If you're going to copy/paste, please link. Thank you.

Numbers are based on Live+Same Day ratings

Ratings for the week February 28 - March 4, 2011

Total Viewers

1. Y&R 4,464,000 (-162,000/-552,000) * <---- new low

2. B&B 2,830,000 (-97,000/-379,000)

3. GH 2,788,000 (-137,000/+206,000)

4. DAYS 2,646,000 (-110,000/-327,000)

5. OLTL 2,391,000 (-142,000/-72,000)

6. AMC 2,249,000 (-256,000/-479,000)

* Previous low: 4,603,000 (July 13-17, 2009)

Households

1. Y&R 3.3/11 (same/-.3)

2. B&B 2.1/7 (same/-.3)

2. GH 2.1/7 (-.1/+.2)

4. DAYS 1.9/6 (-.1/-.3)

5. AMC 1.8/6 (-.1/-.2)

5. OLTL 1.8/6 (-.1/same)

Women 18-49 Viewers

1. Y&R 912,000 (+38,000/-247,000)

2. GH 811,000 (-63,000/-48,000)

3. DAYS 694,000 (-45,000/-172,000)

4. B&B 572,000 (+53,000/-128,000)

5. OLTL 543,000 (-127,000/-195,000) * <---- new low

6. AMC 469,000 (-107,000/-262,000) * <---- new low

* OLTL previous low: 570,000 (February 14-18, 2011)

* AMC previous low: 497,000 (February 14-18, 2011)

Women 18-49 Rating

1. Y&R 1.4/10 (+.1/-.4)

2. GH 1.2/8 (-.1/-.1)

3. DAYS 1.1/7 (same/-.2)

4. B&B 0.9/6 (+.1/-.2)

5. OLTL 0.8/6 (-.2/-.3) <---- new low

6. AMC 0.7/5 (-.2/-.4) <---- new low

Girls 12-17 Viewers

1. DAYS 37,000 (+15,000/+18,000)

2. Y&R 30,000 (-19,000/+12,000)

3. B&B 23,000 (-14,000/+10,000)

4. GH 19,000 (-10,000/-16,000)

4. OLTL 19,000 (-3,000/-12,000)

6. AMC 9,000 (-5,000/-21,000)

Women 18-34 Rating

1. Y&R 0.8/6 (+.2/-.2)

1. GH 0.8/5 (same/-.1)

3. DAYS 0.6/4 (same/-.4)

4. B&B 0.5/4 (+.1/-.2)

4. OLTL 0.5/4 (-.1/-.2)

6. AMC 0.4/3 (same/-.4) <---- ties low (3rd straight week)

Men 18+ Viewers

1. Y&R 1,029,000 (+15,000/-69,000)

2. DAYS 639,000 (-6,000/+52,000)

3. B&B 581,000 (-32,000/-127,000)

4. GH 504,000 (+8,000/+36,000)

5. OLTL 429,000 (+2,000/+15,000)

6. AMC 426,000 (-48,000/-80,000)

-------------------------------------

Day-To-Day Ratings - HH/Total Viewers

AMC

Monday: 1.9/2,419,000

Tuesday: 1.7/2,197,000

Wednesday: 1.8/2,382,000

Thursday: 1.6/1,982,000

Friday: 1.8/2,266,000

B&B

Monday: 2.2/2,971,000

Tuesday: 2.0/2,773,000

Wednesday: 2.0/2,717,000

Thursday: 2.1/2,712,000

Friday: 2.2/2,974,000

DAYS

Monday: 2.0/2,699,000

Tuesday: 1.9/2,731,000

Wednesday: 1.8/2,505,000

Thursday: 1.8/2,655,000

Friday: 1.9/2,641,000

GH

Monday: 2.2/2,996,000

Tuesday: 2.0/2,722,000

Wednesday: 2.2/2.972,000

Thursday: 2.0/2,533,000

Friday: 2.0/2,716,000

OLTL

Monday: 1.9/2,627,000

Tuesday: 1.7/2,261,000

Wednesday: 1.9/2,629,000

Thursday: 1.7/2,118,000

Friday: 1.8/2,320,000

Y&R

Monday: 3.3/4,508,000

Tuesday: 3.2/4,380,000

Wednesday: 3.3/4,638,000

Thursday: 3.4/4,545,000

Friday: 3.2/4,250,000

----------------------

For the SEASON September 20, 2010 through March 6, 2011

HH

1. Y&R 3.7

2. B&B 2.3

3. GH 2.1

4. DAYS 2.0

5. OLTL 1.9

5. AMC 1.9

Women 18-49 Rating

1. Y&R 1.7

2. GH 1.4

3. DAYS 1.2

4. B&B 1.0

4. OLTL 1.0

6. AMC 0.9

OLTL and AMC have both been contestants in the stinker bowl for some time. In my opinion, OLTL wins the Stinker Bowl hands down, but that is another topic. What I find interesting right now is Young and the Restless. For a very long time it has been superior to the other soaps. Now, I do not know. Is Y&R better than the rest right now, or is its advantage strictly time slot and people who turn on the TV or DRV at that time out of habit? I look forward to hearing from the SON community who seem to look at these type things more as consumers of daytime rather than consumers of individual characters or couples.

