewers would only be able to tune into a show 3 or so times a week. While far fewer people watch soaps now, thanks to recording, etc, those who do follow a show, even if they are disappointed in it or fast forward through chunks, now don't miss *a single episode*--which means things like the much mocked (and hated by writers liek Bill Bell and Agnes Nixon, both of whom saw it as a neccesary evil) technique of endless recap within dialogue, and even the pacing need to be re thunk. There's been some attempt at this but mainly (ie trying to pace it more liek a primetime drama) these have failed as well.

[Saving ATWT]

You make a good point about overall network TV declines in ratings. CBS seems to have faired best; however, cable has certainly had a huge impact with each channel chasing a particular demo: Logo-gay; BET-black; Lifetime-women; Spike-men; Hallmark--elderly; CNBC and Discovery-uber wealthy. This form of media segregation, the splintering of viewers by age, gender, race, income and class probably has a profoundly corrosive effect on society. As the notion of a full-service network dies, maybe a 2.0 Hh (1.3 demo) isn't so bad for a network-owned soap? Add to that all of the online viewing not counted and you could almost say the genre is not so dead after all. I read on this thread that Y&R and Days get millions of hits. Mad Men on A&E doesn't rate much better but draws the big money demo. Eventually, either a cable network or even an internet platform will come out with some 'breakthrough' soap that will redefine the genre. I will say that any such shows need to be less gendered as is the case with the Spanish Telenovella. While 'US' soap is aimed at female viewes, both Hispanic women and men tune in and love these productions. Frons talks about computer generated sets/special effects comming soon and this will really slash cost while bettering production values. The ability to lower cost to $100,000 per show would do wonders and keep a show like GH or Days on air for years.

[jpoliver78]

I don't know if this is sarcasm or not, but it's posts like this that may translate into people not taking you seriously or caring what you have to say.

You don't know me, so how dare you make assumptions based on my viewing habits. Just because someone thinks a particular storyline goes too far doesn't make that person a bigot. In your world, do gay and lesbian people have to like everything associated with being gay? Do they always have to vote for gay politicians, etc. and if they don't then they must one of those so-called "self hating gays"? There are some people who are not defined by their sexuality, that just happens to be one of their characteristics. And then there are other people - and based on your immature response above, you may be - that are first and foremost gay and want everyone to know it and consider everyone else - even fellow gay people - bigots who don't wholeheartedly support anything and everything that has to do with the gay community 110%.

You don't happen to work for National Public Radio do you?

[SFK]

The (original) aim of these networks was not to be divisive, but to answer the call of marginalized viewers who saw the lack of equal representaion on network TV. I think that was honorable, I don't see the original intent as negatively as perhaps you do. But I do agree that cable by its very nature of offering specialized programming birthed greed, suddenly everyone and their mother wanted their own station, and yes, superfluous and even redundant channels began popping up like chickenpox. The proverbial "400 channels and nothing to watch" and all that. I can't say that this is totally a bad thing though, because this is where TV is going... ironically, it won't necessarily happen on the "TV" box at all, but on the computer. Viewers are gaining more and more power to become their own network programmers as picking and choosing what you want to watch and when you want to watch it is becoming easier by the day. And as a black viewer, I am grateful for a network like TV One (that shows my favorite sitcoms and a great bio series like Unsung) while I can hardly remember the last time I watched BET. As an undercover fat ass, I can get in my Diners, Drive-ins and Dives, Man vs. Food, then hop over to G4 for my COPS and assorted college humor programming, and a half hour later, catch up with Dorothy, Rose, Blanche and Sophia. Intervention and Hoarders, I watch on my computer. I can't hate on cable, I don't think it's having a corrosive effect on society at all, it's just that there are a LOT of us out there with a LOT of varying interests. We can make our own little TV bouquets or what have you. The big 4/5 networks continue to suck at equal representation in their scripted programming, but even if they didn't, there just aren't enough hours in the day to address the many interests of viewers that reach beyond unfunny sitcoms and repetitive procedurals.

[DRW50]

I actually wish cable were more specialized. I swear I see the same crap over and over on most cable channels. Probably the most blatant, and ultimately pointless, moment of this homogenization was Soapnet's shunning of soaps in favor of third rate attempts at reality shows.

[EricMontreal22]

This is a common complaint, but a true one. Here in Canada, when we got a big number of cpeicalty shannels over a decade back, it was a big deal and they did more or less live up to their name--Bravo (not connected to the US bravo) primarily showed performing arts, etc, etc. Now I swear they all just show Law and Order and CSI reruns...

[EricMontreal22]

How many languages have you learned with your lack of soap vieweing? I don'tt hink most people's hour a day or whatever of soap viewing is time they'd otherwise spend on activities like that. Watching something else, maybe listening to music or reading a book, yeah but it's not taking up time when people could be learning something new. That's like the silly argument of that therapist in the 1940s who said soaps should be teaching women foreign languages cuz otherwise they were destroying the women of the country.

[EricMontreal22]

Mad men on AMC (not A&E) actually often gets lower ratings than the soaps--its high this season was 2.9 and I think it dropped down to 1.9. But it's a prestige show, wins huge awards, gets great demos, sells well on DVD and internationally and has put AMC on the map as a viable place for original programming and not just old movies, which was their goal.

I do agree that they need to start paying more attention to all viewers and not just that all important female demo--shouldn't they be happy to get anyone they can now?

[Sylph]

Somebody slap Eric from Montreal (man, that username is so dated )!

I hate it when I see an Eric-flood of posts and I can't get through all of them! Frustrating!

And P. S. Plastic Surgery thread needs you to clarify an issue.