Do folks really think the quality of a show dictates the uptic or downturn in ratings? Don't promotion, stunts, or even perhaps other external events such as snowstorms have more to do with bringing viewers in than anything?

I don't think quality makes much of a difference.

I do think that the wrong type of stunt can lose viewers. Y&R had a very sharp drop the week of the stupid reveal of Sarah Smythe being Lauren's doppleganger. Supposedly they blamed it on Michael Muhney being off at that time. I can't remember.

just don't think quality storytelling necessarily attracts viewers,

I think it would in the right format. I don't think there's any great quality writing on soaps now. People say OLTL is great, and some of the show IS good, but a lot of it is terrible. The Fords are wretched, the pacing is off, characterizations are poor. To say the show is uneven would be kind.

I do notice that when DAYS seems to pick up in quality their ratings go up, although they are still way down from last year.

Edited December 10, 201015 yr by CarlD2

Days might be the only show with the ability to do that although I think Days right now is the best soap on TV. Of course I am not watching anything else, just parts of Y&R these days. But Days is relatively well balanced in terms of cast and story and IMO have paced the stories pretty well the past few months. They use the remaining older vets in their own story but to also bring balance to the other stories being told. But I don't see it resulting in a big ratings boost.

I think you need an event or one story to perhaps catch steam. Days last year had the baby switch which was well paced, relatively well told, involved the 2 most popular characters on the show(Sami and EJ as much as it pains me to say that as I am not a Sami fan).

And on a side note as it relates to Days, I am hoping the fact that Days was still working on borrowed time had a lot to do with how flat the show was from late spring into summer. Nothing really seemed to be moving. Now with the renewal they have the ability to plan out and tell longer story arcs and I am hoping that actually makes a difference. Things IMO have already appeared to be picking up steam the past 4-6 weeks.

But if it's good storytelling, then why is a show like The Good Wife which IMO is the best soap on TV now not doing well. It has a great well known cast, well balanced and developed characters, well told stories yet it sits on the low end of CBS's primetime ratings scale.

Edited December 10, 201015 yr by JaneAusten

Days, once again, continues to crawl back up and, within a few weeks, should overtake GH--I hope!! I don't get why OLTL can't make bigger gains because the show is doing everything (close) to right.

Y&R is amazing from a ratings standpoint and I've never believed this has anything to do with timeslot. If being the 'Lunch Break' soap were such an issue, AMC and DOOL would have shifted back into the period years ago. It is as if Y&R almost isn't thought of as a soap but, instead, some other genre of daytime entertainment. Y&R is still using all the same 1980's themes: Jack and Victor; Victor and Nikki; Victor and his children; Vets always working themselves into the majority of scenes. Maybe staying semi-consistant is the key to Y&R's winning streak. Currently, the show sucks, but is still light years ahead of GH, AMC and (sadly) Days.

As a long time viewer, I don't know if OLTL is doing everything right. I can't stand to watch Eddie. His character is terrible, one-dimensional, and the only purpose he is serving is setting up a murder mystery that no one is going to care about because no one cared about the character. The Kelly/Aubrey/Joey thing feels very forced because Kelly hadn't thought about Joey in years and suddenly she falls in love with him just so they can have a love triangle? Plus, I like evil Clint and psycho Marty but I'm afraid the writers are getting a little carried away. The show has improved tremendously and I'm enjoying it right now but there is a lot more to be done before I can say they're doing everything (close)to right.

It's not remotely doing everything right. The canvas is nearly all new characters, we have yet ANOTHER psycho on the loose, etc. It IS better than it's been for much of this year, though.

Edited December 10, 201015 yr by EricMontreal22

It's not remotely doing everything right.

OLTL is a niche soap. It's just a less freaky Passions.

OLTL is a niche soap. It's just a less freaky Passions.

It was a niche soap last year but these days it seems to be more generic. Everything about the Fords and the evil psycho of the month (Powell, Eli, Clint) is generic.

It was a niche soap last year but these days it seems to be more generic. Everything about the Fords and the evil psycho of the month (Powell, Eli, Clint) is generic.

So would you say the show is niche then?

Victor and Jack don't really have any relationship at this point. Honestly Victor has no relationships with anyone. He just pops up to remind everyone of how superior he is. Every relationship he has on the show is not even one-dimensional.