Y&R hasn't been superior to any other soaps in quality for about six or seven years, and in the last few years has been some of the worst trash I've ever seen anywhere. They are just lucky because of stunts, timeslot, the reputation of Bill Bell (which MAB exploited in interview after interview), and lack of competition. MAB and Sheffer and Rauch managed to squander even that.

The sad thing is there were many people at Y&R who could have kept the show going in the Bell style, but Sony/CBS allowed them all to be run off by Smith or LML or whoever. And now what do they have? Hogan Sheffer, who hates soaps, and who is the anti-Bell in every way.

At this point I don't care what happnes to Y&R. If it were to be canceled I wouldnt bat an eyelash. The soap has been pure [!@#$%^&*] for a long time.

Probably since the day it debuted.

I never understood the appeal. Year after year of people staring at each other so the music can play uninterrupted. Then Peter Bergman and his overly mannered delivery, Melody Thomas Scott and decades of soap hair that seemed to serve as the template for the whole network, and Eric Braden and his mumbling calmness because to yell is to lose status. They all suck. Cristian Leblanc and that mummified face...it's just all too much and always has been. The staring was something I always noticed. They would just stare at each other so the opening note of Nadia's theme could segue into the credits. I guess they dropped that a long time ago, I wouldn't know because I would sooner not watch TV than watch Y&R regularly.

WHOA those are some atrocious numbers for Y&R.

I ran across this article from the WSJ on TGW board. It doesn't directly address soaps but it touches on a lot of things that we talk about here: older characters, the coveted demo, its the writing stupid!, etc...

Television's Senior Moment

As Audiences Get Older, So Do the Characters— And Ads Cost More

In CBS's new cop show "Blue Bloods," Tom Selleck, at the age of 66, plays a New York police commissioner. Kathy Bates, at 62, snagged the lead role in NBC's legal series "Harry's Law." And 62-year-old rocker Steven Tyler is fast becoming the crowd's favorite judge on his first season on Fox's "American Idol." Viewers 55-plus make up nearly 60% of the weekly audience for 'The Good Wife' on CBS; a 30-second ad recently cost $108,000.

Television is starting to act its age.

For decades the TV industry has operated on a currency of youth, creating shows that appeal to 18- to 49-year-olds, the age group advertisers traditionally consider most likely to buy new products, switch brands and spend on everything from cars to soft drinks. But as the nearly 80 million baby boomers continue to age out of the coveted demographic—the oldest boomers are turning 65 this year, the youngest 47—networks want to charge advertisers more to reach them. After all, these viewers still watch a disproportionate amount of TV, and they control half of all U.S. consumer spending.

From Ed O'Neill's patriarch on ABC's "Modern Family" to 51-year-old Hugh Laurie on Fox's "House," boomers' influence can be seen in programming. On "NCIS," TV's No. 1 drama with an average viewer age of 57, strapping young naval investigators turn to wise 59-year-old Mark Harmon for advice.

Network executives' pitch to advertisers is that the current crop of aging viewers isn't like previous generations, who were winding down their spending at 55. This group buys iPads, redecorates, splurges on vacations and postpones retirement. "People still think of their grandparents when they were 60 wearing comfort shoes and baggy chinos," says Alan Wurtzel, NBC Universal's president of research. "These guys are just fundamentally different."

Networks had to do something. Despite the vast teenage contingent that tunes in to "American Idol" each week, the average prime-time TV viewer hit 51 this year.

Boomers watch some 170 hours of TV a month, or five to six hours a day, according to Nielsen Co.—compared with an average of four hours and 49 minutes a day overall. Almost half of boomers use digital recording devices and stream shows online.

"They are the TV generation. It's where they grew up, and it's still their cultural touch point," says Sheron Davis, behavioral sciences director at Omnicom Group's BBDO New York ad agency.

