Y&R is a red hot mess, and has been for quite awhile. B&B has it's ups and downs, but Brad Bell knows when he's veered off track and tries to make quick corrections. Maria, Hogan and Scott seem incapable of doing that. They don't seem to respond to how the fans feel, though Maria claims she does in every interview she gives. Personally, I think B&B is in much better shape than Y&R these days, which is probably a first. The show has a lot of talent behind the scenes, and their acting company has improved vastly during the past few years. Y&R as a lead-in is definitely hurting them these days, which is reflected in their ratings, but on some weeks B&B has still added viewers despite that. Makes you wonder what would happen if B&B were the lead-in to Y&R. I can't ever see merging the two shows, though.

Deep down I think B&B and Y&R have the same problem, in that they give you little reason to care about anything which happens.

The fact that BB is still aired and being sold abroad is IMO a success especially since it's basically the only US soap to do this.

Here are the italian ratings for "Beautiful" for friday the 30th of september 2011:

"Beautiful 3.294.000 viewers, share 19,30%"

BB are beating the competition hands down and is the lead in that has canale 5 winning the afternoon block for years now.

http://www.tvblog.it...-caldo-colorado

In that case it is down 1-2 million from their average ratings about 5 years ago in Italy.

During the 2006 Soccer Worldcup the show hit alltime highs at 6 million daily viewers if I remember correctly....

In that case it is down 1-2 million from their average ratings about 5 years ago in Italy.

During the 2006 Soccer Worldcup the show hit alltime highs at 6 million daily viewers if I remember correctly....

It's true in 1990 two episode every day 7.000.000 daily viewers in summer and 6.000.000 in winter .every sunday night 5 episode in prime time abaut 5.500.000 viewers .

[ name=SOAPSFOREVER' timestamp='1317574422' post='1025368]

Curious what your source is for this. It bothers me when posters write "I've heard..." and fail to site their source.

It would be silly to expect any poster to keep detailed records on articles cited. What, should Eric use footnotes? He is correct about the show dropping some; thus, there is no need to document.quote

We all read a lot of stuff, generally have good memories and owe each other the benefit of the doubt.

Edited October 8, 201114 yr by Saving ATWT

[ name=SOAPSFOREVER' timestamp='1317574422' post='1025368] Curious what your source is for this. It bothers me when posters write "I've heard..." and fail to site their source. It would be silly to expect any poster to keep detailed records on articles cited. What, should Eric use footnotes? He is correct about the show dropping some; thus, there is no need to document.quote We all read a lot of stuff, generally have good memories and owe each other the benefit of the doubt.

It's not silly at all. State the source. That's all. I too was curious where the source came from. Information needs validation.

Edited October 8, 201114 yr by aMLCproduction

[ name=SOAPSFOREVER' timestamp='1317574422' post='1025368]

Curious what your source is for this. It bothers me when posters write "I've heard..." and fail to site their source.

It would be silly to expect any poster to keep detailed records on articles cited. What, should Eric use footnotes? He is correct about the show dropping some; thus, there is no need to document.quote

We all read a lot of stuff, generally have good memories and owe each other the benefit of the doubt.

No one's asking for "detailed records." Simply where the information came from. For example, "I've heard..." could be followed by "from a friend who works for DAYS that..." That helps the reader of the post put the comment into context, and how much weight to give it. Opinions are fine. State them as such. But if you're trying to make a point based on a particular source, name it, is all I'm saying. Why get so defensive?