Jump to content

Ratings from the 70's


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

FROM THE VAULT: WEEKLY DAYTIME NIELSEN RATINGS: WEEKS OF 1/9/78-1/13/78 & 1/16/78-1/20/78:

Please register in order to view this content

Here is a reissue of these charts, with the full preemption data now listed. I have replaced the chart in the thread with this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

AW 11.1 with a 31 share at 207 stations, what a fine time to be Pete Lemay, well, for a little while longer anyway. Although Patrick Mulcahey told me he really did not understand how Pete managed not to kill Paul Rauch. And Pete did say that Paul would just keep on arguing even though you had agreed with him already. But apparently there was only one thing he remained bitter about & it wasn't Paul's doing, it was all P&G. For some reason he & Paul seemed to have a kind of rapprochement.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

1979 was a solid year and I was curious about the calendar year ratings since Y&R never managed to hit #1 in the seasonal ratings. I just did the top 5 which covered

Jan 1 - 5 1979 up to Dec 24 - 28 1979 (52 weeks)

1. Y&R 9.4 36% (24 weeks at #1)

2. GH 9.2 31% (18 weeks at #1)

3. AMC 8.9 32% (8 weeks at #1)

4. OLTL 8.3 29%

5. GL 8.1 28% (2 weeks at #1)

Interesting that 4 shows had a crack at the top spot for that year and OLTL never managed #1 but still came in 4th overall for the full year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

n Sept. 1972, EON moved from it's late afternoon slot (4:30 p.m.) to (2:30 p.m.) so that P&G could group it's soaps together. For the previous seasons, EON was #2 (69-70), #2 (70-71), #4 (71-72) and, then after move #10 (72-73). It was a stupid move since 50% of audience was male + big with after school bunch. Also, there was between 17-19 soaps during that period. (Half-hours) Finally, the ratings were far smaller as the US population was 200 MM in 1970 and 308 MM in 2010. (Although there were significantly more women at home and with far fewer choices, it would be interesting to know how many people were really watching.)

Actually, EON was on at 3:30 from 1962 until 1972, than moved to 2:30.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Please register in order to view this content

Thank you Jason47! Hopefully I am replying in the correct way. It is interesting that Love of Life had only 185 stations the last week of 1977, but gained seven stations the first week of January 1978. Also, it makes sense that For Richer, For Poorer had the lowest percentage of clearances. One has to wonder if it would have been more successful had the clearances been higher.

Edited by DM James Faiba ks
Correct image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If anything YR is proof that a new soap debuting after the 60s could be HIGHLY successful. I do consider RH to be a successful 70s debut as well, but it was stable in the middle of the pack- what I'm saying is YR was able to get to the top. While there were a few soaps that debuted in the 70s and 80s that had moderate success, none really were a top ratings contender. Some may argue that BB, but it never outdid Capitol at its peak and it lagged in the key demo until the 2000s when all the soaps were floundering anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Please register in order to view this content

I think CBS was more patient.  They knew 12:00 was an iffy timeslot.  Supposedly Bill Bell wanted to cancel after 9 months, but CBS talked him into waiting as the ratings were rising slowly.  As what was said here earlier, Y&R did well where it aired and that lead to it being picked up by more markets.

Ryan's Hope showed promise of being a #4 soap for ABC in 1978, but I believe that is when Claire Labine moved to the "movie" stories.

I think Return to Peyton Place could have been a contender if NBC gave it six more months with the faster pace, but Lin Bolan wanted a slot for How to Survive a Marriage.  P&G probably made a fuss about cancelling Somerset.

Finally, I think For Richer, For Poorer had potential as well, but it seemed to have the lowest number of clearances.  Again, it would have been interesting to see how it would have done with clearances in the 90+ stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

@JAS0N47Thank you so much for the work you did digging up these statistics.  It does make things much clearer.  Question, is there anymore information going back to 1970?  Coverage is an extremely important measurement.  In Oct 1976, Daytime TV came out with the Daytime TV's Star Directory.  The most important aspect of this book was the number of affiliates that carried a show.  Considering the data is about six months old (based on the copywrite date and how long it takes to publish), it is interesting that at the time, these are the numbers.

Here is the list, including the changes in 1978:

Please register in order to view this content

So, except for OLTL, DOOL, RH and EON, all shows lost a pretty noteworthy amount of stations (ABC had gains in OLTL, RH and EON, but lost a significant number of stations for AMC (22) and GH (13). 

I am wondering why the CBS shows all lost between 5 and 10 stations (LOL and GL being the biggest losers [though could have GL’s expansion to an hour have done that?]).  None of the other CBS shows moved timeslots.

I remember Days was starting to go all over the place in 1977, as well as the expansion of AMC in the spring of that year, which lead to the fall in ratings.  $20,000 Pyramid was still at 2:00, but damage had been done to both ATWT and DOOL.

Had Family Feud caught on fire yet?  That is what I think lead to LOL losing ground.

I did not realize For Richer, For Poorer was going against AMC.  In New York, I remember it going against EON.

Below is the schedule for Fall 1977 to Summer 1978. 