Viewers 55-plus make up nearly 60% of the weekly audience for CBS's legal drama "The Good Wife" and ABC's "Dancing with the Stars." Even for high-school singalong "Glee," the turn-on, tune-in, drop-out generation accounts for a per-episode average of 2.5 million viewers, or 21% of the total, Nielsen says.

Boomers can thank themselves for the industry's ageism, says Matt Thornhill, president of market-research firm the Boomer Project. As the post-War generation came into adulthood, they made shows like ABC's "Charlie's Angels" and "Happy Days" hugely popular—and hugely valuable to advertisers. Ever since, networks charged advertisers a premium to reach 18- to 49-year-old viewers and discounted older audiences. In fact, for the most part, viewers over 55 haven't factored into ad rates, which made them without value to the networks.

Currently, networks still charge advertisers more for shows with younger viewers. A 30-second ad on "The Good Wife" cost, on average, $108,000 in the fourth quarter of 2010, or roughly $25 per thousand viewers, according to SQAD Inc., a Tarrytown, N.Y., media-research firm. In contrast, on a Wednesday night on top-rated "American Idol," where the average age is 44, Fox can charge $435,000 for 30 seconds—or about $46.75 per thousand viewers. "Glee," one of prime-time TV's youngest shows but whose audience is nowhere near that of "American Idol," gets $47 per thousand viewers.

Producers and network executives still cringe when a series is deemed "old," and they still brag about nightly 18-to-49 ratings. But they also are trying to reflect aging boomers' tastes and values.

Networks are retooling boomer classics to tap boomers' '60s nostalgia. CBS, which has the largest (and with an average age of 56, the oldest) prime-time audience, launched a new "Hawaii Five-0" last year. The sleek look and sexy actors brought in young viewers, while the "reboot" of a classic pleased older viewers. ABC has a "Charlie's Angels" remake in development. NBC is developing a pilot about Playboy bunnies, while ABC is working on one about Pan Am flight attendants—both set in the '60s.

The audience for 'Glee' is one of the youngest on prime-time TV; a 30- second ad recently cost $251,000, according to research firm SQAD Inc.

The networks want marketers to ignore age and pay for viewers based on income and other factors—in effect paying more for affluent viewers who are 55-plus. CBS Entertainment President Nina Tassler says the network has always created shows that appeal to all ages. But "boomers have always been a priority customer for us," she adds.

"Rather than saying a 22-year-old is more valuable than a 58-year-old, we're saying, 'Look, the fact is an affluent 58-year-old is certainly more valuable than a 22-year-old who is just getting by,' " says David Poltrack, chief research officer at CBS Corp., parent of the CBS network.

Still, most marketers prefer to reach young consumers, whose buying preferences can make a product or service cool so that it eventually catches on with older buyers. "Young people are still prime targets for mortgages, car loans and investment advice," says Joe Abruzzo, head of research at Havas SA's MPG unit, with clients such as Dannon, Carnival Cruise Lines and Sears Holdings Corp. Networks are selling advertisers on older consumers "because that's what they can offer."

Pharmaceuticals, luxury-car makers and financial firms are on board. "This isn't a wave, it's a tsunami," says Jim Speros, chief marketing officer at Fidelity Personal and Workplace Investing, a unit of Fidelity Investments. "[boomers] have to feel like they're seeing themselves in the [TV] spot."

Five years ago, MTV Networks' cable channel TV Land repositioned to catch viewers in their 40s. It replaced prime-time reruns of "The Andy Griffith Show" and "Leave it to Beaver" with repeats of "Roseanne" and "Everybody Loves Raymond." And it put out a call to agents and producers: Pitch us the pilots the networks have deemed "too old."

One result is "Hot in Cleveland," TV Land's original comedy series about three L.A. women stuck in Cleveland en route to Paris, co-starring Betty White and Valerie Bertinelli. The writers insert jokes or guest appearances that hit the boomer sweet spot: Wendie Malick plays an aging actress who cringes when she's offered a role as the grandmother of starlet Megan Fox. When Mary Tyler Moore guest-starred, it was her first role opposite Ms. White since "The Mary Tyler Moore Show."

In contrast, says TV Land President Larry W. Jones, a lot of shows have audiences in their 40s, but jokes that revolve around 20-somethings. "We want our audience to feel like they're part of the club," Mr. Jones says.

Last year, NBC Universal's Mr. Wurtzel conducted a study of so-called Alpha Boomers, who are boomers ages 55 to 64, and found them willing to change brands, spend on technology, use social networking sites and purchase online. They spend $1.8 trillion annually on food, cars, personal care and other products. "Our message to advertisers is that if you don't start being more sensitive, you're going to lose these guys," Mr. Wurtzel says.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559604576174983272665032.html#article

Thanks for finding that, marceline. It was very interesting. I personally think that the problem with nostalgia is that sometimes people don't want certain types of nostalgia. I don't believe there was a big demand for a new Hawaii 5. The original was a classic and was very well cast and unique. Why mess with that?