The non-Victor vets are barely used at all, and when they are it's in degrading, small roles.

Y&R is only consistent these days in making stories up as they go along and jumping up and down furiously to hide how rotgut everything is. Credit to them for stopping the decay, but when they barely manage to hold on to numbers that were considered horrible in 2008, it's not much of a celebration IMO.

In today's landscape in which 1.8 is considered ratings GOLD (LOL), Y&R has maintained a certain level of quality as well as cast consistancy which helps to explain the stable ratings. I may be wrong, but didn't LML stabilize ratings during her tenure? Y&R is very much like 1970's ATWT in that maybe the soap has the advantage of viewer habit. Regardless, it is amazing that Y&R can pull a 3.9 on the same day most other soaps settled around 2.0. The Yong and the Restless would thrive on CW in primetime.

Carl, if time slot is such an advantage, why didn't ABC move AMC into the same slot years ago in order to benefit? Why didn't NBC do the same after the death of Generations? With the time slot being so great, why did it take Y&R till the early 1990's to gain such dominance?

OLTL is a niche soap. It's just a less freaky Passions.

OLTL is no longer niche and, as of late, has really been reminding me of a sexy ATWT with a budget. The soap has been pretty tradional. Eddie as villian of the month along with Nora all tied up reaks of Jean P. I am waiting to hear that KMH has been hired as Terri Conn's sister.

Nelson from Suds was joking about how OLTL has gone all PGP and I can see what he means. OLTL, aside from the DNA drama, is a great show (currently my fav) but I'm sort of curious where they are going with these dead end stories. Bo and Nora have limited potential to drive story and the 'Who's your Daddy' stuff will get old, fast.

So would you say the show is niche then?

Well, I don't think it's generic. That doesn't really make much sense to me and as for it being niche, how does one single out OLTL? If you want to be technical all soap operas are niche.

Well, I don't think it's generic. That doesn't really make much sense to me and as for it being niche, how does one single out OLTL? If you want to be technical all soap operas are niche.

Perhaps but OLTL is a niche within that niche. That's not necessarily bad. Every niche need sub-groups. It's like the James Bond fans who prefer "On Her Majesty's Secret Service."

RC's writing appeals to a subggroup of soap fans. He's brought the show lesbian Dorian, teen Jess and now twins with different fathers giving birth to babies with three different (possible) fathers. OLTL is all about teen sex and paternity issues. That's a niche. All he needs is to add a few vampires.

Edited December 11, 201015 yr by marceline

I think RC tends to drown his work in cliches, so that's where I see the traditional soap more. All of this with the WTD, the psychos of the month, the "hunks" who can barely read their lines, what's been done to most of the female characters.

I did see camp and niche in his work in 2008 and 2009 but I think someone stepped on that. No big loss IMO. I just wish that OLTL could eventually move away from the chia prat Rex and the Pity the Poor Rapists storylines.

In today's landscape in which 1.8 is considered ratings GOLD (LOL), Y&R has maintained a certain level of quality as well as cast consistancy which helps to explain the stable ratings. I may be wrong, but didn't LML stabilize ratings during her tenure? Y&R is very much like 1970's ATWT in that maybe the soap has the advantage of viewer habit. Regardless, it is amazing that Y&R can pull a 3.9 on the same day most other soaps settled around 2.0. The Yong and the Restless would thrive on CW in primetime.

Carl, if time slot is such an advantage, why didn't ABC move AMC into the same slot years ago in order to benefit? Why didn't NBC do the same after the death of Generations? With the time slot being so great, why did it take Y&R till the early 1990's to gain such dominance?

LML's ratings went down towards the end of her run. The ratings under MAB's first months continued to fall, and they are still at the level, or around the level, which caused Rauch and Sheffer to be hired.

There's not much point in ABC or NBC moving those shows in the timeslot after Y&R was already successfully established there. Y&R was a successful show for much of its run -- the ratings only really fell for a while in the late 70s and early 80s.

Quality -- considering that Sheffer loathes soaps, struggles to write for anyone but thugs with permanent hardons, and he and MAB probably couldn't pace a Dick and Jane book, I doubt that's why people are tuning in.

Edited December 11, 201015 yr by CarlD2

All he needs is to add a few vampires.

Oooph, hope not.