Your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

1978-1989 is available at the moment. The 1955-1977 data will be coming in more slowly, but over the next few years, that should be available. Just not sure when that will be. Also, not sure how far back the affiliate data goes (if they list that sort of thing in the 50s or 60s) but I believe it may go back to at least 1970, so you will have that info in the coming years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   1 member




  • Recent Posts

    • “I’m not a lifelong soap fan, but I sure am now,” Wolf tells PEOPLE about creating the documentary Soaps, which includes deep dives into the biggest and most successful soap operas in the industry, with a strong focus on The Bold and the Beautiful. “It reflects, in a broader way, the cultural significance of soap operas and the incredible task involved in bringing these stories to the screen every day.”
    • I have this for the 4th act on 11/9/88, which per my files, is the first time John and Stefano are in a scene together: Limo (Roman, Diana, Stefano, Milo) Then their second time together is 11/17/88 in the second-to-last act: ON LOCATION: Beach & Cliff (Diana, Roman, Stefano) I'd have to check the 2016 logs, so I don't know who shares scenes as easily in this year, but these are the last 4 episodes that John and Stefano were both in together: 1/8/16, 1/11/16, 3/1/16, 3/2/16.
    • I'm going to respond to you about this show. I've been accused of hating on it for some reason or another. But as a 53-year-old black man I do not hate this show at all. It heavily represents people like me, but I want it to be treated well and not just pushed with half-assedness, which is what I feel has happened on several occasions so far. Bad editing, bad cliffhangers, or no cliffhangers at all, disappearing characters with dropped storylines, etc. I can understand shows no longer wanting certain characters or  storylines, but why the "Judy Winslow" effect? I'm really finding it weird that Jacob doesn't mention his father or his detective partner. Jacob was smack dab in the middle of them both.
    • I love many things about BTG very much. For me, it's greatest strength is how the family relationships are so beautifully written. The deep love between family members while acknowledging each other's flaws--it's SO GOOD.  The best of the best is the two sister relationships: loving but very different sisters Dani and Nicole and adversarial sisters Kat and Eva. These two relationships can anchor the show for many years to come, in my opinion. (The one caveat is that the young and very talented Colby and Ambyr may want to leave the show sooner rather than later, but that's to be expected). My biggest problem with this show is this: Where are the romantic love stories? Where are the star-crossed lovers? Almost every character on this show is married, or in a committed relationship, or just fooling around. Right now the only potential for this are in the Ashley/Andre/Derek and Kat/Tomas/Eva situations. Like a lot of people, I feel the sooner they ditch Ashley and Derek, the better. I hate picking on actors, but the characters are so blah and bland it's like they're a parody of soap characters. I like Andre, and there's some indication they might have him become more serious about Dani, but I don't see that becoming a big love story. I could be wrong. Kat and Eva fighting over a man would be amazing. Over Tomas? No.  I've noticed on social media some people are starting to ship Kat and Jacob. I think that shows how much viewers long for a messy love story. There is much I enjoy about BTG and I have no intention of bailing on it. But over all my many years of watching soap operas, the thing that always got me the most excited about them was the question: "When are those two finally going to get together?"
    • FROM THE VAULT: WEEKLY DAYTIME NIELSEN RATINGS: WEEKS OF 11/26/73-11/30/73 & 12/3/73-12/7/73:

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Please register in order to view this content

        Some initial thoughts.   1) a Who's who back in the day with an assortment of well known performers. 2) Surprised Debra Messing would agree to play a conservative character 3) Not surprised a network didn't pick this up because showing a conservative that is human/likable is a no no in Hollywood LOL
    • Yes from when they went on Let’s Make a Deal too. Pam stole Forrester designs for Jackie M. Of course a month later we saw Nick, Lesley, Owen, and Bridget all exit in the same episode.
    • Great pairing that seemed to come out of the blue! Around that time, it felt like Sheffer/Goutman didn’t really know what to do with Emily or Hal. And KM and BH had surprisingly great chemistry. It was good for Emily especially because she was coming off those unsympathetic years with the Tom affair and then running the Intruder and essentially just being a busybody.
    • I think the issue with Lulu is less the character (which was the issue in the Julie Berman days under Guza II) and more the lack of nuance. The current GH team rarely writes nuance for any character or at least can't sustain it for long, or they reserve it for a favored few. I also think the rooting interest at GH BTS often remains on preferred characters or actors - BLQ/Setton - vs. Laura's kids. So it's easy to make Lulu the heavy if you think Brook Lynn and Chase are the money on this show. I don't, but I think FV does. And that's not to say I think Amanda Setton is bad in the role, or that I would get rid of BLQ. I don't trend towards either (though I do think that if Setton's personal beliefs keep getting in the way of material I would reluctantly recast). I think Brook Lynn is essential to use as a lead presently. But I don't think it needs to be the black and white dichotomy of suffering young matriarch BLQ and aggressor Lulu. While it's good that unlike in the Guza years they can recognize that Lulu can be obnoxious and rash, can be her own worst enemy and that that is part of the character, it can be toned down or given more layers than it has of late. There's nothing wrong there the writing can't fix.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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