If something was going to be a remake then I would remake projects that were forgotten. Just retool them. Or why not have shows that are set in the past but are new projects? I don't mean Westerns, necessarily, but something that is genuinely set in the past, with no winking to present day.

I guess Y&R might be an example of this mess. Over at DC, Jamey Giddens loves Y&R again and says that their ratings are fine because they went up in 18-49. Yet no soap out there is more resistant to teens than Y&R. They either ignore teenagers (Daniel), de-age them (Kyle) or overage them (Abby). They prefer to write people in their 30s and 40s as being teenagers. Is this an example of the "new" 18-49? Is that why Y&R has better numbers in that genre than some of the other soaps or is it just they have so many more total viewers that they have to have more 18-49? GH, which is closest to/sometimes beats Y&R, is the same way. The only teenagers they have are Kristina, who exists solely to prop older characters, and Michael, who interacts entirely with people who are twice his age.

Edited March 12, 201114 yr by CarlD2

I guess Y&R might be an example of this mess. Over at DC, Jamey Giddens loves Y&R again and says that their ratings are fine because they went up in 18-49.

(insert none emoticon here)

Is that why Y&R has better numbers in that genre than some of the other soaps or is it just they have so many more total viewers that they have to have more 18-49?

I think it's the latter.

Thanks for finding that, marceline. It was very interesting. I personally think that the problem with nostalgia is that sometimes people don't want certain types of nostalgia. I don't believe there was a big demand for a new Hawaii 5. The original was a classic and was very well cast and unique. Why mess with that?

If something was going to be a remake then I would remake projects that were forgotten. Just retool them. Or why not have shows that are set in the past but are new projects? I don't mean Westerns, necessarily, but something that is genuinely set in the past, with no winking to present day.

I guess Y&R might be an example of this mess. Over at DC, Jamey Giddens loves Y&R again and says that their ratings are fine because they went up in 18-49. Yet no soap out there is more resistant to teens than Y&R. They either ignore teenagers (Daniel), de-age them (Kyle) or overage them (Abby). They prefer to write people in their 30s and 40s as being teenagers. Is this an example of the "new" 18-49? Is that why Y&R has better numbers in that genre than some of the other soaps or is it just they have so many more total viewers that they have to have more 18-49? GH, which is closest to/sometimes beats Y&R, is the same way. The only teenagers they have are Kristina, who exists solely to prop older characters, and Michael, who interacts entirely with people who are twice his age.

I don't know what Jamey is looking at, but last week, Y&R's 18-49 rating was down .4 from last year, and I predict that by the end of the year, the year to year loss will be at least .2. I don't care what Y&R is doing compared to other shows, for the first time the show is consistently coming drawing fewer than 1 million viewers in the coveted demo, that's a problem. The show has a large potential audience, but as it becomes obvious that it is no longer going to be the show that people loved, or grew-up watching, that audience will find other things to do, and stop watching Y&R out of habit. The same thing happened with both GL and ATWT.

I don't know what Jamey is looking at, but last week, Y&R's 18-49 rating was down .4 from last year, and I predict that by the end of the year, the year to year loss will be at least .2. I don't care what Y&R is doing compared to other shows, for the first time the show is consistently coming drawing fewer than 1 million viewers in the coveted demo, that's a problem. The show has a large potential audience, but as it becomes obvious that it is no longer going to be the show that people loved, or grew-up watching, that audience will find other things to do, and stop watching Y&R out of habit. The same thing happened with both GL and ATWT.

I do have to give Y&R credit. Unlike all the other shows, they still keep their vets pretty active and try to tell stories from the show's history. Yeah, the execution of the stories may be questionable, but at least the show feels familiar to long-time viewers in those regards. There's really no other show that still has so many of its legacy characters. No, many are probably not being served well by the current crop of stories, but at the end of the day, they're still on the canvass, and that is why people continue to watch IMO. The story is secondary.

The show's obviously trying to strike some sort of balance between the old and the new...to ring familiar to long-time older fans, yet be attractive to younger viewers who enjoy a faster pace and shock value. If they even had to do that in the first place...essentially fix what wasn't broken...is a whole other question. No, they haven't been entirely successful in creative terms, but at least there's an attempt to fuse the old with the new in logical ways. The other shows never even tried to strike that balance. They've ignored their history and cut many of their legacy characters.

I do have to give Y&R credit. Unlike all the other shows, they still keep their vets pretty active and try to tell stories from the show's history. Yeah, the execution of the stories may be questionable, but at least the show feels familiar to long-time viewers in those regards. There's really no other show that still has so many of its legacy characters. No, many are probably not being served well by the current crop of stories, but at the end of the day, they're still on the canvass, and that is why people continue to watch IMO. The story is secondary.

It doesn't feel that familiar to me. The show's open contempt for longtime characters - aside from Katharine and Victor - reeks, and they don't know how to write for Katharine or Victor.

I think their real intentions were clear back in 2009, when they spent months humiliating Jack, Nikki, and Jill non-stop. I think they would love to dump all these characters and only extenuating circumstances stopped them.

It doesn't feel that familiar to me. The show's open contempt for longtime characters - aside from Katharine and Victor - reeks, and they don't know how to write for Katharine or Victor.

I think their real intentions were clear back in 2009, when they spent months humiliating Jack, Nikki, and Jill non-stop. I think they would love to dump all these characters and only extenuating circumstances stopped them.

I get what you're saying. But at least they make an attempt to keep the vets active in story...for good and for bad, I guess. The show also uses a bunch of the same sets they've had for years, and stuff like that enriches the viewing experience I think. It's probably different if you're a daily viewer, but to an occasional viewer like me, the show doesn't seem THAT different than it did 10 years ago. I actually watched religiously during LML and thought Y&R then was heads and tails better than what they're doing now. I just don't care for the MAB-Hogan approach to "storytelling" (the whole Adam debacle is the one thing that made me tune out on a daily basis), but it's hard to deny that the basic elements that made this show so successful in the first place aren't still there. No other show can really say that. Just my 2 cents.

I guess to me the show's basic foundation was more the style than the characters. I still see some old faces but I don't recognize them. Y&R had a very specific style which was lost when many of those behind the scenes who still understood it were chased off.

To a casual viewer I can see where it seems the same, but I also feel the show does not want the viewer who would see it as the same. They want a viewer who just likes stunts and they want a viewer who doesn't watch soaps. Sheffer hates soaps and I would also assume he hates soap viewers, and he often makes that clear in his material.

I guess to me the show's basic foundation was more the style than the characters. I still see some old faces but I don't recognize them. Y&R had a very specific style which was lost when many of those behind the scenes who still understood it were chased off.

To a casual viewer I can see where it seems the same, but I also feel the show does not want the viewer who would see it as the same. They want a viewer who just likes stunts and they want a viewer who doesn't watch soaps. Sheffer hates soaps and I would also assume he hates soap viewers, and he often makes that clear in his material.

Yeah, they definitely wanted a different show, and that was obvious when they hired LML and gave her the okay to dismantle a writing staff that had been with the show for eons. They obviously felt the show was stale and needed a major shake-up. I'm not sure that was really valid on their part. As a long-term viewer, did you feel that the show under Alden and Smith was that bad and needed a major overhaul? Or would some tweaking here and there been have enough to keep the show contemporary while still preserving the basic tone? I wasn't really watching during Alden and Smith, but I remember the synopses were all about Victor and his sperm.

Definitely agree about Sheffer et al hating what soap opera is all about. They're embarrassed by what soaps represent. Their contempt for the basic soap opera format, and for the viewers who enjoyed that "old fashioned" format, is pretty evident. Guza and Frons are also in that league. These shows have all been dumbed down beyond belief, though when you think about it, what in this culture nowadays hasn't been dumbed down? It's all about immediate gratification and being trendy. It's very sad. Geez, I'm only 43, and I sound like an old fogey!

I wonder too if ABC, at least with AMC, is not really concerned about these low ratings right now.

Well I think a good question is what are the SoapNet ratings for these shows? If ABC is actually thinking about canceling

AMC or OLTL one would think they would consider the fact SoapNet is going off the air in less than a year, and those SoapNet

viewers would start watching on ABC when that happened, so ABC shouldn't just be concerned with ABC-TV soap ratings, but

the amount of viewers AMC and OLTL gets on SoapNet as well in determining which one stays or gets canceled.

Well I think a good question is what are the SoapNet ratings for these shows? If ABC is actually thinking about canceling

AMC or OLTL one would think they would consider the fact SoapNet is going off the air in less than a year, and those SoapNet

viewers would start watching on ABC when that happened, so ABC shouldn't just be concerned with ABC-TV soap ratings, but

the amount of viewers AMC and OLTL gets on SoapNet as well in determining which one stays or gets canceled.

Those viewers aren't coming back. They're gonna watch something else on cable.